Oh, yes they did

"Americans didn't vote for a rush to failure," huh? And yet, that's pretty much what we've gotten so far, isn't it? Yeah, credit's dried up (no big loss there), my grandkids will be paying this debt off, unemployment's skyrocketing, the Dow's in the toilet, but HEY! LOOK OVER THERE! IT'S RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!!!1!!one!!

(Hat tip: Don Surber for the photo, Michelle Malkin for the story)

It's 3am...do you know where your Treasury officials are?

It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the Treasury Department, and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world. Your vote has decided that no one will answer that call…no one tested or ready to lead in a dangerous world.

It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone? How about freaking SOMEBODY...ANYBODY?????

Fears of a Straw Man

A Facebook friend and ideological opposite of mine linked to the NY Times, where Timothy Egan went on a rant yesterday about Rush Limbaugh and how brilliantly the White House has "played" him.

Two comments followed at the FB link which: 1) said "smart conservatives" should be embarrassed by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin; and 2) said "smart conservatives" was an oxymoron. I wrote the following in response:

I truly don't understand why it is that Democrats always tell Republicans what we as a party should be. (And then a lot of them, including Egan and two commenters above me, proceed to evaluate my intelligence based on my belief system.)

I also don't get how Egan comes up with the idea that the White House has "played" Limbaugh or the conservative movement. If anything, the White House has looked petty by having Gibbs calling out Limbaugh, Santelli, Cramer, or whoever else dares to oppose them. Can you imagine Bush calling out Michael Moore or the Dixie Chicks by name? The press would have had a field day.

And, of course, Egan's comments on Rush consist of a lot of half-truths. "He reiterated his desire to see the president of his country fail." Yes, he wants to see anyone who would make this country into a socialist nation fail in that endeavor. "He made fun of one man’s service in Vietnam..." He stated that John Kerry made his four months in Vietnam out to be more heroic than they actually were.

But really, the issue here is that a lot of these Democrat columnists, along with moderates (i.e., not conseratives) like Brooks, Frum, and Parker, want the Republican Party to compromise its own main tenets. We just tried that with John McCain, who only got the base of the party out to vote when he selected a real conservative as his running mate.

And that brings us to Sarah Palin. Why should I be embarrassed by Sarah Palin? She is a fiscal conservative, and her social views match mine, though she will defer to her state's constitution over her own views when they disagree. Yes, she had a bad interview (though in her defense, at least two interviews in Sept were heavily edited to make her look bad)...so what? Obama needs a teleprompter just to introduce his HHS nominee. Non-story.

Here's the deal: conservatives want to see businesses and people keep more of their money. (I do NOT refer to failing businesses, including banks, getting bailouts. That is NOT what capitalism is about. However, there is a lot of blame to go around with regard to the banks, many of which were forced to give out bad risk loans. But I digress.) The Obama administration appears to believe Keynes's idea that the government can spend its country out of recession, even if it means massive debt. That's just something I, at least cannot compromise on. And for people who disagree with me to tell me that I have to compromise to succeed seems disingenuous at best.

GMA: Dave Ramsey doesn't like the budget

Dave Ramsey, now part of Good Morning America's "dream team" of financial pundits, opined this morning about the Obama administration's budget plans. In what shouldn't be a surprise to those who know of Dave Ramsey, he didn't much care for it.

Video is on ABC News's page here.

The American-Statesman listens to you...for a price

Let's see, it was almost exactly a year ago when the Austin American-Statesman decided that a good way to save money was to stop printing the Show World (their TV section). After a whole lot of bad publicity and negative comments from angry subscribers, the Statesman has decided to bring Show World back from the dead.

Today, I received the following mass-produced letter:

Dear Snowed In:

When you spoke, we listened.

And it only took a year!

Beginning March 8, your favorite television guide, filled with program times, channels and details, is back in its starring role every Sunday by request only for an additional 25¢.

Let's see, you've already raised the daily price by 25 cents in the past year...why not do the same to the Sunday paper? (Answer: because it just might not get the enthusiastic response y'all at the Statesman expect to get.)

To sign up today, call [snipped] or go to statesman.com/showworld.

Thank you again for sharing your feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to meet your news, information and entertainment needs.

Best regards,

Harry C. Davis
Vice President of Circulation

Oh, yeah, waiting an entire year to respond is really meeting my needs, thanks. And what's with the sending me this anyway, given that I cancelled 11 months ago? Is this supposed to make me come rushing back?

With all that said, I do utilize the daily's webpage. It's not bad. (It's not stellar, but it's not bad.) But the print edition, in my opinion, is quickly becoming obsolete.

Chris Matthews shoots off his mouth...yet again

Per TV Newser:

Just as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was getting ready to start his speech responding to President Obama's address to Congress, an audible voice could be heard on MSNBC saying "Oh, God." And who was the bastion of respectfulness? Why, it was none other than Chris Matthews, whose job it is to make sure Obama's presidency works. Don't believe me? You don't have to. Just watch.



You can send all cards and letters to MSNBC at this webpage.

Is Sarah Palin one of us?

There was enthusiasm for two people in the 2008 Presidential election: Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. But while Obama was praised for his pragmatism by the intelligentsia (of both sides), Palin was savaged for her "inexperience".

Who is "one of us", and who isn't? Who defines the answer to that question, and what does it mean? Thomas Sowell nails it.

A Taxpayers' Revolt?

Just in case you're one of the five people in the US who hasn't seen it (three of them are the rest of the Snowed family), here's Rick Santelli's original rant:



Many people are ticked off. People are organizing "Tea Parties" all over the country. Now there's a website recommending a mortgage strike in April.

I would like to see this movement gain traction. I would like to see it make a difference. But, I'm worried that the general response of the MSM and the Democrats who gave us this junk will be a collective “oh, how cute!” with a knowing smile as we all get right back to our jobs to pay for the grasshoppers’ bailouts. And I don't think too many people are going to skip a mortgage payment in this economy. I'm not going to either...I'm still trying to get my debt paid off.

I think the most we can hope for is that some people will come to the conclusion that it is not in anyone's best interest to sit around and wait for the government to pander to them. Alfonzo Rachel, as usual, is right on target with that point (and many others) in the following.



Watch the whole thing and consider what is the best course.

What Defines a "Useless Celebrity"?

With the biggest self-congratulatory exercise of the year over with (that'd be the Oscars), I thought it would be a good time to expand on what exactly is meant by my repeated use of the phrase/label "useless celebrity".

Are all celebrities useless? Is any child of God truly useless? I would say no to both. However, I would say that someone who either has gained their celebrity status in a totally worthless-to-society way (like, for example, Paris Hilton), or has used their celebrity status to make some sort of incredibly shallow political statement (like, for example, Scarlett Johansson), qualifies to be called a useless celebrity. They're not useless people, but things they say and do may very well be useless in and of themselves and should be considered as such.

(Incidentally, the Scarlett Johansson entry is still my most visited. If nothing else, I suppose that keeps me humble about the reach of my so-called punditry. And I guess it does illustrate how much we, as a world, seem to care about the irrelevant and trivial instead of what's truly important.)

I guess the fact that so many people care about what the beautiful people do and say makes it important for us to discern what statements, if any, are useful, and which are useless. Sadly, those making the useless types seem to vastly outnumber the others.

For example:

• Ashley Judd's silliness (as documented here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) regarding Sarah Palin has come and gone, as has, apparently, Ms. Judd's acting career, which is why she has to make such a courageous stand against someone hated by virtually all of Hollywood. Seriously, what has she done since Ya-Ya Sisterhood? What has she done worth watching since Double Jeopardy? (Disclaimer: the previous sentence is my opinion, as is the entire entry. Duh!)
  
• Tom Hanks has made and then backed away from rather divisive statements about California's Prop 8 supporters.
• Cher stated, in the midst of an anti-Republican rant, that living under Republican "rule" almost killed her. (See also here.)
  
• In addition to the venerable Ms. Judd, it appears to be becoming mandatory for liberal celebrities to concentrate their vitriol onto Governor Palin. It should come as no surprise to anyone to hear from people such as Janeane Garafalo, the once-great David Letterman, the supposedly objective Gwen Ifill, and, of course, the supposedly worthwhile and generally unfunny Keith Olbermann that they think Sarah Palin is apparently either such an idiot as to be unable to tie her own shoes without help, or a bimbo fantasy. Or both.
• And, of course, we can't forget the pledge of many celebrities to act more responsibly now that President Obama is in office. Of course, you should have been acting this way all along if you really meant it...
  

The best example of this type of "useless celebrity" behavior, at least this week, is the Oscars. The ceremony seems to be a magnet for lame manifestos (really, whose idea was it to give Bill Maher a bully platform for his anti-religion statements?). Sean Penn had his screed written well before he accepted Mickey Rourke's award. (Disclaimer: I've seen neither Milk nor The Wrestler; in fact, I've seen nothing nominated for pretty much anything at this year's ceremony, but I guessed the Academy would give the award to Mr. Penn due to the obvious political statement.) Past years have shown similar types of rants; for example...eh, never mind, I'm not giving Michael Moore a link.

Enjoy your awards and your fame, you guys. Just don't expect me to fall in lockstep with you because of them.

Yeah, it's been said, but it's still accurate

Let's see:

• 1996 welfare reform undone...check!
• Markets return to 1997 levels...check!
• The ants are asked to pay for the grasshoppers' excesses again...check!

The Obama administration and the Democratic Congress really are building a bridge back to the 20th Century!