Flights are being delayed at major airports across the country as the “Sequest Cuts” begin to bite.
Or is that really the truth?
These “cuts” have been known for nearly 2 years. And the major airports are furloughing controllers at the same rate as the smaller airports are.
Does that strategy make sense for you if the purpose is to inconvenience the paying passenger as little as possible?
The airlines have sued the FAA to halt the cuts:
But the airlines said that step is “based on a false legal premise — that Congress has required the precise cuts that (the FAA has) ordered. However, the Budget Control Act does nothing of the sort,” the airlines argued in court papers.
The agency could cut elsewhere and spare the traveling public the acute pain it will feel when controllers stay home, the carriers said.
But the Obama administration would want these cuts to inconvenience as many people as possible. They’d want the airlines to be financially wounded as much as possible.
It’s a type of guerilla warfare.
Anger the public to stir them up against the “evil” Republicans and to try and prove the meme of “you didn’t build this.” Hurt the airlines as much as possible so they will exert pressure on Republicans.
Clearly these furloughs are being conducted in the most customer unfriendly way possible.
It’s pure politics and its hurting the economy by preventing goods and people from moving around, its damaging airlines who employ people, and it’s dividing instead of uniting people.
       
|
Capitol Commentary’s Daily News
Normally, ObamaNation appears in this weekend space but today it’s time for something serious.
Writing about politics is oftentimes no different than writing a gossip column. Sure, we’re not interested in Tom Cruise’s divorce or Kelly Osbourne having a seizure but isn’t it gossipy to write about how President Obama invited some Republicans to have dinner with him without their leadership being present or how he golfed with Tiger Woods?
To be conversant in the goings on in Washington (and the world) a person needs to keep up on events and who the players are and what the issues are.
It takes time, of course, to “keep up” but, more importantly, the specific events about which we write are highly temporal.
Discussing whether free trade can lift up peoples is timeless but talking about the Sequester “cuts” will be old news in a month.
So, the question becomes for political (and gossip) writers is this: How fulfilling is it to write about such temporal topics?
Last week I saw Leonard Cohen play in Oakland, CA. I saw him last November as well.
I was extremely lucky to have seen this artist and poet perform. Twice.
Mr. Cohen has so many magnificent songs but one is particularly moving. It’s taken from a Jewish poem/prayer called the Unetanah Tokef and his song is titled “Who by Fire.”
Here is the song:
And who by fire, who by water,
Who in the sunshine, who in the night time,
Who by high ordeal, who by common trial,
Who in your merry merry month of may,
Who by very slow decay,
And who shall I say is calling?
And who in her lonely slip, who by barbiturate,
Who in these realms of love, who by something blunt,
And who by avalanche, who by powder,
Who for his greed, who for his hunger,
And who shall I say is calling?
And who by brave assent, who by accident,
Who in solitude, who in this mirror,
Who by his lady’s command, who by his own hand,
Who in mortal chains, who in power,
And who shall I say is calling?
The song needs no explanation in that we’re all going to die one day… it’s simply a matter of how.
Refering back to the Unetanah Tokef we read:
A man’s origin is from dust and his destiny is back to dust, at risk of his life he earns his bread; he is likened to a broken shard, withering grass, a fading flower, a passing shade, a dissipating cloud, a blowing wind, flying dust, and a fleeting dream.
That is what man is made of or, in Christian terms, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
We are temporal in the same way as the politics about which we write is, too.
And this is the frustrating thing because I have been asking myself why am I spending my time writing about this topics that have such a limited shelf life?
If you write about politics perhaps reflect upon your goals and desires and if you read about politics don’t forget that, as that song goes, all we are is dust in the wind.
Spend a few minutes listening to this beautiful song:
|
|
Capitol Commentary’s Daily News
Hollywood is Liberal. We have ample evidence of the bias we find whether it is actors or actresses, directors, or even writers. Only a handful of “stars” can be considered Conservative. Two who come to mind are Bruce Willis and John Voight. The rest are either silent or Liberal. The Oscars program from Sunday night is yet another example of politics in Hollywood… Michelle Obama helped to present the Oscar for Best Picture (a movie falsely praising Jimmy Carter won).
Meanwhile movies like 2016 (a Conservative take on Barack Obama) are ignored by the media (highest grossing documentary for 2012).
Why would Hollywood intentionally upset 50% of the population by playing politics at the Oscars?
Because Hollywood stars think they are better than the people in the “fly over” states.
They think their product is so good that they can act with impunity.
Ticket sales say otherwise.
There are a few blockbusters that are taking most of the money (the top 5 movies accounted for $ 2 billion in sales last year) but, overall, sales are down.
Many people are staying home and watching Netflix or cable but politics also enters into things.
According to a poll conducted by Penn Schoen Berland, “35 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Tea Partiers consider a celebrity’s political position before paying to see their films, compared with 20 percent of Democrats.”
And do a star’s political views impact upon ticket sales? Again, from the study:
For Republicans, 52 percent say they have avoided a movie because of the political views of its star. Among Democrats, it’s 36 percent.
There is almost a sneering disrespect present when Hollywood gathers.
It’s bad politics, bad business, and Conservatives need to keep staying home in protest.
|
|
Capitol Commentary’s Daily News
The news of New York City teachers’ pension fund selling off its stock in gun manufacturing isn’t all that surprising — at least not as much as it should be. It should be surprising because most people don’t make their financial decisions based on politics. But you can’t assume that public school officials would make such rational decisions, can you?
New York isn’t the only place where public pension funds are being sacrificed for a political agenda. Cities like Chicago and Los Angeles have also forfeited profitable investments for politics, which really makes you wonder: What is the role of a pension manager — to make money for teachers’ retirement funds, or to use the heft of a public pension fund as a weapon to hurt political opponents?
Something tells me New York, Chicago and L.A. probably wouldn’t object to investing pension funds in failing alternative energy schemes which would lose money, but investing in profitable gun manufacturers… that’s apparently a no-go.
Update: The mismanagement of these worker pensions is even worse when you consider this:
Western New York (WKBW) School districts across the State are now trying to figure out how to pay a 37% increase for a mandated Teachers Retirement System.
“Could it be devastating? Very much so. It is one more expense,” said Jane Burcynski, Executive Director of the Erie County Association of School Boards.
Currently, school districts contribute at a rate of 11.84%.
For the 2013-2014 school year, the employer contribution rate will rise to 16.25%
The New York State Teachers Retirement System has 277,000 active members and 149,000 retired members
“The increase in the employer contribution rate is primarily due to lower investment returns as a result of the financial crisis and continued global economic volatility,” added Heidi Brennan, spokesperson for the State Teachers Retirement System.
The increased expense could cost local school districts millions of dollars, and force administrators to consider layoffs, consolidations, and school closures.
Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter
Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook
Read more stories from TheBlaze
California Police Chief: ‘A Gun Is Not a Defensive Weapon — That Is a Myth’
Filed under News | Comment (0)Unlike four years ago when he spoke in similar, lofty tones, now we have to interpret the speech in context of his actions, which sadly involve more polarization, division, attack politics, and class warfare than is healthy.
Filed under News | Comment (0)There’s no denying that the relationship between President Obama and Congress is on ice. Different theories on why have made media rounds since Obama took office: obstinate Republicans, uncompromising Democrats, an increasingly-polarized news media, racism, etc.
Here’s a new one from CBS News’s Major Garrett. He says it’s as simple as the guy who’s been elected and reelected to the highest office in the world not understanding how politics works:
Part of the problem is that Obama, by his own words and those of people who worked most closely with him, doesn’t devote much energy to congressional outreach. I’m not talking about mindless encounters at a White House picnic or Christmas party or a photo-op golf game with Boehner. …
The harder work is for a president to deal with lawmakers as they often are—petulant, small-minded, paranoid, needy, hyper-excitable about their ideas, and notoriously unaware of considerations outside their committees and prospects for reelection. Disliking these characteristics doesn’t make them go away.
The art of a deal in politics is not to win so much that you remain popular, but to win enough so that you remain popular while your opponent wins enough so that he or she remains popular, too. …
This insight appears to elude Obama.
Follow Eddie Scarry on Twitter
Read more stories from TheBlaze
President Calls for New Assault Weapons Ban, Universal Background Checks
Here Are the 23 ‘Executive Actions’ Obama Will Be Taking on Guns
Filed under News | Comment (0)Barack Obama has won a second term and the Congress remains divided just as it was before the election. The American people didn’t turn against the Republican party (they would have thrown them out of power in the House) even if they did turn away from its presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.
When I was a teenager I visited New Orleans and was given a few hours to wander around the French Quarter by myself (it was an exhilarating and terrifying opportunity). It was a weekday afternoon and I came upon a side street where, in progress, was what I later learned was a game of Three-card Monte.
The guy was hosting his game on an overturned trash can. There were a crowd of spectators watching with some cheering (more on this in a minute). I was perhaps 13 or 14 and was intrigued. The cards were bent in the middle and it seemed like someone was winning. I only had $ 30 or $ 40 in my pocket so I didn’t play, but the guy who was winning eventually started losing and left only to be replaced by a new guy.
Being a street smart, cautious person by nature, I figured it was a scam and left.
Wanna win big?
Looking back on that experience today it seems like it was such a cliché with the Three-card Monte and the shady looking “dealer” but people were falling for it and losing their money.
And remember those people “cheering” on the players? Standard practice, I learned later, was to have a person planted in the audience to offer support or, perhaps, to play a few games so as to encourage others to participate.
It’s all for show… a game of distraction and a carefully orchestrated show meant to sucker people in and rob them blind all without them putting up a fight.
The American people are witness to a game of Three-card Monte right now… today… it’s the spectacle of several Congressmen and women proposing bills to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights… it’s Vice President Joe Biden saying the nation’s president might use his Executive Order “authority” to do what Congress won’t:
The president is going to act. There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all.
And in a further irony, Attorney General Eric Holder, himself embroiled in a gun running program to Mexico, is going to help lead the fight against the 2nd Amendment:
Thus far, Holder and the Justice Department are staying quiet about what recommendations the attorney general might be making to the president as a member of the task force.
But gun-rights groups are suspicious of Holder’s involvement and fear he is pushing the White House toward tougher restrictions on gun ownership and increased penalties for illegal firearms.
So this is the battlefield.
What does it have to do with a game of Three-card Monte I witnessed in New Orleans so many years ago?
Because it’s about distraction.
The real emphasis is on raising taxes and spending.
Obama got healthcare “done” (at least part of it) during his first term… time to bump taxes up, grow the welfare state, and increase the size of Government.
Obama can’t win this argument if everybody is focusing on dollars and sense.
But if they’re… distracted… maybe slip something in..?
Obama has deployed governors, Congressmen and women, his Vice President, and a host of administration people to fan the flames… cheer the restrictions on just like the guy in the audience of a Three-card Monte game.
Then, while everybody’s tied up arguing about guns and murders and bans and Piers Morgan getting deported BAM! your taxes went up!
See how that works?
|
|
Capitol Commentary’s Daily News
If you can’t beat ‘em, demonize ‘em:
The negotiations offer little evidence November’s election brought the president and House Republicans closer together. If anything, the talks poisoned an already distrustful relationship.
Mr. Boehner could soon face a decision whether to call for a vote on some sort of plan that could avert the cliff’s spending cuts and tax increases but might imperil his position if he had to rely on Democrats to pass it.
Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.
At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $ 800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”
“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”
Can you feel the bipartisan love — the mutual respect and deep sense of responsibility necessary to solve this crisis? Yeah, me neither.
Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter
Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook
Read more stories from TheBlaze
Obama to Boehner: ‘You Get Nothing — I Get That for Free’
Did NBC’s David Gregory Violate D.C. Gun Law on National TV?
Cornel West on Conn. Massacre: People Only Talk About Gun Control When White People Get Shot
Watch Obama Mention Himself 63 Times in Just 100 Seconds — at Someone’s Funeral
NRA: ‘There’s a Media Machine That Wants to Blame Guns Every Time Something Happens’
Filed under News | Comment (0)First, NBC’s Luke Russert was booed and told that his question about the aging Democratic House leadership was “quite offensive” by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
At a separate press conference regarding Benghazi Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told a reporter he had asked “one of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard.”
And placing the bow on things was President Obama today during his first press conference since being reelected. Obama wrapped up taking questions when Bloomberg‘s Hans Nichols shouted out a question.
Here’s how the exchange went [from the White House transcript]:
Q: — spending side of the fiscal cliff. On spending, the $ 1.2 trillion trigger, is that something that you can see having a short-term component — because I remember you said it’s not happening –
THE PRESIDENT: That was a great question, but it would be a horrible precedent for me to answer your question just because you yelled it out. (Laughter.)
Follow Eddie Scarry on Twitter
Read more stories from TheBlaze
Here’s Why Glenn Beck Says to Stop All Those Secession Petitions: ‘Are You Out of Your Mind?’
Local Fox Anchor Apologizes for Calling MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow an ‘Angry Young Man’
Filed under News | Comment (0)An editorial in today’s Washington Post offered praise to both the left and right for abandoning politics ahead of Hurricane Sandy making landfall.
“The divisions that seemed so raw and apparent just a few days before — between red and blue, Republican and Democratic, liberal and conservative — didn’t seem so urgent with everyone looking into the eye of Hurricane Sandy,” the editorial said.”We trust that spirit will hold through the remainder of the storm — and what may be a difficult recovery afterward.”
That’s pleasant. But time on Cloud 9 was short lived.
Though New York and New Jersey were perhaps hit hardest by the hurricane, Mitt Romney held a “storm relief” event in swing-state Ohio. (Yes, it would have been disruptive for him to motorcade into a devastated area, but come on… Ohio.)
President Obama sent out an email via his campaign that said, “Soon enough we’ll need to get back to work on the most important campaign of our lifetime.” Thank God!
The New York Times published an editorial this morning headlined “A Big Storm Requires Big Government.” The piece said Romney wants to “eliminate” government-sponsored disaster relief. This editorial ran while many rescuers were working non-stop for 28 hours, as one said on CNN today.
And the headlines referencing the “perfect storm” for every nationally-recognized politician were everywhere (“Obama’s perfect storm,” “Chris Christie’s perfect storm.”)
Wishful thinking, Post. It was fun while it lasted.
Follow Eddie Scarry on Twitter
Read more stories from TheBlaze
‘The Stories Keep Changing’: President Stonewalls Morning Joe’s Libya Questions
Can the Police Take Your Gun(s) During a State of Emergency?
Father of SEAL Slain in Benghazi Attack Demands Answers as Grisly Details Emerge
AP: Here’s the Electoral Map as It Currently Stands (And It Favors Obama)
Filed under News | Comment (0)
