Destroyer of The World?

Newsweek in all its wisdom has put out an image of President Barack Obama, a man they helped elect that depicts him as the Hindu God Lord Shiva. Shiva is known in the Hindu faith as the Destroyer of the World.

What was Newsweek thinking? It may have been as we say in flyover country too clever by half. In other words Shiva, destroyer of the world, performs his task in order to fulfill an inevitability. You see the world must be destroyed in order to be reborn into a universal order. You know, one world in peace and harmony. How many of us dullards would ever get past "destroyer of the world"? Not too many, obviously.

How could the geniuses at Newsweek being such deep thinkers who clearly see below the the surface tension of our polarized society and into the metaphysical realm not see that this might be offensive to Hindus? Really? The same magazine that regards the average American as hopelessly Islamophobic thinks nothing of insulting the nation with the world's largest democracy. What's next pictures of Obama with a halo around his head?

Obviously I understand what Newsweek was getting at on multiple levels, but was this really the best way or the best time for this? I know the President didn't ask for this, but it makes him and us look bad. With friends like Newsweek, does the President even need enemies...


CW

Wow! Really?

My wife has a habit of overusing the fad phrase of the day. Usually they are fun or cute or even clever - for a while. Her latest is "chillaxing". Frankly this one is neither fun, cute nor clever. The other phrase of the day is "Wow! Really?". This one is dragged out whenever someone overstates the obvious. Used judiciously this one can be fun and clever.

So when I heard the story of the JournoList, a list serve consisting of several hundred liberal journalists as well as others, which concluded, based on leaked entries that mainstream journalists conspired to protect Barack Obama's candidacy in 2008 my first thought was, wow! Really?

Helen Keller could have concluded that the major media was in the tank for Barack Obama and she is dead as well as being deaf, dumb and blind. I suppose there is a chance that considerate voters believed they were being fed fair and balanced reporting during the 2008 presidential campaign. The McCain campaign was painfully inept, but that does not excuse the news media literally ignoring some of Obama's highly questionable associations and positions.

These journalists checked their objectivity at the door and colluded to give the edge to Obama. If John McCain had been the equivalent of Adolph Hiltler one could understand such action, but McCain was a moderate Republican who had been a war hero and a reasonably honorable man all his life. In fact, based on Obama's associations and positions he could have easily been compared to the less than honorable, budding dictator, Hugo Chavez. To these so-called journalists a war hero and moderate Republican was far worse than any two-bit third world dictator.

Barack Obama would have been a long shot if the media had been as tenacious on his back story as they were on Sarah Palin's. Mrs. Palin was not the best choice for McCain's running mate at the time - it was a blunder (this coming from an admirer and someone who had followed her career long before the summer of 2008). The pile on she endured was way out of whack regarding her experience and qualifications for being Vice President since they easily matched Obama's for being President. This was an undeniable fact.

It seems that considerate voters have had a revelation about the media made messiah. President Obama has achieved some impressive legislative feats with super majorities in both houses of Congress. He has not, however, made a positive difference for millions of jobless Americans, including most African Americans. He has not and is incapable of making Americans feel good about their country. He is a scolder, a finger waver. He engenders no sense of certainty that our businesses or our citizens can rally around to build a prosperous future. In fact, many are uncertain he even wants a prosperous future for this particular country.

What was that you just said? Wow! Really?




CW

Poison Headlines: Brown Beats Coakley

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the Brown vs Coakley race was huge. The fact that we are now calling him Sentor-elect Brown (R) MA is a testament to how much of a shocker it is to have a GOPer poised to take Ted Kennedy's seat. Most the nations headline writers were touting the appropriate shock toward this most unlikely occurrence. Some were more Obama focused than was called for, but one headline takes the cake.




It is by coincidence my very own hometown paper. The StarTribune (some here call it the Red Star) finds a way to treat Scott Brown's moment of glory as if it is a dirty deed by fitting the words GOP and Threaten into a headline. There's no way that if Coakley would have won that there would be any such negativity. It's not necessarily subliminal because its in-your-face but it has the same effect on the casual reader.

They don't understand (or care, I guess) that when they call to offer me free newspapers in the hope that I would become a subscriber I don't just say no - I say hell no!

It's a lousy excuse for a major metropolitan newspaper. The bankruptcy judge thought so too...



CW

Racist Baby Buggy Bumpers

So the people who are influenced by Fox News (or Faux News if you prefer) are ignorant rubes being brainwashed, but those who are influenced by Newsweek or other left leaning propaganda sources are truly enlightened. Isn't that right?

The very week that charges of racism are flying around the media and blogosphere that those who oppose the Obama prescription for health care reform are indeed racists, does anyone else find it as obvious as I do what Newsweek is trying to do with this cover story?

Essentially they are saying, listen rubes it's not your fault if you can't see the sheer brilliance of Obama's plan because you were born a racist. You can't help it...

I don't really care that this may have been a perfectly legitimate study and scientifically valid, verifiable and testable (though I doubt it is) the point is the timing and the placement on the cover of a (once) respected news magazine. Who are they trying to kid?

Are we to assume that the dialogue Newsweek wishes to engage is a simple verification of white guilt organic style?

In the article, the authors say that black parents teaching ethnic pride is very good for a child's self-confidence. They then assert that the thought of white children having some kind of ethnic pride is "horrifying to imagine" and "abhorrent".

Why is it that white scholars and liberal activists ignore a most significant racial tenet offered by anyone of any color? Martin Luther King Jr. was crystal clear when he advised us all that a man should not be judged by the color of his skin, but rather by the content of his character.

Honestly, what more needs to be said? Just this: shame on you Newsweek.



CW

Random Thoughts

Massive Federal Deficits
I have never been one to worry much about Federal government deficits. Running a reasonable deficit is not necessarily bad. Most of us owe significantly more on our homes than we can payoff in any single year. If we have any consumer debt we carry over from year to year as we pay it off it can be said we are running a deficit. The same is true for the national government - they spend more than they take in. But the government is not like you and I in the sense that it can print money, sell bonds, and raise taxes to aquire additional revenue. Each of these, of course, has consequences. The most harmful up front is raising taxes since it can have the effect of stifling economic growth in the private sector. The others, however are not disasterous whatsoever if - and this is a big if - 1.) the money being spent is building infrastructure to enhance economic growth and not for bottomless pit social programs and 2.) is bolstered with sensible pro-growth economic policies.

So am I worried about the Obama administration's spending program? Yes, precisely because it is doing neither point 1 nor point 2. The stimulus package as a strategy is fine, but the 800 billion dollar pig that was rammed through Congress was a social engineering exercise and has been followed up with nothing that could be considered pro-growth.

Democratic Party Cheerleading
I was watching Morning Joe this morning on MSNBC (OK I like to get my blood boiling first thing in the morning) and they had NBC's White House Correspondent Chuck Todd on. During the obligitory banter portion Todd says, something to the effect of "we need to concentrate on important things like whether 'our boy' Terry Mcauliffe is going to have a political future in Virgina, you know the paper down there has endorsed one of those Republican candidates..."

For one Chuck Todd is a so-called journalist monitoring the White House for us as an unbiased observer (well, he supposed to be unbiased). Calling Terry Mcauliffe "Our boy" just seemed too cozy. Brushing off the "Republican candidate" is par for the course, but gee Chuck, does he or she have a name? Good reporting. Yeah, yeah, I know those clowns at "Faux News" are cheerleading for the other side everyday, but not the official White House correspondent. It's unseemly.

Democratic Party Cheerleading II
Phil Bronstein of the San Francisco Chronicle writes:

"(the) heroic days of the Kennedy Administration PR, where the press and the president were pretty much all in on the same screenplay and the same jokes, couldn't happen in our modern era, what with paparazzi and tabloids and talk shows, citizen sound-bite scavengers and voracious 24/7 news cycles. But now that the stumbling Bushes and smirking Clintons are out of the White House, time has compressed back on itself like the machine in the Denzel Washington movie, "Deja Vu." It's the early 1960s and Camelot all over again:

So we're in love, lust, or just a whole lot of like. Clearly we get something in exchange, whether it's a little reflected exuberance, a sense of history or just some very minor role in a fun movie. If you want to appear in a movie with John Travolta, you go willingly with him to the LA Scientology Center and are happy about it. "I'm clear, man. Hand me the cans."

Even a well known lefty and Bush hater is saying gag me with a spoon over the cheerleading in the major media for the Prez! The reality is none of them wants to be cut off, dis invited or shunned to the back of the room because that's exactly what Obama and his people do with any dissenters.

Where Will The Canadians Go to Get Proper Health Care???
Dr. Gratzer, a physician and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, wrote recently:

"Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither. My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system....

"...indeed, Canada's provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery -- described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain."

"Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?"

Seems to me there must be a way to preserve what is clearly the best medical care while providing access for those who don't have it without resorting to what the Canadians and the British have implemented. I have seen healthcare providers perform veritable miracles on the young and old alike without undo waiting, pain or suffering. Denying healthcare to the elderly through rationing and creating unacceptable wait times for life saving procedures is no less immoral than millions without insurance. Obama and the Democrats simply must obey the the physicians credo - first, do no harm.

Climate Change Prattle
How can Al Gore and his minions continue this charade? Anyone who is not economically connected to the "Climate Change" mantra has come to realize that all the Chicken Little pronouncements are falling on deaf ears. The facts are the facts - the earth’s temperature has fallen more than 1 F since 1998, erasing the entire increase of the 20th century, and shows no signs of rising anytime soon. The southern hemisphere has had two brutally cold winters in a row. Here in the upper midwest we have had the coolest spring I can ever remember after having a very cool 2008. All evidence points to a major decrease in the Sun's output following the end of Solar Cycle 23. Why then are politicians so keen on shoving climate change legislation down our throats? Sure they get campaign contributions from the green industries and organizations - but they need our votes.

Climate Change Prattle II
When does eco-zealotry start to become a religion? Is it when the believers propose to punish the hereitics? Read these pronouncements by the high priests of the The Church of Global Warming Alamists: Let the trials begin!

NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction."

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

When will the madness end?


CW

The AP, CNN, Damn Lies and Statistics

Gotta love those professional editors at CNN.com. I know this is minor but I see this stuff all the time. Check out the headline from an online article at CNN.com...

American life expectancy longer than ever

• Story Highlights
• U.S. life expectancy rises to almost 78 years in 2005
  
• Drop in deaths from heart disease, strokes led to rise
  
• U.S. still lags behind at least 40 other countries
  
• Spain has longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years

Take note of the final bullet point... Now read the last paragraph verbatim:

The United States continues to lag behind at least 40 other nations. Andorra, a tiny country in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain, has the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Japan, Macau, San Marino and Singapore ranked second, third, fourth and fifth.

This is an example of lazy editors. Some one at CNN.com (either human or machine) glanced over this article and gleaned that "Spain, has the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, " and then wrote the summary for the bullet points. However in truth Andorra is the country that has the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, not Spain.

Minor, I know. But the other thing that gets me is how they claim that life expectancy for Americans is nearly 78 years, the longest in U.S. history. Good news right? Then the little dig - we still lag behind 3 dozen other countries. The next paragraph starts out: More bad news: The annual number of U.S. deaths rose from 2004 to 2005... What was the previous bad news? That we lag behind other countries? So what. Gee, if we were number one we would be blamed for taking all resources of the world so that our people could be number one. But I digress.

Comparing these U.S. stats against static homogeneous countries that don't have millions of immigrants pouring across their borders every year is disingenuous. It's apples and oranges.

Oh well, keep your filters on. Read between the lines. U. S. bad, everyone else good.


CW