AIG Bonus BS

AIG is handing out bonus' that were part of worker's compensation packages. Politicos and the population are outraged. They are outraged at AIG and not the Bush/Obama spending spree that put essentially no strings attached on receiving the money. Most of the outrage heard is interesting.

Bill Kristol:

The AIG moment feels like a big one. Public distaste for both the Bush and Obama administrations' handling of the financial crisis seems to be crystallizing in response to the reports of bonuses for executives at the AIG financial products subsidiary, whose derivatives trading helped contribute to AIG’s bankruptcy.

Well, the executives had contracts, we’re told. The firm would risk a lawsuit not to pay up.

Really? Can't risk a lawsuit! A fine business like AIG would never do that! Shareholders have been wiped out, tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs directly or indirectly because of AIG's activities, taxpayers are out tens of billions -- but it would be too hard to change those promised bonus payments, even though the promises were of course made in very different circumstances?

What’s more -- AIG says it won't be able to retain talented staff "if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury.” Sure. Those employees would be snapped up -- there's a boom market right now for derivatives traders! And certainly no one else in the U.S. has had his compensation "subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment" by their employers -- no else in the country has had to take pay cuts, forego promised bonuses, and the like!

Sure AIG could wade into all those lawsuits, but why should they? Personally, I think they should have fired most of these bastards for tanking the company. Kristol is right that they should be happy to have a job in this economy, which they helped create. But on the other side, why should AIG waste it's time fighting something that will definitely be lost in the courts due to that little thing called a contract. I listen too a lot of people yelp about how it's wasting tax payer dollars and share holder funds, but they seem to miss that the law is on the side of the contract holder. If the contract has an out for performance than AIG should be using it, but I haven't seen any reports stating that.

And along that line about arbitrary adustments to your pay by the Treasury department, we have some political morons bellowing to tax them to death.

As public and political outrage grows over $165 million AIG paid as bonuses to executives while taking billions in taxpayer dollars, an idea is germinating in Congress. If you cannot get the money back, tax the bonuses.

"It's an idea very much at the embryonic stage," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., "You can write a tax provision targeted specifically at 98 percent of the taxable proceeds."

Dodd said that "doesn't violate the terms of the contracts," referring to legally-binding agreements that appear to preclude government action.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., says his staff is reviewing such a proposal. He called it a "worthy" idea but said he needs to know more about how it would work.

Dodd says this is something that "could happen fast. We could write this tomorrow."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney D-N.Y, the chair of the Joint Economic Committee, is also calling for a 100 percent tax on bonuses not related to commissions.

In a letter she distributed to fellow legislators for co-sponsorship, Maloney introduces legislation that will instruct the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service to develop guidelines that tax at 100 percent any bonus compensation that is not directly related to a commission for any recipient of TARP funds where the government is the majority owner of the company.

Fascinating. If this isn't arbitrary, I'm not sure what is. These are the same jack-asses that approved the bailouts with no considerations and no strings. Maybe we should demand their paycheck since they were too stupid to be responsible.

And of course there is the head cheerleader as noted by McQ at QandO:

No one with any sense is going to argue that AIG should be doing what it is doing or that the insurance giant isn’t absolutely tone-deaf to the dirge playing within the economy. But the effort and the PR agenda to reclaim the bonus money pursued by our new president just underscores the “confusion and contradiction” his actions and words engender.

President Obama vowed to try to stop the faltering insurance giant American International Group from paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives, as the administration scrambled to avert a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street that could complicate Mr. Obama’s economic recovery agenda.

We’re talking “hundreds of millions” of dollars here. But when confronted by a omnibus spending bill with hundreds of billions of dollars in 9,000 pork projects, meh, no biggie - “last year’s business.”

If the car companies had to renegotiate contracts with the unions, wouldn't it have been wise for the financial companies to have done the same? No doubt the people running AIG don't think so. And by hurling cash at them so that they would survive their own malfeasance didn't help them do the right thing either. Worst of all is blaming the people with the contract and punishing them when the jack-asses that put the whole scenario together is just pathetic.

UPDATE:
What Dodd and his ilk are trying to do is called in the Constitution (Article I, section 9, clause 3) a Bill of Attainder.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Wonder how these wizards of legislation are going to manage that bit.

Spent Mil Brass - Or How Obama Kills More Business

Should I even mention that this stupidity is going to impact shooting sports in the US? Or how it will impact LEO who purchase practice rounds at lower prices from such suppliers? The fact that this stupidity will piss away large amounts of money is bad enough in itself.

It is an end-run around Congress. They don't need to try to ban guns--they don't need to fight a massive battle to attempt gun registration, or limit "assault" weapon sales.

Nope. All they have to do is limit the amount of ammunition available to the civilian market, and when bullets dry up, guns will be useless.

Think we jest?

Here are copies of two letters sent to Georgia Arms just Thursday evening--effectively cancelling a contract he had to purchase 30,000 pounds of expended military brass in .223, 7.62mm, and .50 caliber:


Dear Valued Customer:

Please take a moment to note important changes set forth by the Defense Logistics Agency:

Recently it has been determined that fired munitions of all calibers, shapes and sizes have been designated to be Demil code B. As a result and in conjunction with DLA's current Demil code B policy, this notice will serve as official notification which requires Scrap Venture (SV) to implement mutilation as a condition of sale for all sales of fired munitions effective immediately. This notice also requires SV to immediately cease delivery of any fired munitions that have been recently sold or on active term contracts, unless the material has been mutilated prior to sale or SV personnel can attest to the mutilation after delivery. A certificate of destruction is required in either case.

Thank you,

DOD Surplus
15051 N Kierland Blvd # 300
Scottsdale, AZ 85254



March 12, 2009

Larry Haynie
Georgia Arms
PO Box 238
Villa Rica, GA 30180

Re: Event 7084-6200:

Dear Larry Haynie,

Effective immediately DOD Surplus, LLC, will be implementing new requirements for mutilation of fired shell casings. The new DRMS requirement calls for DOD Surplus personnel to witness the mutilation of the property and sign the Certificate of Destruction. Mutilation of the property can be done at the DRMO, if permitted by the Government, or it may be mutilated at a site chosen by the buyer. Mutilation means that the property will be destroyed to the extent prevents its reuse or reconstruction. DOD Surplus personnel will determine when property has been sufficiently mutilated to meet the requirements of the Government.

If you do not agree with the new conditions of your spot sale, please sign the appropriate box provided below stating that you do not agree to the new terms and would like to cancel your purchase effective immediately. If you do agree to the new terms please sign in the appropriate box provided below to acknowledge your understanding and agreement with the new requirements relating to your purchase. Fax the signed document back to (480) 367-1450, emailed responses are not acceptable.

Please respond to this request no later than close of business Monday, March 16th, 2009.

Sincerely,

Government Liquidation.

Got that? From now on, remanufacturers of military brass will not be able to buy surplus brass from DOD--actually from Government Liquidators, llc.--the corporation that sells surplus materials for the U.S. government. At least, not in any form recognizable as once-fired brass ammunition.

And:

Haynie further pointed out this move is a stupendous waste of taxpayer money--reducing the worth of the brass some 80%--from casings, to shredded bulk brass.

He stated most of this will now go to foundries where it will be melted down, cast in shippable forms, and likely be sold to China, one of the largest purchasers of U.S. metals on the open market.

Wonderful. And guess what? Nothing you can do about it. Go ahead and call your congressCritter. They won't be able to do anything either. Obambi has just decided to piss away more money because for some reason. No doubt it's related to those evil black guns.

UPDATE: Reversed!

Fiscal Responsibility

An interesting bit of Senate interaction with Geitner:

"The argument that this budget doesn't have tax increases [on everyone] is, I think, an 'Alice in Wonderland' view of the budget," he said.

He challenged the budget's math on cutting the debt: "When you take the deficit and quadruple it and then you cut it and half, that's like taking four steps back and two steps forward. That's not making any progress; you're still going backwards."

Gregg questioned why any foreign country would continue to buy up U.S. debt: "Because if I'm in the international marketplace, and I'm looking at this budget, I'm saying to myself, ‘Where's the discipline? Where's the containment?' There isn't any."

In his withdrawal statement last month, Gregg said, "I expect there will be many issues and initiatives where I can and will work to assure the success of the president's proposals."

A most worthy, and actually reported, criticism of the spending spree they call a budget.

I know Media Matters and Chucky Schumer think this is nothing, but "A billion here, a billion there; pretty soon you're talking real money." I guess I would have to ask these fiscally responsible pundits, how much money does it actually take to start worrying you? If all the earmarks and other pork are so fiscally responsible, why are they tagged onto a budget that needs to be passed and don't stand on their own?

Why Are You Here?

Now this is entertaining. I thought he was a diplomat.

After drawing a rebuke from the White House, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon tried Thursday to smooth over his characterization of the U.S. as a "deadbeat" for its late payments to the world body.

"My point was simply that the United Nations needs the fullest support of its members, and never more so than in these very demanding times," Ban told reporters at U.N. headquarters

The White House objected to Ban's use of the word "deadbeat" to describe the U.S. during a private meeting Wednesday with lawmakers at the Capitol, a day after he met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Ban's "word choice was unfortunate," given that the U.S. is the largest contributor to the United Nations.

The United States pays 22 percent of the organization's nearly $5 billion operating budget but is perennially late paying its dues.

I guess I must be missing something. Do you really want to piss off those that pay the largest percentage of dues from any single country? The UN and their diplomats abuse our laws and call us names incessantly and we just stand there and take it.

Maybe they should see how they are going to fund their little resort when they have to do it some place not quite as free as the US. Or not quite as secure as the US. Or not quite as tolerant as the US.

Let's not mention how will the enforce any of their resolutions without the US. Considering their success rate when the US isn't present, I don't think they should hedge that bet.

Maybe Ban should be happy he gets his money at all. Because when it comes to stimulating the economy, the UN isn't exactly high on the helpful side.

Princess Pelosi's Abuse of Power

Judicial Watch is always worth a look. I heard this mentioned on Fox last night and decided to read for myself. No big surprises here, just lots or reasons to be irritated. Oh and as noted at WizBang, Fox is the only MSM company even mentioning it. No doubt that is because they are so very partisan. I guess I like partisanship if it will at least inform the public of this kind of abuse. If this had been a republican you can bet that all the other MSM companies would be running around with pitchforks and torches.

I personally don't mind that Pelosi have a military asset to periodically take her on travel if she is deemed that important. My real problem is that she's abusing this benefit and costing the taxpayer lots of money.

Highlights:

• 
  

In response to a series of requests for military aircraft, one Defense Department official wrote, "Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?...[T]here's no need to block every weekend 'just in case'..." The email also notes that Pelosi's office had, "a history of canceling many of their past requests."

One DOD official complained about the "hidden costs" associated with the speaker's last minute changes and cancellations. "We have...folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc."

The documents include a discussion of House Ethics rules and Defense Department policies as they apply to the speaker's requests for staff, spouses and extended family to accompany her on military aircraft. In May 2008, for example, Pelosi requested that her husband join her on a Congressional Delegation (CODEL) into Iraq. The DOD explained to Pelosi that the agency has a written policy prohibiting spouses from joining CODEL's into combat zones.

Documents obtained from the U.S. Army include correspondence from Speaker Pelosi's office requesting an Army escort and three military planes to transport Pelosi and other members of Congress to Cleveland, Ohio, for the funeral services of the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Pelosi noted in her letter of August 22, 2008, that such a request, labeled "Operation Tribute" was an "exception to standard policy."

The documents also detail correspondence from intermediaries for Speaker Pelosi issuing demands for certain aircraft and expressing outrage when requested military planes were not available. "It is my understanding there are no G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable...The speaker will want to know where the planes are..." wrote Kay King, Director of the House Office of Interparliamentary Affairs. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, King writes, "This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset [s]peaker."

During another email exchange DOD staff advised Kay King that one Pelosi military aircraft request could not be met because of "crew rest requirements" and offered to help secure commercial travel. Kay King responded: "We appreciate the efforts to help the codel [sic] fly commercially but you know the problem that creates with spouses. If we can find another way to assist with military assets, we would like to do that."

• 
  

Nice. I especially like the military walking on eggshells to accomodate this bitch. With this attitude, I think she should lose this and have to pay her own way.

RFID Saves the Day, Again

Seems the Homeland Security genius' are at it again with RFID tagging. Now in the Real ID licenses.

The article, from World Net Daily, suggests that, sooner than some might wish, we might all have driver's licenses that are embedded with a very clever chip. Clever in the kind of way Heath Ledger's Joker is.

It's an article with many words, some of them technical and some political. The gist, however, seems to be that your driver's license could soon be adorned by a radio frequency identification, or RFID, chip. This might have some advantages, but I'm not quite sure what those might be just at this rainy moment.

However, as I understand it, anyone with the appropriate reading unit will be able to scan your personal information, even though your license is tucked into your wallet, your jeans, or that secret pocket near your chest area, just by passing you by.

The World Net Daily article is here. And has a lot to add, including this:

Privacy advocates are issuing warnings about a new radio chip plan that ultimately could provide electronic identification for every adult in the U.S. and allow agents to compile attendance lists at anti-government rallies simply by walking through the assembly.

The proposal, which has earned the support of Janet Napolitano, the newly chosen chief of the Department of Homeland Security, would embed radio chips in driver's licenses, or "enhanced driver's licenses."

"Enhanced driver's licenses give confidence that the person holding the card is the person who is supposed to be holding the card, and it's less elaborate than REAL ID," Napolitano said in a Washington Times report.

REAL ID is a plan for a federal identification system standardized across the nation that so alarmed governors many states have adopted formal plans to oppose it. However, a privacy advocate today told WND that the EDLs are many times worse.

I wonder how this lines up with the Bush phone taps? Seeing as that focused on individuals (under investigation related to national security) and this is sounding like a requirement for everyone. No doubt the government won't abuse them while the dems are in control. No, they wouldn't do that. They are the good ones and will only use these to collect taxes or some worthy cause. (BULLSHIT!)

Read the article.

Schneier hasn't commented on this as of yet, but he does point to an interesting article on the ethics of military robots. Hopefully Schneier won't prove to be as much of a partisan twit as he did during the Bush administration.

"Cap & Trade" or "Tax & Redistribute"

So the foolishness continues in the selling of the cap and trade policy. I've no doubt this will be implemented, but I just want all the losers who thing the One is going to actually help you understand how it will work.

Who is being taxed?

Hit hardest would be the "95% of working families" Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat "unless you use energy." Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.

The Congressional Budget Office -- Mr. Orszag's former roost -- estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).

Oh, but wait, it gets better. We now need to add in the redistribution part of the scenario.

Democrats say they'll allow some of this ocean of new cap-and-trade revenue to trickle back down to the public. In his budget, Mr. Obama wants to recycle $525 billion through the "making work pay" tax credit that goes to many people who don't pay income taxes. But $400 for individuals and $800 for families still doesn't offset carbon's income raid, especially in states with higher carbon use.

"Trickle back" is so entertaining that I just giggle every time I read it. Someone appears to be pissing down my neck and keeps telling me that it's raining. No doubt this will be great for no one.

Oh, and I did get my first pay check under the new stimulus package. I got nothing. What a shock.

I'm so thrilled with hope and change.

Maybe Obama would be less tired if he spent more time on things that make sense rather than all this stupidity. (He'd also piss off less of our close allies. Funny how Bush was so vilified for that and Obama is wonderful for doing worse.)

Freedom

Hmm.

We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism. New York is the least free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland. On personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear winner, while Maryland brings up the rear. As for freedom in the different regions of the country, the Mountain and West North Central regions are the freest overall while the Middle Atlantic lags far behind on both economic and personal freedom. Regression analysis demonstrates that states enjoying more economic and personal freedom tend to attract substantially higher rates of internal net migration.

Nice to live in a free state.

Well, until our Democrat Party controlled government changes that this. With luck they won't have that majority for long.

Mexican Assault Weapon

Anyone else getting tired of the lie about the "Assault Weapon Ban" would help keeping guns from going to Mexico in their little drug war?

The attorney general also suggested that re-instituting a U.S. ban on the sale of assault weapons would help reduce the bloodshed in Mexico, where last year 6,000 people were killed in drug-related violence.

Increasingly, U.S. law enforcement officials see cartel violence spill into the United States, often as far away as Phoenix and Atlanta.

As he discussed the problem, Holder spoke briefly in Spanish, pledging continued cooperation with Mexican authorities who have increasingly come under direct fire from the heavily armed drug gangs.

U.S. officials have a responsibility to make sure Mexican police "are not fighting substantial numbers of weapons, or fighting against AK-47s or other similar kinds of weapons that have been flowing to Mexico," Holder said.

DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart said the raid showed the tentacles of the crime syndicate had spread far across the United States — not just to major cities like Washington and Los Angeles, but to quiet, smaller communities like Stowe, Iowa, which the cartel allegedly used as a conduit to funnel drugs around the country.

Recall that selling guns to someone from/in Mexico is already illegal. Not to mention the fact that selling of actual assault weapons to a foreign body is illegal without Federal licensing.
Recall that the "Assault Weapon Ban" from 1994 was related to semi-automatic firearms that had cosmetic similarities to actual assault weapons and had no affect on actual assault weapons that have been highly regulated since 1938.

I'm not saying the assault weapons that are going into Mexico aren't coming out of the US. But I am saying that they are NOT coming out of the civilian firearms trade. If they are coming from the US the transactions are already illegal and the 1994 like "Assault Weapon Ban" will have absolutely no effect.

As for the AK-47 they whine about, I am betting that it would be much cheaper and easier to get south of the Mexican border rather than north of the border. That is if they actually are AK-47 and not the semi-automatic versions that exist freely in the US. My question is, would a drug cartel with large amounts of money go to gun shows in the US to buy semi-auto versions when they could easily purchase fully actual assault rifles elsewhere for substantially less?

In addition, do you really believe restricting our rights in the US will stop the illegal activities that are already occurring. Making something more illegal doesn't stop it. Stemming our rights just leaves us wanting, not to mention vulnerable.

But we'll continue to sit by while the MSM protests that the "Assault Weapon Ban" is the only cure and ignore the reality of the situation.

UPDATE: SayUncle has more.

My favorite quote:

What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers — more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their houses — makes policing them a tall order. Currently the A.T.F. has about 200 agents assigned to the task.

My heart bleeds for the BATFE. Imagine what they could do by investigating this rather than prosecuting dealers for putting down a y instead of "yes" or fiddling around with what they consider the definition of a gun today. I think the worst of these bureaucrats should be shipped down to Mexico or the border states and forced to do some honest work.

In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Interesting data. Wonder how many were stolen? Or how many were purchased from a single dealer? Or how many were purchased from a single buyer? No data of course. You are led to the conclusion that they just leaked out of all dealers and gun owners. God knows we're all irresponsible.

Another Broken Windows Study

Saw this linked at Schneier's.

Researchers, working with police, identified 34 crime hot spots. In half of them, authorities set to work—clearing trash from the sidewalks, fixing street lights, and sending loiterers scurrying. Abandoned buildings were secured, businesses forced to meet code, and more arrests made for misdemeanors. Mental health services and homeless aid referrals expanded.

In the remaining hot spots, normal policing and services continued.

Then researchers from Harvard and Suffolk University sat back and watched, meticulously recording criminal incidents in each of the hot spots.

The results, just now circulating in law enforcement circles, are striking: A 20 percent plunge in calls to police from the parts of town that received extra attention. It is seen as strong scientific evidence that the long-debated "broken windows" theory really works—that disorderly conditions breed bad behavior, and that fixing them can help prevent crime.

[...]

Many police departments across the country already use elements of the broken windows theory, or focus on crime hot spots. The Lowell experiment offers guidance on what seems to work best. Cleaning up the physical environment was very effective; misdemeanor arrests less so, and boosting social services had no apparent impact.

Funny thing is I always wonder where the crime went. Some no doubt just didn't happen, but there is some that would move somewhere else. I've yet to see any data that shows what happens in adjacent neighborhoods or cities. There are several people in Schneier's comments who wonder the same thing.

I don't doubt that there is some effect. I just would like to know what really happens in a broader region. If you move the bad crime down the road, you haven't fixed anything, you just changed the victim.

This hits pretty close to home since a lot of Lowell crime problems seem to leak up over the boarder to around where I live. Lowell has cleaned up a lot, but they still have higher crime rates than we do here in NH. Nashua is a lot lower, and even Manchester has lower crime in most categories.

Atlas Shrugged Sales Up

Interesting. Gun sales are over the top, and now Atlas Shrugged sales have tripled. Makes you wonder why.

Sales of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" have almost tripled over the first seven weeks of this year compared with sales for the same period in 2008. This continues a strong trend after bookstore sales reached an all-time annual high in 2008 of about 200,000 copies sold.

"Americans are flocking to buy and read 'Atlas Shrugged' because there are uncanny similarities between the plot-line of the book and the events of our day" said Yaron Brook, Executive Director at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. "Americans are rightfully concerned about the economic crisis and government's increasing intervention and attempts to control the economy. Ayn Rand understood and identified the deeper causes of the crisis we're facing, and she offered, in 'Atlas Shrugged,' a principled and practical solution consistent with American values."

Could it be people are getting a bit more buyer's remorse with our president?

Firing Antique Cannon

Antique as in circa 1592 (Well at least they were based on the antiques.). Film of the testers cowering behind cover makes it more fun.

Tests on cannon recovered from an Elizabethan warship suggest it carried powerful cast iron guns, of uniform size, firing standard ammunition.

"This marked the beginning of a kind of mechanisation of war," says naval historian Professor Eric Grove of Salford University.

Wish I had one of those.

And They Called Bush a Fascist?

Here we go. Tell me this isn't an act you'd expect from a real Fascist Regime. Again seen at Bruce's.

The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning.

Capt. Steve McCool of the Oklahoma City Police Department is seen in this NewsOK.com video frame grab. McCool says an officer who wrongly pulled a man over last week and confiscated an anti-Barack Obama sign from his vehicle misinterpreted the sign as threatening.

The sign, which read "Abort Obama Not the Unborn," was returned to Harrison later that day, the report said.

Police spokesman Steve McCool said this morning that the sign was taken in error, and Oklahoma City residents should not be worried that their First Amendment rights will be violated.

I think someone may want to point out to McCool that the guy's First Amendment rights had been violated as soon as the cops pulled him over and stole his sign.

But it only gets better:

''The Secret Service called and said they were at my house," Harrison said.

After talking to his attorney, Harrison went home where he met the Secret Service.

''When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups."

I guess I would have called my attorney, if I had one, but then I would have called every MSM organ in the local area to visit me at the appointed hour to watch the SS visit. Nothing like transparency when the hot lights of the MSM are on. At least you can depend on them to report your arrest.

HopeyChangey better get his SS under control. This is something that should greatly concern the citizenry.

I love one of Bruce's commentors pointing out how there was no arrests of hippies by the fascist Bush administration when they openly criticized him. Hell, I recall some Frisco flakes protesting openly for his murder and they weren't even pulled over by the locals.

Political Ethics - Circling the Drain

With the Dems putting on demonstrations of how they are no better ethically than the Repubs, we keep being handed these wonderful bits of legislation that makes one question if a politician can be ethical at all. The RAT board was another feature of the stimulus package. Nice to see they rammed it past all the reviews.

The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it’s known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.

In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.

Isn't that pleasant. I had to check the link because it was something I thought obviously put out by the Onion. Unfortunately, it's by Byron York and all too real.

Burris and Blago from the Chicago corruption machine are bad enough. Tax dodgers Daschle and Geithner make one question the Ones choices, not to mention Bill Richardson.

How about Feinstein revealing the Predator Drone bases in Pakistan in a public forum. No doubt she lied about her source of that tidbit and made the US work with the Pakistani government extremely difficult. With political allies like this Obambi is in trouble.

Caught from Bruce.

Icy Weekend

I went out and played some with my new camera. I'm still trying to figure out the wide angle part of it though. Seems like I've forgotten about the format every time I take a picture.

This was at the resevoir in Burlington MA. The ice was interesting and I thought I'd try a picture with the sun. Seems to work better than my film cameras ever did.

Universal Healthcare - Bend Over

As Bruce says, be afraid... be very afraid.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

This has so many things wrong with it that it's actually very frightening. Why would I trust a federal government database to keep my information private? They can't even keep information that is supposed to be secret from reaching the press, not to mention when some political hack in the bureaucracy gets a hardon about you and does what they did to Joe-the-Plumber, you may be finding some concern.

How about having the government telling the doctor what is appropriate? Since bureaucrats are so good at analyzing detailed information. Second guessing the doctor's diagnosis from a database, which will be fraught with errors, like say the TSA database, makes me shudder.

Next Second Amendment SCOTUS Challenge - Here Comes Incorporation

Didn't take too long. I hope this goes up their backside real fast.

The Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms does not apply to override state firearms bans, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declared Jan. 28. Under the incorporation doctrine, only certain provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, and the Second Amendment is one of those that does not, the Second Circuit held....

The statute at the center of this case, N.Y. Penal Law §265.01(1), provides criminal penalties for possession of a broad range of items, including weapons used in martial arts. The plaintiff was charged under the statute after police found fighting sticks, or nunchaku, in his home. He ended up pleading guilty to a different charge and then filed a lawsuit against the county prosecutor and others seeking a declaration that the law offends his Second Amendment right to bear arms.....

Arsenal

I just bought a new small camera, since I haven't been very good at carrying around my SLR.

So I took this picture just for the fun of it.

It doesn't give you the full perspective though. I think there are about 50 guns in there. They are stacked half stock down, half barrel down. The doors are a major pain to close since the guns need to be carefully set to have the doors not touch them. You also can't see a lot of the guns because they are wrapped so that when they are stacked they won't be marked.

So, let's see.

Fusil Mas-36

Steyr-Mannlicher M-95

M-1917 Enfield

M-1903-A3

Schmidt-Rubin M-1911

Mauser Gewehr-98

Mosin-Nagant M-1891

Mauser M-1896

VZ-52

Steyr-Mannlicher M-95

Topbreak 38

Ross 1905 Mk II

Krag 1912

Carcano 918 Long Rifle

Carcano 918 Carbine

M1 carbine

Mosin-Nagant 91/39

SMLE No. 1 Mk III*

Mauser M-94

Berthier Mle M-1916

MAS Mle 49-56

Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk 5

SKS

SVT-40

Krag (1896)

Roos MkII

PP-32

PP-32

SMLE No. 1 Mk III*

Webley Mk 6

Mauser Karabiner 98 A

Star B

1894 Krag

M-1897

M-1903-A1

SKS 59/66

SAFN-49

No.4 Mk 1

Lee-Enfield Carbine

Webley Mk 4

Browning Hi-power

CZ-50

Detective Special

AG-42B

TT-33

Hi Standard Supermatic Citation

Llama Extra

Makarov

M-1911

42M

Tokagypt Super 12

Hi Standard H-D military

So does this qualify as a collection or an arsenal.

Evil Rendition Policy Maintained by the ONE

Shock. The evil Bush policy of Rendition isn't going away. (Though it started under Clinton, I thought I'd just stay within the left's whining parameters.)

The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Secret prison's are being shuttered, if you can find them and prove that I'd love to see the evidence not just the political bloviating. (and don't forget the exceptions.)
Harsh interrogation techniques are off limits, well, unless we think we actually need them.
GITMO being closed, with no plan on where to move the detainees, we'll see.

Sounds to me like a lot of wind and almost no real activity. So how is this all better than what we had?

The "Presidential Pledge" - Nonsense

I watched the inauguration speech and was only offended a couple of places. The "childish things" part was the worst. The arrogance of Obama to assume that the country has been childish in any context is insulting. Not that this country hasn't had huge benefit to the world and its citizens in taking responsibility to fight tyranny and injustice in places that we had no interest in. Jerk.

Now we have Hollywood types pledging to put the seat down or play nice. Personally, I wonder why they weren't capable of doing that before Obama called for the Obama Youth movement. Another pledge with that slight whiff of fascism. Kutchner gives a perfect example of what I mean:

"We are honored to be working with MySpace to rally the entertainment industry to answer President-elect Barack Obama's call to service," Kutcher said in a statement. "The 'Presidential Pledge' is a platform for people across the nation and throughout the world to make a first-person commitment of service to our new president, articulating a specific intent or action to become an agent of positive change."

I'm waiting to see some evidence that any of these spoiled brats actually perform any "first-person commitment of service." I also find it a bit creepy that they make the pledge to the president and not the country.

I watched their video and it is mostly a fluff piece. (The video can be found at the link thing above.) They should have gotten the writer's guild to think something inspiring for them to say, because they definitely come across as the lightest of light weights.

Breitbart is giving them crap as well.

Many of the celebrities that were central to demonizing and making life impossible for President Bush for eight loathsome years NOW want to help with the heavy lifting of bringing America back together under President Barack Obama.

Witness Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher’s cavalcade of shiny, happy situational patriots appearing in a derivative public servitude announcement: A “Presidential Pledge” to President Barack Obama.

Forgive and forget? Right.

President Bush was not holding back Moore from “free[ing] one million people from slavery in the next five years.” Nor was he holding back the Obama-biquitous Will.I.Am from “chang[ing] how [he] live[s].” Ditto: Aaron Ekhart (”To be a better person,”) Marisa Tomei (”To integrate into my heart what I already know in my head which is that we are all in this together,”) Kutcher (”To the abolition to 21st century slavery,”) Anthony Kiedis (”To be of service to Barack Obama,”) P. Diddy (” pledge to turn the lights off, cause I used to leave the lights on but we want to conserve energy so I’ma turn the lights off, you turn the lights off,) and all-in-unison (”Because together we can, together we are, and together we will be the change that we seek.”)

Missing are pledges not to kiss the ring of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and other pledged enemies of America. Nor are there pledges not to make movies that glorify these tyrants. Nor are there pledges to take seriously that we are at war, will continue to be at war under President Obama and that our precious and under-appreciated military is fighting an avowed and evil enemy — so that, among other things, Hollywood can continue to make decadent crap that actually motivates our enemy to fight us harder!

Nicely done. The piece is much longer and worth the time just for the perspective.

No doubt many of the Obots will be taking the pledge in some strange and sanctimonious manner.

More Inauguration Costs

Hmm. I wonder if it is true now that the AssPress is reporting it?

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

I guess it must be OK for the hypocrisy to continue. No doubt the anointing will cure all mankind's woes and make the US loved by everyone.

Well maybe Chavez didn't get the memo.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday Barack Obama had the "stench" of his predecessor as U.S. president and was at risk of being killed if he tries to change the American "empire."

Most world leaders expect a new era of U.S. foreign relations when Obama, a Democrat, is sworn in as president on Tuesday after Republican George W. Bush's eight years in the White House.

But Chavez said frayed ties with Washington were unlikely to improve despite the departure of Bush, who the Venezuelan leader has often called the "devil."

Well no doubt he is the only one unhappy. Or maybe not.

Why Blogs Get Popular

Bill Whittle:

Which brings me to the point: if the news professionals did their job the way we were told they would do their job — namely cover the facts without bias (including selection bias) and not deign to illuminate us with their superior moral sense — then there would be no need for Joe, or J.D., or Mike, or me, or Pajamas Media, or any of that.

BINGO!

This all relates to Joe the Plumber being in Israel reporting on the Gaza action. I don't believe Joe is claiming to be a journalist, but the pin-heads in the MSM and their Comedian brethren are all in a tizzy over it none the less. I love this comment from Mr. Whittle:

Joe stated that he did not think reporters should be allowed on the front lines to cover conflicts. This generated a lot of heat: some from the left, whose elitist disdain for Joe was best captured by John Stewart, sneering at him for his lapses in professionalism as he reminded all of us that a career being the primary news source for an entire generation of voters cannot be entrusted to a rank amateur like some common plumber, but must instead be vouchsafed to a person with a far nobler and serious and weighty background … a career in stand-up comedy, say.

Since John Stewart wants to comment on these actions and hide behind being a comedian, then he can be a big boy and stand up to the responses like that.

Inauguration Price Tags and Liberal Hypocrisy

You really have to love the cheers of the liberals now over their former screeches about the costs of inaugurations. Bush was the evil bastard four years ago for spending $40M but Obama is just fine with spending $50M. What a shock.

There has been little outcry over the hefty price tag so far — unlike four years ago when the cost of President Bush's second inauguration provoked liberal outrage. Salon.com described the event, in an piece by Eric Boehlert on Jan. 20, 2005, as "Bush's overblown celebration," the think tank Center for American Progress called it "lifestyles of the rich and heartless," and an article in the London Guardian by Paul Harri on January 9, 2005, said it was "an unashamed celebration of red America's victory over blue America."

No doubt the listed talking heads are all very partisan. But it is almost hypocritical to complain about one and then defend remain silent on the other.

Eric Boehlert over at Media Matters gets in a tizzy over the bloggers calling him out. You'll note that he won't discuss the fact that Obama's is just as bad as Bush's and that he will only speak to the most outrageous of estimates on the cost.

Drudge today also linked to an article I wrote at Salon four years ago chastising the press for not asking questions about the cost of the Bush 2005 inauguration ($40 million), which at the time shattered all the spending records and occurred at a time when the war in Iraq was still front-and-center. (Although it cost roughly the same, Bush's bash attracted just a fraction of the crowd expected for Obama's swearing in.)

Drudge claims my article captured the "lefty outrage" at the cost of Bush's 2005 celebration. In truth, a strong majority of Americans (66 percent, including 46 percent of Republicans) thought that, in light of the fresh fighting in Iraq, Bush's inauguration should have been more "subdued."

My favorite still his finding that the Iraq war was a disqualifier while the recession doesn't seem to be an issue with him. He also lowballs the price for Obama's inauguration at $40M while most media I've looked at place it at least at $50M.

I wonder where his equivelant study is viewing the outrage over Obama's inauguration, since he so handily throws the bush data at the reader.

Oh, and the crowd size apparently is all that matters. Though you can be quite certain that the money will be spent mostly on a very small number of people just as it was for Bush. Lot's of crowds in the cheap seats don't get you moral equivalence. Maybe he misses that point that the crowds don't change the equation by looking at his own FYI.

FYI, the $40 million figure for the Bush and Obama inaugurations is in reference to the cost of the swearing in and the activities surrounding that. The extra cost of state and federal security is not traditionally included in media references to the final tab for inaugurations. In the case of Bush in 2005, the cost of security added tens of millions of dollars on top of the final $40 million figure. The same will be true for Obama this year.

Look, it's simple. If they want to spend the money fine, no matter who the elected party is. But to call Bush a fool for all the spending and give Obama a free pass is stupidity.

International Red Cross - Whining in War

I find the International Red Cross almost as worthy of derision as the ACLU. They continually screech about proportionality with no understanding of the term and they completely fail to understand what war actually is. This is an example that proves the point.

PARIS — The International Committee of the Red Cross said Thursday it had discovered “shocking” scenes — including small children next to their mothers’ corpses — when its representatives gained access for the first time to parts of Gaza battered by Israeli shelling. It accused Israel of failing to meet obligations to care for the wounded in areas of combat.

In response the Israeli military did not comment directly on the allegation. In a statement, it accused Hamas, its foe in Gaza, of deliberately using “Palestinian civilians as human shields” and said the Israeli Army “works in close cooperation with international aid organizations during the fighting so that civilians can be provided with assistance.”

The Israeli military “in no way intentionally targets civilians and has demonstrated its willingness to abort operations to save civilian lives and to risk injury in order to assist innocent civilians,” the statement said, promising that “any serious allegation” wouldl “need to be investigated properly, once such a complaint is received formally, within the constraints of the current military operation.”

Because Palestinians were the ones victim to the combat, it must be Israel's fault that they weren't getting care, not that Hamas has been intentionally attacking Israel from areas directly against civilian populations. And where were the Palestinian authorities to aid their own people?

The statement said a team of four Palestine Red Crescent ambulances accompanied by Red Cross representatives made its way to Zeitoun Wednesday where it “found four small children next to their dead mothers in one of the houses. They were too weak to stand up on their own. One man was also found alive, too weak to stand up. In all, there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses.”

In another house, the statement said, the rescue team “found 15 other survivors of this attack including several wounded. In yet another house, they found an additional three corpses. Israeli soldiers posted at a military position some 80 meters away from this house ordered the rescue team to leave the area which they refused to do. There were several other positions of the Israeli Defense Forces nearby as well as two tanks.”

Hmm. Maybe I missed something, but when did a tank become an ambulance? A military has first responsibility to do their job and themselves. Then comes the civilian wounded. Of course the NYT can't have any context for the statements. They don't bother to tell what the military position was for or whether they were in an active combat situation. No doubt they will continue to ensure Israel looks bad irrespective of the realities of a situation.

No doubt Hamas is so much more reasonable a group since their rockets are hitting Israel and they don't have to assist the injured or secure the dead. Funny how the IRC seems to be missing the relevance of combat situations.

Bay Area Protests

I always love mob protests. They are so very idiotic.

A protest over the fatal shooting by a BART police officer of an unarmed man mushroomed into several hours of violence Wednesday night as demonstrators smashed storefronts and cars, set several cars ablaze and blocked streets in downtown Oakland.

The roving mob expressed fury at police and frustration over society's racial injustice. Yet the demonstrators were often indiscriminate, frequently targeting the businesses and prized possessions of people of color.

They smashed a hair salon, a pharmacy and several restaurants. Police in riot gear tried to control the crowd, but some people retreated along 14th Street and bashed cars along the way.

The mob smashed the windows at Creative African Braids on 14th Street, and a woman walked out of the shop holding a baby in her arms.

"This is our business," shouted Leemu Topka, the black owner of the salon she started four years ago. "This is our shop. This is what you call a protest?"

Nothing like destroying the local's possessions to voice your dissent. Lord knows that will teach the police a lesson.

Here's a really precious bit from one of the protesters.

"I feel like the night is going great," said Nia Sykes, 24, of San Francisco, one of the demonstrators. "I feel like Oakland should make some noise. This is how we need to fight back. It's for the murder of a black male."

Sykes, who is black, had little sympathy for the owner of Creative African Braids.

"She should be glad she just lost her business and not her life," Sykes said. She added that she did have one worry for the night: "I just hope nobody gets shot or killed."

There is a bit of turn around logic that should be delivered. Maybe someone should walk into that idiots home and destroy it and tell them they should be happy they aren't dead. Clever thing to be telling the press.

Read the rest from the example that we should all be taking from California. (or not)

More Hands Out for a Bail Out

I suppose I don't find this any more disturbing than the auto bailout. Probably this industry doesn't need a bailout though. I'm guessing their profits will always be there.

Seems everyone is lining up for a government handout, but in the case of the porn industry, you may wonder where the hands have been.

TMZ is reporting that Hustler's Larry Flynt and "Girls Gone Wild" creator Joe Francis are asking for a $5 billion federal bailout of adult entertainment because "the economy has made America's appetite for sex go limp."

The Web site claims adult DVD sales are down 22 percent in a year, numbers which are sure to deflate expectations at this weekend's AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas.

I have to say I hate Larry Flynt. He's almost as big of a scum bag as the auto industry CEOs or those from the banking industry.

Mayors Against Guns Report

I saw this first linked at Alphecca. I found the report here. I've begun reading it and it is quite transparent on its intent. It's trying to look like a scientific study, but it ignores some really big issues.

First, I don't find any discussion that points out that all the activities they discuss are already illegal at the federal level, and in most cases are illegal at the state level as well. They also don't discuss the issue of ATF enforcement which should be the real issue if the database is being utilized properly. They do discuss the number of investigations the ATF has made, but fail to discuss the numbers for prosecutions or convictions. You'd think if you really wanted to stop gun trafficking, that is where you'd really start complaining.

Next is the usual distortion of what a dealer is. They begin with the usual gun-show loophole discussion about unlicensed gun dealers. Oddly, a dealer is required to be licensed by federal and most state laws, so there is no such thing as an unlicensed dealer. They dance around this in other sections as well.

I couldn't find, but will look some more, to find analysis of the states with the weakest gun laws and how they compare their "export" of crime guns to the largest "exporters." That would have been telling if their contention is accurate that local gun laws would lesson gun trafficking.

I did find the table comparing gun imports to exports. Interesting that New Hampshire is on the top of the list, though it isn't one of the top 10 trafficking states, but it is right next door to Massachusetts which has a fairly high importation rate. By this report's implication, NH is the one at fault here. Couldn't possibly be that the MA crimials have cars and drive to another state to commit a crime. Wouldn't that be an interesting bit of a study as to who is committing the crime.

Well, there are a lot of other complaints, but I'll wait until I have time to finish the report.

Spoofing License Plates

Saw this at NRO. This is a "prank?"

As a prank, students from local high schools have been taking advantage of the county's Speed Camera Program in order to exact revenge on people who they believe have wronged them in the past, including other students and even teachers.

Students from Richard Montgomery High School dubbed the prank the Speed Camera "Pimping" game, according to a parent of a student enrolled at one of the high schools.

Originating from Wootton High School, the parent said, students duplicate the license plates by printing plate numbers on glossy photo paper, using fonts from certain websites that "mimic" those on Maryland license plates. They tape the duplicate plate over the existing plate on the back of their car and purposefully speed through a speed camera, the parent said. The victim then receives a citation in the mail days later.

Students are even obtaining vehicles from their friends that are similar or identical to the make and model of the car owned by the targeted victim, according to the parent.

"This game is very disturbing," the parent said. "Especially since unsuspecting parents will also be victimized through receipt of unwarranted photo speed tickets.

Makes you wonder how the police will react to this. Probably by putting out more tickets. Because, you know, they haven't heard of this happening:

The Montgomery County Police said they have not seen or heard of this prank occurring but said they will keep an eye out for people committing the crime.

I wonder how exactly that is illegal. I'm guessing fraud is in there somewhere. But of course, again they call it a prank. I'm sure its all innocent fun and such, unless you're the one that gets the ticket.

And no doubt, now that it's in the MSM, it will just go away and no copy cats will be seen.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Nice:

The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.

Lisa Torti of Northridge allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from the wrecked car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.

Torti now faces possible liability for injuries suffered by Van Horn, a fellow department store cosmetician who was rendered a paraplegic in the accident that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.

Ah yes, rescue efforts are the responsibility of the trained professional. Of course, the trained professional may not be present when you're burning to death in a car crash or the LEO isn't there when your house is being invaded, but we can only rely on professionals.

Torti testified in a deposition that she saw smoke and liquid coming from Watson's vehicle and feared the car was about to catch fire. None of the others reported seeing signs of an imminent explosion, and Van Horn said in her deposition that Torti grabbed her arm and yanked her out "like a rag doll."

This still requires that the Samaritan use some intelligence as to what is really needed. How to make that decision though is difficult. And if you do wait to long and the car does catch fire, are you then going to take the risk of going into a fire to save them? Makes me wonder if the lawyers even considered that. I'm going to go my usual way and doubt it. Of course with all the good hollywood training people get on how cars explode all the time when they crash I suppose this woman thought she was doing the right thing.

I suppose now if you deem to assist, you best stop and think long and hard about whether you should. And then once the person is safe, it probably is a good idea just to sneak away and hope no one got your license plate number or a picture of you.

Helprin's Take on American Weakness

Sorry, I read the article and one specific statement loses him all credibility. And this is it:

This confusion has come at the price of transforming the military into a light and hollow semi-gendarmerie focused on irregular warfare and ill-equipped to deter the development and resurgence of the conventional and strategic forces of China and Russia, while begging challenges from rivals or enemies no longer constrained by our former reserves of strength.

How does he manage to type this with his head so far up his ass? Is he really advocating we go back to the cold war model of military strategy? Considering nearly all modern analysis by those actually looking at the wars/conflicts we may be involved in, the majority seem to conclude that fourth generation warfare is far more likely than third.

He also make a major mistake in assuming that because a military learns how to deal with irregular warfare means they are incapable of dealing with major battles. This guy couldn't be more wrong. Armor and Air superiority are still arenas that the US will never be bested in unless Russia somehow figures out how to jump ahead, and that appears unlikely with the present economy. As for China, they seem to need to steal or buy the technology, since they consistently prove their inability to innovate.

He seems to have missed the recent news, from oh say the past year, on how Iraq has been doing as well.

His conclusion strikes me as he's likely building a fallout shelter in his back yard.

But the costs of not reacting to China's military expansion, which could lead to its hegemony in the Pacific; or of ignoring a Russian resurgence, which could result in a new Cold War and Russian domination of Europe; or of suffering a nuclear detonation in New York, Washington, or any other major American city, would be so great as to be, apparently, unimaginable to us now. Which is why, perhaps, we have not even begun to think about marshaling the resources, concentration, deliberation, risk, sacrifice, and compromise necessary to avert them. This is the great decision to which the West is completely blind, and for neglect of which it will in the future grieve exceedingly.

I'd advise the dried beans, rice and a really good water filtration system. Oh, and make sure you're at least 6' below the surface. That way you're ensured continued detachment from reality.

100 Things Meme

Guess I've read a few of these around so I'll play late.

100 things I've done.

1. Started your own blog. (Uh yeah)
2. Slept under the stars. (yes, froze my butt off)
3. Played in a band. (Several)
4. Visited Hawaii. (nope)
5. Watched a meteor shower. (Many)
6. Given more than you can afford to charity. (nope)
7. Been to Disneyland. (Nope)
8. Climbed a mountain. (Nothing major but a couple)
9. Held a praying mantis. (yes)
10. Sang a solo.(nope)
11. Bungee jumped. (nope Not a chance)
12. Visited Paris. (nope)
13. Watched a lightning storm at sea. (nope)
14. Taught yourself an art from scratch. (yes, wood carving)
15. Adopted a child.(nope)
16. Had food poisoning. (Don't think so)
17. Walked to the top of the Statue of Liberty. (nope, closed both times I was there)
18. Grown your own vegetables. (yes)
19. Seen the Mona Lisa in France. (nope, See visit Paris)
20. Slept on an overnight train. (yes, worse than sleeping under the stars)
21. Had a pillow fight. (yes)
22. Hitch hiked. (nope)
23. Taken a sick day when you’re not ill. (It's called a mental health day)
24. Built a snow fort.(yes)
25. Held a lamb. (nope)
26. Gone skinny dipping. (yes)
27. Run a Marathon. (nope)
28. Ridden in a gondola in Venice.(nope)
29. Seen a total eclipse. (Several of the sun and several of the moon)
30. Watched a sunrise or sunset. (your kidding right? Hasn't everyone?)
31. Hit a home run.(nope)
32. Been on a cruise.(nope)
33. Seen Niagara Falls in person. (yes)
34. Visited the birthplace of your ancestors. (If NH counts, since I'm a tenth generation Yankee I guess it does.)
35. Seen an Amish community. (nope)
36. Taught yourself a new language. (nope)
37. Had enough money to be truly satisfied. (You've got to be kidding)
38. Seen the Leaning Tower of Pisa in person.(nope)
39. Gone rock climbing. (yes)
40. Seen Michelangelo's David.(nope)
41. Sung karaoke. (Hell NO)
42. Seen Old Faithful geyser erupt. (nope)
43. Bought a stranger a meal at a restaurant. (nope)
44. Visited Africa.(nope)
45. Walked on a beach by moonlight. (yes)
46. Been transported in an ambulance. (nope)
47. Had your portrait painted.(nope)
48. Gone deep sea fishing.(yes)
49. Seen the Sistine Chapel in person.(nope)
50. Been to the top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris.(nope, What's with these paris questions? Shouldn't they be disqualified once you admit not having gone to paris?)
51. Gone scuba diving or snorkeling.(yes)
52. Kissed in the rain. (yes)
53. Played in the mud. (yes)
54. Gone to a drive-in theater. (yes)
55. Been in a movie. (nope)
56. Visited the Great Wall of China.(nope)
57. Started a business.(nope)
58. Taken a martial arts class.(nope)
59. Visited Russia.(nope)
60. Served at a soup kitchen.(nope)
61. Sold Girl Scout Cookies.(nope)
62. Gone whale watching. (yes)
63. Got flowers for no reason.(nope)
64. Donated blood, platelets or plasma.(yes)
65. Gone sky diving. (nope, why jump out of a perfectly good plane?)
66. Visited a Nazi Concentration Camp.(nope)
67. Bounced a check.(nope)
68. Flown in a helicopter.(nope)
69. Saved a favorite childhood toy. (nope)
70. Visited the Lincoln Memorial.(yes)
71. Eaten Caviar.(yes)
72. Pieced a quilt.(nope)
73. Stood in Times Square. (yes)
74. Toured the Everglades.(nope)
75. Been fired from a job. (nope)
76. Seen the Changing of the Guards in London.(nope)
77. Broken a bone. (One Ankle, several ribs)
78. Been on a speeding motorcycle.(nope)
79. Seen the Grand Canyon in person.(nope)
80. Published a book. (nope)
81. Visited the Vatican.(nope)
82. Bought a brand new car. (yes)
83. Walked in Jerusalem.(nope)
84. Had your picture in the newspaper.(nope)
85. Read the entire Bible. (yes)
86. Visited the White House.(nope)
87. Killed and prepared an animal for eating. (a couple of times)
88. Had chickenpox. (yes)
89. Saved someone’s life. (nope)
90. Sat on a jury. (nope)
91. Met someone famous. (nope)
92. Joined a book club.(nope, why bother they only read crap)
93. Lost a loved one. (yes)
94. Had a baby.(nope)
95. Seen the Alamo in person.(nope)
96. Swam in the Great Salt Lake. (nope)
97. Been involved in a law suit.(nope)
98. Owned a cell phone.(nope)
99. Been stung by a bee. (too many times)
100. Read an entire book in one day. (More than once.)

The "Elevate" Herd

Reading over at QandO I came across this article on the emotion of "Elevation" and how it appears to have been a major motivator for the Obama voters. Like many good progressives, they went into the vote based on feelings rather than facts. I'll pull some of the quotes from the Salon article and you can read Billy Hollis' piece at QandO which will for the most part be the same since he discusses them with clarity.

What is elevation?

In his forthcoming book, Born To Be Good (which is not a biography of Obama), Keltner writes that he believes when we experience transcendence, it stimulates our vagus nerve, causing "a feeling of spreading, liquid warmth in the chest and a lump in the throat." For the 66 million Americans who voted for Obama, that experience was shared on Election Day, producing a collective case of an emotion that has only recently gotten research attention. It's called "elevation."

and

We come to elevation, Haidt writes, through observing others—their strength of character, virtue, or "moral beauty." Elevation evokes in us "a desire to become a better person, or to lead a better life." The 58 million McCain voters might say that the virtue and moral beauty displayed by Obama at his rallies was an airy promise of future virtue and moral beauty. And that the soaring feeling his voters had of having made the world a better place consisted of the act of placing their index fingers on a touch screen next to the words Barack Obama. They might be on to something. Haidt's research shows that elevation is good at provoking a desire to make a difference but not so good at motivating real action. But he says the elevation effect is powerful nonetheless. "It does appear to change people cognitively; it opens hearts and minds to new possibilities. This will be crucial for Obama."

Keltner believes certain people are "vagal superstars"—in the lab he has measured people who have high vagus nerve activity. "They respond to stress with calmness and resilience, they build networks, break up conflicts, they're more cooperative, they handle bereavement better." He says being around these people makes other people feel good. "I would guarantee Barack Obama is off the charts. Just bring him to my lab."

and

When you start thinking about mass movements, all those upturned, glowing faces of true believers—be they the followers of Jim Jones or Adolf Hitler—you don't always get a warm feeling about mankind. Instead, knowing where some of these "social collectives" end up, the sensation is a cold chill. Haidt acknowledges that in "calling the group to greatness," elevation can be used for murderous ends. He says: "Anything that takes us out of ourselves and makes us feel we are listening to something larger is part of morality. It's about pressing the buttons that turn off 'I' and turn on 'we.' "

I suppose I'm extremely distrustful of such vague emotions that lead the herd, mob, or whatever collective you wish, to follow. I didn't see any proof or even justification for people defining Obama as morally beautiful, possessing and strength of character, or being virtuous in any way. But then, I didn't bother listening to his speaches. I read them and then looked at the extremely limited information provided by the MSM and found he was just another politician. (Say politicain as if you just stepped in something disgusting.)

As the last paragraph quoted points out this can lead to tragedy. That's primarily why I think it needs to be distrusted. I don't believe I've ever felt elevation, but that could be due to my reaction to herds when they begin such mob mentality reactivity.

I like this bit, mainly because the author has it inverted.

While there is very little lab work on the elevating emotions, there is quite a bit on its counterpart, disgust. University of Pennsylvania psychologist Paul Rozin has been a leading theorist in the uses of disgust. He says it started as a survival strategy: Early humans needed to figure out when food was spoiled by contact with bacteria or parasites. From there disgust expanded to the social realm—people became repelled by the idea of contact with the defiled or by behaviors that seemed to belong to lower people. "Disgust is probably the most powerful emotion that separates your group from other groups," says Keltner.

Haidt says disgust is the bottom floor of a vertical continuum of emotion; hit the up button, and you arrive at elevation. This could be why so many Obama supporters complained of being sickened and nauseated by the Republican campaign. Seeing a McCain ad or Palin video clip actually felt like being plunged from their Obama-lofted heights.

Interesting, but completely backward. Disgust is the strongest emotion for self preservation. It keeps you alive and thinking on your feet. Elevation can lead you to the edge of the cliff that you euphorically step off of. If that is the height of emotion it is the absolute bottom for survival.

Also interestingly, the Obamanites were disgusted by McCain Palin. I don't think I was ever digusted by Obama, just really distrustful. Makes you wonder how strong Repug voters felt.

Well, we'll see which emotion is justified in the end.

How Not to Defend Against Piracy

You have to love articles like this one in the Wall Street Journal. Arthur Bowring, from the Hong Kong Shipowners' Association tells the world how ships should defend themselves. Of course he doesn't want the ships to actually defend themselves.

But in the meantime, shipowners and their seafarers in the Gulf of Aden will protect themselves as best they can. We do not believe that they should do this by arming themselves, or by carrying armed guards, because this could contribute to escalating violence and put the safety of seafarers in jeopardy.

A better solution is to coordinate ships' transits more closely with the naval presence in those waters, and to monitor International Maritime Bureau reports, and other reports, to avoid areas where attacks are taking place. The naval forces working to protect our ships could also improve their effectiveness through better coordination, more defined "rules of engagement" and the organization of regular convoys. Countries should also adopt and enforce legislation that criminalizes piracy at sea, in line with the relevant articles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, so that pirates may be caught by navy ships and prosecuted, not returned to the beach to pirate again.

That's right. Don't arm yourself, because being taken hostage and having your life threatened is much safer for seafarers, just like not fighting back is the safest response from a rape victim. Not that there aren't any international security firms out there that do these things professionally either.

Convoying works as we all know, but apparently there are reasons that they don't do it. Mainly because no one is willing to provide convoy protections. Bowring should have provided a list of Navies that are standing up and taking on the fiscal responsibility for convoys. Even more entertaining is his contention that they should be checking reports of where piracy is happening. Maybe he missed the point that the latest acts of piracy were far far away from where they normally hunt.

I really like the "rules of engagement" statement. It's quite simple actually. If someone starts shooting at you and trying to take your ship, you shoot at them. It is more difficult for Navies because they have an expected humanitarian behavior toward the pirates. Though India didn't seem to play that game recently. The British have stated they don't want to play because they have no way of prosecuting. As for the UN's Law of the Sea convention, it would have some use, except that it has so many hugely detrimental regulations against countries and their Navies, not to mention their sovereign rights, that it isn't worth being a party to. Of course, this wouldn't stop the piracy, it would just make it clear as to how to prosecute it.

Fixing the Effect Not the Cause

So Obama is stepping up and trying to play president before he's elected. I guess that doesn't matter much since he can't really do anything unless Bush agrees. I think the biggest issue is that most of what ChangeyHopey and the Progressives want is to again fix the after effects of the down turn into recession rather than the what has been causing it. In fact, I don't hear any discussion other than the bank bailouts that are fights against the cause.

"My commitment is to do what's required so that our financial system works and credit flows. President Bush has indicated that he has the same approach, the same attitude," Obama said.

But Obama stepped symbolically away from Bush as well, stressing repeatedly that his stimulus plan was aimed at middle-class wage earners, not just big financial institutions. It was an implicit reminder that many of Bush's economic policies have favored the wealthy.

"We cannot have a thriving Wall Street without a thriving Main Street, that in this country we rise or fall as one nation, as one people," Obama said, promising to make good on his pledge to bring tax relief to families earning less than $250,000 a year.

Obama also used Monday's news conference to lob a warning at the Big Three automakers — and indirectly their powerful union, the United Auto Workers — who have pressed Congress for $25 billion in government loans to wrest them from the brink of bankruptcy.

The problem with this stance is that it ignores that "the wealthy" includes small and medium businesses. Interesting that they are put into the same boat. Missing the point that the economy runs on business not on government handouts. Where is the reform legislation? The US has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. You want to keep jobs here in the US and create new ones, how about cutting businesses some slack and leaving their money in their hands.

As for the big three dinosaurs from the auto industry, I still don't see them reforming their ways. And let's not forget the UAW and other unions that are a party to the problems. I don't see any reason to bail the auto industry out. Especially since the Dems don't want to anger their major union voter base by telling them to get in touch with reality. Everyone else in business has to take pay cuts, the pilots unions and other unions for the airlines all finally came to that realization and the airlines seem to be healthier for it. Not that they are an example of a properly functioning industry. But at least they have worked through that difficulty.