Today I bring you news that some in our government are actually considering a $3600 tax credit for all dog owners, for having a dog promotes health in the owners. Wait a minute! I thought we need to decrease CO2 emissions, flatulence and body discharges in order to tame our rapidly growing environmental destruction! And think of all the plastic bags which will have to be used to clean up those messes! Another problem I see here is that our government already encourages those without much money to have ever more children so that they are eligible for more government money. Won't this do the same - encourage the poorest people to get a dog in order to get even more money? The Law of Unintended Consequences would surely be in play.
-----------------------------------------
Following is part of a tongue in cheek interpretation of Obama's speech to the nation last night, according to the American Spectator: "President Obama delivered an historic speech to the nation and to the world on his plans for Afghanistan. Here, in sum, is what the president said: I really don't want to be commander-in-chief, but I'll do it if I have to -- at least for a little while, and then we'll see. Just so long as it doesn't cost too much, or take too long, or interfere with my plans to nationalize healthcare and fundamentally change America.
I myself never served in the military, but let me tell you: These guys -- and especially the marines -- are a little nuts. I mean, they're all volunteers; they all believe deeply in America -- and in America as it is, and not in America as I will soon remake it -- and they all have this touching but wild-eyed optimism in America's ability to change the world."
[I'm sure glad he got this decision behind him, for December will be a very busy month for him. It has been announced that in addition to his trip to Copenhagen, he and his wife will be entertaining 50,000 guests at the White House, holding 28 parties or open houses. One does have to wonder when he will have time to get ANY work done. And once more, while telling the world that "we" must begin to cut our deficit, he continues to spend massive amounts of our money.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Atlantic comes the following: What timing: President Obama and Tiger Woods will appear together on the cover of the January issue of Golf Digest.
It could be the most politically charged Golf Digest cover ever. Woods is dealing with a swirl of rumors and media scrutiny after crashing into a fire hydrant outside his house at 2:30 a.m. and his wife bashing his SUV's window with a golf club. Obama is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and trying to pass a health care bill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Review opines that "The thing to understand about the scandal surrounding the e-mails leaked from Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is that it is actually three scandals. There is a scientific scandal, in which the leading lights of the climate-research cabal conspired to fudge data and silence skeptics. There is a media scandal, in which reporters and editors on the “climate beat” at the world’s most prominent news organizations acted as stenographers for the cabal and ignored the scandal when it broke. And there is a political scandal, in which officeholders here and abroad used the bunk science as a pretext for expanding their control of (and take from) the world’s energy markets.
Nor can the “uncorrected” data be recovered from CRU, which threw much of it away, allegedly to “save space.” The darker possibility, which Jones hinted at in an e-mail to Mann, is that the data were intentionally erased. “If [global-warming skeptics] ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K.,” he wrote, “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com points out the reasons why polls done by different agencies have different outcomes: [I've always said that it's all in the way the questions are asked.]
1. "Likely Voters": Rasmussen narrows its field of respondents to "likely voters," whereas most other firms use registered voters or all adults. "Likely voters" don't usually include young, minority, or marginal voters more likely to support Obama.
2. The four-category question: instead of "approve or disapprove," Rasmussen asks respondents whether they strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove. This yields fewer "I don't know" answers, which, typically, leads to higher disapproval numbers
3. Automated polling: Rasmussen doesn't use live interviewers. People could feel more comfortable saying they don't like Obama to a machine, or hardcore partisans could be more likely not to hang up the phone. Regardless of theory, firms that use automated polling tend to give Obama worse numbers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall St. Journal reports that the head of the Federal Trade Commission said Tuesday the agency will study whether government should aid struggling news organizations, which are suffering from a collapse in advertising revenues as the internet upends their centuries-old business model. FTC Chairman Jon Liebowitz's comments came during day one of a two-day "workshop" sponsored by the agency that became a forum for arguments among the heads of a diverse array of news organizations over the future of journalism. [Can you all see a bailout coming - we Americans bailing our the biased left-leaning newspapers which are losing their audiences?]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's business as usual for this President. He is holding a "jobs summit" this Thursday, as if he thinks he is a college professor. However, in order to promote his agenda, he has barred from the summit those who would actually have an opposing view as to how jobs may be created.
The Washington Times has discovered that: missing from a partial list of attendees released by the White House are the self-proclaimed voices of business - the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business - both of which have been critical of Mr. Obama's proposed health care overhaul.
Confirmed attendees include liberal economists credited with shaping the $787 billion stimulus package, union leaders, environmental advocates and executives from Google and other blue-chip firms.
Representatives from NFIB and the Chamber of Commerce said their organizations were not asked to attend, but representatives from some of the country's largest unions, Change to Win and the United Steelworkers, will participate.
In an open letter to Mr. Obama on Tuesday, Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue outlined a series of proposals to stimulate job growth, including eliminating protectionist trade barriers, reducing the deficit and eliminating unnecessary regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment