Your Untrusted Source For News

As you may or may not have heard, a Pew Research poll just revealed that the public’s trust in the media hit a record low in July of this year. Imagine mah suhprise. Let’s discuss. . .

The Survey

According Pew Research, 63% of Americans believe that the information they get from the media is not accurate. That’s six in ten! Only 29% thought the media was generally accurate. That’s not even an “F” on a standardized test, that’s a not to your parents and a good grounding.

Moreover, this isn’t some ingrained distrust of the press by the American people. This distrust was earned. In 1985, when this poll was first conducted, a full 55% of the American public thought the media generally got things right.

But that was then, when a lot of the old-schoolers still roamed the hallways of our journalistic institutions. Soon the numbers began to slide. By 1997, only 37% of the public felt that journalists were reliable. By July of this year, that number was down to 29%. That’s a loss of 26% in twenty-four years.

The Excuses

So what’s causing this? It couldn’t be the things I ranted about the other day, could it? Let’s see what the media has to say. . .

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, which we all know has never engaged in open and obvious bias, has never sold its sold for the all mighty peso, and has never been caught with an obvious plagiarist on staff for oh so long, contends that budget cuts are at the root of the problem.

Well, actually, that’s not entirely true. Keller identifies budget cuts as a potential problem. According to Keller, the budget squeeze “means facts don’t get checked as carefully as they should.”

But then he quickly assures us that this really is not a problem. Indeed, he goes on to claim that “many media outlets” still go to great lengths to get the facts right and own up their mistakes. (I wonder if that includes the Times?)

In any event, he soon fingers the real culprit -- everybody else:

“The great flood that goes under the heading ‘news media’ has been poisoned by junk blogs, gossip sheets, shout radio and cable-TV partisans that don't deserve to be trusted.”

That’s the irresponsible NYT we’ve come to know and dismiss.

So what does he think should be done about this? Nothing really, he doesn’t think there is a real problem. See, while you all complain about the media, you really do love your media:

“Just as polls routinely show that people hold Congress in low esteem but tend to like their own congressman, I think the public is suspicious of the media in general but tends to trust the particular news organization they turn to for news.”

So don’t expect any changes from the NYT.

But surely, the Associated Press has something more intelligent to say, right? Nope. Kathleen Carroll, the executive editor of the AP, blames the internet. Apparently, the problem is that the internet is full of misinformation, which gets passed around on discussion boards. And that causes people to view the media with such disfavor. Tisk tisk.

Journalists at large agree. They blame the poor reputation of journalism on cable talk shows (63%), the 24 hour news cycle (42%) and the internet (57%).

Of course, both Carroll, Keller, and their journalistic friends ignore the fact that the public’s trust began to deteriorate long before the industry began to cut costs, long before cable news became so prominent, and long before the internet become so ubiquitous. Indeed, in 1999 -- by which time much of the damage was already done -- only 6% of respondents said they relied on the internet for news. The vast majority (82%) reported relying on the nightly news, and 42% said they also relied on newspapers.

So What Is Really Going On?

The reality is that journalists have lost touch with the public, and they don’t get it. Let’s compare how the public sees journalism against how journalists see journalism.

As we note above, 63% of Americans believe that journalists make too many factual errors. But only 45% of journalists agree.

And while 75% of journalists agree that media bias is a bad thing, only 26% of the public think that journalists make any attempt to avoid bias.

And how about that bias? Let’s compare the attitudes of the public with journalists at large. First, take a look at the following chart, which compares the self-described political leanings of journalists against those of the public.


As you can see, journalists are 14 percentage points more liberal than the public and 26 percentage points less conservative. But does that mean anything? Absolutely. Look at the difference between journalists and the general public on various “wedge” issues:

• When asked whether a belief in God is required for a person to be considered moral, 60% of the general public agrees with that statement, but 91% of journalists disagree.

• When asked whether homosexuality should be accepted or discouraged, 51% of the general public said “accepted” and 42% said “discouraged.” By comparison 88% of journalists said “accepted” and only 5% said “discouraged.”

• Only 25% of the public felt that abortion should be legal under any circumstances, compared to 40% of journalists.

• Fifty percent of the public felt that stricter gun control laws were needed, compared to 65% of journalists.

• Only 34% of the public believe that the government should guarantee that no one is in need, compared to 42% of journalists. And 60% of the public want less government interference, as compared to only 49% of journalists.

Whether you agree with these propositions or not, it certainly shows a significant divergence of beliefs between journalists and the public on wedge issues.

This translates into significant differences in how journalists and the public view events. Consider the difference in how the public and the media viewed the treatment of Bush:


As you can see, the public thought the media was too hard on Bush by a ratio of three to two. The media, by comparison, felt the media was too soft on Bush by a ration of seven to one.

And if you look only at the self-described “liberals” and “moderates” in the media, these number become even starker:

Moreover, these numbers are all the more skewed because when the media talks about “bias,” it is talking about “conservative” bias. Indeed, when asked if they could name a news organization that has an “especially conservative bias”, 82% of journalists said they could -- and most pointed their fingers at Fox News. But when asked if they could name a news organization that has an “especially liberal bias”, only 38% of journalists said that they could name such an organization. Further, only 26% of self-described liberals could name a liberally biased news organization. Ridiculous.

So is the reason the public has lost faith in the media really the invent of the internet or cable television or budge cuts that happened long after that faith began to erode? Or could the reason be that journalists suffer from obvious bias and, even worse, are largely oblivious to their own bias?

Seems kind of obvious doesn’t it. . . unless you’re a journalist.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

It's Time To Stop Obsessing About The Tea Party Numbers...

I wasn’t going to write this article, but I am getting increasingly annoyed at how some talking heads on the right are misusing this Tea Party Protest in Washington.

What happened in Washington, D.C. on Saturday was amazing. A huge number of patriotic and dedicated Americans turned out to have their voices heard. They were average people, not activists. They were people who love America deeply and don’t like what Team Obama is doing to this country. For most, this was the first time they’d ever done anything like this. And they sent a powerful message.

Without any doubt, they won an incredible victory. Indeed, in my lifetime, I’ve seen dozens of these protests, and I have never seen the immediate response that this protest got.

On Friday, the Democrats were demanding a public option as part of health care reform. Public option or no deal, they told us. By Sunday morning, after the rally, they were in full retreat on the talk shows. Even Robert Gibbs said that Obama only wanted “competition” and he downplayed the need for a public option -- calling it only “one way” to go. A half dozen key Democrats agreed. Olympia Snowe said "no way" to the public option. Susan Collins rejected the “triggered option.”

This is a victory, and it belongs to the wonderful and patriotic Americans who showed up in D.C.

So what’s troubling me?

First and foremost, I am really annoyed at the numbers game that many of the talking heads are playing with this rally. The numbers don’t matter! Let me say that again, the numbers don’t matter! What matters are two things (1) that there were way more people than expected and (2) (more importantly) these weren’t professional protesters, these were average people.

Why does that matter? Because Congress knows what happens on the Mall. They send their aides to go mingle. They know when they are dealing with a flood of worked up Americans or with indifferent, paid protesters. And they know these were real Americans, very upset and very determined, but also very average. These were the kinds of people who may or may not always vote in elections, but who will vote now. They know it, and they know they need to listen to these people. The proof of that came Sunday morning.

But by obsessing about the numbers, the talking heads are simply giving people a reason to see the rally as a failure. If I insist that the rally was a success because two million people showed up, and you think only 100,000 showed up, then it becomes very easy for you to dismiss the rally as a failure because it couldn’t even overcome the hurdles I set for calling it a success.

And arguing over whether or not it was two million or less, just distracts from what these people achieved. We should not be whining about the numbers. Instead, we should be out there trumpeting the success, and talking about how the Democrats have already given in on the public option, and demanding more -- cut spending, reduce the debt, lower regulation, stop interfering with the economy! We should not be turning victory into defeat by, after the fact, setting up impossible hurdles for success.

And I can assure you that the numbers being bandied about simply cannot be supported. Lets take the two million number that most of the talking heads now treat as Holy Writ (down, I might add, from initial estimates by “anonymous sources” of 4.5 million). Consider these facts:

First, when the National Park Service used to estimate crowd sizes, the activists always complained that they were underestimating by a factor of two. For example, the Park Service estimated the Million Man March at 400,000 (activists insisted it was 850,000). The same was true with every single rally that took place during the many, many years I lived in the D.C. area.

Once the Park Service stopped estimating crowds, all of the estimates -- across the board, left, right and center -- went up by a factor of 10. Suddenly, a crowd the Park Service would have called 100,000 people became one million. Overestimating by a factor of ten is a longtime human tradition.

Secondly, do the math. Look at the chart Bev provided us. This chart is consistent with other numbers I’ve see for the square footage of the mall. According to this chart, only 1.1 million people can be at the Mall in ideal circumstances. So forget the 2 million and the 4.5 million figures right away. Sure, there is more room if the crowd flows over into the side streets, but nowhere near another 100% the size of the Mall.



Further, look at the legend on the chart. The 1.1 million figure assumes 2.5 square feet per person. Think about that. Go get a ruler and see if you aren’t more than thirty inches wide and twelve inches deep. Moreover, consider that to get the 2.5 square feet footage also means that people need to be packed in together, literally touching each other side by side, front to back. That doesn’t happen except at the very front of rock concerts.

If you expand the amount of area needed to just two feet by three feet, which is still only a couple inches apart on each side, the 1.1 million capacity suddenly falls to 450,000 people.

Now read the Elves again, about finding some place to sit down, and look at the pictures and see the spaces between people. These people are not stacked like cord wood. They are allowing several feet between themselves and the people around them. All of that space drops the number significantly. Moreover, as anyone who has ever been in a crowd can tell you, the further back you go into the crowd, the greater the open space.

So how many really showed up? I don’t know and I don’t care. And you shouldn’t either. . . it’s not the number that made this a success. It’s the fact that they came and who they were. And this is the point the talking heads are missing.

What’s more, many of these same people are using this event as a means to boost their own ratings by beating the drums of paranoia. They scream that ABC and MSNBC and the foreign press “confirmed” the two million number, and now suddenly are backing off “to only a few thousand.” The conclusion? Knowing suggestions that Team Obama called the press and got the number “suppressed.”

Wrong.

First of all, no one “confirmed” the two million number. If you don’t believe me, go find a link. Even Drudge hasn’t put a number on the rally because no media source gave an estimate. What they’ve all said instead was “estimates ranged from a few thousand to two million.” That’s not a confirmation of anything.

And where does this two million estimate come from? It’s from a quote by a Democratic aide, who spoke on Friday night, and said, “we don’t know how many are coming, it could be a few thousand up to two million.” That’s not confirmation either.

Nor are the media now saying “only a few thousand.” Almost universally, the media are reporting “tens of thousands,” which is the sort of thing media types say when they don’t know and they don’t want to be accused of over-stating or understating a large number. There’s no conspiracy to suppress “the evidence” here. There is bias -- they should have been covering this rally much more thoroughly, but there’s no conspiracy to hide the truth.

So what’s my point? My point is that a lot of people need to stop diminishing the victory won by these great Americans who showed up on the Mall. Stop playing this stupid numbers game. And stop spinning a misread quote into a vast conspiracy to suppress the truth. These protesters have won a great victory. Help them make it a bigger victory, don’t try to turn it into a failure.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Elves Are Back. . . And They've Been A Protestin'

By the Boiler Room Elves

Editor's Note: To our great surprise, we learned that the Boiler Room Elves escaped our basement and made their way to Washington, D.C. to participate in the 9/12 protest. Upon their return and after a savage beating, they produced the memo below explaining their absence. We thought you might find it interesting. . . (you can click on pictures to enlarge)


To: Management
Re: Unexcused Absence

We Boiler Room Elves often feel alone in our political convictions, locked away in the sub-basement of the building as it were. We thus found it extremely encouraging when, a mere hour into our half-day's sleigh ride along the interstate to the 9/12 Tea Party march on Washington, we had no fewer than 4 different cars wave at us to indicate that they too were heading to DC.

"BR-Elf-4" was decked out in its political best, and much to our pleasant surprise, a great many other people on the road seemed happy to see us there, waving, flashing headlights, and giving us thumbs up. One couple, who had travelled all the way from Colorado no less, went so far as to follow us off at a gas station and share their excitement about the rally.

Nevertheless, after cruising into the Elf Hostel in the suburbs in high spirits, we suddenly found ourselves concerned for the next morning. The lady who runs the Elf Hostel warned us - there had been no coverage of the event in the local media and the locals are usually given warning to avoid downtown when something big is coming up. We might end up downtown alone? Would we be accosted by Obama-mites as we sat all alone on the train? Would our signs create angry mobs of locals that would taunt us the entire journey? Would Acorn have taken over the trains and might we have one of our pointed ears bitten off?? The elf contingent dallied over morning Cheerios...

Imagine our surprise, then, when we walked up to the Metro stop and saw a man with teabags hanging off a straw hat. And over there - a woman with a giant red, white and blue star! A young man in a T-shirt with Reagan that said, "Old School Conservative!" The elves need not fear travelling alone. Indeed, we had to wait 30 minutes just to buy tickets for the Metro! Once on the Metro, it was standing room only all the way into town, and after a couple stops, no more people could get on at all. We might note, by the way, that the one passenger who appeared not to be headed to the Tea Party chatted on her cell phone and was quite irate that the local media had not told her to avoid downtown today.


We exited en masse at Federal Triangle around 10:45, with the march scheduled to start at 11:30. People were clearly moving down Pennsylvania Avenue already, though. A volunteer informed us that they had been forced to start the march 1-1/2 hours early because there were so many people already gathered there. They had been marching for 45 minutes and people were still streaming in.


We marched slowly down the avenue. We waved our signs. We chanted. We yelled and screamed.

"Yes we can - Vote you out!"

"U.S.A."

"Enough! Enough!"










As we came off Pennsylvania Avenue on the far end of the mall, we passed a pile of horse manure in the street from the DC park police horses, no doubt, with a volunteer warning us not to step on Congress! We found ourselves on the far end of the mall, in front of the pond that sits in front of Congress. The crowd at this point, perhaps 11:45 or 12:00, filled the area in front of Congress and reached about halfway into the first square of the mall between the Smithsonian museums. CNN and FOX had RV's parked there, but neither was interested in an elf's point of view. We worked our way through massive numbers of people around the pond to the area in front of the steps to the Congress building. We couldn't actually get closer than the street, but we did eventually find a small spot to sit and listen to speakers, even though we had no sight of the stage.





The speakers were mostly a collection of average Americans. A female Marine who had done 2 tours in Iraq. A man who had lost his car dealership when Obama created Gov't Motors. Organizers of local tea party events. A couple Congressmen. Rep. Mike Pence (IN) said that Pelosi could call us "un-American" but that to him, we looked like "the cavalry!" (THERE'S A COPY OF HIS SPEECH HERE) Speakers repeatedly asked Obama - "Can you hear us now??!!"



The speeches wound up around 4:00 and the crowd dispersed. We elves had some dinner, hoping to avoid the worst of the crowds on the Metro, but we still ended up in the thick of it around 6:00. On our way from the restaurant to the Metro, a woman - clearly not a protester - caught up to us and asked, "Are you here protesting?" Yesssss... It turns out that she lives here and works in a museum on the Mall. She looked out this afternoon, saw everyone and thought, "Oh a protest." Then she read the signs and realized she agreed with this one and that one and "wow, these are the GOOD people!" And guess what? She's a staunch conservative and hadn't heard a word about it before today either. She must read the Post.

We spoke with many people from all over the country. Organizers said that 450 busses had shown up. A person from Pennsylvania said that their local tea party group organized 1 bus to take some people who didn't want to drive, and it filled up overnight. So they ordered a second bus. That filled up, as did a 3rd, a 4th, and eventually they ended up sending 30 buses from their region because people kept calling to join in. A family from Atlanta had brought their kids and made a DC week out of it which was "breaking the bank but is worth every penny!" People on the Metro with us had driven in from all over and were staying with friends in the area.

It's clear that the majority of these people are still in their "rookie season" when it comes to protesting. Most had never been to a protest before. We elves only started this year ourselves, and we've learned much. Back on April 15th, the first time we snuck out, we showed up at the Tea Party empty handed and wearing our standard green tights and curly shoes. By early June, we'd learned to make signs and wear something patriotic. We quickly learned that it's helpful to attach your sign to some sort of pole rather than rely on your arms to hold it up for hours. By July 4th, we'd learned to make cleverer signs (we generally steal the ideas for the signs from the BossMan), wear buttons, and add bumper stickers to the sleigh. By now in September, well, we're not up to showing up dressed in American Revolutionary period garb, but we've added a Gadsden Flag to our repertoire and we've got the main points down. Another bridge we've not crossed yet is the handing out of pamphlets or stickers to further a cause, a book, or a website. Today we received a $1,000,000,000 bill with Obama on it and an Obama credit card with "no spending limit!" - each with a website to visit for more information. Maybe next time, Commentarama...

We elves are happy to report that it was an uplifting day. It's great to know that you are NOT alone. There are many people who believe like you do and are willing to stand up for those beliefs and for the country. We're even happier to know that these are just average people. They aren't professional protesters or activists, they were normal people who want their voiced to be heard.

We'll head back down to the boiler room now, content in knowing that others out there are fighting right along side of us. And when necessary, we'll hop on BR-ELF-4 and head right back here to make sure our voices continue to get heard.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Badges. . . We Don’t Need No Stinking Badges. . .

Do you remember the big fuss made by Team Obama and Mexico’s incompetent government a couple months back? Remember how all the carnage in Mexico was the result of automatic weapons being sold in the United States and then smuggled across the border to kill policemen? Wanna know the truth? It’s actually kind of scary. Read on. . .

Now at the outset, you know this story is bunk. Indeed, as you will recall from our article on guns, you can no longer buy new automatic weapons in the United States, and getting the older ones is extremely difficult. It’s also very difficult under the law to manufacture semi-automatic weapons that can be converted to full automatic. Not to mention that you can’t buy rockets and other real military hardware at all.

So where is this equipment coming from? Meet Los Zetas.

Who Is Los Zetas?

Mexico, like much of South-Central America, is beset by corruption. Local police are often for sale to the highest bidder. This has allowed various criminal enterprises (drug cartels, crime syndicates, smugglers) to all but turn Mexico in a series of small criminal kingdoms, with any attempt to combat these groups being frustrated by the complicity of local law enforcement.

To solve this problem, Mexico turned to their army. With the help of the United States, Mexico set up an elite anti-crime/counter-insurgency unit that it could send into any part of the country to impose order where the local authorities failed or refused, and to fight these criminal enterprises. This group, called the Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales (GAFE), was trained in the full range of special forces tactics at Fort Bragg and is equipped with the latest in US special forces hardware. So far so good.

In the late 1990, Gulf Cartel leader Osiel Cardenas Guillen began recruiting GAFE members to act as protection. His top recruit, Lt. Arturo Guzmán Decena brought with him approximately 30 other GAFE members. They called themselves Los Zetas, for the radio code “Zeta” used by the Mexican military to identify leadership persons.

Upon the arrest of Guillen, Los Zetas set out on their own. Soon enough, they set up camps to train recruits, including ex-federal, state and local police. Eventually, this would increase the number of members in Los Zetas to around 4000 members.

(A rival gang, the Sinaloa Cartel, has established its own version of Los Zetas known as Los Negros.)

Not only does Los Zetas operate at a higher tactical level than local authorities, but they are also extremely well armed (body armor, Kevlar ballistic helmets, a variety of automatic weapons including 50 caliber machine guns, grenade launchers, surface-to-air missiles, helicopters and a variety of explosives), and they make extensive use of wire tapping and cell phone tapping. Apparently, they also often masquerade as federal troops or police, using both federal uniforms and vehicles.

And what does this private army do? They collect debts, secure cocaine supply and trafficking routes, kidnap individuals, perform murder-for-hire, engage in extortion and money-laundering schemes, smuggle humans, and, most importantly, execute rivals. In that regard, they are known for incredible sadism and savagery. One common tactic, for example, involves putting their victim into a barrel of oil and setting the oil on fire -- this is reminiscent of the practice of “tiring” or “necklacing” practiced in Haiti and by the African National Congress in South Africa, where a tire is placed over the victims shoulders, filled with gasoline, and then set on fire.

Los Zetas also is known for monitoring and kidnapping journalists and their families, and they have hired gangs like the Texas Syndicate and MS-13 to carry out contract killings in within the United States. They are suspected in the recent murder of a popular politician and his family, though they deny involvement.

Threat To The Mexican Government

The fight between Los Zetas and the Mexican government has been so intense that many have feared the government would fall. Indeed, in February 2009, Rick Perry called out the National Guard, including armor and air units, “as a preventive measure upon the possible collapse of the Mexican State.”

This followed a year in which:

• In September 2008, Los Zetas members killed eight people and wounded more than 100 by tossing grenades into crowds of people celebrating Mexico’s independence in the city of Morelia.

• In December, eight soldiers were found tortured and decapitated in the resort town of Acapulco. The heads were stuffed in a plastic bag, left outside a shopping center with a note saying: “For every one of us you kill, we are going to kill 10.”

• In July, a group called La Familia, with whom Los Zetas apparently works, dumped the bodies of twelve federal police intelligence agents on a highway in Michoacán.

• At the end of August, a dozen hooded gunmen burst into a drug rehabilitation clinic in Ciudad Juarez, on the Texas border, lined up the patients, and killed eighteen of them. On the same day, another 30 people were executed across Mexico.

Last week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon removed Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora from office because of concerns that the government is losing this war.

Threat To The United States

Right now, Los Zetas is primarily based in the border region of Nuevo Laredo, though they are believed to operate all along the border and in most parts of the country. There is also evidence that Los Zetas has spread to Texas.

Since late 2006, more than 80 United States law enforcement officers working on the U.S.-Mexico border at the local, state and federal level have been convicted of corruption-related charges, according to an Associated Press tally. They have helped Los Zetas move drugs as far as Delaware.

In August, it was revealed that Los Zetas smuggled $46 million worth of oil stolen from PEMEX into the United States, where it was sold to U.S. refineries using false import documents.

Following a joint investigation titled “Operation Black Jack” by the ATF, DEA, ICE, FBI and Homeland Security, American authorities raided two Los Zetas’s safe houses in Texas, freeing over 40 kidnapped individuals.

On October 26, 2008, the Washington Times reported that the FBI warned Texas law enforcement that Los Zetas had threatened “a full tactical response” should law enforcement interfere with their operations. In response, a leader of Los Zetas was arrested in Reynosa, Tamaulipas (a border city) on November 7, 2008. In that operation, the Mexican Army and Mexican Federal Police seized three safe houses and found 540 assault rifles, 287 grenades, 2 M72 Law rocket launchers, half a million rounds of ammunition, 67 ballistic vests and 14 sticks of dynamite.

Conclusion

So where do these guns that are plaguing Mexico come from? Where else would former military and police officers with deep connections to the Mexican police and military get modern American military hardware of the type provided by the American military to the Mexican military (but not available to average Americans)? Well, if you’re a liberal or journalist, apparently you think they’re buying this hardware from gun stores in Texas.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed before Mexico explodes. It is shameful that Team Obama would not only turn a blind eye, but would falsely try to convert the crisis they should be addressing into an opportunity to make false political points against lawful gun ownership in the United States.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Speech: Evaluation of ObamaCare

Last night Obama tried to regain the initiative on health care. Whether or not this works remains to be seen. One thing is for sure though, he was stingy with the truth. Let’s take a detailed look at what he said.

The Public Option

It should come as no shock that Obama wants a public option. He claims that having a public option will “keep insurance companies honest,” although he also proposes other regulations that he claims will fix the problems with insurance companies. But if those regulations fix the problems with the insurance companies, why would we still need a public option?

The public option will compete against private insurers in an insurance exchange that Obama proposes to set up in four years. Why we need to wait four years is not clear, though that does conveniently delay this plan until after his re-election. I guess we wouldn’t want voters distracted by their private insurers going out of business just before the election. . . that might keep them from focusing on "the issues."

But don’t fret, Obama assures us that this health exchange will be welcomed by private insurers because “insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers”. . . that they can already compete for now, but don’t. Incentive, you use that word Mr. President, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Obama also tries to calm our fears by pointing out that “less than 5% of Americans would sign up.” Though how he comes up with that number is not known. Indeed, 16% of Americans are currently uninsured. So are the other 11% just fakers? And if we’re only worried about 5%, then why upset the other 95%? Why not create a new Medicaid Part F for those 5%? Wasn’t it Obama himself who began his speech by saying,

“Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.”

I guess that was just hollow rhetoric?

In any event, insurers should not fear the new public option, Obama tells us, because it won’t be subsidized:

“I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.”

How exactly is that going to work dumbass. .. er, sorry, Mr. President? These people, according to you, are too poor to afford insurance (and many of them have hugely expensive uninsurable conditions)? So how are you going get them “affordable” insurance without subsidizing their care? And if you can work that magic trick, why can’t you do the same for Medicaid? Has Medicaid done something wrong? Has it offended you oh Great and Powerful Lord?

But wait, he has an answer for how the public insurance option will be so cheap:

“By avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers.”

Really? Profits at private insurance companies are estimated between 3% and 8%, that’s hardly abusive. And profits aren't considered overhead. . . unless you're a communist. Moreover, in terms of overhead, there is nothing more bogged down by overhead, waste, fraud and abuse than government. Private insurance costs on average $4,700 per person in this country. Government insurance (Medicare/Medicaid) costs $11,093. So I’m going to call a big old steaming pile of Pelosi on that one bub.

You Will Be Forced To Have Insurance

Yes, Virginia, there is an evil Santa Claus and he will force to you buy insurance. He hasn’t told you how much it will cost yet, but I assure you it will be more than you can afford:

“That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers.”

And do you know why we need this? Because right now “those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it — about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.”

Actually, the figure for uninsured reimbursement is $35 billion a year. Spread over 300 million Americans that works out to $116 each, not $1,000. That's about 30 cents a day each. Personally, I’d rather pay the $116 than force everyone to buy insurance every year, but I’m crazy like that.

In any event, don't fear that you won’t be able to afford being forced to buy insurance. If you truly can’t afford it, you won’t be required to have it:

“There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.”

But doesn’t that defeat the purpose of this whole thing? Now you’re saying that the very people this program is designed to reach will be given an exemption from the plan, so that they don’t have to buy insurance. . . leaving them uninsured. WTF? Tell me again why we’re remaking one sixth of our economy? And how does that save me my $116?

Let’s Fact Check Obama’s “Facts”

Obama also gave us a series of facts last night, about which he stated: “These are the facts. Nobody disputes them.” Let’s dispute them. . .

Obama: “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Reality: Believe it not, this is actually kind of true, in a deceptive sort of way. This bill provides that no illegal aliens may participate in the programs set up under this bill. BUT, it does not stop them from continuing to do what they do now -- getting free health care in emergency rooms. The taxpayer will continue to pick up that tab, just not under this particular plan.


Obama: “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”

Reality: I could have sworn the propaganda number was 46 million Americans? In any event, you and I know from our prior articles that the real number is only 7.3 million.


Obama: “In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.”

Reality: Now I can’t verify this number, no one can because it’s made up. But if you think about it. One in three Americans means 100 million people. Doesn’t that seem a little higher than the 30/46 million figure they keep bandying about? And what’s the 14,000 every day? That works out to a total 5.1 million a year. How does that get to 100 million every two years? Looks like you’re 95 million short dumba. . . Mr. President.


Obama: “Not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.”

Reality: Oh, how to refute this one? How about a quote from the same speech Obama gave last night: “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.”


Obama: “Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare. The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud.”

Reality: Obama is talking about cutting payment to Medicare providers by $500 billion -- $50 billion a year. He claims this can be found in waste, fraud and abuse. However, the HHS Office of Inspector General, which pursues these matters, has recovered only an average of $1.2 billion per year. And all of the experts agree that this will lead to significant cuts in benefits.


Obama: “Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because. . .”

Reality: Huh? Bush left Obama a deficit of $700 billion, too much to be sure, but Obama added $1 trillion to that. So drop the crap about facing a trillion dollar deficit when you walked in the door you lying sack of . . .


Obama: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.”

Reality: Actually, no. To make this claim work, the Democrats have designated most of the costs as being “off budget.” They thus don’t count toward the deficit, even as they explode the deficit. This is a self-deceptive tactic used by diet-breakers, crack addicts, and Congresses.

Moreover, when you consider all the costs, something else becomes clear quite quickly: Obama’s numbers make no sense. Obama claims the cost of his plan will be $900 billion. To pay for this, he claims to have found “savings within the existing health care system — a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. . . That's not my judgment — it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country.”

Oh, well if medical professional say it, then it must be true. Let’s see $900 billion in waste, fraud and abuse. About as much is spent each year on private health care as government health care. Thus, assuming waste, fraud and abuse exists, there is no reason to think it will be more than another billion a year (the same as in the government half). That leave Obama $890 billion short.

And of course, you shouldn’t believe the $900 billion figure either. The current House plan is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion, and even that was wildly optimistic.

But never fear, Obama’s not just relying on waste, fraud and abuse, he’s going to require preventative care like mammograms and colonoscopies which he claims “makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.” However, studies have shown that most preventive care -- particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions -- actually cost more money than they save.

According to the pesky Congressional Budget Office, “The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.” Moreover, kill-joy CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf concluded in July that “we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.” That’s tech speak for “not going to save you a penny Barry.”

Oh, almost forgot, Obama does propose to form committees to examine the possibility of considering whether or not it might be worth examining the possibility of thinking about tort reform of some kind in some small places: “It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.” Of course, as these are matters of state law, this claim is entirely fallacious. But hey, it sounded kind of ok.


Obama: “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.”

Reality: That’s absolutely true. And for those of you who have read my article on short term thinking, you will understand why liberals will believe this. But what ObamaCare does not do, is guarantee that your insurer will continue to offer the plan you have or that your employer will continue to carry it. The Democrats have estimated that three million people will lose their employer based insurance if this plan passes. I’m thinking they forgot to carry a one somewhere. The fine will be around 8% of salary, and the average private insurance costs around $4,700 right now. Thus, it will make sense for employers to drop their coverage for anyone earning less than $58,750 per year.

According to the Census Bureau 61% of households earn less than that. At a minimum, that’s 183 million people. Only 3 million huh?


Obama: And one final point, Obama stated, "When I spoke here last winter. . . we were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. . . but thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink."

Reality: That number is indeed down. We are currently losing 550,000 jobs per month.


It was a pretty speech though. . . [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Danger: The Triggered Public Option

If you choose to bore yourself to tears and listen to Obama’s speech tonight, here is what you should listen for. The public option is dead, right? Sure, Obama may mention it, but a whole bevy of Senators have refused to pass any bill that contains it. So it’s dead, right? Right? Why do I keep asking? Here’s why:

Meet Olympia Snowe (RINO - Maine). . . your worst nightmare.

According to CNN and CNBC (and probably others), Sen. Snowe, one of the last great RINOs, is working hard to get Obama the public option. Well, that’s not what she calls it, but that’s what it is. And how does she plan to snatch this crucial socialist victory for her Lord Obama from the well-deserved jaws of defeat visited upon him by the hands of the peasants? Behold: the triggered public option.

The triggered public option works this way. A scaled-down health care reform bill is drafted. It basically does nothing and offends no one. But it lets Obama save face -- something near and dear to the hearts of all RINOs. Hidden within the bill will be the Snowe Amendment (“Snowejob” for short). If (read: “when”) those insurance “reforms” included in the bill don’t result in a reduction in insurance costs within a certain amount of time, a full-on public option will spring forth upon us. . . like a highwayman hiding behind a rock in Maine.

Thereafter, the obvious will occur. The current insurance system will die. You will lose your insurance. You will end up on the public plan. Doctors will revolt, by refusing to take public plan patients. Patients too will revolt when they can’t find doctors and when the doctors they can find can’t get paid for doing any work. The system will go broke quicker than a Congressman in a whorehouse because the numbers are laughably phony. Our budget will collapse, angering the Chinese who hold so much of our debt, but thrilling the gold nuts. And as people begin demanding that their city councils put up statutes of Obama giving Stalin a Snowejob, a retarded woman in Maine will go on television and say, “no one could have seen this coming.”

Seriously, this is the new danger. It is a tactic as old as time itself. When the enemy is on to you, pretend you are doing something else. Since they know they can’t force a public option on a vigilant public, they will try to create a situation that leads to a public option coming into existence without a direct vote. By creating a springing public option, no one need ever vote “yes, I want to socialize our medicine” to make that happen. Indeed, it will happen all on its own, without anyone needing to claim responsibility for it. . . after all, the bill they voted for didn’t create a public option, that “somehow happened” later. In fact, they will assure you, they voted for this bill to prevent the public option.

This is the same trick used by the Congress whenever they want to do something the public doesn’t want and can’t find a sucker to take credit for it.

Now there is one thing that might save us from these masochistic RINOs. Despite the recent mania about the left suddenly morphing into a unified front of evil geniuses, all working according to plan, they are in fact a bunch of whiny morons who can’t stay on the same page for more than a few hours. And they are livid about the idea of a triggered public option. Why?

Go back and read my article about short term versus long term thinking. In that article, I explain how liberal thinking is static; i.e. they live in the moment. They do not understand that people will react to incentives, causing long term shifts in behavior and intended (or unintended) consequences. Thus, they see this legislation simply as a defeat: it does not promise a public option, hence there will never be a public option. Obama lied, my Stalinist dreams died!

Conservatives, on the other hand, who tend to be long term, dynamic thinkers understand that while the bill does not create a public option now, it will be inevitable under this bill. The bill does nothing to lower insurance costs or to help insurers lower costs. Yet, it will trigger if those insurers, who are hostage to massive regulation, don’t do what they cannot do. In effect, the public option is guaranteed. . . but don't tell your leftist friends that, we need them as upset as possible.

As an aside, the difference between long and short term thinking also explains why conservatives understand that a public option will destroy and replace the current system, whereas liberals can’t see that because the bill doesn’t ban private insurance (“if it exists now, and it’s not banned, why won’t it exist forever?”).

So sadly, our best hope lies with the left. Talk about irony though? We need to hope that the left kills a bill designed by a RINO to make sure that the left gets everything they want. Good grief.

In the meantime, call your representatives. Tell them that you will consider a vote for a triggered public option the same as vote for a public option. Don’t let them hide behind the idea that they aren’t supporting a public option or the lie that “it will never happen.” The people have won a victory for democracy, don’t let a Maine SnoweRINO take that victory away.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Journalism Is Dead

With Glenn Beck, not the mainstream media, exposing Van Jones for the rest of us, it might be the appropriate time for a little rant against the state of modern journalism. How to put this: “Journalism Is Dead.” Yep, that about sums it up. And I have particular anger for Fox News.

Modern journalism is in a bad state. Though, to be fair, most of what ails modern journalism has ailed it since journalism first began:

• Modern journalists are biased. True enough, and when I get the chance, I will put together an article showing you just how biased. But journalistic bias is nothing new. Indeed, at one time, journalists were openly biased. When you pick up the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, for example, you’re looking at a paper that was founded as a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

So even though the New York Times is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, that’s nothing new -- they’re just less honest about it. Same thing with the Associate Press announcing just prior to the election that they would no longer present all views “uncritically,” but will instead put their own spin “on the news”. And while this may represent a change of official policy, it certainly won’t change the practice, which has involved spinning for as long as I can remember.

• Charges of being co-opted are nothing new either. The Founders called for a free press. But other countries have not been so noble. Pravda means “truth” in Russian, but you would have been hard pressed to find much truth coming from Pravda during the cold war. The Pentagon periodically gets caught paying journalists to present favorable opinions on its behalf. And while corporations now dominate journalists, this is not so different than the days when Randolph Hearst ran his newspaper empire with an iron fist.

Modern journalists are also an easily co-opted group. The Washington Post tried to use its connections to sell “off the record” private meetings between the rich and powerful and those with too much money. White Houses have learned to manipulate the press corp as well by granting special access. . . hello ABC. The NFL, a master at manipulating journalists, dispenses tickets, interviews, and access to keep its journalists in line -- when they don’t outright hire them. Corporations have gotten very good at using journalists for their purposes as well. Maria Bartiromo of CNBC got in trouble when it was revealed that she accepted favors (like flights on private jets) from the same people she reported on. And CNBC has started pimping for sponsors, unless you want to believe their repeated “spontaneous” sales pitches for Gap jeans are actually news.

At this point, modern journalists are little more than press agents for the people they cover.

• Charges of sensationalism are not new either. Sure modern journalists try to create crises and false urgency to sell their work and they often trade in salacious details rather than relevant fact, but that’s all been done before. The phrase “yellow press journalism,” which fanned the flames or populist resentment to begin the Spanish American war, was hardly meant as a compliment.

The Real Problem Is Journalistic Laziness

So what is different today? Frankly, journalists have gotten lazy. How else do you explain the media, with its vast resources and supposed training and drive for the truth, being scooped repeatedly by bloggers? How else do you explain allowing plagiarized work to appear in a paper like the NYT day after day for so long without any editor noticing? How do you explain journalists who don’t know what they are talking about and don’t take the time to inform themselves?

You do know that you really can’t trust anything they tell you, right? As anyone who has ever been involved in an incident that ended up getting press coverage can attest, the journalist is often the least knowledgeable person in the room, both when they arrive on scene and when they leave. And few facts survive the journey through the journalist’s mind to reach the work itself, if they ever made it into the mind in the first place. Indeed, in my experiences with journalists, I have been shocked to see how poorly the journalists understood the events about which they reported and opined, and how little they cared.

And frankly, modern journalists are a strangely uninquisitive lot. They don’t know and they don’t want to know. Why? Maybe because the more you know about something, the more you realize just how much more you don’t know. Perhaps, it’s easier to remain ignorant of our ignorance. After all, ignorance is bliss.

So how does this manifest itself? It manifests itself in many ways. Stories are shallow and often wrong on fundamental levels. Journalists do little work to cultivate contacts, which used to be the lifeblood of journalism. Instead, they read the AP wire or scan the net. Place a quick mid-night phone call that won’t be returned in two rings, and bamo, you have a story and a failure to deny the story: good to go! Journalists no longer even wait to confirm their stories with a second source, which used to be the fundamental rule of journalism. Instead, they just add the magic words “is being reported” to let you know that this news is really only rumor. And when was the last time you heard of real investigate journalism?

When I look at modern journalism, the writing is poor, the research is worse or non-existent, and the reasoning is laughable. Not a week goes by that I can’t find some article that contains such obvious logical inconsistencies that the journalist should have realized their “facts” were impossible. Even when I read a “reputable” magazine like the Economist, I marvel at how easily I can rip up article after article without even researching a single fact. Your names are wrong, your dates are wrong, your numbers don’t add up. You just claimed an average rate that exceeds the population size. You claim that no one raised and objection, right before quoting someone who objected. Think people.

My Problem With Fox “News”

So what bothers me about Fox News? Fox News had a unique opportunity and they blew it. When Fox burst onto the scene, conservatives flocked to Fox in drove because they were sick of hearing their views ridiculed on each of the other channels. At that point, Fox had a chance to re-define journalism.

Fox could have changed the face of modern journalism. Fox could have forced journalists everywhere to start dusting off their sense of journalistic integrity and to stop being so damn lazy. But they didn’t.

Fox could have teamed up with a good reporting unit like the Washington Times and started to give us hard hitting news. They could have easily drawn in people like John Stossel and asked him to perform the kind of investigative journalism that he has done so well throughout the years -- hard facts, gathered through traditional means and verified, fairly presented, with logic and reasoning and without political bias. But they didn’t.

Did you wonder what life was really like on the streets of Baghdad when all that CNN would show you was Marines being killed? How about an investigation into what caused the banking crisis? Who was responsible? What is China doing in Africa (future article coming up on that one)? Did you even know they were in Africa? How about the Saudis? Does ethanol make sense?

Well, Fox didn't investigate (though their anchors happily gave you their opinions). Fox does not produce its own news, it just reads wire service reports. You can get those on-line a lot quicker and a lot more accurately (Fox shortens the reports to keep them simple). Fox does not do investigative journalism -- other than puff pieces. They will never uncover a government fraud or expose a defective missile system, because they just don’t do that kind of work. And they barely know other countries exist.

Fox doesn’t bring in experts to enlighten you, it brings in combatants to snipe at each other for thirty seconds before the segment ends. Fox News is news for those with attention deficit disorder. It is for people who want to hear someone argue for their side, it is not for people who are looking to learn the truth. It is talk radio, done on television by well-endowed anchors and anchorettes. And we conservatives accept this because there is no alternative.

Now, I'm not saying that the other networks are better, they're not. But that doesn't change the fact that Fox is offering very shallow product to us. It also doesn’t change the fact that Fox is squandering a golden opportunity here. If they tried harder, they could redefine news and give the words "journalistic integrity" some meaning again. They could give us the free press that a democracy needs. They could enlighten us about the world around us, about our politics, about each other. They could tell us the things we need to know to make good decisions. And most importantly, they could give us a source of news that we could trust. But that would be hard.

* end of rant *

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Stark Raving Mad Mad Mad World. . .

Once again, it seems the world has gone a little crazy. I’m not talking about our President trying to create an Obama Youth Corp or our Congress housing more tax cheats than a federal prison. No. I’m talking about downright, barking-at-the-moon crazy. Consider this:

Exhibit A: “Qaddafi Calls For U.N. To Abolish Switzerland”

That’s right, Muammar Qaddafi wants the U.N. to abolish Switzerland. No word on whether or not he wants them removed from our minds as well, but details of this plan remain sketchy at this point. I guess I have no problems with this in principle, but I think the U.N. should first test their plan on one of those worthless countries run by an idiot. . . like Libya.


Exhibit B: “Japan’s First Lady Probed By Aliens”

So much for Japan’s reputation as a staid, conservative. . . sane country. Says Miyuki Hatoyama (which is Japanese for “mental”), who is the wife of premier-in-waiting Yukio Hatoyama (which is Japanese for “I’m With Stupid”): “While my body was asleep, I think my soul rode on a triangular-shaped UFO and went to Venus. It was a very beautiful place and it was really green.” And then she woke up in a dumpster with two homeless guys snorting coke off her belly.

At least this explains the priority seating signs.


Exhibit C: “Robot Attacks Swedish Factory Worker”

That’s right, a Swedish built robot reached out and physically attacked a worker, nearly killing the man. Said Public Prosecutor Lief Johansson: “I’ve never heard of a robot attacking somebody like this. Usually they use plasma rifles in the 40 Watt range.” Johansson is mulling possible charges. . . against the robot I guess? If he is, he should know that the robot claims to have been abused when it was only component parts.

And isn’t Sweden supposed to be neutral? They’ve sat out history for this long, why are they now building Robot Holocaust-inducing robots? Somebody should abolish them post haste, before we all die.


Exhibit C: “Lobster Wars Rock Remote Maine Island”

First killer Swedish robots, now killer lobsters? No word on casualties yet, though I understand some Mainiacs have been captured. More disturbingly, three have returned from the front with war brides. I guess we understand where Stephen King gets his idea. . . whoa, did I forget the “s” on the end of that word? Hmm, I should fix that.


Exhibit D: “Britons Angered By Adolph Hitler Sex Tape”

And finally, the coup de grace. . . Hitler made a sex tape. Yep. Let me repeat that. Hitler. . . made a sex tape. That’s hot. Actually, some AIDS group made a Hitler sex tape because they thought this would be a good idea. . . like building a killer robot. And rumor has it, in future commercials, Hitler will be doing the nasty with the übercreepy Burger King “King.”


Killer robots, killer lobsters, alien abductions, Hitler sex tapes, and a re-write of reality? Oh help me Spock! Is it something in the water? Is it internet addiction gone wrong? (You know they have a clinic for that now -- in Seattle. . . and probably on-line somewhere.) Whatever the cause, let’s hope they find a cure. Might I suggest 50 megatons?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Van Obama? Tells Us It Ain't So Mr. President

By now you’ve all heard of Van Jones, either from Glenn Beck or a conservative blog (or in Lawhawk’s excellent article of a week ago), but not on the networks. When I wrote this article yesterday, Van Jones was still Obama's green czar. At the end of the article, I said that it was likely Jones would resign quietly on Monday. I was wrong. He resigned this morning. . . hence, a re-write.

For those of you who don’t know Van Jones, he is a former criminal, a former community organizer, and a self-avowed Communist. He is also a racist or race hustler, a 9/11 Truther and either a fool or a liar. . . and Obama appointed him as a green Czar (should have been a red czar).

And that's the real story here, not who Jones is -- because the world is full of crackpots, but that Obama would appoint this man. As you read Jones' own words below, ask yourself, does Obama share any of these beliefs?:


On Polluters and Environmentalists of the Honkus Maximus Persuasion

Van Jones: “We're really entering a third wave of environmentalism in the United States. The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities.”

Jones also describes the current regulatory system as “echo apartheid,” and states that “we gonna change the whole system” because just replacing bad energy with good (specifically solar energy) means we’ll have “biodiesel powered bombers” and “we’ll be going to war over lithium” for the batteries.

Summing up, Jones believes that white environmentalists are murderous racists who want to poison minorities and go to war over lithium batteries. Ed Begley Jr., you dirty thug!

Oh, and in case you’re thinking of supporting McCain friend and California something-or-other candidate Meg Whitman (R, e-Bay), she described Jones in May as doing “a marvelous job… I’m a huge fan of his. He is very bright, very articulate, very passionate. I think he is exactly right.”


On Race And School Shootings

Van Jones: “You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never. They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them. Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school.”

So white kids are killers? Then why have there only been seven such multiple-victim shooting sprees in the past ten years (most by college students)? And how does that compare to the number of black kids gunned down by other black kids every day? And if blacks don’t kill each other in large numbers explain gang wars in our major cities, not to mention Rwanda, Liberia, and Congo (among many others).

Finally, why does Jones seem to think its ok or not a big deal that black kids are killing each other?


On Republicans

Van Jones: “They’re assholes.”

He then continues: “Barack Obama is not an asshole. Now, I will say this, I can be an asshole. And some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama are gonna have to start getting a little bit uppity.”

Forgive me if I am a bit naive, but isn’t the use of the term “uppity” considered “racist”? I seem to recall that somewhere. Indeed, now that I mention it, the use of the word “uppity” by Republican Representative Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia is being called racist by the left:

“I bring up the N-word because that is the debased level of rhetoric that the word ‘uppity’ belongs to, especially when a white Southerner is directing it at Blacks. This is overt racist thuggery. . .

Lynn Westmoreland’s slur was a conscious evocation of the racist sentiment that Blacks who refuse to be subservient to whites should be put in their place through violence—beatings, bombings, murder. Westmoreland’s slur is also a call to arms to extremists who would still carry out Klan-style violence. Westmoreland is not fit to govern. I hope his colleagues in Congress are fervently asking for his resignation.”

On Bush, Iraq and Race

Van Jones: “When somebody had taken the American flag and turned it into a war flag and used it to beat and whip and lynch anybody who didn't agree that we should be bombing people and torturing people . . .”

Note first the ridiculousness of the statement: the only person “lynched” during the Bush years was Bush, and no one was beaten or whipped because of their opposition to Iraq. Moreover, note that once again, Jones employs a word that is considered racist: lynch.


On Bush, Environmental Policy and Ebonics

Van Jones on Bush’s proposal to open more land for drilling: “I hope I don’t offend anybody, but the President of the United States sounded like a crackhead.”

He then pretended to take a hit from a crack pipe, and kept saying: “Jus’ a lill’ bit mo’.” Finally, he concluded, “[Bush is] like a crackhead trying to lick the pipe for a fix.”

Not only did the entire presentation take place in Ebonics, but he even used the word “Ebonics” to describe it himself. Try doing that Representative Westmoreland and see what the whinies say then!


On the San Francisco Police

Van Jones: “Willie Brown's Police Commission is killing black people.”

I guess the SF PD must be a bunch of white environmentalists.


Van Jones the Marxist Revolutionary:

Jones also claims to have become a Marxist revolutionary after spending some time in jail around the time of the Rodney King verdict:

“In jail I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And I was, like, ‘this is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. . . I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28 and then the verdicts came down on April 29. By August, I was a Communist.”

Too bad he didn’t meet transsexual hookers. “On April 28, I had a pe. . .” (Oh, you get the picture.)

Having become a communist, Jones helped form a group called STORM, which put together a manifesto titled “Reclaiming Revolution: Standing Together to Form a Revolutionary Movement.” This manifesto states:

“We are a revolutionary cadre organization that understands that revolutionary Marxist politics would be central to the development of a successful liberation movement in this country. We are committed to Marxist-Leninist politics.”

and

“We upheld the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation. We agree with Lenin’s analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration and guidance from the insurgent revolutionary strategies developed by third world revolutionaries like Mao Tse-Tung and Amilcar Cabral.”

He apparently named his child after Cabral (seen on the stamp to the right).

But his days of being an open revolutionary are over. He now claims that he will hide his roots to achieve his goals: “I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radial ends.”


Van Jones the 9/11 Truther

In 2004, Jones signed a petition for the 9/11 Truther movement. That petition called on the New York Attorney General to investigate: “evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.” It also provided: “people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

When this became public the other day, Jones tried to deny knowing what he signed. Said Jones, “the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.”

Shortly thereafter two other signatories came forward to claim that they too were misled into signing that petition. Said Howard Zinn, “I did not sign a statement suggesting that 'Bush had prior knowledge.' I signed a statement calling for an investigation.” But Zinn also endorsed Trutherism on the 911truth.org website in May 2004, three months before signing the petition he now disavows.

So is Jones telling the truth? According to Mike Berge, a spokesman for 911Truth.org, board members “spoke with each person on the list by phone or through email to individually confirm they had added their name to that list. I think in most cases, they spoke to them personally. No one’s name was put on that list without them knowing it.” That would include Jones.

Moreover, bloggers (not MSM) have turned up evidence that Jones was listed as a member of the “organizing committee” for a Truther march.


Republicans On Van Jones

In response to all of this, the No. 3 Republican in the House has started calling for Van Jones to resign:

“Given recent revelations concerning the associations and statements of the president's green jobs czar, Van Jones should resign his position and if he is unwilling to do so, the president should demand his resignation. His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this Administration or the public debate.”

He also criticized the Czar process (something that I and West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd have been saying for some time):

“The Constitution of the United States vests Congress with the responsibility to advise and consent in the appointment of high ranking officials by the president. To date, President Obama has appointed more than thirty individuals to ‘czar’ positions within his Administration without permitting the Congress or the American people to properly examine their backgrounds or public records.”

And how is Team Obama responding? Not with much.

If Obama didn't share these reprehensible views, shouldn't he have expressed shock or outrage -- or even feigned shock or outrage? Even now that Jones has joined the Assheap of History with the likes of Tom Daschle and other disgraced Obama appointees, shouldn't Obama comfort us that he doesn't think white environmentalists are trying to kill blacks, that white cops aren't trying to kill blacks, that white kids aren't killers, that he doesn't think it's ok for black kids to shoot each other, and that he doesn't believe all of his talk of alternative energies isn't just a pretext to go to war over lithium?

The resignation is fine. But I want more.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Dark Ages (Redux)

A few years back, a group of environmentalists decided to see what would happen if you thrust a country back into the Dark Ages. They chose Britain, possibly because the British were too busy stabbing each other and binge-drinking themselves into a stupor to notice. With nary a hint of protest, the environmentalists set their plan into motion. Now the free range chickens have come home to roost.

Here’s what happened. Beginning in the 1990s, the Labor government started a concerted effort to destroy the British power grid in the name of stopping global warming. . . er climate change. . . er the next ice age.

Noting that coal and nuclear power plants account for about 45% of all power generated in Britain, Labor chose those forms of power as the best place to start. So they made it virtually impossible to build nuclear plants. Then they made it unprofitable to run existing coal-fired plants, and finally they all but forbade the construction of new coal-fired plants. And here is what they’ve achieved:

Britain currently gets around 13% of its electricity from nuclear plants. But most of their nuclear plants are simply too old to carry on. Indeed, half of their existing nuclear plants have already been shut down and the remaining plants will soon follow. The last one should be closed by 2023. New nuclear plants are planned, but the earliest one of those could be up and running is 2017, and that’s probably insanely optimistic.

Britain also gets around 31% of its electricity from coal-fired plants, but this will end soon. EU environmental rules require that coal plants be fit with expensive scrubbers or be shut down. But these scrubbers are too expensive to make economic sense. So owners are finding it cheaper to just shut the plants down. Indeed, right now these plants are operating (in a reduced capacity) under an exception that expires in 2015, after which time they will be shut down.

So by 2015, Britain will lose about 44% of its capacity to generate electricity. Alas, they don’t have the capacity to spare. The chart on the left shows the problem. Beginning in 2015, Britain will not be able to generate enough electricity to meet demand. This gap between supply and demand will continue to grow until around 2030, at which point Britain will be able to meet only half of its demand.

What does this mean? Blackouts.

In the 2007, South Africa experienced blackouts because of a moratorium put in place in the 1990s on the building of new power plants. Consequently, the national power company, Eskom, began rolling blackouts, cutting off power for hours at a time. Initially, these blackouts were announced. But they soon discovered that this attracted thieves to the affected neighborhoods, so they stopped announcing them.

Britain will be heading down the same path. So, if burglary is your thing -- and if you live in Britain, we know it is -- you are about to experience a golden age of crime. It will be glorious!

But wait, in all fairness, I don’t want to overstate the problem. The same idiots who caused the problem have a “solution.” They prayed to the Great Unicorn for magical new technologies that will produce the missing electricity without harming the environment. Here is what they got:

Over the next eleven years (fortunately 2015 is more than 11 years away), they intend to build enough maritime windmills to produce 33 Gig Watts of power. Not bad huh? And while many claim that Britains lacks the resources to produce this many windmills, we should not doubt that they can pull this off. After all, Britain is the world’s biggest producer of wind power. In fact, in 2008, Britain produced a whopping 0.6 GW! See, they're almost there. . . only another 98.2% to go!

But there is a catch with this marvelous plan. The government estimates that it’s about to lose 75 GW of power because of all these plant closures (failures). Thus, even if Plan Quixote works, it will still come up 42 GW short. . . actually, that’s not true. There’s another problem I haven’t mentioned yet. It turns out that windmills don’t work on calm days. I know, knock you over with a feather! Even the government estimates that 25 GW of potential from windmills will only be able to replace 5 GW of fossil-fuel fired power. Thus, to plug the gap with wind, the Brits need to produce 375 GW of wind power -- more than ten times what they’re building. It would seem, the Great Unicorn has failed them?

And this doesn’t even account for the fact that their oil and gas fired plants are running out of fuel as their North Sea reserves run dry (they peaked in 1999).

Yet, there is an out. When the darkness and the cold become unbearable and the number of patients dying in the dark in hospitals increases well beyond its currently high levels, the Brits can start building gas-fired plants. And to fuel those plants, they can call upon old reliable, dependable Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Of course, that will be expensive and will wreak havoc on anyone who pays for their own electricity, partly because the prices will vary dramatically day by day, and partly because Putin loves him some predatory pricing. But it should keep the lights on most of the time. And so what if it makes Britain dependent on Russia. Economic slavery sure beats global warming. . . cooling. . . whatever.

Of course, there is something else they could do. They could burn environmentalists and Labor MPs to keep warm.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Polls They Are A Fallin'

Like a countdown in a James Bond film, Obama’s approval rating keeps working its way toward zero. This week he hit a new low -- 45%. But he’s not the only one in trouble with the voters. Nosiree.

As incredible as this may sound, most people don’t think Congress knows what it’s doing. Imagine that! In fact, only 29% think Congress has a clue, and most of those people are institutionalized.

More interestingly, a full 57% of Americans -- six in ten -- would vote to throw out the entire Congress and start over. Now that’s a vote of confidence you can believe in!

Unfortunately, most people don’t believe it can happen. They think the system is “rigged” to protect incumbents. Fifty percent of respondents believe this in fact. Only 23% believe that “people hate Congress but love their own congressman.” And anecdotally speaking, I’m pretty sure Lawhawk can confirm that this is not true -- he’s never once mentioned making love to Nancy Pelosi, and that’s the sort of thing you tell people. . . like your exorcist.

FYI, speaking of Congress, Republicans now top the Democrats by 7% in the generic poll (43% to 36%). Not bad for a party that has no brains, no policies, no principles, and no leadership. Keep sitting around boys, it’s working!

Well, that’s all we have today. What? You want more? Ok, maybe just a little. . .

Perhaps you’ve heard of an odious little man named Harry Reid, “Dingy Harry” to his friends? Reid considers himself a muckety muck in the Senate, or so he tells his constituents every chance he gets. . . at least when he isn’t telling local newspapers: “I hope that you go out of business.” Right back at you Harry, right back at you.

So what’s up with Harry? Harry is under a great deal of stress. See, every so often, Harry has to answer to the voters. The next so often occurs in 2010. And, sadly, poor Harry is losing. Yep. Harry is losing to someone named Danny Tarkanian, who seems to be the son of towel-biting former NCAA basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian. “Tark the Shark” used to coach at UNLV, a much more esteemed institution than where Harry works.

Tark’s boy Danny claims to be something called a “Republican.” Now stick with me here, because I know that’s a new term. According to the wikipedia, “Republicans” are a political party found in some US states. And Harry's losing to one! Ha! What's worse, it’s not even close. Right now this mystery “Republican” is beating the pants off Harry by 11 points (49% to 38%).

Of course, these “Republicans” might want to give Harry a sporting chance. If they feel generous, they’ll run a woman named Sue Lowden, who only leads Harry by 5 points (45% to 40%).

Still, five points is nothing to sneeze at. And either way, it just doesn't look good for The Dinge.

What a shame it would be if Harry had to leave the land of graft and dirty money. Why, what would he do all day. . . all by himself? Well, actually, Harry might not be alone as you might think. Indeed, he might be able to hang out with Joe Biden’s kid (whose name I believe is Kumar). Little Kumar loses to some Republican named Mike "White" Castle, though it’s close -- 21 points.

And if Kumar Biden isn’t to Harry’s taste, he could swap mortgage details with Christopher Dodd, who trails someone named Simmons (possibly Richard? maybe Gene?) in New York’s eastern annex by 9 points. Arlen Specter might be free too. He currently trails something called “Toomey” by 12 points.

So fret not friends for young Harry, he won't be alone.

(P.S. If you do feel like sneezing at the five point lead, check out Writer X's post today on the advice given by Obama about sneezing. God help us all.)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...