California Leading the Way in Economic Reform?

Could such a thing happen?

It's a funny thing, this notion of "where you're from." I'm 11 years removed from spending any substantial time living in California and yet I still consider myself "from there." When abroad, people ask where I'm from and I qualify my response with something along the lines of:

"Right now, Denver. Originally, from California."

It's not Californian snobbery that compels me this way. I just still identify a lot with being from there. I still follow the LA Times and my neighborhood's local newspaper. I still care a bit how my old high school football team does, and I'm genuinely interested in which roads are being repaved and which businesses are doing well or not in my old digs.

Anyway, I've been watching California's slow decline over the last decade (which has corresponded eerily with my departure--coincidence?) with no small amount of sadness. The governator fiasco has been a romp, but it may be coming to something interesting.

Ah-nold and his batch of "girly men" (his words) in the state legislature have some interesting ideas over how to make California grow again. Here are the highlights of what the bipartisan commission suggests that the legislature adopt. This is notoriously LIBERAL California, mind you:

-Instead of six tax brackets, just have two.

-Eliminate all deductions and credits other than for charity, mortgage interest and property taxes

-Cut the top statutory income tax rate to 6.5% from 9.3%. Most taxpayers would receive a 25%-30% tax cut and all would pay less.

-Abolition of the state's corporate income tax and the elimination of most of the state sales tax that finances the state's general revenue fund

-A broad-based, low-rate state value-added tax (VAT), collected on business net receipts (revenues less purchases from other businesses, including immediate expensing of capital), that is capped at 4%.

The plan's garnered praise for its potential to lure businesses back to California and by an important reality that I hope we don't forget on a national level:

If progressive policies come at the price of competitiveness, innovation, efficiency, and profitability, will eventually drive out the revenue generators whose prosperity creates opportunities for the middle class and support for the poor.

California is a state where the top 1% used to be counted on to pay 50% of the total tax revenues for the state budget in taxes. The tax burden by California's attempts at progressive policy have steadily eroded that top 1% to the point that it is unsustainable.

If they can fix that and can come out with some way to reform how they spend their money, they might be a good example for Congress to follow.

Read more...

Bully Politics

Remember when Bush was derided for his "go it alone cowboy" approach to world diplomacy?
Well it seems Obama has a different yet similar approach.

Step 1. Apologize for everything America does
Step 2. Snub friends and major allies
Step 3. Withdraw protection from weak, vulnerable allies
Step 4. ????
Step 5. Profit

I'm not sure how this will shake out, but France is making us look weak-kneed.

Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.

President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy.

Is the change you wanted to look weak when compared to the French?

Read more...

Fair and balanced

This is what I want my kids learning in public schools.


Seriously when can we torch the public school system and replace it with charter schools?

Read more...

Humor Break

I saw this list of passive aggressive kitchen notes and had to pass it on.

Read more...

Capitalism, the Enemy

Barack Obama chastised the United States (again) and apologized (again) to the UN General Assembly for the US being the leader of the world. Which comes as no surprise whatsoever. After all, Barack Obama sees America as an imperialistic war-mongering, slavery burdened bully. The same way all Marxist thugs see it, which is why Castro, Ghadafi, Chavez and all the others shower praise upon the crowned prince, Obama. ("We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as American president") So really, speech #68 in the Obama Apology World Tour is not exactly news is it?

Meanwhile climate change, the greatest hoax in American history (other than Obama himself), continues to be the focus of his apologetic sorry-mongering.

However, the legitimacy of global warming is irrelevant to what is really at the heart of the argument. The President has no intention of reducing "carbon pollution" or curbing rising temperatures. Those things do not exist. They are simply a means to an end. In fact, the world is not warming, and there is not imminent catastrophe awaiting us 4 months, 4 years, or 10 years down the road. The very fact that these alarmists cannot even agree on the date for our demise should raise red flags in the realms of common sense and logical thought. Are we so arrogant as to think that 100 years of industrial activity is bringing an abrupt end to a planet that has survived and thrived for billions of years?

And disregard the fact that the same people crowing about climate change today are the same people who claimed the coming of an imminent demise, brought about by mass freezing and over-population as recently as the 1970s. They were spectacularly wrong. If there is a credibility shortfall in the climate change argument, the prophets of the movement need not look any further than their own publications as to why that shortfall exists.

However, saving the planet is cover for controlling the masses.

An intrusive government has always sought to control its citizens. Whether the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Castro's Cuba or modern-day Venezuela, the end is the same: government control. And today the United States is following along that road, using "climate change" as the vehicle for "progress". That, along with health care reform, soda and cigarette taxes, cash for clunkers (you must, after all, drive the proper kind of car) and a host of other social justice and global salvatory regulations that are meaningless and ridiculous. And when those vehicles stall, then blatant thuggery fills the gap. Just ask Humana.

Steven Chu, the president's energy secretary showed his hand recently when he, speaking about climate change, declared that the "American public ... just like your teenage kids, aren't acting in a way that they should act. The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is."

And who better than to teach us the error of our ways, to tell us how to act, than Barack Obama. The Simba to Ted Kennedy's Mufasa. The intellectual golden tongued phenomenon. The One. Who are we to question the wisdom of this Harvard educated, international superstar? We are but witless subjects standing helpless and hapless, barefoot and disheveled with a dirty hand outstretched and begging "please sir, may I have some more?"

To oppose him is to foster racism and hate and irrational, dim-witted fallacy. To oppose Barack Obama is akin to murder and genocide. The very essence of hate-speech is to question our Dear Leader. An offense that ought to be punishable with a public stoning.

But I digress. Slightly.

What exactly is the president up to? He declared with impunity his intention to "fundamentally transform the United States". Transform to what?

His history and his associations give us a clue. As a community organizer his job was to agitate and to create a climate of crisis. To, as has been the stated goals of his mentors, flood the welfare rolls creating so much dependency that they collapse the capitalistic system in the United States.

As always, the enemy for the left is capitalism.

In the end the line in the sand is drawn between climate change (and all that goes with it) and capitalism. As the sanctimonious, and asinine "The Story of Stuff" demonstrates, our social and environmental ills all stem from capitalistic failure, selfish profiteering and the all encompassing, universal evil of consumption.

And that is the new American debate.

Are we willing to forgo a system of economic and social liberty that has given rise to the greatest nation in the history of the Earth for a nanny-state mediocrity ruled by anointed intellectuals who have never, at any point in the morality tales of their lives held a normal, private sector job? Do any "Progressives" know where money comes from? Or is it simply enough, within the social circles of Washington and New York City to demean and condemn the existence, creation, and gathering of money? All while attending a party at a city high rise, smugly sipping expensive drinks and eating imported caviar.

Our president believes that economic and personal freedom is unjust and unfair. The disparity in results which arise from human effort, ingenuity and luck are a disease and plague that have created a nation of selfish, petty, hateful white males. His entire life has been spent agitating people to act on this fallacy, this lie. It ought to come as no surprise that this is the narrative that is emerging from his fledgling presidency. The fundamental transformation is the calculated demise of capitalism and American prosperity.

And though no doubt, some of you will dismiss this entire piece as the rantings of a right-wing, racist, hate mongering, idiotic rube, I challenge you to prove me wrong. Show me how Barack Obama is enhancing our capitalistic superiority, our prosperity, our independence.

Prove to me that the decline and demise of our way of life is not the priority of his agenda, and at the heart of his world view.

Read more...

War on (Climate) Terror

The President of the United States spoke at a UN Summit today. He said the following:

That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from [...] is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together -- we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

I edited out what threat he was talking about. But you probably know already. Was it the War on Terror? The struggling economy? Was it the dire situation in Afghanistan?

Of course not.

That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together -- we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

Oh. Right. Climate Change.

We should definitely be focusing on that right now. Never mind our economic struggles, a two-front war or a growing threat from terrorists. Never mind the slow boil of the Israeli-Iranian conflict or the Russian/Venezualen/Iranian alliance that is busy making certain the other is armed with heavy weaponry.

No, never mind all that!

Global warming is going to destroy the planet! Tomorrow!

Except. It's not.

Read more...

Chris Matthews: Forgetful.

In addition to the thrill going up his leg, Chris Mathews has a short memory. In his trademark delusional style he first claimed that it was right-wing hatred of JFK that inspired a left-wing communist to kill the president. I'll let you sort that one out for yourselves. I am sure that on some plane of existence, and in some Ivy League classroom that that agrees with every known principle of logic that man has ever devised. Of course, out here in fly-over country, among the overall wearing, cud chewing, gun toting, bible thumping rubes, a claim like that simply makes no sense. At all.

But never mind that.

Matthews also said the following, which I found laughable. Even more so than the above. And he somehow managed to say all these things with a straight face.

You can go to a rally and hold up a sign talking about the man in the White House being some kind of animal, that he’s a Hitler guy, the fact that somebody would know they can get away with carrying a sign like that without being shunned, pushed aside, even beaten up, tells me there’s a license out there. … You wouldn’t hold up a sign like that a few months ago.

"You wouldn't hold up a sign like that a few months ago"

Oh. Really?





Thank you Chris Matthews. I needed a good laugh this morning.

h/t: RS

Read more...

Sr. Advisor

Finally, I have the chance to shape the administrative and policy decisions that the Obama administration is pushing. I will be right there alongside the SEIU and ACORN. In short, I have hit the big time!

Here, let me prove it:



Mr. President, as your new Twitter Czar, let me start off with this:

@barackobama Dude. Stop spending so much $$. And what does "all wee wee'd up" mean?

Read more...

VORP

The term “VORP” is thrown around by baseball nerds all over the country. It represents the value an individual player adds to a team over the standard, average level major league player in their position. This is represented as a number of runs created or saved depending on if it is a hitter or a pitcher. Albert Pujols had a VORP of 96 last year. Translated: that means over the course of the season he created almost 100 more runs for his team over an average first baseman. That equates to being a monster. This year he is sitting at 86 with a little less than a month to play, not too bad.

But this isn’t a post about sports. This is a post about my current performance in my job. I’m in a rotation which means that I move to a new job every 8 months. I am at the manager level in the whole hierarchy, and there are plenty of managers within the company. This past week I started thinking that VORP is something that we could probably adapt to the corporate setting. If I look at managers across the company we have people in the standard 3 categories, As, Bs, and Cs. Bs are your average performer, they deliver when it’s needed and they generally hold the company together. This is my baseline.

If I want to consider myself a “hi po” I have to look at what the average manager does, and measure the difference between what their performance would be and what mine currently is. If I want to be considered for bigger jobs, bigger bonuses, and more responsibility I have to make sure I have a high VORP. If my VORP is low, my manager might think replacing me is easy, anyone can replace Bobby Crosby with an average performing shortstop. It is quite difficult to replace Albert Pujols or Alex Rodriguez.

I think this gets a little messy when trying to attach a dollar value or some sort of "wins equivalent" but I think the principle is useful, particularly in a large organization where there are hundreds of people at a similar level all vying for promotion/higher bonuses.

Read more...

Let Me Be Clear

President Obama loves to say "let me be clear". And usually what follows is a convoluted garble of half truths and fuzzy math. Or, in some cases, outright lies. Yes, Mr. Obama, "you lie". Despite the rude nature of Joe Wilson's interruption (but no more rude than the cat calls and insults hurled at Bush from (D) congressmen during his term), he was correct.

Case in point. April 2009, in Prague:

So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. (Applause.) If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed

Today's news that Obama intends to scrap missile defense in Eastern Europe sparks two very interesting questions. It also highlights Obama's very ironic, or sinister, sense of history and timing. It was 70 years ago today that the Soviet Union invaded Poland.

1. What did Russia, who has fiercely opposed the missile defense system, give the United States in return? Answer: Nothing. Which displays Obama's deft negotiating skills.

And 2. The president said, "If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed". Am I missing something? Has the threat in Iran been "eliminated"? Apparently not.

I can't help but think that Putin, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad and every other Marxist thug are laughing this morning. In fact, I'd wager they've already called the White House to offer congratulations.

Meanwhile the tanks in Russia are warming up.

Read more...

Apolitical, Karmatic

I thought that for a change, I'd post something apolitical. However, I will say this: I love the political discourse, discussion and battle of ideas that takes place in the United States. It is, in essence, the very example of what our Constitution guarantees. I appreciate the intellectual stimulation that everybody's different perspectives provide. I only wish Sam was still chiming in...Sam?

Anyway.

The following is reposted from Epic Riding, but I thought it was a fun story, and that our readers here would find it amusing. I know I did, while it was happening. A little background is in order. I recently raced a 75 mile mountain bike race in Park City, Utah, called the Park City Point to Point (PCPP). It was a fantastic event, one I will do again and again. I ought to also point out that StupidBike's wife, Lyna played a HUGE roll in helping the event go as well as it did. She volunteered at aid stations, helped register racers, took a ton of great photos, and handed up bottles. And that was just on race day. There were other countless hours put in before hand as well. Well done, and thanks!

The Karmatic Undulations of Racing

Eight miles from the finish line at the PCPP I came across a racer that I had been riding with, off and on, for the entire race. He’d pull away on the downs, I’d pull him back on the ups. There was a bit of chit-chat here and there, but mostly we suffered in mutual silence. I was always glad when I’d round a corner and see him up the trail a few yards. Except when I saw him, again, just eight miles from home hunched over his ailing bike.

“Need anything?”

“You have a wrench? I ripped my derailleur off.”

I dropped my brand new Crank Bros. multi-tool into the dirt.

“Thanks!”

As I rode off I hoped that I would not have need for the tool. I was feeling great, and I knew the end was close at hand. I put my head down and continued pushing along the route.

“Hopefully karma sees me through to the end.”

Now, what I had in mind when I mumbled those words was that karma would be a boon and a blessing to me and help me finish problem free, because I had done a good deed in helping a fellow racer get back on his bike. What I did not have in mind was that I’d in fact have need of another’s good will, just 2 miles from the finish line. After using up my four CO2 cartridges in a panic laden attempt to try and get my failing rear wheel to seal up, I realized in horror that I would have to use my spare tube to fix the flat - but I was out of air. A rider came by, and he must have heard me swearing under my breath because he stopped.

“Do you have any air?”

He dropped 3 cartridges and a trigger.

I was able to get back on the bike and finish the race. The fiasco cost me a lot of time. A cascade of riders (including the racer I’d dropped the tool for) passed by me. That was disheartening. I felt like all the work I put into the climbs throughout the day to gap these very same riders had been pissed away with the ridiculous Stan’s (sealant) volcano that was spouting out of my tire. But, that’s racing. After the race I was not able to find either of the riders to return and re-claim the tools. I was lamenting the loss of my multi-tool when my number was called in the raffle.

The prize? A Crank Brothers multi-tool. Along with a pump and a pair of SL Eggbeater pedals.

In the end, karma came through for me. Just not in the way I had expected.

Read more...

My Defense of Liberalism: A Thought Exercise

I'm shaking off the posting dust with this thought exercise. I've been on a (thus far fruitless) search for intelligent policy discussion from the left. I know that there are intelligent liberals out there who recognize that at some point pen needs to put to paper and a real proposal that gives shape to the President's and his cohorts' broad (and dare I say?) vague vision for health care reform.

The consensus I've arrived at in conversing with my liberal friends is that few attempts have been made to do just that. Instead, pundits favor demonizing the right or characterizing it as a moral imperative along the vein of "If we put a man on the moon, why can't we get health care to more people who want it and don't/can't have it?"

As part of the back and forth with my fellow TTKS authors, I've taken it upon myself to make the case for a liberal solution. Adam seems to contend that it cannot be done, but I figure I could give it a try. My last contribution to the email chain ended up looking quite a bit like a post, so here you go.

First, you have to accept the premise that what the American dream is all about, even vis-a-vis the role of government, can be very different for different people while still be a "true" American dream--tied to the Constitution and the Declaration. If I've learned nothing else from the Adams/Jefferson letters (sweet read if you guys want to dive into some primary source material) it's that this is and always has been the case.

Second, it becomes an issue of defining "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Reading between the lines, even if certain privileges are not specifically enumerated or found in the penumbra or umbrella of enumerated rights, if the absence of those rights interferes with the greater rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you have a case for granting those privileges as rights so that the greater rights can be actively pursued.

While I cannot condone the extension of that rhetoric across the board, I've never felt trapped by poverty or unemployment without any empowering family, community, or religious support. I've never been socialized my whole life to feel abandoned by a government that represents the country that I want to believe in. I've never gone through a lot of these things that make people turn to government, or want to. I pay through the nose for our health insurance right now (it seems not all universities feel the way BYU does about insuring families--go fig.), but I've never had to worry about how in the heck we're going to pay for our baby's delivery or have an ER baby while knowing that I'm not getting the best of care.

So, I've got two points to make from that little hypothetical:

1) If I'm in any of those situations, I'm a little more likely to understand that maybe my American dream is being a bit restricted. I'm so worried about my ability to pay for things or so cynical about my ability to move forward or to provide a better life for my kids, then maybe the things that I don't have are preventing me from pursuing my larger "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" dreams.

2) Conservatives need to do a better job of selling conservative solutions. That's why I admired so much Mr. Whole Foods and I gobble up anything that Paul Ryan or Mitt write by way of op-ed. That's why I so admired those Republican members of Congress who were able to hold up their alternatives to a brutal overhaul of health care. We conservatives need to be even more charitable despite our tax burden, more involved in community service, and more supportive of our families. We need to realize that from a moral point of view we share more with minorities than we do with liberal whites and find ways to reach out to them.

Finally, Adam brought up the point and question, "But where has liberalism ever worked? What is there to articulate (in it's defense)? Europe? Russia? Canada? California?"

Good point.

If I'm a liberal, though, I'm not sold. After all, going back to my first premise, even liberals believe in America (though admittedly the President has made many observations along the lines that America is broken and needs fixing--please save that for another post). I would answer so what that "liberalism" has never worked? This is America. We're the only democracy that I know of that got it right the first time. We can do anything we put our minds to. Who's to say that if we really get down to it we can't fix any problem that we set out to solve?

Read more...

No Questions Asked

Barack Obama is taking an unusual approach to his Health Care campaign. He is, more or less, telling anyone who opposes it, or even questions the plan, to shove it:

Just ignore the specifics, because when the president says he welcomes substantive new ideas, he means that if you have the nerve to offer any ideas—as Whole Foods' CEO, John Mackey, did in The Wall Street Journal last month—his allies will attempt to destroy your business and reputation.

And when the president says he welcomes bipartisanship, what he means is that he hasn't met with a single Republican on the issue since April—despite numerous requests and two separate House bills chock-full of ideas.

When this president says he is a deal-making centrist and will stand up to his own party, he means he will rebuff progressives on a complete straw man, such as a "single-payer" plan (a plan he supported at one time), which has been a non-starter in any iteration of health care reform this year. I only wish there were a stronger word for "courage."

Ultimately the health care argument comes down to freedom. How much freedom does the Obama administration want us, the unwashed irresponsible rabble, to have? Not much. We have been lectured by this administration on everything from our driving habits to our eating habits. In the president's historic and unprecedented health care speech he called out uninsured Americans as being "irresponsible":

President Obama says government will mandate that every American purchase insurance (despite his campaign promise not to do so) rather than allow us to indulge in "irresponsible behavior"—or, in other words, "choice."

And that is the heart of it. The Tea Parties, the march on Washington, the growing disgruntled dissent spreading throughout fly over country is not about health care or cap and trade or cash for clunkers - not specifically. It is about choice, about freedom.

We may disagree on particulars. But I think we can all agree that more freedom, more choice, and more individual sovereignty is a good thing. Our economic problems, our health care shortcomings, our (waning) concern about the environment and every other problem staring down the United States can be solved within the free market. The market of ideas, the market of free enterprise, and the market of political discourse.

The president may claim that the time for bickering is over. But, as we are seeing, the time for bickering, if that is what he is going to call political discourse, is just beginning. Ultimately that bickering will come to a crescendo in November 2012.

Like it or not, Mr. President, but this is still the United States.

You may wonder how President Obama logically can sell a public option while claiming that reform would be paid for by waste found in another "public" option. You also may be wondering how mandates, price controls, regulations, and added costs would save us any money and preserve level of care. Don't. Just bask in the radiance of barren rhetoric.

Read more...

His Airness: Michael Jordan

There is a reason why my daughter's name is Jordan. It is understatement to say that Michael Jordan's greatness inspired the name choice. It wasn't the reason, but it was the reason, if that makes sense.

At the risk of over-covering a sports news topic that is probably being over-covered, I couldn't let tonight pass without tossing up my quick thoughts about Michael Jordan and his Hall of Fame enshrinement speech this evening.

If you are as nutty as I am, you watched that speech and saw why Michael is Michael. In that speech he essentially called out every single person who knowingly or unknowingly challenged him or "wronged" him, which in turn motivated him to be the best he could be. I was telling my wife as we were watching, "That dude never forgets when someone doubted or challenged him." He called out LeRoy Smith -- the player who was chosen instead of him on the high school basketball team. He called out Dean Smith for not letting him be on the cover of SI as a freshman at UNC. He called out Doug Collins for not letting him play ball in the summertime. He called out Pat Riley for not letting his Knicks players go to lunch with Michael during the playoffs. He called out Bryon Russell for stupidly saying back in 1994 (when MJ was in the White Sox organization) that he (Russell) could guard him (His Airness). Jordan reminded Russell of that exchange before the tip-off of the 1997 Finals series. "Remember that conversation we had back in 1994? Well...you gotcho chance."

In a speech that is traditionally a thank-you tribute, Michael showed us what made him tick. His thank-yous were to the people who fueled his competitive fire. I loved seeing that fire on display again, even if it came on a stage as opposed to a basketball court. There is just nobody else like Mike. Nobody.

Do yourself a favor and watch some old highlights when you're bored this weekend.

I am of the opinion, and have been for some dozen years, that Michael Jordan is the greatest athlete to have ever lived. Not basketball player. Athlete.

And if that rubs you wrong, dig this: The number 23 should be retired in every league. Worldwide. Wear his shoes; wear his Jumpman apparel; Heck, name your kid after him. But don't wear his number.

I think my daughter got her first memory of Michael Jordan tonight. She kept pointing to the TV and saying, "Jordan! They're saying Jordan, Daddy."

That's my girl.

Jordan.

Read more...

We Will Never Forget

President George W. Bush, to Joint Session of Congress, September 20, 2001

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans:

In the normal course of events, Presidents come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people.

We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground -- passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer. And would you please help me to welcome his wife, Lisa Beamer, here tonight. We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We've seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers -- in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own. My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our Union -- and it is strong.

Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing "God Bless America." And you did more than sing; you acted, by delivering 40 billion dollars to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military. Speaker Hastert, Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle, and Senator Lott, I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership, and for your service to our country. And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.

We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America. Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico, and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has no truer friend than Great Britain. Once again, we are joined together in a great cause -- so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity with America. Thank you for coming, friend.

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars -- but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks -- but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack. Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country?The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are some of the murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole. Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children. This group and its leader -- a person named Usama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.

The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized; many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.

The United States respects the people of Afghanistan. After all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid; but we condemn the Taliban regime. It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what they see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa. These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Our nation has been put on notice: We're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me -- the Office of Homeland Security. And tonight I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend -- Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge. He will lead, oversee, and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism, and respond to any attacks that may come.

These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight, a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I've called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud. This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded -- with sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all. The civilized world is rallying to America's side. They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments. And you know what? We're not going to allow it.

Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat. I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith. I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it. I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long struggle. I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today. And, finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform, and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow, and will help strengthen us for the journey ahead.

Tonight I thank my fellow Americans for what you have already done and for what you will do. And ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I thank you, their representatives, for what you have already done and for what we will do together. Tonight, we face new and sudden national challenges. We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights, and take new measures to prevent hijacking. We will come together to promote stability and keep our airlines flying, with direct assistance during this emergency. We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home. We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act, and to find them before they strike.

We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy, and put our people back to work. Tonight we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New Yorkers: Governor George Pataki, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress, and these two leaders, to show the world that we will rebuild New York City.

After all that has just passed -- all the lives taken, and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them -- it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation, this generation will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice -- assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America. Thank you.

Read more...

NFL Starts Today

I love the NFL.

It starts today.

Go Seahawks.

Read more...

The Most Ironic Story Ever

Hugh Hefner claims his soon-to-be ex-wife Kimberley Conrad cheated on him before their marriage fell apart

The worlds foremost pornographer is complaining about his wife (I had no idea he was married) cheating on him? That is classic male audacity and ought to be celebrated in man-caves all over the country. If I were a drinker, I'd raise a pint to Hugh and toast his delusional sense of irony. In my best "Real American Hero" voice I'd say:

"Here's to you guy that takes pictures of naked ladies who accuses his wife of cheating on him!"

Well done Hef!

Read more...

Group Collaboration

I've been enduring some group collaboration efforts lately and they reminded me of this scene from John Adams. Here we have Jefferson presenting his Declaration to Adams and Franklin. This past day I've felt a little like Jefferson, but the person critiquing me was no Franklin.

Read more...

Birds of a Feather

More unintended consequences from going green. (And no, I'm not talking about Van Jones. Scoreboard Glenn Beck?)

I drove through Wyoming recently. I caught a glimpse of the massive wind farms that are being built near Evanston. They are pretty cool. In fact, from the top of King's Peak in the Uinta's, if you squint on a clear day, you can see the wind farms some 50 miles away. They are an impressive sight.

But they, and other wind farms are moonlighting as bird killers.

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont.

Oh snap.

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

85 birds cost ExxonMobil $600,000.

But the thousands being killed by wind farms are costing companies nothing.

Altamont's turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon's tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.

This must be a horrible dilemma for environmentalists. Save the planet, or save the birds?

Something tells me that the feel-goodism of wind farms, and the inherent majesty of seeing hundreds of them lined up is causing so much over-the-top giddiness for greenies that a few hundred thousand bird deaths every year are well worth the price of politically correct, advocacy of inefficient energy.

Read more...

Diversity

On Friday we had a break from the daily rigor of classes and we convened for a half-day presentation/discussion about diversity. The presentation part was a professional acting group that poses as a diverse office and for 5-10 minutes you see them interact in every possible bigoted way. You have the gay Latino who can't rally support for his gay pride office party. You have the black man who feels like he's being overlooked for a promotion because he's black. You have the Japanese woman who speaks with a heavy accent and feels belittled and/or feels like she needs to 'conform' in order to be allowed to face clients. You have the white male who has no patience for anyone else's discrimination issues and you have the Indian woman who wants to be one of the guys and get in on the weekend golf outing. So that was the scenario. And then we had talk-show style discussion with a lady from the acting company doing her best Ellen impression.

And the conversation was lively, and at some points entertaining. Here are a few thoughts and questions about the topic that I'll throw out in to this forum:

In a setting full of business students in the 25-35 age range, I would argue 99% of the group is already on board with the diversity (including age, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc) movement. To the point where it's like, "ok, preaching to the choir."

It strikes me as a little humorous that those who pound the pulpit for diversity and tolerance are often intolerant themselves. Or at least they come off that way.

Does a white male have any ground to speak an opinion in this discussion?

For numerous reasons it appears that there are many of my classmates who still struggle with various aspects of being a minority in the workplace. I came away realizing that even if it is not something that directly affects me, this discussion is important to me because it's important to them.

I think that if you want to be a credible businessperson in Corporate America, or the global business world, for that matter, you would be wise to become as articulate as possible and overcome any language disadvantages or barriers you may face. You will be better for it and it doesn't mean you have to discount or discard your ethnicity.

Why is there a term called 'reverse discrimination'? Isn't it just discrimination no matter to whom or which way it is directed? What's this 'reverse' stuff?

By talking about diversity to the point of exhaustion have we reached a point where we are trying to be diverse for diversity's sake?

----

Where do you come down in this discussion?

Read more...

How Bout Dem Cougars?!

Does Sam Bradford play defense? Because OU's defense was not as vaunted as they were billed to be. Couldn't get a stop when they needed it. Couldn't even stop the one go-to player on BYU's roster. Sam Bradford's not walking through that door, gentlemen. Play some defense.

Does Sam Bradford play offensive line? Because OU's line had trouble protecting Bradford long before he got drilled on that final hit. Was it just me or did OU's backup QB look like he hadn't thrown a meaningful pass since high school? Coaches should have had a prepared backup QB if their offensive line was so shoddy. Or was their defensive unit just not good enough to get by their weak offensive line in practice so they thought they were good to go? And that brings me to my next question:

Does Bob Stoops still get respect for being one of the best coaches in college football? Because he has lost every BCS game since 2000, including losing to Big East teams, and oh, yes, those pesky Broncos from the State of Boise. Methinks Oklahoma should be scorned more than Ohio State as a relevant BCS team. At least Ohio State loses to Pac-10 and SEC squads, not these lesser conference representatives.

Does this victory matter for BYU if they lose somewhere down the line this season? Yes. Yes it does. But just not quite as much as it would if we build on this by winning each and every week this season. "We can build on this!"

So that begs the question: Does BYU win out? Because if ever there were a time for a hangover loss, it's at some point this season. This ain't a bowl game victory. If I'm Bronco Mendenhall I'm saying, "Young men you need to concern yourselves with #1 your family. #2 your schooling. #3 your church calling. #4 your family. And #5 your football team. Young men when it comes to football, we only care about preparation and execution. Prepare and execute and forget about this football game."

And then if it were me acting as Bronco I would say emphatically, "HOW BOUT DEM COUGARS?!!!!!!"

Read more...

Update from Darden

Remember that scene in Princess Bride where Sweet Wesley dives down into the sand pit and after a lengthy period of time returns gasping for air, having nearly killed himself to save Buttercup?

Well, I can't say definitively that I have been involved in saving a princess's life during the last two weeks, but I can say with certainty that I haven't had any oxygen since school begain two weeks ago. I am gasping for air this weekend.

Just a quick day-in-the-life so you can get a sense of why I've been so silent:

6am - get up, change into gym clothes, force contacts into eyes, grab a light breakfast

610am - leave for the gym, exercise for about an hour

745am - get settled in at the section classroom for the first of three 85-minute case discussions; review notes, spreadsheets, etc.

930am - break for First Coffee even though I don't drink coffee; it's a nice Darden tradition where we have 30 minutes to mingle with classmates and faculty or run a quick errand.

10am - the start of the remaining two classes for the day. we have a short break between them and we finish at 110pm.

115pm - will do anything for food. I bring all manner of snacks and fruit to get me through the class sessions, not because the classes aren't totally engaging and awesome -- because they are -- but because my body simply has to have 3 or 4 breakfasts per day. It just does. At this point I will typically heat up my leftovers and grab a study room to tackle the next day's cases. Three cases requires about six hours of prep time but by the time I get settled in the study room it's 2pm. Dinner at home with the fam means I have four hours to get six hours worth of work done. It'll make more sense when you read on.

2pm - skim cases as fast as I can to move to the analysis phase of the case study; ask myself how this is going to be possible when internship recruiting begins in full swing next week; shake head and continue.

6pm-ish - race home for dinner; nothing better than kids greeting me at the door and having a delicious home-cooked meal. Married life is awesome.

645pm - rush off to Learning Team. This is a big part of Darden culture and each evening for roughly 2.5-3 hours we meet together to go over the next day's cases. Learning teams are pre-arranged marriages so you just have to learn how to work together.

10pm - get home, pack gym bag and food for the morrow; take a look at the next batch of cases to gauge the workload for that afternoon.

11pm-ish - sleep on sleepin' on.

It just doesn't stop. But I am having a blast and I have not had one moment of regret. Our class sessions, as I mentioned above, are really engaging and interesting. The faculty are tremendous and helpful.

We have a few student association positions that we can run for within each section (there are five sections of roughly 60 students) and there are section competitions all year long. I ran for Athletics Rep -- shocker -- and what was surprising is that I ran unopposed. So either I'm the dummy and I'm running for a position that nobody wants or these two weeks have provided enough evidence to my sectionmates that I kind of like sports and it just seems to make sense that I would be the athletic rep. It's probably more the former than the latter, but I'm convincing myself it's the latter, baby. Either way, if you're keeping score at home, first election of my life: 1 for 1.

Closing thought and reward for getting to this point of my post:
Scientists during the Bush-Kerry election conducted studies on how people's brains respond when presented with information that disconfirmed their beliefs/expectations.

"Surprise" finding: "People put no mental effort [i.e. the reasoning areas of the brain were hardly activated] into any evidence that disconfirmed their beliefs, dismissing it out of hand. In contrast, when people were presented with information that confirmed their expectations, the emotional areas of the brain were activated pleasantly."

I'm off to enjoy my oxygen while I have it. Man it feels good to breathe again.

Read more...

Rhetorical Flouishes

I was going to try and write my own snarky commentary on the zealotry of the anonymous MyBO.com post (terrible, utterly terrible, name by the way) who claimed that anyone who opposes health care reform is an "heir of Bin Laden". Normally that sort of rhetoric is dismissed and ignored. But it turned heads and caught people's attention for the simple fact that it was posted on the Official MyBO.com Organizing For America website. MyBO? And I thought it was just Obama's policies that stunk.

Anyway, I will let James Taranto do the rest of the talking, as he says it all much better than I could:

Yesterday we argued that President Obama has been distracted from the war on terror by his extremist domestic agenda. To some of his supporters, however, they are one and the same.

The Heritage Foundation's Rory Cooper describes a post on BarackObama.com, the Web site of Organizing for America, the Democratic National Committee's permanent campaign. The post urges Obaminions to "burn up" the Senate's switchboards with phone calls demanding the enactment of ObamaCare. (Switchboards? What's the matter with telegrams and carrier pigeons?) The idea is to concentrate the calls on a single day to get the senators' attention. The day: next Friday.

That would be Sept. 11, the eighth anniversary of the attacks that changed America before Barack Obama changed it back. The significance of the date is not lost on the organizers of the war-dialing effort. As the post explains (quoting verbatim):

Our US Senators return to DC the Tues after Labor Day. That next FRIDAY, Sep 11, is Patriot Day, designated in memory of the nearly three thousand who died in the 9/11 attacks.

All 50 States are coordinating in this--as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.

Heritage gets results: OFA yanked the announcement after Cooper called attention to it, though as we write it is still available through the Google cache, and Cooper's post includes a screen shot you can click for a full-size view. Amusingly, the organizer, who goes by the handle "like-mind," makes a halfhearted attempt at expressing sympathy for those he describes--in all caps, so it really commands your attention--as "THE HEIRS OF, YES: BIN LADEN":

Don't hate them: Misguided citizens are easy-pickings for demagogues, whom they blindly follow because they've been trained all their lives not to question the dogma of their religion, so it's natural for them NOT TO QUESTION what's being spoon-fed to them by their FALSE PROPHETS who, themselves, shamelessly seek Worldly Glory.

We hear they also cling to guns and religion.

In fairness, there have been rhetorical excesses on both sides of the ObamaCare debate, and there is nothing to indicate that this post was vetted by DNC officials. But this sort of rhetoric is not inconsistent with the harsh attacks top Democrats have waged on skeptical voters: "un-American" (Steny Pelosi and Nancy Hoyer) "they're carrying swastikas" (Pelosi), "angry mobs" aiming to "destroy President Obama" (official DNC ad), etc.

Such behavior is puzzling, to say the least. One could understand why the Angry Left was angry when they were out of power, but now that they have the White House and big congressional majorities, they seem to be angry that their power is less than absolute. As Cooper asks:

Will a single American become more enamored with the President's health care plan, if they are [sic] called a terrorist? Will the country become more unified? This is not a strategy that will build consensus, rather it will end health care reform.

Which would be a fine outcome--but even so, the ends don't justify the means.

This morning news broke about a scuffle between two people on each side of the health care debate. Details are muddled at this point, but we do know that the pro-Obamacare protester was a MoveOn.org "volunteer" and that he bit off the finger of an anti-Obamacare protester after, apparently, the man pushed him around.

I don't want to point fingers, but perhaps the pro-Obamacare activist wanted to send the other man to the hospital to see first hand how bad our system really is? I think this incident really puts a finger on the pulse of the American people right now. But if I were to raise a finger to the wind, I'd think that biting off someones body part points to a seriously demented mind.

I wonder if anyone lent the wounded man a hand, in getting to the hospital?

Read more...

Hubby Hubby

Ben & Jerry's announced that it will change its "Chubby Hubby" ice cream flavor to "Hubby Hubby" for 30 days to celebrate the recent legalization of gay marriage in Vermont, the state where the company is headquartered. I was tempted to make this a caption contest, but I'm not sure I want to go there. Your call. Otherwise, consider this as simply an ice cream update for Ben & Jerry's enthusiasts.

It's still the same great ice cream from the same great company that really knows how to pack in the fudge.

Read more...

Jackson and Kennedy: How Should We Remember Them?

In the past couple of months we've seen mouners gather to honor the deaths of two Americans, both celebrities in their own genres. Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, and Senator Ted Kennedy, the Lion of the Senate, drew the sympathies of the millions of their devoted followers. But their deaths also stirred the remembrance of alleged crimes and awakened their most outspoken detractors.

Both of these men had dark histories of allegations: Michael Jackson of pedophilia and Ted Kennedy of the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Each man has been criticized for using his celebrity status to escape the justice befitting of their alleged crimes.

The day after Jackson's death I flew to a remote fishing lodge in Northern Saskatchewan to tangle with some monster Northern Pike. I would normally view such a trip as a great escape for media, cell phones, etc. But I missed a lot of the hype surrounding Michael Jackson's death. But upon returning I was amazed at the mixture of opinions, not to mention the seeming hypocrisy. The same people who had labeled him FREAK for the past decade, were now gathering in sympathy and in a spirit of nostalgia reminiscing the great music he made in the 80's and 90's (and it was great music). The very people who scorned him in life were now honoring him in death.

The night of Kennedy's death I happened to be in Boston for work. I was watching CNN when the news broke. The next day a met up with a close friend who is attending Harvard. We saw many mourners on campus that day. He described to me the scene in the Kennedy Center for Public Leadership, which is the building he attends for classes. He explained that people had gathered there in large numbers to mourn and comfort one another. The Kennedy's are a big deal in Boston (understatement).

So how do we remember these men and to what status do we elevate them in the books of history? King of Pop or Pedophile? Lion of the Senate or a Guilty of Manslaughter? Do we forgive and look past the faults? The allegations in 1994 against Jackson were dropped and he settled out of court for $22 Million. Michael was accused again in 2003 for sexual abuse. He was acquitted on all counts in 2005. Kennedy spent 2 months in jail for leaving the scene of the Chappaquidick accident, but was never charged for involvement in Kopechne's death.

So what do we make of it? Before you answer, you need to read this article by Andrew Breitbart. Here are a few snippets:

"With the deaths of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Michael Jackson, the summer of '09 marked the merciful ends to Camelot and Neverland, iconic American fairy tales whose story lines should have come to merciful ends long ago when their charismatic protagonists took dark and irredeemable turns.

Our country was not built to support blood dynasties or to elevate the rich and famous to a higher ethical or constitutional plain. But through the power of celebrity, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Jackson worked the media to twist truths. They manipulated their constituencies and fans to obscure their misdeeds. They played the faithful to confer this manufactured innocence on the rest of us. And, in the end, they placed themselves above the law."

"Forty years have passed since Chappaquiddick. Immediately after the accident, Mr. Kennedy scrambled to organize the best and brightest to save his career, rather than to save the life of 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne.

Before the facts were gathered, as her family was being prepped for a cash payoff, the Massachusetts voter - in "shock" and "denial," the beginning phases of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's grief cycle - was asked by the senator in a carefully constructed televised speech to look away from his misdeed in the name of his family's recent tragedies.

In a time of grief, the young senator framed his future as a referendum on Camelot. And the media didn't call him on it. The fix was in.

The result was Mr. Kennedy needn't do more than show up for work to atone for his calculated selfishness. Without apology or contrition, Mr. Kennedy crafted a public career in which he spent taxpayers' money - certainly not his own - to make up for his unspeakable behavior."

"In the language of the Democrat Media Complex, speaking ill of Mr. Jackson was racist. Speaking ill of Mr. Kennedy was ideological. Both were protected. Their foes were ignored or castigated.

By playing the media's institutional biases, both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Jackson rose above the law.

While Mr. Jackson spent most of his time self-medicating and collecting children and expensive stuff, the untouchable Mr. Kennedy continued his destructive habits while giving his Massachusetts constituency and American liberalism a bounty of legislative accomplishments.

The supporters of Mr. Kennedy, and to a lesser degree Mr. Jackson, elevate and promote "social justice" and "economic justice" as the highest human goals. Upon the deaths of Mr. Jackson and Mr. Kennedy, the media continue to erase their ugly backgrounds hoping their eternal celebrity can serve these collective ideals."

This article is one of the most unapologetic I've seen, so let's talk about it.

Read more...

Orwell is Spinning, Or Laughing

I have often written in this space about the encroachment of liberty and freedom that we are witnessing from the Obama administration. That encroachment is nothing new, however Obama and the Pelosi/Reid congress have accelerated the process to the point now where I don't even think they know what is going on. Our juggernaut government is rolling out of control.

The American people will react as they always have to a government that they see as far-off (no, not far out you 1960s hippies) and distant and oppressive – they will rebel.

The question is simply when, and what will be the tipping point?

Personally, I think health care "reform" will be the flagship issue that Americans will reject, and with it, the politicians who champion it. Incidentally, if you read the Barack Obama Twitter account, he (the staffer who writes them) begins just about every twitter with "spread the truth:" and then goes on to say something that flies in the face of every known economic fact about health care and rationing, and so forth. Spread the truth indeed.

Except that, if Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe get their way, we may not be able to 'spread the truth'. In fact, we may not be able to spread anything at all via the internet. Those two Senators have introduced a Bill that would give the president power to shut down the internet. For the common good, of course. (Where are you now Patriot Act objectors?)

Further, the bill grants ridiculous power to the Sec. of Commerce. He would have "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." What is a "critical network"? The Bill does not define that. Which means that 'critical' is whatever the president, or anyone of his advisers wants it to be.

The obvious objection to this idea are rights protected by a certain document that I honestly don't think many of the Congressmen have ever bothered to read. In that document, which happens to be the supreme law of the United States, congress is specifically prohibited from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

It just so happens that the web is used to do all of those things, isn't it?

Will this Bill pass and become law? I highly doubt it. But the idea that there are lawmakers who are serious about such things is an indication of how far removed our "representatives" are from reality, and how distant they have become from the freedom based ideals that founded this nation.

And of course, this also shows a staggering ignorance about how the internet works. Unless there is some secret on/off switch buried deep under the pentagon, shutting down the web would be a monumental task that would involve hudreds of private companies who may or may not see the need to cooperate with Uncle Sam. The damage done to our economy, not to mention the national morale, would be catastrophic.

One more thing. Recently there was a national emergency in another country, one you probably read about on the internet. The leadership of that nation deemed it necessary to shut down all internet access during the event. Communication was nearly completely halted, which meant that news about the national emergency was stifled. The main source of information coming from the streets became cell phones with Twitter access.

Which nation was it?

Iran.

Is that really the road we want to travel here in the United States?

Read more...

Retreat is not an option

I saw this headline at wsj.com this morning and I had to post it: Paris Wages War on Public Urination Anyone want to come up with subtitles to accompany this?

Read more...