TheBlackberryAlarmclock.com

Thingish Things

Unfortunate Names (Warning)

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Apr• 18•12

A New England grandmother used to say of her dogs, without a trace of irony, “they’re good little bitches.” It was all my brothers and sisters and I could do not to leap from a window to muffle our laughter.  Now, we learn of this poor, 800-year-old Austrian town that is considering changing its name. You’ll have to read about it on your own. I just wonder how those leaving the town can possibly answer the question, “where are you coming from?,” with the stoicism of my literal grandmother. 

If I had a say, I’d vote to keep the name for tradition sake. Besides, there are endless commercial opportunities. (My brother went to this town and all he brought me was this ***** Tee Shirt.) 

Sorry for this item.  Couldn’t resist. 

Leave Panetta Alone

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Apr• 17•12

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is under fire for the expense of his weekend trips from Washington, DC to his home in California. They have totaled in excess of $800,000. Mr. Panetta is from California.  His family lives there.  And as Defense Secretary, is he required to travel on military jets where he has full access to military communications. He also kicks in money for the flights, commensurate with what he would pay for a seat on a commercial airline. 

Mr. Panetta should be left alone, and his family in California should be thanked for loaning him to us in Washington during the week. This is no GSA scandal; this is the cost of doing business for one of the most important people in the country. It is a non-issue. 

Greedsters Occupy Occupier’s Non-Occupational Gains

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Apr• 16•12

 

gosport.gov.uk

The yesterday’s-news Occupy Wall Street movement is calling for a national labor strike on May Day, the International Communist Party holiday.  But how will it pay to advertise its day of inertia without the $500,000 in donations that seem to have been stolen by OCW leaders opposed to greed?

That’s right, much of OWS’s money is missing and unaccounted for. Where did it go? Could someone have taken it?

Here’s a report from Metro this morning:

At its peak in November 2011, OWS had pockets so deep, it set up a nonprofit to control the estimated more than $500,000 it had accumulated, mostly through donations from supporters.

Today, though, protesters admit funding has become increasingly complex and difficult to track, especially troubling for a movement that boasts transparency. Part of that, they say, is because of the unorganized structure that has been the common theme of the movement since the beginning. While working groups are assigned to focus on specific tasks, there are often no appointed leaders or written records — and accounting is no exception.

There are rumblings within the movement that sloppy accounting has led to the opening of bank accounts that are vulnerable to theft. One protester who wished to remain anonymous told Metro that a few people who are in control of funds are suspected of stealing about $25,000 a month from the movement.

These pages speculated last October that money might turn out to be the fly in Occupy’s ointment, but who would have thought that outright theft would have been part of it. But hey, such is life in the big city. 

As for the May Day strike; I’d love to make it but I have to work that day. 

Pres. Obama Back Underwater

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Apr• 16•12

President Obama’s job approval rating is now back under water, according to today’s Real Clear Politics average of national polls.  The President had managed to catch a breath of air in recent weeks, as the at-times nasty Republican primary raged on, but gas prices and angry rhetoric have pressed the President’s numbers back down under. Under water is not where one wants to be fewer than seven months prior to an election. 

[youtubenolink]

 

A Glimpse of Bad Andrew

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Apr• 16•12

 

Illustration by Jack Unruh nymag.com

 

Not a stellar morning for Governor Cuomo.  Ben Smith of Buzzfeed reports that his office has compiled a hit dossier on at least one of New York State’s top  political reporters, Liz Benjamin of YNN. Mr. Cuomo’s office reportedly brought the document to Ms. Benjamin’s bosses, not in a good way presumably. Mr. Cuomo’s press office denied that it keeps similar dossiers on other members of the news media, but it would seem strange, to me anyway, that Liz Benjamin was singled out. 

This is the stuff that can badly damage an administration. Andrew Cuomo has done a terrific job rehabilitating his image after appearing vindictive and mean-spirited in an earlier gubernatorial run. He ought to be careful to resist the paranoia instinct that has taken down lesser administrations.  Besides, never pick a fight with a person who buys his ink by the barrel, right? 

 

Steyn Afire

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Apr• 14•12

There’s no one better today than Mark Steyn when he gets really cooking.  And this morning he’s afire with thoughts on President Obama’s so-called Buffet Rule and other inanities.

A couple of gems:

On President Obama’s rhetorical obliques

In the end, free societies get the governments they deserve. So, if the American people wish to choose their chief executive on the basis of the “war on women,” the Republican theocrats’ confiscation of your contraceptives, or whatever other mangy and emaciated rabbit the Great Magician produces from his threadbare topper, they are free to do so, and they will live with the consequences.

On the “Buffet Plan” (which would only bring in $3.2 billion in extra revenue per year.)

…there are a lot of “millionaires,” depending on how you define it. Jerry Brown, California’s reborn Gov. Moonbeam, defines his “millionaire’s tax” as applying to anybody who earns more than $250,000 a year. “Anybody who makes $250,000 becomes a millionaire very quickly,” he explained. “You just need four years.” This may be the simplest wealth creation advice since Bob Hope was asked to respond back in 1967 to reports that he was worth half-a-billion dollars. “Anyone can do it,” said Hope. “All you have to do is save a million dollars a year for 500 years.” 

It’s that easy, folks! Like President Obama says, all you have to do to pay off his 2011 deficit is save $3.2 billion a year for 500 years.

He thinks you’re stupid. Warren Buffett thinks you’re stupid. Maybe you are. But not everyone is. And America’s foreign debtors understand that “the Buffett Rule” is just another pathetic sleight of hand en route to the collapse of the U.S. dollar, and of American society shortly thereafter.

 Mr. Steyn, a Canadian, should be wrapped in cotton. America needs him. 

The Non-Presidency

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Apr• 13•12

photo from bibchr.blogspot.com

 

The best summation I’ve read of where a lot of us think the Obama presidency is. 

Butt Kissing

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Apr• 13•12

Saw this photo on Drudge late last night and thought, “can you imagine being one of those guys doing the clapping?”  I woke up this morning thinking, “Oh my G-d, I am one of those guys!”

The Consequences of Legalization

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Apr• 12•12

A Shanghai Opium Den, 1907

George Will predicts in his syndicated column this morning that hard drugs — cocaine, methamphetamine, etc. — will be legalized in America.  This is one of the rare times I think Mr. Will is wrong.  I pray he is anyway.

All the arguments for legalizing drugs are sound, but one. Casual users will not remain casual where hard drugs are concerned. They will use it in a manner which will lead them to search for “rehab near me“. If substances like cocaine and smoking-grade “black” heroin are made cheaply and legally available in this country, which they would be under legalization, you could kiss millions of American lives goodbye. Mr. Will rightly argues that 80% of illegal drugs in America are consumed today by 20% of illegal drug users, just as about one in five Americans drink 80% of all the booze produced. But most Americans have never tried cocaine, crack cocaine, or its ilk. Providing drugs like that  with a government imprimatur of acceptability — which legalization would do — would lead to widespread experimentation and addiction. It would gnaw at the soul of this country, as it already does.

When I think about the legalization of drugs — and I think about it a lot when reading about the violence American drug use has brought to our cousins in Mexico and in other Latin American countries — I think about the legalization of abortion.  Two totally different issues of course.  But did anyone believe in 1970 in New York when abortion was legalized to end dangerous “back alley” procedures, that more than 40% of all pregnancies in New York City — a million a decade — would be terminated, 60% in the black community? No way they did.  It could not have been predicted. But that rate of abortion occurs because the procedure has become an option to carrying a baby to term.  It has been added to the menu of legally permissible choices in this country. With that went the taint of the concept to millions. Legalizing drugs would invariably remove taint as well. 

Government has stepped into so many areas of our lives in the U.S. that we have begun to rely on it for guiding principles. It attempts to regulate everything, from what we eat to how we speak to how we raise our children. If that same paternalistic government implicitly gives the green light to drug use, regardless of the package warning labels it would require, a lot of people, who would not otherwise, will begin putting things in their noses, lungs, and stomachs with very bad consequences. 

Isn’t it ironic that a society seeking to ban tobacco, sugared soft-drinks, and trans fats is soberly discussing legalizing smack? 

There is no question that the “War on Drugs” is not working.  But is the answer declaring war on ourselves? It can’t be. It just can’t. 

It’s Night of the Living Dead in Wisconsin

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Apr• 11•12

Great op-ed out this morning in the Orange County Register about the stakes of what’s going on Wisconsin.  The public employee unions are trying to recall  Governor Scott Walker (R) after losing a pitched battle with him last year over pension and other work-rule reforms. If you’ll recall, public employee unions across the country, aided directly by the White House, poured into Wisconsin during the fight, physically taking over the Wisconsin State House. Badger State Senate Democrats fled the state to deny Republicans quorum, preventing them from voting on reform bills.  The Democrats camped out in an Illinois hotel for more than a month. Such was democracy 2011. 

The unions — using dues paid by taxpayers — are now leading in their recall effort against Governor Walker 52-48. They are determined to smash Walker as a show of force to governors and legislatures across the country. Cross us, they are saying, and we will take you down. 

Here’s the OCR: 

“When Mr. Walker took office in January 2011 he did something rare among political candidates and office-holders: He kept his promises. He campaigned on a platform that emphasized heavy-handed and assertive reform of public employee unions and made promises to oust special interests from the capitol in Madison. He, thus far, has kept those promises.

Mr. Walker’s approach was bold, perhaps even brazen, and because he moved so fast to keep his campaign pledges some questioned his reforms. As Chris Cillizza wrote for the Washington Post, because of Scott Walker, “[t]he Badger State has the most polarized electorate in the country.”

The recall campaign, though, transcends Wisconsin and, as noted before, if the recall effort succeeds against Mr. Walker, efforts nationwide at reforming pensions and other issues pitting the interests of taxpayers against those of public-sector unions will be damaged. It is not only most critical that he prevail – it is essential.”

 Indeed it is.