June 30, 2010

Dear Government, Re: Oil Spill, You’re doing it wrong; Kevin Costner & reason 86,347 the Free Market is better.

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel


From a recent piece written by Dick Morris:

“It's one thing to say that Obama's administration showed ineptitude and mismanagement in its handling of the Gulf oil spill. It is quite another to grasp the situation up close, as I did during a recent visit to Alabama.
According to state disaster relief officials, Alabama conceived a plan -- early on -- to erect huge booms offshore to shield the approximately 200 miles of the state's coastline from oil. Rather than install the relatively light and shallow booms in use elsewhere, the state (with assistance from the Coast Guard) canvassed the world and located enough huge, heavy booms -- some weighing tons and seven meters high -- to guard their coast.
But...no sooner were the booms in place than the Coast Guard… uprooted them and moved them to guard the Louisiana coastline instead.
So Alabama decided on a backup plan. It would buy snare booms to catch the oil as it began to wash up on the beaches.
But...the Fish and Wildlife Administration vetoed the plan, saying it would endanger sea turtles that nest on the beaches.
So Alabama…decided to hire 400 workers to patrol the beaches in person, scooping up oil that had washed ashore.
But...OSHA  refused to allow them to work more than 20 minutes out of every hour and required an hour break after 40 minutes of work, so the cleanup proceeded at a very slow pace.
The short answer is that every agency -- each with its own particular bureaucratic agenda -- was able to veto each aspect of any plan to fight the spill, with the unintended consequence that nothing stopped the oil from destroying hundreds of miles of wetlands, habitats, beaches, fisheries and recreational facilities.”

So, as per usual and standard, the government has completely road blocked every single effort People have come up with to clean this mess up, whilethe Fedzilla goes about the business of protecting us from ourselves and the breeding habitat of turtles. Turtles that will likely soon die in an oil slick before they can breed again anyway.  Let us not forget Obama’s refusal to step on Union toes and rescind the Jones act for this emergency.

But, once again proving that when there is a problem that needs solved, someone will invent it and it will not be the Government.  Enter Kevin Costner.  Now, I do not know what the man’s politics are but apparently he is a Capitalist.  That is at least a good starting point.

Apparently more than ten years ago Kevin Costner, of Dances with Wolves and Robin Hood fame,  wondered why we had so much trouble separating oil from water and decided to put his not-inconsiderable-wealth where his curiosity was.


Costner  became inspired to work on a solution after watching coverage of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Valdez spill happened in 1989 and occurred off the coast of Alaska when the Exxon Valdez hit a reef. Approximately 11 million gallons of oil spilled into Prince William Sound, causing widespread harm to the local wildlife, environment and economy. 

In 1993 Kevin,along with his Scientist brother, Dan, procured a technology transfer from the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory for a centrifugal oil-water separator.  Apparently the Government could not get the technology to work (imagine that).  He founded Costner Industries (CINC) and committed the next 15 years, and over $20 million (possibly as much as $24 million) toward R&D of his oil separator. The oil separator is a powerful centrifuge that can separate oil from water by spinning it at a high speed,  leaving the water 99 percent oil free.

In his recent congressional testimony for government approval to allow BP to test them, Costner recounted his struggle to effectively market the centrifuge (in the past). He explained that although the machines are quite effective, they can still leave trace amounts of oil in the treated water that exceeds current environmental regulations. Because of that regulatory hurdle, he said, he had great difficulty getting oil industry giants interested without first having the approval of the federal government.  So, just another example of the Government worried about one snowball during an avalanche.

So does the thing work?

BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said,  "We tested it in some of the toughest environments we could find, and actually what it's done — it's quite robust," Saying,  "This is real technology with real science behind it, and it's passed all of those tests." He added that Costner's device has proved effective at processing 128,000 barrels of water a day, which "can make a real difference to our spill response efforts."

How big of a difference? 

The largest machines are designed to separate 200 gallons of oil from the water per minute. That's about 210,000 gallons of oil per day.   The most recent estimates suggest that between 20,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil per day are leaking out of the Deepwater Horizon well. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. So, if we take the highest estimates, that's about 1,680,000 gallons of oil per day. That would take just eight of the OTC machines to clean up the new oil each day, not  counting the petroleum that's already in the water.

Henry Fountain explains in the New York Times, the gadget in question marks a major breakthrough in spill cleanup technology. And BP, after trial runs with the device, is ordering 32 more of the Costner-endorsed centrifuges to aid the Gulf cleanup.  Suttles said the additional machines will be used to build four new deep-water systems: on two barges and two 280-foot supply boats.

It's true, as Fountain notes in the Times, that innovation on spill technology has been hobbled in part by the reach of federal regulation — though Fountain also notes that oil companies have elected to devote comparatively little money for researching cleanup devices. 

Then again, why would they, when 99% effective is not good enough? 

Imagine if we held Government to the same standard…





Yahoo News, Product Design and Development, AP,ecorazzi.com, USA Newsweek, Ocean Therapy Solutions, www.gawker.com

June 29, 2010

The Difference between Sympathy and Empathy

 Closing Guantánamo Fades as a Priority - NYTimes.com

guantanamo_bay The above linked article from the NYT discusses how support for the plan to close the prison at Gitmo went from having a slight majority of support on inauguration day, to nearly 60% majority for keeping it open by March.  Certainly the failed bombing attempt in Times Square has increased the support for keeping terrorists off our soil and stirring up the anger levels again.  But I believe there is more to it than that.

The Moonbat plan was to close camp Xray and move all the prisoners to some civilian prison on US soil.  Several Liberal Lawmakers made political hay out of the plan by saying that they would be glad to house the terrorists in their states.

I think that is where things began to falter for the hope’n’change crowd.  It went from theory to reality.

gitmo-protest-amnesty-international_preview“close gitmo!, no military tribunals!, civil rights!”  “close gitmo!, no military tribunals!, civil rights!” “Bush  Lied, people died!”


barack-obama-smiling  “We are bringing them to your city”



gitmo-protest-amnesty-international_preview“close gitmo!, no military trib….no…wait, what?  near my home and my children? In my community?  No, I want Gitmo closed but I don’t want them in my backyard.”

There is the real break in the mental processes that separates logical, pragmatic, realistic, liberty loving, constitutional libertarian thought from  impassioned, emotional, irrational, illogical moonbat ‘thought’. 

When the argument for closing Xray went from some theoretical exercise where the terrorists would be housed out of sight and out of mind, and the libtards could feel that they were being morally superior and all goody- goody, safe in the knowledge that Khaled Sheikh Muhammed was being treated with Kid gloves, but far far away from them; to theoretically being held within 30 miles of their homes with underpaid and undermotivated civilian guards the whole thought experiment was made real.

This is something I have expressed before.  When any of the Liberals pet issues is put into a perspective where it would actually affect them, the tune suddenly changes.  They move from Sympathy to Empathy.   Sympathy for the perceived situation, to empathy with how actually being in the situation feels.

Deer_Herd_in_Playground Other cases in point:  Many are against hunting, feeling as though it is animal cruelty.  In several cities suburban hunting permits for deer are issued to well qualified archers.  There is usually the obligatory protest of people wanting to “live with Nature” until a deer runs into the side of their Hummer H3 and dents it all up.  Then there is the chorus of “kill bambi” which reinforces what farmers and ranchers have known all along, Man and Animal can coexist, as long as both sides are controlled.  Fact: Deer are hard on crops, fences, and automobiles and until the Sympathy for Deer becomes Empathy with20061127_deer_hit11 someone who has had the beejesus scared out of them and cost them a few thousand bucks in auto repairs by a suicidal deer, it is not “real” to some people.   

Take Arizona and the illegal immigration debate as an example; it is very easy for a senator from a northeastern state, or someone who lives in a gated community far removed from the border to denounce what the citizens of Arizona have been clamoring to have for years.  Arizona needs to secure the border it shares with a foreign country because there is a serious crime wave going on down there and no one but Arizonans are going to do anything about it.  Arizona has no hope to stop tArizona Reconquiestahe crime wave if they cannot control the free movement of foreigners back and forth across their border.   Now, if one of Nancy Pelosi’s grandkids was kidnapped by a foreign invader from mexico, do you not think that immigration reform would suddenly find its way onto the House Calendar?  It is like the old west in southern Arizona now, with the criminal element coming into the state to commit its’ crimes and then hightailing it back across the border, like Pancho Villa or something.

I remember when I was younger there was a huge debate in Missouri regarding “bussing”.  Many rural and suburban schools were predominately White, and many inner city schools were predominately Black.  This was obviously (to democrats) a problem.  In support of this was the fact that inner city schools performed more poorly than those of the suburbs.  Now, I firmly believe that the real source of the problem is not Race, but one of culture. There is nothing inherently inferior about anyone’s skin color or ethnicity. 

But I can take any child and ignore them, never teach them right from wrong, show them that might always makes right, that society “owes them something”, and turn them into the perfect weapon of self destruction. 

The solution was to spend huge amounts of taxpayer money on “bus-ing”  white kids to inner city schools andeaststl-314 black kids to Suburban schools.  I would have argued that the lower test scores and higher dropout rates in the cities was not related to race at all and would have probably spent the money on some sort of job creation, community outreach, and parenting classes for families in those areas where performance was suffering.  But that is not what happened, does anyone care to guess or remember the result?  Performance of both types of schools went down, violence went up, and parents got angry.   Once the feral kids who were (un)raised by people succored from the government teat were introduced into schools where more parents took an active role in their children’s education everyone suffered.  The issue was not because some kids were black and some were white,  it was because a majority in one group were effectively tutored in how to be a productive member of society, and a majority of the other group were raised as though in the wild.  This whole issue went from being a sympathetic thought experiment in forced diversity, to an empathetic real world experience of what happens when children who have never been taught how to behave in society mix with less violent ones who were raised by people who believe that you can socially engineer the demographics of a city. 

One more short example:  Two years ago there was a huge sympathetic outpouring of support for a little known Freshman Senator from Illinois to become The President of the United States.  He promised Hope, and Change.  People said, “just give him a chance.”  The sentiment was one of sympathy for his message, and the historic nature of  half black man as president.  Now that we have moved into an empathetic situation of dealing with he and his friends’ policies more and more people agree with those of us who said that he had no executive experience, had questionable judgment in choosing friends and associates, and no more cared about the rights of  the oppressed or the economic opportunities of the poor than any other Despotic ruler throughout history, irrespective of his genetics.  Popular sentiment is now changing.  But that is ok, society forgets these lessons every two generations or so.


June 28, 2010

Spotted at the mall!

-Sent from my iPhone

June 25, 2010

The Gulf Oil Spill Makes it Clear It Is Time to…. Push the Liberal Agenda

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel


never let a crisis go to waste part 2, 332


See full size imageI mean sure, Wind, Solar, and Ethanol, along with Cap and Trade are wildly inefficient, but, look at the bright side,  they are also fantastically expensive too! – stated one administration official*

*Not really but he might as well have

As the Deepwater Horizon Well continues to pour oil into the gulf, the politicians are doing their best to turn our misfortune into their windfall. The (Il)logical chain goes like this: 1) crude oil is messy and dirty, especially when it is spilled into water; 2) “green” fuels and energy methods are clean and don’t result in oil spills; 3) Green energy would expand political power in this country 4) therefore, the government should force  “green energy” on consumers.

Also the Cap and Tax movement is using the Deepwater Horizon disaster to push for its’ pet initiative.  The best I can come up with for the (il)logical rationalization for the oil spill “making it clear Cap and Trade is necessary” is 1) Liberals want cap and trade 2) The BP Oil Spill is a disaster 3) never let a disaster go to waste 4) therefore, we must pass cap and trade.

This MSNBC (Official Mouthpiece of the Administration) reinforces the position :

“Alternative energy proponents say the time is right for help from Washington. “Our thoughts are with the people living and working in the Gulf as they and other organizations deal with the oil spill,” said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. “Americans’ support for pure, clean energy is clear, and events such as this heighten the need for Congress to pass needed energy and climate legislation.”

But not to be outdone, ‘the lets burn our food to make less efficient but more costly fuel’ crowd, aka the Ethanol Industry, has jumped on the bandwagon too:

“The Gulf oil spill is a heartbreaking catastrophe, and it demonstrates in stark terms why we need to accelerate the use of renewable energy alternative like ethanol,” said Stephanie Dreyer, spokesperson for ethanol advocacy group Growth Energy.

“The long-term ramifications of the oil spill are yet to be determined, but it definitely indicates a need for us to invest in alternative fuels in a renewable way and move away from oil.”

No, it clearly does not indicate any such need.  And it also is not a clear mandate for complete moratorium on all drilling.  The Oil Industry as a whole has a fantastic safety record, and not to minimize the terrible situation the BP disaster has put us all in, and the enormous economic losses that the gulf will experience, it should not slow down our efforts to drill here at home one iota.  As Rupert Murdoch said, “We didn’t buy Alaska to save the Moose.”

Not wanting to miss out on the action, the Global Warming Alarmists have to make hay off of this crisis as well.  To make matters worse, the New Plan from Chairman Zero for $7 dollar a gallon gasoline would obviously trigger yet more condemnation of oil and lead to more demands that the government “nationalize” the industry.  Which would play into The Oministration’s hands very nicely.

In reality, government intervention played a SIGNIFICANT role in the disaster in the first place.  As Judge Andrew Napolitano points out, BP wanted to drill in 500 feet of water, which the state of Louisiana approved but then was, of course, halted by the federal government which demanded the company drill in 5,000 feet of water.   The Judge writes:

“Never mind that no oil company had ever cleaned up a broken well at that depth and never mind that the feds had never monitored a broken well at that depth and never mind that BP only needed to set aside $75 million in case something went wrong. The feds trumped BP’s engineers and the feds trumped the wishes of the folks who live along the Gulf Coast and the feds decided where this oil well would be drilled.”

And why did BP only need to set aside 75 million for liability? Because of a law liberal lawmakers passed following the Valdez spill.  Previous to that there was no liability limit,  another example of government good deeds at work.

Furthermore, the federal government has roadblocked local & state governments as well as private citizen’s efforts at cleanup every step of the way.  The Obama Regime has turned away offers from well-trained and well-equipped groups including foreign countries because of the Jones Act, which protects American maritime unions.  A law which could be suspended with a mere stroke of Obama’s pen.    As much as the Liberals howl about saving the animals, and saving the environment, with this decision to do nothing Obama has made it clear he favors the unions more than the environment.

Is this merely incompetence and protection of special interests?  OR is this maximization of the opportunity provided by this crisis ram down less-efficient and much more costly energy “alternatives,” such as windmills and corn-based ethanol, both of which are highly inefficient wastes of time and money and kept alive only by massive government subsidies. In a free market consumers would reject these costly and inefficient sources, but thanks to the magic of political “investing,” we no longer have a “free” market, and costly and inefficient are what Government does best.

So we have a spill the Obama administration and many others hope will change our attitudes toward oil. The fuels that come from crude oil are unmatched in their energy production and cost-effectiveness, so it would take a major event to make American consumers willing to impose huge costs on themselves. We may not need alternative fuels, and we may not want them, but apparently the government and its allies are using this unfortunate event to increase State power and to make us poorer.


June 24, 2010

I don’t want to grow up…I’m a liberal kid….

I don't want to grow up When I was a child my behavior was largely controlled by my parents.  When I went to bed, when I woke up, what I ate, when I ate, where I went, when I came home.  The temperature in the house was set by them, what I saw on TV, what church I attended.  My parents made sure I made my bed, and brushed my teeth, and combed my hair, and took a shower, and played fair, and shared with my friends and went to school. When I fell down they told me to get up, they looked at my boo boo, kissed it or took me to the ER as needed and told me it would be ok. 

My parents paid for things too.  I didn’t have to worry about my healthcare, or housing, or food.  I didn’t have to pay for my travel.  They bought my clothes, they provided me with entertainment.

When I didn’t want to pick up my toys, or when I didn’t want to brush my teeth, or make my bed, they would say “…when you are a man and have your own place to live, you can do as you please, you can live like a pig if you want, but while you are living under my roof you will do what I say.”  I am sure that most of you reading this have heard that or similar before as well.

I yearned to be a grown up, I wanted my freedom, I wanted to be able to kick my shoes off by the front door and just leave them there, I wanted to be able to eat ice cream right before I went to bed.  I could not wait until I got to make the rules for ME.  I thought that when I was all grown up the world would be mine for the taking and I would be FREEEEEEEE to experience the wonder of the whole world how I wanted.  Life would begin at 21.  Somewhere around age 10 my mommy quit kissing my boo boos and I quit crying when I fell down, I simply picked myself up, brushed myself off, and got a band-aid.  When I was young and went out for baseball…and utterly sucked…no one gave me a trophy…I was not a good baseball player, and everyone knew it.  I dealt with it.

One wonders what the liberal among us think about this.  To the average moonbat this world must be a truly frightening place.  Full of uncertainty, with not nearly enough safety nets, seat belts, and helmets in use.  I have wondered in the past if there is something markedly different in their upbringing to make them so desirous of being  a dependant. Dependent on the Nanny Government for their care and feeding.

The sun must have come up on their 18th, 21st, or 35th birthdays and they mustFailure to Launch have realized that gosh…their parents were not going to foot the bill anymore.  Someone was going to have to pay the electric bill, and the grocery bill, and the gas bill.   If they chose to do something really stupid no one would be there to save them.   Suddenly the world was full of danger, mean people who hurt their feelings, and people who did not think that the world revolved around them.

And unlike you and I, instead of setting out to find a job and enjoy the freedom, they set to work finding a new mommy.  Mommy government.  “I bought too big a house and can’t pay the bills!”, mommy will take care of it.   “I bought motorcycles and boats and clothes, and went to Vegas on my credit card and now they want paid”, Mommy Government will take care of it.  “I spent all my money on booze and cigarettes and now I am hungry”, mommy government will make sure you have food to eat.

“I didn’t know that eating a box of ho-ho’s every day would make me fat”…mommy government will fix it.  “I knew I should have worn my seatbelt but I didn’t want to”, mommy government is there to fix it, she will make sure everyone wears their seatbelts.   On and on and on and on…it must be someone else’s fault, and they need a mommy to make it all better.

Their parents must have shielded them from every embarrassment and every failure.  Their dad’s must have taken care of all their high school bullies.  Their mom’s must have made sure that no one ever was mean and hurtful to them.  Their parents must have paid their car credit cards, and speeding tickets and never allowed them to learn from their poor behavior.  They must have never learned that their actions had consequences for them. Because most of them cannot comprehend that not everyone loves them, some people are jealous, petty, and violent. 

My parents taught me that in this country I could do and be anything I wanted to be with enough hard work and perseverance.   Their parents must have taught them them that they could have anything of anyone else’s and never have to worry about consequences as long as they whined and cried loud enough.

They are the ultimate failures to launch.   


June 23, 2010

Mexico to Assist The POTUS on Arizona Immigration Lawsuit.

Cross Posted at Left Coast Rebel

Say…what?   I am not going to post the whole article,  I just want the readers to help me wrap my mind around this entire situation.  Let’s list the facts:

  • The Federal Government has a Constitutional Mandate to protect our sovereignty.  To argue otherwise would make the formation of the federal government a moot point on the part of the founders based on Federalist papers 2 through 9.
  • The Federal government is not upholding its obligation to enforce the laws already contained in the federal register. 
  • The Feral  Government is also not making any move to repeal any federal laws.
  • Arizona, suffering a crime wave, passes a law MORE fairly written than the federal law to identify people who are in this country unlawfully and see them deported.
  • The POTUS calls out the state and begins proceedings to bring suit against the state for a law MIRRORING a federal law already on the books.
  • The chief executive of a foreign government files an amicus brief in UNITED STATES federal court on behalf of the federal government against a state of the United States.
    • Arizona should attempt to bring suit against the Mexican State of Sonora for allowing those people across the border in the first place.

Nope no matter how hard I try I cannot completely wrap my mind around that one.  One wonders if Obama would allow Mexico to just invade Arizona without lifiting a fing…oh wait…yeah he pretty much did.

Arizona Reconquesta

The story goes on to say:

[the amicus brief, filed by the Mexican Government] urges the federal court in Arizona to declare the law unconstitutional and stop it coming into effect.

"Mexico has a duty to protect its citizens and ensure that their ethnic origin is not used as a basis for committing discriminatory acts," the Mexican foreign ministry said in a statement.

ok..ok…Mexican authorities are challenging OUR laws governing OUR country and using OUR Constitution to back up THEIR claim that we are violating THEIR citizens rights to be in OUR country Illegally…still having trouble getting this really in my mind.

If Mexico was so concerned about its citizenry and felt its ‘duty’ so strongly it would control the crime problem it has and make Mexico a place people wanted to live. But Mexico’s second greatest export is labor (drugs is first) so instead, Mexico wants to demonstrate its ‘duty’ to its citizens by ensuring they can achieve the good life in the United States free gratis. The Obama Regime Minister of Labor is posting Public Service Announcements to let illegals know of just how good they can have it here  AND our POTUS is acting as an agent on their behalf.  On. Their. Behalf.  In fact there is a story/rumor/leak that if this lawsuit doesn’t work Chairman Zero will just proclaim it across the land that there are no illegals here via royal proclamation Executive Order.

Un-Freaking-Believable.  How is that not a High Crime?


June 22, 2010

Legislate Yourself as you Legislate Others

Cross posted at leftcoastrebel
The golden rule says “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”  This rule works very well in the interpersonal dealings of individuals. In this era of hyper-regulation of everything, I just wish people would legislate themselves like they want everyone else to be legislated.  Progressivism and hypocrisy go hand in hand.  They regulate all these activities because they Care so darn much!  But their caring does not always translate into changing their behavior.  It usually just manifests itself in them wanting to change yours.  It is the same old cliché we always use to illustrate socialism:  Socialism is getting into they guy standing next to you’s pocket to give the beggar some change.
Pamela Anderson uses her popularity to endorse PETA, who would like to wagerpamela-anderson-peta-turkey2 on whether or not Pam calls Terminex if she sees a bug or a rodent in her house?  Do you think Pam would like to swim in her pool with frogs?  You think if she found a snake in her garage she would just let it live there?
Algore’s activities and hypocrisy are the stuff of viral email legend.  Does he drive a Prius, or better yet take the train, or ride a bike, to his speaking engagements?  Use a chalkboard and old fashioned megaphone to save electricity?  Do you suppose they turn the AC off for his speeches?  If Al truly believed the nonsense he was spreading he would only hold his speeches outdoors in a park during daylight hours and stand on a tree stump and shout his message.  But, sadly, no, he uses gore2all the modern conveniences of life that his Billionaire status affords him.
Take any of the A-List stars in Hollywood who are make such impassioned pleas regarding the poor.  Show me the first one that gives up their limos, yachts, airplanes, and mansions to lift a whole tenement out of poverty; or, point out the one that does not have a good tax lawyer on retainer.
Remember all the tax cheats in the administration?geithner_hypocrisy
My Grandmother has always said that those who wish to control others every second of the day are usually those that do not have control over themselves. 
As I have stated before, if you have a pet cause that you want government to get involved in you must also accept all the other pet causes everyone else has.  We all have our interests, and it would be easy for us all to try to legislate our views on even the most mundane things onto others.
DOUCHE For instance, I would outlaw Crocs.  I would outlaw all info-mercials and most ’reality’  TV.   But if I could do all of that, and more, then the person next door would also get to outlaw my 4x4 truck, talk radio, guns, and inefficient antique tractor.  They might decide that fatsos like me should not be allowed to purchase Krispy Kreme donuts.  It would be their right to legislate me just as much as it was mine to legislate them.  Until their activities cause me quantifiable harm, I have no right to do anything about it.
I don’t have to buy ugly foam shoes, I don’t have to watch info-mercials or the Flava of Luv because Free Market Capitalism created DVR.  If you feel strongly about trading automobile safety for the perception and status of being a good person  trade in your limo for a smartcar…fine; I will be driving my truck.
American-Constitution This was the genius of the Founders.  They restrained government and gave it specific, limited powers.  This was to protect your rights and freedoms as much as the next person’s.  When our President laments the fact that government is not restrained, and that the constitution is a list of negative liberties, that it doesn’t say what the government can do.  Half of that statement is true; and by design, and a good idea.  The other half is false.  The Constitution from, the perspective of the Federal Government, is a list of negative liberties.  From a personal standpoint it is a list of positive liberties.  Power is to the people.  This saddens many, if not most, of our governmental types, and that is precisely the reason the Constitution is written that way.  Now as to the statement that the Constitution does not say what the Federal Government can do; yes it does, very plainly,  it is just that it is supposed to be very limited; again, much to the dismay of Congress Critters and big Government types.  When every pet cause is dealt with from a Federal level, and all causes rise to the  level of “crisis” the only people who win are those in power.  We all lose.  Oh sure, the turtles will get their tunnels, but the government giveth and the government taketh something else away. 

June 21, 2010

W.H. gets behind DISCLOSE Act – We knew this was coming

W.H. gets behind DISCLOSE Act - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com
I first started talking about this last week.
“The White House on Monday came out in strong support for the new campaign-finance reform bill that got pulled from the House floor schedule last week in the wake of some Democratic infighting.
The DISCLOSE Act – Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections – would require corporations, unions and advocacy groups to reveal their roles in political ads or mailings in the closing months of a campaign.
The measure is vehemently opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has launched a new ad blitz against it, and some other special-interest groups that see it as an attempt to muzzle their involvement in the political process.
But the White House has backed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, in pushing the bill. Pelosi and Van Hollen argue the legislation is needed after the Supreme Court struck down all restrictions on corporate and union political spending last January.
The Congressional Black Caucus and moderate Blue Dog coalition have raised concerns about the bill, which caused Pelosi to cancel a Friday floor vote.
Van Hollen worked over the weekend to shore up support for the measure – made more controversial by an exemption granted to the powerful National Rifle Association and other large advocacy groups – but it’s still unclear if it will be brought up for a vote this week.
Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), as well as some Senate Democrats, have also expressed opposition.
But the White House, in a “Statement of Administration Policy” Monday, offered its support.
“The administration believes the DISCLOSE Act is a necessary measure so that Americans will know who is trying to influence the nation’s elections,” the policy statement said. “Unless strong new disclosure rules are established, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case will give corporations even greater power to influence elections.”
“This bill is not perfect,” the statement went on. “The administration would have preferred no exemptions. But by providing for unprecedented transparency, this bill takes great strides to hold corporations who participate in the nation’s elections accountable to the American people. As this is a matter of urgent importance, the administration urges prompt passage of the DISCLOSE Act.”
Again, I know that a non-profit and a not-for-profit are both considered “Corporations” but in everyday language when the word Corporation is used, and especially in the context of who is speaking above, it means “big business”, or “filthy capitalist”.
Once again, ask yourself, would the administration really vote in something that was going to make life harder on the political allies (Unions, Non-Profits) and ability to raise money?
I didn’t think so.

Rahm: The Dead Fish may leave, but his stench will remain

rahm-emanuel-3 Rahm Emanuel is not going to go anywhere.  Oh, you may not see him, but he will just do a Van Jones. These people never leave, they don’t even go into remission like normal cancerous carbuncles.  They are a much worse malignancy, some sort of mutant festering abscess on the posterior of humanity.  Rest assured there is already a cushy spot somewhere in AcornTidesApolloSorosDNC; in a climate that hates big shot executives who are utter assclown failures using golden parachutes, Rahmbo, Toes, Deadfish, Emanuel will have a Platinum Parachute with a nice cushy landing spot.  He will be leaving the public eye and taking his dead fish and ballet slippers with him somewhere where he can practice his nefarious deeds out of the eyes of men. His Stink, however,  will still be plenty noticeable on many of Obama’s moves and decisions. This will be a PR campaign to suggest that Obama is moving to the center.  A move that will surely piss off the far left looney base even more than the complete failure of their messiah to turn Oil into Seawater.  Nonetheless, when the ship is sinking most times those who can’t perform, throw other dead weight overboard. 
Just my opinion

Update:  apparently they are casting this the other way, that Rahmbo is the level headed one. IF so we just went from The Wizard of Oz to Alice in Wonderland.  If Emanuel was what was providing the sanity around that joint we are going to have a bumpy two more years.  But a glorious 2012.


June 18, 2010

Understanding the Constitution; Federalist #1

Rising...or Setting

The period of time after the winning the War for Independence was a rocky one for our young Nation.  Even though we still call them states today, when people like Thomas Jefferson thought of his home State of Virginia, he literally thought of it as his “Country” and he meant it in every sense of the word.  The United States at that time was viewed as a Union of 13 countries, much like the EU is today.   The day after the Declaration of Independence was signed it was agreed to have a Continental Congress to set up a Confederate Government between the 13 “States”.  This gave birth to the Articles of Confederation, which set out the plan for governing the new nation.  The Articles worked satisfactorily through the war, but without an ability to tax the “States” after the war there was a large war debt owed and no one could agree on payment.  This is where the problems started, and in many ways we are still struggling with the same issues.  The Federalists felt that the Articles were too weak, and thought we needed a stronger central government to stabilize the States, which were in a fairly constant state of upheaval, largely due to the war debt; provide for defense, equalize the representation between large and small States and to pay the debt.  The Anti-Federalists were of the opinion that a war had just been fought to get rid of one big central government’s tyranny and they were very reluctant to give up any of their “State’s” hard won sovereignty and local control.  The weakness of the Articles in establishing an effective unifying government was underscored by the threat of internal conflict both within and between the states, especially after Shays' Rebellion threatened to topple the state government of Massachusetts. The debate continued for some time until, in 1787, it was agreed that all states would send delegates to meet in Philadelphia to discuss ways to improve the Articles of Confederation in a "Grand Convention. " Although the states' representatives to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were only authorized to amend the Articles, the representatives held secret, closed-door sessions and wrote a new constitution.  After months of sequestered deliberation they presented a proposal for a new form of Government.  It still had to be ratified, and in those days the representatives listened to their constituents; so in order for it to be ratified the people had to be informed as to the content of the Constitution.  That is what spurred the writing of the Federalist Papers.  In the days before any of our modern communication methods, there was the printing press and the Federalist papers were written as letters to the public published in newspapers to educate the public. Written under the Pseudonym “Publius” the papers were authored by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay.  I have included the text to Federalist 1 as it was written and below that attempted to translate it into more modern speech.  The thing that impresses me the most as I read the Federalist Papers is that once you understand exactly what they are saying (and honestly you can only get that from reading and understanding what they wrote, not what I translated it as) they could be giving these speeches TODAY.  We are STILL fighting the same battles as they did in 1787.  The game of Politics has never changed, and many of the same issues exist.  As you read the words below picture various Politians saying them, or contrast these words with some of the petty nonsense and childish drama engaged in by some of the current crowd in DC.  Wouldn’t you love to hear someone talk to you like this today?

hamilton_alexander In Federalist #1 Alexander Hamilton makes the case for the new constitution. He goes through much of what I just did above, in the opening paragraph he says:

“AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America.  The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”

 img46e87508b994cWe all know the current situation is not working, it is up to you to make a choice to accept this new constitution or not.  This decision is a critical one, nothing less than the survival and safety of the Union is at stake.  Many have said that it seems as though the people of the United States will decide whether people are really capable of designing a good government for themselves, or whether people are always going to be ruled by governments created through chance and force.  Well if there is any truth to that idea, then that decision will be made now by You, and if we make the wrong decision it will be a shame on humanity.

“This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.”

You have the chance to be philanthropists in addition to already being patriots,biden and  you should feel proud for having a choice in this.  It would be great if the choice was made by logical consideration of the issues and not sidetracked by side issues and special interests.  But, this is a hope more than an expectation.  This plan affects too many different groups and ideas, to not lead into other discussions and debates, which will muddy the true issue.

“Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.”

One of the biggest challenges will be overcoming the powerful people within thehalloween-reid states that fear losing some of their power, and others, who seek to use this opportunity to fool the people and elevate themselves to position of power in the process; there may even be those who call for the country to be split into smaller factions

“It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.”

obama But we cannot dwell on these things.  I do not wish to silence all opposition, everyone has a stake in this, and it is not right to pass judgment.  In fact, some of  the men who are likely to say these things will have good intentions.  I do not doubt that a lot of the opposition of this plan will come from people misjudging the issues because of mis-information, and fear.  This is such a big undertaking that emotions will run high, opinions will be strong, and people will have a hard time making up their minds.  If there was ever a time to be cautious in your assumptions, now is the time. Do not be sure that you are always right.  Do not believe everything you hear, but please be tolerant of each other.  Do not get into political party bickering.  You cannot force people to believe in you, lies cannot be stopped by ridicule.

“And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”

HECHY22_PH1 But even with these words of warning, I am sure this debate will be just like any other of great importance.  There will be anger and hate flying around.  If we look at each side’s behavior we would be led to believe that they hope to convince us that they are right by shouting louder and being more hateful than the other side.  If we are not careful this spirit of good intentions that we have now will turn into a fear of tyranny.  Being overly concerned about the dangers to individual rights will be labeled as astro-turf or fake, to make the one side look bad and the other look good.  Do not forget that people cling to their beliefs out of love, and remember that the desire for freedom always breeds distrust of government.  On the other hand, we must also remember that a healthy government is essential to security and liberty.  In order to get it right, both security and liberty must be protected.  Remember people who seek power often say that they are for the rights of the people, rather than admit to their desire for Power.

george-w-bush_std History teaches us that those who say  that they are for the People have often been the ones who took the most from the people, and of all the rulers that have taken rights from the public most began by attempting to rally the people to their cause with smooth talk, and preying on emotions, with the stated purpose of  ending the policies of a supposed tyrant.

“In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.”

Because of the dangers I outlined above, I want to put you on your guard against sarah-palin-hold-on attempts to influence your decision on an issue so important to you  from either side by anything other than the complete truth.  But you will see that even what I am saying that I am in favor of this constitution.  Yes, I owe you that, after thinking about it long and hard I think it is best if you choose to ratify it.  I am convinced it is best for your liberty, dignity, and happiness.  I will not lie to you and say that I have my doubts about it, when I have already made up my mind.  Instead I tell you right up front, I am for it, and I will tell you why.  My motives and intentions are good.  My reasoning will be right in front of you eyes and each of you can judge if I am right or not.  At least I am being honest with you when I share my opinions with you.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: -- The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity -- The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union -- The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object -- The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government -- Its analogy to your own state constitution -- and lastly, The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.1 This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.

I will lay out my positions in a series of letters published in this paper, they are, 

  • The necessity of a Union,
  • The ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation,
  • The need for a government at least as strong as the one proposed by the Constitution,
  • The appropriateness of this constitution,
  • how similar it is to your state’s constitution,
  • and lastly, the added security that you will get from this and the preservation of your liberty and property by it.

I want to answer as many of the objections as I have heard.  You may think it unnecessary of me to state that there is a necessity for a Union to begin with; you might think that everyone agrees on that, but it is already being talked about in whispers that certain states or groups of states should secede.  I think that this will continue to spread until it gains legitimacy, and so it is best to lay out my position against it from the beginning.


So which of our leaders above could you picture saying those words?  Putting that aside, does it not sound relevant when you read it?


June 17, 2010

How many times must it be proven? Socialism Fails.

Cross Posted At LeftCoastRebel
Government is like fire... Just the other night I was watching MSNBC (purely for blogging material I assure you) and they were blatantly throwing the Progressive® brand around.  When I was a youngster we called them Liberals®.  Of course, before that they were called Progressives®.  The reason they changed to Liberal was because of WWII.  Progressivism is nothing but Socialism for North America.  After WWII Socialism and its’ offshoots, fascism, Nazism, communism, or progressivism (which Hitler and Mussolini were big fans of) were not exactly popular.
1978-ford-pinto So the Progressives stole a word with a 1977 mustang IIgood reputation, Liberal, and made it their own.  Same crap ideas, new label; same terrible product, brand new package. But now it seems they are back to their roots. 
Chris Matthews said that this year is going to be a bad year for Progressives®; more like it has been a bad Century. Oh sure, they have gained power again, but they are destined to lose it.  They grow mad with it, they cannot control themselves and they fail, but not before causing untold misery. . We need to agree on the definition of failure. I say failure of a government would be when they were  Socialist (or communist, or fascist) and either a revolution takes place , they are no longer functioning states, or are no longer Socialist. 
Let’s make it even simper than that, I would say a failed government would be one where the populace is not better off now than when that government took power, or when that government is no longer in power.  Now, hard line Socialists are going to tell you that if Socialism fails then it is because of a) outside influences made it impossible, b) they didn’t follow the plan Marx laid out correctly or c) did not spend enough time in one of the stages.
But let’s see…
Germany Pre V-E day, East Germany pre 1989, the USSR, Mussolini’s Italy, Argentina, Cuba, North Korea, The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Mao-ist China, Afghanistan pre 1992,  Greece pre 1949, Chile Pre 1932, Sudan pre 1985, Nicaragua,  or…you know, just about everywhere it has been tried; It has Failed.
There has never been a Socialist country that has went without violence and revolution for more than 100 years, and most make it roughly 20.  But our experiment here with limited government has lasted 230+  although we are without a doubt beginning to fail.
Checks and balances against unrestrained government force It is very frustrating to me that history proves again and again that the more socialist you become the more unstable you become.  Socialism will only work when it is forced upon people because it removes human nature from the governance equation.  It is in human nature to want to succeed and to compete and prosper, but socialism removes the incentive for that and instead rewards mediocrity and dependence.  When you add force to the equation it ultimately increases to the level of total government and at some point the system fails.
alchemy There have been other noble experiments through history that have ultimately been proven fruitless.  The notion that Lead could be turned into Gold was tried for centuries but our understanding grew until we learned that Alchemy does not work.  No one seriously tries it anymore.
phrenology It used to be widely believed that the measurement of ones head and the study of the bumps and dents could predict criminality or other parts of behavior, but Phrenology was eventually proven to be incorrect.
koch Scientists from the middle ages believed that one type of life could spring forth from another, they thought flies could come from a piece of meat, but since then we have learned Spontaneous Generation was a huge misunderstanding of procreation.
socialism_explained So why, after more than a century, does it seem impossible to prove to the proponents of Socialism and its offspring that it does not work?  Europe is falling apart due to the machinations of Socialism, and we, having begun from a much more stable position,  are gaining on them every minute in the race to the bottom.
I guess it is difficult to exterminate because the idea that you can have something for nothing is very powerful.  I suppose because, to those who covet power, socialism is the perfect vehicle to subjugate people.  I suppose because those of us who value freedom really do not want to mess with other peoples lives, and so it is un-natural to us to tell our story, and we allow the radicals the steal our language.  While we are working and raising our children and living our lives in peace and prosperity they arm themselves with megaphones and lecterns and protest signs.  While we study Business and Medicine and Engineering, they study Sociology, Politics, and Journalism and become professors, politicians,  and talking heads.  As we work to build things; they work to tear them down.  While we work hard to leave something to our kids; they work hard  to fool the children into giving up their birthright.
Road to Collapse
There are really only two paths.  Government, by its very nature, will always pull us down the left hand road.  There will always be people to oppose them who would like to take the right hand path, with no obstacles.  The genius of our founding fathers was that they sought to restrain both of these desires and they created roadblocks and restraints on Government.  Government by definition, seeks to control people.  The founders were the first to suggest that people should also control Government.  A nation of people who take the blue road do not have cain-murdering-abelthis power, by definition, and they are assured misery.  Any time there is not enough government the strong and wicked will destroy the weak and the gentle. 
-It is nearly the oldest story the human race knows, and yet we forget it every generation or so.

June 16, 2010

Government’s Positive Role to Play


Big Babies Every once in a while, when I begin to feel as though these people could not possibly be this out of touch with reality, I have to do a “Sanity Check”.  Last night I watched Rachel Maddow interview Chris Matthews.  Wow, did I learn some things.  I  did not, for instance, realize that they blatantly call themselves Progressives, I guess it is not a dirty word to them, I thought it was still a tarnished brand.  Apparently Chris Matthews has a documentary about the rise of the “New Right”.  I could literally spend a day dissecting and parsing all the ridiculousness that was said.  From the unstated but implied position that Communists never infiltrated the State Department or other government agencies, claiming  that Barry Goldwater incited terrorism,  the fact that the United States is a Center-Right country (ok I can agree with that)… like France (WTF!!?).  Matthews makes the preposterous assertion that Harry Reid is back in the saddle, that Crist has a chance, that Sestak will win, Pat Toomy is a goner and, of course, there were the obligatory jibes at Michelle Bachmann.  I think it would serve them right if Michelle would someday with the Speaker’s Chair.  The best might have been that Reagan moved to the center after his election. ROFLMAO.ratings

But as I have been doing lately there is one issue that really really set off the warning bells:

  MATTEWS:  I don‘t think we are an extremist country, but these voices are frightening.  And at a time of economic desperation, if you will, they‘re being listened to.  But the one ironic - I don‘t want to call it silver lining - the one whisper of possible good coming out of this horror in the Gulf of Mexico, what is really hurting North America, the love we have for this part of the world, our own part of the world, is that maybe it convinces people that government is important
As you said earlier in the program, government has a very positive role to play.  To regulate - when you get on the airplane, don‘t you want to know there‘s an FAA?  When you open up a can of tuna, don‘t you want to know that there‘s somebody making sure it doesn‘t have toluene in it?  Don‘t you want somebody on your side besides the money guys? 

This is exactly what Ayn Rand wrote about.  BP was not drilling 40 miles out and a mile down in the ocean because the view was good from there.  They weren’t drilling 40 miles out and a mile down because there is some sort of tax incentive.  They weren’t drilling 40 miles out and a mile down because it was easy.  And despite what all the moonbats say BP was not drilling 40 miles out and a mile down because there is no more easy oil to get to.  There are many many places the Oil Industry would like to explore but the Government won’t let it happen. This was one of Rand’s main points. Government first ties the hands of business setting the stage for failure, waits for planned failure to occur, and then pounces and claims the answer is more government.  NO, the answer is a more Responsible government.

 faaAnd to answer their questions, no, I don’t care if there is an FAA, not really, because I do not think they have a demonstrable effect on safety.  Remember the story where Southwest Airlines flew thousands of flights in violation of FAA directives? Where it was found that  a “relaxed culture” of oversight that investigators later termed “symptomatic of much deeper problems.” But three separate probes found alarming evidence that the necessary integrity was often missing, and that relationships between airlines and FAA inspectors were often far too cozy.  There is a motive for flight safety;  it is profit, and customer 20060912120223-mr-burnsservice. 

The liberal mindset is one where all capitalists are wild eyed crazy people, filthy money grubbing mobsters who are are positively aroused by the prospect of hurting people.  This is not the case. 

Toluene in Tuna?  How about Salmonella on Spinach, did the USDA or the FDA catch that?  updated_fda_food_pyramidRemember the peanut butter plant?  Did the USDA  or the FDA catch that?  Oh, how about  the food imported from China, did the FDA or the USDA catch that?  Our children have as high as a 30% dropout rate in the most Liberal Controlled areas of the country, the Department of  Education always just asks for more money, what have they solved?  The Dept of Energy was created over 30 years ago to investigate Alternative Energy sources, have you heard of any big breakthroughs?  MSHA was in the W. Va. mine every day, e v e r y  day, did they prevent the mine collapse? Has, ICE, more commonly known as La Migra fixed the border yet? What agency of Government is fixing the Oil Leak?  Did the government war-game the consequences of drilling 40 miles off the coast and a mile down?  Were they standing ready with the experts to fix it?  Has the Navy or Coast Guard waved their magic wand and made it go away.  No, and they can’t and shouldn’t.  fda-conflict-of-interestsThat is not what a Government is for, and ecological disasters are  for damn sure not what the military is for. That is like sending a firefighter to unclog a toilet.

The Positive Role of Government would be to get rid of those regulations (the Jones act) preventing other ships and other entities from helping us with this problem. The Positive Role of Government would be to protect our interests at home and abroad and remove roadblocks to the path of success, not build them ever higher and wider.

You would think that would be a concept that the One World Government crowd could get behind.  The Gulf is not just ours, it belongs to the world.   If BP goes bankrupt because of BP’s failure so be it.  That is the risk you take being in business. Or it should be, and it was, until government got involved.  This whole theatrics of strong arming BP for billions to put into an escrow would be pointless if Government already hadn’t got involved to limit liability.  In fact, Government incentivized the poor decision making taking place on that oil rig, by limiting the liability to 75 Million.  That was after the Valdez, during the Clinton Presidency, I believe.  Limiting liability to 75 million certainly encourages risky behavior when you stand to make billions. The law was on BP’s side.  But to suggest that the BP disaster is a good thing because it will increase dependency on government …I cannot even wrap my mind around the concept that a culture of dependency is a positive goal to strive for. 

Old-ConstitutionYes government has a role, and it is an important one. Its role was spelled out in a 7 page document 223 years ago, there are 17 original functions of the Federal Government and not a one of them has anything to do with anything that those two imbeciles talked about.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin