Friday, November 30, 2012

- I Won't Hire Any Leftists

If you believe in new taxes on the rich you're a fool. They won't help anything. You won't get any more money from the rich because they are wealthy enough to hide their income. History is replete with evidence of this if you'd bother to look for it. But the supporters of this idea don't care. They don't want it to happen to get more money for the government, they want to do it to punish the rich for having more than they do. They only want Victor's goat to die. To them that's what's 'fair'.

This is no way to run a country. It will only lead to bad things. It's a very big mistake to base a policy on envy or vengeance or whatever it is that's driving that thinking. Supporters of new taxes hate the rich for being rich, but what they fail to realize is that after 4 years of being called villains for earning an honest living, the rich are getting pretty annoyed with them too. And the rich won't lay back and take this abuse forever.

Personally I'm already at the point where I want to tell the liberal left to go F*** itself. I can't ask about someone's politics directly in an interview but I absolutely can get to the core of how they think, and that tells me what their politics are. So in an environment like this, do you imagine I'm going to hire members of the liberal left to do anything?! Not a chance. They can all go back to their morally superior unemployment lines and proclaim me to be the worst person in the world for all I care.

This feeling is already more popular than most people imagine. And when it becomes a politically acceptable alternative for the right, then the leftist celebration is over. The rich here will begin acting precisely the way the rich do in countries where the left has similar political motives - like Argentina, or Brazil, or Mexico. Here like there, you can't treat employers like $4it and expect them to thank you for it.

America has always been different. And if you're one of those people who wants to make America more like the rest of the world, be careful what you wish for. You can't run this country without the private sector. And from the perspective of an employer, at this point the downside of excluding you is beginning to seem smaller than the downside of giving you what you want.

Seriously... you leftist politicians had better be a little more careful what you wish for. Because if you aren't careful, "the rich" are going to give it to you. And then you'll really be screwed.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

- It's The Shooter Not The Gun...

I have to wonder at the wisdom of this:

Since this is early winter, it’s time to kill some birds. Saturday, December 1st is the day. I shall set off with my son, two shotguns, orange vests, and earplugs into the wilds of Pennsylvania to commit some serious ornithocide.

A slight change of plans this time out. On previous expeditions I’ve taken the family shotgun, a pump-action model I immortalized on this very website four months ago.

However, needling from friends and readers has gotten through even my thick hide. Pump-action is for home defense and law enforcement, they’ve been telling me with barely suppressed sniggers. For the field, you want a REAL shotgun.

All right, guys, I’ve got it. On Saturday I’ll be shooting a fine sleek old side-by-side, product of the Ithaca Gun Company of Ithaca, NY, borrowed from a neighbor. If I’m happy with it, I’ll buy one and keep the pump-action for burglars.

As many of the readers here know, it's Danny Derbyshire who is the shotgun aficionado in his house. His dad, as he will readily admit, is what would be referred to if wingshooting were golf as an enthusiastic 'duffer'. But hunting with a gun being shot for the very first time, with no idea how it fits, how it shoots, and for that matter, whether it works correctly at all? No thanks.

Ithaca makes a fine gun. I have no objection to side by sides at all, and they shoot fine once you get used to them. But taking a totally new gun into the field is a bit much I think. The sight picture for a double is totally different. It may even have two triggers - which is fine, but requires some adjustment. It's a lot to get used to.

Still, its the shooter not the gun right?

< /cricket chirp >

- An Open Borders Discussion

I want to have a practical discussion about metaphorically accepting the existence of the river but maybe directing it's flow. So let me ask you all something. Would you take this trade?

In exchange for making it MUCH easier to immigrate to America legally for work, a set of truly draconian rules are imposed for those legal immigrants. They must learn English, and be able to pass an English literacy test. If they (or any member of their family) are convicted of any crime more serious than speeding, they (and their family) are immediately deported. They are allowed to be in transition between jobs for a short period - say 6 months (I'm open to discussion on the term) but if they are unemployed for 6 months and 1 day, they and their family are immediately deported. Any application for redistribution programs of any kind constitutes grounds for immediate deportation etc.

Maybe you think these kinds of restrictions are impossible to implement politically, but that's not the question. Maybe you think they're insufficient and would prefer others. OK, I'll accept that maybe they are. But just suppose that along with these there are enough other restrictions to all but ensure that the only people provided with an incentive to come to America are the kind of people we would want here. Law abiding, hard working, salt of the earth. The kind of people who are willing to assimilate into American' culture as it has been defined?

My point here is this. Cultures change, there is no preventing it. And people will continue to immigrating to the US in vast numbers so long as we have the such a high standard of living. The question we should be asking is: "Are they the 'kind of people' that we want here?"

Liberals will assume that comment is racist - they always do - but it's really not. Under the right circumstances and with the right incentives in place I'd have no problem seeing a large influx of Latin Americans to America, the same way I feel completely comfortable dealing with the many Chinese, Koreans, and Indian immigrants in our area. It's not a question of their color or even their class. It's a question of their values. Do they want to become American or do they want to turn America in to Mexico (or Argentina)?

So if there is some set of restrictions out there that would make you comfortable enough with the people who continue to immigrate in the face of them - then I think we should consider that carefully. It will pose absolutely no political liability for politicians on the right to say that we want to open the border a crack to "only those people who want to assimilate in to American culture." Saying that we don't want people who are only coming here to get on welfare will not be a political liability - apart from accusations of racism, which will be impossible to avoid anyway.

And think of this. If we are allowing an influx of poor unskilled labor to this country but are placing the kind of restrictions in place to ensure that they are 'the kind' of people of color that we would want (believe me... not every Mexican peasant is a liberal), then they will largely be displacing a black population whose culture has been so shattered by the war on poverty that they are more or less culturally irredeemable.

If you want poor people to vote Republican in the future, I think this is your best shot.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Who Will Pay the Rent?


For me, this says it all, if you are talking about the decline of the civil society. Here is a chart showing how those owing student loan debt view their personal obligation to repay.  Read the definition for the trend line carefully.

The majority of the student loan debtors probably think the did not get their money's worth, because, as we know here, the massive federal intervention into contractual rights has choked growth. There are no jobs after graduation, save for part time gigs. The maker of the chart, it would seem, is a product of the same largess to higher education and the inevitable debasement of the product.  Tyler Durden let this one slip by, maybe as another small part of Operation Chaos.

I recently spoke to an educator, who taught a very popular class in psychology. The number one question the students came to ask is, "If I have that condition, can I get on a program?" Clearly, this school district must be commended for providing students with the type of education that is relevant to their actual lives.  I have no doubt that the popularity of this class is cited in a grant request laying somewhere on the desk of a Washington D.C. functionary in the Department of Education.

I cheer on the new generation of rent seeking Alinskyites! Throw off your chains! Dalinquency for the masses!

Let it burn.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

- Forward!

Makes my analogy timely no?

- Feeling Defeated

I lack the capacity for surrender. I don't know how to stop fighting. I've been at it so long that I literally cannot. This is something I should be neither congratulated or derided for. It's just a property of being me, like being tall. It's part of who I am.

With that said, I'm absolutely ready to abandon the Republican party to their own ideas on how to run the country. Those ideas don't match mine closely enough to matter anymore. And as they embrace "immigration reform" and other identity politics issues to try and stay socially relevant in this newly degraded America, they will be less like me. To hell with them.

I'm a successful guy, but not so successful that I'm willing to reward anything except initiative. The left wants to reward the welfare queens, the sedentary and the unproductive. The Republicans want to reward the people who are already at the top, and do so by keeping the people that might challenge them from getting there. That latter class is me - the challengers - or it might be if we still had a system interested in rewarding productivity.

It's hard not to feel defeated after the last election. What happened wasn't good news for America. Well... if you're part of America that's worried about your free Obamaphone then it was pretty good. Or at least it will seem that way for a while. But reelecting Obama was curing a hangover with Tequila. It was a bloody Mary. It will make you feel better for a while but it will not fix things. The only choice the Republicans are offering is to put gin in the drink instead of Vodka - or whatever.

I won't have another ... thanks. Bush III? Are you kidding me?! If you all want to become John McCain's Republican Party, you can do it without me. I won't directly support anyone who is more statist than Rand Paul. Or rather, I won't support anyone on the right who is more statist than Rand Paul.

I will however give money to whoever Michelle Bachman's challenger is on the left. I'll do what I can to support the fiscal suicide pact that is Democrat policy. Because our last hope of pulling up before the mountainside was just defeated. At this point the faster we're going when we hit the cliffside, the less it will hurt.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

- Appealing To The (Typical) Modern Voter: Part 2

I've been making the case that we conservatives need to stop speaking in a manner that only convinces conservatives and start speaking to liberals or 'progressives' as they often call themselves, in a manner that they will understand.

We know that they don't think the way we do - they'll even be happy to tell us so. They'll tell us that we aren't as 'open minded' as them, and we're closed off to possibilities. We in turn think that to them, the results that a policy achieves is a slow second to the way implementing that policy feels to them while being implemented. And our counter claim about conservative 'closed mindedness' is that we're closed minded to policies that have already proven themselves as failures.

But whichever side of the gap your on, the gap is evident. Liberals do not think the way we do which means we cannot communicate with them the way we would communicate with each other. We need to speak to them as if they're speaking Chinese - or rather, as if they were adolescent children. Liberals will no doubt chafe at this latter description but I don't mean it as an insult at all. They will themselves say that conservatives have no heart and are too cut and dried. They see us as a voice of authority and restriction - much like a child see's a decent parent.

So taking some of my own medicine, I decided to take a look at how "Progressives" describe themselves and what they believe. I thought I should begin to teach myself some of the foreign language of cushy self congratulation that they speak to each other, so that I can figure out how to translate what I think into their terms. And in a single dailykos posting I learned a great deal about the language of liberals. Let me use their bullet points to help illustrate what I mean:

Civil Rights. To a liberal, the idea of civil rights has something vague to do with preventing discrimination and persecution. But as we all know liberals aren't just perfectly happy to institutionalize policies of intentional discrimination against religious citizens for example, they actually insist on it. But when they do so, they change the terms of the argument. To them the debate about religious liberty isn't about religion, it's about sex. And sex is something they're always in favor of. But the point of this is not to discuss hypocrisy - the point is their language.

In the dailykos post about civil rights, they talk about intentions (of course) and present themselves as the defenders of equality. But the policies they have implemented lately are actually doing all they can to restrict equality of opportunity in the interest of implementing equality of outcome. In effect they are restricting the freedom of one person with the idea that it will somehow redistribute that freedom to another. It won't work - it never does. That's a foregone conclusions. But they sell it as a push toward greater freedom, even though the net effect is that freedom on the whole for all Americans is actually reduced by the policies they implement.

Their Energy Independence bullet is a similar thing. They present a policy of implementing crushing taxes and deeply distortive tax policies which will enable rampant corruption, as protecting the public from some amorphous great green cloud of malfeasance called 'deadly pollutants'.

This post mentions the BP oil spill as if it happened yesterday so it may be that the post itself is a little dated. But it mentions nothing of how the loss in economic activity imposed by their policies will result in fewer jobs, greater poverty and greater hardship for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. All they talk about is the idyllic return to Eden that can only be provided for us by a great and powerful federally funded oz. It's all intent, no effect. And the intent is to provide us with the liberty and safety that comes from somehow removing ugly pollutants. As if declaring clouds illegal will ensure nothing but sunny days.

The third bullet point is particularly interesting because the second and first bullet points are in direct contradiction to it. In describing their goals toward 'Job Creation and the Economy" they proclaim themselves as 'stand[ing] for the values of hard work and responsibility', but the policies that they have implemented in the first two of their goals would do the exact opposite.

Their 'civil rights' policies ensure that minority citizens have a great many advantages over non-minorities (Asians are minorities in the US as are Jews, but neither counts as a minority according to progressives because they score too well on IQ tests) and their energy policy would intentionally allow them to pick the economic winners and losers in spite of any 'hard work and responsibility' that is demonstrated by their less politically appealing competitors.

But like I said, that isn't the selling point. The selling point is that there will be more liberty, more freedom, more good things and less bad. There will be no costs, only benefits. The used car they're selling will have lots of newness and bright red paint complete with extra shiny, and it will produce no noise, no dirt, and no exhaust. In effect the liberals sell their ideas to a group of people conditioned to an impulse buy. They aren't thinking about mileage per gallon, managing snow or bad weather, or paying insurance costs. Those are dirty ugly 'grown-up' things. They are only thinking about how cool they will look behind the wheel. And if we want to sell conservatism, this is the buyer we need to sell it to.

Then finally there is their view on Education. In practice they promote a policy of ensuring maximum union rolls for largely incompetent public school teachers, and as many advanced degrees as possible in comparatively academic majors like art history and 'puppetry'. And in the process of obtaining those degrees, each student is given a healthy dose of progressive conditioning where they are taught that they are snowflake special, and that their feelings should be the paramount motivator for any public policy they support. There is no area where liberalism has proven a more disastrous failure than in the area of education. But when selling it, that breathtakingly deficient performance is presented this way:

"As the global marketplace grows more competitive, we need to expand opportunities for higher education and job training. We are committed to increasing the college-completion rate as well as the share of students who are prepared for budding industries with specific job-related skills."

Now a conservative will look at the effect of these policies and the way they are presented, and come to the conclusion that the liberal ( or progressive) is simply lying. And measured by conservative standards that may in fact be true. But we aren't talking about conservative standards or conservative communication. We're talking about liberals and how they speak to themselves. And on that scale, it's also absolutely true that they don't believe they are lying.

As far as they're concerned, there is a very clear line between your intent, which should be as fluffy cozy warm as possible, and the policies you implement to bring that intent to fruition. And I continue to maintain that their big selling point is the concept of liberty.

Liberals have presented conservatives to the modern voting public, as the un-cool parent. We are the voice of authority - the voice of traditional morality. We represent the kind of restriction that any teenager can probably benefit from but won't like it when they're forced to. There is no doubt that traditional morality would be a good thing for our society to embrace - its' guided the west to be the globe's dominant culture for centuries. But through all that time, teenagers have never cared for it and have only embraced it eventually, as they matured.

Now though, the great wealth and success of the west is being turned on itself as modern liberals are no longer being forced to eventually mature. Instead they stay suspended in a permanent adolescence. So they continue well into adult hood to think like adolescents, and continue to prefer adolescent things. They do not 'put their childish things aside - ever. Instead, what they want now is to spend their lives drinking beer, smoking pot, and performing lewd acts on themselves and each other. This sounds like great fun for a party, but it's no way to run an entire civilization. However, to this stated desire, conservatives have nothing to say except that "they really shouldn't." This is true of course, but no teenager will ever vote for it.

I continue to maintain that the 10th amendment and a return to a focus on greater 'liberty' will be the salvation of the conservative movement (if it's going to be saved at all.) Unraveling and distributing political authority should be our entire goal. And I believe it's possible to get liberals to support that effort by a focus on greater liberty. But it will involve allowing things which to conservatives look very scary and politically unappetizing. The war on drugs will have to go for instance. I personally am not a big fan of legalized drugs. But I view it, in my conservative way, as a small price to pay if it means saving the broader parts of the conservative movement.

There are other things too. Things which we view as openly immoral but will have to let 'those people' in Berkeley and Chicago do, if we are to save 'our people' from the crushing liberalism of the Federal state. They (liberals in Berkeley for instance) will no doubt want deep restrictions on religious freedom which they view as a pariah. And we will have to hold our nose and encourage it for the liberty it will give us to protect our churches elsewhere. This is a hard choice to make. But we are not children, we're conservatives. And the only real shot we have at seeing hard choices made if we decide to be the ones to make them ourselves.

The last time that a conservative worldview made real inroads into liberal-dom, it was being marketed by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman. And at the time the central theme of conservatism's message - the real selling point, was that although it involved respecting tradition, it was the aspects of our tradition which actually provided more liberty to more people than the top down, command and control, labor union dominated view of the left at the time. "Free -Markets" were a big selling point. They even had the word 'free' in them. And a sound bite like that is how you sell an idea to adolescents.

The problem though is that today, liberals have won a great many more arguments. And now the things they're demanding are much further along the decadent political spectrum than they were before. In the 70's it was the 'freedom' to not wait in long gas lines. Today it's the 'freedom' to take money from the church collection plate to pay for your abortion. Back then it was the 'freedom' to work overtime without union interference. Today it's the 'freedom' to not work at all and have someone else pay your bills.

Now that I've seen their message with a new eye though, I don't see how we can convince these people of anything that doesn't appeal to their most prurient motives. And it really does seem to me that the only way to reconcile that kind of decadence with a conservative world view is to isolate it via the 10th amendment. Break it up. Make it local. Get the lifeboats in the water before the ship finally sinks. Encourage the distribution of political power and then trust people to vote with their feet if we can keep the cost of that move low enough. It's the only thing that looks like a path forward to me.

Friday, November 23, 2012

- A Failure To Convince

Ikaika and I (and a great many readers of this blog) have to work today. But its arguably the slowest day of the year so instead of making practical use of the downtime, I decided to throw out a quick post about what's wrong with the Republican party.

Take this piece from Jonah Goldberg. I don't mean to pick on Jonah at all, I'm a fan of his all in. But this piece strikes me as an exercise in futility. It's a piece about how the right has been accused of racism (again) because of the voiced objections to Susan Rice as the proposed next Secretary of State.

Jonah makes a reasonable and logical defense supported by the obvious facts that any conservative would find persuasive, and any liberal wouldn't waste their time with. So apart from helping Jonah pay his mortgage, this does absolutely no good at all. No one is persuaded. No one is better armed in the war of ideas. It's just a restatement of obvious facts which act as a counterclaim to an obviously ridiculous claim by liberal mouthpieces. It also speaks perfectly to my earlier peace about how we should be speaking to the modern liberal.

The racism accusations, as always, are utterly baseless. And if the people making them actually believe them, then shame on them. But that isn't the point. Liberal voters, terrified, misinformed, insecure, historical illiterates that they are, absolutely do believe it - even absent any rational evidence. The claim itself is enough to drive them to the polls in vast numbers to prevent an imaginary slight.

But I think Jonah's reaction to that is the exact wrong thing to do. What we should be doing now isn't simply convincing ourselves how right we are. We know that doesn't work. We need to speak to liberals on their own terms. In effect we need to surrender to their will. Give them what they want.

When they say that they want reparations for slavery, we should suggest that while they can't have that nationally, it would probably work very well as a state law - or maybe even an ongoing city tax in Chicago and New York. This would mean unraveling some of the federal law which prevents, it, but if that's their goal then we're happy to support it on a local basis and help them untangle the federal red tape standing in their way.

If they want mandatory racial preference in the form of free houses, or cars, or phones, or computers or free whatever - we should say that we'll be happy to help them achieve that goal in the local areas where it matters most to them.

Understand - so long as whites are wealthier than blacks (and given their comparative IQ scores that will probably always be the case) whites are going to be accused of being racist. There is no avoiding that. But if we support their racial preference efforts locally, then we insulate right leaning politicians from individual accusations. In effect they can say that they are supporting 'pro-black' initiatives locally so it can't apply to them. And in the end, we use the broken decision making of liberals to support conservative survival in the only way it's possible now.

Logical arguments supported by facts are not useful tools in this debate any longer. If they were, Rush Limbaugh would be President. We need to focus on being persuasive to people who don't' think rationally, rather than convincing those who do, because the latter will convince themselves without our help. We need to find ways to sound like we agree with them, even when we don't. And in the process, we can also at least untie our hands as well.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

- Math Potatoes

I know what you're thinking, but this is actually offered up compliments of my daughter, who found it without any input from me.

I've never been prouder.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

- Only One Thing On My Mind Now...

The supplies for tomorrow are all acquired and the Turkey is defrosted. So now I have a different kind of bird on my mind.

For several years now some friends and I get together twice a year - once in the spring to shoot sporting clays, and again, in the Autumn to hunt pheasant. The trip is coming up next weekend so it's already looming large in my thoughts.

Over the years, the spring outing has turned into quite a large crowd. The guys bring wives, kids, friends, anyone who is old enough and durable enough to shoot a 100 round sporting clays course. No experience is required at all. Sporting clays shooting is a very structured environment where only one person shoots at a time, and only into a known area where there are no people. So I encourage people to bring everyone they can to introduce them to the shooting sports.

The autumn hunt though is a more intimate event. It's a little more unstructured shooting - just a bunch of guys walking around in a field. So we restrict the list to those guys we know are most comfortable handling shotguns and can be relied upon not to take chances. It's still a dozen people or so, which is actually a good size for pheasant hunting.

I've posted photos here and there of past events, but Pheasant hunting doesn't photograph well. It's a bunch of walking and waiting then a few split seconds of incredible excitement where you don't usually have time to reach for a camera. If you want to know what it's like you really have to try it.

Most American hunting is solitary. Even if you are hunting with a group you tend to be alone at the moment. But pheasant hunting is very social. The group goes hunting and you are just carrying (and shooting) one of their shotguns. And like most male-centric group activities it can involve a little gentle ridicule and laughter.

This week my phone has started ringing off the hook with guys on the list asking me about carpools, ammo sizes and other details. I can tell they're all as excited about this as I am. It's not a "blood lust", or any anti-hunter's fantasy that gets us worked up at all (although it is as my buddy Randy so elegantly put it a few years ago, "manly fun"). It's just getting out in the field with the dogs and our friends, without the burdens of day to day life. It's a chance to connect with that primal feeling that's central to all hunting.

And I find I can't stop thinking about it.

%%%%%%%%%%%%SCRATCH THAT%%%%%%%%%%%%

I was wrong ... I guess all you need to film Pheasant hunting is a 'hat cam'. This tells the story pretty well.

-The SEIU Does Not Discriminate!


Corey Booker should consider adding this sign to the next City Hall meeting.
Warning: Political Cannibalism on display!
But when Speight was escorted by police to be sworn in, a group of residents, led by SEIU Local 617 President Rahaman Muhammad, stormed the dais and appeared to lunge toward Speight and her grade-school-age son.
Police restrained the group as they toppled a podium and residents were caught in the rush. When Muhammad would not give way, an officer doused him with pepper spray, along with residents, reporters and at least one other officer.

- Then Fill It With Water...

The best man at my wedding (a tort lawyer BTW) had a saying for what he felt the best solution would be to achieving middle east peace.

"Build a 200 foot tall wall around Gaza", he would say "then fill it in with water."

His implication was that the people who call themselves 'refugees' and populate the area aren't worth saving. They are demented and twisted animals who for generations have done nothing productive, and have only been the violent tools of powerful parties wishing to kill the all the Jews.

I confess I found that a little harsh at the time. I'm a catholic not a Jew, so I believe that it's possible to redeem someone even after a lifetime of malfeasance. But the more I learned about what the 'Palestinians' are really like, the more I thought my old friend had a point.

They are the murderers of innocent women and children. They are mother's who strap bombs onto their own children and watch them die. They send them off to board buses or to sit in pizza shops and blow themselves to bits, in order to kill a few innocent schoolchildren. If I've ever heard of anything truly monstrous, that's got to be it.

Charles Manson had a mental illness, but this is a whole culture built around that kind of deranged monstrosity. It's inhuman. And in a few generations they have become as close to irredeemable as any people I've ever heard of.

Add this charming story to the long long list of monstrous Palestinian acts. Look in their eyes. Do you see any humanity there? I don't.

More and more I think my old friend had the right idea. Build a 200 foot wall, and then fill it with water.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

- Sowell On Comparative Decision Making

Since the idea of comparing political solutions with 'economic' (free market) solutions, I thought this was fitting.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Old School Appeal to the Modern Voter


Here I am in the barbecue of life, listening to the same tune that turned the Baton Rouge statehouse to an armed castle surrounding a king. And so began the Long march, because in the Supreme Theft of Liberty the Court removed the safeties that prevented a Washington imperium. The march against of our liberties proceeded slowly soon after the judicial theft, because men like Calvin Coolidge revered the past.  Liberty is now but a quaint tradition that may be voted out of office.  It no longer legally restrains federal power because the disease of federalism must be treated.      

So I bring you Huey Long.  It's the same old song with a few new lines, and everybody comes to cheer it.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

- Appealing To The Modern Voter

Let's be frank. The odds of America transforming into a backward looking theocracy dominated by a hypocritical moral pretense is extremely thin. Liberal "scare out the vote" tactics notwithstanding, no one really believes it.

The culture war, certainly in my lifetime, has only gone one direction. Liberals will tell you this is because it is inevitable - and like science, it is a march toward a greater more accurate truth. Conservatives will tell you the same thing about its inevitability, but they see the reason as the tragic and unchanging nature of mankind.

I'm a conservative, so I believe that decadence will be America's hemlock. And as we 'Slouch toward Gomorrah' the Democrat party has positioned themselves perfectly to snatch majority political power. They advocate the abandonment of responsibility, the indulgence of whim and the elevation of passion over reason, as the basis for social policy.

What's worse, the upside down morality of post-deconstructionism allows them to make the claim that ONLY the abandonment of responsibility is moral, and that traditional western morality is actually a kind of tyranny of conscience. So the question that conservatives really need to ask themselves is, can people who subscribe to a belief system like this be reasoned with, and if they can, do we really want to?

The circle conservatives need to square is to find a way to describe their belief system, which relies on personal responsibility of the citizen as its central core, in a way that appeals to a group of people for whom personal responsibility is seen as a kind of power sapping kryptonite. Fortunately for us, the great minds of history have given us the tools we need. The checks and balances which were an original part of the American system, successfully kept the advance of government imposed decadence to a minimum for much of the country's history. So all we need to do it bring that decadence back under control, is re-impose them.

To successfully communicate conservative ideals to a new generation, we should be focusing on getting half a pie instead of losing all of it. And that means an emphasis on the 10th amendment. We should abandon the desire to use the overarching state to impose a moral order, and instead focus on The 10th amendment and devolving the bulk of federal power into individual states. This is the only way I can see to match up the decadence of the modern voter with traditional American values.

A focus on state's rights will allow the Republican party to be the party of 'ultimate' indulgence. It will allow conservatives to get out in front of our rusting culture and encourage the political indulgence of EVERY whim and fancy - not just those found acceptable in the moment by the liberal intelligencia.

If liberals in Massachusetts think that the only moral course is to eliminate the prohibition against homosexual sex between older men and pre-teen boys, we should cheer their efforts and encourage them to act on this in as small a scale as will ensure their success. Do they want to allow marriage with Animals, impose mandatory universal labor unions, or impose a 99% maximum income tax rate? The state level, and maybe even smaller, is the best place to get those things done, and then let their neighbors vote with their feet.

This will allow conservatives to once again proclaim themselves as the party of 'true' personal liberty, and personal responsibility. What's more, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the good citizens of Alabama would also like to ban abortion in their remote and distant state... well the NAMBLA members in Massachusetts hardly have a right to complain about something like that do they? And if the issue is seen as universal by some conservatives, like the principle of 'saving every child' in the abortion debate, then conservatives need only go to the NAMBLA meetings in Massachusetts and persuade those men to support their cause.

I believe we've passed the point of no return on a federal basis. At this point I think it's time to get the political lifeboats in the water. On a national level the conservative movement is headed toward permanent political marginalization. To the degree that demography is history, there is no way around that. So we should put all our efforts into making every political battle a local battle. Then we get some portion of the pie instead of none of it. And we'll have a place to rebuild from after the wreckage of liberalism meets it's natural end.

Friday, November 16, 2012

- Another Victory For Organized Labor

Iconic bakery "Hostess" will be liquidating it's assets and ending production of the Hostess Twinkie forever. This is yet another company which would otherwise be profitable, but for it's labor unions, who have now succeeded in putting their members out of a job.

Way to go AFL-CIO - yet another great way to 'expand from the middle out'.

- It's Snookie's America Now

Between the back to back storms and Obama's reelection I confess I'm still a little despondent.

I interviewed a kid in Manhattan yesterday and then went downtown to have dinner with some friends. And everywhere I looked on the 4 train, I saw people who know literally nothing about America, it's traditions, or the kind of personal liberty that has made it a beacon for the world. What's worse, they value that liberty so little, that if asked to trade it for a new iPad with free Obama-phone cell service, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

And yet their vote counts every bit as much as mine.

As a conservative I make the case that people are smart enough to run their own lives and don't need the government to do it. Ride the 4 train enough and you may end up thinking that the liberals have a point.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

- CNBC's Fatuous "Rise Above" Campaign

What if the thing you're being asked to 'rise above' is your defining principles?

What we have here is a debate between people who have opposing views on our economic system. It's really a choice between whether people should receive compensation based on their own individual contribution, or if everyone should be rewarded equally regardless of the contribution they've made. This isn't an issue of being reasonable. It's a question of two groups of people whose views of how the world should work are completely incompatible.

If we're all going to make decision like this en masse, then I'd like to hold a vote on the various depraved sex acts that the women of CNBC will be forced to perform. I personally think Courtney Reagan and Mandy Drury should be forced to reenact select scenes from the 1970's movie Caligula. In fact, as the guy who came up with what will no doubt be a very popular idea, I think I should have to supervise to ensure things are performed correctly.

What's that girls? That doesn't appeal so much to you? Well that's tragic, but maybe you should just 'rise above' your opposition to the idea. After all, if it's what we all decide, then it must be a virtuous decision right?

Seriously... you producer idiots at CNBC should really decide once and for all if you are going to be about American business, or if you're going to pretend to be objective. Because the harder you try, the stupider you look.

An Interview with Baron Scepter



frithguild: Well Baron, thank you for your time today. I just want to let Radio Free NJ readers know that you have been a very valuable resource behind The Google Purge stories, especially as it relates to Dave Patraeus and Kip Ward.

Baron Scepter: Well thank you frithguild, I must say that you first came on my radar when you connected the dots between the feds being the largest purchaser of information from Google, how the Obama campaign used strategies to target very small groups and is now using information as a weapon against individuals. That was some very interesting work.

frithguild: I appreciate the recognition Baron. How did this come onto your radar?

Baron Scepter: Yes, my work with Bilderburg includes a data aggregation project that identifies information accumulation clusters to anticipate monadic activity in government. One of our algorithms picks up holon early reactions to monadic actions – like the first fish in a school that reacts to the presence of a predator. But that is unimportant. Your recognition scheme is incomplete.

frithguild: Really?

Baron Scepter: Yes. You have talked about Dave and Skip, but you haven’t mentioned the unexplained sack of General Carter Ham AFRICOM and Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette of the John C. Stennis carrier strike group.

frithguild: So do you think the CIA wants to clear out troublesome brass?

Baron Scepter: No, I think it goes deeper than that. Enlisted men with marital troubles are in the spotlight. Some have been run out even without involvement of the local police.

frithguild: Is that so?

Baron Scepter: Look, you need to look at the coordination of these targeted information bombs with ubiquitous discussion in the mainstream media about higher divorce rates for military personnel.

frithguild: What do your sources tell you about how high up the food chain this effort goes?

Baron Scepter: I can’t tell you more about that without revealing my sources – I have many. But I can ask you this. Does this sound familiar: “The only way to upset the power structure in your communities is to goad them, confuse them, irritate them and, most of all, make them live by their own rules. If you make them live by their own rules, you destroy them.”

frithguild: But Baron, the election is over. You make it sound like the campaign will continue.

Baron Scepter: The Obama campaign increased the negative perception of its opponent and then used aggregations of information from search providers to achieve their destruction. So we know they have the goods. Here, the negatives of the military are increasing, according to my data. Do you think they will stop executing a strategy that has been effective in achieving their objective?

frithguild: I see.

Baron Scepter: How do you think the legislators that will oppose cuts to military spending will be treated?

frithguild: Seems like they will need to look around every corner for jack booted water foul.

-Blood From A Stone & the Reality of Taxation

Yesterday we were treated to a warm, fuzzy, condescending message from El Presidente.
While most of the press corp saw that Obama was visibly and audibly upset at the audacity of someone in the press questioning the veracity and integrity of a potential Sec of State appointment in the form of "Patsy" Susan Rice, others soft-balled the sympathetic nonsense that only compromise can save us from the dread "Fiscal Cliff".
The take-aways from the presser:
 Don't question El Presidente on his Foreign Policy.
 Don't Question him on the people in charge of Foreign Policy.
 El Presidente does not know anything about information and personnel that fall directly under the supervision of the Commander in Chief.
 The World is Melting!
 Your Taxes - and this means everyone- are going up regardless of a budget deal or not.
El Presidente wants to soak the rich for an estimated $1.6 Trillion in new taxes over four years in order to  offset upwards of $4 trillion in new expenses over the same period (or possibly sooner).
Liberals are demanding we give El Presidente what he wants.
Or Else!
... Or Else what?
A whole slew of new taxes will hit the middle class regardless of budget deal. We are screwed.
If we knuckle-under to "soak the rich" it will only add to the new taxes.
In the financial community, we know hard-dollars and hard-truths. In the land of unicorns and pixie dust, "uber-rich" are always ripe for the picking with no negative consequences. Taxes in name always hit their chosen mark in fairy-tale land.
Let's look at other Social Utopian governments to see how well "soak the rich" is working.
France has raised it's top bracket to 75% -that'll teach those wealthy risk takers to pay their fair share!
As a result - French business leaders and it's most productive citizens have been relocating... and taking their business with them.
France figured that the best way to "soak the rich" was to hit them where it hurts - in the securities markets!
Liberals in the US pointed towards this (Tobin Tax) as the great equalizer.
What these morons failed to grasp is that professional and sophisticated investors with sufficient knowledge of derrivative and exchange rules will readily and assuredly avail themselves to what the Liberals call "loopholes".
Hey - they crafted the legislation, therefore they alone are responsible for loopholes.
Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- As France begins collecting its financial-transactions tax this month, it is becoming evident that President Francois Hollande’s levy is hitting all but the people it was aimed at: speculators.
Hollande, who called finance his “main adversary” during his election campaign, pushed through in August a 0.2 percent transaction tax on share purchases, making France the first and only country so far in Europe to have such a levy. Many investors have been escaping the tax using so-called contracts for difference, or CFDs, offered by prime brokers that let them bet on a stock’s gain or loss without owning the shares.
“The target was supposed to be finance with a capital F, which is sort of a black box,” said Jacques Porta, who helps manage $627 million at Ofi Patrimoine in Paris. “Instead, we are punishing small investors who aren’t to blame and already are frightened off by losses in the market.”
On Nov. 1, the state started collecting the levy on the purchase of 109 French stocks with market values of more than 1 billion euros ($1.2 billion), including Sanofi SA and Vivendi SA. While the government expects the tax to add 530 million euros to its budget in 2012 and 1.6 billion euros next year, the finance ministry says it’s too early to say if these estimates are realistic.
The ministry concurred with traders’ and analysts’ assessment that market players will use a range of derivatives to skirt the tax, leaving small investors bearing the burden.
... snip ...
“If we tax one financial product, we have to tax all of them,” said Pierre-Alexis Dumont, a fund manager at Groupama Asset Management in Paris. The tax currently “makes the market less stable,” he said. “CFDs carry credit risk.”
The new tax is being applied to transactions resulting in “a transfer of property” of companies trading in Paris, regardless of where the buyer or seller is based. The tax has begun to skew investment plans, Dumont said.
“We’re limiting our buying and selling orders to keep down our clients’ costs,” he said. “Taxation enters into our investment decisions.”
Liberals will argue that those dastardly villains in the top 1% pulled the wool over their eyes (again?) ... Instead of ripping apart the mechanisms within this tax, they will create another tax in an attempt to fill in the gaps. That is why they call it progressive. It gets progressively worse.
I guarantee - because the new taxes (here in the USA) will severely and immediately impact revenue growth, that the Democrats will suggest that the USA must tax investments to punish Wall St and the 1%!!!
I warn pensioners and small savers, that the proponants of this plan have the sights set on "fat-cats" but the barrels are pointing directly at small investors.
Tobin Taxes impact the least the flexible and least mobile accounts. We'll call those Pension Accounts, Roth IRA's and 401K's. They also impact the least savvy and the most risk averse investment classes.
The target of all taxes are not Millionaire's and Billionaire's - that's the packaging and advertisement -the reality is anyone that makes enough to have left to save will ultimately get soaked.

- A Number Of Coincidences

Like our own Frithguild, victor Davis-Hanson has begun to notice a few 'coincidences'.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The Spy in the Machine


Google handed over more user data to the US government in the first six months of this year than to all other countries combined.

Well, my hard drive crashed this summer, when I asked whether the DOJ asserted executive privilege because Lanny Breuer was deep in the cheese. After several of those posts, when my hard drive should be at rest, it began to spin furiously. Now I am talking about the Google Purge. I might just have to accept it, if somebody told me I am now officially part of the tin foil hat brigades.

But now that we can see how The Elite that Knows Me uses data, I have to wonder, what do they have on me? If all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be is recorded somewhere, and can be accessed and researched by a government intent on increasing power by selling their services to me, how do I holon to my humanity?

- Business Advice For Coping With FOMO

Some professional investor advice for business leaders in the continuing age of Obama.

There has been a lot of talk (most of it entirely predictable) about what lessons we should all learn from the election. I'm ambivalent about the wisdom of any of it. I don't think any of the people who are declaring that they now have a mandate actually have one. It doesn't seem to me that the people that voted for Obama did so because of his economic policies, and if they did, then we have an even bigger problem than I thought.

Anyway, I have some advice for business leaders on how to handle 4 more years of the Obama administration's war on commerce. You wonder how your investors are going to react to the (no doubt) politically unpopular but necessary decisions you make? I can answer that question for you right now.

The big question is, will we learn that leftism doesn't work after 4 more years of it, or does Obama's surprising victory in the face of his abysmal economic record represent a sea change for America. There are lots of reasons to believe both - I'll try to give you some perspective on how you should manage differently depending on how you see it.

In the end the war on commerce comes down to just a few items:

Healthcare:

This is the big kahuna of the federal choke hold on America's businesses. In my opinion there is no reason to believe that Obamacare will ever go away. There is only one thing Republican politicians hate more than big government and that's smaller government. For all their posturing all they've ever done was slow the pace of growth. So at this point you have to believe that Obamacare (and the single payer system that it's designed to eventually mutate into) is here to stay.

With that said, Obamacare is the policy that will do the most to bring on the next recession that we're all expecting in 2013. And regrettably, you already know the answer to what you have to do. Wherever possible, convert full time employees to part time, and outsource all your non core competency services to sub-contractors. Things like your internal IT services, many office and administrative services, and any other 'cost center' your business carries should involve sub-contracting your staff.

That subcontractor, if possible should have fewer than 50 employees. I know what you're thinking. You're imagining all the management inefficiency this will introduce. Well there will be accounting firms and business consultants who will have shrink wrapped plans to sell you in order to lower the administrative cost of that change, but the actual decision making inefficiency is going to have to go with the territory. In the end it's the cost of having your business decisions being made by the deputy assistant director for compliance enforcement in the department of centralized enforcement compliance, several thousand miles away. And whatever the inefficiency, it's better than the alternative.

Obviously this will be a politically unpopular process, and there are large numbers of your customers (not to mention employees) who voted for Obama and therefore believe that reality should be subordinated to politics. They'll call you greedy and nasty and demand that your business be boycotted. You shouldn't be intimidated by that, but don't go out of your way to make a political point either. Take your cues from political environment under the soviet system - praise the wonderful people's revolution, but quietly do what you have to do.

When speaking to your investors and employees, emphasize how the focus of your business practice will be preserve all the internal full time staffing you can, even while you plan to eliminate all the internal full time staffing you can. It's a lie your investors are smart enough to expect and will not be disappointed by it - while your posturing might be enough to fool some of the dimmest (and therefore most vocal) Obama supporters. It's tragic that there will be such a huge premium on lying, but this is what happens when everything is subordinated to politics.

Energy:

Unlike Obamacare, I don't believe the leftist view of Energy (and environmental policy) will remain a permanent law of the land. The effect of energy costs on the public is direct and simple - therefore they understand it. The environmental movement has faded dramatically anyway, and any new activity by the EPA looks and sounds like to the general public like bureaucratic abuse. Don't implement any marginal new projects of course - it's not worth generating the new EPA interest. But it might be more worthwhile to buy existing facilities that are being bankrupted by Obamacare. A lot will depend on the individual dynamics and your ability to placate the EPA.

With all that said, the cost of energy will be much higher under the second Obama administration, in spite of the economic slowdown that will come with it. Between monetary expansion and further supply intervention by the EPA and weakness overseas, your expectations should include a minimum of a 25% premium for energy. If this increased cost prevents hiring, so be it. The key to a time like this is survival and your investors will forgive lack of gain in exchange for perseverance.

Taxes:

The key to leftist economic policy is to promote 'good' (politically popular) business and punish bad (economically efficient but politically unpopular) business. And the key to implementing that policy is the special case (picking the winners and losers) tax and regulatory policy. For all the talk about reducing exemptions, the 'targeted tax cut' has long been a favorite of the left and right. It's only when the executive changes parties that those targeted tax cuts are magically transformed into 'spending in the tax code', but they all start out as the same thing.

So for all their posturing, when the Obama administration says "fairness" what they really mean is punishing the people they don't like with new taxes, new fees, and new regulatory burdens, and rewarding the people they do like with low interest loans, tax rebates and expedited regulation. But this is nothing new. For a century you could either run a company or run to Washington. And if you're unfashionable today you will be fashionable tomorrow.

So I think it's a mistake to assume that any changes the Obama administration implements will be permanent. Rather, you should base your expectation on the probability of America learning the needed lessons about leftism from 8 years of Obama, that it failed to learn from just 4 years. Don't count on the Republican party to help. At this point any future Republican victory (without a major change in it's platform) are exceedingly unlikely.

So that's it. We (your investors) know what you're going through. Most of us know what you have to do, and we know that you have to lie to us about your intentions when you do it. We're have the same boot on our necks as you do, and we will forgive what you do to endure. Just because 'the people' were foolish enough to give us 4 more years of Obama, doesn't mean we all like it. And like you, many of us will only do what we must.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

The Google Purge Pt. 3 - Gen. Kip Ward


The inspector general’s report found that [Gen. William ‘‘Kip’’] Ward used military vehicles to shuttle his wife on shopping trips and to a spa and billed the government for a refueling stop overnight in Bermuda, where the couple stayed in a $750 suite. The report detailed lengthy stays at lavish hotels for Ward, his wife and his staff members, and the use of five-vehicle motorcades when he traveled to Washington.

It also said Ward and his wife, Joyce, accepted dinner and Broadway show tickets from a government contractor during a trip during which he went backstage to meet actor Denzel Washington. The couple and several staff members also spent two nights at the Waldorf Astoria hotel.


Discovered by examination of printed emails, or by search algorithm?

The Google Purge, Pt. 2


It is now public information that the FBI turned over to the Department of Defense "20,000 to 30,000 pages of emails" exchanged between Marine Gen. John R. Allen, the four-star U.S. commander of the war in Afghanistan, and Jill Kelley, who complained to the FBI about threats from Paula Broadwell, the other woman to General Patraeus. Gen. Allen is married, but not to Kelley.

Well, I am sure happy we have been putting our full resources behind our fighting men in Afghanistan, just as candidate Obama promised: "I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions." Certainly, to win we must lead by example. Well, this gives new meaning to candidate Obama's own words, "Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall’s lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up."

It seems we have a new self evident truth as we see the Google Purge running its course. We have a growing information economy. As we approach the question of sequester, our policy makers must ask, "Should it be restrained?"  



-The Art of Propoganda

The artist, Shepard Fairey applied Soviet and Maoist style propoganda posters to his particular take on urban sloganeering. You recall his "Obey Giant" underground art campaign.
Shepard was also famouse for his Obama "Hope" propoganda posters.
I would like to applaud Mr. Fairey in the realization of Life immitating art, or Politics immitating art.
Perhaps he should be careful for what he wishes?
The Theme: "Rise Above" had been the subject of a few of his works.
The symbolism and the the not so subtle underlying meaning is obvious, but lost it's subversive undertone now that it has been coopted in the promotion of Chairman Obama.
Mr Fairey, you are no longer cool. You are one of them.
Now that Fairey is famous, would he change his tune?
Probably not, since hauling wheelbarrows full of $20's to the bank tend to jade the revolutionary in all of us.
Propoganda and Sloganeering in America has taken a Leninist turn.
Recently - if you watch NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, or are dumb enough to have friended any of these vestiges on social media, you have been inundated with a new "Call to Unity" that instructs you to "Rise Above" political differences.
The message is instructing you not to dissent, but to submit and obey or else the government will be limited in how it chooses to waste your tax dollars. To Shepard Fairey, CNBC, Geoff Immelt, and all the people that gave us FoMo and now demand we knuckle-under to their wishes: I say "Vaffanculo!" because I can't say it in English.


I like this next one. it reminds the statists of a certain truth:

Monday, November 12, 2012

Obama's Speech Leaked!



Through my contacts I have learned that the President is preparing a groundbreaking speech. Here is the text of it which I will post here at great risk:

About the Declaration of Independence there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

- All the GOP Needs to Do is to Stop Being the GOP

For days now, the GOP has been the subject of pseudo-political-scientific examination.

A specimen that sits on a table in a laboratory of liberal journalists and arm-chair "conservatives" that will be poked and prodded and prescribed and shocked to behave as one straw-man or another, but nothing resembling the final surgical conclusion.

They - the enlightened liberals and the self professed "true conservatives" - have come forward to alleviate the hematoma, malignancies and disorders that have distressed the patient.

The procedure has been a carefully prescribed combination of trapination (boring a hole in the head to alleviate any swelling of the brain) and amputation to prevent the GOP from carrying extra baggage.

Sure - I agree that the GOP needs better focus; a new eyeglass prescription is really all they need.

Taking medical advice from someone suffering from psychotic delusion and chronic neuro-illnesses is where I draw the line. Quackery is quackery.

Today I was told by the liberals, that the GOP is exhaling it's last breath and the prognosis is negative. If the GOP patient remains in this condition without congressional quarantine and preventative amputations, no doubt he will infect the populace and fiscal irresponsibility (or the current inability to accept the responsibility) will become untreatable. They tell the family and fiends of the patient that there is no way around this, and if they ignore it, they will shoulder the blame.

The "true conservatives" that always seem to arrive loudly after a match ends badly, are recommending the Social Conservatives should be removed, completely amputated in order for the patient to regain his balance. Some of these "True Conservatives" even go as far as cosmetic surgery - to make the patient look better after the amputation. They claim they can graft a bouquet of exotic flowers to where a bible was once grasped. Or in some cases where the AR-15 currently stands. Some even recomend hormone therapy.

"Say, that rainbow wig really has a slimming effect!"

The patient's family and friends are also deeply concerned - some are calling the priest others are redrawing the will. The Psychologists are then called-in to help the patient with his new found feelings as well as to assist the family and friends in accepting the resultant mess.

After the Surgery by committee, our patient doesn't look like much of a political belief anymore, but more like a grotesque concoction of odd-and ends, brutally stitched to an unattractive stump. The surgeons walk away - satisfied that they have done all they could.. for now, and the family and friends will spoon feed the requisite mush into the gaping maw of our patient... He can no longer speak.

I'll link Sultan Knish at this point since he seems to understand that amputation and psychotropic reconditioning may not be the suitable alternative.



- Hey Krugman! Oma Nägu!

The above phrase is what Google translator spits out for the American: "In your Face!" in Estonian.
Once again the Gnomishly Handsome Nobel Economist has been handed a dish of Estonian Humble Pie.
Today - Estonia, the poster child for austerity defenders - as Krugman so appointed them, has done what he and other Keynesian's consider the impossible:
(as per my morning European notes distribution - emphasis mine)*ESTONIAN 3Q GDP RISES 1.7% IN QUARTER
*ESTONIAN ECONOMY GROWS ANNUAL 3.4% IN 3Q
Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Estonia’s economy, the fastest- growing in the European Union last year, unexpectedly accelerated in the third quarter as gains in construction and the communication industry countered weaker Nordic demand.
Gross domestic product rose a preliminary 3.4 percent from a year earlier, compared with 2.2 percent in the previous three months, the statistics office in the capital, Tallinn, said today on its website. That exceeded all four estimates in a Bloomberg survey, which had the median forecast of 2 percent.
“Economic activities in the domestic market mainly contributed to GDP growth,” the statistics office said in the statement. “Construction, information and communication activities had the biggest contribution to growth for a third consecutive quarter.”
The newest euro-area member has benefited from rising corporate investment and stronger consumer spending even as demand in Nordic countries for its machinery and wood-product exports ebbs amid the continent’s debt crisis. Growth in the $19 billion economy may accelerate to 3.1 percent in 2013 from 2.5 percent this year, the European Commission said last week. GDP grew 8.3 percent last year, the most in the 27-member European Union.

To the hard working and austerity minded people of Estonia... Terviseks! Me tervitame teid!

Saturday, November 10, 2012

The Google Purge and General Patraeus


It takes me a little time to deal with the emotions that bubble up when something does not go my way. I even got into a spat when Tom said after the election that locusts were next here at the Jersey Shore. I shot back saying I would kick his ass if I saw even one locust and that, even though he is a far more accomplished brawler, I would win because in Jersey we don't fight fair. NJ is more often than not ahead of the curve.

Obama took the middle in this election because " they used a guy who was really good at selling groceries to women who just want to feel good about their purchase." They selected their audience and delivered a message tailored "in a personalized way, like in one of those really nice bags you get from Victoria's Secret delivered while you're watching Sons of Anarchy" (Jax really cares about Tara!).  The Elite that Knows Me gets information. They use it like a weapon.

Somebody somewhere got the goods on General Petraeus. A search algorithm for a man having an affair has got to be easy pickins for information dealers. But I see a pattern here. Jeremiah Wright threatened in 2008 to go on a public campaign that may have damaged the Obama campaign.  Then came Elizabeth Payne, and Wright was silent.

Information that came from the military industrial complex during the election was not helpful to the Obama campaign.  As sequester approaches, we are seeing a purge of the administration moderates.  My roots here in Jersey, I think, give me a little extra sensitivity in spotting those who don't fight fair.  I see a pattern here.  

So as sequester approaches, think about this question:  "What would Carrie Bradshaw do?"  That is all that is holding this administration in check.  

- Dear Matt Drudge, Please Continue To Publish Stories On Race

Dear Mr Drudge,

In this piece on "The Hill" blog, you received a request from a Democrat liberal operative to "stop the race stories". As an American citizen I'm asking you to please not stop.

I do this not for partisan reasons - after President Obama's reelection I find I'm less partisan than ever. I do it because modern American journalism is suffering from a terrible illness, and that illness is eating away at our ability to recognize the truth. It's not that American journalism is slanted or political with regard to race as much as it is deeply delusional. And it will ignore or misrepresent the vast portions of the truth in any way it feels necessary in order to preserve that delusion.

Longtime journalist Colin Flaherty, has seen this illness, and has gone about documenting it in his recently published book "White Girl Bleed A Lot". In his book he details hundreds of examples of violent crime where race is an obvious motivator, but the racial component of the story has been removed from the narrative by journalists. It's literally as if the press has found a man being burned alive in the middle of a Klan rally, and instead of calling attention to the self declared racial motivations, they reported it as a terrible tragedy at a southern barbeque and nothing more.

Mr. Flaherty specifically doesn't address the question of why the journalism community has so consistently removed that important part of the narrative. When I asked him about it he said he felt that it would be more effective to simply recount the details and let the reader make their own assumptions about the reasons for such wholesale failure by journalists. And given the way that the journalism industry reacts to people who challenge their beliefs on race, I'd have to say there is plenty of evidence to support his view.

You may be aware of the case of John Derbyshire, a freelance writer from Long Island who made such a mistake. In reaction to an article he had read where black parents were instructing their children how to avoid (nearly non-existent) white on black crime, he wrote a similarly structured slightly satirical piece where he instructed his own children how to avoid black on white crime, which is actually much more common. And when he published that piece in an online journal, he was summarily vilified by the media, and fired from his position as a writer for National Review.

I know John Derbyshire and both of his (multi-racial) children quite well. He is nothing like the monster that journalists have come to depict him as. He is an eminently thoughtful and considerate man who is driven in all his relations with people by a desire to demonstrate good manners. And those manners are demonstrated by him to all people equally regardless of color, or any other aspect of their identity for that matter. I know this from my own years long experience with the man, and have seen it demonstrated countless times with my own eyes.

But the mistake John made was telling the truth to a people who desperately and defensively need to believe a lie. None of the journalists who criticized him has ever challenged any of the specific claims in his piece, they only indicted him as a monster for having the temerity to call attention to them when they had developed an unspoken consensus not to. And since he lacked your power and influence in the journalism world, he was instantly made a fall guy and sacrificed in the name of preserving the illusion of the journalism community's views on race. He told the truth, and for his honesty, American journalism has painted him an villain and cast him aside.

But they can't do that to Matt Drudge. You are already far too influential and powerful for that. And for that reason I ask you to keep telling the honest truth about the news and including the racial component of stories when it's evident. Americans deserve an honest voice in our understanding of the role that race plays in our society and we can't have an honest dialog about it if America's journalists refuse to admit that it exists.

The journalist from The Hill who is imploring you to ignore race as they do, will probably secretly tell you that we common citizens are too dim and unsophisticated to 'handle' the facts when it comes to race. But how will we ever learn that sophistication if they continue to shelter us from that portion of the truth?

Mr. Drudge, you seem to me to be a man of courage an honesty. So as an American citizen who is very much not a journalist, I beg you to please keep giving us the news exactly as you have been, and don't submit to the childish consensus of journalists, that we citizens can't handle the truth about race.

Friday, November 9, 2012

- I Have This Sudden Fear...

I have this sudden fear. If Obama's animating principles really are far left radicalism, then I'm afraid he might really see himself as having been given a mandate, and he'll use it as an excuse to do something that the markets will view as suicidal.

His antipathy to private enterprise is hardly a secret. And I'm concerned that he'll try for a BIG second term issue that none of us see coming. Something that could only be proposed by a politician who understands nothing of economics or business. Some kind of real headline grabber from deep in the weeds on the radical left.

Maybe an across the board 25% tariff on Chinese goods, or pulling out of NAFTA by executive order, or maybe a penalty for 'failure to repatriate foreign earnings' equal to 150% of the earnings themselves. Something where the top line effect would look great to the unions and the far left, but the secondary effects will be disaster.

I just have a sinking feeling....