Rolled by the Euros

The Euros eat Obysmal's lunch, leave him holding the empty bag. Presidential leadership at its finest!

Obama is admirably smooth and glib. But he's woefully inexperienced and, we are discovering, really not all that smart. He needs a trusted counselor like Dick Cheney whispering real politik in his ear; instead he's got Slow Joe Biden, the buffoon's buffoon. This is not a recipe for success on the international stage.

Byron


Libya: The Genesis of a Bad Idea

The Europeans (mostly the British and French) suddenly wanted to intervene in Libya, in a manner they had not amid protests elsewhere. Why? Oil, for one reason. Europe imports 10% of their oil and gas from Libya at very little transportation cost, and so it was deemed wise to be on the right side of the most likely government to be. Proximity, of course. Libya is a Mediterranean country with a tiny population of 6.5 million, as easy to operate militarily against, as Afghanistan and Iraq are difficult — and one that by such proximity might in extremis pose problems for Europe. More importantly, the “rebels” seemed like they would capture Tripoli within just a few days.

So the French and British sensed an opportunity to accomplish a number of things at very little cost by declaring an intent to intervene militarily: they could ensure continued oil contracts with the likely winners under the guise of humanitarian anguish; they could avoid a drawn-out war by nudging the rebels over the top; and they could put the U.S. in an untenable position. By declaring their humanitarian fides and getting ahead of America in public concern over “genocide,” the Europeans would force the U.S. hand: if Obama did not act, he would look weak and de facto cede traditional American moral leadership to an ascendant Europe; if Obama did, he would do so in response to European initiatives, and end up with the worst of both worlds: shamed into providing 90% of the muscle while ceding the credit of a “sure” win to Sarkozy and Cameron.

Europe, then, read Obama perfectly.

Obama steps in it

As Libyan Rebels Stall, Obama Faces Impossible Choice

If he escalates, the U.S. could risk another Afghanistan; if he doesn't, we could be seen as complicit in Qaddafi's victory...

Obama, utterly clueless as usual, thought for some reason that an untrained, ill-equipped, rag-tag bunch of rebels could beat Qaddafi's army. Now he's standing ankle deep in the cow pie, wondering which way to jump.

And I'm guessing that he's about to find out what the European Military Machine is worth when the going gets tough. They couldn't do squat in the Balkans, when fellow Europeans were being slaughtered right in their own backyard, but now they'll be decisive and stick it out for some North African tribesmen? I'd love to see the Vegas odds on that scenario. The Euros don't have transport capability to do anything serious at any significant distance, whatever their intentions. Call it NATO, call it TOMATO, it's going to end up a U.S. war.

Time for another trip to Brazil, Obysmal, you incompetent fool.

Byron

Surreality of the Day

In London:

Anarchists protesting cuts in government spending.

(Think about that for a moment.)

The Left killed satire a while ago, now they've rendered the theater of the absurd dead as well.

Byron

NPR reacts

In Video: NPR Exec Slams Tea Party, Questions Need For Federal Funds

"We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for."

"Mr. Schiller announced last week that he is leaving NPR for another job."

Schiller committed the most deadly sin: Endangering NPR's government pipeline from the taxpayer's wallet.

Rancid slurs against the Tea Party, etc., were one thing, but to say that NPR would be better off without Federal funds was a couple of bridges too far, too contrary to what NPR stands for, which is Federal funding.

Adios, Schiller!

Byron

NPR fraud

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/

Mr. Schiller [NPR Senior Vice President] exec chimes in later saying, "The main point here is that it is not our responsibility to present the opinion of a non-scientist through our science desk. All educated scientists accept that climate change as fact. On the political side, however, where it is not accepted as fact, and the fact that debate is happening is news and it's really important news. And our point of view requires that we cover that debate, if for no other reason than to have Americans understand there are still people who believe that it is not fact."

Where to begin?

The issue is not "climate change," as everybody agrees that climate change has occurred continuously during the entire history of the planet. But "climate change" has become lefty shorthand for "man-made global warming," and that's obviously what it means to Schiller. His contention that "all educated scientists accept that" is preposterous on its face, a virtual parody of true believer lib-talk.

Then he says, "On the political side, however..." "However"? Now, that's very funny, because his outfit is on the political side 24/7. The left political side.

"Our point of view requires that we cover the debate..." Well, there's no mystery about what NPR's "point of view" is. But even so, the issue is not whether the debate is covered, the issue is how it's covered, and there's also no mystery about NPR's methods in that regard. He admits as much when he goes on to say that they cover it "for no other reason than to have Americans understand that there are still people who believe that it is not a fact."

What he's describing is not news/issue coverage, it's just NPR propagandizing from the liberal playbook. Schiller sounds a bit mystified that there are still "people" (you know who you are) who still do not believe in "climate change," despite NPR's best efforts to promote the global warming catechism.

NPR is a fraud that should have had its ridiculous taxpayer subsidy yanked a long time ago. If that's not possible, then there should be an equally large Federal subsidy for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Can you imagine the reaction to that? But, of course, those don't need any subsidy, having proven themselves in broadcasting's free marketplace.

Byron

Interview

Charlie Rose interviewed Davis Guggenheim, who directed the documentary "Waiting for Superman," about the state of American public education, and why it's the way it is. He is a self-described left-liberal, who won the Academy Award for the Al Gore global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Hollywood just loved that movie.

[Davis Guggenheim is an Academy Award-winning American film director and producer. His credits as a producer and director include Training Day, The Shield, Alias, 24, NYPD Blue, ER, Deadwood, and Party of Five and the documentaries An Inconvenient Truth and Waiting for ‘Superman’.]

The subject of this film is the biggest tragedy and scandal in American society, the entrapment of generations of poor and minority kids in failing urban school systems. Guggenheim did not set out to do so, but he ended up taking on the school bureaucracies, the teachers unions, and the Democratic Party. Hollywood does not love a film like that.

"Waiting for Superman" was frozen out, not even nominated for Best Documentary by the Academy. If you watch the interview, it's apparent that Charlie Rose had been primed with criticisms of the film, but Guggenheim skillfully avoids confrontation. It is also obvious that Rose is not entirely comfortable with the subject matter, as we see him gutlessly turn the discussion away from the entire subject of teachers unions and Democrats. Liberals cannot afford to go there, and he doesn't -- more hard-hitting journalism from "public broadcasting."

Byron

More polling shenanigans

It's panic time, and they're really pulling out all the stops.

I used to get paid to do public opinion polling, and there is absolutely no good reason for the finished product to show the consistent direction and magnitudes of sample bias these polls show. There are some bad reasons, though.

Let me (1) word the questions, (2) determine the sequence of the questions, and (3) draw the sample, and I'll write up the general conclusions of the poll right then; the actual polling will be a formality. The poll and its conclusions will be nothing but junk, but no one will know that from the splash headline -- which is all most people read.

Skewed Sample Data Used In PPP Wisconsin "Do Over" Poll

Public Policy Polling (PPP) is a long-time Democratic pollster, which last year became the official pollster for DailyKos.

The pollster for DailyKos might be biased? No!

It's all too funny.

Byron

Shameless bias

Splash headline:

CBS poll: 60% oppose stripping any collective bargaining rights from public workers

Wow. Oh, wait. It's a NYT/CBS poll.

Now, here's how you do a poll to get results like those:

A peek under the hood of the NYT/CBS poll

Good grief.

And just in case you missed it, Jane Fonda was on NPR this morning. She was described as "controversial" because "she protested the Viet Nam War."

That's like saying John Wilkes Booth was "controversial" because he "discharged a weapon in a theater."

Byron