Archive for January, 2009
Today in History: January 31st (Year One, Day Twelve in The Golden Age of Obama)
1504 – France cedes Naples to Aragon
1606 – Guy Fawkes executed for plotting against Parliament and James I of England
1747 – First venereal disease clinic opens at London Lock Hospital
1846 – Gervasio Antonio de Posadas becomes Supreme Director of Argentina
1846 – Milwaukee Bridge War ends: Juneautown and Klbourntown unified as City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
1848 – John C. Fremont court-martialed for mutiny and disobeying orders
1849 – Corn Laws abolished in United Kingdom
1862 – White dwarf star observed for first time (companion of Sirius)
1876 – United States orders all Native Americans onto reservations
1915 – Germany uses poison gas against Russians
1917 – Germany announces unrestricted submarine warfare
1929 – Soviet Union exiles Leon Trotsky
1930 – 3M corporation begins making Scotch tape
1944 – Americans land on Marshall Islands
1945 – US Army private Eddie Slovik executed for desertion (first such execution since Civil War)
1946 – Yugoslavian constitution establishes six Soviet-style constituent republics (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia)
1950 – President Truman announces Hydrogen-bomb program
1956 – Guy Mollet becomes Prime Minister of France
1958 – Explorer 1 is the first successful American satellite in orbit
1958 – Van Allen radiaton belt discovered
1961 – Aboard Mercury-Redstone 2, Ham the Chimp travels into outer space
1966 – Soviets launch Luna 9 spacecraft
1968 – Viet Cong attack US embassy in Saigon
1968 – Nauru declares independence from Australia
1971 – Apollo 14 lifts off for mission to the Fra Mauro Highlands of the moon
1990 – First McDonald’s in Soviet Union opens in Moscow
1995 – President Clinton authorizes $20 billion loan to stabilize collapsing Mexican economy
2001 – Scottish court convicts one Libyan and acquits another for the Pan Am 103 bombing over Locerbie Scotland in 1988
Another take on why hosting the Olympics in Chicago in 2016 is a VERY bad idea
Some of you wonder why we keep insisting it’s a bad, bad, bad move to host the Olympics in Chicago in 2016 (though we believe we won the Olympics on November 4th when Obama became president “and the world loved America again”).
Here’s a take on why the Olympics are bad for Chicago, from a great local blog on the City and all the various and sundry goings-on in Mayor Daley’s personal kingdom.
The Big OWE
- The athletes’ village rising in Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Olympics is casting a shadow over the city’s finances. Vancouver may have to borrow C$458 million ($375 million) or more to finish the 1,100 units by November, Mayor Gregor Robertson said at a news conference this month. That would almost double the city’s debt to about C$928 million, said Stephen Ogilvie, an analyst at Standard & Poor’s in Toronto. The credit- rating company said Jan. 13 that it might cut Vancouver from AA+.
The city took over financing of the C$1.1 billion housing complex after New York-based lender Fortress Investment Group LLC halted funding to the builder when costs ran C$125 million over budget. Taxpayers are reminded of Canada’s last Olympic-sized fiasco: The 1976 summer games in Montreal, which left Quebec with a C$1.5 billion debt that took decades to pay.
As we have maintained for years now, and as studies have borne out, Olympics lose money. They don’t just lose money, they lose TONS of money. Los Angeles 1984 were the only Games to make money in the short term and that was without a massive infrastructure building effort. We can’t even name a City Contract that was delivered on-time, on-budget in the past twenty years of Daley’s rule – and neither can you because they don’t exist.
We are so doomed.
Can anyone explain why $700 million should be spent on fish barriers, bees, and remodeling the Department of Commerce?
How do any of these things create new jobs to stimulate the economy and save us all from financial ruin?
Here’s how just $700 million of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Trillion Dollar Spending Bill is allocated. Please correct us if you can argue otherwise, but we fail to see how any of the below will create new jobs. All measures will make some people very wealthy, to be sure, because the specialized companies who handle medium-sized fish passage barriers and honey bee hives will see big profits heading their way, but it doesn’t seem like this spending will suddenly create a whole new fish passage barrier industry across the nation to employ workers without jobs now.
It doesn’t even sound like this will incentivize the fish barrier people and the bee people to hire more people to do the important things they do, wherever they do them. Over at the Honey Comb Hideout, they pretty much have all the bee people who exist now, buzzing around, being the best they can be. How long will it take to train new bee experts to participate in this beautiful bounty of stimulus spending? Might be a while, as those buggers are hard to come by.
Same with the fish barrier folks. That’s mighty specialized, whatever the heck it is.
How is any of this supposed to help the economy?
Can anyone explain this?
• $20 million “for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers.” (Pg. 45 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: “20,000,000 for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers)
• $400 million for STD prevention (Pg. 60 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: “CDC estimates that a proximately 19 million new STD infections occur annually in the United States …The Committee has included $400,000,000 for testing and prevention of these conditions.”)
• $25 million to rehabilitate off-roading (ATV) trails (Pg. 45 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: “$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration”)
• $34 million to remodel the Department of Commerce HQ (Pg. 15 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: $34,000,000 for the Department of Commerce renovation and modernization”)
• $70 million to “Support Supercomputing Activities” for climate research (Pgs. 14-15 of Senate Appropriations Committee Report: $70,000,000 is directed to specifically support supercomputing activities, especially as they relate to climate research)
• $150 million for honey bee insurance (Pg. 102 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: “The Secretary shall use up to $ 50,000,000 per year, and $150,000,000 in the case of 2009, from the Trust Fund to provide emergency relief to eligible producers of livestock, honey bees, and farm-raised fish to aid in the reduction of losses due to disease, adverse weather, or other conditions, such as blizzards and wildfires, as determined by the Secretary”)
Update on renaming schools, roads, and airports after Obama
Work is already underway to rename Chicago's Midway "Barack H. Obama International Airport"
This article notes several schools and roads named after Obama already, and hints at many more to come, in what’s been labeled by some as an attempt “to create a utopia” despite being only Day Eleven, Year One, of The Golden Age of Obama.
Our prediction is that by 2012 more things will be named after Obama than are named after Kennedy, Washington, or either of the Roosevelts (if not combined, then certainly separately).
Mercifully, most communities have strict rules regarding naming anything after the living. Similar rules are in place at the US Mint, Treasury Department, and Post Office, so Obama will not be featured on our currency or stamps for many, many years to come.
Two airports were re-named after former presidents while they were alive, but not while they were still in office: George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan both lived to see those honors.
Here in Chicago, work’s already underway to rename Midway Airport “Barack H. Obama International Airport”. Veterans groups are rightfully upset over this, because the airport’s named after the Battle of Midway, to honor the men and women who fought and died in WWII. The City of Chicago owns the airport but has been working on a scheme to lease it to a private for-profit corporation, which would presumably rename the airport once it takes Midway over, sparing the City culpability for the act, and the outrage of veterans. It is widely believed here that the jubilation from the black community in Chicago for renaming the airport after Obama will drown out the complaints of veterans, and that anyone opposed to the renaming will simply be called a racist, and intimidated into backing down. With WWII veterans aging out of the population every day, it’s believed the black community will win this PR fight easily.
The plan is to have this done before the 2016 Chicago Olympics, whether veterans like it or not.
Just watch.
Governor Sarah Palin's about to be tested by fire (literally): Mount Redoubt set to erupt soon, near Anchorage
If there’s anyone who can successfully stare down a volcano and win, it’s Governor Sarah Palin.
We wish her and Alaska all the luck in the world, because seismologists predict Mount Redoubt’s going to erupt soon, 100 miles southwest of Anchorage. Seismic activity at Redoubt’s been increasing dramatically lately, reflecting past eruption behavior (in other words, just like Oprah after a gassy night of chili and sardines, this baby’s going to blow).
Alaska is currently on “Volcano Watch”, the second-highest level of alert (right below, “RUN!”).
The last time Mount Redoubt erupted was from December 1989-April 1990.
Based on what happened almost 20 years ago, the most damage Redoubt will do could be to air travel (since the volcanic ash will rain down on Alaska, clogging engines of planes in the air and generally making everything look gray and terrible).
It just reminds us what a wild and difficult to control state Alaska truly is — and just what sort of unique challenges Governor Palin successfully faces every day, with characteristic grace under fire.
We. Love. This. Woman.
How many United States Presidents won second terms?
Mr. 4,422 Days in Office
Just something to think about on this the Eleventh Day, Year One, of The Golden Age of Obama. It’s actually very rare for a President to win a second term, no matter how well things go in that first term. Because of Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush, we assume a second term’s a given for presidents because the majority of those in our lifetimes have been two-termers (especially for those of us in our early 30s, who’ve mainly known two-termers). But, historically, that’s not the case.
Here are the men (and, unfortunately all men so far, despite all the talk of change still in the air) who’ve held the office two terms (or more, in one case):
(1) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (served 3 full terms, but elected to 4)
(2) Thomas Jefferson (2 terms)
(3) James Madison (2 terms)
(4) James Monroe (2 terms)
(5) Andrew Jackson (2 terms)
(6) Ulysses S. Grant (2 terms)
(7) Grover Cleveland (2 nonconsecutive terms)
(8) Woodrow Wilson (2 terms)
(9) Dwight Eisenhower (2 terms)
(10) Ronald Reagan (2 terms)
(11) Bill Clinton (2 terms)
(12) George W. Bush (2 terms)
(13) George Washington (2 terms)
(14) Richard Nixon (2 terms)
(15) William McKinley (2 terms)
(16) Abraham Lincoln (2 terms)
Those who wanted second terms but lost their elections:
(a) John Quincy Adams
(b) Martin van Buren
(c) Franklin Pierce
(d) Benjamin Harrison
(e) William Howard Taft
(f) Herbert Hoover
(g) Jimmy Carter
(h) George H.W. Bush
(i) John Adams
So, 16 wanted a Part Deux and got one. 9 wanted re-election but were denied. Almost 2/3 of our presidents were thus one-termers (or less).
And another interesting thing to note is that the last time THREE two-term presidents happened in a row was all the way back in the early 1800s, with Jefferson/Madison/Monroe (the 3rd, 4th, and 5th presidents). That hasn’t been repeated for 200 years now.
Not saying it won’t ever again, because it’s much too early to tell, but just noting it’s not an automatic, considering past as probability if not predictor.
Clinton/Bush/Obama as three two-termers in a row would be anomalous but certainly not impossible.
Who are the eight Governors that were impeached and convicted?
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was removed from office yesterday, becoming the eighth state Governor impeached, tried in the legistlature, convicted, and removed from office.
Who were the other seven, and what did they do?
(1) 1871 – William Woods Holden, Governor of North Carolina; impeached for using state militias to effectively battle the Klu Klux Klan when other Souther Governors did nothing to stop them (impssed martial law in two counties in 1870 and suspended habeas corpus for Klan leaders). After impeachment, President Grant eventually appointed him Postmaster General from 1873-1881 and he’s recognized today as one of the “most intellectual and daring men ever born in North Carolina”.
(2) 1871 – David Butler, Governor of Nebraska; alleged to have misused $16,000 in state school funds to buy lots of land (in 1877, state legislature realized it made a mistake and expunged the impeachment from the record books)
(3) 1913 – William Sulzer, Governor of New York; unfairly impeached and convicted for actions taken before he became Governor (historians argue his record should be cleared, as he was really impeached and removed because he was an obstacle to the Tammany Hall corruption ring, that wanted him out of office because he stood in the way of corruption)
(4) 1917 – James E. Ferguson, Governor of Texas; for cutting off funds to University of Texas after it would not remove faculty he didn’t like (interestingly, Ferguson went on to run for president in 1920, then became First Gentleman of Texas not once, but twice, when his wife Miriam “Ma” Ferguson won two nonconsecutive terms as Governor herself)
(5) 1923 – John C. Walton, Governor of Oklahoma; illegal collection of campaign funds, padding the public payroll, suspension of habeas corpus, excessive use of pardon power, and general incompetence
(6) 1929 – Henry S. Johnston, Governor of Oklahoma; neglect of duties (Legislature believed his personal secretary was making all of the Governor’s decisions)
(7) 1988 – Evan Mecham, Governor of Arizona; obstruction of justice and misuse of government funds
(8) 2009 – Rod Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois; corruption and misconduct in office
What is the media's angle in pushing Palin for 2012 so early?
Are they trying to do to her what they did to Hillary?
This weekend, Governor Sarah Palin will be in Washington, DC for the Alfalfa Club dinner, which Obama is also addressing.
Jonathan Martin at Politico is one of many in the media who are writing this up as a preview of 2012.
And that makes us wonder why.
Not three weeks ago, the press was pushing Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as both the GOP’s savior and its answer to Obama for 2012 — both of which are patently ridiculous, as we explained here repeatedly. Jindal’s in for a rough few years in Louisiana, as oil revenues in the Gulf drop and the state struggles to meet its budget requirements as a result. It’s not going to be pretty. But, even if things work out swimmingly in Baton Rouge, Jindal’s not the one to unseat Obama. One young, relatively inexperienced, exotic, politician from a corrupt state, but with an “inspirational story” replacing another seems incredibly unlikely.
No, the person with a chance of depriving Obama of a second term needs to be someone who will remedy whatever Obama’s lacking in 2012, if/when voters decide they want to make a course correction after four years of Hope!, Change!, and lemonade and pixie dust.
We will be thrilled to be wrong on this, but we do not believe the trillion dollar stimulus package passed in the House this week will strengthen the economy by 2012. Obama and Democrats own that spending package, and will also own all the scandals that will start hitting in 2010-2012, as reporters inevitably discover that a trillion dollars of tax dollars was poured down the drain in infrasctructure projects, especially, that are riddled with incompetence and corruption.
No one can predict the future — but it sure looks like that stimulus is going to do two things if the economy doesn’t turn around because of it:
(1) Demand a course correction from Obama to someone who can steer an economic ship in serious trouble for the duration of the current administration
(2) Guarantee the public will want someone with a track record of fighting corruption and keeping her promises, after four years of Hope! Change! Nonsense!
And we purposefully said “her” because Palin sure will fit that bill: she is very much the anti-Obama in that regard. Mitt Romney’s a great choice for course correction in terms of (1), but we still don’t see how he deals with the questions his Mormonism raises for many people. We hate that’s true, but while campaigning all last year, we heard shockingly hateful things from people about Mormons in surprising places. Little old ladies who seemed like they’d never say boo to anyone just ripped on Romney and Mormonism with language that would make sailors blush. It was stunning.
Who knows if that sort of thing will be important if Obama hasn’t healed the world and solved all of our problems in four years the way he promised.
And, he very much did promise to perform miracles…which we are patiently waiting for, on this the Eleventh Day, of the first Year, of The Golden Age of Obama.
But, as for Palin, she’s a woman who doesn’t promise things she can’t deliver and never hides behind flowery poetry or televised speechifying. She’s someone we would happily support (and work for) in 2012, but we wonder what the media’s doing in pushing her candidacy now.
Why has Jindal fallen off the media’s early radar while Palin’s still being billed as “an early look at the 2012 matchup”?
What game’s being played here?
Because there always is a game.
Somehow, we think it’s intended to hurt Palin, because as much as the media love attacking women and bringing them down, Palin’s a favorite target of the left that’s not going away.
Are they doing that thing to Palin that they did to Hillary — making her the frontrunner now, so they can take delight in tearing her down for a “surprise” entry into the race like Jindal in 2012? So the inspirational and exotic young politician can “come from nowhere” to usurp the female contender for the nomination?
Again.
Because it was all so much fun for these hacks the first time?
What do you think?
Secretary Clinton's Official State Department Photo
Here’s the official portrait Hillary Rodham Clinton’s using as Secretary of State, now hanging in embassies and other posts around the world.
We. Love. This. Woman.
It’s no longer Hillaryland…it’s Hillary World Wide, as the folks over at The Big Pink like to say.
The official State Department website is an interesting place we’ve been visiting daily since Clinton became Secretary of State. Prior to Clinton’s appointment, we probably went to that site ten times in our lives, and mostly for Model UN back in college (representing France and Iceland, among others). So, one of the unexpected benefits of things working out the way they did in 2008 was discovering this opportunity to learn a great deal about American diplomacy, as we’re following Clinton wherever she goes in all that she does. Sometimes the universe brings you the wrong french toast.
It’s up to you to make the most of it, because you sure can’t send any of it back.
Why is the President of the United States making Rush Limbaugh his arch nemesis?
The Obama Administration and Democratic Party are waging war with…wait for it, wait for it…a radio talk show host, unelected to any position, who merely exercises his right of free speech.
How dare him?
Love him or hate him, Rush Limbaugh is someone you can either listen to and agree with (or disagree with, if you choose), or not listen to at all.
There are dials on the radio now that let you change the stations whenever you want, to whatever you want.
Imagine that!
Around here, we like to bebop to a 80s feel good station in Chicago, because you can never hear enough Aha and Rick Astley during the day.
We very rarely listen to talk radio, but have tuned into Limbaugh a few times, and have to say the guy’s a lot of things to a lot of people, but to us he’s a poster boy of real Americans…because he calls people out when they need it and questions our government and those running it.
We don’t always agree with what he has to say (and that’s the understatement of the year), but love that he’s out there saying it. He’s as patriotic as you can get in that sense, especially when challenging Obama on what we believe is a reckless trillion dollar spending bill that’s going to waste massive amounts of money and run the nation into unprecedented debt, with very little chance of stimulating any sort of economic recovery.
Limbaugh needs to stand up and speak out against the stimulus bill as it’s written. More people need to do that. EVERYONE needs to do that.
Now is not the time for shutting up and sitting down and silencing critics with purple Kool-Aid.
But, it’s NEVER the time, or appropriate, for the President of the United States to go toe-to-toe with a radio talk show host on equal footing. And that’s no aspersion on Limbaugh — it just seems so unseemly that Democrats are elevating a radio host to the President’s level, as if we’re talking about an international summit of leaders or a colossal battle of historic proportions. Reagan vs Gorbachev. Roosevelt vs. Hitler. Washington vs. King George.
Obama, President of the United States, vs. Limbaugh, talk radio host?
That’s just ridiculous. It’s a cartoon. Why not just talk about He-Man vs. Skeletor or Lion-o vs. Mumm-ra if we’re going to be so childish and two-dimensional?
The concept of “you’re either with Obama, or you’re with Limbaugh” draws the same partisan lines in the sand and fosters the same acrimony and squabbling that Obama promised his transformational Golden Age would end.
Weren’t Democrats the ones who decried the “you’re either with us or against us” attitude they saw in George W. Bush?
So why trot that old chestnut out now, in a war of words with Limbaugh?
The truth is, Americans need to question the stimulus package the same way they’d question handing over their American Express to the teenagers in their house. When times are tough, the solution is not to go shopping on Rodeo Drive or Michigan Avenue. It is not the time to throw money we don’t have down bottomless pits of debt.
What will that trillion dollars go to?
Who will manage that money?
What jobs will it actually CREATE?
How is the government going to keep that money from being wasted?
Who is going to chart the effects of this stimulus once the money is awarded?
What’s Plan B when none of this works?
Why are people like Limbaugh not allowed to ask these kinds of questions? Where’s the sense in that?
The President and our entire government need to be questioned on a daily basis. Especially with something this important, with financial ramifications echoing through several future generations.
This “Us vs. Them” nonsense is not what’s needed now from Obama.
And it’s CERTAINLY not what he promised us on the campaign trail, with all that talk of Hope! and Change! and lemonade and pixie dust.
How is attacking Rush Limbaugh and those who listen to him Hope?
How is telling people to shut up if they don’t agree with him Change?
Why is the President of the United States squabbling with a radio host?
Isn’t there more important things he could be doing?
Just asking.
