Wallace Suggests That Radio Host Mike Gallagher Be ‘A Man’ And Hire An Escort To Cure His Lonliness
Today on his radio show, right-wing host Mike Gallagher spoke with Fox News’ Chris Wallace to promote this weekend’s edition of Fox News Sunday — however, the topic of discussion quickly veered off course. Gallagher told Wallace that he sometimes gets lonely and that he’s an “emotional guy” who sometimes cries “at the drop of a hat.” Wallace shot back, saying that he never cries. “I’m a man,” Wallace said. Gallagher then wondered how Wallace’s wife puts up with him. “Maybe the secret is I know how to satisfy a woman. Has that ever occurred to you?” Wallace said. “What is wrong with you?” asked Gallagher. Later in the interview, Wallace then joked that in order to cure his loneliness, Gallagher should be “a man” and hire an escort or go to a strip club:
WALLACE: Why are you lonely in New York? Don’t you see those numbers on the tops of cabs and things? Call them up! You’re a single guy you got nothing to lose.
GALLAGHER: What does that mean? So I get in a cab and I’m not lonely anymore and then I’m driving around New York in a cab!
WALLACE: On the top of the cabs they have advertisements for like gentlemen’s clubs and escort services.
GALLAGHER: I’m not going to a gentleman’s club. Are you crazy? I would not walk into one of those sordid…
WALLACE: Because you’re not a man!
GALLAGHER: I’m a moral man. … I do not darken the doors of gentlemen’s club. I have standards. I’m a moral guy in an immoral society pal.
Media Matters has the clip:
Elections Can’t Cure America’s ‘Disease’: The Beijing Times, People’s Republic of China
So what’s the view of Beijing to the recent 2010 midterms? Not only do the U.S. elections appear unlikely to encourage China to set aside dictatorship for pluralism, according to this article by Mao Yingying for China’s state-run Beijing Times, America itself would be better off reconsidering how its ’so-called democracy’ should run.
For the Beijing Times, Mao Yingying writes in part:
Americans appear disappointed with more than Obama, for despite the bad report card for Obama and the Democratic Party and Republican success at harnessing the “anger vote,” Republicans don’t seem to know or want to know how to resolve America’s great problems, like how to reduce the ever-increasing unemployment rate. In the words of a certain Republican leader [Mitch McConnell], the most important task for his party in the next two years is to “ensure Mr. Obama is a one-term president.”
Defeating Obama and the Democratic Party may be a victory for Republicans, but one party’s victory over another has precious little meaning to ordinary American people. Long and intense disputes over trivial matters between the two parties will deliver none of the things that people want. On the contrary, when the change in power is reduced to two election machines attacking one another, so-called democracy becomes a farce - and one that demands the spending of a lot of dollars.
American scholars have pointed out that “replacing a few chess pieces on the board” (after the midterm elections) will bring very little change to the United States. In fact, “replacing the most important piece on the board” (presidential election) is unlikely to bring much change, either. Because the rules of the game haven’t changed, i.e.: “whoever Wall Street money flows toward, wins” and “behind the verbal wars are a mountain of advertising and packaging fees.” Lying to the people and writing “blank checks,” dumping dirty water over opponents, and finding “scapegoats” and “punching bags” in the international community haven’t changed either. Under such rules, the elections were quite lively, but the “show,” rather than reflecting reality, shows that the American disease continues to spread.
The reality is that amidst an economic and financial crisis, the U.S. doesn’t have a superior or credible political system for improving the economy or people’s livelihoods. Expecting America’s self-styled democracy to reform itself to overcome its economic difficulties can only be called a fantasy.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.
Good Governance: The Cholera Cure
Joe Amon blames the recent cholera outbreak on Haiti's sub-par government:
Governments don't want to admit the failure of health-care or surveillance systems, and they are afraid of the trade and travel sanctions that may result from a large outbreak. But inaction leads to larger epidemics: Treating a few cases of cholera with oral rehydration salts or intravenous fluids is relatively straightforward, managing hundreds or thousands of cases is not. With prompt and proper treatment, less than 1 percent of those infected die. Without a fast response, death rates of five percent or more are not unheard of.
(Photo: A relative holds the hand of Dachny, a child who is suffering from the symptoms of cholera at a hospital run by the Haitian government where Doctors Without Borders is treating people October 27, 2010 in St. Marc, Haiti. Haiti, one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere, has been further unsettled by an outbreak of cholera which has killed nearly 300 people so far. The epidemic has affected the central Artibonite and Central Plateau regions with 3,612 cases so far on record. While authorities believe the outbreak is contained, they believe it has not yet peaked. There is also fear that the deadly diarrheal disease could migrate to the sprawling camps for the hundreds of thousands of Haitians displaced by the earthquake. By Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
‘Liberal’ gene found. Can a cure be far behind?
Scientists in breakthrough, Nobel worthy discovery.
American Thinker Blog
The Cure For Homosexuality
Jamie Kirchick reports from Belgrade:
How does Petrovic and his team ("me and my friends," as he describes them) claim to cure homosexuality? Quite simply: Patients must cut out junk food from their diet, "drink a lot of water," "reject anything that is diarrhetic, alcohol, caffeine," engage in "physical activity," "rest [at] appropriate times." Plus, one "must think about good things." Oh, and receive regular enemas.
There's an audio interview with the "doctor" as well.
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
Dr. Paul to cure Social Security, Medicare
Dave Weigel spots this Rand Paul ad promising to "fix Medicare and Social Security, preserving them for future generations."
The ad does not, it should be noted, back off the notion of a larger private role in the programs.
But the tag line has a paternalistic edge that will make some libertarians gag: "Caring for Kentucky, Dr. Rand Paul."
Red State Uprising: The cure for Republican pseudo-socialists
Erick Erickson is one of the leading, outside-the-Beltway conservative activists reclaiming the Right and rattling the old GOP guard. He’s out with a terrific new book today from Regnery:
Red State Uprising: How to Take Back America
With attention focused on the fight between Washington elites and the new generation of technology-empowered conservative activists demanding real choices and not more Soros Republican echoes, the timing couldn’t be better.
From Erickson’s foreword:
The Republicans gave us progressivism (read up on Robert LaFollette and Teddy Roosevelt). The Republicans gave us the Environmental Protection Agency. Heck, Republicans gave us Earl Warren, Nelson Rockefeller, Dede Scozzafava, Charlie Crist, and the list goes on and on and on.
The Democrats, by contrast, have given us over to European socialism, degenerated our moral society, destroyed the nuclear family, never met a race they didn’t bait, and mushroomed the GOP’s spending programs.
For too long the Republican Party has decided to be the Democrat-lite party, and the American voters in 2008 decided just to go with the real thing. Turns out, there is a difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. While both may be terrible, the Democrats are worse.
Therein lies the terrible conundrum for voters. We’re not choosing the lesser of two evils. We are choosing between the assorted evils of two lessers. The problem is compounded by a very simple fact: there are no betters than these two lessers. No third party is or will ever be viable. The deck is stacked against them.
Contrary to what we may say and the polemical frustration conservatives too often are forced to express about the Republican Party, there remain very real differences between the two parties—life and death differences that cannot be underestimated or ignored.
It is easy to say both parties are appalling. They are. It becomes very difficult to figure out what to do about it. There is, however, a starting point. As bad as you or I may think the Republican Party has been at times, at least it will not sell us down the river to our nation’s enemies. At least it will more often than not support businesses and individuals against the government. At least it will support you working for yourself over you working to give money to someone else.
Despite the real differences, too often Republican leaders prefer to find ever-shrinking common ground with the Left rather than make a stand on opposing ground fighting for free people and free markets against the leviathan of government. With the rise of the tea party movement, conservatives must unite to clean up the Republican Party.
If they don’t, voters will keep rejecting Republican pseudo-socialists in favor of authentic socialists.
With the starting point being to clean house within the GOP, the next question is how. To figure out how, we must examine the past as the path to the present. Both parties have used the tax code, spending, and power to reward their bases, enact their preferred social policies, and expand their own preferred government programs.
Politicians of both parties have gone to Washington not to reduce its size, but expand what it can do for preferred interest groups. Some conservatives have become devoid of ideas other than the acquisition of power. The GOP started making shortcut calculations like big business = good, instead of entrepreneurs = good. There is a difference; but
too many have grown too complacent to see it.Enough is enough…
Read the whole thing — and tell all the pseudo-socialist Republicans you know to do the same!
The source of income inequality and a cure?
Todd Henderson has a very interesting post on the relationship between income inequality and executive pay. He notes a correlation between the rise in executive pay and income inequality starting around 1980. Correlation is not causation, of course, especially because the number of CEOs is too small to drive the inequality numbers. He observes, however, that:
The cause of the change of executive compensation is well understood.
Starting in the early 1980s, executives started to be paid like
shareholders (that is, with stock options) instead of bureaucrats, and
the rising curve of executive compensation is explained entirely by the
growth of the stock market over the same period. … So, in other words, it may be that the growth of income inequality is
driven by the top 1 percent getting more income from investments. If
this is the case, then policies like Social Security and defined-benefit
pension plans (pushed by labor unions) are somewhat to blame for this
trend not being experienced more widely. Policies that push ownership
and investments down the income curve, like stock options for employees
and 401(k) plans, may help reduce the problem of income inequality
without more government intervention.
A slightly different observation occurred to me as I reviewed the charts Henderson includes in his post; namely, that both CEO pay and income inequality really started rising in the early 1990s:
The Omnibus Budget reconciliation Act of 1993, pushed by President Bill Clinton and passed on a narrow party live vote (remember the chants of “Bye, Bye Marjorie!” as then-Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D-PA) cast the decisive vote?), and which many observers credit with helping drive the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, included a provision that capped the corporate tax deduction for executive pay at $ 1 million. Incentive-based pay was exempted. This bill had the unintended consequence of drastically accelerating the shift in executive pay to stock options.
As noted, correlation is not causation, so it would be unfair to point to the 1993 bill as the root of income inequality. But it suggests an interesting empirical research project: How much of income inequality can be associated with the use of stock options and other equity-based compensation to pay corporate managers?
The source of income inequality and a cure?
Todd Henderson has a very interesting post on the relationship between income inequality and executive pay. He notes a correlation between the rise in executive pay and income inequality starting around 1980. Correlation is not causation, of course, especially because the number of CEOs is too small to drive the inequality numbers. He observes, however, that:
The cause of the change of executive compensation is well understood.
Starting in the early 1980s, executives started to be paid like
shareholders (that is, with stock options) instead of bureaucrats, and
the rising curve of executive compensation is explained entirely by the
growth of the stock market over the same period. … So, in other words, it may be that the growth of income inequality is
driven by the top 1 percent getting more income from investments. If
this is the case, then policies like Social Security and defined-benefit
pension plans (pushed by labor unions) are somewhat to blame for this
trend not being experienced more widely. Policies that push ownership
and investments down the income curve, like stock options for employees
and 401(k) plans, may help reduce the problem of income inequality
without more government intervention.
A slightly different observation occurred to me as I reviewed the charts Henderson includes in his post; namely, that both CEO pay and income inequality really started rising in the early 1990s.
The Omnibus Budget reconciliation Act of 1993, pushed by President Bill Clinton and passed on a narrow party live vote (remember the chants of “Bye, Bye Marjorie!” as then-Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D-PA) cast the decisive vote), and which many observers credit with helping drive the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, included a provision that capped the corporate tax deduction for executive pay at $ 1 million. Incentive-based pay was exempted. This bill bad the unintended consequence of drastically accelerating the shift in executive pay to stock options. As noted, correlation is not causation, so it would be unfair to point to the 1993 bill as the root of income inequality. But it suggests an interesting empirical research project: How much of income inequality can be associated with the use of stock options and other equity-based compensation to pay corporate managers?
The Kudzu Cure?
by Zoe Pollock
Researchers are looking into an extract from the Kudzu vine to treat cocaine addiction. Originally brought over from Asia to prevent soil erosion, Kudzu has spread across the bible belt and is otherwise known as the "vine that ate the South."
When my family first moved to North Carolina, I remember thinking how beautifully the vines anthropomorphized all phone poles, trees, and abandoned structures, only to discover it was actually doing a good amount of harm to the native plant species. Here's to hoping the vines can on day be harvested for a good cause.
(Photo by Flickr user SoftCore Studios)
Erosion - North Carolina - Kudzu - United States - Asia
