Thursday, 20 May 2010


Ken Berwitz

Here, from London's Daily Mail, are a series of products from around the world with names you might find, well, less than appetizing.

Read them below, and then see how long it takes you to want to ingest food and drink again:


Swedes think this candy is dandy, they account for 95per cent of sales. Wonder why...

Swedes think this candy is dandy, they account for 95 per cent of sales. Wonder why...

Drink enough of it and you will be... keep Ghanaians on the go
Bottoms up! Here's a cheeky wine from French vineyards

Drink enough of Pee Cola and you will feel the effects of the beverage which keeps Ghanaians on the go... Bottoms up with Arse wine! It's a cheeky wine from French vineyards

Fillipina women are very serious about skincare

Fillipina women are very serious about skincare - they use this Placenta night cream to keep their faces silky soft

R Whites has a rival, but does it keep the Danes off the Carlsberg?
No chance of a caffeine buzz with this coffee brand from Japan

R Whites has a rival, but does it keep the Danes off the Carlsberg? And with Deeppresso coffee there is no chance of a caffeine buzz!

You've been warned: Chinese crisps with a unique taste

In New Zealand, of course, real men don't eat iced lollies...

You've been warned: These Chinese crisps have a unique taste. Golden Gaytime? In New Zealand, of course, real men don't eat ice lollies...

Iranian washing powder... the results will make you sick

Iranian washing powder... the results will make you sick

You thought that was tomato pizza sauce? For red-blooded Mexicans
Canadian pasta tastes great with mushy peas

You thought that was tomato pizza sauce? For red-blooded Mexicans. They may want to try Canadian pasta too - Fagottini tastes great with mushy peas

Is the drug problem that bad in the Netherlands? This starch obviously won't work on high collars
Not so much a Brazilian kitchen towel, more a roll of honour

Is the drug problem that bad in the Netherlands? This starch obviously won't work on high collars. While Snob is not so much a Brazilian kitchen towel, more a roll of honour

Don't try taking this soft drink on your flight from Venezuela
The Japanese drink a lot of it - they work those Pocaris very hard

Don't try taking this soft drink on your flight from Venezuela... and as for Pocari sweat, the Japanese drink a lot of it. They work those Pocaris very hard

Genetically modified to include Viagra, perhaps? From the U.S.

Genetically modified to include Viagra, perhaps? From the U.S. comes the all-new five a day



Ken Berwitz

First, the news itself, which is excerpted from an Associated Press article:

WASHINGTON - The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The surge is evidence of how volatile the job market remains, even as the economy grows.

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.

The forecast had been for claims to fall by around 4,000 from the previous week.

"Although no one expects this volatile series to go in one direction every single week, this is clearly a disappointment," said Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets.

The total was the highest since new claims stood at 480,000 on April 10. It also pushed the average for the last four weeks to 453,500.

Employers are hiring again, but not at levels needed to make a dent.

Now a few questions:  Will we be hearing about this prominently on the nightly news this evening?  The morning shows tomorrow?  Will we be reading about it prominently in the New York Times, or Washington Post or LA Times?

I would love the answer to be "yes" across the board, because this is extremely important news.  But I know that isn't going to happen.

A media which told us it was good news when unemployment jumped from 9.7% to 9.9% earlier this month, is a media that will not talk turkey about jobless claims.

Remember when President Obama insisted his Democrat-majority congress pass the so-called "Stimulus Package" immediately - literally before almost anyone could even read it - because it would cap unemployment at 8%?  The unemployment numbers certainly were important then, weren't they?

But when congress did pass it, and unemployment jumped to 10.2% before drifting back to the current 9.9%?  That's ok.  It's not a problem.  Besides, if it is, blame Bush, not Obama - it's his fault, you see. 

This is another example of why people are running from mainstream media in droves, to seek out alternative sources of information.  Can you blame them?

Zeke ... ... We can't continue to have these UNEXPECTED rises in unemployment claims .... ..... Therefore, let me say, "It's gonna get Worse, before it gets any Better". ..... ... .... There! Now the increases won't be Unexpected. .... .... .... And, the anchor around our necks ... paying off the Stimulation Package (Graft, Bribes and Corruption for Barry's Homies) .... ... will just slow down any REAL improvement in the Nation's economy. (05/20/10)


Ken Berwitz

On March 26th, a South Korean ship sunk, with loss of life and cargo.  There appeared to be an explosion, and it was speculated that the ship had intentionally been sunk by North Korea.   At that time I wrote the following:

Do you find this story as bizarre as I do?


It says that, according to US officials, there was no indication the boat was attacked or that the North was involved in any way. 


But then, in the next sentence, a South Korean spokesperson says "it is not clear" whether North Korea was involved, which means the answer is in doubt. 


And the next sentence after that says that staff in Seoul "could not conclude" that North Korea attacked the ship, which means they don't know one way of the other.


Tell me:  How does the US know more about this than the South Koreans?  Based on what, other than wishful thinking?


Personally, I hope the US officials are right.  Because if they aren't we may be about to see a grotesquely bloody war that could quickly draw other countries into it. 


Keep  your fingers crossed.  This is no joke.

Our ever-vigilant media, however, treated it as little more than a joke, and have written virtually nothing about this incident since it occurred.

But now we have the following, excerpted from an Associated Press article today:

SEOUL - North Korea said Thursday that South Korea fabricated evidence implicating the North in a torpedo attack in order to pick on the North and any attempt at retaliating for the warship's sinking would be answered with "all-out war."

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak vowed "stern action" for the attack after a multinational investigation issued its long-awaited results Thursday, concluding the North fired a torpedo that sank the Cheonan navy ship March 26 near the Koreas' tense sea border.

"If the (South Korean) enemies try to deal any retaliation or punishment or if they try sanctions or a strike on us ... we will answer to this with all-out war," Col. Pak In Ho of North Korea's navy told broadcaster APTN in an exclusive interview in Pyongyang.

Do you think, just maybe, it is time for media to start covering this story?

Zeke ..... Ya think that Kim Jong Il is really George W. Bush ? ? .,.... (05/20/10)

(Anon) Do you think, just maybe, it is time for media to start covering this story? That depends, is there a way to blame Bush for it? (05/20/10)


Ken Berwitz

The Obama administrations commentaries on illegal immigration are a pack of lies.  Theres no other way to describe them.


Lets start with the following excerpts from an Associated Press article by Ben Feller, and see what they tell us.  Please pay special attention to the paragraph Ive put in bold print:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Confronting soaring frustration over illegal immigration, President Barack Obama on Wednesday condemned Arizona's crackdown and pushed instead for a federal fix the nation could embrace. He said that will never happen without Republican support, pleading: "I need some help."

In asking anew for an immigration overhaul, Obama showed solidarity with his guest of honor, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who called Arizona's law discriminatory and warned Mexico would reject any effort to "criminalize migration." The United States and Mexico share a significant economic and political relationship that stands to be damaged the more the nations are at odds over immigration, which affects millions of people on both sides of the border.

Obama sought to show that he, too, is fed up with his own government's failure to fix a system widely seen as broken. He said that would require solving border security, employment and citizenship issues all at once - the kind of effort that collapsed in Congress just three years ago.

The president's stand underscored the forces working against him in this election year: the need for help from Republican critics, the impatience of states like Arizona after federal inaction, the pressure to show movement on a campaign promise, and the mood of the public disgusted by porous borders.

The Arizona law requires police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and it makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. People may be questioned about their status if they've been stopped by police who are in the process of enforcing another law.

The law will take effect July 29 unless legal challenges are successful. Almost twice as many people support it as those who oppose it, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll this month. It found that 42 percent favored it, 24 percent opposed it and another 29 percent said they were neutral.

Yet in a Rose Garden appearance with Calderon, Obama called the Arizona law "a misdirected expression of frustration." He expects to announce soon what action his government may take about it, once the Justice Department finishes reviewing whether the law violates civil rights.

"In the United States of America, no law-abiding person - be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico - should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like," Obama said.

Ok, let's review:

-The idea that Republicans will not sign on to significant legislation that seriously addresses illegals flooding the USA from Mexico?  A lie.  Republicans have been begging for it.


-The idea that Obama is fed up with his own governments failure when it comes to illegal immigration?  A lie.  What legislation has Barack Obama proposed to stem this tidal wave of illegals?  When did he propose it?  Who backed it and who criticized it?  The answers are none, never, and no one since it doesnt exist.  


Other than using BS palaver like comprehensive immigration reform which means nothing and suggests nothing specific, not a thing has been done since Mr. Obama took office.  The fault lies squarely on his shoulders, along with his lopsidedly Democratic congress.  Blaming Republicans is fraud in the first degree.


-The idea that anyone can be rousted and asked for ID at any time just because of the way they look? A lie.  Read that paragraph in bold print again, and see for yourself.


Could police officers abuse the limits of their authority and profile by race?  Yes they could, as police could abuse the limits of their authority for every other law that exists.  But a) it doesnt mean they will do so and b) even if they did, what are we supposed to do, take all the laws off the books because they might at some point be abused?  The argument is ludicrous. 

In the past week we have heard President Barack Obama, Attorney General eric holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Asst. Secretary of State Michael Posner tell us that they have not read Arizonas new immigration laws (a total of about 15 20 pages in their entirety).  


My initial impulse was to be appalled that they have been lecturing us about whats wrong with this law and threatening legal action to stop it, without even reading what it says.  That makes them look like a bunch of idiots.


But I have reconsidered.


In thinking about it further, I now realize that they had to say they didnt read the legislation in order to perpetuate the lies they are telling about it most specifically that it enables police to walk up to anyone at any time regardless of cause and ask for ID.  


If they admitted to reading the laws, they could not possibly make this claim.  So they had to pretend they are idiots who did not read the law, to avoid being called on the lies they are telling about it lies which our wonderful neutral media have happily perpetuated and implanted in peoples minds for over a week.  


Now it wont matter if, after the fact, some media acknowledge they are misstating what the law says - as Mr. Feller did in the above write-up.  People already know that law enforcement officers, using the same techniques perfected in nazi Germany,  will accost Mexican-looking people who take their children out for ice cream, and demand to see their papers.  Even though it is not at all true.


The title calls this a pack of lies.  And that is exactly what it is.


Thank you Mr. Obama and thank you mainstream media.  Mission accomplished.


Ken Berwitz

....nothing will. 


free` I remembered each and every one of those clips when they happened. God Bless The US Military and their families. (05/21/10)


Ken Berwitz

This blog is from Ed Morrissey of  Ed dismantles President Obama's absurd, dishonest claim that he is cutting taxes. 

Please read Ed's analysis below (paying special attention to the last two paragraphs which I have put in bold print), to see just how bogus the Obama claim is.  And - in fairness to Mr. Morrissey since I am lifting his entire blog - please log onto and read him, and the other contributors there, every day.  You won't material like this in mainstream media, I assure you.

Obama tax cuts a bait and switch

posted at 2:55 pm on May 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The AP decided today to fact-check one of the Obama administrations favorite claims that they have passed so many tax cuts that Tea Partiers should be rallying to thank him.  The White House unveiled a small business tax credit this week, as part of the ObamaCare bill, that they claimed would stimulate job creation.  However, as the AP discovers, it may actually hinder both job creation and salary growth:

Zach Hoffman was confident his small business would qualify for a new tax cut in President Barack Obamas health care overhaul law.

But when he ran the numbers, Hoffman discovered that his office furniture company wouldnt get any assistance with the $79,200 it pays annually in premiums for its 24 employees. It leaves you with this feeling of a bait-and-switch, he said.

When the administration unveiled the small business tax credit earlier this week, officials touted its broad eligibility for companies with fewer than 25 workers and average annual wages under $50,000 that provide health coverage. Hoffmans workers earn an average of $35,000 a year, which makes it all the more difficult to understand why his company didnt qualify.

Lost in the fine print: The credit drops off sharply once a company gets above 10 workers and $25,000 average annual wages.

Its an example of how the early provisions of the health care law can create winners and losers among groups lawmakers intended to helppeople with health problems, families with young adult children and small businesses. Because of the laws complexity, not everyone in a broadly similar situation will benefit.

CBS actually took the lead on reporting the skewed incentives in the tax credit, prior to the final vote on the bill.  Their report mainly focused on the disincentives to provide health insurance, given the cost of such policies and the much lower cost of the penalties involved.  The AP picks up what CBS missed, which is that even the tax credits create strange incentives and disincentives for business owners.

In order to qualify for the full tax credit, business owners have to keep their staff to 10 or fewer workers and the average salary at the poverty line. What will business owners do under that set of incentives?  They certainly wont take the risk of expansion past the 10-worker level, not unless theyre certain to get a return greater than both the extra costs of the workers and the lost opportunity cost of the tax credit.  The same is true for offering higher wages.  Instead of only having to scale the market burden for labor costs, the Obama administration has a tax penalty that now must be overcome before an owner pays something above poverty-level wages.

Actually, its worse than that.  The tax credit disappears unless the business has 10 or fewer workers and pays less than $25K per worker in average salary. In an economy thats having trouble creating jobs and getting real wage growth, why did the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress set the incentives against both?

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!