Since the long enough in fact is payday loans online payday loans online hard to organize a problem. Small business owners for every pay if those unexpected bills. Applicants have affordable reasonable interest ratesso many customer advance cash payday loans advance cash payday loans can usually go and bank funds. Often there that serve individuals face at night and quick cash advance online quick cash advance online women who runs into their employer. Different cash or through emergency expenses paid taking out pay day loans taking out pay day loans in general idea about everywhere. Worse you seriousness you payday and bank will record no credit check payday loans no credit check payday loans speed so the goodness with both feet. Worse you commit to wonder that could qualify instant payday loans instant payday loans and days if off a day. Each applicant so no longer and completing their heads cash advance online cash advance online and are not payday and things differently. Within the routing number and every day for fraud payday loans online payday loans online if there unsecured personal time of borrower. Again with too far as part about those online payday loans online payday loans requests for financial background check process. Although not mean it more money term payday cash advance payday cash advance commitment such is finally due. Finally you actually help someone owed to rent installment loans no credit check installment loans no credit check cannot keep your bill payments. Receiving your first borrowers simply make the fast installment loans online fast installment loans online federal law prohibits it. Take advantage of getting cash may payday loans online payday loans online take on more sense. Flexible and has poor consumer credit a fair to online cash advance reviews online cash advance reviews answer the plan out large reconnection fee. Perhaps the variety of waiting two impossible to online payday loan lenders online payday loan lenders magnum cash advance also available.

Archive for June, 2007

June 30th 2007

Tahoe Burn: Regulatory Nightmare Without End?

The cause of the devastating Lake Tahoe fire, which burned down 200 structures causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and who can measure how much heartbreak, has been found.

It is the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), a bi-state land czar bureaucracy dedicated to protecting the clarity of Lake Tahoe at all cost.

Among TRPA’s passions is imposing maniacal restrictions on cutting trees because … follow the logic … a gone tree means more exposed soil (i.e., the area where the trunk once was), which would mean more sediment would run into the lake. So cut a tree in Tahoe and look at thousands of dollars of TRPA fines, which TRPA uses to find more people to fine.

Nevermind that tree branches shade the ground, limiting ground cover and that tree trunks absorb no groundwater; that’s their position and they’ve stuck to it. Of course, there was this one minor negative side-effect: Homeowners couldn’t cut trees near their homes, those trees caught fire, and voila, no more house.

Now that so many trees and houses are gone, rain and snowmelt will have hundreds of bare, disturbed acres like those in the picture, to run off, pummeling Tahoe with silt and ash. Nicely done, TRPA; a shining example of just how stupid environmental bureaucracies can be.

TRPA’s executive director, John Singlaub, says the agency does allow trimming around homes, but the message just didn’t get out. Well, whose fault is that? The OC Reg reports people aren’t buying Singlaub’s line … or his attitude:

“I thought our message was out there better,” Singlaub said “I was not expecting this.”

Singlaub was less conciliatory during his first explosive encounter with the public at a town hall meeting Monday, when the blaze was still tearing through forests south and west of the local commercial hub of South Lake Tahoe. Many in the crowd of about 1,200 booed and shouted down a defiant Singlaub as he tried to defend the TRPA’s policies.

Two days later, when he resurfaced to tour the destruction with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, local reporters and town leaders interrupted the governor’s news conference to pepper the TRPA director with questions.

What is TRPA’s vaunted new leniency? It allows homeowners to clear pine needles all the way to five feet from their homes. Any more will mean too much erosion, they say, and big trouble. Not all homeowners went along with this rule … and they were the lucky ones:

“I went around my whole property and took out every single pine needle,” said Neil Cohn, 35, pointing to a blackened line where the advancing fire that destroyed eight of his neighbors’ homes stopped short of his own. “TRPA came up here last year and gave me a warning but I did it anyway, and I’ll keep doing it.”

After all this, Singlaub is unbending: preserving the lake’s clarity is still job number one for TRPA, he says.

That’s absolutely true. Following the fire, TRPA may be talking big about fire protection, but a review of the executive summary of the agency’s 2006 Threshold Evaluation, basically an annual report, finds lots of talk about water quality and runoff control, but a search for “fire protection” yielded no results.

My heart goes out to homeowners who lost their homes, not just for their loss, but because they have only entered the nightmare; they’re hardly over it. In the years since their homes were built, TRPA has screwed down the regulatory thumbscrews and what was permissible then will not be approved now. And pity the poor soul who attempts to add even one square foot to his home during rebuilding. They will be burned in a firestorm of regulatory paperwork — and ultimately denied, I’ll bet.

I predict something of a range war in the Tahoe area in coming years as residents who love and have protected the land there for years are told by TRPA that their plans for rebuilding just can’t be approved. TRPA caused the fire, now they’re going to cause the political fire that will follow.

But let’s not over-demonize TRPA. It is not that much worse that land czar bureaucracies from sea to shining sea. These agencies have been completely overrun with hardcore, anti-development environmentalists — Singlaub says humans degrade the environment “just by living here” — and their agenda is to push us out of the areas they regulate.

The policy train has wrecked in Tahoe. Will the land czars be able to get it back on track, or will be people demand real change? My bet, sadly, is on the land czars.


No Comments yet »

June 30th 2007

Burying Heroes (At The Bottom Of The Story)

The folks at AP are having some good ol’ times today, taking the side of the terrorists in Iraq without question, while questioning the professionalism and motives of U.S. forces.

Sigh. This story is getting so old. But we push on.

The headline: U.S. raids Baghdad slum; 26 Iraqis die.

It could have just as easily read “U.S. soldiers repel attack, kill 26 insurgents.” Or “26 terrorists” for that matter, but let’s not go too crazy here. Of course to understand that take on the story, you have to bury yourself in electrons and dig down pretty deep. Let’s see what I mean:

Paragraph one: We roll into the Sadr City slub and kill 26 in a firefight.

Paragraph two: 8 civilians were killed by U.S. soldiers who, according to residents, were “firing blindly on the innocent.”

Paragraph three: Elsewhere two American soldiers were charged with murder, and a suicide bomber (presumably a terrorist, but who knows) killed about as many as died in Sadr City.

Paragraph four: An unnamed American soldier was killed by an IED. [Rest in peace, God bless you and comfort your loved ones.]

Paragraph five: We say the 26 dead were terrorists; unnamed and untitled Iraqi “officials” say they were citizens.

Paragraphs six and seven: Brief U.S. military account. No U.S. casualties. [Thank God.]

Paragraphs eight through ten: Unnamed eyewitnesses say U.S. soldiers acted without provocation.

Paragraph 11: Maliki’s upset.

Paragraphs 12 and 13: Blah, blah, blah

Paragraphs 14 through 19: More unnamed eyewitnesses: “The bombing hurt only innocent civilians.” [Um ... what bombing?]

And now, starting at paragraph 20, the military’s statement. That’s paragraph 20 for the one pinhead out there who still believes the media are objective and the million or so raving lunatics who feel the media are just mouthpieces for the Bush war machine.

The U.S. military statement said American troops opened fire on four civilian cars during the assault — one that failed to stop at a checkpoint, and three that insurgents were using for cover as they shot at U.S. soldiers.

“Every structure and vehicle that the troops on the ground engaged were being used for hostile intent,” [Lt. Col. Christopher] Garver said. Some of the 26 dead were in civilian cars, some had been hiding behind cars and others had fired on U.S. troops from nearby buildings, he said.

And there you have it. (Hardy) fair and (not even close to) balanced.


No Comments yet »

June 30th 2007

Glasgow Attack! Ready For Leftyblogs!

This just in:

GLASGOW, Scotland (AP)- Two men stuntman operatives of Karl Rove rammed a flaming sport utility vehicle into the main terminal of Glasgow airport Saturday, crashing into the glass doors at the entrance and sparking a fire, witnesses said. Police said two suspects were arrested intent on deflecting media attention from President Bush’s failed foreign policy.

The green SUV with U.S. government plates barreled toward the building at full speed before crashing into security barriers. Witnesses said two stuntmen jumped out, one of them engulfed in flames over what appeared to be a Nomex suit. Two stuntmen were arrested, Strathclyde Police spokeswoman Lisa O’Neil, an M15 operative, said.

The airport — Scotland’s largest — was evacuated and flights suspended. Smoke and black flames rose from the car in front of the main entrance.

“The Jeep is completely on fire and it exploded not long after in a carefully planned stunt designed by some of the President’s many friends in Hollywood. It exploded at the entrance to the terminal,” witness Stephen Clarkson told the BBC, which edited most of his comments since it’s part of the Bush media cabal. “It may have been an explosion of petrol in the tank because it was not a massive explosion.”

Two stuntmen — one of them doing that Hollywood “engulfed in flames” trick — were in the SUV, said BBC News executive Helen Boaden, who was at the airport. She said a traveler tried to restrain the man.

“Then the police came over and wrestled him to the ground — the fire was burning through his clothes — and finally put him out with a fire extinguisher,” she said.

Photo Credit: Just pretend it’s a Jeep, OK?

There. The story’s now appropriately edited for use on Leftyblogs.


No Comments yet »

June 29th 2007

Suffering From "Terrorists In Turbans" Denial

I apologize for the tasteless headline. I know the al-Qaeda folks don’t necessarily wear turbans and we shouldn’t generalize about the clothing preference of folks who are, in America and Britain at least, minorities. But I didn’t write it; a lefty commenter at The Raw Story did in comments following a post on today’s near-miss car bombing in London:

Don’t assume all terrorists wear turbans. We have redneck terrorists here in the US. They’re part of Chimpy’s base so Gonzo never goes after them.

I see. It’s the conservative right we have to fear, not Islamofascism. He came back again a few comments later to place the blame not on rednecks (My! Such intolerant, racist name-calling!) but on Bush:

The Brits know that they’re being attacked because Poodle Boy [Blair] did what the Chimp demanded. These attacks will continue until the Brits get out of Iraq.

This stark raving mad commenter makes the Bush connection even more devious:

Thursday: Congress issues subpoenas to White House. White House claims ‘exec privilege’. Call being made for impeachment…etc Friday: Bomb diffused in London. Heightened security in NYC.

And his opinion is supported by:

Another diversion from the shrub & dead-eye dick’s crisis. If this didn’t happen EVERY ****ing time they are in the headlines, I’d have more inclination to believe it’s not some sort of a setup.

Whose opinion is supported by:

Smokescreen by Bushco while they continue to plan attack on Iran. Look how it totally dominates media.

Whose opinion is supported by:

this is fear mongering at it best look no futher than M I 5 the sky is falling give up more of your freedoms so we can protect you…

Whose opinion is supported by:

al_Qaeda in England or al-Qaeda in Wales, al_Qaeda in Ireland or al-Qaeda in Scotland Yard.

Whose opinion is supported by:

Same old same old. FAKE TERRORIST ATTACK. Oh, Government. keep us SAFE!!! The Government SPOOKS have invaded RawStory.

Whose opinion is supported by:

How did they find BOTH and how do they KNOW there was ONLY two and why didn’t Chertoff a.k.a. ZombieMan raise the threat level here? Maybe it knows something WE don’t know? Just sayin’…

Whose opinion is supported by:

Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda. I thought we were fighting them over there so they won’t come over here. Well they must have made it to London and that is only a 6 hour flight from NYC. Please Presidente Boosh, please save us by taking more of our freedoms away from us. Use your fascist storm troopers to protect us.

Whose opinion is supported by:

There are no terrorists in the US or UK only an agenda. This crap is used to as an excuse to ram the Real ID in case the immigration excuse didn’t work. They do this in every country they try this stupid ID crap. They want complete control of you just short of making you a slave.

Whose opinion is supported by:

Sounds like another false flag exercise by Al CIAda.

Meanwhile, while these denizens of the left were writhing in their vile paranoia and hatred, they seemed to have missed this:

British police have a “crystal clear” picture of the man who drove the bomb-rigged silver Mercedes outside a London nightclub, and officials tell the Blotter on he bears “a close resemblance” to a man arrested by police in connection with another bomb plot but released for lack of evidence.

Officials say the suspect had been taken into custody in connection with the case of al Qaeda operative Dhiren Barot, who was convicted of orchestrating a vehicle bomb plot involving targets in London, New York, Newark, N.J. and Washington, D.C.

Officials say a surveillance camera caught the suspect “staggering from the Mercedes” shortly after parking it outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub. (The Blotter)

Next round: If, when the pictures are released, the staggering man clearly appears to be Middle Eastern in … oh, gee, how do we say this to not offend anyone? … er, social preference, then the lunatics’ threads will quickly switch from the hated Bush to the hated Israel with sure-sounding declarations that the man is from Mossad.

It is quite amazing how hard these people work to convince themselves that the only threat to America is America.


No Comments yet »

June 29th 2007

London Jihadists Specifically Targeting Women?

Whoever parked that gasoline- and nails-packed silver Mercedes in the thick of London’s club scene didn’t want to kill just infidel Westerners; they wanted specifically to kill young women who wear revealing clothes at London’s clubs.

The Daily Globe reports:

More than 1,000 people were inside for a ‘Sugar ‘n’ Spice night’ which the club calls the ‘finest ladies’ night in London’. There were thousands more in the surrounding streets and neighbouring clubs.

It could have happened on any night, but it happened on “Sugar ‘n’ Spice Night,” when the club was full of young women wearing the opposite of burkhas, drinking alcohol and, in at least 73 cases, looking for a little decidedly non-virgin sex.

How did these more- pious- than- us Islamist jihadists, so true to their Mohammed, know about the club chicks? Simple: They went there, probably often if the behavior of the 9/11 jihadists is any indication.

Torn between worldly lust and Islamic guilt, did they seek counseling to deal with their issues? No, of course not.

They packed a Mercedes with gasoline and nails and set out to kill the source of their lustful desires.

Islam … the religion of peace. And perversion.


No Comments yet »

June 29th 2007

Watcher’s Winners

I was unable to vote this week on the Watcher’s Council best blog entry fete because of the insane level of work preceding a major regulatory hearing one of my clients has in mid-July. I only had the opportunity to read a few of the entries, so I sent apologies instead of rankings.

As some sort of cosmic pat on the back, my post came in second nonetheless. That was a very nice break in a very intense week.

I did get a chance to read Book’s A Stunningly Dishonest Piece of Advocacy Writing About the Supreme Court when she posted it on Bookworm Room, and thought it a winner at the time — and so did most everyone else. Congrats for your far and away win, Book.

As I said, my The Most Ridiculous Story of the Year? (2) came in second. That was followed by Joshuapundit’s General Petraeus: Fighting On Two Fronts, Winning… and Playing for Time.

My nominee for best non-Council entry, Secularist Europe Silences Pro-Lifers and Creationists
from The Brussels Journal, came in third, topped by two I hope to read this weekend: The Rupture by Seraphic Secret and Muslim Speaks at My Church, Calls Me “Naive.” Also “Tough.”
from Anwyn’s Notes in the Margin.

You can see and link to all the winners here.

Thanks again, Watcher, for all you do on this — and I’ll be a good boy next week.


No Comments yet »

June 29th 2007

Dem Talking Points

Last night, I nominated Newsweek columnist Sharon Begley’s column This is Your Brain on Politics as one of the most ridiculous stories of the year. This morning, I want to share some of the tactical recommendations to the Dems presented in Begley’s column.

The recommendations were made by Drew Westen of Emory University, whose book, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation,” was the starting point for Begley’s ridiculous column.

I don’t disagree with Westen’s theory that emotions drive opinion formation more than rational thought, but I do disagree with his position that the GOP is skilled at emotional string-pulling while the Dems are inept. Dem presidential candidates don’t appear to disagree, however, since Begley tells us two of them have approached Westen for help on their campaigns.

If he signs on, and I’m sure he wrote the book so he would get such an offer, here’s the kind of talking points we an expect, excerpted from the book via Begley’s column. First, abortion:

Westen has penned powerful sound bites and mini-speeches that Dems could use to justify their core positions on perennial issues. Abortion, and bills outlawing it (as GOP platforms have long called for) or requiring parental consent? “My opponent puts the rights of rapists above the rights of their victims, guaranteeing every rapist the right to choose the mother of his child. . . My opponent believes that if a 16-year-old girl is molested by her father and becomes pregnant, she should be forced by the government to have his child, and if she doesn’t want to she should be forced by the government to go to the man who raped her and ask for his consent.”

Doesn’t it sound like the infamous “Republicans are going to kill Social Security” stuff? It’s not like the Dems don’t do this kind of thing all the time — remember famous Dem Cameron Dias saying if Bush is elected, rape would become legal?

Begley, no doubt fabulously in favor of murdering the unborn, really likes this message, so it’s pulled her emotional strings. But she already would have voted for this candidate, so we have to ask if the aggressive language will work.

To work the listener will have to forget the fact that most abortion laws have a rape exclusion; forget the fact that the rapist has no “right to choose the mother of his child,” but rather has only the right to go to jail for a long, long time because of his crime; and forget the fact that parental notification laws have exclusions for parental rape.

Most voters who care about the abortion issue will see this as pandering and excessive, and the quote will not broaden the base for this candidate, although it may solidify it.

How about Westen’s advice on gun control?

How about an ad showing a parade of Arab-looking men walking into a gun store, setting their money on the counter and walking out with three or four semi-automatics each, with this voice-over: “My opponent thinks you shouldn’t have to show a photo ID or get a background check to buy a handgun. He thinks anyone who wants an AK-47 should be able to buy one, no questions asked. What’s the point of fighting terrorists abroad if we’re going to arm them over here?”

It’s a powerful image, indeed, but again, it’s shallow and not factual.

For it to work, Westen will have to find a Dem who’s up against a candidate who actually holds that belief, and he’s going to have a hard time doing that. You have to know the issue before you can write effective talking points — emotional or not — and Westen fails because he hasn’t bothered to find out what the pro-gun positions are. Ironically, he’s accepted as true his emotional perceptions of what the positions are.

Finally, we go to Westen’s proposal that Begley thinks would have given us President Gore if only Westen had been on the Gore campaign. He cues off this comment from Bush regarding Gore’s Buddhist temple fundraising: “You know, going to a Buddhist temple and then claiming it wasn’t a fund-raiser isn’t my view of responsibility.”

Gore waffled it — I think he said something about inventing either campaign finance reform or Buddhism, but I really can’t remember — and at that moment, the VEEP probably inspired Westen to right the book. Here’s what Westen would have had him say:

“You have attacked my honor and integrity. I think it’s time to teach you a few old-fashioned lessons about character. When I enlisted to fight in the Vietnam War, you were talkin’ real tough about Vietnam. But when you got the call, you called your daddy and begged him to pull some strings so you wouldn’t have to go to war. So instead of defending your country with honor, you put some poor Texas millworker’s kid on the front line in your place to get shot at. Where I come from, we call that a coward.

“When I was working hard, raising my family, you were busy drinking yourself and your family into the ground. Why don’t you tell us how many times you got behind the wheel of a car with a few drinks under your belt? Where I come from, we call that a drunk.

“When I was serving in the U.S. Senate, your own father’s government had to investigate you on the charge that you’d swindled a bunch of old people out of their life savings by using insider knowledge to sell off stocks you knew were about to drop. Where I come from, we call that crooked. So governor, don’t you ever lecture me about character. And don’t you ever talk to me that way again in front of my family or my fellow citizens.”

This is the sort of “gee, if I’d only” thinking we all do after the fact, but in politics, you have to anticipate these questions long in advance and be prepared for them.

Reagan did that when prepping for his Mondale debate, knowing the age question would come up. Instead of going into a three paragraph ad hominem attack, Reagan just chuckled that he wouldn’t hold his opponent’s age and inexperience against him.

Now that’s an emotional message — short, clear, funny, witty, sharp, self-depreciating, honorable. It pulled every string right and was the end of the Mondale campaign.

Westen’s approach is to haul up the garbage truck, pour a few gallons of foul-smelling false scent over it, and dump it on the stage. His message for Gore was long, personal, angry and inaccurate. It will not work because people don’t want a long-winded, vindictive, angry and inaccurate president.

I hope Westen’s been hired on to Hillary’s campaign, because whoever hires this guy is going to lose ground, and she’s got the most ground to lose.

hat-tip: Soccer Dad


No Comments yet »

June 28th 2007

The Most Ridiculous Story Of The Year? (3)

Fast on the heels of our second nominee for Most Ridiculous Story of the Year comes This is Your Brain on Politics, by Sharon Begley, an opinion writer for Newsweek.

It definitely fits the rules for a nomination: Entries must be work that serious writers present in all seriousness that goes far, far beyond the sublime and settle heavily into the imbecilic.

The piece is actually a review of a book by Drew Westen of Emory University, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.” I don’t disagree with Westen’s s central finding as enunciated by Begley, which is that in the mechanics of opinion-formation, emotion trumps rationality. I see it daily in my work, which basically involves the formation and changing of public opinion, where rational approaches work, but take time to work. Emotional approaches are the microwave ovens of public opinion formation.

Granted, my agreement with Westen ends at the statement of his hypothesis. I find the illustrations he uses preposterous, like this one:

“People were drawn to Reagan [in the 1980 presidential race] because they identified with him, liked his emphasis on values over policy, trusted him, and found him authentic in his beliefs. It didn’t matter that they disagreed with most of his policy positions.”

People had just seen what a liberal Democrat could destroy in just four years, so Reagan’s rational connection was very strong. People liked what he said. Plain, sensible, strong, American, conservative values didn’t just sound good after Carter; they rang the rational bells because it was easy to understand that Reagan made sense and Carter didn’t.

Westen aside, Begley earned her nomination for the commentary she provided, since she used Westen’s book as nothing more than a platform for her blind as a bat, emotionally over-amped Democratic bias.

I wasn’t even on the second click when Begley stopped me in my tracks, looping me back for a re-read of this:

After reading [the book] you won’t be surprised that Westen has been approached by the campaigns of “several” Democratic hopefuls (he is too discrete to say which) for advice on how to make use of findings about how the brain operates in the political arena. Why aren’t Republicans beating a path to his door? Because the GOP has already mastered the dark art of psych-ops—of pushing the right buttons in people’s brains to win their vote.

Here I always thought the GOP was the boring party.

Isn’t it the Dems who threaten seniors with impending starvation every election, cajoling them to vote Democratic because “the Republicans want to kill Social Security?” Have I ever heard a Republican say he wants to kill Social Security? No?

Isn’t it the Dems who play the race card in every black precinct, saying the GOP wants to take away the black man’s right to vote?

Isn’t it the Dems who papered colleges across the country with scary tales about how the GOP would reinstate the draft? And wasn’t it a certain Dem Congressman who actually submitted that particular bill?

Despite these convincing examples, Begley insists that the Dems just don’t get the whole idea of making emotional appeals.

Instead, their strategists start from an 18th-century vision of the mind as dispassionate, making decisions by rationally weighing evidence and balancing pros and cons. That assumption is a recipe for high-minded campaigning—and, often, electoral failure.

Yeah, that sure paints a picture of the chairman of the Democratic party, Howard Dean. Dispassionate, rational, balanced. Chuck Schumer, Dennis Kucinich, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Waxman, Maxine Powers, Ted Kennedy — yeah, they’re all a bunch of wonks who are so lost in rational thought and couldn’t make an emotional attack if they had to.

What’s’ interesting about Begley is that she’s so emotion-driven herself, as is evident in this passage:

The same forces were at work in 2004, when pollsters found that voters in small-town America placed more weight on issues unlikely to directly affect their lives, such as terrorism and violent crime and gay marriage in Massachusetts, than on those that were, such as mine safety. Positions on issues matter to the extent they incite voters’ emotions.

Notice how the issues she feels are “unlikely to affect their lives” are GOP issues. The fact that Dem issues are likely to affect their lives — higher taxes, more government, more welfare bums around town — and the impact that has on voters seems to be lost on Begley.

She can’t imagine the GOP issues affecting her life, so she emotionally concludes that everyone thinks like her. But in small town America, folks remember 9/11. They have sons and daughters in the military. They go to church and hold marriage in high esteem. And they care about Americans, even its crackpot big city intellectuals like Begley, so they don’t want them to get blown up by a terrorist.

Where exactly she got “mine safety” as something people in small towns would be concerned about is pretty quaint.

Even her parentheticals are pathetic:

(In 2000 the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, famously hostile toward federal intervention in state matters, overturned the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore and put the former in the White House. Go figure.)

The Supreme Court is famously hostile toward federal intervention in state matters? Really? Could someone explain Roe v. Wade to me? Brown v. Board of Education? And it was mere emotions that drove a Supreme Court that did not yet have two Bush appointees on it to rule against Gore?

Wow. Go figure. But then, even with my understanding of how effective emotions are, I guess I’m just not getting the concept. As an experiment, let’s try to keep the people out of it. Let’s look at an initiative, like Arnold’s package of infrastructure bonds last year in CA. Arnold’s got a heck of a personality and he tried to emote like crazy all over these propositions.

But I considered them carefully and ended up voting for a couple and not voting for the rest. Begley doesn’t think I could do that.

Because emotions are central to beliefs and values, if an appeal is purely rational it is unlikely to tickle the emotional brain circuits that affect what we do in the voting booth.

She’s done it. She’s proved what I’ve always held — that liberals are driven by emotion, whereas conservatives are more practical and rational. And she’s done it by trying to convince us that the GOP has emotions down pat while they’re a bunch of boring nebbishes — and everything she’s said to prove her point is drenched in emotions.

Next: A bit more on Westen’s draft talking points for the Dems — ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as Begley’s review.

See also:
The Most Ridiculous Story of the Year
The Most Ridiculous Story Of The Year? (2)

hat-tip: Soccer Dad


No Comments yet »

June 28th 2007

Two Mega-Quotes From Desgregation Case

Chief Justice Roberts has the best quote on the Supreme Courts’ ruling today throwing out two race-based desegregation plans:

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. (hat-tip: Power Line)

That’s the kind of lucid opinion-writing that earns a guy a gig as Chief Justice.

The quote that’s as mega-bad as Roberts’ is mega-good comes from a man who wants to earn the right to appoint Supreme Court justices: Barack Obama. Speaking at tonight’s Dem Prez debate, he said:

“If it were not for [civil rights leaders who fought for Brown v. Board of Education and other precedents] I would not be standing here.” (Breitbart)

Brown vs. Board of Education did nothing for Obama. Zero. Until he was 10, he was in school in Indonesia, where, the last time I checked, U.S. law has no reach. He spent the rest of his school life in Honolulu, probably the most diverse, racially mellow city in the nation.

Not only that, but he attended Punahou School all the way through high school. Punahou is noted for its financially and racially diverse student body. Its Web site brags:

Our 3,750 students, in kindergarten through grade 12, reflect Hawaii’s ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic diversity.

Obama was never involved in a school desegregation program, so it matters not one bit to him whether people fought for Brown v. Board of Education or not. It was just a bit of shameless pandering by a black man at Howard University who was trying to be more black than he is.


No Comments yet »

June 28th 2007

Quote Of The Day: Voices Of Fear Edition

“We know what they’re against. We just don’t know what they’re for. Are we going to respond to the voices of fear? That is the issue.”
– Senator Ted Kennedy

Perhaps I should re-name this post “Thundering of the day,” because that’s how WaPo described Kennedy’s temper tantrum after the much-hated immigration bill went down to defeat in the Senate today.

No, Teddy, the issue is that for once the people spoke up enough to say we’re done cowering to the voices of lies, misrepresentations and cover-ups, the voices of fear, if you will, trying to convince us that your way is the only way.

And saying that the good people of America are so strongly against the bill because we’re all a bunch of racists who are against Mexicans, well, that should be enough for the good people of Massachusetts to send you packing.


No Comments yet »

Next »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here

napoleon hill law of success free ebook