Couldn't have said it better myself...

Check out this blog post from The Mud Pit.

Let's Peer into the Future...

A Perfect Storm
By Thomas Sowell

Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic-- and catastrophic.

Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.

Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.

Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries-- and failed repeatedly in other countries.

Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of "change."

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to "spread the well around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.

Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.

Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy-- and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.

Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?

If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.

In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat-- yet.

America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.

Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.

What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.

None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions-- none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.

This makes me want to move back to the safe haven of Maine.

Another rant against uninformed voters

Why do we, as a country, condone and promote ignorant voting? Nothing annoys me more than the "Get Out the Vote" movements. Why do we want uninformed voters helping to make important decisions about our country? Why don't we have an "Educate the Vote" campaign? Instead of being so concerned with people voting, we should be promoting knowledge and understanding of the issues that face us. And if people were educated about the issues, they would have more of an incentive to vote. This uninformed voting only leads to these knee-jerk, empty decisions.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone who knows nothing about any of the issues, and who couldn't tell an Obama policy from a McCain policy, waxing on about how they plan to vote for one candidate or the other. Although, in California and in my peer group, it definitely is largely Obamaniacs. I have no doubt that the rest of the country has plenty of uninformed McCain supporters.

I just have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that we give free Starbucks to people as an incentive to vote. The people that should be voting are the people who would vote without free coffee, not the people who have to be reminded and prodded.

I'm tired of people expecting a pat on the back for voting when they know NOTHING about the issues. You should get a pat on the back when you LEARN about the issues.

And I am so sick of hearing about how much of a historic election this is. Get over it people. I guarantee that it would not be considered to be such a historic election if the black candidate were on the Republican ticket. And the fact that we are making such a big deal over the color of Obama's skin, just goes to show how far we still have to go, rather than how far we've come. As I see it, this is a step backward, judging a candidate by the color of his skin, rather than on the merits of his record. Heralding a guy, who's party promoted him prematurely because he's a slick speaker and an uber politically correct choice. Never mind that he practically has no experience, poor judgment and is the most leftist candidate of all time. But, I digress.

The point is, people need to start doing their homework. Especially, smart, educated people, who have the time and resources to do such. Put down the People magazine. Turn off American Idol. Educate yourselves! Don't vote based on what someone at the office water cooler says. Learn about the issues. Figure out where you stand and then the choice becomes clear. These candidates stand for such radically different ideals, that it is utterly incomprehensible to me that anyone could have trouble deciding between the two.

And for those of you who don't like either choice, join the club. But you have to work with what you're given and vote for the America that you would rather see. Get involved. Education is the key. Sitting back and B-M-W-ing does nothing. Do something! Make an effort. Educate yourselves and then educate others. Learn about local candidates. And stop voting based on who looks more presidential.

As a side and final note, a very wise friend recently said:

You just described 90% of Obama's voting base. They know absolutely nothing about the issues, and they don't care. It "feels good" to vote for him. Kelly, you could tell them that Obama is going to execute their families and they'd still vote for him. They don't care about facts. Period.

I have a theory---it's a product of our TV/Internet generations, with short-attention spans and a taste only for dessert---nobody eats vegetables anymore (i.e. reading, researching, discussion, analysis, etc.). They only want easy answers (like their favorite TV shows) and simple solutions (like their e-mail splurges and text messaging).
Our society is deteriorating from the inside out...in an similar way that the Roman Empire destroyed itself from inside. As the Romans took over more & more people, tribes, villages, towns, they gradually lost their sense of Nationalism and cohesion. It became more about "me" than "us." The sense for a cause greater than oneself was lost. That is exactly what's happening to us, and Obama is the messiah for those who want handouts, for those with no appreciation for hard-earned success, and for those who want to alleviate their white guilt.

Welcome to the new U.S.A. You can scream, or you can dig into your little corner of the universe and enjoy it as best you can. That's what I'm doing.

It is so true. People vote based on what benefits them, personally, rather than what is best for the country. This short-sighted, me-centric society is the heart of so many of our problems. Look beyond yourselves, people. Try extrapolating a bit. It won't hurt, I promise.

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.