September 30, 2009

Lucid Links (093009, Morning)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 7:55 am

Commenter Daniel at my post a few days ago on the Associated Press’s Kelo update has some pictures at his place of the New London, CT area in question, known as Fort Trumbull.

Paraphrasing Joni Mitchell, New London’s city fathers painted a picture of paradise, and put up a bunch of empty lots.

________________________________________________________

I hope someone’s keeping track of the names of celebs, diplomats, government officials and others who are outraged at Roman Polanski’s arrest and the attempts to extradite him back to the U.S. to face the music, while minimizing the ugliness of what he did, i.e., drugging and raping a child. Allah at Hot Air reminds us that “The conviction’s on the books. All that’s left to settle is the sentence. …. Convicted child-rapist and fugitive from justice.”

Because the next time any one of them yammers on about doing this or that “for the children,” I hope someone throws their ugly, elitist hypocrisy right back in their faces with brute force. The current Numbers 1 and 2 on that list are Debra Winger and Whoopi Goldberg.

What Polanski’s victim wants now is irrelevant; what he did to her then when she was legally not able to consent (and against her will in any event) is. As noted here by Kate Harding: “The justice system doesn’t work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice.”

Go here (HT Michelle Malkin) to see what Polanski said a year after he fled. Michelle is right: “Sicko.”

________________________________________________________

Non-surprise of the day: “Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets.”

________________________________________________________

In one sentence, the Associated Press’s Karen Matthews crystallizes the la-la-la we’re never wrong attitudes of the media elite that just won’t ever admit that one of their brethren erred.

In writing about the dismissal of Dan Rather’s lawsuit against CBS, she says that:

The dispute began with a piece Rather narrated for the now-defunct “60 Minutes II,” in which he reported that Bush got preferential treatment during his Vietnam War-era service in the Texas Air National Guard.

Rather cited new documents CBS had obtained, but the authenticity of the documents later came under attack.

Uh, Karen, the documents were forged fakes, period. Five years later, and journalists still won’t acknowledge the obvious.

Related: No one should be surprised by this (HT NewsBusters) — “Ex-CBS Anchor Dan Rather to Headline Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Event.” Howler of the day: “Rather is going to speak on ‘new media.’”

________________________________________________________

This wasn’t supposed to happen: “The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® Dips in September.” It went from 54.5 to 53.1. Analysts had expected an uptick to 57.

AP’s Anne D’Innocenzio writes that “worries about job security seem to be offsetting any enthusiasm about rising home values and stocks.”

According to D’Innocenzio, “A reading above 90 means the economy is on solid footing. Above 100 signals strong growth.”

So sentiment is far from growth.

Uncle Sam’s cash collections continue to seriously contract.

The auto biz on track for its worst month since related records have been kept.

August’s combined ISM indices were still in contraction.

Oh, and net seasonally adjusted job losses continue to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Yet analysts are pegging third-quarter growth at 3%-4%. If it really turns out that way, I’ll need to be convinced that it wasn’t artificially induced and totally unsustainable. This post from a month ago claims that any growth will be “thanks to big subsidies” and “will be a one time event.” That seems right, though I fail to see how the big subsidies translate into production of real goods and services, i.e., real growth, which is what GDP is supposed to measure.

Pre-emptive strike: No, the second quarter of 2008′s growth was not artificially induced.

Share

2 Comments

  1. TB,

    You hit on one of my pet peeves. Rather’s document were FAKE – a sham; not FORGED – an unauthorized reproduction.

    Comment by Joe C. — September 30, 2009 @ 9:53 am

  2. #1 JC, thx for the clarification, and I have changed the verb, though if there were signatures on the documents presented, those were in effect forged — well, I guess not, because you can only “forge” a signature on a real doc, not a fake.

    Comment by TBlumer — September 30, 2009 @ 9:55 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.