Did the NY Times Just Lose the Election for the Empty Chair?

New York Times Proves Clint Eastwood Correct -- Obama Is Lousy CEO

Forbes:

h/t to Deonia Copeland

A Sunday New York Times front page story — New York Times! — might have killed President Obama’s re-election hopes.

The story is called “The Competitor in Chief — Obama Plays To Win, In Politics and Everything Else.” It is devastating.

With such a title, and from such a friendly organ, at first I thought Jodi Kantor’s piece would be a collection of Obama’s greatest political wins: His rapid rise in Illinois, his win over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries, the passage of health care, and so on.

But the NYT piece is not about any of that. Rather, it is a deep look into the two outstanding flaws in Obama’s executive leadership:

1. How he vastly overrates his capabilities:

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. The cloistered nature of the White House amplifies those tendencies, said Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, adding that the same thing happened to his former boss. “There’s a reinforcing quality,” he said, a tendency for presidents to think, I’m the best at this.

2. How he spends extraordinary amounts of time and energy to compete in — trivialities.

“For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.

Kantor’s piece is full of examples of Obama’s odd need to dominate his peers in everything from bowling, cards, golf, basketball, and golf (104 times in his presidency). Bear in mind, Obama doesn’t just robustly compete. The leader of the free world spends many hours practicing these trivial pursuits behind the scenes. Combine this weirdly wasted time with a consistent overestimation of his capabilities, and the result is, according to NYT’s Kantor:

He may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr.

“Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.

Kantor’s portrait of Obama is stunning. It paints a picture of a CEO who is unfocused and lost.

Imagine, for a minute, that you are on the board of directors of a company. You have a CEO who is not meeting his numbers and who is suffering a declining popularity with his customers. You want to help this CEO recover, but then you learn he doesn’t want your help. He is smarter than you and eager to tell you this. Confidence or misplaced arrogance? You’re not sure at first. If the company was performing well, you’d ignore it. But the company is performing poorly, so you can’t.

With some digging, you learn, to your horror, that the troubled CEO spends a lot of time on — what the hell? — bowling? Golf? Three point shots? While the company is going south?

What do you do? You fire that CEO. Clint Eastwood was right. You let the guy go.

The Empty Chair Is Losing

American Thinker:

President Obama is headed to defeat in November, and it won't be close. Forget about the polls, and forget about the cadre of delusional Democrats who can't stop telling us how great and successful the last three and a half years have been. Slick Willy can shill all he likes, but seriously, he's preaching to the choir, because the only ones believing his shtick are bought and paid for sycophants, crony capitalists, and members of the mainstream media.

Can you think of a single person who didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008 but will vote for him this time around? Yet it is easy to find former minions admitting to the dissolution of their belief in the primacy of the "one." These people will not vote for him again -- and they are legion.

Pols like Bill Clinton say what they have to say, and election polls are often designed to say what the designers want them to say. But Americans, ever the social creatures they are, remembering the hopes and dreams they had for a better world in 2008 -- and the hopes and dreams they have today for a better tomorrow -- are reluctant to tell someone taking a poll that they don't like Barack Obama. It doesn't matter how well a case can be made against the man's disastrous and disgraceful leadership; guilt can often preclude telling a stranger they plan to vote against the black guy -- especially today, when all opposition to the president is framed as racist.

Yet, at some point, that curtain closes in the voting booth, and a decision has to be made as to which candidate is better for voters, their children, and the future of America.

When watching the news or any of the president's campaign speeches, it is easy to get the message that Barack Obama is way ahead and can't lose. His successes are portrayed as many and significant, although he needs another term because much still needs to be done. After all, the Republicans have stymied his every selfless effort these last three and a half years, and "we can't go back."

He did his best, and there was nothing more he could have done to improve what was an unprecedented (everything with Barack is unprecedented) decline in economic activity. Didn't Obama call the downturn the "great recession?" The misery the nation feels now is an illusion -- or else, they tell us, it is simply the "new normal."

But usually in mainstream media world, all is well -- and Americans should pay no attention to the price of gasoline, or the unavailability of financing for mortgages or business investment, or the price of groceries and the dearth of jobs. Who needs a job when they have Barack Obama?

The media, Obama, and his adulators have become the "check is in the mail" bloc. Things are better; we just haven't noticed.

Yet there are no real accomplishments, which would be bad enough if it stopped there, but in actuality, everything is much worse since many trusted the "one" in 2008 to solve all the ills of the nation and humanity. All he has done during his tenure is torture the economy into submission with poor decisions, bad legislation, overregulation, and threats of onerous taxation.

It's been said that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of Americans, but it is also true that no one ever got rich continually assuming that Americans were idiots. You see, just when a demigod like Barack is convinced he has demagogued his way into the hearts and minds of the electorate, the nation wakes up, and a deafening "thud" can be heard as he falls back down to earth.

Seniors see the true danger to Medicare comes from ObamaCare, a legislative nightmare. Obamacare strips $716 billion from Medicare, and as a result, seniors in states like Florida will make their voices heard this Election Day.

Workers and commuters see the price of gasoline as a function of Barack's desire to be the one who breaks America's dependency on fossil fuels. Yet like everything Obama does, he seeks to do it backwards. Because he can't make alternative energy cheap enough to overwhelm fossil fuels as the main source of energy in America, he chooses to make fossil fuels so expensive that his green energy dreams seem cheap by comparison. Gasoline at $4 a gallon and necessarily skyrocketing electric bills are the "new normal." Didn't you know?

If people's lives have to be destroyed to usher in this new era, then, so be it. They should be grateful that the destruction of their hopes and dreams is in service of the greater Barack Obama good. History books will not remember the individual whose life was ruined today, but they will certainly remember Obama as the man who saved humanity from what might have happened in a hundred years. And isn't that what's important?

Small business understands that Obama built this. They understand this so well that there are trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines awaiting his departure next January. They may have supported him in 2008, but does anyone think business owners, long demonized by Barack and minions, are going to vote for Mr. Obama again? No, they will run kicking and screaming to the polls to vote for anyone but the man who has destroyed their incomes and futures, and those of their children.

States with a culture of coal mining are also running away from Barack. After all, miners have families, and killing King Coal has not only hurt the interests of America and Americans, but slain the future of an industry long important to the nation's prosperity. Who needs cheap energy anyway?

The United Coal Miners Union sat out the Democrat National Convention. Although they didn't jump ship, they weren't about to support the moron killing coal jobs while making electricity more expensive and ceding energy independence in the process. I suspect that Obama will get few miner votes this election.

I believe that the administration's war on coal and the slow realization that the EPA's future plan for war on fracking have already won Ohio and Pennsylvania for Mitt Romney, despite what the polls say. A union member working in the fossil fuel industry is never going to admit to supporting a Republican, yet he still wants to feed his family and send his kids to college...and maybe someday even retire. Four more years of Barack, and he won't even have a job.

At the Democrat National Convention, John Kerry said Americans should "ask Osama bin Laden if he's better off now than he was four years ago."

The answer would be "no," just as it is for most Americans, because Obama is killing us. Bin Laden at least has the luxury of being dead; the job is finished.

For us, Obama needs another 4 years.

On November 6, 2012, Americans will flock to the polls to ensure that Barack Obama does not get another term to finish the job he started, and the empty chair will lose in a landslide.

For anyone who thought that Clint Eastwood had lost it at the Republican National Convention with his  chair routine… carrying on a conversation with President Barack Obama (represented by an empty chair).

Clint knew exactly what he was doing…  Here is the only known portrait of Karl Marx… with the Barack Obama Chair.

Technorati Tags: empty chair,Obamaland lost,Clint Eastwood,NY Times,Obamaland,Karl Marx,Election 2012,2012 Election,EPA,PC,Politicial Correctness,racism,reverse racism,national debt,ObamaCare,Medicare,gas prices,recession,joblessness,fracking,groceries,Narcissism,radical ideology,socialism,Progressivism,Mitt Romney in 2012,Romney-Ryan,Forbes,one term Obama,radicals in the White House,Eastwooding

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

Sunday, 26 Dec 2010 06:41 PM

During the stormy debate over his healthcare plan, President Barack Obama promised his program would not "pull the plug on grandma" and Congress dropped plans for death panels and "end of life" counseling that would encourage aged patients from partaking in costly medical procedures.

Opponents of Obama's plan, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, dubbed such efforts as "death panels" that would encourage euthanasia.

But on December 3rd, the Obama administration seemingly flouted the will of Congress by issuing a new Medicare regulation detailing -- "voluntary advance care planning" that is to be included during patients' annual checkups. The regulation aimed at the aged "may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," The New York Times reported.

The new provision goes into effect Jan. 1, 2011 and allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death. Critics say it is another attempt to limit healthcare options for the elderly as they face serious illness.

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner said during the healthcare debate that, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Specifically, the measure was known as Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009. It was not included in the final legislation, however. It allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.

Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life Christian educational ministry, told the Times was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.

“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”

The rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to The New York Times. He is a longtime advocate for rationing medical procedures for the elderly.

Before being tapped by Obama to his Medicare post, Berwick had long applauded Britain's National Health Service, which uses an algorithm to determine if the aged are worthy of additional expenditure for medical care and advanced treatments.

Berwick has argued that rationing will have to eventually be implemented in the U.S, stating, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Seniors appear to be a major target for precious resources under the Obama healthcare plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama plan cuts nearly $500 million in Medicare benefits to seniors as the federal government adds 30 million uninsured Americans to private and public health care systems.

The cost of caring for the elderly has not been lost on Berwick.
“The chronically ill and those towards the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here… there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place,” he said.

During the heated healthcare debate, supporters of the Obama vigorously denied rationing for seniors would take place and scoffed at "death panel" critics like Palin.

Last month, however, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman told ABC News that rising Medicare costs could only be dealt with by "death panels and sales taxes."

He added: "Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the [death] panel that was part of the healthcare reform.’"

Read more: Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

The NY Times Concedes Governor Palin “Forced [Obama] Onto the Defensive.”

The NY Times concedes that Governor Palin put Obama “onto the defensive” with “death panels” (emphasis added):

Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, led the criticism in the summer of 2009. Ms. Palin said “Obama’s death panel” would decide who was worthy of health care. Mr. Boehner, who is in line to become speaker, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.” Forced onto the defensive, Mr. Obama said that nothing in the bill would “pull the plug on grandma.”

Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin been able to force the New York Times to concede that he or she put Obama on the defensive? Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin destroyed a liberal policy to such an extent that the Democrat Party is afraid to publicize what it is doing and can only get it implemented through channels outside of the legislative arena?

“Death Panels” Regulation Begins Obama’s Rule by Fiat

by Ben Johnson – Posted at

In a foretaste of outrages to come, the Obama administration managed to sneak out a federal regulation paying doctors to provide “end of life counseling” to those covered by ObamaCare. The Medicare rule, which Congress never voted on, may encourage thousands to forego lifesaving treatment. This move is a voluntary precursor to the inevitable rationing engendered by socialized medicine. Many conservative media outlets have objected to the pro-death aspects of this decision. However, they have ignored a vital aspect of this story: the way he implemented the policy. This federal regulation inaugurates Obama’s two-year strategy to rule by executive order. The New York Times reports:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Although the NYT just discovered this, Steven Ertelt at LifeNews.com reported the regulation nearly a month ago. (We covered it at the time.) For once, the Times included some salient facts along with its whitewash of the administration’s activities.

This program will be overseen by the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, a fanatical believer in limiting (read: denying) care. The paper quotes Berwick as saying, “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault. In economic terms, it is waste.” Berwick added advanced directives were one of “several techniques” that led “to both lower cost and more humane care.” There is no question they lead to lower costs, in addition to providing an economic stimulus to tombstone carvers, morticians, and cemetery plot salesmen.

The Times reports the regulation was pushed by two Congressional Democrats: Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Sen. Jay Rockefeller IV of West Virginia. This backing unintentionally reveals the measure’s greater significance: The liberals could not ram a death panels provision through even the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress, so Obama is imposing it with the stroke of a pen, without a single vote. The New York Times admits this is the wave of the future:

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

This author first exposed Obama’s plan to rule by executive order, in October. The following month, the Center for American Progress released a lengthy report compiled by Sarah Rosen Wartell calling for the president to implement a “progressive” agenda by fiat over the next two years. In its foreword, CAP president and CEO John Podesta called on Obama to rule through:

• Executive orders
• Rulemaking
• Agency management
• Convening and creating public-private partnerships
• Commanding the armed forces
• Diplomacy

Just last week, the inside-the-Beltway Bible Politico featured an article by John F. Harris and James Hohmann which concluded, “Republican gains in Congress make it essential for [Obama] to use new avenues of power,” including regulations and executive orders.

The Left is irresistibly drawn to collecting as much unbridled power as possible, because its agenda is so unpopular it could never receive sufficient popular support to pass an election. Since the November election, Obama, Reid, and company have followed the authoritarian path I predicted. I wrote in November, “Look for an aggressive agenda in the lame duck session of Congress, focused especially on passing the DREAM Act and repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” Harry Reid unleashed precisely these two measures (and passed one of them) in his lame duck power grab, cramming in a bid to pass a $1.27 trillion budget besides. Next, I wrote, “After January, Cabinet agencies will issue regulations at a faster clip.” This follows that prediction. Finally, I wrote, “Obama will rule increasingly through executive orders and appeals to the United Nations.” If this regulation means anything, it means we have not seen anything yet.

How fitting one of the first expressions of Obama’s new strategy was a measure to let people die. He seems to have the same fate planned for the U.S. Constitution.

The Irony of “reconciliation”

POSTED AT 9:30 AM ON AUGUST 19, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY

The New York Times offers a strong hint that Democrats in the Senate will use the ‘budget reconciliation process' as a cover to move ObamaCare through the chamber to avoid a filibuster. The Democrats will “go it alone,” the headline reads, although the actual report makes the how of that rather ambiguous. And well it should, since the Democrats know — or should know — that to try reconciliation would be an invitation to a war that would bring Congress to a screeching halt:

Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.

Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed. …

The Democratic shift may not make producing a final bill much easier. The party must still reconcile the views of moderate and conservative Democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more liberal lawmakers determined to win a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.

In fact, the article never mentions the word “reconciliation,” the process by which the Senate approves a ‘budget’ for the federal government. Under the rules of reconciliation, no cloture vote is needed, as the chamber has a Constitutional duty to produce a budget. Some Democrats have threatened this for months, notably Chuck Schumer, but the plan has a couple of big flaws. First, the Democrats have to convince the Senate parliamentarian, ostensibly non-partisan, to agree that the bill is primarily budgetary. No one in their right mind could honestly make that judgment about massive regulation of 15% of the American economy. They’re likely to get denied before they even get started.

However, if they do manage to get past that obstacle, the Republicans can shut down the Senate for the next year. Those unfamiliar with the parliamentary procedure may not realize that a great many steps get skipped by unanimous consent. Bill-reading is just one example. One Senator can force each and every bill to be read aloud at every appearance it makes on the Senate floor, including when they are sent to committee. For ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, one bill reading could take a week, keeping the Senate floor locked off from any other business.

Traditionally, Senators give each other the courtesy of unanimous consent to allow business to proceed at a normal pace. If the Democrats try to force ObamaCare through reconciliation, that unanimous consent will dissipate faster than an Obama expiration date. It won’t take the entire Republican caucus to gum up the works, either; it only takes a single objection to end unanimous consent, and the GOP has more than a couple of conservative firebrands who will gladly toss sand in the gears to stop Harry Reid from steamrolling them.

Democrats might think that this will gain them sympathy with the public, but not if they’re breaking rules to pass an increasingly unpopular and intrusive piece of legislation. It will create a firestorm of anger even worse than what we’ve seen in the townhalls thus far. They would be signing their way to minority status, especially in the House. They can kiss the rest of their agenda goodbye for the rest of this session, too, including cap-and-trade. Even budgeting will prove very difficult.

There’s a reason the Times didn’t mention reconciliation. It’s a bluff. Not even Harry Reid is this foolish… or is He???

Source: HotAir

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Ben Stein… I Was Expelled From the New York Times

My sister nailed it many years ago when she said, "Your basic human is not such a hot item."

Keep that filed in your head as I tell my little tale…

About five or six years ago, roughly, I was solicited to write a column every two weeks for the Sunday New York Times Business Section. I was really thrilled. I have written for the Washington Post (when I was a teenager), for the Wall Street Journal edit page under the legendary Bob Bartley, for Barron's, under the really great Alan Abelson and Jim Meagher, for my beloved American Spectator, under the great Bob and Wlady, and now having a regular column at theTimes was going to be great stuff.

The column went well. I got lots of excellent fan mail and fine feedback from my editors, who, however, kept changing.

The first real super problem I had was when the movie I narrated and co-wrote, Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed, was in progress. A "science writer" for the Times blasted the movie on the front page and noted that I, whom she repeatedly called "...a freelance writer..." (not a columnist ) for the Times, was somehow involved. That was followed by a really fantastically angry blast against the movie by a reviewer who really hated it a lot. (I note that the Times also disliked Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Hmm.)

Expelled was a plea for open discussion of the possibility that life might have started with an Intelligent Designer. This idea, that freedom of academic discussion on an issue as to which there is avid scientific disagreement has value, seems obvious to me. But it drives the atheists and neo-Darwinists crazy and they responded viciously.

Some of them started a campaign against me in various forums, including letters to the Times.

At roughly the same time, I made a new set of antagonists by repeatedly and in detail criticizing the real power in this country, the "investment bank" Goldman Sachs, for what seemed to me questionable behavior. This elicited a mountain of favorable mail but also some complaints by well-placed persons.

Still, my editor at the Times stood by me loyally and was steadfast, even inspiring.

Now, in the time I had been doing my column, roughly five or six years, I had done many commercials for goods and services. No one at the Times ever said a word negatively about these. In fact, when I did a series of commercials with Shaquille O'Neal, the legendary basketball star, one of my superiors at the Times asked me for souvenirs. No one ever told me in any way, by word, look, or gesture, not to do commercials.

Meanwhile, the haters connected with atheism and neo-Darwinism continued to attack me.

Then, two things happened to change and end my career at the Times. Well, maybe three. The Times told me they were forced by budgetary pressures to only run me every four weeks. This was a blow and I started to think about where else I might write. (I had been solicited by many major publications while at the Times but my editors had asked me not to write for them and I did as asked.)

But the two main things, as I see them, were that I started criticizing Mr. Obama quite sharply over his policies and practices. I had tried to do this before over the firing of Rick Wagoner from the Chairmanship of GM. My column had questioned whether there was a legal basis for the firing by the government, what law allowed or authorized the federal government to fire the head of what was then a private company, and just where the Obama administration thought their limits were, if anywhere. This column was flat out nixed by my editors at the Times because in their opinion Mr. Obama inherently had such powers.

They did let me run a piece querying what I thought was a certain lack of focus in Mr. Obama's world but that was it, and then came another issue.

I had done a commercial for an Internet aggregating company called FreeScore. This commercial offered people a week of free access to their credit scores and then required them to pay for further such access.

This commercial was red meat for the Ben Stein haters left over from the Expelled days. They bombarded the Times with letters. They confused (or some of them seemingly confused ) FreeScore with other companies that did not have FreeScore's unblemished record with consumer protection agencies. (FreeScore has a perfect record.) They demanded of the high pooh-bahs at the Times that they fire me because of what they called a conflict of interest.

Of course, there was no conflict of interest. I had never written one word in the Times or anywhere else about getting credit scores on line. Not a word.

But somehow, these people bamboozled some of the high pooh-bahs at the Times into thinking there was a conflict of interest. In an e-mail sent to me by a person I had never met nor even heard of, I was fired. (I read the e-mail while having pizza at the Seattle airport on my way to Sandpoint.) I called the editor and explained the situation. He said the problem was "the appearance" of conflict of interest. I asked how that could be when I never wrote about the subject at all. He said the real problem was that FreeScore was a major financial company and I wrote about finance. But, as I told him, FreeScore was a small Internet aggregator, not a bank or insurer.

Never mind. I was history. "You should have consulted us," was the basic line.

Of course, there was not one word of complaint when I did commercials for immense public companies. By a total coincidence, I was tossed overboard immediately after my column attacking Obama. (You can attack Obama from the left at the Times but not from the right.)

I still do not see the conflict of interest. Credit reports on the Internet never was in my subject area. However, I don't sue newspapers. And the gig was getting to be so small that it really had a minor effect on my economic life. Still, I shall miss waking up on Sunday to see my column unless a neighbor here in Beverly Hills has stolen my paper. (No place, not one place, in Sandpoint sells the Times.)

The whole subject reminds me of a conversation Bob Dylan had long ago with a reporter who asked him what he thought about how much criticism he was getting for going from acoustic to electric guitar. "There are a lot of people who have knives and forks," he said, "and they have nothing on their plates, so they have to cut something."

I will miss writing my column for the Times but I miss many things. There were some great people there, really standup people. I got to love some of them. But as to the haters and the weak willed, I think my sister and Bob Dylan had it right.

You will still see my little thoughts, maybe in some big places. And I can put this Times gig on my résumé when I apply for Social Security. And, I really mean this, I will pray for those who use me despitefully, even if the neo-Darwinists think that's a waste of time. It's not.

One final thought. Well, maybe two final thoughts: first, it's sad that the Internet has become a backyard gossip freeway for the whole world's sick people to pour out their neuroses. I have seen a tiny fraction of all of the hate mail that's come in the wake of the NY Times announcement (which they promised they would not make in any event). Too many sick people out there on the web for comfort.

Second, among those who are not really such hot items, I fully include myself. Without doubt, I have made as many mistakes as a person not in custody can make. I make no claims to anything even remotely like perfection or even desirability as a role model. It is just that in this case, I didn't do anything wrong. In my life, I have done plenty wrong. I am not the master. I am the servant and a poor one at that.

By Ben Stein on 8.10.09 @ 6:09AM – Source: The American Spectator

Related Resources:

• We Figured Him Out - Ben Stein
• Expelled

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Meltdown - Personal Note From Ron Paul

"There is no better book to read on the present crisis."

Many Americans are looking to the new administration to solve our economic problems. Unfortunately, that is probably a vain hope. Although we were promised "change," we are only getting a continuation of the same superficial economic fixes that have damaged so many economies in the past, and that will only delay the return of prosperity.

These fixes are based on the false belief that the free-market economy has failed. But it is not the market that has failed. It is intervention into the market that has failed. The Federal Reserve and its manipulation of money and interest rates have failed. None of this can be blamed on the free market.

That's why Meltdown, a New York Times bestseller, is so important. This book actually gets things right. It correctly identifies our problems, their causes, and what we should do about them. It treats the architects of this debacle not with the undeserved reverence they receive in Washington and on television, but with the critical eye that is so conspicuously missing from our supposedly independent thinkers in academia and the media.

In a short span, Tom introduces the layman to a range of subjects that have been excluded from our national discussion for much too long. Among many other things, Tom explains Austrian business cycle theory, which he correctly identifies as the single most important piece of economic knowledge for Americans to have right now. In so doing, Tom provides Americans with the most persuasive and rational account of how we got here. Only if we correctly assess the causes of the debacle can we hope to propose a path to recovery that might actually work and not simply prolong the agony.

Our years of living beyond our means, of buying everything on credit and on money printed out of thin air, are over. Sure, our government will carry on with its nonsensical policy of curing indebtedness with more indebtedness, inflation with more inflation, but the game is up. It's not going to work. The resources aren't there. The more we intervene and the more we prop up economic zombies, the worse off we'll be. But the sooner we understand what has happened, assess our economic situation honestly, and rebuild our economy on a sound foundation, the sooner our fortunes will be restored.

Ideas still matter, and sound economic education has rarely been as urgently necessary as it is today. There is no better book to read on the present crisis than this one, and that is why I am delighted to endorse it.

Sincerely,  Rep. Ron Paul

McCain and Obama Attend Dinner and Add Humor to The Event

NEW YORK -- Barack Obama and John McCain appeared together last night at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The entertaining pool report here comes from the New York Times' Jeff Zeleny:

Sen. Barack Obama was preceded - actually, introduced - at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner by Sen. John McCain, who took the first turn at the lectern. He delivered many lines that left Mr. Obama laughing out loud.

"I can't shake that feeling that some people here are pulling for me," Mr. McCain said, turning to the far side of the stage. "I'm delighted to see you here tonight, Hillary."

Mr. McCain assured those in the ballroom that his rival was not fazed by being called, "That one," during the second presidential debate.

"He doesn't mind at all, in fact, he even has a pet name for me: George Bush," Mr. McCain said.

Mr. McCain offered several words of praise, which Mr. Obama acknowledged with applause and a nod of the head.

"My opponent is an impressive fellow in many ways. Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in each other. I have seen this man at his best. I admire his great skill, energy and determination," Mr. McCain said. "It's not for nothing that he has inspired so many folks in his own party and beyond. Senator Obama talks about making history and he's made quite a bit of it already.

"There was a time when the mere invitation of an African American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters. Today, it's world away from the cruel and frightful bigotry of that time. And good riddance.

"I can't wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well."

After a handshake, Mr. Obama took the lectern for his turn.

"I was originally told the venue would be Yankee Stadium. Can somebody tell me what happened to the Greek columns that I requested?" Mr. Obama said.

Later, he added: "I do love the Waldorf Astoria. I hear from the doorstep you can see all the way to the Russian Tea Room."

(Yes, Mr. McCain laughed. A lot.)

Mr. Obama, noting his age, said he did not have the pleasure of knowing Al Smith, but added: "From everything Senator McCain has told me, he was a great man."

Then, he gave a shout out to Mayor Bloomberg.

"The mayor recently announced some news that he would be rewriting the rules and have a third term, which prompted Bill Clinton to say: You can do that?" Mr. Obama said.

As Mrs. Clinton laughed on stage, Mr. Obama added: "I'm glad to see you made it Hillary. I hear Chuck Schumer tried to tell you that we really did move this event to Yankee Stadium."

Mr. Obama continued with Mrs. Clinton, saying: "She's the primary reason I have all this gray in my hair now."

Mr. Obama called it "a tribute to American democracy" that the two rivals could come together two weeks before the election to "sit down at the same dinner table without preconditions."

He drew boos from the crowd when he tried making a joke about AIG, noting that the fine wine and gourmet food resembled a retreat of the troubled insurance company.

Finally, Mr. Obama did a riff on the question that Mr. McCain has been asking voters: Who is the real Barack Obama?

"I actually was not born in a manger," Mr. Obama said.

"Barack is actually Swahili for That One," he added.

"I got my middle name from somebody who obviously didn't think I would ever run for president," he continued.

He predicted that several October surprises were likely to occur, including: "My middle name is actually Steve," he said, speaking over loud applause. "Barack Steve Obama."

The McCains - the senator and his wife - clapped only tepidly when Mr. Obama said, "Fox News accused me of having two African American children in wedlock." The crowd, it seemed, wasn't sure how to respond.

Mr. Obama praised the service that Mr. McCain has made to the nation, saying: "I'm proud to be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you."

He closed on a serious note.

"No matter what differences or divisions or arguments we are having right now, we ultimately belong to something bigger and more lasting than political parties," Mr. Obama said. "We belong to a community, we share a country, we are all children of God. In this country there are millions of fellow citizens, our brothers and sisters, who need us very much - especially now."

The motorcade waited about 30 minutes before departing at 10:20 p.m. for the final event of the evening: the fund-raiser with Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel.

Comments

Both candidates should be proud of their behavior at this event. They proved it is possible to be rivals, to hold opposing view points and to still wish each other well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27230396#27230396"