SUBFOR on Facebook, Blogger

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.

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

1. 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."  
2. 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.
3. 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

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

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....

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:

1. 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
2. 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

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

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

1. 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.
2. 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. 
3. 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.
4. 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

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?

1. 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.
2. 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.  
3. 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?

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!

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

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

Marco Rubio



Has added benefit of schooling John F'ing Kerry