Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Cruising the Web

John Podhoretz illuminates what is so revealing about David Axelrod's gaffe on Sunday that the choice this year is "is between an economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead and an economy that continues down the road we are on." Exactly. As Podhoretz points out, this is basically a recycled slogan from 2008. Obama's advisers really wish they could re-run the last election instead of having to answer for what they've done since January 20, 2009.

Bud Selig missed the point
of why Ozzie Guillen's expression of admiration of Fidel Castro was so offensive.

What does this mean? Michelle Obama says in her speeches that "[t]his President has brought us out of the dark and into the light." It sounds downright Biblical. I wonder if people filling up their cars feel as if they're in the light.

Mitt Romney should avoid the trap of trying to compete with the Democrats on so-called "women's issues."

The political parties can now gather so much news about individuals. And they can divide the information by party. So there are partisan breakdowns of choice of beer, soft drinks, restaurants, TV shows, etc. Who knew that there was a partisan divide on Diet Dr. Pepper?

And, apparently, Target can figure out if you're pregnant...even before you tell your parents.

Blue Dog Democrats are facing extinction.

Why does liberal activism always seem to lead to race-baiting and other smears based on lies and fictions? Don't they have any legitimate arguments?

Whoosh! It doesn't sound as if Chelsea Clinton's co-workers at NBC are at all impressed.
It’s one thing to want your total privacy, and stay totally private; it’s another thing to want your total privacy while reaping all the rewards and privileges that contemporary celebrity has to offer.
Here's an interesting question: why do liberals take tax deductions for charitable donations?
One of the major ways the Obamas were able to reduce their tax rate was by giving away 22 percent of their income to charity, which I applaud. But their actions raise several interesting points. The president's actions illustrate how people have the ability largely to determine their own tax rate both by the amount of money they choose to give away and the types of investments they choose to make.

When we donate money to a charity, church or some other worthy cause, we are allowed a tax deduction, which means the government gets less of our money. The president and many in his party keep telling us that the government needs more money, but if they believe this, why are they taking charitable deductions? I expect the reason is that most of us implicitly believe (for good empirical reasons) that private charities and other tax-exempt groups spend our money more wisely and carefully than the government.

Mark Steyn ponders the situation of Jews in parts of today's Europe where they're not safe in schools and must disguise themselves on the street for fear of attacks.
Even if you put to one side the public school in Denmark that says it can no longer take Jewish children because of the security situation, and the five children of the chief rabbi of Amsterdam who've decided to emigrate, and the Swedish Jews fleeing the most famously tolerant nation in Europe because of its pervasive anti-Semitism; even if you put all that to the side and consider only the situation in France... No, wait, forget the Villiers-le-Bel schoolgirl brutally beaten by a gang jeering, "Jews must die"; and the Paris disc-jockey who had his throat slit, his eyes gouged out, and his face ripped off by a neighbor who crowed, "I have killed my Jew"; and the young Frenchman tortured to death over three weeks, while his family listened via phone to his howls of agony as his captors chanted from the Koran... No, put all that to one side, too, and consider only the city of Toulouse. In recent years, in this one city, a synagogue has been firebombed, another set alight when two burning cars were driven into it, a third burgled and "Dirty Jews" scrawled on the ark housing the Torah, a kosher butcher's strafed with gunfire, a Jewish sports association attacked with Molotov cocktails...

Here's Toulouse rabbi Jonathan Guez speaking to the Jewish news agency JTA in 2009: "Guez said Jews would now be 'more discreet' about displaying their religion publicly and careful about avoiding troubled neighborhoods. ... The synagogue will be heavily secured with cameras and patrol units for the first time."

This is what it means to be a Jew living in one of the most beautiful parts of France in the 21st century.
The attackers are Muslim extremists. Is that what makes this situation slide under the radar for the media? I'd like to think that such a situation wouldn't remain undiscussed in the U.S., but who would have thought that it would be going on in places like Scandinavia?

Sean Trende examine
s the historic data to explain why this election will be a referendum on Obama rather a choice vote between Romney and Obama.

Joel Kotkin examines the myths of demographics that purportedly explain "the Republican Party's inevitable decline."

There is a real war on women going on in Afghanistan. What will happen to these women when we leave? Or does Obama only care about fictional wars on women when he can use them to help his reelection campaign?

This is how low the Senate Democrats are - Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee wanted to vote on a budget, but the leadership won't let him. He now says that they won't be voting on a budget before the election. Hey, why should this year be any different from the previous three years. Senate Democrats can't risk putting their own budget preferences on the table.

No comments: