This Modern Age

What Media Bias? Nothing to See Hear, Just Rioting Youths…

leave a comment »

Here is a famous example of confusing an immigration policy with a suicide pact. 

The BBC title is quaint enough, “Swedish city hit by youth riots.”  A bit down the article we learn that “the trouble was linked to the closure of an Islamic centre” and that this is an “immigrant neighbourhood.”  

Of course the city is Malmo and the riots are occuring specifically in Rosengard.  Mark Steyn of National Review points out that this is the most Muslim city in Sweeden.  Ah ha!  Now we are getting somewhere.  

This part of town is so dangerous that emergency services do not respond to calls without a police escort.

Written by thismodernage

December 22, 2008 at 12:17 pm

HeeBeeBGs – 12 Awesome Days of Christmas (LIVE!)

leave a comment »


Written by thismodernage

December 22, 2008 at 1:32 am

Posted in Other

Questions for Obama in the Townhall Debate

with one comment

I got/stole/copied these from Peter Kirsanow at National Review.  But they are worth reposting on the hopes more people will read and ask them.  If you are an Obama supporter and believe you can answer any of the questions, then please do in our comments section. 

1. Why shouldn’t voters view your association with the radical William Ayers as evidence that you are sympathetic to the similarly radical views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, your pastor of 20 years?

2. You characterized Ayers as ” respected.” What do you respect about him? Do you respect any other unrepentant terrorists?

3. Do you agree with the National Journal’s assessment that you’re the nation’s most liberal senator? If not, whom do you maintain is more liberal?

4. Could you please cite three things you’ve done as senator to win the war in Iraq?

5. You would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, you worked with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, and you remained in Rev Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years – yet you refused to debate on Fox News. Do you consider Brit Hume and Chris Wallace to be more objectionable than Ahmadinejad, Ayers and Wright?

6. You dismissed your association with William Ayers by stating that his actions, while “despicable,” occurred when you were just eight years old. Ayers was still a fugitive when another terrorist bomber, Ted Kaczynski ( the ” Unabomber”) began his bombing campaign (btw senator, you were 20 at the time). Would you have had any reservations working with Kaczynski? Would you have had any reservations launching your political career from Kaczynski’s home? What about abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolf? If so, please explain your reasons for working with some terrorists but not others.

7. Your running mate thinks that Hillary Clinton would have been a better VP pick than he. Why do you disagree?

8. Excluding political campaigns, what’s the largest enterprise you’ve ever managed? How successful was it?

9. You’ve stated that given the state of the economy, as president you might have to delay your tax plan. Why isn’t this an admission that your tax plan would hurt the economy?

10. You’ve stated that determining when a baby gets human rights is “above [your] pay grade.” Let’s make it simple. Do you believe a baby is a human being? If not, why not? If you do, why wouldn’t a baby be entitled to human rights? Is your uncertainty regarding this issue the reason you voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?

11. While in the Illinois state legislature you voted “present” more than 130 times. Given your uncertainty as to when a baby is entitled to human rights, why didn’t you simply vote “present” on the Born-Alive Act?

12. Did you and Ayers ever discuss his participation in the bombing of the Pentagon? If so, when? How did you respond? Did you continue working with him afterward? Why? Did this discussion occur before or after he hosted your political coming-out party?

13. As president, would you appoint any member to your cabinet who had worked with terrorists? Would you appoint any individual whose political career had been launched at the home of a terrorist? If not, why not? If you consider an association with terrorists to be a disqualifier for, say, the position of attorney general or national security advisor, why shouldn’t it be a disqualifier for president?

14. Did you ever tell Ayers that his actions were “despicable”? If so, did you do so at the time you interviewed to chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, or later?

15. Your campaigned is premised, in part, on a theme of racial transcendence yet you support racial preferences in employment, contracting and school admissions. Is there any existing racial preference that you don’t support?

16. Why do you support the Employee Free Choice Act that would effectively eliminate secret ballot union representation elections? Do you support eliminating secret ballots in presidential, congressional, gubernatorial or mayoral elections?

17. You support giving drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants and letting them participate in the Social Security system. Why wouldn’t this encourage more illegal immigrants to come to this country?

18. You had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist and you’ve stated that you’d meet without precondition with the leaders of terrorist-sponsoring countries. Could you please explain why voters should believe you’re serious about the threat of terrorism?

19. What, if any, policy differences do you have with Ayers?

20. In which of the following states have you met bitter people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Virginia?


Democrats Got Us Here… Freddie/Fannie Meltdown

with one comment

More later…

Written by thismodernage

September 30, 2008 at 10:15 am

Thoughts on Obama-BOOM in Current Polling

leave a comment »

In my humble opinion, the current economic conditions could nearly reset a lot of independent and undecided voters.  So past polls are interesting, but I think they can be heavily discounted at this point.  Which is why I haven’t updated my Electoral College Polling posts recently. 

For the Record: I’m standing firm at Obama 273 and McCain 265, just because there is no reason to change anything yet.  And if I had to change something today, I would put New Hampshire barely in McCain’s column and that would cause a 269/269 split.  That result would make Bush v. Gore look like a tea party.  I digress…

“Ah ha!”, you say.  “But the reset is occuring!  Look at the polls coming out now – the Washington Post/ABC News poll has Obama up 9(!) points!  And, and, and…. the Gallup Poll too! Obama is up 3 points there.  That’s a combined 12(!) point lead! It’s a trend! It’s a boom! It’s a Democratic President! It’s HISTORY!” 

Yes.  Thank you for noticing the obvious (besides the 12 point thing).  But look at the internal numbers on the poll.  (Don’t you come here for the nerdy stuff?)

Jim Geraghty over at National Review breaks it all down pretty efficiently:

Two recent polls that show Obama doing fabulously have some pretty wide margins in terms of party ID in their voter pool. Gallup’s got a sample that is 49 percent Democrat, 39 percent Republican, and the ABC/Washington Post poll that is generating buzz has a sample that, with leaners, is 54 percent Democrat, 38 percent Republican.

Look, if the electorate in November is going to be 16 percent more Democrat than Republican, and 54 percent of the voting public identifies themselves as Democrats, then it’s a foregone conclusion that Obama’s going to win in a landslide, and we can all go home now.

He goes on to reference Kirsten Soltis’ work at  She walks through the historical prededent for polling spreads:

In 1988, Democrats had a three-point party ID advantage over Republicans (38-35). In 1992, Democrats still had a three-point party ID advantage over Republicans (38-35). In 1996, that advantage increased to four – a shift of one point (39-35). In 2000, Democrats were steady, up by four (39-35), and in 2004 they dropped to even (37-37).

During presidential years, over the last five presidential elections, the biggest party ID gap was four points, and the greatest swing was four points as well.

Arguments can certainly be made that in this environment, Democrats should be expected to have a huge partisan shift in their favor. But note that in 2006, when Democrats clearly found enormous success at the ballot box, that the advantage in party ID was only three points (38-35). Polls leading up to the election showed party ID gaps as big as eleven points (Newsweek’s poll on Oct 5-6, 2006), rarely showing party ID gaps of less than +5 for the Democrats.

So, let the dust begin to settle on the last week of economic news (ignoring, of course, how entertaining Joe Biden is) and watch the debate on Friday night and then let new polling numbers start coming in. 

But one caveat, it’s going to be VERY difficult to get solid state-by-state polling data for the rest of the election period, if there is going to be as much of a shake up as I believe there could be.  

More later… enjoy the ride.

Media Slip Up on Murder Trial Coverage

leave a comment »

You would like to think that people who live in the world of words wouldn’t let something like this screenshot happen.  Imagine anyone connected to Kamya Weathersby seeing that the Gazette so flipantly tosses around the word “Murderous.”

Written by thismodernage

September 19, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Electoral College Outlook: What Does Lehman Mean?

with one comment

For the foreseeable future, the news cycle is going to be all about the economy – Lehman’s $613 billion Chapter 11 bankruptcy is the top bullet of every newscast this morning. 

On the political side of things, John McCain has been surging but the current economic news could lead many swing voters to take another look at the candidates in light of their proposed economic plans. 

Our hypothesis is that voters tend to more comfortable with Democrats on economic issues these days.  But this is largely driven by job concerns and middle class tax cuts.  Once the economic issues begin to focus more on fiscal and monetary policy, voters confidence in Republicans will increase. 

A recent Fox News poll from 9/8 to 9/9 asked, “Which candidate do you trust more to handle the economy?”  Independents favored John McCain over Barack Obama by 45% to 40%. 

Other telling questions in the Fox News poll that may become more relevant; Which presidential ticket do you think:

  • Has more experience combined?  Independents favored McCain-Palin 57%/25%.
  • Has better judgement combined? Independents favored McCain-Palin 51%/32%.
  • Will bring the right change to Washington? Independents barely favored McCain-Palin 36%/38%.

Of course this poll was conducted before the markets tanked on the open this morning, so the numbers could be very volatile over the upcoming week.  But current conditions may favor the McCain-Palin campain.

Written by thismodernage

September 15, 2008 at 8:53 am