Banner ad

Monday, November 07, 2011

Cruising the Web

Another example that we're becoming more like declining Rome: adult men gathering together to share their interest in "My Little Pony."

One interesting sidelight of the Herman Cain story is that people are learning more about how sexual harassment allegations work out in the real world. As Curt Levey writes today in the WSJ, it is not easy for an employee to prove a hostile environment. However, the bad publicity and cost of legal fees is so high that most businesses would prefer to settle ahead of time rather than go to trial. Some feminists are worrying that this story will convince some women not to bring allegations; another concern is that more women will decide to use this story as a model of how to lever a higher severance package than they might ordinarily have merited. Both the accuser and accused deserve better.

Unite the tea party and the OWS protesters: end corporate welfare. It would be good for government, business, and the taxpayer. There's one way to cut out close to one or two hundred billion a year.

Timothy Carney is right: conservatives should not be playing the race card.

Republicans shouldn't get cocky. There are still viable pathways for Obama to win next year.

Obama opts for the limited modified hangout strategy.

Ed Morrissey is absolutely right: the OWS people are sounding more and more like Animal Farm every day.

If the Politico reporters, as they claim, have seen actual documentation of the sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain, why aren't they reporting what they saw?

As my European History class is finishing up our study of the French Revolution, it's eye-opening to read daily about how the leaders of Europe today are squelching the possibility of democratic votes on their chosen policies. They certainly stomped on the chance of the Greeks holding a vote on accepting the bailout or even rejecting the Euro.

15 comments:

davod said...

What is corporate welfare as opposed to a normal business expense?

Pat Patterson said...

In regards to the lack of a vote that has been normal procedure since the rejection of the European Constitution. But the problem here is that regardless of whether a vote was taken the rescue is mostly smoke, mirrors, glad handing and photo ops. It turns out that the debt holders have not agreed to losing 50% of the value of the debt the hold nor were any other of the investors in others types of debt.

I doubt if France is going to agree to only 50% of the money owed to France, Germany, the UK, the US and even the Ukraine. I'm sure they might have a few thoughts on the matter and even now making calls to friendly politicians for exemptions to secure full payment.

mark said...

Hmmm....
Adults entranced by My Pet Pony while Rome burns.

Bush entranced by My Pet Pony
while the WTC burn.

Best analogy ever. (Must be a helluva good story.)

Well done, Betsy.

tfhr said...

mark,

From the look of your comments, you did not read the story and you are either attempting to create an analogy without reading the article, which also makes you lazy, or you are disingenuously suggesting that Betsy has made such an analogy herself. Either course clearly conveys the sad reality that even the slightest shred of intellectual honesty no longer resides in you.

I did get a kick out of the fact that the interview was conducted with a group from Berkeley, though I have to say that I wasn't surprised.

mark said...

tfhr,
First a correction: Obviously, I meant to write "My Pet Goat". That was the book Bush that held Bush's attention while the Towers were burning.
I'm sure it was not an intentional analogy, but an analogy nonetheless. It was a cheapshot (yet, valid) that only someone who thought Bush disgraced our country (in so many ways) would make.
That's where I came in.
Do you really think that if it had been Clinton or Obama surrounded by children reading a book while our country was under attack, that Limbaugh and others wouldn't have (justly) ravaged the guy?

tfhr said...

mark,

I know what you meant but if you want to take the time to correct yourself on the greater details of the slop that drools into these threads from you then you'll really have a career ahead of you, but for now, you have set the record straight that you can tell the difference between a goat and a pony. I just wish you could tell the difference between a pony and a unicorn, but we'll get back to that and your unending infatuation with Obama some other day. (In the meantime you can study up on what constitutes a valid analogy)

So you believe that Bush disgraced the country. You are crippled by BDS, mark, and I'm sorry for you for that. I hope you haven't found a way to get a handicapped hang tag for your Prius based only on your BDS, but I do wish that you can some day recover some of your sanity.

Clinton kept me in stitches with his predatory nature that ultimately removed the National Organization for Women(NOW)from viable debates on almost anything. So there was nothing I had to do to poke fun at him while he was poking away in the White House. However there's just nothing funny, meaning humorous, about Obama, mark. He was an empty suit, an emitter of platitudes, the narrator of an empty script, and a walking house of mirrors that weak minded Progressives and hopeful liberals thought they could see their reflections in when they voted for him.

Now you've got a guy that launches an air war to eliminate a head of state. When Bush did it that was wrong, you said. Clinton attacked Sudan to destroy WMDs. Was that "disgraceful" and did you complain? When Clinton attacked Serbia without UN approval, did you complain? By the way, we're still in the Balkans with troops on the ground to keep the peace. Killing one Libyan terrorist is a good thing and nobody misses Milosevic, but you have to fight the fight to the finish and that doesn't mean you get to abandon your allies in Iraq or neglect Libya while the ruins smolder along with a growing radical Islamic militancy in the latter.

As for your Limbaugh theory, it doesn't hold water. Nobody of sound mind should blame an American for the attacks on 9-11. Mocking Bush for being at a classroom during the attack is just bizarre. If he had been on Air Force One or in the White House, his options for action in the first moments were the same, unless you know something the rest of us don't. That you let someone like Michael Moore, the chief purveyor of your fallacy of choice for today, shape your thoughts on this shows a devastating level of intellectual laziness and ineptitude on your part. Not ground breaking for you mark, but still amazing.

Let's take the shoe and put it on Obama's foot. (We'll borrow the one in Biden's mouth for this exercise). Imagine a nuclear detonation in the middle of an American city. Horrible devastation with thousands dead and more yet to die. The EMP has largely shattered efforts to assess what has happened and what may be coming next.

Obama should

a. Follow Secret Service instruction about moving him and the rest of (surviving) national leadership to a safe location.

b. Play another round of golf.

c. Attend a campaign fund raiser.

d. Hide in the 57th state so that even the Secret Service can't locate and move him to Dick Cheney's undisclosed location.

e. Launch a nuclear war against Iran, "Paw-key-stohn", China, North Korea, Russia, or all of them just to be sure.

f. Blame Wall Street and remind them that he was their top recipient for campaign contributions.

mark, it's a long alphabet but I doubt you'd get the point, even if I ran it all the way to z.

When you shovel out your criticism of Bush, or anyone else, why not include your brilliant alternative solution? Bush should have done what? We never get that from you or Michael Moore. Apparently it is far beyond a Progressive's ability.

mark said...

You're too easy, tfhr.
If you don't think Limbaugh and others would have been all over Obama for sitting in the classroom, ignoring the pdb, etc. you're more unstable than I think.

As for what Bush did in the classroom: If there was no clue as what was happening, who or what might be attacked next,etc. how could a president not excuse himself from the students and insist on meeting with officials present and set up immediate outside contact? Do you think there was no communication going on? How could the president not be part of it?

You continue to give yourself away with your pathetic, whiny hyperventilating. But I guess I'm like Rick Perry in that way; it's fun to poke at you.

Infatuated with Obama? I've been more critical of Obama than anyone here was of Bush in seven years (and for all his faults and failures, he is a still a far better president than Bush).

tfhr said...

mark,

Compare yourself to whomever you like but it's just evading that you fail repeatedly when challenged about your presumptions. You still have not stated what action Bush could have taken in the classroom or elsewhere that would have made a difference. And please tell us what was actionable intelligence in the PDB?

Griping about Bush may scratch that BDS of yours but it still resembles a nervous tick to anyone else.

tfhr said...

mark,

Last comment should read: "Griping about Bush may scratch that BDS itch of yours but it still resembles a nervous tick to anyone else.

By the way, I also wish you would detail how you believe Obama has been a better President. Would this be based on all of his many accomplishments, amongst them the deft handling of the government's role in the economy? We're still looking for that long list of foreign policy successes, so you can provide that now. (C'mon mark, the guy got a Nobel Peace Prize and while I'd say he'd qualify for killing terrorists, why did the Nobel Committee present that award to him in 2009? Please, do tell. Personally, I think they were admiring their own reflection in Obama, much like you do, without consideration of tangible support for those "good" feelings you once had for him.

mark said...

As I've said (and Obama himself acknowledged), he didn't deserve the Peace Prize.

As I've said, Obama doesn't deserve re-election. (Of course, repubs have failed to come up with a "deserving" replacement.)

Bush led us into an unnecessary war; that by itself makes him a worse president than Obama.

Ironically, one person who could probably beat Obama and be a good president, Jeb Bush, can't run because his brother was such a failure.

tfhr said...

mark,

You still cannot name Obama successes to back up your fallacious claim of foreign policy prowess.

You still cannot point to any Obama domestic policy successes that have helped this country in the slightest, but I do agree with you that Obama certainly does not deserve to be re-elected. He was never qualifed in the first place and has proved that ever since. The country cannot survive another four years of his ineptitude.

Your assessment that the war was "unnecessary" is nothing more than your opinion. Congress voted for a resolution to use force to remove Saddam. If you want to blame all of them for removing a terrorist, go ahead. Obama blew off Congress and removed Gaddafi - bad way to do a good thing but leaving that country to fester in ruins while AQ moves in is more than just negligent. Failing to cement the peace and progress in Iraq is just as bad as the American abandonment of South Vietnam and could easily have even greater repercussions than the Dem controlled Congress' disgraceful vote to enforce the 1973 peace agreement and to cut off military aid but it will ALL be on Obama for losing the peace in Iraq after so much sacrifice. The Nobel Committee might want to ask for their bling back if they had awarded it for a substantive reason in the first place.

Don't give up Hope©, you poor delusional Progressive! You could Change© and start a "Draft Jeb" movement if you want but shouldn't you double down and begin pushing for Hillary or Foot-in-Mouth Joe?

mark said...

btw, tfhr,

I have said what the president should have done. It involved common-sense, so it probably went right over your head.

If I had been in that situation (God forbid, I know), I would have immediately told the students "Sorry kids, something came up that I need to deal with...." I would have insisted we find a private space in the school to access what we knew and determine if we should stay at the school or go to a safe place. As president, I would have insisted on being involved in all conversations and decisions.
When I mentioned that last time, weevil came up with the scenario in which a terrorist was dressed as a teacher or janitor waiting to pick off the presdident. Solution: leave him surrouned by children. You seemed to second that possiblity.

Now I know that re-hashing this is silly and pointless, but it intrigues me that you just acknowledge how absurd it was to continue sitting with the children.

tfhr said...

mark,

I acknowledged what? You draw conclusions from thin air, mark.

You said, "I would have insisted we find a private space in the school to access what we knew and determine if we should stay at the school or go to a safe place." Seems to me you're stepping on a Secret Service duty there, mark. I guess President mark would have insisted that the Secret Service should do its job. Very good. Do you have any evidence that they didn't? And as for decisions to make, until the information has been combed through and facts are discernable, what decisions were going to be made in those few moments? You still have not offered a SINGLE action that Bush or anyone at that given point in the timeline could have taken that would have made ANY difference at all and that is the signature of Bush Derangement Syndrom, mark. You are the BDS poster boy!

Still waiting for that great list of Obama success stories for both foreign and domestic policy. Where is it mark? Or are you going to just continue your flaccid attempts to deflect?

Dr Weevil said...

Talking about people behind their backs is rude. Trashing people in comments on posts they haven't even read is morally equivalent to that.

Lying about them is even ruder. 'mark' utterly misrepresents what I have written about Bush and 9/11. Specifically, he takes one very small part of a larger argument, pretends that it is all I wrote, and then grossly misrepresents that small part. 'mark' is a contemptible swine.

I suppose we should be grateful that he omitted the gross obscenities this time.

tfhr said...

Doc,

Sadly, mark is incapable of rising above these kinds of things and therefore can only behave like a Progressive. That's as good as it's going to get.