Different River

”You can never step in the same river twice.” –Heraclitus

November 4, 2008

There is hope!

Filed under: — Different River @ 3:05 pm

At some universities, this would qualify a professor for tenure!

Professor ousted after tearing down McCain yard signs

The St. Olaf (Northfield, Minn.) professor who, in a well-read Huffington Post item, recounted tearing down McCain campaign signs has resigned.

Per the Northfield News, it appears that Philip Busse was forced out.

St. Olaf spokesman David Gonnerman issued the following statement Monday afternoon:

“The St. Olaf College administration first learned of Phil Busse’s self-admitted theft and destruction of campaign signs on the morning of Oct. 31 as a result of his posting on the Internet.

“The St. Olaf administration immediately referred the matter to local law enforcement authorities and commenced an investigation of its own.

“Mr. Busse has tendered his resignation and is no longer affiliated with St. Olaf College.

Busse has been charged with misdemeanor theft.

Here’s a link to the original Huffington Post article. Some excerpts:

By early October, however, there were no McCain-Palin campaign signs on the eastbound stretch of Highway 19. It wasn’t because loyalties had switched, but because I pulled them out.

Sure, I understand that stealing a sign will not change anyone’s mind, and, most likely, will only embolden McCain supporters’ disdain for liberals. Even so, yanking out the signs and running like a scared rabbit back to my idling car was one of the single-most exhilarating and empowering political acts that I have ever done.

Today, national politics amounts to slick TV ads and choreographed stump speeches. A vote often feels like a raindrop in an ocean. But this illicit act of civil disobedience was something visceral. It was unscripted and raw expression. It was a chance to stop talking about theories and projections and get my hands dirty. Of course, I realized there was the very real chance my antics in rural Minnesota would be met with a shotgun, or at least a hockey dad tackling me.


But unlike stealing a lawn gnome or a plastic pink flamingo, I admit, stealing a lawn sign is a more heinous crime. There is moral and ethical guilt. I believe in free speech, and also believe and encourage political expression. I guess I could argue that I was flexing my free expression to say “shut up.” But that would put me at the same low-level of political discourse as Bill O’Reilly, who consistently steamrolls over anyone who disagrees with him. If I need to justify my actions, I could argue that I was trying to achieve some great public service for rural voters. In his 2004 book, What’s The Matter With Kansas, Frank Rich explains that working class and family farmers, like these in Minnesota, increasingly vote conservative and against their own interests. By pulling out the McCain signs, I was hoping to curb the impression for passing motorists that family farmers in Minnesota supported McCain. Or, at least that’s the most high-minded explanation that I can offer.

Mature? No. Illegal? Yes. Satisfying? Definitely.

Well, that’s at least one honest Obama supporter!

September 24, 2008

Biden on the Financial Crisis

Filed under: — Different River @ 1:50 am

The AP Reports on Sept. 23

WASHINGTON – Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says today’s leaders should take a lesson from the history books and follow fellow Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to a financial crisis.

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened,’” Barack Obama’s running mate recently told the “CBS Evening News.”

Except, Republican Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929.

It’s actually even worse than that.

The first presidential TV appearance wasn’t until 1939, and the first televised presidential “address to the nation” was by President Truman in 1951 — a full 22 years after the stock market crash!

But hey, at least Biden has EXPERIENCE, so he won’t make stupid ignorant mistakes like Palin will!

September 17, 2008

Hillary’s Odd Priorities

Filed under: — Different River @ 10:21 am

A coalition of American Jewish groups has scheduled a rally for Sept. 22 outside the UN, to protest the appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is not surprising, since Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews worldwide. He is one of those people who denies that the Holocaust, the mass-murder of one-third of the world’s Jewish population during World War II, actually occurred, but seems to think it would have been a good idea. Protesting against Ahmadinejad seems to be the sort of thing every decent person would support, regardless of politics — unless your politics is that all Jews deserve to die. Sounds safely bipartisan, right?

Sen. Hillary Clinton was invited to speak at the rally. She accepted.

Gov. Sarah Palin was invited to speak at the rally. She also accepted.

Then Clinton heard Palin was going to be there, so Clinton cancelled. She claimed to have been “blindsided.”

Thus, Hillary Clinton refuses to appear on the same platform as Sarah Plain — even at an event that ought to be thoroughly uncontroversial to all Americans.

This might be understandable — barely — if Clinton had a long-standing policy of refusing to appear with people with whom she disagreed. This would hardly be a policy of “uniting not dividing,” but at least it would be consistent.

But inevitably, her refusal reminds me of a previous incident, in 1999, when then-First Lady Clinton appeared with Suha Arafat, wife of Yasser and listened passively as Mrs. Arafat falsely accuse Israel of poisoning the Palestinian water supply, of “‘daily and intensive use of poison gas’ against Palestinian women and children.” After which, Mrs. Clinton not only refrained from calling Mrs. Arafat on her slanders or her previous endorsements of terrorism, including suicide bombings, but in fact embraced and kissed Mrs. Arafat on the platform, in effect endorsing her claims.

So, Hillary Clinton hugs one who endorses terrorism and slanders Israel, but refuses to appear on the same platform with Sarah Palin.

What can we conclude from all this?

Either Hillary Clinton thinks anti-Israel terrorism is OK, or she thinks Sarah Palin is worse than a terrorist.

Is anyone going to call her out on this?

September 10, 2008

Lipstick and Pigs

Filed under: — Different River @ 11:03 am

So, apparently after Sarah Palin called herself a “hockey mom,” and joked that difference between a hockey mom and pit bull was “lipstick,” Barack Obama said, “If you p[ut lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.”

Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign demanded an apology.

So, Obama apologized — to the pig.

;-)

Pro-Choice Lesbian Feminists for Palin

Filed under: — Different River @ 10:33 am

I don’t know how many people are in that club, but at least two are well-known commentators, Tammy Bruce and Camile Paglia.

Tammy Bruce, former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, writes in the San Francisco Chronicle:

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn’t the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term “the enthusiasm gap” for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling – a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don’t agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

The [Democratic] party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That’s why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin’s comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she’s voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman – who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.

Camille Paglia, University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, writes in Salon:

Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. … Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna … .

Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics — which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama’s campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains. I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don’t see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it.

September 5, 2008

Sarah Palin and the “Gender Gap”

Filed under: — Different River @ 6:00 pm

Everyone keeps asking if Sarah Palin will help the McCain ticket appeal to women voters — especially voters who preferred Hillary Clinton.

What everyone seems to be missing is that Palin will appeal to men — perhaps even more.

Liberal women who care more about liberalism than gender will not switch to McCain because he’s running with a conservative woman. The “Debra” vote — Clinton voters who switched to McCain on the basis of Obama’s lack of “experience” may not be followed by more “experience” voters, especially if they measure experience by years in office. (Obviously, some people will count Palin as “more experienced” than Obama because she’s accomplished more even thought she has about the same number of years in office. But those people probably weren’t voting for Obama anyway.)

The demographic that Palin brings to the ticket is going to include a lot of men who were lukewarm McCain supporters who might have stayed home — but think it’s really cool to have a woman on the ticket who hunts, fishes, likes guns, and does all kinds of “macho” stuff with a husband who’s even more macho (He does multi-thousand-mile snowmobile races!). Seriously: Think about guys who like to go hunting on the weekends, but who’s wives don’t like them to leave for an activity they see as pointless. They will look at Palin and say, “Wow — that’s the kind of woman I like.”

I say this as a male with no interest whatsoever in hunting.

I ran this by Different Mother, who said, “Of course [she'll appeal to men]! She’s gorgeous!”

The Democrats are not going to know what hit them….

September 4, 2008

Clinton vs. Palin?

Filed under: — Different River @ 1:18 am

We’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, but Rasmussen did a poll in which they asked who voters would prefer for President (not VP), Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton.

The result: Clinton 52%, Palin 41%.

Sounds bad for Palin until you remember: Clinton has been known nationwide for 16 years. Palin has been known nationwide for 6 days!

I’ve been saying for a couple of decades that the first woman president would be a Republican. Now, we know which one it will be.

Remember, you heard it first on Different River! ;-)

September 3, 2008

Liberals claim ANOTHER faked pregnancy!

Filed under: — Different River @ 4:26 pm

You will be pleased to know that the liberals at DailyKos and elsewhere who broke the rumor that Gov. Palin faked a pregnancy to cover up the “fact” that her youngest child is “really” her daughter Bristol’s, are not taking the announcement that Bristol is currently pregnant lying down.

They’re now claiming that Bristol’s current pregnancy is a fake, to cover up the “fact” that the Governor faked an earlier pregnancy to cover up Bristol’s real pregnancy!

Can you believe it? Here’s DailyKos:

This is a complete cover up from the McCain campaign because the blogosphere is actually making headway in exposing Ms. Palin’s fake pregnancy. I made this deduction by how fast they’re willing to tell us about what we didn’t really ask them about.

Bristol is not currently pregnant; this press release is a head fake.
Bristol’s tummy is still big from the birth of Trig
Gov. Palin is using the ultimate cover up to cover her fake pregnancy.

Bristol is the real mother of Trig. And Trig is the grandson of Sarah.

This admission is all the proof we need; this admission of pregnancy is the red-flag.

Again congratulation folks for an outstanding “grassroots oppo job”

Congratulations indeed…..

I have always been impressed by the ability of liberals to believe mutually contradictory facts (as in this list which is portrayed as humor but is basically true).

But this really takes the cake.

Ironically, if Bristol were not actually pregnant now, there would have been NO WAY to refute the “fake pregnancy” charge — a DNA test can’t reliably distinguish which of a mother-daughter pair is the real mother of a child, since mitochondrial DNA is passed unchanged from mother to daughter (or son). And of course, if a DNA test showed that Todd Palin was the father, they’d just add incest to the list of allegtions.

And of course, they couldn’t use medical records from Trig’s birth, since the whole claim is that those records were faked.

September 2, 2008

Sex, Hypocrisy, Bill Clinton, and Sarah Palin

Filed under: — Different River @ 10:00 pm

It seems that everyone on the left — from bloggers to CNN — are going on and on about the “hypocrisy” of Sarah Palin expressing pro-life values while her daughter was, um, … making a pro-life decision. And, advocating pre-marital abstinence, while her daughter was, likely without her knowledge, not acting according to that standard.

These people do not seem to understand the meaning of the word “hypocrisy.”

It is not hypocritical to “go on and on” about pro-life values and then make a pro-life decision. That is called, acting in accordance with your principles. It is called being consistent. It is the opposite of hypocrisy. It would have been hypocritical to do the opposite.

As for abstinence and hypocrisy: Have YOU ever done anything your parents disagreed with? Does that make your parents hypocrites? Or does that just mean you didn’t do what they wanted you to do?

Seriously.

Now, here’s some real hypocrisy:

  1. Liberals claiming that Bill Clinton’s sexual misdeeds were irrelevant to his qualifications, but Sarah Palin’s daughter’s sexual misdeeds — not even hers, but her daughter’s! — are relevant to her qualifications.
  2. Liberals claiming that Bristol Palin’s misdeeds are the public’s business, but that Al Gore III’s drug and drunk driving convictions are his own private business.
  3. The New York Times‘ long record of ignoring John Edwards’ affair and out-of-wedlock child, but running three front-page stories on the same day about Sarah Palin’s daughter’s out-of-wedlock child. So apparently the NYT’s view is that a candidate’s affair is irrelevant to his qualifications for public office, but the candidate’s child’s affair is relevant. Do they really expect us to believe that? Are they discriminating against women, or against Republicans?
  4. Liberals respecting the privacy of Chelsea Clinton, including her dating habits, but plastering the private life of Bristol Palin all over the front pages.
  5. Liberals claiming women should be able to work outside the home when they have small children, that Sarah Palin shouldn’t be VP because she has young children. And of course, they seem to have missed that from the time her first child was born, Mrs. Palin never had a full-time job outside the home until she was elected governor. Which, they are happy to point out when discussing “experience,” was not all that long ago!
  6. Liberals claiming to be against sexism, yet saying that Sarah Palin shouldn’t be VP because she has young children — but it’s OK for Barack Obama to be President even though he has small children. What do that think, that Michelle Obama should be home with the kids? She’s always had a full-time job before, even with young kids.
  7. … And ignoring the fact that when Joe Biden first became a U.S. Senator, Biden was a single father of two children both under age 4.

Note that when the Republicans are involved, the rules get reversed. Who are the hypocrites now?

September 1, 2008

Sexism at CNN

Filed under: — Different River @ 12:56 am

CNN’s John Roberts asked if Gov. Palin would have enough time to take care of her baby if she were elected VP.

Would have have asked that question of a man with a young child?

Of course not.

But if he is asking because he really wants to know, rather than just to smear a Republican woman, here’s the answer: She’ll have more time then if she stays Governor, since as Governor she actually has constitutional duties. All the VP has to do is show up in to open the Senate once a year, and to break a tie vote if there ever is one.

Nice try, CNN.

Smearing Sarah Palin

It didn’t take long for the Democrats to come up with a preposterous smear of Sarah Palin — just going to show that they will say anything to discredit their opponents, no matter how nonsensical it is.

This posting at DailyKos, the leading website of the liberal “netroots,” and its followup here, claim she faked her pregnancy for political gain.

Yup, you read that right. They claim that a 43-year-old governor, constantly in the public eye, faked a pregnancy, and produced a child of which she is not the real mother, to burnish her pro-life credentials. As if, with four children already, these needed any burnishing. After all, they seem to think, you aren’t really pro-life unless your baby has Downs’ syndrome, which this child apparently has.

And where, do they claim, she obtained this baby? They are claiming it is really her then-16-year-old daughter’s baby. And they are claiming that this makes Sarah Palin a hypocrite as far as her pro-life credentials go.

Now, putting aside the fact that there is no credible evidence to support this claim, let’s look at the logic here. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that Palin’s daughter got pregnant out of wedlock, and Palin decided to cover for her and claim it’s her baby. How does this make her a pro-life hypocrite? The claim seems to be that by providing her daughter with an option other than abortion, she would be hypocritical.

That is, in fact, completely backwards. Hypocrisy means claiming it’s OK to do yourself what you say others shouldn’t do. If she’d told her daughter to get an abortion, which seems to be what the DailyKos folks want — that would have been hypocritical for a pro-life person. Providing an alternative — especially one that gives the daughter a second chance to live the values she’s been taught — is exactly what a pro-life person would be expected to do. Obviously, most pro-life parents don’t want their daughters getting, or sons causing, pregnancies out of wedlock. But everybody knows that (a) kids don’t always do what their parents want, and (b) people sometimes succumb to temptation and do things that contradict their own values.

So the liberals have “accused” Gov. Palin of doing something that is entirely consistent with her expressed values. In fact, most people would consider doing what she’s accused of to be incredibly noble and compassionate. But since a Republican did it, it must be awful, right?

Keep in mind that this is assuming that the DailyKos claims are correct — and there is, at present, exactly no evidence for those claims. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this baby is anyone’s but Gov. Palin’s. The “evidence” they present consists basically of three things:

  1. Gov. Palin was age 43 at the time of the pregnancy. According to DailyKos, “everyone knows” 43-year-olds don’t get pregnant. Baloney. My own mother did, and without fertility drugs. I saw my sister 30 minutes after she was born.
  2. Gov. Palin flew around in a plane to give a speech shortly before the birth, then returned to Alaska to deliver the baby. This is viewed as “impossible” since pregnant women generally don’t travel late in pregnancy, therefore this “proves” that she was in fact returning to Alaska to be there when her daughter gave birth, to “pose” as the real mother. Now it’s true that most pregnant women generally don’t travel late in pregnancy — but maybe pregnant Governors do. I don’t think we’ve had a pregnant governor before, so there isn’t any prior data to support this claim.
  3. They have some pictures in which it’s not totally obvious that Gov. Palin is pregnant under her big coat, and one picture in which her daughter has a little fat showing above her waist. Folks, some pregnancies don’t show much. And sometimes fat looks a bit more round than normal, especially with the kind of dress the daughter is wearing. Sheesh.

But of course, none of that matters, since everything is justified in pursuit of the higher goal of smearing Republicans (especially non-white-males who have the uppity to be Republicans, and of course electing the Messiah Obama president.

This isn’t just the nutcases at DailyKos by the way. Some mainstream liberals, like Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic are starting to pick this up.

Fortunately, at least one reasonable liberal is calling them out on this. Ann Althouse writes:

“Stop prying into other people’s vaginas, even if you happen to oppose them politically. What is wrong with you people?”

The insane obsession with Sarah Palin’s pregnancy rages on.

This will all go down in the annals of feminism, people. So think before you write. …


The top one is a new Kos diary, from ArcXIX:


Well, Sarah, I’m calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better.

Whew! That is ugly. Pictures are posted, with captions like: “Sarah’s waistline never changed. Her wardrobe still remained tight and professional.” Note the gratuitous insult to pregnant working women. They can’t possibly dress in a professional manner. There are also enlarged photos of the 16-year-old daughter with comments about the shape of her abdomen. The whole world is invited to talk about that teenager’s body.

How nice. How feminist. How “liberal.”

And they say the other side objectifies women and doesn’t respect their bodies?

And by the way — back when Clinton was president, didn’t these people say that personal life isn’t relevant politically, and that lying about sex was OK?

Who again are the hypocrites?

August 29, 2008

McCain-Palin will win

Filed under: — Different River @ 6:52 pm

OK, my first thought upon hearing that Gov. Sarah Palin was McCain’s choice was, “Great, now we can count on Alaska’ 3 electoral votes, which are always Republican anyway.”

Within 15 minutes, I was convinced that McCain is a genius and Palin is a brilliant choice. My first thought was wrong.

This is someone who resigned from her first appointed position in protest of corruption, then ran against, and unseated in a Republican primary, the governor who’d appointed her. Then, she defeated the Democratic former governor, and went on to clean (state)house.

Simultaneously, this make the ticket attractive to the conservatives who have always been lukewarm about McCain, while at the same time appealing to the people like “Debra“; the Hillary voters who are so annoyed they are defecting to McCain. Her record as governor — returning federal “porkbarrel” funds and fighting corruption — will appeal to fiscal conservatives and moderates.

Every “demographic” appeal Obama has — young, clean, change, outsider, etc. — she has better (except for not being Black). Every criticism one could make of Palin (e.g., lack of experience), Obama has even worse. In fact, the Obama camp is already starting to criticize her lack of “experience.” These criticisms will boomerang, since she has more experience than he does.

In fact, here’s the Obama campaign’s official response:

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a prepared statement.

Yeah, well: Obama has not only zero foreign policy experience (unless you count his attending a madrassa in Indonesia at ages 9), but zero executive experience, NOT EVEN being mayor of a town of 9,000 — and he conveniently “forgets” — and by implication, expects everyone to forget — that she’s also the current governor of a state of 670,000. How dumb do they think we are? Describing her as a “former mayor of a town of 9,000″ is like describing Obama as a “former law student.”

And Obama’s foreign policy ideas basically consist of negotiating with Iran over the order in which they will nuke Israeli cities.

I’ve been thinking for the last couple of months that it was looking like a McCain win. Last week, I started to think a McCain win was almost a sure thing. Now, I think it’s a lock and he’s just running up the score.

August 19, 2008

Is Obama Planning to put Bush on Trial?

Filed under: — Different River @ 6:01 pm

From Byron York at “The Corner”:

The Left and Plans for “Nuremberg-Style” Tribunals for Bush Administration Officials

One thing that hasn’t received much attention in conservative and Republicans circles is the ongoing conversation on the left about the possibility of Nuremberg-style war-crimes trials for members of the Bush administration should a Democratic president take office. I’m not exaggerating or introducing the Nazi analogy myself; they actually use the phrase “Nuremberg-style” when they discuss “war-crimes tribunals.” And they are quite serious (although the more moderate of them prefer a “truth commission.”)

At the Netroots Nation gathering in Austin, Texas last month — that is the successor to YearlyKos — Dahlia Lithwick, of the Washington-Post-owned website Slate, did an interview with the Talking Points Memo site in which she described a panel discussion she had just taken part in on what is known as the “first 100 days of accountability.” Among Lithwick’s observations:

We’re already falling into this trap of either positing Nuremberg-style war crimes tribunals, or nothing, immunizing everyone from John Yoo up and down…but everybody says there’s a lot of gray area in between that, and that accountability doesn’t necessarily mean Nuremberg, it doesn’t necessarily mean nothing, it means possibly a truth commission, possibly appointing a special prosecutor to look at it…

They said that if Bush were (re-)elected, he’d put shred the Constitution and put his political opponents on trial like a tinpot dictator. Perhaps they were engaging in a little Freudian Projection?

August 5, 2008

Obama and Change

Filed under: — Different River @ 10:42 pm

You know, I think I’ve finally figured Obama out. First, he was against offshore drilling. Now, he’s for it. First, he wanted to bring all the troops home. Now, he wants to send more to Afghanistan. First, he was going to limit campaign spending and use public funds. Now, he’s forgoing the public funding so he doesn’t need to limit his spending.

I couldn’t figure it out — he was changing his positions all the time!

But now I get it — of COURSE he’s doing that!

He’s the candidate of CHANGE!

So, every time he changes sides on an issues, he’s just keeping his most basic campaign promise — to CHANGE.

;-)

July 23, 2008

Free Obama Button?

Filed under: — Different River @ 2:39 pm

I just got an e-mail from moveon.org asking if I want a “Free Obama Button.”

I didn’t know Obama was a prisoner! Gee, what else happened while I was on vacation? ;-)

May 16, 2008

High Oil Prices? Blame Enron!

Filed under: — Different River @ 4:06 pm

Two Democrats in the Senate have now found our why gas prices are so high: It’s Enron’s fault!

The article is here. The claim is that:

what lawmakers have called the “Enron loophole,” which was created in 2000 largely at the request of Enron Corp[,] … exempted electronic markets for large traders from government oversight.

The energy trading provision gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission enhanced authority to detect and prevent manipulation in the electronic energy markets, create audit trails, require more
transparency in transactions and increase financial penalties for cases of market manipulation.

This of course, has nothing to do with why oil prices are high. And it will not cause oil prices to fall. It will just create a bunch of extra paperwork that will allow the CFTC to get a better view as it watches oil prices rise.

The senators [Carl Levin, D-MI, and Dianne Feinstein, D-CA] said the recent increase in unregulated energy trading
by speculators was partly to blame for higher oil and natural gas prices.”

This makes about as much sense as saying that parachute manufacturers are partly to blame for gravity.

The appetite of Democrats for kooky conspiracy theories should never be underestimated….

May 13, 2008

Clinton Blaming Bush for Clinton

Filed under: — Different River @ 11:44 am

See if you can follow this without a scorecard:

INDIANAPOLIS — Hillary Clinton loves to tell the story about how the Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China.

It’s a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t.

If she were president, Clinton says, she’d fight to protect those jobs. It’s just the kind of talk that’s helping her win support from working-class Democrats worried about their jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country’s security.

What Clinton never includes in the oft-repeated tale is the role that prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company or that the sale was approved by her husband’s administration.

Apparently, blaming George W. Bush for things done before he took office is normal procedure. Bush has also been blamed for the U.S. refusal to ratify the Kyoto accord (1997), the ratification of the NAFTA treaty (1993), and the escape of Osama bin Laden from Sudan (1996).

If George W. Bush is really as lousy a president as they say, couldn’t they come up with some examples of things he actually did?

May 5, 2008

Rev. Wright and Immigration: Two problems, one solution

Filed under: — Different River @ 10:29 pm

In all the uproar over Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his “God D–n America!” speeches, everyone seems to missing the obvious solution this gives us to the immigration issue.

It’s really simply: Everybody in America who hates America that much should go live somewhere else, and give up their spot in America two one of the millions of people who want to live here, but can’t do so (legally).

Obviously, Wright is not the only candidate for this “nationality swap.” Clearly, it should include whichever of his parishioners agree with him, and all other likeminded people elsewhere — such as Alec Baldwin, who threatened (promised?) to leave the country if George W. Bush were elected in 2000.

See, now we can solve two problems at once, and make everybody happier.

Right?

March 26, 2008

Obama’s Time Machine

Filed under: — Different River @ 1:18 pm

An inspiring passage from Barack Obama’s speech on March 4, commemorating the Selma march and crediting it for his very existence:

What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, “You know, we’re battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we’re not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites.” So the Kennedys decided we’re going to do an air lift. We’re going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.

Only one problem:

The first Selma march took place on March 7, 1965. Barack Obama Jr. was born on August 4, 1961. Do the math.

Hat tip: Ed Morrissey

In the interest of equal treatment of candidates, note that Hillary Clinton claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the who climbed Mt. Everest — a few years after she was born and named.

March 21, 2008

Obama’s Grandmother — and His Non-Uncle

Filed under: — Different River @ 5:19 pm

I normally don’t quote Ann Coulter, since she’s way to strident even for me, but she makes some good points here:

Imagine a white pastor saying: “Racism is the American way. Racism is how this country was founded, and how this country is still run. … We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority. And believe it more than we believe in God.”

Imagine a white pastor calling Condoleezza Rice, “Condoskeezza Rice.”

Imagine a white pastor saying: “No, no, no, God damn America — that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human! God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme!”

… Obama felt perfectly comfortable throwing his white grandmother under the bus. He used her as the white racist counterpart to his black racist “old uncle,” Rev. Wright.

Rev. Wright accuses white people of inventing AIDS to kill black men, but Obama’s grandmother — who raised him, cooked his food, tucked him in at night, and paid for his clothes and books and private school — has expressed the same feelings about passing black men on the street that Jesse Jackson has.

Unlike his “old uncle” — who is not his uncle — Obama had no excuses for his grandmother. Obama’s grandmother never felt the lash of discrimination! Crazy grandma doesn’t get the same pass as the crazy uncle; she’s white. Denounce the racist!

Obama’s white grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, is still alive — and still lives in the same high-rise apartment in Honolulu where she raised Obama (then called “Barry”) from the age of 10. They campaign “declines to make her available for interviews.”

Incidentally, the racial opposition to his parents’ marriage came from the black side of the family. From the Chicago Tribune:

The Dunhams weren’t happy. Stanley Ann’s prospective father-in-law [in Kenya] was furious. He wrote the Dunhams “this long, nasty letter saying that he didn’t approve of the marriage,” Obama recounted his mother telling him in [his book] “Dreams.” “He didn’t want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman.”

This is from a very interesting profile of Obama’s mother.

Powered by WordPress