Pointing Out Where The Problem Is

A woman is beaten, raped, killed, and was dumped near a cemetery by government agents.  Care to guess the part of the world where this took place?  Care to guess why she was killed?

The problem remains...over there.

My Kind Of Class Warfare

One that focuses on reducing government programs and spending that distort the market in favor of the well connected at the expense of the rest of us that just work for a living.

Still, watching the Giudices sashay through their onyx-encrusted mansion, and knowing that thousands of similarly profligate homeowners are simply walking away from their debts, it’s easy to succumb to a little class-warrior fantasizing. (Pitchforks, tar, feathers ... that sort of thing.)

The trick is to channel those impulses in a constructive direction. The left-wing instinct, when faced with high-rolling irresponsibility, is usually to call for tax increases on the rich. But the problem, here and elsewhere, isn’t exactly that we tax high rollers’ incomes too lightly. It’s that we subsidize their irresponsibility too heavily — underwriting their bad bets and bailing out their follies. The class warfare we need is a conservative class warfare, which would force the million-dollar defaulters to pay their own way from here on out.

Thoughts Upon The Departure Of 'Royalty'

Courtesy of Mike Peterson....

If she were our princess, if we were still part of the United Kingdom, the hoopla surrounding her visit could now honorably die out. But since she isn't and we aren't, we are left in a bit of a quandary: We must either admit that we have been shamelessly groveling at the feet of someone paid $182,000 a year to represent a monarchy our forefathers died to banish from this soil, or we must extend the same warm welcome to every guest to this area.


Let's get down to the business of welcoming our next tourist:


Alfred George Rowles is a greengrocer from Hertford, Herts., England. He will be arriving at the Colorado Springs Airport, at 3:18 p.m. July 30.

Those Traitors! Enemies Of The State!!

Number 3 on the list is a member of the National Academy of Sciences,  a fellow of the Royal Society, and part of the Institute for Advanced Study.  He is one of the creators of the relativistic quantum field theory.

Number 4 is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a professor at MIT.

Number 6 is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a professor at Princeton.

Number 38 is a professor of mathematical physics at Tulane.

And this guy comes in at number 1.

They must be stopped before they can act again?

Their crime?  Skepticism regarding the cause and extent of global warming over the last 150 years or so.

Notice that I am not saying that there has been no warming, just that the available raw data that I’ve personally been able to check do not show it. Until all the raw temperature data are placed online, so the data can be checked by anybody, a rational person has to suspend belief in global warming, to say nothing of AGW.


The official government adjusted data for these sites do show a warming trend. All the warming is in the “corrections.” Sorry, I don’t buy it. Especially from “scientists” who are known to “correct’ their raw data to “hide the decline.”


There have been calls to silence the 496 scientists on the list. Besides “climate deniers,’ we have been called “traitors.” We all know the penalty for treason.


So far, no federal agents have come to pick me up. But nowhere in Mein Kampf does Adolf Hitler call for the extermination of the Jews. Hitler does repeatedly refer to the Jews as “tuberculosis bacilli.”  What does one want to do with tuberculosis bacilli?

Emphasis in the original.

Generally, we see the existence of an 'enemies list' as an indication of a problem.  A problem that exists wholely with the person or people that created the list in the first place.

The answer is in the data.  What is needed, IMHO, is a transparent process by which the data is adjusted to account for human activity and its affect on the climate in either the micro or macro scales.  That begins with non-adjusted data.  It proceeds with a review of the measuring devices with an eye towards siting that would unreasonably impact the recorded measurements.  It continues with the transparent application of mutually agreeable and peer reviewed adjustments to accommodate the influence of human activity. 

None of which will happen while lists of "traitors" and "deniers" are still being compiled.

I am a little disappointed that I didn't make the list.

Digging For Dirt

Apparently the Dems are digging for dirt they can use against the Republicans next fall.  Which makes perfect sense when you consider that their agenda is failing so badly that all they have left is dirt.

Deception

I check Matt Drudge's site on a regular basis.  I find it to be one of many useful sites for knowing the major stories of the day.  Unfortunately, he...or his staff...decided to be a bit deceptive today.

The link to this Politico story suggests that Vice President Joe Biden had verbally "slapped" former President George W. Bush.  Yet the text of the actual story suggests that Mr. Biden had actually offered credit where credit is due.

“I think America wins,” Biden told POLITICO in an end-of-trip interview at the ambassador’s residence in the sprawling U.S. Embassy complex. “I sound corny, but I think America gets credit here in the region. And I think everybody gets credit, from George Bush to [President Obama].

It is a sad bit of deception.

I agree that credit is due to many people; including George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.  It is a pity that Messrs Obama and Biden couldn't have gotten on board with the campaign in Iraq before they won the 2008 Presidential election.  Victory has many fathers......

A Liberal Appeal

From Daily Kos......regarding the Second Amendment?  Pigs are flying somewhere.

Giving In Willingly.....

Bucky: How do you know this isn't some kind of low-emission based, pre-game grounds-keeping?

Rob: Bucky, this is soccer!

ROFL

I Have Done Been Miracled....

....into the Democratic Party.  'Cause trust me, divine intervention is required to make that happen these days.

But if this represents the thinking amongst the GOP leadership, then they have lost whatever marginal support that I was able to muster in the past.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was caught on video at a fundraiser in Connecticut on Thursday raising doubts about the war in Afghanistan.


The Democratic National Committee (DNC) pushed out the video, which shows Steele saying that the war is of "Obama's choosing" and that it is nearly impossible to win a land war in the Central Asian country.


"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," he said. "But it was the president who was trying to be cute by half by building a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?"

My panties....they done been twisted.

One of the areas where I have been very pleased to support Mr. Obama is his administration's strong support for our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Not unlike his predecessor, there are times when he and his administration could have done a better job.  But they have largely stayed the course to victory in Iraq.  Hopefully they will do the same in Afghanistan.

These Folks Just Do Not 'Get' Living In The West

Perhaps they don't want to.

Afshan Azad, who has appeared in four of the [Harry Potter] films as one of the wizard’s screen girlfriends Padma Patil, hails from a strict Muslim family.


She was allegedly attacked at her parents’ home ­after she had started dating the new lad.


Her dad Abdul, 54, has appeared in court accused of threatening to kill her. The actress’s brother Ashraf, 28, faces the same charge and an allegation that he assaulted her causing actual bodily harm.

Perhaps that is the problem we need to be solving.

A Moose Is Loose

As a courtesy to the sanity of my readers, permit me to offer the following; baby moose in the sprinkler.

I Try.....And Sometimes I Fail

Ta-Nehsi Coates, writer for the Atlantic whom I have come to read frequently, enjoy immensely, and with whom I disagree on a wide range of subjects, offers the following thoughts regarding written criticism in the wake of the Dave Weigel/Washington Post affair.

With that in mind, a few quick words on my own approach to this matter. A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of having dinner with James Fallows, along with a few other Atlantic folks. Fallows offered some really wise words on how to criticize people in print, the gist of it being, "Speak to those you would criticize as though they were standing right there."


That's a high standard, but one I've generally tried to maintain. My sense of my role here is as follows: I'm not here to try to humiliate people I disagree with. That goes as much for Jeff Goldberg, who is my friend, as it goes for Bob McDonnell, who is not. For sure there is a little more hot sauce on the thing, when I don't know the person. But by and by, I hope to speak to McDonnell as I would speak to Goldberg--not the other way around.


It's fun to be mean, and it makes your side howl--and sometimes it's even necessary. But  my game is as follows--stating my opinions directly, clearly and without equivocation and without undue malice.

A high standard of discourse indeed.

And yet today I find myself tempted by the following bon mot:

In sum total, what you people did was drive someplace where there wasn't a problem, complain about something you don't fully understand, get in the way of people who may actually be performing a function, and then do nothing, en masse, except hope that someone else notices your little snit and makes it all better.


My god, if there's a more perfect metaphor for the modern progressive movement, I've never seen it.

Emphases in the original.

I am privileged to know a fair number of intelligent people that are a bit left of me politically.  I am also aware of the many reactionary, reflexive, and unthinking people on the right.

Yet there is an underlying truth to the above.  I have sadly come to expect nonsense will follow whenever I hear the word "progressive", or the phrase "speaking truth to power", or similar leftist twaddle.  Sadder still, I am rarely disappointed in that expectation.

I try to think the best of all of my fellow Americans regardless of their opinions.  I hope that what animates their politics is a desire to improve our nation and our world.  I try to remain at least open enough to hear their point of view before presenting my own.

Today...momentarily...I failed.

Distrust In Our Government's Abilities - The Oily Edition

Governments, as with companies and with people, are productive at addressing a limited set of issues.  The latest example of a government operating beyond its abilities is the tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Immediately after news of the spill broke, the Dutch government offered the use of their oil skimming ships to help contain the spill.  Our government declined the offer.  These ships take in a mixture of oil and seawater and dump nearly oil-free seawater overboard.  The reclaimed oil can presumably be taken ashore for further processing.

Why weren't we using those Dutch ships?  Because "nearly oil-free" does not meet the EPA's stringent requirement that all discharges into the Gulf be 99.9985% pure.

American oil skimmers transport tanks full of oil and sea water to shore for processing.  That is an incredibly wasteful process given the rate that oil is spilling into the Gulf.

Eventually, our government decided to use the Dutch technology.  But rather than have Dutch ships operating off our coast, we insisted on removing the equipment from the Dutch ships and installing it on American ships.  Rather than having experience Dutch operators, we insisted on training American workers.  A process that created an additional delay in getting the equipment into action.

Our government has grown too large, too entrenched, too enamored of protecting the provincial interests of a plethora of government agencies, bureaus, offices, and departments to respond effectively to any crisis.

Why do I distrust our leviathan federal government?  Because of the demonstrably poor results it routinely provides.

h/t to Ace of Spades

I Am Afraid......

.....and while reading things like this may help me understand the fear, it does nothing to relieve it.

Justices Denied

Jacob Sullen over at Reason points out the hypocrisy involved by members of the Supreme Court that oppose granting the Second Amendment equal footing with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

If "the people" want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

What if the people want to ban books that offend them, establish an official church, or authorize police to conduct warrantless searches at will? Those options are also foreclosed by constitutional provisions that apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide.
Likewise, Stevens defends "state and local legislatures' right to experiment," while Breyer is loath to interfere with "the ability of States to reflect local preferences and conditions—both key virtues of federalism." Coming from justices who think Congress can disregard state decisions about the medical use of marijuana because a plant on the windowsill of a cancer patient qualifies as interstate commerce, this sudden concern about federalism is hard to take seriously.

Another reason to doubt the dissenters' sincerity: They would never accept federalism as a rationale for letting states "experiment" with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or due process protections. Much of their job, as they themselves see it, involves overriding "local preferences" that give short shrift to constitutional rights.

Second Amendment rights are different, Breyer says, because "determining the constitutionality of a particular state gun law requires finding answers to complex empirically based questions." So does weighing the claims in favor of banning child pornography or depictions of animal cruelty, relaxing the Miranda rule, admitting illegally obtained evidence, or allowing warrantless pat-downs, dog sniffs, or infrared surveillance.

When they decide whether a law or practice violates a constitutional right, courts cannot avoid empirical questions. In cases involving racial discrimination or content-based speech restrictions, for example, they ask whether the challenged law is "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest" and is the "least restrictive means" of doing so.

h/t to the blogfather

Did The Coffee House Depicted in "Nighthawks" Really Exist

Did it?

Yet Another Quiz

My score:

Economic Left/Right: 4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

Here's the link if you are interested.  Although most of the questions are rubbish designed to cause a specific reactionary answer.  A lot of the information presented on the "score" page is garbage as well.

Forewarned.....forearmed.....etc.

The Rahn Curve And You

h/t to the blogfather....

link

Elana Kagan - Citizen's United - Banning Books Is OK

In my "stack o' stuff", I have some items related to the Citizens United case recently decided by the Supreme Court.  Fortunately for my loyal readers, I'm not going to delve into it for this post.  I bring up the "stack o' stuff" only to note that I had thought to write at length regarding the decision.

The most important thing I can say today is please take the time to read the full decision before making up your mind about it.  Both the majority and the dissenting minority had some interesting things to say.

One reason why I believe that Citizen's United was decided correctly is because the law in question effectively placed individual citizens in the position of having to ask permission from the government before exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.  That is an unacceptable proposition from my perspective.

I ran across this edited video of Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government's position in support of the campaign finance laws being challenged before the court.  In her argument before the court, Ms. Kagan argued that it was acceptable for a federal law to ban books because the FEC had never before taken any regulatory action towards a book.

What Ms. Kagan fails to understand is that there is a first time for everything.  She apparently does not understand that each successive instance only becomes easier and easier to justify.  Nor does Ms. Kagan appreciate that the first time she is likely to notice the enforcement of a federal law banning books is when it is a government that is not of her preference [that is] banning a book [that] reflects her perspective.

Applause!!!

Daily Kos got burned.  They paid for survey results that turned out to be untrue.

Why the applause? 

Because Markos Moulitsas had the stones to admit that he got taken...in full....in public....in a manner that left not doubt as to what happened from his perspective.  I don't spend much time over at the Daily Kos....for obvious reasons.

But I can easily respect someone that offers a full, transparent account of events in pursuit of an honest, open, and spirited public debate of the issues at hand.