Political Angst In America

Location: Pantego, Texas, United States

Monday, August 31, 2009

I think people mis-understand the current healthcare bill being pushed by the Democrats. There is a lot that is hard to understand about the bill. The Democrats talk about a single payer system, but that would go against the interests of the trial lawyers: who would they sue if all doctors worked for the government? Why is big pharma on board? Is it because Obama has made them promises of future benefits. Why are there payoffs for the labor unions in a healthcare bill? Why did Democrats try to get the bill passed in a rush prior to Congress's Summer vacation similar to what they did with the Stimulus bill? Could the healthcare bill just be another example of Obama paying off his supporters as the Stimulus bill was. Here is a view on this subject.

Here is more about Ted Kennedy's interactions with the Soviet's where he offered to help the KGB. Kennedy's activities with the Soviets began before Reagan was elected. An interesting side note is that Kennedy crafted the FISA law so that his activities could be detected. That is legally detected. In my opinion the FISA court is unconstitutional, and shout have been discarded long before Bush was elected. Without the FISA law the 9/11 attack might well have been prevented, as indicated here. Of course, Ted Kennedy, like Obama, Kerry, and most "Progressives" did not think that the Soviet Union was a threat to the United States, and do not think Islam is a threat. They will ally with any group that opposes capitalism.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

On of the problems with the Healthcare reform bill is that it is 1000 pages of incomprehensible prose, as discussed here. I think there is method to the Democrat's madness. They intend for the actual specifics to be worked out later by unelected bureaucrats. This is the pattern for the Obama Administration. Obama's executive pay czar said that it doesn't matter what the law says, he will decide how much money executives make, and there is no appeal. This idea of passing vague law with specifics worked out later was a technique used by Germany's Third Reich under Hitler.

My son did a little economic analysis on installation of solar cells on homes to reduce electric bills. He concluded that, with current electricity prices, it would take longer than the life of the solar cells to break even. And this is even with government subsidies and ignoring likely maintenance costs. People in Australia have actually installed some home solar systems, and the outcome is not good. They estimate that it would take 190 years to break even.

Here is an interesting article about the relationship between student's SAT scores and parents income. The higher the parent's income, the higher the student's score. This is an example of correlation not being causation. In our society, on average, the higher one's IQ, the higher one's income. And, on average, the higher one's IQ, the higher one's children's IQ. Progressives don't like to acknowledge that there is such a thing as IQ, except when bragging about their own. Obama and other Preogressives would very much like to alter the situation where one's IQ correlates with income. That would have negative income on the nation, but Obama and other Progressives are intent on equal distribution of wealth, and are not at all concerned about reduction of the ability to create wealth.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

A lot of Democrats really like communists. Here are some comments by Democrat Congresswoman Diane Watson that illustrate that point. She thinks Che Gueverra Lynch (I use his full name) did a great job in kicking the rich out of Cuba. He summarily executed 20,000 people (he said he didn't need trials, something that one would think would bother people concerned about civil liberty, but for some reason doesn't bother movie stars and blacks in Congress). For those that don't know, in 1959 Cuba had the third highest standard of living in the Western Hemisphere, which was higher than Germany or Great Britain. It is at the bottom now, but most everyone in Cuba is equally bad off, a state desired by collectivists.

I previously listed a lot of reasons why I didn't like Ted Kennedy. One thing that I didn't mention was his attempts to get Russian help with his Presidential ambitions. It is uncertain as to the extent of his efforts, but there is little doubt that overtures were made to the Soviets. Many Democrats beside Kennedy did not think that communism was a threat to the USA, just as they and Obama do not now believe that Islam is a threat. They do not like capitalism or America the way it is, so are willing to work for change of the system with people that most of us view as enemies. At present leftists including the Obama Administration consider conservative Americans as more of a threat than Islam, China, or Russia.

While traveling Roger Simon discovers that al Jazeera is more objective and less anti-American than either CNN or BBC. That is really no surprise. The comment about them referring to Saddam as a fascist while CNN doesn't is funny because Saddam was head of the Baath Party, which proclaims that it is a fascist party.

One of the characteristics of fascist states is that ownership of the means of production remains in private hands, but the government co-opts control of the operations. The Obama Administration is moving in that direction with due haste. Obama has made no secret that he intends to reward those who do as he says, and punish those who oppose his policies. He appears to be a fascist, but many people argue that he simply reflects the rough and tumble politics of the Chicago Democrat machine where you have to pay to play. Here is an article discussing two companies' recent interaction with the Obama Administration. If you support Obama you can get away with a lot of illegal stuff, but if you just criticize the Obama Administration policies, you are attacked by Obama's friends. If those fiends of Obama continue to morph into "brown shirts" we are in serious trouble.

Friday, August 28, 2009

One of the problems with the current healthcare reform debate is that it is impossible to know what is being proposed. The House has a 1000-page bill, while the Senate version is 600 pages. These appear to not be cast in concrete, and Congressional staffers regularly change the wording in the bills. The result is that people regularly call each other liars about what is in the bills. Then there is the matter that, despite the length and arcane wording of the bills, the bills are not specific. Instead the bills set up a lot of committees and other bodies to hash out the details. Thus people can only speculate about what will eventually evolve from the bills. Then we have prominent Democrats including Obama saying that the bill will be an incremental step toward their true objective of a universal healthcare system. Finally, the Senate majority leader says he doesn't care what is in the bills, he will put what he wants (specifically a single payer system) into the law during the House-Senate reconciliation conference. It has become obvious that Obama, as he talks about Republican myths about the legislation, doesn't know what is in the bills himself. Here is further discussion on this matter.

The Democrats have long been far more prone to use thuggish tactics than Republicans. Part of the reason for this is that the Democrats are usually supported by unions that often resort to thuggish activities. These tactics are also more likely to be used in regions where the unions are strong, and areas dominated by Democrat machine politics such as Chicago. It appears that Obama brings out more thuggish behavior in his supporters than usual, as discussed here.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

I read a lot of articles by people trying to figure out what Obama's agenda is. Some think he is just another Chicago machine politician who's primary objective is just to remain in power. Others think he is a sort of collectivist, Marxist, socialist, communist, of whatever stripe. Others think he is a black racist seeking revenge against whitey. I'm not sure which of these best describes him; he may be some of all of those things. He has put some black racists in the czar jobs, as well as some communists. I think he would like to achieve a state in which there are "equal economic outcomes" for all people rather than a state of "equal opportunity" that America was based on. People generally do not seem to recognize that equality and liberty are opposite sides of the coin. If there is liberty, there will not be equality of outcome because some people will do better than others: if there is equality of outcome, there cannot individual liberty because government will have to take from some to give to those who do not do as well. Collectivists are for "equality" (usually a state where everyone but the political leaders are equally bad off as in Cuba and the Soviet Union) and so must be opposed to individual liberty. Obama and many Democrats think that most people are too stupid to handle their own affairs, and they need elites like Obama and his friends to manage the details of their miserable little lives, and so are harmed by individual liberty. Obama has stated many times that he favors re-distribution of wealth, and that he favors more taxes on the wealthy, even if, by the Laffer Curve, less revenue would be generated for the government. Like most socialists, he views economics as a zero-sum game; that wealth cannot be created, so people with wealth must necessarily have stolen it from the people who deserve it. It appears to me that Obama intends to spend the USA into such debt that taxes will have to be raised on the rich, and that the dollar will have to be devalued, basically stealing from those who have money. Since trickle down economics actually works, the lack of trickle down as the rich are ruined will reduce the economic situation of the poor as the USA is turned into a banana republic. To Obama this will be the state he desires as people are equlaly bad off, and the USA cannot project military power. In conclusion I think he is a machine politician concered about maintaining power rather than the good of the people, so he is also a collectivist, and he wants to get revenge on white people.

I have written a lot about the catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)hypothesis, and the reasons I don't believe it based on my own analysis as well as review of a lot of papers on the subject. It is clear that the debate is actually political rather than scientific. The supporters simply do not follow the scientific method, and engage in ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with them rather than presenting reasoned argument. Here is another article discussing the reasons why the hypothesis has not been proven.

A lot of politicians, particularly the left-wing set, see Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) as an opportunity to increase government control of the world. (Timothy Wirth famously said in 1990 that it didn't matter whether the AGW hypothesis was correct or not, the AGW political agenda was the right thing to do.) There are a few politicians who may actually believe the AGW hypothesis. It is hard to tell about Al Gore. He is not smart enough to have formed his own opinion on the merits of the AGW hypothesis, but he has positioned himself to become the first carbon trading billionaire.

Here is an article that discusses the Soviet propaganda campaign against America. My question is why did leaders like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and now Obama believed the Soviet disinformation. I knew that the Soviets were running the disinformation program. I can understand why popular but not particularly intelligent people like movie stars such as Jane Fonda believed it, but why did Obama believe it? For that matter, why did most of the people in the media accept the Soviet version of events? The Soviets themselves knew they were spreading lies, and since the end of the cold war, have admitted and even bragged about their success. Given that, I am mystified that the media and Democrat leaders like Obama continue to believe what can now be established as lies about America. Obama appears to believe the lies, because he goes around the world apologizing for what America was falsely accused of doing.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

I did not like or admire Ted Kennedy. He was a hypocrite of higher order. He once made a speech in the Senate denouncing Senator John Tower as being untrustworthy because he was "a drunk and a womanizer." Imagine Ted Kennedy having the nerve to call someone else a drunk and a womanizer. Kennedy also made a speech in which he totally lied about Robert Bork. No matter what one thought about Bork, he was nothing like the way Kennedy depicted him. Kennedy was closely involved with John Kerry's lies and distortions about the conduct of American soldiers in Vietnam. Later he was instrumental in withdrawing support from the South Vietnamese government leading to the North Vietnamese victory over the South. Kennedy famously said that the "South Vietnamese people didn't deserve democracy." Kennedy also got a terrorist support bill passed into law that aided the IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland. His personal behavior was inexcusable. He was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, and his attempts to get one of his friends to take responsibility for the drowning of a young girl was reprehensible. Ted Kennedy exhibited all of the flaws of his brothers, but did not have their virtues.

Here is an interesting discussion about global warming. It has not been discussed much by the advocates of global warming, but the earth has been warming and sea level have been rising for a long time. Recent sea level rise has been almost imperceptible on a long term scale. I thought Obama's assertion that he would stop the rise of the seas was an ignorant remark, given that seas have been rising for thousands of years due to temperature increase from the end of the last ice age 14,000 years ago or so. That was just another example of the ignorance of a man who has been proclaimed as "the Smartest President in History."

Here is an article that discusses Obama's politics and makes the case that he is not a socialist, but rather simply reflects Chicago machine politics. On a similar note, though most people seem unaware of it, Nancy Pelosi is also a product of machine politics. Her Dad was the boss of the Democrat's Baltimore machine.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Obama has a shadow government of "czars" that was not approved by the Senate. Many of these poeple could not have been approved by the Senate given their communist or outright thug backgrounds. Here is a partial list of the czars. (I think there are 34 now, but I don't know if anyone knows for certain, given that Obama runs the most transparent Administration in history, and all that.)

1. Herb Allison-TARP Czar
2. Alan Bersin-Border Czar
3. Dennis Blair-Intelligence Czar
4. John Brennan-Terrorism Czar
5. Carol Browner-Energy Czar
6. Adolfo Carrion, Jr-Urban Affairs Czar
7. Ashton Carter-Weapons Czar
8. Aneesh Chopra-Technology Czar
9. Jeffrey Crowley-AIDS Czar
10. Cameron Davis-Great Lakes Czar
11. Nancy-Ann DeParle-Health Czar
12. Earl Devaney-Stimulus Accountability Czar
13. Joshua DuBois-Faith-based Czar
14. Kenneth Feinberg-Pay Czar
15. Danny Fried-Guantanamo Closure Czar
16. J. Scott Gration-Sudan Czar
17. Richard Holbrooke-Afghanistan Czar
18. John Holdren-Science Czar
19. Van Jones Green-Jobs Czar
20. Gil Kerlikowske-Drug Czar
21. Vivek Kundra-Information Czar
22. George Mitchell-Mideast Peace Czar
23. Ed Montgomery-Car Czar
24. Dennis Ross-Mideast Policy Czar
25. Gary Samore-WMD Czar
26. Todd Stern-Climate Czar
27. Cass Sunstein-Regulatory Czar

Flopping Aces has the biography of some of these unsavory people.

The Obama Administration has stabbed the CIA and America in the back with the decision to investigate CIA investigation of terrorists. (It is also another lie by Obama; the list of his lies is getting long now.) This is such a bad decision that even James Carville thinks it is wrong. There is no doubt that the CIA handling of terrorists aided the USA, and was important in preventing future attacks. Now the CIA has been neutered (as was done by the previously by the Church Commission, setting the stage for the 911 attack), and America will now be vulnerable again. The Obama Administration reveals once again that the American people are their enemy rather than Muslim terrorists. Jennifer Rubin has a good summary of the situation

Yesterday when I wrote about the economics of electric vehicles (EV) I didn't discuss re-charging the car battery. People often think that the EV would be plugged into an electrical outlet at home. That could be done, but would require some special equipment. The Tesla battery weighs 1000 lb., has a capacity of 53 kw-h, and operates at 375 V. The electrical outlets in homes have voltages of 110 V or 220 V. Thus it would appear that some sort of transformer would be required to increase the voltage for charging the car battery. But, ignore the losses in the transformer for the moment. The typical 110 V outlet usually has a 15 A breaker. To provide 53 kw-h from such an outlet would require more than 32 hours (53,000 kw-h/[110V X 15A = 32.12 hours]). Charging from a 220 V outlet with a 30A breaker would require over 8 hours. Note that charging at work or at a hotel or shopping center would require special equipment in addition to the electrical outlet. The car could have the transformer installed in it, but that would entail carrying a lot of extra weight around in the car, something that would be undesirable considering that the car already carries a 1000 lb. battery. Tesla Motors says that they will have a 440 V, 70 A charging system that will recharge the Tesla battery in 3.5 hours. That sounds plausible even allowing for losses in efficiency.

Monday, August 24, 2009

I saw a Democrat on TV today who said that he doesn't understand why people are upset that Obamacare would involve rationing because, he said we have rationing now based on price. Apparently he thinks that it would be better to have government bureaucrats apportion healthcare than to have done in the market. That is curious because most things in life are apportioned by price. The President and his family are vacationing with the elites at Martha's Vineyard in a house that costs $35,000 per week. Not many of us can afford that. In my opinion the fact that most of us can't afford it is no reason that Obama shouldn't do it. This healthcare issue highlights something that is a characteristic of leftists and many Democrats; namely, they are driven by envy. After all, all people in America, even those without insurance, have better healthcare than most people in the world. Thus, what Democrats and leftists want is to punish middleclass people, whom they hate. The rich are not affected by this at all, and neither are the few Congresspersons that are not rich.

I read a lot of comments from people who think that electric cars are necessary to save the world: they cost nearly nothing to operate, and they produce no pollution. These people have little understanding of the technology involved. They see the GM advertisements that say the Volt gets 230 mpg, and think that oil companies have kept this technology away from us for years. The 230 mpg claim is spurious at best because the car does use energy. Here is an article that addresses this issue. Electric cars use energy just as gasoline powered cars do. Gasoline cars have an average efficiency of about 20% based on the energy capacity of the fuel. An electric car has an efficiency of perhaps 80% when based on the energy stored in the car's battery. But, the electricity in the battery came from an electric generation system that has an efficiency of 25% from the fuel burned to the plug n the house. Thus the overall efficiency of the electric powered car is no better (0.8 times 0.25 equals 0.20) than a gasoline powered car. Since much electricity is produced by burning coal, and coal produces a lot more CO2 than gasoline, there is no environmental gain for electric powered cars. Of course environmentalists see some future time when all electricity is produced by wind mills and solar cells, but that is far in the future, if ever. Cost comparisons are somewhat more difficult to make since gasoline has a road tax attached, and electric power does not. (When all cars are electric, some other type of road tax will be necessary, such as a system in which all cars have a GPS, and people are taxed on the number of miles driven.) Electric car manufacturers claim that their cars get about 4 miles/kw-h, which translates into 853 BTU/mile. If I assume that these cars are similar to a gasoline powered model that gets 30 miles per gallon, that translates to 3833 BTU/mile. (If I compare the energy actually delivered to the wheels, the electric car is at 853 X 0.8 = 682 BTU/mile and the gasoline car is at 3833 X 0.2 = 777 BTU/mile. So, to be consistent, I need to adjust the mileage for the gasoline powered car to 34 mpg.) Now to compare cost, I use the price of gasoline without taxes. At present prices of 12.5 cents/kw-h and gasoline at $2.10 per gallon, the electric car costs $0.03125 per mile to operate, and the gasoline powered car costs $0.06176 per mile to operate (ignoring road taxes). But, the battery powered car costs at least $10,000 more than the gasoline powered car. And after about 6 years the battery is expended and has no residual value. If I assume the cars are driven 15,000 miles per year, then, including 6 % interest on the money, the battery adds $ 0.151 per mile to the operating cost of the electric car. If a person drives 10,000 miles per year, the additional cost is $ 0.2267 per mile. Thus an electric car is not cost effective. Now consider a compressed natural gas (CNG) car. It would require about 3.4 standard cubic feet per mile. At a price of $8/mcf (which is more than the current spot price of less than $3/mcf), that translates to an operating cost of $ 0.0272 per mile (again with no road tax). Even considering a much higher price for NG than the current spot price, the CNG car is cheaper to operate than either an electric car or a gasoline powered car. Estimates I have seen indicate that a CNG car would cost $500 to $1000 more than an electric powered car. One difference between the CNG car and the battery powered car is that the CNG car has residual value after 6 years, and in fact the CNG fueled engine will last longer than the gasoline engine. But, if I use an additional cost of $1000, the 6 year life and the 15,000 miles per year used in the electric car comparison, the additional operating cost for the CNG fueled car will be $ 0.015 per mile. Thus, the CNG fueled car is more economical to operate than a gasoline fueled car or a battery powered car. Another idea from this analysis is that people who do not drive many miles per year might be better off to stick with a gasoline (or more economically, a diesel) fueled car. Another thing to consider is that the cost of fuel is a minor part of the cost of ownership. If I assume a car costs $30,000 and has a life of 10 years, it costs $3000 per year. Interest at 6% adds $1800 per year. Insurance and maintenance adds $2000 per year. If a person drives 15000 miles per year, the ownership cost is $ 0.453 per mile. If a person drives 10000 miles per year, the cost of ownership is $ 0.68 per mile. Thus, the fuel cost (at $0.02 to $0.06 per mile) is a small fraction of the total cost of ownership, no matter what fuel is used.

Here is a good article on what is good about America and why conservatives have been better for America. My only quibbles with the article: the author forgot to include Texan Janine Turner as a conservative movie star (he did include Angie Harmon) and Hitler's death camps killed not only 6 million Jews, but also 4 million Polish Catholics, gypsies, and others that Hitler didn't like for a total of 10 million.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Anthropogenic Global Warming has become a religious movement, with high priests and indulgences. Here is an article that examines the matter.

It is curious to me that so many people support socialism given that it has failed everywhere it has been tried. (I realize that leftists or statists or whatever they call themselves in the USA do not admit that they are socialists, but they are because what they want is socialism.) One thing I have noticed about leftists, including Obama, is that they think that life is a zero-sum game. They think that if a person does well economically, it is at the expense of other persons. People like Obama and Hillary Clinton have enormous egos that enable them to think they can succeed at implementing a system that has always failed.

Here is an article by a Russian that discusses the difference in life under capitalism and socialism. She asks a good question: why are the youth of America embracing socialism. I think the answer lies in our public education system, which has been taken over by 1960’s style communists like Obama’s buddy and ghost writer, Bill Ayers

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Here is an interesting article about healthcare reform written by a medical doctor. Be sure to read the comments to the article; they are unusually good.

There has been a significant change in how the media sees dissent from last year. It was OK to use some violence and comparisons to Hitler back then. But it is evil to do so now. Here is a review of what happened last year.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Elites of both the Republican and Democrat Parties have mocked Sarah Palin as not being very smart. Here is something she wrote about the USA investing $2 billion in Petrobras to drill off the coast of Brazil. This sounds pretty good to me. One reason for the investment may be that George Soros, the major contributor to Obama and Democrat causes, is a major investor in Petrobras. (Full disclosure: I also own a few shares in Petrobras.)

Leftists and Democrats continue to be confused about the definition of socialism and fascism. They particularly have a hard time recognizing that Nazis were socialists, and that Hitler said he intended to destroy capitalism. But they know that Hitler was bad, so fascism is bad, fully failing to recognize that they themselves are fascists. Here is an article explaining what socialism and why a true socialist government must by necessity be a police state. As mentioned in the article the USA is not yet a fascist state, but is definitely heading in that direction. Obama has in a very short term in office already confiscated private property with due process, tried to establish a system for citizens to report on their fellow citizens legal activities, and to censor his critics. The media mostly support Obama without question or criticism. And the Democrats are close to establishing one-party rule, aided by the ineptitude of Republicans.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Here is an interesting article about the US Military and the American medical system. One thing that I don't hear anything about in the current debate on healthcare is how much better chance victims of accidents or violence have in US care than in any other countries care.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

The Democrats used to be concerned about a lot of things that no longer trouble them. Consider things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those used to be major concerns for leftists, but no more. Then there is the government's eavesdropping program. That used to be a major concern; but no more. Apparently replacing Bush with Obama as President has made all of the difference. So, the left was not really concerned about the wars or loss of liberty, it was just about politics. They just wanted to get rid of Bush. Then there is the matter of corruption in high places. Leftists were concerned about it then, but it is no longer an issue even though the White House is now occupied with practitioners of Chicago-style pay-to-play politics. Consider the dealings of David Axelrod as reported in Flopping Aces. Leftists so no problem with this obviously unethical behavior.

Monday, August 17, 2009

It is a strange situation that we are in now. The USA is moving toward socialism and other nations are moving away from it, having experienced the failure of the system. But America now seems poised to go down the path of failure. Here is an article from A. J. Strata discussing how Canada and Great Britain are moving to revise their socialized medicine systems which have failed.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

For a week I heard a lot on TV about Sarah Palin's concerns about the Death Panel provisions in the insurance reform bill (or whatever they are calling it now). TV Anchors and other Democrat strategists and spinners talked about how silly, stupid, ignorant, racist, uninformed, etc. she was for talking about something that wasn't even in the bill. Then today I heard that the Senate had removed the section she was concerned about from the bill. Why did they remove something that wasn't there? It appears that the stupid, uninformed people are the Democrat TV Anchors and spinners.

The Obama Administration is probably the biggest threat to the security of the USA. Politicians who believe in cataclysmic Anthropognic Global Warming hypothesis are the biggest threat to the entire world. Here is a book that explains the many issues involved in this controversial hypothesis.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Leftist are notorious for projecting their methods onto their opponents. Most recently they claim that the opponents to Obamacare are "Astroturfing" at town Hall meetings. They invented "Astroturfing" so they know a lot about it. And they are still using it as evidenced by Obama picking the child of one of his workers at "random" at a Town Hall meeting, and this example from a Sheila Jackson-Lee Town Hall meeting.

There is a lot of excitement about electric cars now. The Chevy Volt, for example, is being touted as providing 240mpg. That is nonsense of course, since the Volt primarily runs off of electricity from the electric grid. (According to what I have read, the Volt gets about 4 mile/kwh.) There are a lot of issues related to the electric power grid associated with widespread use of electric cars. Here is an article discussing the problems.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

The threat of cataclysmic climate change on earth is far greater from an asteroid impact than from carbon dioxide emissions. That is obvious when one considers that many asteroid impacts have occurred in the past, with devastating results, while an order of magnitude higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels did little to temperature. About 13,000 years ago an asteroid exploded over North America and destroyed most of the continent. In 1908 a small asteroid exploded over Siberia and wiped out hundreds of square miles. Here is an article on the asteroid threat. Of course politicians are more interested in carbon dioxide emissions since controlling that gives them more power. They can't get much additional power by trying to prepare for a threatening asteroid, so they ignore that threat.

Great Britain has become a nanny state that intrudes on people's lives and privacy on a routine basis. The leftists who have created 1984 in Great Britain want to do the same thing here in America. I hope the people wake up in time to prevent formation of a nanny state here, but I am not optimistic that they will.

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

The Muslim school in Virginia has been given permission to expand. The Muslims say everything is OK. They have taken the killing stuff out of the curriculum. That's nice. Their Valedictorian from 1999 has been sentenced to life for plotting to kill President Bush. He graduated before they removed the killing stuff.

Monday, August 03, 2009

Here from the blog Greenie Watch is an interesting compilation of climate change warnings in the media over the past century. It is funny how the scare stories have oscillated between impending doom from an ice age to overheating and rising seas.

I think we all know that everything that goes wrong is George Bush's fault. So, errors being made by the Obama Administration must logically be the fault of Bush. This article explains the rationale.

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Here is an interesting article about Obama's Secret Service escorting him with guns drawn. Apparently they see some imminent threat to Obama, no doubt from right-wing extremists. There are a lot of people in middle America that the Obama Administration regards as right-wing extremists. That no doubt includes any Southerner or Texan who owns a gun, which is most of them. I wonder how long it will be before Obama gets himself an additional personal protection outfit. All dictators have such an organization that is loyal to them rather than the state. Mussolini had Blackshirts and Hitler had Brownshirts. Maybe Obama will call his Blueshirts.

Here are some thoughts about the Obama birth certificate issue from the blog Macsmind that I agree with. At this point it really doesn't matter where Obama was born because of the chaos that would result if it turned out he wasn't born in the US. My guess is that he was born in Hawaii, but for some reason he won't release the vault copy of his birth certificate. It could be that there is something embarrassing on it. But more likely it is a rope-a-dope strategy that involves letting right-wingers make themselves look ridiculous. I also agree that no matter where he was born, Obama's outlook is foreign to most Americans.