This Page

has been moved to new address

Double Standard Hypocrisy

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: Double Standard Hypocrisy

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Double Standard Hypocrisy



This is "old news" per se, but clearly indicative of where the DEM (Defeatist, Elitist Media) exist on the issue, both now and in the future.


WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Barack Obama called disclosures about Treasury choice Timothy Geithner's tax problems an embarrassment Wednesday but said Geithner's "innocent mistake" shouldn't keep him from confirmation as the new administration's top official in urgent efforts to revive the economy.

The revelations that Geithner had failed to pay $34,000 in taxes several years ago derailed Senate Democrats' plans to speed him to confirmation by Inauguration Day, but senators in both parties said the information was unlikely to torpedo his chances in the end.

Obama had hoped for approval by Tuesday, but senators now have scheduled Geithner's confirmation hearing for next Wednesday, with Senate debate and a vote sometime after that.




One Porta-Potty for every 600 persons. That's the kindness you face when you decide to attend The Chosen One's DC inauguration. Green? Not hardly; how about massively brown and yellow?

The UK Mail Online estimates the Obama Inauguration's cost at 110-million British pounds. At today's currency rate, that equals $160.1 million dollars:


Barack Obama's inauguration is set to cost more than £100m making it the most expensive swearing-in ceremony in US history.


Oddly enough (imagine that!), Salon.com bitched about the unprecedented cost for GW Bush's 2005 inauguration:


For the media, simply reporting on the cost of the inauguration proved to be a challenge. Most major outlets stuck to the lower, albeit still unprecedented, figure of $40 million, which the Presidential Inaugural Committee said it hopes to raise from private donors. But a more accurate figure may be $50 million.


So. Evidently an inauguration costing twice that is -- no big deal.

Because, after all, The One is involved.

PART III: FINALLY, PROPS for 2,683:

It is now 2,683 days since 9/11. President Bush has somehow managed to keep this country safe since then. I have to give props where props are due. This is not hypocritical; this is only truth. There were no homicide bombers. There were no mall bombers. There were no backpack tactical nukes detonated on our shores, no CBW weapons. The anthrax bomber (back in 2001) was, it turns out, a domestic scientist who is now dead.

BZ

19 Comments:

Blogger Greywolfe said...

I like this post. Only thing I would say, especially in light of the Petagon's J.O.E report is I wish G.W. hadn't let us down on the border so badly.

Wed Jan 14, 06:28:00 PM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Greywolfe: I purposely avoided that. It involves another set of issues entirely. I am nothing much of a major Bush supporter but, all things, considered, it could have been worse. Under a Demorat. And GWB wasn't far from a Demorat with his spending, ill communications, his refusal to secure our borders and some other issues.

GWB is history now. I'd rather focus, at this point, on the future.

BZ

Wed Jan 14, 06:34:00 PM PST  
Blogger TRUTH 101 said...

Same right wing nonsense here. I was hoping for something better and enlightening based on your cool blog name. But typical echos of right wing talking points. News BZ. Obama isn't President yet. And how can you guys still be thanking Bush when 4213 of our outstanding Troops died in the poorly planned thanks to Bush Iraq invasion and occupation. 30,000 permannetly wounded. Kept us safe. He didn't keep our Troops safe. Sent them ove rthere without adequete equipment and not nearly enough personel to do what was required to ensure a successful occupation. Bush ran oof the generals that disagreed with him. Remember Shinseki? Remember when McCain hd to damn near beg Bush to OK the Surge? Bush has been a failure on all counts.

Wed Jan 14, 07:15:00 PM PST  
Anonymous Jennifer McKenzie said...

I laughed my ever lovin' ass off when reporter on a news show reported about WHY Obama wasn't commenting on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and said he did not want to begin implementing policy until he actually took office.
Quite a switch from the stands he's been taking on the economy...which the reporter discussed immediately after saying Obama was right to "wait" until he was in office.
Riiiiiight.
The man has clearly begun to "rule" before his actual inauguration. The media has given him a free pass with no accountability.
It's going to be ugly.
And my opinion on Bush is this. The man was the right man for the times and he probably kept us from being destroyed by terrorists, but also from sliding into financial ruin for years.
I wonder if I'm right. Did many see Hoover this way too? We know now that Hoover had many opportunities to divert the Great Depression but did nothing. Only history will tell.
I believe Bush's legacy will ultimately be positive, just like his father's.

Wed Jan 14, 07:45:00 PM PST  
Blogger Greywolfe said...

BZ. I'd say that you and I agree on a lot. This too. The only reason I mentioned the above failing is that I detest the possibility that anyone is going to try to prop up his legacy. I will give him an B- on his tax record also. See, I'm not just a Bush-whacker. (grin)

Wed Jan 14, 08:11:00 PM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Truth 101: you just keep walking around. If your lungs aren't shredded when you walk into a local movie theatre, just you think of this post, sir. As opposed to, say, Israel.

Bush wasn't a true Conservative; far from it. I'll excoriate his foibles. But I'll also praise his positives.

BZ

Wed Jan 14, 08:25:00 PM PST  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

01 14 09

BZ: Thanks for setting the record straight about Bush. I said about two years ago that he wasn't conservative ENOUGH. And you all know I mean fiscally conservative. I am utterly terrified at what President Elect Obama will do to our currency and economy. All this nonsense about change is just that; nonsense. He has no realistic monetary policy. He has no SUSTAINABLE plan for the future generations. Look, if the country is broke what will my son have in his future? Yet Obama purposefully chose a bunch of jackasses as his economic advisors (as did Reagan and as did both Bushes and Clinton as well) and chose to ignore truth for fluff and bullshit.

I am so unhappy about this but have no savings so will have to roll with the punches. My husband and I were doing alright until about two years ago and things have been up and down. This is the one reason why I am so opposed to Obama's senseless bullshit 'stimulus' plan. Because I KNOW that stimulating CONSUMERS to get into more DEBT is utterly assinine and senseless. He is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Barack Obama you should be ashamed of yourself! Hey BZ I was pleased to see a Black man get elected to the white house, but the honeymoon has BEEN over. His senselessness is astounding, which is why I voted for Bob Barr. He has the charisma of a dead body but he knows what he is talking about!

Wed Jan 14, 10:59:00 PM PST  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

01 14 09

Oh yes, I should respond to Truth 101 for shits and grins. Yes, it is a known fact that GWBush screwed up. Next please? Instead of harping on him for his foibles, why not concentrate at the reasonable criticisms of President Elect Obama? Like er, his utterly retarded monetary policy, or lack thereof?

Why don't you address some of those issues? I guarantee that if you accurately examine what he is proposing and its impact on you and me and our families, you will be pissed.

Wed Jan 14, 11:02:00 PM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Mahndisa: to say the least!

BZ

Thu Jan 15, 12:27:00 AM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Amazing that we are to be shocked and dismayed over a minor $1,000 lien on the part of Joe the Plumber and to disregard a nominee for Treasury who not only didn't pay taxes properly, but took a kickback and claimed he did pay his taxes... gotta love that 'vetting' process. What is this the third potential nominee to go down in flames before Obama even reaches office?

For Truth 101 - As for Iraq, that is going faster than I ever expected it to go... remember our soldiers now treat people in the field *themselves* and that 30K wounded would have a much higher percentage DEAD without the high capacity of our troops and their training. Afghanistan is taking longer, but then it is: landlocked, has an extra thousand or so years of really piss poor governments, a huge love of tribal warfare and ethnic divisions that the Soviets, Brits and Persians (way back in the 17th century) couldn't straighten out. I will complain about stationed troops in Iraq only *after* we leave Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea. Until then... yawn. We have fought with legs shackled, one armed tied behind our backs and found out we can *still* win with a peace-time economy and a Congress unwilling to do its job. You want to complain about equipment?

Do you know who pays for that? CONGRESS.
You want to address supply problems? You go to CONGRESS.

See troopers with inadequate supply amounts, do you know who you go to? CONGRESS.

DoD can only tell what they need, Congress gives them money and were damned stingy during the 1990's to the point where two Army Divisions fell to the lowest readiness status since Vietnam... in 1999... and one of those, the 10MD was NOT ready for deployment in Afghanistan which is the terrain they train for. The people to blame? The Clinton Administration and Congress. If you want to talk logistics, I got logistics for you. This is the first war *ever* where troops ran out of equipment because it hasn't been manufactured and this happened to the *winning* side. Everything made that was necessary was delivered on time. When you had a 'shortfall' it was because Congress hadn't bothered to budget for it.

You know who looks bad?

Congress in both the D and R parties, all of them, including the President Elect: they REFUSED to do their JOBS and KEEP THEIR WORD on supplying the troops with what they needed in PEACE TIME and WAR TIME.

As for McCain, he was not on the ground, didn't address logistics nor the inexperience of our troops with local customs. If we had started COIN without those, we would *still* be fighting hard there because no one was *prepared* for that. The first troop rotation pointed out THAT problem, and McCain should have shut his trap and understood that *then* if he is such a tactical genius. You don't fight COIN like you do a highly kinetic war - the troops aren't ready for it. What did Bush do? Send the General who *did* understand that to US Army TRADOC. Training and Doctrine. The folks who set up training, doctrine and promulgate the best ways to *fight*... that changed the entire point, aim, and tempo of training which a McCain concept would have *killed* by keeping that General in the field and *not* at home changing the entire way the military trains for fighting COIN which they haven't done since Vietnam.

I have supreme problems with GWB in many areas, but fighting as it went in Iraq? Some, but not the huge ones people make it out to be that don't bother to look at logistics, training, coordination, planning and adaptation of the troops to new fighting types. For the few troops we have sent and the low number of killed and wounded we have suffered, we will see the lowest casualty rate of any war we have ever been in since the founding of the country for the number of troops deployed (about the same amount sent to the Philippines in 1899-1910). And for that I give credit to the soldiers for learning their tradecraft and executing on it... and the hard work that has gone into getting them to that point with Congresses and a previous Administration that starved them of money for stores and logistical supplies. Our troops should never have suffered because of negligence for a decade... they did, and paid the price we asked them to pay.

We should be glad it is so low as it is. It could have been far, far worse.

Thu Jan 15, 03:45:00 PM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

AJ: You wrote:

"Congress in both the D and R parties, all of them, including the President Elect: they REFUSED to do their JOBS and KEEP THEIR WORD on supplying the troops with what they needed in PEACE TIME and WAR TIME."

YES! ABSOLUTELY!

BZ

Thu Jan 15, 04:21:00 PM PST  
Blogger Average American said...

Truth, you sure do spend a lot of time in conservative blogs lately. Are we starting to wear off on you yet? I'll make you a deal, shit-can the NObama picture and we'll work on turning you into a good conservative.

Bush wasn't conservative enough? Hell, fiscally speaking he's a liberal! It's the main thing I very much disliked about him.

AJ, good comment. So many people want to place all the blame on Bush. Blame, or credit, usually should go to Congress. They pass the laws, they spend the money, and they are most adept at screwing things up. Bush inherited a military that had been treated "on the cheap" ever since the Berlin wall came down. A lot of blame to go around, but not to Bush.

Fri Jan 16, 03:04:00 AM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

AA - It is fascinating that America got so much done with so little. No real commitment on behalf of the government, a virulent anti-american pacifism that only shows up when the D party is not in power, and Congresscritters complaining about problems only THEY can solve by funding procurements. Yet that gets blamed on GWB.

One of the most fascinating points by Michael Yon, who was in the special forces and knows them well, is that the new Stryker Brigades are acting as well as special forces. What has happened is the US is now raising the bar on *itself* for its troops, because if the US Army has troops as good as special forces, the special forces now need to go up another notch in capability and competency. And that is a damned tall order, let me tell you. That will be one of the positive legacies of Iraq: America on the leanest military diet during any war, ever, upped its ability by an order of magnitude, confounded the naysayers and did their job... while being starved of logistical necessities. When the USMC and Army get the NLOS-C integrated, we will start to see the need of aerial strikes drop... which may be the final nail in the coffin for manned aircraft as highly accurate artillery and UAV/UCAVs will rule in those roles of CAS... save for the A-10. We do need another A-10 like aircraft for that final, human decision on the spot role from the air... but that takes undoing Key West.

Strange that our fighting forces are not 'too big to fail' and yet the Big 3 automakers are... it seems only one of those defends the liberty and freedom of this Nation.... and it isn't the automakers. Yet the Left wanted the armed forces to fail.

That will be remembered.

Enemies must be kept track of...

Fri Jan 16, 05:26:00 AM PST  
Blogger BB-Idaho said...

"Leanest diet of any American war"
World War II $3.2 trillion
Iraq and Afghanistan To Date $695.7 billion
Vietnam War $670 billion
World War I $364 billion
Korean War $295 billion
Persian Gulf War $94 billion
Civil War (both Union and Confederate costs) $81 billion
Spanish-American War $7 billion
American Revolution $4 billion
Mexican War $2 billion
War of 1812 $1 billion
..from budget office data, 2007 dollars. Doesn't seem all that lean, IMO....

Fri Jan 16, 04:29:00 PM PST  
Blogger Average American said...

AJ, I have to agree, those Stryker Brigades sure are something else! It's been years since I was in the Army, but I still have a basic sense of what works and what doesn't. The A-10's are great, but what really turns me on are the drones and what they can accomplish. I can only guess at what they have for eyes and ears, but my guess is that they can "see" the colors of the enemies eyes, and "hear", and make out, Bin Ladens voice. It's just a matter of time. I sure wouldn't want to be on the other side! We've come a long way since I was on Huey Helicopters back in the sixties!

Fri Jan 16, 09:34:00 PM PST  
Blogger Rivka said...

Bush was bad on immigration-border issues,the bailouts, and a couple of other things, but when I did my 'thank you' posts and did the research on all the things he has done right, it far outweighs the negative. I too was beginning to get real frustrated, especially with the bailouts, but when I look at what he has done overall I can't say he stunk and as you said he was a much better choice than GOre or Kerry.

Sat Jan 17, 07:16:00 AM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

AA - We are a very inventive people when government doesn't decide to help too much.

The best thing on sensors is that once you get them, you don't rely on just one but a suite of them to get your target. You just don't see, but smell, can feel pressure changes, have an internal sense of balance and can sort out how to bring all of that together at one time. Add chemical, thermal, vision, pressure and other sensors together to get a target profile and you don't need one, highly accurate one, but a set of less expensive but good ones. Humans don't have the best vision, hearing, electrical sense, pressure sense, etc. but we do a wonderful job bringing them all together to sense our world and understand it.

Now we just have to make sure we don't create Terminators and Skynet... need those humans in the loop for the things that aren't easy to derive.

Sat Jan 17, 06:31:00 PM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Now take a look at the percentage of GDP for each war.

From my WWII history course that was approx. 50% of GDP for the years 1943-45.

The cost of Iraq compared to GDP? I've seen many estimates, but a $140 billion hit off of a $14 trillion dollar economy is... 1%. From 2003-2008 we get $696 billion for Iraq out of a total economy of... $112 trillion.

Is Iraq cheap?

You aren't even ticking over the 1% total over the economy for the span it has been going on.

Adjusted dollars only get you so far, size of the economy and proportion taken up by it tells a different story. We do not absorb just how powerful the US economy *is* until you start thinking about WWII and 50% of the total economy committed to wartime production. That total for WWII in a *single year*, today, doesn't top 4% of the economy, with adjusted dollars.

When I say we have had no real economic commitment to the War in Iraq, I *mean it*. The ballooning part of the federal budget is in 'entitlements' and they dwarf, many times, what we paid for Iraq per year and even in total to date. Economics is one thing, taxation another and actually utilizing the economy properly a third. The Left loves dollars until fractions and proportions of the total economy are cited... then the topic shifts for some reason. By any measure of any Nation as a percentage of the GDP, Iraq is cheap. Very cheap. Even Vietnam had problems using up 4% of the economy on top of normal military expenditures for the Cold War during the years it went on and that would average between 6-8% per year for both.

And people bitch about 1%?

Gimme a break.

Look at the Congressional disaster with housing that is far outstripping the cost of Iraq. The cost of WWII. And impacting our economy in the trillions of dollars sense.

Or 9/11 where a trillion dollars in insurance backing went up in dust in one day, in one city. A trillion bucks in one attack.

Iraq?

By any measuring stick against the economy, Iraq is cheap. Compared to ill created schemes by Congress for not using sound fiscal controls over lending, Iraq is super-cheap. WWII was expensive by any economic measure for the economy. Dollars are handy when you don't have any other measuring sticks, but don't use them alone or you will misguide yourself on the meaning of dollars to the economy.

Wed Jan 21, 06:24:00 AM PST  
Blogger Greywolfe said...

AJ. Good comment! As for your remark about liberals changing the subject when you (paraphrase) beat them about the head and shoulders with facts, I can add only this: An old lawyers' adage admonishes: “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.” The left seems to have chosen the latter course of action.

Wed Jan 21, 06:43:00 AM PST  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home