Well Said

Further proof that truth is stranger than fiction.

President Obama today stated that liberals were "on the precipice" of passing universal health care. I don't know what image that phrase conjures up in your mind, but something certainly popped into mine. And I double-checked the definition of the word 'precipice' just to be sure I'm not the idiot here.

Mr. Obama, a 'precipice' is, by definition, a very steep cliff. Even more appropriate, in this case, might be definition #2 from Websters, which reads "a greatly hazardous situation, verging on disaster".
That's it. Those are the only two possible meanings of the word - neither of which refer in any way to the great rosy pivotal moment in our nation's history that the president tries to present.

If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.

Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

Setting A Precedent

I found this article from Politico quite humorous and entertaining. While the press still has a very long way to go (south) with Obama before it reaches the same level of disdain with which it treated President Bush, this seems like a small step in the right direction.
The author has done some research into some of the crazy claims that routinely come out of the White House and both corrects erroneous statements and puts them into perspective. More specifically, Obama's (over)use of the word 'unprecedented', is called out. Indeed, his use of the word 'unprecedented' truly is without precedent.
One of my favorite parts is about halfway through the piece when the deputy press secretary defends the claims and pretends to know the will of the American people on the issues of health care reform and energy reform. If support for these bad ideas were truly overwhelming as he insinuates, why aren't they done yet? I mean, Obama owns both the executive and legislative branches and still can't seem to peddle his poison successfully.
Obama talks about a transparent government. And while there are a great many secretive dealings going on within his administration, I do believe he is at least living up to this particular promise - we can all see right through him. He's not fooling any but the most naive among us.



If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.


Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

Something Stingks

I am republishing this short piece from the Associate Press in its entirety because I think my 'summary' would be longer than the original.

NEW YORK – Sting isn't a religious man, but he says President Obama might be a divine answer to the world's problems.

"In many ways, he's sent from God," he joked in an interview, "because the world's a mess."

But Sting is serious in his belief that Obama is the best leader to navigate the world's problems. In an interview on Wednesday, the former Police frontman said that he spent some time with Obama and "found him to be very genuine, very present, clearly super-smart, and exactly what we need in the world."

"I can't think of anyone better qualified because of his background, his education, particularly in regard to Islam," he said.

Still, Sting acknowledged the president had a "difficult job" ahead of him.

The British singer, who released the seasonal album "On A Winter's Night" this week, said he's fascinated by American politics, Obama, and also by Obama's opponents on the right.

"It's aggressive and violent and full of fear," he said of the backlash against Obama. "They don't want change, they want things to feel the same because they feel safe there."

Sting, 58, said he's hopeful that the world's problems can be dealt with, but is frustrated that "we seem to be living in a currency of medieval ideas."

"My hope is that we can start talking about real issues and not caring about whether God cares about your hemline or your color," he said. "We are here to evolve as one family, and we can't be separate anymore."

President Obama made time in his schedule to meet with Sting?

Do people really look to Sting for guidance on stuff like this?

How many other candidates did Sting vet before arriving at his conclusion that Obama is best qualified?

What is it, specifically, about Obama's "background [and] his education, particularly in regard to Islam" that makes him a more appropriate president than, say, Lee Iaccoca, or Snoopy?

And why does the media seem to think that any meaningful number of people even care what actors and musicians have to say about politics?

-----

On a similar note, did anyone see that our old friend Sean Penn, "personal friend of U.S. President Barack Obama" was in Venezuela meeting with Hugo Chavez? Yeah, he went there directly from Cuba where he was doing some investigative journalism for an upcoming Vanity Fair article about "how the Obama administration has affected Cuba," and was to meet with Fidel Castro.

Were there not any actual qualified journalists that could have paid some bills by virtue of that job?

Isn't travel to Cuba highly restricted? Should Penn be barred from reentering the U.S.?

Is anyone else disturbed that within the first two sentences of the story, Sean Penn, communist dictator Hugo Chavez, communist dictator Fidel Castro, and current U.S. president Barack Obama have all been linked to one another?

Does Obama have one single associate that is not currently or has not previously been involved in shady or highly suspect behavior? Tax cheats; convicted terrorists; communist sympathizers. The list goes on and on and grows by the day.

If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.


Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

Not One Shred

Perhaps you've heard the metaphor of one bad strand having the power to destroy the beauty of an exquisite tapestry?

What happens when all of the strands are bad or ugly? Well, my friends, we are finding out right now. The latest element of the Obama tapestry to unravel is that iconic (and pretty cool-looking) stencil artsy piece by a guy name Shephard Fairey.


So what's all the fuss about? Well, turns out the photograph that Fairey used to design his piece did not belong to him. He did not have permission to use it. It is owned by a photographer who at the time was freelancing for the Associated Press. Apparently the AP and the photographer are not too keen on somebody else becoming rich and famous through illegal use of their image. Makes sense. That's ultimately why Jay and Silent Bob struck back, no?
Earlier this year one of Fairey's attorneys, Anthony Falzone, stated, "We believe fair use protects Shepard's right to do what he did here." Well, that was until the attorneys found out Fairey was putting them on about the source photograph. Today Fairey's legal team filed documents in federal court to withdraw from the case, stating that Fairey misled them. That's gotta be a bit embarrassing. If I've learned anything at all from television courtroom dramas, it is that, guilty or not, your attorney can't represent you if you don't tell them the truth.
To the AP I say, "You made your bed..." or maybe, "When you lie with dogs... ."To Mr. Fairey I say, "Way to go."
To the president I say, "You need to surround yourself with better people -generally speaking. I am not aware of one single shred of honor or integrity within your administration. Everyone has an angle, an ugly past, a dirty little secret, a criminal record, or likewise. When E.F. Hutton spoke, I listened. When you speak, I cringe and change the channel."To Mannie Garcia, the photo's copyright holder I say, "They're going to get all of us one way or another. If this is the worst of it for you then you got off easy."
-----
The title of the AP article today read: Obama poster artist admits error. Yet the second sentence in the story is a quote from Fairey which reads: "In an attempt to conceal my mistake I submitted false images and deleted other images."
I'm sorry AP, but if you think blatant deceit and lying are the same as admitting an "error", you guys have some fundamental issues that need to be addressed to protect your longevity as a player in the global news industry.
-----
Lest you think I only have this one example, I was in Target this evening and while browsing the $5.00 DVD rack I finally figured out why Obama's "yes we can" chant resonates so strongly with America's young voters that got him elected.


While I highly doubt that the Obama campaign has been secretly indoctrinating children for the past ten years - many of whom were of voting age last November - I certainly wouldn't put it past them to intentionally hijack that catch phrase and thereby the minds of millions of young people.
Bob the Builder's DVD "Yes We Can!" is available from Amazon for $9.98 and ships free with Super Saver Shipping. President Obama's documentary/horror, also titled "Yes We Can", is not optional. You will pay for it whether you want to or not.


If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.


Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

Spending Money to Save

My wife's grandfather admitted to me what I'd long suspected: It is not unusual for him to spend several hours and waste a ton of gas driving all over town in order to pay a slightly better price on some insignificant product. "Spends $20 to save $2" is the cliché the family uses.
Well, "Spends $829 billion to save $81 billion" could well be the working title of the latest health care proposal. If you understand and can explain why this makes sense, please comment on this post and explain it to me (politely), because I sincerely do not understand. I'll also admit that I'm largely ignorant (I don't have time to read the 1,500+ pages of legal mumbo-jumbo).
The principle "problem" that this legislation attempts to solve (aside from Obama being able to claim his first victory) is to provide health insurance-type coverage for the roughly 50 million Americans citizens 'inhabitants' of the United States that currently only receive medical care by way of government-funded programs for the uninsured.
This latest solution, over which congressional Ds are practically wetting themselves, will reduce that uninsured total by half; meaning this huge solution that has been dominating the headlines for the past few months does not even solve the original problem. Originally, they were talking about $1.3 trillion to cover everybody. Now the bill is $829 billion to cover only half as many people (people, you'll recall, that are already 'covered' through government-funded programs).
Question #1: If the health care legislation will "save" us money, why does it "cost" so much money? Is this like how I can buy a $30,000 solar array for my home that will "save" me 27% on my monthly power bill and take 40 years to pay for itself - which is 15 years beyond its useful life? Or is it more like how us taxpayers each pitched in $4,500 to everyone with a 19 mpg car so that they could buy a 22 mpg car, a process which sparked the robust economic recovery we're now enjoying and saved the planet from cooking itself all in one sweet maneuver?
Question #2: What about the remaining 25 million people still left without health coverage? Will there be an additional piece of legislation in our future costing an additional $829 billion? I imagine their medical expenses will continue to be covered under the current plan. I don't know how much the government is spending on the 50 million people now, but I can't believe it amounts to $829 million billion over 10 years.
Here are the numbers: $829 million billion works out to $33,160 for each additional person (half of the 50 million people) covered during the 10 years of the plan. A family of five effectively gets $166k to cover its medical expenses. Does that seem like a lot to anyone else? Aside from some catastrophic injury or illness, how could any family spend anywhere close to that amount on medical care in 10 years? Major medical insurance policies are relatively inexpensive - like $30-$50/mo with a low deductible.
In other words, it would be a lot less expensive in the end if grandpa would simply pay the extra $0.10 for the loaf of bread at his local market than it would be for him to spend an hour driving 40 miles to a bakery that sells bread for less.

What would I do? My plan: If they want to control escalating health care costs (which is a worthy cause), go ahead and do it. But do it through laws and regulation - two powers actually granted to Congress (read: they are not appointed to provide services such as health care, auto manufacturing, etc.). I want to buy health insurance like I buy auto insurance. I want to be able to select coverage amounts, deductibles, and choose services from a menu. Why should a 55 yr old single man have to buy a one-size-fits-all plan that includes, for example, maternity care? Why should someone that does not consume tobacco or alcohol have to pay for services to treat those particular vices?
The real solution, as I see it, once again comes down to jobs. Most reasonable people will pay for their own health insurance when they can reasonably afford to do so. But when your choice is between food/clothing/shelter or health insurance, it is not a tough decision to make. Basic necessities. Unfortunately, jobs are currently disappearing at a 1/2 million per month clip. I'm not saying that everything was fine before Obama - it wasn't. But it is much more difficult to develop quality higher-paying jobs right now because all of the focus HAS to be on stopping the bleeding and then recovering the jobs lost already. Any jobs. We can't afford to be picky.

If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.


Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

A Big Assumption

The headline that caught my eye this morning read, "GOP Rooting Against America". The author, one Glenn Thrush, does a decent job of presenting the facts of the story without injecting personal views. The premise is that a) Republicans called Democrats 'unpatriotic' when the Dems questioned the Bush administrations desire to defend America from what it viewed as threats (specifically: Iraq, intelligence, surveillance) and b) Democrats are now calling Republicans 'unpatriotic' for criticizing the Obama administration's extremely poor track record thus far on the economy (ineffective stimulus packages, continually rising unemployment) and the IOC's "snub" of Chicago as an Olympic host city despite Obama lending his star power to the sales pitch personally.
I suppose one could attempt to make that argument - if recklessly borrowing trillions of dollars to fund fruitless, ineffective ideological programs, systematically dismantling the world's greatest military, subsidizing ill advised home and auto purchases, perpetuating the entirely unproven fear of global warming solely for the purpose of consolidating power, refusing to wear an American flag lapel pin, and failing to salute the American flag during the National Anthem - if those activities are in fact patriotic, then I suppose opposition to such would have to be considered unpatriotic.

It was also silly to presume the city of Chicago was somehow the de facto front runner in its bid for the 2016 Olympic games. A "snub", as I understand it, is when the obvious choice is not made - like how Pee Wee Herman was somehow overlooked for the 1986 Oscar. To suggest that Madrid, Tokyo or Rio were less deserving than Chicago is, I think, an insult to those great cities. Why do the Olympics have to be in the US every time? That's not un-American of me to say. If I've learned anything at all from the Opening Ceremonies it is that the Olympics are about one world; one people. In my modest lifespan the US has already hosted four Olympics - two Summer and two Winter (Lake Placid, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Salt Lake). These Rio de Janeiro games, which are still seven years away, will be the FIRST time ever that ANY country in South America has hosted. How can anyone be upset or bitter about that? I'm happy for Rio. Brasil is an up-and-coming world power.
As a potential Olympic viewer, what backdrop would you rather see? a tropical paradise in the exotic, legendary land of Samba that most people have only read about? or Chicago, the scenery of which can be seen daily on WGN - the local Chicago television station that for some reason broadcasts to the entire nation on basic cable.

If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.


Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

Gooooooooool - Brasil

Parabens pra meus amigos brasileiros! Parabens mesmo.
Rio de Janeiro won its bid for the 2016 Olympic games. This will be the first time the Olympics visit South America, believe it or not. The Brazilians will be outstanding hosts, of that you can be sure. I'm excited for all of the NBC vignettes that will bring the marvelous beauty that is Brazil into the world's living rooms. At a minimum, I hope to be able to buy Guaraná Antárctica at my local supermarket when all is said and done.
Let me know if you're interested in a translation of the music.


-----
Almost as gratifying is the humiliating beatdown received by President Obama and Omarosa. They flew into Denmark with all of the swagger and the cameras and the press to personally ensure the games would be awarded to Obama's "hometown" (I thought he said he was from Hawaii), Chicago, only to be eliminated in the very first round of voting. That means it wasn't even close!

To have the president of the United States and his wife personally appear, then this should happen in the first round is awful and totally undeserving.
I'm shocked. The whole thing doesn't make sense other than there has been a stupid bloc vote. 
- Kevan Gosper, Senior Australian IOC member

What's the problem? Obama has lambasted "American arrogance" and yet the assumption was that he need only show up in order to win the vote? That his presence would somehow matter to the IOC? Is that not arrogance? Erick Erickson of RedState.com put it this way, "So Obama's pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him."
On the other hand, any day that Obama spends doing something other than presidenting (TM) is a good great day for America. That's one less trillion dollar expense he was able to conjure. One less non-elected and unaccountable czar put into a position of extraordinary power. One less non-reciprocated concession that weakens our national security. One less naive, wasteful commitment to "fight global warming." 

-----
I find it hilarious and incredibly dishonorable how at every opportunity, Obama feels the need to take shots at President Bush. You've all heard it. Said one journalist, "Obama had held out the enticing prospect of a Chicago games helping to reconnect the United States with the world after the presidency of George W. Bush," - John Leicester, AP sports writer. 
Obama is like the insecure girlfriend: I'm prettier than her, right? I'm smarter than she is, right? I'm more fun to be with, right? You never loved her, did you? You're happier now, right?

Like it or not, George W. Bush was the president for eight years, which is at least four more years than you [this is directed at President Obama, whom I'm told follows this blog religiously] will "serve". That means Bush won two elections. Aside from the odd person that claims embarrassment at having voted for Bush, there are still many millions of Americans that would prefer Bush and all his warts to the legacy you are building (or destroying, depending upon your perspective). May your successor treat you with a bit more dignity than you have shown your predecessor.



If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.


Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

Revisiting Obama's Back-to-School Speech

UPDATED TO PROVIDE NEW LINK FOR FIRST VIDEO

There are many who said Obama's back-to-school speech was harmless; that the public outcry was entirely unjustified; that he just wanted to encourage kids to stay in school; that it was ridiculous to suggest he had anything but the most respectable intentions.

Although I don't really understand the final frame (it should have read something like: "I'm not a math teacher"), this strip from Hope n' Change illustrates my point: Once word leaked out that Obama was planning a speech to schoolchildren and a significant number of citizens understandably expressed concern, the White House had plenty of time and opportunity to revise the speech into something less inflammatory. I believe that is what they did.

Even the final speech contained a couple of statements I didn't particularly care for.

1. "...if you quit on school - you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country." What about "you're quitting on your family and the people you care about" instead? Obama keeps trying to make the case that joining AmeriCorps or helping on a Habitat for Humanity house or, now, staying in school, are as patriotic as laying one's life on the line in defense of our country and its liberties. I agree that charitable giving, public service and education are very worthy causes to undertake, but I fail to see how they are comparable in any way to military service.
2. "You'll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy." Is this Obama's economic recovery plan? Are we looking 15-25 years out to a time when these kids are done with school and college and starting to make a measurable impact in the economy? Aren't Obama's current policies forcing thousands of companies out of business right now? Forcing others to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers? Sending important industries overseas? This statement is the first I've heard from Obama that indicates he might actually understand how 'stimulus' works and how people, jobs, industry and GNP are interrelated. However, I would argue that even if he truly understands the concept, he does not, himself, believe it.  If he did, he would abandon such ideas as national health care, cap and trade (tax), government takeover of entire industries. He would realize that nearly every single act he has thus far performed as POTUS has been detrimental to America's sovereignty, economic strength and leadership, and the fortitude of its people. 

-----

If you still think there is not a movement out there to deify Obama, watch this short video. This is also appearing on The Drudge Report today, so I'm sure you'll be seeing it in several forums. 

[Weird. The video has been taken down. Long live YouTube - I found another version, with a great Soviet march at the beginning.]

I've heard of this type of thing before - in North Korea and Cuba.

And here is the guy our children are supposed to be worshipping...

Simply unbelievable!

If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.


Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

Now What?

The New York Times reports that the first group of extended unemployment recipients are due to exhaust their benefits in the next few months. Lo and behold, the same hurdles that existed previously still remain - no job, looming home foreclosure, destitution.

I'm not saying that the unemployed shouldn't receive financial assistance. I'm saying that the strategy of sweetening the incentive to NOT work was doomed from the start. The government has thrown billions of dollars at a symptom and failed to treat the cause. Mr. President, these people need jobs, plain and simple - not handouts. 

Government cannot create jobs directly as you are attempting to do. Reason being - its source of revenue comes from taxes on income, which is generated through employment. Every government worker's salary is paid from the taxes received from non-government workers.

For simplicity's sake, let's say that each worker, public or private sector, earns $50,000/year and is taxed at a 10% rate ($5,000/year for taxes). It takes taxes from 10 workers to pay the salary of one public worker. This is a 10-to-1 ratio in for our purposes. Current anti-business and big government policies are altering this ratio in an unsustainable manner. There are now fewer workers and more public employees. Is the ratio now 9-to-2 or 8-to-2? Everybody can't work for the government or there simply won't be any more money coming in to fund the operation. If you have to employ and tax 10 government workers in order to pay for one, that means you then have to employ and tax 100 workers to pay for the 10 whose taxes pay for the one, and so on. The math will simply never work in government's favor. Without private sector taxes to subsidize the public sector, it will always boil down to net tax revenues being equal to or less than the taxes paid by that "one" person, the last one in the chain. 

Grow the private sector and you will solve all of the financial problems of the nation.

If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.


Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

Cash for Clunkers Exposed

These are too poignant to not share. These are excerpts from real cash for clunker consumers - both those that bought new cars and a couple that did not. The full CNN.Money article is here.

Julie [from 15 mpg to 21 mpg]: I never could have afforded this without the rebate programs, nor would I have purchased a brand new car. And it's not lost on me that this program is funded by taxpayers. Does it make me part of the financial problem [D: Not really. If you didn't accept the money, someone else would have.]

Pete: I mourned a bit for the old cars that might have some useful life left. But we would've never been able to sell the Town Car [from 18 mpg to 27 mpg] for as much as the trade-in.

Sterling: Is my 1983 van [11 mpg; denied] a classic, Congress? Maybe they consider it too classy to be scrapped and think it should still be running up and down the highways.

Michael [19 mpg; denied]: It's unfair that a 3-year-old Hummer gets the trade-in while a 26-year-old car doesn't qualify. It's just frustrating. I volunteered for President Obama at the phone banks. I got my transparency, but I don't particularly like what I see.

John [from 15 mpg to 28 mpg]: I'd like to thank all the other people in the country who helped my daughter get a new car.

-----

And I'm sooooo tired of hearing the politicians tout the huge rise in new auto sales. They say Cash for Clunkers is 'priming the pump' for sustained sales when the program ends. Cash for Clunkers is expected to subsidize the purchase of approximately 750,000 new vehicles. I would argue that the vast majority of those sales would occur regardless of the program. Cash for Clunkers merely provides a strong incentive for consumers to move now during a very small purchasing window. Only now, those people aren't going to be in the market for a new car later on, placing additional downward sales pressure on future periods. 

Once you start on the hard drugs you have to maintain your high so that you don't feel the pain of the crash. We've been seeing this for awhile already. Cars used to simply cost what they cost. Then we started seeing some dealer incentives. Then we saw cash allowances direct from the manufacturer. Then we saw 0% financing for 60 months. Then we saw employee pricing. Then we saw lifetime warranties. Then we saw buy-back guarantees in the event of job loss. None of those 'hits' has proven to offer anything more than a brief 'high' to the industry. Now we've added a $4,500 involuntary subsidy from the taxpayers and I predict we'll see just another spike before falling to an even more depressing low. 

I'd love to be wrong.

-----

I think the real loser in this whole thing - other than us - is the entire infrastructure of the used car industry. The government has 'bricked' 750,000 used cars. How many repair shops will now go out of business? How many people that can't afford a new car would have liked to buy one of the quality used cars that was permanently disabled?

If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.


Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

Cash for Clunkers

Can anyone explain this Cash for Clunkers program to me?

Here is what I know:

• If you trade in a "gas guzzler" (18 mpg or less) vehicle on certain "fuel efficient" (better than 18 mpg) new models, the US government will give you between $3,500 and $4,500 in cash. $3,500 for new vehicles bettering your fuel economy by at least 4 mpg but less than 10, and $4,500 for better than 10.

Here is what I don't understand - why?

• The US government is funded by the taxes of US citizens; why should the money the IRS collects from me be given to my neighbor so that he can drive a new car?
  
• Dealers are required to "permanently disable" the trade-in; why? I'm sure it costs more money and more carbon and more energy and more resources to manufacture a new "fuel efficient" automobile than would otherwise be consumed by the "gas guzzler". Couldn't somebody trade in a 9 mpg vehicle for an 18 mpg "clunker" headed for the scrapyard and effectively double their fuel efficiency?
• One possible scenario: Consumer trades in a "gas guzzler" that gets 18 mpg and purchases a "fuel efficient" new car that gets 22 mpg. Assuming an average of $4.00/gallon for fuel, it would take more than 7 years for the fuel savings to pay back the $3,500. And that doesn't take into account the impact of producing the new car (from 2nd bullet). 
• If I trade in a "gas guzzler" and purchase a qualifying "fuel efficient" vehicle, and if this vehicle also happens to be a hybrid, can I then receive both the $4,500 PLUS the $8,000 hybrid rebate?
• I gave my red 1990 Jeep Cherokee to the nuns and got a lousy $500 tax write-off last year; where's MY money? C'mon, Barack. I got involved in my community just like you wanted. I gave of my personal resources to help a charitable organization in my local community to help support rescue missions and soup kitchens, just like you asked. Where's my reward? You're giving my neighbor $4,500 to help the environment, but I only got $500 under that chump Bush to help actual people. I was a fool.
• This will generate a phony auto industry recovery for a short time. President Obama and congress will point to the popularity of the program and the surge in auto sales. But they have not addressed the core problem: matching supply with demand. In other words, manufacturers are, in general, selling their cars for more than consumers are willing to pay. Consumers might choose to buy another make or model, buy used, or not buy at all (10% unemployment anyone?) for the time being. This $4,500 cash back is effectively lowering the pricetag of a new vehicle. That is why people are buying cars. Not because they want to help the environment. Those people bought a Prius a long time ago. If you're in the market for a new vehicle, you'd be silly not to take advantage of "free" money, right? If the government really wants to sell more cars, it should focus it efforts on lowering the cost of manufacturing cars, thereby allowing cars to be sold for less.

Does anyone else find it highly suspicious that the government took over two of the three major US auto companies using taxpayer dollars - companies that were failing because they weren't producing products that could sell well enough to sustain them - and now the government is again using still more tax dollars to persuade consumers into buying their cars? I do.

-----

I think lawmakers should have spent more time on the substance of the bill instead of the development of a clever acronym. The Cash for Clunkers program is officially known as the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act, or CARS Act.

-----

The White House is already touting its Cash for Clunkers program as being responsible for Ford's first monthly sales growth in nearly two years. It is probably correct in its assertion, but that is precisely my point: when vehicles cost $4,500 LESS, more will be sold. Duh! It has nothing to do with consumers wanting to rid the environment of their "gas guzzler". It's all about money. It's always about money. All else being equal, who wouldn't want to get 50 or 100 mpg? Unfortunately, all else is not equal. With few exceptions, hybrids and electrics are a lot more expensive to purchase than their dinosaur-powered brothers. They are also less powerful, smaller, less crash-safe, and cannot haul as much cargo. Plus they look funny. While individually us humans may be stupid, as a whole - as a free market - we tend to gravitate toward things that give us the most bang for our buck. But this Clunker of an idea is letting other people get the most bang from my buck - and that's not right. 

If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.


Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

Just Looking for a Fight

Tell me you haven't done this before:

You're locked out of YOUR house or car. As you poke around looking for some way to get inside, you thing to yourself, "I sure hope the neighbor doesn't see me and call the cops because they think I'm trying to break in," when in fact that is exactly what you're trying to do despite it being your car or house.

If by some chance the cops were called and wanted to question you, could you blame them? After all, you were engaging in some highly suspicious activity. If you're like me, you'd probably be a little embarrassed and a lot apologetic. What if you became belligerent with the policemen and started screaming at them? How would you expect the situation to unfold?

Now imagine for a moment that you somehow also qualify as a minority. Maybe you're not a white Caucasian male, or you are religious, or you have a speech impediment or something. And just for kicks, let's say that your buddy is the President (of America).

Well, as chance would have it, that is exactly what happened to a Harvard director and friend of President Obama, Mr. Henry Louis Gates Jr., at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Here are the facts:

• Mr. Gates and another person returned from a trip to find themselves locked out of Gates' home
  
• Mr. Gates and friend were wearing backpacks
• Mr. Gates and friend tried to force their way in through the front door
• A woman [neighbor?] called 911 to report a suspected break-in
• Police responded to the call and wanted to see Mr. Gates identification [duh!]
• Mr. Gates, according to police reports, refused and was outraged that the police would want to verify he was who he claimed to be
• Mr. Gates accused the police of racism
• Mr. Gates is black; at least one of the officers is white
• The arresting officer is an "expert" on, and teaches a class at the police academy about, racial profiling
• None other than President Obama, in a news conference, says that the police "acted stupidly"
• Mr. Gates claims that this incident is about "the vulnerability of black men in America" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that police officers were simply responding to a reported break-in or that he exacerbated the situation by flying off the handle
• The article cites another controversial incident at Harvard in which police confronted a black man was trying to remove a bike lock with something other than the key or combination - as though had the man been white, the cops may have allowed him to proceed unmolested
• The politicians involved - the POTUS, the governor, and the mayor - are embarrassed and critical of the incident

Maybe the cops had been tailing Mr. Gates for months waiting for him to do something that would justify an arrest? Should the police no longer take any action when there is a minority involved for fear of public officials' scorn? Despite the eventual outcome, I'd bet Reggie Lewis' family appreciates the arresting officer's supposed discrimination. Reggie Lewis was the Boston Celtics player that collapsed and died several years ago during a workout. This same 'racist' officer was the person trying to save Reggie Lewis' life by administering CPR.

Would our world be a better place if we all looked the same, were the same age and sex, had the same religion and salary? If we were all stormtroopers? Mr. Gates was arrested NOT for breaking into his own house or for being black, but because of the way he acted towards the police officers. 

Mr. Gates missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate an advanced level of understanding and tolerance and to teach an important life lesson to the students of Harvard. He instead chose to act in defiance of the law and in an immature manner; to attempt to incite anger and retaliation against the Cambridge police department. Is Mr. Gates above the law? He seems to think so. Does his position as a "renowned black scholar" from Harvard mean he is judged by a different set of rules than the rest of us? Does he fancy himself a new public figure of some new movement? The next X? Some kind of martyr? His comments seem to indicate as much - "This is not about me."

Race will continue to be an issue in this country until we stop making it an issue in the press.

And for Heaven's sake, Mr. President - if you want us to let Congress do their job and let you do your job and all of the various spending bills do their jobs - could you also let local law enforcement do its job, too?

Now, like that scene from Popeye, everybody is calling for everyone else to apologize. Personally, I don't think the police were in the wrong in any way. They don't need to apologize or submit themselves to the media barrage. As for Mr. Gates, Mr. Obama, the governor and the mayor - who cares if they apologize or not? They've already embarrassed themselves enough through their unfortunate remarks that no apology would serve to humiliate them further.

Let us not get distracted by this non-story from the real injustices currently being promulgated by our government.

-----

It seems to me that a lot of people are piling on top of law enforcement in recent years. Why? They're just trying to keep the peace and protect the people.

If something is important enough to warrant a call to 911, do we not expect a response? Do we want the firefighters to say, "Oh, that smoke is probably just somebody burning their hamburgers"? Do we want the cops to say, "They're probably filming a movie about a foul-mouthed drunk dude getting all up in people's grills. My shift is almost over anyway"? Do we want the paramedics to say, "That guy will probably start breathing again on his own"? These people are paid to respond, not to rationalize.

If you get pulled over, common sense tells us to just cooperate. Even if you're sure you didn't do anything wrong, remaining calm and polite is always the best way to handle the situation. If you start acting in a threatening manner, the police will respond appropriately, just as they should.

Mr. Gates reaction seems highly suspect given the circumstances, which tells me he is seeking the spotlight, trying to get people riled up, and exploiting his friendship with Obama. This was a routine police call that would have been over in a few minutes with a bit of cooperation. Surely Mr. Gates can appreciate that his suspicious behavior and verbal self-destruct prompted the police's presence and his subsequent arrest, and not his skin color.

If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.


Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.

From the Desk of Captain Obvious - Volume Four

• Despite lying to federal investigators working the Blagovich case about his role in the rampant Chicago political corruption, "Senator" Burris will not face perjury charges. I'm sorry, apparently I do not understand the definition of "perjury".
• In utter defiance of the lightweight UN Security Council and as the world pulls up a chair along the parade route, North Korea is exporting illegal arms to Myanmar. Way to stand your ground and let the commies know you mean business!
• Nostraduchezneous, I am! I blogged previously about bonuses being paid at TARP recipients' firms. In short, bonuses reward results. The government has turned 'bonus' into a four-letter word. At least one company, Citibank, has taken the obvious path: cut bonuses but raise salaries. Chalk it up as yet another well-intentioned idea from our government that has exploded on the launch pad due to failure to consider consequences.
• Speaking of unintended consequences - certain aspects of environmentalism are proving themselves to cause more damage to the environment than they prevent. Remember ethanol? - the corn-based wonderful wonderfuel that drove up global food prices, causes excessive engine wear and poor fuel efficiency?
• The race war has now gone intergalactic as critics claim two new Transformer robots are making fun of "jive". I'm sure this has everything to do with hurt feelings and is not at all related to the several hundred million dollars in revenue that DreamWorks SKG is expected to earn from the film. And here's a tip: if you don't want to risk being stereotyped for speaking jive, simply don't speak jive. It is not "the way" certain people talk. It is learned and embraced. There are plenty of public figures that buck the trend and prove these particular speech patterns are not a product of genetics. 
• President Obama wants the rich to carry more of the tax burden. If we scale everything down to 100 people paying $100 in total taxes, 1 person pays $28, 19 people pay another $42, 20 people contribute just $0.80 (total!), and the remaining 60 people pay the balance ($29.20). Aren't the wealthy doing enough already?
  

Credit Where Credit is Due

Not that he had any business making such a decision in the first place and I would question the legality of his standing, I have to applaud President Obama's claim that he will not seek to regulate executive pay in private sector business.

Instead, Obama will attempt to influence executive pay by encouraging the shareholders to pressure the board, which is just as it should be. This is one of the first indications of 'policy' that I've seen from Obamadom, which is a nice change from the dictatorial sewage we're accustomed to hearing.

Technorati Profile

Please, No More "Help"

[From season 11 of the Simpsons, episode "Last Tap Dance in Springfield"]

Vicki the famous tap dancer: [addresses her class] Okay, kids, tonight's the big night! Now remember: the important thing is to just dance flawlessly.

Lisa: Excuse me, why isn't my name in the program?

Vicki: It is, silly. You've got the most important part of all. [flips through the pamphlet]

Lisa: Curtain puller?!

Vicki: No one can see the show if the curtain isn't open.

Lisa: Bu-- My parents are counting on seeing me dance! And I've worked ever so hard.

Vicki: I'm sorry, Lisa, but giving everyone an equal part when they're clearly not equal is called what, again, class?

Class: Communism!

Vicki: That's right. And I didn't tap all those Morse code messages to the Allies 'til my shoes filled with blood to just roll out the welcome mat for the Reds.

*****

Watch out folks, there's evidently more to come. With complete and utter disregard for his legacy and "despite all the evidence to the contrary" of 'saving' an estimated 150,000 jobs amid the 1.6 million lost since the economy was stimulated in February, President Obama assures us that he will not yet rest on his laurels and promises to do even more.

*****

As repugnant as it is hearing about his favorite places to eat or who he picks to win sporting championships or whichever fashion trend his wife is setting this week, I think I'd rather the President sit in his royal court all day and waste our time in that manner as opposed to any further attempts at governing - for which he is clearly not well suited.

All the King's Horses

This is what I was saying about how lots of people get hurt by TARP junk. In fact, I'm not sure that any of these "bailouts" have really helped anyone.

In a simplified case-in-point:

• The government gives or force-feeds funds to an industry or organization.
  
• The government then claims it can dictate how the recipients spend any and all monies (not just the bailout money). The taxpayers are irate at the recipients of the money, not at the government for its carefree spending.
  
• The recipients cancel plans for any spending that might cause negative PR. Sponsorships of golf tournaments, naming rights for buildings, business travel, capital investments (new equipment/buildings), etc.
• Lo and behold, those would-be suppliers/providers are now suffering and in need of bailout money themselves.

Vegas is suffering. Hawaii is suffering. Durable goods are suffering.

Guess what, Mr. Obama. Your intervention in the marketplace has been a complete failure. You wanted to put more money into the economy, but now everyone is afraid to spend money because you own them (see AIG's attempt to compensate its employees according to their contracts). Workers are being laid off as a result (companies/people not spending money = lower demand = layoffs). Those workers, now, instead of helping the economy produce, are now drawing unemployment ($$$) and (WOW) universal health care ($$$) sounds good to them. Tax collections from displaced workers are also reduced proportionally. Then, of course, you have the omnipresent gloom cloud hanging over the entire country as they realize that it will be mathematically impossible to ever repay any of this money. Mr. Obama, it would appear that your plan is to devalue the dollar so much that our debts become practically worthless to the debtors. Your budget is over $3 trillion for just one year! That's not your money, fool. 

Would it not have been better to have allowed AIG to simply file bankruptcy? We survived Global Crossing. We survived Enron. We survived Long-Term Capital Management and Tyco. And we would have weathered this storm as well. I mean, that's the entire point behind things like FDIC insurance, bankruptcy court and a competitive marketplace.

Here's hoping the next president can just call for a 'do-over' and erase the countless mistakes of Obamadom without any ill effects.

The Empress Has No Clothes

Could it be that there is a great big lie being told and everyone is in on it except Nancy Pelosi? 

First, she denied any knowledge that waterboarding had been discussed.

Then, she admitted to having been briefed about it.

Then, she said she was told waterboarding would not be used.

Then, she said she was told waterboarding had not yet been used.

Then, she said that she had only been privy to one meeting.

Now she has taken the position that the entire CIA is lying.

I can't imagine that will be a popular position to take (against the CIA) with the American people. We like the CIA, right? Don't we glorify the CIA on TV and movies and sometimes even pretend we're CIA ourselves when we talk to our friends? Mission: Impossible? Bourne? Alias? James Bond? (Yes, I know, but that's not the point). 24? Men In Black? We love us some spies.

Why not just fess up and admit she knew about it? She could even admit that she was opposed to the techniques because not-so-deep-down she wants the terrorists to conceal information that might assist in preventing further attacks on U.S. interests. The Dems wern't in a strong position to do much about it anyway, if it had come to a vote. Despite the fact that she was the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, she only attended one briefing on the matter. It wasn't for lack of opportunity. Ms. Pelosi was shirking her responsibilities. She sent her staff to subsequent meetings. She stated that she herself could not be bothered with this subject at the time because she was focused on taking control of the government. Could it be that, at this time, she is still most concerned about losing that control? Her back is against the wall. Who has the most at stake here? The CIA? What, are you going to disband the musketeers? The GOP? They can't lose much more than they already have. President Obama? To his credit, he didn't get involved in the politics. He accepted that waterboarding had been used and, according to his beliefs, choose to ban the controversial practice. 

I think Ms. Pelosi could learn A LOT from a children's song I remember from my childhood.

When you tell one lie, it leads to another.

Then you tell two lies to cover each other.

Then you tell three lies and, oh brother,

You're in trouble up to your ears.

So you tell four lies to try to protect you.

Then you tell five lies so folks won't suspect you.

Then you tell six lies and, you'll collect

A life filled with worries and fears.

'Cause you can't remember how many lies you've told

And half the things you say aren't true.

And sometime you'll slip up, you'll trip up, and then

Whatever will become of you?

So you lie and lie without even trying

And each lie you tell will keep multiplying

'Til the whole wide world will know you're lying

Then you'll be suspected,

Detected,

Rejected,

Neglected,

Disliked,

And you should.

When you lie, you're closing the door on everything good.

-Janeen Brady

If this song is a 12-step program, I believe Ms. Pelosi is at the "whole wide world will know you're lying" stage.

Every day she has a different story to tell - a different recollection. She apparently has no qualms about it, but if I were on her staff I think I would be putting my resume out. If I were her colleague, I would be distancing myself from her. If I were her family, I would be embarrassed. 

From the Desk of Captain Obvious - Volume Three

• Love it - "I'm sure we'll be waiting for some time before this fairy dust becomes real gold." Universal health care may require an increase in taxes. 
  
• Obama's budget is "little more than a thinly veiled attempt by Washington to spend its way into prosperity, tax its way into tax relief, and borrow its way into debt reduction."
• A relatively few number of people are ruining things for everyone else. Just nine people accounted for nearly 2,700 of the emergency room visits in the Austin area during the past six years at a cost of $3 million to taxpayers and others.
• If the French like us, we must be doing something right. Am I right or am I right? This is just one of many demoralizing speeches from the Great Apologetic, plus a glimpse into Obama's national defense strategy - diversion. Take the focus off of the U.S. by making America stand out less. "Europe is now rebuilt and a powerhouse. Japan is rebuilt, is a powerhouse. China, India - these are all countries on the move. And that's good."
• The old bait and switch. Newspapers are famous for this move by Obama - the sensational story gets the front page even if it's phony. The truth, or retraction, gets a column inch in the middle of the classifieds, if anything.
• Louis ends up taking the fall for the White House's terror act on New York City. Officially, he resigned, citing his inability to effectively lead in light of the current distractions. Mr. Caldera - I think you're better off without him.
• The teleprompter glass has apparently been treated with a reflective backing: "...the elevation of appearance over substance, celebrity over character, short-term gain over lasting achievement... ," said Obama at Arizona State University's commencement. Additionally he criticized politicians that are always "worrying about the next election rather than the national interest," as he notched yet another appearance in a battleground state on his ongoing campaign trail.
• Pelosi continues to backpedal about her implicit knowledge of and consent to "enhanced interrogation techniques." She didn't pay much attention to it at the time because she was busy working on taking over the government (6th paragraph from the end). Why not? I mean, it's not like your constituents actually expected you to do any work. What a fraud. If you're going to sell out the country, wouldn't you do it when the value is high instead of destroying everything first. Dems should be pushing to get her and others like her out of office. She does not represent their interests.

Obama's First 100 Days

I was thinking of putting something together to mark the amazingly unbelievable, never-before-achieved 100 days Obama has spent in office, in conjunction with the celebrations taking place throughout the American kingdom. However, in researching some facts, I found that it had already been done; very well done, in fact.

Check out Newsmax.com's slide show review of this historic event. It's informative and entertaining. Additionally, here is an equally valuable diary of key dates and decisions from the life and rule of everyone's favorite Obama.

No Good Deed

As a big 'thank you' to everyone charged with protecting America throughout these many years since 9/11, the Great Accommodator and People's Champion President Obama has put the world on notice - the United States of America will use every available means to prosecute you for anything you may have done during the reign of the prior administration. All in a completely nonpartisan manner, of course.

Said one extremely bright and non-juvenile senator, Patrick Leahy of Vermont: "An examination into these Bush-Cheney era national security policies must be nonpartisan. Unfortunately, Republicans have shown no interest in a nonpartisan review."

I'm not arguing. You're the one that's arguing.

Many believe that this position from the President weakens America and inhibits the effectiveness of interrogation strategies. 

In fact, one of Obama's own people, the top U.S. intelligence official, has acknowledged the importance and effectiveness of the now banned interrogation techniques. Of course, that's not the message being communicated to the public. 

If interrogating terrorists becomes outlawed, then only outlaws will help protect America by interrogating terrorists. That, or they'll choose another career path - one in which their boss won't feed them to the wolves.

-----

Speaking of terrorism - Did you hear about the White House's Air Force One photo op amid the skyscrapers of New York City? Aww, that'd make for some sweet pictures, right? I mean, Air Force One [technically it is only called 'Air Force One' if the president is aboard, which he wasn't] escorted through Manhattan by two fighter jets? Awesome! Should we each expect an autographed print of that photo, considering we all financed it?

Oh yeah - it also scared the bejeezus out of New Yorkers who thought the city was being attacked again. It's okay though - some guy name Louis accepted full responsibility. He who must not must not be laughed at is, of course, entirely blameless in the matter. The buck stops somewhere before it reaches him.