The Occasional Observer

Love this skit, as will anyone who's ever seen a Samuel Jackson movie. Not the most suitable for work viewing...

So the current plan being kicked around now would involve creating a "bad bank" that would buy up all the troubled assets from current banks, and this bank would be jointly owned by the government (that is, you and me) and the banks.

Here's my question. In your line of work, if you had presided over such a debacle of mismanagement that it resulted in the loss of billions of dollars for your company, thousands of jobs, and a complete economic collapse, would you still have your job? I know I wouldn't. My ass would be fired. Therefore, I am in favor that any bank that requires bailout money or needs to offload their troubled assets to the public should only be allowed to do so if their CEO resigns and their board is replaced.

I know this is not really ideal free-market capitalism, but then again neither are government handouts and taxpayers paying the cost for poor management.

Thoughts?

CNN op-ed hits Obama on his hypocrisy of claiming he wouldn't appoint any personnel with lobbyist ties, but is now doing so.

But I am still amazed and frightened

David Frum has started a website called "The New Majority" which is worth a look.

For starters, they have a long interview with Giuliani in multiple parts. Check it out if you get the chance.

So asketh The Daily Show:

Dirk Kempthorne for Prez?

Talk about yer no-brainer:

Sully

Better late than never. If any of you hooligans use Facebook, you might want to leave an 'attaboy for him here.

Saw this at the bottom of some blogger's signature:



And beneath it was written:

"Since defeating McCain in the first presidential debate, the Dow has collapsed over 3000 points. Since being elected, over 1600 points. On his inauguration day, nearly 400 points. Coincidence?? I think not.... "

Check out his interesting antics at the beginning of this term, here.

If you want to read about some mentally unstable behavior, just google his 2004 reelection campaign. No time to find a link right now.

Sounds like McConnell and Cornyn are trying to gently push Bunning in the direction of a graceful exit so that we can have a competent candidate to defend a winnable seat.

For those who truly believed that the Obama regime would bring about more open discussions and transparency in government per his promises, here's your transparency.

He's transparent, all right. Transparent that he'll avoid any hard-hitting questions.

Wait? We're leading? Certify the winner NOW!

Boy. Does this ever get predictable.

It's no joke: Senate Democrats are moving toward letting comedian Al Franken join the chamber while Republican Norm Coleman's election lawsuit is pending.

"We're going to try to seat Al Franken," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters on Wednesday, a few hours before he posed with Franken for photos just off the Senate floor. "There's not a question in anyone's mind, an assertion by anyone, that there's been any fraud or wrongdoing in this election."

Coleman's lawyers are challenging the results of the election and the re-count in a trial set to begin in state district court on Monday. A three-judge panel that will hear the case is considering Franken's argument to dismiss it altogether.

Franken finished the re-count ahead by 225 votes. But Coleman's campaign said it will push for a review of all 12,000 absentee ballots that were not counted in the race. Coleman's attorneys said the new proposal could bring as many as 7,000 ballots to the race.

Reid did not say when Franken would be seated provisionally, but he said the two were meeting to hash out the agenda and Franken's committee assignments.

Not so fast, said Republicans.

"If Al Franken truly believes he won this election, he should respect the laws of his state and allow this legal review to be completed," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

And I, for one, am full of Hope at the beginning of this new four year term. I can only hope the results are good enough to merit "four more years."

Here's the transcript of President Obama's speech (or at least the first two paragraphs):

"My fellow citizens,

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents."

I felt the speech was delivered well and gave a positive message. However, I jumped all over a glaring error right off the bat--"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."

WRONG!!! The oath has been taken forty-four times, but by forty-three Americans. Good ol' Grover Cleveland took it twice. Can't believe that this bungle of simple American history slipped by the fact-checkers and editors.

Is this a portend of things to come?

Let's see if anyone in the media jumps on this one--we all know if it was W there'd already be spoofs all over YouTube and on every comedy show.

Wow--I mean, seriously--wow...

This girl must have been living at the bottom of a well deeper than the one that the creepy chick from The Ring was stuck in...




Star Wars: Retold (by someone who hasn't seen it) from Joe Nicolosi on Vimeo.

KUDLOW OFFERS DETAILS OF OBAMA DINNER
Wed Jan 14 2009 12:15:47 ET

CNBC’s Melissa Francis: I HAVE TO ASK LARRY, I'M DYING TO HEAR ABOUT IT, YOU HAD DINNER LAST NIGHT WITH PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA. WHAT WAS THE TONE LIKE? WAS HE TRYING TO WIN OVER THE CONSERVATIVES? IS THAT WHAT IT WAS?

THERE WERE ABOUT TEN OF YOU THERE, RIGHT?

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow: THIS WAS AN OFF-THE-RECORD DINNER AND I'M GOING TO KEEP IT OFF THE RECORD IN TERMS OF DEEP CONTENT, BUT PEGGY NOONAN WAS THERE, PAUL GIGOT OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, BILL KRISTOL, MYSELF, CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SOME OTHERS. NINE OR TEN OF US. I DON'T THINK HE'S TRYING TO WIN US OVER, BUT HE'S TRYING TO CONNECT WITH US AND ENGAGE WITH US TO HIT GREAT CREDIT.THIS WAS A VERY CORDIAL DINNER.

Francis: HE IS CHARMING, RIGHT?

Kudlow: HE IS CHARMING, HE IS TERRIBLY SMART, BRIGHT, WELL-INFORMED, HE HAS A GREAT SENSE OF HUMOR. AT THE BEGINNING WHEN HE WALKED INTO THE LIVING ROOM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL WAITING --

Francis: WHERE WERE YOU?

Kudlow: THIS IS AT GEORGE WILL'S HOUSE….HE COMES IN AND HE CAME UP TO ME, I HAD NEVER MET HIM BEFORE. I THINK HE MAY HAVE WATCHED ‘KUDLOW AND COMPANY’ PERIODICALLY. SOMEBODY GAVE HIM A COLUMN I HAD WRITTEN DEFENDING HIS BUSINESS INVESTMENT TAX CUTS. HE LIKED THAT A LOT. I SAID, ‘YOU KNOW, SIR, SINCE BARNEY FRANK AND NANCY PELOSI, JOHN KERRY, ATTACKED HIM I KNEW I MUST BE ON TO SOMETHING GOOD.’ HE LAUGHED A LOT. I SAID ‘YOU TOOK MY BEST PEOPLE FROM THE PROGRAM. YOU TOOK AUSTAN GOOLSBEE.’ HE LAUGHED AND SAID THEY'RE GOOD MEN. I SAID, BUT MR. PRESIDENT, LET ME CAN YOU, WHY DID YOU LEAVE US ROBERT REICH, WHO I ADORE, AND HE LAUGHED AND SAID I WANT SOMEBODY FIGHTING FOR ME, LARRY,

INTERESTING THING. THIS IS JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, HE IS SO WELL-INFORMED, AND HE LOVES TO DEAL WITH BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO DIVULGE WHAT WAS SAID THERE AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO ANY OF THE SPECIFICS, BUT HE ENJOYS THE BACK AND FORTH, AND HE IS NOT, YOU KNOW, TOUGH, MEAN, INSULTING, SNARLING, NONE OF THAT STUFF, AND WE WEREN'T EITHER.

THIS WAS A GOOD CONSERVATIVE GROUP AND WE JUST HAD A GREAT BACK AND FORTH, AND HE WANTS TO KEEP THE DIALOGUE GOING WITH CONSERVATIVES. I WOULD SAY I AM HONORED TO BE AT THAT DINNER. I WAS HONORED TO MEET HIM. HE IS A VERY IMPRESSIVE MAN, AND I WISH HIM ALL THE LUCK IN THE WORLD BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SOME ISSUES TO DEAL WITH.

Francis: WHAT DID YOU EAT?

Kudlow: I CAN'T REMEMBER. I WAS SO FOCUSED ON HIM. I WAS SITTING ACROSS FROM HIM --

Francis: YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T EAT. MAYBE YOU DIDN'T TOUCH ANYTHING.

Kudlow: THE FOOD WAS EXCELLENT. I PROBABLY DIDN'T EAT A WHOLE LOT. IT WAS ALL VERY INTERESTING, AND HE'S A GOOD MAN, AND WE WILL SEE

HOW HE DOES. THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY. WE WISH HIM THE BEST.

Most of you have probably seen the link on Drudge to the story of Natalie Dylan, the 22 year old student who is selling her virginity on EBay (and willing to take a gynecological exam to prove the purity of the product). Drudge reported that the bidding has gone up to $3.7 Million.

This is clearly becoming more than a freak exercise. With those kinds of dollars on the table, expect repeat performances, whether there are criminal charges or not.

The effects of this are going to be interesting indeed. On the one hand, this is straight up prostitution. It cheapens the marital act to mere commerce, damages the participants, and creates scandal (I'm using the word here in its traditional sense). It also further skews our value set, in a society that already tends to value appearance over the content of one's character.

On the other hand, as AmSpec's Robert Stacy McCain points out in his post at TakiMag, in our cynical age one "can well imagine the envy Miss Dylan’s auction must inspire in so many of her peers, who as teenagers parted with the same surprisingly valuable commodity for no more than the price of a few wine coolers."

Put another way, as Jason Smee commented at AmSpecBlog, "if a bunch of horny old men bid up the value of virginity (assuming an older virgin is worth more-scarcity, or at least she has to be 18 to call upon her services), this might be much more effective than all the abstinence pledges and other failed initiatives out there."

L to R: Brian Fantana, Ron Burgundy, Champ Kind, Brick Tamland

Anchorman Edition.

So let's have it. Who are your picks?

I think I would've remembered seeing the video cameras though...

It took a while but here it is--every man's dream present:



$30/1.7 oz spray bottle

So, who's gonna man up and buy a bottle just to see if it actually smells like a baby's diaper filled with Indian food?

..or does Gran Torino look like it's going to be awesome?

Well, it seems that al qaeda has cast their vote for foe as I had earlier suggested. Al qaeda's #2 said today that Obama is to blame for the recent Israeli-Hamas fighting, saying he is not the transformational "change" leader America portrays him as, but rather more of the same.

Why is this significant? Because it confirms that despite the election of the chosen one, America will still continue to be squarely in al qaeda's crosshairs and we must be on top alert. So how does Obama deal with this? By nominating Leon Panetta to head the CIA, which I just ranted about. Again, I can only hope this nomination does not go through; the stakes couldn't be higher.

According to Human Events, Miss Pelosi wants to run a House of Representatives that's a little more Palpatine than Valorum. From Human Events:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”

In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress.

Well, Obama's starting to confirm my worst case suspicions. As I mentioned in an earlier post my biggest concern about an Obama presidency was whether he would effectively deal with terrorist threats. Unfortunately, he took a hideous step in the wrong direction today by naming a an outsider with no intelligence experience, Leon Panetta, to head the CIA.

Understand that this pick is so bad, it has even Dianne Feinstein up in arms. And even the liberal rag NYT has stated: ...the choice encountered early opposition on Capitol Hill, with some senior Democrats questioning why the president-elect would pick a C.I.A. chief without a deep reservoir of intelligence or counterterrorism experience... Given his background, Mr. Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the C.I.A...

I can only hope that Panetta pulls a Richardson and withdraws his name. This is NOT the time for on-the-job intelligence training. A radically inexperienced president combined with a CIA chief with no backround in intelligence does not provide the security I'm looking for.

I guess it's not surprising that a disgusting, farce of a process like this occurs. From the WSJ:

Funny Business in Minnesota
In which every dubious ruling seems to help Al Franken

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals. [my emphasis]

OK, so we're now admitting to counting fake votes. And while we have the power to count them, we don't have the power to NOT count them. Kind of feels like my last diet. I know I'm not hungry for this pizza. I will not eat this piece of pizza. I don't want this... Mmmmmmmmm.

More MoveOn goodness:

Last month, Mr. Franken's campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had "lost" 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge -- officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night -- the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount. That decision gave Mr. Franken a gain of 46 votes.

I thought the very POINT of a recount was to validate the count. But when a discrepancy between the initial tally and the actual number of ballots materializes--and, most importantly, favors Senator Coleman--we're going to just go with initial tally and forget about the recount. In this county, that is. In other counties, where the recount total favors Franken--we'll probably do it differently.

And then there are the absentee ballots. The Franken campaign initially howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. Counties were supposed to review their absentees and create a list of those they believed were mistakenly rejected. Many Franken-leaning counties did so, submitting 1,350 ballots to include in the results. But many Coleman-leaning counties have yet to complete a re-examination. Despite this lack of uniformity, and though the state Supreme Court has yet to rule on a Coleman request to standardize this absentee review, Mr. Ritchie's office nonetheless plowed through the incomplete pile of 1,350 absentees this weekend, padding Mr. Franken's edge by a further 176 votes.

Here's how the Journal sums up the hijinx:

Minnesotans like to think that their state isn't like New Jersey or Louisiana, and typically it isn't. But we can't recall a similar recount involving optical scanning machines that has changed so many votes, and in which nearly every crucial decision worked to the advantage of the same candidate. The Coleman campaign clearly misjudged the politics here, and the apparent willingness of a partisan like Mr. Ritchie to help his preferred candidate, Mr. Franken. If the Canvassing Board certifies Mr. Franken as the winner based on the current count, it will be anointing a tainted and undeserving Senator.