Wednesday, April 20, 2011

And Yet, I'm Alive. . .

Thank God I’m alive. I had no idea what for a dangerous life I’ve lived until busybodies started telling me. How could the adults in my life have been so careless. . . I should sue someone.

What am I talking about? Well, let me go down the list. I owned a car without seat belts. Yep, a 1961 Ford Falcon. Sure, it took 20 minutes to get to 60 mph, but its dashboard was pure steel baby. Want more? I never had a helmet for my bike. I even had three serious falls, two on my head. I’m still not sure how I lived through that. More? Ok, I played dodgeball, wiffleball, kickball and red rover. I even had flammable pajamas and toys I could fit into my mouth all the way through high school! No, I’m not some sort of daredevil, I’m just an innocent victim. Sniff sniff.

Ok, enough of this crap. I am truly sick of the modern thinking that kids need to be bubble wrapped. Seriously, W.... T.... F....?!

When I was kid, we still enjoyed a good deal of freedom vis-à-vis the world. But not today. Helmet laws make parents criminals if they don’t strap their kids in before putting them to bed. Dodgeball was yanked from schools years ago after it was designated a crime against humanity after some assh~le decided someone could get hurt by that huge soft, rubber ball floating through the air with all the force a flabby nine year old can muster. . . clearly, this was not a physics major.

Recently, New York State “Health Department” losers tried to ban wiffleball, kickball and red rover. Why? Because they’re “dangerous.” Seriously? Have you ever seen a mobster use a red rover technique to do anyone in? "Hey, red rover, send Jimmy the Weasel over." And do you know how hard it is to hurt someone with a wifflebat? Trust me, you can beat for hours without breaking the skin! Stick with aluminum bats, they're easier and nothing satisfies quite like that great ringing sound.

This is ridiculous. When I was a kid, people understood that slamming into things and falling from moving vehicles was all part of life. Sure, you could get hurt. But serious injuries were incredibly rare, and were well worth the risk of enjoying your childhood. To sort of quote Evel Kneival: “Bones heal, chicks dig scars, pain is temporary and the character you build in childhood is forever.”

These days, it seems that any time you engage in any activity that involves motion or touching, some whiny, failed parent is out there screaming how their kid is too delicate to endure the horror that they might end up with a skinned knee or hurt feelings. Pathetic. How can kids possibly grow up to handle anything if “parents” try to put them into bubble wrap to keep away the insidious forces of gravity, friction and childhood?

And if you are one of these people who is growing one of these delicate creatures, note I did not say “raising,” all you are producing is an effete victim-in-waiting. Congratulations. You have failed as a parent.

What's even worse, did you hear about the 10 year old kid who was arrested because he found a broken BB gun on school grounds and dared to play with it? Yep. Arrested, taken away in cuffs, spent 2 days locked up, appeared in court shackled, and was charged with a felony. Now school officials are trying to expel him. . . at least it wasn't a dodgeball, these dipsh~ts probably would have tried to hang him. The principal, the arresting officer, and the prosecutor seriously should all lose their jobs or worse.

Maybe we need a gulag for idiots?

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

FDA Halts Executions. The FDA?

Pictured is the California gas chamber, which hasn't been used since a federal judge called executions off in 2006. They don't use the lethal gas anymore, but what the heck, the chamber and viewing area already existed, so why not use it? Imagine that--California missing an opportunity to spend more of the taxpayers' money on deluxe accommodations for death penalty recipients.

Lethal injection became the fad method of execution so that mad dogs could be put down more humanely. As Sam Waterston said in defense of his prosecution of a death penalty case on Law and Order, "one can believe in the death penalty without being sanguine about it." But where there's a death penalty, there are do-gooders who won't countenance the ultimate punishment under any circumstances. The United States Supreme Court has firmly upheld the death penalty as constitutional, so the bleeding-hearts had to find another way around the problem.

Enter the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the omnipresent Holder Justice Department (DOJ). If you can't stop executions per se, challenge the method. And challenge they have. Georgia was the first state to receive a knock on its door requiring that the state turn over its supply of sodium thiopental to the DEA. The drug is the first of three drugs administered to produce the final lethal result. This cocktail is the preferred method of execution in 34 states. Kentucky and Tennessee have also received a request from the DEA, but have not yet had their supply confiscated.

The FDA had made an independent decision some time back that the sodium thiopental being used in Georgia (among others) was not pure enough. It hounded the state and the manufacturers until the major supplier, Hospira, simply stopped making the drug. The drug is still available in large quantities from British manufacturers who are not hampered by ACLU science and FDA purity. So the domestic supply ran out, and death penalty opponents pushed the FDA into refusing to approve the British drug.

That got us to the next alphabet agency--the DEA. Having disapproved the British supply, the FDA handed-off to the DEA. The DEA began investigations which turned up the likelihood that several states appeared to be using the British supply which was "mis-branded" as something other than the first-step drug for lethal injections. But it was still sodium thiopental, and that's how it was labeled. Go figure.

A lawsuit was filed in the D.C. federal district court charging that Georgia, California, Tennessee and Kentucky have received shipments of the British drug in defiance of the FDA's disapproval. Suddenly the liberals have gone all chauvinistic about "foreign" drugs (although they don't seem to care much about the drugs coming across our southern border). Oddly, the defendant in the suit is the FDA itself, which doesn't seem to be putting up much of a defense. The logic is that the FDA should have to abide by the law and not allow the importation of unapproved foreign drugs.

Not satisfied with attacking our "trading partners'" ability to make good drugs, the lawsuit also tosses in the additional horror story of how even pure sodim thiopental, if not administered properly, can cause excruciating pain when the next two drugs are added to the lethal mix. So even if the British drug is as good as any American domestic sodium thiopental, its use must still be stopped until that additional "problem" is "solved."

And it just keeps getting better. In California, among others, the lethal injection procedure is performed by state corrections personnel. Few are doctors. Other lawsuits have been filed saying that the procedure is a medical procedure which should only be exercised by licensed doctors. That made the job easier for the death penalty opponents, since California had already gotten its sodium thiopental approved by a federal panel after lab certification of purity. But there's still that pesky problem of finding doctors who will carry out a death sentence (suddenly, they've discovered the Hippocratic Oath that they routinely ignore while performing abortions).

Texas solved its sodium thiopental problem by replacing it with domestically-produced pentobarbital. That was an FDA-approved alternative drug. But the ACLU pulled the "medical procedure" ploy, and the Texas Medical Association forbids its doctors from participating in executions. Texans have great deal more common sense than Californians, so at present at least, the ploy hasn't worked.

To sum up, a method of execution approved by the United States Supreme Court in a 7 to 2 decision in 2008 has been halted in its tracks in nearly half the states which have the death penalty by the FDA, DEA and ACLU. Not to be outdone, the DOJ has entered the arena, ordering the DEA to investigate state corrections officials for possessing drugs approved by the Supreme Court but not allowed by the FDA. Are you beginning to get irritated? I know I am. Barack Obama wants more agencies and fewer Senatorial confirmations for heads of those agencies. He's not satisfied with end-runs around Congress, he needs to end-around the Supreme Court as well.

I would like to add that the whole "humane execution" concept is a Progressive scam. Simply put, the most efficient, humane and quick method of execution is hanging. The worst horror stories about modern methods of hanging can't rival those of the electric chair and the gas chamber. But hanging isn't pretty enough for the "reformers." Still, the whole argument comes down to believing in the death penalty or not believing in it, and it's a fair debate. "Humane treatment" merely muddies the waters.

Sociologists and do-gooders have long substituted rehabilitation for punishment, even though they are supposed to be two intertwined concepts within the criminal justice system. Once the Supreme Court declared both the death penalty and the lethal injection process constitutional, the bleeding-hearts had to find a new way to attack. There is no issue of rehabilitation in the ultimate penalty, and the Supreme Court has determined its validity. Since the method has been upheld, that leaves only actual administration of the final punishment and/or the drugs themselves to be argued.

You don't need a doctor to carry out a hanging, and you don't need a pharmaceutical company to produce a rope. This concept of gently putting the murderer to sleep is all well and good, but I find it far too clinical and far too inhuman. We put beloved pets to sleep. We execute murderers. Perhaps we could improve our trade relations with France by buying their unused guillotines, the other quick and painless form of execution. But either way, the current debate is a smokescreen to cover up the agenda of those who oppose the death penalty, and to hell with the people of the individual states and the Supreme Court.

I have no quarrel with those who honestly oppose the death penalty. I've gone back and forth on the issue myself several times in my lifetime. I do have a quarrel with the dishonest misuse of the law, the courts and alphabet agencies to thwart the Constitution and the will of the people.
[+] Read More...

Capitalism Is Rising, Not Falling

Is belief in capitalism on the wane? Many on the left wish this were the case and they point to a new poll to support their fantasy, but they’re wrong. . . as usual. If anything, capitalism is expanding by leaps and bounds.

This specific poll in question was conducted by GlobeScan and it asked respondents if they agree that capitalism is a superior economic system to the others available. The headline number trumpeted by the left is that support for capitalism is down in the US from 80% in 2002 to 59% in 2010. And the average across 25 countries polled was only 54%. Clearly the end is nigh, right? Well, no.

For starters, let me point out that getting 60% of the public to agree to anything is itself quite an accomplishment. Indeed, if Obama was re-elected by 60% to 40%, that would be an epic landslide. The human race just isn’t built for more “agreement” than that. In fact, the few times you will ever see anything exceed around 60% in polling can usually be explained by a defective methodology or temporary enthusiasm, like how everyone rallies around a war once it begins. So getting 60% of the American public to say they support capitalism is an excellent number. It also tracks with the American left being around 40% of the population -- leftists, by the way, claim to hate capitalism, but they love what it delivers, particularly cheap consumer goods, excellent services, and wealth. . . they just don’t like others having these things.

Moreover, after the financial crisis, you would think capitalism would be at its lowest point in terms of public support. The Democrats and their media allies have been pushing the idea for two years now that the financial collapse was the result of “unregulated” capitalism. Thus, they have systematically blamed “capitalism” for the massive unemployment that followed, the wiping out of ten years worth of stock market gains, the collapse of various governments, and the near-bankruptcy of several countries. Those are pretty serious consequences and if capitalism truly was to blame, then you would think that well-fewer than 60% of Americans would still support it. But that’s not the case. So apparently, despite the best efforts the MSM can come up with to slander capitalism, 59% of Americans continue to believe in it. That’s very encouraging. In fact, that’s probably the real story here.

The other real story here is the growth of the popularity of capitalism in other countries. In China, a supposedly communist country, and Brazil, another country with a leftist government, 68% consider capitalism the superior system. In India, a country done wrong by the British and which flirts with socialism and even communism in some of its states, 58% prefer capitalism. Even in Germany, which invented socialism and is the center of the soft-socialist world today, 69% prefer capitalism. These are not numbers one would expect. The fact the people of these countries prefer capitalism so overwhelmingly tells us something about the draw of capitalism and the inherent sense it makes.

But not everyone goes along for this ride. In Turkey, only 27% think capitalism is superior to other systems. Of course, Turkey is shifting from a secular-socialist government to an Islamic government. France also has problems with capitalism, with only 36% preferring capitalism. But then, France is France. Not coincidentally, both of those countries are in decline.

Contrary to the leftist spin on this poll, the real story here is that capitalism is alive and well despite the media assault following the financial crisis, and that it seems to have a bottom level of support around 60% in the US. Just as interestingly, capitalism seems to be spreading around the world and is taking hold in all of the young, dynamic economies on the planet. This is great news for the future, even if it means stiffer competition for our own companies.

I take it, you’re all fans of capitalism?

[+] Read More...

Monday, April 18, 2011

It's Time To Exploit The Debt Ceiling

Sometime between May and June, our government will breach the federal debt ceiling. We have three choices: raise the debt ceiling, cut spending, or default. The third choice would be a disaster, but I’m thinking that it might be the right time to oppose raising the debt ceiling. Jim DeMint thinks so. Interestingly, the same Democrats who voted against raising the debt ceiling before are now attacking Republicans for toying with the same idea.

Let’s start by explaining why we can’t default. If the US doesn't cut spending or raise the debt ceiling, it will literally (legally) run out of money. That means entitlements won’t be paid, government workers will be sent home (not just the essential ones), government contracts will stop, and repayment on the debt will stop. The biggest of these consequences might be the defaulting on the repayment of our debt. This would tank our credit rating and raise interest rates. Right now we pay approximately $160 billion per year on interest to service the national debt. Much of that has been at incredibly low rates obtained during the financial crisis of 2008. If we default, we could expect our interest rates to double pretty easily. That would mean spending almost as much on payment of interest as we currently spend on Medicare. Moreover, the higher interest rates would hit home mortgages, consumer loans, credit card rates, and crush the stock market. So default would begin a horrible economic spiral that would lead to an economic depression.

This means we must not default. It also means that anyone playing with a possible default better be sure they are right, because the consequences could be very severe and could be fairly easy to explain to every American, as they would be personally hit by this.

But default won’t happen until at least June or more likely July. So at this point, as far as the public is concerned, default is just theoretical. Thus, now is actually the perfect time to use the threat of default to extract goodies from the Democrats. Why? Because it’s too early for the public to get too upset about the idea of the interest on their ARM or their credit cards doubling. But at the same time, anyone worried about the consequences of not raising the debt limit (i.e. Obama and Senate Democrats seeking re-election) will be getting increasingly nervous.

Thus, now would be the time for Tea Party Republicans to make serious demands in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt limit. I say Tea Party Republicans rather than the party leadership because (1) it will be harder for the Democrats to attack Republicans generally if this was seen as just a subset of Republicans, (2) the Democrats think these people are crazy and thus are much more likely to believe this threat than they would if it came from Boehner, (3) Jim DeMint doesn’t have to reveal how much support he has, which will prevent the Democrats from judging how credible the threat is, and (4) this allows Boehner to play the mediator, which is an ideal position for an advocate -- it's essentially the good cop/bad cop routine.

I would also suggest that the demand be substantial and consequential, and it should not be anything that can be characterized as being done in the name of a small group of people like “the rich” or “corporations.” Thus, I would say, don’t ask for a few more billion dollars or tax cuts, but ask for a reformation of Medicare along the lines of that proposed by Paul Ryan, i.e. a de facto privatization. Or demand statutory spending caps fixing the maximum percentage of GNP that can be spent by the federal government.

Finally, start running ads right now pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats on this issue. President Obama, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid each voted against raising the debt ceiling when Bush was President. They are claiming their prior votes were mistakes. But others aren’t being as "genuine." Sen. “Air” Claire McCaskill claims it would be “profoundly irresponsible” for the Republicans to vote against raising the debt ceiling, without ever mentioning that she did the same thing when Bush was President. To hide the contradictions in their own votes against it under Bush and for it under Obama, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman are trying to blame Bush for each of their votes -- then and now. Nancy Pelosi and Caucus Chairman John Larson are simply refusing to comment on their flip flops. And Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn actually said that his vote against raising the debt ceiling (something the Democrats now describe as “profoundly irresponsible”) was just a “protest” of Bush’s tax cuts, i.e. he did something profoundly irresponsible just to register his anger at Bush?

The point here is simple. It will be very hard for the Democrats to defend this issue. Either they were horrifically irresponsible under Bush or they are playing politics now. Either makes for great ads and should help defuse any idea that the Republicans are about to destroy the country. So long as Obama is simultaneously afraid that not getting the ceiling raised will destroy the country (and it would), the Republicans should be able to extract something significant for the public.

Fortunately, this may be in the cards. Even Eric Cantor has said: “Let me give notice to the White House that blindly raising the debt limit without implementing real reforms is irresponsible and will simply burden our children with more debt. We Republicans are not going to go along with it.”

Ok. . . go for it.

[+] Read More...

California Lawmakers' Cars Stolen

Well, not exactly "stolen." The California Citizens Compensation Commission (aka the Ebenezer Scrooge Commission) had the nerve to take away the legislators' perk of driving a state-purchased car (i.e. taxpayer-purchased car). The moans and groans from Sacramento could be heard all the way down here in Caliente (300 miles, as the buzzard flies).

The move is designed to save $2.3 million over five years. That's known as "a teaspoon of water in the Pacific Ocean." But it's something, I suppose. Currently, each legislator's car costs the California taxpayer $7,300 per year. But the legislators won't have to walk to work. Each qualifying solon will be given a $300 per month automobile allowance instead, which is about half of what the taxpayers are now shelling out.

In a magnificent statement of the obvious, Commission member and former chairman Charles Murray said: "We're broke. You have to cut money somewhere." That is gross understatement. California needs to cut money everywhere. Still, one small step for a legislator, one giant step for the taxpayers. Even the minor admission that the Assembly and Senate members are grossly overpaid for sinking California's economy is more than we have gotten in decades. Murray is the former chairman because Governor Moonbeam Brown replaced businessman Murray with Thomas Dalzell, manager of a San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union. Surprise, surprise.

Dalzell immediately announced that he had spoken with state attorneys who had determined that the Commission had no authority over cars. Well, those are state attorneys who are also feeding at the public trough. Did you expect them to understand that "free cars" are a form of compensation that the Commission does have authority over, Mr. Chairman? Apparently those state attorneys haven't read either the California or federal tax codes. What next, Mr. Chairman? Bring in the ACLU to sue for violation of their constitutional right to have a free car?

So should we feel sorry for the poor benighted legislators? Let's take a look at the horror the Commission has already placed upon them. In 2009, ordinary California legislators had their base salary cut from $116,208 to $95,291. Legislative leaders went from $133,639 to $109,584. Wow! The poverty must be devastating! Never mind that most of these fiddlers with the public's money are independently wealthy and there is no restriction on outside income. In Pennsylvania and New York, the ordinary legislator is paid around $79,500 or about $16,000 less than their California counterparts after the wage cut.

The reaction from the bigwigs was predictable. Speaker of the State Assembly John Perez (D-Los Angeles) said that the move makes it harder for lawmakers to travel to and in their districts to connect with constituents. Huh? Does he expect us to believe he drives from Sacramento to his district in Los Angeles? Remember how far it is from Sacramento to Caliente, then add another eighty-four miles.

Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) was even more outraged. "The arguments for cutting legislative salaries and benefits have gone from being balanced, rational and a reflection of our economic times to simply trying to make a political point." Both Steinberg and Perez have joined the chorus that says Republican members of the Commission have unfairly criticized the Democratic-controlled legislature for its spending practices. So far, however, no Republican legislators have complained about either the earlier pay cuts or the current elimination of their state-provided cars.

I wish I could get a base salary of $109,584 to screw up my clients' finances. But then I don't drive a compact, eco-friendly, fully-electric car like the legislators do. Or do they? Let's see. Top contender for champion gas-guzzler is Sen. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello). The taxpayers bought him a Cadillac STS V-8 luxury sports sedan at a mere $54,830. Calderon in 2009 spent about $83 per week on gasoline on a taxpayer state-issued credit card. And that was before the Democrats brought us $4.50 per gallon premium gasoline.

I don't think I'll be spending a lot of time praying for the well-being of the now poverty-stricken legislators. They could just ride horses, which also provide manure that can be burned for home lighting and heat when the power goes off after green weenie schemes cause the power companies to institute rolling blackouts.
[+] Read More...

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Winning The Public Relations Wars

The biggest problem Republicans (and conservatives) have is getting their message across. For as long as I can remember, Republicans have been poor at explaining what they believe, why their beliefs work, and defending themselves against the Democrats. They’ve been particularly bad at the media wars. How do we fix this?

1. Learn To Advocate: It amazes me that a group of people whose careers are based on communicating are so poor at communication. I suspect this is the result of two problems coming together. First, most Republicans don’t know or understand their own beliefs. They are faking it on an issue by issue basis. Thus, they don’t know how to explain what they "believe." Secondly, they don’t grasp the nature of politics. Republicans seem to think politics is about policy, when politics really is about sales. It doesn’t matter how great your ideas are if you can’t sell them.

To solve the first problem, Republicans need to learn what they believe. The key to explaining something is understanding it. It is clear to me that too many Republicans, e.g. John McCain, don’t understand why free markets work, why tax increases hurt jobs and productivity, why rule of law trumps “fairness,” etc. How can people like that be expected to explain or defend those beliefs? This means establishing schools to explain conservatism to Republicans and requiring attendance.

Secondly, the Republicans need to realize that the public has the attention span of a bumbersticker. The public does not read political blogs, does not study economics, and does not want to hear some dude in a suit droning on. The Republicans need to learn to turn their beliefs into meaningful slogans. They need to learn to use hyperbole. They need to learn the value of useful analogy, i.e. analogy based on things everyone already understands. And they need to learn the importance of imagery: visceral feeling will trump logic every time in politics.

To solve the second problem, Republicans need to grasp that politics is not what they think it is. Too many Republicans think of politics as a high school debate, where each side gets equal turns at presenting carefully thought out arguments. That’s false. Politics is a verbal blood-sport. Politics has no rules. Republicans need to stop assuming good faith on the part of the Democrats and the media, and they need to learn to attack the people on the left as well as their ideas. If a journalist is a leftist, boycott them or call them on it. If they are married to a Democrat, call them on it. If they give money to leftist causes, call them on it. Republicans need to learn they can never relax or assume that the public will see through the other side’s attacks, and they need to start pointing out the other side's bias.

2. Get Ahead of the Curve: The Republicans almost always respond to events, they never lead the agenda. It’s time to start planning ahead. They need to come up with their goals for the next 2-5 years and then lay the groundwork by developing talking points, commissioning research that will be needed, and starting “a buzz” long before introducing the legislation. Not only will this let them set the terms of the debate, but it will let them decide what will be debated.

3. Fight The Digital Wars: It’s time for Republicans to grasp that everything is political these days and it’s important to fight on all fronts. Consider Roger Ebert. Ebert is a leftist hack, yet the Republicans would never think of countering his influence. Thus, he is free to slander movies like Atlas Shrugged for purely political reasons and to criticize Republican policies in the process without consequences. Republicans need to start flooding his comment streams with criticisms, pointing out each of his flaws and making fun of him, i.e. they need to learn the art of the digital shoutdown, even if that means paying people to cruise the net and engage in this kind of information warfare. Even more importantly, Republicans need to learn to label these people as leftists every time they are mentioned. They need do the same with every other leftist actor, journalist or company: label them, stop praising them, attack their views, and slap them at every opportunity. These people are the opposition and Republicans need to stop letting them spout their views unchallenged and without the public thinking they are unbiased or apolitical.

4. Media Wars: A couple weeks back, there was an interesting article about the state of conservative media. The article pointed out that even though a lot of money has been invested, conservatives have little to show for their efforts. I think the problem is (1) these efforts are too unfocused to be useful, (2) these groups do little to generate information, i.e. they only collect it, and (3) these groups are openly political and thus their releases are easy to dismiss.

A better model would be the creation of a “Memory Alpha” (for our Trek fans out there) of conservatism. This would be a single institution whose role would be to (1) act as a repository of conservative knowledge/information, and (2) coordinate groups who are generating conservative information.

In terms of collecting information, I’m talking about creating a massive database of quotes by Democrats (video and written), collecting evidence of their hypocrisies, arrest records, complete resumes, voting records, lists of contributors, comparisons of Democratic voting records against their contributors, connections to leftwing think tanks and other organizations, and what lobbyists they employ and/or are related/married to. I would also like to see candidates provide their opposition research on Democrats once elections are done. The idea is to keep them from hiding their true affiliations and to keep them from escaping their pasts.

The same information would be kept on journalists and talking heads who are married to Democrats or notable leftists or who belong to leftist political organizations so they can no longer hide their political affiliations and pretend to be “unbiased journalists.”

This institution also would be a place to put policy papers, talking points, studies, polls, etc., anything that explains, outlines or defends conservatism, or anything that debunks liberalism. In terms of research, this organization would commission research and polls, would act as a coordinating organization for legal foundations (sort of a conservative ACLU) where these groups could share briefs and coordinate their efforts, offer journalist and researcher training, etc. They should even do things like coordinate the creation of documentaries, like we were talking about the other day with an Is It Real debunking liberalism.

Finally, their role would be strictly limited to gathering and sourcing this information, not advocacy; exploiting it would be left to other organizations. That avoids the problems of groups like Media Research Center who release their own information and are seen as lacking credibility because they are clearly political. This Conservative Memory Alpha would be essentially a behind-the-scenes nonprofit, whose purpose would be to feed information to other sources, so they could do the fighting. This is a similar model used by the left, which allows them to present groups like Media Matters as "a nonprofit research organization."

This is what it would take for conservatives to start winning the information war. Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Time Is Almost Up!



Tick, tick, tick. As the clock ticks down to Monday, April 18 11:59pm deadline...tick, tick, tick...feel free to vent! Don't hold back. Purge your system of tax anxiety. Rail against "The Man"! But just remember one thing...don't forget to sign your tax return!

Now, let the venting begin!
[+] Read More...

When Is A Coyote Not A Coyote?

When it's a scumbag who exploits Mexican nationals by gouging them monetarily and abusing them physically as they bring them illegally across the southern American border. But that's not really the point of this article. I just read an Associated Press dispatch about euphemisms being used in Mexico for all the violence resulting from the drug wars.

It seems there are two lines of thought about why euphemisms and verbal shorthand are commonplace among all classes of Mexican citizens. Either (or both) may be correct. The first line is that jargon anesthetizes people by making extreme behavior seem mundane, and may be an intentional plan formed by the drug cartels. The second is that it is a psychological defense mechanism that the average person uses to deal with the horrific. I don't come down on either side, at least for now.

This list is not even close to being exhaustive, but hits the most common euphemisms surrounding the drug violence that is slowly spilling across the border. "Narco" has become the common usage for those involved in the violent drug trade, and it also serves as a prefix for other expressions deriving from the violence. "Narco fosas" are pits where the drug gangs dispose of their victims. "Narco mantas" are the threatening banners that the gangs use over highway overpasses to terrorize those who might interfere with their activities. "Narco tiendas" are compact areas for drug-dealing.

Cartel fellow-travelers who inform the gangs of possible police activity are called "posts" or "stakes" in Spanish because they hang around in one place trying to get information. "Ventanas" (windows) are informers who walk around and occasionally mark intended targets with special graffiti or advertising fliers. Contract killings are "jobs," kidnap-murders are "pickups," and "settling accounts" means killing rivals. "Necklacing" (originally used in South Africa, but adapted by the cartels) means placing gasoline-soaked tires over a bound enemy's body and setting them on fire.

We have done much the same thing over the years in America, and probably for the same reasons--some good, some bad, some situational, some intentional. And motives are often hard to discern. "Whack" for kill. "Taken for a ride" meaning grabbed and taken away to be killed. "Snitch" for police informer. "Tragedy" for an intentional act of violence which results in multiple deaths or injuries. "Hit" (in both countries) to mean "murder." The list could go on and on. I'm sure you can think of plenty.

That got me thinking about the euphemisms revolving around the mass murder of 3000 innocent civilians by religious/political terrorists on American soil nearly ten years ago. The appellation "9/11" had been adopted by nearly everyone who discusses the attack. It tends to demean the deaths, but I believe that is largely unintentional, and it is good shorthand for a single horrendous event. It eliminates the need to revisit the horror by having to describe it.

However, I think the left owns the intentional downgrading of the horror with its carefully-crafted euphemisms. "Man-caused disaster" for mass murder of civilians. "Extremists" for Islamic terrorists who are not far from mainstream Islam. "Angry youths" for mad dogs who are clearly identifiable as mid-twenties Muslims. "Kinetic military action" when talking about which Islamic group we will attack while defending a different Islamic group. "Fundamentalist Muslim" for those who simply take the Koran at its word without quibble.

And then there's the old tried and true euphemism "racist" for those who are willing to name the enemy and the crime. "Islamophobe" describes anyone who thinks that Islam is not the religion of peace and can point out multiple examples of recent mass murders and attempted mass murders committed by those same Islamists. "Allahu Akbar" as simply meaning "God/Allah is great" when in fact it is the Muslim version of "Geronimo" as an attack is being carried out. Let's not forget "Muslim Cultural Center" as a substitute for "Ground Zero Mosque." "Personal struggle" for jihad, neglecting to notice that Mein Kampf means pretty much the same thing.

I'm not going to agonize over this trend, but I couldn't help giving it some thought. I imagine more than a few of you have had the same thoughts. Once in a rare while, even the AP provokes some genuine musing.

[+] Read More...

Friday, April 15, 2011

Another Obama Power-Grab

We've all been busy watching Obama golf, travel, and occasionally taking a break by pretending to care about America going into bankruptcy. But take note, the liberal/left in him never rests. It's odd how socialists never seem to have enough czars, and our Bureaucrat-in-Chief is no exception. He objects to having his czars who control major portions of the American civil and financial vetted by the Senate.

Behold: The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act (PAESA). It ought to be called the "Let's Shortcut the Constitution Act." Progressives have been trying since early in the Twentieth Century to replace constitutional restraints on executive power with bureaucratic "efficiency." At every turn, Democrats create powerful agencies with nearly unlimited power and little Congressional oversight. Each year, the number of critical national decisions being made by more and more agency heads at the expense of one or both of the elected branches of government increases. But Obama's attempts to create and staff major agencies rival any prior efforts since FDR.

This effort is being snuck in during the budget debates in hopes that the public won't notice and the conservatives in Congress will be too busy with the budget to put up much opposition. Cabinet-level appointments still require Senatorial approval, but far too many agency appointments do not (most of the czars). And like most Progressive Democrats, Obama believes that the Constitution is an impediment to efficient governance.

A good example of what Obama intends is his recent attempt to squelch free speech with a "fairness" plan that would "increase localism and diversity" while "spreading opportunity among a larger pool of viewpoints and beliefs." In other words, kill talk radio and with a little luck, kill Fox News along with it. The Chairman of the FCC is not a Cabinet Member, so why should the Senate have any say whatsoever in who sits on the Commission? Well, any agency that large, affecting that many people, with that much freedom of speech at stake, should require major vetting at least. This act would remove the Senate entirely from the process.

How many and which agencies would be involved is still a closely-guarded secret. By pushing Congress in general and the Senate in particular out of the consideration of the burgeoning bureaucracies, the President is injecting pure politics into an area that is intended to be merely functionary. These agencies don't merely carry out orders, they create policy and implement it as determined by their particular czars. The EPA was intended to carry out the will of Congress and the people to clean up our air and water and protect the environment. But the agency grew and grew, and created policies that affect billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money while squelching American productivity. Does anybody doubt that the head of the EPA has more real power than, say, the Secretary of Commerce?

Very recently, Republicans and a few conscientious Democrats killed cap and trade and are on the attack over the Hail Mary pass to the EPA, which declared carbon dioxide a "poisonous" greenhouse gas that the EPA should regulate without Congressional approval. Yet it appears that one of the agencies that would be exempt from Senatorial appointment oversight under the new act would be the EPA.

The Founders intended that the President would make appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate (Article II, Section 2). It is reasonable to think that in the modern world, that would be impractical in such a large nation with such a large responsibility. So it developed that the Cabinet is always subject to Senate approval along with other "high-level" appointments, leaving the smaller agencies to the President as chief executive. The problem is that the number of agencies which affect major portions of American life and productivity have increased almost exponentially since the FDR administration. Congress has allowed these agencies to grow and multiply, largely from inertia and their own lethargy.

So in order to "end the backlog of unconfirmed appointees," Obama has used Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) as his stalking-horse to turn Congress's laziness and disregard for the Constitution into a virtue. Gosh, it's just so much work to have to listen to testimony and consider evidence regarding agency appointees, that what is needed is a restriction on the Senate's role. And it would be so much more efficient. True enough. It would have gotten Van Jones in place faster and would have made it less likely that he would ultimately be exposed as a communist.

Delegation of authority is a necessity in both government and business. Delegation of all authority is dereliction of duty. Add to that the fact that this proposed act is a direct attack on the separation of powers and co-equal branches of government, and you have a formula for Euro-style removal of the will of the people and empowerment of an unelected elite.

Schumer is working behind the scenes to pass S. 679, aka PAESA. It's a typical Progressive attempt to short-circuit the Constitution, but what is surprising is how many Republican co-sponsors he has managed to recruit. These are people the voters relied on to decrease the size of government, cut the number and power of agencies, and promote Congressional responsibilty. Here's the list of Republicans who are willing to surrender the power of the people to the whim of the executive and the tender mercies of the bureaucrats: Jon Kyl (Arizona), Richard Lugar (Indiana), Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), Susan Collins (Maine), Scott Brown (Massachusetts), and Lamar Alexander (Tennessee).

Representative democracy is a messy process, fraught with waste and duplication. Nevertheless, "efficiency" is no substitute for republican governance, and given the long history of bureaucracies, this act might produce a more efficient appointment process while assuring that the extremely inefficient bureaucracies themselves will become even less efficient. If a job is important enough to require Presidential appointment, it's important enough to require Senate approval. If passed, this act would only prove that the President is lazy, but the Senate is even lazier.

Happy Tax Day!
[+] Read More...

Film Friday: Ronin (1998)

Most action movies are utterly mindless. They offer little more than adrenaline highs, triggered by big explosions, fast motion and loud soundtracks. Ronin, directed by John Frankenheimer and essentially written by David Mamet (credited as Richard Wiesz), is different. It’s brilliant. Ronin is gripping. It’s got fascinating twists and turns. It’s got characters that are both deep and deeply interesting, and it presents a truly immersive world. How does it achieve this? Minimalism and realism.

** spoiler alert **
Ronin Uses Minimalism To Make Us Build The Story
From the beginning, Ronin deliberately uses minimalism to pull us into the story. Little is said, less is shown and we know almost nothing. How does this pull us in? Because our brains don’t like information gaps, and will fill in those gaps with information that we consider appropriate. Thus, by carefully rationing information, Ronin actually co-opts our brains to get us to fill in the world with details that work for us. In effect, we personalize the film by assembling the characters, giving them backstories, and explaining the dispute.

For example, we know Ronin is about a group of mercenaries hired in Paris by an Irish woman named Deirdre (Natascha McElhone) to steal a briefcase from a man surrounded by expert security, but we don’t know what’s in the briefcase. It could be blackmail material, diamonds, nuclear material, computer code, counterfeiting plates or anything else. If the writer chooses one of these, there is a good chance some portion of the audience will decide this isn’t worth fighting for. But by staying silent on this point, everyone in the audience will mentally fill the briefcase with something they personally think is worth fighting for. Thus, the audience satisfies itself that the premise is justified and makes sense.

Ronin uses this same technique to build incredibly rich characters. We know almost nothing about the mercenaries, though we are given clues. In assembling these clues, we ourselves create backstories for the characters that just don’t exist in the writing. For example, we know nothing about Sam (Robert DeNiro), except that he’s an American. We also know nothing about Gregor (Stellan Skarsgard), but his accent tells us he’s probably German. When Deirdre tells us they were all referred to her by “the man in the wheelchair,” we infer that they are mercenaries of some sort. When Gregor asks Sam how the man ended up in the wheelchair, Sam says, “I was under the impression that happened in your neck of the woods, during the late unpleasantness.” From this, we can infer that they were spies during the Cold War and that Gregor and Sam were on opposite sides. We don’t know any of that, but we can infer it. We can also infer they no longer work for their countries. And when we infer these things, we simultaneously fill in their pasts with an appropriate backstory for spies who have become mercenaries. Thus, with only a few words from the writer, we ourselves create extensive backstories for the characters which satisfy us as to their credentials.

Sometimes we are even given specific hints to guide our newly-created backstories. To understand what I mean, consider this. At one point, a Russian asks where he’s seen Vincent (Jean Reno) before. Vincent responds with one word: “Vienna.” And when he says it, his voice is seething with hate. With that one word, a whole chapter in Vincent’s past is revealed to us and this whole imaginary chapter becomes part of his character even though nothing more is ever said than the one word. Seriously, when you hear him say that single word, you can literally imagine the entire Vienna incident. Similarly, we are told that Deirdre’s boss Seamus (Jonathan Pryce) was tossed out of the IRA for some reason, which again we aren’t told. But our brains fill in his backstory by coming up with some horrific deed that we personally believe would make the IRA kick this man out. Again, without coming up with a single word about his past, the writer tricks us and now we see Seamus as an evil man of the highest order.

In this way, Ronin causes us to build these characters and to generate the world that surrounds them within our own minds, and that makes the story all the richer for us.
Ronin Uses Realism To Make Us Care About The Consequences
Having gotten the audience to build the characters and fill in their world, Frankenheimer then uses realism to give the story meaning. Why? Because the more real a story feels to us, the greater we will perceive the consequences to be and the more we will care about what happens. In this case, the realism involves both the characters themselves and the physical laws of their universe.

Consider the characters. These men are highly competent. But unlike Tom Cruise movies, where someone needs to tell Tom that he’s “the best,” we learn this in Ronin by observing these men. They are fast and smart and clever. They make no mistakes. They are fearless, but not reckless. They display tremendous experience, critical knowledge and sound judgment. In other words, they are highly believable as spies or mercenaries because they display the exact traits we assume a top spy would need to survive. Moreover, their low key but determined approach immediately gives them an authenticity that a flashy James Bond character or an invincible Jason Bourne character can never achieve. This makes them real to us and draws us in because we feel like we are seeing something with real-world consequences.

The sets add to this sense of realism too. Everything happens in Paris and Nice, which lends an exotic touch to the story, but the characters spend their time in dingy apartments with blacked-out windows, i.e. places they would really stay. They don’t rent impossibly large hotel rooms overlooking the Eiffel Tower and advertize themselves to the world.

They use real weapons too, rather than the super-weapons preferred by most action heroes. What’s more, the action itself is much like we would expect it to be in real life. For example, when these characters empty a clip into a crowd, innocent people die. When they get shot, they bleed or die. Indeed, throughout this movie, you have the feeling that every time a gun is fired, something very real and very terrible can happen, and that keeps you on the edge of your seat in the fight scenes. Further, when car chases happen, there are no Dukes of Hazzard jumps, they don’t ride on two tires, and no one climbs out onto the roof and tries to jump onto another car. What they do instead is push their cars to the limit of losing control, a place that most of us have been at one time or another with our own cars. And because we remember what it felt like when our car started to skid out from under us, we recall that feeling when we see it happen to Sam or Vincent and we add it to the experience. Thus, by staying within our real world frame of reference, they pull in our own angst to heighten the danger. Compare that with the nothing you feel when two characters are fighting on top of a moving car.

The bad guys are believable too. They all have motivations: some want money, some are in this for the politics. Yet, they don’t see themselves as bad people (nor do they delude themselves that they are angels) and none of them are maniacal. They just are what they are and they’ve come to terms with that, and that makes them horrific to us because they’re cold-blooded and inhuman. Indeed, unlike most Hollywood villains who need to kick puppies or shoot henchmen to prove they are evil rather than just prancing fools, the bad guys here need no such proof. Everything about them tells you these men think nothing of killing and do it quite efficiently. But just as importantly, they don’t kill for fun or because they are sadists; they kill because it’s required to get the job done. This keeps them from seeming cartoony to us. It also heightens the tension because we know these people are truly serious and will not mess around. That’s never something you can be sure of with the comic book villains, who seem to distract themselves at all the wrong times.
Conclusion
This is why Ronin is such a fantastic action movie. The story is great and the film is well shot -- excellent sets, soundtrack and scenes. But even more importantly, we are co-opted into creating ultra-rich characters that we care about personally because we made them. Then they are put into seemingly real danger, under real world rules that keep us from knowing that everything will work out in some improbable way. I cannot recommend this film highly enough.

Check out the new film site -- CommentaramaFilms!

[+] Read More...

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Stop Attacking The Budget Deal

The moment the budget deal came out, large groups of conservatives started whining. Most were just poorly informed, but some are doing this intentionally because it gets them ratings or gets them noticed -- a recent crop has joined them because they don’t want to be on the wrong side of the crowds. So let me point out a few things:

1. Get Your Numbers Right: Let me state clearly a point that most of these pundit keep wanting to ignore -- this was not $38.5 billion in cuts, it was $78.5 billion in cuts. That means Boehner got 78.5% of the $100 billion sought, which is not bad given that he does not control the Senate or the White House.

2. 100% Is A Delusion: The idea that Boehner should have gotten everything is ridiculous. As someone who is accustomed to negotiating professionally, I can tell you that anyone who claims you can get everything you want in an adversarial negotiation has no idea what they are talking about. The amount you can get depends entirely on two factors: (1) how much the other side cares about a particular issue and (2) how desperate they are. The fact is, the Democrats weren’t desperate. Why? Because they are down and out and without momentum and without a way of regaining it. Their best chance is to introduce a wild card like a shutdown in the hopes of finding an issue that gives them respectability or hope the shutdown deprives the Republicans of momentum. Shutting down the government when the other side has nothing to lose is stupid because you can't win. Moreover, even if the Democrats did care, the closer you get to 100% the greater the resistance. By the time you get to 100%, the other side has nothing to lose by rejecting the deal and seeing how things play out.

3. Stop Ignoring The Riders: Look at the riders and you will see a tremendous amount of conservative influence won. Everything from forcing votes that will hang around Democratic necks to forcing Obama to keep Guantanamo Bay open to forcing the removal of the gray wolf from the endangered species list was included in this deal and represent clear conservative policy victories. So why do the pundits keep focusing only on the two big riders the Democrats never would have agreed to?

4. Stop The False Comparisons: This idea that more ($80 billion) was spent in two weeks than the cuts is a red herring. First, federal spending is not consistent week by week, thus you can easily find weeks where nothing gets spent. Does that mean the value of the budget deal depends on what week they sign it?

Secondly, this is false logic of the worst kind. A budget is a year-long endeavor and cuts are incremental. This criticism is like complaining that a dieter didn't stop eating until they’ve burned off all the calories they are trying to save throughout the year.

The complaint that the debt grew more than the cuts is similarly flawed. 88% of our budget is either defense spending or mandatory entitlement spending. Comparing the total spending cuts made to the remaining 12% against the debt caused by the 88% will naturally end up with the debt being greater because we haven’t touched entitlements yet. This is like complaining that someone who cuts their movie ticket budget in half hasn’t made any cuts because that amount is dwarfed by their spending on utilities.

5. Know What You’re Talking About: This idea that gimmicks were used seems to have sent people into hysterics, even though they had no idea what the gimmicks were. All budgets use “gimmicks.” That’s how you estimate anything that isn’t a precisely known amount, e.g. future tax revenues. Complaining about "gimmicks" without knowing what they are is irrational.

6. Stop Treating Spin As Fact: This idea that the cuts will only result in $300 million in savings is pure spin. It is a flat out distortion.

First, let me point out the irony that conservatives, who regularly attack CBO for blinding applying the assumptions it is given without ever asking if those assumptions are realistic, are suddenly accepting as true the spin placed on a CBO report.

Secondly, make no mistake, this is spin. If you look at the CBO report, it quite correctly notes that the 2011 budget will be reduced by $80 billion. The end. So how do we get to the $300 million figure? By making a false comparison. The $300 million number comes from comparing the actual spending after the budget deal against the amount spent in 2010. But that’s a false measure. When budgets are issued, they include automatic increases for each year. The 2010 budget was no different. Thus, had no budget deal taken place, the 2011 spending would have been $78.5 billion higher. To pretend that this somehow wouldn’t have happened and that therefore a comparison to the spending of 2010 is appropriate is factually wrong and entirely deceptive.

Further, this is where the supposed gimmick comes in. CBO is assuming that many of the spending cuts involve spending that isn’t likely to have happened based on the rate of spending so far during the year. In other words, based on what’s been spent so far, CBO thinks the agencies wouldn’t have needed this money anyway. Thus, the inclusion of these amounts as cuts in the budget deal is considered "a gimmick." But CBO knows this is false because agencies always spend their budgets. This is part of an ancient end-of-year ritual where agencies rush to spend everything they’ve been given so that their future budgets aren’t reduced. Also, large projects often get pushed off to the end of the year so the agency knows before it begins that there will be money available to complete the project in the following year. Thus, comparisons to the current rate of spending are a fraud.

7. Stop Aiding And Abetting The Democrats: Finally, this whole thing is really ticking me off. If people have a legitimate criticism then make it constructively. Don’t go throwing a temper tantrum and ignorantly attacking the Republicans. All these pundits are doing is helping the Democrats by making the Republicans seem fractured, disorganized and unsupported.

And let me point out a few facts about the pundits doing the attacking. First, most of these people rely on being loud and bombastic to get audiences. Outrage sells, whether it’s justified or not.

Secondly, the track record of these pundits is suspect at best. These are the same people who ran with every single anti-Republican rumor they heard over the last couple years. Many of these pundits are the same people who kept insisting the Republicans didn’t have the nerve to fight Obama/Pelosi even as they blocked most of the Democratic agenda in party-line votes and filibusters despite having NO power to block anything. These same pundits who now ignore the riders and the additional $40 billion in cuts and who have bought hook, line and sinker into the spin on the CBO report, are the same people who jumped on the Scott Brown for President bandwagon without having any clue what he stood for. They are the same people who jumped on the Christie bandwagon because of a youtube video, again without bothering to look into his RINO ways. These are the same people who jumped on Tea Party freshmen for a party that none of them attended, and a dozen other stupidities.

These arm-chair revolutionaries are Monday Morning Quarterbacks of the worst kind, because they are too lazy to do their research, they are front runners and bandwagoners, and because they know they are using false arguments and false logic to attack people they claim to support, all in an attempt to further their own careers.

It’s time we started asking them the hard questions, and tuning them out when they can’t answer.

[+] Read More...

Just Drink The Kool-Aid

Shown in his earlier political career is California Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown with political ally Rev. Jim Jones of the People's Temple. Brown has a lot less hair now, and Jones has gone off to his particular place in hell. Brown's obsessive need to get the people of the State of California to commit suicide has survived the years.

The heavily-Democratic state legislature has just passed Brown's plan to require California to get one-third of its power from "renewable sources" by the year 2020. The current goal was one-fifth. When the legislature first proposed this measure, it was too much even for muscle-head governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who vetoed it. The one-third figure must be reached by using solar panels, windmills, landfill gases, small hydroelectric and other "renewable" resources. Well, those are neither coal nor oil, but I'm not sure how they're any more "renewable."

I'm often amazed at the sheer chutzpah of politicians like Brown. Bought and paid for by California unions and the green weenie lobby, his faux Wall Street reasoning is that the economy will be improved by giving reassurance to the renewable energy investment sector. No mention at all of how it will affect the other 99% of investors and employers. But if Spain is any indication, for every four jobs created, nine will be lost, energy production will fall precipitously, the economy will continue to slide into the abyss, and energy prices will soar.

The bill was signed on Tuesday at SunPower-Flextronics located in Milpitas (southern tip of the San Francisco Bay Area). US Energy Secretary Steven Chu was in attendance, and a spokeswoman for Chu stated: "Instead of watching from the sidelines, America needs to get back in the clean energy race, and that's exactly what California is doing." Note the use of the word "clean" instead of "renewable." More about that later. SunPower-Flextronics is one of several companies that has benefited from government subsidies and Democratic special treatment. If you know you have the government and the taxpayers' money behind you, investment is indeed secure.

Now I know you will not be surprised to find out that General Electric stock will also be going up with the help of this happy-happy act. I have two hopes in regard to GE. First, that in its rush to hire foreign workers overseas, it will have a little room to hire out-of-work Californians at home. Second, I am hoping that SunPower-Flextronics will pay some taxes, unlike GE. Politics does make for strange bedfellows, with crypto-socialist politicians joining crypto-capitalist big corporation CEOs on the Posturepedic.

The green weenie corporations get rich, pay little in taxes, put more workers out of work than they hire, and set goals that no reasoning human being can believe can ever be accomplished without skulduggery, creative accounting, and serious damage to an already-fragile economy. California's unemployment rate is officially well over 12%, much of it attributable to other green and envirowacko initiatives. Just ask the farmers in the Central Valley.

Business groups have conservatively estimated that the cost to consumers will go up no less than seven percent almost immediately. That's bad enough, but electricity rates in California are already fifty percent higher than the national average. But the bill "guarantees" that no such increases will occur because the government will control costs. That theory is not merely both obnoxious and crazy, but California has already seen what government control of real costs can do. Anybody remember the rolling blackouts and brownouts that cost Jerry Brown's close political ally, Governor Grey Davis his job?

Democrats had promised that if Davis were elected, the government would reimpose cost regulations. Republican governors had de-regulated so the Democratic-Socialists re-regulated. Consumer energy costs had been rising at almost exactly the same rate as the overall cost of living, but the Democrats made it sound as if those costs had soared beyond the working man's ability to keep up. So Davis's Public Utilities Commission strictly capped retail prices. Like all good socialists and statists, the Democrats don't understand either the market or simple accounting. Costs to the utility companies kept climbing, but they couldn't raise the consumer price because of the rigid caps. Result: California went dark in large areas on a regular basis. In San Francisco, I was given the joy of complete power failures, scheduled by the State no less, on three separate occasions before the people recalled Davis and elected Schwarzenegger.

Try explaining to a Democrat that if your costs go up, your selling price has to go up. Not subtle enough, I guess. So here we are eight years later, and Brown has found another way to mess with the market, favor an unproven industry still in its infancy, and disallow the logical use of oil, coal and natural gas while the green industries develop. As for hydroelectric power, California has abundant water and places to put hydroelectric dams. But the same people who are behind this new act have used their eco-freak shock troops to stop development of any new dams and want to shut down the existing dams.

The act includes language that requires the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to set limits for what utilities should have to pay and allows the standards to be relaxed if not enough renewable power or transmission capacity is available to meet them. So the green weenies built their own escape route into the bill. It is a near-certainty that the goal will not be met (see the results in the nations which signed on to the Kyoto Accords). And exactly how do they plan to control how much utilities will themselves pay for their power? So the imaginary cost-controls will still end up costing the consumer more money. At the same time, the tried and true sources that they hate so much will have to provide the power that green technology isn't close to being able to provide.

Now, back to "clean energy." This has become the new slogan for green weenies and other envirofreaks. Somebody forgot to get the memo to Moonbeam. As I mentioned before, the inadequate sources of power that the act addresses are not really renewable, just depletion-neutral. Coal, oil and natural gas are finite sources. So it's depletion-neutral versus finite sources. Not very sexy, so a new pejorative had to be applied. Since nobody wants "dirty" energy, how about "clean" energy instead? It's hard to say that you support dirty energy, isn't it? It's a bit like turning baby-murder and abortion-on-demand into "choice." Now who's against choice? The same people who are against clean energy.

Before you laugh too hard at the misfortunes of the vast majority of Californians, just remember that as California goes, so goes the nation. Delta smelt sandwich, anyone?
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

TV Review: Is It Real (2005-2007)

If you’re looking for a great show that debunks a variety of supernatural, paranormal and just plain crazy theories, then Is It Real is for you. Produced by the National Geographic Channel, Is It Real is a 28 episode documentary series that examines everything from ghosts to alien abductions to Atlantis to exorcisms to human superpowers. It’s honest, it’s fair, it’s snarky and it’s well worth your time.

For some time now, claims of the paranormal have been gaining credibility because books like Erich von Däniken’s “Chariots of the Gods” and “Ancient Aliens” on the History Channel are ramming these ideas into the public consciousness. And since humans love to believe the inexplicable and are easily fooled by false logic, these ideas are catching fire within our culture. Unfortunately, the evidence presented to support these claims ranges from the paranoid or conspiratorial to the just plain stupid. But often it’s not clear just how fraudulent these claims are until someone does a critical analysis of the claim.

That’s where Is It Real comes in. Is It Real gives both proponents of these theories and skeptics a fair chance to present their arguments -- though, when I say “fair,” I mean precisely that: “fair” not “unchallenged.” Indeed, unlike so many of these shows (both pro/con) which typically just accept one side's presentation at face value, the Is It Real crew will interview witnesses, will stage experiments, and will consult actual scientists to examine claims. This makes the show a valuable resource for anyone who wishes to understand the issues being addresses. For example, they interview the man who claims to have worn the Big Foot costume in the famous Big Foot Photo. They show how insects will cause the precise conditions that cattle mutilation enthusiasts claim can only be made by alien surgeons. They explain the psychological reasons people would want to believe they are possessed. They show how the description of aliens varies by culture and explain the reason for this, and how alien abduction stories are the result of sleep paralysis. Etc.

Many believers object that the show favors the skeptics, but it’s hard to agree with their point. Certainly the show lands on the side of skepticism, but that is because the skeptics are making arguments that are logically sound, backed by evidence, and consistent with human experience; the believers have nothing similar to offer. Moreover, Is It Real always acknowledges the limits of the skeptic's case, and has at times found some credibility in the claims of paranormal activity, such as when they examine sleep-walking murders, where they note both that sleep walkers are capable of performing highly complex tests and that people awoken from such states are often intensely violent.

I highly recommend this series. Not only does it give you the basics upon which these beliefs arise, i.e. the history of their development and a discussion of the most famous cases, but it carefully dispels what can be dispelled and it exposes the charlatans who seek to profit from pushing these beliefs. And it does so with both a snarky sense of humor and a fair examination of the evidence. All of which makes for an enjoyable and educational experience.

It also just so happens that Is It Real can be watched instantly on Netflix at the moment. Check it out. . . do it for Nessie!

So, what’s your favorite paranormal phenomena/supernatural creature?

[+] Read More...

"The (Stupid) People's Budget"

Obama loves channeling the past. He does a particularly good Nixon. Now other Democrats are getting into the act. In this case, a group of weirdoes known as the Congressional Progressive Caucus are channeling East Germany as they release “The People’s Budget.” This budget is a response to Ryan’s budget and the budget Obama is expected to release, and like all things “People’s” this one is a disaster.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is a collection of weirdoes who spend their time sniffing each other’s seats and feeling smug about their desires to enslave the human race. This group of pathetics includes male-prostitute enthusiast Barney Frank, crooks like Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, and Sheila Jackson Leigh, socialist Bernie Sanders, misogynistic anti-Semite Pete Stark, extra-terrestrial anal-probing enthusiast Dennis Kucinich, Hitlerian-lunatic Nancy Pelosi, and 68 more assorted creeps and freaks.

These fools claim their budget would eliminate the deficit in 10 years, even as they waste massive amounts of money. Of course, their numbers are fake and their budget would destroy the economy, millions of jobs, and the country, but reality does not deter them.

First, they propose tax increases. . . lots of them. Their budget:
● Raises the social security tax to cover 90% of income, no matter how high.
● Raises the social security tax on employers.
● Creates three new tax brackets, with the highest at 47%.
● Raises the capital gains tax.
● Raises the estate tax.
● Raises corporate taxes.
● Creates a “financial speculation tax.”
● Imposes a “financial crisis responsibility” fee.
● Repeals the Bush tax cuts.
This is guaranteed to slash employment and investment to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Ah... nostalgia!

Of course, this alone won’t eliminate the deficit or destroy the country, so they also propose all-but eliminating the military. Indeed, the plan calls for “reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces, procurement and research and development.” In other words, they want to stop military spending almost entirely. Thus, should we decide to defend ourselves in the future, it will be BOYB on hardware.

And what kind of progressive budget would be complete without wasting an obscene amount of money? In that regard, they are planning a $1.45 trillion splurge on "stimulus" (i.e. K-12 education, special education, broadband infrastructure, and housing). Of course, none of that is actual stimulus unless special ed kids are better at creating jobs than I realize. Also, let's not forget that you can't be a true progressive unless your plan includes enslaving the public. Hence, they also plan to turn the health care system into a government run single-payer plan, which will quickly devolve into a government-run non-payer, health indifference system. Krankheit macht frei! (Sickness brings freedom.)

Clearly, this budget is a joke. And what makes it all the more laughable are people like Jeffrey Sachs, a drooling idiot from Huffpo who licks his socks clean at night, who claims this is actually a “centrist budget.” Jeff. . . man. . . stay off the drugs.

In any event, we should remember this budget and remind people that this is what the Democratic Party has become, a collection of weirdoes who want to destroy the economy and the military. A vote for any Democrat is a vote for despair.

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

2012 Contender: Donald Trump

Continuing our march through the Republican contenders for 2012, today we stop at the clown tent. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Donald Trump, and you can keep him. Strangely, some people are seriously claiming that Trump just might be the true conservative we’ve all been looking for, which just goes to show that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Who Trump Claims To Be. . .
Here’s who “the Donald” claims to be today:
● He’s an economic conservative.
● He’s pro-life.
● He opposes gun control.
● He wants to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
● He opposes foreign aid.
● He supports fair trade and wants to slap import tariffs on China to force them to rebalance their currency.
● He believes the US should leave Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ok, sounds somewhat conservative. But is any of this true or is he just telling people what they want to hear? For that, let’s look at his background.
Who Trump Really Is. . .
In 2001, Trump switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. While he was a Democrat, he considered running for President as a Republican in 2004 and running for governor of New York as a Republican in 2006. In 2009, he again became a Republican, but not before describing himself in 2007 thusly: “[I am] very much independent. . . I go for the person, not necessarily the party. I mean, I vote for Republicans and I vote for Democrats.” Ok, so let’s look at how his independence swings by looking at who he’s donated money to:
Harry Reid
Ted Kennedy
Charles Rangel
Charles Schumer
Rahm Emanuel
John Kerry
Tom Daschle
Joe Biden
That’s a rogues gallery of far leftism. He’s also praised Nancy Pelosi, penning her a congratulatory note after her election as speaker. Clearly, Trump is neither Republican nor loyal, as further evidenced by his statement today that he intends to run as an independent if he doesn't secure the nomination.
What Trump Really Believes. . .
Trump’s conservative views also appear to be new-found. For example:
● Trump claims to oppose ObamaCare, but in the 2000 election, when he jockeyed to run as a Reform Party candidate, he favored universal health care: “[I’m] conservative on most issues, but a liberal on this one.” Even during his CPAC speech he said he wanted to replace ObamaCare “with something that makes sense for people in business.” That’s Business-Roundtable speak for getting health care off corporate balance sheets and onto taxpayer backs. That puts TrumpCare to the left of ObamaCare.

● Trump claims to be pro-life, but admits he was pro-choice until recently. In December 1999, he said: “I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors.” His conversion is supposedly based on a friend telling him he was happier having had a child they originally intended to abort.

● In his 2000 book The America We Deserve, Trump proposes a "one-time" 14.25% tax on personal estates and trusts over $10 million. Things like this are never one-time, and Trump certainly has shown no restraint to only do bad things once, as evidenced by his history of serial bankruptcies discussed below.

● In The America We Deserve, Trump said he “generally oppose[s] gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.”

● In 2000, Trump campaigned to limit campaign contributions and ban soft money. This is an idea pushed by liberals to silence their opponents.
None of that is conservative. At best, it’s solid RINO.
His Business Credentials Also Send Up A Red Flag
Trump’s business career also sends up a huge red flag because he’s a serial abuser of the bankruptcy system.
● In 1991, Trump filed bankruptcy, costing bondholders hundreds of millions of dollars. He ended up losing 50% of the ownership of his casinos to the bondholders.

● In November 1992, Trump’s Trump Plaza Hotel was forced into bankruptcy. Trump lost 49% of his ownership in the hotel and he lost his role in the day-to-day operations of the hotel.

● In 1993, Trump was forced to give up Trump Shuttle because he could not afford to pay his $900 million in personal debt and $3.5 billion in business debt. He was also forced to give up his then-latest Manhattan real estate project. His name was kept on the building so the new owners could charge a premium for the condos.

● In 1995, Trump combined his casino holdings into the publicly held Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, which was unable to meet even the interest payments on its $3 billion debt. In 2004, Trump Hotels filed for bankruptcy. Trump lost his CEO position and half his ownership interest -- down to 27%. The company re-emerged as Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings.

● In 2008, Trump again failed to pay his debts and was sued by his creditors.

● In February 2009, Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for bankruptcy, at which time Trump was forced to resign from the board.
There is nothing inherently un-conservative about filing bankruptcy. But Trump has shown a pattern of using the bankruptcy system as part of his business plan. This should call into question not only his business credentials as it shows a history of bad deal making and mismanagement, but also his respect for private property and how he is likely to respond to adversity, i.e. does he always look for the easy way out?
The Candidate
Finally, with all that said, I am enjoying Trump the candidate. Trump has been merciless in blasting Obama on all issues strange and ridiculous, e.g. the birther issue and the “Obama is a Muslim” issue. I like this because Trump has a big enough platform to make these attacks meaningful, and thereby force Obama to deal with them, but he also lacks credibility as a Republican representative and therefore we don’t get tarred by his buffoonery. But that comes with two huge caveats. First, this only remains true so long as Republicans don't lend him any credibility, or else we risk adopting the blame for his ridiculousness. Secondly, Trump is only entertaining as long as no Republicans actually consider supporting him. The clowns are funny, but no one would suggest letting them run the circus.

[+] Read More...

Moore Tweets On Wisconsin Election

Michael The Twit Moore Tweeted: "Republicans created the rule: "Whoever declares victory first, wins! When will the Obama Justice Dept. impound ballots and stop the shenanigans?" That's probably not a silly question, considering the proclivities of the Holder Injustice Department, but good luck.

Moore was complaining because the lefty DNC/union tool who had sought to be elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court had prematurely declared victory with a puny 250 vote margin. JoAnn Kloppenburg, the anointed candidate of the mob, was not expecting a bolt out of the blue. Under ordinary circumstances, even a 250 vote deficit for a Democrat means ultimate election after the recount. In a tight race followed by a recount, the Democrat always "wins." The other day, I mentioned that the rule is "keep counting until the Democrat is ahead, then stop and demand certification of the results."

But a clerk's error in Waukesha County turned a "victory" that was within the automatic recount margin into an almost insurmountable lead for the sitting Justice David Prosser. Tantrum time! Along with Moore, I was sure that like the gubernatorial election in Washington State in 2004 and the more recent election of Al Franken in Minnesota in 2008, any narrow margin would automatically go to the Democratic tool. Who knew that after the votes of Waukesha County came in, Prosser would have a commanding lead? This time, all the odds favor the Republican's ultimate success.

First of all, a 7,500 vote margin (more or less) is extremely hard to challenge. It is certainly not within the automatic recount margin, and well above the margin that thinking politicians would even attempt to challenge. There is a clear and verifiable paper-trail to confirm the Waukesha County results, even after the clerk's error. County canvassing member Ramona Kitzinger strongly confirms the result. A machine politician, Kitzinger is also the Vice Chairman of the Waukesha County Democratic Party. Liberal operative and statistician Nate Silver was mystified with the early result from Brookfield in Waukesha County, and after the error was discovered, stated that statistically the new results were in keeping with expected voter turnout.

None of this matters to Michael Moore. The disheveled Moore has time and again held himself out to be a gadfly for the people. Well, I think we know which people he means. In fact, he is an obvious believer in rigged elections such as Cuba's and Iran's. When the anointed candidate doesn't actually win, either change the numbers or use outside force to change the result. What Moore, the great democrat, is suggesting is simple: Use the power of the federal Department of Justice to overturn the clear results of a state election in order to seat the losing candidate based solely on the candidate's own declaration of victory and erroneous early election returns that favored Moore's, the unions' and the Democrats' chosen candidate.

I'll go with Jonah Goldberg's definition of Moore and people like him--liberal fascists.
[+] Read More...

Monday, April 11, 2011

Do Your Job--Go To Jail

Here's a juicy tidbit from the near-shutdown of the federal government. The Democrats moaned and groaned about how the Republicans were jumping for joy over a possible shutdown. More importantly, they pulled out the harps and violins about how awful it would be for federal employees not to be able to do their jobs and collect their wages. The lack of federal employees would produce an apocalypse of cascading horrors.

No thinking Democrat would ever want federal employees to cease serving the American people. It would cause unbelievable chaos, they told us. Granny would end up being thrown out into the snow. Innocent children would starve. Women would have to skip Planned Parenthood and go straight to the back alley for their abortions. Oh, the humanity! And all because those federal workers wouldn't be at their desks on Monday morning.

So we can be sure that the Democrats from Community-Organizer-In-Chief Barack Obama down would do everything in their power to make sure the finely-tuned wheels of the federal bureaucracy would keep whirring even during a shutdown. By any means necessary, as they are wont to say. Well, maybe not.

During the last few days of the looming shutdown, there was a flurry of activity from the Obama administration giving orders to the federal employees. On April 7, a memo went out from Jacob Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It was very clear. Federal employees caught working from home to keep up to speed during the shutdown would not go unscathed for their lack of cooperation with the real agenda of the Democrats. Exploit this crisis to the hilt, and leave no federal employee behind. "All federal employees are prohibited pursuant to Section 124, Circ. A-11 of the Anti-Deficiency Act after midnight Friday from working remotely, such as from home, including by accessing agency information (e.g. Blackberries, cell phones, computers and laptops)." He forgot to mention carrier pigeons, but you get the idea.

One federal employee under the promise of anonymity stated that her supervisor had told her that if she were discovered working at home, she would go to jail. That would be unlikely, but still there are criminal sanctions for violation of the Act. This all confirms the ramblings of Howard Dean, who said that a government shutdown would be the best thing in the world for Democrats. Or so he thought anyway. But keeping this out of the public forum was vitally necessary, so Obama and the gang made no public statements about how this would affect unionized government employees, a major source of voting and monetary support for the Democrats.

Hundreds of thousands of unionized federal employees would have been without work and without pay in the event of a shutdown. But it was also necessary that the Democrats put them out of work, prevent them from doing voluntary work, and blame it on the Republicans all at the same time. It was quite a tightrope walk, and we'll probably never be sure whether or not it would have worked. But for pure cynicism, "do your job, go to jail" is up there in the top tier of dirty Democratic tricks.
[+] Read More...