| Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page |
|
July 12, 2007 |
|
|
 |
|
Story #1: Bogus Company Gets Radioactives License
RUSH: In case you missed the story, here it is. "Congressional investigators set up a bogus company with only a post box and within a month obtained a license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that allowed them to buy enough radioactive material for a small 'dirty bomb.' U.S. Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican, who planned to ask the NRC about the incident at a Senate hearing Thursday, said the sting operation raises concerns about terrorists obtaining such material just as easily. Nobody at the NRC checked whether the company was legitimate and an agency official even helped the investigators fill out the application form, Coleman said in an interview Wednesday. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission acknowledged more checking is needed in such licensing and said since being told of the GAO sting operation it has tightened licensing procedures."
Oh! Heh-heh! I'll tell you what -- this is another testament to the inefficiencies of bloated government agencies and so forth. Yes, Mr. Snerdley? "What are the tightened procedures?" That's a good question. What are they? Prove it. "Yeah, we tighten procedures." Well, what are you doing? Is there a six-month waiting period before you can get licensed to go radioactive on us? You ask for their last names? Ha! That's a good one. I'm sure they asked for their last names.
 Story #2: Roger Ailes Pops Up in New Nixon Tapes
RUSH: They've released some more Nixon tapes, and it's amazing to me to go through the excerpts. Nixon was a firebrand. He wanted to bury these Democrats, and he was mad because the Republicans were too polite. Ha! You read these things, and you realize there isn't much that's changed. There really isn't in the way the press treats Republicans, the way Republicans react to it and deal with it or don't deal with it. And there's an excerpt from my friend Roger Ailes, who is the CEO of Fox News Channel, and apparently Nixon was somewhere walking a rope line. It was a public reception or something, and Ailes was watching it on TV and flashed off a memo to Haldeman. He said, "Hey, you gotta get him to pay more attention to his wife. A couple of times he just left her stranded out there on the rope line." Ha, ha! An updated version of that memo today would be: "Make sure you get some interns on that rope line so your wife won't even be with you on the rope line."
Story #3: "Targeted" Fat Tax Perfect Example of Liberalism
RUSH: Reuters story, ladies and gentlemen: "'Fat Tax' Could Save 3,200 Lives a Year," and in the story: "A well-designed and carefully-targeted fat tax..." Have you ever seen a well-designed, carefully targeted tax of any kind that worked? I mean, this story is a perfect illustration of the way liberals and socialists do everything they can to try to control as much of our lives as possible. And right now this is just London, but you know the fat tax has been proposed here, too.
"A 'fat tax' on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published [today]. Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes. The purchase tax is already levied on a small number of products such as potato crisps, ice cream, confectionery and chocolate biscuits, but most food is exempt," from the VAT. "The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 'A well-designed and carefully-targeted fat tax could be a useful tool for reducing the burden of food-related disease,' the study concluded." See that? "Food-related disease." The salt and sugar in fatty foods are all natural substances found on earth -- just, by the way, as is oil. However, they said their research only gave a rough guide to the number of lives that could be saved," of course! No, we wouldn't want you to get specific because then you could be tied to it, "and said more work was needed to get an exact picture of how taxes could improve public health." This is like how they operate, folks.
Can I ask your question? Who would be hurt most by an increase in the fat tax? Who would be hurt most? Just take a wild guess. The poor, and women, and minorities! It's a formula. I don't care what the story is: women and minorities are hardest hit, and here it is in this story. "Any 'fat tax' might be seen as an attack on personal freedom and would weigh more heavily on poorer families, the study warned." This is right off the script for these socialists, folks. The tax is in keeping with the idea that these fat people cost socialized health care systems more money, and they're dying, and plus we're having to spend so much money on them before they die.
So what happens is first government takes over a private market function, which is you feeding yourself. Then as costs of that function skyrocket because it's offered for free by compassionate socialists, they have to find ways to cut costs after they make a boondoggle out of their own program. But since they don't know the role of prices in free markets, they can't let prices adjust accordingly and make individuals choose the better uses of the product. They have to find other ways of going about it. They just aren't going to trust you to make the right decision for yourselves. You are incompetent. You are incapable. You are eating the wrong things now, and you are going to keep eating the wrong things, and they're going to tax you to get you to stop eating the wrong things. So they're going to do this, they're going to totally mess up the whole concept of market prices. And when that happens, it's not just these three areas -- salty, sugary, and fatty foods -- that are going to be affected. It's the unintended consequences of things that they never ponder.
Story #4: Not Nice: Illegals Bear Brunt of Housing Slump
RUSH: Try this story: "It's a mystery that has Wall Street debating such terms as birth, death and illegal immigration: Why haven't more U.S. construction jobs vanished in the wake of the housing market meltdown? Much of the attention has focused on complex forecasting models and polls that the government uses to track employment, but some economists say undocumented workers," illegal aliens, "are quietly bearing the brunt of the layoffs in the building sector." Oh, no! Illegals are bearing the brunt of the slowdown in the housing market! It's unfair. Americans should be suffering, my friends! This is not fair. We are so mean. We're just not nice.
Story #5: Novak: War Support Helps McCain with GOP
RUSH: A couple of days ago I talked about Senator McCain and the problems he's having in his campaign, how the Drive-By Media is out there saying, "No, his problem here is he supported the war, the troop buildup. He's too closely identified with George W. Bush." We were all just incredulous here; how can they miss this? The blinders that these people in the Drive-By Media are wearing... and they all do. It's amazing, the groupthink.
Anyway, we went through the list of things that harmed McCain, starting with McCain-Feingold, Gang of 14, the fact that he was against tax cuts. Immigration, he was on the wrong side of that, putting his arms around Ted Kennedy and so forth. I mean, those are the things. He was never the front-runner in the first place. He was just a Drive-By Media darling from the bus tour back in 2000, the Straight Talk Express. And I have here a story from the Chicago Sun Times. It's by Robert Novak, in fact. "Staff Shakeup Gives Fading McCain a Chance." We go to the end of the piece. "McCain's slimmed-down campaign will concentrate on early contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina... [the new campaign guy] is far more adept than [the old campaign guy] at singing McCain's praises." Now, listen to this: "McCain supporters hope his eloquent support for the Iraq intervention will earn him backing from the Republican base." Now, this is in a Drive-By paper, but it's not the Drive-By Media. This is Robert Novak. So once again: Rush is right. "McCain supporters hope his eloquent support" of the war will revive and resuscitate his campaign.
Story #6: Sheltering Children from Scorching Summer
RUSH: This is from the Raleigh News and Observer. "Schools Want Sun Shelters for Hot Kids -- Principals of at least eight year-round Wake County schools, worried about how schoolchildren will cope with scorching summer heat, want to raise thousands of dollars to erect large canopies and shelters over playgrounds. A handful of Wake schools have the shelters, which are more common in places such as Las Vegas. At least one has erected a 40-foot-by-60-foot shelter that covers the entire playground at a cost of $25,000. Even less extravagant shelters can still cost $7,500." You know what's surprising to me about this? I didn't think they let kids outside anymore. I thought they canceled recess. Kids can't play tag, can't play dodge ball. Now they're letting them outside? That means they'll be subjecting them to all kinds of scorching temperatures in the summer, global warming, and, of course, cancer and melanoma.
Story #7: Pittsburgh Drops "Public" from Public Schools
RUSH: "In Pittsburgh, the schools there "will drop 'public' from its name and adopt a new, standardized way of referring to its schools as part of a campaign to brighten and strengthen the district's image. For example, Schenley High School will be called Pittsburgh Schenley. Superintendent Mark Roosevelt's staff unveiled the policy at a school board Education Committee meeting last night. Under the policy, the district simply will call itself the 'Pittsburgh Schools.' The district's logo -- a pattern of circles, triangles and squares -- will still be used. ... By dropping 'public' from its name, Randall Taylor said, the district might be able to avoid the negative attitude often associated with public schools."
Let me tell you people in Pittsburgh something. It has nothing to do with what you call it! Gee! It's called results! You just have to marvel at bureaucrats in the way they tackle a problem -- they don't fix the problem. They fix a name -- that may get rid of the bad image -- but it doesn't fix the problem. Now don't get mad at me -- I love Pittsburgh. I lived there for four or five years in the early seventies. It's just that bureaucrats are bureaucrats. Democrats are Democrats. Liberals are liberals. They never fix the problem, they just try to change the image. You know, "How can we fool 'em today?"
Story #8: Kerry's Firefighter Union Pals Attack Rudy
RUSH: Here's this Rudy and the firefighters story. This is fascinating. The International Association of Firefighters yesterday afternoon in New York "released a video full of angry testimony belittling Rudy Giuliani's support of New York City firefighters." They're mad as hell, claiming Rudy is running around claiming he was a big leader and pulling everything together after 9/11, and he didn't do diddly-squat. Firefighters died, Rudy didn't care, blah, blah, blah. So this is being compared to the swift-boat attack. The news on this is portraying the Giuliani camp as seeking to avoid a Kerry-type mistake. Don't worry, media. There's no comparison between John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) and Rudy Giuliani, because Rudy is not a wuss. He's going to punch back at this.
You know what Kerry's problem was? What the swift boat guys were saying was true! I keep hearing all this, "He should've fought back." What was he going to say? Nobody has discredited anything the swift boat veterans said! The big problem is if somebody charges you with something and it's true, what are you going to do? You do what Kerry did: you try to ignore it. You don't elevate it so that it gets any more attention. The problem is the swift boat guys kept running the ads, and the Drive-By Media asked, "When are you going to fight back?" Kerry was saying, "When are you going to defend me? I shouldn't have to fight back. You Drive-Bys are on my side. When are you going to attack the swift boat guys?" Then the Drive-Bys, "Okay, we will."
So they tried to attack the swift boat guys, and the swift boat guys were undaunted. They were undeterred. They had the facts on their side. It's amazing what you can do when you have the facts, when you have the truth, and when the people you're talking about know it and can't refute it. All they can do is say, "This is out of place in American politics! Why, this is hitting below the belt. Why, this is unkind. This is just uncalled for," blah, blah, blah, blah. That's all you can do, and then you're kind of toast.
And speaking of the International Association of Firefighters, guess who was their candidate in 2004? Ah, John Kerry (who served in Vietnam). They were all over the Kerry campaign in '04. "The IAFF backed Kerry in 2004, helping salvage a listing campaign in the primaries. IAFF President Harold Schaitberger was a constant fixture behind Kerry as he took the stage in Iowa, New Hampshire and other arenas to claim victory on his way to winning the nomination.... The first blow from Team Giuliani came in a release mocking the union as the 'International Association of Partisan Politics' and showing pictures of Schaitberger standing with Kerry. The campaign pointed out that the IAFF has supported Democratic presidential candidates since 1988. Giuliani's campaign also pointed out that Schaitberger has held a number of roles in Democratic organizations and has contributed financially only to Democratic candidates."
Don't forget the firefighters that called here. Remember the firefighters that booed Mrs. Clinton? This is another one of these union things, where the leadership's coming out and saying, "Firefighters hate Rudy. Firefighters think Rudy is a phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock 'n' roller." The rank-and-file doesn't all think that, but the leadership does. So Rudy's fighting back. It's not going to be anywhere near the swift-boat thing because Rudy can fight back with facts and figures.
Story #9: Most Working Moms Don't Want Full-Time Jobs
RUSH: This one interested me: "A new survey finds that 60% of working mothers do not want a fulltime job." Say what? Sixty percent of working mothers don't want a full-time job? Why, this is not good news for the feminists. This is horrible news. "An increasing portion of America's working moms say their ideal situation would include a part-time job rather than working fulltime or staying at home." It's a Pew Research Center survey being released today, "and 21% of working mothers with children younger than 18 viewed full-time work as the best arrangement, but that's down from 32% in 1977." That's a huge plummet. "Sixty percent of the working mothers said a part-time job would be best, up from 48% ten years ago; 19% said not working at all would be ideal, roughly the same as in 1997. Cary Funk, a Pew researcher on the survey, said, 'The trend reflected women's latest thoughts on the ideal arrangement for their children. It's an expression of the difficulties of combining responsibilities of work and home.' Only 16% of stay-at-home mothers..."
There's a big shift in their thoughts, too. "Only 16% of stay-at-home mothers said their ideal situation would be to work fulltime outside the home, down from 24% in 1997." Well, feminists are taking it here in the shor -- on the chin. Phew! The problem could be solved with abortions, but they're not having abortions anymore, not nearly as many. If they were we wouldn't have the problem of having the children determine how your day can best be spent.
|
|
|
|
|
| *Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time. |
|
|
