Saturday, October 10, 2009

Life imitates....

The Aspirational Nobel:
"I woke up, read the New York Times website and thought I had come to the Onion instead. I hit refresh. Still there: 'Obama Wins Nobel for Diplomacy.' Maybe this is one of my weird work-related dreams, I thought. Maybe I am still drunk from last night's party. Better close my eyes and wake up again in the real world. Five minutes later...and still no dice."

The Michael Moore of Oslo...

John Podhoretz:

The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization's highest ideals.
He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than "the indispensable nation," as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

Who Really Won?

Mark Steyn:
"Barack Obama will have history’s most crowded trophy room, but his presidency is shaping up as a tragedy — for America, and the world."

Quote of the Day...

The New Ledger:
"Today, we saw the real fruition of Barack Obama’s international ambitions. He delivered the one thing he’s really good at: accolades and money for Barack Obama."

Obama’s Nobel Prize:

The New Ledger:
"You know, in a very real sense, the Committee missed out on some real worthies. Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have done more to bring an awareness of the danger of nuclear arms to the world than anyone since Truman. Hugo Chavez has worked diligently to bring Latin America into a single, unified, stable political order and helped focus the international spotlight on the danger of a country half a world away with a population roughly a quarter of Venezuela’s. The Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan have helped the world understand the oppressive and divisive nature of the post-Westphalian state, and the calamitous conditions the imposition of national boundaries can produce. Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev have between them done more to help liberate an oppressed people in the last year and change than anyone else outside of America, which obviously doesn’t count, because Americans only liberate people for oil."

Friday, October 9, 2009

Jimmy Carter - redux...

Belmont Club:
"Letting the Taliban gain capability on the basis of a promise not to attack the United States is like giving your enemy back his gun in exchange for an undertaking not to shoot you. It’s great if it works, but why would anyone think so? Well maybe someone does. More importantly, the remark attributed to the White House raises the question of how the President regards Iranian support for attacks on Iraq, Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel which actually resulted in a recent war, and whether Iranian proxies will in the future be off-limits once Teheran has acquired nuclear weapons. For a variety of reasons, resigning one’s self to watching the Taliban grow in strength and wistfully longing for them to be like the Hezbollah may be a bad metaphor. It certainly may be bad policy."

Let's give 'em a "Piece Prize".....

Young Hamlet’s Agony:
"So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush?

Perhaps provide the resources to win it?

You would think so. And that’s exactly what Obama’s handpicked commander requested on August 30 — a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq.

That was more than five weeks ago. Still no response. Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches. Why? Because, explains national-security adviser James Jones, you don’t commit troops before you decide on a strategy.

No strategy? On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: “Today I’m announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, “marks the conclusion of a careful policy review.”"

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

No, sorry, this is:

Thomas Sowell:
"Upon learning that the Constitution requires a president to be a natural-born citizen, a college student asked: “What makes a natural-born citizen any more qualified than one born by C-section?”"

Quote of the Day...

Jonah Goldberg:
"Watching the House of Representatives on late-night C-SPAN, you might have any number of reactions, including seppuku-inducing boredom. Depending on who’s talking, you might also feel disgust, rage, contempt, or, in rare cases, inspiration. But one reaction you probably won’t have is: “Gosh, if only there were more of these jokers.”"

And who could blame them?

Egyptian lawmakers want to ban fake hymen

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The Agitator:

Why Skydivers Would Be Better Off Without Parachutes :
"The one explanation the researchers don't mention is the one that will occur first to defenders of the right to armed self-defense: Maybe people who anticipate violent confrontations—such as drug dealers, frequently robbed bodega owners, and women with angry ex-boyfriends—are especially likely to possess guns, just as people who jump out of airplanes are especially likely to possess parachutes."

Nanny gets a lesson in real life...

Calorie Postings Don’t Change Habits, Study Finds:

But, obviously, wasting all that time and money makes sense anyways because, uh, we get to waste your time and money while making some work for us.....

Monday, October 5, 2009


Public vs. Private Canadian Healthcare Waitlists

The Prophecy becomes reality Obiwan....

New Ledger:
"In Israel, however, conclusions have already been drawn, and the results are not particularly pretty for Obama. Put simply, he is the least popular American president in recent memory. The percentage of Israelis who consider him friendly to Israel has never been high, but it has dropped at various times into the single digits. Considering that the Israeli left polled 16% of the vote in the last elections, and the centrist Kadima party another 22% - higher, in fact, than Netanyahu’s Likud - Obama’s dismal numbers cannot be put down to simple partisanship. Israelis across the political spectrum are clearly convinced that Obama is indifferent and/or hostile to Israeli interests, sensibilities, and concerns."