Thx. Fixed.>> ^longde:

He was a columnist for National Review, but the rant was done in some blog, not mainstream.

He was a columnist for National Review, but the rant was done in some blog, not mainstream.

wikipedia:

The word pompatus has, because of its peculiarity and seemingly nonsensical usage, become a minor pop trivia icon. Wolfman Jack frequently referenced the phrase and there is a soundclip of him using the line within the song "Clap for the Wolfman" by The Guess Who. A 1996 movie titled The Pompatus of Love starring Jon Cryer featured four guys discussing a number of assorted topics, including attempts to determine the meaning of the phrase.[2] The line has been mentioned in various television show gags, including The Simpsons and South Park.[citation needed] It was the subject of the October 9, 2011 Over the Hedge comic strip.

Humor columnist Dave Barry frequently refers to the song line as a source of comedic value, particularly in his 1997 book, Dave Barry's Book of Bad Songs. Pompatus is used by Michael Ondaatje in his 2001 book, Anil's Ghost. Stephen King uses the word in his 2006 novel Lisey's Story. Tim Dorsey uses the word in his 2010 novel, Gator a-Go-Go.

"Pompatus of love" was mentioned by Dan in Hellcats (episode 11) when he was talking to Marti.

Cal Thomas is a regular contributor to the "drive time" radio show I listen to daily (in Ireland) and its hosted by an actual "Journalist" (remember those?) who will call people (and Cal Thomas) on BS that may try to spout on the show. Thomas provides the U.S. right-wing analysis on whatever the issues of the day are, usually paired with someone like Lara Marlowe or Miriam Lord(? cant remember last name).

I've noticed Cal Thomas is so much more reasonable and his arguments so much more reasoned when talking to this different audience (compared to here or when I see him on Fox news) that I'm convinced guys like him are simply clever people playing a different character depending on their audience. They are getting paid for their contributions or appearances so the more agreeable he is to audiences the more he works.

So I see this simply as a syndicated columnist playing to the crowd with an eye on his bottom line. No one there is going to call him out on that remark I suspect.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Translation: Total Ownage of the left.

"Liberals go straight to ugly racist stereotypes when attacking conservative blacks, calling them oversexualized, stupid and/or incompetent.
The late, lamented, white liberal reporter Mary McGrory called Justice Antonin Scalia "a brilliant and compelling extremist" -- while dismissing Thomas as "Scalia's puppet."
More recently, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called Scalia "one smart guy." In the next breath, he proclaimed Thomas "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court," adding, "I think that his opinions are poorly written."
When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, terror swept through the Democratic Party. What if people began to notice and ask questions: "Who's that black woman always standing with George Bush?" Never mind! He's probably arresting her.
In addition to an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from "Gone With the Wind," a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches, allegedly respectable liberals promptly called her stupid and incompetent.
Joseph Cirincione, then with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Rice "doesn't bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position." (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.)
Democratic consultant Bob Beckel -- who ran Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign so competently that Mondale lost 49 states -- said of Rice, "I don't think she's up to the job."
When Michael Steele ran for senator in Maryland in 2006, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report -- something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in black face with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002.
Trafficking in racist imagery is consequence-free for liberals because they have ruined charges of "racism" with their own overuse of the term. By now, any accusation of racism has the feel of a Big Foot sighting."
AC "Why Our Blacks are Better than Their Blacks"



Not one of the people you mentioned commenting on Conservative Blacks is on the "Left" in anyway shape or form. Please apologize to us lefties immediately because we can't take this sort of abuse.

Translation: Total Ownage of the left.



"Liberals go straight to ugly racist stereotypes when attacking conservative blacks, calling them oversexualized, stupid and/or incompetent.

The late, lamented, white liberal reporter Mary McGrory called Justice Antonin Scalia "a brilliant and compelling extremist" -- while dismissing Thomas as "Scalia's puppet."

More recently, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called Scalia "one smart guy." In the next breath, he proclaimed Thomas "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court," adding, "I think that his opinions are poorly written."

When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, terror swept through the Democratic Party. What if people began to notice and ask questions: "Who's that black woman always standing with George Bush?" Never mind! He's probably arresting her.

In addition to an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from "Gone With the Wind," a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches, allegedly respectable liberals promptly called her stupid and incompetent.

Joseph Cirincione, then with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Rice "doesn't bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position." (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.)

Democratic consultant Bob Beckel -- who ran Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign so competently that Mondale lost 49 states -- said of Rice, "I don't think she's up to the job."

When Michael Steele ran for senator in Maryland in 2006, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report -- something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in black face with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002.

Trafficking in racist imagery is consequence-free for liberals because they have ruined charges of "racism" with their own overuse of the term. By now, any accusation of racism has the feel of a Big Foot sighting."

AC "Why Our Blacks are Better than Their Blacks"

>> ^quantumushroom:

...government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.
Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.
Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers' money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees -- against the taxpayers, who aren't allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York's largest public union in the mid-'70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, "We have the ability to elect our own boss."

Ann "Mad Dog" Coulter

Look for the Union Fable


As a public employee, I can assure you that no one I've ever worked alongside with or even met on the job thinks that our bosses want anything other than to make us work as hard as possible for the least amount of money possible. Not to mention the fact that, ultimately, our bosses are our citizens, and they've never wanted anything else either, especially in the current climate where attacking unions and blaming all of society's problems on them is the most popular thing to do for any elected official.

My co-conspirator bosses here in Oregon are now charging me $45 per month until I can get my waist down to 34 inches (regardless of my height). That's for the health insurance that costs me $900 per month already. And here I had spend a year trying to convince them to let me stand while I work.

If we didn't have the ability to threaten a strike this year, I'd be making 25% less wages as well, starting in January.

My favorite part of your post is that you're quoting Coulter in a time when literally every politician, including my Democratic governor, is sanctioning attacks on public employee unions across the board.

Hedges was arrested along with 15 other protesters following the “people’s trial” when they staged a sit-in outside the headquarters of Goldman Sachs.

The Gothamist reports:

Over a dozen Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested today outside Goldman Sachs, where they had marched with 300 others after holding a mock trial of CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Among those arrested were performance artist gadfly Reverend Billy and author and columnist Chris Hedges, who is a senior fellow at The Nation Institute. Hedges and the Rev joined several others in a direct action protest outside the firm, sitting down on the sidewalk, linking arms, and refusing to leave. It seems clear the activists intended to be arrested; earlier today Reverend Billy tweeted, “I’ll spend the afternoon in a police van with Chris Hedges and come out ten times more READY for the miracle! Revolujah!”

http://youtu.be/MOiUOkNj0L4

...government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.

Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.

Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers' money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees -- against the taxpayers, who aren't allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York's largest public union in the mid-'70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, "We have the ability to elect our own boss."


Ann "Mad Dog" Coulter

Look for the Union Fable

fairly certain the interviewer is Andrew Ross Sorkin, journalist, columnist, and author of the book, Too Big To Fail.

>> ^shponglefan:

Ugh, horrible interviewer. Just fishing for soundbites, good for Buffett not to bite.

What's that you say, Thomas Sowell?

"If anything, "the rich" have far more options for putting their money beyond the reach of the tax collectors today than they had back in 1921. In addition to being able to put their money into tax-exempt securities, the rich today can easily send millions -- or billions -- of dollars to foreign countries, with the ease of electronic transfers in a globalized economy.

"In other words, the genuinely rich are likely to be the least harmed by high tax rates in the top brackets. People who are looking for jobs are likely to be the most harmed, because they cannot equally easily transfer themselves overseas to take the jobs that are being created there by American investments that are fleeing from high tax rates at home.

"Small businesses -- hardware stores, gas stations or restaurants for example -- are likewise unable to transfer themselves overseas. So they are far more likely to be unable to escape the higher tax rates that are supposedly being imposed on "millionaires and billionaires," as President Obama puts it. Moreover, small businesses are what create most of the new jobs.

"Why then are so many politicians, journalists and others so gung-ho to raise tax rates in the upper brackets?

"Aside from sheer ignorance of history and economics, class warfare politics pays off in votes for politicians who can depict their opponents as defenders of the rich and themselves as looking out for working people. It is a great political game that has paid off repeatedly in state, local and federal elections.

"As for the 1920s, (Secretary of the Treasury Andrew) Mellon eventually got his way, getting Congress to bring the top tax rate down from 73 percent to 24 percent. Vast sums of money that had seemingly vanished into thin air suddenly reappeared in the economy, creating far more jobs and far more tax revenue for the government.

Sometimes sanity eventually prevails. But not always."

This was a great interview and the comment stream is terrific.

I really want to excerpt out the newspaper columnist's comments -- same subject, different slant, potent potent words. What she said hasn't been mentioned in the comment stream, since it is such a different slant. It deserves its own comment stream.

Here are some good resources that I have found along the way...

http://content.photojojo.com/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

http://www.rcfp.org/pullouts/photographers/index.php

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703411304575093572032665414.html

What Chile did have was intellectual capital, thanks to an exchange program between its Catholic University and the economics department of the University of Chicago, then Friedman's academic home. Even before the 1973 coup, several of Chile's "Chicago Boys" had drafted a set of policy proposals which amounted to an off-the-shelf recipe for economic liberalization: sharp reductions to government spending and the money supply; privatization of state-owned companies; the elimination of obstacles to free enterprise and foreign investment, and so on."

In left-wing mythology—notably Naomi Klein's tedious 2007 screed "The Shock Doctrine"—the Chicago Boys weren't just strange bedfellows to Pinochet's dictatorship. They were complicit in its crimes. "If the pure Chicago economic theory can be carried out in Chile only at the price of repression, should its authors feel some responsibility?" wrote New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis in October 1975. In fact, Pinochet had been mostly indifferent to the Chicago Boys' advice until the continuing economic crisis forced him to look for some policy alternatives. In March 1975, he had a 45-minute meeting with Friedman and asked him to write a letter proposing some remedies. Friedman responded a month later with an eight-point proposal that largely mirrored the themes of the Chicago Boys.

For his trouble, Friedman would spend the rest of his life being defamed as an accomplice to evil: at his Nobel Prize ceremony the following year, he was met by protests and hecklers. Friedman himself couldn't decide whether to be amused or annoyed by the obloquies; he later wryly noted that he had given communist dictatorships the same advice he gave Pinochet, without raising leftist hackles.

As for Chile, Pinochet appointed a succession of Chicago Boys to senior economic posts. By 1990, the year he ceded power, per capita GDP had risen by 40% (in 2005 dollars) even as Peru and Argentina stagnated. Pinochet's democratic successors—all of them nominally left-of-center—only deepened the liberalization drive. Result: Chileans have become South America's richest people. They have the continent's lowest level of corruption, the lowest infant-mortality rate, and the lowest number of people living below the poverty line.

"A great example of rampant, over-reaching, ignorant, and ill-conceived political foolishness.

Just imagine if security mismanagement such as that encountered at the DHS or the TSA was to impact the NSTIC; one serious data breach would provide a field day for the bad guys. And should that happen, imagine the chaos while the problem was addressed … clients of any of the government's social services would find themselves locked out, services like the Department of Motor Vehicles would grind to a halt (OK, make that more of a halt), and companies that deal with the government could see their businesses hit a brick wall.

And all of this would be because the wonks at NIST think they can do what enterprises with far more experience in hardcore IT have learned the hard way; that unified security is incredibly difficult to implement even for a few thousand people. For tens of millions of citizen, it would be effectively impossible!" - http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2011/011411-backspin.html