Sunday, January 31, 2010

Jonas holds up a mirror

George Jonas placed the Chi-Com's efforts to curb Google and censure the internet side by side with Canada's Jennifer Lynch and her efforts to do the same. Result: the Chi-Com's sound eerily similar to the Canadian Human Rights Commission chief.
"It is an operational norm [for foreign businesses]," offers the Chinese editorial, "to respect and comply with laws and regulations as well as public interests and the cultural tradition of the host country."

And Ms. Lynch:
"Ensure that informed discussion takes place," she instructs her troops, "and the manner in which it takes place is respectful of our human rights system."


Jay Currie on the money.

As political commenters go, Jay Currie has been a lone voice of reason crying out in the wilderness of the established "scientific" consensus opinion on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Of particular importance were his efforts to look past the appeals to sympathy over drowning polar bears and other such nonsense. The Hadley CRU document dump and subsequent revelations on the IPCC 2007 predictions on Himalayan glacier loss have demonstrated that Mr. Currie's analysis and gut instincts were correct. After years of being beaten over the head with so-called peer reviewed studies, the claims of eminent catastrophic warming were shown to be wholly without merit. As the degree of deception became apparent, the striking turnaround in position of moral superiority in the argument was astounding.
It was the completest thing.

Jay's latest post on the topic is an excellent summary.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Oregonians giddy over their killing of the Golden Goose

Oregonian's took a big step backwards last Tuesday, affirming that the State legislative body need not be fiscally responsible.

In passing special Measures 66 and 67, Oregonians chose to turn their back on the basic principle of equal treatment under the law. They also chose to further cripple Oregon small businesses by increasing their tax burden as well. This was done with much cheering and celebrating amongst Oregon's state employees, thrilled with the projected new found revenues that would alleviate revenue short falls and budgetary non-funding. In their rather myopic view, more taxes means more money for state spending, and more money for state spending means more money for them. Yippey...Yappey...Yahooey!

The economic reality, however, will soon be shown to be quite different. The further fleecing of the private sector will be a negative pressure on the economy, encouraging some to leave the state, others not to enter it and still more to curtail their industry. Thus, a state with over 11% unemployment will surely experience more of the same.

The new changes will further dispossess the private citizenry in favor of the government, discourage small businesses and further depress the economy, causing further 'unexpected' shortfalls. The ultimate result will be the further reduction of state revenues. A shockingly surprising result to the dizzy, heady crowds pictured above.

"The bottom line is the unions bought the election," said State Republican Chairman Bob Tiernan. "It's going to be a sadder day as more businesses leave the state and more don't want to come here."

True enough. Ultimately what Oregonian's said is that we do not mind taxing some of us for things that are the responsibility of all of us. It was a sad day for Oregon, and I am heartily ashamed of us.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

A more perfect world

There was a fine post over at The Hyacinth Girl the other day on the ongoing push for euthanizing our elderly and unwanted. Novelist Martin Amis declared that Britain was facing a demographic time bomb as its ageing population places an impossible burden on society.

The 60-year-old novelist predicted Britain could be engulfed by a 'civil war' between the old and young if it did not tackle its ageing population.

The whole notion that our elderly place an impossible burden on society is flawed at its core. The 'burden', if you will, of our parents are to be borne by us, their children. And it is little burden and more blessing, to care for those that cared for us, and brought us into the world.
'How is society going to support this silver tsunami?There'll be a population of demented very old people, like an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops."

How inconvenient.

Amis, a grandfather, added: 'There should be a booth on every corner where you could get a martini and a medal.'

His whole notion is based on a utilitarian concept, that there is no value in life if it cannot produce something tangible for you to consume. This is errant at its core, sadly thankless and heartless.

He told how his support for euthanasia had deepened since the death of his stepfather, Lord Kilmarnock, last year. He said he had wanted to help the Roman Catholic peer to die because it was clear he was fighting a 'lost battle'. He thought he was going to get better. But he didn't. I think the denial of death is a great curse. We all wanted to assist him... it was clearly a lost battle.'

The man wanted to live, was fighting to live, and this relative of his wanted to assist him to the grave? That strikes me as very troubling. David Warren wrote a piece which touched on this topic a while back:

"One cannot begin to appreciate the glory and beauty and preciousness of a human life, until one has grasped how tenuous and transient it is."

I don't know why there is suffering and hardship in this world, but I believe it is wrong for us as people to decide whose lives are worth living, and whose lives are not.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Brown in tight race?

If Scott Brown is going to win the open Senate seat in Massachusetts, he will have to win by several points. Any kind of close election will go to the Democrat. These days, I just do not trust election results anymore.

Go Brown!

Update January 19, 2010

Scott Brown (R) defeated Democratic candidate Martha Coakley by a margin of 52% to 47% and is United States Senator-elect from Massachusetts, marking one of the most stunning political upsets in modern days.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Mark and Hugh

One of my weekly favorite get to's is to read through Mark Steyn's weekly appearances on the Hugh Hewitt show. It's fast passed and light hearted, and often gives me a lift.

"MS: Yeah, I think Martha Coakley, the question is whether Martha Coakley can recover to get herself a margin of victory. And she has no feeling for politics at all. She’s a classically stupid career politician. These half-wit observations that all the terrorists have gone from Afghanistan, so why do we need to be there now, this sort of insulated attitude that if you ask her a hostile question, you’re stalking her, this woman is simply too stupid. I mean, I say this in a bipartisan spirit, because I thought it about that ridiculous Republican nominee in whatever New York Congressional district that was up by the Quebec border.

HH: Scozzafava, yeah.

MS: Scozzafave, yeah. I thought the same thing there. I think this woman is simply too stupid. 100 Americans out of 300 million get to be United States Senators. Even a decrepit one-party state like Massachusetts can do better than this pathetic husk, brain dead, non-functioning husk of a politician.

What's not to love? Catch the full transcript here.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Avatar Syndrome

Well, Jimmy's new movie has got people hating themselves and wishing they could live in a computer generated image of a place that does not exist.

"A post by a user called Elequin expresses an almost obsessive relationship with the film.

"That's all I have been doing as of late, searching the Internet for more info about 'Avatar.' I guess that helps. It's so hard I can't force myself to think that it's just a movie, and to get over it, that living like the Na'vi will never happen. I think I need a rebound movie," Elequin posted."

That's serious, and in my heart of compassion I would like suggestions as to what movie would give her the biggest bounce for her rebound.

The top of my list would have to be the gritty Reservoir Dogs. The violence, the black suites, the aliases, the violence ... it all adds up to make it the perfect reality shock out of that bluish avatar world.

Alternatives anyone?

Warren on the mark

Canadian commenter David Warren has a piece that weaves together a number of thoughts we have been discussing here over the past month.

"An effeminate society will never withstand the challenge of psychopathic masculine aggression -- in the form of, exempli gratia, contemporary "Islamism." We need men who are men, to defend us; men who are not merely shrill, from the pain of their gelding."

Love that guy. How he can piece together hockey, full body scanners, the holocaust, political correctness and the 9/11 trials, and pull it off sharply, is a real treat.

Highly recommended.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Congressman Welch wants a hand in bonus money

I'm sorry boys and girls, but the notion that the government needs to overturn business contract agreements to "protect" the tax payers is an utter joke. These guys are spending tax payer money like drunken sailors. In fact, to compare the two is an insult to drunken sailors. The vast majority of the "stimulus" was pork, which increased the debt, put the government in the position of picking winners and losers, and did nothing what-so-ever to improve the nation's economy. In fact, it removed funds from the private sector, which already knew how best to use them, and transferred them to the government, which did not.

Welch, what a joke. These guys are outrageous. Peter Welch (D-Vermont) has no idea how what he is doing harms the US economy. It is a joke that this clown would be allowed this kind of power and influence. What does he know? On what basis should we the people entrust such decisions to such a pretender?

Worse, the new activities further undermine any sense of stability. How can you make agreements to secure working arrangements if the government will then come along and STEAL the money. It reminds one of that creep in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who recently devalued his nations currency while not allowing price adjustments.
President Hugo Chávez has ordered Venezuelan troops to raid shops and businesses that raise prices today in the wake of a big currency devaluation.

"Right now, there is absolutely no reason for anybody to be raising prices of absolutely anything,"

What do you think resulted?
"Venezuelans went on a shopping spree over the weekend, with queues stretching outside shopping malls"

Do we really want the Federal government to act in the same manner as a South American dictator?

Monday, January 11, 2010

Brooks made 'uncomfortable' by free people

As America lurches on toward disaster, David Brooks finds the nation to be 'unsettled'.
"Americans have lost faith in their institutions. During the great moments of social reform, at least 60 percent of Americans trusted government to do the right thing most of the time. Now, only a quarter have that kind of trust."

Well David, experience is a harsh teacher.
"The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year."

The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

This reminds me of the scene in The Jerk, where Steve Martin wrongly assumes the wack job trying to kill him is trying to aim for the oil cans. Public skepticism about global warming is on the rise, Dave, because the Hadley CRU document dump demonstrated that the 'science' was being manipulated by a few central proponents and their allies in government. That and the fact that we are all freezing our butts off for the second winter in a row.
"The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation."

If you wish to phrase it in the negative, than yes, they are against bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation. I would prefer to state it in the positive - that they are for the people of the United States, that they believe in the US Constitution, which protects them from the tyranny of the Federal government and all its soft slavery. But to be truthful the US Constitution is in fact primarily a negative document, limiting and constraining the powers of the Federal government. As far as that goes you are correct. But these things are more than beliefs, David. They are the reality.

Yes, we have electively put a bunch of statists at the controls of our government, but they misled their way into power. The people as a whole did not vote for the massive expansion of government that ‘hope and change’ has turned out to be, thus the rise of the Tea Party movement, whose participants have been characterized by the head of the House of Representatives as anarchists and Nazis.

The heads of the ruling class and the media elites, what Brooks is calling the educated class among us, chaff at the desire of the people to peacefully assemble and petition the government. The President himself has been envious of the power wielded by autocrats and dictators, noting how much easier it is for them to 'get things done'. These people display their contempt for the very freedoms this country was founded upon.

Now the ’statists’ are bent on taking over another private industry, their third major acquisition in under a year. It’s been a big year for ‘Big Government’.

We the people must continue to assert our right to constrain it.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Insensitive? A Democrat?!

Of interest in the latest Mike Allen Politico piece is his treatment of the admission by Reid that he spoke of the current president in a style largely considered condescending and insulting to Americans of African descent.
The book reports that Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had referred privately to Barack Obama early in his campaign as a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

True enough, but it certainly steps on the toes of the pc establishment. It's as bad as Joe Biden declaring Barrack Obama was the first well spoken, clean, african-american to run for president. Didn't go over too well with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and their rainbow coalition. Time for some major back-tracking.
Reid issued a statement of apology Saturday: “I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans, for my improper comments. I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama’s legislative agenda.

Nice. Now time for the obligatory testimonial:
"Moreover, throughout my career, from efforts to integrate the Las Vegas strip and the gaming industry to opposing radical judges and promoting diversity in the Senate, I have worked hard to advance issues important to the African-American community.”

Don't worry Harry, your hooked up. No one's going to care.

Allen comedic in witless assessment

Mike Allen has been caught taking out the trash again over at the Politico.

This is a bit tiresome. Did I not just thrash this guy in comments to The Hyacinth Girl over his hapless remarks on Sarah Palin? In answer, "Yes, I did." Well, it didn't take long for him to be speaking nonsense again, as we can see from his in-depth analysis on Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, their new book which reviews the 2008 Presidential campaign. For insight the authors looked to Steve Schmidt, one of the chief dolts that directed history's most incoherent and unimaginative campaigns.

"Correspondent Anderson Cooper interviewed Steve Schmidt, top strategist on the McCain-Palin campaign, who said a campaign aide preparing her for the debate with Joe Biden “told us the debate was going to be a debacle of historic and epic proportions.”

No, Steve, that would be the campaign you ran that was a debacle of historic and epic proportions.

And what does the hapless Mr. Schmidt have to offer on the only aspect of the campaign that had any life or passion, that verbalized the advancement of conservative principles? What did he say about the only attractive element of the McCain campaign, that was able to reach out to the general public and generate enthusiasm and excitement?
“She was not focused ... not engaged,” Schmidt told Cooper. “She was not really participating in the prep.” Schmidt confronted Palin and, he said, “She said, ‘You know, I think that's right.’”

Really? If we are to take the quote at face value I would say Ms. Palin is an artist in biting sarcasm. Let me get this straight: you all were on the ball, but that Sarah Palin, she blew everything for you guys?! Right.

Sarah Palin's debate performance was solid. She never advanced a falsehood, and she presented her core principles fairly and accurately. We got who she was and what she stood for.

Joe Biden provided stark contrast as the lying career politician scumball windbag (am I repeating myself?), whose penchant for just making stuff up was never more prominently displayed than during the Vice Presidential debate. Joe Biden made false statement after false statement, none of which did the media subsequently call him on, dismissing it all with "That's just Joe being Joe" Well, yes, we know that is Joe being Joe. That's what we want less of in government.

Biden's series of baseless and ill informed answers left himself wide open to ridicule, providing the perfect opportunity to undermine the Dems attempt to portray their guys as knowledgeable and experienced. Did you and the boys manage to drive any of that home, Steve?


Thanks for the insights, Mike, but when you go about trying to access what happened in the last campaign, don't put too much weight on the opinions of the asshole who engineered the loss.

Compression, fuel, spark.

With a hat tip to Mitchieville.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

What the...?

Can you believe this scanner?

Creeps me out.

So this will keep our traveler's safe from attack. No effort to allow security to develop a sense of risk assessment and judgment. Just on going and further intrusion into the privacy of the people, all of whom are innocent.

This woman knows she is not a terrorist. And anyone with any sense at all would know that as well without gazing at her naked bod as she passes through a body image scanner. So the whole thing is just gratuitous. She and the millions of others like her will not be blowing up the plane, yet some scan boy will now be gazing at her to keep us all "secure".

Don't bother me with this stuff. We are in no way serious about security.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010


A red bag used by baggage terminal employees caused a major scare at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport today.

"I think that we're going to continue to have these scares -- it comes with the territory," said consumer travel expert Chris Elliott.

The red bag in question is what is known as a "last bag," used by baggage handlers to signify that all the bags have been moved through. In other words, it was an ordinary bag used routinely by the airport employees.

Bags are not the problem.

As we saw on an earlier post, Israeli security experts stress that the key to security is to control who comes into the airport. Accessing people and their intentions is the essential job of security. If a person has no ill intention, it matters not what he has in his bag. Consistently making correct judgments is a goal that trained individuals can achieve, and is the best deterrent to terrorism. But this cannot be achieved if security personal have to worry about the political ramifications of making screening and denial of entry decisions.

An unaccounted bag should never frighten the public and close an airport. If it does, the terrorists are more than halfway home.

Asked if the practice of using such a bag would end because of this, Hogan said he didn't think so. But, "this particular bag won't be used again."


Monday, January 4, 2010

"And then there's intelligence"

With the recent wave of increased 'security' measures at US airports following the failed Christmas Day attack of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, not a few US citizens are wondering if these measures will do anything to make traveling safe. Cathal Kelly took a look at this with his most recent article.

Israeli security expert Rafi Sela finds the process "mind boggeling", and I don't think he means that as a complement. He stresses there is far less delay imposed by Israeli airport security than what is demanded of passangers here in the United States:
"That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you," said Sela.

It follows then that they are not looking for Muslims or Arabs or people named Mohammed either. Good news, as they are surrounded by a sea of them. No, they are looking for something else. To see it requires the use of judgment, and judging one's surroundings is seen as a good thing. The people of Israel trust the judgment of their security personal. Their lives depend on the people they place their trust in being able to 'see' what it is they are looking for.

For our part, we trust no one's judgment, least of all our security people. Experience shows us our security personnel do not exercise judgment. They are trained to treat each of us as an equally likely criminal suspect and slog through the sea of human travelers with the grace of elephants. They exercise no judgment, and in turn we not only have no trust in them, but by and large hold the security they provide in utter contempt.

No, our way shall be to continue to check everyone's luggage, make everyone take off their shoes, and now will shall also make them sit quietly with hands visible on their knees for an entire hour prior to landings... all to no avail, for we shall be no safer.

Simply put, our leadership has refused to task security to look for those things that truly make a person dangerous.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

That's something!

Our own April Gavaza turned 33 years of age today! Congratulations April, we are so glad you are here with us!

In celebration I have borrowed a little tech-whiz from frequent commentor and blog ace Wakefield Tolbert.

I just couldn't resist:

Wow...such fun.

Happy birthday April!!

Saturday, January 2, 2010

What to do?

The Hyacinth Girl has underscored a certain inconsistency on the part of our current president. Following her link to its source we have the following quote from the CIA:
‘One day the President is pointing the finger and blaming the intelligence services, saying there is a systemic failure,’ said one agency official. ‘Now we are heroes. The fact is that we are doing everything humanly possible to stay on top of the security situation. The deaths of our operatives shows just how involved we are on the ground.'

Well, the two are not mutually exclusive. Putting one's life in harms way is not the same as adequately defending one's country. The problem is not with a lack of willingness on the part of our service people and CIA agents. The problem is in a failure to recognize the ineffective and failed policies of the current administration. Investigating and charging CIA interrogators is the result of a political decision implemented to advance the president's domestic agenda by increasing his approval with his supporters at home, while callously leaving those very same CIA agents to twist in the wind. These actions not only wrongly punish those people that have kept America from further attack, but they demoralize our agents and undermine our current efforts to defend the country and keep her citizens safe.

This isn't rocket science, Barry. The reading of Miranda rights to enemy combatants captured in the field to prepare them for a civilain trial here at home makes as much sense as releasing Gitmo detainees to Yemen, with the stipulation that they complete an art-rehabilitation therapy program in Saudi Arabia(?!). It matches nicely the thinking that brings the 9/11 terrorists to a civilian trial in New York City. These are all part of the same kind of stupid.

The CIA cannot keep America safe, Mr. President, because the policies which you have chosen to pursue are incompatible with a successful anti-terror strategy. Your decisions in this regard match your vocal opposition against the Iraq surge policy in their gutlessness, stupidity and political calculation.

If you want to know what is needed, consider giving George W. Bush a call. He's always been a straight shooter.

Understanding the 'incomprehensible'

As Miss Carnivorous points out, a recent AFP article describing airline bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a well-mannered, well-educated individual with a bright future seems at odds with his efforts to kill himself and a large number of total strangers. Abdulmutallab's own family seemed to find it difficult to understand. However,

if one believes this:
"Farouk was a devoted Muslim who took his religion seriously and was committed to his studies,"

why in the world would anyone conclude this:
"He was such a brilliant boy and nobody in the family had the slightest thought he could do something as insane as this"

Experience tells us just the opposite. It is the well-to-do, well-educated devoted Muslims that are most likely to stuff C4 next to their privates, purchase a one way ticket to Detroit, board the plane and detonate in flight, thereby killing themselves and whomever else might be around, in this case 290 innocent bystanders whose loss of life would have been the means by which the young devoted Islamist would have advanced his message of jihad.

I can understand the dolts at homeland security refusing to recognize the obvious - they have been poisoned by a pc ideology that has crippled their ability to think, and stifled their ability to speak. But why would a Nigerian be thus affected? The comments do seem at odds with the fact that his father reported him to the US Embassy and the Nigerian Intelligence Agency a couple of months before the attack.

In a recent address, President Obama has finally made the link betwen the Christmas Day bomber and al-Qaeda:
“We know that [Abdulmutallab] travelled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies,” Obama says. “It appears that he joined an affiliate of al-Qaeda, and that this group, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.”

Of course, he is nine days late, and his allusion to Yemen poverty reflects his own inability to come to terms wth reality. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was not impoverished. The story of radical Islamist jihad has nothing to do with poverty, and mentioning this irrelevance serves only to cloud the issue.

Miss Carnivorous is correct: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is an Islamist fanatical zealot. We need know nothing more than this to understand the story.

The bad news is, he is not alone, and those that are in charge of our security refer to him simply as ... a Nigerian.

Friday, January 1, 2010

Marcotte misses the mark

Amanda Marcotte attempts to skewer conservatives, and female conservative bloggers in particular, characterizing them as pandering to their male audience:
"Perhaps the most disturbing part of reading female conservative bloggers is the routine scrapping and bowing they do to their largely male audience, and the pandering to those men’s ridiculous fears of emasculation, in exchange for the “you’re not like most women” puffery said readers give them."

Perhaps the 'fear' of emasculation that Amanda Marcotte refers to is the natural tendency for conservative males to view with suspicion their liberal counterparts, whose embracing of the feminist movement is seen (correctly, in my view) as a pathetic attempt at getting some play, at the cost of accepting an ideology that is both aggressively anti-male and anti-feminine. Conservative males look suspiciously upon the progressive characterization of the modern male, who signals his kowtowing to the feminist narrative by driving a Prius, eating Tofu and carrying a purse. This feminized male may be non-threatening and thereby appealing to the feminists, but is that a goal worth pursuing? April Gavaza didn't seem to think so.

Marcotte's own discomfort with conservatives is the more likely impetus driving her commentary. I refuse to take the bit for her. She will have to look elsewhere for someone to model her mantyhose.