It's Not A Major Military Action?

In the opinion pages of the Washington Post Tuesday (here), Dana Milbank penned an article enchantingly titled: Obama’s Quick Trip From Tyrant to Weakling. Surprisingly, Milbank takes Mr. Obama to task (sort of), but of course, cannot resist taking a cheap shot at Mr. Bush, who at last check, has not been President for more than two years, a situation which is not expected to change. Milbank snarkily wrote:

“It was perilously close to George W. Bush’s My-Pet-Goat moment, when then-President Bush continued reading a storybook with children on Sept. 11, 2001, after he was told that the second World Trade Center tower had been hit. Bush later said he was trying to maintain calm; likewise, White House officials tell me the decision to proceed with the South America trip was made in part to convey that the Libya bombardment was not a major military action.”

Milbank’s thesis begins:

“After two years of being called a tyrant and a dictator, President Obama returns to Washington from a five-day overseas trip to find that he has become a weakling.

Would-be opponents such as Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin had been trying out this somewhat contradictory line of attack for more than a month, as Obama gave mixed signals about events in Egypt and Libya. But the “weak leader” charge gained traction over the weekend, as Obama chose to launch the attack on Gaddafi’s forces while on an excellent adventure in South America with his family.”

Milbank suggests that Mr. Obama’s trip to Brazil was not so much a matter of weakness but of stubbornness. Mr. Obama, you see, has always been determined not to respond to small, insignificant issues of the day, but to maintain his omnipotent, omniscient focus on much broader, all-encompassing issues. As proof, Milbank cited Mr. Obama’s USA-Today op-ed. Milbank wrote:

“Obama wrote that while the Middle East is important, he was going to Latin America because ‘our top priority has to be creating and sustaining new jobs and new opportunities.’ Not only did the president proceed with his tour, but Vice President Biden went ahead with a reception for Democratic donors.”

Milbank also paraphrased unnamed Obama Administration officials who argued that this was, in fact, a sign of strong leadership. Milbank ends by lamenting the unfairness of it all, and by attacking--sort of--the tyrannical media:

“But it doesn’t matter if the criticism is fair. Obama left a vacuum, and his opponents filled it. For a president suddenly called “weak,” such is the tyranny of the news cycle.”

Well. First to Mr. Bush, who did not immediately leap up and flee in panic while reading to elementary school children. This, gentle reader, is a sign of self-control and the ability to multi-task. Rather than frighten a room full of kids, Mr. Bush read a bit longer while simultaneously preparing for what came next. He knew that he had the time to do that, and that it was the right thing to do. True leaders know this sort of thing. Remember that he was criticized for not immediately returning to Washington, despite the fact that he was very much exercising leadership from the most capable mobile command post the world has ever seen: Air Force One.

Remember too that he was criticized for not immediately flying to New York to stand on smoking rubble to act the role of comforter-in-chief to which the press had become accustomed under Bill Clinton. Fortunately, Mr. Bush wisely preferred to feel the pain of others in private, and to be actually with them, as he did countless times in private visits to our wounded warriors and their families, and with the families of warriors who gave the last, full measure of devotion. It never was all about him. Yet post 9-11, Mr. Bush was reflexively criticized for being.

Point to ponder: A “bombardment” comprising, thus far, more than 130 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a million dollars per bang, plus a wide variety of less expensive munitions, plus the involvement of at least one carrier task force, augmented by an international coalition of military forces is not “a major military action?” One shudders to think what, in Mr. Obama’s estimation, a major military action might be and whether even that might stay him from vacationing or golfing.

Mixed signals over Libya? Indeed, from the beginning until this very day as the media is reporting directly contradictory statements from Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton over the removal/non-removal of Qadaffi, and as a deal is in the works to set up a sort of “political steering committee”--such things, whatever they are, apparently make sense to the French and to Mr. Obama--to run the war that isn’t really a war in Libya, a committee that Americans will not head, and of which NATO will certainly be a part, or maybe not. Mr. Obama seems prepared to be the first American president willing to place American troops under the command of--a steering committee? A committee of foreigners who care little for American soldiers, assets or American interests? Good thing this isn’t a major military action.

Ah yes! It’s all because Mr. Obama is stubborn, but not in a bad way, no! Mr. Obama is stubborn over principle; he is stubborn in avoiding dealing with trivialities. So noble and awesome is The One that even intractable stubbornness is a virtue rather than a vice. An alternate suggestion is that Mr. Obama is utterly unable to deal with the demands, large and small, of the job, and so he ignores whatever he can, hoping it will go away and stop bothering him. This is unsurprising for a man with absolutely no business experience, and a man whose legislative experience was, at best, utterly unremarkable to the degree that many might call it virtually nonexistent.

It is unfair to say that Mr. Obama had no executive experience. He did, leading the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for some six years, with the able assistance and collusion of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. You remember Mr. Ayers? The man Mr. Obama knew only as some guy who happened to live in the same neighborhood who Obama knew only because their kids went to the same school--many years apart? Ayers hired Obama, a community organizer--whatever that is--with no executive experience, to run the CAC to greatly improve the educational outcomes of Chicago students who were failing. Mr. Obama lead by stubbornly and very efficiently burning through tens of millions of dollars, accomplishing exactly nothing, according to a postmortem accounting by the Annenberg Foundation which financed his Titanic-like experiment in executive leadership. Who knew that even then, he was practicing the necessary Democrat presidential skill of burning the money of others at an incredible rate?

Milbank is correct in asserting that Mr. Obama’s frequent, lavish vacations--and the Latin American trip is smelling suspiciously like just that--do tend to lend support to the charge of weak leadership. But even more telling is Mr. Obama’s incredible narcissism and almost exclusive reliance on rhetoric. Mr. Obama really does seem to believe that such is the power of his personality, of his very being--a being he recently observed we must never take for granted--that all he need do to transform anything or anyone is to conduct yet another teleprompter reading. Then will Jihadists reject Islam and truly practice a religion of peace. Then will Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions and its support for terrorism. Then will Palestinians suddenly understand that it is wrong to decapitate three month old babies. Then will peoples living a 7th century tribal existence with its accompanying mindset be suddenly thrust into an enlightened world of self-sacrifice and utopian peace and social justice. Then will despots immediately see the errors of their ways and step down, establishing universal respect for “universal human rights.” As Sarah Palin would say, “how’s that workin’ out for ya?”

However, Milbank is correct in that Mr. Obama is absolutely all about “creating and sustaining new jobs and new opportunities.” Even while enjoying his current vacation, he is doing just that, particularly in the oil industry. Unfortunately, all of those new jobs and opportunities will be for Brazilians, not Americans. Mr. Obama is stubbornly choosing not to create or sustain new jobs and opportunities in the American oil industry, but has pledged to buy simply loads of Brazilian oil for American use. This is rather an odd economic policy for a President who frequently reads from his teleprompter words that suggest that he is all about American jobs and economic growth.

It is an interesting coincidence, for surely it could be nothing else, that George Soros owns a substantial stake in Brazil’s national oil company, Petrobras. I suspect that Mr. Obama’s dedication to Brazilian jobs and opportunities has nothing whatever to do with enriching Mr. Soros. It certainly has nothing whatever to do with enriching Americans.

And as to Mr. Biden--oh, who cares about Mr. Biden? Maybe the Brazilians will name a train station after him as soon as the Obama Administration begins construction on a high speed rail line from Miami to Rio, which makes precisely as much sense as the other high speed rail boondoggles they have proposed.

But Milbank redeems himself by being ultimately correct: Mr. Obama has left a vacuum. It is a vacuum of leadership and policy, both domestic and foreign, that is only just beginning to have disastrous consequences for America and the world. By making everything all about him, Mr. Obama stubbornly overlooks the realities of human nature. There are, around the world, a great many despots and peoples who not only can smell fear and weakness, but will surely exploit it. The vacuum of leadership left by Mr. Obama will be filled, with the bodies of innocent millions, millions Mr. Obama will doubtless stubbornly ignore as his all-seeing gaze takes in only the bigger, more important issues. No doubt his spokesmen will brand this strong leadership as well, leadership that will be dutifully lauded by the lamestream media whose rapidly diminishing credibility is inextricably entwined with Mr. Obama’s fortunes.

Other than than, Milbank is right on the money. What do they call their currency in Brazil again? Golf, anyone?

Quick Takes, March 23, 2011

ITEM: In the Is This Cool Or What? Department, comes news from the Daily Mail Online (here) about a gunfire locator miniaturized to fit on contemporary rifles. Using a version of sonar, it will allow troops to locate the firing positions of enemy soldiers within 1.3 seconds and return accurate fire on them. The device is currently being tested by the British in Afghanistan. Compact and lightweight, the device has the promise of giving troops a real edge in combat. Very cool indeed. Perhaps Mr. Obama might want to see about restoring the “special relationship” between America and England he has worked so hard and long to denigrate.

ITEM: From The Hill (here) comes the news that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) and other liberal Democrats have introduced a bill that would require a 2/3 majority in each house of Congress to pass any cuts to Social Security benefits. While Social Security is in real fiscal trouble, its problems are overshadowed by Medicare and Medicaid. But as always, it’s good to know that the Democrats are so serious about preventing our impending national bankruptcy and the collapse of the world’s economy that they’re willing to make it impossible to prevent our impending national bankruptcy and the collapse of the world’s economy. Wait a minute...I think I’m missing something here...

ITEM: From Sarah Palin Via Powerline (here) we learn that since Mr. Obama first took office, gas prices have increased 67% and continue to rise. During the same 26 month period of George W. Bush’s presidency, gas prices rose only 7%. Mr. Obama has said that if he gets his preferred polices, energy prices will “necessarily skyrocket.” He has also said that his only concern about skyrocketing gasoline prices is that he would prefer that they skyrocket more gradually. He has, of course, simultaneously all but shut down the production of new oil wells in America, and in the Gulf Coast, has issued only one drilling permit, and that for a well that was already nearly completed before the BP disaster. If a Manchurian Candidate had become president, how would his polices for the destruction of America differ from Mr. Obama’s? Discuss.

ITEM: And This Week’s Louis Renault Award Goes To: The Obama Administration (cue applause)! Fox News (here) reports that the Congressional Budget Office has examined Mr. Obama’s budget and his concluded that budget deficits until 2021 would be at least $2.3 trillion dollars more than the $7.2 trillion dollars the Obama budget projected. This disparity was due primarily to wildly optimistic economic assumptions on the part of the Obama Administration, and on at least some magical thinking. I’m shocked, shocked! But, oh what the heck? What’s two trillion or so among friends when you’re already throwing more than seven trillion down the rat hole? It’s all borrowed money anyway.

ITEM: Oh, so you’re calling me a rapist?! Sure, come on in, sit down, let’s negotiate in good faith! From Hot Air (here) come news of Vice President Joe--”The Sheriff”--Biden who recently compared Republicans who are trying to cut the federal budget to rapists. He also blamed them of creating the current deficit. Hmm. Wasn’t it Barack Obama who, in less than two years, has created the largest budget deficit in history, all by himself? And wasn’t it Barack Obama who, in his current budget, wants to increase that deficit to nearly $10 trillion dollars by 2021? If Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama get their way, the only people being raped will be taxpaying Americans. Joe Biden isn’t really the Vice President--is he?
It’s a parody, right?

ITEM: And in the “C’mon; This Has To Be A Parody, Right?” Department, comes Ed Morrissey from Hot Air (here) who informs us that Harry Reid has announced the most compelling reason for continuing to pour taxpayer dollars into the liberal sewer that is NPR yet, I mean, even more compelling than ensuring Nevada cowboy poetry (yeee-haw!) unto eternity. What could be more compelling than cowboy poetry? Why, ensuring that Harry Reid continues to be informed on the true origins of Alaskan dog-sled races! But wait, it gets better! Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-sort of--Alaska) wants continued NPR funding because of the “Mukluk Telegraph.” Accordingto Murkowski, NPR allows hunters to communicate that they returned to camp safely. It does? How would NPR go about that sort of thing, exactly? “And next on All Blubber Chewed, Bubba Jones and his hunting buddies are coming back to Anchorage from their annual Alaskan mosquito hunt...” Apparently NPR has a monopoly on all Alaskan radio frequencies. I know that Senator Reid is reality challenged, but now it seems that the frigid north has affected Senator Murkowski more than we realized.

ITEM: And in the “C’mon; This Really Has To Be A Parody, Right?” Department, against comes Ed Morrissey of Hot Air (here) who explains that many Congressional Democrats are grasping to understand why out of control spending that will--sooner rather than later--bankrupt the country, is so unpopular. They think they have the answer: It’s a failure of messaging! That’s right ladies and gentlemen, if only the Dems can trot out a few more Sesame Street puppets and get a bit more mileage out of sob stories about cowboy poetry and poor Harry Reid who might, in the future, be denied vital information on the origins of Alaskan dog-sled racing, why, they can convince everyone to march to their collective economic doom with smiles on their brainless faces! Read my messaging: WE DON’T HAVE THE MONEY! WE’RE BROKE! NO MONEY! NO...oh, never mind...

ITEM: Via Powerline (here) we learn that a recent Rasmussen survey revealed that only 20% of the public is willing to pay higher taxes to reduce the deficit, while 71% would not be willing. Interestingly, 83% believe that the size of the deficit is a result of politician’s unwillingness to cut spending rather than reluctant taxpayer’s unwillingness to part with more of their money. You know, it’s almost as if the American public suspects that if we give the fiscally handicapped in DC more tax revenue, they’ll just blow it on more boondoggles rather than paying down the debt and balancing the budget. If you think about it, you can almost believe it.

ITEM: From greenautoblog.com (here) comes news of a study by the American Public Transportation Association (I had no idea such a thing existed, you?) that surmises that when gasoline leaps to $5.00 per gallon, Americans will turn to public transportation in record numbers. They also suggest that said public transportation would be overwhelmed. Well, yeah. What they apparently do not realize is that most of America--you know, that part of America that is not actually a major city?-- has no public transportation. Some people really think that everyone lives in New York City, don’t they?

ITEM: In The Continuing Saga of the Religion of Peace Department: From Patrick Poole at The Tatler (here) comes the New York Times Magazine which ran a recent profile on a prominent “moderate” Muslim, one Yasir Qadhi, presenting him “as the new face of ‘moderate’ American Islam.” A Houston Imam, Qadhi would seem an odd choice to present as a moderate as he is an unapologetic Holocaust denier. Among his other moderate credentials are four of his former moderate students who have been arrested on moderate terror charges, including moderate underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Qadhi claims they must have misunderstood his message of moderation and peace. Uh, doesn’t the NYT have what they used to call “editors?” You know, people who would read something like this and say to the eager cub reporter trying to publish it something like “What the hell is wrong with you? This guy’s no moderate! If you can’t even get that fact right, what good are you! Get out of my office, you wet behind the ears whiner, and don’t come back until you have a factual story!” Ah, one can dream, can’t one?

ITEM: Anyone remember Barack Obama promising that he would make America loved and respected again throughout the world? Yeah. Not so much. For an across-the-pond perspective, read this article by Anna Pukas of the Express. Content Warning: You’ll have to ignore some of the left wing certitude, but the piece is all the more remarkable for it. You’ll see what I mean.

ITEM: And in the Man Up Department: Via Fox News (here), following the UN resolution to actually, you know, do something about Libya, military air strikes have begun. “Our planes are blocking the air attacks on the city [of Benghazi]” said French President Nicolas Sarkozy. French president?! French President. After weeks of dithering, weeks of allowing Qaddafi to murder thousands of his people, Mr. Obama has once again lived up to his reputation as a miracle worker: He has made the French look like the dominant, capable military power in the world. In the meantime, President Obama returned from his 5-day Latin America tour. His first diplomatic triumph of the trip was an announced press questioning opportunity that turned into a “we’ll talk at the media” opportunity when the Brazilians decided they didn’t want to take questions, yet more evidence of the transformative power of Obama international magic. There’s more, but it’s just too depressing.

ITEM: He said What?! From the invaluable Mark Steyn we learn of Mr. Obama’s comments at a gathering of major Dem. contributors last week in Washington. He was referencing his favorite topic: Himself. “As time passes, you start taking it for granted that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama is president of the United States. But we should never take it for granted. I hope that all of you still feel that sense of excitement and that sense of possibility.” Uh, I’m nearly--speechless. No, actually I’m not, which is a good thing as I’m the one writing this. I hereby offer a signed photograph of Barack Hussein Obama dropping a nickel in a piggy bank, payable as soon as I can get him to sign one (a photo, a nickel or a piggy bank), to anyone who can produce a more egregious example of entitlement, arrogance and narcissism. In this, at least, there is no question that our president leads the world.

ITEM: Cosmic Irony Department: From the bright and beautiful Michelle Malkin comes the news of the renaming of a Wilmington, Delaware train station on March 19. The station was renamed for VP Joe Biden in honor, apparently, of his gracing trains with his posterior in that vicinity over the years. The best part is that the Amtrack CEO who was officiating had a bit of a problem. The train on which he was to symbolically and historically arrive broke down, so he had to drive. And in the second bit of cosmic irony in a single item--we give you your money’s worth here--Mr. Biden admitted that he didn’t deserve the honor, but following in the footsteps of Mr. Obama who also said that he didn’t deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, accepted it anyway. Oh, and in the third bit of irony, the new station came in $5.3 million dollars over budget. And the fourth bit of irony? Guess who is responsible for seeing that all stimulus projects come in on budget and on time? Joe “The Sheriff,” “Mr. Gafftastic” Biden. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?

ITEM: And in the “Well, That Guy’s Career Is Over,” department, comes news of Rene Jaquez, the second ARF agent to go public with information about the ATF’s infamous operation “Fast and Furious.” During this botched operation, apparently sanctioned by the highest levels in the ATF, agents were ordered to allow thousands of guns to flow into mexico under threat of firing. Several of these weapons were used to kill Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in Arizona in December. Go here for additional information. The country is in the very best of hands.

ITEM: And in even more news from the Religion of Peace, Fox News (here) reports that “Palestinian militants” fired a rocket into southern Israel on March 20, this following a recent firing of about 50 mortar rounds into Israel. Several Israelis were wounded and Israel retaliated. Darned touchy those Israelis. After all, I’m sure those were peaceful mortar rounds and a peaceful rocket aimed only at establishing a sort of explosive yet peaceful dialogue and understanding.

ITEM: American Exceptionalism On Parade! From the Washington Examiner (here) comes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commenting on the attack on Libya: “We did not lead this. We did not engage in unilateral actions in any way...” Hmm. So if it’s worth doing at all, if it’s the morally right thing to do, America can’t act unilaterally? Aren’t we supposed to be the good guys? Whatever happened to truth, justice and the American way? Golf, anyone?

ITEM: Let Them Eat iPads! To read a very satisfying account of an elite government economist getting his comeuppance from some of the little people, visit The Wall Street Journal Online here.

ITEM: Oh Goodie! Department: President Jimmy Carter is scheduled to visit North Korea to do--something or other. Its a virtual certainty that he’ll denigrate America and kowtow to the Nork’s lunatic leadership. Perhaps he’ll even negotiate a brilliant diplomatic breakthrough like so many others negotiated by Democrats, you know, something like we provide money, fuel and food that will prop up the regime for a few more years while they make meaningless promises that they simultaneously promise to break before the ink is dry on the agreement. It’s that kind of smart diplomacy that has made Mr. Carter what he is today. Mr. Obama is hot on his heels in the race to the bottom to surpass him. Go here for the full story, if you have the stomach for it.

ITEM: NEWSFLASH: Mr. Obama has recently announced his absolute support for the development and retrieval of the nation’s oil resources. Unfortunately, the nation happens to be Brazil. George Soros has a significant ownership stake in Petrobras, Brazil’s national oil company. I’m sure this is just a coincidence. In the meantime, Energy Secretary Salazar, speaking to unemployed oil field workers on the Gulf Coast, put his thumbs in his ears, stuck out his tongue and said: “PHHBBBBBT! OK, so I made that last part up, but you know he’d like to say it. It’s what he’s doing anyway.

ITEM: Have you always suspected that jihadist terrorists have been crossing our southern Border into America? They have indeed. At PJM, here is the proof. Nothing truly new for those who keep themselves well-informed, but oh deary dear. For serious people, there can be no doubt that Democrats can never again be allowed to be anywhere near national security. Or finances. Or domestic policy. Or foreign policy. Or (fill in favorite topic here).

ITEM: There Really Are Heroes! Department: Who’s tougher than Hideaki Akaiwa? Only Hideaki Akaiwa. To read about a man who is a genuine hero, go here.

And on that hopeful note for mankind, thanks for dropping by, and I’ll see you next Thursday!

So What Are We Doing In Libya Exactly?

So what are we doing in Libya, exactly? President Obama tells us that it’s his policy to removed Qaddafi from power, yet that it’s also US policy not to try to kill Qaddafi. Mr. Obama also tells us that these “policies” aren’t in the least contradictory. American military commanders, obviously uncomfortable, tell us that given the mission parameters and restraints imposed by our political non-leadership, it is entirely possible that they can and will successfully accomplish the mission they have been given, yet leave Qaddafi comfortably in power in Libya.

I’m tempted to ask whether this state of affairs is an Onion satire, or whether we have merely taken leave of our national senses. The saving grace is that, more and more, Mr. Obama has separated himself from America; he represents himself. That he has taken leave of his senses--to the extent that he ever had any in terms of foreign policy--can scarcely be denied.

The invaluable Caroline Glick, writing at Real Clear Politics (here) advances several convincing theories: (1) Mr. Obama has, as a fundamental understanding of American prestige and power, the unshakable belief that America is an evil, imperialistic power that is primarily responsible for all the trouble in the world. (2) Any nation aligned with America, any of our allies, must therefore be complicit in America’s evil. (3) The UN is the ultimate and only legitimate actor on the world stage and as such, a perfect vehicle to restrain and diminish American power and prestige.

To these theories, given credence not only by Mr. Obama’s words, but by his actions, I would add: (1) Mr. Obama has a real and abiding hatred for America and her people, a large percentage of whom he has called “enemies,” and insulted with implications of racism. (2) He has demonstrated reflexive support for communists and their allies around the world and in America. (3) He has a complete lack of respect for democracy and the Constitution, which he obviously regards as an anachronistic impediment to his socialistic goals. (4) He has a fundamental belief that America is a racist, evil society and is willing to implement racism in reverse as a means of settling the score. (5) As a man who is at odds with American ideals and democracy’s imperatives, and as a man with no interest in foreign policy, and with no experience, he has no core foreign policy principles except those that will be harmful to America. (6) He reflexively caters to, supports and boosts Muslim interests.

Ms. Glick asserts that America’s traditional interests in the Middle east have been: (1) Guaranteeing the free flow of low cost oil to America and the global market. (2) Supporting regional governments that will assist in the first goal at the expense of American enemies. (3) Suppressing jihadists and others hostile to America.

With these ideas in mind, what, exactly are we doing in Libya? If these theories are correct, and I suggest that they are, everything Mr. Obama has been doing since taking office is easily understood. A man with no core principles aligned with American interests would be expected to dither interminably when presented with foreign policy crises which he would consider an annoying distraction from his Socialistic remaking of American society. And so he has dithered interminably. Such a man would be expected to be anything but a leader, and so he has not lead. Such a man would be expected to seek the permission and the cover of the UN, and so he has. And in a nation with dramatically rising fuel costs, he would be expected to shut off domestic production and to pursue policies on the world stage that would further threaten affordable energy supplies, and so he has.

Do we know who these “rebels” in Libya are? No. Do we know their ultimate agenda? No. Can we be reasonably assured that if Qaddafi is deposed, that Libya will be friendly to America and her allies? No. Do we have any idea what will constitute victory in Libya? In fact, are our currently policies aimed at achieving anything there that might remotely resemble victory? No and no.

Under the right circumstances, when American vital interests are implicated, the expense of military action is not a concern. But under the present circumstances, where we are in real fiscal danger, where we are protecting no legitimate American interests, we continue to pour Tomahawk missiles into Libya at, arguably, a million dollars per bang.

By all means, read Ms. Glick’s article and ask, so what are we doing in Libya, exactly?

The Brave New World of Mr. Chu

The Obama Administration’s Novel Prize-winning physicist, Energy Secretary Dr. Stephen Chu appeared on Fox News Sunday (here) on March 20th and had a number of very disturbing--though completely unsurprising--things to say about energy development. But let’s go back in time to September, 2008, to an interview the Wall Street Journal (here) conducted with Mr. Chu. Also, go here to read an article with links to our past articles on the Chevy Volt.

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Mr. Chu said.

Gasoline prices in Europe are currently about $10 per gallon ($200 to fill a 20 gallon fuel tank). Mr. Chu believes that artificially increasing gas prices will force Americans into smaller cars, public transportation and other situations more in line with the thinking of environmentalists. According to the WSJ:

Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.”

Fast forward to March 20, 2011. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace brought up Sec. Chu’s 2008 WSJ comments, but oddly did not ask if he still favored raising the price of fuel to force Americans to do his bidding. Chu responded that he was working on:

“developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices.” He added: “The recent spike in gasoline prices following that huge spike in 2007, 2008 is a reminder to Americans that the price of gasoline over the long haul should be expected to go up just because of supply and demand issues. And so we see this in the buying habits of Americans as they make choices for the next car they buy.”

But how to take the “pain out of high gas prices?” Chu said that the Obama administration wants to increase mileage standards and “support the development” of electric cars. He said that he expected batteries capable of a 200-300 mile range on a single charge in the near future.

Wallace also noted that not a single permit for a new nuclear power plant has been issued in America since 1978. He asked Chu if this has made our 100+ nuclear power plants less safe, and Chu mostly danced around the question. Again, oddly, Wallace did not ask Chu why, since Mr. Obama claims to support nuclear energy, no permits have been issued under the Obama Administration.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, on ABC’s This Week, had a substantially different view:

“...reactionary responses to crises -- like the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following the BP oil spill -- will only harm America's attempts to develop mindful energy policies. He said a broader and comprehensive policy is needed. ‘You know, at the end of the day, if we don't use coal, oil, natural gas or nuclear, we're going to be sitting around the fire trying to warm ourselves like we did eons ago," Chertoff said. ‘So we're going to have to manage risk. That doesn't mean guaranteeing against any. It means having in place ways to mitigate problems.’"

And there, gentle readers, we see our energy future for at least the next two, and God Forbid, six years. It should be no surprise that Mr. Obama has chosen an environmentalist, utopian zealot as Secretary of Energy, but Sec. Chu, short of saying with wild, crazy eyes while maniacally cackling, “I’m going to make you pay $10 a gallon for gas if it’s the last thing I do!” makes no pretense about caring about, or making any effort to reduce high gasoline prices.

His answer to high gas prices is to try to remove the pain? One might hope that government officials would grow in office, that the realities of dealing with the world would have some positive effect on their theoretical, impractical viewpoints, but Sec. Chu seems to have only doubled down on his beliefs of 2008. Remember that in 2008 Mr. Obama also said that if he got his way, energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket.” We elected him anyway. Silly us.

Consider Sec. Chu’s 2008 comments and their implications: Gas at $10 a gallon, forcing Americans to buy “more-efficient” (small) cars, forcing Americans to live closer to work. These are the ideas of an Ivy-tower, self-styled elite who have never lived or worked in the real world, a world where only a small portion of the population can live within electric car range of work. Public transportation, by the way, is commonly available only in major metropolitan areas.

The cost of living in major urban areas is far greater than in much of the rest of the nation, and even if Americans were forced to move to urban areas in large numbers, there could not possibly be sufficient available jobs, to say nothing of decent, affordable housing. On the day this post was written, Mr. Obama was visiting the slums of Rio de Janeiro. If Sec. Chu had his way, such slums would surround all American cities and 10% unemployment would be looked upon with fond longing for the good old days. There are very good reasons why every American doesn’t live in an urban setting. For all of his education and apparent intellect, Sec. Chu seems unaware of this--or doesn’t care.

When gas reaches $5.00 per gallon, as it is expected to do this summer--it’s already that high in a few places--the effect on the economy will be very negative indeed. At $10 it would be catastrophic. Many Americans simply would not be able to afford to buy gas to drive to work and carry out the daily functions necessary to support life. Even a great many middle class Americans would find themselves in financial trouble, and such people are certainly not going to be in any condition to buy shiny new fuel-efficient green cars at any price. Oh yes, and don’t forget that each new arbitrary mileage mandate adds additional cost to new cars. Fuel prices not only effect the cost of gas, but the cost of food and every product produced or imported, and this effect is consistent across the economy. Strangely, Sec. Chu seems unaware of this, or doesn’t care.

Fuel efficient cars are, in most ways, good things, but the kinds of cars Sec. Chu wants to mandate through stratospheric energy prices are impractical for much of the public. For example, I recently bought a 2011 Ford Fiesta. It’s fun to drive, gets more than 30 MPH around town, a bit over 40 MPG on the highway, and is quite roomy--for two adults. It would be large enough for a family with one infant in a car seat, and perhaps until that infant reached 9 or 10, but beyond that, it would be entirely unsuitable for a larger family, unless both adults were only 5’4” tall or so. The problem is that millions of Americans have larger families, millions need pickup trucks for their work and a variety of other legitimate reasons, and millions of Americans simply like larger cars. They tend not to see their choices as illegitimate. No doubt, Sec. Chu would not share their opinion, if he cared at all.

Sec. Chu obviously takes it for granted that gas prices will rise dramatically, and rather than work, as the Secretary of Energy, to produce more oil and other natural resources to lower the costs of energy, he focuses only on wasting taxpayer and borrowed money on green boondoggles to ensure that energy prices will “necessarily skyrocket.” The pain of high gas prices comes from their high cost. This takes money out of the pockets of families, which lowers their standard of living, sometimes painfully indeed. More efficient cars will not lessen that pain. It’s a sick irony that the price level of gas necessary to force sufficient Americans to buy the kind of cars Mr. Chu favors would also so wreck the economy that they could not afford such vehicles and would be reduced to something resembling a third world standard of living. Sec. Chu is also apparently unaware of this, or perhaps he is.

As to electric cars, regular readers will recall that I’ve been keeping up with the Three Stooges Film Festival that is the Chevy Volt (take the link in the first paragraph to ready my previous posts). At the moment, real world experience for this $41,000 MSRP wonder car delivers 25-40 miles per charge, and with 110V house current, it takes 8-12 hours to charge a depleted battery. For an additional $2000, not including installation, one can buy a 220V fast charger that shortens charging time to 4-6 hours, but that’s only at home. At last check, Volts were selling for as much as $65,000. That’s not exactly a car for the masses.

As a physicist, one might be tempted to think that Sec. Chu would know that scientists and engineers would be delighted to develop batteries that would get from 50-80 miles on a charge. That would be a 100% improvement over the best currently available technology. The kind of improvement Sec. Chu is suggesting is, to put it mildly, unlikely absent a breakthrough of unimaginable proportions, or unless the government has the secret already in hand from reverse-engineering a captured alien spacecraft. Even the aliens probably have to recharge every light year or so. Yet Sec. Chu sees millions of happy little electric cars plying the highways and byways in the very near future.

But wait a minute, the Obama Administration isn’t authorizing any nuclear plants, they’re destroying the coal industry (Mr. Obama and Mr. Chu are on record hoping to do just that), which is the industry that powers most of our electric generating plants, and even solar and wind projects are being delayed by federal bureaucrats and failing that, shut down by environmentalist lawsuits. Hydro-electric facilities, as the British would say, are right out. Even a substantial solar project in the Mojave Desert has been stymied by environmentalists. Something about the project annoying toads, I believe. But even if it is eventually constructed, it will produce only a tiny amount of electricity, and only when the sun shines. Our electric grid and power generating capability is aging and we’re not building any new plants. From where, exactly, will all of the electricity to power these marvelous electric cars come? One would think that as a physicist, Sec. Chu would be aware of this as well, or perhaps he just doesn’t care.

It’s clear that our President and his Secretary of Energy are not, in fact, working for the benefit of Americans, but are working to establish their socialistic vision of utopia, a utopia where Americans will have far less freedom, mobility, wealth and opportunity, except for a self-styled elite who must have such perks to successfully keep us on the utopian path. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Something about Marx or communism? But I’d have to look that stuff up. Maybe another time.

Perhaps the only thing amazing about all of this is that within a scant two years, our expectations have been so drastically lowered, we’ve come to expect so little, that this is almost unremarkable. Isn’t it interesting that Mr. Chertoff, no longer a member of the Obama Administration, now has apparently rational views on these issues? Oh that’s right! He’s not one of the elite anymore. He’d be living with the rest of us.

But it’s not all bad news. Every Chevy Volt comes with a $7500 tax credit! That’s right, your taxes, gentle reader, are being spent to subsidize $65,000 motorized toys for the wealthy, the wealthy the Obamites claim to despise. But hey, with that $7500 tax credit, a Volt, if you can find one, will cost only $57,500! Maybe the dim new world of Sec. Chu isn’t so bad after all.

Tomahawk Economics

Mr. Obama, after weeks of dithering that allowed Col. Qadaffi to slaughter untold numbers of his own countrymen, has responded to the recent UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya by a tried and true Clintonian military strategy: Chucking 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya from ships off shore.

The Tomahawk is a subsonic, long range land attack missile programmed to strike specific targets with a high degree of accuracy. It commonly carries a 1000 pound conventional high explosive warhead and costs between $600 thousand dollars and $1 million dollars per shot (I’d bet on the higher number) It is used by our Navy and the British Navy and media reports indicate that both have fired Tomahawks on Libya.

This is a particularly interesting development completely in line with Mr. Obama’s past practice. Because he is unable to make timely decisions and is risk-averse, the primary thrust of Mr. Obama’s war on terror has been through Predator drone-fired Hellfire anti-tank missiles. Simultaneously our troops on the ground in Iraq, and particularly Afghanistan, are saddled with rules of engagement so restrictive that they have actually cost the lives of American soldiers. In addition, where a bullet or a few inexpensive bombs would do, Mr. Obama prefers much more expensive, higher tech applications of taxpayer dollars.

So while French pilots successfully attack Qadaffi’s ground forces inside Libya with relatively inexpensive munitions, our air assets are grounded and we lob less effective, far more expensive--and rare--hi-tech cruise missiles at military assets that can and should be destroyed by the application of relatively inexpensive JDAM equipped or laser guided bombs, weapons that can have substantially greater explosive capacity than the pricey Tomahawk. That ought to help balance the budget.

Oh well. At least we’re not looking like a second string, second rate military power struggling to keep pace with the French. Are we? I’m tempted to say that Mr. Obama is looking more Carteresque every day, but he’d have to man up considerably to reach even that abysmal standard.

Update, 03-20-11: Thanks to our readers for their pertinent points. Such issues are difficult, not least because we don't have the intelligence information those making command decisions hopefully have. That said, Tomahawks have their limitations. They're absolutely great against targets that are not capable of moving, or are very unlikely to move, but they are essentially fire and forget weapons. An F/A-18, say loaded with four bombs, is far more flexible. The pilot can make targeting decisions on site, and has the capability to destroy multiple targets with precision rather than one.

Indeed, the Tomahawk is a good weapon for taking out fixed missile and radar sites, though in the Persian Gulf War, that task was in part assigned to Apache helicopters (I know that option is likely unavailable here; just making the case for alternatives). An additional consideration is that if a Tomahawk lacks the explosive capacity to completely do the job, or if its intended target moved before the Tomahawk arrived, another strike, likely by manned aircraft, will be necessary to complete what could and should have been done in the first place. Manned strikes do expose our people to danger, but they understand and accept this.

We should never expose our people to unreasonable risks when there are viable alternatives, but the French are flying, apparently successfully. Are we less capable? My worry continues to be that Mr. Obama, because of his inability to make timely decisions, and his reluctance to use American force for any reason, is falling back on the tried and true Democrat dodge of using very expensive missiles when other, more effective and less expensive alternatives might do the job--militarily speaking--more effectively. Let's not even get into the argument about America's leadership in the world, at least not in this post.

Bully For Obama?

Teddy Roosevelt’s favorite aphorism was arguably, “speak softly and carry a big stick.” He used the phrase to describe his bullying at the hands of NY state party bosses while he served as Governor. Adhering to that philosophy, he won that particular battle through courage and perseverance.

Comes now Barack Hussein Obama, teleprompter reader to the world, to deal with one of the most vital matters facing the republic and the international community: Bullying. That’s right, bullying. The President of the United States, facing crises in Libya, throughout the rest of the Arab world, Japan, North and South Korea, Iran, an economy speeding toward the edge of a bottomless abyss and an existential threat from Islamic lunatics lead by Iran, who seek the destruction of western civilization, and Mr. Obama devotes a recent address to the nation on bullying, a annoyance that has traditionally been handled on the local level, often with a retaliatory punch to the bully’s nose by a former victim.

Many members of the Clinton Administration--Janet Reno comes to mind--were often criticized for their inability to focus on issues on the national and world stages. They ran their agencies as though they were still responsible for local, or at the most, state-wide jurisdictions, leading to insane micro-management in domestic affairs, and absolute neglect of international issues. Mr. Obama threatens to make them look like omniscient titans on the world stage. Do visit here and here for additional information on this post.

From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, we discover that in furtherance of the federalization of every aspect of American life, Rep. Jackie Speier (D, CA),

“will introduce a bill that would require schools to report incidents of bullying against children diagnosed with conditions like Down syndrome and Aspergers to the federal government. It would also mandate that any federal dollars that promote anti-bullying programs focus partially on that group.

‘There is [currently] no requirement that as part of the anti-bullying curriculum, that there be made specific reference to children with special needs. That’s particularly dumb,” Speier said during a briefing on school bullying on Capitol Hill Wednesday. ‘What I want to do is create an environment where there is zero tolerance. I think that starts first with education and awareness. Then, when behavior is egregious, then people have to be called out on that.’"

There is, of course, no area of American thought and life that Obamites consider out of bounds to federal intervention and control. Even passing the legislation Speier favors would require the establishment of an entirely new federal bureaucracy to oversee data collection, which would inevitably lead to another bureau (unionized, of course) to enforce the ever-expanding anti-bullying laws, which would inevitably lead to federal anti-bullying agents dragging that rotten little Smith kid down the block off to a federal lock up. This would admittedly handle an annoying problem for that particular neighborhood, unless of course that rotten little Smith kid was a member of a favored racial or ethic victim group, in which case the feds would subsidize his bullying and obtain federal court orders enjoining his victims and local authorities from restraining such a priceless national treasure.

And in the meantime, at the Washington Post, David Agnatius informs us that Mr. Obama plans to roll out his most fearsome weapon: Rhetoric. Mr. Obama is planning on talking to--wait for it--the Taliban and Hezbollah! Barack Obama is considering chatting with two groups of the most genocidal, unhinged, homicidal, barbaric bullies extant. Ignatius writes:

“One model for the administration, as it thinks about engagement of enemies, is the British process of dialogue during the 1990s with Sinn Fein, the legal political wing of the terrorist Irish Republican Army. That outreach led to breakthrough peace talks and settlement of a conflict that had been raging for more than a century.”

Hmm. Could there be any differences between that situation and the current situation? The IRA had political issues with the British Government, yet shared a common history, culture and religious beliefs. The Taliban and Hezbollah are Islamist murderers who share no historical, cultural or religious background with western civilization. In fact, they believe that Allah has put them on Earth to destroy all non-Muslims--particularly those pesky Jews (and we’re next on their list)-- and to subjugate the planet in the name of Allah. In fact, their faith teaches them to lie and dissemble in negotiations, the better to achieve their ultimate goal. There doesn’t seem to be a great deal to talk about, does there? What do we negotiate? Whether they’ll use sharp or dull knifes to saw off our heads for later video posting on You Tube?

What does this have to do with Mr. Obama’s apparent fixation on bullying, you ask? We have in the Oval Office a man who is unable to face reality. Like a child, he ignores problems that are too difficult for him to handle, preferring instead those that require only a bit of soaring rhetoric. Thus does Mr. Obama wish to throw the full might of the federal government at that rotten little Smith kid down the block, while the homicidal hordes of the Middle East plot our destruction. He thinks he can talk them into working and playing well with others. Who, after all, can stand against the persuasive rhetoric of Barack Obama? Who can fail to be awed by his teleprompter technology?

But perhaps the Feds can do something worthwhile after all. Maybe we can send all those rotten little Smith kids to the Middle East?

Corruption at BATF-Greensboro

I just confirmed that the Greensboro, North Carolina office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) has decided to stall the investigation of a convicted felon linked to hundreds of weapons. They have evidence—enough to put the primary suspect and others in prison for a very long time—but have decided to stonewall the investigation.

Why?

Pursuing the prosecution will also likely reveal evidence that BATF auditors and agents have failed to do their jobs correctly and will force their termination.

You would think that BATF headquarters in Washington, DC would want an easy bust after the "Operation: Fast and Furious" gunrunning scandal left at least one U.S. Border Patrol agent and an unknown number of Mexican nationals murdered.

Instead, the BATF in the Carolinas seems far more intent on letting a convicted kidnapper with outstanding warrants for other crimes continue walking the streets, even though he is considered unstable, and likely to seek weapons again.

All to cover their own asses.

No matter who dies.

Diversity or Safety? Justice Dept. Orders Lower Standards for Police Exam

The good folks at Pajamas Media have been kind enough to publish my latest essay on the Obama/Holder Department of Justice. What are they up to now? Forcing Dayton, Ohio to drastically lower the passing grades on its police entrance exam because an insufficient number of people of the proper color passed the test with its normal, very low, passing standard.

Read about the latest Obama Administration outrage here. As Lilly Tomlin said, "no matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up."

The Volt That Wouldn't Die!

It may be worth your while to visit Patrick Michaels' relatively brief article on the Chevy Volt at Forbes (here), if for no other reason than to reinforce what you've already learned, and in much greater detail, on this scruffy little blog. You're ahead of the curve on this one!

Michaels reinforces the fact that the Volt makes no fiscal sense for GM or for potential driver/owners. One interesting bit is that a GM representative apparently told Michaels that cold would not effect a Volt's battery operating range. Apparently GM has discovered how to sidestep the laws of physics, so I'm anxiously awaiting the brand new, warp drive 2012 Volt, with optional transporter and replicator. I wonder how much of a tax credit that will wring from the Feds? And of course, you'll probably only get 1.5 light years on the battery before the warp drive kicks in. I'd definitely check the power reserves before trying to transport at warp though. It's not good to scatter your atoms all over the universe.

Michaels also makes an interesting point about GE preparing to buy many Volts from GM. GE President Jeffrey Imelt, you may remember from my past Volt posts, is now serving as an Obama economic advisor honcho. Could there be any collusion or conflict of interest in the head of GE buying up unsellable cars with heaters that don't work in order to shore up bull-goose looney Obama fiscal policies? Surely this would be impossible in the most transparent administration in history!

Actually, the Volt and everything and everyone remotely associated with it represent the very worst of feckless government meddling in the economy. Oh, and don't call me Shirley.

My previous posts on the Volt may be found here, here, here and here.

Quick Takes, March 17, 2011

ITEM: I’ll start this edition of Quick Takes with a sobering, but uplifting, story (here). Consider it a bit of penance for Mr. Obama’s serial insults of our British cousins. British Army Lance Cpl. Liam Tasker, and his bomb-sniffing dog, Theo, were inseparable--in life and in death. Don’t read this one unless you have Kleenex in hand, and be sure to pet your dog tonight.

ITEM: Mr. Obama has written an editorial promoting better background checks for gun purchasers (here). Several of his comments: “...my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.” And “I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen.” He also repeatedly talks about “common sense” measures.

Hmm, he’s expanded gun rights? Like he’s expanded American oil production? Might want to chat with the folks on the Gulf Coast and Alaska about that one. “People shout at one another?” No, we keep calmly bringing up the Constitution and actual common sense; it’s the other side that does the shouting. And as to “common sense gun control” measures, we know what Mr. Obama and his side thinks those are. Visit my recent article on Mr. Obama’s gun control views--here--to see just how believable he is.

ITEM: I know that you’ve often asked yourself this question: What happens when a proton beam traveling at nearly the speed of light pierces your head? The answer may be found here. Yeoow!

ITEM: The Hell Has Frozen Over and Pigs Are Doing Barrel Rolls Overhead! Department: From Hot Air (here), Bill Clinton, speaking on a panel with George W. Bush, said that there are “ridiculous delays in permitting when our economy doesn’t need it.” That’s right, Bill Clinton believes that we ought to be drilling for oil and natural gas! Actually, it’s hardly surprising. Clinton was certainly a liberal, but more than willing to race to the center when necessary. And if Hillary decides to take another run at Mr. Obama, his comments make more and more sense. A frightening thought: Have things truly become so bad under Barack Obama that even Bill Clinton seems like a wise, elder statesman by comparison?

ITEM: Louis Renault Award of the Week: The Captain Louis Renault Award this week goes to ABC, CBS. MSNBC, NPR The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today and the Los Angeles Times. We here at Confederate Yankee are shocked, shocked! that these news outlets have not, as of March 13, reported on the death threats made against Republicans in Wisconsin. Anyone depending on these “news” outlets would think the entire situation in Wisconsin was about oppressed workers fighting over crusts of bread denied them by the evil Governor of the state. Read the whole story here.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award II: At Jammie Wearing Fool (here), we learn that Geoffrey Eaton, Charlie Rangel’s Deputy Chief of Staff (a Congressman needs a Deputy Chief of Staff?!) had a rather bad day at the diner. Drunk and incensed that he couldn’t find his umbrella, he screamed obscenities at everyone in the restaurant where he was dining on March 10th. When a customer tried to calm him, he screamed “bleep you and mind your own bleeping business...you’re a disgrace to our race.” After fifteen minutes of trying to calm Eaton, the restaurant staff had to have him removed by the police. I’m shocked, shocked! that a race-baiting minion of a race-baiting, entitled congressman would behave this way!

ITEM: I know you’ve often asked yourself this question: Do redheads have a higher tolerance for pain? Find the shocking answer here. Double yeoow!

ITEM: Well, At Least He Has His Priorities Straight. With legislators in both parties wondering where in the world is Barack Obama on the budget, with the Arab world dissolving in conflict, with the deficit increasing with each passing day, Mr. Obama has chosen to swing dramatically into action! He has taped his NCAA picks to be revealed to an anxious and grateful public on March 16. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing for Mr. Obama to play so much golf after all; that way he can do less damage.

ITEM: Credit Where Credit Is Due, Department: At the Weekly Standard (here), Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich comments on the Wisconsin Democrats: “The absurdity of the Democrats’ outing was too much. They weren’t merely wrong on a procedural point. They were accusing Republicans of ‘making a mockery of democracy.’ operating like a ‘banana republic,’ and conducting a ‘coup d’etat.’ All the while, Democrats were hiding in another state trying to prevent a newly inaugurated senate from holding a vote on vital state business.’” Well, yeah...

ITEM: In the National Review Online (here) David French asks “Why Is It So Easy for Lila Rose and James O’Keffe?” His thesis is that organizations like NPR, ACORN and Planned Parenthood have never had any significant vetting, not from the news media, not from the government. Indeed. And that has bred an institutional arrogance that leads them to believe they are beyond reproach and rebuke. If they believe they’re with like-minded people, they have no fear of revealing their souls, and empty souls they are. Taxpayer dollars must not fund such folly, even if we have the money--and we don’t.

ITEM: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Barack Obama, January 25, 2010. Isn’t it our civic duty to help Mr. Obama realize his dream? After all, he’s done so much to us...

ITEM: Former Speaker of the House (oh, it feels soooo good to write that!) Nancy Pelosi recently took to the House floor to proclaim that “Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility...” Uh...is that the same Democrats who have spent us into a pit so deep we may never climb out? The same Democrats who refused to pass a budget to hid their obscene spending binges? The same Democrats who think that cutting a few billion from a trillion-plus deficit is morally wrong? And isn’t Nancy Pelosi the same Speaker of the House who wasted millions commandeering military aircraft to fly her back and forth from San Francisco to DC despite the fact that she is independently wealthy? Thought so. It’s things like this that make me worry that irony may, in the near future, no longer be ironic enough. To get anyone’s attention, we may have to resort to super irony, perhaps even mega irony. And as long as we’re on that topic, Obama and the Dems are also quickly rendering a single exclamation mark insufficient. That’s super, mega, cosmic ironic!!!!!!!!

ITEM: Are you a brutal, repressive dictator? Are the peasants revolting (they certainly are, nyuk, nyuk!)? Is Barack Obama threatening to uphold universal human rights and to bear witness? Then you’d better read Rick Richman’s advice for dictators at Commentary (here).

ITEM: A Few Quick Thoughts On Energy: As Japanese nuclear plants continue to have “difficulties,” Mr. Obama has affirmed his commitment to building new nuclear plants, a commitment that has not yet resulted in the beginning of a single plant. Mr. Obama is, as always, trying to have it both ways. He can read his teleprompter to give lip service to nuclear energy all he likes, knowing that his bureaucrats will throw up an impenetrable wall of red tape to prevent the construction of a single plant. And even if a particularly determined utility was capable of surmounting such obstacles, Mr. Obama’s many environmentalist allies are certain to file lawsuit after lawsuit, but at a distance sufficient to provide Mr, Obama plausible deniability. And of course, federal bureaucrats will be watching any project like hawks, ready to revoke permits at the drop of a progressive hat. It’s win-win for Mr. Obama and his allies and lose-lose for America. As usual.

ITEM: Maybe America Has A Future After All...A recent Rasmussen poll (here) has revealed that only 3% of Americans think that an Ivy League education produces a better worker. A whopping 79% thinks otherwise. It’s good to see that Americans retain their essential common sense and practicality. You don’t suppose these poll results were influenced by the current occupant of the Oval Office and all of his various czars, sub czars, assistant deputy secretaries to the assistant deputy undersecretaries, etc., many of whom have Ivy League pedigrees, do you? Nah.

ITEM: We’re All About The New Civility: New Time magazine cover: “Wisconsin’s Governor Wins But Is He Still Dead Man Walker?” Oh dear. Wasn’t the lamestream media in a lather of late over the Gabrielle Giffords shooting? You know, the shooting by the rabid conservative, who turned out not to be a conservative, but plenty rabid? Weren’t we all supposed to avoid provocative language in discussing politicians? Apparently not so much, particularly if they’re republicans.

ITEM: So that’s The Cause of All the Economic Distress! Speaking at the National League of Cities Conference (here), First Lady Michelle Obama said: “You all know better than anyone that childhood obesity is already affecting your communities. It’s already weighing down your budgets. It’s already hampering economic growth.” And we all thought it had to do with lunatic federal economic policies, out of control entitlements and unrestrained spending on vital national programs like cowboy poetry. Who knew fixing it all was as easy as keeping Twinkies away from the kiddies? Those Obamas! What a shame there’s no Nobel Prize for sheer awesomeness.

ITEM: From the Associated Press (here): “Wholesale prices jumped last month by the most in nearly two years due to higher energy costs and the steepest rise in food prices in 36 years. Excluding those volatile categories, inflation was tame.” The AP also noted that “There was little sign of inflationary pressures outside of food and energy.” What good news! Outside of two of the three necessities of mere existence--food, housing and affordable energy--everything is great! As Dr. Pangloss used to say, we live in the best of all possible worlds. But wait a minute! Maybe you ought to read the next item...

ITEM: More Economic Good News: From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air (here), HUD has reported that housing starts for February dropped 22.5%, the lowest level in 27 years--that’s more than a quarter century, folks. But wait a minute! What about the Summer of Recovery? What about Mr. Obama who has “broken the back” of the recession? What about government statistics showing that unemployment is going down? Mark Twain said: “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.” Is it possible, just vaguely possible, that people who are under-employed or unemployed don’t buy new houses, and that if there is less demand, fewer new homes will be built? So it’s actually three for three for the Obama Administration! We’re number one! we’re number one!

ITEM: At a recent White House presser, Obama Administration press secretary Jay Carney fielded questions about the wisdom of Mr. Obama’s upcoming trip to Latin America in light of the rest of the world, you know, more or less, well, falling apart. Said Mr. Carney: “Obviously, the trip is on, and the president will be going to Latin America, and he's looking forward to having discussions with leaders in the region about our bilateral relationship.” Ah! So Mr. Obama will continue the strategy that has worked so well for the first two years of his administration: Talking. And when they’re done talking, they’ll talk about how the talking went, and about how to talk better in the future, about a new talk to the American people, and about how to set new deadlines for new, more forceful talking, and they’ll talk about talking about more talking about talking, and ...

ITEM: This Pretty Much Says It All: From Fox News via the excellent urgentagenda.com, we discover Mr. Obama’s priorities from his last weekend radio address: “Amid chaos around the world and on Capitol Hill, Obama’s Saturday radio address was devoted to Women’s History Month and a call to pass the Paycheck Fairness, Act, a proposal meant to address the income gap between men and women. Then, the president went golfing at Andrews Air Force Base [rimshot, and cue applause].”

ITEM: And in the continuing news from the religion of peace department, early on March 15th (here), the Israeli Navy boarded and seized a Liberian flagged German tanker loaded with peaceful Iranian weapons--such as peaceful mortar rounds, peaceful land to sea missiles, and other peaceful munitions--bound for Hamas in the Gaza strip, no doubt for completely peaceful purposes, such as peacefully murdering sleeping Israeli children. The weapons were recently transported through the Suez canal on peaceful Iranian war, er, peaceships. Newsflash: George Bush said that you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists. Indeed. For a satiric and satisfying look at what Jihadists have to look forward to, visit this classic bit from the Onion (here).

ITEM: ObamaCare Isn’t A Government Takeover Of Health Care, Honest! Department: From CNS News via Hot Air (here) comes Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan), speaking at the National Press Club on March 14th. Conyers confirmed that ObamaCare has, from the start, been intended as a vehicle to establish absolute government control over health care. Said Conyers: “Well it’s a platform. I don’t think they flow smoothly but without it, if we didn’t have this then health care, universal health care would be an even more difficult legislative objective.” Whoda thunk it?

ITEM: I Knew It! Department: Visit here for an article that explains it all, everything you didn’t know you needed to know about the Age of Obama.

And on that informative and uplifting note, thanks for stopping by and I’ll see you next Thursday!!

Teaching and Sacrifice II

On February 20, I posted an article title “Teaching and Sacrifice” (here) about those Wisconsin teachers who had betrayed the sacred trust given them by the citizens of that state, preferring instead their own interests and the greater interests of the unions. The article garnered some interest in the blogosphere, and I was pleased because it illustrated at least some of the reasons why some Americans think so poorly of some who inhabit my chosen profession, and perhaps why they should think well of those who embody the highest values of teaching. When I wrote that article, I did not think that those teachers could have sunken lower, could have more completely betrayed their calling, duty and charges. I was wrong.

From Wisconsin Law Professor and blogger Ann Althouse (here) comes a March 14th post with video from the state Capitol building in Madison. According to Althouse, who also recently appeared on Megyn Kelly’s show on Fox, the people in the video in orange shirts emblazoned with “Proud To Be A Teacher,” are apparently teachers (she spoke with them). There are several other adults present who may be parents, but that’s not known with any certainty. The day the video was shot was, according to Althouse, a day that students and teachers were not in school. It is what the teachers are doing there that I find even more disturbing than abandoning the classroom or obtaining fake medical excuses to lie, to cover for their improper absence.

The teachers are engaging in organized chanting with a group of school children, anti-Walker (the Republican Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker) chanting. The children, numbering about 20, are holding signs that they clearly did not make, and are chanting, with their adult role-models and in a call-response mode, as well. Clearly, the kids have no idea what they are chanting. They have no idea that they’re chanting kiddie versions of stock union propaganda, or even what unions and propaganda are.

How do I know this? The children appear to be of first or second grade age. The skills necessary to make the signs that appear in the video are beyond them. They likely have some idea what the words they are chanting mean, but children of that age certainly do not have any idea of the philosophical and political implications of what they are saying. They chant to please the adults who are important to them, no more, no less. That’s the problem.

Teachers operate under the legal doctrine of “in loco parentis.” It’s Latin and means “in place of the parents.” Parents entrust their children to teachers, who may act in place of the parents when the children are with them. They may regulate children’s behavior and dispense discipline as necessary, just as parents would. Of course, in these days of political correctness, few teachers would dare touch a child lest they be sued up one side and down the other, but the doctrine is in place nonetheless.

Perhaps more important is the tacit understanding between parents and teachers. If parents cannot be reasonably certain that teachers will actually teach, why should they entrust their children to any teacher’s care? Teachers must confine themselves to teaching their disciplines, which includes the best currently available knowledge in that discipline. I’m not referring to fads, theories and other silliness, but cold, hard facts, things that work and that we know work because they’ve worked for hundreds of years.

For example, as a teacher of high school English, I stick primarily to reading and writing (a great deal of writing of all kinds), and teaching students how to think, how to analyze literature and speech, why words mean what they mean and their importance. Where I teach, state standards require that we teach children “media literacy,” so each year I prepare--and continually update--a unit on how the media shapes public opinion though what they write, through what they choose not to cover, through polls, through photographs, and every other aspect of the media. The unit requires a great deal of writing and analysis, and, as thoughtful readers might imagine, covers media bias in detail. In doing this unit, I am careful to present both sides of issues--where it’s necessary to present both sides--and again, I teach the kids how to develop higher level thinking skills, not what to think. To do otherwise would be unprofessional and improper.

Even in studying Shakespeare, high school students have to be taught about human nature and politics. They simply can’t understand “Julius Caesar” and Shakespeare’s other works without at least a rudimentary understanding of those concepts. But if I chose a particular political orientation and presented all of my materials through that lens, I would be telling them what to think. I would be guilty of professional malpractice. But worse, I would be breaching the vital understanding between teachers and parents. I would be treading on ground reserved only for parents. Any teacher who does this is inviting the righteous and justified wrath of parents, and is crossing boundaries they should never cross.

Simply put, no teacher should ever engage in political indoctrination with their students. It’s not their place, it’s not their business, it takes precious class time away from what they’re supposed to be doing, and it destroys the trust between parents and teachers that is absolutely vital to the continuance of public education. When the public can no longer trust public schools with their children, we’re in real trouble.

Yes, I know that some people already distrust the public schools, and as a result home school or place their children in private schools. Some parents have good cause to do this, others do not, but that’s a post for another day. As it is, most parents have good reason to trust their schools, and any teacher that does anything to breach that trust is a fool; they’re figuratively cutting their own throat and the throats of every other teacher as well. Union benefits mean nothing if there is no job to which they may be applied.

I suppose that considering what far too many Wisconsin teachers have already done, I should not be surprised. This is merely a part of the logical progression. Once you abandon your classroom for political purposes, once you lie to cover your improper absence, once you’ve co-opted others such as doctors, willing or not, into your offenses, once you’ve damaged property, threatened the lives of your political opponents and their innocent families, why not bring uncomprehending children into the great, socialist fold?

It’s bad enough to do it with high school aged kids, kids who at least are old enough, whose brains have sufficient development to begin to understand the abstractions of politics and political issues, but to bring little children into adult political battles is nothing short of reprehensible. It reveals in those adults manipulating the children a lack of adult responsibility, judgement and moral fiber that should give the real adults in their respective schools reason to reconsider whether such people should be in charge of children. Teachers, remember, also assist in molding the character of their charges.

What they are doing is not child abuse. Such charges are hyperbolic, but it is a clear boundary violation, a violation that can and will break down the trust between parents and teachers that is absolutely vital, for without it, every teacher’s job is in jeopardy, and most importantly, students are not receiving the education their parents have every right to expect they should receive. After all, if teachers are not all about teaching as well as they can, every minute they have, what's their argument for their continuing relevance and employment?

In my original post, I wrote of a protesting teacher who displayed a sign identifying herself as one of the teachers of one of Gov. Walker’s children. I explained in some detail why that act alone endangered not only Gov. Walker’s child, but every other child in her school, indeed, why it endangered her. She simply wasn’t capable of seeing the unintended consequences of her actions. These teachers may also be incapable of seeing the unintended consequences of their actions. The difference is that they have no business using children in this way, as walking, talking props in a political play, a play in which such young children cannot be interested and which they cannot possibly care about or understand.

If I was one of those teachers, I wouldn’t be worried about Gov. Walker. I’d be worried about the kid’s parents. I’d be worried because I would have no legitimate explanation, no defense for my misuse of innocent children. If the parents were actually involved in this theater of the thuggish, well, their children never really had a chance, did they?

Solemn Places of History

What is it about old places filled with the past that fascinate so? The landscape of the desert. The feel of machinery against our shoulder. The smell of oil and might on the breeze.

I had a chance to re-visit a resting place of old aircraft.

In the desert just outside of the city of Tuscon is a a place where old airplanes go to die. Davis Monthan Air Base and it's resting grounds. My job had me down in the Southwest for a day or two and I had to visit, as the "Boneyard" in the desert has been a fascination, a place where titans of the air rest before going on their way to the aviation afterlife.

The Air Force calls the desert facility "Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center" (AMARC), most pilots refer to it as "the boneyard". We are probably both right. Here the U.S. Air Force mothballs planes until they either need them again or it's time to salvage them for parts. Whenever the U.S. sells surplus planes to foreign governments part of the sales pitch is that there will always have a ready supply of spare parts. Some are turned into pilotless drones and used for missile target practice. Many, too many have all the earmarks of being skeletal.

There are only three ways to view the aircraft at the heart of the Davis-Monthan facility: fly over the place (tough unless you're riding in on an F-15); from a satellite; or by Bus from the PASM. Since I can't afford either an F-15 nor a KH-12 Spy Satellite, I rode with a couple dozen other tourists and took the bus tour.

There's enough information on the place on the web and numerous aviation blog posts, so I won't get too wordy here, but suffice to say there's about every military plane ever made here, including the leviathans of the site; 100 plus B-52s, all that remain of nearly 400, slowly being destroyed as part of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties, and the force reduction treaties. These bombers are chopped up using a 130 ton blade, then left for a week or more to allow the Russians to photograph and confirm their destruction. I have watched several airmen view a documentary of those aircraft being dismembered and I know, that had they been alone, they would have been crying, tears for the incredible creativity as well as the terrible destruction that man is capable of.

Just beyond the remaining Buffs, where the bus turned to make its way back to the museum, are two parks of odd looking equipment. The equipment is the tooling and jigs for the B-1 and B-2 bomber production lines. One day those bombers will take up residence under the clear blue Arizona sky, and there might still be B-52s to keep them company.

It's an amazing, still place. The first time I went there, security was much freer and we were able to get up closer and look. Wander among the husks of aircraft. The aircraft, sharp and large against the backdrop of a desert sky, holding so many stories in the empty spaces they form and contain. It's mysterious, exciting, the kind of place where as a kid your dreams went. It's even more mysterious as night falls on the Sonora Desert. There, the aircraft stand like ghostly sentinels upon the hard earth, under unfathomed sky. They loom, over tiny scrabbles of cactus and the small desert creatures. They wait, on hard earth splayed with the tracks of tiny feet, and larger feet, making their own shadows of violent shade until the unrestrained stars come out at night. Their forms, so silent, yet with so much to tell.

My Sensei once said, that "emptiness is form and form is emptiness", a phrase I never really understood until that moment, staring at those cavernous behemoths of the sky. One moment they are simply an empty form, in another memory brings back to life the souls they contained, the might they rendered, the absolute force in which they sliced the sky.

Some of the airmen that flew many of these aircraft have died already, so many aircraft, so many souls on board. As I think about that, their empty bodies float in my mind, light, unfettered by gravity, I became aware of my own heartbeat in the setting sun, the labor of my lungs against my chest. Form is emptiness. Emptiness form, I say as with warm and eager breath I take in the landscape, as my mind grasps just how real, how tangible these husks of aircraft still are, even as some of their crews are but dust.

Overhead, desert thunderstorms loom and erupts, heavy drops of water hitting us as we scurry for the tour bus, threads of moisture hitting the packed earth like gunfire. The sound of thunder echoes across the boneyard, nature's taps playing as the sky weeps for the dead with crystal purity.
.
These thoughts were broken by the chatter of some of the other tour members. For a moment I wanted to hush them, as this was a solemn place. To tell them to be quiet. . . . . or something. Something about interfering with the shuttered windows of these forms, the dark alleys of an airplane's final resting place and the sky's remembrance of such places, filled with the elemental silence of those who have flown away.
--Brigid

He's So Tired

In Mel Brooks’ classic Blazing Saddles, Madeline Kahn brilliantly plays saloon singer and lady of loose morals, Lily VonSchtupp, “The Teutonic Titwilllow.” One of her most arresting bits is a song titled “I’m So Tired,” where she complains about the inevitable and entirely foreseeable effects of her chosen profession, quite obviously the oldest profession.

Much less humorous is the President of the United States, Barack Obama, who, according to the New York Times on March 11 (here), “...has told people that it would be so much easier to be president of China. As one official put it, ‘No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.’” No I imagine they’re not, not in a country where dissidents can be shot in the back of the head for such things and their families forced to pay for the cartridge.

Such longings for easier days and less complicated times are nothing new for Mr. Obama. His golf outings (more than 60 to date), command performance parties in the White House, and globe spanning vacations and “date nights” are the stuff of legend--at least in his own mind. But there are many previous indicators of Mr. Obama’s lack of preparation and fortitude, dating back to the beginning of his term in office. Several illustrative examples, by no means an exhaustive list, follow.

March 7, 2009: According to The Telegraph (here):

“Sources close to the White House say Mr. Obama and his staff have been ‘overwhelmed’ by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.”

The article was written following the first visit of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to the White House, a visit that marked the beginning of Mr. Obama’s serial insults of the British.

“Allies of Mr. Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr. Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president’s surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk. A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr. Obama’s inner circle, expressed concern that Mr. Obama had failed so far to ‘even fake an interest in foreign policy.’”

A “Democratic Strategist” observed that:

“People say he looks more tired than they’re used to...He’s still calm, but there have been flashes of irritation when he thinks he’s being pushing to make a decision sooner than he wants to make it. He looks like he needs a cigarette.”

November 3, 2009: CBS News (here) observed:

“In the 12 months since his election a year ago tomorrow, President Obama has learned first hand it’s easier to run for president than to be president.”

Mr. Obama’s then press secretary, Robert Gibbs, weighed in:

“As one who gets to observe the president as a member of his inner circle, Gibbs says the job has proven to be harder and more exhausting than Mr. Obama expected.”

December 29, 2009: I Hate The Media (here) had this to say:

“After a sleepless, overnight flight to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this month, President Barack Obama made a not altogether surprising admission. He was tired.”

IHTM also made an interesting, helpful suggestion:

“Might we humbly offer a suggestion, Mr. President? If you’re really as tired as you say, take a nap every afternoon. Lay off the golf. And the photo shoots for all those magazine covers. And the appearance on all those TV shows. And the bowing to foreign dignitaries. Especially the bowing to foreign dignitaries.”

January 1, 2010: The Telegraph (here) weighed in on Mr. Obama’s appearance following his Hawaiian vacation:

“His care-free children Sasha and Malia were spotted smiling and playing with friends as they took to the water. But in sharp contrast, Mr Obama looked weary, as if the repeated interruptions to his family holiday had taken their toll.

He has had to address criticism over national security after it appeared that a lack of communication between government agencies allowed the Nigerian syringe bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab to attempt to blow up an airliner as it prepared to land in Detroit. He also faced the grim news that seven CIA operatives had been killed in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan.”

Hmm. Didn’t Mr. Obama, you know, want the job in the first place? Did he expect it would all be hosannas to his glory and majesty, nothing but photographs with superimposed halos?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, whose bust Mr. Obama unceremoniously dispatched back to English, a great man Mr. Obama would no doubt find “nothing special” in the same way that his administration described America’s “special relationship” with England, “never have so few whined so much to so many.” Yet, anyone familiar with Mr. Obama’s past should not be in the least surprised.

The most demanding work Mr. Obama has ever done in his life has been producing rhetoric. Rhetoric is the toolbox, the raw materials and the finished product of the community organizer, the hustler and the politician. As President, the production of rhetoric has been greatly simplified and reduced to mere teleprompter reading.

Even Mr. Obama has admitted that he could not tell close friends what he actually did as a community organizer, yet he did not do it for years, and apparently made sufficient money doing nothing to afford a very expensive home in one of Chicago’s most expensive neighborhoods. In fact, the only executive experience Mr. Obama ever had is known by few, yet it comprised six years of his life in Chicago. His only executive job was not mentioned by his presidential campaign, and with good reason.

In 1995, Bill Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist, the University of Illinois at Chicago education professor, and a guy Mr. Obama--according to his PR flacks--knew only as some guy who lived in the same neighborhood, hired Barack Obama to be the Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and worked closely with him for six years. The challenge was essentially a leftist organization established to spend money to implement radical socialist educational theories in the Chicago schools, ostensibly to better serve students who were being poorly served. Mr. Obama was the chairman until 1999, but remained a member of the board until the CAC became defunct through its own incompetence and ineffectiveness in 2001.

The funding for the venture came from the Annenberg Foundation, a major funding source for leftist social and political initiatives. In six years, according to the Annenberg Foundation’s postmortem audit, the CAC did not improve education, did not assist underserved children, and accomplished virtually nothing except burning through at least $50 million dollars. Little wonder the Obama campaign didn’t want Mr. Obama’s tenure there to be public knowledge. Long before he became president, he was already adept at wasting huge amounts of other people's money.

Even as the editor of the Harvard Law Review and during his tenure as a “law professor” at the University of Chicago, Mr. Obama produced no legal scholarship. In fact, he was never a professor, an academic distinction earned after many years of effort, but merely an occasional lecturer in a job created especially for him, a job for which he drew a salary, but apparently did little or nothing.

In his eight years as an Illinois state senator, Mr. Obama voted “present” 129 times, even on bills that passed nearly unanimously. He even voted present on bills he supported, and at least once, on a bill he actually sponsored! And during his approximately two years as a US Senator, Mr. Obama wrote no legislation of note, yet while running for the presidency virtually the entire time, managed to earn the title of the most liberal senator, a man to the left even of the only avowed Socialist in the Senate.

But he wrote two books, autobiographies (?!) for which he was handsomely paid! Not quite. His several autobiographers inadvertently included several inconvenient truths indicating that he did not, in fact, write either book, and Jack Cashill has convincingly argued that it was William Ayers who wrote his first book, “Dreams From My Father.” And by the way, who, as a young man of little documentable accomplishment, writes a single autobiography--which he didn’t actually write--let alone two?

To be absolutely fair, I’ve little doubt that few men can appreciate the demands of the presidency without having experienced them, yet in my 57 years, I cannot recall another president publicly complaining about the burdens of the office even once, an office each and every occupant--with the probable exception of George Washington--desperately wanted to win. Such complaining is not only bad manners, it is a sign of a lack of gratitude, a lack of appreciation of the efforts and support of others, it is a sign of debilitating narcissism, of a man for whom everything is all about him. It is excuse making in a man to whom the country and the world looks for guidance and results.

Is it any wonder that America is in such dire straits domestically and internationally? Mr. Obama knows only the discipline of rhetoric, and when any crisis arises, responds with his only tool: More rhetoric, for which he believes the American public and the world are breathlessly waiting. Should anyone be surprised when a man with no experience running anything other than a political campaign is unable to set priorities, formulate coherent policies and make decisions?

The facade is now being stripped away, stripped away by events, failed policies and fiscal and international realities. Mr. Obama isn’t failing to make decisions, to act because he’s so brilliant that he over thinks things, or because he sees nuance that mere mortals can’t hope to understand. He’s failing--and we’re all suffering for it--because he’s not up to the job, and he never was.

Being a politician is, I believe, the second oldest profession, and shares many things in common with the oldest. But the most important thing to remember is, that like Lily VonSchtupp, he’s so tired. We all ought to respect that and the reasons therefore, God and gun clinging ingrates that we are, and two years hence, help Mr. Obama have the time for the rest he so richly deserves.

A Change of Speed

So, I turned 40 on Sunday.

I specifically didn't want a party, and so my wife kept it as low-key as you can make it without disappointing the kids (who see parties as a birthday must... especially the cake). It was, in most regards, just another day. But it wasn't. I'm not having the fabled "midlife crisis," but with everything else going on in the world, it has encouraged me to reflect upon what really matters, what doesn't, and a raft of opportunities that has opened up to me that I simply must seize while I may.

As a result, I will go ahead and predict that for the next little while, blogging will be a bit more sporadic in frequency and posts may be shorter as I concentrate on other things in my life. The up side of this is that I have wonderful co-bloggers that will continue to provide you with excellent, thoughtful commentary as the demands of their lives allow. Who knows... maybe my decreased posting will increase the quality of the blog. :-)

Thank you so much for following Confederate Yankee the last 6 1/2 years. We'll have many years ahead (I promise) but there are some things I simply must do while I can.

The Automotive Story That Won't Die!

It’s the automotive saga that won’t die! See my most recent post on the Volt here. Chris DeMorro (here) writes about the Volt: “Without a doubt the biggest knock against the Volt isn’t its limited electric range or its so-so fuel efficiency, but the $41,000 price tag. Yet GM has the ability to make a cheaper Volt. So what’re they waiting for?”

DeMorro notes many of the issues I’ve raised in my several article on the Volt including the very pricey battery ($8000-$10,000--nobody knows for sure and GM isn’t telling) and the fact that “GM doesn’t make a dime off of every Volt they sell...” But DeMorro’s analysis of a smaller Volt with a smaller, less expensive battery produces a car that still costs about $32,000 with the federal tax credit, yet has an all-electric range of only 12-15 miles, as opposed to the Volt’s real world pricing of up to $65,000 and a range of only 25-40 miles.

Well who wouldn’t want a pseudo-electric car that was only a little less expensive than the Volt, yet has substantially less range? To DeMorro’s credit, he admits in an update that considering economic issues, “...a smaller battery might not actually make sense.” No kidding.

And at green.autoblog.com (here), they note that the Volt’s “More car than electric” advertising slogan has been conspicuously missing from recent Volt commercials. GM did respond to the autoblog folks with this comment:

“It’s More Car Than Electric” is still tagline for Volt. We did replace the tagline to announce the ‘Motor Trend Car of the Year’ and “North American Car of the Year.’ We also do not use the tagline when we are using Volt as more of a halo story for Chevrolet.”

And so GM continues to market a car that is too expensive to manufacture, too expensive to buy, is no significant improvement on contemporary vehicles and has expensive, unproven technology that has not caught up to the hype and never may. Other than that, it’s a brilliant new concept and will revolutionize the automobile industry in the same way that Mr. Obama policies have revolutionized the energy industry so as to cleverly, stratospherically raise gasoline prices. No wonder people call him the smartest man on the planet! And remember, “it’s more car than electric,” which is rather like saying “it’s more washing machine than coal.”

UPDATE: Rob over at PACNW Righty (here) has a story about a few charging stations being installed in the Puget Sound area--and their limitations. Nothing like a four to eight hour visit to a charging station to catch up on your reading or knitting!

An Ex-Listener's Open Letter to NPR

Dear NPR:

From what your board member, Sue Schardt (here), and your recently thrown-under-the-bus Senior Vice President for Development Ron Schiller (here), and your journalists (here), and even your ombudsman in 2003 (here) have had to say and have implied, I’m pretty much the listener--”predominantly white, liberal, highly educated, elite”--that you’ve “unwittingly cultivated” over the years. It would be all too easy to suggest that you’ve “witlessly cultivated” that audience, but I’m all about the new civility,” particularly as it’s being practiced by your “core audience” in Wisconsin.

I’m a teacher of English, a few credits short of a master’s degree (I’ll get around to it someday--when I have time), lauded by my state as an accomplished teacher of the humanities. I’m a classically trained singer who regularly performs with a well known symphony orchestra, a composer and arranger and a playwright. Unfortunately, I have several disfiguring marks: I’m a conservative who feels that anyone who even thinks they are “elite” is taking them self much, much too seriously. I own guns, not nearly as many as a great many folks I know, but more than enough to horrify you, and I’m a certified firearms instructor and life member of the NRA. I don’t hate anyone, and oh yes, I believe in God, though I won’t throw that in your face.

I have, over the years, like the tides, waxed and waned in my listening to your programming. The pattern is predictable: I listen until my liberal bias limit is exceeded and then I cut you off. In recent years, the cut off side of the scale has become much heaver than the listening side and has been reached more and more rapidly. To be absolutely fair, I know you’re not biased 100% of the time, but when you are, it’s always to the left, never to the right. If you really are fair and balanced, wouldn’t you, at least occasionally, be biased to the right? Just asking.

I know that your CEO Vivian Schiller (remember her? You threw her under the bus just the other day too) vigorously denied any liberal bias at NPR at the National Press Club just the day before that scamp James O’Keefe’s newest undercover video revealed Mr. Schiller representing NPR’s heart and soul in all it’s cruel, condescending, crude, anti-semitic and hateful “elite” glory. We, as the Queen of England might say, were not amused. By the way, the exquisite timing involved is an example of what we in English call “cosmic irony.” That’s the sort of thing that tends to make non-elite types like me think that when you profess to abhor liberal bias that you might be, well, lying.

Oh, but what about Fox News you ask? When you--and the rest of the media--are so overwhelmingly progressive, a network like Fox which is not blatantly hostile to conservatives and their views will appear, by comparison, to be right wing. That’s not an argument in your favor, but another indicator of your bias.

I know that you don’t sit down in editorial meetings every morning and plot how best to denigrate all those who haven’t reached your lofty pinnacle of eliteness. It just isn’t necessary when everyone in the room thinks alike. But I also know that in your board meetings and editorial meetings, and in your hearts, you look down on people like me, on half--even more--of the American public. You know you’re better than me, smarter, more humane, more caring. I know this because I’ve actually listened to your programming over the years. I know because Juan Williams (remember him? You threw him under the bus not long ago) tells us that Mr. Schiller’s thoughts and words are routinely expressed in your meetings and conversations. And I know through common sense. Who would say such things if they did not live and work in an insular world where such beliefs were not only ubiquitous, but expected and accepted?

“Oh yeah?” You demand. “Where’s your proof? Give me just one example.” In fact, Vivian Schiller bragged about demanding just that, claiming that no one could respond.

You lost me in October of 2003. Remember that? I’m referring to the Terry Gross interview of Bill O’Reilly. Surely you remember that interview, the interview that was so egregiously biased, so unprofessional that your ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin (link in the first paragraph) had to side with O’Reilly? By the way, I suspect that most Americans reading Dvorkin’s response would find it chock-full of progressive snark. Do you? I’m no sycophant of O’Reilly--I rarely watch his program--but that was my turning point.

Again, to be fair, you’ve sometimes produced worthy, unbiased programs, but because your bias is so encompassing, I’ve never donated a penny to you. And now, because your daily operating bias has been laid bare for all to see in a way that cannot be ignored, you’re on the verge of losing your taxpayer subsidy. Yet even your mea-culpas drip with bias; you just can’t help yourself. Ms. Schardt’s musings read like a “how could we be any more magnificent?” love letter to yourselves, and the NPR journalist’s letter (link in the first paragraph), while distancing them from Ron Schiller, shows no recognition of your pervasive institutional bias: “ We are determined to continue bringing you the daily journalism that you’ve come to expect and rely upon: fair, fact-based, in-depth reporting from at home and around the world.” Hmm. Not so much. By the way, how many conservatives work for you? Can they admit it?

The world of broadcasting has fundamentally, irrevocably changed, and you’re still asking “what’s the matter with Kansas?” The kind of reporting and analysis that once stood apart from the rest of the legacy media is now common on the Internet. Virtually everything you do can be had elsewhere and without the smug, “elite” condescension, progressive bias, and disdain toward hundreds of millions of Americans, Americans you regularly beg for money. If I didn’t know so well who you are and what you believe, individually and corporately, I’d probably listen from time to time and occasionally, donate. But that would be my choice; my tax dollars aren’t. You don't deserve them and we can't afford them.

For that day when the taxpayer no longer finances your cruelty and smug, self-imagined superiority over all of us who live in fly-over country, I have a bit of free advice: Don’t continue to emulate Newsweek. They proudly announced that they were becoming more than a mere news source; they were to be a journal of elite, liberal opinion. That elite liberal opinion, you may recall, turned out to be worth precisely one dollar--for the entire enterprise.

But I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt one last time. I’ll give you one more shot. But first, I’d better let you know just who you’re trying to serve and what they believe. I’ll speak for myself, but I suspect many will share my sentiments. Consider them a sort of top ten guide to the mysterious denizens of fly-over country.

(1) I do honor and serve God, because I recognize that there is One greater than me, greater than all of us. And no, I don’t mean Barack Obama (patron saint of the teleprompter), or Nancy Pelosi (patron saint of ridiculously lengthy and utterly incomprehensible legislation we have to pass to understand what’s in it) or Harry Reid (patron saint of cowboy poetry).

(2) I like guns. They’re fun, useful, develop responsibility, and the ability to concentrate. Thomas Jefferson also believed that--look it up. Above all, I appreciate them because I don’t expect anyone, or the government, to care for me or those I love. I believe in individual responsibility, and firearm ownership is only a small part of the expression of that belief.

(3) I have no hatred for those who aren’t like me. When I see Maria and Alejandro entering my classroom, I don’t see Hispanics, Latinos or members of a favored victim group, I see Maria and Alejandro, and I love them because they’re great kids, they’re my students and I’m their teacher. Tommy, on the other hand, is a bit of a wiener.

(4) I don’t care much for those who think themselves superior. As I’ve aged, I’ve learned how very much I don’t know, and I’ve also learned that there is always someone smarter, faster, stronger, better in every way, especially in fly-over country. In the real world, the practical world of daily accomplishment, “elites” aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit--just like the vice-presidency.

(5) I judge people on their abilities and the content of their character.

(6) I believe that no law should be passed to “make a statement.” I believe that the law should be enforced fairly and uniformly, and if it’s bad law, it should be repealed or changed.

(7) I believe in the Constitution--all of it. I believe that even though it was written hundreds of years ago, that I can understand its plain words and their plain meaning, be I ever so handicapped by my non-elite status.

(8) I believe in democracy and understand that when I’m in the minority, fleeing the state to bring democracy to a halt, trashing the state house, making death threats against my opponents and their families, and congratulating myself for protecting the very democracy I despise makes me look like a liar, thug and Marxist. When I behave so badly, I expect others to wonder if I was raised by wolves.

(9) I believe that Socialism and Communism are brutal, cruel and evil and absolutely incompatible with democracy and liberty. Tens of thousands of Americans have given their last, full measure of devotion to defeat these barbaric philosophies, and untold millions of others around the globe have been slaughtered in their name. I will, if necessary, give my last, full measure of devotion to put them, once and for all, on the ash heap of history.

(10) Three times in my life, I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and to oppose all enemies, foreign and domestic (yes, I’m a veteran too). I know who all the enemies of America are and I will name them and fight them.

So. With any luck, you’ll soon be cut off from the great taxpayer borrowed money pipeline and left adrift in the free market. You’ll stay afloat or sink on the strength of your product, a product you’ll have to drastically alter to appeal to those you have, for so many years, egregiously insulted. I’ll still listen to Car Talk because there may be found good humor, wit and no bias. And I’ll probably drop by from time to time to see if you’ve changed--at all. As a beginning, you might start every editorial meeting from now on by intoning, over and over, “there’s nothing the matter with Kansas, but we’re a different story.” Good luck.

A Former Listener

Do Pro-Enforcement Advocates Also Wish to Restrict Legal Immigration? A response to a recent PJM article on "immigration restrictionists" by Ruben Navarette.

The good folks at Pajamas Media have published my latest article fisking Ruben Navarrette's attempt to claim that those who want to stop illegal immigration must also wish to stop legal immigration. Oh yes, and they're racists too. Go here for the fun and frolic!

Bald for a Cause [Bumped]

St. Baldrick's Foundation raises money to find cures for childhood cancers. One thing they do to raise money is to find gullible, big-hearted saps willing to shave their heads in exchange for donations to the cause.

I signed up this afternoon after a co-worker said he'd chip in some money to see me get my head shaved. I'm sure every bit of money helps, but I'd like raise more than ten bucks.

If you have a couple of dollars laying around, please consider making a donation.

Thanks!

Update: You can check out the "before" and "after" pictures at the gun blog.

"I Don't Cook Food. I Will It."

I'm starting to wonder if Charlie Sheen isn't insane. Maybe this is all a bizarre game for him...

Catastrophic 8.9 Quake, Tsunami Level Northern Japan

Our language lacks the words to convey the scope of the devastation.

Oh. My. Word.

A powerful tsunami spawned by the largest earthquake in Japan's recorded history slammed the eastern coast Friday, sweeping away boats, cars, homes and people as widespread fires burned out of control. Tsunami warnings blanketed the entire Pacific, as far away as South America, Canada, Alaska and the entire U.S. West Coast.

Authorities said at least 35 people were killed. The magnitude 8.9 offshore quake was followed by at least 19 aftershocks, most of them of more than magnitude 6.0. Dozens of cities and villages along a 1,300-mile stretch of coastline were shaken by violent tremors that reached as far away as Tokyo, hundreds of miles from the epicenter.

A utility company in northeastern Japan reported a fire in a turbine building of nuclear power plant.

U.S. servicemen at bases in Japan are accounted for and safe and are gearing up to render assistance if asked. The tsunami racing across the Pacific is supposed to hit Hawaii in less than 2 hours from now with waves roughly 2 meters high.

Please pray for those affected.

Who Is Responsible For Protecting You?

My latest article, kindly posted by the good folks at Pajamas Media, is up at that site (here). It explores the realities of the limitations--legal and practical--of the police, examined in light of the situation in Wisconsin.

It may provide some information about which you've not previously been aware.

Obama/Unions Sow Discord, Create Fertile Ground For Terrorist Threats

I warned weeks ago that President Barack Obama's bid to stir civil unrest in Wisconsin in support of his union allies by directing his campaign organization (Organizing for America) to interfere in the process was dangerous to representative democracy, and potentially dangerous to those legislators attempting to do their jobs.

That chicken has come home to roost, as we've seen video after video of leftist violence and death threats by the radical left that forms Obama's base.

Here is just the latest example, obtained by Charlie Sykes.

From: XXXX Sent: Wed 3/9/2011 9:18 PM To: Sen.Kapanke; Sen.Darling; Sen.Cowles; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Fitzgerald; Sen.Galloway; Sen.Grothman; Sen.Harsdorf; Sen.Hopper; Sen.Kedzie; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Lazich; Sen.Leibham; Sen.Moulton; Sen.Olsen Subject: Atten: Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes
will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain
to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it
will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit
that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for
more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in
the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me
have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that
support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing
with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand
for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many
others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records.
We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a
nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave
it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the
message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are
now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a
demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed
in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.
This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't
tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are
not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided
to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's
necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making
them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families
and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please
understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked
everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel
that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives
of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and
say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!

Barack Obama, let me make this clear: should any harm come to these duly elected legislators as a result of the violence that you have encouraged, there will be a groundswell of support for your impeachment for directly violating your Presidential Oath of Office, which reads:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Encouraging revolt and empowering union thugs has been Obama's goal since the beginning of this standoff, and his actions both direct and behind the scenes amount to a war on democracy.

Elections have consequences, Mr. President.

Undermine those elections at your own political and legal peril.

Radical Leftist to Followers: Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Vote Was "Your 9/11"

I guess the difference between @Shoq and I is that I think 9/11 was 9/11, and he thinks losing collective bargaining killed 3,000 innocent people.

The different "-ists" are raving made about the vote, but it s quite simple: if you refuse to take part in representative democracy, and in fact encourage your representatives to abdicate their roles as your representatives within the government, don't cry foul when the elected officials doing their jobs find a way to pass the legislation before them.

Radical leftists are spoiled children without a sense of propriety or perspective.

I'm hardly surprised they responded in such an absurd manner.

Well, I Suppose That's Progress...

Just for fun, check out the March 10 edition of the New York Times online (here). they have an article on gun control and they actually linked to my article from yesterday regarding Mr. Obama's gun control record (it's in the center section, near the top, under Confederate Yankee).

The best part is the photo they chose to illustrate their lead story. It's two crossed handguns: A stainless steel, short-barreled .38 revolver and a Nambu! That's right, an issue WWII Japanese handgun of questionable quality and reliability. Thanks, and bless their little pointed heads for the link--at least they're trying--but using a Nambu in a contemporary firearm story is rather like using a line drawing of a whalebone corset to illustrate a Victoria's Secret catalog.

Quick Takes, March 10, 2011

ITEM: Thomas Jakobsson of Naval Guards, a private security firm, announced (here) that six of his operatives boarded and retook the yacht belonging to a Dutch couple which had been seized by Somali pirates. Apparently the family locked themselves in a safe room and the security operatives engaged in a brief firefight with the pirates during which no one was injured. This is not the same Dutch yacht recently seized by Somali pirates; that hostage situation remains in play. Hmm. Don’t we have a world-renowned force of naval commandos who do something like that? I believe they’re called “Navy SEALs” or something. Why don’t we turn them loose to wreak the kind of constructive havoc for which they are famous? Given adequate freedom and assets, I suspect they would happily see that the pirate menace was eliminated in short order. Mr. Obama?

ITEM: I’ve Been Telling My Wife About This For Years! According to Fox Boston (here), a five-year German study has produce uplifting, prominent results. In a study of 500 men, half were told to refrain from looking at breasts for five years, and the other half were told to “”ogle them daily.” The study found that the men who stared at breasts “more often showed lower rates of heart problems, a lower resting heart rate and lower blood pressure.” “Stare at breasts for 10 minutes a day,” recommended the researchers. This may be an urban legend, but I don’t know. Just to be safe, I may try to double, even triple the recommendation. Can’t be too careful these days.

ITEM: He Said What?! Remember the old Hee Haw line? Patient: “Doc, it hurts when I do this.” Doc: “Then don’t do that.” Comes now Treasure Secretary Timothy Geithner, who, according to Powerline (here), testified before the Senate Budget Committee on Feb. 17 about Mr. Obama’s budget. His budget, you may recall, will increase Federal spending 65% by decade’s end, racking up another $12 trillion and interest payments on the debt costing $844 billion per year by 2021. Give him credit for honesty; Mr. Geithner admitted that the costs of the budget are “unsustainable” and “excessively high.” Well why, Mr. Secretary, if you know that, why are you proposing and--sort of--defending the darned thing?

Item: Louis Renault Rides Again! Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood testified before the Senate Budget Committee on March 3 (here) in support of the Obama Administration’s plan to increase the budget of the Transportation Department by 62%. You read correctly: 62%. Unlike Mr. Geithner, who apparently has at least some sense of shame and honesty, Secretary LaHood shocked, shocked! the senators by claiming that the Obama budget would pay down the national debt. Even if every hopenchangey assumption on which that budget is based was true (and if so, I’m investing in that Nigerian unicorn ranch that keeps sending me e-mails), the budget will run at least a $600 billion deficit each and every year. This is, in the DOT, apparently what passes for rational thought and fiscal responsibility. But then again, they’re all about high-speed rail too...

ITEM: Shouldn’t America’s Ambassador to the United Nations represent...America? Not so much these days. When George Schultz was Secretary of State, he often invited new foreign service officers to his office and asked them to point out, on a map, the country they would be representing. They would invariably point to the nation to which they had been posted. Mr. Schultz would then point to America and tell them that it was the nation they represented. According to Fox News (here) British Prime Minister David Cameron is defunding four U.N agencies at the end of next year. They are: The UN International Development Organization, UN-Habitat, The International Labor Organization, and the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Mr. Cameron, faced with his own budget crunch, has concluded that the agencies don’t accomplish squat, and don’t accomplish it at a very high cost indeed, so England is no longer playing. In the meantime, American Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice has been criss-crossing the nation trying to raise money for the UN. Uh, wasn’t she supposed to represent American interests at the UN, not fundraise for it? I get so confused by these high-level issues. Rather a shame we don’t have a Secretary of State like Mr. Schultz anymore, isn’t it? Discuss.

ITEM: But shouldn’t the Attorney General represent all Americans? Not so much. Via Politico (here) Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying before a House Appropriations subcommittee, denied that the DOJ is enforcing voting laws--particularly the now infamous New Black Panther case--unequally. Responding to civil rights attorney Bartle Bull, who witnessed the Black Panthers intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, and who called it the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career, Holder said: “when you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s...I think it does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people.” Hmmm. “...for my people.” Take a moment, if you will, to see what the indispensable Michelle Malkin has to say about her people (here). The people of the United States, people of every color, are your people Mr. Attorney General. Why don’t you know that?

ITEM: Uh, shouldn’t the Secretary of Labor represent all American workers? Not so much, if you’re Barack Obama’s SOL. Speaking at the winter meeting of the Democrat National Committee in Washington last weekend (here). Solis promised aid to union workers who are “under assault” in Wisconsin and elsewhere. “Our brothers and sisters in public employee unions,” she intoned, also throwing red meat to a ravenous crowd by exclaiming “the fight is on!” Hmm. Would that mean the Federal government is fighting the government of Wisconsin? The taxpayers? All non-union workers in America (the overwhelming majority)? Discuss.

ITEM: This Says It All: On March 6, Tea Party Members converged on the Wisconsin Capital building in Madison to stage a counter protest? Not quite: To clean up the swinish mess left by two weeks of union protests. What? Those racist, evil, nasty, violent Tea Partiers? The same, taking out other people’s garbage, as usual.

ITEM: It’s Already Happened. This week, gas spiked in Orlando, Florida at $5.29 per gallon. The national average is, for the moment, $3.38 per gallon, but Mr. Obama’s illegal refusal to issue permits for Gulf oil drilling alone--with the sole exception of one permit to allow a well that was already near completion to start up again--has cut US production by 13%. That’s a 13% cut, on top of no new production being allowed virtually anywhere in America. Hope. Change. Had enough?

ITEM: You’re Joking, Right? Afraid not. In the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, State Senator Andrew Petruccelli has re-introduced legislation establishing a commission to study GPS tracking for firearms. Jim Wallace of the Mass. Gun Owner’s Action League (here) notes that “Twelve years ago we had 1.5 million gun owners. Today that’s down to about 230 thousand. Gun crime has risen 200 percent. What else do you need to know?” What indeed.

ITEM: From the Washington Post via the indispensable Powerline (here), we learn that Mr. Obama is “preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and Middle East.” Mr. Obama and his sycophants also apparently believe that there are big differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda. Indeed. The MB prefers to use sharp knives when sawing off the heads of live infidels, while al-Qaeda prefers dull knives. The idiocy of the Obama administration is truly stunning. They would do well--and potentially save untold American lives--to remember that most venerable of Middle Eastern aphorisms: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

ITEM: Weren’t These Guys Supposed To Explore Space Or Something? For the second time in two years (here), a NASA rocket carrying a satellite intended to study global warming has “failed to reach orbit” as NASA has termed it. The average man-in-the-street would say something like “sucker crashed in the ocean! Whap!” The cost this time? A bit under half a billion dollars. Does anyone else think that cosmic irony is at play when every satellite our space agency sends up to engage in non-space research augers in?

ITEM: So That’s How You Do It! From Popular Mechanics (here) comes the story of two enterprising MIT students, Justin Lee and Oliver Yeh who sent a camera package into space on a five hour flight, reaching 93,000 feet, for $150. By all means, take the link. I understand NASA is out of the space business and all about the Muslim self-esteem business. Anyone needing space services might consider getting in touch with Justin and Oliver. With a budget of, say, $1000, perhaps a return trip to the moon?

ITEM: Do yourself a favor and visit Powerline (here) for Scott’s essay on Barack Obama and Israel. “We wouldn’t say the same of Barack Obama. His obtuseness regarding Israel forms part of a larger pattern of arrogance matched with wrongheadedness. Monumental self-regard matched with rank stupidity.” It only gets better from there. Do visit.

ITEM: And at the Daily Beast (here), Hell has frozen over and pigs are doing barrel rolls overhead. Liberal commentator Kristin Powers retracted a column she wrote in support of continued federal funding for Planned Parenthood. She discovered that PP published false statistics, and came to a rational, honorable conclusion: “Whatever you think of abortion rights, this is not the kind of organization that taxpayers should be funding.” Well done Ms. Powers. Please continue with your second step to independence of thought and toward liberty. We’ll we waiting to welcome you.

ITEM: We’re Number 1! We’re Number 1! At $223 billion, the federal government set a new for the deficit in a single month in February. Recall, if you will, Democrats excoriating President Bush for a similar yearly budget deficit. And now? They’re serious about budget cutting, offering as much as $6 billion in cuts--which would represent only a tiny fraction of a single percent of February’s budget, to say nothing about our trillion dollar+ yearly budget deficit. We’re not going to be number one much longer, particularly if Barack Obama is a two-term president.

ITEM: Aw! It’s Almost Like A Cute, Sick Puppy Or Something: From Hot Air (here) comes the news of an internal White House memo that fell into the hands of CBS News. Apparently there has been a national contest for high schools with a fabulous prize: A graduation teleprompter reading by Barack Obama! Apparently the memo noted that by the deadline of Feb. 25, only 14 applications had been received. Aw! Poor Barack! (Sung, preferably by small school children in creepy, hypnotic cadence): “MM, MM, MM, Barack Hussein Obama! Don’t no one want Obama! MM, MM, MM!”

ITEM: And in Wisconsin, Republicans finally showed some backbone and voted to strip state workers of collective bargaining privileges. Of course, unions and Democrat senators still hiding out in Illinois were not amused. Let’s review: Collective bargaining is a privilege, not a right, and can be granted or taken away at will. The Democrat Senators have been gone three weeks, and refuse to do their jobs. They lost what they were most trying to avoid anyway. Gov. Walker even offered concessions, but the Democrats refused. Now Wisconsin can actually be effective in dealing with budgetary issues. And Democrat supporters are screeching “This is not Democracy!” Oh, and running away to keep a legislature from functioning for three weeks is? Some people have no sense of shame.

ITEM: Speaking on the floor of the Congress March 2, Jesse Jackson Jr. proposed an innovative solution to unemployment: Add a bunch of new rights to the Constitution! Talk about an epiphany! His ideas: Every family will have a right to a “decent home.” Everyone will have a right to medical care. Everyone will have a right to a “decent education,” which will include an iPod and laptop computer for every student. Of course, he didn’t bother to mention how these “rights” would be funded, but in the same expansive (as in government expansion) spirit, here’s my initial list of new rights: I’d like a right to the handgun, “assault weapon” and unlimited ammunition of my choice. The right to my own personal jet aircraft with unlimited fuel would be pretty neat. Oh yes, and the right to periodically slap congress critters upside their heads to knock a little sense into them might be a good idea as well. Note to the satirically challenged: I am not, in fact, advocating actually assaulting any member of Congress or anyone else. It’s a joke. You see, by making outlandish comparisons, the joke is ridiculing Jackson’s equally outlandish comparisons by...oh never mind. Some people just can’t take a joke.

ITEM: I Swear I’m Not Making This Up! Department: Via Hot Air (here), Senate Minority Leader (ah, it feels so good to say that!) Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate recently to castigate the heartless brutes who want to eliminate subsidies to public broadcasting and the National Endowments of the Arts and Humanities. Senator Reid was particularly concerned that without taxpayer largess, an annual cowboy poetry festival in Nevada might be headed for the last roundup, it might end up in that big corral in the sky, it might get shot first and asked questions later, it might...OK, OK, I’m back. I’m better now. At least I’m glad to see that the Dems are taking this whole budget thing seriously. I mean, revamping Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are serious matters, but they pale in comparison to the possibility of defunding something as important to national and world security and fiscal stability as Nevada cowboy poetry. So here’s my contribution to this vital genre:

A Cowboy’s Lament

It was raining the day I got off the bus,
and met my ma, who ain’t no fuss.
Prison was hard, but I did my time,
fer eatin’ too much salt, and makin’ bad rhyme.

Sally Sue run off with my dog on a whim,
LordaMighty how I miss him.
Now they’re defundin’ cowboy poetry; that makes be blue,
But if I had it to do all over again, I’d do it all over you.

Thank the Good Lord we have intellectual giants such as Senator Reid doing the people’s business!

And with that thought in mind, get along little poetic doggies, and I’ll see yuh next Thursday! Yeeeeeeeeee-hah!

Obama Defeated Again; Collective Bargaining Crushed In Wisconsin

Wisconsin's cowardly Senate Democrats fled the state nearly three weeks ago in hopes that a procedural trick—not having having enough senators present for a quorum—could keep the Republican majority from passing a budget bill that would cripple the corrupting power of public sector unions.

Wisconsin's Senate Republicans used a procedural trick of their own, and have now passed the part of the bill the Democrats most wanted to block.

Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate voted Wednesday night to strip nearly all collective bargaining rights from public workers after discovering a way to bypass the chamber's missing Democrats.

All 14 Senate Democrats fled to Illinois nearly three weeks ago, preventing the chamber from having enough members present to consider Gov. Scott Walker's so-called "budget repair bill" - a proposal introduced to plug a $137 million budget shortfall.

The Senate requires a quorum to take up any measures that spend money. But Republicans on Wednesday split from the legislation the proposal to curtail union rights, which spends no money, and a special conference committee of state lawmakers approved the bill a short time later.

The lone Democrat on the Senate floor howled that the vote was unfair. I'd have a bit more sympathy for him if his allies hadn't spent the last three weeks trying to screw overburdened taxpayers out of their money in order to keep union coffers flush with cash to fund Democratic campaigns.

The vote was also a clear defeat for President Barack Obama, who had agitated against Gov. Walker and had his campaign organization, Organizing for America, at the forefront of trying to defeat the measure.

Perhaps the Democratic Party will learn tonight that you cannot claim to be taking part in a democracy by running away from your responsibilities.

O'Keefe Wins Again: NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Resigns In Wake of Hate Speech Revelations

On Fox right now:

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned, the radio network announced Wednesday.

The announcement comes a day after a hidden-camera video was released showing a senior NPR executive criticizing the Tea Party as "racist."

NPR condemned the comments, but the company announced Wednesday that the Board of Directors just accepted Schiller's resignation, "effective immediately."

Schiller was a liberal elitist bigot who encouraged bigotry and hatred of conservatives while part of the organization. She resigns one day after controversial conservative activist James O'Keefe released video of a sting where NPR executive Ron Schiller (no relation) was filmed bashing conservatives as xenophobic, racist, and scary. Ron Schiller, who was leaving NPR for a position with the Aspen Institute on April 1, has now been terminated.

The Aspen Institute claims in their mission statement:

The Aspen Institute mission is twofold: to foster values-based leadership, encouraging individuals to reflect on the ideals and ideas that define a good society, and to provide a neutral and balanced venue for discussing and acting on critical issues.

His naked bigotry on full public display, I frankly have no confidence that Ron Schiller is capable of performing the job he was hired to do objectively, but whether or not to rescind his job offer is a decision Aspen Institute and it's benefactors must make, not I.

Update: Ron Shiller out at Aspen Institute. No word on whether he'll join Media Matters or Think Progress.

A Message To Public Sector Unions From a Real Person

Jeff Soyer lives in the real world, and he could care less about your fake hardships. He has real problems, and doesn't want to listen to people complain while clearing close to $100K/year in salary and benefits.

President Obama Supports the Second Amendment: Who You Gonna Believe? Him or Your Own Lyin' Eyes?

Across America, framed portraits of President Barack Obama are displayed in gun shops. In gun shops?! In gun shops. One might be tempted to be appreciative of the patriotism and respect for the Office of the President of the United States this would seem to indicate, and they would be right, yet simultaneously completely wrong. Indeed, virtually all firearm retailers and their employees are patriotic and respect the office of the President, but they have displayed the image of Mr. Obama not because of their respect for him, but because of their keen sense of irony. For the last two+ years, Mr. Obama has been the most effective firearm salesman in American history.

Despite his frequent teleprompter readings claiming respect for the Second Amendment, Americans have universally disbelieved him. The left has disbelieved him in this, as they have in essentially anything he has said that would seem to support conservative values. They know that while professing support for conservative or constitutional principles, he is simultaneously winking at them and holding crossed fingers behind his back. They know that he is making such outlandish comments only to maintain political viability, to fool the God and gun clingers in fly-over country. They know he’s really one of them. The right has disbelieved him because in professing respect for the Second Amendment, he is lying. To demonstrate their solidarity with the President, they often buy a new firearm or some ammunition.

On March 3rd, in a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Mr. Obama once again expressed his support (here) for, as leading law professor Sanford Levinson once put it, “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”

"’The Second Amendment in this country is part of our Constitution and the president of the United States is bound by our Constitution,’ he said. ‘So I believe in the Second Amendment. It does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses. That does not mean that we cannot constrain gun runners from shipping guns into Mexico.’”
This makes a sort of sense. Indeed, the Second Amendment does not prevent attempts to keep “gun runners from shipping guns into Mexico.” Of course, regular readers--and others who keep themselves well informed--might wonder how this might be accomplished when the BATFE knowingly allows such gun running, gun running which has directly cost the lives of American law enforcement officers.

It is when Mr. Obama professes his belief in the plain language of the Second Amendment that he is unbelievable. It is true that people can change their minds, and perhaps Mr. Obama, in two years in office, has come to respect the entire Constitution, not merely those parts that might lend legitimacy to his various schemes to remake America into a hellish worker’s paradise. On the other hand, the best indicator of future performance is always past performance. With that in mind, Confederate Yankee provides a handy compendium--not an exhaustive list--of 23 reasons why it might be a good idea to disbelieve Mr. Obama (sources available here and here):

(1) The infamous quote: In April of 2008, comments Mr. Obama made at a private San Francisco fundraiser were made public. Explaining his difficulties in convincing working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana (fly-over country), he said “It’s not surprising they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

(2) Mr. Obama opposed an Illinois bill that would prevent local ordinances from overriding an individual’s right to self defense in home invasions. Obama was one of only 20 senators who voted against it. Gov. Blagojevich vetoed it, but the legislature overwhelmingly overrode his veto.

(3) Mr. Obama denied writings on a 1996 questionnaire revealing of his anti gun views. However, his handwriting was on that document, filed when he was running for the Illinois Senate. On the document he indicated that he favored legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handgun, supported mandatory waiting periods and background checks and would ban “assault weapons.”

(4) In 2000, Mr. Obama co-sponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to one per month.

(5) In 2004, Mr. Obama supported a bill that would allow retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. Mr. Obama has always strictly opposed concealed carry and denied that this was an exception. It was later revealed that at the time he was fighting his Republican opponent to win an endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police.

(6) Mr. Obama believes that it’s Constitutionally permissible to “[keep] guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer’s lobby.”

(7) In an Illinois senate debate against Alan Keyes, Mr. Obama revealed his view on so-called “assault weapons” (no such thing exists--it is a media creation),
“Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.”

(8) Mr. Obama has expressed his support for banning the sale and transfer of all semi-automatic firearms, is for increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms, and is for requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

(9) Mr. Obama has also endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

(10) Mr. Obama voted to allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the independent actions of those misusing their products, actions about which they have no knowledge and over which they have no control.

(11) Mr. Obama opposes four of five Supreme Court justices who affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. He stated that he would not have appointed Justices Thomas and Scalia and voted against Justices Alito and Roberts.

(12) Mr. Obama voted for an Illinois Senate bill to confiscate and ban “assault weapons,” a bill that would have banned most semi-automatic and single and double barreled sporting shotguns.

(13) Mr. Obama has supported re-instituting the Clinton gun ban.

(14) Mr. Obama voted to ban virtually all common hunting and sport shooting rifle ammunition.

(15) Mr. Obama has endorsed an increase of 500% in the federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition.

(16) Mr. Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people using firearms in self defense.

(17) Mr. Obama supports gun owner licensing and firearm registration.

(18) Mr. Obama would not sign a friend-of-the-court brief supporting individual Second Amendment rights in the historic Heller v. DC case.

(19) Mr. Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and for anti-gun research.

(20) Mr. Obama supported a ban on gun stores within five miles of a school or park, eliminating almost every gun store in the nation.

(21) Mr. Obama favors banning standard capacity magazines, supports micro-stamping, mandatory waiting periods, banning inexpensive handguns and one-
gun-a-month restrictions.

(22) Mr. Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers, and which protects police operations.

(23) Mr. Obama supports banning the resale of police issued firearms, even if the proceeds are used to buy police equipment.

Considering this list, it would appear that Mr. Obama’s professed support for the Second Amendment is as hollow as his promise that people who like their medical insurance can keep it. At best, he appears to support the Second Amendment while stridently and consistently opposing any and everything that would make its exercise useful and meaningful. Anyone surprised by this richly deserves a nomination for the Captain Louis Renault Award.

Another Day, Another Union Death threat You Won't See On The News

They just keep getting more unhinged. It doesn't help that they are being encouraged by President Obama and his campaign organization.

Army Strong

I frankly dare you to read this story about the character of our troops and the faith and bravery of this family, and then tell me that these men and women are not among the very best America has to offer.

SPLC to Add NPR To Hate Group List After Executive's Rant

Tolerance:

On the tapes, Schiller wastes little time before attacking conservatives. The Republican Party, Schiller says, has been "hijacked by this group." The man posing as Malik finishes the sentence by adding, "the radical, racist, Islamaphobic, Tea Party people." Schiller agrees and intensifies the criticism, saying that the Tea Party people aren't "just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it's scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people."

Schiller goes on to describe liberals as more intelligent and informed than conservatives. "In my personal opinion, liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives," he said.

I look forward to Southern Poverty Law Center "hate group expert" Mark Potok listing NPR as a hate group. After all, Potok declared that Pamela Gellar and Robert Spencer constitute a hate group for far, far less inflammatory speech.

UPDATE, 03-08-11, 2100 (From Mike): Where does one start with such an irony and target-rich environment? By now, a great many worthy blogs have covered the factual situation in detail. Bob has already linked to several of those, and I’ll add a few observations and a bit of updated information, including an explanation of what entrapment really is. Additional links here, here, here and here.

SPREADIN’ ON THE IRONY WITH A TROWEL! DEPARTMENT: On March 7, NPR Chief Vivian Schiller (no relation to Ron Schiller) spoke at the National Press Club and denied that NPR spins the news in a liberal direction. Schiller claimed that NPR works hard to offer “journalism that presents no particular bias,” and that NPR gets “a tremendous amount of criticism for being too conservative.” Remember that this was the day before the release of the new O’Keefe video.

WHO YOU GONNA BELIEVE? ME OR YER OWN LYIN’ EYES? DEPARTMENT: As reported by the Daily Caller, NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm tried valiantly to distance NPR from Ron Schiller, the President of the NPR Foundation and NPR Senior VP for Development.

“The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept,” Davis Rehm said in an e-mail to The Daily Caller. “We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for.” Rehm also said that “Mr. Schiller announced last week that he is leaving NPR for another job.” Apparently Mr. Schiller will be working for the Aspen (Colorado) Institute. This was followed by a tweet from NPR Media Reporter David Folkenflik: “Therefore, according to NPR, departure of fundraising exec. Ron Schiller for Aspen Inst. was unrelated to the sting by James O’Keefe.” However, later in the day NPR announced that Schiller, who was scheduled to depart NPR in May has been, in some way, suspended pending some sort of review. Gotta get the story straight, folks!

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, GOT THE T-SHIRT! DEPARTMENT: Former NPR Commentator, Juan Williams, who was also the recipient of some abuse from Mr. Schiller (and much from NPR not long ago) in the O’Keefe tape, appeared on Hannity on March 8th. Williams was not surprised by, but was disgusted with Schiller’s comments, calling them “so rude and condescending.” In an earlier interview he noted that the comments of Schiller reflected the nature of NPR. “‘This is how they talk in boardrooms and editorial meetings,’ explained Williams. ‘This is how they really feel.’” On Hannity, he also noted that “they attack anyone who disagrees with their elitist NPR point of view.” Other Williams comments:

“This is finally a window into how they really think.”

“They’re locked into their liberal orthodoxy. They think they’re better.”

“These people are just destroying NPR.”

ANALYSIS: Two of the highest ranking NPR officers are dining with two potential Muslim donors, donors who have identified themselves as affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, a well known sponsor of terrorism. Odd behavior for an organization trying to virtuously avoid forcibly accepting $5 million dollars. In the course of the meeting, the NPR officers engage in racism, anti-semitism, elitist condescension, and denigration of about 50% of the American public in that at least that percentage does not share orthodox liberal views.

To be absolutely fair, one might allow a certain amount of obsequiousness for a fund raiser trying to please a potential donor, however, the video would seem to suggest that Shiller and his companion were not merely responding neutrally and carefully to the crude and disgusting viewpoints of potentially wealth donors, but were ardently presenting what they clearly believe are the institutional values of NPR as features, not bugs, in the hope of realizing a substantial payday.

The comments of the NPR executives speak clearly for themselves, and no matter how far Vivian Schiller and other NPR PR flacks try to distance themselves from them, one need only google the situation revolving around Juan Williams to discover exactly the same smug liberal superiority, condescension and disdain so clearly on display on the video. This is obviously not an isolated incident, and virtually any sentient being who spends more than an hour or two listening to NPR’s flagship programs--I am and I have--will certainly understand that NPR is an ardently liberal organization. To be absolutely fair, NPR, particularly in its news coverage, is not obviously biased 100% of the time, but when they are, they are always biased to the left, and often, very far to the left indeed.

As is usual in such cases, many have already begun to attack O’Keefe, accusing him of underhanded tactics, and even of entrapment. Many have brought up the recent prank played on Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, claiming a sort of similarity. They are entirely wrong. Governor Walker, as revealed by the secretly recorded conversation, is an honorable man who did not denigrate anyone, and whose public and private views are identical. He disavowed nothing because he did not need to disavow anything. Con men all know the saying “You can’t con an honest man.” NPR, faced with the public exposure of its fundamental but carefully concealed and often lied about private views, during a time when the Congress is debating entirely pulling their taxpayer funding, has disavowed Mr. Schiller and is backpedaling as fast as it can.

Those who are crying “entrapment!” have no idea what they’re talking about. Entrapment is a legal term that has currency only when the acts of government operatives--the police or those directly acting as their agents--are involved. Entrapment is a potential defense, a defense which may be invoked only when someone has been arrested and is charged with a crime or crimes.

Entrapment is often claimed by defense attorneys, but is a defense much less frequently bought by the courts. In order to entrap, the police must entice someone who is not disposed to commit a criminal act into committing a criminal act. A classic case might be police officers who approach a citizen on the street, and with no real cause to believe that they might be a criminal or that they might be involved in the kind of crime being investigated, offer that person sufficient money or other things of value to convince them to commit a crime. On the other hand, when the police approach, for example, a known drug dealer and offer to buy drugs from him, they are certainly not committing entrapment. Engaging someone to do what they normally do, even if the police provide them with assistance of various kinds to do it, is not entrapment.

In this case, O’Keefe and his associates, not in any way acting as agents of the police, engaged two of the highest level NPR fundraisers to make a fundraising pitch, the kind of pitch they do as part of their jobs at NPR. The problems began when the NPR executives revealed, without being placed under duress, their true, institutional and personal stripes, and did so in crude and shameful ways. Their behavior was particularly reprehensible in that they, such self-regarded highly intelligent, uber-sophisticated urbanites, believed that the men they were soliciting were agents of a Muslim terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of many Americans, an organization which constantly works toward a universal caliphate.

This is one of the most remarkable parts of the story. Why would Americans, particularly those with the social, political views of NPR executives, so willingly seek to ingratiate themselves with men who, by their religion and relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, violently oppose virtually everything they believe?

Andrew McCarthy, writing in National Review Online, answers that question convincingly in a recent article (take the last link at the beginning of this update). I agree with his assertion, which might be summed up by the old Middle Eastern aphorism: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Islamists and leftists both seek a pure, perfected world characterized by their own distinct visions of social justice, and both, having as a common enemy, conservatives, democracies and the free market, are natural allies.

Even understanding this, what still amazes is the mental weakness of progressives who apparently cannot accept the reality that should they, in their alliance, be successful, should American democracy fail, should the free market collapse, should Sharia become the law, not of the land but of the planet, everything in which they believe would be swept away: Homosexuality, environmentalism, women’s rights, higher education “studies” programs, redistribution of wealth, political correctness of every kind, the arts and intellectualism. You name it, Islam not only opposes, but would obliterate it. Islam would obliterate them. Yes, I know that not every contemporary Muslim believes this way, yet if the Progressives and Islamists ever won, what Muslim would be able to resist?

That progressives apparently consider themselves to be such superior beings as to render them immune from the consequences of their beliefs, behaviors and policies is, perhaps, the most telling indictment. Pride really doth go before a fall.

If Congress does not entirely defund public broadcasting of every kind, it bodes poorly indeed for the future of the Republic. If they cannot agree on this, if they cannot save what is a pittance compared to the totality of the national debt, and a pittance wasted on an entirely unnecessary and now, obviously indefensible enterprise, is there truly any hope for the kind of immediate change necessary to save America? We’ll know soon enough, and if we’re very fortunate, we’ll have NPR, at least in small part, to thank for it. That’s irony sufficient to last a lifetime.

The (Non) Wonders of GPS Gun Tracking

What’s new on the cutting edge of crime fighting? In Massachusetts, State Senator Andrew Petruccelli (here) has reintroduced a bill to establish a commission to research the latest, greatest hi-tech hope to wipe out the scourge of crime in the People’s Republic: GPS tracking of firearms. But before exploring this newest Holy Grail of the gun-ban set, let’s review two of their more recent technological forays, both falling under the general heading of “ballistic registration (here).”

One scheme would require that all new weapons be delivered to authorities, usually the state police, who would fire and retrieve several bullets and expended casings and enter them into a massive graphics database for comparison with bullets and casings recovered at the scenes of crimes. Unfortunately, merely firing a firearm will, over time (potentially a very brief time), change the markings left on bullets through normal wear and tear. Many bullets are so mangled upon striking objects (and people) as to render meaningful comparison impossible. And of course, barrels and firing pins may be quickly and easily changed.

Another scheme is “microstamping (here),” which consists of etching tiny characters on a firing pin or other portion of the chamber of a firearm so as to leave unique, identifying marks on any fired case. Again, the unique microstamp would be entered into a database for comparison. The usual problems apply, including poor readability and longevity of the stamp, the ease with which it may be altered, or removed, unbelievably poor results in computer matching even known samples, widely varying hardness of cases and primers from manufacturer to manufacturer, and the fact that criminals need only pick up ejected casings, thus leaving no evidence to compare.

In fact, both schemes--particularly involving bullet registration--have been reviewed by scientific experts who have concluded that not only would they cost far too much, they cannot accomplish what their supporters (including then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama regarding microstamping) claim. In short, they just don’t work, and they don’t work at astronomical cost.

So how do the police solve crimes? Do they rely on hi-tech CSI units that can detect errant molecules and instantaneously match bullets, fingerprints and DNA with an enormous, powerful, all-encompassing database? Not even close. Most of the time, the police solve crimes by simply talking to people. Certainly, they gather evidence when it’s present and when it might be useful, but rare is the police officer who has not theatrically spread around a bit of fingerprint powder at the scene of a car or home burglary at the demand of the victim who has watched too much TV, knowing that they’ll find nothing, and that if they do, they won’t have suspects with which to compare it or any means other than the “Mark I Human Eyeball; 2 each,” to use in making comparisons. There is no central fingerprint database. There is no central DNA database. No one can simply insert a fingerprint or DNA sample into a computer and more or less instantly obtain a 100% positive match with a criminal suspect. The technology just doesn’t exist, at least not in the ways TV would have you believe.

Compelling as these flaws are, there is another, far more important reason why such schemes must be rejected: Even if they worked with 100% reliability and at low cost, they prove only that a certain firearm was associated with a crime. The venerable aphorism “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” applies. To obtain a conviction, the state must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific person committed a specific crime. Where firearms are involved, they must prove that not only was a specific person present at a specific place and time, but that they used that specific firearm to commit a crime.

“But it’s their gun! That should be enough!” Not in a system of justice with a presumption of innocence, where the State must prove guilt, not where the accused must prove their innocence. Guns are lost or stolen every day, and criminals can easily “borrow” and return a firearm without its owner ever knowing it was gone. In fact, criminals can easily toss firearms into a lake or run them through car shredders, and this is commonly done.

But Senator Petruccelli apparently believes we now have the technology to actually track individual firearms! Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is his sole motivation. Wouldn’t that be a great leap forward in crime fighting technology? As with the other technology-based gun control schemes, no.

While GPS transmitters are now smaller than they were even a few years ago, they are not sufficiently small to be implanted into firearms, particularly the handguns that are always the primary object of gun banner’s concerns, without compromising their design and functionality. Such implantation would also add substantially to the cost of each firearm, as much as $100 or more. For gun banners, this is a feature, but for rational people, it’s a bug.

Another significant issue is battery life. Any such scheme would require transmitters to operate continuously, so gun owners would find themselves changing batteries as frequently as weekly, and perhaps even more often. But again, for gun banners, this is a feature, a feature that would absolutely require two companion laws.

Criminalizing failing to immediately report a lost or stolen firearm would be a necessity. The only question would be whether to make a violation a misdemeanor or felony. For many people, a gun, stored in a closet or in the bottom of a drawer, might be missing for years before its absence was noticed, but turning the law- abiding into felons would surely be a small price to pay for such spiffy technology. And of course, failing to change batteries would also have to be a crime. Because failing to change batteries would defeat the entire system, it would certainly have to be a felony. Features? Bugs? It depends on your perspective on the Constitution and individual freedom.

Even with such “enlightened” laws, the technological hurdles would be insurmountable, the costs, unbearable. Any state-wide system would almost certainly require purpose-built satellite coverage. Such things tend to be a bit pricey, and considering NASA’s recent luck at satellite launching, futile. How would such a system work? Would it track millions of firearms, each continuously broadcasting its own discrete signal? Most would be stationary, resting in closets, drawers or gun safes...uh-oh...wouldn’t gun safes, being made of thick metal, block such relatively weak signals? So much for safe storage.

How many thousands of government workers would be required to monitor the system and dispatch law enforcement officers (Federal Bureau Of GPS Police?), and under which circumstances? How many firearms are being transported, legally and illegally, from place to place at any time of the day or night? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Would the law require advance notice (or permission) of the movement of any firearm? Even from a closet to a workbench within a home? Are police dispatched when a battery dies and the signal ceases? Do they arrest the “criminal” who maliciously and with malign intent, allowed the battery to die?

It’s not hard to imagine the inherent problems, such as criminals leading the police on a merry chase following a gun transmitter on one side of town while guns with disabled transmitters are used to knock over a bank on the other. After all, if a criminal is planning robbery, or worse, what’s removing a battery? The costs for hardware, software (even if such a thing was actually possible) and personnel would be awe-inspiring, but hey, what’s a few trillion among friends, particularly during these heady days of huge, across-the-board budget surpluses?

The largest problem, the practical problem that renders the entire enterprise useless before it begins, remains: It’s still necessary to convict the criminal, not the tool he uses during the commission of his crime. GPS tracking would prove only--perhaps--that a given GPS discrete signal--not necessarily the GPS transmitter registered to a given firearm, or the firearm itself, was transmitting at a specific place and time. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to envision how such a system might be manipulated or spoofed. The police, as always, would still have to solve crimes the old-fashioned way, by talking to people, and the taxpayer would be much, much poorer.

I do, as it happens, have a better, more cost-effective use for the technology. Let’s make Democrat state legislators wear GPS trackers! Wisconsin and Indiana seem like good places to start. And I’m not talking about constant monitoring or any Orwellian plot like that. Combine, say, a GPS ankle bracelet with an injector for a powerful tranquilizer. If the battery dies, it’s sleepybye time! Tamper with the ankle bracelet, and it’s straight into the bonds of Morpheus. Come within 100 yards of a state line and they’re counting sheep. A small reserve battery would have to be included to send out a locator signal after the wearer took a dirt nap so that any nearby police officer could scoop them up and return them to their respective state capitol, where they could be propped up in their cushy leather chair so they could attend to the state’s business with their usual dilligence and efficiency.

But in all seriousness, Senator Petruccelli has performed a public service by reminding us—if our collective experience of the last two years under the Obama Administration has not--that big government exists to ignore the Constitution and to crush individual liberty. Should we allow it to remain at its current size, to say nothing of substantially reducing it, it will inevitably crush us, perhaps beginning in Massachusetts.

Rhetorical Bomb-Thrower Palin Incites More Gun Violence

That Sarah Palin is at it again, convincing people to take up arms and threaten the lives of politicians. As a result the FBI has now arrested Shawn Christy.

I hope she's happy.

Oh, For a New AVG

As speculation leaks out this morning that Syria aircraft and ground troops may be fighting Libyan rebels on behalf of Qaddafi's dictatorship, it makes me wonder how many lives might eventually be saved if there was a way for forming something like the American Volunteer Group that fought for the Chinese in world War II. You probably know them better as the Flying Tigers.

With the cost of today's 4th and now 5th generation jet fighters there is no reasonable expectation of a volunteer force fighting a direct air-to-air war against modern (or nearly modern) fighters, but even a single squadron of generation's old close-air support and observation aircraft could bring this conflict to a quicker and hopefully less costly end. Modern piston-drive COIN aircraft such as the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 or the EMB-314 Super Tucano could level the playing field for the rebels, as they are more than capable of taking on the improvised gun trucks and tanks of Qaddafi's loyalists and mercenaries, and quite frankly, could probably do so with a bit more accuracy (and collateral damage) than the jet aircraft the dictator's forces have been using.

The AT-6 is even familiar to many pilots; the trainer version of the plane is the primary trainer the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy pilots and the pilots of 19 other nations.

Like the original AVG, the pilots and ground crews of this theoretical group would be made up of men that volunteered to serve, flying planes loaned to the besieged rebels. At or near the end of the conflict, with the tables decisively turned, the aircraft could be returned to their originating nations or "donated" to the new government for oil.

I know that the odds of any nation loaning the Libyan rebels aircraft and crews is almost non-existent, but I have to wonder ho many lives might be saved and how much shorter the conflict would be if this relatively modest investment (in military terms) could be used to break what increasingly looks like a bloody and protracted stalemate that may cost thousands of lives.

ATF Memo: Agency Desperate For Bust/Good PR. Are They Accepting Nominations?

I haven't gotten around to covering it yet, but the ATF really screwed the pooch with Project Gunwalker, letting cartels buy thousands of firearms and take them over the border in what I personally suspect was an attempt to give credence to the Obama Administration's 90% lie. As a result, at least two U.S. federal law enforcement officers have been murdered with guns the ATF lost, and there is every reason to suspect that dozens of Mexican law enforcement officers have been killed as a result of the agencies incompetence as well.

CBS News has now obtained an internal memo, which reveals the ATf is trying to score a quick win to shore up faltering support:

Public Information Officers:

Please make every effort for the next two weeks to maximize coverage of ATF operations/enforcement actions/arrests at the local and regional level. Given the negative coverage by CBS Evening News last week and upcoming events this week, the bureau should look for every opportunity to push coverage of good stories. Fortunately, the CBS story has not sparked any follow up coverage by mainstream media and seems to have fizzled.

It was shoddy reporting , as CBS failed to air on-the-record interviews by former ATF officials and HQ statements for attribution that expressed opposing views and explained the law and difficulties of firearm trafficking investigations. The CBS producer for the story made only a feigned effort at the 11th hour to reach ATF HQ for comment.

This week (To 3/1/2011), Attorney General Holder testifies on the Hill and likely will get questions about the allegations in the story. Also (The 3/3/2011), Mexico President Calderon will visit the White House and likely will testify on the Hill. He will probably draw attention to the lack of political support for demand letter 3 and Project Gunrunner.

ATF needs to proactively push positive stories this week, in an effort to preempt some negative reporting, or at minimum, lessen the coverage of such stories in the news cycle by replacing them with good stories about ATF. The more time we spend highlighting the great work of the agents through press releases and various media outreaches in the coming days and weeks, the better off we will be.

Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any significant operations that should get national media coverage, please reach out to the Public Affairs Division for support, coordination and clearance.

Thank you,

Scot

Scot L. Thomasson

Chief ATF Public Affairs Division

Washington, DC

I've got an idea. If the ATF needs good PR, maybe they could start by arresting Lee Franklin Booth, the convicted felon that the agency has refused to prosecute despite his involvement in the acquisition of three gun companies. Think Gunwalker was a trainwreck? Imagine the the damage that could be done by a felon that has significant influence or ownership of gun manufacturing facilities.

I've not posted upon Mr. Booth in a while, but that doesn't mean I've lost interest in seeing him put behind bars. If the ATF wants a quick win, they need look no further than an ex-con no one would miss.

Democrat Hate Group Lawyer Called Obama "The Beast Spoken of In the Revelation."

I try to never link the Soros-paid stooges at Think Progress unless the goal is mocking them, and well, this time is no different.

The group funded by Nazi collaborator/billionaire George Soros howled because Fox interviewed Margie Phelps, daughter of Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelps, after the cult won a First Amendment case 8-1 before the Supreme Court.

This part was hilarious:

QUESTION: Are the nine justices going to Hell?

PHELPS: I have no objective indicator otherwise. The default for mankind is Hell. [...]

QUESTION: So the justices are going to Hell? The President is going to Hell?

PHELPS: Absolutely on the President. That’s a big ten-four. I already answered on the justices. The President is going to be king of the world before this is all said and done and he is most likely the Beast spoken of in the Revelation.

My own personal opinion is that Obama would be a very disappointing anti-Christ, but I do love rubbing it in the noses of these goons that he is a fellow Democrat who has run for elected office as a Democrat five times.

What Are You Made Of

I was flipping through TV the other evening, hoping to find the History Channel, when some show came on about people changing homes and lives with someone else for a time. I didn't watch, but for just a moment I thought about what it would be like if, for a brief moment of days, we were judged by what we had within us, not outside of us.

We too often judge by the obvious, the loud, the flashy only to discover the latest pop star only lip syncs. We rely on the media, on gossip, not realizing that most of that is as false as the motive that drives it. Myself, if you saw me in line at the grocery, you would see a pretty, freckled midwest woman. No fancy painted nails (hard work makes that a little difficult to keep up), no designer clothes and no fuss. My bag is from Midway or Sears, not Gucci. I'm someone's Mom. Someone's older sister. You might notice the hair or the eyes, or the curve of the hip, but the average young person would dismiss me as ordinary. You would not see that inner strength which could handle a load that would have sent most women and many men, packing. You would not see past the outer human form, one who has learned daily how fragile life can be; how tough, in violence, in loss, we are capable of being. Not the bones and the flesh, for they are transient, but the heart that drives those bones and that flesh into life. Fragile bones of unbreakable will.Look again. If lives were traded for a day, that quiet and unassuming man in the worn, faded but clean overalls at the feed store might be able to command an army, there in that moment being recognized as the complex, efficient steward of that which is important. While the lady or gentlemen on CNN, in their carefully cut hair, $1500 suit, and entourage of hype, would collapse in a bundle of dried sticks, unable to function without that support network of elective self entitlement.

What would it be like if, for all of us, there for a day or a span of days, you were not your bank balance, constituency, spouse, color or neighborhood? You were just you, without that haughty ancestral pride based, not on any core part of yourself, but simply the divine right of birthplace or parentage. A moment in time where you were judged solely on what you've read, what you've learned the hard way, what you are. Where you were valued by your innate abilities to survive and prosper through that day without birthright; handling yourself and your actions without help, teleprompters or a gold card, but simply by the human vanity of your own strengths.

How would we be perceived? And more importantly, who would we elect to serve and to lead?

The EV Saga Charges On

As regular readers know, I’ve been following the dubious fortunes of the Chevy Volt, and by extension, the other electric vehicles already on the market or in the design and production pipelines. In a recent “Quick Takes” (here--scroll to the bottom), I noted several interesting trends and unexpected consequences, including very low sales volume, Consumer Reports panning the very existence of the Volt, and the fondness of rats for warm Volt battery packs and tasty, expensive wiring. Yum.

For an additional bit of interesting information from the Pacific NW, visit Rob at PACNW Righty, who is doing a fine job operating behind opposition lines, so to speak, as he outlines some of the EV silliness in that neck of the woods (here).

Now, from “The Truth About Cars” (here) comes the news that Ford CEO William Ford, speaking at a recent Wall Street Journal Economics Conference in Santa Barbara, CA, is less than, well, charged up (sorry; couldn’t resist), about the viability of electric vehicles:

“Prior to the Model T, a third of all vehicles in this country were electric...this isn’t a new technology. The reason it died away was the ubiquity of charging. Today, we have the same issue.”

The Wall Street Journal also reported that Ford:

“...has no certainty that an electric grid will be developed that is capable of supporting droves of electric vehicles on the roads.”

In my several forays into the often magical realm of contemporary electric cars, I’ve been accused of hating technology, being somehow racist toward EVs, and even of wanting to give away the store to the Japanese, as one commenter felt that America should not surrender what he apparently saw as a burgeoning EV market to the Japanese. I’m inclined to think that the Japanese, in honor of the Kamikazes of the past, are welcome to it.

There are a number of problems regarding EVs, but I’ll summarize the current state of affairs by speaking to only a few of the most daunting, each by itself sufficient to render the entire enterprise an exercise in futility:

(1) The technology has not caught up to reality.

(2) There is essentially no infrastructure and no reasonable possibility of building it in the foreseeable future.

(3) There is insufficient demand.

THE TECHNOLOGY HAS NOT CAUGHT UP TO REALITY. Current technology cannot produce batteries of sufficient power, capacity, light weight, small size and low manufacturing cost. The Volt’s battery, for example, weighs hundreds of pounds and is very large. With a full charge, its range is only approximately 40 miles, and the early experience of very few owners reveals it’s as low as 25 miles, particularly in cold weather, but more on that later. Replacements costs are, at best, uncertain. Spinning furiously, Chevy has claimed that the batteries will last at least ten years--or so--and would cost no more than $8000 dollars to replace (this is one of several spins), but of course, there is no real world, practical experience upon which to draw, so it’s not unreasonable to expect a shorter lifespan and higher replacement cost.

A serious related issue is charging time. With 110V house current, Volts take from 8-12 hours to fully recharge. With an optional 220V “fast” charger, the recharge time is, according to Chevy, reduced to 4-5 hours. Did anyone mention that the “fast” charger costs $2000, not including installation? Chevy addresses range and charging issues by also installing a gasoline engine, but this is nothing less than a tacit admission of the severe limitations of the technology, the concept, and the vehicle itself. Remember that Chevy at first tried to suggest that the wheels would never be directly driven by burning fossil fuels. Only recently has Chevy admitted that when the battery reserve drops to a certain level, the gasoline engine will, in fact, directly drive the vehicle, making it a ridiculously expensive, overly complex pseudo hybrid which pretends to be something new. Oh yes, and the gasoline engine accepts only premium fuel.

Another limiting factor, particularly anywhere in the world exposed to winter weather, is just that: Cold. Cold rapidly diminishes battery power and capacity, slowing charge times, and weakening the battery. Early experience indicates that Volts are limited to a 25 mile range or less on battery power in even moderate winter weather. Trying to address this fundamental issue by using heated garages or additional heaters to keep batteries warm is self defeating--if the point is saving energy and environmental purity--and yet another admission of the fundamental flaws in technology and concept. One method of increasing range is by substantially lightening the vehicle, but again, current technology would require greatly reducing the size and utility of such vehicles to the point of making them impractical for most of the public, as well as stunningly unsafe for their occupants in collisions. In short, absent breakthroughs in battery technology that no one can foresee, the technology just isn’t there to allow EVs to successfully compete with conventional vehicles.

THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO INFRASTRUCTURE AND NO REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING IT IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. Even for the well-heeled willing and able to install a home fast charger, the problem of charging away from home remains daunting indeed. Few employers or businesses will be anxious to provide free electricity, particularly at 220V rates, to owners of EVs. And for true EVs, this is a serious matter. Even if a business or employer did provide outlets for EVs, charge time remains a significant issue. Few owners will be willing to abide 4-12 hours for a charge when a 5-10 minute stop at a gas station is the alternative. Yes, the Volt runs on gas too, but that is, again, a tacit admission of the problem, not a real solution to it.

Other than good will, there is no economic incentive to install charging stations, which themselves cost many thousands of dollars. Lacking that incentive, there is no realistic possibility of building the kind of massive, far-flung infrastructure necessary to make EVs a viable choice for most Americans, unless, that is, government takes a hand, but more about that later.

Even if one makes the unwarranted assumption that EVs will at some point be, say, 10% of the vehicles on the road, from where will the extra electricity necessary to charge those vehicles at all hours of the day and night come? Our power grid is already aging and strained, and in some states, brownouts, even brief blackouts, are becoming more and more common. Rather than supporting the building of new power plants of every type, the Obama Administration has all but prohibited them, and should any enterprising capitalist attempt to go ahead anyway, there are legions of greenie groups willing and able to stop such projects with years of lawsuits.

THERE IS INSUFFICIENT DEMAND. And considering the realities I’ve briefly outlined here, why should this be surprising to anyone? The auto business is not difficult to understand. Manufacturers are willing to spend the several years and hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to bring an entirely new design to market because they can have a reasonable expectation of not only recouping their design and development costs, but of making a reasonable profit through a sufficient volume of sales. While Chevy isn’t publicizing this kind of information, there is reason to believe that in this instance, market reality has been suspended for the Volt.

It is highly likely--and please, GM, correct me if I’m wrong--that the Volt costs more to manufacture than can be offset by the price GM charges dealers for the vehicle. The Volt is, after all, a Honda Civic-sized car with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) of $41,000, a wheelbarrow full of dollars that could purchase two Honda Civics. Unfortunately, dealers are charging as much as $65,000 for the vehicle, and some people--as can be expected--are actually paying it. Of course, if one can afford to pay $65,000 for a vehicle with no practical advantage over vehicles costing a fraction as much, an additional $2000+ for a fast charger isn’t likely to be much of a burden.

As it is, GM is on track to sell less than 4000 Volts in its initial model year. GM and the Federal Government recognize that without a $7500 tax incentive, virtually no Volts would be sold, and even with it, the sales volume is plainly awful. GM must be losing substantial money--likely many thousands--on each and every Volt.

Why aren’t people flocking to the car of the future here today? As Consumer Reports is discovering, it’s a mediocre EV, and it’s a mediocre gasoline powered vehicle. Conventional vehicles and existing hybrids are far more flexible, and in many circumstances, as fuel efficient or even more fuel efficient than the Volt, and those vehicles cost tens of thousands of dollars less. Even if the hopelessly optimistic projections for Volt energy efficiency ever came to fruition--and that’s unlikely--it would take a decade or more to break even on the purchase price of the vehicle, even considering the tax credit. Most people don’t keep a vehicle for a decade, and on the used car market, a Volt would likely be even less attractive than on the new car market, particularly for those of modest economic means who primarily populate that market. After all, who would buy a Volt if its battery pack might need to be replaced in a year or two at a cost that exceeds what they paid for the entire car on the used car market?

Ultimately, the Volt is a political creation, from a company rescued--sort of--from bankruptcy by a 61% infusion of taxpayer money. What rational businessman would sink untold millions into a product that few want, that would cost far too much to manufacture and sell, and which has no real advantages over much cheaper products? The Volt is the product of environmentalist wishes and intentions, wishes and intentions that conflict with reality. But as with high-speed rail, another mega-buck boondoggle the public neither wants nor needs, Mr. Obama intends to spend mega millions installing charging stations in several amenable locations such as the Berkeley of the South, Austin, TX.

Absent multiple miracles, the Volt will be nothing more than the plaything of the wealthy who can afford a toy car while still maintaining a fleet of conventionally powered vehicles for every day reality. Certainly, some will pay the ridiculously high entry price for the environmentally sensitive cachet an EV will provide in certain circles, but their numbers aren’t sufficiently large to turn a profit for GM, even if GM wasn’t losing money on every Volt before it left the assembly line. How long will the taxpayers subsidize such owners? It is cold comfort that the money lost will be, due to low demand, relatively low, but in our current budget crunch, why should any taxpayer funds be spent to maintain the wages and benefits of unions? After all, unless a product is actually making a profit, it is the taxpayers, not private businesses making rational economic decisions, that are paying GM’s autoworker’s wages and benefits.

It hardly requires a Nostradamus to predict that when Mr. Obama leaves office, the Volt will be quietly withdrawn from GM’s product lineup. That’s when the fun begins as the EPA spools up to deal with the disposal of the toxic elements in the Volt’s battery packs. Oh, I didn’t mention that EVs contain many toxic chemicals and their batteries can fry unwary first responders and mechanics unless they use special equipment and procedures? Now that I think of it, GM hasn’t been publicizing this either. I wonder why?

But wait a minute! Isn’t GE’s CEO Jeffrey Imelt now a part of the Obama administration as the head of Mr. Obama’s panel on job creation? And isn’t GE the primary, hopeful, domestic manufacturer of EV charging stations? Surely there couldn’t be any collusion, any conflict of interest? Yes, there is, and don’t call me Shirley.

But wait another minute! Aren’t Mr. Obama himself, and others in his Administration, such as Energy Secretary Steven Chu, anxious to see energy prices “necessarily skyrocket” as Mr. Obama said, in order to better force Americans to abandon modern conveniences such as automobiles and to force them to accept such concepts as EVs and public transportation? Indeed they are.

But wait yet another minute! Why isn’t Ford anxious to jump on the EV bandwagon? Oh, that’s right: Unlike Gm and Chrysler, Ford is a privately owned company and can’t spend unlimited taxpayer dollars on unprofitable ventures. You know, if you think about it, that almost makes sense.

Driving Force Magazine Mention/Thoughts on Trauma Kits

I thought it was pretty cool when CY reader and author Thomas Kelley wrote an article about something I mentioned here in trucking industry magazine Driving Force.

I'm becoming a big believer in the theory behind so-called "blowout" kits developed for the military. These are ultra-compact (roughly the size of of a canteen), easily administered first aid kits originally designed to handle traumatic battlefield injuries. The odds of me going into combat are between slim and none, but I do go to my local shooting range several times per month and try to take a couple of shooting classes every year. You never know when or where a negligent discharge (idiot-caused shooting) or weapon/ammo failure may pop-up, and it simply seemed prudent to buy a ready made kit to deal with the possibility. I viewed it as a cheap form of insurance for not only myself, but everyone around me at the range.

The more I thought about it, however, the more it seemed to make sense to have more than just the one kit in the range bag. I have a 25-mile commute to work and another 25-miles on my return trip, and considering the fairly heavy traffic I drive in, accidents are routine (I'd say once a month, sometimes more). Most of these accidents are fender-benders without any injuries at all, but every one in a while there are stomach-churning wrecks where people are hurt very badly indeed. It didn't take much to realize that many of the components of a blow-out kit would function just as well in first aid treatment of certain car crash injuries.

The key at Driving Force liked the idea, and thought it was worth posting on the subject considering their audience is, after all, professional drivers.

I'm currently planning to buy at least two more kits (possibly three) so that I have something at home and in each of our family's vehicles in addition to my range bag. Odds of your average person being in the position of a potential first responder aren't catastrophically high, but I's much rather spend $50-100 bucks and never have to use such a kit than come upon and accident and watch some die that I might have helped simply because I wasn't prepared.

I'm not remotely qualified to recommend any particular kit, but Cavalry Manufacturing has a nice selection and a Web search for "ifak" or "blowout kit" should bring up some options.

If you do get one of these kits, keep in mind that simply having a kit isn't going to save lives if you don't know how to use it. A Red Cross First Aid Class is highly recommended.

Armed with... Beanbags?

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry wasn't murdered by his management, but they sure made it easier for his killers.

I think it fair to hold the Obama Administration responsible for his death, and possibly others.

More Union Violence Ignored

Union thugs rushed a restaurant when lawmakers were eating and had to be restrained by restaurant staff and the police as a police helicopter hovered overhead.

Don't expect the national media to report it.

I stand by the prediction I made last month. A leftist will assassinate a conservative politician or activist before August 1. Violence is inherent to leftist ideologies, and the ultimate expression of that violence—murder—is only a matter of time.

Everybody's a Racist Now

I have, from time to time, written about the nature of Socialism. It is a non-falsifiable belief system. No socialist policy can possible be wrong, therefore whenever any problem crops up--and they do--it cannot possibly be a fault in the policy. Such problems are the result of the existence of conservatives who oppose the self-evidently flawless policies of socialists. Therefore the only solution is the elimination of all conservative opposition, or failing that--probably even accompanying that--even more, and more fervent, socialism.

The inestimable Roger Simon, writing at Pajamas Media, where Bob and I are fortunate and pleased to publish from time to time, has written an interesting article (here) that touches on socialist reality in the form of racism. Simon writes:

“In an an excerpt (linked in red on Drudge) from his new book, ‘Family and Freedom: Presidents and African Americans in the White House,’ US News journalist Kenneth T. Walsh writes:

But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent ‘Tea Party’ movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn’t helping them nearly enough, he said.

A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to ‘take back’ their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn’t dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a ‘subterranean agenda’ in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.”

Well. This is of a piece with standard socialist, class and race warfare doctrine, and is, with a great many other examples--they are legion--additional evidence that Mr. Obama is himself a socialist. In the same way that socialist doctrine and policy cannot possibly be in error, those holding such beliefs and making such policies cannot be in error. This is particularly true for maximum socialist leaders who are commonly worshipped in cults of personality not unlike those of North Korean Communists. Doubt me? Google “Obama halos” if you have the stomach for it.

Mr. Obama cannot, therefore, be in error. His policies must be flawless and none of the premises upon which they are based can possibly be falsified. Therefore, any opposition to Mr. Obama cannot be well-intentioned, cannot be pursued in good faith by honorable people, because no well-intentioned, honorable person acting in good faith would ever think to oppose Mr. Obama’s policies, let alone actually oppose them.

But Mr. Obama is the most brilliant human being alive, is he not? One need not look farther than his own advisor, Valerie Jarret. Ed Driscoll writes at Pajamas Media (here):

“While I was away last week, Jonathan Last’s brilliant essay, ‘American Narcissus’ appeared at the ‘Weekly Standard’. Last assembles an extensive catalog of the two sides of Obama: extreme narcissism — and its flipside, extreme boredom with every aspect of life that doesn’t immediately advance the career of Barack Obama.
Let’s look at a few instances of the latter:

David Remnick delivers a number of insights about Obama in his book The Bridge. For instance, Valerie Jarrett—think of her as the president’s Karen Hughes—tells Remnick that Obama is often bored with the world around him. ‘I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually,’ Jarrett says. “So what I sensed in him was not just a restless spirit but somebody with such extraordinary talents that they had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy.’ Jarrett concludes, ‘He’s been bored to death his whole life.’”

Anyone in opposition to the policies of Barack Obama therefore, cannot be actually opposed to his polices, which are perfect, having been established by a perfect maximum leader. Their opposition cannot be based on policy, it must be personal. And because Mr. Obama is black (by self-identified choice), any opposition must be racist. As unhinged as this sort of thinking may seem to rational Americans, it is one of two inescapable alternatives. The other is that Mr. Obama--and a great many of his supporters--actually believe that at least half of America is irredeemably racist.

That the very fact of Barack Obama’s election as President of the United States is the most compelling possible evidence of America’s lack of racism matters not to the faithful. That even those who voted against Mr. Obama observed at least a moment of pride in the election of a black man, matters even less. That the Civil Rights Movement won, that anyone displaying racist tendencies is, and has for decades been, beyond the pale, shunned in polite society, matters not at all. To the elect, the mere existence of the Tea Party Movement is proof positive of racism, all evidence to the contrary.

As Mr. Simon’s essay notes, Mr. Obama and his sycophants are careful to keep his real beliefs and attitudes under wraps, bringing them out only among friends. More’s the pity. It’s hard to make informed choices in a representative democracy when candidates conceal their true nature and deranged beliefs.

One additional possibility exists: Mr. Obama is playing the race card--and have no doubt that it will be prominently and publicly played in the next two years, particularly if he is lagging in the polls--as a matter of cynical political calculation, a sort of political reverse psychology. Branding as racist people and movements that are manifestly not racist may tend to make them want to prove that they are not racist, particularly by voting for Mr. Obama. But it may also tend to enrage such people and movements and inspire them to redouble their efforts to eject lunatic socialists and race hustlers from Washington.

Americans concerned about liberty, democracy, the Constitution, national security, financial security and the rule of law may well have to silently bear the racist label and vote for America instead of a President narcissistic and clueless enough to brand half and more of America with a contemporary scarlet letter. It is a sign of how far Mr. Obama has lowered our expectations that it is hardly distressing to observe that voting for virtually any Republican would be an order of magnitude improvement. And that, dear reader, is also a great pity, brought to you by the most brilliant, bored, racist man on the planet.

NATO Helicopters Kill Nine Afghan Boys Collecting Firewood

This really confuses me and pisses me off.

Which nation's helicopters were responsible for this attack, and if American Apache gunships, where was the target discrimination? We've spent hundreds of millions for state-of-the-art sensors that can cut through darkness and fog, and none of that technology was able to tell that these children were carrying firewood, and not weapons?

I don't need to be told there is a fog of war, but we seem to be repeating this kind of mistaken identity every few months. You can't win a counterinsurgency like this.

Good grief.

Yes, Kids. The Left Supports Terrorism

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—one of the powerful unions with regular and frequent contacts with the Obama White House—has been raided because of suspected material and financial support of Hamas (Islamic terrorists) and FARC (Columbian Marxist Terrorists).

I wonder if Bill Ayers disciple Barack Obama is proud of the "community organizing" that the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force is now investigating:

Representing some 30,000 public service employees in Illinois and Northwest Indiana, the union is one of the largest labor organizations in the Midwest. Like any union, it seeks to maximize the interests of its members. But its leaders are also intensely political. Delivering good contracts is part of what leaders see as a far larger challenge: eliminating capitalist injustices against workers and "people of color" everywhere. And as the United States presumably is the de facto leader of global capitalism, racism and colonialism, they see the pursuit of social justice as requiring alignment with armed anti-American "liberation" movements.

"Liberation" movements. Chicago. Where have I heard that before?

Oh, yes. The Marxist, racist Black Liberation Theology that was Barack Obama's creed for more than two decades.

As former TUCC pastor and Obama mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright might say, "the chickens are coming home to roost."

As R.S. McCain notes, maybe Glenn Beck was right.

Bradley Manning Faces Possible Death Penalty

The treasonous weasel deserves nothing more than a fair trail and a fair execution.

The Army on Wednesday filed 22 new charges against Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of illegally downloading tens of thousands of classified U.S. military and State Department documents that were then publicly released by WikiLeaks, military officials told NBC News. The most serious of the new charges is "aiding the enemy," a capital offense that could carry a potential death sentence.

Pentagon and military officials say some of the classified information released by WikiLeaks contained the names of informants and others who had cooperated with U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, endangering their lives.

What Manning deserves and what he gets, however, could be two vastly different things. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that Bradley Manning is guilty; no one actually argues Manning isn't absolutely guilty of disclosing hundreds of thousands of files. Some extremists are trying to manufacture whistleblower status for the imprisoned leaker, but the simple fact is that Manning ignored the established protocols whistleblowers have that would have afforded him protection, and instead intentionally decided to attempt to damage U.S. military and foreign policy.

Others may chose to scapegoat Manning's sexuality, but I find that unfair to the legion of gay servicemen and women that served this nation honorably over the history of the Republic.

Manning is a traitor to his nation and his service who intentionally put the lives of U.S. citizens and allies at risk. He is an information terrorist. No amount of spin by left wing zealots can spin that ugly truth away.

Quick Takes, March 03, 2011

ITEM: The long-argued USAF tanker contract has finally been awarded to Boeing rather than the European EADS. Expected to comprise 179 aircraft, the contract will be worth more than $30 billion. According to Boeing, the contract will provide more than 20, 000 continuing jobs in the Seattle area. Good news--of a sort. Remember that the contract is not producing wealth as it is being paid with taxpayer funds. And while these jobs are better than jobs in a governmental bureaucracy, they still don’t create wealth, thus, they’re not truly helpful in healing the economy. But yes, US companies building aircraft for our Air Force is also a good thing.

ITEM: If anyone wanted to know pretty much anything about your past, could they find that information? Could they get your college grades? Your birth certificate? Would college teachers and classmates be willing to speak with you? With a little work, could anyone discover your entire work history, virtually to the day? Of course. Yet the past of our President is virtually a black hole; no meaningful, accurate information can escape. For a glimpse into Mr. Obama’s college past, visit this article by John Drew (here) who knew Mr. Obama back in his youth when life was free, gay, pre-revolutionary and decidedly Marxist. I know: You’re shocked, shocked!

ITEM: Culture Corner: Consider, if you will, the strange--yet all-too-familiar case of Charlie Sheen. A man of some talent and charisma, making $1.8 million per episode of the top TV comedy (that’s $43.2 million per 24-episode season), and he throws it all away with unhinged, drug-addled rants at his employers and the world in general. Daily, it seems, he continues to pour additional gasoline on his already blazing head. Question: Putting aside the nature and virtue of the free market, do we pay entertainers and sports figures too much? In essence, I’m asking whether we esteem them far too highly, for it is that high esteem that allows them to reap stratospheric salaries, and to fall from dizzying heights. Discuss.

ITEM: So there was a “Day of Rage” in the Arab/Muslim world last week? People killed, beaten, the usual? Wait a minute... Isn’t pretty much every day a day of rage in that part of the world? Discuss.

ITEM: So, you thought Teddy Kennedy was a pretty bad actor? You were wrong. He was worse, much, much worse than you could have possibly imagined. According to FBI files obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA lawsuit (here), the “Liberal Lion of the Senate,” was among the most reprehensible of men. While on a 1961 tour of Latin American countries, Kennedy conferred with virtually every prominent communist in sight, including a known Russian spy. He wanted to use the Mexican Embassy for his meetings, but the Ambassador refused. Kennedy also reserved an entire brothel for the night in Santiago, Chile. At the time, he was a local assistant district attorney, which raises the interesting question of why a local assistant DA would want to confer with prominent communists and known Russian spies--and why they’d want to confer with him. He entered the US Senate a year after his excellent Latin American Adventure.

For Kennedy, this was only prelude. In 1983, Kennedy sent California State Senator John Tunney to Moscow to speak with the KGB Chief (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/kennedy-reagan-soviet/2009/08/29/id/334686). He offered to help the Soviets work against Reagan if they would help the Democrats fight Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. Remember that he was a sitting US Senator at the time. There is no hard evidence that Andropov took him up on the offer, but the overture is recorded in secret Soviet archives opened in 1991 after the fall of the Soviet empire.

ITEM: Sarah Palin Was Right About This Too: According to The Telegraph (here), after a government promise to end the scandal of covert blacklists which restricted treatments to save money, the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE--talk about irony...), denied more than 80 desperately sick and dying cancer patients the drugs their doctors prescribed because they cost too much. This, dear reader, is the model that Dr. Donald Berwick (here), recess appointed by Barack Obama to head the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, so admires and wants to emulate. Pray that Obamacare is struck down and/or repealed. Barring that, pray that you remain completely healthy for the rest of your life. If not, it’s going to be a short, painfully bumpy ride.

ITEM: As more and more governors turn down Federal high-speed rail money, George Will reminds us why they’re right and Progressives are, as usual, lunatics (here). I don't understand what the big deal is. After all, no one really wants it, it wouldn't be even remotely self-sustaining, would be a drain on state and federal budgets forever, wouldn't reduce pollution or highway congestion and would cost hundreds of billions we don't have. How could anyone be against something like that?

ITEM: Is That Cool Or What? Department: Archaeologists (here) have found what they believe to be cannons from the Satisfaction, the ship of Privateer Captain Henry Morgan, off a Panama reef. Is the real thing better than Disney? Discuss.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award of the Week: The Government Accountability Office’s report (here) on duplicative annual federal spending was out March 1. I was shocked, shocked! to learn, for example, that 82 federal programs have a hand in improving teacher quality, 56 help people to understand finances (apparently none help Mr. Obama with that...) and it goes on and on to the tune of $100-200 billon per year. What frightens me most is that in the brave new world of Obama’s trillions, $100 billion no longer seems like much money.

ITEM: And On The Floor of The Wisconsin Legislature...See for yourself...

ITEM: Let Them Eat Cake! Department: Comes now the news that Cornell McClellan, Mr. Obma’s personal trainer from Chicago flies to DC from 2-4 times per week to train Mr. and Mrs. Obama. Let me see if I have this straight: It’s a recession; America is broke; gasoline prices are rising; the president is every greenie’s environmental-hectoring dream; Mr. Obama is constantly harassing people about the environment, and he flies in his personal trainer 2-4 times per week?! But of course! That Obama, he’s just like us; he feels our pain. I mean, who doesn’t have their personal trainer fly in 2-4 times a week from Chicago? Golf, anyone?

ITEM: Mr. Obama’s Epistle To the Governors: At a meeting of the National Governor’s Association on February 28, Mr. Obama again came down on the side of his union masters (here): “But let me also say this: I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon.” Oh dear. I knew Mr. Obama was famous for mendacity, but let’s fact check this single sentence. Fact: Governor Walker of Wisconsin has been very careful to continually express his respect for those Wisconsin Union employees who have lived up to their responsibilities and come to work, and his comments about those who have not have been confined to encouraging them to live up to their responsibilities. No doubt, someone, somewhere might have a discouraging word to say about public employees, but other than that... Fact: There is no such thing as a right to form a union or to collectively bargain. These are privileges granted, and rescinded, at will by the citizens of every state through their elected representatives. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, no “rights” are involved.

ITEM: APOCALYPTIC TRAGEDY STRIKES! WOMEN, MINORITIES , ANYONE BREATHING HARDEST HIT: The Congress has agreed on a two week temporary extension of the budget. The Federal Government will continue to function for two more weeks. AAAHHHH!

ITEM: Coming To A Gas Station Near You!: In the People’s Taxation Republic of Massachusetts, the Boston Herald (here) reports that gas is likely to reach $5.00 per gallon within a few weeks. Let’s see: For a 20 gallon gas tank, that’s $100 per visit to the pumps. Consider that this is the case without the Middle East falling even more completely apart while Mr. Obama wants energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket, and will be certain to “bear witness” to any resulting carnage. You might be tempted to think that electric cars like the Chevy Volt are looking better and better, but...

ITEM: I’ve written several articles on the Chevy Volt (here and here), and it now appears that Consumer Reports shares my views (here). To wit: “When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it [the Volt] doesn’t really make a lot of sense. The Volt isn’t particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it’s not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy.” The article also notes one of the most predictable, but under-reported EV failings: Dramatically decreased battery power and range in the cold. But wait; there’s more! Popular Science (here) reports one of the more gnarly unintended consequences of the Chevy Volt: Its battery pack produces heat when charging, which attracts rats, which chew wiring, which costs at least $600.00, which, as an act of God (Rats?) is not covered under warranty. Micky Mouse was not available for comment. And finally, from autobloggreen (here), comes the news that Chevy sold only 281 Volts in January, and the Nissan Leaf, only 67. If the Volt retains that brisk sales pace, it’s on track to sell 3372 vehicle in a year. For a vehicle that, even with a $41,000 MSRP, is likely losing significant money for Chevy, this is nothing less than a disaster. Of course, the question is how any company can afford to manufacture a product that not only loses money-and likely lots of it--before it rolls off the factory floor, but also has abysmal sales volume. The answer is that no sane company can possibly afford such foolishness, not, that is, unless it can expect government bailouts or is being directed by the whims of greenie zealots rather than responsible businessmen. Onward socialist workers! Onward to winning the brave, all-electric future!

ITEM: Feel Good QT of The Week: I can’t end this week’s Quick Takes any better than referring you to a video (here) of 84 year old WWII sniper Ted Gundy who shoots a 5” group at 1000 yards. Be prepared to have your heart swell with patriotic pride, and to cry like a baby at the humility and decency of the man. Maybe they really were the greatest generation. I guess I’m getting to be an old softy after all...

And on that nostalgic note, thanks for stopping by, and I’ll see you next Thursday!

And Just Like That, The World Stopped

Charlie Sheen joins Twitter.

Boehner Shoots Self in Foot With Wrong Metaphor

Think Progress hacks past and present are howling over a comment from Speaker of the House John Boehner:

"In some of these states you've got collective bargaining laws that are so weighted in favor of the public employees that there’s almost no bargaining," Boehner told "The Brody File" of the Christian Broadcasting Network. "We've given them a machine gun and put it right at the heads of the local officials and they really have their hands tied."

It is a horrible comparison, and both Amanda Terkel and George Zornick called out the Speaker on his choice of language.

I completely agree that the imagery of machine guns is inaccurate. Radical leftists vastly prefer the indiscriminate killing power and automatic terror of bombings in the dead of night.

Whether we're talking the pipe bomb Obama family friend Berandine Dohrn is suspected of planting that killed and wounded San Francisco police officers, or the bombs Bill Ayers planned to detonate in Detroit to kill police and minority families, or the mass murders these Obama mentors plotted at Fort Dix, leftists have shown a clear preference for bombs... not bullets.

Media Engages In Efforts To Defeat Taxpayers

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has issued an ultimatum to the Democratic state senators that fled the state rather than do their duty: come back today, or the state would lose an additional $165 million and he'd be forced to start layoffs of teachers.

Time, the law, and public opinion is on Walker's side. And so it was imperative that the left find some means of shoring up their crumbling support for increasingly unpopular unions, and that has come in the form of several polls with shall we say, interesting timing.

The New York Times is claiming the public supports the public sector unions, which is a claim that seems to run directly counter to the weak support for unions in solidarity protests held over the course of the weekend.

Public Policy Polling is claiming that the citizens of Wisconsin wouldn't elect Scott Walker if the election was held now, which is both utterly irrelevant, and ignores Walker's soaring popularity and raised profile as he stands against the best efforts the Democratic Party can throw against him.

Pew also make s a run at claiming Walker's support is less than that of the unions.

It is no mistake that the pro-union, pro-liberal media so closely aligned with Organizing for America (Obama's campaign organization) is doing all it can to support it's most powerful lobby. These are 11th hour attempts to claim public opinion favors the continuing exploitation of the taxpayer by government workers, despite the obvious falseness of that statement as shown in November's elections.

If the power of government union labor falters and then falls in left-friendly Wisconsin, it signals the beginning of the end of the government unions and the real possibility of scaling back the bloat of government. This terrifies the socialists currently in control of the Democratic Party, including the milquetoast currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

They fear nothing more than a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.