A blog about Business & Finance.
|
Fresno State Game Tonight The public's best option: Less government, more choice part 1- Jacoby The public's best option: Less government, more choice Part 2- Jacoby Computer problems Poetry ~ Share yours Will Rogers wise sayings Examples of the left and it's vitriol. The war on affordable books - Jacoby HERB BENHAM: After we were finished, life raised our children Obama Hits Campaign Trail, Schedules Full Week of Political Stops August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|||||||
|
From the Fresno Bee this morning. Picture in TBC.
Shy-guy Mathews' play says just enough
09/27/08 23:15:26
PASADENA - One play speaks to the greatness of Ryan Mathews and it's not the one they'll be showing on highlight shows. It's fourth down, in the Rose Bowl, 3 minutes left to victory, his team needing 11/2 yards that might as well be 11/2 miles. "We ran right off tackle," Fresno State coach Pat Hill said afterward. Of course they ran right off tackle. Everyone knew they were going off tackle. The bunny runs off Energizer. Popeye runs off spinach. The Bulldogs run off tackle. If UCLA had called timeout, wheelbarrowed out mortar and bricks and built a 10-foot wall over the right tackle area, it would have taken Fresno State's best shot. "We run power," Hill said. Quarterback Tom Brandstater turned and handed to Mathews. It looked like there was nothing there, probably because there was nothing there. He slammed into a sliver of light anyway, massive bodies scraping both his sides. He was a man late for work, trying to squeeze into a closing elevator. His foot caught. He stumbled, reached for the ground, balanced himself on a hand, then lunged forward for every inch. The Bulldogs needed 1 1/2 yards. Mathews got 7. The Bulldogs eventually knelt at the UCLA 4. The Fresno State band wailed. Hill waved a white flag with a red "W" on it. Bulldogs coaches hugged, not as if they'd hung on to beat an average team, 36-31, but as if they were Little League parents. This was a California big shot, you know, one of those pompous schools that wouldn't play in the San Joaquin Valley for seven figures and all the wine those farm kids at Fresno State could barrel. The Bulldogs had never beaten UCLA in the regular season, never beaten them in southern California, certainly never beaten them in the Rose Bowl, and so the 18,000 in the red-clad pilgrimage from Fresno took great pleasure in chanting and waving goodbye to the Bruins student section as it snuck out of its own stadium. At the center of the field, 15 microphones, 10 scribbling pens and seven cameras surrounded Ryan Mathews. This was the part he dreads. He doesn't talk much, not to anyone, but definitely not to strangers, and never to boast. He's well-spoken and pleasant, but as shy as the new kid in school. By the time he answered all the questions, dodged all the traps to compliment himself, he walked toward the north end of the Rose Bowl, where five sections of Bulldogs fans were still toasting victory. On the way, a radio guy reeled Mathews in. By the time he got to the north end, another dozen reporters wanted him to talk. He said things like, "I just wanted to get in the end zone," and "It's fun to play in the Rose Bowl," then he walked back, the last player off the field. Bulldogs fans chanted his name as he jogged into the tunnel. A 10-year-old from Sanger named Cody Mathison reached down for a high-five, and Mathews handed off his gloves. Don't use those gloves for football, Cody. They're past the warranty and it only took one game. They went 166 yards in just 21 rushes and scored a touchdown. They caught a pass on third-and-22, hurdled a corner and scored another. When he came out of the locker room, there were another dozen reporters and Mathews' head dropped. He turned and considered going back to his locker. They wanted to know about the highlight, the play where he'd jumped over UCLA corner Courtney Viney, landed and turned at the same time, then glided into the end zone. "... A corner or a safety or something got around [a blocker] and I just had to make a play," Mathews said "It ended up working out good." Yes, it worked out good. In much the way Pavarotti's singing and Poitier's acting used to work out good. "He hurdled over me," said Viney, who was a four-star recruit from Edison High in Fresno, "made a really good athletic play, scored the go-ahead touchdown. It was just a missed tackle." "Missed" would give the impression there was an opportunity. How do you grab a guy with a gymnast's balance and monk's personality? When the reporters all left, he was asked if he's gotten used to the attention. "Not really," he said. Do you hate it? "Kinda," he whispered. In high school, the quarterback got hurt and so they just hiked it to him every time. It's hard to imagine Mathews calling plays, being the vocal leader. "Sometimes," laughs Mike Lewis, who was his offensive coordinator at West-Bakersfield, "he'd butcher the calls and just go back there and make something happen." You can't be that good and hide, can't go for 166 and two touchdowns, leap a tackler in stride and grunt for the most important 11/2 yards of a game on national TV in the Rose Bowl in front of 73,000 and expect no one to notice. Mathews was asked if the Bruins had recruited him and he said they had. They asked why UCLA lost interest and he didn't explain that everyone but Fresno State gave up on him qualifying academically. When he did get his grades up, USC tried to steal him at the last minute, but Pete Carroll wanted him to play defense. Mathews wanted to bust through slivers of space with the game on the end of the plank. And like he says, that's worked out good. The columnist can be reached at mjames@fresnobee.com or (559) 441-6217. Read his blog at www.fresnoComments
I posted this on the Palin thread but decided to post it here and will probably delete it from the other. I've been around TBC a long time and only once have I ever seen it get this vicious. That was back on the old posting board when Mac Wimbish was running for sheriff. This isn't as bad but it's getting really ugly and tthat prompted me to write the following comment. Please note that I don't abslove myself or others for any recent behavior. ************************************************* *****************************************
Another one of those "for the records." If it seems everyone is on my case lately I think it's just because I've been pretty vocal (in a writing kind of way) and am one of the few conservatives still hammering away. There are a few of us but not as many as a few weeks ago. People really get tired of being told they are "ignorant" for having an opposing view and they get tired of being besieged by arrogance and condescension. No one want to feel that they can't express an opinion without demands of "prove it", "where's your link." I know I sound repetitious because I've posted several times lately on the general blog attitude. We're losing good people not because they can't take it, or that they're weak. They're leaving because of the hateful and sneering attitude that some of the bloggers have adopted and constantly show. They don't feel they need to come to the blog for abuse just for stating their opinion or articles. This has always been a predominately liberal blog and for a while it started to balance out but it's begun to shift back to the left. I noticed the viciousness really started in earnest after the Palin announcement when all hell broke out on the blog. People I respected started wallowing in the mud with the nutcases here and I was surprised. Terrible things have been said here that should never have been even hinted at. Mockery over race, gender, families...things that should have NOTHING to do with a political discussion began to take over bloggers like some sort of Martian invasion. People with whom I had heated discussions in the past became hateful and mean spirited. I started responding in like kind and I'm not proud of that. Newcomers followed regulars around and quickly became the new wave of hatefulness and put downs. I don't know this blog any more. I don't know some of the people any more. I don't like what it's become. I used to come here and visit or drop opinions off and we'd argue and discuss. Now I come here and half the time I leave feeling like I need a bath. I've always sworn no one could run me off the blog but I'm not so sure now. I'm not so sure I want to be a part of what this blog has become. Don't get excited now...those of you who would love to see me go, I'm not dead just yet. I'm just taking a long hard look at something I've always liked and enjoyed...and talked to people about joining. Now I don't recommend it to anyone unless they have low blood pressure and need a boost. And that's a sad thing for me. Maybe it's the nature of a blog...to morph and change like a neighborhood that's gone seedy. Maybe we outgrow it. Maybe our tolerance level changes. Personally, I think this election (or any election) has brought out the worst in many of us and maybe that's the reason for the change, I don't know. What I wonder about is after the election will the old regulars come back or will it be like a marital separation where it's never the same again. Where one never forgets the hurtful things that were said. I don't know. I just know that it makes me sad to see a good thing turn so sour. You Ain't Gonna Like Losing
This article supposedly came from a gentleman in his 80's (and a DEMOCRAT!) who actually lived thru those (and these) times. Whether you agree or disagree, this is a powerful statement. Everyone has a different opinion on the war and our current President. But this article probably makes sense to those who remember. Read it and give it some thought. What a difference 60 years makes..!!! 'You Ain't Gonna Like Losing.' Note: Author unknown President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq.
Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not. Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders. Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not. And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war. Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort. Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining. You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President.
Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our
troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted. And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops! Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies. A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog. There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve. It is not
the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorrah and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices. We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause ... Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits. So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing. Today, for many folks, America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
This just shows the compassion and the connection the Bush/Palin folks have for the voters. Sure they used it to get votes, but that doesn't mean it wasn't heartfelt anyway. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com...
The Huffington people got all over it stating that the family had the same conversation with Haniity the day before. I don't know, I didn't check to out but you can bet this family is on board with McCain/Palin and wants everyone to know it. Great pictures to go with the phone in callers story. WATCHING OPRAH FROM BEHIND THE VEIL By Jeff Jacoby The Boston Globe Wednesday, September 24, 2008 http://www.boston.com/bosto...
& nbsp; She is a self-made billionaire, with worldwide business and philanthropic interests that range from television to publishing to education. They are forbidden to get a job without the permission of a male "guardian," and the overwhelming majority of them are unemployed. & nbsp; She has a face that is recognized the world over. They cannot leave home without covering their face and obscuring their figure in a cloak. & nbsp; She is famous for her message of confidence, self-improvement, and spiritual uplift. They are denied the right to make the simplest decisions, treated by law like children who cannot be trusted with authority over their own well-being. She, of course, is Oprah Winfrey. They are the multitude of Saudi Arabian women whose devotion to her has made "The Oprah Winfrey Show" -- broadcast twice daily on a Dubai-based satellite channel, MBC -- the highest-rated English-language program in the kingdom. & nbsp; A recent New York Times story -- "Veiled Saudi Women Are Discovering an Unlikely Role Model in Oprah Winfrey" -- explored the appeal of America’s iconic talk-show host for the marginalized women of the Arabian peninsula. & nbsp; "In a country where the sexes are rigorously separated, where topics like sex and race are rarely discussed openly and where a strict code of public morality is enforced by religious police," the Times noted, "Ms. Winfrey provides many young Saudi women with new ways of thinking about the way local taboos affect their lives -- as well as about a variety of issues including childhood sexual abuse and coping with marital strife. . . . Some women here say Ms. Winfrey's assurances to her viewers -- that no matter how restricted or even abusive their circumstances may be, they can take control in small ways and create lives of value -- help them find meaning in their cramped, veiled existence." & nbsp; And so they avidly analyze Oprah’s clothes and hairstyles, and circulate "dog-eared copies" of her magazine, O, and write letters telling her of their dreams and disappointments. Many undoubtedly dream of doing what she did -- freeing themselves from the shackling circumstances into which they were born and rising as high as their talents can take them. & nbsp; But the television star never faced the obstacles that confront her Saudi fans. & nbsp; That is not to minimize the daunting odds Oprah overcame. She was born to an unwed teenage housemaid in pre-Civil Rights Mississippi, and spent her first years with her grandmother, living in such poverty that at times she wore dresses made from potato sacks. She was sexually molested as a child, and ran away from home as a young teen. It was a squalid beginning, one that would have defeated many people not blessed with Oprah’s intelligence and drive and native gifts. & nbsp; But whatever else may be said of Oprah’s life, it was never crippled by Wahhabism, the fundamentalist strain of Islam that dominates Saudi Arabia and immiserates Saudi women with a system of ruthless gender apartheid. Strict sex segregation is the law of the land. Women are forbidden to drive, to vote, to freely marry or divorce, to appear in public without a husband or other male guardian, or to attend university without their father’s permission. They can be jailed -- or worse -- for riding in a car with a man to whom they are unrelated. Their testimony in court carries less weight than a man’s. They cannot even file a criminal complaint without a male guardian’s permission -- not even in cases of domestic abuse, when it is their "guardian" who has attacked them.
& nbsp; Could Oprah herself have surmounted such pervasive repression? & nbsp; Some Saudi women manage to find jobs, but Wahhabist opposition is fierce. In 2006, Youssef Ibrahim reported in the New York Sun on Nabil Ramadan, the owner of a fast-food restaurant in Ranoosh who hired two women to take telephone orders. Within 24 hours, the religious police had him arrested and his restaurant shuttered on grounds of "promoting lewdness." Ramadan was subsequently sentenced by a religious court to 90 lashes on his back and buttocks. & nbsp; Is it any wonder that women trapped in a culture that treats them so wretchedly idolize someone like Oprah, who epitomizes so much that is absent from their lives? A nation that degrades its women degrades itself, and Oprah's message is an antidote to degradation. Why do they love her? Because all the lies of the Wahhabists cannot stifle the truth she embodies: The blessings of liberty are meant for women, too. (Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
-- ## -- To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) Jeff Jacoby's mailing list, please visit http://www.JeffJacoby.com. To see a month's worth of his recent columns, go to http://www.boston.com/bosto.... Jeff Jacoby welcomes comments and reads all his mail. Unfortunately, he receives so many letters that he cannot answer each one personally. Biden makes FDR gaffe during CBS interview THE ASSOCIATED PRESS September 24, 2008
In addition, another comment Biden made in the interview sparked a disagreement within the Barack Obama campaign. Biden said he would not have allowed an Obama ad that mocked McCain as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate, calling the TV spot "terrible."
I read once that when a newspaper changes formats the largest share of protest mail they get is about crossword puzzles. I realize this isn't earth shaking in the grand scheme of things but to an ardent, life long crossword puzzle worker, the new one in Eye Street is VERY irritating. The clues are on the bottom so that as you work the top, your hand and arm are covering up the clues. If you use a board (as I do) the puzzle hangs over the top and cannot be written on. The puzzle in the classified section this week is in the correct format. Again, not earth shaking, but teeth grindingly, snarlingly, positively frustrating. There, I feel better now. Anyone read about this? I saw it this morning and emailed my sister about it. Here are parts of her response. This shows what rumors can do with a self fulling prophecy. "There is NO gas in Portland or White House, and the news yesterday said 87% of the stations in Nashville were out, the rest had VERY long lines, and running out fast. Wait in line and by the time you get to the pumps, you're out of luck. XX started a fillup at a station in Portland (with AMEX card), and it ran out at $.04, yeah, that's four cents!! XXXXX said he's trying to find enough gas to go to work Monday (he works in White House). "They" keep saying there's no shortage of gasoline, and Nashville will be getting some "in a few days", but I don't know what everyone is going to do to get to work, school buses, etc. People ARE panicky, but what do you do? Must get gas whenever & wherever we find it, even if that is the cause of it, as "they" say. Damned if you do, damned if you don't"
S'plain this to me Lucy.
A DRILLING BILL THAT BANS DRILLING By Jeff Jacoby Sunday, September 21, 2008 http://www.boston.com/bosto...
& nbsp; A: Yep. That's why they voted against this bill. It isn't a drilling bill, it's an anti-drilling bill. If it becomes law, nearly all the oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf would be off-limits forever. & nbsp; Q: Huh? This story says the bill "would allow offshore drilling as close as 50 miles from the
& nbsp; A: C'mon: A few weeks ago, Pelosi was implacably opposed to letting the House vote on lifting the offshore drilling moratorium. "I'm trying to save the planet!" she told Politico. "I'm trying to save the planet!" You really think someone so sanctimoniously hostile to drilling just six weeks ago is all for it now? & nbsp; Q: But this bill -- & nbsp; A: This bill permanently bans all drilling within 50 miles of the & nbsp; Q: But the Democrats claim they are "expanding the availability of oil by at least 2 billion barrels." & nbsp; A: Do you know how much oil is out there? According to the Interior Department, the offshore areas where drilling is restricted contain more than 19 billion barrels -- that's equal to 30 years of current imports from & nbsp; Q: So what are you saying? The Pelosi bill is a sham? & nbsp; A: Call it a political maneuver. Democrats don't really mind high gasoline prices; more pain at the pump means reduced consumption of fossil-fuel, which they and their environmental allies blame for global warming. But with millions of constituents growing increasingly upset over $4-a-gallon gas, and with polls showing the public heavily in favor of lifting the drilling ban, they had to do something. Voilà -- Speaker Pelosi's bill: a feint of supporting offshore exploration that would actually make drilling more difficult. & nbsp; Q: Well, I can't fault Pelosi for thinking about the planet. Maybe we need more energy, but do you really think drilling more oil wells in the ocean is good for the earth? & nbsp; A: Hey, here's a news flash: The less oil we pull out of the ground ourselves, the more we have to import from elsewhere. Who do you think is more likely to injure the planet -- the & nbsp; Q: OK, but isn't our addiction to oil the root of the problem? Don't we need to wean ourselves off oil and move to greener sources of energy? & nbsp; A: In theory, sure. In reality, we'll be running on oil for decades yet. Listen to this: Well, the winds of change are blowin' And we recognize that need But tractors, trucks, cars, and planes can't run on tomorrow's dreams So while we're workin' on the future, we can't ignore today 'Cause who knows how much time the alternative might take? & nbsp; Q: Nice -- where's that from? & nbsp; A: A new song by Aaron Tippin, the country-music star. & nbsp; Q: It sounds great. What's it called? & nbsp; A: "Drill Here, Drill Now." (Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
-- ## -- To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) Jeff Jacoby's mailing list, please visit http://www.JeffJacoby.com. To see a month's worth of his recent columns, go to http://www.boston.com/bosto.... Jeff Jacoby welcomes comments and reads all his mail. Unfortunately, he receives so many letters that he cannot answer each one personally. You had to know I'd do it. You just had to. And I know just how much Jacoby irritates the left on here because they don't like the truth exposed. Of course, Jacoby isn't saying anything more than we've been saying here all along, he just has a bigger audience.
THE PALIN FEEDING FRENZY By Jeff Jacoby The Boston Globe
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
http://www.boston.com/bosto...
In politics, cheap shots and invective are occupational hazards. But when have we seen anything to match the frenzy of rage and contempt set off by the nomination of Sarah Palin?
Virtually from the moment John McCain selected her, Palin has been under assault. There has been legitimate criticism, of course. But there has also been a gusher of slander, much of it -- like the slur that she isn't the real mother of her infant son, Trig -- despicable.
For someone who has been in the national spotlight for only three weeks, Palin has been the victim of an astonishing array of falsehoods. Voters have been told that she slashed funding in Alaska for special-needs children. That she tried to ban books from Wasilla's public library. That she’s a supporter of Jews for Jesus. That she was a member of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party. That she links Saddam Hussein to the attacks of 9/11. That she backed Pat Buchanan for president. That she doesn't want students taught about contraception. That she called the war in Iraq "a task from God." All untrue.
Hillary Clinton's supporters complain that coverage of her campaign was tainted by sexism, such as the Washington Post story that focused on her cleavage, or Mike Barnicle's description of her on MSNBC as "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court."
Obama too has suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous comment -- the Fox News segment that captioned a picture of his wife "Obama's Baby Mama," for example, and the infamous New Yorker cover showing the Obamas as terrorists in the Oval Office.
But the left's onslaught against Palin has been of a different order of magnitude altogether.
"Ideologically, she is their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread," columnist Cintra Wilson wrote in Salon. “Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into our handbags. She's such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it's easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism."
On the website of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, commentator Heather Mallick was even cruder. Palin appeals to "the white trash vote" with her "toned-down version of the porn actress look," Mallick wrote. "Husband Todd looks like a roughneck…. What normal father would want Levi 'I'm a [bleeping] redneck' Johnson prodding his daughter?"
From radio talk-show host Randi Rhodes came the smutty suggestion that the governor of Alaska has an unhealthy interest in teenage boys: "She's friends with all the teenage boys," Rhodes told her audience last week. "You have to say no when your kids say, 'Can we sleep over at the Palins?' No! No!"
Eve Ensler, the playwright best known for “The Vagina Monologues,” described her “Sarah Palin nightmares” for the Huffington Post. She recalled how Republican delegates chanted “Drill, drill, drill!” when Palin called for more oil exploration in her speech at the St. Paul convention. “I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. . . . I think of pain.”
The smears and sneers have been without end. One liberal congressman likened Obama to Jesus -- and Palin to Pontius Pilate. A Democratic state chairman declared scornfully that Palin's "primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." A University of Chicago professor seethed: "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."
The national media, meanwhile, have only further eroded what remained of their reputation for objectivity.
For months they refused to mention the infidelity of John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, yet they leaped with relish onto Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Ravenous for any negative morsel on the GOP running mate, they deployed legions of reporters to Alaska, who have produced such journalism as the 3,220-word exposé in Sunday's New York Times that upon winning office, Palin -- gasp! -- fired opponents and hired people she trusted. The same can be said of virtually every governor in the union. What cannot be said of most governors is that they enjoy an 80 percent approval rating. Palin does -- but the Times relegated that information to the 67th paragraph of its story.
And yet the more she has been attacked, the more her support has solidified. In the latest Fox News/Opinion dynamics poll, Palin's favorable/unfavorable ratio is a strong 54-27. She is named by 33 percent of respondents as the candidate who "best understands the problems of everyday life," more than those naming Obama (32 percent), McCain (17), or Joe Biden (10). Among independent voters, Palin's lead over Obama on this measure widens to 13 points (35 percent to 22 percent). In a recent Rasmussen poll, 51 percent of voters said the press is trying to hurt Palin through its coverage, versus just 5 percent who thought it was trying to help -- a 10-1 disparity.
A new Suffolk University poll of voters in Ohio -- a crucial swing state -- echoes those results. Asked which of the four candidates is “most like you,” 31 percent named Palin, followed by Obama (22 percent), McCain (21 percent), and Biden (13 percent). Among Ohio independents, only 6 percent think Palin has been treated fairly.
Millions of Americans, not all of them conservative, instinctively identify with Palin. That is why the left's scorching assault, so ugly and unhinged, is backfiring. The longer it goes on, the more it undermines the Democratic ticket -- and the more support it builds for McCain, and his refreshingly normal running mate.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.) 
-- ## -- To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) Jeff Jacoby's mailing list, please visit http://www.JeffJacoby.com. To see a month's worth of his recent columns, go to http://www.boston.com/bosto.... Jeff Jacoby welcomes comments and reads all his mail. Unfortunately, he receives so many letters that he cannot answer each one personally. -- ## --
Read the ENTIRE transcript then go back and listen to what they cut out. It's pretty amazing. But the media is supposed to be right wing biased so we're told...and THAT my friends, is a joke. Most of you won't bother to be unbiased and listen or read this but that's to be expected. This blog is reverting back to being way tilted to the left. Shame on ABC for their "unfair and unbalanced" editing.
SEEING THROUGH OBAMANOMICS By Jeff Jacoby The Sunday, September 14, 2008 http://www.boston.com/bosto... All through the spring and summer, opinion polls tracked a growing confidence that Barack Obama could handle the economy better than John McCain. Just before the Democratic convention in August,
Looks like voters have started paying attention to Obama's economics. On Sept. 8, Fox News broadcast an interview between Obama and Bill O'Reilly that focused on taxation and the economy. Obama repeated his pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while raising taxes on the tiny fraction who earn more than $250,000. "That's class warfare," O'Reilly objected. "You're taking the wealthy in America, the big earners . . . you're taking money away from them and you're giving it to people who don't. That's called income redistribution. It's a socialist tenet. Come on, you know that." "Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill," Obama replied. "Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax." He acknowledged that he doesn't enjoy paying taxes either -- "you think I like writing the check?" -- but that "there are certain things we've got to do." His tax proposal, he explained, was really a matter of … civility: "If I am sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say, I'm going to pay a little bit more? That's neighborliness." If that is Obama's rationale for making the tax code even more steeply progressive than it already is, it's no wonder voters are having second thoughts about his economic aptitude. "Neighborliness." Perhaps that word has a nonstandard meaning to someone whose home adjoined the property of convicted swindler Tony Rezko, but extracting money by force from someone who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn't is not usually spoken of as *neighborly.* If Citizen Obama, "sitting pretty," reaches into his own pocket and helps out the waitress with a large tip, he has shown a neighborly spirit. But there is nothing neighborly about using the tax code to compel someone else to pay the waitress that tip. Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint. Does Obama not understand the difference? Perhaps he doesn't. Eager though he may be to compel "neighborliness" in others, he has not been nearly so avid about demonstrating it himself. Barack and Michelle Obama's tax returns show that from 2000 through 2004, when their adjusted gross income averaged nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year, their annual charitable donations amounted to just $2,154 -- less than nine-tenths of 1 percent. Not until he entered the US Senate in 2005 and began to be spoken of as a presidential possibility did the Obamas' "neighborliness" become more evident. (In 2005-2007, they gave 5.5 percent of their income to charity.) Obama claims his proposal would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans, but well over 43 million tax returns, one-third of all those filed, already reflect an income tax liability of zero. In fact, Obama says, his plan would
George McGovern's proposed $1,000 "demogrant" was widely scoffed at in 1972.
eliminate income taxes for an additional 10 million taxpayers. What he is really proposing, therefore, is not tax relief but a bald transfer of cash -- $1,000 per family, he pledges -- from the wealthiest Americans to everyone else. In 1972, George McGovern advocated something similar -- a $1,000 "demogrant" for every Why not? Because you don't have to be rich to be skeptical when a candidate argues that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, who earn 22 percent of the income in this country but pay 40 percent of the income taxes, aren't being taxed enough. Nor do you have to be an economist to wonder about the grasp of a nominee who tells 95 percent of the public that they can have something for nothing. Obamanomics may look pretty at first glance. But voters are focusing more closely now, and they can see beyond the lipstick. (Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
-- ## -- To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) Jeff Jacoby's mailing list, please visit http://www.JeffJacoby.com. To see a month's worth of his recent columns, go to http://www.boston.com/bosto.... Jeff Jacoby welcomes comments and reads all his mail. Unfortunately, he receives so many letters that he cannot answer each one personally. NOW Given that our weather is pretty boring, and that they don't get a lot of on screen time, what does it take for a weather reporter to get noticed? To make a name? We've had many beginning with Marge Stiles and continuing on through Lloyd Young and his wands. Rusty Shoop was really entertaining during his stint and Victoria Houchin is a little bland but pleasant. There has been a raft of "weather girls" over the years with some being more on the good looking side than being entertaining. Some dress more professionally and some less so and more for effect. And this brings me to my point. This morning I was watching the early show to get reactions on the Palin interview and got a looooong dose of the weather person on Channel 23. I know I'll catch heck for saying this but....that never stopped me before. The person of topic is extremely well endowed and today wore a skin tight knit top with a wide belt that accentuated her..uh..shall we say, upper body. Now in fairness the top was high necked and revealed no cleavage but I still had to wonder, who's idea it was for her to dress like that? Her voice is high pitched and not pleasing to the ears of someone who is just interested in the weather without the giggle effect. (not that she actually giggled on the weather.) I'm thinking this is the person I heard on a couple of Ralph Bailey shows where she did indeed giggle. Lest I seem mean or critical let me say that I rarely watch the news through the weather and only have the TV on in the morning once or twice a week so this isn't really an issue for me. I was just wondering what you folks thought about the reasons stations hire weather people. Found video tape of McCain being released in Hanoi. AP newswire. "The emergence of Sarah Palin as a political force in the presidential race has left many top Democrats fretting that, just two weeks after their convention ended on an emotional high, Barack Obama's campaign has suddenly lost its stride."
LET THE GOVERNMENT MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS By Jeff Jacoby The Wednesday, September 10, 2008 http://www.boston.com/bosto... Out in the Pacific time zone, the nanny-statists have been busy. In In Of course it isn't only on the spare adults the trouble of making decisions for themselves. Regulators in Sagging pants, a ridiculous fashion trend in which pants are worn low enough to reveal one’s underwear, has been criminalized in communities from
There was a time -- younger readers may find this startling -- when society was able to convey such messages effectively without resorting to prosecution. There was similarly a time when grown-ups could decide on their own whether to have a Big Mac for lunch, or to take home their purchases in a disposable bag, or to grab a pack of smokes at the corner drugstore. The fact that some people disapproved of their choices was not deemed a sufficient reason to deploy the state's police power. Freedom, it was understood, necessarily included the freedom to choose unwisely. No longer. Politicians today may invoke "freedom of choice" when extolling abortion, but freedom evaporates when it comes to matters they consider really important. Thus Hillary Clinton, campaigning earlier this year in If I had my choice, I'd rather have the First Amendment. But Congress took that option off the table. There is no limit to the nanny-statists' ideas for saving us from ourselves. In Eternal vigilance, Americans once understood, is the price of liberty. Well, that was then. Americans today have less time for liberty, since they are busy absorbing more important messages. Like "put out that cigarette." And "pull up your pants." (Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
-- ## -- To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) Jeff Jacoby's mailing list, please visit http://www.JeffJacoby.com. To see a month's worth of his recent columns, go to http://www.boston.com/bosto.... Jeff Jacoby welcomes comments and reads all his mail. Unfortunately, he receives so many letters that he cannot answer each one personally. Sarah Palin – An Alaskan Bush Pilot’s OpinionI picked this item up while trying to verify whether Sarah Palin has a valid pilot’s license. It is said that she does, but so far, no definitive proof. Her husband does – he is listed in the FAA database. The family does own a float plane, I’d be amazed if she doesn’t fly, but we’ll see. This is unverified and could be a load of crap, but pretty much all of the opinions offered do jibe with the facts as we know them. It is a compelling opinion from an Alaskan bush pilot who thinks highly of Vice President Palin (I know, I know). ------------------------------------------------- Eddie S from San Antonio, fishes at the Wildman Lodge on the Alaskan Peninsula. The lodge is owned by Butch and Kathy King. The KING'S spend their winters in Texas and their summers in Alaska. Kathy's father and former husband served in the Alaskan legislature for around 30 years so Butch and Kathy know Alaska politics. Fishing is good here at Wildman and I rarely have time for politics, but many of our friends are asking us "Who is Sarah Palin?" Of course, as Alaskans, Kathy and I are extremely proud of her. We just want to let you know that Sarah "Barracuda" Palin is a straight shooting, hard charging, get it done gal. She knows when to listen, how to analyze the facts and how to make a decision, then implement the plan. She doesn't do a poll before jumping in with both feet like too many of the Washington types.
She has little legislative experience because she has always held the EXECUTIVE position; in private life, as mayor of Anchorage's largest bedroom community or more recently as Governor of our State. She is a smart, attractive home grown Alaska girl with excellent moral and family values. She can see what needs to be done and does not hesitate to get it done. One of our State's major problems is that its Capital is in Juneau, 500 miles from the nearest road and 800 air miles from the population base which is Anchorage, Wasilla and Fairbanks. Our legislature and most of the State government is in Juneau and they ALL behave like a bunch of freshmen in a college town. It has been this way since Statehood in 1959. When Sarah moved to Juneau, so did accountability and responsibility When the oil revenue started flowing and a barrel of North Slope Crude hit $23.00, these people began spending money like drunken sailors. You can only imagine what was happenings when oil hit $100.00 a barrel, about the time Sarah took command.
My wife Kathy has first-hand experience with this fiasco, as her father and also her ex-husband were Alaska Legislators who served in Juneau as Senators, Senate President, or members of the State House for a combined period spanning nearly three decades. About the time Sarah took the HELM as Governor of Alaska, about half of the State legislature was in the pocket of big oil companies or contractors doing big projects for Native Corporations around Alaska,all funded by State oil revenue. Alaska government was nothing but a good old boys club riding the perpetual wave of prosperity. This filtered down from the legislature, through the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Labor and even spilled in to the Public Safety who are supposed to "preserve and protect". When Sarah walked into the Governor's Mansion, she promptly dismissed the State Trooper detachment assigned to the Governor and had her and her husband's gun case brought in from Wasilla. Then, she got rid of the former Governor's STATE Jet and told legislators that there were no more free rides, they would have to fly Alaska Airlines, just like her and her family if they wanted to travel. Next came the nut cutting (the Barracuda part) the heads that rolled were too numerous to name, but when Sarah finished cleaning house, a number of our legislators ended up in jail for on corruption charges, or tendered their resignations along with numerous department heads and those who have been riding the gravy train for way too long, AND THEN SHE HAD LUNCH. By the end of the day, Sarah Palin had saved the people of Alaska millions and has not yet slowed down. She has truly brought CHANGE to Juneau. I personally know several persons in the private sector in Alaska, that hold her in high esteem. She surrounds herself with smart people, many from my hometown of Anchorage, she listens to them but makes her own decisions. Sarah Palin is a no B.S. politician. It is refreshing that there is such a thing anymore. You want to talk about CHANGE? You should see a before and after picture of the State government in Alaska. That's CHANGE! Sarah will bring a number of things to the election. I am sure she will appeal to many voters who may otherwise could have gone the other direction on election day. The conservative block will not be for Barack. We have their vote. We need what Sarah will bring, first to the election and second, what she will bring to Washington D.C. McCain has been advised well, Let's just hope the American people can get the straight scoop on her in the weeks ahead. [snopes.com] ------------------------------------------------- -
Letter to the Signal (received in email) Here is my latest letter to The Signal. Betty
The mainstream media slant on Gov. Sarah Palin is worse than shameful. The lady showed up for a job and was immediately debased and vulgarized beyond belief. In the face of and in spite of the “empowering women” groups, the Equal Rights Amendment and The Women’s’ Liberation Movement; Sarah Palin has somehow sinned. The main tally sheet is this: she is bashed as a working mother; for utilizing her freedom-of-choice and giving birth to a Downs syndrome baby; for being an “unknown”; not being an ivy-league lawyer; for being physically attractive and “they” don’t like her glasses. Her scandals are: having a husband whom at the age of 22 (pre-marriage) got a DUI; having a 17 yr. old pregnant daughter and Troopergate. Her commendable accomplishments are ignored or belittled. She identified Alaska ’s political ills, became proactive and wrested elected offices from the business-as-usual, recalcitrant, corrupt good-old-boys; taxed big oil and returned money to citizens. Reportedly her approval rating is 80-86%. Where are the libbers; the celebrities who glorify illegitimate birthing with celebrating each other on talk-shows and magazines? Where are the women who hold political offices and have children? Even the honcho-ette of Working Mothers magazine snubbed Mrs. Palin. “Comedian” Bill Maher mocked the Palin’s 4-month old Downs syndrome baby saying the infant looks like John Edwards. That is neither funny nor satirical but thoroughly disgusting. Maher sought to get a laugh from “joking” about the looks of an innocent handicapped baby. I do not have to wonder how the families and employees involved with our local LARC and Carousel Ranches feel about such “comedy”. If Bill Maher improved by 1000% he still could not reach the level of “despicable”. David Letterman mocked Mrs. Palin’s parenting of her pregnant daughter; the 61 yr. old Letterman has an “oops” toddler with his live-in girlfriend of decades. Rosemary Kennedy was profoundly retarded after a lobotomy and Eunice Kennedy Shriver started the Special Olympics. Not one person in that vast family has come out in support of the Palin family with regard to this subject. Sarah Palin’s sin is that of being a Republican; a Conservative, a proven reformer and apparently one big threat to the detractors. Women’s Lib? Sure…for liberals only. Freedom of choice? Only if the choice is theirs.
Betty
Quote for the day: 'Whatever you give a woman, she's going to multiply. If you give her sperm, she'll give you a baby. If you give her a house, she'll give you a home. If you give her groceries, she'll give you a meal. If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart. She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her. So - if you give her any crap, you will receive a ton of s***.'
A STARK CHOICE ON ABORTION By Jeff Jacoby The Wednesday, September 3, 2008 http://www.boston.com/bosto... During a town hall meeting in He replied that "the most important prevention is education," including "information about contraception." Then he added: "Look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16." If Obama had deliberately set out to appall pro-life voters, he couldn't have uttered four words more jarring than "punished with a baby." The equation of a new child with punishment -- even if the pregnancy was unintended -- set teeth on edge, and Obama's campaign quickly issued a clarification. The candidate, a loving father of two, believes that "children are miracles," it said; he only meant to underscore the importance of reducing teen pregnancy. But Obama's unscripted words needed no clarifying. They tartly encapsulated the extreme position on "choice" he has staked out in his career. What brings Obama's revealing turn of phrase to mind, of course, is the pregnancy of Governor Sarah Palin's unmarried 17-year-old daughter. "Our beautiful daughter Granted, Obama was engaging in a hypothetical speculation, while the Palins were dealing with a real-life family challenge. Still, what a contrast! To the Democratic nominee, a teenage daughter's unforeseen baby is a punishment to be prevented; to the Republican Veep-designee, it is a blessing to be embraced, difficulties and all. The polarity of the candidates' reactions would be arresting even if these incidents stood alone. But in both cases they reinforce the record each campaign brings to the emotional question of life in the womb. This is hardly the first presidential campaign to pit a pro-life Republican ticket against pro-choice Democrats. Never before, however, has the difference been so stark. Obama advocates abortion rights even more sweeping than those enacted under Roe v. Wade. "The first thing I'd do as president," he assured the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, "is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." The measure would not only codify Roe, it would eliminate even restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court has allowed -- the federal ban on government funding of abortion, for example, or parental-notification requirements, or the law prohibiting partial-birth abortion. During last month's forum at the And when has a Republican ticket ever been so unabashedly pro-life? Senator John McCain, long one of the Senate's reliably pro-life votes, is a father of seven, including an adopted orphan from
http://asp.usatoday.com/_co... href="javascript:;"> "We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential," she said a few days after Trig Paxson Van Palin was born in April. "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection." Ambiguities may muddle the 2008 campaign, but not when it comes to abortion. The next president and vice president will be the most pro-choice in (Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
-- ## -- To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) Jeff Jacoby's mailing list, please visit http://www.JeffJacoby.com. To see a month's worth of his recent columns, go to http://www.boston.com/bosto.... Jeff Jacoby welcomes comments and reads all his mail. Unfortunately, he receives so many letters that he cannot answer each one personally. MCCAIN'S MAVERICK PICK By Jeff Jacoby The Sunday, August 31, 2008 http://www.boston.com/bosto...
If it did nothing else, John McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin of Those who have observed the 44-year-old governor up close speak highly of her political skills and personal appeal. She took on her own party's ethically challenged leadership and beat it handily, and has gone on to earn stratospherically high approval ratings for her own performance in office. Unlike Palin is about as far from a " Of course McCain is taking a big gamble. Palin has been governor for less than two years, has no foreign-policy or national-security experience, and has never been through the gauntlet of a national campaign. Whether she can hold her own on the stump and under the withering glare of the national media, we will all know soon enough. Many voters will understandably read McCain's choice as cynical, in part because he has made such an issue of Obama's limited record. But surely Palin's lack of expertise on defense and international issues makes *Obama's* inexperience all the more conspicuous. The Democratic nominee is as green and untested as McCain's new running mate. (Arguably even more so, since Obama has never been an executive.) There is, however, one key difference between them: She's not running for president. Which is why it seems to me that McCain's choice of Palin, like Obama's of Biden, probably changes very little about this campaign. For all the attention they get from the pundits and politicos -- for all the contrived drama of the vetting process, the public speculation, the stage-managed announcement -- VP picks rarely make a difference in the essential nature of any presidential contest. Think back to 1988, when George H.W. Bush's selection of Senator Dan Quayle of In 1996, Republican Bob Dole picked Bush; Edwards couldn't even carry his home state. For all the ink and bandwidth devoted to the Veepstakes, it is almost always the candidate at the top who seals the deal with the electorate -- or doesn't. Palin and Biden will enliven the nine weeks remaining until Nov. 4, but barring some extraordinary development or colossal blunder, they won't change the outcome. The race isn't about them. It is about Obama and McCain. It is between the uplifting but insubstantial charisma of the former and the battle-tested experience and judgment of the latter. In But most voters know that McCain is his own man. The real mystery, as the Republicans gathering in (Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
-- ## -- To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) Jeff Jacoby's mailing list, please visit http://www.JeffJacoby.com. To see a month's worth of his recent columns, go to http://www.boston.com/bosto.... Jeff Jacoby welcomes comments and reads all his mail. Unfortunately, he receives so many letters that he cannot answer each one personally. |
|||||||
& nbsp; 
I almost wish flip flop would win! Can you imagine what the left will do the day after the election when McCain wins by a land slide! it will be four years of the same from the red diaper doper babies. WAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWA