Sunday, February 28, 2010

"Parchment Barriers" in the Constitution

Just read this in The 5000 Year Leap ... really stuck out at me:
The whole spectrum of checks and balances needs to be more thoroughly studied and more viorously enforced.  Madison appropriately anticipated that "parchment barriers" in the constitution would not prevent usurpation.  Each department of government has the responsibility to rise up and protect its perogatives by exercising the checks and balances which have been provided.  At the same time, the people have the responsibility to keep a closer watch on their representatives and only elect those who will function within Constitutional boundaries.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that those attempting to use those checks and balances to check an unbridled lurch in a wrong direction would probably be called "Obstructionists" by the other side.

I should also point out that the idea that it's the Democrats' plan or the "Status Quo" is a great, real example of one of President Obama's favorite catch phrases .... a "false choice".

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Coffee Party Movement Redux

A few weeks ago I was made aware of the Coffee Party Movement when an acquaintance joined this group on facebook.

As I said here, it seemed pretty hypocritical spewing vitriol at the Tea Party Movement while claiming to be against hate.

Well another friend posted a statement on what the Coffee Party stood for, as he said it is not "Anti-Tea Party", but "we are against obstructionism and discourse of hatred."

So ... you're not "Anti-Tea Party", but you are against what the tea partiers have been accused of being in the progressive media, and the name you chose is an obvious reaction to the term "Tea Party".  "We're not against the Tea Party Movement, we're just against everything we think you are."  Got it.

I posted the link I had to the facebook page of "The Coffee Party" and said "well then it can't possibly be this group, can it?"   And he responded with a link to the CoffeePartyUSA site that also has a different facebook page, both with much less confrontational tones.

On the Coffee Party USA page, there is a mission statement
MISSION: The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.
This is the same vague, psuedo-positive-sounding trash that "Hope" and "Change" is.   With the obvious bent in progressive membership (watch the tweets, read the polls) in mind, let's dissect this a bit.

"Americans who want to see cooperation in government."  Well, of course, what American is against cooperation in government?  Who could be against that?  But it leaves out the question -- cooperation with what? 

"We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people."  An obvious reference to the originalist small-government bendt to the Tea Party Movement.  Well, you know, we're not anarchists over here.  Oh, I'm sure there are a few hanging out on the fringes.  But the vast majority of us are not.  So we don't think of the federal government as "the enemy of the people".   Actually, we recognize that the federal government is a tool, not an entity.  And like any tool, it can be abused by those who control it.  We believe that not only has that tool been abused, but the abusers have been slowly but steadily modifying that tool, "transforming" it into something quite different that can be much more easily abused, first by removing and/or circumventing the designed-in safety features, and then by adding on all sorts of cumbersome bells and whistles that really wreak havoc on its efficiency.  But I digress.  We were talking about the Coffee Party Movement.  But it's hard to talk about them without referencing the movement they are clearly reacting to.

but the expression of our collective will  News flash.  We were not designed as a collectivist society.  This is why people have come here in droves.  We are not a democracy.  We are a republic that uses democracy as a tool, but the limits to that democracy are well-defined in the Constitution.  "Collective will of the people" -- that's Socialist talk.  I'm not making this up or calling people names.  Read your history.

As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them. This one's a doozy.  It starts out with a subliminal suggestion (which came through the Progressive Media loudly until the Scott Brown win) that the Tea Party Movement is not a real grass roots movement.  But that's not really what's important here. 

we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions,  This is real handy when you get to define what a "positive" solution is and what is not.  Kind of like the peer review process in the AGW realm.  If you get to define away who is and who is not a peer so that only peers who agree with you are "peers", then "peer review" becomes meaningless.  Similary, "positive" means whatever the Coffee Party decides is a "positive" solution.

Another thing I should point out is that progressives always talk in terms of solutions, never trade-offs.  Intent is all that matters, because in the end progressivism is about feeling good about yourself.   When their solutions end in more and worse poverty, bankrupt nations, and limited health care options ... it's not their fault.  They meant well.  And besides, as long as everybody is equally miserable, it's "fair".

But the really creepy part is here:  and hold accountable those who obstruct them.  You know, like The Weather Channe's Heidi Cullen calling for the pulling of AMS accreditation of any meteorologist who disagreed with the manufactured "concensus" -- and the multiple calls for global warming deniers to be "tried" for crimes against humanity or even killed.  It's echoed in every socialist revolution.  Those who do not agree with us need to be silenced, imprisioned, or even killed. 

"Oh, but that's not what we mean."   Maybe not.  Maybe you haven't thought it through.  Maybe that's not what you mean right now.  But you'd go along with it as long as the guns weren't pointed at you.  And that's the way it works.

And as far as "progress" and its "obstruction" is concerned ... What if a bunch of people in government were for slavery, or imprisoning gays?  What if they really thought that was "moving forward"?  What would you then think about those who "obstructed" their "progress"?

We believe that the constant, progressive expansion of government is wrong because it takes tangible wealth from person A and gives it to person B regardless of the will of person A, even if person A has done nothing wrong.  That is theft.  That is robbery.  And it should not be taken lightly.  In addition to the fact that it is wrong, it also leads to undesirable consequences, and that has been shown all over the world as communist countries have collapsed one after the other, and the social democracies of Europe are collapsing under the weight of its un-funded progressive benevolence, and we see the U.S. following right behind like another lemming in the pack that was lucky enough to be far enough back in the pack to change our minds before we get to water's edge.  I hope.

We are not against charity.  We do care about little Sally Muckenfutch and the lady who wore her dead mom's teeth.  As a matter of fact, we are more charitable than liberal (progressives).  And there is a reason for that.  We believe that charity is the role of the individual, and not of the government.  It should be left to us to whom we give, when, and how much.   Otherwise, we egregiously violate the principles of Liberty.

In short, the Coffee Party Movement is just another pretty store front for progessives to get behind and sloganize in order to feel good about themselves.  It was started by progressives, of progressives, and for progressives.  It's purpose is intentionally vague, like the store fronts of most progressive movements, to fool as many people who wish to con themselves into believing they are the thinking people and getting behind.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Tolerance, Intolerance, Fascism, and Beauty Pageants

I didn't jump in on this -- for one thing, I don't think I am able to.  For another, a good friend of mine jumped in to it.  And he had it pretty well covered.  Not that it was going to do any good.

It was a discussion on a link a friend of his posted on Facebook.  It turns out that there is yet another beauty paegent contestant who doesn't believe in "gay" marriage and believes that homosexuality is wrong.

Therefore, she must be destroyed.  Obviously.

Now the claim was that this young lady, Lauren Ashley, thinks that gays should be put to death because of the Leviticus Bible passage she quoted:
"In Leviticus it says, 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.'"
Well, it does, that is a fact.  It doesn't say that they should be put to death by man.  And she didn't say she thought that man should put them to death.  She just cited it to back up the fact that her religion says it's wrong.  She believes that it is wrong because God was pretty stern in his warning.

Now, Things I Know #7 says "Tolerance and acceptance are not synonymous."

In the long and heated argument that ensued, in an ostensibly conciliatory comment the original poster wrote:
Here's another thought: her lack of tolerance is met with a heaping helping of more intolerance.But the real trouble I see here is the belief some people have that their beliefs are enough to enact legislation.
Well... I've got two problems with this.

#1,  Lauren has shown no intolerance.  None.  She was asked a question on what she believed.  She stated that belief, and backed it with a passage from the book that lies at the core of her beliefs.  And people didn't like her answer.  So of course she must be destroyed as an example so that anyone with the same belief will think twice before stating that belief again.  That is by design.  It is one of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals".   Ridicule.

#2, Who is trying to pass legislation to enact their beliefs?  Those who believe that gay "marriage" should be included in the definition of marriage, or those who do not?

Now that was a trick question, because right now the answer is "both".  But it wasn't always so.  It wasn't until the gay activists and their proxy supporters tried to enact legislation (which is routinely roundly rejected by voters everywhere) to re-define what "marriage" has always meant.   Since they can't get it passed via legislation, they have tried to circumvent legislation and go to the courts to "legislate" by judicial fiat a new definition from the bench.  They've had some success in that area.   In reaction, the groups that are trying to enact legislation to stop the judicial enacting of "legislation" that re-defines marriage.

My position on the subject is clear and consistent.   It boils down to basically this: "Gays can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want. However, Government doesn't have any business defining Marriage as it is a social institution and not a government institution. It is free to recognize whatever unions it needs to for the enforcement of contracts."


Now.... back to tolerance.  Tolerance and acceptance are not synonymous.

If you believe something is wrong, does that mean you are intolerant of it?

Actual answer: No.
PC World Answer: Yes, if you dare mention it.  And probably even if you don't.

In the PC world of  "Tolerance", Lauren is not allowed to believe what she believes because that belief is, in their view, defacto "intolerant".

Tolerance means I don't interfere with you doing what you want to do.  It doesn't mean I can't tell you I think it's wrong, especially if you ask me my opinion, which in both the Carrie Prejean and Lauren's cases -- is what happened.  They were asked, they answered, and their inquisitors didn't like the answer.

Now, who is trying to interfere with whom?  Immediately, scathing denunciations of Lauren's "intolerance" have poured forth.  Because she and anyone who dares articulate the same belief must be silenced.

Now a little earlier in the thread, the same poster went on to denounce it all thus:
I am a bit aggravated that the only reason cameras are on for this young woman is because of a 'scholarship program' that pushes fascist beauty standards on young women, and while she's got her 15 minutes, she's going to talk about how God is all for smiting the gays.
I also submit that anyone who uses a term like "fascist beauty standards" has no clue what the word "fascist" means.  None whatsoever.

Now what she probably means is "strictly and rigidly enforced" ... and there's a reason for this.  The Itailian National Socialists, also known as the Fascists, did use strict and rigid social controls as did their National Socialist brethren in Germany, the National Socialist Workers Party, also known as the Nazis.  And people who play fast and loose with the label "fascist" also tend to play just as fast and loose with the label "nazi" with just as much cluelessness.

The fact of the matter is, these strict social controls were needed to suppress dissent and demand allegiance to The State and the morality of The State -- which is precisely what gay activists are trying to do with people who don't want to call gay unions "marriage".  Progressives & gay activists want religious morality replaced by a their own secular morality and enforced through the state.  Thay seek to  force everyone to call gay unions "marriage" by having the state officially re-define it.  At that point, anyone who expresses a belief contrary to the State-mandated belief could be tried for "hate speech" crimes.   Similar things have happened in Europe.  But to gay activists and to their progressive sympathizers,  Lauren and Carrie are the intolerant "fascists".

Can you say "projection"?

footnote:  I'd like to further add that I know of no beauty pageant (other than those really strange ones for little girls, and I suppose most of the little girls in them actually like being in them anyway, but I digress) ... where contestants are forced to enter and compete.  It is completely voluntary.  I also know that there are women and a lot of whipped men who buy into the hyper-rationalization that it's all some patriarchal plot by white males to keep women down ... but I digress once again.  If women want to enter a pageant where they are judged on various ideals of beauty, that's their perogative, and if it's public and I want to watch them, it's mine.

Nobody is "enforcing" anybody's beauty standards on anybody except for those who wish some people to stop celebrating their own beauty standards because they don't like them.

Beauty is ultimately in the eye of the beholder no matter what the idealized versions are in these things.  We are pre-wired to be attracted to certain body features and physical manifestations of youth and health.  It's just the way it is.  Progressives want to re-make mankind into something it will never be.  Conservatives recognize that we are flawed in nature and our natures will always need to be recognized and dealt with.

We are who we are.  Deal with it.

A Local History Professor Speaks

Yesterday, in a class on Rome, the topic of discussion was late Roman attitudes towards education (St. Basil, St. Jerome), viz., whether pagan classics were suitable to teach Christian children. I noted that Roman education was essentially private--whether for better or worse--and the "curriculum" was set by parents' expectations and tutors' competence. There was no "state" or "government-mandated" public education (again, for better or worse). I then pointed out that until the 19th century, America too has basically private--often through religious denominations--education. I noted differing views about education elsewhere, e.g., in Islamic countries like Pakistan where State-Religion-Education were of one piece. I brought a copy of the U.S. Constitution and noted that the word "education" is absent. Why? The answers were very illuminating. My brightest student, a classics major, volunteered that the Founders wanted the population, except for a few white males, to be ignorant!!! One of my quietest students, who hadn't said anything all semester, ventured that the Founders didn't want to subsidize a national system of education that would impose one philosophy of life. The first student was terribly wrong:  What struck me from other comments was that these students, mostly seniors, had no idea what was in the Constitution or its intent to promote ordered liberty. No wonder that polls show 53% of Democrats think the Constitution is irrelevant today and that they have a favorable view of Socialism.

Today's Health Care Summit

So, here it is in a nutshell so far.

Democrats:  People are suffering.  Pass this bill!
Republicans:  More people will suffer more if we pass that bill.  Let's start over!
Democrats: But we've got letters here. This bill is their only hope!
Republicans:  The bill sucks, nobody likes it but you!  You've had to bribe people and do sneaky things behind closed doors and blatantly misrepresent the goals to get it this far. Let's start over!
Democrats: Can't we just make one or two little tweaks and then you'll be happy with it? Here's another letter!
Republicans: No. This bill oversteps the role of government by leaps and bounds. Let's start over.
Democrats: But you're being theatrical by bringing out the 2,400 page bill and mentioning it!
Republicans: Things cost money and policies have consequences. There are a lot of things and policies in here! Let's start over!
Democrats: Ooops, we forgot we have to vote on something right now.  No choice, sorry.  We had no idea we were doing this this morning ... either that or  we had no idea you guys wouldn't cave quickly under the lights and cameras. BRB!
That about get it?

Community Organizing is all about bullying, intimidating, and embarrassing your opponents into caving and giving you what you want.  I'm thinkin' it's not workin' here.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Big Government

Paraphrasing a recent Reason Magazine article:
Big Government:  Where Public Servants Become Our Masters
Also (same issue):
Why won’t people who love to make zero-sum arguments about the economy apply their own lessons to government spending?

Linky Goodness

Morgan Freeberg in top form.

Seriously.  Go read it.  Yeah, it'll take you 5 minutes.

Then, Thomas Sowell points out something I've been saying for quite some time now.
When somebody who has never owned a slave apologizes for slavery to somebody who has never been a slave, then what began as mushy thinking has degenerated into theatrical absurdity-- or, worse yet, politics

Slavery has existed all over the planet for thousands of years, with black, white, yellow and other races being both slaves and enslavers. Does that mean that everybody ought to apologize to everybody else for what their ancestors did? Or are the only people who are supposed to feel guilty the ones who have money that others want to talk them out of?

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

The Haircut ... the REST of the story

I got this in an email today:
The Haircut
One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased and left the shop.

When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The cop was happy and left the shop.

The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Then a Congressman came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The Congressman was very happy and left the shop.

The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.
Now, as Paul Harvey would say, I have written ... the rest of the story.

The following day, still more congressmen showed up and informed him that he was unfairly undercutting his competitors’ prices.  They set a lower boundary on what he could charge for a haircut.
In return for their bestowing of equity, they would continue get free haircuts and take 35% of his profits  to "level the playing field" and to give to poor people in hair-cut vouchers so that they could afford the newly mandated minum price.
When the barber then couldn’t make a profit because of the punitive taxes, he raised his prices a bit to try to do better than break even.  But the congressmen stepped in saying that he was gouging his customers, and they then amended the barber law to include an upper limit on what prices, as they put it, "Big Hair" could charge.

The barber could no longer make a living cutting hair. He tried to close his shop one day to go dig ditches for a living, but the congressmen were there again to say that the barber industry is essential and “too big to fail”. (On top of that, he had the further problem of not having apprenticed 5 years in the Ditch Digger's Union.) "Everybody has a right to decent hair care", they bellowed. So they took his shop over and charged everyone in the country(in the name of fairness) a new, addtional tax so that they could hand out free haircuts for everybody, except the greedy barbers who caused this mess.

And in the next election they campaigned on the premise that they had stemmed a major hair care crisis, and that they had brought everyone free hair care.   They wanted to be re-elected for their foresight and benevolence.

And that ... is the real difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.

Rooting for Failure

Imagine this scenario.

You’re in a plane, taking off from Washington DC.    There’s a guy piloting the plane.  You trust him, automatically.  He’s the pilot.

That pilot and co-pilot pass out.  We don’t know why.  But a guy gets up and says “I’ll fly the plane.  You can trust me.”   And since nobody else knows how to fly the plane, they all say “Yeah!  Fly the plane!"

So, duly elected, the new pilot gets in the cockpit and starts to fly the plane.

But soon after that, we find out that that pilot plans to fly the plane, say, into a tall building in New York City.   Now if you’d all known that, you would have even settled for someone who said he’d played flight simulator to fly the plane.  But you didn’t.  The guy in the cockpit, now the pilot, the leader of the plane … has an agenda in which the plane … and those in it … are expendable.

The pilot may believe that the instant the plane crashes he and perhaps some of you will be lifted up and live in a land of milk and honey with nubile virgins for all … so he’s really sincere in his plan.  And as it turns out, he was responsible for gassing the cockpit and taking the pilots out in the first place.

But not everybody on the plane believes that.  Most of them probably think he’s nuts at this point.

I’ll bet you hope he fails.

“But, but  …. If you root for the pilot to fail, you’re rooting for the plane to fail!”

No!  If this pilot succeeds, the plane fails!

Setting Yourself Up for Failure

I was driving in to work this morning and saw one of those D.A.R.E. program bumperstickers on the back of the van in front of me.  And my mind flashed back to this from about a month ago …  when Oprah “bristled” at Bristol Palin’s promise to herself not to have sex again until she is married… you know, that Bristol was just setting herself up for failure.

Don’t the D.A.R.E. people have kids make a similar promise about drugs and alcohol?

Does Oprah not support that?

And what’s the difference?

Monday, February 22, 2010

New Version of "Time for Tea"

Whaddaya think of this one?

The wife thought the book in the original looked too modern.  I was on the fence about it and she pushed me to the "yup, too modern" side. So I got an old red book and stenciled the title onto it.  But then I couldn't get the turkey feather to work. Loved the symbolism and color, but it kept blocking things I didn't want blocked, and the highlighting light I neede to make the title show up would have cast too much of a blue tint to only part of it (hey, I'm working with cheap things here ... if you could only see my sorry setup.  The highlighting light is an LED pen light hanging from a thumbtack on the ceiling.)

And there was no way to get the candle AND the feather to work.  So the feather went.

I'm still not completely happy with this.  but I could probably be persuaded that it's good enough to stop trying.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Where Are They? Where ... Are They????

Keith Olbermann obviously learned his melodramatic style from William Shatner.

I was over (yes, I know, at Morgan's place again.  I know, I hang out there a lot.  Well he has really good pretzels and beer!).  Saw this video (put together by Randy Haddock).  I looked for the orignal Olbermann footage and tacked it on to the beginning and left Randy's video un-touched.  Just for further effect.

I also added another short ... uh, "transition" clip at the subliminal suggestion of Morgan. 

I think it works:

Friday, February 19, 2010

Transformation = Change = Revolution

Fundamental Transformation
Social & Economic Justice = Redistributive Change =
Redistribution of Wealth = Socialism
My first editing project in Powerdirector.

I Am a Tea Partier

Contrary to the narrative ...
  • I have two bachelor's degrees, one in meteorology, the other in computer science
  • I did all the masters classes in meteorology as well
  • I work at a major University
  • My musical tastes run from Telemann to the Grateful Dead, from Sheila Chandra and Tangerine Dream to Alison Krauss and Toby Keith, and Artie Shaw to John Lee Hooker
  • I am not a NASCAR fan
  • I work with immigrants and nationals from many nations from Lebanon to China -- and I like them.  Really.  And the ones from communist countries?  They agree with me on where we're headed.
  • I drive a Ford Escort that gets 36 MPG.  Not a pickup. Or even an SUV.
  • I often ride a bicycle to work.
  • I think drugs should be legalized (though I don't condone their use)
  • I am a conservationist
  • I am an independent libertarian
  • I even have friends who are progressive Democrats
  • They agree with me on lots of actual issues when politics are left out.
I am a Tea Partier.

You can call me whatever you want.  It won't affect my self-image. 

Or... the truth.

Happy Rick Santelli Day

From what I have gathered, it was last February 19... 2009.  I didn't hear about it until the following week, when it was being replayed on a morning news broadcast.  I took notice.

This was the spark that ignited the Tea Party Movement.    The sentiment was already there.   But this event gave it a focal point and a name.

It wasn't Glenn Beck.   It wasn't Fox News.  It wasn't nefarious anti-Obama Corporate interests.  Or racists.

It was a recognition by a lot of people, at the risk of sounding cliched, that America is upside down.  And the solutions being proposed seemed like turning more things upside down, faster.

What do I mean by that?

Rick Santelli said it.  We were rewarding bad behavior.

The full rant is here.

Now Rick's just talking about bad economic behavior. But we know that isn't the only area where we are rewarding bad behavior. 

The left, which had just been swept into office on the promise of fiscal responsibility and common sense, wants to give the protection of our constitution to people who take advantage of it and the Geneva conventions and use them against us.   Enemies.  Prisoners of war. We reward them and give them civilian trials?

We are talking about giving amnesty (again) to millions of people who broke the law to get here.  We pay for their medical care.  We insist on giving them our free public education.  In their own language.  We are actually encouraging people not to melt in to the American "melting pot".  And all of this does what?   Encourages more people to break the law.

And in this one, anybody who points it out gets called a "racist" by the people who believe that more government is the solution to everything.   And nothing irks people more than being falsely accused.   Add that to the fact that the mainstream media is full of people sympathetic to that view, and yeah.  There's a lot of anger there.

The keynsians and their socialist big-government friends blatantly and openly took advantage of the economic crisis to write what looks like (now) an $860 billion dollar blank check to themselves to fund every pet project they'd been wanting for a couple of decades.  And after writing this blank check, they set about cranking up a 1 trillion dollar kickoff to get us on the road to a government takeover of health care (though they continue to deny that).

They clearly say anything that they think will get them approval, claim a mandate, and then do whatever they want.

And a bunch of us got angry.  I myself took time off of work and went to the first protest I've ever been to.  I, and just about everybody else there was not comfortable making any sort of ruckus.  We're generally the kind of people who don't relish the spotlight.   We've been taught that we're nobody special.   This does not come naturally to us.  It was a very orderly gathering.  Nobody was rude.  But we did fumble around for our voices, and some people were better than others and after a while, we found them.

After watching the seething rage from the leftists during the Bush years, I'd say that yes, we were angry.  We were passionate when we spoke.  But we were not an angry mob.  We were an orderly group of people coming together in solidarity -- just the kind of thing the left likes to praise itself for.

When I saw how we were portrayed in the media, I was surprised, and not surprised at the same time.  That was the first time that I saw first hand what I knew happened in journalism -- that what gets reported is what the journalists want the public to believe, and if that's not what actually happened -- so be it.  Who is going to question them?  And if somebody does, who will report it?

My eyes were opened even wider.

Glenn Beck started the 9.12 Project last February as well, setting up a framework for grass roots community organizing -- just not by leftists this time.   The sentiment was there.  Beck set up a framework and turned it out to the people -- he keeps his hands off of it -- and Rick Santelli let this rant go Feb 19, 2009 -- and the perfect storm ... the perfect fire, a grass fire -- took off.

The leftists do not like us playing their game.  They're like a little kid who found someone else playing with his toy.  They've fought back, and are still fighting back.   But this time, we're not backing down from the dismissive insults and derision.   We know we're right, in general.  We don't agree on everything.   And like every other movement, we have our fringe kooks.  But we go forward with our own beliefs, our own ideas, and may the best ones win.

I regret not going to the Capitol Mall in DC on 9.12.  I went to our own state capitol's steps that day, because I felt I had to do something.  There were about 200 people there, as opposed to the hundreds of thousands ... maybe ~750 thousand ... people in DC.  But it was about the same experience as the first Tea Party rally I went to.

Then came the town hall meetings.  They were portrayed as angry, violent mobs.  But the only violence I've ever heard confirmed was union goons, sent to intimidate us.  We weren't intimidated.  Still, the press was happy to leave people the impression that we were the agitators.

It is clear that we have had an enormous impact.  We stopped (for now) the Health Care behemouth.  We've bought time, enough time for Climategate to come to light.  And we've encouraged millions more to step out of the shadows knowing that they are not alone, and they're not crazy -- and speak their own minds without fear.

Hopefully, we're just getting started.   The leftists are currently on the run, but they will re-group and we are far from out of the woods.  Very far.  The derision and attacks will continue.  They don't have any other tricks short of force, which American leftists have not used to a significant extent.  Yet.  But they are capable.  Just ask anyone who has crossed a union or the Chicago machine.  And it is always the endgame for statists.  They get the revolution so far, and then they crush dissent with force.

Thank you, Rick Santelli.  Because of you, I am proud to say

I am a Tea Partier.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Separation of State and Industry

Also known as Anti-Fascism.

Brother jeffmon points out:
How can Toyota expect to get an impartial hearing from the US federal government, which has a significant stake in one of Toyota's biggest competitors?

Just askin'.
Ah, pesky questions.  Pesky questions indeed.

A Lesson on What America Is From 1948

All kinds of awesomeness from 62 years ago.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

This Was Good

I was only peripherally aware of the Marvel Comics "Captain America" Tea Partier controversy.  Apparently it's been raging on at places I don't read often.

Well given Warner Todd Hudson's reply to a screedy comic book liberal, I may have to start reading his stuff.  This excerpt is observant and very well put:
Next you went on about trying to justify comics as high art. There is no accident in the fact that I finally lost my interest in comics in 1986, “the year many historians believe comics made a great leap towards literary and artistic legitimacy,” as you said. The reason? I wholly disagree with that newfound acclaim! I find that the whole of our culture has fallen to the lowest common denominator and the elevation of the comic book to the level of “artistic legitimacy” is a perfect example of this. Comics haven’t been raised to art, art has been lowered to comics.

Then you go on in a rhapsodic claim that comics helped your “reading comprehension skills, erudite nature, English degree, imagination, and passion for writing.” I submit to you that just about any reading does that. To assume that only comics can do that, like you did, is not a safe assumption. In fact, I’d say that all your above successes could have been increased several fold by reading the great books. Classic literature and history does the same thing but on a much greater scale. I celebrate the fact that you found interest in reading and that your education became one of your focal points, of course. But that comics was your avenue to that only shows me that our public education system is failing.

You next go on to claim that I think liberals are “idiots.” Not true. I think liberalism is idiotic. But I do not think that liberals are necessarily “idiots.” You wouldn’t call an ancient Mayan King an “idiot” because he didn’t know anything abut the automobile! That ancient may have been ignorant of cars, but he wasn’t an idiot. Similarly I find that most liberals are so badly educated that they don’t know how stupid their ideas are. Most liberals are ignorant. Few of them are venal, evil or idiots. Most are just highly misinformed.
I've always said ... liberals think conservatives are evil.  Conservatives think that liberals are misled.

Warner also serves as an excellent example of taking someone to task while remaing civil.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

They Never Follow Through

Liberals always "threaten" to move to Canada or Europe if a conservative wins.

But they never follow through.  It would solve so many problems.

Actually, it was a pretty good answer by Clinton considering her politics and the audience.

It's really the question that ... begs the question. I've heard it so many times, and nary a one I know of has ever followed through.

Bookmark To Drunken Irishman Biden Record on Iraq

Because I'm going to want to refer to this later some time, and I want to be able to find it easily.

From The House of Eratosthenes.

Remember - He "Inherited This Mess"

Working on a different video ... and I ran across this one.

Wow. 2004.

And in 2003, perhaps leading up to the above, here's a NYT article on the Republican regulatory proposal. Read to the end. See, according to the Democrats, it's all an evil plan of those mean Republicans to keep poor brown people from getting house loans.

Either the Democrats knew they were lying and playing it for political and monetary gain, or their heads were in the sand.

What has changed?  Conservatives are saying our spending and deficits are dangerously high, and Progressives are calling us stupid scare-mongers who want the "status quo", while proposing a new behemouth entitlement program and "investing" in the economy by putting our children and grandchildren into debt.

An Coulter Asks the Question Nobody Will Ask Out Loud

With a hat tip to Morgan, and apologies to my drunken Irish friends everywhere.

After the standard mantra about Idiot Palin™ and Elder Statesman Biden™, Ann can't stand it anymore and finally blurts it out.
"How long are we going to pretend Biden is not just some drunken irishman embarrassing Obama?"
Ann Coulter.  She says what everyone is thinking but are too politically correct to say themselves.   Hey, remember that Idiot B-Movie Actor™ who ran for President in 1980?

Ungovernable Redux

Over the weekend I posted a light commentary on this article.  Christopher Chantrill at the great American Thinker blog one-ups me (ok, "five-ups" me .... and I work in IT ... I should have come up with this!)

On the heavy Contstitutional controls in the Senate:
That's not a bug, liberals; that's a feature.
Heh.  Right on.

Monday, February 15, 2010

So It's Settled Then

In the past few years, we actually had people talking about trying Global Warming Skeptics Deniers and jailing them.   Pulling their credentials.

Phil Jones, head of the controversy embroiled Hadley Climate Research Unit ... the one involved in cover-ups and pressuring scientific journals not to publish skeptics papers... the one involved in deleting datasets... that Phil Jones. 

That Phil Jones is now saying these things.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
But at least we know... The Science Is Settled™.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

And the Government Didn't Mandate It

Saw this Coke commercial last night. If you've bought a Coke in the last 80 years, you've had a hand in making Olympic dreams come true.

And you got a Coke. And the government didn't make you buy it, or make Coke donate. Imagine that.


Hat tip to BigSmartHuman

Tom Friedman thinks that they system is broken.
The sad and frustrating thing is, we are so close to being unstuck. If there were just six or eight Republican senators — a few more Judd Greggs and Lindsey Grahams — ready to meet Obama somewhere in the middle on deficit reduction, energy, health care and banking reform, I believe that in the wake of the Massachusetts wake-up call the president would indeed meet them in that middle ground to forge not just incremental compromises, but substantial ones on these key issues. But so far, the Republicans are having a good year politically by just being the Party of No.
In other words, if only those idiot voters in Republican and Blue-Dog D districts would let us cram this thing they don't think is a good idea down their throats anyway,  the system would "work".   Apparently, the system "working" means you get to pass your agenda.  If you run as a no-nonsense moderate reformer and win the presidency by a "solid majority" (what was it, 53%?) and then you govern from the far left and people don't like it and push back enough to frighten incumbents into withholding their votes ... the system is "broken".

(Plus I love how, with huge majorities, Democrats continue to blame Republicans for not being able to cram Socialism down our throats.)

Jay Cost says it's working just fine.  And I agree with him.
The solution the country ultimately settled on had five important features: checks and balances so that the branches would police one another; a large republic so that majority sentiment was fleeting and not intensely felt; a Senate where the states would be equal; enumerated congressional powers to limit the scope of governmental authority; and the Bill of Rights to offer extra protection against the government.

The end result was a government that is powerful, but not infinitely so. Additionally, it is schizophrenic. It can do great things when it is of a single mind - but quite often it is not of one mind. So, to govern, our leaders need to build a broad consensus. When there is no such consensus, the most likely outcome is that the government will do nothing.

The President's two major initiatives - cap-and-trade and health care - have failed because there was not a broad consensus to enact them. Our system is heavily biased against such proposals. That's a good thing.
 The Federal Government, set up by the Constitution, isn't there to be constantly "moving us forward" and "getting things done" ... the Constitution severely limits it to keep it from doing things huge chunks of the population doesn't want.  If it's not doing stuff, maybe it's because the stuff it's trying to do is stuff we don't want it to do.

Maybe it should just stick to it's enumerated powers and stop trying to blur the meaning of words like, oh, I don't know ... "is".

Friday, February 12, 2010

Just one more reason I love Sarah Palin

The number one reason is that she pisses all the right people off.

But this is a good one, too (click for a larger view).  After lefties went nuts over a few notes she wrote on her hand for a speech she was giving, she put it right back in their faces during her next public appearance.  This is not a photoshop.  This is Sarah Palin.

Love it!

She didn't say a word.  Didn't need to.

I keep putting off transcribing the bit of Andrew Breitbart’s interview with Glen Reynolds and Dr. Helen where he talked about what we need to do when confronted with the ridicule and derision that is foisted our way.  What Breitbart said basically was you should keep moving forward, right into it, towards them.  This is what Sarah is doing here. 

It works.

Show no fear.  Make no apologies.  You know who you are.  Don’t let them define you.

Rick Santelli Day Idea

Ok.  For some reason, I thought we were later in the month.  Rick Santelli day is NEXT friday, Feb 19.  Not today.

But last night I came up with an idea -- not a particularly new idea.  It's much like "I am Joe Wurzelbacher" and many others like it.

This one is, "I am a Tea Partier", kind of like "I am Simon Jester", only back in the face of those who snicker and call us "Tea Baggers".  As Breitbart said last weekend, keep walking in to it.  Keep moving forward.  Don't bat an eye.

It is to show America where the Coffee Partiers are wrong, and to show them we are not intimidated by them.

Go read that "I am Simon Jester" post.    If you agree with most of it... 80% or more ... You are a Tea Partier, whether you've been to one or not.

Write up a post, if you're a blogger, or make a YouTube video entitled, "I am a Tea Partier".  The content should be a bullet list of things about you that defy the stereotypes, such as the ones listed in the Coffee Party Manifesto and others you have heard and read.  "I am an engineer."   "I don't follow NASCAR".  It doesn't have to be long.  And you may or may not be, say, a NASCAR fan or a college graduate -- doesn't matter.  Just tell the truth about the stereotypes you don't fit.

At the end, repeat "I am a Tea Partier".

Post it February 19, perhaps with a picture of yourself.  I am probably going to post the first ever picture of me on this blog where you can see my face.

You have about a week.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Stimulus: Keeping Schools and Fire Stations Open

You've heard the argument.  Hey, if it weren't for the stimulus, well the state budgets would be in trouble.  And as everyone knows, when it comes to what we need to cut first, the American People demand that we cut Teachers and Firefighters and Police first and keep the funding for highway turtle underpasses.

Or, say, giving parents of disabled school children iPods.  Because, you know, the whole system would collapse if we didn't give people iPods.

The Green Police

I thought this commercial was funny if it meant to be.  But it was creepy in that in today's political climate we can't be really sure whether or not it was supposed to be funny.  Yeah, because last summer … out in California … you know the coasts are always the “leaders” and the rest of the country follows… they passed this in San Francisco.

That’s right.  It is already a crime to throw an orange rind down your garbage disposal somewhere in this country.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Just a reminder: Rick Santelli Day is Friday Feb 19

The spark that ignited the movement.

Stay tuned for the Clue Batting Cage's Celebration.

Is it Crazy to Call Obama a Socialist? Redux

You know.  It just occurred to me, after that last post where people were tired of us calling Obama a Socialist... here it is in a nutshell, and even shorter.
Do you believe in mandatory redistribution of wealth by the state?  Yes?  Then you're a Socialist.
We're not calling you names.  Don't complain about what you're being called if that's what you are.  Either embrace the title, or be something else.  You can't reject the title and keep the belief.

  I have since edited up a video to go with this post.

The Coffee Party Movement

I shit you not.

I saw one of my progressive facebook “friends” join this the other day.  I had to go check it out.

Expresso yourself.

We are bored of loud marching angry bagger buffoons and ignoramus knuckle dragging dumb right wing-nuts. We've had enough of the President being called a Socialist, Communist, Terrorist and Traitor and being accused of being born in a foreign country.

You had it too? Then you have found a home my friend.

Join the Coffee party! Dedicated to the fun of insulting politically simple minded knuckle headed baggers..

Are you a dumb stump who thinks that President Obama wants to extinguish the elderly and socialize your medicine for a future vision of communist empire America for the New World Order???

We're not the party for you BOZO!

The Coffee Party is the place for American brothers and sisters to do their sanity check after watching these hate filled poser "patriots" perform their clown acts of ignorance. Come here to vent, post content or simply to check it. Come here to introduce new ideas. Come here to have intelligent talk. Talk politics, and the state of what's going on in our country. Tea is becoming repulsive on the American political landscape and our answer is satire, facts and fun!

“Bagger” “buffoon” “ignoramus” “knuckle dragging” “dumb” “nuts” “simple minded”  “knuckle headed” “bozo” “hate filled”  “poser ‘patriots’” “clown acts” “ignorance”

“Dedicated to the fun of insulting politically simple minded knuckle headed baggers.”

It goes on.  Nope.  No "hate" there.  No ignorance, either.   Hmm-mmm.

Hey Coffee Party People.  Go educate yourself.  Here’s a clue from the Clue Batting Cage.  If you don’t like being called a socialist, don’t be one.

If your "sanity check" is Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, or Chris Matthews ... yeah.  Patients in charge of  the asylum, and all that.

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

I am Simon Jester as Well

This is good. No. Really good.

I've heard of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", but I really never knew anything about it. Not even that "TANSTAAFL" was coined in it.

I was paid a nice compliment by Morgan over my recent post when he said that it was the best Tea Party Manifesto he'd read... but this one is pretty darned good, too. Lengthier, but better. Way better.

Simon Jester: a pen name for a subversive doggerel, caricatured as a little horned devil with pitchfork and tail, sometimes stabbing a fat man. He was quickly adopted by Loonies in general, and cartoons and verses that he had not produced appeared everywhere, becoming the Revolutionary equivalent of "Kilroy Was Here" in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
I think I just might be Simon Jester as well.

Monday, February 08, 2010

Paul "Teddy Kennedy" Krugman on the Filibuster

Paul wants to end the filibuster.

The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government.
When one party wants to "fundamentally transform" the country and the other kind of likes the way it was originally designed, and the former party is in power... I'm kinda glad it's not functioning.   No, really.
Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.
Kind of like Ted Kennedy got the Massechusetts legislature to repeal the Governor's right to appoint replacement Senators when they were afraid they might lose John Kerry's seat and they had a Republican governor, but hurriedly re-granted it when it was clear Ted's seat itself was about to be vacated by his demise and they had a Democrat for a governor.

One rule for thee, but not for me.   Wanna take bets on who would want to put the filibuster rule back once Republicans gain a majority?

Mr. Krugman goes on...
Don’t hold your breath. As it is, Democrats don’t even seem able to score political points by highlighting their opponents’ obstructionism.
Do the words "filibuster-proof majority" mean anything to you, Paul?  The Democrats have huge majorities in both chambers, one of them so massive that there would be no way for Republicans to stop anything in the Senate -- and the Democrats want to blame the Republicans for being "obstructionists".

Paul, the reason the Democrats can't score political points on this is that Americans are not stupid.

15 Minutes

Well.  Looks like my 15 minutes of relative fame may be here on account of this post.

After Morgan picked up this post on his blog, Kevin picked it up over at The Smallest Minority -- and my hit counter started going nuts (well, for me anyway).  Now it looks like a few other people have picked it up, such as Rick over at whizbang.

I'm flattered.  Humbled.

And glad.  Because it needs to be said.

These ideas I expressed are not new.  I've learned them various places throughout my life. Some from my own life's experience.  From my dad.  From Ronald Reagan.  Thomas Sowell.  Johah Goldberg.  Ayn Rand.  And lots of others.  But they didn't come up with the ideas on their own, either.

Our founders discussed these concepts at length, which is why we ended up with the Constitution we ended up with.   It's not a "religious" belief I have in our founders.  It's just the more I read about the thought that went into the making of our country, the more impressed I am with their ... dare I say it, since it's such a new-agey word ... holistic thinking.

It was designed to curb the worst in human nature and its abuse of power.  The economic system was designed to harness "greed" -- or the desire to better one's lot in life -- and to re-direct that energy into productivity & innovation that's good for everybody.  The ideas are based on human nature -- which doesn't change.

So thanks, all ye who linked me.  This humble blog is honored.

Clippy on Climategate

As seen on Michael Mann's computer ... this is brilliant!

Via The Smallest Minority, via Borepatch . Too good not to shamelessly snag and re-post here for all 6 of my readers. :-)

Borepatch.  Hmmmm.   That reminds me.  I should go fire some ordinance so I have some guns to clean.  Do they need dusting if they're just in the gun safe?  ;-)

Sunday, February 07, 2010

Time for Tea - A Work In Progress

I'm an amateur photographer.  I've never tried this "still life" thing before ... but I'm getting this together.  Hopefully by the end of next week I'll have the final version.  This is the basic idea.

Lots of technical problems, and some compositional adjustments.  But I think it's cool so far.

Stay tuned for the final version.

Krugman says "Don't Panic"

Paul Krugman, one of my "no go's" because his vitriol in the past has pissed me off too many times, got "the big click" from me friday for the first time in a long time.

The title of the column is "Fiscal Scare Tactics".   Maybe a part of me wondered what "Nobel Prize Winning Economist Paul Krugman" (as the MSM always introduces him) had to say about our huge budget deficits and slippping credit rating and the people we're making ourselves beholden to.  I wanted some good news.  Maybe he had an argument that would convince me that everything's going to be OK if we keep on this path.

Alas, a little ways down in the article he says:
the large deficit the federal government is running right now isn’t the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met — appropriately — with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment.
True, there is a longer-term budget problem. Even a full economic recovery wouldn’t balance the budget, and it probably wouldn’t even reduce the deficit to a permanently sustainable level.
Soooooo.... even without what the Obama administration is doing, the huge spending of a boat load of money that we don't have -- and we had a full recovery, our budget still sits at an unsustainable level. 

And that's supposed to make me feel better .... how?????

It couldn't possibly be that we're overextended.  It's just that our income has gone down.   All of this overextension is just an inconvenient side detail, right?  Government's not too big, we're just not bringing in enough tax revenue!

They only spend 1/3 of the first $787 billion (now I read actually $862 billion) in the first year and want yet another stimulus jobs bill...

And we're being "hysterical" when we talk about wasteful government spending in the face of a very deep recession.  Paul goes on to say, much like Obama's "spending freeze" (I know I'm bleeding profusely, but I vow not to cut myself anymore after this time) after another year ...
So once the economic crisis is past, the U.S. government will have to increase its revenue and control its costs.
Yeah, I'll stop charging things on my credit cards after this spending spree. I promise.

Friday, February 05, 2010

Rick Santelli Day is a Two Weeks from Today

Keep watching.

Is it Crazy to Call Obama a Socialist or a Fascist?

Well that's what we keep hearing, as Morgan recently noted, and I've seen out there in internet land, and from pundits on TV. 

We have people haughtily calling us stupid and insane for calling a spade a spade, as if we, like most of them, don't really know what the words mean.   As I said in one comment on a YouTube video out there:
if Socialized Medicine isn’t socialism … if nationalizing companies isn’t socialism … if redistribution of wealth isn’t socialism … maybe we have different dictionaries.
So ... no. It's not crazy.

Read your history, they admonish us.   Well I have.  And it's apparent that either they haven't, or they're banking on the fact that a lot of people haven't and that we will just buy what they're saying, cower before their derision, and Shut Up.   Fortunately knowledge is a good inoculation against such ridicule.

Nazi is short for Nationalsozialist … which was a term for supporters of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.

Be very suspicious about any political movement with the word “workers” in the title.  They're all brothers.  Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism.

Fascism was the Italian National Socialist movement. Hairs are split about how “socialistic” national socialism really was because the global socialists (eg: the Soviets) considered it “right-wing” socialism, which is probably why the term is used to smear conservatives. Either way, they were collectivist systems. And does it really matter if the state runs the corporations or the corporations run the state? Either way, the State and Corporations are one in these systems.

National Socialism was considered “right-wing” because (again, by its close relative just to its left) of it’s emphasis on strong, strict, social controls.

But are you really going to try to convince me that the Soviets and the Maoists didn’t use strict social control?

I think the globalists kid themselves about how different they really are, and how egalitarian they really are.  The Ruling Class always develops, and it always has special privileges.

I also think the reasons they object to the term "socialist" are 1) bad connotation due to abuses of socialist governments in the 20th century (in other words, it's bad marketing) and 2) they really think that they can do this gradually, without a bloody revolution, and everybody will just be happy once we all see how wonderful it is.  So in other words, no boody revolution, no "Socialism".

But they fail to see ... the reason that we are anti-socialist has little to do with the bloody revolution aspect.  It has to do with the fact that, as a political philosophy for running a state and its economic system, it doesn't work.  And it doesn't "not work" because of the bloodiness of the revolution or the iron-fistedness of the State --- it doesn't work because it rewards sloth and punishes productivity and innovativeness. (And the iron-fistedness of the state becomes necessary because it doesn't work!)

It is inherent in human nature to want to better one's lot in life.  Generally speaking, when bettering one's lot in life while following rules that keep you from confiscating from others -- you better others' lives as well.  You produce.  "Money", in reality, is a representation of production. (A portable proxy, if you will.)  The more you produce as a nation, the wealthier your nation is ... the better you do.  The less incentive to produce, the less will be produced.  The poorer your country will be.

So what you end up with is lower production, and confiscation from the productive to redistribute to the non-productive.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Sounds great, on the surface, but it ain't human (or animal) nature.  On top of that, who decides what your abilities are, and who decides what someone's needs are?   And if I "need" more because I'm not performing up to my ability ... how does that get resolved?

By force.

That's right.  The state must either force me to work, or force someone else to support me.  If neither really works, then everybody gets poorer.   This will not stop the state from continuing to use force, though, and it will use more and more of it as time goes on in more and more desperate attempts to keep control.  This happens eventually every time.  It is inevitible, because of the nature of what we are, and that is homo sapiens.  It gets bloody one way or the other, because at some point someone's going to rebel against being used.

We know that.  We don't want to go there.  Which is why we resist.   If we resist too much for their liking when they have enough power, we will be liquidated (too many of us to imprison).   That's the way they roll.   If they don't have enough power, they will be subdued and discredited when we win.  The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. If we do not resist and let it happen, eventually the iron fist of the state will, as I discussed above, become tyrannically oppressive at some point anyway.  It has to.

Because state socialism is incompatible with human nature.  Human compassion works well at the level of the free individual, where one is free to decide when, to whom, and how much, and nobody is coerced into anything else.

Update: I have since edited up a video to go with this post. It just barely scratches the surface.

PJTV Covering the Tea Party Convention Live

Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. 

Go check in when you get a chance.  Pretty cool.

I was at the Galord Opryland hotel for a conference once.  Neat place. 

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Rick Santelli Day is Coming

I hereby declare next friday (a week from this friday) ... Feb 19 ... Rick Santelli Day.

We owe the man.

Pass it on.  :-)

Tax Break "Chickens" Are Coming Home .... To Roost

The big tax break we got last year, remember that?

The one Joe Klein pontificates about when he sneers at Americans who think that most of the $787 billion stimulus money was wasted ... that one.  The one that left you with a few extra dollars in your paycheck last year.  (Oh, and you HAVE to watch Glenn's 15 minute takedown of that article.... w-o-w.  Fun!  But I digress.)

I don't know if I mentioned this on the blog at the time, but if you were paying attention you would have noted that for working married couples ... the way it was being handled could be a problem.

See, what they did was take less in taxes out of your paycheck last year ... as if you were the sole income earner in your family.  And if your spouse were working too ... same with him or her.

Problem is, if you both work that means you got twice as much money as intended.  And the bill for the difference is coming due in April.

As I predicted back then, I don't think this will help Obama's numbers any.

Last year, as soon as I found out about this, I calculated how much too much they were leaving in our combined paychecks, and had them take out that much more out of mine for the rest of the year.

But I suspect most working couples did not.

So when those people do their taxes this year, they're probably going to be in for a bit of an unpleasant surprise.   

Wonder if this kind of thing will make the news?