April 1, 2013

AP’s Liz Sidoti: Weak Economy? What Weak Economy?

I really don’t have much time to go after it right now, so I’ll give readers their chance to take their shots at this item from the Associated Press, the White House PR conduit otherwise known as the Administration’s Press. It unsurprisingly comes from Liz Sidoti:


… Now, the Iraq war is over, the Afghanistan one is winding to an end and immediate fears of further terrorism have, to some extent, faded. The economy has been rebounding: The job market is growing healthier, home prices are rising and consumers are starting to spend more. Those issues have receded enough to push domestic concerns higher on the list of what people, and thus politicians, think is most important.

Polling by the Gallup organization underscores this notion.

In March 2001, education, ethical/moral issues and the economy ranked as the nation’s top problems, and no other issue reached double digits. A year later, after the attacks, 22 percent cited terrorism, followed by the economy and “fear of war/feelings of fear in this country.”

By March 2005, the Iraq war took precedence, with 25 percent calling it the nation’s top problem, followed by Social Security and the economy. Then, amid the 2009 recession, 51 percent of the country cited the economy, with unemployment or jobs, a lack of money and poor or pricy health care rounding out the first rung of concerns.

Now look at last month. The economy remains the top concern, but the percentage of people who say so – 24 percent – is half of what it was four years ago. Dissatisfaction with government is a close second. Unemployment and jobs, and the federal budget deficit, also are up there. Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, national security and foreign policy rank far below.

Okay, one comment: All of the items Sidoti cites in the last excerpted paragraph (econ, goverment [as in waste, fraud, abuse, bankrupting us, lack of transparency, etc.], unemployment, jobs, the federal budget deficit) all have to do with the economy and the federal government’s ever more dangerous financial situation. Yet the economy is fading as an important matter. Horse manure.

As Usual, a WSJ Columnist Claiming to Be For Immigration ‘Reform’ Plays the Bigot Card

This is so tiresome, so sad, and so predictable.

Immigrants, Anti-Immigrants and Americans
The weekend progress in negotiations is a good step toward reform that merits conservative support.

Y’know maybe it does or maybe it doesn’t, but I’m not going to heed anything columnist Grover Joseph Rees has to say on the topic because of this:

In contrast, restrictive immigration laws represent a decision by those of us who are already here to enforce our own perceived economic advantage, or our aesthetic preferences about how many neighbors we should have and how they should look and sound—at extreme cost to the principles we otherwise espouse.

Grover Rees is “politely” saying that anyone who has a problem with non-enforcement of our borders and overly permissive immigration policies which penalize those (immigrants and current citizens) who are trying to play by the rules is a bigot.

And I’m supposed to respect his arguments? Forget about it, pal.

And then there’s this:

This is not to say conservatives should support “open borders.” Although such a policy or something like it served the U.S. until well into the 20th century, it is not practical now that anyone can travel anywhere almost instantly.

Perhaps Mr. Rees ought to pass his take on to the editorial board of the Journal, which has never officially moved from its 1980s position: “There Shall Be Open Borders.”

The Journal’s credit at the end of Rees’s piece reads as follows: “Mr. Rees, a former law professor, judge and ambassador, served from 1991-93 as general counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.”

I wonder how many supposedly high-minded “reformers” like Rees, the Journal’s editorial board, and others live in “planned development” communities with building and occupancy restrictions, or in neighborhoods so exclusive that they can “enforce” their own “perceived economic advantage,” thus ensuring (they think) that they’ll be relatively unscathed by runaway population growth, undue strain on public services, and other negative effects of de facto illegal-immigrant amnesty — all while conveniently exercising their “preferences about how many neighbors they should have and how they should look and sound”? It’s so easy to call those who have to endure the consequences of their misguided “reforms” a bunch of bigots from behind their gated communities’ walls.

Monday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (040113)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:05 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder follows. Other topics are also fair game.


The wonders of the UK’s state-run health care, from early March:

Nearly 1,200 people have starved to death in NHS hospitals because ‘nurses are too busy to feed patients’
• For every patient who dies from malnutrition, four more have dehydration mentioned on their death certificate
• In 2011, 43 patients starved to death and 291 died in a state of severe malnutrition
• Department of Health branded the figures ‘unacceptable’ and said the number of unannounced inspections will increase

Also, there’s this:

Worcestershire Acute NHS Hospital Trust was forced to pay out more than £400,000 last year in compensation after a patient starved to death and another was left unwashed for 11 weeks.

In one of the worst ever cases of multiple NHS failings, patients were left begging for water or left hungry after trays of food were dumped too far from their reach.

No amount of inspections will ever be a substitute for or be able to enforce basic human compassion, which has clearly disappeared at NHS.

Positivity: North Dakota bishop praises new laws protecting unborn life

Filed under: Life-Based News,Positivity — Tom @ 6:00 am

From Bismarck, North Dakota:

Mar 28, 2013 / 02:02 am

Bishop David Kagan of Bismarck, N.D. praised the North Dakota legislature and governor for passing into law three pro-life bills that place stronger restrictions on abortion.

“The protection of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death is the primary purpose of government,” Bishop Kagan said March 26. “All persons, including our elected officials, are obligated to unceasingly seek protection of this basic human right.”

The bishop said he applauded members of the legislature who “bravely supported measures to extend protections to unborn human life and to advance the health of women.”

The new laws include bans on abortions performed after a fetal heartbeat is detectable and bans on abortions that target the unborn child on the basis of his or her sex or genetic abnormalities.

Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed the three bills into law on Tuesday. He acknowledged that they could provoke controversies in constitutional law. …

Go here for the rest of the story.