A nationwide survey conducted over the past month has revealed a troubling statistic concerning the well-being of the American public. The survey was crafted to focus on how individuals were coping with increasingly difficult times. When asked if there were any problems in their lives during the past year, a whopping 97% of respondents replied 'yes'.
"We were stunned." said Dr. Phyllis Langley, Executive Director of the National Mental Health Awareness Coalition, co-sponsor of the study. "Some people even reported multiple problems. This is a testament to how challenging life has become under this administration."
Lawmakers were quick to point out that there has been no shortage of problem solving pieces of legislation, but few have been enacted into law. "We've drafted hundreds of bills that would have solved thousands of different problems, only to have them vetoed out of mean-spiritedness." said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "This administration simply doesn't care that people are struggling."
The survey questioned 12,478 adults from every state, with only 365 persons reporting no problems whatsoever. But experts think that number is really much lower. "We think a lot of them [people who reported no problems] were lying - you know, out of embarrassment." said Langley. "So, in reality, I think we've firmly established that everybody has problems."
Pelosi promises swift action to stem the spread of these difficulties. "We will continue to search for solutions to this problem crisis." she said. "Maybe we could outsource problems instead of jobs."
#3
This piece is satire, but like all good satire it has a strong kernel of truth. Anyone who says they don't have problems has at least one - they are delusional. And I believe most of us really think our problems are tough, important problems - but our grandparents would laugh. Heck, I laugh at what my kids call problems. (Obviously, I generalize, since there are a significant number of people with cancer or war wounds, etc., or are Liberals, who do have serious problems.)
Almost a chicken or egg conundrum. Hard to decide if they have problems because they are Libruls or are Libruls because they have problems. Maybe some Librulfeedback involved, once bootstrapped on the hapless induhvidual.
#6
Deal with them in order of their degree of importance: Obama, Hillary, McCain. The last one may take a longer time to tackle (4 years) if he first two are eliminated in few months, but it is solvable.
#8
We've drafted hundreds of bills that would have solved thousands of different problems, only to have them vetoed out of mean-spiritedness." said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"WE" Mrs speaker? YOU (Democrats)control the votes.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/16/2008 19:31 Comments ||
Top||
In addition to the Emilys List activists, many of NARALs own members are mighty upset about NARALs decision to endorse Barack Obama and dump longtime ally Hillary Clinton. If you had to think up moves designed to enrage Clinton supporters and make the healing process harder for Democrats, youd have put this one near the top.
Meanwhile, Obama had to apologize for his sweetie crack. But this was not an isolated incident. Remember, this was the candidate who used phrases like when the claws come out and when shes feeling down periodically she launches attacks in reference to his opponent. When language like this is part of the vocabulary of a candidate (one who is so exquisitely articulate), it is worth asking if there is something going on here.
The language and tone of the media have become so condescending and disrespectful toward Clinton that, I think, Obamas camp has picked it up. When she-devil, everyones first wife, and Fatal Attraction become acceptable means of description in the mainstream media, why would the candidate hesitate to use them himself ? In short, Obamas media fan club those open-minded and inclusive liberals have systematically removed inhibitions about the use of startlingly sexist language.
I understand as well as the next person that politics is tough business, but lets do some thought experiments. First, had Clinton or McCain or their teams used phrases which could be seen as disparaging African Americans, theyd have been vilified. Second, had a Republican done the sweetie and claws routine, every NOW representative worth her salt would be on the air calling for heads to roll. You want double standards? Got em right here. In this wonderful post-partisan, post-racial era, someone forgot to tell the liberal media establishment and their beloved candidate that sexism is passé.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/16/2008 09:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bill,
You got any advice for Hillary?
I mean this is just completely out of hand.
My gosh, the convention is going to be a shambles and with all of those demonstrators....I tell you it is going to be ugly.
AND we are running against a war hero, POW, married to a woman who is Scrooge McDuck rich, owns a beer company and had a big set of hooters.
All we have is a paramenopausal harpy and "Chauncey" Obama.
Bill, you're the political genius, help us out here.
Posted by: James Carville ||
05/16/2008 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Big Rack?
Do you happen to have her cell phone number?
As for political advise........the only advice I can give you is to have plenty of popcorn on hand for the convention.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
05/16/2008 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
notwithstanding the fratricide, the Dems have big advantages
- gas at $4/gallon vs. $1.50 when Bush took office.
- troops fighting overseas for 5 years
- NYT, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. have been demonizing Republicans for 8 years
She cant win. The pundits say it. The polls say it. The math says it. Its even the word on the street. If Huggy Bear from Starsky & Hutch were around, hed say its time to stick a fork in her.
So why does she keep going? . . .
Perhaps its the best route to long-term victory. Washington has long swirled with rumors that the Clintons are holding some nuclear option in reserve against Barack Obama. The latest theory is that theyve decided not to use it, as it would destroy them, too. Who knows what it might be, if it exists at all. But its worth noting that if Hillary were the take-no-prisoners brawler everyone says she is, she would almost surely have pushed that button by now.
That she hasnt used the doomsday device buried under Clinton HQ might mean it doesnt exist. Or it might mean shes looking beyond 2008.
In her West Virginia victory speech, Hillary emphasized her electability. Obviously, thats now her best argument for persuading the superdelegates. But its an even better argument for positioning herself as the I told you so candidate after an Obama defeat.
Just because the Clintons say something doesnt mean its untrue. . . . If Obama does implode, Hillarys bitter-end fight would position her to say to Democrats, You were warned.
Obviously, she wants to win this year. But the conventional wisdom that shes hurting herself within the party by not bowing out gracefully might be flawed. Polls show that Democratic voters want the race to continue. And so long as she can avoid blame for Obamas loss, shell be in great shape for 2012. She will be able to argue that Democrats must think with their heads, not their hearts, if they want to win the presidency and change the country. Her centrism would no longer seem calculated. And, of course, the identity-politics bean counters will argue that, this time, it really is a womans turn.
Hillary will do all she can to appear supportive of Obama should he get the nomination. But appearances can be deceiving. Clinton biographer Carl Bernstein recently reported on the Huffington Post that Sidney Blumenthal, the Clintons preferred smear artist and rumor spreader, has been pushing the press to cover Obamas ties to Bill Ayers, an alum of the left-wing terrorist group the Weather Underground, as well as many other questionable allegations about Obama.
The real test of my theory will be whether the Blumenthal operation shuts down after the Clinton campaign does.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/16/2008 08:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So you never really answered the question Jonah: "Why does HRC stay in?" It doesn't make a lot of sense to stay in unless she can convince the superdelegates she is viable which doesn't seem to be happening. The other option is that she is hoping BO will get tripped up before convention time by the Republicans. Or she and Bill know something that they is sitting on until the right moment.
#5
How much power/influence does Candidate Clinton accrue if she sticks it out until the convention? As opposed to quitting now with no quid pro quo, I mean. And there is indeed always the possibility of more "sweetie" moments for Candidate Obama, who doesn't seem to handle things well when he's tired.
#6
If the Bill and the Beast don't get the nomination, it's back to the double wide for him and a career as the boomer Teddy for her. There's no downside to either in holding out to the last moment in the hope for a divine wind to sweep Hussein off his game. Case when Hussein gets the nomination, the party's over for both of them.
#7
Staying in is not degrading her Demo authority. Maybe enhancing her position as senior party elder. Fat Ted did it in 1980. Fat Teddy and several other of the very old hacks within the party will soon have to depart, either because voters finally choose someone younger or because their mental faculties simply desert them, aka. Rob. Byrd. If she is not the nominee, I look for her to be very passive in support of Hussein. She'll be around, but mostly around her home territory protecting her seat from NY. She could exert considerable influence in the Senate in coming years, much to the consternation of the Magic Man. She could intercept many of his grand designs and remold them closer to her concepts. This would remake his agenda into hers.She may go for Majority leader, ousting Sad Sack Harry, who has been nothing but an utter disgrace for Dummocrats. She, at least, would be an active advocate for Dummo agenda. Also, she and John Boy are good buddies, even guzzling vodka shots together in Moscow and googling for the camera in a showing of comeraderie across the aisle. She may slip the info (for a small price) to McCain and let him detonate it along about Oct 30. Game over, lights out. And, you could her her cackle ringing in the hallways.
#8
Why does Barack stay in? He's not much ahead of Hillary in the numbers, and seems to be growing feet of clay. Seems pretty self-centered of this newbie to push so hard for the prize without paying his dues first. Think of how his reputation would be enhanced if he stepped aside "for the sake of the Party". Take the VP slot under Hillary, and he'd be a shoo-in for the next administration.
#9
Hmmm...an Obama defeat in November will allow her to purge the DNC of its Deanites and MoveOn power players and get her people at the table once again, while as mentioned, she consolidates her own power in the Senate. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. :)
#12
Just because the Clintons say something doesnt mean its untrue. . . .
In a purely logical way this makes sense, but this is Clintons, the statement may be invalid.
Posted by: George Smiley ||
05/16/2008 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
What could you buy with $6 billion? You could finally rebuild the New Orleans neighborhoods that Hurricane Katrina destroyed. For almost six years, you could provide a daily meal for every one of the 36 million Americans who live below the poverty line.
Or, you could give all of it to the Pakistani government in the form of military aid and accomplish absolutely nothing.
For more than seven years now, billions of American government dollars, expense reimbursements of about $90 million a month, have sluiced directly into the Pakistani treasury, instantly becoming "sovereign government funds," as a new government report puts it. Once there, the United States has no control over how the money is used. All of this money, about $6 billion so far, is intended to pay for counter-insurgency operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctuaries in the tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan.
After seven years, al-Qaeda has established a terrorist-training and planning center there. The 2008 National Intelligence Estimate said al-Qaeda "has regenerated its attack capability and secured a safe haven in Pakistan." Meantime, the Taliban have begun applying fundamentalist Islamic law in the tribal areas they now control. They have shut down schools for girls, closed barbershops and music stores, just as they did in Afghanistan when they ruled that country.
In short, seven years and $6 billion later, the terrorist group that carried out 9/11 has grown ever more comfortable and secure in its new Pakistani home. There, Washington fears, their leaders - including Osama bin Laden - are planning another attack on the United States. Meanwhile, the newly elected Pakistani government is negotiating a truce with these militants and has already pulled most of its troops from the area.
This information comes from newly published federal government reports. No one in Washington is debating it. Last month, in fact, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, acknowledged that if the United States managed to pinpoint Osama bin Laden's location in the tribal areas, he was not sure Pakistan would give permission to attack him. That, Mullen said, is "open for discussions with the new government."
Despite all this, the money keeps flowing. The Bush administration has budgeted $900 million for the program this fiscal year, saying it is "a critical tool in our joint effort with Pakistan to constrain the assumption of sanctuary by extremists in western Pakistan." That last statement came from the Department of Defense just three weeks ago - even after major reports from the State Department, the General Accounting Office and the nation's intelligence agencies this spring all showed that the war there is lost, the money wasted.
All of this could have been predicted. In 2006, five years into the military assistance program, government auditors discovered that the United States was not even providing any advice or strategic direction for the Pakistani military. Washington was just handing over the money - "shoveling it," as one congressman put it - crossing their fingers and hoping something good might come of it. Nothing did.
Last month, Rep. Howard Berman, Democrat of California, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, complained that Washington was not providing meaningful guidance even now. "It's appalling that there is still no comprehensive inter-agency strategy concerning this critical region," he said.
In a report published last week, the Government Accountability Office, quoting Pentagon officials, said the Pakistani army, still today, is "neither structured nor trained for counter-insurgency" missions.
Last year for the first time, the Pentagon did raise questions about a few of the reimbursement requests Pakistan had provided, for expenses totaling about $80 million. Military officials, testifying to Congress, insist that their audits will be more thorough in the months ahead. But none of them have explained exactly what the new money is intended to accomplish - given that, for all the good it did, the $6 billion spent so far might just as well have been flushed down the sewer.
For a long time, Bush administration officials had quietly explained that they continued handing over the money because it helped prop up Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan president, their supposed ally in the war on terror. But even that explanation rings hollow today. With his political party out of power, Musharraf sits in Islamabad, now little more than a figurehead.
So, like many other failed programs launched during the Bush presidency, this one will likely chug along untouched until a new president takes office - wasting an additional $900 million along the way.
What could you buy with $900 million?
Posted by: john frum ||
05/16/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
On 9-11 Pakistan was under US sanctions. The thinking was: US could leverage both military support in the GWOT, and contribute to democraticization in Central Asia. Unfortunately, the NATO intervention legitimized political Islam and allowed neo-Taliban parties to thrive in Pashto regions. Notwithstanding public support for Islamofascists, we need to attack them head on, regardless what Karzai (Pashto) says or does. Afghanistan is mostly pacified; it is only the opium districts where we find jihad vermin. That is where we have to wipe them out, even if we have to use napalm.
All foreign aid moneys that are proposed to be given away to any Nation or sub-Nation [Pakistan for instance] shall be raised by partially taxing them from all the Employees of that said department which proposes that give away; for instance State Dept. Employees.
#3
Think of the 6 billion as the 'toll' for getting Pakistan to allow us to supply our efforts in Afghanistan, because that's what it really is. It's cheaper than fighting our way through. And there is a comparable amount being supplied to India to balance out what's going to Pakistan.
#4
The $6B went for a very, very good cause. At the beginning, Pakistan was a loose confederation with no central government control even in Islamabad. The military and ISI were full of Islamists, and too weak to do anything but make trouble in Kashmir and sponsor terrorism. Oh, yes, and they had nuclear weapons.
Today, most of the country can be dominated by the military, the more secular ruling parties have displaced a lot of the Islamists from their parliament, the military and ISI have been purged of the worst of their Islamists, and the US has guarantees about their nuclear weapons.
While there has been no clear victory over the radicals, they have been severely damaged, their ancient weapons markets have to a great extent been closed down or reduced to a dull roar, and the majority of the population has been turned against them.
#5
It's one hell of a waste of $6 billion. For $900 million, we could have used a few of our older nukes which are in need of maintenance and shown the Muzz what happens when we are upset. The death of a few million Muzz would have been a very worthwhile demonstration of our resolve. Slapping the shit out of them is the only effective means of getting their attention. Nowhere better to cause a little D&D than Pakland. (Mebbe Saoodi) Irradiating the territory would have denied them use of safe haven for years to come. That's how we should have spent precious tax dollars.
Posted by: Oscar Flomoger2508 ||
05/16/2008 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Pakistan are funded by the West re WOT and Saudi re Islamism-They need to choose one over the other going forward as i see the West cutting backing their funding re WOT-ie lack of results and Islamism does not improve the economy unless you have oil!!!!!
Posted by: Paul ||
05/16/2008 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#8
For $900 million, we could have used a few of our older nukes which are in need of maintenance and shown the Muzz what happens when we are upset.
I hear the Pentagon is short of military geniuses; send 'em yer resume. You'd be a shoo-in.
#9
I'm designing a kevlar upholstered, mine-resistant, all-terrain, air-droppable armchair. I see a market - a huge market.
Posted by: George Smiley ||
05/16/2008 16:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
With a chenille slipcover for cuddly comfort, George? And a nice Laz-y-boy lean so one can watch the news on television properly: through closed eye lids?
#11
And there is a comparable amount being supplied to India to balance out what's going to Pakistan.
US aid to India for 2008 is 81 million dollars.
Posted by: john frum ||
05/16/2008 19:38 Comments ||
Top||
#12
That is only counting direct aid : India is allowed to buy weapons and equipment that Pakistan can only dream of. Like the F/A-18 Super Hornets that the Indians are looking to buy for the Air Force and maybe another 75 or so for their Navy to outfit their carrier.
#14
We're paying this money so we don't have to spend even more billions air shipping this stuff through the Central Asian countries. Alternatively, we're paying it so that we don't have to spend hundreds of billions invading Pakistan to get that land route through to Afghanistan. This is stuff that the Democrats know. But standard Democratic practice is to assume stuff merely materializes out of thin air and doesn't have to be paid for.
We could have invaded Pakistan after 9/11 and taken out the jihadi-tolerating/supporting government. But then we would have had to institute a draft, and prepare for a war against both Pakistan and China, which would probably have sent millions of "volunteers" to help the Pakistanis resist "American aggression". How many Americans were prepared to go to war with China, post-9/11? I know losing 4,000 men in Iraq has already consigned Bush to being "the worst president in American history" in the American psyche.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The language and tone of the media have become so condescending and disrespectful toward Clinton that, I think, Obamas camp has picked it up. When she-devil, everyones first wife, and Fatal Attraction become acceptable means of description in the mainstream media, why would the candidate hesitate to use them himself ? In short, Obamas media fan club those open-minded and inclusive liberals have systematically removed inhibitions about the use of startlingly sexist language.
She cant win. The pundits say it. The polls say it. The math says it. Its even the word on the street. If Huggy Bear from Starsky & Hutch were around, hed say its time to stick a fork in her.
