Say Anything Blog

We all know what happens when Barack Obama has to get down from the podium and make statements that aren’t scripted and rehearsed in advance.  He usually puts his foot in his mouth and his disciples (especially those in the media) are forced to rush in and make it all better.

While the American media might be willing to go along with that, the foreign media may not.  So how is Obama tackling this problem?  He’s pretty much not going to talk to any foreign reporters outside of scripted events.

We have been wondering how Barack Obama would get by overseas with unscripted moments, in new settings to which he is unaccustomed. I think I have it: he isn’t going to speak in public unless it is scripted. Today from Afghanistan: “I’m more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking.” And from the Wall Street Journal:

Facing Republican attacks that Sen. Barack Obama’s coming overseas trip is a political stunt, the Obama campaign said the Democratic presidential contender will hold private meetings with Middle Eastern and European leaders, and avoid public appearances that could be perceived as campaigning.

It could be perceived as having to handle topics he is ill-equipped to opine upon, with no teleprompter. He has already stiffed the foreign press which is notoriously aggressive and unmanageable. In other words he’s there to look around and take some pictures to show back home. Is he on a tourist visa?

He might as well be.  Not only is he not talking to the foreign media, he’s also already made up his mind on policy concerning Iraq and Afghanistan before he even visited.

He says he’s touring the middle east and Europe to “listen” but it really just all seems like a photo-op.

Back in March of last year, over in the Reader Blogs, an up and coming new blogger wrote on the British documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Rob graciously linked to the video here.

Well, it’s back in the news again, after fifteen months, because of a complaint filed with “the UK’s media regulator”, which sounds a bit Orwellian, but it seems that British Channel 4 is to be censured for the way it represented some of the scientists in the documentary.  The Guardian has the details:

Watchdog finds documentary was unfair to scientists but did not mislead viewers

...it is understood that Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on a separate complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulator’s broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers.

...The Ofcom ruling is expected to find that Wunsch was misled about the tone and content of the programme, but that his views were accurately represented within it. Durkin, who had previously made other controversial documentaries, including Against Nature and the Rise and Fall of GM, vigorously defended the broadcast.

“The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong,” he wrote.

Channel 4 justified the broadcast by saying it was a useful contribution to a timely debate, arguing that it had a tradition for iconoclastic programming and had also aired programmes supporting the case for man-made climate change.

I wonder how Michael Moore would stand up if he were to be reviewed by a media regulator on the content of his docuimaginaries?

Cross Posted at Proof Positive

...there’s this:

Next up: “Hope you can be hopeful for.”

Is the image photoshopped?  I don’t know, but it’s believable that this could be a slogan that emerged from Obama’s rather vapid campaign and that’s all that really matters.

That’s what Reuters is reporting:

BERLIN (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

This will no doubt have Obama and his disciples crowing given how much flak the messiah has been taking (from the left and the right) over his Iraq policy, but it’s worth noting that the only thing Maliki is agreeing with here is the 16 month time frame.  He thinks his government and its security forces could take over in that amount of time, which frankly is something that makes Obama and the rest of the liberals who were declaring the war lost a year ago look like short-sighted idiots.

That Iraq will be capable of taking over in 16 months, at least in the opinion of the country’s elected (thanks to President Bush) leader, flies directly in the face of everything Obama and the Democrats have been telling us about Iraq since day one.

As for the time line itself, it’s worth noting that McCain would hand over Iraq to the Iraqis in 16 months and withdraw our troops if it turned out that the Iraqis were ready in that time line.  The difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain is willing to stay beyond that 16 months to finish the mission.

Obama would abandon the Iraqis even if they needed us longer.

I really don’t care that Earl Pomeroy failed to increase subsidies for things like wind energy given that I don’t think any energy source that can’t exist without subsidies is the answer to our energy needs, but I do care that Pomeroy so willingly voted against the oil industry that has been so instrumental in making North Dakota’s economy roar to life even as the economy in the rest of the state slows down.

Who does Pomeroy really represent?  North Dakotans, who are basking in the prosperity created by new oil exploration and development in North Dakota?  Or the out of state interests that fund his campaign?

Ray Fisman asks that question over at Slate.

My answer is that the problem has less to do with hiring good teachers and more to do with difficulty (thanks to teacher’s unions) with firing bad teachers.

Anyone who has ever done any significant amount of hiring can tell you that every hire is a roll of the dice.  Sometimes you’ll hire someone with an impressive resume, great interview skills and positive references and they’ll turn out to be a dud.  Other times you’ll hire someone with a checkered employment history and a less-than-stellar resume and they turn out to be one of your best employees.

What is most important to developing a good work force is not hiring decisions (though that’s a big part of it) but rather the ability to weed out employees who aren’t working so they can be replaced with someone better.  It’s a trial-and-error process.  Sometimes good employees can let their performance slip.  Sometimes bad employees can improve their performance.

Either way, management has got to be able to effectively remove those who aren’t working well and replace them with those who will.  If management can’t do that they can’t get rid of bad employees, and good employees have little incentive to keep performing.

Teacher unions have for years been throwing roadblocks in the way of school administrator’s ability to fire bad teachers.  Which is why many of America’s schools routinely perform below par.

Want better teachers?  Make it easier to fire bad teachers.

Surprising news.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota continues to receive plenty of attention as a possible running mate for John McCain, but he isn’t the only Upper Midwest Republican governor appearing on speculators’ short lists.

Vice President John Hoeven?

The Wall Street Journal recently fielded an online poll asking readers who among 12 possible candidates would make the best running mate for McCain, and the North Dakota governor was one of the 12 choices offered.

I’ve never made any bones about my dislike for Governor Hoeven.  I think he’s an opportunistic political triangulator who, for a man who claims to be a Republican, cares very little for the principles of fiscal conservatism.  That being said, a McCain/Hoeven ticket is something I could get behind.

Think about it.  McCain picks Hoeven.  Hoeven resigns as Governor.  He’ll leave North Dakota to take up a post where, frankly, he can’t do a lot of harm and finally the NDGOP will be free to pick a candidate for Governor who might actually be conservative.

My only question is: Who can I call to make this happen?

As I was sitting at the North Dakota State Fair parade today watching the small contingent of Barack Obama supporters trudge up the street while my daughter booed them and threw candy I had a thought: Does Barack Obama support a single policy that advances the cause of freedom?

Do Democrats in general?

Think about this for a moment.  On what major policy issues do Barack Obama and his Democrats support a solution that involves making people more free.

On energy Obama and his liberals would rather use the force of law to make you live your life differently (tell you want kind of light bulbs to use, etc.) rather than make energy producers more free to actually produce energy.

On the war in Iraq Obama and his liberals would rather abandon the Iraqis to the machinations of Iran and Syria then support the free and representative government we help them set up.

On fiscal issues Obama and his liberals would rather raise taxes and increase the power government has over us than cut taxes and let us live with less government interference.

On trade issues Obama and his liberals would like to stop you from being able to purchase goods and services provided by foreign companies if you choose that those goods/services meet your standards for price and quality.

I’ve been pondering this all morning, and I can’t think of a single issue where Barack Obama and the Democrats support a policy that makes Americans more free.  I’d challenge readers out there, especially you liberal readers, to come up with one policy proposal supported by Democrats and/or Barack Obama that makes us more free.

Because I don’t think anyone is going to be able to come up with one.

After giving fourteen and a half minutes of video from Senator O’blurry, I thought 30 seconds of a McCain spot might be fair and balanced!

Hat tip Hot Air

Cross Posted at Proof Positive

Democrat James Oberstar refuses to grant an exemption to the historic Delta Queen riverboat. Unlike two years ago when he did, back when the crew was unionized.

It’s a shame that petty politics threaten to ground this particular piece of history, denying folks a little taste of what their forefathers knew!

Hat tip John Lott
Cross Posted at Proof Positive

McCain will never be able to lay claim to Obama’s oratory gifts, but the advantage he has over Obama is that he’s right.

At least on the Iraq issue anyway.

“They [the Democrats] were wrong then and they’re wrong now.”

If anything will do in Barack Obama and the Democrats this election season it’s those words.  They’ve been so frightfully wrong about Iraq, and there’s nothing they can do to hide it any more.

According to Jerry Pournelle:

The purpose of modern government is to take money from the folks who save and pay their bills and live within their means, and use that to hire government workers; and to keep their power by using the money to buy votes from those who do not save and pay their bills and live within their means. And of course the money comes from those who work and save and pay their bills and live within their means—who else will have any money for the government to take?

Sounds about right to me.  And they get away with it by defining all those taxpayers who “save and pay their bills and live within their means” as “the rich” who deserve to be taxed so that the poor “victims” who don’t live their lives responsible can continue to live irresponsibly.

From what is arguably the best rock/blues album ever, Layla and Other Love Songs. This is a classic that defines the word. 

Allegedly this screen capture from McCain’s latest campaign commercial is proof of a subliminal message the nefarious McCain advertising people put in to make people link Obama with al Qaeda.

Here’s the explanation from ABC News:

At the very beginning, the title—“The Obama Iraq Documentary”—flashes into place in a blaze of orange. And for a single frame—a tiny fraction of a second—Obama’s face is framed by the following prominent letters: “a l q D.”

Some caveats: “al qD” is meaningless by itself. The “l” is actually the capital “I” in “Iraq,” though in the typeface used in the video, it looks like a lowercase “L.” Other letters—at either end of the title—are simultaneously on the screen. And many editing programs do allow randomized letter placement.

But still. . . . For a brief moment, Obama’s face is framed by letters that the brain may want to play with and spell something that does make sense. If you type “al qD” into Google, you get this response: “Did you mean: al qaeda.”

Here’s the campaign ad played at full speed.

Stupid controversy ever?  You betcha.  But that won’t stop ABC News from using the hysteria over that now-infamous New Yorker cover to question why the McCain campaign let this “subliminal message” slip by them.

A McCain aide told ABC that it was primarily put together by an editor who had about 48 hours to throw it together in advance of Obama’s foreign trip.

Still, in this era of hyper-analysis — and in the very week that a non-subtle New Yorker cover was blasted as beyond the bounds of satire — should something like this have slipped by Team McCain?

Maybe it slipped by them because it’s just a random arrangement of letters that a) don’t even spell out al Qaeda direction and b) are on the screen for less than a second.

I guess that explanation makes too much sense or something.

This is really too bad.

NEW YORK - Phil Gramm, a top adviser to presidential candidate John McCain, said Friday he is resigning from the role as campaign co-chairman after his comments that the United States had become a “nation of whiners” who constantly complain about the state of the economy.

For all the controversy that surrounded Gramm’s comments he wasn’t wrong.

That McCain ousted him from the campaign shows a weakness of character and lack of leadership that speaks volumes about McCain himself.  Rather than a “stick to your guns” sort of leader willing to do what he thinks is right despite the whimsical opinions of the media and the mob McCain is showing himself to be the sort of finger-in-the-wind politician that Bill Clinton was.

As we all brace ourselves for the orgy of adulation and worship that will be Obama’s international campaign trip (still trying to figure out why any American politician should be campaigning overseas) it’s worth noting that Obama isn’t adored in every nation he’ll be visiting.

In the past month, one poll found 36 percent of Israelis preferred McCain, versus 27 percent for Obama, while in another, 46 percent of respondents said a McCain presidency “would be better for Israel,” compared to 20 percent who said the same about Obama.

For what it’s worth.

I, personally, think the only opinions that matter about Obama’s qualifications for office are American opinions.  That being said, unlike those of us here in America the Israelis have to actually live in the middle east.  They live and breathe the war on terror daily, and if they don’t think Obama is the right man for the job...well, that tells us something doesn’t it?

So much for all those Bush “tax cuts for the rich” the liberals are always on about.

In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes. In 1990, those figures were 14 percent and 25.1 percent, respectively.

Barack Obama is one Democrat who has been engaging in some campaign rhetoric about “tax cuts for the rich.” Here’s an example from a speech Obama gave to the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia (video at the link):

Over the last seven years, we’ve had an administration that serves the interests of the wealthy and the well-connected, no matter what the cost to working families, and to our economy. It’s an administration that didn’t lift a finger while our economy rolled toward recession until the pain folks were feeling on Main Street trickled up to their friends on Wall Street.

It’s an administration that’s been handing out tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans who don’t need them and aren’t even asking for them.

And it’s an administration that denies labor a seat at the table when trade deals are being negotiated, that doesn’t believe in unions, that doesn’t believe in organizing, and that’s packed the labor relations board with their corporate buddies.

Now, John McCain said a few weeks ago that “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should” - and that’s clear since all he’s offering is more of the same Bush policies that have put the American Dream out of reach for so many Americans.

Like George Bush, Senator McCain is committed to more tax cuts for the rich, and more trade agreements that fail to protect American workers. His response to the housing crisis amounts to little more than watching millions of Americans face foreclosure. And some of his top advisors were lobbyists for the special interest when they went to work for his campaign, so it’s not hard to guess who they’ll be working for if they get into the White House.

The problem with all this is that President Bush didn’t give tax relief to the rich.  The richest Americans are paying more in taxes than ever before.

Now, personally, I don’t think it’s a good thing to keep amassing most of this country’s tax burden onto the shoulders of the wealthiest Americans, but for anyone to say that those Americans got a tax break during the Bush administration is an outright liar.

One has to wonder why our media, which is allegedly committed to truth and objectivity, don’t call Obama and other Democrats out on this particular lie they’ve been perpetuating for years.

Take a good hard look at what Hezbollah is calling a hero.

Before I even go into this guy’s history, let me ask you this…..if this man lived next door to you would you let your children play in his yard?

There is a look in this man’s eyes that says, hey, I’m crazy as an outhouse mouse and you know what else? I like it like that. And I can hear all the leftist arguments starting even before they can think of them.

Well, he got that way because of all the time he spent in Israeli jails. It was the Jews and their mean treatment of this man that gave him that crazy look.

No. It wasn’t.

That look was in his eyes when he used his rifle butt to bash the brains out of a four year old girl’s head after he had shot her father in front of her so that the last thing she would see would be her daddy’s death.

That look in his eyes was why he was picked for this type of mission in the first place.

That is a look that can’t be created, that was there from the beginning. Just look into his eyes. He’s stupid, dangerous, and pure evil.

And now Israel has let him go.

Mark this: More death will come either from this man or because of him. It was a huge mistake to trade this imbecilic, murdering lunatic for the two bodies of those soldiers. Nothing, nothing, was accomplished by that. Nothing that is even remotely on the positive side, anyway. And he’s being celebrated as a hero. What kind of people do that?

Any other society in the world would lock this guy away as a dangerous psychopath for clubbing a child to death.

I said in an earlier piece that letting him go was stupid, stupid, stupid. After seeing this man’s eyes I have to say that I was wrong.

Stupid doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Tonight’s Friday Night Babe is making a big splash on the silver screen today as well!

Maggie Gyllenhaal replaces Tom Cruise’s wife what’s-her-name in the Batman blockbuster Dark Knight, which opened one minute after midnight.
Last year, Maggie took over for Kate Moss as top model for Agent Provocateur lingerie.

Cross Posted at Proof Positive

Stupid:

This now available from the U.S. State Department: “2009 Mosques of America Wall Calendar: Limited Edition for Ramadan.”

“Yep, you read that correctly. It’s ‘perfect for Muslim outreach efforts,” according to a commentary at the Gates of Vienna blog. “Where’s the ACLU on this one?”

The product was being advertised by “Global Publishing Solutions,” a division of the U.S. State Department, until bloggers started talking about it.

Officials then apparently hid the page behind the security of a password-protected wall. However, the page is still viewable in a Google cache of the website.

I don’t know what’s dumber: That the State Department is running what amounts to an endorsement of a religion or that the State Department is in the calendar business.

Or that the State Department apparently owns a publishing outfit.

Maybe if these idiots spent a little less time worried about publishing things and selling calendars and more time doing their jobs the world would be a better place.