Sunday, September 06, 2009
TOWN HALLS AND TEA PARTIES - SOME HISTORY
Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) has some thoughts on the history of Tea Party and Town Hall protests.
CZAR STAR FLAMES OUT
Obama 'green jobs' adviser quits amid controversy.
It must be getting crowded under Obama's bus.
Via Instapundit.
It must be getting crowded under Obama's bus.
Via Instapundit.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
OH, MY
Perfect... Injured Thug Who Beat Ken Gladney Asks For Workman's Comp From the SEIU For His "Work" Injury. Follow the links to 24th State posts as well.
Talk about chutzpah ....
Talk about chutzpah ....
OBAMACARE'S PUBLIC OPTION?
President Obama wants everyone to have health insurance "as good as federal employees have." Well, here's the federal plan.
But guess what? It's (a) private insurance, the same as my current employer-provided insurance, (b) just as expensive, and (c) poses serious risks to beneficiaries if applied to Medicare (who don't get a very good deal to begin with).
But guess what? It's (a) private insurance, the same as my current employer-provided insurance, (b) just as expensive, and (c) poses serious risks to beneficiaries if applied to Medicare (who don't get a very good deal to begin with).
OBAMATURF RALLY IN DENVER
Organizing for America, the president’s perpetual campaign organization, stages a show in Denver.
MORE ENVIRONMENTAL INSANITY
Let’s see ... the wildfire in southern California has now killed two firefighters, destroyed at least 76 homes and burned nearly 242 square miles of the Angeles National Forest.
”Months before the huge blaze erupted, the U.S. Forest Service obtained permits to burn away the undergrowth and brush on more than 1,700 acres of the Angeles National Forest. But just 193 acres had been cleared by the time the fire broke out .... [C]ritics suggested that protests from environmentalists over prescribed burns contributed to the disaster, which came after the brush was allowed to build up for as much as 40 years .... Biologist Ileene Anderson with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental organization, said burn permits should be difficult to get because of the potential damage to air quality. Clearing chaparral by hand or machine must be closely scrutinized because it can hurt native species.”
Uh, huh. Now over 200 square miles of “biological diversity” is gone. And the air quality? Well, let’s see ... 1700 acres permitted for controlled burning is bad; 155,000 acres actually burned is ....?
But not to worry, the environmentalists know what the real problem is – global warming. “[H]igher temperatures lead to both reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevadas and an earlier melt, which in turn produces a longer and drier fire season. Result: more and bigger fires.”
Uh, guys, it’s really pretty simple: no fuel, no fires.
”Months before the huge blaze erupted, the U.S. Forest Service obtained permits to burn away the undergrowth and brush on more than 1,700 acres of the Angeles National Forest. But just 193 acres had been cleared by the time the fire broke out .... [C]ritics suggested that protests from environmentalists over prescribed burns contributed to the disaster, which came after the brush was allowed to build up for as much as 40 years .... Biologist Ileene Anderson with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental organization, said burn permits should be difficult to get because of the potential damage to air quality. Clearing chaparral by hand or machine must be closely scrutinized because it can hurt native species.”
Uh, huh. Now over 200 square miles of “biological diversity” is gone. And the air quality? Well, let’s see ... 1700 acres permitted for controlled burning is bad; 155,000 acres actually burned is ....?
But not to worry, the environmentalists know what the real problem is – global warming. “[H]igher temperatures lead to both reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevadas and an earlier melt, which in turn produces a longer and drier fire season. Result: more and bigger fires.”
Uh, guys, it’s really pretty simple: no fuel, no fires.
PROFESSIONAL ISSUES
Jules Crittenden, a journalist and 2003 embed with A Co., 4/64 Armor, 2nd Bge, 3rd ID in Iraq, writes on the incident in which The Associated Press decided to go against the wishes of a young Marine’s family and publish a photograph of him taken after he was mortally wounded in Afghanistan.
Crittenden’s analysis is evenhanded with respect to both sides of the “publish or not” dispute, and worth a read for his insight.
Don Surber also posted his thoughts, initially putting up the photo, then on second thought, removing it.
Ignoring whether or not the publication was in violation of the embed agreement AP signed with DoD, my feeling is that the picture of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard should not have been published. Not so much because it added to or detracted from the story, but simply in respect to the wishes the family, whose remembrance of him will be forever affected by that single picture.
I still recall my father’s body in his casket, 30 years ago, and I still have trouble remembering him as he was before his untimely death.
Crittenden’s analysis is evenhanded with respect to both sides of the “publish or not” dispute, and worth a read for his insight.
Don Surber also posted his thoughts, initially putting up the photo, then on second thought, removing it.
Ignoring whether or not the publication was in violation of the embed agreement AP signed with DoD, my feeling is that the picture of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard should not have been published. Not so much because it added to or detracted from the story, but simply in respect to the wishes the family, whose remembrance of him will be forever affected by that single picture.
I still recall my father’s body in his casket, 30 years ago, and I still have trouble remembering him as he was before his untimely death.
SARAH PALIN VS. DR. DEATH
Not Dr. Jack Kevorkian, but Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the president's health care czar.
Clayton Cramer thinks that the column “overstates Sarah Palin's role ... and the actual role of section 1233, but still does a cute job of reminding us that one of the big differences between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are elitists, convinced that their superior educations allow them to ignore issues of morality....”
I agree with Cramer and would add only that I think the column accurately and precisely describes the “progressive” view as it is taught in the colleges of liberal arts at America’s universities.
One day he was vacationing in the Italian Alps, a top-level government bureaucrat and Democrat insider enjoying the fruits of his labors on behalf of the common good. Government health care was cruising and Zeke was the guy Time magazine predicted will build the most "equitable and ethical" health care system north of Cuba. Marty Peretz, his friend and publisher of The New Republic, described him as quintessential Harvard, "very impressive" and stuffed with "gravitas."
And then he got the call: Sarah Palin had done the unthinkable. She had read the health care bill. Mainstream journalists hadn't read the bill. Congress hadn't read its own bill. But Sarah Palin did. Sarah Palin! He has a medical degree and doctorate in political philosophy from Harvard. The only Harvard she's knows is the chunk of ice off Prince William Sound, Harvard Glacier.
Then she writes something on Facebook -- Facebook, for Obama's sake! -- and suddenly the president, congress, the media, and everyone who is anyone inside the beltway is scurrying for cover. Palin wrote that she wanted nothing to do with Obama's "death panel," the collection of bureaucrats who Zeke was so proudly putting together to assess the "level of productivity" that would determine individual access to medical care.
Clayton Cramer thinks that the column “overstates Sarah Palin's role ... and the actual role of section 1233, but still does a cute job of reminding us that one of the big differences between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are elitists, convinced that their superior educations allow them to ignore issues of morality....”
I agree with Cramer and would add only that I think the column accurately and precisely describes the “progressive” view as it is taught in the colleges of liberal arts at America’s universities.
WRONG TURNS
How Obama's Health-Care Push Went Astray. The complete Wall Street Journal article is interesting and well worth reading, but here is the key graf:
In their infinite wisdom, the liberals have it wrong (again). The people didn’t come with talking points from from talk radio; talk radio got its talking points from them. That’s the difference between grass roots and astroturf.
Rep. Peter Welch, a liberal Democrat from Vermont, had his epiphany during a meeting in a Mini Mart parking lot in Derbyline, a small town on the Canadian border. Over 50 people crowded around a couple of Dumpsters to berate him. “It was stunning,” Rep. Welch said. “They came with talking points’ gleaned from talk radio.”
In their infinite wisdom, the liberals have it wrong (again). The people didn’t come with talking points from from talk radio; talk radio got its talking points from them. That’s the difference between grass roots and astroturf.
EXOSKELETONS ARE ON THE MARCH
An army of exoskeletons is coming. And according to their inventor, Professor Yoshiyuki Sankai of the University of Tsukuba, in Japan, they’re making a difference in the lives of disabled people.
As Glenn Reynolds likes to say when discussing technology advances in health care, “Faster, please.” With something like this, my mother, who is wheelchair bound, could possibly use a walker.
As Glenn Reynolds likes to say when discussing technology advances in health care, “Faster, please.” With something like this, my mother, who is wheelchair bound, could possibly use a walker.
Friday, September 04, 2009
SO CALL THEM PROGRESSIVES
Since the word leaves a bad taste in many a mouth, those of the extreme liberal persuasion have decided to call themselves ‘progressives.’ Laura Hollis would prefer the term ‘regressive,’ arguing that the inevitable consequences of their policies is to move this nation backwards.
While I agree with Ms. Hollis about the direction of their policies, I beg to differ with her choice of name. In Ms. Hollis’ own words:
I say the ‘progressive’ shoe fits. Let them wear it.
While I agree with Ms. Hollis about the direction of their policies, I beg to differ with her choice of name. In Ms. Hollis’ own words:
That is not to say that there is nothing ‘progressive’ about liberals’ policies: our public schools are progressively worse, and our population is progressively more ignorant. Our families are progressively more shattered, and ... [o]ur citizens are progressively more dependent upon a government which is progressively more fiscally irresponsible, unaccountable, and profligate.
I say the ‘progressive’ shoe fits. Let them wear it.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
MAKE THEM EAT CAKE
"Let them eat cake" was attributed to Marie Antoinette, when learning that French peasants could not afford to buy bread. To her credit, at least Marie Antoinette didn't understand that cake was more expensive than bread.
Now it's "Make them eat cake," as a new crop of social critics beg to inform us that we're actually spending too little for the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the furniture we sit on and the gasoline that runs our automobiles.
Charlotte Allen responds: "Keep your self-righteous fingers off my processed food!"
Now it's "Make them eat cake," as a new crop of social critics beg to inform us that we're actually spending too little for the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the furniture we sit on and the gasoline that runs our automobiles.
Charlotte Allen responds: "Keep your self-righteous fingers off my processed food!"
FROM NIMBY TO NUMBY
Not under my back yard: “[Science and technology] research group Battelle is pulling out of a $92.8 million project to test carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Ohio -- one of seven regional sequestration tests underpinning the U.S. Department of Energy's program to kick the wheels on CCS. “ ... “[S]imilar concerns are blocking European power giant Vattenfall's plan to sequester CO2 from its innovative oxyfuel coal-fired power plant in Schwarze Pumpe, Germany.”
Fear of subterranean climate change, perhaps?
Fear of subterranean climate change, perhaps?
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE OBAMA ERA
Victor Davis Hansen comments on what he's learned in the first 7 months of the Obama era -
There's much more, so be sure and read his whole commentary and the comments that follow.
Hansen also notes that he's learned that America is a center-right country (which I'm sure he already knew) by following Obama's decline in popularity. My question is "Can Obama ram his agenda through Congress before his inevitable downfall?"
[D]o not vote in any national election for any politician from Chicago — the odds are you will be getting the “Chicago Way,” like it or not.
Do not believe there is really anything much left to “race.” Just as feminism has descended into abortion rights, so too “minority” means nothing much at all.
There is no more media. The New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CNBC, NPR, etc. are ministries of truth for Obama.
The good life. Privilege is the proper compensation for having the “correct” ideology.
There's much more, so be sure and read his whole commentary and the comments that follow.
Hansen also notes that he's learned that America is a center-right country (which I'm sure he already knew) by following Obama's decline in popularity. My question is "Can Obama ram his agenda through Congress before his inevitable downfall?"
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
OBAMA APPROVAL INDEX - AN UPDATE
The following data is taken from the Rasmussen Obama approval index data from January 21 through August 31 - roughly 7 months of data. The trend lines are second-order polynomial fits, extrapolated 90 days into the future.
The first chart is the approval index, the percentage of respondents strongly approving of President Obama less the percentage of respondents strongly disapproving. The index on August 31 was -11 (30% strongly approving; 41% strongly disapproving).
The second chart contains the sample data; green is strongly approving; red is strongly disapproving; black contains the “uncommitted” - those who approve or disapprove, but not strongly. As above, the trend lines are second-order polynomial fits projected 90 days into the future.
Of interest are the green and black trend lines. Strong approvals show signs of leveling out, indicating a hardening of opinion, which in turn suggests that Obama’s base may be on the order of 25% of the polled population. More interesting is the black curve representing the uncommitted, which is both decreasing and accelerating downward from my last update on August 19.
The third chart is a summary chart; total approvals and total disapprovals plotted together. The disapprovals still show a linearly increasing trend; disapprovals are accelerating downward as the uncommitteds are increasingly moving toward disapproval.
The data suggests to me that the anti-Obama sentiment is about more than healthcare, or energy policy, or tax policy. or federal spending. It may have started with with concern over stimulus spending, and certainly health care is an issue; but I believe what we’re seeing is a general revolt against big(ger) government and, further, that the revolt may have sufficient momentum to be unstoppable.
At least, I hope so.
The first chart is the approval index, the percentage of respondents strongly approving of President Obama less the percentage of respondents strongly disapproving. The index on August 31 was -11 (30% strongly approving; 41% strongly disapproving).
The second chart contains the sample data; green is strongly approving; red is strongly disapproving; black contains the “uncommitted” - those who approve or disapprove, but not strongly. As above, the trend lines are second-order polynomial fits projected 90 days into the future.
Of interest are the green and black trend lines. Strong approvals show signs of leveling out, indicating a hardening of opinion, which in turn suggests that Obama’s base may be on the order of 25% of the polled population. More interesting is the black curve representing the uncommitted, which is both decreasing and accelerating downward from my last update on August 19.
The third chart is a summary chart; total approvals and total disapprovals plotted together. The disapprovals still show a linearly increasing trend; disapprovals are accelerating downward as the uncommitteds are increasingly moving toward disapproval.
The data suggests to me that the anti-Obama sentiment is about more than healthcare, or energy policy, or tax policy. or federal spending. It may have started with with concern over stimulus spending, and certainly health care is an issue; but I believe what we’re seeing is a general revolt against big(ger) government and, further, that the revolt may have sufficient momentum to be unstoppable.
At least, I hope so.
KENNEDY DIES; NO ONE NOTICES
I was in Texas when Senator Kennedy died, not returning home until the day before his funeral. One thing I noticed in the Texas newspaper was the relative lack of coverage. In the (Austin) American-Statesman, a very liberal newspaper, Kennedy's death was front page, but just barely above the fold.
Returning home, when I finally had time to skim the saved Washington DC newspapers last night, I noticed that on the day following Kennedy's death, the Washington Post (the liberal newspaper) had the death on the front page, above the fold, with a shared headline to other news. The Washington Times (the conservative newspaper) devoted the entire front page to Kennedy's death, with a larger than usual headline.
Huh. Two decidedly liberal newspapers downplay the Senator's death; the decidedly conservative newspaper gives a full front page to coverage. Maybe it’s just me, but my personal little conspiracy-laden snark department is wondering if it were all the direction of “The Won,” fearing a loss of worship.
Returning home, when I finally had time to skim the saved Washington DC newspapers last night, I noticed that on the day following Kennedy's death, the Washington Post (the liberal newspaper) had the death on the front page, above the fold, with a shared headline to other news. The Washington Times (the conservative newspaper) devoted the entire front page to Kennedy's death, with a larger than usual headline.
Huh. Two decidedly liberal newspapers downplay the Senator's death; the decidedly conservative newspaper gives a full front page to coverage. Maybe it’s just me, but my personal little conspiracy-laden snark department is wondering if it were all the direction of “The Won,” fearing a loss of worship.
BREAKING NEWS
Pot calls kettle black. “Van Jones, the Obama administration's ‘green jobs’ adviser, told a group of listeners earlier in the year that the reason Republicans are stonewalling the president is because they're ‘assholes.’”
As the saying goes, “It takes one to know one.”
As the saying goes, “It takes one to know one.”
SHAKEN BY ABSENCE OF GOP SUPPORT
“Embattled South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford acknowledged Tuesday that he has been shaken by the failure of a single fellow Republican to back him in his fight to save his job, but vowed to fight on .... The governor [is] trying to survive a scandal involving a widely publicized extramarital affair ... [and] a new ethics probe over his travel and personal expenses.”
Uh, Governor, unlike Democrats, you don’t get a “hypocrisy pass” just because you’re a Republican.
Uh, Governor, unlike Democrats, you don’t get a “hypocrisy pass” just because you’re a Republican.
CARBON CALCULATOR
With all the emphasis on “global warming,” here’s a carbon calculator that allows you to check your energy consumption and compare it – on a per capita basis – to the rest of the US (and the world).
It’s somewhat involved. You’ll need
Once your emissions are calculated, you can link to a page giving national averages.
One note: the per-capita numbers in the linked page is in thousand metric tons/1000 people, so divide your calculated number by 1000 to convert from kilograms to metric tonnes, and divide again by the number of people in the household to get the appropriate per-person estimate [the US average is 19.4839 tons/person].
My usage appears to be just a bit below average for the US: 18.050 tons/person.
It’s somewhat involved. You’ll need
Household information (# occupants and house or apartment)
Annual electricity consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh)
An estimate of electricity generated by coal/natural gas/oil (doesn’t need to sum to 100%; hydroelectric, solar, etc. don't generate CO2)
Home heating with natural gas or oil (in therms; tricky to calculate)
Fuel efficiency and annual mileage for each car in the household
Air travel (short/medium/long/international; business or economy class)
Once your emissions are calculated, you can link to a page giving national averages.
One note: the per-capita numbers in the linked page is in thousand metric tons/1000 people, so divide your calculated number by 1000 to convert from kilograms to metric tonnes, and divide again by the number of people in the household to get the appropriate per-person estimate [the US average is 19.4839 tons/person].
My usage appears to be just a bit below average for the US: 18.050 tons/person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)