Global Warmists Lie About Ocean Levels

No sooner did we discover that the trees are sabotaging global warming, than we get news that global warming enthusiasts are fudging their data to make the oceans appear to be rising, when they aren’t. This has been a bad month for the enthusiasts. In fact, it’s been a bad couple years.

Climate change enthusiasts have had a bad time of late:

1. Their seminal religious text, the Nobel-Prize-winning Fourth Report (2007) of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been repeatedly disgraced:

● They had to retract a completely unsupported statement that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.

● Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. In fact, global temperatures are currently below the “low end” of the IPCC’s prediction. What’s more, 1999-2008 showed no warming, and certainly not the 0.20 degrees Celsius expected by the IPCC.

● It was revealed that flaws in weather stations wrongly created warming.

● It was revealed that the report wrongly used summer data for winter months to generate warming.

● The IPCC claim that global warming will hurt biodiversity was shown to have no basis -- not to mention that the world’s species are at least one million years old and thus have all been through hundreds of climate cycles.

● They had to retract unsubstantiated fears about threats to the Amazon rainforests;

● The IPCC’s statement that sea level would rise 2.3 mm per year was shown to be based on data collected in a part of Hong Kong that is sinking.

2. Real scientists have debunked much of the enthusiasts claims. For example, despite claims by enthusiasts, CO2 does not constitute 3% of the atmosphere, it actually constitutes 0.037%. What’s more, ice core samples show that we are currently in a low CO2 period compared to earth’s history. Indeed, CO2 levels have been as much as 10 times higher than today. And CO2 changes typically follow temperature changes, i.e. they do not lead temperature changes, and often by hundreds of years.

3. In 2009, the climate “scientists” primarily responsible for tracking global warming were caught fudging their data and formulas and waging a jihad against their opponents (see climategate).

4. In January, IPCC scientist Osvaldo Canziani was listed as an advisor on a report that overstated warming by 1000%, and which was published even after this error was pointed out to the study’s authors. They neither corrected nor noted the error.

5. Last week warming enthusiasts had to back down from claims about warming because it turned out that trees were actually absorbing carbon dioxide. . . as expected.

Now we have the sea level issue. Warming enthusiasts assert that rising sea levels would wipe out islands and coastal cities. The IPCC predicts sea level rises equal to 2.3 meters per century, with 2.7 feet happening this century. But in January 2010, they had to retract this report because of “mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics.” Then in May of 2010, a paleogeophysics/geodynamics professor from Stockholm University in Sweden issued a report that observations from around the world showed no rising sea levels in the last 40 years.

So what do you do when the sea just won’t do what you predict? The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided to add 0.3 millimeters a year to their sea level figures to create rising sea levels where none exist.

But don’t worry, they assure us, this rising is real. . . you just can’t see it because the land level is rising too. Does this make sense to anyone? If this is true and both land and sea are rising equally, then where is the justification for panicking the world into fighting global warming? And if it’s not true, then this is just another example of poli-scientists fudging their data to make their predictions appear to be true. And if land and sea are rising equally, why add 0.3 millimeters to create the impression that the sea is rising faster than the land?

Do you know what the Sea Level Research Group responded? Come on, we're not adding much.

I kid you not.


(P.S. Sorry for not continuing the 2012 contender series today, but Bachmann is requiring more research than expected. Besides. . . Ronald "Huntsman" Reagan has it all sewn up, right?)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

How To Tell Liberal From Conservative Books

I’m working on a Commentarama reading list, which will be published Thursday evening. Before I do that, however, it might be wise to define “liberal” and “conservative,” as these concepts are rather nebulous and easily confused. Indeed, as we saw when National Review and Big Hollywood started listing “conservative” films, most people have no idea what constitutes a liberal or conservative film, and they instead confuse things they like for "conservative" and things they dislike for "liberal."

For starters, let me recommend that you go back and read my article on What Constitutes A Conservative Film. That article lays out the difference between mere conservative elements and actual conservative stories, and how to spot both. In particular, you need to look at the context of how issues are presented and how conflicts are resolved.

Secondly, let me ask: should we judge a book by its content or the author’s intent? Take 1984. Orwell was a committed socialist and even a fan of Soviet communism (until the truth about Stalin’s murderous ways came out, at which point he disavowed the Soviets, but not communism.) Yet, 1984 is the seminal anti-totalitarian text. How can this be? Because Orwell meant 1984 as an attack on Nazism, which he considered a right-wing philosophy and which he didn’t see as being at all like communism. So should we call this a leftist book because Orwell meant to attack what he perceived to be a “conservative” philosophy, or should we call it a conservative book because it attacks leftist oppressive government? I believe we should treat books for what they actually are, not what they are intended.

So how do we separate liberal from conservative books? Well, let’s start with the problem: confusion.

Liberalism and conservatism are often confused for a variety of reasons. For one thing, these ideologies are not always honest about what they believe because they know it will not play to the mainstream. (Liberals in particular use rhetoric that does not match their actions.) This blurs the line. Moreover, sometimes liberals/conservatives take ideological positions on particular issues that they would normally oppose so as to maintain political alliances or because of historical accidents. Also, some people who claim to be liberals/ conservatives really aren’t, and they advocate things that are antithetical to the underlying principles of the ideology. Populists and kooks fall into this category as they shift back and forth between pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Yet these groups are “loud” enough that liberalism/conservatism often gets associated with their views.

More importantly, however, both liberals and conservatives largely see the same problems and injustices within society and thus lay claim to the same issues. This generates further blurring and thereby confusion. However, the two ideologies almost always differ in the solutions they propose. And that is where we must look.

To understand this point, one must realize that both modern liberalism and modern conservatism claim roots in classical liberalism -- although the liberal claim is dishonest. Classical liberalism advocated the rights of the individual against the state. It believed in things like freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion or non-religion, freedom of property, freedom of person, and freedom from conformity. However, those freedoms were not unfettered, as classical liberalism also assumed that personal responsibility was required to exercise those rights and government intervention was allowed when personal responsibility failed. Modern conservatism grew from these roots and largely continues to follow these principles today -- a balancing of individual rights against personal responsibility.

By comparison, modern liberalism adopted the rhetoric of individual rights, but actually disdains those rights. Instead, it advocates collective rights and imposition of a solution by those in authority. This is because modern liberalism really traces its roots back to progressivism, which sought to use government power to fix the ills of society. Moreover, liberalism has disdain for the concept of individual responsibility. Instead, it balances competing group interests.

What this means is that when you get a topic like civil rights, it is propaganda to say that one side cares more than the other about the issue. Indeed, both sides have adopted this as a cause. But they see the issue differently and they advocate very different solutions. For example, the conservative solution is to require equality under the law combined with moral persuasion to get people to see all individuals in a color-blind way. The liberal solution is to use the power of government to force group equality. Moreover, both define equality differently, with conservatives believing in equality of opportunity and liberals believing in equality of result. Other issues are similarly divided.

Thus, when trying to separate books into liberal or conservative, the relevant question is not what issues they address, the relevant question is what solutions they propose?

Now let me add two caveats. First, on conservatism: it is important to realize that being religious and being conservative are not the same thing. Religion deals with the relationship between ourselves and God, politics deals with the relationship between man and the state. Thus, being politically conservative and being religious address two different aspects of the human condition. There can be significant overlap, particularly as many people let their religious views inform their sense of personal responsibility, but it is very possible to be conservative without being religious. The corollary is true as well, as it is equally easy to be religious without being politically conservative. What this means in terms of labeling books is that just because a book has a religious theme does not make it conservative. . . it makes it religious. Whether or not the book is also politically conservative will depend on how the religious themes are applied to the relationship between man and the state.

Secondly, on liberalism: there is another aspect of liberalism that must be considered. Liberalism has a destructive core that asserts itself periodically. That’s why socialist movements turned to violence in the 1900s, 1930s, and 1960s. And that’s why the counter-culture found a home within liberalism and why counter-culture values, i.e. the tearing down of existing societal institutions and norms, continue to hold so much sway within liberalism today. Thus, books that promote counter-culture values, even where the underlying issue may be of concern to both conservatives or liberals, must be considered liberal.

A good example of this would be All Quiet On The Western Front, which predates the official counter-culture movement, but shares its elements. Neither left nor right is “pro war.” Both have found reasons to start wars and both have shown a willingness to resist wars. Thus, it would be wrong to say the anti-war All Quiet is a liberal book just because liberals have been more anti-war lately than conservatives (in the 1930s, this was reversed.) What makes All Quiet a liberal book, rather than a conservative book, is its disdain for the traditional institutions of society. This book is not merely anti-war, but it is anti-officer, anti-church, anti-family, and anti-hero, by which I mean it disdains the individual values society normally considers noble, i.e. self-sacrifice, courage, honesty, faith, etc. That puts the book firmly into the counter-culture wing of liberalism and makes it a liberal book.

And let me be clear on this counter-culture point. Merely advocating change does not make one an advocate of counter-culture values. Counter-culture values are at odds with society and human nature as a whole and they seek to destroy existing institutions rather than reform them -- it is the difference between eliminating racism within police ranks (i.e. reform) and eliminating the police force (i.e. counter-culture values). Counter-culture values tend to be extremely radical.

That’s how I would divide books ideologically. If they propose a government or collectivist solution or they advocate group rights, or if they advocate counter-culture values associated with breaking traditional society, then they are liberal. But if they advocate freedom for the individual vis-à-vis the state coupled with individual responsibility, but without pushing those freedoms to the point of being counter-culture beliefs, then they are conservative.

Agree?

Tune in Thursday for the list. . .

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Next Obama Scandal: “Gun Walking”

Operation Fast and Furious was an idiotic attempt by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to get proof that Mexican drug cartels are buying guns from American gun shops. This reckless operation had no chance of success and it got people killed, including American Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. What's more, it has all the hallmarks of being politically motivated and is likely to reach into the White House.



Starting in 2009, the ATF, part of Eric Holder’s Justice Department, got cooperative Phoenix-area gun shops to sell guns illegally to Mexicans. Rather than arrest these buyers, as they would have done in the past, the ATF instructed its agents to turn a blind eye to the sales. This has been called “gun walking” because they let these guns walk out the door. The ATF hoped the guns would be recovered from Mexican crime scenes, which they believed would let them build conspiracy cases against Mexican drug cartels. It didn’t. In fact, it couldn't because the entire concept is flawed. Consider this:

1. By telling the gun shops to knowingly sell the guns illegally, the agency itself made it possible for the guns to reach Mexico. Thus, this operation cannot stand as proof that American gun shops are selling to Mexicans because it was the ATF itself that made this possible and there is no evidence that any non-cooperating gun shops made similar sales.



2. Secondly, there’s no way to connect the drug cartels to the gun sales because the ATF didn’t keep track of the guns. In other words, even if cartel members used these guns in Mexico, there’s no way to trace the gun from the purchase to the cartel. And if the ATF's plan was just to assume the connection (something that is not permissible in a court of law) then why even bother releasing the guns?

Thus, even if the operation worked perfectly, it still could not have achieved the ATF's goals.



But more importantly, what was the cost of this stupidity? Republicans Rep. Daryl Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley just issued a 51 page report damning Operation Fast and Furious. From the start, this operation was criticized by experienced ATF agents as “reckless.” Said Grassley: “Both line agents and gun dealers who co-operated with the ATF repeatedly expressed concerns [about the operation]. . . but ATF supervisors did not heed those warnings. Instead, they told agents to follow orders because this was sanctioned from above.” And when ATF bosses were told this could result in people getting killed, they responded: “if you are going to make an omelet, you need to scramble some eggs.” In other words, they didn’t care. Apparently, they even threatened to fire or punish agents who complained.



It is unknown how many crimes these guns were used to commit because the ATF had no way to monitor what happened to the guns. But before the operation was stopped, 1,730 guns were allowed to disappear onto the black market, including hundreds of AK-47s and sniper rifles. One of those AK-47s was later used to kill Board Patrol Agent Brian Terry. And when he was killed, the ATF embarked on a cover up. William Newell, the special agent in charge of the operation, ordered the arrest of 20 of the minor gun buyers and then declared the operation a success even though nothing was ever linked to a single senior cartel member. When he was asked if the guns the ATF had let disappear were deliberately allowed to end up in the hands of criminals, he lied: “Hell no!”



So what you have here is a government agency that embarked on a policy that could not achieve the goals for which it was planned, which endangered thousands of American and Mexican lives, and which covered up the mess it created. If that’s not an argument for reining in the government, then nothing is.



Naturally, Obama has denied any knowledge of the operation and I’m sure Eric Holder will too. There is speculation that acting ATF director Kenneth Melson will be made the scapegoat here. But this is not the kind of operation that happens without higher up approval. In fact, one ATF agent has stated that this operation was cleared by the State Department, i.e. Hillary Clinton (who "coincidentally" came to the border to decry American guns right before this operation started).



To dodge this scandal, the Democrats are spinning this as the fault of the gun lobby for blocking the appointment of Obama’s choice to run the ATF -- that's the same Democrats who had a 60 seat majority but didn't confirm the guy. They also are trying to claim this started in 2006, which is true of the overall operation but not of the gun walking -- which only started in 2009 apparently after the approval of State. The ATF is trying to spin this as the result of the ATF not having enough personnel to monitor the guns, but that begs the question why they even started the operation.



In fact, why would they do this at all? The ATF says they wanted to get a better grasp on how cartels work, but that kind of knowledge is already available and this wouldn’t have helped them in any event. The real goal, in my opinion, was to create data to prove what Obama/Hillary/Holder were all arguing: that gun control is needed because American gun shops are arming Mexican drug cartels. That argument wasn’t working because everyone knows better. As I pointed out at the time, it’s silly to think Mexican cartels were buying guns from American gun shops when they have co-opted whole departments of the Mexican police and whole military units -- they could easily get better hardware out of Mexican armories. BUT. . . if American guns with serial numbers known to the ATF could suddenly be traced to a significant portion of murders in Mexico, then Obama/Clinton/Holder would have a new argument to aid them in their gun control attempts.



It strikes me this is a prime example of politicians abusing law enforcement to generate a controversy to help them score political points. People died so Team Obama could score those points. This is shameful and needs to be investigated.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Global Warming Fails Again

Global warming is a politically-created myth. It relies on climate models that are so inaccurate they couldn’t predict an increase in room temperature if you started a fire. What’s more, warming enthusiasts have shut down all inquiry that might improve the science because those inquiries keep disproving the underlying theory. Now we have perhaps the biggest laugher yet to blast a glaring hole in their theory: the very trees are against them.

Ok, let’s start with some grade-school logic, the kind global warming enthusiasts can’t do. What do trees and plants need to grow? Yes, soil, water and. . . carbon dioxide. Trees, flowers and grass absorb carbon dioxide from the air. The more they get, the more they grow. The more they grow, the more carbon dioxide they absorb out of the air. Thus, logic tells us that an increase in carbon will be largely offset by plant life growth.

Sounds simple, right? The problem is that’s heresy.

Global warming enthusiasts don’t want to hear this because it undermines their theory that carbon dioxide is a useless industrial pollutant that will sit in the atmosphere forever causing the earth to warm up over centuries. Indeed, they’ve even put out “studies” (read= guess work opinion pieces) like one by the University of Minnesota in 2006, which claimed that “atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may rise even faster than anticipated, because ecosystems likely will not store as much carbon as had been predicted”! Oh my! Note, by the way, the hedging throughout this sentence. There is no science here, just speculation that reality might not be reality and thus we should destroy the world economy now to stop the release of carbon dioxide. . . evil, evil, pointless carbon dioxide.

Well, on June 5th of this year, experts from Finland and the United States were shocked. . . shocked to learn that reality works like everyone other than global warming enthusiasts knew it would. This report found to the enthusiasts’ horror that rising carbon dioxide levels caused forest density to increase: “Global warming, blamed by the U.N. panel of climate experts mainly on human use of fossil fuels, might itself be improving growth conditions for trees in some regions.” That’s right, trees are getting fatter. And the consequence of this is. . . well. . . um. . . it’s “offsetting climate change.” In other words, it’s keeping global warming from happening.

Yep. Everything the enthusiasts predicted is once again proving false and everything we realists said would happen is happening. The earth remains in balance as always.

Of course, this isn’t what global warming enthusiasts want to believe, so we’ll see if they accept this or if they choose instead the burn the heretics at the carbon-free stake?

Interestingly, this follows some other recent revelations. For example:

● In 2008-2010, global temperatures dropped sharply enough to cancel out the entire supposed net rise in the 20th century. This is important because global warming theory relies on cumulative increases. Thus, their whole theory has fallen apart. . . again. Enthusiasts tried to blame this on the "unexpected" solar cycle -- an eleven year pattern that has repeated itself consistently throughout history and seems to coincide with scaremongering about new global ice ages or new global warming. Enthusiasts also complained that the oceans reacted in an "unexpected" manner by doing what they've always done rather than changing as the climate models suggested. And now the dirty trees have done the "unexpected" by doing what they've always done and refusing to conform to the models. Are you seeing a pattern? It seems that every time the Earth does what it's always done, it's "unexpected."

● In 2008, hundreds of actual scientists heaped scorn on the supposed “scientific consensus” reached by the enthusiasts, a collection of psychologists, gynecologists and other assorted experts with no knowledge of climate science.

● What’s more this most recent report notes that the evil United States, which we know is dominated by people who just like killing trees for no reason except pure spite, has experienced a surge in forest density. Between 1953 and 2007, forest volume in capitalist America grew by 51%. That's right, the whole time they were putting out PSAs and experts were appearing before Congress decrying “deforestation,” forest volume was increasing by half. And not only were there new trees, but existing trees were growing, something we were told wouldn’t be happening -- indeed, the last decade was all about growth, not replanting.

These are hard times for Chicken Little.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contender: Rick Perry

Let’s continue the 2012 Contender series with Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Frankly, I don’t entirely know what to make of Perry. He’s clearly a hardcore Christian conservative well outside the mainstream of American thought on social issues. He generally appears to be a fiscal conservative. But his fiscal record seems rather short and indifferent for a man who has run the state for 11 years. This makes me wonder whether he is a conservative reformer or just a caretaker governor in a conservative state?

1. The Politician: Perry is clearly a politician’s politician. He’s changed his views several times to match changes in Texas voting patterns, going so far as to change his party from Democratic to Republican in 1998. Disturbingly, he was the chairman of Al Gore’s Texas campaign in 1998. In 1999, he became the first Republican Lieutenant Governor in Texas history, having previously served in the legislature since 1984. In 2000, he became governor when George Bush left for the White House.

In his time in office, he’s been quite willing to engage in politics with his appointments, having appointed both moderates and conservatives, having put up challengers to people he doesn’t like, and having appointed opponents to get them out of the way. He’s also adept at pushing painful decisions into the future by, for example, using bonds that don’t mature until after his term rather than tax hikes to pay for projects, i.e. deficit spending. He now claims to be a Tea Party supporter.

2. Economics: In economics, Perry is what you expect from an average red state governor: largely fiscally conservative with the realities of state governance sometimes superseding principle. Interestingly, there is nothing monumental here and certainly no big ideas that might tell us what he would do with the bloated federal government designed by blue staters:

Taxes: Perry resisted creating an income tax, resisted increasing the state sales tax, and resisted increasing the cigarette tax. But he has increased user “fees,” added surcharges to traffic tickets, and has borrowed $2 billion in road bonds. In 2006, Perry signed a $15.7 billion property tax cut, but he also increased the state franchise tax, which many claim is a backdoor way of creating an income tax. In 2001, Perry asked Congress to let Texas impose a tax on internet sales -- Texas loves taxing out-of-staters. But last month he vetoed a bill that would have imposed this tax.

Spending Increases: In 2001, Perry convinced the legislature to increase health spending by $6 billion. Some of these programs were later cut without objection from Perry. In 2002, Perry increased education funding by $9 billion.

Stimulus: Perry turned down $555 million in stimulus money for unemployment because it would have required mandatory changes to state law. But he then applied for a $643 million federal loan to cover a shortfall in Texas’s unemployment insurance fund. Also, while playing up his refusal of the unemployment stimulus money, Perry simultaneously accepted $6.4 billion in general stimulus aid to cover a $6.6 billion budget shortfall.

Medical Malpractice: Perry supports limiting malpractice lawsuits against doctors and in 2003 sponsored a constitutional amendment that capped medical malpractice awards. This resulted in a 30% decrease in malpractice insurance rates and apparently brought more doctors to Texas.

Private Roads: In 2001, Perry proposed a $145 billion multi-lane highway from Mexico to Oklahoma. He intended to use the state's eminent domain power to grab the land and then would have a Spanish construction firm build the road at their own expense. They would earn their fee by imposing tolls. This is CATO Institute-libertarian stuff (though CATO is wrong on this point). In any event, the plan collapsed when everyone opposed it.

ObamaCare: Perry wants to repeal ObamaCare. Unfortunately, his own plan consists of tort reform (which is a drop in the bucket) and using federal money to expand services in rural areas.

3. Social Issues: Perry is clearly a hardcore-Christian social conservative and his views are on the far end of that spectrum.

Gays: Perry opposes gay marriage and civil unions. He also criticizes the Supreme Court decision striking down Texas’s sodomy law, i.e. he takes the view that states should be allowed to make gay sex illegal.

Abortion: Perry opposes abortion in all cases except rape, incest or to protect the mother’s life. He has signed bills banning late-term abortions and requiring parental notification, and has endorse a law requiring women to get a sonogram before they can have an abortion. He wants to ban stem cell research, not just federal funding of it.

Creationism: In 2006, Perry supported teaching “intelligent design” as well as evolution in schools.

Vaccineers: In February 2007, Perry issued an executive order requiring Texas girls to receive a human papolloma virus vaccine -- HPV can cause cervical cancer. The order did have an opt-out provision for parents. But the vaccine crowd attacked “the moral implications” of the order and Perry did not try to stop a May 2007 bill undoing his order.

4. Crime: Perry supports the death penalty. In June 2002, he vetoed a ban on the execution of the mentally retarded. In August 2002, he allowed the execution of a Mexican citizen despite diplomatic protests. He has supported mandatory DNA testing before executions can be allowed and the creation of standards for capital defenders. He wants the federal government to leave drug policy to the states.

5. Immigration: Perry opposes building a fence along the border as he thinks it will harm our trade relationship with Mexico. Instead, he wants the federal government to use the military and technology to “secure the border” He is particularly concerned about drug traffickers. He opposes sanctuary cities, favors issuing special drivers licenses to people here on visas so we can tell when they’ve overstayed, and implies that he wants to cut off benefits to illegals. He wants the federal government to pay all costs of illegal immigration and wants illegals who commit crimes deported. He supports Arizona’s immigration efforts and would be willing to sign a similar bill in Texas. He also wants to expand the guest worker program for the agriculture industry.

6. Environmentalism: Perry rejects global warming for lack of valid scientific proof and he rejects regulation of “greenhouse gas emissions.” He has backed incentives to research clean coal technology, and he supports an “all of the above energy strategy” including oil, coal, nuclear, biofuels, hydroelectric, solar and wind.

7. Philosophy: Perry has written two books outlining his philosophy. Don’t expect me to read either. The first (On My Honor...... (Feb. 2008)) celebrates the Boy Scouts, of which he was a member, and attacks the ACLU. The second (Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington (Nov. 2010)) discusses his support for limited central government. Perry also has endorsed a resolution supporting state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. In April 2009, he implied that Texas might secede from the union, but he backtracked in May 2009.


Perry's social conservative views raise a serious electability issue. Excluding his religious views, Perry seems like a fairly conservative politician who can generally be counted on to do the conservative thing, unless he thinks there is political gain to be had by doing something more moderate -- it’s unlikely he would do anything overtly liberal and he has demonstrated a willingness to use the veto. I am troubled, however, by the lack of any ideas in his record. He strikes me as more of a caretaker governor than someone who can be counted on to reform our bloated, abusive federal government.

Would he make a good President? Most likely. Would he make a good conservative President? Probably. Would he be the reformer we need right now? That I’m not sure.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republican Debate Round Up

In light of last night’s debate, let’s push the Rick Perry 2012 Contender article off until tomorrow morning. The debate is part of the bigger picture of choosing the right candidate and there were several interesting things last night that are absolutely worth pointing out. Observe:

● Winner: The Republican Brand. The first thing to leap out about the debate was just how civil the whole debate was and how unified the contenders were. There were no attacks, no finger pointing and no cheap shots, no matter how much CNN’s moderator John King tried to bait them. Instead, all the attacking was directed at Obama and even that was kept on a professional level, i.e. not personal. At several points the candidates even noted how close they all were on the issues, and they agreed that anyone on the stage would make a better president than Obama. And that's actually how they came across -- as a group of serious, smart, hands-on professionals who are more interested in fixing Obama's mess than personal ambition. The party should be much happier with their choices after last night, and frankly, this group blows away the 2008 group.

● Winner: Romney/Pawlenty. If you knew nothing about their policies, I would rate the winner as Romney with Pawlenty as a close second. Romney had a flawless and very strong performance. He came across as smooth, likeable and knowledgeable. He said all the right things and he made me want to vote for him. . . except that I doubt him based on his record.

Pawlenty was not as flawless as Romney and seemed a little less comfortable. However, he came across as having a stronger record than Romney or anyone else, and he seemed to have a better plan for what he wants to achieve. Despite not being as smooth as Romney, he too came across as professional and likeable and made me want to vote for him. Interestingly, the people I watched the debate with really were impressed with Pawlenty and saw him as the winner, though I’m sure Romney will get the headlines.

● Winners: Santorum. Santorum won mainly by not losing. He came across as serious, thoughtful and credible.

● Winners/Loser: Gingrich Newt came across as serious, thoughtful and credible. He also sounded like he was full of ideas -- though in truth, his ideas were just well-disguised slogans. Then he re-opened the Ryan wound by suggesting that "if you can't convince the public it's a good idea, then maybe it's not a good idea." Go home Newt.

● Draw: Michelle Bachmann. Bachmann proved that she belongs on the stage and would make a credible President. I would rate her as a winner for that except for three points:

First, she was the only candidate to stumble over her words, something she did quite a lot. This stuck out by comparison.

Secondly, one of the concerns I’ve had with Bachmann is that I don’t know how much of a coherent political philosophy she has compared to simply answering issues as they come up. This was on display again in her response to the gay marriage issue. When asked if she would try to change gay marriage laws in New Hampshire, she said that she would not interfere in state decisions because she believes in the Tenth Amendment. But then the question was asked differently, i.e. whether she would push for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and she said yes. These two positions are inconsistent and that continues to leave me wondering if she has an intellectual framework or if she just answers the question of the moment without regard to conflicting prior answers?

Third, she engaged in the most scripted speaking, and it generally didn’t work, especially since much of it felt like self-promotion.

● Loser: Herman Cain. I like Herman Cain and I want to support him. But he has yet to catch any sort of fire. For being a talk radio host, he seems to lack cleverness and a quick wit. He also hurts himself with his honesty because he keeps answering questions about which he lacks sufficient information by promising to look into the issue (as any businessman would). Thus for example, on Afghanistan, he said he needs to meet with the generals first before he can formulate a strategy. This is the most truthful answer anyone gave. But perversely, this comes across as him not being ready for the job because everyone else gave their opinions. I don’t know that audiences will grasp this and won’t punish him for his honesty.

● Loser: Obama. Obama was not only the subject of a couple zingers -- especially one from Ron Paul when he said he couldn’t think of anything Obama had done right. But even more so, this group came across as unified in their criticisms of Obama, right down to the specifics of what he’s done wrong. Their unified responses gave this message a seriousness and believability. And their no-hostility tones will make this a hard group to demonize.

● Ron Paul: Ron Paul did his usual. He gave some absolutely brilliant answers, but he mixed them with some paranoid/conspiratorial stuff. He also came across as a bit strange as his suit didn't fit and he kept getting frantic in his tone. This made him seem somewhat insane. But he is Rasputin-like in his appeal and I kid you not when I say that if Paul were 20% smoother, he would be President in a heartbeat.

● Some Issues: On economics, they all agreed that we need smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation. Jobs was the number one word all night and free markets was how jobs would be created. The format did not allow for much more depth beyond that, as CNN’s John King started interrupting all answers about 20 seconds in.

The candidates differ on gay marriage. Romney, Santorum, Pawlenty and probably Bachmann want to ban gay marriage. Newt thought this was a state’s rights issue. Paul thought the federal government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

On foreign policy, there was a general sense that it’s time to reduce America’s commitments overseas and to start bringing the troops home, though most said they would confer with the generals. The two exceptions were Paul and Romney. Paul said that he would tell the generals what to do and that is to bring everybody home. Romney went the other way entirely saying he would consider bringing troops home at some point, but so long as anyone wants to kill Americans, he was going to stop them.

Several of them grasped the importance of appointing judges.

● The Question No One Answered: The one question which frustrated me because none of them could answer it came from a “traditional” Republican who asked the candidates to prove that there was still room for him in the party despite the Tea Party influence. They all missed the obvious answer: the Republican Party is a big tent of different groups who share about 80% of their views. Getting that 80% would change the world, and that should be our goal. Anything after that is a matter for each group to convince the rest, i.e. build a consensus. No one group can force its will on the rest. Thus, the idea that there is no room for non-Tea Partiers is just wrong on all counts.

Those are my impressions. The field came across as a lot stronger than they seemed a month ago. Some people come across much better than their records would indicate and some disappointed -- though only slightly. They weren’t exciting, but it gave me hope watching them that this group of people is capable of saving our country from the damage wrought by Obama.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Newt Gingrich's Total Implosion

One of the things the Presidential marathon accomplishes is that it weeds out the hopelessly inept. Candidates who can’t attract support or money or can’t figure out where to park their bus all blow up along the way. But the most spectacular implosion in my lifetime (and that includes Colorado’s own Gary Hart -- who dared the media to follow him to his illicit rendezvous) has been Newt Gingrich. For a man who’s both had power and been so close to power, and for a man who has spent his life studying politics, Gingrich proved to be a fool at best. I actually think he’s something slightly worse.

I’ve previously outlined the problems with Newt’s platform. Despite a reputation as a deep thinker/oracle of the Republican Party, Newt’s platform proved to be nothing more than tired platitudes, insignificant promises, and a desperate desire to feel loved -- something which has made his personal life a mess. But while my research showed serious problems, it couldn’t have predicted the implosion that was coming.

The very day Newt announced his long awaited campaign, he made an unforgiveable gaffe. Indeed, right out of the gates, Newt chose to throw Paul Ryan and conservatism under the Medicare bus. When he was offered the chance to recant, he only made things worse by trying to deny that he said what he said, attacking the media for reporting it, and then trying to explain it away while still standing by it. He finally realized he needed to recant, but by that time his support collapsed from 15% to 7%.

This seemed fatal to his campaign, but Newt wasn’t done imploding.

Last week, it was announced that 16 vital players in Newt’s campaign (including people who have been with him for decades) quit en mass in protest over the way he was handling the campaign. What upset them? They demanded that Newt spend more time on the campaign. Apparently, Newt thought he could campaign for President using Facebook and Twitter and a part-time-candidate approach. Not only did he ignore their concerns, he decided instead to go on a two week Greek cruise with his wife.

Yeah.

If someone wrote this in a book, they would be accused of writing the absurd. Yet, Newt thought nothing of taking two weeks off out of the country right after bombing the introduction of his campaign. When he got back, his staff quit.

And we’re not done yet.

Now it comes out that Newt burned through the campaign war chest so badly that they couldn’t afford the $25,000 entry fee for the upcoming Iowa straw poll. How could they be so broke? Well, for one thing, Newt wasn’t willing to do the fund raising that candidates normally do. . . and being on vacation didn’t help. But the bigger cause of his financial problems was that he was spending $500,000 on a chartered jet so that he could fly home each night.

Newt is either the stupidest candidate we’ve ever had or he was never serious in the first place. I suspect it’s the latter. I have long thought that Newt had no intention of ever running for President as he was satisfied being the party’s guru. But to maintain that position, he needed to maintain the illusion that he intended to run one day so that people would keep seeking his blessing and donating to his organizations. I speculate that he got into this race because he had no choice and he intended only to do just enough to give the appearance of running a campaign. Then he planned to bow out after Iowa on some trumped up reason and return to being the flirty guru again. . . always promising to make another at some point in the future. Sadly for him, it never dawned on him that his staffers might have expected him to run to win or that his donors wouldn’t be too thrilled to realize they’ve been had.

It’s only a matter of time now before Newt drops out. I would guess that his actual campaigning is finished and he will drop out after a few more weeks of pretending. We’ll see, but in either event, no one can take him seriously at this point. And he better watch his legal back before his donors start to scream fraud. They might just have a case.

In the meantime, his implosion opens the door for Rick Perry, who has hired some of Newt’s staff. Tune in tomorrow morning for the scoop on Perry.

So what do you think? Stupid? Fraud? Misunderstood genius?


(P.S. Don't forget that there's a debate tonight at 8:00 PM EST. Feel free to discuss in the comments.)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Talk Radio Is Hurting Conservatism

I’m finding myself troubled by talk radio. In particular, I’m stunned at how ignorant and how pointlessly incendiary their coverage of the Republican primary field has been. Not only is talk radio doing a major disservice to the candidates (and by extension the country), but it’s doing an even bigger disservice to its listeners and to the conservative cause.

Here’s the thing. Talk radio is a resource, much like Commentarama, where conservatives and conservative-leaners can collect information that is not generally covered by the MSM. Some of these hosts (like Rush) reach millions of people each day. And if they are doing their jobs right, they will investigate the candidates in the primary and let their readers know what they have discovered. . . the goal, after all, is to promote conservatism. We’re doing that in the 2012 Contender series and we’re not even paid to do it. Nor do we have a staff who can look these things up. Nor do we have the reach to interview the candidates. Thus, if we can do it, there is no reason these radio people can’t do it.

Yet, they aren’t doing it. In the past month, I’ve heard a dozen different talk radio people, and not one of them has done any research into the candidates. Oh, they openly and vehemently opine about who the audience should support, but they have nothing to back that up.

Rush, for example, is pimping Palin, despite his claims of neutrality. Yet, unfortunately, at no point has he ever laid out a single minute of her record or explained her supposed beliefs. Instead, he just calls her a “conservative” without proof, attacks her conservative critics as gullible, somehow personally insecure or lying about being conservatives, and keeps repeating the argument that she must be a good conservative because the left attacks her so much. Yet, that is deeply flawed logic. Do we attack Joe Biden because we fear him? Hardly. We attack him because he’s an easy target because he’s stupid and gaffe prone. Do we attack Pelosi because we think she’s effective? No way. We try to associate the entire left with her because her views and personality are unpalatable to middle America and it helps us disgrace liberalism by claiming that all liberals are like her. The left attacks Palin for the same reasons: she's an easy target and she turns moderates off conservatism. But even putting that aside, my point is that Rush has yet to give a single reason why we should support Palin other than doing the opposite of what the left tells us. Was she a good governor? Did she act according to conservative principles? Does she understand conservative principles? You wouldn't know from Rush.

Some guy who sat in for Laura Ingraham (can't think of his name, don't care either) was pimping Romney because of “his business record.” Yet, he clearly didn’t know what that record was. He also categorically excused every criticism of Romney’s time as governor by saying “well, he was governor of a blue state.” Yet, he calls Pawlenty, who governed like a red-state governor in an equally blue state, a RINO without ever saying why. If anything, these labels are entirely reversed, yet this guy doesn’t know that because he's never actually looked into either candidate. Yet, he's happy to tell his listeners to trust him.

Some guy out of Denver was pimping Trump as a genuine conservative until he dropped out. Now he's jumped on the Christie bandwagon because "man, you saw all you need to know in that youtube video." Ann Coulter too keeps appearing on different shows to pimp Chris Christie and to label him as the only conservative who can keep Romney from getting the nomination. But on what issue does Ann think Christie is a conservative? She's never said. And you’ve seen the report on him, he fails the conservatism test on. . . every. . . single. . . issue. He makes Olympia Snowe look like Barry Goldwater. In fact, he went far left on issues even the Democrats would have expected him to go to the right on -- like appointments. If she had done even five minutes of research, she would have known this. But like Rush, Ann never looks into his record, yet she happily anoints him as the conservative savior.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. These people are out there making these categorical statements: “candidate X is a true conservative and everyone else is a RINO,” and not one of them has any idea what they are talking about.

This is horrible for conservatives and horrible for the Republican Party. If there is a true conservative in the race, these people not only won't find them, they will actively smear them as a RINO just to promote the RINO they think is a true conservative based on nothing more than faulty logic about things said by the MSM or youtube videos. That’s how we'll end up with a RINO sitting in the White House as all the talk radio guys scratch their heads wondering how they were fooled. . . “gee, he seemed so conservative in that ONE youtube video I watched.”

And let me tell you, I see these same "arguments" mindlessly repeated at websites like Big Government, where it's clear that a majority of the commenters not only aren't even reading the articles, but are just self-righteously repeating what they heard on the radio verbatim: it's become a slogan shouting room for the hopelessly ignorant.

This blather is destructive as it depresses conservatives who need all the enthusiasm they can gather for this next election. Right now conservatives should be looking over candidate websites, digging into records and listening to interviews to find the best candidate to represent their views. When that person is found, conservatives should volunteer their money and time to that person. But instead, conservatives are sitting at home frustrated because talk radio is blaring out every single day “there ain’t nothing but RINOs in this race!” The Democrats couldn't have paid for a better voter-suppression plan!

What's more, if you listen to talk radio, you get the impression that no one is happy with the field. Yet, a poll released the other day shows how deeply misleading that is. Take a look at this graph (right). While dissatisfaction is up slightly from 2008, 61% of Republicans are actually happy with their choices. Thus, what talk radio is doing is presenting a view held by only 11% of Republicans (or 39% if you include leaners) as if it were universally held and are using that false claim to drag down a field that 6 in 10 people like. Does that sound familiar to anyone? Because that's the same thing the MSM does to boost the 40% in polls who support liberalism -- make them out as the vast majority.

And let me be clear.... if there are no good candidates, then it is a proper role for talk radio to point that out and to seek out better candidates to enter the race. But that’s not what’s going on because these talk radio people don’t have a clue if there are good candidates or not because none of them have done the research.

I understand that talk radio is all about generating outrage and controversy, but they have a responsibility too. That responsibility comes from their claim to speak on behalf of conservatism. And that responsibility is to verify their opinions before offering them. Do the research before you speak. Stop misleading your listeners, because right now, talk radio is a worse enemy to conservatism than the Democrats, the RINOs, and the MSM combined.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

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...