You Can Take Salem Out of the Country

... but you can't take the country out of Salem! This article reminds me of that old cigarette ad. As some of us who moved to cities of say "50K" 30 years ago and watched the growth of "cultural diversity" and the effects, this isn't exactly "newsworthy", but it IS pretty darned amazing to see someone print the obvious statistics in black and white, and last I checked, The Atalantic wasn't even some wacko far right journal.

Locally, the paper often gets letters to the editor when they print the pictures of the perpetrators of some local stabbing, shooting, murder or drug bust, but I'm thinking that all except the most brilliant on the left can pretty much figure out the name "Mohammad Mustaffa Mohammad" or "James Jefferson Washington" without the photo. Is that racist? My thinking would be that reporting the people that did the crime is just factual. What is racist is someone thinking it can or should be hidden.

So, news at 11, as the improvement in the economy since '80 plus at least some Government programs has allowed inner city folks to move out to smaller cities, a lot of crime has migrated with them. Drum roll -- doing crime has more to do with who you are and what your values are rather than the circumstances of where you are living, income, etc. There may or may not be ways to improve humans, but "U-Haul" doesn't cover it. Seems like one might need a PHD from some pretty dense lefties to think that it would.

My guess is that we are just seeing the VERY early beginnings of this phenomenon. Welcome to the '70s.

American Murder Mystery

S&W .22S

I picked up my first used gun over the weekend, a S&W 5" barrel stainless (matte finish) .22 with a NcSTAR tactical "red dot" that allows me to have 4 projected sight options. Very large composite target wood grip that I REALLY liked the feel of was a major selling point, along with the full length weaver sight mounts.

Took it out to the range today and shot some of the nicest groups I've ever shot at 10 and 20 yards. The above was from 10 yards on sandbags ... just trying to see how well the GUN could do. I just forgot to put 3 in the middle and upper right I put 2 through essentially the same hole.

I'm enjoying a lot of this whole handgun experience, but I can only stand so many loud bangs with recoil. The old .22 is hard to beat for fun. I would have definitely went with the Ruger MK III hunter in SS with the fluted bull barrel if I didn't have two buddies that have that exact gun. Ruger makes one of those with a bigger grip I think that I might like just as well or better, but part of the fun of shooting is to have some different things to shoot, and it doesn't seem likely that I can really have ALL of the potentials in my own stable. Therefore, I felt a bit of a "group responsibility", coupled with the desire to add a Smith and Wesson to my stable. I already have the SP 100 Ruger .357.

I suspect there will be a lot of fun rounds put through this little gem.

Great Seal of BO

For the latin challenged "Vero Possumus" means "Verified Possum".

Well, not actually, it means "Truely we are able" or basically, "Yes We Can". This is of course a really good idea because all the brilliant democrats are up on their latin and instantly see the meaning in all this, while the idiot red-state Republicans are just going to be mystified by the power of this symbol and think "gee, what does this remind me of"?

Oh, wait, the Presidential seal. Upon further review though, you realize that the BO seal has 57 stars (+2). The nice thing about BO is his HUMILITY! Did you know that Bush has a "smirk"? BO is just a humble guy, that is hugely in his favor.

I Can't Exonerate Hillary in Foster Case

Here is a remarkable CNN headline. Current book salesman, ex-fired White House spokesman Scott McClellen "can't exonerate Cheney". Uh, Duh? What is the difference between "I don't have any information" and "I can't exonerate" rather than the implication of guilt? This is a HEADLINE? Absence of proof of INNOCENCE is now news? I would ASSUME it is true that not even THE OBAMA could "exonerate Saddam from having had WMDs" -- even though the media would have us believe that "fact' is a metaphysical certainty. What kind of evidence would it take to "exonerate" someone from something like a leak? It isn't one of those things like a murder that HAS to happen at a single point in time, so therefore if you have proof that a suspect was someplace else, you may be able to "exonerate them".

What level of bias does one need to print that as a headline? It is hard to even fathom, given that it is both ridiculous and biased beyond belief.

BTW, for those that exist in some alternate universe, the "Plame Affair" is WAY over ... the grand jury packed up, the "perpetrator" that let us know that a lady that drove from her suburban Washington home to CIA headquarters during the work week actually ... drum role! ... WORKED AT THE CIA!!! His name is Richard Armitage and there is a lot of coverage of his admissions on this point, including in this blog .

At the end of the Clinton years, we were treated to constant articles of "Move On!" relative to the scandals, and MoveOn.org was even founded on the horror of Republicans and "the conservative echo chamber" keeping useless stories about the Clintons alive. Here we see a headline on CNN with the Democrats locked in hearings on an affair that has been over for YEARS, and was concluded with no prosecuti0ns at all other than a trumped up perjury charge that we KNOW has nothing to do with the actual subject of the investigation, since we KNOW who the "leaker" was.

So what was all that stuff about "focus on important issues rather than scandal"? Is something different now?

Branding BO

Power Line: A messiah flush with cash

The utterly ignored fact is that BO is now the first presidential candidate since '76 to not take federal campaign financing, and he is thus completely unregulated. While I've personally always thought that campaign finance laws were unconstitutional and a restriction of the very speech that our constitution was most designed to protect and encourage, the MSM has always had the opposite view-at least as long as they saw Republicans generally raising more money than Democrats.

I often note the "looking glass" effect where the MSM and Democrats see what THEY either have been doing or dearly want to do, and get HORRIBLY concerned if Republicans are able to impletement even a tiny bit of a Democrat approach. The outcry of the "Republican media / fundraising / strategy machine" ... both during the '80s with Reagan, and then with horrible howling from 2K through the Bush years has been an example.

Well, post Katrina, the "empire has struck back". By demonization of Bush/Cheney as well as the Republican congress with "lies, incompetence, arrogance, unpopular, out of touch, ..." becoming synonymous with "Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove" and finally "Republicans" has broken the brand. Unwittingly, even the right wing of the Republican party helped out as from their POV, Bush was WAY too far to the middle of the road. The Republican Brand has been damaged WAY more than the term "liberal" EVER has been (and remember the crocodile tears from the left when ANYONE was "forced to run away from the term liberal".

So why does BO think he needs 100s of millions of cash for the election? He can already blanket the airwaves between now and the conventions at something like a 3x+ advantage over poor McCain with his 527s like MoveOn helping him every step of the way, the standard and even accelerated MSM Democrat assistance, and of course NO PROBLEMS with any charges from the MSM of him "buying an election" or "the corrupting power of money in elections". He was already in the cat birds seat, and at least one level this seems like a little more risk than he really had to take. (all be it low as we can see -- campaign finance reform is really only about "limiting what the Republicans can spend").

In BOs first election, he managed to get both of the other Democrats that would have run against him in the primary out on technicalities so he could run unopposed in the only election that mattered in his completely out to lunch Democrat district. Like most liberals, BO is no fan of Democracy--only power for himself. I mean when you are the Messiah, why should you submit to a vote? You are already convinced that you have all the answers and that were you to be defeated it would just be worse for "the deserving".

I think the election of Reagan, and then to an even greater extent GW Bush has convinced the Democrats / MSM that it is time for "drastic measures". In their view they can NEVER go back to that short period when the Republicans held the WH, House, and a slim lead in the Senate, even though they were able to pretty much stop what they wanted with a Filibuster. The 100's of millions is to get the Democrats a Fillibuster proof Senate, and make a whole set of changes so that they never lose their power again. My best guess at things on their agenda:

- Bring back "fairness legislation" so that the political content of all media outlets is under control of the federal government as it was prior to '87.
- Control Christian religious expression through "hate speech laws", controls on public display of Christian symbols (even on private property if "visible" to those that they may "offend"), removal of tax exemptions for Christian organizations, etc.
- Taxation of "wealth" as opposed to income for "certain types of people". Financial discrimination is of course at the core of left wing fascist control over the population. They may SAY "equality" every other word, but when it comes to the bottom line, it suddenly gets transmuted to "fairness", and they decide what "fair" means. There is a lot of 401K money out there that could both help fund a lot of vote buying that they want to do and penalize a lot of folks that saved money for decades. Thrift and personal responsibility are high on the list of things that Democrats can't stomach, and the 401K, created under Reagan is the kind of thing that if allowed to stand reduces dependency on the Government. Need to have only dependent sheep ... NO SHEEPDOGS!
- Naturally, an armed populace is just not nearly as docile as a fascist like BO needs. They have a lot of "turn in your neighbor" kinds of proposals. Massive taxation and removal from sale of ammunition -- the list goes on. At least in the short term, there is some potential that the Supreme Court could hold the line on this one, but don't expect it to last for long.

BO has a tremendous shot at moving this country completely into a government controlled media message only, 100% government dependent (healthcare, retirement, what job you can get unless you follow the proscribed speech), effectively state controlled religious message, unarmed populace.

Is this alarmist? Oh, certainly, but WAY less alarmist than 40 front page stories on Abu Girab in the NYT, thousands of articles on "loss of rights" because someone MIGHT be listening to your cell call if you happen to have any known foreign terrorists on speed dial and I won't even go into all the braying about "the Christian right peering into your bedroom". We have an MSM tradition of alarmism in this country, but it only goes one way. If our politics gets close to the centerline, as it did in Bush and Reagan, the MSM believes that we have fallen into some imaginary Nazi right ditch. From their POV, this is a highway with no such thing as a left ditch. We are about to hang a hard left at 80 with no intersection in sight, and from the MSM POV, it is unimaginable that there could even be the hint of a concern with that.

Ignore What I Write, READ THIS!

PJ is one of my favorite writers. Being funny AND making a ton of sense while doing it is very hard to beat. This guy is one of my standards, and from reading this one it is obvious that I have a LONG way to go!

BO Makes Campaign Finance History

Obama bypasses public money — 1st since Watergate - Yahoo! News

Things have REALLY changed since 2000! In 2K, the "Bush Money Machine", and "Big Campaign Money" were a "threat to America", and the media was all over that horrible Bush for "buying the election". What made Bush specially bad (other than raising more funds than their cherished Democrats)? Well, the cad opted out of Federal financing for PRIMAIRIES. Wow, that was horrible! That meant that he used his money advantage against (among others), John McCain! Remember when the media LOVED that "maverick" McCain? My how times have changed!

Of course in those distant times the MSM LOVED "McCain/Feingold", that bold step forward, great thing that everyone ought to be in favor of. Have any guesses about how big a story this is going to be?

Last year, Obama filled out a questionnaire where he vowed to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." But since clinching the Democratic nomination earlier this month, Obama has not broached the subject with McCain. The only discussion occurred about two weeks ago between Obama's and McCain's lawyers,

How many times have we heard media say "Bush lied" in the last 5 years? I wonder how many times we will see this Obama move referred to as a "lie"? We need to get whole new definitions. When Bush said that "British Intelligence said that Saddam was seeking yellowcake", British intelligence confirmed it, and a British investigation approved the intelligence, but the American media decided "No, Saddam didn't do that", THAT was declared as a "Bush LIE". When Bush said that Saddam had WMDs, the CIA said he had WMDs, the Clinton administration historically and every world power including the UN said that he had WMDs, but WMDs were not found in sufficient quantities (only components buried under school yards, older shells with sarin, etc), that meant that "Bush lied".

One can only assume that for a Republican, the definition of "a lie" is "a statement that you make that disagrees with the media view". I await what the definition might be for Obama? I'm thinking that it is metaphysically impossible for him to state something that is less than truthful from the media perspective. I'll await their verdict. "Truth" was such a HUGE issue just a short time ago, but my sense is that the standards may have suddenly gotten murkier? I argue that the MSM capabilty to convince many Americans that are in the middle that actually DO believe that "character is an issue" that "Bush lied" is a MAJOR coup on their part and has a giant effect in creating his low popularity and the Democrat takeover in Congress.

Note the words of the other "saint of campaign finance".

Russ Feingold,a Wisconsin Democrat who has worked with McCain on campaign finance laws in the past, praised Obama for his support of current campaign finance legislation, but added: "This decision was a mistake."

Now there is your courageous non-partisan guy. I'm sure Russ will be trumpeting this scathing "This decision was a mistake" rhetoric from shore to shore. Here we have an example of "principled courage in politics". Mind you, since his name is on the "historic legislation", I guess one should be unsurprised how he REALLY gets out there on this one! No room for cynicism in US politics these days!

Then we have this sterling example of the BO "new kind of politics":

Obama said McCain and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.

"And we've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations," Obama said. 

Despite that claim, few Republican-leaning groups have weighed into the presidential contest so far. In fact, Obama allies such as MoveOn.org are the ones that have been spending money on advertising against McCain.

Wow, even the AP can't quite fully stomach the "audacity" of that one. It is McCain and the Republican's fault that BO has to break his word? BUT, even the MSM (all be it WAY at the end of the article) is forced to recognize that the BO claim is a complete lie, and it is HIM that is benefiting from the "so-called 527 groups".

Yes, this is really a "new kind of politics".

No Favor to be "VIP"

Friends in high places - Opinion - USATODAY.com

Hmm, couple SITTING Senators, one of them on the list of potential VP nominees ... OOPs, my mistake, BOTH DEMOCRATS! They "gave the money back", and didn't see "being treated as a VIP" as "special". BO doesn't see picking up something over $500K in benefits from a now convicted felon as a "favor" -- and of course, he didn't even bother to "give it back".

No reason to make these into news stories ... or to talk about "corruption in the Democrat party". Those were the tactics used successfully during the 2006 election by the MSM to do a solid job of damaging the Republican brand. The difficulty though is that most REPUBLICANS respond badly to their candidates being crooks. Democrats on the other hand are picking their guys explicitly because they are crooks!! They EXPECT that their guys are going to rip off all sorts of funds from a whole bunch of folks, they are just going to get a lot of lawyers involved and call it "progressive taxation"!

Addition Update

The sheetrock is up in the new bedroom. Here are some updated pictures.

Master Bedroom Addition

Ships At Duluth Canal

On our trip north we got a chance to watch a few ships go through the canal into the Duluth/Superior Harbor under the lift bridge.

Ships Through Duluth Canal

.

BO On FICA

Power Line: Obama on Social Security

Being popular and having any relationship to reality are often at odds, and that is the core of the BO dilema here. On one hand, he wants to tell folks making less than $100K that "it isn't fair" that they have to pay FICA on all their income. On the other hand, he doesn't want to tell the bulk of his supporters, from $100K - $250K that they are going to have to have a 15% tax increase. A much larger percentage of people that make over $100K see through the fiction that "the employer pays half", just like a larger percentage of those people see through the idea that you can "tax corporations". Corporations only exist to make profits, if government chooses to raise the cost of doing business by adding corporate taxes, then the company passes along that cost to consumers. If the addition of that cost causes the product to be noncompetitive against foreign competition or on the basis of price, then the corporation will stop making it.

Likewise, every employee of a corporation has to earn the cost of employing them PLUS profits. If government chooses to increase the cost of employing them by adding further taxation, then that is just less money for the employee.

Why is it legitimate to have a cap on the earnings for FICA? Easy, there is a cap on the benefits. FICA wasn't SUPPOSED to be "alms for the poor", it was to be a safety net for EVERYONE. BO ignores that fact, as he ignores the fact that Buffet's wealth comes from capital gains, not salary at all, so Buffet pays ZERO FICA, not some tiny percentage. At least in this lunatic installment, BO isn't espousing FICA on capital gains, so any discussion of Buffett is either lying or lack of understanding, depending on what is in his head. This is a tough one for BO though. If he is the completely moral genius that the press would have us believe, then wouldn't he HAVE to understand the way FICA works? But on the other hand, is it OK for "The Obama" to not be truthful? I'm sure the press will be helping us understand this important dilema in the future.

In likewise impenetrable duplicity, BO criticizes Bush for "privatization foolishness", but laments how low the savings rate is for Americans and rolls out his idea that what he is proposing ... TA DA, Drum Roll please, is a private savings plan for citizens! No doubt some of his advisors will have to explain to him that a low savings rate is GOOD for Democrats. They WANT to have as many folks dependent on the government as possible, and the LAST thing they want to have is anything like an "investment society", where most Americans are invested in business and the economy and would have an interest in seeing through the kind of shell game that BO is pushing. INVESTMENT means putting your money in something that is going to produce a PROFIT, and thus GROW! No profits mean no taxes, no savings growth, no economic growth and in very short order; depression, hunger and death.

Maybe the stench of decay is just "longer term BO"?

Bluefin Bay

Sitting in a second story condo at Bluefin Bay on the North Shore of Lake Superior looking at a serene lake with some clouds rolling in. I love the ocean, but the ocean is too violent to build beautiful condos 25 yards from the waters edge, even if they are built on solid rock. The sound of the ocean surf is nice, but the lapping of the Superior "mini-surf" floating up to the room is just perfect for a Monday AM that bears no resemblence to 99% of the Mondays for one having just hit 30 years in a corporate career. I'm not going to bother to check my e-mail this particular day.

Yesterday was our 23rd anniversary, and we drove up from the Superior Shores hotel that we had spent a couple nights at in Canal Park there. Saturday was the "ultimate perfect June day" my wife and I both agreed, and we rode our bikes north on the lake shore bike trail to tour Glensheen, the Congden mansion. The day was the 100th anniversary of Glensheen, it having been completed in 1908. I was struck with the inclusion of electric lights, an intercom system and a servant call system that had little indicators that clicked to the room where a servant was needed when a button was pressed. It was interesting to see that our master bedrom complex will exceed the Congden's, who were the richest family in Minnesota in 1908, and we wouldn't rate in the top 100K in 2008.

That theme is what struck me about the mansion. In 1908, the real difference that wealth provided was that of servants, and it was the servants and education that made the Congden's a different "class". Technology has replaced those servants, and mass production has expanded the accessibility of all manner of conveinience to ever wider swaths of the population. We have not conquered envy, many still waste their precious mental cyles worried about what it is that someone else may have, but progress has expanded the amount of wealth available in aggregate, heavily leveraged the capabilities of that wealth (cars, computers, home appliances) and made the key advantages (education) available to all. We have had a lot of success in 100 years, why do I suspect that we sit on the cusp of throwing away a significant amount of that success? I certainly hope that I am wrong.

On our way north we vowed to stop at all the falls available since the water flow is at historic highs. A few years ago when we were up here, the drought was in full swing and the DNR had helpful little pamphlets explaining how that was due to Global Warming. I'm sure that the historic highs are due to "Climate Change", and they just haven't gotten the pamphlets printed yet. I'm always interested in having the Government give me the proper political view on water levels.

All the falls at Gooseberry were thundering with the most water at least we had seen over our years of coming up here, including the summer before our engagement 24 years ago. We then stopped at Palisade Head, a spot that most pass by, which is good, since it has a very narrow little road to the top, and is mostly visited by rock climbers. It is a great spot to experience the 100+ foot sheer rock cliffs that are occasionally in evidence on the North Shore, and Sunday was a great day to do that with the lake generally calm and light breezes.

We next stopped at Tettegouche park on the Baptism River and went up to hike to the 60' upper falls. The hike in went well, with the only problem being a number of muddy spots on the trail that needed to be snuck around. The falls was beautiful and roaring, and the cable bridge over the river above the falls was exciting. On the opposite side of the river though we made the mistake of thinking that there was a bridge at the lower falls. We hiked down to that, including the 100+ steps down to river level, and discovered that there was an important feature missing-no bridge. So, we had a lot of "up" for our hike back to the vehicle, and althought I do a lot of stairmonster for excercise, it really isn't the same as the real thing. Upon arrival at the car we decided that the jacuzzi at Bluefin sounded really nice, so we headed north, skipping Temperance River for one of our remaining two days.

The evening at Bluefin in no way disappointed. The suites here with their fireplaces and jacuzzi tubs probably gave us too much inspiration for our new master suite, and staying here while we are stuffed into our son's bedroom at home sharing a bath with the boys makes us even more anxious for the new setup to be completed. We aren't likely to have a restraunt like the Bluefin Grill in walking distance down a beaufiful boardwalk with Lake Superior beside us at our home however, unless virtual reality really moves along at a rapid pace. We had a baked brie with roasted apples and french bread for an appetizer that was to die for, and the New York strip done with some wondrous garlic sauce and beautiful Yukon Gold garlic mashed potatoes certainly more than undid any health benefits of the hike!

I'm going to have to work on the right kind of wave lapping sounds to see if I can't have something fun to wake up to in the new bedroom. The effect of looking out on the expanse of Superior isn't going to be possible to duplicate however.

Russert "Loving the Election"

"He Was Loving This Election" - TIME

Joe Klein, an unabashedly liberal commentator from Time, had one argument with Russert over the years. He treated the Clinton's too harshly. Wow. This is about the third time I've seen the "loving this election", and I think we all know why, Russert was excited about seeing Obama elected.

I don't know how Russert squared his Catholic Christianity with his political party's Abortion on Demand and Gay Marriage, but somehow he did. It is unreasonable to expect any political party to come close to agreeing with our views on anything close to everything. We all are going to live with some level of "cognitive dissonance" given that there are only 2 real choices.

Russert would certainly have been one of the top figures in the MSM. I'm struck with the similarities and differences with Buckley's passing. The loss of Buckley was of course way less tragic, he was older, it was expected. There was no secret as to where Buckley stood on ideas, and the media and politicians treated his death in the way they thought was "accordingly" ... "the conservatives lost a great ...".

Certainly every story about Russert that we read, including this one, tells us who he was, and of course it isn't as if we didn't already know that. He proudly worked for Cuomo and Moynihan, Dad, "Big Russ" a retired city employee, still very close, still mostly see eye to eye. This is "the old America", the "pre Reagan America" that the MSM and the left sees as the way things ought to be. "Everyone can agree" -- it is an America from their point of view where there really ought to be "no sides" on anything of merit. "Everyone agrees that Uncle Walter Cronkite is telling the truth". To suggest that Uncle Walter or Tim Russert might be just regular humans with normal human biases has somehow beccome inherently evil, it is the "politics of division", and it is high time we put that behind us.

When was it that actual diversity of thought became somehow wrong? Is that really what America is supposed to be? Diversity of race and behavior, but no diversity of thought? What is it that somehow makes is wrong to celebrate the life of Bill Buckley as "one of them" and for the MSM to celebrate the life of Tim Russert as "one of us" from the point of view of the "liberal elite, MSM, Democrat view"? Isn't that what he was? As MSM spokesman go, I'd certainly rather have had Russert have a lot longer career than Dan Rather. Even though Russert actually worked for Democrats, my belief has always been that he would be less likely than Rather to actually fake documents or use other methods to try to make the news come out his way.

"If Fascism comes to America, it will be called Americanism". If it comes to America, it will DEFINITELY come from the "dominant culture". That is what fascism is, the dominant culture politicising life to the point where holding views other than those dominant views is either actually or defacto criminal. If you don't agree with gays being married, that is "hate speech"--you can lose your job, or potentially be incarcerated if you make your thoughts known. We are on the path to make global warming a similar thought issue. I have no idea how long the list will become, can anyone be allowed to be against "hope" or "change"?

At his core I think Russert prided himself in being "one of the folks, down to earth, for the common man". Those are all good feelings, but they can also be dangerous. Our founding fathers had a solid understanding of the "tyranny of the majority", and realized that it was hard to the masses to realize that all progress depends on the "UNcommon man".

Russert was well loved by the "standard MSM" and many of the common folks. As MSM types go, I think he at least gave it his best shot to ask tough questions on both sides of the isle from time to time, but it was always clear where his heart was as well. In my book, that is fine, the only problem is when the dominant culture claims that their view is "truth", rather than just "their view".

How Faint Can one Be?

Progress in Iraq...and What To Do About It - Swampland - TIME

Even Time magazine is forced to recognize progress in Iraq. They have no idea why of course--can't be any credit to to Bush for example. Sort of one of those "mysteries of the left". Naturally, the war was still a huge mistake, so those Iraqis were MUCH better off being butchered by Saddam No doubt Joe hasn't noticed the massive reduction in suicide bombers in Israel since Saddam stopped paying the families of the bombers $30K either. Well, nobody would be so callous to blow themselves up for money, so THAT must be due to some mysterious reason not associated with any Bush policy as well.

Candidate on Far Left

Old but nice picture. Could probably win him points as "Candidate of the Far Left". Note, it is OUR far left ... from his perspective, he thinks he is on the right! Why? Well, he STOOD for the National Anthem of a racist, violent, corporatist, global pariah state didn't he? For at least those friends of his that are ex-Weathermen bombers, standing up like that is pretty radical even if you don't put your hand over your heart!