What's Wrong With Us?

Don't get me wrong, I feel for Michael Jackson's family and friends, and I wouldn't deny his impact on popular music. But it's been over 24 hours of non-stop Jacko news (literally) on some news stations. On my local station, they even featured an interview--I'm not making this up--with someone who once went to one of his concerts.

It really disturbs me that most of the people I've talked to have no idea what I'm talking about when I tell them about a young girl dubbed Neda who was shot down in the streets of Iran while demonstrating for the right of suffrage. And yet, within minutes of Jackson's death Twitter and Facebook and television media were rife with information about it, and have been at it non-stop for over a day.

In a better world, we would all be overwhelmed by news coverage of Neda's murder. Scratch that. In a better world, Neda would still be alive.

Cap And Trade THIS!

Looks like somebody's got some 'splaining to do. Richard Morrison, over at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has authored a press release about some skulduggery going on at the Environmental Protection Agency. I guess it's more of that "transparency" we were promised. The release is so short, I'm just going to post the whole thing. If you want to go to the original, it's here.

CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA

Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.

“While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its Administrator has been talking transparency since she took office. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.

It's worth checking out the link to the report covering the e-mails as well.

UPDATE: Fox finally got around to this.

Big story developing right now in Washington...

No, jerkweeds, it was developing days ago. You know, while you were drooling over the death of a pop singer.

Heaven Must Have Been Missing An Angel

I had this poster on my wall. It got me through puberty. Rest in peace, Angel.

The Funniest Thing I Haven't Seen Anyone Mention

I'm sure you've all heard about the "incident" between Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and Brigadier General Michael Walsh, in which Boxer lectured Walsh for addressing her as "ma'am" and insisted he address her as "senator" because "I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it."

Goodness, where do I begin?

1) She worked so hard to get that title? More so than the general, whom she didn't see fit to address by his title? I doubt that.

2) The general was well within military protocol. Section 4.18 of Army Field Manual 7-21.13 states:

A soldier addressing a higher ranking officer uses the word sir or ma’am in the same manner as a polite civilian speaking with a person to whom he wishes to show respect. In the military service, the matter of who says sir or ma’am to whom is clearly defined; in civilian life it is largely a matter of discretion.

3) I've seen some writers claim that the "ma'am" was a result of some kind of misogyny on the general's part. The previous point shows that not to be the case, but in case you needed some more evidence, I would point out that Walsh called male senators "sir" on many occasions.

4) Apparently Boxer had no problem with "ma'am" two years ago, as she called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "ma'am" three times. (Of course, at the linked article points out, calling Rice "ma'am" was nowhere near the most offensive thing Boxer said to her during the hearing.)

5) I'm not sure about this, but I believe that a U.S. Senator is nowhere in the hierarchical structure of the U.S. Army. The use of "sir," "ma'am," or even a title for someone outside the military is done as a courtesy, a show of respect. It seems to me that Boxer insisting the general call her "senator" is a lot like a McDonald's manager asking a Burger King worker to call him "manager." The general obliged the senator because frankly, he has more class than she does.

Oh yeah, I promised a funny thing that no one else has mentioned. I guess it's not so much funny as...interesting? Ironic? Inane?

6) My gut feeling is that Boxer didn't care for "ma'am" partly because she is ignorant of the military protocol, but mostly because she thinks of it as a misogynistic term for old ladies. I'd just like to point out that the term she insisted on--"senator"--comes from the word senex, meaning...old man. It's the same place we get the words "senior" and "senile." In contrast, "ma'am" is a shortened form of "madam," which comes from the French "ma dame" and Latin "mea domina," meaning "my lady." It's used (of course) as a respectful term for addressing a woman.

Hmm...perhaps Boxer was right to insist that she not be called "ma'am" after all.

Coolest Trailer For A Movie That Doesn't Exist?

I think so.

Happy Memorial Day!

Sometimes Cracked.com is just awesome. This is one of those times.

5 Real-Life Soldiers Who Make Rambo Look Like A Pussy

Wait...Did You Hear That?

Abandoned places. Creepy photos accompanied by hilarious text. How can you go wrong. Just click here already.

You Got To Please Yourself

Speaking of Saturday Night Live, I was telling someone about this sketch the other day, so I thought I'd embed it here.

Now THAT'S The Way To End A Season!

The best episode of SNL I've seen in a long time. Will Ferrell is much too funny to be entirely human. My old friend, celebrity "Jeopardy"nearly made me spit liquid across the room, and the "Goodnight Saigon" skit (see below) was awesome. Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, it did. Cameo after Cameo. Plus, Casey Wilson in a black dress--be still my heart! I'm telling you, I didn't even mind the crappy funeral sketch, or that fact that SNL (once again) apparently couldn't find anything funny about the current administration (c'mon you guys--no Pelosi?), yet managed to still make jokes about people who have been out of office for four months. Oh, hey--I've got a couple of jokes about the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930. If I dust them off, do you guys want them?

New Summer Fashion: Pants On Fire

So...Nancy Pelosi first said that she didn't know nothin' bout no waterboarding:

When Pelosi first addressed the question in late April, she said only that those present at her 2002 briefing were not told that the practice had been employed.

"We were not — I repeat, were not — told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," she said at the time.

Then, when the records and recollections of others seemed to contradict her, she "clarified" her statement:

Later, her spokesman elaborated, saying Pelosi had been told the methods were legal but that they had not yet been used.

Now, it's that mean 'ol CIA that is at fault:

On Thursday, Pelosi accused the CIA of having lied during that session by explicitly telling her that waterboarding was not used.

So you see...it's not her fault. Apparently, either the CIA lied by omission ("We were not told..."), or by comission ("explicitly telling her...")

And yet...

But Pelosi defended her own lack of action on the issue, saying her focus at the time was on wresting congressional control from Republicans so her party could change course.

"No letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job — the Congress part," Pelosi said.

So...if she didn't know anything about waterboarding, then why would she be trying to "change the policy"? After all, doesn't one have to know about a policy in order for one to set about changing it? If she is telling the truth about the CIA explicitly telling her waterboarding was not used, then just what policy was she trying to change?

Somebody Went To Jared

So today, Jared Bernstein, Biden's chief economist, said "I challenge you, or anyone watching me right now, to come up with any program like this federal, state, or local that has obligated $90 billion in 77 days with the level of oversight that we need to enforce this very important trail."

Ninety billion. In 77 days. Like it's a good thing.

He also kept skirting the line between money "obligated," "contracted," and "dispersed."

More Poll Dancing

Sigh...another one of these. This time, it's a New York Times/CBS News poll, just in time to celebrate Obama's first 100 days in office. I'm not going to insinuate that this poll is untrustworthy because it comes from NYT/CBS, or because it's been linked to by articles singing its praises while all-but-ignoring its negatives. I'm going to tell you flat out that it's untrustworthy. How can it not be, when--for example--you notice that the percentage of Republicans is only 20 percent, compared to 38 percent Democrat and 36 percent Independent? That 20 percent is the absolute lowest percentage of Republican respondents in the included statistics, which go back to January of 1992. Is it really that surprising that Obama's approval rating went up 5% since February when the percentage of Republicans polled went down 6%, and Democrats went up 2%? I'm only surprised it didn't go up more.

It's also untrustworthy for questions such as this one:

Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?

This is what's known as a false dilemma. You only provide two options, one of which is in some way unsatisfactory, thereby influencing people to choose the other one. "America: love it or leave it!" is a good example. Here, you'll notice that you only have two options as well: the first one, that things are generally going in the right direction, and the second, that things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track. See? If you don't think things are seriously wrong (an extreme), you are left with only one other choice--that they're going in the "right" direction. This question is horribly worded, whether through deceit or incompetence. Seeing as this is from NYT/CBS, neither reason seems all that unlikely. This question should either have been written with balanced options:

In general, do you feel things in this country are going in the right direction or the wrong direction?

or with more alternatives:

How do you feel things are going in the country: seriously in the right direction; generally in the right direction; generally in the wrong direction; seriously in the wrong direction?

Why would NYT/CBS do this? Well, I suspect that it was an attempt to show how great the new administration is doing. "Look," they could trumpet, "the public thinks things are going great!"

Unfortunately for them, those polled must really think things are sucking hardcore because even with the obvious bias built into the question, they still thought by a 50-41 percent margin that we have gotten "pretty seriously off track." Of course, this still didn't stop news outlets from writing glowing articles about the poll. The CBS News headline:

Poll: 100 Days In, High Marks For Obama
On The Cusp Of His 100th Day, President Enjoys High Approval Ratings On A Host Of Issues - But Few Republicans Are On Board

Oh yes, those high marks...like the 54% who had a favorable opinion of Obama, down from 60% when he took office, and the percentage of those who had an unfavorable opinion of him in the same time period, which doubled, from 9% to 18%. High marks, indeed. Oh, and don't forget the people who are optimistic about the next four years with Obama--they dropped from 79% in January to 72%. Again, you should remember that the percentage of Republicans is the lowest since '92, which should be reflected by an increase in Obama's numbers.

I could go on, pointing out that although 68% of people thought he was a "different kind" of politician, only 9% thought it was because of his policies*, or that one of the choices in the question asking how many of his campaign promises Obama would be able to keep was "all of them," which--considering he's already broken several of them--is impossible. I could mention that the percentage of people who think Obama will divide different groups of Americans has increased ten points since November of last year, which is distressing for a president who ran, partly, on the idea of unification.

What's obvious here is that NYT and CBS put together a poorly written, slanted poll designed to artificially inflate Obama's numbers, and when that didn't work as well as they expected, they wrote puff pieces on it, highlighting the good, burying the not so good. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. Even the NYT/CBS poll itself shows that the percentage of people who think the news media has "gone easier" on Obama than other candidates/presidents has steadily risen over the last year, from 24 to 40. 'Nuff said.

* I find it interesting that they used the term "different," since depending on one's mindset, "different" could be a positive or a negative.

I Guess It Depends On What Your Meaning Of The Word "Is" Is...

A politician named Clinton playing semantic games--now there's something you don't see every eight years.

Here's the headline for Hillary's speech to Iraq:

Clinton to Iraqis: US not going to abandon you

Unless by "abandon" you mean "take all of our soldiers and weapons and protection out of your country." In that case, yes, we are going to abandon you.

And let's not overlook this gem:

"We are very committed, but the nature of our commitment may look somewhat different because we are going to be withdrawing our combat troops over the next couple of years," Clinton said.

I'd love to see someone try that one in other aspects of life...

"Honey, I'm totally committed to you and the kids, but I'm taking my stuff and leaving and you won't see me again."

"Boss, I am completely committed to this job, but the nature of that commitment is going to look somewhat different because I'm clearing out my desk and not coming back."

And one last whopper:

On her first trip to Iraq as America's top diplomat, Clinton said the country has made great strides despite a recent surge in violence. High-profile attacks this past week primarily targeted Shiite worshippers. More than 150 people, many of them Iranian pilgrims, have died.

Ahead of her arrival, Clinton said the attacks are a sign that extremists are afraid the Iraqi government is succeeding.

"I think that these suicide bombings ... are unfortunately, in a tragic way, a signal that the rejectionists fear that Iraq is going in the right direction," Clinton told reporters aboard her plane.

Note that its a recent surge in violence. Maybe, just maybe, rather than being a sign the Iraqi government is succeeding, it's a sign that those responsible are ramping up in anticipation of our leaving. You know, that maybe they're invigorated by the thought of the U.S. going home.

What Bias?

So I'm reading an AP article about an AP poll that shows just how wonderfully people think Barack Obama is doing as he nears his first 100 days. Here's a sample:

In a sign that Barack Obama has inspired hopes for a brighter future in the first 100 days of his presidency, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe the United States is headed in the right direction — compared with 44 percent who disagree.

Now there's a sign of objective journalism. It gets better:

Nobody knows how long the honeymoon will last, but Obama has clearly transformed the yes-we-can spirit of his candidacy into a tool of governance. His ability to inspire confidence — Obama's second book is titled "The Audacity of Hope" — has thus far buffered the president against the harsh realities of two wars, a global economic meltdown and countless domestic challenges.

And these:

The AP-GfK poll suggests that 64 percent of the public approves of Obama's job performance, down slightly from 67 percent in February. President George W. Bush's approval ratings hovered in the high 50s after his first 100 days in office....

Just as many people say Obama understands the concerns of ordinary Americans. That's a sharp contrast to Bush, who won re-election in 2004 despite the fact that 54 percent of voters on that Election Day said he cared more about large corporations.

Well...there you go. Everything will be fine. He's doing much better than that other guy.

Now far be it for me to expect the AP to include all sides of the numbers. Maybe they figured no one would be interested in reading the actual poll results. And few people probably will. Good thing I'm here to do it for you. Here's a few things I found...

First of all, the poll (like a lot of AP polls, I've noticed) isn't quite as balanced as you might think. Twice as many surveyed consider themselves to be Democrat (36%) as Republican (18%). When pressed, 10% of independents stated they leaned Democrat and 9% stated they leaned Republican. That means we end up with 46% Dem. and 27% GOP, if my math is correct. That becomes important, not only because the group polled is woefully unbalanced in favor of the left, but because the AP article implies that everything's copacetic. Do the numbers bear that out? Let's see...

A larger percentage does think the country is on the right track, but just barely--48% as compared to 44% who think we're on the wrong track. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1%, which seems to me to make those numbers pretty darn close. And since the political makeup of the group isn't close, those numbers don't seem as favorable as the AP would have us believe. For example, if everyone who claimed to be/lean Democratic was behind the president, and all those "no affiliation" people split evenly, I would think the numbers would be around 60/40 that we're on the "right track." The fact that it's actually a dead heat doesn't inspire me.

What about approval ratings? That is split about 60/40, which is what you'd expect; however, one thing is notable: Obama's approval rating has gone down 10 points since January, and his disapproval rating has doubled, from 15% to 30%. And more importantly, the number who strongly disapprove has tripled from 7% to 22%! Does that sound like "a sign that Barack Obama has inspired hopes for a brighter future" to you? Yeah, me neither.

More nuggets:

• More people disapprove than approve (57% to 38%) of the way congress is handling things.
• Obama does get a majority who approve of the way he handles the issues, but most of them break down along that 60/40 split.
• One thing that surprised me was that 65% said that they disapproved of the job the Republicans in congress were doing with the economy, with 39% strongly disapproving. I guess it makes sense if Republicans aren't voting along party lines, but I still would have thought the number would have been a little lower, considering they're outnumbered in both houses.

To be sure, there are some positive results for Obama here, but are they enough to warrant the glowing interpretation from the AP article, especially since the current Rasmussen poll says 57% of likely voters think the nation is heading in the wrong direction? (I couldn't find the breakdown of those polled.)

I Swear...

...if they cancel "Chuck," I'm taking a road trip to NBC and kicking somebody's ass.

At Least He's Getting Older

So the question arises: just how old is the Somali pirate? Here's an idea--cut the bastard in half and count the rings. Fifteen, sixteen, twenty-five...here's what's important--he was old enough to hold an AK-47 to a man's head and stood ready to pull the trigger. That's how old he is.

Apparently he cried in court. I wonder how much he would have cried had he succeeded in his plans and made off with the ransom? I wonder if he would have been even slightly nagged by a guilty conscience had his hostage...sorry, his victim, been killed?

I have no sympathy. None.

Are You Sure You Don't Mean The 10th Commandment? Because I've Never Heard Of The 10th Amendment.

At the risk of being considered an "extremist" for my slavish devotion to such wild concepts as, you know, the Constitution, I wanted to send you to two interesting columns about state's rights and the 10th Amendment.

Welcome!

I should point out that I have my first "follower." Look up in the right-hand corner, and you'll see someone with exceptional taste who has decided to follow this blog. Go and do likewise.

TEA, Anyone?

In case you didn't realize how successful the TEA Party movement was (and why wouldn't you, with all the coverage it's been getting in the mainstream media....hahahahahaha!!! Oh, man...I almost got it all out without laughing!) Michele Malkin has some pictures over at her site.

Bow...Wow!

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

A photo of President Obama apparently bowing in front of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is stirring a royal-size controversy.

The photo and a video were largely ignored by mainstream media outlets but created outrage in some quarters.

Look, first of all, I don't really care whether it was a bow or not. If I hadn't read that it goes against protocol or tradition or whatever, I wouldn't have known, honestly. That's not the issue, as far as I'm concerned. The issue here is the fact that the Obama Administration thinks we are a bunch of idiots. It was a bow. It was clearly a bow. It wasn't even questionable in the slightest. He couldn't have bowed any deeper if he was tying his shoes. If the administration had just said "Ooops, it was a blunder, a mistake," no one but Hannity would have cared. But they didn't. They tried to pass it off with one of the most ridiculous explanations/excuses I've ever heard: that it was because the Saudi king was short. Not only does it make me angry for insulting my intelligence, it makes me cringe because it's so lame that it ranks right up there with "the dog ate my homework."

But what should we expect, I guess. This is the man who spent years in Rev. Wright's church, but didn't pick up any ideas from him. This is the man who worked with Bill Ayers, but...you know...didn't really know him all that much. This is the man who played the race card to tell us that his opponent would play the race card. This is the man who told us he would lower taxes for most of us, knowing all the while that thanks to energy tax increases (among others) we'll likely pay more taxes overall. This is the man who ran on a platform of hope and change, and so far, has given us very little of either. This is the man who said he was going to raise our status among the world, who not only couldn't find anyone to translate a single word to Russian correctly, but apparently couldn't give a thoughtful gift to a world leader if his life depended on it. Why wouldn't he try to float this idiotic explanation past us? We've bought all the other ones.

And where is the media? Where are the pundits who came out of the woodwork every time George W. Bush so much as pronounced something wrong? Where are the people who criticized the decision to go into Iraq because "hey, most of the hijackers were Saudis!" Where's their outrage over a president who bows to a Saudi King? Where is Michael Moore with his baseball hat and camera? The same Michael Moore who argued so vehemently about Bush's connections to the Saudis. Where is he? I would think he ought to be able to make one of his typical "documentaries" with all the half-truths around Obama. Questions about his birth, his early schooling in religion, his connections with...unsavory characters, many of whom I've mentioned above. And now the bow.* C'mon, Michael, where's your working man's persona now? Hell, I'll even give you the name: Hussein. It practically writes itself.

Again, I don't give a shit about the bow. Do it, don't do it; I don't care. I just want a little consistency in the way we treat our leaders. And if you're going to lie, at least do it with a little style, a little smoke and mirrors. Photoshop the image, doctor the video, but "the king is too short" sounds suspiciously like "the Emporer has no clothes on," if you know what I mean.

* I'm not saying I believe all of those things about Obama. I'm just saying that Moore never seems to worry too much about the truth in his films, so why start now?