Sleepy Eyed Whiners of the Deep

Buffett's Secretary - Why She Matters

2012-01-27T14:24:00.001-05:00

Warren Buffett has long contended, and Barack Obama and Liberals have parroted, that our tax system is "unfair" when it allows a billionaire like Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than an honest, hardworking person like his secretary, who most of America learned this week is Debbie Bosanek, since the President elected to invite her to his box for his State of the Union address as symbol number 1 in his class warfare project.

Of course, they are referring to the fact the many of the super rich derive nearly all their income from investment income, which is taxed at the capital gains rate of 15%, vice the highest income tax rates of 36%. It's an apples to oranges comparison, but to the ignoramuses who make up most of the American electorate, the distinction between taxing capital, and taxing income, is lost on them. It's the tactic of the typical class warrior (i.e. any Liberal), because their response to address this does nothing to address the fundamental "unfairness" but only serves to address what really is their game, the redistribution of wealth to address income "inequality." I'll point out that their answer to the inequality issue is not to do the things necessary in the economy to increase Mrs. Bosanek's income, but, rather, to decrease Mr. Buffett's. What they also want you to believe is that the super rich (like Buffett) are only paying 17% on billions in income because they have the money and wherewithal to find the tax loopholes to reduce their payment from what should be 30-odd percent down to 17%. They don't say that, because it's largely untrue, and even PolitiFact would call them on it, but they want you to believe it, and they nearly always include "eliminating loopholes" in their talking points.

In their world, and what Obama has proposed again and again using this example, as the answer to the fairness issue is to repeal the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250k/year, and return them to the Cinton-era tax rates. For those making $250k-$400k, their top income tax rate would go from 33 to 36% and for those over $400k it would go from 33 to% to 39.6%. Those are significant increases, 10-20%.

Many analysts have tried to figure out just how much money Mrs. Bosanek makes. Forbes blogger Paul Broderick estimated she rakes in between $250-$500k/year, but I find that fairly unrealistic, except if you believe Mr. Buffett, who says she paid an effective 35.8% of her income in taxes (versus his own 17%), she had to rake in a 6 figure salary to pay that much (note the 35.8% includes the ~15% for social security and medicare). Here's where I agree with Buffett that the issue really isn't what Mrs. Bosanek makes.

The Dems want to frame this issue as about fairness, yet, again, their prescription for fairness is to raise Mr. Buffett's taxes and all those others who make their living off investment income (like Mitt Romney) by increasing their income tax rates. Do you see the problem here? Not even Liberals are stupid enough to suggest raising the capital gains rate to 35%, since they realize that would be a huge disincentive to investors and result in the tanking of this tenuous recovery and the seat of every Democrat who supported it and Barack Obama. So, they propose a faux comparison, suggest a fix that won't address the fake comparison and get by with it because no one says anything.

The money shot here is we could increase Mr.Buffett's income taxes just as BHO suggests, and because Buffett draws a $100k salary, his income taxes will be unaffected. Because not even these Liberals are proposing a cap gains tax increase to address the fairness issue. So, when all is said and done, the net in their own example, is absolutely nothing.

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

If they were really serious about fairness, they would instead be proposing we lower the marginal rates for Ms. Bosanek down to something closer to the 15% cap gains rate. But, they're not doing that.

What they want to do is increase taxes on those who actually have incomes above $250k, not from investments, and collect the money. If you listened to BHO's speech, you also know he is disinterested in using that money to actually reduce the deficit, he has a laundry list of "investments' the government is only too happy to make (with our money).

They're dishonest, and they want your money, your freedom, and your life.

Don't give it to them.

Sub Building Will Slow Under Latest Pentagon Budget

2012-01-27T10:17:00.001-05:00

From today's New York Times, the proposed DoD budget will slow the replacement of Ohio SSBN's, the larger Virginia Tomahawk shooter, and slow SSN construction.

"[Defense Secretary Leon] Panetta said the Navy would delay its long-range plans to build a new nuclear-powered missile submarine by two years to ease the current budget pressures and help start the program on a more solid footing.

"Pentagon officials have said that the new missile submarines would eventually replace the aging Ohio-class subs, which carry nuclear missiles and could cost $5 billion each. Pentagon officials said they also would delay construction of one Virginia-class attack submarine, two coastal combat ships and a large amphibious ship to reduce short-term costs.

"The Pentagon said it also planned to redesign the Virginia-class subs, which are smaller than the Ohio-class subs."

Not sure the details on the delayed Virginia construction.

Newt, the new Churchill? I have a different former world leader in mind...

2012-01-21T20:01:00.003-05:00

South Carolina's primary is over and Newt Gingrich has come back from the dead to stick a fork in Mitt Romney and the establishment GOP's eyes.

First Romney, Charles Krauthammer on Fox tonight brought out the problem I have with Romney, that he doesn't appear comfortable with his experience on Wall Street and his own wealth. Hey man, my advice to Romney, OWN IT! You earned what you got, don't try to act like your $390k in speaking fees was nothing. Say that you got paid to make speeches and you got paid handsomely, and you're not ashamed of it.

Now Newt.

Some (including Newt) want to compare Newt's resurgence and resilience to Churchill's. I have a different thought. He's brilliant. We all see that. He's a master rhetorician (much better than Obama, who merely knows how to deliver a speech). We all want to see those 7 Lincoln-Douglas style debates between Newt and Obama (we won't), but we'd settle for Newt trailing Obama across the country rebutting everything he says during the election.

He has ideas, some of them semi-kooky, and many of them thought provoking and worth trying, and he can articulate them.

He has worked in Congress and gotten legislation passed in a divided government. Legislation (Welfare Reform, Balanced Budgets) that I might add were a heck of a lot better for the country than anything Obama got passed with large Democrat majorities (Obamacare, Stimulus 1, Stimulus 2).

But, he has clearly led a deeply flawed personal life and has made many enemies along the way. He's asked for forgiveness and he's used the press as the bogeyman arguing they have an agenda against any Conservative candidate.

There may be some Churchillian characteristics, and I encourage you to read the many articles available making those comparisons. I,. however, have a different comparison, and I think it's one Newt might want to make, because I think he's more akin to Bill Clinton than to Winston Churchill.

I don't think that's a bad thing.

Soundtrack Albums - Updated!

2012-01-18T23:01:00.001-05:00

I have spent about 50 hours traveling in my car the last 4 weeks, so when the podcasts dry up, I have been listening to more music than usual. Driving home today, I put on one of my favorite soundtrack albums, the Batman Forever soundtrack. That got me thinking, what are some of my other favorite soundtrack albums (I exclude musicals from this, as those aren't really movies with soundtracks, but excuses to make money from the music). There are several that border on musicals, but, I think those are good enough to stand here, and it's my list, so I'll do as I please.

Here are some of my favorite soundtracks in no particular order (other than the first two, which I listen to all the time), and they really have little to do with the quality of the movies. In fact, I have seen few of the movies. Also, in compiling this, I realized I have seen very few movies since about 2000, or maybe the music just isn't that good now...

Brokedown Palace (1999) - I like this soundtrack so much that I rented the movie, which had a run of about a week in theaters. The movie is actually not awful (and starts Claire Dane and Kate Beckinsale as American teenagers jailed for drug crimes in Thailand), but the soundtrack is fabulous. It opened my eyes to a couple of
Batman Forever (1995) - Ok, the third Batman movie was universally panned, but, it's soundtrack should not be overlooked. It's full of great music from the mid-90's. U2, Seal, Mazzy Star, The Devlins, Massive Attack. Great stuff.
The Blues Brothers (1980) - This actually falls into the category of music looking for a movie, but, still, it's a classic cult movie, with great lines like "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses." The soundtrack isn't all Belushi/Akroyd, it also includes appearances by Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin.
Reality Bites (1994) - The movie has an all star cast of people who would be big stars in the '90s, Ben Stiller, Wynona Ryder, Ethan Hawke, Renee Zellweger. But, the soundtrack is what really shines in this one, made up of great songs from lots of good '90's era bands
Empire Records (1995) - A movie set in a record store ought to have a pretty good soundtrack, and Empire Records doesn't disappoint. Why does Renee Zellweger keep showing up in these movies? This movie made nearly zero dollars, and it's not that good, but the soundtrack has always been one of my favorites. Like Reality Bites, it's a who's who of '90's bands, with tracks from the Gin Blossoms, Better Than Ezra, The Cranberries, Toad the Wet Sprocket, Cracker, and Edwyn Collins great "A Girl Like You."
Star Wars (1977) - Why do Sci-Fi films have good soundtracks? You got me, but Star Wars eschews the typical soundtrack and actually is a double album with lots of original music, and most of it's listenable. It'll also remind you of scenes in the movie, which, I guess, is one measure of its greatness.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - I would get this just to listen to Also Sprach Zarathustra over and over again. Crazy man!
Tommy (1975) - Come on, Jack Nicholson, Ann Margret, Tina Turner, Elton John, Eric Clapton, and The Who's music? What's not to love. If the Overture doesn't get you moving, you're dead.
Purple Rain (1984) - This one borders on a musical, being as it was, a vehicle for Prince to sell albums. So, it almost doesn't qualify. But, it was an actual movie, and, the music was Prince at his finest. Grab your favorite girl and dance all night.
Risky Business (1983) - Tom Cruise's debut also featured a fabulous soundtrack, with a mixture of rock greats (Old Time Rock and Roll), '80's new wave (Mannish Boy, DMSR), and the sultry jazz of Tangerine Dream. If you were 18 in 1983 (I was) how could you ever forget Rebecca DeMornay and Tom Cruise to Tangerine Dream's "Love On a Real Train?" The fact is, you can't.
Dirty Dancing (1987) - Like Purple Rain, a soundtrack in search of a movie, sort of. Unlike Purple Rain, the movie is actually watchable again and again, which has given it sort of cult status. For the ladies, Patrick Swayze's presence helps. This movie may have opened a lot of kids of my generation's eyes to some great '60s music that wasn't The Beatles or the Stones. It mixed in the wonderful "Time of My Life" and "She's Like The Wind" with those oldies.
Clueless (1995) Returning to our theme of mid-90's movies with great soundtracks, Clueless delivers.
Rocky (1976) - More of a traditional soundtrack, you can follow the movie with it. Of course, Survivor's "Eye of the Tiger" is a classic today.
There's Something About Mary (1998) - This one is a matter of taste. I think we can mostly all agree the movie is a comedy great from the Farrelly brothers, with Cameron Diaz, Matt Dillon, Ben Stiller, and a cameo by her love interest, Bret Favre. The soundtrack contains the Jonathan Richman numbers, as well as the awesome "History Repeating," "Is She Really Going Out With Him," and the finale of "Build Me Up, Buttercup." Come on, if you can't get excited by that, there's no hope.
Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) - With Risky Business, this movie kind of defined a generation. Who can ever forget Spicoli's "Eating some pizza and learning about Cuba" line or Phoebe Cates exiting the pool to The Cars "Moving in Stereo." This soundtrack does for the early '80's what some of these others did for the '90's.
Blow (2001) - The only post 2000 movie on my list. Not only is a compelling story, but, it's really the only 1 of 2 dramas on the list. Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Paul Ruebens. The soundtrack is awesome, eclectic and electric, it's worth the price.
Animal House (1978) I don't think I even need to say it. The movie is a classic. The soundtrack, likewise.

Upon further review, there are some albums that I left off the list that I believe deserve a mention. I left these off the list largely because I think they only existed because of the music:

The Beatles A Hard Day's Night
The Beatles Magical Mystery Tour
Pink Floyd's The Wall
The Grease Soundtrack - I am not a huge fan of this one, but it really is a musical, anyway.
Saturday Night Fever soundtrack - This one probably should have been on my list.

These deserve honorable mention, and might make other people's list. In fact, some of these should have been on my list, in retrospect, and would have been.

The Graduate (1967) - Great soundtrack, and should have been on my list. Plus, it's one of the rare classic movies. Also features one of the greatest cars ever, the original boattail Alfa Spyder.
The Big Chill (1983) - Again, it should have been on the list. Great movie, and the soundtrack is a walk through fantastic '60s music.
American Graffiti (1973) - I think this movie did for it's generation what Risky Business and Fast Times did for mine. Of course, I don't know anybody in this generation, so I'm just guessing.

If we added those three to my list, that makes an even 20. So, I'll claim them.

How about some more honorable mentions:

High Fidelity (2000)
Juno (2007)
O Brother, Where Art Thou (2000)
Romeo + Juliett (1996)
The Wedding Singer (1998)
Footloose (1984)
Pretty in Pink (1986)
8 Mile (2002)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
The Breakfast Club (1985)
The Sound of Music(1965)

2012-01-05T21:43:00.001-05:00

Our replacement for the jinxed Murano.

They Want Your Head (if you don't provide your money)

2011-12-21T08:15:00.000-05:00

In this case, I am not talking about Democrats, but I am referring to the Islamists (who dominate Muslim thinking), who have, once again, informed us of their plans, this time it's the mufti of the Palestine Liberation Army, Jordanian Sheik Nader Tamimi, who wants you to know that your choices will be clear:

"To the rulers of the West, this is the religion of Allah. Either you pay the jizya poll tax, or else you will bring the sword to your necks."

Thanks to the indispensable Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs. If you don't read those blogs, you will pay the jizya with glee, I suppose.

SUBFOR on Facebook, Blogger

2011-11-29T10:24:00.001-05:00

Big doings in cyber space for the submarine force.

In case you missed it, COMSUBFOR has a blog. Check them out for up-to-date UNCLAS info.

The Submarine Force Reserve Component now also has a Facebook site.

Why Newt or Romney. I don't know.

2011-11-19T09:41:00.001-05:00

I posted this week the case that Ann Coulter and others make for Mitt Romney.

I like Ann Coulter a lot. I think she's hilarious, I have read all her books, and she sticks it to the Left like no one else. She needs no one to stick up for her and her conservative bona fides. She was prescient in noting that WWE mogul Linda McMahon could not win the CT senate race, and feverishly supported Chris Christie's run for the White House. So, Ann has a bit of Northeastern Republican in her, but, if she trusts Romney to govern as a conservative, so do I.

Which was really why I posted the column. I think it's imperative that Obama be defeated. I think that is Job #1 for the GOP in 2012. Today, I think Romney provides the best path to that defeat. Like Coulter, I have no doubt that Romney would do as he says he will - issue waivers for Obamacare to all 50 states, and sign a bill repealing it, if a Republican Congress sends it to him. A lot of people on the Right want to portray Romney as some kind of left of center Republican who makes John McCain look like Rush Limbaugh. That's just patently unfair and is the kind of approach Leftists take to debating. I agree that some of Romney's positions as he trudged through the Massachusetts Senatorial race in 1994 and later his Gubernatorial victory, were more akin to those of a Northeastern Republican (think Scott Walker), but, hello, he was running as a Republican in the most Liberal of those Northeastern states (leave Vermont alone). I think you do have to apply some nuance to your views to appeal to voters where you are, and in Massachusetts that means easing your opposition to abortion by recognizing Roe, and distancing yourself from the rightmost elements of the GOP. It's also why you get Romneycare, because the liberals who populate Massachusetts want it.

Finally, I think he stands the best chance of winning. He's already demonstrated that he can appeal to moderate to left voters, and he polls best with them. This election will be about the economy, and he may be the best Republican to appeal to voters who are looking for 1)competence, and 2)non-statist solutions.

I didn't really want to make this post about Romney again, but I am tired of the Romney bashing from the Right. It's idiotic, and it should should stop.

I actually think the race has gotten to the point it should be, where we have two candidates who I think can both win a national election. I would really like to see the rest of the campaign be between these two guys, and start having substantive debates with these two only, because I think we would see that drive the GOP to positions that would be more creative and likely to work, and actually change government.

Today, warts and all, I intend to stick with Newt Gingrich. He has been consistently conservative his entire career (easy to do in his district, though), and he's undoubtedly the guy with the most ideas in this race, and he's the one I'd most like to see debate Obama, again and again. I wouldn't fear a Romney-Obama debate either, but, I think a Newt-Obama debate would put the lie to Obama's supposed intellect, as Newt would have him on the floor begging for mercy and his teleprompter.

But, that won't be the campaign in 2012 for Obama. He'll shirk debates, and instead spend a goodly portion of his $1B war chest in a character defamation campaign that will make the dirtiest operator ever (Satan). proud.

I doubt too many of my loyal readers (you know who you are, Mom) actually ever had the chance to vote for Newt, but, since he represented my district here in Georgia, I am one of the few who has ever actually voted for Newt before, and, I intend to again. He's got flaws, and I fear what we may find out on the Fannie/Freddie consulting gig. On the marriages and the Tiffany's things, he can say, been there, done that, I am sorry.

So, I say we ride the Newt wave, put Bachmann, Cain, and Perry behind us, and let Newt and Romney battle it out, then get strongly behind the nominee (and the Romney/Rubio ticket) and beat the crap out of Obama and the dems.

Ok?

Romney. Because Ann Coulter Says So.

2011-11-16T21:06:00.001-05:00

Ok, since Ann Coulter has weighed in, and she is no shrinking violet when it comes to conservatism, I have decided that my choice for the GOP nomination is going to be Mitt Romney.

At one point, I was hoping Rick Perry would make a real positive splash, but now that Perry has demonstrated that he's not capable of making a salient point in a debate, I, like many others, have soured on him.

I like Herman Cain, but I never saw him as a serious candidate. Sure, he's articulate and he has some sort of vision for the country, but, his total refusal to address certain foreign policy questions ("I would study them and heed the advice of the commanders" or something like that), and his ignorance on things like "right of return" for Palestinians and Chinese nukes (I think that was a misstatement, but still) and his latest gaffes, coupled with the sexual harassment baggage (sure, trumped up, but poorly addressed), and the inanity of the 999 plan, have convinced me he's not the one.

Newt Gingrich has always been a favorite of mine from a policy perspective, and I'd love to see Newt get his wish of seven three hour debates with Obama. But, let's be honest, that's not going to happen, and I feel quite comfortable with Romney on stage with Obama.

It is nice to see Newt in the top tier now, and I hope he stays there a while. I think it will improve Romney and force him to better articulate his conservative side as we move to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, then he can sew up the nomination and start the hard work of tearing Obama to shreds. Shouldn't be tooooooo terribly hard, what with the work Obama has done destroying the economy and ruining our standing in the world.

Today Ann makes some valid points, a couple of these that I totally agree with vis a vis Newt:

Newt's Fannie/Freddie consulting problem - I wouldn't care if Newt answered that yes, he lobbied for them in an effort to increase home ownership. That would have seemed a defensible position in, uh, 2007, but now, in hindsight, being a shill for the principals in destroying the housing market, doesn't seem so great, does it. Trying to hide it doesn't help. Strike one.
Sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi hyping global warming. I hate the "climate change" crowd. They are the 70's population bomb crowd, the Ice Age crowd. They are leftists and former communists and their goal is the destruction of Western Civilization by any means necessary. Today, that takes the form of man-made global warming. They're wrong on the science, and wrong to want to bring down the West, just as they have been for 40+ years. Sitting with them is a problem. Romney was a believer, too, at one time, and I have a problem with that. But, he didn't do a PSA with Pelosi. Strike two.
The personal issues - Ditching your wife while she's being treated for cancer, having an affair during the Clinton impeachment, the $500,000 account at Tiffany's. It all just smells bad, and it's out there, and will be used repeatedly by Democrats in the general to kill him. I don't think this stuff disqualifies him as a president, and I don't think it's material, but, it'll play in ads. Strike three.

While Romney has his issues, I find I can live with them, just as Ann can.

Romneycare - Be honest, he's not going to keep Obamacare. If this election turns on any single issue, it is going to be the repeal of Obamacare. People hate this legislation. They hate the way it was rammed down our throats, and they will really hate what it is going to cost. The only way it gets squashed forever, is with a Republican president and Congress in January 2013. Romney has explained that what might work in Liberal Massachusetts is not a prescription for the nation. Obama can say all he wants, "Mitt, we used your state as an example," to which the proper reply is "That shows how stupid you are, using Massachusetts as the example for this entire nation. Just stupid."
Flip flops on abortion and some other issues - we've mentioned the global warming scam, on which Romney has come around, and abortion, where in Massachusetts he was a tepidly anti-life. If you want to win a statewide race in liberal Massachusetts, you have to acknowledge Roe as the law of the land and look for other ways to limit abortions. Was Romney's conversion to choice convenient? I don't think so, if you read his reasons for it, you can understand why he might have taken that position. Now, I would have respected more a politician saying Roe is the law of the land, and that a sitting governor has no choice but to uphold the law. Of course, he went slightly further and had valid personal reasons for supporting Roe. His conversion back to life was more politically convenient, running, as he is, for the GOP presidential nomination. I think he's more in line with his church now, and with mainstream GOP voters (and Americans in general). He has the right answer now, which is that Roe was poorly decided, and that it ought to be overturned, and we ought to let states decide. I am hoping that at some point, the long national genocide known as abortion will end, and while some states may choose to keep it legal, that will make it more rare.
Global Warming - I find Romney's statements to be troubling, and indicative of not much study of the issue. His even recent statements tend to place him with the majority of people who think that global warming is occurring and that man is a large contributor to it. To his credit, he has always seemed to couch his belief in some doubt over man's impact. Surely, in 2011, Romney is aware of research that includes that done by warmists, that the warming largely stopped in 1999, and temperatures have been steady or declining somewhat since then. I think he could have staked out a position that man may contribute a tiny portion to the increase in CO2, but, we really have no evidence that CO2 is even a contributor to temperature increases (and even if it is, that it matters very much), and that regulating CO2 as a pollutant is wrong, and probably just stupid.

Anyway, I can forgive him these biggest of sins, because he has renounced them, and I think he's largely a conservative we can count on.

You can disagree, but, I think he stands a chance to take Obama down hard, and I'd really love to see 60+ GOP senators in the next Congress, and I fear that any other candidate will struggle to beat Obama, and drag the rest of the party down.

Sub Cheating Garners IG Investigation

2011-11-16T17:18:00.001-05:00

The Navy Times today reports (via AP) that the sub force's Inspector General is now looking into cheating on submarines.

This is an outgrowth of the Memphis cheating scandal, and IG Pat Urello says:

"We have powers to take corrective action if corrective action is warranted”

I have little doubt that there is what could be considered cheating going on quite often, and the solution is to decide whether exams are intended to actually test people's knowledge, or are they used for some competitive purposes.

My two cents is if the submarine force wants to remove this problem, we must remove examinations from ORSE. Let the ORSE board examine records, and seek OQE that the ship is administering exams and that knowledge is being tested, but we are going to need to move from the days of self-administered exams to something more centralized,and less prone to corruption.

I don't know what that looks like, but this has always been too tempting an area to fool around with, and this is a systemic problem, not an individual one, despite what the force's preconceived, or wishful notions are.

Dems on Supercommittee Spending War Savings Already

2011-11-11T11:59:00.001-05:00

The president has rightly received a lot of grief for claiming in his deficit plans savings from the end of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, to the tune of $1T.

But, at least he is recognizing that money won't be spent and is drawing a line somewhere.

Now, Democrats on the deficit reduction supercommittee want to take that $1T in phantom savings and spend it! According to The Hill, "savings from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be used to pay for a new stimulus package." As if the previous 2, unpaid-for Stimuli have done anything stimulating.

If we insist on looking for "jobs" created by government, this week the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a two year transportation bill unanimously that might actually provide jobs for needed transportation projects. It's an example of actual work being done in Washington, which apparently, can happen when you reject President Obama's partisan and economically illiterate proposals. This bill contains NO earmarks, and has a real chance of making it through the House.

But, even this demonstrates the difficulty adults have in negotiating with Democrats. In a time of massive deficits, "A key stumbling block was the transportation enhancements program, which mandates that states spend a portion their federal transportation funding on bike trails, pedestrian projects, landscaping and other things."

For Senator Barbara Boxer, (D-California, also very stupid), "This was a huge problem for us. There were moments where we almost threw up our hands. This was one of the toughest, toughest areas of negotiation." Seriously? Bike paths?

Just crazy, and typical of the way Democrats think.

Chavez claims they chased off a submarine during exercises....

2011-11-11T10:01:00.000-05:00

Yeah, right.

Hugo Chavez claims the Venezuelan Navy detected a submarine during training exercises and chased it way. It only was able to slink off due to it's superior speed, Hugo's subs being slow diesels and all.

Let's look at this critically:

Hugo's 209's are not ASW platforms (for God's sake, they are almost 40 years old), so they weren't detecting and chasing anyone
If he had any ASW platforms (MPA, capable surface ships), which he does not - they would have the legs and speed to attempt to track a detected submarine.

So, there was no submarine here, and no reason to slink away, given the lack of capability.

Know what there was, a piece of flotsam and a self-promoting government.

End IA's for Submariners

2011-11-08T12:40:00.000-05:00

The November 7th edition of Navy Times has an editorial calling for an end to individual augmentee assignments for Navy personnel (subscription required). They point out that with the drawdown in Iraq (to zero), this means the total number of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will have declined by 102,000 from its peak. With the proposed removal of another 23,000 surge troops from Afghanistan by September 2012, that will leave only 70,000 troops on the ground, and a reduction of 125,000 Army troops from the two countries in 4 years.

With that kind of drawdown, why is the Navy still sending soldiers on IA's that cut into their career, disrupt families, and hurt retention? As Navy Times points out, the Navy's personnel rolls are expected to decrease by 2015, and the condition of ships is deteriorating, requiring all available manpower to keep them operational, not serve Army missions for which there are 100,000 people available to fill.

For the Submarine Force, as anyone who is on active duty will tell you, the single most pressing problem for the force is manning. We can not train and retain enough sailors to man sufficient watch bills, to develop future deckplate leaders, nor to keep submarines operational in an increasingly busy force with the rise of China's Navy and North Korean intransigence.

We compound this problem by telling sailors they may need to spend a year to eighteen months in an IA assignment, normally coming at a time when they would instead be on a shore, or near shore tour. This does little to help retention, and impacts recruitment and decisions to stay Navy after the first tour. For most guys, they joined the Navy, particularly submariners, and they don't expect, nor should they be asked anymore, to go pound sand with the Army.

In the reserve component, it is nearly impossible to bring LT's and junior enlisted into the ranks, because though they can get up to two years reprieve from being called for an IA, the near certainty of it at that point means they transfer to the Inactive Reserve, rather than disrupt their family life or a relatively new job.

When the Army was pressed, it made sense to have the Navy and Air Force pick up missions that could be done by any professional sailor or officer. Now that the Army has nearly 100,000 troops no longer deployed, does that need still exist? I say no, and I call on the Submarine Force leadership to say - we have problems of our own on our submarines, many of them attributed to manning issues, and we will no longer provide troops for IA's.

First Female Sub School Graduates

2011-11-07T14:56:00.000-05:00

Last week, the first class including female submariners graduated from Sub School.

I can not believe in all the submarine blogs I follow, not one person mentioned it, and we have no commentary?

Seriously?

Triton Park Almost Open

2011-09-29T21:55:00.000-04:00

The USS Triton (SSN 586) is finding a new home in Benton, Washington, at Triton Park:

President Wants Janitors to Pay "Jew" Tax: Fact Checked and Debunked, Again. Simple Math.

2011-09-26T15:56:00.001-04:00

The President of the United States, perhaps because he's in front of a comfortable crowd in the Congressional Black Caucus, says he doesn't mind being called a class warrior if that means asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rates as a "Jew."

The prepared script said "janitor" and the president's mis-speaking (mis-reading?) doesn't mean there's any hidden anti-semitism here, but, I guarantee you that in that room, there were a few anti-semites.

Let's take the president at his written word and do a little fact-checking here on our own.

The average annual salary for a janitor is $24,403.

It does not appear that anyone has done the research for billionaires, but, the Associated Press (that right-wing news outlet) has done the research for millionaires, and has found, "This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank."

On the other hand, that Janitor, making about $25,000: "Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

I don't know about you, Mr. President, but 29.1% is > 5.7%. That's what I call "simple math."

The next time a liberal says the rich need to pay their "fair share," ask them exactly what percentage of their income that is, and when they respond that so many rich want to pay more, and are willing to pay more, ask them why then they don't promote the pay.gov web site, where these generous people can fork over money beyond their required taxes. If the liberal persists, ask him why he doesn't fork over a few more bucks, seeing as he's so altruistic with other people's money, maybe he could set an example by shedding some of his own.

I'd just love to see the answers to that.

The GOP Field - Where I Stand Today

2011-09-23T09:44:00.001-04:00

Dick Morris thinks last night's debate "was the end of Rick Perry's front runner status."

I admit, I only saw the last 45 minutes last night, and parts of the previous debate with Perry, and, while I like him on many of the issues, and I think he has a great story to tell about Texas vs. Obama, this year I want someone who can sell the American people on Conservatism and the rightness of it.

To me, those people in this field who can do that are Romney, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and (grudgingly) Huntsman.

The people who can't make the sell of Conservatism are Bachmann, Paul, Perry and that dope Johnson. Add to that list, Sarah Palin.

The difference between the former and the latter is the former are serious, thoughtful, intellectual conservatives who understand conservatism and can articulate it in a manner that makes sense to people and that advances the cause. The latter group are cult-of-personality politicians, for whom the message is more about them, than it is about the ideology. As Herman Cain would say, we just tried that approach, and how's it working it out for us?

You might argue that we need a retail campaigner with electric appeal to defeat Obama and solidify the House and get to 60 seats in the Senate. I reject that argument. Obama is a deeply flawed president. His ideology is a failed ideology. Anyone with half an ounce of understanding of History or economics knew his policies would fail. I will admit that I didn't think his policies would so effectively stymie a nascent recovery, but....if you set out to do everything possible to screw up a recovery, you couldn't have mapped it any better than Obama has.

Obama's going to lose in 2012. He's probably going to lose by a lot. The Bush red states will return to the GOP, and I think it's highly likely we could see purple states in the Midwest return to the GOP (Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan), and Pennsylvania's Republican legislature and governor are considering awarding electors on a congressional district basis, so this could give the GOP 10 of PA's electoral votes. With redistricting, the Dems are losing 7 electoral votes from Blue to Red states as well. I expect Colorado to return to the GOP and Maine will give at least 1 of it's EV's to the GOP candidate.

2012 is shaping up to be a bloodbath for the Dems, and it really doesn't matter who the GOP candidate is, but it should be one who will run as a conservative and govern as a conservative, not as an everyman.

This country is in serious trouble, and even leftwingers like the Washington Post's Richard Cohen are lamenting the end of America as we know it, brought to you by Barack Obama, even as they whine about Republicans not looking toward Washington to solve the problems. BWAHHHH.

Obamacare Accounting Scandal: Bigger Than Solyndra?

2011-09-15T10:19:00.000-04:00

You bet:

Via Michelle Malkin, @guypbenson: WH emails reveal BIG Obamacare accounting scandal http://t.co/5uXZAXsu

@USAToday: A Ponzi scheme? A failure? A lie? Really? Yes, really.

2011-09-12T11:12:00.001-04:00

Today in USA Today, "Social Security far from a 'Ponzi scheme'"

I respond:

As a fire breathing, right-wing tea-party sympathizer, I will agree that Social Security is a popular program, perhaps the most popular program in American history, even if its existence is constitutionally troubling, it is here and has served millions and millions of seniors. In all likelihood, some other means of forced savings could have served seniors better (let's put it this way, I'm 46, and looking forward to the payout from my 401k more than my social security check), but social security has a valid use as part of the social safety net, which was its intent.

So, there. A right wing nut job has stipulated that much. And, to the left-wing editors at USA Today, you are intelligent enough to stipulate the salient point in this debate:

"Yes, Social Security has major funding problems. It pays out more in benefits than it takes in, and the gap will grow steadily worse as Baby Boomers retire."

From here, you proceed to go off the rails defending social security from Gov. Rick Perry's charge that it more resembles a Ponzi Scheme than retirement program. I have to give you credit for the effort, but, it's weak, let's look:

"Ponzi schemes have two salient features. First, they are criminal enterprises, which Social Security is not." - I think this is certainly the entire point of the comparison, isn't it? We can operate something just like a crminal exercise, but, because it has the blessing of Congress, the imprimateur of a President, and the wide support of the American people, and extremely wide support of the beneficiaries, it is acceptable. This defense falls to the level of technicality. You say potato, I say potato.
"They work only until people get wind of what is going on, at which point they inevitably collapse." - At least until the 2000 election, we had a candidate running on a major party ticket trying to convince people that their social security savings were all in a "lockbox." I bet you if I looked at that 2000 election I can find a USA Today editorial telling me Al Gore was right. People are catching wind now to what is going on with Social Security. Does that mean an inevitable collapse? Perhaps.
"Social Security's finances are plainly visible for all to see. The imbalances emerging now are a surprise to no one"
This really is the major difference between Social Security and Ponzi schemes. In the Ponzi Scheme potential investors aren't forced to invest. They at least have to believe that the risks of the pyramid are not so great as to topple it before they recoup and expand on their investment. At least in a Ponzi Scheme, there's some element of choice. As a criminal exercise, when the cops put the bad guys away, the investment stops and boom, everyone's out their money, except the few at the top. In social security, however, we can "adjust tax rates, benefit formulas, and the retirement age." Why can we do that? Because the government, and legislators hold the power to tax that money from young workers to pay retirees. And if the younger workers refuse to pay their new, higher taxes, well, we can just haul them off to jail. In the REVERSE of the Ponzi Scheme puinishment, it's the investors who are guilty, not the perpetrators of the crime.

Finally, to the Editors at USA Today, and Leftists everywhere, us lunatic tea partiers are not against social security. We believe in the safety net. What we are against is the LIE that is the program. End the lie, be honest to the American people that this is, indeed, another transfer program, and let's go from there. But, as Governor Perry says in his editorial, we can't have this debate without being honest about this program, and USA Today's editors, rather then being honest, have chosen to regurgitate left-wing talking points rather than face true issues.

2011-09-07T20:20:00.002-04:00

Good story about the work being done at Newport News Shipyard, with submarines (Minnesota, North Dakota) and aircraft carriers being overhauled (Roosevelt) and built (Ford). The 784+ block III boats will have the Ohio-like large tubes, 2 of them, in lieu of the 12 Tomahawk tubes.

So, they're busy at NNSY, if you're looking for work, there are worse things in the world to do than build nuclear ships.

@moronwatch on AGW. Moronic indeed.

2011-09-06T22:24:00.000-04:00

Oh Lord, again MW demonstrates that he is incapable of buying anything except what the AGW Alarmists tell him.

Let's stipulate that the planet is warming. It's been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, although the last 10 or so years, the warming has decreased to near 0.

In paragraph 1, MW claims "nevermind that all warming predictions have come true." Would you mind citing a couple, because I'd love to hear what this crowd has gotten correct.

But, don't believe me, how about from some of those hacked emails from your pals at East Anglia University's Hadley Climate Research Unit (you know, the most vociferous warming alarmists):

"where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

So, there's one prediction that hasn't come true, and since the prediction was for warming, it's a central one to this debate. I could stop right there, and let your own team declare me the winner, but, I like to really rub it in, so here are some more falsehoods you're passing off as fact.

MW repeats the standard mantra, "glaciers and ice caps are visibly receding, or that extreme weather conditions have increased (as predicted) or that computer models based on different methods all predict warming."

Computer Models predict warming - see the quote above from the ClimateGate emails. Precisely because the models predicted warming, and it wasn't occurring, we got the quoted consternation. So, that fact is wrong. Besides, even if the "models" predicted warming, what would that prove? That a model predicts warming. A model can be manipulated. What matters is what actually happened, and the models that predicted warming were proved wrong after 1998, when the warming significantly slowed. Most of these models used assumptions that gave the maximum positive feedback to factors that would increase temperatures. Unfortunately for the modelers, most of those predictions have failed to pass. So, bad model = bad assumptions = bad policy = stupid people.
Glaciers visibly receding. Duh. Even the AGW crowd agrees that we are in a long-term recovery from the Little Ice Age, which ended in the early 1800's. Glaciers have been receding since then.
Polar ice caps melting. The careful alarmist usually uses the phrase "Arctic" Ice Caps are melting so we can not accuse him of lying. MW is not that careful, thus, we can safely call him a liar. Yes, Arctic ice has melted, but, Antarctic ice is at historically high levels. Of course, we have a problem since our history of measuring the extent of the polar ice is not long. Anything more than 30 years ago, before widespread satellite coverage, is anecdotal. So, we really don't know what normal is. However, for those who care about these things, sea levels won't change too much unless that Antarctic ice really starts melting, since 90% of the ice on land is there, with another 8% in Greenland. Most (nearly all) of the Arctic ice is floating.
Extreme weather conditions are increasing. Really? For the US, where we have the best weather data over 100 years, we have not seen more drought days during the latter half of the 20th century, when most of the CO2 increase has occurred. The worst droughts were in the '30's and '50's. The number of most dangerous tornados also have not increased. The number of reported tornados has increased, but we can logically attribute this to better detection systems, and heightened awareness. Hurricanes? Again, they get more press these days because of the detection capability, but, violence, is really unchanged in the 100 years we've been actively tracking them. Rain? Again, remarkably steady over the last 100 years.

MW then resorts to the favorite argument of the AGW Alarmist - the "you can't trust him because he's funded by the evil oil industry" argument. My favorite person who stands to gain from a universal adoption of anti-warming policies - Al Gore. How interesting is it that the guy who stands to become a multi-billionaire if countries adopt tricks like cap and trade is also the largest (and I mean that literally) proponent of AGW.

I'm not going to convince anyone who just believes what they are told, has no or little scientific training, and isn't open or able to interpret data themselves. The problem here is these alarmists have hitched their wagons to a theory that CO2 is causing temperature increases, and CO2 is primarily created by human activity, therefore changes in our lifestyles are required to stave off the predicted horrible results. The problem we have seen, though, is that the feedback mechanisms tend to be negative, not positive, thus, ameliorating the impact of CO2 on global temperatures. And, history actually shows that CO2 concentrations are a result of warming, not a cause of it. This actually has a physical reason, as warming causes the oceans to release CO2. You can see the problem here is that we aren't even sure what's contributing to the CO2 increases.

Of course, we have more things the AGW crowd ignores. Solar activity is ignored. Land use changes are ignored. Ocean cycles are ignored. If you ask an AGW alarmist, they want to hide the Little Ice Age and Midieval Warm Periods.

The thing is, MW and your readers, AGW is a very flawed theory, and everyone does not agree with it. It's not settled science.

The only thing settled is that CO2 concentrations have increased, and that temperatures have increased until about 1999, but that continued an increase that actually began in the early 1800's after the end of the Little Ice Age.

I encourage all to actually study the issue and decide for yourselves.

This will help.

Car Shows Rated

2011-08-28T22:46:00.000-04:00

If you know me, you know that I have always loved the automobile. Years ago, I used to get all the great car magazines, Car and Driver, Road & Track, Automobile, Autoweek. Pretty much all except the hated Motor Trend, which was looked down upon by the CD and R&T writers, rightly so.

These days, I have cut my subscriptions just to Car and Driver, though I would still recommend any of these to the auto enthusiast. But, I am happy that we now have three television shows dedicated to the car.

If you're a motor head, you know that the British Top Gear is the sine qua non of automobile related TV shows. The hosts, Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond, and James May are funny, interesting, love cars, and all have those British accents that make anything sound more erudite than it actually is. If you're not watching it, it is shown here in the states on BBC America, Monday at 9pm. You should watch.

Top Gear has spawned versions in countries all over the world. Many times, the hosts have competed against their counterparts in other countries. Famously, the UK trio has competed against their Australian and German counterparts. While Top Gear has been around for years, it was 2010 before the show had an American version.

Airing on the History Channel (Sundays at 10pm), Top Gear US is hosted by Rutledge Wood (an automotive writer), Tanner Foust (a champion drifter), and Adam Ferrara (who I believe was probably an out-of-work actor). Season one was, honestly, painful to watch. I found the show derivative of its British counterpart (well, in fact, often a downright copy), and the hosts had little chemistry, usually reading straight from the teleprompter, and it showed. Mercifully, season 1 was a 6 episode run.

In the interim between the end of season 1 of Top Gear US and season 2, the Speed Channel introduced The Car Show, hosted by Adam Carolla. If you're about my age, you'll remember Adam Carolla from Loveline, which aired on MTV in the '90's and featured the now famous for Celebrity Rehab, Dr. Drew Pinsky. Carolla and Pinksy hsoted a radio version of Loveline before MTV took it up, and Carolla was a stand-up comedian who eventually made his way into radio. Besides The Car Show, Carolla hosts a popular podcast, The Adam Carolla show (which you can get at the link, or via iTunes). If you're looking for essentially an R-rated radio show for your commute, it's usually 1.5-2 hours of pretty decent comedy, and it also features Alison Rosen, who you may know from her frequent Red Eye appearances, or her own webcast, "Alison Rosen is Your New Best Friend."

But, I digress.

Suddenly, since watching DVR'd programs has replaced reading as my hobby, I am thrilled to now have three car shows to watch every week. But, how do they stack up?

Top Gear UK is clearly number one, as I mentioned already. It's the gold standard by which the others are measured. Plus, Clarkson can't help but make his hatred for the Prius obvious, and, sharing that desire to bash them all off the road, I feel a kinship to him. Plus, last week's ode to the Jaguar E-type was magnificent. Truly is the greatest supercar ever. Check this slideshow out.
The Car Show - I have to give this show the number two slot. Carolla is joined by John Salley, who was the center on some pretty good Georgia Tech basketball teams, and had a decent NBA career (winning 4 championships with 3 teams, though Salley was usually a bit player); Matt Farah, who is a writer for the webzine, thesmokingtire.com, and Dan Neill, who's allegedly a Pulitzer Prize winning automotive reporter for The Wall Street Journal (I'm sure you need a subscription to read all Dan's work). Adam is actually funny, because the show's on Speed (perhaps literally), there's a certain je ne sais quoi quality about it, and the challenges and segments are original.
Top Gear US - ok, if I had to evaluate this show based on season 1, I would have said "can it." However, even with the same hosts back, the show is vastly improved in its second iteration. The hosts have developed some chemistry, and it seems much less a rip-off of it's cousin. You'll know this show has some legs, though, when stars you've actually heard of are driving their "reasonably priced car" around the track for times.

So, watch them all, if you love cars, you can't go wrong.

The GOP Field. More crowded?

2011-08-17T18:02:00.001-04:00

The GOP presidential primary is really starting to heat up. Below, you'll see Dick Morris, my favorite toe-sucker, give his lunchtime take on the state of the primaries.

I agree with Dick that it's too early to be calling this a three-way race, between Perry/Romney/Bachmann. As other Republicans start to realize that Obama is digging an insurmountable hole for himself, we heard today rumblings that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan may be doing some exploration into a possible run. I think both these guys, and Sarah Palin, had set their sites on 2016, on the assumption that Obama would be formidable and they'd have little to gain by losing in a GOP primary, and that the iron would be especially hot for someone to clean things up in 2016. In Ryan's and Christie's case, they could make the argument that they have much work to do from where they sit. Christie has argued for a while that he wants to fix New Jersey first, while some postulate that Ryan wants greater leadership in the House (Speaker Ryan?). As for Palin, I think she rightly has decided she needs the time to restore her national reputation. However, for each of them, there may be no better time than now.

I will admit that I think Ryan and Christie may be the two best people to sell Republicanism in 2012. Christie's take no prisoners approach to cleaning up the fiscal mess really meshes with Tea Party concerns, and Ryan is truly one of the few Republicans who can sell the GOP's plan to reduce government and fix our entitlement programs.

Palin. I have posted again and again about Palin. If I had to pick a candidate who said everything i would say myself, I would look no further than Sarah Palin. But, I still have that nagging feeling that she's just doesn't give the sense that she knows what she's talking about. Not deeply, viscerally, like Reagan did. I find her a tremendous retail politician, and she had an impressive record bucking the establishment in Alaska, but, I just can't get excited about a Palin candidacy (a Palin presidency, now, that's another thing).

I lose even more enthusiasm about Palin when I juxtapose her with Michelle Bachmann. The Left has tried for years to paint Bachmann as another idiot, but, she just doesn't project as one. It's clear she's intelligent, and has thought out her views, and will stick to them. Of the two GOP frontrunning women, I can't see supporting Palin over Bachmann. I'm curious what my readers (both of you) think, especially my female ones.

Let's talk the current crop of candidates. I have at various times liked all of them to some degree or another (ok, Ron Paul, not so much). Herman Cain brings the enthusiasm and positive outlook that someone who has pulled himself to great heights can. I'm with Cain on just about everything, but, his squishiness and unwillingness to take positions on national security matters, and his pushing the anti-Islamist meme a little too far have put me off. Not that I terribly disagree (well, we can't have religion tests for service now, can we?), but I think he just keeps on too much on some of these statements. Still, it's early and no one's watching but the political junkies.

Rick Santorum I think has some gravitas and fits the social conservative mold quite well. Can this guy, who was creamed in his last run for PA senate, break through? I just don't see it happening.

Newt Gingrich would be my guy, except when Newt makes gaffes, he makes big giant ones. Even if you're willing to give him a pass on his personal affairs (I am), I still can't remove the image of him sitting with Nancy Pelosi in that Global Warming PSA. It's damn near unforgivable. Still, to see a bunch of debates between Newt and the smartest-guy-in-the-room Obama, would be worth the price of admission.

Which brings us to the current front runners. Romney. Blah. I will not vote for Romney in the primaries. Anyone who has ever bought into the man-made global warming crap, either can't be very intelligent, or had another agenda. As a nominee, I'm in 100%. He'd probably be a worthy adversary to Obama, but, there's a glibness about him that seems staged. I am afraid that might be everyone's impression. At the same time, there's an aura (and actual) competence about him that would put Boy Blunder to shame.

Perry. Ok, I like Perry alot. I like that he showed Kay Bailey Hutchison the door in the Texas governor's race. I like that he has made the 10th amendment an issue. I even like that he "joked" about Texas secession. I like that he's from Texas. I like that he can string two sentences together. I also have heard that he's an incredibly effective retail politician, too. In contrast with the cold Obama, I believe people would see that and like him. There's something to be said for that, and for the fact that people would see him as a straight shooter. After 4 years of equivocating, and outright lying from Obama, the country's ready for that (Palin has this quality, too, as does Bachmann).

I hope it's too early to declare this a 3 way race. I want to see some more debates with Newt and Cain and these other 3. I wouldn't mind seeing Chris Christie in there either. I am just undecided right now. My personal thought is that any of these candidates could beat Obama (even Palin). I do believe the country is sick of politics as usual, and despite Obama's protestations, you can't come to Washington as the guy who's going to cause the oceans to recede and the temperatures to cool, have total control for 2 years, then rail about how you can't get anything done.

The American voter is stupid, but, only the really, really, really stupid voters on the Left are going to believe what Obama's selling.

So, enjoy Dick's video today and tell me what you think of the crowd.

Jeff Sessions, en fuego! Tea Party Sounded the Alarm!

2011-07-30T22:36:00.000-04:00

Alabama senator Jeff Sessions - "The Tea Party didn't start this fire, they sounded the alarm."

Indeed.

I love @moronwatch. He's an inspiration. Or, why the debt battle is Dem's fault

2011-07-30T22:22:00.000-04:00

My twitter pal, @moronwatch, is prone to cutting and pasting from Liberal sources. In Britain (moronwatch's home), The Guardian serves as a print version of The Daily Kos, and MW has chosen to link this article which claims that the debt crisis is due to Tea Party Intransigence.

Yea, right.

As Marco Rubio so clearly explains, the Debt Crisis is not new. This has been brewing for some time, beginning with TARP and the recession, and compounded by Stimulus and Obamacare, the massive debt crisis was something that an idiot with a calculator could have seen coming, oh, say two years ago.

Coincidentally, it's been that long since a budget has even been proposed in the Senate. Two years, that I and Senator Rubio may remind you, in which that body was controlled by (drumroll, please), Democrats. And, as the Senator reminds, in ONE of those years, a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats. So, why, if we could have seen this crisis coming, did the Dems not present a budget at all in two years? Watch Rubio's floor speech (done sans Teleprompter, by the way), to see his theory on that. Ok, I'll give it away, it's a plan - the Dems don't want to present a budget, because that would mean actually having to address these problems, and to address these problems, there's not enough cash in rich people's pockets to tax them for it, so, they would HAVE to cut spending, or make significant changes in Medicare/Medicaid (twin programs going broke) and even Social Security, and, we all know Dems won't touch those.

So, the premise that this debt crisis is the Tea Party's doing is just downright either an attempt to carry water for Obama and Liberals, or a sign of extreme stupidity. I don't doubt that Moronwatch may fall into the stupid category, but I'm pretty sure the writers at The Guardian are not stupid.

The Guardian wants to make this particular debt ceiling battle all about the Tea Party, and it's sway on Republican legislators (mostly new ones). But, that's not what it's all about.

While many on the Left enjoy caricaturing Tea Party members (and their sympathizers, like me) as racist rubes who just hate the black man in the White House, and take special glee in referring to them by the gay slur "teabaggers" (although, I have said many times, I'd rather be the "teabagger" than the "teabaggee"), they either fail to see what Tea Partiers are really concerned about, or they don't want their readers to know.

This began with TARP, which many people saw as government taking too much of the people's money to prop up a system which could have been saved by the market itself. I don't think that's necessarily true, and I hoped the resolution to the banking crisis would play out differently than TARP, but, that program (Bush's, by the way) largely succeeded in preventing a collapse, and hasn't ultimately cost taxpayers too much. But, there remains the lagging suspicion that government's involvement (and subsequent ignoring of the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) was too much, picking who's "too big to fail" and owning large chunks of banks (subsequently liquidated those assets). Then, we had bailouts for GM in which the government ushered GM through bankruptcy, and the Obama administration flaunted bankruptcy laws to make sure unsecured UAW creditors got preferential treatment in bankruptcy court; and Chrysler, where a costly deal was made to transfer the company to Fiat, ensuring that we'll have shit cars to drive again in America. Then,we had the continuing crap fest in housing prices, which have hit most Americans hard, with the government working their damndest to keep people in their homes, at a cost to who? Taxpayers.

This was the genesis of the Tea Party movement, when BO and friends decided to further bail out these bad loans, Rick Santelli, CNBC reporter suggested a new Tea Party, and, the frustration over the extent of government intervention (most of which would prove fruitless, cf Stimulus) finally bubbled over. Add to that a year long push for Obamacare (instead of any focus on these looming debt issues), and Americans who throughout this crisis had worked and continued to pay their bills and mortgages finally woke up to the fact that if government wasn't Leviathan during the Bush administration, it had certainly become that in the Obama administration, with no sign of slowing.

From there, we had an historic 2010 election, which ushered any many new politicians. This is what irks me about the Guardian post the most. The Tea Partiers recognized that business as usual in Washington wasn't working. Most conservatives recognize that the Dems version of "compromise" means we do what they want, and have had enough of it. We also recognize that is part of business as usual in Washington, and we're honestly, sick of it.

The Guardian seems to think (and I don't expect the Leftist paper to think otherwise) that we need a return to the old way of doing things. They don't like it any more than Harry Reid does that the balance has shifted, that the old ways are no longer acceptable. As Herman Cain likes to say, "How's that working out for you?"

I'll tell you how it's working out. Like crap. W was one of the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in history. As if his debt wasn't enough, though (aided as it was by two wars, in his defense), Obama decided we needed to not double down on it, but quadruple the debt during his first two years, while he should have been enjoying cost savings from the draw-down in Iraq, he instead accelerated our involvement in Afghanistan, and started a 3rd "kinetic military operation" (i.e. "war") in Libya. He massively increased the size and scope of government with Obamacare, and intrusive regulations like Dodd-Frank, did nothing to reign in Freddie/Fannie, and fortunately, failed to enact Cap and Tax. But, he unleashed his EPA to do what he couldn't pass legislatively, and he still refuses to open the Gulf of Mexico, or any other significant oil producing section of the country to development. This week, his increase in CAFE standards will put another fork in the auto industry in the country. So, do Tea Partiers have reason to hate this administration beyond his color. You bet. If Joe Biden were doing this, it would suck as much.

Back to the Guardian and the "old way." They quote Larry Sabato saying people will not compromise in Congress. As if that's what America is all about. I hate to tell some of you dolts out there, but compromise is what gave us slavery and proportional representation. Many of the things that were wrong about this country at it's founding and for years were the result of "compromise." Compromise isn't all that. Please.

It's not just Tea Partiers who won't compromise. It's Democrats, too. Sabato's quote doesn't say that it's the Tea Party, but the Guardian implies that. I say, where's the spirit of compromise when Harry Reid deigns the Boehner debt plan as "DOA" in the Senate and votes it down within an hour of it coming over. This when Boehner's plan and Reid's own aren't that far off, once you remove Reid's gimmick cuts.

Look, it's correct to say that the real sticking point now is the timing on the plans. The Dems want this to take them through the 2012 elections, and the GOP wants to debate this anew in 2012. Now, if this was such a winning issue for Liberals, would they want to avoid another debate? No, they'd relish it, which is what the GOP wants. It's good politics, and it also provides a check against Dems that these cuts occur, and be serious. Otherwise, it gives them an incentive to do nothing, and in 2013, we'll be here again, only in even worse shape.

As for the "default," let's all agree that a technical default is not the issue here. It never has been. The US will not default (we can't Constitutionally, anyway). There is plenty of money to pay creditors, social security, medicare and medicaid, and military operations. I've posted on that ad nauseum. The threat of a "default" is a lie.

What's at stake here is the United States' credit rating, and it's actually a sign that those Tea Partiers are winning the battle in that most of the state run media and even Liberals are now focused on that. BUT, to save that, we need to demonstrate that we're serious about reducing the debt. Raising the debt limit does nothing for that. That's why there must be serious cuts. This scares libs, trust me, because for them, everything government does is sacrosanct. Except for the military (one of those Constitutionally-mandated items), which is fair game for cuts. They can't cut anything, and they fear any meaningful attempt to force them to do so (like a balanced budget amendment, for example).

There's no doubt that Tea Partiers want a smaller, less obtrusive government. Yet, even in the Boehner plan, there's no reduction in the size of government, only in the growth of it. So, you could understand how some new members on the Hill could look at all these shenanigans and declare, "Enough!"

For anyone to say that Tea Partiers "seem intent on risking destroying what American political leaders have constructed in more than two centuries of hard, often painful work," is completely disingenuous and a lie. If we fail to raise the debt limit we are not going to lose the United States. But, if we fail to get our government's spending in line with what we can actually afford, we will. It's precisely because we continue to raise the debt limit that we find ourselves here. Tea Partiers recognize that simple fact. Our government has grown because we've allowed it to. We borrow 43 cents on each dollar because we've created such a monster. Tea Partiers have decided it's time to stop feeding the monster, and either we do it in a serious manner, or we have it done for us.

Actually, after reading this drivel from The Guardian, I'm considering whether I should drop my tepid support of the Boehner plan (which doesn't cut enough, and not soon enough) and say, either we get serious, or we take our chances. At least in the latter case, we'll all be in it together, and maybe then the Left will recognize what a serious situation this is, because, my friend moronwatch, it's the Left who has failed to recognize the debt as an issue for 2 years of the Obama presidency, while since January 2009, the Tea Party has.

This man will be president someday, and the Democrats should know it

2011-07-30T20:53:00.000-04:00

Marco Rubio

Has added benefit of schooling John F'ing Kerry

Obama Lies, so Granny doesn't die after all. Or, there will be no default! Obama says so (@moronwatch)

2011-07-26T21:58:00.000-04:00

If you follow me on twitter, you know I have been saying to anyone who will listen, that despite Obama's rhetoric, there will be no default.

I explained this here, here and I even brought in Dick Morris explain it, here.

Today, we learned that even the Obama administration agrees there is no default possibility. As my twitter nemesis, Moronwatch, might say, Obama is beholden to his supporters on Wall Street and at the too big to fail investment banks (like Goldman-Sachs) - so, he won't let a default occur.

Know how we know this (besides it would be criminal of Obama to allow it to happen when he could avoid it)? Because this is what the Obama administration is telling their crony-capitalists at these banks.

"In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn't raised by the August 2 deadline."

This doesn't mean it's a good idea to stop paying things like the EPA, but, as I've said before, social security gets paid, Medicare/Medicaid gets paid, debt service is completed, and there's some left over for Michelle Obama to go to Spain or Tahiti, or wherever she needs to go.

Win/Win for all us, n'est ce pas?

Kerry's pal stripped of Silver Star. Kerry still a French-looking loser.

2011-07-26T21:30:00.000-04:00

CAPT Wade Sanders introduced the French-looking John "F'ing" Kerry at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, where the Swift Boat driving Kerry was nominated as the party's candidate for President.

Many people like to believe that Kerry's campaign was derailed because a small group of veterans, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," mounted a campaign to discredit Kerry's Vietnam War accomplishments. Their evidence was pretty compelling, and, coupled with Kerry's subsequent dovishness, his crazy wife, his propensity for wind surfing, and his overall Liberalism, he was defeated by W, with no second count required.

Still, this guy came perilously close to becoming President and placing adulterer, ambulance-chaser, and campaign cheat John Edwards a heartbeat away from the Presidency (and you thought a vote for John McCain was dangerous). The left whined that those former comrades of Kerry had a big role in his defeat, and coined the phrase "Swift Boating" to mean shedding the light on prior actions of a Democrat candidate that the American people might not find so swift. You know, like hanging out with bigoted preachers and guys who bomb police stations.

This week we learned that CAPT Sanders, who was a chief attack dog against the Swift Boat veterans, was involved in some, ummm, less than savory acts, like enjoying child pornography, an act for which he is serving 37 months in federal prison. Since he's been in prison, Navy Secretary Ray Malbus has stripped CAPT Sanders of his Silver Star (published in the 7/11 print Navy Times, but text here).

CAPT Pamela Kunze of the Board of Medals said:

"Had the subsequently determined facts and evidence surrounding both the incident for which the award was made and the processing of the award itself been known to the Secretary of the Navy in 1992, those facts would have prevented the award of the Silver Star."

Of course, this doesn't confirm Kerry was a coward and an opportunist (remember, he got himself 3 Purple Hearts so he could get out of Vietnam), but, it doesn't help his case that his chief defender is a convicted kiddie porn user and a liar.

@jpodhoretz, 7/20/11 10:30 PM

2011-07-20T23:01:00.001-04:00

John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz)
7/20/11 10:30 PM
Astounding post b @KeithHennessey on Gang of Six proposal. He doesn't say it, so I will: It's bullshit. http://t.co/eODTENB

Sent from my iPhone

Dick Morris Explains the path forward for GOP

2011-07-20T16:03:00.002-04:00

Dick Morris explains what the GOP really needs to do on this debt ceiling issue, and calls Obama out for lying about what lack of an agreement means with respect to default (i.e., nothing).

Jay to @DailyCaller: Put up or shut up on Bachmann Health

2011-07-20T01:22:00.001-04:00

I expected better from the Daily Caller than a ridiculous hit piece on Michelle Bachmann and her migraine headaches. I am embarrassed for them for their use of anonymous sources, and because if it is true that they "put her out of commission for a day or more at a time" that should be easily verifiable. A sitting member of Congress has a pretty well publicized public schedule, and the instances the DC cites in their article barely describe "days at a time" of being incapacitated.

Furthermore, the article headline alleges "heavy pill use," yet in the body, we learn that pill use is because “The migraines are so bad and so intense, she carries and takes all sorts of pills. Prevention pills. Pills during the migraine. Pills after the migraine, to keep them under control. She has to take these pills wherever she goes.”

Well, that's true, you could end up with a bunch of pills. Those who suffer very bad migraines need these pills, and would be a fool not to "take these pills wherever she goes."

They describe an incident in May 2010, when Bachmann "flew to Los Angeles for a series of political and fundraising events. In part because of complications with her flight schedule, Bachmann’s mood plunged. During the entire six-hour flight, she was desperately sick from headaches."

Hey, people, I don't know if you've ever had a regular headache on a plane, but it ain't fun, and to have a migraine on a plane! Argh, I would make them land it. But, that's why you take your medicine, but, with some migraines, you have to take your medication before the migraine reaches a certain point for it to be most effective, otherwise, you're where it appeared Bachmann was, in a doctor's office, getting a shot in your behind. After that, you're good, though.

Tucker Carlson should be ashamed of this article, since it barely rises TO the journalistic standards of the National Enquirer, and has no place in an online magazine trying to be a serious source of political news. Maybe the DC wants to prove it's not just a right-wing outfit (I don't know why they'd want to abandon that market), or maybe they have a closet woodie for Romney or Perry. I don't know, but this article is a disgusting hit piece.

As someone who has suffered/suffers from migraines, I can attest to the fact that they can be extremely debilitating, but, there are plenty of medications and strategies that can prevent them, and lessen their intensity. In nearly all cases, a doctor's office visit for treatment can eliminate them very, very quickly. Migraine sufferers pretty much lead a normal life, with attention to diet and use of proper medications. This article is stupid and the DC should prove that these incidents are more than what they've shown, or they need to print a retraction and issue an apology to Bachmann and migraine sufferers everywhere.

Update: Read Ed Morrisey's take at HotAir, pretty much mirrors mine.

@moronwatch takes it on the chin from a teabagging moron. Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love the debt limit.

2011-07-20T00:12:00.003-04:00

Update: Added links and corrected spelling

The lead moron over at moronwatch is at it again, this time trying to explain to his followers why the GOP is leading the US to default. As with most of moronwatch's posts, this is pretty much a cut and paste from liberal news media, and devoid of any original thinking. I'll supply my rebuttal here, and allow my (one) reader to enjoy it. It's THAT good.

This post is typical moronic twaddle.

You say, "Food stamps generate activity in the economy - $1.73 for each $1 spent." Although that's nonsensical on its face, it's not even the right contention. Liberals tried to tout when we were extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks here that "unemployment benefits" were a net positive to the economy, on the order of $1.73 to $1.

Either way, by that logic, we should just have the government give everyone food stamps (or cash), since it's a net positive to the economy. We really should just print money and hand it to people, we'd immediately grow the economy. (Actually, we would, but it would be a false growth). Do you people even THINK about what you're saying?

On one hand, Liberal economists (like those at The Economist) argue that deep spending cuts may have some negative growth effects (and there is an element of truth to that), but then argue that tax increases have a positive effect. So, let's see this logic - we have government priming the economy with spending to increase growth, and removing money from the economy to also increase growth. Huh? Only morons like moronwatch and liberals believe this crap.

Surely, if spending was such a boost to the economy, the $1T spent in stimulus in the last 2 years would have the US economy going gangbusters now and coupled with all the extensions in unemployment benefits, we'd be at unprecedented growth rates, and Obama would have made good on his promise of <8% unemployment. I don't know if you've noticed, but the US economy is slowing and unemployment is increasing. This is the pattern with Keynesian stimuli, they don't work. Not now, not ever.

There is no doubt that the debt ceiling will ultimately be raised. There just is no combination of spending cuts and tax increases that can raise enough revenue right away to solve the immediate problem. So, the debt ceiling must be raised. There is no other choice ultimately.

Because, unfortunately, we've fiddled for too long. The president's laughable budget was voted down 97-0 in the Senate, and those same Senators have failed to present a budget (a Constitutional requirement, by the way) for over 2 years. The budget presented and passed in the House addresses these structural deficits, but, it is going nowhere in a Harry Reid, Democrat controlled Senate, and the President, of course, opposes it. You tell ME who is intransigent here????

What is being debated, MW, is the future size of government, and your post either displays your ignorance or
disingenuousness (sort of like our President).

Let's get some things straight here, for your actually thinking readers:

Even without a debt ceiling increase, there does not need to be any default. The US govt takes in enough money each month to service the debt and pay social security obligations and medicare and medicaid obligations. Not much else, though. So, clearly, govt services will slow to a crawl, and not even us crazy tea party sympathizers want that.
The argument that is being made is that the debt ceiling increase needs to be balanced by spending cuts of the same amount over some period of time. Even the GOP is talking 10-12 years. Not in the same year, ok, can we get that straight?
The same is true of the tax increases that Obama is seeking. Even he isn't stupid enough in this economy to suggest that we raise taxes in 2011 by $2T. He's suggesting the same thing, raise taxes by $2T over ten years, and cut spending by a similar amount (this is his $4T "grand bargain"). This amounts to repealing the Bush tax rates on the highest earners. Those are those millionaire families who make over $250k/year (or single filers making over $200k/year). Funny, you call us morons, but in this world a millionaire makes $200k/year. I guess in the world of 5 year plans, it makes some sense, though.
This is Obama's game. He so pissed off his base by extending the Bush tax cuts in December, this is his way of getting them back. Oh well, at least us morons recognize political posturing when we see it.
I realize you're British and maybe you don't know this, but no one can be denied medical care in the United States. It's a question of who PAYS for it. In the present system, we all pay for it via increased insurance premiums for the insured. In Obamacare, we all pay for it with increased insurance premiums for the insured (plus increased taxes on everyone). The selling point for government control is that this is just intended to be spread amongst more of us, so each of us will pay less. I don't know, but 30 million more people being insured means someone is paying more. But, that's an argument for another day.

If Obama was worth his weight in dog crap as a leader, he would come out and guarantee that in the event of no debt ceiling deal, our creditors would get paid, thus calming the financial markets. Of course, that would give away his biggest bargaining chip, which is that we'll have no money to pay anyone, our creditors, or granny's social security check (in other words, fomenting fear). It's truly despicable, and not leadership. But, it's good politics for him.

Finally, Obama knows that his pals in the leftist, Obama-slurping media (which includes the former communists at The Economist) will tout his line and serve his mission. And, that's ok. We ALL know this, and accept it as a cost of politics in the United States.

As for me, I like this plan: http://bit.ly/ps847u

Debt Ceiling: Don't Call His Bluff, or Grandma Eats Dogfood!

2011-07-18T21:50:00.000-04:00

If you live under a rock, we're a couple of weeks away from supposedly hitting the limit on the nation's credit cards. Once you get past the stupidity of the debtors debating with each other over how much to raise their own credit limit, we have to face the reality that the limit will probably be increased.

When you're facing a deficit of $2T, it's going to be pretty hard to cut all that out immediately, and we already know that the Dems have promised that if the limit isn't raised, they don't intend to pay anyone and just let the country go into default. That's what Obama meant when he said Granny wouldn't get her social security check. Why would admit he could service the debt and pay social security obligations? That would be truthful, and we already know the truth and Obama are alien. Plus, it would demonstrate real leadership and responsibility. It is what YOU would do, since YOU are responsible. But, that's not in the Dems DNA. No, like any other crisis, why let this one go to waste. There are political points to be made!

Obama famously dared Eric Cantor and the GOP "Don't call my bluff," and it's unlikely that they will. But, is there another way to protect the nation's credit rating, and still force the administration to accept cuts in the budget? Is there a way to "call his bluff" and retain the nation's good credit?

The GOP is going to vote this week on a plan they label as "Cut, Cap, and Balance, " or CCB. The plan cuts spending, places a cap on spending as a percentage of GDP, and takes a vote on a balanced budget amendment (BBA).

The cut part is intended to at least offer a dollar for dollar cut in spending for a corresponding increase in the debt limit. That would address the immediate need to keep the US out of default and run the country as usual (or, at least as Obama and the Dems define usual).

The cap part limits spending, as proposed, to 18% of GDP. This is below the historical norm (around 20%) and takes us back many years, so it really does represent a return to a more fiscally sane time. But, except for now, and WW2, we've never spent much more than 21% of GDP (today, it's 24%), so this is close to historical levels.

The balance part is a balanced budget amendment, which does not require the president's signature to send to the states. It is the hardest part of the thing, requiring a 2/3's vote in both chambers.

Dems being huge spenders, none of these, sadly, has a chance of passing the Senate, with it's 51 Dem majority (and Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman). So, yes, CCB is largely political posturing, but, it lays out the GOP's goals and what is acceptable to the GOP, and, I might add, to the people who sent historic numbers of them to Congress in the 2010 election. Taking Obama at his word that elections have consequences, I'd like to point out to the Liberals that the most recent election, and the one that most closely tells you where the country is on this, was in 2010, and "We won."

The GOP leadership seems torn by what to do. Of course, the old GOP guard of RINO's like Mitch McConnell and John McCain remember 1995 and that shutdown, and they know how they got outmaneuvered by Bill Clinton and a "pliant, supine media." They cringe at what this means to them, if Obama and his pals in the mainslurp media succeed in framing a failure to reach an agreement as the GOP's fault. To them, I warn that this is NOT 1995. There was no Fox News and no Internet to speak of in 1995. The state-controlled media was much stronger then, and Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton, although they share being first black presidents.

I further warn the GOP Old Guard that the Tea Partiers and their sympathizers (me), will not take kindly to more Republican capitulation to those determined to ruin the United States of America. If you're not aware of the McConnell plan, while it seems politically palatable, it is NOT what we sent this crop of people to Washington to do. We sent these people to Washington to save us from the left-wing ideologue in the White House, and we intend for them to do that. At least we want them to hold the line until help arrives. This battle is crucial in framing the debate for 2012, and Barack Obama and the do-nothing, Dem-controlled Senate must be made to pay for their intransigence in this one.

Understanding that the Senate will not pass CCB, and that even if it miraculously passed, BO would veto it, what is the GOP to do? Keep in mind that even if August 2nd comes and there is no debt limit increase, the Feds are still collecting revenue, something like $200B/month. So, there's money coming in.

Dick Morris, a veteran of that 1995 battle (on the winning side), has some advice for Republicans. Dick says, pass CCB, to get your policy goals out there and put it on record, but that's only 1/2 the battle. Knowing that won't pass, pass legislation that gives the administration Congress's priorities in the event there is no debt limit increase. Tell the president what you expect him to do with that $200B. And it should be:

Service the debt to avoid default. This must be priority one. Codify it so that the rating agencies and creditors know we intend to make good on our debts.
Direct the president to pay active duty military salaries and fund contingency operations (those are called wars in another administration).
Direct the president to make social security payments and Medicare and Medicaid payments.
Authorize the Treasury Secretary to borrow money as necessary beyond the debt limit to make good on any of the above bills, should revenue be insufficient.
Require Treasury to provide a full accounting of where all revenues are spent.

From most estimates, the money coming in should be enough to cover these obligations. But, even if not, the conditional approval to borrow will ensure they are met.

It shouldn't take legislation to make these things happen. A true leader of the free world would already have assured people that even though the Congress is a bunch of louts and can't increase the debt limit (or, in the case of the Senate, pass a budget), he would ensure all these things would happen, because, you know, he's a leader. Instead, this president decided to be a demagogue and use granny to score political points. Hey, we already knew that about him, though.

Parts of the government will go in to hiatus. Unlike 1995, though, this time, no one will care, especially since the President and his pals have made Social Security and the military the issue already, now they'd have to back off and say, well, we got that covered, but aren't you mad the EPA isn't enforcing environmental regulations, or that Joe Biden can't take the Acela home to Delaware this weekend?

I'll take that argument.

Look, if not now, when? If conservatives lose this debate, then, I agree with Sean Hannity, who today said that means the country has decided we want to be Greece. If that's what the majority of Americans want, then I'll stick around to pick up the pieces. We'll all find out who John Galt is.

St Louis Today Editorialists Paint Caricature of GOP. Are they right? You read, I decide.

2011-06-30T14:30:00.000-04:00

The people who identify themselves as the "Editorial Board" of St. Louis Today, herein perpetuate myths about conservatives, and Republicans. I guess a caricatured version of the opposition makes it easier for these idiots, but, let me help them out here.

Editorial: Eight myths to chill an old-school Republican soul
By the Editorial Board

In their op-ed, they say the GOP has become a "spectacle of smart, patriotic men and women putting their brains and integrity on ice to please a party dominated by anti-intellectual social Darwinists and the plutocrats who finance and mislead them."

Heh? Social Darwinists? What does that even mean? Plutocrats? Isn't it the Democrat party who have given nprecedented amounts of money to the Obama campaign? Wasn't the Clinton administration and the Obama administration filled with refugees from Goldman Sachs? Seriously, this stuff is just laughable.

"Consider the mythology that makes up GOP orthodoxy today. Imagine the contortions that cramp the brains and souls of men and women of intelligence and compassion who seek state and national office under the Republican banner."

They go on to list these things you must believe, in their opinion:

"• They must believe, despite the evidence of the 2008 financial collapse, that unregulated — or at most, lightly regulated — financial markets are good for America and the world."

Liberal orthodoxy is that everything in the world can be tamed, if only our omniscient, all-knowing, Liberal Masters were allowed to make those decisions for us. What Liberals fail to point out is that these experiments have all been tried, with no success. The Soviet Union, and China are filled with 5 years plans, most of them dramatic failures. Even the vaunted New Deal was largely a failure of government planning. Conservatives don't believe that less regulation in free markets is correct for any other reason than that is what works best.

"They must believe in the brilliantly cast conceit known as the "pro-growth agenda," in which economic growth can be attained only by reducing corporate and individual tax rates, especially among the investor class, and by freeing business from environmental rules that have cleaned up America's air and water and labor regulations that helped create America's middle class."

This is a two part stupidity. Part one is that economic growth is attained by maintaining low individual and corporate tax rates. To that, again, I don't know how Liberals avoid history. I give you the Bush, Reagan, and Kennedy tax cuts, all of which were followed by sustained years of economic growth. Let me posit the alternative - which is that we increase rates. Is there anyone, other than former Soviet planners, who think THAT creates econiomic growth. Come on, not even Obama believes that.

Part two is the gratuitous swipe at the GOP as against clean air and water. Conservatives recognize the need to craft and maintain regulations to ensure the safety of our drinking water and air. What we don't see is the need and the cost effectiveness of many more regulations that do little to further clean the air and water, and do more to stifle economic activity. Capitalism is the best way to ensure clean air and water. JUst look at the cesspools in Eastern Europer and China, if you want to see the results of unfettered State planning. This is just ridiculous. Again, it gets to the heart of Liberal conceit, which is that the hoi polloi can't see what's good for them (clean air and water) and need their Liberal betters to pass laws to make sure they are protected. Finally, it's a popular liberal myth that without the union movement of the early 20th century, we'd have no middle class. That's an untruth. The union and workers' rights movements of that time may have accelerated the formation of a broad middle class, but it would have happened eventually anyway as the economy and technologies matured.

" Though rising health care costs are pillaging the economy, and even though health care in America is now a matter of what you can afford, Republican candidates for office must deny that health care is a basic right and resist a real attempt to change and improve the system."

They deny it as a "basic right" because it is not a "basic right" as defined in our Constitution. Since Liberals pretty much interpret the Constitution however they want, I can understand their confusion.

"GOP candidates must scoff at scientific consensus about global warming. Blame it on human activity? Bad. Cite Noah's Ark as evidence? Good. They must express at least some doubt about the science of evolution."

The only scientific consensus in the "climate change" debate is that temperatures rose for a 20 year period in the late 20th century. After that, the rest is debatable, and most certainly isn't consensus. COuld the rise in temps be due to human activity? Could it be due to solar activity? COuld it be due to normal variations in the Earth's cooling and warming cycle? It could be a combination of them all. What is true, though, is that no models created by the global warming alarmists fit the actual trends, and none of them fit going backwards. What is also true is that AGW proponents have willfully manipulated data and lied, probably either for political reasons, or to keep the research bucks flowing.

I see that the theory of evolution is now science. Nice trick.

"They must insist, statistics and evidence to the contrary, that most of the nation's energy needs can be met safely with more domestic oil drilling, "clean-coal" technology and greater reliance on perfectly safe nuclear power plants."

Anyone who says they want the US to be entirely energy independent is denying reality. Fossil fuels are traded in an international market. We compete with China, Japan, France, etc for resources.

But, we can improve supplies of oil here at home, and use more coal and natural gas, sources found in great abundance in this country. That would lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil, serve to reduce prices for energy, and improve our safety from blackmail from middle eastern dictatorships. Adding more nuclear plants would provide a greeenhouse-gasless way to produce energy and make all those plug-in hybrids actual non-polluters. Adding to the worldwide supply will not only make us richer by becoming a net supplier (perhaps), but it will provide good, high-paying (and likely lots of unionized) jobs, and reduce enegery prices worldwide.

I realize people may mistakenly believe we get a large percentage of oil from the Middle East, and I understand that's not true - our greatest suppliers are Canada and Mexico, and no, they're not poised to attack us. But, since so much of the world's current oil reserves are in Middle Eastern countries, they coutrol the price of oil to a large extent, and that's how they have us (and the rest of the West) over a barrel, so to speak. Want to mnimize that risk, encourage more production here, as well as in friendly countries (like Brazil, so Barry O has that part right).

"They must believe that all 11.2 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States can be rounded up, detained, tried, repatriated and kept from returning at a reasonable cost."

This one really kills me. I mean, if you said this to one of your conservative friends, you either wouldn't be able to get up after the punch, or the laughter at your stupidity would drown you out for a while.

Typically, these caricatures include some veiled statement that Conservatives are racists. Kudos to St Louis Today for avoiding that. I am amazed that St. Louis today has such an exact number. Perhaps they have been doing the documentation.

My argument on immigration is that we should control our borders and that we should know who is in our country, where they are, why they are here, and that they have some valid reason for being here. We'd also love to debate what skill sets we need from immigarnts, how many we need, and we'd like to make sure we can assimilate them into the American experience so that they continue to be productive, valuable citizens. We used to actually have those debates, and we were able to assimilate immigrants into our society. At some point, we just became an open borders country, and it's costing too much money to provide services to immigrants and it's a security issue (it's mostly a security issue).

If we need 2M immigrants/year, and they all come from Mexico, by all means, let's get it done, and let's put them on a path to citiizenship, and perhaps we need to make changes in that process to make it quicker and fairer. But, we need control of the borders for national security. Let's have the immigration debate, but let's have it honestly. This statement is just so dishonest that it means we can't have the debate with people who believe this.

"Even though there are more than four unemployed persons for every available job, GOP candidates should at least hint that unemployment benefits keep people from seeking jobs."

There's plenty of evidence that long-term unemployment benefits discourage job seeking. Like immigration, there's a balance somewhere between how long and how much we should provide in unemployment benefits before the beneficiary begins to adapt to that as a way of life. I don't think the conservative argument is that unemployment benefits prevent people from seeking employment, but there's a rational argument to be made for just how long should we provide them before we decide the beneficiary is, perhaps, unemployable, or isn't willing to look hard enough for a job.

I could share anecdotal evidence of my own about people whom I consider are abusing the system, but, in deference to them, the system exists as it is, and they are doing nothing more than pkaying the game the way the rules are written, and, in my opinion, these folks are emblematic of a broken system.

I look forward to the editors reply. Not holding my breath.

@moronwatch gets pwned. What else is news?

2011-06-22T01:14:00.000-04:00

Read the comments, where I put @moronwatch in his proper place. On the floor, being properly teabagged.

2012 GOP Field

2011-06-12T22:07:00.001-04:00

The 2012 GOP field is shaping up, and while I have no clear favorite, I have some favorites. Since CNN is hosting a debate in New Hampshire tomorrow, now is a good time to review the candidates.

I'll go through the declared and potential candidates here in short form. As the field gets more certain, I may devote a longer post to each of them, and their pros and cons, so my minions can form their own opinions, from mine.

In no particular order are the near certain or declared candidates (Links are to their official campaign sites):

Herman Cain - Cain is an Atlanta native and former Godfather's Pizza CEO and Pillsbury executive who was also a Federal Reserve Board Chairman (Kansas City). He hosted a local radio show here and was often a guest host on semi-Libertarian Neal Boortz's show. You may remember Cain as the executive who in 1994 asked Bill Clinton who he should lay off as a result of HillaryCare. He's a Tea Party favorite, a staunch fiscal conservative, and a social conservative, who happens to be black and devoid of elected experience. If you saw Cain on Fox News Sunday recently, you may have noticed foreign policy is not his forte'. I don't know what we can expect from him here, except that he's likely to stick with conservative principles - continue global war on terror, support for Israel, etc.

My opinion - I like Cain. A lot. He's a smart man, who thinks quickly, and has a homespun, folksy manner that really brings people in. On domestic issues, he is going to run rings around Obama and the democrats. Of course, that's pretty much true of all the candidates here, given they are not Keynesian fools, like Liberals. He is going to be a solid social conservative, and I think he'll surround himself with pros at Defense, and, I sense he might actually recognize the State Department is a mess and correct that.

What's not to like? Not too much. Some knock him for his lack of elected experience. He plays that into a plus, which I think it is, too. He demonstrated some "deer-in-the-headlights" looks in that first FNS interview when probed about Israel and "right of return" for the Palestinians. And, he wants to get in office, review the intelligence before proclaiming anything on Afghanistan. I don't think in this long election cycle, that he can continue that answer. He's also 65 years old. He doesn't look or act it, but, that's a little aged, especially for a cancer survivor. The pundits don't think he can draw much more of a crowd or money.

My prediction - Cain is going to do very well in Iowa, and be this year's Huckabee. It won't be enough to win the nomination, though.
Mitt Romney - the current front runner is the consensus choice. I am hoping the consensus is wrong. I like Romney, I think he'd make a fine president, and a far, far, far better one than Obama. He'd bring competence and conservatism back to the White House. Let's take his biggest albatross first, RomneyCare. I don't think Romney has explained the Massachusetts law that he championed and signed well enough. I am ok with what he did there. He doesn't have to deal with the thorny Constitutional issues as a Governor, and, Massachusetts is about as Liberal as they come. The way I look at, that state got what it deserved. He says he'll repeal Obamacare, and replace it, and he may be actually,the best positioned Republican to actually get Independent voters to agree with him on that one. He can make the argument that he's worked with both sides on this issue, understands it, and knows that what may work in Massachusetts won't work nationally. Anyway, I think there's plenty of room for him to maneuver on this. RomneyCare hurts him with conservative GOP primary voters, but not with the rest of the country.

The bad? As one of those GOP primary voters, I will NOT vote in a GOP primary for someone who believes the climate change/global warming alarmists and their falsehoods. Romney has said he believes this crap, so, he will not be getting my vote in the primary. That's disqualifying for me.

My prediction - Skipping Iowa will keep expectations low there. Must win New Hampshire (and fairly handily). I predict he will not win, or will win weakly, and that will effectively end his campaign.
Tim Pawlenty - the Minnesota governor has been running now almost as long as Romney, yet can't seem to get over 5% of GOP voters to admit he exists. Like Romney, he has solid executive experience in a Liberal state. Unlike Romney, he mostly governed as a conservative, and had success in Minnesota, winning re-election. He has outlined an ambitious and decidely supply-side economic plan that mixes tax rate changes and spending cuts to spur economic growth. While some of the assumptions may be rosy, they are not unattainable, and are a cure for our flailing economy. On foreign policy, I haven't seen a lot of him, but his positions are pretty much standard-fare mainstream conservative, and he's a strong social conservative.

The bad? Tim Who? Unfortunately, that's the question a lot of people are asking. Pawlenty is just invisible in this crowd. He needs a break-out in Iowa to get his name up, but, even though he was a popular governor in a neighboring state, he's not seeing much traction. It's a long way, but, he needs to get some visibility and do well there.

My prediction - I just don't know. I want T-Paw in the race for the duration. I think he'd be a great candidate, but, I just don't know if he can make it happen. I predict a decent Iowa showing, but will it be enough to keep his campaign afloat?
Newt Gingrich - Ah, Newt, what have you done? Not a good sign when all your top advisers leave, or are shown the door. I realize Newt wants to wage a 'different' kind of campaign, and I know Newt has a lot of ideas. I'd like to see Newt stay in for a while to elevate the debate, and force the other candidates to elevate their game, too. Sadly, I don't know if he's even going to make it to Iowa. He seems to be self-destructing, and he's a very undisciplined candidate. He's with me on nearly every issue, but, in this crowd, so are a bunch of others.

The bad? A lot of bad with Newt. I think Newt's time passed a long time ago. I can't really forgive him for that PSA with Nancy Pelosi. It's like sitting with the devil. Also unforgivable, his statements on the Ryan budget plan. It's ok to not like elements of it, but, it's not right-wing social engineering. He has no real executive experience, and he is not a disciplined campaigner. He's too old, and 3 wives and his treatment of numbers 1 and 2, not great.

My prediction - Flameout and out of the race before 2011 is over.
Ron Paul - Look, Paul is a nut. He's right on many issues and his Libertarian bent is great to have in the race. I don't know how he stays in these things, but, I hope he does.

The bad? His supporters are really nuts. He's about 100 years old. His son would be a better choice.

My prediction - will never get into double digits, yet somehow will persevere to the end.
Gary Johnson - the former New Mexico governor is, like Paul, a Libertarian. Except, Johnson does it without drawing any support. He wants us out of Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq. He wants us to stop using enhanced interrogation techniques, Gitmo shut down, and the Patriot Act repealed. He's pro-choice, and pro-gay marriage and pro-legalization. If you're a Libertarian, and I mean a true one, this is your guy. You'd think those views would be more at home in the Democrat party, but, Libertarians also believe in individual choice and personal freedom, and the Liberal Fascist's view of government doesn't include either of those concepts. Fortunately, most Libertarians know that.

The bad? Did I mention Libertarians live in a fantasy world? I think I'd like their world, but it's a parallel universe to mine. Also bad, he can't get the 2% support to get on the stage in tomorrow's debate. Ouch!

My prediction - May hang in til his money runs out. Could be any day now.
Rick Santorum - I like Rick Santorum, and he's from an important blue state, Pennsylvania. But, it's a blue state that rejected him wildly in 2006 (not a good year for Republicans anywhere, mind you), but has routinely elected Republican senators and governors (as it did in 2010). Santorum is wildly right on the issues. He's solidly conservative, and would be an interesting candidate. But, there's a reason we don't routinely elect senators to the presidency. They usually suck, just witness Barack Obama.

The bad? To the rest of the country, he's Rick Who? I just don't think he has the backing and support it's going to take to last long in this race.

My prediction - Out after Iowa.

That is the list of announced candidates. Now, here are those yet to announce, with my predictions centered around whether they enter the race or not:. Links are to PACs or their personal sites associated with their current positions.

Sarah Palin - You can search this blog to see all my many posts about just Sarah Palin. I just go back and forth on her. She holds all the right positions, she strangely articulates them, and she's got a following and star appeal that approaches what Barack Obama had in 2008. I do not think Palin is stupid, but in a recent post, I think I put my finger on my issue with her. And my issue isn't with her, it's with some of her followers, and the Republican party in general. We've been looking for the heir to Reagan for almost 25 years now. We need to stop looking. Palin is not Reagan, and no one is, and the GOP should stop looking for that person. Palin could, I believe, stand on her own, and bring tremendous energy and excitement to the race. She has a lot of negative perceptions that the state-run media has been more than happy to create and perpetuate. Could she overcome them? I think she could, because she commands the airtime. Will she?

The bad? No one in the GOP outside a return of George W Bush drives the media mad like Palin does. They will go into full blown Obama love again if she opposes him. Not all bad, but she needs to be prepared for this. Also bad, people think she's stupid. That's a hard barrier to break through once it's set. She's similar to W, who's grades were at least as good as Al Gore's (and who had a Harvard MBA and had not written an unreadable,, crappy book), in this respect.

My prediction - I think 2012 is her time. Obama is very beatable. The Left doesn't realize it, but people HATE Democrats these days. She needs to enter soon, but once she's in, it's her nomination to lose.
Michelle Bachmann - The MN Congresswoman is another Tea Party favorite and a strident defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way (now that Superman has passed on all that stuff). Again, she holds all the right positions, but, if you think Sarah Palin gets killed by the media, just wait to see what they can do to Bachmann.

The bad? She has a tendency to say crazy stuff, you know, like the US has 57 states. Oh wait...

Prediction - I think what she does depends on Palin. If Palin doesn't enter the race, Bachmann is almost certain to get in. I could see her doing well in Iowa. Could be a dark horse, but will be an uphill battle.
Rick Perry - The TX governor has the benefit of leading the only state that has done reasonably well during our excursion into Obamanomics. That Texas has a truly part-time legislature and is the least regulated state in the nation has something to do with it. Perry's been a strong 10th Amendment advocate since Obama started destroying it, and he's opposed every last piece of crap legislation that has come out of Washington since, oh, January 21, 2009. He also dispatched RINO Kay Bailey Hutchison when she tried to run for governor. Perry's got a record, is a tough as nails conservative, and, if he gets into this race, he could become the front runner in moments. If he gets into the race, it's going to be because Sarah Palin is not, and it's expected that his entry could include a strong endorsement from Palin.

The bad? What will Americans think of another Texan running for president? He isn't terribly well known outside Tea Party, GOP, and conservative circles.

Prediction - getting in, and with Palin's backing, will quickly consolidate this race to a 2 way between Romney and Perry. Look for Perry/Palin 2012.
Jon Huntsman - Former Utah governor and Barack Obama's ambassador to China is considering a run. Look, he may be a nice guy, and a solid conservative, but, really, I don't even know the guy.

The bad? See above. Need any more than that?

Prediction - going to get in, but will be out by the end of Iowa.

Others are waiting, perhaps to see what happens, and others are just fantasies:

John Bolton - former UN Ambassador under Bush. Would be a great president on foreign policy.I think he'll make a great Secretary of State in the Perry White House.
Chris Christie - the tough talking, results-delivering NJ governator has said repeatedly he's not running. I believe him. Should the GOP falter in 2012, Christie is waiting to save us in 2016. Sorry, Ann Coulter.
Jeb Bush - the Bush who SHOULD have been president in 2000 is not running, has expressed no desire to run, and probably had his hopes dashed ion November 2000 when his brother won. But, how sweet would it be to replace the Fascist Obama with another Bush? Seriously, how sweet would that be?
Trump - please.

Ok, so I have some favorites and some not-so favorites.

Right now, my choice among the declared candidates is Cain, followed by Pawlenty. Among the potential candidates, if Rick Perry gets in, I would seriously consider him, and, I am reconsidering my position on Palin. Bachmann is a wait and see type. Romney is a no way.

I plan to watch the CNN debate tomorrow, maybe on DVR. Hopefully you will, too. I won't live blog it, but if I watch in real time, find me on twitter, twitter.com/sleepywhiner.

Steyn - The Obama Road to Nowhere

2011-06-11T19:10:00.000-04:00

Mark Steyn, as always, brilliant today, In National Review Online, on Obama's Road to Nowhere.

A taste, then read it all:

"The American Dream, 2011: You pay four bucks a gallon to commute between your McJob and your underwater housing to prop up a spendaholic, grabafeelic, paramilitarized bureaucracy-without-end bankrupting your future at the rate of a fifth of a billion dollars every hour."

Sarah Palin. She's no Ronald Reagan

2011-06-08T23:42:00.001-04:00

Palinistas kill me. Lately, they've been trying to equate Palin to Reagan, and while there are similarities, Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

Let me stipulate that I like Sarah Palin. Pretty much every position she takes is one with which I agree. As a conservative, we're probably in lock-step, so, I have every reason to support her. With the perhaps single exception of Herman Cain, she's the only candidate I expect to agree with nearly 100% of the time.

Here's the problem with Palin for me. I actually find myself thinking she agrees with me, vice me agreeing with her. I don't get that feeling from a guy like Cain, who I have had the opportunity to listen to quite a bit here in Atlanta over the years. With Cain, I feel like I am following him, and that I learn something new with him. With Palin, well, she's a politician who happens to share my views. I think she could learn more from reading my blog than I could ever learn from months with her. It's not that I think she's stupid, nor that she's intellectually incurious. It's just that I don't think she brings thought leadership to the movement.

That may seem like I am knocking her, but I am not. Seriously, Palinista's, I'm not. Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and even as far back as Woodrow Wilson, we have examples of superbly intelligent men who couldn't lead nor would even really be management material. Academics are like that.

So, I could get behind a Palin presidential run, or a Palin presidency. I actually think it would be competent, and she'd at least be pushing my agenda. I expect she'd be highly effective at getting my priorities executed. But, don't tell me she's an intellectual force bringing new ideas to the conservative movement. She's not. She's good at framing ideas that are not her own, and at bringing to bare metal the flaws in the opposition's arguments. But, I don't find any of her ideas or approaches terribly original, but derivative. Even her famopus Death Panels was not her original thought.

We don't necessarily need that in a president, and I don't require it. I need my president to get the things I want done, to be persuasive in doing so, and I'd like them to make the state-run media nuts. She'd do all those things, and, she'd bring new blood to the movement. I think she understands, at a working level what most people with common sense are thinking, and she gives voice to that, and more effectively than pretty much any other candidate out there (with the exceptions of Cain, and the non-running Huckabee). I find her Midwestern cadence and odd butchering of the English language grating and it drives me crazy, but, I have it on good authority that the way she talks rings true with large swathes of the populace (and these swathes vote). So, I have to be prepared to accept it.

But, it doesn't mean I have to listen to her ardent supporters say she's Reagan incarnate. She is not. And no one will be. One of the GOP's and conservatives' problems is that we're all looking for Reagan II. We're not going to find it. Reagan was unique, and unique for his time.

Sure, the media pilloried Reagan as nothing better than an amiable dunce, and a warmonger, and an old, senile man (during term 2). Those of us who followed him knew better. By 1980, Reagan had a 20 year record of real thought leadership in the conservative movement, and was a leader in it. He came by his convictions honestly, and through thorough study of them. He was intellectually curious. He was a persuader, and he was able to make his arguments because he had thought them through himself.

So, you Palin fans, I am with you, but, please stop comparing Palin to Reagan. Feel free to compare the treatment of her by the press to their treatment of Reagan, and continue to rebut it, but...I don't think your arguments are as strong as Reagan's defenders. And, it serves neither Sarah Palin, the conservative movie, not the GOP, to try to turn her into something she is not.

She could be a wonderful candidate, and a common-sense alternative to Professor-President Obama. Let her.

More on my candidate in a future post.

Twitter - still great after all these years

2011-05-21T21:42:00.000-04:00

As some know, I am a big fan and user of twitter. In fact, you have a better chance of finding me on twitter than at this blog.

Twitter has several things going for it that I enjoy:

It's immediate. Those of us watching our twitter feeds on the night OBL was killed, knew it very soon. The rest of you, waited.
It forces you to think in 140 character thoughts.
You can follow a heck of a lot of people quicker than web surfing, and even using a good RSS reader.
Many dedicated tweeps will respond in real time. Want to take Buster Olney to task for something he has reported on ESPN, he may respond.
You can engage in real time conversations over whatever topic you want, pretty much whenever you want.
It's a good way to actually find out how the other side thinks, even if that is maddening.
It's great on an iPhone!

Of course, Twitter has some disadvantages:

If you can't express a cogent thought in 140 characters, well, forget it.
Your stream can move fast.
Some of those conversations can get stupid, real quick.
140 characters at a time is not a great way to debate
It's addicting

Some advice for my fellow tweeps, or those considering jumping in:

Don't let it rule you
If you engage in conversations with those with differing views, try to keep it civil, and remember that 140 character limit means you can't express complicated ideas easily, and neither can they. Have some compassion.
Don't expect to change minds. Likely the lefties are following other lefties, as you are following right-minded people. Like I do with this blog, I usually consider that my audience is my right-wing family and friends and a few open-minded, independent thinking people. The committed Leftists - they are only good as your foil.
Follow a few people who disagree with your views, it's eye-opening.
Related to these - keep a thick skin, I guarantee if you're in a conversation with a Lefty, they are eventually going to get frustrated and devolve into name calling. Get used to it, at that point, they've lost the debate and control, and this is how they react.

Well, there you have it. Twitter.

Bin Laden is dead - kudos to Bam, and where to now?

2011-05-05T21:57:00.000-04:00

I don't normally give kudos to Rob Schumacher and his political beliefs,.but his analysis on the take-down of Osama Bin Laden is pretty much dead on.

Bottom line is that the SEALS deserve the credit for carrying out this mission, and Obama deserves credit for taking the risks inherent in putting men on the ground, in order to absolutely be able to say we got Bin Laden. He also deserves credit for keeping the Pakistani's out of this. He rightly identified them in the 2008 campaign, and was blasted for it, as part of the problem, and people we honestly couldn't trust. If anyone believes that in what is essentially a military town, that OBL's presence there was totally unnoticed, well, they are an idiot.

This is one of the failings of the Bush administration, which although may have seemed a bunch of cowboys, was really filled with veteran Washington insiders, and perhaps Bush's background meant he deferred too often to the State Department, who's veteran bureaucrats, I am sure, argued to inform the Pakistani's of everything going on in their country.

For NOT doing that, I give Obama some credit. You should, too.

On other aspects of this, you need my analysis, so here it comes.

Pictures. I am ambivalent about the release of pictures. I personally do not need to see pictures to believe that we got OBL. This is way too important for the President, his national security team, a bevy of Congressmen, and the military parties involved to be caught up in a conspiracy. He's dead, you can count on that. Do you really need to see a bunch of gory pictures to prove it? You'd still need some "expert" to tell you it was OBL.
Burial at sea (Islamic type). If you don't think in 10 years of planning we hadn't thought long and hard and charted various courses of action on this, you don't know how these things work. I think burial at sea was a great idea so that there is no ready-made shrine for a bunch of nuts to go to. Whether he received a proper Muslim send-off or whatever, I don't really care. I do think it's slightly hypocritical on one hand to say he perverted Islam, and on the other to make sure he received a proper Islamic burial. But, that's probably more a cover story to mask the real reason, which is the at-sea burial.
Administration dithering and confusion. Readers of this blog know I am a massive critic of the Far-Left Obama administration. Their politics is borderline Socialist/Fascist, but they also have demonstrated an amazing level of incompetence.

I said I agreed with Obama and the manner this mission was carried out, but, I found the 10:30 pm Sunday address that didn't go down until 11:30pm ridiculous, and I thought the speech itself was overwrought and too self-congratulatory. A simple announcement by the President, without all the me, my, I, etc, would have been sufficient, especially since the word was out on Twitter at 10:30 and people had an hour to digest it. Just poorly handled.

Since then, we have had all the conflicting reports of what happened, and the back-and-forth on the photos. Just horribly managed, and a sign of the general incompetence of this administration, even when they hit the nail on the head with the actual event. If you're a critic, it's business-as-usual, if you're a fan, you have to cringe at them.
Political gain. I don't think we'll see too much. There are some positive signs to me that this administration may be getting it on the global war on terror. They have adopted pretty much every Bush administration policy. If we can just get them to turn back the clock on enhanced interrogation, they'll be at 100% compliance with Bush's policies. Just remember how quickly things change in politics. After Gulf War 1, GHW Bush was at 90% approval. 18 months later, we had President Clinton. 2012 is going to be about deficits and the economy, and those are both looking pretty crappy right now.
Afghan War. Some on the right are questioning whether we should be in Afghanistan now that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are neutered and OBL is dead. Larry Kudlow asks some good questions on this, as does Charles Krauthammer, suggesting this is the way we can get out of Afghanistan having completed our mission with dignity and victory. If we can finally put the Taliban to rest, let's leave that hellhole to the corrupt Karzai regime, and only come back if they become a threat again.
GWOT. OBL's death certainly does not mean the Global War on Terror is over. It's not, but it's a powerful symbol of the steadfastness of this country. The Bush doctrine still applies - if you're not with us, you're against us, but the need for direct military action in Iraq and Afghanistan is over. Time to get out of those places with Iraq ultimately being a success, and Afghanistan, well, see above. We need to focus our efforts on nurturing the Arab Spring, and we need our military forces refocused on the potential take down of Iran, who remains the sole capable, and determined resistance in the Middle East.

I could go on and on, but that's enough for now.

Trump.

2011-04-25T23:05:00.000-04:00

Donald Trump is sucking all the current air out of the 2012 Presidential Race these days.

Bottom Line Up Front: Trump is using this to promote his current Celebrity Apprentice run and himself. With Trump, it's all about Trump. He's not going to run for President.

But, because everyone else is doing it, let's play a mind game and pretend that Trump is serious. After all, Dick Morris thinks he is. And I love Dick Morris.

Dick thinks Trump makes it to a final two against either Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich, and that he will bring new voters to the GOP fold. I may agree with that, and would find that a good thing, and the assurance of GOP victory in 2012, which is looking even more possible, as gas prices rise (with the Emperor Obama doing nothing to stop them), and Obama's popularity plummetting to Bushian levels.

I like Trump. He's not a conservative in the traditional sense, but, like many ambivalent Independents, and social Democrats, he's sick of the fiscal irresponsibility that the Obama administration has foisted upon us. He's seen as a strong leader who won't take any crap from anyone, and that is certainly not something the current president is doing. People like that.

For you Dems who pass by this space, I want you to understand two things:

Obama is a far-Left ideologue, who thinks it is his mission to radically reconfigure the United States as a left-wing paradise, run by the super-intelligentsia, represented by Obama. He has none of the blind ambition of a Bill Clinton, but he's imbued with the arrogance of Woodrow Wilson.
You could tax every person making over $100k every penny above $100k and you wouldn't even pay off the deficit for this year. So, the class warfare card sounds appealing, but it's not the problem.

Back to Trump. He could bring even more of those fiscally conservative Independents and Democrats into the GOP fold, even if not the nominee. For that, the GOP would be eternally grateful. The danger is that he loses the GOP nomination in a close race, and then decides that he's the answer to Obama, and runs as an Independent, assuring Obama's victory.

But, I don't think he's in it.

Koran Burning

2011-04-05T12:40:00.001-04:00

The Florida preacher decides to go ahead with the Koran burning and a bunch of Islamist nuts decide to use it as an excuse to murder.

General Petraeus says this was unnecessarily provocative and places our troops at risk. I can understand his position here since it is unnecessary. To truly show the nature of Islam, I have said before that we should be READING the Koran not burning it.

But, the general needs to also understand he took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and preeminent in that is the first amendment where we give special protections to speech. Specifically political speech, which, if you are being critical of Islam, you are exercising. Islam can not be separated as a religion and ideology. They are two parts of the whole.

General Petraeus would be wise to remember that many of us who served and continue to serve pledged to defend the Constitution and the right of idiots to exercise their freedom to be, well, idiots.

What we should NOT be doing is bending over to please a two bit corruptocrat (Karzai) who wants us to apologize for some nut desecrating their "holy" book. Nor should Congress be passing laws forbidding the burning of Korans or any other religious text. Like that kind if stuff, go to Saudi Arabia.

Anyway, Sean Hannity needs to shut up over this.

NASCAR quotes

2011-04-04T08:25:00.001-04:00

On my drive home last night I was catching up on Jayski podcasts and there were a couple of good examples of why these guys aren't getting PHDs.

Denny Hamlin trying to explain why he is so good at Martinsville despite being there in numerous cars "There's one thing in common, my crew chief, the team, and me.". Heh?

You always hear some good mixed metaphors from racers, Richard Childress on Kevin Harvick, "he rolls with the flow."

Gotta love these guys.

Happier News! Baseball's back!

2011-04-01T23:22:00.000-04:00

After a long wet, coldish winter, baseball is back and all is right with the world once again.

This season is full of hope here in Atlanta, because most of us believe the Braves will improve on last year's Wild Card record. With the addition of Dan Uggla, Freddie Freeman, a healthy Chipper Jones, plus the National Leagues 3rd best rotation, arguably the best bullpen, and new manager Fredi Gonzales, I predict the Braves will win 95 games this year.

Normally, that would win the NL East, but, with the Phillies historically good starting staff, they may win 100 games. At 95, though, they are a Wild Card lock, and could take the division. The Phillies may be without Chase Utley for the year, and Brad Lidge is injured and not worth a crap anyway. Jimmy Rollins is in decline and the Phils have outfield issues. They're going to need that pitching staff to be good, because the days when they hammer teams into submission are probably over.

As for the rest of the league, I don't really care. I have a soft spot for the Reds and would like to see them succeed again. The Mets are going to stink, and I will be thrilled to watch them lose 95 games and finish behind the Nationals, who may be good in 2012.

As we sit here today, the Braves are 1-0 and destined to finish 162-0 and complete the first unbeaten season in ML history.

On a happier note...Idol

2011-04-01T23:05:00.000-04:00

I haven't been religious about Idol blogging. Honestly, I have been so time late watching them, there seemed little point in recapping.

I spoke to my mother, who is one of the people still watching this, and we discussed these points:

Is there anyone Steven Tyler doesn't like?
The quality of contestants is decidedly better this year.
We agreed that the 2 to go this week deserved it, and Thia Meghia should have waited a year.
Paul's annoying. Ok, mom didn't exactly agree with that, but I think he's annoying and should be next to go.

On things we didn't talk about, now that we're down to the final 9, I don't think there's a clear favorite yet, but, I think Pia, Lauren, James, Scotty, Casey, and Jacob are probably the final 5. The loss of 2 girls this week helps the remaining women. More random Idol thoughts:

Haley and Paul are probably the next to go. I agreed that Haley's performance was her best (it was not THE best of the night, that went to Pia or Lauren), and may save her for a couple of weeks. If she can combine that raspy voice with some sexy clothing, she may be able to milk her way past Paul and Stefano and maybe Casey and get into the final 6.
I know James has Tourette's and all that great story, but his shtick and the tics are starting to annoy me.
Stefano is a good singer, but, haven't we seen this guy on Idol, oh, 10 times before? And the eyes closed thing? Scary.
Yes, Lauren is very young, so maybe I am encroaching into creepiness here (it's probably legal in Georgia, though), but, if she makes it far and gets an actual country music gig, hopefully someone will introduce her to Nutri-System. Hey, it worked for Carrie Underwood, who you may recall being a little chunky. Or, she could go the Kelly Clarkson route and just eat her way to stardom (laughing all the way).
I think Scotty's lying about his age.
Jacob is starting to annoy me, too. But, he's got a spot on Glee (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Casey. I like him with the trimmed beard. He's becoming a bit of a drama queen, though. Just get over it Casey. You didn't deserve to be kicked off, the judges rightfully used their save.
If anyone still thinks the results aren't fixed, well, come on...

Thomas Sowell Puts it to Obama...

2011-04-01T22:47:00.000-04:00

One of the smartest men in America, Thomas Sowell, rips Obama apart over Libya. In so doing, I think he hits on the essence of Obama (see quote 2). From Sowell's column:

"To attack him (Gaddafi) without destroying his regime is to ask for increased terrorism against Americans and America’s allies. So is replacing him with insurgents who include other sponsors of terrorism.

"The most charitable explanation for President Obama’s incoherent policy in Libya — if incoherence can be called a policy — is that he suffers from the longstanding blind spot of the Left when it comes to the use of force. A less charitable and more likely explanation is that Obama is treating the war in Libya as he treats all sorts of other things, as actions designed above all to serve his own political interests and ideological visions.

"As for the national interest of the United States of America, Barack Obama has never shown any great concern about that."

I don't know what Obama's up to in Libya, or what the end game is, but I am never terribly opposed to removing a despot like Gaddafi, the rottenness of the replacements be damned. But as I posted previously, we run a great risk here of losing (and, if the rebels don't succeed in taking out Gaddafi, we lose), and an even greater risk of winning (where the rebels actually turn out to be Islamists and turn Libya into another terrorist-sponsoring Islamic state, as opposed to Gaddafi's mad-man terror sponsoring).

The real problem with what we're doing in Libya is...no one really knows what we're doing in Libya. I can see it at the Bam White House:

Advisor 1: They're all saying we must do something about Gaddafi.
Bam: Well then, do something.

And that's just it, we're doing something, but no one knows what it is.

Libya, Obama, Bumper Stickers: Give War a Chance

2011-03-31T23:46:00.000-04:00

Jason Mattera, over in Human Events, posted yesterday about all the contradictions in Obama's Monday night speech and the Libya policy in particular. It's worth a read.

Today on my way to work, I was behind one of those leftists, female, professorial types driving a 10 year old Corolla, with all sorts of leftist bumper stickers. You know the ones - "coexist," "War is not the answer," "instead of dropping bombs, blah, blah, blah." The crap that was popular among the Left during the Bush years. And in the middle of all of those, one of those annoying "Obama '08" stickers. In the fallout of the Libya exercise (war?), I wondered whether she was feeling particularly hopey-changey, and would she be scraping that Obama sticker off soon?

That observation aside, I think it's right that we get involved in the Libyan deal. Let's face it, I despise the Islamists completely, and want to see them and their ideology wiped off the face of the earth, but, Gaddafi was pretty much the most despicable tyrant in a part of the world filled with them. Whatever replaces him couldn't be much worse for the United States. It's definitely worth the effort, especially if it can be done somewhat antiseptically from the air (which I doubt). I am reminded of the Kosovo operation during Bill Clinton's reign. I think Clinton hoped he could avoid ground troops in that case, too, and may have even pledged the same thing. When it came down to the endgame, however, we were sending ground troops, as peacekeepers, with NATO allies and other UN nations, and, we hadn't really removed the government, we had just neutered it. So, I find it either naive, or a disingenuous lie to say that we won't be putting troops on the ground. Especially if the goal is no Gaddafi.

Of course, the worse case scenario here is we arm the rebels, and they fail to displace Gaddafi, and the arms we give them end up in the hands of Muslim extremists. That would be the worst, so, we run a real risk here - do we give a better chance of getting rid of Gaddafi via air support and arms, or do we stay where we are, which today appears to be not that great of a position. Gaddafi's army is probably able to quash this thing without air power anyway. So, it's going to take some kind of escalation to get victory.

We're left here, in my opinion, with the only hope of real victory, and a real democratic Libya, being one in which the United States gets much more intimately involved than providing air power. To really achieve the removal of Gaddafi and the replacement of him with a semi-pro-Western government, is going to require ground troops. And likely American ground troops. And, it's also going to require an organized opposition that isn't pro-Al Qaeda. That puts us (and our few staunch allies) in the position of picking winners from among the rebel coalition. If this all sounds familiar to you, it should.

So, Obama has chosen a half-measure, the use of American air power. To what end?

I also find it a lie that putting NATO in charge removes us. A NATO operation is for all practical purposes a US operation, as Mattera points out. No president in my memory has stated such a thing because at least in the past, I think most Americans associated the United States with NATO. In other words, you couldn't fool Americans with this sleight of tongue.

For me, when you say NATO, I think of the US and our Western European allies plus Canada, Greece and Turkey. But mostly, I think of the United States. When you think of NATO you really should think of the US, if you have a passing knowledge of history. We ARE NATO.

Sarah Palin? I say no.

2011-03-29T23:42:00.000-04:00

Regular readers will know that I am torn by the prospect of Sarah Palin in the GOP race for the 2012 Presidential nomination.

On the one hand, I think she's much smarter than she's portrayed, of course, by the state-controlled media, and even some GOP operatives (are you listening, Karl Rove?). On the other, I just don't think 2012 is her time, and, now that I am perusing some of the other candidates, I just think we at least need a candidate who elevates the debate, and can clearly articulate the difference between Liberals, and us. Personally, I think Newt, Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and even Romney, all can, and will do this better than Palin.

I think her behavior since 2008 has been quixotic. Starting with the resignation, then with the constant defensiveness, the reality show, it's all not very presidential, and has done little to distinguish her as a deep thinker and someone who brings real depth to the conservative debate.

What I don't want is an election that's about the cult of personality. That's what we got in 2008, and we don't need it in 2012. If Sarah Palin wants to be president (and I am not convinced she does), she needs to do the same things she would need to do if she wanted to be a thought leader for conservatives.

Which is - take advantage of the one issue where she has a clear edge on every other Presidential aspirant, energy policy. But, she hasn't seemed to bring that knowledge to the fore. She needs to.

She also needs to get smart on other conservative issues. I don't hear her bringing intellectual arguments, clearly enunciated, to the issues near and dear to conservatives - low taxes, smaller government, defense, school choice, free markets, and any foreign policy agenda. She's a Sean Hannity conservative - not that thoughtful, knowledgeable in a 1/2 inch deep sort of way, but reflexively anti-Obama. I'm anti-Obama, too, but, geez, our ideas are clearly superior to theirs, we need to get into the habit of being idea driven, not anti-driven.

Sharia, Herman Cain

2011-03-28T17:17:00.001-04:00

In response to Peter Wehner's Commentary article today on Herman Cain's position on appointing a Muslim to his cabinet or judgeship.

I appreciate your column on anti-Muslim bigotry. I do not think being Islamic should disqualify one from a position within the American government, any more than being Christian, Jewish, Wiccan or Atheist should. Individuals at that point in their career should be judged on their (hopefully well-established) records. I do think if one is a proponent of the imposition of Sharia, that is disqualifying.

That stipulated, if one believes that all Muslims are interested in the imposition of Sharia, there is no hope for democracy in the Muslim world, and I simply don't believe that. I don't think Sharia is human nature. I think freedom is.

I do think that it is going to take some serious reformation of Islam to moderate it and bring it in line with Western culture and values, which I think we'd all agree are responsible for most of the progress in the world since about 1400AD. What Bin Laden, et.al., preach is not a bastardization of Islam, it's pretty much what the Koran and the Hadith say, and he's got many, and the most vocal, clerics to back him up. The guys' on pretty solid theological ground for what he's doing.

Show us the moderate clerics who are helping the generally peaceable Muslim make the choice to embrace Western values and reject Sharia by re-interpreting Islamic teachings. Please do, because those leaders need to drown out the voices of the Muslim Brotherhood and their ilk, because the Muslim street sure seems pretty aligned with that crowd. I'm not suggesting such a change is impossible, I am just saying it's a big uphill climb.

As for Cain's proposition, the real question is - can a devout Muslim retain his devoutness and not desire the imposition of Sharia? Can he separate the political ideology that exists within Islam from the pure worship of a single deity that is a fixture of Islam? Does that make him less Muslim? I just posit that you will find most Muslims, and Islamic leaders, find that separation problematic.

So, we're looking for Muslims who practice a "kinder, gentler" form of Islam. If that's so, is it still Islam?

Until that's mainstream, American political leaders should be very wary of what their Muslim advisors and appointees believe. Sharia? Just say no.

DVR Blogging Idol: Baker's Dozen

2011-03-09T22:51:00.000-05:00

Tonight the competition really begins as the final 13 Idol contestants perform: Pray my battery lasts.

Some random thoughts:

Do you ever wonder if Randy has a limited wardrobe?
Who will get the pimp spots, and who is screwed by going in the first group?
2 hours. 26 minutes of singing, 30 minutes of commercials, and an hour of nothing.
Need to get through this quickly so we can see if Russell fails on his Redemption Island effort.
The washer squeaks so much I can't hear anything.

Lauren Alaina - Ouch, spot 1. I think she's popular, so this may not hurt her. Some Shania Twain song. Seems pretty uninspired to me. Steven has it right, not "kick-ass" enough. Randy and J-Lo echo.
Casey Abrams - Joe Cocker's "I Get By With a Little Help From My Friends" - If I hadn't heard Joe Cocker do this, I would like it more. I think it's a good performance, solidly on key and suits his voice and vibe. I'm not blown away like J-Lo, but Randy says unbelievable and exciting. Get the idea the judges like Casey.
Ashton Jones - One of the judges picks does Diana Ross. I am not familiar with the song, but she seems screechy to me. This spot is not going to help her. No one really loves it.
After 5 minutes of commercials, we are given, Paul McDonald, who will sing a Ryan Adams song. I have to say, I am not a fan of this guy, and he sounds like he's sick. I am going to say what America is thinking - "Awful." Steven Tyler loves everyone. J-Lo likes the moves. They're not smiling at him, they are laughing at him. Randy loves who Paul is. I DON'T get it. Well, actually, I DO get it, but, I don't like it.
Another 4 minutes, and Pia Toscano is next. Now, it helps that she's the hottest of the contestants (and can sing), but the number 5 spot is a crap hole. Uh oh, Celine Dion. Some of us remember when this song was original, and not by Celine Dion. That means we're old. Simon would say, "It's very karaoke, I think you're in trouble." But, these judges are forgiving, so they say instead, "really beautiful," (J-Lo) "You have such a natural gift, I love it," (Randy) and "You just slammed it." (The new Paula).
James Durbin idolizes Paul McCartney and will do "Maybe I'm Amazed." Actually, I do like this version, and it's a little more like I think the Beatles (the late '60's Beatles) would have done this song. He's not helped by the mid-pack position, but Randy, for good reason, loves it. As do the others.
Haley Reinhart - One of those forgotten girls. Stuck mid-pack, I think she's quite good, as this seems a very difficult song. Will people remember it? I think Randy has it perhaps right, that it's boring...
Jacob Lusk - R. Kelly? Really? Is he going to rape someone? Ok, I have to admit, when Jacob sings, he is one of those singers that send chills up the spine. I loved the gospel touch to this. Really something. Randy has it right.
Moving into the homestretch, next up is Thia Megia - who will sing Smile. There's no doubt that she has a very nice voice, and this moves to a jazzy vibe, which I think works ok for her. Simon would complain that it's an old person's song. He'd be right.
Stefano Langone - is going to do a Stevie Wonder song. Dangerous (that's not the song), it's the strategy. He's approaching pimp spot, which is an indication the producers want him to stick around. Stevie Wonder rarely is a good choice for contestants, and I feel the same way here. The fact that he couldn't break into the top 10 last week means he's not THAT popular with the fans. Judges pimp him. I don't really know why.
Karen Rodriguez - is going take a Selena song and my only question - is it going to be in Spanish? I just don't think it's that good. She's the first contestant I have felt was really, really in trouble. If J-Lo is downplaying it, it really did suck. They all agree, suckfest.
Scotty McCreery - Seems like something's wrong with the microphone. I don't think this song really fits Scotty's voice. I like him, and I love his voice for country music. I don't think this song worked and I hope the country fans keep him in, and he's aided by the number 12 spot. Steven Tyler makes no sense, you know that. Judges loved it and I wonder if the acoustics in the theater were better than what translated through my TV.
Naima Adedapo - Umbrella - She's got the coveted pimp spot, for someone who was saved by the judges and I didn't think deserved it, that's an indication the producers want her around and think she needs a boost. This may just be me, but I hated it. Seemed off-key, arrangement was weird and she's weird. Simon would detest this. If she were not in the 13 spot, I'd say goodbye to her.

So, I think Karen is gone, but, could be Ashton or Thia or Paul. Add in Naima, and they are my bottom four.

My top are easy:

Jacob, James, Pia.

Everyone else in a broad middle. What did you think?

Wisconsin Dems get asses handed to them. Government unions whine. Wisconsin citizens rejoice!

2011-03-09T19:40:00.000-05:00

The Wisconsin GOP senators are teaching Wisconsin Democrats, the government employee unions, and the House GOP a few things tonight.

In what should have been done some time ago, the Wisconsin GOP is stripping their bill of the fiscal portions that require 3/5 of the senate. The bill passed 18-1. Details here, as it's not appreciably different from the earlier bill.

While they're at it, they should pass every bill they can that will piss off Democrats.

Idol Results: Chalk

2011-03-03T22:56:00.000-05:00

So, tonights final 12 selection show is going on and here's my take after the top 10 have been selected. Basically chalk so far.

Of the guys, really no surprises. I thought Stefano would make it, but I also thought Paul would, too. The other 4 were no brainers. I think the judges will choose Stefano.

Of the girls, no real surprises there, either. I thought Naima would make it, but Haley did instead. She's hot, you could see her nipples, and she didn't sing awfully Wednesday night. That explains it. America is hoping for more Katherine McPhee type wardrobe issues.

The judges choose to sing in the stupid sing off six people:

Stefano
Ashton
Kendra
Jovanny
Naima
Robbie

Of course Ryan says that "we don't even know how many you might take" which makes me think we could have a final 16.

The judges take....Ashton, Stefano (knew it, so I was 6 for 6 on the guys), Naima. So I ended up being 12 for 12 and the judges added one.

Gas blowing up!

2011-03-03T18:38:00.000-05:00

Have you all noticed, gas prices have shot up about 35 cents in the last two weeks??

Wouldn't know that from watching the state-controlled media, would you? I think the last time gas hit $4/gallon, George W Bush was ripped a brand new one with never ending stories on how lame he was, causing all those hurricanes and all.

Now that we have combined issuing no new drilling permits (except to BP) with the turmoil in the Middle East, Investors Business Daily posits that $8/gal gas is the desire of the Obama Administration.

Let's face it, Obama has said before that his energy policy is essentially designed to make you pay more. Like he said here and below:

"Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

So, this is just part of the grand plan. Let's make energy costs high enough to make the folly that is solar and wind power and electric cars look good. Even though they are not.

Blah Blah Blah.

With Libs, it's really about the destruction of Western Civilization, with them lining their pockets all along the way.

Idol Girls - Update!

2011-03-02T23:51:00.002-05:00

Tonight is ladies night on Idol, and I have to admit Idon't know who most of these people are. Below is the DialIdol.com update. Be prepared to be surprised.

Ta-Tynisa Wilson - sucked. Randy wasn't moved nor was I. I was worried about a wardrobe malfunction, though.
Naima Adedapo - at least she can sing. That big ole tattoo is going to be a problem. Lose the self-styled dresses.
Kendra Chantelle - it's impossible to endure this performance. But it wasn't awful. I think it'll be forgotten by the end of the show.
Rachel Zevita - what is this? Oldies night? She managed to take a new song and turn it into an old one.
Karen Rodriguez - she's going for the Latina vote. I think she's good. Doesn't move me. Best so far.
Lauren Turner - gotta have a fat girl on the show. Doesn't stand a chance of being in the final 12. Judges? Insane loving this.
Ashton Jones - who is this person? I could live without it. She hits a few notes. Just who cares. Really.
Julie Zorilla - finally someone I remember. Note to contestants - don't do former winner's songs. And if you do, do it good. She's not. Better get some hotness votes.
Haley Reinhart - more oldies nite. At least it's original sounding. Wardrobe malfunction 2? I swear she's showing nipples. I swear.
Thia Megia - much was made of the 15 year olds, but is she our only one? Simon would complain about a kid singing this song.
Lauren Alaina - our Georgia country girl. Also 16. Rotten. But that's just me. Judges love.
Pia Toscano - in the coveted anchor slot. She's been plenty hyped by Idol.

My Top 5:
Pia, Lauren A, Thia, Karen, Naima.

Dialidol says (and it says the first three are safe)

Ta-Tynisa Wilson - By a long way. Huh? This makes me question dialidol's algorithms. Or perhaps there was an issue with the phone lines for her, making it appear more busy signals.
Julie Zorilla - Again, this was the worst performance of the night, I thought by far. But, she's attractive, so maybe.
Lauren Alaina - The first in this group who deserves to be there.
Pia Toscano - They have her 4th, but as low as 12th, so, she could be gone...
Thia Megia - Again, could be 12th.

Karen is last and Naima is 9th. I can see the Spanish not going over. Very small demo, despite what Democrats want you to believe.

Union thugs and Islamic Terrorists. What's the difference?

2011-03-02T22:29:00.000-05:00

Pam Geller has details and commentary over at Atlas Shrugs, but, we can expect, and indeed are seeing, that the state-run media is playing down the Muslim attack and murder of 2 US Airmen today in Germany. They can't stress often enough that this was a "lone" gunman, and they can't stress AT ALL that he was reportedly chanting Islamic slogans as he murdered his victims.

Seems the only people killing American soldiers are the Islamic Taliban in Afghanistan and Islamists acting "alone" around the rest of the world.

If the Left wants to find an instance where hate speech is actually leading to violence, don't look at Rush Limbaugh, look at the Islamists they have been enabling for years.

Shifting gears to another group of thugs, if you haven't been exactly following the goings-on in Wisconsin, Anne Althouse, Law professor at U Wisconsin, has been doing great work on this in the blogosphere.

If you read this blog even a little, you know I am completely unsympathetic to these government-union idiots, but, while they have no "right" to collective bargaining, they do have a first amendment rights to protest, even if their arguments are specious and ignorant. The Constitution doesn't say your political speech has to be intelligent.

I just ask you who may have some sympathy for these people to look at the conditions they are leaving in the Wisconsin Capital and the violent nature of their protests. You don't have to look hard.

These are just posted in the last few hours.

Idol 11! It's back

2011-03-02T21:09:00.000-05:00

American Idol has returned now in full force, and I'll be periodically giving my thoughts on it. Last night the final 12 boys performed, and, in what I think is kind of rotten, this week they will be whittled down to six based on last night's performance. The top 5 vote getters from us, and the final 1 from the judges. Then, we'll start in earnest. The danger here is that a couple of people who deserve to make the final 6 don't. So, here's my take on last night's men:

Clint Jun Gamboa - I thought was good, as did the judges, but he drew the dreaded #1 spot, and I don't think he has a lot of charisma to carry the night. So, while I think he deserves to be in the final six, I think he's in trouble.
Jovanny Barreto - I pegged him an early favorite, but I think his performance was just average. Stuck in the 2 spot. Not going to make it.
Jordan Dorsey - I also had him pegged as an early favorite, but his performance was really, really awful. The final six is only going to have one spot for a black guy, and it's not Jordan.
Tim Halperin - Honestly, has been invisible. His performance, and the mid-pack spot don't help him. Your fifteen minutes is up, Tim.
Brett Lowenstern - in a season with a few quirky contestants, Brett is plain wierd. Later, Brett.
James Durbin - Fortunately, the show turned better with James' performance. He's the odds on favorite to win, in my opinion. Daughter says he's like Adam Lambert. Yeah, if you remove the gayness, and the questionable talent. And, he sang a Judas Priest song. Gotta love that. Easily in.
Robbie Rosen - The judges love this guy, but I just don't get it. Please, saying he was better than Sarah MacLachlan? NOT. Not going to make it, but a potential judges choice?
Scotty McCreery - out deep voiced country star could leave this thing and start recording now. Easily in, but the later theme nights could harm him. May not have the crossover appeal to win, but should go far. Doesn't matter, if he makes the final 8 or so, he's got a career covered.
Stefano Langone - I didn't like his performancce, but I like him, and I think he may have the most appeal to Idol's 13-16 year old female crowd. In.
Paul McDonald - one of our truly quirky contestants this year. I don't think he is winner material, but he should make the final six men.
Jacob Lusk - I agree that this kid can sing. He should be in easy. Helped by the slot.
Casey Abrams - Taylor Hicks with talent? My favorite, closely followed by James Durbin, Scotty McCreery and Jacob Lusk. In.

Now, at this stage, DialIdol.com doesn't tell us too terribly much, especially with the massive text voting that must go on, but it says that the top 5 are:

Scotty McCreery
Jacob Lusk
James Durbin
Stefano Langone
Paul McDonald

I can see that. It has Casey Abrams as 7th, but they only predict that Scotty is safe, so anyone else could make the top 5. If these are the 5, my prediction is the judges will add Casey. I think the judges would add Jacob, James, Casey, Paul in that order, so, if any of those 3 don't make the final 5 America vote, look for one of them to get added by the judges.

I may blog the girls later, but first I want to watch Survivor.

Launch of Shuttle Discovery as viewed from the air

2011-02-26T22:21:00.005-05:00

Great video of this week's Discovery launch. From the air. Really a unique experience. Expand to full screen for the best view.

Wisconsin...

2011-02-23T22:40:00.000-05:00

The Left thinks they are experiencing a Tea Party moment in Wisconsin.

I have news for them, you're not.

Where the Tea Party is motivated by a desire to fix a dire fiscal situation in this country, the unionistas in Wisconsin are out for themselves. In a state where teachers pull in >$80k/year, and pay very little out of pocket for their very generous benefits, a bunch of whining, selfish, crybaby government-employee union leaders are trying to retain what little relevance they have in this world by drawing a line at taxpayer expense.

USA Today trumpets a poll that supposedly shows "lukewarm" public support for cutting benefits and the right of government employees to collective bargaining. The poll shows support for cutting programs and benefits is about evenly split, while support for raising taxes is opposed 3 to 1. I don't know about you, but in a situation where the choices boil down to cutting programs, cutting benefits, or raising taxes, if you want to be on the side of public opinion, you better choose the first 2 choices.

And, that's exactly what Governor Walker in Wisconsin is doing. The proposal is asking these employees to contribute (for them) much more to their own benefits, something that private sector unions long ago conceded to in most industries, and, something I can attest to that management employees at most corporations already do to a large degree.

At the same time, the Governor is playing a political card to reduce the collective bargaining power of these public-sector unions. Ask yourself, why do public employees need unions?

I mean, back in the old days, unions served a purpose, preventing uncaring and greedy employers from abusing them and making them work in unsafe conditions. But, what are the conditions that public-sector employees suffer from that need a union to address that the benevolent government isn't already addressing? I mean, seriously, what are they?

And, collective bargaining? Look, it's always been unfair, and un-American. You tell me what service collective-bargaining serves?

Tell me.

I'm still here...is Sarah Palin?

2011-01-20T21:59:00.000-05:00

Wow, I haven't posted in 3 weeks.

Post Christmas is always hectic around here. And, I have to admit a bit of a cooling off has been going on politically for me. The euphoria of November passed into the lamest duck session and now the GOP is set to do what they were elected to do - reduce the size and scope of government's intrusion into the American people's and American businesses lives.

I didn't post about the Tuscon shooting, because the attacks from the Left were so predictable and so outrageous, that it just felt stupid to even address it. Sarah Palin needs to learn one of the cardinal rules of politics - when your opponents are destroying themselves, sit back and let them.

As many of you may know, I am a fan of Sarah Palin. I can't see her being a worse president than the one who currently occupies the office, but, in a sea of good GOP candidates, I don't see her as the best. I also think she better serves the conservative cause (today) by NOT being a candidate, especially if she's going to go into defensive attack mode at every opportunity. Personally, I wish she had just stayed above things post-Tuscon. Issued a written statement, and let it sit there. Enough people were lambasting the Left, especially as the facts came out and we found out that Jared Loughner was certainly more influenced by Adolph Hitler, Chairman Mao and Lenin than he was Limbaugh, Hannity, and Palin.

Even 60 Minutes spent a segment explaining the quixotic nature of political assassins.

I have other reasons why I don't think Palin is ready for 2012, but that's the subject of another (and previous) posts.

Our "New" Bimmer comes to Atlanta

2011-01-01T17:35:00.000-05:00

I have posted the pictures we took of our trip from Yardley to Atlanta, bringing our newest garage member home.

Our route took us by air to Philly, where we received a whirlwind tour of the city (Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, City Hall), a not-so-whirlwind tour of the huge King of Prussia Mall, then a nice dinner with my sister's family, a short stop to visit our other Philly cousin and take her present to her, followed by rest.

Day 2 took us from Yardley, via Gettysburg, to Greensboro, to my folks' home. It's a nice trip, PA Turnpike to US-15 to Gettysburg, then some nice backroads to get you to I-70 in Maryland, then onto I-81 and through Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia, where you hit US-220 to Greensboro. I remembered that US-220 route from taking my Great Aunt back and forth years ago. But, do it in the dark, in a car with pretty weak low beams, and try to maintain 65mph. Scary, but fun.

After some famous Stamey's NC BBQ, we took a rest, and on day 3, washed the car, cleaned it out, and headed down I-85 for the 5 hour trip home. Quick, and easy, and daughter got her lunch at Panera Bread (in Concord, NC).

Everyone arrived back home happy and tired. And ready for New Year's.

Health Care Timeline

2010-12-30T05:52:00.000-05:00

This link is to a great chart from the Kaiser Family Foundation on the implementation timeline of ObamaCare. It includes when certain provisions go into effect, and their impact.

Non-partisan, and useful to you.

Post Christmas Car Trip - Ridin' with my homey...

2010-12-27T16:01:00.000-05:00

Because a couple of my nephews are in the USAF, and one has managed to get himself stationed in England flying KC-135's older than me, and the other is now moving cross country from New Jersey to Seattle (to still fly C-17's. Go figure), I have come into possession of a car. It's a 1986 BMW 325e.

It was bought by England Nephew to use during his training stateside. Since he dabbled in Land Rovers, the BMW was an economical way to get back and forth at a time when gas prices were $4/gallon (remember those days? They're approaching again). When he left for the old country, his brother took it over and it has spent the last couple of years in occasional use in Phiily/Trenton. Now that he's getting moved to Seattle, the car isn't going with him, so, enter me. I'll soon have a second licensed teen driver, so, this will give us the extra car we may need for a while to tide the two over.

In this scenario, there's only one slight problem. The car is in Trenton, we're in Atlanta. As luck would have it, one of my sisters lives minutes from my nephew, and so, they have agreed to be caretakers for a couple of weeks, get the car in smooth order (as much as a 200k miles, 25 year old car can be) and hold on to it for me.

Thus, the concept of a Road Trip is born.

Since I had enough vacation left to take two weeks this Christmas, I thought this might be the ideal time to get the car. If I pick it up the week after Christmas, it gives me 2 or 3 days to get it back South, and with family along the way conveniently located, free sleepovers, if needed.

A couple of weeks ago, after finalizing this deal, I started looking for flights to get to Philadelphia, and this week is an excellent time for low fares. So low, in fact, that my youngest, 15 y.o. daughter decided she'd like to come along for the trip. In her mind, I must confess, she loves to fly, so she was lured by the prospect of 2 hours in an airplane, and perhaps by the TSA spectacle. I dunno on that one. In fact, she likes air travel so much that she isn't fazed by the prospect of 850 miles with Dad in a suspect car, in cold weather. I should remind my dear readers that in May 2009, the two of us road tripped to Cedar Point on Lake Erie in Ohio to go to an amusement park, so we've spent 10 pleasant hours in a car together. So, it's not as unbelievable as you may think.

Anyway, the trip is scheduled to start tomorrow. Given the blizzard that just hit Philly and points north, I'd say our timing was incredibly lucky. Air travel should be busy, but at full speed tomorrow (in fact, we're already checked-in) and the roads should be cleared by Weds all the way south for us, when we plan to begin our journey. So far, all our luck has been good, which seems ominous. The car has needed little work to make it roadworthy, the most major repair that it requires (a timing belt replacement) was done not too many miles ago, and the weather seems to be opening up for us. Honestly, it almost seems too good, so please pray and keep your fingers crossed. Of course, in this day and age of cell phones and credit cards, you're never too far from a qualified mechanic, should you need one.

Our trip will take us from Yardley, PA, to Gettysburg, PA. Being within a couple hours of Gettysburg, I want her to see one of the most important sites in American history. As a Southerner, I hope it'll hold special significance for her, as it does for me, where so many gallant and brave men on both sides fought and died, and where our Union was saved. From there, we are going to turn south head for I-81, and take off for the longest segment of our trip, to my parents' home in Greensboro, where we hope to arrive Wednesday evening. Just in time for a heaping plate of North Carolina barbecue. If you're reading, Mom & Dad - have it ready.

After that, it's the relatively simple 300 mile trip home to Atlanta down I-85. I plan to do some documenting on twitter along the way. You can follow me, or, if you're familiar with Twitter, look for the hashtag, #bmwtrip.

See you along the way

The Tax Deal: What's a Tea Partier to do?

2010-12-08T22:21:00.000-05:00

This week, President Obama and those dastardly Republicans reached a deal in principle, at least, on tax policy.

At its core, the deal extends the Bush Tax Cuts 2 years for all Americans, keeping income tax policy where it is. If passed, it will result in no income tax increases for everyone, while the economy continues to struggle in a very weak recovery, which has been completely jobless so far. Many conservatives and economists have been arguing that the uncertainty around this policy has held back investment. I agree with that assessment, but, is two years really enough certainty to cause the investor class (that would be "the rich" to you Libs out there) to change their current behavior? I don't know, but I know that a longer extension would go a lot further to spurring investment.

Just discussing this policy, let's all stipulate that these taxes add nothing to the budget deficit. The meme of the Left that these cost us $70B/year for the highest rates (and $300B/year for the rest) is wrong and disingenuous. The truth is that the Left can't wait to get their hands on the money that increasing taxes would bring them. I suppose if there were some kind of promise that any increase in tax revenue from raising taxes would go towards deficit reduction, it would be an easier sell. But that is not what is happening, nor is it what would happen in reality.

This cycle, the American people voted, and they were serious that we need to see some serious efforts at cutting spending before we start making attempts to increase revenues. History tells us that increased revenues will only result in more government spending. The bottom line is - want less government - you have to starve the beast. Paradoxically, if we actually lowered rates, we might see more economic activity, more GDP growth, and ultimately, higher tax revenues. That's been the case historically. We've only run up big deficits where we have overspent.

Had this exercise only been limited to an extension of these tax cuts, I, and I believe most Tea Partiers, would have been happy.

However, the President couldn't control himself.

He decided that as part of this deal, he needed to add in yet another extension of unemployment benefits, adding another 52 weeks to the already long time that they have been available. And, he sees fit to do this without any spending offsets.

The deal also includes an INCREASE in the Estate Tax, from it's current rate of 0% to 35% on estates over a certain value. While this should be considered in the same vein as the Bush cuts (i.e. not as a tax cut), Dems treat this as a deficit increasing event. In reality, it will decrease the deficit, since it will raise revenue not being collected today. Washington, however, is a mixed-up, crazy world.

Amazingly, he also brought out a 2% reduction for 2011 in the social security tax on the employed. Politically, this is to offset the loss of the "making work pay" tax credit that was applied as part of Stimulus. That tax credit was worth $800 to married couples and if it was left out of this, it would result in a tax increase on working families. If that happened, Obama loses his campaign talking point that he hasn't raised taxes "one dime" on those making less than $250k. Faced with a failed Stimulus, he turns to tax policy to put another stimulus into the economy (and allow him to keep at least one campaign promise). Hey,. personally, I am all for this. It's worth a lot more than $800 to my family, and with us losing half the child tax credit (it's only for kids under 18), and that making work pay credit, it makes up for it.

Obama has included in this an extension of the various tax credits that were part of Stimulus. I haven't seen the details on those, but I assume we're talking the energy tax credits and the credits for purchases of hybrid/electric and high-mileage diesel vehicles. There are probably others that are being extended, too.

The net is all those, plus the 2% social security payroll tax reduction, plus the unemployment benefits extension will add to the deficit.

These things we should all worry about, as I believe the total cost to the treasury will be about $500B.

Were I in Congress, while I would have endorsed the S/S reduction 2 years ago (and would probably have argued for a greater reduction, perhaps of the entire employee portion), today, I think it may be too little, too late to save the Obama presidency, and I would probably vote against this package. I would support, right now, an extension of the tax cuts, and that's all.

If forced, here's what I'd like to do now:
1. Extend the income tax rates permanently. No deficit implications. Government gets the same revenues.
2. Reduce the SS tax rates by 6.2% (equally split between employer and employee contributions) for 2 years - this would be my sop to stimulative effects.
3. Reduce cap gains tax to 0% for 1 year - get businesses to invest, and now!
4. Reduce all non-defense, non-entitlement spending to 2006 levels (not 2008, as the GOP pledged)
5. To facilitate 4, begin the elimination of the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and defund various non-essential discretionary items - Public TV, NEA contributions, cut foreign aid (like to the UN) and other wasteful and stupid spending.
6. Bring back all unspent Stimulus funds - apply back to the Treasury.
7. Get rid of all the various tax breaks in the Stimulus
8. No extension of unemployment benefits, unless done under Pay-go rules (meaning you cut somewhere to pay for it).

Some number crunching:

If we can reduce spending to 2006 levels, we could probably balance the budget given revenues return to their pre-recession levels.
Discretionary spending is slightly more than 1/3 of the total budget. Since 2006, however, it has increased twice as fast as non-discretionary spending (Social security, medicare, medicaid). Non-discretionary spending increases about 10% every two years, but discretionary spending is outpacing it.
Defense spending is about half of that discretionary spending. From 2006 to 2008, it accounted for nearly all the increase in discretionary spending. From 2008 to 2010, however, it only accounted for one quarter of the increase.The big increase in that time frame was in a category labeled other (was this elements of Stimulus?).

Anyway, take it for what it's worth. Not much.

Dec 7, 1941, A Day That Will Live in Infamy

2010-12-07T19:32:00.000-05:00

Today marks 69 years since we were viciously attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, costing over 2400 American lives, and plunging us into WW2.

If you know any WW2 vets, take a moment to thank them, or say a prayer for them. They put to death two horrible regimes in Tojo's Japan and Hitler's Germany.

A year ago, I posted this about important places for Americans to visit. It bears a re-read.

Muslim Brotherhood Front Group Trains Airport Screeners - HUMAN EVENTS

2010-12-06T18:46:00.000-05:00

Remember the initials MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council). MPAC is one of many Muslim Brotherhood front groups operating in the US as "outreach" organizations. Also among them are ISNA, and CAIR.

When you see members from these organizations on TV, supposedly trotted out as "moderates," recall that their organizations were trained and usually founded by people dedicated to the spread of Sharia Law. By force, if necessary, by other means, if possible. The bottom line is - you WILL submit.

See: Muslim Brotherhood Front Group Trains Airport Screeners in Human Events.

You can't make this sh%t up department...(NSFW)

2010-12-05T20:28:00.000-05:00

This weekend, I had the pleasure of seeing the first of my nephews married.

It was a fun experience, and a great getaway for the wife and I. We traveled to Philadelphia, my nephew's most recent stop on his world tour courtesy of the United States Air Force (and home to one of my own sisters) and a place where I spent a few weeks as a youth.

All in all, despite what W.C. Fields said, Philadelphia is a great city to visit, a wonderful Northeastern city with a vibrant urban life, lots of unique and good food, and history to rival few other cities. It may be the most important city in Colonial America.

I recommend Philly as a great place to visit. Maybe you'd prefer it in warmer weather, but, hey, we don't schedule these things.

In the you can't make this crap up department, the wedding was held at a South Philly establishment known as the Magic Gardens. You can read all about the Magic Gardens and how it and the artists who were inspired by it and for it saved South Philly from becoming an expressway here. The Magic Gardens is such a part of Philly lore and South Philly culture, that they were visited by First Lady Michelle Obama and the First Daughters back in August 2009. The liked it so much, they penned this letter:

The letter says:
"Thank you so much for passing along the clay tiles and the terrific photos from our trip to Philadelphia's Magic Gardens. It is such a special place, and it is exciting to hear that our tiles are now on display as part of your beautiful public art. The girls and I had a wonderful time visiting Philadelphia and we won't soon forget your truly unique contribution to your community. Thank you again for everything and I wish you all the best"
s/
Michelle Obama

I'm going to say that, as a wedding location, despite being eclectic, perhaps it could best be described as an appropriate place due to its ability to promote fertility. And by fertility, I mean the chief artist, Isiah Zagar and his followers clearly have an emphasis on the male and female sexual form - sometimes cleverly, and oftentimes not-so-cleverly embedded in the art at Magic Gardens. I also find it interesting that Michelle Obama and the Obamakids found this place so interesting, too. Let me tell you, I won't soon forget my visit to the Magic Gardens either.

Here are some NSFW examples of the art, again, IN PLAIN VIEW, and in not-so-plain view in this place (and, folks, it ain't that big of a place). Beware, penises ahead (oh, there are many more, I just got tired of taking pictures of penises, lest someone think I was a lecher):

2012: Palin v. Hillary!

2010-11-14T10:21:00.000-05:00

A lot of speculation is going on over whether Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012, fueled by some of her recent statements (just Google it if you live in a barn). I think it's the right time for her, but for it to be successful, history gives us some clues as to what needs to happen beforehand.

With the repudiation of Obama's agenda on 11/2, it is clear (to everyone except senior level Democrats) that Americans are sick of the spending binge, and recognize it as a failure. They expected the President to focus on restoring the economy, while instead he chose to ram through a rotten Pork package (Stimulus 1), followed it up with a second attempt (Omnibus), then focused on Health Care for 18 months. During this time he made over 30 speeches, each one making it less popular, ultimately ending in the election of Scott Brown and the passage of Obamacare over the objections of the American people. As I sit here today, I am amazed that this administration, Pelosi, and Reid thought this was good politics, or even good policy. Just amazed. I am further amazed that they continue along the meme that their 11/2 defeat was all a "communication" problem. PLEASE! For 2 years, Obama was on our TV's constantly, usually with the undying love and adoration of the mainstream media, pushing some part of his agenda.

What will Obama, et.al. do?

Nancy Pelosi's choice to remain Minority Leader signals that the Dem's House leadership clearly didn't get the message of Nov 2. For the GOP, her continued leadership is a God-send. A wonderful gift that will keep her front and center in the minds of Americans for the next two years and a great tool for 2012 GOP Congressional candidates ("Will you vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker?"). Oh, and has anyone seen an actual budget for 2011 yet? Dems are still working on it...

At the White House, it seems all disarray. Obama goes overseas, where he continues his incompetence tour. Failing to sign a South Korean Free Trade Treaty, and getting continually scolded for our attempts to devalue the Dollar, as China does the same with the Yuan, risking a global currency war. Like previous efforts at the Chicago Olympics, and the Global Climate Change Conference, this President seems to believe that his mere presence actually can cause the oceans to recede and the planet to cool. Memo to Obama - your presence can not even get a bunch of Euro-weenies to agree to things they are already inclined to, and certainly your "Asian" life experience has NO meaning to our real Asian partners (and actual practitioners of Capitalism).

Back home, uber-campaign strategist David Axelrod (I guess he's looking forward to getting back to the campaign trail, since he likewise is an incompetent advisor on policy) signaled this week that the administration would likely agree on extending the Bush tax cuts (and preventing a huge tax increase) for ALL Americans for some time. Once the Left challenged this, though, the president himself started backing away.

Against this backdrop of incompetency, we have to consider whether Obama has the political survival instincts of Bill Clinton. The answer: No.

He will instead choose hand-to-hand combat against the GOP, clinging to his policies and far left ideology. This will result in gridlock, a defunding of Obamacare, and numerous challenges to him. Some Dems will recognize the potential for complete 2012 electoral disaster, and will start looking for a primary challenger. They will hope to find it in Hillary Clinton. Despite Hillary's statements that she will never run for president again, I can not believe that a desperate Democrat party, looking at even greater losses in the House and Senate in 2012, and faced with a strong case against Obama, will not look for Hillary first to save them. So, condition number one to a Palin presidency is the Obama must face at lease a credible primary challenger in 2012 Hillary clearly would fill that bill, but others could, as well. Already we hear talk of Evan Bayh (who retired rather than lose his Senate seat) and Jim Webb (who will probably lose his in 2012, so why not set the stage for even a 2016 presidential run with a 2012 dry run), and others being in the mix (Howard Dean is mentioned, though I think a credible run will come from Obama's right, not his left).

In the recent past, sitting presidents have only lost re-election when they have faced significant primary challenges. Eugene McCarthy and RFK forced LBJ to not even seek re-election in 1968. Jimmy Carter faced a challenge from another Kennedy, Teddy, in 1996. Bush 1 faced Pat Buchanan in 1992. All lost re-election. This is the surest sign that Obama is doomed.

Defeating an incumbent president is a challenge in any year. Obama will be even tougher, regardless of how bad things get, because the Union money machine will crank away a get out the vote effort, and with Obama on the ticket again, blacks will vote in massive numbers again in 2012 for him. The youth vote, so important in 2008, not so much (my prediction).

For the GOP to maintain the momentum built up in 2009-2010, it is critically important that the energy behind the Tea Parties remains on their side. The surest way to make this happen, is for Sarah Palin to stay engaged in the movement and politically active. It's not really going to be enough for Palin to become kingmaker. She must get in the arena, and, 2012 is the perfect time. Quite honestly, her supporters will demand this, and without her on the ticket in 2012, will those Tea Party patriots be engaged enough to offset the advantages the Dems start with (with Obama)? I don't think so.

Palin's path forward provides the GOP with both opportunity and challenges. The opportunity is really the reestablishment of the fiscal-social conservative block that was Reagan's. Palin fuses both of these better than any current candidate. Hey, I love Jim Demint, but he doesn't energize people like Palin. Huckabee? He's a populist, who would be bad for fiscal conservatives and would turn off tea partiers. Romney - just a little too polished, and that Massachusetts health care is an albatross around his neck. Goverrnors Jindal and Daniels - I just don't see it.

The challenge - well, let's say someone viewed as an establishment candidate wins the GOP nomination in 2012 against Palin and it's perceived that the GOP establishment was complicit in her defeat. Without her on the ticket, I could see a scenario where Tea Partiers and social conservatives say they are done and push a 3rd party/Independent run for Palin. I think some things may help this along in the next two years. Chief among them will be how the GOP handles control of the House, and the de facto agenda setting they will enjoy on Capital Hill the next two years. If Tea Partiers are happy with the GOP's leadership, then they will be less inclined to support that third party run by Palin. But, if the GOP stumbles and makes these voters angry, I expect you'd see massive support for a Palin 3rd party run. My thought is you'd also see certain recently elected GOP senators/representatives jumping on. Would it be too hard to imagine a Palin/Demint ticket?

Should that happen, we may finally see the end of the GOP. I can't say that I would miss it, given the above scenario.

Actual Sub News! USS Cincinnati Sail Headed Home?

2010-11-11T23:46:00.000-05:00

Could the USS Cincinnati's sail be headed home to its namesake city?

Seems the Navy has decided yes, if the funds can be gathered to transport and care for it.

It will join several other sail exhibits and memorials, which have really proliferated with the rapid decommissionings following the end of the Cold War. Since I last listed museum ships in the United States, I really did not spend a lot of time on these kinds of memorials, focusing instead on ships you could actually tour. I am surprised by the sheer numbers of these and the dedication it takes to bring these to fruition. The list below is mainly of Cold War era memorials. I am sure there are many, many more WW2 and just after memorials I am missing, and I apologize, but since I was a Cold Warrior, I have to draw the line somewhere, lest this post never get published! For a list that I think does justice to all those older memorials, the USSVI site has it.

USS Triton (SSRN 586) - to be memorialized at Triton Memorial Park in Benton, WA. Triton was the first submarine to circumnavigate the world, following Magellan's path, and commanded by submarine hero, Edward Beach.
USS Lewis and Clark (SSBN 644) is part of Patriots Point in Charleston, SC, the Cold War Submarine Memorial (and the sister to my beloved Floating Palace).
USS George Washington (SSBN 598) - the first SSBN is located in Groton, CT at the Sub Force Museum.
USS George Bancroft (SSBN 643) is located at the entrance to the submarine base at King's Bay, GA.
USS Nathanael Greene (SSBN 636) is located in Port Canaveral, Florida
USS Woodrow Wilson (SSBN 624) has her sail located at Deterrent Park, in the submarine base at Bangor, WA.
USS Parche (SSN 683) the most decorated naval vessel ever, is memorialized at Bremerton's Harborside Park.
USS Lapon (SSN 661) is memorialized in Springfield, Mo. (Guess they didn't want to wait for USS Springfield - which was really named for different Springfields)
USS Hawkbill (SSN 666) is located at the Idaho Science Center, in Arco, ID, home of the first nuclear power plant.
USS Sturgeon (SSN 637) is found at the Naval Undersea Museum in Keyport, Washington.
USS Sailfish (ex Squalus), SS 192, is located at Portsmouth, ME's Shipyard Mall. Squalus, of course, sank in 1939 and was the subject of the terrific Peter Maas book, The Terrible Hours, which is as much about the great Swede Momsen, as it is also the story of those hours before the Squalus survivors were rescued.
USS Grayling (SSN 646) was the next to last ship built at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and is memorialized at the NEW Shipyard Mall, conveniently located across from the old Shipyard Mall in Portsmouth.
USS James K. Polk (SSBN 645) has her sail displayed at the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History's Heritage Park near Albuquerque, NM.

That's a couple of days of research, if you know of more, let me know and I'll add them.

No voting until you pay for your own damn health insurance!

2010-11-10T22:43:00.000-05:00

Ann Coulter has an interesting column today on why the youth of America must be stopped....

from VOTING!

Ann contends that since youth's brains aren't fully developed until they are in their mid-20's, perhaps we need to rethink our conception of when someone reaches adulthood. According to Dartmouth researcher Craig Bennett, "The brain of an 18-year-old college freshman is still far from resembling the brain of someone in their mid-twenties. When do we reach adulthood? It might be much later than we traditionally think."

Given that the majority of youths aged 18-29 vote for Democrats in massive majorities (35 points for Obama in 2008, 16 points for Dems last week), I'd say that about sums it up. Game, set, match - this demographic is stupid. Too stupid to be trusted with the vote.

As Ann points out, we have already decided that they're too vulnerable to drink until they're 21, and they're too vulnerable to trust with their own health care until their 26, so, why do we allow a group who has only half a brain to vote? Especially when they prove it every election year by voting for people who only put them further and further into debt, paying the bills now for what? So their self-serving, boomer parents can enjoy their retirement in Florida?

So, let's repeal the 26th Amendment (after carving out an exception for those who serve in the Armed Forces) and end this scourge on the informed and intelligent American voter!

Michael Steele: Keep Him at RNC

2010-11-08T21:14:00.000-05:00

The Daily Caller today pushes this story: Duncan being pushed to challenge Steele for RNC chair reporting on Republican insider attempts to unseat Michael Steele when his term as RNC Chair ends next year.

I don't have a vote, but, if I did, Mike Duncan, who presided over the downfall of the GOP from 2007-2009, is NOT the guy I would choose to lead the RNC. Haley Barbour, who had a much more successful tenure as head of the RNC, is a pretty good governor in Mississippi, and can take some credit, as head of the Republican Governor's Association, for the great wins by GOP gubernatorial candidates, would be a fat, white, Southern guy I could get behind.

But, personally, I think Steele should remain. Like him or not, he was part of the team that brought 63 seats to Congress and 6 new senators. So, he's the black guy who's currently brought the most change to Washington, and we owe him the chance to bring some more.

Obama: You're not Reagan

2010-11-07T19:45:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted on the election results yet.

Suffice to say, it was a good night for the GOP. Over 60 House seats were gained, and 6 Senate seats. Liberals like to (wrongly, but more on that later) compare this to 1982, before the Reagan economic recovery got going, when the GOP lost 26 seats in the House, and none in the Senate. They like to make this comparison because we all know how Reagan's presidency worked out, and that he largely did not compromise his principles after that defeat. They're using this comparison because in the next sentence these true liberal believers like to claim that's why Obama should just keep on as he's been doing.

Of course, they miss some critical points:

The GOP just rode a massive wave of anti-Obama and anti-Liberal sentiment to take the 2010 victory. 1982 was not a repudiation of Reagan's policies. It was anger at rotten economic times, and though Reagan had been in office for only 2 years, he and his party got the brunt of that anger. 26 House seats was actually about average for the party in power in an off-year election, and the loss of no senate seats really was an indication that, while the electorate was frustrated at what was then 3 years of "malaise" they really were not angry enough to turn 1982 into an all-out rout, which leads to...
The 1982 losses were quite small compared to 2010's losses. While some want to lament the fact that the GOP did not reclaim the Senate (and blame, variously, Tea Partiers, Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, and others), in what should have been a year with the GOP playing defense, they took 6 seats, and coming to Washington will be future stars Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Rob "Way Better than Voinovich" Portman, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson and some more establishment types. This was a tsunami. That it wasn't worse is only due to the stupidity of voters on the Left Coast, who seem to want to continue to live off the government dole in bankrupt states. So, even in the sheer number comparison, there is no comparison.
State races. The GOP now holds a majority of governorships and took several state houses, winning 600+ seats in state elections, 50% more than in 1994. The down ballot massacre was on a par with what happened at the US House. 8 of 10 swing states now have Republican governors.

But the most important reason is...
Obama and Reagan are not comparable. Obama is a committed Statist who shares their desire to take total control of the US economy, and is doing everything possible (intentionally or not) to prevent an actual sustainable recovery. Reagan was a committed conservative, who understood that tax rates needed to remain low, spending needed to be brought into control (his one major failing was not getting Congress's cooperation on this) and that victory in the Cold War needed to be achieved through a demonstration of our willingness to go toe-to-toe with the Soviets in a battle of industrial might and resolve.

The bottom line is that Reagan's policies were the right policies to restore our country, and Obama's are the result of clueless academic exercises and the pursuit of power at any cost. Reagan was right, Obama is wrong. The American people recognize and understand that at their core.

Some Thoughts on Financial Reform...

2010-11-05T20:44:00.000-04:00

I've gotten into a discussion with a fraternity brother over on Facebook regarding Financial Reform (and politics in general, he's left-of-center, though not annoyingly so).

So, thought I'd bring some of my discussion over here, largely so I could save some links. But, you might find an education on the collapse of 2008 and the subsequent "reforms" of interest.

I think this commenter over at Seeking Alpha makes some very valid points re the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform bill. I also think Dodd's a crook, so count me all in on that one.

The Heritage Foundation has an analysis here. They also wrote an Op-Ed for USA Today.

Cato has some more, here and here,

I hate to say this, but even Brookings (who tends to be center-left) is not enamored of this bill either. But, this particular analyst thinks that something was better than what was in place, although even he concedes Congress punted the hard issues to regulators (let's see how THAT works out) and puts tremendous power in those regulators and the Treasury department's appointed officials.

The bottom line is this financial reform is pretty short on reform, especially of the entities that needed it the most, Fannie, and Freddie. As for me, I'm actually a heck of a lot more comfortable with the people who run these industries (and have actual financial interests in their success) making hard decisions, than regulators.

Cato's "How Did We Get Into This Mess." It's a good read (12 pages).

Final Gallup Polling: Uncharted Territory

2010-10-31T23:35:00.000-04:00

Dear Readers,

The final generic Gallup polling before Tuesday's vote is complete, and it has an unprecedented 55-40 (likely voters) spread in favor of the GOP. The GOP even leads among registered voters, 48-44. This is unprecedented. As Gallup says:

"It should be noted, however, that this year's 15-point gap in favor of the Republican candidates among likely voters is unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations. This means that seat projections have moved into uncharted territory, in which past relationships between the national two-party vote and the number of seats won may not be maintained."

Got that? Uncharted territory.

Back in April, I touted a Sean Trende article that suggested Dems could lose 100 seats and I said I would not be surprised to see an 80 seat swing. At the time, I worried that the momentum of the Tea Partiers and those disgusted with the arrogance of Obama/Pelosi/Reid would last until November. It looks like I was wrong to worry.

If you haven't voted (I have!), get out on Tuesday and drag a few conservative friends with you.

Crazy Tea Party Quotes, deconstructed...

2010-10-31T23:33:00.000-04:00

In a Facebook exchange, some liberal friends, they passed this link along, of the "14 Craziest Things Tea Party Candidates Believe."

The article was penned by the Dartmouth educated Gus Lubin. If this article doesn't pretty much give up Gus's politics, his Ivy League education would be a clue, as would his following list on Twitter. If you're following Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, and your only people on the right are Sarah Palin, you're not looking for balance, you're looking for confirmation of your own left-wing ideology and for something interesting to be posted by Palin.

Given that, this article is not surprising. I don't read Gus's work. I am sure it's fabulous, in it's self-absorbed, Liberal-self-love type of way (that's called foreshadowing), but, this is vapid. That is not going to stop me from taking on each of these 14 statements, and try to prove why they're not batshit crazy, and demonstrate a nutty liberal statement in return for each of them. I'll start with number one on their list, because it involves something all liberals enjoy - Sex with the one they love.

Christine O'Donnell "It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE ABSTINENT ALONE. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can't masturbate without lust."
O'Donnell said this in a 1996 MTV documentary, "Sex in the '90's" where she was pushing her abstinence agenda, and masturbation was a part of that. Central to the issue is Matthew 5:28, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who has looked a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” This was clearly the verse former president Jimmy Carter was referring to in his 1976 Playboy interview where he admitted to committing "adultery in my heart many times."

Thinking people would largely agree that O'Donnell's on pretty solid ground here in her statement in that most self-love (particularly among men) is focused on some object of desire (and not usually a car). And Carter hits the right note that it's really about what's in the heart. For him, if he looked at a woman with lust in his heart, he felt he had committed adultery. If I was rating this, I'd say the statement by O'Donnell is "Mostly True," because I think you could argue that if the object of your desire was your spouse, that's probably not adultery. For info, in her video, Christine frowns on this, as she thinks it would detract from the relationship because it makes the other in the relationship less necessary. Some men might find that attitude very endearing, some might find it annoying. I shall stay agnostic.

One thing O'Donnell doesn't hit in this quote is the issue of masturbation and sin.

An argument can be made both for and against masturbation as a sin. A pretty good, fair take on the religious aspects of masturbation can be found at About.com's Christian Teens section. Regardless of the technicality of whether it's a sin or not, most people would agree that the objectification of women that is most commonly associated with males and masturbation is generally not a good thing, that the use of pornography and addiction that often results (in males) is destructive to relationships, and that for those with the willpower and ability to reject that which that detracts from their central relationships (with their spouse and their God above all) comes great personal satisfaction and rewards - and, I'd just guess (not copping to anything here) - an improved relationship with the significant other. I'm just sayin'.

My bottom line on this is - if you're a Christian struggling with this issue - read your Bible, pray, and like so many things, this boils down to your personal relationship with God. Like so many gray areas, there are places where we clearly cross a line into gray. The O'Donnell's of the world (and many of your pastors) would suggest staying far off that line. But, we're sinners and most of us will enter that area and cross it. If we were perfect, there would be no need for a Savior.

Liberal Stupidity:

I quoted the Carter Playboy interview above, but, I don't find Carter to be wrong, either, just as I don't find anything wrong with O'Donnell's statements. Sure, the secular Left, who practices the religion of Government-love, finds this focus on a pure relationship among (married) loving couples old-fashioned and silly, but, no less a Leftist than Jimmy Carter shared pretty much the same view, so, this really isn't a Left-Right issue, it's a cultural one.

So, I'll use this goody from Nancy Pelosi on unemployment benefits:

"It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

Huh?

Rally for Stupid People (Who think they're hip and funny)

2010-10-31T08:30:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, Jim Colbert and John Stewart, who you may know as two sometimes funny, often smarmy, always Leftist comedians, held the "Rally for sanity and/or fear" in DC.

As you would expect, at lot of mostly white, youngish men attended, and some older types who think they're really funny, but aren't really (to paraphrase, if they were half as funny as they think they are, they'd be twice as funny as they are) also came.

This video pretty much sums up this huge suck-up fest:

Weekend Election 2010 Thoughts

2010-10-29T21:58:00.000-04:00

The Republican Governor's Association has done some pretty good ads this cycle. Here's another one:

Remember November: The Final Act from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Tonight, as I watch the final polls coming in, it is clear where the last minute direction is, and it's all in the GOP's favor. My guess is we're still going to see more than 70 seats in the House and the Senate go to the Republicans.

Why do these words bother liberals so much?????

2010-10-25T13:07:00.000-04:00

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In essence, this was the Founders way of saying, "This government derives its rights from the consent of the governed and what they want it to do."

They meant that we had a Federal government, limited in its scope by what we the people granted it. It is at the core of Federalism that the States, "or to the people" was included in this, the final act in the Bill of Rights.

The AFL-CIO, in their blog entry, "'Tenthers' Would Abolish Wage and Child Labor Laws, Social Security, Medicare, and More" accuse conservatives of just that. Moreover, they equate conservatives who see the 10th amendment as an important check on Federal power to "cultists."

Of course, their definition of "cultist" in this case is:

"Most cults are based in some sort of skewed spiritual vision or the worship of a charismatic leader, but there is a re-emerging cult that bows down at the feet of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

I wonder who the "charismatic leader" is in this case? In the grammatical sense, they are putting the US Constitution in the role of leader here. That being the case, I plead guilty. I am a cultist when it comes to the Constitution. Hey, AFL-CIO, I served over 20 years in the Navy and I took an oath (and oft-repeated it) to defend that Constitution. I don't think you could get much more cultist than I was (and still am). So, if it's "cultist" to love, defend, honor, and protect that document, so be it.

What's that make you, leaders of the AFL-CIO?

WSJ Investigation: Biggest spenders in 2010 election cycle - unions, NOT Karl Rove

2010-10-24T14:25:00.000-04:00

I've been following, with some interest, the Washington State senate race, featuring challenger Republican Dino Rossi, against the second dumbest person in Washington DC, incumbent Patty Murray. I've mainly done this via Twitter, since the initial debate between them (which followed the Reid/Angle debate).

That has led to some discussions about the funding of these candidates. Rossi has raised quite a bit of money to make himself competitive in a very blue state, and having been the victim of a stolen gubernatorial race, you can understand he doesn't want to risk another close election, if possible. A lot of Rossi's recent money has come from the Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads (that scorned upon, by Dems, Karl Rove group). In fact, Rossi has collected $4.5M from these types of groups. If you've been awake this week, you know Campaign Finance law allows these groups to not reveal their donors. This is the crux of the Obamanut argument that "foreign" money is flowing into these groups. It's, of course, a red herring, since these laws have existed since the passage of CFR and the Democrats made these very useful to them over the last three cycles. They continue to do so today, as a matter of fact. In fact, Patty Murray has raised over $600k from one single group, CNN reported "An organization called The Citizens and Strength and Security Action Fund has spent north of $640,000 on Murray' behalf but, as a 501(c)4 organization like Crossroads GPS and American Action Network, is not required to disclose its funding sources." She's not exactly lilly pure.

From the administration's ridiculous attacks on right-leaning groups who take advantage of this part of law, the Wall Street Journal this week decided to actually do some reporting on who is donating, and how much.

That led to this article, which brings some interesting reality-based facts to the discussion. Turns out the biggest spenders are Unions, leading the way is the service employees union. The Chamber and American Crossroads, thankfully, are 2 and 3, followed by 2 more unions (see below). Bottom line, unions are outspending these groups by 30%.

I don't have a HUGE problem with unions spending money on political campaigns. I do, however, reject the notion that unions spending money on these campaigns represents the political opinions of their rank and file. Typically, these groups are funded from union dues, which, in non-right-to-work states, are extorted from workers who work at companies covered under a collective bargaining agreement, with no opt-out provision. I should point out that Republicans have tried repeatedly over the years, as part of CFR efforts, to insert provisions that would allow workers to opt out of having portions of their dues go towards political campaigns, or that would require unions to create PACS just as management employees have to, and make contributions to these voluntary.

Obviously, union leaders do not want this to happen, and for good reason. Once their members realized 1) the amount of money being extorted from them for political purposes, they'd want it back, and 2) they would disagree with a lot of the spending done by their leadership, and seek to change it. Either way, the net effect would be more responsiveness of union leaders to their rank and file, and less overall money available to union leaders to spend.

We couldn't have either of those now, could we?

Campaign finance laws are often byzantine and hard to understand. They are, by and large, incumbent protection plans, regardless of which side you reside. One thing almost all of us regular citizens agree on is that more transparency would go a long way to alleviating the problem.

On the Right, we want unions to play by the same rules as everyone else, and we would generally like to see monetary limits removed. On the Left, they just seem ok with the right having to be transparent.

Year of the Woman? It already is.

2010-10-23T16:50:00.000-04:00

Listening and reading the expected last ditch campaign tactics of the Left, that Republicans, and especially Tea Partiers are racist hatemongers got me thinking.

My thoughts wandered over to something else I heard recently a Leftist lament (this NPR report confirms the Leftist bent) - that this year there was such a dearth of female and minority candidates, that all the gains these groups had made, particularly women, in the "Year of the Woman" of 1992 were going to be erased.

2010 may prove to be a banner year for conservative women. Already, Sarah Palin-backed candidates have won primaries in Alaska (Miller), Delaware (O'Donnell), Arizona (McCain), California (Fiorina), SC (Haley), Kentucky (Paul). The Washington Post has a Palin Endorsement tracker, you can see how Palin's endorsements have gone. Pretty good so far. It's an easy case to make that the most powerful figure in the GOP today is Sarah Palin. A woman.

Even in the Democrat party, the second most powerful person is clearly still Hillary Clinton. If Hillary really wanted to be the MOST powerful Democrat, she would resign from the Obama administration, and focus on building her support for the 2012 primary season and positioning herself as the savior of the party. Rush Limbaugh has begun Operation Reverse Chaos to bring Hillary back to her rightful place at the top of the Democrat Party.

The bottom line is arguably, the two most powerful politicians in this country are women.

WaPo finally reports on Bam admin's refusal to pursue New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation

2010-10-23T07:51:00.000-04:00

You may remember this from the 2008 elections. A couple of New Black Panther Party members intimidate voters at a Philadelphia polling place.

The Bush administration's Justice Department initiated a case against these guys, which proceeded during the early part of the Obama administration, until it was dropped, mysteriously. Much prior reporting was done by Fox and Breitbart, but now the Washington Post has done some reporting on this, and the result - much of what the Obama DoJ told us about this case, and how it came to be dropped, was untrue. As the WaPo article points out, the administration tried to make the decision to drop the case appear as though it was done at a low level, by career legal staffers, while the Post has found that at least the number 2 at Justice was involved in email exchanges about this case, and while they don't explicitly lay the dismissal at Attorney General Eric Holder's feet, he was clearly in the know.

What is clear from the Post's reporting is that the Obama DoJ and Civil Rights Division is not interested in protecting the voting rights of white voters.

"There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section's job to protect white voters," a DOJ lawyer said. "The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized."

I followed this story loosely as it unfolded, and just noticed this interesting tidbit about the men, one of whom, Jerry Jackson, who was a Democrat Party poll watcher:

"Jackson, 54, and Heath, 39 (better known as King Samir Shabazz not his old “slave name” of Maruse Heath), have criminal histories that between them include convictions for drug possession, robbery and simple assault, according to court records. Their local New Black Panther Party is part of a small, radical black nationalist organization with members in a handful of cities. It is not connected to the Black Panther Party of the 1960s."

I want to know how someone with a criminal record that includes assault and robbery can get certified as a poll watcher????

I Worked So Hard to Get That Title...

2010-10-22T15:59:00.002-04:00

A fun look at Barbara Boxer's hard work...

Call Me Senator from RightChange on Vimeo.

Wishing we had more "hobbyist" politicians, less career politicians

2010-10-16T22:35:00.000-04:00

Listening to the podcast of the Tony Kornheiser shows this week, and I am forced to listen to MSNBC/NBC "reporter" Chuck Todd and Tony discuss the Rich Iott Nazi uniform to-do (previous post on this), the Carl Palladino dust-up, then some odd chatter about how Todd is upset that billionaires like Palladino take up politics after they've made money as some kind of "hobby."

I listen to Tony Kornheiser because he's generally funny, it gives me a fix of Redskins sports talk and insight into a group of people (Tony and his cohorts) who are so out of touch with current culture and politics that hilarity ensues (e.g. Tony doesn't know who Hilary Duff is, and his sycophants think she's in her 30's. For the record, she's 23).

Returning to the Todd discussion, let's put aside that Todd's a thinly veiled shill for the Democrat party (and a likely replacement for Baghdad Robert Gibbs) who fits right in at the rabidly Leftist MSNBC, and analyze the stupidity of their conversation just on the Iott issue then on their thoughts on "career" politicians.

Regarding Iott, clearly TK had no idea the details of this. Tony prides himself on doing little research, so I don't blame him for accepting at face value that Iott was some kind of secret Nazi. But, Todd is supposed to be a reporter (I know). He could have pointed out, when Tony asked, that Iott had, indeed, portrayed Americans in reenactments and wasn't exclusively a Nazi reenactor. Since that was buried in The Atlantic's hit piece about 23 paragraphs in, either Todd didn't have the attention span to get that far, or he just felt compelled to ignore it. Either way, he's a putz.

Moron Todd and Tony lament the political climate where rich guys seem to think now that they've made their money, they need a new hobby and politics should be it (this is the argument Todd, mostly, tries to use to explain how Palladino got into the NY governor's race). Of course, Todd goes off on Sarah Palin as an example of someone using her political notoriety to cash in. While there may be some truth in that, they then decided to hold up as examples of billionaires who actually believe in public service, drumroll, please...Michael Bloomberg and John Corzine. Bloomberg's an idiot who wants New York City to have a victory mosque 600 feet from Times Square and Corzine was a completely unaccomplished New Jersey Senator and so ruined NJ's economy as Governor that Chris Christie (a Republican) defeated him and is now being lauded for having the fortitude to clean up Corzine's mess. Please, this is comical.

Todd further goes on to wish that there were more people who made politics their career, completely exposing why the left-wing media does not get the Tea Party movement (hey, Chuckles, the people want FEWER career politicians, you idiot!).

Let me list some families who have nothing but politics on their resume. Most of these people are corrupt or incompetent, and I would like to seem them all retired:

The Kennedy's (corrupt, incompetent, drunk, and morally bankrupt)
The Dingell's (corrupt)
The Clinton's (corrupt)
The Reid's (incompetent AND corrupt)
The Biden's (incompetent)
The Rockefeller's (a waste of air)
The Murkowski's (corrupt)
The Bush's (ok, the ONE I would like to see seek national office, Jeb, has had his career ruined by his brother - but, most of the Bush's made some money elsewhere before entering politics, so they arent' really just politicians)
The Carnahan's (incompetent)

I am sure there are more families where politics is the family business. I am also sure they think it's their birthright, their entitlement, and they act like it. They need to all be put out of business.

AARP Approved Beg Letter, modified to reflect reality

2010-10-15T14:52:00.000-04:00

The AARP gave me a neat little template to send to my Senator requesting he send seniors a check for $250, since they're not getting a COLA this year (full disclosure: My parents are seniors).

I modified it as below and sent it to my Senator. What do you think?

I am writing to urge you to provide relief to the millions of Social Security recipients who will not receive their cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 2011 by repealing the recently passed Health Care Reform Act.

For over three decades, millions of older Americans have counted on annual Social Security benefit increases to help them afford their basic needs. Unfortunately, the benefits they've earned will again be frozen next year, which will leave millions struggling to make ends meet.

Over the past two years, older Americans have paid more for utilities and food, have experienced a decline in home values, have tried to recover from deep retirement account losses, have experienced rising health and prescription drug costs, and faced longer periods of unemployment.

The AARP specifically focused on increasing prescription drug costs as a rationale for this needed increase. Clearly, the passage of HCR has not done a thing to help seniors. Indeed, it has increased their costs, as well as effectively eliminating the Medicare Advantage program, from which so many seniors benefit.

I'm counting on you to provide seniors with the immediate relief they need by repealing this onerous and costly bill.

Thank you in advance for your support on this important issue

Nazi! All Republicans might as well wear the uniform...(or should they?)

2010-10-10T18:37:00.000-04:00

Apparently, Republican Congressional candidate Rich Iott, in the Ohio 9 race, is a Nazi sympathizer.

And, that's not just standard-fare Leftist characterizations of Republicans in a last-minute effort to win. No, this comes from "respected" Atlantic senior Editor Joshua Green (ok, that was sarcasm - the Atlantic is a Liberal, bought-and-paid-for-by-democrats rag).

It seems that the Atlantic has actual photos of Iott in German SS uniforms. This is their smoking gun. Iott in German SS (Wiking Division) garb. Therefore, he's a Nazi!

If I'm writing this, you know there's a truth in here somewhere.

The truth is that Iott is a WW2 re-enactor, and he sometimes plays the role of a member of the Waffen SS, Wiking Division. He has also portrayed US infantrymen and other good-guy roles. Hey, someone has to play the bad guys in these historical re-enactments, otherwise, I imagine they get kind of, well, boring?

I know these kind of guys, and Iott is also a Colonel in the Guard, and some guys have a thing for accuracy in re-enactments, and there are more than a few guys who have some deep respect for the German army. This group has a point, these units were well-trained and skilled warfighters who taught much to the us, Brits and Russians, even after WW2.

The bottom line is this is a hit piece. I started by saying it's not standard-fare name-calling, but, that's really all it is, with just a little more of prurient interest to move it along.

Nancy Kaptur (the D incumbent) is not interested in defending her record, can't defend her record, and Iott was closing the gap against her. The Atlantic has decided, as I suppose it should, as a mouthpiece of the Left, to try to gin this up.

Here's hoping it backfires on these a-holes. For more context, here's a good post from NRO's Battle 10. Ann Althouse also has some great commentary.

Twitter Followers

2010-10-08T23:30:00.000-04:00

Apparently, many of you are NOT using Twitter. That's too bad, because I think it's one of the best social networking apps created (superior to Facebook, yes).

I don't pay a lot of attention to the emails I receive telling me who follows me, but tonight, I thought I'd take a look at my followers. Many people will follow you after you follow them, so, I decided to check out who is following me without me having followed them first, just for fun.

Not too much interesting, except why is the Mayor of Newark following me? And The Hill magazine? The Deputy Commissioner of the Georgia Dept of Agriculture?

Of course, I followed a few famous people, and they followed me back (you can set Twitter up to automatically follow those who follow you). John Boehner, Kelsey Grammar, Fred Barnes, The Heritage Foundation, Karl Rove, The Weekly Standard, Mary Katherine Ham.

Just some random thoughts...

Desperate Dems Despair

2010-10-08T00:28:00.000-04:00

As the final month of the 2010 election season rolls on, we knew Dems, poised to lose 60-80 House seats and the Senate, would get desperate and start with the usual attacks:

- Republicans want to starve Granny by taking away her social security
- Republicans want to kill Granny by cutting her Medicare
- Republicans want to kill young pregnant womyn by making abortion no longer safe or legal
- Republicans want to give their fat cat rich friends and big businesses tax breaks at the expense of the working man...

We knew all those old, tired memes would come out, but, we didn't know that the Bam admin itself was going to get violent, to wit:

- Joe Biden will strangle any Republican who talks to him about balancing the budget
- Obama is going to engage in hand-to-hand combat with the Republican Congress

Maybe Christine O'Donnell can turn them all into actual donkeys...

I Have Done a Terrific Job...

2010-10-06T22:47:00.000-04:00

New Republican Governor's Association Video. Pretty nicely done:

Sestak forgotten...

2010-10-06T22:17:00.000-04:00

In the wake of the disastrous socialist One Nation Rally this past week (attended by a few thousand paid union organizers), Joe Sestak held a rally in Philly, and...no one showed up. Check out some of these shots - Sestak supporters are outnumbered by Toomey supporters.

Sestak is, of course, a not too impressive Navy veteran, but Toomey is an authentic conservative, and better represents the Alabama portion of Pennsylvania. So, it's been a great two years for Pennsylvanians - Arlen Specter showed his true colors, was bounced in a Democrat primary, and the Republican nominee is poised to return some sanity to PA.

It's crazy, but Pennsylvania is about to have 2 pro-life Senators. What's up with that?

They must hate womyn up there.

Virginia's Still Shedding Skin

2010-10-03T11:06:00.000-04:00

Navy Times has this AP story on the loss of anechoic tiles on Virginia's: Navy scrambles after subs shed stealthy coating

As Norman Polmar says, "“We’ve been using anechoic coatings for almost 50 years and in that time, you’d hope that we could get it right"

In response to the Virginia's shedding ~5% of their tiles.

Norway to Israel: No testing here

2010-10-01T07:23:00.000-04:00

The Norwegians have decided that the Isareli's new, German-built submarine, can not be tested in Norwegian waters.

Have the Norwegians always been anti-semites, or is this some larger ban on testing warships from the home of the Nobel Peace Prize?

Alan Grayson - Eat this!

2010-09-30T23:13:00.000-04:00

If you follow politics (if you're reading this, you do), you know Florida Congressman Alan Grayson is as despicable as they come. He's kind of the white Cynthia McKinney.

Anyway, he ran a hit job on his opponent, Daniel Webster (give here), where he edited a speech Webster had given and called Webster an American Taliban (ok, he called him Taliban Dan).

Anyway, watch this video, where our friend Alan, gets a little of the same treatment. I wish it was on more than You Tube:

People do the craziest things...

2010-09-27T21:22:00.000-04:00

One of my siblings owns a handful of vacation rentals in the NC mountains. She recently sent me a request she received from a potential customer. Somehow, I don't think this brain surgeon is going to be renting one of her places, but you have to give her points for chutzpah:

"We really do not need three bedrooms as my husband and I are bringing my parents for a vacation. The third bedroom and bathroom can be locked. What would your rate be?"

College Football 2010

2010-09-19T15:12:00.001-04:00

(Update: Corrected SEC west to East for Tech/Clemson below.)

I realize it's three weeks into the 2010 college football season, so I am joining this party late, but, given that so many of my loyal readers attended or have strong ties to the University of Cheating (oops, I mean North Carolina), I wanted to get this week behind me before I decided to say anything about the CFB season.

With Georgia Tech's 30-24 dispatching of UNC yesterday (in Chapel Hill, with 12 cheaters still ineligible for UNC), Tech finally played a decent game, running up about 450 yards in offense and holding UNC to 1 TD in the second half. This makes Tech 2-1 with the embarrassing loss to Kansas (who has lost to North Dakota state and Southern Miss) standing out.

Carolina, of course, hamstrung by their NCAA restrictions, is 0-2. They still might be, at full strength, the best team in the Coastal Division. We'll see.

Out of conference, the ACC continues to embarrass. Clemson played a great first half against Auburn, then sucked in the second half when Kyle Parker got hurt and their Freshman kicker missed a FG in overtime to give Auburn the come-from-behind victory.

Wake Forest got their butts handed to them by Stanford, and Maryland looked like an FCS opponent against West Virginia, and Duke against Alabama...well, it's Duke. Only NC State shellacking a reeling Cincinnati team, FSU's rout of a rotten BYU, and Virginia Tech taking out its revenge against EZU redeemed the ACC this weekend.

Against significant competition, the ACC is 5-10 this season (5-11 if you count VT vs. James Madison). Not good for a conference who wants to remain in the BCS.

My solution to this is for the ACC to abandon football and turn its teams loose.

I propose that Clemson, Georgia Tech and FSU join the SEC, along with one of Texas, TCU or Oklahoma. Tech and Clemson join the SEC East and send FSU and one of those other teams to the SEC West, which really needs some competition.

Maybe the ACC needs to give it up altogether, or combine with the Big East and become a mid-major football conference and a killer basketball conference. Everyone knows that the Big Ten wants Maryland and Maryland wants to be in the Big Ten. Would the Big 10 also take BC? That would leave the Tobacco road schools - VT, Virginia, the Big Four and Miami. Would that make a massively unwieldy Big East? Probably.

Just something has to be done about the pathetic state of ACC football..

Krauthammer busts on Angle/O'Donnell. Get with the program, Chuck!

2010-09-15T19:26:00.001-04:00

From our good friend Gateway Pundit, comes this video of Charles Krauthammer attacking Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle.

Now, I happen to agree that Krauthammer is one of our great conservative minds, but, methinks he has demonstrated a tiny bit of elitism in some of his criticisms of first, the tea partiers themselves, and now of candidates, endorsed by tea party groups, who represent mainstream American values and conservative principles. Finally, in the clip, I would suggest he needs to not write off Angle/O'Donnell, but instead reiterate the anger that Americans feel that makes these compelling candidates.

Mr. Krauthammer - I respect you immensely, but, please, you need to realize the GOP's fate rest on these people taking control of a party that was moribund just 18 months ago.

Finally, I agree with Jim, "Would someone please tell these Beltway GOP elites to shut their yaps!

Delaware and the Left's Jihad against Conservative Women

2010-09-13T22:35:00.000-04:00

Rush Limbaugh weighs in on the Republican establishment against Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Sarah Palin in Republicans Are Blowing Their Best Chance to Beat Liberalism.

The gist of Rush's discussion today is that the GOP establishment wants establishment candidates, even where they are RINO's, because it's a status thing. I happen to think it's also because, in the case of O'Donnell and Angle, it's because more establishment-type candidates would have required less resources to win, but, that's the practical side of the thing. Rush references this post by the Chicago Boyz which tries to explain the Left's paranoia over Sarah Palin. I recommend their blog and Rush's analysis as well.

Regarding conservative vs. establishment (i.e. RINO) candidates, Rush says, "a Senate full of Mike Castles is not gonna get us anywhere. It's gonna get a bunch of Republicans their chairmanships on the committee but it's not going to do anything to reverse Obamaism."

Furthermore, Rush references one of my favorite blogs, Legal Insurrection, regarding conservative women and the Left's attacks on them specifically, Bill Jacobson says "The 'nuts and sluts' defense is a common employment law tactic whenever a female employee brings a claim. It doesn't matter what the claim is, the defense -- after the usual legal mumbo jumbo -- will be something like this: 'She's nuts. And by the way, pssst, she may be a slut.' That is the mode of attack Democrats use against conservative women.

As for me, my thought is that this year is going to be special and a wave election (I've said it before). Personally, I'd rather see a marginal candidate, but a real conservative (O'Donnell), get a shot, than a known RINO (Castle). It's a tough call, and I can see how The Weekly Standard, the National Review, and the GOP establishment want to be pragmatic and take the RINO bird-in-hand and concentrate resources elsewhere.

But, if not this year, then when? Some of the best replies and food for thought are on the Legal Insurrection post. I recommend you read those in addition to Jacobson's excellent post.

Obama Admin Successes - Successful at ruining the economy

2010-09-12T21:48:00.000-04:00

Hugh Hewitt provides analysis of the O Presidency in today's Washington Examiner. To wit:

In November 2008, unemployment was 6.7 percent. In January 2009 it was 7.6 percent. That January, Christine Romer, along with Vice President Biden's top economist, Jared Bernstein, argued in a report that the economic stimulus package would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Without the stimulus, Team Obama predicted employment would rise to about 9 percent in 2010. The "stimulus" passed, of course, unemployment is 9.6 percent.
The country's debt at the end of 2008 was $5.8 trillion. It will be $9.8 trillion at the end of this year. The last annual deficit before the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007 was $160 billion. As a percentage of the nation's GDP, the deficit in 2010 will be 10.64 percent. In 2008 it was 3.18 percent. [That's a 300% increase!]
The November 2008 average price of a home in top 20 metropolitan markets in the United States, using the Case-Shiller index, was $154,500. The June 2010 average price for the same index -- the most recent data available and published in late August -- is $148,000. That number is widely believed to have been buoyed by the now-disappeared new home tax credit, and it is believed to again be falling. [So, despite the Dem's repeated attempts to do something, the expanded homeownership policies of the Left which forced banks to make bad loans, and allowed Fannie and Freddie to guarantee them, are still having an impact on the markets. Worse still, Fannie and Freddie are practicing pretty much the same policies they practiced before the meltdown].
The index of consumer confidence stands at 53.5 today. That number was 39 during the panic of October 2008. It dropped to 37 in January 2009. It hit 55.9 in January of this year -- before Obamacare passed and while hopes for the stimulus and the president's placebo economics persisted.
On Thursday last week the Wall Street Journal reported that the federal centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had recalculated their projections on health care costs in light of Obamacare. Prior to Obamacare's passage, the annual increase in total health spending in the country over the next decade was supposed to be 6.1 percent. After Obamacare, the centers now calculate that annual growth in spending at 6.3 percent. [bending the cost curve down?]
On Wednesday, the Journal reported on a survey of major health insurance companies and found premium increases of between 1 percent and 9 percent for self-insured Americans and employees in small businesses in the next few months because of the mandate for new benefits under the law. [Did even Obama believe that adding requirements was going to decrease costs?]

Religion of Peace Strikes Again

2010-09-12T20:56:00.000-04:00

What's more dangerous than being a Muslim in America where hate crimes and shrill voices make Muslims and the Left uncomfortable?

Try being a Coptic Christian in Egypt, where Muslims burn Christians to death, then murder their parents if they offend Muslims.

Jihad Watch has the details on a Coptic Christian who was burned to death after being accused of having a relationship with a Muslim woman, then his father was stabbed to death.

No details on the woman, but, the typical punishment for her would be death by stoning.

Religion of Peace, baby.

Charlie Cook and I agree. Dems to lose big in November.

2010-09-07T22:01:00.000-04:00

Back on April 14th, I posted this.

Nice to see Charlie Cook coming around...

Senate, too?

Burning Koran's - Just say no.

2010-09-07T21:55:00.000-04:00

A Florida church wants to protest the spread of radical Islam by burning the Koran on September 11th.

This is a bad idea and I'll tell you why.

1. Burning books is the act of despots and tyrants. Anyone who reads this blog knows how I feel about Islamists and the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood. But, unless we're in this for the total elimination of Islam, the burning of their Holy Book is simply a disgraceful and disrespectful act to those who practice Islam who might actually be worthy of cultivating in a reformation of the religion. On this, I agree with Hillary Clinton (gratuitous photo of "Never miss a meal" Hillary below):

2. Burning books is UnAmerican.

3. If the Florida church wanted to truly highlight some of the more egregious aspects of Islam, they would instead of burning the Koran, choose some of the more, er, interesting parts of it to read. Well, check out a few of these. Of particular interest to Jihadists are:

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)
"Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)
"'How shall I bear a child,' she [Mary] answered, 'when I am a virgin...?' 'Such is the will of the Lord,' he replied. 'That is no difficult thing for Him...God forbid that He [God] Himself should beget a son!...Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood..." (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

So, don't burn those Koran's. I think these people planning this should on September 11th instead say, "we were going to burn these, but we decided to read these passages instead." Maybe with the press coverage they would get, some of this stuff would finally get reported outside the one's seeking it out.

Anger and Temper Tantrums - the left is having a hissy fit

2010-09-03T07:44:00.001-04:00

I am making this a blog post on this subject, under the rubric of "Anger" based on a caller to Hannity's radio show yesterday.

The Left uses terms like "angry" and "temper tantrum" to describe the right's (and the electorate's) mood, because they have no explanation for it in their world. In the Left's worldview, thier omniscience is perfect, and their policies absolutely correct, and if the hoi polloi were only intelligent enough, or less "angry" over something (in this particular case, that's usually the ascension of a black man to the presidential throne), they would just see all the great, well-meaning, and academically correct policies, procedures, and strategies that the Left is enacting.

You see, it's not the fundamental failure of their policies that has the electorate and the right frustrated, confused, and yes, righteously angry - in their minds, it can't be, because they are incapable of failure - it is our own anger and stupidity.

In that vein, it's not their fault that Obama sucks, it's ours.

Dear Jay,

I was reading Charles Krauthammer's column in the Post this morning when my eyes happened to shift to the column next to his, Eugene Robinson's. I cannot believe it but his entire column is about the voters having a temper tantrum this fall. Clearly Peter Jennings' statement that the 1994 election results were a voter temper tantrum made no impression on Eugene Robinson and other inside the beltway liberals. I'm pretty sure Rush et al will be talking about it today.

Well, it will be another decade before I bother looking at a Eugene Robinson column again.