Dave's Pensée

Why didn’t I think of this?

2012-01-29T17:34:00.001-06:00

BECAUSE I’M NOT INSANE!

What??

2012-01-28T13:21:00.001-06:00

Before I watch this I have to do something important; like wash my socks; or so I wont have to ask myself, how do I get that hour back.

Configuring New Laptop

2012-01-28T13:06:00.000-06:00

Setting up my new Dell Vostro, wanted a Mac Book, too much money, it does what I want it to. Getting it to look and feel like I want it to; you know, like when you move into a new house or buy a new car or arrange your new 'man cave'. Or, break in a new wife; that's a lot harder, if not impossible. Been there, Tried that.
Well, onto the doable project.

Alright, I'm changing my life is changing. I am a New Man! No looking back!

2012-01-24T19:18:00.001-06:00

Love It

2012-01-24T18:05:00.001-06:00

Walker Re Do

2012-01-24T12:11:00.000-06:00

Just went to the local Scott Walker headquarters to find out when to come in to start verifying recall signatures and found out it will be a few more days before they get the sheets from the GAB so that we will be able to get started. They got so many more signatures than they thought they would that it will take them a lot longer to scan them into their system. Getting more signatures does not nessisarally mean that there are more people signing but just duplicates. The Accountability Board said about a month ago that it was legal to sign more than once, in so many words, they were saying 'sign as many times as you want' with the provissal that only one signature would be counted; which would also put more work on the Walker verifiers. In other words, clug up the works. So we have our work cut out for us, to get the number down to something more reasonable. I'm sure they will still have enough signatures for the recall but if we can find a lot of fraudulent signatures to make them look like fools we will be doing our job. Then on to crushing them in the unnecessary and very expensive do over.

15 Questions The Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were A Republican

2012-01-24T07:46:00.001-06:00

During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We've heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt's angry ex-wife, Gardasil, etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was going on and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future."¹ Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break². What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means, you and your allies in Congress managed to push through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democratic Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won't lower costs³ and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald's say they may drop health care because of the health care reform⁴. Since the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn't do what you said it would, shouldn't you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, gas was $1.79 per gallon. Since then, you've demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWR, and killed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.34 per gallon. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history⁵. So, aren't you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that's appropriate for an American President?

8) If they could, don't you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded?

9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you've worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush, and you've said things like⁶, "But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking." Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?

10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?

11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don't you think it's irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on -- to put it into a risky new entitlement program?

12) Back in July, you said, "Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.⁷" Since you plan to raise taxes if you're elected and you've had kind words for a value added tax⁸, shouldn't every American expect a tax increase if you're reelected?

13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined⁹?

14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we've had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn't that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing?

The Worst White House Aide

2012-01-20T23:24:00.001-06:00

via • By MATTHEW CONTINETTI of the WeeklyStandard

If for nothing else, Jodi Kantor’s The Obamas will be remembered for an anecdote from 2010. After he spent hours disputing an allegation in the French media that Michelle Obama thought life in the White House was “hell,” press secretary Robert Gibbs encountered senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. She told him the first lady was unhappy with his work. Gibbs exploded in a rage, informing Jarrett that she didn’t “know what the f— you’re talking about” and that if Mrs. Obama was displeased, well, “f— her too.” Subsequent relations between the senior adviser and press secretary were strained. Gibbs told Kantor he stopped taking Jarrett seriously “as an adviser to the president of the United States.”

Robert Gibbs, Valerie Jarrett, and President Obama at West Point, December 2009

It’s about time. Many have wondered—and the Washington Post asked last year—“What, exactly, does Valerie Jarrett do?” No one has a clear answer. Whatever she does, the U.S. taxpayer pays her $172,200 a year to do it.

A confidante of the Obamas for more than two decades, variously described as the president’s “closest adviser” and a member of the “innermost ring” of influence, Jarrett clearly has the first couple’s ears. She seems to function as a sort of third party to the Obama marriage, guarding the president and his wife from bad news and outside influence while meeting with Lady Gaga. Her lack of any national political experience whatsoever—she had never been to Iowa before Obama competed there three years ago—has not prevented her from shaping the White House’s political strategy and influencing economic and foreign policies. One might liken her to Don Corleone’s consigliere Tom Hagen, bedecked in a designer shawl, except Hagen gave better advice.

What Valerie Jarrett does best is represent the Obama administration in microcosm. She embodies its insularity, its cronyism, its cluelessness. Born in Iran to a prominent African-American family from Chicago, she took degrees at Stanford and Michigan Law. She worked briefly as a corporate lawyer but hated every moment. So she decided to “give back,” which is Chicago code for cashing in. She campaigned for Harold Washington, Chicago’s first black mayor, and worked for him in the corporation counsel’s office. Washington died in 1987, but Jarrett remained in government, working for his successor, Mayor Richard M. “Richie” Daley, son of legendary boss Richard J. Daley. It was all upward from there.

Before long Jarrett stood at the intersection of private interest and public power. She became Daley’s deputy chief of staff and was later appointed to various boards and quasi-governmental agencies that award lucrative contracts—the Chicago Transit Board, the Commission for Planning and Development for the City of Chicago, the University of Chicago Medical Center, and so on. Her social standing, combined with her positions in government and her well-compensated seats on the boards of many companies, magnified Jarrett’s power. She knew everybody. Everybody wanted to know her.

In 1991, another disillusioned attorney, Michelle Robinson, applied for a job in Mayor Daley’s office. Jarrett interviewed her. The two women were instant friends. Before accepting the position, however, Robinson made an unusual request: Would Jarrett mind having dinner with her and her fiancé, Barack Obama? Jarrett accepted, and she has never been far from the couple since.

President Obama, who grew up partly in Indonesia, seems to be drawn to Americans who have spent considerable time abroad, who feel askew in their native land. Jarrett told author David Remnick that the reason she bonded with Barack Obama was that “he and I shared a view of where the United States fit in the world, which is often different from the view people have who have not traveled outside the United States as young children.” Remnick goes on to write that Jarrett viewed America “as one country among many, rather than as the center of all wisdom and experience.” Sounds like the president, all right.

Jarrett was an early supporter of Obama’s political career. From her post at the nexus of Chicago business and politics, she was helpful in introducing the ambitious state senator to rich and well-connected figures. The association was not without embarrassment, however. Jarrett was an occasional collaborator with the developer Antoin Rezko, whose 2006 arrest for public corruption became a shallow pothole in Obama’s road to the White House. And Jarrett herself provided some bad headlines: In addition to her public burdens, she ran Habitat Co., which received taxpayer subsidies to manage low-income housing projects seemingly into the ground. The feds seized one complex in 2006; another, Grove Parc Plaza, was exposed as a decrepit slum by the Boston Globe in 2008.

The Chicago method was on full display after Obama defeated John McCain, when functionaries from across the state of Illinois lobbied for the president-elect’s now vacant Senate seat. Evidence released at the trial of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich reveals that Jarrett, who has never been elected to anything, wanted to replace her protégé in the Senate. This was something incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was only too happy to make happen, since he had no desire for Jarrett to join the Obamas at the White House. But the president-elect overruled both advisers. He wanted Jarrett by his side. Later she became mistrustful of Emanuel when she learned that he had tried to sideline her.

The feeling was mutual. One of Obama’s more flowery hagiographers, journalist Richard Wolffe, divides the administration into “revivalists,” who want the president to be true to the spirit of hope and change, and “survivalists,” who believe compromise is necessary in a divided country. Jarrett is the leader of the revivalists, and her fingerprints are on every blunder and boo-boo the White House has ever made. She bragged to a conference of leftwing bloggers that she had hired noted environmentalist and 9/11 Truther Van Jones, later forced to resign. She campaigned extensively for Obama to travel to Copenhagen and make the case for holding the 2016 summer games in Chicago before the International Olympic Committee. Obama took the trip; the IOC chose Rio. During this time Jarrett met with George Kaiser, the Obama bundler and investor whose solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra was up for a huge loan guarantee. Jarrett, according to government documents, was warned about Solyndra’s shaky finances on the eve of the president’s visit to the company’s facility in Fremont, California. Obama went anyway.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the president tends to side with the revivalists because they feed his ego. Jarrett’s descriptions of Obama are adoring. “I knew the unique combination of leadership qualities that Barack has would push him to greatness,” she told Richard Wolffe. “They always have. Barack has this kind of a—what’s the way to describe it?—restless spirit.” Obama, she told Remnick, has “been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what other people do.” Fed a constant diet of words like these, is it any wonder Obama decided to press on with his health care overhaul after Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, refused any meaningful compromise with Republicans during last summer’s debt ceiling fight, and insisted on giving one “major” address after another even though they have done nothing to advance his agenda or salvage his underwater approval rating?

The House is lost, Obama’s reelection looks dicey, but Jarrett is flying high. In one sense she is the most successful Obama courtier of them all: She has outlasted her rivals. Gibbs is gone. Internal clashes led to Emanuel’s sudden discovery that he had always wanted to be mayor of Chicago. Emanuel’s replacement, fellow Chicagoan Bill Daley (brother of Richie), was muscled out last week; word is he fought with Jarrett too. Her persistence is matched only by her tone-deafness. Wolffe describes the president’s first visit to Chicago after his inauguration. From the window of his helicopter Obama could see that his arrival had caused a major traffic jam. “We shouldn’t have come here in rush hour,” he reflected. This was too much for Jarrett. “You know what, Mr. President?” she said. “You may not be enjoying your new life, but I am.”

Better enjoy it while it lasts—which won’t be for long if Obama continues to listen to his inept political fixer.

Matthew Continetti is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and editor of the Washington Free Beacon.

The Costa Concordia from Space

2012-01-19T00:11:00.001-06:00

» Margaret Thatcher on Income Inequality

2012-01-18T21:18:00.001-06:00

This video clip has appeared on other blogs but it’s worth posting again.

How fortunate the world was to have had both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in office at the same time.

Even in defeat, Tim Tebow is an exemplary young man

2012-01-18T21:08:00.001-06:00

via Bookworm on Jan 18 2012 at 4:04 pm | Filed under: Uplifting stories

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this here before, but my dog is perfect. Her perfection isn’t always obvious to the uninitiated. Those who don’t know what’s really important might think that, because she’s a mutt, she’s a little goofy looking. They may feel that her habit of slipping on the kitchen floor and crashing into kitchen cabinets bespeaks a lack of that grace and elegance that the best dogs should have. And maybe, just maybe, there are some who think that, because she doesn’t do tricks (no rolling, no shaking hands) she’s not too bright. As I’ve said, the people who see only those traits — traits I find endearing — are missing her essence.

My dog is perfect because she is quite possibly the nicest dog in the world, which is exactly what one wants in a family pet. She adores people, but in a diffident way that precludes aggressive friendliness. She stands there, face smiling, tail wagging gently, signalling to people that she would be very happy to engage with them, but allowing them to make the first move. No wonder the little girls in the neighborhood are her biggest fans. She’s tidy, obedient, cuddly, playful, etc., etc. Where it matters, she’s the best.

What does this have to do with Tim Tebow?

(Image by Craig ONeal)

Well, Tim Tebow didn’t win his last football game. It was a biggie, and his team had a fairly ignominious defeat. That allowed the usual crowd to talk about the fact that, as a quarterback, he’s still immature (which, given his age and short career falls into the “well, duh” category), that he’s got a bizarre playing technique, that he’s too slow to react, etc. He is imperfect and, the naysayers imply, unworthy of the attention lavished upon him.

These naysayers, of course, are missing the point. Well, I agree that Tim Tebow is not perfect, because no human being is, he is an exemplary young man in all the areas that matter. He is deeply kind, humble, generous and, as we learned today, truly stalwart. Despite sustaining very painful injuries after this weekend’s game was already good and lost, Tebow did not give up and, instead, played through the pain:

“I just wanted to show character. You just continue to fight and it doesn’t change who you are, how you play, how you go out there, you should be the same at all times,” Tebow said. “That’s what I wanted to show, it didn’t matter if it was the first play or the last play or you were down by 42. I was going to be the same player and I was still going to give everything I have. Because that’s all I have to give.”

There is a fundamental decency in that statement that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether Tebow ever wins another football game. It is enough that this season placed Tebow in the public eye so that as many people as possible can hear his message. Certainly, his message his about his faith, and I don’t want to belittle that core component of his personality. To limit what he offers to faith, however, is to do him disservice. His approach to his faith means that, in his conduct, he sends a larger message about the human spirit, and this is a message that should reach all young people, whether they share his faith or not.

Certainly, I want my children to know that you can be famous, good-looking, talented . . . and courageous, kind, generous, moral, chaste, and all the other good stuff he is. In a world saturated with Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan, Gansta Rappers, and all the other foul people polluting pop culture, what a tremendous gift Tebow is to our young people. He uses his bully pulpit, not to tell people to use one sheet of toilet paper, buy $100,000 electric cars, or have sex, but, instead, to lead by example in the purest sense. His is a doctrine of love, not just for God, but for human-kind.

It is this last point that makes a mockery of those anti-Tebowists who claim that they fear criticizing him lest his fans become violent. No, I’m not kidding. Max Lindenman, who feels as I do that Tebow has become an important symbol in the culture wars, caught a liberal columnist make precisely this point:

Yesterday in the Atlantic, I read a blog post that really turned my head. Robert Wright warns non-religious people, especially those he calls “liberals,” that “dissing” Tebow is a bad idea…because it might make the other guys really mad. Extreme “religious conservatives,” who “consider themselves to be at war with the prevailing culture,” will take cracks against Tebow as cues to “reject the entire liberal agenda, ranging from gay rights to uncensored science education in the public schools.” Liberals, he advises, should be as discreet regarding the Broncos QB as the Jyllands-Posten wasn’t regarding Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Unlike the Islamists, Tebow is the Abou ben Adam of faith, one who manifestly loves his fellow man as part of his faith in God. No one who respects Tebow is going to use violence as a means of expressing that support.

There are others like Tebow — Marine Lance Corporal Donald Hogan, for example, who won a posthumous Navy Cross — who have this abiding love for mankind. What they lack, however, is Tebow’s prominence. There are too many heroes whose work is done in the quiet and the dark. Tebow brings their ethos into the light.

LCPL Donald Hogan

I don’t care that Tebow is a somewhat ungainly quarterback. As a parent, and as someone who has watched our pop culture decay for too many years, I care deeply that Tebow is almost perfect in the areas that matter. He is a gift to our culture, and I hope that as many people as possible appreciate this gift.

Wikipedia

2012-01-18T19:19:00.001-06:00

Wikipedia was my my Home Page, not anymore. The freedictionary.com is my new Home Page, from now on.

Another Jessica Hagyism

2012-01-16T09:25:00.001-06:00

This one is Apropos for Todays Job Market

After the 'Listing' blues

2012-01-16T08:58:00.001-06:00

We have had our house up for sale and like a lot of others, no takers. So we thought we would wait till spring to try again. We have done this before because, it seems, nobody wants our nice little house; so we know the routine. Every day at 800 am or after the real estate calls start coming in trying to get us listed with them. Today was a little different, one called in at 7:45; must be a real go-getter, wants to be the first. If we were smart we probably should go with this guy, he might be the kind that gets out there and beats the bushes for prospects or keeps calling back to people that have seen the house. I personally don't like pests but what's the saying 'nice guys finish last'.

On second thought maybe we'll try Tebowing!

Jessica Hagy, 'indexed'

2012-01-16T07:48:00.001-06:00

One of Jessica Hagys' Index Cards

They are all good but I like the first one best.

A=Lust / AB=Edible Undies. Hey, men are like that but maybe you might be more profound.

The Joy of Books

2012-01-15T11:05:00.001-06:00

I like the idea but the process is taken to another level.

An Hour with Christopher/Hitch

2012-01-15T10:46:00.001-06:00

http://fora.tv/2009/07/09/Axis_of_Evil_Christopher_Hitchens

“I was inspired by Tim Tebow so I wanted to modify the lyrics...in his honor of the way that he lives his life as being a great example,” British musician John Parr

2012-01-10T23:47:00.001-06:00

The 6 Star General

2012-01-05T22:38:00.001-06:00

Scotch in a Can

2012-01-03T08:53:00.001-06:00

I Generally like my Wine in a Long Steam Glass, so I'm not sure about this.

Ideas for Post

2011-12-30T14:21:00.001-06:00

*Their is one word that was and is very important in the times we live. That phrase is 'if a Republican has said that. I have forgotten the word or phrase I was going to write about, I know it will come to me in a minute. It was very profound; which could wind up to be another post.
I am sure that I am not the only one who forgets stuff. But it is becoming more of a problem.

*Another idea for a post would be, yes Michelle O'Obama and extravagant spending on vacations and wardrobe. Something like maybe she is, why do words not come to mind the way they use to, ok, feel inferior or have to prove to other people how good she is. What comes to mind right now is the woman who use to be, I think, Social Director. She was very well dressed and Always made up to the nines. Well, not surprisingly not around very long; Michelle no doubt thought and, quite rightly, I believe was getting too much of the lime light. Hence a quick and quiet departure. Other examples to come. Some of that might come from the church, mostly the Black Church. I have heard or read somewhere that members of the 'church' like to see and have other people see their minister dressed in fine clothes and driving nice cars jewelry and I sure living in nice homes. I think they feel that it reflects positively on them, more on this.

kxcd

2011-12-30T01:27:00.001-06:00

xkcd

2011-12-30T01:20:00.001-06:00

Now I understand!

2011-12-28T21:09:00.001-06:00

Elagent

What will these people do now?

2011-12-28T20:43:00.001-06:00

No more 2 cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot.

It looks like Occupy Pyongyang.

I think this deserves 2 Down Twinkles

Doing Harm to the Protecked Group

2011-12-28T13:12:00.001-06:00

Notice that, after the victim, provided the police 'a basic description' of the perp does not have the full description but in another story they do. All they do is show that the description follows except there is no link to it.

Don't they know that most people notice this and that they are not helping this protected group by trying to hide it.

Teen Attacked, Robbed at Bellingham Skate Park

KGMI News Reporting

kgmi@kgmi.com

BELLINGHAM, Wash. -- Law enforcement officers are on the lookout for two suspects who they say physically accosted and robbed a teenage boy at a Bellingham skate park.
Sgt. Ken Brown with the Bellingham Police Dept. says the boy was at the skate park at about 11:30 p.m. Tuesday night when he was approached by the two suspects.

The victim was able to provide police with a basic description of the two…
The suspects apparently got away with a handful of pocket change after punching the boy and knocking him to the ground.
Police say the victim was shaken up but uninjured in the incident.

Another story Police: Man Slaps Employee, Takes Cash From Hair Salon on the same Bellingham website 'has a part of the description' in the story, for some reason.

Police: Man Slaps Employee, Takes Cash From Hair Salon

BELLINGHAM, Wash. -- Authorities are looking for a man they say slapped an employee of a hair salon and then fled with an undisclosed amount of cash.
Police say the man entered the HairMasters store in the Bakerview Fred Meyer shopping center just before 9 p.m. Monday night and asked for a haircut.
He then demanded the money in the cash register before striking the employee in the face.
Officers say a police dog tracked the suspect to a nearby restaurant but lost the man’s scent.
He is described as a white male, about 5'9" with a thin build and clean-cut blonde hair.
He was wearing sunglasses, a black sweatshirt with the hood up, and dark pants.
Anyone with information is asked to call Bellingham Police.

Also, in the first story, they are not asking for information so they can catch this guy, maybe because the victim was, uninjured, which must mean that the attack was OK or not that bad. In the second story, there was a full description, they want to get this guy and they want him bad.

Mother of the Year

2011-12-28T10:25:00.001-06:00

“She told the nurse, ‘I’m done, I did what I was supposed to. My baby is going to get here safe,’” said Diana Phillips, Jenni’s mother.

In photographs, the baby’s ruddy cheeks and healthy weight offer a stark contrast to the frail girl who gave birth to him. She holds the newborn tightly, kissing the top of his head. Jenni, at 5 feet and 4 inches tall, weighed only 108 pounds at the full term of her pregnancy.

A day after the Nov. 9 birth, Phillips learned that her daughter’s decision to forgo treatment for tumors on her brain and spine so she could carry the baby would have fatal repercussions. The cancer had marked too much territory. Nothing could be done, Phillips said.

It was only 12 days past the birth — half spent in the hospital and the other half at home — before Jenni was gone.

A Mothers Love

Governor Of The Year – Scott Walker

2011-12-25T18:56:00.001-06:00

By GoJo Staff on December 23, 2011

(Madison, WI) – In 2011, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker(R) served as the embodiment of the state by state battle to balance budgets and the best symbol of the struggle between the two political parties about how best to meet those fiscal challenges. His first year will extend well into his second year, quite likely culminating in a recall election to remove him from office.

He has dominated the political debate on both sides. Defining the issues. He is cited by both Democrats and Republicans as the best of example of what is wrong, or what is right with a conservative approach to government. Although they will never admit it, many Democratic governors are different from Walker only in a matter of degrees.

Nearly every governor, regardless of party, began the year saying the current path of expensive pension and benefit packages for public employees is unsustainable. The way the issue exploded in Wisconsin is as much a function of the legal and legislative tools at Walker’s disposal as it is about the specific route he chose to take.

This is why Governors Journal has selected Scott Walker as the 2011 Governor of the Year.

It is not accurate to say Scott Walker launched an unannounced attack on public employees. For decades, state and local government leaders have complained about government employee unions: Collective bargaining, growing benefit packages, under-funded pension systems and binding arbitration. The warning siren had howled.

As Idaho Governor Butch Otter(R) observed in one interview this year, the changes that occurred in 2011 could not have happened in the absence of the national economic collapse. In politics, things change when a crisis necessitates change.

That was the case this year in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Years of complaining about the problem led to action in state after state. Walker was faced with a larger crisis in Wisconsin, in large part, because the unions fighting his proposal to curtail collective bargaining rights had the help of a small group of Senate Democrats who fled the state, preventing a vote, for several weeks, as pro-union forces took over the Capitol in support.

Eventually Walker prevailed. In an ironic twist, the union organized Madison melodrama may have helped efforts to curtail union rights and benefit packages in other states, where reforms slipped in under the radar.

The union cause had one victory this year when voters over turned Walker style reforms in Ohio. Just a few weeks later, public employees suffered another defeat in Rhode Island, where a heavily Democratic legislature, working with Governor Lincoln Chafee(I), enacted what is considered the most sweeping pension reform in the country.

Now on to 2012. Walker is facing a well organized and well funded movement to recall him from office. Democrats and unions have teamed up and seem well on their way to gathering the signatures they need(540,000) to force an election.

Walker is raising money himself and has begun a campaign to defend his record and hold onto his office through 2014. Next to the presidential race, if the recall election takes place, it may be the biggest political story in the country in the coming year.

But consider this. Even if Walker is removed from office, he still wins the debate. Any setback will be temporary. Pension reforms are a reality. California is next.

Walker, heralded as a “hero” of the conservative cause, will be in Washington in two months to address the American Conservative Union. If he comes out on top, in a special election, he is a right wing political star. If he loses, he is a political martyr, but still a star. What Walker represents – the idea behind his policies – cannot be killed even if he is temporarily removed from office.

Posted in Top News | Tagged american conservative union, butch otter, governor, idaho, martyr, ohio, recall, scott walker, wisconsin

Sponsor Governors Journal

Eye on the Prize

2011-12-25T17:01:00.001-06:00

Mohoho's must be the best bone

Boy, Does Somebody Like Himself

2011-12-23T19:11:00.001-06:00

Primitive

2011-12-23T07:02:00.001-06:00

The toilet on Soyuz. Use your imagination. I thought Space travel was high tech.

So Sad

2011-12-21T10:19:00.001-06:00

This morning they launched three men to the International Space Station, around 6:30am. So I set my alarm early so I could wake up to watch it online. I started watching about an hour before launch to see the pre-launch. This kind of reminds me of what I have done for most launches, when I was home, since 'Freedom 7' took off in 1961.

The only difference is that now I have to watch a Russian rocket take off.

RIP, Dick Head

2011-12-21T05:58:00.001-06:00

Contrast

2011-12-19T20:18:00.001-06:00

Maybe the new ‘young’ ruler can solve this problem.

Also, this might be why they were crying in the streets today

Why did some westerners see through the lies of fascism and Communism while so many others fell for them--or even knowingly repeated them?

2011-12-10T15:00:00.001-06:00

Some people today should be asking themselves this question.

via Ricochet and Peter Robinson

Who Goes Nazi? Who Lies for Stalin?

Roger Simon of Pajamas Media and I got to talking yesterday evening—Roger was visiting Stanford to tape a lecture series with Victor Davis Hanson—about what we both believe remains one of the central questions of the twentieth century: Why did some westerners see through the lies of fascism and Communism while so many others fell for them--or even knowingly repeated them?

Roger mentioned the contrast between two reporters, both famous in the first half of the century, Eugene Lyons of United Press International (pictured to the left) and Walter Duranty of the New York Times (to the right).

As a young man, Lyons was a convinced socialist—“I thought of myself as a ‘socialist’ almost as soon as I thought at all,” he would later write—and during his early reporting from the Soviet Union he praised Stalin and the new Russia the regime claimed to be calling into existence. “The shaggy mustache, framing a sensual mouth and a smile nearly as full of teeth as Teddy Roosevelt’s,” Lyons wrote after meeting Stalin in 1930, “gave his swarthy face a friendly, almost benignant look.” Yet by the end of the Thirties, Lyon had reversed himself. Why? Because of what he had seen. Increasing terror. Show trials. A press full of lies. Famine.

Walter Duranty saw what Lyons saw—but went right on defending the Soviet regime. “Any report of a famine in Russia,” Duranty wrote in 1933, “is…an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.”

Why did Lyons tell the truth? Why did Duranty refuse to accept the evidence of his own eyes, choosing instead to believe Moscow’s propaganda that the troubles in Ukraine merely amounted, to quote Duranty again, to “undernourishment” while millions—millions—lay starving?

The best answer I have ever come across: Dorothy Thompson’s 1941 essay, “Who Goes Nazi?”, of which my friend Stephen Schmalhofer reminded me just the other day. Thompson devotes her essay to gullibility toward Hitler rather than Stalin, but her findings apply to both:

It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times–in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis….

Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi. Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.

If you have a moment this weekend, you could do a lot worse than to read Dorothy Thompson in full. Marvelous, sharp writing combined with real profundity—an instance of truly great American journalism.

What's wrong with this picture?

2011-12-10T14:48:00.001-06:00

Proposed S. Korean Towers Resemble Exploding World Trade Center

The unveiling of pictures of planned luxury residential towers scheduled to be built in Seoul, South Korea, has sparked instant controversy. The reason is obvious. The towers, which include a so-called “cloud” feature connecting them around the 27^th floors, clearly resemble the World Trade Towers in the process of collapsing following the 9/11 attacks.

The designers of the towers, Dutch architectural firm MVRDV, have responded to the controversy by quickly publishing an apology in English. “It was not our intention to create an image resembling the attacks,” the designers insist, “nor did we see the resemblance during the design process.”

They did not see the resemblance during the design process? The problem with this assertion – apart from its inherent implausibility – is that they have admitted the contrary in Dutch. Thus Jan Knikker of MVRDV told the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad, “I have to admit that we also thought of the 9/11 attacks.”

2011-12-08T23:07:00.003-06:00

photo
Originally uploaded by dobst1

2011-12-08T23:07:00.001-06:00

photo
Originally uploaded by dobst1

2011-12-08T23:06:00.003-06:00

photo
Originally uploaded by dobst1

2011-12-08T23:06:00.001-06:00

photo
Originally uploaded by dobst1

What happened before the Pepper Spraying

2011-12-05T19:41:00.001-06:00

They surround the police. The only way the police can leave without using violence is to pepper spray!

This is what these people do!

Did You ever Do This?

2011-12-05T11:14:00.003-06:00

If you did, Why? Forget that you probably had to.

Adam Carolla

2011-12-01T21:06:00.001-06:00

Couldn't have said it better myself; well, maybe in a different way, though.

Winter Blues is Just Around the Corner

2011-11-09T07:38:00.001-06:00

Maybe this year I will try this.

Why can't we all 'just get along'

2011-11-06T09:47:00.001-06:00

Isn't This Special

2011-10-27T07:38:00.000-05:00

Posted By: MissMolly- 10/27/2011 8:23:00 AM Post Reply
The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters. For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad. They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.

Seeing them for what they are.

2011-10-08T08:50:00.002-05:00

by Dave

The video below by White House energy adviser Heather Zichal should be used as a training video to explain how this Administration works; or more precisely, how it pulls the wool over our eyes.
She says the Administration wants to get more of our energy i.e. drilling for oil on land, off shore and even deep water but then she throws in the kicker, but this has to be done more environmentally friendly; which means, in realspeak, it will drive up the cost to a private business so much that it will be too costly so they wont be able to get the oil out of the ground., unless they play ball the, new form of government which would fall under the umbrella of the term, Socialism. This government will be telling 'private business' who can compete and who can't. This is completely opposite of what has made this country exceptional; what has made this country the pecan for people around the world for Hope.
The 'Care Act' will be run basically the same way. You will be able to keep the insurance you have now but, through regulations, it will drive up the cost for insurance companies that they will not be able to compete with the government plan, subsidized by the tax payer, and go out of business and then you will have to look to the government for care. The same will work for the doctors and hospitals and all through our daily lives.
Why does the analogy of putting a frog, not a Frenchman, in warm water stand out so much here.
WAKE UP PEOPLE BEFORE THE WATER STARTS BOILING.

He Will be Missed But Not Forgotten!

2011-10-05T18:57:00.001-05:00

The Professor at Work

2011-09-24T09:00:00.001-05:00

He has the page turned so the camera can see there actually are printed words on the paper.

Testing out my Blogger App

2011-09-24T00:19:00.001-05:00

I am posting on my iPad using the new Blogger App.

Why does this remind me of 'Whos on First'

2011-09-06T23:45:00.001-05:00

"run, Sarah! run

2011-09-03T21:48:00.001-05:00

Probably not but that's OK. She has a bigger job to do!

Sarah Palin Rallies Tea Party Supporters

Enough Said

2011-09-02T13:25:00.001-05:00

I guess Arabs can't take a joke

2011-09-01T21:00:00.001-05:00

This is the attitude we need for the election of 2012

2011-09-01T14:48:00.001-05:00

http://youtu.be/sFOl-QXpLc4

Nuance

2011-09-01T14:39:00.001-05:00

Watch this video; this is attitude we need in 2012

http://is.gd/EkPMyJ

It's All Bush's Fault ? ?

2011-09-01T12:15:00.001-05:00

more. . .

Those silly little things called FACTS

“Are you a flake?”

2011-08-28T23:04:00.001-05:00

Marco Rubio

2011-08-24T14:19:00.001-05:00

A shooting star from above

2011-08-18T10:43:00.001-05:00

Story here

She is Not running!

2011-08-13T21:24:00.001-05:00

If you listen very closely she says in so many words that she has decided not to run. She wants to think what impact this will have on her family and we all know that the leftists will try try to destroy her and her family. She also has to make a decision soon so her supporters can go with the candidate of there choice.

It Helps to Vent

2011-08-13T07:49:00.001-05:00

In Defence of Mitt

2011-08-13T07:16:00.001-05:00

by Andrew C. McCarthy

<snip> Let’s put health care to the side. Say a governor and state legislature had enacted a scheme to establish a state religion, or at least to advantage one religion over others. One could argue that this was — or was not — unwise policy. It certainly seems as hostile to liberty as the idea of coercing a citizen to buy a commodity as a condition of citizenship. Yet, for the first 160 years of governance under the federal constitution, there would have been nothing objectionable about it under U.S. law. Until the Supreme Court suddenly decided to “incorporate” the Establishment Clause against the states, the First Amendment was no bar. The federal government, as Jefferson put it, was “interdicted from intermeddling” in matters of religion — religion was an issue left to the states and their citizens, and we trusted them to handle it responsibly.

That is the way our system is supposed to work. The federal government has a few discrete areas of national concern to regulate. The rest belong to the states and the people, to regulate or not as they see fit. In a free society, that means decisions on most matters of community life get made by the community that has to live with them — and pay for them. In a pluralistic society, that means we could have 50 different ways of doing things — meaning that if you find yourself in a state that is foolish enough to mandate the purchase of health insurance subsidized by taxes or penalties, you are free to move to some state that isn’t.

Read Article . . .

Democrats on Escalator

2011-08-07T08:52:00.001-05:00

Entitlement

2011-08-07T07:25:00.001-05:00

Mind Blowing

2011-08-05T09:25:00.001-05:00

I never thought I would see an American politician saying this while the cameras were rolling. This is really getting scary. Is this a sign of how far the Left-Liberals have sunk.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/05/john_kerry_media_has_responsibility_to_not_give_equal_time_to_tea_party.html

Something to think about

2011-08-05T00:09:00.001-05:00

Who is to Blame

2011-08-03T11:44:00.002-05:00

by Theodore Dalrymple (August 2011)

Needless to say, I am clear in my mind that nothing I have ever written could be taken as a justification for, much less an incitement of, mass killing. No minimally sensible person could derive a reason for such a killing from my words. But this does not entirely dispel my unease, precisely because I have spent much of my writing career propounding the view that ideas have consequences, and that many contemporary undesirable social (or antisocial) phenomena are caused not by ‘objective’ economic or physical conditions, but by the ideas that people have in their minds, often instilled into them by intellectuals without much thought of their adverse consequences if taken too literally or distorted.
Is it possible, then, that by emphasising the less attractive aspects of modern society and culture, by repeatedly drawing attention to the deleterious social and psychological effects of welfare dependence, by criticising multiculturalism as a doctrine and as corrupt bureaucratic opportunism, I may have contributed, if only a mite, to the poisonous, paranoid, narcissistic, grandiose and resentful brew in the mind of Breivik, who took what I wrote, even if at second-hand, in completely the wrong way and drew ludicrous but murderous conclusions from it? And if I did contribute that mite, does it mean that I should now retire into guilty silence, lest there be other Breiviks in the world?

. . . read entire article
I think I am going to retire to a quite, dark room and contemplate how the act of saying Hello could be taken in the wrong way.

Money paragraph:

To be reduced to silence on an important subject, to decree in effect that only one opinion on it may be openly expressed, for fear of filling the minds of the unstable with murderous resentment, is to place a great deal of subject matter hors de combat. It is true that as yet no climate activist has killed people, and that ‘only’ three bank employees lost their lives in the riots in Athens (and probably not by the direct intention of the rioters at that), but there is no reason to suppose that extreme climate activists or protesters against finance capitalism are, and must forever remain, immune from murderous impulses. The human mind is capable of finding a casus belli in almost anything, and of rationalising violence when it wants to commit it. If an environmental activist were to act in imitation of Anders Breivik, I should not blame those who warned against global warming, nor even Anders Breivik himself.

Eloquent words from an Eloquent Man

2011-08-01T07:55:00.004-05:00

It is disturbing to me that a foreigner, or at least someone who has lived most of his life in foreign country, has to explain to us what type of president we have; and, between the lines, tell us what we should do about it. And with the last sentence of this article give us our 2012 campaign motto that should be at the end of every campaign Ad.

by FOUAD AJAMI • Aug. 1, 2011

In one of the illuminating, unscripted moments of the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama said—much to the dismay of his core constituency—that the Reagan presidency had been "transformational" in a way that Bill Clinton's hadn't. Needless to say, Mr. Obama aspired to a transformational presidency of his own.
He had risen against the background of a deep economic recession, amid unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; he could be forgiven the conviction that the country was ready for an economic and political overhaul. He gave it a mighty try. But the transformational dream was not to be. The country had limits. Mr. Obama couldn't convince enough Americans that the twin pillars of his political program—redistribution at home, retrenchment abroad—are worthy of this country's ambitions and vocation.

Temperament mattered. Ronald Reagan was the quintessential optimist, his faith in America boundless. He had been given his mandate amid economic distress—the great inflation of the 1970s, high unemployment and taxation—and a collapse of American authority abroad. Through two terms and a time of great challenges, he had pulled off one of the great deeds of political-economic restoration. He made tax cuts and economic growth the cornerstone of that recovery. Economic freedom at home had a corollary in foreign affairs—the pursuit of liberty, a course that secured a victorious end to the Cold War. The "captive nations" were never in doubt, American power was on the side of liberty.
By that Reagan standard, Mr. Obama has been a singular failure. The crippling truth of the Obama presidency is the pessimism of the man, the low expectations he has for this republic. He had not come forth to awaken this country to its stirring first principles, but to manage its decline at home and abroad. So odd an outcome, a man with an inspiring biography who provides no inspiration, a personal story of "The Audacity of Hope" yielding a leader who deep down believes that America's best days are behind it.

Amid the enthusiasm of his ascent to power, the choreography of a brilliant campaign, and a justifiable sense of pride that an African-American had risen to the summit of political power, it had been hard to tease out the pessimism at the core of Mr. Obama's vision. His economic program—the vaunted stimulus, the bailout of the automobile industry, the determination to overhaul the entire health-care system—gave away a bureaucratic vision: It was rule by emergency decree, as it were. No Reaganesque faith in the society for this leader.
In the nature of things, Mr. Obama could not take the American people into his confidence; he could not openly take up the thesis of America's decline. But there was an early signal, in April 2009 in Strasbourg, during a celebration of NATO's 60th anniversary, when he was confronted with the cherished principle of American "exceptionalism."
Asked whether he believed in the school of "American exceptionalism" that sees America as "uniquely qualified to lead the world," he gave a lawyerly answer: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." We were not always going to be right, he added, "all have to compromise and that includes us."
Events would supply evidence of Mr. Obama's break with the history of America's faith in liberty in distant lands. The herald of change was at heart a man who doubted the ability of political freedom to skip borders, and to bring about the emancipation of peoples subjected to brutal tyrannies. The great upheaval in Iran in the first summer of his presidency exposed the flaws and contradictions of the Obama diplomacy.
A people had risen against their tyrannical rulers, but Mr. Obama was out to conciliate these rulers. America's support wouldn't have altered that cruel balance of force on the ground. But henceforth it would become part of the narrative of liberty that when Iran rose in rebellion, the pre-eminent liberal power sat out a seminal moment in Middle Eastern history.
In his encounters with the foreign world, Mr. Obama gave voice to a steady and unsettling expression of penance. We had made our own poor bed in distant lands, Mr. Obama believed. We had been aggressive and imperial in the wars we waged, and in our steady insistence that our way held out the promise for other nations. In that narrative of American guilt, the Islamic world was of central importance. It was in that vast, tormented world that Mr. Obama sought to make his mark, it was there he believed we had been particularly egregious.

But the truth of it, a truth that would erupt with fury in the upheaval of that Arab Spring now upon us, is that the peoples of that region needed our assistance and example. This was the Arabs' 1989, their supreme moment of historical agency, a time when younger people broke with their culture's history of evasion and scapegoating. For once the "Arab Street" was not gripped by anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism, for once it wasn't looking beyond its geography for alien demons. But we could not really aid these rebellions, for our touch, Mr. Obama insisted, would sully them. These rebellions, his administration lamely asserted, had to be thoroughly indigenous.
We had created—and were spooked by—phantoms of our own making. A visit last month to Syria's embattled city of Hama by U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford ought to have shattered, once and for all, the thesis of a rampant anti-Americanism in Arab lands. The American envoy was given a moving reception, he was met with flowers and olive branches by those struggling to end the tyranny of the Assad family. News of America's decline had not reached the streets of Hama. The regime may have denied them air and light and knowledge, but they knew that in our order of nations America remains unrivalled in the hope it holds out for thwarted populations.

Americans' confident belief in the uniqueness, yes the exceptionalism, of their country, rested on an essential faith in liberty, and individualism and anti-statism at home, and in the power of our example, and muscle now and then, in foreign lands. Mr. Obama is ill-at-ease with that worldview. Our country has had pessimism on offer and has invariably rejected it. At crucial points in its history, it has remained unshaken in the belief that tomorrow can be better.

In 2008, shaken by a severe economic recession and disillusioned by a difficult war in Iraq, Americans voted for charisma and biography. The electorate could not be certain of the bet it made, for Mr. Obama had been agile, by his own admission he had been a blank slate onto which his varied supporters could project their hopes and preferences. Next time around, it should be easier. The man at the helm has now played his hand.

Mr. Ajami is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and co-chairman of Hoover's Working Group on Islamism and the International Order.

Mr Ajami was interviewed here by Charlie Rose in 2006, before the Surge when the out come of Iraq was unsure or almost seemed a failure. He held his own against the hard questions of Charlie. He also that the wisdom to look above the sound bites of the 'Leftist Media'.

Why do Some people believe this guy?

2011-07-27T08:46:00.001-05:00

AC/DC / with Bon

2011-07-25T14:48:00.005-05:00

And Bon in another Life

Better Bon

Things I wish I had said

2011-07-23T06:08:00.001-05:00

Speaking frankly? This is why tar, feathers, pitchforks, and rails were invented. And the people of Gould, Arkansas should go forth immediately and avail themselves of those things, is my advice.

Tyranny starts at the local local level

Behold!

Think about this: discussing city business at your dinner table without council approval would be against the law, if this city council got its way. That is, you either get permission from Miss Sonja, or you face the wrath of the functionaries Miss Sonja sends after you.

Now, this is clearly unconstitutional. And it would get laughed out of court. But what’s pertinent here is that a city council presumed it had the power to do this.

Speaking frankly? This is why tar, feathers, pitchforks, and rails were invented. And the people of Gould, Arkansas should go forth immediately and avail themselves of those things, is my advice.

Some assembly required.

At different times

2011-07-21T21:58:00.003-05:00

Sometimes I like it like this

and Then again sometimes I like it like this

And then sometimes I like, well I wont go there

Refreshing

2011-07-19T21:59:00.001-05:00

The Rational Left

2011-07-19T11:59:00.001-05:00

If it wasn't so Tragic, I'd laugh

2011-07-19T06:49:00.001-05:00

The End Game

2011-07-14T21:30:00.001-05:00

We have no plan B. But we have to oppose this financial system, so we need a plan B, and probably the only point at which a new system can be installed is when this one fails. Which may mean letting it fail despite the short-term human cost.

They have Plan B, it's called Barack

This is from a comment from a very long Blog post here

Martin Bento 06.19.11 at 10:45 am

<snip>If you want to unite people in opposition to an elite, you’re going to have to be willing to conceive of the elite as “them” and everyone else as “us”, and there will be a “against” involved. A resistance to ever seeing the world in these terms, though these terms are basically just the structure of conflict, and you will not get politics without conflict, is making the left unwilling to adopt the mindset you must adopt in a fight. . . .

<snip>We need a real analysis of where the financial system actually creates value and where it is parasitic. Regulation sufficient to prevent collapse is not sufficient. “Too big to fail” is probably non-operative. In this era, multiple firms can invest in one another so thoroughly, and track each other slow closely, that many will fail more or less at once. In fact, that’s really what happened. It’s not that Lehman crashed the economy. Bear, then Wamu, then Lehmen, AIG next, that’s what crashed it. We also have to articulate alternatives to this system, including things that can be put in place if it fails. It failed, and almost the entire “reputable” left had no response but “save it at all cost”. I understand why. We have no plan B. But we have to oppose this financial system, so we need a plan B, and probably the only point at which a new system can be installed is when this one fails. Which may mean letting it fail despite the short-term human cost.

The entire comment below

Martin Bento 06.19.11 at 10:45 am

Very interesting post from which one can go many directions. For me the first is: what does the left need to change in its own thinking to further these goals? Your agenda here is primarily restorative: the things you seek were the case in recent history and you want to go back to [some aspects of] that earlier time. So phrased, you can see how this rubs against the instincts of those committed to being “progressive”. I call it the “Pastime Paradise” syndrome. Praise a past state of affairs and prepare to hear lectures about how people always glorify the past sentimentally, usually because they cannot handle the present or future, it imparts a comforting simplicity, it reduces the need to incorporate new information, it is the salve of those who benefit from the status quo, etc.

There are also the more specific variations on the theme. Whenever Krugman talks about how progressive taxation was in the 50’s, how much more economic security there was then, how there was an actual industrial policy and it worked, in any progressive context, there will always be the objection that Krugman would not be praising the 50’s like that if he were [pick one: black, female, gay]. Krugman does often add caveats regarding those issues, unless he has to be quite brief, but that is not enough. It is obligatory that praising any aspect of the 50’s should be accompanied by condemnation of its dark side at at least equal volume, for the sake of balance. However, the reverse is not true. I have never heard a discussion of the evils of Jim Crow interrupted by someone saying “Sure, segregation was bad, but, on the other hand, progressive taxation and redistribution made a tremendous improvement in most people’s lives at that time, including blacks”. Anyone who made such an argument would be accused of changing the subject at best to apologizing for racism at worst. Somehow “balance” only has to exist on one side. The left has to get over its prejudice against the past. If you can never praise the past, then history becomes a ratchet where all your losses are permanent, because even you will not speak up for what you have lost.

If you want to unite people in opposition to an elite, you’re going to have to be willing to conceive of the elite as “them” and everyone else as “us”, and there will be a “against” involved. A resistance to ever seeing the world in these terms, though these terms are basically just the structure of conflict, and you will not get politics without conflict, is making the left unwilling to adopt the mindset you must adopt in a fight.

The centrality of the financial system to the recent disaster and to the increasing inequality of wealth and power in the world, as well as the decreasing financial stability, means the left needs to be willing to articulate criticisms of the financial system that are independent of its criticisms of Capitalism as a whole. At the very least, such a critique must not be taboo. All you have to do is attack the financial system as such and some established lefties (cough Doug Henwood cough) will bring up antisemitism and yell “Nazi!”, Godwin, for once, be damned. Yes, many of the people in the past who have attacked bankers have been antisemites and some of them created a totalitarian system that killed millions. And many of those who argued for economic equality were communists and some of them created several totalitarian systems, more than one of which killed millions. The right needs to get over the second fact, and the left needs to get over the first.

We need a real analysis of where the financial system actually creates value and where it is parasitic. Regulation sufficient to prevent collapse is not sufficient. “Too big to fail” is probably non-operative. In this era, multiple firms can invest in one another so thoroughly, and track each other slow closely, that many will fail more or less at once. In fact, that’s really what happened. It’s not that Lehman crashed the economy. Bear, then Wamu, then Lehmen, AIG next, that’s what crashed it. We also have to articulate alternatives to this system, including things that can be put in place if it fails. It failed, and almost the entire “reputable” left had no response but “save it at all cost”. I understand why. We have no plan B. But we have to oppose this financial system, so we need a plan B, and probably the only point at which a new system can be installed is when this one fails. Which may mean letting it fail despite the short-term human cost.

the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?

2011-07-08T11:32:00.001-05:00

Just watched the final launch of the Shuttle, which of course, is very historic for American manned spaceflight. But much more historic for me personally. I have been interested and watching almost every manned launch since Alan Shepard's suborbital flight in 1961 and before. Some of the launches I have missed because I could not be near a TV or just forgot but not many. I even more or less quite a job so I could watch it. I probably would have quite or have been fired anyway.

All of the Mercury Flights always took off very early in the morning and the astronauts were inserted into the capsules hours before take off so I was getting up 4 or 5 in the morning to watch, savor, every minute of it I could.

Will get back to this post later cause I have to get back watching the events on the shuttle but also to get my head around the last fifty years of manned space flight.

I think the 'defence industry will take a hit because of this

2011-07-07T12:47:00.001-05:00

Creative Thinking

2011-07-04T22:10:00.001-05:00

There are two things that I have noticed on my travels on the internets, lately, that might be connected in some very slim way, if you really stretch it. The first is the meme that the republicans are destroying the economy, on purpose, to help them in the election next year or is two years from now, I forget. Not withstanding they have been in control for the last two yrs., actually for four if you count the election in 2006/7. The 'It's all Pres. Bush's' fault' is starting to run a little thin and the economy/jobs are not getting better or is worse so they have to come up with a new excuse. With some thought, some creative thought, they have come up with the first meme. The second is the one about ' man made global warming', I sorry, I mean ' climate change'; and this one is all China's fault, although some were along the way it will turn out to be W's fault, I'm sure. I seems that because China's economy has been booming they have been using a lot more coal; which has been cooling the global Temps for a few yrs. Cooling the temperature you say, how can that be I thought the CO₂in coal warm the earth. Not so fast, But wait, that is not doing much for the Theme of G W Bush, with the help of some republicans, destroying the planet so they added a little twist to the theory. These scientist have come up with a new theory; although the co₂ does, they say, warms the globe, the sulfur ejected into the atmosphere reflects the rays from the Sun and viola, the Temps come down.

Don't even get me stated on that fact that by taking young kids to a 4th of July parade is a contributing facture for causing them to become republicans.

Ronnie We could use you now

2011-06-27T19:49:00.001-05:00

Why can't we all get along

2011-06-22T01:57:00.001-05:00

Does the dog look a little threatened ? No, I think the orangutan has some BO

This Makes Sence to Some People

2011-06-20T16:54:00.001-05:00

Case Closed

Better than Soylent Green

2011-06-16T21:39:00.001-05:00

I think they should eat this on the Space station, they are already drinking water made from urine.

THE Picture

2011-06-08T13:23:00.001-05:00

It can be confirmed. He is Jewish!

It can be confirmed. He does hang to the Left!

Thoughts from my iPad

2011-06-05T23:28:00.002-05:00

I might as well join in on the subject that everyone in the civilized world is lamenting about; why should I be any different. Of course we have to pick sides first and how do we do that. What is mostly happening now is that we are picking according to what political party we belong to or ideology we adhere to. Their are other ways in which we could define on which side we belong or feel more comfortable with. Maybe the commonsense party or the reality party or lets just have the facts party.

If I was a member of the commonsense party maybe I would be thinking why didn't he just stop shooting after he hit his intended target but then kept on shooting and trying to kill as many people as he could. If he hadn't been stopped by people close to him he would have succeeded. Maybe in his sick mind he felt he could just look at someone and see if they were a democrat or if they were a 'illegal immigrant lover' and maybe he could tell if the next person he aimed at was a Obamacare.

Why I Never Was

2011-06-03T10:15:00.001-05:00

Via 'The Village Voice' David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal’

<snip>and I will try to summarize it in the words of William Allen White.

White was a pretty clear-headed man, and he’d seen human nature as few can. (As Twain wrote, you want to understand men, run a country paper.) White knew that people need both to get ahead and to get along, and that they’re always working at one or the other, and that government should most probably stay out of the way and let them get on with it. But, he added, there is such a thing as liberalism, and it may be reduced to these saddest of words: ” . . . and yet … “

The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change, and many are incensed about the fools on the other side—but, at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler. Happy election season.

An election-season essay

By David Mamet

published: March 11, 2008

John Maynard Keynes was twitted with changing his mind. He replied, “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?”

My favorite example of a change of mind was Norman Mailer at The Village Voice.

Norman took on the role of drama critic, weighing in on the New York premiere of Waiting for Godot.

Twentieth century’s greatest play. Without bothering to go, Mailer called it a piece of garbage.

When he did get around to seeing it, he realized his mistake. He was no longer a Voice columnist, however, so he bought a page in the paper and wrote a retraction, praising the play as the masterpiece it is.

Every playwright’s dream.

I once won one of Mary Ann Madden’s “Competitions” in New York magazine. The task was to name or create a “10” of anything, and mine was the World’s Perfect Theatrical Review. It went like this: “I never understood the theater until last night. Please forgive everything I’ve ever written. When you read this I’ll be dead.” That, of course, is the only review anybody in the theater ever wants to get.

My prize, in a stunning example of irony, was a year’s subscription to New York, which rag (apart from Mary Ann’s “Competition”) I considered an open running sore on the body of world literacy—this due to the presence in its pages of John Simon, whose stunning amalgam of superciliousness and savagery, over the years, was appreciated by that readership searching for an endorsement of proactive mediocrity.

But I digress.

I wrote a play about politics (November, Barrymore Theater, Broadway, some seats still available). And as part of the “writing process,” as I believe it’s called, I started thinking about politics. This comment is not actually as jejune as it might seem. Porgy and Bess is a buncha good songs but has nothing to do with race relations, which is the flag of convenience under which it sailed.

But my play, it turned out, was actually about politics, which is to say, about the polemic between persons of two opposing views. The argument in my play is between a president who is self-interested, corrupt, suborned, and realistic, and his leftish, lesbian, utopian-socialist speechwriter.

The play, while being a laugh a minute, is, when it’s at home, a disputation between reason and faith, or perhaps between the conservative (or tragic) view and the liberal (or perfectionist) view. The conservative president in the piece holds that people are each out to make a living, and the best way for government to facilitate that is to stay out of the way, as the inevitable abuses and failures of this system (free-market economics) are less than those of government intervention.

I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.

As a child of the ’60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the fuck up. “?” she prompted. And her terse, elegant summation, as always, awakened me to a deeper truth: I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place. Further: I found I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as “a brain-dead liberal,” and to NPR as “National Palestinian Radio.”

This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong.

But in my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part.

And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama.

I’d observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.

For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.

To that end, the Constitution separates the power of the state into those three branches which are for most of us (I include myself) the only thing we remember from 12 years of schooling.

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.

I found not only that I didn’t trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

And I began to question my hatred for “the Corporations”—the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.

And I began to question my distrust of the “Bad, Bad Military” of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations—they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will. Are these groups infallible, free from the possibility of mismanagement, corruption, or crime? No, and neither are you or I. So, taking the tragic view, the question was not “Is everything perfect?” but “How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?” Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.

Do I speak as a member of the “privileged class”? If you will—but classes in the United States are mobile, not static, which is the Marxist view. That is: Immigrants came and continue to come here penniless and can (and do) become rich; the nerd makes a trillion dollars; the single mother, penniless and ignorant of English, sends her two sons to college (my grandmother). On the other hand, the rich and the children of the rich can go belly-up; the hegemony of the railroads is appropriated by the airlines, that of the networks by the Internet; and the individual may and probably will change status more than once within his lifetime.

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?

I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to. How do I know? From experience. I referred to my own—take away the director from the staged play and what do you get? Usually a diminution of strife, a shorter rehearsal period, and a better production.

The director, generally, does not cause strife, but his or her presence impels the actors to direct (and manufacture) claims designed to appeal to Authority—that is, to set aside the original goal (staging a play for the audience) and indulge in politics, the purpose of which may be to gain status and influence outside the ostensible goal of the endeavor.

Strand unacquainted bus travelers in the middle of the night, and what do you get? A lot of bad drama, and a shake-and-bake Mayflower Compact. Each, instantly, adds what he or she can to the solution. Why? Each wants, and in fact needs, to contribute—to throw into the pot what gifts each has in order to achieve the overall goal, as well as status in the new-formed community. And so they work it out.

See also that most magnificent of schools, the jury system, where, again, each brings nothing into the room save his or her own prejudices, and, through the course of deliberation, comes not to a perfect solution, but a solution acceptable to the community—a solution the community can live with.

Prior to the midterm elections, my rabbi was taking a lot of flack. The congregation is exclusively liberal, he is a self-described independent (read “conservative”), and he was driving the flock wild. Why? Because a) he never discussed politics; and b) he taught that the quality of political discourse must be addressed first—that Jewish law teaches that it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out.

And so I, like many of the liberal congregation, began, teeth grinding, to attempt to do so. And in doing so, I recognized that I held those two views of America (politics, government, corporations, the military). One was of a state where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).

And I realized that the time had come for me to avow my participation in that America in which I chose to live, and that that country was not a schoolroom teaching values, but a marketplace.

“Aha,” you will say, and you are right. I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.

At the same time, I was writing my play about a president, corrupt, venal, cunning, and vengeful (as I assume all of them are), and two turkeys. And I gave this fictional president a speechwriter who, in his view, is a “brain-dead liberal,” much like my earlier self; and in the course of the play, they have to work it out. And they eventually do come to a human understanding of the political process. As I believe I am trying to do, and in which I believe I may be succeeding, and I will try to summarize it in the words of William Allen White.

White was for 40 years the editor of the Emporia Gazette in rural Kansas, and a prominent and powerful political commentator. He was a great friend of Theodore Roosevelt and wrote the best book I’ve ever read about the presidency. It’s called Masks in a Pageant, and it profiles presidents from McKinley to Wilson, and I recommend it unreservedly.

White was a pretty clear-headed man, and he’d seen human nature as few can. (As Twain wrote, you want to understand men, run a country paper.) White knew that people need both to get ahead and to get along, and that they’re always working at one or the other, and that government should most probably stay out of the way and let them get on with it. But, he added, there is such a thing as liberalism, and it may be reduced to these saddest of words: ” . . . and yet … “

The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change, and many are incensed about the fools on the other side—but, at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler. Happy election season.

Good or Bad?

2011-06-03T09:49:00.001-05:00

I am not a Cat Lover

2011-05-28T09:16:00.001-05:00

1 for the cat.

And then there is the cynic in me. . .

"It's not just a human emotion...affection can, and does, exist between the species. If you've never realised this, perhaps from pets you might have owned, you have missed something very wonderful about life." Of course animals can have basic affection for each other. But this particular clip isn't about a mother cat trying to ease a nightmare away from its kitten. Its a mother cat stretching and happening to drag its kitten into itself - practically strangling it in the process. It might be cute to look at, but it isn't being emotional in any way. Now, humans looking at the clip are being very emotional about it and are then putting that emotion onto the cat - which is an incorrect thing to do.

- andrea, london, 28/5/2011

Justt the Facts

2011-05-26T11:51:00.001-05:00

“If George Bush had done [this] or said [that], do you know how the media would have reported it?”

Well, yes, I do, and you do, too.

But we’re now over two years into the presidency of Barack Obama and I think it’s time to retire this particular meme.

Of course, the media doesn’t play fair—it never has and it never will. Part of Media Criticism 101 that every schoolchild should be taught is that everyone, and I mean everyone, comes to an event with their own worldview, and that worldview affects how they perceive and react to the event. There is an objective Truth—we just each see a very small part of it at any one time (and some of us miss it completely).

Topic Just the Facts

U.S. journalists as a whole are predominantly progressive: for whatever reason (and there are several theories out there), that’s a fact.

So, how to handle the frustration when you see the mainstream media once again glossing over something President Obama is supporting, something they pilloried former President Bush for? Remember, the meme is the message. Moderates and conservatives should want the message to be forceful, straight-forward, and effective, not whiny, petulant, or weak.

So, no matter how hard it is, resist the urge to compare and contrast. Concentrate on facts, not feelings, and push back as hard as you can against the media machine. With "kinetic military action" if necessary.

What the Real Man will be wearing in the Near Future

2011-05-23T12:29:00.001-05:00

Folks, the 'murban'. They also call it the 'urban turban'

The pearl necklet is optional.

Randy Mario"Macho Man" Poffo is Dead

2011-05-20T15:03:00.001-05:00

If the end does come tomorrow, that's OK. I'm not sure I can go on anyway!

Read the unthinkable.

I Think I Need a New LAPTOP

2011-05-16T20:30:00.002-05:00

Item you have selected:

PC - Intel Compatible Intel Core Duo 1.5 - 1.99GHz Notebook
Estimate provided by PowerON:
$46.74
FREE shipping - yes
FREE packaging - yes

Does its internal hardware function properly? - Yes
What is the display's condition? - Good
The item has a working battery. - Yes
Selected display size - 13”
Does it start up successfully? - Yes
What is the cosmetic condition? - Good
I have -
- Removed all passwords
- Supplied the power adapter
- Included the operating system dis

Kindler and Gentler

2011-05-10T13:18:00.001-05:00

An alternative Name for Taxpayers ~ Extractives

2011-04-21T11:20:00.005-05:00

This might be a better term for the act of being taxed.

ex·trac·tives
1. tending or serving to extract, or based upon extraction: coal, oil, copper, and other extractive industries.
2. capable of being extracted, as from the earth: extractive fuels.
3. of, pertaining to, or involving extraction: extractive surgery.
4. of or of the nature of an extract.
-noun
5. something extracted.
Origin: 1590–1600; extract + -ive Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

from: Power and Pressure: The Media in Africa
[snip]

. . .As the extractive sector has come to play an increasingly important role in the economies of sub-Saharan Africa, attention has turned to the media. Many hope that the media will play an important role in framing the policy agenda and educating the public and so support efforts to boost transparency, promote good governance and help ensure that revenues from the extractives are used well to reduce poverty and promote development. . .
. . .At the same time, an increasing number of NGOs (both foreign and domestic) have begun to look at how to ensure the continent benefits from the revenues that are generated from the extractive sector. . .

At times, I might want to be one of the

—Related forms
non·ex·trac·tives, adjective

Wrongly Conflating Socialism with Generosity

2011-04-19T08:39:00.001-05:00

via Bookworm on Apr 18 2011 | Filed under: Capitalism, Religion, Socialism

I read someone today who said that Jesus must have been a socialist, because he didn’t seek profit, which is the hallmark of capitalism. Instead, gave away his time, energy and skills to those who could not pay. Since he didn’t have a profit motive, he must have been a capitalist. QED. It was a classic case of conflating socialism with generosity.

Socialism is, in fact, the opposite of generosity because it removes human morality and decency from the equation. There’s a reason study after study shows that liberals donate less to charity than conservatives do. The liberals have placed themselves entirely in government’s hands: the problem of the poor has become someone else’s problem. The fact that we all pay taxes, which the government uses to fund the poor, isn’t charity, it’s central planning predicated on wealth redistribution.

The Victorians, who were wellsprings of one sentence wisdom, used to say “charity begins at home.” The giving impulse of charity must start within us, as it did within Jesus. In a totalitarian, or even semi-totalitarian (i.e., socialist) state, nothing is allowed to come from within. All goes to and flows from the government.

In a capitalist society, people have the wherewithal to give. And in a healthy capitalist society, they have the moral impulse to give. Jesus wasn’t a socialist. When he said “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s,” he fully understood the separation between our spiritual and moral impulses on the one hand, and the dictates of a state on the other hand. Ideally, the people’s adherence to both Caesar and God is a mutually beneficially system, with a humane state allowing humans to go about their business, and a social and moral structure that encourages those with the most to reach out, without state coercion, to help those with the least.

I Always Loved History

2011-04-09T07:51:00.001-05:00

Well, Thank You

2011-04-01T10:22:00.001-05:00

The Meme is the Message

2011-03-31T09:19:00.001-05:00

by Anne Coletta via

“If George Bush had done [this] or said [that], do you know how the media would have reported it?”

Well, yes, I do, and you do, too.

But we’re now over two years into the presidency of Barack Obama and I think it’s time to retire this particular meme.

U.S. journalists as a whole are predominantly progressive: for whatever reason (and there are several theories out there), that’s a fact.

Obama is Awesome

2011-03-25T15:17:00.001-05:00