In a classic case of the Supreme Court legislating (or, assisting legislators), they Court didn't rule Obamacare unconstitutional as much as they found a basis for it to be Constitutional.
In an interpretation no one expected, nor did they ask for, the Roberts court decided the law would stand if we considered the individual mandate a tax.
Now, I suppose if the law had been conceived and sold as containing a massive tax to fund it, it would have failed miserably in even the Pelosi Congress. So, the Dems have their law, but they have been exposed by it as big taxers, which is what they are.
Addressing the Constitutional question with respect to the mandate under the Commerce clause, the Court said no.
So, in what the O admin actually argued, they lost. Saved by 4 liberals and a somehow misguided Chief Justice.
They also lost on a key funding question re:Medicaid.
Regardless of what you think, Obamacare must head back to Congress and get seriously re-written.
Both these rulings cause major problems for the funding mechanisms behind the law and must be addressed.
Follow your face SCOTUS blogs as this unfolds.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Liberals - Smarter than you are, deal with it.
Some Liberals like to confront conservatives and ask them if they would be willing to part with particular favorite programs (always those chosen by the Liberal) as part of cutting government spending.
When the Conservative declines to agree to this (seeming) compromise, that is used as the Liberal's "gotcha" moment, that conservatives are not really interested in reducing deficits, they just want to spend the taxpayers' money on their priorities (usually these are centered on defense).
These arguments are false choices. Not even the most libertarian among us (note to Liberals, the libertarians run among "us," not you) are planning, or desire, anarchy. What we want, instead, is a federal government that is limited. Limited to those enumerated powers as spelled out in the Constitution. Would this require some significant drawback from 100+ years of judicial overreach and state usurpation of power? Probably, and would that really be a bad thing? Has the massive government expansion of the 20th Century really produced results that better the country? Could the same results have been achieved without a massive federal nanny state?
I expect the answer is yes.
When I am posed with this question, my first inclination is to ask whether the program being posited for elimination falls within the enumerated powers of the federal government. Since Libs like to target defense programs, this is usually a yes. They don't ask about the Department of Education or the Department of Energy, where we could make a Constitutional argument that it shouldn't be the federal government's responsibility in the first place, no, it's always DoD. That's because they don't want to get into this enumerated powers argument. It's a loser for them. The idea here is to suck you into the tit for tat, and ignore the pesky Constitutional questions of much of the modern Liberal Nanny State. So, your first approach has to be, let's agree that the program even has a Constitutional leg to stand on.
After that, we can defend or oppose the program on its merits. That's also conservative turf, because the Liberal never defends his programs on their merits. Conservatives, because we care about the taxpayers money, should ensure that all government spending serves some legitimate, Constitutionally-defendable need, and that it is done in the most efficient manner possible.
I think a good approach here is to remind the Liberal that defense of the nation was among the first ideas for the federal government in the framer's mind, so, we can have a merit-based argument over the efficacy of particular defense programs, but, when we are talking about cutting spending, 1)defense is Constitutionally required, and 2)it's small potatoes anyway in the budget discussion. If the liberal really wants to discuss the budget, if he's unwilling to tackle social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, he's unserious about the argument anyway, and this is a game he's playing. It's not one you should play, because like most Liberals, they only care about scoring cheap debating points, and proving their intellectual muscle, they don't care about the actual problems facing us.
But, you can turn this into a fun game and expose the liberal. So, instead of asking, "Mr. Liberal, what programs are you willing to cut/give up?" recognize that's not the turf we want to fight on.
I want Liberals to justify the constitutional basis for their programs first, just as we have. Where we disagree with them we need to be vocal and stick to the "not a federal government responsibility" argument. The states need to provide many of the services that they have ceded (either out of laziness, or via the Courts) to the federal government, where tough decisions are easier to make, and where legislators can be more easily held accountable to their decisions.
Don't cede this ground. Much of the nanny state is built on shaky extra-Constitutional underpinnings., and they know it. The central conceit in the Liberal/Progressive psyche is their own personal moral and intellectual superiority. Let's face it, they went to better schools, they are more focused on education, they just plain know better. And their system of governing must, therefore, embody the fact that they are just plain smarter than you.
They're smarter than you.
That's all it boils down to.
Despite how many times it has been tried throughout history, it all boils down to that. That's why intellectual Liberals like Tom Friedman find the Chinese version of Communism so wonderful. Why, golly, they have so much power invested in a group of men who are just so damn smart.
So much smarter than you.
That's why these Progressives sit on the sidelines with their jaws wired shut as Barack Obama picks out who to kill next in his own personal War of Kinetic Exercises From Above (or whatever), but squealed like greased pigs on the way to the slaughterhouse when Bush did something similar. Bush was an idiot, Barack Obama? Why he's one of us, the intelligentsia. If he's picking who gets the drone axe, by golly, it must be right. He's smarter than you (and way smarter than Bush). Plus, he got Osama (take that, Bush!).
That's why they defend to the death the outright traitorous activity by members of the Obama administration in leaking classified information to the Washington Post and NY Times about computer viruses, and the drone killings, and don't want to see a special prosecutor appointed to investigate these leakers. That's why Obama can say with a straight face that he's offended, not at the leaks, but at the suggestion that the leaks came from "my White House." Leaks, ok. Suggesting we're doing them, not so much. He knows his Leftists friends will continue to defend, and use them in the manner intended, the glorification of Obama. Yes, these people find this behavior acceptable, but Scooter Libby went to jail for a leak by Richard Armitage.
To understand this reasoning, they must be smarter than you.
My point is, when you engage these people in an argument, recognize that they aren't really interested in a government, "of the people, by the people, for the people."
They're interested in a government run by themselves. Because, in their mind, the people, acting collectively, in their personal self interests, and being a compassionate people, are incapable of choosing the right path either on their own, or as a collective.
They're smarter than you.
When the Conservative declines to agree to this (seeming) compromise, that is used as the Liberal's "gotcha" moment, that conservatives are not really interested in reducing deficits, they just want to spend the taxpayers' money on their priorities (usually these are centered on defense).
These arguments are false choices. Not even the most libertarian among us (note to Liberals, the libertarians run among "us," not you) are planning, or desire, anarchy. What we want, instead, is a federal government that is limited. Limited to those enumerated powers as spelled out in the Constitution. Would this require some significant drawback from 100+ years of judicial overreach and state usurpation of power? Probably, and would that really be a bad thing? Has the massive government expansion of the 20th Century really produced results that better the country? Could the same results have been achieved without a massive federal nanny state?
I expect the answer is yes.
When I am posed with this question, my first inclination is to ask whether the program being posited for elimination falls within the enumerated powers of the federal government. Since Libs like to target defense programs, this is usually a yes. They don't ask about the Department of Education or the Department of Energy, where we could make a Constitutional argument that it shouldn't be the federal government's responsibility in the first place, no, it's always DoD. That's because they don't want to get into this enumerated powers argument. It's a loser for them. The idea here is to suck you into the tit for tat, and ignore the pesky Constitutional questions of much of the modern Liberal Nanny State. So, your first approach has to be, let's agree that the program even has a Constitutional leg to stand on.
After that, we can defend or oppose the program on its merits. That's also conservative turf, because the Liberal never defends his programs on their merits. Conservatives, because we care about the taxpayers money, should ensure that all government spending serves some legitimate, Constitutionally-defendable need, and that it is done in the most efficient manner possible.
I think a good approach here is to remind the Liberal that defense of the nation was among the first ideas for the federal government in the framer's mind, so, we can have a merit-based argument over the efficacy of particular defense programs, but, when we are talking about cutting spending, 1)defense is Constitutionally required, and 2)it's small potatoes anyway in the budget discussion. If the liberal really wants to discuss the budget, if he's unwilling to tackle social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, he's unserious about the argument anyway, and this is a game he's playing. It's not one you should play, because like most Liberals, they only care about scoring cheap debating points, and proving their intellectual muscle, they don't care about the actual problems facing us.
But, you can turn this into a fun game and expose the liberal. So, instead of asking, "Mr. Liberal, what programs are you willing to cut/give up?" recognize that's not the turf we want to fight on.
I want Liberals to justify the constitutional basis for their programs first, just as we have. Where we disagree with them we need to be vocal and stick to the "not a federal government responsibility" argument. The states need to provide many of the services that they have ceded (either out of laziness, or via the Courts) to the federal government, where tough decisions are easier to make, and where legislators can be more easily held accountable to their decisions.
Don't cede this ground. Much of the nanny state is built on shaky extra-Constitutional underpinnings., and they know it. The central conceit in the Liberal/Progressive psyche is their own personal moral and intellectual superiority. Let's face it, they went to better schools, they are more focused on education, they just plain know better. And their system of governing must, therefore, embody the fact that they are just plain smarter than you.
They're smarter than you.
That's all it boils down to.
Despite how many times it has been tried throughout history, it all boils down to that. That's why intellectual Liberals like Tom Friedman find the Chinese version of Communism so wonderful. Why, golly, they have so much power invested in a group of men who are just so damn smart.
So much smarter than you.
That's why these Progressives sit on the sidelines with their jaws wired shut as Barack Obama picks out who to kill next in his own personal War of Kinetic Exercises From Above (or whatever), but squealed like greased pigs on the way to the slaughterhouse when Bush did something similar. Bush was an idiot, Barack Obama? Why he's one of us, the intelligentsia. If he's picking who gets the drone axe, by golly, it must be right. He's smarter than you (and way smarter than Bush). Plus, he got Osama (take that, Bush!).
That's why they defend to the death the outright traitorous activity by members of the Obama administration in leaking classified information to the Washington Post and NY Times about computer viruses, and the drone killings, and don't want to see a special prosecutor appointed to investigate these leakers. That's why Obama can say with a straight face that he's offended, not at the leaks, but at the suggestion that the leaks came from "my White House." Leaks, ok. Suggesting we're doing them, not so much. He knows his Leftists friends will continue to defend, and use them in the manner intended, the glorification of Obama. Yes, these people find this behavior acceptable, but Scooter Libby went to jail for a leak by Richard Armitage.
To understand this reasoning, they must be smarter than you.
My point is, when you engage these people in an argument, recognize that they aren't really interested in a government, "of the people, by the people, for the people."
They're interested in a government run by themselves. Because, in their mind, the people, acting collectively, in their personal self interests, and being a compassionate people, are incapable of choosing the right path either on their own, or as a collective.
They're smarter than you.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Howard Fineman, God love him
> Once again, Howie Fineman was on the Tony Kornheiser show yeaterday to fulfill his role as Tony's personal Chris Matthews and Democrat talking-point man.
>
> I don't mind, him, except he spouts the half-truths that the DNC and their union thugs have been saying, that Scott Walker (victorious by a margin greater than in 2010) wanted to "take away collective bargaining rights" from state employees. That's not what Walker did, nor what Republican governors elsewhere have done. What he did was ask the state employee unions (and let's leave aside why state employees need a union) to pay more for their health care and pensions, in order to close a $3B budget deficit. When they balked at collective bargaining this, he got a bill passed to remove their right to bargain those provisions of their contracts. Their right to collective bargain salaries was left intact. Howie also conveniently ignored that Dem state senators fled the state to prevent a quorum from being present to actually pass the bill, required under some state rules. So, when you speak to Howie, just remember, he's an apologist for Liberals.
>
> When the state Supreme Court allowed the bill to be passed under different rules, rewritten somewhat, the Left, unsatisfied, decided to first try to recall the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin supreme court. Something they also failed to achieve. Then, they tried to recall senators to retake the state senate. They failed. Having gone a big oh-fer (sports term), they went after Walker and the LT Gov. Elections they also lost going oh for three.
>
> They did this time get a senate majority that they'll not be able to enjoy, since the Wisconsin state senate doesn't meet until 2013, after the November elections.
>
> The GOP is not rooting against the American economy. For those who get their "news" from MSNBC, maybe you aren't aware that the GOP controlled House has passed two budgets that address spending and entitlements, but the Democrat-controlled Senate has now gone nearly 4 years without even passing a budget. And the President's budgets can't even get Democrat votes in he House or Senate.
>
> My point is when Howard says crap like the GOP wants the economy to fail, and you think the same thing, you're either 1)wrong, or 2)lying. I think Fineman is willing to lie in order to press his agenda.
> The economy sucks still because Barack Obama's policies are abject failures.
>
> I don't mind, him, except he spouts the half-truths that the DNC and their union thugs have been saying, that Scott Walker (victorious by a margin greater than in 2010) wanted to "take away collective bargaining rights" from state employees. That's not what Walker did, nor what Republican governors elsewhere have done. What he did was ask the state employee unions (and let's leave aside why state employees need a union) to pay more for their health care and pensions, in order to close a $3B budget deficit. When they balked at collective bargaining this, he got a bill passed to remove their right to bargain those provisions of their contracts. Their right to collective bargain salaries was left intact. Howie also conveniently ignored that Dem state senators fled the state to prevent a quorum from being present to actually pass the bill, required under some state rules. So, when you speak to Howie, just remember, he's an apologist for Liberals.
>
> When the state Supreme Court allowed the bill to be passed under different rules, rewritten somewhat, the Left, unsatisfied, decided to first try to recall the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin supreme court. Something they also failed to achieve. Then, they tried to recall senators to retake the state senate. They failed. Having gone a big oh-fer (sports term), they went after Walker and the LT Gov. Elections they also lost going oh for three.
>
> They did this time get a senate majority that they'll not be able to enjoy, since the Wisconsin state senate doesn't meet until 2013, after the November elections.
>
> The GOP is not rooting against the American economy. For those who get their "news" from MSNBC, maybe you aren't aware that the GOP controlled House has passed two budgets that address spending and entitlements, but the Democrat-controlled Senate has now gone nearly 4 years without even passing a budget. And the President's budgets can't even get Democrat votes in he House or Senate.
>
> My point is when Howard says crap like the GOP wants the economy to fail, and you think the same thing, you're either 1)wrong, or 2)lying. I think Fineman is willing to lie in order to press his agenda.
> The economy sucks still because Barack Obama's policies are abject failures.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Obama, the first gay president
If you stop by the Drudge Report, you'll see that Tina Brown over at Newsweek is putting BamBam on the cover of that failing mag (again) this time as "The First Gay President" complete with the rainbow halo.
I guess it wasn't enough to be the first (half) black president,he needs to add another trailblazing title to his purse.
We all knew in 2008 that Obama's opposition to gay marriage was part of an attempt to conceal his contempt for middle America and that he would eventually reveal his true liberal beliefs. This should come as no surprise. What is surprising is that it came out prior to November. He (and we) owe Joe Biden a debt of gratitude for this.
This is Obama's long-held position. If you didn't know it in 2008, you were duped. His failure to reverse the stately position until now, though, had enabled him to continue the farce with some of those voters for whom these issues mean something, but was killing him with a committed part of the Leftist base. And that part wields serious money. With Romney and the RNC able to bring big money to the 2012 election and an energized, anti-Obama base, he needs the support of his gay marriage friends.
Now, he'll get some of that.
The country is opposed to the widespread adoption of a legal definition of marriage as including same sex couples. Most see it rightly as biologically nonsensical and morally they have issues with it.
Even in California, when put on the ballot, marriage amendments which define it as man/woman have passed. So, Obama is against the public here.
As for me, I can make an argument that the state has an interest in marriage. That has been the traditional rationale for tax laws that favor married couples and children. But, I would like to ask, as Herman Cain used to, "How's that working' out for ya?"
It's not. It convolutes the tax code and it gives the government entry into a part of our lives it should stay out of.
So, rather than having the powerful state attempt to legislate these personal issues, let's remove the state from it. If gay people want to get married, why do they need state sanction for it? And let's change the tax code to remove the special privileges we give married couples by going to a consumption based system.
The state really has used the tax code to push morality and play favorites over the years and if we remove that power from it, we'll find these social/libertarian issues will be much simpler for our legislators to deal with.
I guess it wasn't enough to be the first (half) black president,he needs to add another trailblazing title to his purse.
We all knew in 2008 that Obama's opposition to gay marriage was part of an attempt to conceal his contempt for middle America and that he would eventually reveal his true liberal beliefs. This should come as no surprise. What is surprising is that it came out prior to November. He (and we) owe Joe Biden a debt of gratitude for this.
This is Obama's long-held position. If you didn't know it in 2008, you were duped. His failure to reverse the stately position until now, though, had enabled him to continue the farce with some of those voters for whom these issues mean something, but was killing him with a committed part of the Leftist base. And that part wields serious money. With Romney and the RNC able to bring big money to the 2012 election and an energized, anti-Obama base, he needs the support of his gay marriage friends.
Now, he'll get some of that.
The country is opposed to the widespread adoption of a legal definition of marriage as including same sex couples. Most see it rightly as biologically nonsensical and morally they have issues with it.
Even in California, when put on the ballot, marriage amendments which define it as man/woman have passed. So, Obama is against the public here.
As for me, I can make an argument that the state has an interest in marriage. That has been the traditional rationale for tax laws that favor married couples and children. But, I would like to ask, as Herman Cain used to, "How's that working' out for ya?"
It's not. It convolutes the tax code and it gives the government entry into a part of our lives it should stay out of.
So, rather than having the powerful state attempt to legislate these personal issues, let's remove the state from it. If gay people want to get married, why do they need state sanction for it? And let's change the tax code to remove the special privileges we give married couples by going to a consumption based system.
The state really has used the tax code to push morality and play favorites over the years and if we remove that power from it, we'll find these social/libertarian issues will be much simpler for our legislators to deal with.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Obama Loves Big Oil?
The one is trying to tell us in a recent campaign ad that he's responsible for the oil imports dropping below 50%.
While it is true that we are below 50% for the first time in years, let me remind that it does take time for oil production to ramp up. As a matter of fact, aent Liberals always telling us we can't drill now to cut oil prices, because it will take "5 years" before it gets out of the ground.
If we stipulate that's true, then who was president 5 years ago?
Hmmmmm
George W. Bush.
So, Barack Obama owes this pyrrhic success to W.
Now, lets explore the truth about this administration's record on increasing domestic oil production:
1. They ceased production off shore after the BP spill and caused many deep water rigs to deploy elsewhere. Permitting was stopped. They devastated Gulf Coast production.
2. They have cut way back on permitting for production on Federal lands. As much as 60%.
3. They refused to license the Keystone XL pipeline, which will bring cheap Canadian oil to US refineries.
4. They have waged a war on coal and hydraulic fracturing, effectively attempting to keep our plentiful supplies of cheap, affordable energy (coal and natural gas) out of the market.
5. They have wasted billions of dollars on dubious clean energy "investments" like Solyndra and Fisker Automotive.
While this SCFOAMF is trying to tell us that he's responsible for the decrease in oil imports, remember, George Bush did that, while this man is trying to turn us into a pauper country to suit his friends in the fake green energy sector.
Crony capitalism/Fascism takes many forms. This president is Mussolini redux.
Re-elect him and enjoy being France.
While it is true that we are below 50% for the first time in years, let me remind that it does take time for oil production to ramp up. As a matter of fact, aent Liberals always telling us we can't drill now to cut oil prices, because it will take "5 years" before it gets out of the ground.
If we stipulate that's true, then who was president 5 years ago?
Hmmmmm
George W. Bush.
So, Barack Obama owes this pyrrhic success to W.
Now, lets explore the truth about this administration's record on increasing domestic oil production:
1. They ceased production off shore after the BP spill and caused many deep water rigs to deploy elsewhere. Permitting was stopped. They devastated Gulf Coast production.
2. They have cut way back on permitting for production on Federal lands. As much as 60%.
3. They refused to license the Keystone XL pipeline, which will bring cheap Canadian oil to US refineries.
4. They have waged a war on coal and hydraulic fracturing, effectively attempting to keep our plentiful supplies of cheap, affordable energy (coal and natural gas) out of the market.
5. They have wasted billions of dollars on dubious clean energy "investments" like Solyndra and Fisker Automotive.
While this SCFOAMF is trying to tell us that he's responsible for the decrease in oil imports, remember, George Bush did that, while this man is trying to turn us into a pauper country to suit his friends in the fake green energy sector.
Crony capitalism/Fascism takes many forms. This president is Mussolini redux.
Re-elect him and enjoy being France.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Obamacare turns 2. Most hated baby ever. Legislators still stupid. As are Liberals.
In the wake of the Sandra Fluke (rhymes with duck) - Rush Limbaugh dust-up, I heard a legislator say we couldn't give out exemptions to Obamacare to Catholic employers, because then we'd have Jehovah's Witnesses asking for exemptions because they're opposed to surgical procedures, and other employers might be opposed to some other requirements, etc, etc.
My thought was really how out of touch with reality they must become in Washington, because my first thought was not, "how right that guy is, Washington needs to protect us," but rather "who's going to work for that guy?"
I suppose this is the true difference between us. My thought was the employer was all wee-wee'd up (to use the president's expression) and would struggle to hire people, and a Liberal is thinking "What can government do to force that heartless m-f to give me what I deserve."
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Uh Oh, first female submariners may be cheaters?
A report has surfaced that three of the first eight female supply officers bound for King's Bay submarines are being reassigned as irregularities are investigated in travel claims they had submitted, prior to reporting to their boats.
According to the report, "The three women are under investigation for financial misconduct, according to Submarine Forces spokeswoman Cmdr. Monica Rousselow., who confirmed the financial misconduct under investigation has to do with travel claim fraud."
Given that these are Supply Corps officers, they honestly should know how to correctly complete travel claims and should not have any issues, so, I wonder what the problem could be.
Probably will never be given the chance to find out, but since it's three of them, either they were involved in a conspiracy, or they are just doing something that is common practice, and it's technically against the rules, and they just got called out on it.
According to the report, "The three women are under investigation for financial misconduct, according to Submarine Forces spokeswoman Cmdr. Monica Rousselow., who confirmed the financial misconduct under investigation has to do with travel claim fraud."
Given that these are Supply Corps officers, they honestly should know how to correctly complete travel claims and should not have any issues, so, I wonder what the problem could be.
Probably will never be given the chance to find out, but since it's three of them, either they were involved in a conspiracy, or they are just doing something that is common practice, and it's technically against the rules, and they just got called out on it.
Cynthia Tucker (@ctuckerprof) featured in AP Language Course
So, my daughter brought home an assignment in her AP language course to emulate a variety of columnists. They had to do some biographical research, analyze the writer, then pick a subject and write a "column" in that writer's style.
I said, easy assignment. Cynthia Tucker was on the list, so, just choose any subject, frame it as the Conservative GOP's fault, Barack Obama is the solution, and ultimately, it's all because of race. Then, have our second grade neighbor write it.
Instant A.
I said, easy assignment. Cynthia Tucker was on the list, so, just choose any subject, frame it as the Conservative GOP's fault, Barack Obama is the solution, and ultimately, it's all because of race. Then, have our second grade neighbor write it.
Instant A.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Obama crusade continues.
I am convinced Barack Obama is on a crusade.
He's working to either actively become the absolute worst president in history, or he's trying to seem incompetent and just pave the way for the ultimate downfall of the United States.
I just can't say exactly whether he's an evil genius, intent on the destruction of America, or if he's just the perfect example of the Peter Principle for Liberals.
This week should scare people. This guy clearly cares not a whit about our Constitution or our survival as a country.
He's working to either actively become the absolute worst president in history, or he's trying to seem incompetent and just pave the way for the ultimate downfall of the United States.
I just can't say exactly whether he's an evil genius, intent on the destruction of America, or if he's just the perfect example of the Peter Principle for Liberals.
This week should scare people. This guy clearly cares not a whit about our Constitution or our survival as a country.
- He continues to allow Iran to build a bomb, which they will use first on Israel, then on us.
- He fiddles and politiks while gas prices march toward $5/gallon.
- He apologizes to people (Muslims) who have no special concern for forgiveness over the burning of Korans in Afghanistan. While Americans are murdered over this stupidity, he doesn't demand the Afghan president end the disproportionate response nor apologize himself for the actions of his countrymen, instead, he doubles down on the apology. Just more evidence of the "blame America first" worldview of Liberals.
- He presents a budget that's a complete joke and that adds another $1.2T of debt.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Obama Budget Continues Sub Building
It would seem that we're going to continue building submarines at something close to the 2/year pace under the latest Obama admin defense budget.
From Navy Times,
"At least $12.8 billion in shipbuilding funds will be part of the Obama administration's fiscal 2013 defense budget, according to a Pentagon document prepared for Monday's news briefings and obtained by Defense News."
"The Navy is asking for $4.26 billion for submarine construction, of which $3.2 billion is for two ships under an existing multi-year procurement contract. Another $900 million is requested for advance procurement for one 2014 submarine and two in 2015. Another $165 million is requested for R&D. Submarine construction is split evenly between Newport News and the General Dynamics Electric Boat shipyard in Groton, Conn."
From Navy Times,
"At least $12.8 billion in shipbuilding funds will be part of the Obama administration's fiscal 2013 defense budget, according to a Pentagon document prepared for Monday's news briefings and obtained by Defense News."
"The Navy is asking for $4.26 billion for submarine construction, of which $3.2 billion is for two ships under an existing multi-year procurement contract. Another $900 million is requested for advance procurement for one 2014 submarine and two in 2015. Another $165 million is requested for R&D. Submarine construction is split evenly between Newport News and the General Dynamics Electric Boat shipyard in Groton, Conn."
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Mississippi commissioning moved...
In submarine news, the USS Mississippi is being commissioned in Pascagoula, not Gulfport, due to channel depth. I didn't know SECNAV Mabus was a former MS governor.
New sub’s commissioning moved to Pascagoula
New sub’s commissioning moved to Pascagoula
P-8A makes debut in Bold Alligator exercise
The P-8 is finally getting some operational experience.
P-8A makes debut in Bold Alligator exercise - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times
P-8A makes debut in Bold Alligator exercise - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times
Monday, January 30, 2012
Obama V. Reagan
 From Jeff Douglas, via Twitter (@Boomerjeff)An objective comparison of two recoveries from two extremely deep, both inherited, recessions. |
No Global Warming Since 1997? Yep
OMG!
It seems that global warning has not occurred at all since 1997. This would not be an issue for the AGW alarmists if their models accurately predicted this. But, because they have chosen the one culprit (CO2) that man has an impact on, and, sadly for them, it doesn't have the impact they want it to.
As I have posted before, as many skeptics believe, that big orange ball in the sky has something to do with long-range climate. Who knew?
It seems that global warning has not occurred at all since 1997. This would not be an issue for the AGW alarmists if their models accurately predicted this. But, because they have chosen the one culprit (CO2) that man has an impact on, and, sadly for them, it doesn't have the impact they want it to.
As I have posted before, as many skeptics believe, that big orange ball in the sky has something to do with long-range climate. Who knew?
American Idol 11 - Auditions
I just finished watching the first 5 episodes of American Idol.
I wasn't going to watch this year, but I can't stay away. I have seen spoilers of the final 24'so I will not reference them here ,and just give my favorites. So far, as the auditions are not over.
I wasn't going to watch this year, but I can't stay away. I have seen spoilers of the final 24'so I will not reference them here ,and just give my favorites. So far, as the auditions are not over.
- Philip Philips
- Shannon Mahgrane
- Hallie Day
- Erika Van Pelt
- Ashley Robles
- Skylar Laine
- Baylie Brown
Friday, January 27, 2012
Buffett's Secretary - Why She Matters
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.
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
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.
"[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.Saturday, January 21, 2012
Newt, the new Churchill? I have a different former world leader in mind...
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Soundtrack Albums - Updated!
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...
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:
How about some more honorable mentions:
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.
- 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.
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)
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)