Friday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, November 22. 2013

It's official: Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich is Racist, Says Portland School Official

What about Fluffernutter?

Being a gentleman

No High School Diploma? No Problem: Here Are The Best Paying Jobs For You

The federal government's war on school choice

The War on Achievement

Sharpton Won't Apologize for Barneys Shakedown

Is the NY Times editorial board for the filibuster, or against it?

CEO: ‘When we go to the White House, we talk to people we wouldn’t hire.”

"Our check’s gonna come in the mail every month, and it’s gonna be on
time, and we get subsidized housing. We even get presents delivered for
our kids on Christmas. Why should I work?"

Living the reality of Santa Claus

PM Cameron: We need to get rid of all this green crap

ObamaCare Forced Mom Into Medicaid

Top Cancer Hospital Not Included on Obamacare Plans Sold in NY

Healthcare.gov can't tell consumers whether they can keep their doctors

Only a limited number of doctors and hospitals will be covered by insurance bought through the exchange. It doesn't mean you can't use them, but it's on your nickel. The Obamacare "system" seeks the cheapest "vendors."

Mead discusses The NY Times' turning against Obamacare:

Middle America isn’t frothing over Obamacare because we are a nation of racist policy wonks who did the math and hate the blacks. The public is angry first (as Edsall mostly seems to understand) because of the supremely infuriating blend of incompetent arrogance our Second Lincoln has brought to the greatest domestic challenge of his presidency. They are angry because an expensive and cumbersome new piece of social engineering looks badly engineered. But in the second place, they are angry because the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and its journalistic spear carriers in the MSM systematically misrepresented the nature of the new system.

Does Edsall or anybody else really think that Obamacare would have passed Congress if public opinion had understood back in 2010 that all those assurances about keeping your plan and your doctors were as bogus as the old line that the check is in the mail?

The UN and Israel: A History of Discrimination

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:30 | Comments (16) | Trackbacks (2)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.peekinthewell.net
Tracked: Nov 22, 09:26

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Nov 24, 10:12

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

No no, Bird Dog. Fluffernutter is sexist, not racist.

#1 Janet on 2013-11-22 07:43 (Reply)

Not THAT Washington--this one

The senator mentioned in this piece is the State senator Reed (different man, different spelling). The reason I have posted this is so MF readers will understand that Obama Care was a long time in the planning. WA state never had an "insurance commissioner" until this woman was brought in from Chicago--years ago.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/heritage/biographies/DeborahSenn.aspx

#2 another one on 2013-11-22 07:45 (Reply)

"It's official: Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich is Racist, Says Portland School Official"

You do realize people like that are insane, don't you?

#3 backhoe on 2013-11-22 08:24 (Reply)

If sandwiches are racist then for the same reasons tacos and burittos would be racist as well. If a ethnic food is racist because it fails the diversity trap (I mean test) then all ethnic foods are racist. Too bad because I love Mexican food. Damn I love Italian food too. What's a person to do if they truly want to embrace diversity?

#3.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-11-22 10:54 (Reply)

And Chinese, too. Will the Japanese eat Chinese? Will the South Koreans eat Japanese (the NorKs eat grass)?

Reminds me of the kid who got two shirts for Christmas, goes to his room, puts one on, comes out to the question, "What? You didn't like the other one?"

#3.1.1 Sam L. on 2013-11-22 11:30 (Reply)

PB&J might be racist in the Peoples Republic of Portland-Eugene, but here in the Libertarian Deep South it's a Redneck favorite for a quick lunch. I eat PB&J on a hamburger bun a couple of times a week. Sometimes without the jelly.

#3.2 BillH on 2013-11-22 16:37 (Reply)

Such officials never apply this judgment to their own beliefs.

#3.3 ErisGuy on 2013-11-23 05:06 (Reply)

They have to have a war on achievement because they can't figure out how to redistribute it to the "Why should I work" crowd. They tried to give achievement to everyone but even the little kids knew who'd have achieved and who hadn't. So they must make achievement a bad thing.

And as always, the claims for the downtrodden are smoke to cover the socialist's inadequacies. Those that did achieve some materialistic success support it because they view others as intrinsically inadequate and must not be expected to succeed:

QUOTE:

Since the socialist grieves at the unequal distribution of material wealth, and regards a better distribution as essential to the reformation of society, one is obliged to ask at once why the socialist does not himself set to work and accumulate wealth as well as others? In our country there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of cases where men have begun with nothing and accumulated a competence. Why do not the socialists do the same? If material wealth is the cure-all, why not go in at once and get it? The answer is not far to seek. They claim that they have no chance of success in the competitive struggle with others. They wish wealth, but they do not possess the bourgeois virtues necessary for its acquisition under existing conditions. Therefore, they wish to rearrange society so that those who do not now have the industrial qualities may obtain wealth as well as those who do have them. Of course, they do not explain who is to produce the wealth they are to share, and which they are incompetent to produce. That is supposedly an insignificant detail. However this may be, the central point in the question is this: having admitted their failure to achieve success in accumulating material wealth in a competitive struggle open freely to all, they propose the abolition of free competition. State control is to take its place. Here we have socialism confessedly as a philosophy of failure. Just to the extent that the socialists insist on their inability to accumulate as much wealth as others, under existing conditions, they are unconsciously advertising their own industrial inefficiency. They clamor for a philosophy of failure -- for a system in which they shall be relieved from the inevitable results of their relative inferiority in obtaining the material means which they regard as essential to their idealistic ends.

#4 JKB on 2013-11-22 08:32 (Reply)

RE - People we wouldn't hire - Val Jarrett shows her face again. Imagine that... condescending and talking FOR the Prez? Gosh, that sounds puppet master-esque...

Its no wonder why they're academics - it takes people skills, life experience to make it in business - community rabble-rousing has to be funded, since it really makes nothing beyond trouble.

#5 fred zeppelin on 2013-11-22 08:35 (Reply)

The filibuster change seems like a major admission by the Dem's that they are unlikely to be in charge much longer. They will now ram through a record number of judicial appointments before the 2014 elections knock them out of power for 10-12 years. Of course, if the Rep's have a big year due to Obamacare, watch them screw it up.

#6 Colorado on 2013-11-22 09:07 (Reply)

I have a different view. I see it as another step in getting rid of the Constitution. There are aspects of our government that seem arcane to even some who have thought about it and most haven't so it probably seems nuts to them. More of those 'arcane' rules and procedures will be done away with as they can. They are relentless in pushing the country to democracy which will be the end of it as we know it because then the protection of the minority will be eradicated and they will always either keep anti-fascists as the actual or perceived minority. Then their dream can be achieved - no accountability to anybody.

#6.1 mudbug on 2013-11-22 11:23 (Reply)

I fail to see how this is a Constitutional issue. The Constitution leaves both houses of the legislature free to define their rules as they see fit.

Whether or not it is smart or stupid on the part of the Democrats remains to be seen.

#6.1.1 Knucklehead (Link) on 2013-11-22 12:29 (Reply)

You are correct that the Constitution does not dictate rules of the Senate or House, but the Constitution includes safeguards for minorities and the filibuster rules were devised in that spirit. Those safeguards are not always easy to explain (probably harder to explain than a filibuster). If you attack one and succeed, there is no reason not to attack others that get in your way. After all, we all like democracy, right? How many people know our system is not a democracy and that it is not one for particular reasons? As soon as you have a democracy, you have mob rule and the mob can decide who the mob is.

#6.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-11-22 17:22 (Reply)

On a separate but related note, what keeps the president from using government agencies in unConstitutional ways? Obviously Obummer isn't the first president to do so, but I believe the tenor of his abuses is more sinister than most others. Usually, abuses are for a policy or political use - often for his benefit, but Obummer has wielded the government in ways that directly harm or inconvenience Americans.

So back to my question - what keeps the president in check (other than his own reservations, honor, belief in the Constitution, fear of retribution)? Law suits. These are a slow tool and by the time a suit works its way to the Supreme Court, he could be gone and the rest of the government is on to something else. If he were, for example, to decide that the D.C. Federal Court was too small and decided to pack it a la Roosevelt, challenging his actions as well as subsequent leftists' would be much tougher.

#6.1.1.2 mudbug on 2013-11-22 18:07 (Reply)

As the daughter of immigrants who sent me to school daily with PB&J sandwiches, I find the conclusion drawn to be erroneous. It's crap. Stop it already.

#7 Eyeroller on 2013-11-22 12:31 (Reply)

i miss my pbj's, middle age has found they don't pass as easily.

#8 observor on 2013-11-22 18:12 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, November 22. 2013

Friday morning links