Eliot Spitzer And Barack Obama : Distractions Abound

Two Things:



1. The Spitzer debacle.

What kind of idiot does this, knowing how it is going to play out? Really now, how can someone think they are going to keep something like this hushed, when the person has made so many enemies?

To put his family in the news and embarrass them as he has, to set himself up for the potential for blackmail, he has clearly demonstrated that he is not the kind of person that can effectively run a state like New York.

That said, I must ask the question: Who gives a damn? I know I don't. Like my good friend Mustang commented recently, it would seem that the resources used to uncover this thing could/would have been better spent trying to catch a terrorist.


2. Obama's middle name.

Who cares? Here we are a couple of weeks status post the Bill Cunningham comments and we are still hearing this complained about, by his surrogates on talk shows. Instead of debating his record (or lack thereof), we are forced to listen to his surrogates proclaiming how unjust this is. We are still hearing about how divisive, xenophobic, and racist it is to say his name.

There are a lot of things we should be talking about. His name isn't one of them.

How about asking him (and his surrogates) about how Obama has missed a lot of key votes throughout his short career? He has only been in the Senate for three years and yet, he has positioned himself to be a personality candidate by dodging the hard issues. In fact, in the days leading up to the beginning of the primary season, he missed around 80% of the votes.

He claims he is the only one that didn't vote for the war. That is only partly true. While it's true that he didn't vote for it, there was a good reason for it. He wasn't even in the Senate. (This is known as a half-truth.)

What few votes he has been able to find the motivation to cast, has been along liberal lines. He is part of a generation that believes that government owes the people things. If you (like me) find that government is inherently inept, willfully corrupt, and extremely co-dependent in nature, then you will find that Obama is not the man we need for the White House. If (on the other hand) you think the government doesn't do enough for the people by lobbying for more entitlements, irresponsible foreign policies, and are generally apologetic towards this nation, Obama or Hillary will do just fine.

There really is no real calculable difference in ideology here.

Snow Jobs?

From the National Post comes this piece:

Just how pervasive the bias at most news outlets is in favour of climate alarmism -- and how little interest most outlets have in reporting any research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy -- can be seen in a Washington Post story on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), announced last week in New York.

I'd say that in the grand scheme of things, it is very pervasive. When you have people (who have a vested interest in this junk science being established as fact) shouting down those people with that dissent, you know there is a problem.

After reminding readers that the IPCC and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work on climate change, the paper then, sneeringly, added: "While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."

First of all, the IPCC and Mr. Gore won the Peace Prize, not a science prize, which only proves they are good at politics. They didn't win the Physics Prize, for instance.

Also, while the former vice-prez may have invented the Internet (by his own admission), he is demonstrably not a scientist. Yet in the same paragraph as the Washington Post lionizes Mr. Gore for his work saving the planet, it backhands non-scientists for meddling in the climate change debate, never once showing any hint it recognized its own hypocrisy.

Gaza lobs rockets into Israel, Iran threatens Israel daily, and countless other hostilities exist in the world. At least Jimmy Carter won it for getting Egypt and Israel to agree to peace terms. So far, it has held.

Can anyone tell me how Gore has brought about peace by advancing a junk science theory?

Comedy Relief That May Become Reality

This is from Saturday's episode of SNL.



Satire, yes. But there is a message here that needs to be carefully considered, before people cast their votes this fall. If SNL writers can recognize this as a possible scenario, how much more should the voters open their minds to this possibility?

There are no do overs, no second chances. Too much is at stake.

Another Blast From The Past

Smooth, raspy, and versatile are three words to describe this weekend's featured artist. There are more, but chances are you don't care what I have to say about him. He never made the top tier of money makers that could pack stadiums. But I doubt you can find a lot of singers/musicians that have more raw talent for creating such a unique sound.

He hails from Middlesbrough England and if have never heard of him, it's time to meet Chris Rea. Who knows? You may want to buy a CD, after you listen to this small sample of his many fine works.

His first hit got quite a bit of airplay after its release in 1978. It was nominated for a "Song of the Year" Grammy and was the his biggest U.S. hit. Here is a young Chris with Fool (If You Think It's Over):



This next song is the title track of a 1986 release. It has a relaxing jazzy edge to it that I think most will like. Here is the elongated live version of On The Beach:



Twelve years later, Chris was still churning out Class A music. This one definitely has a classy, smooth sounding mix of jazz and blues that never fails to please the ears. Here is Blue Cafe:



This next song is my favorite Chris Rea song, hands down. And I say this with the understanding that these others are some pretty damned good tunes. When I first heard the beginning of it, I thought it was a new Dire Straits song (and it's quite hard to believe that this one is almost 20 years old).

If there were to be a simplified genre called smooth blues, this would be the one shining banner example. It's complex, yet simple, mellow, but rhythmic. This is no technological breakdown, this is The Road To Hell:



As an added feature, I have an act that some (including me) think has a Chris Rea-esque sound to it in some of their songs. One of our occasional posters (Anonim), who pops in once in a great while, turned me on to this one. I tried to find some info to share on this song and band, but I could find nothing in English. If he sees this, maybe he can fill us in on the background of this song and the band they call Kirac.

If you like Chris Rea, and other moody styles sounding similar, I think you will like this one also. I know I do, so give it a listen if you are so inclined. The song's title (if I have this right) means "strange kind of love song", and instantly puts you in a Turkish cafe somewhere in Istanbul. Here is Bir Garip Ask Bestesi:



Enjoy.

Ann Coulter's Folly

If you read this blog with any regularity, you may already know that I am not a fan of Ann Coulter. She is not my favorite person in the political commentary community, and she never has been. I have criticized her overbearing and offensive words before. And I am about to do it again.

To put it mildly, I am not impressed. But, for some reason, talk shows seem to want her to be a guest and she is still making the rounds. Don't ask me, why? I just know, I wouldn't have her on my show. Her "I want it my way or I'll take my ball and go home" attitude is wearing thinner and thinner as this campaign advances. And it's not just her, you can count talk-show host Rush Limbaugh as being among that same crowd.

Her latest tangential complaint is that there isn't any difference between John McCain and the two remaining Democrat candidates, and it is both asinine and insane. And she spends an inordinate amount of time, telling us that she plans to vote for Hillary.

Hillary is, shockingly enough, the most conservative candidate among the top three presidential candidates.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell once remarked that his people would rather vote for Beelzebub than Hillary Clinton.

He didn't mention John McCain.

Pat Buchanan says if McCain is the nominee, the Republican Party will lose its soul. I'm more worried about the Republican Party losing its mind.

Earth to Ann: George Bush was no true conservative and you supported him. How much money do you think he has spent with nothing to show for it?

I know the Dems would have us all believe Bush was a fascist, right-wing conservative neocon. We have heard it for the last seven years, from all of his detractors. But if we examine Bush's record on spending, we can see that he hasn't exactly been a model of a (so-called) Ronald Reagan conservative. So, you can see why I have to ask Ms Coulter, what gives?

So what if McCain can reach across the aisle once in a while, what's that mean? It means that the law of averages must be in play, because the law of averages dictates that one party cannot be wrong 100% of the time. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The truth is, not all Democratic ideas are insane. A lot of them are, but no one can claim total disaster (any more than one can claim moral and intellectual superiority).

The idea that everyone that wins the sacred Republican nomination must fit inside some little square box that she has drawn, is utterly ridiculous. She is not the party chief. She is but one voice that has the right to throw her vote away, so she can be right.

So in closing, I say this one last thing to Ms. Coulter:

Go ahead, vote for Hillary. And if Obama wins the nomination, vote for him. But save the " I'd rather have a Democrat screw the country up, more than a Republican", for the tavern. Someone there, just might believe you.

Obama Appears Shocked When Hit With Tough Questions

This isn't coming from a neo-con publication, it is the Washington Post reporting this story.

It took many months and the mockery of "Saturday Night Live" to make it happen, but the lumbering beast that is the press corps finally roused itself from its slumber Monday and greeted Barack Obama with a menacing growl.

The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.

Reporters from the Associated Press and Reuters went after him for his false denial that a campaign aide had held a secret meeting with Canadian officials over Obama's trade policy. A trio of Chicago reporters pummeled him with questions about the corruption trial this week of a friend and supporter. The New York Post piled on with a question about him losing the Jewish vote.

Obama responded with the classic phrases of a politician in trouble. "That was the information that I had at the time. . . . Those charges are completely unrelated to me. . . . I have said that that was a mistake. . . . The fact pattern remains unchanged."

When those failed, Obama tried another approach. "We're running late," the candidate said, and then he disappeared behind a curtain.

As I have said before, his obvious lack of experience is a problem.

Just as his supporters cannot articulate an intelligent reason to support Sen. Obama, it is becoming apparent that Obama cannot even articulate why he should be the President. Until now, it hasn't happened. And now that the questions are as tough as Hillary and McCain have been given, Mr. Obama is showing that he is not ready for consideration in the big leagues.

Before he beat his hasty retreat, however, Obama found time to assign blame for the tough questions suddenly coming his way. "The Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a 'kitchen sink' strategy," he protested. "There are, what, three or four things a day?"

So much for being a different kind of politician. Assigning blame is not the mark of an effective leader. Whining about being blindsided by the "Clinton campaign" or the "right-wing" conspiracy" will not persuade intelligent people to make a risky bet and cast their lots with him.

This is precisely what ineffectiveness looks like before it is entrusted to perform miracles and lead a nation that is so bitterly divided. This can only be cured by time and seasoning. And there isn't enough of either to get him where he needs to be, before he will take the helm of a such a large and powerful ship.

I cannot trust someone that will assign blame for their own lack of preparation. If he wants to blame anyone, he can look no further than the press corps that have been assigned to cover him. They have soft-balled him the entire time he has been in this race and now he is lost in the fog of battle.

How can we as a nation truly evaluate a candidate without him answering tough questions?

Answer: It can't.

If a candidate cannot stand in front of a camera without prepared texts to mesmerize a crowd of uninformed supporters, he cannot take the pressure that will certainly be exerted on him during the course of the next four years. If he cannot answer a question about his associations with people like Tony Rezko and Louis Farrakhan, without looking down (while trying to come up with a good answer in lawyerese), he cannot be knighted as Sir Obama, miracle worker.

Colombia: Chavez Funding FARC

From the Miami Herald comes this story about evidence being found that Venezuela has been funding FARC. No wonder, Chavez and his Ecuadorean counterpart, Correa, are creating smokescreens out of claims of violations of sovereignty.

From the article:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez gave Colombia's FARC guerrillas $300 million this year and accepted some $150,000 from the leftist rebels in the early 1990s, according to explosive allegations by Colombia's police chief.

That's not all they are claiming. Let's read on:

Gen. Oscar Naranjo made those and other allegations of FARC involvement with drug shipments and uranium based on materials discovered in one of three computers captured when Colombian troops raided a rebel camp in Ecuador on Saturday.

I find this troubling, but not surprising in the least.

Chavez would love nothing more than to help keep instability thriving in Colombia, for the reasons I outlined yesterday. There is little doubt that he'd love Venezuela to have nuclear capabilities. Now that he has nationalized the oil industry, we can expect he will have the capital to pursue such ends, in the face of critical shortages the nation he leads is now facing.

Some socialist society, right?

But , it gets even better.

A furious Correa blasted the Colombian raid into his country, saying the neighbor's military leaders and President Alvaro Uribe ``are lying to Ecuador and lying to the world.''

Correa said evidence shows the rebels were shot in the back and in their underwear, suggesting they were killed in their sleep and not in hot pursuit from the Colombian side of the border as Bogotá claims.

Who ever said war was fair? If you don't want to fight an unfair war, don't start one.

FARC has no qualms about killing innocents in their quest to overthrow the government, why should the government show any deference in this matter? You fight battles to win, you fight wars to win.

It's not a credible argument, when one party does the same thing they accuse the other of. It's called hypocrisy.

Vatican, Muslims To Meet

The BBC is reporting on a meeting that is about to take place, for the specific purpose of ironing out details for a future meeting. This, within itself, is a telling sign that this is not going to be an easy thing to accomplish.

The meeting may happen. But the two main questions that surround all of this are, what are the objectives and how much will be accomplished towards meeting them?

After all, there is no one powerful papal office comparable, in Islam. Who is going to speak for the Muslims? Likewise, there are many that may not accept the pope's positions within Christendom, and his own church as well. Is he speaking for them?

I say let them talk if they want. But the Vatican must be prepared to accept the fact that the likelihood of any real success is quite low, for the reasons I state.

Recommended Reading

For an interesting read on ethnonationalism:

Click here.



It is written by Jerry Z. Muller of Catholic University.

I am not sure if I agree with all of it. But Dr. Muller makes some very interesting points, worthy of some further thought and discussion. Here is one part that does make a point that is quite overlooked when the MSM presents their reports:

Recently, for example, in the course of arguing that Israel ought to give up its claim to be a Jewish state and dissolve itself into some sort of binational entity with the Palestinians, the prominent historian Tony Judt informed the readers of The New York Review of Books that "the problem with Israel ... [is that] it has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a 'Jewish state' ... is an anachronism."

Yet the experience of the hundreds of Africans and Asians who perish each year trying to get into Europe by landing on the coast of Spain or Italy reveals that Europe's frontiers are not so open. And a survey would show that whereas in 1900 there were many states in Europe without a single overwhelmingly dominant nationality, by 2007 there were only two, and one of those, Belgium, was close to breaking up. Aside from Switzerland, in other words -- where the domestic ethnic balance of power is protected by strict citizenship laws -- in Europe the "separatist project" has not so much vanished as triumphed.

The thing I find interesting about Europe is the tendency of some Europeans to expect that multiculturalism is so easy to achieve. But when it comes time for practical implementation of the principles they preach, they aren't as fast to accept.

One economic example of where there is some disparity can be found is, there are nations within the EU that are far more protectionist than they let on. On one hand, they criticize the U.S. for not keeping the southern floodgates open and Israel for mistrusting Palestinians enough to not want to incorporate them into a combination state with political power. On the other hand, they are very stingy about who they let into their borders and who invests in (and owns) their businesses/corporations.

Anyway, read it when you get time. It is quite exhaustive for an internet essay.

The Cause For Peace In Our Time

If you want to see what those that clamor for peace do in order to advance their cause, go over to Living In The Surreal World and watch the video.

Peace means a lot of things to a lot of different people. But whatever meaning a person chooses, as best to fit their definition, it is best achieved by example. Thuggery begets more thuggery.