It's always fun to read a liberal newspaper like the Milwaukee Journal, but today seemed extra-special. Consider these bits from the op-ed section.
The first is from an opinion piece by a UAW representative:
President Barack Obama has done the right thing by taking action to save Chrysler. He has taken on a handful of rich investors who refused to make the kind of sacrifices that workers and retirees have made to help the company survive. The president has stood up to protect the pensions and health care of thousands of UAW Chrysler retirees in Wisconsin.
Taking on a handful of rich investors, huh? Last I heard, Obama strong-armed some hedge funds (which represent the investments of people from all walks of life) into accepting 29 cents on the dollar. Are the auto workers now willing to work for 29% of their current pay? Oh, really? They're not willing to "sacrifice" that much to save their jobs, but they're willing to have Obama rob someone else for them?
Next up, a column about e-cigarettes, which contain no tobacco and burn nothing:
U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), long a foe of tobacco, in March urged a ban on e-cigs, and the cancer, lung and heart lobbies want to prohibit them. Their press release, however, dwelt on the possibility that children could order the devices and that the e-cigs haven't been proved healthy.
"Here's the problem," said SmokeFree Wisconsin's Maureen Busalacchi when I asked her. "The tobacco industry puts out these products and no one knows what they are." Lautenberg similarly cited Big Tobacco's history of deceptive claims.
Maureen, honey, they're little white plastic gizmos with a red LED on the end to simulate a burning cigarette. They don't emit anything, not even an odor. Why do I have the feeling that you're not as concerned about the health of people using them as you are with your desire to control others?
But wait, there's more! Here's an excerpt from a column by a Sierra Club chapter president on nuclear energy as an option:
There is no silver bullet solution to global warming. We must take a hard look at the costs and benefits of all energy sources needed to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. But there's one so-called solution that is too risky for America.
Some are calling for a "nuclear renaissance." But there's a reason no plants have been constructed in more than 30 years - the high costs and risks, especially relative to cheaper, cleaner and safer alternatives such as renewables and energy efficiency. Our children deserve a solution to global warming that goes beyond trading one bad idea for another.
No "silver bullet solution" is needed, because there's no "global warming." Or is it "climate change"? It was climate change this winter when we were freezing our butts off. I guess it's OK to call it global warming now that the ice has melted.
But there's that word again, "risky." You libs use it to deride everything from Social Security reform to concealed carry to ethanol. Oops, sorry, I forgot. You were for ethanol before you were against it, but that's beside the point. You folks love the Europeans for everything: socialized medicine, socialized vacations, hairy legs, and unearned haughtiness, but you fault them for the one thing they do right, which is use nuclear energy. I think a little consistency is in order here.
I'm amazed that newspapers are failing. You can't even find this kind of entertainment on Comedy Central.
