Obama Failed To Make Liberalism Cool

There seems to be an interesting meme developing on the left. Call it a talking point. It’s about the true failure of Obama, as seen by the left. The left saw Obama’s promise as president as being able to convince the American people to embrace government, but in that he has failed miserably.

I’ve seen this talking point developing for some months now, but it didn’t hit the mainstream until the other day when I read an article by Dan Balz of the The Washington Post, and a nearly identical article by Maureen Dowd. In his article, Balz laments the “multiple controversies” (read: scandals) that have engulfed poor Barack and he notes that these controversies leave one thing clear:

“President Obama has failed to meet one of the most important goals he set out when he was first elected, which was to demonstrate that activist government could also be smart government.”

Right there. That’s how they see him. His goal was to win the public over to the belief that government is good and he failed. Indeed, Balz continues by telling us that Obama promised to win people over by bringing “smart, effective government.” But things didn’t turn out that way. Notes Balz:

“What has happened since Obama laid down that challenge for his administration? More Americans favor smaller government over bigger government than when he was first elected, according to exit polls from last November. Public confidence in the federal government is as low as it has ever been, according to a Pew Research Center survey released this spring.”

Snicker snicker. Yep. No sale.

What has caused this? Well, there are the “controversies” (read: scandals), including Benghazi, IRS, Justice spying on reporters, and Balz adds the DOD scandal of a rising number of sexual assaults -- he ignores all the rest. There are also “the questions about Health and Human Services and its implementation of the Affordable Care Act.” Of this, he says, “it is little wonder confidence has eroded.” Ultimately though, he blames his lord and master for just not doing what he needed to do:

“But Obama bears a particular responsibility for failing to do what he said he had to do, which was to convince the public that he could make the part of government that he directly controls — the executive branch — smarter, more effective and more deserving of trust.”

That is the liberal judgment of Obama: Obama is a failure because he failed to convince the public that government is good. Balz even claims that Obamacare is failing to win support for the simple reason that while people supposedly like all of its parts (a delusion), “Obama is still fighting to overcome distrust of government.”

As I said, this wasn’t the first article to talk like this either. This meme has been building. The first mention I saw of this was in January in an article that concluded that the Republicans had really won and Obama lost because the things Obama was seeking all accepted conservative thinking. Particularly, the article noted that on taxes, on the idea of using market-based solutions, and on issues like gun control, the public remains remarkably conservative. Other similar articles followed, each of which suggested ways in which Obama has failed to sell people on expanded government.

Then there was the article by Maureen Dowd, which came out the same day as Balz’s article and which makes the same point only much more damningly than Balz. Maureen whined:

“You know that the faltering American idol in the White House must be reeling in this scandalous spring. . . Just four months after his second inauguration, the president is buffeted by gushing investigations, smug and deranged Republicans, and cat-who-ate-the-canary conspiracists. The man who promised in 2008 to make government cool again is instead batting away charges that he has made government ‘Nixonian’ again.”

Call it a talking point or groupthink, but either way note what is going on here. Liberals see Obama as a failure. And it’s not because they see him as the man who failed to fix race relations, something he could have done much to help. It’s not because they see him as the man who failed to fix partisan gridlock, something he could have done too. It’s not because they see him as the man who failed to solve global warming/cooling/whatevering or bring gay marriage or solve illegal immigration or reform Wall Street or bring universal healthcare. No. It’s none of that. It’s much more basic.

They wanted Obama to be a transformative president, a president who would finally get the rest of America to accept them.

He failed.

Americans still distrust government. Americans still distrust liberals. He didn’t make liberalism cool.

Score: Ronald Reagan 1, Barack Obama 0.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hey Foreigners: Here's Why Americans Don't Pay Attention To You

In my vast travels around the business world and the internet, I've run into a great many foreigners. Yeah, they're everywhere. We even have foreign visitors to this here blog. And one of the things I keep running into is this idea that Americans are self-centered and don't pay attention to foreign countries. Let me explain why this isn't true.

Americans care a lot more about domestic news than they do about foreign news. That's a fact. The evidence is overwhelming. Even here, I can cut readership by 40% just by mentioning a foreign country... Prussia! So there is some truth to the idea that Americans don't pay attention to foreign events. But you know what? We pay a lot more attention than other countries do. The problem is that most foreigners don't understand that just because you pay attention to us doesn't mean we have a reason to pay attention to you.

This is the problem. Foreigners pay a lot of attention to us. Our films and television dominate their entertainment. Our products are everywhere in their countries. Their newspapers and nightly newscasts typically lead off with coverage of America and what we are up to. If you ever check out their papers online, you'll see that most of what they talk about is us. . . our politicians, our economy, our military, our sports, our celebrities. Sooooo, naturally, they assume that we must cover them the same way because if they care about us, then we must care about them, right? Well, no. And when they discover that we don't care about them, they get rather put out. That's when they call us self-centered jerks who only care about America.

But that's not true, and here's why.

Consider London (to use an example outside the US). I will bet you that every paper in Britain is packed with stories about the goings on in London. Yet, the London papers probably don't say Lord Jacksh*t about the happens in Bumfkferdshire. Why is that? Is it that Londoners are self-centered? Probably. But beside that, there's just no room. A newspaper can only cover so much news, so they pick the things that are most likely to matter the most. That means reporting on the movers and shakers, and the movers and shakers don't tend to live in small, out-of-the way places. Not to mention, there are thousands of Bumfkferdshires, so how could London pay attention to them all?

Well, it's the same thing with countries. You pay attention to us because we matter on the world scene, but you don't pay any more attention to Krapistan than we do because they don't do anything that warrants your attention. That means to the good people of Krapistan, you are just as guilty as we are of being self-centered. The only difference is that Krapistan doesn't care if you pay attention to them or not, because you don't matter to them either.

Look, I hate to say this, but most of you live in Krapistan whether you know it or not... you just aren't that important to us. Wow, that sounds rude, but it's true. Is this helping? Anyway, I know the British and the French and the Germans and the Brazilians and the Whatnots all think that they should be at the top of our list of countries that matter, but think about the competition. Think about what countries matter to us directly and indirectly. Do Britain, France and Brazil even crack that list? Let's find out. Here are the countries that impact us directly at the moment:

1. China -- the economic and (possible) military enemy
2. Afghanistan -- we're at war there
3. Iraq -- we just had a war there
4. Iran -- we're planning a war there
5. Israel -- big Jewish lobby here
6. Mexico -- narco-war on our border, we have 11 million of their people here
7. North Korea -- run by lunatic who wants to nuke Austin
8. Russia -- run by closeted homosexual who tries to stop everything we do
9. Saudi Arabia -- exporter of oil and terrorism, houser of American troops
10. Pakistan -- all kinds of trouble for us in many ways

See the problem? That's just the first wave. Those are the countries who are constantly on our news because they do something that poses a genuine threat to us almost every single day. How many people in other countries need to pay attention to ten "hot spot" countries?

Then you have the second tier. These are countries who affect us less directly, but still make our news for one reason or another. This includes Germany, the owner of the Eurozone, Japan and South Korea where we have massive numbers of troops in harms way, and India, the land of outsourcing. This is where Britain finally appears too because we get their television programs. But I still don't see a France, an Italy, a Brazil, etc. even though each of those countries seems to think they deserve to be at the top of the list.

Do you see now why this perception that Americans don't pay attention to foreign countries is wrong? The real problem isn't that we don't pay attention, it's that you don't stand out from the crowd. If you want to get noticed, do something to make us notice you. Nuke your neighbors... turn to terrorism... build an economic bloc and let it collapse. Seriously, if Hugo Chavez can get noticed, then so can you. Don't blame us if you're boring.

In all seriousness, this has been somewhat tongue-in-cheek but the point is valid. Americans pay attention to a lot more foreign news than the rest of the world wants to believe, but since we don't have an infinite amount of time, we focus on the things that matter to us the most -- wars, terrorism, threats of being nuked, economic competitors who inflate their currency and launch cyber attacks on our companies, narco-wars on our doorstep, and so on. Americans are not self-centered... we're just busy.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Open Thread And Blank Slate

"Imagine the sound of one hand clapping."

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: The Woman in Black (2012)

Every once in awhile, a movie surprises you. I can definitely say that’s the case with The Woman in Black. Let’s see, we have a low budget, clichéd, Victorian Era haunted house film staring Harry Potter and directed by a newbie. Yeah. This thing had “weak” and “derivative” written all over it. So imagine my surprise to find one of the best horror films in a very long time.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Friday Link Dump

It's the end of finals week here for me, so I don't have time to give you anything hard-hitting or deep-thinking (as opposed to my freaking masterpieces every other Friday). Instead, you get random stories to comment on as you like. Or not.

The Horror! THE HORROR!!!

So this guy named David Jones--who used to be in either a band or a locker, but now works for Britain's Daily Mail--went to Guantanamo Bay and reported on how terrible that place is. Apparently they no longer have a McDonald's and the inmates' PlayStation privileges have been revoked. I know. I bet if the Nazis had had PlayStation, they would have installed a few consoles for the prisoners at Auschwitz, right? Right.

What Happens When You Have No Life

I don't mind dressing up as a sci-fi or comic-book character. I like dressing up as a sci-fi or comic-book character. For Halloween. Or a special costume party. What raises my eyebrows is when you feel the need to attend a sci-fi convention in such a getup, split into rival groups on that basis--and then one thing leads to another and you and your Star Wars buddies are fighting your mortal enemies from Doctor Who. Personally, I don't understand why only the fifth Doctor was represented. No love for Picard?

Awesomest Thing To Happen At A Theater, Ever

Speaking for myself, I would rather be stuck in a room full of leftist windbags than at the theater or anywhere else with people who are being loud or otherwise distracting. Apparently Kevin Williamson of National Review felt the same way, and this was the result. You might say this is overreacting a bit. And you'd be wrong.

The Greatest Failure Of Socialism

I honestly don't know what to say about this. The government, doing what government does best, has found scapegoats for the shortage, blaming it on "excessive demand....[due to] a media campaign that has been generated to disrupt the country." Er, I don't think that's what causes excessive demand.

The word of the day is: velodrome. And the number of the day is: 17. Maybe those two have something to do with each other, maybe they don't. If you solve the riddle, you get an Invisible Commentarama Prize. No refunds.

Enjoy the reading, and comment away!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Week in Review...so far

Really, what more could happen this week? Let's review what we have learned this week so far.

1. There have been no public officials arrested this week in the entire state of New York! Give Gov. Cuomo a round of applause...

2. No one is in charge of our Federal Government or, more accurately, no one will ADMIT they are in charge.

3. The Tea Party groups applying for 501(c) status with the IRS since 2009 who complained of unfair treatment and called paranoid and crazy have been vindicated.

4. Well, you know the rest...

Anything to add? No? Okay, so, in the words of our President who insists there's no "there, there" anywhere near him, let's look away for just a moment, take a deep breath, and try to find something positive to cling to (but not with guns or God, please).

Thinking....thinking...thinking...

Oh, wait! Here's something that is positive and, might I add, really cool. But, first, let me give you a little background.

As child of the "Space Age" circa the 1960's (yes, I am that old - don't judge), I spent many a day at school in front of a 13 inch black and white television provided by my grade school teachers watching the first lift off of the Saturn rockets, the first manned space shot where John Glenn circumnavigated the outer atmosphere of Earth, all the Gemini projects, all the Apollo projects including the first manned Moon landing, and the first Space Shuttle from blast off to landing. So, I have seen it all. In the early '90's I visited NASA in Houston with my brother and saw the International Space Station (ISS for short) when most of it was still in pieces. How far we have come. Pardon me if I get excited to see this because, though it isn't like landing on Mars, this goes way beyond Tang and velcro...

Commander Chris Hadfield is, yes, a Canadian astronaut who has been on the the ISS since December 19, 2012 until this week when he came safely back to Mother Earth thanks to the Russians. Who knew? Not only is he the first Canadian to walk in space, he is first astronaut to shoot and broadcast a music video from the ISS. Astronauts have always been really cool to me and Comm. Hadfield has just taken it to a new level - Test pilot, Astronaut, Rock Star!

As always, feel free to let loose on any topic.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Deep Impact (1998) vs. Armageddon (1998)

By ScottDS
In 1999, we had two CGI bug movies. In 1997, we had two volcano movies. And in 1998, we had two “killer asteroid” movies: Mimi Leder’s Deep Impact and Michael Bay’s Armageddon. They both have their good qualities and bad qualities. While the former is a heartfelt, human story set against the backdrop of impending disaster, the latter is… well, it’s what Michael Bay does best – it’s the id to Deep Impact’s superego!

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

John McCain Kills MSNBC?

I’ve been saying for some time that the GOP needs to become more consumer friendly. Consumerism really is the driving engine of free market capitalism, yet the GOP always backs oligopolists. Imagine my surprise to see John McCain champion something that is definitely pro-consumer and which may have a surprising political result: the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013.

The TCFA may not be on your radar screen because it’s the type of “housekeeping” bill that doesn’t usually excite the ideologues, so you rarely see it discussed at blogs or on talk shows. But these bills can often be much more important than they seem.

If this bill passes, it will do several things:

● It will provide an incentive to encourage cable providers to offer “a la carte” programming. This would allow you to pick the channels you want to buy without getting others thrown in. Cable currently only offers “bundles” where you need to buy a bunch of channels bundled together. It would also prohibit certain channels from being bundled.

● It will prevent the networks from moving “event programming” (like the Super Bowl) to cable. This is in response to the networks threatening to take their biggest programs off the air and move them to cable to prevent them being re-broadcast over the internet.

● It will eliminate sports blackout rules which prohibit local broadcasters from showing games that aren’t sold out. This is based on the idea that local taxpayers already pay for stadiums and thus should not be denied the right to see the game if it is broadcast elsewhere.

The National Cable & Television Association naturally hates the bill. They claim that bundling increases the diversity and value of channels. Consumer groups applaud this. Either could be right, though I suspect the cable people probably are more likely to be right. Still, I’m more interested in the politics....

First, I find it interesting that a Republican would go against big business interests on this, especially with the limited outcry. Yes, people always talk about how they wish they could pick and choose which cable channels to pay for, but I don’t see anyone really being upset about not having that choice. The blackout rule makes people more upset, but there are few areas where that has an effect. Similarly, the only time I can think of when the “event programming” issue came up was the fight between Time Warner and the NFL in New York City a couple years ago. So why would a Republican jump on board this issue and pick the side of the consumer over Big Business?

To tell the truth, I’m not actually sure. It’s possible that this is another sign that the Republicans are realizing that the government should be pro-consumer and pro-competition rather than pro-oligopoly. I’ve seen growing signs of that from people like Bobby Jindal saying we need to stop being the party of Big Business and Big Government. I’ve seen several Republicans talking about breaking up the big banks. And I’ve even seen a good number of Republicans talking about cutting corporate welfare in the form of deductions and ethanol subsidies. That’s all encouraging.

It’s also possible the Republicans are starting to play hardball with companies who haven’t really been great friends of the Republicans. That would be nice too. Though I’ve seen little evidence of that one.

In any event, this idea raises an intriguing possibility. If this passes, what are the odds that MSNBC and, possibly, CNN won’t survive? Neither network has much left in the way of viewers, but they survive because they get bundled in with more popular channels. If the bundling ended, it would be easy to see MSNBC and CNN failing because of lack of consumer demand. That would be interesting. Indeed, it would be kind of fun to see liberal news channels get whacked by the market. That would be a real validation that the public has no appetite for the progressive agenda... not to mention that it would confirm that progressives are cheap.

Even more interestingly, I wonder what this would mean for the public’s perception of the rest of the media. Would this be more likely to expose the bias at places like the networks since they could no longer point to the very-fringy MSNBC and say, “That’s real bias... we’re not like them!” or would it allow them to hide behind the idea that only “unbiased” news has found a marketplace... well, that and Fox News.

This bill will be interesting. It’s interesting that McCain is trying to find things that upset consumers and offer them solutions. That’s a really good sign as the beginnings of an agenda. It’s will be interesting to see (if it passes) how this changes the cable landscape as well. That one is too hard to tell – some channels will die, some will reform, others will move to the net, and others survive with less. And it will be interesting to see the effect on the ability of the left to get their message out to. . . well, the few people who actually watched their garbage.

Thoughts?

P.S. As a bonus thought... I wonder if this isn’t the beginning of Republican intervention in the “stadium issue.” For some time now, it’s been obvious that cities get ripped off by the NFL for stadiums, and I’m seeing more and more backlash over it (“welfare for billionaires” is the catchphrase). The NFL has responded by using a move to LA as a threat to keep get more funding. I wonder if the Republicans aren’t starting to impose requirements on the NFL on the basis that they get public money for stadiums as a way to “encourage” the NFL to stop demanding public funds? We’ll have to watch to see how that goes.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

IRS Scandal Primer

Let’s talk about the IRS scandal, because there is much to this and it presents a genuine opportunity for the Republicans to do some good things. Here’s what you need to know at this point.

● What Happened: Starting in 2011, several Tea Party groups began to complain that the IRS was targeting them over their attempts to get non-profit status. Specifically, they claimed their applications were being delayed and that they were being asked to provide information the IRS doesn’t normally seek from applicants, including questions about the activities of their relatives. Then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman specifically denied this in March 2012 before congress.

On Friday, things began to blow up when Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations for the IRS, apologized for what she called “inappropriate” targeting of conservative groups for closer scrutiny – the exact thing the IRS had been denying. She admitted that Tea Party groups had been targeted for addition scrutiny, but she claimed it happened only in a low-level field office in Cincinnati and that none of the higher ups knew about it. Once they found out, they stopped the process. So the scandal dies, right?

Well, no.

Saturday, someone in the Treasury Inspector General’s Office leaked a copy of their report on the investigation of these claims to the AP. That report concludes that this targeting was discovered by senior level personnel, including those in the IRS General Counsel’s office, as early as June 2011, long before the period where Lerner admits they knew and long before the IRS’s Schulman told Congress this never happened, i.e. he lied. It is not currently clear when the conduct was stopped or by whom or if it extended into information leaving the agency.

Since Saturday, Reuters got the report as well and they’ve added that while the IRS first targeted groups with the name “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names, the IRS broadened their search to expand their list of targets in 2011 and in 2012. . . which would be after senior IRS people knew about this.

And now, the lawyer for 27 Tea Party groups says this went way beyond Cincinnati and also involved the DC office and two offices in California.

● Why This Has Legs: This scandal has legs. For one thing, there is already proof of wrongdoing. Everyone admits this conduct happened and that it would be an illegal politicization of the IRS. Secondly, nobody wants to defend the IRS. . . not left, right or center. In fact, it’s good politics to beat up the IRS. Thirdly, journalists are running with this. Both the AP and now Reuters are competing to prove that they hold the exclusive on this, i.e. this is "their" scandal, and that means heavy coverage. You can see the result of this everywhere and it means this scandal isn’t going away. Moreover, Reuters has linked this to Obama already, calling it “a full-blown scandal involving the IRS scrutiny” which was “embarrassing the agency and distracting the Obama administration,” which means they’ll look for links to Obama.

This has wrong-footed Obama’s spin doctors, who aren’t prepared for genuine media aggression and don’t know how to defend people the public hates, especially when the evidence of wrongdoing is plain.

Further, as the scandal progresses, there are now claims this conduct went even further than Tea Party groups. Jewish conservative groups are now claiming they were targeted as well. This will make it hard to dismiss this by blaming the victims.

More importantly, unlike Benghazi or Fast and Furious or a dozen other scandals, this one has meaning to the public because it can affect them personally. The public hates the IRS, not because they need to pay money to the IRS, but because they feel abused by the IRS. They feel like the IRS can arbitrarily pick people it wishes to target and make their lives hell. They see evidence of this all the time, when they see reports about people’s lives being destroyed by aggressive IRS agents, when they see articles about the IRS targeting low-middle class people for audits, and when they hear about companies like GE getting away with record profits but no tax bill.

This scandal will confirm the public’s view that the IRS is a bully, and it will confirm their fears that the IRS is not the neutral collector of revenue Washington claims, but is instead a politicized tool for harassment, either by political administrations or (even worse) by whatever jerk off gets a job at the IRS -- neither one is good. Further, this is something people left, right, center and other all complain about. Even leftists like the Progressive Policy Institute have said, “This needs to stop, instantly, and it’s legitimate to question how the practice started and how extensive it became.” That’s a disaster for Obama if even the left wants this investigated, especially with the IRS being made the point man on Obamacare.

That’s why this scandal has legs. Journalists want it to have to legs, the Democrats have no answer, and the public already believes this and wants something done about it.

● The Politics: The smartest thing Obama could do right now would be to act outraged and purge the agency of a few bad eggs. . . assuming of course that those bad eggs don’t have e-mails showing his administration encouraging this targeting. Trying to defend the IRS in these circumstances would be a huge mistake because it would create a suspicion that his administration was behind this.

The smartest thing the Republicans can do would be to attack this on the issue of abuse of power and demand a reformation of the IRS. They should demand the termination of every employee involved, as far up the chain as they can get. Plus, they should seek to implement new rules and guidelines to de-politicize the IRS and to make it less arbitrary. And frankly, I would warp it into an indictment of the entire income tax system and I would push for either the replacement of the tax code or a severe trimming of all the exceptions and exemptions which inject so much leeway into the system.

What they should not do is to try to make this about Obama, except by way of casual embarrassment: “Were you abusive or an incompetent manager?” sort of thing. . . not, “we gonna impeach you!” Start with the easy target of IRS abuse of taxpayers and build moment for the types of changes you want. Find ways to deliver a thousand little cuts against Obama in the process, but avoid the desire to find the “killer blow” because that’s how you squander a scandal, by over-reaching. And keep in mind that Obama will be gone before any of this really hits, so aim for something more lasting. . . aim for the Democratic machine as a whole.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Logic v. Global Warming

We all know that Global Warming in a hoax. . . well, most of us know. There are some gullible people out there, particularly in Europe. But the rest of us know. Even the left knows, I think, they just keep the theory going because it’s useful. Anyway, that’s not the point... stop distracting me!... the point is that logic tells us the theory is garbage.

Global warming is based on a simple idea: mankind puts carbon in the air when they do things the left doesn’t like, like running a factory, driving a car, or raising flatulent cows.... no, I’m not kidding about the cows. This carbon then sits in the air like a blanket and keeps all the heat from leaving our planet. That causes the planet to become warmer which causes bullying... or something.

To repeat, the theory is simple: carbon causes heat retention.

So riddle me this...

According to “federal scientists” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Earth has hit a milestone. The amount of carbon in our atmosphere has reached a level it hasn’t been in millions of years – 400 parts per million. But if carbon causes heat retention and we’ve never had more carbon in the air, then why has it been getting colder for a decade now? LOGIC tells us that this disproves the theory doesn’t it?

Not enough? Ok, try this.

The same scientists tell us that the last time the level of carbon was at this level was 2 million years ago during the Pleistocene Era. And back then, “It was much warmer than it is today. There were forests in Greenland. Sea level was higher, between 33 to 66 feet.” Interesting. So it was a lot hotter, but the carbon level was where it is now. Hmm. Doesn’t that disprove the causation as well? After all, shouldn’t causation always cause the same effect... seeing as how it is causation? Apparently not. Apparently causation now means, “kind of like each other around the same times... sometimes.” Interestingly, that used to be called “correlation” and that’s evidence of NOTcausation.

Anyway, I know that many of you are now thinking, “Wait a minute, if it was this carbony warm before and all these species survived from then to now, what’s the danger now?” Well, that’s a good point. In fact, it’s hard to see how all these species will die off if they made it through an ice age that took out Greenland and dropped the water level by between 33 and 66 feet. . . an oh so precise measurement. . . and then turned around and got warm again back to the nice toasty way things used to be in the gold age of Pleistocene. How could a couple degrees hurt anything?

Well, Penn State’s disgraced Climategate participant Michael Mann has an answer. See, animals can indeed adopt to changes in temperature, but not if the change is too fast. “If the carbon dioxide levels go up 100 parts per million over a thousands or millions of years, plants and animals can adapt. But that can’t be done at the speed it is now happening.” Right. Makes total sense. Animals can adapt to a couple degree change every million years or so, but not anything quicker than that. Got it. Oh, by the way, did you know that the average temperature in Colorado during the Winter is 28 degrees. During the summer it’s 65 degrees. That’s a difference of 37 degrees. Strangely, nobody dies off here between the seasons. Nope. I wonder why? Perhaps animals have a mechanism that lets them average their temperatures during the years? Or maybe, just maybe, animals are more adaptive than Mann gives them credit for being?

Anyway, Mann and his Climatecult claim that we are raising temperatures about 2 degrees every hundred years. Seeing as how animals in Colorado can take at least a 37 degree change in temperature, I’ll guess we’ll find out soon enough if Mann is right. . . say, in 2,400 years or so. Maybe in the meantime, Mann and his cult can learn to do science rather than politics?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Open Thread -- Vox Populi

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."

-- Mark Twain

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Looper (2012)

Rotten Tomatoes gives Looper a 93% fresh rating and describes the consensus thusly: “As thought-provoking as it is thrilling, Looper delivers an uncommonly smart, bravely original blend of futuristic sci-fi and good old-fashioned action.” Well. . . no. Yes, it is “as thought-provoking as it is thrilling,” but that’s because it registers close to zero on both counts. It’s not uncommonly smart either, nor is it original. Still, I’m going to recommend you see it. Why? Allow me to explain.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Great White South

Will there ever be a day when Southerners and/or Republicans are no longer tarred as inveterate racists? Well, maybe, if they start endorsing gay marriage and high taxes and hippie communes, but certainly not until then. It's too good a weapon for liberals to discard, and they seem to have some superficial evidence on their side. Emphasis on "superficial."

Of course, I don't have to tell you how political dialogue goes where the GOP and its Southern base are concerned. Southerners are backward bigots who still have Klan hoods in their closets and keep looking for a chance to keep the black man down; the Republican Party depends on them, so it must be like that, too. Now, occasionally a few people on our side will get smart and point out that the GOP is the party of Lincoln and 19th-century abolitionists, and in fact was more supportive of the Civil Rights Act in the '60s than the Democrats were. That rarely fazes any liberal worth their salt, though. They come right back with what is often called "The Southern Strategy."

Sure, liberals admit, the Democratic Party was the party of white racist Southerners until the 1960s. But then LBJ signed all the civil rights legislation, blacks began voting Democrat lock, stock, and barrel; and those white cross-burners became very disillusioned: at which point certain Republicans, especially Nixon and his circle, seized an opportunity by opposing further civil rights to gain Southern votes, making the GOP the racist, knuckle-dragging, red-state party it is today and the Democrats the enlightened knights of progress. It's a very neatly tied-up story, you gotta admit; one that absolves Democrats of any racial guilt. It also perpetuates North-South stereotypes where race relations are concerned, which never hurts.

Basically, the only way to refute this story is to suggest that white Southerners were starting to change their position on the GOP, and perhaps civil rights as well. And one of the best-kept secrets in the political conversation is that, as a matter of fact, they were.

You have to take a careful look at the changing electoral map to see what was going on here. As multiple historians have shown, the famous "Solid South" electoral bloc was already breaking down by mid-century, especially in the Upper South states like Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina, less so in the Deep South. This alone would call the Left's claims into question, for if GOP success was linked to racism alone, one would expect just the opposite. Overall, among the states of the "Old Confederacy," Republican candidates were getting around 25 percent of the vote in the '44 and '48 presidential elections, itself a dramatic rise from results in the '20s and '30s (and keep in mind, this came at the end of the reign of FDR, who was famous for tossing lots of federal money South-wards and not lifting many fingers to improve race relations). During the Eisenhower era, Ike was breaking off Virginia, Texas, even Louisiana, despite his party's noticeable lack of an anti-civil rights stance. And lest one think this was a function of presidential personality, the GOP was making similar inroads in congressional seats--again, especially in the less-racist Upper South.

What gives? It turns out that, demographically, the growing Republican support was coming especially from urban and suburban areas, middle- and upper-middle-class voters, and younger generations--the people who made up the "New South." And party strategists at the time recognized this, telling Nixon and candidates all down the line their best shot was to appeal to the "youthful middle-class," downplaying racial issues as much as possible. This is the exact opposite of what the liberal P.C. version of history would have us believe.

Also, this raises the question of just how racist Southerners were in the '50s and '60s. It would be stupid to suggest that race issues during the period were overblown, but neither should we assume that anti-black racism was uniform. Plenty of evidence exists that already by the '50s, many Southerners, especially younger ones, were changing their minds on segregation, with church organizations in particular, including the Presbyterians and Southern Baptists, coming out against it. And it would be many of these same people--young, religious, upwardly mobile--who would begin building a Southern GOP and the subsequent New Right/Religious Right. I wouldn't go so far as to say that racial equality in the South would have happened without federal legislation, but we shouldn't just assume Jim Crow would have otherwise persisted into the twenty-first century, either. Things were already changing.

This is not to imply that the Republican Party was entirely free of racial prejudice, before, during, or after the Civil Rights Era. Many party members and politicians were quite happy to strike unsavory deals with racist/segregationist Southerners. But the stereotyping of these two groups the Left indulges in rests on the narrative that Southern whites haven't changed in their racism, simply jumped ship from the Dems to the GOP, and the latter became racist as a result. Like most stories liberals spin, it just ain't so.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

New York State of Mind

Here is something I bet you didn't know about New York. We are a great place to open a small business! Yes, it is true! In page taken from Texas Governor Rick Perry, our Governor Andrew Cuomo (potential 2016 Presidential hopeful) is rolling out a new ad touting how business-friendly the State of New York is. Who knew? Unfortunately, the ad has not yet been released on YouTube, so you can't see it, but it has been running in the State for a few weeks to the confusion of just about everyone who lives here. And, in a case of really bad timing, a list was published this week of the best and worst states for businesses. Guess which state was No. 49? Go ahead, I dare you. [Hint: New York] Hey, at least New York is above California! That's something that Cuomo can hang his hat on, right? Oh, and guess which state is No. 1...oh, come on. Oh, yeah, do want to know where $140 million of the $60 billion dollars New York received for Hurricane Sandy relief? You guess it...to make Cuomo's ad touting how business-friendly New York is...

On a related note: Both Bloomberg and Cuomo have been crowing about our very healthy television and movie industry in the state. And do you know how they have lured all these television and movie productions companies to New York...tax "incentives". The Governor just signed a bill to expand the tax give-a-way to reality and talk shows too. Shortly after the ink dried on the bill, it was announced that "The Tonight Show" would be moving back to New York when Jimmy Fallon takes over at the end of the year! What a coinkidink! All of these tax breaks are reportedly going to bring in a whopping 400 jobs. If only Cuomo could make up his mind about fracking. That could bring in thousands of new jobs, so we could maybe finally lower the unemployment rate to below 10%.

Moving on...

- It's an election year in New York City. We are about to finally divest ourselves of our Mayor/Nanny Bloomberg and the field of candidates is growing by the minute and the pandering is growing even faster. So far, we have promises of minimum wage hikes, mandatory personal days for all workers, and reigning in the evil police department. The list grows. In the following weeks, I will introduce our candidates - there's Christine Quinn the Lesbian City Council Chairperson, John Liu the Asian Comptroller whose two campaign managers was just convicted of campaign fund fraud, the billionaire Grocer, and the disgraced former lying US Representative (who hasn't declared yet). It is going to fun, fun, fun until November! So far, none of these candidates would be any improvement over Bloomberg, but it's early yet.

- The only person who is actually working for the people of New York City, our Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, is under fire because of his successful "Stop and Frisk" policies. The problem is that the police are targeting the worst, most crime-ridden areas and, as the name suggests, stopping and frisking people who appear to be up to no good and may possibly be carrying weapons like guns. It is successful because violent crime (specifically gun-related) is at the lowest levels they have been since the 1970's. Kelly has been very receptive to the concerns that the police may be heavy handed in stopping too many otherwise law-abiding citizens and updated the procedures. But that is not enough for some. They want it stopped completely and as an extra added bonus, many of our current mayoral hopefuls are vowing to do away with it. {{cough..pander...cough}}}

- And speaking of pandering, Congressman Charlie Rangel has filed a lawsuit against Speaker Boehner and other members of the House Ethics Committee to overturn his 2010 censure. He claims he continues "to suffer irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by money damages..." and the committee "acted knowingly, intentionally and willfully to frustrate the goal of assuring adherence to plaintiff's due process rights." The 40+ year Congressman, former Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committe claims he did not intend to be a tax cheat for 17 years, he was just careless. If it weren't so pathetic, it would almost be funny.

- Finally - I know, I know. You thought that there cannot possibly be anyone in our state legislature left to arrest, right? Never underestimate Albany. Yes, this week brought a new arrest with the possibility of up to six as-yet-to-be-named others to add to my rogues' gallery. This week we add State Senator John Sampson (D) former Senate Majority leader and head of the Senate Democrat Caucus was caught in sting in which other Rogue's Gallery member Shirley Huntley, in a plea deal, wore a wire. He is even accused of pressing a friend in the US Attorney's office to turn over the names of all of the cooperating witnesses who could make a case against him, so he could arrange to “take them out.” You would think by now that the New York State Dems would be embarrassed, but Gov. Cuomo just gives lip-service to reform the ethics of the Legislature.

Drumroll please......

State Senator John Sampson (D) - two counts of embezzlement, five counts of obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements to the FBI.

State Assemblyman Eric Stevenson (D)- Arrested for accepting bribes to pass legislation for his special interests with 4 co-conspirators.

State Assemblyman Nelson Castro (D) - resigned after turning states' evidence and wearing a wire to implicate Assemblyman Stevenson. He was compelled to help the Feds because he was under indictment for perjury.

State Senator Malcolm Smith (D) - Arrested for paying bribes to NYC Councilman Daniel Halloran (R) to secure a spot on the Republican ticket for the upcoming Mayoral election.

NYC Councilman Daniel Halloran (R) - Arrested for accepting a bribe from State Senator Malcolm Smith (D) for same.

Oh, plus "...five other politicians, three Republicans and two Democrats, were also arrested and charged with collectively accepting more than $100,000 in bribes in meetings that often took place in parked cars, hotel rooms and state offices..."

State Senator Shirley Huntley (D): pleaded guilty to embezzlement of $90,000 in taxpayer funds for personal shopping sprees.

State Assembly Vivian Cook (D): not yet charged; implicated in procuring funds to be funneled to Sen. Huntley and participating in personal shopping sprees.

State Assembly Jimmy Meng (D): pleaded guilty to soliciting bribes

US Representative Gregory Meeks (D): Currently under investigation for accepting $40,000 in unreported "loans" from Queens businessman Edul Ahmad. Ahmad has pleaded guilty and awaiting sentences in a $50 million mortgage fraud scheme.

State Senator Carl Kruger (D) - resigned his seat and pleaded guilty to charges of corruption and bribery. (2011)

State Senator Hiram Monserrate (D-NY) - of the 13th District, was expelled by the New York State Senate on February 9, 2010 in connection with a misdemeanor assault conviction against his girlfriend.

State Senator Efrain Gonzalez (D-NY) On May 25, 2010, Gonzalez was sentenced to 84 months (7 years) in prison, followed by two years supervised release, after pleading guilty to two conspiracy counts and two wire fraud counts in May 2009.

President of the New York City council Andrew Stein (D) - was convicted of tax evasion regarding a Ponzi scheme in November 2010.

Majority Leader of the New York State Senate Pedro Espada Jr. (D) - On May 14, 2012 a federal jury found Espada guilty of embezzling money from federally funded healthcare clinics, after 11 days of deliberation.

State Senator Nicholas Spano (R) - in 2012 Spano was indicted for Federal Income Tax evasion. Spano pleaded guilty to the single felony. He admitted that he under-reported his income — $42,419 in federal income taxes and $10,605 in state taxes — from 2000 to 2008. He is to be sentenced to 12 to 18 months in Federal Prison in June 2012.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why Defiance Sucks

There’s a new show on the Sci-Fi Channel called Defiance. Yawn. Sorry. As I was saying, there’s a new show on the Sci-Fi Channel called Defiance. It sounded like an interesting premise when the ads first appeared for it, but it’s not. It’s missing the one thing that really matters: a story. In fact, this is the real problem with most science fiction shows these days.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Heritage Foundation's $6.3 Trillion Deception

I was hoping to stop talking about immigration, but then the Heritage Foundation decided to crap on their own credibility by issuing a report that is so phony it would have made a Soviet propagandist’s head spin. So I figured I had to say something, especially as talk radio is running blindly with this report. What you’ve probably heard is that if Rubio’s bill passes, it will cost $6.3 trillion!! What you probably haven’t heard is that Heritage’s report is pure deception.

● Distortion: You know how we always complain about the Democrats talking about their spending cuts over a 10 year period to make the cuts seem meaningful when they aren’t? For example, do you remember how Obama claimed he proposed $4 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years, and how everyone scoffed at this because it’s a dishonest way to inflate the numbers? Well, guess what...

To get their $6.3 trillion number, Heritage adds up the cost over 50 years. Yes, 50.

That’s a credibility killer right there.

If you break their number down by year, you’re talking about $126 billion per year on average. That number is actually back-ended and is much lower in the first 30 years (and even lower in the first ten), but let’s go with the worst-case $126 billion. That $126 billion works out to only 0.8% of our GDP right now. And by the time we reach Heritage’s 50 year mark our GDP will be around $70 trillion per year, which means these illegals will cost a whopping 0.18% of GDP. It’s interesting how that $6.3 trillion suddenly doesn’t seem so large when you put it into context. And that’s just the beginning...

● Deception: The numbers Heritage uses include some nonsense assumptions that pretty much need to be considered deceptive. Here’s how Heritage determined the $6.3 trillion figure. First, they determined the total cost of government. Then they determined how much government spent on natives, on lawful immigrants and on illegal immigrants. They don’t actually explain how they determined this, but they did spend several pages pretending they did. Then they determined how much each group paid in taxes and they calculated the “net deficit” for each group by subtracting the amount of government spending they attribute to each group from the amount they paid in taxes. From this, they concluded that natives receive $310 more from the government than they paid to the government. Lawful immigrants received $4,344 more than they paid. And illegals received $14,387 more than they paid. Then they took this deficit for illegals and multiplied it by the number of illegals and the number of kids they would have, and they added it up. The end result was a $6.3 trillion deficit over 50 years.

Here’s why this is deceptive.

First, Heritage assumes that illegals will never earn more than they do now. Basically, Heritage assumes that nothing will change for these people after they are legalized and that they and their children will always work for their current wages for the rest of their lives. That’s nonsense, and Paul Ryan has already criticized this. Why would someone work for a couple dollars a day when they can now work at WalMart for above-minimum wage and benefits? Why would their kids do the same? Once illegals can work legally, there is no reason to believe they won’t do as well as legal immigrants. If we assume that illegals eventually match legal immigrants, then using Heritage’s own numbers, the Heritage deficit drops from $6.3 trillion to $1.9 trillion over 50 years or $38 billion a year.

Further, I have reason to doubt even that. At one point in their analysis, Heritage notes that legal immigrants actually out-earn natives by $59,071 per household compared to $53,937 for native households -- about $5,000. This calls into question Heritage’s claim that legal immigrants have a tax deficit that is $4,034 greater than natives. Why would legal immigrants, who earn more than natives use $9,000 more in services than natives? This doesn’t seem true. And if that isn’t true, then this deficit vanishes and immigrants become net contributors.

In any event, even the $1.9 trillion is overstated. To create these deficits, Heritage divides government spending into five types of benefits. The things natives like are dismissed as “for the public good” and aren’t counted. In other words, Heritage is making immigrants seem more expensive by downplaying the costs that benefit natives.

Continuing... of the remaining four benefit types, different values are assigned to natives, legals and illegals, again without adequate explanation. Heritage simply asserts that immigrants use more services (and illegals use even more) because immigrants live in higher density areas and therefore cost more. So, logically, if we move all the illegals to smaller towns, suddenly they become cheaper than natives. Does that seem credible to you?

Anyway, of the four categories of benefits, the two conservatives complain about are actually the smallest. This includes (1) direct benefits like social security and unemployment and (2) means-tested benefits like food stamps and welfare. But those alone don’t come anywhere near to creating a deficit, so Heritage adds two more benefits: (3) the cost of educating children in public schools and (4) the cost of “population-based services.” These population-based services are the cost of police, fire, highways, parks, public transportation etc. Those last two categories account for around $19,000 of the $24,000 Heritage assigns to illegals.

But ask yourself if this is truly valid.

For one thing, it seems dubious to claim that illegals cause highways, parks, police and fire. Those things will exist whether illegals are there or not. More interestingly though, consider public transportation. No doubt you’re thinking that must mean buses because illegals probably use buses, right? Except that’s not what it means. The real public transportation costs are airports and commuter trains... things illegals never use. Yet, Heritage not only attributes those costs to everyone, including illegals, it uses some hidden formula to charge illegals more for these things than natives even though illegals don’t use them. Ditto on highways. Illegals cluster in inner-cities, yet Heritage not only charges illegals with the cost of building and maintaining highways to the suburbs and through Montana, but it charges them more for those highways than it charges natives. It’s the same with schools. Do you think the children of illegals who go to aging inner-city or tiny rural schools actually absorb more costs than the suburban kids who go to the palaces they are building these days? Heritage wants you to believe they do.

● False Premise: Finally, there is another hugely misleading aspect of this report: it wrongly implies that these costs can be avoided. Basically, the report tells you, “Think about what it will cost if we pass this thing!” without ever mentioning that these costs will be borne whether the Rubio bill passes or not. In other words, these people are here already and they are already using these benefits legally. Heritage even acknowledges this, but then ignores that point so they can imply that these costs will only be incurred “if” the Rubio bill passes. This is false. Since all these costs will be incurred whether Rubio’s bill passes or not, the honest cost/benefit analysis Heritage should be performing is whether passing this bill will cause these people to contribute more as legal citizens than they would being left in the shadows. But that wouldn’t support the conclusion Heritage wants, so they avoid talking about that.


I find this frustrating. I find it frustrating that supposedly reputable conservatives are lying and distorting and producing deceptive reports in the name of ideology. Conservatism is supposed to be better than this and if this is what passes for analysis from somewhere like the Heritage Foundation then we have real problems. In any event, the CBO will be looking at this bill soon and I suspect they won’t find anything like what Heritage found. All this report really tells us is that we need to take everything we hear from Heritage with a grain of salt from now on. Nice work folks, way to blow your credibility.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Sequestration. . . the Disaster That Wasn’t

Let’s catch up with sequestration, shall we? For those who don’t recall, sequestration is the thing that’s making your life miserable. It’s the reason the country has ground to a halt like the end of Atlas Shrugged and why most of you are probably dying in the streets as wolves eat your children. Yep. Sad. Oh wait. . . that didn’t happen.

One of the things you can always count on leftists to do is to the claim that the public is with them. This is essentially a form of peer pressure advertising where they hope to convince you to believe something by telling you that everyone else believes it. It is an attempt to manufacture opinion. And when it comes to sequestration, the phony line they’ve been pushing is that the public is... well, here’s a good example. Said the AP:

The move comes amid increasing public pressure to find ways to lessen the impact of sequestration.

Really? Strange that I see no evidence at all of any public pressure or any impact actually. In fact, I see no real mention of sequestration by anyone. . . left, right or center. It is a non-issue with the public. And here’s why:

● Only $80 billion in cuts will happen this year. That represents 2.1% of the current budget. Two dollars out of every $100 isn’t really going to hurt.

● Social security, Medicaid, food stamps and school lunches were all exempted. Medicare was limited to a 2% cut to health care providers.

● When an issue has arisen, such as with the FAA, the Republicans have jumped in to fund those portions to prevent the public from getting upset. Interestingly, this has angered liberals who claim they are just upset that certain programs “for the poor” have been cut, but who really are upset that the Republicans are keeping the public from noticing the budget cuts.

● Democratic/Administration lies about these cuts causing various disasters have proven to be untrue. . . imagine that. Even the AP needed to admit that, “The cuts have so far failed to live up to the dire warnings issued earlier by agencies.” In particular they noted that the FDA hasn’t had to stop inspecting food processing plants as they claimed, that there haven’t been any layoffs, and that the government hasn’t shut down. Even the Pentagon just magically found another $5 billion to keep everything running normally.

BUT, this didn’t stop the AP from still making the following claim: “But budget experts warn that the grip of sequestration will grow tighter as weeks and months pass, leading to teacher layoffs, reduced funding for infrastructure and economic development projects, and a host of other cuts across the budget.” Right, just like before. Help... wolf... wolf.

All in all, the Republicans have played this perfectly. . . those darn RINOs. They stood their ground and let the Democrats make fools of themselves by whining about doomsday scenarios which could never happen. They also listened carefully to the public, and when they saw something arise which actually upset the public, they introduced bills to fund it. That got Obama and the Democrats threatening to hold the public hostage on those issues, but they quickly learned that was a loser and they’ve caved.

The end result is that sequestration hasn’t really impacted the public. Hence, there is no public outrage no matter how much the AP may wish there was, and the left is pulling their hair out about this. They realize that the Republicans have found the perfect budget cutting strategy -- promise small “across-the-board” budget cuts to get the public on board with the fairness and the reasonableness of the plan, and then exclude the things you need to exclude to keep the majority of the public happy. This is the model of sequestration and the public is getting a taste for this because they see this as a way to cut the budget that will never affect them, and if it does, they think it’s fair because it’s “across-the-board.” This sounds like great way forward for future cuts, doesn't it?

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

50 Shades of Feminism

Today I’m going to share an observation I’ve made over the past year. It involves the book (three books actually) “Fifty Shades of Grey” and the death of liberal-feminism. Here’s the bottom line: “Fifty Shades” is a watershed moment that has altered the course of inter-gender relations. Yep.

In many ways, my generation bore the brunt of feminism.

Liberal feminism (as distinguished from “conservative feminism”) has always been about economic power. Essentially, liberal feminists view women as economic inputs who need to out-earn men so they can take over the patriarchal power structure blah blah blah oppression! This is why feminists pushed the idea of divorce in the 1960s. They realized that women who married were much more likely to drop out of the workforce and become useless to the struggle. To fix this, they advocated a combination of birth control to stop women from being burdened with kids and no-fault divorce to weaken the marriage commitment so women would always keep one foot in the economic door. Basically, if you can’t trust your husband to be there, then you need to maintain an independent existence.

The effects of this hit in the 1970s and 1980s as many of the kids I grew up with became the first generation of kids from broken homes. It was a mess. Indeed, while feminists published politicized studies to try to convince the public that divorce was harmless to kids, it was obvious to all us that this wasn’t the case.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, feminism took the next step: de-feminization of girls. This was when young women were told that they were no good if they didn’t compete with men. If you didn’t play sports like the boys, you were a loser. If you didn’t want to be President or a CEO, you were a loser. Housewives are losers. . . oppressed cookie bakers. This was the time feminists began attacking things like makeup and high heels and Satan herself. . . Barbie. This was the age of gender neutral toys, of forcing girls to play soccer, and “try lesbianism. . . everybody’s doing it.” This was the time a number of feminists openly spewed ideas like “all sex is rape.” The early 1990s were also the point where you would meet womyn in law school who wanted to become “reproductive rights lawyers” or divorce lawyers who “only represent other women.” This was the time feminists claimed that 25% of all women had been raped and PSAs warned women that all middle-age white males were abusers. This was when there was a big push to make women keep their last names when they married – a trend which died in the 2000s – and when single-motherhood was celebrated.

This destroyed the dating scene for my generation. For one thing, many women responded to the above by becoming neurotic man-haters. But even beyond them, there was tremendous confusion. No one understood the new rules - some women viewed common courtesies as oppressive or sexist. None of the males I knew wanted one of these de-feminized creatures and most of the women didn’t want to be like that, but it was so pounded into people that this was expected that few dared say otherwise. The result was that my generation married later and, of all the women I’ve spoken too, the women of my generation are the most unhappy and are uniquely uneasy about their sexuality. . . I haven’t found this in any other generation.

Anyway, around that time, I discovered a female underground. There seemed to be a large number of women who really hated the feminists and the feminist vision of what they should be. They were, however, afraid to speak out for fear that other women would be nasty to them. Conservatives weren’t a helpful alternative either. So they had no voice.

By the 2000s, however, liberal feminism was killing itself with its owing idiocy. It’s one thing to say that women are treated unfairly, it’s quite another to whine that the English language oppresses you or to claim that all men are rapists. It also seemed that women weren’t particularly happy with the demands liberal feminists were placing on them. This was when I noticed the rise of a new branch of feminism, which fits with the modern “conservative-feminist” view of feminism. These women describe themselves as “feminists” but see feminism as being about giving women the same choices men have to chart their own courses. They don’t buy into the competition theory of liberal-feminism, nor do they want to de-feminize women or emasculate men. But they also don’t buy the “promiscuous women are evil” routine of the Bill Bennetts and Rick Santorums.

In short order, this view appears to have become the vast-majority view of the American public. What’s kept this group off the radar screens, however, is that the MSM is dominated by liberal-feminists and the conservative opposition is dominated by the so-cons, and neither group wants to acknowledge this “silent majority” who reject both ideological camps. Moreover, this group has no leader and hasn’t had an event to galvanize them and to expose how large their support really is, e.g. the Stonewall riots for gays, Selma for blacks, publication of “The Feminine Mystique” for feminists, etc.

Then came “Fifty Shades of Grey.” This book has caused a silent revolution.

“Fifty Shades” is about a woman who decides she wants to submit sexually to some guy. This is interesting because the idea of a woman submitting to a man flies in the face of liberal feminism in a big bad way because it fundamentally rejects the one commandment of liberal feminism: women are worthless unless they try to dominate men. What makes this book REALLY interesting, however, is its popularity. “Fifty Shades” has sold 70 million copies, which is a monster amount these days, and they’re making a movie. More importantly, this is one of those rare books which people know even if they haven’t read it. Even more importantly, women ARE admitting they’ve read it, and what’s more, they’re talking about it openly. They’re talking about it in book clubs, on blogs, and on television. You may recall me mentioning that I’ve spoken to bunches of women Rush hates, well, they all talked about this book too at one point or another. . . they’re all fascinated by this book. This never could have happened in the 1990s. In fact, I doubt this book would have been published in the 1990s. And if it had, feminists and their allies in the media would have silenced the book as hateful, sexist and anti-woman. And I certainly can’t imagine women in the 1990s, who were cowed by feminists, admitting they’d read it. But now they are.

Now, before you get the wrong idea, I should point out that I don’t think this means vast numbers of American women are looking to become sex slaves. Far from it. Indeed, the conversations I had never went like that. What I found instead was that women are using the book as an opportunity to ditch the idea that women need to compete with men and that all relationships need to be equal. In effect, this book has become the catalyst for making it acceptable for women to declare that they’re ok with women letting their husbands run their relationships. . . if that’s what they want.

That sentence is the key point. It’s key because it tells us what is really going on here.

These women are using this book as a catalyst to change the course of feminism away from the anti-male garbage of liberal-feminism and toward the supposed original purpose of feminism: freedom of choice for women. In other words, this is not a rejection of feminism, it is instead a reformation. These average women are basically saying, feminism is about choice and they want all the choices. . . not just the approved choices. And in so doing, they are rejecting the very basis of liberal feminism. Frankly, I see this as being as significant as if blacks suddenly rejected affirmative action and all the other things the race lobby have demanded and they instead declared an intent to see the world as color-blind. Same thing here. Moreover, this appears to be a mass movement, even if it hasn’t been covered by the MSM. . . like the Tea Party, the liberal-feminist MSM is blind to this.

Ultimately, what I think this means is that conservative-feminists have won. The public has decided that genuine freedom of choice is the order of the day and they are done politicizing sex. Naturally, ivory-tower feminists will still rant about the phallus lurking under their beds and pulpit-conservatives will rant against promiscuous women destroying the fabric of once-great America, but I don’t think the public is listening anymore, and I think historians will look back at this book as the moment everything changed.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Weird Wyoming Wackos

I don't have time to do a full post this week, so today you get a quickie. Shut up.

A sad event happened recently at the University of Wyoming, where some people on our side had the bad taste to go after a liberal blogger and make hateful comments about her online. The left-wing student activist, Meg Lanker-Simons, had her Facebook page smeared, with conservatives saying things like "I want to hate f@#$ [her] so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn't care who knows it....One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican @#$%&."

Guys, this is uncool. It's okay to get down in the mud with liberal hacks sometimes, but making profane and personal attacks, especially involving their sexuality, is way out of bounds. Our opponents need to be treated with respect and......

Oh, all right. I can't keep this up anymore. She hacked her own account.

U. of W. police issued a citation to Lanker-Simons Monday for filing a false police report, after she created the fake post in question, pretending it came from a conservative, and then making a statement to the opposite effect. Nice.

Oh, and also, as usual, some people have automatically rallied to her defense, stating "Meg Lanker-Simons is innocent we believe what she did was justified." Anyone recognize the contradiction in that statement? Lanker-Simons is a member of something called The Nonviolent Communist, so I'm guessing she for one does not.

Personally, I blame this silliness on the beets. Wyoming grows lots of beets, and beets are awful, so they probably made her go crazy.

So, you can go from here. Any examples of really egregious liberal conduct you've seen or heard recently?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Stuff We Didn't Know We Needed

Sometimes you just have to slap your forehead and go "Gee, I wish I'd thought of that!" I mean, thank goodness there are scientists and inventors who will solve problems we didn't even know we had and create new things that we didn't even know we needed. Here's a perfect example...glow-in-the-dark sheep!

Yes, a group of scientist in Uruguay have solve the age old problem of sheep getting lost in the dark. They attached a protein of a fluorescent jellyfish to the DNA of a sheep to see if they could breed an otherwise healthy sheep that glows. And, voila, we are saved! [Don't tell T-Rav, but other scientists have done the same thing to kittens!]

The funny thing is I can't think of a single use for a sheep that glows...in the dark. But then I was skeptical when they put cameras on phones and now I can't live without that! Let me know if you can think of any uses for these sheep OR any other stuff that might be useful if it could glow in the dark. We could give a list to the scientists.

Just for the record, when they do stuff like this in the movies, it never turns out well...

As usual, please feel free to change the subject at anytime.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...