Banner ad

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Cruising the Web

Ethanol subsidies versus reality. It's a knockout.

Richard Epstein exposes how Oprah's new movie, The Butler, distorts the history of the real African American White House butler who is supposedly the basis for the story.

Obama's administration finds a way to funnel money to Detroit. It must be nice to have tens of millions of dollars in a slush fund.

Ann Althouse notes the juxtaposition of two stories today: how the White House knew about the British government's detention of the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who has been active and facilitating Edward Snowden's leaks and the Obamas' new puppy. Wag the puppy.

One more thing the victory of Obama has wrought - now every senator with a smidgeon of Washington experience thinks he should run for president. Now it's Scott Brown who thinks he should jump from two years in the Senate to a presidential bid. Geesh!

Will this murder story of the three Oklahoma youths who killed an Australian tourist, Chris Lane visiting his girlfriend, because they were bored and didn't have anything else to do receive a fraction of the media attention that the Trayvon Martin killing did? Will the race of the accused murderers become part of the story? To ask is to know the answer even though this is, in my opinion, a much more disturbing story than the Zimmerman/Martin story. John Hinderaker asks, "If Barack Obama had a son, would he look like Chris Lane?"

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones finally notices what conservatives have been saying for five years: if you write anything criticizing Obama, you'll be accused of being a racist by Obama's fans.
Translation: If you express anything short of absolute condemnation of everything the NSA has done, your Twitter feed quickly fills up with hysterical proclamations from the emo-progs that you're a right-wing shill, a government lackey, a useful idiot for the slave state, and an obvious fool. Conversely, if you criticize the NSA's surveillance programs, your Twitter feed quickly fills up with equally hysterical proclamations from the O-Bots that you hate Obama, you've always hated Obama, and you're probably a racist swine who's been waiting ever since 2009 for a chance to take down the nation's first black president.

This happens with other subjects too, of course, but the Snowden files have brought it out more than usual. I'll confess that although the leftier-than-thou types have always been around, I've long been skeptical of the idea that Obama has a core group of supporters from 2008 who really do consider him The One, a shining beacon of light who can do no wrong. But I'm the one who was wrong. I don't know how many there are, but they're definitely out there.
Such attitudes are squelching a fruitful debate on the left.

President Obama had no hesitancy on weighing in on local crime stories such as the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. or the killing of Trayvon Martin, and he ran a reelection campaign decrying the Republican supposed war on women, but he just doesn't have any comment on the multitude of sexual harassment charges against Mayor Bob Filner. Some wars on women are more important than others.

How Obama is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter.

Is there any way that a new Hillary Clinton run for the presidency can avoid the whole Clinton drama that always seems to surround them? Apparently, not. Even James Carville recognizes this.
Asked his take on the latest round of headlines involving the Clintons over the past month, former Bill Clinton adviser James Carville said, “Thus it was, thus it is and thus it shall be.”
“It’s always gonna be,” he added. “And if anybody thinks that it’s gonna change, they’re crazy.”

How many environmental regulations often increase greenhouse gases.

Here is a good question: why shouldn't universities that are raking in money from all sorts of sources pay taxes in their communities?
According to the lawsuit, the university took in over $115 million from patents in 2011, of which $35 million was given to various faculty members. The lawyer for the plaintiffs told the Times of Trenton that "People in Princeton pay at least one-third more in taxes because the university has been exempt all of these years." If all of the school's property were taxed, the bill would come to roughly $28 million a year, instead of the roughly $10 million the university is now contributing voluntarily to town coffers.

It's blue on blue as California's high-speed rail project has been halted by a California judge because they didn't get the required environmental clearances. Now they know how thousands of businesses and property owners feel.

Robert Costa details how Chris Christie has become the darling the GOP establishment.

10 comments:

elkh1 said...

"why shouldn't universities that are raking in money from all sorts of sources pay taxes in their communities?"

Another question: why should their communities eat up so much tax dollars?

If the communities stopped spending increase, if the so-called "non-profits" started paying their "fair share" pigs would fly.

elkh1 said...

Loser Scott Brown couldn't defend his own seat against a fake Indian woman.

Loser Santorum lost his seat by 17 points.

What the losers suffer is delusion of grandeur. What their supporters have is too much money to waste. May be they should donate their money to help their communities, then the communities can stop raising taxes.

Gahrie said...

"May be they should donate their money to help their communities"

But only backers of Republican candidates right?

Is this where I trot out all the studies and statistics that prove that Republicans and Conservatives fdonate far more of their income to charity than Lefties and Democrats do?

elkh1 said...

Republicans and conservatives donate their own money, Democrats and lefties donate your money.

mark said...

elkh1,
I and other "lefties" donate their own hard-earned money to charity. But please, just continue to make stuff up. As long as it makes you feel better.

Gahrie said...

elkh1,
I and other "lefties" donate their own hard-earned money to charity. But please, just continue to make stuff up. As long as it makes you feel better.


Citation please. Every study I have seen says Lefties don't donate their own money for the most part.

Gahrie said...

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts.

Brooks also cites a 2004 survey conducted by Syracuse University, which compared the charitable giving habits of people who were identical in age, income, education, gender, religion, race, and political views -- and whose only disagreement was that one group of subjects thought it was the government's job to redistribute income from the rich to the poor, while the other thought that income redistribution was none of the state's business. Those who opposed government income-redistribution contributed, on average, $267 more to charity each year than the income-redistribution advocates. "In other words," Brooks writes, "people in favor of forced income redistribution are privately less charitable than those who oppose it, regardless of how much money they earn."


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

mark said...

gahrie,
The studies you cite undermine your statement (and elkh's) that "lefties don't donate their own money for the most part." Nowhere do your studies back up that claim.

Are the studies accurate? Maybe.

I've read studies that show that conservatives have lower IQs and tend to be more prejudiced. Maybe those are accurate, too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

Gahrie said...

Does that study apply in all 57 states? Was it translated into Austrian?

mark said...

How clever you are, gahrie. Short of an intelligent response, you dust off an old gaffe by Obama. Good for you!