Now What, Princess?

It appears Princess Pelosi might be having an, um, "ethical dilemma"....

From Poltico.com:
"The House ethics committee's decision to admonish New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel over improper corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean leaves Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the ethics committee itself facing difficult questions.

When then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was admonished by the ethics committee in October 2004, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders went on the offensive against him.

“Mr. DeLay has proven himself to be ethically unfit to lead the party,” Pelosi said at a news conference the following day. “The burden falls upon his fellow House Republicans. Republicans must answer: Do they want an ethically unfit person to be their majority leader or do they want to remove the ethical cloud that hangs over the Capitol?”

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) — now the House majority leader — said DeLay "certainly ought to step aside as leader at this point in time because I think his credibility has been undermined by these findings."

Six years later, the shoe is on the other foot: Republicans have previously called for Rangel to lose his chairmanship over his ethical troubles, and some of them — including Indiana Rep. Mike Pence — renewed that call Thursday night.

How will Pelosi and Hoyer respond? "

When AlGore invented the Internet, he probably never envisioned it being used to distribute these inconvenient truths.


“Everyone tries to define this thing called Character. It's not hard. Character is doing what's right when nobody's looking.” ---- Steven Weinberg

“Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” ---- Albert Einstein

On February 25th, 1751....

New York city citizens were treated to the country's first display of a performing monkey.  

For the paltry sum of one cent, New Yorkers could watch an exotic animal do amazing tricks never before seen in the colonies.

In the New World, this passed for entertainment, because the hardships of everyday living kept folks focused on survival, not frivolous pasttimes.

Their lives bordered on desperate, as they fought to become viable settlements competing with each other while still subjecting themselves to the reign of the English.

As history has recorded, the settlers had their stark, difficult lives made even harder by the confiscatory iron hand of the british tax man, who insisted on getting the King's share whether there was anything left for the people or not.

So, the performing monkey served as an enjoyable distraction, often suffering favorable comparisons with the King.

When times are tough, any diversion, however small, irrelevant, or short lived, can be a source of amusement.

And so it was today, when the O-man and his disciples gathered with the Republican infidels.

In a show befitting a performing monkey, the O-man extolled the virtues of his healthcare plan.

A plan so critically ill that he couldn't get it passed when he had a full complement of political capital combined with a 60 vote majority.

Sitting around a squared table, appropriately reminiscent of the squared circle of boxing, the two sides duked it out while establishing their positions once more for the cameras.

Without accomplishing anything of substance for their constituents, who are facing the toughest times this generation has ever seen.

While it will undoubtedly be portrayed as something of substance --- a productive meeting of the players --- a keystone event in moving the healthcare bill along, the electorate will regard it with the same gravity as those New Yorkers viewed the performing monkey this day in 1751.

Unfortunately, this time, it will cost a good bit more than one cent to be admitted.

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." ----Samuel Adams

"To me, the technique was almost irrelevant; it was what was coming across that mattered." ---- Bill Sienkiewicz

“Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of the truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant” ---- Edgar Allan Poe

The Democrats Are Right

“The right to extend a debate is never more important than when one party controls both Congress and the White House.

The filibuster serves as a check, on power, preserve our limited government.

For the past several months, the Senate has operated under a nuclear cloud.

As a result of the Senate’s decision..... the majority has threatened to break the Senate rules, violate over 200 years of Senate tradition and impair the ability of Democrats and Republicans to work together on issues of real concern to the American people.

It is astounding that the Majority would precipitate this destructive confrontation," ---- Harry Reid, 2005

"We are on the precipice of a crisis.

A constitutional crisis.

The checks and balances which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option.

The checks and balances which say that if you get fifty-one percent of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time.

It is amazing.

It is almost a temper tantrum.

They want their way every single time and they will change the rules, break the rules, misread the Constitution, so that they will get their way." ---- Charles Shumer, 2005

"The nuclear option, if successful, will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority.

If the majority insists on the nuclear option, the senate becomes ipso facto, the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme.

And the party in power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power." ---- Dianne Feinstein, 2005

"I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have as its lead co-sponsor a Republican.

And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and a Democrat as the lead.

That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other.

The rules of this institution have required that.

That’s why we exist.

Why have a bi-cameral legislative body.

Why have two chambers.

What were the framers thinking about two hundred and eighteen years ago?

They understood, Mr. President, that there’s a tyranny of the majority." ---- Christopher Dodd, 2005

"So this President has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said, 'Change the rules. Do it the way I want it done.'

And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations have acted and said, 'Mr. President, we’re with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far.

We can’t go there.

You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President.'

The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent, to ignore the way our system works, the delicate balance we have obtained, that has kept this constitutional system going for the immediate gratification of the present President." ---- Hillary Clinton, 2005

"He hasn’t gotten his way.

And that is now prompting, you know, a change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever.

And what I worry about would be that essentially you have two chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side.

And that’s just not what the Founders intended." ---- Then Senator Barack Obama, 2005

Yesterday, the Obama White House announced that they will go forward with a reconciliation process -- sometimes called the “nuclear option” -- to try and pass their government run healthcare plan in the Senate.

This process circumvents a Republican filibuster and only requires a simple majority vote of 51 rather than 60.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said told reporters today that the president's plan is designed for "maximum flexibility," the Washington Post reports.

"The president expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health care," Pfeiffer said.

"This is designed to provide us maximum flexibility if the opposition decides to take the extraordinary step of filibustering health reform."

If Republicans call a filibuster to stall debate of a bill, it typically takes 60 votes to end the filibuster.

Democrats no longer have a 60-vote majority, so the only other way they could get around a filibuster without any Republican support is through a procedural maneuver called reconciliation.

But, as shown above, virtually all Democrats are against the use of reconciliation.

Aren't they?

“He either flip-flopped or he has a real problem with credibility.”  ---- Ari Fleischer

“Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up.”  ---- Donald Rumsfeld

Why the Government Can't Help You

To a small businessman or a taxpayer, these are the most feared words in the English Language:

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

Why?

Because most people with any life experience know that regardless of intent, the government is too unwieldly, too inept, too inertia bound to help anyone.

Take one of the O-man's most touted portions of the stimulus: Weatherization.

The idea seemed like a good one: Spend some of the stimulus money and put some people to work weatherizing taxpayers homes.

That would create energy savings, in turn lessening dependence on foreign oil, and create employment in the battered construction industry.

And, it was work deemed to be immediately "shovel ready".

Nobody could imagine any reason why such work couldn't we started imediately.

After all, the homes were there waiting, there were  workers laid off from construction who had the training and the ability, and there was no new technology involved.

Congress specified  that funding for weatherization under the 2009 stimulus legislation rise to $5 billion over a three-year period from $450 million the previous year, so certainly the money was going to be there.

So by now, a year after Congress acted, we should have a whole passel of weatherized, energy efficient houses, right?

Not exactly.

The program  so far has borne little fruit, with many of the biggest states meeting less than 2 percent of their goals to date.

Gregory H. Friedman, the Department of Energy’s inspector general, in a report issued Tuesday, called the lack of progress “alarming."

"Far into the nation’s winter heating season, the program for the most part has neither saved energy nor put people to work" he wrote.

“The job creation impact of what was considered to be one of the department’s most ‘shovel ready’ projects has not materialized.”

What the heck went wrong here?

I mean, how hard can it be?

Well, if you're the government, it seems you can create obstacles at every turn, without regard to logic or common sense.

"Quick action on weatherization was doomed by bureaucratic delays and by the recession itself" the inspector general’s report said, as spending cuts caused by the economic downturn forced states to trim personnel expenses.

Many states either furloughed the state employees who would administer such programs or instituted hiring freezes that prevented state offices from processing additional work — even though the federal government would have eventually paid the additional salaries, the report found.

Seems the states didn't exactly trust the Feds when it came to busting their own bdgets, and chose instead to wait until the funding was actually in place.

But wait, there's more.

One nationwide stumbling block was a decision by Congress to require contractors on the weatherization jobs to pay prevailing wages.

That was a "gimme" to unions, ensuring that nobody could do the work for what the unions would have charged, even though using actual local wages would have save millions.

In fact, almost nobody knew what actual "prevailing wages" were.

Because the housing downturn and the economic slump had totally skewed the payscales around the country.

 So the Labor Department undertook a survey to determine what those salary levels were.

A survey that as of today, about a year later, still isn't complete.

The Energy Department instructed states to go ahead and put people to work in the meantime and to keep records so the federal government could make retroactive payments if necessary.

But "most simply are choosing not to begin hiring till the wage question is resolved", the report said.

See, states have been  burned before by the Feds when it comes to "promised funding".

Just ask Arnold of California.

As a result, as of mid-February, one year into the stimulus plan, only 8 percent of the funds had been disbursed.

New York State, for example, had a goal of weatherizing 45,400 units over three years but by December had accomplished only 280, a completion rate of 0.62 percent.

Progress in Pennsylvania, which weatherized 1.28 percent of the houses and apartments it had intended to, was slowed by a deadlock over the state budget.

Illinois wanted to hire 21 workers to oversee nearly work on 27,000 homes; it hired none because of a spending freeze, and completed only 331, or 1.23 percent of its three-year target.

Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Texas and Wyoming had not weatherized any units by Feb. 16, the report said.

A year after passage of the first fiscal stimulus bill that created the weatherization program,  Congress is trying to move toward passing a second bill meant to stimulate employment.

Republicans and Democrats have been arguing over whether last year’s legislation made enough of a difference to justify its cost and whether the second will add enough jobs in time to help jumpstart the economy.

The Energy Department's report says it hasn't.

How about before we do a second stimulus, we make the first one work?

That would be one way the government could help us all.


"The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency." ---- Eugene McCarthy


“I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.” ---- Theodore Roosevelt

Power From The Consent of the Governed ?

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

That means that the founding fathers intended for our elected representatives to be responsive to us, the electorate.

In other words, the politicians were to work for the citizens, not the other way around.

Scott Rasmussen, of Rasmussen Reports just completed some interesting public opinion research on this topic.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic media company specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

Because they highly value their independence and credibility, Rasmussen Reports cannot be hired to conduct a poll for anyone, and they're one of the few political sites to attract roughly equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters.

So their data is generally pretty good, and an accurate representation of how people really feel.

Their recent research reveals that just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

Only 21% believe the politicians are working for them, not the other way around.

61%  say the government does not have the necessary consent.

Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors, regardless of party.

That's a terrible indictment of the current set of incumbents, Democrat or Republican.

Rasmussen says:

"Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Republicans say the government does not have the consent of the governed, and that view is shared by 65% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. 44% of Democrats agree."

What we have here is an electorate frustrated with the current way the country is headed, and with their politicians in general.

And those kinds of feelings typically spell voter revolt against incumbents, something other polls are seeing when evaluating potential mid-term election results.

But that 61% number isn't the worst part.

See, Rasmussen then polled the politicians themselves, always an enlightening exercise.

When the politicians themselves were asked whether or not they were governing with the consent of the governed, 63% of them think the government has the consent of the governed.

63% think they are actually doing what we, the electorate, (their presumed bosses) want them to do.

63% think they are actually representing us.

That's almost 180 degrees out of sync with the 61% of the electorate that say they aren't doing so.

Reasonable people would conclude that this is the foundation for voter revolt when they go to the polls for the mid-terms.

And that has certainly been what history would indicate, especially when it comes to incumbents standing for re-election.

But here's what's really scary: With only 63% of the politicians themselves saying they are governing with the consent of the governed, that means that 37% of our elected officials at the Federal level knowingly answered that they were not doing so.

37% of the incumbents essentially admitted to thumbing their nose at the people who elected them.

More than a third of the people we put in office to serve us have decided to say "screw you".

Now, I'll leave it to you to determine for yourself the relative IQ of a politician who knowingly admits to something like that.

And, that appears to be exactly what everyday people in the real world are doing.

Rasmussen again:

"Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group

75% of voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most members of Congress are defeated this November.

 Just 27% believe their own representative in Congress is the best person for the job."

Rasmussen observes that the American people are “united in the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers.”

He adds that “the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and the politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century.”

And we all know how that turned out.

“Every generation needs a new revolution.” ---- Thomas Jefferson

“If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution.” ---- Abraham Lincoln

“We were a silent, hidden thought in the folds of oblivion, and we have become a voice that causes the heavens to tremble.” ---- Kahlil Gibran

A Lump in the Ocean

Beautiful scene from the Pacific.

Clear green waters, surrounded by the shores of a small atoll, located some 660 miles south of Japan.

Overseen by an extinct volcano in the distance, marking the island's location to all who might pass by.

Some would see it as a tropical paradise.

One that would draw little notice as part of a whole chain of these atolls across the pacific.

But it hasn't always been that way.

Sixty five years ago, this paradise was a primary objective in American plans to bring the World War II Pacific campaign to a successful conclusion.

On the morning of February 19, 1945, at 8:59 AM, the 4th and 5th Marine Divisions invaded this atoll after a somewhat ineffective bombardment lasting 72 hours.

The 28th Regiment, 5th Division, was ordered to summit the extinct volcano.

They reached the base of the mountain on the afternoon of February 21, and by nightfall the next day had almost completely surrounded it.

On the morning of February 23, Marines of Company E, 2nd Battalion, started the tortuous climb up the rough terrain, fighting their way to the top.

At about 10:30 a.m., men all over the island were thrilled by the sight of a small American flag flying from the summit.

That afternoon, when the slopes were clear of enemy resistance, a second, larger flag was raised on the summit of Mount Suribachi by five Marines and a Navy hospital corpsman: Sgt. Michael Strank, Cpl. Harlon H. Block, Pfc. Franklin R. Sousley, Pfc. Rene A. Gagnon, Pfc. Ira Hayes, and PhM. 2/c John H. Bradley, USN.

You know these men.

You've seen them often.

And they represent the heroism of every United States soldier, sailor, and airman ever to serve this great country.

The appear on The U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial.

What most of us call the Iwo Jima Monument.

Semper Fi.

Never Forget.

“Valor is stability, not of legs and arms, but of courage and the soul.” ---- Michel de Montaigne

"The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next 500 years." ---- James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy (February 23, 1945)

Idiocy Personified

I'm thinkin' this country has pretty much lost its damned mind.

Given up on fundamental concepts like logic, deduction, and pragmatism.

Some will note that those are pretty important things to have given up on, as for the most part, those are the characteristics that served this country well during its formation and subsequent development.

The culprit ?

Political correctness gone amuck.

The mistaken belief that we, as a nation, must never risk offending any person or group, no matter how thin their skin or how obtuse their perceived slight might be.

Take, for example, profiling.

Profiling has been a longtime tool of effective law enforcement, based heavily on probability theory and historical evidence.

When police interview witnesses after a crime, what's the first thing they ask ?

"Can you give me a description of the perpatrator ?"

Why ?

Because that is the most effective information to use in quickly narrowing the suspect population.

If the description is a 6'3" 250 pound white male with blond hair, it makes no sense to stop and question every 4'11" 90 pound gray haired grandmother.

It makes no sense, and it significantly reduces the effectiveness of law enforcement because it unnecessarily dilutes the available effort to find the real criminals.

Police officers have used the physical descriptions of criminals as an investigative tool since the time of Aristotle.

Because it works.

And they have used the historical extrapolation of crime data similarly, for the same reason.

If you have a neighborhood where there are an abundance of strong arm attacks, the historical preponderence of those crimes committed by green pygmies, and the neighborhood is populated primarily by green pygmies, it makes no logical sense to look for red giants in a neighborhood two states away.

And yet, when it comes to the most important crimes in modern history, our law enforcement personnel are hobbled by political correctness.

They can't use proven, historically helpful and efficient methods like physical descriptions because a few groups have claimed offense and labeled that process "profiling".

On September 11, 2001, nineteen Muslim extremists belonging to Al Queda perpetrated a violent act of terrorism against the United States and its citizens.

Because of that, every person flying commercially now must have their person and their property restricted and inspected.

Without regard to whether or not they fit the "profile" of persons who have previously committed the crime.

On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid, another Muslim extremist, tried to blow an airliner out of the sky using a shoe bomb.

Because of that, every person flying commercially must now remove their shoes for inspection, without regard to whether or not they fit the "profile" of persons who have previously committed the crime.

I used to joke that the security lines would be more interesting if Reid had been a woman and had tried to use a bra bomb.

But then, on Christmas day last year,  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, another Muslim extremist tried to use a bomb hidden in his underwear to take another airliner down.

Seeing a trend here ?

See any grandmothers, or children, or blond haired blue eyed Scandinavians ?

Now, to a degree, I don't have any problem with every passenger being subjected to some kind of security screening.

Just as I don't have a problem with licensed weapons not being allowed in schools or such.

Reasonable precautions.

But, I would hope that when all indications are that the terrorists we have experienced so far have been primarily made up of Muslim extremists, those people would be subject to some additional, more intensive screening.

But, with its typical alacrity, the TSA responded with another idiotic procedure.

Bob Thomas, a 53-year-old officer in Camden New Jersey's emergency crime suppression team, was flying to Orlando in March with his wife, Leona, and their son, Ryan.

A cop, taking his wife and son to DisneyWorld.

Ryan, who is all of four years old, has ankles that are malformed and his legs have low muscle tone, requiring him to wear leg braces..

In March he was just starting to walk after four years of trying.

Mid-morning on March 19, his parents wheeled his stroller to the TSA security point, a couple of hours before their Southwest Airlines flight was to depart.

The boy's father broke down the stroller and put it on the conveyor belt as his wife walked Ryan through the metal detector.

No surprise, the alarm went off, triggered by the boy's plastic and metal leg braces.

The TSA screener demanded they take off the boy's braces.

The Thomases were dumbfounded.

"I told them he can't walk without them on his own," Bob Thomas said.

"He said, 'He'll need to take them off.' "

Ryan's mother offered to walk him through the detector after they removed the braces, but the TSA screener demanded the four year old walk on his own.

By then, Bob Thomas was furious.

 

He demanded to see a supervisor, who asked what was wrong.

"I told him, 'This is overkill. He's 4 years old. I don't think he's a terrorist.' "

The supervisor replied, "You know why we're doing this, and you know anyone could be a terrorist." Thomas said.

Unless four year old Ryan can somehow magically transform himself into a 20-35 year old Muslim extremist, that's crap.

And if that's the type of evaluation and judgement being used to determine who should be carefully watched and who the real terrorist are, well, I ain't feelin' real secure with the TSA keeping us safe in the skies.

In early 2009,  the TSA announced:

"As part of TSA's continued efforts to transition the workforce to a cadre of well-trained, professional transportation security officers, uniforms and gold badges more reflective of the critical nature of their work and of the high standards they must uphold have been introduced. By the end of the year, all 43,000 screeners should have the new uniforms and badges, which cost a total of $12 million."

Instead of spending $12 mil on pseudo cop uniforms, a more straightforward way might be to screen TSA employees better and train them more.

Screen them for some basic common sense, and train them in using reasonable judgement when dealing with people who don't fit the criminals profile.

Because it ain't profiling if you fit the description.

"Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error." ---- Marcus Tullius Cicero

"I'm all in favor of the democratic principle that one idiot is as good as one genius, but I draw the line when someone takes the next step and concludes that two idiots are better than one genius. " ---- Leo Szilard

The Dangers of "Bi - Partisanship"

“The hard truth is that what may be acceptable in elite culture may not be acceptable in mass culture..." ---- Susan Sontag

“Politicians fascinate because they constitute such a paradox; they are an elite that accomplishes mediocrity for the public good.” ---- George F. Will

Even the Opposition Has Principles

Strange things happenin' these days, 'specially pertainin' to the folks in our Congress.

Bunch of Congressmen who have been in office for a while, who have been in seats considered safe in the upcoming midterm elections, are bailing out.

Folks who have an extensive history of families in government service, who are the sons and grandsons of Senators and Representatives are giving up the family tradition.

Heck, even a Kennedy has decided not to run for re-election.

Papa Joe must be spinning in his grave.

Now, certainly there are Republicans as well as Democrats who are choosing not to stand for re-election, but it's a fairly common occurence for those in the minority party to find it a good time to retire or pursue other opportunities.

In the Senate, there are six Republicans and five Democrats (so far) who will not be returning.

In the House, it's eighteen Republicans and fourteen Democrats so far.

Historically, non-returning members of the minority party have outnumbered non-returning majority members by about two to one in midterm elections.

So, a good deal more Democrats than usual are finding it an appropriate time to move on.

But it's more than just numbers.

It who those people are.

Christopher Dodd comes from a family with a four generation history of political office.

He's moving on to pursue other opportunities.

Byron Dorgan has been in politics since he was 26 years old, and now, at sixty, has served five terms in the House and three terms in the Senate.

Dorgan has decided to spend more time with his family.

Patrick Kennedy has chosen not to run again, a significant statement in itself.

And then there's Evan Bayh, who in a blockbuster announcement this week, told the world he was fed up and wouldn't run again.

He was so fed up, in fact, that he didn't bother to tell his Senate boss, whiney Harry, he was leaving, and stuck the Democrats with only four days to find another candidate for the Indiana primaries.

Bayh, too, has a family history of public service and politics running for generations.

Now, I don't begrudge anyone in public service their retirement opportunity.

In fact, I'd generally prefer more of them would exercise it sooner.

But when you have people of this history --- people with this much power within the Democratic party and the Congress --- people who have traditionally won their seats comfortably --- suddenly decide to hang it up, one has to wonder why.

These are not people who have a history of making political decisions poorly.

They are savvy, astute, calculating, and benefit from some of the most analytic polling information available.

They are members of powerful Congressional committees, with large campaign war chests and the connections to garner more funding when needed.

So, what's really motivating all these people to make unusual decisions?

Is it that newcomers like Al Franken have disrupted the gentile dignity of the Congress?

Or that the hostility shown incumbents during this summer's town halls was just too deflating?

Or is it that the current state of the country is going to take some serious compromising to fix the economy, create jobs, and reduce the deficit --- compromises on policies and program cuts that aren't all that Democrat-like?

I believe it's something more ominous.

Something that has impacted these long serving politicians to the core of their political beliefs.

There's an interesting dynamic surrounding families with a long tradition of public service and political office.

Their core beliefs are well founded, well established, and are deeply ingrained in younger generations by preceding ones.

It becomes a mantra, a touchstone, a foundation of all that they do.

And because of those deeply seated convictions, they develop an integrity based on upholding those beliefs.

When the O-man, Privileged Pelosi, and whiney Harry complain that the Republicans are being obstructionist --- are preventing them from enacting the O-man's agenda --- they are diverting attention from the real dirty little secret of this presidency.

You see, the Republicans couldn't obstruct anything right up until  a guy named Scott turned Massachusetts from a blue state to a Brown one.

They simply didn't have the votes.

For over a year, the Dems could have passed anything they wanted, without regard to any Republican.

They controlled the Presidency and the Congress.

No Republican could have stopped anything they wanted to do.

If.

If the Dems could have held their votes together, and could have kept their members voting as a bloc.

But they couldn't do it.

Neither Privileged Pelosi nor whiney Harry could marshal a consistent bloc of dependable votes when required to move the O-man;s agenda.

And as their bloc turned to fragments, the unholy trinity of O-man, Privileged, and whiney thought the way to get them back in line was to lift the tent a bit and show them what the big picture agenda really was.

To show them just how far left they intended to take this country.

To reveal just how "fundamentally changed" this America would be once they moved it from Camelot to socialism.

To demonstrate that they were going to do these things whether the voters wanted them to or not, whether the Congress approved or not, by hook or by crook or by Executive Order and Agency Mandate.

And that scared the bejesus out of the mainstream Dems, who by history and nature are rather more centrist.

Liberal, but more centrist just the same.

The more they saw of the O-man's agenda, the more it conflicted with their historical values and principles.

And they didn't want anything to do with it.

See, they had been raised to believe that liberal principles would improve America, not destroy it.

And when they saw those same principles being prostituted for the unholy trinity's own goals versus those of the populace, they bailed from the bloc.

When they saw their party leaders openly defy the will of the people on things like healthcare, cap and trade, and the stimulus bill, they became seriously conflicted.

And now they're bailing completely.

Of course the unholy trinity can't understand how this could be happening.

Because they don't have even a passing familiarity with integrity or principles.

“Integrity is not a conditional word. It doesn't blow in the wind or change with the weather." ---- John D. MacDonald

“One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised.” ---- Chinua Achebe

Halfway Committed

Much has been made of late of the decision by the O-man's administration to try the u-trou bomber in the civilian, rather than military legal system.

Without going into my feelings about the O-man's national security agenda (if you don't know how I feel about it, go back and read a few of my previous postings), this decision begs analysis from a totally different perspective.

Civilian court systems play by a very different set of rules than do military courts.

Procedures, evidence rules, plea definitions, and most other attributes of the civilian court system, are very, very different when applied in a military context.

Most civilians are at least passingly familiar with the rules and processes of civilian courts, if only from the various court TV programs shown on cable for the past few years.

And, the most basic premise of the civilian court system is "innocent until proven guilty".

Military courts typically have the same basic premise, but require a different standard of behavior and proof.

So, the administration has started a public relations campaign that emphasises the durability and viability of our civilian court system as an example to the world.

They're highlighting the fact that even the u-trou bomber (I refuse to call him alleged since there were three hundred or so innocent people who saw him give himself third degree groin burns on an aircraft) will be "innocent until proven guilty".

Ironically, even in this case, I agree with the principle, if not the choice of venue.

If you're going to try him in a civilian court, then he should get civilian rules.

All of them.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental cornerstone of the American way of life, constitutionally guaranteed to all.

It is this guarantee that causes so much caution to prevent asserting guilt in normal situations.

That's why we're supposed to call people "suspects" instead of "criminals", "alleged" instead of "perpetrator", and "defendant" instead of "guilty party".

And, if we're going to try bomb-boy in a civilian court, then those rights, as well as others, accrue to him as well.

That's why the administration felt it proper to read him his Miranda rights before getting serious about questioning him, probably voiding the opportunity to gain valuable intelligence.

Same rules for everybody playing the same game.

But I have to question just how committed the O-man and his administration is to this concept, especially when it comes to the Christmas bomber.

Because while everybody is supposed to be presumed "innocent until proven guilty", the O-man and his adminitration czars are going out of their way to prejudice any jury that might be impanelled.

Just this past weekend, Babbling Joe Biden, the O-man's VP, was on one of the Sunday talking heads shows.

Biden reiterated the administration’s claim that Mohammed’s trial would result in a guilty verdict.

”That decision as to where and when…is being considered right now,” Biden said, adding: “he will not be acquited, he will be found guilty, he will be in jail, and he will stay there.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, representing the official administration position,  has also commented.

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker," Gibbs told CNN's "State of the Union."

"He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans."

"That you can be sure of."

"We wouldn't go to trial and indict him if we didn't feel like we had a case that would lead to a conviction."

"And I don't have any problem saying that I think that conviction would lead to the death sentence.""

And, of course, the O-man couldn't resist weighing in, either.

"I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him," Obama said in an interview with NBC News.

With a series of assurances like that, some legal experts say they worry a jury would be prejudiced due to the overflow of information regarding the trials, including the right to be "innocent until proven guilty".

So, once again, it appears that the O-man and his administration feel they have the right to pick and choose what laws and what parts of the Constitution they think apply to them.

And, what parts they will allow to apply to the rest of us.

And not applying those laws and Constitutional rights to all in a uniform and fair way is the road to tyranny.


“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” ---- Plato

"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men." ---- Samuel Adams

"The whole point, according to the administration, to trying him in federal court, was to insure that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had the constitutional protections that American citizens would get, including the presumption of innocence."

"And by coming out and publicly saying things like he will be convicted, he will be executed, it really goes against what the administration has said is the very purpose for trying him in federal court in the first place," says Thomas Dupree, a former Department of Justice official.

Pushing a Rope

Congratulations!

You've just lived a very special day.

Now you've probably lived some special days before.... birthdays, weddings, births and the like.

You've probably seen decades come and centuries go.

But today.... today was different.

Today, something happened that has never happened before in recorded history.

Never.

Not once, since man began to keep records.

Today, there was measurable snow on the ground somewhere in every one of the fifty United States (fifty seven if you're the O-man).

Whether you're in Alaska or Alabama, North Dakota or North Carolina, New Hampshire or New Mexico, you're not far from snow in your state.

And, it's never been that way before in a recorded history that goes back at least four centuries.

Now, you have to understand that there are people that just can't leave this alone.

They're not content to simply marvel at what it is, and must make it a life lesson for the rest of us about how they prefer we live our lives.

They just can't help themselves, and have to explain this phenomenon as part of dreaded "global warming".

Folks, I'm a marketing guy.

I've spent my professional career developing messages that help bring people around to a certain way of thinking, ways of thinking they might not have wanted to adopt without some outside persuasion.

And I have to tell you, timing matters.

You don't try to sell Christmas decorations on July fourth.

You don't try to sell air conditioners in Minnesota in February.

And, you just don't try to sell global warming in the midst of the worst blizzard most parts of the east coast have ever seeen.

Or when for the first time in recorded history there is snow in every state.

In fact, were it me, I wouldn't try to sell global warming at all.

(We can debate whether the concept is valid or not, but this isn't about the concept, it's about the message.)

Because you have no control over the messenger,

You can have facts, figures, celebrities, and politicians (regardless of their validity) all singing the same hymm on global warming, but the message will be ridiculed when they have to cancel their subcommittee meetings on global warming because of  snow days.

That happened on Monday and Tuesday of this week in Washington.

See, Mother Nature has been at her job for a whole bunch of eons, and doesn't much react to the whims and wishes of a few mere mortals, regardless of how much they believe their positions.

Mother Nature rather deals in terms of weather cycles, periodic warming and cooling of the planet based more on time passage than human activity.

Whether that human activity is trying to promote global warming or enlarge its carbon footprint.

So trying to promote an intangible concept like global warming, that depends on people being able to feel like it's warming, is a loser whenever Mother Nature decides winter is here.

Instead, the concept of "climate change" is more viable, as at least the daily message about that can be tailored to match what the weather channel is showing.

"Climate change" can be a catch all basket for  a whole variety of things, and therefore is a much better focal point for a message than "global warming".

But if you're going to try to make that message work, why not address some much more basic issues?

People don't care about the concept of methane from cows causing global warming, or even climate change.

So, let's take it to a level that they can relate to, and have even experienced themselves.

In 1900, the population of the world was about 1.65 billion.

Today, it's about 6.85 billion.

That's about a 450% increase, or a difference of about 5.2 billion people.

Each of those 5.2 billion has a body temperature of around 98.6 degrees, or for round numbers, 100 degrees.

5.2 billion times 100 degrees is 520 billion degrees of body heat added to the planet in the last 110 years.

Ever been in a meeting where the room got warmer and stuffier as the speaker droned on?

That's the effect of all that body heat being confined within the conference room.

Now, if we've added 520 billion degrees just in body heat to the planet, it would seem that maybe, just maybe, the temperatures here on this little blue marble would have gone up significantly, and stayed that way.

Especially if you add in all that evil ozone layer depletion, increased carbon footprints, and petroleum consumption.

But they haven't.

Research has shown that the temperature variations being experienced are well within the average temperature swings recorded over history as normal climate cycles.

At least the "real", "uncontaminated" research done by real scientists instead of agenda driven bloggers and pseudo-scientists seeking government funding shows that.

Now whether you buy my "increased body heat" theory, or their "carbon footprint / petrochemical consumption" theory, one thing works for both.

Reducing the number of people on the planet would reduce their impact on temperature, either by reducing body heat or by reducing carbon footprint.

So, instead of pushing solutions to the symptoms, the "global warming" people should be attacking the cause and promoting population decreases.

They can start with themselves.

And that will solve two problems.

It will help decrease whatever "global warming" there is, and it will reduce the number of "global warming" people the rest of us have to listen to.

Or, they can keep trying to sell the idea of global warming to people who haven't been able to dig their cars out of snowbanks for a week.

To me, that's a lot like pushing a rope.

"Anything beyond the limits and grasp of the human mind is either illusion or futility." ---- Marquis de Sade

“It occurred to me that my speech or my silence, indeed any action of mine, would be a mere futility.” ---- Joseph Conrad

Today in 1937

A sit-down strike against General Motors ended with the company agreeing to recognize the United Automobile Workers Union.

Today, in 2010,  50% of Chrysler and 30% of General Motors belongs to the United Auto Workers Union.

The U.A.W. has derived its leverage in part from the support of a Democratic president and Congress.

But it also results from a long-term strategy to build support in Washington that stretches back more than 60 years.

“We have to fight both in the economic and political fields, because what you win on the picket lines, they take away in Washington if you don’t fight on that front,” Walter P. Reuther, the union’s best known president, said in 1947.

Mr. Reuther and every succeeding U.A.W. president invested significant amounts of time and money to pursue that goal.

In the last 20 years, the U.A.W. has donated more than $25.4 million to federal candidates, 99 percent of it to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org, a site that tracks campaign contributions.

The union ranks No. 16 on the group’s list of top 100 political donors, known as “heavy hitters.”

The U.A.W. was well ahead of G.M., which gave $10 million in that period, ranking it 73rd.

Chrysler and Ford Motor did not make the list.

The United Auto Workers is many things to many people.

To some, it's the reason why all of our manufacturing hasn't been shipped over to China.

To others, UAW added costs are the reason why American cars can't compete with imports.

Whatever your opinion, the facts are that the UAW is not nearly as strong as it once was.

Back in 1979 the UAW claimed 1.5 million members on its rosters.

In 2008 that number shrank to just 431,000 members.

Because of that, the UAW is beginning an aggressive push not only to recruit more members, but to become more visible in the media in the hopes of improving its image with the public.

And now there's this this: The UAW and the Teamsters are rallying outside the Japanese Embassy in Washington D.C. and accuse the world's largest automaker, Toyota, of being, "a danger to America."

Roughly 100 supporters gathered as UAW Vice President Bob King and Teamsters President James Hoffa delivered a letter for Japan Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama calling for a meeting with Japanese officials and Toyota.

This might sound crazy to some, but it's more typical than it might seem at first glance.

The UAW/Teamsters alliance is not protesting Toyota because of the manufacturer's gas pedal or brake woes.

The two unions are rallying because Toyota is shutting down the New United Motors Manufacturing (NUMMI) assembly plant in Fremont, CA.

NUMMI began in 1984 as a joint venture between Toyota and General Motors.

The plant makes the Toyota Tacoma pickup,Toyota Corolla sedan and the now defunct Pontiac Vibe.

Here's what the UAW/Teamsters are saying:

"The NUMMI closure will mean a loss of 5,400 direct jobs and up to 50,000 jobs at suppliers and other supporting businesses.

This would be the biggest factory layoff in California since the beginning of the recession.

Toyota is also endangering 5,000 middle-class jobs in the car haul industry."

While the planned protest ostensibly has nothing to do with Gas Pedal / Brake Issues, the timing really is suspicious.

Sort of a kick 'em while they're down situation.

After all, they have  known about NUMMI's fate for many months.

The Japanese automaker announced last year it was closing the plant in Fremont, Calif., after General Motors pulled out of the joint venture under its bankruptcy.

So why now?

Because the plant is the only Toyota plant organized by the UAW, and has about 4,700 workers.

King and other union officials linked Toyota's recalls to the management decisions made to close down the California plant, saying both were examples of how Toyota had strayed from its principles.

"It's a Toyota decision. It's Toyota engineering that's creating havoc with consumers in America," King said.

But that's not really the issue.

The real issue is that Toyota is closing a UAW plant in Fremont, California, a union friendly state, to build a new plant in union unfriendly Mississippi.

The UAW plans additional protests Friday during the Washington auto show about the California plant closure, saying it will cost the state where Toyota has been most successful 50,000 jobs.

50,000 Union Jobs.

“The NUMMI venture has been a success story from day one,” said UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles, who directs the union’s Transnationals Department, "there’s no reason to close it and move production to nonunion facilities."

But there's a bigger question on the minds of the UAW workers at the plant.

Anger among workers at the plant toward their United Auto Workers leadership exploded at a January 24 meeting discussing the imminent closure of the facility.

UAW Bargaining Chairman Javier Contreras was booed, jeered, and interrupted as he attempted to present details of their severance package.

At one point an outraged older worker demanded to know “where the hell” the union official had been for the last six months.

Contreras burst out, “Shut the f— up, you motherf——!”

At that point, furious workers rushed to the front of the room.

Contreras and other local UAW personnel were defended by  union officials.

Local union leaders pleaded for calm and called in the police in a bid to control the workers.

The episode reveals that the UAW, on the one hand, and rank-and-file auto workers, on the other, make up two mutually hostile camps.

The workers bristle with mistrust and contempt for the union; the UAW officials are defensive and thuglike.

The episode exposes the UAW’s role in executing the layoff and wage cut dictates of business—as well as their unmistakable contempt for the workers they nominally represent.

The UAW, which played a critical role in the bankruptcy process for GM and Chrysler by imposing plant closures and wage and benefit cuts while stifling worker opposition, has fallen back on its usual stock-in-trade of "what's best for the union is best for the workers".

And that's a situation that won't get better soon.

Remember when I said that 50% of Chrysler and 30% of General Motors belongs to the United Auto Workers Union?

Well, with that ownership comes seats on the Boards of Directors of each company.

The very boards the UAW typically negotiates with come contract time.

Perhaps you can see the huge conflict of interest here, as UAW members representing workers now must negotiate with UAW members representing the company.

The workers get it, and several vehemently denounced the UAW.

“If Toyota owes us doesn’t that mean General Motors owes us too?” one asked. “And does the fact that [UAW President Ron] Gettelfinger sold us out for 17.5 percent of General Motors stock have anything to do with violating our charter and the severe conflict of interest? How can you trust your representatives? They’ve got to look at both ledgers. They’ve got to make sure those 17.5 percent of shares grow—and at whose expense?”

Of course, what would really help the workers would be for the UAW to voluntarily renegotiate their contracts.

If the UAW offered to fundamentally and significantly alter its labor agreements, it could save thousands of jobs - even if everyone has to take a pay cut today.

It's now been announced that UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, a man as out of touch with today's economic realities as Napoleon, is to retire in 2010.

For his members survival, that day can't come soon enough.

"Ten thousand times has the labor movement stumbled and bruised itself." ---- Eugene V. Debs

“Every worker who doesn't join a union is another worker who doesn't pay $500 a year to organized labor's political machine.” ---- Grover Norquist

It's not About Health, It's About Money

Nice headline, Huh?

One that y'all are probably looking at and goin' "No shit, Sherlock".

And you'd be right.

If I was talking about the healthcare reform.

Which I'm not.

I'm talking about the newest extortion plan from the O-man's administration.

One that deals with that dreaded evil, tobacco.

Let's be clear here: I don't smoke.

Never have.

But the last I checked, tobacco was a legal product.

Heavily regulated, heavily taxed, but still legal.

And, billboarded with all of the possible lethal effects it can cause.

In fact, tobacco is the only legal product, that if used as directed, will kill you.

But that's not my point today.

The government continues to talk tough about the evils of tobacco.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says cigarette smoking results in an estimated 443,000 premature deaths each year, and costs the economy $193 billion in health care expenses and lost time from work.

Damn, we can't have that!

What total, unmitigated, crap.

If the government were truly concerned about people's health, they'd outlaw the product completely.

Like they've done in the past with alcohol.

Or more recently, with three wheeled ATV's.

Or, with a bunch of pharmaceuticals that didn't quite turn out as the FDA expected.

But they won't.

You see, smokers vote.

And tobacco generates revenue.

So, they won't outlaw tobacco, but they tax it.

Heavily.

They couch their taxation schemes in the cloak of public health.... in the idea that they're trying to curb smoking for your own good.

Because, you see, tobacco is addictive.

Especially to the government.

"I can make a firm pledge . . . no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase."

Remember that?

It was Barack Obama, campaigning to become president last Sept. 12 in Dover, N.H.

Indeed, he promised repeatedly that 95% of American families would get a tax cut.

So it's especially fitting that he chose April Fools Day last year to implement his first tax increase -- which falls mostly on individuals and families who do not make anywhere near $250,000 per year.

Early in February, the president signed a law to triple the federal excise tax on cigarettes --  from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 .

His administration projects this tax hike will bring in at least $38 billion over the next five years.

You see, every one dollar tax on a pack of cigarettes raises about $9 billion a year for whoever implements the tax, federal or state governments.

That's right, $9 billion for every $1 per pack.

Per year.

Even worse was what they did to the tax on cigars when the O-man took office: cigar and bulk tobacco taxes were capped at 4.9 cents per cigar until the O-man raised the cap on them to 40.26 cents per cigar earlier this year.

Congress passed legislation in 2007 raising the tax to fund the State Children's Health Insurance Program, but former president George W. Bush vetoed it, saying it would not have the desired effect of improving the healthcare of smokers.

In February, President Obama, who has struggled to quit smoking, signed a new version.

That major "tax increase on cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and cigars will fund a $32.8 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, providing coverage to an additional 4 million children" said the O-man at the bill's signing.

That children's healthcare program is SCHIP, the first stage of the O-man's vaunted government healthcare program.

But wait.

The O-man has long been a big proponent of helping the little guy and taxing the rich.

His whole candidacy and election was based on helping the poor and sticking it to the rich.

Ooops.

Not only are the payers of cigarette taxes poorer as a group than the payers of other taxes, but there are fewer of them.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only one in five Americans smokes, so the excise targets a minority -- and over half of all smokers are low income, and one of four are officially classified as poor.

The burden on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households from a cigarette tax is 37 times heavier than if the government raised the money with the federal income tax.

So by raising the tobacco tax, he zapped not only the poor, but the elderly, two groups he claims to champion.

And did nothing to improve their health or their healthcare.

Instead, he took the taxes they will now pay and redirected them to children's health.

Funding a pet program on the backs of a small, poor, elderly, and politically unpopular segment of the population: smokers.

Now the administration is considering raising cigarette taxes yet again, perhaps by as much as another dollar per pack, to fund increased government spending.

Just because the government needs revenue to fund some general spending program that has broad benefits doesn't mean that an arbitrarily selected group of people should pay the tax.

Popular, expensive, broadly available public programs should be paid for with broad-based taxes on income or consumption.

Nobel economist Gary Becker pegs the long-run price elasticity of demand for cigarettes at 0.8 -- i.e., a 10% increase in price causes an 8% decline in unit sales.

He projects that a $1 a pack cigarette tax would prompt 1.2 million adult smokers to quit.

The Obama tax hike translates into a 13.3% increase in the average pack price.

That implies a 10.6% decline in unit sales per year.

None of this is good for the economy.

Consumers are already having a tough time making ends meet.

Burdening them with a new $38 billion tax isn't going to help create jobs.

Estimates by the National Association of Tobacco Outlets of the job losses in cigarette manufacturing and distribution alone will exceed 100,000 for each one dollar per pack price increase.

But here's the real problem: as governments continue to build dependency on revenues generated from tobacco taxes, and as tobacco consumption continues to fall, a crash will follow just as certainly as a heroin addict who can't get his fix.

As much trouble as teh O-man has said he's had quitting tobacco, he'll have an even tougher time quitting tobacco revenues.

“The primary requisite for any new tax law is for it to exempt enough voters to win the next election.” ---- Will Rogers

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle” ---- Winston Churchill

“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.” ---- Jean Baptiste Colbert