Poor, Poor, Pitiful Michelle

So, Barack Obama has released the tax returns of the Obamas from 200 through 2006. Byron York takes a rather jaundiced look at the figures and wonders exactly what Michelle Obama was on about when she was whimpering about how hard the Obama's have had it making ends meet.

Something else that strikes me about the returns is their relation to Michelle Obama's tales of her and her husband's struggle. When I saw Mrs. Obama at an appearance in Zanesville, Ohio last month, she was telling a group of low-income women — the median household income in the county in which Zanesville is located was $37,192 in 2004, well below the state and national medians — about how hard it can be to keep things together. Her talk often touched on money. "I know we're spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we're spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth," she told the women of her own household expenses. "And summer programs. That's the other huge cost. Barack is saying, 'Whyyyyyy are we spending that?' And I'm saying, 'Do you know what summer camp costs?'"

The women nodded in agreement, although the Obamas were spending what amounted to nearly a third of a Zanesville resident's annual income on piano and dance lessons. Nevertheless, Michelle Obama portrayed herself and her husband as going through a lot of the same struggles as the women and their families. She conceded that she was doing fine financially, but only after Barack Obama hit it big with his books.

In the seven year period, Barack and Michelle Obama cleared $3,857,564 in adjusted gross income. They gave away $148,392 in charitable contributions in that same period. Somewhat less than 4% of their substantial income. Yet Michelle Obama sang the money blues to people in Ohio who, on average, clear less in salary than one quarter of the Obama's worst year in their best year.

Carriage trade liberal pandering at its worst.

Lessons From Y2K

Bruce Webster reminisces about why the hysteria about Y2K closely resembles the hysteria surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming - and why he is a confirmed skeptic on the whole subject. He's been there and done that.

My first clue that there were serious problems with anthropogenic global warming was, frankly, the vitrol towards and demonization of those who questioned it. In my experience, that is almost always a sign — especially in scientific circles — that the proponents of a given theory are insecure. I first saw this when Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick challenged both the data sets and the algorithms used by Mann et al. in producing the famous Hockey Stick. While I’m not a climatologist, I do know a lot about data sets, algorithms, and modeling — and what I was hearing was very disturbing. And the reaction to McIntyre and McKitrick was not to welcome open investigation and criticism but to circle the wagons and to start calling anyone who challenges global warming a lacky of the oil companies (curious, since the oil companies themselves seem to be drinking the AGW kool-aid).

It is a fairly long piece, but I rather suspect that many Crabitat readers will be very interested in it. What Bruce describes is essentially a cascade effect - where a consensus builds around a false set of data. While Y2K was a real threat, many jumped onto the bandwagon and generated additional, bogus threats that became media fodder. That snowballed the entire thing into a juggernaut that simply did not happen as predicted. There is a lesson here.

Thank Heaven For Experts

Rumor has it that this man will shortly be the newest spokesman for the IPCC, explaining why the predictions from climate models are not actually matching the real world observed results.

No really.

Sleazy And Sophomoric

Ed Morrisey, in his new Hot Air digs, slams the George Soros funded Center for Public Integrity and their Minnesota branch, the Minnesota Monitor for a frankly moronic piece by one of their leftwing employees, Molly Priesmayer. The fearless internet "media watchdog" decided it would be good sport to make fun of John McCain's teeth.

Molly notes the laughter erupting over John McCain’s teeth:

If bloggers are saying one thing about John McCain this week it’s that the 71-year-old has some serious grit. Of course, that grit comes in the form of McCain Mouth, a deformity that apparently causes teeth to look like a mess of yellowed and contorted Chiclets. Today, BuzzFeed.com has picked up on the mouth meme, turning McCain’s piano-key chompers into an official phenomenon.

The consensus? “They’re old.” And, “He looks like Reverend Kane from Poltergeist II.” And, “Dude has had a ton of plastic surgery, can’t he afford a dentist?”

While looks are an easy and lame target, it’s at least refreshing to see McCain’s teeth get a razzing (though, unfortunately, not a cleaning). It gets a little tiring listening to the same sexist cries that Hillary Clinton is just too ugly to be president. Hatin’ on the looks of all the candidates? Now that’s equality!

No, it’s the result of torture McCain suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese.  As Michael Brodkorb notes — by doing something foreign to the Sorosphere called “research” — his teeth had to be replaced:

Go over and read Ed's dismemberment of the sophomoric Ms. Priesmayer. I'd like to point out something here. I have many disagreements with John McCain on a number of subjects. His service to this nation is not one of them. Anyone who mocks or denigrates that service - or the injuries McCain suffered while serving, is beneath contempt. Period.

Traction

I'm certain, by this point, Barrack Obama was counting on his "Rev. Wright Problem" having gone away.  As a candidate who had spent the better part of a year (or more) being given the benefit of the doubt by the media and other, Obama was probably counting on more of the same in this situation.  In this he made a horrible miscalculation, or rather, a series of horrible miscalculations.  He underestimated the potential damage that could be caused by Wright's incendiary and racist rhetoric; he underestimated the ease with which he could or could not extricate himself from under Wright's shadow; he underestimated the degree to which he needed to provide a mea culpa (and, yes, none is too little); he underestimated the offense people will would take when they became aware of the extent of Wright's hate; he underestimated the potential this issue had to live far beyond the usual campaign issue shelf life.  In effect, Obama was willing to bet this issue would never find "traction" beyond a small group. 

Only the most blinded of Obama partisans could but see that hope has failed utterly. 

It has failed so badly that even his opponent feels safe taking it on directly:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor made.

"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Obama's lead in national polls has slipped since clips of the retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright began being played on national news programs. The uproar prompted Obama to give a wide-ranging speech on race in America a week ago. The Clinton campaign has refrained from getting involved in the controversy, but Clinton herself, responding to a question, denounced what she said was "hate speech."

"You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."

Other Democrats, like Ed Koch, are also feeling free to weigh in on this matter:

Rev. Wright's sermons charge that the U.S. government gives African-Americans drugs, created AIDS and is deliberately infecting blacks with that disease. His sermons claim that the U.S. unjustifiably nuclear bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, and that 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans were caused by U.S. foreign policy. He alleges Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians; calling Israel a "dirty word" and "racist country." He blames Israel for 9/11 and supports the divestment campaign against it, denouncing "Zionism." His venomous thoughts are summed up in his most discussed sermon in which he says the U.S. government "wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, not God Bless America. God damn America. God damn America for killing innocent people."

Senator Obama in his speech acknowledged that the rantings of his minister are "inexcusable," but stated, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Before we discuss his grandmother, let's examine the impact of Rev. Wright's statements on the Senator's two daughters. Nothing says it better than a song from the musical "South Pacific," to wit, "You have to be taught to hate and fear…You've got to be carefully taught." Few dispute that Rev. Wright's sermons are filled with hate.
Why didn't Senator Obama stand up in the church and denounce his hateful statements or, at the very least, argue privately with his minister? It was horrifying to see on a video now viewed across America the congregation rise from the pews to applaud their minister's rants.

And, most damning, this episode has given the Right the foothold they needed to dismantle the Obama "feel good" storyline brick by brick, as Thomas Sowell does with relish:

In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama — "A Bound Man" — it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were — and, like many converts, he went overboard.

Nor has Obama changed in recent years. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.

The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together.

The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability.

There is no evidence that Obama ever sought to educate himself on the views of people on the other end of the political spectrum, much less reach out to them. He reached out from the left to the far left. That's bringing us all together?

This has all the earmarks of an unmitigated disaster, and, even at this late hour, it is an open question wether Obama gets it.

Fauxhenge

Following up on Gaius' story about a replica Stonehenge in Australia, all I can say why go Down Under when you can just go to Texas?

Fauxhenge, Kerrville, Texas

This great American road trip destination improves upon the original by also being the site of the following:

 Fauxster Island anyone?

This comes in handy because you weren't really gonna make it to Easter Island this year, now were you?

Back From The Dead

A young man severely injured in an all terrain vehicle accident was declared brain dead and was being prepped for the removal of his organs. His family gathered at his bedside to pay their last respects. Then Zach Dunlap moved one of his feet and a hand.

Dunlap was pronounced dead Nov. 19 at United Regional Healthcare System in Wichita Falls, Texas, after he was injured in an all-terrain vehicle accident. His family approved having his organs harvested.

As family members were paying their last respects, he moved his foot and hand. He reacted to a pocketknife scraped across his foot and to pressure applied under a fingernail. After 48 days in the hospital, he was allowed to return home, where he continues to work on his recovery.

On Monday, he and his family were in New York, appearing on NBC's "Today."

"I feel pretty good. but it's just hard … just ain't got the patience," Dunlap told NBC.

Frighteningly, Dunlap says he remembers the doctors pronouncing him dead. Dunlap's father says he was shown the brain scan and there was no sign of activity. Obviously, something is wrong with the medical models of what constitutes brain death. As is usually the case, we actually know a good deal less than the experts declare about a very complex subject.

Counterfeit Stonehenge

An Australian businessman is building a full-sized replica of Stonehenge in Australia. Ross Smith has had a team of quarry workers cutting replica stones for the past five months and plans to have the whole thing built by December 21 of this year - the summer solstice down under.

"I'm doing it because I can," said Ross Smith, the former owner of a successful microbrewery business who plans to build the monument on his property in Western Australia. "Nowhere in the world has a complete Stonehenge been built."

The $1.26 million project, to be called The Henge, will include 101 granite stones arranged in an inner and outer circle, a central altar, and will span 110 feet.

"I've studied plans of the original and that's what The Henge will look like," Smith said.

Unlike the original Stonehenge, guests will be encouraged to touch and play around the new monument, which will also have an interpretive center and a children's playground.

Smith called The Henge "a business venture." An entry fee will be charged and it will be hired out for weddings and other events.

Actually, I'm surprised nobody has done this before. (One waits breathlessly for the howls of outrage from fake druids over the fake Stonehenge.) Smith is hoping for 200,000 to 300,000 visitors annually. Hmmm. Maybe we should get one of these for the garden here at the Crabitat. Nah - too much to mow around.

WordPress Themes