Lots of news

How bleak is it for the Democrats?



The election is over and it was a disaster for the Democrats, but it appears that was just the beginning.  The disasters keep coming.

Obamaism was repudiated in the midterm election. NOT SINCE 1938 HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LOST SO MANY HOUSE SEATS. THE LOSSES OF STATE LEGISLATURES AND GOVERNORSHIPS WERE AS BLEAK FOR LIBERALS. Obama’s frantic campaigning in the last two weeks before the election did little to stop the tide, but did much to remind the country how easily the president reverts to a natural partisanship and divisiveness. NANCY PELOSI’S PROMISE TO “DRAIN THE SWAMP” of congressional corruption ended four years later with a DISGRACED CHARLES RANGEL OFFERING UP THE MAGNA CARTA AS A DEFENSE OF HIS ETHICS VIOLATIONS. The congressional elections of 2012 could be just as depressing for liberals, given the greater exposure of Democratic incumbents. GEORGE W. BUSH NOW POLLS ROUGHLY EVEN IN APPROVAL RATINGS WITH BARACK OBAMA, who has neither the political experience nor the ideological deftness of a Bill Clinton to triangulate and reinvent himself as a moderate.

For Obama to continue pressing his agenda would further the ongoing destruction of the Democratic party in 2012. However, there are some reasons to believe that he may well instead prefer to vote present, as in his Illinois past, and thereby stave off catastrophe. Why?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253453/voting-present-beats-losing-victor-davis-hanson


And speaking of the Magna Carta

Krauthammer on Charlie Rangel:

WHEN YOU HAVE TO APPEAL TO THE MAGNA CARTA, YOU’RE OFFICIALLY PATHETIC. His defense is that he couldn’t afford a lawyer. What is he — indigent? He‘s got a villa in the Dominican Republic.

IT’S NOT THAT HE DOESN’T HAVE COUNSEL — HE DOESN’T HAVE A DEFENSE…. The committee was unanimous on the facts. The only issue now is going to be the level of punishment. He’s not going be expelled, he’ll probably get a reprimand. Why he didn’t settle all this months ago, I don’t know. But obviously he thought he might run out the clock or dodge it in some way.

But it really is a sort of a sad footnote on a great, iconic political career.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253501/krauthammers-take-nro-staff



Hope over Experience, part two

And the quotes below are what her friends say.

History will record that Nancy Pelosi won her bid to remain House Democratic leader by a comfortable margin. But nobody who heard Democratic lawmakers going in and out of the Cannon Caucus Room on Wednesday could call it a victory.

"THE TRUTH IS THAT NANCY PELOSI'S SEASON HAS PASSED," said Rep. Allen Boyd (Fla.), one of more than 60 Democrats who lost their seats on Election Day. "And SHE IS THE FACE OF DEFEAT."

"When you have taken the largest losses of any majority in my lifetime," said Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.), who led an effort to postpone a vote on Pelosi's leadership bid, it's "time for reflection to better understand the reason for those losses."

And Rep. Bill Pascrell (N.J.), who called himself "one of Nancy Pelosi's closest friends here in the Congress," said that by holding Wednesday's vote to keep Pelosi as leader, Democrats "MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO SEND A SIGNAL TO AMERICA THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED THIS PAST ELECTION."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/17/AR2010111706165.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


Meanwhile the voters feel positive about the election

And while the Democrats fiddle (and elect Nancy Pelosi as their leader in the House), the American public understands what happened.

Two weeks after the midterm elections, AMERICANS ARE LARGELY FEELING POSITIVE ABOUT THE OUTCOME – but less optimistic than they felt after the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, the latest WSJ/NBC News poll shows.

The new poll, which will be released in full this evening, shows THAT 61% OF AMERICANS FEEL VERY POSITIVE OR SOMEWHAT POSITIVE FOR THE COUNTRY AS A RESULT OF THE ELECTIONS, WHILE 33% FEEL SOMEWHAT OR VERY NEGATIVE. When voters were asked a similar question after the historic 1994 election, 69% said they felt positive while 23% had negative feelings.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/17/wsjnbc-poll-americans-feel-positive-about-elections/


TSA--Another government solution that doesn’t work

But the value of the full-body scans, which are used 50 times more often than the pat-downs, are less certain.

“IT REMAINS UNCLEAR WHETHER THE AIT [SCANNERS] WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DETECT THE WEAPON MR. ABDULMUTALLAB USED IN HIS ATTEMPTED ATTACK,” says a March report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

ITALIAN SECURITY OFFICIALS STOPPED USING THE SCANNERS IN SEPTEMBER. "We didn't get good results from body scanners during testing,” said Vito Riggio, the president of Italy’s aviation authority, describing the scans as slow and ineffective.

BRITISH SCIENTISTS FOUND THAT THE SCANNERS picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but MISSED PLASTIC, CHEMICALS AND LIQUIDS, reported UK newspaper The Independent in January.

“Some of these technological responses to terrorism really START TO SEEM LIKE PLACEBOS,” says Susan Herman, President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and law professor at Brooklyn Law School. “To the extent that people understand what the benefits are, and the invasion of privacies are, they can make more informed decisions about giving up their privacy for machines that make them feel better, but don’t do the job of preventing any terrorist device from getting on an airplane.”

Professor Herman says the scanners present a significant threat to privacy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20101117/ts_csm/344044


TSA needs to profile

Here’s an article which shows us the other way to look for terrorists threats

As I’ve frequently noted in my Airport Security Newsletter, intrusive screening of everyone is inherent in the TSA’s current approach to airport security, which treats all air travelers as equally likely to be a terrorist threat. The only feasible way to remove body-scanning (or the intrusive pat-down alternative) as standard procedure is to CHANGE TSA’S SCREENING MODEL TO ONE THAT IS RISK-BASED. In practice, that would mean separating air travelers (other than those on the No-Fly list, who are automatically denied passage) into three basic groups:

1. TRUSTED TRAVELERS, who have passed a background check and are issued a biometric ID card that proves (when they arrive at the security checkpoint) that they are the person who was cleared.

2. HIGH-RISK TRAVELERS, either those about whom no information is known or who are flagged by the various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intelligence lists as warranting “Selectee” status. They would be the only ones facing body-scanners or pat-downs as mandatory, routine screening.

3. ORDINARY TRAVELERS—basically everyone else, who would go through metal detector and put carry-ons through 2-D X-ray machines. They would not have to remove shoes or jackets, and could travel with liquids. A small fraction of this group would be subject to random “Selectee”-type screening.

This type of risk-based screening WOULD FOCUS TSA RESOURCES ON THE TRAVELERS THAT SHOULD RECEIVE THE MOST SCRUTINY BY REDUCING THE USE OF RESOURCES ON LOW-RISK TRAVELERS. It would also save considerable sums of taxpayer dollars, reducing screener payroll and equipment costs - no more body scanners would be purchased since TSA already owns enough to use only for the secondary screening needed for the above program.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/17/tsa-needs-a-risk-based-approac



Sanford Airport to opt out of TSA screening

Janet Napolitano is getting a lesson: TREAT CUSTOMERS UNREASONABLY AND THEY WILL LEAVE. Airport operators do not have to use TSA to screen passengers, and the first airport has already ANNOUNCED IT WILL USE ONE OF THE FIVE PRIVATE SCREENING FIRMS ALREADY APPROVED TO OFFER SECURITY SCREENING FOR AIR TRAVELERS.

Unsurprisingly, the move comes from a scrappy underdog airport which competes with a larger, more famous facility: ORLANDO SANFORD AIRPORT, WHICH IS MUCH SMALLER AND FARTHER FROM THE DISNEY/UNIVERSAL STUDIOS ATTRACTIONS THAN THE BETTER-KNOWN ORLANDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. Sanford is a focus airport for low cost carrier Allegiant (which offers service mostly to smaller markets), but has scheduled international service by Icelandic Airlines, as well as frequent charter service by British airlines such as Monarch and Thomas Cook, which specialize in package tours. It is owned by British firm, which also operates airports in the UK (such as Luton Airport, outside London -- another secondary field), and offers lower landing fees than Orlando International Airport.

IF ALL GOES AS PLANNED, THE PRIVATE SECURITY FIRM COULD TAKE OVER IN ABOUT 12 MONTHS.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/firing_the_tsa.html


Is this the first among many? I certainly hope so.



Obamacare—the latest polls from Rasmussen

This is good news for those opposed to it and bad news for the Administration.

The newest RASMUSSEN POLL OF LIKELY VOTERS shows that Americans FAVOR REPEAL OF OBAMACARE BY A MARGIN OF 21 POINTS (58 to 37 percent), while independents -- who swept Republicans into office two weeks ago -- favor repeal by almost 2 to 1 (62 to 33 percent).

By a margin of MORE THAN 5 TO 1 (68 TO 12 PERCENT), INDEPENDENTS THINK OBAMACARE WOULD CAUSE DEFICITS TO RISE, NOT FALL. Also by a margin of more than 5 to 1 (57 to 11 percent), independents think IT WOULD MAKE THE QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE WORSE, NOT BETTER. And by a MARGIN OF MORE THAN 8 TO 1 (68 TO 8 PERCENT), INDEPENDENTS THINK IT WOULD MAKE THE COST OF HEALTH CARE GO UP, NOT DOWN.
When only 8 percent -- 8 percent! -- of independents think your health care overhaul would do the one thing you most repeatedly promised it would do -- lower costs -- that's not a good sign. (Weekly Standard)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/21-points-americans-want-repeal_518074.html



Mama boys in Europe


Here’s a quick article talking about the debt of different European countries and the PERCENTAGE OF MEN 25 TO 34 WHO STILL LIVE WITH THE PARENTS. I’m not sure exactly what it means, but the graph at the bottom showing this percentage was unbelievable.



http://www.businessinsider.com/cds-versus-men-living-at-home-2010-11




Finally some good news



A pioneering lighting system that kills the superbugs breeding in hospitals has been developed by researchers at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. The LED technology, which can be used with or instead of conventional lighting, decontaminates the air and exposed surfaces by bathing them in a narrow spectrum of visible-light wavelengths, known as HINS-light.

Two years of clinical trials just completed at Glasgow Royal Infirmary show the high-intensity light is effective against some of the most virulent pathogens found in hospitals and nursing homes, such as meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA, and Clostridium difficile.

The clinical trials have shown that the HINS-light Environmental Decontamination System provides around 60 percent greater reductions of bacterial pathogens in the hospital environment than are achieved by cleaning and disinfection alone.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2010/2010-11-16-02.html