Archive for October, 2008

Historically in history: bad CNN writing

October 30, 2008

I’m convinced that the articles posted at are written by B-average undergrads. They’re probably given 3 to 5 bullet points, and told to flesh them out. The result is “the article.”

Take this example. It’s the final sentence from an article on McCain’s recent poll gains against Obama:

Historically, however, only one presidential candidate in modern history has come back from the deficit McCain faces to win an election — Ronad Reagan in 1980.

“Ronad” Reagan. Oops!

“Historically . . . in modern history.” WHOA. Serious repetition. (First draft! First draft!)

And what’s this about “modern history”? Does colonial America now belong to the “ancient” world? I guess the colonists are right there next to the Akkadians and the Hittites.


Closing the adultery gap

October 29, 2008

From a NY Times article not worth linking to, but containing a funny perspective:

But a handful of new studies suggest surprising changes in the marital landscape. Infidelity appears to be on the rise, particularly among older men and young couples. Notably, women appear to be closing the adultery gap: younger women appear to be cheating on their spouses nearly as often as men.

Let’s hear it for women’s equality! We will not rest until women’s infidelity catches up to men’s.

NY Times: balanced coverage

October 29, 2008

Just in case you were skeptical about the “escape” of Columbian politician Oscar Lizcano from FARC rebels, the NY Times gives you an alternate perspective in another article. In this one, the rebels “free” Lizcano . . .

Looking at the URLs, the “escape” headline is from Reuters, and the “free” headline is from the Associated Press. Does the AP have some kind of interest in making guerillas look generous? Just asking.

Obama and the redistribution of wealth

October 27, 2008

Listen to the 2001 audio clip.

He wants to take money from some people and give it to others. NB: If anybody tries to “redistribute” what little wealth I have, he’s gonna find my boot planted up his bunghole . . . I give more money to charity in a year than Joe Biden, but that’s my choice, not that of some (*ahem*) “post-partisan” politician with a messiah-complex and no sense of humor. (That’s a bad combo, BTW.)

Here’s a nice National Review commentary on it.

Telling the lion from the lamb

October 25, 2008

Great short piece by Charles Krauthammer on why he is not voting for Obama. Summary: Obama is an inexperienced hypocrite who—to the peril of our national security—does not know how to distinguish good from evil.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who’s been cramming on these issues for the last year, who’s never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign-policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of “a world that stands as one”), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as “the tragedy of 9/11,” a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign-policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There’s just no comparison. Obama’s own running mate warned this week that Obama’s youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis “generated” precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on November 4 to invite that test?

Read the article.

Back online at home

October 23, 2008

After about 5 months in the “dark” I have finally made a deal with my neighbors to pay for a share of their wireless signal. As you can see, I am putting it to the best possible use, already! My verbal contract with them expires the day I fly out west for Xmas: Beethoven’s birthday.

Obama & Born Alive Infant Protection Act

October 17, 2008

As a recent discussion with a friend revealed to me, there is still confusion as to what Obama’s position was (and is) on the human rights due to infants born alive after surviving an attempted abortion. The confusion persists in part because Obama continues to lie about his actions.

Obama’s supporters claim that he did not vote against providing care to such infants. One of their responses is that he merely avoided duplicating a law that was already on the books in Illinois. Another is that he voted against the Born Alive act because it did not have a clause, included in the federal version of the same bill, that preserved the current legal status of fetuses in utero, thus protecting the right to abort.

Well, he lied. The Illinois bill was the same as the federal bill, and the only reason Obama voted against it was because he is a pro-abortion zealot, who believes a woman’s “right to choose” should not be limited by such inconveniences as the live birth of a child. You can still kill it—that’s your right, in Obama’s morally perverted universe, where people talk big about human rights but commit (and want YOU to pay for!) the ultimate outrage against the foundation of all human rights—the right to life.

To cover his lie, he called his accusers liars. They produced evidence that the Illinois and federal bills were the same. Yet some people are still unaware of the facts of this matter, and some perversely insist that abortions will decrease in an Obama administration. That’s innovative logic: among several other policies he wants to implement, he wants to ban federal funding of crisis pregnancy centers, which help women choose alternatives to abortion—yet, somehow, helping women to choose not to abort is incompatible with his so-called “pro-choice” worldview. How’s that for “liberal”?

Here’s a good piece succinctly summing up the matter, by Robert George and Yuval Levin: “Obama and Infanticide.” You can support Obama for whatever reason you like, (Christopher Buckley has his reasons), but don’t pretend that he is anything less than the most ideologically fanatical apostle the abortion industry has ever had eating from its hand. And if anyone claims to look out for the little guy, see how he treats the littlest of all. If he says that determining whether a child born alive has human rights is “above his pay grade,” be suspicious.


Obama, who in 2003 became the chairman of the state senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, argued not that existing law did everything the newly proposed measure would do, but that the born-alive bill would put too much of a burden on the practice of abortion.

”As I understand it,” Obama said during the floor debate, ”this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.” This, he argued, was too much to ask of a doctor performing abortions, and it could also, as he put it, ”burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”