Film Friday: Adventures in Babysitting (1987)

I love Adventures in Babysitting. It’s a funny film with a great story and great characters. It also does three things you just don’t see very often in Hollywood: (1) it perfectly captures real suburban angst, (2) it sends all the right messages, and (3) it has the rarest of rarities in Hollywood, a “strong” female role. They don’t make them like this anymore. . . notwithstanding rumors of a remake next year.

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

[-] Collapse Post...

Boeing! Boeing! Boeing! Here Comes Issa

Barack Obama and his comrades at the big unions are happily encouraging their friends at the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) to ignore Congress and the Constitution and make business decisions for private companies by interfering directly in their operations under bureaucratic cover.

But as proof that Californians aren't all bad, Republican Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government, has scheduled hearings on the Democrat-controlled NLRB over its interference with the operations of Boeing Aircraft. Seems the NLRB, currently being led around by the nose by Obama's recess-appointed leftist/unionist Craig Becker wants Boeing to cease its "unfair labor practice" in which it dared to open a non-union plant in South Carolina.

You probably all know the basics. Boeing decided to open a new plant in South Carolina where the business climate was vastly better than in the heavily over-governed State of Washington. Boeing is the giant of the American aircraft industry, and has done extremely well in its home production base in Washington (home corporate offices are located in Chicago). The company was getting a new contract for the production of the 787 jumbo jet. There was no more room for producing it at the Puget Sound facilities, so Boeing looked around and found the ideal spot in South Carolina. No jobs will be lost in Washington. This was an expansion plant, not a replacement plant.

But Democrats on the NLRB are bought and paid for by the unions. When they're bought, they stay bought. The appointment of Craig Becker gave the Democrats a majority on the NLRB. So the Board sued Boeing based on a union complaint for unfair labor practices because South Carolina is a right to work state. Joyful Boeing employees there didn't want a union to screw things up. No union jobs in Washington are eliminated by the hiring in South Carolina. Nevertheless, by some strange twist of leftist logic, the NLRB determined that Boeing was union-busting in Washington by hiring non-union labor in South Carolina.

And now the Obama bureaucratic refusals to appear before committees of Congress continue. The Oversight Committee prepared a list of potential witnesses, including NLRB general counsel Lafe Solomon. Solomon was invited courteously to appear before the committee hearings on Boeing. He semi-politely refused. Some day Republicans are going to learn that courtesy and decorum are seen as weaknesses by leftists. Solomon cannot be required to reveal attorney-client confidences, but a Board does not have the same level of immunity and executive privilege that a cabinet-level position does. Solomon can rightly be asked how the Board determined that Boeing was committing unfair labor practices without asking about private conversations leading to the decisions. More significantly, it can ask directly how the Board justifies having done so. Who better to answer that question than the Board's own general counsel?

An administrative law judge will hear the matter in Seattle on June 14. The Oversight Committee hearings are set for about two weeks later, and will now probably be delayed in order to subpoena Solomon for his testimony. But if the judge finds against Boeing, the matter will quickly be appealed to the D.C. Board (where the decision will of course be upheld), and then to an appellate court. Somewhere in between, we will be treated to Issa grilling Solomon (or even better, Becker).

The complaint against Boeing filed by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers is based entirely on the allegation that Boeing opened the South Carolina plant in retaliation for a union strike at the Washington facilities in 2008. The bulk of the work on the 787 will continue to be done in Washington, and the first one is scheduled for delivery later this year. But Boeing already has over 800 orders for the planes, and that could neither then nor now be accomplished solely in Washington. Boeing looked for a place to build the additional output efficiently and optimally, and found it in South Carolina.

Issa's letter to Solomon said: "This hearing will focus on how your actions against Boeing could impact the thousands of Boeing employees at a non-union work site in South Carolina. You assert that you do not seek to close Boeing's operations in South Carolina, yet the relief requested would have that exact effect." Boeing filed papers which demonstrated that the company had not removed or transferred any work from its Puget Sound site. It has refuted the claim that any union members have lost a job because of its decision.

The union and the NLRB have basically suggested that the 787 contract was "meant for the Washington facility" and all production on the 787 in South Carolina should cease. The South Carolina plant was built almost exclusively to handle the overload of 787 orders. It's tooled for it and Boeing hired with that goal exclusively in mind. The investment was huge. In fact, it was the largest industrial investment in that state's history. 1,000 jobs were created (no Obama mumbo-jumbo about jobs "created or saved") and many more are in the offing as production accelerates. If 787 production stops in order to satisfy the greed of union labor, the plant will effectively die.

This is in fact a double power play. South Carolina law allows for unionization, but also allows employees to refuse to join a union. Becker and the leftist members of the NLRB want to reverse the trend of ever-shrinking industrial unions. Congress refused to go along with card-check and elimination of secret ballots in union elections. Becker and his bureaucrats are determined to do end-runs around Congress using regulations to create union rights that Congress has refused to grant. If the Board could succeed in requiring that all 787 work be done in Washington or in a union shop, it might accomplish coercing South Carolina employees into joining a union they have already rejected.

Issa and his fellow GOP members will launch a major attempt to expose this bureaucratic travesty. At a time when the economy is the issue and the focus is jobs, jobs, jobs, the Obama administration, his cabinet and his czars are doing everything they can to stifle job growth. This is only one painful example of how they intend to go about it.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Commentarama Issues Microsoft Fatwā

It is with heavy heart. . . no, forget that, I’m pretty happy about this, perhaps even manically so! I have decided that the time has come to rid the world of a scourge that has plagued it for far too long. Thus, today, in the spirit of peaceful co-existence, I’m issuing a fatwā against Microsoft. Yeah, @#$%ing Microsoft.

This has been a long time coming. Why? Well....

(1) I’m sick of the fact I have to spend more and more time turning off stupid features and deleting bloatware. It’s gotten so bad that what used to take an hour to set up is now taking 5-6 hours and despite my best efforts still clogs my harddrive like a lifetime of cheeseburgers squeezing my heart.

(2) I HATE the fact that arrogant Microsoft employees want to control how I set up my computer. What do I mean? Every new edition takes away features that let you customize your computer. They have even bought out programs like Tweak UI and sabotaged them just to eliminate my ability to make changes like removing the stupid arrows on the desk top icons. What kind of power-mad control freak tries to take away existing options like that? Does the furniture company tell me where I can put my couch?

(3) Stop spying on me. I mean it.

(4) I am not retarded. I don’t need my documents gathered into 14 places on the hard drive just in case I can’t find them in the other 13. Seriously, W.T.F.! I do not need you protecting me from doing things to change my computer. I do not need a bazillion backups for every moment of my computer life. Stop trying to automatically turn features back on that I’ve disabled.

(5) Stop installing half-versions of Windows on machines which keep me from being able to recover from a serious virus. . . which I only got because of your buggy code!!

And that brings me to Windows 8, the Satanic Version. Last Thursday, we the moronic public got the first glimpse of what the “geniuses” at Microsoft have planned for their next operating system. You better sit down for this.

Since they think we’re all retarded and since they haven’t been able to compete with anyone else’s phones or tablets, they’ve decided to turn the desktop into a tablet. Here’s an image of what the new Windows 8 will look like. Oh, and it has a touchscreen keyboard.

Go ahead, punch the wall, I’ll wait for you. I will not put this on my computer. And if I am somehow forced to because there are no other options, I will become a terrorist. . . I kid you not.

Not surprisingly, the techie person who announced this in a newsvertising article thought it was great: “Windows 8 looks like a step in the right direction for Microsoft.” But the public ain’t buying it. In fact, of the 491 comments that appeared in the first 20 minutes, not a single one was even slightly positive. To the contrary the comments ranged from “No, f*ck no” to “Window F*ck You will be the official name” to “Are these guys @#$% retarded?” and everything in between.

Of course, there could be a plus side to this. Microsoft doesn’t care what the public says. To the contrary, they seem to revel in going against the wishes of their market. And one tech guy thinks this may be the end of Microsoft.

The description was an eye-roller and then a shocker, as the demo of this turkey turned up with a pop-up on-screen keyboard, which is the way the keyboard crops up with a phone or tablet. I'm not sure what Microsoft is thinking, but a typical desktop computer actually has a real keyboard. You know, Microsoft even makes such a device. I'm using one now.

The basic thesis that people want exactly the same look and feel across all their personal platforms is frankly idiotic. But Microsoft is a subscriber. In this instance, all the company will manage to do is kill the platform where this UI does not belong: the desktop workstation. And that would be the end of Microsoft.

Let’s hope.

Somebody. . . looking at you Google or China. . . should take Windows XP, change it enough to get past the copyright, and then put that out as an alternative to Microsoft’s stupidity. I would do it if I had the slightest tech skills. Heck, I’d put it out for free just to destroy the company.

And that brings me back to the fatwā. Since the destruction of the company is unlikely, I hereby instead authorize and command you that if you ever meet a Microsoft person to punch them in the face. And if they are a senior manager, then use a tire iron. And if you’re ever in Seattle... well, a picture is worth a thousand words.


And so it was foretold by prophesy.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obamacare Off-Broadway Preview in Atlanta

On Wednesday, the federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments over whether or not to reverse a Florida federal court decision declaring major portions of Obamacare to be unconstitutional. The Florida court decision was important in that it not only made specific findings, but the plaintiffs came from states all over the nation. A Court of Appeals decision in a controversial case is usually just the opening act for the big show in DC at the Supreme Court.

Florida federal court Judge Roger Vinson had found that the Obamacare mandated purchase of health insurance was a bridge too far in the liberal assault on individual rights. Vinson declared the mandate an impermissible perversion of the federal power to regulate interstate commerce in that it required citizens to purchase something rather than merely regulating the interstate sales of a product. And he didn't stop there. He also struck down the provisions granting "discriminatory" Medicare discounts for certain seniors as well as the requirement that parents be allowed to retain their "children" on their family health insurance up to age twenty-six.

So far, three federal judges have found Obamacare constitutional and two have found it unconstitutional. A similar set of pleadings is en route to a Virginia court (two sets, actually, but they are likely to be consolidated into one). Virginia is in a different Circuit, so it might be ruled on by that appeals court separately. But in any event, the Atlanta decision is likely the one which will ultimately drive the whole mess to the Supreme Court. And it doesn't matter which side wins. The loser will appeal. The Supreme Court has seemed to indicate that it wants to hear from a mix of Circuit Courts before hearing the matter, but hear it they will eventually.

The administration will try to stall by asking for a review by the full Circuit while the plaintiffs will try to get the case to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible. Interestingly, all through the debates and passage of Obamacare, and in all the court cases to date, the Obama administration had claimed that the mandate was a "penalty" for non-compliance. For the first time, the administration lawyers argued that it is a tax. As a tax rather than a penalty, there is at least a tenuous connection to the Commerce Clause. But the judges all asked for citations of cases in which such a "tax/mandate" had ever previously been allowed. The government's lawyers were unable to produce a single one.

Lawyers know better than to try to predict how a particular case will go. But often the questioning by the judges is a tip as to which way the case might go. There are two Clinton appointees and one Bush I appointment on the panel hearing the case (the Chief Judge). First, that's not political since the judges are chosen by random lottery. Second, the Clinton appointees are not Obama-type doctrinaire "living constitutionalists." All three judges asked at least one question about where in the Constitution, case law and/or precedent the Obama administration appellants found the authority for the federal government to impose a mandate to make a purchase of any kind.

The names of the lawyers representing the opposing parties is usually unimportant. But in this case, a whole separate problem will be created when the case goes to the Supreme Court. The anti-Obamacare people were represented by former US Solicitor-General Paul Clement. That's interesting, but not particularly relevant. But the federal government was represented by current Acting US Solicitor-General Neal Katyal. That becomes very significant because it directly affects the ethical issue of "recusal" for one of the Supreme Court Justices who will hear the case.

During her term as Solicitor General, current Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan directly and personally assigned Katyal to fend off, then litigate early challenges to Obamacare. While still acting under Kagan's authority, Katyal litigated two cases in which he defended the constitutionality of Obamacare. Even after Kagan resigned as she became the Obama appointee to the Supreme Court, she continued to give "input" to Katyal on the issue.

There is no hard proof that Kagan personally wrote or influenced Katyal's arguments in the anti-Obamacare cases. But who else does the Assistant Solicitor-General report to if not the Solicitor-General who personally assigned him to the cases? This was not a routine rotational assignment. Kagan went out of her way to appoint and supervise the attorney she felt most capable of defending Obamacare.

Ethical rules which would suggest that Kagan should recuse herself are arcane and complicated. And if she decides to go forward and hear the case, what court can be appealed to? (Answer: there isn't one) Clearly, she is not required to recuse herself. But there's more than enough fact and reasonable inference to expect her to do so. By her own standards, she should do so. She recused herself in a Supreme Court case where her connections to the case were far less palpable. In that case, Kagan had merely been the dean of the Harvard Law School, but felt she needed to recuse herself because one of the litigants who filed an amicus curiae brief was Walter Dellinger, who was head of the Harvard Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic when Kagan was the dean.

All things considered, Kagan should recuse herself in the Obamacare case when it arrives at the high court bench. Her connections to the purveyors and litigators are simply too apparent to be dismissed as inconsequential. The rule is that the justice must avoid the appearance of impropriety or personal prejudice where the appearance is a reasonable conclusion. It doesn't have to be right, or proven beyond a reasonable doubt--merely a reasonable inference. She should listen to her own advice and follow her own precedent.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Reviews: Fringe (2008-)

By T-Rav

Fringe is, in my opinion, the best show running on network television (an important qualification, as I don’t wish to offend cable viewers; yes, there is some truly great stuff on AMC.). This FOX series does what only the best sci-fi shows can do; it has character-driven plots rather than a string of simple “freak-of-the-week” episodes, and not only makes viewers use their noodles but invests them emotionally in the events on the screen. As Andrew has alluded to in reviews of past programs such as The Twilight Zone, this simultaneous appeal to the brain and the heart is critical for the genre, and Fringe pulls it off in style.

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

[-] Collapse Post...

Tim Pawlenty's Brilliant "Google Test"

It’s the rare politician who has a brain. That may be hard to believe as politicians tend to appear highly educated and articulate, and they theoretically immerse themselves in policy of all sorts. But in my experience, most politicians simply mimic what they are told by their handlers. That’s why so many are so bad at debates. Pawlenty impresses me as something different. Indeed, his platform is full of original and significant ideas. And he just added a doozy.

Let me start with a disclaimer. I am not endorsing Tim Pawlenty, nor have I made up my mind about who I will support. To quote Ian Holm from Alien, I’m still collating. But what Pawlenty said is worth discussing. Indeed, it’s something the entire party should adopt.

What did Pawlenty say? He said that if a service can be found through a search on Google, then the government should not be doing it. He called this a “Google Test.” The Google Test may sound esoteric, but it’s not. To the contrary, it’s actually a fundamental statement about what government should or should not be doing, and it’s a really good one.

Since the age of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, privatizing government has been all the rage. But there’s been a fundamental flaw in privatization -- there was no real test for what should be privatized? By the 1990s, privatization was being done under an Office of Management and Budget policy (Circular A-76) which required agencies to find potential services for privatization and then let contractors bid on those services. The bidding was done with “FTEs” -- full time equivalents. In other words, you look at how many full time people it takes the government to provide the service. If a contractor can provide the same services with fewer FTEs (usually at least a 20% discount is required) then the government agency is supposed to privatize that service. But this is a haphazard and unprincipled approach because it leaves it up to the government to decide which services to put up for bid. What Pawlenty is suggesting is an actual framework for what the government should and should not be doing, i.e. the government should privatize or eliminate the things it does that are already commercially available.

This test shows that Pawlenty more than any other candidate since Ronald Reagan fundamentally understands the proper role of government. When the private sector is capable of providing a service, there is no justification whatsoever for the government to also provide that service. His Google Test is a clever way to say that and to say it in a way that people can understand. What’s more, if this policy is put into place effectively, it will result in a drastic trimming of government down to only the “core functions” that the private sector simply cannot provide because of cost or liability (sorry CATO institute, there are some thing the private sector can’t do).

Leftist journalists jumped on this immediately, calling it a gimmick and pretending they couldn’t understand what it means. For example, one hack said, “if I can find ‘veteran’ and ‘hospital’ on Google, does that mean he wants to close VA hospitals?” Actually, that would be a good idea, but no, that’s not what he means because you can’t find “veteran services” in Google. But it could potentially mean farming out some VA services to private hospitals.

To give you a further sense of how smart this is, compare this with the generic “eliminate pork” that all politicians promise. This is actually the same promise, only Pawlenty has told you exactly what he considers pork, the other haven’t. When Romney or Gingrich or Obama promise to cut pork, they haven’t told you anything because pork is in the eye of the beholder and the word is so vague as to be meaningless. But what Pawlenty is saying is that anything the government does that is also being done commercially should be seen as pork and eliminated. That’s meaningful. Indeed, this is such a great idea the party as a whole should adopt it: the government simply should not be doing things that people are doing for themselves.

The one question I have at this point is whether Pawlenty is merely talking about privatization or if he’s talking about ending the government’s role in providing the service completely, i.e. no longer providing them even through private contractors. I don’t know that yet, but either interpretation would be a huge step toward shrinking the government.

Finally, to keep things fair and show that I’m not pimping Pawlenty, I will also give you an idea Romney had in 2008 that the party should adopt (sadly, he seems to have dropped the idea). His plan was to eliminate payroll taxes for seniors with the intent of getting them back into the work force, reducing the cost of labor for companies, improving the quality of labor available, and spurring employment. This is another idea the party should adopt as a whole, only they should add minors to the list to get them into the workforce and learning the kinds of skills and discipline they need to become successful later in life.

When and if the other candidates have similarly good ideas, I’ll point them out. In the meantime, ask yourself if you know a better way to define which services are essential and which aren’t than the Google Test.


(As an aside, before anyone says “the Constitution,” I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but things like the Commerce Clause are so expansive that saying “stick to the Constitution” is not a useful limitation. That’s where a formula like the Google Test comes in -- it seeks to return the government to its properly limited role through other means.)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama-conomy + Cluelessness Dooms Obama

Obama is in deep trouble, as shown by his sagging poll numbers. Even the biggest bounce he got from the killing of Osama bin Laden has faded, as we knew it would. So once again, the economy and his handling of the budget are front and center, as they will be throughout the election. But the American people don’t like what he’s doing and he has no idea what else to do. How bad are things? Dire.

Let’s start with the poll numbers (according to Reuters):

● 49% of Americans disapprove of his handling of his job. Only 47% approve. But that's the good news. . . read on.

● 59% of Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy. That's a career killer.

● Only 33% approve of his handling of the deficit. That’s down 6% since April.

● 89% of Americans think the economy is in bad shape. 57% say we are in recession.

● 66% say the US is on the wrong track.

These numbers are disastrous. This means that literally every conservative and independent disapproves of his handling of the economy and the deficit, and that even some Democrats are starting to disapprove as well.

Why would people be so upset? Well, for one thing, inflation is out of control. As we discussed before, inflation is officially in the 2% range, but that excludes food and gas. When we factor those in, our readers seem to think 15%-20% is more accurate. That’s worse than the worst moments under Carter.

Official unemployment remains around 9%, and real unemployment is closer to 16%. As Lawhawk pointed out the other day, no President since FDR has ever been re-elected when unemployment was above 7.2%. And no one is going to hire until Obama changes his policies wholesale.

Not surprisingly, personal consumption is falling. Consumer confidence dropped 10% last month, to an anemic 60.8. Durable goods orders, i.e. what factories are making, declined 3.6% last month (worst numbers since 1984). This means consumers and businesses expect trouble and are hunkering down. And car sales fell 3.7% to well below the level the car companies need to be profitable, and even The Washington Post is calling Obama a liar about his bailout success claims.

And, as anyone other than a Democrat would expect, home prices rose temporarily when the federal home-buying tax credit was in effect, and fell like a stone the moment the tax credit expired. Home values in big urban areas fell to their lowest level since 2002 as foreclosures depressed prices. S&P Chairman David Blitzer refers to this as a “double dip in home prices across much of the nation.” Home construction starts fell too, even though this is usually the start of the building season.

High gas prices, out of control inflation, crashing home values and massive unemployment. . . what’s not to love?

What's really interesting though, is that Obama should have had a good month. The Republicans lost in upstate New York apparently (if you believe the MSM) because of Paul Ryan's Medicare plan. Newt Gingrich attacked that plan too. The Democrats spent the month blasting the Republicans for playing chicken with the debt ceiling, a very serious charge. And a great many people complained that the Republicans were either too aggressive or too timid in budget cut demands. Yet, on the question of who would handle the economy better, congressional Republicans gained 11% points last month!

How can this be? I think the answer is simple: Obama has nothing to offer. He's added $4.6 trillion to our $14.3 trillion dollar debt -- that's 32.2% of the total debt in only three years. And he's offered nothing but token cuts to fix this. Even worse, he and his Democratic friends have opposed everything the Republicans have tried to do to fix this without ever offering their own plan. The American people aren't taking kindly to that. This is like the captain of the Titanic trying to blow holes in the lifeboats so that he can shift the blame to the guy who is trying to save everyone from the captain's mistake.

Similarly, after spending a greater amount than the GDP of all but 14 countries as a stimulus package, Obama has only lost jobs to show for it. How can you spend the Korean economy (which employs around 30 million people) and not produce any jobs? That's an incredible level of incompetence. What's worse, having tried the only thing he knew to do and failed, he now has no idea what to do next.

That is the problem for Obama. He's created an economic disaster on a scale somewhere between Jimmy Carter and the Great Depression and he has no plan to fix this except to play politics with every Republican proposal. That's why his numbers continue to fall and why they won't recover.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Court's In Session, Defendant Absent

I've expressed my strong support on this blog for expedited immigration and deportation proceedings where illegal immigrants are involved in criminal activity within our borders. What to do with peaceful and working illegal immigrants and anchor babies is a much broader subject, and I want to narrow this discussion to the pathetic status of our immigration courts and the need to expel our foreign-grown criminals quickly and efficiently.

American courts in general need a good slap in the head to wake up those who seem to forget that justice delayed is justice denied. But the immigration courts make the others look like models of efficiency and decorum. When an American citizen doesn't show up for his criminal trial, procedures immediately go into effect to find him and prosecute him. When a foreign-born illegal immigrant who has already been convicted of a criminal offense doesn't show up for his deportation hearing, well, them's the breaks.

Any criminal illegal who doesn't show up for his immigration hearing has plenty of company. About 40% of previously-detained illegal immigrants who have been ordered to appear for a determination of their deportation status simply don't bother to do so. I suppose we can count that as an improvement. Prior to 9-11, the number was closer to 50%. At their peak, failures to appear reached 59% in 2005 and 2006. But never fear, the immigration courts are on the job. When the illegal fails to show up, the court immediately issues another order to appear.

But don't ever fail to appreciate the ingenuity of the Department of Justice in its current bid to prove that it's diligently pursuing the matter (it's up to other agencies to catch them in the first place). The 40% figure that the DOJ is touting actually includes those who are presently in custody for other reasons. They don't have much choice in turning up for their deportation proceedings. Take them out of the calculation, and the number of no-shows rises dramatically.

Well, what if they actually do show up and are ordered to leave the United States? Many are released back into the population pending arrangements for the government to remove them. Others are held in custody, but later released because of "overcrowding" or other jail/prison conditions. That leaves us with well over a million who have been ordered out of the United States, but are still hanging around. Many of them go on to commit further criminal offenses.

Eric Holder and his public relations people have tried to convince Americans that they have been even more diligent than the prior administration in prosecuting deportations. They claim that only 20% of illegals win their deportation cases, while the numbers allowed to remain were much higher during the prior administration. That's only because the calculation has been changed. Under the prior administration, deportation figures "won" by the DOJ included only those in which the illegal contested his or her deportation. That makes it appear that the DOJ won a lower percentage of immigration cases under the prior administration.

Holder's department includes uncontested deportation proceedings in its calculation, which makes the apparent percentage of success much higher than it actually is. If Holder's DOJ used the same formula as that of the prior administration, Holder's success rate would be considerably lower than that of his predecessors. Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure.

The entire immigration court system needs serious reform and a true mission. The DOJ needs to quit distorting figures in order to please both nativists and supporters of unrestricted immigration. I guarantee you that this will not happen while the Democrats control the White House and the Senate. But it is something the public needs to understand as part of their choices during the 2012 elections.

If you cannot click on the picture and get a larger version of it, here's what the sign says: "Give us free health care. Jobs--no taxes. House. Food. You owe us America! We will shoot more police in Arizona until we get free!" That should give you an idea of why I am unrelenting in my support for removal of criminal illegal immigrants, now. Genuine immigration reform needs to be addressed, and draconian "deport them all" positions are as foolish and dangerous as "leave them all here" proposals. But when it comes to crime, prosecution and followup, I cannot in good conscience believe that it is inherently inhumane to send them back where they came from.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Getting Away From Mean Americans

Well, she's been home for a few days, time for Michelle Obama to go off into the wild blue yonder on the taxpayers dime and visit Africa. AP reports that the First Lady is ready to leave Americans who think of her only as the President's wife and head to exotic Africa where they consider her a queen in her own right.

Mrs. Obama's staff is saying that the current agenda is to spend the bulk of the time in Cape Town, South Africa and Gabarone, Botwsana. Quick! How many of you can find Botswana on a world map? How many of you have ever heard of Gabarone? How many of you think it is vitally important for the First Lady to make a mega-expensive trip to Africa while the federal government is wallowing in debt? The trip is scheduled for June 21 through June 26. I'd like to suggest that she just stay there, but how can you have a grand homecoming if you don't come home to announce the unbelievable success of the visit?

But you are forgetting that it's all for the children, the children. Not our children. Somebody else's children. But the trip will be on our children's money. Ostensibly, the purpose of the trip is to "encourage young people to get involved in their societies." Or as Hillary Clinton might put it, "get involved in your village." That's the ticket. "Democracy, democracy. I believe the children are the future. If you get involved, some day the leader of your country might be black, just like my husband." Uh, Michelle, you aren't in Stockholm, you're in Africa.

The spokesman, who insisted on anonymity until the White House makes the official announcement, added that Mrs. Obama's visit will highlight the success of Africa's many nations (which ones, Michelle?) as well as the historic connections between the American people and those who live on the African continent. He (or she) added that President Barack Hussein Obama's father was Kenyan. There are those who think that Obama himself is Kenyan, but that's another story entirely.

So Mrs. Obama wants to tighten the relationship between the sub-Saharan black population (90%) and America's black population (12%). Their experiences are so similar, after all. Well, at least they were a hundred years ago. Somebody forgot to tell Michelle that race is supposed to be unimportant. We are all members of the human race, or so they say. But it is important to relate. After all, where are you going to find more African-Americans than in America? Much like her husband's revelation that America is one of the largest Muslim nations in the world.

I'm quite certain that Michelle is also very concerned about nutrition in Africa. I would like to see the faces of those kids as they're being told that they should eat more brussels sprouts and arugula with their meals. She will also warn them of the evils of McDonald's Happy Meals which will cause them all to become obese, like Americans. Local Kid 1: "What are brussels sprouts?" Local Kid 2: "What is arugula?" Local Kid 3: "What's McDonald's?" Local Kid 4: "What's a meal?"

What difference does it make that this trip will cost megabucks? We can just borrow the money from China. What difference does it make that the trip will throw more pollutants into the air than the Normandy invasion? We can just trade carbon credits with Al Gore. And never lose sight of the fact that above all, this trip is for the children, the children.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contender: Mitt Romney

Today we continue our 2012 Contender series with a look at current front runner Mitt Romney. The big knock on Romney has been that he’s timid. His seems afraid to lead, avoids making decisions and taking stands, and his rhetoric is effete. Having looked into his record, I can now add that he also lacks principles and you won't like what he believes.

Romney lacks the ability to take a stand. Even now, his website contains a disturbing number of "Romney will release a plan in the near future" statements. Keep in mind, this is a man who's been running for President for 10 years and should know what he plans to do if he wins. What's worse, his record defines both "unprincipled" and "flip flop." Normally, we want our politicians to re-evaluate their ideas in light of new facts. But Romney takes this to extremes, having flip flopped on virtually every single issue on which he's ever taken a stand. What's more, his positions show the small, tired thinking of a technocrat who's stuck in debates that ended long ago. Observe:

1. Economics: Romney has yet to issue an official economic plan. But what he's said so far shows him to be a combination leftist-Keynesian and technocrat. His ideas are dated, insignificant, worthless and often merely reflect Democratic thinking:

● Eliminating the capital gains tax on families that make less than $200,000 per year (a limitation which wipes out the purpose of cutting this particular tax, which is to encourage business to start spending);

● Eliminating the estate tax;

● Limit spending by some amount by eliminating "pork" spending on unnecessary programs. . . whatever those are;

● Reining in the growth of entitlement programs. . . somehow;

● Opposing "income tax increases" (no word on other taxes); and

● He favors a balanced budget amendment and claims to want some sort of hard cap on federal spending.

This is extremely weak policy. Yet, compare even this weak plan against his record. As governor, Romney closed a small deficit by (1) raising $400 million in taxes from doubling fees on court filings, professional licenses, and firearm licenses, (2) raising the state gas tax by $60 million, (3) imposing $128 million in taxes on internet purchases, and (4) raising business taxes by $181 million. I found no evidence of budget cuts.

His other ideas "to create jobs" are trivial and worthless:

● Romney favors the discredited minimum wage, but he wants a "moderate predictable change" in the wage, not "big jumps from time to time." This will cost jobs, not create them.

● Romney wants to replace the unemployment system with either private unemployment savings accounts for some reason, or he would give incentives to companies to hire the long term unemployed. Neither will work.

● Romney wants to train workers to fit the new economy, which has no jobs.

● In 1994, Romney called for the "virtual elimination" (i.e. virtual = not real) of the Department of Agriculture. But by 2007, he "believes that investing in agriculture is key to our economy and families." He also support a $20 billion subsidy for energy research and new car technology.

2. ObamaCare: Romney failed to speak out against ObamaCare when it was debated, saying only that he would wait until he issued his book to offer his criticism. . . now that's leadership! Now he says it should be repealed because it's "an unconscionable abuse of power." Ok, sounds good, but he passed something very similar (right down to the individual mandates) in Massachusetts, and he refuses to renounce that. So why is ObamaCare "an unconscionable abuse of power" and RomneyCare not? According to Romney it's because RomneyCare had bipartisan support in the legislature and ObamaCare didn't. I kid you not: "abuse of power" depends on whether everyone is doing it to you or just some of them.

3. Global Warming: Romney believes man is causing global warming "based on what he reads" and pictures he's seen of melting ice caps -- which shows he doesn't understand science and can't separate good evidence from bad. He has long said he would consider a cap-and trade system, but now claims to oppose that. He now advocates conservation by raising fuel economy standards on cars and favoring biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear and coal gasification. He does claim to support offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska. . . though he also says "we're using too much oil." FYI, like other spoiled, rich, elitists, he opposes the wind farm in Nantucket because it would hurt the view.

4. Immigration: Romney claims to oppose illegal immigration. He claims to support deportation of illegals, says we should secure the border and issue non-citizens magic "tamperproof identification cards" (presumably so we can tell them from the illegals), wants employer verification and swears he opposes amnesty. BUT, he doesn't think we can deport 11 million illegals, so he wants to make them register and apply for citizenship, i.e. he favors amnesty. He also wants to increase legal immigration. This, by the way, is the Obama plan: increase legal immigration limits and then use the higher limits as cover to turn illegals into legals while claiming it's not an amnesty.

5. Freedom of Speech: In 1994, Romney advocated spending limits on campaigns and abolishing PACs. By 2007, he was criticizing McCain-Feingold, saying "we step into dangerous territory when politicians start eviscerating our fundamental freedoms in the name of amorphous principles, like campaign finance reform." Now he says he really opposes McCain-Feingold because it doesn't work, and he has a vague new plan for campaign finance reform, i.e. he plans to "eviscerate our fundamental freedoms in the name of some amorphous principle" he can't even explain yet.

6. Social Conservatism: Romney flips the most in social conservative areas, but it's clear he favors social engineering.

Abortion: In 1994, Romney attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser and he claimed there were only "tiny nuances" between his position and Ted Kennedy's. In 2005, he changed his mind and said abortion is morally wrong, but that the issue should be left to states. Now he says abortion is morally wrong except in cases of incest, rape or to save the mother and he "wishes. . . the laws of our nation could reflect that view". . . whatever that means.

Stem Cells: In 2002, Romney strongly advocated stem-cell research. In 2008, he renounced that position and now wants a ban on federal funding for research on excess embryos.

Crime: I wouldn't normally put crime in the social conservative category, except Romney seems fixated on "obscenity." Indeed, he wants strict enforcement of federal obscenity laws, he wants to punish retailers for selling "sexually explicit and excessively violent" video games to minors, and he wants to force computer companies to make sure parents can block "all that pornography from their kid's internet screens." Beyond that, he tried to get the death penalty reinstated in Massachusetts, but only in very limited cases and with impossible standards, i.e. "no doubt of guilt." He favors three strikes laws and proposed a one-strike law for child sex offenders "who use the internet to prey on children." Why this only applies to internet predators is not clear.

Affirmative Action: He apparently favors affirmative action but won't say so. Instead, he expresses support for "decreasing barriers to entry into the workforce for women and minorities" and "for Muslims who face discrimination due to their religion."

Education: In 1994, he wanted to abolish the Department of Education. He renounced that when he realized he could use the DOE for social engineering. He favors increased testing, requiring parents of poorly performing schools to attend parental education classes, wants to pay bonuses to "teachers who successfully teach," and has a host of pet projects he wants included in school curricula, including "nanotechnology and materials science" as well as an increased emphasis on family values. He supports charter schools and home schooling and vouchers, but only after means-testing.

Gays: Romney opposes gay marriage and civil unions, though he does "not want to discriminate against gay people in employment or housing or other parts of their life." He says he would not have changed don't ask don't tell.

Guns: In 1994, Romney favored a five-day waiting period and banning assault rifles. Showing he does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, i.e. to allow people to protect themselves from their government, Romney signed the assault weapons ban because: "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." In 2008, Romney joined the NRA and declared that he "supports the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the US Constitution." He then lied about owning a gun, and later said the right to bear arms does not include assault weapons.

There you have it. He never stands on principle and frankly doesn't even seem to understand the concept. Indeed, far too often, he calls something an outrage or violation of a right, only to then propose such a plan himself. This is a troubling thought process. Moreover, he seems to be hiding many of his policies, if they exist at all. His economic plan is dated, small-minded, and worthless, and several of his policies are identical to failed Democratic policies. And he seems to favor a form of social engineering that is both highly unprincipled and morally questionable.

Is he a conservative? I see no evidence for that. Would he make a good President? It's unlikely. Would he make a good conservative President? Do you really need to ask?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Bump In the Economic Road

The May figures for unemployment just came out, and all our peerless leader could say was that it was "just a bump in the road." This road is in serious need of repair, and that "bump" was a pile of Americans who finally just gave up on getting work in this putrid economy. This past Friday I posted an article on the failure of any President to get reelected when unemployment was higher than 7.2%. It just rose to 9.1% from 9.0% in April.

In actuality, that "bump" was comprised of those whose unemployment benefits have run out and have been seeking work unsuccessfully for two years or more. If they are included in the unemployment figures instead of just those applying for or already on unemployment compensation, the figure is really getting close to 19%. But our Community-Organizer-In-Chief considers that a mere bump in the road. Mr. Obama, get the hell off the road.

Mr. "Did I Do That?" knows in his heart of hearts that he didn't do that. It's all George Bush's fault, along with the evil bankers and the naughty corporations. He has no responsibility for the problem at all. Why those figures remain stubbornly in place or continue to rise doesn't seem to fit into his thinking process (assuming he can think at all). Two and a half years after George W. Bush left office, he's apparently still secretly in charge of destroying the job market.

Obama says he has inherited a crisis (true), adopted unpopular policies (true) and has pointed the economy in the right direction (liar, liar, pants on fire). Even some Democrats are advising the President that he should quit acting as if there's nothing wrong and start admitting that the American people are suffering. But for all his big talk, Obama is totally lacking in empathy. Bill Clinton could say "I feel your pain," and make it sound almost true. Obama will be Obama only when he says "I don't give a damn about you."

If I were a psychologist, I think I might diagnose this creep as having narcissistic personality disorder. He responds to all the wrong things, and he only cares about the affairs of the American people in terms of how they affect him personally. He might also be suffering from intelligence deficit because he's absolutely incapable of seeing that he is daily alienating more and more of his blue collar base (union and government employees not included, I mean actual workers).

But even mega-socialist AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka called the new job numbers "a sign of real danger for working families and recovery." I'm sure he will eventually take up the "George Bush did it" cudgel, but for the time being he accidentally let it be known that even union hacks are getting worried. More liberals who are not part of Obama's inner circle are beginning to notice Obama's complete inability to recognize reality and the miserable state of American unemployment. I'm also sensing that they are beginning to recognize that behind that phony smile and phony rhetoric, they have backed a genuine cold fish. A bloodless, soulless, bureaucratic, statist nonentity.

Obama should come out of his arrogant daze and listen to his own adviser David Axelrod. Said Axelrod: "I've always said the same thing, which is we may not have created this mess, but we're responsible now, and people are less interested in how we got there than where we're going." Hopey-change platitudes are not going to cut it anymore, and treating the unemployed as excess baggage is not only inhumane, it's plain bad politics. I wonder if Axelrod will become part of that bump in the road that the Obama presidential limousine will be running over again soon. The last President this lacking in empathy was Herbert Hoover.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

El Jefe Bombs With Latinos

After celebrating his favorite holiday, Cinco de Cuatro, Presidente Barack Obama realized that he had been neglecting his fund-raising among Hispanics in the West. Confident that the monolithic Latino community would swoon with gratitud for another message from El Buen Pastor de Chicago, Obama sent an e-mail to Hispanic organizations throughout the West asking for more of their time and money.

The response was not exactly enthusiastic. Nary a si, se puede. Obama's e-mail was in two parts. First the pandering, then the request for money. "I want to sign the DREAM Act into law, but I need your help to do the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one at a time." "Now gimme your pesos," or something like that. Perhaps some recent legislative history would serve to illustrate why the Hispanic community might not think that Obama's amor por la raza is entirely genuine.

Leaving Congressional Democrats to do whatever work was to be done to maintain the support given to the Democratic Party in 2008, Obama has talked the talk, but hasn't shown that he can walk the walk. Instead of the DREAM Act that would legalize huge numbers of illegal immigrants and future Democrats, the new Congress has been busy doing quite the opposite. Rep. Ed Royce (R-California) called the bluff of the Democrats on an up or down vote on the proposed amendments to the 2012 Homeland Security Act. The substitute wording diverts current social welfare moneys to immigration law enforcement. With the able assistance [snark intended] of Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colorado), the Democrats' original Amendment 287(g) which would have ended federal cooperation programs with the states was defeated on a 267-151 vote. Polis had intended the exact opposite result. The substitute wording increasing funding for the program passed by the same margin.

Obama was nowhere to be seen or heard from as this debate went on. He was too busy pounding out e-mails. The new bills from the House, passed handily, include setting aside money for the Border Patrol along the Mexican border. They prohibit the administration from offering amnesty by stalling on deportations of illegals in federal custody. They require that all DHS contractors use E-Verify to monitor their new and current employees. They increase funding for all federal enforcement programs by 20%. They created special set-asides for hiring more "Shadow Wolves" (agents who track smugglers and narco-terrorists on the border). They set aside funding for enforcement of extant federal law requiring the detention and deportation of illegals who are convicted violent criminals. And my favorite, they withhold funding from cities that have "sanctuary city" policies. And they did it without adding a single dollar to the taxpayer burden.

Instead of herding the cats of the Democratic and RINO parties into concentrating on the ill-fated DREAM Act, Obama simply stayed completely clear of any involvement in the ongoing immigration activities. After all, those e-mails have to get written. His habit of staying above the fray (i.e., cowardice in the face of opposition) is not going to cause Hispanics to rush to the Republican Party for comfort. Most of these measures were proposed and enacted by Republicans attempting to stem the tide of illegal immigration. At least they're honest about their position. But Obama's inactivity has thrown a wet blanket on the previous enthusiasm for him that the Latinos exhibited during the hopey change 2008 election.

After receiving the Obama empty promise e-mails, Latino activist groups in California, Arizona and Colorado reacted with everything from bored indifference to outright challenge. There were "no thanks" letters and e-mails. "F--- you" letters and e-mails. Paid ads on TeleMundo asking why Latinos should support an "immigration President" who is all show and no go. One e-mail, allegedly from a MAPA (Mexican American Political Action) group in Los Angeles said: "You want our help? Where was your help when the DREAM Act was still a possibility?"

Ricardo Martinez, founder of political advocacy group Padres Unidos and a precinct walker for Obama in '08 said: "When the elections come around, they always come courting us, and this is proving to be no different. Did Obama put as much effort in the time to pass the DREAM Act? I didn't see him. Was he out there twisting arms? I didn't see that. Was he out there stomping around? I didn't see that. All we see is that we're an expendable voting population."

"We're Pissed Off" Latino rallies are scheduled later this month at Democratic headquarters in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Denver, and other spots not yet fully organized. Republicans are not expecting to pick up any significant number of Hispanic votes. They figure that now that the Obama honeymoon is over, and the Latinos have discovered that the emperor has no clothes, they'll probably return to George Bush levels. But the Latino voting community is large and growing. It is also heavily impacted by the ongoing recession and unemployment.

If Obama's sleepwalking through the immigration debates continues, a lot of those former Obama voters are going to stay at home during the campaign and on election day. At this point it's hard to know what Obama will do about it. If he becomes actively involved in the immigration debate, he risks alienating an even larger group of unaffiliateds and independents who are fed up with the lack of a coherent immigration enforcement policy. If he continues to mouth the words but not act on them openly and publicly, he risks bleeding more Latino votes. It's a dilemma which couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Obama has some time. It is unlikely that the Senate will pass the measures from the House in anything close to the form they are now in. And even if the Senate went along with it, it is doubtful that Congress could override a presidential veto. That might be the only thing that would help Obama with Hispanics, since even something as simple as a veto could be spun into "positive action" on comprehensive immigration reform.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Newly Forged Bios!

Lawhawk and I just put together bios so you have a sense of who we are. Contrary to popular opinion, neither of us works (or worked) for a circus, nor is either of us imaginary. That said, you may be shocked at the truth. For Lawhawk, whose real name is Vern Fleeglegass, is actually a Chinese astronaut and I, real name: Max Bunkhouse, am a porn star. At least, that's what I got out of reading the bios. Anyway, they're on the right (as you would expect) in the sidebar. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: The Lord of the Rings

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a top-notch fantasy action/adventure and I absolutely and unequivocally recommend it. I own each film and have seen them many times. So if you love these films, let's stop there, mehl-on (that’s Elvish for “friend”). But if you want to see what’s wrong with these lifeless, shallow films and why they never came anywhere near their potential, then read on.

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

[-] Collapse Post...

Flash! NY Times Gets A Fact Right

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The New York Times rarely does as well. But on Monday last, they did. "No American President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on election day topped 7.2 percent." I would rather see Obama gone for dozens of other reasons, and I pray for the nation that the unemployment rate drops well below 7.2 percent by election day. But I don't think it will.

At least FDR had the famous "all we have to fear is fear itself" to help him get through the Depression, even though he was a major contributor to that sad state of affairs. In addition, the nation had no practical experience with the deleterious effects of massive government interference in the market. Today, we do. And all Obama had to offer was a restored polar ice cap, lowered sea levels leaving New York City on dry ground, and the promise that his programs would assure that unemployment would never exceed 8 percent. The current official unemployment rate is between 9 and 10 percent. Including those who have simply given up and have exhausted their unemployment benefits, that rate is really much closer to 17 or 18 percent.

Each time the current figure has dropped a bit, it has been followed by another wave of new unemployment statistics. As the Times said: "Roughly 9 percent of Americans who want to go to work cannot find an employer. Seventeen months before the next election, it is increasingly clear that President Obama must defy that trend to keep his job."

Instead, Obama continues on his course of job destruction by threatening, taxing, cajoling and ignoring the major source of job creation and entrepeneurship--small business and individual inventiveness. Working in tandem with that plan, Obama's agenda includes massive governmental interference in private enterprise, newly-printed millions for crazy green initiatives, stifling of the rights of any business which is on record as opposing the socialist policies of the Obamists, and destroying creativity in the market by regulating every move a business might make. He toys with disaster by demanding an increase in the national debt ceiling without giving any serious cooperation in reducing the bloated and cancerous federal budget.

The only area of employment which is experiencing no unemployment and a growing number of new hires is the Obama Czar Program. He has created more jobs there than Wal-Mart creates in a year. Worse than that, one new czar's salary could pay for four Wal-Mart entry-level employees. Obama talks about "government investment" when he really means "government spending." The Federal Reserve can pump money into the economy, but to what purpose and to benefit whom? All the incentive and stimulus schemes have failed to stem the tide of unemployment or create an atmosphere where businesses can begin to hire again.

If all the ultra-rich whom Obama demagogues almost daily were to be taxed at 100% of their income, that wouldn't make a dent in the national debt. Yet "eat the rich" is one of Obama's rallying cries. He blames Wall Street and the banks, along with avaricious corporations for the lack of new job creation. Yet his party has been in bed with them for decades, and in fact imposed regulations on those institutions that crippled the flow of the market and resulted in the recent recession. A very bad recession.

Obama is also participating in an economic anomaly first created by Jimmy Carter--stagflation. Not only is the economy stagnant, but because of government interference in the means of production and regulation of wage-producers in the private sector, we are entering an inflationary period. None of this will result in any noticeable decrease in the current unemployment figures, and they will likely last right up to election day, 2012.

Meanwhile, Obama's devotion to international apology tours, what your kids eat for lunch, which race can be discriminatory and which cannot, and a host of other radical ideas to the detriment of serious fiscal action leaves many Americans believing the ship of state has no captain. Even if the unemployment rate dropped to 6.5 or even 6 percent, Obama's arrogance and lack of love for the great American republic would still endanger his re-election chances. But trust me, they won't drop that low.

FDR could get away with high unemployment because the public generally believed that big government programs and lavish public spending could solve the problem. We've since learned better. Ronald Reagan could get away with it because the public genuinely believed he was willing to devote major effort to solving the problem. His total devotion to his beloved nation let people give him a little extra time to accomplish the goal of reducing unemployment. It worked. Who but an empty-headed liberal can believe anything Obama says? Words, but no deeds. Priorities all wrong. And then there's his poorly-disguised contempt for the backbone of the nation--the middle class. A few rounds of golf or hoops are more important than buckling down and working on a genuine solution to unemployment.

Even if the unemployment rate drops to 7% by election day, it's still unlikely that Obama can be re-elected if the Republican candidate doesn't fall flat on his or her face or become the "me too" candidate. People are much more sophisticated than they were in the 1930s, and if the case is made properly, they will understand that a lowered unemployment rate was accomplished in spite of Obama, not because of him.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Green Weenie Alert--Obama's At It Again

Once again, Barack Obama has tapped an "experienced business executive" for an important post. This is part of his plan to court business by appointing "one of their own." Much like the appointment of General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as jobs and competitiveness czar, this is another stealth eco-extremist and self-serving superbureaucrat. The nominee for cabinet-level Secretary of Commerce is John Bryson, former CEO of Edison International.

Immelt and Bryson could be quite the gruesome twosome in D.C. Immelt runs a corporation which in the past was quintessentially American--General Electric. After taking the reins at GE, Immelt managed to farm out large portions of GE's workforce to China while getting huge federal subsidies for "green energy production" manufacturing products like the mercury-laced compact fluorescent lightbulb. As a result, in 2010 GE used creative accounting, made billions in profits, and paid zero tax. Immelt carefully studied Spain's experience with green energy production, and found that for four jobs created by the green initiatives, nine were lost. As jobs czar he is working hard to make sure that the four created are in China while the nine lost are in America.

Bryson knows how to play the game almost as well as Immelt. Edison Electric is indeed an energy consortium, but one which is designed to follow the green weenie agenda by using government subsidies and foreign labor to create "clean" energy. Bryson is an opponent of the use of fossil fuels, and demagogues the oil companies' profits (you know, those things that the oil companies pay huge taxes on). Oh, and did I neglect to mention that Bryson is also a huge fan of cap and trade? In fact, he believes in it so much that he has plans to implement it by use of administrative regulation, thereby bypassing Congress which has thus far refused to buy into the cap 'n tax scheme.

The Commerce Department is about as useless as the Labor Department, which it theoretically offsets. In fact, both departments have the ability to inflict serious damage on an already sputtering economy. The Obama administration wants to control every facet of American lives, while having as much understanding of free market economics as a three year old child has of quantum physics. Bryson is definitely their man, since he knows how to manipulate and jury rig figures to make it look like a company is making profits when it is actually taking in more money from the government than it spends in production. That is not "profit" by any definition known to genuine businessmen.

Bryson first made his name known to the powers-that-be as the co-founder of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That organization is one of the pie-in-the-sky green organizations which pretend to have a viable plan to eliminate fossil fuel needs a week from next Friday. NRDC is a pretention on top of a pretense. In addition to its utopian ideas of immediate creation of viable alternative energy sources without any need for a transitional period, it does so in the name of national defense. Well, if you're going to lie, you might as well lie big.

Bryson said that carbon taxes – whether open or hidden in a cap and trade regime – were still not the best way to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gasses. The best way, he said, was a robust system of regulations that penalized energy producers for producing more energy than the government deemed necessary. So much for democracy and the free market--bring on the elitist bureaucracy.

Obama pulled Bryson out of his bag of tricks to replace Gary Locke, whom he has nominated as ambassador to China. In a fun twist of fate, Locke will replace John Huntsman, who is currently being touted by certain factions as a potential Republican candidate to replace Obama.

California Republican Congressman Darryl Issa said of the nomination: "With gas prices at nearly $4.00 per gallon (I'm paying $4.39 for regular), it's certainly eye-catching that President Obama has nominated a founder of an organization that opposes efforts to increase domestic oil production to serve as the nation's key advocate for our economic interests. The nomination of John Bryson to lead the Department of Commerce seems deeply out of touch with our current energy challenge." I had never noticed before that Rep. Issa is a master of understatement.

Current NRDC president Frances Beinecke praised Bryson's expertise on energy issues. "As one of the founders of NRDC, John Bryson is a visionary leader in promoting a clean environment and a strong economy." Only an Obamist who believes that government creates wealth by throwing taxpayer money at wild schemes while taking money away from profitable traditional energy companies would accept that statement on its face.

At Commerce, Bryson could join hands with NLRB socialists who filed complaints for unfair labor practices against the Boeing Corporation for daring to open a new plant in a right-to-work state. And guess who sits on the board of Boeing. Yep, John Bryson. But we all know that a foolish consistency (or incompetence) is the hobgoblin of little minds. At Commerce, Bryson wouldn't even have to pretend to care about profits and jobs. In no time at all, he will have thrown gazillions of dollars at Boeing (or whoever will grease his green palm) to develop a solar-powered jumbo jet. Of course, he and his fellow Obamists will continue in the interim to fly private or government fuel-guzzling jet planes for their trips around America and the world to tell other people how they should not be using fossil fuels.

This is akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Fortunately, this is a cabinet position, requiring Senate confirmation. Senate Republicans have already indicated in a formal letter to the President that they have the signatures of forty-four Republicans committed to opposing this nomination. Only forty-one votes would be needed to put the nomination on hold. The Republicans made that move before they even knew that Bryson was the nominee. They determined that the position should remain open until Obama agrees to finalize the long-pending trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. The nomination of a green weenie only firmed up their resolve.

Senate Republicans and moderate Democrats also want to make any Commerce Secretary confirmation contingent on the additional creation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program which would provide transitional health care and economic assistance to workers who lose their jobs as a direct result of the trade agreements. Obama has expressed a willingness to sign the trade and trade assistance bills, but Republicans have strongly indicated that this would put the horse before the cart, and give Obama plenty of wiggle-room to renege after the confirmation.

For now, it appears that without cooperation from the White House on long awaited trade deals, this nomination will be stymied. But remember this. Obama has become the maestro at recess appointments. That almost always means the rejected nominee will serve in the post until the expiration of the Congressional year. A clever and forceful recess appointee can do a great deal of damage in that period of time.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Praising Ben Shapiro

From time to time I've been a wee bit critical of Ben Shapiro. . . and I don't take any of it back. But I will give credit where credit is due, and junior has scored this time with his new book: "Primetime Propaganda." Indeed, his book could come to be seen to be very significant.

When I first heard that young Ben was going to expose the fact that Hollywood is dominated by liberals who actively use their positions to try to brainwash the public and exclude conservatives, I was not impressed. After all, this isn't exactly earth-shattering news. But then I read what he achieved and I must admit he's done a good thing.

Now I haven't actually read the book and I can't tell you if it's worth reading or not. So be warned this is not an endorsement of the book. But it is an endorsement of what Shapiro achieved. Specifically, he convinced a series of famous Hollywood movers and shakers to go on the record with taped interviews in which they openly admit they've been injecting liberal bias into television shows. Yet, the quotes go beyond that. Indeed, the quotes Shapiro obtained evidence hidden agendas, open discrimination against conservatives, disdain and direct attacks on conservatives, and it puts the lie to the decades long cover up where Hollywood types claim their bias is incidental to the finished product and that conservatives are being overly-sensitive.

Consider the following quotes about the open discrimination against conservatives in Hollywood:

● "America's Funniest Home Videos" creator Vin DiBona agrees that everyone in Hollywood is liberal and adds "I'm happy about it."

● Several admit that conservatives face discrimination in Hollywood. Leonard Goldberg, producer of "Blue Bloods," "Fantasy Island," "Charlie's Angels," etc. agrees the TV industry is "100 percent [liberal] dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth." Fred Pierce president of ABC in the 1980s agrees that it's difficult for conservatives to break into television and says of their conservative views: "don't promote it. It stays underground." House creator David Shore says there "is an assumption in this town that everybody is on the left side of the spectrum, and that the few people on the right side, I think people look at them somewhat aghast, and I'm sure it doesn't help them." Former ABC/NBC head Fred Silverman agrees "there's only one perspective [in comedy today], and it's a very progressive perspective."

● Star Trek II director Nicholas Meyer was asked if conservatives are discriminated against in Hollywood and he responded: "Well, I hope so."

● In one example of such bias, Bruce Paltrow refused to hire Ronald Reagan-fan Dwight Schulz for "St. Elsewhere." Said Paltrow: "There's not going to be a Reagan [expletive] on this show!"

● In another example, "Friends" co-creator Marta Kauffman acknowledges that she "put together a staff of mostly liberal people," to promote liberal ideas. And she did things like cast Candace Gingrich-Jones, half-sister of Newt Gingrich, as the minister of a lesbian wedding as "a bit of [a middle finger] to the right wing."

Beyond this, Shapiro exposes a lot of anger directed at the right. "Soap" and "Golden Girls" creator Susan Harris says conservatives are "idiots" and have "medieval minds." "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In" producer George Schlatter slammed Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham. He apparently uses a vulgar word to describe Coulter. Two additional producers attack Coulter by name as well. One attacks Sean Hannity.

And even beyond that, Shapiro obtained admissions that liberal ideas were actively promoted, sometimes secretly in these shows. Indeed, it's no surprise that "Friends" co-creator Marta Kauffman promoted social liberalism. Or that Larry Gelbart and Gene Reynolds put pacifist messages into "M*A*S*H," or that Vin DiBona made sure anti-gun messages were a recurring theme in "MacGyver," or that Nicholas Meyer hoped his lousy film The Day After "would unseat Ronald Reagan when he ran for re-election." But what is surprising is the inclusion of such messages in less obvious shows:

● William Bickley, a producer on "Happy Days," infused Vietnam War protest messages into the show: "I was into all that." So was George Schlatter, who used "Laugh-In" to knock Republicans and the Vietnam War.

● "Soap" and "Roseanne" producer Marcy Carsey tried to advance a gay and lesbian political agenda in those shows. This was apparently a common goal among several executives, including "Desperate Housewives" producer Marc Cherry.

● Marcy Carsey used "That 70's Show" to promote the smoking of marijuana.

● COPS creator John Langley says he's partial to segments where white people are the criminals.

So why is this important? For decades, conservatives have complained about bias in Hollywood. And the response from Hollywood has been: "you're crazy" or "you're just being overly-sensitive" or "you're reading too much into this." Now there's proof that this was a lie, and that the things the left claimed weren't meant to be political were in fact political. Indeed, this is akin to the revelation of the Journolist, which showed that leftist journalists had been unethically coordinating their stories like talking points, just as conservatives claimed.

Moreover, the proof comes not from an outsider looking in with statistical tools or interpreting meanings. This proof comes directly from the people who snuck the messages into these shows. These are the kinds of admissions that make it impossible to continue the lie. These are the kinds of admissions conservatives can point to hereafter to support their claims of bias and discrimination. These are the kinds of admissions that make shareholders very, very nervous.

So let me congratulate Ben on a job well done. He didn't just write a book based on his opinions as seems to be the rage these days, he went out and found very damning evidence. That's good journalism. Nice work!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guilty Pleasures: The ScottDS Edition

by ScottDS

Wikipedia defines a guilty pleasure as “...something one enjoys and considers pleasurable despite feeling guilty for enjoying it.” At the end of the day, my personal definition of a guilty pleasure, as it relates to films, is: “A movie that, if I mention to a friend that I like it, will elicit a reply to the effect of, ‘Really? That?’” Some of this might have to do with my film school background and we all know film students are only supposed to like little indie films and dark dramas about tortured artists. [sarcasm off]

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

[-] Collapse Post...

Utopia Forgotten: The Left's Intellectual Collapse

The sad truth is there is no longer any point in talking to leftists as they have nothing of value to offer anymore. And the reason is they have lost any semblance of a philosophy and have devolved into a subspecies of retarded human that feeds on spite, excretes arrogance, and revels in ignorance and hypocrisy, all the while self-righteously claiming moral and intellectual superiority.

When I was in college, I had a leftist professor that I respected a great deal. He was an intelligent man who had given the world a great deal of thought and had put in years of research to flesh out his beliefs. He was well-versed in economics, psychology, and history, and he was a joy to talk to. What I found really interesting was that we both saw many of the same problems in society. Indeed, in many ways, if we laid out our vision of the ideal society, my version and his version would have been surprisingly similar. Where we parted company, however, was in how to get there. Indeed, after hours of argument, we realized that we had fundamentally different views of human nature, and this led to different ideas about how to achieve our goals. I take the view that human nature only changes when people want to change themselves. Thus, all we can do to fix society is to lay out the moral reasons for the change and then provide incentives to “do the right thing.” He took the view that human nature can be changed by government fiat, and that people will conform to the “new normal.” I thought his ideas were inconsistent with human experience and were destined to fail because imposing change upon people only breeds resentment and subversion. He thought my ideas would never work to help the “most vulnerable.” So we agreed to disagree, but we definitely shared a great deal of respect for each other.

He is the last leftist I ever respected, however.

Since his time, the left has lost its mind. His version of finding the best way forward through a thoughtful examination of the world is gone. Indeed, the left has all but abandoned ideology and no longer even has a "utopia" that it is trying to achieve.

Instead, the new left preaches hate, spite and grievance, without purpose or an ultimate goal apart from achieving political power. It no longer seeks to build anyone up, but instead seeks to tear down those it despises. It no longer seeks the moral high ground or to attune us to some higher truth, it seeks rigid conformity to lies that it deems politically expedient. And it is deeply intolerant, seeking to personally destroy all who dare disagree. This is once again evident in recent events:

Take the case of evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa who just released a study finding that black women were rated as less attractive than women of other races. Now I take no position on his study as I haven’t seen his data, but his results are plausible based on other studies about interracial marriage. But that doesn’t interest me. What interests me is the firestorm reaction.

Within minutes of the article’s posting, the usual leftist suspects called for his article to be removed from the site that published it along with all his prior articles. This accompanied universal calls for the termination of his employment and a slew of articles calling him a racist. No word on death threats yet, but I’m sure they’re coming. Now here’s the critical part: these demands were made before anyone even saw his data. In other words, the truth or falsity of his study was not relevant to the left. He said something they didn’t like and they wanted him silenced.

Then came his fellows to debunk his study. They attacked him for failing to properly analyze the data even as the admitted they hadn’t yet seen how he conducted the analysis. Think about that. They denounced him without having any basis to do so. Then came the coup de grace: they attacked him for reaching a conclusion even though many of the respondents in his data had voiced different opinions. In other words, they claim it was improper for him to reach a conclusion when his data did not show 100% conformity to that conclusion. That is beyond disingenuous and borders on Wonderland-ian criticism. Indeed, if we accept this as a valid criticism, then we are dismissing the entire field of statistics because you NEVER have 100% conformity. For a scientist to make such a statement is truly Orwellian.

What’s more, while they’re all bowing and scraping to the gods of racial sensitivity, let me remind you of something said by prominent black racist Jill Scott, who was invited by Obama to the White House: “As slavery died for the greater good of America, and the movement for equality sputtered to life, the White woman was on the cover of every American magazine. . . She was unequivocally the standard of beauty for this country, firmly unattainable to anyone not of her race. We daughters of the dust were seen as ugly, nappy mammies.” Basically, she’s asserting as truth what Kanazawa claims to have found statistically, yet he’s being burned at the stake for being a racist heretic for saying it.

This is the problem with much of leftist “thought” today: only certain people can say certain truths. . . the rest are required to swear to shifting lies in the name of pushing whatever the present ideology is.

Now take the case of British singer Adele, who just discovered that paying taxes sucks. Here is her quote: “I'm mortified to have to pay 50%! . . . When I got my tax bill in from the album, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire.” She further clarified that she was particularly upset that she gets nothing for the taxes she pays.

At last check, there were 866 comments on this article and all of them were vile. Some denied reality, claiming that she’s lying about what she paid and denying that anyone actually pays 50%. Others said she should be thankful that “we let her keep any of it.” Oh, I didn’t know she was your slave? But most just called her fat, a bitch, a whore, a “selfish fucking idiot,” or accused her of stealing her music. Then they wished her ill, both personally and professionally. (About 10% of the comments were so vile they had been deleted by the moderator.) Think about this. She makes the point that paying 50% of your income in taxes is wrong and the responses fall into these categories: (1) denials of reality, (2) demands to punish her for speaking, and (3) hateful personal attacks. This is what passes for leftist thought today. By the way, not one single person rebutted her claims.

So what exactly does the left stand for? Does it want equality for all as it claimed in the 1960s? Hardly. It wants to substitute one group of oppressors for another. Does it want freedom? Hell no. It certainly doesn’t want you to have freedom of speech or thought. It hates religious freedom and property rights. God forbid you want a gun, or a car, or a hamburger. Does it want equal economic opportunity for all? No. It doesn't even want equality of result. It just wants to take everything you have away from you so that it can have it instead. . . actually, I’m not even sure most leftists want what you have. I get the feeling, they just don’t want you having it.

Thus, a philosophy that once stood for moral and economic equality (wrong though their views were) has devolved into a hateful club of subhumans who only want to hurt others. I honestly see nothing else that they believe in.

And if you think I’m wrong, then by all means, I challenge you to tell me what exactly the left wants? And don’t give me any generic crap about “fairness” and “equality,” those are words out of the leftist past that no longer have any modern meaning. Tell me exactly what the leftist utopia would look like. . . because from what I’m seeing, it looks an awful lot like a gulag.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...