Monthly Archives: September 2009

Bank of America Pulls Back From ACORN Work

Posted on by
Reply

moneythumbGood news.  It’s another kick in the ACORNs moment.

The Bank of America is shelving any future commitments of money to ACORN.  However, I suspect its current commitments can be described along the lines of “donate to us or we’ll call you racists”, but I’m glad they’ve stopped now.  Kind of hard to shake down any bank in question now that they can turn around and say “Uh-huh.  Given advice to any pimps lately?”

My congratulations to Bank of America on what I hope is the first of many banks withdrawing support from ACORN.  They’re one more source of funding ACORN won’t have, at least for now.

Read the original here:
Bank of America Pulls Back From ACORN Work (Fox News)

The New Journalistic Poshness: The Opinion Media Monitor

Posted on by
1

reporter2Michelle Malkin reports that the New York Times is going to hire an “opinion media monitor”.  The short version is that after being caught flat-footed on stories like the ACORN sting, they’ve decided to hire someone to monitor “opinion media” for stories.  They don’t want to look partisan, you see.

I can’t imagine how they might think they appeared that way, with their revenues going down and such.  That and the headline basically stating that us evil conservatives finally hit those innocent ACORN types where it hurts because it’s fun (“Conservatives Draw Blood From ACORN, Favored Foe”).  With objectivity like this, who needs opinion?

Anyway, this “opinion media monitor” is anonymous and has no contact information.  This means you can’t get in touch with him/her, and have no way of confirming or denying their objectivity.  Suddenly, this sort of new journalistic poshness is within the reach of anyone!

Seeing as how this is so easy to do, how about I appoint my own opinion media monitor:  Ned the Intern.  He’s my official site running gag and the name I gave my PHP news aggregator script.  In short, he’s not real.

Arguably, this will make him much the same as the New York Times’ opinion media monitor, because without a name or contact information, they don’t actually have to hire one.  This could very well an attempt to rebuild some credibility along the lines of “Trust us, they’re on the job.  Really.”  Either that, or it will be someone as far left as the rest of the paper who simply can’t be called on their work.

No matter.  Getting with the new journalistic poshness is fun.  More people should do this, just to get with the Times.

Is This The Hope and Change You Want?

Posted on by
Reply

flag_dogNo jokes now, folks.  It’s zero flak time.

Trouble’s brewing.  Can you see it yet?

Let’s start with health care.  Obama’s health care bill could very well have a mandate in it to buy health insurance.  This is whether you can afford it or not, enforceable as a misdemeanor and by the IRS.  Legal Insurrection can give you some more information, but this is hardly the whole of it.

Disagreeing with the government has suddenly become very, very wrong.  Oh, it was wonderful when the other side was doing it, but now that they’re in power the silliness has to stop.  We’re all wee wee’d up and such.

People who protest Obama and oppose hsi policies aren’t just on the receiving end of generic flak anymore.  We’re domestic terrorists and racists just waiting for the opportunity to do something vicious and nasty.  I tend to agree with Legal Insurrection that sparking some real violence to justify governmental nastiness may just be the intent.

How about some other signs of impending authoritarianism, soft though it may currently be?

  • Mass czar appointments to bypass congressional oversight and representative government.
  • Parliamentary tricks by the Democrats in Congress to completely bypass opposition, such as it exists in the Republican Party.
  • Payoffs to special interests friendly to Democrats, especially the unions, regardless of the consequences to the nation.  Think GM, Chrysler, and the upcoming Employee Free Choice Act.

All this, and we’re not even done with Obama’s first year yet. Is this the hope and change you want?

It may be great for Obama’s supporters now, because they still think they’re winning.  If he gets everything he wants though, even they won’t be immune from the nanny state and soft tyranny.  Sooner or later, the reality of trying to live in that will hammer its way through their blinders, and by then reversing this mess will be a monumental effort, if it can happen at all.

If Obama wins, everyone loses.  The only hope and change you’ll get is hoping against hope that we can change it all back.

Why Aren’t There Any Loud Moderates?

Posted on by
Reply

strikeI’ll grant that at both poles of the political spectrum, there are loud people.  Being a completely objective independent conservative, of course, I find that most of the rude ones are on the other side.  Guys like Ed Schultz, who sounds as though he’s trying to knock Olbermann out of his #1Loudest Lib spot.

Being as how I get sidetracked about these sorts of things, I wondered:  Why aren’t there any loud moderates?

Talk about a market just ripe for the cornering.  There aren’t currently any loud moderates anywhere.  Seriously, when was the last time you heard something like this…

HOW DARE YOU EVIL POLITICIANS TAKE A POSITION!  YOU MONSTERS ARE ACTUALLY COMING DOWN ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OF AN ISSUE?!  YOU DECIDE, PEOPLE DIED!  YOU DECIDE, PEOPLE DIED!

MILITANT AMBIVALENCE FOREVER!!!!!

Ok, I’ll grant that today Senator Collins gets one right on the czars.  But for the most part, I’m pretty sure moderates are the ones who like to stand around looking thoughtful and tweaking the noses of those of us who’ve made up our minds already.  This brings us to the reason there are no loud moderates:  Loud requires having positions in which you believe passionately, and they don’t.

It would have been fun to watch though.

WE’RE GOING TO BE INDIFFERENT, AND SO ARE YOU! OTHERWISE, WE’LL COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND NOT DO ANYTHING!  AUGH!!!