Sunday, January 31, 2010

Political Math

I hope that you caught the President’s visit with the Republican House caucus on Friday. There is a clean, no interruptions, version on whitehouse.gov.

No teleprompter; he takes them on 1 to 140 and swats them like flies.

Fox news was so impressed with the house Republicans, that they interrupted their own coverage, and inserted Fox commentators, to talk-over a mesmerizing live television broadcast.

Meanwhile: on CNN — Atari brand dial meters, show that most Americans still cannot manipulate a hand held rheostat; on MSNBC -- Chris Matthews professes his undying love for the President; and on PBS -- David Brooks is still struggling with sticking to the Republican party line. Poor David; he has kids after all.

Predictably the Republicans declared victory, citing the President’s own admission that they have some ideas and that he even reads them over from time to time. Apparently they are delighted to be seen as the party with no math skills, instead of the party with no coherent positions.

Pundit John Stewart and his progressive friends just cannot figure out why Barack Obama is insisting on being so conciliatory — they are frustrated by Obama’s seemingly naïve, incessant pleas for bipartisanship.

Heath reform is dead we are told, since the Senate Republicans can prevent a successful vote of cloture. The balance of Obama’s initiatives are also doomed -- unless he concedes to the Republicans everything they want. This gridlock will continue until November when the political descendents of Newt Gingrich will rise again, and Republicans will be swept into office, en masse, by the voters’ collective disgust.

So, as you watch the video of the President taking questions from the house Republicans; you have to ask, “Why is this man smiling?”

The answer of course is poker: He’s already won. He just wants them to go ALL IN.

Filibusters don’t work. For the first two weeks of a filibuster, the country’s media is invigorated and sympathy builds for the lowly oppressed minority; then everyone eventually figures out that 59 is way more that 41. By the end it turns into a contest to see which Republican senator can go the longest without using the bathroom.

So, should we schedule the filibuster in the Spring or in the Fall right before the midterm elections?

And which Republican senator will at long last step up to the podium and end it all?

That’s easy: John McCain. American Hero.

Fred Barnes

Since the Republican Senate victory in Massachusetts on January 19 and the collapse of Obama’s domestic agenda, the parallels between Obama now and Clinton in 1994 have come into sharp focus. The president, by the way, told the anchors Republican Scott Brown won because he was the better candidate, not because he made opposition to Obama’s policies the centerpiece of his campaign.
To save his presidency after his stiff rebuff in the midterm elections, Clinton lurched to the political center. He adopted a strategy of “triangulation” that involved painful compromises with Republicans, who had captured the House and Senate. It worked. Clinton glided to reelection in 1996, defeating Republican Bob Dole by 7 points.
Though it’s rarely acknowledged, Clinton’s most significant successes in the White House were all in conjunction with Republicans: the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, welfare reform in 1996, and balanced budget legislation in 1997 that included a cut in the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent that spurred the financial boom and budget surplus of his second term.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

The issue is...

WSJ

Nonetheless, Mr. Brown is clearly sensitive—and a tad defensive—about his state's own universal health-care system. It now covers about 95% of the population; but it has also led to the nation's highest insurance premiums. It is driving hospitals towards bankruptcy and making it more difficult for people to see a doctor. Mr. Brown voted for the system in 2006 when it was proposed by then-GOP Gov. Mitt Romney. "Of course, it can be made better," Mr. Brown says today. "But it was bipartisan and it fit our local needs. We were being eaten alive by health-care costs." Universal coverage hasn't changed that, however.

Or NYT  Krugman

The nature of America’s troubles is easy to state. We’re in the aftermath of a severe financial crisis, which has led to mass job destruction. The only thing that’s keeping us from sliding into a second Great Depression is deficit spending. And right now we need more of that deficit spending because millions of American lives are being blighted by high unemployment, and the government should be doing everything it can to bring unemployment down.


In the long run, however, even the U.S. government has to pay its way. And the long-run budget outlook was dire even before the recent surge in the deficit, mainly because of inexorably rising health care costs. Looking ahead, we’re going to have to find a way to run smaller, not larger, deficits.

How can this apparent conflict between short-run needs and long-run responsibilities be resolved? Intellectually, it’s not hard at all. We should combine actions that create jobs now with other actions that will reduce deficits later. And economic officials in the Obama administration understand that logic: for the past year they have been very clear that their vision involves combining fiscal stimulus to help the economy now with health care reform to help the budget later.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Its Bush's fault!

As a sign of just how desperate the Republicans are, consider this report in the Boston Herald:
If Scott Brown has kept President Obama up at night, there could be more sleepless nights at the White House thanks to a new poll that ranks the senator-elect as presidential timber.
A Newsmax/Zogby poll shows the Massachusetts Republican within striking range of Obama in a hypothetical presidential matchup.
The poll shows the pair statistically deadlocked if the presidential election were held today.  The online news site, newsmax.com, reported that Obama leads Brown by 46.5 percent to 44.6 percent.
C'mon, Scott Brown? His victory last week was undoubtedly impressive, but let's put things in perspective. Brown is merely a state senator, and by the time of the next presidential election, he will have served less than a full term in the U.S. Senate. What could possibly give anyone the idea that he's experienced enough to go to the White House?

The Obama Boom Begins

U.S. Economy Grew at Fastest Pace in 6 Years Last Quarter

By CATHERINE RAMPELL
The United States economy grew at its fastest pace in over six years at the end of 2009, but a sluggish job market is still souring economists on the sustainability of the recovery.

Gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter, after growing at an annualized rate of 2.2 percent in the previous quarter. Analysts had forecast annualized growth of 4.8 percent in the fourth quarter, and the better-than-expected result sent stocks higher.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

I cannot believe the crap that Paulson and Geithner have had to endure today. I do not understand why Paulson - now a private citizen - doesn't return fire. The Congressman (from both sides) are posturing and putting their populist ignorance on full display for all the world to see.

I am a big fan of Paulson (as I have said many times, the Bush Administrations best six months were it's last six months), Bernanke and Geithner. I honestly believe that they were instrumental in averting a full scale meltdown and GDII. The American people - having dodged the bullet and now benefiting from economic growth - want to second guess the actions of these giants during the darkest hours of 2008 and 2009. It speaks very poorly of the people and those they have elected to represent them.

Ben Bernanke is being pillaged by the far left thanks to their lack of understanding of how the economic system works. The right wing's attack - much more organized - is an attempt to scapegoat him for the failures of GWB and the Republican Congress. Our collapse happened as a consequence of the GOP monopoly and they are doing all they can to deflect that, be it blaming Fannie/Freddie or Helicopter Ben. An extremely capable man who now enjoys a tremendous amount international respect and OTJ experience should be cast aside for political expediency? Why, of course. What was I thinking?

The whole movement to reduce the Fed's independence is extremely dangerous. Our Fed has been a model around the world for responsible administration of the central bank, due to it's independence. To the extent that our top bank is politicized, we all lose and the consequences can be rather severe.

I think this is symptomatic of the dumbing down of America. It will be harder and harder to find the best and brightest to serve in government, be it in elective office or administration. Lets use Hank Paulson as an example. The Bush White House had to beg him to serve after two failures at Treasury. He insisted that he would actually run the department rather than being a conduit for WH management. He left one of the top jobs in his field, where he earned a fortune and was held in near universal high esteem. He left all that to serve his country, and for what? What happened? He helped avert economic catastrophe and for the rest of his life he and his family will get to hear cynical and ignorant voices attack his competence and integrity. What lesson does that teach other overachievers that may be asked to serve their country?

Bless him.


From Reason to the "o"

Your policies are increasingly unpopular because they are no good. Take the $787 billion stimulus package. Fifty-six percent of Americans now oppose the stimulus, with only 42 percent supporting it. A year ago, those numbers were reversed. The American people have learned what economists such as Robert Barro and Valerie Ramey could have told you a long time ago: that a dollar increase in government spending results in no more (and almost certainly less) than a dollar increase in economic activity. Your estimates about how many jobs would be "created" by the stimulus package—a term of art later modified to "saved or created," then downgraded further to "funded"—have been slippery, unconvincing, and wildly off-base. The same goes for your estimates on the unemployment rate, still in double digits and not improving despite confident predictions that the stimulus would cap the bleeding at 9 percent.


The stimulus is not unpopular because of evil lobbyists or hypocritical Republicans (many of whom voted for George W. Bush's forgotten and equally ineffective 2008 stimulus); it's unpopular because it transfers money from Main Street to Wall Street (despite your many protestations to the contrary), and it's unpopular because it doesn't work. It can’t work, because government can only spend money by taking it from the current or future economy. Not only that, the artificial props of federal spending puts off the day of reckoning for the very sectors of the economy that melted down in the first place: Housing, mortgage finance, and banking. The best thing you can do for the economy right now is give it a break from some sort of real or imagined "transformational" program that requires continuously increasing debt ceilings.

Your spending priorities are less than compelling. You campaigned on a promise to enact a "net spending cut" in federal outlays, a commendably (if unconvincingly) plain-spoken vow after the brazen irresponsibility of the Bush years. Yet the first big spending bill you signed last March helped set what in the most hopeful case will be the equivalent of Bob Beamon's Olympic long jump of 1968—a record for spending that won't be touched for decades. Despite your promise to cut earmarks, the bill was packed with more pork than the Oscar Meyer WeinerMobile, which is only one of the reasons why overall federal spending in fiscal year 2009 increased 32 percent over the previous year.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

The Big Scam

• Last week, the public learned that claims made by the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change were not based on science, but on speculation. Specifically, the IPCC's 2007 report said the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 due to man-made global warming.


The claim, used at the U.N. Copenhagen climate change conference in cold and snowy December to rush through a restrictive greenhouse-gas-emissions treaty, was not based on a scientific study. It was based on a telephone call that a reporter had with a scientist who was speculating.  The IPCC has withdrawn the claim. Murari Lal, the scientist who included the contention in the U.N. report, admitted that he knew it wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific research.


• Also in the last week, it was revealed that U.S. researchers working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are excluding temperature data from cold regions for a database used by the U.N. in its global warming scare campaign.

Canwest News Service, a Canadian agency that also owns a chain of newspapers, reported Friday, "In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.  "Worse, only one station — at Eureka on Ellesmere Island — is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

"The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada."

Canwest also reports that Americans Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, say that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has "reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database" and has "cherry-picked" the stations.  The NASA agency uses data from "sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea — which has a warming effect on winter weather."
In a paper published on the Science and Public Policy Institute Web site, D'Aleo and Smith say the "NOAA ... systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.
"The thermometers, in a sense, marched toward the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs."
• Then, just last weekend, we find that same 2007 IPCC report included another phony claim: that "the rapidly rising costs" of natural disasters since the 1970s is linked to global warming.
British newspapers reported Sunday that that assertion was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific paper when the IPCC report was issued. When the paper that the claim was based on was published in 2008, its authors said:  "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."  Now the IPCC says it is "reassessing the evidence."
Is this what we are seeing with the contention that man-made greenhouse-gas emissions are causing the planet to overheat?  We can't see into the future, but this myth has taken so many hits from the truth that its survival is in doubt.

Monday, January 25, 2010

By PETE DU PONT

Weather-wise it has been a very cold January, and politically the Scott Brown Senate victory has chilled Washington even further Democrats. But if the Democratic economic policies continue nevertheless, this year will be nothing like the bitter economic January we will be living in a year from now.

Government spending has already hugely increased, and so has the size and scope of government, but next year there will also be substantial tax increases for a great many Americans. The first reason will be the expiration of the Bush tax cuts . The top personal income tax rate will rise next Jan. 1 to 39.6% from 35%, a hike of nearly one-eighth. The dividend tax rate will rise to 39.6%, more than 2½ times the current 15%. And the capital gains tax rate will rise by a third, to 20% from 15%. If the House health care bill had passed, all three of these rates would have risen to 45%.  Jim G's note...holy crap!

The estate tax, which fell to zero this year under the Bush tax cuts, will return in 2011--or sooner, if Congress acts to restore it. Another likely tax increase will be on the income of private equity and hedge-fund managers, from the capital gains rate of 15% to the new higher income tax rates. It has already been passed by the House and is supported by the Obama administration, as is an additional 10-year, $90 billion tax on banks aimed at "rolling back bonuses for top earners." It would affect some 50 banks, insurance companies, and large broker-dealers.

Meanwhile a number of last year's tax deductions have disappeared due to the failure of Congress to extend them into this year. The tax deduction for state and local sales taxes is one; the deduction for college tuition and fees is another; and the 50% write-off for small businesses for capital purchases--equipment, machinery or building a new plant--has disappeared as well, which will have a negative effect upon the construction of new business operation facilities.

Add on to all of these increases the biggest government deficits and spending increases (to 26.5% of gross domestic product from 21%) in half a century, the protectionism of free trade downsizing through the "buy American" requirements, China import restrictions, and the administration limitations of Columbia, South Korea, and Panama free trade agreements, and we have a very different, and not very prosperous, America ahead of us.

Or as economist Arthur Laffer wrote in his January Economic Outlook, we "cannot have a prosperous economy when government is overspending, raising tax rates, printing too much money, over-regulating and restricting the free flow of goods and services across national boundaries." We are, in his words, simply "moving in the wrong direction."

Going "leftier"?

When Billy got wacked, he retreated, regrouped, repackaged and started saying things others had been saying as if they were his idea.  He also realized his base was leading him to destruction. remember the famous "box" drawn by Gore wondering where do we stand?

By reports and observation, "o" is not going to triangulate but instead is becoming more populist and going to double down on the unwanted liberal agenda.  Should be an interesting State of the Union address.

Crazy Rich and Terry, I would be interested in your thoughts and predictions. Where goes "o" now?

An objective look would suggest that on his current course he and his presidency are headed for catastrophe. Of course, when the country saw Rev. Wright I thought his candidacy was over, so what do I know.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Obama as Manager. How's He Doin'?

In a recent comment Bax made an excellent point: "They have the power, they need to manage it."

I think in assessing Obama's management skills, as measured by his results so far, any candid viewer would have to say "He sucks!"

The global promise was "Change." He packaged it as "Change We Can Believe In." Nice promise and good idea. I like visionaries.

Now then, here comes the hard part: actually doing something. He did do some things that he promised he would do. He announced closing Gitmo. Turns out that managing the process is harder than making the promise and Gitmo isn't closed and I wouldn't want to have to forecast when it will be.

He did go around apologizing to the world, and the people of the world seem to feel good about him, but measuring a benefit of any consequence (accepting Gitmo Guys, for instance, or providing increased support in Afghanistan, or helping to arm-twist the Iranis) is hard to do. Getting results is hard.

But the biggest and most collosal management failure is Obamacare. He had an overwhelming majority in the House, a bulletproof majority in the Senate and, after one full year in office he has wasted his honeymoon good will, alienated HIS OWN BASE!!! not to mention the vast amjority of Independents, and, because of the emphasis on this failed mission, has gotten essentially nothing else done.

Mangement is about the allocation of resources towards problems and producing results that improve the prior situation. He should have been unstoppable, BUT (and many of us pointed this out during the campaign) he has never been responsible for a meaningful outcome in his life, other than a political campaign. He is a fantastic failure, so far, as a manager. Period. And don't blame Pelosi and Reid. They are the ones he chose to delegate to. He owns that decision and the consequences of that decision. Wrap you head around this thought: I want change, so I'm going to entrust my most important initiative to Nancy and Harry. wow.

I take no satisfaction in his incompetence. He has three years to go, and I am sure that the good guys and the bad guys around the world can also see that he is a management dofus.

Here's a simple question: Who's afraid of Obama? I am concerned that the answer is, Not our enemies. Even worse, I am concerned that the people who now fear Obama are our friends. Would you want to count on him if you were our friend in Pakistan? Afghanistan? Ukraine? Belarus? etc, etc.

He is a management moron, and we are all in trouble because of it.

Hags

Health Care Vote really!!!

The spin doctor's (yes you Jim,) somehow want to spin the election of "PlayGirl Model" Scott Brown as a anti health care vote. The State of Massachusetts HAS universal health care. Are you saying they don't want it for others?
Silly Silly!!
This I will give you, the public is sick of back room deals with Nebraska, and Louisana, and sick of high unemployment and a Government that does not listen to the electorate.
A third Party might have a real chance.
If you are an encumbent you are in trouble is the message in Massachusetts, plain and simple. This is not as hard as you may wish a return to the party of
"War by choice"
"No regulations for Wall Street"
"Big oil companies" and
"Tax cuts for the Wealthy 10% of this country"
The message of Massachusetts, Virginia, New Jersey, is Independents are going to have a big say in who is going to be elected and they are swinging to "new faces"

The Gag is removed-IBD

Five justices ruled Thursday that corporations and labor unions can donate directly to political activities. At least someone in Washington is trying to protect free speech.  In 1990, the Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law that barred corporate political contributions. Twelve years later, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Among other restrictions, it banned for 30 days before a presidential primary and 60 days before the general election any "electioneering communications" that would be broadcast over television airways or transmitted via cable or satellite.
The encroachments were too much for the Roberts Supreme Court, which on Thursday invalidated 5-4 the McCain-Feingold blackout period and overturned the 1990 high court ruling in its Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission decision.
In 2008, Citizens United produced "Hillary: The Movie." The documentary, aimed at derailing Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, was political in nature. The FEC shut down pay-per-view broadcasts of "Hillary," saying that it was a political ad and therefore violated federal election law.
Citizens United, an advocacy group, rightly responded by asking the courts to protect its right to free speech.
Free speech cannot survive in a society when it's for me but not for thee. If the government can take away one person's free speech, it can bar free speech for all. Yet that's the society some want.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Profiles in denial.

By Katrina vanden Heuvel
Getting the strongest possible health-care bill as quickly as possible is now key. Passing the Senate bill first, and then quickly fixing it through the reconciliation process, could create strong political pressure for reviving the public option or Medicare buy-in.
By Arianna Huffington
Some, including Sens. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) and Evan Bayh (D., Ind.), are saying that the outcome in Massachusetts is an indication that Mr. Obama and the Democrats need to move to the middle and focus on trying to make bipartisan deals. This, of course, is exactly what the Democrats have been doing all year. If they redouble their efforts to curry favor with the Olympia Snowes of the world they'll be making a grave mistake.

Celinda Lake, Martha Coakley's pollster, spoke the truth yesterday when she said their campaign was hurt by the White House's failure to confront Wall Street. This has left Democratic candidates the targets of angry voters—especially angry independent voters—worried about the economy.
For the last 12 months, the administration has been tone-deaf to just how much the economy has impacted Americans' lives. This has allowed populist rage to grow, and put Democrats—who have been hot and heavy with the big banks and insurance companies all year— squarely in voters' crosshairs.
In the past week, the president and his team have upped the populist rhetoric. But if they want people to believe their fiery pronouncements about taking on powerful interests and the status quo, they need to remember that the middle, the place the Evan Bayh crowd wants them to move toward, is exactly where the status quo resides.

Or
By Jim G
The country is alarmed by the uncontrolled growth of government spending and its takeover of industry.
The Democrats have been tone deaf and arrogant.  Citizens have protested against spending (tea baggers) and the takeover of health care at town hall meetings and have been ridiculed by politicians and the media (and bloggers).
American's also know when things are not working and a mounting deficit and increasing unemployment rate are huge signs that the President and his party have ignored.
Now instead of enacting a pro-growth agenda, the administration seems to want to double down on ineffective populist rhetoric.  Attacking banks and the finance industry, necessary for the functioning of the economy, will only serve to spin the wheels of the recession even more.
 
Tax receipts will be down, unemployment will be up, states are going to default.  So Terry, think we can tax our way out of this mess?

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Health care

It is not just that the Nebraska Purchase so offended people (which it way did).

Or that the Union exception so exasperated.

No...

What the wacky left just does not get, and never will (see Rich(ie)'s response to my last post) is that to get to a command and control society requires legislation that by definition is bad.  Back room deals and payoffs.

Set us free O great "o".  Better yet, get the hell out of the way.

And just a small point, how is he relevant anymore?

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Big

The election of Mr. Brown is earth shaking.  This effectively ends the "o" agenda.  The liberal agenda of spending and government control has been soundly rejected.  Health care takeover is dead.

Of course Rachael Maddow tried to explain it off as MA sexism (no female has been elected Govenor or Senator)

Wow.

What has Pat Robertson (R) been up to lately?

I remember Pat Robertson finished second in the Republican Iowa Caucus with 25% of the vote. The caucuses, of course, are known for giving party activists - the base - a powerful voice in the election process. What has this Republican presidential hopeful been up to lately? Anything?

Monday, January 18, 2010

Misreading the Tea Leaves: The Citizenry Changed Parties, Not Ideology

Nice article from the WSJ showing data for the 4 year period January 2007 to January 2011. When asked to describe themselves as Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative, the numbers are essentially constant. The interpretation: people grew sick of Bush and the GOP's behavior, and they gave Obama and the Dems a shot. Then the Dems did what the GOP did when they had an unstoppable majority: they confused movement away from one party as an endorsement of their party. The data shows we were and we are a center-slightly-right country. There was no Liberal mandate, and if New Jersey and Virginia didn't convince you in November, stand by for a message today (Tuesday).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703626604575010902564177746.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_PoliticsNCampaign_9

My personal takeaway: One party rule leads to over-reaching, which is good neither for that party nor for the country. The Founders were right to make major legislative change difficult; it gives The People time to clarify their message to those who are supposed to represent them, not rule them.

Hags

Paul Krugman

Lately many people have been second-guessing the Obama administration’s political strategy. The conventional wisdom seems to be that President Obama tried to do too much — in particular, that he should have put health care on one side and focused on the econony.
I disagree. The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.  YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME??!!!

now showing complete cognitive dissonance, he IN THE SAME ARTICLE, writes the following.

The same can be said about policy toward the banks. Some economists defend the administration’s decision not to take a harder line on banks, arguing that the banks are earning their way back to financial health. But the light-touch approach to the financial industry further entrenched the power of the very institutions that caused the crisis, even as it failed to revive lending: bailed-out banks have been reducing, not increasing, their loan balances. And it has had disastrous political consequences: the administration has placed itself on the wrong side of popular rage over bailouts and bonuses.


Finally, about that narrative: It’s instructive to compare Mr. Obama’s rhetorical stance on the economy with that of Ronald Reagan. It’s often forgotten now, but unemployment actually soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Reagan, however, had a ready answer for critics: everything going wrong was the result of the failed policies of the past. In effect, Reagan spent his first few years in office continuing to run against Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Obama could have done the same — with, I’d argue, considerably more justice. He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of America’s economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the banks.  WHICH NOT JUST TWO PARAGRAPHS ABOVE HE GIVES "o" A PASS??!!

Now for some logic.

George Will

One of conservatism's tasks is to discourage irrational exuberance—or any other kind of exuberance, for that matter. Today this task is not demanding because anxiety about the sagging economy and surging government debt is broad and deep.


Since the recession began in December 2007, Congress has passed two stimulus packages ($168 billion in February 2008 and $787 billion in February 2009), and last month the House passed a $154 billion jobs bill. The economy has been growing for more than six months. Yet job creation is sluggish.


Today's unemployment rate is 10 percent; the underemployment rate—the unemployed, plus those employed part time, plus those discouraged persons who have stopped looking for jobs—is 17.3 percent. Almost 40 percent of the unemployed have been so for seven months or more—which is not surprising: Congress continues to extend eligibility for unemployment benefits, apparently oblivious to the truth that when you subsidize something you get more of it.


There is no precedent for what the nation might be beginning to experience—a torpid recovery from a steep recession. Since World War II, the average growth rate in the first four quarters after a recession ended has been 6.6 percent, and then 4.3 percent for the subsequent five years. In 1982, the unemployment rate reached 10.8 percent; in 1983, the average quarterly growth was a sizzling 7.6 percent.
and

With prolonged high unemployment predicted, consumer spending is paralyzed by caution. With Washington experiencing prolonged hyperkinesis, businesspeople are paralyzed by uncertainty about what the rules and costs of commerce are going to be. What would a cap-and-trade carbon-control regime do to energy costs? What will be the costs of whatever the Environmental Protection Agency decides to do on the basis of its "endangerment" finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant? What will health-care and tax costs be? Money cannot be free forever, so someday interest rates are going to change. Starting from zero, the change will be adverse for many people.

Jobs

My buddy's daughter works writing grants for ASU, much of it passing out stimulus money.  At a conference they were told to come up with a number of jobs that their work "created".  When one of the young ladies, uncomfortable at such a request, asked how they should arrive at such a number and if there was a formula, she was told...there is a formula but the government does not approve of it and suggests you guess.

Any wonder Brown is looking so good?

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Tuesday in Massachusetts

I must confess to being worried about Tuesday's election. The right is far more energized and passionate at the moment. Did the Democrats get the wake-up call in time? I think the huge numerical advantage of the left will prevail, but there is no telling.

What if Brown wins? It will be an earthquake. Will Health Care Reform be dead? Um, no. If the Democrats care what is best for their country (from their perspective) and their party, the House will merely pass the Senate bill as is, and the job is done. We can move on to jobs and the economy. I think that Reid has had Snowe and Collins available, if needed, but that support is likely fleeting if there is a trembler right next door to Maine.

Should the Democrats slow-walk certification if Brown wins? In Massachusetts, absolutely not. They need to certify promptly, with only a photo-finish holding things up (see Minnesota). In the US Senate, it depends. It is said that the Democrats could call for a Senate vote on reconciliation, which the GOP could delay for 4 - 5 days in an effort to get Brown seated before the vote. Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If McConnell wants to use Senate rules to hold up a vote, I see no reason that Reid can't use Senate rules to hold up certification.

I am frustrated that Health Care Reform has taken this long. The GOP has cried, "Why so fast!?", when in fact it consumed the whole first year of the congressional agenda. Knowing what is going on in Massachusetts, why couldn't they have acted this past week? There is no excuse for dragging this out when we have solid majorities in both houses. Thats right, I have said it before. With power comes accountability.

I think the Democrats are actually in a pretty good position for 2010. I expect a clear economic recovery to be evident prior to Labor Day. The Republicans - still a broken brand - have probably peaked too soon. It is over nine months until the election. How did things look nine months ago? Much will happen, domestically and internationally, in the coming months that will shape November. It will be fun to watch.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

WHILE WE ARE SPENDING

In the Republican world of where up is down and down is really up. We have Sen. John Kyl who requested 118 million dollars for earmarks in the budget, then railed against the Democrats for having no spending restraints and earmarks. Now Kyle says his earmark criticism is "symbolic" and that he is now talking "wasteful Washington spending."
Ol' sara was 'shocked' to see this. It is worth ALL of your time even though a little lengthy.

Cheers, sara p.

Tea Parties and more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y98HxYbsdBM&NR=1

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Terry, yes you are, heaven help us.

Most of your recent posts have been prattle and quite frankly, like most Liberals, you really do not understand what you say and most importantly the consequences.


As I have said many a time, Liberals need to lie to define Conservatives, we have so such issues with your side.

We can argue, pointlessly I might add, about the beliefs of Lincoln, however, there are no tenants in Conservatives that tolerate prejudice. Point in fact, the strong opposition Conservatives have for racial set asides as evidenced by the Michigan case of a few years ago. We are not a belief system tolerant of bigots and yet you keep lying and lying.

However....What we say about you...You are for spreading the wealth around, heck, your candidate used those exact words. We say that is immoral and does not work.

Your side has controlled things for a year, your side has threatened the prosperous with taxes (cap and trade, health care excise, income to name a few) to spread the wealth,. Your side has spent a trillion dollars on a stimulus (no conservative support-zero) in a orgy of (Rich's) Keynesian manipulation with an ever growing unemployment rate.   You have created that which you believe in, in spades.

I read today the NYT as it apologizes for the "o" (notice how I now use a lower case o) because things are just so difficult now.

Liberalism, which is un admitted Socialism, which is un admitted Communism....Does not work. Time after time after time.

Now, an ever growing unemployment rate! I remember...I do, the Democrats lamenting, during the previous administration, that while there was only a 5% unemployment rate, they were not "good" jobs, as in, "if only we could control the economy" there would be "good" jobs.

Well here they are folks, the good jobs now are called unemployment! In response to a loss of another 85,000 jobs our president announced measure to create 17,000 new green jobs.

Terry, you ARE a Democrat, you do not understand economics, you do not know how to defend this country and every time the country "buys the lies" (I should trade mark that one) we suffer through these meltdowns.

Now before, before you and Rich(ie) get started. Unemployment is going to get worse, states are going broke and may default. The deficit is going to get larger.  Nothing you are doing is going to stop it.  We need to unlease the creaters in this country.  You and yours are punishing them!

Everyone has to agree with this

Even Baxter has to agree with this...if not maybe he should move out of this country.

Subj: A proposal worth pursuing
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Something like this............

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that Congress members could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Health care Reform that is being considered...in all of its' forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.


Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States".



Friday, January 8, 2010

Muslim Just a thought!

This stupid idea or ideal that we the United States need to have political correctness, rather than COMMON SENSE.
Here is COMMON SENSE.
Not all Muslims are Terrorists.
99.9% of all terrorists attacks are committed by Muslims.
Here is an idea let's look for men between 18 and 35 with Muslim features, dress, and search them not little old ladies for explosives.
Just a thought

Alternative Energy -Sure!

Once again we hear about the need for alternative energy. Great, but the hypocrisy on the Left is overwhelming. Not in my back yard. From the private jets landing in Copenhagen, the Limo use in Copenhagen to wind farms in Nantucket - it's laughable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704842604574642370763782540.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

Thursday, January 7, 2010

CHANGE FROM THE MIDDLE????

None of these changes, these movements forward, came easily. All involved (or still involve) putting the issue right into the faces of the "average" US citizen and making us really look at the truth of the matter. All had some kind of "spark" or rallying point or charismatic leader.

Change never came from the middle... never has change came from the safety of the "status quo". The middle wants to keeps things the same--change is scary, so let's not do it. Conservatives like change even less-- let's go back to when change hadn't even begun- to "the good old days."

I am a progressive- a fairly liberal one, in fact. I want my country to keep moving forward. I want my country to examine itself and keep what works and fix what doesn't. After all, isn't that how we make progress?

Lots of what people take for granted today started out as pretty radical ideas. I hope that lots of what people take for granted 50 years from now comes from what we are now trying to accomplish.

How do we get there? How do we pull America forward? How do we nudge her towards her future?

More economic facts for Rich and Terry to ponder

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514426

Since we all know that Rich never reads these links, Chile is the first country in South America to win the honor. For Chileans, it symbolizes exit from the ranks of the Third World to the First. "For the rest of us," IBD writes, "it's a stunning example of how embracing free markets and free trade brings prosperity." It's an example that we could use in the United States right about now.

The lesson has not been lost on Asia. "As the U.S. dithers," IBD notes, "East Asia has moved forward on market liberalization with a vengeance, creating the biggest free trade zones seen in years. The train is pulling out of the station, and America isn't on board."

On a related note, the Christian Science Monitor reports on Latin America's rising new economic star. If you've followed along so far, you probably have guessed that it is not Venezuela, Bolivia, or Ecuador. No, it's Peru. Also embracing free markets and free trade.

As we languish in ever more government spending and high unemployment we are proving once again that Keynsian principles do not work in the real world but Chile has again proven that "free markets for free men" is the way to go.

More on the worst AG ever

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions continues to push Attorney General Holder to explore links between a jihadist rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia and Yemeni terrorists linked to the attempted Christmas Day bombing of the Nortwest/Delta flight to Detroit. Yesterday Senator Sessions rereleased a letter he sent last month to Holder demanding that the Department of Justice suspend a program under which select Guantanamo detainees are sent to Saudi Arabia for terrorist therapy.

Senator Sessions notes that in Holder's capacity as head of the Obama administration's task force on Guantanamo detainees, Holder has twice vouched for the efficacy of Saudi Arabia's terrorist therapy program in rehabilitating jihadist terrorists. Senator Sessions is unimpressed with the results achieved in terrorist therapy. His letter discloses that 11 of Saudi Arabia's 85 most-wanted terrorists are "graduates of the Saudi program."

Making the letter of substantial current interest, Senator Sessions also discusses the links between terrorist therapy and and Yemeni terrorism. Therapy alumni include Said Ali al Shihri, now the deputy leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen, and Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish, Al Qaeda's current theological leader on the Arabian Peninsula. Senator Sessions writes: "The list of failed participants in the Saudi program reads like a 'who's who' of Al Qaeda terrorists on the Arabian peninsula."

It has been almost a month since the original letter, Dec. 9, and AG Holder has yet to respond.

Yes, Rich he is far worse than John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez. All of Holder's decisions are colored in politics. From his work on the Marc Rich pardon to his pardon work on behalf ogf the FALN terrorists. These decisions in favor of terrorists are far more dangerous than writing opinion letters that justified torturing KLM.

By the way if it is so right to grant all of these terrorists thier constitutional rights than why is it also good to blow them away with drones without any warning? O'Reilly is correct, the hypocrisy is almost beyond belief.

Also if Gitmo is such a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda does anyone really believe that once it is closed and all of these terrorists are moved to Illinois that Al Qaeda recruiting is going to take a big tumble? That statement about Gitmo is one of the biggest liberal lies of all time. It has never been proven and the facts certainly do not show that it is one of the main reasons why individuals join Al Qaeda. What is going to happen is that we will now have all of these terrorists residing on US soil and if anything happens there it will be far worse than if it happened at Gitmo. This is common sense. Something that Holder and Obama seem to lack.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree

Terry read this one carefully because it is about all of the things that you are a Democrat for.

Chris Dodd's father was Connecticut Senator Thomas Dodd. Thomas Dodd achieved the rare distinction of being censured by the Senate.

The elder Dodd was censured by the Senate for corruption in 1967. Dodd had converted campaign funds to his personal use. Dodd proceeded to lose the Democratic nomination for his Senate seat in 1970, but nevertheless returned to face the voters in 1970 as an independent. He lost a three-way race in which Lowell Weicker emerged victorious. I guess he thought he could pull a Lieberman.

One might have thought that the example of his father would have led the younger Dodd to conduct himself with great probity in office. On the contrary, however, with his preferentia mortgage extended to him by a company under his jurisdiction, his stonewalling about it, and his crooked Irish cottage, he showed that corruption ran in the family.

Like his father, Dodd was a formidable consumer of alcohol. Dodd's escapades with Teddy Kennedy inspired Kelly's aphorism: "Drunks are notoriously poor judges of distance, including the distance between fun and assault."

In the lawful performance of his official duties Dodd helped create the financial crisis. He was an ardent defender of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored entities that returned the admiration through financial support to Dodd's campaign. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed more than $165,000 to Dodd. He was, after all, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Taxpayers took it seven ways from Sunday in the arrangement.

Dodd joined his corruption with a bullying liberal self-righteousness and condescension. It is a sickening combination. He richly deserved the thumping by the voters that his exit will unfortunately deprive them of administering.

Watch Rich(ie) drool, dude lives for this stuff

By E.J. DIONNE JR.

All by themselves, Obama's victory and his appointments to his administration threaten four previously solid Democratic seats: Obama's old Illinois seat, Vice President Joe Biden's in Delaware, Salazar's in Colorado and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's in New York.

Republicans can reel off four other states where they currently have a better-than-decent shot at Democratic seats: the newly promising North Dakota, plus Arkansas, Nevada and Pennsylvania. And if the country is really gloomy on Nov. 2, the GOP thinks it has a shot at California.

Even this scenario would leave Republicans just short of a Senate majority, and Democrats are betting that they will easily hold New York and California, while hanging on to Nevada — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has relatively unknown opponents and will have a huge bank account — and Pennsylvania. Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln confronts the most difficult terrain of any Democrat this year, but she may profit from Republican divisions.

Then there are the Democrats' wild cards: five Republican seats where some combination of strong Democratic candidates, divisive Republican primaries, or potentially weak GOP nominees offers a chance to offset losses.

In rough descending order of possibility, these include Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina and Kentucky. Democrats can't bank on any of them, but just a win or two would buy their majority protection.

It's thus very hard to see how the Republicans can take over the Senate. But with North Dakota changing colors, the Democrats' map is not a happy one. If managing a barely filibuster-proof majority has been hell for the party's leaders, this now seems to be one burden they won't have to worry about next year.

WHY I AM DEMOCRAT

My party is held in a big tent with no burly security guards at the flap. I am a Democrat because my party looks like America. It is not crowded with one race, ethnic group, religion, etc. You don't need an expensive ticket to get in. Everyone's invited. There are some there I won't ask to dance. There are some who are a little too wild for my tastes. There are some who dance with Democrats but, you can tell, are really just slumming: they'll sip champagne with the fat cats next week.

Admittedly, I have some negative reasons for my party choice. I am a Democrat because I believe there are, among the other guys, more politicians who are rotten guys. Schlafly, Limbaugh, Nixon, Agnew, Bush, Cheney, Starr, Rove, Ashcroft, Coulter,Hannity, Beck. Those who look to the worst in human nature. Those who are greedy and arrogant. Those who see themselves as intellectually superior and therefore more deserving. Those who think that those worse off than themselves are deservedly so. Those who are dismissive of, unconcerned for, arrogant toward people of lesser wealth, lesser ability, lesser intelligence. Those who have little or no respect for honest laborers. Those who trust the free enterprise system to cure all ills. Those who demand self-sufficiency from the poor but welcome government perks themselves. There are, of course, many at the other party who do not fit those negative stereotypes.

My choice is primarily a positive one, though. I am a Democrat because I believe my party has, over the the years, most closely supported my political ideals: civil rights and equality of rights, strong public schools, separation of church and state, a role for the government in promoting the general welfare of all its citizens, a strong, sensible, diplomatic foreign policy.


I am a Democrat because, as I review my life, I find that my votes have proven right much more often than not. My party adopted the civil rights movement that is accepted as the correct position by almost everyone now, even some who fought it tooth and nail 40 years ago. It was primarily members of my party who led opposition to the Vietnam war and virtually all Americans eventually came to see that war as the mistake that it was. Democrats saw Richard Nixon for the fraud he was when he was the darling of the Republicans. My party opposed Ronald Reagan’s economic policies and those policies nearly bankrupted our nation. Many in my party told America that George W. Bush was the blustering little bully he has turned out to be. They told America his policies would divide us, derail our economy, lose us our allies, and make the world a more dangerous place. They were right.

I am a Democrat because I revere so many of our party leaders of the past and present: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, Jackson (blemished though he was), Cleveland, Wilson (warts and all), FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, Truman, Stevenson, Marshall,

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

The CO2 Lie

Its not that LIBERALS are evil (OK they are, they want to destroy the most prosperous country in history). It is that they will just not face facts.
Here are a couple:
There are no alternative energy sources to replace "oil"
None.
Without oil, lots, really lots, millions even, will die and or live in prolonged poverty.

Global warming is not settled science, there is controversy.
There just is, can't be denied.

So, before we shut down the production of something which may be doing us no harm, shouldn't we discuss it further? What is the harm?

Now we are back to their evilness. Cap and trade. Let me see, we take a country producing something and "tax" its production and other countries which don't, they get to receive credits for not producing that which they never did. Gosh, sounds like....a huge transfer of wealth to me!

They do not give a damn about freedom. (Rich(ie) honestly, don't you ever worry about your freedom? Have you read no history?

Rich and Terry join the trend and not be left behind

Rasmussen polling finds that the number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats has fallen to the lowest level recorded in seven years of tracking by Rasmussen Reports, down six percent since the November 2008 elections. Democrats and Republicans are now in a virtual dead heat. And this is American adults, not likely voters. When you shift to likely voters the Republicans are now clearly ahead.

This administration makes me think of Alfred Lord Tennyson and his famous poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade". Will these Democrats in Congress continue to "not to reason why" but blindly do as they are told by Barry and his minions? Has there ever been a POTUS that has broken more campaign promises in his first year than the one we have now? No wonder his approval rating is in free fall.

The worst AG in history

Rich attempted to cloak the idiocy of the latest DOJ decision concerning Abdulmutallab by comparing him to Richard Reid. Nice try!

The problem with this Red Herring is all of the other decisions being made by Holder recently.

When you put this one next to the administration's treatment of Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a criminal defendant. No reason of law or justice, history or tradition, supports the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. in federal court. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/17/bowing_to_world_opinion__99181.html
The Barry administration is stalwart in its refusal to articulate the rationale supporting the treatment of particular perpetrators as criminal defendants rather than enemy combatants.

Attorney General Holder's announcement of the "forum decisions for 10 Guantanamo Bay detainees" likewise lacked the statement of a rationale. Addressing KSM et al., here is what Holder said:
I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long-established rules and procedures....
[M]y decision as to whether to proceed in federal courts or military commissions was based on a protocol that the Departments of Justice and Defense developed and that was announced in July. Because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors - including the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated - that must be considered. In consultation with the Secretary of Defense, I looked at all the relevant factors and made case by case decisions for each detainee.

In his announcement Holder never got around to articulating the rationale or applying it to the cases. He left the rationale unstated.

The United States has never tried enemy leaders responsible for acts of war in civilian courts. Never before in American history has the United States brought its martial enemies to trial in a civilian court and cloaked them with the protections of the United States Constitution. Someone in a position to do so really ought to question responsible administration officials such as Holder and Brennan in a forum designed to secure a full statement of reasons accounting for the administration's actions. In other words how long is it going to take for Congress to act? When the worst AG in history keeps making decisions that are arguably making this nation less safe and costing untold amounts of money in the case of the trials of KSM et al., there needs to be someone who will step up before it is too late.

By the way have any of you wondered why Al Queda has recently stepped up their aggressiveness? Could it be that they sense the weakness in this administration that the majority of Americans are sensing?

The Emperor has no clothes

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month

The president’s Approval Index ratings fell three points in December following two-point declines in both October and November.

The number who Strongly Disapprove of the president’s performance inched up a point to 41% in December. The number who Strongly Approved fell two more points to 26%. That leads to a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15, a new low for Obama.

Also in December, the president’s total approval dropped two points to 46%. His total disapproval gained a point to 53%. It’s worth noting that the Approval Index ratings have generally proven to be a good leading indicator of the president’s overall approval ratings.
The United States federal and state governments will be facing an unprecedented tax shortfall in the years to come. Declining corporate profits, asset values, and skyrocketing unemployment will cause the tax base to fall flat. It will most likely become evident in April of this year and get progressively worse in the years to come.
The common sense solution would be for the federal and state governments to once and for all abandon wasteful programs and departments and dramatically cut down on government expenses. Unfortunately this will not in any way be the consensus among Congress and the Executive Branch. They will see no other way out than to drastically raise taxes as a matter of “urgency” and “in the nations interest”. This bureaucratic intervention will of course do nothing but stifle growth and progress and thus have an additional adverse effect on tax receipts that will leave government bureaucrats puzzled.  Since it appears as though currently tax hikes are not feasible, the government will keep trying to finance the shortfall with a progressively increasing budget deficit.
to 2003 federal tax receipts dropped from $2 trillion to $1.8 trillion, a drop of about 3.3% per year
The estimated receipts for 2008 are $2.5 trillion. It is save to assume that the upcoming tax shortfall will dwarf all precedents. But to make the outlook as optimistic as possible we shall assume a drop of just 10% per year:
Federal tax receipts will fall to $2.25 trillion in 2009, to $2 trillion in 2010, to $1.75 trillion in 2011, and to $1.5 trillion in 2012.
Meanwhile there is no indication that government expenses will fall. Even with the current, now completely obsolete, budget estimates for government expenses, the Federal deficit would develop as follows:

$850 billion for 2009  $1 trillion for 2010  $1.3 trillion for 2011  $1.7 trillion for 2012

These are very optimistic figures. It wouldn’t be surprising if actual figures turned out to be around double or triple those numbers, unless a true change in policy were to occur.
A true change would of course necessitate a complete, yet structured and well planned, abandonment of whole departments and government programs, including but not limited to Homeland Security, Education, Social Security, and Health and Human Services, along with a significant reduction of defense and military spending to sustainable levels around $100 billion per year.

Put Down and Kool-Aid and Put on a Parka!

For those of you who have been drinking the Global Warming Kool-Aid, here's a tip: Put down that Kool-Aid and put on a Parka!!!

The problem for the Warmers is that reality is so darn pesky.

When the model doesn't give the results the designer wants he can adjust boundary conditions, equations and coefficients until he gets the right answer. I've done it a lot, but I was always trying to get my models to match reality as opposed to trying to get a politically preferred result. We have learned that the Warmers engaged in the perverse activity of tweaking reality so real data (cooling) got transformed into their preferred result (warming).

But here's the rub: turns out that tweaking data won't change Reality. Ten years and counting and now we get the strongest Arctic blast in decades. I don't know if Hell has frozen over, but it must be very, very chilly in the computer labs at the University of East Anglia and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Here's one more tip for you Warmers: Rather than Copenhagen, have your next summit in Barbados!!!

Hags

Monday, January 4, 2010

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.


This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.
WASHINGTON - Dick Cheney's withering criticism of the Obama White House's terrorism-fighting policies came under an equally harsh response Sunday, with the former vice president accused of being ignorant or intentionally misleading.



John Brennan, who is President Barack Obama's counterterrorism adviser, said he has worked for five administrations and that Obama is as determined as anyone to keep the nation safe.


Cheney said last week that Obama is "trying to pretend" that the U.S. is not at war with terrorists. The result, the Republican Cheney said, is that Americans are less safe.


"I'm very disappointed in the (former) vice president's comments," Brennan said. "Either the (he) is willfully mischaracterizing this president's position both in terms of the language he uses and the actions he's taken, he's ignorant of the facts."

Happy Tax Year!

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=7ad3e8a36865fac0996333aca39bbf09&CID=5536834381&ch=93D862DF9A9DC27D87A707037DEC0427

Has generated interest, not much by me. Anyone else?


Well ol' sara thinks the cap 'n trade as originally conceived may not make it because the administration has a simpler approach. The EPA has 'discovered' that greenhouse gases (aka CO2) endanger human health. Sara's sense is that 'big business' will not want to argue this in the courts; so, will run to congress (oh my) to try to mollify the 'finding'. Then, here we go again with some form of cap 'n trade. Just a thought but it may play out. Younger brighter thoughts on this would be appreciated.
An aside! Mr. Baxter's 'popularity poll' (OOO S Ah Today) was quoted but not a MENTION of ol' sara coming in second place with the ladies. How about a little more respect.(((<:
HNY to all, sara p.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Most Admired Man & Woman in America

By 6 to 1 and 2 to 1, respectively.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-12-25-admire-poll_N.htm

Friday, January 1, 2010

More on Climate Change

In one of the several responses to my last post Bax tossed out the following in a comment aimed at Dr. P.:

"On this topic (climatic change), you need to learn humility. You are not qualified to argue the science. Period. Neither am I. We need to look to the scientists - the experts."

I am willing to accept Bax at his word: namely, that he is not qualified to argue the science.

I am.

The world has been colder, much colder, than it is now. It has also been hotter. I suppose Bax knows that there have been Ice Ages, as many as nine. And somehow, things have warmed up. I don't know if he knows that the world has been hotter than it is now, but it has.

Do you guys know that the the magnetic poles have reversed? Something like 7 times? It is true (fossil evidence). Bax, you do believe in fossil evidence, yes/no?

The world is a massive engine. The forces at work are stronger than all things manmade. The thing to learn about man's effect on the world were well stated in the video that Bax trashed (Bax; were you really silly enough to attack the presentation because of the age of the presenter?!?!?!? Are we back to not trusting anyone over 30?!?!? If you have something then BRING IT! But don't be sophomoric.)

As stated in the video, we should not poison the planet. We should help all people move forward economically. (Was that too subtle? It means we should work to eliminate poverty.) Further economic development is a good thing. That means using energy to replace human toil, among other things.

The leftist climate change industry that Bax likes to quote has a couple of motivations. The easiest to understand are the "scientists" who make a living from studies and writings. For them it is a growth industry. Bully for them! There is another group of (mostly) well meaning folks (Bax among them, in my opinion) who have a dizzy vision of some time in around, oh, I don't know, 1840, when the World (meaning the continental U.S) was "perfect." Indians were pursuing their gentle lives on The Prairie and the air was clean and the water pure. And somehow, those who believe that Western Man and Capitalism are responsible for everything ill on the planet also feel that we should return the World to that 1800s condition. (They probably don't want the same life expectancy as then, and they might miss their refrigerators and iPods, but I digress.)

The fact that the world is warming is true. There is no fact that it is warming simply because of mankind's activities. I think that there is every reason to believe that more carbon dioxide doesn't help, but I'll take more carbon dioxide if it means more people not starving, more people with shelter, more people living longer and better.

Bax, those with technical expertise know that there are first order causes, second order causes, third order and so on. To think that mankind is a first order cause is to demonstrate an absence of understanding of the forces at work and the history of the world. Stop hiding behind "90% of scientists" and get your ass in gear and go learn something.

All the best!

Hags