According to a friend of mine, who will remain anonymous, suffice to say he works in the federal building in New York City, has told me he recently saw a document that said a high level terrorist was interrogated in the building. Not only that, but Dick Cheney and CIA director George Tenet were in attendance with presumably professional interrogators. Now, I don't mind enhanced interrogation techniques done at Gitmo but on US soil puts all Americans at risk. This certainly will increase the likelihood of the Obama administration pursuing criminal charges against former Bush administration officials.
Pardon by best Sarah Palin impression but the proceeding statement is entirely false. It is meant to serve as an allegory to the ludicrous practice of the media of naming anonymous sources to justify their insane critiques. Just today, I read an article where Margaret Cho cited unnamed sources to bash Palin over BristolsDWTS appearance. This went entirely unchecked. Who the hell does Margaret Cho that is running in the same circle as the Palins? I understand that a lot of the intelligence community aren't allowed to discuss issues outside of circles but perhaps they should avoid just making up stories and then coming up with an anonymous source.
I'm not saying they're all lying, but it seems like the chance of fabrication is extraordinarily high when you consider there is no way to verify the story. I really like when anonymous sources come up with crazy ideas about what elected officials will do when it seems completely contrary to their past. For instance, anonymous sources said John Boehner was having an affair right before the midterm elections. Once again, I'm not saying it didn't happen, well I am because there is no proof and everyone is denying it butttttt, it seems like it was a made up story solely meant to discredit the powerful conservative portion of America.
The press just needs to start verifying stories in a more objective way. As much as I trust the journalists who secretly conspired during the 2008 election to bring Obama to the office, (Yes, Journolist was editorial collusion, bad for business, really bad for information) I think there needs to be a check on what they're saying. This isn't a crazy Howard Dean rant about Fox News lying, (also my brother's opinion) but I would really like to have some accountability. Anonymous sources are like anonymous sex, it can give you some thrills early on but down the road, it can really have some negative consequences.
So I'm gonna preference this with something you probably already knew. I hate celebrities. I was reading this article and it got me thinking, you know, of all of these celebrities that try to become the faces of these political hot topics. This Angelina Jolie movie that is coming out soon is, of course, a love story between a Muslim woman and Serbian male in the midst of the early 1990s war. Because there's always a love story. As horrible as the Holocaust was, it put a lot of good Jewish women with perfectly good German soldiers (read: Nazi).
Too bad the crap doesn't stop there. George Clooney and Darfur, Bono and the entire continent of Africa, the list just keeps on going. We hear about all the wonderful things these celebrities do, but we never hear the other side. Until now. And Bosnian rape victims spoke loud and clear - Angelina Jolie is ignorant.
Look I don't mean to say that these people don't care about these causes, nor that they shouldn't be involved in them - hell their interest alone probably inspires some of us lesser folks to get interested and active. But the truth of the matter is, it's always with a tone of arrogance, and it pisses me off - and apparently it's not just me.
But what's worse is that these celebrity actors say some of the stupidest things. Bono, for example, thinks we should get rid of all debts obligated to Africa (I wish China would be so grateful to us). Actually, reverse those two - the arrogance is worse. We're never doing enough.
These public figures serve a purpose because, like I said, they get other people engaged. Just don't shove it back in my face for not caring enough.
Sorry for all the animus I've been directing at our a-gender friend but it seems that he has decided his next wikileaks dump will be about a major US bank. Now, I don't know what country Assange is from, and I'm sure it's not one of those really poor ones with no money judging my his dumb haircut, but it would seem he has heard the expression you can do whatever you want to someone just leave their money alone. Especially when that money has at its disposal one of the most fierce teams of lawyers. The government and its abhorrent uselessness in the face of a national security emergency really got a mulligan on this one. If I were Assange I would quit while I was ahead and not on the wrong side of the table from Vikram Pandit.
Now this doesn't change the game because we're still down by about 20 runs in the seventh, but with today's announcement of a federal pay freeze for two years, Obama has put a man on base. It isn't a lot but it's a start and the right should be criticizing him for it. Every rally needs to start with a man on base, let's hope that this big move, because it is, can start the rally. My hat is on inside out, I'll tell you that much.
Wikileaks has graced the world again with the fruits of their dilligent work. This work, of course, is tricking naive and impressionable young military officers into using flashdrives to steal classified data about the United States' ongoing efforts to stop terrorism and further diplomatic relations. This is an act of treason on the part of any United States citizens involved and is espionage on the part of all foreign citizens involved. It is also the third time this has happened. At least our administration finally caught on to what was going on and finally decided to lock down our data. But the blame does not really rest with the government, it is squarely on the shoulders of those who stole the data.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am all about the Pickering line of thought on government employees being allowed to air concerns that are a matter of public concern. However, what the State Department thinks about Vladimir Putin or that the Supreme Leader of Iran has cancer are not what they had in mind when they decided what was a matter of public concern. If it turned out we were using Iraq war funds for prostitutes, that would be something worth leaking but releasing statements about our impression of Russian democracy is far outweight by the government's need to effectively tend to diplomacy.
All that Julian "the rapist" Assange has done is make the world a less safe place. Diplomacy on the international stage is all about keeping your cards close to your chest and never, ever, letting the other person no what you think deep down. It's like the first month of dating. Sure you are a level 17 mage on Warcraft and her breath smells like cat food, but you don't say it for fear the whole thing will go down the tubes. Not understanding this is probably why Mr. Assange is wanted in connection with a rape in Europe.
I was going to post this in the comments section regarding Legalized Pundit's post on the Portland bomber. But no one ever posts there anyway so I wanted people to see it. This is the article he was referencing.
The Department of Homeland Security is shutting down websites that violate copyright infringement. Nice to see government entities doing the bidding of the private sector. Apparently Miss Napolitano forgot that republicans are supposed to be the party of big business.
As most of you know, insert generic muslim name tried blowing up a Christmas tree lighting in Portland. First of all, this guy is a total dick. A Christmas tree lighting? That's like mugging Mother Teresa for crack money, which I'm sure our terrorist dujour would have done. So like everything in this country, people are pissed off about it and on the other side of the issue. I swear to god no matter what the issue, there is always someone taking what I will unbiasedly call, the douchebag position. For the Portland bomber, it's that the FBI entrapped and tricked him.
I say so what? If this guy could be coaxed by FBI agents pretending to be extremists, then he definitely could have been coaxed by actual extremists. So our end result is that we've removed a potential terrorist from the United States population. Dear Janet, now is the appropriate time to drop your the system worked line. Now I don't want to say Bush is responsible for this, but creating a better intelligence community using cooperation and soft intel to stop potential threats. File that under legacy in 20 years.
Now people, presumably on the left where smug is much higher, are arguing he was entrapped by the FBI. If you are willing to blow up innocent people at a Christmas tree lighting, I don't care how we figured out that you are of that persuasion, you need to be in jail. That's what all of these intelligence operations are about. Figuring out which crazy zealot is actually capable of acting out their intentions and then throwing them in a dark hole. Possibly some water boarding, possibly. I've also heard the excuse that he was only 18. Momma Pundit asked me if that holds any sway in court. I answered no. 18 is well beyond the age where you are aware you're not supposed to blow up people. I'd wager to say a 4 year old know this. And he's Somalia. 18 there is like 45 here.
I'm glad to see the lack of cooperation that precipitated 9/11 has been fixed and our intelligence community is getting out ahead of eat potential attack. We are not at war with Islam but elements within Islam are at war with us. This is our advantage. We know where the attack is coming from and it helps to effectively narrow down the scope of investigations. My hat goes off to our law enforcement officers who stopped this attack and our keeping us safe at their own possible peril.
So JFK's former prep school Choate, in Connecticut, recently issued a ban on Facebook. This was done following a 200 page thread between girls that involved conversations about drugs, alcohol and promiscuity. Choate didn't only ban Facebook though. They expelled 2 students, 4 others were suspended, and one student was publicly executed by a firing squad without trial. Ok, the last one isn't true, but - overreact much?
Look, I think bullying in all forms is stupid. But Facebook doesn't increase what stupid people already do, it's just another avenue to express their stupidity. And what these girls were saying was incredibly stupid. It's as if they don't understand the concept of electronic permanency, nor its lack of privacy. I'm assuming Brett Favre and Tiger Woods are also alumni.
While these students should have no expectation of privacy, and therefore shouldn't be saying abhorrent, traceable, and cruel things, getting rid of the medium through which this hate was expressed doesn't resolve the problem. Nor does expelling presumed first time offenders. Anyone who's ever been through adolescence, and I'm assuming we have no Benjamin Buttons or Jack's on this site, knows how dumb teenagers can be. But things are no different now than they were when we were teens. In fact, if the 70's were anything like dazed an confused, 13 year olds are not getting smoked by the "fah-q" paddle.
I'm sure there are circumstances where Facebook has led to tragedy. So let me get this straight - is the ban on Facebook actually assuming that people would otherwise not have expressed these horrible feelings? What is it about Facebook that makes otherwise sweet and innocent people brutal savages? Exactly, the people remain the same, with or without Facebook.
The greater point here is that, if bans like this spread, and of course they will, we're essentially authorizing certain forms of bullying as more valid than others. Kid gets beat up after school? Well, so long as he didn't call the kid a homo on his Facebook account.
Vladimir Putin terrifies me. I was recently on brobible.com and saw a slide show of the many insanely masculine things Putin has done in a recent publicity tour. He shot a whale with a crossbow (for science of course, not because it's bad ass), road a white bronco better than OJ shirtless, and drove an F1 racer. Our president, by comparison, but beat up by an advisor from the Hispanic Congressional Caucus playing hoops. (Isn't he supposed to be awesome at bball, he told his high school as much) Seeing this comparison, it's no wonder Obama is pushing for the illogical START treaty. I am too lazy to use wiki right now so if the last T means treaty, I apologize.
If this was 1989 and it was raining bricks in Berlin, I'd say a nuclear weapons containment and stockpile reduction treaty with Russia was necessary because John Travolta informed me you can buy former USSR nukes for the price of a BMW. You even get a discount when you buy in bulk. This is 2010 though and Russia is almost an ally. I say almost because I will never trust the Ruskies, I've seen Dr. Strangelove too many times. But they are not a threat to us. Certainly not a nuclear threat. I'm not even sure their vodka powered missiles could reach the US at this point.
You know who is a threat though, North Korea who just shelled our actual ally, if we still have them after how we treat Israel, and Iran, who is presently trying two US hikers who the abducted from Iraq. START is all about national security, so why don't we try applying it to the two maniacs with nukes that constantly threaten the US. Have you seen Kim Jong Ping Pong Ball, the new heir, he's still waiting for his other nut to drop. I'm also going to assume he's as insane as Kim JongIrr because that's how North Korean succession works.
I would love a world without nuclear weapons. I love to be married to Giselle. Neither is going to happen so I have to deal with reality. There will always be nuclear weapons, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. But that doesn't mean we can't control who has them. We should be asking for Russia's help not with a mutual markdown of nukes but of making sure Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan's nukes aren't falling into the wrong hands. I know Obama is looking for a slam dunk on foreign policy, but after this weekend, maybe he should stay out of the paint and shoot some more threes.
Legalized Pundit stole my Palin post, so this is the best I've got. Sorry.
So most of you have probably heard this story from Mannheim, Germany where Google Maps apparently shot a photo from the street of a naked man getting in (or out, I guess) of his trunk. Forget for a moment the disturbing image that just came into your mind - I mean, why was that guy naked and in a trunk? There's something more disturbing going on here. Google's reckless invasion of privacy.
It's one thing for the TSA to be giving us old fashions at the airport. Like it or not, it's a government agency acting under the guise of security. What is Google doing in our driveways? Last I checked, they were still in the private sector. Plus this guy now needs to change his kidnapping plan.
The thing that bothers me about this, you know, besides the obvious, is that the home is the one final place we have that isn't entirely followed by Big Sis. There's some new show out that has a bunch of surveillance video in all sorts of places you'd never expect video feeds to be. To be clear, you're always on camera when you're in public. Whether you know it or not.
Google's response was predictable. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care? Last I checked, google's live view wasn't supposed to be a weapon in crime mitigation.
Look, I've seen way too many procedural cop dramas and been on Craigslist too often to realize there's a bunch of weird people in the world. You know, people that get into trunks of cars naked to fix a tail light for example. Frankly, I don't want to know what's going on in their lives, but I also want some expectation of privacy in my own home too. Not because I'm doing anything wrong (well, at least not as I understand Florida law), but more because I'm rarely wearing clothes. And no one wants to see that.
The line has to be drawn in here. Wisconsin recently tried to pass legislation banning smoking in people's homes. As dumb as smoking is, people should have the right to do it in their own homes. Right?
Technological developments and national security have pretty much eliminated any public expectation of privacy. But this is the first situation where I've seen a private company, whether deliberately or not, is really intruding. If this continues, Youtube will need its own home videos section of illicit home activity.
Today the UN moved a resolution sponsoed by Islamic countries against the vilification of religion. Egpyt, one such country, is presently blaming the Jews for clashed between Muslims and Christians. In Pakistan, hundreds turned out to show support for executing a woman for blasphemy. In America, you're 9 times more likely to be the victim of a hate crime if you're Jewish opposed to Muslim. Seems to me that the ones pushing for religious tolerance should not be Muslims.
I don't think Sarah Palin has the chops to be president. Mainly because she doesn't really bring anything to the table. Let's face it; economics, national defense, immigration, and international diplomacy are all things she is roundly unqualified to handle. I don't fault her for that. She was qualified to be governor because as Lincoln Almond proved (yeah, didn't even make that name up) you really don't need many skills to be governor. Worst, people who support her come up with this illogical argument that she is more qualified than Obama. Sure she might be, but do we really want someone whose claim to fame is being better than a president who seems to govern with the tact and precision of a rock?
Now as bad as Palin would be as president is as good as she is at being a pundit. (Somewhere John Madden is nodding in approval of that sentence) She understands the plight of the eveyman, something many of our leaders are having quite a hard time with. Take, for instance, her recent retort to the left going absolutely insane about an honest slip of the tongue. Pointing out all the verbal gaffes Obama has made and been left unscathed by the media from was hilarious. 57 states? How do you mess that up? As Andrew Sullivan notes, it was very unpresidential. Note to Andrew Sullivan: if you're not the president, you can be as un-presidential as you want.
My problem is that I feel like I'm constantly defending Sarah Palin despite being quite apathetic towards her. To be it bluntly, she is getting raped raped by the media. (Eat it Whoopie) For someone who has precisely zero power in government, I hear more about her running in 2012 than our incumbent president. It's probably because his prospects are waning but I think it has something to do with the media's fascination with demolishing conservative women. Sarah Palin ran for vice-president and lost and now she travels the country giving folksy speeches and, like virtually everyone else, condemning Obama's agenda. She is basically the attractive version of Howard Dean for the right and I honestly see him more on Fox News than anywhere else.
Palin is making millions, has psyched out the president, is beloved by America so much her son Trig almost won Dancing With the Stars, and is beyond criticism because she doesn't actually make any decisions. No one would ever give that up to be the bullseye for American anger. She isn't qualified, everyone knows this. I firmly believe the only people that think she is running are people who read the NY Times because they're convinced she is. Republicans have been allowed back in from exile much faster than anyone, certainly James Carville, thought and they aren't going to blow it by running Obama's qualifications in a wig for president. And with her second book out despite her utter lack of accomplishments, she is just about as qualified as Obama, hoepfully she didn't trust her dealer either. (That punchline dedicated to Dave)
So I've been looking at some of the polls out, showing the Republican front runners for 2012. Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giulliani. Apparently Republicans didn't quite grasp to 2010 elections either. We know the Crats didn't.
I'm sorry, didn't we try these clowns against Obama in 08? I've got it, let's have McCain and Bush 41 give it a whirl!
Although Obama has shown his true colors, it doesn't change the fact that he is still popular in his party, and it is historically very difficult to beat an incumbent (see: W). You have to really suck (see: Carter) to lose your second election.
Truth is the Republicans have a crop of fantastic young governors that would serve as fantastic presidential candidates. And the above candidates all have some stigmas that will be difficult to get past. Plus, more importantly, I don't really like any of them.
Take a look at the following two candidates, who I think have the best chance at beating Obumbles. Haley Barbour and Tim Pawlenty.
Haley Barbour is the face of recovery in Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina. Lost in all the New Orleans focus was the devastation Mississippi experienced:
-tens of thousands homeless
-billions lost due to physical damages/repairs
Yet Barbour did something amazing. From 2003-2006, Barbour took a $709 million budget deficit, and turned in into a balanced budget. In 4 years. And he did it by following strict conservative fiscal policy: Cuts in medicaid spending, tort reform, no tax increases. He did this all while facing hurricane Katrina, and in a predominantly Democratic state congress.
In fact, the biggest criticism Barbour faces is his history as a lobbyist. Seems to me that his experience as a lobbyist actually proved to be a strength as he balanced a budget and worked with the Crats to fix their fiscal irresponsibility.
As a microcosm of the nation as a whole, Barbour has successfully implemented many of the things this country wants - bipartisanship, balanced budgets, increasing health coverage, no new taxes. If he can rise from obscurity to prominence in two years, I think he is the best candidate moving forward. And Mississippi agrees - he has a 70% approval rating there.
Tim Pawlenty has a distinct advantage over Barbour - he was listed as one of the top choices for McCain's running mate in 08. The fact that he wasn't chosen for an inevitable losing ballot may also work to his favor. But anyone would look good if you succeeded Jesse "The Body" Ventura, right? Boy Minnesota seems to pick some screwy people to represent them…
Like Barbour, Pawlenty erased a deficit. Pawlenty's was considerably higher at $4.3 billion, and also did it without raising taxes.
Pawlenty has two main strengths that could serve him very well if he can get past the primaries. First off, he's very solid in every way. He knows what he believes in, he stands up for it (politely but very firmly) and he does not budge from his stands very often. While he's not particularly charismatic, these traits make him very electable next to Mr. Obama - he tends to come across, to anyone who listens to him for more than a sound bite, as, first and foremost, competent.
Pawlenty has two problems. He is unwilling to compromise in an era where most Americans wish both sides will (Republicans are outnumbered 47 to 87 in state Legislature, and he's vetoed everything the Crats put forth). The other problem, he's perceived as a wimp. Maybe it's because there are so many temperate minded Nordic people in Minnesota that he's never had to throw down the gavel. He himself is always temperate minded, but he also never ignites a room. People leave his interviews tending to just agree with him. Given how much of a miserable failure Obama has been, this may not be such a bad thing.
Driving and road based analogies are the only thing more prevalent in this recession than the pervasively high unemployment we're facing. So far be it from me to shirk the trend. Velma Hart, the obese woman that will most likely be in that 50% of the US population with diabetes by 2050, lost her job. No, this isn't the Velma from ScoobyDoo, she is the woman who very presciently said that she was exhausted defending the president. Now, I'm no supporter of Obama but if I was, imagine that world, I feel like that would have perfectly captured how I felt. My liberal brother feels the same way. He was very pro 2008 Obama. You remember him, he wanted to cut deficits, we bi-partisan, and improve our image abroad. Well after tripling the deficit, calling republicans our enemies, and watching North Korea shell our ally, you're stuck with 2010 Obama, who is something similar to a Pontiac Aztec. Good in theory, terrible once off the assembly line.
So Velma the Hitman Hart, having lost her job is back on news shows. She went on Hardball with they throw anything but to democrats. She was asked how she felt about losing her job and managed to say the other thing most liberals are thinking, it's Bush's fault. This is like blaming the bad oil change you had two years ago for the weird noise your car keeps making even after you bring it in to another mechanic and he claims he fixed it. (I will keep going with car analogies, don't worry) I'm certainly not going to absolve Bush of his role in our current mess. I think his biggest contribution was allowing tax cuts to go for too long eliminating that as a future fiscal measure for another downturn. But I will not keep blaming him. We (the royal We) elected Obama to fix these problems and he hasn't. And it's not only because his measures don't work, it's because he has put very little focus to fixing the economy.
At this point, we can all admit the Stimulus failed. Don't worry, Paul Krugman will too in a couple of years when there is a republican president and he can blame deficit spending on him. We spent money in the worst possible way, buying new tires to get an extra three miles per gallon instead of just getting more gas. So it failed, I have no problem with that. My problem came up when everyone in the media and the administration kept making these outlandish claims that it created or saved 3 million jobs. As my cohort has stated before, saved is a made up statistic based literally on no raw data. Instead of destroying his legacy with health care reform, something needed to help 10% of the population at best, he should have focused on the economy effecting 100% of the population.
Velma Hart is precisely what's wrong with Obama. His cultish fans who can not criticize him. Think about I'm exhausted from defending you. That means she is still defending him and thus doesn't think he did anything wrong. You don't defend those you despise, unless you do criminal defense law. He won't listen to critics. We're all just ignorant, racist, slurpee sippers to him. (And Bush talked like a moron?) The only fix is for his base to stop defending him. Perhaps the blacks approval rating of him will drop from 90% and get in line with the rest of us following MLK's words of not judging a man by the color of his skin but the content of his heart. If not, president Narcissus is just going to keep plowing along thinking it's a PR problem and not an Obama problem. As of right now, it looks less like we're on a road to recovery and more like we're on the highway to hell.
Profits are the fire that drives private sector industry. Whether you're selling health plans or lead filled toys, your decisions are generally guide by the desire to increase your bottom line. That's why you see companies maximizing revenues while reducing costs, and all without a commission to tell them to do so. The problem for the government is there is no profit motive. Believe me, if you offered Obama 5% of whatever he cut from the budget, we'd be writing him a $50 billion check by the end of next year. So, I propose we start adopting some common sense private sector cost cutting ideas.
Performance based pay. I love teachers. I've had some great ones and I've also terrorized some. However, I turned out OK. (that might be an overstatement) They certainly should be paid a fair wage, when they perform. An idea has been circulating around, and is even backed by Obama, about linking the pay of teachers to the long term success of their students. This would help us weed out the shitty teachers and produce a better generation of people to replace the one retiring now. Not that it will be very hard to replace a generation marked by free love, LSD, draft dodging, and an overall decline in worker productivity but I might still hold my breath. Also, bonuses for department heads who come in under budget with the promise their budget will not be slashed the following year. Think about it, every year they spend less than we apportion its a budget cut in the sense that it saves us money. You better believe we could probably shave $100 billion off the budget that way.
Video and eConferencing. There is no need for offices anymore. The internet has made every meeting a possible virtual meeting, full with desktop sharing, audio, video, and even firm handshakes according to one of the scientists at the TED Conference. NATO Summits would be a lot cheaper if we didn't need to deploy Air Force 1 and advanced secret service teams. The military already uses this technology heavily. Applying it across the board would cut down on the expenses we incur funding travel to other countries and would save the environment.
Strict Budgets. If a contractor tells you something will cost $40 billion, then we better have whatever new whale shaped submarine drone we're developing once the $40 billion runs out. Once the budget is spent, the project is done and we never use that contractor again. After doing this once, I bet you won't see any military contractors going over again. We have this terrible mentality that we've already spent $40 billion so what's another 10. Well it's $10 billion dollars, that's what it is. This would curb defense spending significantly without affecting the majority of programs.
Our finances are a mess, it's time to start doing something.
I was discussing the topic of abortion with my co-blogger yesterday, and as luck would have it, I came across this wonderful article today (thanks to Weasel Zippers). Now as abhorrent the above interview is, I really wanted to discuss the larger topic of abortion as a whole.
See what my friend and I don't understand is how abortion can dictate one's political voting. Since 1973, abortions have been legal in the United States. It would take, as Legalized Pundit puts it, a constitutional miracle to overturn Roe v Wade, especially since nearly 40 years of precedent supporting this woman's rights issue has been established. So when a candidate announces their opinion on the subject, isn't a moot point? Lawmakers really have no way of changing this well established legal precedent. Yet pro-choicers vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and pro-lifers vote overwhelmingly Republican on an issue that has absolutely no effect on policy making.
Also, who is really actually pro choice? I mean, isn't everyone, or shouldn't everyone (outside of this whackjob), really be against abortion unless all other options have been exercised? It sorta seems like a last resort. But that's just me.
Remember when Justice Roberts was nominated for Chief Justice and abortion rights were going to go out the window? Or when W was elected, and abortion rights were in jeopardy? Exactly, nothing ever changed. The only thing W really did was a secondary issue to abortion, and it was ban federal funding for stem cell research resultant from abortions (actually something I completely disagree with). But it really had nothing to do with the overall issue of abortion.
Which of course brings me to the next topic surrounding abortion. Why is it, that one of the primary defenses for abortions are cases of rape and incest. Now I don't know the statistics so I'll probably end up eating my words later, but how common are abortions resultant from those two things? I suspect relatively rare.
Look in the grand scheme of things, it's hard for me to care too much about this topic because it will never directly affect me. So I guess I just don't understand the right's campaign to try and change an established precedent, or the left's council of fear, that says if you elect a Republican you're going to be forced to give birth to thousands of babies you otherwise would have aborted. It just seems like a tertiary issue when faced with global terrorism, a recession, and a slew of other social issues for which legal precedent hasn't been established.
Today the United States was brought before the UN Human Rights tribunal. In true Thanksgiving tradition, other countries waited overnight to be the first one in. Human rights crusaders like Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia chastised the US for its poor human rights record. Perhaps the highlight of the day that will drive home the point I'm trying to make is the rep from Iran, dressed like the Holy Mother from the show Caprica, saying that the US needs to work to stop violence against women. She must have forgotten the word government sanctioned because Iran has no problem stoning women.
This came the same week as Lebanon's turn on the chopping block where Israel had 13 motions passed against it and the speech of stopping Zionism was met with applause. Now, this is a country that simply doesn't want rockets fired at it or its soldiers kidnapped. Then again, these people also think stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into our country is a human rights violation. (They gnore whatever Mexico does to make them leave) Jimmy Carter is very pro-Palestine, you know that land of horror with its shopping malls and night clubs, so you know its a bad idea. Let's face it, Mr. Peanut is the barometer for bad ideas.
So I'm going to call it, the United Nations has jumped the shark. And somehow, they're actions and strongly worded letters in bold red ink (My computer has 716 shades of red!) are actually more absurd than the Fonz water skiing in a leather jacket. This organization, which is now openly admitting climate change is actually just for income distribution on a global scale, seemingly can't do anything right. Their one saving grace, peace keeping, is more a function of each nations individual military power than the United Nations usefulness. Oh, and it costs us billions of dollars each year.
Over the summer, me and the Legalized Punditette were in Cambodia. Our tour guide to Angkor Wat (name drop) was a UNESCO tour guide when they initially began restoring the ruins. (irony) He told me that his UN hombre wanted receipts in excess of what he charged so he could expense a higher amount. Apparently the SEIU is giving seminars to the UN now. If it wasn't my money, because I assume 100% of my tax dollars goes directly to the UN, I wouldn't be upset. But it is my money and I had to haggle with the tour guide. So United Nations, its been a mediocre run, but consider yourself cancelled after 65 groin-grabbingly boring seasons.
I was reading up on Charles Manson last week, and his powerful manipulation of his family to essentially slaughter people for no reason. It got me thinking about how much I hate Roman Polanski. For those of you who don't know, the connection here is that Polanski's former wife, Sharon Tate, was one of the Manson Family murders that gained media attention.
So why do I hate Roman Polanski? Those reasons are obvious. I can't think of a single example where I'd rush to the defense of someone that drugged and anally raped a 13 year old in a hot tub (note, that's what he actually did, his plea bargain was for statutory rape). But hey, that's why I'm not in Hollywood. Seriously, where do these clowns get off calling for this guy's release from what is basically Swiss house arrest (a vacation for most of us)? Whoopi Goldberg and her retarded "It's not rape rape (I'm assuming because it wasn't vaginally), Woody Allen, Debra Winger - there doesn't seem to be any shortage of Hollywood whackjobs who feel making a great movie excuses the most deplorable behavior imaginable. Polanski makes one good movie, and all of a sudden he's exonerated from a prison sentence that would have subjected him to his own torturous act. Apparently Clint Eastwood could open of an elementary school dedicated to child rape with all the good movies he's made. But Tom "Gunny" Highway wouldn't stoop so low.
And sadly, Polanski's not the only example of Hollywood's compassion towards dirt bags. Michael Jackson, the king of pop, spent half his adult life defending his reputation (I originally wrote "honor" and immediately retracted that) against accusations of child molestation, baby hanging, having sleepovers with Macaulay Culkin, blah blah blah. Why can't he be a good musician and a terrible person. He received the same treatment this country's deceased Presidents get - moments of silence, large funeral gathers, I'm surprised they didn't have the flag at half mast for 50 days.
In my opinion, we need to start employing some Catholic priests in Hollywood. I say we get Jon Voight (known ultra-conservative) to hire a bunch of Catholic priests that have been surrounded in scandal, and have them start acting. Clearly law suit settlements, admission of guilt and apologies, and denial hasn't worked. So it's time for a new PR campaign. The only way you can get people to forgive you is to become among an elite group of hypocrites in southwest California.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I've only named two of the most deplorable people in that celebrity category. It would take too long to dive into the likes of Tiger Woods, Mel Gibson, Michael Vick, Chris Brown, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, et al. But at least they stick to drugs, cheating on women, beating women, DUIs and other gray areas (kidding).
Why do we feel the need to give these people a free pass? With the exception of NAMBLA, there isn't a person reading this who agrees with child rape. Yet Polanski is still making films and comfortably living out his days in the Alps. It's enough to make me sick to my stomach.
Perhaps an enlightened liberal can explain this to me.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've by now read some horrific account of a TSA agent being a bit to handsy. In tort law its called battery, at Homeland Security it's called protocol. Now don't get me wrong, what they are doing is entirely legal provided they are following procedures mandated by DHS and Cruella De Vil. I mean Janet Napolitano. It's privileged contact and without this tort law exception, police and their ilk would be completely ineffective. As much as the left might believe it, asking nicely will not get the insane clown serial killer to relinquesh his knife.
But like all things, there is a difference between legal and right. It is not right to grope a 60 year old woman's breasts to the point she considers herself rape. I'd expect NOW to be outraged but after their horrid treatment of Meg Whitman being called a whore, they'll probably say the old woman was asking for it. Now should a 12 year old travelling without her parents ever, and I mean ever, being photographed in anyway that might even loosely be considered nude photography. I get they use kids as suicide bombers, but to quote Office Space, "this is America, not Riyahd."
What we're facing right now is a line in the sand moment. We can either allow what ever hair-brained scheme the rocket scientists who couldn't get private sector jobs over at DHS to be implemented unimpeded, or we can say enough is enough. I think we've reached enough. As Charles Krauthammer noted, we are not fighting a group that is hard to recognize and so heterogenous that they blend into crowds at the airport. We're looking for Muslim males age 18-39. So no, the nun with her rosary beads does not need to have a high school educated (at best) TSA employee reaching up her skirt. I got hit with a ruler by a nun for not knowing the periodic table, I feel bad for whatever is coming to that TSA agent. These aren't highly trained agents incredibly skilled at the art of detection and counter-terrorism, they're the men and women who applied to TSA because the airport Cinnabon had no openings. Sending out a memo on guidelines for groping men and women around their genitalia is not enough to justify the violation people are rightfully feeling.
I'm all for airport security if it will stop a terrorist attack. The problem is they are trying to stop the items of terror, rather than the terrorists. Look, if you gave me a pound of C4 and put me on a plane, that C4 is less dangerous than an indoctrinated Pakistani with some nail clippers. I do not want to kill other people nor does the incentive of dealing with 72 nagging former virgins a week later appeal to me. We need to start applying the Hand Formula (no joke, named after judge Learned Hand) to these guidelines and look at the burden we're causing versus the probability it will stop a terrorist attack. Can't bring a 22 ounce bottle of shampoo on a plane, no burden. Some guy grabbing my kibbles and bits, big burden. DHS needs to start polling flyers and comparing that to the raw data on the potential a policy has for stopping a terrorist attack before they begin implementing procedures. At minimum, they could at least instruct their TSA agents to cuddle for a few minutes afterwards.
As you all know, the GM stock offering was a rampant success. In fact, President (I don't even know why I bother capitalizing it anymore…) Obama announced the IPO as a significant milestone for GM, as well as signs of the improved economy.
As I can see, the only success from this is the government is no longer the majority shareholder. Now, American taxpayers only own about 500 million shares of GM, according to this Yahoo Finance Article, worth about $17 billion as of today.
So let's do the math. GM get's $49.5 billion from the government, has "paid back or committed to pay back" $9.5 billion, earned $13.6 billion with its IPO, leaving a net of $27 billion owed to the government. With US taxpayers still owning that projected $17 billion, it leaves us a net of $10 billion GM owes, but has not committed to paying back. Now, if you ask Barry, he'd probably tell you he "saved or created $39.5 billion.
With success like that, the US should be the third largest economy in 5 years, not 40.
But why does it have to be claimed as a success? Why can't Barry come out and say "we did what we had to do to prop up the automobile industry, and we recognized in doing this that the taxpayers would sustain a net loss? Would we be happy with that? Probably not. But at least I wouldn't feel like I was being treated like a 6 year old. Perhaps Barry is hoping that the stock price will rise 65% so that we break even.
It all comes back to the fiscal irresponsibility of the government. They spend money using what I will deem the "it's only $20" rule. It's a rule often used by a spouse, respective steady, or child. It's based on the premise that if something only costs $20, then it's reasonably priced and certainly worth buying. Here's the problem with the thought process though. Imagine you're out shopping, and your spouse finds a nice shirt that he or she wants to get. After all, it's only $20. But it doesn't stop there. All of the "only $20s" all of a sudden run you a tab of $500. And I lose another drawer in the house.
All kidding aside though, look no further than the recent vote in the house to extend jobless benefits. I mean, come on, we just spent $1 trillion on health care, another $800 billion on the stimulus. What's another $34 billion (or $20, relatively speaking)?
And boom! It hits you like a ton of bricks. $34 billion here, $34 billion there. And that's how, in a span of 150 years, you run a debt of $13 trillion, are adding an additional $1 trillion to the debt annually, and are paying about $500 billion in INTEREST alone each year. That's the last time I go to J Crew.
Now most of you probably think I'm an ass for saying that we should be looking to cut funding for the jobless. After all, I recently posted on how the unemployment rate is the most important issue we're facing right now. But you'd be mistaken. Well, in this case anyway. I'm only asking that we fund it. What is the reluctance to use unused stimulus funds? Funds gained in interest when TARP was paid back? There are ways to extend the benefits without buying another t-shirt.
But as usual, Washington plays the partisan game. Instead of extending the benefits for six months which would cost $34 billion, a proposal costing $12.5 billion that needed 275 votes was voted down. Make no mistake, it will get passed (probably retroactively), and rather than fund it, we'll add $12.5 billion to our debt. Based on Obama's logic, I can tout that as a success.
Okay so I have the perfect concept for a movie. It stars a teenage Muslim girl,Afrah, who has a boyfriend recently struggling with coming to terms with his homosexuality.
The Muslim girl, realizing the repercussions of the sin of homosexuality within her religion, decides that she must do everything she can to "save" her boyfriend, even to the point of having sex with him.
The rest, of course, is predictable. Afrah gets pregnant, and has to go through the struggles of the condemnation of her sins within her religion. She is treated with disdain by her former friends, and ostracized by most within her religion. Worst of all, she finds herself becoming close friends within the angsty Jewish girl at school who everyone hates because she was not like the rest of them, and the agnostic handicapped brother of her former best friend.
The conclusion, of course, is that hard ridden fundamentalist belief in Islam misses the point of the religion. It is a religion of faith and love, even to those with whom we do not agree.
Actually I just provided the exact synopsis of the movie "Saved!" - a movie designed to mock those in Christianity with such fundamentalist beliefs. Who are you kidding, a movie like I described could never be made mocking Islam. Well, not if you want to keep your head.
The fact is mocking Christian fundamentalism is the easy target, despite the fact that Islam condemns all of the things above as well.
And let's face it, what are the Christians gonna do about it?
For every George Tillman of the world, there are hundreds of stories within Islam with far worse repercussions than being ostracized by your religion. We're talking, of course, about a religion that routinely executes women for sex out of wedlock (apparently it takes one to tango) and executes homosexuals. You needn't go further than Ahmedinejad's latest speech to realize some Muslim's views towards Judaism. Which movie would you rather star?
Or worse, which real life scenario would you prefer?
And where does this fear come from? Draw a cartoon of Mohammad day, South Park's 200 and 201st episodes, murder of Swedish cartoonists, death threats and riots. Remember when I asked what Christians do about it? That's how fundamentalist Muslims react. So why the discrepancy?
That's where the real Islamophobia comes from. A country that prides itself on the ability to speak so freely is scared of the backlash from the religion of peace. So we attack other targets with the same belief because the repercussions are far less severe. Cause hey, mockery sells, it's just not worth losing your life over.
It has been said so goes California, so goes the nation. Well, taking a quick look around, I would assume that California has detached itself from the US and is making a strong move towards Japan. Right now our country is in some serious debt. So serious, we appointed a blue ribbon commission. We're bleeding jobs, unless you believe we've saved or created 10 million jobs. And I'll tell you, I buy that because by not passing all of Obama's idea, we probably did save 10 million jobs. We keep pushing cap and trade to combat global warming/climate change/weather jihad based on science which I think Chris Christie put best, "still needs some work, it's not conclusive."
We should have all seen this coming because this has been the reality in California since the days of 2pac really sticking it to Biggie. According to Faith Evans it was all made up, but you never know. California has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, one of the worst foreclosure rates in the country, massive state wide debt, and San Fransisco. Yeah, on top of all that, they have to deal with the a population of people who keep voting for Nancy "knee skin face" Pelosi. The debt really is the worst part of the state though, getting to the point where they have started issuing IOUs. They're so poor they can't even borrow their way out of it. Now that's poor. (And of course the US government holds most of their debt, can you say Ponzi Scheme)
How did a state that was once the world's fifth largest economy lose its way. They choked the life out of business like a Vietnamese Hooker. (Pay attention Barry, this next part's important) California, in its extreme hubris, decided it was going to save the planet so they enacted tough legislation aimed at combating global warming by capping emissions, starting costly requirements for businesses, and protecting the delta smelt. The last one I'm not even making up, they killed their farming irrigation for a fish. What was the consequence of all this? Businesses left for the likes of Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. Imagine such a suffocating business environment you move the whole company to Reno? That's when you know it's bad.
California also has two other problems. The first is comic book like crime. They've had people steal tanks, rob banks in full body armor, and may very well have a criminal going after celebrities. (Dennis Quaid may have been right) The missile launch this week off the coast is most likely a plot by some evil scientist to steal Christmas, just wait. Second, is the unions. And boy howdy are they a problem. There is presently a teacher in prison for molestation who is still getting paid by the state. If molestation doesn't get you fired from your job, maybe the unions are worth it for you. They've been sucking so much money out of the state to pump back into democrats campaigns that their stuck in a never ending game of fuck,marry, kill, where only killing is going on.
So what is their solution to all of these problems? Elect Jerry Brown, a man without enough ideas to fill a thimble who already unsuccessfully ran the state. At least America can have a mulligan with Obama, we didn't know any better, but I feel like some analogy that starts fool me once might be applicable here. The unions, which along with business killing environmental policies, are ruining any chance at solvency that state has left have put politicians who will never cut their benefits back into office. This state is home to the Bell county administrators that a district court described their actions as corruption on steroids. Let's hope our country decides to go a bit more like Texas, which accounted for well over half of the net gain in jobs over the past two years, and a bit less like California. Otherwise the next song we're going to be hearing is "California Gurls are unforgettable, distressed debt with foreclosures on top."
So a Gallup Poll a little while back noted that George W. Bush's approval rating has ticked back up from 22% all the way to 45%. At the time of the writing Obama's was at 52% (it's now at 44.7%). Golly, for a man with an ego like Obama's this must be consuming most of his days.
Now most of you know I wasn't the biggest Bush fan. I don't like any president that spends too much (note: most presidents). But I really find these statistics to be astonishing. I mean, think back to 2008. Seriously. Voter turnout, especially among 18-25 year olds was huge, overall, Republicans were getting killed in the polls (specifically after Lehman Brothers collapsed), and Gavin Newsom had the country's best hair. Okay the last one is still true. His approval rating right before entering office was 78%. SEVENTY EIGHT PER CENT!
So what's the difference between now and then? Bush put out a book (it's fantastic by the way), and we realized Obama didn't deserve the presidency. Let's face it, it's true. The country was in shambles, and we got Obama fever. Well, some got Obama fever. It's not that the expectations were too high - it's that he set the expectations and failed us.
The stimulus was supposed to fix the economy. It didn't.
We were supposed to be reducing overseas troops. They've increased.
We were supposed to repair ties with foreign nations. They hate us.
He was supposed to pay my mortgage and gas. Bank of America keeps billing me.
He passed Obamacare, increased spending, wants cap and trade, and has basically ignored the will of the people. He's basically 2004-2008 George Bush. Except he can't throw.
Look, I'm excited about the upcoming Republican majority in the House, and the near majority in the Senate. But I have my reservations. Is this going to be the Republicans of the mid 90's? Or the early 2000's? The best thing they have going for them is their fiscal conservatism. But politicians are notorious for lying in campaigns for the sake of self preservation (see my post where I advocate term limits). So who knows what 2011 will bring us? A push towards fiscal responsibility or the same old Washington politics? Let's just say I've been duped before.
So Chuck Schumer came out today and said that TARP and the stimulus saved 10 million jobs (thanks to Hot Air Pundit).
You've heard other similar "saved or created figures from the Administration.
I don't know about you, but I'm sick of it. Frankly, if my job was saved, I never knew it was in jeopardy, so I'm just not grateful.
As to the "created" figure, I think the Administration could learn a less about the term "net." If 400,000 lose their jobs, and 300,000 are created, you didn't create 300,000 jobs, you lost 100,000.
Never mind that probably the only way you can quantify a saved job would be to poll employers, and ask how many people the employer was going to fire until the stimulus was passed (notoriously unreliable).
But this is why Obama and the Democrats lost the midterm elections by huge numbers. Tout your victories, don't lie about successes.
The fact is unemployment is still at 9.6%. The fact is underemployment is significantly higher. The fact is that figure is skewed lower due to discouraged former employees no longer looking for work. Now I'm no expert, but I think I'd shy away from labeling that a success to campaign on.
So the Administration tried blaming Bush. Fantastic. That isn't tired. You've been here nearly two years, it's your economy. Is that fair? I don't care. You spent a trillion dollars. A drunk ring tailed lemur could have helped the economy better than Obama. Ironically, $756,091 went towards the study of alcohol effects on ring tailed lemurs.
You passed health care reform. If there was one thing less surprising than that I don't know what it is. You had majorities in both the House and Senate. And Obama in power to sign it into law. Why was it such a struggle? Oh yeah, the public didn't want it. So I guess you couldn't campaign on that either.
Let's see. What does that leave us? The Easter Egg Roll - rampant success.
Oh yeah. The Big Bad Iraq War. Wait a second, that's out. Obama voted against the Iraq War, the left lampooned the surge as a future failure.
Okay I'm out of ideas. Hence, an overwhelming rebuke of the Democratic agenda. You wanna know why? The 2006 and 2008 elections were a referendum on Bush. The "anyone but a Republican" strategy worked. Well. But the 2010 midterms were different. The public got a taste of the Democratic agenda, and it tasted like Jimmy Carter (old, shriveled, stale Georgians are the worst). The youth vote wasn't going to be duped again by the hip cool President, and the tax paying adults of the world had nostalgia, but the bad kind that smelled like 1977-1980.
The cold hard truth is that we're a center right country, and the Democratic agenda doesn't work here. While Europe moved towards socialism after the second World War, because they were terrified of a third (let's face it, their countries were destroyed all due to a few have nots that got pissed), the US has no fear base to drive them further left. So yes, the midterms were a referendum on the Democrats, because we remembered what they do when they're in power.
Last week, Iranian student MuhammedPushti was told by his school to remove the American flag from his bicycle because Iranian school officials it would ignite racial tensions and possibly cause an uprising. This completely makes sense. Iran is a country that is not best friends we with America and so seeing a symbol of something you hate would definitely ignite racial tensions and possibly cause an uprising. Now replace MuhammedPushti with Cody Alicea and Iran with Texas. You can leave the flag alone sadly.
So let me see if I understand, there are people who live in this country, young students mind you, who are so incensed by the sight of the US flag that it will cause an uprising? What's worse, we find fault with the kid displaying the flag, not with the doucheweazels that complained about it. I don't want to be presumptive but I bet their parents are democrats. My parents, much to every one's shock I'm sure, are staunch conservatives. If I ever came home and complained about someone displaying the US flag, I'd probably have a baseball injury to lie to my teacher about the next day. (They didn't actually beat me, you get the point) What are we teaching our children when they are not proud of our country? Even Michelle Obama is finally proud of her country, so what's their problem?
After 9/11 flags flew all across our great land. It was a sign of solidarity, a unified front against the terror everyone was feeling. Flash forward 9 years and we're asking a student who is displaying this flag not as any protest, but to honor his veteran grandfather, to remove his flag to avoid racial tensions. I won't even touch the racial tensions aspect because it is by far the dumbest thing about this whole story. This kid should be applauded for being so civically minded and realizing the great sacrifice the men and women of the armed services make to ensure our freedoms. Rather, he is being castigated for waving a symbol of enduring freedom.
We can not expect our children to be ready to take over the mantle of running our great country if they're told that flying the old stars and stripes is every inappropriate. I might just be an old softy, by the Star Spangled Banner sung in front of a giant American flag gets me every time. This is just another in a long line of liberal attempts to subvert the belief in anything. Whether it be a flag, religion, or Aqua Buddha, liberals have a hard time allowing our faith because they have none of their own. Except their great faith in believing nothing except their own superiority. If you ask me, it takes a bigger man to believe in something bigger than himself.
Today, this grey sky got its silver lining. Over 100 motorcyclists all brandishing enormous flags filed in procession behind Cody in a show that yes, there are still people who believe in American exceptionalism. The procession rode from his school to his house and was one of the greatest signs of humanity I have seen in a while. Like these bikers, let's remember what made America great, people helping other people in the face of oppression and always looking up to the stars and stripes.
Recently, it has come to light that 111 waivers from the provisions of Obamacare have been given to major corporations, unions, companies no one has ever heard of, and our blog. The administration must have finally realized the economic reality that 100 million in losses each year would lead to less employment. Guess it's a steeper learning curve than we had suspected. I assume this list will grow. The notable exception will most likely be Wal-Mart as you don't need an exception from something you will never provide.
Here is the list, http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html . (Via Gateway Pundit) You'll notice some large players on there. An SEIU chapter, New England Healthcare, Darden Restaurants (Owners of Capital Grille), Cracker Barrel, the Asbestors Workers Welfare Fund, and Maverick County. Those last two probably have you scratching your noodle. To make it even more chafed on the top of your head, consider that combined that have 3 enrollees. I have no idea why a country in Texas and ostensibly the stupidest sounding union affiliate (and that is saying something) are exempted from Obamacare, and I doubt the transparenter-in-chief will ever tell us.
I could understand exemptions to companies like McDonalds or Microsoft. They have thousands if not millions of employees and have an enormous impact on the economy. To pass legislation that adversely affects them might be irresponsible, but to allow it to reach its zenith would be downright (right) dumb. But Maverick Country, really? Now I'm sure the .000000000000001% the contribute to GDP is important, but to even take the time to review an exemption for one person seems like a farce. If this is so good for everyone, only a claim of an enormous disparate impact should be considered when evaluating exemptions.
Unless, (wait for it) the bill isn't all that great. Like many of you, I have been eagerly awaiting finding out what's in it once it passed (Pelosi) and it becoming more popular. (Obama, Biden, anyone not on Fox News) Pelosi's least contemptuous promise regarding the health care bill has actually come true. And much like her face before seventeen needles pierce it, it is terrifying. We're seeing what most of us already knew or at best feared. It is a major recalibration of the US health care system from top down and it will cost business billions and affect the lives of nearly one third of our population. Not to mention the fact that the big whopper of a promise, it not adding to the deficit, is actually false. The CBO was hovering their finger over the send button on that report for the eventuality that democrats would rescind their promise to cut half a trillion from a program beloved by their constituency, Medicare.
This only leaves the wise gumshoe with one conclusion, the bill is actually bad. Now, if you read Last's article about Obama's hubris in the Weekly Standard, you would not be surprised that he is having a bit of trouble admitting to this. I get that it's his signature bill and he is just too damn progressive to regress back to a time when our country didn't spend itself stupid, but what makes a president great is admitting mistakes and changing course going forward. Think Bush with the surge. Everyone already know it is bad, the GOP will most likely kill its funding, and somewhere around 50% want it repealed. (When was the last time that many Americans agreed on anything?) Obama, you can still be great, but you need to take a step back, look at what's going on, and readjust. It's about time for you to put down the snake oil and pick up some of the truth serum.
-14 minutes (10.9%) of the time was action (ball in play)
-88 minutes (68.6%!!) players are literally standing around. Standing around.
-3.5% are shots of the coaches
-2.7% are shots of the dugout
Anyway the information is all in the articles. It's truly amazing that these two sports are such dominant franchises give that there is almost no action. Plus, this is a nice breath of fresh air from some of the more recent posts.