Roger Clegg (via Glenn) offered a slightly different take on the New York Times article I considered in my previous post. While, like me, Clegg finds the “renewed emphasis on [‘disparate impact’] lawsuits . . . disturbing but, again, not surprising,” he found the policy was nothing new:
. . . the issues raised by the Obama administration’s civil-rights policies will be important, but they will not be surprising or even new. Here, as elsewhere, it’s just the usual liberal nonsense, warmed over and worse.
Emphasis added. The usual liberal nonsense heated up with a extensive infusion of cash from a Democratic Congress eager to dole out dollars to favored interest groups.
Clegg’s words that Obama’s polices at Justice are little more than the “usual liberal nonsense warmed over” made me wonder yet again why so many on the left wax lyrical about Barack Obama. While kayaking with my family, I met a nice liberal woman from LA who was shocked (**shocked**) to learn that I did not think very highly of the President.
What, I continue to ask, justifies their enthusiasm for this man offering warmed over liberal policies?
He’s no new kind of politician, just a hard-core leftist* of the old school, with increased eloquence and a more powerful presence.
The Liberal-types are seriously worried that they have indeed elected another Jimmy Carter, not the self-ethnically-diverse reincarnation of JFK.
Has the man accomplished anything positive since becoming President?
– Controlled the Deficit? No, it’s escalating. Can you say, “Trillions and trillions…” (apologies to the immortal-shade of Dr. Carl Sagan.)
– Health Care reform? No.
– DADT, ENDA? Bwahahahahah….
– Greater transparency in government? Thirty-two unvetted, unconfirmed by the Senate White House czars and counting.
– Guantanemo? Rather than prosecuting the Terrorists, he’s planning to indict their jailers.
– Iraq? Afghanistan? Our military and diplomatic successes are slipping away.
– And the Stimulus? What Stimulus? What infrastructure projects? Jobs? They couldn’t even get Cash for Clunkers right. …Yet the Bank stocks are soaring and billions in profits for Goldman, Sachs.
The lefties are in the weak position of defending an absurd proposition on ObamaCare: That you can add 30,000,000 patients and 0 doctors to the health care system without rationing care. Anyone with common sense knows this is impossible. Unable to defend their proposition with facts or reason, they have to assert that those opposed to the proposition are evil and ignorant. i.e. “We can add 30,000,000 patients and 0 doctors without rationing because your side is ignorant and hateful.”
i agree with all the comments above.
#1: Ted – the term “trillion” is becoming passe as in “a trillion here, a trillion there and, pretty soon, you’re talking about real money”.
I think we should start talking about the federal budget using SI units and scientific notation.
A trillion dollars would be a a terabuck (or 1E12 dollars). Just so we’re prepared, 1,000 terabucks is a petabuck (1E15 dollars).
I think Carl would agree.
They say he has a “cool” demeanor. I see “cold.” And with a mean streak that’s barely concealed–perhaps by design.
I don’t want to see what he does when the media DOES actually desert him!
By the way, I was happy to learn the next tier number is “quadrillion.” I’m not comfortable using SI units and scientific notation (too old to learn anything new, I was pleased that we weren’t forced to convert to the metric system!), yet one always wants to be sure that verbiage exists to express future expectations. After quadrillion, quintillion? Eh, we can worry about that tomorrow.
I just figured out the democrats give less to charity thing.
“Spending one dollar (of my money) is a tragedy. Spending a million dollars (of your money) is a statistic.”
Is a “quadrillion Dollars” less frightening-sounding than “one Billion-billion Dollars”?
The Brits used to call 1,000,000,000 a “thousand-milllion” and a “billion” was 1,000,000,000,000. I’ll just call it “fiscal insanity”.
Interestingly, the WSJ ran a critique of the US Federal Reserve pointing-out that for nearly 200 years a Dollar was worth a dollar, and since WW1 it’s devalued to 1/20th, about 5-cents equivalent.