Category Archives: News

OCCUPY WOMEN TAKE THEIR PROTEST TO MEN’S TOILETS

A new women’s movement has been launched by Ms. Li Tingting in Guangzhou, China.  Speaking as a man, I have no objection to women’s movements.  Most of them are rather pleasant in fact.  But this one takes on a new dimension.  A group of ladies in China are demanding toilet equality.

When I first saw the headline I thought the fuss was about the age old conflict of the seat.  The ladies know we need it up but they always, always leave it down.  That has long been a pet beef of mine.  But no, the women in China are griping about the long waiting lines to enter the Ladies Room when there are no lines at all for the men.  Is this a valid example of social injustice or just some new form of maleness envy?

Studies show that there are about the same number of men in the world as there are women.  Further analysis reveals the size of the restrooms generally to be equal.  So what can be the cause of the problem?  More important, what is the solution?  How about MORE STALLS FOR THE 50% !!

Read about it here.  It’s priceless.

PUTIN ON THE PROWL

Barack Obama & Vladimir Putin at Putin's dacha...

Image via Wikipedia

From the Washington Post

MOSCOW — A nasty spate of anti-Americanism set off by Vladimir V. Putin has grown into waves of attacks aimed at the new American ambassador and Russian opposition leaders, raising questions about the future of U.S.-Russian relations.

The attacks started just before the December parliamentary elections and have intensified as the March 4 presidential vote approaches. Although widely viewed as aimed primarily at a domestic audience, they have grown shriller and more aggressive, provoking debate about whether Russia is deliberately giving a cold shoulder to President Obama’s effort to promote more productive relations.

A main target of the attacks is Michael McFaul, the new ambassador, a longtime democracy advocate and Russia expert who as a top aide to Obama has been an architect of what the White House calls a “reset’’ with Moscow.

Barack Obama cozied up to to the Russians and and tried to convince them we should be friends now that we share the same ideology.  Putin didn’t buy it, of course.

BARACK OBAMA’S VAUNTED CONCESSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw explains the reality of the President’s ostensible concession in a published piece aptly titled Semantics at the Highest Level.

Consider these two policies:

A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.

B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance.  The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.

The President changed the law from A to B which is no change at all.  The claimed concession is not an about face; it’s about farce.  It has oft been said that perception is reality.  The two are not the same, of course, but the aphorism makes the point that the difference is irrelevant.  Perceptions are formed by speeches and headlines while truth and reality often remain in obscurity.  In a prior post on this subject, I wrote “If there is one thing the President knows well, it is the art of agitation, how to create it, how to use it as a tool for accomplishing an objective and even how to deal with it if it turns negative to your cause.”  The pot is still simmering on the issue but thus far Obama has dealt with it effectively.

OBAMA GUTS NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

Obama is making law again.  Will he ever stop?  Congress passed a law in 2001 known as the No Child Left Behind Act.  The current President doesn’t like the law, so he cancelled it.

Strictly speaking, a President cannot cancel a law with a wave of his hand or the signing of a document.  But he can sign an executive order decreeing that a given law doesn’t need to be obeyed.  The difference is a mere technicality; the results are the same.  One could also raise the argument that the entire law wasn’t rendered inoperative, only certain provisions.  But invariably when this happens, it is to alter those provisions that were controversial in the first place.  The Founding Fathers gave us a government where controversial matters were not to be decided by one person, but by the House and the Senate where the people are broadly represented.  Of course there is a form of government where the leader does have the power to make, break or change the law.  It is called a dictatorship.

Whether No Child Left Behind is bad law or not is a decision for Congress or the courts to make, not the President.  The establishment of a Rule of Law is an essential requirement for any fair and prosperous nation to succeed.  When laws once enacted by a congressional body are subject to executive change and bureaucratic interpretation you have “flexlaw”.  Flexlaw is not a set of established laws at all; it is a set of whims.  Obama and his Administration are transforming our land from a Republic into a DINO, a Democracy In Name Only.  He must be stopped.

CHEERS AND JEERS AT THE DEBATE

Florida was the best debate yet!  Every candidate did well.  The crowd was very much engaged.  It was the first debate that was actually fun to watch.  If you missed it, here is the CNN video.

When Gingrich walked in he was greeted loudly with a combination of boos and cheers.  Nothing could be more appropriate for a man of his controversy.  The audience was listening, thinking and objective.  They voiced their approval or disapproval according to the substance of the statements made, not according to who it was that made them

Who won?  They all did.  The in-fighting damage was done well before this debate.  However, this time the responses were high caliber and right on the mark.  Every candidate looked strong and got an enthusiastic response from the audience when they liked what he said.  Each one also felt the barbs of disapproval when they stepped out of line.  Gingrich won the least, but they all won because they made their party look good (let’s make that ‘look better’).

Nonetheless, it is still a ‘stuck with’ list.

.

GINGRICH 40 ROMNEY 27. THERE GOES THE RANCH?

Where is the fat lady and when is she going to sing?  We want this to be over.  But more importantly, we want the choice to be a winner in November.

There is a school of thought that says conservatives will stay home and not vote if the nominee is Romney.  We don’t buy it.  Too much is at stake in this one and conservatives know it.  The risk with Romney is the risk of losing independents who do not share the strong aversion to Obama that is felt by voters who are clearly on the right.  Still, Republicans are likely to win with Romney.

Gingrich is another story entirely.  There is no doubt that his debating skills are far superior to Romney’s.  Newt is tough; he is beyond intimidation and his style at the podium is refreshing to a long frustrated audience.  His message plays very well to conservatives with short memories.  But can he win in November?

John Hinderaker at Power Line blog doesn’t give Gingrich give a chance.

It is hard to make clear-cut statements about the mercurial and often contradictory Gingrich, but one thing we can say with absolute certainty: he will never be President of the United States.

[I]f there is anyone who ought to be broadly acceptable to conservatives, it is Romney. Certainly not Gingrich, with his earmarks, his disfavor with the conservatives he led in the House in the 1990s, his career as a lobbyist, his support for Medicare Part D, his embrace of global warming dogma, and his attacks on private equity and even free enterprise itself. Republicans have flirted with a number of potentially bad choices this election season, but voting for Gingrich would be the worst of them.

Hinderaker makes a good case.  He should; he’s an attorney.  But the only thing we would “say with absolute certainty” is nothing is impossible in politics.  Didn’t we elect a community organizer whose goal was to socialize America and diminish her standing on the world stage?  Then surely we could elect a candidate whose goal is to reverse the socialization and to restore the nation’s standing internationally – no matter the baggage.

Now where in the world is that fat lady??

HERE IS WHY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DOES NOT WANT NEWT TO WIN THE NOMINATION

Much has been said about how well Newt Gingrich would do in televised debates with Barack Obama.  However, most of the accolades come from observers in the conservative camp.  Moderates and independents who do not share Gingrich’s views are not as impressed by his quick and witty sound bite retorts.  The candidate also has more baggage than either Romney or Paul, and I guess we still need to include Santorum.

But the real reason the Republican Party is not behind Gingrich for the nomination is none of the above.  The prime reason is the general public doesn’t favor Gingrich over Obama and the Republican Party wants to win.

These polls gathered by The Washington Examiner tell the story.  The comparisons between Gingrich and Romney are stark.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

 

IF NEWT GETS THE NOD, THERE WILL BE WAR

From the New York Times

Gingrich Jousts With Rivals Ahead of Vote

By JIM RUTENBERG and JEFF ZELENY

Newt Gingrich turned aside questions about his marital history at the final Republican debate before the South Carolina primary, and then took on Mitt Romney

Turned aside ??  Good heavens and mercy me, Gingrich did not turn it aside; he threw it back in their face!  “and then he took on Romney”? No, New York Times, not quite.  And then he took on the press.  

Gingrich’s remarks were a virtual declaration of war on the media. When Ronald Reagan knocked the press he was polite.  Mild mannered George W. Bush didn’t knock the press.  You might say their styles were appeasement.  Newt’s style is war.

It was not MSNBC that he was attacking.  That network came fully out of the closet some time ago.  It was ABC and all the other left “leaning” media that some people, believe it or not, still think report the news objectively.  Gingrich has given a lot of people reason to pause and think. And that’s a good thing.

Click for video.

THE BOMBSHELL – MARIANNE ENDORSES NEWT

The bombshell was a dud.  Even Marianne said as much when she laughed at the thought when Brian Ross suggested it in the interview.

She talked on video for two hours to ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross, an edited version of which will be broadcast on Thursday night’s “Nightline,” and a transcript of which was released today. She laughed when told that some were reporting that she had a “bombshell,” and emphasized that many of her views of Newt Gingrich and his political positions are positive. 

That changes the picture a bit.  We were led to the Hell bound fury idea by ABC.  Shame on them and shame on us.  We have known for years that the networks sensationalize the weather. Why not politics?  We should have expected the bombshell to be all shell and no bomb.  Our post was on the right track but we apologize for the headline.

All this is not to say we approve of Newt Gingrich’s marital history; frankly it’s been a mess.

HELL HATH NO FURRY

MARIANNE GINGRICH

Marianne Gingrich has a story to tell. It’s an old story; we know that. Her fury is not shared by her step-daughters; we know that. ABC is making much hoopla preliminary to release of the story; we know that. The reported controversy at ABC headquarters has heightened interest in the story; we know that. Is the network’s controversy real or promotional? We don’t know that. Is Marianne’s story truthful or revengeful? There is every reason to believe it is the latter and that creates doubts about the former.

Newt Gingrich’s political career could be over if perchance he has done something really despicable, for instance something like cheating on his wife with a young subordinate on public property. And should he compound his image problem by showing ignorance of the fact that an oral genital union is an act of sex, he would surely be through. He is a Republican.