…is a never-ending rain due to people celebrating Labor Day with evil meat and CO2 infused beer, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is American Power, wondering about the racial profiling of Syrians across America.
Read: If All You See… »
Happy Sunday! Another day to ruminate about the once and future nation of America. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help, in honor of Obama playing golf after discussing making war on Syria.
What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15
As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets†calendar yet? And don’t forget to check outwhat I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts
Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.
The posts do take a long time, so, if you want to send me your links for Rule 5 babeage or links, use ye olde email in the header bar (remove the NOSPAM part). Preferably, create the html link so I can copy and paste how you want it to read.
Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »
Something a bit humorous from The Telegraph’s Tim Stanley
Obama and Syria: Britain has helped Obama rediscover the Constitution. No need to thank us, America
This afternoon, President Obama was 35 minutes late to deliver his statement on Syria to the media. Well, he likes to keep his fans waiting.
But when he did show up, the Prez put in a remarkable performance. Yes, Obama does believe Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people and, yes, he does want to do something about it. But rather than take immediate action, he’s going to seek Congress’ approval first. In the course of his statement, he name checked Britain and its own parliamentary vote on Thursday. So we basically taught Obama to respect his own constitution. No need to thank us, America.
Mr. Stanley goes on to note interpretations on why Obama did this, including making sure Congress, especially Republicans, get blamed either way. Because this isn’t really about Obama respecting the Constitution, which would be a first, but about trying to dig his way out of the red line comments and warhawk rhetoric of the previous week, while making sure he can score some political points against Congressional Republicans. Meanwhile, at the NY TImes
The headline is all you need to know.
Charles Krauthammer is slamming Obama as amateur hour. Not sure what Charles is seeing, every hour is amateur hour for Team Obama. And Ben Smith is getting the vapors and a bit of bromance over Obama giving power back to Congress. He features this tweet
Big move by POTUS. Consistent with his principles. Congress is now the dog that caught the car. Should be a fascinating week!
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) August 31, 2013
That should tell us everything we need to know, chiefly that Obama is turning this into a domestic fight, rather than a real concern about “national security” and “moral imperatives.”
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Heh! Britain Has Helped Obama Rediscover The Constitution »
After making everyone watch an empty podium for over half an hour (O was probably waiting for halftime) and before hitting the links, PMBP decided to send the Syrian issue over to Congress for a vote
President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, calling last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there “an attack on human dignity,†but said he would seek congressional authorization for an attack.
The announcement puts off an imminent cruise missile strike, a prospect that had put the region on edge and stoked intense debate in the United States, where many dread getting dragged into a new war. It is not clear what the Obama administration would do if Congress declines to authorize a military operation.
This can be read a couple ways. We can look at it and say “he wants to make sure that this is approved by lawmakers”, yet, that doesn’t fit the pattern with Obama over the past 4+ years. Realistically, it’s more like he’s trying to dig himself out of the “red line” hole he dug, pushing the issue out further and further till “squirrel!!!” Also
Essentially, Obama's looking for congress to give him an out. And then will blame Republicans #itsatrap
— WilliamTeach (@WilliamTeach) August 31, 2013
And
I expect a bipartisan defeat regarding Syria in senate and house, followed by O blaming Republicans
— WilliamTeach (@WilliamTeach) August 31, 2013
Which goes with
The reason Obama's taking so long on Syria is he needs to find a way to blame GOP if (when) it goes tits up
— WilliamTeach (@WilliamTeach) August 30, 2013
That’s his normal pattern. If he has good evidence, let’s see it. I’d have no problem with giving a good beating to Assad. None of this limited “here’s exactly where we’re going to strike” stuff. If you’re deploying the US military, make the beating hurt.
Read: Hmm, Now Presidenty McBombypants Will Seek Congressional Approval »
…is an evil plastic bottle that’s evil not because they make a mess of the environment, but because of CO2, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Capital Preservation, which picks up an interesting slip of the tongue by Obama.
Read: If All You See… »
Thanks to Purp at Ace of Spades for the President McBombypants thing (hey, remember when Obama and Democrats derided McCain for bomb bomb bomb Iran, which is well on their way to making nuclear weapons?). Niles Gardner notes that Obama is an embarrassment and an amateur on the international stage, having really built no alliances, no political friendships, other than with French President Francois Hollande. He compares and contrasts President George W. Bush to Mr. Obama, and sees that Bush took the time to forge alliances and friendships. Now, Bush may have been constantly derided, but there is no doubt Bush knew what he was doing, and was able to work with foreign leaders, build alliances and friendships with them, and, just as importantly, cause fear in unfriendly nations. Remember how Libya gave up on their weapons programs and terrorism? Bush knew about How Things Work on the international stage. Obama still thinks like an empowered community organizer, and is neither respected nor feared.
(Telegraph) The Russian President told journalists that if Barack Obama had evidence Bashar al-Assad’s forces had the chemical weapons and launched the attack, Washington should present it to the UN weapons inspectors and the Security Council.
Speaking after the US released its intelligence report, Mr Putin said: “I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States.”
He rejected American intercepts of Syrian communications as evidence, saying that they cannot be used to take “fundamental decisions” such as using military force on Syria.
Mr Putin said the US President, as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, should remember the impact any US attack would have on Syrian civilians.
Kinda strange when Putin is the voice of reason, wouldn’t you say? Of course, this is part of the typical international game between States. Unfortunately, Putin is playing chess, Obama is playing solitaire. Obviously, Putin and Russia have a stake in what happens, with Syria being a partial client of the Russian state, but, this is also simply a swipe at the weakness of Obama on the international stage, which, unfortunately, makes America look weak.
Read: Putin Triple Dog Dares President McBombypants To Pony Up Evidence On Syria »
I have to wonder how much CO2 was generated by putting this article on the Internet, what with all the energy required (via The Hockey Schtick)
(Nature) Lessons from addiction may help to transform our high-carbon lifestyle.
It is often said that those of us who live in affluent, developed counties are ‘addicted’ to our high-carbon lifestyles, which depend on profligate use of energy and material resources. Think of central heating, air conditioning, our reluctance to wean ourselves off international air travel — whether for business or pleasure — and the amount of meat that we consume in our diets.
Yet, as is my constant refrain, those who believe most in anthropogenic “climate change” barely do more than token changes in their own lives. They might replace a lightbulb or two (in lamps they rarely use) with CFLs or LEDs. But, especially when we look at all the leaders of “climate change” hysteria, and those in government and NGO’s who push this, they actually have increased “carbon footprints”.
But it would stretch credulity to push the comparison too far; obviously cars are not ‘habit forming’ in the sense that cigarettes are, and certainly do not have the addictive characteristics of certain hard drugs. The habit-forming effects of drugs such as nicotine and heroin are mediated by specific receptors in the brain. But it is of course meaningless to talk of a specific ‘brain receptor’ activated by exposure to a car advert. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to posit that our responses to brands in general, the preferences we develop and the behaviours that we subsequently exhibit as consumers (and more generally as citizens), have a neurobiological basis. This does not at all imply that such preferences and behaviours are deterministically ‘fixed’, in the sense that they can be modified by learning and experience, or even pharmacologically. If we are sufficiently concerned about the environmental impact of travel, we can by our own volition choose to run an electric car rather than a gas-guzzler.
This seems to be a starting premise of the intriguing new research field of ‘neuroconservation’, which despite its name has nothing to do with conserving neurons. Rather, as explained by Elisabeth Jeffries (page 776), one of its aims is to study how the brain responds to nature. A working hypothesis is that the way we come to value and appreciate the natural world may involve some of the same brain regions and ‘reward’ pathways involved in addiction. If that turns out to be the case, which is far from certain, it follows that understanding addiction — both at a neurological and psychological level — might potentially help to devise strategies for shifting people’s attitudes in relation to environmental issues such as climate change, thereby promoting climate-friendly behaviours.
It boils down to the notion that Warmists want to essentially brainwash everyone (else) to be “green”, and green doesn’t mean being a good steward of nature, which doesn’t give a damn about your CO2 output, but by reducing your own “carbon footprint” on the alter of a political leaning. If Warmists refuse to cure their own addictions to, well, just about everything, because almost everything is considered Bad For Climate Change, why should anyone else care?
Read: Nature Suggests Treating “High Carbon Lifestyles” Like Drug Addiction »
Interesting. Polls range from 50% to 80% saying Americans do not want to military strikes on Syria. And 80% want Congressional approval. Yet, Mr. Obama has stated that he’s not going to bother with more than a few meetings and briefings, nothing heavy nor involved, nor is he going to seek a vote, like PM David Cameron attempted (and lost) in Britain. Nor is he really going to bother with the United Nations. Obviously, this means that the problem here is not Obama’s go it alone, unilateral, “I’m doing what I want to do” attitude, but Someone Else
As President Obama moves toward unilateral military action in response to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that killed more than 1,400 people, he is doing so without legal justification and without the backing of two key institutions, Congress and the United Nations Security Council. Both have abdicated their roles in dealing with this crisis.
Except hundreds of Congressional members have stated that Obama should seek Congressional approval. A bipartisan coalition. It’s Mr. Obama’s job to seek that approval, and he’s already stated he doesn’t want a vote. I wonder what the NY Times editorial board would write if the House came back and voted against any action in Syria? Obama’s the one who ran his mouth, and I doubt if he’d even get many Democrats to support strikes.
But, then the editorial goes off the rails. I wonder if there were two sets of people writing it. The editorial notes that the admin has only pushed a “moral rationale” for strikes (say, what about all those being killed in Darfur? Or the thousands of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt?)
But no administration official has formally asserted a legal basis — absent a vote of Congress or the Security Council — for military strikes.
We’re still waiting for exactly why this affects U.S. national security. Apparently, so is Obama, since he still hasn’t made up his mind. Perhaps he’s still trying to find a way to Blame Republicans in the event things go tits up during the strikes or afterwards because of the strikes.
Congress spends a lot of time jealously guarding its powers, especially when it comes to Republicans thwarting Mr. Obama’s agenda. But apart from complaining, asking questions and getting briefed by administration officials, most senators and representatives seem content to leave this exceedingly difficult decision to President Obama. They should have returned to Washington from summer vacation to debate and vote on the Syria issue. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain suffered a defeat when Parliament on Thursday voted to oppose involvement in a military operation, but at least the British lawmakers had to step up and take a stand.
Cameron called them for a vote. And the Times seems to want to Blame Republicans, while forgetting that the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Harry Reid is in no hurry to bring the Senate back.
Of course, Mr. Obama has not asked Congress to authorize military action. He brushed off this responsibility, required under the War Powers Resolution, when he used military force in the Libya operation, but in that case he did have Security Council approval.
Um, wait, so the entire premise of the story, that Congress and the UN (notice that the article barely mentions the UN to this point, they do briefly mention it in a following paragraph) are MIA, is bunk, because Obama is blowing off Congress (and the UN), and going all Imperial President? Hmph. How about that?
Mr. Obama’s approach on Syria now seems wholly at odds with the strong position he took in 2007 when, as a candidate for president, he told The Boston Globe: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.â€
But, you know, Congress is a bunch of meanies who might not endorse this military action which would write a check for Obama’s “red lines” mouth.
Not only is Mr. Obama lacking the Security Council’s support, he has not obtained the backing of other organizations that could provide international legitimacy, such as NATO. In Libya in 2011, the Arab League supported the NATO air campaign, but it has not requested American military action in Syria, even though it publicly blamed Mr. Assad for the attack and called for accountability.
Nor has Mr. Obama bothered asking.
Mr. Obama’s ability to muster broad backing for immediate action was harmed by the British vote, leaving only France promising cooperation. Even in the best of circumstances, military action could go wrong in so many ways; the lack of strong domestic and international support will make it even more difficult.
I guess it’s also the Brit’s fault. Despite Obama not bothering to reach out and build any sort of coalition. Like most things, I suspect that Obama just expected to give a speech, make a pronouncement, and things would fall in place with everyone joining up. Funny how things work differently in the Real World, as opposed to Community Organizer World.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Oh, Good, NY Times Blames UN And Congress, Saying They’ve Abdicated Their Role On Syria »
I wonder if next week’s headline will be “Unemployment Applications Rise” followed by “Fast Food Restaurants Advertise For Lots of Newly Opened Positions”
(Raleigh N&O) About 50 Triangle fast-food workers joined a nationwide strike Thursday, rallying outside several chain restaurants in Raleigh and Durham for a $15-an-hour wage.
Organized largely through social media and word of mouth, the walkout took place in about 60 cities, forcing restaurants in some locations to shut down without enough staff. It was the largest protest yet in the movement for higher wages and the right to unionize.
Fast-food restaurants locally were operating normally Thursday, though a targeted Taco Bell in Charlotte closed its dining room. Triangle workers started the morning in Durham, protesting at Burger King and McDonald’s restaurants where some of the strikers work. By lunchtime, the protest shifted to Raleigh, where the picketing continued in front of a Little Caesars Pizza on Capital Boulevard.
“Cancel the burgers, cancel the fries, make our wages supersize,†the group chanted.
How cute. I would have been out there yelling something back, but I was working.
Brandi Pegram said she was eager to wave a sign in front of the downtown Durham McDonald’s where she has worked for five years. She said she still makes the minimum wage: $7.25 an hour.
“I’m getting ready to have a baby, and it’s hard for me to survive,†she said, adding that she was scheduled to work Thursday but joined the picket line instead. “It was only going to be $50 anyway.â€
I don’t mean to pick on Brandi, but, hey, she agree to appear in the article, and like so many others appearing in this and articles in news sources around the country, it should be pointed out that many are like Brandi: having kids they can’t afford, working a job that is meant as entry level and low skilled, and one in which they knew exactly what the wages were going to be. Furthermore, many, like Brandi, have worked these jobs for years, and if you’re still making minimum wage after being their for 5 years, don’t blame the company, blame yourself. Obviously, the work skills are not present. These people could have parlayed the skills into management/supervisory positions at the same or other companies, yet they’re still slaving away in a job meant for teens and people who want to earn a little extra cash. Again, this says something about themselves, not the companies.
Let’s also note that the franchises aren’t owned simply by Evil Republicans, but by Democrats, too, who are going to pay what the positions are worth. I remember a few decades ago when it was tough to get people to work at fast food places, at least in NJ where I grew up, so they were offering very good pay. Nowadays, there is no need: there is a large pool of unskilled workers, partly due to….the Democrats reliance on bringing unskilled workers to the US, along with refusing to do anything about illegal aliens. They drive down pay. For all you liberals supporting amnesty, think that will help increase pay? Good luck with that.
The Rev. William Barber II, the N.C. NAACP president, made a similar point, speaking after a march Thursday afternoon at the Kentucky Fried Chicken on New Bern Avenue.
“The fastest growing jobs in the United States are the lowest paid,†he said. “That ain’t right.â€
Welcome to the Obameconomy, which you support, Barber.
Pegram, the Durham McDonald’s worker, hopes she’ll still have a job Friday. “I’m going in there to work at 7 a.m. with my head held high,†she said, adding that if wages don’t change soon, “I’ll come back out here and do it again.â€
Conversely, she could spend the time looking for a better job with more pay, or perhaps go to her store manager and profess an interest in bettering herself and moving into management. She could educate herself and make herself valuable, learn about business, develop jobs skills. Nope, instead, like so many on the Left, she thinks she’s entitled to more pay for…doing no more work.
I feel for them, I really do! Interesting that their signs say “I am worth more”..of course you are, but your job is not…
No, it’s not, and thanks to the Obama policies, don’t expect anything to change anytime soon.
Bruce McQain has an interesting post saying these low wage workers could be replaced with automated machines, like they’re trying in Europe. The machines don’t need pay, vacations, personal days, or mandated health insurance.
Read: So, A Bunch Of People With No Skills Went On Strike For More Pay Yesterday »
…is a horrid drought world that would be perfect for a wind farm, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Rhymes With Right, with a post on Obamacare, taxes, and John Roberts screwing the pooch.
Read: If All You See… »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
