“Liberals Are Traitors”

From e-zine, No Apologies ($, but it might be available in audio at that site for no charge.) [h/t to Benny and Bessy]:

Bernard Goldberg’s latest book, “Crazies to the Left of me, Wimps to the Right,” ultimately lacks the courage to say what needs to be said: Liberals are traitors.



Goldberg’s basic thesis is that liberals have abandoned the core principles of men such as FDR and JFK, while the Republicans have lost their courage.



His assessment of Republicans is spot on.



Republicans are wimps. At least some of them are.



But on the other salient point he is wrong – fundamentally wrong. Liberals aren’t just “loony” or “stupid.” These are all adjectives he uses to describe the principal players in mainstream liberalism. And neither is liberalism just “becoming increasingly irrelevant,” as he asserts. I wish Goldberg were right about that. I wish liberalism were irrelevant – if that were true, we wouldn’t have to worry so much about what 2008 might have in store.



But liberalism’s problem is much more systemic then Goldberg lets on, and his book lacks the courage to state what his evidence uncovers.



Liberals are traitors – at least the self-conscious ones are. And it is not because they hate Bush or disagree with the Iraq war. Their treason stems from their behavior – from the way they go around telling everyone that they hate Bush and disagree with the war – even to the extent that they sympathize with and give material aid to the enemy. …



Liberal perfidy is deliberate, and it is dangerous.



It is one thing to disagree with the policies of one’s government. After all, no democracy can be a democracy without the balance of a loyal opposition. However, when the rhetoric and behavior of that opposition is no longer in keeping with the principles of loyalty – when it turns to sympathy and material aid for the enemy and strident and arrogant criticism of your own government – then that opposition has turned to treason.



This is what self-conscious liberals are doing in the name of their civil rights. They have become traitors to the cause of freedom and democracy, and unless something is done about it, it won’t be the enemy abroad that will be our undoing. It will be the traitors from within.

“Liberals Are Traitors”

From e-zine, No Apologies ($, but it might be available in audio at that site for no charge.) [h/t to Benny and Bessy]:

Bernard Goldberg’s latest book, “Crazies to the Left of me, Wimps to the Right,” ultimately lacks the courage to say what needs to be said: Liberals are traitors.



Goldberg’s basic thesis is that liberals have abandoned the core principles of men such as FDR and JFK, while the Republicans have lost their courage.



His assessment of Republicans is spot on.



Republicans are wimps. At least some of them are.



But on the other salient point he is wrong – fundamentally wrong. Liberals aren’t just “loony” or “stupid.” These are all adjectives he uses to describe the principal players in mainstream liberalism. And neither is liberalism just “becoming increasingly irrelevant,” as he asserts. I wish Goldberg were right about that. I wish liberalism were irrelevant – if that were true, we wouldn’t have to worry so much about what 2008 might have in store.



But liberalism’s problem is much more systemic then Goldberg lets on, and his book lacks the courage to state what his evidence uncovers.



Liberals are traitors – at least the self-conscious ones are. And it is not because they hate Bush or disagree with the Iraq war. Their treason stems from their behavior – from the way they go around telling everyone that they hate Bush and disagree with the war – even to the extent that they sympathize with and give material aid to the enemy. …



Liberal perfidy is deliberate, and it is dangerous.



It is one thing to disagree with the policies of one’s government. After all, no democracy can be a democracy without the balance of a loyal opposition. However, when the rhetoric and behavior of that opposition is no longer in keeping with the principles of loyalty – when it turns to sympathy and material aid for the enemy and strident and arrogant criticism of your own government – then that opposition has turned to treason.



This is what self-conscious liberals are doing in the name of their civil rights. They have become traitors to the cause of freedom and democracy, and unless something is done about it, it won’t be the enemy abroad that will be our undoing. It will be the traitors from within.

“Liberals Are Traitors”

From e-zine, No Apologies ($, but it might be available in audio at that site for no charge.) [h/t to Benny and Bessy]:

Bernard Goldberg’s latest book, “Crazies to the Left of me, Wimps to the Right,” ultimately lacks the courage to say what needs to be said: Liberals are traitors.



Goldberg’s basic thesis is that liberals have abandoned the core principles of men such as FDR and JFK, while the Republicans have lost their courage.



His assessment of Republicans is spot on.



Republicans are wimps. At least some of them are.



But on the other salient point he is wrong – fundamentally wrong. Liberals aren’t just “loony” or “stupid.” These are all adjectives he uses to describe the principal players in mainstream liberalism. And neither is liberalism just “becoming increasingly irrelevant,” as he asserts. I wish Goldberg were right about that. I wish liberalism were irrelevant – if that were true, we wouldn’t have to worry so much about what 2008 might have in store.



But liberalism’s problem is much more systemic then Goldberg lets on, and his book lacks the courage to state what his evidence uncovers.



Liberals are traitors – at least the self-conscious ones are. And it is not because they hate Bush or disagree with the Iraq war. Their treason stems from their behavior – from the way they go around telling everyone that they hate Bush and disagree with the war – even to the extent that they sympathize with and give material aid to the enemy. …



Liberal perfidy is deliberate, and it is dangerous.



It is one thing to disagree with the policies of one’s government. After all, no democracy can be a democracy without the balance of a loyal opposition. However, when the rhetoric and behavior of that opposition is no longer in keeping with the principles of loyalty – when it turns to sympathy and material aid for the enemy and strident and arrogant criticism of your own government – then that opposition has turned to treason.



This is what self-conscious liberals are doing in the name of their civil rights. They have become traitors to the cause of freedom and democracy, and unless something is done about it, it won’t be the enemy abroad that will be our undoing. It will be the traitors from within.

“Demand Down, but Rents Up” How Can That Be??

I started screaming (well, to myself) when I saw that headline in the Washington Post.



My first reaction was, “If rents are up, then it is the quantity demanded not demand that would go down. But as I read the article a different picture emerged.



First, the vacancy rate is up (the article refers to commercial and office space in the Washington DC area).

Commercial vacancy rates climbed in the Washington area for the fifth straight quarter, but rents rose slightly and industry experts remained upbeat.

But, of course, that doesn’t mean demand or the quantity demanded is down. In fact the article later says that there has been a considerable increase in supply as much commercial and office space that had been under construction for the past several years is finally becoming available. As the supply has increased, the first signs have been the observed increased vacancy rate; rents tend to adjust more slowly. It seems possible that, if anything, demand has continued to grow but supply has grown faster. The article quotes one retailer as saying,

[W]e expect in the next nine months to see further vacancy increases based on new office deliveries. But it won’t have a large impact on rents because the demand is still pretty strong throughout the market.

Second, it looks as “rents up” refers to an average of rental rates. Not all rents have continued to rise, but the rising rents for the high end of the market have more than offset the stagnant or falling rates elsewhere, thus pulling up the average. Also, the vacancy rate for the high end of the market does not appear to be rising as it is elsewhere in the market:

In building categories, Class A, the premier, most expensive office space, showed net gains in occupied space, while Class B and C buildings recorded net losses, CoStar said.



John Sikaitis, research director at Jones Lang LaSalle, a commercial real estate firm, said more tenants are flocking to Class A space, which raises rents.



“The flight to quality has brought rents up throughout the market,” Sikaitis said. “Demand for quality, high-end space is greater than we’ve seen in past years.”

Wow, did I ever get worked up by that headline; the article itself wasn’t such bad economics….. and, believe it or not, I’ve been off caffeine nearly 100% of the time for the past two months!

“Demand Down, but Rents Up” How Can That Be??

I started screaming (well, to myself) when I saw that headline in the Washington Post.



My first reaction was, “If rents are up, then it is the quantity demanded not demand that would go down. But as I read the article a different picture emerged.



First, the vacancy rate is up (the article refers to commercial and office space in the Washington DC area).

Commercial vacancy rates climbed in the Washington area for the fifth straight quarter, but rents rose slightly and industry experts remained upbeat.

But, of course, that doesn’t mean demand or the quantity demanded is down. In fact the article later says that there has been a considerable increase in supply as much commercial and office space that had been under construction for the past several years is finally becoming available. As the supply has increased, the first signs have been the observed increased vacancy rate; rents tend to adjust more slowly. It seems possible that, if anything, demand has continued to grow but supply has grown faster. The article quotes one retailer as saying,

[W]e expect in the next nine months to see further vacancy increases based on new office deliveries. But it won’t have a large impact on rents because the demand is still pretty strong throughout the market.

Second, it looks as “rents up” refers to an average of rental rates. Not all rents have continued to rise, but the rising rents for the high end of the market have more than offset the stagnant or falling rates elsewhere, thus pulling up the average. Also, the vacancy rate for the high end of the market does not appear to be rising as it is elsewhere in the market:

In building categories, Class A, the premier, most expensive office space, showed net gains in occupied space, while Class B and C buildings recorded net losses, CoStar said.



John Sikaitis, research director at Jones Lang LaSalle, a commercial real estate firm, said more tenants are flocking to Class A space, which raises rents.



“The flight to quality has brought rents up throughout the market,” Sikaitis said. “Demand for quality, high-end space is greater than we’ve seen in past years.”

Wow, did I ever get worked up by that headline; the article itself wasn’t such bad economics….. and, believe it or not, I’ve been off caffeine nearly 100% of the time for the past two months!

“Demand Down, but Rents Up” How Can That Be??

I started screaming (well, to myself) when I saw that headline in the Washington Post.



My first reaction was, “If rents are up, then it is the quantity demanded not demand that would go down. But as I read the article a different picture emerged.



First, the vacancy rate is up (the article refers to commercial and office space in the Washington DC area).

Commercial vacancy rates climbed in the Washington area for the fifth straight quarter, but rents rose slightly and industry experts remained upbeat.

But, of course, that doesn’t mean demand or the quantity demanded is down. In fact the article later says that there has been a considerable increase in supply as much commercial and office space that had been under construction for the past several years is finally becoming available. As the supply has increased, the first signs have been the observed increased vacancy rate; rents tend to adjust more slowly. It seems possible that, if anything, demand has continued to grow but supply has grown faster. The article quotes one retailer as saying,

[W]e expect in the next nine months to see further vacancy increases based on new office deliveries. But it won’t have a large impact on rents because the demand is still pretty strong throughout the market.

Second, it looks as “rents up” refers to an average of rental rates. Not all rents have continued to rise, but the rising rents for the high end of the market have more than offset the stagnant or falling rates elsewhere, thus pulling up the average. Also, the vacancy rate for the high end of the market does not appear to be rising as it is elsewhere in the market:

In building categories, Class A, the premier, most expensive office space, showed net gains in occupied space, while Class B and C buildings recorded net losses, CoStar said.



John Sikaitis, research director at Jones Lang LaSalle, a commercial real estate firm, said more tenants are flocking to Class A space, which raises rents.



“The flight to quality has brought rents up throughout the market,” Sikaitis said. “Demand for quality, high-end space is greater than we’ve seen in past years.”

Wow, did I ever get worked up by that headline; the article itself wasn’t such bad economics….. and, believe it or not, I’ve been off caffeine nearly 100% of the time for the past two months!

Me? A Ham Sandwich? Or Maybe a Grilled Cheese?

That’s what this little five-question quiz says: You Are a Ham Sandwich

You are quiet, understated, and a great comfort to all of your friends. Over time, you have proven yourself as loyal and steadfast. And you are by no means boring. You do well in any situation – from fancy to laid back. Your best friend: The Turkey Sandwich Your mortal enemy: The Grilled Cheese Sandwich

What Kind of Sandwich Are You?

But then the second time through the quiz, it said I’m a grilled cheese sandwich, the mortal enemy of a ham sandwich. I guess that means I’m something of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

You Are a Grilled Cheese Sandwich

You are a traditional person with very simple tastes. In your opinion, the best things in life are free, easy, and fun. You totally go with the flow. And you enjoy every minute of it! Your best friend: The Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich Your mortal enemy: The Ham Sandwich

What Kind of Sandwich Are You?

My own self-assessment is that the grilled cheese description fits me better. But then maybe there’s an inner me that I need to explore more fully.

Blame this all on Rondi, who is a tuna sandwich.

Me? A Ham Sandwich? Or Maybe a Grilled Cheese?

That’s what this little five-question quiz says: You Are a Ham Sandwich

You are quiet, understated, and a great comfort to all of your friends. Over time, you have proven yourself as loyal and steadfast. And you are by no means boring. You do well in any situation – from fancy to laid back. Your best friend: The Turkey Sandwich Your mortal enemy: The Grilled Cheese Sandwich

What Kind of Sandwich Are You?

But then the second time through the quiz, it said I’m a grilled cheese sandwich, the mortal enemy of a ham sandwich. I guess that means I’m something of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

You Are a Grilled Cheese Sandwich

You are a traditional person with very simple tastes. In your opinion, the best things in life are free, easy, and fun. You totally go with the flow. And you enjoy every minute of it! Your best friend: The Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich Your mortal enemy: The Ham Sandwich

What Kind of Sandwich Are You?

My own self-assessment is that the grilled cheese description fits me better. But then maybe there’s an inner me that I need to explore more fully.

Blame this all on Rondi, who is a tuna sandwich.

Me? A Ham Sandwich? Or Maybe a Grilled Cheese?

That’s what this little five-question quiz says: You Are a Ham Sandwich

You are quiet, understated, and a great comfort to all of your friends. Over time, you have proven yourself as loyal and steadfast. And you are by no means boring. You do well in any situation – from fancy to laid back. Your best friend: The Turkey Sandwich Your mortal enemy: The Grilled Cheese Sandwich

What Kind of Sandwich Are You?

But then the second time through the quiz, it said I’m a grilled cheese sandwich, the mortal enemy of a ham sandwich. I guess that means I’m something of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

You Are a Grilled Cheese Sandwich

You are a traditional person with very simple tastes. In your opinion, the best things in life are free, easy, and fun. You totally go with the flow. And you enjoy every minute of it! Your best friend: The Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich Your mortal enemy: The Ham Sandwich

What Kind of Sandwich Are You?

My own self-assessment is that the grilled cheese description fits me better. But then maybe there’s an inner me that I need to explore more fully.

Blame this all on Rondi, who is a tuna sandwich.

Why Do People Do This?

The only explanation I can come up with is blatant anti-Semitism. From Honest Reporting [h/t to Judith},

A Palestinian youth football team from Gaza has been unable to tour the UK after falling afoul of British visa regulations as well as the continuing problems in leaving the Gaza Strip following the Hamas takeover. Writing in the UK’s Independent, Mark Steel criticizes the British Foreign Office, which is his right, before launching an astonishing diatribe against Israel, based not on facts nor reason, but on overt hate and disinformation.



All Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip may encounter problems exiting crossings at Israeli and Egyptian borders, particularly following Hamas’ violent takeover of the area. But since the question of visas reached the British Foreign Office, it implies that Israel did not block the footballers from traveling.



Yet, Steel suggests “that the Foreign Office has been leaned on by the Israeli government to refuse entry to the team.” Since when did the Israeli government exercise any power or control over British policy? Is Steel attempting to play on classic prejudice that ascribes such mythical power and influence to Israel and its supporters?



Steel’s brand of ’satire’, littered with inappropriate sporting analogies and terms that British readers will be familiar with, descends into simple hatred and demonization of Israel. For Steel, “the latest incident is simply part of the process of petty vindictiveness that occupying forces often dish out. Even if there’s no obvious military or political advantage to be gained, you can imagine them passing a law that no one in Gaza is allowed to hum, or on Mondays everyone has to speak in a Geordie accent.”



In accordance with such nastiness, Steel states that Israel bombed the only football pitch in Gaza. He conveniently forgets to mention that the pitch in question had been used for terrorist training exercises. The field, which had also reportedly served as a missile launching pad, was empty at the time; the strike itself came in response to the continuing barrage of Qassam rocket attacks directed at Israeli towns and villages.