I have long hoped to be presented with evidence that shows the brilliance of our current president. He has been touted as one helluva smart dude. "Smartest guy in the room" and such. I guess that depends who is with him in the room. If it's Joe Biden...
This Mark Steyn piece provides some insights. He speaks of a recent speech the Einstein-in-Chief gave and the side-splitters he issued to mock his opponents. What also isn't funny, however, is that I hadn't heard of these "gaffs" before reading Steyn's column. Why is that, do you think?
Anyway, the subject of Obama's brain, such as it is, has been on my mind of late due to the price at the pump lately. Around my neck of the woods, its been between about $4.19-4.29 per gallon for regular unleaded. And what's President Solyndra been doing about it? Pretty much anything he can to drive that price up higher while favoring failing alternative energy companies that aren't employing anyone.
I recall an interview I heard not too many years ago wherein the man being interviewed spoke of supposedly dry oil wells having oil once more. I've mentioned this in past discussions regarding the subject of limited resources. Apparently there is a theory that is in opposition to the fossil fuel theory. This was first presented by the Russians from research begun during Stalin's time. The attendant link, from another poorly written article at American Thinker (where, as we know, among the hundred plus contributors, there's not a decent writer in the bunch) includes links of its own to sources that flesh out this theory for those so inclined as to read them.
The link also includes a video of a collection of clips of Obama repeating a mantra that there is no "silver bullet" answer to dealing with our energy problems and dependence on foreign oil. Is this stupidity from the smartest prez ever, or a calculated lie? The link that carries said video presents a refutation of Barry's claim that we possess only 2% of the world's oil supply (down from 3% according to previous speeches). Whatever the case, it is not very smart to fail to understand what is at stake here.
Regardless of whether or not one believes we have enough oil for the next 200 years, or the next fifty, there is no doubt that lifting moratoriums and prohibitions on drilling and production will lower the price at the pump. It's simple supply and demand where if the supply is perceived to be about to increase, the price will drop to reflect that increase. The positive effect on the economy should be obvious. If the cost to transport goods goes down, profits from the sale of those goods goes up.
This is so basic. I thought this guy wants to be re-elected? I'm guessing he has some plan to make some of this happen before we get too close to November. Then the question will be how smart the voters are.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Rush Is Just SO Mean!
My current job leaves me little time to remain abreast of all that is going on in the world. Just this past week I put in a bit over an hour shy of 70 hours. Add almost seven hours of total commute time, and sleep is about all I do during the week and too much of the weekend when not working. I skim the newspaper, check emails, read a few blogs leaving an occasional comment and curse my inability to watch every Bulls game.
So this Rush Limbaugh controversy was unknown to me. As I typically start my shift at 7PM, I don't ever hear his show these days, since it's long over when I wake up. But Parkie was kind enough to draw my attention to it.
Now, it should be known that I was already aware of Sandra Fluke's testimony, as I had read of it Wintery Knight's fine blog, which also gave a bit more background regarding Fluke.
I must admit, that after reading WK's piece, and watching the attendant video, that I had similar thoughts regarding her and students like her. That is to say, I was not impressed with their character. It's not so much that they are promiscuous, and yes, unmarried sexual behavior is sexual promiscuity, but that they now wish for their shamefulness to be subsidized.
Frankly, there are so many problems with this controversy and the arguments put up by Fluke that it is hard to know where to begin. So I'll dive in in no particular order.
1. Why are students having sex? The purpose of a university education does not include providing opportunity to indulge in that which one is not prepared to handle. And at such an institution as Georgetown, it seems most out of line. Fluke tried to make a lame point regarding the obvious fact that one attending a faith based institution should know of the expectations of that institution. She made some noise about such a place living its own creed by thinking of the student's entire well being, which I guess to her includes their possible indulgence in bad behavior. She apparently feels students, due to their legal ages, have a right to sex. This is not true.
2. Fluke makes the point regarding married students burdened by the cost of contraception. Boo-hoo. What is important here? Having sex or getting the sheepskin? Sacrificing to gain success in any endeavor is not a matter of picking and choosing what should be sacrificed, and then, deciding what one won't sacrifice, gain subsidies to cover the costs involved. It should be noted that there are cost efficient means of contraception, such as denying one's self for the purpose of not interfering with the achievement of the goals sought, as well as lowering the chances of pregnancy by employment of the rhythm method. I don't know what it costs to stock up on rubbers, but to have some on hand for those married couples who can only hold out so long can't be that much.
3. Ovarian cysts. The pill is not the only means of preventing and treating ovarian cysts. Fluke tried this argument as well, and while there is likely ways to have this dealt with on the side, such as possibly a rider on one's policy (just guessing here as I am not an insurance expert) that can be funded by the student or her family and not the institution, it is really just another case of using the rare exception to provide for all the more selfish, self-gratifying goals of achieving the goal of forcing the institution to cover this totally elective behavior. (That is, it is much like the argument for abortion by constantly referring to the few cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother, and then demanding that it be allowed for any reason whatsoever.) Proper nutrition and exercise can go a long way toward preventing this totally preventable situation.
And really, the case she cited is an incredibly cheap one. If the girl in question is a lesbian as Fluke says, then why go on with the whining about having a child? This goes further into the issue of forcing an institution to fund something that totally conflicts with its ideology and religious beliefs. First, the lesbianism, and then, a lesbian getting pregnant to provide a child for her and a grandchild for her parents. Sorry, but this is totally forcing a religious institution to act against its beliefs and is not constitutional.
4. Contraception as health care. Huh? How so? The purpose of health insurance, at least when it was invented, was to provide a means of pooling funds of a large population of premium payers so that the smaller percentage of that population that experiences a catastrophic illness or injury won't be wiped out financially. It is not meant to handle the expense of hangnail level injuries, common cold level of illness and definitely not the consequences of morally questionable lifestyles.
Talk about moral decline! First we have people preaching free love and now it is considered so necessary to sustain life that we must subsidize it by covering contraception?
5. Regardless of Fluke's attempts to muddy the waters with tales of married students' financial burdens and lesbians with cysts (I know. It's ain't just lesbians. Don't waste my time.), Rush's comments aren't inaccurate even if a bit crude. Unmarried women who engage in sex ARE sluts (I know. So are men. Don't waste my time.) Though the word has slightly alternative meanings, it has come to be commonly known as a woman who is promiscuous and that term fits any who have sex outside of marriage.
So as I said, there is so much wrong here. I could go even further and speak of sponsors who have left Rush's show or are considering it. From what I've been able to read in this short time, these sponsors left more out of pressure than a personal belief that Rush went too far. I'm not about to investigate each one, but I do feel compelled to apply opposite pressure with letters of my own. I would threaten to never patronize their business, and encourage others to ignore them as well, for their cowardice of caving to the wailings of morally corrupt people. This flies in the face of Parkie insisting that no one takes Rush seriously anymore. Apparently they do if they would allow a few sluts to threaten them if they continue to advertize during Rush's show.
Parkie often accuses me of "crying" about things posted here and there. THIS is "crying". A bunch of liberal jackwagons (H/T R. Lee Ermey) crying over Rush calling a loose woman a slut. To the Parkster, it is far worse to be called by the word attached to a behavior than to engage in the behavior known by the word used to describe it.
UPDATE...ALREADY!!!
It seems that Rush has apologized. Notice that he didn't say "if I offended anyone". He acknowledges the offense of his words and just straightforwardly apologizes. Libs take note how it's done.
So this Rush Limbaugh controversy was unknown to me. As I typically start my shift at 7PM, I don't ever hear his show these days, since it's long over when I wake up. But Parkie was kind enough to draw my attention to it.
Now, it should be known that I was already aware of Sandra Fluke's testimony, as I had read of it Wintery Knight's fine blog, which also gave a bit more background regarding Fluke.
I must admit, that after reading WK's piece, and watching the attendant video, that I had similar thoughts regarding her and students like her. That is to say, I was not impressed with their character. It's not so much that they are promiscuous, and yes, unmarried sexual behavior is sexual promiscuity, but that they now wish for their shamefulness to be subsidized.
Frankly, there are so many problems with this controversy and the arguments put up by Fluke that it is hard to know where to begin. So I'll dive in in no particular order.
1. Why are students having sex? The purpose of a university education does not include providing opportunity to indulge in that which one is not prepared to handle. And at such an institution as Georgetown, it seems most out of line. Fluke tried to make a lame point regarding the obvious fact that one attending a faith based institution should know of the expectations of that institution. She made some noise about such a place living its own creed by thinking of the student's entire well being, which I guess to her includes their possible indulgence in bad behavior. She apparently feels students, due to their legal ages, have a right to sex. This is not true.
2. Fluke makes the point regarding married students burdened by the cost of contraception. Boo-hoo. What is important here? Having sex or getting the sheepskin? Sacrificing to gain success in any endeavor is not a matter of picking and choosing what should be sacrificed, and then, deciding what one won't sacrifice, gain subsidies to cover the costs involved. It should be noted that there are cost efficient means of contraception, such as denying one's self for the purpose of not interfering with the achievement of the goals sought, as well as lowering the chances of pregnancy by employment of the rhythm method. I don't know what it costs to stock up on rubbers, but to have some on hand for those married couples who can only hold out so long can't be that much.
3. Ovarian cysts. The pill is not the only means of preventing and treating ovarian cysts. Fluke tried this argument as well, and while there is likely ways to have this dealt with on the side, such as possibly a rider on one's policy (just guessing here as I am not an insurance expert) that can be funded by the student or her family and not the institution, it is really just another case of using the rare exception to provide for all the more selfish, self-gratifying goals of achieving the goal of forcing the institution to cover this totally elective behavior. (That is, it is much like the argument for abortion by constantly referring to the few cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother, and then demanding that it be allowed for any reason whatsoever.) Proper nutrition and exercise can go a long way toward preventing this totally preventable situation.
And really, the case she cited is an incredibly cheap one. If the girl in question is a lesbian as Fluke says, then why go on with the whining about having a child? This goes further into the issue of forcing an institution to fund something that totally conflicts with its ideology and religious beliefs. First, the lesbianism, and then, a lesbian getting pregnant to provide a child for her and a grandchild for her parents. Sorry, but this is totally forcing a religious institution to act against its beliefs and is not constitutional.
4. Contraception as health care. Huh? How so? The purpose of health insurance, at least when it was invented, was to provide a means of pooling funds of a large population of premium payers so that the smaller percentage of that population that experiences a catastrophic illness or injury won't be wiped out financially. It is not meant to handle the expense of hangnail level injuries, common cold level of illness and definitely not the consequences of morally questionable lifestyles.
Talk about moral decline! First we have people preaching free love and now it is considered so necessary to sustain life that we must subsidize it by covering contraception?
5. Regardless of Fluke's attempts to muddy the waters with tales of married students' financial burdens and lesbians with cysts (I know. It's ain't just lesbians. Don't waste my time.), Rush's comments aren't inaccurate even if a bit crude. Unmarried women who engage in sex ARE sluts (I know. So are men. Don't waste my time.) Though the word has slightly alternative meanings, it has come to be commonly known as a woman who is promiscuous and that term fits any who have sex outside of marriage.
So as I said, there is so much wrong here. I could go even further and speak of sponsors who have left Rush's show or are considering it. From what I've been able to read in this short time, these sponsors left more out of pressure than a personal belief that Rush went too far. I'm not about to investigate each one, but I do feel compelled to apply opposite pressure with letters of my own. I would threaten to never patronize their business, and encourage others to ignore them as well, for their cowardice of caving to the wailings of morally corrupt people. This flies in the face of Parkie insisting that no one takes Rush seriously anymore. Apparently they do if they would allow a few sluts to threaten them if they continue to advertize during Rush's show.
Parkie often accuses me of "crying" about things posted here and there. THIS is "crying". A bunch of liberal jackwagons (H/T R. Lee Ermey) crying over Rush calling a loose woman a slut. To the Parkster, it is far worse to be called by the word attached to a behavior than to engage in the behavior known by the word used to describe it.
UPDATE...ALREADY!!!
It seems that Rush has apologized. Notice that he didn't say "if I offended anyone". He acknowledges the offense of his words and just straightforwardly apologizes. Libs take note how it's done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)