PAWaterCooler.com

Is the fact that our tax dollars paid Ed Begley Jr. to appear in an ad for the Census during the Superbowl.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Hide the children. This is very offensive and demeaning.

H/T Hot Air
NARAL Pro-Choice America wants all of it’s raging feminists to use Facebook and Twitter to protest to the ad, updating status/twitter feeds with some handy dandy pre-arranged language:

Instead of watching Focus on the Family’s ad, for 30 seconds, just focus on… something else. Use Facebook and Twitter to tell everyone why you object to the ad and tell them what you’ll focus on instead of watching it.

On Facebook, use this as your status update, and just add your answer in place of [YOUR ANSWER HERE]. Make sure to link to this page to help educate your friends.

I will focus on why NARAL doesn’t think that ads showing scantily clad women hawking beer and Go Daddy websites are somehow not nearly as offensive or demeaning as this ad.

Meanwhile, CBS says it will air a second pro-life ad no less than four times during the pre-game show. Newsbusters reports:

But here’s the money section:

CBS says it’s adjusting to a changing society. “We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms,” spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs says.

Interesting. So CBS is adjusting to a changing society.

I’m sure this news will create even more liberal media anger, wouldn’t you agree?

Oh my. I can hear the caterwauling already.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

The Super Bowl Saints, Katrina and Corruption
Feel-Good Stories Won’t Rebuild A City

BY CHRIS FREIND
“FREINDLY FIRE”

Off the bat, let’s get a few things straight:

1) New Orleans is a one-of -a-kind city. It should be on everyone’s list to visit at least once.
2) Despite the fact that the Colts will always be Baltimore to me, I am rooting for Indianapolis in the Super Bowl. And not because I am a Manning fan, but due to the nauseating media coverage that if the Saints win the Big Game, that will somehow heal all wounds from Hurricane Katrina.

Gimme a break.

When will people stop living in a fantasy land and speak the truth about what really happened before, during and after Katrina hit? The reality is that, regardless of whether the Saints win, New Orleans is still at risk and will continue to be until the people wake up, and no victorious football team or the infinite number of feel-good puff pieces about NFL players will change that.

People are entitled to their own opinion, but they aren’t entitled to their own set of facts. And here are the facts:

Louisiana in general, and New Orleans in particular, are among the most corrupt places in the country. This is nothing new, and residents have known this for generations. It has become such an ingrained part of the landscape that people have accepted it as a part of life. That’s their choice, but they shouldn’t turn around and expect the rest of the American taxpayers to foot the bill because their corrupt way of life finally caught up with them.

Everyone knows that New Orleans sits in a floodplain, with most of the city below sea level. So in order to protect the Crescent City, a series of levees were constructed. Rather than do the right thing, however, which would have been to follow recommendations designed to protect the city from Category Four or Five hurricanes, many state and city officials thought that diverting levee money to other projects would be a wiser course.

And since much of that funding came from taxpayers in the other 49 states, why not? It’s always a lot more fun to spend OPM— “other people’s money.”

You know kind of worthwhile projects I’m referring to — important ones that put the security of people and property ahead of all else.

Like millions for a Mardi Gras fountain. Fountains have water, and levees are related to water, so who could argue?

Or riverboat gambling schemes. Boats float, so they could just rise right along with hurricane storm surges while people continue to gamble.

Or a host of other projects, like green space, commercial buildings, and….the list goes on. And on, and on.

Because for decades New Orleans dodged the direct-hit hurricane bullet time and again, with storms diverting at the last minute and the city being spared, proper preparations still weren’t made. Many felt they didn’t need them because “God loves New Orleans.” Obvious lessons that should have been learned were simply ignored. Corruption trumped security.

In the aftermath of Katrina, attention shifted from why this wholly avoidable tragedy happened to the horrific response of leaders such as President Bush and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

Coverage of both men’s bumbling was merited, to be sure. But both also had an excuse.

They were incompetent.

Here’s the bottom line. Taxpayers are sick and tired of paying for other people’s mistakes, be they bank bailouts, auto company failures, or cultures of corruption that pad the pockets of the powerful while forsaking everyone else.

And in the larger picture, why should the federal government, which is funded by we the people, have any obligation to rebuild a city constructed in a known flood plain that is regularly visited by hurricanes?

If you want to live there, great. Flood insurance should be mandated. And if it isn’t offered, maybe that’s a clue that the risk outweighs the reward. If that risk is acceptable, fine. But the rest of us shouldn’t have to shoulder the responsibility to be the risk-free safety net for people who choose to live in high-probability disaster areas.

But the icing on the cake is listening to self-serving Louisiana political hacks who get outraged that Washington doesn’t pick up the ENTIRE cost of rebuilding and maintaining New Orleans. To them, I offer Dean Wormer’s legendary advice from “Animal House”— “fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.”

So if the Saints win the Super Bowl, become “America’s” team in the process, and make everybody feel good, it will only exacerbate the overarching problem that is endemic in this nation: looking the other way and pretending all is well.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t change that fact that we will be called upon — again— to pay the bill— again— should New Orleans get slammed by another Katrina.

But given that we’re approaching insolvency as a nation, the safety net of taxpayer dollars may not be there next time.

It’s time the people of New Orleans stop pretending that a Super Bowl solves anything. Fix the problem now, or face the risk of going it alone.

If their city gets leveled— a very real possibility— they will have no one to blame but themselves.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter whose news site, The Artorius News Bureau, is slated to launch in mid-February. Readers of “Freindly Fire” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on a Philadelphia-area talk radio show, WCHE, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

As a letters to the editor junkie, I can’t help looking to see what kind of insanity is whirling around in the minds of the readers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. For the past several days, numerous letters have been written in lamenting the death knell of democracy and freedom thanks to the US Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 ruling that the First Amendment actually means what it says instead of something else entirely.

The letters are full of harsh language decrying a ruling which they claim results in America being made subordinate to those evil corporations. Apparently it’s OK for George Soros and his minions at MoronsDotOrg, VoteForLiberalVets, Catholics Against Catholicism and the rest of them to spend millions of dollars on attack ads, but it’s the end of civilization if corporations tell us who they like for president.

So the letters have been pretty crazy, but this one wins grand prize in the off the deep end competition:

The people of this country have had their right of representation usurped by monied interests for far too long. Now the Supreme Court has not only overstepped its bounds, it has made a mockery of the balance of power and of government of the people, by the people and for the people (”Court Lets More Corporate Cash in Politics,” Jan. 22).

This must be overturned by the other branches of government, and those justices must be dealt with as traitors to the Constitution and the principles upon which our nation was founded.

PHOEBE WOODING
Edgewood

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The First Amendment was written in order to protect exactly the kind of speech that these unconstitutional laws were restricting – political speech. The First Amendment doesn’t state that Congress shall make no law abridging the speech of “a person” or “people”. It states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, period. And, no, endorsing a candidate for president isn’t like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

That someone like Phoebe Wooding can actually write a letter like this, send it to the Post-Gazette, wait for them to contact her about it, and tell them that it’s OK for them to put it in the paper is unbelievable to me. Granted it only appeared in the online version of the letters to the editor, but still. The US Supreme Court struck down precedent in favor of the actual text of the US Constitution and this woman calls them traitors to the Constitution?

But honestly, what can we expect from the left? After all, through their evolutionary progressive tactics they have built up decades of “precedent” which has morphed the First Amendment from this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Into this:

Nobody in a government building or at an event which has any connection with government whatsoever, no matter how tangential, shall ever pray out loud, state the name of Jesus Christ, or otherwise acknowledge religion in any way. Speech is only free if it’s not “hateful”. “Hateful” speech means anything that liberals don’t like. Liberal people have a right to peaceably assemble, but far-right teabaggers are inciting violence and riots and should be stopped. You may petition government for a redress of grievances, unless the president is black, in which case doing so means you are a racist.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

My Letter to the Editor about the March for Life 2010 brought forth 30 replies on the website of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a healthy number for that venue. I feel the need to respond to a few of them here:

Wrong on both counts Mr. Lewnadowski. Neither the Bible or any legitamite biology text book tells you that embryos are human life. Mind your own embryos. Those are the only ones you and your wife have any control over.

Really? Well, first of all, I didn’t claim that my Bible tells me that embryos are human life. It is true that my Christian pro-life brethren use this section to support their arguments:

During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.

-John 1:39-44

But I said that my legitimate Biology text tells me when human life begins. Indeed, any Biology text written in the last 150 years will tell you that a human spermatozoon combines with a human ovum to create a new human life. It’s called modern science. If you can find a Biology text from the last 150 years which claims otherwise, please provide me with the title and author(s). Unfortunately most pro-aborts reach back 700+ years to find a science text that will support their positions, back before the invention of the microscope and the discovery of exactly how human reproduction works on a microscopic level.

And I’m not married.

Why did it take so long( 37″) for the Kansas jury to convict evangelical nut job, Scott Roeder?

I don’t know, I wasn’t on the jury. Was there a juror named John Lewandowski involved who happened to be from PA that I don’t know about?

Roe V Wade is settled law and the “state” has no say in personal decisions such as this.

Time to move on and address the challenges of the living.

Well, considering that the Supreme Court just changed 100 years of “settled law” when it ruled that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution actually means what it says instead of what liberals wish it said, I don’t think that’s quite right.

You have also committed a logical fallacy; it is impossible to kill something or someone that is not alive. It is possible to kill embyros, therefore they must be alive. Claiming that embryos and fetuses are not alive is like declaring a microphone to be a pepperoni pizza. To paraphrase the great Fr. John Corapi, I might say that a microphone is a pepperoni pizza, but that doesn’t make it so.

Like religious conservatives throughout history and indeed, in the present, they used the STATE as a coercive tool to force their version of a conscience upon the rest of people.

Hate to break it to you, but I don’t really care whether or not the people have a conscience. They can do whatever they want to themselves – I just don’t want them killing innocent children. That’s all there is to it.

Currently abortion is legal in the United States. It is the law of the land.

Former President and conservative George W. Bush was in office for eight years. For seven of those years he had a GOP controlled congress and a Supreme Court with a strong tilt to the right.

Abortion still remains legal

The issue here is that the country seemingly is comfortable with the current status of abortion.

This argument is so stupid that I’m just going to make fun of it:

(Mockery)

Currently we have Welfare to help the poor in the United States. It is the law of the land.

Former President and liberal Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in office for thirteen years. For most of those years he had a liberal congress and a Supreme Court with a strong tilt to the left.

There are still poor people in this country.

The issue here is that the country seemingly is comfortable with the current status of millions of people living in poverty. The war on poverty has failed; trillions have been spent and millions have died. What’s our exit strategy?

(/Mockery)

Roe v. Wade was foisted on the nation by a Supreme Court dominated by pro-abortion judicial activists. There has NEVER been a conservative-controlled Supreme Court since this decision was made in 1973. While it’s true that George W. Bush nominated two originalists for the Supreme Court, one of them replaced another originalist while the other replaced a “moderate”, leaving the tilt on the bench at 5 pro-abortion votes and 4 votes for originalism.

It is unbelievable to me that out of one side of their mouths, the pro-aborts excoriate George W. Bush for his numerous pro-life accomplishments, and then out of the other sides of the mouths they tell us that he did nothing for the pro-life cause, it was all lip service, don’t vote for any Republicans because they never support pro-life legislation or causes. How stupid do they think we are?

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

The MSM seems to have decided to stop ignoring the annual March for Life and instead make up stuff about it. Via Newsbusters, we learn that Newsweek’s Krista Gesaman stated that there were no young women at the March for Life. Only someone who didn’t go to the March, didn’t look at any pictures of the March, and doesn’t care what actually happened at the March could possibly say that. Here is one of the photos I took:

CNN’s Rick Sanchez said on the air that he wasn’t sure if there were more pro-lifers or more pro-aborts at the March for Life. Really? Click on this photo for the original high resolution version and take a look at the marchers in the distance:

All of them are pro-lifers. How many pro-aborts did I see? How many pro-aborts have I seen in four years of going to the March for Life? Exactly ZERO. I have not seen a single one. The media goes out of their way to find the ten or twenty of them who show up every year and then acts as if they are somehow a rival for the 300,000 pro-lifers at the March.

I did manage to get my letter about the March for Life printed in the Post-Gazette, but not after much worrying from the letters department about my number of 250,000 pro-lifers at the 2010 March for Life. When asked for an explanation of the number since every media report they read said that “tens of thousands” of pro-lifers were at the March, I replied that 250,000 was the lowest actual number I had seen, with true estimates ranging all the way up to 400,000. Still, the PG promised to print my letter after coming up with the lowest estimate they could find. So, that resulted in my letter in this form as it appeared in today’s PG:

On Jan. 22, thousands of Americans traveled to Washington, D.C., for the 37th annual March for Life to protest against the U.S. Supreme Court’s decriminalization of abortion. President Barack Obama, who campaigned on reaching out to his opponents, left the city rather than engage us in discussion. Apparently our president is willing to sit down with America’s enemies but not those people in his own country with whom he disagrees.

President Obama did issue a statement after the March for Life had concluded in which he praised the Roe v. Wade decision, but did not acknowledge the well over 100,000 Americans who peacefully marched against abortion earlier on that very same day.

President Obama, when will you stop turning a blind eye to the weakest and most defenseless among us? In your campaign you told us that you would help “the least of these.” President Obama, when will you acknowledge modern science, which has proved that a new human life exists at the moment of fertilization? While it is my Bible that encourages me to defend innocent life, it is my biology textbook that informs me of when life begins. A new video from the Endowment for Human Development (www.ehd.org) shows actual footage, taken inside the womb, of human embryos as young as six weeks’ gestation. There can be no doubt that these are living human beings. President Obama, please defend these innocent lives!

I am satisfied with the number of “over 100,000″, but it wouldn’t have been necessary to change if it is wasn’t for MSM dishonesty. Here is the original form of my letter for comparison:

On Friday, January 22, hundreds of thousands of Americans travelled to Washington, DC for the 37th annual March for Life in order to protest against the United States Supreme Court’s decriminalization of abortion. President Barack Obama, who compaigned on reaching out to his opponents, left the city rather than engage us in discussion. Apparently our president is willing to sit down with America’s enemies but not those people in his own country with whom he disagrees.

President Obama did issue a statement after the March for Life had concluded in which he praised the Roe v. Wade decision, but did not acknowledge the over a quarter of a million Americans who peacefully marched against abortion earlier on that very same day.

President Obama, when will you stop turning a blind eye to the weakest and most defenseless among us? In your campaign you told us that you would help “the least of these”. President Obama, when will you acknowledge modern science which has proven that a new human life exists at the moment of fertilization? While it is my Bible which encourages me to defend innocent life, it is my Biology textbook which informs me of when life begins. A new video from the Endowment for Human Development (www.ehd.org) shows actual footage taken inside the womb of human embryos as young as six weeks gestation. There can be no doubt that these are living human beings. President Obama, please defend these innocent lives!

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

If you’re MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who for one hour forgot that President Obama was black.

Really.

Email AlexC, Join the discussion or Share This...

Reg Henry, one of the many sardonic, conceited liberals at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, is not happy about Scott Brown’s victory:

And as we were recalling old times, the people of Massachusetts who recently thronged the streets for Ted Kennedy’s funeral were busy repudiating his life’s work by electing a Republican senator and making health-care reform well nigh impossible.

Henry goes on:

I returned to find a story in the Post-Gazette that said that Republicans think this is just the beginning of health-care reform and that their proposals will soon take flight.

Pull my other leg, it’s got a bell on it. If the Republican Party cared one whit for health-care reform, it would have done something about the growing crisis in the years when Bush had complete control of Congress. This “health care reform is just beginning” talk is merely a fig leaf of political cover. Clever as always, the Party of Family Values is vaguely aware that its vindication has come about by screwing countless families.

Do you see the gaping flaw in logic here? I have to wonder if Reggie does, and he’s just pretending that he doesn’t, being a dishonest liberal. But, I’ll just assume that he doesn’t see it, and perhaps he’ll read this and be informed.

First he tells us that Scott Brown’s victory has made “health-care reform well nigh impossible”. Why is that? Because the Democrats are left with 59 votes in the Senate, which is not enough to end a filibuster. In other words, in order to accomplish something that the other party opposes, Henry is telling us that you need a 60 vote majority in the United States Senate.

Now, class, who can tell me how many Republican Senators President George W. Bush had in office while he was president? If you answered “Fewer than 60″, you remember more about the last 8 years than Reg Henry does.

President Bush was in office from January 2001 until January 2009. Here is the breakdown of the US Senate during those years:

2001-2003: 50 Republican Senators
2003-2005: 51 Republican Senators
2005-2007: 55 Republican Senators
2007-2009: 49 Republican Senators

During the Bush years, the Republican-controlled Congress did indeed attempt some rational health care reforms, such as tort reform and making it possible to purchase interstate insurance coverage. Oddly enough, Reggie seems to have forgotten that all of those attempted reforms were blocked by the Democrats… just as the Democrats blocked Republican attempts to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Democrats blocked Republican attempts to pass pro-life legislation. Now Republicans are blamed for preventing health care reform, for destroying the economy, and for not doing enough for the pro-life cause. Isn’t that interesting?

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Yesterday was the Second Boston Tea Party. I declare today to be National Tea Party Schadenfreude Day.

Chris Matthews’ last ditch effort:

Cry, Olby, Cry.

I can’t wait to hear from Ed Schultz, who has apologized for saying that he would commit election fraud if he lived in MA:

Email John Lewandowski, Join the discussion or Share This...

In recent days, the public has received a clearer picture of what was known, and when, about the attempted Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and his plot to destroy an American-bound airliner in its descent to Detroit. From the National Security Agency to the Central Intelligence Agency to the National Counterterrorism Center, pertinent information was scattered across the national security spectrum. While the Obama Administration has insisted there was no “smoking gun” prior to the attempted attack, the government report detailing the systematic breakdown highlighted the inability of the intelligence community to connect the dots on the suspect’s background and deadly intentions.

In fact, the report often cites the shortcomings of the government and the deficiencies of particular agencies, communities, or organizations in protecting the homeland. Yet, what the report does not remind its audience, and what is absent in the furor over the White House’s response to the terrorist plot, is that these institutions, no matter their power, are made up of error-prone individuals. Human systems, despite technological advances and computer intelligence, are inherently flawed and, thus, could be compromised. For all that has been done to establish a centralized federal government capable of intercepting, decoding, and making sense of valuable intelligence in the name of security, an all-knowing and efficient entity is not within reach. David Brooks of The New York Times put it this way in his column, “The God That Fails”:

Bureaucracies are always blind because they convert the rich flow of personalities and events into crude notations that can be filed and collated. Human institutions are always going to miss crucial clues because the information in the universe is infinite and events do not conform to algorithmic regularity.

This is not to suggest that we give up or stop trying. For all the money expended on security measures, the public rightfully demands results (and they get them in the vast majority of cases). We should never cease in our efforts to improve our methods at the same time we remain aware of unavoidable holes in the net. Sadly, regardless of our preparations or the amount of money we dole out, perfection will never be achieved. As the old cliché goes, we must be forever vigilant and bat 1.000 when dire situations do arise. Those who wish to do us harm, however, need only succeed one to win.

Criticism is warranted, of course, when failures occur. The buck, as Obama channeled Harry Truman, stops with him. But the chattering classes’ incessant finger-pointing for the sake of finger-pointing is not synonymous with the useful tasks of delegating responsibility and placing blame. No one denies that public officials like Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Deputy National Security Adviser for Counterterrorism John Brennan now have to redouble their efforts to secure our interests and counter threats to the United States. Nevertheless, insisting that someone, anyone, be fired or forced to resign after the system is exposed for its weakness does not guarantee change. Substituting one official for another is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Whether it is an argument over the appropriate leadership and direction from Washington or airport regulations across the country, a reasoned and rational approach is not possible unless people understand who is running the Great Bureaucracy: Us, we, you and me—simple, imperfect human beings.

Email Michael Stubel, Start the discussion or Share This...

It’s not an article about abortion, but did the Post-Gazette just commit a Freudian slip? In a poor attempt at a metaphor about how when we look into the night sky, we’re actually seeing the light from stars as they existed years ago as the light takes years, decades, centuries, or millennia to reach our eyes here on Earth, the PG wrote:

Baby pictures can be fascinating. In them, we see the raw material of adults to come. An image from the early days of the universe is no different.

Now, I have thought of a lot of things when looking at baby pictures. But I have never found myself thinking, Awwww, look at that cute raw material!

The PG, however, and other supporters of abortion and human embryonic stem cell research do indeed see babies of the unborn variety as raw material; mere stuff to be used for scientific research with no regard for the life which is destroyed in the process.

After discussing the various discoveries of the Hubble telescope, the editorial continues:

This may not be as titillating as the Tiger Woods scandal, but the news is worth spreading nonetheless, as further confirmation of the strangeness and beauty of our universe.

If only the editors of the PG were as concerned about the beauty of unborn human life as they are about the beauty of the universe.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Fred, this is not the first time a liberal has made such an argument. Newsbusters pointed out when Thomas Friedman of The New York Times made the same case. I would not be surprised if the person who wrote that letter in to the Post Gazette is an avid reader of the NYT and watcher of MSNBC, two big proponents of leftist tyranny.

We see media bias here as well. Imagine if, during the Bush years, a prominent conservative columnist were to say, You know what? We need one-party rule, because these damn Democrats keep preventing us from cutting taxes, winning the war on terror, and restricting abortion. These Democrats shouldn’t even be allowed to object to what we’re doing. Can you imagine the outrage? But when the NYT says the same thing against Republicans, nobody cares.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

I thought the media had sunk to new lows with 2008’s election coverage, but 2009 hardly looks any better. Most of the ones I came up with were cases of non-reporting or under-reporting. Some are just failures to examine what the Obama administration was selling them. As you can see, I came up with quite a few possibilities.

What was the worst media malpractice/dereliction in 2009?

(Choices are randomized.)

Poll closes at the end of the year.

Thanks to my comrades at DoublePlusUndead for helping me out with this. (I still maintain that “Van Jones and the Maoists” sounds like a band name.)

Email Joe Collins, Join the other 7 commenters or Share This...

WSJ:

Comcast Corp. agreed to take majority ownership of NBC Universal from General Electric Corp. in a complex deal valued at more than $30 billion, ending the conglomerate’s more than two-decade rule over the peacock network and satisfying the cable giant’s push to own more content.

Meanwhile, the cable-television giant announced a 40% dividend increase and said it will complete its $3.6 billion stock-buyback effort during the next three years.

The big question on my mind: does this effectively put an end to the GE guerrila advertising campaign called “Green is Universal”?

It has long been known that it is in GE’s best interests to push the green agenda. Does Comcast continue this campaign? Will we still see lame “Green Week” programming, wherein the few remaining scripted shows beat us over the head with unsubtle storylines showing the characters’ heretofore uncharacteristic “greenness” and shoehorning in awkward appearances by green scold extraordinaire Algore?

I am not hopeful.

On the plus side, it can only be good for the Delaware Valley that the largest media conglomeration in history is headquartered right here in Philadelphia.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Longtime Philadelphia media fixture Al Alberts died Friday at his home in Florida. He hosted a local childrens talent show for 32 years, and retired in 2000.

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

Amidst the economic crisis and 10.2% unemployment, the President and the First Lady inspired hope with a lavish gala that was the Obama’s first state dinner, letting the unemployed and downtrodden know that yes, the glitterati do still exist in these tough times, if only amongst the Washington and Hollywood elite. And, boy do they know how to party!

Not to be outdone by her husband in patronizing the guests of honor, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife Mrs. Gursharan Kaur, ‘Chelle was up into the wee hours of the morning in the days preceding the event, personally supervising “the compilation of a guest list 400 names long, the creation of a menu of global cuisine, ‘possibly including a curry dish’” and scouring the pages of Woman’s Wear Daily for an Indian-American designer — any Indian-American designer – to produce something with an “Indian flair” sans her signature Klingon Belt. The Divine Mrs. O decided to rock this opulent number by relative unknown Naeem Khan, marking “a shift into more sophisticated, luxurious, and regal attire, rather than the playful, accessible, less-polished clothing she’s worn thus far.” Indeed, J. Crew is soooo last January! It’s time she started dressing like the royalty that she is!

Sorry, ‘Chelle, but even with your trademark “guns” blazing, this number dresses our dining room better than it dresses you! Our readers say that this dazzling number would look better on their Thanksgiving table, and can be had for a mere $24.95 (set of 8 napkins included) at any Bed, Bath and Beyond.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

(1) Commonwealth Foundation blogs that one of those caught up in the global warming email scandal is a Penn State climatologist.  (Go State!)

Jimmie Bise calls out the New York Times for hypocritically discovering some lofty ethical standard that would deems these illegally obtained emails as something short of “all the news that’s fit to print”.  Because perpetrating a politically charged scientific lie then conspiring to cover it up isn’t particularly newsworthy, or something.

Bise also took note of the Three Mile Island news and says Obama’s just one beer-swilling redneck brother away from being the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

(2) Speaking of lies, Newsweek’s editor Evan Thomas (yes, the Obama=god Evan Thomas) has knowingly drunk the Obamacare Kool-Aid and likes it.

Newsbusters quotes Thomas (bold added):

Charles [Krauthammer] is right. This bill is a fiscal fraud. I’d still vote for it, because I think it’s a good thing to extend benefits and start down the road to universal and — because of the health insurance.  But we have to be — if we were honest about it, we would say that we have not dealt with the money piece of it, with the cost thing, that we’re going to have to deal with. We’re going to kick that down the road and have to deal with it later.

Obamacare was never about the money, it’s about “getting ‘it’ done”.  (Why hasn’t anybody challenged the absurd growth projections the Dems cite?)

(3) Andy Harris is polling well in the upcoming MD Congressional rematch against Kratovil. Maybe the Gilchrest crew can keep their noses out of it this time.

(4) PAGOP’s Gleason is talking tough against Altmire and Holden.  I say show me the candidates!

(5) Curt Schroder picked up some notable endorsements from his legislative peers.

(6) Florida — As if we needed any further reason to prefer Rubio to Crist, Crist has gone all “Huckabee” on us and denigrated his conservative critics as “angry”:

“It’s hard to be more conservative than I am on issues – though there are different ways stylistically to communicate that – I’m pro-life, I’m pro-gun, I’m pro-family, and I”m anti tax. I don’t know what else you’re supposed to be, except maybe angry too,”

In other news, those redneck rubes in the panhandle are totally cool with a Hispanic candidate so long as he’s conservative.  Funny, that.

Email Joe Collins, Start the discussion or Share This...

If they really want to win elections, that is. From my column in today’s Pottstown Mercury:

For years, voters have lamented the fact that there is no difference between the parties; that Democrats and Republicans are all the same. And for the most part, they are right. GOP party leadership is married to the conventional wisdom — mostly born of liberal punditry — that true conservatives cannot win elections. They are afraid of committing to conservatives lest they be seen as “extreme.”

By putting forward these weak candidates, from John McCain on down, the GOP has made their brand undistinguishable from the Democrats. Uninspiring candidates do not bring voters to the polls on Election Day.

Here’s a memo to the GOP: You exist solely to win elections. These “safe,” moderate candidates you have mincingly embraced, these entrenched incumbents: we’re done with them. The worst has happened — we are utterly out of power. You can’t scare us into voting for RINOs anymore.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

There is much to say about Sarah Palin, but I think that the most apt observation to come out in recent weeks is that she is a litmus test. In some she inspires an almost Obama-like devotion; in others an irrational seething hate that makes the ire directed at George W. Bush look almost like affection in comparison.

I am one of those who falls somewhere in the middle, though far closer to admiration than ire. I was excited about her entrance into the Presidential race, but I was disappointed that she was plucked from relative obscurity before she had a real record of accomplishment to fall back on (and I do admit, she had a more complete record and more executive experience than our current Dear Leader). I also felt that wasting one of our rising stars on a McCain candidacy was lunacy. And now it’s too late.

I have not read Sarah Palin’s book yet, though I probably will eventually. From all of the accounts I have read about it, though, from those of the snarky left to those of the worshipful right, my impression is that this book seeks to be a “reintroduction” of Palin to the American public. The problem is that in reality, you only get one chance to make a first impression.

I could say more about Palin, and probably will in the future, but for now, I’d like to comment on a column by Donna “Alpha Male and Earth Tones” Brazile that appeared today in the form of an advice letter to Sarah Palin:

Governor, despite our many political differences, I would like to encourage you to use your book tour not just to sell books but to also motivate women to run for office and help set a new tone in American politics. You can make a difference.

Although women are the majority of voters, we continue to lag behind and are underrepresented in American politics. In fact, American women rank an embarrassing 71st in the world when it comes to holding elected positions. It’s time we hurry history to encourage more women to enter politics.

Perhaps Ms. Brazile, whose most famous advice was successful only in making Al Gore look like more of a tool than he already was, is unfamiliar with the media campaign against Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin’s story is not going to “inspire” women to go into politics; it’s going to send them in the other direction, running for their lives. The complete vilification of Palin on the national stage was horrifying to watch. And the fact that it was mostly orchestrated by liberal women is an hypocrisy that feminists choose to ignore by talking about how “stupid” Sarah Palin is. They based their argument, I believe unfairly, on painting Palin as an incompetent Barbie Doll. The editors who chose the cheesecake cover photo for Newsweek were women. They are absolutely foaming at the mouth over Palin’s overwhelming popularity because she a symbol of repudiation of absolutely everything they stand for.

These feminists are using the very methods to destroy Palin that they have whined for years about men using against them. And they don’t see the hypocrisy. And even if they do, they don’t care. It’s more important to marginalize Palin. She’s too dangerous to the feminine mystique.

Palin’s experience serves as a cautionary tale to conservative women that there is no low to which the feminists in the media will not stoop to destroy you for the audacity of putting yourself forward as a viable candidate. Don’t think Brazile doesn’t know this and wasn’t part of the public pillory against Palin.

Though mistakes were made in Palin’s introduction to the nation, both by the McCain campaign and by Palin herself, it’s important to remember that it was the feminists who really destroyed her.

Email LisaMossie, Join the discussion or Share This...

Editor’s Note: Dick Stanton is an friend of the watercooler from Montgomery County, Pa.

Guest Post is a occasional feature at the watercooler… if you’d like to post a piece please email it to me, and I will put post it. Same rules apply as to the cooler contributors. You have to be a real person, no screen names… and it’s got to be watercooler topical. – Ed

In February of 2008, I was lucky enough to get tickets to the first broadcast of SNL following the writer’s strike. I ran into two friends of the Cooler in the lobby, and we all sat together. This was during the heated race for the Democratic primary, and the opening sketch was of a debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. While the “unbiased” media peppered Hillary with hardballs, they asked Obama questions like, “Can I get you anything?” and “Are you sure I can’t get you anything? Really, it’s no trouble.”

Fast forward to this morning’s Today Show, where Chuck Todd made that SNL skit seem like hardcore journalism. Sitting down one-on-one with the President in China, Chuck “covered” a variety of topics. On the war in Afghanistan, Obama told him virtually nothing other than we’re changing strategies in a few weeks. Chuck’s response – “This decision, will it be the decision that ultimately ends the war?” to which Obama replied, “This decision will put us on a path towards ending the war.” And as John McLaughlin used to say, “Next issue!” No follow-up for detail at all.

They then moved on to KSM, a topic which, even as just a former collegiate journalist writing sports, had me licking my chops (but I guess being from Philly we’re of a tougher mindset than most “reporters”). His question – “Can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of an American citizen?” The reply – “I don’t think it’ll be offensive at all when he is convicted and the death penalty is applied to him.” He then cited Obama’s former occupation as a constitutional law professor, and showed Obama saying, “People are not gonna be offended IF that’s the outcome. I’m not prejudging it, I’m not gonna be in that courtroom…I have complete confidence the American people and our legal traditions” and talked about the tough New York prosecutors.

They then switched gears again, and started to discuss missed deadlines that the administration had set, followed by a softball about getting healthcare legislation signed prior to the State of the Union, or by the end of the year. Finished up with the President’s perceived weight loss. Unfortunately, that wasn’t a metaphorical reference to his dealings with the Chinese.

Throughout this interview, NBC’s chief White House correspondent had a look of glee on his face that I could only imagine if my grandfather came back to life and I got to spend a day hanging out with him again.

So, if you’re scoring at home, we covered a revised Afghan strategy without actually learning anything, we were reminded that Obama once taught law, we found out that deadlines were missed because “Congress takes time to do things” and that he really hasn’t been losing weight, but he is, in fact, getting a little grayer.

Leaving every other issue aside, including how the Chinese are criticizing his healthcare plans, how could he possibly avoid the obvious questions about the national security holes being opened by this trial, and the parallels to the disasters that followed the trial of the 1993 bombers? And what of the potential safety issues of this trial? And the safety of the judge and jury? All of these have been dominating the discussion since this announcement was made, yet in a private interview, NBC left all of it out of the interview.

I wrote for the same college paper where Katie Couric and Brit Hume got their start – I’m guessing the latter, at least, would’ve handled this interview much differently. I am disgusted by the lack of integrity in the national media anymore. Forget the states, we’re really down to red and blue networks at this point, and it’s a disgrace.

You can see the video here.

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...