Wednesday, July 30, 2008

We Need "Serious" Energy Solutions.

I was wandering across the political news sites I often hit. Today there was mention of a video and when I go to cross check it with Drudge of course he had already posted it on his front page. It's almost like he gets paid to do this stuff or something.

Pelosi

"The President has failed in his economic policy, and now he wants to say, 'but for drilling in protected areas offshore, our economy would be thriving and the price of gas would be lower.' That hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to relieve the pain of consumers at the pump and to promote energy independence.


From House Speaker Pelosi, we learn that any proposal that is conservatie is not worthy of serious debate and is of course a hoax or lie. The Democratic Congress promised an end to expensive $3 gas when they took office and now we have $4 because of their serious debate and non-hoax solutions.

Obama solution

Obama insists that if we changed our spark plugs and inflated our tires, we need not drill.

So I wanted to see some serious, non-hoax solutions and so I go to BarackObama.com to read of how Presumptive President Elect Obama plans to get more energy.

His first proposal... monopoly money....

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Barack Obama has called on the President to enact a second round of economic stimulus to immediately put tax rebates in the pockets of American families to pay for rising energy prices. As president, Obama will enact a tax fairness agenda that provides 150 million workers a “Making Work Pay” tax credit of $500 per person or $1,000 per working family.


Let us just print up some more play money and hand it out. Certainly this will strengthen the dollar.

Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation


He has several proposals, all which purport to put an end to speculation by further regulating it.

It is interesting to note that Bush lifting the executive order on drilling has dropped the price of oil more than $20 per barrel.

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax on the Top Grossing Oil Companies and Ease the Burden on American Families:


I've never heard of taxing your way to prosperity but these apparently are "serious" proposals. While I am certain that price has been showing to influence demand since we have watched driving lessen with higher prices, I don't see how raising the price of running an oil company via taxation will somehow generate more demand to be in the oil business.

End Oil and Gas Industry Tax Breaks


See above.


Require Oil Companies to Use Existing Drilling Leases


I'm certain in the current environment that if this could be done profitably, they would be doing so. However it is strange that the existing drilling leases, which still wouldn't come online for several years, are a "serious" solution, but drilling in places where known large reserves exist are not serious solutions.


Cooperate with Oil Importing Nations to Reduce Demand


I'm not sure how you legislate lowering demand or convince other nations to raise their own costs of energy in line to what we want to pay to ensure their demand doesn't rise. Finally there is the issue of fairness. How are India and China going to convince their populace that they don't deserve cars when we own (several) already.

This line is especially interesting....

Obama believes we should use existing organizations, like NATO, to make energy security a shared global goal.


Using a military defense agreement to bring about energy security? Sounds like a nice version of blood for oil to me. Anyone here is welcome to explain how this doesn't sound like a big bully threatening others into lowering prices. I don't see this bringing much hope or change to the world or tearing down many invisible walls.

Set America on Path to Oil Independence

Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.


I could endorse this idea. I have one problem with it though. When we discuss drilling, we are told this isn't a serious solution due to the oil from the drilling not coming to market for five to ten years depending upon the source chosen. Why is a plan by a pre-president who would be in office from 2009-2016 but actually projects out to 2030 somehow "serious" when plans that give results in five years are not?

Having been around the sun a few times I can tell you that no matter the party or president, most of these proposals end up very back-loaded. I'm sure the hardest part of the goals would magically occur after 2016.

Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030


Again shouldn't "serious" proposals actually have an effect and result during the time you are in office? I don't recall JFK asking for us to go to the moon in 22 years. He wanted it by the end of the decade or at most, within a year or two of his leaving office. (presuming he hadn't been killed) All the "serious" proposals of the "new" JFK seem to call for work and sacrifice to occur after he leaves office.

I don't see how this fixes our energy problems. I don't see any serious solutions here at all. Begging others not to use it, drilling on existing questionable leases with time frames several years out, which is used to excuse new exploration, and legislating efficiency standards that happen 14 years after you leave office (I'm sure they ramp up in the meantime, but I'd like to see the shape of that ramp) don't sound like real solutions. Also I don't see how this helps us deal with problems today or even with his first term when everything has a date of 2030. Do we just keep printing magic monopoly money until then? We need real solutions that make get us energy in a short time frame and also make trade-offs between what we can do now and what we will be able to do even better in the future.

If show the world we are serious about energy production, we will stop being exploited or remove speculation about, energy production. We can't beg, print, or HOPE™ our way out of our energy needs. We need to produce.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Just Another Politician - The Sequel

RCP

One of the most interesting thing about being on the internet, or sifting through information in this day and age is watching how viewpoints coalesce and form amidst all the junk that is just thrown out there. You would think it would be harder than ever since a large percentage of the time, there is now "spin" in addition to the information and also "talking points" which really are a means of ignoring the information. Yet much like how seeds still manage to pop out of the ground after a volcanic eruption, the right ideas seem to pop out amidst all the garbage.

Jay Cost at RCP has hit on the same perspective I mentioned several days ago and notes, much more effectively than I ever did, why it could be so effective. I call the ideals the Obama campaign present a false premise. He identifies them as a meta-narrative and I like that means of identifying it much better.

Obama's meta-narrative should be similar to Clinton's. It's tailor-made for a year like this and a man like Obama. But that is not the Obama campaign's message. Its message is: this great man will unify a divided America.

This is not entirely bad. Half of it is quite good. A message of unity could be effective, even though it is tricky to sell in a partisan campaign. The problem is the first part. Around what does the Obama campaign envision the nation unifying? Around the grand person of Barack Obama.


The Obama campaign is not selling a grand idea. It is selling a grand person. You show he is merely a normal person and that means the ideal they are selling is false and thus will not resonate, no matter how many dollars you toss at it.

I hope Republicans will remember this and jump on it. As has been noted by many, the factors out there create an uphill climate for any candidate coming from the right politically. The fact that the left is promising utopia makes this challenge even harder to overcome. Yet showing that the nominee is not a messiah leading us to the promised land really shouldn't be that hard. It doesn't require a ridiculous number of dollars and can be put across very simply. The same process works for the best issue out there right now, energy. Solutions that are realistic and acknowledge trade-offs while working for a better tomorrow should beat doing nothing today while legislating utopia into existence.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Khutspe, Obama


I love Mr. Goldner. He's a fixture at my local coffee dive that I make it to a couple of mornings a week. He's in his mid 70s, quiet, painfully smart in life, and seasoned by myriad personal struggles. Mr. Goldner is a liberal. Probably my favourite liberal. In that sort of bantering way, we've carried on a two year conversation, five or six minutes at a time. He shakes his head at the things I stand for. I return the favor at his misguided love of all things governmental. We respectfully disagree on most things... 

But not today.  

Mr. Goldner was the first person I ever saw reading the non-international Jerusalem Post. You don't see that much in central Texas. This morning we had a rare long discussion over the contents of the news... and Mr. Goldner was absolutely outraged over Obama's visit to the Western Wall. I was taken aback, especially considering the Obama cheerleading that he usually treats me to. 

Indignant and disappointed, he went on for a good ten minutes over the campaign signs erected on the police barriers at the site. He said "I've supported the man and his goodness... but that place is the soul of my childhood and of my brothers and sisters in Israel. It's no place for a campaign sign." He recounted stories of watching busses explode in Tel Aviv and having had childhood friends kidnapped and beaten during the Intifada. He told me the story of taking his dying father to the Western Wall for the last time, before his father succumbed to cancer a few days later. I was overwhelmed by the depth of symbolism that Mr. Goldner held for this site... and his equalled despair at seeing what he called "a cheap, disrespectful stunt... this is a 4000 year symbol... not some billboard in Chicago. " 

Whatever was spiritually accomplished during Obama's 12 minute homage at the Western Wall is completely between Obama and the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. One thing for sure is that he's pretty much lost the vote of Mr. Goldner and his wife. 

Having spent considerable time in southwest Asia, I am reminded of how powerful the concepts of "sacred space" and "sacred ground" are to the people there, regardless of sect, creed, or religion. Apparently, as with so many things, Obama is so arrogant with his schtick that he thinks everyone should welcome it everywhere. Yet again, he's missed a memo. And lost a die-hard supporter in the process.


Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Washington Post


So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions." ......

But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out." .........

Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.


We know it isn't as fun to read the news when the three networks enjoy feeding us intellectual baby food declaring that Mr. Maliki endorses Obama's plan but this is why I read instead of watching the news.

We all know according to those wonderful television news reports that Obama did well in Iraq, even while never being able to explain how he would still not endorse the now proven to be effective surge.

Of course the irony is compounded by the fact that he has suggested sending additional troops to Afghanistan to help quell the increase in violence. He won't keep them their for a hundred years nor even beyond the time they would be needed. This is another surge. Of course this one doesn't have the Iraq anchor chained around it's neck so it is okay to recommend such action and when it is successful, even note that such recommendations will not have been controversial. There is no political capital to lose, so the anti-war candidate can get away with redeploying troops instead of bringing them home and still have it be seen as a win.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Dear Larry Hunter, Here is why you are an idiot.

Larry Hunter

Dear Larry,

Here is why you are an idiot and clearly are not engaging in any deep thinking. You claim Obama is the answer because he will only engage venial sins versus mortal sins. You couldn't be more wrong.

First the war is justified. You may not have like how it was managed. You may not like all the choices made but actions occurred that provoked our reaction. The policies exercised were put in place before this administration and the tactics used were the same as we have used in the past. The United States clearly created allies that would be a wedge on power within regions that had continuously been at war for several centuries in an attempt to keep the peace. We engaged wholeheartedly in full blown nation-building in the past. We did this in Germany for Europe. We did this with Japan in the Pacific Rim. We clearly are trying to do it now in the Middle East. With the former two we still have a large stabilizing military presence in each and there has been relative peace within those regions.

The Middle East has been continually unstable for centuries and 9/11 made us all realize that the piecemeal efforts that had been occurring there in the previous decades were not getting the job done. Our current policy is nothing more than the Truman Doctrine applied to terrorism. Likewise the history often erases the turmoil that mistakes within that time period caused. Bush has been criticized as knowing how to win the war, but not win the peace. I'll remind you that that Marshall Plan was not signed into law until three years after World War II.

You ask about how we can extract ourselves from Iraq, avoid going to war with Iran and preserve our personal rights. The point has clearly been driven home to us that we cannot just ignore and leave the region while hoping that the problems there will work themselves out. Each time we have done this the extreme elements within those regions manage to coalesce, begin blaming Western civilization for their problems and soon after that terror attacks begin and continue. The reason our hands have been forced now is because when we they continue this time, we suspect it will be with nuclear weapons.

It may be distasteful to occupy and craft an ally in a region where we were not welcomed, but I doubt we were not welcomed in Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany as well. Each time we ignored or put off action on the latter two, the situation grew worse.

You say McCain would continue the Bush policy of interventionism. I tell you that Obama will as well. The only change is Obama has foolishly stated that instead of keeping our forces in Iraq, he will spread them out through the Middle East though primarily in Afghanistan. The change is only in where they will be fighting. Obama has claimed a timeline for getting troops out of Iraq, but not for bringing them home. Additionally if we follow his misguided political pandering as foreign policy prerogatives, it is likely those troops will never be home since the problem will be prolonged.

Obama claims a humbler outreach, but threatens our trade partners, demands to speak at foreign venues for campaign purposes and is already informing certain leaders that our troops will be arriving with or without their consent. I do not call that humble. I call that political pandering.

You claim domestic matters are of no concern because you consider Obama to be dishonest. You take him at his word on far off foreign matters yet discount that word at home where it matters most. That is ridiculous reasoning.

You "quietly hope" Obama doesn't create an activist government when he will be a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress. You call his current actions crusades yet hope he will give them up when the power will be his to exercise in a completely unrestricted fashion. You even call the possibility of enduring his policies an economic ransom yet you will pay it because you have some inane view that when 9/11 destroyed a trillion dollars worth of wealth in a few hours, that somehow spending a trillion over several years to prevent similar destruction is somehow misguided.

You couldn't be more wrong, and again I will share why. The Marshall plan cost $12.4 billion in 1948-51 dollars. That is $113 billion dollars today when adjusted for inflation. The actual war itself cost a trillion dollars in 1944 dollars. That would be 11 trillion dollars today. So we have spent and continue to spend money to prevent attacks and to limit the scoop of terrorism. However it is clear based on past numbers that letting it fester could be profoundly more expensive.

I'm hoping you get a clue before November,
Nick

Go Charles Go!

RCP

Charles Krauthammer was just killing me this morning with his column. He goes after Obama and combines the conclusions of himself in others with a very decent dash of snarkiness that had me chortling.

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.



That last bit was quite good. It make the point so well, besides charisma and a belief in himself, what is it about this guy that should make us pull a lever for him and hand over the country? The answer is absolutely nothing.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Dear Media, Try Harder to Obscure being Totally in the Tank for Obama

Washington Post

Lured by an offer of interviews with the Democratic presidential candidate, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric will make the overseas trek, meaning that the NBC, ABC and CBS evening newscasts will originate from stops along the route and undoubtedly give it big play.

John McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months, all unaccompanied by a single network anchor.


This is to be understood because McCain wasn't the messiah going to the promised land.

The senator from Illinois has been drawing far more media attention than his Republican rival from Arizona. With this week's Newsweek cover story on Obama's religious beliefs, he has been featured on Time and Newsweek covers 12 times in the past three years, compared with five for McCain. This week's New Yorker includes a 14,600-word piece on Obama's political rise in Chicago. Obama and his wife, Michelle, were recently on the cover of Us Weekly and were interviewed -- with their young daughters, which Obama later said he regretted -- by "Access Hollywood."

When McCain visited Britain, France and Israel in March and met with their leaders, no network anchors tagged along. NBC and ABC sent correspondents; CBS did not. None of the evening newscasts covered his trip to Canada last month. And McCain's swing through Colombia and Mexico two weeks ago was barely covered, although NBC and ABC sent correspondents.

The upcoming Obama trip, by contrast, has already generated stories about how large his crowds will be and whether German authorities will allow him to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. "Europe Awaits Obama With Open Arms," the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday.

It is rare to get an article that lays the bias out so starkly. Don't worry media, when you don't report news and instead report your agenda, I'm sure more people than ever will tune out and then we will get the real news that follows and cannot be ignored, more layoffs at all these newspapers, periodicals and bureaus.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Just Another Politician - Barack Obama

Everyone is going on about the cover of the New Yorker. To me this almost seems like an intentionally bit of spin because they would really prefer that you not read the article in the New Yorker titled, "Making It."

The reason why is because you have several very hard hitting pages that completely substantiate the phrase that pays with regard to this political season. That phrase is that Barack Obama is just another politician. The second he becomes just another politician, people will investigate his positions and that guarantees a loss.

People at this stage have not looked at all at the positions of Obama. He won the Democratic nomination largely because it was a personality contest. The talking points from him and his campaign were always about how Barack himself is so special that his very presence will guarantee the results everyone wants. What is that result? Please don't ask about that, just chant change and hand over your wallet. Obama is The One™ as told to us by Oprah. Obama is "special" as noted by his wife. The two books that Obama has penned, "Dreams of my Father," and "The Audacity of Hope," are not policy books or plans. Instead they present Obama as a unique and transcendent figure who has gone on a journey, learned from it and now is the only person that has the perspective to fix our nation.

This is why time and time again, the more Obama talks, the more political damage he takes and the lower his poll numbers drop. Throughout the campaign thoughtful people have asked what is the basis for the hope and change that his campaign promises. It is not a plan or an idea, but a man. Hope and change are nothing more than synonyms for Barack Obama.

The real fear is that anyone with a half decent plan, and organization who can drive the campaign away from this personality driven cult will not only defeat Obama, but crush him. This is why issues of any sort work disproportionately against Obama. Discussion of the surge, oil prices and energy plans, pretty much anything reveals him to be "a typical politician" and move him away from a discussion of his transcendent journey causes disproportionate damage to his campaign. The cover of New Yorker wasn't offensive because of how it portrayed Obama. It was offensive to his supporters because "once-in-a-generation, unique, and special people who don't really want power, but must take it so they can rise above politics and save this country" are not typical and normal which means they cannot be lampooned or given over to a laugh track. Obama cannot be late night fodder because that would mean his is absolutely typical.

Which shows us all exactly what we need to do with regard to defeating him. Repeat it like a chant. Show it in every way possible. Barack Obama is just another politician. He is no different than a John Kerry or an Al Gore. He will manipulate. He will say what is needed to get elected. He will go negative and attack. He will buy the election if it is possible for him to do so. His past shows him to be nothing extraordinary and quite ordinary. Even if every single one of these points is made and lands in reverse on McCain the effect will not be the same. McCain is just an old politician with a plan. He is not a transcendent messianic figure who is above the fray.

The best part about this is it clearly works against the race card that the Obama campaign keeps playing. If Obama is your neighbor, the guy you meet at the supermarket, then how can you hate him or hold a prejudice against him? However your neighbor or guy at the supermarket wouldn't be elected just because of their sparkling personality, they would need a good plan. You like your neighbor but he is not a rock star.

So let's make it about the plan. Let's demand Obama do everything a typical politician does and emphasize more than ever how very typical he happens to be. "Just another politician" is the phrase that will win this election for Republicans.

Messiahs don't have a punchline.

NY Times

But there has been little humor about Mr. Obama: about his age, his speaking ability, his intelligence, his family, his physique. And within a late-night landscape dominated by white hosts, white writers, and overwhelmingly white audiences, there has been almost none about his race.

“We’re doing jokes about people in his orbit, not really about him,” said Mike Sweeney, the head writer for Mr. O’Brien on “Late Night.” The jokes will come, representatives of the late-night shows said, when Mr. Obama does or says something that defines him — in comedy terms.

“We’re carrion birds,” said Jon Stewart, host of “The Daily Show” on the Comedy Central channel. “We’re sitting up there saying ‘Does he seem weak? Is he dehydrated yet? Let’s attack.’ ”

But so far, no true punch lines have landed.

Why? The reason cited by most of those involved in the shows is that a fundamental factor is so far missing in Mr. Obama: There is no comedic “take” on him, nothing easy to turn to for an easy laugh, like allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing, or President Bush’s goofy bumbling or Al Gore’s robotic persona.

“The thing is, he’s not buffoonish in any way,” said Mike Barry, who started writing political jokes for Johnny Carson’s monologues in the waning days of the Johnson administration and has lambasted every presidential candidate since, most recently for Mr. Letterman. “He’s not a comical figure,” Mr. Barry said.


There is plenty funny about Barack Obama if you don't happen to worry about being called a racist or happen to think he is the Messiah. I had posted these pictures and captions on a forum I frequent but since the professionals need a little help, I'll post them here as well.

Obama trying to show how he is the toughest presidential candidate describes
how he will pluck out the eyebrow hairs of Osama Bin Laden one by one.

I said give me back my f*cking cigarettes damn it. This is a CHANGE™ I don't want to make right now.

Obama showing he has more CHANGE™ than anyone else.

Obama is pissed when he learns someone else has managed to put more CHANGE™ into their photo backdrop.

I would like to thank this young lady for helping me bypass public financing by signing over her financial aid.

Any supporter who donates $2500 gets an actual fist bump from Obama himself.

Obama heals a sick child with his "once in a generation" messianic powers.

Obama radiating CHANGE™, HOPE™ and charisma out into the entire crowd.

Obama proves he can move a mountain and also single-handedly save the American Midwest from floods.

Obama insures our health care system is more equitable by physically moving machines from one room to another.

Ha B*tches! Throw down more CHANGE™ than this in your photo background. I am the KING!1!1!!

Dude... get it right. It is a fist bump. FIST BUMP!!!!

Monday, July 14, 2008

Two points is a line and five points is an even longer line that represents a pattern.

Human Events

I may have to marry Bay Buchanan when I grow up.

A Lot of Fun...

This fun website allows you to make your own Obama poster. You can substitute the word change for any number of more appropriate phrases.

A few of my favorites...

Empty Platitudes...
Deceptions...
Smears...
Tax Increases...
Rationed Healthcare...

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Gov. Palin Gives us the Energy Smackdown!




IBD

We frequently find ourselves at the mercy of those who think that we must be protected from ourselves.




There is no better summary that can be made of why utopians, liberals, leftists, you name it are engaging in what is wrong while claiming what they believe is correct.

A bit more...

Here in Alaska we love our clean air and our clean water and our abundant wildlife. We will protect Alaska. I'm a Republican, and when I got elected, some accused me of being anti-development. I created a new office to just concentrate on oversight of resource development on the North Slope.

We're putting our money where our mouth is. We're budgeting for strict oversight so we can prove to the rest of the U.S. that we will have safe, clean developments and will do this responsibly (and) ethically.


She has an 85% approval rate, I'd make her vice-president in a minute because she understands the core of matter with regard to energy and also with regard to living one's own life. There are trade-offs and choices to be made, for all of us and we reflect that in the market. The irony of the people of Alaska paying so much for gas and oil when they literally are sitting on an ocean of it just shows how dangerous utopian thinking is and again, how far they harm others to enact their vision. For the utopians, there are no choices, just the grand plan and all those that must either bow before or suffer because of it.

Gov. Palin also notes the ludicrousness of doing nothing and how harmful it could be to wait for a dream solution that doesn't exist.

ANWR would take five years to begin providing crude oil to our pipeline. But you have to consider that if we'd started this five years ago, then we wouldn't be in this position right now. And who knows where we're going to be in another five years.


That is the question to ask for this presidential election as well. Someone needs to consider the decisions we need to make today that will bear fruit for the future. Criticisms of the fact that all decisions have trade-offs and none are perfect is not a plan to help people get the energy they need now and in the future.

The Latest Newsweek Poll

The latest Newsweek poll is in and so far it doesn't look good for anyone who has to spin for Obama.

The choices are either that Newsweek was manipulating the last poll for Obama by having Republican representation weighted into the low 20's as part of the electorate, or Obama has seen his support collapse by 12 points in the last month.

Choice A) MSM is Obama posterboy B) Obama collapsing

Make your choice.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

New and Improved Obama! Now with 15% more HOPE™ and CHANGE™

Bob Herbert's column really seems to have touched off the left blogosphere into a full blown firestorm.

He begins to crucify Obama with his own words....

“The time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face,” said Senator Obama, “who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.”


The reason for the quotation is because in the last ten days or so, on a broad array of policy matters, and with a philosophical foundation that no one can seem to figure out Obama has begun switching up his positions. On top of it when you attempt to knock him on the switches, he simply contends that you didn't hear him right previously or you misunderstood him.

Isn't this the political equivalent of blaming the victim for the crime?

The Herbert piece hit hard and a few follow up pieces have followed up on it and also won't let Obama slip away so easily.

New and Improved

The old Obama pledged to take public financing in the general election. The new one will spend what it takes. The old Obama pledged to filibuster a bill giving legal immunity to telecoms companies that co-operated with the government on terrorist surveillance. The new one supports the bill. The old Obama failed to wear a flag pin. The new Obama talks about patriotism in a sea of American flags, praises General David Petraeus, the chief commander in Iraq, raises doubts about partial-birth abortion, agrees with the Supreme Court on gun rights, supports the death penalty for child-rapists and embraces faith-based social work.


Liberal Shiver

The challenge of Obama is figuring out what he would do if elected. You know what you like and dislike about John McCain. But it's really hard to connect the dots on this guy. His short time in the Senate has produced few fixed positions, and the dots he's left during the campaign are all over the place.


All the pieces note that most won't get upset with Obama over his position changes because they have moved to a position that has majority support and where the public consensus is likely to rest. The problem of course is that the man has little to no record, and now his spoken record doesn't comfort when it shows shifting positions. Dick Morris notes correctly that Obama will govern from the left.

Obama will not be able to help himself. The Democratic majority in Congress won’t settle for triangulation. They will make the Obama of November into a liar and the Obama of the primaries into an honest man.


So do not just consider the man alone. Especially since it is clear his mouth will say whatever is necessary to get elected. Also consider his coattails and what the two likely Democratic houses in Congress will ask him to sign.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

A Prime Example of Obama Utopianism



I think this video, found via YouTube is a prime example of the dangers of Utopian socialism and how criticism ignores solutions. Obama does note that in an ideal or perfect world, all of our children, even those who are currently illiterate and non fluent in one language would instead be fluent in two.

Notice how reality where immigrants are not learning English is simply glossed over for the idealized state, and of course a joke or two. I live in Southern California and it isn't hard at all to go into an ethnic enclave where all the stores and their signs are in a foreign language. This is true most of all in Spanish because here you can purchase newspapers, magazines, listen to radio and watch a dozen channels all in Spanish. I have encountered and had my teaching contemporaries complain about parents over the years where the entire family has gone through that particular school and the mother still shuffles up to the office after a dozen years unable to converse at all in English.

I don't have to deny or resent those language outlets. However I do have to note that when you can go to the store, church, school, government offices, and listen to news, music and entertainment all in a native language of Spanish it is not a foregone conclusion that you will pick up English. Even if you do manage to pick up conversational English that is also still no guarantee that you will master it to the point that you can conduct business, become an informed voter, or be able to obtain higher education in that language.

This is the reality. Throughout the United States we have millions of students who are never designated fluent English proficient even if born and educated here. It is clear this is because while opportunities might be limited in a foreign language, they are not non-existent. Yet we can gloss over all of this, ignore the limited futures of such people, ignore the fact that it might tear at the common fabric and bonds that should help bind us together because Obama can make a joke about all of us being the ugly American trying to operate in Europe. He can point at the idealized state of bilingualism and ignore the present reality.

The reality is that given a preference for a language you already know and new language, most will choose the easiest path. You offer this repeatedly and soon they simply stay in their rut. How is it that we can note Americans when not forced to by circumstance remain monolingual and somehow this would be different for someone else?

These points, this reality, they will be ignored by the Utopians. When your eyes are fixed on the ideal state, reality doesn't matter.

Millions currently pay for such idiotic beliefs and will continue to do so in the future. Becoming bilingual is not a foregone conclusion just because someone has immigrated here and the government need not take steps to force someone to adopt English, but they also do not need to accommodate the lack of English as well.
The Green Jihad


My inaugural post at New Red Majority will concern a color most would consider the opposite of red. Of course, in this case it’s not so much about the color as it is about what it symbolizes: Radical environmentalism.

Over the past few months I have noticed a veritable onslaught of “green” advertising. We have companies touting green cars, green housing (oh, the irony), green power and yes, even green water. We have a “green” cable channel now. It seems every new day brings another story about climate change (formerly “Global Warming”). Barack Obama, John McCain and Hillary Clinton tout a new “green collar jobs” based economy. Yes, green and its interchangeable subordinates (“eco-friendly, sustainable, ecologically sound, environmentally friendly”) now rule the roost in terms of rhetoric. Everyone wants to “go green,” or so it would seem.

Well this American, for one, has already had enough. Why? Because while I favor the gradual move to alternative fuels and support caring for our environment, I know that refusing to drink bottled water and riding my bike to work is not going to save the planet. Me installing remanufactured paper countertops in my house will not save the planet. Me buying carbon credits and avoiding packaged foods is not going to save the planet, nor will refusing to eat meat or borrowing books instead of buying them. But that’s not what the Green Nazis think. Here’s a quote from the website treehugger.com on “greening your kitchen.”

“The eco-friendly kitchen begins with eating green, but it doesn’t end there. Energy-efficient food preparation and cleaning habits, using equipment made from sustainable materials, and dodging toxic chemicals are also important if you want to have a truly healthy kitchen. Fortunately, making the right choices for your well-being is also good for the pocket and the planet…”


Read the site. There’s a way to green everything. And here’s a ridiculous link on how to “go green” from something called the “Worldwatch Institute:” http://www.worldwatch.org/resources/go_green_save_green

The environmental movement is nothing new. They’ve been around for 40 years, and have spearheaded issues from the spotted owl frenzy (a fraud) to acid rain to the ozone layer. But they’ve been seen as a fringe…and that’s about to change. “Global warming” (now called “climate change”) is the Environmental Left’s uber-issue. They now have a unifying message for all of their nutty subordinate causes. Aided by their cronies in the liberal mainstream media, the fringe environmentalists are making headway in spreading their propaganda amongst the masses. They’ve declared an environmental holy war and have begun to actually wage it. They shakedown corporations, governments and skewer all who would dare oppose them. Just as Ronald Reagan was labeled a warmonger for standing up to Soviets, those who doubt the veracity of the climate change alarmists’ claims “hate the planet” and/or are motivated by profit. It doesn’t matter that the Earth hasn’t actually been warming appreciably in the last decade, nor that it has been far warmer in its pre-human past, nor that the air in most major US cities is cleaner than it was 30 years ago. To the Environmental Crazies, it’s settled science! The Earth is going to hell via the mankind highway! So we need to change. And now the loons have just the ammunition they need…a “crisis” of global proportions, one that will end life as we know it. That is, of course, unless the greenies end it first.

One might wonder why I care about being inundated in green. In speaking to a climate change alarmist recently, he said to that if we’re right about climate change and we act, we will save the planet. And if we’re wrong, the worst that could happen (so he said) was that we’d all have a cleaner place to live. But he’s wrong. This is about what it’s always about: Money and power. The Green Jihad is going to cost us all one hell of a lot of money and control over our own lives. Think $4 a gallon gas is bad? Get ready for $8. Get ready for carbon taxes, wasteful government programs and as usual…a dose of hypocrisy, both from celebrities like Al Gore (who flies around the globe on an inefficient private jet) and from politicians (no explanation needed). Prepare to have your state governments mandate you use fluorescent light bulbs, your thermostat temperature and how many “carbon credits” you can use per month. Get ready to pay more for nearly every consumer product as companies struggle pass on their exorbitant government-mandated “green” production costs.

I’m really not exaggerating. Consider these headlines:

“California Mandates Global Warming Sticker on New Cars”

“Now, Green Cards for US Colleges”

“New York City Plan Implements Green Technology, Has $2.3B Price Tag”

“Some small companies ask customers to pay green fees”

“State College gets green education, park grants”

“India's Temples Go Green”

“7th-graders 'Go Green' at BU”

“Green beach tips from the National Aquarium”


Yes, green is everywhere. But one has to ask…has anything really changed? Back here in the real world, I see people driving to work everyday. They stop and get coffee in a paper cup. They drink bottled water. They eat meat. They have electric heat. They own a car with a V-6 engine. They live in a home larger than 750 square feet. And you know what? They’re all hardworking, decent Americans. They don’t hate the planet. They will be happy to recycle. They’ll buy more efficient appliances and cars as they’re able to afford them. They’ll naturally avoid unnecessary toxins. But they won’t subscribe to the Left’s new vision of the American Dream…a future in which we give up our cars for bikes, suburban castles for Soviet-style flats, shopping trips at the mall for clothes made of hemp, meat and potatoes for a vegan diet…all so we can “go green” and feel good about ourselves. They won’t accept it, and neither will this American. Instead, I’ll be right there with them, caring for the environment…yes. But I’m still going to live my life. Not only do I refuse to join the jihad, I’ll fight it every step of the way. Buying a 30MPG car? Turning the lights off when I leave the room? No problem. But get your hands off my steak, beer and incandescent light bulbs. You don’t mess with those.

SDW

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Let us call a Utopian a Utopian

One of the things that has really bothered me of late is how conservatives/Republicans think people will jump at the word liberal. Perhaps there was a time when this was true but that time is not now. When dealing with with voters and adults who would rather spend their time watching the Cartoon Network, would rather watch fake news than the real news, and who think slogans like change and hope will somehow pay the bills, put gas into their car or give them the quality of life they believe they deserve, you need to stop sidestepping the matter and call out a political philosophy when you see it.

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason Congress is in single digits, the reason the adults have left the room, the reason real solutions can't seem to fight back is because we are dealing with Utopian Socialism and should call it such every time we get the opportunity.

Utopian socialists never actually used this name to describe themselves; the term "utopian socialism" was introduced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (in The Communist Manifesto) and used by later socialist thinkers to describe early socialist or quasi-socialist intellectuals who created hypothetical visions of perfect egalitarian and communalist societies without actually concerning themselves with the manner in which these societies could be created or sustained.


You encounter this more and more when dealing with the left. There are no ideals and not even a true discussion. They don't watch "The O'Reilly Factor" and dispute what the host might present. They watch "The Colbert Report" and laugh at a fictional caricature. There is no reading of news articles of watching of a news report, there is only "The Daily Show with John Stewart" which turns real thought into easily digestible thought custard for utopian minds to digest in their infantile environment.

Even now the wheels are coming off the bus for Barack Obama who is increasingly having to explain how when he planted nothing but seeds of utopian thought in the primary how the plants that are growing now must comprehend his need to track to the middle, split the difference, accept a proposal that works for today with a belief that a better solution can be found for tomorrow. Well as the saying goes, you sow what you reap.

Let's help those wheels come off shall we? When people claim you are terrible for not endorsing heaven on earth by means of a vote or decree realize that you are dealing with a dangerous element. You are also dealing with an irrational element because their thoughts are of what they want versus what currently exists and they see you as being an impediment to a reality that only exists in their minds. Utopians by their nature are profoundly authoritarian. Millions have died at the hands of ideas but because there was not a lost war with concentration camps involved with what we call Socialism or more specifically Utopian Socialism, they are still allowed in the realm of thought without being seen as the truly dangerous and extreme element.

As a society, if we saw a rise of eugenic thought, a return of Nazism we would call it dangerous times. We are living in dangerous times because what this election and the last cycle shows is the rising return of Utopian Socialism. Minds are being changed not with proposals, plans or solutions, but with nothing more than pure criticism.

Democrats do not fear a Republican turnaround because everyone in their camp can think they and Republicans are on the wrong track but they won't leave since Republicans are not talking about handing them utopia.

You can't out utopia a utopian and no one ought to try to do that. Instead we must discredit the idea and that is part of what will be going on here.

It is going to be a beautiful ride.

Welcome

Welcome to the place that will give us the ideals for a new red majority.