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.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, May 22. 2015
Berry Gordy Jr. created Motown
Woman Says Her Wi-Fi Connection Is Making Her Sick
Railway Socialism and Safety - When you suppress the profit/loss system, people stop working for the sake of quality and endanger consumers
The social justice thought police has always been with us, but it’s the
New Snowden doc: NSA targeted mobile phones, app stores
Washington Post Attacks Rubio: He’s Not Rich!
Iowa Democrats Can’t Name Hillary’s Accomplishments
Hillary vs. 19 Republicans - The GOP free-for-all is better politics than the Democrats’ coronation of Hillary Clinton.
Carly Fiorina Just May Be the Surprise Dark Horse of 2016
White House steps up warnings about terrorism on U.S. soil
Anti-Semitism and Jewish destiny
UC’s Napolitano Speaks Out On High Cost Of Public Ed, Anti-Semitism On Campus
Democrats Can’t Name Hillary’s Accomplishments - See more at:
Tracked: May 24, 09:16
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Found bouncing around the right wing echo chamber:
Victor Davis Hanson: As Obama put it: “We’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like.”
Given the First Amendment, how can the president “change” the media? Should the Federal Communications Commission pick and choose acceptable news outlets in the same manner that Lois Lerner ran her exempt-organizations division at the IRS?
What does Obama say needs to be done? Arrest journalists? Shut down Fox News? Black helicopters? Obama continues, "And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news."
My Goodness! He wants a broad conversation!! The dastard!
Little Barry wants to manage meaning control the news on FOX, his political enemy. Does he want to change the way his own media whores spin the news?
That's not a rhetorical question.
That's an awful rosy opinion that Obummer wants a broad conversation (while he attacks FOX News).
Those right wing nut jobs at The Huffington Post report the results of a study that shows they have gone to extraordinary lengths to thwart reporters: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/obama-press-freedom-cpj_n_4073037.html
They also report how the administration is attacking the press's right to confidential sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/reporters-privilege-obama-war-leaks-new-york-times_n_1527748.html
And another right wing nut job, Dana Milbank, says the administration is criminalizing reporters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-in-ap-rosen-investigations-government-makes-criminals-of-reporters/2013/05/21/377af392-c24e-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html
There are legitimate concerns over government overreach, but those concerns can't be addressed by demagogic appeals, or by misrepresenting the President's remarks.
So stating and showing Obummer's words do not relate to the facts are demagogic appeals?
If he really wanted to broaden the conversation, he wouldn't attack a news network that was providing an alternative the rest of the news media, and thus providing a broader conversation?
If he really wanted to broaden the conversation, he wouldn't be hostile to the point of siccing his Attorney General on reporters.
If he really wanted to broaden the conversation, he wouldn't thwart FOI requests and in general be overly restrictive to reporters.
mudbug: So stating and showing Obummer's words do not relate to the facts are demagogic appeals?
His words were that change is to be effected by a broader discussion. The right wing echo chamber left that part out. It's called quote mining.
Baseball, and softball are no longer pastimes. Either a child and their family devote their entire summer to the game or they don't, no middle ground. So logically, many kids are choosing freedom rather than baseball dictatorships.
Those who live and breath the game whine because others want a life outside of the games.
But this isn't new, just the "rebellion". It's always been that after school, companies, etc. have had leagues but that "social" play became more dictatorial by those who demand everyone do what they want. As companies (and organizations) have fewer employees the "league" must harass those who do not wish to play to find enough players to support the habit of the overgrown children.
Re: the definition of anti semitism. If we cannot discuss the power of the Jewish community's network to act as a unified whole--than we cannot discuss the reality that some of us have had to face. It prevents us from discussing a reality--so I guess no "free speech".
yeah, that's how we roll. we're smarter, better financed, control the media and hence the debate, more articulate, better access to power when we're not the actual power. consider yourself fortunate that our attention has been so light.
Re: Baseball, one thing the sport needs is more children and fewer parents. It's ridiculous how involved some parents get in little league sports. Let the children play their games. Football is even worse, in that regard. Parents treat a little league game as though it's the super bowl. It's embarrassing.
The baseball problem is that kids no longer play in their spare time in their neighborhoods. When I was a kid, we played almost every day in the summer. I would also hit off a tee and throw at a net when I was bored. When our Little League season started, we already had some decent skills.
Now kids show up for the first day of Little League practice and it's obvious they haven't thrown a ball or swung a bat since the last season's final game.
My son is in Babe Ruth now and the games are still far sloppier than when I played at that level. There only 2 or 3 kids on his team who take the sport seriously and did any off season practicing.
When everybody gets a trophy for participating, there's no reason to excel.
More like - when everyone had an Xbox, why play outside?
Threats are not a good strategy for peaceful co-existance--anywhere, any time.
I question your being "smarter".
I'm not the one using an imaginary Jewish conspiracy to account for personal and professional failings.
Kids don't do after-school activities because they are fun or because they are enriching or broaden their horizens.. they do them because guidance counselors and parents push them into it - and usually many activities, because they are required on college aps and you know how it is today -- everyone is pushed to go to college- even those that shouldn't and don't want to.
What most kids really want to do today is sit around and play video games. I'm shocked when I see in my small town kids outside playing. I've been seeing more and more girls outside on bikes. Alone. Without their parents supervision. I would love to have kids come over and learn to ride horses with us, but the fear of lawsuits and being taken to the cleaners is too prohibitive.
As for the parents who are anal/violent and take their kids sporting events a little too seriously; this is because our existence is basically toil free - food, clothing, housing, transportation at our fingertips. there is almost NO physical outlet in the survival instinct. Some people are competitive against others. Some are competitive with themselves.
Some of them choose to live vicariously thru their children's lives.
Everything is taken for granted, and almost nothing is appreciated.
Re: Carly Fiorina
I've also been impressed with Carly since I started paying attention to her run for president. I agree with just about everything Carol Brown says in her article. I'm not sure I'd vote for her for president, but then she's just one of several impressive people in the pubbie field who I don't think will get the nomination but who I hope will end up in some prominent role and their influence continues and builds.
I love what her mother said to her:
What you are, is God’s gift to you. What you make of yourself, is your gift to God.
Is just one more--one more daughter of wealth who was pushed into a "leadership role" for which she did not have enough experience, insight, or genuine education. Assisting HP into near collapse is not a good example upon which I would want to base the qualifications for the next president. I think many of us are tired of "female leaders" for the very reasons Carly failed, has failed, and continues to fail. All bully and no wisdom.
I disagree with you entirely. She may have been raised in a well-educated household, but she earned her way to the top through her business savvy and smarts. She also was not given her degrees...she earned them.
If you read up on her background, she had much success in business leading up to her role with HP. Please point me to CEOs who haven't failed to live up to expectation at some point in their careers.
She is one of the few candidates right now who is capable of standing up for conservative positions and not backing down. She's tough, smart and articulate. She may not get the presidential nomination, but I think she could do great things for the Republican Party...perhaps as a V.P. candidate or cabinet member. She's no dope.
And.., she seems less sclerotic and stale than many of the others.
Wi-Fi Connection Is Making Her Sick
She needs to stop browsing the Morgellon's web sites.