Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, has been chastised lately by liberal pundits for his public lobbying for more troops. His views seem to be somewhat at odds with those of the Obama administration.
Those pundits are correct in their views that military officers should respect the chain of command. The President is the Commander-in Chief. As such, the military must defer to his authority.
The irony and hypocrisy of these commentators is amazing, however. I seem to remember many of these same critics applauding generals who disagreed with the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are the same hypocrites who, when the GOP ran the country said that dissent was the highest form of patriotism, but who now call the tea party protesters and health care reform critics traitors and racists.
If only the media did its job and pointed out these obvious double-standards. But then, the media is no longer a neutral observer reporting facts. Actually, many in the media are among the worst of the hypocrites.
Thank God for Talk Radio and the Internet. Without them, most of us would never learn about the other side of most stories.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Hilarious Hypocrisy
I could hardly believe my ears as I listened to all of the liberals complaining about the "unfair", "unfunny" and "inaccurate" Saturday Night Live skit criticising President Obama.
Good grief! I seem to remember liberals telling disgruntled conservatives to get a sense of humor when SNL skewered George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.
The most amazing thing I heard was that a "non-partisan" (please!) media/news watchdog group actually fact-checked the SNL skit. They apparently found it wanting. It was satire guys, not a news program.
Let's look for the fact checkers the next time Tina Fey gets an Emmy for portraying Sarah Palin. Let's not hold our breath!
Good grief! I seem to remember liberals telling disgruntled conservatives to get a sense of humor when SNL skewered George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.
The most amazing thing I heard was that a "non-partisan" (please!) media/news watchdog group actually fact-checked the SNL skit. They apparently found it wanting. It was satire guys, not a news program.
Let's look for the fact checkers the next time Tina Fey gets an Emmy for portraying Sarah Palin. Let's not hold our breath!
A Rose Is A Rose
And a tax rate is a tax rate, except when it isn't.
If you read the story about the Gates Supervisor race in the Monday Democrat & Chronicle, you might think that Mark Assini stated that Gates' property tax rate is the highest in Monroe County. Actually, Mark McIntee said it, but that's beside the point.
It appears that the Gates Democrats want to focus on the tax rate in Gates rather than average or total taxes paid by Gates taxpayers. The implication is, of course, that we are over taxed in Gates.
The problem is that the taxes raised in a town are a function of tax rate and property values. A town with higher property values can raise the same total taxes as a town with lower values even though the first town has a lower tax rate. The lower tax rate does not mean that the town government is more efficient or thrifty; it means they have a bigger pool of tax money to swim in.
A good comparison can be made between Brighton and Gates. They are similar sized towns with police forces. Brighton raises more tax revenue than Gates does, yet it has a lower tax rate. The average taxpayer in Gates pays less taxes than the average taxpayer in Brighton. How can that be? It is because there are some very high property values in Brighton. As a result, higher value property owners subsidize lower value property owners. Total taxes and average taxes along with government spending are all higher in Brighton than in Gates.
The point is that statistics can often be warped to make a point. The truth is that Gates taxpayers have been getting a very good deal for a very long time. The quality of life in Gates is quite good, the government services are first rate and the tax bills are reasonable. Hopefully, Gates residents won't be fooled by misleading statistics.
If you read the story about the Gates Supervisor race in the Monday Democrat & Chronicle, you might think that Mark Assini stated that Gates' property tax rate is the highest in Monroe County. Actually, Mark McIntee said it, but that's beside the point.
It appears that the Gates Democrats want to focus on the tax rate in Gates rather than average or total taxes paid by Gates taxpayers. The implication is, of course, that we are over taxed in Gates.
The problem is that the taxes raised in a town are a function of tax rate and property values. A town with higher property values can raise the same total taxes as a town with lower values even though the first town has a lower tax rate. The lower tax rate does not mean that the town government is more efficient or thrifty; it means they have a bigger pool of tax money to swim in.
A good comparison can be made between Brighton and Gates. They are similar sized towns with police forces. Brighton raises more tax revenue than Gates does, yet it has a lower tax rate. The average taxpayer in Gates pays less taxes than the average taxpayer in Brighton. How can that be? It is because there are some very high property values in Brighton. As a result, higher value property owners subsidize lower value property owners. Total taxes and average taxes along with government spending are all higher in Brighton than in Gates.
The point is that statistics can often be warped to make a point. The truth is that Gates taxpayers have been getting a very good deal for a very long time. The quality of life in Gates is quite good, the government services are first rate and the tax bills are reasonable. Hopefully, Gates residents won't be fooled by misleading statistics.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Schizophrenia At The D&C
Today's editorial in the D&C admonishes citizens to "Tone It Down" at Town Hall meetings. While reading the piece, I had a number of thoughts.
First, note that the editorial was located directly above the "Fed Up With Albany" campaign coupon that the paper has been pushing for months. So I guess we're supposed to be "fed up" with but "respectful" of politicians. I wonder if anyone asked the participants in the Boston Tea Party to "tone it down"?
Next, the editorial noted Eric Massa's belief that Americans are angry at their government. Is it any wonder that we're angry when we have representatives like Mr. Massa, who vow to "vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I'm doing is going to help them" and who claim that they represent "one of the most right-wing, Republican districts in the State"? Sorry, I think we are all entitled to loudly criticize such "representation".
Frankly, its well past time our representatives have heard from us. The long-running circuses in Washington and many State Capitols are evidence that our so-called leaders need to get a tongue-lashing from the people they are supposed to represent and protect. The one and only way in which politicians have been bi-partisan has been in their substituting personal and special interests for the will and welfare of their constituents.
Finally, the editorial speaks of "Jerry Springeresque" behavior by participants at Town Halls. Just what is the behavior the editorial speaks of? Raised voices? Shouting at politicians who spout platitudes and half-truths (if not out-and-out lies)? Perhaps if the media did its job of challenging politicians and calling them on their BS, citizens would not need to take extreme measures? Instead the media acts as apologist for Obama, Massa, and the rest. The D&C shows it is little more than a left-wing house organ by writing the editorial and perpetuating the myth that the protesters have been violent and threatening.
So, no, don't "tone it down". Ratchet up your voices and let the politicians know that we have reached the tipping point. If they don't listen, we have to follow up the protests with votes throwing the bums out.
First, note that the editorial was located directly above the "Fed Up With Albany" campaign coupon that the paper has been pushing for months. So I guess we're supposed to be "fed up" with but "respectful" of politicians. I wonder if anyone asked the participants in the Boston Tea Party to "tone it down"?
Next, the editorial noted Eric Massa's belief that Americans are angry at their government. Is it any wonder that we're angry when we have representatives like Mr. Massa, who vow to "vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I'm doing is going to help them" and who claim that they represent "one of the most right-wing, Republican districts in the State"? Sorry, I think we are all entitled to loudly criticize such "representation".
Frankly, its well past time our representatives have heard from us. The long-running circuses in Washington and many State Capitols are evidence that our so-called leaders need to get a tongue-lashing from the people they are supposed to represent and protect. The one and only way in which politicians have been bi-partisan has been in their substituting personal and special interests for the will and welfare of their constituents.
Finally, the editorial speaks of "Jerry Springeresque" behavior by participants at Town Halls. Just what is the behavior the editorial speaks of? Raised voices? Shouting at politicians who spout platitudes and half-truths (if not out-and-out lies)? Perhaps if the media did its job of challenging politicians and calling them on their BS, citizens would not need to take extreme measures? Instead the media acts as apologist for Obama, Massa, and the rest. The D&C shows it is little more than a left-wing house organ by writing the editorial and perpetuating the myth that the protesters have been violent and threatening.
So, no, don't "tone it down". Ratchet up your voices and let the politicians know that we have reached the tipping point. If they don't listen, we have to follow up the protests with votes throwing the bums out.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Perspective
I realize that this is an old complaint, but I really cannot believe the difference in the media's treatment of Barack Obama versus the way they reported on George W. Bush.
This morning's paper had some stories that really made the point. The headline in the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle states "Signs Point To Recovery". The basis for the story was improvement in consumer confidence and a 2% increase in housing prices. No mention was made of the fact that the economy is still shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs each month. Neither does the rosy headline correlate to the reports that the Federal budget deficit will reach between 7 and 9 trillion dollars over the next ten years.
My recollection was that when Bush was President, dark clouds hovered over all economic news. If we had a recovery, it was a jobless recovery. Bush's deficits, in the hundreds of billions, were criticised in apocalyptic terms. Today, though, we have the story of how the President lauded Ben Bernacke for leading us out of the economic crisis which "existed". I guess its over now.
Similarly, there was a story yesterday about the potential for 90,000 swine flu deaths. Last week, there was another regarding difficulties in pharmaceutical factories leading to possible shortages in vaccines. I distinctly recall similar shortages in flu vaccines two years ago. At that time though, the media reported the problem as the Bush Administration's failure to prepare in time. Today its those darn factories.
Finally, what happened to the anti-war movement? When Bush was President, the war in Iraq was the worst thing ever and Afghanistan was barely tolerated. President Obama has taken the exact steps in Iraq that Bush proposed and he has expanded the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It appears that only Cindy Sheehan cares. Do the big news outlets still put the names of our dead soldiers on the air anymore?
This morning's paper had some stories that really made the point. The headline in the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle states "Signs Point To Recovery". The basis for the story was improvement in consumer confidence and a 2% increase in housing prices. No mention was made of the fact that the economy is still shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs each month. Neither does the rosy headline correlate to the reports that the Federal budget deficit will reach between 7 and 9 trillion dollars over the next ten years.
My recollection was that when Bush was President, dark clouds hovered over all economic news. If we had a recovery, it was a jobless recovery. Bush's deficits, in the hundreds of billions, were criticised in apocalyptic terms. Today, though, we have the story of how the President lauded Ben Bernacke for leading us out of the economic crisis which "existed". I guess its over now.
Similarly, there was a story yesterday about the potential for 90,000 swine flu deaths. Last week, there was another regarding difficulties in pharmaceutical factories leading to possible shortages in vaccines. I distinctly recall similar shortages in flu vaccines two years ago. At that time though, the media reported the problem as the Bush Administration's failure to prepare in time. Today its those darn factories.
Finally, what happened to the anti-war movement? When Bush was President, the war in Iraq was the worst thing ever and Afghanistan was barely tolerated. President Obama has taken the exact steps in Iraq that Bush proposed and he has expanded the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It appears that only Cindy Sheehan cares. Do the big news outlets still put the names of our dead soldiers on the air anymore?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Just Wondering...
Where are the late night comedians?
At his recent "Town Hall" meeting designed to bolster support for health care reform, President Obama used the Postal Service in an analogy of a government run entity that co-exists with similar private entities.
Can you imagine the fun Leno, Letterman, and O'Brien would have had if George Bush had used the Postal Service as an example in support of transferring health care to a government run enterprise? I guess I missed their jokes.
Or, maybe, they realize the prospect that health care will be run as efficiently and cost-effectively as the Postal Service really isn't funny.
At his recent "Town Hall" meeting designed to bolster support for health care reform, President Obama used the Postal Service in an analogy of a government run entity that co-exists with similar private entities.
Can you imagine the fun Leno, Letterman, and O'Brien would have had if George Bush had used the Postal Service as an example in support of transferring health care to a government run enterprise? I guess I missed their jokes.
Or, maybe, they realize the prospect that health care will be run as efficiently and cost-effectively as the Postal Service really isn't funny.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Sounds A Little Like "Read My Lips"
President Obama made a well-documented campaign promise that under his economic plan, no American family making less than $250,000/year would see any tax increases.
I'm not sure why politicians make such statements. George H.W. Bush had to eat his famous words about "No New Taxes", now, based upon the statements made by Treasury Secretary Geither today on ABC with George Stephanopoulos, reported here at PowerLine and here at Instapundit (with video), the President may need to get out some condiments to improve the taste while eating his.
I'm not sure why politicians make such statements. George H.W. Bush had to eat his famous words about "No New Taxes", now, based upon the statements made by Treasury Secretary Geither today on ABC with George Stephanopoulos, reported here at PowerLine and here at Instapundit (with video), the President may need to get out some condiments to improve the taste while eating his.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
