The left is apparently crowing about the Q&A session Obama had with House Republicans because he stood up to them and lectured them and claimed he was not an ideologue and so forth...
They fail to recognize that if the House GOP members really wanted to grill Obama, they would do so. However, if they were gang up on the President and attack him like they want to, it would be an even worse PR move than letting the President have his way with them in a verbal fashion.
If they really went after him, the lefty talking heads and media would say things like "they cornered Obama like a pack of rabid wolves!" and "the way they treated the President was classless and sickening!"
So while Obama did a good job taking advantage of the situation, don't get too excited, my friends on the left...it's not like the GOP had any better options of approach.
Friday, January 29, 2010
John Edwards Made a Sex Tape???
Oh God...I think I'm going to lose my lunch. It's the blonde girl and the Breck girl!
Apparently, someone is trying to release a sex tape made between disgraced former Presidential candidate John Edwards and his ex-mistress and baby mama, Rielle Hunter. Hunter is trying to stop the release of this tape via restraining order.
Apparently, the tape belongs to Andrew Young, the Edwards staffer who falsely claimed to be the one sleeping with Hunter and the father of the child. You know, the guy that Edwards attempted to shield himself with. It seems Young came into possession of the tape when she asked Young to get her passport out of a box where she had hidden the tape as well.
This whole drama surrounding Edwards, his wife, his staff, and his ex-mistress just gets weirder and weirder.
Apparently, someone is trying to release a sex tape made between disgraced former Presidential candidate John Edwards and his ex-mistress and baby mama, Rielle Hunter. Hunter is trying to stop the release of this tape via restraining order.
Apparently, the tape belongs to Andrew Young, the Edwards staffer who falsely claimed to be the one sleeping with Hunter and the father of the child. You know, the guy that Edwards attempted to shield himself with. It seems Young came into possession of the tape when she asked Young to get her passport out of a box where she had hidden the tape as well.
This whole drama surrounding Edwards, his wife, his staff, and his ex-mistress just gets weirder and weirder.
Ahead of Storm, Gov. McDonnell Declares State of Emergency
Looks like the central and northern Shenandoah Valley will miss the real harsh parts of this storm, but it seems like southern VA and the I-95 corridor will get slammed with snow and ice, potentially worse than the 20+ inches that visited the Commonwealth in December.
State of Emergency info can be found here.
Be safe tonight and tomorrow, folks. I'll post updates as I get them.
State of Emergency info can be found here.
Be safe tonight and tomorrow, folks. I'll post updates as I get them.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
How Many Times Can I Get Twisted on This Issue?
Whoa, hold the phone...I may have jumped the gun not once, but twice, on this Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate involvement in elections and campaigning.
Brad Smith at NRO explains where many, including the President, have been wrong about this ruling.
Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
The president's statement is false.
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." (emphasis mine)
Interesting...so at least I know that my concerns of foreign corporations (and governments through those corporations) will not be pumping money into campaigns to wield influence over our nation's politics and policies.
That actually explains why Justice Alito said "not true", because what Obama said regarding foreign corporations is not true. I'm definitely relieved to see this.
(h/t Mason Conservative)
Brad Smith at NRO explains where many, including the President, have been wrong about this ruling.
Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
The president's statement is false.
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." (emphasis mine)
Interesting...so at least I know that my concerns of foreign corporations (and governments through those corporations) will not be pumping money into campaigns to wield influence over our nation's politics and policies.
That actually explains why Justice Alito said "not true", because what Obama said regarding foreign corporations is not true. I'm definitely relieved to see this.
(h/t Mason Conservative)
Well, He's Got the Right Idea...
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the following at the World Economic Forum at Davos today...
"We are not asking ourselves what we will replace capitalism with, but what kind of capitalism we want?" he said.
"We must re-engineer capitalism to restore its moral dimension, its conscience,"
Ok, he's got the right idea here. Just because we hit an economic downturn does not mean we should start pushing towards socialist policies. In fact, moving away from such policies seems to be working in other places.
Now, what we need is not more regulation, but "good" regulation. We need current regulation to be simplified, clear, and transparent. The more you convolute something like this, the more loopholes you create for those who don't want to play by the rules to worm their way around the regulations in place. Both of our political parties seem to back regulation that apparently is too clouded in legalities that loopholes seem to be at every turn. Make it simple, make it clear, and make it so there is no doubt about what you are trying to accomplish.
This also naturally reduces and limits the amount of regulation you can implement, which is conducive to a well-oiled capitalist economy. You can only go so far without arousing protest from investors, businesses, banks, and the public at large (who probably does not understand a lot of the regulation to begin with, I know I have problems understanding some of the regulations I've looked up).
Granted, I would prefer minimalizing regulation, but since I have to play within the system (let's face it, most good revolutions do not happen overnight...unless you're talking Eastern Europe in 1989, but I digress), let's start by simplifying regulation first, then we can talk about what (if any) regulations are really necessary.
Also, taxing banks and big business as punishment will not be conducive to anything positive for the economy. If you thought big banks weren't lending before, watch what happens when you start penalizing them. If other states starting pulling moves like the state of Oregon just decided to do, you're going to see the leaders and drivers of free enterprise and industry start "going Galt" in huge numbers.
"We are not asking ourselves what we will replace capitalism with, but what kind of capitalism we want?" he said.
"We must re-engineer capitalism to restore its moral dimension, its conscience,"
Ok, he's got the right idea here. Just because we hit an economic downturn does not mean we should start pushing towards socialist policies. In fact, moving away from such policies seems to be working in other places.
Now, what we need is not more regulation, but "good" regulation. We need current regulation to be simplified, clear, and transparent. The more you convolute something like this, the more loopholes you create for those who don't want to play by the rules to worm their way around the regulations in place. Both of our political parties seem to back regulation that apparently is too clouded in legalities that loopholes seem to be at every turn. Make it simple, make it clear, and make it so there is no doubt about what you are trying to accomplish.
This also naturally reduces and limits the amount of regulation you can implement, which is conducive to a well-oiled capitalist economy. You can only go so far without arousing protest from investors, businesses, banks, and the public at large (who probably does not understand a lot of the regulation to begin with, I know I have problems understanding some of the regulations I've looked up).
Granted, I would prefer minimalizing regulation, but since I have to play within the system (let's face it, most good revolutions do not happen overnight...unless you're talking Eastern Europe in 1989, but I digress), let's start by simplifying regulation first, then we can talk about what (if any) regulations are really necessary.
Also, taxing banks and big business as punishment will not be conducive to anything positive for the economy. If you thought big banks weren't lending before, watch what happens when you start penalizing them. If other states starting pulling moves like the state of Oregon just decided to do, you're going to see the leaders and drivers of free enterprise and industry start "going Galt" in huge numbers.
SOTU and GOP Reponse Thoughts and Notes
Some random rumblings from tonight's events.
The State of the Union Address...
- Obama says he doesn't quit, and he's right...he wants to push forward the same crap that Americans rejected during his first year.
- Capital Gains tax exemption for small business investments? Good idea, but I think I know where this is going to be offset (increases in Capital Gains tax on corporate investments, higher corporate taxes, punitive fees on large corporations to gain populist support).
- This has to be the longest-feeling SOTU ever. It just seems to go on and on. Obama isn't breaking new ground, either. In the second half of his speech, he has randomly started repeating things he said in the first half of it.
- Attack the Supreme Court in the SOTU address? Stupid move, Barry. It's not the time or place for such a move (even if I also disagreed with the ruling he was referring to). What a lack of decorum.
- Towards the last 3rd of the SOTU, Obama just went into straight lecturing. Way to burn any bridges you were hoping to build, Barry.
The GOP Response...
- WOW, McDonnell really outdid himself with the presentation here. Obama likes that podium in front of Congress, you can tell he likes that look and feel of a "leader". McDonnell decided that he would respond to Obama in kind, as the leader of a state. Nice job. He's already topped Bobby Jindal's performance last year without uttering a single word.
- The Gov is in good oratory form tonight, coming across with more personality and vocal skill than usual. He's to the point and succinct without being curt or vague.
- McDonnell really stuck to his guns with "good government" policy stances and some nice nods to the type of federalism expressed by our Founding Fathers. Also, McDonnell struck me as being a bit more aggressive than I thought he might be...but he did it well. Impressive performance by our Governor. He really surprised me.
Overall Ratings...Obama: C+, McDonnell: A-
Obama's meandering lectures and repetitiveness brought down what was otherwise a solid speech for him. Had he left out the whole "Democrats, you've got a majority, so get stuff done...Republicans, you need to be 'bipartisan' and do what we say" bit (ok, I paraphrased), and not been so repetitive, he might have earned a higher mark from me. By the way, the Associated Press (who has been kind to Obama) hits him pretty hard in the fact-checking department. Talk about "truth hurts"...
McDonnell made a memorable impression on me for having such a restricted period of time. He was to the point, made a couple of humorous asides, and was able to accomplish a lot more than many "minority party response" speeches tend to do. Using the GA as a backdrop was a fantastic move on his part. If this was a litmus test to see if McDonnell can be a leader for the GOP going forward, he certainly passed.
The State of the Union Address...
- Obama says he doesn't quit, and he's right...he wants to push forward the same crap that Americans rejected during his first year.
- Capital Gains tax exemption for small business investments? Good idea, but I think I know where this is going to be offset (increases in Capital Gains tax on corporate investments, higher corporate taxes, punitive fees on large corporations to gain populist support).
- This has to be the longest-feeling SOTU ever. It just seems to go on and on. Obama isn't breaking new ground, either. In the second half of his speech, he has randomly started repeating things he said in the first half of it.
- Attack the Supreme Court in the SOTU address? Stupid move, Barry. It's not the time or place for such a move (even if I also disagreed with the ruling he was referring to). What a lack of decorum.
- Towards the last 3rd of the SOTU, Obama just went into straight lecturing. Way to burn any bridges you were hoping to build, Barry.
The GOP Response...
- WOW, McDonnell really outdid himself with the presentation here. Obama likes that podium in front of Congress, you can tell he likes that look and feel of a "leader". McDonnell decided that he would respond to Obama in kind, as the leader of a state. Nice job. He's already topped Bobby Jindal's performance last year without uttering a single word.
- The Gov is in good oratory form tonight, coming across with more personality and vocal skill than usual. He's to the point and succinct without being curt or vague.
- McDonnell really stuck to his guns with "good government" policy stances and some nice nods to the type of federalism expressed by our Founding Fathers. Also, McDonnell struck me as being a bit more aggressive than I thought he might be...but he did it well. Impressive performance by our Governor. He really surprised me.
Overall Ratings...Obama: C+, McDonnell: A-
Obama's meandering lectures and repetitiveness brought down what was otherwise a solid speech for him. Had he left out the whole "Democrats, you've got a majority, so get stuff done...Republicans, you need to be 'bipartisan' and do what we say" bit (ok, I paraphrased), and not been so repetitive, he might have earned a higher mark from me. By the way, the Associated Press (who has been kind to Obama) hits him pretty hard in the fact-checking department. Talk about "truth hurts"...
McDonnell made a memorable impression on me for having such a restricted period of time. He was to the point, made a couple of humorous asides, and was able to accomplish a lot more than many "minority party response" speeches tend to do. Using the GA as a backdrop was a fantastic move on his part. If this was a litmus test to see if McDonnell can be a leader for the GOP going forward, he certainly passed.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
It's Heeeerrre...
Apple finally introduced the iTab. People have been clamoring for this for quite a while now, and the tech world was at a fever pitch in the last few months as rumors were abound that the new "tablet" computer was going to be revealed. If you are familiar with the iTouch and iPod devices, you should be able to pick up the iTab's functions and navigation tools quickly, as they made the iTab very similar in style, design, and feel.
Apparently, Apple made their own 1 GHz processing chip for the iTab, which is decent for a smaller device like this.
Starting price: $499
Not bad. Unlimited 3G service can be provided at about $29.99/month, and apps (oh yes, there will be apps) will be $9.99 a piece. I think Apple is definitely going for the profits here, and keeping the cost relatively low with the actual iTab itself.
Apparently, Apple made their own 1 GHz processing chip for the iTab, which is decent for a smaller device like this.
Starting price: $499
Not bad. Unlimited 3G service can be provided at about $29.99/month, and apps (oh yes, there will be apps) will be $9.99 a piece. I think Apple is definitely going for the profits here, and keeping the cost relatively low with the actual iTab itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
