Arrested Development… the documentary?

Where’s my ticket? I just hope they don’t spend too long lamenting the lack of audience, like they do in this trailer. Because, yep, we get it. Not enough people watched. It was hilarious. But tell us how it became hilarious!



In the meantime, let’s all study our copies of Caged Wisdom.

Re: Not So Wise FOLs

Ghetto P., “the politics of personal destruction” is not original to Clinton or Obama. It was advocated by Saul Alinsky (the harmless-looking nerdy guy at right) on whom Hillary wrote an admiring thesis at Wellesley and who essentially invented the “community organizer” as a profession—in order to create discontent and usher in a socialist revolution under a slo-mo moderate façade. Alinsky was a revolutionary Marxist who developed a different paradigm of how to overthrow the existing political system, peacefully and using the characteristics of an open, free society against itself.

The thirteenth of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is:“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” He elaborated, “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure,” and “Before men can act, an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil.”

Alinsky also vigorously advocated that specialty of the modern left, the “HYPOCRITE!” attack: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.” And, of course, his major tactic was the infiltration and subversion of existing institutions: churches, unions, foundations, universities, etc. All in all, pretty good stuff. And given that Hillary and Obama were the last men standing in the Democratic Primary, it’s possible you could count the party as a notch on Alinsky’s belt.

Obama is not only a student of Alinsky—trained by men from Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago (its meanignless name typically Alinskyan camouflage, à la ACORN )—but actually taught courses on the Alinsky method and his Marxian framework for analyzing institutions and achieving control over them, which Alinsky called “power analysis.” Say, what’s Young Instructor Obama writing on that blackboard at U. Chicago?

So that this stuff crops up isn’t at all surprising. If you’re looking for the modern left’s playbook, read Alinsky. (But don’t bother with his Wikipedia page. In good Alinskyite fashion, it’s written in the most anodyne fashion. “Marx” and “socialism” don’t appear anywhere on it. Odd? You haven’t been paying attention.)

Oh, and lest anyone think the Volgi is breaking news here, none of this was unknown during the campaign. It’s just no one thought it newsworthy, and the McCain campaign never focused on it.

The Only Measure That Matters

In his weekly radio address, POTUS Obama reminded everyone that injury happens fast to a body, but healing takes a while. The Czar agrees with his reminder that the economy is not going to be fixed overnight. Frankly, the Czar might have added that speedy recoveries are usually false improvements, resulting in what economists term a “bounce,” the meaning of which is obvious: bad news, followed by good news, followed by worse news.

The President also made another claim: “unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity.”

The Czar agrees with this. In fact, of all economic measures, unemployment seems to take the most time to improve. [Unemployment is a classic lagging indicator. Companies hold off cutting jobs until they’re forced to, and hold off on hiring until they’re really, really sure they can afford it. —Œc. Vol.] However, for the typical American, it is the only measure that matters. If you are unemployed, bills pile up, savings dwindles down, no money comes in, and night become sleepless. If you are employed, each day you dread being next. People, just like you, look at their kids and seriously sicken themselves wondering if there will be enough money next month to cover a medical emergency. Sometimes, they wonder if there will be food. Imagine a mother considering the possibility that they might have to cut to two meals a day, and the parents down to one.

Talk about credit markets, housing starts, gross domestic products, consumer price indices, and mutual funds seem pointless when the job interviews stop and the savings account hits only a few hundreds dollars. Dread and worry are gnawing and overpowering influences.

On the one hand, what is a President to do? Surprisingly, as much as Americans like to blame or laud a President for the economy, he has little to do except encourage confidence. He can certainly say dumb things that scare business, or panic investors. But healing an economy is something he cannot directly do; actually, Congress has a better shot at improving things quicker, but most folks do not understand how or why.

The problem, though, is that a presidential candidate promises solutions to things he cannot control. Talk of stimulus packages, bailouts, and jobs saved and jobs created...spot weld these to a meaningless message of Hope and Change, and that candidate proposes a quick fix that voters lovingly embrace. Under the old regime, you will suffer; under my leadership, America prospers together. Now that the unemployment rate is hitting 10%, the President cannot dismiss it as a mere economic factor to keep an eye on. He encouraged the belief that he would fix things, and Americans are not unreasonable to expect results soon.

Hope and Change become Dread and Worry. This is showing in the polls and approval ratings, and the Democratic party has secret meetings to analyze the situation, the threat to their party. After all, the hardest hit seem to be those who supported the Democrats the most.

Progress on cap and trade, a green economy, GM’s emergence from bankruptcy: what does any of this mean to dad who can no longer pay the rent and faces a terrifying reality that in two months the kids might need to live in some relative’s basement?

Not So Wise FOLs (Friends of Latina)

In this article, McClatchy reports that confirmation politics has become bloodsport in Washington.

Here, liberal activists at People for the American way, along with other unnamed liberal supporters of Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the United States Supreme Court, urge reporters to dig into Frank Ricci's background. According to the liberal sources, Ricci was let go from a prior job, and has sued his employer previously for not accommodating his dyslexia.

Ricci, as readers may recall, is the named plaintiff in the recent decision where the Supreme Court smacked down Judge Sotomayor's Second Circuit panel. Judge Sotomayor upheld without opinion a lower court ruling allowing New Haven to toss out the results of firefighter promotion exams because not enough of the correctly hued people had passed. The Supreme Court unanimously criticized Judge Sotomayor's panel for ruling in a cursory fashion, though the court was split 5-4 in its substantive decision.

Here's 'Puter's question. Who in the heck cares whether Frank Ricci was a model firefighter or a drug and booze addled ne'er do well? Ricci has nothing to do with Judge Sotomayor's fitness whatsoever. Ricci's past does not change the operative facts. New Haven used race, and race alone, to decide promotion criteria. Judge Sotomayor ducked analysis of Ricci's discrimination claim entirely, likely because she knew she was on a short list for the Supreme Court. (Supreme Court short listers like to remain as uncontroversial as possible in their decisions). The Supreme Court overruled both the District Court and the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court took the unusual step of noting the lack of any analysis whatsoever from Judge Sotomayor's panel. Frank Ricci has exactly nothing to do with any of this, nor does he personally have a bearing on Judge Sotomayor's fitness for the bench.

PAW's plea to go Carville on Ricci smacks of desperation. It seems liberals are worried senators and Americans will actually look beyond Judge Sotomayor's race and gender to determine her fitness for the bench. As well the liberals should worry, based on these poll numbers. Judge Sotomayor's numbers are Harriet Miers-esque, and that's not good.

So, taking a page out of the Clinton book, if you can't win on the facts, find someone to trash, and trash them good. Great to see the Hope and Change in practice.

The Origin of Specious

Normally the Czar enjoys reading BBC News as a slightly less Obamacized source of worldwide information. However, an article on the costs of healthcare leave the Czar slightly annoyed.

The article looks at McAllen, Texas, a town with a healthcare system that seems to support POTUS Obama’s plans for healthcare reform—and defies the Obamacare critics. Why? Evidently, the town spends double the dollars for Medicare (capitalism), yet the results are not as good as nearby communities that only spend the national average (Obamacare). Summary: spending like a capitalist sailor will not guarantee you better care. Quality can be done with lower costs. Therefore, Obama is right to reform and ration care. Or as author Katty Kay puts it, “In America, customers are king—and patients have that mindset too. Mention rationing and critics scream ‘socialised medicine’. But what McAllen shows is that more care does not necessarily equal better care. The White House says both suppliers and consumers of healthcare need to learn this lesson.”

Ms. Kay should Google the phrase specious argument and read the hits carefully. One form of specious argument is to create a false challenge, in which the opponent has to defend a position that he or she really does not hold, simply because you argue so hard for the opposite. This entire article is a classic example of this, presenting McAllen, Texas, as an embarrassing example to those opposed to Obamacare.

American suppliers and consumers of healthcare are not advocating that quantity is better than quality. We understand that a more expensive hospital may not provide better care than a less expensive or less equipped hospital. Actually, the average American probably knows that a more expensive hospital has a greater overhead or better funding than another: it is the competency and accessibility of medical staff that make a hospital better.

American suppliers and consumers object to the idea that government is somehow better able to provide these resources than existing structures. We do not fear that Gonzaga Heights will wind up with a better MRI than Muscovy: we worry that our doctor—who knows us, our family, and our history—will leave practice because Obamacare is not capping his malpractice insurance, but will be dictating to him how much he can be compensated and what patients he must see. You know, the rationing you yourself mention as a good idea. We are not concerned that our hospital will talk us out of a test we may or may not need: we worry that our hospital will wind up like a free health care clinic with interminable waits, high risk of secondary infection, and treatment by an overwhelmed, underpaid, and potentially inexperienced doctor limiting us to a fifteen minute assessment and treatment.

Ms. Kay does not appreciate how Americans view their doctors. We view them like our bartenders or barbers or accountants. We know we might have to wait a bit to see them, but when we do, we will get exactly what we need, with someone who knows us quite well and no longer has to ask annoying questions.

Conversely, we tend to view Obamacare as any other government run service: inefficient hassles, like getting a driver’s license, filing a property tax complaint, paying a traffic ticket, or stopping at the post office. You wait in long lines, following a plastic rope corral, only to work your way to a bored, obnoxious service clerk who suddenly slams the window shut and pops up a next window please sign. And now it is 5:00, and everyone is heading out.

So yes, we do understand that quality is better than quantity here in the colonies. What we also understand is that the United States is a massive organism, and massive organisms do not do precise things very quickly. When you need medical care, you need precision quickly. McAllen, Texas, gets that just as much as the other, less expensive communities.

Oh, and Ms. Kay? Anytime you introduce Texas as an example of something unusual or unpleasant, you make the other 49 states roll their eyes and say “No kidding.” Why do you think they call themselves the Lone Star State anyway?

IT'S RATIONING!

John Lott writes:

Democrats say no rationing, but half the costs of their medical changes come from further reductions in payments to medical providers. Does anyone see the inconsistency here?

Click through to the WSJ.

Apologia pro vita Sarah

Just a devastating takedown of the media’s treatment of Gov. Palin. Carl Cannon, neither Republican nor conservative, just completely destroys any pretense of fairness or decency on the part of his colleagues in the press.

Facts matter, the man said. But they didn't in 2008, not when it came to Joe Biden (our guy) against Sarah Palin (odd outsider). The ladies and gentlemen of the press were more interested in her hair, her glasses, her wardrobe, he accent, her sex life, her kids' sex lives, and her hunting habits than in whether her opponent knew anything about foreign policy, the Constitution of the United States, or the job he was running for. They still are. The relentlessly negative coverage of Palin goes on unabated -- she's the subject of a much-ballyhooed hatchet job in Vanity Fair this month -- even as Biden makes minor news from time to time by continuing his penchant for gaffes, this time while serving as the second most powerful person in the federal government.

Via Flava Last on the Galley of Love.

Picture: Vanity Fair, the month of the Palin story.

Illinois Side Show Politics Update

The Czar has long followed Chicago politics, which few outsiders actually get. But let us take a look at the latest in Illinois politics (terribly influenced by the Chicago corruption machine) and see what the latest is.

Nationally, Senator Roland Burris has decided not to run for re-election election (he was never voted in). You will remember that he was appointed under a cloud of suspicion to then President-Elect Obama’s vacated seat that then-Governor Rod Blagojevic attempted to sell to the highest bidder for personal profit. After a contention review process and all sorts of recordings of him surfaced in which he agreed to raise money for Rod’s future campaigns in exchange for the appointment (sigh), he became Senator. This week, he agreed he would not step down at the end of his term. Sen. Burris felt that raising the funds for an election run would be too difficult, especially when people would be watching how he did it. Perhaps that an his popularity is now at a single digit (believed to be a middle finger).

On the Democratic side, current State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has begun running for that Senate seat. Popular, good-looking, and dynamic. Oh, and his family owns a bank that loans money to organized crime. Oh, and some of the bank’s checks somehow wound up in the hands of Tony Rezko, who kited them in Vegas. Since then, he has lost key endorsements (even POTUS Obama has withdrawn his support of Alexi G, although the latter’s website still implies the two are quite close). Now that, friends, sounds like the Chicago way.

As you know, Milorad B. is no longer the governor, and is enjoying life as a private citizen for the first time in a long political career...and indeed, for the last time as his conviction is largely considered to be a slam-dunk.

Consequently, our present Governor is Pat Quinn. He inherited a pile of Blago mess, including an out-of-control budget and stunning loss of revenue that is racing Illinois toward bankruptcy. Quinn has struggled to right the ship of state, but cannot seem to strike the right balance between compromise and stubbornness. He has assured Democratic voters of his intent to run, but many of his ardent supporters have begun to distance themselves and openly criticize him, such as Dan Hynes, the state Comptroller, who has not ruled out going for the big chair himself. Quinn faces a lot of potential opponents from his own party, who know too much about him. Quinn, for what it is worth, seems to be a capable, moderate man who simply needed more time to hit his stride as governor before the next election. He isn’t going to get it.

Long expected to run for either the US Senate or for Governor, State’s Attorney Lisa Madigan has elected to run for neither. She has decided to place family first, et cetera, and remain as a popular state’s attorney. Smart move—she is well aware that her Democratic party is about to be Airbused in 2010, and both the Governorship and US Senate seat are very likely to go to the GOP. Why give up a position in which both sides agree she’s pretty good at, only to lose it all?

Republican Representative Mark Kirk has announced he is ramping up for a campaign. But no one seems to know if he plans to run for re-election as Representative, run for the open Senate seat vacated by Burris, or for governor. His recent decision to vote for Cap‘n’Trade has appalled and alienated him among Republican voters: although he has had few if any missteps as a politician, that moment of weakness (he now admits, somewhat, to not really understanding what the bill contained) could cost him a shot at all three.

Speaking of Kirks, State Senator Kirk Dillard (R) has announced the he is running for governor, now that his chief obstacle—Lisa Madigan—is out of the way. However, he is viewed as a career politician, and many Republicans fear he needs a massive campaign push to (a) establish him as a serious possibility for governor, or at least (b) prevent folks from confusing him with Mark Kirk. This actually has precedent in Illinois, when uber-qualified Jim Ryan lost a gubernatorial campaign to the incredibly awful Rod Blagojevic because voters were too stupid to realize he wasn’t George Ryan, the unrelated governor who was sentenced to prison weeks before the election. In pre-election polls, people openly expressed shock that a convicted felon could run for governor, never realizing the two men were as different as night and day.

Also running on the GOP side (after Blago and Burris, the Illinois GOP incautiously believes it cannot lose) is State Senator Matt Murphy (not that Matt Murphy; like him, State Senator Bill Brady is also a candidate. Both Murphy and Brady suffer from the same problem: no one has a clue who they are. Brady, the Czar was shocked to learn, has already run for governor in 2006; the Czar does not even recall his name on the ballot. Er... good luck, guys.

Of great and growing interest is a virtual nobody, Adam Andrzejewski. His website helpfully provides a rebus to pronounce his name (ann-G-F-ski), and he approaches his complex Polish name with great humor (and this will help sway many Chicago votes his way). He lives very close to Muscovy, and is a Republican (both good things). He also seems to have no political history whatsoever, and this has many folks intrigued. The Czar has reviewed many of his anti-corruption proposals, and you would think he posts here under the name Ghettoputer, but he does not. An outspoken critic of Illinois politics, he is capitalizing (smartly) on the fact he has no ties to the mighty Daley machine and connection with the RICO-reeking Illinois GOP. We tried a guy like him once before as governor... Jim Edgar, whom many people believe was the greatest governor Illinois ever had, and possibly the best leader any state ever had. Let us hope he is of a similar breed, as he could certainly use as much media attention as possible.

Meet more candidates and possibles here.

Anyway, the carnival goes on. Stay tuned.

NYPost-Style Headline: No Mo Po Mo, Mo Do Clone

'Puter knows better than to read the New York Times, particularly anything written concerning "gender" or "family" issues. But 'Puter got suckered into reading this gem of a column by Judith Warner.

Here are the facts, as relayed by Ms. Warner. Female Professor Kevane at Montana State University* takes five kids to the mall near her home. The children are 12, 12, 10, 8 and 3. Professor Kevane leaves the 12 year olds in charge of the remaining pack, ordering that the 3 year old not leave the stroller. Professor Kevane goes home to take a nap [really -- ed.]. Twelve year olds neglect their babysitting duties to try on bitchin' shirts, "ditching" their young charges in the purse section of Macy's. Cops are called for the abandoned children. Children are fine. Professor Kevane is summoned to the store. Professor Kevane tries to explain herself, and cop tells her to be quiet or Professor Kevane would be arrested on the spot. Professor Kevane is charged with child endangerment. Prosecuting attorney (also female) refuses to plea bargain or accept a reduced charge. During the course of the trial, the prosecuting attorney stated that professors are incapable of seeing the world around them because their heads are always in books. The prosecutor also wrote to Professor Kevane's attorney that "even individuals with major educations can commit this offense, and they should not be treated differently because they have more money or education." Interestingly, no statement of the outcome of Professor Kevane's case is included in the column.

Sure, it appears that the prosecuting attorney was zealous, at a minimum. Sure, it stinks to have to pay for what by all accounts was a serious error in judgment. And sure, this wasn't a clear cut case of child endangerment.

But that's not what Ms. Warner takes away. Ms. Warner opines that what really sent her "head spinning after reading Kevane’s story was the degree to which it drove home the fact that our country’s resentment, and even hatred, of well-educated, apparently affluent women is spiraling out of control."

Oh. 'Puter sees now. The woman who dumped her kids at the mall so she could take a nap is the victim here, and emblematic of a modern day pogrom against women everywhere. Well 'Puter calls shenanigans. Only in the rarefied air of academia and the lofty salons of Manhattan Island is this in any way a society-wide attack on smart, affluent women. This well-educated (Sarah Lawrence, NYU, UCLA) woman admittedly leaves young children at the mall unattended. This was stupid. She got caught doing it. She had to pay the consequences. Pretty ordinary stuff, 'Puter thinks.

Yet somehow the article devolves into how it's Sarah Palin's fault. See, e.g., "It’s precisely the kind of thinking that has fueled Sarah Palin’s unlikely — and continued — ability to pass herself off as the consummately “real” American woman. (And it is what has made it possible for her supporters to discredit other women’s criticism of her as elitist cat fighting.)" Ah. Gov. Palin caused Professor Kevane to leave young children unattended in public so she could take a well-earned nap.

It's a male attack on women choosing to divert their energies "from their wombs to their brains." That's right. 'Puter often tells his nonexistent daughter "Honey, you can't go to college or you won't be able to grow up to be a college professor and spit out a litter of kids that you can then abandon for lengthy periods at malls so you can nap your afternoons away without interruption."

As a side question, 'Puter asks Ms. Warner how she thinks a poor, Black welfare mother would fare under this scenario. Or even better, a blue-collar single father who pulled the same stupid stunt. 'Puter's betting a Black woman would've lost her kids, at least temporarily, and the man would be sitting in jail wondering what happened to him.

Look, Ms. Warner. It's this simple. An individual made a really, really stupid choice. She was forced to pay the consequences by a zealous prosecutor (of the same gender). Other genders, education levels, professions and ethnicities would have fared worse. There is no society-wide conspiracy against women.

If you're looking for a society-wide conspiracy, Ms. Warner, try this one on for size. Americans conspire to make people who whine about being victims of their own stupidity uncomfortable in order to get them to STHeckU.

*Extra bonus fact: Professor Kevane is a professor of "Latin American and Latino literature." Yup. No post-modernism or critical race theory B.S. in those fields. Nope. Here's Professor's curriculum vitae. See for yourself.

The British Are Coming ...

... around to 'Puter's way of thinking. And about darned time, too.

Good to see that our British cousins also recognize the necrotic effect of public sector unions on national economies. Ms. Camilla Cavendish (a delightful name straight out of Central Casting, if you ask 'Puter), an opinion columnist for The Times of London, penned a concise, forceful statement of the fundamental problems with public unions in her homeland. 'Puter couldn't do (and hasn't done) better himself. Read the entire thing. Welcome to the club, Ms. Cavendish.

The Gormogons' European gambit is coming together as planned. Er, never mind.

Ellen Bork on the Uyghurs

In case you need persuading that the Volgi isn’t ranting out of his hat with regard to the Uyghurs. (Full WaPo column.)

Unrest in China's far western region, known as Xinjiang, should not come as a surprise. The communist authorities maintain intense and unrelenting pressure on Uighurs, a Turkic-speaking Muslim minority group. Over the past week, the violence that has killed at least 156 and injured hundreds more came after the ethnically motivated murder of two Uighur migrant workers late last month. Communist Party control of the media makes it difficult to know what actually happened when initially peaceful protests became riots. Chinese authorities have arrested hundreds, sent in troops and begun a propaganda campaign against the Uighurs. While majority Han Chinese have been photographed armed with baseball bats, axes and pipes, government control of the media ensures that most Chinese will absorb official propaganda depicting Uighurs as terrorists.

Most Chinese and Andy McCarthy, it seems.

Comparisons to the uprising in Tibet last year seem apt. In Tibet, peaceful protests by monks were met with force, and demonstrations proliferated throughout the region. Like the Tibetans, Uighurs experience harsh repression of their religion and language. Like those of the Tibetans, Uighurs' efforts at asserting their identity are smeared as subversive by Chinese authorities and used as justification for further repression.

Damn right.

The task of supporting Uighurs has become more difficult than it should be. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, China capitalized on the American desire for cooperation in fighting terrorism -- and general suspicion of Muslims. The State Department's designation of the small East Turkestan Independence Movement as a terrorist organization was derided by human rights activists, who saw the danger of approving a freer Chinese hand, as well as scholarly experts on Xinjiang. Moreover, the detention of fewer than two dozen Uighurs at Guantanamo Bay dominates American perceptions of this ethnic group. Testimony before Guantanamo review panels and press interviews have indicated that the detained Uighurs were focused on China, not the United States, and most were cleared for release in 2003. Nevertheless, their cases, and the domestic political battle over closing Guantanamo, have unfairly stigmatized all Uighurs.

COUGH COUGH COUGH.

Moreover, the Communist Party's religious policies, along with a reaction to non-Muslim rule that scholars have noted in many countries, have led to a growing role for Islam in Uighur nationalism.

It is in America's interest to cultivate democratic, secular political thinking among Uighurs no less than among Iraqis or other Muslim populations.

Hellz yeah.

In Which 'Puter's Prescience Is Affirmed

By a quasi-expert, even!

Jerry Bowyer, here, states that regulatory uncertainty is preventing economic recovery. In his article, government action is stalling job growth.

Where have we heard this before? Why, right here, where 'Puter correctly states that regulatory uncertainty is roiling the commodity markets.

Regulatory uncertainty is a market killer, plain and simple.

H/T, Your Volgi.

Back off, GorT!

Lawnmower Man?! Don’t be dredging up my old nicknames.

Oh, wait, that’s a movie?

Never mind.

Yetimania 2009!

Thank you, your imperial Czaritude, for that awesome yeti link. Nothing starts the day better than a good yeti shearing. And the "make your yeti happy" link following the movie contains some important insights into Mi-rGod psychology:

It isn't easy being a Yeti. No one believes in you. And those that do run screaming in the other direction. When you're not crouching in some cold, damp cave, you're hoofing it through four feet of powder. Not to mention the fact that your natural coat is an itchy, woolly mess. There's no Yeti conditioner. No spas to help get your fur in order.

So true. So true.

Picture: Yeti so sad. Via Craftzine. Make your own!

Left Behind!

If you wonder where all your friendly neighborhood Mormons have gone this weekend, stop wondering. No, they weren't raptured off to heaven (not to mix wacky evangelical Christian concepts with quasi-Christian Mormonism). They've all come Upstate to attend the Hill Cumorah Pageant!

The pageant is a big deal to Mormons, and a major draw Upstate. It recounts stories from the Book of Mormon, alleged to have been unearthed by Joseph Smith outisde Palmyra, New York (on Hill Cumorah), then translated from the original (now conveniently lost) gold tablets with the help of the angel Moroni, a breastplate and some magic spectacles. Really.

Leaving aside, in 'Puter's opinion, the general silliness of some of the Mormons' beliefs, it's a great show and the Mormons there are fantastically nice and welcoming people. So, come on Upstate and celebrate the Hill Cumorah Pageant with 'Puter. He'll be the one kicking back in his lawn chair with a fat stogie, a Thermos full of coffee and a cooler full of Genessee Cream Ale.

Until the Mormon hired goons toss him.

And Yeti She Must Scream

The Czar gives himself points for merging two inside Gormogon jokes with that title.

He also strongly recommends the Volgi click this link for reasons important only to us. You have been warned that it will make no sense to mere mortals.

War Is Peace

Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. And constitutional removal of a treasonous president is a coup.

In Orwellian fashion, President Obama (along with the OAS) has declared the completely constitutionally legitimate actions of the acting Honduran government to be a coup. Andy McCarthty at NRO has a superlative takedown of President Obama's position here.

To be fair to President Obama, his position does coincide with two men who are experts in coup-ology: Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Recovery 2.0

ABC News, the official press agency of the White House, has a story that the government is spending $18 Million of the "stimulus" money towards revamping the White House's stimulus money tracking website. The very same one that Joe Biden couldn't remember the "number" for.

The new one has been termed, "Recovery.gov 2.0". So the first question that all taxpayers should have is what was so wrong with the first incarnation that we need a major revision to the tune of $18 Million? That kind of money goes a very long way in website development and hosting, even for the federal government. Trust me, I've been around that kind of business. For this kind of coin, this website better tell me down to the penny where the money went, how it was decided to go there (i.e. an open competition or directed action because the contractor is pals with someone), and what's the progress against the schedule for the project awarded funding. Plus, I need it to pick my fantasy football team, determine the best route to work during rush hour and pick up my dry cleaning. Do we need more proof that the "stimulus package" is a farce? If the website is built with any intelligence, it's a build and deliver and done, so there are very few, if any, lasting jobs created by this $18 Million.

I'll reserve final judgment on the website until October 10th when it must be live. You can be sure that I'll be checking it out and reporting on it. The government has already committed to exposing the raw data to the public so you can be sure that the Gormogon Supercomputer processing center located in a fortified bunker at an undisclosed location (yes, Joe Biden doesn't know that "number" either) will be churning on the numbers.

Just to leave you with a thought: the contract is for $9.5M through January 2010. Let's assume that's a 6 month period of performance with a nominal 160 hours per month (four 40-hour work weeks). That equates to almost $10,000 per HOUR for this website. I fear that we'll end up getting some piece of crap like "Lawnmower Man".

¡Odio!

The Spanish numbers are scary, all right–the percentage of Spaniards holding a negative few of Jews jumped from 21% in 2004 to 46% in 2008–but that’s not the only thing to be scared about. If you dig into the whole report, it isn’t just Jews that the Spanish hate, but Christians, too. 24% of Spaniards hold a negative view of Christians now, compared to 10% in 2004. In France, 19% hold a negative view of Christians, against 9% in 2004.

Re: Fierce Creatures

Czar наш,

You must have misunderstood Congressman Waxman. The Democrats made it clear that “questioning someone’s patriotism” is a political crime that is beyond the pale, despicable, un-American, un-patriotic…

Hmm. if only someone had written a book about the leftist cult of unity.

Fierce Creatures

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Stalin), if this has not been said too many times here, is an outrageous idiot.

By now you have heard this statement, from a radio interview he gave: “It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well.”

Translation: The GOP feels the President is headed in the wrong direction; therefore, they hate America. Sorry, but there is no other way to translate this. If you dare question the Democrats, you belong in hell, he thinks. Ein Reich, and all that.

Were the Democrats who poisoned the Bush presidency rooting against America? One supposes that Waxman disagrees.

Of course, the Czar predicts that the liberal/Democratic faction will counter this, claiming “This is no different than when Bush said ‘Either you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.’” Terrorists accept no alternative: you live either in their house (دار الإسلام), or you are a target for slaughter (دار الحرب). Bush was spelling it out—primarily for the liberals in Europe, who must be smarter than the liberals here—that there is no safe house (دار الكفر), no middle ground, no negotiation with these new terrorists. In 2001, the terrorists declared war on freedom and they set the rules, not us—it was now time to choose sides on their terms. Not surprisingly, almost everyone took our side! One doubts Waxman believes the freaking climate bill he authored will literally slit the throats of disbelievers. So if he was attempting to draw a parallel between his intentionally complex political stunt and a genuine mortal threat to all people of the world, he merely shows he has no grasp of reality. This is as much a non sequitur as comparing a serial killer to a wonky air conditioner that refuses to start.

Alternatively, the liberal/Democrat will make yet another reference to Rush Limbaugh, who (in)famously claimed that he hopes Obama fails, even if it means America fails. Conservatives and Repbulicans both shake their heads in amusement over the recurring conspiratorial conviction that Rush Limbaugh control the GOP. Those few who listen to Rush should note, but never do, that Rush is no fan of the GOP, and speaks to a more radical libertarian audience. If Waxman was attempting to be cute, he erred in referencing the GOP.

So why did he say it then? Sadly, it seems that the Democratic party has joined the cult of personality behind Barack Obama, and tolerates no dissent. Whether it’s California assembly speaker Karen Bass regretting we ever accepted a Bill of Rights, to Waxman (again) hoping to shut down Internet blogs, or Waxman (again) claiming that Republicans who oppose ObamaCare are—ready?—rooting against America.

So in addition to everything else that is becoming Stalineque about the Democratic party, we should add that Rep. Waxman also believes the Democrats should take a more paranoid delusional direction in future legislation? Maybe paranoid is not the right word for the Obama Democrat.

In the 1997 movie Fierce Creatures, Jamie Lee Curtis’ character tells Kevin Kline’s character, “You know what you are? You’re pronoid....It means that contrary to all the available evidence, you actually think that people like you.”

Yeah, that describes them perfectly.

Index Gorgomonica

The Czar has decided, as the Mandarin says, to fire up the way-back machine. In looking over the last 12 months, we have picked up a lot of readers. For those newest readers, you can find some of our best posts (at least, the Czar here thinks they are the most representative). Find our best writing, our most-often linked-to posts, and those that best encapsulate our Gormogonicity.

‘Puter, When He’s Right:
»Why nationalized medicine will never be accepted by those calling for it.
»Gays in the military...why this is smart thinking.
»Why a United States economy technically doesn’t exist.
»‘Puter can fix the banking problem.
»Barney Frank is a jackass.
»We have become a nation of babies.
»The difference between charity and welfare.
»‘Puter is always right...and sometimes scary prescient.
»Is teaching a profession?
»How to fix conservatism.

The Czar of Muscovy:
»Why the media falsely think the Dow is the way to measure the economy.
»The Obama crew spends a lot of time apologizing for each other.
»The Bush Test.
»Why the Czar hates the press so much.
»How the GOP can fix its image problem.
»How to avoid swine flu.
»Why conservatives need to take science back from the liberals.
»Why playing the race card works.

孔夫子, the Œcumenical Volgi (The Notorious ŒV):
»The facts behind Iran’s “election.”
»There is no such thing as a typical Catholic.
»Ten reasons socialized medicine is bad, bad medicine.
»Befriending bullies doesn’t make you tough, it makes you a dumbass.
»What the Reset button really said.
»Obama and the cult of personality...where does it lead?
»Why do foreigners really resent Americans?
»The fallacy of foreign-politcal eurocentrism. A must read.

The Inscrutable Mandarin:
»Union members exempt from taxes on employer benefits? (another Mandarin scoop!)
»Some of the coolest military technology revealed ever.
»The Mandarin scooped nearly everyone with this. You probably read it here first.
»Not so much a revolutionary post, but the opening line? Awesome.
»Why rewarding mediocre perfomance starts early.
»The real threat may not be liberals.

GorTechie:
»Liberals want to prosecute you now for crimes you have not done yet.
»The facts behind global climate change in three parts. Three key posts in one.
»The myth of Big Environment.
»The truth behind science fairs.
»Get back to work, Mr. President!
»Career politicians are what’s wrong with the whole system.

The Czar regrets that his four brethren will look upon these works and despair, as no doubt some of their respective favorites did not make the list. They have the power to correct this of course, and perhaps, one hopes, they will.

Gutfeld blames the Jews

Read on to find out what for, but dig this opening:

So on some recent radio show hosted by the Rev. Al Sharpton, a male caller phoned in with a theory about Michael Jackson’s death. Turns out he didn’t kill himself using a panoply of pharmaceuticals. It was all Sarah Palin’s doing.

Yep, according to the caller, "maybe she did something to Michael Jackson," and "maybe she’s stepping down because something’s about to come out."

Ok, the Gormogons may have to officially endorse that theory to spread confusion and madness behind the cloak of which we can advance our schemes for world domination.

Man, that’s two dudes in a week. Clearly she resigned to pursue her new career as a celebrity spree killer.

Why 'Puter Will Never Be Subpoenaed To Appear Before the Senate on Health Care Issues

'Puter's been doing a lot of thinking about health care recently, and the Obama Adminsitration's plans therefor. And why not? We're talking about either nationalizing or effectively hamstringing one-seventh of the American economy.

Anyhoo, 'Puter's convinced that ObamaCare will of necessity ration health care. That is, in order to achieve the cost savings put forth in the plan, government bureaucrats will make decisions regarding the proper (read, "not to exceed") amount of care to be provided for chronic and terminal conditions. Over time, this rationing will likely creep into preventive and basic health care as well. It's only through rationing that ObamaCare's numbers add up. And it seems that most Democrats in Congress refuse to acknowledge this central truth: ObamaCare = health care rationing.

So, in 'Puter's fantasy world where he gets to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and its acting Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), here's a draft of his testimony for your perusal.

[Start Dream Sequence]

[Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 430, 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 8, 2009]

Acting Chariman Dodd and esteemed Senators, good morning.

My name is 'Puter and I reside in scenic, overtaxed Upstate New York. 'Puter is saddened Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Chairman of this Committee, is unable to join us today, due to his ongoing brain cancer treatments. 'Puter extends his best wishes to Sen. Kennedy and his family during this difficult time.

'Puter has read extensively the proposals before you to reform America's health care system. In the proposed reforms, medical treatment will necessarily be denied to some people in order to benefit the majority. In other words, health care will be rationed. The reforms can work in no other way. To implement the system, government bureaucrats will be charged with determining when the costs of treatment for the individual outweigh the benefit to society as a whole. Our current system leaves this calculus to the individual. The Administration's proposed reforms require the government to decide for the individual.

'Puter has one question for you, Senator Dodd. Would you put Sen. Kennedy into this system right now?

You would not, Sen. Dodd, and you know why. If. Sen. Kennedy were subject to the system you wish to impose on Americans, the government would not treat Sen. Kennedy, and he would die.

Sen. Kennedy, as you know, has a malignant glioma affecting the left hemisphere of his brain. The survival rate averages 2-3 years for a less malignant tumor. Sen. Kennedy is 76 years old. According to the 2005 Social Security Administration, a 76 year old male could expect to live another 9.7 years. Treating cancer costs $93.2 billion each year, according to 2008 figures from the American Cancer Society. In 2006, 559,888 Americans died of all forms of cancer. While not an exact figure, as 'Puter is using 2008 costs and 2006 deaths, Americans spent $166,461.86 per cancer death. In 2005, approximately 10,701,000 Americans were living with cancer of all types. Again, using imperfect comparisons, Americans spent approximately $8,709.47 per cancer patient.

'Puter's provided you some facts and figures, Sen. Dodd. How do you calculate the value of Sen. Kennedy's life, assuming he can be cured and live out his remaining 9.7 years average life expectancy? Are you willing to spend $8,709.47? How about $166,461.86? How about $10,000,000.00? Does your analysis change if you know that regardless of treatment, Sen. Kennedy would die in 2-3 years from his cancer? How much do you think Sen. Kennedy would think appropriate to spend on his treatment? Do you believe a government bureaucrat would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment on a 76 year old man to buy him maybe 7 additional years? Are you willing to bet Sen. Kennedy's life on a bureaucrat's judgment?

'Puter knows it's not fair to put you on the spot like this Sen. Dodd. How can you value the life of a friend or a family member? You can't just reduce him to a fixed dollar amount. But that's exactly what your reforms will do to the friends and family members of millions of Americans, Senator. Your reforms will require bureaucrats to make a determination of the value of someone's mother's life. Or someone's child's life. Or, maybe even Sen. Kennedy's life. And then determine if that human being is worth enough to deserve the treatment he requests. If not, that American will not receive needed medical treatment, and may die.

All 'Puter asks of the Senate is that you not deny Americans the same freedom you refuse to deny your friend and colleague Sen. Kennedy: the freedom to choose one's medical treatment, without government interference.

Thank you.

[Press corps weeps openly, Senators beg forgiveness, legislation scuttled, fade to black]

['Puter wakes up]

Only the Shadow knows...

The Volgi pointed me at a recent post by one of my favorite authors, Orson Scott Card, over at the National Review Online in which he highlights a number of books in the Science Fiction / Fantasy genre that may interest readers. During my time-travels, I do enjoy a good SciFi book so I appreciate the prod and Mr. Card's reviews - I do find myself generally dreading looking through what Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Border's, etc. lump into the "Science Fiction" section for some of the reasons to which Mr. Card alludes.

Having mentioned this, let me take a slight tangent. Orson Scott Card authored a fabulous novel, "Ender's Game" which won both the Hugo and the Nebula awards the year it was published. I will refrain from detailing the book, but a thread running through it is the mysterious intellectual and political blogging of two anonymous writers using the pseudonyms, Locke and Demosthenes. The entire series is worthy of a read for multiple reasons.

I don't want to draw a direct corollary to the Gormogons but your favorite five here enjoy ourselves mightily and maybe, in some way, will influence others...not to political upheaval but to giving some thought and reasoning to the world around us. And yes, we too know what evil lurks in the hearts of men.

Re: Colonial One?

As mentioned previously, the African Colonial theory seems a little overdrawn to the Volgi. But, wow, was he pleasantly surprised at the quoted remarks President Obama delivered to African leaders saying, “Hey, colonialism’s just an excuse at this point. Knock it off and get your act together.” That is an impressively hard truth delivered with no regard to his popularity in the room (though he’s not risking any popularity on the streets of Africa). It’s not quite Nixon to China, but it’s pretty good.

It’s also one at odds with Obama’s otherwise academic-theoretical view of the world. My guess is affection for his father’s Kenya and the manifest shafting his Luo dad got at the hands of (Kikuyu) Jomo Kenyatta have left him with an sharped appreciation of the self-generated troubles of African post-colonial nations. The Volgi is pleasantly surprised and counts this as a point against his “Third-Worldist Intellectual” theory.

Colonial One?

The Czar was reminded of the Mandarin’s post on whether POTUS Obama qualified as an African Colonial, at least psychologically, as L. E. Ikenga suggests.

The Czar is pretty sure that if he were, the President would not want anyone to think badly of African colonials.

Sigh. And what do you suppose happens next?

Seriously, how are the media still fooled by this guy?

“Play ball on Iran, we’ll give up the missile shield.”

Is our offer to Russia (again). This time the president is stating it publicly:

"I know Russia opposes the planned configuration for missile defence in Europe . . . I have made it clear that this system is directed at preventing a potential attack from Iran and has nothing to do with Russia," Mr Obama said in a speech to students graduating from Moscow's New Economic School.

"I want us to work together on a missile defence architecture that makes us all safer. But if the threat from Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes is eliminated, the driving force for missile defence in Europe will be eliminated. That is in our mutual interest."

Your Volgi went into this at a little length last time this proposal surfaced back in March. There’s not a lot to add at this late date. The Russians don’t feel threatened by the Iranian bomb because they’re on pretty cordial terms with Tehran, and the mullahs known that nuking Russia is a quick way to get their entire country turned into a sheet of glass.*

Anyway, for obvious reasons, I don’t think this proposal will gain much traction, as the Russians have very little to gain by it. They know the Czech-Polish missile shield is no threat to them. That’s a tactic, not a real objective. They’ll only sell the Iranians out if they win something really serious from us.

*They might claim not to be worried about losing a couple million people to an Israeli counterstrike, but there’s no way they’d risk retaliation on the enormous scale that Russian’s (expanding) missile forces could inflict. Then, you say, they’d obviously never risk striking us, even through a terrorist proxy. Really? You think they have the bedrock confidence that doing so is complete and utter suicide? I hope so, but I wonder.

Pulling myself off the ceiling

Deep breaths...has anyone read the "cap and trade" bill a/k/a the Waxman-Markley bill? Maybe it was a little hard given that the democrats dropped a 300-page amendment on the floor at 3 a.m. Want some nice reading material - go look it up and read Section 304, "Building Energy Performance Labeling Program". This little gem of a section mandates, upon the signature of the bill into law, that all homes be 30% more energy efficient than the current building code. This increases over the next few years - 50% in 2014 and higher until 2030. Want to sell your house? Not so fast - you will likely have to get it inspected and measured for its energy efficiency. If it is deficient, you'll have to fix that. Of course, Big Government is here to help right? Well, kind of. There are limits of a program supported by this bill (Retrofit for Energy Efficiency Program - REEP) where the government will subsidize some of the changes...up to 50% of the costs. Need to drop in a new HVAC unit for $10,000? Maybe new windows? insulation? Add it up, and you're footing half the bill. Oh, and yes, the costs of the inspection. And there are provisions for what kind of light bulbs and what wattage bulbs you can use in your house. 'Puter is going to have a cow when they mandate that he destroy his wood burning stove as it likely won't meet their standards.

Don't forget, this bill comes on the tail of the Obama administration's suppression of an EPA report by a 35-year veteran of the EPA wherein it states that "that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s 'little evidence' that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature." Where have you seen that before?

And don't forget, we just had a housing crisis - so who is going to fix up all those foreclosures so they meet this new code?? Just freaking ridiculous...Waxman and Markley need to be asking one question, "do you want fries with that?" They have no business representing America in this fashion.

For more education on this big brother bill clearly backed by the Big Environment, check out this excellent blog post at And So it Goes in Shreveport and the American Issues Project.

"Land of the Free" - not for much longer.

The Uyghur riots in China—and Andy McCarthy’s foolish snark

The Volgi says "OOY-ghur," but that's because he knows Turkic languages.

The Volgi has a lot of respect for Andrew McCarthy on a whole range of issues, but he paints with far too broad a brush here. He's tarring an entire ethnic group with the terrorist affiliation of, what, twenty two guys at Guantánamo? Come on. This is simultaneously fatuous and bigoted.

The Uyghurs are a large ethnic and religious minority (at least ten million, probably more) in an oppressive—and profoundly racist—dictatorship. That their disquiet periodically bubbles up into rioting should be no surprise. And we should stand with them, as we do with the similarly oppressed Tibetans when it happens in Lhasa—as it does in Kashgar or Ürümchi.

There is no large-scale Islamist movement in Eastern Turkestan (which the Commies call Xinjiang* and the Gormogons are considering calling Uyghurstan just to piss them off). Though world neglect of the Uyghurs’ legitimate complaints could conceivably lead them to despair and turn to such violence and fanaticism. After all, that’s Hizb ut-Tahrir’s mission in life: to radicalize dissatisfied Muslims into fascist Islamists. When something that looks Islamist shows up in that region, then we can add it to our rogues gallery, as we did the small (possibly fictitious) Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM).
Historically, however, most organized Uyghur movements have been—as one would expect from a Turkic culture whose religious practice was dominated by Sufi orders—nationalist. See that flag up there? That’s the Eastern Turkestan Republic flag. It was briefly independent from 1933–1934. A second ETR popped up from 1944–49, also flying a blue-sky flag (blue being a sacred color in the Turco-Mongol tradition) with a Muslim crescent in star.

Their obvious model was Turkey—not the Soviets from whom they took aid. Hence the picture at right at the Eastern Turkestan Foundation’s Cultural Center in Istanbul. It‘s not just sucking up to the host government. Most Central Asian independence movements took Atatürk as their guide. Not insignificantly, Ahmad Zeki Velidi Togan, leader of the Bashkir independence movement, settled in Istanbul when the Red Army chased him out.

Uyghur leaders are resolutely secular, and while Islam serves to reinforce the Uyghur nationalism and their feeling of “difference,” Islamist-style ideology is all but absent.

So the equation of Uyghur ethnic unrest with Islamist terror is—I use these words advisedly—facile and stupid.

The riots’ indirect cause was a Han Chinese mob attack on Uyghur workers at a Shaoguan toy factory, sparked by a rumor that Uyghur employees were raping Han women. Eighteen Uyghurs were killed and three hundred injured. (Some video of the attack. One source translates one of the Chinese assailants screaming at his victim, “Aren’t you dead yet?”)

Subsequently, a thousand or so Uyghurs marched in the provincial capital of Ürümchi (“Wulumqi” on that map; thanks, Peking-friendly Google!) in protest—some said to be waving the PRC’s flag to call for the government to protect all its citizens. They were met by riot police who are said to have shot or beaten people, at which point the protest turned to riots.

This account is largely based on Uyghur-friendly sources and could well be in error, though it’s in absolute character for the PRC, so it looks credible at first glance.

What any of this has to do with Islam or terrorism is completely opaque to your Volgi. Unless Mr. McCarthy is willing to state a belief that all Muslims worldwide are necessarily given to religious fanaticism and hatred, he should withdraw his statement implying Uyghurs are inherently violent because they’re Muslims. If not, National Review should inform him that he no longer need comment on affairs touching on Islam, since they can be adequately expressed in the simple equation, “Muslims are bad” which can be easily appended under his name to any discussion of world affairs with a simple keystroke macro .

One hopes Mr. McCarthy was simply blogging off-the-cuff and will subsequently understand and regret that he’s essentially excused despotic and racist Communist oppression of a culturally and politically despised minority because of the minority’s religion. If not, well, reading him in the future will require choking down a huge quantity of salt.

*Though Wade-Giles is the official Chinese romanization of the Gormogons, we’ll let the ugly Pinyin stand in the Commie neologism.

Sad, but…

Fans Flock to Mourn California, 1849-2009

LOS ANGELES - Millions of fans from around the globe gathered along Sunset Boulevard to pay final respects to California today, as a slow moving funeral procession transported the eccentric superstar state's remains to its final resting place in a Winchell's Donuts dumpster in Van Nuys. The self-proclaimed 'King of Pop Culture' died last week at 160, in what coroners ruled an accidental case of financial autoerotic asphyxiation. The death sent shock waves across the world and sparked an outpouring of grief by rabid fans.

By the inimitable Iowahawk.

Good Ad

Maybe the GOP is reading us here.

h/t Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard

You Write 'Em. Try Reading 'Em.

Karl Rove, subject of numerous liberal consipracy theories, is testifying on Capitol Hill today before Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Rove's testimony concerns President Bush's (43) firing of several United States Attorneys. Democrats claim that President Bush's firing of the USAs was politically motivated, and therefore a dastardly plot by RethugliKKKans to enslave all of humanity.

'Puter hopes Mr. Rove gives the committee a little review of the United States Code (28 USC §541(c)), with a healthy dose of sarcasm. USAs serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. No explanation required. 'Puter remembers a president who uncerimoniously fired all of the USAs when he took office. No uproar in liberal quarters about that. Where's the investigation of President Obama firing and replacing USAs as he entered office? 'Puter's waiting.

The official liberal line is that it's OK for Presidents Obama and Clinton to fire USAs when entering office, but not OK for President Bush to fire 8 or 9 USAs in the middle of his term.

Oh. Well, then. If you say so. 'Puter'll just ignore the rule of law and submit to Democrat rule by fiat now and beat the rush.

Genius, Genius I Say!

So speaks The Carbon Fibber: The Holy Obaman Empire has more Czars than Czarist Russia AND The Gormogons combined.

The Czar of Muscovy...most pleased with this line. The Carbon Fibber is hereby granted that should he ever visit and spend a night in Muscovy, there shall be no knocks on his hotel door at midnight. Enjoy a full night’s sleep without interruption or firing squad.

The Comedy of Errors

Probably no one noticed it except the Czar, but CNN has a nice summary of everything that’s wrong with the Obama administration.

The story discusses how the GOP is starting to turn the flame up on the Obama economic recovery plan, starting with Joe Biden’s comment that “the truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy.” Once again, Biden reveals the truth behind the incompetence of the Obama administration, that they had no idea what they were getting themselves into.

The President fires back “Rather than say ‘misread,’ we had incomplete information,” thereby maintaining another Obama tradition of explaining to us what all of his staff should have said. And assuming that the President is correct and that Biden is incapable of remembering basic policy as the Number Two Man in the Executive Branch (Jeez, can no one remember their lines?), Obama is really saying that his chief economic advisors, including Tim Geithner, lack a basic understanding of market conditions—even though the causes of the economic crunch were being clearly documented as they were happening. They, like millions of Americans, could have sorted out the situation by reading the WSJ. As ‘Puter might say, they should have put down their Econ 426 tomes and cracked open an Econ 101 book.

All right—either we are incompetent or we are too inexperienced to explain anything we’re doing. Obama supporters, the Czar grants you the freedom to choose which explanation you like.

Then, the President adds that missing information or not, he would not have done anything differently. So the collapse of Chrysler and GM, the misplacement of billions of taxpayer dollars, threatening inflation, and a historically high unemployment rate...the President feels these are all good decisions. Either he thinks these are good for everyone except the victims, or he does not care what the outcomes were, so in addition to choosing between incompetence and inexperience, the supporters can now choose between cruelty or arrogance. No surprise poll after poll shows Americans think he is headed in the wrong, wrong, wrong direction.

The story concludes with a quote: “One thing that we’ve seen is that the president’s popularity, while he’s still popular throughout the nation, really is taking hits in key states.” This is not GOP propaganda: the President’s popularity in Ohio has now slipped below 50%. This reveals another suppressed side to the current administration: the Democrats may have won by many millions of votes, but on a state-by-state analysis, Obama actually won only by small percentage points. That mathematical truth is now starting to unravel.

So Obama supporters—who appear fewer in number—you may choose. Is your Hoper and Changer incompetent or inexperienced? Is he cruel or arrogant?

Here Comes The Man, Keeping Us Down

Credit the Obama Administration with consistency if nothing else. When there is a choice between government control and the free market, the Obama Administration will pick government control every time. We've seen it in Government Motors, The Amazing Technicolor Stimulus Plan, the Wonder Twins of TARP and TALF, and ObamaCare. Now the administration is going to regulate the heck out of commodities markets.

An article and an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today lay bare the deficiencies with the Obama Administration's proposals.

First, the article. 'Puter's going to have to go from his memory of his early morning read, because as a Luddite, 'Puter hasn't quite managed to get his online subscription working yet. And his 16k external modem (with dial-up service) takes forever to load a page anyway. For those like 'Puter who can't manage their online selves out of a paper bag, here's WaPo's take. The CFTC is proposing new regulations to shut down "speculative" trading, which the Obama Administration blames for the spikes and crashes in the oil market. The Administration's position is that hedging against increases (or decreases) in prices is fine for those involved in the markets (e.g., airlines, refiners). However, people who play the markets for financial purposes only are an existential threat to life as we know it on Earth.

'Puter's got a message for Mr. Gensler, chair of the CFTC, pictured above. Lighten up. The reason the market is wacky right now is because (1) generally, traders are uncertain as to which way the shaky economy is trending and (2) specifically, traders are uncertain as to what unproven academic theorem the government is going to try out on the economy next. As such, traders have no handle on the demand side of the equation. That is, if the economy is going to go gangbusters, then demand will rise to meet or exceed production quotas set by OPEC, leading to increased prices for the commodity. If the economy tanks, as it has recently, prices will fall, as manufacturing and consumer demand for oil and its products (plastics, chemicals, etc.) will fall. When the future seems uncertain, the markets will reflect that uncertainty in wild price swings. These uncertainty based swings will occur regardless of who the actual market participants are, be they insiders or speculators.

Here's some free advice for Mr. Gensler. If you want to have a market that actually reflects the worth of a commodity, welcome all players. Markets do a pretty good job of setting prices, as even speculators are in it for the money. Also, how about doing something about the cartel gaming the supply side of the equation? 'Puter's pretty certain that OPEC nations' monopolistic setting of production levels has a greater impact on the oil futures market than all the speculating hedge funds combined.

Now, the opinion piece. You may have heard of its authors, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Both the Prime Minister and Monsiuer le President make the same error our homegrown CFTC makes. Brown and Sarkozy blame the market participants for market fluctuations rather than those pesky bastards Mr. Supply and Ms. Demand. Blaming the market for doing what it is supposed to do (i.e., mirror extant conditions) is madness. And the proposed "solution" of additional government regulation (in this case, ill thought out world government regulation) will only exacerbate market instability. If the markets are regulated so that they will not reflect reality, what private capital providers in their right mind would participate? And when private capital flees, what happens to the markets then?

Both the United States and its European allies propose a heavy-handed solution to a non-existent problem certain to cause consumers pain in the wallet. For our governmental betters, increased government regulation is the solution to every problem, consequences be damned.

The sheep's clothing comes off

Remember that whole "I wasn't briefed, I forget, they lied" tiff between Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the CIA? It shouldn't be fading away and with recent events, they likely will resurface. The 2010 Intelligence Bill was recently being marked up as it made it's way through Congress. Rep. Hoekstra offered up an amendment to require the CIA to publish an unclassified record of their briefings to Congress as well as disclose the information gathered from the interrogations that people have been decrying. An interesting move, no? The democrats have wanted the second part for years and what's so bad about the first part? Right, it might be proven that Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) lied to the American public for political gain and that is widely frowned upon by the American public regardless of party affiliation. The amendment went down in flames along party lines, so what should be the headline? How about, "Democrats Suppress Effort to Release CIA Interrogation Information" - how do you think that would fly over on the MoveOn.org message boards or on HuffPo?

The prior effort, initiated by Rob Bishop (R-UT), calling for a bipartisan investigation into Speaker Pelosi's (D-CA) claims that Congress was lied to by the CIA was also killed by congressional democrats. Do we need much more proof that the congressional democrats are playing politics with our intelligence community? Have we learned nothing from 9/11 and the subsequent investigations and reports about our intelligence apparatus? When clandestine agents need to worry about federal government investigations four years or more after their actions, it isn't a large leap to believe that our capabilities for intelligence gathering will be hampered.

If President Obama and/or the current Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, wanted to shake things up and make a statement about some democrats committment to a strong intelligence program, they would take this on head-on. Challenge the congressional democrats and Speaker Pelosi. I don't see that coming anytime soon, though. With the struggles that the Obama administration is facing through the mis-steps documented here with the "Amateur Hour" tag, it isn't likely that a public war between party members will erupt.

So let's turn to the other party - the GOP should be capitalizing on this. They should be putting out press releases with titles like the one above. Challenge the democrats on this. If the democrats aren't going to investigate allegations by the number 3 ranking person in our federal government that one of our own intelligence agencies is lying to congressional oversight then ask them why not? Is the allegation false (more than likely)? Are the democrats going to hide behind the veil that they don't want to damage the CIA (how is that going to fly with the far left)? The CIA chief has invited such an investigation, so there's not much of a screen to cower behind.

It should be eminently clear to our dear readers: the democrats, in congress and in the White House, are playing politics and stumbling through it. When they go astray, likely on the whim of a special interest group, they dig these holes for themselves. We have an ineffective media to provide any sort of foil to the administration....although maybe that's changing:

Manas stays open!

Good news on the Kyrgyz front. We made a deal on Manas. Tripled the rent, so that‘s a nice benny for the Kyrgyzstan honchos.

Seriously, though, good news in that it’s a significant bit of assistance to logistically supporting our forces in Afghanistan.

So, well done, DOD, State, or whoever got this done. Κυδος!

(And, hey, good for the Kyrgyz in showing some strategic wisdom.)

Picture: A Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft moves into position to receive fuel May 28, 2008 from a KC-135R Stratotanker during a mission over Afghanistan. The KC-135R is assigned to the 22nd Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, 376th Air Expeditionary Wing [based at Manas] and is deployed from Fairchild Air Force Base Wash. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway) (Released)

David Satter on the results of Obama’s summiteering

The upshot of all this is that the task of keeping Russia’s imperialist pretensions under control has just gotten harder.

Preaching to the хуйr

From The Guardian’s coverage of POTUS Obama’s trip to Russia, comes this:

Without mentioning Russia by name, Obama spelled out the US’s commitment to “universal values.” These included the rule of law, the equal administration of justice, and competitive elections—all things missing from Putin’s vertically managed authoritarian state.

Yes, Putin should learn the value of these things, as should our own President.

Rule of law? Yeah, but not in US bankruptcy courts.

Equal administration of justice? Sure, but not if you’re a wise Latina who can see the value in reverse discrimination.

Competitive elections? Sure, but we will more vocally support the outcome of non-competitive ones, such as in Iran, Honduras, Venezuela, and so on. We have to: otherwise, people might wonder how the President wound up with 20 czars (the actual number may be 31 as of today), none of whom were elected nor vetted and approved by bipartisan authorities.

Putin has a lot to learn from us?

Picture via GraniteGrok.

Misplaced Priorities

Hold on, folks, 'Puter feels a multi-tiered stem winder coming on here, prompted by the lavish attention showered on Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson was many things, most of bad, and all of no lasting consequence. Quick! Think of one thing about Michael Jackson that will be of any moment 100 years from now. You can't.

What do we know with certainty about Mr. Jackson? He was arguably a pioneer in the crappiest of all musical genres, pop. His talent and abilities waned as he aged gracelessly. He blew through money like Mayor For Life Marion Barry blows through crack and hookers. He was at a minimum a devotee of plastic surgery, if not an outright addict, to the detriment of his looks. He surrounded himself with yes men and hangers on more concerned with Mr. Jackson's wealth than his health. He called one of his kids Blanket, as if that won't come up in therapy for the rest of the kid's life. In short, Mr. Jackson was a marginally musically talented absolute wreck of a human being. And 'Puter's opinion stated above leaves aside the numerous allegations that Mr. Jackson molested children, one of the most heinous crimes around.

And so how does the world react to the death of this idiot man child? With a full-on two week fist-pounding, screaming media orgasm. Oh, and a "memorial service"fit for royalty. If by royalty you mean tacky Hollywood flashes in the pan, complete with sycophantic hangers-on. 'Puter's looking at you "Reverend" Jackson and "Reverend" Sharpton.

Where has our perspective gone? Did we have such reactions to the death of men and women whose lives were far more consequential? Ah, 'Puter recalls fondly the weeping in the streets and two week period of national mourning for the death of Dr. Jonas Salk, savior of hundreds of millions of potential polio victims. Wait, didn't happen.

And before 'Puter gets inundated with 326 versions of "ZOMG! 'Puter, don't you understand!?! MICHAEL TOUCHED ME DEEPLY!!!11!1!1!," let 'Puter explain. 'Puter's not denying that Michael Jackson moved you, 'Puter's just calling you a shallow, self-absorbed pack of weenies with no sense of historical perspective.

Can we now please move on from this pathetic man's tragic existence and get back to discussing things that matter? There's no shortage of issues of consequence with which to deal. Here's a few freebies for the media and serious people to bandy about: nationalization of health care; faltering world economy; Iran; North Korea; and Honduras. 'Puter's left about a jillion things more important than Michael Jackson's death off the list.

Now get back to work, dammit!

Unforeseen Development! Supplication slapped down as impotence… Page III

Toilet-bowl-dictatorship edition!

So, we reach out…and are slapped down—by Zimfreakingbabwe.

Mr Mugabe told The Herald newspaper in Zimbabwe that nothing came out of his talks with Mr Carson - his first meeting with a US government official for many years.

"You would not speak to an idiot of that nature," he said. "I was very angry with him, and he thinks he could dictate to us what to do and what not to do."

Inconceivable, right? Well, no.

And the pics keep on coming