The Unholy Alliance Between Academia and Government Regulators

Reason TV: The Green Regulation Machine - Saving the Planet or Killing Jobs?

Encouraging

This is at George Mason University, I gather. Where one of my other extremely progressive friends from way back in my college years works now.



This video would probably scare the crap out of her.

One of Bob's Better Efforts

This is one of Gagdad Bob's better efforts.  And that's sayin' something.

You've got to love the reference to your conscience as your "grumpass"... that grumpy-ass voice inside you that acts as your "compass", the "get off my lawn" voice that tells you to do or not to do what you were thinking about doing... when obeying it would not be the "fun" thing to do.

Here is something that I actually figured out by the 10th grade, out of the mouth of Godwin:

Note that the free market has a way of converting man's faults into virtues. Conversely, leftism has a way of turning our virtues into faults. 

And this I have discovered  much more recently:

Note that one of the most dreadful characteristics of the left is to externalize the conscience in the form of their endless proliferation of law. A fool or knave imagines that if he obeys "the law," this makes him a good citizen. But We can never count on a man who does not look upon himself with the look of an entomologist (Don Colacho). 

He then goes on to clarify:

I would say Adamologist. For if one doesn't get the gist of Adam, one's moral philosophy will be a jest.

Brilliant wordplay.

And this really applies to the "greedy" meme of the left:

 [...] to suggest that a man is "greedy" should be a banality of the first rank. The question is, what are you going to do about yourgreed? Make it go away by confiscating from those who have more than you? Envy, like evil, cannot be appeased. Rather, appeasing it fuels it. 

Anyway, it's a terrific read.

Nature Abhors a Vacuum

Ah, it's that facebook friend I have agreed to stop booing when all he wants is applause again.

This time, he posts a link to this story

This is just funny. How can we have an atheist country dominated by religion? Oh well, at least his child bride is hot.

My urge is to post a comment: is that a rhetorical question, or did you really want it answered?  I realize you don't like to have your statements challenged, but that does look suspiciously like a question.

Of course, the answer is --- well first, this is not what Gingrich said.  He said a secular, atheist country dominated by radical Islamists. Which are people, not a religion.  They also happen to be a particularly dangerous strain of people because they have a ~1,300 year history of imposing their religion on others at the tip of a sword.  If you don't share that religion, you convert, accept dihimitude, or die. 

The real answer, then, to the question "How can we have an atheist country dominated by religion?" is -- rather like a body that looses its immune system can be dominated by disease.

Nature abhors a vacuum.  When we, as a nation, lose the ability to discern good from evil by supposing that one man's evil is another man's good and vice versa - we stand for nothing.  

If we stand for nothing -- if we are not willing to defend our ideals -- remember that ideology itself is demonized in our new society -- a group with strong ideals and a willingness to impose them by force will come in and impose away.

That is what Gingrich is talking about, irrelevant comments about his  45-year-old "child" bride aside.

The person making this statement is 47.

For someone who is in favor of letting people use the government to re-define marriage as being between any two people, I find it rather odd that he would imply there is something wrong with a man marrying a woman 23 years younger than he is, but nonetheless two consenting adults.  And I take it as an insult, as my wife is 14 years older than I am.   See, it's apparently ok to take snarky jabs at people, as long as those people are ideologically opposed to yours and aren't members of a progressively-sanctioned Victim™ group.   Otherwise, you're ... oh what's that word?  Oh yeah.  Intolerant.

The Lines are Drawn

So former Missouri State congresswoman Vicki Hartzler (apparently running for U.S. Congress) now US Congressman from Missouri, as Jeffmon points out --  held a townhall meeting, pointing out that we're borrowing 42 cents for every dollar we spend in Washington.

Translation: We're in a heap of trouble and we'd better change our ways.

Our local state Congresswoman Mary Still's response:

"We need to make investments to move our state forward."

Translation:  Damn the torpedoes, the government needs to spend, spend, spend, we don't care where the money comes from -- until enough people are so dependent on the government that they demand Socialism.

New Excellent Shirts

A nice variation on "Undo!"

An astute observation:

and my personal favorite:

All available at Those Shirts . Com.

And there was much rejoicing (yaaaay)

In this article about blacks leaving blue states in droves (which could be a good sign if they realize why it is the blue states they are leaving are the way they are) ... there's another little silver lining

Bob Herbert, for many years the only regular Black columnist on the New York Times‘ op-ed page (and hey, what's up with that, progressives??? - ed.), has written his last column before stepping down.

I don't really care what color he is -- to wit, my very favorite columnist is Thomas Sowell -- but Bob Herbert's column space was always worse than a waste.  It would have been better had it just been however many column spaces of blank space.  Hey Paul & Maureen ... wouldn't you like to golf for the rest of your lives?  Think about it.  Bob's already got the tee times lined up.

If the NYT wants a real, thoughtful black columnist, it should consider picking up Sowell.

Effective

Kinda dramatic. But effective. From Citizens Against Government Waste.

Tolerance ≠ Diversity

You know, while we're clearing things up and getting down to the facts on which to base our discussions:

Senator Durbin has said anti-Islamic sentiment in America is on the rise and that, "It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter's commitment to religious diversity ...

Our founders were not "comitted to religious diversity".   That is a politically correct distortion.  What our founders were committed to was religious tolerance.

If anything, most of them tried to encourage Christianity. But it was religious tolerance that they encoded in our Constitution and laws. Not some sort of prime directive to have as many religions as possible under our shingle.

But that'll never happen!

Some people support their opposition to same-sex marriages by saying that polygamy will be next. 

They get laughed out of the room.  That'll never happen.  The ole "I laugh, so it is defacto untrue" argument.

Update: (and bump)

You know, I've been thinking more about this.  My wife was just asking why "Sister Wives" is on TV?  It's illegal.  Why are they not being prosecuted?

Answer?  Nobody's going to press charges.  Because it's going to go down to religious prefrence, probably.  And if you can say polygamy is wrong, then you can say gay marriage is wrong.  Which goes against the progressive activist narrative (judicial and otherwise).  There is no right or wrong.  Just personal preferences.  Right?

So... again, what's next? 

[waynesworlddreamsequence]

Why can't I marry my sister?   We love each other, and man, she's hot!  Inbreeding?  Don't worry.  Ok, we won't have kids.  Any time she gets pregnant, we'll just have an abortion.  Or maybe we will.  We'll adopt kids.  And so what if we do have kids?  Birth defect?  Who are you to judge?  They wouldn't be handicapped... they'd be handicapable.

[/waynesworddreamsequence]

Crazy, right? Really?  Is it?

Earth Hour: A Dissent

This echoes my thoughts, only much better.  (Couple more here for good measure)

Feel-good, mambsy-pambsy tokens of penance for perceived crimes against "The Earth" that confer moral justification for lecturing others who behave no differently (and often perhaps "better") than they outside of this one hour of bell-tolling, self-flogging, moral preening.

Hat tip to Morgan, via Gerard, ultimately from Watts With That?

Earth Hour: A Dissent.

Welcome To the Hotel California

The Kinetic Military Action in The Land of No Good Guys.

I've been a tad indifferent about what it is we're doing in Libya ... and perhaps that is because I simply don't know what it is we're trying to accomplish.   I've never had any love for Khadaffi, and I never bought the "changed man" theory.  The Lockerbie bombing has a lot to do with this.  Yeah, I'd like to see him not there (or anywhere) anymore.

But of course, there's the whole "what moves in to fill the vacuum"  question -- which is the big hole in the well-meaning neo-conservative doctrine (and who knew Obama was a "neo-con", eh?)  It just doesn't work in a population that's not ready for it ("it" being anything like a Jeffersonian Democracy).  Imperialism, would in fact, be better if you're going to do anything at all (militarily) to advance the cause.   Which I am specifically not endorsing here.  Just putting weights on the options.

So leave it to Mark Steyn to finally put it in terms that make some sense.   I've been saying over the past five years or so that I could be an isolationist once we tie up our overseas obligations.   I'd be all for systematically drawing down all over the world ... and yeah, I mean Germany and the rest of Europe.   Beef up our defenses here, get serious about killing enemies when they attack, and pre-emptively strike if they threaten to attack.   I could get behind that if we had the right attitude about it.

Apparently "Peace" Is Not The Answer, Either

On my way in to work this morning, I again saw one of the myriad of "War Is Not the Answer" bumperstickers looking me self-righteously in the face.

Of course, now that the President they elected who got a Nobel Peace Prize before he got his desk arranged in the Oval Office has lobbed a barrage of tomahawk missiles into Libya "for humanitarian purposes" (I guess leaving Saddam in power would have been "humanitarian"?) ... can we at least agree that before we decide what is and isn't the answer that we should define the question and pair them up first?

I mean, "10" is not the answer either.  Except when it is.

What if Liberals Needed Water to Be Dry?

Timely reading from Morgan from a year ago that is still frighteningly fresh today (and hilarious, too, in that way that you wish it wasn't).   So fresh I thought he'd just written it.  Only I commented on it a year ago.  So ...

I was just thinking about other things that can be absolutely, positively, indisputably proven — easily. Liberals never seem to want to take those on with their condescending, bullying tactics.

I was just wondering what we’d see if that were to happen. So I made a little list. What if it was about…something immediately recognizable. Water being wet?

1. The clear and indisputable fact that water is wet, is found to have an obstructive effect — don’t ask me how, let’s just go with this, okay? — on some highly energized left-wing agenda item.

comedy ensues.... do click on the link above and rtwt

Cloward and Piven Live

To those of you who thought Glenn Beck's scrutiny of Cloward and Piven and their infamous strategy was overblown, or that their ideas have since been watered down and "mainstreamified" -- check out the SEIU tape Glenn just got.

Oh yes.  The strategy is alive and well.

"Justice for Janitors" indeed.  Here's the complete audio (also embedded in The Blaze article).

Believe It Or Not

Back in late Feb, Joey Scarbury Joe Scarborough comes out and says

"Italian news sources reported that 1000 people have been gunned down by Khadaffi, yet this president has yet to give a really strong statement. What's stunning to me is that this White House had no problems condemning our Ally, Mubarak in Egypt ... and yet this sort of resembles the way he reacted to the crackdown in Iran. Do we actually hold our enemies to lower standards than we hold our friends? I don't understand this."

And that, my friends, is a very good question. You know there are those who have suggested that Obama is interested in weakening America's position in the world, what with him snubbing the Brits and Israel while cozying up to the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinijihad (until Dinner Jacket told him what to do with his Hope).

But those people have been declared crazy by the MSM. But Joe's a part of the MSM. Maybe Joe should read Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage". Might give him a frame of reference to help his understanding.

If your president treats your enemies with deference and your friends with contempt ... maybe you should take a closer look at him.  But no.  Glenn Beck is crazy!  And Chris Matthews will call you RACIST!   And Bill Maher will tell you you're too stupid to deserve such an awesome president.

Of course, now it's "bombs away", after the U.N. demanded it (and Congress wasn't consulted). Yeah. That's the way it's supposed to work.

"Transition"

"There is going to be a transition taking place in which were are one of the partners among many." - President Obama, at a press conference in Chile.

Huh.  You know one could've said the same thing about Iraq.

The stories are coming out today, now that the liberal media has had a couple of days to digest what just happened and they realize they have some 'splainin' to do.

The 'splainin' appears to amount to, "we wanted to, and we buy our own reasons while we won't buy anyone else's."

We have:

The Liberal Way of War - Ross Douthat, New York Times

We're like Keystone Cops when we fight, but our intentions are pure - because we're "us". What's gon-na work? Teeeeeeeeeeaaaam Work!"

Why Liberals Wanted War With Libya - Peter Beinart, The Daily Beast

as long as we aren't putting ourselves out too much, we can level the playing field so the bad guys have as good a chance of winning as the good guys. Plus we get a front-row seat.

Humanitarian Intervention A "Core Principle" - President Barack Obama

Saddam was really a nice guy, and it had nothing to do with UN Oil for Food kickbacks.  Really. Kurds?  Everyone knows it was global warming that killed them.  I hear the rape and chipper victims were masochists anyway.  Ghadafi, on the other hand ... pure evil.  He's got to stay.  Go. Stay.  Go!

Libya a Huge Test for Atrocity Prevention - Mark Goldberg, UN Dispatch

"all necessary measures" means what it says when it's our guy, and it's awesome!

Me, I'm not at all sure this is a bad thing or a good thing.  Just lookin' for a little consistency on the part of the Left.

Moore and Farrakhan Come Out Against Obama

Ok, we have A.N.S.W.E.R., Michael Moore, and Louis Farrakhan on the Left criticizing the president over Libya.  So there's at least some consistency on the radical fringes.

Libya Did Not Attack Us

Where are the cries of "Libya Did Not Attack Us"?

Where are the ant-war protests?

I was going to post on this, but David Warren already did at least as good a job as I would have.

In a way almost touching, the Bush administration tried to meet all the criteria of a just war, when invading Afghanistan, then Iraq. They tried to meet the Powell maxims, too. They went to elaborate and exhausting lengths to leave "democratic" and constitutional regimes, in a most unfavourable region. For this, especially, they endured the contempt of the world's most aggressively self-righteous people.

Who, in turn, seem to be rallying behind the Security Council resolution of Thursday night, which "authorizes" the enforcement not only of no-fly zones over Libya, but any other uses to which military forces may be put, short of a decisive ground invasion.

Even if it is "just a no-fly zone" ... the last one worked out so well, didn't it?  During this period, Saddam doubled down, genocidally gassed the Kurds, threw people feet first into chippers ... shot at our planes, and left us with a long-term military presence on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia.

Which, if you'll recall, was at the top of the list of reasons Bin Laden gave for justification for 9/11.

Which led to the 2003 Iraq invasion.  You know, the one that didn't have anything to do with 9/11, the one where Iraq didn't attack us, so we shouldn't attack it.  Yes, this sounds like a great idea.

Bloods vs Crips

This weekend's assignment, for lack of a worthwhile post from moi -- is to go read this Bob Godwin post.

Very interesting and useful perspective.  I suppose that makes "us" the "Crips".

Oooh, I like this Don Colacho amorphism he references:

"Liberty is the right to be different; equality is a ban on being different"