From Bloomberg[1]: Gore Is Romney-Rich With $200 Million After Bush Defeat

In 1999, Al Gore…had a net worth of about $1.7 million…In January, the Current TV network, which he helped to start in 2004, was sold to Qatari-owned Al Jazeera Satellite Network for about $500 million [of which Gore] grossed an estimated $70 million…

Two weeks later, Gore exercised options, at $7.48 a share, on 59,000 shares of Apple Inc. stock…about a $30 million payday…

How Gore achieved this is as much about timing and luck as it is about business skills. His Apple board tenure has coincided with a 5,900 percent increase in its stock price. Current TV was a moribund “fixer-upper” when Al Jazeera stepped in to buy it at “a huge valuation,”…

Gore also had his share of flubs, most of them in his efforts at green-tech investing…

The article goes on to report praise of Gore – from people who likely got money or power by being connected with him. And to give numerous examples of Gore making money from, in essence, being well-connected. Here is one pair:

After losing to Bush [in 2000], he had enough wealth by March 2008 to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through Capricorn Investment Group…founded by his buddy, Canadian billionaire Jeffrey Skoll…

By the time of the Capricorn investment, he was already starting to rake in cash from Generation Investment Management – - a fund that incorporates “sustainability” into its investment approach. [ed: I read that as government "green" subsidies] Gore co-founded GIM in 2004 with former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Managing Director David W. Blood. [ed: Goldman-Sachs are top Obama donors]

Public filings show that in 2008 through 2011 London-based GIM racked up almost 140 million pounds ($218 million) in profits to be split among its 26 partners.

There are more examples; you can read the whole thing. What I find interesting is:

• The latest confirmation that, actually, Democrats are the party of the super-rich.
• The Gore-Romney contrast; how each man got rich. Romney did it by adding to the economy’s productive power[2]. Gore did it by exploiting his connections to the American government’s power and largesse, and also by pandering to the prejudices of various anti-Americans.[3]

(more…)

I saw this article on Yahoo Monday about a TED talk Sergey Brin gave last week, where he discussed the ways that he finds his smart phone “emasculating.”  I don’t have a strong opinion on that topic, but it’s also partly because I don’t have a smart phone.  I’m not really a luddite as much as I am true to the Swiss, German and Scottish parts of my ancestry in my frugality and my reluctance to adopt the latest fads, especially when those fads come with a monthly fee I’d rather not have to pay.

I only have a rather primitive cell phone, and I rarely use it very often.   I remember back around 2000 watching the Oprah show one day when Oprah confessed she didn’t have a cell phone, and she couldn’t understand why people needed to be available that way at all times and in all places.  While I’m sure Oprah has relented and gotten not just a cell phone but a smart phone by now, I still remember her remark in resisting that particular technology.

But while I might not have a smart phone, most of the other folks I know or encounter have one.  And that brings me around to my topic of the moment.  I’m less worried about whether or not smart phones are “emasculating” than I am about their tendency to make people more self-absorbed, oblivious, and frankly rude.

I’m appalled at work when I see people checking their smartphones during meetings, but I see it all the time.  And then there is the matter of the folks who text (or play “Angry Birds”) while walking or crossing the street or, worse, while driving.

My particular gripe at the moment is something that I see more and more frequently when I fly these days, and that is people who flout the rule against using their cell phones during flight.  Maybe it is an unnecessary rule, but it is still a rule, and ostensibly a rule put in place for everyone’s safety.  Nevertheless, I’ve witnessed people within my line of sight who don’t turn off their phones when instructed, or who furtively turn them on in mid-flight to start texting or checking e-mails (and I’m not talking about a flight with wi-fi), or who hide them away only to have them ring during flight.   On one of my most recent flights, a phone rang and a guy took the call and started talking as we were going into the final descent before landing.   I’m not a frequent flyer, so if I’ve witnessed all of these things, I can’t be the only one.

Maybe I’m just being a grouch, but it seems to me that the advances in communications technology have desensitized many people (and not just the Alec Baldwins of the world) to the demands of common courtesy and common sense.

Here is Bully Signorile’s attempt at apologizing, printed in full.

On Wednesday I challenged a gay caller, Wess, who expressed his support for Mitt Romney. While expressing the thought that any gay person who votes for Romney is doing himself harm, I began an analogy in the wrong place. After the caller said he voted for Romney, I said he should just get some arsenic, make a potion, and take it, which would be more painless. Not because I thought he should kill himself—I do not think gay Romney supporters should kill themselves—but because voting for someone who is committed to undermining your rights is a self-destructive behavior.

Any gay person who votes for Romney is undermining his own life, his own rights, and the lives and rights of all other LGBT people. And let’s be clear: It is Romney, with his bigoted positions (“Some gays are actually having children. It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact.”),who feeds a culture of hate that leads to gay teen suicides.

 

At first, I was criticized by angry, sometimes vile Romney supporters on Twitter while Obama supporters on the show and on Twitter seemed to get the point I was trying to make and defended me. I was defensive initially too, including yesterday on the show, pointing out that I was using a metaphor. We can get lost in the partisan fog of war during a heated election battle.

 

But after talking with friends over dinner last night, and after reading Andrew Sullivan’s take this morning, I can now see that my statement was not just jarring but offensive—certainly in the current climate of gay teen suicides. Sullivan is not some far-right gay Romney supporter; indeed, Sullivan and I are on the same side in the current political climate. We both support Obama and, contrary to Sullivan’s rather silly characterization of me as “far left,” he and I are actually in the same place on many issues these days, even including the role of ACT UP and direct action. We certainly agree on the issues of bullying and teen suicide, issues about which I’ve been very outspoken and passionate. If Sullivan didn’t get the point I was trying to make then I must have made it very badly.

 

I’m not making excuses, but sometimes, when you’re on the radio for four hours a day, things come out backwards. Live talk radio is essentially thinking out loud and sometimes our thoughts come out garbled. Again, I’m not making excuses, and certainly listeners have a right to expect that someone who hosts a radio show is going to be a little better at thinking out loud than the average person. And I like to think that I usually am. But it seems that all my engines weren’t firing this week. Like a lot of New Yorkers, I was operating on little sleep, with hurricane fatigue, and displaced family and friends. It was a recipe for total botch up. And I botched this one.

 

My apologies to Wess, and to my listeners.

 Posted by Signorile at9:26 AM

My shorter translation of Signorile’s statement: “Gay Romney supporters are still scum and should die, I was just tired and got caught on tape.  I’m not making excuses, but actually I am.  Also, I was ashamed into apologizing by Andrew Sullivan of all people.”

My longer take on this is that Signorile got his ass chewed out by his bosses at SiriusXM yesterday.  He was awfully arrogant and defiant towards me on Twitter during the time he was on the air.  But suddenly about 5pm, he got silent.  I think The Man who signs his check got involved.

There is no doubt that this is another win for the conservative blogosphere!  Signorile has always been like this.  I know, since he has treated me to the same treatment in the past and I was an invited guest.  So he is “sorry” because he got caught.  Typical progressive bullshit apology.

I have $100 sitting on my desk and will give it to the next person who documents that Signorile’s treatment of gay conservatives hasn’t changed.  The bet is for the next 30 days.

In the meantime, thanks very much to our reader Tim for exposing Signorile’s hate.  I will be providing Tim with a gift from our blog as well.

Now you may discuss.

UPDATE from comments on my $100 wager: 

No, Paul.  I have $100 on my desk for audio proof that Signorile STILL berates gay conservatives.  He will not change.  Maybe today or tomorrow, but he is a mean spirited radical.

He will spout off and demean and bully a gay conservative.  I have $100 waiting here for the proof that his apology was bullshit.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

In his interview with Bill Maher posted this morning, ABC News’ senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper offering a bit of commentary in posing his first question to the former funny man:

So with all the criticism of Rush Limbaugh for his comments about the Georgetown Law student, conservatives claim that there’s a double standard, with President Obama, Democrats and the media far more tolerant of offensive language when wielded by liberal or progressive media figures against conservative women. Is that a fair comparison? You have certainly used offensive words to describe some politicians you don’t like.

A leading journalist (and a good one) in the legacy media addresses an issue long reserved to right-of-center editorial pages and conservative blogs.  Bill Maher, perhaps for the first time, has been been forced to defend his mean-spirited anti-Republican rhetoric — for more than just one news cycle.  Instead of acknowledging that he may have overstepped the line or apologized (as Rush did) for an error of judgment, he whines that he’s just a comedian, trying to score a few laughs

Hugh Hewitt finds that Maher’s conclusion where the HBO host claims he had defended Rush’s “right to stay on the air” reeks of “self-importance” and “smashes Maher’s ‘comedian’ defense if it had any substance for anyone to begin with.  Simple comedians don’t take to the ramparts to defend anything.  They tell jokes.”

In playing defense, however, Maher reveals the hypocrisy of his position.   (more…)

Even after Rush Limbaugh apologized for the harsh language he used to describe a law student flacking for Obamacare’s mandates, a good number of liberals just can’t let the story go.  Just check your own Facebook page.   Or click on over to some left-wing blogs — or left-of-center editorial pages.

“While Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments,” inveigh the editors of the Washington Post in highest dudgeon, “they do have a responsibility to repudiate them — and him.”   Just as soon as the pro-Obama SuperPAC, Priorities USA Action, returns the one-million dollar check Bill Maher sent them — and as soon as Democrats, including the president himself, repudiate this mean-spirited former funny man.

As Dan Riehl reminds us, “in March of 2011, Maher called Palin a “dumb tw*t,” as reported here by the Daily Caller. On March 29, 2011, the Caller also reported that Maher called Palin the “C-word.” (more…)

Sometime yesterday afternoon (Pacific time), after reading a brief summary of the details of Sharon Bialek’s accusation, but before finding out about f the affidavits, I wondered how much due diligence Gloria Allred had done.  Had Bialek named friends or acquaintances who could corroborate her story?  Had Miss Allred obtained affidavits from said individuals?  (Only when I learned she had did I begin to consider that there might be some truth to this tale.)

Had the female publicity hound contacted the hotel in Washington to see if Miss Bialek had rented a room?  Had Mr. Cain called to upgrade it?  Did she ask for flight records, etc.?

Now, to be sure, this happened fourteen years ago and most people don’t keep records that old, but still did she even try to track them down?  Well, seems a conservative blogger is doing the work she has apparently failed to do.  Jim Geraghty reports that he

put in a call to the Washington Hilton; one aspect of Bialek’s story should be fairly easy to verify, presuming the Hilton Corporation holds records from 1997: did Herman Cain rent a suite at the Capital Hilton in Washington D.C.?

As the multiple updates to my post yesterday indicate, I remain skeptical about Bialek’s credibility, neither convinced that she’s lying nor that she’s telling the truth.

If the charges are true, we do know that he behaved better than Bill Clinton had in similar circumstances.  When the woman said, “No,” he acceded to her request.  Mr. Clinton did not show such respect for the wishes of several women.  And yet feminists and women in the media rewarded him with their votes, support and enthusiasm while the media pillory Mr. Cain.  Mercilessly. (more…)

Among the many things I am currently reading about Sharon Bialek, the only woman to make public her accusations against Republican presidential contender Herman Cain, this one thing stood out, “Bialek does not intend to go forward with a lawsuit against Cain.”

If that’s the case, then why is Democratic attorney Gloria Allred on the case? That said, the publicity hound has “offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.”

That fact alone gives this accuser more credibility than the other alleged victims.  Indeed, as Jim Hoft puts it, citing twitter traffic, “she is as believable as Juanita Broderick (sic) was when she accused Bill Clinton of rape.”  And generating far more media attention for conduct far less offensive.

Cain, she alleges, “reached under her skirt in 1997 as she sought help in finding a job“, but did not persist when she rebuffed his advances.  Mr. Clinton persisted when Ms. Broaddrick rebuffed his.  This is not to diminish the allegations, but to wonder at the media circus.  As Andrew Klavan puts it:

Not only is the news coverage of alleged sexual misconduct different according to political affiliation, the consequences ofactual misconduct are often quite different as well. Republican congressman Mark Foley sent suggestive emails to male pages; he resigned under GOP pressure. Democratic congressman Gerry Studds actually had sex with one of the boys, then flung defiance at the House when they censured him; he was re-elected by Democrats until his retirement.

Via Instapundit.

Although I remain suspicious of Miss Allred’s motives, the sworn affidavits do cause me to take this charge more seriously than the others.

UPDATE:  Law professor William A. Jacobson reminds us that since the woman alleged that the sexual advance took place “after her employment terminated with a National Restaurant Association affiliate . . . the allegation is not one of workplace ‘sexual harassment’ but of an alleged attempt at infidelity“, adding that the “political damage will be significant”: (more…)

Given her record, we can pretty much guess that this has more to do with politics than sexual harassment:

The AP reports that Democratic activist (though they don’t identify her as such) “Gloria Allred said Monday that another woman is accusing Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexual harassment and will appear at a news conference in New York City later in the day.”

They call this gal a “High-profile discrimination attorney”. High-profile partisan is more like it. Does seem that whenever California Democrats want their dirty work done for them, they call ol’ Gloria.

Now, the lady is going national.

UPDATE: Given the woman who is trotting this accuser forward, we should demand corroboration before taking her seriously.

Hillary: State Dept. ‘Instrumental in Sealing Deal’ For Lady Gaga’s Gay Pride Gig in Rome

I mean, with all the problems in the Middle East and all, not to mention a couple of wars and various kinetic actions, you do have to have your priorities.

Via reader Peter from Houston.

Thought came to mind when I caught this on Instapundit:  ”JIM TREACHER: Weiner Tip #1: If you want to prevent a topic from becoming a distraction, call the person asking you about it a jackass.”  I mean, just like Sheen, he’s melting down and is all over the media.  Seems the Democrat has a similar saturation strategy.

Oh, and props to Anderson Cooper who does seem to be trying to be fair, tweeting this morning: “For those saying we shouldn’t cover the Weiner story, would u feel same way if this had happened to a conservative republican? Just asking?”  (H/t Washington Examiner.)

UPDATE:  Seems I’m not the first to come up with this notion.  In Politico, Ben Smith writes:

“Watching Anthony Weiner’s twitter and press blitz is like watching a Charlie Sheen meltdown. It’s amusing, uncomfortable, and not necessary,” a Democratic leadership aide (not from Pelosi’s office) told me just now. “If Weiner really wants to get beyond this, he’ll shut up and let Democrats get back to their Medicare message.”

(Via Jim Geraghty in Morning Jolt).

As Donald Trump bows “out of the 2012 contest in true Trump fashion on Monday, saying that while he would not be a candidate this year, if he had run, he would have been able to win the primary and the general election too“, the only question is why it  is generating so much media buzz.

Perhaps it’s because since the media who brought him to the forefront of the 2012 campaign needed to find their own kind of closure to the circus they created.  In his brief moment in the political limelight, the real estate mogul and reality star did nothing to further the debate on the important issues of the day.

That said, he did contribute to our understanding of our compromised political discourse.  To be sure, he did end for once and for all (save for those who can never be pleased) the “birther” controversy, getting the president to do something he should long since have done to quiet the controversy.

He also showed us two things we already know.  First, that many in the media will do whatever they can to sensationalize the presidential contest (and attempt to make Republicans look extreme, crazy or both in the process).

And he provided yet another example of just how prickly the president is, taking everything so personally.  Why did the Democrat have do hold a press conference when the White House released the certificate, lecturing us on civil discourse or national priorities or whatever when all he needed to do to trump Trump was to have some minor administration aide take questions when the certificate was released?

Back in 2004, when Michael Moore’s movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, was released, the guest list at the Washington premiere read like a Who’s Who of leading Democrats:

The Fahrenheit 9/11 premiere was organized by Clinton White House social secretary Capricia Marshall, and the attendees who praised the movie included DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, Sens. Tom Daschle (D), Tom Harkin (IA), Max Baucus (MT), Ernest Hollings (SC), Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Bill Nelson (FL), as well as Reps. Charles Rangel (NY) and Jim McDermott (WA).

Jimmy Carter invited the filmmaker to sit in his box at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and dubbed Moore’s movie one of his two favorites.  Now, Moore has been making some crazy statements about the death of Osama bin Laden, hinting at some bizarre conspiracy theories involving White House deception.

So, given Democrats’ past embrace of Mr. Moore, some might think it really shameful that the supposedly responsible leadership of the Democratic Party has not repudiated him.

Glenn Reynolds nails it:

SUCKER: Obama takes bait, embiggens Donald Trump. You don’t punish Donald Trump by giving him attention. A more experienced politician would know that. Nor is building Trump up good for Obama — Trump has actually hurt him more than all the others combined. Because, you know, Trump has actually been willing to criticize him without being afraid of the Big Media retribution. The various traditional GOP candidates still have the old cringe-reflex where Big Media criticism is concerned.

Now, what did Napoleon said about how to act when your enemy is busy making a fool of himself?  Oh, yeah, it was something about what not to do when your enemy is making a mistake.

Well, maybe the president felt he had to, given that the media has, as Jennifer Rubin put it, “now glommed onto Trump“, with their “circus” continuing even after he’s “he’s ‘accomplished’ his goal of mainstreaming birther coverage”.

My addendum to Napoleon’s maxim:  ignore the attack dog who’s chasing his own tail.

Once again, I turn to the indispensable Jennifer Rubin not just for news of this matter, but also for insight into its meaning:

It’s almost inexplicable. The White House bent to the will of the kook-squad and its kook in chief, Donald Trump, in releasing the president’s birth certificate. He’s going to speak on the subject later today.

. . . .

In essence, Obama has given a pass to the loony birthers by suggesting this was a legitimate issue deserving of a White House response. And, of course, he’s made Donald Trump into the uber-opponent. Trump, unsurprisingly, is gloating, declaring he’s “proud of himself for accomplishing something no one else has accomplished.” What’s next: Capitulate to his demand to release Obama’s college grades?

Read the whole thing.  And yes, Jennifer, the Donald is now calling for the president to release his college records.  And, um, Mr. Trump, I’d be kind of wary of that self-pride thing.  You might want to consult a Mr. O. Rex (understanding that unfortunate Theban monarch through the lens of Sophocles not Freud) before telling us how “very proud” you are of yourself.  We’ve all heard what sometimes happens to people who pat themselves on their back overmuch.

Yeah, I’ll grant that if Trump didn’t raise a ruckus, the president wouldn’t have done what he should have done long ago to quiet this furor.  It does seem the real reason the president didn’t release this sooner was a political one — to try to bait his political adversaries into beating the birther drum ever louder and so discredit themselves in the process.

It seems right now, we’ve been watching a media battle between two egomaniacs, Donald Trump and Barack Obama.  The latter would have been smarter to just release the certificate without making a “peevish” statement, indeed, without making any statement at all.

And with that statement, the president today gave Donald Trump a public relations victory. (more…)

Yesterday, while at the gym doing my cardio, I looked up at one of the TV monitors to see the smug mug of Bill Maher on Eliot Spitzer’s solo CNN show, In the Arena.  My first thought was why a program ostensibly offering commentary on the news would turn to such an ill-informed partisan self-styled comic as a kind of expert.  He seemed the latest in the string of left-wingers on the former Democratic politician’s show.  My second thought was, well, CNN does have the freedom to bring on whatever guests it wishes and to have ratings roughly one-quarter of those of FoxNews’s program in the same time slot.

In the interview, Maher demonstrated both his arrogance and his ignorance.  He claimed to understand better the economic interests of Tea Party protesters than they do themselves:

The Tea Party is a party named after a tax revolt that does not know very much about taxes. It’s very hard to get effective policy in place if the people are voting against their own economic interests. . . . I mean, if your agenda is the same as a billionaire, you’re not really a populist movement, and if they’re supposed to be all about taxes and deficits and debt, most of the money, most of the deficit money, the debt money, was from under Bush. These are facts that they don’t care about.

Yeah, Bill, they have the same salary as you do, so they can easily bear the burdens of high taxes — and the increased cost of commodities (due, in large part to government regulation).

So, according to Mr. Maher, any movements backed by George Soros by definition cannot be populist.  And then the unfunny comic goes on to argue that most of the deficit was under Bush.  Um, Bill, have you read the constitution?  It gives the power of the purse to Congress, controlled by Democrats since from 2007 until this January.  And it was the budget passed the Democratic Congress elected in 2006, that saw deficits, declining before their eleciton, began to grow — as the rate of increase of federal spending accelerated.

He then faulted the president for failing to blame Republicans: “He never blames the Republicans for anything. He’s their best friend. He always helps them with their narrative.”  This statement so shocked our reader Sonicfrog that he wonders if he had a memory lapse: (more…)

Charlie Sheen may well be outsmarting us all in saying increasingly crazy things in order to keep himself in the news, but that need to have us all pay attention to him is itself an addiction.  He’s not seeking fame through good and noble deeds, but seeking it in order to fill an inner void.

Just as he used his star power to lure countless women into his bed.  Or used his wealth to buy whatever narcotic it was though could give him the quickest high.  Now, he’s found a new means to get high.  And the constant attention he craves may well only momentarily serve to fill the emptiness.  He may need try something novel to find the necessary excitement.

Another strange way to find validation through attention.  Kind of kind a child throwing a tantrum.

One day, people are going to start tiring of Sheen’s shenanigans.  Various media outlets will see their ratings drop and stop covering this particular celebrity.  And he’ll have to look elsewhere for his latest fix.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Sebastian Shaw offers a sage insight:

Charlie Sheen may very well end up dead from a drug overdose. Hollywood hasn’t helped him at all; in fact, it has hurt him along with the media trying to exploit his weirdness.

Indeed.

Look, I’m not the first to say it, so I’ll just put this observation out there for your consideration and commentary.  People in LA want to be noticed; they want to be the center of attention.  And many don’t care how they get your attention just as long as they have it.

Charlie Sheen has ours now.  He’s all over the tabloids, in print, pixel and video.  When I got to the gym, I hear people talking to him.  When I go out to eat, even in restaurants outside LA, I hear people talking about him.  Certainly, he seems like he’s off his rocker.  But, is he?  Right now, everyone is paying attention to him.  He’s being noticed.  He has become the number one celebrity this week.

(A google search for “Charlie Sheen” (in quotation marks) results in over 500 million hits.)

To Hollywood celebrities, it used to matter what people thought of them.  Now it only seems to matter that people think about then.  And people are sure thinking about Charlie.

NB:  Moments after posting this, I decided to modify (albeit slightly) the title.

Several years ago, I defined a condition known as Huffingtonistis, in honor of that ubiquitous political celebrity Arianna Huffington:

Huffingtonitis, when one defines his political views and makes public statements in order to win social approval and/or acceptance.

Blogger Roger Simon, whom I cited in that post, offers a different spin on Ms. Huffington’s motivations to sell her eponymous Post to AOL:

Arianna Huffington is a brilliant businesswoman with an extraordinary sense of timing — first riding the feminist wave to write a best seller accusing Picasso of womanizing, then going conservative to marry a multi-millionaire Republican, and then switching to the liberal/progressive side and founding the most successful new media news and opinion site extant. . . .

Arianna has read the tea leaves. Progressivism, which was riding the crest of popularity on the election of Obama, is over. It is no longer good for business. And just as the stock market is said to be a leading indicator on business cycles, I submit Arianna’s track record has shown her to be a leading indicator on the zeitgeist. She knows when to get out. Obama, and by extension progressivism, is fini.

Read the whole thing.  Is Ms. Huffington then more interested in following the zeitgeist (as is the pop star Madonna in following the latest musical fads) than in currying favor with the liberal social and cultural élite who dominant her current hometown?

In such case, she defines her views not in order to win social acceptance, but to head whichever way the wind blows.

I regret that I have not had much time to blog in recent days, but have been busy preparing the final draft of my dissertation as well as practicing my defense which I will deliver later today in Carpinteria.

Friday, while at the gym, I got my daily dose of CNN and was appalled that that “news” network was giving a lengthy platform to an attention-seeking hate-monger.  They even showed an extended clip of the self-proclaimed Reverend Phelps talking about how Elizabeth Edwards had entered hell — or some other nonsense (in their extended segment on his latest stunt).

Didn’t Mr. Cooper know that he was playing right into that crackpot’s hands by giving him such attention?   Because that is exactly the reason the man protests funerals.