ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEBS

Saw it. Liked it. Stole it.

2010-09-24T03:17:00.000-07:00

Umbrella: 1 Barrack: 0

2010-08-30T04:06:00.000-07:00

Half point to Michelle for instinctively ducking from Junior´s mythical intelligence.

A Long[er] Time Ago...

2010-08-23T06:40:00.000-07:00

Just a little something fun since I haven´t been here in so long. Also, I´m moving to Portland (Oregon, U.S. of A!) in about a month and might be even less here until I can finally get finished with this apartment, packed, moved, unpacked and settled again in some beautiful, green, non-Spanish suburb of the Beaver State.

Hasta no sé cuando. Disfrutad.

Buffet Buffeting Obama?

2010-07-14T10:40:00.000-07:00

This here, son? This here´s the bottom line. You know what it´s tellin' me? It´s tellin' me...you dunno what the hell yer doin'!

Another theft. This time from Dollard. He titled the post '70 days of Jacking Off'. I ReTweeted it with the clarification "More like another 70. His entire presidency is one big masturbation session."

2010-06-30T02:31:00.000-07:00

Oil Spill Timeline from RightChange on Vimeo.

Stolen from JAWA: War Porn: Support The Troops - You little piece of S**t!

2010-06-29T06:56:00.000-07:00

"Season 1 Ep. 11b — Obama declares his intent to kick somebody's ass, though determining the specific ass to be kicked may require an executive task force. The aggression of this declaration is made all the more resounding by its delivery as a dark, looming hip hop single."

2010-06-10T11:31:00.000-07:00

Felíz Cinco de Mayo!!!

2010-05-05T02:49:00.000-07:00

On Obama´s Amusement

2010-04-20T00:47:00.000-07:00

From Roger Kimball

"Indeed, in one sense Obama’s comments are simply natural coefficients of a basic presumption of that progressive attitude, namely, the conviction that the left-liberal view of reality is not a political view but merely the view that any enlightened, reasonable person would have. It is only dissent from that view that is political, warped by self-interest, etc. If only everyone were sufficiently enlightened, everyone would (so this fairytale goes) have essentially the same ideas about all contentious issues. Which is to say, there would in the end be no contentious issues, for to dissent from the progressive narrative would be evidence of (depending on the nature of the regime) heresy, treason, or stupidity. Ultimately, contention would not only be stigmatized as counterproductive, it would be proscribed as criminal or insane."

...

"But it’s one thing to have a sense of humor. It’s quite another to regard one’s opponents with amused disdain. One key difference is the presence of contempt. Obama’s modus operandi excels in the deployment of contempt. Is it part of his instinctive embrace of Saul Alinsky’s “rules for radicals“? I do not know. But in some ways Obama’s habitual expression of contempt is the most alarming component of his style of governing. Together with his evident self-infatuation and notorious sensitivity to criticism, it bespeaks a character that is volatile, heedless, and disengaged from the palpable realities faced by the people he represents...Obama doesn’t see this, of course. He really cannot twig why everyone is not lining up to thank him for being their leader. Such imperviousness is worrisome, for it betokens a disconnection from reality."

"As long as we keep buying it, the hustlers will keep selling it." Thomas Sowell on the bogusness of under-representation

2010-04-08T00:07:00.000-07:00

Blurb:

Often some minority, with no political power, has outperformed the dominant majority in lucrative or prestigious professions — the Tamils in colonial Ceylon, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese minority throughout southeast Asia, the Huguenots in France, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Japanese in Brazil, the Lebanese in West Africa, the Jews in medieval Spain. The list could be extended almost indefinitely.

Yet, through sheer assumption and repetition, the opposite view — that any “under-representation” of any group in desirable situations or their “over-representation” in undesirable situations must be due to the way they are treated by others — has become the prevailing dogma of a secular religion.

Read the whole thing.
No dogma has caused more mischief — and, in some countries, tragedies — than the notion that there is something strange and wrong when some groups are “over-represented” or “under-represented” in some occupations or institutions.

This dogma is so widely accepted, and so deeply entrenched, that no one asks for evidence and no speck of evidence is offered.

Moreover, tons of evidence to the contrary is ignored.

Over the centuries, and in countries around the world, all sorts of groups have been disproportionately concentrated in particular occupations and at different income levels, and have had radical differences in their behavior, from rates of alcoholism to rates of crime and infant mortality.

Often some minority, with no political power, has outperformed the dominant majority in lucrative or prestigious professions — the Tamils in colonial Ceylon, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese minority throughout southeast Asia, the Huguenots in France, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Japanese in Brazil, the Lebanese in West Africa, the Jews in medieval Spain. The list could be extended almost indefinitely.

Yet, through sheer assumption and repetition, the opposite view — that any “under-representation” of any group in desirable situations or their “over-representation” in undesirable situations must be due to the way they are treated by others — has become the prevailing dogma of a secular religion.

Not only the media and politicians, but intellectuals and even the highest courts in the land presume discrimination when some groups are “under-represented” in an employer’s work force or are “over-represented” among children disciplined in school. Tests that show some groups more proficient than others are declared to be “culturally biased.” Higher infant mortality among some groups is assumed to be society’s fault for not providing “access” to prenatal care for all.

A major factor in the housing boom and bust that created the present economic predicament was massive government intervention in the housing market, supposedly to correct discrimination in mortgage lending. How did they know that there was discrimination? Because blacks were turned down for mortgage loans at a higher rate than whites.

It so happens that whites were turned down for mortgage loans at a higher rate than Asian Americans, but that fact seldom made it into the newspaper headlines or the political rhetoric. Nor did either the mainstream media or political leaders mention the fact that black-owned banks turned down black mortgage-loan applicants at least as often as white-owned banks did.

There was never the slightest reason to expect the different racial or ethnic groups in the United States to have the same credit ratings or the same behavior or performance in any other way, when both racial and non-racial groups of various sorts have for centuries had radically different patterns of behavior and performance in countries around the world.

The difference between per capita income in Eastern Europe and Western Europe has long been greater than the difference in per capita income between blacks and whites in America.

Yet, despite the fact that group differences have been the rule — not the exception — in all sorts of times and places, many people in these places and times have pointed to such disparities in their own countries as evidence of something strange, if not sinister.

An extremist movement began in Bombay when a journalist hyped the fact that the indigenous people of the region were almost totally missing among the business elites of that city. The seeds of a disastrous civil war in Sri Lanka were planted by politicians who hyped the fact that the Tamil minority was over-represented among the owners of businesses and among university students. A military coup in Fiji was provoked because the descendants of people from India were likewise doing so much better than the indigenous Fijians.

Not all of this was simply a matter of intellectual confusion. Political power was the pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. Race hustling can also be a lucrative occupation, as Jesse Jackson — among others — has demonstrated in the United States. As long as we keep buying it, the hustlers will keep selling it.

I got forwarded this from Paul Olivett at NRO yesterday and already forwarded it to a few of you, but figured it was too good not to share with everybody. It´s why we fight Obama and his lefty goon squad tooth and nail.

2010-03-16T03:40:00.000-07:00

Here´s just a blurb. You can read the whole thing (and it´s worth it) after the jump.

"What do we, as American conservatives, want to conserve? The answer is simple: the pillars of American exceptionalism. Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary."

An Exceptional Debate

The Obama administration’s assault on American identity

BY RICHARD LOWRY & RAMESH PONNURU

It’s almost a commonplace on the left that conservatives are “nihilists” for their opposition to President Obama. It’s opposition for opposition’s sake, an unprincipled exercise in partisan obstruction -- mindless, toxic, destructive. When directed at Obama, “no” is an indefensible word, devoid of philosophical content.

Another, different charge has traditionally been leveled at conservatives -- that they are “radicals.” This criticism was made of National Review right at the beginning. Conservatives want to tear down the state, overturn precedent, reverse the direction of history. They are imprudent and incautious in their pursuit of a blinkered ideological agenda, in other words fundamentally unconservative.

So conservatives get it coming and going. Our opposition to the Left is deemed nihilistic and our affirmative agenda radical. These dueling critiques point to a paradox at the heart of American conservatism. We aren’t Tories, concerned with preserving the prerogatives of an aristocratic elite or defending tradition at all costs. Instead, we’re advocates of the dynamism of an open society. Through most of human history and still in many places in the world, that would make us the opposite of conservatives. Not in America.

What do we, as American conservatives, want to conserve? The answer is simple: the pillars of American exceptionalism. Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary.

The survival of American exceptionalism as we have known it is at the heart of the debate over Obama’s program. It is why that debate is so charged. In his first year, Obama tried to avoid the cultural hot buttons that tripped up Bill Clinton and created the “gays, guns, and God” backlash of 1994. But he has stoked a different type of cultural reaction. The level of spending, the bailouts, and the extent of the intervention in the economy contemplated in health-care and cap-and-trade legislation have created the fear that something elemental is changing in the country. At stake isn’t just a grab bag of fiscal issues, but the meaning of America and the character of its people: the ultimate cultural issue.

I.

To find the roots of American exceptionalism, you have to start at the beginning -- or even before the beginning. They go back to our mother country. Historian Alan Macfarlane argues that England never had a peasantry in the way that other European countries did, or as extensive an established church, or as powerful a monarchy. English society thus had a more individualistic cast than the rest of Europe, which was centralized, hierarchical, and feudal by comparison.

It was, to simplify, the most individualistic elements of English society -- basically, dissenting low-church Protestants -- who came to the eastern seaboard of North America. And the most liberal fringe of English political thought, the anti-court “country” Whigs and republican theorists such as James Harrington, came to predominate here. All of this made America an outlier compared with England, which was an outlier compared with Europe. The U.S. was the spawn of English liberalism, fated to carry it out to its logical conclusion and become the most liberal polity ever known to man.

America was blessedly unencumbered by an ancien régime. Compared with Europe, it had no church hierarchy, no aristocracy, no entrenched economic interests, no ingrained distaste for commercial activity. It almost entirely lacked the hallmarks of a traditional post-feudal agrarian society. It was as close as you could get to John Locke’s state of nature. It was ruled from England, but lightly; Edmund Burke famously described English rule here as “salutary neglect.” Even before the Revolution, America was the freest country on earth.

These endowments made it possible for the Americans to have a revolution with an extraordinary element of continuity. Tocqueville may have been exaggerating when he said that Americans were able to enjoy the benefits of a revolution without really having one, but he wasn’t far off the mark. The remnants of old Europe that did exist here -- state-supported churches, primogeniture, etc. -- were quickly wiped out. Americans took inherited English liberties, extended them, and made them into a creed open to all.

Exact renderings of the creed differ, but the basic outlines are clear enough. The late Seymour Martin Lipset defined it as liberty, equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics. The creed combines with other aspects of the American character -- especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force -- to form the core of American exceptionalism.

II.

Liberty is the most important element of the creed. To secure it, the Founders set about strictly limiting government within carefully specified bounds. Immediately upon the collapse of British government in America, the states drew up written constitutions and neutered their executives. They went as far as they could possibly go to tame the government -- indeed, they went farther, and had to start over to get a functioning state. But even this second try produced a Constitution that concentrated as much on what government could not do as on what it could.

The Founders knew what men were capable of, in the positive sense if their creative energies were unleashed and in the negative sense if they were given untrammeled power over others. “It may be a reflection on human nature,” Madison wrote in a famous passage in Federalist No. 51 describing the checks in the Constitution, “that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

The Constitution’s negative character reflected its basic goal: to protect people in their liberty. In stark contrast, European constitutions, even prior to World War II, established positive rights to government benefits. As Mary Ann Glendon notes, these differences “are legal manifestations of divergent, and deeply rooted, cultural attitudes toward the state and its functions.”

This framework of freedom made possible the flourishing of the greatest commercial republic in history. As historian Walter Russell Mead notes, over the last several centuries of the West, three great maritime powers have stood for a time at the pinnacle of the international order: the Dutch, then the English, and finally us. All three had powerful navies and sophisticated financial systems, and were concerned primarily with increasing national wealth through commerce.

Consider the very beginning. John Steele Gordon reminds us in his book An Empire of Wealth that the Virginia Company -- a profit-seeking corporation -- founded Jamestown. In New England, the Puritan merchants wrote at the top of their ledgers, “In the name of God and of profit.” Even before the Revolution, we were the most prosperous country per capita in the world.

In a telling coincidence, the publication of Adam Smith’s world-changing free-market classic, The Wealth of Nations, coincided with the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Many of the Founders read the book. Without the medieval encumbrances and the powerful, entrenched special interests that plagued other countries, the United States could make Smith’s ideas the basis of its economic dispensation. Gordon writes, “The United States has consistently come closer to the Smithian ideal over a longer period of time than any other major nation.”

In the latitude provided by this relatively light-handed government, a commerce-loving, striving, and endlessly inventive people hustled its way to become the greatest economic power the world has ever known.

In America, there really hasn’t been a disaffected proletariat -- because the proletariat has gotten rich. Friedrich Engels had it right when he carped that “America is so purely bourgeois, so entirely without a feudal past and therefore proud of its purely bourgeois organization.”

The traditional Marxist claim about the U.S. was that it was governed by the executive committee of the bourgeoisie. This was not intended as a compliment, but it was largely true. Look at the archetypal American, Benjamin Franklin, whose name comes from the Middle English meaning freeman, someone who owns some property. Napoleon dismissed the British as “a nation of shopkeepers”; we are a nation of Franklins.

Abraham Lincoln, a de facto Founding Father, is an exemplar of this aspect of America. “I hold the value of life,” Lincoln said, “is to improve one’s condition.” There are few things he hated more than economic stasis. He couldn’t abide Thomas Jefferson’s vision of a nation of yeoman farmers living on their land forevermore, blissfully untouched by the forces of modern economic life. (Appropriately enough, Jefferson died broke.) Lincoln captured the genius of American life when he said, “The man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him.”

That sentiment is at the heart of the American economic gospel. American attitudes toward wealth and its creation stand out within the developed world. Our income gap is greater than that in European countries, but not because our poor are worse off. In fact, they are better off than, say, the bottom 10 percent of Britons. It’s just that our rich are phenomenally wealthy.

This is a source of political tension, but not as much as foreign observers might expect, thanks partly to a typically American attitude. A 2003 Gallup survey found that 31 percent of Americans expect to get rich, including 51 percent of young people and more than 20 percent of Americans making less than $30,000 a year. This isn’t just cockeyed optimism. America remains a fluid society, with more than half of people in the bottom quintile pulling themselves out of it within a decade.

And so we arrived in the 21st century still a country apart. Prior to its recent run-up, total government spending was still only about 36 percent of GDP in the U.S. In Europe, the figure was much higher -- 44 percent in Britain, 53 percent in France, and 56 percent in Sweden. (The difference is starker when only non-defense spending is compared.)

Politically, we have always been more democratic, more populist than other countries. Edmund Burke said of the low-church Protestants who flocked here, “They represent the dissidents of dissent and the protest wing of the Protestant religion.” The Scotch-Irish who settled the hinterlands were even more cussed. It wasn’t very easy to tell any of these people what to do, as colonial governors learned to their regret.

Later, in the 19th century, the Federalists tried to create a kind of aristocracy. They got rich and set themselves up as grandees. Knowing that many members of this self-designated ruling class started life in the same state they had, their neighbors didn’t take kindly to these pretensions. The Federalist party wasn’t long for this world -- a lesson in how poorly elite condescension plays in America.

Today, we still have more elections for more offices more often than other countries. Even many judges and law-enforcement officials are elected. In the federal government, political appointees have greater sway over the civil service than is the case in other developed countries. As Edward C. Banfield and James Q. Wilson have written, “There is virtually no sphere of ‘administration’ apart from politics.”

In Europe, the opposite is the case and has become more so with the rise of the European Union. Brussels is arrogating more decision-making to itself, removed from the locus of democratic accountability in individual nations. When important EU questions are put to the voters in referenda, there is only one correct answer, and when nations vote the “wrong” way, elections are held over and over again until they succumb. This European-style politics of bureaucratic, elite high-handedness is dangerous in its undemocratic nature and anathema to the American character.

We have managed to preserve a remarkable national spirit. At over 70 percent, more Americans express pride in their country than Western Europeans do in theirs. In terms of demography, we are the youngest advanced country in the world, and our population continues to grow as that of Western Europe is projected to decline.

Americans are more religious than Europeans. In the 18th century, American religious dissenters supported overthrowing state-supported churches because it would allow them to compete on an even playing field with other denominations. In that competition, America saw an explosion of religious feeling and became the most evangelical country in the world.

Religion gained authority and vitality from its separation from the state, and religion-inspired reform movements, from abolitionism to the civil-rights movement, have been a source of self-criticism and renewal. Today, 73 percent of Americans believe in God, compared with 27 percent of Frenchmen and 35 percent of Britons, according to a 2006 Financial Times survey.

All of this means that America has the spirit of a youthful, hopeful, developing country, matched with the economic muscle of the world’s most advanced society and the stability of its oldest democratic institutions.

This national spirit is reflected in our ambitious and vigorous foreign policy. We were basically still clinging to port cities on the eastern seaboard when we began thinking about settling the rest of the continent. There never was a time when we were an idyllically isolationist country. We wanted to make the continent ours partly as a matter of geopolitics: France, Spain, and Britain were wolves at the door. But throughout our history, we have sought not just to secure our interests abroad, but to export our model of liberty.

This missionary impulse is another product of the American Revolution, which took English liberties and universalized them. The Founders thought we would play an outsized role in the world from the very beginning. We would be an “empire of liberty,” Jefferson said. He believed that the flame of liberty, once lit on our shores, would inevitably consume the world.

This strain in American thought was expressed throughout the 20th century in the democratic idealism of Wilson, FDR, and Carter. At its best, this tendency has been tempered by prudence and realism so as to avoid foolish adventurism. Reagan exemplified the appropriate mix, as he avoided (with the painful exception of Lebanon) risky foreign interventions at the same time he ushered the Soviet Union to its grave through a shrewd combination of hard and soft power.

But make no mistake: America is still a martial nation with a no-nonsense, hit-back-harder Jacksonian temperament when challenged. Historically, it has responded to attacks, whether at Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor, with overwhelming force and the maximum plausible effort to spread our democratic system. In this sense, George W. Bush’s response to 9/11 -- two foreign wars, both justified partly as exercises in democratization -- was typically American.

Our defense spending constituted half of the world’s defense spending in 2003. With a few exceptions (the British, the Canadians), we are the only Western nation that is able and willing to conduct major combat operations overseas. Even when Afghanistan was considered “the good war” by the rest of the world, we had to do most of the heavy lifting.

None of this is to say, of course, that America is perfect. No nation can be. But one can only regard with wonderment what America stands for and all that it has accomplished in its amazing, utterly distinct adventure in liberty.

III.

There have always been those who take exception to American exceptionalism. Europeans developed a cottage industry in travel writing about America, most of it -- although not all, with Tocqueville the most important exception -- scandalized by the riotous freedoms of these restless, stubborn, commerce-crazy, God-soaked barbarians. The America of these portraits was simultaneously primitive and decadent: “grotesque, obscene, monstrous, stultifying, stunted, leveling, deadening, deracinating, roofless, uncultured,” as James Ceaser summarizes the critique in Reconstructing America. Many of America’s European critics hoped that, over time, America would lose its distinctiveness. It would become just another developed Western country: more centralized, more elitist, more secular, less warlike, and less free. In short, a quieter, more civilized place.

The American Left has shared this maddened perplexity at its country’s character and this hope for its effacement. Marxists at home and abroad were always mystified by the failure of socialism in the U.S. They thought that, as the most advanced capitalist society, we would have had the most restive proletariat. Instead we have had a broad and largely satisfied middle class. Even our unions, in their early history, were anti-statist, their radicalism anarchistic rather than socialist. At the Progressive convention of 1912, Jane Addams saw “a worldwide movement toward juster social conditions” that “the United States, lagging behind other great nations, has been unaccountably slow to embody in political action.”

Hence the search for foreign models. In the early 20th century, the Left was fascinated with all things German and brimmed with enthusiasm for Bismarck’s welfare state. Woodrow Wilson, in a sentiment typical of progressive intellectuals, deemed Bismarck’s creation an “admirable system”; he was less admiring of the American Founding. Herbert Croly, the founder of The New Republic and one of the most significant progressive intellectuals of the era, was another Bismarck admirer. Croly advocated rule by “expert social engineers” to bring to these shores the best innovations of the modern dictatorial movements taking over in Europe.

New Deal intellectuals gushed over Bolshevism in the 1930s. FDR Brain Truster Stuart Chase enthused, “Why should Russians have all the fun of remaking a world?” His statement captured the utopian underpinnings of the progressive project and the yearning for the kind of radical remaking of society that was readily attainable only in countries that gave themselves over entirely to the state. The other model was Italian fascism, which New Dealers studied closely and in important respects aped.

The New Deal was a watershed, but America didn’t lurch all the way to socialism. The power of the central government increased, a welfare state was born, and unionization advanced. But even in the midst of the Great Depression, typically American attitudes still prevailed. In a 1935 Gallup survey, Americans by a wide margin thought the government was spending too much.

After World War II, a Left that had been gaining strength in Europe for decades finally realized its social-democratic ambitions. The U.S. followed a different course. In the academy, a perverse version of American exceptionalism took root: an exceptionalism of criminality, conquest, and oppression. America was special only in its misdeeds and failings; all cultures were to be celebrated except our own. The exceptionalism of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, in milder form, occupied the commanding heights of our education system. It has worked to trash our Founding, to wipe out our historical memory, and to create a guilty conscience among our ruling elite.

In politics, however, the country’s progress away from its character continued to be “unaccountably slow.” American government continued to grow, particularly during the Johnson and Nixon years; the states became ever more one of the federal government’s key client groups rather than checks on its power. But the individualistic American character began to reassert itself after its mid-century dormancy. Americans saw the stagflation of the 1970s as an indictment of Big Government rather than a crisis of capitalism. Ronald Reagan won the presidency of a nation that, by European standards, was still a freewheeling cowboy economy and democracy -- and made it even freer.

Deregulation exposed unions to competitive pressures that they could not survive. The U.S. quickly came out of its post-Vietnam defensive crouch. And religion, rather than fading away, became more publicly assertive in response to perceived threats. Bill Clinton’s Democratic presidency did more to confirm than to alter these trends.

The Left’s search for a foreign template to graft onto America grew more desperate. Why couldn’t we be more like them -- like the French, like the Swedes, like the Danes? Like any people with a larger and busier government overawing the private sector and civil society? You can see it in Sicko, wherein Michael Moore extols the British national health-care system, the French way of life, and even the munificence of Cuba; you can hear it in all the admonitions from left-wing commentators that every other advanced society has government child care, or gun control, or mass transit, or whatever socialistic program or other infringement on our liberty we have had the wisdom to reject for decades.

IV.

President Obama’s first year in office should be seen in the context of contemporary liberalism’s discomfort with American exceptionalism.

The president has signaled again and again his unease with traditional American patriotism. As a senator he notoriously made a virtue of not wearing a flag pin. As president he has been unusually detached from American history: When a foreign critic brought up the Bay of Pigs, rather than defend the country’s honor he noted that he was a toddler at the time. And while acknowledging that America has been a force for good, he has all but denied the idea that America is an exceptional nation. Asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism during a European trip last spring, Obama said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” (Is it just a coincidence that he reached for examples of former hegemons?)

In this respect the president reflects the mainstream sentiment of American liberals. We do not question the sincerity of his, or their, desire to better the lot of his countrymen. But modern liberal intellectuals have had a notoriously difficult time coming up with a decent account of patriotism even when they have felt it. From Richard Rorty to Todd Gitlin, they have proclaimed their allegiance to a hypothetical, pure country that is coming into being rather than to the one they inhabit.

Given the liberal gestalt, it is perhaps unsurprising that every important aspect of American exceptionalism has been under threat from President Obama and his allies in Washington. Obama has frankly and correctly described their project as to change the country fundamentally.

On those occasions when Obama places himself in the context of American history, he identifies himself with the post-Wilsonian tradition -- with, that is, the gradual replacement of the Founders’ design. He seeks to accelerate it.

Already we are catching up to the European norm for government power. In 2010, government spending in the U.S. will reach an estimated 44 percent of GDP. With entitlements for the elderly on a path to explode with the retirement of the Baby Boomers, the trend is toward more convergence. In a strange reversal, last year it was an American president urging continental Europeans to spend more to combat the recession. Two of his highest priorities would drastically, and probably irreversibly, expand the government’s footprint.

American liberals have long been embarrassed about our country’s supposedly retrograde policies on health care and energy, especially compared with Europe’s nationalized health insurance and carbon rationing. So they tried to use their unprecedented power after the 2008 elections to bring the U.S. into line. They sought to limit carbon emissions. That legislation would simultaneously represent a massive indirect tax increase, an extension of the tentacles of government regulation into every sector of the economy, and an empowerment of new bureaucratic instruments to control and direct economic development.

Obama’s health-care policy would change the relationship of people to government, probably forever, by further nationalizing our system. It would have the federal government, for the first time, order all Americans to purchase a specified product. And socialized health-care systems in other lands have become endless warrants for more taxing and spending, as both are justified as necessary to delivering adequate health care. Once the public is hooked on government health care, its political attitudes shift leftward. (The system’s flaws, such as rationing, tend to be attributed to underfunding, so that even discontent with it ends up entrenching it.)

Free labor markets have been an expression of American individualism and a contributor to American dynamism. But President Obama has attempted to upend seven decades of American labor law in order to make it easier for unions to collect new members. Democrats hope to reverse the unions’ decline. Tellingly, after the United Auto Workers helped wreck GM and Chrysler, the Obama administration handed it a large share of control over the two companies.

Corporations, meanwhile, are also becoming more dependent on government handouts. Rivalry between business and political elites has helped to safeguard American liberty. What we are seeing now is the possible emergence of a new political economy in which Big Business, Big Labor, and Big Government all have cozy relations of mutual dependence. The effect would be to suppress both political choice and economic dynamism.

The retreat from American exceptionalism has a legal dimension as well. Obama’s judicial nominees are likely to attempt to bring our Constitution into line with European norms. Here, again, he is building on the work of prior liberals who used the federal courts as a weapon against aspects of American exceptionalism such as self-government and decentralization. Increasingly, judicial liberals look to putatively enlightened foreign, and particularly European, opinion as a source of law capable of displacing the law made under our Constitution.

Liberal regulators threaten both our dynamism and our self-government. They are increasingly empowered to make far-reaching policy decisions on their own -- for instance, the EPA has the power to decide, even in the absence of cap-and-trade legislation passed by Congress, how to regulate carbon emissions. The agency thus has extraordinary sway over the economy, without any meaningful accountability to the electorate. The Troubled Asset Relief Program has turned into a honeypot for the executive branch, which can dip into it for any purpose that suits it. Government is increasingly escaping the control of the people from whom it is supposed to derive its powers.

Inevitably, the transformation of America at home is being accompanied by a shift in its policies toward the rest of the world. Since the 1940s America has been the crucial undergirding of the international order. Its power and sway are a stabilizing influence in every region of the world, and it provides international public goods, from the policing of sea lanes to humanitarian interventions. It is also, in keeping with its missionary history, the chief exponent of liberty in the world.

Obama is turning his back both on the overarching vision of freedom and on the prudence, and mislabeling his approach “realism.” He has been positively allergic to the word “democracy.” His administration has shown very little interest in defending human rights around the world, whether in China or in Cuba. During the Iranian election crisis, he was even cooler to the protesters in the streets than the Europeans were.

His hesitance to advocate American ideals is not a return to the realpolitik of Nixon or the first Bush. A deep naïveté informs his policy. He believes that our enemies can be persuaded, merely through sweet talk and blandishments, to abandon their cold-blooded interests and their most deeply held ambitions. This is impossible without developing the kind of leverage over them in which Obama seems to have little interest. Yes, Reagan negotiated with the Soviets, but only when they had a leader who was a reformer and the arms build-up and the prospect of SDI had tilted the correlation of forces -- to use the Marxist argot -- in our direction. Under the sway of Obama’s anti-idealism, the U.S. is less interested in serving as a champion of liberty; his policies will also reduce our power, and thus our effectiveness should we choose to wield it again.

In many of Obama’s performances overseas (the Nobel acceptance speech is an exception), there has been a dismaying defensiveness. It’s almost as though he doesn’t think we deserve to stand up for our ideals or for our interests, and believes that our record of sins, hypocrisies, and affronts makes a posture of apologetic passivity the only appropriate one. This posture raises a disturbing possibility: that the waning of America’s civilizational self-confidence is part and parcel of the change Obama is effecting.

In Europe, we see a civilization that is not willing to defend itself: nations that will surrender their sovereignty, cultures that will step aside to be supplanted by an alien creed, peoples that will no longer make the most meaningful investment in the future by reproducing. There is a sense that history is over and Europeans are just waiting for someone to turn out the last light in the last gallery of the Louvre.

The popular revolt against Obama’s policies is a sign that Americans are not prepared to go gentle into that good night. Other factors are of course in play -- most important, the weak economy -- but the public is saying “No” to a rush to social democracy.

Although the conservatives, libertarians, and independents who oppose Obama’s health-care initiative may not put it in quite these terms, they sense that his project will not just increase insurance premiums but undermine what they cherish about America. Those Americans who want to keep our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay think it necessary to protect our security -- but they also worry, more profoundly, that our leaders are too apologetic to serve our interests. Americans may want change, even fundamental change, but most of them would rather change our institutions than our national character.

It is madness to consider President Obama a foreigner. But it is blindness to ignore that American exceptionalism has homegrown enemies -- people who misunderstand the sources of American greatness or think them outdated. If they succeed, we will be less free, less innovative, less rich, less self-governing, and less secure. We will be less.

As will the world. The Europeans can afford a foreign policy devoted nearly exclusively to “soft power” because we are here to defend them and mount the forward defense of freedom. Who is going to do that for us, when we are no longer doing it for ourselves? Who will answer the call when America is no longer home?

If our politics seems heated right now, that is because the central question before us is whether to abandon our traditional sense of ourselves as an exceptional nation. To be exceptional is of course not to be perfect. The old anti-imperialist saying -- “My country right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right” -- has considerable wisdom. But Americans are right not to want to become exceptional only in the 230-year path we took to reach the same lackluster destination as everyone else.

Too busy to blog, but if anybody misses me -- laughs to self -- I´ve been popping in on Facebook now and then. Just added a bunch of pictures too. Feel free to friend.

2010-02-19T07:03:00.000-08:00

Here.

I don´t know what the filming technique is called, but it reminds me a little bit of playing Riven

2010-02-02T03:42:00.000-08:00

Drift from mustardcuffins on Vimeo.

Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place...

2010-01-20T06:25:00.000-08:00

...sometimes there's a man, sometimes, there's a man. Well, I lost my train of thought here. But... aw, hell. I've done introduced it enough.

If Oliver Stone wants to contextualize mass murderers, maybe he should start with a mini-series on the AGW crowd instead

2010-01-14T04:58:00.000-08:00

6:30AM GMT 14 Jan 2010

Forecasters conceded that they did not spot the widespread snow storms that caused transport disruption and a surge of weather-related accidents until it was too late. Up to six inches fell in parts of the South West, with drifts of 7ft in Wales.

Even when the full extent of the threat was realised, flaws in the Met Office's bad weather warning system meant that the public were not adequately informed, officials said.

Yet...

GMT 30 Dec 2010

For cold of a variety not seen in over 25 years in a large scale is about to engulf the major energy consuming areas of the northern Hemisphere. The first 15 days of the opening of the New Year will be the coldest, population weighted, north of 30 north world wide in over 25 years in my opinion.

I like EUReferendum´s summary:

So, the short-term forecasts – when it really matters – are garbage, and the warning system is inadequate. Then, as we already know to our cost, the seasonal forecasts, with their "barbecue summers" and "mild winters" are fantasy.

But don't worry, boys and girls. Their long-range forecasts, for 2030 and beyond are spot on. These geniuses know exactly what the weather is going to be like in 2050, 2060, etc. Their computer models have told them so.

When thinking of suggestions as to what they can do with their computers and computer models, unspeakable things come to mind.

"Well thank the Devil for Oliver Stone, for he's revealed that his upcoming Showtime miniseries "Secret History of America" will help put mass murderers such as Hitler and Stalin "in context.""

2010-01-12T05:46:00.000-08:00

I think Eddie Izzard already did a pretty decent job of that:

"Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy -- these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history," [Stone] told reporters during a press tour, managing to slip non-killer Joe McCarthy into the mix, without causing a murmur.

RE: The whole Brit Hume thing.

2010-01-11T08:07:00.000-08:00

"Not entirely the “death of global warming” as many have claimed – what happened with Climategate is much more nuanced and exponentially more interesting than the headlines convey...the death of unconditional trust in the scientific peer review process, and the maturing of a new movement – that of peer-to-peer review."

2010-01-08T09:01:00.000-08:00

This development may horrify the old guard, but peer-to-peer review was just what forced the release of the Climategate files – and as a consequence revealed the uncertainty of the science and the co-opting of the process that legitimizes global warming research. It was a collective of climate blogs, centered on the work of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, which applied the pressure. With moderators and blog commenters that include engineers, PhDs, statistics whizzes, mathematic experts, software developers, and weather specialists – the label flat-earthers, as many of their opponents have attempted to brand them, seems as fitting as tagging Lady Gaga with the label demure.

This peer-to-peer review network is the group that applied the pressure and then helped authenticate and proliferate the story.

Now, if we can just get the ball rolling in other areas of "science" where uncertainty is ignored to promote an agenda.

I never have been one for pilgrimages, but if this annual tradition continues next year, I may have just found my Mecca...

2010-01-07T06:10:00.000-08:00

...and it´s located near a liquor store to boot!

FAIRBANKS - In what might become an annual tradition, an ice sculpture of former Vice President Al Gore has taken its place in front of Thrifty Liquor along Airport Way.

The two-ton “Frozen Gore” sculpture isn’t exactly a tribute. It’s a tongue-in-cheek critique of Gore’s vocal belief in man-made climate change, complete with hot air pouring out of his mouth.

...

This year’s version includes special effects, thanks to a system that pipes the exhaust from a Ford F-350 out of Gore’s open mouth. Compeau will fire up the truck periodically this winter to create the “hot air” effect.

Oh, and HAPPY NEW YEAR too!

We ran into some Christmasiness last night

2009-12-20T07:10:00.000-08:00

We were just going around the stores downtown doing some Christmas shopping and decided to stop by the Mercado Colón to listen to the choir sing and see the decorations. Also, maybe to get a little warm. It was 5ºC at this point.

(There´s a video of it here. If for some reason you can´t see it, just click here or the 'continue reading' link and it´ll show. Retarded Blogspot)

A few more snaps of the area we were in:

Then we went more toward the center (and home - so cold; so very, very cold) and saw these goofballs with wigs on and stripping down to their undies for something. Likely had something to do with the video that follows.

They´re called "Una Tuna" just like the title says. There are groups like this (typically students) during all kinds of festivals and holidays that go around singing in costumes. Usually pretty good, and funny. Notice how they all pretend to get bored and disband while the one is holding a long note. Again, you´ll have to deal with the quality of the camera, but, enjoy.

"Where are the candles?!? I specifically asked for candles!"

2009-12-18T11:13:00.000-08:00

Ok, first evah OUATITW caption contest (also the first - and last - time I ever refer to this place by its ugly-ass acronym).

(photo via The White House's photostream via @ExJon)

Prizes*? Uh, yeah, there are lots of prizes*. Yeah. Lots (of prizes*).

*There may or may not (probobaly not) be a single prize. It´s a crap-shoot.

"It is exactly this species of tyranny that the UN would like to impose upon the entire planet, in the name of saving us from ourselves – or, as Ugo Chavez would put it, saving us from Western capitalist democracy."

2009-12-18T04:39:00.000-08:00

That quote is part of Lord Monckton´s (the same I posted on here just a few days ago) account of being "manhandled" to the point of unconsciousness by a Danish police officer yesterday in Copen~~hatin~~hagen.

Here´s a big blurb, but you can read it all here.

One of them began the now familiar technique of manhandling me, in the same fashion as one of his colleagues had done the previous day.

Once again, conscious that a police helicopter with a high-resolution camera was hovering overhead, I thrust my hands into my pockets in accordance with the St. John Ambulance crowd-control training, looked my assailant in the eye and told him, quietly but firmly, to take his hands off me.

He complied, but then decided to have another go. I told him a second time, and he let go a second time. I turned to go and, after I had turned my back, he gave me a mighty shove that flung me to the ground and knocked me out.

I came to some time later (not sure exactly how long), to find my head being cradled by my friends, some of whom were doing their best to keep the police thugs at bay while the volunteer ambulance-men attended to me.

...

I thanked them for their kindness, left them a donation for their splendid service, and rejoined my friends. A very senior police officer then came up and asked if I was all right. Yes, I said, but no thanks to one of his officers, who had pushed me hard from behind when my back was turned and had sent me flying.

The police chief said that none of his officers would have done such a thing. I said that several witnesses had seen the incident, which I intended to report. I said I had hoped to receive an apology but had not received one, and would include that in my report. The policeman went off looking glum, and with good reason.

To assault an accredited representative of a conference your nation is hosting, and to do it while your own police cameramen are filming from above, and to do it without any provocation except my polite, non-threatening request that I should not be manhandled, is not a career-enhancing move, as that police chief is about to discover to his cost.

h/t Kate McMillan

And it´s not any better inside.

But I love his reaction to the threats being yelled to him: "I've seen worse in Belfast on a Friday night."

Thank the likes of Phelim McAleer and Christopher Monckton takin' the shots to bring these greentards down.

Thanks for the Tweet @vermontaigne!

Some blurbs from an article about Stephen McIntyre called 'Centre of the Storm' that´s well worth a read in it´s entirety

2009-12-17T04:18:00.000-08:00

The private emails and logs leaked last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia can’t tell us whether industrial activity is really heating the earth’s atmosphere and endangering civilization. But they have settled the identity of the Great Satan of climate science. Torontonian Stephen McIntyre, a gentle, persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global warming debate in 2003, is mentioned more than 100 times.

...

McIntyre first became notorious in 2003 for his statistical critique, co-authored with economist Ross McKitrick, of the “hockey stick graph” that showed global temperatures rocketing upward in the 20th century. The hockey stick, featured in the 2001 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, had a profound influence on policy worldwide, and played a starring role in presentations like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. The McIntyre-McKitrick critique called attention to uncertainties in its temperature reconstructions dating back before 1600, to certain problems with dendrochronology (the use of tree rings to estimate past temperatures), and to issues with the statistical calculations underlying the hockey stick. Some climatologists insist that the graph tells the same story when you correct for all this, but much of the critique is now accepted, and the hockey stick, whose weaknesses are better understood, has itself become a somewhat inconvenient distraction for climatologists and environmentalists.

...

McIntyre went to work for Noranda when the mining giant was in its heyday...[t]he world of mining is one in which everyone is constantly aware of how engineering results can be tampered with or misrepresented to rip off investors. And in 2003, when McIntyre first saw the hockey stick graph, it reminded him uncomfortably of some stock promoter’s over-optimistic revenue projection. McIntyre asked lead “hockey stick” author Michael Mann for the underlying data and was startled when Mann had trouble remembering where he had posted the files to the Internet. “That was when the penny dropped for me,” McIntyre says. “I had the sense that Mann was pulling together the data for the first time—that nobody had ever bothered to inquire independently into the hockey stick before.”

...

To McIntyre, a scientist’s data and code stand in the same relationship to a finished paper that drilling cores do to a mining company press release. “If you’re offering securities to the public,” McIntyre observed in a May 2008 talk at Ohio State University, “there are complicated and expensive processes of due diligence, involving audits of financial statements, independent engineering reports, opinions from securities lawyers and so on. There are laws requiring the disclosure of adverse results.” Peer review in scientific journals is good, he suggested, but it is limited and vulnerable to compromise. “There is far more independent due diligence on the smallest prospectus offering securities to the public than on a Nature article that might end up having a tremendous impact on policy.”

[bold mine] Read the entire article here.

h/t @JTlol (via Tim Blair)

Watch and, if you´re like me and love seeing a fool exposed in his foolishness, laugh as Christopher Monckton politely informs a Greenpeace campaigner of her pitiful ignorance

2009-12-15T06:40:00.000-08:00

"You are campaigning about something which, if you´ll forgive me, you appear to know absolutely nothing about."

And speaking of ignorant fools.

Ok, the Dr. Dave inspired Thomas Dolby parody (She Blinded Me With Boob Belt) is on the back burner, but to keep the "Needs More Boob Belt" meme alive I´m reprinting my Sir Mix-a-Lot bit here

2009-12-12T11:33:00.000-08:00

Ripped directly from the comments on Sticky Notes' post yesterday at Feed Your ADHD

(with apologies to Anthony Ray and ~~other~~ sensible people)

I like boob belts and I cannot lie
You Obama (half) brothers can´t deny
That when a girl walks in
with that shitty bit-o waste
An ugly round thing in your face
You get sprung
Wanna pull up front
Cuz you notice that gut was stuffed
Deep in the jeans she’s wearing
I’m spooked and I can’t stop staring
Oh, baby I wanna get rid’ ya
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But with that gut you got
It´s so corny
Ooh, hug all of that loose skin
You say you wanna get in size 10?
Well s’cuse me, s’cuse me cuz you ain’t that average floozy...

(Meh)

'Tis the season to · re · post · crap...

2009-12-11T02:26:00.000-08:00

Like the great Santa/Jesus lounge sing-off:

You can´t turn around without hitting a holiday in this country

2009-12-09T07:18:00.000-08:00

For me in real life, that´s great. But, a) when my wife´s off work I pretty much hang out with her and not on Twitter or blogging and, b) when her brother finally says he´s coming back to continue working on the electric he began installing about 6 months ago I drop everything (including my jaw) to make sure we get as much done as possible before the next vortex swallows him.

So, this weekend saw the Spanish Constitution Day (which is meaningless apart from being a day off, since Spaniards handed their vote to the socialist jackass - Obama´s buddy, Zapatero - who heads the government here, who, subsequently handed over pretty much all the say anyone in office still had to the new president of the United States of Eurabia - deep breath) and Inmaculada (also essentially meaningless except as a day off since the religious conviction in Spain flows about as deep as the rivers of Obama´s committment to democracy) which I understand basically starts off the Christmas season. Hey, a four-day weekend regardless. So, mornings were spent at Starbuck´s (the only place to get coffee that doesn´t taste like liquid creosote mixed into oversteamed UHT "milk" - instead it tastes like Starbuck´s espresso mixed into oversteamed UHT "milk"), and the rest of the day either preparing the house for Diego (Bro-in-law) to work, working with Diego, or cleaning up after Diego (no offense to Diego intended, he does great work and, more importantly, it´s free labor).

Below the fold are just a few pics my wife took of the fun. I´m spackling over the rough stuff and painting it today so the switches are all removed again. But at least you can see what they look like. We like 'em. The outlets will all be the same style wood around ceramic switchboxes. The only different area is the kitchen, where the ceramic part will be black and we´re exposing all the conduit. I realize the kitchen colors are kinda 1970´s Brady Bunch, but considering Spain is only now somewhere around 1950 it actually looks pretty futuristic here.

Said Professor Warmther with his pants pulled down around his ankles

2009-12-05T09:22:00.000-08:00

Don´t worry it´s deep linked to 1:30. No need for all that foreplay.

It´s that BeTaMaXMaS time of year once again!!!

2009-12-03T11:10:00.000-08:00

"Welcome to my basement, I´ve got it wired for hi-fi. Check out what´s playing in the TV Guide, or flip through the channels to see what´s playin'."

You won´t be disappointed. This kind of thing is what the interwebs were created for. Let´s get this Christmas season rollin' already!

Ripped straight from The Devil´s Kitchen: [CLIMATEGATE] - Why this can't be swept under the carpet

2009-12-01T06:31:00.000-08:00

Because there is a skip from the straight science, straight to politics and policy, the science becomes absolutely essential.

As a result, no dissent can be tolerated because the wheels come off very quickly as soon as you have to make your way through the rest of the decision tree.

Suggesting that it's not unprecedented is straight denial and even doubt has to be censored.

Slice your average environment correspondent through the middle and you're going to find a left-leaning liberal arts graduate who is utterly out of his/her depth. Their world view is being swept from underneath them and they are being shown—in ways that they do not really and have never had to understand—that the guys they thought were the goodies are in fact "at it" and that those they have spent a decade disparaging as deniers were in fact spot on.

I would find that hard to report too.

Read the whole thing here.

CLIMATEGATE: A lot of honest people have been taken in by this extraordinary scam, and in the shakeout, we’ll be able to identify who they are. They were co-opted!

2009-11-30T12:04:00.000-08:00

The following is in answer to a statement within a conversation that´s been going on for many months.

“Hide the decline” and “Quick, delete these files before somebody catches on” and “HOLY CRAP WHY CAN’T I GET THIS DATA TO SAY WHAT WE NEED IT TO SAY IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR JOBS” aren’t exactly what I´d call a “false scandal.” Neither are “We need to keep these guys out of peer-reviewed journals” and “Let’s get this editor fired for publishing an article that disagrees with us.” But, yeah, I´m the denialist.

The massive “scandal” here is the result of cherry-picking and quote mining…pretty much what one can expect of Global Warming or Evolution denialists...The evidence for global warming is very, very strong, despite this false scandal.

Forget cherry-picking; we´d have to be adept dumpster divers in order to get at the “very, very strong” evidence for global – snicker – warming (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!).

Sorry, I shouldn´t be so insensitive about this. Just because it proves the point I´ve been making here for many months doesn´t give me the right to gloat……….Who am I kidding; of course it does! You and Reginald with your high and mighty opinions of any “scientist” who concurs with your world view and your unshakable perception of the *infallible* peer-review process are both being exposed for what they are; susceptible to every human frailty as every other “ism” under the sun.

I think there would be few scientists who wouldn’t agree that the evidence for evolution is several orders of magnitude stronger.

Forgive me for being entirely (and even more than usual) unimpressed with what any collection of “scientists” promoting whatever particular world view you happen to subscribe to agree on behind closed doors.

Cheers! And good to finally hear from you again!

h/t Jim Treacher and Dan Collins

Can´t help but point this out, but I seem to recall another area of science, dominated by a particular worldview, in which the peer-review process has been called into question for many, many (150?) years based on a scenario identical to what we´re seeing today with the WARMTHERS who´ve been exposed.

2009-11-27T04:39:00.000-08:00

Just sayin'

Hint:

Happy Thanksgiving!

2009-11-25T23:15:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite clips, from the classic Thanksgiving episode of the always great WKRP in Cincinnati.

And here are some of the greatest Thanksgiving recipes I´ve ever seen, from THE AWL (but linked to by me with care) to help you further enjoy your day. For example, here´s an exerpt from 'Stop Being a Wuss: How To Make Pie Crusts the Easy Way':

1. Put a bag of flour in the fridge and two sticks of butter in the freezer. Go gloat about your superiority and complain about how hard you're working and smoke or read for a little while.

2. Put about 2 and a half cups of flour in a cold bowl. ABOUT. The thing is, it doesn't matter! Who has time and energy to measure things?

3. Put something more than a teaspoon but something less than a tablespoon of salt in the flour. That is like "three pinches." It doesn't really matter how much! Saltiness offsets sweetness! People, who are animals, like salt!

4. Put about the same amount of sugar in the flour! Give or take! IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Don´t ask me why all recipes aren´t written that way.

Have a great Thanksgiving!

According to The Telegraph there was an altered photo depicting Michelle Obama "with animal features" appearing on Google Images this morning...

2009-11-25T03:55:00.000-08:00

...and I think that kind of thing is totally uncalled for.

Especially when we have such an abundance of raw material!

"Hide the Decline" - The Climategate Soundtrack

2009-11-25T00:59:00.000-08:00

h/t Purple Avenger

"HOPE IS FADING FAST" Get yours starting Black Friday

2009-11-24T07:27:00.000-08:00

Fresh from Rick Katz of FreshJive and "Really in the end what drives me is making that one t-shirt that says ‘Fuck off, Bush" fame.

Clearly not impressed with Mr. Hopeychange either.

BONUS: Just click and scroll and see justice.

Linked to by KingShamus. Thanks, bro.

A warm Mediterranean weekend in November. What to do? what to do......

2009-11-23T04:12:00.000-08:00

Beginning

Middle

End

Wait, I mean this end.

The stage is being set.

2009-11-21T12:35:00.000-08:00

Herman Van Rompuy. Get used to the name. He is the first President of the European Union, which with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by all the 27 EU member states in early November was transformed into a genuine United States of Europe.

The President of Europe has not been elected; he was appointed in a secret meeting of the heads of government of the 27 EU member states. They chose one of their own. Herman Van Rompuy was the Prime Minister of Belgium.

...

Now, Herman has moved on to lead Europe. Like Belgium, the European Union is an undemocratic institution, which needs shrewd leaders who are capable of renouncing everything they once believed in and who know how to impose decisions on the people against the will of the people. Never mind democracy, morality or the rule of law, our betters know what is good for us more than we do. And Herman is now one of our betters. He has come a long way since the days when he was disgusted with Belgian-style politics.

Herman is like Saruman, the wise wizard in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, who went over to the other side. He used to care about the things we cared about. But no longer. He has built himself a high tower from where he rules over all of us.

Soeren Kern has some great background info on the Soviet-style selection process.

"2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet."

What a coincedence, huh?

Europe´s elites have finally bullied and bribed themselves into their long sought after position of ultimate power over the E.U. "states," just as Obama and his crew of elites have been welcomed into power and are systematically attempting to force U.S. citizens into a subservient role within, while prostrating our great nation to the enemies of freedom around the world.

What a coincedence indeed.

h/t Kate McMillan for the vid.

The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

2009-11-20T05:06:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Booyah!

Also, Tim Blair, Kate McMillan and others are updating regularly.

end update.

The post title´s from an article that can be found here at examiner.com.

This could quite possibly be, as Kate McMillan puts it, The Sound Of All Hell About To Break Loose for the happy little AGW "scientists."

The Air Vent blog first broke the story here yesterday, after he found the files left as a link on his blog. He has since been reading and posting some of the particularly damning evidence against these so-called scientists. For example:

In the alleged email [found here], a world famous “scientist” (a very loose interpretation of his job) apparently colludes with a bunch of others to refute a publication which does not conform to the ‘consensus’. He takes it to the point where he intends to put pressure on the Journal to remove the editor that allowed publication. You instantly realize the power these people have over the outcome of science.

He´s posted more here today on "how they [AGW types] collude to eliminate people they don’t agree with." And the actual file is available here, among other places.

The comments are going crazy on Watt´s Up With That (almost 600 so far) and Climate Audit (with about 200 because it´s running slow).

Thanks to one balsy hacker. As Jeff Id of Air Vent put it:

I’ll say this delicately – this person risked one f**k of a lot to show us this data.

Um, Mr. Obama, that word allies - I don´t think it means what you think it does.

2009-11-19T00:23:00.000-08:00

Nov 19, 2:28 AM (ET)

President Barack Obama said Thursday the United States has begun talking with allies about fresh punishment against Iran for defying efforts to halt its nuclear weapons pursuits.

Obama's tough talk came as Iran indicated it would not ship its low-enriched uranium to Russia for processing, the centerpiece of deal aimed at a peaceful resolution to Iran's contested nuclear program.

"They have been unable to get to 'yes', and so as a consequence, we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences,"

November 17, 2009

United Nations and Iranian officials have been secretly negotiating a deal to persuade world powers to lift sanctions and allow Tehran to retain the bulk of its nuclear programme in return for co-operation with UN inspectors.

Yes. Consequences.

Photos capturing the rare CrocObama making the fatal mistake of misjudging his Hippopublican rivals. A happy ending ensues.

2009-11-17T06:46:00.000-08:00

“The detested CrocObama, in another blatant act of arrogance, suddenly raced across the backs of his Hippopublican rivals. Some feel it might have panicked, due to some further evidence of it´s weak and overly submissive nature, and thought it had an opportunity to flout the presumed weakness of his rivals. It was the worst choice the reptile could ever have made. And it was definitely its last."

h/t Nickie Goomba for the idea (sort of) and TIMESONLINE for the narrative & pics.

My grandpa used to have one of these in his office and I was always jealous of it. But, now we all have our very own PRESIDENT OBAMA DIPPY BIRD toy!

2009-11-16T04:00:00.000-08:00

Even this waterless version can´t hold a candle to the latest thing to hit the market. So...

Out with the old...

...in with the new. Just insert your world leader/king/despot of choice, and voilá! One really dippy president.

In related news:

Meeting with a carefully screened group of students at the marquee event of his Asia trip, President Obama on Monday sought to advance what he called America's "core principles" during his first public appearance in China.

Um, Obama is far better acquainted with footwear trends among the world´s elite than he´ll ever be with America´s core principles. Regardless, he must´ve felt right at home in these Chinese "town hall-style meeting[s]" in Shanghai.

Virtually every aspect of the event was staged...Obama's audience, selected and coached beforehand by university officials, came from eight different Shanghai universities. A small, random sampling suggested the vast majority were members of the Communist Party. Many of the eight questions put to the president by students echoed Chinese government talking points.

So they wore red instead of purple. Otherwise...

Just a bunch of pictures I took walking through the city on a lazy Saturday (mostly to bother VL - wink).

2009-11-14T14:13:00.000-08:00

I´m no Lileks, so I won´t bore you with my recount of the day's adventures, or even an explanation of what landmarks these are. Mostly because it would take the 'lazy' out of my lazy Saturday. If you really wanna know, you know what to do.

What better to lead off with?

The other day I posted on something I read at Daily Kos written by Bill in Portland Maine, to which he had a lengthy response that I told him I´d post here out of fairness and to open it up to further comments from my readers. You know - one of those dialog thingies.

2009-11-11T23:36:00.000-08:00

I´ve added Bill´s response to the original post. You can either scroll down three posts, or just click here to read it.

BTW, I disabled comments here (on this post only) so they can all stay together in the same thread (the post linked to above).

UPDATE: Re-enabled the comments here as of 11/18. Seems after 25 or so they only showed up in the recent comments side-bar wiget, but not in the comments section. Feel free to keep it going here while I wait to hear back from Intensedebate.

And thanks all for keepin' real and keepin' it cool.

The Ferrari Star Parade was in Valencia today, so I hopped on my bike and rode down to check it out.

2009-11-11T05:45:00.000-08:00

This was just a little show-off time before the World Finals in Cheste (about a half-hour drive from here).

After the photo shoot and customary revving of beautiful Italian engines, they drove through the city to the Plaza de Ayuntamiento (Town/City Hall), where we could get a closer look, in what happens to be the most beautiful area of the city. So, imagine my dismay when I was abruptly reminded that my wife took the camera with her to Cadíz last week by a friendly little notification reading "Memory card is full" (blink·blink·blink).

Maybe I´ll post some shots of the bulls she went down there to clone later, but for now here´s a couple vids of some "Prancing Stallions" I managed to get hanging from a light pole before the camera pooped out.

BTW, that last photo above is of a guy who was just enamored by where I was perched and must have photographed me from 20 different angles over about a 5 minute period of time. We crazy Americans; they just can´t get enough of us ;-)

Nidal Hasan wasn´t just showing signs of extremism, apparently he took out a front page ad

2009-11-09T06:20:00.000-08:00

"We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts," pResident Barack Hussein Obama

However...

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

and...

It was reported on Saturday that the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, attended the same mosque in Great Falls, Virginia in 2001 as two of the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

and...

According to various accounts, Hasan had been cautioned for promoting Islam while dealing with patients when stationed at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center , some time before he'd begun duties at Fort Hood. A classmate during a public health course in 2007 recalled Hasan's claim to being "a Muslim first and an American second".

He complained about being harassed over his religion. He wrote on the internet of his admiration for Islamic suicide bombers. He was upset when someone scratched the "Allah" bumper sticker off his Honda Civic.

Hasan described the war on terror as a war on Islam. He was under investigation for six months following jihad-themed ravings. Last week, he gave his landlord a Spanish-language copy of the Koran.

On the morning of the murders, he fronted up at the local 7-Eleven in full Islamic gear.

Then he yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he slaughtered 13 people (including pregnant 21-year-old Francheska Velez) and shot dozens of others (including teenager Amber Bahr).

But we´re considered racist, teabagging, right-wing extremist haters if we dare question this cowardly pig´s religion in the midst of an 8-year battle with islamofascist jihadists JUST LIKE HIM.

There are more (and more deadly - unfortunately) holes in the Obama-left´s pc illogic than Sgt. Kimberly Munley blasted into this murdering Muslim piece of filth.

You go, girl!

The Daily Kos, all embittered about Maine rejecting gay marriage legislation, shows its own lifestyle biases, and continued ignorance of not only the issue, but the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans (or, maybe not; you tell me)

2009-11-05T07:47:00.000-08:00

Updated (Bill´s response) below

In Bill´s (in Portland Maine) little 'Cheers and Jeers' anicdote about how unnecessarily antagonistic marriage laws are against (and only against) gays in the U.S., he both misses the point entirely and openly shows his own tendency toward personal prejudices. Apparently, according to Bill, there are numerous groups of people who should be discriminated against based on their choice of lifestyle only, regardless of the fact that their choices neither do (nor potentially do) anything to affect our constitutional right to the freedom to practice our religion of choice, nor do they contradict the historical social norm of marriage for the purpose of procreation and social cohesion. Neither do they, in any way, and possibly more important, preclude the exclusion of homosexuals in any of their respective companies. Bill´s group of those he believes are less worthy of being considered for legal marriage consist of:

Satan worshippers, divorcées, rapturists, crack addicts, axe murderers, neo-nazi anarchists, "schtuping" nuns, porn addicts, kitten-drowners, deadbeat dads and chain-smokers.

Now, with the exception of axe murderers, I don´t believe any other of these groups of individuals fall under the category of illegal behavior (I know it´s illegal to sell and buy crack, but I don´t believe it is illegal to be addicted to it), and, regardless, there are laws set up to punish them. What bearing it has on who should and who should not have a right to marry, I just don´t see. So, what exactly is the comparison Mr. In Portland Maine is trying to draw; that there are those who could do harm to the institution of marriage in general, and that we should do what we can to protect that institution from irreparable damage; and that we should strictly adhere to a constitutional definition of the institution that can in no way affect our other constitutional freedoms?

Well, in that case, good point, Bill!

Updated Nov. 12, 2009

And Bill had a response via email; reposted here, in its entirety (cuz I´m fair like that). You can read it below the fold and respond, or not, accordingly.

Hey. I saw your post on my post and tried to comment but it wouldn't post it. So here it is via email. Bill

-

I'm guessing none of you were here in Maine during the Catholic Church's little assault on us nasty gay people. You can twist my post any way you want, but the fact remains: the church (in which gay priests, bishops and cardinals run rampant) has a fixation on gay people that is quite puzzling...and quite damaging to the gay community, many of whom were raised Catholic.

Being gay is like being left-handed, or blue-eyed vs. brown-eyed. Unlike the other characteristics I mentioned in my post (atheists, satanists, etc.), being gay is not a choice. It just is. I am still amazed that you guys just don't believe that. Do you think we'd put ourselves in such a position of public ridicule, discrimination and physical harm like that? Why on earth would we do that? And when did you choose to be straight? Gimme a break. And another thing: gay kids come from straight parents. Should we outlaw straight marriage since they're the "gay factories?"

Oh, and by the way: left-handers used to be persecuted as "evil" in some societies, and southpaws were forced to learn how to write right-handed. Silly, huh. Funny how we evolve to a higher level of thinking when we learn new information.

The fact is, gays are targeted for no reason other than we make good villains and galvanize the easily-scared. We're "Icky" and "Immoral" and all the rest. Blah blah blah. Unless you're willing to follow the Bible EXACTLY as written---following all the rules and regulations therein TO THE LETTER (as God intended, right?), then you might as well stop following anything in it. Cherrypicking passages is for wussies. Bring back stonings and slavery and make women property again---it's the Christian way going back thousands of years. Or was God wrong about all those things that we no longer follow? Yikes...I would hate to question His judgment if I were you.

Wouldn't it be nice---seriously---if the Catholic church could stem the bleeding (church closings, followers leaving in droves) if they would do with the gays what they've done with so many other parts of Biblical teaching...and that is, adapt to modern times? Five states now prove conclusively that same-sex marriage does nothing to harm society, families, or communities. We're 8 percent of the population, for crying out loud---you're THAT threatened by us? Really???

C'mon---nobody who gets married is under ANY obligation to have kids. The marriage license says NOTHING about children or "social cohesion." Not that I'm against either of 'em...but if you can't see that America is made up of a whole variety of family types and structures, and they all get along pretty well, you've got your head in the sand. And I'll tell ya what: I'm completely in favor of really, really old people getting married. No kids involved there, my friend, but their vows are just as valid and beautiful as anyone else's of any age or, um, fertility potential.

And just to be clear: the vote was on "civil" marriage. That amounts to filling out a form at City Hall, paying $150, and having a Notary Public say the magic words. That's it---no religion involved in ANY way. The church part is 100% optional in ANY marriage. But the state part----ya gotta get that part approved first or you're not married, no matter what the priest or reverend or rabbi says.

I stick by my words. The people who fawn all over the "sanctity of marriage" sure do let a lot of abhorrent (often including themselves--coughcoughMark SanfordJohn Ensigncoughcough) people into the "institution," and do an awfully poor job decreasing the divorce and adultery numbers. Allowing gays to marry won’t hurt the "institution" one bit. Somehow, I think you guys actually know that.

Thank you for the discussion.

Bill in Portland Maine

An update on Obama´s Chavez-style "smart diplomacy" in Honduras via POWIP

2009-11-02T05:41:00.000-08:00

An update to this post.

Last summer’s action in Honduras, and some of the shameful acts by our own State Department and the Obama administration has been an on-going topic here at POWIP; most recently with Dan recounting the latest reports that Zelaya would be re-seated as President. But as Otto Reich observes at “The Corner” that may be an oversimplification of the upcoming process:

Contrary to press reports, Zelaya is not in any way automatically returned to office by the accord. First, there must be a vote by the entire Honduran congress on whether Zelaya is fit to return to office. Prior to that, the Honduran supreme court, which ruled against Zelaya in June by a vote of 15 to 0, must issue an opinion on the same.

He also points out that this very same arrangement could have been agreed to months ago except for the ideologues at the NSC and the White House’s increasingly apparent inability to admit when they make a mistake. Reich also relates concerns that Chavez will get involved trying to buy support for Zelaya in an effort to get him reseated; and in doing so be able to intimidate his [Chavez's] opponents as well as claim a victory of sorts. Kind of like the President is hoping he’ll be able to do with the Obamacare bill.

It’s funny, isn’t it, that the President and Chavez would use similar tactics? Funny strange, not funny ha-ha. I guess it’s that vaunted Smart Power! we heard so much about.

Visit POWIP here. You won´t be sorry.

Time to scratch that sheen. Olympics, part 2

2009-10-30T10:33:00.000-07:00

If Republicans seize the governors' mansions in both states, the embarrassment will be acute. That is just what happened in both New Jersey and Virginia back in 1993 before the Republicans seized control of the US Congress the following year, dealing a crippling blow to the newly minted Democratic president of the time, Bill Clinton.

But even losing one of them next week will scratch the sheen of President Obama, who seems, one year on from his election, to be hovering in the view of most Americans between competent and fumbling, notwithstanding the high esteem in which he is still held abroad and, of course, in the minds of the Nobel committee.

And, apparently, also in the eyes of Douglas Brinkley, whom David Usbourne quotes for his report.

"Obama has created an atmosphere of no fear," Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University and political biographer, told the National Journal. "Nobody is really worried about the revenge of Barack Obama, because he is not a vengeful man. That's what we love about him; he is so high-minded, and a conciliatory guy, and he tries to govern with a sense of consensus – all noble goals, but they don't get you very far in this Washington knifing environment."

That while, to quote James Taranto (h/t to him for this post, btw), "this scrappy insurgency is waging war on at least three powerful institutions all at once: Fox, the AP and Sarah Palin's Facebook page!"

It´s not what you know, it´s who you know; and dictator types know the O

2009-10-30T05:08:00.000-07:00

Law Library of Congress Report for Congress August 2009

Q. Was the removal of Honduran President Zelaya legal, in accordance with Honduran constitutional and statutory law?

A. Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.

But, Obama never really gave a crap one way or the other, and essentially sided with whatever the OAS and UN said (some might equate that to voting present). Which is why today we see the results of Micheletti being strong-armed into signing an accord that allows Zelaya to return to his office in spit of the Due Process that was followed by the Honduran Government.

The New York Times is still cluelessly calling the legal ousting a "coup".

And Hillary Clinton is calling Honduras' being bullied by the Obama administration to ignore its Constitutional process and reinstate Chavez´s buddy as president a big step forward for Latin America.

Friendship with the U.S. still means something, just to different people.

And speaking of coups; when do we take these tea parties to the next level?

Ok, I´m going to chalk it up to immitation being the sincerest form of flattery

2009-10-29T11:52:00.000-07:00

Tweachisown (me) yesterday.

Treacher today.

And that´s the waaay theyyy became the Public Option Single Payer Trojan Horse Transparent Deception Bunch

2009-10-28T13:39:00.000-07:00

This is the best, albeit most distrubing, damn clip show I´ve seen in a lotta years!

From Verum Serum:

Watching these clips, and reflecting back on the past 6 months, I still find it hard to believe that this transparent deception hasn’t even warranted a mention outside of conservative media...As I noted in my recent post on the failure of the media, this deception would have been treated like Watergate had a Republican administration been implicated in peddling a deception of this magnitude on the American people...But given the track record of this Administration there will be more deceptions to come. More Trojan horses, and opportunities to expose them. The truth cannot be defeated, only suppressed for a time. And our work is not done.

Well put.

Sungha Jung - Do yourself a favor and give him a listen. Unless you have any aspiration of learning how to play guitar and, like me, can´t even see the bar it just got set so high.

2009-10-27T12:54:00.000-07:00

Plays Hotel California here (incredible)
Plays With or Without You here
And Pachabel´s Canon here

Just one year ago, would you have believed...

2009-10-27T07:09:00.000-07:00

Today from Thomas Sowell

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Read the whole article.

h/t

Killer Conservatives - Run Away! Run Away!

2009-10-27T06:32:00.000-07:00

*With nasty, pointy polling data.

On this day of president Obama´s completion of his 24th round of golf played while in office, the same number of rounds it took president George W. Bush 2 years & 10 months to play, I´d like to say a little something special to Keith Olbermann and his ilk

2009-10-26T14:56:00.000-07:00

SHUT! THE HELL! UP!

Good-night and good luck.

I wanna play.

2009-10-26T09:34:00.000-07:00

This is the face I see 100 times a day. Just waiting for me to make a move; any move. Usually accompanied by a slow growl or a low-pitched whine. If I ignore her she just sticks her wet nose up to my arm and starts huffing and puffing. Her only goal is to bother me into a wrestling match.

She´s a pain in the ass, but I love her to death (or so my wife tells me).

I suppose if I was really sick of it I´d have gotten her a cowboy monkey companion years ago.

Obama to the business sector: Those bailouts we imposed on American taxpayers were so unpopular, next time we´re just gonna seize control of your institutions

2009-10-26T07:24:00.000-07:00

Forget about 'Miss American Pie,' Bye-Bye America.

A senior administration official said on Sunday that after extensive consultations with Treasury Department officials, Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, would introduce legislation as early as this week. The measure would make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution.

...

“These changes will impose market discipline on the largest and most interconnected companies,” said Michael S. Barr, assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions. One of the biggest changes the plan would make, he said, is that instead of being controlled by creditors, the process is controlled by the government.

I´ll take a million greedy MDs who can only take my tonsils if I let 'em, over one greedy Obama who wants to tell me how to live

2009-10-26T06:20:00.000-07:00

The WaPo has an article today on what role Behavioral Economics (training grounds for the Thought Police, in my opinion - and it´s my blog, so I´m right) plays in Obama´s health insurance mandate. Here are a few exerpts that stood out to me (all the bold will be mine, btw):

And the question of whether people will follow a government order that they carry health insurance -- an issue that will help determine whether universal health care is a success or costly failure -- will depend on more than the penalty they would pay for refusing, many economists say. This, they say, is the lesson of behavioral economics, a school of thought that holds that people do not necessarily make decisions out of well-reasoned self-interest. It is an approach that has gained a powerful foothold in the Obama White House.

Shocker, huh? A theory that implies people need an outside source to tell them how to reason well plays heavily in policy making in the Obama White House (follow that link).

As the behavioral economists see it, compliance will depend not only on the penalties [of non-compliance, that is] and cost of [mandated] coverage, but also on the ease of signing up for coverage and whether people can be persuaded that it is a widely accepted social norm. They point to the large number of eligible people who fail to take advantage of Medicaid, food stamps and Pell grants as a sign that perceived inconvenience can keep people from taking steps in their economic interest.

Note they only consider it possible that American´s reject government handouts due to "perceived inconveniences". It couldn´t be that most of us would rather wipe our own asses with a corncob than take money out of someone elses pocket so we can go buy some Charmin.

You can read the whole article here. There is one voice of reason quoted on the second page of the article in closing

Given the outlines of the emerging bills, Richard Zeckhauser, a Harvard economist who has worked with many of the White House economists, says he is unconvinced that it will be in the interests of many young people to comply. And he questions whether the government should use behavioral economics to persuade them otherwise.

"We can think of ways of mesmerizing them into buying things they shouldn't buy, but I don't think government can be in that role," he said.

Unfortunately, Obama doesn´t only think it can, but that it should.

It's war against Fox News is very telling of the mindset and maturity of the Obama administration

2009-10-23T04:46:00.000-07:00

As this photo is of mine:

But I don´t think Fox has too much to worry about.

As Charles Krauthammer points out in his column this morning:

There's nothing illegal about such search-and-destroy tactics. Nor unconstitutional. But our politics are defined not just by limits of legality or constitutionality. We have norms, Madisonian norms.

Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand "the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties." They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other -- and an otherwise imperious government.

Factions should compete, but they should also recognize the legitimacy of other factions and, indeed, their necessity for a vigorous self-regulating democracy. Seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize and destroy is not Madisonian. It is Nixonian.

And as Tim Blair observed:

"As a tactic, the White House’s shunning of Fox News has worked beautifully – but not for the White House."

News reporters need to start supplying us with the appropriate sound effects that should accompany their reports about president Obama and his administration

2009-10-22T04:50:00.000-07:00

For example, these three reports I´ve read over the past couple days:

James Taranto reports the president hasn't yet chosen whether to choose not to decide to send more troops to Afganistan.

Uhhhhhhhh...huh?

Jake Tapper asks the White House where they get off designating Fox News a right-wing opinion outlet.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

And today George Will reports on an entitlement to which you are entitled even when you are not entitled to it.

Barack Obama has now established Mills's Social Security COLA as the capstone to the architecture of the entitlement culture that is modern liberalism's crowning achievement: It is an entitlement to which you are entitled even when you are not entitled to it. Obama says that 57 million Americans -- every Social Security beneficiary and some other recipients of federal entitlements -- are entitled to $250 apiece to assuage the disappointment of having not been injured by inflation. Because the cost of living declined 4 percent last year, the 57 million are not entitled to the actual COLA, but they evidently are going to be declared entitled to monetary consolation for the misfortune of not experiencing misfortune.

I think I´m entitled to a stiff drink right about now.

So, on behalf of all the sane people reading these reports, let me just say...

Woo Woo Nyuk Nyuk sound bite The Three Stooges sound bites

Some portraits painted by my friend Ken, who, in my opinion, is one of the greatest living artists (and friends)

2009-10-21T07:11:00.000-07:00

Mostly because it´s a beautiful autumn day, and I´ve been drinking too much honey rum. It was either this or post the photos of the flowers on my balcony. Of which there are many, thanks to the uncharacteristic rain we´ve already had this year (Al Gore must have been in town). So, without further ado...

BTW: The first is his daughter, Poppy. The second one's a self portrait. Nice to be able to put a face to the talent sometimes, no?

The word 'Obama' has now officially become the new verb for blinkered optimism

2009-10-20T08:00:00.000-07:00

Well, in Japanese anyway.

Photo stolen, "artwork" mine, link via

That Anita Dunn; who does she remind me of?

2009-10-19T12:02:00.000-07:00

Just kidding!

I just needed to post something so I could get that little pencil editor thingy to show and get rid of the unsightly Blogger navbar (the one you don´t see now cuz I got rid of it).

2009-10-19T08:41:00.000-07:00