Saturday, April 16, 2011
More Progressive Civility
Progressive Civility
At the beginning of last week, the commentariat was in raptures over the Serious, Courageous, Game-Changing Ryan plan. But now that the plan has been exposed as the cruel nonsense it is, what we’re hearing a lot about is the need for more civility in the discourse. President Obama did a bad thing by calling cruel nonsense cruel nonsense; he hurt Republican feelings, and how can we have a deal when the GOP is feeling insulted? What we need is personal outreach; let’s do lunch!Hey, now let's see Krugman go after the enemies of Sarah Palin, who were showing their true colors today in Madison. William Jacobson's got that: "Public Employee Union Dance-a-Thon Practice In Madison":
On display in Madison, Wisconsin today, as related to me by reader Jim, who sent this photo:"This guy was next to me screaming for two hours. Here he is showing civility and tolerance to Sarah Palin."
Why Did Islamists Kill Vittorio Arrigoni?
Fox News reports, "Kidnapping of Italian Activist in Gaza Challenges Hamas' Authority." The killers are allegedly rogue operatives. But still. Arrigoni was an ISM activist. How stupid. You'd think they'd murder Zionists. And even Hamas terrorists aren't pleased? See Los Angeles Times, "Body of Kidnapped Activist Found in Gaza City":
The body of kidnapped Italian activist Vittorio Arrigoni was discovered in an abandoned house just hours after a radical Islamist group announced that it was holding the Palestinian advocate in exchange for the release of its leader, Gaza officials said Friday.And folks can see what to make out of this. Ultimately, progressive anti-Semites will blame Israel.
The slaying drew immediate expressions of shock and condemnation from Palestinian leaders, Gaza Strip residents and Arrigoni's colleagues, who said the 36-year-old had come to the Gaza Strip in 2008 with the advocacy group International Solidarity Movement to help Palestinians in the impoverished coastal territory.
It was the first abduction of a Westerner in Gaza since 2007 and, human rights officials said, the only instance of such a kidnapping victim being slain.
On Thursday, a small Islamist group with links to Al Qaeda posted a video of a bloodied, blindfolded Arrigoni. The Tawhid and Jihad group set a late Friday deadline for the release of its leader, who had been arrested by Hamas, the Islamic militant group that has controlled Gaza since 2007.
On Friday, the group retracted its claim of responsibility but defended the killing, saying it was the result of Hamas policies.
Sarah Palin Rallies Madison Tea Party! — VIDEO ADDED!!
The Right Scoop has video, "Sarah Palin to Obama: You ignored us in 2010, but you cannot ignore us in 2012!" (via Memeorandum). Also, at Gateway Pundit, "SARAH PALIN – ANDREW BREITBART Join Thousands of Patriots at Madison Tea Party (Live on UStream) …Update: Thugs Heckle Sarah Palin …Update: Sarah to Obama, “Mr. President, Game On!”"
I'll update with a YouTube clip when that becomes available, as well as any other cases of progressive thuggery --- which shouldn't take long, actually.
Okay, here's the video, via Gateway Pundit (more from Althouse later):
Academic Bloggers
By the way, William Jacobson deserves mention in any academic blog roundup, especially when blog rankings are a key indicator.
Lee Fang, RIP
The basic problem with a site like Think Progress is that its "reporters," ill-informed, uneducated, inexperienced amateurs like Lee Fang, try to write about subjects of which they have no understanding. Worse yet, they slander the very people who do understand those topics -- the people who produce products and make our economy go.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Mission Viejo and Oceanside Tax Day Tea Parties!
Until morning, check Carolyn Tackett's report, "Welcome to the Tampa Tax Day Tea Party!"
House Votes on 2012 GOP Budget Plan
There's lots of buzz online, for example, "Obama: GOP tried to 'sneak' agenda into budget," and "Drama erupts on House floor as conservative budget goes down."
I enjoyed Rep. Paul Ryan's presentation, which recaps his recent promotions and interviews:
I'm heading out right now to meet my wife for lunch. After that I'll be grading papers for a couple of hours. Then I'm heading to a tea party in Mission Viejo at 4:30pm and then meeting Left Coast Rebel at the Oceanside Tea Party at 6:00pm. Should be lots of great coverage, so check back tonight.
Until then ...
Los Angeles Times Disses 'Atlas Shrugged'
So OK. Let’s say you know the novel, you agree with Ayn Rand, you’re an objectivist or a libertarian, and you’ve been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you going to get a letdown. It’s not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?(Via Memeorandum.) And others aren't holding off until they see it to weigh in negatively. That said, Kurt Loder did see it and was unimpressed --- and he's writing at Reason.
Lowering the Class Warfare Rhetoric
Going Galt? '69 more firms move jobs, facilities out of California'
So far this year, 69 companies have moved all or part of their California work and jobs to other states or countries, reports Irvine relocation consultant Joe Vranich. It's the fastest rate of departures since Vranich started tracking the exodus in 2009, he says. There have been an average of 4.7 moves per week from Jan. 1 through April 12, compared to 3.9 moves in all of 2010. The numbers are low, Vranich says, estimating that only one in five out-of-state moves is made public. In what he calls "disinvestment events," Vranich counts companies that move jobs, facilities or headquarters out of California. He doesn't count companies that invest outside the state for growth or marketing reasons. Among the 69 are some big names: CKE Restaurants, which started in Orange County and now is based in Carpinteria; Dunn-Edwards paints in Vernon; and eBay Inc. in San Jose which will add 1,000 high-paying jobs in Austin, Tex. after receiving government incentives to locate there.CKE is Carl Karcher Enterprises, the parent company of Carl's. Jr. But check the link to see the list of O.C.-based firms fleeing the state's inhospitable business climate. And here's the list of reasons:
Why do these and the other companies move out of California? Vranich has updated his top 10 reasons that California companies call the moving van. Number 10 is new: Energy costs soaring because of new laws and regulations. Commercial electrical rates are already 50% higher than the rest of the country, Vranich says, and Gov. Jerry Brown just signed a new law increasing the amount of power utilities must buy from renewable sources plus regulations for the California Global Warming Solutions Act will start soon.
Number 10 is new: Energy costs soaring because of new laws and regulations. Commercial electrical rates are already 50% higher than the rest of the country, Vranich says, and Gov. Jerry Brown just signed a new law increasing the amount of power utilities must buy from renewable sources plus regulations for the California Global Warming Solutions Act will start soon.
The other reasons, Vranich says, are:
9. High and unfair tax treatmentStill more at O.C. Register.
8. Regulatory burden
7. Unfriendly legal environment for business
6. Most expensive place to do business
5. Provable savings elsewhere
4. Public policies and taxes create unfriendly business climate
3. Uncontrollable public spending
2. More adversarial toward business than any other state
1. Poor rankings for California on lists ranging from taxes to crime rates to school dropout rates.
Kurt Loder Reviews 'Atlas Shrugged' at Reason
Anyone not familiar with Rand’s novel will likely be baffled by the goings-on here. Characters spend much time hunkered around tables and desks nattering about rail transport, copper-mining, and the oil business. A few of these people are stiffly virtuous (“I’m simply cultivating a society that values individual achievement”), but most are contemptible (“We must act to benefit society”…“a committee has decided”…“We rely on public funding.”) These latter creeps should set our blood boiling, but they’re so cartoonishly one-dimensional that any prospective interest soon slumps. We are initially intrigued by the recurring question, “Who is John Galt?” But since the movie covers only the first third of the novel (a crippling miscalculation), we never really find out, apart from noticing an anonymous figure lurking around the edges of the action, togged out in a trench coat and a rain-soaked fedora like a film-noir flatfoot who’s wandered into an epoch far away from his own.
S.E. Cupp is Keith Olbermann's Latest 'Mashed Up Bag of Meat With Lipstick'
The full story's at The Blaze, "OLBERMANN: S.E. CUPP SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN BORN, PROVES ‘NECESSITY’ OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD." It all starts with S.E. Cupp's appearance on Joy Behar's show:
Then Olbermann goes ballistic on Twitter.
See the follow up report from Caroline May, at Daily Caller, "Olbermann says S.E. Cupp demonstrates the ‘necessity’ of Planned."
Andrew Breitbart Saves the World (Or at Least Your Sanity)
Of all the things Righteous Indignation does, perhaps its most important function is to pull back the curtain on the unholy alliance between all the cultural and media institutions and the left-wing industrial complex and expose how they fit together like puzzle pieces to advance an agenda. If you trusted the media or the entertainment industry before reading this book, your eyes will be opened. If you didn’t, you will know you are not alone.
Breitbart might not save the world with his book, but he might just save your sanity. Or he might inspire readers to stand up and say “no more!” and take action to defend liberty. Come to think of it, if that happens, he might just save the world.
She's Hot. She's Sexy ... Ayn Rand's Bigger Than Ever
Following the links takes to Donald Luskin's piece at WSJ, "Remembering the Real Ayn Rand: The author of "Atlas Shrugged" was an individualist, not a conservative, and she knew big business was as much a threat to capitalism as government bureaucrats."
For Rand’s popularity to achieve political traction, Randism will have to move beyond the strange preoccupation of a few politicians and the full-time passion of two specialist think tanks. Her ideas will need to become the guiding principle for a significant voting bloc or politically active movement. And that is a difficult problem for Objectivism, which as an organized movement never managed to convert the millions of cash-paying Rand customers into active “radicals for capitalism,” to use the author’s own self-description.I love the celebration of the individual, but I'm no atheist and some of Rand's individualist abandon leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But Rep. Paul Ryan is cited at the piece. Ryan's Catholic, so he's not going in whole hog for Rand's vision in the moral sphere. But he does endorse the emphasis on liberty in the market (narrowly defined), and the threat from the bureaucratic Leviathan that's more real than ever under the current Democrat regime. I think these points indicate an adaptable Randism for people who aren't that radical. Frankly, it's pretty rad just to go Rand on economic individualism, so folks can sort out Objectivist ethics in others moral realms after that point.
Christmas For Democrats!
Thursday, April 14, 2011
It's Been 11 Years Since 'Scream 3'
At LAT, "Word of Mouth: 'Scream 4' takes a stab at relaunching the franchise":
Following a bloody scene near the conclusion of "Scream 4," the character played by the horror franchise veteran Neve Campbell turns to series newcomer Emma Roberts and self-referentially cautions her to not mess with the original, though she uses cruder language to express her displeasure.Hmm. We'll see, but Weinstein might have a point. When kids think of slasher flicks nowadays the "Scream" movies get first mention. And I remember when my oldest kid first asked if he could watch slashers he mentioned "Scream." My wife wouldn't let him watch it. That was years ago, so I've lost track, but my youngest is 9 years-old, and it's no way Jose. That said, I liked the first "Scream" a lot. In fact, I might even be heading out to the movies this weekend for some scary slasher thrills. You're only young once!The question this weekend is whether fans of the first three films also might feel that the new thriller tramples on the "Scream" legacy.
It's been 11 years since "Scream 3" arrived in theaters, and franchises don't normally relaunch themselves after such a long hiatus. Audience tracking surveys suggest that "Scream 4" will be eviscerated at the box office by the animated comedy "Rio," but there are precedents that make "Scream 4" maker Weinstein Co. optimistic about its long-term prospects.
Paramount's "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" in 2008 followed the previous Harrison Ford treasure-hunt tale by 19 years with poor reviews but a global gross of more than $786 million, and last year's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" from New Line, which trailed the previous Freddy Krueger movie by seven years, grossed a respectable $63.1 million domestically.
"Audiences like it a lot," Bob Weinstein says of the new horror film, which so far is attracting fair but not great reviews. "'Scream' is an icon of a franchise."
FreedomWorks: 'Atlas Is Shrugging'
RELATED: From Donald Luskin, at Wall Street Journal, "Remembering the Real Ayn Rand."
Change! Share of Americans Working Near 30-Year Low
The share of the population that is working fell to its lowest level last year since women started entering the workforce in large numbers three decades ago, a USA TODAY analysis finds.More at the link above.
Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record.
The bad economy, an aging population and a plateau in women working are contributing to changes that pose serious challenges for financing the nation’s social programs.
This administration has no clue.
America’s Fading Middle East Influence
The middle east has gone through eras of projection of power by external powers, and it has adapted to the balance of power between them. This was the case during the age of colonialism (predominance of Britain and France), the Cold War (competition between the U.S. and the ussr), and the period of American predominance since the end of the Cold War. For the last two decades, the region has been characterized by the conflict between “status-quo” and “anti-status-quo” forces. The former were represented by the existing regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc., and the latter by Iran, the Islamic movement, Hezbollah, and their allies. For over two decades, the United States has been the predominant superpower in the region and the main force in maintaining the status quo.An excellent piece. RTWT.
However, today, the Middle East is undergoing a sea change. The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya were the result of developments within the countries themselves: deep economic and social malaise and the perception of the loss of domestic deterrence by ossified regimes led by aging leaders. However, the popular perception that the United States had abandoned its erstwhile allies to support those revolutions facilitated their spread to other theaters. This turnabout in American policy is not seen in the region as reflecting American power though intervention, but rather the decline of American power, manifested in a policy of “bandwagoning” after years of proactive American policy. Clearly, the decline of American projection of power in the region will have as profound an effect as the projection of American power had at its height.
The policies of the United States under the Obama administration have given rise to a broad perception in the region that the United States is no longer willing to play the role of guarantor of the security of its allies there; America is indeed “speaking softly” but has neither the present intention nor the future willpower to wield “a big stick” if push comes to shove. This perception is reflected in seven, key interrelated regional issues: (1) Islam and jihadi terrorism; (2) revolution and democratization in the region; (3) nuclear proliferation; (4) Iran; (5) the Israeli-Arab peace process; (6) Iraq; and (7) Af-Pak. In all these issues, the U.S. is perceived as searching for the path of least resistance, lowering its strategic profile, and attempting to accommodate the de facto powers in the region. In all these areas, the United States is projecting an aversion to proactive action, disinclination to project power, and lack of resolve to support its allies. Remaining American allies in the region realize that they cannot rely on the United States and must adapt themselves to pressures of the masses, predominance of radical ideologies, and Iranian strategic hegemony.
Wednesday Drive Time
Walking Back the Breezy Optimism on Gabrielle Giffords' Medical Recovery
When members of the Giffords medical team discuss her progress with reporters, they are constrained by patient-privacy laws and by the specific instructions from Giffords’s family and staff. Before the team held a press conference last month (the first since February), the boundaries of permissible information had been carefully negotiated, and the result was a generally upbeat report featuring many superlatives but few details. Dr. Dong Kim, the neurosurgeon who drained excess fluid from Giffords’s brain when she arrived from Tucson, reported that she was progressing in “leaps and bounds,” and that she was starting to walk and show an ability to express herself that was “a constant and wonderful thing.”It's worth reading the entire article.
Reflecting on that media event, Kim tells NEWSWEEK, “I can understand how somebody listening to us might say they expected her to show up and be normal. But if you polled a bunch of neurologists or neurosurgeons as to what we were saying,” he goes on, “they would understand exactly what we were describing and what we think a good recovery means.”
First and foremost, the nonspecialist should understand that when Kim and the other doctors on the team speak of progress, it is in relative terms, given that the patient has suffered severe brain damage. “‘Leaps and bounds’ means much faster recovery than the average patient from a similar type of thing,” Kim says. When he says that he is having conversations with Giffords, he means that he has asked her a question (“How are you today?”) and that she has answered (“I’m better”). Kim adds that there is a bottom line for all such patients, whatever their recovery curve. “If somebody has a severe brain injury, are they ever going to be like they were before? The answer is no. They are never going to be the exact same person.”
Dr. Gerard Francisco, the physiatrist in charge of the Giffords medical team, says he is quite pleased with his patient’s progress, although he acknowledges that outsiders, especially the media, might be misinterpreting what the doctors and therapists are trying, however circumspectly, to describe. “It’s how we measure the change,” Francisco says. “Some people will expect changes to be big. I’m happy with small changes, as long as I see these changes every day, and that’s why I’m very encouraged. Some people would like things to get better within an hour, within a day, within a week. Rehab is not measured that way. It is a long-term process.”
What Francisco and his rehab team aim for is an optimized “new normal” for each patient. “Everyone around her needs to understand, hey, this is a different situation,” says music therapist Meagan Morrow, who is working with Giffords. “After you have a brain injury, you are a different person. It doesn’t matter who you are.”
Dana Loesch Interviews Donald Trump: 'I'm a Very Conservative Guy in the Republican Party'
Don't Mess With Congressman (LTC. Ret) Allen B. West!
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) used an email to constituents to respond to a threat against his Florida office last week and to warn critics to "be careful of whom you are choosing to employ these tactics against."That's called standing up for your values and standing against progressive thuggery.
Last week, West's Florida office received an envelope containing white powder and a letter with derogatory remarks directed at the congressman. A hazmat team later determined the powder wasn't harmful.
"This incident, is just another in several incidents that have occurred over the last couple of years and, have put me in quite a bad mood," West wrote in an email sent to constituents Tuesday.
He offered the example of a "liberal blogger publicly stating that he wanted to 'skin me alive,' " and a protest outside his office led by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) "castigating me as a 'misogynist.' "
"I find it interesting that in all of these instances, the media simply dismissed the incidents," West said. "One might wonder — is it open season on a principled black conservative?"
****
"Let me be very clear to all reading this missive, but mostly to liberals who subscribe to this behavior, be careful of whom you are choosing to employ these tactics against," wrote West. "I consider myself an easy-going fella who will always engage in intense intellectual exchange. However, if you choose this path of personal attacks, intimidation, and threats you will encounter a very different Congressman (LTC. Ret) Allen B. West."
A great man. It was my honor to meet him at CPAC.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Obama's Toxic Speech
Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.Further details and analysis at the link.
The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.
Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.
Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which "starts," he said, "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.
J. Crew President Paints Son's Toenails Pink
Obliterating gender difference is key to the radical left agenda. If gender roles don't matter, then neither do traditional parental roles, child-rearing roles, marriage --- you name it. That's why freak extremists like Racist Repsac3 go for the aggressive demonization should someone call bull on this deviancy.
Cited there is this piece, from Dr. Keith Ablow, "J. Crew Plants the Seeds for Gender Identity":
In our technology-driven world—fueled by Facebook, split-second Prozac prescriptions and lots of other assaults on genuine emotion and genuine relationships and actual consequences for behavior—almost nothing is now honored as real and true.And while the regular cultural radicals are shilling for this cultural degeneracy, we also have Doug Mataconis engaging the debate, "Social Conservatives Freak Out Over J. Crew Ad." Doug's libertarian, and he's blogging at Outside the Beltway, ostensibly a conservative blog, but I doubt most parents are down with painting their young sons' toenails hot pink. People of decent morals just know instinctively the dangers in such behavior. And what's bothersome --- no, loathsome --- is to be lectured by the deviants themselves about how "intolerant" are people of old-fashioned morality.
Increasingly, this includes the truth that it is unwise to dress little girls like miniature adults (in halter tops and shorts emblazoned with PINK across the bottoms) and that it is unwise to encourage little boys to playact like little girls.
If you have no problem with the J. Crew ad, how about one in which a little boy models a sundress? What could possibly be the problem with that?
Well, how about the fact that encouraging the choosing of gender identity, rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil—not to mention crowding operating rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts? Why not make race the next frontier? What would be so wrong with people deciding to tattoo themselves dark brown and claim African-American heritage? Why not bleach the skin of others so they can playact as Caucasians?
Why should we hold dear anything with which we were born? What’s the benefit of non-fiction over fiction?
Well, the benefit is that non-fiction always wins, in the end. And to the extent that you take flights of fancy into masquerading through life, life will exact a psychological penalty.
Nancy Pelosi: 'Elections Shouldn't Matter as Much as They Do'
It is a mistake to dismiss Pelosi as the complete nitwit she often appears. The most clarifying single moment of the last generation may well have been Pelosi's famous remark that we'd need to pass the healthcare bill to find out what was in it. Rather than being a matter of ridicule, I thought Pelosi expressed perfectly the innermost character of congressional legislation in the modern administrative state. What she said was quite true and accurate: even at more than 2,000 pages, the enormous discretion and policy responsibility delegated to executive branch agencies meant that in effect the actual operating law would be formulated by administrators rather than Congress. And the huge number of waivers being granted under ObamaCare reveals the essentially arbitrary (some might say lawless) nature of administrative government.RTWT.
Vice President Joe Biden Falls Asleep During President's Budget Speech
'This is Vintage Sanchez' — Rep. Loretta Sanchez Slurs Congressional Republicans as Dim-Witted Southern Hicks
And according to the Latino Politics Blog: "This is vintage Sanchez — she loves to do voices." Now, if the shoe were on the other foot, and Republicans slurred Latino Members of Congress as illiterate immigrant day-laborers, we'd be having civil rights marches and demands for resignations.
Rule 5 Hilary Rhoda — Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2011
Plus, American Perspectives has Lisa Rinna's lips, interestingly enough, although I'd prefer Carrie Underwood, at Maggie's Notebook: "Rule 5 Saturday Night: Oklahoma’s Carrie Underwood." And of course, Linkmaster Smith for updates. .
Anyway, here's some link around action: Amusing Bunni's Musings, Astute Bloggers, Bob Belvedere, CSPT, Dan Collins, Eye of Polyphemus, Gator Doug, Irish Cicero, Left Coast Rebel, Mind-Numbed Robot, Legal Insurrection, Lonely Conservative, PA Pundits International, Pirate's Cove, Proof Positive, Saberpoint, Snooper, WyBlog, The Western Experience, Yankee Phil, and Zion's Trumpet. Plus, top it off with Theo's
More later, and drop me a comment if you're looking for some linkage.
Lady Gaga's 'Born This Way'
FWIW, I like Britney better, so more on that later ...
Sarah Palin and the Birthers
Palin did herself no favors by jumping on Trump’s bandwagon ...RELATED: From Freedom's Lighthouse: "GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann: Every Candidate for President Should “Put their Birth Certificate on the Table”."
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
George W. Bush Speaks at 4% Project on Driving Economic Growth
Calling the TARP decision one of the biggest quandaries of his term, the former president says he has no regrets about it. Speaking at a Bush Institute conference in Dallas, he waves off speculation about his legacy.And at Dallas Morning News, "George W. Bush calls for backing off government involvement in padding economy":
People can spend their money better than the government can, former President George W. Bush told a receptive audience at an economic conference hosted by his policy institute Tuesday.
“It's a cornerstone of a lot of debate that's going on in Washington,” Bush said, referring to the showdown between the White House and Congress over spending.
Bush made the remarks at the beginning of a two-day conference hosted by his policy institute at SMU.
“Some of the people here helped pass tax cuts. Some helped me form free trade agreements,” Bush said, adding that one of his toughest decisions was the move to bail out Wall Street.
Bush defended that decision but said government involvement should be unwound as quickly as possible.
The conference launched a three-year Bush Institute initiative called the “4 percent Project.’’ Institute officials say they will examine the public and private sector actions necessary to drive gross national product by 4 percent annually.
Institute officials acknowledged that goal may seem daunting in the current economic environment. “While 4 percent annualized GDP growth might seem a stretch, it can be achieved,’’ according to Bush Institute materials prepared for the conference.
“With modern information and industrial technologies, as well as deep capital investment in productivity tools across the economy in every industry, the United States can grow much faster than economists currently predict – as long as the best policies are in place,’’ the materials said.
Hamas' New Russian-Made, Laser-Guided Anti-Tank Missiles Shift Balance of Forces at Gaza-Israel Border
Do these people even want peace?
At Fox News, "Hamas' Powerful New Weapon Alters Strategic Calculations Along the Gaza Strip."
THE possibility of another Gaza war heightened yesterday after Hamas used an anti-tank missile to hit a school bus in Israel and fired a further 50 rockets.
What Debt Ceiling Fight Means For You
Read it all at the link, but mostly sounds like doom and gloom to me. More on this later. Meanwhile, at Hot Air, this is good: "Two ObamaCare programs, four czars eliminated in budget cuts."
Mitt Romney's RomneyCare Albatross
Sean Hannity read Holly Robichaud's brutal Boston Herald essay on air the other night, "Just one more reminder that Mitt Romney can’t win." And here comes Michael Graham with another slam on Romney at the Herald, "Romneycare a big bust." What remains to be seen is how this plays out. In 2004 Democrats nominated John Kerry so they'd have a candidate with both veteran and antiwar creds to challenge a sitting war president. Problem was that Kerry couldn't get any traction on the war, since he wasn't going change much of the Bush policy on Iraq: "Why change horses in midstream"?
Will the same thing happen to Romney? Healthcare should be Obama's albatross, and it is, except if Romney's the nominee he'll have to try to differentiate what he did in Massachusetts with what Obama's done with the Affordable Care monstrosity. But it wont' work. Michael Graham's essay above says that ObamaCare and RomneyCare are joined at the hip in the public's mind, so Romney --- and Republicans --- are screwed on that issue. Maybe the Ann Coulter scenario would be better, to have Chris Christie throw his hat in the ring, but who knows at this point? Romney could be dead in the water? But Christie ain't running? And Sarah Palin could be hangin' loose until 2016? Hey, I'll take Michele Bachmann! We need a woman president!
Ann Coulter on Donald Trump's Birtherism
Equal Pay Day — Oops, There Goes the Feminist Narrative!
Feminist hand-wringing about the wage gap relies on the assumption that the differences in average earnings stem from discrimination. Thus the mantra that women make only 77% of what men earn for equal work. But even a cursory review of the data proves this assumption false.Hmm. I doubt Amanda Marcotte's going to be pleased, and don't even get me started about Sady Doyle!
The Department of Labor's Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.
Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.
Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.
'Internationalism Run Amok'
Rihanna S&M
She looked lovely on the cover of the latest Rolling Stone, in any case, "Rihanna Opens Up Like Never Before in Rolling Stone Cover Story."
This might be too hot for Rule 5, so I'll do something for a roundup later.
Monday, April 11, 2011
More Neoconservative Backlash
Old line Reagan conservatives have always been something of a firewall for neo-conservatives, siding with them over more isolationist factions within the GOP. The thanks we most often got for that was either to have been ignored, or taken for granted - and now, it seems, even marginalized, as Jennifer Rubin is doing.That's a block quote from the second half of the essay, so readers need to RTWT for the full argument. I'm not sure if it's just Jennifer Rubin that's the most painful thorn here, or something larger. If you check the links you'll see that Dan's fuming mad at Rubin's hoity-toity dismissal of grassroots conservative concerns on the budget deal. Rubin comes off as a beltway moderate completely out of touch with the ideological currents of limited-government conservatism. And I write this as a fan of Jennifer Rubin. But Dan's got a good point. The tricky thing here is not to throw all the "neocons" in one basket when hammering Rubin. I don't read her as much as I'd like, but she was at Commentary for a while, and she's about as aggressively Zionist imaginable. Perhaps Dan will want to flesh out his argument further in an additional essay. If by "Neo-Conservatives" he means William Kristol and perhaps Charles Krauthammer ... well, they're as beltway as you can get, and with Kristol, sometimes his fervent advocacy of the freedom agenda seems to overtake his better judgment. He's consistent, so give him that. But folks who might otherwise be attacked as "neocons" have been very cautious on change in the Middle East and the effects on Israel's interests. David Horowitz most obviously comes to mind, with his highly publicized renunciation of the democracy promotion agenda in Egypt and so forth. But Victor Davis Hanson personified neoconservative foreign policy on the Iraq war, and he had an inside line to the White House back in 2003, but he's now one of the biggest skeptics on the Obama administration's foreign policy, calling for a degree of realist restraint that's the antithesis of the the neoconservative paradigm.
I'm not suggesting traditional conservatives will abandon Israel, or one of the three legs of Reagan Conservatism - national defense, most particularly. However, it is going to have to re-assess its positioning as regards neo-conservatism and the more isolationist elements of the GOP cited above. Unfortunately, they are not always a best friend to Israel.
As a result, what the aforementioned third leg of conservatism might look like given some new alignment, or dynamic, within the conservative movement is hard to predict. But with mounting debt and three wars going on, it's most likely to not be a very adventurous one, however hawk-ish it might remain in theory.
That, in the end, could prove to be a serious concern for Israel, one coming at the same time the Middle-east is unraveling thanks to Obama - a time when it can least aford any new concern. Yet, ultimately, neither they, nor anyone else, would have anyone to blame but neo-conservatism. Thanks to their policies, combined with a lack of respect and regard for traditional Reagan conservatives over a decade, or more, neo-conservatives may be bringing about the very thing they most oppose: a more isolationist grassroots conservative movement rising to take control of the Republican Party.
They may even have to revert to being Democrats before long. And one can only imagine the reception they'd get there. Given budget constraints and Obama's own current international adventurism, it's quite possible that neo-conservatism as a driving ideology won't even have a place in any next Republican administration. And that may happen, even if they are successful in helping to elect the next establishment Republican they are bound to find themselves endorsing in 2012 and, or 2016.
Ninth Circuit Rules Against Arizona's SB 1070
But see Andrew Malcolmn, "Next move in the Arizona illegal immigration law fight: An immediate Supreme Court petition?"
Photos: "'Phoenix Rising' for SB 1070 at Arizona State Capitol."
Rock Bottom
Not 'The Largest Annual Spending Cut in Our History'
The president might be technically correct in this sense: In none of those years did federal spending fall by as much as $38 billion in nominal dollars. But any real comparison would use inflation-adjusted dollars or percentage of the budget, and by those standards there are no “big, big cuts” here. (Boehner specifically called it the “largest real [that is, inflation-adjusted] dollar spending cut in American history,” which is so clearly wrong that it must surely have been a misstatement.)See? Obama's a liar. But progressives are liars, so it shouldn't be surprising. What is surprising is that Speaker Boehner was going along with the lie, as Boaz points out. Progressives are calling him a "hostage taker" and a "street hoodlum" who will "kill your kid." These are hardly the kind of folks to whom you want to give in.
The fundamental point here is that federal spending rose by more than a trillion dollars during Bush’s first seven years, and then by almost another trillion in barely three fiscal years. And then we had a titanic battle over whether to trim $38 billion.
The idea that the Democrats “have shown that they heard the message that government spends too much” or that the Republicans—the party that increased federal spending by a trillion dollars while nobody was looking during the Bush years—have “imposed a small-government agenda on Washington” is ludicrous. After these meager cuts, the federal government will spend more than twice as much as it did when Bill Clinton left the White House.
So, I'm disagreeing with Spree a little bit here. These aren't big cuts and conservatives shouldn't go too easy on the GOP leadership. The tea party scored a victory, but it's just a start. Backing off now with breed complacency. Keep the pressue on.
France's Burka Ban Takes Effect
Despite some high-profile protests, France’s banning of the burka is enormously popular with the public. Unfortunately, as in Britain, almost anything politicians do that the voters approve of tends to be denounced as populisme – a particularly dread charge among the over-earnest French political class – and instead of enjoying the deserved benefits, President Nicolas Sarkozy has found himself on the defensive.Mme Amara is Fadela Amara, "the Algerian-born former housing minister in Sarkozy’s government ..."Sarko’s modest measure (the burka is forbidden only in public places, the fines are piffling and the enforcement procedures incomprehensible) has led to much talk of sledgehammers and nuts, warnings of an apocalyptic Muslim backlash and claims that the Republican tradition of liberté is being compromised in a seedy ploy to combat the resurgence of the hard-Right Front National under its new leader Marine Le Pen.
Almost anything, in fact, than an acknowledgement that the public overwhelmingly sees the ban as right for France, beneficial to its Muslim communities and justified – if on no other grounds – as a statement in support of liberalism against darkness. Approval runs right across the spectrum, with Fadela Amara, the Algerian-born former housing minister in Sarkozy’s government, calling the burka “a kind of tomb, a horror for those trapped within it”, and André Gerin, the Communist MP who headed the commission investigating the grounds for a ban, describing it as “the tip of an iceberg of oppression”.
That part about Muslim women not having a choice isn't something that progressive leftists want to talk about. Frankly, the burka ban is apparently evidence of French "discrimination."
The Birther Bandwagon! Palin Backs Trump on Obama Birth Certificate
And here's Trump on Fox & Friends responding to David Plouffe:
More later ...
Go Ahead, Make a Voluntary Donation to Reduce the National Debt
'Most feminists are feminists because they are marginalized from society to begin with by virtue of being women who aren't attractive'
Jill Filipovic (Man, I'm off my game! This stuff is gold. I'm forwarding to Robert Stacy McCain, who also needs to brush up on his repertoire!woman-lawyerhot, manhattanite, woman-lawyer) who blogs for Feministe followed a pingback to my boyfriend’s blog post “Feminism is a Crazy Girlfriend” and tweeted it in mock disbelief. Kate Harding*, a fellow feminist writer who focuses on fat and body issues re-tweeted it [and then] a throng of manginas and single, cat women flocked to the post. I find it amusing that of the three that commented, one is a bearded, beta-male mangina posing with a natural, floral backdrop and the other calls herself “vegina” – a vegan, feminist, academic activist. Fuck.
RTWT for the background to the quote at the title. There's something to this attraction hypothesis, but I'd like to see the hard data.
Americans Abandon the Heartland
Americans continued to abandon the nation's heartland over the past decade, moving into metropolitan areas that have grown less white and less segregated, the 2010 Census showed.Keep reading at the link above.
The U.S. population grew by 27 million over the decade, to 308 million. But growth was unevenly distributed. Metropolitan areas, defined as the collection of small cities and suburbs that surround an urban core with at least 50,000 people, accounted for most of the gain, growing 10.8% over the decade to 257.7 million people.
Rural areas, meanwhile, grew just 4.5% to 51 million. Many regions—from the Great Plains to the Mississippi Delta to rural New England—saw population declines. About 46% of rural counties lost population in the decade, including almost 60% of rural counties that aren't adjacent to a metro area, according to an analysis of Census data by Kenneth Johnson, senior demographer at the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.
As More Americans Have Become Dependent on Federal Programs, Republicans Have Struggled to Uphold the Animating Principles of the Party
In 2009, the federal government ran a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion, or 10% of the nation's gross domestic product. That was followed by a deficit of $1.3 trillion in 2010, or 8.9% of GDP. The 2011 deficit is expected to reach about 10% of GDP again. While revenues have declined because of the recession, this massive increase in deficits has been driven mostly by enormous growth in spending: Between 1990 and 2008, annual federal outlays averaged 20% of GDP, but in 2010 spending reached 23.8% of GDP — a difference of about half a trillion dollars per year. To see where such reckless imbalances lead, consider that, at the end of 2008, federal debt stood at $5.8 trillion; on its present course, it will be $20 trillion by 2020.It's a great piece, so check out the rest at the link above.To make matters worse, these frightening figures do not even fully reflect the cost of paying out entitlement benefits to the retiring Baby Boom generation. Between 2010 and 2030, the number of Americans age 65 and older will increase from 41 million to 71 million. The Congressional Budget Office projects that spending on the nation's largest entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — reached 10.3% of GDP in 2010, up from 5.4% in 1975. By 2030, the combined costs of these programs (including the provisions of the new health-care law, if it is fully implemented) will have risen to 14.7% of GDP, or nearly $3 trillion. In other words, over the next two decades, the federal budget is scheduled to absorb new entitlement-spending commitments that are roughly the size of the entire Social Security program today.
The only real options for closing the budget gap are to lower spending, increase revenues, or pursue some combination of both. Republicans won the 2010 election in large part because most Americans do not trust the Democrats to solve this problem: They believe that unified Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches will mean a heavy tilt toward tax increases to reduce deficits and borrowing. Americans would prefer their elected leaders to come at the deficit problem from the other side, cutting government spending so that it does not exceed available revenue.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Obama Plans National Budget Address for Wednesday: Tax Hikes On the Agenda
President Barack Obama will lay out his plan for reducing the nation's deficit Wednesday, belatedly entering a fight over the nation's long-term financial future. But in addition to suggesting cuts—the current focus of debate—the White House looks set to aim its firepower on a more divisive topic: taxes.More at the link above.
In a speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama will propose cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and changes to Social Security, a discussion he has largely left to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year, a proposal contained in his 2012 budget, and changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy.
An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.