Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Chasing Sarah


This past weekend, our national treasure -- S-Pal -- visited Washington, D.C., to kick off her grifter bus tour.

To add some spice, the hot tamale of American politics kept all her fans -- and the press corps -- guessing where she would go. There were hints she would be here, there, and everywhere.

And the Washington media, never getting enough to cover America's sweetheart, was chasing S-Pal all over the place. From The Huffington Post:

On Sunday, Palin entered Washington on the back of a Harley-Davidson in a war veterans' motorcycle parade that is part of the Memorial Day weekend observance in the capital.  Rumors, then Twitter messages, then posts on her website showed Palin had also visited sites in and near Washington -- the National Archives, where the U.S. Constitution is on display, and Baltimore's Fort McHenry, where the "rockets' red glare" described in the national anthem took place.  A photo on her website late on Sunday showed the closing words of the Gettysburg Address delivered by President Abraham Lincoln after the 1863 battle. That was taken as a hint.

The crack journalists at Dcap Media caught the Washington pundits Chasing Sarah around town:


And we wonder why the country is going off a cliff. Instead of discussing real problems, the U.S. media is running around like a bunch of Keystone Kops chasing a woman who will cause a helluva lot more problems than she is worth.

Michele Bachmann: "In the midst of all the talk about facts and figures and insurance policies, we can't forget humanity. I want to see us focus on finding cures as well. Cures for Alzheimer's, cures for diseases that particularly deal with senior citizens, diabetes, for instance, that’s what we need to do."

Michele Bachmann continues to effectively address the twin concerns that people have about the healthcare system today.

On the one hand, people fear the cost of the healthcare system--and of course, the rapidly rising cost of Medicare is a major flashpoint political issue these days.  But on the other hand, even more than they fear the cost of healthcare, folks fear the ravages of ill-health.   To paraphrase the great medical philanthropist Mary Lasker, if you think the healthcare system is expensive, consider the expense of not having a healthcare system.   People live longer and better today, not because they have health insurance, but because healthcare providers have the medicines and treatments that secure their good health.

So the challenge is to simultaneous grapple with the important cost issue and theeven more important  health/medicine issue.  And Bachmann has found the formula.

The latest display of her political/policy acumen came this morning on "Fox & Friends."  As always, Bachmann was resolute on the issue of controlling taxes, spending, and the debt.  And yet at the same time, as she said, there's more to American life than "facts and figures and insurance policies."  What else?  For openers, there's life itself.   So in addition, there's the issue of the good health and long life--and economic productivity--of the American workforce.   And that means medical progress and cures.

Here's the Serious Medicine-related portion of the transcript:

FOX & FRIENDS: Are you somebody that's going to back off from Paul Ryan's plan to reform and preserve Medicare and Medicaid? Because of what happened in New York in that race in Buffalo where the upset happened because they claim, because of the ryan medicare and medicaid plan, his path to prosperity?

BACHMANN: I voted for Paul Ryan's plan. He's right, we have to save and keep solvent Medicare. What's the alternative? It goes into bankruptcy.  Paul is exactly right.

The asterisk I put on that level of support are two things: 

Number one, I want everyone to know this is the 55 and under plan. No one 55 years of age or older will be touched in anyway. The only reforms affect people 55 and younger. 

The other thing is, in the midst of all the talk about facts and figures and insurance policies, we can't forget humanity. I want to see us focus on finding cures as well. Cures for Alzheimer's, cures for diseases that particularly deal with senior citizens, diabetes, for instance, that’s what we need to do. Just like we were able to eradicate polio, that's make that same type of effort for cancer and Alzheimer’s. That's an important area for us to concentrate as well.

Debbie Wasserman: A Gift Of Stupidity, That Keeps On Giving...

This blog is firmly in favor of new DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz keeping her liberal gums flapping from now until election day.  She's a walking soundbite...for future Republican attack ads in 2012. 

Last Friday I highlighted three individual acts of unbelievable stupidity by Wasserman, but hey - anyone can have a bad day, right?

But she sure seems to have a lot of them.  Right Wing News - which describes DWS as one of the most vitriolic, off base, half informed demagogues of the far left in America today - gives us the video and transcript below, where Debbie claims that Republicans want to make illegal immigration...illegal, showing clearly no understanding that, yes, to take up residence in a nation without explicit permission to do so is against the law:



We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy. And that, that is not only a reality but a necessity. And that it would be harmful if some — you know, the Republican solutions that I’ve seen in the last few years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries, and in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all. I mean that was in legislation that Jim Sensenbrenner advanced a couple of years ago.


They're the backbone of our economy?  Really?  What about hardworking, tax-paying, all-American workers - what are they, a freakin' drain?  And why, in a nation with millions upon millions unemployed, is the existence of 12 million illegals a "necessity"?    And Debbie , do you have any idea in the world that what you are describing - "undocumented" immigrants - is already a crime not only in America, but in virtually every single nation on the entire flipping planet?

It's hard, hard work to be this seriously stupid.  Give Debbie some props.  And when you start to worry about the 2012 elections, when the media tells you the Democrats have it all locked up, just think of Debbie, and the fact that this is the best the Democrats can offer America....

Gates of Hell Close


The gates of hell has just been closed.

So what will those wandering souls like Kugan, Teoh, Altantuya and many others who were murdered by MACC, Police and Rosmah do now. The gate to Heaven will be open soon but they are not allow to enter till their souls find peace. They are neither here or there.

There is an old saying "pray for your enemies then kill them."

Religion of Peace stones beautiful teenager to death for...being a beautiful teenager

These guys hate their women almost - almost - as much as they hate Jews:

A teenage Muslim girl was stoned to death under 'Sharia law' after taking part in a beauty contest in Ukraine.



Katya Koren, 19, was found dead in a village in the Crimea region near her home.

Friends said she liked wearing fashionable clothes and had come seventh in a beauty contest.

Police have opened a murder investigation and are looking into claims that three Muslim youths killed her, claiming her death was justified under Islam.



One of the three - named as 16-year-old Bihal Gaziev - is under arrest and told police that Katya had 'violated the laws of Sharia'. Gaziev has said he has no regrets about her death.


No worries, Gaziev.  You've got a job waiting for you as the "Morality Minister" in the new government of Egypt, or perhaps in Greater Hamastan (formerly known as the West Bank)....if not, the Iranian "morality patrols" certainly have an entry-level position with you name on it...

Why the GOP is f***ed in 2012

By Nicholas Wilbur 

The future of the Republican Party rests on the shoulders of one candidate. Unfortunately, not even the Republican Party has any idea who that candidate will be. 


The long list of potential, possible, likely and too-stupid-to-calculate-basic odds second-string presidential hopefuls include: a flip-flopping Mormon with a soft spot for government-run health care; a libertarian advocate of legalizing heroin and prostitution; a perpetually stoned former governor from a state most Americans don’t know is part of the union; another Mormon (this one who worked for a socialist as ambassador to communists), a paranoid Constitutionalist whose followers have threatened to rape a high school girl who challenged their candidate’s knowledge of America’s founding documents; an evangelic whose last name has come to mean “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter”; a hopelessly unattractive Minnesotan with no redeeming qualities other than his own self-awareness in admitting publicly that he’s boring; and a pizza maker.

Romney is ready to take on
supporters of Medicare. Other
potential GOP candidates,
 order your red man suits online today

With such a pathetic roster of uninspiring candidates, the Republican Party was more than happy to leave the media spotlight for a weekend as the perpetually campaigning Mama Grizzly from the Upper One state launched a Memorial Day “Rolling Thunder Magical Mystery Bus Tour” along the east coast. Riding into DC on an all-American hog and dressed in full leathers, the still unpopular, still unqualified former half-term governor of the Great Frontier, who sold her soul to Rupert Murdoch in order to prolong her short-lived 2008 Mama Grizzly publicity tour, kept the limelight burning for one last-ditch effort to sell some books and boost her public image before the media finally catches on and permanently turns the cameras away from the publicity hound and onto the real, equally hopeless but nonetheless inarguably “legitimate” candidates for the presidency. The most that will come of this magical bus tour is a Fox News segment on patriotism and motorcycles – and possibly a sequel to Hustler’s 2008 porn flick “Nailin’ Paylin.” (“Nailin’ Paylin Part II: The Bang Bus Tour,” or maybe “Paylin Does Pennsylvania.”) 

Whomever the GOP trots out as the next “savior of the party” better come equipped with a red man suit, a dog-eared copy of “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” and either Scott Brown’s Cosmopolitan centerpiece photographer, Brad Pitt’s personal trainer or Bristol Palin’s cosmetic surgeon – because he’s going to have a lot of heartened hearts to soften before Election Day. 

Between near-riotous town hall meetings prompted by Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to “voucherize” Medicare, the party’s backing of anti-union laws, and the continuous state- and federal-level efforts to defund family planning services and undermine women’s right to choose, the Republican Party’s presidential nominee will face the seemingly impossible feat of convincing retirees, women and laborers – not to mention the unemployed, the LGBTQ community and college students fighting for grants and scholarships – that the GOP cares about more than securing the votes of the Tea Party base. 

Then, of course, there’s the question of party’s post-primary strategy: how will he (or, less likely, she) go toe to toe with the supercandidate (and popular incumbent) Barack Obama, who enters the race with the political equivalent of a Seal Team 6 campaign apparatus? President Obama – the Commander in Chief who captured and killed Public Enemy No. 1, the international uniter, the eloqutionist and the level-headed pragmatist – is already salivating at the prospect of debating a presidential challenger about the fiscal ramifications and social consequences of continuing tax cuts for millionaires, abolishing the health care reforms that stopped insurance companies from dropping coverage on a whim and bankrupting families without mercy, eviscerating the social safety net for seniors and the poor through radical changes to Medicare and Medicaid, holding hostage federal funds for disaster relief to ravaged states until Democrats embrace more budget cuts and every other radically unpopular policy the GOP has pushed since 2010. 

All of this is to say that the candidate Republicans nominate to face off against Obama in 2012 won’t be a candidate who is capable of actually winning. There is no such candidate. Not even in the party’s wildest, homoerotic political wet dream does such a candidate exist. But that isn’t what the 2012 race is all about. If Republicans are smart (a rhetorical question if there ever was one), they’ll take advantage of the free publicity, use the opportunity to train a future leader in the art of presidential campaigns, save the estimated $1 billion they’ll have to spend in order to make a dent in the Obama incumbency, and use 2012 as a primer for the only election race in which they have a fighting chance: 2016.

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Allen West, Meet Sarah Palin

This picture, folks, is what keeps Democratic strategists up at night, soaking the sheets with a cold, clammy sweat:


The only question is, who's on top of the ticket?

Via  Can I Just Finish My Waffle?

Beer For Breakfast

By Carl
 
David "BoBo" Brooks is to thoughtful analysis what Charlie Sheen is to lucidity.
 
To-wit, in pondering the fate of college graduates:

College grads are often sent out into the world amid rapturous talk of limitless possibilities. But this talk is of no help to the central business of adulthood, finding serious things to tie yourself down to. The successful young adult is beginning to make sacred commitments — to a spouse, a community and calling — yet mostly hears about freedom and autonomy.

Today’s graduates are also told to find their passion and then pursue their dreams. The implication is that they should find themselves first and then go off and live their quest. But, of course, very few people at age 22 or 24 can take an inward journey and come out having discovered a developed self.

Most successful young people don’t look inside and then plan a life. They look outside and find a problem, which summons their life. A relative suffers from Alzheimer’s and a young woman feels called to help cure that disease. A young man works under a miserable boss and must develop management skills so his department can function. Another young woman finds herself confronted by an opportunity she never thought of in a job category she never imagined. This wasn’t in her plans, but this is where she can make her contribution.

Two observations immediately spring to mind. First, the ten most popular college majors seem to indicate that Brooks' concerns are ill-advised. You need to get down to number nine on the list, psychology, before you hit a soft, non-material target. College students today get it, David. The world requires money, it demands a genuflection to authority (note where criminal justice lands on the list), it inspires...conformity.

Second, as should be obvious from that list of popular college majors, students have taken that inner journey and decided that a good salary is the most important plan for their lives.

(An aside: number three on that list, communications, concerned me at first, until I realized they are also lumping in media like web-design, advertising and even marketing into the mix. But I digress...)

But soft, what is Brooks' issue with asking our young people to aspire to greatness? Life is about limitless possibilities, and while the vast majority of us will work forty, fifty, maybe sixty years making someone else richer, what's the problem with reminding people that there are alternatives? Or reinforcing in the minds of the small minority that they should have the courage to strike out on their own?

"Ah, a man's reach should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for?"

Even if you do end up working as an office drone, a cubicle gopher, a desk jockey...and there will always be jobs for people willing to spend eternity in front of a computer screen monitoring someone else's wealth...what's wrong with applying that same advice to the rest of your life? What's wrong with running that extra mile, or painting a landscape, or collecting that stamp that you've always wanted to own? Is life our job? Is our job our life?

Brooks, being the quasifascistic little capitalist drone that he is, by his very nature has denied the existence of a morale value to life that cannot be measured in dollar terms. He hacks away at a keyboard, then presuambly goes off to cocktails and whatever pathetic little existence he squanders his precious time on planet earth with.

No one lives to work, except for those idiots who somehow believe that, with hard work and perserverance at a job, they can themselves become fabulously wealthy and make other people drone for them. To those who still believe THAT fantasy, buy lottery tickets because your odds are better. You might make a comfortable living, but you will never get that rich slowly, and you will never have a life.

Adults make compromises with life, even as they've decided that there are no compromises to be had. Ask any artist who has made it big on the back of their own work, and they will tell you of the countless friendships they've lost, the money they've forgone working in an office, the opportunities they've missed. In choice, there is always a compromise to be had. Sacrifices are made by both sides.

"Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it. Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, 'All right, you can have a telephone but you lose privacy and the charm of distance. Madam, you may vote but at a price. You lose the right to retreat behind the powder puff or your petticoat. Mister, you may conquer the air but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline.' "

Brooks would rather that this small percentage of American adults, this 20% of college age Americans who actually graduate each year (scary thought, that), should be like the rest of us, as if giving them the tools to build the wings to fly their own lives as high as they want is a bad thing, that they might crash and burn. No, they should be like the vast majority of us, and hunker down for our next paycheck and live life as though we will always have a safety net under us, as pathetic as that net may be.

If the past thirty years in America have taught us anything it's that the social contract between a company and its employees is not sacred. My job can go away in the blink of an eye, through no fault of my own. So can yours. So can hers.

Now, I will say this in defense of Brooks' piece: in my experience, very few people at 20 or 25 know themselves well enough to know what they want, but here's the thing. It's not that they can't. It's that we've given them so many conflicting images and opinions about how to shape their own world that we've imposed expectations and "should haves" on the most fragile of beings. These fawns are barely standing on their hooves and we ask them to sprint and compete.

If that's so and if the contract with citizens and corporations is nulled, then perhaps counseling our graduates to caution is a bad idea. We should encourage them to exceed their expectations. We should demand that they take five years off and walk the world. (I've always had this fantasy of a draft for the Peace Corps, sorry.) We should tell them that it doesn't get any better than they have it right now, and they ought to enjoy it because most of them will fail and they will end up in the corporatocracy. But they should try first, so that when the alarm clock rings on the cold winter mornings that sees them get dressed and jump on a commuter train, bleary eyed, they can smile back on the effort and know they gave it their best shot and can move on now.

As opposed to people of Brooks' age who never even tried and now try to rationalize their failures by warning people behind them how scary the world is. I'm Brooks' age. I know of where I speak. For it is only now, as I turn the corner of my middle years and face the yawning descent that I see how much time I must make up and how little energy I have left to do it in.

Many of my readers are recent college graduates, certainly more recent than I, and are at cusps and cross-roads of their lives. I tip my hat to you, and offer this small consolation.
 
You can't have screwed things up that badly that you can't tear it all down and start from the beginning. It will be difficult, it will be fraught with psychic peril and yes, sometimes it might be painful, but there is no pain worse than looking back across decades and seeing yourself stagnate.
 
Do it. Just do it.
 
(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

I know what you're thinking

By Capt. Fogg

My first thought was: I've seen this scenario in some cheesy Tom Cruise infected Sci-Fi movie. Apparently that thought occurred to the Nature.com editorial staff as well. The Department of Homeland Security it would seem, is testing a system to detect malicious thoughts. No really.

They call it Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) because that's what government departments do with their doings, lest clear speech shed clear light. They make up acronyms that disguise the tunnels they dig under the foundations of liberty, but I digress. The technology purports to identify individuals who are planning to blow things up or have "malintent" as they say in the dialect.

Like a more traditional polygraph, FAST measures heart rates, among other things. Heart rates respiration and perspiration go up, after all when you're nervous about the bomb in your shorts or wishing you could throttle some thick-skull TSA twit as he gives you grief over an aspirin in your pants pocket that shows up on a scanner and starts groping you for explosives as you put your hands over your head in abject submission. Hell I'm sure I'd set off all kinds of alarm bells right now just thinking of how I've so often been treated as a felon on his way into the penitentiary instead of a tired traveler trying to get home.

I have no idea about what else this electro-mechanical night club bouncer measures and I'm not sure it invades any privacy that hasn't already been taken away by the cowardly traitors who passed the "Patriot" Act. I'm too lazy and too unwilling to provoke myself into another Lewis Black style tantrum to read the " Privacy Impact Assessment" our bureaucratic brethren at DHS have given us. I'll leave that to you. Besides my loathing of people who seem to exist only for the purpose of inserting that fly-blown and putrid metaphor into every sentence, it was written, most revealingly, by someone any German speaker will recognize as the Devil himself: Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy offer at the DHS under George W. Bush.

Does it work any better than the Polygraph does at detecting the evasions of sociopaths? It would have to, since those tend to be the people we're looking to put on no-fly lists and of course we won't have the results interpreted by a seasoned professional, but rather someone who was promoted from K-Mart security officer last week.

No, it's the stuff of B movies or sarcastic Dr. Strangelove sequels or even Orwell novels, but perhaps we've lost the ability even to see what the politics of fear has done to us in our cringing, cowardly new century.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

A Well-Deserved Smackdown for "J Street"

J Street, if you haven't heard, is an anti-Israeli lobbying group made of of useful (Jewish) idiots, funded by George Soros, which endorse every Palestinian atrocity and condemn every act of Israeli self-defense, while claiming that only by complete surrender can Israel ever find peace.  Masquerading as a "pro-Israel" group, they are primarily made of of self-loathing American Jews, who have abandoned their Judaism for the socially convenient religion of Liberalism.  Shoot, these guys are so far out of it, as far as their alleged religion is concerned, that they don't even offer Kosher food at their confabs. I'm sure, however, if you wanted a bacon cheeseburger...

In all honesty, J-Street does little to promote their key reason for being,  that there is a division in American Jewish thought, that "mainstream" American Jews are more J Street than APAIC.  But they do offer outstanding cover to Democratic politicians, who want to appear to be pro-Israel while doing everything they can to undermine the Jewish state and strengthen their enemies.  Like Keith Ellison, for one.

The media gives J Street more credit than they are due, simply because they dovetail more with their personal views.  But to get an idea of the revulsion many ordinary Americans and Israelis feel with this stealth pro-Palestinian stalking horse, one could do no better than to read the words of Daniel Gordis.

Who is Gordis?  An American-born rabbi and Columbia University graduate (cum laude) who moved to Israel in 1998, of whom liberal Jeff Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic has written, "If you asked me, 'of all the people you know, who cares the most about the physical, moral and spiritual health of Israel?' I would put the commentator and scholar Daniel Gordis at the top of the list."

So let's listen to Gordis take apart J Street.  From his remarks back in May, as he addressed J Street Leadership Mission to Israel and Palestine, I thought this was a classic smackdown of the arrogant liberalism that permeates J Street, as well as the editorial boards of the MSM and the current occupants of the White House:

As most of you know, I disagree strongly with much of what you do. But I think that we have an obligation to meet with people with whom we disagree.
...the vast majority of Israelis, if presented with a genuine opportunity to live side by side in a democratic, transparent, peaceful, demilitarized Palestine, would accept it.

So, assuming that’s what you also seek, I assume our disagreement is about how to get there. You believe that people who are not willing to make major territorial concessions to the Palestinians right now are not serious about a two-state solution. You think that those of us who claim that we favor a two-state solution but who are not willing to give up the store at this moment are bluffing. Or we’re liars. Or, at best, we’re well-intentioned but misguided. But bottom line, if we’re not willing now to make the concessions that you think are called for, then we’re not really pursuing peace.

But that is arrogance of the worst sort. Does your distance from the conflict give you some moral clarity that we don’t have? Are you smarter than we are? Are you less racist? Why do you assume with such certainty that you have a monopoly on the wisdom needed to get to the goal we both seek?

.... a perfect example of the certainty and arrogance of which I’m speaking....Reacting to the most recent Fatah-Hamas agreement, this is what J Street had to say: “In fact, many who oppose a two-state deal have, in recent years, done so by arguing that divisions among the Palestinians make peace impossible. Obviously, reconciliation [between Fatah and Hamas] reduces that obstacle – but now skeptics of a two state agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.”

“Obviously,” you say, reconciliation reduces the obstacle to a peace treaty.

But I would caution you against ever using the word “obviously” when it comes to the Middle East. Nothing here is obvious. If you think that something is obvious, then you simply haven’t thought enough....
 
Perfect.  But I doubt it penetrated the ideologues that populate J Street.  Their goal - the subjugation of Israel to the Palestinians - is impervious to logic and reason...

Princess Diana s Wedding Tiara 2010 photos

Diana, Princess of Wales (Diana Frances;[N 1]n̩e Spencer; 1 July 1961 Р31 August 1997) was an international personality of the late 20th century as the first wife of Charles, Prince of Wales, whom she married on 29 July 1981. The wedding, held at St. Paul's Cathedral, was televised and watched by a global audience of over 750 million people. The marriage produced two sons: Princes William and Harry, currently second and third in line to the thrones of the 16 Commonwealth realms, respectively.

A public figure from the announcement of her engagement to Prince Charles, Diana was born into an old, aristocratic English family with royal ancestry, and remained the focus of worldwide media scrutiny before, during and after her marriage, which ended in divorce on 28 August 1996. This media attention continued following her death in a car crash in Paris on 31 August 1997, and in the subsequent display of public mourning a week later. Diana also received recognition for her charity work and for her support of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. From 1989, she was the president of Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children.
* 1 Early life
* 2 Education
* 3 Relationship
o 3.1 Engagement and wedding
o 3.2 Children
o 3.3 Charity work
o 3.4 Problems and separation
o 3.5 Divorce
* 4 Personal life after divorce
o 4.1 Landmines
* 5 Death
o 5.1 Conspiracy theories and inquest
o 5.2 Tribute, funeral, and burial
+ 5.2.1 Memorials
o 5.3 Memorabilia
o 5.4 Diana in contemporary art
o 5.5 Later events
* 6 Contemporary opinions
* 7 Titles, styles, honours, and arms
o 7.1 Titles and styles
o 7.2 Honours
o 7.3 Arms
* 8 Legacy
* 9 Ancestry
* 10 See also
* 11 Notes
* 12 References
* 13 Bibliography
* 14 Further reading
* 15 External links

Diana Spencer was born late afternoon on July 1, 1961, in Sandringham, EnglandShe was the third child born to John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer, Viscount Althorp, and Frances Ruth Burke Roche, Viscountess Althorp (later known as Frances Shand Kydd While her family was overjoyed, there was no hiding that the fact that the entire Spencer family was hoping for a male heir to carry on the Spencer nameThe Spencer family is one of Great Britain's oldest and most important families. They have been closely allied with the royal family for over five hundred years. Since they were initially expecting a boy, they had no name when she was first born. A week later they settled on Diana Frances, after a Spencer ancestress and her motherDiana was the sister of Lady Sarah McCorquodale, Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes, and Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer Diana was baptized at Sandringham church, with normal commoners as god parents. While her baby brother, Charles, was baptized at Westminster Abbey with Queen Elizabeth II as principal god parent She also had another brother, John, who died a year before she was born.According to Andrew Morton's biography about the Princess of Wales, he was so deformed and sick that he only survived ten hours after he was born. This initially put strain on John and France's marriage. Lady Frances Althorp was sent to Haley Street clinics in London, England, after old members of the Spencer family questioned why she could only give birth to girls The experience was described as "humiliating", with Charles Spencer, the current Earl Spencer saying: "It was a dreadful time for my parents and probably the root of their divorce because I don't think they ever got over it. While she was young, Diana caught the pitch of her family's frustration. She considered herself a nuisance, and later felt an overwhelming load of guilt over it. These feelings she later learned to accept and recognizeDiana grew up in Park House which was situated near to the Sandringham estate
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana
Princess Diana

Monday, May 30, 2011

What do you think?

“A country free from UMNO is possible. It is not beyond our reach. It needs men and women of goodwill among the faithful of all creeds; it requires a vanguard of the moderates, it demands us to stop being a silent majority and to start reflecting the courage of our conviction. We must address the underlying causes of UMNO corruption. Merely going after specific individuals, dismantling their organizations, disrupting their finances and discrediting their ideologies is far from enough. We must be able to differentiate between the symptoms and the root causes. Only then, can we achieve a lasting solution.”

“It would be too easy to say that the solution to UMNO extremism is simply for more Malaysians to speak up and to speak out. Yes, it is our responsibility, but it is not ours alone. Just as Muslims need to make their voices heard, so do the Christians, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Hindus and the Atheists who are sickened by intolerance, terror and corruption and need to make their voices heard. We need to hear the concerted voices from all Malaysians and from all walks of life. And when we do, the prize of saving this country is there for all to see.”

I change some parts to Najib's lecture held at the Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford University.

Money taken how to stop Lynas


PENGUMUMAN TERKINI (11:20AM, 31MAY2011): Berdasarkan keadaan yang tidak stabil sekitar Kuantan Hyatt, tempat sesi perjumpaan dengan IAEA itu, dan pihak kerajaan Malaysia juga tidak mampu atau langsung tidak bersedia untuk memberi jaminan keselamatan kepada wakil yang ingin menghantar referendum atau bertemu dengan IAEA. Hakikatnya, Semalam ketua pemuda MCA Indera Mahkota disepak dan pagi tadi, En Andan, wakil concern citizens dari Balok telah dipukul, dicekik dan keretanya dipecah cermin selepas beliau siap bertemu dengan IAEA dan ingin membuat Press Conference. Sendiri Fikirkanlah keikhlasan pihak kerajaan dalam isu Lynas ini. Maka, Perhimpunan petang pukul 2pm ini DIBATALKAN dan referendum Save Malaysia kepada IAEA akan disampaikan kepada semua melalui Media. Keselamatan dan keamanan walaupun ingin sangat menyuarakan suara hati kita amat mesti kita semua diutamakan. Sila tolong sampaikan mesej ini kepada kawan semua. Kita tidak mahu orang dicederaka lagi. Sebab, pihak kerajaan Malaysia gagal mengawal keadaan yang sepatut stabil di tempat perjumpaan dengan IAEA. Harap maklum, Sekian, Terima Kasih Save Malaysia / Media & Publisiti
*********************************************************************************************************
Lynas is not easy to disfuse. Simply because concern parties have already taken the money.

The only way is to burn and demolish the whole damn plant.

History has shown what happened in Perak. Cannot win when it boils down to MONEY.

More than 75% Malaysians plunge into hardship


Since the beginning of this year my meter had been changed twice. Since then my electricity bill had shot up double. Come tomorrow I am expected to pay another extra 7% more.

This is done so that UMNO have enough money to pay the Election Officers, Government Servants, AG, Police, Army, Special Force, Sultans and more illegal migrates to cheat in the coming 13th General Election. For the past few months Najib had been going around to this and that country to borrow money using development as the excuse but in actual fact needing money to ruin this country.

Every time the UMNO Government is in dire need of cash, they milk us dry.

The fool that claimed 75% of consumers use less than 300 kWh is in the bracket of 2% who have benefited much from corruption. The balance 23% are the poor, homeless and those who have not enjoy the luxury of having electricity.

75% Malaysians are cursing that they have to sacrifice more so that the 2% gold diggers can continue to enjoy their luxury life style.

There is a desperate NEED TO KICK THE UMNO GOVERNMENT OUT to expose the TRUTH.

In the meantime, I propose a new logo for TNB.

***********************************************************************************

The Star Report:

PUTRAJAYA: Electricity will cost more by 7.12% from tomorrow in Peninsular Malaysia.

With the new tariff, the average rate for electricity is now 33.54 sen per kilowatt hour (kWh) from the previous 31.31 sen.

The new rate, however, will not affect 75% of domestic users whose consumption is less than 300kWh per month.

“These consumers will enjoy the old rate at between 21.8 sen per kWh and 33.4 sen.

The increase came about due to the rise in gas tariff by RM3, from RM10.70 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) to RM13.70.

The gas tariff will increase every six months starting tomorrow to December 2015 and will be adjusted to the market rate beginning 2016 when the price will be fully floated.

In announcing the increase, Energy, Green Technology and WaterMinister Datuk Seri Peter Chin Fah Kui said the Government would continue to look after the welfare of low income earners who need not pay more for electricity if it was lower than RM20 a month until the end of the year.

“The Government is expected to incur RM122mil a year to provide free power supply to 900,000 consumers in Peninsula Malaysia.

“Consumers using between 301kWh and 1,000kWh a month about 1.51 million domestic users will experience an increase in their monthly electricity bill of between RM0.07 and RM30.30,” he said at a joint press conference here with Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop yesterday.

In June 2008, the electricity tariff was increased by 24% after a revision in gas price from RM6.40 per MMBtu to RM14.31 and coal price was then set at US$75 per tonne.

Chin said low voltage commercial users such as retailers, shopowners and small restaurant operators, whose usage did not exceed 200kWh would, experience a maximum increase of 6.2% or RM4.60 a month due to the new rates while low voltage industrial users such as small-scale food processing companies using less than 200kWh would see their electricity bills go up by a maximum of 6% or RM4 a month.

On the gas tariff, Nor Mohamed said in spite of the increase, the Government and Petronas were still bearing subsidies estimated at RM25.64bil this year.

“The new price is still competitive compared to the market rate of alternative energy such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and Medium Fuel Oil, which has risen from US$37.05 per barrel to US$93.90,” he said, adding that the decision would not affect local industry competitiveness in the long term.

NATO airstrike kills Afghan civilians. Yes, it's time to end this war.



Afghan officials said Sunday that a NATO airstrike had killed 14 civilians, most of them women and children, in the southern province of Helmand on Saturday night.

Local officials said the strike was aimed at Taliban fighters and missed, hitting two family homes.

But in a conflicting account, a high-level NATO official said Sunday night that nine civilians were killed in the strike, which was aimed at five insurgents who attacked a coalition foot patrol and killed a Marine. The insurgents continued to fire from inside a compound when NATO forces called in the strike.

"Unfortunately, the compound the insurgents purposefully occupied was later discovered to house innocent civilians," the official, Maj. Gen. John Toolan, commander of NATO forces in the Southwest region, said in a statement. The general apologized for the civilian deaths on behalf of all coalition forces, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top coalition commander in Afghanistan, and said the investigation into the episode was continuing.

"While I know there is no price on human life, we will ensure that we make amends with the families in accordance with Afghan culture," he said. 

This isn't about "us" being as bad as "them," it's about the quagmire the Afghan War has become, that it has been for a long time now. And making "amends" just won't cut it. It's time to get out.

Now, I'm not sure Hamid Karzai's "last warning" really means anything. NATO (and particularly the U.S.) will stay in Afghanistan as long as it wants.

But what is the point of staying? What is the war for?

There are several answers to that question -- including supporting the country's "government" (i.e., Karzai, who barely controls Kabul), rooting out the Taliban in the name of the "war on terror," building a sustainable state with a legitimate democratic government, as well as a healthy civil society, etc.) -- but not a single one is satisfactory anymore.

It may be impossible to avoid civilian casualties entirely, but this latest incident serves as a reminder of just how pointless the war has become.

McCain says Palin could beat Obama


Well, it's official. John McCain is insane:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has said he thinks Sarah Palin could defeat President Obama in next year's presidential election, but he's far from certain that she will actually jump into the race.

The GOP's standard-bearer in 2008 also shrugged off his former running mate's poor standing in many polls, saying she would have the opportunity to turn that around if she did make a bid for the White House.

"That's what campaigns are all about," McCain said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I've never seen anyone as mercilessly and relentlessly attacked as I have seen Sarah Palin in the last couple of years," the Arizona senator added. "But she also inspires great passion, particularly among the Republican faithful."

Wait, coming from McCain, is that a compliment?

Either way, it would appear he's just defending himself over what was clearly the worst and most embarrassing decision of his political career.

More thoughts on the Republican presidential field

By Richard K. Barry

Now Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is saying that, had he chosen to pursue the Republican nomination for the presidency, he could have beaten Obama. Where have we heard this before?

Oh yeah, Mike Huckabee said the same thing, as did Donald Trump.

This is playground boasting bullshit. If any of these guys thought they could beat Obama, they would have jumped in with bells on. At least Haley Barbour had the integrity to admit that he didn't get in because Obama would just be too hard to beat.

This did, however, get me thinking about what I see as the categories of those who are either running, thought about running or are still thinking about it. It's goes a little something like this:

  • Those who feel that this might be their one and only chance to win the thing.
  • Those who have no chance of winning either the nomination or the general election but look(ed) on the process as a way to raise their profile or just to push a very specific agenda.
  • Those who would have gotten no coverage if the field weren't so weak, so are finding the promise of attention too much fun to pass up (but are otherwise without hope).
  • Those who have grown weary of listening to how weak the field is and can't help but at least talk about offering themselves because their egos demand it.
  • Corollary to this one: those who can't stand not being talked about as a potential front-runner.
  • Those who, when being honest, know that an incumbent president would be hard to beat, especially this one, and know also that they have time on their side, perhaps being young and new to things.
  • Those who know that the ideological purity test required by the Republican Party these days is just too hard to navigate.
  • And a subset of the previous, those who are being courted by the GOP leadership but who know that the moment they really give it serious consideration, every slight break with conservative orthodoxy that they even thought about would bite them in the ass in a hurry.
  • And finally, those who are just delusional (are you listening Newt?)

Make up your own categories. Mix and match. I'll leave it to you to attach names to each grouping. It's a game the whole family can play.

But on that point of candidates who didn't get in but swear that, had they taken the leap, they could have beaten Obama, I have just one thing to say:

I know that if I had only auditioned, I could have been the next American Idol, but I chose not to compete for family reasons. You do believe me, don't you?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Memorial Day 2011



For love of country they accepted death... ~James A. Garfield



The brave die never, though they sleep in dust: Their courage nerves a thousand living men.~Minot J. Savage



It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.General George S. Patton






Lord, we pray for the souls of our dear brothers, called to duty and lost forever on foreign shores. Grant them eternal rest in your arms, these servants of our country, honor and freedom.

Grant that they be remembered...Grant that their sacrifice be understood, and grant them a place at your side in Heaven. "Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends."
Amen

Sunday, May 29, 2011

George Will doesn't think Sarah Palin should have her finger on the button


I don't much care for Mr. Will, and I don't even have any grudging respect anymore, but he's one of the few major conservative pundits who goes after Palin, and for that, I suppose, he deserves some credit -- yes, let's at least give him that.

Yesterday on ABC's This Week, Will asked the key question about Palin:

The threshold question, not usually asked, but it's in everyone's mind in a presidential election. "Should we give this person nuclear weapons?" And the answer [in Palin's case], answers itself.

I'd say the answer also answers itself for Michele Bachmann, if not necessarily so much for Romney and Pawlenty, Giuliani and Gingrich, Pataki and Huntsman, or even Paul.

I'd also say there any number of other such threshold questions not just for all presidential candidates but for the increasingly extremist Republicans and especially for Palin, questions such as:

-- "Should this person be allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices?"

-- "Should this person be given the keys to the country's national security apparatus?"

-- "Should this person be given control over U.S. foreign policy?"

-- "Should this person be the country's chief diplomat, the person advancing America's interests around the world, the person most responsible for America's reputation and credibility globally?"

-- "Should this person be put in charge, as much as any single person is in charge of, the economy?"

For Palin, it's clearly a NO on all questions. It doesn't take George Will to tell us that, but it's good that at least some Republicans understand what lurks in their midst. 

**********

Will is a frequent critic of Palin. For some background, let's head back to those heady days leading up to the '08 election:

...Life On One Leg (Part 2): Chicks & Bus Drivers Still The Worst

I wrote a little bit (well, a lot, honestly) last week on my torn left calf, and  the response that people in New York City have to someone on crutches trying to make their way through some sort of minimalistic daily routine.  I just thought, rather than write about Anthony Weiner's wiener, I'd update my (already extensive) thoughts, perceptions, and theories a week later.

..and this, two weeks later, is "healing".  Sigh...

First and foremost: The whole women/men thing has changed one iota, in fact, my perception of men as supportive and thoughtful brothers and women as self-involved, unfeeling cads has only been reinforced this week.  Women have let doors slam in my face (while looking me in the eye, albeit blankly), have rushed ahead of me to grab subway seats (while men have offered theirs to me), and once again have ran up the block to steal my cabs.  Much more detail here, as mentioned above.  I'm disillusioned, to be honest.  I've always loved women and shared little of by biological  bretheren's casual disdain towards them.  However, as I mentioned to a shocked crowd the other day, I'm beginning to understand the maxim "Bro's before ho's" much better than I ever did.

Incidentally, most guys I asked about this behavior often agreed with this explanation (without hearing it from me first) I offered last week:

Are men sympathetic to another guy, who may be "just like them" in many respects - working, athletic, wearing a boot that can be perceived as the result of a sports-related injury? 

When I asked women the explanation for their behavior, I got a lot of laughs (occasionally nervous ones) and a similar explanation virtually every time:  "Women are such bitches".

As I said, I am sorely disillusioned.

That being said, I thought I would comment on the response of some of the "professions" I interact with on a daily basis to a man hobbling through the mean streets on one leg:

Doorman:  The best.  Running over to offer help, offering special elevators, and in the case of my home office making sure they knew what floor I worked on so I could be rescued in an emergency.

Cabbies: Pretty good.  Will occasionally even get out of their cabs to open the door.  One guy shooed away a French couple who tried to take my cab; at least they were properly chagrined.

Food Service: Also pretty good.  I am doing take-out most days, but I am constantly being offered extra large bags, help with the door, and in the one or two occasions I went fast-food, employees told me to sit down and had my food brought to my table. Note here, though: New York much better than New Jersey, where the checker at the local Wawa asked me if I wanted a bag for my breakfast.  Really?

Bus drivers: By far the worst.  My stories are legion.  Commuting into the city in the morning, getting picked up on the side of a busy Jersey highway, not once in eight days did a driver wait for me to take my seat before zooming off at merge speed into traffic, usually sending me lurching down the aisle or into some poor passenger's lap, crutches and all.  My trip home has been a bit more civilized, as I wait on line for a bus in the Port Authority and board in an orderly fashion. However, I can't forget the day I was second on line for a bus (with a pregnant women in front of me), and the bus pulled up a few minutes early.  Rather than open his doors, he sat inside and read the paper (fully aware of our presence three feet away), while the pregnant women and I, already waiting for 15-20 minutes, practically leaned on each other for support until the driver yawned, stretched, and finally open the doors some additional 5-7 minutes later.

You should be proud, New Jersey Transit.  Your drivers suck balls, up and down.  No wonder we private citizens loath your pathetic, fat union asses.

Anyway, hopefully no more than another week on crutches, then I should be back on three feet, if not two.  How will "life with a cane" work out?  Should be interesting....