Demographics and BO

Why Doesn't Obama Have a Bigger Lead? | Mother Jones

Mother Jones reporter can't figure out how a President with persistent 8.2% unemployment and the weakest economic "recovery" since the Depression doesn't have a big poll lead -- to which one might just dope slap your forehead and loudly say DUH!!!

The MSM and the Democrats are perpetually talking about how Hispanics are a rising percentage and they are huge Democrat voters -- so Republicans are toast.

Maybe.

I see a lot of mixed Hispanic-White marriages, and many of them seem awfully religious / conservative, and seem to be having a ton of kids. Are they all counted as "guaranteed Hispanic / Democrat" voters??

The Democrat constituency for a long time has been "birth control, abortion, Gays,   no or maybe one kid to save the planet, etc.". Not a way to increase your voting block in general. Meanwhile, at least at our church (relatively conservative LCMS), there are a number of larger families coming up, and in some cases already voting age. Seems to be even a bigger trend at more conservative evangelical churches.

I've heard that the groups that have the most offspring eventually "win" in this evolution thing? Likely just a myth though -- all the geniuses with "evolve" on their bumpers are certain that not having any kids is the smart move. They gotta be right!

Kill Brad Pitt's Mom?

Brad Pitt’s Mother Fears For Her Life …After Her Conservative Statements - Independent Journal Review

Reagan said it best; "A liberal will defend your right to agree with them to their dying breath".

What he didn't say was that "liberal", ISN'T. It is a stolen term -- prior to WWII it was "Progressive, Socialist, Fascist or Communist". WWII changed that because "Progressive, Socialist and Fascist" all became "unpopular" for some reason -- "Communist" wasn't so bad -- the USSR was our ally.

So the left stole "liberal" ... meaning "laissez faire",  libertarian, individual liberty, open minded, etc

Progressive, socialist, fascist" are distinctly NOT "liberal" in the proper meaning of the word. They are elitist and absolutely certain that they have all the right answers -- oh, and if you don't agree? You should either be silent or SILENCED ... your pick.

I REALLY applaud Brad Pitt for standing up for his mother! It is courageous, because "liberal" ideology certainly doesn't recognize mothers as special and worthy of the unconditional support of their sons. Also because many liberal sons would not  take the position that blood is thicker than ideology, and would just side with the attackers.

Note, Pitt doesn't have to say he AGREES with his Mom to support her! "Liberals" have a gigantic tendency to confuse "support/care/respect/etc" with "agreement", because they really believe that their thoughts and positions are "sacred". Since most conservatives have a higher power (God), they tend to be more tolerant of opposing thought, since they don't see man's temporary thinking as sacred.

Walter Williams, Some Economic Common Sense

Difficult Economics Lessons - Walter E. Williams - Page 2:

Excellent article from Williams. Between him and Thomas Sowell, I'm a bit prejudiced in favor of Black Economists.

I loved the following quote. One problem with the fuzzy thinking of liberalism is that they provide very little logic that is invertible (ie. if this is a "good idea", why doesn't it work both ways?) or universal -- "if campaign finance restrictions are important, why wasn't it an issue when BO broke all records in '08?" or "If Gitmo was so horrible, why isn't it still an issue since it is four years later and it is still open?".

 "But what is equal opportunity, and how could you tell whether it existed? I've asked students whether upon college completion they will give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them. Most often, with a puzzled look on their faces, they answer no. Then I ask, "If you are not going to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire you, why should employers be forced to give you an equal opportunity to be hired?""

'via Blog this'

What Unions Really Spend

Higher Political Spending by Unions:

Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor's political activity that has often been overlooked.

For those of us that attend the MN State Fair and see the giant Union Booth on the corner opposite the giant Democrat Booth, this is no surprise. The Union Booth is just another Democrat booth -- fully staffed by union members and supporting exactly the same candidates. The Democrat Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Unions, and as we have seen in the auto bailouts, vice-versa. A very cozy relationship.

Naturally, while the MSM is INCENSED about "Citizens United" and "The Koch Brothers", union political spending, "volunteers", etc are no problem at all. It's a free country after all -- for folks that agree with the left at least.

Retired Extreme Conservatives Happiest

Conservatives Are Happier, and Extremists Are Happiest of All - NYTimes.com

Well, I made the retired part up, but I really suspect it us true.

Not a lot of new news here, people are happier when they know where they fit and have solid relationships in that fit -- which the more extreme you are, the more likely you are to hang together. Flat Earthers and Moon Landing Deniers soon end up finding each other in the internet age.

Turns out that actual multiple thousand year old religions tend to work a lot better than those thought up yesterday in the happiness department.

Should we care? Well, I'd argue that we don't have a choice -- we are wired to seek happiness, it really isn't an option for this relrase of humanity.

Acceptable Tolerance

Symptoms of a sick culture - Jonah Goldberg - Page 1

Interesting take on the lifeguard fired for saving a life, worth the read.

I'm struck by how much outcry we get from the media on things like "zero tolerance" for drugs, alcohol and such, but for union work rules actually defining who gets saved and who doesn't, it is a "don't care".

Everything we do has both intended and unintended consequences, "side effects". When what we do is as big as a national health law, the side effects are likely to be bigger than the act itself -- and nearly as unpredictable.

"Truth", Media, F&F

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

This is one of those stories that has stayed right up at the top of CNN for a few days. It is rather long for it's premise -- "Fast and Furious never happened at all, everyone ought just move along".

This article doesn't reach the conclusion that Holder should resign, but take a look at this paragraph:

As political pressure has mounted, ATF and Justice Department officials have reversed themselves. After initially supporting Group VII agents and denying the allegations, they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."

This is the first article I've read that takes the tack "it never happened". The other explanations from the left and the WH have said "it was a Bush program". (is there a pattern here? "It was Bush's fault" ... or, "uh, it never happened" ... then maybe,  "uh, BOTH!!") However, Holder testified under oath that the Bush program was "Wide Receiver" and he knew of the differences
http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2012/06/wide-receiver-vs-fast-and-furious.html


1). The guns were marked, RFIDed and tracked
2). The Mexican Government was aware and involved in WR
3). WR was shut down in '07 because it was not considered effective


So Fortune -- a Financial magazine writes a big article that sits at the top of CNN on the web for a couple of days that says "Fast and Furious never happened", and the whole problem is "Republicans / Conservative Media". 

Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal.

Indeed. 

The NRA is about the right to bear arms in the US -- not Mexico. The fact that illegal drug cartels acquire illegal guns from the US ought to be off everyone's radar. The illegal drug cartels acquire and sell illegal drugs that are illegal on both sides of the border as well. The guns are just a business cost to them -- like cars, boats, planes, trucks and cool sunglasses. 

They will acquire the guns from some supplier -- US, Columbian, Czech, Chinese, etc -- why anyone is even REMOTELY concerned where the illegal drug cartels happen to acquire their guns, knives, cars, fancy jewelry, etc is beyond me. Their BUSINESS is acquiring, transporting and selling ILLEGAL DRUGS for goodness sake. If you think they really care about where they get the various tools of their trade, or think it is going to somehow be "hard" for them to acquire ANY weapon that they want (RPGs, grenades, full auto weapons, etc), you have no concept at all about groups that move thousands of TONS of drugs into the US every year!

So, the "ultimate irony" is that major US news outlets are falling over each other trying to explain away a scandal that cost the life of a US DEA agent plus many more in Mexico to protect "their guys" in the WH. 

Limits of Tolerance

Where Maurice Sendak was | Power Line:

The idea that the left is tolerant and civil is an extremely cruel joke. These people are not loonies in some backwater, they are well known people of the left, yet there is ZERO interest in policing their own -- because frankly, they agree with them.

'via Blog this'

Eureka! An Honest Life vs BO

Sitting in a coffee shop in Eureka IL, location of Eureka College, Alma Mater of Ronald Reagan, the end of the "Ronald Reagan Trail" in IL. Towns like Dixon, Tampico, Washington, Galesburg -- full of real places and real people.

The little museum at the college is full of pictures from Reagan's life -- all the way back to being a lifeguard. Everyone knew "Dutch" -- his life is an open book. Teachers, girlfriends, buddies, people he saved from drowning, classmates, team mates, bosses, people that listened to him on the radio.

For Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, HW, Clinton and W, I suspect there are or will be little displays and "trails" that are much the same. There are a ton of Reagan quotes -- "Tear Down This Wall" being right up there with "Ask Not" and "We will land a man on the moon in this decade". Even Slick Willie famously said that "The Era of Big Government is over" and "That depends on your definition of "is"".

What would the "BO Trail" look like? Where are his classmates? Where are his childhood friends, teachers, team mates, etc?? What is his best quote? My personal favorite "If I don't fix this economy in 3 years, I'll be a one term president". or maybe "57 States so far, 2 more to go"! I guess "The private sector is doing fine" may be remembered for awhile.

Reagan left a lot of tracks in his life. BO? I guess we should be thankful that other than red ink -- which of itself may be the poison that finally kills America, his life and presidency are already nearly invisible.

Pot Calls Kettle Cookware

Running Scared, Democrats Resort to Hysteria | Power Line:

One of the greatest strengths and weaknesses of liberalism is total blindness to their own hypocrisy -- but this may be a new height even for them.

'via Blog this'

Let Our People GO!!

Boom Town, USA | Power Line

The magic of America was once FREEDOM!! Let our people and states innovate and compete and we will rise again just as we did in the early 80's -- only BIGGER!

Deodorize the BO! Lets ROLL!!

A Very Misplaced Faith

Moral Dystopia - NYTimes.com

Like many "progressives", Mareen seems to be shocked at the wages of relativism. Can't we just worship "the human spirit"??

We are getting a lot closer to understanding the "base wetware and kernel memes" that make up the core of what Maureen might think is "the human spirit" -- sort of an bio-cultural semi-indoctrinated  daemon in the brain to "keep us good". A kind of randomly programmed "moral compass".

Nice wish, not really much of a substitute for an eternal God and eternal damnation.

Somehow she left of Slick Willie, patron Democrat saint who we no know was a serial abuser of women under his control or influence, very likely including rape in the case of Juanita Broderick -- Maureen, nor anyone else in the press even took the small step of "reporting it to Paterno" in that case, let alone standing up and saying "I don't care if he is President, women matter more, he has to be punished". Very very fat chance.

She did however drag out the Catholic Priests. Nobody is reporting it much, but the source of that problem is pretty well documented to being the big influx of Gays into the US church in the '60s as our nation became more "enlightened". Abuse of boys and young men is very old -- Greeks, Romans for example. Any culture that embraces homosexuality has also embraced the sexual abuse of boys -- they may just not know it right away. They apparently go together like "a horse and carriage".

We are pretty much a thin veneer of civilization on top of a massive nervous and limbic system that at best is under tenuous "control" ("training", "management", "coaching" ...) the old systems are very happy to be driven by seeking "pleasure" of all sorts. They aren't very selective systems. "Moral" only in the sense that your cat is an  equal opportunity killer. Equality and morality are only VERY recently associated -- history would find anything that has equality of result to be equally BAD as in lowest common denominator.

Here in the west, we used to have a few thousand years of Judaeo - Christian culture playing a very major role that included friends, neighbors, family, work, school, etc taking shared responsibility in the proper creation and maintenance of a very specific "small still voice" -- if you are just an honest sociologist. If you are a Christian or Jew, that voice becomes very real, and evidence of an eternal Spirit that exists forever and is the true value of each human. Killing that transcendent human Spirit is the most difficult task of the atheist.

Or, as was decided in the '60s, we are just "naked apes" whose best moral maxim is "if it feels good do it". Even atheists that have managed to get their transcendent spirit bludgeoned very close to death usually have to swallow hard to actually the utter the true label on the fruit of secular humanism.

There are many thousands of years of human history that could clue poor Maureen in on how the very social and political directions she so strongly espouses give us more and more Bill Clintons, Jerry Sanduskys, abusing Catholic Priests, etc. Night tends to follow day, flies tend to show up around filth and death. Some things really ought not be surprising.

A Conflict of Visions (Brooks)

What Republicans Think - NYTimes.com

A good one by Brooks, the following paragraph is a pretty decent summary of how conservatives see the current welfare state model:

The welfare model favors security over risk, comfort over effort, stability over innovation. Money that could go to schools and innovation must now go to pensions and health care. This model, which once offered insurance from the disasters inherent in capitalism, has now become a giant machine for redistributing money from the future to the elderly.

BO Getting Stale?

Media — and others — oddly unimpressed with presidential re-reruns « Hot Air

When it comes to light that your policies aren't cutting it, you can either "stay the couse", try the "and now for something completely different" or "triangulate" to the other guys policies.

Reagan stayed the course, and the policies started working in '83, so by '84 he had lots of success to run on.

Bush 1 made a giant political mistake. He caved to tax increases in a VERY mild recession and then got abused for a "poor economy" as those tax increases were absorbed by an otherwise strong economy. HW is a lesson in what happens when Republicans "compromise". Tax, spend and regulate policies have been proven over and over not to work, and Democrats LOVE getting a Republican enact them and then complain when they STILL don't work.

Clinton triangulated after '94 and by '96 was pretty much an "honorary Republican" -- NAFTA, Welfare Reform, "the era of big government being over".

W's issues were more military than economic -- by '02 the crash recession was over and the economy was just not that big in '04. Even bubble growth is better than no growth.

BOs problem is that he really believes that more government spending and debt = prosperity, or at least it should. That is his ideology, and he is not shifting it. Unfortunately, what he believes doesn't work, so all he really can do is try to blame others and keep saying that things are "getting better".

Stale BO soon starts to be unwelcome -- even to your friends!

It would be funny if it were not so sad has we hear BO blaming W for policies that the extremely weak lame duck W was forced into after he lost congress in '07. He had enough institutional / political power to push The Surge through and win in Iraq -- thank God. Beyond that, the economy has been on Democrat pilot since '07, and it shows.

Another ID Outrage!

Since I know that many Democrats are honestly concerned about the evils of people being forced to carry around a government issued photo ID, I include this offensive picture so they may use it as they move forward from just focusing on voting to purge the country of ID requirements.

From Drop Box

I can only imagine the horror and outrage that quakes through a Democrat as they visualize an "undocumented worker" (some would say "illegal alien"), elderly person, or apparently college student (that one always mystifies me -- most of them must not drink today) being turned away from shipping a UPS package!!

What is the country coming to!! I realize that so far, because of their many priorities,  Democrats have only focused on voting ID requirements -- but since I know they are honestly concerned, and not just trying to allow as much fraud as possible in the specific case of voting, they will soon be working hard to remove the scourge of personal ID requirements from our lives.

Alcohol sales, cigarette sales, plane travel, changing your phone from land line to cable, driving, cashing a check, checking into a hotel, mailing a UPS package -- all these are cases where the ID challenged person is blocked in  today's society -- oh, and in voting every couple years if the evil ID legislation passes.

I do realize that my understanding of the Democrat brain is limited -- it is hard to understand why they would focus so hard on no ID for voting rather than the many other more common challenges to the less ID abled person. I'd think it would be easier to ban the use of IDs for checking into a hotel, mailing a package, or even driving rather than just focusing on voting.

This is a civil country though, I believe Democrats are intelligent and well meaning people, so I'm certain they can't just be trying to enable voter fraud because they know there is a lot of it in their favor based on ACORN and other prosecutions in the past couple years.