Obama Keeps Shoveling

And over the past few months, he's been shoveling it against the tide. The biggest pile he succeeded in shoveling was his plan for socialized medicine and bureaucratic control of America's health care needs, but everything since has been washing back over him.

The most deliciously ironic shoveling act was when he finally had to admit that all those projects he wanted to pay for with taxpayer money weren't exactly "shovel-ready." After pushing a nearly trillion dollar "stimulus" program, it turns out that the administration is all dressed up with nowhere to go. As Americans suffer from high unemployment and stagflation, Obama used his girlish giggle to cover up his apparent ignorance of what business does and how it does it.

I don't agree with my fellow conservatives who thought that Obama was heartlessly laughing at Americans who are the victims of his grandiose socialist schemes. I think it was his version of whistling past the graveyard. He can't laugh at people he doesn't even consider worth a passing notice. A missed one-foot putt, now that's something worth laughing about.

Somewhere in the mix, Obama managed to get unions involved in the shovel conspiracy. You know what I mean--those "workers" who have one person shoveling with six supervising, all with high-pay, low-performance guarantees and cushy benefits and pensions. Early on, he managed to push two major automobile corporations into bankruptcy, screw over the creditors and bond-holders, while handing over ownership to the joint venture of big government and big labor unions. I'm still looking for the constitutional authority for that maneuver. Also, if you think that Chrysler Corporation has paid back the taxpayers and made the bondholders whole, I have a big orange bridge in San Francisco I'm willing to sell you, cheap.

Other ventures haven't been quite so shovel-ready. Several airlines, most noticeably Delta, have conducted multiple unionization votes, and the unions have been rejected each time. Teams of federal investigators are checking into how such a thing could possibly happen. It is self-evident that every American worker deeply desires union membership, so it must be some sort of capitalist conspiracy against them.

Before you can have airline workers being denied their Constitution and God-given right to be members of a union, you first have to have airplanes for them to fly. And there the capitalist conspiracy goes even deeper. Big Boy Boeing is now under attack by the Obamist-controlled National Labor Relations Board for daring to open a non-union plant to build the "Dreamliner" in South Carolina. It was rather amazing to see how quickly a well-run company could make a place truly "shovel-ready" without first demanding huge sums of the taxpayers' money to pay for the shovels.

Being continues to build airplanes in unionized Washington State, and is even expanding its operations there. But the room for expansion is limited, so without costing a single union job, Boeing found a place that it could shovel without union labor, to add to its Washington-based union plant. "Not good enough" say the unions and the NLRB. In their inimitable illogic, creating jobs in South Carolina ipso facto automatically means the loss of union jobs (and union dues--no small matter).

It must be retaliation for union strikes in the past, so that is nothing short of an "unfair labor practice." The Obamists aren't satisfied with telling Americans who should own businesses, who should run them, and how much profit they should make, but it now wants to make sure that it controls where those facilities can exist (and more importantly, where they can't exist).

The Democrats got shoveled-under in some formerly Democrat states in the last general election. In Wisconsin, the unions cried "foul." They know they have the exclusive right to shovels in Wisconsin, so when the governor and the legislature commandeered their shovels, they first mobbed the capital, then sued to get their shovels back (writ of replevin for a shovel?). They found a union-owned judge to agree with them, but the state Supreme Court reversed the decision and found that the shovels belonged to the people.

Failing to get his way on so many of his shovel-ready projects, Obama needed to deflect attention from his growing record of failure and onto something positive. How about shovel-ready foreign trade agreements? That should fool the rubes into thinking that The One is actually in favor of letting the markets work. The Master of Business first discovered that our trade problems center on poor performance in exports. So as far back as his 2011 State of the Union address, the nation's economist-in-chief announced that he would increase our exports to double their current level by 2014 (optimistic about that re-election thing, isn't he?).

How to do that? Implement the Bush-inspired free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea and take personal credit for it. It's part of the overall strategy of "blame Bush, take credit for his achievements." But once again, those capitalist conspirators ruined his plans. Or did they? The shovel he got hit in the back of the head with came not from the capitalists, but from the unions. You must remember that in Keynesian thinking, every success means somebody else has to fail. In Marxist thinking, every success is based on exploitation of the workers. Obama has been getting cross-eyed trying to figure out which of those two theories to use.

The unions helped him to reconcile the two modes of thinking by demanding that in any free-trade agreement with the three nations, there must be a guarantee that no union worker in America will lose his job without compensation. So Obama has decided that he will support the agreements only if there is a massive expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. "What's that?" you ask. It's your tax money above and beyond unemployment benefits to be given to "workers displaced by foreign competition." Now there's no such program for workers displaced by domestic competition, but we're dealing with rotten furriners here.

So now we know that even foreign trade agreements are not shovel-ready. Clearly, we could have increased our exports if only we paid union employees for being out-produced by foreign competition. OK, I'm getting lost in the logic myself. But one thing you can count on. If, as seems likely, the free-trade agreements are rejected by the Senate because of the Trade Adjustment Assistance union payoffs, the Obamists already have their shovels ready to bury the Republicans who queered the president's brilliant double-our-exports plan.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Feliz Cumpleanos, Che

Just in time for his 83rd birthday, the Castro Ministry of Propaganda is publishing newly-revealed portions of Che Guevara's diary. Well, at least that what they're telling everyone it is. In fact, nobody is being allowed to see the alleged documents, and the quotes are being spoon-fed to Fidel's old allies, the New York Times and the BBC, along with their newer ally, CNN.

Not to be confused with the Motorcycle Diaries, we are being told that these quotes come from Che's 1956-1958 Diary of a Combatant. For my earlier essay on what a brave "combatant" Che actually was, you might want to go here first for some background: I'm Ready for my Close-Up, Mr. Demille. The descendants of and successors to the fools who fell for the glories of Soviet Russia and the beauty of China's Great Leap Forward are eating this stuff up. As CNN says: "The goal is to show his work, his thoughts, his life, so that the Cuban people and the entire world get to know him and don't distort things anymore."

I guess "distortion" is in the eye of the alleged news reporters. What they are actually talking about as distortion are the facts that have been confirmed over the years about what a sadistic, cold-blooded murderer, media-manipulator, and battlefield coward Che actually was. Praising the releases that are supposedly coming from the collection of Che's widow, Aledia March-Guevars, the BBC says "She said she wanted readers to get to know Che Guevara just as he was." Yeah, right.

The New York Times praises the accuracy of the quotes, though neither they nor anyone outside the Castro regime have actually seen the originals. This is the same New York Times that reported the decisive battle of Santa Clara that brought Castro into power. The battle was a complete fabrication, fed to the nearest Times reporter who happened to be in New York City at the time he was reporting on the "carnage." Their reasoning for why the new quotes must be genuine is that one of Castro's communist media flacks expressed her doubts that Che would really have wanted these portions of "his very personal thoughts" to be made public. Therefore, they must be genuine.

In fact, the widely-believed battle of Santa Clara was a minor skirmish involving exactly one (count 'em, one) casualty. As soon as it became apparent to the Castroites and Che that they were outnumbered and outgunned, they quickly offered a truce that included allowing Castro troops into the city. After a week of pretend negotiations in which there were no armed confrontations, the Batistas foolishly let their guard down, and abandoned good military order. Now inside the city, fully-armed and ready to spring, the Castroites closed the trap, and the real slaughter began. Nothing new here. Like Walter Duranty's denial of the deaths of millions of Soviet peasants during Stalin's consolidation of power, NY Times reporters then and now simply repeat what they have been told by their buddies in Cuba.

The fact is that the "new revelations" are really just rehashes of the works of the Charming Che, continuing to ignore more salient quotes from some of Che's lieutenants describing the battle of Santa Clara to US Press Attache Paul Bethel in 1959: "We had a helluva time, Paul," said oddly-named Guevarista William Morgan. "We used a short-wave radio to broadcast the battle. We yelled fake battle commands into the mic while a few of the muchachos shot B.A.R.s and pistols into the air for the sound effects. We really whooped it up." Somehow, that quote never got repeated in the NY Times, and don't hold your breath for it to show up now.

One American citizen inside the US embassy reported that Guevara sent one of his men into the town during the truce with a large envelope stuffed with dollars which he gave to the Batista commander. That same commander then ordered his troops to stand down and ignore the armed insurrectionists coming into town in ever-increasing numbers. That didn't make it into the NY Times reports either, and on CBS, NBC, and ABC the cheerleaders reported even shorter but more glorious versions of the "peoples' triumph" over troops which outnumbered and outgunned them.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Che's luster was not what it used to be, and propagandized American young people needed to be reminded why they are wearing those idiotic Che tee-shirts. What better time to do it than on Che's birthday? And who better to do it than Che's widow? How very fortuitous that the formerly absent diaries were brought back to light at just the right time. It was the perfect time for the communist regime to tell the American mainstream media what was going on in Cuba, so they could report it just as they have been told to report it.

If an anti-Castroite were to announce to the New York Times, CNN, and the BBC that the sun came up this morning, the story would go unreported while their "reporters" scrambled to gather evidence proving that the anti-Castroite is lying. But when the Castro government "finds" more juicy facts and stories about the valiant Che, disbelief at those organizations is suspended, propaganda is accepted as truth, and the reporter's duty to verify is tossed out the window.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Next Obama Scandal: “Gun Walking”

Operation Fast and Furious was an idiotic attempt by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to get proof that Mexican drug cartels are buying guns from American gun shops. This reckless operation had no chance of success and it got people killed, including American Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. What's more, it has all the hallmarks of being politically motivated and is likely to reach into the White House.

Starting in 2009, the ATF, part of Eric Holder’s Justice Department, got cooperative Phoenix-area gun shops to sell guns illegally to Mexicans. Rather than arrest these buyers, as they would have done in the past, the ATF instructed its agents to turn a blind eye to the sales. This has been called “gun walking” because they let these guns walk out the door. The ATF hoped the guns would be recovered from Mexican crime scenes, which they believed would let them build conspiracy cases against Mexican drug cartels. It didn’t. In fact, it couldn't because the entire concept is flawed. Consider this:

1. By telling the gun shops to knowingly sell the guns illegally, the agency itself made it possible for the guns to reach Mexico. Thus, this operation cannot stand as proof that American gun shops are selling to Mexicans because it was the ATF itself that made this possible and there is no evidence that any non-cooperating gun shops made similar sales.

2. Secondly, there’s no way to connect the drug cartels to the gun sales because the ATF didn’t keep track of the guns. In other words, even if cartel members used these guns in Mexico, there’s no way to trace the gun from the purchase to the cartel. And if the ATF's plan was just to assume the connection (something that is not permissible in a court of law) then why even bother releasing the guns?

Thus, even if the operation worked perfectly, it still could not have achieved the ATF's goals.

But more importantly, what was the cost of this stupidity? Republicans Rep. Daryl Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley just issued a 51 page report damning Operation Fast and Furious. From the start, this operation was criticized by experienced ATF agents as “reckless.” Said Grassley: “Both line agents and gun dealers who co-operated with the ATF repeatedly expressed concerns [about the operation]. . . but ATF supervisors did not heed those warnings. Instead, they told agents to follow orders because this was sanctioned from above.” And when ATF bosses were told this could result in people getting killed, they responded: “if you are going to make an omelet, you need to scramble some eggs.” In other words, they didn’t care. Apparently, they even threatened to fire or punish agents who complained.

It is unknown how many crimes these guns were used to commit because the ATF had no way to monitor what happened to the guns. But before the operation was stopped, 1,730 guns were allowed to disappear onto the black market, including hundreds of AK-47s and sniper rifles. One of those AK-47s was later used to kill Board Patrol Agent Brian Terry. And when he was killed, the ATF embarked on a cover up. William Newell, the special agent in charge of the operation, ordered the arrest of 20 of the minor gun buyers and then declared the operation a success even though nothing was ever linked to a single senior cartel member. When he was asked if the guns the ATF had let disappear were deliberately allowed to end up in the hands of criminals, he lied: “Hell no!”

So what you have here is a government agency that embarked on a policy that could not achieve the goals for which it was planned, which endangered thousands of American and Mexican lives, and which covered up the mess it created. If that’s not an argument for reining in the government, then nothing is.

Naturally, Obama has denied any knowledge of the operation and I’m sure Eric Holder will too. There is speculation that acting ATF director Kenneth Melson will be made the scapegoat here. But this is not the kind of operation that happens without higher up approval. In fact, one ATF agent has stated that this operation was cleared by the State Department, i.e. Hillary Clinton (who "coincidentally" came to the border to decry American guns right before this operation started).

To dodge this scandal, the Democrats are spinning this as the fault of the gun lobby for blocking the appointment of Obama’s choice to run the ATF -- that's the same Democrats who had a 60 seat majority but didn't confirm the guy. They also are trying to claim this started in 2006, which is true of the overall operation but not of the gun walking -- which only started in 2009 apparently after the approval of State. The ATF is trying to spin this as the result of the ATF not having enough personnel to monitor the guns, but that begs the question why they even started the operation.

In fact, why would they do this at all? The ATF says they wanted to get a better grasp on how cartels work, but that kind of knowledge is already available and this wouldn’t have helped them in any event. The real goal, in my opinion, was to create data to prove what Obama/Hillary/Holder were all arguing: that gun control is needed because American gun shops are arming Mexican drug cartels. That argument wasn’t working because everyone knows better. As I pointed out at the time, it’s silly to think Mexican cartels were buying guns from American gun shops when they have co-opted whole departments of the Mexican police and whole military units -- they could easily get better hardware out of Mexican armories. BUT. . . if American guns with serial numbers known to the ATF could suddenly be traced to a significant portion of murders in Mexico, then Obama/Clinton/Holder would have a new argument to aid them in their gun control attempts.

It strikes me this is a prime example of politicians abusing law enforcement to generate a controversy to help them score political points. People died so Team Obama could score those points. This is shameful and needs to be investigated.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

If It Sounds Fishy, It's Only San Francisco

On planet San Francisco, there is no animal, vegetable or mineral which will go unprotected by the "ecology now" crowd. While the rest of the state is watching its crops dry up because of EPA protection of the Delta smelt, San Francisco has bigger fish to fry, er, protect. Like that goldfish that uncaring humans are torturing in every part of The City.

The San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission is proposing a bill that would continue the ban on the sale of certain non-human companions such as puppies, kittens and hamsters while adding the ubiquitous goldfish to the list. I specifically avoided the use of the word "pets," since pets have been banned entirely in San Francisco. Not to leave any fish un-swum, the Commission also added guppies and tropical fish to the ichthyological list.

Now in all those years of living in The City, I didn't know there was such a commission. Imagine the money I wasted on goldfish and tropical fish food when I could have gotten fish food stamps for them. Imagine the money I wasted with private fish veterinarians and medications when I could have had them on Medicaid. And worst of all, I missed out on the Aid to Families with Dependent Goldfish program.

The ban is meant to discourage impulse buys "of pets that sometimes end up at shelters" according to commission member Philip Gerrie. They have shelters for abandoned goldfish? How did I miss that? Goldfish were added to the proposed ban because of "inhumane suffering of fish." Well, I can get behind that. I always suspected that my next door neighbor was a fish-abuser, but I didn't know there was anyone I could report her to. Just think of the suffering I could have prevented if I had only known there were fish police who would remove the tormented fish and take them to a shelter. My guilt knows no bounds.

Pet store owners who have been caught in the act of selling suffering fish to ichthyophiles are clearly upset. "The City is taking more and more control, they are very stupid," said Ocean Aquarium owner Justin Hau. Omigod! That's who I bought most of my fish and aquarium supplies from. No wonder the shop was located in an alley, away from the prying eyes of humane non-human companion owners. I feel so dirty. It's as if I had been sneaking around buying fish slaves from Fu Manchu.

But fish champion Gerrie says that's a response from pet shop owners that was to be expected. "They have a very strong interest to say it's stupid. That's the basic thing with human beings. We exploit everything in the world until it's exhausted." I'm getting exhausted just listening to his explications. "Humans are exploiting the environment--and the fish. There's a huge market for aquarium fish. That creates a demand." Well, not only does Gerrie protect our ichthyological non-human companions, but he understands how the market works too. See? Not all protectors of the innocent victims of human exploitation are socialists.

Gerrie expresses what we all know in our heart of hearts. "Some people argue 'it's just a goldfish.' But some people say, it's just a human, when it comes to some that kill. It's just a matter of degree. Where do you stop?" Good question. I'm gonna spend some time thinking that over. SF Board of Supervisors Member Sean Elsbernd told the San Francisco Chronicle he had doubts the proposal would pass, callng it "another Animal Welfare idea that will end up in the dustbin of history and go absolutely nowhere." Oh? How can a longtime resident of the Queen City of the West possibly think that any idea is impossible to implement there?

I don't know about you, but I take this very seriously. As soon as I'm finished writing this article, I'm going into the guest bedroom and ask my goldfish to tell me if they wish to be freed immediately. I will have to remind them that the closest major town is Bakersfield, and I don't think they have a fish shelter there. Maybe we'll have to take a plane to San Francisco for their release, but I promise they will travel in First Class, with a snack of deluxe brine shrimp to soothe their ruffled fins.

Finally, I am going to write to President Obama about this hidden crisis. I think it would be appropriate for our first black president to issue a Fish Emancipation Proclamation which at the same time immediately halts the fish trade and public auctions of goldfish. Did you know that at these horrendous centers of goldfish trading, mom and dad goldfish are separated from each other, and their goldfish children are sold off willy-nilly to ichthyophiles all over the country. They will never see each other again. Oh, the inhumanity!
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Happy Father's Day

It is a beautiful day today, so go out and play in the sunshine. But don't forget that tomorrow is Father's Day. I know, I know, one of those silly Hallmark-generated holidays. Well, I think fathers get the short end of the stick these days. In the last couple of decades and a generation of children raised on feminist doctrine, we have discounted the role of fathers in the lives of our young ones. So, before it's too late, don't forget to show your Dad how much you appreciate how he has enriched your life.

And if you forgot to get a card, please feel free to share a favorite memory of your father (or father figure) just to let him know he is not forgotten and much loved... [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

State Court Says No? Go To The Feds

I hope none of you thought that the State Supreme Court ruling in Wisconsin overturning a lower court and upholding the state's new public employees collective bargaining law was the end of it. It's never the end of it when liberals don't get their way in a state court. Or in the state legislature or as the result of a public vote, for that matter.

It escaped the notice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that requiring state workers to pay 12% of their own health insurance premiums and 5.8% of their pension costs is clearly cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. They haven't actually made that claim yet, but give 'em time.

And then there's that discrimination thing. Police, firefighters and state patrol officers were exempted from the rule that now pegs state employee pay raises to no more than the rate of inflation. That makes file clerks and sewer inspectors second-class citizens, you see. And so last Wednesday, the poor, oppressed state union employees filed suit in federal court to undo the state court ruling. While they were at it, they also claimed that it was unconstitutional to restrict collective bargaining rights for state employees (we used to call them "public servants," but we all know that expression has long since become merely laughable).

If the public employee plaintiffs are as good at judge-shopping in Wisconsin as gay marriage advocates are in California, they'll find a federal judge who is beholden to the unions in some public or private way. Suddenly, the federal judge will find an umbra, penumbra, emanation or legal burp in the Constitution that upholds those public employee "rights." How dare the legislature and the people of Wisconsin deprive public employees of the right to earn twice what their private sector counterparts earn? How dare they reduce their already bloated salaries and benefits by effectively reducing their take-home pay by a draconian 8%, requiring them to chip in for their own benefits package? How dare the conservatives of Wisconsin quote Calvin Coolidge when he said "nobody has the right to strike against the public good?" This is Wisconsin, for God's sake, the home of Progressivism.

The old rule of law used to be that a federal court would not interfere in a state supreme court decision so long as the case could have been decided on adequate independent state grounds. That's exactly what the Wisconsin Supreme Court found--adequate independent state grounds. But we're now into our second generation of lawyers and judges who believe that the Supremacy Clause means that there couldn't possibly be such a thing as adequate independent state grounds. Despite all prior legal history, decisions, precedent, and plain wording of the Constitution, there's always some hidden federal right that a federal judge can find or create to nullify the state court decision.

The plaintiffs are all the usual suspects: The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, the Wisconsin State Employees Union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, and last, but certainly not least, the Service Employees International Union.

There is already some confusion as to when the law actually goes into effect, and you can bet the union thugs will massage it. The Wisconsin lower court first put the law on hold, then struck it. So it's not clear what the actual effective date is. Could be the day after passage, or the day of the Supreme Court ruling, or even the day after the Wisconsin Secretary of State (Doug La Follette, descendant of seminal Progressive Robert La Follete) "publishes it." California and Wisconsin may be many miles apart, but confusion of law knows no boundaries.

If they can stall long enough, they may be able to find that perfect federal judge who will stay execution of the law and perhaps even strike it down. And during that time, the uncaring state employees can continue to steal from the Wisconsin taxpayers and thumb their noses at state law and the will of the people of Wisconsin. And if that doesn't work, they can always riot.




[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Pontypool (2009)

Today’s film is Pontypool (another Canadian horror/science fiction film: Cube and eXistenZ), and odds are you’ve never heard of it. But if you love zombie films, talk radio or smart horror, then you need to see this film. Not only does Pontypool present a truly original method for the creation of the zombies, but its story uniquely focuses on a talk-radio host who tries to piece together what is happening rather than presenting the standard “run for your life” zombie film. Indeed, it's a psychological thriller more akin to Hitchcock's The Birds than a horror film.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Maher, Maher, Pants On Faher

Well actually, on CNN. As one of our readers pointed out, we watch CNN so you don't have to. We discussed the Republican New Hampshire debate on this site, and since CNN sponsored the debate, they naturally felt they had to get some classy intellectual to do the same thing. They chose Bill Maher.

As always, Maher was calm and deliberative, handling Anderson Cooper's questions with aplomb and solid intellectual rigor. Cooper asked Maher which of the Republicans at the debate he would vote for if he had to choose one of them. He chose Ron Paul (nope, I'm not going to say anything). Republicans are "selling their souls to the corporate interests who back them and who have just horrible, society-killing ideas about America." Paul, you see, is not part of that hideous group--a cut above (or something). Is it possible I actually meant rigor mortis?

Some time back, Maher had referred to the GOP slate as being so bad that he had seen "more appealing lineups on an episode of Law and Order, Special Victims Unit." Cooper asked if Maher had changed his mind at all after the debate. Said Maher: "No. Of course it got even worse." He then went on to describe Republicanism as a religion (and we know how the great one feels about religion) that has baseless dogma such as "reducing taxes will somehow magically increase revenue." That's the first half of the Laffer postulate. Maher forgot the part about cutting spending at the same time taxes are cut.

Maher then added "you have seven people up there who believe that "somehow by keeping the profit motive in the health care system that's going to solve the problem. So, you know, it's very hard for someone to watch that debate who is not in that bubble, and I am not in that bubble." I guess they don't have bubbles in la-la land.

When Cooper asked what Maher meant by "society-killing," he singled out Tim Pawlenty, then wandered a bit. "Well, like Tim Pawlenty and every one of them competing for this idea of continually reducing taxes when we are--on the one hand they are screaming about how we're in debt and on the other hand the answer is to somehow decrease revenues. You know, they all act like God created the world in January of 2009, and then Barack Obama completely screwed it up." Huh?

I know a mere peasant like me shouldn't question the great intellectual, but he seems to have confused "revenue" with "taxes." Reducing taxes and reducing government spending = increased revenues. And it's not a theory, nor a religion, it's simple fact. I'm not sure what he actually meant, but if he meant Bush, W decreased taxes but did nothing to reduce spending, thus sending Laffer off the curve.

And then came the piece de resistance or coup de grace, or something French. Cooper asked Maher if Anthony Weiner should resign after the ongoing revelations of his sexting and lying. That did it. Abandoning his usual calm tone, Maher got a bit exercised. "At this point, yes. Not because I think he did anything so incredibly awful. I mean Dick Cheney used to go out and shoot birds by the hundreds that were like in a cage. To me that's a lot more psychotic than anything Anthony Weiner ever did. But the point is this is America. We have to live in reality." Again--huh?

Well, if all else fails, bring up Dick Cheney and demonstrate your expertise in matters of hunting. Even Cooper was taken a little aback by that one, and responded with "Dick Cheney wasn't shooting birds in a cage. He was hunting." Maher then launched into a deep discussion of the subject he obviously knows so much about: "He was not hunting, Anderson. There's a difference between hunting which, I'm not a big fan of either, and when you go out into this controlled situation where they--I forget what they do to the birds but they do something where they can't fly. It's the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel [another form of hunting, I guess]. And yes, look it up. That's what they did. He shot and killed an incredible number of birds for absolutely no reason than a blood lust."

At least Maher didn't channel Rosie O'Donnell after she made a totally crazy statement about fire never melting steel by saying "you could Google it." Blood lust? Crippled birds? And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my final "huh?"
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Global Warming Fails Again

Global warming is a politically-created myth. It relies on climate models that are so inaccurate they couldn’t predict an increase in room temperature if you started a fire. What’s more, warming enthusiasts have shut down all inquiry that might improve the science because those inquiries keep disproving the underlying theory. Now we have perhaps the biggest laugher yet to blast a glaring hole in their theory: the very trees are against them.

Ok, let’s start with some grade-school logic, the kind global warming enthusiasts can’t do. What do trees and plants need to grow? Yes, soil, water and. . . carbon dioxide. Trees, flowers and grass absorb carbon dioxide from the air. The more they get, the more they grow. The more they grow, the more carbon dioxide they absorb out of the air. Thus, logic tells us that an increase in carbon will be largely offset by plant life growth.

Sounds simple, right? The problem is that’s heresy.

Global warming enthusiasts don’t want to hear this because it undermines their theory that carbon dioxide is a useless industrial pollutant that will sit in the atmosphere forever causing the earth to warm up over centuries. Indeed, they’ve even put out “studies” (read= guess work opinion pieces) like one by the University of Minnesota in 2006, which claimed that “atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may rise even faster than anticipated, because ecosystems likely will not store as much carbon as had been predicted”! Oh my! Note, by the way, the hedging throughout this sentence. There is no science here, just speculation that reality might not be reality and thus we should destroy the world economy now to stop the release of carbon dioxide. . . evil, evil, pointless carbon dioxide.

Well, on June 5th of this year, experts from Finland and the United States were shocked. . . shocked to learn that reality works like everyone other than global warming enthusiasts knew it would. This report found to the enthusiasts’ horror that rising carbon dioxide levels caused forest density to increase: “Global warming, blamed by the U.N. panel of climate experts mainly on human use of fossil fuels, might itself be improving growth conditions for trees in some regions.” That’s right, trees are getting fatter. And the consequence of this is. . . well. . . um. . . it’s “offsetting climate change.” In other words, it’s keeping global warming from happening.

Yep. Everything the enthusiasts predicted is once again proving false and everything we realists said would happen is happening. The earth remains in balance as always.

Of course, this isn’t what global warming enthusiasts want to believe, so we’ll see if they accept this or if they choose instead the burn the heretics at the carbon-free stake?

Interestingly, this follows some other recent revelations. For example:

● In 2008-2010, global temperatures dropped sharply enough to cancel out the entire supposed net rise in the 20th century. This is important because global warming theory relies on cumulative increases. Thus, their whole theory has fallen apart. . . again. Enthusiasts tried to blame this on the "unexpected" solar cycle -- an eleven year pattern that has repeated itself consistently throughout history and seems to coincide with scaremongering about new global ice ages or new global warming. Enthusiasts also complained that the oceans reacted in an "unexpected" manner by doing what they've always done rather than changing as the climate models suggested. And now the dirty trees have done the "unexpected" by doing what they've always done and refusing to conform to the models. Are you seeing a pattern? It seems that every time the Earth does what it's always done, it's "unexpected."

● In 2008, hundreds of actual scientists heaped scorn on the supposed “scientific consensus” reached by the enthusiasts, a collection of psychologists, gynecologists and other assorted experts with no knowledge of climate science.

● What’s more this most recent report notes that the evil United States, which we know is dominated by people who just like killing trees for no reason except pure spite, has experienced a surge in forest density. Between 1953 and 2007, forest volume in capitalist America grew by 51%. That's right, the whole time they were putting out PSAs and experts were appearing before Congress decrying “deforestation,” forest volume was increasing by half. And not only were there new trees, but existing trees were growing, something we were told wouldn’t be happening -- indeed, the last decade was all about growth, not replanting.

These are hard times for Chicken Little.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Curioser And Curiouser

Whatever else California may be, it is always interesting and often unpredictable. In the past couple days, two events occurred which are almost inexplicable by normal standards. But this is California, after all. First, the California legislature, for the first time in a quarter of a century, passed a budget by the statutory deadline, and it included massive cuts, with no new taxes.

Both houses of the state legislature are solidly controlled by the Democratic Party. Did they suddenly become efficient fiscal hawks while I wasn't looking? Nope. In the last general election, Californians passed another one of those pesky initiatives that get in the way of the long-range plans of the tax-and-spend Democrats. The initiative allowed for the passage of the state budget by a simple majority of both houses of the legislature, ostensibly to break the pattern of budgets being late year after year after year.

But the people giveth, and the people taketh away. They also required that any budget passed by the simple majority cannot include increases in income and certain business taxes. Oh, and if they don't pass the budget on time, the legislators receive no pay during the entire period from the expiration of the deadline to the time a budget actually gets passed. No back pay when it's passed, by the way. What an amazing incentive it was for Democrats who have been living off the public's money for decades. So, California has a budget, with no new taxes (yet).

In order for the legislature to pass new taxes (or in this case, extend the "temporary" tax increase from two years ago), the Democrats, including Governor Jerry Moonbeam Brown needed two Republican votes in the Assembly and two in the Senate. Brave Republicans have stood steadfast in their refusal to extend or write new taxes, despite tremendous pressure. So frustrated was Brown, that he is organizing another initiative for the next general election putting the issue of extending the temporary tax increases to the voters. Wouldn't hold my breath, Jerry.

Putting their paychecks ahead of their spendthrift principles, the Democrats cut serious money from nearly every facet of state government. That may very well come back to bite them because they are counting on the people to extend those temporary taxes to make up the billion-dollar-plus hole still left in the budget. Remember, I said they passed a budget--I didn't say they balanced one. Without that extension (or new and improved taxes), the budget imbalance will continue and thousands of state employees will lose their jobs or have their hours/pay severely reduced. Good for Republicans and conservatives, bad for Democrats. But they gave themselves a little hedge. They didn't cut employee pension benefits by a single dime, a major portion of the budget shortfall.

Second, there's a truly interesting (and funny) sideshow produced by the budget cuts. Remember that California Supreme Court that upheld Proposition 8, resulting in the federal cases challenging the law because it "discriminates" against gay marriage? One seat on that Court has changed hands (butts?)--that of the Chief Justice. The new Chief Justice is one Tani Cantil-Sakauye, appointed by "Republican" Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. She is the first California Supreme Court justice to have performed a gay marriage, so I guess we know which way the wind now blows on that court.

During her confirmation process, one Democratic Assemblyman remarked that it isn't enough to be "nice and pretty" for a position of such importance. That resulted in a Democratic state Senator making a formal demand for an apology, which the Assemblyman refused to do. Isn't this fun? But enough background. Cantil-Sakauye immediately reacted to the budget cuts by declaring that "the crippling cuts in the budget for the courts would be a blow against justice." Aw, hooey!

California courts are overstaffed, over-supervised and underworked--and that includes the Supreme Court. My home courts in Ventura County started the official day at 8:30 AM and finished at 5:00 PM, unless there was still unfinished business. I once had to stick around until 7:30 PM the day before Thanksgiving because the judge insisted that the prosecution finish its case-in-chief before we could go home. But those courts are an extreme rarity. In Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda and Orange Counties, the court day often started at 10 AM or so (depending on the mood of the judge), went to 4:30 PM (at the latest), and then the day was over even if a lawyer had to be stopped in mid-sentence. Actual court time was often three or four days a week, not the appropriate five. Lunches, breaks and continuances without good cause were extensive.

Again, outside of Ventura County, those courts had two or three clerks roaming around while Ventura made do with one per courtroom. Proceedings were often delayed because the court stenographer neglected to come back from lunch on time. There were often two bailiffs (marshals) in civil courts, to protect the judge, jury and public from angry litigants I suppose. My former colleagues (and a few of my law students now practicing) tell me that nothing has changed. One day's visit to the courts in Kern County (where my younger daughter works) tells me that Kern County is no exception.

I would tell the Chief that she needs to get a reality-check, but I'm afraid I'd be forced to call her by name, and I don't have a clue how to pronounce it. At least I could pronounce the name of her predecessor, Chief Justice Ronald George. Most of all, I would tell her that she needs to tighten her belt and take her medicine right along with the rest of us. Duplication, triplicaton, quadruplication of court tasks need to be eliminated just as they will be in all other sectors. Justice unnecessarily dragged-out is justice that is far too costly.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Early Western Stars of the Small Screen

By Tennessee Jed

After Andrew’s Top 25 Westerns, Andrew and I decided to do an ongoing series about the western genre, looking at actors, bad guys, TV and film. Since westerns on television were pretty much children of the 50ʼs and 60ʼs, it seemed appropriate for me, as a certified geezer, to take the first crack at it. This “sub-genre” of the western lasted pretty much from 1949 to 1973, actually peaking in 1959 when as many as 25 prime time shows were traditional westerns as were many of the top 20 shows in the Nielsens in any given week.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contender: Rick Perry

Let’s continue the 2012 Contender series with Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Frankly, I don’t entirely know what to make of Perry. He’s clearly a hardcore Christian conservative well outside the mainstream of American thought on social issues. He generally appears to be a fiscal conservative. But his fiscal record seems rather short and indifferent for a man who has run the state for 11 years. This makes me wonder whether he is a conservative reformer or just a caretaker governor in a conservative state?

1. The Politician: Perry is clearly a politician’s politician. He’s changed his views several times to match changes in Texas voting patterns, going so far as to change his party from Democratic to Republican in 1998. Disturbingly, he was the chairman of Al Gore’s Texas campaign in 1998. In 1999, he became the first Republican Lieutenant Governor in Texas history, having previously served in the legislature since 1984. In 2000, he became governor when George Bush left for the White House.

In his time in office, he’s been quite willing to engage in politics with his appointments, having appointed both moderates and conservatives, having put up challengers to people he doesn’t like, and having appointed opponents to get them out of the way. He’s also adept at pushing painful decisions into the future by, for example, using bonds that don’t mature until after his term rather than tax hikes to pay for projects, i.e. deficit spending. He now claims to be a Tea Party supporter.

2. Economics: In economics, Perry is what you expect from an average red state governor: largely fiscally conservative with the realities of state governance sometimes superseding principle. Interestingly, there is nothing monumental here and certainly no big ideas that might tell us what he would do with the bloated federal government designed by blue staters:

Taxes: Perry resisted creating an income tax, resisted increasing the state sales tax, and resisted increasing the cigarette tax. But he has increased user “fees,” added surcharges to traffic tickets, and has borrowed $2 billion in road bonds. In 2006, Perry signed a $15.7 billion property tax cut, but he also increased the state franchise tax, which many claim is a backdoor way of creating an income tax. In 2001, Perry asked Congress to let Texas impose a tax on internet sales -- Texas loves taxing out-of-staters. But last month he vetoed a bill that would have imposed this tax.

Spending Increases: In 2001, Perry convinced the legislature to increase health spending by $6 billion. Some of these programs were later cut without objection from Perry. In 2002, Perry increased education funding by $9 billion.

Stimulus: Perry turned down $555 million in stimulus money for unemployment because it would have required mandatory changes to state law. But he then applied for a $643 million federal loan to cover a shortfall in Texas’s unemployment insurance fund. Also, while playing up his refusal of the unemployment stimulus money, Perry simultaneously accepted $6.4 billion in general stimulus aid to cover a $6.6 billion budget shortfall.

Medical Malpractice: Perry supports limiting malpractice lawsuits against doctors and in 2003 sponsored a constitutional amendment that capped medical malpractice awards. This resulted in a 30% decrease in malpractice insurance rates and apparently brought more doctors to Texas.

Private Roads: In 2001, Perry proposed a $145 billion multi-lane highway from Mexico to Oklahoma. He intended to use the state's eminent domain power to grab the land and then would have a Spanish construction firm build the road at their own expense. They would earn their fee by imposing tolls. This is CATO Institute-libertarian stuff (though CATO is wrong on this point). In any event, the plan collapsed when everyone opposed it.

ObamaCare: Perry wants to repeal ObamaCare. Unfortunately, his own plan consists of tort reform (which is a drop in the bucket) and using federal money to expand services in rural areas.

3. Social Issues: Perry is clearly a hardcore-Christian social conservative and his views are on the far end of that spectrum.

Gays: Perry opposes gay marriage and civil unions. He also criticizes the Supreme Court decision striking down Texas’s sodomy law, i.e. he takes the view that states should be allowed to make gay sex illegal.

Abortion: Perry opposes abortion in all cases except rape, incest or to protect the mother’s life. He has signed bills banning late-term abortions and requiring parental notification, and has endorse a law requiring women to get a sonogram before they can have an abortion. He wants to ban stem cell research, not just federal funding of it.

Creationism: In 2006, Perry supported teaching “intelligent design” as well as evolution in schools.

Vaccineers: In February 2007, Perry issued an executive order requiring Texas girls to receive a human papolloma virus vaccine -- HPV can cause cervical cancer. The order did have an opt-out provision for parents. But the vaccine crowd attacked “the moral implications” of the order and Perry did not try to stop a May 2007 bill undoing his order.

4. Crime: Perry supports the death penalty. In June 2002, he vetoed a ban on the execution of the mentally retarded. In August 2002, he allowed the execution of a Mexican citizen despite diplomatic protests. He has supported mandatory DNA testing before executions can be allowed and the creation of standards for capital defenders. He wants the federal government to leave drug policy to the states.

5. Immigration: Perry opposes building a fence along the border as he thinks it will harm our trade relationship with Mexico. Instead, he wants the federal government to use the military and technology to “secure the border” He is particularly concerned about drug traffickers. He opposes sanctuary cities, favors issuing special drivers licenses to people here on visas so we can tell when they’ve overstayed, and implies that he wants to cut off benefits to illegals. He wants the federal government to pay all costs of illegal immigration and wants illegals who commit crimes deported. He supports Arizona’s immigration efforts and would be willing to sign a similar bill in Texas. He also wants to expand the guest worker program for the agriculture industry.

6. Environmentalism: Perry rejects global warming for lack of valid scientific proof and he rejects regulation of “greenhouse gas emissions.” He has backed incentives to research clean coal technology, and he supports an “all of the above energy strategy” including oil, coal, nuclear, biofuels, hydroelectric, solar and wind.

7. Philosophy: Perry has written two books outlining his philosophy. Don’t expect me to read either. The first (On My Honor...... (Feb. 2008)) celebrates the Boy Scouts, of which he was a member, and attacks the ACLU. The second (Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington (Nov. 2010)) discusses his support for limited central government. Perry also has endorsed a resolution supporting state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. In April 2009, he implied that Texas might secede from the union, but he backtracked in May 2009.


Perry's social conservative views raise a serious electability issue. Excluding his religious views, Perry seems like a fairly conservative politician who can generally be counted on to do the conservative thing, unless he thinks there is political gain to be had by doing something more moderate -- it’s unlikely he would do anything overtly liberal and he has demonstrated a willingness to use the veto. I am troubled, however, by the lack of any ideas in his record. He strikes me as more of a caretaker governor than someone who can be counted on to reform our bloated, abusive federal government.

Would he make a good President? Most likely. Would he make a good conservative President? Probably. Would he be the reformer we need right now? That I’m not sure.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Even The LA Times Sees The Irony

The Los Angeles Times ran a headline story on Monday entitled "British fear 'American-style' healthcare system." I figured it would be another liberal/left article about how we ignorant Americans just don't understand the brilliance of Euro-style socialized medicine with all its great advantages over our horse and buggy system. Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be a humor piece.

The Brits exhibited anger and wounded pride when the Obamacare debate was taking place over the past two years in the U.S. After all, the failed system to which it was most often compared was the British National Health Service. As the author Henry Chu said, Republican gurus, most particularly Sarah Palin, kept poking at the NHS as "evil, Orwellian, and generally the enemy of everything good and true."

So as Chu said, it was time for payback. The NHS is bankrupt years ahead of Medicare and Social Security, and its service is the envy of all civilized nations such as Botswana and Niger. Waiting time for an appointment with a doctor has been reduced from a year or two down to six months or so. Specialists take a little longer, but that's just a quibble. So in answer to Palin's "death panel" criticism, the Brits are scrambling to damn any NHS reform as leading to "American-style" health care.

Ask Brit John Bull or anyone else on the London streets to describe "American-style" health care, and you'll get the whole litany of grossly expensive and unnecessary medical procedures and a system that refuses health care to the poor and needy. They got their script from Obama and Nancy Pelosi. The average Brit understands that government bureaucrats and politicians are the font of wisdom from which all good medical care flows. They are terrified that if the current revamping of the "results-oriented" first come-first served (eventually) system occurs, the next thing you know, doctors and patients will be making decisions. Who the hell are doctors and patients to be questioning health care delivery and treatment?

Meanwhile, back in the jungle known as the United States, rich doctors and uncaring medical facilities continue to toss the poor and deserving out into the street by the millions because they don't have medical insurance and can't afford treatment even for a simple hangnail. Just ask the Brits--they know. They call the foolish idea of medical care being controlled by doctors and patients "privatization by stealth," and they ain't giving up their "free" health care.

"Conservative" Prime Minister David Cameron had to reassure the British people that any revisions to the current system would not "sell off the NHS, we will not be moving towards an insurance scheme, we will not introduce an American-style private system." God forbid. He even repeated the words "American-style" in his five guarantees of what won't happen during his attempts to improve the already-excellent system that the government-dependent Brits have come to accept as "successful."

As Chu points out: "Governments of all stripes have taken office pledging to reform the system, to streamline it and make it more efficient, but none has fully succeeded [since its inception in 1948], knowing that they tinker with the NHS at their peril. The current Conservative-led coalition, which has embarked on the most radical public spending cuts in a generation, has promised not to take a penny from the health service." The Brits constantly complain to each other about long waits for simple appointments, long waiting lines, nearly-medieval hospitals, and uncaring doctors who make snap diagnoses. But Americans calling their beloved system "the epitome of socialized medicine gone wrong" causes Brits to rush to its defense.

So trying to clean up the clinics and hospitals, which are often third-world quality, requires British politicians to say things like "this has been a genuine chance for people to work together to strengthen the institution we all love and hold dear." The Brits also love putting their dirty dinnerware in a big tub of suds, and picking them back out for the next meal, but that's another story entirely.

I researched the NHS when I first suspected I might have cancer. Here's the difference. I called my family practitioner in the afternoon. The next day, I was in his office getting a preliminary workup. The indications weren't good, so he immediately sent me to an oncological surgeon whom I saw the same day. The next day they had me fully tested and ready for surgery. My cardio-vascular surgeon was with the cancer surgeon in the operating room since the cancer manifested itself close to the aorto-bifemoral bypass that I had been through nine years earlier--just for safety's sake. Then came six months of state-of-the art chemotherapy in an immaculate, friendly hospital outpatient clinic.

My research taught me that with the NHS, I would most likely have had to wait two to three weeks for the initial doctor appointment, and a laundry list of horrible followup told me that by the time they finally got me into surgery, it would likely have been too late. And besides, at my age, it wasn't cost-effective to save my life anyway. After six months of excellent treatment, I was declared cancer-free. In England it's more likely I would have gotten a government paid-for funeral.

Yet that is the system the Brits call "American-style" health care, always accompanied by a sneer. I am hardly rich, and my company-provided health insurance ran out just about the time I received the dread diagnosis. But after paying into the system for 52 years, I had Medicare to pick up most of the costs, and Part D coverage for the doctor visits. Sure, I had some hefty out-of-pocket, but what good is a "free" health care system that simply lets you die from poor treatment?

The Brits are protecting a system for everyone which compares somewhat unfavorably to our "free" healthcare system. It's called Medicaid, it's at least as efficient as the NHS, and it takes care of those who chose not to have health care insurance or couldn't afford it. It even covers non-citizens and those in the country illegally. Our backup poverty health "insurance" is as good as the one-size-fits-all NHS. But of course if you want deluxe accommodations, a private room, and a top-notch hospital, you can always have a good private insurance plan, or if you're rich enough, just pay for it yourself. That option is not available in England.

Obamacare incorporates all the flaws of NHS, then complicates it by pretending to preserve private insurance. Giving everyone the same health care doesn't improve health care for the poor, it ruins health care for those who plan, insure, and set aside money for medical emergencies. Our system has flaws that conscientious Republicans are trying to address with little cooperation from the Democrats. Single-payer Canadian type insurance is the left's goal, but even the Canadian system operates more efficiently than the British NHS.

We've discussed options for improving our current system several times on this site. But replacing a slightly-flawed system with a monstrosity like the NHS is simply not an option for free Americans. The final goal of Obamacare is to do exactly that. The Brits have lived too long with a failed system and as a result damn any health care reform as being "American-style." They should be so lucky. Even the Los Angeles Times sees the humor in that.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republican Debate Round Up

In light of last night’s debate, let’s push the Rick Perry 2012 Contender article off until tomorrow morning. The debate is part of the bigger picture of choosing the right candidate and there were several interesting things last night that are absolutely worth pointing out. Observe:

● Winner: The Republican Brand. The first thing to leap out about the debate was just how civil the whole debate was and how unified the contenders were. There were no attacks, no finger pointing and no cheap shots, no matter how much CNN’s moderator John King tried to bait them. Instead, all the attacking was directed at Obama and even that was kept on a professional level, i.e. not personal. At several points the candidates even noted how close they all were on the issues, and they agreed that anyone on the stage would make a better president than Obama. And that's actually how they came across -- as a group of serious, smart, hands-on professionals who are more interested in fixing Obama's mess than personal ambition. The party should be much happier with their choices after last night, and frankly, this group blows away the 2008 group.

● Winner: Romney/Pawlenty. If you knew nothing about their policies, I would rate the winner as Romney with Pawlenty as a close second. Romney had a flawless and very strong performance. He came across as smooth, likeable and knowledgeable. He said all the right things and he made me want to vote for him. . . except that I doubt him based on his record.

Pawlenty was not as flawless as Romney and seemed a little less comfortable. However, he came across as having a stronger record than Romney or anyone else, and he seemed to have a better plan for what he wants to achieve. Despite not being as smooth as Romney, he too came across as professional and likeable and made me want to vote for him. Interestingly, the people I watched the debate with really were impressed with Pawlenty and saw him as the winner, though I’m sure Romney will get the headlines.

● Winners: Santorum. Santorum won mainly by not losing. He came across as serious, thoughtful and credible.

● Winners/Loser: Gingrich Newt came across as serious, thoughtful and credible. He also sounded like he was full of ideas -- though in truth, his ideas were just well-disguised slogans. Then he re-opened the Ryan wound by suggesting that "if you can't convince the public it's a good idea, then maybe it's not a good idea." Go home Newt.

● Draw: Michelle Bachmann. Bachmann proved that she belongs on the stage and would make a credible President. I would rate her as a winner for that except for three points:

First, she was the only candidate to stumble over her words, something she did quite a lot. This stuck out by comparison.

Secondly, one of the concerns I’ve had with Bachmann is that I don’t know how much of a coherent political philosophy she has compared to simply answering issues as they come up. This was on display again in her response to the gay marriage issue. When asked if she would try to change gay marriage laws in New Hampshire, she said that she would not interfere in state decisions because she believes in the Tenth Amendment. But then the question was asked differently, i.e. whether she would push for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and she said yes. These two positions are inconsistent and that continues to leave me wondering if she has an intellectual framework or if she just answers the question of the moment without regard to conflicting prior answers?

Third, she engaged in the most scripted speaking, and it generally didn’t work, especially since much of it felt like self-promotion.

● Loser: Herman Cain. I like Herman Cain and I want to support him. But he has yet to catch any sort of fire. For being a talk radio host, he seems to lack cleverness and a quick wit. He also hurts himself with his honesty because he keeps answering questions about which he lacks sufficient information by promising to look into the issue (as any businessman would). Thus for example, on Afghanistan, he said he needs to meet with the generals first before he can formulate a strategy. This is the most truthful answer anyone gave. But perversely, this comes across as him not being ready for the job because everyone else gave their opinions. I don’t know that audiences will grasp this and won’t punish him for his honesty.

● Loser: Obama. Obama was not only the subject of a couple zingers -- especially one from Ron Paul when he said he couldn’t think of anything Obama had done right. But even more so, this group came across as unified in their criticisms of Obama, right down to the specifics of what he’s done wrong. Their unified responses gave this message a seriousness and believability. And their no-hostility tones will make this a hard group to demonize.

● Ron Paul: Ron Paul did his usual. He gave some absolutely brilliant answers, but he mixed them with some paranoid/conspiratorial stuff. He also came across as a bit strange as his suit didn't fit and he kept getting frantic in his tone. This made him seem somewhat insane. But he is Rasputin-like in his appeal and I kid you not when I say that if Paul were 20% smoother, he would be President in a heartbeat.

● Some Issues: On economics, they all agreed that we need smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation. Jobs was the number one word all night and free markets was how jobs would be created. The format did not allow for much more depth beyond that, as CNN’s John King started interrupting all answers about 20 seconds in.

The candidates differ on gay marriage. Romney, Santorum, Pawlenty and probably Bachmann want to ban gay marriage. Newt thought this was a state’s rights issue. Paul thought the federal government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

On foreign policy, there was a general sense that it’s time to reduce America’s commitments overseas and to start bringing the troops home, though most said they would confer with the generals. The two exceptions were Paul and Romney. Paul said that he would tell the generals what to do and that is to bring everybody home. Romney went the other way entirely saying he would consider bringing troops home at some point, but so long as anyone wants to kill Americans, he was going to stop them.

Several of them grasped the importance of appointing judges.

● The Question No One Answered: The one question which frustrated me because none of them could answer it came from a “traditional” Republican who asked the candidates to prove that there was still room for him in the party despite the Tea Party influence. They all missed the obvious answer: the Republican Party is a big tent of different groups who share about 80% of their views. Getting that 80% would change the world, and that should be our goal. Anything after that is a matter for each group to convince the rest, i.e. build a consensus. No one group can force its will on the rest. Thus, the idea that there is no room for non-Tea Partiers is just wrong on all counts.

Those are my impressions. The field came across as a lot stronger than they seemed a month ago. Some people come across much better than their records would indicate and some disappointed -- though only slightly. They weren’t exciting, but it gave me hope watching them that this group of people is capable of saving our country from the damage wrought by Obama.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Newt Gingrich's Total Implosion

One of the things the Presidential marathon accomplishes is that it weeds out the hopelessly inept. Candidates who can’t attract support or money or can’t figure out where to park their bus all blow up along the way. But the most spectacular implosion in my lifetime (and that includes Colorado’s own Gary Hart -- who dared the media to follow him to his illicit rendezvous) has been Newt Gingrich. For a man who’s both had power and been so close to power, and for a man who has spent his life studying politics, Gingrich proved to be a fool at best. I actually think he’s something slightly worse.

I’ve previously outlined the problems with Newt’s platform. Despite a reputation as a deep thinker/oracle of the Republican Party, Newt’s platform proved to be nothing more than tired platitudes, insignificant promises, and a desperate desire to feel loved -- something which has made his personal life a mess. But while my research showed serious problems, it couldn’t have predicted the implosion that was coming.

The very day Newt announced his long awaited campaign, he made an unforgiveable gaffe. Indeed, right out of the gates, Newt chose to throw Paul Ryan and conservatism under the Medicare bus. When he was offered the chance to recant, he only made things worse by trying to deny that he said what he said, attacking the media for reporting it, and then trying to explain it away while still standing by it. He finally realized he needed to recant, but by that time his support collapsed from 15% to 7%.

This seemed fatal to his campaign, but Newt wasn’t done imploding.

Last week, it was announced that 16 vital players in Newt’s campaign (including people who have been with him for decades) quit en mass in protest over the way he was handling the campaign. What upset them? They demanded that Newt spend more time on the campaign. Apparently, Newt thought he could campaign for President using Facebook and Twitter and a part-time-candidate approach. Not only did he ignore their concerns, he decided instead to go on a two week Greek cruise with his wife.

Yeah.

If someone wrote this in a book, they would be accused of writing the absurd. Yet, Newt thought nothing of taking two weeks off out of the country right after bombing the introduction of his campaign. When he got back, his staff quit.

And we’re not done yet.

Now it comes out that Newt burned through the campaign war chest so badly that they couldn’t afford the $25,000 entry fee for the upcoming Iowa straw poll. How could they be so broke? Well, for one thing, Newt wasn’t willing to do the fund raising that candidates normally do. . . and being on vacation didn’t help. But the bigger cause of his financial problems was that he was spending $500,000 on a chartered jet so that he could fly home each night.

Newt is either the stupidest candidate we’ve ever had or he was never serious in the first place. I suspect it’s the latter. I have long thought that Newt had no intention of ever running for President as he was satisfied being the party’s guru. But to maintain that position, he needed to maintain the illusion that he intended to run one day so that people would keep seeking his blessing and donating to his organizations. I speculate that he got into this race because he had no choice and he intended only to do just enough to give the appearance of running a campaign. Then he planned to bow out after Iowa on some trumped up reason and return to being the flirty guru again. . . always promising to make another at some point in the future. Sadly for him, it never dawned on him that his staffers might have expected him to run to win or that his donors wouldn’t be too thrilled to realize they’ve been had.

It’s only a matter of time now before Newt drops out. I would guess that his actual campaigning is finished and he will drop out after a few more weeks of pretending. We’ll see, but in either event, no one can take him seriously at this point. And he better watch his legal back before his donors start to scream fraud. They might just have a case.

In the meantime, his implosion opens the door for Rick Perry, who has hired some of Newt’s staff. Tune in tomorrow morning for the scoop on Perry.

So what do you think? Stupid? Fraud? Misunderstood genius?


(P.S. Don't forget that there's a debate tonight at 8:00 PM EST. Feel free to discuss in the comments.)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Is It Time To End The War On Drugs?

America is now involved in three or four undeclared foreign wars (depending on how you count). But America's longest war still goes on. In 1971, President Richard Nixon went on national television to declare that if we didn't destroy the drug menace, it would surely destroy us.

Since then, the number of dead, dying and injured, along with armed clashes on both sides of the Mexican border may not be a war, but it certainly looks a lot like one. If we take the favorite expression of the left regarding war--"quagmire"--this makes our other wars, including the current ones, look like a brief walk in the park. Every once in awhile, a conservative writer will argue that the war has been lost. Most recently from my perspective is an article from an old occasional ally, occasional nemesis Debra Saunders at the San Francisco Chronicle. Her June 12 article was entitled "At Least 4 Good Reasons To End the War on Drugs."

As one observer of war said: "Every war plan is perfect, until the shooting starts." That seems to apply to the war on drugs. Nixon's original proposal was for $155 million federal dollars in anti-drug funding, but set aside $115 million of that sum "solely for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug-addicted individuals." Saunders used some of the standard arguments for ending the war on drugs, but to start with, she does point out that drug use is up, 118 million Americans have used illegal drugs, and the cost of prosecuting the drug war and offenders continues to mount.

I am most definitely not an advocate for drug legalization. But Saunders's article got me thinking that the states seem to be much better at handling their drug problems than the federal government. Drug use and abuse is neither monolithic nor the same from state to state. Federal assistance in preventing drug importation may be a great deal more useful in the border states than in the interior states. We now have at least three Presidents who have hinted at or admitted to drug use themselves, though naturally they wouldn't touch the stuff now. Leaving the drug war to the federal government alone is an exercise in unthinking silliness.

Since its inception at the federal level, the war on drugs has produced 900,000 criminally-active gang members representing more than 20,000 gangs devoted exclusively to mid-level and retail drug distribution. The federal government is best at handling the top-level wholesalers, importers and cartels, but usage and abuse of drugs happens locally, a matter best handled by the states. The drug-related crime rate in DC itself is a pretty good indication of how bereft of good ideas the federal authorities actually are. And the federal government dictates terms to the states which result in some very odd results.

Most recently, the US Supreme Court ordered the release of a huge number of California prison inmates because of overcrowding. Yet a sizable percentage of those "overcrowded" prisoners are in prison in the first place for possession and/or use of illegal drugs. But if California wants those federal funds for its law enforcement divisions, it has to adhere to the draconian drug laws set out in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, including mandatory minimum sentences. Very little wiggle room is left for the states to use alternate means of dealing with drug abusers. Legalization is not the answer, but look at California to see what happens if you send them all "up the river" for lengthy periods of time.

One of the arguments in favor of legalizing recreational drug use is that it will produce a net gain in government revenue received. That is hard to prove, but if all states are required to adhere to the same rules, we'll never know. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron says that in 2008 legalizing drugs would have saved federal, state and local authorities $44 billion per year while bringing in $33 billion if the drugs were taxed. Sounds good, but how can that be proven as long as the federal government holds a tight rein on the states' ability to "get creative" with mixed prosecution, diversion, treatment and alternate forms of detention? As it currently stands, those figures are simply pulled out of a hat.

Worst of all, those advocating legalization use facts and figures almost entirely related to marijuana in order to avoid discussing the far more serious societal problems caused by use of hard drugs. They also bring up individual rights, as if use of cocaine or heroin is a "right" comparable to having a few too many beers on a hot Sunday afternoon. But as long as the federal government determines which drugs could be safely decriminalized in order to alleviate enforcement and incarceration problems, we'll never be able to test what works and what doesn't. It's also important to note that decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing.

California and thirteen other states have made simple possession of small amounts of marijuana an "infraction" (not a crime) which does not allow the user to go scot-free. Eventually, a youthful infraction can be expunged from the public record, and there's no public criminal record to follow the youthful mistake into responsible adulthood. Former Baltimore narcotics cop Neill Franklin says: "President Obama needs to think about where he would be right now had he been caught with drugs as a young black man. It's probably not in the Oval Office, so why does he insist on ramping up a drug war that needlessly churns other young black men through the criminal justice system?" I am the last person to use the word "racism" loosely, but there has traditionally been a strong racial element in prosecution of drug sales and use, particularly in the matter of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine.

I come away from Saunders's recitation of facts and figures with a different conclusion from hers. She appears to be ready to surrender and declare a victory. But that doesn't seem like the right conclusion to be drawn. Perhaps it is simply that the war is being micromanaged from Washington DC instead of leaving the daily decisions on how, when and where to fight to the field commanders (the states). Policy wonks and elected politicians far from the battlefield are not the best people to be deciding how to handle the daily logistics of fighting a war with numerous fronts.

Perhaps the federal government could stick to enforcing interstate and intercontinental drug manufacturing and transport law, and loosen up the rules restricting the states from considering, writing and enforcing their own drug laws, including which drugs remain forbidden and which are decriminalized or even legalized. It wouldn't be an easy transition, and there would be many problems. Some states would opt to retain rigid drug laws exactly as they are today. Others would likely modify the rules, decriminalize certain drugs and regulate their use, while others would go off the deep end and legalize pretty much everything. But those decisions would be back in the hands of the people instead of distant federal legislators, "experts," czars and bureaucrats. It would finally transform theory into practice, allowing us to see if any theory other than rigid prohibition and enforcement would lower the human and financial toll of the war.

Before the federal leviathan swallowed up the prerogatives and rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the states were known as the crucibles of experimentation and inventiveness. It could turn out that the federal war on drugs is the right one, but we will never be able to be sure if there is another way so long as the states are forbidden to do that experimentation.

We have touched on this subject in the past, directly and indirectly. To review those articles, go to our Index, and click on "drugs."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Talk Radio Is Hurting Conservatism

I’m finding myself troubled by talk radio. In particular, I’m stunned at how ignorant and how pointlessly incendiary their coverage of the Republican primary field has been. Not only is talk radio doing a major disservice to the candidates (and by extension the country), but it’s doing an even bigger disservice to its listeners and to the conservative cause.

Here’s the thing. Talk radio is a resource, much like Commentarama, where conservatives and conservative-leaners can collect information that is not generally covered by the MSM. Some of these hosts (like Rush) reach millions of people each day. And if they are doing their jobs right, they will investigate the candidates in the primary and let their readers know what they have discovered. . . the goal, after all, is to promote conservatism. We’re doing that in the 2012 Contender series and we’re not even paid to do it. Nor do we have a staff who can look these things up. Nor do we have the reach to interview the candidates. Thus, if we can do it, there is no reason these radio people can’t do it.

Yet, they aren’t doing it. In the past month, I’ve heard a dozen different talk radio people, and not one of them has done any research into the candidates. Oh, they openly and vehemently opine about who the audience should support, but they have nothing to back that up.

Rush, for example, is pimping Palin, despite his claims of neutrality. Yet, unfortunately, at no point has he ever laid out a single minute of her record or explained her supposed beliefs. Instead, he just calls her a “conservative” without proof, attacks her conservative critics as gullible, somehow personally insecure or lying about being conservatives, and keeps repeating the argument that she must be a good conservative because the left attacks her so much. Yet, that is deeply flawed logic. Do we attack Joe Biden because we fear him? Hardly. We attack him because he’s an easy target because he’s stupid and gaffe prone. Do we attack Pelosi because we think she’s effective? No way. We try to associate the entire left with her because her views and personality are unpalatable to middle America and it helps us disgrace liberalism by claiming that all liberals are like her. The left attacks Palin for the same reasons: she's an easy target and she turns moderates off conservatism. But even putting that aside, my point is that Rush has yet to give a single reason why we should support Palin other than doing the opposite of what the left tells us. Was she a good governor? Did she act according to conservative principles? Does she understand conservative principles? You wouldn't know from Rush.

Some guy who sat in for Laura Ingraham (can't think of his name, don't care either) was pimping Romney because of “his business record.” Yet, he clearly didn’t know what that record was. He also categorically excused every criticism of Romney’s time as governor by saying “well, he was governor of a blue state.” Yet, he calls Pawlenty, who governed like a red-state governor in an equally blue state, a RINO without ever saying why. If anything, these labels are entirely reversed, yet this guy doesn’t know that because he's never actually looked into either candidate. Yet, he's happy to tell his listeners to trust him.

Some guy out of Denver was pimping Trump as a genuine conservative until he dropped out. Now he's jumped on the Christie bandwagon because "man, you saw all you need to know in that youtube video." Ann Coulter too keeps appearing on different shows to pimp Chris Christie and to label him as the only conservative who can keep Romney from getting the nomination. But on what issue does Ann think Christie is a conservative? She's never said. And you’ve seen the report on him, he fails the conservatism test on. . . every. . . single. . . issue. He makes Olympia Snowe look like Barry Goldwater. In fact, he went far left on issues even the Democrats would have expected him to go to the right on -- like appointments. If she had done even five minutes of research, she would have known this. But like Rush, Ann never looks into his record, yet she happily anoints him as the conservative savior.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. These people are out there making these categorical statements: “candidate X is a true conservative and everyone else is a RINO,” and not one of them has any idea what they are talking about.

This is horrible for conservatives and horrible for the Republican Party. If there is a true conservative in the race, these people not only won't find them, they will actively smear them as a RINO just to promote the RINO they think is a true conservative based on nothing more than faulty logic about things said by the MSM or youtube videos. That’s how we'll end up with a RINO sitting in the White House as all the talk radio guys scratch their heads wondering how they were fooled. . . “gee, he seemed so conservative in that ONE youtube video I watched.”

And let me tell you, I see these same "arguments" mindlessly repeated at websites like Big Government, where it's clear that a majority of the commenters not only aren't even reading the articles, but are just self-righteously repeating what they heard on the radio verbatim: it's become a slogan shouting room for the hopelessly ignorant.

This blather is destructive as it depresses conservatives who need all the enthusiasm they can gather for this next election. Right now conservatives should be looking over candidate websites, digging into records and listening to interviews to find the best candidate to represent their views. When that person is found, conservatives should volunteer their money and time to that person. But instead, conservatives are sitting at home frustrated because talk radio is blaring out every single day “there ain’t nothing but RINOs in this race!” The Democrats couldn't have paid for a better voter-suppression plan!

What's more, if you listen to talk radio, you get the impression that no one is happy with the field. Yet, a poll released the other day shows how deeply misleading that is. Take a look at this graph (right). While dissatisfaction is up slightly from 2008, 61% of Republicans are actually happy with their choices. Thus, what talk radio is doing is presenting a view held by only 11% of Republicans (or 39% if you include leaners) as if it were universally held and are using that false claim to drag down a field that 6 in 10 people like. Does that sound familiar to anyone? Because that's the same thing the MSM does to boost the 40% in polls who support liberalism -- make them out as the vast majority.

And let me be clear.... if there are no good candidates, then it is a proper role for talk radio to point that out and to seek out better candidates to enter the race. But that’s not what’s going on because these talk radio people don’t have a clue if there are good candidates or not because none of them have done the research.

I understand that talk radio is all about generating outrage and controversy, but they have a responsibility too. That responsibility comes from their claim to speak on behalf of conservatism. And that responsibility is to verify their opinions before offering them. Do the research before you speak. Stop misleading your listeners, because right now, talk radio is a worse enemy to conservatism than the Democrats, the RINOs, and the MSM combined.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...