GOP Leadership Continues To Flail

“The people to fear are not those who disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know.” -- Napoleon Bonaparte

I think we’re getting to the point where John Boehner and Eric Cantor should resign from the leadership. The latest incidence of cowardice and stupidity involves earmarks.

Earmarks are a problem. They aren’t the be-all-end-all problem that John McCain envisioned because they are only a minor percentage of the total budget (about 0.8% of the budget -- $20 billion out of $2.4 trillion), but their effect is corrosive. Earmarks are the tool individual Congress members use to bribe the people in their districts with their neighbor’s money. This is how the government gets involved in building bridges to nowhere and studying whether pornography excites hummingbirds, and this is why West Virginia has become a ward of the Federal Government.

The problem with earmarks is that they represent a corrupt system that judges the success or failure of individual members on their ability to score pork, rather than their effect on the government as a whole. If a member doesn't bring home enough projects to the district, then others stand ready to replace them. Thus, the incentive is to keep grabbing. And even if a particular district decides against getting its share of the plunder, other districts stand ready to take up what they've left on the table. Consequently, the system is set up where the rational choice for all concerned is to keep plundering and thereby always expand the size and scope of government.

And as if this were not bad enough, a system like this encourages dirty dealing, as we've seen repeatedly when Congress members and lobbyists have been arrested for trading campaign contributions for earmarks. Interesting, as the Washington Examiner reminded us this weekend, earmarks also are what allowed the Democrats to buy the votes of Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Bill Nelson to secure the passage of ObamaCare.

Thus, I was heartened in March when every single House Republican voted to ban earmarks. Said Mike Pence at the time: “Now House Republicans are going to the American people and saying we want a clean break from the runaway spending in the past. And that's going to be quite a contrast from this Congress and the administration.”

But that was then and this is now, and these are career politicians we are talking about. According to the Politico, both John Boehner and Eric Cantor “are leaving the door open to allowing earmarks after a one-year party-imposed moratorium.” Yep. Nothing says "principled stand" quite like agreeing to stop for only a short period of time, does it?

There is no excuse for this unprincipled cowardice, and this is fast becoming a pattern. All summer long, Boehner and Cantor remained silent as the rank and file of the party and the public rose up and demanded a new way, a way that should be entirely consistent with Republican principle. When they did speak, Boehner talked about procedures and Cantor whimpered about being careful not to be too extreme or too offensive. They have failed to embrace Paul Ryan’s plans, they failed to embrace the spirit of the Tea Party, they failed to embrace the 60% of the public that says Obama's way is the wrong way, they failed to see the need to put forth an agenda, and the agenda they finally put together appears to be nothing more than tinkering, gimmickry, and form over substance. And now we hear that they can’t even make a simple stand on principle like this. . . a stand they already agreed to take.

This is not leadership, and it's no surprise that 57% of GOP voters want a new leadership.

Jim DeMint has warned that the Republicans better deliver serious change. I agree. But I don’t think Boehner and Cantor get that, and even if they do, I don’t see that they have the courage to do it. And what makes this all the worse, we’re not even talking about needing real courage. They’re not being asked to risk their lives or even to do anything that would put them at odds with the public. They’re simply being ask to act according to the principles that they supposedly represent, principles that the vast majority of the public and their party want them to act upon.

If they can’t do that, then they should resign.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Stupid Idea Graduates

The latest stealth amnesty maneuver comes from Harry Reid as he continues to push the DREAM Act. Among the idiotic tools of the Act would be granting citizenship to a couple million illegal aliens if they have two years of college education. I wouldn't allow native-born college graduates to vote without first giving them a literacy test, let alone grant citizenship to illegals based on college credits.

Reid is using a much-labored Democratic tactic to slip amnesty past the public. He's going to attach the DREAM Act to a defense authorization bill. Unlike the non-relationship of fighter planes and gay partner benefits, this ploy actually has a "national defense" element to it. At the same time we would grant citizenship to college indoctrinated illegals, we would also grant it to illegals who somehow manage to serve in the US military. The latter was a brilliant idea supported by the Bush administration.

The Democrats come to the table with violins and heart-rending stories of college-age illegals who, through no fault of their own, were brought into the US illegally as small children by their parents. Boo hoo. An illegal act doesn't become legal merely with the passage of time. Those who serve honorably in the US military at least have a somewhat logical and valid argument for a fast-track to citizenship on a case-by-case basis. But the leftocrats want blanket amnesty for all, regardless of the circumstances, and want to bring the illiterate college students along with them.

I can see how loyal service in the US military could be used as a national defense/national security reason for fast-tracking citizenship. But given the dreadful state of "higher education," I can't for the life of me find any reason to use a junior college diploma as an excuse for granting citizenship to illegals.

Forty years ago, the two-year programs at junior colleges were parodied as "high school with ashtrays." Well, the ashtrays are gone, and most high schools back then delivered better educations than most four-year colleges today. Now we are expected to believe that students, already here illegally, will make better citizens after getting left-wing indoctrination in the two year institutions of higher illiteracy.

Blue states are usually known for marching in lockstep with the federal government if the Democrats are in charge. Yet when a federal law was passed that prevented any state from granting benefits to foreigners and illegals that were greater than anyone else's, ten states discovered states rights. They offered special preferential educational treatment to illegals (my home states of Illinois and California among them). So not only will the DREAM Act provisions grant illegals citizenship, but will do so based on two years of college education during which they received benefits not available to local and native-born citizens.

So now the reward for being in the country illegally and receiving an education preferentially-subsidized by native-born taxpayers is quick, painless citizenship. That sounded like such a good idea that when the DREAM Act was first brought before the Senate, RINOs like Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and several moderate Republicans who should have known better crossed the aisle to support the no-borders no-sovereignty amnesty act. McCain ran against DREAM during his recent primary, then as sure as night follows day, last week he made another sharp left turn and vowed to get the Act passed after all.

A recent Quinnipiac poll showed how Americans feel about DREAM Act-type legislation. The poll asked a question that should have skewed the result toward amnesty because it posed a tough option against a very American-sounding option: "Do you think immigration reform should primarily move in the direction of integrating illegal immigrants into American society or in the direction of stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigration?" Phrased that way, it sounds like the great American melting-pot versus hang 'em high law. And yet solid majorities supported stricter enforcement by large margins across both major parties and independents.

Reid and the Obamists need Hispanic votes desperately, so after suffering a very public defeat on DREAM, they are looking for a way to pass it without full and open debate on the issue of illegal immigration standing by itself. Declaring that Republicans are "holding up a vital defense bill for purely partisan reasons" is the preferred Democratic tactic for getting special interest legislation passed when the vast majority of Americans oppose the sneaky rider to the legitimate legislation.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Solution To Disloyalty: A Performance Bond

Disloyalty is a real problem in politics, and this year has seen more than its normal share. Political opportunists, egomaniacs and vindictive jerks enter primaries in bad faith, with no intent of accepting defeat. If the other guy wins, they break from the party and run as an independent. No one seems to know what to do about this. I do.

Disloyalty is a long time problem, and it’s a problem for both sides. This year you’ve got Crist in Florida and Murkowski in Alaska both thinking that they are too important to disappear onto the ash heap of history, and unwilling to try for a different office. In 2008, it was Joe Lieberman. These egomaniacs simply cannot accept that the public doesn’t want them and they are going to do anything they can to make sure they keep that job, no matter what the consequences.

Others have different motives. Some are opportunists who simply want to make a name for themselves in the hopes of getting famous. These want book deals or television deals, some will change their politics overnight to make this happen. Others simply want to sabotage their parties. A classic example of such a saboteur was John Anderson running for President against Reagan. He despised the shift in the GOP from non-ideological, blue blood permanent minority to ideologically conservative. He knew he couldn’t win, but that wasn’t his point -- if we’re being honest. He wanted to hand Reagan a defeat to “prove” that conservatives cannot be elected in America.

So far, no one has come up with a way to deal with these traitors. Allow me to suggest the following:

Any candidate who enters into a primary will be required to post a $1,000,000 performance bond, much like criminals post bonds to assure that they will show up for their hearings. The terms of the bond will be simple: if you leave the primary and run on any other party’s ticket, or if you endorse anyone other than the winner of the primary, then you lose the bond. The proceeds of that bond would go to the winner of the primary.

Other professions do this with non-compete clauses and forfeiture provisions for warrants, stock options or salary claw-back provisions. So why not politicians?

Admittedly, there are some flaws with this system. First, many will complain that this keeps out anyone but rich candidates -- obtaining a million dollar bond would require significant amounts of collateral; criminals usually need to post 10% of the cost of their bonds and find a large portion of the face amount in collateral. But I’m not sympathetic to this argument because politics is an expensive game and you don’t lose this money unless you violate the bond. Moreover, if you are so untrustworthy that your family and friends aren't willing to put up their houses as collateral to support you, then maybe that tells us something important about you.

Secondly, this won’t stop candidates from very publicly refusing to endorse the winner, but they would run the risk of being found in violation if they stray too close to the line. You could require them to endorse the winner, but I think that would be a mistake because (1) it doesn’t stop obviously faked-endorsements and (2) it would make candidates subject to the allegation that their endorsements are made under duress.

Third, this doesn’t stop jackasses like Tom Tancredo in Colorado who didn’t run in the primary, but then jumped in as an independent when he didn’t like the candidate the Republicans chose. But I see this as a small risk because the real danger is from the people who thought they would win the primary and then didn’t.

This system isn’t perfect, but I think it would seriously cut down on the risk of disloyal candidates destroying their party’s chances for whatever egomaniacal or vindictive reasons they may have.

What do you think?


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

State Dept Talks Turkey--Turkey Talks Back

Once again, the US State Department went for the obvious and missed the reality. 58% of the voting Turks (a 77.5% turnout) have approved "reforms" to the Turkish basic law. The reforms appear to establish a more democratic form of government. The referendum weakens the military influence on the government and makes the military accountable to the Turkish civilian courts.

What could be wrong with that? Plenty.

Those who don't follow events in Turkey (and most of the Middle East, for that matter) wouldn't realize just how subtly these changes will actually damage the form of secular government set up by Ataturk. Another secular pin on the bowling alley of Islam has just fallen. And our State Department is charged with knowing these things. As usual for the Obama/Clinton State Department, they either knew and are complicit, or are so ignorant as to have gotten it all wrong.

Here's the memorandum from the State Department: "We hope that through these reforms, it will further enhance Turkey's democratic processes and human rights protection. This was a choice for the Turkish people, and there was a very strong, decisive vote to move towards greater civilian oversight of these democratic institutions." The memorandum from Iranian officials sounded almost identical. What does Iran know that our geniuses at State don't?

The Obama administration excels at the glorification of form over substance, and this time they behaved no differently. Perhaps they were so overcome by the words of the referendum that they didn't notice that it was a further victory in the advancement of Islamic rule. Prime Minister Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) have successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of the United States--but not Iran's, apparently.

The first purpose of the referendum was to pull that wool over the eyes of the Europeans who are considering bringing Middle Eastern Turkey into the European Union. Having the Islamic tail wagging the Dutch and Belgian dogs isn't enough for the Euro-suicides, they have to bring in a country that is already Islamic, and not truly in Europe at all.

Take government power away from the military. That's a clearly desirable goal in a democracy, if it serves democratic goals. But this referendum does not, and Europe doesn't get it either. The reforms put the military under the power of the civilian judiciary (something even dumb Obamists wouldn't try). But wait--there's more. While reducing the political power of the military which has stood in the way of a religious takeover of the nation, it also grants the Turkish parliament the power of deciding who sits on the Supreme Board of Prosecutors and Judges. Therefore, not only is the judiciary no longer independent from the legislature, but in addition the politically-controlled judiciary has been given power over the military at the same time.

So what, you ask? Well, Erdogan's party is an Islamic party. They aren't just taking power away from the military (the obvious) but are also quickly destroying the secular form of government set up by Ataturk (the subtle). The former government which eschewed religious control and promoted good relations with the United States and Israel is gone, and in its place is a government in disagreement with the United States and openly hostile to Israel. The referendum may make the Euro-weenies happy, but in fact it almost guarantees that Erdogan and the AKP will write a new constitution which turns Turkey into another Islamic "republic."

Erdogan himself has long had it in for the military/secular government. That government put him in prison for subversive activities in 1998 for his participation in the nefarious antidemocratic shenanigans of the Islamist Welfare Party. That party was praised by the murderous Muslim Brotherhood for being "a moderate Islamist group." That should tell you just how radical Erdogan's friends and allies are. He and Turkish president Gul met openly in 2009 with the Iranian-sponsored militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr. Remember Iraq? Al Sadr has American and Iraqi murders to his credit. Like the Ground Zero mosque imam, Erdogan refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization.

Try this one on for size. Erdogan is closely tied to the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief ("IHH," for short). The IHH is responsible for the ambush of Israeli soldiers when they sent a ship to run the blockade on Gaza. The IHH is too much even for the French, who have identified the IHH as "having as its goal the overthrow of the democratic, secular, and constitutional order present in Turkey and replacing it with an Islamic state founded on the Shariah." The French counter-terrorism wing has arrested IHH officials and members for planning jihadist attacks in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. The AKP and the IHH share many members in common.

There is still hope. The new constitution can't be written before the 2011 Turkish general elections. The powerful secular opposition party, the CHP, has a powerful and popular leader in Kemal Kilicdaroglu. A poll taken before the referendum showed Kilicdaroglu virtually tied with the AKP and Erdogan. Unfortunately, that has probably changed with the passage of the referendum and the inexplicable support of the US State Department, but Erdogan's lead is still not insurmountable. In addition recent government actions and support for Hezbollah and Hamas are highly unpopular.

At the same time, Iran is donating $12 million to the AKP and $25 million to the IHH. If Iran, the IHH and Erdogan are successful, thanks in part to official American administration help, the AKP will pack the courts with Islamists which will then put on show trials of secular military officers and leaders who have opposed the Islamization of Turkey. The apparent but phony "reforms" will fly out the window, and sharia will come in through the front door when the AKP, Erdogan and their Iranian friends rewrite the Turkish constitution.

At that point the only question that remains will be whether or not Europe will still consider Turkey for European Union membership. Considering Europe's fecklessness in relation to Islam within its own territories, and its growing distrust of Obama foreign policy, they might just decide that an Islamic republic wouldn't be such a bad thing to have along for the ride.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Communists To The Right Of Obama

Pictured are the famous non-identical brothers Hap-Pea and Pea-Wee. No, wait, those are the Andersen's Pea Soup twins. The guys in the picture are actually Raul and Fidel Castro. The two communists have discovered something that our own president hasn't. Communism and socialism don't work, and the larger the number of people on the public dole, the poorer the country becomes.

Hmmm. Smells like teen capitalism. The Castro boys and the Labor Federation have found that the 85% of Cubans who work directly or indirectly for the government are less productive and account for less wealth than the 15% who don't work for the government. It took them about fifty years to figure this out, but at least they're doing better than Barack Obama.

Raul, who stepped in to become the peerless leader of Cuba after Fidel became a zombie, was shocked--shocked--to find out that people who will be rewarded for hard work, efficiency and creativity are vastly more productive than those who will receive the same payment for laziness, drudge "accomplishment" and utter failure as they would if they were highly successful. The Castros have also figured out that when everyone is paid the same, everyone is equally poor.

Here's a quote from the Cuban government that ought to be coming from the American government: "Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, production entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt our economy. Job options will be increased and broadened with new forms of non-state employment, among them leasing land, cooperatives and self-employment, absorbing hundreds of thousands of workers in the coming years." Obama's version: "Eat the rich, punish the successful"

A more telling quote from Raul is "we have to erase forever the notion that Cuba is the only country in the world in which people can live without working." Meanwhile, Obama's plan is to fund rich union retirees, add non-taxpayers to the voting rolls while taxing the far less numerous voting business people to death, gain government control over all the private businesses and public corporations, and unionize, well, everybody. Fidel "Zombie" Castro came out of his grave long enough to say "the Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore." Obama, on the other hand, thinks it will work just fine.

Although Fidel subsequently returned to the grave after recanting, Raul has made no further comment and is sticking with his plan to privatize as quickly as possible without looking like a complete turncoat. "Efficiency" and the "public sector" are mutually exclusive terms which Raul understands and Obama does not. The average monthly Cuban salary is $25. I'm tempted to think that if this country continues to allow Fidel Obama to socialize everything in sight, by the end of his first term the average monthly American salary will be $30, and by then, Cuba will have caught up.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

House Republicans To Issue Lousy Agenda. . . Slowly

No film discussion today because I’m suffering from the flu. And because of this near death experience, I don’t have the mental clarity to talk about anything interesting or thoughtful. So instead, I will address the election agenda the Republicans are about to roll out. At this point we don’t have the full agenda (or even most of it), but we have enough to know that we will need to use the word “retard” liberally in any letter we send to the “leadership.”

Now I’ve been saying for some time that the Republicans need an agenda. Without an agenda, they will have no mandate and nothing to guide their actions once they win control of the House. In fact, I’ve gone so far as to produce an agenda.... here. But the leadership has been cowardly and inept on this. So I was somewhat heartened when I heard that they were finally preparing an agenda. But of course, it’s never that easy with the Republicans and there are a great many red flags going up.

Indeed, it was a troubling sign that no one in the leadership was willing to sign on to Paul Ryan’s plan, which is quite impressive. Clearly, cowardice remains the chosen course. And it was a bad sign when Mike Pence, who I normally respect a great deal, refused to sign the Contract From America on the grounds that he didn’t want to do anything that would confuse people into think the Contract and the Republican agenda were the same. Why aren't they Mike?

Then I heard about the “rolling out.” That’s right because nothing says “policies we really believe in” like a gimmicky two week roll out. . . like an unfunny David Letterman Top 10. What’s worse, it’s apparently closer to a Top 20. . . because the public loves long, unwieldy lists. Clearly, the Republicans have learned nothing about marketing. Always keep your lists short, punchy and relevant. And to get the greatest bang for your buck, release it all at once with a grand ceremony, never dribble out the details over a couple of weeks time -- especially when you’re talking about the things you supposedly hold dear.

Then I heard that none of the non-incumbent candidates had a hand in drafting this. At a time when the voters are sending messages to Washington, the idea of excluding the voter’s representatives from preparing the agenda is arrogant and delusional. And this will lead exactly to what it appears to have led to: meaningless insider crap that isn’t even about style, much less substance.

Indeed, the first known proposal will require that each bill include a specific citation to the constitutional authority under which the bill is being passed. Wow! If a member questions whether the House has that authority, the challenge would receive debate and a vote! Double wow! And this will do what about the debt, about the unchecked growth of government, about the intrusion on our rights, about the abuses of federal power? This sounds all constitutionally, but it’s nothing more than smoke and mirrors. At a practical level, all this means is that every bill will now have the words “Commerce Clause” printed on the top, and nothing else will change. Indeed, they already have the power to question their authority and the only people who use it are Ron Paul and his space cadets. This is pointless. We might as well require them to certify that the draft they read on the floor was written on legal size paper or that they washed their hands before they voted.

The second proposal is even worse. This one is a watered-down proposal stolen from Pelosi. From now on, they will “encourage” (but not require) that members read each bill before they vote on it, and they will require that the text be put on line for three days before the House votes on it. Again, so what? How does this change the content of these bills? And what does this do to change the culture in DC, the deficit, the crappy Obamaconomy, or the corruption? Moreover, as the Democrats discovered, this is not a practical rule because of the number of votes and the time constraints on those votes. Thus, once again, the GOP is choosing to steal an idea from the Democrats that has been proven not to work, and then promising to do it half as much. . . old habits apparently are hard to break. Maybe we should change our logo to a circle with a small case “d” in it? Further, talk about handing the Democrats an issue to ridicule us with: “the GOP doesn’t believe that its members need to read each bill they vote on, they only encourage it.”

These two proposals are what is called “inside baseball,” meaning they don’t matter to anyone except a handful of insiders. I’m sure the staffers are home right now touching themselves in inappropriate places as they read these policies and feeling that their life’s work is complete. But the rest of us know better. Those of us who don’t live our lives in a bubble know that this is all a meaningless gesture that will not change one letter of substance in any of the bills that get passed.

The rest of the proposals supposedly deal with tax proposals, health reform proposals and job-related measures. Ok, let me just say. . . no duh. What else were they going to deal with? Pest control? Decorating national parks? Criminalizing Dutch Subways?

But before you get excited that they may have stumbled upon something, let me caution you that they’ve leaked out that they don’t plan to do anything “grandiose.” Said one leadership aid, “we’re not re-creating the wheel.” In other words, don’t expect anything you haven’t already seen, i.e. it’s business as usual.

I will give this “agenda” a chance, but let me be clear. This is their last chance. The American people have tossed a softball across the plate, and if Boehner and his collection of idiots can’t find their way to the plate, then it’s time to be rid of them.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Can A New Logo Save The Democrats?

By now, talking about the Democrats being in trouble is like discussing the weather. But that doesn’t mean the Democrats have given up. . . well, not all of them. Yesterday, in what was billed as "a major announcement for the Democratic Party," party boss Tim Kaine unveiled their latest strategy: they’ve changed the logo of the DNC. That’s it (on the left, of course).

Now call me crazy, but I’m not entirely thrilled with this logo. Indeed, if I were a Democrat, I would be pretty angry. But then, if I were a Democrat, I’d have to yank out large chunks of my brain and I probably wouldn’t know the difference. Look. . . drool.

When I see this new logo, one thing comes to mind: Dunkin Donuts. Or maybe a defective bullseye? Or maybe a Dutch subway (which is probably a euphemism for something. . . "hey sexy, how much for a Dutch Subway? Forty euros? Are you kidding? Pelosi gives them for free behind the Capitol!"). Hey, that's three thoughts, which is two more than Obama's ever had. I guess I'm over-qualified to be a Democratic Messiah now.

I wonder what happened to the “NC” in DNC? Did they lose it? Did the union guys just get lazy and leave it off? Is this some slight at North Carolina? Maybe they just wanted to end all the “Does Not Compute” or the "Dipsticks, Nuts and Crackpots" jokes by dropping the NC? Maybe the “D” is the grade they've given themselves. . . it's certainly higher than I would give them.

And why did they hire a five year old to draw the font for the word "Democrat"? Oh, that was Biden? I see. At least he spell checked.

Interestingly, they apparently stole the logo from a pizza restaurant from St. Louis. Typical Democrats, stealing from small business to support their habits. Still, it is better than the other logo they were considering, which was intended to convey a sense of how modern and tech savvy they are. Here’s that logo:

Oh, and do you see the new slogan too? “Change that matters.” Talk about lousy, but I guess it’s better than their prior slogan: “Bend over America,” or the alternate "It's Bush's Fault." Still, I don’t think the implication is very good. Are they saying they spent the last two years working on change that doesn’t matter?

In any event, we at Commentarama like to help the Democrats whenever we can. . . we have a soft spot for the criminally insane. So I’ve put together a new logo that they are free to use, just pay shipping and handling. But unlike their brain trust, I didn’t drive by any pizza places. No, siree. I brain my used instead. And I decided what better symbol than one that represents the various wings of their party! So here it is, with each of their major tribes represented: gay militants, militant feminists, black militants, militant environmental whackos, blood sucking lawyers, and. . . well, there would be a union sign, but they went on strike and then never finished the job. I've also left off the word "Democrat" because so many Democrats like to do that in their ads already.



What do you think? Kind of brings a tear to your eye doesn't it? So what kind of slogan would you suggest for these new-old Democrats . . . we can run it across the bottom?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Test Of My Resolve To Leave San Francisco

Since moving to rural, high desert Caliente, I've discovered that "flamers" has a different meaning from what it had in my old home in San Francisco. This is wildfire country. A truly nasty fire broke out above my place and my younger daughter's place. It's isolated territory and no homes are expected to burn or lives get lost. But it has wrought havoc with something we all take for granted--electricity.

My younger daughter lives closer to the fire, but the Kern County Fire Department says that if things continue as they are now, the fire is unlikely to reach their property. But there are evacuation alerts for her property and mine, which I think was basically erring on the side of caution. I have a clear path of escape, but their property is bit more dicey.

Nevertheless, even at scary times like this, it's important to maintain perspective and a moderate sense of humor. So just for fun, I thought I'd share my e-mail to my daughter this morning when the power finally came back on. Her name is Andrea, and she works in Bakersfield, so at least I don't have to worry about her, her husband who works in Tehachapi, or the grandkids who go to school far from the fire. Those of you who have stuck with me over the past year will recognize that this post about Caliente is somewhat different from what I used to write from San Francisco.

Andrea:

Speaking of modern conveniences, I was without power for 16 hours. It went off at 4:04 PM yesterday [Tuesday] and finally came on again, unexpectedly, at 10:20 this morning. SCE had just told me that the lines were all down because of the fire, and that the fire crews wouldn't let the power workers into the area.

I've learned several lessons from my first summer in the country:

1. Don't assume that all candles are "dripless." I'm still cleaning wax off the dining room tablecloth. Beegee decided that the moment I turned my back, she would play with the still-wet wax from the candle on the bar counter [Note: Begee is the new addition to the family. She is now Kitty Kelly's assistant. She's a full calico kitten, so now I guess I have to get a gingham dog]. It was splattered all the way from the espresso machine to the telephone. Big, thick globs of wax. "Designer" candles (like the one I got from Cartier) smell really nice and give off more light than you'd think.

2. Reading by candlelight is nearly-impossible. Abraham Lincoln is now even more of a hero to me than he was before. Have at least one Coleman lantern handy (I'll be getting one on our next shopping trip).

3. Gasoline-powered electrical generators are not a luxury. In addition, I was not aware that the sound of somebody else smart enough nearby to have a generator can bring on a murderous rage in me.

4. Computers don't like power failures. It took almost an hour to get my main computer back up and running (which is why I'm only just now writing to you).

5. Have plenty of water available, and never let the Sparklett's cooler run low. Toilets don't flush without water, and electrical water pumps don't operate without power.

6. When the TV and radios don't work, it isn't quite as quiet in the country as you might think. Suddenly, I could hear the wind blowing and twigs snapping, not to mention cats playing and thundering across the floors.

7. The SCE repair crews are both brave and efficient. Customer service--not so much. Besides giving me bad information or no information, they told me they appreciated my calling about the outage (what the hell did they expect?), and each agent I talked to thanked me and reminded me that I can check SCE information on www.sce.com. And how, exactly, am I supposed to do that when I don't have any power, goddammit?

8. If you already had enough ice made, the freezer doesn't completely thaw in 16 hours, and if you don't open the refrigerator door too often, the food stays cool there, too.

9. The electronic ignition oven won't light with a match, but the burners will. So hot coffee is available, and all those canned foods come in very handy. Life is possible even when your microwave doesn't work.

DAD

Sidenote: Since writing this e-mail and post, the situation changed somewhat. The Kern County Fire Department has called in federal, state and local resources, including the Forestry Service and Bureau of Land Management. There are now 1600 firefighters on the fire lines. One structure has been destroyed, and 250 in the Lake Isabella area (not near us) are presently threatened. So far no lives lost, thank God. Evacuations have been ordered for some of the smaller communities outside Lake Isabella. The fire is about 50% contained, but full containment is not expected until tomorrow. Well, nobody said country life was easy.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The NFL: The Master of Delusion

The NFL is back and already the writing is on the wall for certain teams. The same teams that have stunk for a decade now will apparently continue to stink, and their play this weekend proved that. But the NFL has become a master at marketing itself, and like Barack Obama, it's biggest achievement (Nobel Prize-worthy perhaps) is the selling of false hope. Indeed, what's fascinating about the NFL is just how well it has deluded its fans.

People in cities like Oakland, Tampa, Cleveland and Detroit should all know that their teams will be lucky to win 5 games this year... or any year. They are poorly managed, they choose the wrong players, have the worst coaches, and lack the long term plans and stability that better teams use to stay competitive year after year. Yet, every off season, fans in these cities tell themselves "this is the year we finally put it all together."

Why do they think this? Well, the NFL is great at selling false hope. Right at the end of each season, the crappy teams shuffle their coaches. Suddenly the guy who couldn't get it done in Dallas is the guy who will save Buffalo. . . this time it will be different. And that new offensive coordinator? He was on that team that won all those game a decade ago (forget the ten bad years in the meantime)!

Then they shuffle players. Remember that washed-up never-was who quarterbacked that team to 6 wins two years ago? He's our new starter and he's awesome!! We know how to use him, that other team didn't!

Then comes the creme d la creme: the draft. The NFL has built a ton of hype around these players, raising their profiles to the point of messianic, even though experience shows that almost no rookies contribute in their first year and few will remain with the team after three years. . . yet fans know that they got the one guy in the draft who will turn their team around! Booo yah!

Then we have preseason games. These are the games that let the guy who couldn't get open if he was allowed to use a shotgun suddenly shine against a guy who will be bagging groceries by the end of the month. And the fans start thinking. . . wow, where was this last year?!

And the whole time, the NFL sells the story of the Cinderella team that went "worst to first." In fact, every step of the way, the NFL sells stories of redemptions, of second chances, of miracle finishes, of "any given Sunday," and a dozen other angles that are designed to make you think that this time it will be different no matter what the evidence says to the contrary. And it's fascinatingly effective. Year after year, the fans of teams with no real shot of even getting a winning record convince themselves that they're going to the Super Bowl because the NFL has given them just enough lottery tickets for them to think they must be holding a winner.

I guess Barnum was right about that sucker being born every minute.

So who's your team and how are they going to do this year? My Buccaneers? Well, this is the year we're finally putting it all together. . . heck, we just squeaked out a win against the awful Cleveland Browns, and that's got to count for something, right?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Delaware Disaster

If there is one thing Republicans excel at, it’s losing elections they should win. In fact, they’ve made it into an art form. Last night’s selection of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware’s Republican primary is virtually a case study in this. They did everything wrong in this primary, and there’s plenty of blame to go around.

Let’s start with the obvious. Many of you won’t want to admit this, but O’Donnell has no chance of winning. Every election tracking specialist from Michael Barone to Karl Rove agrees with this, and the polls confirm it. Most polls (including Rasmussen) show her around 11% behind the Democratic nominee and falling as moderate Republicans abandon her.

And in her loss, we are all but guaranteed that we will not retake the Senate. More importantly, we are going to lose an historic opportunity to take a seat that hasn’t swung Republican since 1972 and which could have easily gone Republican this time. This will haunt us in 2012 and beyond.

So who is to blame? Everyone involved.

The Conservatives. Too many conservatives underestimate the importance of winning. Indeed, the importance of having a Republican in a seat cannot be over-stated, and it goes way beyond how they will vote on individual pieces of legislation. The House and Senate are set up to give disproportionate power to the party in the majority. The majority party controls the schedule, controls what can and will be debated, and under what terms these bills will be debated. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have single-handedly decided the fate of this country through this power; nothing they did not like ever made it to the floor.

Yet, many Republican favor pointless stands on purity that achieve nothing except defeat. They don't understand that it is better to get half of what you want (or more in this case because control of the leadership is worth much more than half) than nothing except smug satisfaction. That is how the Democrats have pushed this country to the left and how Ronald Reagan pushed us back to the right. . . a little at a time, taking what they could get from any allies they could get it from. They understood that politics is about convincing people to come around to your way of thinking and is ill-suited for the all or nothing approach. . . the public always selects nothing. They also understood that not every state was going to cooperate and that it was better to take what you could get in some states than spite yourself to hold out for the perfect.

Now, this is not to say that conservatives should always vote for the most electable candidate. I don’t believe that. But there must be a blending of the issues of how electable a candidate is in a particular state with how they are likely to perform in Washington. Thus, tossing out Lisa Murkowski in Alaska makes sense, as does the selection of Paul Rand in Kentucky and Ken Buck in Colorado. But in a state like Delaware, where conservatives are a rare breed, and where one candidate would be a clear winner in the general election (and has a proven track record of being elected repeatedly), while the other is so far behind in the polls as to be a sure loser (and has a record of repeatedly losing elections), it is simply stupid to go with the loser.

But I'm not saying that I think Castle should be the nominee in Delaware. What I'm really saying is that the voters never should have been put in a position where voting for Mike Castle was the smart choice. Indeed, the real problem with conservatives in this instance was not in thinking that someone more conservative than Castle could win in Delaware, it was in accepting O’Donnell as that someone. Consider this. O’Donnell ran in the Republican primary in 2006. When she lost, she tried to run independently as a write-in candidate (disloyalty). She ran again and lost in 2008, this time by 30% (unelectability). In 2008, her mortgage went into foreclosure and her house was scheduled to be sold off at a sheriff’s auction until her campaign counsel stepped in to buy the house (corruption). In 2009, she began paying her rent with campaign contributions. She never paid her staff from the 2008 campaign. In 2010, the IRS put a lien on her property for taxes she owed from 2005. In 2004, she sued the Inter-Collegiate Studies Institute for gender discrimination (seeking $7 million, mostly in pain and suffering and punitive damages). And she made a series of false statements about her college degrees and on her FEC financial disclosures. None of this is consistent with her conservative rhetoric.

Conservatives bear the blame for not fielding a better candidate, i.e. one who was both conservative and electable. To have selected O’Donnell and chosen her over Castle was an act of political suicide that basically ensured the Democrats could keep a seat they would have lost. We are likely to pay for this for years to come as we try to repeal what the Democrats have done.

The Establishment. An even greater share of the blame for this debacle falls on the Republican establishment. Mike Castle is a RINO. He has held elective office since 1966 and is considered one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress. He voted for the TARP, cap and trade, and the DISCLOSE Act which limits freedom of speech. He also favors gun control and earned a 100% score from pro-abortion groups like NARAL. This is not a man who should ever have been fielded as a Republican candidate, and he should never have received any support from the establishment in a primary.

Since it’s naive to argue that the establishment should sit out primaries (and I don’t believe this anyway), I say very firmly that the establishment should have scoured the countryside for someone more electable. By failing to do that, the establishment surrendered the chance of fielding a candidate who was both conservative and capable of winning election, and left the voters with a choice of the lesser of two evil lesser. This is where most of the blame lies, and it’s the same blame they earned in allowing Dede Scozzafava to be the nominee in New York. It’s time that the establishment stopped looking for cozy insiders and careerists and began looking for talented conservatives.

All of Them. Finally, it is time that Republicans and conservatives learned to stop spitting venom at each other in the primaries. Ronald Reagan said the Eleventh Commandment was to never speak ill of another Republican, and he was right. This election cycle in particular has seen Republican after Republican savage each other in some of the sleaziest, nastiest campaigning I’ve ever seen in my life. What good does that do for the party? Primaries should not be bloodbaths, they should be about ideas and goals.

Once again, Delaware provides the perfect example of this. Castle and his allies in the establishment have spent the last week calling O’Donnell everything but a crazed child molester. They have made it virtually impossible to work with her following her win, and (more importantly) have raised the level of hate so much among moderate Republicans that she can expect none of them to vote for her, i.e. they guaranteed that she would lose. This was called scorched earth when Hitler did it, and it was no more successful then than it will be now. But the establishment wasn’t alone in this. O’Donnell accused Castle supporters of breaking into her home (though oddly, she filed no police report). Her supporters also put out an ad suggesting that Castle (who is married) engaged in a homosexual affair.

This sh~t must stop.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

An Insight Into Why Democrats Have Soured On Obama

Maureen Dowd, a smug lefty New York Times hack, wrote an interesting article this weekend. It was interesting because it shows us two perspectives on why the Democrats have soured on Obama. Those perspectives are from the left wing of her party and the liberal wing (they are different). Commentarama readers will find her reasoning strangely familiar.

The article begins with Dowd’s own views on Obama. Dowd represents the left wing of the Democratic Party, as her views are in lockstep with Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos et al. These are the party shock troops and opinion makers. Without them, the liberal wing would meander around cluelessly looking for something to whine about. Indeed, losing these people will sap the party of its energy, its financial strength, and the people it needs to get the sheep to the polls. And lose them Obama has.

How do we know? Well, Dowd’s tone more than anything. Indeed, the article is snotty if not downright nasty about Obama. For example, Dowd begins by taking digs at his race: “How did the first president of color become so colorless?” and by slipping in a basketball metaphor about him being in “buzzer-beating mode.” To you and me, these comments may not sound like a big deal, but to a leftist like Dowd, these would normally be considered “racists” comments if made by a conservative, and I think her use of them is no accident. I think she’s looking for a way to insult Obama on a personal level, and she’s opting to begin her article with a “you were supposed to be exotic, a noble savage, but you turned out to be just like everyone else,” and the basketball reference is usually considered an attempt to denigrate a black target as stupid.

I think this is Dowd’s intent because of what she writes next. Check out this quote:

“‘You know, are there, you know, things that I might have done during the course of 18 months that would, you know, at the margins have improved some of the tone in Washington?’ Obama asked. ‘Probably.’ Uncharacteristically valley girl, the usually eloquent president must have, you know, had a hard time acknowledging that.”

Note that not only does she not clean up his quote, as she and the rest of the MSM usually do, but she actively points out how poorly he speaks. Indeed, she mocks him by equating him to a valley girl, another object of derision for feminists and a way to attack his manhood -- just like her first comment was a way to attack his “blackhood” (see Spike’s Lees’ comment on Obama needing “to act like a black man.”). She even throws in her own “you know” for good measure, indicating that she thinks she’s a superior speaker.

She then attacks his strategy in a very dismissive and condescending way. First, she frames the problem: “Obama has been bleeding independents.” She then makes him sound stupid by creating a disconnect by saying that Obama’s plan for dealing with the independent problem is to ignore independents so he can focus on the base. In other words, she’s saying “he doesn’t get it” without actually using those words. Then she presents Obama’s reasoning: he thinks he has time to recapture female independents after the election because of his support for abortion rights and health care reform. But she dismisses this by telling us about her sister Peggy, who Dowd identifies as one of those independents, and by giving us a quote from Peggy that contradicts every one of Obama’s assumptions. Finally, she finishes with a blanket statement that Obama better rethink his plans: “While Obama’s out in the country trying to save Congressional Democrats, he should also think about how he’s going to save himself.” In other words, his plan stinks.

But even more interesting is Dowd’s story about her sister, Peggy. Peggy supposedly is one of the “independents” that Dowd thinks Obama needs. In truth, Peggy is your standard liberal Democrat who likes to think of herself as an independent despite her consistent liberal/left views. Indeed, Peggy claims that she was a Republican who fell out of love with Bush. But check out her reasons: she hated Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and she hated Bush’s “disdain for bipartisanship.” Moreover, she was a fan of Teddy Kennedy, and she has nothing but disdain for the Republicans and for how ObamaCare was “watered down.” Also, “she lights up at the mention of his vice president, Joe Biden.” Those views are entirely consistent with a liberal Democrat who has deluded themselves into thinking that they’re an independent. That’s the sheep portion of the Democratic base. These are the people the wolves like Dowd push around.

And what does Peggy think of Obama now?

Peggy believed that Obama was a "dazzling young newcomer who could change Washington." Now she’s considering voting for Mitt Romney. She thinks Obama has done a good job of “managing W’s messes in Iraq and Afghanistan,” but this hasn’t swayed her to stay with him. And what’s really bothering her? Let’s let Peggy tell you herself:

“He promised us everything, saying he would turn the country around, and he did nothing the first year. He piddled around when he had 60 votes. He could have pushed through the health care bill but spent months haggling on it because he wanted to bring some Republicans on board. He was trying too hard to compromise when he didn’t need the Republicans and they were never going to like him. Any idiot could see that. . . and then the bill was watered down.”

Sounds like little Markos from the Daily Kos doesn’t it. . . “he was too bipartisan!” (And here I thought she hated Bush for disdaining bipartisanship?) And wait a minute, haven't we been told by the MSM that Obama has accomplished more than any other president ever? Doesn't she realize how much he's done? And to compare the smartest man ever to "any idiot"? Hmmm. She continues:

“He hasn’t saved the economy, and now he’s admitting he’s made very little progress. You can’t for four years blame the person who used to be president. Obama tries to compromise too much, and he doesn’t look like a strong leader. I don’t watch him anymore. I’m turned off by him. I think he’s an elitist. He went down to the gulf, telling everyone to take a vacation down there, and then he goes to Martha’s Vineyard. He does what he wants but then he tells us to do other things.”

So what does this tell us about liberals, i.e. the center-left? They have stopped listening to Obama, as I’ve said several times. They no longer see him as “cool,” they see him as elitist, aloof, stupid and weak. The vacation issue struck a chord, even with them. They do blame him for not fixing the economy and they no longer buy the “it’s Bush’s fault” line or the “it would have been so much worse” argument. Moreover, they don’t credit him with health care reform, they see it as a betrayal. There is no mention of financial regulation, any jobs bills, his attempts to give back-door amnesty to illegals, his appointments of women to the Supreme Court, or anything else the Democrats have tried in vain to tout as achievements. . . as we predicted. Nor is there any distinction between “good Democrats” and “bad Democrats,” or any credit for “trying.”

For Dowd to get this snotty and dismissive at Obama and to treat his assertions with such disdain is a clear sign of a relationship that’s entered the final phase of the breakup stage, and is evidence the Democrats have lost the far-left. For Peggy to tell us that she sees him as a failure and that she's now turned off by him, tells us she’s already broken up with him and is looking to move on to her next crush, and is evidence the Democrats have lost the center-left.

What a shame.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Risk Your Lives--But Don't Think Of Voting

Attorney General Eric Holder, with the concurrence of his boss, wants to make sure you won't be seeing pictures like this more than absolutely necessary. Holder's Justice Department is taking time out of its busy schedule of dismissing Black Panther voter-intimidation cases and fighting Arizona's attempts to stop illegals from crossing the borders to make sure our armed forces cast as few absentee votes as possible.

The Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment Act ("MOVE") was passed to protect the rights of Americans overseas to receive their absentee ballots in sufficient time to fill them out and return them to their home precincts in time to comply with the law. It was specifically designed to protect the voting rights of our men and women in the armed forces in strange and dangerous lands. But just like the unimportant voters in Philadelphia, the Obamists consider soldiers to be fine gun fodder but not good voters.

After several hits from the public about their nefarious actions in direct contravention of the will of the majority, the lawyers at DOJ struck a secret deal with the State of Wisconsin to do a backroom end run around the act. There had been several complaints from the military and memos from the Department of Defense regarding Wisconsin's foot-dragging in preparing absentee ballots for military personnel serving outside the United States. Wisconsin officials spent considerably more time making excuses than they did in making any serious attempt to comply with the act.

The act requires that all absentee ballots for the military be mailed no less than 45 days prior to the election. Only a federal waiver can reduce that time period. Wisconsin dithered around until the last minute, then applied to the Pentagon for a waiver reducing the period to 32 days. The Pentagon pointedly denied the waiver. Instead of acting promptly and in good faith to comply, the Wisconsin officials then tried again, this time asking for only 29 days. In the scheme of domestic civilian voting, 13 or 16 days may not sound like much. But it will make a major difference in the ability of military personnel overseas to receive, review, and return the ballots in time. This is particularly true if they are stationed in war zones, or are on lengthy maneuvers in the field.

In upholding the two denials by the Pentagon, the director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program said that though some of the other states offered thorough and comprehensive plans to protect the voting opportunities for military voters overseas along with their waiver requests, "Wisconsin's waiver application didn't even come close to compliance with the MOVE act." He further said that "the folks at the Pentagon rightfully denied the waiver request."

It was a clear and decisive victory for the military and a strong endorsement of the letter and intent of the MOVE act. Wisconsin, though, continued to act as if the waiver was a mere detail and made no plans to expedite the absentee ballot procedures. In an honest, patriotic and competent Justice Department, a suit would have been filed against Wisconsin demanding injunctions, expedited legal proceedings ("time of the essence") and where applicable, administrative punishment for the offenders.

But this is the Holder Justice Department. No suits were filed, no injunctions requested, no punitive action was taken against the foot-dragging Wisconsin officials. The sneaky, slimy legal team set up by Holder instead entered into secret negotiations with the offending Wisconsin officials. During the negotiations, the time for DOJ to file an equitable action against Wisconsin expired. The brilliant DOJ lawyers actually had the nerve to proclaim a victory by getting Wisconsin to go back to its original request for a shortened 32 day period instead of 29 days. But during the negotiations, Wisconsin produced no more valid legal reasoning for requesting a waiver than it did when the requests were denied by the Pentagon.

The three day difference between the 29 and 32 days will generously be added to the time allowed for counting the absentee ballots after their receipt. Another dirty, sneaky DOJ trick to make Wisconsin seem reasonable. But even the dolts in Congess who enacted MOVE know that all the critical time required comes before the election date, not after. In fact, Congress specifically rejected post-election add-on time as a substitute for compliance with the time allowed for voting.

The extra time before the election was enacted in order to give the military time to receive the ballots, fill them out, and mail them back at least seven days before the election so that they arrive in time to be counted. If they arrive late, it doesn't matter how much extra time is allotted after the election for counting absentee ballots. Late ballots simply will not be counted at all, which is exactly what Wisconsin and Holder's DOJ lawyers wanted. The consent decree validating this evisceration of the MOVE act was published last Friday. No MSM coverage, of course.

The Obamists, socialists and various other Democrats are accomplished election-thieves. Fooling with the mechanics of how votes are received, cast and counted has resulted in multiple recent examples of Democrats being in big trouble and suddenly snatching "victory" from the jaws of defeat. It's always very mysterious. Al Franken's election to the Senate in Wisconsin's neighbor Minnesota was a perfect example of Democrat-controlled election commissions and courts implementing the plan: "Keep counting until the Democrat wins."

If you can keep the voters from voting in the first place, you don't have to bother with all those other legal pretenses. And so it is with Wisconsin, the DOJ, and the circumvention of the MOVE act. This is going to be a bad year for Democrats, and a few thousand, or even a few hundred ballots could make all the difference. Even liberal Wisconsin is not happy with the party in power.

The Democrats know that the military tends to be conservative and patriotic, something Democrats rarely are, and even in good times that means Republicans usually fare better. Obama was a temporary aberration, but he's not running this time. So every possible Republican ballot has to be fended off. Better to disenfranchise a minority of Democrats than to allow Republicans and Independents to vote the leftists out.

Each time I think that the thoroughly rotten Holder can't sink any lower, he proves me to be much too generous. Letting Black Panther thugs go free to intimidate voters and suing states for daring to protect their borders is bad enough. But now this stumblebum and his patriotism-deprived boss ask young men and women to risk their lives to protect the fundamental right of a free people--the right to vote. But the dirty duo wants to make sure that those very same young men and women can't themselves vote. It's far more important for them to protect the right of Muslims to vote for sharia, stoning for adultery, the demeaning of women, and leaders who threaten the destruction of Western civilization than to protect the right of Americans to vote the Democrats out.

So when the next Democrat indignantly asks me if I'm questioning his loyalty and patriotism, my answer will be "you're damned right I am!"
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

NJ Governor Christie Teaches A Teacher

Over the weekend, I saw several clips of Governor Chris Christie educating a teacher about politics, economics, and a little dignity and decorum thrown in. Christie at a town meeting dutifully listened to the teacher repeating all of the union's talking points while carrying Obama's water on the issue of "middle class" tax cuts.

After listening patiently and respectfully to the nonsense flowing out of this "educator's" mouth, Christie first denied that his office was treating the New Jersey teachers contemptuously or that they were being singled out for sacrifice. Then, the teacher made a big display of laughing like a rabid hyena and shouting back at Christie before he had completed his discussion of what she was claiming. That did it. Christie is that unique thing in politics--a gentleman who is also painfully blunt when courtesy is greeted with rudeness.

Governor Christie is a big man (and I do mean big, both physically and metaphorically). But he does not suffer fools gladly. Give him a respectful argument and he will respond with a respectful rebuttal. Give him crap, and he'll slap you down (verbally, of course). This teacher clearly did not know what she was talking about, but Christie would have let that slide. However, when she pulled the usual leftist nonsense cum boorishness, he let loose. He reminded her that he had patiently listened to her screed, without once laughing, jeering or making a public fool of himself. He expected the same in return, or he would simply not waste his and the audience's time responding to her. I stood up and cheered, and I was alone with the TV.

Politicians today seem to come in two types. Those who blither and blather, pretend to be listening carefully then respond with some pseudo-intellectual drivel that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand (Barack Harvard Obama), or the rude, confrontational type who wants to hear nothing from people who have even the smallest disagreement with him (Snarlin' Arlen Specter). Christie is a breath of fresh air. He speaks clearly, rarely using catchphrases, addresses issues directly and honestly, and leaves nobody wondering where he stands. He's a fine debater, and a very good educator. He's an old-fashioned man who respects the arguments of others, but will not be insulted or demeaned by lesser people.

The source of the teacher's ire is that the governor is also that rare breed who talks about balancing state budgets and universal sacrifice. The state education budget is just one of a multitude of programs that had to be trimmed. But the teachers unions reacted as if he had just shouted fire in a crowded theater full of union thugs. Their stalking-horse repeated the whole "us poor teachers" mantra, including a statement entirely unsupported by fact or reality about New Jersey teachers being among the best and most dedicated in the world. Yeah, right.

Christie's "mistake" was beginning his remarks by very reasonably pointing out that his budget cuts were not singling out the teachers, and that in his earlier remarks he had said nothing indicating that he thought New Jersey teachers were of low quality (though they definitely are). They are among the highest-paid for the poorest results. That brought on the childish and rude behavior from the teacher. Christie didn't even talk about the fact that the only reason New Jersey teachers can claim to be "middle class" is their gross overpayment for such poor results which cuts them off from the "working poor and oppressed unemployed." But the teacher had to say it because Obama has abandoned his earlier "po' folks should eat the rich" strategy and is now talking about a middle-class that just days before was the bourgeoisie whom Marx, Lenin, the teachers unions, and Obamists so clearly hate.

The teachers unions in New Jersey are a barbaric lot by all measurements, but Christie was generous enough to at least give this teacher a chance to behave like an intelligent adult. Like most of her students, she failed. When Christie asked the teachers unions to accept a one year pay freeze (not a pay cut), the union leaders responded by sending out an e-mail to their membership requesting that they pray for Christie's death. I guess he shouldn't have expected much better from one of the members.

But in the long run, it won't be Christie who will be sleeping with the fishes. The left has overplayed its hand time and again. Unions have received very favorable treatment from Democrats at both the state and federal level while at the same time playing a major part in the economic crisis by virtue of their unsustainable and outrageous pay scales and benefits, particularly retirement benefits. It may take awhile to clean out the union Augean stables. Chris Christie is in many ways the New Jersey Hercules who can do just that--and remain a gentleman while doing it.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama/Democrats Go Soft On Crime

The Democrats love criminals. Ever since the 1960s, they’ve cared more about criminals than any other group, and certainly more than they care about you. They proved that again this weekend when Obama quietly signed a law you never heard of, a law that seeks to undo the incredible progress we’ve made in cutting the nation’s crime rates to historically low levels. And wait till you hear the reasoning!

In the 1960s, an army of liberals descended upon the criminal justice system. Armed with degrees in weepy liberalism and lunacy, they saw criminals as victims of racist juries and judges, victims of poverty and cycles of violence, and victims of a society that wasn’t liberal. And what about the people these poor victims raped, murdered, maimed and robbed? Well, they were collateral damage, and liberals weren’t interested in them. Not surprisingly, crime soared. Everything from murder to rape to petty vandalism took off to levels not seen since the barbarians swept through Rome.

Then came the backlash and the age of Reagan. Non-retarded Americans got sick of being victimized by these monsters and decided to take the system out of the hands of the liberal enablers. Thus, they passed truth in sentencing laws that required criminals to actually serve their sentences. No longer would juries sentence someone to life only to discover that meant 10 years (although this is still the law in West Virginia). They passed mandatory minimum sentencing laws to prevent liberal judges from letting everyone with a weepy tale go with a slap on the wrist and a hug. And they passed three strikes and you’re out laws to lock up recidivists.

And guess what happened? Over the howls of liberals. . . howls about the two time rapist/murder who was “unfairly” locked away for life “for stealing a slice of pizza,” howls that the United States locked up more people than anyone else (though this was a statistical lie), howls that locking people up “wouldn’t solve anything”. . . crime plunged. Yep. Year after year, the crime rate kept falling until we reached a point that hadn’t been seen since the 1950s.

Not surprisingly, liberals were furious. They couldn’t accept that the ignorant masses knew something their “enlightened” ilk did not, and that their “enlightened” ideas caused a 40 year crime wave. So they tried to find reasons why locking criminals up wasn’t what caused the drop in crime. Everything from decreases in poverty to an aging population was offered as possible reasons for the drop in crime. But the statistics never supported these assertions. Thus, liberals were left with a head-scratcher, crime rates fell and “no one seems to know why.” Only occasionally would one of them reluctantly acknowledge that locking up career criminals is “probably” what caused this.

Still, liberals don’t give up that easily. So for decades now they’ve been trying to undo mandatory sentences and three strikes laws. They’ve found every case they thought was “unfair” and they tried to make heroes and celebrities of them. They’ve attacked the death penalty, life in prison, prison conditions, and “disparate treatment.” In particular, they were upset that distribution of crack cocaine resulted in longer sentences than distribution of powder cocaine. Why? Because “it’s the same drug” and “blacks are more likely than whites to use crack,” thus this distinction is “racist”. . . like a ham sandwich.

What they ignored, of course, was that crack dealers are much more likely to engage in violence and that crack is significantly more powerful. Indeed, their argument is akin to asserting that two criminals should receive the same sentence for stealing $20, “because it was the same crime,” even though one criminal snuck the money out of his mother’s purse and the other took hostages in a bank. (And let's not forget that contrary to what liberals apparently believe, blacks don't need to do crack.)

In any event, Democrats were afraid to take up this cause because they didn’t want to be seen as “soft on crime,” which is a nice way of saying “on the side of rapists, murderers, drug dealers and child molesters.” But all that changed this weekend.

On Saturday, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduces minimum sentences for crack cocaine sentences, and he announced a top-to-bottom review of mandatory minimum sentences with the apparent intention of reducing sentence length for everything from drug dealing to being “convicted of child pornography offenses.” Ah, liberalism.

Listen to Holder:

“Too many people have been treated in a disparate manner and too many of our citizens have come to have doubts about our criminal justice system.”

No, not really, just liberals have doubts, and it’s the same doubts they’ve always had. They just don’t like the idea of punishing perverts and monsters.

“We must . . . have the courage to ask difficult questions of ourselves and our system. We must break out of the old and tired partisan stances that have stood in the way of needed progress and reform.”

Why is it that doing the liberal thing is always the courageous thing and standing in the way of liberals is always the partisan thing? And if Holder wants to ask a difficult question, he should ask why he and his kind are obsessed with doing what’s already been proven not to work, and why they like the idea of turning predators loose on the population?

So why now? Two reasons, both of them ridiculous.

First, the Democrats think the public won’t notice them going all “soft on crime” again because the Republicans have distracted the public by calling them “soft of terror.” Think about this argument for a moment: you’ll be so distracted thinking Democrats are child molesters that you won’t notice them molesting your dog. Sorry, that’s not happening you Democratic-pedophile-ophiles. . . we will notice.

Secondly, these idiots think now is a good time to tinker because crime rates are so low:

“Advocates point to several reasons for the shift toward a less-draconian approach to crime and for its retreat as a hot-button political issue. Crime rates are at some of the lowest levels in a generation.”

In other words, the prior policies worked. . . so now we can use the calm that created to go back to doing what didn’t work because people aren't as worried about the issue anymore. This is why liberalism should be classified as a form of retardation.

Expect crime rates to start "inexplicably" rising again soon.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Client 9 From Outer Space

Eliot Spitzer was known for his hard pursuit of criminals prior to being elected governor of the State of New York. Unfortunately he had a predilection for patronizing prostitutes (in the picture, Spitzer is on the left). He was known for being pretty hard on them, too. One of the "escort services" that he enriched only used his nom de john, Client No. 9.

The other service he enriched was the Democratic Party (the person on the right is the prostitute from that service). Spitzer will soon be joining a whole new house of prostitution--CNN. The whoring former governor will have a nightly show on the Contemptible News Network, though he will have to share the hosting duties with Kathleen Parker. Parker is billed by CNN as a conservative columnist, thereby proving that CNN doesn't know the difference between a conservative and a pile of Ho-Ho's.

Poor Eliot--he doesn't even get to be on top. The show will be called the Parker Spitzer Show. Eliot will have to assume the executive position of co-anchor. Spitzer is the ultimate political insider, but he will have to exert extra effort to keep abreast with Parker, who is known throughout journalism as a true working girl. But then, Eliot has plenty of experience with working girls.

There is no truth to the rumor that Spitzer was originally being courted by the Fox News Channel as the chief dolly operator. Their ratings are so good that they are celebrating Spitzer's move to CNN as a way to accelerate CNN's 56% loss of viewership in just the last year. It has also been rumored that family-values groups and minority journalists protested, since the show will be on during the family hour.

It is also rumored that Spitzer's entry into prime time cable "news" is motivated by his desire to get people off the prostitutes and take him seriously again. In fact, he wants to be a candidate to replace Auntie Bloomberg as mayor of New York City at the end of Bloomie's term in 2013. Some samples from CNN's promo include Parker saying to Spitzer: "All right, Eliot, I'm tired of talking about tax policy." Why would a conservative have any interest in tax matters, after all?

Spitzer lays back and replies: "Whoa, whoa, whoa. I love tax policy. Let's talk about Mideast peace settlements. And let's talk about nuclear proliferation. That's where we're gonna go with this show." Parker: "Do you see people's eyes glazing." Spitzer: "I do. Your eyes are glazing over." Perhaps Spitzer forgot where he was during the filming of the trailer. His eyes weren't glazing over like his partner's yet, but he was starting to breathe heavily. Fortunately, the news desk the pair were sitting at is just above waist height.

Parker got to be on top because she won a Pulitzer Prize. But everyone knows that Spitzer is no slouch, and has won a blue ribbon for speed and a Woody for his work outside the office. The Woody is named after Bob Woodward of Woodward and Bernstein, I think. He didn't get a Bernie because they have penicillin for that now. But he did get the Woody for his undercover work.

The spoilsport minority critics were represented by the National Association of Black Journalists who sent a letter to the head of CNN querying: "Are you telling us that CNN could find no one better than an ex-politician who quit being New York governor after consorting with prostitutes to grace America's living rooms each night?" Well, let's look at those ratings. Yep, he's the best they could find.

Spitzer was previously known as "The Sheriff of Wall Street." While governor, I guess he was just "Deputy Dawg." CNN will have to come up with a new appellation for him. The "John of Journalism" maybe? Spitzer is expected to address women's issues, and get into them as often as possible. He won't be any pushover though. He is known for examining women very carefully, and making sure the taxpayers compensate them fairly, if indirectly. He also promises to keep women up on the latest retail clothing matters in NYC. In fact, he has told insiders that he is always interested in sales ads that say "women's dresses--half off."

His pal at the US Justice Department, Michael Garcia, investigated Spitzer and found no legal wrongdoing. But in his public statement, Garcia told the press that "on multiple occasions, Mr. Spitzer arranged for women to travel from one state to another to engage in prostitution." Apparently, the DOJ and Spitzer believe that travel is broadening, and therefore merely an educational experience. As an attorney he was able to relate to the ladies because of his own belief that the client should always come first.

So CNN will be having the great Spitzer sitting erect at the desk, sticking it to the guests and the audience. Besides, by working for CNN, Spitzer will be experiencing something all new in his life--prostitutes paying him. And Spitzer will be able to rehabilitate himself to the seventy-six CNN viewers by proving that he has no hard feelings toward the escort service that ratted on him. He'll just slip right in there and get made all over again.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Morning To Remember

On the ninth anniversary of the murderous attack on American soil, I am still angry. It's a cold and abiding anger, unlike that I felt on the day of the attack itself. I have confessed more than once to a major flaw in my Christian life in that I have a problem turning the other cheek and loving my enemies. Fortunately, my younger daughter sent me something that I couldn't have written myself.

I turned on the television that day nine years ago just before the second plane hit. At first I thought I had turned on a disaster movie by accident. Quickly, the realization that this was actually happening struck. After recovering from the initial shock, my attitude turned to worry, not only for the victims, but because I knew that my son who had been on the east coast on business frequently took the flight out of Newark to San Francisco which ultimately became the only one of the four planes that didn't hit its target. It was hours later that I found out that he hadn't made the trip at all, and was at home in Berkeley watching the events at the same time I was.

At that point, my shock and worry turned to hot anger and a determination that revenge must be had. I watched with horror as my fellow human beings jumped to their deaths rather than allow themselves to be burned to death. I saw the collapse of each of the towers, and the panic and bravery shown on the streets of New York City. I saw the hole in the Pentagon, and ignominiously thought "at least that's a military target." Seeing the wreckage of the Newark flight that ended up in a Pennsylvania field because of the bravery of the passengers brought a brief note of pride to my thinking, but did nothing to allay my anger.

Today, as the brethren of the hijacking mass murderers continue with their plans to build a triumphalist mosque at the site of their greatest victory over America and everything she stands for, I cannot give up my anger. It is more focused, less scattered, and advised by nine years of watching events unfold in the world of Islam and the accommodating West. But it remains anger, even if somewhat tempered by rational thought and legalisms.

Instead of allowing me to focus on myself and my anger, my daughter provided me with a reminder that there is one source from which all understanding and forgiveness flow. That source is always with us, and doesn't suffer from human flaws. And to that purpose, I offer the following:

'MEET ME IN THE STAIRWELL'

You say you will never forget where you were when
you heard the news On September 11, 2001.
Neither will I.

I was on the 110th floor in a smoke filled room
with a man who called his wife to say 'Good-Bye.' I
held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the
peace to say, 'Honey, I am not going to make it, but it
is OK..I am ready to go.'

I was with his wife when he called as she fed
breakfast to their children. I held her up as she
tried to understand his words and as she realized
he wasn't coming home that night.

I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a
woman cried out to Me for help. 'I have been
knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!' I said.
'Of course I will show you the way home - only
believe in Me now.'

I was at the base of the building with the Priest
ministering to the injured and devastated souls.
I took him home to tend to his Flock in Heaven. He
heard my voice and answered.

I was on all four of those planes, in every seat,
with every prayer. I was with the crew as they
were overtaken. I was in the very hearts of the
believers there, comforting and assuring them that their
faith has saved them.

I was in Texas , Virginia , California , Michigan , Afghanistan .
I was standing next to you when you heard the terrible news.
Did you sense Me?

I want you to know that I saw every face. I knew
every name - though not all knew Me. Some met Me
for the first time on the 86th floor..

Some sought Me with their last breath..
Some couldn't hear Me calling to them through the
smoke and flames; 'Come to Me... this way... take
my hand.' Some chose, for the final time, to ignore Me.
But, I was there.

I did not place you in the Tower that day. You
may not know why, but I do. However, if you were
there in that explosive moment in time, would you have
reached for Me?

Sept. 11, 2001, was not the end of the journey
for you. But someday your journey will end. And I
will be there for you as well. Seek Me now while I may
be found. Then, at any moment, you know you are
'ready to go.'

I will be in the stairwell of your final moments.

God
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Deliverance (1972)

At first blush, Deliverance is just the story of four guys who go on a river rafting trip that goes horribly wrong. . . kind of the 1970s version of the modern hillbilly-cannibal slasher flick. But if you dig deeper, you realize that it’s actually a social commentary movie that comments on the changing relationship between modern man and nature. It’s also the movie that solidified two ultra-negative stereotypes that have come to dominate how many Americans see each other today: hicks and elitists.

** spoiler alert **

Based on the 1970 novel Deliverance by James Dickey, the John Boorman directed film is the story of four Atlanta businessmen (Burt Reynolds, Ronny Cox, Ned Beatty and Jon Voight), who go rafting on the fictional Cahulawassee River in rural Georgia. The river is being dammed and will soon disappear, taking several communities with it. As they start down the river, they encounter a group of people who live in backwoods conditions. Toothless, dirty, and with little understanding of the world beyond 1930, these people become the enemy for the four men as they fight for their own survival.

Hillbillies v. Elitists

There has always been a tension between city folk and country folk. But until Deliverance, that tension wasn’t really as nasty as it’s become. Consider the portrayal of country folk in films like The Grapes of Wrath, Sergeant York or any number of films about the American South. Country folk were seen as simple, yet decent people, with a few bad apples in their midsts. At the same time, city folk were typically seen as a little lost and yearning to return to the simpler life.


When told that his character "Toothless Bob" would need to rape another man, Herbert "Cowboy" Coward (with the shotgun) told the director: "I done worse."


Deliverance changed all of that when it create highly negative stereotypes for both groups. Instead of yearning to reconnect with the land, the four Atlanta businessmen are seen as condescending elitists who think they have the right to mistreat and ridicule the hillbillies. They see the hillbillies as a subspecies of humanity and they are happy to let them know it. Thus, Reynolds goes so far as to insult these people to their faces, showing that he believes he can act with impunity to these inferior creatures. Beatty acts similarly, particularly pointing out their inbreeding, though he is more cowardly and thus talks about them only when he thinks he is protected by the group. Cox does not insult them intentionally, but he shows his condescension in the way he treats all of the hillbillies like children and is shocked when they demonstrate competence. Only Voight treats them as human beings. From this comes the stereotype that urbanites are cowardly and condescending types who see themselves as superior to ruralites and who feel they have the right to mistreat these people and impose their will on them. This has become a widely held stereotype in rural circles.

On the other hand, Dickey/Boorman’s hillbillies are dirty, inbred, toothless people who favor banjos, stills, shotguns and sodomy. This stereotype has easily overtaken the more noble view presented in the past. Indeed, the line “I'm gonna make you squeal like a pig. Weeeeeeee!” has become so infamous with urbanites that all you need to say is “squeal like a pig boy” and people who have never heard of this movie know exactly what you mean.

Neither the hillbilly nor the urbanite stereotype is generally accurate, though there are people who fall into these categories (I’ve met both kinds). Nevertheless, these stereotypes have become so strongly ingrained in the American consciousness that people genuinely believe this is what they will find in the other, alien environment, i.e. small town or big city America. Indeed, the relationship between rural and urban America has probably never been worse than it is today, and these two stereotypes play prominently in explaining why that is. Deliverance is the movie that solidified these stereotypes.

Modern Man v. Nature

But there is more to Deliverance than sodomizing hillbillies. At its core, Deliverance is a movie about how these four distinct modern men handle their ordeal. And therein lies the social criticism and the real interest in the movie.

Three of the men represent distinct archetypes of the modern city-dwelling male. Burt Reynolds represents the throwback. He’s a man who worships sports, hunting and all things physical. He longs for the challenges presented by nature because they appeal to his primitive nature, and he disdains the modern world. He is aggressive, violent and acts without thinking. Ronny Cox is the polar opposite of Reynolds. He represents the modern intellectual. He can see all sides of every issue and is paralyzed by his inability to settle on a course of action. In the civilized world, he probably holds significant power, but his skills at handling theory count for nothing in the wild. Ned Beatty represents what happens when man loses touch with the physical world. He is fat and soft, weak and cowardly. His total surrender to modern convenience has made him helpless. Finally, Jon Voight, the fourth, represents the bridge between them. He is physically capable without being the beast that Reynolds is. He is smart, but in a real world sense rather than Cox’s theoretical sense. And he enjoys the creature comforts, though he has not become dependent on them as Beatty has.

What they endure becomes a test of these archetypes, a test which all but Voight fail. Reynolds fails the test because his aggression brings on all of their problems. He alienates everyone they encounter, foreclosing any chance of getting help from the locals and fostering the suspicion that isolates the four. Moreover, his aggressive disdain for the weak Beatty makes teamwork impossible, leading to the two canoes splitting up, which makes them vulnerable to being attacked. Beatty collapses in a pool of his own helplessness and loses his manhood as the self-emasculated Beatty’s fate is to be sodomized by the hillbillies. Cox becomes paralyzed with indecision because he can’t pull his head out of the world of theory long enough to come to grips with the real world. His rather symbolic fate is to die when his head disappears beneath the water. Only Voight is capable of rising to the challenge.

And within this formula, Dickey lodges several criticisms. First, he argues that the throwbacks are the cause of our problems because of their mindless aggression. . . an argument made by elitists today. But he also argues that the intellectuals cannot help us because they can’t come to any conclusions on real world issues. . . an argument made by middle-Americans today. He also argues that modern humans are becoming so dependent on the comforts of the modern world that they would simply die if left in nature. . . an oft-repeated criticism that has become more and more valid as obesity rates rise and reliance on the internet takes off. And in the end, he tells us that the solution is to be as Jon Voight -- stay in touch with our physical natures but don’t let them dominate us, use our minds but don’t lose touch with the real world for some theoretical existence, and enjoy the comforts of the modern world but don’t become dependent on its conveniences.

These are themes that touch a nerve in modern America, where we are quickly losing touch with nature and what it takes to survive away from our modern conveniences. This is why the past forty years have seen concerns about the Alan Alda-ing of America, why ridiculous camps have appeared for males to “rediscover” their primitive side, and why such an animosity has arisen between city dwellers and country folks. We are living in a moment where our relationship to the natural world around us is changing significantly and it’s not clear yet how it’s all going to turn out.

Check out the new film site -- CommentaramaFilms!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...