Okay…some decades ago I guess it was, I watched the Oscar Ceremony. I can’t remember watching it in a very long time. It was an awarding of trophies for various “best thing,” and it still is, at least ostensibly, as far as I know or notice in the papers and in the trivia segments of TV “news” shows. Being in the same context as Syrians being shown blown apart or American GIs returning minus arms and legs seems almost sacrilegious, but such is the media these days.
The ceremony—if it can be called that—was opened this year by a rousing number presented by the Gay Men’s Choir of Los Angeles, representing that particular genre of sexual preference, currently an object of glorification in the nation, at least by the elite as represented by the likes of Colin Powell coming out in favor of homosexual marriage, as well as the president—no surprise there since he’s made it clear that his attorney general will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by Bill Clinton. This represents Obama’s definition of this country – the United States of Monarchy, governed essentially by executive order.
Actually, the Oscars is more of an orgy, not least as so designated by the performance of what would have been called in another day the “Queer Choir” – nice ring there, huh? That term was the homosexual choice then but homosexual sophistication “evolved,” as Obama would say in referencing his change of mind regarding the DOMA, to the point that another good English word had to be co-opted. Why couldn’t the worthies make up a term for their perversion? That would be real advancement and an actual contribution to the lexicon.
The orgy theme was introduced by the choir’s offering, entitled “We Saw Your Boobs.” This proclaimed that the evening would be structured to roughly fit the artistic-appreciation level of a high school sophomore boy, often found in the magazine section at Walmart gazing transfixed at the porno mags or on Facebook at whatever teenyboppers are purveying these days. I don’t do Facebook but I understand that much mischief is available.
The orgy theme is advanced by the quaint habit of referring to the ladies by the names of their gown designers, who have designed in a way to show the most skin but not make it into a bikini affair, a Hollywood hallmark otherwise, thus mostly gowns with little in the way of tops, the opposite of gown-less evening-straps. So…the affair is sort of a meat market, too, with the distaff stars in on the fun…exhibitionism being a trademark of Hollywood.
Big surprise of the evening as well as the most recent trivialization of the presidency – FLOTUS Michelle Obama presented the top trophy by satellite from Washington, or at least I guess it was the tops. She was in a Naeem Khan that allowed for just enough sighting of the boobs to titillate that sophomore boy and maybe Tiger Woods, the prexy’s most recent golf-buddy, who said about the prez that he “could be a pretty good stick,” not exactly the most appropriate appellation.
The first lady’s gracious speech was indicative of the crowds to which Obama is attracted, namely celebrities and people, whether celebs or not, with boatloads of money, especially Hollywood-types and Wall-Streeters. Those in his preferred-identity ethnic group—African American—should take note. He is half-white and the Hollywood crowd is nearly all-white, to whom he said back in 2008 about the Pennsylvanians (also nearly all-white – 84%) that they clutched their Bibles, grasped their rifles and went searching for illegal immigrants.
A movie about the Pennsylvanians would doubtlessly earn the top Oscar. The Amish, Mennonites and Baptists would be the cruel villains. Michael Moore could do the movie. There was a time when a steel mill or coal mine would have been the setting for the showdown or shootout or wild car-chase but, alas, hard times have set in. Moore would probably have the victors marching to the strains of a Mariachy band down the streets of Scranton.
So…I didn’t see any of the Oscars but I discovered that Barbra Streisand sang and so found that clip on the internet. She sang “The Way We Were” in honor of Marvin Hamlisch…great. That had to be the redeeming feature of the entire orgy.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Monday, February 25, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Panicky Professor at Berea College
In a 19 February column in the Lexington Herald-Leader (Lexington, Ky.), Mike Rivage-Seul, emeritus professor of peace and social justice (whatever that is) at Berea College said this: “The 20th century, once so full of promise, turned out to be the bloodiest in the history of the world. And the West was responsible for it all… .” He didn’t explain but the professor probably considers the West to be Olde Europe and North America and hasn’t caught on to the fact that Japan, China and Russia existed in the twentieth century, as well as a whole passel of other bloodletting nations.
It’s this kind of stuff purveyed on “progressive” college campuses that makes one nearly vomit. The professor especially mentions World Wars I and II, Nazi “Social Darwinism,” the Jewish Holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being the “icebergs” into which “constant human improvement” (the rhetorical Titanic) has collided, to its detriment, of course.
Even to mention this country in the same breath with Olde Europe and the Nazis is to savage the one nation that did the most to salvage any modicum of relief from the torment occasioned by the actual evil powers that would have taken over the world, if possible. Slamming this country even further, the professor of peace and justice made it clear that Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the actual war-ending exercises in 1945 saving millions of Japanese and Americans—are to be in the same category as Buchenwald, Auschwitz and the Storm Troopers. A former Catholic priest, the professor might join another emeritus clergy-colleague, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, in his famous sermonic solemnity, to wit, “God damn America.”
Somehow, the professor tied the Titanic to the evil West to the cruise-ship Triumph that lately lost power in the Gulf of Mexico for four days while the passengers waded in sewage—remarkable. Never have metaphors been so violently mixed. The professor said that the Triumph comedy/tragedy was prophetic—get this—of the complete breakdown of systems providing food, shelter, law and order.
Then he said: “I’m referring, of course, to the effects of climate change and the massive disruptions that promise to shut down entire eco-systems.” A leap of this magnitude is amazing. A ship breaks down, something that happens routinely even in the U.S. Navy, and the lesson has to do with the Apocalypse, no less—the end, zilch, Armageddon. The elements of proof according to Rivage-Seul – unprecedented drought, flooding, super-storms, earthquakes and tsunamis. These things, of course, have never ever happened before.
The professor said that whereas those acts were once blamed on God, now they are to be blamed on man, his way of saying man is killing the climate and, as one result, leading to loss of “fellow-feeling.” One may not even want to think about what fellow-feeling is (kinda creepy, huh?) but it probably has to do with peace and social justice, which are defined mostly as what anyone says they are.
The professor has either been sucked in by the “Algore hoax” and believes that stuff or has an agenda. He may not be aware that the anthropologists/archeologists have determined that at one time the climate of Brazil obtained at the Arctic Circle and that the Ohio River was carved out by a glacier that finally retreated to the North Pole (third Ice-Age, if memory serves).
He may not know that, while Arctic ice has been decreasing in volume, Southern Hemisphere sea ice is at its second highest volume since 1979, 2007 being the highest, and that it has been steadily increasing since 1979 by an amazing amount considering the huge masses involved. Check out the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today data for proof. The readings for 2007 and 2012 are virtually equal.
The climate has not changed in at least 15 years, as measured by top U.S. scientists/climatologists, not the UN IPCC crowd that so thoroughly discredited itself as fraudulent just after Gore was awarded his Nobel Peace Prize and about the same time that Obama received the same award and, looking silly, took the dive at the Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference in 2009. Neither man knows any more about climate than the average Joe Blow on the street corner or the average professor of anything but the instant subject.
The professor claimed that climate catastrophe is now conducted by man, not God. One wonders where he thinks man originated, if not from God, which brings everything back to Square One regarding God, man and climate. Wow!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
It’s this kind of stuff purveyed on “progressive” college campuses that makes one nearly vomit. The professor especially mentions World Wars I and II, Nazi “Social Darwinism,” the Jewish Holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being the “icebergs” into which “constant human improvement” (the rhetorical Titanic) has collided, to its detriment, of course.
Even to mention this country in the same breath with Olde Europe and the Nazis is to savage the one nation that did the most to salvage any modicum of relief from the torment occasioned by the actual evil powers that would have taken over the world, if possible. Slamming this country even further, the professor of peace and justice made it clear that Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the actual war-ending exercises in 1945 saving millions of Japanese and Americans—are to be in the same category as Buchenwald, Auschwitz and the Storm Troopers. A former Catholic priest, the professor might join another emeritus clergy-colleague, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, in his famous sermonic solemnity, to wit, “God damn America.”
Somehow, the professor tied the Titanic to the evil West to the cruise-ship Triumph that lately lost power in the Gulf of Mexico for four days while the passengers waded in sewage—remarkable. Never have metaphors been so violently mixed. The professor said that the Triumph comedy/tragedy was prophetic—get this—of the complete breakdown of systems providing food, shelter, law and order.
Then he said: “I’m referring, of course, to the effects of climate change and the massive disruptions that promise to shut down entire eco-systems.” A leap of this magnitude is amazing. A ship breaks down, something that happens routinely even in the U.S. Navy, and the lesson has to do with the Apocalypse, no less—the end, zilch, Armageddon. The elements of proof according to Rivage-Seul – unprecedented drought, flooding, super-storms, earthquakes and tsunamis. These things, of course, have never ever happened before.
The professor said that whereas those acts were once blamed on God, now they are to be blamed on man, his way of saying man is killing the climate and, as one result, leading to loss of “fellow-feeling.” One may not even want to think about what fellow-feeling is (kinda creepy, huh?) but it probably has to do with peace and social justice, which are defined mostly as what anyone says they are.
The professor has either been sucked in by the “Algore hoax” and believes that stuff or has an agenda. He may not be aware that the anthropologists/archeologists have determined that at one time the climate of Brazil obtained at the Arctic Circle and that the Ohio River was carved out by a glacier that finally retreated to the North Pole (third Ice-Age, if memory serves).
He may not know that, while Arctic ice has been decreasing in volume, Southern Hemisphere sea ice is at its second highest volume since 1979, 2007 being the highest, and that it has been steadily increasing since 1979 by an amazing amount considering the huge masses involved. Check out the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today data for proof. The readings for 2007 and 2012 are virtually equal.
The climate has not changed in at least 15 years, as measured by top U.S. scientists/climatologists, not the UN IPCC crowd that so thoroughly discredited itself as fraudulent just after Gore was awarded his Nobel Peace Prize and about the same time that Obama received the same award and, looking silly, took the dive at the Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference in 2009. Neither man knows any more about climate than the average Joe Blow on the street corner or the average professor of anything but the instant subject.
The professor claimed that climate catastrophe is now conducted by man, not God. One wonders where he thinks man originated, if not from God, which brings everything back to Square One regarding God, man and climate. Wow!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Everyone's Salvation--Government
In a 15 February column in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Western Kentucky University professor Aaron Hughey made the point that only government is able to provide needed assistance in handling natural disasters, at least the ones that can’t be handled locally. There’s no argument with this but there are barriers beyond which even the government can’t go in trying to handle Nature.
Hughey mentioned that a surge-barrier system around Manhattan could cost up to $22 billion but said it could be done. Of course it could be done, but would it be more cost-effective to simply clean up the mess every hundred years or so, as is the ongoing effort triggered by Hurricane Sandy, a century-dated storm, though FEMA seems to have been almost totally AWOL. And if Manhattan is to have a surge-barrier system, shouldn’t there be one on Long Island, Staten Island, the New Jersey coast and, indeed, the entire coast, Maine to Florida and around the Gulf since hurricanes hit them regularly, washing away the beaches, waterfront houses, etc.?
Regarding the attempt to repair constantly, why shouldn’t the president appoint a czar to draw up an executive order mandating no help for anyone insisting on living in a flood plain? That would do away with any entity ever having to pay for setting things right, just using plain common sense. The fact that the guy in Peoria must pick up the tab to help the guy who unnecessarily insists on staying in harm’s way is unseemly.
The estimate is that Katrina cost the U.S. government $110 billion…and New Orleans is still there, much if not most of it remaining in ruined condition. Common sense would have insisted on moving the residents and letting much if not most of the city, already then under many feet of water, go. Example: The whole town of Valmeyer, Illinois, was moved after a 1993 flood, with the U.S. paying 75% of the cost of moving or buying and state and local governments picking up the rest. No more floods…ever.
Standing within levees and canals about eight feet below sea level and gradually sinking, with Lake Pontchartrain posed above it behind a questionable dam, most of New Orleans presents an untenable problem, one that could probably have been more cost-efficiently erased by just relocating the population. But that’s too sensible for government, which has no problem with doing away with an aircraft carrier costing $22 billion to construct.
The thrust of Hughey’s column, however, was less about disasters per se and more about the undue emphasis placed in this country on self-reliance and an implied insensitivity by citizens for others. The disaster angle was meant to show that folks need government to take care of them—the Obama syndrome. Hughey said that not everything should be about generating a profit. Of course not! The generous government does not create a profit, except for the profits contrived by crooked politicians.
Hughey asked: “Did the free market abolish slavery…desegregate our schools…secure the vote for women…pay for my mother's cancer treatment (over a half-million dollars) during the last two years of her life?” The implied answer is NO. The actual answer is YES. The tax money used for these great things was derived from someone making a tax-paying profit and establishing tax-paying jobs.
As a practical matter, the only economic system ever to exist in this country is the free-market system. As the country built the greatest economic engine in history, there has never been a communist system or a socialist system, though the country is headed toward socialism now.
Soon, government will control healthcare completely, an individual’s most sensitive area, the difference between life and death. Once a society slips under governmental control, incentive disappears (that evil profit motive) as everyone approaches the level of the lowest common denominator. Account the differences in people, there never has been and will never be a so-called “level playing field” without it being superficially mandated, everyone operating on the same level of mediocrity.
As earthquakes and other catastrophes occur throughout the world, a knowledgeable person will see that in no nation is there even a fraction of relief of that which obtains in this country, both public and PRIVATE. But staring down nature and trying to effect some sort of risk-free environment is like spitting in the wind…silly, regardless of sensitivities.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Hughey mentioned that a surge-barrier system around Manhattan could cost up to $22 billion but said it could be done. Of course it could be done, but would it be more cost-effective to simply clean up the mess every hundred years or so, as is the ongoing effort triggered by Hurricane Sandy, a century-dated storm, though FEMA seems to have been almost totally AWOL. And if Manhattan is to have a surge-barrier system, shouldn’t there be one on Long Island, Staten Island, the New Jersey coast and, indeed, the entire coast, Maine to Florida and around the Gulf since hurricanes hit them regularly, washing away the beaches, waterfront houses, etc.?
Regarding the attempt to repair constantly, why shouldn’t the president appoint a czar to draw up an executive order mandating no help for anyone insisting on living in a flood plain? That would do away with any entity ever having to pay for setting things right, just using plain common sense. The fact that the guy in Peoria must pick up the tab to help the guy who unnecessarily insists on staying in harm’s way is unseemly.
The estimate is that Katrina cost the U.S. government $110 billion…and New Orleans is still there, much if not most of it remaining in ruined condition. Common sense would have insisted on moving the residents and letting much if not most of the city, already then under many feet of water, go. Example: The whole town of Valmeyer, Illinois, was moved after a 1993 flood, with the U.S. paying 75% of the cost of moving or buying and state and local governments picking up the rest. No more floods…ever.
Standing within levees and canals about eight feet below sea level and gradually sinking, with Lake Pontchartrain posed above it behind a questionable dam, most of New Orleans presents an untenable problem, one that could probably have been more cost-efficiently erased by just relocating the population. But that’s too sensible for government, which has no problem with doing away with an aircraft carrier costing $22 billion to construct.
The thrust of Hughey’s column, however, was less about disasters per se and more about the undue emphasis placed in this country on self-reliance and an implied insensitivity by citizens for others. The disaster angle was meant to show that folks need government to take care of them—the Obama syndrome. Hughey said that not everything should be about generating a profit. Of course not! The generous government does not create a profit, except for the profits contrived by crooked politicians.
Hughey asked: “Did the free market abolish slavery…desegregate our schools…secure the vote for women…pay for my mother's cancer treatment (over a half-million dollars) during the last two years of her life?” The implied answer is NO. The actual answer is YES. The tax money used for these great things was derived from someone making a tax-paying profit and establishing tax-paying jobs.
As a practical matter, the only economic system ever to exist in this country is the free-market system. As the country built the greatest economic engine in history, there has never been a communist system or a socialist system, though the country is headed toward socialism now.
Soon, government will control healthcare completely, an individual’s most sensitive area, the difference between life and death. Once a society slips under governmental control, incentive disappears (that evil profit motive) as everyone approaches the level of the lowest common denominator. Account the differences in people, there never has been and will never be a so-called “level playing field” without it being superficially mandated, everyone operating on the same level of mediocrity.
As earthquakes and other catastrophes occur throughout the world, a knowledgeable person will see that in no nation is there even a fraction of relief of that which obtains in this country, both public and PRIVATE. But staring down nature and trying to effect some sort of risk-free environment is like spitting in the wind…silly, regardless of sensitivities.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Editorialist Disses Judd
Lexington Herald-Leader editorial-writer Jamie Lucke was in near-panic mode with her offering of 14 February, to wit, that Ashley Judd might actually move to Kentucky from Tennessee and make a run for the Senate, figuring the incumbent republican, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, to be the presumptive opposition. She thinks McConnell is fair game on the basis of a Louisville Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll indicating a McConnell defeat.
A “bluegrass poll” would apply mostly to Louisville and Lexington, where voters routinely vote democratic even in national elections. Lexington-resident republican Andy Barr was elected to the House from the Sixth District last November but lost his home county by some 7,500 votes. He nearly beat Ben Chandler (far less than a thousand votes behind) in 2010, so the Legislature tried to gerrymander him out of 2012 contention, shuffling counties and raising the district democratic registration from 68% to 78%, but he received over half of the votes anyway.
Predictably in—as Limbaugh would have it—feminazi-mode (getting in Governor Wilkinson’s face), Lucke explained all the reasons Judd would be an excellent choice for the spot, making her into the best thing since WD-40 and remarking that Judd (Harvard Masters Degree) was driving a champagne-colored BMW as far back as 25 years…so there! Lucke, however, insisted that Judd would be McConnell’s “dream opponent” if she should do what Hillary Clinton did back in the day—moved to New York and bought a Senate seat.
Lucke correctly claims that a Judd-McConnell race would be about her and not about him, “vulnerable, unpopular nationally and in Kentucky.” McConnell has been in the Senate since 1985 (also republican leader for last six years), leading one to suspect that, contrarily, he might possess a certain popularity in Kentucky, not to mention considerable clout vis-à-vis what he can do for the state. Who cares whether or not he’s popular nationally? Anyhow, it’s often the unpopular statesman who makes a difference—a good difference.
Included in the editorial was the Judd poster, wherein she acclaims Obama as brilliant and that she’s committed to him. Obama is anything but popular in Kentucky and his brilliance might be judged by his remark during a speech about a navy “corpse-man” (corpsman). Teleprompters should be phonetically-structured for the pronunciation-challenged (or maybe that’s the way it’s said in Hawaii). His nutty remark about policemen acting stupidly while doing their duty also remarked his brilliance.
The latter remark might make one wonder about Obama’s actions on the night of 11 September 2012 when, after being briefed by the Defense Secretary about a potential bloodbath in Benghazi at about 5:00 p.m., he made no further contact with either Defense or his own White House NSA and staff during the interim but managed to say the next morning that the carnage (four dead Americans and a seven-hour attack on the Consulate and its annex) was caused by a film made by—of course—an American, an egregious lie, which he knew and repeated two weeks later at the UN. In that episode, he gave the term “stupidly” a new meaning, not to mention honesty.
Lucke wonders if the Democrat Party “has a future in Kentucky.” Of course it does – just not in national politics. It controls the governor’s seat and the Kentucky House and most courthouses, and it’s probable that this will be the case for a number of years, though the republican Senate margin is not huge. A republican governor is virtually unthinkable (3 since 1931).
Lucke says about McConnell: “…whoever challenges him will be dragged through the mud… .” Well, of course! That’s politics on all levels. Judd would do the same if she should get the democrat nomination. Imagine the film clips or the photo-ops (perhaps some in near-nude mode). What a poster that would be! McConnell could be pictured as too old at age 70, complete with false-crutches, false teeth and the like. Mud is where all politicians expect to live periodically if not most of the time.
Lucke seems to think no other democrat would be willing to step up (as Calipari would say) and take on McConnell if the photogenic Judd (“Hollywood liberal,” according to her grandmother) should run. She’s dreaming. There most likely are a number of potential candidates, jealousy vis-à-vis Judd as incentive, though they may be more scared by McConnell’s war-chest than by an actress, whose greatest fame currently is derived from the inevitable and plenteous camera- angle TV-shots of her at Kentucky basketball games.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
A “bluegrass poll” would apply mostly to Louisville and Lexington, where voters routinely vote democratic even in national elections. Lexington-resident republican Andy Barr was elected to the House from the Sixth District last November but lost his home county by some 7,500 votes. He nearly beat Ben Chandler (far less than a thousand votes behind) in 2010, so the Legislature tried to gerrymander him out of 2012 contention, shuffling counties and raising the district democratic registration from 68% to 78%, but he received over half of the votes anyway.
Predictably in—as Limbaugh would have it—feminazi-mode (getting in Governor Wilkinson’s face), Lucke explained all the reasons Judd would be an excellent choice for the spot, making her into the best thing since WD-40 and remarking that Judd (Harvard Masters Degree) was driving a champagne-colored BMW as far back as 25 years…so there! Lucke, however, insisted that Judd would be McConnell’s “dream opponent” if she should do what Hillary Clinton did back in the day—moved to New York and bought a Senate seat.
Lucke correctly claims that a Judd-McConnell race would be about her and not about him, “vulnerable, unpopular nationally and in Kentucky.” McConnell has been in the Senate since 1985 (also republican leader for last six years), leading one to suspect that, contrarily, he might possess a certain popularity in Kentucky, not to mention considerable clout vis-à-vis what he can do for the state. Who cares whether or not he’s popular nationally? Anyhow, it’s often the unpopular statesman who makes a difference—a good difference.
Included in the editorial was the Judd poster, wherein she acclaims Obama as brilliant and that she’s committed to him. Obama is anything but popular in Kentucky and his brilliance might be judged by his remark during a speech about a navy “corpse-man” (corpsman). Teleprompters should be phonetically-structured for the pronunciation-challenged (or maybe that’s the way it’s said in Hawaii). His nutty remark about policemen acting stupidly while doing their duty also remarked his brilliance.
The latter remark might make one wonder about Obama’s actions on the night of 11 September 2012 when, after being briefed by the Defense Secretary about a potential bloodbath in Benghazi at about 5:00 p.m., he made no further contact with either Defense or his own White House NSA and staff during the interim but managed to say the next morning that the carnage (four dead Americans and a seven-hour attack on the Consulate and its annex) was caused by a film made by—of course—an American, an egregious lie, which he knew and repeated two weeks later at the UN. In that episode, he gave the term “stupidly” a new meaning, not to mention honesty.
Lucke wonders if the Democrat Party “has a future in Kentucky.” Of course it does – just not in national politics. It controls the governor’s seat and the Kentucky House and most courthouses, and it’s probable that this will be the case for a number of years, though the republican Senate margin is not huge. A republican governor is virtually unthinkable (3 since 1931).
Lucke says about McConnell: “…whoever challenges him will be dragged through the mud… .” Well, of course! That’s politics on all levels. Judd would do the same if she should get the democrat nomination. Imagine the film clips or the photo-ops (perhaps some in near-nude mode). What a poster that would be! McConnell could be pictured as too old at age 70, complete with false-crutches, false teeth and the like. Mud is where all politicians expect to live periodically if not most of the time.
Lucke seems to think no other democrat would be willing to step up (as Calipari would say) and take on McConnell if the photogenic Judd (“Hollywood liberal,” according to her grandmother) should run. She’s dreaming. There most likely are a number of potential candidates, jealousy vis-à-vis Judd as incentive, though they may be more scared by McConnell’s war-chest than by an actress, whose greatest fame currently is derived from the inevitable and plenteous camera- angle TV-shots of her at Kentucky basketball games.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Grammy-Cabinet Phobia
Memo to Cabinet-rank Secretaries:
Let me be clear from the outset of this document (which I know you’ll save as a memento from one of the five greatest presidents, with an heir one day turning it into cash on Pawn Stars) that I apologize for its generic nature. I would write each of you a note if I had the time but, as you know, I am selling my economic plans directly to the public, which means that I practically live on Air Force One these days, just as I have sacrificially in the interests of preserving OUR legacy for the last four years. Obviously, I am bypassing the Congress, just as I did in order to attack that devil Qaddafi, because it is mired in gridlock and wouldn’t get to the subject at hand for maybe two years.
An awareness of the subject of this note was triggered by the CBS memo recently to the participants in the Grammy Awards orgy (little joke there) having to do with attending the ceremony fully clothed. Actually, the memo was not to the men but to the women, who, justifiably, have been liberated and feel it their right to appear nude if they like…or at least nearly nude. CBS had to pay a fine of $550,000 a few years ago because Janet Jackson showed her considerable wares (do not mention this to Michelle) during the Super Bowl halftime, aired on CBS, so its motivation is not ethically pure but praiseworthy, nevertheless.
Obviously, I am not writing about the matter of nudity and daresay that no one in the Cabinet would even think of nipple-mongering…way too far over the hill (another little joke there). It is the decorum that concerns me. Since the paparazzi and TV crews are on the scene before the Cabinet meetings begin and sometimes even during them, it is especially important to stay awake. VPOTUS was castigated profoundly a while back for sleeping during a State-of-the-Union address, a masterpiece out of which he cheated himself but also reflecting adversely on the entire administration. He said it was no #%$@&*^ big deal but promised to take No-Doze next time. I commended him for having that attitude and expect you all to follow his lead.
Please do not forget your assigned places at the conference table. Milling around makes you look indecisive and that also reflects badly on my leadership. State and Defense are to my left and right, with VPOTUS and the AG directly across. I have thought of making the other seats first-come, first-served but that might induce running in the halls, something not even allowed in the schools. I have noticed some right-and-left head-shaking when I am speaking, even among your staffers, and that must be stopped. People still remember SCOTUS Alioto doing that during a S-o-t-U address a while back and they might have actually concluded that he was right. I will brook no disagreements displayed in meetings since that makes me look bad and, anyhow, I would hate to pop you off with my trusty .38 (another little joke there, Chicago style). Do not—repeat—DO NOT repeat that.
There has been some carelessness lately in the matter of interruptions. It’s bad enough that I haven’t a teleprompter for use in these meetings but that problem is exacerbated when I’m interrupted while dispensing wisdom. So, let me reiterate a rule, to wit, speak only when you are addressed, and PUH…..LEEZE, do not put up your hand—that’s so “may I be excused-ish.” Also, some of your staffers pop their gum and I find that so distracting as to derail my train of thought, sometimes completely wrecking it. This doesn’t indicate that I have only a one-track mind (I can dribble/putt and chew gum at the same time)—only that I’m focused to the point of laser-like concentration.
Some members have been careless in the matter of verbiage. In the last meeting, one of you (you know who you are) used the term “terrorism,” and I take that personally since I made it clear years ago that the term “man-caused disaster” is operative. Also, one of you mentioned George Bush and even though you did so derogatorily I took that as a personal insult and though I haven’t mentioned it to you I expect an apology. Also for obvious reasons, immigration is never to be described as illegal, no matter if applied to an immigrant Cuban serial-killer. After all, the U.S. is a “melting-pot” and certainly doesn’t need any ICE cubes in it (pardon the play-on-words or something like that, but I’m on a roll today—WE WON).
On an unrelated matter, if you decide to say something publicly, run your remarks by Jay Carney, who will give, or not, approval. When I made my glorious attack on Libya and announced it in Brazil, Secretary Gates was in Russia and characterized it as “on the fly,” meaning unplanned or badly planned. Secretary Gates, who had the mistaken notion that the Defense Secretary should have known about it, accepted my upbraiding like a man and promised not do that again. He left Defense soon after, so you are on notice.
Barack Hussein Obama
President
Commander-in-Chief
Evolver-in-Chief
Griever-in-Chief
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Let me be clear from the outset of this document (which I know you’ll save as a memento from one of the five greatest presidents, with an heir one day turning it into cash on Pawn Stars) that I apologize for its generic nature. I would write each of you a note if I had the time but, as you know, I am selling my economic plans directly to the public, which means that I practically live on Air Force One these days, just as I have sacrificially in the interests of preserving OUR legacy for the last four years. Obviously, I am bypassing the Congress, just as I did in order to attack that devil Qaddafi, because it is mired in gridlock and wouldn’t get to the subject at hand for maybe two years.
An awareness of the subject of this note was triggered by the CBS memo recently to the participants in the Grammy Awards orgy (little joke there) having to do with attending the ceremony fully clothed. Actually, the memo was not to the men but to the women, who, justifiably, have been liberated and feel it their right to appear nude if they like…or at least nearly nude. CBS had to pay a fine of $550,000 a few years ago because Janet Jackson showed her considerable wares (do not mention this to Michelle) during the Super Bowl halftime, aired on CBS, so its motivation is not ethically pure but praiseworthy, nevertheless.
Obviously, I am not writing about the matter of nudity and daresay that no one in the Cabinet would even think of nipple-mongering…way too far over the hill (another little joke there). It is the decorum that concerns me. Since the paparazzi and TV crews are on the scene before the Cabinet meetings begin and sometimes even during them, it is especially important to stay awake. VPOTUS was castigated profoundly a while back for sleeping during a State-of-the-Union address, a masterpiece out of which he cheated himself but also reflecting adversely on the entire administration. He said it was no #%$@&*^ big deal but promised to take No-Doze next time. I commended him for having that attitude and expect you all to follow his lead.
Please do not forget your assigned places at the conference table. Milling around makes you look indecisive and that also reflects badly on my leadership. State and Defense are to my left and right, with VPOTUS and the AG directly across. I have thought of making the other seats first-come, first-served but that might induce running in the halls, something not even allowed in the schools. I have noticed some right-and-left head-shaking when I am speaking, even among your staffers, and that must be stopped. People still remember SCOTUS Alioto doing that during a S-o-t-U address a while back and they might have actually concluded that he was right. I will brook no disagreements displayed in meetings since that makes me look bad and, anyhow, I would hate to pop you off with my trusty .38 (another little joke there, Chicago style). Do not—repeat—DO NOT repeat that.
There has been some carelessness lately in the matter of interruptions. It’s bad enough that I haven’t a teleprompter for use in these meetings but that problem is exacerbated when I’m interrupted while dispensing wisdom. So, let me reiterate a rule, to wit, speak only when you are addressed, and PUH…..LEEZE, do not put up your hand—that’s so “may I be excused-ish.” Also, some of your staffers pop their gum and I find that so distracting as to derail my train of thought, sometimes completely wrecking it. This doesn’t indicate that I have only a one-track mind (I can dribble/putt and chew gum at the same time)—only that I’m focused to the point of laser-like concentration.
Some members have been careless in the matter of verbiage. In the last meeting, one of you (you know who you are) used the term “terrorism,” and I take that personally since I made it clear years ago that the term “man-caused disaster” is operative. Also, one of you mentioned George Bush and even though you did so derogatorily I took that as a personal insult and though I haven’t mentioned it to you I expect an apology. Also for obvious reasons, immigration is never to be described as illegal, no matter if applied to an immigrant Cuban serial-killer. After all, the U.S. is a “melting-pot” and certainly doesn’t need any ICE cubes in it (pardon the play-on-words or something like that, but I’m on a roll today—WE WON).
On an unrelated matter, if you decide to say something publicly, run your remarks by Jay Carney, who will give, or not, approval. When I made my glorious attack on Libya and announced it in Brazil, Secretary Gates was in Russia and characterized it as “on the fly,” meaning unplanned or badly planned. Secretary Gates, who had the mistaken notion that the Defense Secretary should have known about it, accepted my upbraiding like a man and promised not do that again. He left Defense soon after, so you are on notice.
Barack Hussein Obama
President
Commander-in-Chief
Evolver-in-Chief
Griever-in-Chief
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Sunday, February 10, 2013
The Evolving President
The elitists are fond of castigating as a hopeless, mindless zealot anyone claiming to “have that old time religion” or religion of any kind, except maybe Islam these days, at least in the U.S., where a Baptist can be called a dangerous screwball-nutcase but a Moslem referenced only as holy, else the hate-police get on the case. It’s fashionable to accuse believers of opposing the president on religious grounds, so why not take religion out of the mix and just examine his approaches on other grounds such as biological or—better—just plain common sense?
Flip-floppers are usually condemned, sometimes in even the mainstream media, the democrat propaganda arm, but Obama gets a pass on his 180-degree turn on marriage on the basis that he has—get this!—evolved, translated, even more superior in intellect than before and certainly more superior to that of anyone else. Well…doesn’t the human’s difference from the ape prove that evolution takes place and so why shouldn’t the president evolve, assuming, of course, that one believes in that strain of evolving? I don’t.
Anyway, the prez needed only the time between campaigns to evolve, just four years, perhaps some kind of record-setting affirmative brain-adjustment. After all, it took Darwin over 20 years to get Origin of Species right and published. Obama is/was a much faster study than even the definer of evolving. Of course, the prez might not have started evolving in 2008, when he declared that marriage can be between ONLY a man and woman, but might not have started until the campaign year of 2012, meaning an even faster and more overpowering tsunami of brain-waves activity.
The prez has to be admired for his intellectual bravery since his public announcement that Atty. Gen. Holder will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act means that he has acted un-Constitutionally in not enforcing the nation’s laws, as he has sworn to do. This, along with his unprovoked and un-Constitutional attack on Libya, should have triggered impeachment proceedings in the House but the House apparently has not evolved as fast as the president, not exactly stuck in ape-mode but just not as far advanced.
The president has declared that men may marry men now, though he has not designated if the pairs are to be man and wife (and which is which) or partner and partner or significant other and other, things that should be settled since kids often have to designate these people on documents of one kind or another. Or it may be that—probably through executive order—such designations will be removed from all documents, the better to enhance diversity, which is the Nirvana of all endeavor, presently the acme of evolving. In the mix, it is now possible for homosexual “lovers” to be assigned to the same navy ship, since no marriage contract is required to disqualify them as sailor and sailor.
The president has also placed his domestic imprimatur on scouting. In that famous interview the other day with Scott Pelley of CBS News, the president said that the Boy Scouts should be open to homosexuals, never mind the longtime BSA aversion to unnaturalness. God is very important in scouting and the scriptures vehemently condemn homosexual behavior but a homosexual scoutmaster might take a different view, especially if he has evolved in a superior manner, meaning that he has advanced beyond silly superstition. So far, the BSA has not caved, so an executive order may soon be in process.
As Evolver-in-Chief, the president has shown great mental dexterity. He was against the Iraq “surge” but ordered an Afghanistan “surge,” having evolved into that position. He promised to close Gitmo but evolved out of that troublesome problem, as well as trying the terrorist butchers in New York City. He castigated the Bush administration for its tactics but has evolved to such exponential mental acuity that he signed the Patriot Act renewal and has made Bush’s use of drones merely inconsequential compared to his use, in which thousands of civilians have been killed in such places as Pakistan, with which the U.S. is not at war.
Currently, the best example of the president’s evolving is his superior understanding of the economy, marked by his insistence that it can be operated, public and private, on money borrowed from China. Since no other credible economist understands this—indeed, just the opposite—the prez is operating in a mnemonic area totally beyond that of any other humanoid, though it’s rumored that certain chimps at the Washington Zoo have figured this out but are in danger of evolving out of the ability to understand this method and so have been placed on “arrested development” medicine and will be invited to teach at Harvard, Obama’s old school.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Flip-floppers are usually condemned, sometimes in even the mainstream media, the democrat propaganda arm, but Obama gets a pass on his 180-degree turn on marriage on the basis that he has—get this!—evolved, translated, even more superior in intellect than before and certainly more superior to that of anyone else. Well…doesn’t the human’s difference from the ape prove that evolution takes place and so why shouldn’t the president evolve, assuming, of course, that one believes in that strain of evolving? I don’t.
Anyway, the prez needed only the time between campaigns to evolve, just four years, perhaps some kind of record-setting affirmative brain-adjustment. After all, it took Darwin over 20 years to get Origin of Species right and published. Obama is/was a much faster study than even the definer of evolving. Of course, the prez might not have started evolving in 2008, when he declared that marriage can be between ONLY a man and woman, but might not have started until the campaign year of 2012, meaning an even faster and more overpowering tsunami of brain-waves activity.
The prez has to be admired for his intellectual bravery since his public announcement that Atty. Gen. Holder will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act means that he has acted un-Constitutionally in not enforcing the nation’s laws, as he has sworn to do. This, along with his unprovoked and un-Constitutional attack on Libya, should have triggered impeachment proceedings in the House but the House apparently has not evolved as fast as the president, not exactly stuck in ape-mode but just not as far advanced.
The president has declared that men may marry men now, though he has not designated if the pairs are to be man and wife (and which is which) or partner and partner or significant other and other, things that should be settled since kids often have to designate these people on documents of one kind or another. Or it may be that—probably through executive order—such designations will be removed from all documents, the better to enhance diversity, which is the Nirvana of all endeavor, presently the acme of evolving. In the mix, it is now possible for homosexual “lovers” to be assigned to the same navy ship, since no marriage contract is required to disqualify them as sailor and sailor.
The president has also placed his domestic imprimatur on scouting. In that famous interview the other day with Scott Pelley of CBS News, the president said that the Boy Scouts should be open to homosexuals, never mind the longtime BSA aversion to unnaturalness. God is very important in scouting and the scriptures vehemently condemn homosexual behavior but a homosexual scoutmaster might take a different view, especially if he has evolved in a superior manner, meaning that he has advanced beyond silly superstition. So far, the BSA has not caved, so an executive order may soon be in process.
As Evolver-in-Chief, the president has shown great mental dexterity. He was against the Iraq “surge” but ordered an Afghanistan “surge,” having evolved into that position. He promised to close Gitmo but evolved out of that troublesome problem, as well as trying the terrorist butchers in New York City. He castigated the Bush administration for its tactics but has evolved to such exponential mental acuity that he signed the Patriot Act renewal and has made Bush’s use of drones merely inconsequential compared to his use, in which thousands of civilians have been killed in such places as Pakistan, with which the U.S. is not at war.
Currently, the best example of the president’s evolving is his superior understanding of the economy, marked by his insistence that it can be operated, public and private, on money borrowed from China. Since no other credible economist understands this—indeed, just the opposite—the prez is operating in a mnemonic area totally beyond that of any other humanoid, though it’s rumored that certain chimps at the Washington Zoo have figured this out but are in danger of evolving out of the ability to understand this method and so have been placed on “arrested development” medicine and will be invited to teach at Harvard, Obama’s old school.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, February 08, 2013
Lexington Boondoggle
The Town Branch project now has an official plan, though it’s doubtful that many think it will ever come to initiation, much less fruition. Apparent cheerleader for the effort is H-L columnist Tom Eblen, but even he, on 03 February, spoke of it as possibly symbolic, whatever that means. He also mentioned that three of the plan’s six presenters to a jury of deciders were women – perhaps making it more feasible?
Eblen said naysayers (translated as realists) would claim the endeavor to be “impractical, unaffordable, and frivolous, [but] it is none of that.” It’s all of that, of course, especially when the city can’t even straighten out its pension-problems and is always on the edge of bankruptcy. Eblen claimed the compelling argument was not esthetic but economic, thus attracting people and investment dollars. Easy access, parking and movement, aesthetic or otherwise, are what attract visitors and dollars.
As quoted in the paper of 05 February, Jeff Fugate, head of the Downtown Development Authority, said the plan was “aspirational” but doable. Aspirational? Essentially, it does away with parking lots in favor of parking garages, hated by everyone. For some strange reason, the vehicle bridge on MLK is recommended to be replaced by a pedestrian bridge. Why is foot traffic between Main and High that important and why excise a well-used street, leaving motorists to greater frustration? Why put a tree-boulevard in the middle of Vine Street, thus ruining it as a traffic facility?
Eblen mentioned in the 03 February article that Louisville and gridlock-cursed Atlanta are sinking funds into some sort of recreational areas AROUND those cities (trails and appropriate amenities), not in and through them to help their downtowns draw crowds and investments. This makes a certain sense, assuming anything needs doing in the first place, at least as far as recreation is concerned and noting that Lexington already has many parks, some of them, like Woodland, fairly large.
Urban renewal was a big thing in Lexington in the 1960s and has remained so. This is when the train tracks were removed downtown, the old depot was razed and New Circle came online. The understanding then was that downtown was set up for institutions, restaurants, specialty stores, entertainment, offices and badly needed parking-areas, while people in outlying areas (most of the population) needed easy access to all destinations, including downtown and involving some of the same entities as well as housing and office/retail outlets, for which private investors financed their own parking facilities.
With further planning such as one-way streets, the downtown was made much more accessible and attractive, though parking has always been and remains a problem. The architecture is anything but ugly. The area is supposed to be service-friendly, not a playground, though there’s plenty of green-space downtown. Trees usually become a nuisance, not least because they litter and are not well-kept.
If recreation and parks are serious considerations, Lexington, imitating Louisville and Atlanta, might consider establishing an around-the-city-trail or a large outlying park such as in using the joined areas of Jacobson Park and Lakeside Golf Course, especially since Lexington has a surfeit of golf courses and would not suffer in losing one. Jacobson Park includes 216 acres, while the golf course covers another 185 acres, a total of 401 acres, roughly the size of 400 football fields or an area roughly 180 times the size of the CentrePoint “pasture” downtown.
That area includes a sizeable body of water that’s good for both paddle-boating and fishing, whereas floating vessels would be impossible on any part of Town Branch brought to the surface. Instead, there would be a constant need for removing trash and keeping the area from becoming like Phoenix Park, an often unattractive haven for whatever or whomever.
Being a naysayer is not being against progress. There have been grandiose plans deserving of naysayers, especially those offered by the university architecture gang, for a couple decades or so to revert downtown to pre-urban renewal status (like closing Vine Street), thus heading backwards, not forward. Especially regarding the ongoing recession (still serious despite official contrariwise protestations) and constant tax increases, the city should do practical things.
The Jacobson-Lakeside thing might not be the best approach but it’s better than Town Branch and at relatively little cost. Actually, nothing needs doing.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Eblen said naysayers (translated as realists) would claim the endeavor to be “impractical, unaffordable, and frivolous, [but] it is none of that.” It’s all of that, of course, especially when the city can’t even straighten out its pension-problems and is always on the edge of bankruptcy. Eblen claimed the compelling argument was not esthetic but economic, thus attracting people and investment dollars. Easy access, parking and movement, aesthetic or otherwise, are what attract visitors and dollars.
As quoted in the paper of 05 February, Jeff Fugate, head of the Downtown Development Authority, said the plan was “aspirational” but doable. Aspirational? Essentially, it does away with parking lots in favor of parking garages, hated by everyone. For some strange reason, the vehicle bridge on MLK is recommended to be replaced by a pedestrian bridge. Why is foot traffic between Main and High that important and why excise a well-used street, leaving motorists to greater frustration? Why put a tree-boulevard in the middle of Vine Street, thus ruining it as a traffic facility?
Eblen mentioned in the 03 February article that Louisville and gridlock-cursed Atlanta are sinking funds into some sort of recreational areas AROUND those cities (trails and appropriate amenities), not in and through them to help their downtowns draw crowds and investments. This makes a certain sense, assuming anything needs doing in the first place, at least as far as recreation is concerned and noting that Lexington already has many parks, some of them, like Woodland, fairly large.
Urban renewal was a big thing in Lexington in the 1960s and has remained so. This is when the train tracks were removed downtown, the old depot was razed and New Circle came online. The understanding then was that downtown was set up for institutions, restaurants, specialty stores, entertainment, offices and badly needed parking-areas, while people in outlying areas (most of the population) needed easy access to all destinations, including downtown and involving some of the same entities as well as housing and office/retail outlets, for which private investors financed their own parking facilities.
With further planning such as one-way streets, the downtown was made much more accessible and attractive, though parking has always been and remains a problem. The architecture is anything but ugly. The area is supposed to be service-friendly, not a playground, though there’s plenty of green-space downtown. Trees usually become a nuisance, not least because they litter and are not well-kept.
If recreation and parks are serious considerations, Lexington, imitating Louisville and Atlanta, might consider establishing an around-the-city-trail or a large outlying park such as in using the joined areas of Jacobson Park and Lakeside Golf Course, especially since Lexington has a surfeit of golf courses and would not suffer in losing one. Jacobson Park includes 216 acres, while the golf course covers another 185 acres, a total of 401 acres, roughly the size of 400 football fields or an area roughly 180 times the size of the CentrePoint “pasture” downtown.
That area includes a sizeable body of water that’s good for both paddle-boating and fishing, whereas floating vessels would be impossible on any part of Town Branch brought to the surface. Instead, there would be a constant need for removing trash and keeping the area from becoming like Phoenix Park, an often unattractive haven for whatever or whomever.
Being a naysayer is not being against progress. There have been grandiose plans deserving of naysayers, especially those offered by the university architecture gang, for a couple decades or so to revert downtown to pre-urban renewal status (like closing Vine Street), thus heading backwards, not forward. Especially regarding the ongoing recession (still serious despite official contrariwise protestations) and constant tax increases, the city should do practical things.
The Jacobson-Lakeside thing might not be the best approach but it’s better than Town Branch and at relatively little cost. Actually, nothing needs doing.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Sunday, February 03, 2013
McCain/Kerry Treachery
Senator McCain seems to have staffers on the lookout 24/7 for any TV camera in the Capitol and to make appointments on the plethora of talk-shows, particularly on Sunday mornings, in order to keep himself in the public eye on a daily basis. He even showed up at the Kerry State-Secretary hearing to “introduce” perhaps the nation’s most perverse and treasonous political operative of the last 40 years or so. It was sickening, especially in light of his mean-spirited and utterly crude treatment of former senator Hagel in his Defense-Secretary hearing.
As reported by the Boston Herald-Reporter, in a speech in Boston Sept. 9, 2006, then-Senator John Kerry said, regarding the Bush administration, “It is immoral to treat 9/11 as a political pawn (to) excuse the invasion of Iraq. They [9/11 victims] were attacked and killed not by Saddam Hussein but by Osama bin Laden.” Cynicism – especially regarding morality – of that magnitude did not speak well for a State Secretary. Al Qaeda was not mentioned as a reason for invading Iraq in 2003, but to wipe out what the intelligence agencies of a number of nations insisted was Saddam’s WMD threat. No one has proven yet that he did not move those weapons to another country before March 2003.
Quoting the Boston Globe of March 25, 2004, “In a question-and-answer session before a Senate committee in 1971, John F. Kerry, who was a leading antiwar activist at the time, asserted that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were being ‘murdered by the United States of America’ and said he had gone to Paris and ‘talked with both delegations at the peace talks’ and met with communist representatives.” At the time, an unbelievably egotistical Kerry was a low-rank reserve naval officer committing an act of treason (defined as “the betrayal of a trust: TREACHERY”) with the enemy while Senator McCain and others were caged like dogs and tortured in the Hanoi Hilton.
This means that by the time he made that statement (his exact words, “So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America …”). Kerry’s comrades/nation had murdered [his word] 1.6 million Vietnamese 1964-71 (or almost 4 percent of the population for 1970), mostly civilians – women, children, and old men. He’s never offered a scintilla of proof for that wacky accusation. Regarding morality, he betrayed his country in 1970 in France, lied to Congress in 1971, and spewed hatred on Sept. 9, 2006, using a monumental tragedy in a blatantly political act of disingenuousness.
In another Op-Ed piece for the New Hampshire Union Leader, Kerry said, “Iraq has made America less safe. The terrorists are not on the run. Terrorist acts tripled between 2004 and 2005. Al-Qaida has spawned a decentralized network operating in 65 countries, most of them joining since 9/11.” But Obama has recently declared that al Qaeda is all but dead. This is the guy McCain was announcing as the best thing since sliced bread.
McCain took Hagel apart because then-Senator Hagel voted against the “surge” that took place in Iraq in 2007, involving some 30,000 extra American troops sent over for that purpose. The president wannabe John Edwards called the surge the “McCain Doctrine.” McCain tried to make Hagel say he was wrong but Hagel said history would make the call. As it turns out, Hagel was right. Iraq is a killing field today, just as it was when Saddam the butcher ran the show. If anything, it is more antagonistic to this country than it was then.
Both McCain and Hagel served well in Vietnam but, while McCain dropped bombs, Hagel was a grunt, a platoon sergeant who volunteered for Vietnam when he was actually ordered to peaceful Germany in 1968. He based his Fallujah vote on whether or not that fight was worth the casualties. He had seen men blown to bits but McCain never saw any of that, just puffs of smoke on the ground. The casualties in the Fallujah fight to the coalition troops was well over 20 per day, most of them Americans simply because they fought in the largest numbers.
Huffington Post, 01 February 2013: “Incoming Secretary of State John Kerry said that President Barack Obama offered him the job one week before U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice withdrew from contention. ‘He called me, actually a week before Susan got out of the thing,’ he told The Boston Globe in an interview…’ .” Kerry’s ego (had home movies made of him running on the shore in Vienam) is so big that he wanted to make it plain he was not Obama’s second choice, even though everyone knows he was. He is delusional, as is the president. They deserve each other and McCain deserves both of them.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
As reported by the Boston Herald-Reporter, in a speech in Boston Sept. 9, 2006, then-Senator John Kerry said, regarding the Bush administration, “It is immoral to treat 9/11 as a political pawn (to) excuse the invasion of Iraq. They [9/11 victims] were attacked and killed not by Saddam Hussein but by Osama bin Laden.” Cynicism – especially regarding morality – of that magnitude did not speak well for a State Secretary. Al Qaeda was not mentioned as a reason for invading Iraq in 2003, but to wipe out what the intelligence agencies of a number of nations insisted was Saddam’s WMD threat. No one has proven yet that he did not move those weapons to another country before March 2003.
Quoting the Boston Globe of March 25, 2004, “In a question-and-answer session before a Senate committee in 1971, John F. Kerry, who was a leading antiwar activist at the time, asserted that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were being ‘murdered by the United States of America’ and said he had gone to Paris and ‘talked with both delegations at the peace talks’ and met with communist representatives.” At the time, an unbelievably egotistical Kerry was a low-rank reserve naval officer committing an act of treason (defined as “the betrayal of a trust: TREACHERY”) with the enemy while Senator McCain and others were caged like dogs and tortured in the Hanoi Hilton.
This means that by the time he made that statement (his exact words, “So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America …”). Kerry’s comrades/nation had murdered [his word] 1.6 million Vietnamese 1964-71 (or almost 4 percent of the population for 1970), mostly civilians – women, children, and old men. He’s never offered a scintilla of proof for that wacky accusation. Regarding morality, he betrayed his country in 1970 in France, lied to Congress in 1971, and spewed hatred on Sept. 9, 2006, using a monumental tragedy in a blatantly political act of disingenuousness.
In another Op-Ed piece for the New Hampshire Union Leader, Kerry said, “Iraq has made America less safe. The terrorists are not on the run. Terrorist acts tripled between 2004 and 2005. Al-Qaida has spawned a decentralized network operating in 65 countries, most of them joining since 9/11.” But Obama has recently declared that al Qaeda is all but dead. This is the guy McCain was announcing as the best thing since sliced bread.
McCain took Hagel apart because then-Senator Hagel voted against the “surge” that took place in Iraq in 2007, involving some 30,000 extra American troops sent over for that purpose. The president wannabe John Edwards called the surge the “McCain Doctrine.” McCain tried to make Hagel say he was wrong but Hagel said history would make the call. As it turns out, Hagel was right. Iraq is a killing field today, just as it was when Saddam the butcher ran the show. If anything, it is more antagonistic to this country than it was then.
Both McCain and Hagel served well in Vietnam but, while McCain dropped bombs, Hagel was a grunt, a platoon sergeant who volunteered for Vietnam when he was actually ordered to peaceful Germany in 1968. He based his Fallujah vote on whether or not that fight was worth the casualties. He had seen men blown to bits but McCain never saw any of that, just puffs of smoke on the ground. The casualties in the Fallujah fight to the coalition troops was well over 20 per day, most of them Americans simply because they fought in the largest numbers.
Huffington Post, 01 February 2013: “Incoming Secretary of State John Kerry said that President Barack Obama offered him the job one week before U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice withdrew from contention. ‘He called me, actually a week before Susan got out of the thing,’ he told The Boston Globe in an interview…’ .” Kerry’s ego (had home movies made of him running on the shore in Vienam) is so big that he wanted to make it plain he was not Obama’s second choice, even though everyone knows he was. He is delusional, as is the president. They deserve each other and McCain deserves both of them.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, February 01, 2013
Meaningless Gun-Hearing
The gun hearing—perhaps better described as “gun-control” hearing—held by the Senate Judiciary Committee on 29 January was interesting if only because it was held in light of the fact that most gun laws, hundreds if not thousands of them, are not currently enforced and/or violators prosecuted, a fact thoroughly brought out in the hearing. Also brought out thoroughly was the fact that gun-control laws passed in the 1990s made no difference in the gun-violence numbers. A current example of the futility of these laws is Chicago—500 murders in 2012 and already 40 during January, practically all by guns.
The usual partisan split was obvious. Democrats, of course, believe in regulating everything, even to the point of light-bulbs and salt-intake by humans. Republicans tend to oppose any further regulation of most things and would gladly dispose of thousands now in existence. The usual silliness was also in evidence, as Chairman Leahy established his bona fides by claiming both father- and grandfather-status only to be outdone by ranking member Grassley, who claimed father- and grandfather- and great-grandfather-status. Apparently, all others need not apply.
The panel of witnesses included a police-chief, law-professor, NRA president and two civilians, one of them being the only woman, not that this means anything, just a fact. It might not have hurt to have had an ex-con or two, who had used guns in crimes, to declaim on the subject, maybe furnishing the best possible information concerning the acquisition and use of weapons. That would have likely been too practical for consideration.
The thinking of the regulators goes something like this: “guns kill people so guns should be banned, just like booze back in the 1920s for a decade or so.” The bubbly flowed freely despite the Constitutional Amendment against it, though if given at least a generation or two it might have actually done some good. Enforcement, of course, was a problem—not enough “revenoors” to go around.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, there were 10.8 million motor-vehicle accidents in the U.S. in 2009 involving 33,800 deaths (791 in Kentucky) within 30 days of a given wreck. Should, therefore, there be a ban on the manufacture, sale and use of automobiles?
In those wrecks, 10,086 drivers had a blood-alcohol-content of .08% or above (about 176 in Kentucky), making them legally drunk in most if not all states. Should there be, therefore and in addition to the banning of cars, also a ban on the manufacture, sale and use of beverage alcohol?
This is from Autoweek 13 December 2011: “‘According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), more than 3,000 people lost their lives last year in distraction-related accidents,’ said chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman.” Does this mean that Ipads, Iphones, cell-phones, Blackberries, or even car-radios should be banned, in addition to booze and cars?
When the president pontificated in Newtown after the deaths at Sandy Hook school in December, he seemed to leave the impression that the deaths were somehow the responsibility of all citizens, the entire U.S. society. That also seemed to be the notion of many of the senators, a horrible and ludicrous position to take, that somehow people in Peoria were at least part of the cause of mayhem in Connecticut.
The mayor of New York indicated that his city would or might or should take action against people perpetrating too much salt-intake in food-products. Should salt be banned? Diabetes is caused or aggravated by too much sugar-intake. Should it be banned? Smokers and obese people are claimed by the experts to place too much strain and expense on healthcare entities? Should these people be neutralized (euphemism for “offed”).
Guns do not and never have killed people. Neither have cars, though drunk drivers use them in the same way that a thug uses a Saturday-night-special to pop off his prey. Drunk drivers, like the thug, are murderers or potential murderers since they understand exactly what they might do—and drive drunk anyway.
There was much said in the hearing about mental-health problems that dispose or predispose toward violence and that some entity has been remiss in not spotting this, as if that could easily be done. Having someone committed or designated as unfit to own a gun is virtually impossible, even if someone knew how to spot potential killers.
Despite the president’s executive orders—all 23 of them—and the breast-beating in the hearing, nothing much will be done. People, not guns, kill people.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
The usual partisan split was obvious. Democrats, of course, believe in regulating everything, even to the point of light-bulbs and salt-intake by humans. Republicans tend to oppose any further regulation of most things and would gladly dispose of thousands now in existence. The usual silliness was also in evidence, as Chairman Leahy established his bona fides by claiming both father- and grandfather-status only to be outdone by ranking member Grassley, who claimed father- and grandfather- and great-grandfather-status. Apparently, all others need not apply.
The panel of witnesses included a police-chief, law-professor, NRA president and two civilians, one of them being the only woman, not that this means anything, just a fact. It might not have hurt to have had an ex-con or two, who had used guns in crimes, to declaim on the subject, maybe furnishing the best possible information concerning the acquisition and use of weapons. That would have likely been too practical for consideration.
The thinking of the regulators goes something like this: “guns kill people so guns should be banned, just like booze back in the 1920s for a decade or so.” The bubbly flowed freely despite the Constitutional Amendment against it, though if given at least a generation or two it might have actually done some good. Enforcement, of course, was a problem—not enough “revenoors” to go around.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, there were 10.8 million motor-vehicle accidents in the U.S. in 2009 involving 33,800 deaths (791 in Kentucky) within 30 days of a given wreck. Should, therefore, there be a ban on the manufacture, sale and use of automobiles?
In those wrecks, 10,086 drivers had a blood-alcohol-content of .08% or above (about 176 in Kentucky), making them legally drunk in most if not all states. Should there be, therefore and in addition to the banning of cars, also a ban on the manufacture, sale and use of beverage alcohol?
This is from Autoweek 13 December 2011: “‘According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), more than 3,000 people lost their lives last year in distraction-related accidents,’ said chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman.” Does this mean that Ipads, Iphones, cell-phones, Blackberries, or even car-radios should be banned, in addition to booze and cars?
When the president pontificated in Newtown after the deaths at Sandy Hook school in December, he seemed to leave the impression that the deaths were somehow the responsibility of all citizens, the entire U.S. society. That also seemed to be the notion of many of the senators, a horrible and ludicrous position to take, that somehow people in Peoria were at least part of the cause of mayhem in Connecticut.
The mayor of New York indicated that his city would or might or should take action against people perpetrating too much salt-intake in food-products. Should salt be banned? Diabetes is caused or aggravated by too much sugar-intake. Should it be banned? Smokers and obese people are claimed by the experts to place too much strain and expense on healthcare entities? Should these people be neutralized (euphemism for “offed”).
Guns do not and never have killed people. Neither have cars, though drunk drivers use them in the same way that a thug uses a Saturday-night-special to pop off his prey. Drunk drivers, like the thug, are murderers or potential murderers since they understand exactly what they might do—and drive drunk anyway.
There was much said in the hearing about mental-health problems that dispose or predispose toward violence and that some entity has been remiss in not spotting this, as if that could easily be done. Having someone committed or designated as unfit to own a gun is virtually impossible, even if someone knew how to spot potential killers.
Despite the president’s executive orders—all 23 of them—and the breast-beating in the hearing, nothing much will be done. People, not guns, kill people.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)