The Saddest Part of BO

Mitch Daniels Responds | Power Line

Good column, but this is priceless. BOnomics is simply the removal of the nose to spite the face.

No feature of the Obama Presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others. As in previous moments of national danger, we Americans are all in the same boat. If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category. If we fail to shift to a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic policy, there will never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net, national security, or whatever size government we decide to have. …

Let's Get Busy on 5.0 Liberalism!!

The Once and Future Liberalism - Walter Russell Mead - The American Interest Magazine

A slightly long, but needs to be read by all. An excellent summary on where we have been politically during our history and why it is so hard to get on with the hard work of the next release of "liberalism" (in the true, not common usage). Hint:: Too much success.

Liberalism 1.0, 1688, The Glorious Revolution

Liberalism 2.0, 1776, The US Revolution

Liberalism 3.0, 19th Century, "Ending Slavery"

Liberalism 4.o, 4.1 20th century, before and after FDR, "The Iron Triangle"

Liberalism 5.0 -- ?????

A good description of why we are just spinning our wheels at the moment.

Our real choice, however, is not between blue or pre-blue. We can’t get back to the 1890s or 1920s any more than we can go back to the 1950s and 1960s. We may not yet be able to imagine what a post-blue future looks like, but that is what we will have to build. Until we remove the scales from our eyes and launch our discourse toward the future, our politics will remain sterile, and our economy will fail to provide the growth and higher living standards Americans continue to seek. That neither we nor the world can afford.

A good summary of the current state of affairs.

Finally, in this regard, the blue model has impoverished our lives and blighted our society in more subtle ways. Many Americans became (and remain) stuff-rich and meaning-poor. Many people classified as “poor” in American society have an historically unprecedented abundance of consumer goods—anything, essentially, that a Fordist factory here or abroad can turn out. But far too many Americans still have lives that are poor in meaning, in part because the blue social model separates production and consumption in ways that are ultimately dehumanizing and demeaning. A rich and rewarding human life neither comes from nor depends on consumption, even lots of consumption; it comes from producing goods and services of value through the integration of technique with a vision of social and personal meaning. Being fully human is about doing good work that means something. Is a blue society with our level of drug and alcohol abuse, and in which the average American watches 151 hours of television a month, really the happiest conceivable human living arrangement?

Amen to his description of the current discussion and a little shape to how the 5.0 discussion format might look. My view would be that a cornerstone of that discussion is some variation on the theme of "A Lifetime Learning Nation" or "All America as "Silicon/Innovation/Advanced Tech/???" Valley" ... or ???

We must come to terms with the fact that the debate we have been having over these issues for past several decades has been unproductive. We’re not in a “tastes great” versus “less filling” situation; we need an entirely new brew. But this is nothing to mourn, because both liberalism 3.0 and 4.0 died of success, just as versions 1.0 and 2.0 did before them.

For those blue Democrats clinging to liberalism 4.1, this is a time of doom and gloom. For those red Republicans longing for a return to liberalism 3.0, it is a time of angry nostalgia: Ron Paul making a stump speech. This should be a time of adventure, innovation and creativity in the building of liberalism 5.0. America is ready for an upgrade to a new and higher level; indeed, we are overdue for a project that can capture the best energies of our rising generations, those who will lead the United States and the world to new and richer ways of living that will make the “advanced” societies of the 20th century look primitive, backward and unfulfilled.

We’ve wasted too many years arguing over how to retrieve the irretrievable; can we please now get on with the actual business of this great, liberal, unapologetically forward-looking nation?

Buffett Secretary Meme, The Shallows

Warren Buffett: Shut up, he explained | Power Line:

I've written enough about this, my point here is just to point out one reason why we have so much division in the US today, we have just seen the creation of a new Meme -- "Buffet's Secretary".

The left / MSM listeners / Democrats etc will see it as some version of the following depending on their memory, friends, degree of paying attention, etc:

"Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does".

"Buffett's secretary pays more taxes than he does"

If someone that has dug into a bit more tries to have a reasoned discussion on the topic, they will respond with something like:

"Well, I don't see why he would lie about it".

"You must listen to Fox News too much!"

"It was all over, I didn't hear anything about the stuff you are saying ..."

or basically, as the title of the linked article says,  "Shut Up".

This has now entered the mind of the American voting public as a bunch of interlinked "factoids" have, most of which have only emotional and often very close to 100% incorrect content of any sort.

Some examples:

• "Bush lied" -- forget "about what"? In the known definition of "lying" he didn't lie about WMD, yellowcake, Valerie Plame, or anything else commonly attributed ... but the meme has stuck. He may have been wrong about WMD (even that is questionable).
• "Death Panels" -- the true origin is long lost. This started on the right, probably in the Tea Party, now it is just "a complete fabrication" from the left, and "a hyperbolic euphemism for healthcare rationing" from the right.
• "Tea Party" --  there really isn't much of an organization. It could be people opposed to runaway government of most sorts -- spending and BOcare in particular, but in general it is "bad, stupid, racist" from the left, "mostly good, maybe a little carried away conservative" from the right.
• "The 1%" -- From the left, a symbol of Wall Street, Corporations, The Koch Bros (or wealthy devil of the day) ... all manner of financial evil, greed, malfeasance and corruption. THE ENEMY in the 2012 campaign of Class Warfare. From the right, the level of income that they would like to achieve someday.

One could go on forever, but the bottom line is that in this time of massive info overload, our information delivery systems have actually been reduced to delivering "only the tag cloud" with next to no content behind them -- but more importantly, essentially 180 degree different content depending on your "political tribe". Is it any wonder that nothing even approaching discussion or debate happens anymore??

Like most things, there is a whole book "The Shallows" http://www.theshallowsbook.com/nicholascarr/Nicholas_Carrs_The_Shallows.html that covers this general phenomenon as it relates to the Internet.

No time for true content, depth, nuance, honest emotion, thought, context ... just a raw emotional "meme/tag", then silence.

'via Blog this'

Burn The Wealth

Obama Was Once A Visionary But Now He's Focused On Little Things - Investors.com:

It is quite easy to see the path from a successful economy to riots, car burnings and worse. Obama displays the symptoms of infection -- the willingness to instigate things he sees as "fair" even if it known that the net effect on everyone is negative. He still wants to "get the rich". It is possible that this all merely a political ploy -- he has to run on something, and it certainly isn't going to be his record. It appears that "fairness / class warfare" is the choice.

Pretty good Krauthammer column over all.

"Back in 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support raising the capital-gains tax rate (the intended effect of the Buffett Rule) if this would decrease government revenues. Obama said yes. In the name of fairness."

'via Blog this'

Warren Buffett’s Secretary Joe

Meet Warren Buffett’s Poor Secretary » American Glob

Remember Joe the Plumber? When he showed up in the '08 campaign the MSM had a load of deep background investigation on him that included all his financials, questions about his plumbing license, questions about the veracity of his potential interest in "buying the plumbing company", and a tax lein.

Forbes has done some speculation on how much Buffet's secretary "may make" if her rate somehow gets over 15% ... apparently she likely has to be over $200K, and maybe as much as $500K. In other words, very well off --- adding to this view is the fact that she just purchased a fairly nice 2nd home in Arizona.

Unlike Joe the Plumber -- who just had the audacity to ask "The One" (now "The Zero") a question on the campaign trail which resulted in the famous "spread the wealth around" comment.

So why so little interest in the particulars of Buffett's secretary? If he is paying her over $200K, she is approaching the evil 1%. Are we REALLY going to get into shedding tears for someone that makes over $200K because they **MAY** pay a higher rate than the richest guy in US??

Some points:

• Let's face it, Warren and BO have both mislead Americans to think of Warren's secretary as "middle class at best". But wait, if Warren was say "one of the Koch brothers" that alone would cause an outcry as in "Why does he pay her so little?". 
• If she is paid as Forbes surmises, then Warren isn't so hard hearted, but we are talking about tax rates for two 1%ers. There are something like 3 Million of those folks in a country of 300M, the vast majority of which make more like $200 - $400K, rather than whatever Warren makes.
• The control of the MSM is still amazing -- BO and ABC can use this lady as a mascot and the general media doesn't ask a single hard question. Get a symbolic conservative of that nature and the story INSTANTLY becomes about any skeletons in their closet, their families closet, how they bungle some offbeat question thrown at them by the media, etc, etc. In other words, THEY become the story, NOT whatever point the conservative was trying to make with them. 

We are borrowing 40% of every $ we are spending and we are talking about differential tax rates between the richest guy in the country and his secretary. Meanwhile, the richest guy in the country is viewed as a "hero" even though he is the top of the top of the 1% who are supposedly villans. Why?? He "wants his taxes raised" -- in the meantime he is transferring his wealth to a foundation rather than the US government upon his death, and his businesses have $1B in back taxes that are being litigated.

Can we get any more insane??

Obama's Critics Are Dumb

Newsweek's Andrew Sullivan Says President Obama's Critics Are Dumb - Investors.com

Seriously, must we EVER talk about bias in the MSM again??? How many $$$ must Republicans raise to counteract this kind of "reporting"???  Essentially infinite!

The title is very scary if you look at it right. They mean "dumb" as in the colloquial meaning "stupid", but of course it really means "unable to speak". Obama's critics -- the people for restraint in spending, pro-business / jobs government, family values, etc;   don't have the kind of media wallop to do a cover / article like this on a magazine that will glare from newsstands across the nation, so they are "unable to speak", they truly are "dumb"!!!!

They are "less dumb" today ... Fox news, talk radio, "corporations as people" money, but we are still far short from having a NewSpeak cover like that. How hard does the left want to work to get Citizens United (the SCOTUS case that allows corporations to contribute to politics) overturned??? VERY ... BO railed against it from a SOTU address with the justices in the room!!

The left is constantly at work to win the only way they really can -- by shutting up the opposition, and therefore the truth. From the Gulag, to Hitlers Germany, to Mao, to Pol Pot, to China today, the strategy of the left is ALWAYS "keep them dumb" ... and dead if possible.

They work to hide it, but the truth tends to cry out when least expected.

Chuck Norris Endorses Newt!

My Endorsement for President - Page 1 - Chuck Norris - Townhall Conservative

I thought I was ready to finally accept and start getting exited for "Mitt", "Mittens" Romney, then the people of SC rose up, and now I read that Chuck Norris has endorsed Newt! My god, Chuck Norris doesn't do "push ups", he pushes the planet down!!

That is why Gena and I have committed the rest of our lives to help Old Glory rise again to its heights of splendor. And that is why we are endorsing and standing with Newt Gingrich, because we believe he can lead all of us who have committed to the same.

After 2 in a row, I was hoping that the party could unite behind Mitt, but the fact is that didn't happen. I love the Newt combativeness and at least seemingly straight talk. What I hate is the hubris, the meanness, the history of breaking things and the sense that he can't be trusted. One of the reasons that womanizing is accepted for Democrats is because nobody EXPECTS then to follow though on their promises ... marriage or otherwise. (See BO ... campaign finance, raising debt limit, Gitmo, unemployment staying under 8.1, more open government, recess appointments, etc, etc).

Newt displays core Democrat values at times ... womanizing, petulance, flip flopping (doing a commercial with Pelosi on GW), massive inside the beltway deal making, etc ..

But CHUCK NORRIS!!! If anyone can keep him in line, it is Chuck!!! 

Realizing the Dismal in Economics

RealClearPolitics - Why the Fed Slept

Economics is often called "The Dismal Science" for much the same reason that we say "What goes up must come down" ... or young pilots are admonished that taking off is a decision entirely in their hands, landing, not always so much.

The salient point of this article is:

There's a paradox to economic policy. The more it succeeds at prolonging short-term prosperity, the more it inspires long-run destabilizing behavior by businesses, banks, consumers, investors and government. If they think basic stability is assured, they will assume greater risks -- loosen credit standards, borrow more, engage in more speculation, relax wage and price behavior -- that ultimately make the economy less stable. Long booms threaten deep busts.

There is a paradox to everything human -- we aren't endowed with the god-like powers of "final solutions", and when we attempt them, what we create are even bigger problems.

Humility, humility, humility --- but hubris is our nature.

MIGHT We Agree After All???

Online activists triumphant as Congress buries anti-piracy bills - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

Lots of folks in congress supported this bill on both the right and the left -- both MN Senators, and Marco Rubio were sponsors.

People on BOTH the left and the right on FB were adamant in opposition.

Here is my view on WHY:

1). The internet is very precious to both the left and the right, AND the idea of "government control of speech" is a huge fear of both sides.

2). What one had to do to support the bill was to trust government AND to some degree corporations to do the right thing. The left doesn't trust the corporations and the right doesn't trust the government -- so we agree on stopping it, just for somewhat different reasons.

3). On both the right and the left, the high regard for free speech on the internet changed the "calculus". The normal corporate supporters realized that the natural caution of corporations would likely make them overly restrictive if there was a CHANCE they would come under legal jeopardy if copyright material was found on their sites. The normal government supporters thought of government bureaucracy, paranoia and incompetence and their scale fell down hard on the side of "keep your hands off my internet".

So where might we go from here?

1). Realize what happened!!! People that we normally argue vehemently with were in complete agreement --- maybe not for precisely the same reasons, but it is MUCH easier to "see the other side" from a position of agreement rather than opposition.

2). Think about this in different areas. It we think that corporations (especially big ones) are likely to be overly cautious when faced with laws in THIS CASE, why do many think so differently in other cases??? Are the characteristics that we worried about from the government ALSO valid in healthcare? Spending money prudently? Making decisions on wealth allocation?

3). Perhaps we actually AGREE on "smaller" for BOTH government and corporations??? It is actually true that both go together -- big corporations work to influence government, and the bigger the government, the bigger the corporations that are best suited to influence and "partner" ("collude"?) with it.

EVERY human institution -- Government, corporations, sports teams, glee clubs, etc. is "flawed, fallible, self perpetuating ...." It IS NOT "one or the other" ... that best approach in nature and in human affairs is checks and balances.

A Consistent Liberal!!!

Cohen-Head: Defending Big Money in Politics | Power Line:

Nearly always, liberals follow a maxim that I refer to as "consistency is NOT an issue"!! Which means it isn't even a consideration -- I get bored of pointing it out because it is so obvious. Money in campaigns for Republicans, BAD ... BO spends record amounts, NO PROBLEM!!! Gitmo with Bush, BAD ... under BO??? Gitmo what?? ... "civility" ??? really really important if Tea Party said anything REMOTELY "uncivil" ... Occupy Wall Street ??? Whatever ...

BUT, here we have a case of a liberal columnist, Richard Cohen, pointing out that Eugene McCarthy's NH candidacy was financed by a few fat cats that were fed up with Vietnam ... SO, since he supported that, and generally supports free speech, he can't see how he can go against conservatives that do the same thing!!! Wow, my hat is off to a liberal for taking a CONSISTENT POSITION !!! If this caught on, one could actually have reasoned discussion with liberals!!

The quote from George Will in the piece is priceless and right on ...

"Campaign reformers constantly argue that, a) there’s too much political speech in this country, b) they know the right amount and, c) they want to criminalize speech in excess of that."

The classic "liberal" position ... I know what is "right, fair, correct, proper, environmentally sound, diverse, etc" ... AND, I'm willing to lock you up if you disagree!!

'via Blog this'

Titanic Concordia

After sinking, some wonder: Is cruising safe? - CNN.com

The modern media wags the public like the dog wags it's tail. We are forever trying to compare current events with events of the past as if there were some correlation.

The Titanic was a completely new technology ship trying to break the speed record from Europe to the US through the ice infested N Atlantic. It went down hundreds of miles from land with over 1,500 dead. Yes, some remembrance might be in order since it was 1912 ... 100 years ago this April.

The Concordia is a big fat cruise ship that was transporting nobody anywhere except for hoped for R&R. It ran over a reef trying to do a show-off "flyby" at a little Italian town and ended up on it's side less than 200yds from shore. We may see 20ish dead out of over 4K.

My how far we have come in 100 years. The people on the Titanic were generally going somewhere -- ships were mostly for transportation, not recreation. Much like planes occasionally crash, ships occasionally sank. People had some overblown hopes for technology ("unsinkable"), but at least they were doing something and had some hopes.

The Concordia capsized on the shores of Italy -- one of the many formerly sovereign European states that traded their sovereignty for supposed wealth and are well on the way to reaping bankruptcy. It was just "wasting time" as is the case with so many in the modern world. The captain of the Titanic and many of his officers went down with his ship. The captain of the Concordia left early and had to be arrested in town even though he had been admonished to stay with his ship -- 100 years of mostly soft liberal outlook tend to breed some very weak character.

The left leaning educational and media establishments have drilled into our heads the folly and hubris of the Titanic for 100 years now. What they have failed to see is the hubris is as human as the AM bathroom trip and just as hard to eradicate. What they failed to see is their own hubris in moving from an overly proud and optimistic world moving faster and farther to an overly proud and generally pessimistic world on a bankrupt slow cruise to nowhere.

Massive recreational technology lying on it's side 200yds from shore may be one of the very best symbols of our times. Perhaps that is the real unintended link to the majestic Titanic. 

Flanders and Wallonia

The European Crack-Up by Theodore Dalrymple - City Journal

A little on the longish side but worth it. Many times people can only understand reality by being given multiple examples of what it is and how it works. Turns out that Belgium is a pretty good example -- and the differences between Flanders and Wallonia could well be Red vs Blue in the US.

This is then painted on the larger canvas of Europe with the differences between Ireland and Greece highlighted. Both of them went on a bender, it appears that Ireland has opted for black coffee and a couple of aspirin as the AM solution, Greece is hell bent on bloody mary's with a beer chaser.

Most of all, as is commonly the case with Dalrymple, it is an eyes wide open appraisal of human nature, unintended consequences and the boundless hubris of government and the "progressives".

Economic Divide

Niall Ferguson: A Conservative Take on America's Economic Divide - The Daily Beast

Like most things from Ferguson, a worthy read. I have no idea what Murray means by a "guaranteed income", but I'll read the book and figure it out -- no, it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

The diagnosis of how we got in this ditch sounds right on to me though.

The Scent of BO From Europe

Why are Barack Obama’s critics so smart? – Telegraph Blogs:

When W was president, any little foreign criticism that could be dredged up was worthy of front page treatment here. "See, Europe hates us!!!".

My how times have changed!!! Now NewsSpeak is essentially an extension of the WH press office and some people in Europe disagree with both it and the BO administration.

Newsworthy?? Barely.

'via Blog this'

John 3:16

Explain it to me: John 3:16 – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Despite Stewart's story, many sports fans continue the tradition of evangelizing at sports games by holding up John 3:16 on placards.

Uh, despite John Hinkley's sad tale, many people continue to attend movies?? Despite the Nazi's (National Socialists) not being very nice people, there are still a quite a few people who espouse socialist principles??

One could go on and on forever. So one guy that displays John 3:16 goes crackers and thus everyone should ??? uh, never pay attention to John 3:16 anymore??

Should anyone ever read CNN again after they put out this kind ot thought?

A Government Luther??

Where Are the Liberals? - NYTimes.com:

It is amazing how liberal a guy the NYTs puts up as their "conservative" -- Brooks voted for Obama.

Here his thesis is basically "liberals are right, but they have fouled the pool" ... so they need a "State Martin Luther" to clean it up ... Luther cleaned up the church, now we need a state version of Luther. Neat.

Some thoughts:

-- Luther moved the western church to BIBLICAL principles, not some "Catholic cleanup". It is true that he WANTED to reform the Catholic Church, but what he did was essentially give the Bible to the people (German translation) ... a cause that was also helped by Gutenberg. Luther applied "technology" (printing press) to Christian faith, thereby basically decentralizing the control of faith and creating an explosion of churches. The Catholic Church survived, but it never again had the power it had pre-Luther. 

-- If one was going to apply Luther to government, it would make people MORE self governing, which would make the Democrats even more wrong than they are now.

-- Rent seeking,  profit,  market share, competitive advantage, we won the election, currying favor, political influence, inside information, etc, etc. Those are all HUMAN ideas ... and they are pretty much the same thing. Luther didn't make himself Pope, King, Chief, wealthy, or anything -- neither did Christ. Our founding fathers were very successful people that took huge risks (including their lives) to give us liberty. A "government reformation" would operate on WHAT set of "transcended principles"??

-- The idea that "capitalism failed us" relative to the sub-prime crisis is like saying "technology failed us" when there is a car or plane crash, nuclear plant problem, power outage, or discovery of large defect in some product. **ALL** our systems --- government, private, military, corporate, non-profit, religious, educational, etc, etc are HUMAN designed, built, and operated. They are **ALL** subject to failures great and small. Government is pretty much the bottom of the barrel on quality of systems because:

1.  It's primary motivation is short term votes. In the long run, the politicians at hand are out of office.
2. It plays to constituencies, not science, principles, results (other than votes), efficiency, etc. 
3. It can't be destroyed by "lack of profits" or "measured failure", or consumer dissatisfaction like any other business. 

Making government work "better" is much like building a bigger H bomb or tiger, or fuel tanker. There may or may not be an UPside, but there is ALWAYS a DOWNSIDE!!!

'via Blog this'

The Land of Envy

GHEI: The class warfare toxin - Washington Times:

Good column on how Obama and the left has already made a lot of progress at moving us from being the land of opportunity to being the land of envy.

One of the huge "successes" of the BO administration has actually been in one of the areas that they constantly talk about "doing in the future" -- a vast reduction in wealth disparity by the destruction of wealth.

That is precisely what "transfer of wealth" accomplishes. If you demand that some of Bill Gates wealth be transferred, the act of the transfer means that the wealth is no longer optimally allocated, so therefore the total wealth of the nation is lowered. For example, the wealth might have been invested in a new project at Microsoft that now has to be cancelled. Rather than potentially providing the next big computing breakthrough, it is transferred to a series of people that buy large screen TVs ... and becomes a depreciating rather than appreciating asset.

The economic pie is NOT fixed -- in the zest of the left to divided it to their political advantage, they completely lose sight of just how easy it is to SHRINK it.

'via Blog this'

Tebow Halo??

'Mile High Halo' Forms Over Tim Tebow And Mile High Stadium During Broncos Steelers Game (PHOTOS):

Hey, it's in HuffPo, it MUST be true!!

Of course there is too much Tebow hype -- is anyone aware we have 24x7 cable sports and news + internet and other media??? There is ALWAYS too much hype of EVERYTHING from now on. People just decide which things to complain about ... and there are off switches, filters, etc.

I do really really enjoy seeing him do well playing football.

How many sorts of weird "Nation of Islam" statements, ex-cons, drug charged, criminal charged, strage haircuts, tats, demonstration "dances", completely off the wall statements about professional sports being like "slavery", "love boats", pushing meter maids with your car, etc, etc have we seen??? Endless.

But a practicing Christian and kneels and prays. Now THERE is something to really get bent out of shape about.

In the Superbowl??? Providing my Pack is there I hope he has the worst game in the history of the sport !!!! Otherwise, it would be fun to see.

'via Blog this'

Gitmo Makes News!!!

Guantanamo 10th Anniversary Protests: Demonstrators March From White House To Supreme Court (PHOTOS):

Remember Gitmo??? It was a HUGE "stain on America", it "made us less safe", it was "against international law" ... it was HORRIBLE!!!

St. BO promised to "close it as his first act"!!!!

oops ... not so easy. It is still open. It is the 10th anniversary and at least some of the lefty groups took the time to do a little demonstration. No doubt there will be VERY little press coverage, and to the "99%" of the US public sheep, this issue is as dead as a dodo.

Bias??? Oh, come on, there is no such thing!!!

If Bush promised to close it but didn't, that would be a LIE!!!

'via Blog this'

There They Go Again

William McGurn: The Stephanopoulos Standard - WSJ.com:

Good article on how Republicans need to handle the obvious press bias. Reagan tended to do a good job of not confronting Carter's obvious attempts to build off the press picture of him as some sort of "dangerous, wacko" and to calmly let people realize what Carter was trying to do. Thus Mitt with Stephanapoulos ... no need to get ones undies in a bundle, just calmly point out that it is "silly" to be asking questions about something that is on no agenda anywhere.

I question the wisdom of having so many Republican primary debates. We know the MSM / Democrat establishment approach will be to do their best to make sure that EVERY Republican candidate is "damaged goods" by the time they get through the debates and step up to face their guy BO. Why make it so easy for them??

'via Blog this'

BO Campaign Literature as "News"

Poor, but feeding the rich - CNN.com:

This was the center CNN headline this AM, it was "news". A few points:

-- The "poor" have been feeding "the rich" since Biblical times. I suspect that the "poor" will ALWAYS feed the rich ... and work for them, and wait on them in restaurants, clean their homes, park their cars, etc, etc, etc ... this is "news" in the sense that the sun rising in the east is news. When "the rich" are Democrats, they love to have the folks taking care of them be illegal aliens ... that is why they want open borders.

-- One thing that has changed over history is that the "poor" didn't get poor after divorce/re-marriage, living in a home that cost 2.5 times their yearly income and having hi-tech stents put in their hearts. These guys would call me "rich", and I never paid 2.5x my yearly income for a house.

-- The "poor" in the past -- and in not very many places today, get heart stents put in. They also typically didn't and in most of the world yet today, don't get enough to eat to have enough cholesterol in their arteries to even need a stent. The 2.5 Billion ACTUAL POOR in the world TODAY that have no sanitary facilites usually die in smelly ways way before they need stents. Oh, and their buck a day lifestyle means that there aren't any of their cardboard "homes" that are 2.5x their income.

-- Ruth's Chris Steakhouse is for "the 1%" only in the dreams of CNN. I've not been to one since I get to go to IA and have steaks nearly as good for $10 ... so it just isn't cost effective, but I know plenty of people that are maybe "upper 20%" who have been to one more than once.

-- He serves "the 1% of Americans who have enjoyed nearly 60% of all gains in income over the last three decades.". Well, this couple was poor, "sort of made it" with a $100K home and $40K income in the last "15 years", and now they are "poor". Doesn't that tell anyone anything??

Fortune top 10 1980 --- Exxon, GM, Ford, Texaco oil, Chevron oil, Gulf Oil, IBM, GM, Amoco oil

Fortune top 10 2010 -- WalMart, Exxon, Chevron, GE, Bank of America, Conoco Phillips Oil, AT&T, Ford, JP Morgan Chase, HP

Guess what? They aren't the same. Oil, Cars and tech are still there --- but many of the names are different, and banking/finance has become more important. The retail giant WalMart has become top of them all.

So the "top 1%" enjoys a lot of gains (and losses), but THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE OVER 30 YEARS!!!!! My guess would be that there is virtually nobody that was top 1% in 1980 that still is in 2010. It is like being the top 1% of anything -- QBs, hitters, etc ... your time at the very pinnacle is SHORT, and then someone else takes over in the 1% spotlight. The top 1% of hitters did some high percentage of the hits in the last 30 years as well -- thing is, NOT ONE of the top 1% of hitters from '80 is still playing at all!!! Talking about "gains of the 1% over 30 years" is like talking about "percentage of beer drank by the top 1% of beer drinkers over the past 30 years". I GUARANTEE you that not a single top 1% beer drinker from 1980 was still in that category by 2010!!!

So the bottom line is that this headline and article is the equivalent of an Obama ad, since we know he is going to run on "the wealth gap". CNN figures that they need work hard so that everyone is suitably angry about how HORRIBLE this "gap" is ... even though the gap is pretty much 100% a fabrication just to produce more polarization in our society -- of course since this is polarization that the Democrats and the MSM want, this is GOOD polarization!!

Democrats are just so completely incensed about the SCOTUS ruling on "corporations being able to contribute as people" ... it means "more money" that they believe is going to go to Republicans -- of course,  Google, Apple, most of the Banks / Stock houses, etc contribute to DEMOCRATS, but never mind. Even if they didn't, it would take INFINITE money to counter the MSM doing campaign literature as "news".

We have a LONG way to go before a significant number of the sheep figure this out.

'via Blog this'

The Right of the Left

Newt Gingrich New Hampshire Event Disrupted By Occupy Protesters:

I often hear people get all bent out of shape about "the shout shows", or "the blowhards on conservative radio" -- sometimes they say things like "why do conservatives support that stuff??".

I went to hear Newt Gingrich speak in Rochester about 15 years ago -- not long after the Republicans took over the house for the first time in over 40 years. In order to get in, my friend and I had to walk right through a loudly chanting union picket line being led by a Democrat that ran for the congressional seat here a number of times. We didn't mind, both of us solidly over 6' tall and 200 lbs, we figured they would stop and let us pass without problem, and they did. No question however that they were loudly and directly trying to intimidate people.

Fast forward close to a decade, and it is '02, a Senate debate in Rochester. Paul Wellstone and Norm Coleman are there. The crowd is of course admonished to not demonstrate and not interrupt the speakers. The Republicans followed that with the exception of some clapping and a few cheers. The Democrats??? Even people that I recognized from work or retirees were wildly booing and screaming in a manner that went beyond even what you typically see out of drunk fans at a game. They cheered with such joy for "their guy" and booed and yelled derogatory things at the Republican with such fervor you could tell that the "snake brain" was fully in charge. Their politics was a blood sport of a sort that I have no personal understanding of. I know we are not to talk about "Nazis", but the films of the Germans were the only reference point I had to that level of emotion being attached to politics.

There have been a few other cases over the years where I've observed such things -- even on the media. "Code Pink" for example disrupted both the '04 and '08 Republican conventions. I'm sure that nasty left-wing demonstrators will be heavily in evidence around, and likely breaking into this years Republican convention as well.

I checked around the web a bit. CNN has nothing on the disruption of the Gingrich event. I know when any Tea Party people at all showed up at Obama events -- even though they were quiet and I don't believe there has had to be a single arrest at one of their events,but never the less the media tended to look at the Tea Party as "threatening". This weekend was the anniversary of the AZ Giffords shooting -- we all remember that the media went INSTANTLY to WILDLY blaming Sarah Palin and the Tea Party without a single shred of evidence. They were 100% wrong, but that is so standard for the MSM, it really wasn't news.

The whole "Occupy" movement has been nothing but a stream of ill-formed obscenities aimed at some chimera of "anyone with any money" --- although most of them seem to have smart phones, laptops and other baubles, they do seem committed to a solidly slacking lifestyle. The media certainly has no trouble with them shouting, blocking things, swearing, beating drums, carrying signs that talk about violence, etc. -- from the MSM POV, there is nothing remotely threatening about OWS -- in fact, the most common comparison is "Arab Spring".

It seems that any form of "protest", including wild statements by entertainers at awards shows, shouting down people, blocking people, defacing all manner of property, burning flags, etc is somehow "positive grass-roots democracy in action" as long as it serves Democrats. 

On the other hand, Fox, Rush Limbaugh, etc -- money making media formats with really not very much actual "shouting", and certainly no profanity, calls to violence, etc are somehow "bad / dangerous / childish / liars / etc".

I truly believe that the well reasoned intellectual position of the left relative to the thoughts and speech of the "right" is "SHUT THE F**K UP!!!!" ... and they remain ever more angry that the nasty folks on the right don't just do so. 

Meanwhile, whatever they want to do -- shout down folks, try to intimidate and block people, spend billions of dollars collected by public unions for and against whatever they want, overturn elections via recall efforts ... "whatever", is completely protected and "good news".

No double standard here.

The left has a "right" to pretty much do anything they want to impose their politics from the point of view of the establishment ... the right has the "right" to remain silent, or preferably dead. 

'via Blog this'

Beating Up IA

In Iowa, a foreign country called the GOP - PostPartisan - The Washington Post:

Having grown up in heaven (WI) and then moved to MN for a 34 year career, I often feel about IA as I once did about my younger siblings. I'll beat them up all I want, but if you try, you are toast.

Full disclosure, my wife is from deepest darkest IA. Couple of my favorite IA jokes:

Did you hear that IA put in artificial turf in their stadium? ... They were having too much trouble with their cheerleaders grazing ...

Do you know why IA doesn't have any professional sports teams? Ans ... Because then MN would get jealous and want to have some as well. (that one is really good considering my background)

But I digress ... here we have Rochard Cohen, from the Washington Post, declaring IA and Republicans to be "foreigners". SOMEBODY is a "foreigner" in what was once America. That is exactly what this election, and indeed all the elections since the '30s have been about. The "liberals/progressives" believe that "Nation" means "United States of Europe". Pay no mind to the fact the Europe is in danger of collapse on an even more rapid timetable than the $15T in debt and $60-200T in unfunded liabilities bankrupt US. The "progressive" answer is Mo-Bigga Government ... and abortion on demand, and smaller families, and no religion, and everything an entitled right, and ...

C0hen's "America" is "Europe" ... probably some gauzy combination of Norway, Sweden, Germany and France. Secular, paternal, snobbish, soft, entitled, smug and opposed to all the attributes that once made American exceptional. To some degree, some of those exceptional American attributes still live on in IA and other "fly-over states" ... TX, ND, SD, etc. and Cohen hates them. He hates them because they ARE very very "foreign" to him -- so outlandish he can barely imagine the form of "lower life" that would cling to guns, God, family and honest work, rather than sneeringly demand "rights".

There really are "Two Americas" ... one is "Europe", where Cohen lives, and yes, the other is out here in flyover country, the remnant of a once-great exceptional nation.

'via Blog this'

Frenzied and Futile

Government: The redistributionist behemoth - The Washington Post:

People are less dissatisfied by what they lack than by what others have. And when government engages in redistribution in order to maximize the happiness of citizens who become more envious as they become more comfortable, government becomes increasingly frenzied and futile.

or as I put it, wealth is finite, envy is infinite.

Good one by George -- he hits the salient point that needs to be made OVER AND OVER. The US entitlement state is busily transferring wealth from the poorest Americans -- the young, to the wealthiest Americans -- the elderly, while the Democrats react politically to the only current attempt to remedy that -- the Ryan Plan, with the cynical pushing Grandma off the cliff ad.

It is the partisanship (usually of the right) that is constantly derided in the press. The hypocrisy (mostly of the left) needs more equal time!

'via Blog this'

Kumbaya is a Song, Not a Poilicy

A word from “Zeb” Zobenica | Power Line:

Well worth the read. He pretty much nails OWS and unfortunately WAY too close to 50% of our current population for comfort.

A quick listen to the posturing on the straits / gulf out of Iran and the Chinese flexing their airpower, aircraft carrier, space muscles and of course economic power ought to be enough for people to realize that the world is still a very large, competitive and dangerous place.

But as always, it isn't -- until hit up aside the head with some serious lumber, around half of the population stumbles on without any clue ...

'via Blog this'

How Heartless Can I Be???

Will false diagnosis cost Minnesota girl her life? | StarTribune.com:

In a nation by and for lawyers, this is an example of something that we have to fight. I don't care how adorable the little girl is -- this is a cancer that is diagnosed 350 times per year!!! So to not diagnose a "bump" on a baby as something that only shows up 350 times a year in the nation as cancer is malpractice?? Do you know what that means??

It means that we add to the never ending set of biopsies and tests to the already bloated list, all to save AT BEST 350 kids per year (and we won't save half that many). SIDs kills about 2,500 every year by comparison -- just as cute, just as dead -- they just don't have to do all the chemo.

We can't just keep rolling up the costs of "defensive medicine" endlessly. We are all going to die, some of us young. As technology gets better the supposedly "preventable" death potentials rise, but if we demand that Doctors test for all possible conditions, no matter how rare, and then sue them if they fail to, our medical costs will continue to grow so much as to bankrupt the system and prevent reasonable care for any of us!!

'via Blog this'

WARNING ... Off By One??

Iran warns U.S. over aircraft carrier - CNN.com:

BO assured us he would just sit down and talk with Iran. Gee, I wonder why they would issue us a warning??? Did they forget that "The One" was our leader??? Oops, perhaps we were "off by one" and we are being led by "B ZERO" ???

Perhaps he could just apologize to them?

'via Blog this'

Purple Cow New Year

Seth's Blog: The chance of a lifetime:

Seth has written a bunch of books -- a number of which I've read. "Purple Cow" is just a memorable name.

I read his blog most days on NewsFire -- I think his New Years advice is worthy of a wider audience.

'via Blog this'

329K or 27K??? PANIC!!

KNIGHT: Voter ID terrifies Democrats - Washington Times:

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson rejected Mr. Perez’s math and explained on Fox News why the law is necessary. The stateDepartment of Motor Vehicles audited a state Election Commission report that said 239,333 people were registered to vote but had no photo ID. The DMV found that 37,000 were deceased, more than 90,000 had moved to other states, and others had names not matched to IDs. That left only 27,000 people registered without a photo ID but who could vote by signing an affidavit as to their identity.

So Mr Fast and Furious, Eric Holder bandies about 239K voters that MIGHT be "disenfranchised", and the real number shows 302,333 potential fraudulent votes -- still registered, but no longer eligible -- and DUH, had no photo ID!!

There can ONLY be ONE single reason that Democrats are foursquare against photo ID. They are well aware that they run at least 10s and probably 100s or thousands or more illegal votes through key areas of the country that are high percentage Democrat!!! If voters have to have a photo ID, something around 5% of "the vote" in many key areas will suddenly "disappear", and it could be FAR worse than that!!!

At present we have NO IDEA how big the number of fraudulent voters are out there, but every number that I'd seen looks like it is at least 100's of thousands in most states!!

It is little wonder that Democrats are in COMPLETE PANIC on this one!!

Oh, I bought a new iPhone 4 this weekend -- guess what? I had to produce a state provided photo ID!! Hear any complaints about cell phone companies requiring photo ID?? Know anyone with a cell phone?? I rest my case!!

'via Blog this'

BO Death Penalty vs Life

Obama signs defense bill 'with reservations' - CNN.com:

"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in a statement Saturday. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

However he WILL kill US citizens abroad, and HAS already done so .... at least with drones.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/national/main20113853.shtml

Do we have a press in this country at all?? They raised holy hell about W detaining FOREIGN fighters at Gitmo. Now they are silent as lambs on Gitmo, and on BO KILLING US CITIZENS abroad ... but are completely willing to support complete BO gibberish that he is somehow holier than thou because he won't hold them "indefinitely". I bet he doesn't claim he supports endless Trillion $$$ deficits as well, but they look pretty darned "indefinite" to me!!!

I guess in this case he is "moral" because he ONLY supports the death penalty.

'via Blog this'