The PR House of Mirrors "Fluke"

Who is Sandra Fluke? | Nealz Nuze | www.boortz.com

While Rome burns, we don't even get to listen to a real fiddle ... only an imaginary Democrat /MSM Kabuki fiddle.

Fluke is a Fake, a construction, an actress ... Ho Hum. The Republicans, Rush, etc walked into a fun-house and thought the mirror reflections they saw were real people, so they get pulled into a PR disaster. An entirely Democrat / Media created imaginary Republican "War on Women" with poor Sandra, the damsel in distress being pummeled by the evil right.

"Slut"? Use of that term against Palin, Bachman, Palin's girls, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, Michelle Malkin, etc it isn't newsworthy in the least. In fact, I was wondering if maybe the modern definition of "Slut" is "conservative woman"?

A Right to Federally Funded BBQ?

What if government treated eating the way it treats sex? « Hot Air

I love the kind of thought in this column. What if the government ... or even better, the left, treated eating like sex?? There certainly are similarities, both are natural drives, both involve pleasure and consequences that can be positive or negative.

If is pretty clear that they are treated exactly the opposite -- sex is supposed to be free, unfettered by consequences and federally funded if at all possible. Eating is to be as controlled as possible -- "fun foods" ought to be banned, but strangely, unlike sex, where nobody can be expected to show even minimal self control, the obese are to bear the burden of their failings to ignore the temptations of high calorie food, and there is even the hint of "immorality" about being obese -- "immorality" being borderline "hate speech" if there is an attempt to apply it to sex.

Why the opposite treatment? My take is because Democrat / Liberal positions are about POWER rather than any sort of benefit real or imagined. Their actions on sex are intended to increase dependency and to reduce the influence of family, religion, culture. By making sex a purely "personal matter" ... but one to be supported immensely by the state, the need for "free" condoms, birth control, childcare, welfare, aid to dependent children, etc is maximized.

Food on the other hand is better controlled by fiat, as in banned, fined, taxed, regulated, etc. The greatest power in food is acting as a brake ... in sex it is acting as an accelerator. If you simply forget cost/benefit types of analysis and think in terms of raw POWER, "liberalism" is much easier to understand.

As they say in the bottom line of the article, if we were a limited government nation with both sex and dining be matters of personal, family, church, community interest, but ZERO federal interest, then there would need to be no national discussion at all -- about abortion, contraceptives, big macs, twinkies, or any of it. Local communities and states could pass the laws that fit them and life would roll on.

However, we have opted for UNlimited government -- which isn't American at all. So now our bedrooms, kitchens, fast food choices, religious views, dietary habits, etc are supposedly the interest of the FEDERAL Government.

Please look at the Federal Budget and consider the intelligence of ceding the privacy of your bedroom or your kitchen table to the Federal Leviathan!!

Learn, Or Work Until You are 80

Baby Boomers' Investment Returns Will Be Constrained, This Researcher Warns - WSJ.com

Some sobering analysis of the obvious ... many more people are retiring than are entering the workforce, so as you try unload assets to those people, the values will drop.

BUT, the emerging markets provide some real hope ... and while he doesn't cover it here, reducing your retirement income requirements is a good plan as well.

I Believe in Climate Change

Another Sign of the End Times for the Climate Campaign? | Power Line

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

Source: US Weather Bureau, 1922

"Fairness" Demystified

The 'Fairness' Fraud - Page 1

He pointed out that a child born to a poor woman in the Bronx enters the world with far worse prospects than a child born to an affluent couple in Connecticut.
No one can deny that. The relevant question, however, is: How does allowing politicians to take more money in taxes from successful people, to squander in ways that will improve their own reelection prospects, make anything more "fair" for others?

Countries whose politicians have been able to squander ever larger amounts of a nation's resources have not only failed to make the world more fair, the concentration of more resources and power in these politicians' hands has led to results that were often counterproductive at best, and bloodily catastrophic at worst. 

BO and even most of the Democrats are smart people. Don't they know this?? Don't they "care" about real results?? If their polices keep just adding to the deficit while the economy sputters along with gas and other prices rising, why would they keep yammering about "fairness"??

However, raising tax rates on "the rich" pays off politically, even if the government loses revenues when the rich put their money into tax shelters.

High tax rates in the upper income brackets allow politicians to win votes with class warfare rhetoric, painting their opponents as defenders of the rich. Meanwhile, the same politicians can win donations from the rich by creating tax loopholes that can keep the rich from actually paying those higher tax rates -- or perhaps any taxes at all.

and there you have it. The payoff is purely political. Nobody beyond those seeking political power is "helped", but in their world, that is really all that is important. "Fairness" is a political device, and it's only purpose is to get people "in the fairness industry" elected. Note that the fairness industry along with "the environment industry", "the race industry", "the gay industry", "the illegal immigrant industry", "the labor industry", "the regulation industry", etc have been BOOMING since '06 and especially since '08.

 It is too bad that all those "industries" don't pay off with anything other than some government jobs and federal spending -- rather than the evil "oil industry", or "technology industry", or "manufacturing industry", which tend to produce products that people want to buy at a profit, along with the jobs and wealth ...and yes, taxes!

What is the main product of the "fairness industry" beyond "Democrats in office"??

High deficits and sluggish over regulated business. At least BO has create one kind of a "boom"!!

Why Are People Not Working?

Who Killed the Jobs? | Power Line

Great chart that shows the decline in the percentage of people working in the US ... FRIGHTENING!!!

Gee, if you can get 99+ weeks of unemployment, why is it that you would be rushing back to work again??

Oh, and if you rush back to work you are likely not eligible for any of the $26B in vote buying that BO just announced. Suppose you can get elected if you pay off a bunch of people that bought into homes they could not afford??

So we are now borrowing .40 on every dollar we spend and 40% of the people eligible workers are not working. No relationship there I'm sure!!

Sowell, "Progressive" Legacy

The Progressive Legacy: Part II - Page 2

Thomas Sowell is in the middle of a 3-part series on "progressivism" (regressivism in my dictionary) ... it is all good, but I found the following statement to be concise and clear on the subject:

In other words, the government -- politicians, bureaucrats and judges -- are to intervene, second-guess and pick winners and losers, in a complex economic process of which they are often uninformed, if not misinformed, and a process in which they pay no price for being wrong, regardless of how high a price will be paid by the economy.

Mittens Minium Wage

A Defining Moment - Page 2 - Thomas Sowell - Townhall Conservative:

Make no mistake, I'll vote for anyone but BO ... but there are certainly plenty of things for a conservative to worry about with Romney. Is his indexing of the minium wage promise just useless "hit the middle" campaign rhetoric or is he that stupid??

Anybody that has even looked a tiny bit at basic economics knows that there are few things more devastating to the employment prospects, and thus general life prospects of the young and especially the black than minium wage laws. As typical, the eminent Mr Sowell sums it up very well:

The economic reason is not complicated. When you set minimum wage levels higher than many inexperienced young people are worth, they don't get hired. It is not rocket science.

'via Blog this'

Progressive Ant Hill

Articles: President Obama's Civilian Soldiers

Short and sweet ... a teaser, but read it all.

There's a harsh logic to this. Ever since Karl Marx, liberals have rebelled against the fat, sloppy way of voluntary cooperation that leaves no room for political power and civilian soldiers. So voluntary cooperation must go. Forget about humans as social animals. Think soldier ants.

RealClearPolitics - The Citizens United Catastrophe

RealClearPolitics - The Citizens United Catastrophe:

'via Blog this'

An unbelievable double standard. Obama spends $750M in '08 vs McCain's $350M, and it is no story whatsoever. Obama doesn't report any contributions of less than $50, so in this age of computerization, all the $49 contribuions could be provided by ANY large individual or organization completely untracked!! His main contributors (AFAWK) were Wall Street, Unions, and Trial Lawyers. I think they invested their money pretty well!! Can you spell bailout? Can you spell "stimulus" going to bail out union car companies and state public workers?? Isn't it "odd" that there was no tort reform in BOcare?? Well, I guess only if you don't follow the money!!

Oh, but now the free speech as been expanded to people that EJ doesn't like. FOR SHAME!!! Get out the pitchforks, we can't be having any speech that doesn't meet EJ's rigid standards!!

Obama Tells Jesus What To Do

Obamacare vs. the Catholics | The Weekly Standard:

In this last week, we have seen another vista into the hubris at the center of of Obama's narcissist soul. First we find that he knows that both Jesus and Mohammad would support his taxes on the rich, now he is issuing religious edicts on the subject of contraception to the Catholic Church.

Excellent column that covers a possible political calculations at the core of this -- It is like Keystone, he is just shoring up his far left base, then will hang them out to dry in 2013 if he wins.

Which means that what is actually on the block are precisely the kind of social-justice services​—​education, health care, and aid to the needy​—​that liberal Catholics believe to be the most vital works of the church. For conservative Catholics, Obama merely confirmed their darkest suspicions; for liberals, it was a betrayal in full.

One should never discount pure political motive, but in this case I really suspect that when you get as far left as BO, what is roiling his passion is this:

The subjects of contraception, abortion, and sterilization are not ornamental aspects of the Catholic faith; they flow from the Church’s central teachings about the dignity of the human person.

The central teaching of the left is "the dignity of the state". The state is what endures, not the individual -- there is no namby-pamby afterlife for the individual in left liberal theology, you must submit to the earthly state. "Immortality" exists only for the state.

Individual man has no dignity, only contribution for the state -- and since there are too many individuals already, stopping, killing babies or creating non life creating unions (gays) is sacramental for the state. Human life is sacred to Jesus and the Christian Church, human destruction is sacred to the State, Satan, and BO. It has a certain symmetry.
'via Blog this'

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'