On Irony, Complex Systems, and Gaussian Copula

Coyote on the ineffectiveness of the computer modeling that the Global Warmunists rely upon in their never ending quest to run our lives:

Do you like irony? In the last couple of months, I have been discovering I like it less than I thought. But here is a bit of irony for you anyway. The first paragraph of Obama’s new budget read like this:

"This crisis is neither the result of a normal turn of the business cycle nor an accident of history, we arrived at this point as a result of an era of profound irresponsibility that engulfed both private and public institutions from some of our largest companies’ executive suites to the seats of power in Washington, D.C."

As people start to deconstruct last year’s financial crisis, most of them are coming to the conclusion that the #1 bit of “irresponsibility” was the blind investment of trillions of dollars based on solely on the output of correlation-based computer models, and continuing to do so even after cracks appeared in the models.

The irony? Obama’s budget includes nearly $700 billion in new taxes (via a cap-and-trade system) based solely on … correlation-based computer climate models that predict rapidly rising temperatures from CO2. Climate models in which a number of cracks have appeared, but which are being ignored.

Read the rest. While you're at it, also read his takedown on the favorite phrase used by the Global Warmunists to silence their opponents: "peer review."

The Revolution WILL Be Televised Today!!!

This has been covered everywhere, but it's so fucking funny that I must add it here.



Stupid, know-it-all, self-indulgent little twats. All of them. "You may not come in here. This is a student free-space." Uh-huh.

This is what happens when inattentive and/or unfit parents let MTV raise their children, then send 'em off to Radical Boot Camp college so they can complete their indoctrination education and learn big, grown-up words like "consensus," "brutality," and "democratic process." Fuckwits.

The follow-up is just as hysterical. See also: Ace, HotAir.

It's sad when you realize that this asshole will probably be an elected official someday, just like all the spoiled malcontents of the 60's are today. But fuck it, I'll be dead by then...

Racist?

Racist:


Not Racist:

Any questions?

The Swedish Model

Wonderful.

Bank nationalisation gains ground with Republicans

Long regarded in the US as a folly of Europeans, nationalisation is gaining rapid acceptance among Washington opinion-formers – and not just with Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman. Perhaps stranger still, many of those talking about nationalising banks are Republicans.

Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator for South Carolina, says that many of his colleagues, including John McCain, the defeated presidential candidate, agree with his view that nationalisation of some banks should be “on the table”.

Mr Graham says that people across the US accept his argument that it is untenable to keep throwing good money after bad into institutions such as Citigroup and Bank of America, which now have a lower net value than the amount of public funds they have received.

“You should not get caught up on a word [nationalisation],” he told the Financial Times in an interview. “I would argue that we cannot be ideologically a little bit pregnant. It doesn’t matter what you call it, but we can’t keep on funding these zombie banks [without gaining public control]. That’s what the Japanese did.”

Barack Obama, the president, who has tried to avoid panicking lawmakers and markets by entertaining the idea, has moved more towards what he calls the “Swedish model” – an approach backed strongly by Mr Graham. In the early 1990s Sweden nationalised its banking sector then auctioned banks having cleaned up balance sheets. “In limited circumstances the Swedish model makes sense for the US,” says Mr Graham.

Now, I'm all for Swedish models...


...but I fear this is the Swedish model that Obama and the "Me too!" Republicans are talking about:

• Swedish economic growth hits 30 year low
• Unemployment forecast to top 9 percent by 2010
• More pessimism over Swedish economy

This is News?!?!?

Gillibrand removes guns from under bed

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has moved the two rifles that she kept under the bed to protect her upstate New York home, her spokesman said Monday.

"Given that the location of the guns has been disclosed, they have been moved for security reasons," Gillibrand's spokesman Matt Canter said.

She relocated the guns over the weekend while upstate to endorse Democrat Scott Murphy in the March 31 election to replace her in the 20th District, he said.

He also said Gillibrand, mother of a 5-year-old and an infant, kept the ammunition separate from the empty guns, and then later called to add that the rifles were locked in a case while stored under the bed. She had refused to describe her gun safety measures.

Gun-control activists questioned the safety of placing guns under a bed where children can find them and burglars look first. The National Rifle Association said it is up to gun owners to safely store weapons.

Gillibrand disclosed she had guns under her bed in an interview with Newsday last Thursday. A Newsday story on the interview ran Monday, prompting reactions by advocates for gun rights and gun control.

Gov. David A. Paterson, Sen. Charles Schumer and Mayor Michael Bloomberg declined to comment through their aides.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), a gun-control activist threatening a primary challenge to Gillibrand over her pro-gun stance, said Friday said she does not criticize legally owned guns. McCarthy added, "I hope the guns didn't have bullets in them."

Rep. Pete King (R-Seaford), who has said he might run against Gillibrand, joked, "With Kirsten Gillibrand keeping two rifles under the bed and Chuck Schumer being so anti-gun, Schumer and Gillibrand have to be the Senate's oddest couple."

Gillibrand said she will make her first visit as U.S. senator to Long Island Friday. The trip's details haven't been released.

Gillibrand also has not replied to requests for a meeting by New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said the group's executive director, Jackie Hilly.

As a result, Hilly said, the group will hold a rally on New York's City Hall steps Thursday to urge Gillibrand to work to pass three gun control bills. It will feature Lois Schaffer, a Great Neck woman whose daughter was shot and killed in her St. Louis home last December by teens with a stolen gun.

Long Islanders both criticized and defended Gillibrand.

"I am very upset about the whole thing," said Joyce Gorycki of Mineola, widow of a Long Island Rail Road official killed in the 1993 train shooting and co-chair of Long Island's New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. "I don't know why she needs two rifles."

But Tomasz Lorenc of Glen Cove, shopping at American Outdoor Sports in Farmingdale, said, "More power to her. There's nothing wrong with that. You have the right to bear arms."

Meanwhile, a search of the Lexis-Nexis database showed that Gillibrand has a Montana hunting license. But Canter said it's actually a fishing license.

Where to start?

"Gillibrand disclosed that she owns guns?"

Huh? Why is a simple statement that she exercises one of her Constitutional rights taken as a "disclosure," as if it's a conflict of interest or a sexually transmitted disease? The negative connotation of the word "disclosure" is telling of how northeastern elitists feel about gun ownership -- that it is something bad or dirty. Must we now "disclose" whether we engage in free speech or practice religion?

"I hope the guns didn't have bullets in them."

Fuckwit. That's where bullets are supposed to be. How else can you shoot scumbags who violate your property with ill intent?

"I don't know why she needs two rifles."

Excuse me? Whether someone chooses to keep and bear arms, and how many firearms one chooses to keep and bear, is no business of anyone other than the individual in question. If you don't understand, it's only because you're an illiterate who can't read the Bill of Rights and come away with a firm understanding of some very simple language. Gorycki's group, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, has little to do with gun violence; they're against gun ownership. Is Gorycki concerned that New York's junior Senator might use the two unloaded rifles kept under lock and key for violent criminal activities? No, she's "upset" because a law abiding citizen owns guns. Period.

A Tale of Two Poster Chidren

This is the story of two American citizens. Both had the opportunity to meet Barack Obama up close and personal. Both are now famous for what they asked him. Compare and contrast.

Meet Joe:



Joe is a plumber. He works hard and has dreams of someday owning his own business someday. He asked Obama why he shouldn't be allowed to keep more of his earnings, illiciting Obama's now famous response about how spreading the wealth around is a good thing. Within a couple of days, a video of Joe's meeting with Obama was distributed all over the internet. This embarrassed Obama and made Leftists angry.

Soon, late-night comedians were all over Joe the Plumber. Democrat government officials were releasing confidential personal records to the media. The media, in turn, was focusing on the questioner rather than the question he asked. "Who is Joe the Plumber?," they asked. "What is the truth about him?" Accusations abounded: he's a tax-cheat; he's not a "real" plumber; he's divorced; he's Charles Keating's son-in-law; he's not even registered to vote (apparently ACORN doesn't organize his community). Despite these things having nothing to do with Joe's question, or the answer which exposed Obama as a naked Socialist, Joe the Plumber became the election season's Public Enemy #1.

Why? Because Joe symbolizes greed and selfishness in the eyes of the American Left. He and others like him expect to reap the wealth that they create for themselves; they don't believe an individual's wealth should be "spread around" to those who did not create it.

Meet Henrietta:



Henrietta is a welfare recipient. She's been on the government dole since 1983, but she wants more. Henrietta dreams of government supplying a new house for her. So she asked Obama for one. Within a couple of days, a video of Henrietta's meeting with Obama was distributed all over the internet. This made Obama smile.

Soon, Henrietta had offers of a house to live in, her son had a job offer, and Henrietta the Welfare Recipient, who hasn't worked in over twenty years, was portrayed as a hero. She even has her own web site now! The media didn't as why she should be given free housing while millions of Americans who do work are struggling to make their rent and mortgage payments because government takes nearly half their earnings.

Why? Henrietta symbolizes victimization in the eyes of the American Left. She and others like her expect to reap the wealth of others; they don't understand why "the rich" should have all the houses while they have none. Free houses at taxpayers expense is one of the good things that happens when other peoples' wealth is "spread around."

No word on who will be paying Henrietta's utility bills, insurance, and other housing-related expenses. No details have been released regarding the job offer allegedly offered to her son. None of this matters -- all that matters is, people care. No one cares that Joe the Plumber gets punished for achievement; what's important is that Henrietta the Welfare Recipient be rewarded for failure.

After the initial media love fest, certain information did arise about the plight of Henrietta the Welfare Recipient -- not in the mainstream media, mind you, but in the blogosphere. Little factoids like this:

At President Obama's town hall meeting in Fort Myers on Tuesday, Henrietta Hughes stood up and told the President she has been homeless since 2003 and can't find a job. She also says she's reach a dead end with government assistance and none of the local charity agencies will help. However, a local organization is coming forward saying Hughes isn't being honest about how much help she's had in the past. The director of We Care Outreach Ministry, Tanya Johnson, says just last month she offered Henrietta Hughes permanent housing and a place to stay free for three months, but Hughes refused. "We would have allowed her to stay for the first 90 days, no income. You know free," said Tanya Johnson. We Care Outreach Ministry is a faith based organization in Fort Myers. Johnson says she also gave Henrietta and her son Corey, money, food and offered Corey job training courses, but it was refused. "We have extended a lot of her services to her," Johnson said. But Henrietta Hughes says these services weren't free and the apartment in East Fort Myers came with a price tag.

Yes, Henrietta -- housing typically comes with a price tag. It's sometimes called rent, at other times a mortgage. That's why people work, so they can afford to house themselves and their unemployed thirty-something year old "children."

It remains to be seen whether the media will dig through Henrietta the Welfare Reciepient's trash like they did Joe the Plumber's. Maybe they can help answer some of the obvious questions, like: Why did she turn down previous offers of affordable housing? How long does she expect to be allowed to live in someone else's house free of charge? Will she be required to pay income tax on all of the donations she is receiving?

And then there's the web site. It is registered to a "marketing strategist" in Florida:

Oddly enough, Ms. Hughes is also dubbed “the face of the economic crisis” on a new web site, just created, called henriettahughes.com. The site is registered to a Judah Fontz, whose LinkedIn profile describes him as an online marketing strategist at a company called VeraData. I wonder what his angle is . . .

[Via Patterico]

Who is exactly funding the HenriettaHughes.com web site, producing the content, and using this poor, unfortunate soul in such a way for political purposes? Is it Judah Fontz? Why? Who is he? Is Henrietta the Welfare Recipient just another "marketing strategy" for him? Or is someone else behind this? I'm sure MSNBC and CNN are all over this story with the same vigor they exhibited in the investigations of Joe the Plumber; we should have the answers in a day or two.

Sarcasm aside, I feel bad for Henrietta*; she may very well be deserving of help, and if nothing else this incident proves that there are plenty of private individuals and organizations who are willing to step up and give it to her. Whether government should be a source of help is debatable, but that's not the point. The story here is the marked difference in coverage between Joe Wurlzelbacher and Henrietta Hughes: One just wants to work and enjoy the fruits of his labor without government interference and punishment; for this, he is attacked, ridiculed, and mocked. The other wants free this and free that, and wants others to pay for it; and for this, she is lionized and turned into a political icon for the Fascist Progressive movement.

Maybe the "Fairness" Doctrine isn't such a bad idea after all...

* But not her son -- I have zero sympathy for oxygen thiefs. The idea that my tax dollars should in any way continue to enable him to live off the backs of the working in this country is beyond defense. He's young enough and healthy enough to get off his lazy fucking ass and roll burritos at Taco Bell if he can't find a better job. Period.

Stimulus Fascist Wealth Redistribution Bill Passes House

Pam Meister on PJ Media writes:

Back when Barack Obama was running for president, he famously explained his socialist governing philosophy to a five-year-old:

"We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?"

He made a similar analogy later on in the campaign when responding to John McCain’s assertions that Obama is a socialist:

"By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

No one’s arguing about how nice it is to share pizza, toys, and PB&J sandwiches. And Americans as a whole are a generous people. Back in 2007, charitable giving in this nation exceeded $300 billion for the first time. The problem is when a third party — government bureaucracy — takes your pizza, toys, and sandwiches and decides how much you get to keep and how much goes to the people they decide are worthy of enjoying the things you bought and paid for with the money you earned.

That’s not sharing. That’s redistribution. It’s something that had its start with FDR’s New Deal, reemerged during LBJ’s Great Society, and now seems poised to catch up to the socialist states that the American left has long admired in Europe.

Emphasis mine.

Fascists, unfortunately, don't see government wealth distribution as a problem, but rather a duty. After a whopping 90 minutes of floor "debate" (i.e., reading of bumper sticker slogans) -- and this coming less than 12 hours after the text of the 1,000+ page bill was released in the middle of the night -- Congressional Fascists today did their duty and passed H.R. 1, after locking Republican representatives out of the deliberations, without the 48-hours of review promised by Politburo leadership, and before member of the House could have a chance to read the bill and figure out what, exactly, they were voting on.

The text of this bill was released while the citizens slept, passed by the House before we could have our day's second cup of coffee, will surely fly through the Senate before people get home from work tonight, and will be signed into law Monday before any any of this sinks in and public outrage can be registered -- this, despite Obama's promise not to sign any bill into law until "the American public [has] an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

By "American people," he must have meant Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who, technically, are American people who have been commenting on the "stimulus" for well over five days.

During his floor speech, Aaron Schock (R-IL) quoted Lincoln: "What kills a skunk is the publicity it brings itself." Indeed, the surest way to avoid publicity and public scrutiny is to implement "Change" behind closed doors under the cover of darkness. The fact is, Obama-friendly lobbyists had more time to read the bill than did our elected representatives before casting their vote. If this doesn't clue you in to the way this government plans to operate in coming years, then nothing will.

Update 5:10PM: A video is worth a thousand words.

Open and Transparent

Obamunist Party Ministry of Propaganda sez:

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

Deeds, not words, you douchebags. Apparently Congress is exempt from all this Hope-Changey transparency:

Chairman of Republican Study Committee Rep. Tom Price blasts congressional leaders for not making the stimulus bill negotiations open to the public.

The Washington Post has reported that negotiations between House and Senate Democrats have resulted in a stimulus bill with a price tag of “about $789.5 billion.” This agreement raised the ire of Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and he went outside of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office to express it.

“My name’s Tom Price and I represent the Sixth District of Georgia and [am] the privileged chair of the Republican Study Committee,” Price said. “It’s now noon on Wednesday. I’m standing outside the office of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The door is closed. We just heard news break there’s been an agreement between the House and the Senate on the non-stimulus bill."

Negotiators were slated to meet later in the day. However, since news of a deal was leaked to the media, Price questioned if there were “shady deals” going on.

“It’s curious because Republicans were invited to a meeting they said at 3 o’clock this afternoon,” Price continued. “What this means is there are more shady deals going on behind closed doors -- without the public, without Republicans in attendance.”

Who said "bipartisan"????

Update 7:59PM: Lobbyists, however, are part of the "transparency"...

Congressional Offices Don't Have the Stimulus Bill, Lobbyists Do
February 12, 2009 04:14 PM ET
By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers

We're receiving E-mails from Capitol Hill staffers expressing frustration that they can't get a copy of the stimulus bill agreed to last night at a price of $789 billion. What's more, staffers are complaining about who does have a copy: K Street lobbyists. E-mails one key Democratic staffer: "K Street has the bill, or chunks of it, already, and the congressional offices don't. So, the Hill is getting calls from the press (because it's leaking out) asking us to confirm or talk about what we know—but we can't do that because we haven't seen the bill. Anyway, peeps up here are sort of a combo of confused and like, 'Is this really happening?'" Reporters pressing for details, meanwhile, are getting different numbers from different offices, especially when seeking the details of specific programs.

Worse, there seem to be several different versions of what was agreed upon, with some officials circulating older versions of the package that seems to still be developing. Leadership aides said that it will work out later today and promised that lawmakers will get time to review the bill before Friday's vote.

Like, what... 15 minutes worth of time? The only thing transparent about this insanity is that some of us see right through the Democrat lies.

(h/t: Power Line)

Or To Put It Another Way...

If there were a country called Stimutopia and its Gross Domestic Product equaled the total Stimulus Bill, it would have the 12th largest GDP in the world. That’s bigger than India or China. The interest alone would be the 27th-largest economy in the world. If we put Stimutopia in South America, the interest payments alone would be the second-largest economy on the continent. The entire bill would be a mere $141 billion smaller from taking the top spot from Brazil.

...

If you started right now and spent a million dollars every day until you had spent the principle amount of the Stimulus Bill ($825 billion) today, you would spend your last penny on June 19, 4395. Well, you wouldn’t. Your descendants 82 generations from now would finish the job you started.

The Sundries Shack (h/t: Two-Four)

Fuckers.

Indefensible

Ya know, I was being sarcastic recently when I said, "If the first $9.7 trillion spending spree doesn't help, then what? Another $9.7 trillion? 'Cause you know, if the first "stimulus" heist doesn't spend America into prosperity, the only reason must be that you didn't spend enough."

But truth is the essence of proper sarcasm, as proven once again by primo asshat Jonathan Chait:

TRB: In Defense of Waste

Note to Republicans: The whole point of the stimulus is to spend money!

Republicans like to accuse Democrats of wasting taxpayer dollars and being condescending eggheads. But if President Obama's economic stimulus fails to prevent a depression--and I'm not saying it will--it will be because he didn't waste enough money, and didn't spend enough time being a condescending egghead.

Let's start with the egghead part. The stimulus bill is based on Keynesian theory, which I'll briefly explain in the condescending manner we liberals so enjoy using. When we're in a severe recession, good productive capacity goes to waste. Autoworkers sit home unemployed because nobody has money to buy cars, and cooks sit home unemployed because nobody has money to go out to dinner. The first thing for government to try is to reduce interest rates, to encourage businesses to borrow money to hire more workers and buy equipment. But, if interest rates hit bottom, then the government has to shock the system back to life by spending money directly. Say, Washington hires construction workers to build something, and those workers start buying cars and going to restaurants, and, after a while, the economy is running again.

So Obama decided to spend a lot of money. The Republicans' hoary opposition technique is to boil any legislation down to one or two silly-sounding expenditures that Joe Sixpack can understand--Midnight basketball! A bear DNA study! Obama anticipated this critique and tried to eliminate all waste from the bill. He kept earmarks out and focused the spending on public investments like energy efficiency and education. The logic went beyond just politics. If you're going to spend a lot of money, you might as well get something useful for it.

This manifest of naked hubris, published by the formerly third-rate New Republic (it's hovering somewhere around eighth-rate these days), is yet another focused snapshot of the Left's unconstrained vision that we discussed the other day -- specifically, the belief that an economy is best run by "the best and the wisest" rather than through systemic processes that have evolved over the centuries and have been proven to work best when government interference is kept to a minimum. The Left believes we're not brilliant (like them) so we can't possibly understand the nuanced details of how an economy ostensibly "ruined" by Bush's excessive spending can only be "fixed" by more excessive spending, or how throwing "stimulus" dollars at political cronies for porkbarrel projects is not "pork" or "waste." Therefore, we should just shut our pieholes and let the geniuses run the show. Pure elitist claptrap. I'm undecided as to what angers me more -- the fact that they actually believe they possess the unique wisdom to wonk they're way out of the economic downturn, or that they have the balls to admit that they think they're better and smarter than the rest of us.

Keynseian economics -- which Chait thinks we're all too stoopid to understand -- centers on the belief that an economy functions best when it is directly manipulated by government to produce desired results in the interest all people, and that those who do the tinkering are by necessity smarter than the majority of ignorant dolts in society (i.e., Liberals, a sentiment pretty much laid plain by Chait). Such a system can only be thought to work if one blinds oneself to historical evidence. History is persistent, however, and it has proven repeatedly that tax hikes and government spending during a recession always prolongs hard times and delays recovery; tax cuts always generate greater tax revenues; people always spend more when they are taxed less; and the economy always benefits when people spend their own money. Elitists refuse to recognize these historical factors while rationalizing their policies because they don't support their worldview.

The fact is, "the best and the wisest" were the ones who formulated the past economic policies which created the current mess. Regardless of who you blame -- Democrats, Republicans, Clinton, Bush, Frank, or Greenspan -- it all boils down to the same truth: tinkering with economic forces, most of which are beyond our control, never helps and usually makes things a lot worse. The best argument the Left seems capable of making is, "Our elitist geniuses are better than your elitist geniuses." What is lost in the debate between the elitists on both sides is, the citizens have zero confidence in any of them... and for good reason. They all like to proclaim to varying degrees that free markets have failed, even though they've never actually been allowed to flourish without government sticking their wrenches in the gears. And when the manipulation of market forces fail, their answer is always an argument for more of the same. Witness, for example, the result of government regulations which forced financial institutions lend to borrowers who everyone knew wouldn't be able to service their debt. The knee-jerk blame is placed on alleged "deregulation", and the knee-jerk solution is more regulation -- even though it was precisely government regulation that precipitated the whole sub-prime collapse in the first place!

Under the plan Chait argues for, "Joe Sixpack" works to earn money; a portion of this money is then confiscated by government in order to create more work for Joe, who then must labor to recover some of the money which he already earned but that was taken from him through confiscatory taxation! It's like buying your car stereo back from the thief who stole it.

Those of us in the Sixpack Community believe that if only we were allowed to keep the money we earned in the first place, we'd have already used it to stimulate the economy on our own terms through consumer spending -- spending which puts money into circulation in a much more efficient manner because there is no government overhead. Yes, the whole point of the stimulus is to spend money. The argument is, who gets to do the spending: us, or the government?

Chait's defense of government waste is, in fact, indefensible to anyone who has ever run a business or managed a family's finances. Government spending is and has always been inflationary and inefficient, and has never produced anything approaching the benefits to the individual that tax relief has consistently done. Both sides give lip service to the notion that putting money in people's pockets is the key to recovery. The difference is in the details: should this money be that which we've already earned and are allowed to keep and spend as we choose; or should it be money confiscated from the earners and distributed according to some grand plan designed by our intellectual overlords?

Denial

Dafydd pontificates on the mass psychosis caused by Global Warmunism:

Climate Change Derangement Syndrome
A new malady has presented itself to the medical community. They haven't yet taken the obvious step of dubbing it "Climate Change Derangement Syndrome," but surely that's mere oversight.

By CCDS, I don't mean the increasing delusion that anthropogenic global climate change (AGCG) has been proven beyond all doubt and beyond all permitted debate, though that is an essential element of CCDS. Rather, I mean the increasing number of cases of anxiety, paranoia, and hysteria verging on psychosis in people who have become convinced that AGCC is going to destroy the world.

A must read.

The Deja Vu Deal

America's highest-ranking Tax-Cheat speaks:

"We will have to adapt it as conditions change. We will have to try things we've never tried before. We will make mistakes. We will go through periods in which things get worse and progress is uneven or interrupted.

Translation: "We don't know what the fuck we're doing."

Welcome to the Deja Vu Deal, folks: In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg describes how the unconstrained social experimentation of the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression and left America with a permanent nanny state mentality, all due to this insane belief that "we have to DO something -- anything!," as opposed to making prudent decisions after careful consideration and cost-benefit analysis. Roosevelt said, "Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another."

The only coherent policy Roosevelt subscribe to was "bold, persistent experimentation." Conservatives were cast by FDR and his allies as opponents of all change, selfish slaves to the status quo. But stasis is not the American conservative position. Rather, conservatives believe that change for change's sake is folly. What kind of change? At what cost? For the liberals and progressives, everything was expendable, from tradition to individualism to "outdated" conceptions of freedom. They were all tired dogmas to be burned on the altars of the new age.

The result? A longer depression that worsened throughout the decade of the New Deal: Unemployment in 1939 (17.2%) was higher than in 1931 (16.3%), and the national debt increased from $16 billion in 1931 to $40 billion in 1939. [Source: Folsom, New Deal or Raw Deal]

And lo, BHO is now channeling the spirit of FDR, because it worked out so well the first time.

“What you see in FDR that I hope my team can emulate is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence and a willingness to try things and experiment in order to get people working again.”

Yeah, that's great. If the first $9.7 trillion spending spree doesn't help, then what? Another $9.7 trillion? 'Cause you know, if the first "stimulus" heist doesn't spend America into prosperity, the only reason must be that you didn't spend enough.

Geithner's FDR-era predecessor, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., at least had the intellectual honesty to "admit frankly" the FDR administration's mistakes to Congress in 1939:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot."

I don't, however, expect Geithner, Orbama, Pelosi, Reid, Snowe, Collins, Spector, or any other paragon of hubris involved in this "stimulus" debacle will ever, ever, hold themselves accountable in such a way.

Because, you know, it'll be Bush's fault.

Left-Wing Fascist Warns of "Right-Wing Fascists"

I'm heartened to see that left-wing idiocy isn't limited to the former United States these days:

Ed Balls: minister fears rise of fascism amid economic gloom

Ed Balls, the Children's and Schools Secretary, said the downturn was likely to be the most serious for 100 years, and his comments appeared to raise the prospect of a return to the Far Right politics of the 1930s and the rise of Facism.

His warning, in a speech to activists at the weekend, came after a trade union baron warned that far right parties were trying to hijack the campaign for "British jobs for British workers".

The row over foreign workers has gathered momentum in recent weeks and Mr Balls seemed to suggest the recession could trigger a return to the Far Right politics that prospered in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

He told Labour's Yorkshire conference: "The economy is going to define our politics in this region and in Britain in the next year, the next five years, the next 10 and even the next 15 years.

"I think that this is a financial crisis more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s and we all remember how the politics of that era were shaped by the economy."

Hmm... Methinks this retard might actually have a point, and not just the one on the top of his head. We're witnessing the "rise of fascism" in the USA right now -- nationalization of the banks; confiscation of firearms; redistribution of wealth; suppression of religion; indoctrination of children; intrusion by the state into every aspect of the private individual's life -- all neatly wrapped in a convenient economic downturn that can be used to solidify power. Sound familiar?

It's not the "far right" that's beating the drum for fascism; it's the leftist, progressive Democratic party. That's hardly surprising, as 1930's European fascism is the foundation of modern leftist/progressive politics. The similarities are eerie, right down to the smooth-talking, foreign-born "leader" who came to power in the midst of economic turmoil on a platform of "hope ünd change". Replace "the Jews" with "the Rich" and the rhetoric is pretty much the same, specifically aimed to fan the flames of class envy - they're the one's who are to blame for your troubles! And only the government can fix it, with your patriotic support. I don't think Hitler's stimulus package cost anywhere near $9.7 trillion, though.

Achtung, traitors!

Dear Santa Claus

All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth. And an armored transport, a mobile command center, some military grade carbines, and a few unmanned aerial surveillance drones.

From the U.S. Conference of Mayors wish list of all the things mayors across the country want the federal government to fund in the name of “stimulus” comes my own selection of some of the dodgier requests from North Texas cities. It starts on page 293, and my short list here is just a taste of the absurdity.

• Frisco wants $125,000 for an armored vehicle and $200,000 for a mobile command vehicle. You know, for all that gang tank warfare going on up in Frisco.
  
  
• McKinney wants $5 million for SWAT toys and stuff.
  
  
• North Richland Hills wants $51,000 for volunteer patrol volunteers. Let’s throw in $10 for a dictionary so they can look up the word “volunteer.”
  
  
• Irving wants $5 million for biometric scanners, digital cameras, RFID scanners — nothing Big Brother there.
  
  
• Grand Prairie wants $1.25 million for nicer landscaping around the public safety building.
  
  
• And finally, Arlington is really gearing up for urban warfare. Arlington wants $1.6 million for SWAT toys including more equipment for those deadly but camera-friendly no-knock raids, $56,000 for military grade carbines, $625,000 for unmanned aerial surveillance drones, and $130,000 for “covert ops.”

Are you stimulated yet?

The first question that pops into my head is, when the revolution inevitably comes will these, uh, stimulae be used by or against the citizens of Texas and other free-minded states who finally get fed up and decide to fight for their Constitutional right to secede from the Union?

(h/t: Reason)

On "A Conflict of Visions"

During times of political crisis, I find myself reaching for two books that inspire me and help put things into perspective.

The first is The Federalist Papers. This is possibly the most important of our founding documents as it gives a glimpse into the original intent of the US Constitution as envisioned by those who actually wrote the damn thing. Hamilton, Madison and Jay published the these 85 essays anonymously in order to garner support for ratification of the Constitution. I was introduced to this book as a college freshman taking an Intro to Politics elective (taught, of course, by a self-described radical). It was pretty much to only book assigned to the class that made any sense to me. I ultimately switched my major from music to political science in large part because of this book. Perhaps more on this at a later date...

My other go-to book is Thomas Sowell's classic, A Conflict of Visions. It distills all political debate down to two fundamental groups with -- those who have a 'constrained' view of human nature and society, and those with an 'unconstrained' view. It helps understand the dichotomatic worldviews held by conservatives and liberals, and why, as the author declares in the opening paragraph, "the same people line up on the opposite sides of different issues."

Those with a 'constrained' vision believe that human nature is limited, that we are inherently selfish and operate out of self interest without regard to the well-being of others, and the societal good is derived through the unintended consequences of our actions. This is the cornerstone of Adam Smith's economic philosophy as expounded in The Wealth of Nations, the founding document of free-market capitalism, and is at the root of libertarian-conservatism as it exists today. It holds that humans are flawed, that we are not naturally inclined to do anything other than what is in our self-interest, yet by doing so within the constraints of human nature we can (and do) benefit others by our actions.

The 'unconstrained' wordview is one in which man is inherently virtuous, that all of the unvirtuous things we do are a result of flaws in society, and that through actions that are designed to improve society we can approach perfection. Results and intentions are all that matter, and preferred outcomes can be accomplished by government policies with as long as they are enacted with good intentions. There is no limit to what we can achieve as long as our intentions are pure and we are willing to sacrifice our self-interests for the interests of all.

Sowell admits that no one really exists at either extreme; rather, people tend to occupy a place somewhere in between, possessing either a "more constrained" or "more unconstrianed" worldview. Yet A Conflict of Visions clearly illustrates the diametrically opposing worldviews held by conservatives and liberals, a brilliant analysis of the classic struggles between left and right, whether in the past, present or future. It puts our current "stimulus" debate into clear perspective.

This interview on YouTube was recorded just before the election. Sowell demonstrates how the two visions can be applied to present concerns over judicial activism, the Iraq war, the economy, the election, Sarah Palin, and academic "intellectuals". It's just under 40 minutes long, but well worth the time.

I Heart Wal-Mart

Found this gem via Power Line:

FLY ON THE WAL: UNDERCOVER AT WAL-MART, THE HEARTLAND SUPERSTORE THAT MAY SAVE THE ECONOMY

By CHARLES PLATT

Some people, usually community activists, loath Wal-Mart. Others, like the family of four struggling to make ends meet, are in love with the chain. I, meanwhile, am in awe of it.

With more than 7,000 facilities worldwide, coordinating more than 2 million employees in its fanatical mission to maintain an inventory from more than 60,000 American suppliers, it has become a system containing more components than the Space Shuttle - yet it runs as reliably as a Timex watch.

Sheltered by rabble rousers who forced Wal-Mart's CEO to admit it "wasn't worth the effort" to try to open in Queens or anywhere else in the city, New Yorkers may not fully realize the unique, irreplaceable status of the World's Largest Retailer in rural and suburban America. Merchandise from Wal-Mart has become as ubiquitous as the water supply. Yet still the company is rebuked and reviled by anyone claiming a social conscience, and is lambasted by legislators as if its bad behavior places it somewhere between investment bankers and the Taliban.

Considering this is a company that is helping families ride out the economic downturn, which is providing jobs and stimulus while Congress bickers, which had sales growth of 2% this last quarter while other companies struggled, you have to wonder why. At least, I wondered why. And in that spirit of curiosity, I applied for an entry-level position at my local Wal-Mart.

The rest of the story is very insightful.

I've had a love-hate relationship with Wal-Mart (and big-box stores in general) for years. The "hate" part stems from my own experience in entrepreneurship and small business. As an employee and later owner of a small business that specialized in shortwave radio equipment I lived the struggle of a small store against the giant Discount Electronic Whorehouses (as I labeled them) that undercut our prices without providing any specialized knowledge of the products they were selling. We'd often expend our time and expertise to educate a shopper only to have him tell us that he was going to buy the radio from the local Discount Electronics Whorehouse in order to save $10. (Seriously -- they'd actually tell us that, as if they thought it was perfectly OK to take advantage of our services for free, then give someone else their cash for the actual product.)

The "love" part of the relationship stems from convenience. As much as anyone else, I lamented the closing of the small local booksellers that I grew up patronizing -- but in the end, I came to realize they never had what I was looking for; Barnes & Noble did. Same thing with the local hardware stores suffering from the Home Depot invasion. Ditto the appliance stores, record stores, shoe stores, computer stores, and all the rest of the local shops that, seemingly overnight, just disappeared. Platt hits it on the head:

When I first ventured from New York City to the American heartland, I did my best to patronize quaint little places on Main Street and quickly discovered the penalties for doing so. At a small appliance store, I wasn't allowed to buy a microwave oven on display. I had to place an order and wait a couple of weeks for delivery. At a stationery store where I tried to buy a file cabinet, I found the same problem. Think back, if you are old enough to do so, and you may recall that this is how small-town retailing used to function in the 1960s.

As a customer, I don't see why I should protect a business from the harsh realities of commerce if it can't maintain a good inventory at a competitive price. And as an employee, I see no advantage in working at a small place where I am subject to the quixotic moods of a sole proprietor, and can never appeal to his superior, because there isn't one. [Emphasis mine]

My first Wal-Mart experience didn't come until later in life. Bergen County, NJ was a Wal-Mart Free zone, protected by pro-union politicians despite being littered with malls and other big chain retailers. So I was pretty insulated from the Wal-Mart phenomenon until I started living outside the union-dominated NYC-Metro area. Closter, NJ, where I gew up, has no Wal-Marts within a 10-mile radius; Sussex, NJ, has but one store. In my new hometown of Waco, TX, I find 3 local stores less than 10 miles away -- all three of them "Supercenters" which sell groceries (something I never saw up north). At Wal-Mart, the big problem is not finding what we need; it's fitting everything into one shopping cart. What used to take a trip all over creation to two or more stores back in the old days is now done in a single trip to Wal-Mart.

But surely this convenience must come at price, right?

Um... well... no. Not really. The prices are great -- we still marvel at how little we spend for two shopping carts of groceries compared to what we spent in NJ, or even at other supermarkets in TX. The people that work there are always friendly and helpful, the store are always clean, and there's always a Wal-Mart nearby, no matter where you are (except, apparently, in worker's paradise union strongholds up north).

For all of this, it's curious to find that Leftoids hate Wal-Mart. They moan and groan about health care, salaries, non-unionization... but the simple fact is, Liberals are elitist pricks who look down with disgust at the people who shop there as well as the people who work there. They think that the only people who shop and work at Wal-Mart are gun-and-religion-clinging rednecks, most of whom are fat, stupid, toothless and drive pickup trucks. It matters not that Wal-Mart creates jobs for almost 2 million unskilled workers who might otherwise be unemployed, on welfare, dependent on government...

Come to think of it, that's exactly why they hate Wal-Mart -- they don't give a shit about Wal-Mart muscling in on the turf of small businesses; they're angry because Wal-Mart is muscling in on the turf of government. Wal-Mart is a shining example of the private sector doing what leftists believe is the state's function: creating jobs, helping people feed their families, providing health benefits.

Never mind the consumers who enjoy good products at fair market prices. Never mind the sales tax revenues generated by Wal-Mart that go straight into the coffers of government to be squandered by politicians. Never mind the fact that all this job creation and economic pump-priming is done without a single "stimulus" dollar spent by government. (Maybe if the Obamunists really want to stimulate the economy they should buy $1T in Wal-Mart stock.) All Leftoids see at Wal-Mart (besides toothless, stupid rednecks) is a company that epitomizes free-market capitalism, one that proves their economic and social theories wrong. Wal-Mart drives them fucking insane.

Which is the biggest reason of all that I love Wal-Mart.

Update 2/11: Public Enemy #1 picked up on this story today.

A Cure For Insomnia

Can't sleep? Just think about Obama and Michelle spooning in bed.

One woman wrote that when she couldn’t get to sleep at night, she “lay in bed and thought about the Obama girls in their rooms at the White House. I thought about Marian Robinson up on the third floor. And about Barack and Michelle, a couple who clearly have a ‘thing’ for each other, spooning together in bed. It helped me relax.”

Are your panties moist yet? But wait... there's more:

Many women — not too surprisingly — were dreaming about sex with the president. In these dreams, the women replaced Michelle with greater or lesser guilt or, in the case of a 62-year-old woman in North Florida, whose dream was reported to me by her daughter, found a fully above-board solution: “Michelle had divorced Barack because he had become ‘too much of a star.’ He then married my mother, who was oh so proud to be the first lady,” the daughter wrote me.

For the love of Christ... get help, people!

Update: The Great Stimulus Heist of 2009

Malkin posts on the "compromise":

Here’s where things stand. The Senate will be in session today from about noon to 3:00pm Eastern. Members will speak, but there won’t be any roll call votes. Cloture will reportedly be filed on the Cave-In/”Compromise” amendment from Sens. Collins and Nelson. The cloture vote (to end debate) on the amendment is scheduled for Monday at 5:30pm Eastern. GOP minority leader Mitch McConnell’s office tells us that “if cloture is invoked on the amendment post cloture time will run until noon on Tuesday. At noon on Tuesday the bill will be subject to another 60 vote hurdle by either waiving a budget point of order or achieving 60 votes on final passage.”

They’re taking Sunday off.

Question: Who has seen the Collins/Nelson cave-in amendment? Where is it? When can we, the taxpayers, see it? SHOW US THE BILL.

Nah, we'd just pick it apart; that would be unpatriotic. We'll just find out that it's more of the same pork. So what? It's better that Congress vote it into law quickly, under cover of darkness. No need to let those of us who will ultimately foot the bill know what the hell we're in for until it's a done deal.

Guns, Roses, and The Wealth of Nations

When Obama said, "These days everybody thinks they're economists," he wasn't kidding:

Reason reports: "More Signs of the Apocalypse: Duff McKagan Now a Financial Columnist for Playboy; Won't Shout Poppycock in a Crowded Bar".

In a blog post on the Seattle Weekly site, McKagen talks about going back to business school. I haven't read anything by him so I'll hold my judgment, but it sounds like he might have learned something:

I do find how money works rather fascinating. Adam Smith, the main person looked at to be the founder of capitalism, was a simple but brilliant economist who had particular ideas on how a free market would take care of itself. The theory of every little niche being filled in the marketplace seems too 'free' to actually work...but it has for the most part over the last 240 years.

Maybe he just reads P.J. O'Rourke...

Fair or Foul?

The cultural revolution marches forward:

Senator: Talk Radio Hearings Could Be On The Way

WASHINGTON -- February 5, 2009: Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) told nationally syndicated talk host Bill Press this morning that the recent flips of liberal Talk stations in several markets were a "disservice to the public."

Stabenow said that, in the day of the Fairness Doctrine, "you had to have balance," and continued, "I think something that requires that in a market with owners that have multiple stations that they have got to have balance -- there has to be some community interest -- balance, you know, standard that says both sides have to be heard."

Stabenow told Press that the airwaves are "dominated by one view" that "overwhelms people's opinions -- and, unfortunately, incorrectly," and said that "right-wing conservative talk hosts" are "trying to make people angry and saying all kinds of things that aren't true and so on."

When Press asked if it is time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, Stabenow responded, "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard." To Press' inquiry as to whether she will push for hearings in the Seante "to bring these owners in and hold them accountable," Stabenow replied, "I have already had some discussions with colleagues, and, you know, I feel like that's going to happen. Yep."

First: Bill Press is a fucking hack. He needs the government to force broadcasters to air him, otherwise no one will listen to him.

Second: No one cares about Liberal talk radio. We've had government-funded left-wing broadcasting for decades; check the ratings for National Public Radio to get an idea how successful it is. If left-wing broadcasters can't compete in the free marketplace against Limbaugh and Hannity, even while propped up by our tax dollars, maybe that's a clue.

Liberals want their voices heard much in the same way a 4-year-old brat wants Mommy to know that he wants that candy bar at the supermarket, and the method employed by both children and liberals to get their voices heard are pretty much the same: The Tantrum. And much as parents who learn over time to block out the crying, whining and prostrations of the brat, the American public dismisses Liberal whining about talk radio because, deep down, it's just another childish tantrum best ignored by adults. Eventually (if we're lucky) the brat grows up to learn that he can't have everything he wants just because he has some misplaced notion of "fairness."

Liberals, however, do not grow up -- probably because as children they had stupid, unfit parents who bought them the goddamned candy bar just to shut them up. Now as full-grown childish adults, they continue to throw the same tantrums to get their way -- just replace "Mommy" with "government" -- and they always get their way because they now run the government. And they do it without adult supervision; think "Lord of the Flies" with direct access to your bank account.

The problem with Liberals is, when they do manage to force themselves into the broadcast booth, no one listens to them because they have nothing to say. One can only listen to "Bush Sucks!" for so long before spinning the dial -- especially now that Bush isn't, you know, like, the President anymore.

But never mind all that. Unless the minority party grows a pair, government-enforced "fairness" on the AM dial will be fait accompli. They'll probably call it part of the "stimulus" bill as it will certainly stimulate sales for satellite radio... and when AM stations start falling as listenership dwindles, it'll just be another industry for government to bail out. The tricky part will be blaming it all on Bush.

Predictably, I have some questions:

1. Who decides what is "fair"? Will the President appoint a Fairness Czar? Will there be a Department of Fairness? Will he, she or they have to go through Congressional confirmation?
   
2. If a station airs "An Inconvenient Truth", will it then be required to also show "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in the interest of fairness? Will Darwinism and Intelligent Design be given equal time on Nova? Somehow I don't think this is what Liberals mean when they talk about "fairness"...
   

Catastrophe Update

Herr Krauthammer is on the money about the D.C. Doomsayers:

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

[...] It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said. [Emphasis mine.]

Yep. "He said."

Obama said lots of things, and some of us even listened to what he had to say, which is why all of this "stimulus" scheme is anything but a shock to me -- he's doing exactly what he promised when he talked about "spreading the wealth around."

After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

Rise and shine, sleepyheads!

News Shorts

Army deserter deported from Canada, placed in Whatcom County Jail

Cliff Cornell fled the U.S. Army four years ago for British Columbia when his Georgia artillery unit was ordered to serve in the Iraq War.

On Wednesday, Feb. 4, Cornell was deported from Canada, arrested in the U.S. and booked into the Whatcom County jail.

Cornell, who is from Arkansas, is going to be released on his own recognizance and ordered to report to Fort Stewart in Georgia, said Gene Marx, a local peace activist and member of the Bellingham Veterans for Peace, Chapter 111.

Memo to peace faggot: if you don't want to fight in wars, don't join the fucking military. Nobody cares whether you think the Iraq war is "illegal and immoral"; you're just a snot-nosed twat who by ran away like a little girl when it dawned on you that soldiers really do fight in wars. The Army's not just there to provide assholes like you a free education.

---

Air Force One: Obama's new 'spiffy ride'

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. (AP) - Suffice to say, President Barack Obama likes his new ride.

"It's pretty nice," he told House Democrats Thursday in an after-dinner speech here. "Thank you for giving me a reason to use Air Force One."

The president spoke after a 31-minute maiden voyage on the specially outfitted 747 that will be his airborne home and office for the next four years.

Moments before taking off from Andrews Air Force Base, Obama visited the press cabin in the rear of the plane to show reporters his Air Force crew launch jacket, his name stitched on the breast.

"What do you think about this spiffy ride?" he asked reporters. "It's not bad."

It's ah'ight, yo. Just need some rims. And subwoofers.

---

Panetta Open to Tougher Methods in Some C.I.A. Interrogation

WASHINGTON — Leon E. Panetta, the White House pick to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday left open the possibility that the agency could seek permission to use interrogation methods more aggressive than the limited menu that President Obama authorized under new rules issued last month.

Under insistent questioning from a Senate panel, Mr. Panetta said that in extreme cases, if interrogators were unable to extract critical information from a terrorism suspect, he would seek White House approval for the C.I.A. to use methods that would go beyond those permitted under the new rules.

Wait, you mean the whole "we don't torture" line was just grandstanding?!?!? NO!

---

Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure. Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

"I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique (ren-uh-LEEK') and the clinic owners.

We've already been taught that life does not begin at conception; now we learn life doesn't even begin at birth. Nice. Is it too late to abort Al Franken?

H.R. 1, Taxpayers 0

House Resolution No. 1: "Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes."

Yeah, well... it's clearly the "other purposes" that people are finally starting to wake up to, which is why popular support for this farce is dropping faster than Monica Lewinski's face on Slick Willie's cock. This whole "Stimulus" package heist nonsense has me so angry I can't think straight enough to comment without expletives and wild hand gestures. Thankfully, we have the pure, undiluted wisdom and exemplary wordcraft of Velociman:

Let us gaze upon our immediate future: the stimulus package is not an $800 billion jolt meant to defibrillate the heart of the American economy; it is a greasy mafiosi-style payoff to the bequeathers' collective patrons, from community outreach organizers to eco-terrorists to pork barrel profiteers to failure-sodden speculators to public works defalcators. T'would be better in my estimation to give every man, woman, and child (and, yes, morphodite) in the country a check for $2500, and see how quickly the economy was stimulated. Even when a large percentage of the population frittered the money on extravagances like paying off credit card debt, or purchasing mail-order Ukranian brides, the economy would reply like one does after a sweet soft kiss in the ear.

It is a given that printing large bundles of cash by any government will only create massive debt and devalue the currency. We call this the Mugabe Rule. Even the window lickers get that. The truly risible part of the cornholing is the conveyance of this largesse into the hands of the fucking knaves responsible for our misfortune in the first place. There is a term for giving good money after bad: enabling. So, as the fast-buck artists of Wall Street failed and fucked their clientele, so shall we reward them. No issue of remorse or correcting the model. The only issue thus far is the half a million cap on executive salaries, and the wail of the banshee on this point is disgusting. The only thing more putrid than the greed of the boomer elitists is their lack of history. They act as if they are the first people in history to strike a Mephistophilian bargain, only to be impaled by the conditions. The Devil always exacts his due, you fucking twats. And as one devil to another you should consider it professional courtesy betwixt the damned.

Emphasis mine. This is what truly rankles mine ire -- giving money and power to government, a philosopher-gentleman once said, is like giving whiskey and car keys to a teenage boys... yet we do it time and time again. Government spends its way into economic ruin, so the obvious solution is to spend even more. So now we find ourselves pinning our "Hope" on having Congress fleece the citizens out of yet another $1,000,000,000,000, a sizable percentage of which to be parsed out to the special interests that put the current ruling party in power.

"The time for talk is over," our dauntless leader tells us.

Mr Obama says while his plan deserves scrutiny, the worsening economic situation demands a swift vote by the Senate.

That's right, make haste. Don't dawdle, don't even read the 600+ pages of legislation; just pass the damn thing already. Obama's sense of urgency isn't surprising since the more we talk, the more clear the scheme becomes. Thankfully, someone is reading the fine print; from NRO:

Then there are the usual welfare-expansion programs that sound nice but repeatedly fail cost-benefit analyses. The bill provides $380 million to set up a rainy-day fund for a nutrition program that serves low-income women and children, and $300 million for grants to combat violence against women. Laudable goals, perhaps, but where’s the economic stimulus? And the bill would double the amount spent on federal child-care subsidies. Brian Riedl, a budget expert with the Heritage Foundation, quips, “Maybe it’s to help future Obama cabinet secretaries, so that they don’t have to pay taxes on their nannies.”

Perhaps spending $6 billion on university building projects will put some unemployed construction workers to work, but how does a $15 billion expansion of the Pell Grant program meet the standard of “temporary, timely, and targeted”? Another provision would allocate an extra $1.2 billion to a “youth” summer-jobs program—and increase the age-eligibility limit from 21 to 24. Federal job-training programs—despite a long track record of failure—come in for $4 billion total in additional funding through the stimulus.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a liberal wish list if it didn’t include something for ACORN, and sure enough, there is $5.2 billion for community-development block grants and “neighborhood stabilization activities,” which ACORN is eligible to apply for. Finally, the bill allocates $650 million for activities related to the switch from analog to digital TV, including $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations” that they need to go out and get their converter boxes or lose their TV signals. Obviously, this is stimulative stuff: Any economist will tell you that you can’t get higher productivity and economic growth without access to reruns of Family Feud.

Summary:

• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
• $380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
• $300 million for grants to combat violence against women
• $2 billion for federal child-care block grants
• $6 billion for university building projects
• $15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
• $4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
• $1 billion for community-development block grants
• $4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
• $650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”

Are you stimulated yet? It gets better; read the rest.

(And by the way... $200,000,000 for global warming research? Why? I thought the science was settled and the debate was over.)

Y'know what? In the sprirt of "bipartisianship" I say: Go ahead, pass the fucking bill. Just get it over with; this country is already headed down the road to ruination, why not move it into the fast lane?

Two short weeks in office. That's all it took for this to happen. During the campaign, whenever people tried to warn us they were called alarmists and red-baiters. And here we are. But cheer up, there are only 204 weeks to go until 2012. By then I'm sure the Republicans will find another mummified career politician to nominate.

Ashley Judd: "Save The Wolves; Kill The Moose And Caribou Instead"

Earth's new preeminent wildlife expert (and part-time shitty actress) Ashley Judd is speaking out against Sarah Palin's diabolical plan to kill all the wolves:



Thanks, genius. Noel Sheppard astutely points out:

"What's astounding here is that nowhere in the ad is the viewer apprised of why the wolves are being hunted, or the history beyond this policy."

But is it really astounding? Since when are idiot CelebRetards held accountable for their words or actions?

Sheppard goes on to show how Palin isn't "casting aside science," but that the wolf reduction is part of the state's predator control program, it is being done at the request of Alaska state biologists, and the evil "bounty" that seems to so upset Ashley is being offered in order to meet the biologists' requirements:

The Palin administration is anteing up cash because the number of wolf kills this winter is behind schedule. State biologists wanted 382 to 664 wolves killed by the time the snow that helps with tracking disappears this spring. The predator-control season ends April 30.

As of Tuesday morning, 98 wolves had been killed by aerial gunners, hunters and trappers.

Read the whole thing.

Pop Quiz: Are Alaska state biologists guilty of "discarding science," or is Ashley Judd simply another fuckwit Hollywood leftist whose perky little B-cup titties are bigger than her brain?

Now a personal anecdote: One Sunday morning this past December I met a kid (OK, he's probably 20-something years old, so to me he's a kid...) named Jesse who my in-laws called out to their place to hunt coyotes on their property. Jesse is part of a university program (UT, A&M, I forget which) which hunts coyotes all over Texas. He bagged one coyote that Sunday, said it was his 108th 208th kill of the year. I'm not sure how many other hunters are involved in the program, but I'll wager that if Jesse can kill over 100 200 a year it all adds up to a veritable shitload of dead coyotes. I'm sure Ashley would find her delicate little panties in a wad over this, but the fact is coyotes are predators. They've killed countless animals at my in-laws place over the year including llamas, goats, geese, and cats. They're not much different than wolves, except perhaps less dangerous to humans. [Correction: Dad informs me Jesse's 2008 total was 208, not 108. Outrage from Ashley and the anti-Palin wingnuts remains the same: zero.]

As part of the program, Jesse sends in teeth, DNA swabs, and other stuff for analysis so state officials and (real, honest-to-God) scientists can track populations, movements, and other data which is used to manage and control the coyote overpopulation problem and protect other species that coyotes prey upon. Is this, too, what Ashley would call "casting aside science?"

Perhaps Ashley believes there isn't any overpopulation problem because, hell, there are no wolves in her "environment" -- i.e., her backyard in Malibu or wherever the fuck she ekes out her charmed, elitist existence these days. But some of us in the real world understand two things that probably never crossed Ashley's pea-sized mind.

First: Wildlife management is necessary, and hunting is how it works. It's not done to be mean to those poor coyotes and wolves; it's done for the good of the species. It's done all over the country, not just Alaska. Too many predators sooner or later results in a reduced food supply, which then results in starving predators and/or attacks on new food sources (like our pets and farm animals). Without wildlife management, bad things happen.

Second: We all know this is not about wolves, or hunting, or the environment. It's about Sarah Palin. Two weeks into Obama's presidency and the Left is already launching it's attack campaign for the 2012 election. If it really was about the wolves, then why now? Why not four years ago when the program started?

The program, now in its fourth year and operating in five areas of the state, is designed to increase moose and caribou numbers by reducing the number of predators.

In other words, if Ashley Judd gets her way, more moose and caribou will die!!! Is that what she wants? Why isn't anyone protesting Ashley Judds immoral War on Moose and Caribou?!?!?

Oy. These fucking Hollywood types make me want to puke.

Doomsday Is Nigh!!!

Once again, the High Priests are warning of impending catastrophe, a certain end to all we know and love, the great Apocalypse foreshadowed by the prophets, and there's NO WAY TO STOP IT!!!!!

Except to raise taxes and spend a Gazillion dollars on big government.

Where have I heard this before?

Oh, yeah... some preacher at The Church or Global Cooling... Global Warming... Global Cooling... Climate Change was just recently warning us that if we don't tax CO2 emitters (that is to say, every living, breathing thing that falls under the 'fauna' category) and turn over the cash to, well, The Church, then the oceans will boil (or freeze... I forget what they've decided this week), children and childish adults will cry, the planet will die, and all life as we know it will end. Uncaring Conservatives are too stoopid to admit that the debate is over and the science is settled; and besides, they all live in mountaintop mansions with air conditioning and won't be affected when the tides rise 100 ft. We're rushing ahead to environmental doomsday faster than Barney Frank to happy hour at The Ramrod. And the only way to stop it is to raise taxes and spend a Gazillion dollars on big government.

Now, we find ourselves on the brink of our new Catastrophe du Jour: Complete economic collapse. We're losing 500 million jobs each month -- quite a feat, in a country with only 300 million people. Soon, elitist Liberals won't be able to afford the fuel for their Gulfstreams; this in turn will reduce attendance at Sundance and Cannes, causing the economy to further spiral into the abyss. Uncaring Conservatives don't need money as long as they have their religion and guns to cling to, and their ears are deaf to the cries of the children whom they have no concern for once they're out of the womb. We're rushing ahead to economic doomsday faster than Ted Kennedy to a bridge. And the only way to stop it is to raise taxes and spend a Gazillion dollars on big government.

Save us, Obama!!!

Obama: Catastrophe coming if Congress doesn't act

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama said Wednesday the recession will turn into "a catastrophe" if the economic stimulus is not passed quickly, lobbying for the plan anew as its price tag climbed above $900 billion and drew more criticism.

The president rejected several criticisms of the plan: that tax cuts alone would solve the problem, or that longer-term goals such as energy independence and health care reform can wait until afterward. The White House released some of Obama's remarks ahead of a White House announcement on executive compensation limits.

[...]

Obama urged members of Congress "to act without delay" while also promising to make changes to the legislation.

"No plan is perfect, and we should work to make it stronger," he said. "Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential. Let's show people all over our country who are looking for leadership in this difficult time that we are equal to the task."

Obama has sought each day to ratchet up the pressure on lawmakers, bringing different supportive groups to the White House, scheduling a series of TV interviews, even traveling to a charter school to tout one portion of the bill.

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future," he said in his prepared remarks. "That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan."

Remember, folks -- it's only the Conservatives that use fear as a tool to further their agendas.

Obama argued that recalcitrant lawmakers need to get behind his approach, saying the American people expressed their preference for his ideas when they chose him as president in November.

In other words, "I won."

Yes, you won, Savior. But you didn't win by telling voters beforehand that you were going to go on a $1,000,000,000,000+ spending spree during your first month in office. For those who get desensitized by all those zeros, here's a pretty picture to put it all into perspective:

(h/t Suitably Flip, via Libertarian.org)

Many others have pointed out that the Democrats have the votes to pass this on their own, they don't need "bipartisanship" to implement this scam. However, they will need bipartisanship when, in the near future, they find themselves in front of voters to explain this debacle. They need bipartisanship so they can deflect the blame to the Republicans when (if?) the American people wake up and realize they've been fleeced.

You'd think the GOP would see through all this... but no, they're going scurry aboard and sign onto this piece of garbage anyway. They'll knock maybe a few billion dollars from the bill and pass perhaps a $1.1T package instead of a $1.2T one, then delude themselves into believing they were victorious. The Loyal Opposition has morphed into the Loyal Lapdog, which is why I despise Republicans even more than the Democrats right now -- at least the Dems do what they promise.

Update 2/5: No letting up on the fear-mongering. Malkin covers our Savior-in-Chief's op-ed piece in Pravda The Washington Post.