…is an awesome Gaia compliant bike which could make the seas stop rising, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with the anti-Obama picture of the day.
Read: If All You See… »
…is an awesome Gaia compliant bike which could make the seas stop rising, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with the anti-Obama picture of the day.
Read: If All You See… »
Interestingly, if they really cared about the middle class, they’d call for a reduction in taxes on those making less than $200k individual/$250 joint
(Washington Post) The Senate on Wednesday narrowly approved a plan to preserve tax cuts for the middle class while letting them expire for the wealthy, a powerful if largely symbolic victory for Democrats who have been pushing to raise taxes on the rich for more than a decade.
The measure is dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House, where leaders are preparing to vote next week on their own plan to extend the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for households at every income level through 2013.
The vote was symbolic, because all tax measures must originate in the House. But, the vote shows that Democrats are willing to raise taxes on small business owners in the middle of terrible economic conditions, an increase that is comparable to spit in a large bucket of federal spending.
Vice President Biden presided over the late-afternoon vote, though with only 99 senators present, there was never much chance that he would be called upon to break a tie. His appearance highlighted the importance of the issue for President Obama, who has made tax “fairness†a centerpiece of his reelection campaign against GOP challenger Mitt Romney.
If Team Obama really wanted tax fairness, they’d ask that the tax laws be changed so that 50% of US taxpayers would no longer be paying effectively a 0% tax rate.
This is all the typical class warfare from the Democrat Party, even as Obama attends numerous $30K+ fundraisers. Perhaps he should ask those rich folks to pay their fair share directly to the federal treasury rather than the Obama re-election fund.
Read: Democrat Senate Passes Tax Bill To Stick It To Job Creators »
Like many other movies, such as Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises had a ton of hype around it, and was widely anticipated to be a summer blockbuster. Well, mission accomplished! But, how good is it, really? Over at Rotten Tomatoes, it gets very high marks, but one thing you seem to see a lot is “it was great, but I expected more.” And that’s the problem with a highly anticipated movie.
I’m not much of a fan of the first one, but really liked the second one. Like with the Michael Keaton Batman, it was the Joker taking over the movie, with Heath Ledger doing what Jack Nicholson did, albeit in a much darker, more deranged manner. It’s hard to meet those expectations, which is why I’ve held off in writing despite getting out around 5pm.
So, I’ll give it a B-. I’m torn on whether or not it is really an evening full price movie or just an afternoon matinee and save a few bucks movie, but, since it is, what, 5 hours long (well, 2:45), I’ll give it the “it’s worth seeing at night” endorsement.
The bad guy, Bane, was good, but can’t live up to the Joker. Really, almost no character could have. It was more drama than Batman kicking the crap out of everyone. And, unfortunately, Ann Hathaway was wasted. Not really “The Catwoman”, it was like she was thrown in as some eye candy, and they forget to make her eye candy, because her lines were kinda lame, and she really didn’t add much. She’s sorta bad, sorta there. Might have been more fun if they had used Harley Quinn instead. That said, it was still well worth the time and money.
There’s a nice little twist at the end that you should enjoy. Leave your expectations at home, and just enjoy.
BTW, not sure if the preview for Total Recall makes it worth seeing or not. The short TV commercial is booooooring. Somewhat better for longer theater trailer.
…is a fossil fueled boat raising sea levels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, which provides some context on Mitt’s “Anglo-Saxon” comment.
Read: If All You See… »
Is it really as bad as some are making it out to be?
(CBS News) The first draft of a new U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade sparked criticism Tuesday from campaigners seeking to keep illegal weapons from fighters, criminals and terrorists – and demands for changes before Friday’s deadline for action.
Peter Herby of the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross said that every element in the draft has “major loopholes,” and he warned that if it’s adopted there’s “a very high risk” the treaty would continue the status quo and allow countries to just continue doing what they’re doing now or even do less.
But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association and Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said that with a few key fixes the treaty could reduce the impact of the illicit arms trade and save lives and should be supported by the Obama administration.
At the Examiner we read
The proposed United Nations international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is out, and it is already running into trouble as many of the tenets are apparently contrary to United States law, to say nothing of the collision they might have with the Second Amendment.
Julianne Versnel-Gottlieb with the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation reports from the U.N. headquarters in New York that the head of the U.S. delegation, Thomas Countryman, was quick to point out that provisions in the proposed treaty will run into trouble with existing law.
The thing is, I’ve read through the proposed treaty multiple times, looking for hidden nuggets, and really cannot find anything to get upset over. The treaty as written focuses on international arms sales and transfers, and it is all about exports, not domestic purchases. This would not effect the domestic purchasing of arms, of which handguns, rifles, and shotguns are mentioned. It’s not going to create a huge database of gun owners which would end up in UN hands.
Of course, as the drafts change, that could still happen, but right now it looks simply like a way to eliminate the sale of arms to crazy regimes, terrorists, people bent on genocide, etc, not the reduction of sales for legitimate purposes.
PS: If the Obama regime had been following these same rules as laid out in the Treaty, they would be in big trouble vis a vis Fast and Furious, as the treaty would have made that type of arms transfer illegal.