It's a Wonderful . . . Something

Maybe it's just wonderful rhetoric, or masterful demagoguery. I'm still mulling it over. But the clip is thought-provoking.



We can move around our money as much as we like. But all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put commercial real estate back together again.

That's the real lending conundrum.

Your thoughts?

"If you grab or squeeze too hard . . . "

Meet inventor Le Trung and his robo-friend, fembot Aiko. With a "perfect" 32-23-33 figure, she's umm, apparently this man's dream.


Mr. Trung is still working on making her walk more human-like. But heck, this fellow is not complaining. She can speak English and Japanese fluently, helped cook his turkey and, says Mr. Trung, she "knows what drinks I like."


And, "like any woman, she enjoys getting new clothes," while he loves "buying them for her."

Indeed, "like a real female she will react to being touched in certain ways," says her loving creator. "If you grab or squeeze too hard she will try to slap you. She has all senses except for smell. But Aiko is always helpful and never complains. She is the perfect woman to have around at Christmas."

Alrighty then.

So what did you get for Christmas?

Our Country's Christmas Tree

Thanks for popping in while I blog-rob from Althouse, and take a look at some of the ornaments displayed on Obama's and our country's Christmas tree.

No, they didn't come from an SNL skit. They weren't lifted from the Daily Show -- oh would that I were witty enough to dream this stuff up.

No, they came from the White House Blue Room, courtesy of the "Big Government" blog. Below, I quote the post in full:

Why let a holiday season come between the White House and making some political statements? The White House pegged controversial designer Simon Doonan to oversee the Christmas decorations for the White House. Mr. Doonan, who is creative director of Barney’s New York has often caused a stir with his design choices. Like his naughty yuletide window display of Margaret Thatcher as a dowdy dominatrix and Dan Quayle as a ventriloquist’s dummy. For this year’s White House, he didn’t disappoint.

These photos of ornaments on the White House Christmas tree in the Blue Room were taken just days ago. Of course, Mao has his place in the White House.

And, of course, it wouldn’t be Christmas without an ornament of legendary transvestite Hedda Lettuce.

* * *

And, so soon after collecting the Nobel Peace Prize, why wouldn’t the White House have an ornament super-imposing President Obama onto Mt. Rushmore:

All around, a very Barry Christmas!

A Mao ornament on our nation's Christmas tree? Tut tut. Pfft smfft. I've already extolled the virtues of exhorting Maoists.

Hells bells, folks, it's Christmas. Can't we lighten up? Even "Silent Night" has a new and special meaning this year in our blessed democracy. So let us all be quiet and just give thanks.

Because putting taste aside (for which there's no accounting) when you look at what we shelled out to buy our Senators, these ornaments are downright cheap.

Who's the Big Fat Idiot?

Here's another smackdown for you -- except this one's a double smackeroo:



For shame, for shame.

Why must a bill with allegedly so much merit be passed under cover of darkness? Frankly, I'm starting to dread the weekends. Because when the country's away, our Congress will play.

The whole voting process has grown so clandestine, even Democrats are now grumbling about its cloak-and-daggerness. Could it be, dare I say it, because the health care bill has so much public opposition?

Is it any wonder the Republicans want a full reading of the bill from the floor? For God's sake. Harry Reid won't even let the other senators see it.

Consider this blurb, from the Washington Examiner:

"I am in the dark almost as much as he is, and I am in the leadership." Durbin explained that during a Democratic caucus, Reid and the small group of senators involved in crafting the bill turned to their fellow Democrats and "basically stood and said, 'We are sorry, we can't tell you in detail what was involved.'"

"Isn't that a very unusual process?" asked McCain, noting that "we are discussing one-sixth of the gross national product; the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage-making. Yet here we are at a position on December 12, with a proposal that none of us, except, I understand, one person, the Majority Leader, knows what the final parameters are, much less informing the American people. I don't get it."

"I think the senator is correct," Durbin answered, "saying most of us know the fundamentals, but we do not know the important details behind this." (emph. added)

What the hell! If sunlight is the best disinfectant, why are most Dems sprinting for the caves?

Oh, and while I've got the Tide box out on this Friday night, how about the 2010 Omnivore Omnibus Spending Bill which the Senate approved last weekend?

You know, the one that has over five thousand earmarks, the bill that pushes our total earmark spending for 2009 to eleven billion? Obama signed it into law this past Wednesday with nary a whimper.

Oh, those evil earmarks. Do you remember, back in the day, what Obama used to say?



Yadayadayada.

P.S. In case you're planning on getting any dental crowns or botox, or gee, I don't know, a beer at the local pub, don't miss the Dental Maven's heads' up on all the new taxes this health "care" bill includes.

Rove's Obama Smackdown

In August, the American people who voted on CNN gave Obama a C+. Back in August, though, his approval ratings were significantly higher.

Obama gives himself a higher grade. Just a few weeks ago, in his Oprah-softball interview, he said he'd earned a "solid B+" in his first year as president.

Karl Rove's take? Scathing.

From the Wall Street Journal, Rove's "The President is No B+":

Barack Obama has won a place in history with the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year: 49% approve and 46% disapprove of his job performance in the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll.

There are many factors that explain it, including weakness abroad, an unprecedented spending binge at home, and making a perfectly awful health-care plan his signature domestic initiative. But something else is happening.

Mr. Obama has not governed as the centrist, deficit-fighting, bipartisan consensus builder he promised to be. And his promise to embody a new kind of politics—free of finger-pointing, pettiness and spin—was a mirage. He has cheapened his office with needless attacks on his predecessor.

Consider Mr. Obama's comment in his interview this past Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes" that the Bush administration made a mistake in speaking in "a triumphant sense about war."

This was a slap at every president who rallied the nation in dark moments, including Franklin D. Roosevelt ("With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph"); Woodrow Wilson ("Right is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts"); and John F. Kennedy ("Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed . . . will be met by whatever action is needed").

This kind of attack gives Mr. Obama's words a slippery quality. For example, he voted for the bank rescue plan in September 2008 and praised it during the campaign. Yet on Dec. 8 at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Obama called it "flawed" and blamed "the last administration" for launching it "hastily."

Really? Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner designed it. If it was "flawed," why did Mr. Obama later nominate Mr. Bernanke to a second term as Fed chairman and make Mr. Geithner his Treasury secretary?

Mr. Obama also claimed at Brookings that he prevented "a second Great Depression" by confronting the financial crisis "largely without the help" of Republicans. Yet his own Treasury secretary suggests otherwise. In a Dec. 9 letter, Mr. Geithner admitted that since taking office, the Obama administration had "committed about $7 billion to banks, much of which went to small institutions." That compares to $240 billion the Bush administration lent banks. Does Mr. Obama really believe his additional $7 billion forestalled "the potential collapse of our financial system"?

Mr. Obama continued distorting the record in his "60 Minutes" interview Sunday when he blamed bankers for the financial crisis. They "caused the problem," he insisted before complaining, "I haven't seen a lot of shame on their part" and pledging to put "a regulatory system in place that prevents them from putting us in this kind of pickle again."

But as a freshman senator, Mr. Obama supported a threatened 2005 filibuster of a bill regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He doesn't show "a lot of shame" that he and other Fannie and Freddie defenders blocked "a regulatory system" that might have kept America from getting in such a bad pickle in the first place.

The president's rhetorical tricks don't end there. Mr. Obama also claimed his $787 billion stimulus package "helped us [stem] the panic and get the economy growing again." But 1.5 million more people are unemployed than he said there would be if nothing were done.

And as of yesterday, only $244 billion of the stimulus had been spent. Why was $787 billion needed when less than a third of that figure supposedly got the job done?

Mr. Obama also alleged on "60 Minutes" that health-care reform "will actually bring down the deficit" (which people clearly know it will not). He said his reform reduces "costs and premiums for American families and businesses" (though they will be higher than they would otherwise be). And he claimed 30 million more people will get coverage through "an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses" to purchase insurance (though 15 million of them are covered by being dumped into Medicaid and don't get private insurance).

Mr. Obama may actually believe it when he says, "I think that's a pretty darned good outcome" and congratulates himself that he could succeed where "seven presidents have tried . . . [and] seven presidents have failed."

But voters seem to have a different definition of success. And they are tiring of the president's blame shifting and distortions.

Mr. Obama may believe, as he told Oprah Winfrey in a recent interview, that he deserves a "solid B+" for his first year in office, but the American people beg to differ. A presidency that started with so much promise is receiving unprecedentedly low grades from the country that elected him. He's earned them.

Ouch!

Tough Talk from the Man

This little clip would be even more amusing if it weren't true.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Flight Delay
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

As I am wont to do, I will again shout from the rooftops: THE BANKS CAN'T LEND BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE CRISIS!

And, despite what you may have heard, the banks have not paid back the billions we gave them in bailouts. Not really. Sure, a few have paid back the TARP funds so they can resume paying big bonuses, but that's it.

Check out this lovely red and green Christmas graph. The red, by the way, is the amount still unpaid.


(Click on graph for larger image)
Source: It Takes a Pillage

Yet we're still letting the banks cook the books.

The Hockey Stick Scuttle

Whenever I read about global warming and the leaked emails, invariably mention is made of a "hockey stick." So what's all the hoopla about a hockey stick? What does it have to do with global warming, I wondered.

Most of the articles on global warming and climate-gate make for dense reading. They are not especially illuminating. Yesterday, though, I found an informative article, written in words I could understand.

The graph below, taken from an article in the UK Daily Mail, shows the mysterious hockey stick.

And this excerpt from the article explains that the "hockey stick" graph:

[w]as the chart displayed on the first page of the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ of the 2001 IPCC report - the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph that has been endlessly reproduced in everything from newspapers to primary-school textbooks ever since, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a dizzying, almost vertical rise in the late 20th Century.

There could be no simpler or more dramatic representation of global warming, and if the origin of worldwide concern over climate change could be traced to a single image, it would be the hockey stick.

Gabriel Fahrenheit did not invent the mercury thermometer until 1724, so scientists who want to reconstruct earlier climate history have to use ‘proxy data’ - measurements derived from records such as ice cores, tree-rings and growing season dates.

However, different proxies give very different results.

For example, some suggest that the ‘medieval warm period’, the 350-year era that started around 1000, when red wine grapes flourished in southern England and the Vikings tilled now-frozen farms in Greenland, was considerably warmer than even 1998.

Of course, this is inconvenient to climate change believers because there were no cars or factories pumping out greenhouse gases in 1000AD - yet the Earth still warmed.

Some tree-ring data eliminates the medieval warmth altogether, while others reflect it. In September 1999, Jones’s IPCC colleague Michael Mann of Penn State University in America - who is now also the subject of an official investigation --was working with Jones on the hockey stick. As they debated which data to use, they discussed a long tree-ring analysis carried out by Keith Briffa.

Briffa knew exactly why they wanted it, writing in an email on September 22: ‘I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.’ But his conscience was troubled. ‘In reality the situation is not quite so simple - I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.’

* * *

* * *

Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.

According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.

This is the context in which, seven weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.

All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.

On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.

‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.

‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

Click here for the full article.

Government Health Care Will Be Grand!

Grand as in ten grand, ten thousand grand dollars.

Read this post from Ann Althouse's blog, copied below, in full:

"Want to take advantage of the proposed buy-in to the federal health care plan? Got $9,900?

But you think you're getting a government subsidy? Oh, but you are. The buy-in will cost $20,000 — according to a CBO estimate — and — assuming you make only $54,000, on which you are attempting to raise a family of 4 — you will get a government subsidy of $10,100.

Or are you over 55 and thinking you'll get to buy into Medicare? That's estimated to cost $7,600 a year per person — $15,200 for a couple. No subsidies until 2014.

Do people who support what the Democrats are trying to do really understand how much money they will be required to come up with to comply?

PLUS: Here comes the VAT!"

Speaking of grand, did you know that since the recession began, the number of federal employees making $100,000+ has increased by an eye-popping FORTY-SIX PERCENT?

Hoo-boy. Bad Timing!

The January issue of Golf Digest: 10 Tips Obama Can Take From Tiger.


Oh dear. I'm afraid to read them.

Falling, falling, falling, falling . . .

There are some annoying TV commercials running right now, like the one from Brinks Home Security.



Mother and daughter are shown frolicking in the backyard in broad daylight while the evil bad guy watches them through the fence.

They go inside their beautiful house in their beautiful neighborhood to have lunch. Immediately the mom turns on the burglar alarm.

Sheesh! How paranoid is she?

Within seconds, the bad guy breaks the door down and the alarm starts shrieking. Simultaneously, the Brinks people call -- before the murderer can even cross the threshold.

In a calm, authoritative voice, the Brinks man slowly says, "Hello, mam? This is Mark from Brinks Home Security. Are you alright?"

I'd be like, "Shut up, whoever you are. Get police over here, now!"

Then there's the agonized wailing we hear at the end of the Cadillac commercials. "Falling, falling, falling, falling!"



Given that Tiger Woods endorses Buick and drives a Cadillac Escalade, GM might want to pull these prescient ads infused with suicidal angst.

Right now, they're a bit too on the money.