Thursday, April 28, 2011

Thursday Mashup (4/28/11)

  • With all of the attention paid to the utterly ridiculous non-issue of President Obama’s birth certificate (which the Bucks County Courier Times thought merited a 72-point, all caps and bolded headline on the front page this morning), another wingnut attack on Number 44 occurred recently that was pretty much pushed out of the spotlight, and that came from Pat “Uber Alles” Buchanan of MSNBC where he said that Obama was “affirmative action all the way” regarding his education (here – to be honest, I think that’s worse than all of this “birther” crap).

    As noted here, President Obama “graduat(ed) with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude[36] from Harvard in 1991.” Which, of course, proves that he received an “affirmative action” education.

    Sure he did.

    So, what of “Take Our Country Back” Pat, then? Well, as noted here…
    Buchanan was born into a Catholic family, and attended Catholic schools, including the Jesuit-run Gonzaga College High School. As a student at Georgetown University, he was in ROTC, but did not complete the program.
    OK, then…
    He received a master's degree in journalism from Columbia in 1962, writing his thesis on the expanding trade between Canada and Cuba.
    Commendable. Oh, and by the way…
    He received his draft notice after he graduated in 1960. However, the District of Columbia draft board exempted Buchanan from military service due to reactive arthritis, classifying him as 4-F. It should be noted, however, that this has come under scrutiny. Buchanan has been an avid jogger since and there are those that have questioned the validity of his exemption from military service.
    I realize this doesn’t pertain directly to educational issues, but I thought it should be noted anyway.

    One final note about Obama – as noted here by his former professor Lawrence Tribe, Obama was “the most impressive all-around student I’d seen in decades.”

    If that means that Obama is “affirmative action,” then the program must be working wonders.

  • Next, I give you the following from The Daily Tucker (here)…
    When Congress was debating Obamacare, the left needed cover against those who pointed out that the bill, in many places, would lead to health care rationing. The media happily provided that cover.

    Liberals needed cover because the law created the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which will be comprised of 15 “experts” who will basically decide which treatments seniors on Medicare will be allowed to get.
    Oy – as noted here…
    With regard to IPAB's recommendations, the law says "The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."
    By the way, though I respect Cynthia Tucker, it aggravates me to no end when I see a media person generally sympathetic to Democrats using Republican code language when they write or broadcast something, referring to “death panels” of course.

    One more note for Derek Hunter of Carlson’s Crayon Scribble Page – the writer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is Jay Bookman, not Booker, as referred to in the link.

  • Further, it looks like Sen. Mr. Elaine Chao doesn’t want the political contributions of contractors to be revealed (here).

    Which is really funny when you remember that McConnell’s wife, the “Dragon Lady” herself, made it one of her missions in life when she ran the DOL (in addition to perpetuating wage theft and discriminating against workers generally) to find out everything she possibly could about union political organizing and fundraising, as noted here (more on Chao is here).

  • Continuing, I give you the following from Irrational Spew Online (here)…
    In my experience, there are some subjects liberals don’t want to talk about very much. One is abortion. They’re happy to talk about the rights of women (as they understand those rights). But they don’t want to talk about abortion: what it is, what it does.

    They don’t want to talk about Vietnam either. The war, yes; the aftermath, no. Liberals, many of them, longed for an American withdrawal, and then for a cutting off of the Saigon government. Those things came to pass. And then, hell.
    I could be snarky and say that the reason most liberals supposedly don’t want to talk about Vietnam is because more of us were off fighting the war than conservatives generally (and by the way, a review of Nordlinger’s bio on Wikipedia showed no military service).

    Of course, that’s if I wanted to be snarky.

    The reason I’m pointing this out, though, is because Nordlinger uses this as an excuse to try and perpetuate another zombie right-wing lie; namely, that our withdrawal from Vietnam led to the rise of Pol Pot (and it tells you how disingenuous Nordlinger is that he mentions Sydney Schanberg of the New York Times in passing without giving him credit for his landmark reporting of Cambodia, aided greatly by the late photojournalist Dith Pran of course).

    As noted here…
    …some historians have cited the U.S. intervention and bombing campaign (spanning 1965–1973) as a significant factor leading to increased support of the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry. Historian Ben Kiernan and Taylor Owen have used a combination of sophisticated satellite mapping, recently unclassified data about the extent of bombing activities, and peasant testimony, to argue that there was a correlation between villages targeted by U.S. bombing and recruitment of peasants by the Khmer Rouge.[15]

    In his 1996 study of Pol Pot's rise to power, Kiernan argued that foreign intervention "was probably the most significant factor in Pol Pot's rise."[16]
    If anyone wants to make Nordlinger’s feeble argument, then it's their right to do so, I know. But maybe the reason no Democrat/liberal/progressive/whatever wants to discuss these matters (assuming you buy Nordlinger’s argument) is because we are focused on trying to resolve our present difficulties as opposed to rearguing settled history.

  • Finally (speaking of protesting American foreign policy), it looks like The Man of Steel is getting ready to fly the proverbial coop (here)…
    Superman is no longer an American.

    In "Action Comics’" new record-breaking 900th issue, the fictional iconic super hero renounces his U.S citizenship following a clash with the federal government.

    The Man of Steel, created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938, has always been recognized as a devoted American warrior who constantly fought evil, but as of Thursday, he is no longer the country's own to claim.

    No word yet if Superman will change his red and blue suit, or his longtime motto "truth, justice and the American way" -- but the landmark issue is certainly sparking controversy.
    You knew that, with Obama speaking out about the “birther” nonsense, we were overdue for some new “values” issue, right?

    Well, with all this in mind, I thought of the following based on this…
    Woke up in the morning from a bad, bad dream
    Looked in the mirror and wanted to scream
    Figured some coffee would put me right
    While I looked out for green Kryptonite
    Then I saw the paper and the headline read
    The unemployed might as well drop dead
    Turned on the TV news to hear the sports
    They said China’s job rate is strong of course
    Cornering the industry of IT
    As well as “green” technology

    Why’d America fluff the rich
    But for all else, do not a thing
    I’ll save the planet from the U.S. and oil
    So watch me fly straight to Beijing

    Superman, Superman, just immigrate like Superman
    Superman, Superman, just an “expat” like Superman
    Yeah, I know – I’ll work on it :-).
  • No comments: