Cornhusker’s Revenge?

Nebraska held its 2012 Primary Election yesterday. Not surprisingly, the Republican races were well represented in both the number of candidates running for National office and the number of votes cast for those candidates.

As expected, Obama and Romney won their respective races. Obama was unopposed and the Republican ballot was populated with the names of the last four GOP candidates (Gingrich, Paul, Romney and Santorum). There were also six Libertarian candidates on the ballot, though combined they garnered only 169 votes, or less than 0.06% of the votes cast.

Cornhuskers cast a total of 293,719 ballots, almost 37% of the votes cast for President during the 2008 General Election. However, there were only 245,139 total votes for a Presidential candidate (Dem and Repub), 84% of the total ballots cast. Chart 1 below shows the breakdown:

Chart 1

Is the 2012 General Election going to result in a Cornhuskers Revenge? Obama only garnered 21.2% of the total votes cast! Granted, he was unopposed and the Republican Senate race caused far more attention anyway (you know … the race to fill the seat currently occupied by Senator Cornhusker Kickback Ben Nelson).

This is bad news for Obama and the Democrats.  While Obama carried Nebraska’s 2nd District in 2008 (Nebraska allocates its Presidential electoral votes by Congressional District), Republicans overwhelmingly outvoted Democrats in all three districts yesterday, as can be seen in Chart 2 below:

Chart 2

Seems Republican voter enthusiasm is outstripping the Democrats. It’s far to early to read too much into yesterday’s Nebraska Primary, but if these results are anything near what happens in November, Obama is toast!

By the way … congratulations to Deb Fischer for her come-from-behind win against Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning in the Republican Senate race. Her chances are good to beat the retread, New Yorker former NE Senator Bob Kerry in November. Let’s hope she joins with other conservative Senators in helping Republicans take control of the Senate.

Posted in Politics Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Defining Marriage

I’m sure that last Wednesday afternoon you were waiting with bated breath as I was for the President to announce his latest … errr final … uhh current … ehhhh position political distraction on the definition of marriage. I’m also sure you were [Pick one] shocked, dismayed, surprised, unnerved, awed, inspired, thankful, disappointed, frustrated, baffled, entertained, dumfounded, and my personal favorite … amused. All this because his earth-shattering pronouncement was not only expected, it was also meaningless.

Had Obama wished his newly “evolved” position on gay marriage to actually mean something, he would have revealed it weeks ago. After all, he told ABC News’ Robin Roberts “I came to the conclusion that gay couples should have the right to legally marry earlier this year and had planned to make this known publicly before the [Democratic Party National] Convention.” But he didn’t.

Were he sincere, he would have added the weight of his office to the argument being waged on the ballot in South Carolina, adding the definition of marriage to that state’s Constitution as being only between one man and one woman, (BTW … the amendment was approved by the voters 61% to 39%) but he didn’t. So why did he make his announcement now?

$$$$ … big campaign $$$$. He had a fundraiser in Hollywood scheduled for Thursday evening and many of his gay backers were holding off donating until he swung (pardon the pun) over to their side.

But enough about the huge non-news story. What is causing the Left to push so hard for gay marriage? First, it is the Left doing the big push, not just gays.

Marriage has never in history been defined anywhere as being anything other than between man and woman. At times and in places the numbers involved may have varied (polygamy vs. monogamy), but never has marriage meant a union between the same sex (and don’t confuse sex with marriage).

So this flies in the face of so-called conventional wisdom claims that the president was on the “right side of history” in making his pronouncement. Conventional wisdom is seldom wise, regardless of how conventional.

The Left has worked for decades to erase traditional, accepted, commonplace distinctions; between countries, between religions, between cultures, between men and women. Examples abound:

  • Obama says “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
  • Islam is a simplification of Christianity as Buddhism is a simplification of Hinduism. But in another sense Islam adds to Christianity, for where Jews have only our “Old Testament” Scriptures and Christians add the New Testament, Moslems also add the Koran. They accept the claims of the Jewish prophets to be sent by God. They believe Jesus deepened this revelation and that Mohammed completed it. Mohammed is “the seal of the prophets.” He tells you how to live Jesus’ ethic.
  • preschool in Sweden wants to eliminate gender bias by referring to children as “friends,” instead of girls and boys, and avoiding gender-specific pronouns such as “him” or “her.”

This same technique is being applied to marriage. Why?

If one wants to totally remake a society, it will be easier if one first destroys the common symbols; language (why not English as the official language of the US?), history (ask a high schooler which President accomplished the Louisiana Purchase), religion (when did you last take your children somewhere during “Easter” vacation?) and not lastly, marriage.

The Left says in many different ways that the reason they support gay marriage is because of compassion for individuals and the need for equality. “After all, if two people love each other, shouldn’t they be allowed happiness?”

Societies define the rules by which they exist. While compassion can be an objective, standards are the other. At the core of our society is the family, generally made up of a man and a woman not closely related by blood. Taking the Left’s approach, if a mother and son “love” each other, why not allow them to be “married?”

Extrapolate even further … I introduce you to Lucy.

Lucy

I’ve had Lucy for over ten years and I really love her. I also know she loves me by the way she acts when I return from a week-long business trip. By Leftist logic, shouldn’t we be allowed to marry? Of course not … our society has determined a union between a human and an animal forbidden, just as it forbids parents and children, brothers and sisters and other close relatives to marry.

Why has virtually every society throughout history defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman?  The answer can be summarized in one word: children.

Protecting the interests of children is the primary reason that societies regulate and even license marriage in the first place. After all, our society in the form of government does not license or regulate any other form of intimate relationship; not friendship or dating. People are free, under our laws, to live as they choose, and engage in sexually intimate relationships with whomever they choose – all without any governmental recognition or regulation.

But marriage is a special relationship reserved exclusively for heterosexual unions, because only the intimate relationship between men and women has the ability to produce children as a result of that sexual union.

Societies set rules and its members abide by those rules. We don’t destroy what defines us just because a small subset desires the rules be changed. Unless you’re from the Left: then feelings trump traditions, standards, even truth.

Posted in Culture, Liberals, Politics Tagged , , , , , , ,

If I wanted America to fail …

The video below says it all:

The producers of this video have captured the essence of the liberal’s agenda in just a little less than five minutes.

If Liberty loving Americans don’t defeat Barack Obama and his America-hating fellow socialists, the America we know will not exist in in the year 2020. I am not a fan of Mitt Romney, but we are going to have to elect him as our next President regardless.

We can pick up the pieces in 2016!

Posted in Energy, Environment, Liberals, Politics Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Liberalism’s Blind Spot

Prior to the unprecedented Supreme Court hearing on President Obama’s signature accomplishment, the Orwellian named Patient Protection and Affordable Care for America Act,  several learned and scholarly experts provided their early analysis of the likelihood of Obamacare surviving a challenge by SCOTUS:

Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School dismissed the seriousness of the case in the New York Times opinion piece on Feb 11, 2011, concluding “Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. By that standard, this law’s constitutionality is open and shut. Does anyone doubt that the multitrillion-dollar health insurance industry is an interstate market that Congress has the power to regulate?”

Another:

“Although the prospect of a closely-divided court could bring an exciting horse-race aspect to the deliberations, the sober fact is that both legal and ideological analyses of the court suggest that the mandate is likely to survive scrutiny fairly easily. It could even achieve a robust majority opinion.” The Supreme Court will uphold ACA – by Samuel Buckley, December 10, 2011

… and still more:

“Journalistic convention requires that when there are two identifiable sides to a story, each side gets its say, in neutral fashion, without the writer’s thumb on the scale. This rule presents a challenge when one side of a controversy obviously lacks merit. But mainstream journalism has learned to navigate those challenges, choosing evolution over “intelligent design,” for example, and treating climate change naysayers as cranks.

Court cases are trickier. It’s one thing to engage in prediction that flows from analysis: which side is most likely to win? It’s quite another to let readers in on the fact that one side’s argument is so manifestly weak that it doesn’t deserve to win. Journalistic accounts of court cases, at least in advance of a definitive ruling, understandably tend to take the safe course and treat the arguments on both sides with equal dignity. So it’s perhaps not surprising that just about half the public apparently believes that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is unconstitutional.” Never Before – by Linda Greenhouse, New York Times March 21, 2012

and to wrap up the Left’s adroit thinking:

Mark A. Hall, a law professor at Wake Forest who has studied the constitutionality of mandates that people buy health insurance, said, “There is no way this challenge will succeed in court,” adding that the state measures seemed more “sort of an act of defiance, a form of civil disobedience if you will.”

“Anti-reform advocates have struck a responsive chord with some segments of the public, and have clearly picked their judges well for the initial stages of litigation, but I still believe in the end the courts will defer to the reasonable judgment of Congress, as they must under current law, and not try to impose their own will on the American people.  This is as it should be,” said Timothy Jost, Washington and Lee University School of Law.

Following the opening arguments on March 26, a number of the left-leaning pundits began to come to the realization that at least portions of Obamacare could in fact be overturned. Tuesday afternoon a number of these same pundits as well as many others were apoplectic.

During that portion of the hearings the government’s representative in the courtroom, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, mangled his opening, something rarely witnessed in this highest of Courts.  The remainder of his presentation and his responses to questions from the Justices were often poorly framed or confusing, but this was as much because he was trying to defend the constitutionality of some of the indefensible elements of the 2,700 page behemoth.

None of us will know the outcome of what is becoming known as the case of the century until the Supremes release their ruling, most likely sometime in late June. Regardless, what caused so many of the Left’s most respected academics and experienced journalists to so badly read the Court?

Liberals’ belief system is partially steeped in Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis. Groupthink occurs when a homogenous, highly cohesive group is so concerned with maintaining unanimity that they fail to evaluate all their alternatives and options. But did the individuals quoted above truly believe their pitch?

I suspect some actually believed every word they spoke, especially related to the economic issues within the law. Congress has pushed the limits of the commerce clause since the 1930′s and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s depression era push for more and more progressive rule. Many of the liberals unschooled in constitutional law can be forgiven for falling into this trap … “well, the court has never fully overturned a commerce clause law before, so it must be constitutional.” Or so they were told.

However, I find it hard to believe the esteemed University Professors or the long-time Court watcher for the New York Times didn’t understand that at least four of the Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts) would seriously look at Obamacare, particularly the individual mandate. So why write the blather they wrote?

I submit that these individuals made their proclamations because they are in fact looked upon by the liberal masses as the “go-to experts” on such subjects. It is their voices that are heard in the liberal echo chambers and they wanted the unwashed leftist troops all singing the praises Obamacare sans calamity. So knowing there was an equal chance Obamacare would be found constitutional (Justice Kennedy is the pivot as usual), these “experts” loudly proclaimed “of course the bill is constitutional … why would anyone even think it wasn’t?” while keeping their fingers crossed through the entire charade.

Now that the specter of Obamacare actually being overturned has incomprehensibly materialized, what are liberals to do? Why … yell foul of course! Should Kennedy side with the Constitutionalists, then the ruling will be nothing more than cover for political activists on the court.

On the other hand, should Kennedy side with the four liberals, he will be hailed as reasoned and a bulwark for democracy.

Posted in Healthcare, Liberals Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Sir Mitt The Inevitable

General Electric (GE) CEO Jeffrey Immelt used “sources” earlier this week to let it be known that he was now backing Mitt Romney for POTUS in the November election. If true, this is a real feather in Romney’s cap and a disaster for President Obama.

However, don’t expect Immelt to come out publicly at a Romney campaign rally anytime soon. Why? Immelt is the epitome of a “Crony Capitalist.”

Attributing rumors to unnamed sources, he is in the position to deny he ever envisioned jumping the Obama ship should Obama pull off a miracle and win reelection. By allowing such leaks, Immelt is letting the Romney camp know he is really backing the GOP candidate he’s betting on to be the GOP’s ultimate nominee.

Can you say “having your cake and eating it to?” Immelt has staked a great deal of GE’s massive clout on being in the position to influence who the US government goes to for everything from US Army barracks coffee makers to millions of light bulbs to sole-sourced jet engines for the world’s most advanced fighter jet. Ergo, crony capitalism.

But what of the benefit to the Romney camp? Based on the beating Romney has taken for being a Wall Street insider, does a backing by the 800 pound gorilla of Wall Street CEO’s help matters? Not really. While Romney is running as the GOP’s only “business candidate,” he doesn’t need the endorsement of one of Wall Street’s most identifiable crony capitalist and global warming advocates to remind voters of Romney’s past (and since refuted) forays into AGW (anthropogenic global warming).

Regardless, it is beginning to appear that Romney will be the GOP’s (inevitable?) nominee. Which isn’t sitting well with the conservative base of the party. Romney has yet to win a majority in a primary vote and only one state caucus where Santorum and/or Gingrich were ion the ballot (Nevada, with total of 32,791 votes, Romney won 50.1% or 16,486 votes).

Will this have an effect on Romney’s ability to pull off a win over Obama in the November election? Maybe yes, maybe no (how’s that for equivocating?). There are certainly voters who will refuse to even vote in Nov. if Romney is the GOP candidate. Also, because Romney has refused any serious attempts to play to the Tea Party and other conservative voters I expect much less enthusiasm from those voters … a real case of voting for the lesser of two evils, and most likely a lower turnout than might have been to case.

The Illinois primary may be a good indication of things to come. In 2008, there were 895,247 GOP votes cast. At this writing, with over 97% of the Illinois 2012 votes counted, it appears the vote will be almost the same in 2012 … possibly 1% lower. And he exceeded 50% only in Cook, DuPage and Lake counties; the three most populated (and moderate) counties in Illinois.

This is not a good omen for Romney. He needs an excited base and a large turnout if he is to insure a victory over Obama and he’s not generating one. Endorsements like Immelt’s won’t help.

In this writer’s humble opinion, Romney will win not on what he does or says … he will however, have to continue his record of not losing. If Romney wins, it will be because Obama lost.

 

Posted in Politics Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Afghanistan … the Last Straw – UPDATED

The United States’ involvement in Afghanistan has become, literally, the proverbial quagmire … more-so than Vietnam. The Obama administration has sent so many opposing messages that the military must feel like it’s being lead by a schizophrenic. The message seems to change from day to day.

On March 12, White House spokeshole Jay Carney said “the U.S. and its NATO allies are still on course to hand over security control to the Afghans at the end of 2014.” Carney also said the pace of withdrawal will depend on a variety of factors, but he would not say whether the weekend incident [referring to the shooting of several Afghan civilians by an American soldier] was among those that would be considered.

Today the Tampa Bay Times is reporting the administration is “discussing whether to reduce U.S. forces in Afghanistan by at least an additional 20,000 troops, possibly even more, by 2013, reflecting a growing belief within the White House that the mission there has now reached the point of diminishing returns.” We’ve got a bunch of academics in the White House treating our soldiers like pawns in a computer game.

I’ve shared my views regarding our continued involvement in Afghanistan here and here. On those occasions I said we should either resolve to “win” … what ever that means at any given moment … or withdraw. Following Obama and several top military commanders first apologizing all over themselves for a couple of our troops inadvertently burning a few Korans, then followed by last weekend’s civilian killings by the American soldier, its time to leave.

These latest events are only the final nail. The primary reason we should leave is because we are no longer respected nor feared in that part of the world. We aren’t respected because our political and military leaders lack a spine.

The culture in the middle east is patripotestal and very macho. The ruling class in the US has slowly been adopting effeminate qualities in their dealings with others, which has to grind on the sensibilities of most Pathan village elders, not to mention Hamid Karzai. The result is no respect from anyone in the area. Sure, they may worry about missiles falling from the skies, but those are disconnected from the people scrapping and bowing at every turn.

Our soldiers must follow their commander’s lead by regulation. As long as the military commanders continue to act wishy-washy towards both our so-called allies and the Afghan leadership, the lower chance of anything that could be referred to as success.

As long as our leaders are more concerned with hurting some Taliban warrior’s feelings than with trying to kill him, things will never get better. Further, I seriously doubt that should some adults be elected to lead things in November, they could successfully turn things around. The American public is fed up with the continuing experimentation in Afghanistan.

Bring our troops home!

Updated 20120314 10:08 am: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta arrived in Afghanistan today. Ostensibly planned several months ago, the purpose of the visit changed as a result of this weekend’s shooting.

However, the real shock came when the US Marines Panetta was to address were ordered to leave the tent they had assembled in and disarm before returning to the tent. Afghan troops were admittedly also present and ordered to disarm as well.

Why in heavens name would the head of US military ask his troops to disarm? Because the brass didn’t have the gonads to ask that only the Afghans disarm! Another example of weak-kneed leadership. US Marines are not to be disarmed in a combat zone … for any reason!

Updated 20120323 19:00: Just ran across a post by Diana West on her blog confirming my assertion that the brass ordered our Marines to disarm because they didn’t have the huevos to demand that the Afghans alone disarm:

Marine Major General Charles “Mark” Gurganus, the new NATO International Security and Assistance Force commander for the area that covers Helmand Province, said he ordered the American and other coalition soldiers to turn in their weapons to avoid signaling that their Afghan allies can’t be trusted.

“Somebody had said we were going to have the Afghans leave their weapons outside,” said Gurganus. “I wanted the Marines to look just like our Afghan partners.”

The above quote is reported by Ms West to be from the New York Times. Not wishing to subscribe to a fiction-based publication masquerading as a “newspaper,” I’ll take Ms West’s word that the quote is accurate.

Posted in War on Terror Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Who Wants an Algae Powered Navy? UPDATED

The Hoover Institute posted a 30 minute video yesterday, showing a March 7, 2012 presentation of Hoover national security affairs fellow Lieutenant Commander Manuel Hernandez. Commander Hernandez hosted a forum with Stanford University students to discuss US naval strategy.

The presentation itself was mostly boilerplate facts and figures of the current US Navy staffing, ships, deployments and a general overview of its mission. The interesting parts occurred during the question and answer period. About 18:50 minutes into the video a student asks Hernandez what the Navy is doing in terms of “green energy.” Hernandez starts mouthing institutional pablum about how important the Navy feels it is to move to green energy, bla bla bla, yada yada (BTW did you know our Navy Secretary has set a goal of obtaining 50 percent of its energy from “green” sources by 2020?).

He goes on the discuss the Navy’s goal by 2016 of “sailing the Great Green Fleet, akin to Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet entirely on biofuels … how great or how green is still to be determined.” He expands on this by relating the fact that the Navy’s Blue Angles use biofuel to power their planes. I say fffyytttt! The last I heard, airlines were paying $16 a gallon for aviation biofuel vs $3 for regular jet fuel

Why don’t we instead develop the Great Wind Fleet? That would be greener than a Great BioFuel Fleet wouldn’t it? Just imagine, a fleet of great sailing ships tacking into harb … err a … oh wait … we already did that, didn’t we?

I’ve written before how Liberals want so badly to amend the Laws of Physics, allowing things such as biofuels and other “green” energy sources (think solar and wind turbine) to be “better” than fossil fuels.

Humans have come to fossil fuel technology through a millennia of building on past experiences. I don’t know this for certain, but I imagine the first fuel used by man was in the form of some type of grass. Regardless, wood most certainly followed and dominated for several millennia until someone learned how to make charcoal. Other sources were used when wood wasn’t plentiful, i.e. dried animal dung, bundled straw, etc.

One day someone discovered that a black rock actually burned and the heat it gave off was much greater than an similar quantity of wood. Today we call that stone coal, and a version of that fuel source provides somewhere around 55 percent of the electricity in the United States [until the EPA begins regulating the industry into the ground]. The change from wood to coal illustrates what it is we desire from an energy source … density. The greater the density of energy contained in a fuel source, the more desirable the source (with caveats, discussed later).

Energy density is generally measured in something called Btu (British Thermal Units), or joules (or megajoules [MJ]), per pound or kilogram (BTW, calorie is also an energy metric … yes, the same thing you try to avoid when thinking about that slice of double fudge chocolate cake). I won’t begin a physics lesson, but I did create a chart showing the energy density of some of the better known fuels still being used somewhere around the world today.

Energy density of some of the more common fuels being used somewhere in the world today

As you can see, dung is way down at 12 MJ/kg, where lignite coal (the type of coal one might have found laying around on the ground) is 17.4 MJ/kg. Alfalfa straw has an energy density of 18.4, but it takes a lot of land to grow a kilogram of alpha straw compared to finding a kilogram of coal, ergo density.

So as we humans continued to use more and more fuel with higher energy densities, we had more leisure time as we didn’t have to spend it cutting wood or harvesting straw. This allowed time to explore for and experiment with fuels having an even greater density, among other endeavors. Next came oil … not the stuff we pump out of the ground, but the stuff we rendered from whale blubber. The thing that was so nice about whale oil was that it burned so much cleaner than any other fuel available at the time, in addition to its density. I didn’t find any source on the energy density of whale oil, but I’m sure it was greater than a wooden log or a lump of coal.

After several decades it became apparent that humans would run out of whales, but before that happened some enterprising people found that the black, tar-like substance that seeped from the ground in certain places could be cleaned up and used as s substitute for whale oil. Someone learned how to refine kerosene from that black goop and suddenly whale oil wasn’t in demand anymore. Besides, farmers hated the stuff because they couldn’t grow anything wherever this nasty stuff seeped out.

Crude oil has an energy density of 41.9 MJ/kg … 2.7 times that of dried wood. Plus, it can be refined into products with an even greater energy density … diesel fuel, gasoline, and kerosene for instance, which burn much cleaner than coal or crude oil.

So what about biofuels? Most biofuel is from biomass, produced from vegetative matter. Other biofuel is made from cooking oil and the byproducts from meat production. Ethanol is one form of biofuel and the US produces about 14 billion gallons per year, primarily from corn. It is generally blended with gasoline for use as a transportation fuel. Brazil produces millions of gallons of ethanol from sugar cane, a resource with a greater amount of sugar than corn.

The politics of ethanol are worthy of several essays, so I’ll stick to the physics. The energy density of ethanol is 29.7 MJ/kg, about 65% of what gasoline’s energy density is. I didn’t research how many ears of corn it takes to manufacture one gallon of ethanol, but I bet it’s more than ten. Regardless, with the energy density being so much less that that of a petroleum-based fuel, it will require much more to accomplish the same amount of work.

So why go through all this research and expense to turn our Navy into this glorious Great Green Fleet? Two reasons, or really two excuses. One is the proposition that we are about to run out of oil, sometimes referred to as ‘peak oil.’ Those who subscribe to this fallacy also generally fall into the same group that subscribes to the second reason for green energy … Global Warming!!!!

Experts have been predicting the end of oil as a source of fuel since the mid 1800′s, only then it was whale oil. The Club of Rome commissioned a study that was published in 1972 called The Limits to Growth. In it, they predicted that the world world would run out of oil by 1990. They have since updated the book, claiming the original study was misinterpreted. Whatever!

The fact is, with the technological innovations made over the past four decades there have been vast improvements in finding, recovering, transporting, refining and using oil and its many products. Known oil reserves today are greater than the total amount of all the oil recovered so far. The only thing stopping us from recovering that oil in the US is the federal and some state governments.

As to Global Warming … err, Climate Change, each month brings further scandals and revelations that maybe the science isn’t so settled after all. It is becoming clearer that CO2 isn’t the evil culprit causing the world’s temperature to rise ever so high. Temperature has remained relatively flat since 1998, yet CO2 has remained on an ever increasing climb (see the World Climate Widget on the right side on this blog that shows a chart of average temperature in blue and CO2 in magenta).

Spending massive amounts of money we don’t have on building the Great Green Fleet is a waste, of both money and good cooking oil. We’ve already developed a propulsion system for our larger ships that utilizes a fuel that is more than 75,000 times denser than crude oil! Nuclear power provides us with an energy density that is hard for a layman to fathom, and it is as safe is driving around with a 20 gallon gasoline bomb beneath the trunk of your car.

And President Obama wants us to use algae as a fuel source … pond scum! That’s not small thinking, that’s just not thinking!

Updated 20120314 10:55 am: “Navy Secretary Ray Mabus is defending the service’s spending on the development of biofuels.” Seems the Navy, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, has budgeted $510 million to “jump start commercial development of the advanced alternative fuels industry.” In government speak this means if not stopped, the cost will double at a minimum.

Another case of the Obama administration attempting to pick marketplace winners. This very same thing has been going on in the photovoltaic (solar) energy industry for decades, which finally resulted in the Solyndra debacle (with others to come!).

Biofuels will become competitive with fossil fuels when some guy, experimenting in his garage somewhere in Wisconsin or Louisiana, comes up with a method of using waste vegetable products, animal waste or old tires to make a liquid fuel that is competitive with gasoline in both cost and energy density.

UPDATE 20120327 21:15: A bushel of corn, which weighs 56 lbs., can produce up to 2.5 gallons of ethanol. It also contains 17 lbs of dreaded CO2!!!

Posted in Energy, Environment Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Don Quixote Rides Again

Like Charlie Brown making another attempt to kick the football being held yet again by Lucy, Republicans and conservatives have spent the last few days chasing and battling another contrived controversy. The Democrats have again changed the national argument into something completely unrelated to the original dispute, that the Obama regime has put in place regulations that unconstitutionally deprive Americans’ of their First Amendment right of religious freedom, and off go most conservatives and Republicans, wildly flaying their lances at yet another wind mill.

Two weeks ago I wrote:

So what do you do when confronted by such behavior? First, don’t believe that your impassioned, fact-based, reasoned argument is going to sway them to your side. They don’t want to hear facts, as facts won’t help support their position.

Second, don’t allow them to change the narrative; when they start arguing “women’s rights” during a discussion on constitutional freedoms, stop them dead in their tracks and pull them back to the subject. If they insist on changing the basis of the discussion, call them on it; ask them questions that will reveal their lack of knowledge or their hidden agenda. This won’t help to get them back on track, but it will demonstrate to observers and audiences their duplicity.

Lastly, if all else fails walk away knowing you’re arguing with someone that doesn’t care what is right, fair, proper or true. They only care about themselves and their caring, empowering tyranny agenda.

Unfortunately, most of the people we look to as leaders … Speaker Boehner, many GOP Senators, even Rush Limbaugh … have allowed themselves to be sucked in to this contrivance though they all should have known better. Sandra Fluke, the 30 year old feminism activist and current Useful Idiot du jour, makes what seems to many an easy target. But the real role she played was that of the football. So everyone dutifully kept their eye on Fluke as Nancy Pelosi deftly used her to deflect the conversation away from what really needs to be debated on to a siding controlled by the Dems.

Again I ask … When are we going to stop playing the Dems game and begin setting and then controlling the narrative? Because if we don’t start soon, we’ll be arguing about what the legal diameter of the wind mills we’re attacking should be come November and at that point … it won’t matter any longer!

But no mind … I’m out of metaphors anyway! For those of you still harping about how the libs want the taxpayers to pay for their contraceptives … just stop it! Stop it! Right now! You are being sucked in and becoming Charlie Brown!!!!!!

Posted in Culture, Liberals Tagged , , , , , ,

Delusion as a Mode of Governing

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) calls House Republican Leaders “demons:”

“I saw pictures of Boehner and Cantor on our screens (at the convention). Don’t ever let me see again, in life, those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything. These are demons,” she told the crowd. “They are bringing down this country, destroying this country, because they’d rather do whatever they can do destroy this president rather than for the good of this country.”

Congresswoman and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) reiterates her claim that it was the Tea Party that caused Giffords’ shooting:

“We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords — who is doing really well, by the way, — [was shot],” Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair said during a “Politics and Eggs” forum this morning. “The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular . . . has really changed, I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) accuses Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) of basically being a “traitor to his race:”

“In Nevada, this woman [Aponte, an Obama nominee for ambassador to El Salvador] is seen by the Puerto Rican community, the Hispanic community, as really somebody who is an up-and-rising star. … I just think it’s a mistake for someone who is supposedly representing Hispanic issues to do what [Rubio] has done,” Reid said.

Two female Democrats walked out of a hearing on religious freedom to protest, in their words, the “lack of women to speak on the consequences women face when they are denied contraceptive coverage.”

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), and Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) walked out of the hearing in protest, and Holmes Norton “told reporters in the hallway outside the hearing that she marched out because it was being conducted like an ‘autocratic regime.”

What do these events have in common (other than the fact the subjects are all democrats)? The commonality is that in each case the subjects are using logical fallacies as their defense, rather than applying logic and argument.

Maxine Waters (who has yet to face her peers in the House Ethics Committee on charges related to her husbands banking activities and her possibly influencing banking regulators) doesn’t argue persuasively as to why she she supports Obama and believes everyone in the country should follow her example. She resorts to name calling, referred to as an ad hominem attack.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, while a bit more subtle than her flame throwing colleague, continues her attempt to place the blame for the shooting of Giffords (and the killing of six others) on Tea Party participants, even though the lone shooter was found to be mentally deranged (and seemingly having little to no interest in politics). DWS is using something called post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”).

Harry (This war is lost) Reid has accused Republicans and Tea Party participants of being racist, but in fact it is Harry, applying something called projection, who has his own problems with race (“Barack Obama could win the White House because Obama is a “light skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect.”"). Is Reid applying a false analogy (Rubio is Hispanic, therefore he must represent all Hispanics), or post hoc as DWS did above? It really doesn’t matter; Rubio isn’t the nations Hispanic representative; he’s the Senator representing the citizens of State of Florida. (Does Harry represent all Mormons? Never mind.)

Lastly, the Democrats that walked out of Issa’s hearing (titled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”)  were changing the argument. Because they generally don’t understand the concept of religious freedom, all they could do was turn the hearing into one on contraception.

One look on Bing demonstrates that the vast majority of main stream media reported on the hearing as a hearing on contraception, and only a few reported the actual purpose was to discuss religious freedom in the context of the recent HHS regulation requiring religious institutions to provide their employees with contraception and abortifacients, even if it goes against a particular religions’ basic tenets.

So why regurgitate these stories of politicians acting dumb? It’s certainly not to try and shame them into acting like adults, because neither I nor anyone else could have that affect. And that is the point. I read and hear so many conservatives and Republicans attempting to argue with those on the Left and getting frustrated because all those facts and figures seem to fall on deaf ears. Well … they do fall on deaf ears.

Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, DWS and their kin do what they do because they can’t come up with any logical or rational arguments for their policies. That leaves only name-calling and changing the terms of the argument so as to prove their correctness. They believe that they are more intelligent, more caring, and more generous (even though its with other peoples property) than their opposition. What they are is in denial.

It is difficult for all of us to admit we’re wrong and even more-so if your entire persona is wrapped up in the reason you’re wrong. Many of these politicians claim to belong to a religion (you remember Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, the famously renowned Catholics), but in fact, their religion is Government … the bigger the better. This inhibits them from looking at their belief systems from outside they’re everyday world … a self reinforcing system that leads to denial of anything that doesn’t support their self-induced narrative.

I should add here that there are some Republicans and conservatives that suffer from at least a partial dose of this malady, sometimes temporary and focused (see: ‘Santorum, worst GOP Senator ever’; see also: ‘Gingrich is a Big Government spendaholic’ or ‘Gingrich tells wife he wants a divorce while she’s on her death bed’), and sometimes a fatal dose (see: Crist, Charlie).

So what do you do when confronted by such behavior? First, don’t believe that your impassioned, fact-based, reasoned argument is going to sway them to your side. They don’t want to hear facts, as facts won’t help support their position.

Second, don’t allow them to change the narrative; when they start arguing “women’s rights” during a discussion on constitutional freedoms, stop them dead in their tracks and pull them back to the subject. If they insist on changing the basis of the discussion, call them on it; ask them questions that will reveal their lack of knowledge or their hidden agenda. This won’t help to get them back on track, but it will demonstrate to observers and audiences their duplicity.

Lastly, if all else fails walk away knowing you’re arguing with someone that doesn’t care what is right, fair, proper or true. They only care about themselves and their caring, empowering tyranny agenda.

Posted in Culture, Politics Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Failure as CIC

Iran continues its saber rattling unabated. If anything, they are ramping up their rhetoric. Iran “announced yesterday [Wednesday, Feb 15, 2012] that it had produced enough nuclear fuel so that a fuel rod could be inserted into a Tehran research reactor … ” (BTW, “research reactors” are sometimes used to produce weapons-grade uranium.)

So what has the Obama administration been doing to protect the US from these international terrorists?

I could go on with three times as many bullet points, but you get the point. Obama isn’t concerned about how to strategically position our military in order to best counter this threat. However, one of the greatest failures already committed and another being planned is his rush to extract our military presence in the region. Look at the map below:

Look directly west of Iran. We had a very significant level of air and ground forces positioned inside Iraq to support any potential conflict with the Mullahs. However, our incompetent Commander in Chief (CIC) couldn’t negotiate a reasonable Status of Forces Agreement, something that is routinely used around the world to grant immunity to U.S. forces, causing us to withdraw all our troops from Iraq.

Now look due east of Iran. The Obama administration has announced plans to surrender withdraw totally from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, with the majority of the troops gone by mid 2013. I’ve written before about this withdrawal and in many ways I haven’t changed positions, but this threat from Iran should cause our military to be looking at the region more strategically.

As events are currently shaping up, I would suspect the Iranian kerfuffle to have blown up long before we have pulled out of Afghanistan. Because of the land-locked nature of Afghanistan it will never be as ideal of a location from which to stage attacks from, or support incursions by Israel, as Iraq would have been. Regardless, its better than having to rely on our carrier fleet and our current, and only Persian Gulf naval base at Manama, Bahrain.

If Obama thinks he can keep the US out of a fight with Iran, if and when Israel can no longer stand by and allow Iran to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, he’s even more naive than I think he is. The best we can hope for is that all of this is delayed for whatever reason until after Jan 20, 2013.

Posted in Intelligence Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Text of the SOTU – Updated

Text of President Obama’s State of the Union Address Jan 24, 2012. I’ll comment in the morning (there is enough raw meat here for a couple dozen posts … but I’d be bored to tears after the second!).

Update 20120127: Decided to get rid of this long, boring speech off the blog, so I moved it here … and there was absolutely nothing new in Obama’s windbag campaign address, so I’ll not discuss it.

Posted in Politics Tagged , ,

What if America Weren’t Racist?

The never ending liberal trope about conservatives being racists, holding racist beliefs, or saying racist things is getting very, very old. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece on this topic here and I’ve written on the subject before here. Frankly charges of racism have become so banal that many (this writer included) accept such a charge as evidence that whatever drew such allegation was most likely correct.

Well, I know the one event that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that America has overcome racism as a cultural imbroglio. That event is when the majority of American voters choose some other candidate, most likely a caucasian, as president instead of Barack Obama.

Wait, you say. Wouldn’t that ‘prove‘ this country is filled with racists? Au contraire dear liberal. Obama was elected not because he had such compelling policy goals; he never fully described his goals. Hope and change are not goals, though ‘Fundamentally Transform America’ is a bit closer to a real goal (he just wasn’t very clear on exactly what he meant). He wasn’t elected because of his overwhelming legislative or scholastic record; he has neither. So why was he elected to the highest office of the land?

Basically two reasons. First and foremost, he is a Democrat and many people would vote for a tomato juice can if it were running as the Democratic candidate (and yes, the reverse is true for many Republicans). Second, Obama is ‘black.’ Many voters decided that his race was the most important issue and pulled the lever for him over John McCain.

In some cases it was the historical nature of Obama’s campaign; the first black person to run for president with a serious chance of winning. In other cases it was ‘White Guilt,’ Shelby Steel’s phrase that is “a loose term that encompasses both an attempt by whites to regain the moral authority they lost after the Civil Rights Movement, and black contempt toward “Uncle Tom” complicity with white hegemony, resulting in a shirking of personal accountability.” I make it a habit to ask those I meet that admit voting for Obama why it was they selected him. In 80 percent of the cases where they respond, their answer falls into one of these two classifications.

So why would voting Obama from office be proof of America’s ascent beyond its racist sentiment? Because we would be saying we are going to treat Obama just like every other holder of that grand office that has not met the citizen’s expectations. Obama would be equal to:

  • John Adams
  • John Quincy Adams
  • Martin Van Buren
  • John Tyler
  • Millard Fillmore
  • Franklin Pierce*
  • James Buchanan
  • Andrew Johnson
  • Ulysses S. Grant
  • Grover Cleveland**
  • Benjamin Harrison
  • William Howard Taft
  • Herbert Hoover
  • Gerald Ford
  • Jimmy Carter
  • George H. W. Bush

None of the men listed above lost their office because of anything but the voters’ belief that another candidate could better lead the country. And if Obama looses his reelection bid in November 2012, it will be for exactly the same reason, which means the county has lifted itself above this pernicious, odious evil (okay, maybe a bit overboard but we are talking about racism! after all).

Notes: Franklin Pierce didn’t actually loose an election. His party failed to renominate him and James Buchanan was elected as his party’s candidate in 1856. Grover Cleveland lost his bid against Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but ran again in 1892 and won, making him the only president to inhabit two Presidencies; numbers 22 and 24.

Posted in Culture Tagged , , , , , ,

State of the Union, Obama-style

Tomorrow night, President Barack Hussian Obama delivers his fourth State-of-the Union address. Don’t be surprised if his main theme is “a do-nothing Congress (to excuse his record on the economy and the lack of jobs) and more class warfare babble. In fact, expect this speech to sound far more like a campaign speech than something a governing leader would deliver during a time the country’s economy is the worst since the Great Depression.

I’ll be curious to find out how many of the points Obama makes tomorrow night align with the points he made during his Dec 6, 2011 speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. I’ve included the White House transcript below, just so you have a copy close at hand.

Begin Transcript:

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I want to start by thanking a few folks who’ve joined us today.  We’ve got the mayor of Osawatomie, Phil Dudley is here.  (Applause.)  We have your superintendent Gary French in the house.  (Applause.)  And we have the principal of Osawatomie High, Doug Chisam.  (Applause.)  And I have brought your former governor, who is doing now an outstanding job as Secretary of Health and Human Services – Kathleen Sebelius is in the house.  (Applause.)  We love Kathleen.

Well, it is great to be back in the state of Tex — (laughter) — state of Kansas.  I was giving Bill Self a hard time, he was here a while back.  As many of you know, I have roots here.  (Applause.)  I’m sure you’re all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie.  (Laughter.)  Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent — and my values — from my mother.  (Applause.)  She was born in Wichita.  (Applause.)  Her mother grew up in Augusta.  Her father was from El Dorado.  So my Kansas roots run deep.

My grandparents served during World War II.  He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line.  And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism.  They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.  (Applause.)

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known.  It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth.  And you know what?  Every American shared in that pride and in that success — from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.  (Applause.)  So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you’d take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement.

Today we are still home to the world’s most productive workers.  We’re still home to the world’s most innovative companies.  But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded.  Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people.  Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success.  Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments — wealthier than ever before.  But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t — and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

Now, for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality.  But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed.  We all know the story by now:  Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or even sometimes understand them.  Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off.  Huge bets — and huge bonuses — made with other people’s money on the line.  Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong.  It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system.  And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we’re still fighting to recover.  It claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people — innocent, hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities but were still left holding the bag.

And ever since, there’s been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness.  Throughout the country, it’s sparked protests and political movements — from the tea party to the people who’ve been occupying the streets of New York and other cities.  It’s left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock.  It’s been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women running for president.  (Laughter.)

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time.  This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class.  Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia.  After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess.  In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years.  And their philosophy is simple:  We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong.  (Applause.)  I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own.  I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules.  (Applause.)  These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values.  These aren’t 1 percent values or 99 percent values.  They’re American values.  And we have to reclaim them.  (Applause.)

You see, this isn’t the first time America has faced this choice.  At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide:  Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low?  Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary?  Would we restrict education to the privileged few?  Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed.  He was the Republican son of a wealthy family.  He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy.  He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.  It’s led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can.  (Applause.)  He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest.  And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices.  And today, they still must.  He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe.  And today, they still can’t.

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism.  “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”  (Applause.)

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical.  He was called a socialist — (laughter) — even a communist.  But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign:  an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women — (applause) — insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.  (Applause.)

Today, over 100 years later, our economy has gone through another transformation.  Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it’s made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world.  And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans.

Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where workers were cheaper.  Steel mills that needed 100 — or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, so layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle.  And these changes didn’t just affect blue-collar workers.  If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the Internet.

Today, even higher-skilled jobs, like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China or India.  And if you’re somebody whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don’t have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages or better benefits, especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune.  “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us.  If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.  Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers.  But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else.  And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory.  And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government.  That’s in America’s DNA.  And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker.  (Laughter.)  But here’s the problem:  It doesn’t work.  It has never worked.  (Applause.)  It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression.  It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s.  And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.  (Applause.)  I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history.  And what did it get us?  The slowest job growth in half a century.  Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class — things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us?  Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country.  (Applause.)  We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy.  It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future.  We know it doesn’t result in a prosperity that trickles down.  It results in a prosperity that’s enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

Look at the statistics.  In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year.  I’m not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars.  I’m saying people who make a million dollars every single year.  For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year.  The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more.  And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.

Now, this kind of inequality — a level that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression — hurts us all.  When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom.  America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country.  That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made.  It’s also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy.  It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder.  (Applause.)  It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans.

But there’s an even more fundamental issue at stake.  This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that’s at the very heart of America:  that this is a place where you can make it if you try.  We tell people — we tell our kids — that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class.  We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do.  That’s why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk.  You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult.  By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40 percent.  And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class — 33 percent.

It’s heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal.  But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work?  That’s inexcusable.  It is wrong.  (Applause.)  It flies in the face of everything that we stand for.  (Applause.)

Now, fortunately, that’s not a future that we have to accept, because there’s another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country — a view that’s truer to our history, a vision that’s been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years.

It’s not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America.  It’s not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all of society’s problems.  It is a view that says in America we are greater together — when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share.  (Applause.)

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy?  Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success.  The truth is we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who’s best at busting unions, who’s best at letting companies pollute as much as they want.  That’s a race to the bottom that we can’t win, and we shouldn’t want to win that race.  (Applause.)  Those countries don’t have a strong middle class.  They don’t have our standard of living.

The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top — the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security.  Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology.

The world is shifting to an innovation economy and nobody does innovation better than America.  Nobody does it better.  (Applause.)  No one has better colleges.  Nobody has better universities.  Nobody has a greater diversity of talent and ingenuity.  No one’s workers or entrepreneurs are more driven or more daring.  The things that have always been our strengths match up perfectly with the demands of the moment.

But we need to meet the moment.  We’ve got to up our game.  We need to remember that we can only do that together.  It starts by making education a national mission — a national mission.  (Applause.)  Government and businesses, parents and citizens.  In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class.  The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average.  And their incomes are twice as high as those who don’t have a high school diploma.  Which means we shouldn’t be laying off good teachers right now — we should be hiring them.  (Applause.)  We shouldn’t be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more.  (Applause.)  We shouldn’t be making it harder to afford college — we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn’t rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went.  (Applause.)

In today’s innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing.  Our factories and our workers shouldn’t be idle.  We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries.  And by the way, if we don’t have an economy that’s built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won’t all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance.  (Applause.)   Because if we want an economy that’s built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering.  (Applause.)  This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words:  Made in America.  (Applause.)

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world.  And that’s why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn’t be sitting at home with nothing to do.  They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools — (applause) — all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Yes, business, and not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there.  But as a nation, we’ve always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed.  (Applause.)  And historically, that hasn’t been a partisan idea. Franklin Roosevelt worked with Democrats and Republicans to give veterans of World War II — including my grandfather, Stanley Dunham — the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill.  It was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, a proud son of Kansas — (applause) — who started the Interstate Highway System, and doubled down on science and research to stay ahead of the Soviets.

Of course, those productive investments cost money.  They’re not free.  And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share.  Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending.  But we don’t have unlimited resources.  And so we have to set priorities.  If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values.  We have to make choices.

Today that choice is very clear.  To reduce our deficit, I’ve already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law and I’ve proposed trillions more, including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.  (Applause.)

But in order to structurally close the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Now, most immediately, short term, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that’s set to expire at the end of this month.  (Applause.)  If we don’t do that, 160 million Americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in January and it would badly weaken our recovery.  That’s the short term.

In the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally.  We have to ask ourselves:  Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing — all those things that helped make us an economic superpower?  Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country?  Because we can’t afford to do both.  That is not politics.  That’s just math.  (Laughter and applause.)

Now, so far, most of my Republican friends in Washington have refused under any circumstance to ask the wealthiest Americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying whenBill Clinton was president.  So let’s just do a trip down memory lane here.

Keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession.  Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit.  (Applause.)  Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century.  This isn’t like in the early ‘50s, when the top tax rate was over 90 percent.  This isn’t even like the early ‘80s, when the top tax rate was about 70 percent.  Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39 percent.  Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families.  Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent.  One percent.

That is the height of unfairness.  It is wrong.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong for Warren Buffett‘s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.  (Applause.)  And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me.  (Laughter.)  So do most Americans — Democrats, independents and Republicans.  And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

This isn’t about class warfare.  This is about the nation’s welfare.  It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.

Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street.  (Applause.)  As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.

But part of the deal was that we wouldn’t go back to business as usual.  And that’s why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on what should be their core purpose:  getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing millions of families who want to buy a home or send their kids to college.

Now, we’re not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way.  But already, some of these reforms are being implemented.

If you’re a big bank or risky financial institution, you now have to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail, so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes.  (Applause.)  There are also limits on the size of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that is going under.  The new law bans banks from making risky bets with their customers’ deposits, and it takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.

This is the law that we passed.  We are in the process of implementing it now.  All of this is being put in place as we speak.  Now, unless you’re a financial institution whose business model is built on breaking the law, cheating consumers and making risky bets that could damage the entire economy, you should have nothing to fear from these new rules.

Some of you may know, my grandmother worked as a banker for most of her life — worked her way up, started as a secretary, ended up being a vice president of a bank.  And I know from her, and I know from all the people that I’ve come in contact with, that the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals, they want to do right by their customers.  They want to have rules in place that don’t put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing.  And yet, Republicans in Congress are fighting as hard as they can to make sure that these rules aren’t enforced.

I’ll give you a specific example.  For the first time in history, the reforms that we passed put in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or payday lenders or debt collectors.  And the man we nominated for the post, Richard Cordray, is a former attorney general of Ohio who has the support of most attorney generals, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the country.  Nobody claims he’s not qualified.

But the Republicans in the Senate refuse to confirm him for the job; they refuse to let him do his job.  Why?  Does anybody here think that the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?

AUDIENCE:  No!

THE PRESIDENT:  Of course not.  Every day we go without a consumer watchdog is another day when a student, or a senior citizen, or a member of our Armed Forces — because they are very vulnerable to some of this stuff — could be tricked into a loan that they can’t afford — something that happens all the time.  And the fact is that financial institutions have plenty of lobbyists looking out for their interests.  Consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them.  (Applause.)  And I intend to make sure they do.  (Applause.)  And I want you to hear me, Kansas:  I will veto any effort to delay or defund or dismantle the new rules that we put in place.  (Applause.)

We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability.  We should be strengthening oversight and accountability.  I’ll give you another example.  Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender.  No more.  I’ll be calling for legislation that makes those penalties count so that firms don’t see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business.  (Applause.)

The fact is this crisis has left a huge deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street.  And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit of trust.  At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis.  They should be working to keep responsible homeowners in their home.  We’re going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house.

The big banks should increase access to refinancing opportunities to borrowers who haven’t yet benefited from historically low interest rates.  And the big banks should recognize that precisely because these steps are in the interest of middle-class families and the broader economy, it will also be in the banks’ own long-term financial interest.  What will be good for consumers over the long term will be good for the banks.  (Applause.)

Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed.  A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share.  And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules.  That’s what will transform our economy.  That’s what will grow our middle class again.  In the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot, and a fair share will require all of us to see that we have a stake in each other’s success.  And it will require all of us to take some responsibility.

It will require parents to get more involved in their children’s education.  It will require students to study harder.  (Applause.)  It will require some workers to start studying all over again.  It will require greater responsibility from homeowners not to take out mortgages they can’t afford.  They need to remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It will require those of us in public service to make government more efficient and more effective, more consumer-friendly, more responsive to people’s needs.  That’s why we’re cutting programs that we don’t need to pay for those we do.  (Applause.)  That’s why we’ve made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars.  That’s why we’re not just throwing money at education, we’re challenging schools to come up with the most innovative reforms and the best results.
And it will require American business leaders to understand that their obligations don’t just end with their shareholders.  Andy Grove, the legendary former CEO of Intel, put it best.  He said, “There is another obligation I feel personally, given that everything I’ve achieved in my career, and a lot of what Intel has achieved…were made possible by a climate of democracy, an economic climate and investment climate provided by the United States.”

This broader obligation can take many forms.  At a time when the cost of hiring workers in China is rising rapidly, it should mean more CEOs deciding that it’s time to bring jobs back to the United States — (applause) — not just because it’s good for business, but because it’s good for the country that made their business and their personal success possible.  (Applause.)

I think about the Big Three auto companies who, during recent negotiations, agreed to create more jobs and cars here in America, and then decided to give bonuses not just to their executives, but to all their employees, so that everyone was invested in the company’s success.  (Applause.)

I think about a company based in Warroad, Minnesota.  It’s called Marvin Windows and Doors.  During the recession, Marvin’s competitors closed dozens of plants, let hundreds of workers go.  But Marvin’s did not lay off a single one of their 4,000 or so employees — not one.  In fact, they’ve only laid off workers once in over a hundred years.  Mr. Marvin’s grandfather even kept his eight employees during the Great Depression.

Now, at Marvin’s when times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and some pay, and so do the owners.  As one owner said, “You can’t grow if you’re cutting your lifeblood — and that’s the skills and experience your workforce delivers.”  (Applause.)  For the CEO of Marvin’s, it’s about the community.  He said, “These are people we went to school with.  We go to church with them.  We see them in the same restaurants.  Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys.  We could be anywhere, but we are in Warroad.”

That’s how America was built.  That’s why we’re the greatest nation on Earth.  That’s what our greatest companies understand.  Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest.  It’s about building a nation where we’re all better off.  We pull together.  We pitch in.  We do our part.  We believe that hard work will pay off, that responsibility will be rewarded, and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on.  (Applause.)

And it is that belief that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie — (applause) — maybe even some of your ancestors — on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago.  By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, on foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country and was determined to perfect it.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.”  In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance.  (Applause.)

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we’ve changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time.  The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex.  But what hasn’t changed — what can never change — are the values that got us this far.  We still have a stake in each other’s success.  We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try.  And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others — is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.”  And I believe America is on the way up.  (Applause.)

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.

End transcript.

Watch for a follow-up to this post after Obama delivers his campaign State of the Union speech.

Posted in Politics Tagged , , , , ,

Newts in South Carolina?

After poking Fox News’ Juan Williams in the nose and b***h slapping CNN’s John King silly, Newt Gingrich came from a way-behind to win the South Carolina Republican primary quite handily.

It appears Newt will win with about a 12% margin, which has to give the Romney campaign heartburn at a minimum and the GOP elites cause to push some emergency campaign funding toward the Santorum campaign (who seems to have beaten Ron Paul by 4 or 5% for third). Florida is a new ball game, and we now have the top three candidates with one win each moving to a state that, while technically in the South, has a very diverse voter base. I suspect the winner of Florida will ultimately prevail in the GOP primary over all (not necessarily win all the remaining primaries, but end up with the greatest number of delegates).

Back to Newt: I have a great deal of admiration for his intellect, his ability to use his linguistic skills to connect with the average American, and his quick thinking to devastate any opponent in a verbal joust. However, as I’ve noted elsewhere, after coming off such a win as he pulled of tonight he has a tendency to allow his ego to overshadow his better judgement and end up sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi or something else equally stupid. Time will tell.

I could easily vote for Newt if he becomes the GOP nominee. I could just as easily (maybe more so) vote for Rick Santorum. There are things I like about each. I’m going to have a bit more challenge voting for Mitt Romney; not that I won’t vote for him should he become the nominee. I’ll write more about Mitt next week.

Newt won South Carolina tonight more for the way in which he went after the main stream media and the way he is aggressively taking the fight to Republican opponents than because of his ‘big thinking’ or ‘profoundly robust’ policy ideas. South Carolina voters saw someone who is willing to fight for the things they believe in, not a political insider and lobbyist.

Newt has captured the heart of many conservatives, something that has evaded Romney’s polished campaign. Can Newt hold on to the brass ring? Can Romney learn from what Newt has shown him?

Stay tuned for Florida.

Posted in Politics Tagged , , , , ,

US Constitution – Outdated … or Good As Is?

A Twitter friend, @ar20org, sent me a link to their web site and asked for comment. I sent back the following:

 

 

 

 

@ar20org responded, asking for my take on their plan for 10 specific amendments to the Constitution. The proposed amendments are:

I think I’ll deal with global statements before getting into addressing specific points. My initial thoughts on any proposed amendment(s) to the Constitution is first the difficulty of actually passing them.

The Founders were brilliant in their crafting of the most profond political document ever written, and the hurdles they placed in the path of amending it are just one example. It is difficult to amend by design and rightly so. Were it not difficult to amend the Constitution, try and imagine what our Republic would look like today (if it still even existed).

My second thought is that many of the proposed amendments really deal with the issue of States Rights. Currently, elections are controlled by the individual states. The Federal government has inserted itself into far to many issues and now demanding that it take tighter control of elections is not something I believe would help the situation. We don’t need any more top-down control!

The last global point I have is on trying to micro-manage our elected officials as to ethics, political contributions, et al.

We currently have the government we deserve, because we have not been paying attention for at least the last 30-40 years and probably longer. If we don’t start paying attention soon we’ll get exactly what we ask for! We citizens tend to blame those “dirty politicians” for all our woes, but like so many other areas of our society, every element of the system bares responsibility to do its part, and plainly We The People haven’t been standing up to our part of the bargain. Things were going along good and so we put it on auto-pilot and now we’re paying for our laziness.

So … on to each amendment:

Balanced Budget with Termination of Office Trigger

There is not much I disagree with in this proposed amendment with the exception of the “Termination of Office Trigger,” which I’ll discuss in a moment.

We desperately need a method of controlling the all-to-well-known urges of the politicians we send to Washington, and I’m not talking about carnal. The ability to spend becomes addictive for those who languish more than about four years in DC. I wrote here and here about balanced budgets and spending controls.

I like the idea of mandating a balanced budget not tied some arbitrary index (i.e., xx% of GDP). Spending should be based on what’s needed in any given budget period. If the need is 16% of GDP but the limit is 18%, magically the budget comes in at 18% … guaranteed!!

I don’t think we want to introduce anything akin to a vote of no confidence into our political process. Who defines “if they are unable to govern effectively.” Creating and managing something of this nature will introduce unintended consequences. The control really needs to come at the ballot box.

Term Limits & Ethics Standards for Federal Office Holders

I am against term limits of any sort. I used to think that was the way to better control politicians, but have since learned that at best it’s nothing more than throwing the baby out with the bath water. Best example; California passed term limits in 1990 … how’s that working out?

The state is now being run by the bureaucrats and the “elected” office holders are just there to pass out the candy and set themselves up for either higher office or get appointed to some commission or other. We Californian’s have lost some very good people (who just happened to be politicians) to term limits. The most current example is now Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA04).

Increasing the minimum age for the different offices is okay, but from my perspective that’s getting way to deep into the trifling. As to citizens commissions to set salaries or benefits or anything else … how are they going to be held accountable? Frankly, I’m in favor of holding the elected officials accountable, again, at the ballot box.

While I agree we need to clean up the cronyism that takes place in Washington (revolving doors, lobbyists, etc.) , the remainder of the proposals under this topic are absolutely way, way, way to deep into the weeds for inclusion into our Constitution.

As this is taking far more ink than I anticipated, I’ll wrap up for today and address the remainder of the issues later.

Posted in Constitution Tagged , , , ,