Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Obama Gave 1% to Charity, Romney Gave 15%
After reading this news, I have less respect for President Obama.
Obama gives $10,000 over 4 years based on $1.2M? Seriously?? Well, it's better than what I believe Biden gave, which was about $5,000. I hate to say it, but a liberal heart sure isn't a giving heart, which has been statistically true anyway. Maybe before all this talk about income distribution and earning caps on other people, Obama should learn to give more than 1% to the hungry and needy.
His rhetoric is simply assine when you can't live by your words. What's all this talk about fairness and bridging the gap between rich and poor when he can even live out his life through his personal finances. For all his talk, I would have expected 20%-50% of this income donated to charities and nonprofits. The point that is left out of this discussion is that many people don't want to give more to inefficient government programs (i.e. D.C. public schools had the highest per capita spend but the bottom 10% in the quality of education and the countless national pork projects), but would opt into giving to the charities and nonprofits of their choice. Instead of increasing the tax rates on the "rich" why not require that increase to be donated to nonprofits targeting specific societal needs?
Obama gives $10,000 over 4 years based on $1.2M? Seriously?? Well, it's better than what I believe Biden gave, which was about $5,000. I hate to say it, but a liberal heart sure isn't a giving heart, which has been statistically true anyway. Maybe before all this talk about income distribution and earning caps on other people, Obama should learn to give more than 1% to the hungry and needy.
His rhetoric is simply assine when you can't live by your words. What's all this talk about fairness and bridging the gap between rich and poor when he can even live out his life through his personal finances. For all his talk, I would have expected 20%-50% of this income donated to charities and nonprofits. The point that is left out of this discussion is that many people don't want to give more to inefficient government programs (i.e. D.C. public schools had the highest per capita spend but the bottom 10% in the quality of education and the countless national pork projects), but would opt into giving to the charities and nonprofits of their choice. Instead of increasing the tax rates on the "rich" why not require that increase to be donated to nonprofits targeting specific societal needs?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Korea is Second Tier to Japan for President Obama
HatTip to friend in D.C. Obviously South Korea has secondary status with President Obama. Take a look at these pictures :)
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Sec. Reich, Letting Old People Die is Not a Good Way to Fund Health Care
Recently, prominent liberal health care mouthpiece and former Colorado Governor, Richard Lamm openly discussed rationing as a financial solution to help fund universal health care ("Better Health Care Through Rationing," The Huffington Post), or as he puts it, "“Old people have a duty to die and get out of the way.”
(Wesley Smith has a good post on Richard Lamm, "Obamacare: Richard “Old People Have a Duty to Die and Get Out of the Way” Lamm Wants Rationing")
Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor and economic adviser to President Obama, also holds this viewpoint. Here he is speaking at UC-Berkeley:
"We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die...
I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you."
This is a foundational policy for liberals to keep their proposed health care system afloat. This is plain stupid to me because how can you determine when it's the end of life for someone? How do you define "old age" when life expectancy continues to climb higher and the differences between each ethnic profile, socio-economic background, and lifestyle habits create such a moving target for each individual? Let's say there is a second generation Okinawan American (Japan) who maintained the same dietary habits as her parents and will live to 100 years or greater. Will she be treated the same at 80 years as a fourth generation Irish American who is 80 but with a life expectancy of 78 years?
Another example is from a recent situation from the UK (HatTip to WSJ's James Taranto):
A grandfather who beat cancer was wrongly told the disease had returned and left to die at a hospice which pioneered a controversial "death pathway."
Doctors said there was nothing more they could do for 76-year-old Jack Jones, and his family claim he was denied food, water and medication except painkillers.
He died within two weeks. But tests after his death found that his cancer had not come back and he was in fact suffering from pneumonia brought on by a chest infection.
To his family's horror, they were told he could have recovered if he'd been given the correct treatment.
Nice to see the effectiveness of similar policies in action. Seriously, this is just a stupid idea.
(Wesley Smith has a good post on Richard Lamm, "Obamacare: Richard “Old People Have a Duty to Die and Get Out of the Way” Lamm Wants Rationing")
Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor and economic adviser to President Obama, also holds this viewpoint. Here he is speaking at UC-Berkeley:
"We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die...
I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you."
This is a foundational policy for liberals to keep their proposed health care system afloat. This is plain stupid to me because how can you determine when it's the end of life for someone? How do you define "old age" when life expectancy continues to climb higher and the differences between each ethnic profile, socio-economic background, and lifestyle habits create such a moving target for each individual? Let's say there is a second generation Okinawan American (Japan) who maintained the same dietary habits as her parents and will live to 100 years or greater. Will she be treated the same at 80 years as a fourth generation Irish American who is 80 but with a life expectancy of 78 years?
Another example is from a recent situation from the UK (HatTip to WSJ's James Taranto):
A grandfather who beat cancer was wrongly told the disease had returned and left to die at a hospice which pioneered a controversial "death pathway."
Doctors said there was nothing more they could do for 76-year-old Jack Jones, and his family claim he was denied food, water and medication except painkillers.
He died within two weeks. But tests after his death found that his cancer had not come back and he was in fact suffering from pneumonia brought on by a chest infection.
To his family's horror, they were told he could have recovered if he'd been given the correct treatment.
Nice to see the effectiveness of similar policies in action. Seriously, this is just a stupid idea.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
ACORN News and The Brilliant 75 Who Voted in Support of ACORN Funding
"Secret Agent Editors
The Obama scandals bring a new era of opacity at the New York Times." WSJ's The Best of the Web Today
Insightful and amusing post about the NYTimes failing to be even a semi-objective news source.
"Obama and Acorn
Is there a case for a special prosecutor?" WSJ's James Taranto
"Independent prosecutor for ACORN" Chicago Tribune
"Inside the Glorious Nation of ACORN" by Debra Saunders
"Nuts to Acorn
Acorn's chief organizer Bertha Lewis: "we comply with all laws everywhere." WSJ's John Fund
"House votes to cut off funding, but 75 stand by ACORN" Washington Examiner
Obviously, these public officials vote from where their bread is buttered...
"Notable for not voting: Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a staunch defender of ACORN.
ACORN's defenders: Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., Robert Brady D-Pa., Corrine Brown, D-Fla., G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., Mike Capuano, D-Mass., Andre Carson, D-Ind., Kathy Castor, D-Fla., Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., James Clyburn, D-S.C., Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., Elijah Cummings, D-Md., Danny Davis, D-Ill., Diane DeGette, D-Colo., Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., Mike Doyle, D-Pa., Donna Edwards, D-Md., Keith Ellison, D-Minn., Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., Bob Filner, D-Calif., Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, Al Green, D-Tex., Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Rush Holt, D-N.J., Mike Honda, D-Calif., Jesse Jackson, Jr. D-Ill., Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Tex., Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Tex., Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, Rick Larsen, D-Wash., Barbara Lee, D-Calif., John Lewis, D-Ga., Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., Markey, D-Mass., Betty McCollum, D-Minn., McDermott, D-Wash., McGovern, D-Mass., Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., Gwen Moore, D-Wisc., Jim Moran, D-Va., Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., Richard Neal, D-Mass., John Olver, D-Mass., Frank Pallone, D-N.J., Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., Donald Payne, D-N.J., Jared Polis, D-Colo., David Price, D-N.C., Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., Bobby Rush, D-Ill., Linda Sánchez, D-Calif., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., David Scott D-Ga., Bobby Scott, D-Va., Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., Brad Sherman, D-Calif., Albio Sires, D-N.J., Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., Pete Stark, D-Calif., Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y., Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Diane Watson, D-Calif., Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Robert Wexler, D-Fla., Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif."
The Obama scandals bring a new era of opacity at the New York Times." WSJ's The Best of the Web Today
Insightful and amusing post about the NYTimes failing to be even a semi-objective news source.
"Obama and Acorn
Is there a case for a special prosecutor?" WSJ's James Taranto
"Independent prosecutor for ACORN" Chicago Tribune
"Inside the Glorious Nation of ACORN" by Debra Saunders
"Nuts to Acorn
Acorn's chief organizer Bertha Lewis: "we comply with all laws everywhere." WSJ's John Fund
"House votes to cut off funding, but 75 stand by ACORN" Washington Examiner
Obviously, these public officials vote from where their bread is buttered...
"Notable for not voting: Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a staunch defender of ACORN.
ACORN's defenders: Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., Robert Brady D-Pa., Corrine Brown, D-Fla., G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., Mike Capuano, D-Mass., Andre Carson, D-Ind., Kathy Castor, D-Fla., Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., James Clyburn, D-S.C., Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., Elijah Cummings, D-Md., Danny Davis, D-Ill., Diane DeGette, D-Colo., Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., Mike Doyle, D-Pa., Donna Edwards, D-Md., Keith Ellison, D-Minn., Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., Bob Filner, D-Calif., Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, Al Green, D-Tex., Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Rush Holt, D-N.J., Mike Honda, D-Calif., Jesse Jackson, Jr. D-Ill., Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Tex., Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Tex., Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, Rick Larsen, D-Wash., Barbara Lee, D-Calif., John Lewis, D-Ga., Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., Markey, D-Mass., Betty McCollum, D-Minn., McDermott, D-Wash., McGovern, D-Mass., Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., Gwen Moore, D-Wisc., Jim Moran, D-Va., Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., Richard Neal, D-Mass., John Olver, D-Mass., Frank Pallone, D-N.J., Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., Donald Payne, D-N.J., Jared Polis, D-Colo., David Price, D-N.C., Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., Bobby Rush, D-Ill., Linda Sánchez, D-Calif., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., David Scott D-Ga., Bobby Scott, D-Va., Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., Brad Sherman, D-Calif., Albio Sires, D-N.J., Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., Pete Stark, D-Calif., Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y., Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Diane Watson, D-Calif., Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Robert Wexler, D-Fla., Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif."
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
"The Audacity of Hos" from The Daily Show
Love Jon Stewart. Though he's from the left, he calls it as most people see it. No spin. ACORN does not have one-off offices of corruption. It's a culture that spans many of its offices with illegal voter registrations and now this scandal. Of course, most of mainstream media ignored this during and after the election. Stewart rails on them for this. Very funny segment.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Audacity of Hos | ||||
| ||||
Monday, May 18, 2009
Obama @Notre Dame on Abortion... John Piper @Obama on Abortion
President Obama gave his commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame, which stirred up some protests, and called for a common ground on the abortion issue. From CNN:
He urged supporters and opponents of abortion rights to "work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term."
One response from John Piper...
He urged supporters and opponents of abortion rights to "work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term."
One response from John Piper...
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Weak Asses From the Left... Wanda Sykes & Perez Hilton Rips on Rush and Prejean But Not Obama?
Growing up many bullies that I saw were insecure, dumb or both. They would typically pick on people they knew were weaker than them and would avoid those that were stronger. The notion of a challenge would strike fear in their hearts, but an encounter with the weak would bring out a nastiest commonly seen in "The Lord of the Flies."
So the recent actions and words from Wanda Sykes and Perez Hilton remind me of the bullies I saw during childhood. Bullies that would avoid a normal but confident kid like me, but prey on the weak.
I personally didn't have an issue with Sykes' jokes about Rush Limbaugh. They just seemed tasteless. I had more of an issue with her going soft on Obama. Isn't the White House Correspondents Dinner where you're suppose to rip on the President not kiss his ass so much that your lips get skin burns? And especially since she is an outspoken lesbian. Ben Shapiro has a good summary:
"Well, apparently she’s not so proud to be gay. Because when given the opportunity to make jokes about the nation’s leading proponent of opposite-sex marriage, President Barack Obama, she said precisely nothing. Instead, she chose to gently stroke his ego with jokes about his pecs, his dog, and his basketball skills."
WSJ's James Taranto also has a great commentary on Sykes, "The Two Jokes: What makes Wanda Sykes's witless vulgarity amusing to the president?"
Also Donald Trump allows Carrie Prejean to retain her title and calls it as it is by saying:
"It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave,” Trump said. “She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart."
Does Perez Hilton had any intestinal fortitude? Why doesn't he criticize President Obama? Maybe he could have brought further pressure on the White House? Why didn't he think about these avenues? Because he's... WEAK. A weak, little bitchy bully.
So the recent actions and words from Wanda Sykes and Perez Hilton remind me of the bullies I saw during childhood. Bullies that would avoid a normal but confident kid like me, but prey on the weak.
I personally didn't have an issue with Sykes' jokes about Rush Limbaugh. They just seemed tasteless. I had more of an issue with her going soft on Obama. Isn't the White House Correspondents Dinner where you're suppose to rip on the President not kiss his ass so much that your lips get skin burns? And especially since she is an outspoken lesbian. Ben Shapiro has a good summary:
"Well, apparently she’s not so proud to be gay. Because when given the opportunity to make jokes about the nation’s leading proponent of opposite-sex marriage, President Barack Obama, she said precisely nothing. Instead, she chose to gently stroke his ego with jokes about his pecs, his dog, and his basketball skills."
WSJ's James Taranto also has a great commentary on Sykes, "The Two Jokes: What makes Wanda Sykes's witless vulgarity amusing to the president?"
Also Donald Trump allows Carrie Prejean to retain her title and calls it as it is by saying:
"It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave,” Trump said. “She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart."
Does Perez Hilton had any intestinal fortitude? Why doesn't he criticize President Obama? Maybe he could have brought further pressure on the White House? Why didn't he think about these avenues? Because he's... WEAK. A weak, little bitchy bully.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Joe Biden, The Enforcer of the Stimulus Package... Are You Serious?
This might be old news for some of you, but do people realize how idiotic the language of the stimulus package must be? And how poorly the execution and checks on the allocation of funding must have been established to have Vice President Joe Biden warning local officials not to spend on stupid ideas?
"So guys, no swimming pools, no tennis courts, no golf courses, no Frisbee parks," Biden said, even if officials can document that the project will create jobs quickly, generate revenue and keep people working over the longer term.
“The answer is: No. No. No,” he said. “It’s got to pass the smell test folks.”
Then he gave the warning some teeth.
“Because of the rules, the president and I can’t stop you from doing some things. But I’ll show up in your city and say, ‘This is a stupid idea,’” Biden warned, drawing laughs.
Yes, the idea of Biden ridiculing local government officials as a primary barrier to corruption, waste and "stupid" ideas gives me a lot of confidence in the leadership and execution abilities of Congress and the Obama Administration.
"So guys, no swimming pools, no tennis courts, no golf courses, no Frisbee parks," Biden said, even if officials can document that the project will create jobs quickly, generate revenue and keep people working over the longer term.
“The answer is: No. No. No,” he said. “It’s got to pass the smell test folks.”
Then he gave the warning some teeth.
“Because of the rules, the president and I can’t stop you from doing some things. But I’ll show up in your city and say, ‘This is a stupid idea,’” Biden warned, drawing laughs.
Yes, the idea of Biden ridiculing local government officials as a primary barrier to corruption, waste and "stupid" ideas gives me a lot of confidence in the leadership and execution abilities of Congress and the Obama Administration.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
President Obama's Executive Order Is Not Hope And Change But Smoke And Mirrors
Press release from the Center of Bioethics & Culture:
President Obama's executive order permitting funding of embryonic stem cell research is not hope and change but smoke and mirrors
Today President Obama fulfilled another campaign promise and overturned the Bush policy which restricted federal funding on destructive embryonic stem cell research. Surrounded by those who had long rejected the Bush policy as “anti-science”, the President stated his order would lift that restriction and allow the U.S. to lead the world in scientific discovery, which he hoped would possibly, someday, maybe not in our lifetime, lead to cures for sick people.
Sadly, advances in adult stem cell research, including umbilical cord blood stem cells along with new advances in iPSC research remained unmentioned in the President's speech today. And given even in today's news, the story of the little girls who's blindness was treated using her own cord blood stem cells, this executive order continues to obscure the facts and realities of where the real cures and promise are happening now.
Jennifer Lahl, national director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network said, “The President missed a huge opportunity today, to send a message to the world, that he really is serious about changing the politics in Washington . While he acknowledged the ethical and moral difference dividing people in these stem cell debates, he could have pointed to the mounting evidence that embryonic stem cell research has not only moral problems but is not necessary if we are serious about cures and treatments for sick patients.”
The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network rejects the President's decision and will continue in our efforts toward advancing ethical research which provides cures for people but never at the demise of early human life.
President Obama's executive order permitting funding of embryonic stem cell research is not hope and change but smoke and mirrors
Today President Obama fulfilled another campaign promise and overturned the Bush policy which restricted federal funding on destructive embryonic stem cell research. Surrounded by those who had long rejected the Bush policy as “anti-science”, the President stated his order would lift that restriction and allow the U.S. to lead the world in scientific discovery, which he hoped would possibly, someday, maybe not in our lifetime, lead to cures for sick people.
Sadly, advances in adult stem cell research, including umbilical cord blood stem cells along with new advances in iPSC research remained unmentioned in the President's speech today. And given even in today's news, the story of the little girls who's blindness was treated using her own cord blood stem cells, this executive order continues to obscure the facts and realities of where the real cures and promise are happening now.
Jennifer Lahl, national director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network said, “The President missed a huge opportunity today, to send a message to the world, that he really is serious about changing the politics in Washington . While he acknowledged the ethical and moral difference dividing people in these stem cell debates, he could have pointed to the mounting evidence that embryonic stem cell research has not only moral problems but is not necessary if we are serious about cures and treatments for sick patients.”
The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network rejects the President's decision and will continue in our efforts toward advancing ethical research which provides cures for people but never at the demise of early human life.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Jim Cramer on Obama: "It’s Amateur Hour at Our Darkest Moment"
CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Obama, "It’s Amateur Hour at Our Darkest Moment... Until the Obama administration starts listening, until they start paying attention to what you’re watching – to the stock market, until they realize that their agenda is destroying the life savings of millions of Americans – then all I can give you is caution."
Ah, the Obama supporter and loyal Democrat is now losing faith?
Ah, the Obama supporter and loyal Democrat is now losing faith?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Obama, Unions and Foolish Policies
Obama is showing how his political ties can influence his decisions more so than sound policies. Being a Chicago politician, it's very difficult not to succeed without your bread being buttered by unions. Additionally, the Democrats have such historic and deep ties it's probably difficult for Obama to make a clean policy decision on the Big Three automakers and the Republic Windows & Doors situations.
I still don't believe he's opposed to the Big Three going through bankruptcy. This really seems to be a political decision more so than an economic one. If the Big Three go bankrupt, then their companies are restructured with the hope that they can be rebuilt to truly compete. But if they are also restructured, the unions and their members will have a very small seat at the table or possibly none. Politics as usual. Change is coming? Please.
Also how naive is Obama's response to the Republic Windows & Doors situation in Chicago?
“They’re absolutely right,” Obama, who gave up his U.S. Senate seat from Illinois last month, said over the weekend. “These workers, if they have earned these benefits and their pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments.”
Bank of America's response is reasonable:
Bank of America isn’t empowered to tell a company how to manage its business, spokeswoman Julie Westermann said yesterday. Republic is unable to operate profitably in the current economy, she said.
So why would you force a bank to conduct poor lending practices? Poor business decisions? Isn't this what got us into this mess in the first place? I heard Obama as a community activist was working to "encourage" banks in Hyde Park (Chicago) to lower their lending standards so that low-income families could purchase homes that they couldn't afford. Sounds similar, huh? But on who's dollar does this eventually come from? Doesn't sound like change is going to happen.
I still don't believe he's opposed to the Big Three going through bankruptcy. This really seems to be a political decision more so than an economic one. If the Big Three go bankrupt, then their companies are restructured with the hope that they can be rebuilt to truly compete. But if they are also restructured, the unions and their members will have a very small seat at the table or possibly none. Politics as usual. Change is coming? Please.
Also how naive is Obama's response to the Republic Windows & Doors situation in Chicago?
“They’re absolutely right,” Obama, who gave up his U.S. Senate seat from Illinois last month, said over the weekend. “These workers, if they have earned these benefits and their pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments.”
Bank of America's response is reasonable:
Bank of America isn’t empowered to tell a company how to manage its business, spokeswoman Julie Westermann said yesterday. Republic is unable to operate profitably in the current economy, she said.
So why would you force a bank to conduct poor lending practices? Poor business decisions? Isn't this what got us into this mess in the first place? I heard Obama as a community activist was working to "encourage" banks in Hyde Park (Chicago) to lower their lending standards so that low-income families could purchase homes that they couldn't afford. Sounds similar, huh? But on who's dollar does this eventually come from? Doesn't sound like change is going to happen.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
"Obamapreneurs"
Great piece by Forbes' Rich Karlgaard:
"Well, Barack Obama is a symbol of the future" or "Obama is good for America's brand in the world." The best argument in this vein is put forth by Forbes.com Opinions Editor Tunku Varadarajan and embraced by many Silicon Valley immigrants: Obama would sever the link between Western civilization and whiteness. That would make Western civilization go down easier among nonwhite people.
I hope that's true. But how does one reconcile the comfort of a cool-headed multicultural Obama with his own nasty words on trade (on which Silicon Valley depends) and economic redistribution (which is antithetical to Silicon Valley's meritocracy)? Why do the Obamapreneurs in Silicon Valley think he will be good for entrepreneurship?
The answer is: hope and faith! That's how one can argue that Obama will be good for the very thing that Joseph Schumpeter said drives economic progress: entrepreneurship and investment. (full article)
"Well, Barack Obama is a symbol of the future" or "Obama is good for America's brand in the world." The best argument in this vein is put forth by Forbes.com Opinions Editor Tunku Varadarajan and embraced by many Silicon Valley immigrants: Obama would sever the link between Western civilization and whiteness. That would make Western civilization go down easier among nonwhite people.
I hope that's true. But how does one reconcile the comfort of a cool-headed multicultural Obama with his own nasty words on trade (on which Silicon Valley depends) and economic redistribution (which is antithetical to Silicon Valley's meritocracy)? Why do the Obamapreneurs in Silicon Valley think he will be good for entrepreneurship?
The answer is: hope and faith! That's how one can argue that Obama will be good for the very thing that Joseph Schumpeter said drives economic progress: entrepreneurship and investment. (full article)
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Media Perspective... Obama Wins! Unity!
Amusing cartoon and so true. Great check on the biases of most media outlets. Minor correction since I believe the latest number was 53% for Obama.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Charlie Rose: A Conversation with Jon Meacham & Evan Thomas
Excellent conversation on Charlie Rose with Newsweek's Jon Meacham & Evan Thomas. Also Newsweek's "behind the scenes" pieces on both campaigns is a must-read for you politics junkies, which they have been running since 1984.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Obama Wins... A Moderate Republican's Reflections
Congratulations to Senator Obama. As a Republican, I am obviously disappointed in this loss for Senator McCain, but it was almost expected. Senator Obama's team made few mistakes and ran an excellent campaign and strategy. As a political junkie, there was some admiration from afar throughout this year.
McCain had an uphill battle with the failing economy, media bias towards Obama, a large disadvantage in fundraising (McCain was outspent five to one), and the fact that an incumbent party rarely wins the White House three times in a row. The driving factor was the current economic crisis, where the incumbent party always gets blamed during such downturns.
Besides these determinants, in my opinion, the critical catalyst within McCain's control was the selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee. While previously I was hesitant to post all my conversations, I can now state that at least seven of my friends were in support of Senator McCain prior to his choice of Sarah Palin.
They were three moderate Democrats, two independents, and two Republicans. The Democrats were party loyalists that all expressed concerns about Obama's lack of significant experience. Of course, they wanted to keep their initial decision under the radar. After McCain announced his choice of Governor Palin, all of them went back. The issue of Obama's lack of experience in their eyes was a lesser concern to Palin's lack of experience and weaknesses. Those independent and Republican friends also turned towards Obama for similar reasons.
While this is only anecdotal, I believe my personal interactions might be reflective of the moderate and independent base in America that was attracted to McCain and then fled soon after Palin was introduced.
Now that the campaigning is over, I really hope Obama alleviates my concerns on his character and decision making. America needs a strong and decisive leader.
My initial support of Mayor Rudy Giuliani during the Republican primary waned as I discovered his questionable associations and leadership ability. Giuliani was known to surround himself with "yes" men, which I believe is a sign of a poor leader. I know he did some great things for NYC, but I thought these qualities were disqualifications for a presidential candidate. Being consistent in my thinking, Barack Obama's friendship with Tony Rezko, a convicted felon, and other associations concerned me greatly and still do.
I never was, even mildly, bought into the notion that he was a "transformational" candidate or the next JFK. His party affiliation didn't negate this for me. It was probably due to my personality and nature. I'm not easily impressed or wowed by people, celebrities, or golden calves. Let's wait to see what he'll do and not be awed what he has said.
I will state as a minority (Asian American) that his win is an important step forward for all people of color, especially blacks who receive the most discrimination and racism in our nation and across the globe. As a moderate Republican, I have always been in support of a counter-balance to the old legacy systems and discrimination against minorities. Old affirmative action policies were not the right solution but a good step forward that needs a lot more work.
Obama's role model and presidency is a solid leap forward to inspire African Americans and other minorities, especially blacks whose primarily role models are professional athletes. This is one aspect of his presidency that I'm hundred percent in support of.
I am concerned about my policy differences with Obama and the Democrats in Congress. As a moderate, I don't believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand, how a completely free market would also benefit the overall community. My worldview, driven by my faith and life's experiences, is that people are essentially self-seeking, so government provides a good check on their greed. But I generally differ with Democrats because they believe in a more heavy-handed approach to government's involvment in the corporate realm where I believe in moderate checks. So I wonder how Obama and his policies will affect the future of our nation's economic growth?
His social programs provide a lot of hope for people struggling in today's economy, but how will they be executed? Who will pay for them?
I can continue on and on, but will stop here. My concerns are really meaningless in the bigger picture. I just hope America is lifted out of the current economic crisis and Obama leads our nation well.
McCain had an uphill battle with the failing economy, media bias towards Obama, a large disadvantage in fundraising (McCain was outspent five to one), and the fact that an incumbent party rarely wins the White House three times in a row. The driving factor was the current economic crisis, where the incumbent party always gets blamed during such downturns.
Besides these determinants, in my opinion, the critical catalyst within McCain's control was the selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee. While previously I was hesitant to post all my conversations, I can now state that at least seven of my friends were in support of Senator McCain prior to his choice of Sarah Palin.
They were three moderate Democrats, two independents, and two Republicans. The Democrats were party loyalists that all expressed concerns about Obama's lack of significant experience. Of course, they wanted to keep their initial decision under the radar. After McCain announced his choice of Governor Palin, all of them went back. The issue of Obama's lack of experience in their eyes was a lesser concern to Palin's lack of experience and weaknesses. Those independent and Republican friends also turned towards Obama for similar reasons.
While this is only anecdotal, I believe my personal interactions might be reflective of the moderate and independent base in America that was attracted to McCain and then fled soon after Palin was introduced.
Now that the campaigning is over, I really hope Obama alleviates my concerns on his character and decision making. America needs a strong and decisive leader.
My initial support of Mayor Rudy Giuliani during the Republican primary waned as I discovered his questionable associations and leadership ability. Giuliani was known to surround himself with "yes" men, which I believe is a sign of a poor leader. I know he did some great things for NYC, but I thought these qualities were disqualifications for a presidential candidate. Being consistent in my thinking, Barack Obama's friendship with Tony Rezko, a convicted felon, and other associations concerned me greatly and still do.
I never was, even mildly, bought into the notion that he was a "transformational" candidate or the next JFK. His party affiliation didn't negate this for me. It was probably due to my personality and nature. I'm not easily impressed or wowed by people, celebrities, or golden calves. Let's wait to see what he'll do and not be awed what he has said.
I will state as a minority (Asian American) that his win is an important step forward for all people of color, especially blacks who receive the most discrimination and racism in our nation and across the globe. As a moderate Republican, I have always been in support of a counter-balance to the old legacy systems and discrimination against minorities. Old affirmative action policies were not the right solution but a good step forward that needs a lot more work.
Obama's role model and presidency is a solid leap forward to inspire African Americans and other minorities, especially blacks whose primarily role models are professional athletes. This is one aspect of his presidency that I'm hundred percent in support of.
I am concerned about my policy differences with Obama and the Democrats in Congress. As a moderate, I don't believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand, how a completely free market would also benefit the overall community. My worldview, driven by my faith and life's experiences, is that people are essentially self-seeking, so government provides a good check on their greed. But I generally differ with Democrats because they believe in a more heavy-handed approach to government's involvment in the corporate realm where I believe in moderate checks. So I wonder how Obama and his policies will affect the future of our nation's economic growth?
His social programs provide a lot of hope for people struggling in today's economy, but how will they be executed? Who will pay for them?
I can continue on and on, but will stop here. My concerns are really meaningless in the bigger picture. I just hope America is lifted out of the current economic crisis and Obama leads our nation well.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Obama and Former Hillary Staffer Comes Clean?
HatTip to RedState, "What you were never intended to know in this election"
After a long and careful consideration of all the implications and possible consequences of my actions today, I have decided to go through with this in the hope that our country can indeed be guided into the right direction. First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter. The snippets you’ve heard from various media outlets only grazed the surface. There was no love between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and these feelings extended all the way to the top. Hillary was no dope though, and knew that any endorsement of Obama must appear to be a full-fledged one. She did this out of political survival. As a part of his overall effort to extend an olive branch to the Clinton camp and her supporters, Obama took on a few Hillary staff members into his campaign. I was one such worker. Though I was still bitterly loyal to Hillary, I still held out hope that he would choose her as VP. In fact, there was a consensus among us transplants that in the end, he HAD to choose her. It was the only logical choice. I also was committed to the Democratic cause and without much of a second thought, transferred my allegiance to Senator Obama... (read the whole post!)
Interesting post supposedly from an Obama campaigner. Who knows? It's interesting to note how critical the VP selections have been and will be in this election year versus prior presidential election years.
I am almost certain Obama would had a guaranteed win if he choose Hillary. So if he loses, I would place most of the blame on this decision. Same with McCain, if he loses, I would place most of the blame on his selection of Palin.
I still give Obama a gut-check call of a 70% chance of winning. Exciting, exciting.
After a long and careful consideration of all the implications and possible consequences of my actions today, I have decided to go through with this in the hope that our country can indeed be guided into the right direction. First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter. The snippets you’ve heard from various media outlets only grazed the surface. There was no love between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and these feelings extended all the way to the top. Hillary was no dope though, and knew that any endorsement of Obama must appear to be a full-fledged one. She did this out of political survival. As a part of his overall effort to extend an olive branch to the Clinton camp and her supporters, Obama took on a few Hillary staff members into his campaign. I was one such worker. Though I was still bitterly loyal to Hillary, I still held out hope that he would choose her as VP. In fact, there was a consensus among us transplants that in the end, he HAD to choose her. It was the only logical choice. I also was committed to the Democratic cause and without much of a second thought, transferred my allegiance to Senator Obama... (read the whole post!)
Interesting post supposedly from an Obama campaigner. Who knows? It's interesting to note how critical the VP selections have been and will be in this election year versus prior presidential election years.
I am almost certain Obama would had a guaranteed win if he choose Hillary. So if he loses, I would place most of the blame on this decision. Same with McCain, if he loses, I would place most of the blame on his selection of Palin.
I still give Obama a gut-check call of a 70% chance of winning. Exciting, exciting.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Summary of the Obama Campaign and Camp
A great cartoon that summarizes many in the Obama camp. Ever read political discussion threads between McCain and Obama supporters? Many times some Obama supporter will infer or directly say that the McCain supporter is being racist because of their criticisms on Obama. Can someone throw out these intellectual light-weights? I believe some of this stems from the Obama campaign itself and Senator Obama's own words and inference.
There is criticism of McCain's campaign being so negative and "hateful," but those of less intellectual rigor cannot identify how subtle tactics are just as negative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)