Spooky

A great little clip...

Wow, this is the most poignant I've ever seen Megyn Kelly.




Good for her.

The Silent Tax

What's the most annoying and sneaky tax of them all?

Inflation

Why isn't this discussed more? Every time the government spends money that it mints (on failing programs that shouldn't exist anyway) the value of all money goes down. This, in turn, hurts the middle and lower class the most. It's a silent killer and one of the things that drives people to foolishly hunt the highest returns they can, in order to just make up for inflation. The value of our money is partially transferred to the government as they print and spend it. Another infuriating tax that we never even see until it's too late. $1,000,000 sounds like a lot, right? Well, give it 30 or 40 years. It will only be worth a piddling $250,000 or so.

So, if government cut spending, inflation rates would not increase as rapidly, making our money worth more, longer. I have much of my money patiently waiting in CDs in this bad economy, yet, I am losing to inflation, even with a 4% return. It's frustrating that you get taxed to the hilt no matter what you do. And inflation is a nasty tax that you can't hide from. It will get you even if you don't declare the money and keep it under the mattress.

So, why is it that Barack Obama, Defender of the Little Guy, wants to spend more? Shouldn't he cut spending to best help those struggling? Especially in a down economy, wouldn't you want to do anything in your power as President to reduce the financial burden on Americans?

Guess not...

STOP STEALING MY MONEY!

Beating a dead horse...More on Media Bias

For those who still do not believe it exists...

From the article, written about the first objective and successful study on media-bias, found in UCLA's Quarterly Journal of Economics:

Media Bias is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

That seems just a touch slanted.

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

I found this to be interesting, as well:

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

Now, because this is only taking into consideration straight news while omitting op-ed pieces and pundit shows, the networks and papers cited in this article could slant an entirely different way when looked at in whole. For example, as stated, The Wall Street Journal's opinion pieces are largely conservative, especially when taken in context of other media. However, what should really matter to the American public are the NEWS pieces...the ones that purport themselves to be unbiased, not the pundits who claim to be anything but.

Furthermore, another study examined the viewership of the different news networks and came to some obvious conclusions. Of CNN's viewers, a whopping 51% are democrat, while on 13% are republicans. MSNBC showed similar numbers with 45% being dems and 18% being republicans. Where is gets a little more interesting, is Fox's viewership, who claim 33% democrats and 39% republicans. That seems to be a whole lot more balanced than the aforementioned networks.

Now, I do not believe that Fox is always "Fair and Balanced." Not only do they tend to have more conservative pundit shows, but in the shows that claim balance, they generally to have a stronger and more credible personalities on the conservative side. for example, on Hannity and Colmes, Hannity is much more the celebrity and more committed debater. Colmes tends to let a lot slide and often defers to Hannity.

On the flip side, however, O'Reilly (whom I cannot stand and is believed to be a wingnut conservative) really is moderate and at times even populist. He just is very vocal about certain conservative beliefs that drive liberals crazy.

Just a few of O'Reilly's leftist views:

• Opposes the war
• Supports nationalized health care
• Supports minimum wage
• Opposes the death penalty
• Supports race-based preferences
• Supports government control of education

Given these positions alone, can you really call the guy conservative? Even Republican is a stretch.

Overall, I do believe that Fox strives more for balance than the other networks, which just drives liberals crazy. While attending the Communication School at BU, we were shown the "Outfoxed" documentary, lamenting the horrific slanted atrocities presented by the Fox network. Were we presented an opposing viewpoint? Of course not. All of my peers walked away from that class, even further convinced that Fox is the enemy. I even recived some gasps of disapproval and shock from friends when I told then that I do tune into Fox regularly.

And of course, one guy's opinion means nothing as far as the facts go, but it's always interesting when a lib journalist breaks from the fold and notes the injustice.

I have zero issues with any network/paper having as many partisan (on either side) pundit shows/op-ed pieces as they wish. But, can we please at least try for unbiased newscasts? And if that's too much to ask, can we at least call a spade a spade?

Sometimes, I am dumbfounded that there are even any conservatives left.

The reality of health care

Liberals love to complain about the high price of private health care, while demanding that the government provide it for the people. Well, when are people going to realize that programs such as Medicare and Medicaid eliminate the incentive for competitive pricing?

50% of Americans receive some sort of government health care. So, why would patients, doctors or hospitals practice restraint in medical billing? If you're not paying out of your own pocket, why care how high your bills are? And if the bill will be paid by Big Daddy Government, why should doctors or hospitals care how much they charge?

If the free market were allowed to work, health care would become affordable, just like all other private products and services. Of course there would be different levels; more money would buy higher quality insurance. But government run health care isn't exactly top notch anyway. Why would the better doctors choose to work for the government when they can make more money running a private practice? And of course, there would still be those who choose to spend their money on other things rather than health care, but in general the price would come down. Why should it be different than anything else?

Gaffe-ing all the way to the bank.

I'm already a little sick of hearing about this story, but it does still make me chuckle when I think about it.

Joe, just keep at it. We need to see more of you, man! Get out there!

I'm not really sure why SNL hasn't picked up on the comedic value of Biden yet, but he sure is gold....sweet, Botox'd, liquid gold.

I'm sure his gaffe's will have little to no impact on the election, but I do appreciate that special way he has of bringing a smile to my face.

Let's please move on.

A Gallup poll shows:

While 6% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Barack Obama because of his race, 9% say they are more likely to vote for him, making the impact of his race a neutral to slightly positive factor when all voters' self-reported attitudes are taken into account.

So, can we please, please, please, please stop saying that the evil white racist is going to cost Obama the election?

Thanks.

Oh, and p.s., I'm not going to point out the percentage of people who will vote Obama because of his race.

Palin vs. Obama

Record Vs. Rhetoric
by Thomas Sowell

Apparently there is something about Sarah Palin that causes some people to think of her as either the best of candidates or the worst of candidates. She draws enthusiastic crowds and provokes visceral hostility in the media.

The issue that is raised most often is her relative lack of experience and the fact that she would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency" if Senator John McCain were elected. But Barack Obama has even less experience-- none in an executive capacity-- and his would itself be the heartbeat of the presidency if he were elected.

Sarah Palin's record is on the record, while whole years of Barack Obama's life are engulfed in fog, and he has had to explain away one after another of the astounding and vile people he has not merely "associated" with but has had political alliances with, and to whom he has directed the taxpayers' money and other money.

Sarah Palin has had executive experience-- and the White House is the executive branch of government. We don't have to judge her by her rhetoric because she has a record.

We don't know what Barack Obama will actually do because he has actually done very little for which he was personally accountable. Even as a state legislator, he voted "present" innumerable times instead of taking a stand one way or the other on tough issues.

"Clean up the mess in Washington"? He was part of the mess in Chicago and lined up with the Daley machine against reformers.

He is also part of the mess in Washington, not only with numerous earmarks, but also as the Senate's second largest recipient of money from Fannie Mae, and someone whose campaign has this year sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, who was at the heart of the subprime crisis.

Why then the enthusiasm for Obama and the hostility to Sarah Palin in the media?

One reason of course is that Senator Obama is ideologically much closer to the views of the media than is Governor Palin. But there is more than that. There are other conservative politicians who do not evoke such anger, spite and hate.

Sarah Palin is the one real outsider among the four candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency on the Republican and Democratic tickets. Her whole career has been spent outside the Washington Beltway.

More than that, her whole life has been outside the realm familiar to the intelligentsia of the media. She didn't go to the big-name colleges and imbibe the heady atmosphere that leaves so many feeling that they are special folks. She doesn't talk the way they talk or think the way they think.

Worse yet, from the media's perspective, Sarah Palin does not seek their Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

Much is made of Senator Joe Biden's "experience." But Frederick the Great said that experience matters only when valid conclusions are drawn from it.

Senator Biden's "experience" has been a long history of being on the wrong side of issue after issue in foreign policy. He was one of those Senators who voted to pull the plug on financial aid to South Vietnam, which was still defending itself from Communist invaders after the pullout of American troops.

Biden opposed Ronald Reagan's military buildup that helped win the Cold War. He opposed the surge in Iraq last year.

Sarah Palin will not be ready to become President of the United States on the first day that she and John McCain take office. Nobody is.

But being Vice President is a job that can allow a lot of time for studying, and everything about Governor Palin's career says that she is a bright gal with her head on straight. The country needs that far more than it needs people with glib answers to media "gotcha" questions.

Whatever the shortcomings of John McCain and Sarah Palin, they are people whose values are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to this country's fundamental institutions are beyond question because they have not spent decades working with people who hate America. Nor are they people whose judgments have been proved wrong consistently during decades of Beltway "experience."

Finally, McCain brings it.

Good job, McCain!

He finally pulled through, doing a great job at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner, getting loud belly laughs from all.



Obama was pretty entertaining, as well:

McCain then followed up the dinner with a great showing on Letterma, where Dave managed to keep his bitterness to a minimum. McCain finally elucidated some of the concepts that he's been struggling for the last few months to communicate.

I just hope that people were watching, because they certainly weren't watching the third debate.

Freedom of Choice?

I don't feel very free when my choice is: Obama, a big smelly socialist or McCain, a big smelly socialist.

Why prioritize when you can get it all for free?

Nick Gillespie's take on health insurance.

Well Put.

A nice little article on why wealth redistribution is ridiculous.

We're in big trouble

Case in point:

She's got some serious balls.

I can't think of anyone else who would have the balls to get on TV and speak their mind about such a controversial issue.

The world needs more Ayn Rands.

Palin: Kicking Ass and Taking Names

"Say it ain't so, Joe!"

Many of us can finally breathe a sigh of relief as Palin proved herself to be the skilled debater we originally believed her to be. I've been nervously anticipating this night after watching the painful Gibson and Couric interviews, worried that the worst was yet to come.

But, she came out in full force, winning by a landslide on personality and she more than held her own on policy, foreign and domestic.

Biden did well, too, I must admit. I guess he powered his gaffe machine down for the evening, unless you count his numerous misstatements of facts. By the way, there's something funny with Biden's face. Has he had a face lift?

Overall, this debate was far more interesting than the first Presidential Debate. Both were on point and Palin has mastered talking to the people through the camera, and tearing her opponent apart with a sweet smile, all the while.

Where has this Sarah been? Were the aforementioned interviews just an example of a nervous newcomer, someone who hadn't yet hit the books or someone who hadn't yet had the campaign lines drilled into her head. Maybe she just ate her spinach this morning. Whatever the ultimate cause of this stellar performance from Palin, I will not look to closely, for I am just so thankful that we, not just made it through, but kicked some ass and took some names!

Milton Friedman making Donahue look like an idiot.

What a brilliant man. He had such a way of simplifying complex issues.

This is so scary

Are you kidding?

Washington Post admits things are going well in Iraq

Washington Post article:
Please especially note the last paragraph and my added emphasis.

Another Iraq Benchmark
Legislators approve a crucial deal on provincial elections.

Friday, September 26, 2008; Page A22

WHILE WASHINGTON was seized with congressional negotiations over the Wall Street bailout, Iraq's parliament on Wednesday took another major step toward political stabilization. By a unanimous vote, the national legislature approved a plan for local elections in 14 of 18 provinces by early next year -- clearing the way for a new, more representative and more secular wave of politicians to take office. The legislation eliminates the party slate system that allowed religious authorities to dominate Iraq's previous elections, and it provides for women to hold 25 percent of seats. Most important, it will allow Sunni leaders who boycotted the 2005 provincial elections -- and who have since allied themselves with U.S. forces against al-Qaeda in Iraq -- to compete for political power in the provinces that were once the heartland of the insurgency.

As always in Iraq's halting journey toward a new order, the reform was not complete. Elections were put off in the province surrounding the volatile city of Kirkuk, where Kurds, Sunni Arabs and other groups compete for power, and in three Kurd-run provinces. Staging fair and peaceful elections will be another major challenge: In the south of Iraq, competition among Shiite parties, including those of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Mahdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr, could easily spill over into violence. The importance of securing the elections is one good reason for President Bush's decision to withdraw only 8,000 of the 146,000 remaining U.S. troops in Iraq between now and February. Still, the precipitous drop in violence in Iraq during the past year offers strong reason for hope that a good election can be held -- and that the new Sunni and Shiite leaders who emerge will be well positioned to jump-start reconstruction in the provinces and negotiate with each other.
ad_icon

For some time, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker has been citing provincial elections as the most important of Iraq's "political benchmarks." This week's breakthrough follows others in recent months, including the reform of a law that purged former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party from government posts. More steps are needed -- most important, agreement on a law distributing Iraqi oil revenue among provinces and allowing for new investment. But it's now clear that the political progress that the Bush administration hoped would follow the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq has finally begun. How can the next president preserve that momentum? Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible.