Jon Stewart and Muslims

Kabulvision - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 12/13/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central:

Jon Stewart is a very intelligent and very smug guy.

It is so strange that Muslims hold virtually all the social beliefs that Stewart would normally hate, only on steroids -- young earth, need for wives to be submissive (even covered), very anti-gay, anti any sort of nudity, no extra-marital sex, no booze, no drugs, no respect for the snotty elite, etc. In fact, they hold these beliefs SO strongly that under Shariah law, many of these offenses are punishable by death. Fornication and homosexuality for example. While these "American Muslims" may not hold to a death penalty for those offenses HERE, it is nearly certain that they would STRONGLY support the right of Saudi Arabia (location of Mecca) to continue hold to strict Sharia Law that the holy sites not be defiled by the infidels.

An equivalent analogy to what Steward is laughing at here would be a world in which Mel Gibson, a Fundamentalist Catholic,  supported the right of Italy to put Jews, Homosexuals, Muslims, Fornicators, etc to death, since Rome is the center of the Catholic Church and can't be defiled! In the analogy, Mel would have a show on how normal he and Fundamentalist Catholics were -- but said nothing about what was happening in Italy.

Since Saudi Arabia -- location of Mecca, DOES do those things today, I'm really not joking.  The folks he feels are "ok" ... laudable even, support that, but he is A-OK with that!! It is nice they don't directly do or support terrorism, but in the Mel case, I don't think Jon would be so sanguine even if none of the analogized fundamentalist Catholics in the US blew things up.

In comparison to a current "Moderate Muslim", a current "Fundamentalist Christian" is as cosmopolitan as Stewart believes himself to be in comparison to those backward hick Christians doing the boycott.  

Where Jon would normally feel hatred of "ignorance, closed mindedness, lack of respect" toward a Christian he feels very different toward a Muslim. Why??

Some thoughts:

- Ignorance. He may just not know. We are ALL ignorant, just about different things.

- He sees Muslims as a "minority" vs Christians, or "the underdog", so he naturally feels he wants to support them.

- He just really hates Christians -- so someone that is generally an enemy of Christians is his "friend". It is Christians that bug him, not Muslims -- it matters not to him that Muslims hold most of what he would see as the "bad" views of Christians -- only much more so. His hatred of Christians makes him blind.

- Nobody says "Muhammad H. Prophet!!", or "Buddha Damn" -- the Judaeo -- Christian deities really ARE special. Cleave onto that which the "wise" spit upon!!! Man is a servant --- of either God or Satan. Rejecting God makes your choice for you. Are you more free in God's church yard or on Satan's leash?

'via Blog this'

Liberals and "Lying"

A Fast & Furious state of mind | Power Line:

From Eric Holder's Fast and Furious testimony this week:

That the recently withdrawn letter from the Justice Department to Congress denying federal responsibility for the program was not a lie, “because it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie.”

Remember Slick Willie? "That depends on what your definition of is is".

Remember W? He "lied" because we didn't find the WMDs that essentially everyone in the world was certain that Iraq had -- including all the prominent Democrats of the day. Both Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, etc, etc.

Remember Scooter Libby? He "lied" because he recalled a date which he talked to Tim Russert about Valerie Plame wrong. He was NOT responsible for the actual leak, that was determined to be Richard Armitage, and since he wasn't close to Cheney or Karl Rove, nobody cared. Scooter was CONVICTED of "perjury" for giving the wrong date even when he wasn't the leaker!!!

I don't believe it is possible for a liberal to either lie or tell the truth, except accidentally. Their world seems to be completely ideologically based so that truth/falsehood, right/wrong, and many other concepts are completely fluid depending on ideology.

• Public unions spending vast amounts of money are no issue whatsoever -- but corporations spending even much less money is a horror beyond horrors. 
• George Soros spending millions on MoveOn.org and many other left causes is a complete non-issue. The Koch brothers spending any money at all on politics??? Major league problem!!
• Following Campaign Finance limits and rules? Completely critical until Obama thumbed his nose and spent 100's of millions more than ever before, and then no issue at all. 
• Deficits that maxed at $400B and smallest was $165B under Bush were a HORROR. Deficits a TRILLION higher (and more) PER YEAR as far as the eye can see under Obama? They aren't high enough!!!
• Gitmo under Bush? A stain on the nation, critical to be closed IMMEDIATELY, etc, etc. Under Obama? Still open, no problem. 

Why are our politics sharply divided? Because one side has completely moved to thinking in terms of ideology vs reality. The difference between reality and an ideologically conjured universe are always larger than the differences that would be found if we were all in the real world!!

'via Blog this'

Hope To Resentment

Obama’s Campaign for Class Resentment - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online:

A great one by Charles.

How often it is the case that people (especially the young) set out aflame with hope -- yes, hope for some largely unstated "change" that indeed can be "believed in" because it is so non-specific.

And then -- specific reality meets imagined hopes, wishes, and beliefs, and not only is it a disappointment, there is a tremendous sense of loss. Where did that wonderful feeling that we all shared together go?? How could it happen?

Well, it is GOING to happen when you hire a "leader" that accepts responsibility for NOTHING!! To be young and foolish is somewhat expected. To be supposed leader of the former greatest nation on earth and have no more sense of responsibility than a baby dirtying it's diaper is simply unconscionable!!

In Kansas, Obama lamented that millions “are now forced to take their children to food banks.” You have to admire the audacity. That’s the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years. Yet Obama summoned it to make the case for his reelection!

'via Blog this'

Canada formally pulls out of Kyoto Protocol on climate change - The Washington Post

Canada formally pulls out of Kyoto Protocol on climate change - The Washington Post:

"“It allows us to continue to create jobs and growth in Canada,” Kent said."

Dear me, choosing jobs and growth today over future worries over Warming / Change / Nasty Weather , or some sort of future branding of Doom?? Where is their sense of pessimism?

I doubt this will make much of a splash in the news, because even though Slick Willie never put the Kyoto treaty up for a vote, he never said he wouldn't -- which W did, therefore he was evil. Canada dropping out likely won't meet the rigorous standards for MSM "news".

Of course HAD we signed, we would have ended up where Canada has, only quicker.

“To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada,” Kent said.

So given the choice between stopping all vehicle traffic, stopping all agriculture or cutting off all heat, the Canadians have chosen to leave the Kyoto treaty.

How selfish and short sighted. The evil W should have gotten it signed! I'm sure BO would be happy to shut down whatever was required rather than make the terrible choice that Canada has now made.

Oh, the shame.

'via Blog this'

Tim Tebow, "Mystery"?

Chuck Klosterman on Tim Tebow - Grantland:

This guy seems smart, but one has to wonder about all these words.

My explanation for this is:

1). Hatred of Christians isn't particularly new. Christ was crucified, Christians were used as living (for a bit) torches and fed to wild animals for entertainment by the Romans, killed or sent to the Gulag in the USSR, and persecuted openly or not so openly in the Muslim world around the globe today. Hating the Christian faithful is not new at all!

2). All sorts of prognosticators had made their determination on Tebow prior to him ever suiting up with the Broncos. He can't throw, he throws wrong, he can't make decisions, he isn't tough, etc, etc. Lots of people in the press and out of it believe the press -- the press is often wrong, never uncertain. The press also doesn't like someone obviously proving them wrong -- especially someone that they don't like (see #1). He is a rookie -- he throws a lot better than a lot of QBs that have done not so horrible in the NFL (Trent Dilfer comes to mind ... but the list is long, even of just NFC N QBs). Beside that, he is big, quick, and athletic. There are claims about his IQ, but I'd bet he bests Favre or Bradshaw in that dept, and both of them did all right.

3). So far, Tebow goes against the media approved view of faithful Christians in that he is actually bubbling over as all Christians really ought to be. I'm pretty certain he (like Aaron Rogers) has some flaw / sin / defect / etc. Christ didn't die for the perfect -- and while he definitely aids in constant improvement for Christians that allow his work to go on, there is usually a challenge, flaw, tendency, etc that will break out at a really bad time, and the media will have TOTAL joy in the maximum exposure of that flaw. Then Tebow will be a "hypocrite" -- as all people with any sort of standards always are to some degree. They may like him better then, because they will feel that his witness has been destroyed.

BTW, here is Aaron Rogers on "the faith thing" http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/11/30/aaron-rodgers-on-tim-tebow-religion-controversy-i-believe-in-letting-my-actions-speak-about-the-kind-of-character-i-have/

'via Blog this'

The Heartbreak of Newt

Heartbreak Awaits Republicans Who Love Gingrich: Ramesh Ponnuru - Bloomberg:

I don't particularly like reading this -- I don't trust Romney, and I generally like the quick wit and willingness to think outside the box that is Newt. Sadly though, Ramesh has a point. I'm starting to think in terms of how wonderful a cruise ship is to be on, but how if the ship were to sink, one would not turn down any piece that was floating -- even a primitive rubber raft would be "luxury" compared to drowning in the ocean at night. Yes, I know, that is unfair to drowning, BO is much worse than that, but it is a start.

My favorite paragraph is the following:

Conservatives who dislike George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism have Gingrich to thank for it. After Gingrich lost the budget battles with President Bill Clinton, it took 15 years for any politician to take up the cause of limited-government conservatism that he had discredited.

Newt very much lost the hearts and minds on smaller government. Being a Republican is means you deal with the burden of the liberal MSM -- so it is VERY hard, but it is a task that comes with Republican leadership. Newt let the discussion go to where the Republicans took all the blame for the "cuts" (reducing the rate of growth) in spending, and Slick took all the glory for the very short lived internet bubble capital gains "surplus". 100% as illusionary as the W '07 $165B housing bubble deficit number.

My heart still pines for Newt, but next to drowning in the icy cesspool of BO II, Romney is starting to look like at least a piece of driftwood -- if not a nascent rubber raft.

'via Blog this'

REPORTED Income Inequality

Alan Reynolds: Tax Rates, Inequality and the 1% - WSJ.com:

The drunk who lost his keys up the street, but is looking under the street lamp because the light is better there comes to mind. There is a human propensity to look at what we measure and forget all the impact that our actions may have had on changing measured values. We changed tax rates since '79, and we famously lowered them again in '01 -- surprise, the REPORTED income equality went up in each case. 

One way of looking at REPORTED inequality is that when tax rates on the wealthy are "favorable", they will actually report the income and pay the tax. When the rates aren't, the business will buy another truck, retain the earnings, etc, or the person will take some of the income in stock, insurance, invest in tax free bonds vs stock, etc.

Being rich, like being heathy, presents one with more options. In my mind, by definition, if you are rich, you don't HAVE to work -- but if the taxes are reasonable enough, you may decide to do so. 

The larger truth is that recessions always destroy wealth and small business incomes at the top. Perhaps those who obsess over income shares should welcome stock market crashes and deep recessions because such calamities invariably reduce "inequality." Of course, the same recessions also increase poverty and unemployment.

'via Blog this'

Dilbert Summary of Revolution

Occupy Dilbert | Power Line:

Pretty much covers it!!

'via Blog this'

"All In Good Time My Sweetie"

Pelosi: I’ll reveal information on Gingrich 'when the time is right' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room:

'via Blog this'

Eastern Europe Gets It

Georgia On My Mind | Power Line:

When many of the lefties were talking about leaving the US when W was re-elected, but then few (any?) of them did, one wondered where they might go??

In case BO is re-elected and the flame that was liberty in America actually sputters out, it appears that Reagan successfully sowed a better understanding of the facts of freedom than is generally left here in the US. Sad, but also in a strange way gratifying.

It is always nice to see the flame of freedom passed on to new vistas.

'via Blog this'

Charles on Newt and Mitt

Mitt vs. Newt - The Washington Post:

The eternal question of the heart vs the head. Charles is an optimist -- he believes that America can return from BO's FIRST term. I'm not so sure, but it is what it is now. He is certainly right that a second would be both unconscionable and unsurviveable.

So the adult answer is Mitt. Ah, but the heart yearns for the fire, the comebacks, the "in your face", the "risk factor" of Newt.

There can really only be one acceptable answer. Damn that heart!!!

"If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).

Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?"

'via Blog this'

FOX Calls Michelle Obama "Lyin Ass Bitch"

NBC apologizes to Bachmann over song - CNN.com

Oh, OOPs!! It was Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, Michelle Bachman, and just the song ... sorry. Oh, and they apologized!

No story here, move along ... and I'm sure if it had been FOX and Michelle, the an apology would be just fine as well.

We live in a civil and reasonable country after all.

Liberal Land

RealClearPolitics - Alice in Liberal Land:

He left out what I notice most about liberal land -- if you actually want to do anything, you have to run twice as fast due to all the regulations and taxes.

"The history of the 20th century is a painful lesson on what happens when collective choices replace individual choices. Even leaving aside the chilling history of totalitarianism in the 20th century, the history of economic central planning shows it to have been such a widely recognized disaster that even communist and socialist governments were abandoning it as the century ended.

"

'via Blog this'

Is $1.6 Million Warm?

James Hansen and the Corruption of Science | Power Line:

Oops, James Hansen, one of the big Warmists "forgot" to report $1.6 Million in income. I'm sure he is a Democrat, so at least it isn't "illegal" -- as near as I can tell, if you are a good enough Democrat, taxes are at best "optional" ... Tom Daschle, Tim Geitner, Warren Buffett, and many many more just over the past few years.

The thing is, is it even POSSIBLE that a Warmists views could be influenced by cash?

Nah, never mind. No story here ... let's move along and talk about the evil of the Koch Brothers!

'via Blog this'

BO On Spending

Kicking our spending habit - Opinion - The Boston Globe:

Here is BO talking of spending ... and the article covers what he has done. Biggest spender in history, and HOW would one ever trust him???

"We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration, or the next generation,’’ Obama told a White House summit on fiscal responsibility . “You don’t spend what you don’t have.’"

'via Blog this'