Guest Review: Back to the Future Part III (1990)

by ScottDS

As I mentioned in my last review, I watched the Back to the Future films in reverse order, so Part III was my first glimpse inside the universe created by filmmakers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale. I don’t remember how I stumbled across it one Saturday night in the early 90s but something about it kept my interest and two hours later, I was a fan!

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

You Didn't Build That Bridge

During his “you didn't build that” speech, Barack Obama said the following: “During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today. And that's the true lesson of the past.”

I'll leave Hoover Dam for others, but let's take a look at the Golden Gate Bridge. So how much did the federal government invest in the Golden Gate Bridge? Zero. Zilch. Nada. It was strictly a local project, with cooperation from the state government and opposition from the federal government. Financing the project was almost as difficult as building the bridge itself. Preliminary plans to construct a bridge from San Francisco began in 1915. It was strongly opposed by the Southern Pacific Railroad which had a near-monopoly on the ferries that crisscrossed San Francisco Bay. But local residents wanted their bridge, and when Southern Pacific filed suit to stop the project, the locals boycotted the ferries.

The federal government, via the War Department, opposed the project as well. They contended that the major ports of San Francisco and Oakland would be put in jeopardy if a ship crashed into one of the towers and blocked the harbor entrance. The Secretary of War never visited the site so he was unaware that three or four ships could crash into the pillars and still not block the harbor. He was also basing his objections on a plan which had already been abandoned (a double cantilever design which was much closer to the water than the final soaring cable design).

So how did the financing work? The citizens of San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma and Del Norte counties (with special districts in Napa and Sonoma counties) voted to issue bonds to pay for the bridge. The timing couldn't have been worse. The bonds were authorized in 1929 and issued between 1929 and 1932. Almost none were purchased as a result of the stock market crash. So, did the federal government rush in to bail out the project? Nope. A certain A. P. Giannini, who had almost single-handedly rebuilt San Francisco after the Great Earthquake and Fire, used his resources to purchase all the bonds. His major resource was the Bank of America, which he had founded originally as the local San Francisco Bank of Italy. He changed the name of the bank after the Quake to give it more universal appeal. In those days, Bank of America was a bailor rather than a bailee.

The bondholders (BofA later sold many of the bonds to private investors) were paid in full with appropriate interest by the Bridge Authority from automobile tolls, though it did take thirty-four years. The return on investment was quite healthy. Although the state of California had little involvement, the creation of a special bridge district required state approval, which was granted in 1923. The locals had taken a big risk (on the theory that only great risk can produce great projects—a very American concept). They did not want outsiders interfering, and they knew that they would get no financial assistance from the state or federal government. The result was one of the most beautiful and breath-taking structures in the entire world.

How different this project was from federal projects. The locals maintained and maintain local control. The project was ultimately paid for solely by those who actually use the bridge, in the form of bridge tolls. When asked by A. P. Giannini how long the bridge would last, chief architect Joseph Strauss replied: “Forever.” To this day (after the bridge was fully paid-off in 1971), the local project is self-financed. In fact, it is so successful that it also helps to fund mass transit for those who will be using the bridge on public transportation, and even helps to finance the adjunct ferries.

While the federal-state project which became the San Francisco-Oakland Transbay Bridge (the Bay Bridge) suffered major damage in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the Golden Gate barely noticed. The Bay Bridge authority is in constant financial trouble, and the entire stretch from Yerba Buena Island to Oakland is in the process of being completely replaced. In the 60s, that same stretch had gotten a needed facelift which included the approach to Yerba Buena Island which locals affectionately called “the hump.” Naturally, there was a big scandal afterwards which showed that the very expensive hump was unnecessary.

The original traffic plans had to be modified. Originally the Bay Bridge had two levels of two-way traffic, cars on top, trucks, buses and heavy vehicles on the bottom. It didn't work, so now all westbound traffic travels on the one-way upper level and all eastbound traffic travels on the lower deck. So now the Bay Bridge is very much comparable to Hoover Dam historically. The Golden Gate Bridge bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Hoover Dam project, except possibly for the success of each.

Obama, who has repeated the Golden Gate Bridge falsehood many times since he first mentioned it in his State of the Union address, has proven that he is as incompetent as an historian as he is as a president.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Replace Biden? Are You Kidding?

Seeing as how it’s Thursday afternoon and I’m feeling lazy, let’s do a short topic today. . . about the man who rides the short bus to the White House. Should Obama replace Joe O’Biden? Can Obama replace slow Joe? Who would replace Biden?

● Should Obama Replace Joe: Absolutely. Biden is a massive liability on all fronts. The man is a joke. He’s gaffe prone and his gaffes are offensive. Even when he’s speaking intentionally, as he was when he twice suggested that the Republicans want to institute slavery this week, no one takes him seriously because they assume he went off script. He adds no gravitas to the ticket. He bring no worthwhile policy experience. He’s no match for Paul Ryan. And frankly, he does very poorly against the latest Republican line: “could you imagine this man as President?” Indeed, Rudy Giuliani said yesterday that he even doubts Biden has the intellectual capacity to be President. . . and it’s not like the rest of us weren’t thinking it. Said Giuliani:

“I’ve never seen a vice president that has made as many mistakes, said as many stupid things. I mean, there’s a real fear if, God forbid, he ever had to be entrusted with the presidency, whether he really has the mental capacity to handle it.”

Personally, if I were Obama, I’d drop Joe in a heartbeat! Obama has until September 6th to push the reject button.

● Who Would Replace Joe: This is where things get tricky. Sarah Palin yesterday suggested that Obama replace Biden with Hillary; John McCain echoed this last night. That would certainly make their base happy and it might even win back a couple moderates, but I doubt it would change the dynamic ultimately. And that’s the real problem for Obama. Who could he name that would change the dynamic? Hillary... maybe, but no one else.

And if the dynamic can’t be changed, then no one in their right political mind will want to be the wingman on a losing ticket! That’s a ticket to political oblivious and no one with a future will want to risk that. That leaves only people who are past their primes, ready to retire or truly questionable choices like Jon Huntsman, who may want to prove he’s not an evil Republican.

My money is on nothing changing.

But if I had to guess, I would say that Hillary would help the most. Andrew Cuomo would be the boldest choice. And nobody else would really matter.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Who Is Offing Granny?

We've all been treated multiple times to the ad showing a Paul Ryan lookalike pushing granny's wheelchair off a cliff. It's a riff on a half-truth deriving from Rep. Ryan's contention that the program is bankrupt, will soon serve nobody, and that we must therefore “end Medicare as we know it.” An extremely sensible statement, backed by cold, hard facts. But that doesn't stop the truth-tellers of the liberal establishment from distorting and outright lying about what Ryan says and believes.

Delete that part about “as we know it.” Have your ad say “Paul Ryan wants to end Medicare.” Ignore the fact that the only thing throwing Granny off the cliff is Obamacare. Republicans want to cut Medicare, say the liberals. Not for anybody already receiving the benefits, nor for anyone age 55 or older. And even at that, the Ryan plan doesn't bump the younger people out of Medicare. He simply makes it an option—stay in, or choose a private plan (or possibly even some combination of each).

Ryan's plan is just that—a plan. He hasn't cut anybody or anything yet. The House passed his measure, only to see it die without debate in the Democrat/Reid Senate. Pandering to people's worst instincts and greatest fears, the Democrats repeat the lie with ever-increasing bullheadedness, making sure that the issue never gets a debate based on the facts rather than the hysteria.

I believe that the Romney/Ryan ticket should quickly go on the attack on the lies and distortions, both explaining their plan and showing unequivocally that Republicans haven't cut a single dime from the current Medicare program. But someone has. And the someone is Barack Obama. Figures vary, but common agreement places the money stolen by the Democratic administration from the Medicare program at somewhere between $700 billion and $750 billion. (Obamacare ambulance pictured)

That's right now, not in some distant and theoretical future. There's a double lie involved. The first lie is that it is the Republicans who are gutting Medicare. The second companion lie is the cost of Obamacare, which has been cleverly reduced by the money stolen from the Medicare funding. Nevertheless, even with the stolen money, Obamacare is already estimated to cost three times as much as originally projected.

The Democrats continue to double-down on the lie. The loathsome Debbie Wasserman-Schultz just parrots the lies of the ad. Then, in an unintentional admission, says the $700 billion + cuts were to providers, not to Medicare recipients. It's a distinction completely lacking in a difference. At best, she is admitting that fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals will accept Medicare as [under]payment. But if the net result is fewer current Medicare patients receiving care, a cut is a cut is a cut. They count on Granny not caring who is throwing her off the cliff, only that somebody is, and that somebody must be the Republicans, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan.

The Republican refutation of the lies must contain two elements. Obviously, they need to debunk the lie about the Ryan proposal ending Medicare. But at the same time, they must make it abundantly clear that Obamacare is the main culprit and that it is only the Democrats who have stolen $700 billion from Medicare to help fund Obamacare. The Republican plan, in its final form, will preserve the current plan and benefits essentially unchanged for those over the age of 55. Nothing will be taken away from them. And if Ryan can somehow get it into those necessarily short sound bites, he can explain that the elimination of Obamacare would free Republicans up to put Medicare on a sound financial footing while at least keeping current benefits even with cost-of-living increases.

It is important to remember that Paul Ryan's plan is a policy wonk's dream and the average person's nightmare. Not because it's wrong, but because it is necessarily complicated. So far, anything said by Ryan has been aimed at his fellow legislators. That's very good, but it won't work when trying to explain it to the general public. Youthful, affable, knowledgeable and articulate Ryan is a very savvy young man. I have no doubt that he recognizes the problem, and will address it properly and forcefully in the near future. He has already proven that a conservative who knows how to talk to his constituencies can win as a conservative Republican in a liberal Democratic district. He'll bring that ability to the national stage shortly.

Why hasn't this been done yet? It's a simple matter of coordination. The “Ryan Plan,” however much it may need tweaking (or not) is the Ryan plan. But he is only the brand-new vice presidential candidate. Before the plan can be rolled out, it must (in some form) become the Romney Plan. As important as he is (and will be) to America's economic recovery, Ryan knows he is part of a team, a Republican ticket, and he is not the top of the ticket. Once Romney and Ryan have had time to get their heads together and agree on a common attack, I have no doubt that huge numbers of moderates and Independents will quickly be relieved of their fears.

Granny will survive if the Romney-Ryan ticket wins and Republicans re-take the Senate. If Obama is reelected, we'll see a different figure pushing the wheelchair over the cliff. Don't expect the public to change its mind overnight, but more importantly, be prepared for Ryan (and Romney) to formulate an attack that will entirely change the discussion. For the moment, the Republicans are on the defensive. Expect a strong offensive to begin right around the time of the convention.

Money Quote: "I will veto any attempts to undo my Medicare cuts." (Barack Obama, 2009)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guest Review: Back to the Future Part II (1989)

By ScottDS
Ah, there’s nothing like the Back to the Future trilogy. These films are staples of my childhood and I still watch them every couple of months. Funnily enough, I originally saw them in reverse order but by the time I got to the first film, everything made sense. While the original 1985 film is rightfully considered a modern masterpiece – the perfect alchemy of characterization, smart writing, and summer spectacle – the sequels continue to get a mixed reaction. Some folks love the second film and hate the third and vice versa. Me? I love ’em both... but I give a slight edge to Part II.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Americans: No More Business As Usual

There’s been an interesting shift in the political scene in this country. Some would argue that it’s a shift toward populism, but I’m not so sure. I think this is more likely a shift away from the abusive system of the past where taxpayers get turned into piggybanks for the well-connected. Let’s discuss.

The difference between populism and where the public seems to be headed is actually quite dramatic. Populism tends to focus on destroying the current system of privilege, taking from the rich, and implementing policies aimed at remaking society in the name of the public. Because of the extreme nature of populism, it is often borderline violent and it tends to flirt with either anarchy or socialism. I don’t see any of that in the current political environment.

To the contrary, groups like the Tea Party want neither anarchy nor socialism. They don’t envy those who have, nor do they seek to crush the rich. What they want instead is to reshape the government to stop it from being able to do the bidding of the connected. Specifically, they want the government to stop guaranteeing the risks of big business, and they want the government to stop issuing two sets of laws, one which helps the connected and one which simultaneously hinders the unconnected.

This seems to be confirmed by a new poll conducted by Rasmussen. Indeed, this poll showed broad bipartisan opposition to cronyism and strong support for free market policies. Consider these results:

● Only 27% think it is “ever ok for the government to make investments in private companies.”
● 71% believe the private sector is “better than government officials at determining the long-term benefits and potential of new technologies.” Only 11% think the reverse.
● 64% think government money will be wasted if the government backs projects the private sector won’t.
● 66% believe crony connections drive most government contracts.
● Then there’s this: “By a 3-1 margin, voters believe elected politicians routinely provide help to favored companies.”
● And this: “Seven out of ten Americans believe government and big business work together against the rest of us.”

It’s the last couple that tell you what is going on. People saw trillions of dollars poured into the big banks to save them after they made horribly stupid bets on things that the banks themselves created after getting the Clinton Administration to change the law to allow them to take these kinds of risk. They saw how the entire financial system almost collapsed because 3-4 big banks fell apart and they saw how these same banks have returned to record profitability (and record size) while the rest of us get to pick up the tab. They saw how billions were funneled directly to unions through the stimulus bill. They saw how billions more were given to Obama donors under the guise of running “clean energy companies,” which went bankrupt within months of getting the billions. They saw GE lobbying to get nonsensical environmental laws passed and then turned right around and get waivers from those same laws. They saw how hundreds of billions in government contracts have been awarded on no-bid, sole-source contracts to companies that handed over tens of millions in lobbying money. They saw how loopholes were put into the tax code which protected only a handful of companies, or in the case of Charlie Rangel’s friends only one company. They saw bribes and sweetheart deals given for regulatory consideration. . . Chris Dodd and Countywide anyone? They saw average bondholders crushed in GM while the unions made out like thieves. They saw nonunion pension rights terminated. They saw a shakedown of Boeing. They saw attempts to tax and control the internet to protect contributors. And they saw no difference between Bush or Obama on any of this.

It is frankly surprising that people haven’t been more populist in their opinions. Outside of the leftist desire to steal from the rich and their rhetoric about getting even with the banks, the public has been remarkably calm. . . determined to change the game, but calm. And I think it is a real testament to the American public that their response to this pillaging and abuse has not been vindictive, but has been instead to demand the system be fixed so everyone can move on.

I think the Republicans better pay attention to this. I think Romney and Ryan will be great for this country, but they need to realize that the times have changed and the public now pays attention to who is sliding through the backdoor with their hand out. Business as usual must end.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Paul Ryan Effect

We’ve now have a couple days to think about Paul Ryan and to see the reactions all around. This is a phenomenal pick. So let’s talk about the polls and how this changes the electoral map. Also, I’m quoting a piece from the Onion that is well worth reading.

● Enthusiasm: More evidence of an enthusiasm gap. Gallup now reports the Republicans are showing a +13% enthusiasm gap. They caution that it’s too early to tell anything until after the conventions, but this is enough to suggest problems for Obama. His 2008 victory resulted from a +7% enthusiasm difference in favor of Democrats and lots of independents voting for Obama – close to 60%. That +7% has now morphed into a -13% and that’s been fairly constant since 2009. I don’t see how the convention will change that.

As for independents, Zogby just put out a poll that should scare Obama greatly. According to Zogby, Romney was losing and Obama had momentum until Ryan was chosen. Now they are tied at 46% each with 8% undecided. But more importantly, Romney/Ryan leads Obama/Biden by 45% to 40% among independents. Politico has Romney leading among independents by 10%, 47% to 37%. These numbers are death for Obama, who needs about 60% of independents to offset the lack of Democratic enthusiasm. Also interesting from the Zogby poll, Ryan helped boost Romney among 18-29 year olds.

There’s also another interesting issue which has arisen in the past couple days: crowd size. Everywhere Ryan and Romney have gone, they’ve been swamped by crowds. They’ve been speaking to 10,000-15,000 people typically and turning away others. Obama has been talking to crowds in the 1,000 range. Biden just spoke to 600. This is becoming such bad PR that Obama is actually trying to claim he intended this, though half-empty auditoriums tell a different story.

● Where He Helps: So where does Ryan help or hurt Romney? Here are some ideas:

● Conservatives: Ryan has solidified Romney’s right flank in a matter of minutes. Romney no longer needs to worry that evangelicals will stay home or that Tea Party people will view him with suspicion.

● Catholics: Ryan brings a fairly strong Catholicism to the ticket which supposedly will play well with Catholics. In effect, he should appeal to some of the same Catholics who liked Santorum.

● Wisconsin: It’s not clear how much Ryan helps in Wisconsin, except that (1) the local boy almost always gets a couple points added to his score, and (2) Ryan will ignite the activists who turned out to help Scott Walker. If this happens, then the electoral map will shake up a great deal. Wisconsin is only worth 10 votes, not the 18 of Ohio, but if Romney wins Wisconsin, then he could win by also getting New Hampshire and Iowa while losing Ohio. This could be huge.

● Pennsylvania: Ryan’s support among Catholics could be key to winning Pennsylvania, which is awash in Catholics and Tea Party types. And if Romney wins Pennsylvania (still difficult, but doable) then Romney wins in a landslide.

● Florida: Supposedly, Ryan hurts Romney in Florida because of his Medicare plan. But polls show Ryan being popular with old folks. That would seem to put the lie to the idea that Ryan will be a drag in Florida. Where Ryan does help in Florida is the evangelical North and panhandle, and that could well be the difference because turn out will be key in this election.

● Virginia: Believe it or not, a lot of people think Ryan will help Romney win Virginia because he brings a charisma that suburban moderates like, and Northern Virginia is very suburban moderate. I can’t disagree. The thing I heard most about Palin (before she imploded) was that she was the kind of woman any mother would want her son to marry. Well, Ryan strikes me as the kind of man any mother would want her daughter to marry. So if mommy politics counts, then this will help.

● In His Own Words. . . Sort of: Finally, I leave you with this. It’s long, but it’s worth the read. This comes from the Onion and is presented as an editorial written by Ryan himself. I present this because it’s funny, and also because it fairly accurate about Ryan’s charisma advantage:

Admit It, I Scare The Ever-Loving Sh*t Out Of You, Don't I?

When Mitt Romney selected me as his running mate, I knew the Democratic attack dogs would come out in full force. They would say I’m a right-wing ideologue. They would say my views on entitlement programs are far too radical. They would say putting me on the ticket immediately kills Mitt Romney’s chances of becoming president because I’m a liability. But if we’re being honest with each other—if we’re able to put aside the talking points for a few minutes and say what we’re all actually thinking and feeling—I believe we can acknowledge the real truth here.

I’m young, I’m handsome, I’m smart, and I’m articulate. And that scares the ever-loving sh*t out of you. You can pretend like you have this thing in the bag, but you know good goddamn well that this race just got real interesting, real fast.

It’s okay to admit it. You’re frightened to death of me. It might actually be healthy for you to face your fears now rather than later, when Mitt and I are leading by a few points in the polls and it looks like this thing might end badly for you. Face it: I’m not some catastrophe waiting to happen, like a Sarah Palin or a Dan Quayle. On the contrary, you have the exact opposite fear. I’m a solid, competent, some might say exceptional, politician.

Did you get nervous when you read that last sentence? Is it because you know in your heart of hearts that it’s 100 percent true? Is it because, even if you strongly disagree with my beliefs on Medicare, Social Security, women’s rights, and marriage equality, you know my talent as a speaker and my well-thought-out approach to these issues—no matter how radical and convoluted you find them—might just be enough to win over independent voters?

Do you get chills just thinking about how strong my appeal actually is?

I have another question for you: How scared are you that I can convince people I’m right? Because I’m good at it. No, I’m really good at it. You see, I know how to turn up the charm and charisma without putting people off. Then I back up what I’m saying with arguments that, when they come out of my mouth, sound completely accurate and well-reasoned. And I do it with such passion that people automatically recognize me as a man with deep convictions he will stand up for, no matter what.

The American people love that sh*t. They love it.

Passion, intellect, and a magnetic personality. Pretty damn intimidating combo, if I say so myself. You want to talk about polish? Man, I’ve got polish for miles. Oh, and by the way, I’ll go ahead and say this next thing because, if we’re being honest, why the hell not, right? In case you haven’t noticed, I’m white. Hoo, brother, am I white. Yup, you should be scared sh*tless of me, because guess who isn’t?

The people of Wisconsin. They love me. Republicans and Democrats there love me. Hell, I get Democrats to vote for me even if my policies make zero sense when it comes to their livelihoods. Do you know why? Because they like me. They like my story. Young, good-looking kid who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to make something of himself. Christ, I'm a storybook candidate. I balance out this ticket so well it’s almost too perfect. The people of Ohio are going to think that. And seniors in Florida—the state we supposedly lost when Mitt picked me—won’t be so scared as soon they know that my mother lives in Florida, and that all I want to do is reform the health care system so she can receive care that makes good fiscal sense.

Boy, I’m going to sell the sh*t out of that talking point. And I’m going to do a great job of it. Why? Because I’m Paul Ryan. That’s what I do.

And if we’re having trouble getting Pennsylvania on board, just wait until I absolutely wipe the floor with Joe Biden in the vice presidential debates. Don’t think for a second that I don’t know you’re terrified of us facing off, because in the back of your mind you know it could be a bloodbath up there.

Well, that’s 77 electoral votes, and by my math that means you can kiss your golden boy goodbye after four short years. All that promise. All that energy. All that potential. Gone in one November night.

I’m your worst f*cking nightmare.

Oh, and by the way, don’t even try to pretend you haven’t imagined me being elected president one day.

P.S. Don't forget, it is Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

"Neither Snow Nor Rain Nor Heat nor Red Ink

. . . stay these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds." For now, at least. But the future of the United States Postal Service is in serious doubt. Competition from private couriers like FedEx and UPS, along with instantaneous communications on the internet have severely damaged the underlying purposes of what used to be called The Post Office. And they don't even have an official motto as they sink slowly into the west.

What most people think of as the Post Office motto (above) is actually simply what the architects had chiseled on the post office at 8th Avenue and 33rd Streets in New York City. Even its other famous office in New York has had its name hijacked by trains. Grand Central Station is the post office, and the train station is properly called Grand Central Terminal. Yet when tourists ask “which way to Grand Central Station?” they aren't usually looking for a post office.

Despite raising postal rates and sucking up more federal funds, the Post Office is currently losing an average of $42,335,766 per day over the fiscal year. In the third fiscal quarter of 2012 it lost $5.2 billion. For that quarter, the loss is $57,142,857 per day. In one of its brilliant “fiscal restraint” moves, the Congress passed legislation ordering the Postal Service to use $3.1 billion of its income to “prefund” postal employee retiree health benefits.

Not surprisingly, that public employee scheme hasn't worked too well. On August 1, Postmaster General and CEO Patrick Donahoe reported that the USPS was forced to default on a previous prefunding plan for retirees totaling $5.5 billion. $5.3 billion, plus the $3.1 billion coming up in September. And there are zero cash reserves to cover those mandates. And before anybody corrects me, the USPS is styled a private corporation. That was originally done to enhance the possibilities of the Post Office becoming both more competitive and more profitable. It is an “independent establishment” within the executive branch, whatever that means. But with the federal government's rules, interference, and safety-net funding, it is a public entity in all but name.

Donahoe has said that he and his executives are doing everything they know to get the post office back on target. But, “it is still expecting Congress to pass legislation that will ease the pressure.” And what legislation might that be? Says Donahoe: “We remain confident that Congress will do its part to help put the Postal Service on a path to financial stability (emphasis added). We will continue to take actions under our control to improve operational efficiency and generate revenue by offering new products and services to meet our customers' changing needs.”

One clear way to improve service and cut costs is to eliminate duplication of effort and get rid of the outrageous retirement and health benefits which postal employees share with other full-fledged federal employees. Donahoe is also asking the Department of the Treasury to return $11 billion dollars in overpaid “prefunded” retirement benefits to shore up its operations and bring retirement and health benefits in line with the private sector. Good luck with that. He also proposed to cut the six-day delivery schedule to five, saving $2.7 billion per year. Most of us could live with that.

I live in a very rural part of the California high desert. I live too far out to get mail at my door, so my mailbox is in a bank of boxes about two miles from my house. That's a little inconvenient but not awful. But they are small boxes. If a large package won't fit in the regular box or the slightly-larger “big package” lock box, I have to travel thirty-five minutes one-way on winding mountain roads to the Caliente Post Office to pick up the package. Ditto for certified or registered mail. The least they could do is put a gas station next door, but the closest one is another twenty minutes away in Bakersfield.

But somehow, FedEx and UPS can come right to my door with a package of any size. A “letter” sent via those services is a little more expensive than by USPS, but package prices are comparable, and FedEx and UPS have to make a profit or go out of business. Somehow, I don't think the woes of the USPS are any different from those of the private services. But the USPS is used to being treated with kid gloves, enjoying all the protections of private business along with all the advantages of being a federal agency. At times, the whole mess makes me want to go postal.

The post office in the illustration (above) is my “local” Caliente Post Office. It closes at 3 PM Monday through Friday, as well as closing for an hour for lunch during the day. It is closed on Saturdays.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner The Convention

What political party convention would be complete without the Israel-hating, Jew-baiting, malaise-producing, America-denigrating, stagflation-creating, foreign oil-loving, proto-Obama President Jimmy Carter? It is appropriate that Jimmy will be at the Democratic convention since he is Barack Obama's mentor and role model on failed government. Carter will appear at the convention and speak via videotape.

Known as a do-nothing President who drifted with the political winds, Carter is an excellent choice for an appearance at the convention. Incumbent President Barack Hussein Obama learned a great deal from Carter, and is now giving the former president due deference. Both presidents managed to change the proverbial question “who's in charge here?” into the simple statement “nobody's in charge here.”

Obama and Carter share very thin skins. Even a moderate suggestion that the president might be off-target produces bristling and condemnation, although Obama has been more successful at using his Justice Department to silence critics and reward loyal disciples. Many Democrats have joined Republicans in proclaiming Carter near the top of the list of worst presidents. He has the clear title of worst ex-president ever. Obama is trying to steal both of those crowns, but he wants to be sure that people know he owes it all to his role model.

Carter did better on job creation. His record was miserable, but he places tenth or eleventh in that area among the past twelve presidents. Obama holds the title of worst job-producer. Carter showed small gains in job-creation, while Obama has lost far more jobs than were created in his first three and a half years. Carter did everything right to make himself a one-term president, and Obama is working hard to follow his lead.

Carter at least waited until he left office to alienate an important part of the liberal Democratic base. Obama has not been so circumspect. Jewish voters clung to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and Obama by 78% in 2008. After slighting Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while spouting moral equivalencies between the Palestinian thugs and Israel, Obama's support is now down to around 64% or 65%.

In the past few weeks, the Obama administration realized it was bleeding votes from its very important Jewish constituency. Obama began what has been called a charm offensive to win them back. He actually spoke respectfully with Netanyahu, and promised more aid to Israel in light of the current situation in Iran. It was having a small effect right up to the announcement that Carter would be speaking at the Democratic convention.

National Jewish Democratic Council President David Harris had this to say about the Carter invitation: “When it comes to Israel and the Middle East, President Carter has unfortunately embarrassed himself—as his analysis has been stubbornly wrong, harmful to the peace process, and getting worse all the time.” What goodwill Obama was gaining was lost almost overnight. Before Obama became the official head of his party, smarter and cooler heads determined that Carter should not be invited to the 2008 convention to speak or as an honored guest. Nothing has changed much since then, except that an anti-Israel speaker seems to appeal to The One.

Obama has also followed Carter's lead in refusing to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's proper capital. Pandering to the so-called Palestinians is a Carter-Obama shared value. Though he has not outright endorsed it, Obama clearly favors Carter's view that Israel should seek peace by withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders. There are those who suggest that if anything, Obama is even more anti-Israel and more pro-Arab than Carter. And at least Carter never declared America to be “one of the world's largest Muslim nations.”

All things considered, it seems to me that Obama is not intentionally challenging his Jewish base. It seems more like another example of his complete tone-deafness. If he wanted to honor an ex-president from his own party, having Carter sit in the gallery would have been more than sufficient. But in a speaker's list which includes Sandra Fluke (the Georgetown Law student who can't afford $7 a month for birth control), and Elizabeth Warren (non-Native American Native-American), I suppose nothing should surprise me. But then, I'm not Jewish.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Paul Ryan Pick

Let’s talk about the Paul Ryan pick. I would have preferred Rubio because I think the GOP needs to romance Hispanics, but putting that aside, the Ryan Pick is excellent. And indeed, we’re seeing that already both in the glee on the conservative side and the fear on the Democratic side.

● Why This Pick Was Great: The Ryan pick was great on many levels. For one thing, Ryan is one of the few politicians people trust. He’s unassuming and he’s wonkish, so he doesn’t appear prone to exaggeration or lying. He’s also willing to tell people the truth rather than trying to give people a false sense of happiness, which allows him to get things done. And he’s not someone who scares people. That will make it difficult for Obama to use Ryan to agitate his own base or upset independents.

Ryan also excites the base of the party. He is seen as the “intellectual leader” of the party these days, especially by fiscal conservatives, because of his efforts at fixing the budget and entitlement reform. His ideas have become those of the party. He’s also very much liked by the Religious Right, who remain queasy about Romney because of his religion -- and this is despite Ryan’s support for extending employment protections to gays. Ryan also is very much liked by the establishment wing who see him as a steady hand.

In effect, Ryan unites the various wings of the party and brings tremendous energy to the base. He guarantees GOP and Tea Party turn out, without scaring the moderates and without increasing Democratic turn out. Moreover, he will prove invaluable in reforming and reshaping the government toward a more conservative, more sane and more sustainable structure once Romney/Ryan are elected. That makes him a great pick.

● The Democratic Response: Naturally, the Democratic response has been shameless. It has also been instructive for how disorganized and how ineffective it has been. Basically, they are attacking Ryan along all the standard hypocritical and propaganda grounds whether they fit or not:

● “Journalist” Andrea Mitchell said Ryan was “not a pick for suburban moms, not a pick for women.” This is the standard “war on women” meme which assumes that women only care about birth control and which ridiculously contends that Republicans want to drive women from the workforce. Only idiots believe this.

● Some Democrats and The New Yorker said Ryan was a bad pick because he lacks private sector experience! Seriously! Think about that. Obama and Biden together spent 0.0 minutes of their lives in the private sector yet somehow this is only a problem for Ryan, who did work in the private sector. Not to mention that the left has been telling us that Romney’s private sector experience makes him unacceptable for the job.

● Many Democrats, and again The New Yorker, are calling him “risky” and “totally a Palin-redo” because he lacks experience. Yeah, right. Palin was a first time governor of a small state that is entirely dependent on federal money. She had about a year of political experience and none of it at the national level. Ryan has been in Congress since 1999, he’s risen to become budget committee chairman, and he’s gone toe-to-toe with Obama on ObamaCare and took him down handily. Ryan is media savvy, policy wise, and a seasoned and skilled political operator. Palin was none of those things. This is the standard Democratic “he’s stupid” attack they always use and it won’t work here because Ryan’s intelligence is obvious. And let’s not forget that these are the same people who thought Obama was qualified because he knew how to read from a teleprompter and cast a handful of votes in the Senate. The “lack of experience” charge is wishful thinking on the left.

The New Yorker also laughably thinks Biden will rip Ryan apart in their debate because of his votes for the Iraq War, TARP and Medicare Part D. Of course, they conveniently forget that Biden voted for all of those things too -- and more. Plus, Obama/Biden can add bailouts, stimulus packages, ObamaCare and financial regulation to that their list of failures, not to mention 9% unemployment and trillions in debt.

● They’re working hard to demonize Ryan on his Medicare reform proposal as well, which is rich coming from a party that plans to cut $500 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. CNN’s Candy Crowley was the first to use the old tactic of pretending that anonymous Republicans are nervous about this, stating that she has spoken with “Republicans” who claim this pick “looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.” Yeah, right, find me an actually Republican who said that you hack.

Running with this, the AP is turning out articles how this pick will likely cost Romney Florida. Once-relevant liberal Michael Kinsley refers to Ryan’s proposals as “Ryan’s slasher novels” and the blogosphere is full of leftists whining about Ryan trying to kill old people and poor people. Too bad for them, nobody will listen.

● Following Crowley’s lead, Politico tells us that unnamed Republican strategists have “misgivings” about the pick because Ryan is little more than a “random Heritage Foundation analyst,” and someone “close to the campaign” supposedly “grumbled” that Ryan would now be dictating policy for the campaign. This is standard leftist prattle as well. When they can’t find a reason to attack a conservative, they invent unnamed sources supposedly on the conservative side who are despondent or outraged or just generally upset by the candidate or policy. It’s bull.

● Dumbass Debbie Wasserman Schultz is trying to link Ryan to the “failed policies of the past” and for wanting “tax breaks for the rich.” Neither line will work with Ryan as he was never the face of the Bush years and because their class warfare attacks haven’t worked yet even against Romney. As an aside, Politico also points out that Ryan is rich. . . something they never seem to mention about all those rich Democrats.

● Politico also worried that the Ryan pick was a desperation pick for Romney, which will force him to change his entire campaign strategy in ways which Politico doesn’t actually explain. They also had a couple articles on how Romney “lost control” of the picking process and was thus forced to pick Ryan because the public forced Ryan on Romney -- which contradicts the polls which show Rubio was the more popular choice and which flies in the face of the argument that Ryan is unpopular.

Conclusion

All in all, Ryan is an excellent pick. He’s a solid fiscal conservative with solid social conservative credential, though he doesn’t display the hate of someone like Rick Santorum. He’s got the backing of every Republican who has spoken. His budgetary brilliance is unmatched. He’s not Tea Party, but his views align with them very closely and he should excite them. And as you can see from the above, the Democrats can’t find anything to attack him with except his entitlement reform proposals, and I don’t see those as a problem. For one thing, they make Ryan the one guy in Washington who isn’t afraid to try to save the current system. For another, the party which plans to rob Medicare of $500 billion is hardly in a position to criticize, and Ryan is smart enough to point that out.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Is California Following Wisconsin's Lead?

I'm not talking about becoming fiscally responsible, or possibly going from blue to purple to red. California is permanently blue and its economic scorecard will be printed in red ink for decades to come. But there is one small ray of hope for some fiscal sanity. The legislature has refused to do what is necessary to get public employee debt under control, so the people may end up doing something about it via a state initiative.

The move doesn't match Wisconsin's, but it's a start.

The ship has hit the sand in the formerly Golden State. Employee pensions and benefits for public union employees have already bankrupted three of its cities—Vallejo, Stockton, and San Bernardino. Others are quickly approaching the brink. The whole state can't be far behind. Two major cities have addressed the problem with local ballot measures. San Diego, California's second largest city, passed a measure curbing future increases in the huge city-paid public employee pensions and drastically reducing those benefits for new employees. That is not a huge surprise, since San Diego is California's cleanest and most efficient big city, and leans moderate/Republican.

San Jose, California's third largest city, is a bit more of a surprise. San Jose recently passed a similar ballot measure, and it passed by a whopping 70%. San Jose leans heavily Democratic. Even more surprising is the fact that the Democratic mayor of San Jose, Chuck Reed, led the charge for pension reform and limits on public employee union direct involvement in political matters. It goes without saying that the representatives of the public employees unions immediately filed suit to stay implementation of the reforms. San Jose has temporarily avoided bankruptcy largely because of the huge taxes paid by its industries, including the computer industry and major dot.com companies like Google. But oppressive state taxes are driving major players out of Silicon Valley and into more business-friendly states.

The state initiative measure is less drastic, but moves the debate to the entire population and accomplishes a couple of major goals. It would specifically prohibit unions and corporations from contributing directly to candidates. It wouldn't have any effect on PACs. But as a companion to that, the measure includes the previously-failed “paycheck protection” provisions. Unions collect dues from their members whether they like it or not. And whether the members like it or not, a huge percentage of those dues go not to employee protection, but rather to left wing, Democratic political causes.

Currently, the weak and confusing decision in Beck v Communications Workers has had little effect on the unions' ability to use dues for political causes. If a member does not want to be an active union employee, he or she must file a “Beck statement,” which limits the dues collected to narrowly-defined activities. His or her dues must then be reduced by the percentage the union spends on political causes.

The unions routinely lie, and reduce the dues by 2% to 5%, depending on the weather. But the National Right to Work Foundation has filed multiple suits proving that the political spending is (depending on the union) somewhere between 18% and a stratospheric 48%. The NRTW Foundation has not lost a single case, but because of the arcane rules, it can only file for complaining individuals rather than entire groups. So the unions take a temporary loss, and move on to bigger and better extortion.

Wisely, the organizers of the measure included corporations in their restrictions. It is consistent with the Citizens United case. But it also corrects the problem that caused the paycheck protection plan to fail previously. This measure includes both unions and corporations, where the previous failed measure addressed unions only. Under this measure, no organization can use forced deductions to pay for candidate campaigns. Not from stockholders, employees or union members.

In the past year, public-sector unions and trade unions contributed $2.7 million to political candidates (96% Democratic) in California, while large corporations gave $4.3 million, almost evenly distributed. Under this measure, neither could make any direct contributions to candidate campaigns. The supporters of the measure have very smartly pointed that out, and emphasized instead that “special interests” should be curtailed. But the real distinction is that unlike unions, businesses cannot forcibly take money from their employees to support candidates that many of the employees oppose. This measure would fix that problem for union members and have no effect whatsoever on non-union employees.

In short, the measure prohibits the unions from forcing deductions from the member's paycheck for political candidates, and it equally prohibits the corporations from deducting that money from their union employees' paychecks. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. In the case of public employees particularly, this is a big hit. Not a Wisconsin-style hit, but a hit nonetheless. Paycheck deduction is automatic for public employees (unless they want to fight a Beck case). In the private sector, paycheck deduction is allowed, but not required. Most union employees just go along with it because it relieves them from having to write a check once a month and getting fined and disciplined by the union if they forget to write that check.

The measure levels the playing field a bit, but until Californians are ready to seriously restrict public employee contracts and collective bargaining a la Wisconsin, this is just a band-aid on a cancer. And until the state does so, it is headed the way of Vallejo, Stockton, and San Bernardino. Democratic politicians should pay heed to the efforts of the San Jose mayor and city council.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 49

Uh. . . what?

What film struck you as most confusing?



Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Something You May Have Missed...

With the Olympics, the missing tax returns, and BrAngelina's pending nuptials, did anyone notice that NASA has made us proud once again? On Monday morning at around 1:30am ET (or MSD 49269 15:00:01 LMST Mars time), a room full of scientists and engineers at the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab in California were screaming like rabid Elvis fans after they successfully landed their newest Mars Exploration Rover named Curiosity on the surface of Mars. Freakin' Mars!! Curiosity, a rolling laboratory the size of a Chevy Volt (and infinitely more reliable), joins its sisters Spirit and Opportunity on Mars since January 2004, in our ongoing exploration of our solar system and beyond. The mission of the now six-year-old Curiosity project, is to "determine the landing site's habitability including the role of water, the study of the climate and the geology of Mars. It is also useful preparation for a future manned mission to Mars." - NASA Wikipedia page.

Now, for those youngsters among us who find space exploration as commonplace as a 1000+ cable channels or Iphone apps, this may be just another ho-hum NASA project among many. But for those of us who were around before cable television and wireless phone service (I know, can you imagine? How did we survive?), it still can take our breath away. Well, at least, it can take my breath away. Imagine the math and engineering skills it takes to calculate the trajectory and future landing site of an object the size, well, of ANY size, and managing to land that object within ten feet of its calculated landing site nine months later. Shouldn't we be just be a bit more excited about this?

You know something like this -

Or at least this -


I am not a scientist and my math skills are good enough to balance a check book that's in the same room, so I cannot fathom the science of all of this, but I know enough that we should be celebrating what NASA continues to achieved. So, everybody please take a moment and repeat after me...

YEA NASA!!!! YEA JET PROPULSION LAB TEAM!!! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!

It is good to know that our scientists are still working hard to find what is out there, and it is even better to know that President Obama did not take personal credit for any of it...so far.

Just in case you are interested in learning more, here is the link to the NASA Mars Exploration website.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Pitch Black (2000)

Despite being advertised as a horror movie, Pitch Black is high quality science fiction. It’s also one of my favorite science fiction films. What makes it high quality is both the scope of the world described in this film and the fact it’s a character drama rather than an action flick.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Pelosi Communes With The Spirits

Lately, big time Democratic women power players seem to do more channeling of the spirits than Shirley MacLaine. Not that long ago we were treated to Hillary Clinton conversing with the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt. Not to be outdone, Nancy Pelosi is seeing (and feeling) spirits all over the place. If you have been wondering why she makes all those herky-jerky movements she does when trying to explain her disjointed thoughts, now you know why.

Now this is no imaginary interpretation of a brief unexplained “feeling.” We've all had those. Nancy with the Wild Eyes went into great detail describing her communion with the spirits. She first felt the presence of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul at the White House. She says that “my chair was getting crowded in and I couldn't figure out what it was, it was like this (demonstrates).” Most people would attribute that to a girdle failure, but not Nancy.

Not satisfied with the early roll call, Pelosi added Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul and Sojourner Truth to the ever-filling chair on which she sat. Though the videotape only recently emerged, the revelations occurred at a meeting of the Women's Political Committee this past May. The communion occurred during Pelosi's first visit to the White House during the Bush administration when she had just become the House Speaker.

Her descriptions of the event (including the above-mentioned herky-jerky hand waving) continued. “I swear this happened, never happened before, it never happened since. Then I realized they were all in that chair, they were—more than I named.” The vision included Bush appearing (also as a spirit, but not in the chair—it was getting too crowded) “saying something to the effect of we're so glad to welcome you here, congratulations and I know you'll probably have some different things to say about what is going on—which is correct.” At that point, apparently Bush took a powder and slowly faded away.

She then heard the spirits saying “at last we have a seat at the table.” And according to Pelosi, “then they were gone.” She has apparently told this tale before, but this time it was videotaped. I knew that botox could be a deadly pathogen, but this is the first time I've heard of it being a major hallucinogenic. There's more to the treatment than just a permanent fixed smile and permanently-surprised eyebrows.

Now I want all of you to put on your imagination hats. Imagine that a story like this were being told by Ann Romney, Condoleeza Rice, or any other prominent Republican woman. The mainstream would be full of stories about how they need straight-jackets. Bill Maher would be doing b-word and c-word jokes about the crazed women of the right. Jon Stewart would be smirking until his face hurt. MSNBC might even bring back Keith Olbermann for the big event. Chris Matthews would be feeling a thrill going up his leg exceeded only by the one he felt when he discovered that Obama was the messiah.

But the mainstream media will continue to celebrate Nancy Pelosi's vision while burying her visions. Remember how they eviscerated Nancy Reagan (the good Nancy) for merely consulting an astrologer. Instead of a place in the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi should be a distinguished professor at the Laughing Academy with her own expensively-decorated rubber room.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Honesty Is Good For Your Health

I'll bet you thought this was another article about Dirty Liar Harry Reid. But you would be wrong. I needed some sunshine in my life, and just in time USA Today (Newsweek's prettier more successful cousin) came along with an article about how telling the truth is a life-extender.

Now you know why Republicans in Congress seem to outlive and out-think Democrats (certain notable exceptions to the contrary notwithstanding). But that wasn't in the study. Anita Kelly, a psychology professor at the University of Notre Dame did a ten week study on 110 individuals. They were ages eighteen to seventy-one. Each took a polygraph test which measured the number of major and minor lies they told that week. The lies were then correlated with health and relationship standards.

Says Dr. Kelly: "When they went up in their lies, their health went down. When their lies went down, their health improved." Half the study group was given specific instructions telling them that they could leave truths out, refuse to answer a question, and keep secrets. But they were also told they could not lie. The other half were simply given the questions without instructions.

Those in the "no lies" group did some lying anyway, but as they progressed, they told fewer. And there was a correlation between decreased fibs and increased health. When these participants told three fewer minor lies in one week than they did the week before, they experienced four fewer mental complaints and three fewer physical complaints (not heart attacks or anything like that, just feeling tense or blue or experiencing sore throats or headaches).

For the "say anything" participants, there was a direct correlation between the lies and the illnesses, and no improvement or decline in health over the course of the study. On the other hand, the "no lies" group made some of those mental calculations themselves, lied less and less, and felt better and better. Professor Linda Stroh at Loyola of Chicago said that she had gotten very similar results in a study on trust and trustworthiness, which included telling the truth along with the trust issues.

I'm not sure how much change in health can truly be measured in a ten week study, but both professors seem quite confident of their results. Of course my mom or my pastor could have told them the same thing, and it wouldn't have cost a dime. Amazingly, these and other studies show that Americans lie on average about eleven times a week. The bigger the lie, the greater the effect on health.

Now I don't know about you, but I never lie. Uh, wait a minute, I need to take a couple of aspirins, I'm getting a terrible headache. In any event, if you don't want to end up looking like a hunched-over, wrinkly, old man with a constricted voice that sounds like Liberace on valium, tell the truth whenever possible. Come to think of it, maybe this article was about Harry Reid after all.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why You Should Vote Against The Donks

I did this before the 2010 election and it’s worth doing again. Below you will find a list of reasons to vote against Obama and the Democrats. Share this with your friends. Post the link on other websites you visit. Don’t let people forget!

Here are some of the things the Democrats did over the past two years that you may not have liked:

Obama Economic Record

• You didn’t build that.
• 8-9% unemployment for four solid years, 17% real unemployment.
• 5 straight years of trillion dollar deficits.
• Adding more to the national debt than all presidents combined.
• Hyper Inflation.
• Billions wasted on money to “clean energy companies” (read: donors to Obama) who went bankrupt right after getting money, e.g. Solyndra.
• Vetoing the Keystone Pipeline.
• The trillion dollar union/Democratic-interest-group giveaway known as the Stimulus bill and its dozen sequels.
• The trillion dollar Big Bank giveaway know as the TARP, the TALP and so on.
• Approving and then lying about $1.2 billion in bonuses to AIG.
• Authorizing massive salaries to the officers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which escaped regulation.
• The consumer and small bank screw job known as Financial Reform, a sop to huge banks and other Democratic donors.
• Effectively handing the Treasury to Goldman Sachs.
• “Saved or created” fake jobs.
• The attempt to tax “carbon,” i.e. everything on the planet.
• Not going a week without a taxpayer funded vacation or round of golf.
• 269 bank failures so far, with 829 more on the worry list.
• Record foreclosures.
• Trying to tax e-commerce to help California.
• Bad faith in budget negotiations.

ObamaCare

• Which destroys Medicare for financing.
• Which forces people to buy insurance and will cause everyone to lose their current plan, despite Democratic lies to the contrary.
• Which will bankrupt the country.
• Which is a huge sop to insurers.
• Which does nothing to contain costs.
• Which does nothing to improve the quality of care.
• Which will lead to rationing.
• Excluding union plans and raising the limits on the Cadillac tax in union-friendly states.
• The abortion distortion in ObamaCare, which exposed “pro-life” Democrats as anything but. . . and suing to stop their opponents from advertising this fact.
• Giving exemptions from ObamaCare to large, well-connected companies like McDonalds and 27 others.

Insidious Acts

• Allowing states to waive work requirement for welfare.
• Trying to turn Trayvon Martin shooting into race riot.
• Trying to hook Americans on government benefits.
• Trying to get Mexicans to sign up for American food stamps.
• Obama’s War on the Catholic Church.
• Attacking Boeing on union issues.

Eric Holder

• Fast and Furious.
• Eric Holder’s racist policies, including testimony that Holder sees civil rights laws as protecting blacks only and not whites and dropping Black Panther case.
• Holder refusing to defend DOMA.
• Holder investigating non-violent pro-life protesters while ignoring union thugs who attacked people at town hall meetings.
• Holder refusing top investigate death threats against conservatives in Wisconsin.
• Holder inventing Iran-Mexico link to distract from Fast and Furious.
• Holder in contempt for lying to Congress on Fast and Furious documents.

Democratic Hate

• Democrats supporting OWS rapists and thugs.
• Demonizing the Tea Party as racists and Nazis, and lying to manufacture “evidence.”
• Demonizing a cop as racist for arresting a Grade A jackass who happened to be black.
• Demonizing insurance companies to pass ObamaCare.
• Demonizing drug companies to pass ObamaCare.
• Demonizing employers to pass ObamaCare.
• Demonizing doctors to pass ObamaCare.
• Demonizing Arizona on the immigration issue. Then suing Arizona.
• Demonizing banks to pass Financial Reform.
• Demonizing oil companies to pass cap and trade.
• Demonizing Republicans because. . . well, because.
• Demonizing all Christians when a whacko shot an abortion doctor.
• Demonizing Mormons when California voted against gay marriage.
• Demonizing Israel to appease their anti-Semitism wing.
• Demonizing “right wingers” and Christians when a whacko shot up the Holocaust museum.
• Demonizing Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, George Bush, etc. etc.
• Demonizing John Boehner because they ran out of other people to hate.
• Accusing Republicans of a War on Women.
• Accusing Republicans of a War on Blacks.
• Calling any criticism of Obama “racist.”
• Reporting Obama’s own words attacked as “racist.”
• Exploiting the shooting of Gabby Giffords to slander Sarah Palin and conservatives, to demand restrictions on Free Speech, and to demand gun control.
• Death threats in Wisconsin.
• Attacking Voter ID laws as “racist.”
• Ignoring anti-Semitism at Media Matters and OWS.
• Inviting racist blacks to White House who attack interracial marriage.
• Never standing up to the racial demonization of Clarence Thomas.
• Ignoring Easter, but celebrating all other holidays.
• Using the words “hostage taking” to describe Republican acts.

Democratic Corruption

• Turning the Super Committee into a cash machine for lobbyists.
• Anything related to GE including granting them waivers on rules they lobbied for and appointing Jeffry Immelt to the President's Jobs Council even as he outsourced jobs to China.
• MF Global, where $700 million in investor money went missing as money was donated to Democrats before bankruptcy.
• Attacks on Republican donors by Treasury, including Gibson Guitar.
• It seems that every member of the Congressional Black Caucus is up on ethics charges, from taking dirty money (Charlie Goodtime Rangel) to sending stimulus money to relative’s banks (Maxine Waters) to awarding scholarships to ineligible family members (Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson and Rep. Sanford Bishop).
• Chris Dodd’s sweetheart deal with Countrywide.
• Stimulus money paid in non-existent districts for fake jobs.
• Stimulus money used to pay Hillary Clinton’s campaign debt.
• Stimulus money that went to dead people.
• Stimulus money that went to people in jail.
• No one in the Obama administration paying their taxes.
• Pelosi’s private plane.
• Pelosi’s drinks bill.
• Michelle Obama’s high class vacation-a-rama.
• The Louisiana Purchase.
• The Cornhusker Kickback.
• Medicare money for certain districts in Florida.
• A hospital for Chris Dodd’s vote on ObamaCare.
• Special treatment for Kaiser Permanente, the biggest provider in Pelosi’s district.
• Sestak Jobgate and a whiff of Clinton.
• Romanoff Jobgate.
• Climategate, and Obama’s affirmation of the falsified data.
• Algore Rapegate.
• Weinergate.
• Democrats Jim Moran (Va), Peter Visclosky (Ind.), and John Murtha (Hell) directing $137 million in defense contracts to clients of a lobbyist who funneled more than $380,000 in illegal campaign contributions to them.
• Suggesting we should suspend the Constitution to allow Obama to fix the economy.

Electoral Manipulation

• ACORN voter fraud.
• Manipulating Massachusetts electoral laws to keep Ted Kennedy’s seat Democratic and help pass ObamaCare.
• Running fake Tea Party candidates to hurt Republican chances in November. . . now proven in Michigan, New Jersey and Nevada.
• Trying to manipulate the electoral systems in several states to tilt the playing field toward Democrats.

Twisted Nominees

• Marxist and racist Van Jones.
• Maoist White House Communications Director Anita Dunn.
• Pedophile Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings.
• Unqualified Supreme Court nominee "wise Latina" Red Sonia Sotomayor.
• Unqualified Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

Weak on Terror

• Abandoning Israel repeatedly, including at the UN.
• Doing nothing to stop Iran getting the bomb.
• “Man made disasters.”
• Refusal to recognize the "Islam" in Islamic terrorism.
• Losing the war in Afghanistan and sending troops for a fruitless last push before surrendering.
• Putting Navy SEALS on a show trial.
• Falsely claiming credit for Osama bin Laden's death.
• Allowing pirates to increase number of ships taken by 625% per year and profits increasing by 22,527%.
• Trying to move terrorism trials to New York City. . . so terrorists can be near their new mosque.

Anti-Americanism

• Apologizing to Arabs and blaming the United States for their hatred of us.
• Feigning ignorance of what could have motivated a Muslim to attack US soldiers at Fort Hood, and warning Americans not to hold this against Muslims. Yet jumping to conclusions in all other cases.
• NASA’s new role as center for Muslim outreach.
• Democratic support of the triumphal mosque at Ground Zero.

Pro-Illegal Immigration

• Suing Arizona to stop it from enforcing a law the Federal Government is obligated to enforce.
• Trying to boycott Arizona.
• Reporting Arizona’s law to the United Nations as a human rights violation.
• Refusing to protect the border and instead putting up signs warning Americans to avoid nearby national parks.

Assaults on Freedom of Speech and the Internet

• SOPA
• Attempting to regulate the internet through Net Neutrality regulations.
• Pelosi’s McCarthy-esque calls for investigations of Democratic opponents.
• Attempting to take away free speech of corporations.
• Attempting to regulate talk radio through the Fairness Doctrine, dressed up as local content laws.
• Remaining silent when South Park creators were threatened by Muslims.
• Telling Molly Norris she should go into hiding rather than going after the people threatening her.
• Joining Muslim countries to work toward a UN resolution proclaiming blasphemous speech a human rights crime.

Faux “Environmentalism” Exposed

• Defending “scientists” involved in Climategate and other environmental reports created with false data.
• Ridiculous Copenhagen non-agreement.
• Wiping out central California’s farmland.
• The total mishandling of the BP disaster.
• Suppressing BP data to hide what really happened.
• Proving that leftist groups care about electing Democrats, not the causes they are using as Trojan horses.

Embarrassing Us

• Regifting in Britain.
• Abandoning our foreign allies.
• Bowing to foreign leaders.
• Sending Geithner to beg the Chinese to keep buying our bonds.
• Teleprompter in Chief.
• Scaring the hell out of New Yorkers with Air Force One joy ride.
• The arrogance of accepting the Nobel Prize for anticipatory good deeds.
• TSA Gropegate.
• Joe Biden

And just in case you like to pretend to be a liberal at the office and you want to discourage your kooky liberal friends from voting, here are some of the most popular (albeit stupid) complaints about the Democrats from the left:

• The Democrats were too interested in bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship than in passing the best possible legislation.
• ObamaCare didn’t go far enough because the Democrats sold out to the health insurance lobby and the Republicans.
• The Democrats didn’t do anything to help the environment. They didn’t pass cap and trade, and Copenhagen was a disaster because the U.S. refused to push for a world treaty against polluters like India, China and Brazil.
• Harry Reid used the threat of filibuster (a false threat when he had 60 votes) to stop or slow everything the Democrats should have done.
• Obama never gave benefits to gays in the Federal government, which he could have done by Executive Order, he failed to stand up for gay marriage, and the Democrats didn’t even try to end "don't ask, don't tell."
• The Democrats did nothing to reform the immigration system.
• The Democrats got into bed with Wall Street, taking their money and selling out consumers to banks.
• The Democrats did nothing to stop the mortgage crisis.
• The Democrats didn’t bail out states like Michigan and California with federal money.
• Obama’s reliance on teleprompters chafes at their delusions about his brilliance.
• He’s not cool, he’s an elitist.
• He didn’t save the economy.
• He did nothing to punish BP, all he did was go on vacation.
• He didn’t get us out of Afghanistan.

There you have it. Pass it along to your friends, and make sure everyone votes!!!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Advertising Ourselves

I’m always fascinating by advertising because it gives you a clear indication of the state of the culture. How? Simple. The job of an advertiser is to make their product appeal to people who are likely to buy the product. To achieve that, they do a careful analysis of who their potential customers are, and then they try to produce ads which get those customers to associate the product with the good things about their lifestyles. For example, products aimed at blacks or women or fundamentalist Christians or farmers or children will try to determine what it is that appeals to each of those groups and will then use that to make their product seem like it belongs. The result is that advertises have provided us with a continuing treatise on the various segments of society.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Election Stuff

There’s been a good deal of election related news in the past few days. Let’s cover it all. . . every last single item. Or not.

● The Polls: Dick Morris, who is often correct, made an interesting statement about the polls the other day. He noticed that the MSM is presenting the picture of Obama having momentum and they are doing it through polling that purports to show Obama gaining support. Newsweek apparently even speculated about an Obama landslide. Morris says not to believe any of this.

Morris has seen state-by-state polling of the thirteen key states. He says this polling shows Romney gaining momentum in nine of those states and Obama gaining momentum in four. From this, Morris claims that Romney is ahead in Indiana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina and Colorado. He is basically tied in Virginia, Florida and Ohio, though Obama importantly remains stuck below 50% in each. Moreover, while Obama is still ahead in Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, he is stuck below 50%, which presents a significant pick up opportunity for Romney -- Obama needs to win each of those states to win the election.

All told, Morris thinks that Romney may end up with around 350 electoral votes, which would be a landslide. I’m leaning in that direction as well.

● The Trumpster: According to reports, Romney plans to unleash Trump to win over swing-state whites in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump huh? Well, before you scoff, consider this. According to Zogby, Trump appeals to whites who earn less that $35,000. These people make up the bulk of the undecideds. They apparently see Trump favorably based on “his celebrity, personal magnetism, and the positive aspiration brand he offers, [which] seems to gel with this group of voters.” He’s also a fearless campaigner who won’t shy away from blasting Obama on any issue. This could get interesting.

● The Money: I’m not a believer that money decides elections, but a lot of people are. To me money is more an indication of which way people think the election will go. Thus, it’s fascinating that Romney continues to out raise Obama by huge margins. In May, Romney raised $77 million compared to $60 million for Obama. In June, Romney took in $106 million compared to Obama’s $71 million. Now we learn that in July, Romney took in $101 million compared to Obama’s $75 million.

● The General: According to an Obama donor, Obama thinks Romney is looking to pick Gen. David Petraeus for his Vice President. Obama promptly denied saying that. On the one hand, this pick would probably electrify the public. I bet this would add 3-5% to Romney’s poll numbers everywhere. On the other hand, I’m leery of Petraeus. Generals rarely make good politicians and Petraeus is a known moderate. Given that Romney is still viewed with suspicion by the right, I think this would be a bad move. I still prefer Rubio.

● The Shameless: Obama keeps hitting new lows in his political ads. Last week, one of his ads called Romney a felon for his SEC filings. This week, he’s got some guy whining how he lost his healthcare when Romney closed a plant which led to his wife dying of cancer, i.e. Romney killed his wife (LINK). For the record, she died four years after Romney left Bain. Also, anyone who has dealt with our healthcare system knows this is crap. But that never stops the Democrats. PLUS, it turns out that she actually had insurance through her own job even after Bain closed the plant (LINK).

Romney, by the way, has hired a new advisor whose job will be to start pushing back on the Bain attacks. That shouldn’t be too hard, just point out the companies Bain saved.

● The Spending Cuts: Finally, do you recall the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts that are supposed to kick in? Under a new law signed Tuesday, Obama will need to begin detailing where those cuts will happen as early as next month. This isn’t going to sit well with his voters when he tells them that if he’s re-elected, he will cut their jobs or benefits. Of course, that assumes he does what the law requires. Obama has already delayed Medicare cuts until November, even though those were supposed to kick in already, and he’s apparently been leaning on Big Business not to fire people before the election.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

While My Guitar Gently Weeps

Three years ago, the iconic Gibson Guitar Company was raided by the Gestapo federal agents, not once but twice. In the second raid, armed SWAT-like teams of federal officers with serious automatic weapons entered Gibson's factory and seized approximately a million dollars-worth of alleged contraband. Cocaine, you ask? Stinger missiles? Vats of moonshine? No, it wasn't any of those. It was exotic wood imported from India and Madagascar. Pretty dangerous stuff.

The great underlying felony was an alleged violation of the Lacey Act which bans the importation of loosely-defined endangered wood products. The two major woods involved in the raid are ebony and rosewood. India does not name either ebony or rosewood as endangered trees, but if the feds say they are, they must be. The act (if you can call it that) of possessing an inventory of exotic woods is not in and of itself a crime. Even the Lacey Act purports to regulate the importation of exotic woods, not to forbid it or make importation a criminal act. But concealment, now that might be a federal crime requiring a D-Day style invasion.

The raids were supposed to seize records which might indicate that at least some of the wood in Gibson's inventory was forbidden fruit, which then allowed a bootstrap armed raid to seize the wood which may or may not have been imported in violation of the Act. I haven't seen that much firepower since the feds grabbed little Elian Gonzales to send him off on a permanent vacation with his family in Cuba. I don't know what the feds expected. Look-alikes for Les Paul and Mary Ford armed with AK-47s and Uzis to keep them from seizing the fingerboards maybe?

This was all set up with the approval of President Barack Obama and his sterling Attorney General Eric Holder. It was one of their earliest “green preservation” initiatives. So you know there were no politics involved. In fact, Holder himself stated categorically: “ The actions that we take in all matters are based on the facts, the law, and the enforcement responsibilities that we have. We have no politics involved. That's not how we make decisions in this department.” You believe him, don't you?

But it does make one wonder, does it not? There are dozens of guitar manufacturers using the same woods from the same places. A few of the larger firms are serious competition for Gibson. But only Gibson was targeted. There is one small difference between Gibson and the other companies. The latter are either in the Democratic camp or quietly neutral. The CEO of Gibson, Henry Juszkiewicz, is a major Republican contributor and bundler. In addition, Gibson is proudly a non-union shop. Juszkiewicz is not shy about his public criticism of Obama and the entire administration.

Three years and millions of dollars in attorneys fees and investigative costs later, the most the government could prove was that Gibson may have been in violation of the Lacey Act solely because of a paperwork error in which Gibson accidentally exceeded its allowable inventory of exotic woods (largely the ebony). This attack also resulted in lost production, laid-off employees, lost income and therefore lost taxes. Try explaining that to a statist/socialist bureaucrat. All of this could have been avoided. Juszkiewicz stated that it was a matter that “Could have been addressed with a simple contact from a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the government used violent and hostile means.”

On August 6, the company and the government issued joint statements settling the case. Gibson will pay a $300,000 civil penalty along with a $50,000 payment to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (which quarterbacked the original investigation) which will research tree conservation activities (in India?). But Jerry Martin, US Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, just couldn't leave well enough alone. It was apparent that the government simply couldn't make its criminal case. But that didn't stop him from announcing: “This criminal enforcement agreement goes a long way in demonstrating the government's commitment to protecting the world's natural resources.”

In exchange for not having to continue throwing good company money after bad, the company gets its seized inventory back. That's a million dollars right there. In addition, it can continue to import ebony and rosewood so long as it is more scrupulous in keeping accurate books reflecting the quotas set by the Lacey Act. And the government was forced to agree jointly with Gibson that both “acknowledge and agree that certain questions and inconsistencies now exist regarding the tariff classification of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks under the Indian government's Foreign Trade Policy.” If you read between those lines, what it really means is both the Lacey Act and the Indian Foreign Trade Policy are so badly-written, then and now, that unintentional violations are almost inevitable.

The official statement from Gibson was more accurate than that of the US Attorney. “The company is gratified that the government ultimately saw the wisdom and fairness in declining to bring criminal charges in this case.” And to put the frosting on the cake, the government was required to agree not to undertake any future actions against Gibson until such time as the Indian government modifies its laws either to specifically allow or ban the sale and exportation of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks.

All of this adds up to one simple thing. The Obama administration is determined to do whatever is necessary to cripple its vocal opponents. Obama's enemies list dwarfs that of Richard Nixon. The Department of Justice has regularly been ordered to perform what lawyers call “selective enforcement.” And Holder has done it with gusto and a straight face. During this entire three-year exotic wood witch hunt, not one other guitar manufacturer received even a kindly inquiry from the Obama administration about the possible use of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks.

Play on, Les Paul.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...