The Left Knows No Irony

Eurostar Cancels Service Today, to Improve Snow Protection - Bloomberg.com

Friday AM on the way into work, the top three stories were:

1. Eurostar trains stopped in chunnel due to freezing temps in N France
2. Giant snowstorm on East Cost
   
3. Global Warming conference

Nobody in the media sees any irony in this. In 2005 around the time of Katrina, the media was 100% on message that the strength of Katrina was due to Global Warming and we would see many more storms like that over the years to come. In this blog, I've pointed out that we have in fact seen FEWER strong hurricanes since Katrina. The MSM never admits when they are wrong.

The media still has a lot of the public convinced that the melting polar caps, lack of snow on top of Kilimanjaro and such is "proof" of "human caused global warming". First of all, if there was 100% air tight proof, it seems VERY questionable that a major scientific center would be suppressing competing research and deleting data. Anyone that wants to do a very short bit of research will find about the Medieval Warm Period from 800-1300, and the Little Ice Age -- 1650-1850. It seems very unlikely that these events were caused by man, so there must be significant natural climate fluctuation.

We also know that there have been a number of ice ages in earth history -- times when glaciers covered huge regions of the planet and sea level dropped by as much as 400 feet.

However, right now the media wants us to believe that vast amounts of personal freedom need to be given up to global climate authorities and that vast amounts of wealth need to be re-distributed at the behest of the UN and liberal governments like our own current BO administration. The giving up of freedom very much tends to be a one-way ratchet that is unfortunately only resettable with violence and the loss of life. As the elites get more and more powerful, they seek to remove liberty from the "masses" because clearly the elites strongly believe that they know best, and whatever they decide is "best" and most worthy of being enforced at the point of a gun.

Smalley Cilvility

The Associated Press: Franken shuts down Lieberman on Senate floor

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iUEypqnjufw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iUEypqnjufw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Elect Stuart Smalley to the Senate, and what does one expect? My guess would be that were his more conservative bomb throwing bookend Ann Coulter to have been elected as the 60th vote on the other side, she would be more civil and less partisan than this.

Democrats live with no rules at all (each one is their own god, thus they tend to squabble), so expect little coverage of this. This is NEVER done in the Senate, the two "extra" minutes is like leaving a 2 hour business meeting for a bathroom break. Humans allow it -- Stuart did not. No more case needs be made.

May As Well Dream Big

Gore 2000: Gore as President - An Alternate History - Newsweek 2010

Note, as part of the MSM, Newspeak has no biases. The "news" here is an alternate universe where Al Gore won in 2000. Here is how easy 9-11 was averted -- what a shame that Gore didn't clue Slick Willie in on just how easy this was prior to WTC1, Kohbar Towers, US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. No matter, liberal fantasy knows no bounds. Also really interesting how a guy that as Senator didn't even vote to support Iraq 1, was going to supposedly be cowboy enough to order probably the most effective strategic bombing in history that killed the whole leadership of Al Qaeda. As long as one is dreaming, they may as well dream big.

An August 2001 Daily Intelligence Briefing warns, "Bin Ladin [sic] Determined to Strike in the U.S.," which prompts the president to authorize the strategic bombing of targets in the Khost province of Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border. 

Frank Wall, White House counterterrorism adviser: "We had it on better-than-reasonable authority that Osama bin Laden, or at least his top guys, were hiding out under the protection of the Taliban who, if you remember, had just blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas that April, which was a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Nasty guys. It didn't go over well. We were not greeted as liberators there, and here at home, the general consensus was that the president was trying to look manly. I still maintain it was the right thing to do. American interests haven't been attacked by Al Qaeda since the USS Cole in Yemen, but who can really judge if an endeavor is successful by something not happening?"

Will On the BO Charm

RealClearPolitics - When the Charm Rubs Off

I guess I was almost singularly unimpressed by the aura of BO -- but then I read his books. I've found that everyone that has actually read them both is at least taken aback by: 1). The level of navel gazing and strange views of the world that he was willing to include in "Dreams", and 2) The absolute glorification of "the fake straddle". "Let me tell you how I have looked at both sides completely, in some sort of abstract godlike fashion, and the "fact" is just that after it is all said and done, the far left position is always right -- that is just the way things are!

Will does a good job of cronicaling some of the stupidities of December. Sadly, I think we can be assured that 2010 will include many more, let us pray that the deaths of Americans due to the meanderings of this disorganized community organizer are minimal.

Biased to Report Gallup Poll?

FOXNews.com - Obama's 47 Percent Approval Lowest of Any President at This Point

So the Gallup poll, which has conducted presidential polls since 1938 is being ignored by the MSM. Gee, wonder why? Here are the previous 11 presidents at this point in their terms:

-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
-- Barack Obama, 47%

Hmm, BO is dead last. Do I put a lot of stock in that? No -- Note that Reagan is tied for 2nd from the bottom. My point is that WERE it a Republican as opposed to Democrat, the reporting of this factoid would be hard and heavy with a lot of analysis. "Can he recover"? "Is his presidency failed", etc, etc.

The other interesting fact is that BO hit these numbers with about as much positive media as one could ever hope to have -- apparently results really do make a difference!

If the economy turns around, BOs numbers will improve at least some. If we are attacked (something his policies make exceedingly likely), his numbers will improve for at least a bit -- then one would hope that the electorate realizes that Bush kept us safe for 8 years and the BO policies put us at grave risk.

Secret Non-Government Polls

Power Line - Don't Look Now, But...

Don't expect any of this to be "leaked" to the MSM -- no doubt this ought to be as secret as the Global Warming hoax. Anyone showing polls that look negative for BO ought to be jailed!!

There is just a slight difference here from the Bush years. Falling polls were one of the main bludgeons that were used to help drive him down. Most people hate to stand up against the majority, so constant messages of "sliding in the polls" tend to be a self fulfilling prophecy.

How different BO ... nobody in the history of polling at the Presidential level has fallen so far so early in his term, yet the media coverage is pretty much "natural slippage because he has taken on tough problems".

Man, it is REALLY nice to have them on your side -- dealing with 9-11, being handed a recession by his predecessor, Katrina, creating a monstrous drug benefit that almost rivals 1/10th of the gargantuan BO healthcare plan, and attempting FICA reform never even counted as "a tough job" when Bush was in office!

38 BO "I's" OR ....

I Pledge Allegiance to Global Warming - WSJ.com

The BO Noble acceptance had 38 references to "I" ... but the highlight ...

"I . . . reserve the right to act unilaterally" is especially good, though it's hard to top the show of faux humility: "Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize--Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela--my accomplishments are slight." This is not humility: It takes a bloated ego to compare oneself to great men, even if only to assert that there is no comparison.

Next to BO, I'm nothing ... but, the speech he ought to have given

When I heard about this prize, I didn't think I deserved it. I mean, what have I done? But then I looked at the list of past recipients. Yasser Arafat? A peace prize for a terrorist? What's the deal with that, guys? Al Gore? For what, making a movie with charts? And Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter! He endorsed me, and even I can't stand that sanctimonious little twit!

Well, I think Carter will look like a great man by the time BO is done.

Goodbye to Your Health Insurance

RealClearPolitics - You Will Lose Your Private Health Insurance

Do you believe it is an accident that suddenly no mammograms are required at less than 50 years of age? Expect many rulings of this sort in the months and years to come, but rest assured that the STATISTICS on health will continue to look better and better. The fox is in charge of the hen house, he has declared the hens are all fine and happy!

So there we have the real essence of this bill. It restricts our choice of which insurance to buy and pushes us into more expensive plans. At the same time, it destroys the economic incentive to purchase insurance in the first place and replaces insurance with a free-floating tax on one's very existence.

Essentially, this bill forces the insurance companies to cover everyone at the same rate without regard to pre-existing conditions, demands that the coverage cover every little thing (thus making sure that health costs go up), and removes any prospects of profit for the insurance industry.

The part I think I "love" the most is the part that Al Franken was bragging about on MPR today -- insurance companies MUST put 90% of premiums paid into payments for medical care. ONLY 10% can be spent on administration, management, advertising, etc. Isn't that sweet? So what incentive do we have here? Let's see, if I have $1,000 premiums today, I can make only $100, but if I get to $10,000 in premiums, I can make $1,000. Do you think the medical community would like to get that extra $9,000, or do you think they would turn it down?

Oh, I know, there will be a "government regulator" -- guess what, there always have been PLENTY of "government regulators" at SEC, HEW, USDA, etc, etc, and billions of dollars are wasted, skimmed or just flat out missing all the time. Did you hear of anyone at SEC losing their job over the Sub-Prime meltdown? A couple real high level guys at FANNIE and FREDDIE got canned, but they got picked up in the BO campaign. One needs a crisis before one can be sure it doesn't "go to waste". We are set up for a "crisis" a minute now.

The real purpose of this bill is to run up the cost of insurance for everyone as a prelude to government takeover. There isn't a lot left between this level of mendacity and cynicism and the gulag. Merry Christmas, Comrade.

Will On Climate Change

RealClearPolitics - The Climate-Change Travesty

A well written perspective on the fallacy of spending Trillions of dollars on something that is questionable enough that at least some scientists feel they must lie to defend.

Shoot Toto!

RealClearPolitics - We-Don't-Want-to-Talk-About-It-Gate

Remember in the Wizard of Oz when Toto was pulling the curtain back so you could see that "the great Oz" was nothing more than a machine being manipulated by an old guy behind the curtain? He spoke through the machine saying "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", when it was obvious that there was no "Oz" -- only a big machine and a regular old guy manipulating it.

Thus, as some hackers have pulled the curtain back from the "The Great Global Warming Hoax", the MSM, the Democrats, and the Copenhagen grifters admonish us "pay no attention to it being a hoax".

Amazingly, most of the masses are gullible enough that even when they see the main perpetrators of this supposed "settled science" right in the act of silencing those with data that calls their hypothesis into question, and in some cases being forced to delete data and manufacture data to show what they could not show honestly, they are afraid to question the "Oz" of Global Warming.

Have we lost all ability to independent th0ught?

Will: Will Not End Well

RealClearPolitics - This Will Not End Well

A good one from George.

But after 11 months of graceless disparagements of the 43rd president, the 44th acts as though he is the first president whose predecessor bequeathed a problematic world. And Obama's second new Afghanistan policy in less than nine months strikingly resembles his predecessor's plan for Iraq, which was: As Iraq's security forces stand up, U.S. forces will stand down. 

Having vowed to "finish the job," Obama revealed Tuesday that he thinks the job in Afghanistan is to get out of Afghanistan. This is an unserious policy.

The BO View From Abroad

Opinion: Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Whenever Bush would give a speech on matters of war, the MSM provided us with the obligatory "lack of respect from abroad" view. Gee, doesn't look like they would have any trouble finding that now if they looked a bit.

One wonders if cynicism has any limits. BO who was 100% against the Surge in Iraq, now takes credit for an "orderly exit" with no mention that it was the Surge that made that possible. He institutes his own "2nd Surge" (his first was in March) in Afghanistan, but rather than stand up and take the heat of "we are committed to objectives, not dates", he goes ahead and states a date where he will start withdrawal. It is hard to come up with the perfect analogy for committing troops for a specific duration. Men are being sent to fight and die when the enemy knows that if they just run and hide for 18 months, the US troops will be gone and they can mop up the Afghan forces at their leisure. Maybe getting married and promising to not have any other women for the next 18 months would be similar.

This quote is a good summary:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

The following is a rather breathtaking assessment. "The least truthful address" for BO gives one huge pause -- the mind reels to try to think of any that had even a mild sprinkling of truthful content, but indeed, this one is certainly in the running for most disingenuous.

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

Crushing Legacy of Bush

A Crushing Legacy of Bush | The New York Observer

One reads through something like this and wonders at the thought process of the writer beyond "I hate  Bush".

Those events began with the inexplicable decision by officials of the previous administration to allow Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other ranking leaders of Al Qaeda to escape from Afghanistan to Pakistan in December 2001. At the time, as a new Senate report on the battle of Tora Bora recalls, Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, and Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of American forces in Afghanistan, decided not to augment the tiny force of special operations troops on the ground with sufficient force to capture or kill Mr. bin Laden and his deputies. They later claimed to be worried that “too many American troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency,” a rationale that can only evoke bitter laughter now.

No further recrimination is necessary; history will render sterner judgments than any that can be written now. But after eight years of incompetence and arrogance, how can the United States salvage what has become of the “good war”?

So the ONLY purpose of US troops being in Afghanistan was and is to capture Osama Bin Ladin and Mullah Omar? Even the rest of the article would seem to give the lie to that, is BO putting in 30K more troops for that reason? No. So if more troops is bad now, why was it not bad in '01? Only because then it would have been the evil Bush putting them in and now it is the savior of the world BO?

We live in a post 9-11 world where the threat of "asymmetric warfare" is almost guaranteed to be with us always and always increasing. How many guys does it take to comandeer an oil tanker and crash it into Manhattan and set it afire? How about a LNG tanker? Supposedly their explosive impact could equal a small nuke. We have seen planes. We know that the next use could be nukes, nerve gas or biological weapons. How secure are some of the control centers for our power grid? How about a small nuke on a SCUD producing an EMP explosion off the Eastern Seaboard? The list is endless, and the "unknown unknowns" are impossible to calculate.

So, we are faced with "Nation Building or Defeat". A very difficult problem. I'm not sure that Afghanistan and Iraq are close enough to the same to use the same strategies -- I think that is what got us in trouble in Iraq. What at least SEEMED to be working in Afghanistan in '01 and '02 was a "small footprint". That strategy was not right for Iraq, but I'm not sure that just because the strategy of a larger footprint worked in Iraq is any reason to assume THAT strategy is portable to Afghanistan.

Sowell Nuggets

RealClearPolitics - Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

I liked a bunch of these, here are my favorites:

In response to news of President Obama receiving the Nobel Prize for peace, an e-mail from a reader recalled a black classmate's comments upon graduating from high school many years ago. When asked to list the advantages and disadvantages of being black, the black student facetiously listed as an advantage "being praised for infinitesimal accomplishments."

I'd say the following is sort of the core value of the left -- show off with something clever as often as possible, but never even have a clue what wisdom is.

Some people are so busy being clever that they don't have time enough to be wise.

The next one is very sad, but very true -- maybe a lot of prayer will prevent it:

No one likes to admit having been played for a fool. So it will probably take a mushroom cloud over some American city before some Obama supporters wake up. Even so, the true believers among the survivors will probably say that this was all George Bush's fault.

I think everyone that has worked for their positions in life knows the next one from experience -- they stepped beyond their competence and learned about both their limits, the strength of others, and thus at least a little humility. Think about how hard this learning would be (is it possible) when you are used for "praise for infinitesimal accomplishments".

Stepping beyond your competence can be like stepping off a cliff. Too many people with brilliance and talent within some field do not realize how ignorant-- or, worse yet, misinformed-- they are when talking like philosopher-kings about other things.

Much as the media liked to say about Bush: "He started on 2nd and thought he had hit a double", when you follow the liberal mantra, you get home-runs for just showing up.

There has probably never before been as drastic a decline in the quality of vice presidents as there has been when Dick Cheney was replaced by Joe Biden. Yet the New York Times is lionizing Biden as a wise counselor to President Obama. When you support the liberal agenda, that makes you brilliant ex-officio in the media, whether or not you are vice president-- and whether or not you have even common sense.

Objectivity Is Out

Ferguson: How Economic Weakness Endangers the U.S. | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com

Excellent article from NEWSWEEK! Ferguson is an extremely intelligent economist and author who is currently a professor of history at that bastion of conservatism - Harvard. The whole thing is well worth reading, but I find the quote from Krugman to be especially troubling. It seems that many of our supposed intelligentsia subscribe to the post-modern view that there are no facts, only human views of the world. How else can one claim that claim that deficits in the low 100's of billions are "irresponsible", yet applaud multiple Trillion deficits as far as the eye can see? Doesn't a Nobel Prize winning economist have to have SOME objectivity to be called "a professional"?

Now, who said the following? "My prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the [fiscal] crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt. And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar."Seems pretty reasonable to me. The surprising thing is that this was none other than Paul Krugman, the high priest of Keynesianism, writing back in March 2003. A year and a half later he was comparing the U.S. deficit with Argentina's (at a time when it was 4.5 percent of GDP). Has the economic situation really changed so drastically that now the same Krugman believes it was "deficits that saved us," and wants to see an even larger deficit next year? Perhaps. But it might just be that the party in power has changed.

A lot of the article is taken up by thoughts on what is likely to happen because of the entitlement and debt train wreck that we are in. The idea of hyperinflation is covered but amazingly (to me) dismissed. What he suggests is more likely is a rise in the real interest rate and inflation falls -- or, while he doesn't say this, goes negative into deflation. Deflation is what has already happened to the stock market, home values and gas prices. Maybe we are developing a trend?

So here's another scenario—which in many ways is worse than the inflation scenario. What happens is that we get a rise in the real interest rate, which is the actual interest rate minus inflation. According to a substantial amount of empirical research by economists, including Peter Orszag (now at the Office of Management and Budget), significant increases in the debt-to-GDP ratio tend to increase the real interest rate. One recent study concluded that "a 20 percentage point increase in the U.S. government-debt-to-GDP ratio should lead to a 20–120 basis points [0.2–1.2 percent] increase in real interest rates." This can happen in one of three ways: the nominal interest rate rises and inflation stays the same; the nominal rate stays the same and inflation falls; or—the nightmare case—the nominal interest rate rises and inflation falls.

I'm not sure I completely understand the reason for his 20% tipping point, but debt service rising from 8% to 17% of revenues by 2019 sounds bad enough to me anyway. It seems to me that people tend to grossly UNderestimate what we spend on entitlements and grossly OVERestimate what we spend on Defense and debt already -- as in I suspect that most folks would think for some reason that we spend over 20% of the budget on debt payment already. I'm not sure what they will think when it is reality, but no matter what they think, I really doubt it will be good.

Already, the federal government's interest payments are forecast by the CBO to rise from 8 percent of revenues in 2009 to 17 percent by 2019, even if rates stay low and growth resumes. If rates rise even slightly and the economy flatlines, we'll get to 20 percent much sooner. And history suggests that once you are spending as much as a fifth of your revenues on debt service, you have a problem. It's all too easy to find yourself in a vicious circle of diminishing credibility. The investors don't believe you can afford your debts, so they charge higher interest, which makes your position even worse.