en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/653038 Comments by daniel123 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/03/15/ted-cruz-v-dianne-feinstein/#IDComment597932965 Well I was pleased to learn that Senator Feinstein is not a sixth grader. Who knew? I was surprised though that her sixth grade teacher lectured to her. Mine did not do so. Could it be that she never got to the sixth grade? Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:32:55 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/03/15/ted-cruz-v-dianne-feinstein/#IDComment597932965 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/12/17/what-jonathan-pollard-did-and-didnt-do-israel-spy/#IDComment521980709 There are two things I had heard about the case long ago, that may or may not be true that made me think his sentence was overly long. One is that he first approached the Israelis because he believed that they were entitled to information of the kind he was giving according to an agreement between Israel and this country, which agreement his superiors had decided unilaterally to abrogate. The second was that the judge overturned the plea bargain on the basis of a report from the FBI or CIA that Pollard's information had been leaked to the Russians and led to the death of American agents. I read that this report was actually written by one of the Russian spies (Hanson?) who was himself responsible for the Russians getting that damaging information. This new information seems consistent with this claim. The Secretary of Defense at the time accused Pollard of causing great damage in this way, perhaps based on that report, and the new information suggests that was nonsense. Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:03:42 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/12/17/what-jonathan-pollard-did-and-didnt-do-israel-spy/#IDComment521980709 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/12/14/the-difference-between-a-concession-and-a-confession/#IDComment519020710 The main stream media would still describe Republicans as the party of the rich, which is all that counts for people who don't pay much attention to politics. And many people who support Republicans know that raising tax rates "on the rich" usually reduce tax collections from the "rich" and hurt small businesses which are the main sources of new employment. It will be another blow to recovery. And these people will be angry at the Republican leadership for betraying them as they were at Bush Senior when he gave up on his "no new taxes" pledge under similar pressure. This could well lead to a "Ross Perot" type third party, which would be a disaster. Better to point out that the very rich in the one percent will pay less taxes when rates are raised on them. Point to Senator Kerry, most of whose money, we read, is in tax exempt bonds. The value of such bonds increases when tax rates on other income go up, and they are untaxed. So he, and many other very rich, win when rates go up on the "1%" ! And every truly very rich person has advisers who make sure that they similarly do not suffer when such rates increase. The ones who have to pay are small business owners, lottery winners, sports figures, and middle class in general. History shows that tax collections from the very rich ALWAYS decrease when rates on them go up. Why not get the message out that such increases cannot be expected to increase tax collections and will hurt job creation? Incessantly repeating that message is far more useful than accepting a policy that will hurt our economy. Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:24:08 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/12/14/the-difference-between-a-concession-and-a-confession/#IDComment519020710 http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/03/breaking-new-explosion-at-the-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html#IDComment134767282 When the three mile island reactor accident occurred, the staff turned off the emergency water supply to the core and left it off for something like 24 hours. As a result, the core melted, but this had no significant effects on any population through radiation, though it did leave the plant ruined. What radiation was released came early in the accident when water that had leaked out of the machine was in an area that staff decided to vent. When there is no water in the core there is almost no removal of heat but there is also no chain reaction going on. The heat that is generated comes from the radioactive decay of the fission products previously produced in the fuel rods, which is far less than what is produced when the machine is in operation. If the core is exposed the rods will heat up and eventually experience melting, but the lesson of Three Mile Island is that this will only ruin the plant. There will be little or no effect outside it. The difference between Three Mile Island and today is that now there are sophisticated robots available that may be able to salvage the material in the rods and even conceivably repair the plant. A significant problem in repairing is the huge size of the reactor.. Mon, 14 Mar 2011 05:46:39 +0000 http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/03/breaking-new-explosion-at-the-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html#IDComment134767282 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/12/08/hollywood-screenwriter-famous-for-enjoying-drugs-angry-at-palin-for-enjoying-moose-killing/#IDComment114578041 When a person makes a statement and in particular a criticism of someone else, it is often naive to take that statement on its face value. Often the author of the statement has a particular sensitivity to some issue, and lashes out when he can blame someone else for it. This kind of behavior is sometimes called projection. Thus Mr. Sorkin may be a crypto-vegan, as are many teen age girls, and is angry because Governor Palin suggested that his use of leather and meat makes him guilty of charges brought by his inner self. Her comment, if this is his motivation, hit him where it hurts and he naturally attacks her for it. Sometimes, on the other hand, the author is purposefully taking a pose, here the pose being angry denunciation of Governor Palin, to establish credentials that he believes may be compromised somehow. I recall knowing (back in the 1950s) a Russian whose first name was Vilen, named in honor of Lenin. I was told that names like this were given to children of suspected enemies of Communism and political arrestees, in evidence of their loyalty to the USSR government. Thus this statement could be evidence that Sorkin is beginning to wonder if raising taxes on those who use their after tax money to create jobs and paying that money to keep people unemployed is a sensible way to create jobs and reduce unemployment. So he might be wondering if he himself should be smacked with a tax increase as our President desires. In that case his criticism may be an attempt to keep his left wing credentials, something quite important in Hollywood, despite his having inner qualms about his own leftism. I do not doubt that there are other equally plausible explanations of Sorkin's outburst. But that it is merely a statement to be taken at face value at his rational concerns is not one of them. Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:04:31 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/12/08/hollywood-screenwriter-famous-for-enjoying-drugs-angry-at-palin-for-enjoying-moose-killing/#IDComment114578041 http://bigjournalism.com/libertychick/2010/10/29/tea-partiers-outraged-over-democratic-tea-party-plants-fraudulent-google-ads/#IDComment106793459 If you want your party back, do some volunteer work for its candidates, give some money to it, become part of it, and use the influence you attain to put forward your own views. that is what tea partiers are doing, and if you don't like them, take an active part yourself, and argue issues with them. Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:15:45 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/libertychick/2010/10/29/tea-partiers-outraged-over-democratic-tea-party-plants-fraudulent-google-ads/#IDComment106793459 http://tv.breitbart.com/journalist-stephanopoulos-what-more-could-the-president-have-done/#IDComment93025199 (continued) 13. raising the minimum wage. this sounds good, but it really increases the barrier to first time employment of teenagers and discourages the employment of handicapped workers whose abilities are limited. having illegal immigrants taking on most of the jobs that teenagers used to get doesn't help beginning teenage employment rates either. 14. discouraging productive employment, for example in offshore drilling, or building nuclear power plants, or utilizing our vast gas producing natural resources, etc. in favor of dreamy probably unproductive subsidy requiring but still expensive energy sources, like windmills and corn based ethanol whose environmental effects are probably much worse than those even of coal. these unproductive expenses and the neglect of productive ones ultimately raise costs to everyone and shrink our economy and employment. 15. Another set of key supporters of Democrats are the parasitic (and often crooked) class action and business harassing attorneys, like ex presidential candidate Edwards. Their activities put still another brake on the productive economy, which must defend against their often crack-brained law suits. I could go on, but I won't. every single thing this congress has done has been destructive of jobs and has hurt the poorest Americans most of all. one reason is the seniority system. the most senior representatives come from the safest partisan districts and, if democrats, tend to be hard core left wing ideologues, who have never had an original idea, and listen to nobody but themselves. They actually seem to believe that taking down the private sector of the economy, which is the only source of wealth in it, is a very good thing! Sat, 14 Aug 2010 07:37:06 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/journalist-stephanopoulos-what-more-could-the-president-have-done/#IDComment93025199 http://tv.breitbart.com/journalist-stephanopoulos-what-more-could-the-president-have-done/#IDComment93025031 (continued) 6. passing new programs which everyone knows will cost the government huge sums, which will have to be paid for by crowding funds out of the private sector. increases in government spending can only be paid for sustainably by having the private sector grow and prosper, but what has been done actively interferes with such growth. 7. supporting unsustainable state programs mandated by the federal government, whose effect is to channel money to unsustainable state jobs, and postponing the day of reckoning when state governments live within their incomes and can see themselves meeting their future obligations. 8. threatening to pass laws ending democracy in union elections. unions have become less and less significant in the private sector because they interfere with flexibility and efficiency. the laws threatened would allow strong arm union recruiting in place of elections, and form a threat to all potential employers, 9. creating uncertainty in the nature of the tax rate increases that will be proposed (including repeal of the Bush tax cuts) which will put brakes on the economy, slow it down even slower than it is now, and probably lead to lower tax revenue. no business seeking higher sales revenue would dream of raising prices to do so. to get more business you run a sale! congress thinks otherwise. uncertainly kills investment and jobs. 10. vastly increasing ridiculous regulations which will cost the economy many billions in useless and unproductive paperwork, making American products more expensive and less competitive than those available elsewhere. the latest plan is to make all business into unpaid de facto irs agents sending the irs 1099 forms for essentially every entity that they pay. 11. the federal government refuses to enforce laws against illegal immigrants. instead its plan is to have all private businesses take the responsibility to enforce these laws, a responsibility that police routinely refuse to take. forcing private enterprise to act as unpaid police does not improve its efficiency or productivity. 12. increasing the time period for unemployment compensation to two years sounds like a good thing; however who pays for it? employers. this does not encourage more hiring. also, many of those receiving unemployment compensation do not seriously seek employment until their compensation nears its end. they certainly will not accept employment that pays less than the sum of their compensation and what they can get from under the table odd jobs. thus it makes it harder for employers to hire, again slowing down job creation. Sat, 14 Aug 2010 07:36:22 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/journalist-stephanopoulos-what-more-could-the-president-have-done/#IDComment93025031 http://tv.breitbart.com/journalist-stephanopoulos-what-more-could-the-president-have-done/#IDComment93024762 When it comes to creating jobs, what is important is creating jobs that produce wealth, because such jobs tend to grow the economy and produce wealth that improves the lives of everyone. And because they do so they are sustainable. The present administration has done everything in its power to prevent such job creation, How? Here is a partial list: taking money out of the economy (through borrowing or threatening increased taxes) to fund unproductive activities as in the various stimulus bills: which did what? 1. rewarded people buying new cars who had old "gas guzzlers" which the government decreed had to be destroyed. Who gained from this? People who planned to buy new cars in the next few months, and could take advantage of the windfall subsidy from the government. (the people who buy cars new are generally relatively wealthy, not poor people) Who suffered? poor people who found the price of used cars go up because so many used cars disappeared from the market by being destroyed. And taxpayers who ultimately will have to pay for these subsidies to the well-to-do. 2. A small payment to everyone who were supposed to spend it to stimulate the economy. Of course the money for this had to be taken from the economy by borrowing, which borrowing crowded out borrowing of the exact amount of money expended, by productive employers. So this action took money from productive employment to give to consumers. This produces a net loss of productive jobs. 3. rewards to unions that supported our president in his election campaign. for example, secured creditors of Chrysler were forced to give up resources they were entitled to by law, in favor of unions. who gained? Obama supporters. who lost? confidence in the rule of law was shaken, which has discouraged the kind of credit, vital for new business, whose owners were robbed by this. in addition there were many other things that the democrat controlled congress has done to discourage productive job creation. 4. near zero bank interest rates. keeping interest rates low seems to encourage prospective borrowers, but it doesn't. it actually drives prospective lenders to move their money abroad wherever reasonably safe investments paying higher interest are available, reducing the amount of credit available to productive employers. 5. badmouthing private enterprise and large employers. this is helpful to the democrats because it makes those receiving such badmouthing fear new laws screwing them; and this makes them give money to democrats to prevent this; but it is even more effective in making them unwilling to commit their resources to new projects and new jobs. Instead they hold their money as reserves in case the government decides to screw them anyway. Sat, 14 Aug 2010 07:35:28 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/journalist-stephanopoulos-what-more-could-the-president-have-done/#IDComment93024762 http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2010/07/30/who-got-to-chris-matthews-hardball-defense-of-breitbart-memory-holed/#IDComment89782381 Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, hardly anyone with sense watches MSNBC and Matthews, so his honest behavior and his dishonest correction will both disappear without leaving a trace. Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:44:49 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2010/07/30/who-got-to-chris-matthews-hardball-defense-of-breitbart-memory-holed/#IDComment89782381 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aklavan/2010/07/27/from-book-publishers-to-the-media-the-lefts-crusade-to-end-debate/#IDComment89465700 Klavan reported that his agent gave a reason for the new editor's behavior, which supports his point of view and seems to contradict yours. This is what he wrote: "The editor who originally bought the book had left the French company, and the new editor, my agent says, feels that “she can not publish . . . because of the political and religious aspects of the story.”" I interpret that to mean either she does not want to risk her leftist credentials by publishing the book, or she objects to plots in which the bad guys are in the left wing press. It means further that she objects to publishing books that are not politically correct by her standards. I do not consider this a non-story. But I would not try to have your comment removed from here just because I disagree with it. That is the kind of behavior you are defending. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:01:48 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aklavan/2010/07/27/from-book-publishers-to-the-media-the-lefts-crusade-to-end-debate/#IDComment89465700 http:#IDComment33671549 look what happened when GHW Bush made a similar talk When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent 09/08/09 7:11 AM EDT The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue. Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported. With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'" Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event." Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. "The speech itself and the use of the department's funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal," the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. "The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda." That didn't stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it "cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. -- while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters." Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush's speech itself, like Obama's today, was entirely unremarkable. "Block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart," the president told students. "If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they're stuck in a dead end job. Don't let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams. the negative reaction of us right wing kooks to Obama was much more benign and sympathetic! Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:58:46 +0000 http:#IDComment33671549