Good Morning Conflucians!!!
It has been the strangest week or two of propaganda campaign efforts from the zombie obot armies including: 1) You Dems are lazy, good for nothing, ungrateful for all the wonderful things, bums, get your enthusiasm going again, idiots, 2) What, you don’t think Hillary would have been as horrible as Obama has turned out to be, of course she would. And you know she’s an evil Republican anyway, 3) Look over there, it’s a witch, and 4) Did we mention Hillary is evil. There have been a few other fun memes but you get the idea. They’re losing, they’re desperate, and frankly they’re pathetic. I’d feel sorry for them if they hadn’t destroyed the Democratic party, if not more. But that’s neither here nor there, because there’s some news.
Let’s start on a good note, Steven Chu announces the WH installs some solar panels. Sure a bit gimmicky and symbolic, but it’s a good thing:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu and White House Council on Environmental Quality chair Nancy Sutley announced Tuesday morning that the administration will install solar panels and a solar hot water heater on the roof of the White House residence as part of a broader DOE solar demonstration project.
“This project reflects President Obama’s strong commitment to U.S. leadership in solar energy and the jobs it will create here at home,” Chu said at the GreenGov symposium. “Deploying solar energy technologies across the country will help America lead the global economy for years to come.”
The move comes in the wake of a grassroots campaign led by 350.org founder Bill McKibben to get Obama to reinstall solar panels then-President Jimmy Carter put on the White House in 1979. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan removed the panels and let federal renewable energy subsidies expire; several of the panels were donated to Unity College in the 1990s. McKibben brought some of the old panels down to the District last month as part of his group’s “10/10/10 Global Work Party” on climate change, but at the time, the White House remained noncommittal on the matter.
Of course the effort wasn’t perfect. They stumbled even on such a no brainer move (emphasis mine):
In September, the writer and climate change crusader Bill McKibben sent a jolt of dismay through the environmental community after recounting a distressing trip to the White House. McKibben and some young activists had come up with what they thought was a great idea. They had located one of the solar panels that President Jimmy Carter had installed on the roof of the White House (later removed by Ronald Reagan) and they decided to bring it back to Washington for a triumphant reinstallation.
They made it into the White House, but then got stonewalled. When the college-age activists accompanying McKibben asked why the administration wouldn’t do the “obvious thing” and put solar panels on the White House, they couldn’t get a straight answer.
The Obama administration’s reluctance to put a Carter-era solar panel on the White House roof was understandable, even if repulsively pusillanimous. The last thing the White House wanted to do was to give the right another talking point comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter. You can see the wheels turning — Carter put solar panels on the White House, and ended up a one-term president mocked for decades by Republicans…. run away!!!
But now, a few weeks later, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announces that the White House will install solar panels on the roof and a solar water heater. Bill McKibben applauds, but would be well within his rights to ask, what took you so long?
When McKibben and his cohorts arrived at the White House, the “bureaucrats” could have politely told them that, while it didn’t make sense to install some 30-year-old technology on the premises, they did nonetheless intend to make a big solar push. There would still be a hit from the right-wing news cycle, but, more important, Obama would have given his own supporters a reason to feel good.
Instead, the White House managed to bum environmentalists out, and then, a few weeks later, go ahead and invite the Carter-Obama comparison anyway. That’s just bungled political management.
Well, I still like it. But as usual, they’re kind of incompetent about it all. Who’s running things at the WH anyway?
This will make you feel better. Some on the right are having troubles. Meg Whitman running against my fav, moonbeam, has had a rather bad week(emphasis mine):
Like a lot of California Democrats, I’ve been waiting for Jerry Brown to start his campaign for governor. Sure, he began running ads last month — terrible ads, in my opinion, featuring Brown as a talking head, that mostly serve to remind people he was already governor, a long, long time ago, whatever his accomplishments.
I’ve always assumed Brown would win anyway, though, because he’s got one key asset: He’s not Meg Whitman. And during Saturday’s Univision debate, I spotted another Brown asset: He knows how to make a moral and emotional appeal to our sense of justice, that California used to be a better place, and can be one again.
Whoever is behind the sudden emergence of Whitman’s former maid, Nicky Diaz — the woman the former eBay CEO says deceived her about having legal immigration status, going so far as to steal a letter from the federal government notifying Whitman about her illegal status (that turned out not to be true), but whom Whitman fired immediately upon “learning” the truth — it’s a defining story for Whitman, and not in a good way. I am sensitive to all the ways women are held to a different and higher standard than men in politics, and I search for descriptors that capture Whitman that are not somehow stereotypical.
Yes, I’m quoting Joan Walsh. I held my nose, so it’s OK. Notice the bold bit. Yea, me too. We’ll resume after we all stop laughing. OK, stop laughing now. Well, anyway, Meg has some troubles, fair or not, and Jerry’s benefiting.
A new poll about the Tea Party members shows half of them to be religious conservatives. Well duh:
A new poll shows that half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement also identify as part of the religious right, reflecting the complex – and sometimes contradictory – blend of bedfellows in the American conservative movement.
The poll released Tuesday, by the nonprofit Public Religion Research Institute, comes as the tea party’s composition and potential impact is still under hot debate. Experts disagreed about what the poll meant, with some saying it reveals serious fissures between social and fiscal conservatives and others saying the two movements can find common ground on subjects such as limiting public funding for abortion.
The Tea Party are not our friends. But then again, neither are the new Democrats. All we can do is have popcorn and watch the fireworks. And maybe cry a bit too.
And speaking of the insanity coming from the alleged left, here’s a sad one:
The Christine O’Donnell witch doll hits the market — and gives all the people who dressed like Sarah Palin in recent years some easy Halloween costume inspiration.
Clearly they’re trying their hardest to get O’Donnell elected. Either that or they’re complete idiots. Could it be both?
Some of us have been brave enough to watch the first couple of episodes of Parker red light Spitzer’s show on CNN. It’s bad. Really bad. Apparently we’re not the only ones who think so:
CNN’s primetime talk show anchored by disgraced ex-New York governor Eliot Spitzer and journalist Kathleen Parker debuted to low viewership and scathing reviews, with comments on Tuesday ranging from “unbearable” to “icky” and “obnoxious”.
Spitzer, a Democrat who was forced to resign in 2008 for hiring high-priced prostitutes, and Parker, a Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative Washington Post columnist, were hired by CNN in a bid to add some fireworks to its struggling evening line-up.
But barely a good word could be found on Tuesday for the new “Parker Spitzer” show, which debuted one night earlier as a daily discussion about politics and other hot button issues.
Monday’s debut also drew disappointing ratings, attracting an audience of 454,000, the Nielsen company said. The figure put CNN in fourth place in the time-slot, well below “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News (3.1 million), and “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on MSNBC (1.1 million).
The New York Times said the Spitzer scandal “cast an awkward shadow” over the pair’s chemistry and gave the show an “ickiness factor” that was hard to watch.
ime magazine’s James Poniewozik also felt uncomfortable, saying the show struggled to find its tone, and he called the closing “round-table” section “just vapid”.
The New York Post headlined its review “Freak show unbearable to watch”, while the Baltimore Sun summed up the first show as “a load of obnoxious, self-important noise.”
I had to double check because at first I thought they were talking about Obama and the new Democratic coalition. But no, just that crappy show. These creeps apparently spend most of their time saying how bad, or stupid, or witchy people like Palin are. If people like that don’t like you, isn’t that a complement?
Speaking of the enthusiasm gap, Obama is going to MTV:
In a final push to excite his party’s base before the Nov. 2 elections, President Obama is reaching out (and reaching out and reaching out) to young voters, a group that helped elect him two years ago. Democrats fear that many of them will sit out the midterms – part of the “enthusiasm gap” identified in surveys – so Obama has taken on the role of campaign scold to urge them to the polls.
MTV announced Tuesday morning in a news release, which was tweeted immediately by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, that Obama will host a “youth town hall” on Oct. 14.
“A Conversation With President Obama,” as the hour-long afternoon event is being called, will air on MTV, MTVu, BET, Centric, TR3s and CMT at 4 p.m. It will also stream live on MTV.com, BET.com and CMT.com.
But not to worry, Latino’s still support Democrats. They just won’t be voting for them this time around:
There is good news and bad news for Democrats in a new poll ahead of the 2010 elections – Latinos support the party, but about half of those questioned say they might not show up at the polls on Nov. 2.
The gap between support and motivation provides an opening for Republicans, who have had an up-and-down relationship with Latinos over the last few years: George W. Bush made inroads, but John McCain then lost ground to Barack Obama. Recently, the GOP has done little to court these voters on issues such as education, immigration and health-care legislation.
But Republicans hold one big advantage over Democrats in key races this cycle that could matter more than any one issue – they have more high-profile Latino candidates running for statewide offices.
Where else are you going to go? How about the couch with some popcorn? How about a third party candidate? Et cetera.
Out on the campaign trail, Obama is also talking about some other issues, including how the evil Republicans will cut education funding. What?, cut it even more than Democrats? I think that might be another 2% less evil argument they’re so fond of:
Obama framed the fate of community colleges as a matter of global economic competition. Speaking weeks before crucial midterm elections, Obama said the signature Republican Pledge to America would cut education funding by one-fifth to fund tax relief for the wealthy, at a time when other nations are padding their investments.
“Think about it: China is not slashing education by 20 percent right now,” he said. He likened the GOP proposal to “unilaterally disarming our troops right as they head to the front lines.”
Republican leaders responded that their pledge rolls back nonsecurity discretionary spending to 2008 levels but does not require cuts to any particular program. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), chairman of the pledge, said in a statement his party seeks to undo a “reckless spending spree” by the Obama administration.
Community colleges represent the largest and most affordable sector of higher education. Obama said he expects them to take a lead role in his American Graduation Initiative. America has fallen from first to ninth in a single decade, he said, in its share of young people holding college degrees.
“As far as I’m concerned, America doesn’t play for second place,” he said, “and it certainly doesn’t play for ninth.”
So apparently the movie “Dumb and Dumber” wasn’t just a movie, it was a picture of our future political landscape.
There have been some banking policy changes in Japan lately:
Japanese stocks rose for a second day after U.S. service companies expanded faster than forecast and speculation grew that the Federal Reserve will join the Bank of Japan’s efforts to spur economic growth.
Fanuc Ltd., Japan’s largest maker of industrial robots, rose 1.2 percent. Mitsubishi Corp., Japan’s largest commodities trader, increased 2.1 percent after crude and metals prices gained yesterday. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., the country’s largest lender, advanced 1.8 percent. Mitsubishi Estate Co., Japan’s second-biggest developer, gained 1.9 percent. Japan’s central bank pledged yesterday to keep its benchmark interest rate at “virtually zero” and to purchase more assets including real estate investment trusts.
“The Bank of Japan’s action may accelerate movements towards monetary easing globally,” said Fumiyuki Nakanishi, a strategist at Tokyo-based SMBC Friend Securities Co. “Confidence grew that the global economy is on a recovery track, and investors will likely put money back into risk assets.”
The Supremes, yea, I called them that, will be hearing a case about those creepy people that protest military funerals tomorrow:
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a legal battle that pits the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators.
In 2006, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested 300 feet from a funeral for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading “God hates you” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.”
Among the teachings of the Topeka, Kansas-based fundamentalist church founded by pastor Fred Phelps is the belief that the deaths of U.S. soldiers is God’s punishment for “the sin of homosexuality.”
Albert Snyder, Matthew’s father, said his son was not gay and the protesters should not have been at the funeral.
Of course we want free speech. But what if protestors are nuts and make no sense?
I hope Nancy is serious and up to something reasonable here. She wants to have an inquiry on mortgage lenders. Ha, what am I thinking, they were part of all this. Most likely smoke and mirrors. What, me cynical (emphasis mine):
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate the nation’s largest mortgage lenders, and Maryland joined a growing list of states seeking to halt foreclosures while they probe claims of fraudulent filings.
In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Pelosi (Calif.) and dozens of other Democrats accused the nation’s biggest banks of making it difficult for struggling borrowers to get foreclosure relief while the firms routinely evicted them with flawed court papers.
The group said that recent reports of lenders initiating hundreds of thousands of questionable foreclosures “amplify our concerns that systemic problems exist.”
The request from Democrats puts pressure on the Obama administration to get more involved in a matter that it so far has said little about publicly. The move is also likely to stoke cries for a broad moratorium on foreclosures across the country.
Yea, the bold part is another laugh out loud moment. And people say government isn’t funny.
And finally, I’ll leave you with this gem. Are test tube babies the work of God or some human error:
Do you think a baby conceived in test tube is still a child in the eyes — or mind or hands, depending on your theology/philosophy — of God? Does the science behind this merit the Nobel Prize for Medicine or condemnation in the realm of faith and ethics?
I’m starting out with the questions today because the impact of the Nobel Prize for Medicine going to the doctor who developed in vitro fertilization is still rumbling around the world.
The Vatican has already denounced the prize going to British scientist Robert Edwards, for work that led to the birth of the first test-tube baby, Louise Brown, 32 years ago.
Bad science, bad. Yea, snark. So there’s a bit of what’s happening. Chime in with what you’re finding.
Filed under: General, Morning News edition | Tagged: General, Morning Edition, news | 127 Comments »