Good is bad in 2010, not just 1984

Supposed someone proposed a plan that would:
Save taxpayers money.
Help improve the public schools.
Give poor students trapped in the worst schools a chance to get a good education.
You might be in favor, right?
Well, the St. Petersburg Times, voice of the left in Florida, hates it.
Rick Scott, Florida's next governor (against the wishes of the Times) proposes vouchers that would accomplish all of the above.
The Times, in a rant that read like the Facebook page of the demented gunman who tried to kill School Board members in Panama City, says the plan is awful.
You see, liberals want the government schools to be run for the benefit of adults, not kids.
Liberal politicians throw money at the schools, and most of it goes into the paychecks of adult administrators and teachers. Not a single kid gets a dime.
Teacher union bosses get a cut of those paychecks and this helps them build huge warchests to fund the campaigns of liberal politicians.
It is a cozy arrangement all around.
If children were allowed to get an education so that they would understand schemes like this, they would vote against liberals when they grow up, and this would disrupt the system.
Can't have that.

Halfway there

Adlai Stevenson said, "In America, anyone can become president. That's one of the risks we take."
Thankfully, the voters twice declined to take a risk on Stevenson. But, he had a point.
In two short years, Barack Obama has taken the good will a majority of the voters entrusted into him and turned it into distrust and dislike.
This happened in part because he seemed to think he had been elected God, instead of merely the president. The position is important, but it is still a political position and, as Stevenson noted, the least qualified person in the nation can become president.
Obama was elected by criticizing his predecessor, but he has continued most of the domestic and foreign policies of his predecessor. Thus, he has angered his supporters while not placating those who did not support him.
Like Franklin D. Roosevelt, he has waged war on capitalism and business, while relying on them to produce the money for his vast spending programs. This is not a road to success.
His central weakness, other than his obvious dislike for this nation, is that to him it is all about him. He fell in love with his reflection in the pool of public opinion.
Businesses, like voters, take risks. When one doesn't pan out, you cut your losses.
Voters took a risk and it didn't pay off. In 2012, they will have a chance to reconsider.

On the left coast

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin is, like many of the Hollywood set, including Whoopi Goldberg, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, etc., a disciple of the Chosen One and therefore as far left as you can be.
In a hate-filled, expletive-filled diatribe in the Puffington Host, he calls Sarah Palin an "idiot."
His ire was raised because Palin shot a caribou, which Sorkin called "murder."
So, it is murder to kill an animal. What about humans?
“I get happy every time one of you faux-macho s***heads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face,” the deranged leftist said.
The accidental killing of a human being is cause for joy but killing an animal so he can have a fancy meal in a Hollywood restaurant is OK. (I don't care if he professes to be a vegan like so many of the other phonies in la-la land. They sell a lot of steaks in Hollywood.)
But one thing is clear. Sorkin is a certified idiot.

Say what?

CNN says the Tax Policy Center estimates that a married couple with two kids under 13 and a household income of roughly $75,000 could end up paying about $2,600 more in federal income taxes next year -- if the largest tax increase in history is allowed to take place.
Raising taxes in a depressed economy is insane, so everyone is hot to sign on to the "tax compromise."
Hold on.
The "cost" of the compromise is estimated at about $850 billion. But $550 billion of that is based on the revenue that the higher taxes would bring.
In other words, not raising taxes and taking more money from American families is a "cost."This is the crazy way politicians think.
The real cost is the $300 billion in pork and other spending Democrats want to tack on as the cost to Republicans of preventing the tax increase.
Obama says this is a good deal. So, obviously, it is not.
Bill Clinton tells Democrats they should vote for it because the new Congress can enact legislation that will be even better for conservatives.
Is there any doubt that the wise course is to wait, let the Democrat tax increase take place, and then for Republicans to rescind it and put in place a tight clamp on spending?

Bubba speaks

Everyone says Bill Clinton is the smartest, slickest politician ever, so why aren't Republicans heeding his advice?
At the amazing press conference recently, where President Obama was upstaged by Clinton so badly that Obama fled from the room, Clinton said he thinks the tax compromise should be approved by Democrats.
Why? Because, he said, the Republicans could get a better deal in January, when they will have the majority in the House.
None of the Lamestream Media asked, so I will: So, why should Republicans vote for the compromise?

If O had been in the Oval Office then

Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy, whatever the hell that means — the United States of America allegedly was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The imperialist United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. The Japanese have been offended by our policies in the Far East and I have bowed to the emperor and offered my apologies on several occasions.
It is surmised that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the U.S government has deliberately sought to deceive the Japanese by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace, so I say we should not jump to hasty conclusions about who started this fracas.
And don't sweat it. Adolf told me he is going to sit this one out.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands -- one of my favorite golfing spots -- has caused some damage to American naval and military forces. Also, a few American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday there was also an attack against Malaya.
Last night someone attacked Hong Kong.
Last night some forces attacked Guam.
Last night other forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night someone attacked Wake Island.
And this morning someone attacked Midway Island.
But let's not make a big deal out of it. Stuff happens. We should be tolerant and not engage in racial profiling.
Someone may have undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today, as interpreted by the New York Times, speak for themselves.
The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation and how it could influence votes in the next election.
Would someone please move the TelePrompter a little closer?
As commander in chief of the Army and Navy and winner of the Nobel Peace prize, therefore, I have directed that measures be taken for our defense. I have authorized Marines to carry live ammunition when they land on the beaches, and may return fire if fired upon. And, of course, they will be fully covered by my health insurance.
For a while our nation might remember the character of the onslaught against us, but, hey, we'll get over it.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory -- or a negotiated peace. If we happen to win, we'll pay big reparations.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves if anyone actually does something to piss me off but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never make us feel ill will toward the oppressed people of other nations.
Hostilities exist. But even if our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger, we should not fly off the handle.
With confidence in our armed forces, under the greatly reduced defense budget I recently introduced, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us (insert your own deity here).
Never mind Kate Smith. As the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said, God damn America.
However, I can read the polls and I ask that the Congress declare that since the so-called unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
But I will bring the troops home next July. We have an election coming up, you know.

Watch your language

In politics, it is often necessary to mangle the English language in order to conceal the absurdity.
For example, building a bridge to nowhere is called an "investment."
But my favorite is "tax expenditures."
When lobbyists succeed in carving out a provision in the tax code that favors their interests, the government -- having approved it as good public policy -- then labels it a tax expenditure.
What does that mean? It means that it is a cost to the government.
That's right: not taking money from you that you have earned (because you are doing something with it that they approve of) is a cost.
By that same token, shouldn't the remainder of your paycheck be a cost to the government?
Aren't they entitled to all of it?
The tragic fact is that some politicians think so.