Commentarama Issues Microsoft Fatwā

It is with heavy heart. . . no, forget that, I’m pretty happy about this, perhaps even manically so! I have decided that the time has come to rid the world of a scourge that has plagued it for far too long. Thus, today, in the spirit of peaceful co-existence, I’m issuing a fatwā against Microsoft. Yeah, @#$%ing Microsoft.

This has been a long time coming. Why? Well....

(1) I’m sick of the fact I have to spend more and more time turning off stupid features and deleting bloatware. It’s gotten so bad that what used to take an hour to set up is now taking 5-6 hours and despite my best efforts still clogs my harddrive like a lifetime of cheeseburgers squeezing my heart.

(2) I HATE the fact that arrogant Microsoft employees want to control how I set up my computer. What do I mean? Every new edition takes away features that let you customize your computer. They have even bought out programs like Tweak UI and sabotaged them just to eliminate my ability to make changes like removing the stupid arrows on the desk top icons. What kind of power-mad control freak tries to take away existing options like that? Does the furniture company tell me where I can put my couch?

(3) Stop spying on me. I mean it.

(4) I am not retarded. I don’t need my documents gathered into 14 places on the hard drive just in case I can’t find them in the other 13. Seriously, W.T.F.! I do not need you protecting me from doing things to change my computer. I do not need a bazillion backups for every moment of my computer life. Stop trying to automatically turn features back on that I’ve disabled.

(5) Stop installing half-versions of Windows on machines which keep me from being able to recover from a serious virus. . . which I only got because of your buggy code!!

And that brings me to Windows 8, the Satanic Version. Last Thursday, we the moronic public got the first glimpse of what the “geniuses” at Microsoft have planned for their next operating system. You better sit down for this.

Since they think we’re all retarded and since they haven’t been able to compete with anyone else’s phones or tablets, they’ve decided to turn the desktop into a tablet. Here’s an image of what the new Windows 8 will look like. Oh, and it has a touchscreen keyboard.

Go ahead, punch the wall, I’ll wait for you. I will not put this on my computer. And if I am somehow forced to because there are no other options, I will become a terrorist. . . I kid you not.

Not surprisingly, the techie person who announced this in a newsvertising article thought it was great: “Windows 8 looks like a step in the right direction for Microsoft.” But the public ain’t buying it. In fact, of the 491 comments that appeared in the first 20 minutes, not a single one was even slightly positive. To the contrary the comments ranged from “No, f*ck no” to “Window F*ck You will be the official name” to “Are these guys @#$% retarded?” and everything in between.

Of course, there could be a plus side to this. Microsoft doesn’t care what the public says. To the contrary, they seem to revel in going against the wishes of their market. And one tech guy thinks this may be the end of Microsoft.

The description was an eye-roller and then a shocker, as the demo of this turkey turned up with a pop-up on-screen keyboard, which is the way the keyboard crops up with a phone or tablet. I'm not sure what Microsoft is thinking, but a typical desktop computer actually has a real keyboard. You know, Microsoft even makes such a device. I'm using one now.

The basic thesis that people want exactly the same look and feel across all their personal platforms is frankly idiotic. But Microsoft is a subscriber. In this instance, all the company will manage to do is kill the platform where this UI does not belong: the desktop workstation. And that would be the end of Microsoft.

Let’s hope.

Somebody. . . looking at you Google or China. . . should take Windows XP, change it enough to get past the copyright, and then put that out as an alternative to Microsoft’s stupidity. I would do it if I had the slightest tech skills. Heck, I’d put it out for free just to destroy the company.

And that brings me back to the fatwā. Since the destruction of the company is unlikely, I hereby instead authorize and command you that if you ever meet a Microsoft person to punch them in the face. And if they are a senior manager, then use a tire iron. And if you’re ever in Seattle... well, a picture is worth a thousand words.


And so it was foretold by prophesy.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Tim Pawlenty's Brilliant "Google Test"

It’s the rare politician who has a brain. That may be hard to believe as politicians tend to appear highly educated and articulate, and they theoretically immerse themselves in policy of all sorts. But in my experience, most politicians simply mimic what they are told by their handlers. That’s why so many are so bad at debates. Pawlenty impresses me as something different. Indeed, his platform is full of original and significant ideas. And he just added a doozy.

Let me start with a disclaimer. I am not endorsing Tim Pawlenty, nor have I made up my mind about who I will support. To quote Ian Holm from Alien, I’m still collating. But what Pawlenty said is worth discussing. Indeed, it’s something the entire party should adopt.

What did Pawlenty say? He said that if a service can be found through a search on Google, then the government should not be doing it. He called this a “Google Test.” The Google Test may sound esoteric, but it’s not. To the contrary, it’s actually a fundamental statement about what government should or should not be doing, and it’s a really good one.

Since the age of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, privatizing government has been all the rage. But there’s been a fundamental flaw in privatization -- there was no real test for what should be privatized? By the 1990s, privatization was being done under an Office of Management and Budget policy (Circular A-76) which required agencies to find potential services for privatization and then let contractors bid on those services. The bidding was done with “FTEs” -- full time equivalents. In other words, you look at how many full time people it takes the government to provide the service. If a contractor can provide the same services with fewer FTEs (usually at least a 20% discount is required) then the government agency is supposed to privatize that service. But this is a haphazard and unprincipled approach because it leaves it up to the government to decide which services to put up for bid. What Pawlenty is suggesting is an actual framework for what the government should and should not be doing, i.e. the government should privatize or eliminate the things it does that are already commercially available.

This test shows that Pawlenty more than any other candidate since Ronald Reagan fundamentally understands the proper role of government. When the private sector is capable of providing a service, there is no justification whatsoever for the government to also provide that service. His Google Test is a clever way to say that and to say it in a way that people can understand. What’s more, if this policy is put into place effectively, it will result in a drastic trimming of government down to only the “core functions” that the private sector simply cannot provide because of cost or liability (sorry CATO institute, there are some thing the private sector can’t do).

Leftist journalists jumped on this immediately, calling it a gimmick and pretending they couldn’t understand what it means. For example, one hack said, “if I can find ‘veteran’ and ‘hospital’ on Google, does that mean he wants to close VA hospitals?” Actually, that would be a good idea, but no, that’s not what he means because you can’t find “veteran services” in Google. But it could potentially mean farming out some VA services to private hospitals.

To give you a further sense of how smart this is, compare this with the generic “eliminate pork” that all politicians promise. This is actually the same promise, only Pawlenty has told you exactly what he considers pork, the other haven’t. When Romney or Gingrich or Obama promise to cut pork, they haven’t told you anything because pork is in the eye of the beholder and the word is so vague as to be meaningless. But what Pawlenty is saying is that anything the government does that is also being done commercially should be seen as pork and eliminated. That’s meaningful. Indeed, this is such a great idea the party as a whole should adopt it: the government simply should not be doing things that people are doing for themselves.

The one question I have at this point is whether Pawlenty is merely talking about privatization or if he’s talking about ending the government’s role in providing the service completely, i.e. no longer providing them even through private contractors. I don’t know that yet, but either interpretation would be a huge step toward shrinking the government.

Finally, to keep things fair and show that I’m not pimping Pawlenty, I will also give you an idea Romney had in 2008 that the party should adopt (sadly, he seems to have dropped the idea). His plan was to eliminate payroll taxes for seniors with the intent of getting them back into the work force, reducing the cost of labor for companies, improving the quality of labor available, and spurring employment. This is another idea the party should adopt as a whole, only they should add minors to the list to get them into the workforce and learning the kinds of skills and discipline they need to become successful later in life.

When and if the other candidates have similarly good ideas, I’ll point them out. In the meantime, ask yourself if you know a better way to define which services are essential and which aren’t than the Google Test.


(As an aside, before anyone says “the Constitution,” I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but things like the Commerce Clause are so expansive that saying “stick to the Constitution” is not a useful limitation. That’s where a formula like the Google Test comes in -- it seeks to return the government to its properly limited role through other means.)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama-conomy + Cluelessness Dooms Obama

Obama is in deep trouble, as shown by his sagging poll numbers. Even the biggest bounce he got from the killing of Osama bin Laden has faded, as we knew it would. So once again, the economy and his handling of the budget are front and center, as they will be throughout the election. But the American people don’t like what he’s doing and he has no idea what else to do. How bad are things? Dire.

Let’s start with the poll numbers (according to Reuters):

● 49% of Americans disapprove of his handling of his job. Only 47% approve. But that's the good news. . . read on.

● 59% of Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy. That's a career killer.

● Only 33% approve of his handling of the deficit. That’s down 6% since April.

● 89% of Americans think the economy is in bad shape. 57% say we are in recession.

● 66% say the US is on the wrong track.

These numbers are disastrous. This means that literally every conservative and independent disapproves of his handling of the economy and the deficit, and that even some Democrats are starting to disapprove as well.

Why would people be so upset? Well, for one thing, inflation is out of control. As we discussed before, inflation is officially in the 2% range, but that excludes food and gas. When we factor those in, our readers seem to think 15%-20% is more accurate. That’s worse than the worst moments under Carter.

Official unemployment remains around 9%, and real unemployment is closer to 16%. As Lawhawk pointed out the other day, no President since FDR has ever been re-elected when unemployment was above 7.2%. And no one is going to hire until Obama changes his policies wholesale.

Not surprisingly, personal consumption is falling. Consumer confidence dropped 10% last month, to an anemic 60.8. Durable goods orders, i.e. what factories are making, declined 3.6% last month (worst numbers since 1984). This means consumers and businesses expect trouble and are hunkering down. And car sales fell 3.7% to well below the level the car companies need to be profitable, and even The Washington Post is calling Obama a liar about his bailout success claims.

And, as anyone other than a Democrat would expect, home prices rose temporarily when the federal home-buying tax credit was in effect, and fell like a stone the moment the tax credit expired. Home values in big urban areas fell to their lowest level since 2002 as foreclosures depressed prices. S&P Chairman David Blitzer refers to this as a “double dip in home prices across much of the nation.” Home construction starts fell too, even though this is usually the start of the building season.

High gas prices, out of control inflation, crashing home values and massive unemployment. . . what’s not to love?

What's really interesting though, is that Obama should have had a good month. The Republicans lost in upstate New York apparently (if you believe the MSM) because of Paul Ryan's Medicare plan. Newt Gingrich attacked that plan too. The Democrats spent the month blasting the Republicans for playing chicken with the debt ceiling, a very serious charge. And a great many people complained that the Republicans were either too aggressive or too timid in budget cut demands. Yet, on the question of who would handle the economy better, congressional Republicans gained 11% points last month!

How can this be? I think the answer is simple: Obama has nothing to offer. He's added $4.6 trillion to our $14.3 trillion dollar debt -- that's 32.2% of the total debt in only three years. And he's offered nothing but token cuts to fix this. Even worse, he and his Democratic friends have opposed everything the Republicans have tried to do to fix this without ever offering their own plan. The American people aren't taking kindly to that. This is like the captain of the Titanic trying to blow holes in the lifeboats so that he can shift the blame to the guy who is trying to save everyone from the captain's mistake.

Similarly, after spending a greater amount than the GDP of all but 14 countries as a stimulus package, Obama has only lost jobs to show for it. How can you spend the Korean economy (which employs around 30 million people) and not produce any jobs? That's an incredible level of incompetence. What's worse, having tried the only thing he knew to do and failed, he now has no idea what to do next.

That is the problem for Obama. He's created an economic disaster on a scale somewhere between Jimmy Carter and the Great Depression and he has no plan to fix this except to play politics with every Republican proposal. That's why his numbers continue to fall and why they won't recover.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contender: Mitt Romney

Today we continue our 2012 Contender series with a look at current front runner Mitt Romney. The big knock on Romney has been that he’s timid. His seems afraid to lead, avoids making decisions and taking stands, and his rhetoric is effete. Having looked into his record, I can now add that he also lacks principles and you won't like what he believes.

Romney lacks the ability to take a stand. Even now, his website contains a disturbing number of "Romney will release a plan in the near future" statements. Keep in mind, this is a man who's been running for President for 10 years and should know what he plans to do if he wins. What's worse, his record defines both "unprincipled" and "flip flop." Normally, we want our politicians to re-evaluate their ideas in light of new facts. But Romney takes this to extremes, having flip flopped on virtually every single issue on which he's ever taken a stand. What's more, his positions show the small, tired thinking of a technocrat who's stuck in debates that ended long ago. Observe:

1. Economics: Romney has yet to issue an official economic plan. But what he's said so far shows him to be a combination leftist-Keynesian and technocrat. His ideas are dated, insignificant, worthless and often merely reflect Democratic thinking:

● Eliminating the capital gains tax on families that make less than $200,000 per year (a limitation which wipes out the purpose of cutting this particular tax, which is to encourage business to start spending);

● Eliminating the estate tax;

● Limit spending by some amount by eliminating "pork" spending on unnecessary programs. . . whatever those are;

● Reining in the growth of entitlement programs. . . somehow;

● Opposing "income tax increases" (no word on other taxes); and

● He favors a balanced budget amendment and claims to want some sort of hard cap on federal spending.

This is extremely weak policy. Yet, compare even this weak plan against his record. As governor, Romney closed a small deficit by (1) raising $400 million in taxes from doubling fees on court filings, professional licenses, and firearm licenses, (2) raising the state gas tax by $60 million, (3) imposing $128 million in taxes on internet purchases, and (4) raising business taxes by $181 million. I found no evidence of budget cuts.

His other ideas "to create jobs" are trivial and worthless:

● Romney favors the discredited minimum wage, but he wants a "moderate predictable change" in the wage, not "big jumps from time to time." This will cost jobs, not create them.

● Romney wants to replace the unemployment system with either private unemployment savings accounts for some reason, or he would give incentives to companies to hire the long term unemployed. Neither will work.

● Romney wants to train workers to fit the new economy, which has no jobs.

● In 1994, Romney called for the "virtual elimination" (i.e. virtual = not real) of the Department of Agriculture. But by 2007, he "believes that investing in agriculture is key to our economy and families." He also support a $20 billion subsidy for energy research and new car technology.

2. ObamaCare: Romney failed to speak out against ObamaCare when it was debated, saying only that he would wait until he issued his book to offer his criticism. . . now that's leadership! Now he says it should be repealed because it's "an unconscionable abuse of power." Ok, sounds good, but he passed something very similar (right down to the individual mandates) in Massachusetts, and he refuses to renounce that. So why is ObamaCare "an unconscionable abuse of power" and RomneyCare not? According to Romney it's because RomneyCare had bipartisan support in the legislature and ObamaCare didn't. I kid you not: "abuse of power" depends on whether everyone is doing it to you or just some of them.

3. Global Warming: Romney believes man is causing global warming "based on what he reads" and pictures he's seen of melting ice caps -- which shows he doesn't understand science and can't separate good evidence from bad. He has long said he would consider a cap-and trade system, but now claims to oppose that. He now advocates conservation by raising fuel economy standards on cars and favoring biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear and coal gasification. He does claim to support offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska. . . though he also says "we're using too much oil." FYI, like other spoiled, rich, elitists, he opposes the wind farm in Nantucket because it would hurt the view.

4. Immigration: Romney claims to oppose illegal immigration. He claims to support deportation of illegals, says we should secure the border and issue non-citizens magic "tamperproof identification cards" (presumably so we can tell them from the illegals), wants employer verification and swears he opposes amnesty. BUT, he doesn't think we can deport 11 million illegals, so he wants to make them register and apply for citizenship, i.e. he favors amnesty. He also wants to increase legal immigration. This, by the way, is the Obama plan: increase legal immigration limits and then use the higher limits as cover to turn illegals into legals while claiming it's not an amnesty.

5. Freedom of Speech: In 1994, Romney advocated spending limits on campaigns and abolishing PACs. By 2007, he was criticizing McCain-Feingold, saying "we step into dangerous territory when politicians start eviscerating our fundamental freedoms in the name of amorphous principles, like campaign finance reform." Now he says he really opposes McCain-Feingold because it doesn't work, and he has a vague new plan for campaign finance reform, i.e. he plans to "eviscerate our fundamental freedoms in the name of some amorphous principle" he can't even explain yet.

6. Social Conservatism: Romney flips the most in social conservative areas, but it's clear he favors social engineering.

Abortion: In 1994, Romney attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser and he claimed there were only "tiny nuances" between his position and Ted Kennedy's. In 2005, he changed his mind and said abortion is morally wrong, but that the issue should be left to states. Now he says abortion is morally wrong except in cases of incest, rape or to save the mother and he "wishes. . . the laws of our nation could reflect that view". . . whatever that means.

Stem Cells: In 2002, Romney strongly advocated stem-cell research. In 2008, he renounced that position and now wants a ban on federal funding for research on excess embryos.

Crime: I wouldn't normally put crime in the social conservative category, except Romney seems fixated on "obscenity." Indeed, he wants strict enforcement of federal obscenity laws, he wants to punish retailers for selling "sexually explicit and excessively violent" video games to minors, and he wants to force computer companies to make sure parents can block "all that pornography from their kid's internet screens." Beyond that, he tried to get the death penalty reinstated in Massachusetts, but only in very limited cases and with impossible standards, i.e. "no doubt of guilt." He favors three strikes laws and proposed a one-strike law for child sex offenders "who use the internet to prey on children." Why this only applies to internet predators is not clear.

Affirmative Action: He apparently favors affirmative action but won't say so. Instead, he expresses support for "decreasing barriers to entry into the workforce for women and minorities" and "for Muslims who face discrimination due to their religion."

Education: In 1994, he wanted to abolish the Department of Education. He renounced that when he realized he could use the DOE for social engineering. He favors increased testing, requiring parents of poorly performing schools to attend parental education classes, wants to pay bonuses to "teachers who successfully teach," and has a host of pet projects he wants included in school curricula, including "nanotechnology and materials science" as well as an increased emphasis on family values. He supports charter schools and home schooling and vouchers, but only after means-testing.

Gays: Romney opposes gay marriage and civil unions, though he does "not want to discriminate against gay people in employment or housing or other parts of their life." He says he would not have changed don't ask don't tell.

Guns: In 1994, Romney favored a five-day waiting period and banning assault rifles. Showing he does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, i.e. to allow people to protect themselves from their government, Romney signed the assault weapons ban because: "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." In 2008, Romney joined the NRA and declared that he "supports the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the US Constitution." He then lied about owning a gun, and later said the right to bear arms does not include assault weapons.

There you have it. He never stands on principle and frankly doesn't even seem to understand the concept. Indeed, far too often, he calls something an outrage or violation of a right, only to then propose such a plan himself. This is a troubling thought process. Moreover, he seems to be hiding many of his policies, if they exist at all. His economic plan is dated, small-minded, and worthless, and several of his policies are identical to failed Democratic policies. And he seems to favor a form of social engineering that is both highly unprincipled and morally questionable.

Is he a conservative? I see no evidence for that. Would he make a good President? It's unlikely. Would he make a good conservative President? Do you really need to ask?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Utopia Forgotten: The Left's Intellectual Collapse

The sad truth is there is no longer any point in talking to leftists as they have nothing of value to offer anymore. And the reason is they have lost any semblance of a philosophy and have devolved into a subspecies of retarded human that feeds on spite, excretes arrogance, and revels in ignorance and hypocrisy, all the while self-righteously claiming moral and intellectual superiority.

When I was in college, I had a leftist professor that I respected a great deal. He was an intelligent man who had given the world a great deal of thought and had put in years of research to flesh out his beliefs. He was well-versed in economics, psychology, and history, and he was a joy to talk to. What I found really interesting was that we both saw many of the same problems in society. Indeed, in many ways, if we laid out our vision of the ideal society, my version and his version would have been surprisingly similar. Where we parted company, however, was in how to get there. Indeed, after hours of argument, we realized that we had fundamentally different views of human nature, and this led to different ideas about how to achieve our goals. I take the view that human nature only changes when people want to change themselves. Thus, all we can do to fix society is to lay out the moral reasons for the change and then provide incentives to “do the right thing.” He took the view that human nature can be changed by government fiat, and that people will conform to the “new normal.” I thought his ideas were inconsistent with human experience and were destined to fail because imposing change upon people only breeds resentment and subversion. He thought my ideas would never work to help the “most vulnerable.” So we agreed to disagree, but we definitely shared a great deal of respect for each other.

He is the last leftist I ever respected, however.

Since his time, the left has lost its mind. His version of finding the best way forward through a thoughtful examination of the world is gone. Indeed, the left has all but abandoned ideology and no longer even has a "utopia" that it is trying to achieve.

Instead, the new left preaches hate, spite and grievance, without purpose or an ultimate goal apart from achieving political power. It no longer seeks to build anyone up, but instead seeks to tear down those it despises. It no longer seeks the moral high ground or to attune us to some higher truth, it seeks rigid conformity to lies that it deems politically expedient. And it is deeply intolerant, seeking to personally destroy all who dare disagree. This is once again evident in recent events:

Take the case of evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa who just released a study finding that black women were rated as less attractive than women of other races. Now I take no position on his study as I haven’t seen his data, but his results are plausible based on other studies about interracial marriage. But that doesn’t interest me. What interests me is the firestorm reaction.

Within minutes of the article’s posting, the usual leftist suspects called for his article to be removed from the site that published it along with all his prior articles. This accompanied universal calls for the termination of his employment and a slew of articles calling him a racist. No word on death threats yet, but I’m sure they’re coming. Now here’s the critical part: these demands were made before anyone even saw his data. In other words, the truth or falsity of his study was not relevant to the left. He said something they didn’t like and they wanted him silenced.

Then came his fellows to debunk his study. They attacked him for failing to properly analyze the data even as the admitted they hadn’t yet seen how he conducted the analysis. Think about that. They denounced him without having any basis to do so. Then came the coup de grace: they attacked him for reaching a conclusion even though many of the respondents in his data had voiced different opinions. In other words, they claim it was improper for him to reach a conclusion when his data did not show 100% conformity to that conclusion. That is beyond disingenuous and borders on Wonderland-ian criticism. Indeed, if we accept this as a valid criticism, then we are dismissing the entire field of statistics because you NEVER have 100% conformity. For a scientist to make such a statement is truly Orwellian.

What’s more, while they’re all bowing and scraping to the gods of racial sensitivity, let me remind you of something said by prominent black racist Jill Scott, who was invited by Obama to the White House: “As slavery died for the greater good of America, and the movement for equality sputtered to life, the White woman was on the cover of every American magazine. . . She was unequivocally the standard of beauty for this country, firmly unattainable to anyone not of her race. We daughters of the dust were seen as ugly, nappy mammies.” Basically, she’s asserting as truth what Kanazawa claims to have found statistically, yet he’s being burned at the stake for being a racist heretic for saying it.

This is the problem with much of leftist “thought” today: only certain people can say certain truths. . . the rest are required to swear to shifting lies in the name of pushing whatever the present ideology is.

Now take the case of British singer Adele, who just discovered that paying taxes sucks. Here is her quote: “I'm mortified to have to pay 50%! . . . When I got my tax bill in from the album, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire.” She further clarified that she was particularly upset that she gets nothing for the taxes she pays.

At last check, there were 866 comments on this article and all of them were vile. Some denied reality, claiming that she’s lying about what she paid and denying that anyone actually pays 50%. Others said she should be thankful that “we let her keep any of it.” Oh, I didn’t know she was your slave? But most just called her fat, a bitch, a whore, a “selfish fucking idiot,” or accused her of stealing her music. Then they wished her ill, both personally and professionally. (About 10% of the comments were so vile they had been deleted by the moderator.) Think about this. She makes the point that paying 50% of your income in taxes is wrong and the responses fall into these categories: (1) denials of reality, (2) demands to punish her for speaking, and (3) hateful personal attacks. This is what passes for leftist thought today. By the way, not one single person rebutted her claims.

So what exactly does the left stand for? Does it want equality for all as it claimed in the 1960s? Hardly. It wants to substitute one group of oppressors for another. Does it want freedom? Hell no. It certainly doesn’t want you to have freedom of speech or thought. It hates religious freedom and property rights. God forbid you want a gun, or a car, or a hamburger. Does it want equal economic opportunity for all? No. It doesn't even want equality of result. It just wants to take everything you have away from you so that it can have it instead. . . actually, I’m not even sure most leftists want what you have. I get the feeling, they just don’t want you having it.

Thus, a philosophy that once stood for moral and economic equality (wrong though their views were) has devolved into a hateful club of subhumans who only want to hurt others. I honestly see nothing else that they believe in.

And if you think I’m wrong, then by all means, I challenge you to tell me what exactly the left wants? And don’t give me any generic crap about “fairness” and “equality,” those are words out of the leftist past that no longer have any modern meaning. Tell me exactly what the leftist utopia would look like. . . because from what I’m seeing, it looks an awful lot like a gulag.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Has The Supreme Court Solved The Immigration Problem?

America changed last Thursday. While everyone was dreaming of hotdogs and television marathons, the Supreme Court quietly issued a decision that may end up solving the illegal alien problem. In a 5-3 vote, the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law from 2007 that penalizes businesses that hire workers who are in the United States illegally. Democrats and big business should be very afraid.

The law in question is the Legal Arizona Workers Act. This law provides that Arizona employers who knowingly or intentionally hire illegal aliens will have their business licenses suspended or revoked. The loss of a business license in most states means that a company cannot transact business, cannot bring lawsuits or defend itself in court, and cannot do things like participate in workers compensation schemes (i.e. have employees). It is essentially, a death sentence for a business. But, you ask, what keeps employers from just turning a blind eye to avoid the “knowingly” requirement? The law further requires that employers must use the federal “E-Verify” system to confirm the eligibility of workers for employment.

This law, signed by Gov. Janet “The Village Idiot” Napolitano in 2007, was challenged by the Chamber of Commerce (a theoretically conservative organization), with backing from the ACLU (a known America-hating outfit). They argued that the law was illegal because immigration law is exclusively within the power of the federal government. Thus, Arizona has no right to pass any laws involving immigration.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Roberts shot this down. He wrote that Arizona’s employer sanctions “fall well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states.” In other words, Congress controls the nation’s immigration laws, but it has allowed the states some powers and the power to punish employers who hire illegals is one such power. Each of the leftist judges voted against this except Kagan, who recused herself because she had challenged the law on behalf of the Obama administration.

So why is this important?

Well, let us be honest about illegal immigration for a moment. To convince you that they are tough on illegal immigration, many conservative politicians pound the table and loudly proclaim that if only we (1) built a wall and (2) deported all the illegals, we could solve the immigration problem. This is pandering.

The truth is that a majority of illegal aliens do not cross illegally over the border. Most overstay visas. Thus, putting up a wall will do nothing to stop them. Moreover, as long as they can climb over the wall, dig under it, go around it by boat or plane, or get passes to visit the US even on day trips, no wall will ever be effective. It’s a fantasy to think otherwise.

Deporting them is an equally false solution. There are 12 million illegal aliens in this country with more coming every single day. Last year, we deported 380,000 people. That is 1/31 of those who are here. It took 21,000 officers to do that. Imagine how many officers it will take to get the other 30/31 and tell me if paying for those officers is politically sustainable? Moreover, finding these people is not easy and will breed massive resentment as it would require neighborhood sweeps and a police state that rivals East Germany. And even if we can ultimately find them all, there is nothing stopping them from simply turning around and coming back. You would if you were dumped in Mexico overnight, so why would anyone think they won't?

The only realistic solution to this problem is one that prevents illegal aliens from wanting to come to the United States. There is considerable evidence that they do not come when and will not stay here if there are no economic opportunities for them. Indeed, during the last recession, nearly two million went home.

In light of that, consider what the Supreme Court has done. It has given states the power to take away the economic opportunities that attract illegal aliens. As Republican states one by one make it dangerous for employers to hire illegals, employers will stop hiring them. Liberal states will need to follow suit or get flooded by illegal aliens. As the economic opportunities in the US dry up, illegal aliens will stop coming to the US and those that are here will start to leave. It won't get rid of all, but it will make this problem infinitely more manageable.

Thus, while the federal government pretends to act and offers placebos in the hope of distracting the public from its complicity in working to bring in substitute labor and votes, the states can now fix this problem all on their own.

Even better, as far as Republicans should be concerned, this avoids the political damage of being seen to be the party of mass deportations. Better yet, while everyone is focused on the flashy new law Arizona passed in 2010, this one will silently go about its job of fixing this issue with little fanfare.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Weakly News Round Up

I know a lot of you aren’t paying attention to the news right now, as you’re starting to think about the weekend. So let’s do a quick and easy article tonight: let’s just sum up the news of the last few days.

1. Traveling Man: Obama is in Europe. Nothing of note happened there. Nothing at all. And if you heard that he tried to date his checks "2008" or that he botched his toast to Queen, then you are listening to evil right-wing news. And if you heard that he’s really there to hide so he doesn’t have to honor America’s soldiers. . . then you’re listening to accurate right-wing news. Oh and any suggestion that they went to Europe to get Michelle a plastic surgery technique called a "grinch tuck" is patently untrue.

2. Retiring to Obscurity: Oprah retired after decades of ruining America by endorsing “true stories” that turned out to be fake, handing out gifts that got people into tax trouble, endorsing Kenyans for the American Presidency, ruining Tom Cruise’s career and generally giving the hopelessly weepy a platform to annoy the rest of us. In a surprise move, Oprah revealed that she’s actually a middle-aged white man named Dale Nawtreal. Nawtreal’s been wearing a Hollywood fat suit that periodically deflates (accounting for her bouts with weight loss) and black face paint because he knew he needed a gimmick to compete against Phil Donahue and Jerry Springer, both of whom have been arrested for crimes against integrity.

3. New York Continues To Disappoint: Republicans suffered a “surprise” defeat in upstate New York in a three-way election the other night. Democrats are trying to blame this on opposition to Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms. Republicans are blaming it on the fake Tea Party candidate. The real cause is either (1) New York is hopelessly leftist and even New York’s version of “right wing fanatics” would be considered bleeding heart morons in other states or (2) New York was built on an ancient Indian burial ground belonging to an extinct tribe called the “Gimmeestufs” and is cursed.

4. Peter “Snider Daddy” Fonda: This isn’t made up, though you may think it is. Peter Fonda of Easy Rider fame has said something that may surprise you. Here’s the quote:

“I’m training my grandchildren to use long-range rifles. For what purpose? Well, I’m not going to say the words ‘Barack Obama’, but . . . I prefer to not to use the words, ‘let’s stop something’. I prefer to say, ‘let’s start something, let’s start the world’.

It’s more of a thought process than an actuality, but we are heading for a major conflict between the haves and the have nots. I came here many years ago with a biker movie and we stopped a war. Now, it’s about starting the world.”

Hmmm. So Peter stopped Vietnam with a biker movie? And now Peter wants his grandkids to shoot someone called “Barack Obama” to “start the world.” Cuckoo.

Yah know, if Peter wasn’t a big leftist, I’m thinking leftists would be outraged over this, as in “MSNBC anchors encouraging street violence” outraged. But he is a leftist, so they’re not upset. Indeed, they’ll just add him to the list of murderers and rapists that they celebrate because they have the right politics. Maybe the left is even sicker than we suspected?

You may now return to your weekend planning.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Commentarama Dating Advice Goes Scientific

You laughed when we gave dating advice, but we knew what we were doing! Indeed, science has now proven what Commentarama already knew: successful dating is all about ideology.

The study in question took a look at married couples and tried to determine what factor or factors were most likely to predict a successful marriage. And what did these scientists find? Well, it turns out that political affiliation is by far the single most important factor. Yep. It’s more important than looks or personality or anything else. In other words, matching up with someone with the same political views is your best shot of finding someone to marry and staying married after you do the deed.

Said researcher John Alford:

"It turns out that people place more emphasis on finding a mate who is a kindred spirit with regard to politics, religion and social activity than they do on finding someone of like physique or personality. It suggests that, perhaps, if you're looking for a long-term romantic relationship, skip 'What's your sign?' and go straight to 'Obama or Palin?' And if you get the wrong answer, just walk away."

Yes, walk away. Don’t even waste your time trying to sway over that stupid liberal/conservative/libertarian/communist/fascist/socialist/anarchist/Ron Pauler/independent, it will only end in a messy divorce with shots fired and a heartbreaking division of the commemorative Elvis plates.

Now that you know this, you should feel happier. Do you know why? Because we’ve narrowed your choices and that makes you happier. . . I’ll bet you didn’t know that? It’s true though. Another recent study found that the more choices a person is given in terms of choosing partners for dates, the less happy the person was and the less successful they ultimately were at dating. They aren't really sure why this is true, but it seems to be.

Personally I would say it's "choice paralysis" caused by a combination of having too many inputs to make a rational decision combined with an increased fear that you made the wrong choice. . . like when you see more than 12 donuts you want.

In any event, this makes me wonder. People are marrying later and having fewer kids all over the globe. Many explanations are offered for this, but none of them actually work consistently across countries. In other words, if something like economic success were the cause, then we would be seeing a consistent fall in each country as they get richer. . . but we’re not, the falling rates are not consistent. The same problem is true with other explanations like availability of birth control, employment of women outside the home, culture, religion or lack of religion. I wonder if the problem isn’t staring us in the face in this study?

In the past, people tended to live in the towns they grew up in and they really only got to know a small circle of people, i.e. they had limited opportunities to marry. Thus, this study says they should have been more successful at finding mates and happier with their choices. Today, by comparison, people live in different cities at various points throughout their lives and careers. They're also more likely to run into possible mates at college or at their jobs than in the past, and then there is the internet. Perhaps all this extra choice is causing "choice paralysis" and ruining it for everybody?

Hmmm.

Any way, don’t date outside your politics and start ruling out more of your choices before you even start looking. You’ll be a dating monster in no time!

You're welcome.

Thoughts on any of these theories?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contender: Tim Pawlenty

Let’s continue our 2012 Contenders series with Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty’s people want to sell him based on his blue collar background, but that’s rather irrelevant as we’re voting for a leader of our party and our country, not the next guest on Oprah. So let’s ignore that and look at his record, which is surprisingly conservative. . . though it’s not unblemished.

1. Social Conservatism: There is no doubt that Pawlenty, a recent convert from Catholicism to evangelical Christianity, is a social conservative:

Gays: Pawlenty opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions. He wants to reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And he attacked Obama for failing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts.

Abortion: Pawlenty opposed abortion except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother’s life. He wants Rove v. Wade overturned, and he appointed four judges to the Minnesota Supreme Court who openly disagreed with Roe. As governor, he signed a law in 2003 that required doctors to provide women with information about alternatives to abortion at least 24 hours before the procedure, as well as a detailed list of risks associated with the procedure. In 2005, Pawlenty signed a law requiring that women considering an abortion be given information about “fetal pain.” Sixteen states are now trying to pass similar laws.

Immigration: On immigration, Pawlenty was cracking down on illegals before cracking down was cool. In January 2008, he ordered state law enforcement to work with federal agents to enforce immigration laws. This is what Arizona did later. He also required the Department of Public Safety to review photos in the state’s driver’s license database to look for fraud. And he required new state employees and contractors to verify their citizenship.

Guns: Pawlenty supports the second amendment, though he favors statewide standardized training and background checks before law-abiding citizens can carry firearms.

2. Economics: As you would expect for any governor, Pawlenty’s economic credentials aren’t perfect, but he has achieved some surprisingly conservative things and he’s put up quite a fight to get them.

Deficits: Pawlenty closed a $4.5 billion deficit left behind by the former governor by cutting spending and without increasing taxes. During his second term, he faced a deficit of $2.7 billion, which he eliminated with further spending cuts, shifting payments and $2 billion in stimulus money. The state currently faces a $4.4 billion projected deficit for the next two years. To achieve these deficit cuts, Pawlenty vetoed dozens of Democratic tax hikes and he even forced a nine day shutdown to get his way on the budget.

Taxes: Pawlenty kept his promise not to raise taxes. In fact, he cut taxes by $800 million. The one exception was a hike in cigarette taxes that was part of the deal he reached to end the government shutdown.

Public Sector Unions: Pawlenty took on the unions before that was cool too. In 2005, he took on Minnesota’s mass-transit workers union to cut pension benefits. After a 44 day strike, he won.

Moreover, he seems to “get it.” For example, he notes that public sector unions “contribute mightily to the campaigns of liberal politicians ($91 million in the midterm elections alone) who vote to increase government pay and workers.” This is a good sign. His plan for federal employees is good too. He wants to bring compensation back in line with the private sector, reduce the overall civilian work force, start using private sector accounting practices for pension costs to stop hiding the real cost, and end defined-benefit plans. All excellent ideas.

TARP: Pawlenty spoke favorably of the TARP in 2008, but in 2010 he said that he was speaking as a surrogate for John McCain only at the time and he never actually supported the idea himself.

3. ObamaCare: Pawlenty wants ObamaCare replaced and he issued an executive order forbidding state agencies from applying for new grants under the plan:

“ObamaCare is an intrusion by the federal government into personal health care matters and it’s an explosion of federal spending that does nothing to make health care more affordable. To the fullest extent possible, we need to keep ObamaCare out of Minnesota. This executive order will stop Minnesota’s participation in projects that are laying the groundwork for a federally-controlled healthcare system.”

He also proposes the following healthcare reforms: (1) incentives for patients to be smart consumers by having patients pay less if they choose more cost-efficient health-care providers; (2) pay doctors for performance rather than number of procedures performed (reward quality rather than quantity); (3) liability reform; (4) allow insurance across state lines; (5) make insurance portable; (6) prohibit discrimination against pre-existing conditions; and (7) expand health savings accounts.

This is less than it seems, but these are better than other candidates have suggested and Pawlenty has put in place some test programs along some of these lines in Minnesota.

4. Global Warming: In 2007, Pawlenty declared global warming “one of the most important issues of our time.” He then signed bills to promote clean energy and to impose a cap and trade system. In 2008, he urged Congress to “cap greenhouse-gas pollution now.” In May of this year, Pawlenty said this “was a mistake, and I’m sorry.” His basis for changing his mind is that the human impact on climate change is unproven.

5. Ethanol: Pawlenty stated the other day that we should end ethanol subsidies. This was good. It’s about time conservatives stopped pandering to different interest groups, i.e. Iowa farmers, and instead stood on principle. But in 2005, Pawlenty signed a bill raising the mandated minimum mixture of ethanol in Minnesota gas from 10% to 20% by 2013 and he has lobbied for higher nationwide mandates.

6. Electability: Two issue arise on the issue of electability: dullness and past electoral performance.

Dullness: Pawlenty is not an inspiring speaker. He’s too polite and he lacks the gift for verbal sparring of the kind that has become increasingly necessary. Will this hurt him? That’s not clear. This election will be about Obama and his record, so a quiet candidate may be better able to keep the light on Obama. But, his lack of inspiring rhetoric may keep him from being able to land necessary punches or inspire voters. If Obama were not a disliked incumbent, this would be bad. As it is, this may not be a problem. As an interesting side note, several leftist publications have been concerned that Pawlenty “takes the snarl” out of the rhetoric and makes “extreme right wing policies sound acceptable.”

Electability: One of the issues that should be in Pawlenty’s favor is his ability to get elected in a blue state. Theoretically, that means he has cross-party appeal and can guarantee Minnesota’s 10 electoral votes, which would kill Obama’s re-election changes for sure. But Pawlenty never actually got 50% of the vote because he’s always faced multiple opponents. He was last re-elected by less than 1% (47% to 47%).

All in all, it sounds like Pawlenty is a social and fiscal conservative who is willing to put up a fight to implement conservative policies. More importantly, he seems to understand the issues better than the other candidates at this point. The knock on him is that he appears willing to shift in the political winds, particularly on global warming, and he comes across as extremely dull.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Angry Feminism Hits A Wall

By the time I went to college, feminism was entering a truly vile period. Gone was the talk about equality, respect and giving women “choices.” In its place was the hateful agenda of identity politics: affirmative action, squeals for equality of outcome, groupthink, suppression of opponents, and nasty misandry. At the time, this seemed to be the future of feminism. But three recent statistics tell me this version of feminism has played out.

I don’t think doctrinaire feminism was ever what it pretended to be. It claimed to want equality of opportunity and respect, but like many such 1960s movements, its leaders had a different agenda. Indeed, under the guise of equality of opportunity feminists soon began pushing for equality of result. This was particularly true in the economic sphere in the 1970s where they pushed things like the ERA, which sought not only to award equal pay within a profession, but identical pay across professions based on leftist notions of labor comparability.

Moreover, the harder-core adherents quickly devolved into man-hating. For example, feminist academics began writing papers claiming that our entire history was nothing more than a male plot to oppress women and that all sex is rape because women, lacking economic power, can never consent -- an identical argument made for why blacks "can't be racist." They also demanded the erection of gender studies departments in colleges, the appointment of women to positions for which they weren’t qualified, and the removal of gender references from the language.

By the late 1980s, this twisted view became feminist doctrine. Thus, sensible ideas like “no means no” were twisted into “no means no, even when it isn't said until after the fact.” Colleges started having rape awareness nights where everyone was supposed to walk around in the dark to protest a rape epidemic that didn’t exist -- we were told for every real rape, ten somehow go unreported and we heard ludicrous statistics like “one in four women will be raped.” College professorettes started doing things like demanding “Herstory” departments to counter “History” departments, they designed re-education programs, and they tried replacing the generic "he" with "she" in textbooks (which is a dead giveaway about their mindset because they claimed the use of "he" was oppressive; in other words, rather than looking for a gender neutral word, they simply wanted to become oppressors). They also took the stance that if there weren't enough women's sports teams, then schools had to eliminate men's sports teams. Meanwhile, extremely unkempt girls started showing up in literature and history classes talking about “male oppression,” claiming that all the female characters were lesbians, and whining that our very language keeps them down boo hoo hoo (fyi, "unkempt" because grooming standards were male attempts to oppress. . . seriously, there's feminist theory on this). And angry girls went to law school, where they would proudly (and unethically) proclaim that they would only represent “womyn.” This is what feminism became.

This version of feminism had three main planks that it pushed: (1) the forcing of women into “power professions,” (2) unchecked abortion, and (3) the destruction of marriage.

The power profession thing was easily the most interesting. Feminists kept talking about giving women “choices,” but that was a lie. What they really wanted was to force women into occupations that feminists believed would let them oppress others. This meant that any woman who chose to stay home and raise a family would be ridiculed by feminists -- even Hillary Clinton stumbled into this when she denigrated cookie making, which was common jargon among feminists at the time as a way to insult stay-at-home mothers. Moreover, women who chose “inferior careers,” i.e. traditional female occupations, were typically branded with the bimbo label. Basically, the only "allowable" choice for women was to go into politics, law or finance.

The abortion thing resulted from the realization by feminists that so long as women cared more about their children, they weren’t going to be as successful as men in the power professions. This meant women had to be kept childless so they could climb the career ladder, which meant breaking the motherhood bond. Thus, in the 1990s, you saw an assault of studies claiming that children actually benefited from being abandoned by their mothers, and you saw a strong push to ensure ideological rigidity on the abortion issue, with feminists uniformly portraying all women as being pro-abortion and portraying abortion opponents as creepy, male religious freaks intent on enslaving women. There was even a study claiming that having an abortion made women healthier.

Finally, the destruction of marriage was key because women who marry tend to drop out of the workforce. Thus, feminists pushed the idea of no-fault divorce, and single motherhood was glorified. But what really became a big issue for feminists in the 1990s was whether or not women should take their mate’s last names if they married. Indeed, if you read any feminist-infused magazine from the period, you will see that it was assumed that all women would (and did) keep their own names and the only question was whether or not to add the husband's name as a hyphenated name. Women who didn’t toe this line were dismissed as hopelessly old-fashioned and usually religious zealots.

Well, now things are falling apart for feminists. Every month I get bar journals from various states. Last month, I came across a very shrill article by one veteran feminist who was horrified that the number of women entering law school has been dropping for several years now. In the 1990s, when the number of women exceeded the number of men, feminists proclaimed that one day women would run the legal profession, and thereby the world. Apparently not. The number of women is now below the male number again and falling fast. The woman who wrote this article bemoaned the failure of young women to go to law school and openly feared that this will result in the oppression of women. . . no, I’m not kidding. The number of women in politics seems to have petered out too. And what’s worse, many are the “wrong kind” of woman, i.e. conservatives.

Then I came upon an article that talked about marriage rates and how marriage rates in the US are on the rise and people are no longer divorcing at nearly the rate they used to. Almost the next day came a study lamenting that the number of women keeping their own name in marriage (in any form) peaked in the 1990s at 23% (far less than the nearly 100% figure portrayed in the media) and has been falling steadily since. It is currently 18%.

Now, we hear from Gallup (which has a consistent left-ward bent) that only 27% of people believe abortion should be legal under “any circumstances,” i.e. the feminist position.

What this tells me is that "feminism" peaked in the 1990s and has been in steady decline ever since. What seems to have stopped it is the emergence of vocal conservative women who demanded that feminism actually be about choices as advertised. When this group of women demanded that feminists stop denigrating stay-at-home mothers, the end was near for modern feminism because that undercut the entire purpose of radical feminism.

Does this mean radical/angry feminism is dead? No. It lives on and it always will. But like Marxism or cults, its appeal is now limited to an ever shrinking fringe. The question now is: how do we use this lesson to take the radical out of other worthwhile movements that have gone astray, e.g. environmentalism?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contenders: Recent Winners and Losers

With our Presidential hopefuls dropping like flies, it’s time to recalibrate the field. Who will get whose supporters? Who can step from whose shadow? Enquiring minds want to know. . . which means we should look at winners and losers of recent events. As usual, expect no prisoners to be taken in this contempt-riddled analysis.

1. Newt Implodes:

Loser: Newt Gingrich (candidate). Newt’s ill-advised and unfounded attack on Paul Ryan’s budget plan confirmed everything negative we feared about Newt. And his tar-baby-ish struggles to defend himself alienated the entire conservative base. This has basically sunk his candidacy.

Loser: Newt Gingrich (moronacle). Newt’s role as oracle may be endangered by this debacle. For nearly a decade now, Newt has used his flirtation with running for the Presidency to sell books and get people to come seek his opinion. His implosion has exposed the oracle as perhaps more of a moronacle, and this will likely lessen his influence on the party.

Winner: Sarah Palin (celebrity/moronacle). For every yin there is a yang, and Palin is Gingrich’s yang. She’s been trying very hard to become the female Newt, i.e. a moronacle who uses a flirtation with running to garner fame and fortune. In fact, she and Newt competed for this post throughout the 2010 election primaries by make rival endorsements. Newt’s implosion opens the door for Palin to take his place at Delphi.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Newt’s description of Ryan’s plan as “right-wing social engineering” will be enough to allow Obama to gather leftist and squishy-moderate support to block the plan.

Loser: Medicare. Lack of reform = collapse.

2. The Huckster Drops Out:

Winner: Conservatives. Apparently, God doesn’t want the Huckster as President, which is good because conservatives shouldn't want that either. His version of conservatism, i.e. big government liberalism and leftist social theory masquerading as social conservatism, is a disastrous dead end for conservatism. Now we're spared that. And make no mistake, the Huckster stood an excellent chance of winning because of the evangelical-heavy early primaries.

Winner: Sarah Palin (candidate). Palin and the Huckster had been the prime competitors for evangelical voters. With the Huckster gone, these people will look for a new candidate. Should Palin choose to run, she should be able to pick up most of his support.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty Pawlenty apparently has been working hard to win the backing of the religious right. He’s rather bland and forgettable, but out of those who are left in the race, Pawlenty seems to be the best fit for these voters. So if Palin doesn’t jump into the race (and I think she won’t), then he could win them.

3. Mitch Bails:

Loser: The GOP Establishment. The GOP establishment settled on Daniels some time ago and they’ve been pimping him hard in the MSM as the best candidate. With him gone, they need another candidate. Sadly for them, their favored choice, Jeb Bush, refuses to run in 2012. So now they need to find someone else they can trust to not make any waves.

Winner: Jeb Bush. If Bush wants the nomination, the establishment is ready to give it to him now that Daniels is gone. He just has to say the word. But let me offer a word of caution, I (and many people I know) will NEVER. . . EVER vote for another Bush.

Winner: Chris Christie. Christie is a potential dark horse alternative to Jeb Bush. He sounds conservative and he sounds like he’s a disruptive reformer, but as Commentarama readers know, he’s a safe RINO, which is exactly what the establishment wants. If the misguided "draft Christie" campaigns succeed, expect Bush to stay out and establishment support to shift to Christie. Oh happy day.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty. Yeah, Tim’s bland enough for the establishment. If they can’t get Christie or Bush, expect the establishment to adopt Pawlenty and make him the eventual nominee.

4. Trump Fires Himself:

Winner: My Sanity. nuf said.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Trump was causing Obama fits. Trump constantly raised issues the other Republican candidates were “too polite” to raise and he has a sufficiently large soapbox that people listened. With Trump gone, Obama can now focus on a weak Republican field.

Winner: Small Candidates. Guys like Herman Cain and other “second tier” candidates need to get noticed. The way to get noticed is to say what’s on your mind. . . the more outrageous the better. That was nearly impossible with Trump absorbing all of the media’s attention like some egotistical black hole. Trump’s departure opens the door for guys like Cain and Bolton to get some media attention.

Winner/Loser: Big Candidates. Despite the circus aftertaste found in the "Nutty Trump Bar," our bigger candidates look like duds by comparison. With Trump gone, they no longer need to face the daily comparison. This is technically a win, though it’s also an indictment as it highlights just how pathetic our current field is.

So what we have here is this. Movement conservatives lost with Newt. The religious right lost with the Huckster. The establishment lost with Daniels. And the lunatic fringe lost with Trump. That's got some perfect symmetry if you ask me.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contender: Newt Gingrich

When a circus loses a clown, another steps up to take his place. Hence, Trump bows out and Gingrich butts in. Newt Gingrich has been playing the role of high oracle to the conservative movement for about a decade. But as you are about to see, his policy positions are poorly defined and there is a serious disconnect between his rhetoric and his actions, which more often than not are self-aggrandizing, liberal and highly disloyal.

Lack of Judgment: The biggest issue with Newt is also the hardest to put your finger on definitively: he lacks judgment. This has expressed itself in many ways. For example, he had an affair with a staffer at the same time he was attacking Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He got himself into enough trouble that he paid a $300,000 penalty to end a House ethics investigation. In 2009, Gingrich endorsed obvious RINO Dede Scozzafava. And he doesn’t know when to shut up.

Just this week, in fact, he slammed Paul Ryan’s budget plan. Specifically, he attacked Ryan’s proposal to reform Medicare as “right-wing social engineer” and he said:

“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”

Way to undercut the one guy making conservatism work, Newt! As is his pattern, once everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Laura Ingraham to every House Republican blasted him, Gingrich retreated entirely on his criticism, but not before he had given significant aid and comfort to the enemy.

This is actually entirely consistent with my memory of Gingrich’s time as Speaker. Whatever the issue, Gingrich ran to the camera and did his best to frame conservatism in the most extremist, thoughtless, and indefensible way possible. He seemed to revel in being outrageous. Then the inevitable liberal backlash came. Suddenly, without warning, Gingrich rushed back to the camera to cut the legs out from underneath his conservative allies who were still trying to explain his remarks. Then he would agree to leftist policies to try to win the approval of his enemies. His entire political career actually fits this pattern because this is a man who desperately wants to be loved.

Economics: Gingrich’s economic plans can best be described as “conservative sounding but vague”:

● Gingrich wants to cut corporate taxes to 12.5% and eliminate the inheritance tax. Ok, that’s clear, but just wait.
● He wants to “move toward” an “optional 15% flat tax,” whatever that means.
● He wants to “strengthen the dollar” somehow.
● Break up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into something.
● Modernize the FDA in some way.
● “Fundamental reform” of entitlements “with the advice and help of the American people,” i.e. he has no idea how to do this.
● Balance the budget by “controlling spending, implementing money saving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches,” whatever this means.

ObamaCare: Gingrich opposes ObamaCare and wants it repealed. But of course, that’s a mandatory position for candidates. What does he really believe? In 2003, Gingrich supported creating the prescription drug benefit entitlement in Medicare. He still supports it. In 2005, he and Hillary Clinton worked to spend federal money on information technology for health care. In 2007, he became an advocate for increasing spending on old-age care for baby boomers.

In his criticism of Ryan this weekend, Gingrich stated that Republicans should not seek to reform Medicare and he came out clearly in favor of individual health mandates. His spokesman has since tried to “clarify” both positions away. But he has also said before that the problem with our health care system is “freeloaders. . . who are uninsured,” i.e. he wants to force people to buy insurance.

Beyond this his positions on health care are conservative-sounding pabulum: make insurance cheaper, stop Medicare fraud, stop junk lawsuits and get the FDA to allow new treatments faster.

Global Warming: In 2007, Gingrich proclaimed his belief in global warming and he wrote a book called “A Contract With the Earth,” in which he proposes “accelerating the incentive to reduce carbon emissions,” i.e. cap and trade. In other interviews at the time, he favored “mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system,” i.e. cap and trade. Then, in 2008, he snuggled up next to Nancy Pelosi to do an ad favoring global warming regulation: “we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.”

Now, Gingrich wants to deny his former self. In the past year, he told Human Events: “I don't think we're faced with a crisis of global warming. I think in fact that the scientific data is still very unclear.” But it was apparently clear enough for him to support Pelosi’s drive to regulate? He also now claims that he “never favored cap and trade”. . . despite the quotes above.

Gingrich also heavily favors ethanol subsidies because that wins votes in Iowa, subsidies for “clean energy,” and “flex-fuel mandates for US cars.” At least he claims to favor more drilling.

Abolishing the EPA: Gingrich claims he want to abolish the EPA. But this is pure pandering. For one thing, this is a nonstarter with the public, so picking this issue shows a lack of seriousness. Further, he has no effective plan, i.e. this is just hyper rhetoric. Moreover, before you get excited that he might actually do it, his fine print involves replacing the EPA with a new agency named the “Environmental Solutions Agency.” In other words, while he talks boldly about eliminating the EPA, his actual plan is to just rename it. . . as if that will solve the problems caused by the laws it is enforcing.

Islam: Gingrich is calling for a federal law to stop the “onslaught of Sharia on American jurisprudence,” which he calls a “mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and the world as we know it.” Uh huh. Sharia law has not been recognized by US Courts and indeed recognizing it would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Gingrich knows this. So rather than address the more serious issues with Islam, Gingrich is pandering to a false fear because it sounds good and it doesn’t require him to do anything.

Gays: On gays, Gingrich says “I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment.” Sounds like a strong position against something, but he takes no stance on gay rights or gay marriage that I can find, including on his website.

Abortion: Gingrich is opposed to federal funding of abortion, but takes no other position that I can find, including on his website.

What he’ll believe next week is anybody’s guess.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Economy Must Be Broken?!

It’s becoming a common refrain on the left: what’s wrong with the American economy? Why won’t it produce any jobs? We have economic growth, so why aren’t there any jobs? Booo hooo hooo. There must be something wrong with America! Booo hooo hooo! It can’t possibly be that our leftist economic theory is completely wrong?! No, the fault must lie elsewhere.

For two years now, leftists have become increasingly frustrated that the economy isn’t producing any jobs. When Obama took power, they got to implement a Keynesian orgy of spending that their economic theories told them should have resulted in a vast flood of new jobs. It was only a matter of time. But somehow, it hasn’t happened. How can this be?

The answer is pretty obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology. Increased taxation and regulation combined with uncertainty have discouraged companies from hiring. Combine this with unfair trade practices by foreign governments that make it unnaturally cheap to send jobs overseas, and you’ve got a situation where companies just aren’t going to create a lot of new jobs in the US.

But the left can’t stand to hear this because it blows holes in two of their cherished beliefs:

(1) Every dollar spent, no matter what the source, results in five dollars being added to the economy as a whole. This in turn results in jobs being created because every percentage point of economic growth produces 800,000 new jobs a year.

(2) It doesn’t matter what you do to an economy, growth will continue like normal after the shock of your action and the rules of theory one above will be obeyed. So tax away comrade, tax away!

Every leftist economist from moronic oracle (“moronacle”) Paul Krugman to malignant dwarf Robert Rubin to the self-deluded Economist prays at the alter of these theories. In fact, they need to believe this or else they couldn't justify raising taxes on people they don’t like, i.e. companies and “the rich.” Thus, they are stuck struggling for ways to explain Obama's economic failure while carefully denying the obvious -- that higher taxes and more regulations destroy job growth.

The latest theory they've pulled out of their nether-regions is that the link between economic growth and job creation no longer works as it has for thousands of years. In other words, economic growth no longer creates jobs. Naturally, they twist this into a call to tax non-job creators, i.e. corporations and the rich, so that the government can use the tax dollars to somehow create jobs. Apparently, Atlas Shrugged wasn’t fiction after all.

What these leftists are missing, of course, is that their two pillars are laughably stupid. Consider this:

Stupid Theory No. 1: The “Keynesian multiplier” theory works on the assumption that if you add money to an economy, the economy must grow larger. But it forgets to ask where the money comes from. Government spending must be pulled from the economy in the form of taxes before it can be spent. And if the multiplier is true, then every dollar pulled from the economy reduces the economy by $5. Thus, at best you break even -- five dollars out, five dollars in. But the government is an inefficient spender. hence, what you actually get is something like $5 out and $1.4 in. That means every dollar of stimulus spending results in $3.6 lost to the economy.

And if you think about it, this makes sense. Otherwise, we could just spend ourselves to prosperity. Indeed, if this worked, why stop at a trillion dollar stimulus? Wouldn’t a hundred trillion dollars be more responsible? Interestingly, even Keynesians don’t think that works. . . though they can’t explain why the trillion is supposed to work and the hundred trillion would fail. So why can't "brilliant" leftist economists understand this?

Stupid Theory No. 2: The second theory completely misunderstands human nature. Reality is simple: people work because it benefits them. If you tax their earnings/profits, they will work less because it becomes less worthwhile to work, invest or take risks. The same is true of regulations. If you make something harder/more costly to produce, people will produce less of it. Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever to believe that people will continue as if nothing has changed when you increase taxes or regulations -- indeed, if I started punching you every time you went to work, why would this bother you the first couple times but not the 1,000 times after that? Therefore, pillar two is utter nonsense.

What’s more, the Democrats don’t understand the concept of uncertainty. Even where Obama has left taxes as they were or not imposed some regulation, he’s still run around flapping his gums about how he plans to raise taxes or impose regulations as soon as he feels he can. That makes future profits and costs uncertain and causes people to stop spending, investing or working until they get clarity.

Conclusion

The left refuses to accept the obvious because that would discredit their economic theories and interfere with their desire to punish those they don’t like. Indeed, their economic theory makes no sense logically nor has it ever worked in practice, but it gives them the excuse they need to exercise a little self-righteous spite. Thus, moronacles like Krugman and The Economist would rather disgrace themselves with ridiculous theories about the economy having mysteriously failed than admit that the fundamental tenets of their beliefs are completely and utterly wrong. That must suck.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Can The GM Bailout Save Obama?

The Democrats change campaign strategies like most people change their socks. Obama is doing that too. His latest strategy calls for using the GM bailout to sway us all over to his side -- especially those of us living in rustbelt states. Good luck with that! Here's why this is one of his stupider ideas:

Point 1: Obama Didn’t Do It: Right out of the gates, this one is a bit of a laugher. The auto bailouts began under George W. Bush. Sure, Obama finished it, but this is a bit like crediting Truman for his decision to take on the Nazis. And how ironic is it that Obama, who loves to blame Bush for all of his own failures, should not be planning to steal Bush’s “achievements.”

Point 2: Americans Hate The Auto Bailout: Obama really thinks the public will respond to his claiming credit for the GM bailout. Yet, polls show the public hates the auto bailout. They have from the very beginning and they continue to do so today. Indeed, as recently as one month ago, Rasmussen found that 57% of Americans continue to say the bailout was a mistake and another 44% of Americans said they are less likely to buy a car from GM because of the bailout. But then, the percentage of Americans who oppose the bailout is down a full 7% in three years. . . maybe Obama thinks that’s a “trend”?

More importantly, this bailout was in place before the November 2010 elections and the Democrats got massacred in the rustbelt states. What’s changed since then to make Obama think this will be a better selling point now?

Point 3: The Bailout Didn’t Really Work: It’s hard to see how the bailout worked. Sure, GM is still there, but (1) 334,000 manufacturing jobs vanished despite the bailout, (2) 10,000 dealerships were closed, dealerships that employed 500,000 people, and (3) one quarter of US factory capacity to build automobiles was lost. . . i.e. rustbelt factories closed.

At least GM has been profitable for a year now. Of course, that happened because of dealer incentives -- the same tactic that ruined the big three in the first place. Also, the reason GM is profitable has nothing to do with the bailout, it has to do with GM filing bankruptcy and getting billions of dollars in debt discharged. In fact, GM could have gone straight into bankruptcy without the bailout funds and things would have turned out identically for GM. . . though the UAW wouldn’t have gotten taxpayer funds to cover their health and pension plans.

But what about the bailout money? When it was given to GM, we were told that it would all be paid back. . . every cent. Then we were told that GM had in fact paid it all back, only that wasn’t quite true because GM paid it back with TARP money. Basically, they borrowed taxpayer money to pay back debts to the taxpayers and then they acted like we should be happy.

In exchange for the TARP money, we got an ownership interest. And right before the election, Little Timmy Geithner and Joey "the liar" Biden announced to the world that we would indeed be making a profit on our “investment” in GM! Hurray! Vote Democratic! Of course, that wasn’t true either. GM stock has hovered near its IPO price since it went public again. GM’s stock price must get above $40 a share before we break even. It closed at $31 on Friday. . . 25% below the price we need. If the Treasury sells today, they would lose $17 billion to $20 billion of the $86 billion “invested”. . . and keep in mind that right now the market is likely at a multi-year high and will head south.

So what exactly can Obama trumpet here? What you’re going to hear are fantasy numbers. There are leftwing economists who have already speculated that the bailout saved millions of jobs and will make all of America’s kids 5% smarter and 2.4% more attractive. But this is bunk. These numbers, like the $3.5 million jobs "created, saved or made up," are just mindless applications of discredited Keynesian formulas that bear no relationship to what actually happened.

The real story of the bailout is the one above, and people get that. So good luck selling this one Mr. President.


BONUS ROUND: What do you think should be Obama's next sales pitch? He kept us out of war with Mexico? He didn't try to save the Yen? New York hasn't been blown up yet? Come on, let's give the guy a little help. . .

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...