Hurricane Irene

I’m not much concerned about Hurricane Irene.

As an advocate of personal responsibility, I’m all for preparation and knowledge.  I’ve been watching the storm track for Irene since it became a hurricane, checking every so often (not every hour) for status.  Thursday I learned we had a 40% chance of tropical storm-force winds by today.  Those in the Outer Banks had greater probability of stronger winds.

So why on the planet of the gods is news not able to lead in to a story with “those most likely to see damaging winds and rain should …” or “most of you don’t need to …”?

Oh, for the record, many of us do need to be prepared for power outages; it seems power companies in this area have a hard enough time dealing with average rainstorms, much less anything that might drop a limb onto one of their lines.

And individuals fall into one of three categories.  Fortunately, some say “I’m prepared for the likely eventuality, and know what I’ll do should stuff hit the fan.”  Others prepare to make laxative french toast, buying up milk, bread, eggs, and toilet paper.  A third faction fails to make any preparation at all, and expects the government to take care of them if they’re wrong.  That’s not personal responsibility at all.

The media enables the second group, adding to traffic congestion, short tempers, and empty store shelves.  Seems the media assumes everyone is too stupid to make any personal-responsibility decisions for themselves, and must be told what to do and when.  Sort of like most politicians.

 

Edited to add this link to a YouTube video showing the storm not strongly formed at all.

Hypocrisy

You can’t rail against rationing health care, then pass laws that outlaw medical procedures because you don’t like them.  That’s rationing the health care people can get.  Or if you decide your medical plan can’t cover certain procedures, that’s rationing health care.

You can’t argue that the “other party” will stand between a doctor and patient, then define which medical procedures that doctor and that patient have as options.

You can’t insist your tax dollars won’t pay for one thing without allowing there are lot of things that are an anathema to many, even most, taxpayers.  Therefore, you can’t single out abortions without singling out plastic surgery, war, congresscritter staffs, bailouts, government takeovers of private industry, and myriad other things.   When you’re ready to present a menu from which ALL Americans can pick and choose, you’re free to not fund health care.

What next … “for the children”?????

There’s a news report on one of the local TV stations that DC is considering banning smoking in playgrounds.

Outdoors.

In covered areas.

But “it’s for the children” who “shouldn’t have to breathe secondhand smoke”.  Frankly, unless there are a boatload of smokers around, Mother Nature will take care of it.

More laws.

We know what’s good for you.

When will it end?

Because someone else will “protect” us

The young “lady” who couldn’t see the open manhole because she was texting plans to file a lawsuit (well, her parents do — after all, they must’ve taught her to whine about someone “hurting” her) against the Deparment of Environmental Protection, probably against the city and the state and the mayor (well, that’s ok) and the city council and anyone else who might have a spare nickel.

Can you spell P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y?  Apparently, that’s no longer an American value.

So your government will protect you from being a dipshit.

What your Senate thinks of you

Your Senate doesn’t believe you were smart enough to listen to two years of warnings.

I blogged about this in the past — but in one of the first signs that the Obama administration thinks they have to “take care” of us, the Democrat-controlled Senate pushed off the change.

Unanimously.

Dipshits.

Another “you’re too stupid” moment

Obama agrees the nation should push off the transition to digital TV, “citing concerns about consumer readiness for the transition.”

Never mind that we’ve been hearing about this for longer than the flippin’ presidential campaign.  Never mind that “public service announcements” have been assailing us for years.  Never mind that there is no right to television service.

We’re too stupid to have paid attention so far, so the nanny-staters would push it off longer, so stupid is rewarded again.

Stupid politicians, fearmongering again

Worried about permitted guns on the National Mall during inauguration?  Eleanor Holmes Norton is.   Never mind that there’s no such thing.  She apparently can’t read laws.

The regulation only applies to states or jurisdictions that allow concealed weapons, but D.C. doesn’t allow them. Therefore, since concealed weapons aren’t allowed, some say no one would carry a weapon to the inauguration, but Norton says the change in the law is confusing.

Now Norton spreading fearmongering that people will bring guns to the mall that day, since the national parks carry passed.   To her, it doesn’t matter that the rule requires the jurisdiction in which the park is located to allow concealed carry, and DC doesn’t.  She thinks people don’t read the laws.  Part of the responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon is to know when and where it’s legal, but apparently law-abiding citizens can’t be trusted to know that.  (Well, Norton doesn’t trust ANY people, constituent or not.  Remember when she told an audience to shut up when they disagreed with her?)  But she’s done her part, now:

Norton says common sense or not, she feels a need to spread the word that either with or without a permit, concealed gun carriers can not being their weapon into D.C.

Big of her, ain’t it?

I won’t say no one will carry a weapon to the inauguration.  I’m saying law-abiding citizens won’t.  Those with half a brain know that DC will make an example of normal citizens who mistakenly cross the line into DC while carrying.  The ones they don’t bother with are the criminals who live and ply their trade within their own border.

On news coverage

There’s been a lot of talk about how the media delivered the nation for Obama.  I believe that’s true, but not in the “OMG they endorsed one and lambasted the other” sense.  Rather, the newspapers, and television “news” and entertainment coverage, gave Americans what they think Americans want to see – sensationalized coverage of the person, and little mention of any issues.

The Washington Post has addressed this twice (emphasis mine).

Some readers complain that coverage is too poll-driven. They’re right, but it’s not going to change. The Post’s polling was on the mark, and in some cases ahead of the curve, in focusing on independent voters, racial attitudes, low-wage voters, the shift of African Americans’ support from Clinton to Obama and the rising importance of economic issues. The Post and its polling partner ABC News include 50 to 60 issues questions in every survey instead of just horse-race questions, so public attitudes were plumbed as well.

So being “too” of something is okay as long as you win in the end?

The Post’s Ombudsman also wrote here:

It pains me to see lost subscribers and revenue, especially when newspapers are shrinking. Conservative complaints can be wrong: The mainstream media were not to blame for John McCain‘s loss; Barack Obama‘s more effective campaign and the financial crisis were.

But some of the conservatives’ complaints about a liberal tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world. I’ll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don’t even want to be quoted by name in a memo.

I find this incredibly arrogant.  This “more effective campaign” was the surface, that which the Post covered.  Where the Post, and other “news” media failed us, was providing in-depth INFORMATION about the issues the campaign was covering.  Instead of covering, for example, each candidate’s voting record on issues, they re-broadcast what the candidate said during the campaign.  That’s not journalism, that’s parroting.

And only liberals want to change the world? How biased can one get?

Since 2000 elections, I believe the news media has been a prime player in dividing our country into Republican=conservative/Democrat=liberal factions, treating the groups as opposite ends of a feud, and ignoring the large crossovers.  The news ignored the non-Christian-fundamentalist conservatives, and the small-government liberals.  They ignored almost all who fight for less legislation, while focusing on the Hollywood Washington celebrities’ pet causes.

I don’t fall in to the “You’re too stupid.  We have to placate you with Brittney Spears coverage so you feel you belong” crowd.  And I don’t believe most others in America are.  But I do believe the news media wants us there.  Then the liberal journalists can change the world.

And as long as they have their token (see above:”there are centrists …” and “the conservatives …so outnumbered…”), they’re ok.  Where was that attitude over the last two decades?

Am I ready to quit reading the Post?  I wish I could say yes, but I find it easier to skim headlines for issues I may want to investigate further than to do internet searches for something I don’t know exists.  The Post’s on-line presence is amateur, Fox news’ on-line content reads more like what I used to see in my grandmother’s copy of “National Enquirer”, MSNBC, CNN, and others make me click through too many pages to get to world, opinion, and science pieces.  I use all these sources, and many more, to get in-depth information, but I use the post as a “what might I want to learn more about”.  For that purpose, it’s almost worth what I pay for it.  Almost.

I will admit I quit watching television news, with the exception of September 11-20, 2001, long ago.  I got tired of getting what they want me to get, with no option of moving on, going deeper, or getting another opinion.

I suppose since he’s a conservative, I’m supposed to agree

Bob Parks wrote at Outside the Wire:

“Many of us real men out there wouldn’t let our women go to the local 7/11 after 10pm, let alone tell them it’s okay to go to a war zone (with their daughters), complete with truck bombs and sniper fire.  If that was okay with President Clinton, either he was a poor excuse for a husband or he may have hoped something might happen that would have freed him of the ol’ ball and chain.”

Despite the fact I’m logged in to WordPress, Outside the Wire won’t let me comment (“you must be logged in to WordPress to leave a comment”) .  No wonder all his columns have 0 comments.

I have a problem with any man not “letting” me go to the 7-11, or anywhere else.  It’s one thing not to want her to go, but it’s very disrespectful of her when you imply, or worse, state, you won’t LET her do something.  And you’re a “real man” if you don’t respect her decision to do or not to do something?

Clinton was a poor excuse for a husband?  Doh.  Where has Parks been for the past two decades?

But be real.  I’ve been blogging for quite some time with a category “You’re too stupid…”  This is just another instance of a politician (right, left, middle — they all do it) telling middle American they’re too stupid to understand something.

I usually read Bob Parks because, besides being a Clinton hater, he sometimes gets something right.  This time he just got it.  He blogged on a story which isn’t a story (what, Clinton a liar?) and added disrespect for a class of citizens.

Disgusting.

Ignorant Kaine – Redux

Sometimes politicians are even more stupid than they think their constituents are.

Governor Kaine VETOED SB 476, which would have allowed law-abiding holders of concealed handgun licenses to carry a concealed weapon in a restaurant that serves alcohol, provided they did not drink, and they informed a designated staff member they were carrying.  “Guns and alcohol don’t mix”

Requirements for a concealed handgun permit include training.

Governor Kaine SIGNED  SB 776, which permits Commonwealth Attorneys and their deputies to carry a concealed firearm in a restaurant that serves alcohol.

Requirements for status as a commonwealth attorney include graduating law school (presumably), passing the bar (presumably), an, apparently, political cronyism.  Note NO REQUIREMENT for firearms training.

But he’s not a hypocrite.

Any wonder he’s supporting Obama?