Monday, March 28, 2011

Chavez Says Capitalism Killed Life On Mars!

El Loco, just being who he is...it's hard to take him seriously, which is one of his most scary traits. Still, "Capitalism may have wiped out life on Mars?" Genius!


CARACAS (Reuters) - Capitalism may be to blame for the lack of life on the planet Mars, Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday.


"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Chavez said in speech to mark World Water Day.


...World Water Day? How appropriate!

Puerto Rican Delegate Spends More Than Pelosi

One has to have sympathy for the Puerto Rican representative in Congress. With no voting rights, he likely thinks deserves to spend more money than Nancy Pelosi. According to the AP, "Pierluisi's spokeswoman said Tuesday that the costs reflect that the Pierluisi represents nearly 4 million constituents in the U.S. territory, several times more than are found in any U.S. congressional district." I wonder where he stands on Puerto Rican statehood? Probably against it, because that would diminish his personal power, though it would increase the people of Puerto Rico's power on US policy. Another corruptocrat, milking the "status quo."

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Libya, Hillary, and Obama: Living History, Pt. II


If the Politico is to be believed, Secretary of State Clinton is "whimsically looking forward" to leaving public life, and writing another book, among other things. She is also portrayed as pushing hard for a "no-fly zone" in Libya, against the administration's "insiders." I don't know how she'll recount this period in her book, but right now the reality is unflattering for her boss. Her statement, "I’m not here forever" was called "Shermanesque" by the Politico, but what does it mean?


It looks like she's accepting "has-been" status, but that doesn't fit the mold of a person with such a great drive to "change the world." One of the great things about American politics is the resurgence of a candidate that was thought "politically dead." Has her "hawkish" position on Libya been political, or principled? I assume the former, and am interested in how this situation is unfolding.


President Obama has been non-committal, by all accounts, notwithstanding his "tightening the noose" statement, which was bizzarely in contradiction to the reality reported on the ground at the time. Secretary Clinton has existing relationships with many foreign leaders, and may have convinced them (or vice-versa) to lead Obama into committing to use force to help the Libyan rebellion.


The Daily thinks it's too little, too late, and it's driving Clinton "over the edge": "Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya." She made an appearance in Tunisia, as well, promising jobs, and more: "So we want to know what Tunisia wants. We don't want to come in and say here's what the United States believes... Then we want to work on plans... a plan for health, we want to help do what we can to have a plan for jobs," she said. Will she visit Libya before she leaves office? Only if Khadafy and his family are gone.


Will they meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein, or Mubarak and Ben-Ali (& families)? Saddam's legal proceedings were turned over to "national" authorities, and he was executed. Will the no-fly zone be enough to get Daffy to take the "international" legal process? Who knows? The "no boots on the ground" policy suggests we wouldn't mind a Caucescu-type end to this dictator.


Sec. Clinton again shows why she would've been a better president than Obama. First, it was the health care debate. She had been through it before, and could've used the lessons of her husband's compromise on Welfare reform to do something that might have worked, instead of the divisive Obamacare law. Her foreign policy experience and instincts in a "crisis" are better-honed than the President's, beyond a doubt. Her biggest problem is if Obama's been too "centrist" for the "left-wing base," what chance does she have in a rerun of the last Democratic primary race? It's no wonder she's looking forward to "retirement" from public life, but one more "war" could put Obama in LBJ territory, with that same "left-wing" base that she is too "centrist" for.


I actually wrote this last week, but I think it stands up as commentary of an ongoing situation. She also has a new interview on ABC, with Diane Sawyer. She addresses a few issues mentioned here, so I'll post an update sooner or later. Basically lots of backtracking from the stories referenced here.




Senate to hold hearings on Muslim Women's' rights...NOT

Senate to hold hearings on Muslims' rights


When I saw the headline, I thought this might be an actual hearing about whether Muslims in America were having their civil rights violated, but then I remembered the Dems still control the Senate. Where are the female Senate Democrats, looking into the treatment of Muslim women in this country? Senator Durbin, while trying to counter Rep. King's House hearings, has instead shown the same blindness to women's rights as he has on addressing the "extremist" issue in the Muslim community.

What Do Progressives Say About Detroit?

The population of Detroit has fallen back 100 years.


I feel bad for the people who can't leave Detroit. I almost put this in with my "funny stuff" posts, but if it's a joke, it's on too big a scale to be funny. What is the problem here? A city that got fat off of one industry grew a government that got fat off of that industry. Progressive politics reigned, but the city didn't progress, in the real world. It didn't happen all at once, but the bailouts of GM and Chrysler exposed Detroit as a "basket case" of a city. There was no natural disaster in Detroit. This city's disaster was man-made by politicians, industry leaders, and unions who stood for a "status quo" that peaked over half a century ago.

UK Unions Protest Tax Increases, Unlike Wisconsin Unions

Now the Brits have to show American unions that they know how to do a proper protest? They plan "to protest at deep government spending cuts and tax rises." Well, their cousins in the US unions can't agree with that second part, because most US union members work in the public sector. I also liked the Brit union leader's response to the public threats of violence and vandalism by supporters: "If protests simply lead to a great public debate about police tactics for example, that doesn't seem to me to have advanced the real cause that matters." Way to preemptively deflect blame for your supporters' actions. Wisconsin union leaders could learn something from this guy.



Violence warning as unions plan mass march

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

NO SYMPATHY FOR PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS, HERE...

These guys have got some gaul, OOPS! -I mean gall. Much like the French, and other European mobs (as in Greece), who think that the democratic process involves "revolution," the union thugs in Wisconsin have decided to take up residence in the State Capitol, as their Senate toadies hide in another state.

This would be a bad joke, if most Americans weren't paying into the public sector unions' coffers, only to get endless budget deficits in return. Most of us private sector, non-union workers don't have anything close to what we provide for them. The political power of public sector unions has corrupted the entire political system as much, if not more than "big business" money has.

This is why it's so important that the union stranglehold on Wisconsin is broken. As a NY'er, I can only dream of freedom from this yoke. Gov. Cuomo is not going to touch that issue, but is probably hoping that the events in Wisconsin will give him leverage to get the fiscal concessions here. I'll take whatever he can get, if he really tries. GO, CUOMO!!