Of David Niewart and occupying "political spaces"

As I've begun to observe the impressive wagon-circling of the Left related to Liberal Fascism, I came across this repetitive, verbose post from David Niewart in which he claims that Jonah Goldberg has refused to respond to his argument all along(!!!) that Fascism occupied the political space opposite of the Left.  ("Jonah Goldberg is a very sad case who thinks that ignoring an argument makes you smarter" | Crooks and Liars).

But nestled in a hefty box quote from Paxton was this jewel:

Prime Minister Giolitti, a true practitioner of laissez-faire liberalism, declined to use national forces to break strikes. The big farmers felt abandoned by the Italian liberal state.

Wait a minute; there was a classical liberal prime minister in Italy at the time that Mussolini won the struggle with other socialists for power?

But it is interesting that even in laying out his unrebutted(!!!) thesis, Niewart acknowledges that Italian (and German) Fascist movements were rooted in socialist/communist ideals though they feigned capitalist or other sympathies to achieve their purposes. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, that strategy is rather similar to policy initiatives like current first steps of incrementalist reform (here) on health insurance.

Me and my boyz at ACLU (on Citizens United)

I just realized this evening that the ACLU filed an amicus brief consistent with the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (here).

Very cool. Very principled.

Pretty smart design

Study on evolution of running finds going barefoot good for the sole, better for the heels - latimes.com:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Harvard biologist and runner Daniel Lieberman had a simple question: "How did people run without shoes?"

The answer he got is: Much better.

At least running barefoot seems better for the feet, producing far less impact stress compared to feet shod in fancy, expensive running shoes, according to a study by Lieberman in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. The study concludes that people seem to be born to run — barefoot.
. . . .
Tonino said cushioned running shoes work against evolution which developed the foot properly for endurance running.

(emphasis added) Hmmmm, maybe such shoes work against the foot's design, at best they work against the foot's structure.

Yep, because the end justifies the means . . .

Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen:

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

Schumey plays the expectation game . . . badly

Senate Democrats Declare War on the Supreme Court - ABC News:

In the wake of [the Citizens United] decision, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November's elections."

The lottery "curse"

This is a sad story of a lottery winner--Abraham Shakespeare, who appears to have been murdered for his money. (Tampa Bay Online: "Autopsy planned on remains found at dig site")

It seems that the case is coming to a just conclusion--the search of this property follows evidence that the lottery winner's ex-girlfriend had transferred more than $1 million from Shakespeare's accounts and had gone to great lengths to cover up his disappearance.

It's wrong that it is practically a "curse" to simply have something that others want.

Whew, Bin Laden believes in AGW

After seeing just the headline, I was relieved to read that Osama is a fan of Gore's work ("Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change" - NYTimes.com):

Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, blamed the United States and developed countries for not halting climate change and said that the global economy should immediately abandon its reliance on the American dollar, according to an audiotape released Friday by the broadcaster Al Jazeera.

Not much of a former Constitutional law professor--Update

In all due deference to President, regarding his either stupid or disingenuous assertions about the Citizens United ruling during the SOTU :

Tonight the president engaged in dem[a]goguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

And here's why.


Update . . . insight from a former SOTU speech fact checker:

I don’t see why it’s inappropriate for the president to express disagreement with a Supreme Court opinion, even if the members of the Court are in the room. Presidents giving State of the Union addresses express disagreement with how Congress does its job all the time, and the Court is not somehow beyond criticism in ways the other branches aren’t. It would be nice if he had tried to make some argument explaining why he thought the Court’s reading of the relevant constitutional provision was incorrect — since it is after all the Court’s job to interpret the constitution and the law, not to seek particular policy outcomes. But even so, Obama’s criticism didn’t strike me as an offense against protocol.

It was, however, an offense against the truth, which makes it even more troubling and peculiar. It was just plain wrong on the facts, in a very straightforward and unmistakable way. A presidential speech, especially a State of the Union address, generally goes through layer after layer of fact-checking. I still have the scars from a couple of years of this in the Bush White House, proving the case for every fact, figure, noun, verb, and adjective in the speech that had anything to do with the issues I was working on. Some errors creep in sometimes of course, but they tend to be on tiny side-issues. And there are also sometimes claims that are open to dispute or interpretation (on intelligence or national security for instance, where not everything that’s known can be said, or on economic analysis.) But this seems like a direct claim by the president that simply misstates the content of a Supreme Court opinion. Is there even an issue of interpretation here? Is there anyone who actually claims with any specific reference to the opinion that the opinion could allow foreign corporations to contribute to American campaigns? Or that it overturns a century of legal precedent?

I suppose it could be chalked up to demagoguery, but you’d think the internal White House process would keep even demagoguery within some factually supportable boundaries — so there was at least a plausible argument for every claim allowed into the president’s speeches. This seems like an abject failure of the staffing process — a process intended, among other things, to protect the president from embarrassment.

And a final word on the subject An Appalling Breach of Decorum | Cato @ Liberty:

For the president to have singled the justices out for criticism, while others around them stood and applauded as they sat there still, is simply demagoguery at its worst. I would not be surprised if the justices declined next year’s invitation. And Obama wanted to change the tone in Washington? He sure has.

Hey ACORN, who you callin' a scofflaw?!

Four charged in phone scheme at Sen. Landrieu's office - USATODAY.com:O'Keefe's arrest "is further evidence of his disregard for the law in pursuit of his extremist agenda," ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said in a statement. The organization's Twitter feed commented on the news: "Couldn't have happened to a more deserving soul."

Oh no you di'int--Obama thinks he can avert another 1994

I'm interested to hear what Bill and Hillary think about the quotes emanating from Marion Berry's decision not to run for re-election. Berry: Obama said "big difference" between '10 and '94 is "me" - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com:

Rep. Marion Berry's parting shot, published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [no link, subscription only] offers a warning to moderate Democrats and border state moderates — warning of a midterm bloodbath comparable to the 54-seat D-to-R swing in 1994.

But the jaw-dropper is Berry's claim that President Obama personally dismissed any comparison between Democrats now and under Bill Clinton 16 years ago — by saying his personal popularity would bail everybody out.

It depends on which corporations are doing the donatin'

The Corner - National Review Online:

"Now, stung by the Massachusetts rebuke, Obama apparently has begun his makeover with a rhetorical assault against the Court's campaign-donation decision, as if he were a sort of 'Fighting Bob' Lafollette in hot pursuit of 'fat cat' bankers.

Sorry, this is transparently manufactured. Let me repeat: No presidential candidate did more to destroy the idea of public campaign financing than Barack Obama, who set a record in private donations from Wall Street, ended a three-decade-long bipartisan tradition of curbing presidential campaign expenditures, and, once elected, proceeded to nominate a number of Wall Street insiders."

Not to mention, this and other stories over the years demonstrate that the Dems rely on big donors more than does the GOP.

He's the tax man . . .

Hat tip, The Corner.

BeauBiden has higher priorities; yeah, right

Beau Biden, VP's son, won't seek US Senate seat - washingtonpost.com:

Biden vowed while campaigning for attorney general in 2006 that he would crack down on child predators, and he made the creation of a separate child predator unit within the state Justice Department his top priority after winning office. Had he turned his attention from the Bradley prosecution to running for Senate, he likely would have faced criticism from some voters.

. . . read: not a good time to be running as the heir to Joe Biden's throne.

In other news, another Congressional Democrat announces he won't seek reelection.

Insight on Kurt Warner and playing in the NFL

Rick Reilly has on occasion bashed traditionalism (in my perception), but this is an insightful article about Kurt Warner--in particular, and playing in the NFL--in general. ESPN The Magazine - Rick Reilly: It's seemingly the end for Kurt Warner, and it makes a good deal of sense now - ESPN

From the article:

"This is the sorest I've ever been," says Warner, 38.

And you wonder why he's thinking of retiring?

Still, if Warner does quit in the next couple of weeks -- talk to him, you'll be convinced he will -- it won't be because of his seven kids landing 720 McTwists on him, or 300-pound linemen crushing him from the blind side. It'll be because it's become nine parts job and one part fun.

Jonah Goldberg on Rocky Top

Goldberg, the National Review columnist and author of Liberal Fascism will be speaking 7:30pm, Feb. 2nd at UT's UC. Very cool.

Sowell on winning support from more black voters

How Republicans Can Win the Black Vote by Thomas Sowell on National Review Online:

The teachers’ unions are going to be against the Republicans, whether Republicans hammer them or keep timidly quiet. Why not talk straight with black voters about the dire consequences of the public-school monopoly that the teachers’ unions and the Democrats protect at all costs, even though many private and public-charter schools — notably the KIPP schools in various states — have achieved remarkable success with low-income and minority youngsters?

Air America was still on the air?

FOXNews.com - Air America Goes Off the Air

And, of course, Air America's people are blaming their failure on the bad economy . . . has the economy been bad for more than 3 years?

Hyperbolic, yet predictable attacks on filibustering

Filibusters are strangling the Senate | Steven Guess | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk:

In truth, the filibuster is a relic of a different age in American politics, an anachronism the nation can no longer afford as it faces unprecedented threats and challenges that demand action.

Cheat? Yes, we know you would

After reading the histrionic, hand-wringing press release about "steal[ing] elections" from Tennessee Democrats (TNDP) over the weekend, this quote from Liberal mouthpiece Ed Schultz reminded me of the rub in cooperating with moral relativists. First, from the TNDP TN Democratic Party News » Blog Archive » Tennessee Senate Republicans Trample Over Voter Rights:

Tennessee Democratic Party Chairman Chip Forrester called yesterday’s action by the Senate to delay the Tennessee Voters Confidence Act a partisan move by Republican leadership to deny the state’s voters fair and accurate elections.

And here's the recording of Schultz candidly admitting he'd cheat to win in Massachusetts.
Yes, we know you would, Ed. And don't be so sure that your cronies in deep blue MA wouldn't accommodate your wishes.

Video of how Kiffin won his last contest at Rocky Top

This video via Joe Silence's No Silence Here blog shows how Lane Kiffin was able to come out on top in his last battle at UT. Rare video: media tension before Kiffin's presser | No Silence Here | knoxnews.com.



I agree with the boring looking guy from Channel 10. It seems to me that Kiffin was the one who needed to be able to say he had "appeared" or "faced his critics" before bolting from Knoxville. People (future recruits, etc.) can't really know that the soundbite is canned or controlled as they watch a report on ESPN. And by going along with the ultimatum of the paper-pounding boob in the argyle sweater (who heart-warmingly referred to Kiffin as "coach" just before the cameras started rolling . . . awwww) the "media" allowed Kiffin to deliver his scripted, 30-second statement without answering any questions. Regrettably, the "media" folded like a house o' cards.

Best joke I've heard from O'Brien

Some of Conan O'Brien's jabs against NBC are lame, like the 98-lb. fellow flailing away while being stiff-armed by the longer-armed bully, but I really like this joke Brandchannel | Will NBC's Brand Survive Conan O'Brien?:

"O'Brien isn't content just devaluing the NBC brand though, he's also going after Jay Leno, the host NBC is moving back in to replace him: "Hosting the 'Tonight Show' has been a fulfillment of a lifelong dream to me. I just want to say to the kids out there, 'You can do anything you want in life... unless Jay Leno wants to do it too.'"

Give that writer a raise.

My friend the (climate) witch doctor, he told me what to do . . .

Latest climate alarmism sham revelation: World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online

From the article:

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science".

Oo ee, oo ah ah, ting tang, walla walla bing bang . . .

Pause, reflect and dream today . . .

Go Dems! Talkin' down to voters

According to this article ("After Obama Rally, Dems Pin Blame On Bush" - Hotline On Call), it appears that Dems can't conceive that voters might disagree with Dem policies:

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush.
. . . .
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by "George Bush and his cronies" are not so easily solved.

"If you think there's magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown," Kennedy said. "If you don't, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole ... then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president's in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that."

This is rich . . . TN Dems touting Democrats' thrift

Beneath the headline: "Undercutting Republican arguments about Democratic spending habits in Washington," the Tennessee Democratic Party (TNDP)--in its Friday email alert, is claiming that Democrats in Washington would make Dave Ramsey proud:

An analysis by the conservative Washington Times newspaper found that the current White House was successful in getting Congress to cut 24 spending programs and reduce nine other programs. White House administration officials note that Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts President Obama proposed. The current administration's spending habits are in stark contrast with the previous administration, which cut trillions of dollars in taxes and added trillions of dollars to Medicare spending without paying for either.

Re. Kiffin, this is getting embarrassing

Student: Good riddance, Lane Kiffin - Page 2 - ESPN

Regrettably, too many UT fans and UT students are demonstrating that they have about as much class as, well, Lane Kiffin. Let's head off the inevitable trailer park frenzy comparisons asap. Let's move on. Hopefully the next hire (and the next contract for said hire) will be better for UT.

Say what? Re. Reid

I guess one racial stereotype deserves another!?! In this great report about Reid's recent regrettable racist remarks: ("Is Obama Playing Favorites in Harry Reid Case?" - ABC News) was this startling quote about "most black men":

"I think that the president of the United States has to stop having a lack of courage when it comes to the issue of race," said Michael Eric Dyson, professor of sociology at Georgetown University. "He is loathe to address the issue of race. Barack Obama runs from race like most black men run from the cops."

Elizabeth Edwards "has issues"? Go figure . . .

The three misspelled names (even the president's, amazingly) provide some context, but I thought this was an almost surreal juxtaposition of observations about Elizabeth Edwards in a book review of Game Change: How to read "Game Change" / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com:

– Some particularly ugly revelations about life within the Jon [sic] Edwards campaign, including reports that some of his staffers strongly suspected that he was having an affair well before it was reported in the media and a devastating portrayal of his wife Elizabeth as "abusive, intrusive, paranoid."

Dang, what's Elizabeth Edwards' problem?

Former Dem Gov. Blago shows his colors alright

Blago: I'm blacker than Obama - 1/11/10 - Chicago News - abc7chicago.com: Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is back in the news for something he said.

This time he is talking about President Barack Obama and making some controversial comments in a magazine interview out this week.

The comments appear in the February Esquire magazine issue that has yet to hit newsstands. It is online Monday morning and causing quite a buzz. In that article, the former Illinois governor talks about how he makes his money and also some of his old political foes but also has something to say about the president of the United States.

In the Esquire set to hit newsstands this week, Blagojevich goes on a profanity-laced tirade targeting his Illinois rivals and the president of the United States.

"I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shine shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in the black community not far from were we lived. I saw it all growing up," Blagojevich told the magazine. "It is such a cynical business. I am real. This guy, President Obama, he was catapulted in on hope and change, what we hope the guy is."

Republican[] for Choice living large in a big tent

The Center for Public Integrity - The Curious Spending of Republicans for Choice:

Since the PAC’s formation in 1990, documents show that Republicans for Choice has raised and spent more than $5.5 million. But a Center for Public Integrity analysis of the PAC’s more recent filings — along with data from CQ MoneyLine, which tracks political giving — reveals that over the past decade less than five percent of the committee’s spending has gone to political candidates, other political committees, or independent expenditures. Since 2005, just about one-half of one percent of the PAC’s nearly $1 million in spending has gone to federal or state campaigns, according to a review of records. By comparison, Federal Election Commission data show the average federal PAC in the recent 2007-2008 cycle dedicated about 35 percent of spending to contributions aiding federal candidates. A comparison to other PACs on both sides of the abortion debate shows that similar groups spend a much greater portion of their funds on candidates and campaigns.

Where did RFC’s money go? Much of the group’s spending has been for consulting companies owned by the PAC’s chairwoman, Ann E. W. Stone. Those firms — along with payments to reimburse Stone’s expenses for travel, entertainment, and automobile repairs — comprise more than two-thirds of RFC PAC’s expenditures since 2006. And hundreds of dollars more went to pay for Stone’s parking tickets.

The Luckiest People

Columnist Nicholas Kristof has a disappointing op/ed up this week; disappointing at its intellectually vacuity. Apparently fresh off a limousine liberal lollygag to Central America, Kristof writes about Costa Ricans as "the happiest people." ("The Happiest People" - NYTimes.com). No offense intended to Costa Ricans or Costa Rica, but "the luckiest people" would be more accurate. From the article:

In truth, the people of Costa Rica: "Cross-country comparisons of happiness are controversial and uncertain. But what does seem quite clear is that Costa Rica’s national decision to invest in education rather than arms has paid rich dividends. Maybe the lesson for the United States is that we should devote fewer resources to shoring up foreign armies and more to bolstering schools both at home and abroad.

I guess it's not relevant to Kristof's thesis if a country has an abundance of beautiful weather and beaches to boost her economy (I think that is referred to as a "natural monopoly")? Not to mention a freedom-loving, sovereignty-backing military super power slightly to your north?

Education is certainly crucial to a civilization, and kudos to Costa Rica for what its got going on, and I'm glad that Kristof enjoyed his Christmas holidays, but this op/ed is either stupid or disingenuous.

Who says Democrats aren't providing jobs?

With news that Democrats' economic policies aren't helping with unemployment, I think some Democrats deserve recognition for creating job opportunities:

"It is a challenging time," said Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association. "When you've got as many people unemployed in the country as you do, it's understandable that folks will be looking to their leaders to do everything possible to create jobs. As Democrats, there's a burden of proof here."

Uh, sure I "discriminate" against certain behavior

N.J. Senate Defeats Gay-Marriage Bill - WSJ.com:

TRENTON, N.J. -- The New Jersey Senate defeated a bill Thursday to legalize gay marriage, making it unlikely the state will have a gay marriage law in the very near future.

The bill needed 21 votes to pass; only 14 senators approved the measure. The vote was 20-14.
. . . .

"We should not be telling one couple you can be married and another couple you can be civil unionized," said Sen. Bill Baroni, the only Republican senator who has supported gay marriage.

"We are better than that. History is watching us now. She is asking us whether we'll side with equality and right -- or for discrimination," he added.

An apple for Big Brother!

("Homeschooled kids: Did they fall through the cracks?" - Local News - WRGB CBS 6 Albany). The headline on this story has evolved a little to simply, "homeschooling parents arrested," but the original headline is intriguing because its premise is that these children were "forgotten" and "fell through the cracks" because their parents didn't file paperwork with the government. And you gotta love that some earnest citizen felt compelled to report the Cressy family to authorities . . . because, you know, these children are de facto endangered by not being "socialized" in public schools, right?

It'll be interesting to see how this case plays out.

Every infidel for himself . . .

From a report about "an assassination attempt on the artist whose cartoon of the prophet Muhammad as a suicide bomber had an explosive impact four years ago on the Muslim world" ("Panic room saved artist Kurt Westergaard from Islamist assassin" - Times Online):

An axe-wielding Somali extremist broke into the home of Kurt Westergaard on Friday night as the 75-year-old cartoonist was looking after Stephanie, his five-year-old granddaughter.

Westergaard, whose little ink drawing of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban sparked riots throughout the Middle East in 2006, has received numerous death threats. He pressed an alarm button to summon police when the attacker entered the house in Aarhus, Denmark’s second city, by breaking a window.

He did not have time to collect the child from the living room before locking himself into a “panic room”, a specially fortified bathroom. He said the assailant had shouted “swear words, really crude words” and shrieked about “blood” and “revenge”, as he smashed the axe in vain against the bathroom door.

“I feared for my grandchild,” he told Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that had commissioned the cartoon. “But she did great. I knew that he wouldn’t do anything to her.” He went on: “It was close, really close. But we did it.” (emphasis added)

Way to go grandpa!?!

Chad Johnson to takeover MSNBC's "Countdown" . . . I wish

In a Bob Costas interview aired during "Football Night in America," Chad Ochocinco stated he would change his name back to "Chad Johnson" if he was "shut down" by Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis in the 1/3/09 game. Following the interview, blowhard Keith Olbermann told an incredulous Costas that he would do the same--change his name to "Chad Johnson," if Darrelle Revis shut down Ochocinco.

Well the Bengals had Zero, count 'em ZERO, passing yards in tonight's game. Well Keith?

Say what? Never let the jihadists see you sweat

Foreign policy is a tough nut, but in light of reports that the Obama Administration is shuttering the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in response to purported Al Qaeda threats, this story is interesting, wherein Democrats claim that Obama's reaction to the Gentleman Jihadist attack was intended to deny a propaganda victory to our enemies ("Democrats' worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch" - POLITICO.com):

"Imagine if the president had freaked out," the White House ally said, suggesting a dramatic Obama reaction could have provoked chaos in the air travel system.

But that was the moment when some Democrats began to grow concerned about the White House’s strategy.

The muted response, allies said, was aimed at denying al Qaeda a propaganda victory, and at demonstrating how little the terrorists can now disrupt Americans’ lives. “The president and his team have done a good job at handling the situation given the competing interests at play. He’s been forceful without the bellicose chest bumping of the last administration,” said Jim Manley, the chief spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “One thing he’s got going for him is Republicans have no credibility on this issue when their sending out former Vice President Cheney you know they’ve hit the bottom of the barrel.”

Yeah, imagine.

States that begin with "n," end with "a" and rhyme with Flebraska

This story about threats by AGs to challenge special treatment of Nebraska in the Democrats' healthcare bill reminds me of the pitiful (Tennessee) legislative trick of circumventing constitutional requirements (Art XI, Sec. 8) by narrowly defining a city to receive the special treatment (e.g., "a city with a population between 80,000 and 83,000 in the 2000 census). I don't think our AG is interested in getting in front of this "historic" locomotive, regardless of the consequences to TN.

From the article: ("TN [AG] says 13 states' challenge to health bill is premature," The Tennessean):

A Republican effort to force changes to the health-care reform bill appears to be gathering steam, but Tennessee's attorney general said Wednesday that his office will sit out for now.

Attorneys general in 13 states said in a letter to Congressional leaders sent Wednesday evening that they will sue unless lawmakers remove a deal that gives Nebraska a break on Medicaid payments in exchange for that state's Democratic senator's vote for health-care reform. The law violates the Constitution because it amounts to a tax break for citizens of one state, the group says.

Happy New Year!

And let's make the most of it . . .

I call "foul"

Okay, the inflammatory headline irked me to start with, but the following accusation is over the top in Time Magazine's article about the waning fortunes of Republican-they-can-live-with Charlie Crist ("Can Charlie Crist Survive Florida's Right-Wing Uprising?" - TIME):

Conservatives are still apoplectic about his appointment of an African-American Democrat to the Florida Supreme Court this year; but he's expected to remind them about the two dyed-in-the-wool conservatives he appointed before that.

That's right, just like I oppose socialized medicine because one of the people pushing for it is black . . .

Getting the nose under the tent...the foot in the door...insert own metaphor

Yesterday, N.S.Allen commented at length about how laudable are Democrats' efforts to "comprehensive[ly] reform healthcare" here. I responded half-heartedly about the inherent Liberal/statist creep of government, but Mark Steyn articulates the point splendidly in this op/ed over at NRO.com.

Cross the River, Burn the Bridge by Mark Steyn on National Review Online:

These details are obnoxious not merely in and of themselves but because they tell us the truth about where we’re headed: Think of the way almost every Big Government project bursts its bodice and winds up bigger and more bloated than its creators allegedly foresaw. In this instance, the stays come pre-loosened, and studded with loopholes. Because the Democrat operators — the Nancy Pelosis and Barney Franks — know that what matters is to get something, anything across the river, and then burn the bridge behind you.

My Republican friends often seem to miss the point in this debate: The so-called “public option” is not Page 3,079, Section (f), Clause VII. The entire bill is a public option — because that’s where it leads, remorselessly. The so-called “death panel” is not Page 2,721, Paragraph 19, Sub-section (d), but again the entire bill — because it inserts the power of the state between you and your doctor, and in effect assumes jurisdiction over your body. As the savvier Dems have always known, once you’ve crossed the Rubicon, you can endlessly re-reform your health reform until the end of time, and all the stuff you didn’t get this go-round will fall into place, and very quickly.

As I’ve been saying for over a year now, “health care” is the fast-track to a permanent left-of-center political culture. The unlovely Democrats on public display in the week before Christmas may seem like just a bunch of jelly-spined opportunists, grubby wardheelers and rapacious kleptocrats, but the smarter ones are showing great strategic clarity. Alas for the rest of us, Euro-style government on a Harry Reid/Chris Dodd/Ben Nelson scale will lead to ruin.

I also liked this excerpt from the op/ed:

Looking at the millions of Americans it leaves uninsured, and the millions it leaves with worse treatment and reduced access, and the millions it makes pay significantly more for their current health care, one can only marvel at Harry Reid’s genius: government health care turns out to be all government and no health care. Adding up the zillions of new taxes and bureaucracies and regulations it imposes on the citizenry, one might almost think that was the only point of the exercise.

Nicely said.

Mr. Baucus, please debate responsibly

I don't know whether Sen. Max Baucus was drunk in this floor speech (he may always struggle with being lucid and articulate), but it is interesting to hear him and other Democrats assert that Republicans weren't interested in bi-partisan healthcare reform.

It's interesting to me that Dems are so concerned about being solely credited/blamed with passing this healthcare legislation if said legislation is such a great idea. You guys have got the numbers, you don't need any assistance in passing this stupid bill. Why not go for it? That's the beauty of an overwhelming majority and the ability to deny politicians cover for all their duplicitous, dodgy blame-shifting.

In any event, here's a great synopsis of Conservative priorities for so-called healthcare reform. ("John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare" - WSJ.com)

Re. the Gentleman Jihadist: We dodged a bullet

Because of the Christmas holiday, I haven't read a whole lot about The Gentleman Jihadist story, but it is interesting to watch the reaction of politicians related to the whole matter.*

To be clear, I believe it would have been amazing for "authorities" to have been able to avert this act by the Gentleman Jihadist, so I am restrained about casting blame for what might have happened. (I'm also henceforth restrained from whining about not being able to take my 3.5 oz tube of toothpaste in my carry-on). That being said, those dismissive of the dangers we face and shrilly opposed to almost any preemptive security measures need to own certain aspects of this threat.

For example, in a NYTimes report we read:("Security System Failed, Napolitano Acknowledges" - NYTimes.com):

Privacy advocates, for example, have tried to stop or at least slow the introduction of advanced checkpoint screening devices that use so-called millimeter waves to create an image of a passenger’s body, so officers can see under clothing to determine if a weapon or explosive has been hidden. Security officers, in a private area, review the images, which are not stored. Legislation is pending in the House that would prohibit the use of this equipment for routine passenger screening.

To date, only 40 of these machines have been installed at 19 airports across the United States — meaning only a tiny fraction of passengers pass through them. Amsterdam’s airport has 15 of these machines — more than just about any airport in the world — but an official there said Sunday that they were prohibited from using them on passengers bound for the United States, for a reason she did not explain. (emphasis added)

And I guess this is the rub in wanting to treat Jihadism as a criminal matter. Innocent until proven guilty falls short in a war context. But it surely fits the squishy, soft-headed mindset of today's Left. Not to mention it's an awfully easy pose to strike for the party who is not sitting in the Oval Office. But let's be clear that we dodged a bullet in this instance.






*President Obama--who is on vacation, hasn't said much, and that's okay from my perspective; though I don't recall a parenthetical statement such as "the White House Press office traveling with the President" in reports about Bush. Correct me if I'm wrong. Gosh, does this guy ever stop working on behalf of the American people?

Hope and Change for Jihadists!

I thought this was a peculiar quote in an article about the failed Detroit bomber:("Wealthy, quiet, unassuming: the Christmas Day bomb suspect" - The Independent):

Another significant factor is the report that the bomber was an engineering student at University College London. Dr Leivesley said that al-Qa'ida was recruiting people with engineering qualifications as well as highly placed scientists, particularly in the nuclear field.

"Al-Qa'ida is finding it difficult to recruit young people," she said. "And, interestingly, the election of Barack Obama is a factor in that, because, whatever you think of him as a president, the fact of him shows young people that there is an alternative to killing yourself. Al-Qa'ida is, however, targeting more highly skilled people." (emphasis added)

Whuh?

Yep. More money; less health care

Less Health Care for More Money - HUMAN EVENTS:

Liberals cite medical horror stories from the very states they once cheered for enacting universal health care in order to argue for a national health care plan that will wreck the entire nation's medical care the same way liberal states already wrecked their own medical care.

Only Democrats could propose fixing one Bernie Madoff-style scam with an even bigger Bernie Madoff-style scam.

Please defend the "estate tax"

I'm interested to hear a defense of the "estate tax" from someone who supports it. ("No agreement yet on extending estate tax: Hoyer" | Reuters). In my opinion there is probably no better example of socialist tax policy that exists. Now that the question is so clearly loaded, any takers?

Hug a tree . . . and hose (seriously hose) your wife and family!!

From a Bloomberg op/ed on corporate values and Tiger Woods: (Tiger Woods and the Coming Decline of Celebrity Endorsements):

Green-values-oriented Nike is sticking with Woods for the moment, appearing to be rehabilitation-minded and comeback-oriented in other instances too. This fall, Apple, Excelon, and other companies dropped their memberships in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in disagreement with what they saw as the Chamber's foot-dragging on climate change policy. Nike kept its membership while resigning from the Chamber board in order to work for change from within, executives said. But the Chamber incident, too, is evidence that companies increasingly see that their values must be reflected consistently in every decision they make, every marketing campaign they run, and every partnership they form.

Dennis Miller on Climategate

The inimitable Dennis Miller's comments on Climategate:

Some of them are no doubt vaguely cognizant of the fact that they might have way overbet this hand and that there's now something much more important in play than the plight of the planet. And that of course would be their reputations and standing in the herd of man.

. . . .

In lieu of having the facts (i.e., the thermometer!) bear out their hypothesis, they are now going to have to get creative. They are going to have to press the bet now and steer into the delusional skid, and that sort of desperation makes for a really unsavory individual no matter how much good they are ostensibly doing for their fellow man.

Deniers will be disparaged, data will be fudged and theories will be advanced that are, if possible, even more wing-nuttier than some of the claptrap currently out there. If heretofore depictions of Manhattan under water in the year 2057 were shown to sixth-graders, they're going to have to drop it down to preschoolers in deference to the Gullibility Expansion Joint.

Way to go President Obama!!

These faux "quotes from the future" are hilarious . . . Obama already has stopped catastrophic climate change . . . in its tracks! Way to go President Obama!


World Leaders Send Apologies for Climate Change ... from the Future

UK's Blair says Saddam ouster right, without WMDs

Yep.

Blair articulately defends his decision on Iraq. And it drives people on the Left crazy that one of their few elected leaders won't yield to their intimidation.

Re. Obama's Nobel acceptance speech . . .

Conservative praise for Nobel speech - - POLITICO.com:

Added Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations: “If Bush had said these things the world would be filled with violent denunciations,” said “When Obama says them, people purr. That is fine by me.”

On climate: flawed premises produce flawed conclusions

Can we all agree that flawed premises lead to flawed conclusions? Okay, can we at least agree that flawed premises produce suspect conclusions? I guess not.

This article ("Sarah Palin, Dem greens' grinch" - - POLITICO.com) nicely illustrates the Left's efforts to distract from the damning--absolutely damning, revelations that leading global warming "scientists" were relying on deception and intimidation to promote their environmental agenda. Like the article implies, Sarah Palin (and other "Denialists") are attempting to steal the joy of what should be the HOLYday season for the Left. From the article:

[Democratic Congressperson] Ed Markey said he would welcome the Republicans in Copenhagen because they would be “exposed to the consensus the world has reached…They are in a very, very, very small minority on the planet.”"

Hey Ed, this purported "consensus" is built on the purportedly learned, unbiased, scientific conclusions of purportedly unbiased, honest scientists . . . premises all of which are severely in doubt based on the Climategate disclosures. What's there to "hide," Ed? What's there to "trick"erize? Since when does a scientist bury/destroy/misplace(!) data from which he's drawing conclusions?

Last night the family and I watched How the Grinch Stole Christmas, so pardon me while I run (the opposite direction) with Glenn Thrush's weak metaphor.

Climate alarmists like Al Gore are hoping they can shoo all us AGW skeptics back to our blissful slumber like little Cindy Loo-Who . . . who busts the Grinch stealing her Christmas tree.* In all candor, I think Ed Markey's brain is two sizes too small, and I pretty much believe that this whole climate alarmism scam will turn out alright in the end.



*Classic lines from imdb:
Narrator: As the Grinch took the tree, as he started to shove, he heard a small sound like the coo of a dove. He turned around fast and he saw a small Who. Little Cindy Lou Who, who was no more than two. She stared at the Grinch and said...
Cindy Lou Who: Santie Claus, why? Why are you taking our Christmas tree? Why?
Narrator: But do you know, that old Grinch was so smart and so slick, that he thought up a lie and he thought it up quick.
Grinch: Why my sweet little tot...
Narrator: The fake Santie Claus lied...
Grinch: ...there's a light on this tree that won't light on one side. So I'm taking it home to my workshop, my dear. I'll fix it up there, then I'll bring it back here.
Narrator: And his fib fooled the child. Then he patted her head, he got her a drink and he sent her to bed. And when Cindy Lou Who was in bed with her cup, he crupt to the chimney and stuffed the tree up. Then he went up the chimney himself, the old liar, and the last thing he took was the log for their fire. On their walls he left nothing but hooks and some wire. And the one speck of food that he left in the house was a crumb that was even too small for a mouse.

The World's Oldest [form of recruiting]?

This story ("N.C.A.A. Is Said to Inquire Widely of Tennessee’s Recruiting" - NYTimes.com) about an NCAA investigation of UT's football program was poignant after hearing Phillip Fulmer on 104.5 yesterday and thinking about how different he seems to be from Lane Kiffin. From the article:

The N.C.A.A. is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into the University of Tennessee’s football recruiting practices, according to interviews with several prospects, their family members and high school administrators. A significant part of the investigation is focused on the use of recruiting hostesses who have become folk heroes on Tennessee Internet message boards for their ability to help lure top recruits.

Ever since watching Hoop Dreams way back when, I have been intrigued by the recruiting process, and Tennessee's program seems rather innovative . . . and less carnal than is implied in several recent reports I've seen.




Tip 'o the hat to The City Paper.

On a lighter note . . .

It is amazing to me that a man the size of Shaq is able to dance like this:



As a friend has told me in the past, it is very difficult to fully appreciate the agility of NBA players without watching a game in person.

Yeah, Congress'll figure out the best way . . .

Kind of like the incredibly pointed question asked of Dallas Cowboys coach Wade Phillips after the Giants loss, why in the world would we entrust design of a sports championship to Congress? House panel takes step to force college football playoff - USATODAY.com:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters.

The bill, which faces long odds of becoming law, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff.

Circling the global warming wagons

This report linked at National Review's The Corner blog--about Global Warming wagon circling, is hilarious: "The Perils of Groupthink, Cont'd" - Jonah Goldberg.

An Inconvenient Peer Review, cont'd

Findings - Fracas Over Hacked Climate E-Mail Shows Peril of Spinning Science - NYTimes.com:

"In fact, one skeptic raised [a concern about drawing conclusions from two sets of data grafted together] in a comment posted in 2004 on RealClimate, the blog operated by climate scientists. The comment, which questioned the propriety of “grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record,” immediately drew a sharp retort on the blog from Michael Mann, an expert at Penn State University:

“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation Web sites) appearing in this forum.”

Dr. Mann now tells me that he was unaware, when he wrote the response, that such grafting had in fact been done in the earlier cover chart, and I take him at his word. But I don’t see why the question was dismissed so readily, with the implication that only a tool of the fossil-fuel industry would raise it.

Contempt for critics is evident over and over again in the hacked e-mail messages, as if the scientists were a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians. Yes, some of the skeptics have political agendas, but so do some of the scientists. Sure, the skeptics can be cranks and pests, but they have identified genuine problems in the historical reconstructions of climate, as in the debate they inspired about the “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the past millennium."

I love how Mann writes "to our knowledge." Sounds like a press secretary's resort to plausible deniability.

Jim Treacher's friendly chat with the global warming evangelist who lives in his head

Jim Treacher has scripted what reminds me of most any on-line "debate" with a global warming alarmist. Here's an excerpt:

"Do you really think you know more than scientists? They're scientists.

Yes, and science is a wonderful thing. It's improved our lives in countless ways. It also has nothing to do with what these frauds, and the useful idiots who believed them, have been pulling."

ClimateGate criminal?

Robert Tracinski at RealClearPolitics discusses another aspect to the Climategate scandal: ("ClimateGate: The Fix is In"):

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being 'confused' by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

I am skeptical that this is a criminal act, but I guess that depends on assertions that were made in grant proposals and the intent of these "scientists." In all candor (and Tracinski implies as much), I'm inclined to say that these fools sincerely believed the crap they were espousing . . . it was moral relativism mixed with arrogance that motivated them to quash dissent and do whatever was necessary to "be right."

Aunt B oughta like this report . . .

Most Aggressive Dog Breeds - Photos - WFTV Orlando

Covering their tracks on global "warming"

I guess this report should come as no surprise given that leading global warming alarmists had always blown off FOI (UK, US: FOIA) requests ("Climate change data dumped" - Times Online):

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

More Climategate reactions from "scientists"

From the WSJ:

A more thoughtful response to the emails comes from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, as reported by a New York Times blogger:

"This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.

Emphasis added.

Climategate in sum

Climategate is despicable on a host of levels . . . institutional censorship of opposing views, defamation, deception. Here's an excerpt from a great essay at Pajamas Media, "Climategate: The Skeptical Scientist's View":

As readers are now aware, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, the main climate research center in Britain, has had 128 megabytes of secret emails and other data placed online by someone calling himself “FOIA.” A number of scientists have been trying for years to get the raw data possessed by CRU placed online, filing requests under the British Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Although required by law to release this information, CRU has not done so, or has claimed that the data were accidentally erased. We now have proof in the emails that the illegal withholding of information was intentional, and that the erasure of data was also intentional.

The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.

Emphasis added.

Tip o' the hat to Instapundit.

Meanwhile: here are some pathetic and almost humorous responses from Environmental Alarmists.

Wow, Arianna Huffington thinks we need to use more plastic . . .

Arianna Huffington has a post at her place entitled, "Will The Unemployment Disaster Be Obama's Katrina?". My first response (in my head, not audibly) was, "Of course not, Bush didn't cause Hurricane Katrina," but I figured that Huffington wouldn't share my perspective. As I read the essay, though, I realized how radically different was our difference of perspective. From the article:

His economic team's resistance to a second round of stimulus, 'lukewarm' reaction to Congressional jobs legislation, and prioritization of deficit reduction over job creation certainly has the feel of a taking-in-the-damage-from-2,500-feet flyover moment.

Wow. Then again, I guess you could say that Libs view economics like bad meteorology . . . giving a convincing forecast and then hand out raincoats with your logo on them.

Yep . . . "locked in" battle with the Left

Sorry, but I have to bring up I didn't notice or hear the phrase "locked in syndrome" the other day when reading about the guy who had been uncommunicative for 23 years. ("Paralyzed Belgium Man Was Awake for 23 Years" - ABC News).

A paralyzed Belgian man who spent the past 23 years incorrectly diagnosed as being in a vegetative state, was fully conscious and could hear everything around him the entire time.
. . . .
Finally, with a little help from a nurse who goaded the doctors, Chiappa was diagnosed as being "locked-in" rather than a vegetable. A massive stroke that hit the base of his brain had left him unable to move, but left his mind perfectly intact.

Neurologists say paralysis plays only one role in a complicated combination of impaired states that can trap a person in their body.

After seeing this story today, I googled "locked in" and "Schiavo" (as in Terry Schindler Schiavo--the relatively young woman at the center of the controversial case involving a loser husband wanting to put his estranged wife to death) and "locked in" and realized that the phrase only showed up in relation to the battle between Schiavo's loser husband and those--like her mother, who didn't think she should be deprived of oral nutrition and hydration. The little google exercise seemed to illustrate an epic clash of two world views.

Good thing this is an anomaly

My Way News - Pa. university students upset about fitness class:

A Pennsylvania university's requirement that overweight undergraduates take a fitness course to receive their degrees has raised the hackles of students and the eyebrows of health and legal experts.

Well, at least we don't have to worry about the gov't ever sticking its nose into our health and healthcare, right?

". . . it's only because of all the fact-checkers' copies"

My Way News - "Going Rogue" is going big:

Publisher HarperCollins said Friday that Sarah Palin's memoir sold 300,000 copies its first day, among the best openings ever for a nonfiction book. In 2004, Bill Clinton's 'My Life' debuted with sales of 400,000 copies. The year before, Hillary Rodham Clinton's 'Living History' started at 200,000.

TN gun ruling: whose Constitutional right is at stake?

Reuters is reporting . . . Tennessee judge blocks law allowing guns in bars | U.S. | Reuters

Nashville Judge Claudia Bonnyman said the law was 'fraught with ambiguity' and ruled in favor of a suit brought by restaurant owners who argued gun owners would not be able to determine if an establishment met the criteria.

Legal gadfly Gordon Bonnyman's wife may be a bit of a gadfly herself; except she's a judge. Under what theory of "standing" does a restaurant owner sue against a law on behalf of patrons who might (or might not) be unsure about whether they're breaking the law? Regrettably, it appears that Judge Bonnyman, like her husband, is inclined to use the courts to legislate her policy preferences.

Bureaucratic boobs

Sister Toldjah nails the mammogram story ("Obama admin starts its health care 'cost cutting' measures")which probably could not come at a worse time for Obama and the Democrats as they prepare to foist government-run (aka "single-payer," "universal," "socialized," "public" etc.) healthcare on Americans. Nonetheless, the story reminded me of an interesting NYTimes article I came across a couple weeks ago--"Cancers Can Vanish Without Treatment, but How?". . . about studies which reflect that early and often cancer screens may be catching cancers that would otherwise disappear on their own.

Healthcare is complicated stuff . . . it's comforting to think that gov't bureaucrats may soon be making all these decisions for us, huh?

So-called scientists

Here's a great article in the WSJ about emerging evidence of deception by so-called scientists working on global warming. Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor - WSJ.com. From the article:

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

Yep . . .

Higher Ed crisis!

The cost of higher ed is rising faster than the cost of health insurance . . . let's pull an all-nighter to solve the problem!



It is interesting to note that Democrats are in the process of "disadvantaging" non-governmental education loan companies . . . sounds a lot like the likely problems with making non-governmental health insurance companies compete with a "public option."

Back to the drawing board on same-sex "marriage"?

Yesterday, Maine voters became the 31st state body politic to reject same-sex "marriage," but Maine is unique in that the defeat at the polls came after a majority of the Maine legislature had approved of the concept.

Thus, the results of yesterday's referendum in Maine have national significance inasmuch as they lay bare the political strategy of homosexual activists like Tim Gill ("They won't know what hit them."-- The Atlantic). In sum, it's a little disingenuous to contend that the so-called legislative route is/was, pardon the pun, out in the open, as is implied in this TIME story. After Maine Gay-Marriage Defeat, Activists Look Ahead - TIME From the article:

In order to counter that argument [that homosexual marriage is being "foisted" upon Americans by "out-of-touch" judges], [attorney Mary] Bonauto and other gay-marriage activists in Maine who began organizing to press for gay marriage there decided to avoid taking the issue to court. Instead, they set about electing lawmakers who were friendly to their cause two years ago, and this year successfully convinced the legislature to become the nation's first to establish gay marriage by statute, rather than by decree. "Frankly, we had heard the criticisms about going the court route, and so we said, 'Fine, we'll go to the legislature,'" says Bonauto. "And it has been an incredible campaign."

I'd say it's one thing to present an issue/platform squarely to voters and let them vote, and another to simply get people elected who covertly share your agenda. The latter looks more like a coup than republican government.

He invented climate-alarmism profiteering

Gore’s Dual Role - Advocate and Investor - NYTimes.com From the article:

Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”

In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over decades.

“I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all of the time I was in public service,” Mr. Gore wrote. “As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way.”

It's one thing to be in business and another thing to be intimately involved in crafting the policies that lead to GOVERNMENT contracts. And you gotta love the word-smithing of "global warming pollution reductions." Read: Carbon Dioxide. Which reminds me of the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.

The audacity of spendthriftiness

Wow.
Obama team makes it official: Budget deficit hits record. By a lot. - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency:

The deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, came in at a record $1.42 trillion, more than triple the record set just last year.

In addition, future deficits are currently projected to total $9.1 trillion in the coming decade.

Waging Obama's non-war

BBC NEWS--"US warned on deadly drone attacks":

The US has been warned that its use of drones to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan may violate international law.

UN human rights investigator Philip Alston said the US should explain the legal basis for attacking individuals with the remote-controlled aircraft.

He said the CIA had to show accountability to international laws which ban arbitrary executions.

Drones have killed about 600 people in north-west Pakistan since August 2008.

At first I was struck at how this article hardly referenced our current Commander in Chief, but Obama is mentioned in the next-to-last sentence:

Mr Alston's warning came as US President Barack Obama reviews US strategy in the Afghan campaign.

Which leads me to think that drones may perfectly illustrate Obama's uninspired war-by-proxy strategy in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Sloppy policy thinking

I came across a great post (and seemingly great blog) via Post Politics this morning.

The writer is pointing out that some women resist Feminism because of its Big Gov't baggage more than its presumed stances on "social issues." From the article (The Libertarian Side of Global Feminism? « Cosmopolitan Conservative):

As a social conservative in America, you would think that my main issue with feminism would be abortion. However, it is feminism’s deep commitment to socialism that bothers me the most. Feminists believe that to empower women, you need to weaken men. In order to help the poor, you have to take away resources from the rich through taxes, lawsuits, anti-discrimination laws or quotas. Feminists believe that in order to change society, the federal government has to step in and pass a law. It’s as though freedom, wealth and liberty are in limited quantities and must be rationed out to the masses in different levels determined by arbitrary perceptions of discrimination.

If feminists spent more time trying to alter society’s perceptions instead of bullying people through lawsuits, mandates and laws, I believe that a lot many more Americans would embrace the movement. However, feminists have allowed their cause to be co-opted by the Democratic party in order to maintain political power and relevancy. They’ve sacrificed the “principles” of their movement for short-term gains. Allowing a political party to take o[]ver your movement only weakens it. (Sadly, that comes from watching Republicans all but destroy the fiscal conservatism on the right. )

As I thought about how easy it is to blur party and principles, I was thinking about the perils of sloppy thinking on policy. For example, her last point about the GOP and fiscal conservatism. It is tempting for all of us to put on the ideological cruise control. And thermodynamically speaking it does not work to just rubber stamp the activities of Political Party.

The Pup tent Dems

Interesting email from my inclusive friends at Democrats.com:

Dear Ned,
After months of debate, an overwhelming majority of Americans support a "robust public option" similar to Medicare.
And thanks to the heroic efforts of progressive activists, we have almost enough votes in the Senate and House to pass it.
The Democratic majorities in the Senate (60/40) and the House (258/177) are large enough to pass a "public option" even with no Republican support. But a handful of conservative "Democrats" are blocking the will of the Democratic majority.
These conservative "Democrats" refuse to listen to the Democratic voters who elected them. That means it's up to our Democratic leaders - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama - to persuade them.
Join the Democratic Donor Strike for a Robust Public Option . . .

I have missed the poll that showed "an overwhelming majority of Americans support 'a robust public option'" (though the quotation marks in the original email are indicative of hair-splitting, I think), and I like how they put the word Democrats in quotation marks when referring to those Democrats who are bucking purported overwhelming majorities.

Under moral siege

Somer Thompson Body Found: Sheriff Matches Birthmark, Clothing - ABC News:

As investigators examined a child's body found in a Georgia landfill, they hoped they wouldn't find what they were looking for. But a birthmark and clothing told them that they had, indeed, found 7-year-old Somer Thompson, who disappeared Monday while walking home from school in her Orange Park, Fla., neighborhood.
. . . .
[Clay County Sheriff Rick] Beseler said detectives are following up on leads today and trying to finish locating all of the more than 90 sex offenders who live in a three-mile radius around Somer's home.

(emphasis added) That is astonishing. 90 people who have committed sexual crimes. How could you not feel under siege, morally speaking, in that neighborhood?

While mowing the lawn the other day, I got to thinking about how far my personal morals--about pornography or "adult entertainment"--should influence the public policy I push. How open am I to being a Libertarian in political terms? I had watched some of Penn Jillette's "penn says" online videos and was wondering to what degree I could cooperate with him on public policy. (I had ventured to the site to watch Jillette's comments (profanity advisory) about a nasty confrontation with surely non-mean-spirited, tolerant, Liberal Tommy Smothers.) The report about Obama's laxening of Federal interest in laws (here) relating to marijuana use also got me to thinking about such things.

As I ruminated on the ramifications of Libertarian policies, I was thinking of comparisons with industrial pollution in a community or with other passive dangers to humans, but they all seem to fall short of the danger that messed up humans pose to humans. I suppose what constitutes moral pollution is more subjective than biological/environmental pollution. And though all people aren't affected the same way by their use of pornography or marijuana (or alcohol), laissez faire treatment of such vices would be a difficult argument to make to Diena Thompson today. How could she not be concerned about the impact--on appetites and psyches and families--of cultural messages and public policies reflecting the view that people are objects and self-gratification is harmless? Where are the appropriate moral and political boundaries?

I'm seriously interested in hearing different viewpoints on the matter . . .

Bad actors on several levels

Frankly, after watching a couple youtube clips of the infamous Heenes, there is certainly one element of their story that is rather incredible: the parents, Richard and Mayumi, have received acting instruction. From a CNN story ("Authorities: 'Balloon boy' incident was a hoax" - CNN.com):

The parents, Richard and Mayumi Heene, met in a Hollywood acting school . . .

If they're guilty of this costly hoax, they are guilty of bad acting on various levels.

Thanks, AP, for giving us the expert's "qualifications"

This AZ sheriff has always fascinated me--especially the pink prison boxers and tents for inmates, so I was curious to hear about a dust up he is having with the Obama Administration. In the AP's report (here) of the controversy, they are careful to "qualify" the opinion of one legal expert:

Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and an advocate of expanding local immigration efforts, said Arpaio's office — like every other local police agency — can detain people suspected of immigration violations for a day or two until federal authorities come to pick them up.

In the past, Arpaio could have held such immigrants for longer than two days and conducted investigations of smuggling rings, Kobach said.

'It's really a slight narrowing, but it's not much,' said Kobach, who worked as an immigration law adviser to then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft from 2001-2003.

(emphasis added) This is almost humorous, if it wasn't so transparently biased and if its source wasn't so unduly influential at framing public debate. I'll be eager to see future background info on every legal scholar with a Liberal opinion.

Hey MSM, we need you to be our eyes and ears for the news, not our brains.

Ramming through healthcare "reform"

Yesterday while leaving the post office, I was targeted for a scam by two conmen (I'll share more about that in another post), and one thing that I realized as I interacted with these guys is how valuable a perception of haste is scamming a "mark."

I've been ruminating over a soundbite I heard from John F. Kerry the other day, something along the lines of, "We've been waiting since Teddy Roosevelt to do this" (in reference to socializing healthcare or whatever he's acting like this bill is going to do). That sounds about right and it's consistent with what I've been reading in Liberal Facism. The Dems' efforts on healthcare seem like a big rush for those of us who appreciate free markets (and free people), but maybe not for people like Kerry.

While radio channel surfing this morning I heard a great interview by Fred Thompson with healthcare expert James Capretta about the blushingly presumptuous (not to mention disingenuous) predictions from the Left about actual costs of current Liberal healthcare reform proposals. For example, the $821 billion estimate presumes $100 billion of reduction in fees paid to physicians that anyone in the know will admit are cuts that will not happen.

Another example was upwards of $100 billion that the Feds are presuming they can pass along to the States. Which was corroborated by candid statements from Gov. Bredesen. Terry Frank links to it at her place. terryfrank.net » Bredesen Predicts Even Larger Costs to Tennesseans

And now there's word (via Drudge) that Harry Reid is admitting the gross underestimate of likely costs for taxpayer-funded health insurance. Let's slow down a little Dems.

Al of Freddy's Fashion Mart fame speaks out on Limbaugh and NFL

From the master of division and incendiary-ness ("Group Cuts Ties With Limbaugh to Buy NFL Team" - FOXNews.com):

[Al] Sharpton added in a telephone interview that major sports leagues shouldn't welcome owners who are "divisive and incendiary."

Way to go TNRtL

It is intriguing to read Tennessee's Left (and Squishy Right) decry the TNDP's (a) failure to appreciate that "the Man" is more important than the party ("Why didn't they recruit a better $?%&@# Candidate?!?!?) and (b) failure to choose a candidate who was strong on their (Democratic) Principles while simultaneously assailing Tennessee Right to Life for making a non-partisan, principled choice to endorse a candidate who was solid on their issues over someone cool/arguably indifferent on their issues.

I have to say that I pretty much agree with Adam Kleinheider's assessment of the race . . . below is some of the less-informed buzz about Pat Marsh's win over Ty Cobb in the special election for Tennessee House District 62:

AuntB

Southern Beale


Left-wing Cracker

And comments at Post Politics.

Obama lets handlers handle this one

The question of where, if at all, the Obamas would attend church in D.C. had not even crossed my mind until I heard today that they were still church hunting. But I thought the following paragraph on the subject was ironic, given Obama's history of apparently indiscriminate pew-filling "Washington Churches Eye the Obamas" - NYTimes.com):

"Mr. Obama’s search for a church home has touched off a frenzied competition among ministers of various colors and creeds who are wooing the first family. The president, in turn, has sent emissaries to observe worship services, interview congregants and scrutinize pastors. (His aides even searched YouTube to vet one local minister.)"

(emphasis added) And later in the article we read this choice detail:

In January, Mr. Obama prayed at his first Sunday service here at Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, where hundreds of black professionals worship in a gleaming white sanctuary well beyond this city’s corridors of power. (The president took notes.)

(emphasis added)

Though I can hardly imagine how it is possible to be a part of a church when you are president or a president's family member, godspeed in finding your church, Mr. President.

Obama's Nobel [Ap]Pea[s]e Prize?

The whole "story" about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is fascinating to me. Sour grapes (here) might explain some of my feelings upon hearing the news, but really it is more of plain ol' disbelief. I think even honest Liberals would admit they couldn't believe the news when they heard it.

And it has led to an interesting car conversation with my 10-year-old. When I told her the news, and my take on it (the award was based on what Obama had promised to do) she really impressed me by referring to a joke she had told me about a year ago (aren't young minds impressive?). Here's the joke.

But what prompted this post was something from Jay Nordlinger at The Corner on National Review Online providing some interesting back story about the Nobel Prize:

I’ve read some commentary that the Nobel Committee has handed Obama a “poisoned chalice,” because now his freedom of action will be constrained: How can he take military action, when necessary — or persevere in war, when necessary — while holding the title of “peace laureate”? As it happens, this issue arose in Norway, about Norway, long ago. Let me explain.

Continue reading about the Nobel Prize's poison chalice history here.

Because Norwegians don't get to vote in American elections . . .

This paragraph provides all the necessary context for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee's controversial pick of simply-successful-presidential-candidate Barack Obama ("Nobel Committee Courts Controversy Over Obama Peace Prize Decision" - WSJ.com):

The committee has also been criticized for political bias, especially after it awarded the Nobel to Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007 -- moves that were both seen as rebukes to the then U.S. President, George W. Bush.

UPDATE: Thankfully, even Obama supporters are acknowledging--and calling the Nobel Committee out regarding, this silly decision.

PostPartisan - A Nobel for a Good Two Weeks?:

This is ridiculous -- embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize? This is supposed to be for doing, not being -- and it’s no disrespect to the president to suggest he hasn’t done much yet. Certainly not enough to justify the peace prize.

'Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples?” “[C]aptured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future?” Please. This turns the award into something like pee-wee soccer: everybody wins for trying.

Amazing software not-too-crudely "automates" graphic design

PhotoSketch: Internet Image Montage from tao chen on Vimeo.

Unhealthy healthcare

Deroy Murdock shares some salient data on how unhealthy government-run healthcare is ("Government Medicine Kills"):

The Senate Finance Committee should sink Obama-Baucuscare and instead craft a patient-friendly, pro-market, limited-government approach to health-care reform. Perhaps some senators cannot fathom the Hippocratic Oath’s key insight: First, do no harm. If that’s Greek to them, here it is in language they understand: First, don’t kill your voters.

Iron[ies] of ironies

While reading about Ahmadinejad's Jewish heritage, I happened upon a photo album on the Telegraph's (UK) website. The album's introductory copy reads:

When Lennart Nilsson's pictures of developing embryos were published in Life magazine in 1965, they caused a sensation. Within days, the entire print run of eight million had sold out. More than 40 years later, the photographs have lost none of their power.

(emphasis added) I agree, and I encourage you to give 'em a look see. ("A Child is Born: Photographs of the foetus developing in the womb," by Lennart Nilsson)

But I had to comment on the irony of the caption beneath a stunning photo of a two-month old "embryo" (here):

Eight weeks. The rapidly-growing embryo is well protected in the foetal sac

Well, in light of Liberal American abortion policy, not really protected.

Which reminds me of the 40 Days for Life being conducted locally by Nashville Right to Life through Nov. 1st. I just read this account of a conversation between a crisis pregnancy counselor and a woman who changed her mind about getting an abortion:

She told me that she already had four children, was not financially sound, and had to work full time. She then added, "But that's not my baby's fault."

(40daysforlife.com)

The Olympics whiff

A couple of finger-pointing references in articles over at Drudge got me to thinking about what would have motivated the Obama to go to such lengths on behalf of getting the 2016 Olympics bid. Which led me to this intriguing article about the person--Valerie Jarrett, who led Obama et al down this path. Based on her bio, it's going to be unfortunate if she continues as the proverbial power behind the throne.

Polanski case as litmus test

Jonah Goldberg of National Review nicely states the litmus test-y nature of the Roman Polanski matter ("Polanski Controversy Shouldn’t Be Controversial") From the op/ed:

It all boils down to the fact that Polanski is famous and talented and an Olympian artist, living above the world of mortals. Indeed, if he didn’t rape that girl — and he did — Polanski would still be considered a pig in most normal communities. This is the man who, after all, started dating Nastassja Kinski when she was only 15 and he was in his 40s. His taste for teenage girls is an established fact.

His defenders don’t care. They are above and beyond bourgeois notions of morality, even legality.

And that’s the main reason I am grateful for this controversy. It is a dye marker, “lighting up” a whole archipelago of morally wretched people. With their time, their money, and their craft, these very people routinely lecture America about what is right and wrong. It’s good to know that at the most fundamental level, they have no idea what they’re talking about.

The American Infant Mortality Myth

Speaking of (ahem) lies in the healthcare debate Ann Coulter e_v_i_s_c_e_r_a_t_e_s the we-need-socialized-medicine-because-of-infant-mortality-rates myth* here.





*here, here, here . . .

Yarbro--now THAT'S progressive!

In announcing a District 21 primary challenge against "Dean of the Senate" Douglas Henry (D-Nashville) Jeff Yarbro offers this critique of Henry:

Too often, our elected representatives have spent more time playing partisan politics than supporting our schools, creating jobs, fighting crime, and improving our health. The Tennessee General Assembly is failing to address either the short-term economic crisis or the long-term challenges facing our state.

(emphasis mine) Surely Yarbro isn't accusing Doug Henry of this? Yarbro doesn't showcase any Liberal policies on his campaign site, but he is careful to sprinkle the word "Progressive" here and there. No doubt Henry gets under the skin of folks like Chip Forrester. I guess Yarbro wasn't willing to take on Jim Cooper?