Denying "Climate Change"

Gene Lyons asks "Why Do People Still Deny Climate Change?"

Look at the rhetorical sleight of hand here. The title "Why do people still deny climate change?" Then basically, there's been bad weather so it's high time we take "global warming" 'seriously'.   And then a litany of bad weather events to "support" the idea that man is causing all of this.  Yeah.  There's never been floods and plagues and droughts before the industrial revolution.  And the climate ran on a Honeywell thermostat.  Ask the dinosaurs.  And Europe in the Middle Ages vs the Dark Ages.

The charge here is that "Climate Change" (which nobody denies, climate always has and always will change) = bad weather = global warming ... and implied here is ... that man has something significant to do with it.  Talk about moving the goalposts all over the place.   But that's the point.   They can't win the argument on facts, so they need a shifting "argument".

All the so-called "deniers" are denying is that the Chicken Little's have shown that man's activity has had any significant impact on climate -- if it can be discerned from natural variations. And the real scientific answer to that is an emphatic "no"

Wild Horses

Like a lot of my posts in the last year, that last one fell out of a friend's or friend of friend's facebook post and the ensuing discussion.  And my last post grew out of one of my comments.

And as sometimes happens, I kept thinking about it even afterward.  I mean, my last post was not meant to be an endorsement of Newt.   It was a defense against what a particular author was arguing in a particular article.   It just didn't hold water for me.

And I think what it comes down to is that people keep talking about who "the right guy" (or gal) is (it would be more accurate to describe it as who isn't the "wrong" guy for this or that reason until the campaigns run out of time and the election comes and they can't throw out any more dirt before the vote is cast).  But people seem to latch on to the idea that if we just elect this guy or that guy this one important time, the country will change for the better.

But that isn't the case.  Because We are The Country.

Yes, we're like a chariot being dragged by wild horses careening toward a cliff, and yes, electing one driver or another will likely speed up or slow our rate of speed toward the cliff, but it's high time we admit something.

The politicians are the drivers.   We.  Us.  We are the wild horses.  We, as a group -- we're pullin'.

Now all the horses aren't of the same mind.   There are some who think if we run fast enough we'll just keep going and land on the other side safely.   There are some who think it will all be ok as long as it's "not their fault" (directly) that we went over the cliff, as if that will exempt them from the accelleration due to gravity and the rapid de-accelleration when they hit rocks at the bottom.   There are a lot of people who are just running to keep from getting trampled, hoping the other horses or the driver will stop in time.   And there are those digging their hooves in, but are just being overwhelmed by the momentum of the rest of the team.  And there are even some who actively want to go over the cliff.

But no matter what the speed, where we're headed isn't going to change until enough of we, the horses ... We, the People -- change direction.

Herman Cain is not going to fix it.  Michelle Bachmann is not going to fix it.  Newt Gingrich is not going to fix it. 

Ron Paul is not going to fix it, either.

Look around you.  Your brother.  Your friend.  Your co-worker.   That's where the work has to happen.   Don't wait for a driver, who likely has a parachute anyway, to change our course.   Yes, work hard to get a slower driver to hopefully give us the time we need to change hearts and minds, but when you are fighting, arguing -- argue passionately but rationally -- the principles.   Not the latest headlines and scandals (but I repeat myself).  Or even the people themselves, directly.

Bill touches on that here when he talks about our failures and their fruits -- such as the OWS crowd.  This is where we've allowed ourselves, over a long period of time, to be steered.  It was predictable. And predicted.

"Outrageous" Newt

Roger Simon (not to be confused with PJTV's Roger L. Simon) thinks Newt says a lot of outrageous things.  The sole example in the article follows:

“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” Newt said recently in Iowa. “So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”

I don't see what's so outrageous about Mr. Simon's example. He may not agree, and of course it isn't literally true in every case on the individual level -- but like most libs, Mr. Simon doesn't even come close to directly addressing what Newt said, he just calls it "outrageous" or "scandalous" and expects everyone to nod in agreement. Of course, the same libs will argue for spending millions or billions on programs for role models and government job programs to specifically address the exact same problem Newt is talking about (and perhaps even Newt himself has been for them in the past) -- and that's all perfectly ok. It's just not ok for a conservative, real or perceived, to point it out. Because, as we all know (because libs keep telling us), conservatives are a bunch of heartless a**holes for not agreeing that more government is the solution.

Newt wouldn't be my first or second or third choice. But we could do a lot worse than Newt. Case and point, take a look at who's in the White House... when the current president isn't on vacation, that is. (No, I'm not talking about Lady Gaga.)  A bonafide Alinsky radical.  I'm not pretending Newt is ideal or even awesome. But if this is the worst Mr. Simon can come up with for an "outrageous" comment, they have a lot to be afraid of.

Simon points out a piece written about Gingrich he uses to ridicule and put Newt's comments on "habits of working" because he didn't want to work through college and got his family to help.  Well, you know, family can say "no" if they don't think their money is well spent, and they didn't.  Not so with Government.  And people do grow and learn between college age and 50.  It is possible.  Simon quotes the writer

“Dolores Adamson, Gingrich’s district administrator from 1978 to 1983, remembers, ‘Jackie [Jackie Battley, Newt’s high school geometry teacher and first wife] put him all the way through school. All the way through the Ph.D. … He didn’t work.”

and goes on to skewer:

Early on, Newt found a secret: Get family to pay your way. Then get taxpayers to pay your way, then charge $60,000 a speech, and then get corporations to give you large sums of money. And ultimately, of course, there’s the presidency with its comfortable salary, free housing and that big plane where you can choose any seat you want.

So his family paid his way through school, he became an elected official ("get taxpayers to pay your way", a point of view that I have SOME sympathy with - but let's remember Newt was largely responsible for keeping Clinton reigned in) -- and dudes, you can't live on charging $60,000 a speech if people don't want to pay $60,000 to have you come speak. You're offering a product. They can take it or leave it. Free market. Same with "get corporations to pay you large sums of money." They won't pay you large sums of money if you aren't worth it to them. I'm not saying (because I don't know) that he didn't do things for corporations I'd disagree with -- but this is not evidence of not having a "habit of working".

Again With the "Capitalism"

Reading some of the comments on Facebook about the recent Daniel Hannan article on what we Evil Capitalist Pigs really believe.

You know, like "Capitalism isn't bad in and of itself. Just like any other tool or structure it is only good or bad depending on the use people put it to"  or  they say they hate "Capitalism" but can they show me WHERE capitalism is being practiced in the U.S.? I only see Mercantilism

We've mentioned before -- on this blog and other webulous places, that Capitalism isn't a "system" in the sense that some person or persons sat down and said "here's how it should work" ... like, say, Karl Marx et. al. did.

It is the Tao of Economics.  The Way of Things.  It falls directly out of human nature.   It's basic structure is I have A, you have B.  You want A, I want B.   And we work out some sort of deal on how we swap A for B that is acceptable to the both of us.  That's the essence of a Free Market.

I can't remember who it was I was talking to, but this person mentioned that the word "Capitalism" didn't show up until the middle 1800's ... right around the time Marx et. al. were formalizing their forced wealth redistribution systems.  Which are incompatible with a Free Market.  But something called a Free Market is hard to demonize.  However, another "ism", a counter-ism, a word to use to put some distance between the concept of a Free Market and the connotation of the new "ism", and then demonize the new word by assigning it abuses of trust associated with market fraud --- much easier.

So I don't like arguing about "Capitalism".   It's a misrepresentation of what we are really for, and that is Free Markets.

Daniel Hannan on What We Believe

Pretty "spot on", as he might say.

Chatting to some Occupy protesters this morning, I was struck by how wide of the mark were the beliefs they attributed to me as a Right-winger. In the interests of deeper understanding, here are ten things which – trust me – most of the Tory scum I hang around with think. Obviously, I don’t expect to turn my Leftie readers in a single post; still, they might get a clearer idea of what we actually believe.

/RTWT

Plugging on

I've been a bit detached from the political world, only skimming RCP and House of Eratosthenes.  Need to check my good friend Severian's blog, too.   Life has been hectic.   To throw another monkey wrench into things (though it's a much bigger problem for her than it is for us) my mother in law got a bad eye infection the weekend after the housefire and required 24 hour care there by my wife for a while.  She still needs a lot of attention.

One thing I was going to mention for some reason we got this catalog in the mail, Northern Sun - Products for Progressives since 1979.  

Now... I'll go out on a limb and say this is because we supported NPR for about 18 years and used to order out of Wireless and Signals.    Now I have my hippe tendencies... big Grateful Dead fan.  Love Santana.  Used to wear a lot of Tie Die.  Read a lot of Alan Watts (and even contributed to a movie made about him this year to get it made.)    But clearly, my libertarian leanings put me on the right side of the political spectrum these days, and I do have strong sympathies with much of social conservatism  as well.

Mostly T-Shirts, bumperstickers, and posters.  Some of which are actually pretty cool. Some of which are begnign.  Some of which are dangerously simplistic.   Some of which sound quite profound but actually say nothing at all. And others of which ... they would consider downright mean if they were aimed at someone other than Christians. 

There's a T-Rex eating a Christian Symbol fish.  The ubiquitous Che.   COEXIST crap.  Various platitudes about Peace (don't get me wrong, I like peace and all ... just on my terms).  Ho hum, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention" (ever get the feeling that they should add "to me" to the end of that?)   ... Oh, how about this one ... "I'm already against the next war." 

And then the fun ones.  A spoof on the Fox News logo "News for Dumb FUX".    Picture of Palin or Beck with "Shut the Hell Up" over it.   Walmart bashing.  Ha Ha, Ho Ho, "I'm a Marxist" shirts (Marxists have no class, pictures of the Marx bros "Sure I'm a Marxist") --- "Where's Robin Hood When We Need Him"?   A "Mad Tea Party" Alice in Wonderland spoof with all the Left's favorite people to hate.   A whole calendar of Sarah Palin bashing.   Witches date books.

Anyway, just thought that was kind of an interesting peek behind the curtain.

Austerity

Huffpo wants us to "Stop The Austerity Trainwreck".

Austerity.  You keep using that word.  I donnot think it means what you think it means.

What austerity?

Here in Asia

A conservative does this, he/she is an idiot, obviously unfit to hold the office of President of the 57+2 states.

But Hawaii is "here in Asia" from Obama? Nope, he's still Teh Messiah.

And you're a racist for even noticing.

It's Just Stuff

Well, after that trip where I wasn't posting, it looks like it may be slow around here again, at least as far as philmon goes.

Yeah, the house caught fire.  Lots o' damage.   So I got my hands full.  Can't live in the house until it's fixed.   I had just thrown a bunch of stuff out in the attic a few weeks ago, so all that was up there was stuff I had decided to keep for some reason.

Shouldn't have bothered, I guess.  The whole attic is literally toast.  Kitchen roof is gone.   Garage roof might as well be gone.  Whole cross section of the attic has the rafters severely charred.

Scary thing is this all happened in about 45 minutes, including the 15 minutes it took the firefighters to put it out.

So.... staying with relatives.  Talk to insurance adjuster tomorrow, plus back to work as well after 10 days off.

Life throws you curves.

Present!

Decision time. Mr. President, how do you vote on the Keystone XL pipeline?

Who would have thought?

It looks like Newt thought of this too (before I did), so he must be right.

Baby It's Time We Got Back, To the Basics ...

Been out a while.  Off the grid, for the most part.  WAAAAY off the grid.   Even stopped by a place that is most famous for being nowhere.  We were visiting family down in Texas Hill Country, and I couldn't go there without stopping by to say "hi" to Waylon and Willie and the Boys.

Now I need a little time to catch up on what's been going on outside in the big "out there", and see if I feel like there's anything I need to add or point out.   Mean time, good to be back.  32 hours driving in 6 days' time is enough.

Next time I leave I might oughtta let jeffmon know so mebbe he could pipe up and say "hey" while I'm out ... but ... you know, like Severian, I guess this is my way of saying "SNUL".  Which is less of a "sorry" and more of a "yeah, I'm still alive" when I say it.   Just thought I'd bring that up in case Morgan started gettin' an idea to put out some snul baits and finish 'em off.

The Caning of Cain

Scott Ott, on the caning of Cain.

'Journalists' Slam Cain First, Ask Questions Later

"Politico.com rocks the Republican Presidential primary race with allegations from two unnamed women that back in the 1990's Cain made un-quoted, unwelcomed remarks and non-specific, non-sexual gestures.  The anonymous women were so uncomfortable, they quit the National Restaurant Association where Cain was then executive Director.   Several Association Board Members contacted by Politico said they'd never heard those claims and couldn't imagine Cain behaving inappropriately toward anyone.   Later Cain said the women had made allegations which were proven false.  But before his denial, hundreds of news outlets immediately ran the Politico story, to avoid the embarrasment of waiting until they could document and corroborate the evidence.  After all, nothing's more damning to a news organization than being labeled as a heel-dragging fact-monger."

Surprise, SURPRISE, surprise!

Conservative candidate starts gaining a little too much traction and he isn't white, haul out the sexual allegations.

I'm surprised.  Aren't you surprised?  Because I'm really surprised.

Mark Steyn's Noticed it, Too

Remember a week or so back when I was talking about "awareness" and ribbons?

Yeah, well Mark Steyn's been thinking the same thing.  "Diaper Need Awareness Day"?   Really?

I, ahem,... sh*t you not..

Two Years Late, But Thanks!

A random google search on my blog name turned up a blog post referring to a post I made in 2009 with a quote that came, apparently, from TrogloPundit, Lance Burri's blog -- from guest blogger Mister Pterodactyl.   I likely unceremoniously snagged the link from Morgan's blog and didn't even really see TrogloPundit... because if I had I would have remembered it.  He has an awesome banner.

And that's too bad (that I didn't see it) because he had something nice to say about me.

He didn’t link to me, exactly. He linked to something Grandpa Steve Mister Pterodactyl posted while I was gone last week. So I don’t know if that counts.

On the other hand, his blog does have a great name, which is really the most important thing about blogging. Wisdom of that kind should be rewarded.

Yours truly struggled a bit years ago when I renamed the blog from "philmon" to the current name, thinking the new name sounded a bit too cocky, which is something I am not, at all.  But blog brother Morgan assured me it wasn't, and said he liked it.  Truthfully, I liked it, too -- it's exactly what I felt like doing, and reflects the inspiration behind my starting the blog in the first place.  Yelling at NPR in the car, talking back to CNN, and muttering things under my breath in response to dumb sh*t progressive family and friends said.   I felt like I needed to get out there and start swinging a Clue Bat around -- albiet mostly for batting practice, which I sorely needed.  I still need it, but not as badly.  It has helped me tremendously.... and now instead of 40 hits a month, I'm up to around 1,500 to 1,700 (this month it has hit 2,300, but 500 of those were in one day.  I'm guessing on my 53% post.  But can't be sure.  Logs rolled over).

But philmon thanks TrogloPundit for the kind words, and will link him under "friends of this blog" and check his out for a while.  It looks pretty good from here.

What's Behind OWS

Beck put together a good show on it the other night. I recommend you set some time aside and watch it if you haven't.

It'll take some patience, if you haven't been up on who's who in leftist revolutionary circles -- if you haven't read Alinsky or Cloward and Piven, or if you're not familiar with Soros's "Open Society" and the fluid, multi-headed hydra of SEIU, ACORN, AFL-CIO, SDS, APOLLO, TIDES, etc.

If you have then this will come into focus much more quickly.

Unoccupied

Oh, snap!  

I guess nights are getting a little nippy.   I saw a video a few weeks ago at which a homeless person camping out amongst the OWS protesters said he was just happy that the cops would probably leave him alone since they're not arresting the protesters -- but that he thought they'd be outta there the first cold wind that came through.  From the article:

These are the damning images that prove the anti-capitalist protest that has closed St Paul’s Cathedral is all but deserted at night.

Footage from a thermal imaging camera taken late at night reveals just a fraction of the makeshift camp was occupied.

An independent thermal imaging company, commissioned by the Daily Mail, captured these pictures after similar footage from a police helicopter found only one in ten tents were occupied after dark.

Little Red Hen Design

Are Evangelicals or University Professors More Irrational?

This was good.

Are Evangelicals or University Professors More Irrational?

I'm pretty much in full agreement with the author. The whole thing is pretty good ... here are a couple of quotes that stuck out:

With regard to those evangelicals -- and for that matter, those ultra-orthodox Jews -- who believe that Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that there either were no dinosaurs or that they lived alongside human beings, my reaction has always been: So what? I believe that Earth is many millions of years old, that "six days" is meant as six periods of time (the sun wasn't even created until the third day, so how could there have been any days before then?) and that dinosaurs preexisted man by millions of years.

But what real-life problem is caused by people who believe otherwise? Does it affect any of their important behaviors in life? Do they not take their children to doctors? Do they oppose medical research? Do they reject scientific discoveries that affect our lives? No. Not at all. Are there no evangelical or ultra-orthodox Jewish doctors? Of course there are, and apparently they are very comfortable learning and practicing science.

Compared to the many irrational beliefs of secular, leftist intellectuals -- good and evil exist even though there is no God; male and female are interchangeable; international institutions are the hope of mankind -- evangelical irrational beliefs are utterly benign.

and

This Jew will take the evangelicals' values and the evangelicals' America over those of left-wing intellectuals' any day of the year. If evangelicals come with some views I find irrational, that's a tiny price to pay compared to the price humanity has paid for the left's consistently broken moral compass...

Like Another Hole In the Head

Saw this on our local affiliate's fb page yesterday.

Next thing you know they'll require a little audio device like in those talking greeting cards that activates when you pick up the bottle and gives you the nutrition information in 17 different languages, of course, adding cost to the price of a gallon of milk and lots more batteries in our landfills, but hey! People can't be trusted to look for the information themselves.

I know, here's a "jobs" program!!!! Each grocery aisle should have 3 nutrtion readers per aisle. The Nutrition Readers Union will require that you request an item off the shelf, and then they read you the nutrition information to you so that you can decide - wait, did I say "decide"? What was I thinking?

We should all just be required to hire nutrition agents to do our grocery shopping for us, for, let's say, a 15% commission? Well wait, they'll need to have degrees in dietary science first, and they'll need to pay off those student loans, so a 25% commission.

But the poorer among us won't be able to afford the new higher cost, so we'll need to subsidize that, too, so 30%. After all, everybody eats healthy if we "spread the butter around."

Another "problem" solved by government! Whew! Glad we dodged that disaster!

Jillette: Charity and the Role of Government

Morgan and Mark shared a Bastiat Institute fb link with a Penn Jillette quote about charity and the role of government.

I thought the money quote was this one: "You get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."

Of course when it comes down to things that impinge on people's life, liberty, or property -- theft and fraud, murder, damage to our environment, assault ... well yeah.  Those are the source of the basic laws of the land.

But one liberal commenter said that it was, in fact, the role of government to provide public education because it is "in the public interest", and he went on to say:

"Once upon a time, we had a society without public assistance programs. Everything was done through private charities. It didn't work very well."

Hmmmm.   And families performing their duty to help each other out, but able to withhold support if it were clear they were taken advantage of. It didn't work very well? How is it working better today?

Today we have nameless people giving other people's money to people they don't know. The recipients look on it as a right. It disincentivizes doing whatever one can to get one's own ass out of one's bad situation.

Today we pump much more money into it, only this money buys votes and influence and invites fraud and corruption.

Schools? Yes, our founders did believe public education was important, and they left it up to the states and local communities to provide it. The current system has our communities jockeying for money for education, rather than on getting education for their money. The priorities are flipped and we see the results.

I, too, believe the average liberal honestly wants to help people. Would that they could see past their noses to see that we do, too. But that the "obvious" easy "solutions" produce the illusion of success -- but only because we measure "success" now in dollars rather than results.

That goes for welfare programs, too.

What Grounds Me

A friend posted a "sign" in the spirit of the 53'ers on facebook, and a friend of his made a comment calling the guy who wrote the sign (and held it in front of his face, unsigned) "narccistic" for displaying the fact that he sacrificed for what he has, and that he thinks others should, too.

What's on that paper is not narcissism. It's a sign that says "quitcher bitchin'" to the OWS people out there calling for free college education or to have a bank pay off his student loans because "that's what I want" and calling to replace "Capitalism" with "a more just economic model" while your friends interject and plead with you not to articulate just what it is you mean in front of a TV camera.

It's all fine and good to say "everybody deserves 'The American Dream'" and then go define some pie in the sky baseline for it. But somebody has to pay for it. And somebody has to do the producing to provide the goods and services with enough left over to turn around and buy it for you because you think you deserve it just for being an American.

As the Nace Brothers put it, "There's a lot of people in exotic places who spend all day tryin' to feed their faces. They'd love a shot at what you've got, so you better hold on while you can"

I lived within my means and worked for what I got and didn't buy more than I worked for. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people out on the street tweeting to each other about Corporate Greed on their iPhones, crapping on cop cars and burning American flags, stripping naked and painting their bodies garishly to get attention and garner praise for their "awareness" and "activism".

It's less about protesting than being seen protesting, because it's the "it" thing to do.

If you want to know who the narcissists are, it's precisely the ones out there doing the "occupying".

Here's the thing that grounds me.

Cavemen had food and shelter and worked all day to get it. Anything beyond that is gravy.

If I have food and shelter and people around me who love me, what do I care that someone else has eleventy trillion dollars, 60 yachts, and a space ship?

As long as he can't take my food and shelter and family, and my ability to work for more and actually get to keep it and share it with whom I please.

Klavan Joins GBTV

Klavan rocks.  And "explains" himself.  To his wife.   And other family and friends.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month

I'm sure this makes me a horrible person or something, but does anyone know if there's any day of the year that doesn't fall under "Breast Cancer Awareness" Something (day, week, month, hour...)?

Is there anyone who isn't aware of Breast Cancer?

Isn't there a fear that it'll get to the point where people will be desensitized to it and just react "yeah, yeah, Breast Cancer.  Mmm-hmmm.... pass the Cheezits" ?

I mean, I'm all for saving the boobies, and even more for the saving of the people to whom they are attached. But really.  Are we this addicted to wearing causes on our sleeves every day of the year?

Ronald Reagan's Little Red Hen

A modern day little red hen may not sound like or appear to be a quotable authority on economics but then some authorities aren't worth quoting. I'll be right back.

About a year ago I imposed a little poetry on you. It was called "The Incredible Bread Machine" and made a lot of sense with reference to matters economic. You didn't object too much so having gotten away with it once I'm going to try again. This is a little treatise on basic economics called "The Modern little Red Hen."

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'

"Not I, " said the cow.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Out of my classification," said the pig.

"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.

"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.

"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.

"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.

"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.

They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."

"Excess profits," cried the cow.

"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.

"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.

And the pig just grunted.

And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."

And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful." But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

Kos & the 53%

Another post on fb.   Yeah, from truce boy.

It just occurred to me what he's doing.  He posts these links to stories that promote bits of the "liberal" or progressive agenda, but he posts them as "interesting to think about".

Thus he gets to promote his ideology without taking responsibility for it.  "Hey, I didn't SAY I agreed with it, I just found it interesting".

Ooooo-kaaaayyyyy.

This one was a Daily Kos post (but no, he's not a radical liberal, he's been a life long Republican until he drove people to the polls to vote for Obama  in a state other than the one in which he lives ... but I digress ... and posts links to HuffPo and Kos)

It's a rant about one of the 53%'ers photos.  And a Kos ramble about "well you shouldn't have to work that hard in the greatest country on earth, and what if you need health care or lose your job..."  and how they didn't like his face.

Another guy commented that he did an analysis of the guy to figure out how he could easily be a part of the 47%, if such and such parameters he plugged into a spreadsheet were assumed.

The open letter starts out thus: "although I think you’ve made yourself clear and I think I understand you..."

Well, he doesn't. Understand him, that is. It occurred to me that this completely misses the point.

I commented:

Completely missing the point. The point is, he takes his life into his own hands, and neither asks nor expects anything from strangers.


Something else interesting to think about. $116 trillion and counting of unfunded liabilities in entitlement programs in addition to the glaring but comparatively "paltry" 15 trillion federal debt.


Of course, every one of us is free to help anyone we like. There are, and have always been individuals and organizations dedicated to this.


But big pots of Other People's Money are, always have been, and always will be magnets to those with power to misuse, abuse, and skim, for starters. And the negative social impacts have manifest themselves around us for decades. Liberals "solve" this by looking in ever-expanding circles for places to get more, because the answer to them is always more.


It is very easy to be Liberal with Other People's Money.

These people confuse the role of government and the role of society, and any attempt to separate the two means you're unfeeling or uncaring.

What's great about America is that you can put yourself out like this and reap the rewards ... the delayed gratification.  But what this Kos author doesn't seem to get is the lesson of The Little Red Hen.

And no, it's not that the Little Red Hen couldn't or shouldn't share with those she deems to be in need of her assistance.  It's the entitlement attitude of the other farm animals -- to dictate where the fruits of her labor should go to her ... that is the problem.   That's not America.

The difference between the 99'ers and the 53'ers (outside of general worldview and the glaring difference in the civility of the behavior) -- is that the 53'ers are specifically not complaining.   They're pretty much just pointing out to the 99'ers that they are, and to stop whinning.

The Theory of Coexistence, Analyzed

Via Morgan, through the Hello Kitty of Bloggin'

Soundbite Flypaper

As Morgan would say, "I Made a New Word".

In a reply to tim's comment on the last post, a phrase materialized in my head describing what it is I don't like about watching political debates.

They're not debates.

They're soundbite flypaper.

Oh, I suppose soundbites are useful, but I don't need to watch them get produced.  I'll hear them later.  The debate -- the real debate -- happens out here.  Between us.  Between we, the people.  Arguing ideals and ideas.  Arguing principles and cause and effect and consequences.

What I like about Herman Cain

Worldview and Principles

I've been slow to get on the Cain bandwagon, though I've never DISliked him. What I like about him is what I liked about Sarah Palin, really (tough, Palin Haters, I like the woman). A combination of worldview, principles, and the fact that they're not Politicians first (yet).

Little turns me off faster than "yeah, well he knows how to play the game". This is what people like Romney & Perry have going for them. "Experience". Experience at what, exactly? What they mean is experience playing the machine.

But I don't want someone to play the machine.

I want someone who's basic philosophy is to simplify the machine within the confines of the blueprint. Which will, over time, necessarily move us closer to that blueprint.   We need a little Jesus goes ballistic in the Temple in Washington.  "What are you doing to my house????"

9-9-9

It's really got nothing to do specifically with 9-9-9. 9-9-9 probably wouldn't pass as is. But it's that kind of thinking that I want. A president can't make laws, anyway. They can propose them. But it's up to Congress to make them law or not.

9-9-9 is on the right track. Broaden the tax base, lower corporate taxes, and provide a formula for adjusting an eventual flat/fair tax.

Does it have flaws?

Of course it does. Everything has flaws. There are no solutions. Only tradeoffs. 9-9-9 is a fine starting point for discussion in the right direction.

He's Black

There, I said it. Ok, this isn't so much about what "he" IS -- he is a man and an American first and foremost -- but this attribute, and his popularity among especially Tea Party conservatives, really finally blows the whole "conservatives are bigots" argument. True, anyone paying attention should be aware by now that today's "conservative" movement is really more about our founding principles than anything else, and our founding principles clearly state that all men are created equal. It does not say that everything in their houses should be made equal. But they are created equal. Which is why republicans (people who see our nation as a Constitutional Republic) and the party they started (capital "R") have always fought for this view to become manifest in society and government. Refusal to treat people unequally does not mean you have it in for the people the other side wants to give privilidges to.

So while his race wouldn't actually be a deciding factor in my support, this post is entitled, "What I Like About Herman Cain" ... and as a presidential candidate, I do like this about him at this moment in our history. It takes the Democrats' favorite bogus argument off the table. Not that they won't still try it, but it'll fall flat on the American Peoples' ears. We're not stupid.

It looks like this is the field we're getting. Like Fred Thompson last time around, this guy's my guy. We'll see what happens in the primaries.

Whittle on OWS

Is America Ready?

The headline grabbed me. And to be sure, The Washington Times' Charles Hurt is spot on with his article, but I couldn't help but comment on the question being asked upfront.

"Is America ready to make history by electing the first black president to replace a black president?"

Despite what the self-congratulatory left, the media and Hollywood (but I repeat myself) keep telling you, America does not care what color skin the President of the United States has, nor is it concerned with the gender. America is over it, why don't they join us?

Oh, that's right. They're too busy patting themselves on the back because they still believe that not being a bigot is something unusual that sets them apart from the rest of America.  They've got too much of their inflated self-image tied up in that.

Those Antarcticans Just Don't Care

Diane Sawyer of ABC says the OWS protests have spread to 250 cities and over a thousand countries.   Which I'm pretty sure means it must've spread to at least 5 other planets like ours, since we have just shy of 200 nation-states on this one (195?).

I imagine it's spread to all 57 states as well.   It's spread to "every continent except Antacrtica".

Those lazy, racist Antarcticans.  I hear the whole place is just covered in white.

Awesome

Wow.   Looks to me like a celebration of self-centeredness.

Bill Zeiser at American Spectator actually went, checked it out.  Amazing.

Columbus Day

Ok, I just got steamed.  The truce with fb "TruceBoy" is off.  He called it off a couple of weeks ago by asking my opinion on a political subject.

And tonight, he posted this bit of Progressive Snark.

Oh, hee-hee, ho-ho, I didn't mean anything by it I just found it funny.

No.

I've had it past my eyeballs with this.

And I'm afraid I had to open with both barrels on it.

Let's beat ourselves up over the fact this is pretty much how the entire human history of the world had been up to that point, probably since before we dropped from the trees. Let's also ignore the fact that native tribes did the exact same thing to each other before "we" ever got here.  There's not one place on the planet that wasn't taken from other people over the millennia, most of them multiple times.

Let's all get on the Critical Theory and deconstruction of Western Civilization bandwagon and show everybody how morally superior we are by tearing down 500 year old heroes and publicly flogging them so we'll all get the warm fuzzies from our college professors going on about the patriarchal heteronormative theocratic hegemony of the culture that brought you liberty and Constitutionally restrained government.  The idea that rights do not come from man or his agent, government.  That they pre-exist.

There's only two groups of people on the timeline with an unique claim to it.  The current occupants, and Clovis Man.

I am the 53%

I studied in school and got called a nerd. I took harder courses in math and science, and my GPA suffered for it, but I got some tools I would need. I milked cows and split wood and cooked food from scratch for my family when I was a kid.

My first job in high school was weeding the gravel bed of a septic tank overflow. I followed that by cleaning cabins, mowing grass, and washing dishes. I rode my bicycle 7.5 miles to and from work.

I went to college with the help of grants and a small scholarship, but paid for it mostly by working through it and taking out loans which I paid off, since I made sure I didn't get in over my head. My parents were financially unable to help me. I shelved books, slopped food, sold records, and lived in dormitories until I got my first degree, after which I lived in a drafty garage. I bought my first car at 23 for $500. It was almost as old as I was.

I worked at a student job in user support for a couple of years, showed up on time and did an excellent job, teaching myself things I was not taught in school. I  was hired as a full-time employee, where I was rewarded with a low salary but got health insurance benefits. I continued to prove my worth with my employer, eventually managing the team that ran the Univerisity's email servers, getting rewarded more and more as I developed and proved my worth to my employer.

 I met a good, honest woman, a single mom with two kids, just scraping by and took them on as my family when I got my first full-time job making about $20K. We lived in inexpensive housing, eventually buying a house that cost about a third of what my contemporaries were paying for theirs. I've never bought a new car. I minimized the risks I took and paid off the credit card which had gotten up to a nail biting $6,000 while we took on our new house. I still have a couple but I pay them off every month.

 The job I have has a pension plan, but I put away a few hundred a month in addition so that I might be able to enjoy my retirement a little more and I realize that Social Security may go bankrupt by the time I retire  -- rather than spending it on new cars, expensive phones and data plans, though I do spend a little on things to enjoy today as well.

I give to charity, I give to my family, pay my taxes, I work hard, I pay my bills, I plan for the future, and I make conservative choices. I live responsibly. I am the 53%.

I Feel Better Now

Spidey Sense

My Spidey Sense is tingling.  We've seen the Van Jones/MoveOn/Frances Piven/Labor Union "Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Together" protests.  I've read Cloward and Piven's Strategy to End Poverty.  I've seen the protests, small and inane as they may be, in our town.

And yesterday on our way back from lunch, I noticed a guy walking down the street and to his car in this really weird mask.

One in our group recognized it as from a movie I've never seen called "V for Vendetta".  I didn't think much of the comment, as it is October and Halloween is approaching and I do live in a bit of an arty, hippy-dippy ... in many ways, College town.

Then I saw a video on YouTube today with someone with this mask on, claiming to be with this "Anonymous" movement I've heard of, vaguely, as a bunch of anarchist hackers.  Well I work in IT, so that's the angle I heard it from.  And I looked up some more videos.

They're a bit creepy.  Something's up, and it may be big.

During my forays, I noted that it is also referred to as a Guy Fawkes mask.

Guy Fawkes I did remember as some British revolutionary, and that there is a Guy Fawkes day, and I remembered that as I looked at the "Occupy Together" sign on the ground that said "Guy Fawkes News" ...

And then I saw a "turn off your facebook account day" as well ... which is Nov 5.  Which happens to be Guy Fawkes Day.

Now Guy Fawkes tried to be anonymous, until somebody outed him.  I think that's why the fascination with Guy Fawkes here.

Frankly, I don't care if people turn off their facebook accounts, but something seems to be fairly well orchestrated here, and that, as I said, combined with other things I know, makes my spidey sense tingle.  And not in a Chris Matthews/Barack Obama way.

If you've read Cloward and Piven, and indeed the things Cloward and Piven probably read (the history of fomented Socialist Revolutions) they need something.  They need two things.  Unrest, directed at "the status quo", and some violence to go with it.  They need it.  And they don't really care much who does it, it's just the crisis they need to bring in their populist and be "the solution" to "our problems".   And by "our" I mean we the original Forgotten Man (pre FDR).   They will sweep in and save society from this unrest and violence, if only we hand the reins of power to them.

It happened in Russia.  It happened in Cuba.  It's happened in many places.

But they need that violence, regardless of where it comes from.  Crisis.

They hoped the financial crisis would be enough to bring about this fundamental transformation, and indeed they did get their guy in there largely because of it.   But then the Tea Party happened.   So they looked to the Tea Party for it, and have, multiple times, tried to provoke violent responses from us  -- sending SEIU thugs to townhalls and Tea Party events, or the Congressional Black Caucus publicly marching through the presumed racists Tea Partiers in DC on their way to sign the Health Care Bill, or the very haughty march of Pelosi with her giant gavel, chin in the air, through the crowd..  But the Tea Party is largely made up of The Forgotten Man, and it didn't work.  We don't work that way.

Mean time, their guy in the White House is imploding, over half the states are suing over Obamacare, they lost their majority in the House and lost a bunch in the Senate and it's not looking good for them in 2012.

They passed some bold and unpopular, probably unconstitutional legislation using in-your-face sleazy tactics, and I think they thought two things would happen.  1) I think they really did think that The People would "come around" after they passed it, and 2) I think they didn't think it would matter because passed legislation is... 9/10 of the law ... whether its constitutional or not.  Or even good.

Have you ever noticed that a dying tree throws up a zillion shoots from the stump before it goes in an attempt to extend its existence?  I have observed it, and I've even seen it work.  Yeah, the tree almost has to start over except for its root system, but the same organism often survives,

I think the forces, the NGO's that got Obama elected are doing this, and this is the "Occupy Together" movement.  It is not only a fight for survival, but it is one designed to, they hope, bring about the unrest and violence they need (seriously, read the paper).   It's pretty clear.  The strategy extends to anything they want.

Now these people, the ones behind it, are not anarchists.   But they'll use anarchists.  And Democrats, and capital "L" Libertarians.  And students who want their loans forgiven, or free college, or "green energy" . And peaceniks and pot smokers and pretty much anybody who'll get out on the street and make a stink for any reason.  But they are Socialists, and by that I mean Marxists.   They want control, and of course, this time they'll get it right.  (You know, because the only reason Socialism hasn't worked is that the right people haven't been in charge, and They Are The People They've Been Waiting For).

Even so, they may not actually have enough together, and it might not work.  But there is a danger that it will.  However, it won't work if We the People don't freak out.  Because that's what the unrest and violence is supposed to accomplish.  We're supposed to freak out and demand that "someone" step in and fix it.

Well in America, the Government is Us, and hopefully enough of that attitude remains to ward off attempts at having someone else step in and ... "Fundamentally Transform" it by usurping that idea (all the while claiming that it was Democratic because we demanded it) -- imposing Socialism and the totalitarianism it always takes to enforce it.

So stay on your toes, peeps.  Keep your cool.  Know what you believe, and do not be afraid to defend it to your family, friends, and co-workers.

Above all, keep your cool, and let that coolness re-assure others around you.

We keep our cool, they lose.  Unless they start shooting at us.  Which is unlikely, I hope.

But if that happens, keep your cool that you may aim well, right back at them.

The Undefeated

I watched Sarah Palin's "The Undefeated" last night.  Basically a documentary of her career.  And it pretty much confirmed what my general impression of her has been. That she really was an ordinary, hard-working, middle-class citizen that got into local politics for the right reasons, and rocketed to stellar success by ... not being a politician.  I defy you to find any facts (facts, mind you) that say different.

This allowed her to simply resign from a 6 figure salary job she found herself in when appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission -- over the deep corruption she saw there.

This is not something politicians do.

This made her wildly popular with Alaskans, and 3 years later she ran for governor and won, slashing state spending and simultaneously increasing state income, and holding a consistent 80%+ approval rating. She stared down big oil executives into sh*tting or getting off the pot on oil leases, broke its monopoly on oil leases and opened it to true competition, did not use the Governor's chef, preferred to sleep at home when possible, sold the Governor's jet, refused to take a commission-reccomended pay raise ... and using about 20% of what the previous governor used in expenses.

It was only after she was chosen to run as McCain's vice presidential candidate that her whole history was suddenly and retroactively revised to that of a corrupt idiot.

Frankly, I think she's exactly the kind of person we need in the White House. Buck stops here, no-nonsense, get it done steward of The Peoples' freedom.

I read Katie Couric's blurb on Palin deciding not to run in 2012. In it, she talked about "the question", “And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?”

Well, you know what? I don't, myself, regularly read any particular newspapers or magazines. I read articles from dozens of them, but I don't pay a lot of attention to what publication the article appeared in - I'm more interested in the content of the articles. I don't have a publication I turn to for a "media guru" to validate my opinions.

And just like most regular Americans, I suspect neither did Palin. Now if I sat and thought about it, I could name some. (WSJ, NYT, UK Times, LA Times, Miami Hearald, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, Washington Post, Orange County Register. I even occasionally read Slate and Mother Jones articles. But I'm not in the middle of an interview with Katie Couric. I got a chance to sit and think about it without my readers seeing an awkward pause. And nobody's playing "gotcha" with me on National TV) And again, their names aren't important to me.

As for her resignation as governor, it seems to me that Palin got more accomplished in 2 years than many governors accomplish in 4 or even 8, and I completely understand that the onslaught of politically motivated and universally dismissed as frivolous "ethics complaints" that were filed against her along with the sudden turn of Democrats who had been working well with her -- now suddenly against her, as well as establishment Republicans' desire to distance themselves from her sudden supposed idiocy -- some still smarting from her clamping down on corruption and cronyism ... was breaking her family financially (the Palins were not rich, and a half million dollars was a lot of money!). And it was also paralyzing any efforts to get her previously popular, but now suddenly taboo -- agenda passed.

She did the right thing.

Like she's always done when the chips were down.

This is a good woman. This is an exceptional woman. The Christophobes and political cronies just don't want you to realize it.

What Parts Were Taken Out Of Context?

Saw a post on Facebook about the controversy over the "Introduction to Labor Studies"/"Labor, Politics, and Society" course being taught jointly at UMKC/UMSL that one or more students exposed via Breitbart's "Big Government" site.

The discussion on facebook was about the Faculty Council revising it's policies on classroom recordings to prohibit sharing written or recorded material from a class outside the classroom.   Something to do with privacy and the inhibition of free discussion.

One has to wonder what these people thought of Julian Assaunge's Wikileaks, at least while it's torrent was aimed at the Bush Administration.  But one probably does not have to wonder much.

At any rate, I saw in the article that“officials on both campuses agreed they distorted the educators’ views”.   Which I'm sure were completely unbiased assessments from people who support "_______ studies" classes.

The comments talked about the clips being edited and that the one lady's outfit changed several times in one video.  And that they were pulled from YouTube due to "terms of use" violations.  On the other hand, none of them said how any of this was relevant to the points being made about the videos.  If you haven't seen them, it's all "he said/she said".  And most people won't watch the videos.

I say watch the videos yourself and see if you think you can discern the instructors' intent, and whether or not you're good with using state money to pay for the promulgation of this Alinskian claptrap.  Also, remember that this kind of technology automatically flips back and forth between the cameras, on opposite sides of the state, depending on who is speaking.  That's not all "edits" (not that there aren't edits), that's the way this stuff works.

Zo on the Racist People Protesting Obama

Double-standard much? You tell 'em, Zo.


Zo has a great point re: the golden opportunity to snatch the race card from their hands and burn it for all to see.

Hank vs Madonna

Madonna flashes flashes images of Hitler, Mugabe, and McCain together at a concert during the 2008 election. She's tapped to play the Superbowl halftime this year.

Hank Jr. makes a metaphor about polar opposites pretending to be friends, and he's booted off his Monday Night football theme gig.

But there's NO bias in the media. Of course not.

"American Fall" ... er .. Autumn

Went out to a kind of "Bachelor Party" for my older son Friday evening.  There were 7 of us, and it mostly consisted of walking to a few bars downtown where I managed 5 beers in 6 hours.  Real rowdy.

As we were walking downtown, I noticed a small group of people in front of the new city building, holding up signs.  Mostly about hugs and kittens.   At first I thought maybe it was some church group trying to win over us hard-core alcoholics or something.

But I got to thinking about Van Jones' tailcoating of the "Arab Spring" with the "American Fall" (yeah, no Freudian slip there, eh?  Don't believe me, look at my last post.)

I commented to one of the guys that maybe this was part of that manufactured "movement".  I said if it was, I didn't think the Tea Party had a lot to worry about.  Snagged the above photo off their facebook page, but I could easily have taken it myself, because these are the signs I saw.  One commenter on their facebook page even noted, "nothing says "take us seriously" than holding up signs that have absolutely nothing to do with #occupycomo!" .

On our way home we walked through them.  I noticed a  Guy Fawkes sign and a few others on the ground.   I hadn't seen them hold it up.  Maybe someone said "Don't Say It, Bro!"  More likely, the silly signs were meant to draw you in and then you'd come see their other signs while you were talking to them.

Oh, here.  How convenient.  One of them posted a picture of those signs as well.

I also noted they were complaining that there were only 12-15 people there and they expected hundreds to show up and help protest.   Well... that's a good sign as well.  Heh.  He said "sign". 

There is nothing wrong with you.  Yeah.  We know.  But y'all might want to check yourselves.

Don't Say It, Bro!

Saw this clip this morning -- on the street interviews with "Occupy Wall Street" protestors, asking them what it's about. 

Ok, so it's about destroying capitalism, we've got that -- but what do we want to replace it with?

Don't say it, Bro!

Yeah, anyone who believes this movement is not an attempted revolutionary movement to bring about a socialistic government is just a silly right-wing nut.  Right? 

Everyone at these rallies voted for Obama, to a man.  Every.  Single.  One.  Unless they didn't vote at all.



Update: Related post -- American Fall.

Argument Fail

Update:  Fail Fail.
--------------------------
I admit it.  I was wrong here.  Sort of.  Well, definitely.  But the author's point was subtle and I missed it.  I shouldn't have missed it, but it was easy to miss.

He did not say 400% on savings.  He said 400% on savings income.   On that point, he is correct.

I hate it when this happens.

But it does. And in CATO, which makes it worse.

I showed how many Americans of all income levels are paying effective tax rates of approximately 400 percent on their savings income because the government is keeping short-term interest rates under 1 percent while generating inflation of 3.8 percent at an annual rate. 

While indeed Americans are loosing savings money at about 3% or a little more, the fact is that the rate is 400% higher than the interest rate they are getting.... they are not being taxed at an effective rate of 400% on their savings.   That would mean for every $100 I had, I'd be paying $400 in taxes.  It's not that bad.   Yet.


Now the fact remains that a bad argument (in this case, about low interest raont-tes relative to inflation rates being bad) doesn't mean the point is incorrect.  But the reason I point this out is I don't want our side making bad arguments.  That's the other side's job.

And the intellectual argument winner is...

Heh.  Brilliant.  And exposes the opposing school of "thought" for what it is.

Back To Elizabeth Warren

Because this sums it up mightily:

Fully exploring the thinking behind Warren’s remarks would demand a book at least. We might point out that most of the rich got that way by creating value for others, meaning they gave back in the process of getting rich. Or we might wonder if her thinking implies that, because the state is responsible in part for the environment in which all of us earned what we have, the state is the actual owner of what we have.

Concise. Accurate.

Yeah, it's not even a short step from what she said to the last part of that statement.  She's already there, but she won't say it out loud.

Even Without the Gaffe

I don't care about the gaffe, really. Beck pointed out that if you're saying something you don't really believe, you have trouble spitting it out -- and apparently he's had trouble spitting this line out twice... but no matter.   Let's just look at what theObama transcript says

When you start saying, at a time when the top one-tenth of 1 percent has seen their incomes go up four or five times over the last 20 years, and folks at the bottom have seen their incomes decline -- and your response is that you want poor folks to pay more?

Give me a break.

If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a janitor makes me a warrior for the working class, I wear that with a badge of honor. I have no problem with that.

I will say that someone who is actually familiar with the concept of honor would probably not say that they wear it "with" a badge of honor.  Here's my badge of honor.   And I'll wear this other thing somewhere along with it.  Somewhere.
But let's just look at what he's saying here.  So the top 0.01% (which pays a very disproportionately high portion of federal taxes to begin with) has seen their incomes go up 4 or 5 times in the last 20 years.  Let's just take that as a given.

Of course, when you pay taxes at a rate, when your income goes up, you pay more in taxes.  If you were making 50 million and paying 17.5 Million in taxes, and your income goes up 4 times to 200 million ... your taxes then go up to 70 million.  See, you're paying more taxes, too.  So I'm not sure what the issue is with the top 0.01% making more money is except that you don't like it. 

Second, show me where "the folks at the bottom" have seen their incomes decline.  I'd really like to see that data and how this claim was teased out of it.   See, I know how they do it.  They use words to mean things differently than what the words actually mean.  They use relative ideas such as GINI indicies and then substitute "their incomes decline" when the fact is that it's a decline relative to someone else's, which is not the same thing.

And then there's this: and your response is that you want poor folks to pay more?

Well first of all, when we're talking federal taxes, and that is what we're talking ... more would mean more than nothing.  So a buck would be more.   Secondly, who is running around saying that the solution is for the poor to pay more?  Really.  Show me who.  And what they said.   And what dictionary you used to translate it. 

The fact of the matter is that there is an inherent assumption in this whole argument (more than one really, but I'm going to talk about this one because it's core).... That there is no question that the government should be spending what it wants to spend, and that it's necessary to raise more so that we have it to spend (even though I'm convinced that from here on out, without a culture change, the government will spend at least 1.2x  -- or more, right now it's 1.6x) of what it takes in.  From us.

If I ask a billionaire (who pays a 35% tax rate) to pay the same tax rate of a janitor (which is in the 10%-15% range, most nearer the 10%), then I either have to lower the billionaire's tax rate or raise the secretary's.  Since we all know Obama wants to raise taxes 'on the rich' "out of fairness", we can only assume, then, that he wants to raise the janitor's tax rate to 35% (well, plus whatever it takes to get it up to whereever he wants the billionaire's rate, right?).  So there's who's talking about making the poor pay more.   I swear it is better logic than they use to get to his opponents wanting the poor to pay more.

Stop complainin', stop grumblin', stop cryin'.

 You first, Mr. President.

Bristol Palin Stops an Echo

Looks like I can't embed the video, but it's here.

You have to go to the point where she finally falls off the bull (1:44) and some very hateful man at the bar yells out that her mother is a "whore".

Bristol did not back down from him, she walked up to him to get him to expound on the founding of his opinion. He had nothin'

Stop an Echo!!!!

Good, Better

<-- Saw this cartoon the other day, which was good, but it didn't quite capture what I felt it was really trying to say.  I think maybe he was a little too married to the David Banner/Incredible Hulk metaphor to go where I think it needed to go.

So I modified the first frame a bit to show the real irony.  Apologies to Eric Allie.   -->;

Capitalism & Government

"Capitalism is an economic system that falls naturally from Liberty. It is defined by human nature. Government's role is to constrain it from acts of fraud and coercion." - me

Gonna have to stuff this into "Things I Know".

Statist Dictionary

Many of us have talked about compiling one of these.

Robert A. Hall has made a pretty good first stab.

They Can't Help Themselves

Apparently ole what's his face's ... McGinniss?  ... book allegedly about Palin but in fact about some fictional character -- is too bad for even the Palin Haters not to take pot-shots at.

My guess is that they actually love this, because it gives them a chance to look "fair" by criticizing some of her critcizers.  "Hey, I once defended Sarah Palin.  I'm balanced!"

But one need look no further than the very article in which Palin is being "defended" from hints, allegations, and innuendo ... that the author of the article isn't really so far from McGinniss

Her quick retreat from the Alaska governor’s mansion, which she quit after serving barely half a term, was punctuated by the most bizarre and self-pitying exit speech since Richard Nixon promised in 1962, after losing the California governor’s race, that we wouldn’t have him to kick around anymore. Widely discussed lapses in judgment, including a push to fire her former brother-in-law, who was a state trooper, and her disturbingly narcissistic reaction to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona raise serious questions about her capacity to govern effectively.

Uh, here's my take.  By all accounts she governed quite effectively while she governed and was extremely popular.  This was before she rather unselfishly quit when external forces -- her new-found political enemies on the national stage, made it impossible for her to be effective using a law that doesn't exist in any other state and definitely doesn't exist at the federal level -- that made it possible to harrass a governor to a standstill and to bankrupt one who doesn't have very, very deep pockets.  Which at the time, the Palins did not.

This is what she said in her "self-pitying" exit speech.  I think it was the right thing to do under the circumstances. 

Does this sound like an abuse of power to you?

Monegan said the subject of Wooten came up when he invited Palin to a birthday party for his cousin, state senator Lyman Hoffman, in February 2007 during the legislative session in Juneau. "As we were walking down the stairs in the capitol building she wanted to talk to me about her former brother-in-law," Monegan said. "I said, 'Ma'am, I need to keep you at arm's length with this. I can't deal about him with you.[132] She said, 'OK, that's a good idea.'"[128]

I read that they had hired a private investigator to look into possible Wooten wrong-doings ... but ... that's not using state resources. They found nothing, and they dropped it. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that her political opponents will grab on to anything and use the same kind of allegations and innuendo as McGinniss used .. and that includes Nick Gillespie.

And finally, I'm curious as to what Gillespie (a very staunch Libertarian at the venerable Reason Mag) feels was "narccisstic" about "Palin's reaction" to the Gifford shooting.  Palin's reaction was to the ridiculous wild accusation that her "rhetoric" had anything to do with it, and that her district "targeting" meant she wanted her minions to actually shoot people.  What, she's not even allowed to defend herself?

Gillespie -- you're really not that far from McGinniss.

Special Interests

Just saw a headline talking about "the Hispanic Vote" being up for grabs.

And it occurred to me ... is there any sense of irony when Democrats talk about special interests when they go after the women's vote, the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Jewish vote, the "youth" vote, the senior vote, the ....  ???

"Obviously Dumb"

I just saw the link from RCP to the Mother Jones article, "How Progressives Should Talk About Solyndra" -- and curiosity got the better of me.
I about spit my water out laughing when I hit this bit:

Watching this unfold over the last week, I keep thinking back to "Climategate." When it first broke back in late 2009, lefties and bloggers and Dem lawmakers just ignored it, because it was obviously dumb.

emphasis, mine.

"Hey, look, these emails show that lead "scientists" in the Global Warming field have been cherry-picking and improperly manipulating data using methods they know are questionable at best - but that deceptive would be a much better word, while they systematically kept research that did not support the anthropogenic global warming theory from being published in any major scientific periodicals."

"Nuh-Uhhhhhh!  That's dumb!"

I looked to see if they went on at all to expound on just what it was that made it "dumb",  although I suspect it is just that it was strong, searing evidence that undermined their worldview.

Is the left stuck in 4th grade?   Do they think the rest of us are?  

Which reminds me of Geraldo on Fox News this morning


 
"If you don't think all these floods and everything else represents Global Climate Change™ ..."

Then what, Geraldo?  Do you think floods and "everything else" are new?  Because geologists and climatologists  ... not to mention historians, can assure you they are not.

Walter E. Williams Weighs in on the 3/5ths Compromise

I know I've talked about this several times, but it's important.  If you haven't learned this, you need to.   Progressive useful idiots, or actual malicious progressives who know the truth but don't care ... never tire of bringing this up.

The truth will slap them down, hard.

By counting slaves, who didn't have a right to vote, slave states would have had greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. If slaveholding states could not have counted slaves, the Constitution would not have been ratified and there would not be a union. The compromise was for slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person in deciding representation in the House and Electoral College. The compromise reduced the power of slave states relative to the South's original proposal but increased it over the North's original proposal.

My questions for those who condemn the three-fifths compromise are: Would blacks have been better off if slaves had been counted as a whole person? Should the North not have compromised at all and a union not have come into being? 

Know the truth.  Stop an Echo.  It is important to learn.  It greatly increases your capacity to stop these.  And we need your capacity to be realized.

Failed Coup in Jefferson City

From fellow Mid Mo Patriot James.

Who says we are marginalized and can't make a difference.  BTW, one of the testimonies James & Ron had in his stack of 400 was mine.

From: James Coyne
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:21 PM
To: Philmon ; rbonberry
Cc: jamesh ; RonC;
Subject: A failed coup in Jeff City

News from the front:  Spread this around.

A funny thing happened on the way to Obama Care.

This morning I attended the Senate hearing of the committee charged with considering health insurance exchanges in Missouri.  I testified and presented over 400 personal letters from citizens all over the state who are strongly opposed to Obama Care in Missouri.  (Thanks to the beautiful tool Ron Calzone of Missouri First helped me use in the email we sent out)

I asked the senators to read at least a few of them to get an idea of what their constituents thought on the issue.

The showing in favor of the exchanges was much weaker than I had expected - just a few sob stories about how someone could not get the insurance and care they wanted and a "consumer advocate". In retro speck I think the pro-exchange people where at an entirely different meeting - stay tuned.

Several great testimonies opposed.  It was apparent that the committee was not buying the whole Idea that Missouri had to set up the exchanges at all or that it was a good idea.

When, like a scene from a bad movie, a staffer came in and handed a piece of paper to Senator Ridgeway.  She stopped the proceedings and stated that Governor Nixon was directing the Missouri High Risk Pool to set up the very exchange they were talking about !!   And he was doing it right then !!! Who needs senators anyway huh ?

(he had previously accepted 21 Million Dollars of Federal money even though the exchanges it was for had never been approved by the legislature)

They were meeting at a facility about 3 miles away.

Several senators expressed their outrage and got up in the middle of the meeting and drove there!!Myself and several tea party folks got there first.  The senators arrived, pulled the power that be in the back room and stayed there for about a half hour.  When they emerged one of the Senators commented to me " it is off the agenda, we told them if they do this there is going to be a war. "A lady came around to the attendees and ripped one piece of paper out of their agenda folders.

Would I have loved to see that page !!! I can guess what it was about.

The senators left and that was a day.

Anyone want to make this into a lifetime T.V. drama - freakin unbelievable.

I think this is the act of one desperate man and I think he is going to pay a very heavy price for the attempted coup.Keep a close eye - they may not be done. If you want to call the Gov. his number is 573-751-3222

May God Save the Republic (and I think he is !)    

Well, he may be, but God helps those who help themselves, I always say.