Capitulation and Compromise are not Synonyms

Limbaugh's latest article is intended to paint a happy alternate universe in which it is Democrats unwillingness to completely cave to Republicans that is causing the problem.

I'll quit accusing Democrats of obstructing spending and entitlement reform when they quit obstructing spending and entitlement reform.

In other words Democrats need to give Republicans whatever they want; that's bipartisan. For the moment Democrats are firm in their assertion that reform needs to include both increasing revenue (i.e. taxes) and spending cuts. They also aren't keen about doing entitlement "reform" in the middle of a crisis. In response to this suggestion of compromise, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor walked out of talks. Basically Cantor seems to require Democrats to surrender completely before he's willing to discus "compromise."

Capitulation and compromise are not synonyms.

Ben Shapiro attacks Jon Stewart

Not much of a fight. The crux of Shapiro's argument, from his latest article, is that Stewart criticizes Fox for being Conservatively biased while not admitting that the mainstream media and himself are liberally based. Of course Stewart has responded to these charges by saying that the media isn't liberally biased as much as it is biased towards sensationalism and laziness, and saying that he has a majority comedic bias while leaning left.

This is apparently lying, because Jon Stewart is, according to Shapiro, more of a leftist than a comedian.

He uses his comedy to propagandize. That's not against the law and not immoral, but it is a betrayal of his self-proclaimed primary motivating force: to be funny. True comedy attacks the targets at hand. It does not pick and choose based on political affiliation. Stewart does, and that's why the quality of his comedy has declined dramatically since Bush's re-election.

I'd disagree with that last statement; Stewart continues to be hilarious. I'd also argue that he does attack Liberals pretty regularly. Just recently he unloaded on Wiener who was not just a liberal but a personal friend.

I pretty much agree with Stewart's Fox Analysis; there is a difference between having a small "b" bias and an agenda. Stewart has a liberal bias. The media has a liberal bias. FOX has a conservative agenda. It drives what they do; and it's clear. Wallace himself gave the game away when he noted that the mainstream networks give one side of the story and FOX gives the other.

But what Shapiro is accusing the media and Stewart of having is an agenda; their news and their comedy are beholden to their agenda. If something contradicts their agenda, they toss it out. There's sufficient evidence in both cases to suggest that this isn't true; but I don't think you can convince either Shapiro or his readers of that.

To Stewart and his ilk, there is no religion other than "goobermint." There is no god other than "goobermint."
All Dem/Prog/Libs have no individuality. For the good of the "hive" they must be subsumed into the omnipotent, "goobermint." They can't stand individual thought or action, it frightens them too much. The "utopia" can only be obtained when all become one.

All must become slaves of the Goobermint! Sorry that doesn't have much to do with FOX, just made me laugh. I suggest this person should go out and meet some actual liberals before spouting off like a moron.

What I want to know is just what 'gives' with all of those marxists Jewish types? Huh?????

Jewish types? Oy. There are actually a number of posts complaining that Stewart is hiding his jewishness by using the name Jon Stewart. He certainly doesn't go out of his way to hide his Jewishness on his show; it's pretty much front and center so not sure what the problem is.

It's comical and farcical that the liberal propagandist Jon nitwit Leibowitz actually considers himself to be a comedian!

Not sure how it's farcical, but being a comedian, assuming you are funny (which Stewart is), is kind of funny.

Herman Cain and the Muslims

Herman Cain has stated that he will not have Muslims in his administration. He then said he might have Muslims in his administration but they would go through some more rigorous review before being approved for Government Service. Well Michael Gerson, who's article was printed at Townhall, has taken issue with this approach, and frankly, makes some very good points. He compares Cain to George Soros who was uncomfortable with President George W. Bush's religious fervor.

There are, of course, theological expressions of Islam and conservative Christianity that are inconsistent with pluralism -- either Wahhabi Saudi Arabia or John Calvin's Geneva. There are also traditions consistent with pluralism. Sharia law may be interpreted as the replication of seventh-century Medina. It may also be viewed as a moral norm or conception of justice that is variously applied in systems of human law.

The Cain/Soros view rests on the assertion that the most radical expression of a religion is also the most authentic. . . .

The Constitution addresses this matter directly. Article VI requires legislative, judicial and executive officials to take a loyalty oath to the Constitution. It continues: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Good points, reasonably well made. But, as you might expect, not very satisfying for the Townhall readers.

And now, we are being ever so softly, that islam is a religion of individual choice, to be offered the same protections as Christianity and Judaism. I have rattlesnakes on my property but Idon’t bring them into my house.

Put all the muslims, korans, arabs, and PC were it belongs: IN The Toilet and flush many times!
If they do not like the way they are treated Send Them Back in Body Bags!
I love everyone; but not these Killers!

Another Townhall reader suggests that "ISLAM presents one of the greatest threats to the world since the OTTOMAN empire." Which seems odd since we've had both Hitler and Stalin since the Ottoman empire. But I guess Hitler and Stalin weren't Muslims.

Fixed Dollars

Mike Needham's latest article takes on American Pessimism pointing out how much government support for a dependent person has grown since 1962.

Between 1962 and 2009, government support for a dependent person grew from just over $7,000 to nearly $32,000. They’re policies, like Obamacare, will only accelerate the trend we’ve seen over the past forty years.

That's pretty interesting. Of course, due to inflation, dollars are not constantly the same value. A 1962 dollar is worth $7.10 2009 dollars. Which means $7,000 in 1962 actually translates out to $42,727.30 in 2009 dollars.

Of course it's possible he's accounted for constant dollars. Impossible to say really.

Why I don't post so much

Partially it's because my position and duties have increased. But partly it's because of articles like John Ransom's "The Left Hates Sarah Palin and Paul Revere." No, seriously. That's the title. The left, by which he means TV reporters, hates Paul Revere (I'd concede the Sarah Palin part, although in fairness she hates us right back). Specifically there was one unflattering report of Sarah Palin's comments and a follow up report. They were as follows.

“Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there - that, ‘Hey, you’re not goin' to succeed. You’re not goin' to take American arms. You are not goin' to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have,’" Palin said. “He did warn the British.”

In fairness, these were off the cuff remarks she made while apparently standing in line in a cafeteria. So Palin makes some comments about Paul Revere and the right to bear arms, New York Magazine makes fun of them then explains in their second post that she's historically correct.

And from this little non-story John Ransom determines that we Liberals hate Paul Revere, and all real patriots (who are, all coincidentally, conservatives).

. . . at least those bitter patriots who cling to their religion and their guns, named Palin, Revere, Bachman, Cain, Romney, Paul, Pawlenty, etc, etc, amen.

Yep. We liberals hate conservative politicians (or at least disagree with them.

Now to make sure I spend the rest of the day depressed, lets look at the comments.

all the male liberals bash Sarah because, well, lets face it, there neanderthal wives scream at them to do so, in there heart they like Sarah but with there 400 pound gorilla staring down at there weak spine, they voice rejection to Sarah, while on the other hand, the females are just horrible looking.......who could blame them to hating Sarah......they are all daydreaming back in their high school days.........so yes , Sarah the prom Queen......

Yes, this reflects a healthy attitude towards women. I am not married by the way, nor do I have a Girlfriend forcing me to make fun of Sarah Palin. I make fun of her, when I do, because it amuses me to do so.

All the commiweasel males who hate Palin must be homos who envy her her looks, particularly her shapely legs. Politics aside, what normal male would so vehemently despise and viciously attack an attractive and charming woman, who also happens to be a mother? Further proof that liberals are not very manly, even those who consider themselves heterosexual.

Well, Sarah Palin does have very shapely legs. But really it's the fact that she's kind of an idiot that I make fun of.

But wait let's get really ugly.

I'm about sick of the commie/progressive/socialist scum that have infested this nation. Its time to round them all up and ship them off to Cuba, Russia, Iran or any commie third world country of their choice.

Its time to let them know they are not welcome in America to send them packing!

As for you stankin, flea bitten, camel sucking, religion of hate muzzies - You're not welcome here either! Go back to your own God forsaken third world hovel! We don't want you in America!

During times of war, the President has the authority to detain and hold enemy aliens. This should be taking place now.

Yep Liberals and Muslims aren't welcome in America. Pretty goddamn depressing.