PETA’s 2010 State of the Union…. Undress

Love them or hate them, the marketing team at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) always seem to come up with a new way to effectively captivate any audience, and get their message across.

Their latest video, is their 2010 State of the Union Address Undress:

PETA’s 2010 State of the Union Undress

Thoughts?

While some might be offended by the objectification of women in this ad, from a PR point of view, this is a win/win situation for PETA. First, they get the attention of the media… I found out about it from Fox News. Second, they get the attention of their weakest demographic: Men.

So, love it or hate it, in today’s “sex sells” market, sometimes this is the extreme organizations will go to in order to get their message across.

One way to ensure a short-lived Democrat majority: Rush healthcare, stall Brown

I read a startling article yesterday regarding various contingency plans being tossed around Democrat circles in Washington and Massachusetts, preparing for the prospects of Scott Brown defeating Martha Coakley, in what could be one of the greatest political upsets of the 21^st Century.

From the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—With the Massachusetts Senate seat unexpectedly in play, Democrats are weighing alternative scenarios for passing a health bill without their filibuster-proof majority.

Congressional Democrats and the White House have rapidly stepped up the pace of negotiations on a final bill in the last 48 hours as polls showed a tightening race in Tuesday’s special election.

But Senate leaders need every one of the 60 votes they can call on—including two independents—to pass the bill. A Republican victory in Tuesday’s special Senate election would deprive them of that margin.

It’s also possible that vulnerable Democrats could bolt after a defeat, leaving more votes to make up. Even a narrow victory for Democratic contender Martha Coakley—in one of the nation’s bluest states—could unnerve fellow party members.

Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Democratic leadership circle in the House, acknowledged Friday the Massachusetts race would “complicate things if we lose.”

While we’ve known for awhile what was at stake with this special election, it’s disgusting to see what “nuclear options” are being proposed and considered by the various Democrat caucuses.

So far, four options have come to light: Move Quickly, Pass the Senate Bill, Use Reconciliation, or simply Give Up.

This obviously poses a challenge for the Democrats.

Should Scott Brown win, they’re going to have to select one of the four options mentioned above if they want to get their health care bill passed. Unfortunately for them, no matter which option they go with (other than waiting it out and hoping for a miracle), the current Democrat majority is going to lose a huge chunk of their base, those who lean more towards identifying themselves as conservative or moderate Democrats.

Not only will the Democrats lose popularity amongst there base, but they’ll also lose a significant amount of political capital, which is essential during an election year.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, they’ve set up a legislative agenda that will fracture them even more should they not maintain a safe number of reliable votes. After all, this Congress still hasn’t been able to come up with a cap and trade policy that is popular with the American electorate.

Luckily for the GOP, if the Democrats aren’t able to hold Ted Kennedy’s seat, and their filibuster-proof majority, I think it’s safe to say that the Dem’s are going to into a tailspin between now and November, essentially writing their own attack ads, paving the way for a Republican victory.

Credit Where Credit Is Due

For those who don’t know, I rarely agree with our erstwhile savior on much of anything. I have been known to call him silly names like “Dear One,” ” Messiah” and other such veiled epithets. However, one cannot be critical of somebody’s policies, without sometimes admitting that, on occasion, the person in question actually did something well. To do otherwise would be nothing more than demonstrating what a snickering baboon one is (Rush).

So it came to pass that Barack Obama gave a pretty decent speech on the occasion of his acceptance of a Nobel Peace Prize awarded for what one presumes is possible future action. Much printer ink has been spilt on the vagaries of how such an unaccomplished man (at least at the point he was nominated in late January) won such a prestigious honor and I am not going to rehash it here. Rather, in focusing on Obama’s remarks we see a man that actually admits the necessity for war. Obama, waxing on the imperfections of man, states that in some instances, it behooves the good people of the Earth to destroy those forces of evil that seek to enslave and terrorize the innocent. Needless to say, it was a welcome change of pace from his continual bashing of the US insofar as he also recognized the need for the US to step in and fight evil from time to time (presumably when it is not tyrannizing Native Americans and African Americans).

Obama further counseled that the US must use its great power wisely, and that though we do have the power to obliterate, we should guard against such wanton use of power ensconced in blatant moral chauvinism. We are not always right, and I suppose we shouldn’t always act as if our proverbial shit doesn’t stink.

As leaders of the free world, it is incumbent upon us to actually walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Why on Earth the Bush administration never fully disavowed torture is beyond me. It is common sense that leaders set an example. Why should others follow us when we can’t even forgo a practice that is abhorrent, vile and mostly ineffective? Even from a RealPolitik standpoint it is much wiser to assert a no-torture policy and lie about it than spend years denying water-boarding is torture (it is).

So what does this all mean? Has Obama actually turned the corner and come down from the heights of cloud cuckoo land? Or should we take the more cynical approach and snidely remark that he was simply trying to throw starch into his poorly received, and defeatist speech given at West Point? Who really knows at present.

So, like Josey Wales, our beloved Dear One gave the world our words of life and our words of death. But will those words, like his vacuous promises of Hope and Change, ring hollow by his lack of action?

Coverage from the Code Red Rally

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to make it to the ‘Code Red Rally’ in Washington, DC today, however I have been following it closely. To help anyone looking for coverage of the event, I’ve put together a small archive of some of the coverage received. If you come across something that I’m missing, simply leave a link in the comments section and I’ll add it as soon as possible.

Links:

Politico: Tea Partiers rally: ‘Kill the bill’

Dakota Voice: Code Red Rally Today Against Gov’t Health Care

The Washington Independent: Nervous About Health Care, Tea Parties Look to 2010

Christian News Wire: Concerned Women for America Joins ‘Code Red’ Rally on Capitol Hill

Courthouse News Service: Right Wingers Dress in Red to Protest Bill

CNN Political Ticker: Dean: Time to ‘kill the Senate bill’

CBS News: Conservatives Rally to “Kill the Bill”

CNN Political Ticker: Conservative ‘Code Red rally’ hits the Hill

The Hill: Tea Party supporters, conservative groups rally outside Capitol

Video Coverage:

(more…)

What Is In a Word: Obama and the V-Word

One of my favorite heroes of the Second World War was Winston Churchill. Any British school child could tell you that Churchill faced the nearly impossible task of keeping the morale of his people high in a time of great privation. England alone stood against Germany and was rewarded by daily and nightly air raids. Everywhere he went the often grumpy, embattled, and always witty (and not sober) Prime Minister gave hope to his battered and bombed-out people by the mere act of holding up his right hand, palm out, index and middle fingers spread apart signifying a V; a V for Victory. This simple act bespoke a truth that every war-weary Brit knew to his core. Ole Winnie would never, ever, settle for anything less than total Victory over a hated and tyrannical foe. Churchill’s simple act of defiance against the all-powerful field-grey legions of Hitler’s Wehrmacht gave reason for the conquered peoples of Europe to continue the fight against the Nazi invader. Resistance groups across the Continent splashed alley walls and city squares with giant painted Vs. V became more than a letter, it became a promise that one day Europe would once again breathe the fresh air of freedom that an Allied Victory would bring.

Flash forward more than 60 years later. America finds itself at war with a foe just as tyrannical and vile as the Nazis. Like the generation that has been labeled the “greatest,” the youth of today have also sent many of their best and brightest to fight in the wastes of Iraq and the forbidding mountains of Afghanistan. Like our illustrious predecessors, we too have endured death and lamented the loss of many brilliant, beautiful and promising young lives. But unlike the struggle 60 years hence, America is divided in its counsel, and, I dare say, not committed to Victory; an omission that clouds the sacrifice of those who have fallen. Nothing manifests this truly tragic state of affairs than the actions of our putative Commander-in-Chief.

In his speech at West Point, President Obama promised to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan by 30,000. He spoke at great length of the necessity of increasing the strength of the Afghan Army as well as holding Pakistan accountable for its lapses in judgment where the Taliban is concerned. Obama further outlined his disastrous decision to impose an impossible timeline for withdrawal of said US troops in what can only be considered an abject admission of the US’ lack of interest and commitment toward a successful conclusion to the fight in Afghanistan. Finally, Obama failed to mention, in his 4300 plus words, one: Victory.

Why is Victory important? How is it that a single word can change the entire complexion of a war involving hundreds of thousands? It is quite simple. Victory is a commitment to win. Victory is a covenant to put tyranny in its place. Victory gives comfort to those who have lost their loved ones and validates the ultimate sacrifice that so many willingly undertook. Victory sends a message to our friends and foes alike that we are in the fight to the end and that we will stop at nothing. Anything less is a stab in the back of those in the armed forces fighting, and dying, to bring this war to a successful conclusion.

One marvels at the absurdity of a war-time president that is not committed to Victory. After all, who gets in a fight to lose? No doubt defenders of the President will be quick to point out that he did not get us into Afghanistan, nor did he mismanage the war prior to his election in 2008. What those people fail to realize is that it IS Obama’s responsibility to finish the fight and to secure a successful, and Victorious conclusion. As the Dear One pointed out in his historic run for president, “Afghanistan is a war of necessity.” I would think, by implication, that wars of “necessity” should generally be wars that are won and not cast aside when they become politically inconvenient (say, for example, in late 2011 prior to his re-election bid…).

Can real Victory be achieved in Afghanistan? Certainly “winning” in the Kush is not the signing of a surrender document on the deck of a battleship, nor is it a negotiated armistice in Paris. In the War on Terror there are no armies to crush or a capital to take. As such, we need to s trive for a species of Victory. What we can expect is an Afghanistan where the people are allowed to choose their destinies without the interference of tyrants and where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are broken, discredited and irrelevant entities. Any species of Victory is far more preferable to no Victory at all.

So on one hand we have a leader who despises the word Victory and on the other the man who imposes a ludicrous timeline on a surge to nowhere. Are these the actions of a man, and a government, that is committed to winning? Or are they the actions of a man attempting to placate both the anti-war wing of his party and those who still believe that the US must, by necessity, win this war?

What contempt does history have for those peoples who deign to defend themselves? What disdain will future generations of Americans have for us when they read our chapter in their history books? Those who fight wars to lose, by implication abdicating all responsibility of their own defense, deserve to be relegated to the scrap heap of history.

In the end it boils down to a single word. Some, mostly those who have never sacrificed one iota for this nation, dismiss Obama’s glaring omission by claiming that the word Victory in itself is unimportant, nothing more than a jingoistic expression of the prior imperialistic and chauvinistic administration. I think Winston Churchill and hundreds of millions of free people in Europe, to say nothing of posterity, would humbly and forcefully disagree.

Video: UPS vs. FEDEX: Ultimate Whiteboard Remix

Here is a great video from the creative geniuses at Reason TV.

You may have heard the UPS is in quite the political fight with FEDEX. Though both are package-delivery companies, they’re governed by totally different federal labor rules. As a result, UPS’s workforce is much more heavily unionized than FEDEX’s—and more than twice as expensive.

So now UPS is trying to get FEDEX reclassified under federal law as a way of screwing a competitor. That’s horrendous, but it also makes a sick kind of business sense. And it also reveals the real villain: A government that is big enough to absolutely, positively guarantee it can screw any business. Overnight.

“UPS Vs. FEDEX” was produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie (who also hosts). Approximately two minutes long.

This video is based on “Using Unions as Weapons,” by Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy, which appeared in the October 2009 print edition of Reason. Read that article at http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/28…

For downloadable version of this and all other Reason.tv videos go to http://reason.tv