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.

Do The Math

Let's see... the population of the USA is 306M, and 500M jobs a month are lost. That means everyone in this country loses his job every month... and some unlucky bastards lose more than one job every month.

Wow. America sucks.

Shrumming Down America

Damn! Seems like all of the Clintonoid retreads are crawling out from under their rocks. This pearl of wisdom from Robert Shrumm:

Attack of the Zombie Republicans

So after all the bipartisan ambience generated by the White House, the stimulus package passed the House of Representatives without a single Republican vote. The President says he’ll win over some Republicans in the Senate, but Arizona Republican John Kyl claims GOP support there is already “eroding.”

They won’t admit it, but like the de facto leader of their party, Rush Limbaugh, Republicans want the President to “fail.” Their arguments—if one can dignify them as such—are by turns petty, dishonest or ignorant, ahistorical and ugly.

Listen up, folks. Methinks Shrumm is on to something, and no one could possibly know better -- after all, his ilk wrote the book when it comes to pettiness, dishonesty, ignorance, and... um, ahistorical-ness? And let's not even talk ugly.

The pettiest point was their complaint about the modest funding for birth control in the original version of the House stimulus bill. Heaven forbid—or at least Pat Robertson does—that the poor would have access to family planning. So at the President’s request, the provision was removed; the funding will come later in a different piece of legislation.

Yeah, well, I'm no Pat Robertson, especially when it comes to the baby-killing issue -- in fact, I'm all for any program which prevents Liberal assholes from breeding. But it takes a special kind of fuckwit to keep a straight face while explaining to me why birth control should be part of a stimulus bill. Will this bill require taxpayer-funded condoms to be "ribbed... for her pleasure"? Is that the kind of stimulus we're talking about? For Christ's sake...

At least their quick, cheap hit on contraception lacked the intellectual slovenliness of their other objections. Once and future presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the GOP House retreat that the size of the recovery package threatened to set off hyperinflation. Either he was intentionally deceptive or, like George W. Bush, he slept through economics classes at Harvard Business School.

Gee. How non-petty is that? You're sooooo fucking clever, Shrumm. My knee hurts from the slapping. As for the intellectual slovenliness of the Republican's (and my) objection, I ask this: if you're so in favor of public funding of contraception, why are you hiding the provision for it in a stimulus bill? Why not introduce legislation specifically for that program? Face it -- you're afraid the American public will oppose it, so you do what duplicitous DC cowards always do: you quielty slip it in some other legislation and hope no one notices. Well, someone noticed this time. Too fucking bad. If there was any public support for your free government rubbers program it would still be in the bill. But there's not, so you blame... the Republicans? Tell me about intellectual slovenliness sometime.

The danger now is not inflation, but a descent into deflation. An economy with a paralyzed private sector needs public spending to create demand, production, and jobs.

But spending won’t work, according to the conservative oppositionists. Look at the New Deal, they say, it failed! This Republican fiction assumes that in 1936 Americans suffered from mass delusion as they reelected FDR in a huge landslide. Apparently voters hadn’t noticed his conspicuous failure in office.

In fact, as I’ve pointed out before, from 1933 through 1937, unemployment declined year on year in what was then the largest period of uninterrupted growth in American history; the Dow-Jones Industrial average rose nearly 400 percent. The New Deal only faltered afterwards, in 1938, as the President prematurely moved toward a balanced budget with less stimulative spending—precisely the course the Romneys, Kyls and Republican ideologues now demand.

Forgive my ugly, ignorant ahistorical-ness, but if government spending results in economic strength, after eight long years of beltway Republicans spending our money like, well, like Democrats, by Shrumm's so-called logic this should already be the strongest economy in world history. Maybe I'm missing something; perhaps economic prosperity only occurs when we give billions of dollars worth of condoms to ACORN, or something like that.

And on and on it goes... until Shrumm gets to (what I assume is) his point:

In light of all this, I’m not in as bipartisan a mood these days as President Obama. But I think he really means it when he says he wants to be. He doesn’t lose his temper so I’ll bet he keeps trying. In the end, he’ll agree to some additional changes in the stimulus and it will pass the Senate too—with or without substantial Republican support. And if Obama’s extended hand is met by a Republican clenched fist, the President will only strengthen his hand with the American people—while Republicans further weaken theirs.

Let's talk about extended hands. Exactly how much hand-extending, bipartisanship and compromise occurred on his side of the aisle during the past 8 years?

Just 27 percent of Americans gave the GOP a favorable rating in December. That’s almost a Bush league low, but they can go down from there—and seem determined to do so.

How much lower? I dunno... how about 9% -- you know, the approval rating of the Democrat-controlled congress?

They even called a press conference to charge that the stimulus bill might aid illegal immigrants. Why pass up an opportunity for more of the Hispanic-bashing that cost them so dearly in the last campaign?

Alas, the mandatory charge of racism. That should make the Republicans cave in. Thankfully, I'm not a Republican.

Right now, Republicans are out of ideas, offering little more than resentment and right wing talking points. Maybe Frum can come up with a substantive agenda for them. Or maybe Republicans are just brain dead. In that case, the voters will surely put more of them out of their misery in 2010 and 2012.

Well, he's right about one thing: Republicans are out of ideas. At least good ideas. If the best they can do is offer up tired, washed-up, career beltway pimps like John McCain, they can look forward to spending the rest of their miserable lives in the minority.

And what, pray tell, is the Democrat party's advice to Republicans? Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. God forbid they might pick up a few ideas.

Sayonara, Douchebag.

And don't come back:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination on Tuesday to be President Barack Obama's Health and Human Services secretary, dealing potential blows to both speedy health care reform and Obama's hopes for a smoother start as president.

"Now we must move forward," Obama said in a written statement accepting "with sadness and regret" Daschle's surprise request to be removed from consideration. A day earlier, Obama had said he "absolutely" stood by Daschle in the face of problems over back taxes and potential conflicts of interest.

Indeed, let's move forward:

NBC News has learned that the president's choice for "chief performance officer" -- technically a deputy OMB director post -- could end up having to withdraw over a number of issues, including tax problems. The withdrawal of Nancy Killefer could happen as soon as today. So far the White House has no comment on the situation.

No, I wouldn't expect them to comment. But I have a comment -- actually a question: Are we now allowed to question their patriotism?

The Real Bush Legacy

Occasionally I uncover a sound, reasoned evaluation of the Bush Presidency. I don't pretend that history's verdict of George W. Bush has yet been rendered, nor can it be during the lifetime of anyone reading this today, in 2009. I've always argued that if your grandparents were alive during the time of the subject in question, you can't call your opinions and commentary "history" because not enough time has passed for events to be put into historical perspective, without bias and subjectivity creeping into your evaluation. That doesn't stop some from trying to write the history books days or weeks after an event occurs -- or, oddly, even before the event. Witness the media mumbling about Obama's "historic" Presidency, before he was even inaugurated! Seems all Obama had to do to make history was get elected. But I digress... this is not about Obama (for a change).

How Bad Was Bush for the World, Really? is a 2-part piece on Bush by Nicholas Guariglia on Pajamas Media. I recommend it to all students of foreign policy, including those (like me) who are on the fence about Bush's legacy. Summary follows, but don't miss the entire thing (Parts One and Two):

President Bush had plenty of foreign policy failures and oversights. Mexico has become the Wild West incarnate; drug lords and militias rule the streets. Our border with the Mexicans remains porous. Overseas, the Russians shifted in the direction of autocracy on Bush’s watch. The North Koreans nuclearized their arsenal. The Iranian problem has been left unaddressed. Bush was at many times incompetent — and at all times inarticulate and incapable of explaining himself or his views. Yes, in retrospect, Senator McCain might have been the better candidate in 2000. All this and more is true.

But to claim Bush was a foreign policy disaster on some unprecedented level is simply untrue. It is an anti-academic accusation and entirely inaccurate, despite what feisty foreign op-eds, YouTube hate videos, late-night wisecracks, and nightclub one-liners would have you believe. President Bush, in fact, did much good internationally.

President Obama has said we must defend ourselves and not undermine our ideals at the same time — a critique of the Bush era, implying his predecessor thought otherwise. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of everything President Bush’s foreign policy was. Not only could we simultaneously uphold our ideals and protect ourselves, Bush believed, but we must also promote those ideals in order to protect ourselves. This was, in effect, the Bush Doctrine: that “the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

George Bush made the promotion of democratic principles the cornerstone of American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. While this has been our traditional role throughout history, we have at times strayed away from this democratic calling, especially in the Mideast. Bush changed that with an emphatic defense of Arab liberty. He also tackled HIV/AIDS and African poverty, Latin American narcotics, the Asian sex slave trade, and Islamist state sponsorship of terrorism unlike any leader we have ever had. Oh, and lest we forget, his administration prevented another 9/11 — a feather in the cap that was thought to be impossible on the morning of September 12, 2001.

Despite what you may feel about George W. Bush, this is not a record to scoff at.

No, not hardly. Especially not if your political ilk's Goliath of international affairs is Jimmy Carter.

I think on balance Bush got it right. He saw the big picture, even though he missed some of the details. I think his Christian faith (for which he has been so maligned by his enemies) clouded his judgment and led him to try to win a war without killing innocent people -- a noble effort, but against the grain of history. Never has an enemy been defeated without being defeated so decisively that the people -- not merely the combatants -- lose the will to fight. (Well, except for Fwance; the Fwench lose their will to fight and surrender without firing a shot in defense of their homeland. But that's another story...) As Japan and Germany learned in the previous century, it is better to be at peace with America than at war. There was a time for compassion, and we delivered it by airlift and boatload, but not until after our enemies' will to fight was as thoroughly crushed as their armies, navies and cities.

A war doesn't end until both sides agree that it has ended, and the surest way to make sure a war has really ended is to flatten the enemy so hard that they never again think to take up arms against America or their neighbors. When our politicians promise to "end the war" by bringing home the troops, it would be nice if they could at least get the same concession from the Jihadists who will undoubtedly use the time out to rearm and regroup. Ask Israel how well it works every time they unilaterally "end" their war with the Islamists.

The classic formula of winning wars by crushing the enemy worked well for every great war in history, up to and including World War II. Somehow after 1945, however, it was decided that ending a war was a more important objective than defeating an enemy. Perhaps some believe it's the same thing; it is not, just as peace is not the same thing as freedom. Following World War II, war as we knew it was replaced by a series of limp-wristed "peace keeping" missions that, in the end, always concluded with a "deal" that left a tyrant (if not several of them) in power to rule over an oppressed population. North Korea, Southeast Asia, Gulf War I -- these are just the big wars, the ones the United States led. We won't mention all those UN peacekeeping successes such as Darfur, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia (pre-NATO), Srebrenica... all bustling democracies now. Not.

War aside, I think Guariglia makes a strong case that Bush did an above average job on foreign policy. If the Iraq war never happened, would the left be any less displeased with Bush? I doubt it; just as the history of Obama has already been written, I believe it was already decided by the pinhead "intellectuals" that the Bush presidency was an abject failure long before he took office. Coupled with an eight year media and pop-culture campaign to promulgate the idea that "Bush failed" among the ignorant and uninformed, without actually backing up such a statement with facts, it will be difficult to change many minds for at least two generations.

This all gets me thinking about the worn-out mantra of the left, about how Bush "squandered he world's good will after 9/11" and how "the international community" holds (or formerly held, for those 8 dark years) America in contempt for whatever imagined greivance. I especially find rich the assertions by leftoids that it's once again cool to tell Euroweenies that you're American.

My general rules of thumb are:

1. If you're embarrassed to tell others you're American when you travel abroad because of who we elect, you can go fuck yourself.
2. If you're not American, and you dislike my country because of who we elect, you can go fuck yourself.

I hope that's nuanced enough for Euroweenies and American leftoids to understand. If not, try the ever so eloquent Ms. Lucas for a more verbose explanation:

Don’t get me wrong, of course I’m glad that English people may be less likely to accuse me personally of prosecuting the Iraq war no matter how incredibly “enlightened” and “accurate” that accusation may or may not be, but what pisses me off is how grateful all these expats sound, how relieved they are they can finally stop pretending they’re Canadian. I’m not grateful; frankly I profoundly resent the implication that my own personal worth has anything whatsoever to do with who half the American voters chose.

I can’t help but imagine how this sort of thing would play were the tables turned. Such as if Venezuela finally got rid of that little pig monkey Chavez and suddenly all the Venezuelan papers had gushing, swooning articles about how Venezuelans living in America no longer have to be ashamed of themselves because NOW, Americans are treating them nice because their home country got a new leader. What the fuck? Does anyone out there know Venezuelans whom you hold personally responsible for Chavez? Do you treat those Venezuelans poorly because you don’t care for Hugo Chavez? If so, you’re an asshole. Just like all the Europeans mentioned in that article up there are assholes.

Frankly, when I was in Ireland and the UK in 2004, at the height of the Iraq war, I had no problem telling people where I was from. To be honest, the only people who brought it up were a few locals at a pub, and they were pretty damn supportive of the USA. They didn't ask me about the war; they asked me what it was like to be near Ground Zero on 9/11, and got a vivid description of the smell of burning steel and flesh that we in the NYC metro area were treated to for weeks after 9/11. Things got pretty fucking quiet for a while.

Frankly, I think the Euroweenies vilify and scowl at America for the same reason the American Left assaults Christianity: because they know that no harm will come to them. If the "European street" was a fraction as vocal about radical Islam, there would be bloody repercussions, so they limit their wrath and aim it West because, well, it's safe. That they do this while Europe is slowly rotting away from the inside with Islamist cancer, well... let's just wait and see who Europe calls in a decade or two when they need help again.

In the meantime, they won't have Bush to kick around anymore.

New Heretic Joins the Ranks of Evil Climate Traitors

Infidel alert:

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen "Embarrassed NASA"

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.

This Theon character is merely the latest so-called scientist to blaspheme against the Church of Global Warming Climate Change. But he's not a celebrity or a politician, so he mustn't be taken seriously; one need only take a furtive glance at his resume to rightfully dismiss him as an uninformed stooge:

Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).

See? Nothing at all to suggest he's a real scientist. In addition, further investigation into Theon's private life has uncovered an embarrassing link to the oil industry that he failed to disclose at his Senate hearing: VLWH has learned that Theon drives an automobile, and has been observed filling it with gasoline, a petroleum byproduct. This clearly proves he can't be trusted.

(h/t: Power Line, Watts, EPW.)

Good News for Daschle and Geithner

Quote of the Day

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

(h/t: NRO, via Cold Fury, Malkin, et al.)

Barry, you're doing a heck of a job.

From Power Line:

Many on the web--but no one in the mainstream media--have commented on the fact that Obama has not even pretended to do anything about the massive ice storm that has disabled much of Kentucky and neighboring states. It took days for FEMA to swing into action. Why is that not a scandal? Days went by before Kentucky's governor called out the National Guard. Why did no one blame Obama for failing to call out the Guard sooner? Probably because he lacks the constitutional power to do so; but the Constitution hasn't changed since 2005.

Doesn't matter. Katrina -- and most likely this ice storm in Kentucky, too -- is Bush's fault. Don't believe me? Then you're a racist. 'Cause Obama's in charge now, and things are different. It says so right there on his White House web site:

President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.

President Obama swiftly responded to Hurricane Katrina. Citing the Bush Administration's "unconscionable ineptitude" in responding to Hurricane Katrina, then-Senator Obama introduced legislation requiring disaster planners to take into account the specific needs of low-income hurricane victims. Obama visited thousands of Hurricane survivors in the Houston Convention Center and later took three more trips to the region. He worked with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to introduce legislation to address the immediate income, employment, business, and housing needs of Gulf Coast communities.

President Barack Obama will partner with the people of the Gulf Coast to rebuild now, stronger than ever.

Didn't take long for us to marvel at the Clean-and-Articulate One's unconscionable ineptitude mad disaster response skillz. From Insurance Journal:

Local officials were growing angry with what they said was a lack of help from the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In Grayson County, about 80 miles southwest of Louisville, Emergency Management Director Randell Smith said the 25 National Guardsmen who have responded have no chain saws to clear fallen trees.

"We've got people out in some areas we haven't even visited yet,'' Smith said. "We don't even know that they're alive.''

Smith said FEMA has been a no-show so far.

"I'm not saying we can't handle it; we'll handle it,'' Smith said. "But it would have made life a lot easier'' if FEMA had reached the county sooner, he said.

Yeah. Heck of a job, Savior. By the way.... Kentucky? They voted 58% for McCain, and they're 90% white. So fuck them! I mean, it's all about race, isn't it? When a natural disaster hits white Republican rednecks, well... I guess they can just cling to their guns and religion, and deal with it themselves. Don't bother Obama, he busy rebuilding Chocolate City.

HopeChange™, crackers!

Mo' better coverage of this by Anchoress.

Another 'Innocent Mistake'

Didn't we bury this asshole already? Like, in 2004?

Report: Daschle Delayed Tax Revelation

Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle waited nearly a month after being nominated to be secretary of health and human services before informing President Obama that he had not paid years of back taxes, the Washington Post reports.

On Jan. 2, Daschle paid $140,000 in back taxes and interest to the U.S. Treasury and about two days later informed the White House and the Senate Finance Committee, the White House confirmed to the Post.

Obama's transition team discovered in December that $15,000 of the $276,000 in charitable contributions claimed by Daschle lacked proper documentation. But Daschle waited until after amended returns were filed before he mentioned the larger tax liability.

Daschle spokeswoman Jenny Backus said he had known since June 208 that his luxury car and driver provided by wealthy Democratic donor, longtime friend and business associate Leo Hindery might be taxable, but never expected the amount to be such a "jaw-dropping" sum and "thought it was being taken care of" by his accountant.

Hindery founded InterMedia Partners, a private equity firm, in 1988. Daschle was paid $1 million annually for his consulting services, the Senate Finance Committee said.

Daschle had an unreported consulting income of $88,333, in 2007.

Bloomberg reported that Backus said Daschle was "embarrassed and disappointed" by what had occurred.

"Senator Daschle is embarrassed and disappointed by these errors," Backus said. "He apologized for his part in these errors and expressed his deep regret that the committee had to devote time to them."

"Errors?" Daschle's "errors" makes Geithner's $34,000 "innocent mistake" look downright amateurish by comparison.

But we shouldnt be so hard on them. From a layman's perspective, I'd say they were just playing by the rules. You know, the ones that elitists have set for themselves, above and apart from the rules you and I must live by. A former Queen once said, "We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." Certainly Daschle and Geithner are Big People, no? They deserve our respect, not simple-minded judgement. Elitists provide a valuable service to America -- after all, without them, who would tell us what to do and how to behave?

'Tis a shame, though... most of us are not Big People. Remember Joe the Plumber? He's classic Little People. After his personal government records were illegally leaked to the media by an Obamunist true-believer, he was "outed" as a tax cheat and skewered by the leftoids for failing to pay (are you sitting down?) a whopping total of $1,182.92 in back taxes -- that's eleven HUNDRED! With an "H"!!! -- an amount which I doubt would pay a single day's interest on Daschle's debt to the IRS.

We've learned a valuable lesson here: If you're going to cheat on your taxes, do it big. A $1,200 debt gets you vilified by leftoid hacks; $34,000 in tax evasion lets you run the Treasury; and $140,000 buys you the Health and Human Services Dept. Such a deal!

HopeChange™, fellow Little People.