Thursday, December 16, 2010

Good is bad in 2010, not just 1984

Supposed someone proposed a plan that would:
Save taxpayers money.
Help improve the public schools.
Give poor students trapped in the worst schools a chance to get a good education.
You might be in favor, right?
Well, the St. Petersburg Times, voice of the left in Florida, hates it.
Rick Scott, Florida's next governor (against the wishes of the Times) proposes vouchers that would accomplish all of the above.
The Times, in a rant that read like the Facebook page of the demented gunman who tried to kill School Board members in Panama City, says the plan is awful.
You see, liberals want the government schools to be run for the benefit of adults, not kids.
Liberal politicians throw money at the schools, and most of it goes into the paychecks of adult administrators and teachers. Not a single kid gets a dime.
Teacher union bosses get a cut of those paychecks and this helps them build huge warchests to fund the campaigns of liberal politicians.
It is a cozy arrangement all around.
If children were allowed to get an education so that they would understand schemes like this, they would vote against liberals when they grow up, and this would disrupt the system.
Can't have that.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Halfway there

Adlai Stevenson said, "In America, anyone can become president. That's one of the risks we take."
Thankfully, the voters twice declined to take a risk on Stevenson. But, he had a point.
In two short years, Barack Obama has taken the good will a majority of the voters entrusted into him and turned it into distrust and dislike.
This happened in part because he seemed to think he had been elected God, instead of merely the president. The position is important, but it is still a political position and, as Stevenson noted, the least qualified person in the nation can become president.
Obama was elected by criticizing his predecessor, but he has continued most of the domestic and foreign policies of his predecessor. Thus, he has angered his supporters while not placating those who did not support him.
Like Franklin D. Roosevelt, he has waged war on capitalism and business, while relying on them to produce the money for his vast spending programs. This is not a road to success.
His central weakness, other than his obvious dislike for this nation, is that to him it is all about him. He fell in love with his reflection in the pool of public opinion.
Businesses, like voters, take risks. When one doesn't pan out, you cut your losses.
Voters took a risk and it didn't pay off. In 2012, they will have a chance to reconsider.

On the left coast

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin is, like many of the Hollywood set, including Whoopi Goldberg, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, etc., a disciple of the Chosen One and therefore as far left as you can be.
In a hate-filled, expletive-filled diatribe in the Puffington Host, he calls Sarah Palin an "idiot."
His ire was raised because Palin shot a caribou, which Sorkin called "murder."
So, it is murder to kill an animal. What about humans?
“I get happy every time one of you faux-macho s***heads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face,” the deranged leftist said.
The accidental killing of a human being is cause for joy but killing an animal so he can have a fancy meal in a Hollywood restaurant is OK. (I don't care if he professes to be a vegan like so many of the other phonies in la-la land. They sell a lot of steaks in Hollywood.)
But one thing is clear. Sorkin is a certified idiot.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Say what?

CNN says the Tax Policy Center estimates that a married couple with two kids under 13 and a household income of roughly $75,000 could end up paying about $2,600 more in federal income taxes next year -- if the largest tax increase in history is allowed to take place.
Raising taxes in a depressed economy is insane, so everyone is hot to sign on to the "tax compromise."
Hold on.
The "cost" of the compromise is estimated at about $850 billion. But $550 billion of that is based on the revenue that the higher taxes would bring.
In other words, not raising taxes and taking more money from American families is a "cost."This is the crazy way politicians think.
The real cost is the $300 billion in pork and other spending Democrats want to tack on as the cost to Republicans of preventing the tax increase.
Obama says this is a good deal. So, obviously, it is not.
Bill Clinton tells Democrats they should vote for it because the new Congress can enact legislation that will be even better for conservatives.
Is there any doubt that the wise course is to wait, let the Democrat tax increase take place, and then for Republicans to rescind it and put in place a tight clamp on spending?

Bubba speaks

Everyone says Bill Clinton is the smartest, slickest politician ever, so why aren't Republicans heeding his advice?
At the amazing press conference recently, where President Obama was upstaged by Clinton so badly that Obama fled from the room, Clinton said he thinks the tax compromise should be approved by Democrats.
Why? Because, he said, the Republicans could get a better deal in January, when they will have the majority in the House.
None of the Lamestream Media asked, so I will: So, why should Republicans vote for the compromise?

Sunday, December 12, 2010

If O had been in the Oval Office then

Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy, whatever the hell that means — the United States of America allegedly was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The imperialist United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. The Japanese have been offended by our policies in the Far East and I have bowed to the emperor and offered my apologies on several occasions.
It is surmised that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the U.S government has deliberately sought to deceive the Japanese by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace, so I say we should not jump to hasty conclusions about who started this fracas.
And don't sweat it. Adolf told me he is going to sit this one out.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands -- one of my favorite golfing spots -- has caused some damage to American naval and military forces. Also, a few American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday there was also an attack against Malaya.
Last night someone attacked Hong Kong.
Last night some forces attacked Guam.
Last night other forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night someone attacked Wake Island.
And this morning someone attacked Midway Island.
But let's not make a big deal out of it. Stuff happens. We should be tolerant and not engage in racial profiling.
Someone may have undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today, as interpreted by the New York Times, speak for themselves.
The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation and how it could influence votes in the next election.
Would someone please move the TelePrompter a little closer?
As commander in chief of the Army and Navy and winner of the Nobel Peace prize, therefore, I have directed that measures be taken for our defense. I have authorized Marines to carry live ammunition when they land on the beaches, and may return fire if fired upon. And, of course, they will be fully covered by my health insurance.
For a while our nation might remember the character of the onslaught against us, but, hey, we'll get over it.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory -- or a negotiated peace. If we happen to win, we'll pay big reparations.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves if anyone actually does something to piss me off but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never make us feel ill will toward the oppressed people of other nations.
Hostilities exist. But even if our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger, we should not fly off the handle.
With confidence in our armed forces, under the greatly reduced defense budget I recently introduced, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us (insert your own deity here).
Never mind Kate Smith. As the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said, God damn America.
However, I can read the polls and I ask that the Congress declare that since the so-called unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
But I will bring the troops home next July. We have an election coming up, you know.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Watch your language

In politics, it is often necessary to mangle the English language in order to conceal the absurdity.
For example, building a bridge to nowhere is called an "investment."
But my favorite is "tax expenditures."
When lobbyists succeed in carving out a provision in the tax code that favors their interests, the government -- having approved it as good public policy -- then labels it a tax expenditure.
What does that mean? It means that it is a cost to the government.
That's right: not taking money from you that you have earned (because you are doing something with it that they approve of) is a cost.
By that same token, shouldn't the remainder of your paycheck be a cost to the government?
Aren't they entitled to all of it?
The tragic fact is that some politicians think so.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Karl Marx couldn't have said it better

This rant by socialist Bernie Sanders is amazing, but not for the reason libs think.
In his anti-capitalist tirade, Sanders claims the middle class is disappearing and that billionaires are waging war against ... somebody.
To take just one misleading statistic, consider his claim that 1 percent of the people earn 23 percent of the money in the United States. (I'll accept the figure for the sake of argument; it sounds about right.)
What the socialists never tell you when they do this routine is this:
The people who create wealth and earn such income also pay a larger share of taxes -- a share larger than their share of the income. Larger.
In addition, whatever they earn is not subtracted what everybody else earns. This is probably the largest hole in the argument socialists make.
In other words, you can earn whatever you are able to earn and want to earn -- regardless of what anybody else earns.
It is also true that the famous five income brackets most people use are very elastic. People are in the top bracket one year and another a year later. The contrary also is true. People rarely stay in the lowest income bracket. They are there when they are young, before their peak earning years. If they work and save, they move up to higher brackets.
And of course the poorest Americans are better off than 90 percent of the people in the world.
Liberals feed off of the wealth capitalism creates -- the whole time they are bashing it. Their worse fear is that Atlas will Shrug some day and leave them empty handed.
So, watch Sanders and pity the poor, addled old socialist. But avoid his brave new world like the plague.

How libs think

Americans should not be allowed to keep $3.7 trillion of their own money because part of it ($700 billion) belongs to the evil "rich."
That is how liberals think.
The fact that $3 trillion of it was earned by people who are not rich and who need it to care for their own families matters not a whit.
Liberals are so caught up in the class warfare they have practiced for the past 75 years that they are willing to burn the village, if necessary. (As long as it isn't the mythical village that it takes to raise a child.)
Their perceived mission in life is to forcibly take wealth created by productive people and give it to others (in exchange for their votes).
This, they believes, makes them modern-day Robin Hoods. In fact, if they bothered to read Robin Hood, they would realize they are more akin to Prince John.
This tax-the-rich-at-any-cost logic is precisely the same kind of warped thinking used by liberals in their efforts to keep the United States from defending itself against a nuclear missile strike.
They say antimissile defenses are not 100 percent effective.
In other words, why should the people of Jacksonville be saved if a missile could get through and demolish Des Moines?
Put aside the fact that the missile defense systems are good and getting better, and think about the premise.
Naval anti-aircraft didn't bring down every kamikaze plane during World War II, either. Would today's liberals have refused to place anti-aircraft guns on ships in the Pacific fleet?
Yet, some people actually vote to put liberal politicians in positions where they can make decisions that affect the lives of Americans. Scary.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Jacksonville: 40 years ahead of its time

This is a hoot.
Russia plans to build a fleet of floating nuclear power plants and use them in its Arctic regions.
Even better: the venture is called OPK.
The local media, with its 15 minute attention span, wouldn't know it but in the early 1970s, Jacksonville was going to be the home of a company called OPS. It planned to build floating nuclear power plants.
The ambitious venture failed because it over-reached in its proposed contract with the Jacksonville Electric Authority to buy plants. Had it succeeded, it would have meant 12,000 new jobs here -- dwarfing the 1,000 hailed by the lame duck mayor recently.
It also was a victim of the anti-nuclear crazies, who helped ensure the continued massive use of oil and coal by heaping on regulations that made the cost of nuclear power too high.
One interesting side effect of this clean power is that a plant could be towed to an area such as Israel, which is experiencing water shortages, and used to power a huge desalinization plant.