Tag Archives: Politics

•

Q. How does President Obama avoid the accusation of putting earmarks into the budget?

A. Have his name edited off the earmark.

~~~

Factcheck.org on Obama's speech

~~~

John Samson (Reformation Theology) visits Mars Hill Church (Seattle)

~~~

MommyLife:  Conservatives seeking divorce and settlement

~~~

A review of "The Shack"

~~~

Where religion meets politics

The Obama administration may rescind the "conscience rule"

~~~

The Wall Street Journal on the Obama/Ayers connection (from 2008).

~~~

Andrew Bolt on "the most sweeping ethics reform in history . . ."

~~~

•

NYTimes finally acknowledges that anti-Prop. 8 mob is harassing traditional marriage supporters

(from Michele Malkin)

~~~~~
John Kerry: You Know What's the Problem With Stimulus Tax Cuts? All That Freedom.

(From the Weekly Standard)

~~~~~

$825 Billion, and Not One Job May Result

“Can you tell me Mr. Barthold, how many jobs will be created as a result of this legislation?” Camp asked.  Barthold replied, “In short, Mr. Camp, I can’t.”  Camp then pressed Barthold to clarify his position, “So we don’t have an estimate of the number of jobs this would create either private sector or public?  We don’t have any estimate of the economic effect that this legislation would have on our economy, whether it would create any growth in our economy at all?  We don’t have that data before the committee today?”  Barthold then nodded his head and shrugged.

~~~~~
Democrats Look to Muzzle Conservative Radio

Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow says she wants hearings on “accountability” in radio, suggesting Democrats are eying a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

Here in Michigan, we pronounce "Stabenow" ..."stab you now"  - as in "in the back"

•

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

Fast forward:

UPDATE: February 2, 9:15AM: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tom Daschle says he's "deeply embarrassed and disappointed" about his failure to pay more than $120,000 in taxes.

And

Also, the financial disclosure form Daschle filed about a week ago shows that he made more than $200,000 in the past two years speaking to members of the industry that President Barack Obama wants him to reform.

Obama has said that no one in his administration who has lobbied on a set of issues within the past two years can deal with the same subject matter.

Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for Daschle, said the money he earned in speaking fees from health care interests do not pose a conflict for the health care reform Obama wants him to lead.

Daschle said in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services ethics office that if he's confirmed by the Senate, he will resign as a senior policy adviser at the Washington law firm of Alston and Bird LLP. He reported earnings of more than $2 million from that firm during the past two years.

Daschle also earned more than $2 million in consulting fees from InterMedia Advisors LLC of New York, an investment firm specializing in buyouts and industry consolidation. He said he also intends to resign from that firm upon his confirmation.

Glenn Reynolds notes:

from Glenn Reynolds

OUCH: “Tom Daschle never met a tax hike he didn’t like for us. But why the hell can’t he pay his own taxes?”

•

I thought I had written on the terms "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" before, but there were a few posts that got "lost" when I changed web hosts.  I'll end up writing again, because I do not self-identify as "pro-life", but prefer the term "anti-abortion".

I read an article at "GetReligion.org" about a couple of news stories:

This one is from "Newsbusters":

Christianity Today Favors 'Anti-abortion' Over 'Pro-life' Label?

Evangelical magazine Christianity Today is using the term "anti-abortion," rather than "pro-life," to refer to a CatholicVote.com ad which NBC has refused to air during the Super Bowl. (h/t @pdavidy8)

The term "anti-abortion" isn't used by reporter Sarah Pulliam in the body of her article posted at CTliveblog, but it is used in her January 30 article's headline -- Anti-Abortion Super Bowl Ad Rejected by NBC -- on the magazine's Twitter page (see screencap at right).

By using "anti-abortion" in its headline, Christianity Today appears to be following the lead of the Associated Press. The AP calls for the term "anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice" in its Stylebook. AP goes further and frowns on the term "abortionist," saying it "connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions," so a reporter should "use a term such as abortion doctor or abortion practitioner," it counsels.

The gist of the story seems to be saying that "Christianity Today" magazine prefers one label over the other.  The reality is that the ad being spoke of is not "pro-life" in general, but is specific to the abortion issue.  Thus, if CT generally uses "pro-life", but for this specific, anti-abortion ad, uses "anti-abortion", it doesn't mean that they prefer the label in general, only that it is more accurate for that particular ad.

Here is the CT story in question.

I think that this is a "not a story", but rather a commentary  on how groups "self-describe".

I self-describe as "anti-abortion".  I also make a distinction between those more general "pro-choice" folks and those who have never seen an abortion that they did not support (pro-abortion).

For example:  Roe v. Wade is "pro-choice".  FOCA is pro-abortion.

•

A Michigan blog I've just discovered:  Torch Lake Views.

~~~

From Dark Roasted Blend (one of my favorite photo blogs)

~~~

Gay activists are angry at Barack Obama;

Pro-lifers are angry at Rick Warren...

heh.

~~~

The Dugger family welcomes child #18.  (profanity alert:  the link goes to the Huffington Post and evidently the only time "pro-choice" applies is when a family is "choosing" a small family...or better yet, abortion.)

~~~

A "New Years Resolution" of a different sort?  Lignon Duncan will be reading and blogging through "Calvin's Institutes" in 2009

~~~

•

For those who voted for Barack Obama because his expanded abortion policies would reduce abortion... (HELLO?  what happens when you make a service cheaper and more available????)

It seems that the "office of the president elect" has a page where you can write questions and people can vote on them.

Justin Taylor submitted a question:  "Would you consider rescinding your promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, given your desire to reduce abortions and to seek common ground, and in light of the fact that it would invalidate every measure and law intended to reduce abortions?"

notice: it was removed from the vote because "people think it is inappropriate".

Myself, before I asked a question, I'd consider "Joe the Plumber"

•

It seems that used coffee grounds are about 15% oil (a little less than the usual feedstock used for biodiesel) and that they make a very suitable material for creating usable fuel...

VERY suitable.

Consider:

- This is already a "recycled" product, so no food product would need to be diverted from feeding people, thus driving the price of the product higher for people who may already be in the midst of a cash or food crisis.

- Coffee (and coffee grounds) are high in anti-oxidants, which would delay rancification - thus making a more stable biodiesel than many other feedstocks.

- The "leftovers" - the grounds left over after the oil has been extracted - is dry and still high in nitrogen, making great compost for fertilizer (note:  I feed my plants leftover coffee and the ones that get that treatment do great.)

- These leftovers can also be made into pellets for heating stoves (like the ones that use corn pellets), taking some of the heating load off of petroleum heating fuel.

In my opinion, these things should make the biodiesel industry sit up and take a look at the trash coming out of coffee shops.  How much of this "stuff" is available and would it be worth it?

Just Starbucks generates about "210 million pounds of spent coffee grounds per year in the US, the researchers calculate that it could amount to 2.92 million gallons of biodiesel and 89,000 tons of fuel pellets..."

Just Starbucks!  and then there's McDonald's...and all the other coffee shops and breakfast shops....

The story is here...

The cost per gallon is high...but so is the $8 million profit.  If this venture were taken on as a low-profit venture, the cost would come down and the profit could still be quite high.

•

Yippee.  Just as the "big three" are gasping their last breathes, our wonderful legislature is talking about raising gasoline taxes and 50% hikes in vehicle registration.

And Obama tags our faithful (Democrat) governor to be on his economic advisory team.

Okay..."Which state has the worst economy in the country?

Highest unemployment rate?  check.

Highest forclosure?  check."

Let's pick THAT governor...yeah...we want HER to explain to fix the economy."

Business are leaving the state?  Let's raise business taxes!

11% unemployment?  Let's raise gasoline taxes!

Massive looming layoffs?  Let's raise vehicle registration!

Yes...kick us when we're down.