March 21, 2009
I worked my way through college as a secretary (and a waitress, and a 7-11 clerk, and a paper boy errr…person…). When I left one of my early jobs, the person they hired to take my place immediately discarded my system. She told the entire staff that I was “wasting” computer space with unimportant documents, so she reformatted my hard drive. A friend from the office called to report the sweeping changes the new secretary was making and to tell me the new chick was disparaging my name. I explained that maybe the new lady had been to some special school. After all, I was brand new in the field with zero experience, maybe the new chick knew something I didn’t. Three weeks later, old boss called and begged me to come in the evenings and help whereever I could until they could hire a new secretary. I came in to find this woman had literally shredded boxes of old financial files, eradicated tons of old stuff, and written little post-its stating that everything would be re-created under her new, better system. What she actually created was a chaotic mess that could have gotten my boss in serious trouble with the authorities.
I came to actually see this scenario play out similarly a few times with others, also. I call it “immature secretary syndrome”. A secretary comes into a new office. Having completed some “secretarial school” (no, really, one of these folks actually presented me with a “reprographic degree” certificate–she got a degree in COPY MACHINE), and not possessing wisdom, they decide the person who was in the position previously was an idiot, so they ignore anything that was in place when they arrived and in many cases, actually destroy things. I have had to fall back on my secretarial skills from time to time. If I walk into an office with a system that seems screwed up, I give it a few weeks to observe. I have NEVER completely eradicated an old system. I always assume there was a reason for everything in place and try to slowly update or upgrade if necessary. It causes too much stress for most people to start an entirely new system, and the old system usually has lots of redeeming traits.
This is what I think is happening with the Obama administration. Obama spent so much time attacking Bush’s foreign policy on the campaign trail, that he actually must have bought in to his rhetoric. Obama read books that said that conservatives were crazy wrong in foreign policy!! Lots of books! I’m afraid Obama’s degree in copy machine has not adequately prepared him to have wisdom dealing with other countries. It seems to me that he eagerly scrapped Bush’s agenda, only to find himself lost in a room full of his own post its.
Obama sent a letter to Russia suggesting that he would be willing to scrap missile defense in Eastern Europe if Russia would lean on Iran and stop their nuclear program (http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/03/is_this_yalta_all_over_again). The letter got leaked somehow and Russia told Obama to kiss off. (In fairness, Obama’s staff says the letter did not contain a quid pro quo arrangement, but everyone who has actually read the letter seems to see it that way.) This ultimately meant that we sold eastern European allies down the river publicly for zero payback. This begs the question: did Obama not think that Bush or Clinton had approached Russia on this level? Did he really believe that he was the only one to ever think of offering something very nice to Russia for help with Iran?
And, by the way, no one likes a traitor. That’s how everyone sees Obama’s policies now. The very public revelation that Obama was willing to sell allies down the river makes it that much harder to get consensus on dealing with anything. Who knows if you’ll be the next casualty to Obama’s double speak? Why would you risk it?
Then we have Secretary Clinton facing Lavrov. She hands him a “reset” button that actually said “overcharge”. Ooops! While being an amusing foible, don’t you wonder why Lavrov drew attention to it in front of the press? I mean, this is diplomacy, right? If you are served a fish that you are allergic to, you eat it and break out in hives while smiling at your host, right? Lavrov could have made the screw up a non-issue by simply ignoring it or lying through his teeth about it. Doubtless someone in the press would eventually have caught it, but if Lavrov simply didn’t notice it, that would diffuse the entire issue. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/03/clintons_reset_button_overchar_1.html To me, it seems the bigger issue is, why can’t you find someone at State to do a correct translation. Liberals loudly wondered during Bush’s tenure why he didn’t give the State department more responsibility. They assumed it was because Bush liked using DOD. He’s a cowboy, right? Ummm, maybe he didn’t use State very often because he could tell from the outset that they were a big bunch of useless idiots. Maybe Obama ought to try and learn that before he gets in any more hot water. It has certainly played out that way for the Obama regime so far, hasn’t it? The reset button, the poorly planned visit with British dignitaries, and a gift that was in poor taste from the White House, they all point to something that apparently Bush knew and Obama is learning (slowly, though). And the State Department LIKES Obama. Who knows what kind of problems they could have caused for Bush?
Finally, we have Obama sending a message to Iranian leaders and the people of Iran. It appears that Obama truly believes that if he is uber-kind to Iran, they’ll stop their nuclear program. This belief surpasses naive and becomes foolish. Iran wants nuclear weapons. They have made that clear in multiple ways. http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2009/03/iran-responds-to-president-obama.html Somehow, Obama believes the rhetoric that Bush is a cowboy who just never attempted diplomacy. It seems to me that Obama might try opening his eyes to what is going on in Iran. Iran’s leaders have responded to Obama, pointing out that he is in a foolishly weak position. Basically, G-d is on our side, give us what we want or kiss off. At least when Bush threatened to invade a country, we had no choice but to take him seriously. His willingness to use the military probably stopped more violence than it started. If Obama were to threaten the military option, who would believe him? His campaign rhetoric has effectively taken that option off the table. Additionally, his willingness to take back a previous US promises means you can’t necessarily trust what he says. I think he’s gotten himself into a pickle in diplomacy. I hope he hasn’t erased the hard drive.
March 13, 2009
The moment Obama got elected, businesses started moving to other lower tax countries. So many people have been wondering why the market soared downward when he got elected. It’s a no brainer.
March 11, 2009
Don’t you sort of wish they had released this fellow in your state?
March 11, 2009
The theme of the current administration seems to be learning that Bush wasn’t always wrong. Yeah, we know, you’ve heard nothing but screaming libs talking about how wrong Bush always is and how smart they are. Where the rubber meets the road, we’ve had a series of learning moments for liberals.
Obama is about to take the oath and he states publically that he can’t really just shut down Guantanimo because the situation is a little more complex than he thought it was. The fortunate thing for Obama is that his groupie followers are apparently too dumb to realize that appointing a committee and doing the deed are different items. So that campaign promise slipped by unnoticed and his cheerleaders will righteously tell you that he’s kept his promise! He appointed a committee.
Liberals have been screeching that Bush simply refused to attempt diplomacy and was ignoring the State department. The current administration has had a series of debacles that show that perhaps Bush was a bit faster to pick up the fact that the State department is apparently completely incompetent. Of course, the amusing piece of this has been watching libs bumbling through their uber attempts at diplomacy only to find that the world is a bit more complicated than they assumed it was. Their attempts to play super nice pals with foreign dignitaries has met with fairly consistent amused laughter and, in at least one case, insulting allies.
So, Kerry takes a stab at chatting with Syria. The middle east wouldn’t be nearly as problematic, thinks Kerry, if only we chat them up, then they’ll be oh so much more willing to come around to the wonders of the “Obama” US. Only one problem, it seems that either Kerry is too stupid to take the hint when they say “Go away,” or they directly lied to him. Kerry came back and told us that Syria is ready to be in direct talks with us and not so close to it’s buddy Iran. Only, errr…, Syria said that Iran was it’s best pal the next day. Ooops! You’re kidding me? Fanatical Middle Eastern regimes that deplore us like Iran better than us? Man, wish Kerry could’ve seen that coming. Moron.
March 11, 2009
These folks are either in WAY over their heads or are intentionally courting world war III.
March 10, 2009
You know what? Obama wants to move a bunch of nice guys from Guantanimo into your neighborhood! I’m betting none of these folks end up in Illinois. Probably the state that currently has the least pull in the vote process in congress. Sounds like Oregon to me. http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2009/03/10/so-you-mean-some-gitmo-detainees-arent-little-darlings/
March 10, 2009
Emails of Speaker Pelosi’s staff being jerks to military folks (can’t quite make this do what I wish, but this is a quote):
‘ The documents also detail correspondence from intermediaries for Speaker Pelosi issuing demands for certain aircraft and expressing outrage when requested military planes were not available. “It is my understanding there are no G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable…The speaker will want to know where the planes are…” wrote Kay King, Director of the House Office of Interparliamentary Affairs. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, King writes, “This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset [s]peaker.” ‘
I hope the military folks smirked at that one. “Oh noes! The speaker’s gonna be ticked. What will she do? Announce to the world that we’ve failed in Iraq and try to make us look like a bunch of baby killers? Too late on that one…”
Uuumm…maybe someone wants to mention to the speaker that she’s one of the richest folks in the US and can pay for her own freaking plane? Before anyone comments with that fraudulent statement regarding Pelosi demanding her own jet (wasn’t true, Snow (RIP) said it and I trust him), it sounds like we might have been better off if we had given her a jet of her own. Also, there’s a comment in there about her wanting to take her hubby with her when she went to Iraq and they turned down the request. I tend to disagree with that. Why waste time making her get two different private jets. I think she should have ridden on HIS corporate jet, but what’s the difference really? We’re paying for both of them anyway.
March 9, 2009
Heh, one $700k dishwasher coming up! Green technology at it’s finest.
Ummm…also notice that $250k is slated for the “Venable Theater” HVAC system at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts? Doesn’t the Omnipork bill also provide substantial educational funding? Why is this hidden in both places? Why didn’t they budget any cash for my air conditioning?
March 9, 2009
One of many reasons that liberal thought is inherently dangerous is that it veers to mob mentality. Whether or not you liked George Bush, there is a great deal of good to say of his ability to stop liberal congress from reacting to current news stupidly. Liberals tend to hear a piece of bad news and assume that the only answer to the problem is swift (yeah right) and steadfast government intervention. They are the legal equivalent of chicken little. THE SKY IS FALLING! Let’s make acorns ILLEGAL (now making ACORN illegal I could go for…)!! It’s only later on that we understand the full consequences of their idiotic ideas.
Remember last year when we found out that some of Mattel’s toys had lead in the paint? Did you ever personally meet a child who suffered from lead poisoning due to the toys imported? Our pediatrician told us that in his last fifteen years of medical practice he had seen 1 case of lead poisoning in a child. I should point out that my area of PNW is full of 100 year old homes. I feel certain that greater than 50 percent of homes in this area have lead paint in them. Yet, full fledged lead epidemic has eluded us…
Well, true to form, our illustrious congress went running around screeching “Here I come to save the day…” and seriously lousy legislation was written and passed: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gzRErK3z2lGewVe_Avsk-pIliAJg Today, while in the midst of a recession, the true nature of this legislation has reared it’s ugly head: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjIyZTQ3YTExYzc4YTI0OGIxYmYyZGUzM2I2ZGMyZTI=
The gist of the matter is that librarians are being forced to pull books off shelves of libraries. Small toy stores are going under. Lives are being saved? Doubt it. Were those books just added to the shelves of the libraries? No way, many have been there for more than 20 years. I think it’s safe to assume the books aren’t being ingested.
The most frightening part of this story is that the sweeping legislation being pushed on the US by an uber-liberal congress and a sleepy President will have far more consequences that we cannot possibly foresee. Do you think a Dow Jones at 6k is bad? Because most of the analysts I’m reading are predicting 5k or less for a lengthy period of time. So the real question is, do you feel like eating some books now?
March 9, 2009
Just when the weekend started looking boring, this information was released: our President is tired. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/07/great-news-obama-fumbled-brown-visit-because-hes-in-over-his-head/
Can you imagine what would have happened if Bush had admitted he was tired at 9/11? Obama’s staff is apparently saying that he’s also in over his head. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/07/great-news-obama-fumbled-brown-visit-because-hes-in-over-his-head/
Could it be possible they don’t understand the potential consequences of telling people you’re fumbling around? Are they unaware that even in a peacetime environment hostile folks are looking for opportunities to take advantage of a person with that much power? Are they really that stupid? It would appear so. Someone needs to hit them on the back of the head and tell them: “Look, tell the press we intentionally slighted Britain, because we hate the English.” NEVER tell them, “We’re just too busy, stupid and incompetent to take care of anything just now, where do I sign that trade agreement again?” If Obama thinks dealing with foreign powers that are looking to take advantage of us is daunting, he should NEVER show weakness to Pelosi or Reid. Please, they’ve been circling the waters for years looking for blood.