That's it. NPR has declared Ohio a disaster area. Things are so bad. NPR gravely warns, that folks in the Buckeye state can't even afford to buy meat for their dinner tables anymore. It's the end of civilization as we know it. Doom and gloom. Oh the humanity. It's the end of the world as we know it... at least for one Ohio family that NPR found to act as stand in for the rest of the state. To NPR all of Ohio is the Nunez family. And what is NPR' solution? Government aid, of course.

In a segment of All Things Considered (well, all things but common sense, anyway), NPR gives us Gloria Nunez whose family, we are told, was "built on cars." NPR gives us all sorts of sobbing, rending of clothes, wearing of sackcloth and gnashing of teeth for the Nunez', of course. But even NPR can't hide some of the glaring problems that Gloria and her family have surely brought upon themselves.

In fact, her story sounds like the scene in the old Blues Brothers movie where John Belushi is on his knees pleading with Carrie Fischer to forgive him. There was a flood, he whined, locusts came, it was the end of the world, it REALLY wasn't his fault, he swore to God. Similarly we get the tale that Gloria Nunez' car broke down, she can't find a job, she had a car accident that left her "depressed and disabled, incapable of getting a job." She is now somehow forced to live on a "$637 Social Security check and $102 in food stamps." Naturally, none of it is her fault. All the seeds for the common welfare tale are there.

'I Just Can't Get A Job'

Nunez, 40, has never worked and has no high school degree. She says a car accident 17 years ago left her depressed and disabled, incapable of getting a job. Instead, she and her daughter, Angelica Hernandez, survive on a $637 Social Security check and $102 in food stamps.

Hernandez received her high school diploma and has had several jobs in recent years. But now, because fewer restaurants and stores are hiring, she says she finds it hard to find a job. Even if she could, she says it's particularly hard to imagine how she'll keep it. She says she needs someone to give her a lift just to get to an interview. And with gas prices so high, she's not sure she could afford to pay someone to drive her to work every day.

There are all sorts of extended family members mentioned in this little tale of woe. Greandmothers, sisters, daughters. But one glaring absence might dawn on the reader. No where in the story is a mention of a Mr. Nunez living with the family and trying to provide for them. No where do we see contemporaneously included in this tale a Father or husband.

There is one tiny little thing tucked into this story, though, that might escape notice. At least it is something that seems to have escaped the notice of too many Americans who sit about expecting some magical employment fairy to float down out of the sky and hand them a $50,000 dollar a year job and who, while they wait, sponge off the rest of us with state aid and Federal benefits.

The only employer within walking distance is a ThyssenKrupp factory that makes diesel engine parts. That facility, which employs 400 people, is shutting down and moving to Illinois next year.

The ThyssenKrupp factory is moving to greener pastures, to greater opportunity, to a better, more lucrative environment.

One must wonder why don't the Nunez.' In fact, why aren't a large number of Americans moving to where the jobs are?

There have been many, many periods in American history when large numbers of Americans have uprooted themselves and moved to where there was a better opportunity to make their mark in life. "Go west young man" was once a rallying cry for an American diaspora. The wagon trains rolled by the thousands at a time when such travel often resulted in death. The dust bowl years saw many of those living in the near west moving to California, the land of milk and honey. After the turn of the century, hundreds of thousands moved from the south to the north when work became plentiful there -- especially for America's southern black population. Even recently, the south began to fill back up as work became more plentiful there. And there were many more eras of internal shifts in population that I didn't mention here. They all moved when a certain section of the country became stagnant and another offered opportunity.

Today it is the west that once again needs great numbers of Americans to move there and fill jobs. Western states are finding themselves with jobs, but no one to fill them.

So, why aren't large numbers of Americans moving west? Because they've been conditioned to imagine that if they can't easily find a job where they are at, their government will hand them everything for "free." They've become used to imagining that the state should take care of them instead of imagining that they are responsible for themselves.

These kinds of reports without context or any greater exploration of the situation is the sort of "journalism" that helps drive down morale for America for little real gain. Of course, for NPR the main point is to help achieve bad times, not merely report on them. NPR would rather see Americans lounge about their homes feeling desperate and turning to government for succor. NPR wants to breed dependency, not self-reliance.

And dependency is what we see in Gloria Nunez. She is filled with all sorts of excuses of why her life is so darn hard. The world is out to get her, it appears. But there are jobs a plenty out there. Only, they take some effort on the part of the seeker. The magical employment fairy is going to float down and wave her magic jobs wand neither on Gloria Nunez nor anyone like her.

Americans have many times taken their own lives in their own hands and set out to find a better life. Now days, however, the Gloria Nunez' of the world seem to imagine that everyone else should come to their aid. America must become again that land of rugged individuals leaning forward into any ill wind that blows to forge ahead and succeed.

Government isn't the solution. Someone should tell that to Gloria Nunez and NPR.

(Photo credit: NPR.org)

Nope, there isn't any leftward tilt at MSNBC, is there? How could there be when MSNBC was introducing a John McCain clip during a "news" story and instead of the video of John McCain, up popped Heath Ledger as "The Joker."

Our old pal Johnnydollar captured the video.

Of course, it is equally as possible that it was just plain incompetence in the control room, but anyone would be excused for thinking it is an Obamaidiot in the control room instead of just an average, everyday idiot!

And with the Obama clan's famously thin skin, who doesn't think he'd be "outraged" over this were it an Obama intoduction followed by a Joker video clip?

We report, you deride.

(H/T to http://conservathink.blogspot.com)

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the reputed "Constitutional scholar," just today said on CBS's Face the Nation that he went to Iraq to talk to important leader that he expects to be "dealing with over the next eight to 10 years." So, does this "Constitutional scholar" not realize that there is this little thing called the 22nd Amendment that holds a president to only two, four year terms? Um, that would be a grand total of only 8 years, Barack, not 8 to 10. Of course, the big question is, will we see this idiot gaffe race through the MSM as it would if a Republican had said it?

At the very least ABC's Jake Tapper, one of the best political reporters in the biz, sure noticed. Tapper has a blog entry on his "Political Punch" blog all about it with an amusing side note about time travel added in just for fun.

Today on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.

Tapper zings the presumptuous nominee a good one.

The notion that Obama will be dealing with world leaders for eighjt-to-ten years, possibly up through July 2018, suggests that either (a) he believes that not only will he be elected and re-elected, but the 22nd amendment will be repealed and he will be elected for a third term, OR (b) he was speaking casually and just meant two terms.

Tapper goes on to zing Obama several more times before this entry is done.

But, why is it that Tapper is seemingly the only denizen of the MSM ever willing to bring out these stories? Why does the MSM so constantly give the Obamessiah a pass? I'll bet you can say why.

But here is a real point to ponder. What if John McCain had said he'd be president for the next 10 years? Wouldn't the press and every late night comedian gin up the "he's old and senile" jokes until those jokes would go through the country like wildfire?

Lastly, we have yet one more example of this man's arrogance. He is beginning to carry on foreign policy before he even gets elected!

"And it's important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are."

You see, Barack, that is a president's job! Have you been elected yet?

What do you think?

In one of the most ridiculous examples of unbridled hyperbole, Reuters has decided that singer Bruce Springsteen is the one responsible for bringing down the Berlin Wall and ending the Cold War. Yes, that's Bruce "Scorn in the USA" Springsteen, one of the most anti-American rockers on the scene. I know what you're thinking, "But what about Ronald Reagan?" Forget it, man, it's Bruce all the way as far as Reuters is concerned. Maybe it was his gravely warbling that Joshua-like brought those walls tumblin' down, maybe his caterwauling is what turned the trick, but, quite despite any common sense and in a childishly, foolish and overly simplistic review of history, Reuters is sure that Bruce is the hero of Berlin. It is a great example of reductio ad absurdo if there ever was one, not that Reuters is aware of it.

This Reuters piece is so filled with nonsense, so blind to all the complicated political and social influences that really ended the Cold War, that it is hard to know where to start reviewing it. I can but shake my head at its simple minded analysis.

Seriously. Reuters really means it. Oh, don't confuse them with all that economic and political history gobbledegook. It was one concert that ended a generation of communist oppression not the might of the US and its president determined to destroy the "evil empire." It was "Thunder Road" and "Born to Run" sung in that less then melodic Springsteen style that brought the end to the Cold War.

From the title onward, a half sentient review of history prevails.

"Did Bruce help bring down the Berlin Wall?," the headline asks, with the subhead helpfully telling us that yes is the answer. "His comments at 1988 concert helped fed East Germans' discontent," Reuters earnestly informs us.

See, here is the thing, maybe Bruce's little concert did momentarily add to the zeitgeist of the times, but it had little to do with the final conclusions arrived at. There was no causality. Zip. Nada. In fact, the eventual outcome had already been set in motion before this screeching rocker ever took to the stage.

Just look at the revisionism in this absurd story:

But now -- 20 years after the American rock star went behind the Iron Curtain -- organizers, historians and people who witnessed it say his message came at a critical juncture in German history in the run-up to the Wall’s collapse.

Please, spare us this idiocy.

And look at the puffery they lend to Springsteen.

Springsteen, an influential songwriter and singer whose lyrics are often about people struggling, got permission at long last to perform in East Berlin in 1988.

"Influential" in what way, exactly, Reuters does not say.

All the wild claims of how "important" was the 1988 Springsteen concert in East Berlin aside, there really is one small, almost unnoticeable thing in this story that speaks as to what Bruce Springsteen really is. Tucked into this story are two references that tells us why, exactly, the oppressive East German commies thought that it was a good idea to have Bruce Springsteen come to their benighted city. It was his anti-American political positions.

In two sentences we get the gist of how the East German authorities saw this singer.

Even though his songs are full of emotion and politics, East Germany had welcomed him as a “hero of the working class.” The Communists may have unwittingly created an evening that did more to change East Germany than Woodstock did to the United States.

And...

Dietrich, 63, said Communist party hopes that a small taste of Springsteen might pacify youths backfired. There was even a positive advance review in the Neues Deutschland daily: “He attacks social wrongs and injustices in his homeland.”

In other words, the reason the East German commies thought his appearance might not be such a bad thing is because they felt Springsteen SHARED their principles. They thought they were welcoming a compatriot to their city.

And one of the things Springsteen is reported as having said on stage that night could be construed to show that the East German commies were right.

“I want to tell you I’m not here for or against any government,” Springsteen said, as he pointedly introduced his rendition of the Bob Dylan ballad “Chimes of Freedom.”

He isn't "for or against any government?" He didn't stand against a police state that shot its own citizens just because they wanted to visit another, neighboring country? Bruce wasn't against a state that arrested people, tortured and imprisoned them with no recourse to due process of law? Springsteen wasn't against a country that nearly starved its people to death?

No wonder the East German commies didn't think a Bruce Springsteen concert would threaten their iron grip on the state. They thought he was one of them!

There is so much balderdash in this Reuters piece that I just can't get to each morsel of its blather here. All I can say is that this thing has to be read in its entirety to be believed. Only a full read can make one appreciate the total ignorance of real history and the wild puffery of a self-loathing, over rated singer such as Bruce Springsteen.

(Photo credit: msn.com)

**UPDATE of monumental import**

Stop the presses. It looks like Reuters was behind the curve in assigning the end of the Cold War to a simple songster. The BBC beat Reuters to the punch in 2004 by finding that it was really David Hasselhoff what took down that wall!

Yes, the Hoff, the Hoffenstein, the Hoffmeister, if you will, was really the triumphant Cold Warrior to warbler.

Did David Hasselhoff really help end the Cold War?

Baywatch star David Hasselhoff is griping that his role in reuniting East and West Germany has been overlooked. So what part, if any, did the hunk in trunks play in ending the Cold War?

Barely a month after the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, the city that had been divided by politics for more than 40 years was united in song...

...You've just GOT to read the rest of this one.

Unions have been decrying outsourcing for years. The word "outsourcing" has been used as a boogieman to blame declining union jobs upon for the last decade. Unions, for their part, claim to desire to stand up against outsourcing -- especially that of outsourcing jobs overseas -- and wish to push the home grown alternatives to outsourcing jobs, namely keeping them in the country and under the control of the union.

Yet what have we discovered here on the blog? Why that the nation's largest union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has outsourced the design of one of their own web pages to someone in Slovakia, that's what.

We've waited to report this story because the webpage in question presented a time sensitive situation. The SEIU was trying to create what they were calling the "Take Back the Economy Day" and that day was to be July 17th. The SEIU hoped to spur people to "take aim at the special perks and tax loopholes that buyout firms depend on to get rich," and get people involved to protest the success of "buyout firms" such as Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts.

Well, July 17th has passed us by and we here on the blog are not in danger of accidentally advertising their event in time to assist anyone in joining their July 17th effort.

That being said, here is what we found not long ago. The original SEIU webpage looked quite a bit different than the one that graced the web during the several days before their July 17th kick off day. The major overhaul was interesting in the respect of where the design of the page had come from.

It appears that the original page was designed by a fellow named Milan Kohut who's business of web design is based in Slovakia, a small Eastern European nation (Near Ukraine, Poland and the Czech Republic).

But, on July 6th, only a short time before the July 17th event deadline, the SEIU suddenly undertook a major overhaul of the webpage design. Gone was the outsourced work and in was one hosted from here in the USA.

The constant griping about outsourcing by unions is common, as mentioned. But here we had one of the largest unions in the nation outsourcing their web design? Was it so hard to find an American web designer to have created their pages? And why the sudden overhaul eliminating the Slovakian designer's work?

Curiouser and curiouser, eh?

The EPA is looking to expand its powers even more thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States. It is about to meddle ever more in our national economic health with its claimed "fixes" to the non-existent "problem" of global warming.

But, we citizens have a chance to have our say. The EPA has opened up to public comments on their latest power grab. I urge each of you to email your insistence that the EPA lay off our economy with their anti-capitalist notions of fixing the non-existent problem of global warming.

We only have 120 days to make our comments so get this to EVERYONE you know. To email a comment use this address: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov

And be sure and put in the subject line of the e-mail the following information:

Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318

Here is some of the info on the government website:

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment from all interested parties on options and questions to be considered for possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. EPA is issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to gather information and determine how to proceed.

The Advance Notice

The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.

The document summarizes much of EPA's work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies' issues and respond to the agency’s legal obligations in a timely manner.

Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR:

• Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions;
• How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants;
• Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and,
• Scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.

EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR for 120 days following its publication in the Federal Register.

Background

In April 2007, the Supreme Court concluded that GHGs meet the CAA definition of an air pollutant. Therefore, EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate GHGs subject to the endangerment test for new motor vehicles – an Agency determination that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

A decision to regulate GHG emissions for motor vehicles impacts whether other sources of GHG emissions would need to be regulated as well, including establishing permitting requirements for stationary sources of air pollutants.

To view the five technical supporting documents in the docket go to http://www.regulations.gov. The document titles are:

1. Technical Support Document - Benefits
2. Technical Support Document - Stationary Source
3. Draft Technical Support Document - Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
4. Technical Support Document - Section 202 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5. Vehicle Technical Support Document - Mobile Source

Email them right away.

WAFB TV Channel 9, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana pulled out all the stops for this ridiculous report claiming that "some women" in the Pelican State are resorting to working in strip clubs because gasoline is so expensive. To prove it, WAFB found one woman that said so. I'd say that clinches this as "fact," then, wouldn't you?

In typical sensationalistic news fashion, WAFB TV assumes that because gas is more expensive, women across the state are throwing away their morals to work as strippers.

During these tough economic times, many people are struggling to make ends meet. The city's housing market is in a slump, gas and food prices are rising, and some say it's either sink or swim. Now, some women are going to great lengths to make some extra cash right in Baton Rouge.

Really? "Great lengths," eh? So, to believe this report we have to assume that strip clubs are doing well enough that a great influx of new employees is possible. But here is the question: if the economy is so bad, how is it that strip clubs are going so strong? That doesn't make much sense, WAFB.

Still, the sensationalism continues.

It's a fantasy, an escape for some attempting to close off the outside world. However, for the women inside who are barely clothed and strapped into high heels, exotic dancing can be a way to survive. "All of my bills were getting to be too much, especially when gas started going up," says one woman, who'll be referred to as Amber throughout the report to protect her identity.

With the average price of gasoline in these parts at an all-time high of $4.00 per gallon, and food costs rising, some women are entering the world of adult entertainment. This world of quick cash is nothing new to Amber. She stripped for three years in local clubs, but took a break after finding out she was pregnant. She then got back into the profession shortly after gas prices started rising and feeding her child got difficult. "Honestly, there are some days where I just don't eat because I can't afford to go buy food. Especially when it comes to diapers or milk, oh my God."

Then the TV reports hits even more salacious material by talking about the "rapes" that occur in these strip clubs, the drug abuse, etc. WAFB pulls out all the stops for this piece.

The ending is interesting, too.

Amber says she is currently in school. She says she knows quite a few women who have recently turned to exotic dancing in order to either pay their bills, get through school, or take care of their children.

Say, WAFB, did you ever think to wonder exactly why our poor little Miss Amber knows so many women who have turned to exotic dancing to make a living? Might it be that it's because these are the sorts of people she hangs around with? I mean if one hangs around with feminists, then all one will know is feminists. If one hangs around a bowling alley, one will get to know an awful lot of bowlers. And, did anyone stop to wonder where Mr. Amber was? And did anyone realize that one of the reasons that Miss Amber is having such a bad time of it is because there isn't a Mr. Amber to help her?

Taking Amber's experiences and exploding them into some sort of state wide trend is amazing. But that is what WAFB certainly tried to do. Welcome to sensationalist TV. It's the Jerry Springer news in Louisiana.

(Image credit: merchantcircle.com)

Randi Weingarten has delusions of grandeur. She thinks she should be given the power of a dictator instead of those of a teachers union president. Instead of just teaching kids, Weingarten imagines that she should become doctor, nanny, nutritionist, psychologist, and mother to every kid in America. She imagines that she should be given the care and feeding of all the nation's kids.

Parents? Who need 'em when we've got Mother Weingarten to trot them off to re-education camps where they will be fed and cared for on a daily basis?

Catch the arrogance, see this nanny-state despot lining up her dream state in her tiny, anti-family mind.

“Can you imagine a federal law that promoted community schools — schools that serve the neediest children by bringing together under one roof all the services and activities they and their families need?” Ms. Weingarten is expected to ask in the speech, a copy of which was provided by the union to The New York Times.

“Imagine schools that are open all day and offer after-school and evening recreational activities, child care and preschool, tutoring and homework assistance,” the speech reads. “Schools that include dental, medical and counseling clinics.”

Yes, imagine it. Imagine the billions of dollars needed to bring all these services from government to kids. Imagine the further destruction of the family as it happens, too.

This arrogant woman's ideas are no less a usurpation of the role of the family, an abrogation of supreme power over our kids unto herself, and an amazing expansion of government power including the bloated budget to do so.

This is a dangerous, anti-American game this woman is playing. But, it reveals the oppressive idea of the role of government indicative of Democrats. They are nothing if not pure Stalinists.

Apparently the newest big-deal-ad that everyone is supposed to get all upset over is an advertisement by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) that came out this week. Unfortunately for them, I can't see how anyone would get too exercised over it. In fact, to my mind the message and its treatment are perfectly well handled. So, it all is a humbug instead of a controversy.Yes, this is quite a first for PETA. An ad we DON'T have to get upset over.

I guess some people are wondering if the ad is based on a moral equivalence of spaying and neutering animals and teen pregnancy. Apparently, we are supposed to get all up in arms that the ad features parents telling their young teenaged daughter to go have all the sex and pump out all the kids she wants because they can just abandon the unwanted kids in the streets or in shelters. This, of course, is a satiric way to comment on the fact that pet owners don't spay and neuter their pets and, therefore, their pets have unwanted pregnancies that get dumped in the street or left at shelters.