We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
As people celebrate the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor simply because of her ethnic background and not because of her judicial background, we know that giving people a leg up solely because of their ethnicity is nowhere near over.
Almost a half-century before, a young Democratic president had said this:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
Once an American president had promised we would bear any burden. Our current president promises "we will continue to bear witness." It's quite an evolution.
Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.
I say, Burn the heretic at the stake. Thereby adding a little CO2 to warm up New England. We need it.
Last Saturday, Honduran soldiers marched into the presidential palace, bundled up President Manuel Zelaya and put him on a plane for Costa Rica.
The ouster had been ordered by the Supreme Court and approved by the Congress, as Zelaya was attempting an illegal referendum to change the Honduran constitution so he could run for another term.
Will someone please explain why this bloodless transfer of power to the civilian legislator first in line for the presidency, in a sovereign nation, is any business of the United Nations, the Organization of American States, Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers or Barack Obama? For all have denounced the "coup" and demanded Zelaya's immediate return.
Krugman makes for a fine straw man. Sort of like Sullivan does. Usually straw men are unreal, as in "some say...", but these buffoons are, seemingly, real. Krugman wants more government stimulus. WTH? This is like idiot religion: If your prayers aren't answered, just pray harder.
Through all of this smoke, mirror and crap sandwich of Commander Zero , Soros, congless(no sp) and the senate (clearly a country club) we shall prevail.
We do not know it yet and neither do they.
The limit will be met soon.
4th of July.....tipping point.
The Honduran Supreme Court might have done better to order the defiant president's arrest and incarceration inside Honduras. That would have been followed by court proceedings to address the charges against him.
Since the definition of a coup involves the overthrow of the government, not necessarily the chief of state, this action fails as a coup. As the article above says, it is the lawful process of a sovereign nation.
I'm starting to wonder if we've all been victims of the greatest dunderhead to enter politics. Allegedly Obama was a professor, but he can't speak without a teleprompter, his policies are NOT his own since (as David Brooks noted) they're written by Congress, and every effort so far has been a failure (bank bailout, GM bailout, unemployment rate). Still the media falls over backward for Chauncey Gardener.
Geoff Brown ... as usual, the amateurs in the White House didn't even look up 'coup d'etat' in the dictionary before declaring what happened in Honduras a 'coup.' What happened in Honduras was the rule of law. All you have to do is turn it around, and it becomes eminently reasonable. Imagine that our present President of the United States would like to change the Constitution so that he could have several more terms as President. According to our Constitution, we would have to call a constitutional referendum before the Constitution could be amended. If our President did what Zelaya did and tried to make an end run around the Constitution, it would become necessary for either Congress or the Supreme Court to declare his actions illegal and to require the military, if necessary, to remove him from office, so that he could be tried.
The Honduran Constitution specifies that its President can only serve one term. To change that would require that a session of its Congress must be called and a Constitutional Amendment sought.
You would think that a Professor of Constitutional Law would know this. But then, Obama was only an adjunct professor at the University of Chicago. He specialized in racial injustice issues. Nothing as complicated as this.
There is a certain logic to Krugman's position: if your entire mindset is that government spending is the only solution, then when the situation isn't getting any better, the obvious next solution is more government spending. Naturally. To Krugman, there is no other alternative.
Now, by "a certain logic", I do not mean to imply that there's anything but lunacy involved, because lunacy is what it is. But, given what it is, there is a certain logic to it. Consequently, it is actually illogical to think that Krugman will ever, ever, ever propose any solution other than more government spending: his small mind (and I mean that: he has a very small mind) simply cannot encompass any other idea.
Just realize that Krugman is psychotic, and all will become clear.
In a sense, we have only had one stimulus. That was the tax rebate under Bush. The $800 billion monstrosity was mostly political payoff and little stimulus.
On the other hand, the fake stimulus put us too far on debt to be able to afford another stimulus. Of course, Krugman doesn't address that part except to denigrate anyone, including economists, who fail to agree with his Keynesian thinking.