Sunday, April 01, 2012

Of the thousands of editorials lambasting the Supreme Court for even considering the possibility of striking down Obamacare...

Here's the one we chose to respond to; it's from San Jose's own Mercury News, which predictably finds that GOP proposals for health-care reform fail to sufficiently take from the rich and give to the poor.

The one-hundred-and-twenty-five word limitation specified in their submission requirements allows for little more than an expanded Tweet, but we gave it a shot:

"Dear Editor:

You conclude that Obama's healthcare reforms are better than GOP ideas, which won’t "reduce the number of uninsured, drive down medical costs or provide better care for middle-class or poor Americans." - where is the evidence that Obama's reforms actually accomplish these goals?

While supporters have been pitching benefits, we haven’t been told why waivers for these reforms were handed out like prize tokens, why costs have nearly doubled since the plan’s inception, or why the bulk of the legislation doesn’t begin until after the next presidential election.

The reforms are either a good idea, or they’re not; the backroom-dealing gives people plenty of reason to be suspicious. It can easily be argued that doing nothing about health care is better than making it worse."

Friday, December 02, 2011

They doth protest too much....

While the Tea Party is judged - with news media fostering a judge-jury-and-executioner role - as a kind of homeless shelter for racists, the "Occupy (fill in the blank)" movement has been hailed as Democracy's great hope. The topic of media favoritism is a favorite of this blog, but there's a much more serious issue at hand, which is the conviction of the "Occupy" folks that capitalism is evil.

That such a statement is taken as a perfectly acceptable and even laudable stance is a dire warning for our way life: a significant portion of the population has been brought up with this notion as a kind of gospel. Don't believe it? Look through a college course catalog, read student papers, listen to the somber pronouncements by supposedly wise men and women that equitable distribution of wealth is not only a desirable goal, but a moral imperative.

With this in hand, it makes perfect sense to camp out at the doorstep of Wall Street, and denounce "Those *** with their ***-in' yachts", and such (Hat tip: A&G). Never mind that it is crony capitalism that is largely responsible for the corrupt bubbles that have plagued homeowners and shareholders alike; what really irks the protesters is the notion that some people have so much, and too many have so little. No further analysis is needed; the mere fact that some super-rich guy has tons more money than you or I do is diagnosed as proof positive that an injustice has taken place, thus the need for "Social Justice", a recently-coined phrase that, while little more than fascism in a new suit, has captured the imagination of the young - well, not really; there's plenty of adults around who ought to know better, but apparently, the much-vaunted "Critical thinking" that was supposedly being offered as instruction in our higher-education system was merely a new pair of blinders.

Gone is the insight by Adam Smith that a mutually-beneficial exchange actually enriches both parties to a transaction; it is much more satisfying to locate and condemn the perceived evil of wealth; the thought process returns to the time when wealth was something that grew in the ground, or was picked off a tree - there was a finite amount of it, and the only way to possess it was by taking it away from someone else.

Flash forward to the present, where we are treated to lectures about the "Ever-widening gap between rich and poor" which is apparently the greatest threat to our social fabric. It's a classic case of misdiagnosing a symptom for the wrong illness. One of the best illustrations of the "Occupy" movement's inherent contradictions was its love for using technology to push its platforms; thus did we see protesters, blogging, tweeting, IM-ing, Facebook-updating, flash-mobbing, and iphoning, all the time rhapsodizing about its purported disdain for corporate greed, while lining the pockets of - gasp! - corporations!

But this amusing juxtaposition is merely an illustration of thought gone off the rails. It's time to de-throne the notion that wealth is evil; a single semester of studying the ideas of Adam Smith would do wonders to our national dialogue, but sober analysis is just not as exhilarating as denouncing an enemy; thus do we have an army of educators, technocrats, and government-dependents, shouting that our salvation lies in state administration of - well, everything. As usual, those who are so quick to denounce government sloth and waste are at the same time apparently willing to turn over the entire notion of private-party contracts, which has formed the foundation for America's success.

Well, say the objectors: America is in fact not successful; just look at all the poverty, graffiti, crime, inner-city schools, and such. Again, the disease is not capitalism, but it's more fulfilling, somehow, to blame the image of Monopoly men, fat-cat bankers, and corporate jets going to Las Vegas than it is to figure out why so many children are being raised in one-parent households (if that many).

The protestors would do well to look beyond the actions of banks, which primarily exist to invest money in as many different places as possible, and look to the examples of government collusion with business that result in so much market imbalance. While GE's CEO lectures us on the need for more tax revenue, his company's accomplishment of avoiding taxes completely last year gains little scrutiny. While Barney Frank announces "Retirement" after decades of enriching himself through his Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac shenanigans, the rest of the population now has to pay for its failures, number one as a company, and number two, in the form of a severely distressed housing market, which was driven into the ditch primarily by those who now claim that government must do "even more" of the same to solve the problem that was its own creation.

And the view that wealth, and capitalism in particular, are to be accused, tried, and executed, should be put back into the sewer of history.


Presidential pontification:

If it's Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama, Romney can win.
If it's Newt Gingrich vs. Barack Obama, Obama will win.
If it's Romney-Perry, or even Perry-Romney, Obama could lose.
If it's Romney-Newt, or Newt-Romney, Obama will win.

This is probably not what the so-called "Smart" money is saying, nor is it the line at Vegas, but that's our offering for
the "Prediction
" racket for 2012.

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Finally, a better reason to celebrate Mayday

The effort to turn Mayday into some sort of international day of socialist brotherhood can now recede into the shadows, as the death of Bin Laden will surely be remembered as clearly as will the anniversary of 9/11. Good-bye and good riddance, beast - if there is a Hell, you will surely be assigned to it.

The unpleasant questions will no doubt follow - e.g., what does this say about our 'ally', Pakistan? Why is the media so desperate to spin this as a bump for Obama's approval ratings? - but for now, it is certainly worth taking a moment to applaud the U.S. military, and dance on Bin Laden's sea-grave.

Sunday, January 02, 2011

Goodbye, 2010 - your discourse will not be missed.

After a late-April entry, this blog went silent for the balance of 2010, and who could blame it? 2010 was a sad year, one in which the process of trading in analysis for blind declarations took great strides. Those who believe that their agendas are justified by cosmic righteousness continued their burning and pillaging, and seem to have recruited many new followers to their cause. As public discourse discovered new lows, mainstream news outlets (supposedly dedicated to the noble cause of impartial fact-gathering) continued their descent into incoherent irrelevance with their ecstatic determination that personal judgment could and should be "the news".

This strategy-philosophy of ends justifying the means was nowhere on clearer display than it was with news "analysts", commentators, opinion pages, op-eds, and all the usual outlets - but their fiery damnation of all those who disagree with them brought the level of debate to shocking new depths.

Do you doubt that 2010 was the worst year ever for reason in debate? Consider:

-Arizona Law

Repackaged by ostensibly centrist citizenry as the coming of the Fourth Reich - and if you're unaware that this level of hyperbole was indulged, just listen to the comments of the Los Angeles City Council (just as though their job description allowed for this sort of thing) - Arizona's new laws dealing with illegals added nothing new to what was already in Federal Law; rather, the state was sick of the feds not enforcing their own laws, and citizens were sick of armed drug gangs, as well as a culture of permissiveness toward anyone from anywhere choosing to take up residency in the state.

Besides the existing much-discussed hypocrisy of selective observation of laws and the blind-eye treatment of racial politicking groups such as La Raza - groups which apparently believe that Mexican nationals should have full entry and residence rights to the U.S. for no particular reason, but don't seem to share such concerns for migrants from China, Rwanda, or Norway - the fiery denunciation of Arizona's law never acknowledged its mirror of Federal law. Such a gaping hole in such circular reasoning should give pause to anyone who thinks that cops are being issued truncheons with which to rough up patrons of ice-cream parlors.

We can and should have debates over the proper number of immigrants to allow into the U.S. - and the open-borders crowd is free to provide any meaningful reasons for its position that it possesses - but far too often, there is an unwillingness to admit to any need of debate whatsoever; it's much easier to refer to non-open-borders people as "Racists" - in fact, it's one of the easiest attack positions to take these days - but its currency is dwindling fast in value, and the naked tribalism of "La Raza" and its brethren is becoming much clearer to ordinary people as the see-no-evil position insists that if the government is putting up signs warning people to stay out of U.S. territory because of Mexican drug cartels, it's still somehow the fault of non-leftist white people.
(Let's face it: groups such as La Raza and its ilk don't care a bit about the best interests of the U.S.; they are only concerned with their tribe - and this is the ideology we were supposed to be moving away from, not re-embracing.)

But of course, the hypocrisy couldn't stop there; the Feds had to publicly distance itself from Arizona's actions, and pretend that they were ready to battle Arizona itself. This is where the two-faced nature of the Obama administration reached new dimensions of shamelessness; Eric Holder, Attorney General and self-proclaimed arbiter of racial debates ("A nation of cowards") announced a legal challenge to Arizona's law without having read the law (by his own admission), just as though a law mirroring Federal Law (which is purposefully being under-enforced) is without legal standing.

Imagine, if you will, a left-friendly blue state passing a law meant to allow local law enforcement to do a job that the Feds have been neglecting, for whatever reason - now, imagine the Bush administration announcing that the law is unjust, and intends to challenge it in court. What do you think the editorial position of The New York Times and the news in general would have to say about that?

But the Obama administration couldn't stop even at this level of absurdity; they had to raise the bar even further (okay, pun intended) by denouncing the Arizona law internationally, and specifically, in a meeting with China, whose own treatment of those on its soil illegally somehow goes unquestioned.

Reason and analysis, zero; hyperbole and b.s., one.

-Greek Riots

Here is a news story that tends to induce yawns and eye-rolling, for what do we in the U.S. have to fear from a story of a far-away country which erupts with angry mobs torching cars and businesses, since that sort of thing seems to happen all the time over "there"? The exhortation to imagine such outbursts in one's own neighborhood falls flat on ears that have been listening to lullabies about the state's limitless capacity to provide care for all.

The problem with this news story wasn't so much the lack of meaningful discussion, but the avoidance of discussing its significance for us, given America's own absurd levels of entitlement debt. There is a never-ending river of revelations regarding government waste, lavish salaries and perks for questionable bureaucrats, and infinitely-accumulating debt, and yet those who believe themselves to be speaking truth to power appear to have bought into the notion that the state is the winner of the debate over the identity of the individual's primary benefactor, and that there is no merit to even attempting to look at things in a less totalitarian way.

The ideology of the government as caretaker manifests itself in two distinctive dialogues: The first in which the state exerts its power of justice over all aspects of our lives, from business to pleasure, imposing controls and regulations at its personal whim, in order to do to people what they can't be relied on to do voluntarily. The second voice of this process declares that the powers enumerated in the first vision require that the state also act as the provider of employment in its execution of these powers, thus using the first principle of government control to also create a new economy, in which the benefactors of the state are also its employees. This results in an employment sector entirely denoted by government work, with its accompanying generous wages, benefits, medical care, medical leave, life insurance, and a hefty, hefty pension, funding sources be damned.

Thus in the wake of the second of these views - whereby the state is a jobs teat - do we have commentary arguing that Tea-Party resistance to government debt and public-sector union is once again racism (surprise!) and/or war on the poor, as government work is now seen as the de facto employment machinery for poor people and non-whites. That this should be presented as a reasonable argument is an excellent measurement of the degree to which blind ideology has been adopted as a replacement for analytical thought.

Which is why the riots in Greece are so significant, as they illustrate where the path of state-entitlement-to-all leads. Those who continue to bemoan the inability of the state to fund its "obligations" expect everyone else to do so, and that process will escape scrutiny for a while - but at some point, when the state's bill exceeds your own income, will you still think of rioting as some option for other people in a distant and far away land?

The process of state control over the individual is well-illustrated by the events in Greece, but to listen to the majority of our "news" outlets, you are once again steered to a view that the only problem that Greek rioting teaches us is the selfishness and greed of those who continue to oppose the non-stop expansion of government entitlement, to which there are no limits, nor should there ever be.

No, they don't say that last part aloud - but what exactly, then, are they proposing should be done instead?

Health-Care Reform

With the Orwellian title, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", the government tried to finally gain control over the medical-care system, fulfilling the fantasies of wannabe-socialists everywhere. For those of you who find even the use of the word "socialist" to be some sort of red-baiting scare, you are free to explain the disparity between the horror stories of both the Canadian and U.K. government-run medical services and the pronouncements of officials and commentators such as Paul Krugman, who insist with a straight face that the horror stories "are false".

Leaving aside, then, the possibility that such a system, if well-run, might avoid just enough patient harm to somehow provide sufficient balance to justify its existence, we are still left asking why it is better for the government to run medical care rather than the (admittedly quasi) private sector model we are now discarding? It's always seemed strange that those who heartily agree that the DMV is a denizen of incompetence would at the same time wish for a similar entity to be in charge of medicine and surgeries.

The philosophy behind this bizarre power grab appears to find refuge in the notion that it is somehow more just for the government to be in charge of dishing out medical care, and that medical insurance itself is somehow an immoral concept. But if those who mocked Sarah Palin's denunciation of "Death Panels" still think she was somehow exaggerating, even with the recent re-injection of the concept into the law, it would be nice to hear them explain how rationing of medical care should work. If you ask one of the defenders of the new law about this, you'll probably receive an answer that deals more with avoiding the issue than explaining the law's relationship to it.

If you still think rationing is some sort of smokescreen for an attack on the new health-care "system", ask what the original purpose of the law was. As the so-called news media reported, it was all about providing medical insurance to those who "can't afford it" - if that's the case, then we should all be given coverage via government edict, right? Well, we've got it - hooray! Now, what happens if you're ill, and need expensive surgery? Since the ideology of government-run health care necessarily dictates - and thus limits - the salaries of people like surgeons, you will, at some degree of illness complexity, be told that your surgery won't be covered by your insurance. At least, that's the explanation you'll hear; what you won't be told is that because your surgery costs more than anyone is willing to do it for, you won't receive it.

And thus the conumdrum of Government-run medical care: It's free, except when it isn't. At some tipping point, your life-support plug will be pulled, regardless of the wishes of you and/or your family. If you still insist that we have not implemented a "Government takeover of Health Care", and even delight in pointing to the news item that called this conclusion the "Lie of the Year", you'll find that allowing insurance companies to exist while dictating their terms and operations is a pointless distinction.

Since this new system has come into effect, I can now receive medical insurance even if I can't afford it, right? And if that's so, what's to stop me from claiming that I can't afford it, even if that's untrue? What's that, I'll be penalized? But why should I be, if the goal was to extend coverage to everyone? Either the government is providing medical care, or it isn't. Is there possibly something wrong with Nancy Pelosi's declarations that the bill will provide jobs, reduce costs, and expand coverage? Anytime a politician claims to offer a perpetual-motion machine of this type that defies the laws of physics, look out for your wallet. Concerns over the constitutionality of enforcing the purchase of medical insurance? Nancy Pelosi dismisses such concerns, sarcastically asking, "Are you serious?" Federal judges have already begun to rebuke her.

But all this illustrates why forcing companies to provide insurance eventually becomes a flat-out takeover; the false economy that it dictates will be abandoned, and that's when the government announces that it must, due to the current "crisis", step in and run the show. If this isn't the goal, it would be nice to hear such from the reams of analysis flowing forth from those in the news who claim to be keeping us informed, rather than the bowing, scraping, and knee-jerk declarations that the mess before us produced by power-mad Democrats is somehow "Historic".

Tax Cuts for "The Rich"!

This class-warfare cry never gets old, apparently, but never did it achieve such heights of froth as it did toward the end of 2010. It's a simple situation turned into a mountain of anger towards those who create wealth: At what rate of progress should taxes be collected? Never mind that most of those who denounced "tax cuts for the rich" couldn't even tell you the difference in tax rates for Obama's proposed cutoff of a quarter-million dollars in annual income; the real medal-winner of 2010 was the notion that George Bush had somehow reduced tax rates in a horrendously evil giveaway to his wealthy cronies, while completely ignoring Bill Clinton's hike in such rates.

If you're going to argue for higher rates of taxation as a matter of justice, you'd do well to analyze how and why higher rates bring about a better result; instead of such justification, we get lectures about Republicans with hearts of stone. Illustrating perfectly the coercive nature of the protests against any reduced taxes for supposedly "wealthy" earners, the option of every American to make a donation to the government to make up for his or her own perceived shortcoming in tax rates is almost never mentioned, while the lectures continue that forcibly taking such money is somehow the height of justice.

Current "News reporting" makes infantile generalizations on a daily basis, and its hostility to debate and analysis exposes the underlying condition of demagoguery perhaps better than any other example - it's on display every time you hear the phrase, "tax cuts for the rich".


Few tears will be shed for the passing of 2010 and its dismal attempt to discuss ideas, but there will undoubtedly be more in the wake of the realization that 2011 promises much of the same, only worse.


p.s. - yes, there should indeed be an entry here for "Journolist", whose naked betrayal of its purported journalistic aspirations is possibly the best example in 2010 of media hypocrisy - but that will have to wait for next time.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Where's the &%@$# Lottery money?

First of all, here's the link for the official explanation of how California Lottery money is disbursed to schools.

Everyone who isn't in a coma or otherwise impaired hears the annual cry of "Not enough money for schools" come election season - whether it's national, state, or local elections, there's a din comparable to a concert by The Who from the usual crowd - to listen to them, you'd be forgiven for thinking that schools are woefully underfunded (again), and that unless we approve the latest round of increases, your children's teachers will be replaced by rocks, and everyone will have to use feather quills and stone tablets for their writing assignments.

It's a clever scheme, using dire threats to scare voters into pulling the lever for either education spending increases, or against any attempt to rein in such spending - and it tends to work.

But to take perhaps the most glaring national example, California, is to beach a whale of a whopper, especially in light of the cash extravaganza for "Education" that the California lottery was supposed to provide.

Currently, the state lottery runs television advertising in prime-time slots, at no doubt extraordinary expense, to inspire more purchases of lottery tickets. One has to marvel at the logic trail: products and services tend to be advertised in primo times and locations precisely because they are profitable, and are looking to expand their customer base. The California lottery certainly doles out some impressive jackpots, but such prizes are clearly not bankrupting the enterprise; if the lottery were at all unprofitable, it would be gone in a flash, and you'd see no prime-time t.v. ads.

At the time the lottery was introduced, we were given tales of riches beyond man's wildest dreams being generated for schools - and yet, here we are years later, and are the exhortations to increase funding for schools any less in din and volume? Every year, we are fed horror stories of how schools are teetering on the brink of collapse, with no hope except for the hapless voter to approve yet another tax increase - or a new tax, take your pick.

California's teachers continue to earn well above the national average, but somehow, it's not only insufficient, it's nowhere near enough, if you listen to the scare mongers - what is it that they are trying to protect?

This dance, played out year after year, ignores the entire concept of economies of scale - that is, structures that expand or contract in proportion to their base. Are we really to believe that back when California education was the best in the nation, that it was so only because there weren't as many students in the system? If that were true, it would be impossible to expand the population; the schools would collapse under their own weight, or citizens would be taxed at 100% - so it cannot be true that "Rising costs" are anything other than an expansion of the bureaucracy that feeds off those doing the actual work in the schools.

If the doomsters speak the truth, then the California lottery hasn't done its job helping education, and should be ended. If, on the other hand, it was merely folded into the ever-expanding appetite of the bureaucracy - the much more likely development - then Californians deserve an honest accounting of where that lottery money has gone.

It's got to be one or the other. It's sickening to be talked down to by the p.r. machine of the schools every single election season, so let's ask them directly: what happened to the windfall for schools that the lottery was supposed to provide?

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

One-Line summary of where we are.

This blog took an extended break for an academic venture, and a lot has happened in the interim.

Rather than review it all, let's simply establish the one-line summary of the Obama administration's supporters:

"All opposition to anything Obama has done or proposes to do is racist."

You can pick it apart all you like, but this is essentially it.

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Barack Obama, Hypocrite-in-Chief

Who is the bigger hypocrite - Barack Obama, or his fawning sycophants in the news media?

The hypocrite-in-chief has wasted no time in engaging the sort of double-talk that routinely earned his predecessor the label of "Worst president ever", but isn't it even more nauseating that the news media, the self-styled truth-to-power speaker which considers itself the conscience of the world, can't cast on Obama even one one-hundredth of the scrutiny and criticism it routinely doled out to George Bush?

Let's just try and imagine what would have happened if George Bush had engaged in just one of Obama's many shenanigans:

-Having an attorney general who labels the country as "Cowards" when it comes to "Talking about racial matters" - Of course, Eric Holder did nothing to illustrate exactly what matters he was describing, but it was merely a racial elephant in the room for everyone to ignore by unspoken agreement. Could he have been referring to the street-thug gangsta-rap ideology that pervades the culture and denounces those who read and study for "Acting White"? That would indeed be speaking truth to power, but by the shamefully absurd lack of focus, it's clear that Mr. Holder was talking about something that no reporter even felt the need to ask for details on. Is it still such a foregone conclusion in the U.S.A. that the only racial issue that matters is the notion of white hatred towards blacks? Apparently, it's easier to avoid facing the fact that reality is a good deal more complex than this simplistic scapegoat, but as always, it's easier to blame the white race for all social ills. But the differentiation appears to be the mere fact that Mr. Holder himself is black - sure, a white Attorney General would never say such a thing - but why is a black man given a pass for such a thing, where a white man would be hounded to obscurity? The mentality that allows such double-standards is precisely what allows the national racial-angst monologue to continue.

-Expanding our debt by trillions, then denouncing the same debt, then pretending that projected reductions would be "Savings" (and let's not even discuss what usually happens to such projected reductions). Generally, doublespeak about money is uncool. This time around, Obama's "Trust me, I'm really cool" message appears to be pegged to a currency of its own, which circulates for as long as everyone accepts it - but what happens when people lose their faith in it, and want real cash?

-Saying that we "Need to look forward" regarding actions taken by the past administrations, but then quietly sending out the lawyers to see if "Truth Commissions", prosecutions, lawsuits, and indictments can be obtained at the same exact time.

-Taking boatloads of campaign money from a company, and then using his power as president to force the company into government receivership, effectively taking it over.

-Indulging in the most expensive inauguration ever - particularly at a time when the rest of the economy is reeling from contraction. Oh, well, it's different, everyone thinks; it's an "Historic" occasion, the inauguration of the first black president, so it's okay. If you bought into this line, you've patronized millions of Americans with your shallow airs. Apparently, you've invested so much into the notion that America is the Great Satan of the world, you've forgotten how many lives America has sacrificed to emancipate blacks from slavery (leading the rest of the world way behind in the rearview mirror), rescue untold millions from dictatorships and fascists around the world during the twentieth century, and the millions upon millions of dollars transferred from the pockets of U.S. taxpayers every year into the bank accounts of other nations, even those who pocket such largesse while at the same time uttering drearily predictable rants about how evil the U.S. is. Hypocrisy? Set your watch to it; it's Obama time!

-Pretending that every one of his tax-cheating cabinet appointments were absolutely crucial to the survival of the nation, and that their tax offenses were something to be explained away - or simply ignored.

-Making "Calls" for "Bipartisanship", then denouncing those who don't buy into it once it becomes clear that "Bipartisanship" to the president means that everybody on the other side gives him what he wants, while he gives nothing in return.

-Claiming that he'd have no lobbyists, then bringing in a whole bunch of them.

-Claiming the budget had no pork, and then adding a mountain of pork.


So much of this see-no-evil approach has to do with Mr. Obama's purported personal charm, and I say "Purported" specifically because too many have made huge concessions about the one's "Oratorical Gifts", and "Cool Demeanor", and such, but I'm sorry to report that I see little evidence of it. Sure, he's not wearing a sideways baseball cap, and saying "Yo, 'Sup" at press conferences - instead, he adopts the tones of a smooth salesman, and talks in exceptionally bland platitudes - this is supposed to be evidence of an amazing personality? It's just snake oil all over again. Bush's line about the "Soft bigotry of low expectations" once again proves far more visionary than anyone could ever have expected. So Obama can go on and on about stuff that sounds good in the abstract, and avoids details when turning on his charm offensive. That's statesmanship? It's just the same old malarkey, and everyone who thought we were getting a new and better spin on the presidency is having the wool pulled over their eyes at the same time the rug is being pulled out from under them.


However, there are of course many actions taken by Obama that are not hypocritical in the sense that he'd be praised for them, where Bush would have been damned, but that's because Bush would never have done them:

-Kissing up to Hugo Chavez, and even accepting a book from him, which was, of course, a diatribe about how all of South America's problems are the fault of the U.S.A.
-Kissing up to Daniel Ortega
-Apologizing for America (just as though it were necessary)
-Releasing CIA information to further demonize the former administration, while giving no consideration to whether such information affects America's safety.
-Turning up the thermostat in the Oval Office to 80, while burning absurd amounts of jet fuel on "Earth Day" for photo opportunities, and at the same time denouncing coal as an industry, and buying into the notion of a cap-and-trade bureacracy of dubious nature and need, which is all but guaranteed to act as an albatross around the neck of the country.
-Targeting celebrities, such as Jim Cramer and Rush Limbaugh in an attempt to deflect criticism and scrutiny of his own agenda.
-Returning the Bust of Winston Churchill to England - what many would consider to have been a treasured gift from a staunch ally - then allowing his staff to tell the British that they shouldn't consider themselves any different from anyone else, nor expect special treatment.

No, Bush would have been far more classy - but you can be sure, that whatever Bush did that's "Bad", is now "Good", just as long as Barack Obama is the one doing it. Since that's the only rule that anyone needs to know, being a fan of Obama is possibly the easiest, most default position to take - but, as always, thinking for yourself takes a backseat to such group-think. So carry on, emperor Obama, and your adulatory bootlickers in your press corps - because they do work for you; never forget that. You earned them, and they're yours - sure, they are still ostensibly owned by private companies, and their own steep declines in readership, circulation, and shareholder values have taken a concurrent plummet - but that has nothing to do with you. In fact, they might be eligible for a bailout, no? Pull the AIG trick again, and they're all yours, in deed as well as fact!