Move this...

From realpolitics.com

"On Tuesday at the State of the Union, I laid out my vision for how we move forward," President Obama said at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Nevada. "I laid out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last, that has a firm foundation. Where we're making stuff and selling stuff and moving it around and UPS drivers are dropping things off everywhere."

Mr. President, making, moving, and selling requires something called energy. You use it to do work. The cheaper the energy is, the easier it will be for America to get back to work. Feel free to call Dr. J. if you have any questions on the relationship between economic policy. His number is 1-800-Cas-Gorm, ext. 1977, and leave a message with 2-1B. We'll have the Lil Resident call you back since she's learning all simple machines and qualitative physics this π'th grade at the Jedi Academy...

Musings on Campaign Directions

It will be interesting to see followup polls from the debate.

Romney definitely put himself ahead of Gingrich. But did Santorum lift himself higher than Gingrich as well? The Czar is not making a prediction, but advises you not be surprised if Santorum went into second place nationally, if not just Florida alone.

There seems to be some merit to the analyses that suggest Gingrich voters will almost certainly flock en masse to Santorum if the former drops out of the race; this would put Santorum ahead of Romney, and we would expect to see many Romney supporters defect to Santorum merely because he would represent a valid alternative. This alone could put Santorum ahead of Romney as well.

The Mandarin said it at lunch yesterday: Rick Santorum is running a heckuva good, smart campaign. Not that Romney will sit back and let it all happen: this promises to get even better.

Newt Doesn't Care for 3 on 1

Wow, thank goodness for audience participation. CNN allowed the crowd to jump in, and it was awesome when (a) Ron Paul led them in a call-response with “Bicycle Built For Two,” and (b) Rick Santorum had them conjugate amō, amās, amat, amāmus, amātis, amant several times while (c) Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney did full contact MMA-fighting in a fully fenced-in octagon.

Wolf Blitzer, whom the Цесаревич referred to as Wolf Schneiser, asked a mix of good and really painful questions. We should probably get onto that.

Not a great night for Newt Gingrich. If you like Newt, you will note he answered with his usual confidence and sound byte stingers. If you do not like Newt, you will agree he got hit from all three sides. The Czar thinks this was Gingrich’s weakest debate by far. He mustered much applause, but not as much as he has been getting. And he was clearly flummoxed when Ron Paul (no, seriously) said that he researched Gingrich’s claim about balancing the budget four times, and found that was never strictly true, but only technically true if you changed the definition of budget to exclude social security. Santorum hit Gingrich very hard on cap and trade and global warming (less effectively on healthcare, largely because Gingrich suddenly pivoted and announced Ron Paul had a better position). Romney jumped on Gingrich repeatedly over erratic and inflammatory language used in interviews. Overall, Newt Gingrich came off looking pretty well worn.

Gingrich’s absolute worst moment was when Santorum and Romney tag-teamed with a terrible knockout blow—Gingrich has consistently walked into every primary state and delivered a different, ridiculous multi-billion-dollar promise to those voters. Santorum said that if you add those up, there is no way he can avoid a massive government debt pileup; Romney said that this shows Gingrich simply makes stuff up to win voters, and has no sensible message to conservatives. Gingrich had no clear response other than to shrug and say he thought it was a candidate’s job to build big ideas and provide vision. This defense provoked little applause.

And who is this new Mitt Romney? His new debate coach is working, because Romney looked tougher by far, and much less willing to bend backwards. Unfortunately, he channeled this tough guy persona into some solid hits on Newt Gingrich, and was more than unprepared for another onslaught from Rick Santorum about Romneycare. The Czar thought for a moment that, when Santorum cited a study that one out of five residents of Massachusetts are receiving inadequate levels of healthcare due to costs, Romney was )this close( to saying “That’ bullshit!” He almost did, but checked himself at the b. Unfortunately, just as he did before, Santorum used Romney’s refutation to dump even more egregious examples of RomneyCare’s failings on the audience. The more Rick Santorum hit Mitt Romney, too, the more the audience applauded.

Santorum’s finest moment was when he tore a page out of Newt Gingrich’s playbook, and fired a cannon at Wolf Schneiser Blitzer. Wow, the Czar really mixed metaphors there. The point is that Rick Santorum lost his temper in a highly productive way.

For about ten solid minutes, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney badgered each other, back and forth, about each other’s finances. Gingrich hit Romney on his offshore accounts, while Mitt Romney peppered Gingrich with chides about his Freddie Mac consulting work really being lobbying. Blitzer asked Santorum what he thought, and Santorum said, in essence, (a) Newt Gingrich is an expert at Congressional politics, and took a paying job to provide them advice, which he was uniquely suited to do, (b) Mitt Romney is a legitimate success who earned his money legally, ethically, and paid all his taxes and donates a hell of a lot to charity, so (c) drop it already. Get to the questions that matter! Americans do not care about either story. Huge applause, and Gingrich delivered a visible thank you. Best line of the night, bar none.

Second best line was an insightful joke by Ron Paul. The question was what each candidate would say if he received a phone call from Raul Castro of Cuba; what would you tell him? Ron Paul had a quzzical look on his face and asked “Why would he be calling me?” In those six words, he took all the air out of a dumb question.

Worst question: should Puerto Rico become the 51st state? Santorum got to go first, and shut it right down. He explained that isn’t the President’s decision at all. In fact, there is a whole process carefully spelled out about how states join the union, starting right with whether Puerto Ricans want statehood. Then it goes from there. A ridiculous question, probably insulting to the thousands of other questions Puerto Ricans want answered first, because the President is the last step in the process, and in most ways the least critical.

All four of the candidates had their absolute best moment in an off-the-wall question about why each of their respective wives would make a good First Lady. Ron Paul treated the question with humor, and seemed exactly like the grandfather who makes a stunningly sweet and sensitive speech at an anniversary dinner. Mitt Romney described his wife with such pride over her triumphs over adversity that you saw there really is someone in Mitt’s world more important than him. Gingrich politely (but a bit awkardly given his history) stated that he is impressed by all of the candidates’ wives, but wrapped up with a very nice description of how much class his wife radiates. She looked stunning, by the way. And Rick Santorum, whose wife was at home with the kids, delivered a choked-up speech about how strong his wife was with all their kids, including the death of little Gabriel as well as the tribulations their daughter Bella is working through. The question was dumb, but the answers totally humanized each of these guys in a different way.

Winner? Hard to say: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum had outstanding nights; Mitt Romney looked very different, and very aggressive—too bad he squandered it playing verbal grab-ass with Newt Gingrich. And Gingrich, as we said, probably had his worst debate night so far. Too many of his oddball claims, promises, and on-the-record quips are coming up to haunt him, and both Romney and Santorum seem to know exactly how to throw him to the floor.

The next debate, which will probably be in ten more minutes the way they’ve been scheduling them, ought to be even more interesting.

Things 'Puter Learned During His Hiatus

As all 4.3 billion readers of this site and all two of 'Puter's fans have surely noticed, 'Puter's been absent of late, except for the odd Twitter posting. 'Puter's been working on negotiating, papering and closing the sale of a portfolio of sub and non-performing loans.

In the course of the transaction, 'Puter had to interact with seller's counsel and purchaser's counsel, as well as with the business principals on both sides.

Seller's counsel is a contemporary of 'Puter's, born and raised south of the Mason-Dixon line. 'Puter's worked both with this specific counsel and her firm before. She is a savvy and pragmatic attorney who has also cut her teeth on these sorts of transactions. She has a thick Virginia accent, which is, for those not in the know, quite pleasant.

Purchaser's counsel is about 7 years younger than 'Puter, a Chicago native who left the cozy confines to move to New York City and work for a glamorous bit-named firm for large dollars. Her expertise is in papering collateralized mortgage backed securities ("CMBS") transactions. If CMBS sounds familiar, it's because those are the instruments Wall Street created to leverage your mortgage, slicing and dicing it into ever-smaller portions and selling the subprime instruments as "A" paper. Not that disguising riskier paper as gilt-edged would contribute to anything negative, like a massive housing bubble and subsequent nationwide economic coronary or anything. Purchaser's counsel had never papered a deal like this before, but she assumed it would be no different from her big city, high powered CMBS securitizations.

Wrong.

And from there, hilarity ensues. Watch for tomorrow's exciting installment, now with more banking regulation induced insanity! Also, 'Puter uses swear words he didn't know he even knew!

Need More Mailbag

When you have readers such as the ones we have, it does make our work a bit easier.  Operative BG writes in with the following after toweling off having been slimed by the slippery lies:

Last year, President Obama spoke at George Washington University, and said, in part, "We believe, in the words of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves."

Then in his SOTU address this week, he paraphrased Lincoln again: " I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more."

There's a subtle but important change in what he's saying there, which I'll get to shortly.

1) In the George Washington University speech, he doesn't say government should just do what individuals, groups, or businesses can't do at all; he's saying government should do things that it can do better. And how do you find out whether government can do better? You start a little program, then when it doesn't work as well as the private sector, you claim that it just needs more funding. And more funding. And more funding. All government programs need more funding, in the liberals' eyes (except for national defense, of course, which always needs less). Eventually, your little government program has grown to monstrous size with monstrous consequences. The KKK could not have come up with a better plan to destroy the black family than our welfare system, which was somehow supposed to be better than private charity.

2) Here's what Lincoln actually said: "The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere." (emphasis mine)

Note Lincoln's restrictions: First, that it has to be something we actually need to have done, and second, it has to be something that people can't do as well as government. In both speeches, Obama dispenses entirely with the first requirement, and in the SOTU address, he raises the bar for the people by requiring that they be able to do better than government, rather than just as well. In other words, as far as Obama is concerned, government should do anything that government thinks it can do just as well as individuals, whereas Lincoln said that if the people individually can do just as well by themselves, government should butt out. Lincoln was stating how government should be restricted; Obama twists what Lincoln said into a justification for more government.

It's a slippery lie, but that's one thing Obama excels at.

It is a slippery lie but here's the twist - Obama and other liberals will pass judgment as to what a person can and can't do well for themselves and what we need and don't need. This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives truly believe in the power of the individual (or groups of individuals - in other words, companies). It is what made America great.  Thanks, BG!

First Drafts Reveal So Much

Your Czarness,

Greetings from your Bongburgher.

I have a contact on Capitol Hill which has provided me with an early draft of the President's SOTU. I submit it to you via passenger pigeon as part of the historical record. It is, I fear, the only copy in existence.

Good hunting,

B.B.
-------

The State of the Union, as prepared: (draft)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. For the first time in more than nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. Let me juxtapose this with the fact that, for the first time in more than nine years, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country, even though I have long maintained that there is absolutely no connection between the service of our brave fighting men and women in Iraq and the fact that the Taliban’s momentum has been broken.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed my very low expectations. They’re not consumed with personal vanity. They don’t obsess over their differences in race, religion, social or economic standing. They focus on the mission at hand, not content to give a flowery speech while letting their dwindling number of congressional allies do the heavy lifting.

Imagine what I could do if I followed their example. Unfortunately, I must spend too much of my valuable personal time promoting our nation’s golf courses, tourist attractions, and soda fountains.

My grandfather, then an honorably discharged veteran of Patton’s Army, in a story that will never appear in a history book, personally liberated Auschwitz by clinging to his guns, religion, and a handcrafted mess kit made from organic materials manufactured on an assembly line by my grandmother in a union shop using green energy.

We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of ivy league graduates do really well, or we can restore an economy where everyone plays by the same rules. Because the goal of the progressive vision now is to restore America to the world of the 1950s – an America that promised if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and let someone else take care of your retirement.

Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, and thus totally unconnected from it, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. More recently, technology made businesses more efficient and made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before. So these three things: Technology, Efficiency, and Rising Incomes are to blame for our recession. QED.

In 2008, a year that I will never forget, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who could not afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets with other people’s money, knowing they were too big to fail and that, provided they were well connected with political leaders, regulators would look the other way.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And to make sure that it never happens in exactly the same way again, I have made many of those responsible my most trusted advisers and confidants, while the rest I have pilloried publicly, holding them accountable for the poor decisions of others.

In one period of time four million jobs were lost. In another period of time four million jobs were lost. Those are some facts. So are these: Two plus Two is Four. Pluto is not a planet. American manufacturers are creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together manufacturers and I have agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 million. And we have put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable to federal regulators.

The 57 states of our union are getting stronger. And we have traveled too far down the road I have led you to turn back. As long as I am President, I will work with anyone who agrees with me. But I will fight obstruction with extra-constitutional action. And I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.

No longer will Americans fear the specters of Technology, Efficiency, and Rising Incomes.

This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other cities. It could happen in Milwaukee or Pittsburgh or Raleigh. [Srsly, should we be holding Detroit up as our model of the future? Oh, screw it. No one is paying attention, just include some shout-outs to purple states –Ed.]

Hello Cleveland!

Hello Kitty!

My message to business leaders is simple. Ask yourselves what you can do for the AFL-CIO, or I will seize your assets, defraud your bondholders, and cast you as villains.

We should start with our tax code. It is incredibly complicated, so complicated, in fact, that my own secretary of the Treasury could not figure it out despite the best software available on the open market. It is even more complicated for businesses and manufacturers who can, with the help of an army of accountants and lawyers, position themselves to take advantage of deductions, exemptions and tax shelters. Therefore, tonight I propose a new set of deductions, exemptions, and tax shelters that will cure the problems caused by the ones that already exist.

We are also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the planet. I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products – especially if it is a warm and sunny location. But if Norway needs butter, I will sell it to them myself. If Iran wants centrifuges and mass spectrometers for medicinal purposes, I will hand deliver them. If North Korea’s new leader wants to supplement his late father’s movie collection, I will send him the latest releases in the digital or analog format of his choice. And if Pakistan wants the latest military helicopter or drone with stealth technology, I will send them one on spec.

America’s future lies in manufacturing tires and antagonizing our existing trading partners.

Tonight I am announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit whose sole function is to remind China of the humiliation that nation suffered as a result of the Opium Wars. Here’s what they will do: they will investigate unfair trade practices in China, prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from China from crossing our borders, and they will open new markets in China for American goods and services by dividing China into ‘spheres of influence’ so that American manufacturers can compete on a level playing field in China. To sum up, we will address the problems of the 21st century by using the methods that failed so horribly in the 19th.

Our workers are the most productive on Earth.

There is no possible way to segue to my next point, but here goes: Many business leaders in the United States can’t find workers with the right skills.

Growing industries have more job openings than those in decline. Think about that – industry, which, you know, produces the goods and services that make up our economy, is constantly adjusting and adapting to change.

That’s inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.

Here is an anecdote in which an evil corporation got so fed up with the educational system that it took over the apparatus of a community college in order to train a worker, thus ensuring that she has the necessary skills and aptitude before giving her a paycheck.

This is what I like to call “a solution in need of a problem”. Since these and like partnerships exist and seem to function perfectly well, we must pour federal money into our community colleges, thus restoring them to their rightful place – career centers for paper shuffling administrators living off the public trough, exploiters of adjunct instructors and occupiers of valuable real estate.

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people have only one place to go for all the information and help they need. Because if there’s one thing the federal government is good at, it’s making one-size-fits-all databases and putting them up on the web. Just ask my good friend Joe Biden, here, about his work with recovery.org.

But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them. And since knowing is half the battle, we’re already halfway there.

I believe as strongly as I ever have that we should take on illegal immigration. The fact that there are fewer illegal crossings today than four years ago has nothing at all to do with our nation’s economic downturn. And my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. [OMG!!! Do you think anyone will get the Boot Hill ref? LOL!!! – Ed.]

Red tape is bad. So, when I get back from my next vacation, I will sign an Executive Order banning the use of red tape in all construction projects. The bridge to America’s future will be held together not with red tape but by American-made duct tape!

Remember how I talked about banks selling people mortgages that they couldn’t understand? And how they took big bets with other people’s money? And how regulators looked the other way? No? Good. Now listen here:

I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives homeowners a chance to save $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates that I heard about on a radio ad. No red tape. No questions asked. I will demand that banks give you free money, then pay for this by assessing them a fee which in no way could possibly be passed on to you. And, unlike my “Making Home Affordable” program, this one will be heavily advertised on television with a catchy theme song and images of people who look just like people who might need help.

We’ve already paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, so this time we should be able to get them for free, or at least a steep discount.

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on working Americans while the economy is still fragile. Because I recognize that failing to extend a tax cut is the same as a tax hike. Right now, we are poised to spend nearly $1 trillion on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for people who make more than me. Let me be perfectly clear: Refusing to extend a tax cut is not the same as a tax hike.

Jimmy Buffett rules!

All government spending is an investment. But when a wealthy individual invests his or her own money, that can be problematic. That kind of investment might result in the person becoming wealthier, setting up a cycle in which the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. I think we can all agree that we would feel better off if the wealthiest Americans just poured their money into a big hole and then covered it up with dirt. This would also create jobs.

I’m a Democrat. So when you hear me say that my education plan offers more competition and local control, you know I’m not really serious. But my Republican friends who complain about Government spending, like my best buddy Tom Coburn, are hypocrites, because they drive on federally financed roads and hold federal office.

So there it is. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. No credit should be given to those who came before us, and no quarter should be granted to those who refuse to get with the program.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Four More Years of This?

Arizona governor Jan Brewer, whom the media will remind you is a Republican governor, had an interesting thing happen to her on the way to the airport. She went to the airport to meet the President, who was arriving on a visit.

Shortly after leaving the plane, the President allegedly lit up into her about some comments she made in a book, in which she described him as patronizing and dismissive. The President, as we keep hearing from different sources on both sides of the aisle, apparently is a big freaking crybaby about everything, and scolded her right on the tarmac about what she wrote.

The MSM generally reconstructs the confrontation with the President giving her an earful, because as you know, he is all-powerful and paternal, whereas she is just some dumb Republican woman. But the photos (one is provided above) show a very different bit of body language.

Perhaps the Governor is reminding the President that, thanks to that pesky Constitution, she does not report to him, and he does not have the right to treat her with disrespect in her own state in front of her own staff. Perhaps she reminded him that Arizona is a perfect example of his failed policies, and that his visit here is partially because of the massive screw up he caused on his inane and absent immigration enforcement policies.

The Governor said that the exchange ended well, with her inviting him for a return visit in which he can actually see the tragedy happening on the border, as well as have a nice lunch to talk about things in an adult manner. The President’s staff is not describing the incident in any on-the-record detail, which unfortunately shows who really won any contest between them.

Mailbag: Folks Cater to the Czar's Whims

As the Czar predicted (some might say begged for), emails have been flooding in (some might say two arrived) about the Czar’s tribute to Kolchak: The Night Stalker television series.

ScottO, the @AgStateSense, writes in:

O Great and All-Knowing Czar,

Not wishing to disappoint Your Czarness, I just had to tell you I also loved Kolchak: The Night Stalker. I was about the age of the Цесаревич when it aired, and my dad was almost as cool as you, so I got to stay up and watch it every week. I was also very sad when I learned it was no longer being aired.

Since then, anytime I saw that Darren McGavin was in something, I'd watch if I could. Boy, was I glad of that when A Christmas Story came on! I was devastated when I heard he'd died.

Your uncreeped minion,
ScottO
@AgStateSense

Thanks! The Czar pointed out to ScottO that everyone the Czar met who loved the television series always remembers one or two specific scenes from it, usually in considerable detail. We asked ScottO what his were, and of course, he said he couldn’t remember a single one. There is one in every crowd.

And Dr. J puts forth an interoffice memo (you can tell the interoffice ones: more blood stains because we tend to reuse paper):

I couldn't hold out the email any longer.

Loved that show too. I was introduced to it when The Night Stalker and The Night Strangler were broadcast on UHF one October Saturday afternoon when I was in late Junior High or early High School. Darren McGavin will always be one of my favorite character actors. I will definitely tap into You Tube tv and such as our Blu-rays and AppleTV are linked.

Thanks for awakening some dusty neurons today.

P.S. You owe me two dollars for the Predators victory the other night.

Now don’t get us wrong: The X-Files was a very successful show, and its creator worshipped Kolchak: The Night Stalker as its inspiration. But the two shows were very different in execution, style, theme, and atmosphere. Kolchak: The Night Stalker was fun and satirical; The X-Files seemed overly staged and too into itself, even though Darren McGavin was brought back late into the show’s demise to pick up its ratings.

Mailbag - Arizona Popery Edition

Operative ME writes in regarding Dr. J.'s post on the new HHS policies yesterday. 

Dear Dr. J., 

Excellent post on Catholicism, conscience and contraception. When I first heard of Secretary Sibelius's proposal to bring to deny religious-affiliated organizations such as Catholic schools an opt-out on the mandatory contraception coverage because they weren't religious enough I was puzzled because I have been told these many years that Catholic schools were denied access to public dollars because they were too religious. 

Where I come from we call that being whip-sawed and it's a most uncivil action. 

Back in my home state of Arizona, there has been a real effort by the Diocese of Phoenix to ensure that Catholic organization espouse Catholic values and it has come with some real costs. The Bishop has recently stripped the largest Catholic hospital in the state of its Catholic affiliation for failure to adhere to Catholic values; back in my family's parish the the pastor fired the principal of the nationally recognized parish school for inattention in teaching Catholic dogma. However adherence to religious values does not fall under the Obama Administration's criteria; the only way for Catholic schools and hospitals to meet them is to close their doors to outsiders, to essentially withdraw from the public square. 

Beyond the immediate affront to religious values, the real danger from the Obama Administration is its assault on civil society. While we have a national identity, our society is composed of a mosaic of what Burke called "the little platoons." In our vast country most every one can find a place and fellowship that meets their values and goals, where they can be left alone from the larger tyrannies of life. To establish mandatory national norms for coverage is at best an enroachment of government on that civil society; to include in those norms items which are offensive to the deepest values of millions of Americans is nothing but a deliberate assault. 

You know for all those years, the progressive left has been pushing the concept of American multiculturalism and a national mosaic, all pretty words, but when the same people actually get some power in their hands the mask drops and they try and break parts of that cultural mosaic to their vision. The cost of the their mad dreams will be to rip civil society asunder and history teaches us where that leads. 

These contraception proposals are the fire bell in the night of what is to come if these people are allowed to remain in government for it will only get worse. 

The other week the Gormogons had a debate on whether Obama was incompetent or evil. For me, this action has settled the debate for nothing but a heart of malice would have even conceived of the idea. 

Best Wishes, 

Operative ME

Dr. J. couldn't have said it better himself.

Club Gormogon — The @MBernadetteE Edition

Chanticleer — Ave Maria/Angelus (Franz Biebl, arr.)



Robert Preston — Marian the Librarian



Lyle Lovett — Penguins

(Sorry, no embedding the last one. Worth the click through, though…)

Déjà vu All Over Again

Great bit by the RNC - amazing, one would think that the President hasn't moved anything forward in the last year (and in some examples two years).  Oh wait....



Hat tip to Jonathan Last. Good stuff!

VDH watched the SOTU so Dr. J. didn't have to...

Dr. J. would like to thank Victor David Hanson for his brutally honest appraisal of Mr. Obama's State of the Union Address.

Dr. J. avoided the actual address because the President's speeches make his diastolic blood pressure shoot through the roof. Not good for Dr. J. in the slightest...

The full smackdown can be read here.

Here is a sweet delicious taste:

Given soaring gasoline prices and Solyndra, green was sorta then, and natural gas is sorta now. So Obama takes credit for oil and gas production, but to do so shamelessly must tell untruths: Gas production is up only because of someone else’s private genius utilizing fracking and horizontal drilling — in spite of Obama’s cutting back on 40 percent of federal leases, EPA bullying, cap-and-trade utopianism, and his administration’s canceling things like Keystone — and gasoline demand is down because his economy has been so bad the last three years.

Now go and read the rest of his piece by piece (and perhaps the whole SOTU seminar) smackdown, not that anything he says wasn't running through your mind during the address. After all, we have you well trained....

Obama does not respect freedom of conscience...

Dr. J. is beating a dead horse here, but he is utterly offended by the efforts the President has made (and successfully he might at) at undermining religious freedom when it disagrees with his world view. Dr. J. is specifically discussing the issue requiring religious institutions who take issue with artificial contraception to provide health insurance policies that include access to 'free' (because nothing is free, seriously, it isn't) contraception to its employees. Indeed free contraception will increase health insurance across the board.

Furthermore, Dr. J. has said before and will say again, because contraception is NOT covered by health insurance it is far cheaper (including surgical placement of IUDs, and surgical sterilization) than covered procedures of similar difficulty.

So what are the requirements for exemption? There are four.

(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;

(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets;

(3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets;

and (4) is a nonprofit organization under IRC Secs. 6033(a)(1) and 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii).

So, the Dominican Sisterhood or a Catholic parish is safe under this mandate. However, a university such as hated Notre Dame, erstwhile Georgetown, former football powerhouse Holy Cross, or beloved Belmont Abbey (Dr. J.'s cousin went there) do not meet the burden based on requirements 1, 2 and 3.  Similarly, the hospitals run by the Sisters of Charity do not meet this burden.

Indeed, Catholic prep-schools like St. Joe Prep in Philadelphia and Regis High School and Convent of the Sacred Heart in New York City also probably do not meet the burden of the mandate.

They do not meet this burden because they are schools and hospitals that educate the young and care for the sick. Inculcating is not the purpose of the University or the hospital, though one could make a fairly solid case that a whole bunch of inculcating goes on at the prep-school level. Though the school that produced Nicki Hilton AND Lady Gaga would have to make a pretty compelling case that inculcation was on the agenda.

Again, more so for the for the universities and hospitals, they do not necessarily employ persons who share its religious tenets. Tennessee, for example, is 3.3% Catholic, so you can imagine that Catholic hospitals in there do not meet this burden. Only two states, Massachusetts (51%) and Rhode Island (52%) are majority Catholic, and again, good luck with individual hospitals meeting that burden. Notre Dame's faculty is only 53% Catholic. Is that sufficent?

Regarding the 3rd burden, primarily serving persons who share its religious tenets. Hospitals do not meet this mandate. There is a spectrum of % Catholic at Catholic universities. Given its popularity, Dr. J. would suspect that Notre Dame has the lowest percentage and the guestimate (as there are no publicly published estimate) by alums is ~60-80%. Is that sufficient?

Now the 4th burden, being a not-for-profit is a slam dunk.

As this takes effect in August of 2013, this delays the ability to sue until after the election and the SCOTUS decides on Obamacare, as one cannot sue to test the constitutionality of a law until 'harm' occurs to the plaintiff ('Puter, back me up on this one).

So what Dr. J. is saying is that religious institutions (beyond actual houses of worship) with values that do not align with those of the President and Secretary of HHS, an errant Catholic, must either purchase and provide health insurance products which provide free contraception, OR pay a fine to the Federal Government to help them to subsidize the same.

Dr. J. finds this to be clearly in opposition to our founders' vision of freedom of religion and should be fought against until it is reversed. A great start would be to vote the President out of office and find someone who believes in religious freedom to replace him and his minion at HHS.

Dark Lord of the Sith...

Your Mandarin watched a portion of President Obama’s State of the Union address. One portion of the address that struck your Mandarin as disturbing was when the President, after stating that he wanted Congress to put a bill on his desk that guaranteed a simple up or down vote within 90 days for any appointment, went on to state that he wanted to reform the Executive Branch by “eliminating” the bureaucracy.

Now your Mandarin remembers when the barely watchable episodes I, II, and III of the Star Wars saga were released and everyone drew comparisons of the movies to the Bush administration, and how they were a reflection of how the evil conservatives were hell-bent on destroying “The Republic”.

The irony is that these people were correct on how the movies reflect on the administration – they just had the wrong one.

Your Mandarin is not saying that the Bush administration doesn’t fit into this scenario, it is just that President Bush was much more Chancellor Valorum than Emperor Palpatine.

Think about it. You have a Senator that is able to manipulate a crisis to become the President of the United States. After he takes office, the crisis continues to worsen, but he reassures the Congress that all he needs is a little more latitude and freedom to operate without the constraints of the office of President and the Constitution. And then he addresses a joint session of Congress to ask for the elimination of the bureaucracy so that he can better address the crisis facing the country.

All that is left is for President Obama to announce that he has crushed a plot by the Tea Party to overthrow him, but that it has left him disfigured, and for a greater sense of security and prosperity he is reorganizing the Republic into the first American Empire.

So for those of you playing along at home, yes, Joe Biden would be Count Dooku. We should have believed him when he told us that the Senate was under the influence of a Sith Lord.

If You Can't Say Something Nice

The Chicago Sun-Times announced this week that after seven decades, it will discontinue endorsements of candidates because, well, the whole thing is a bit silly.

The editors have some good arguments: in the age of the Internet, we know more about candidates and their back stories than ever. A newspaper does not need to tell us. From endless analysis on television, we know more about a politician’s positions that we could probably write a PowerPoint comparison. What good does a paper do at this point?

Also, the editors concede, endorsements promote (rightly or wrongly) the idea that bias exists in the media. Henceforth, no more endorsements.

There are at least two other things that remain unsaid.

First, bias exists no matter what. This is hard-wired into human nature—a truly unbiased news story would be unreadable, as it would list nothing more than a collection of random facts arranged in loose chronilogical order. Writers pick specific words and phrases, editors theoretically take out information unimportant to the overall story, the copy editors elect where in the paper the story winds up, and the reader elects to read them or not. These are all decisions formed by preference, and preference is bias. The editors are fooling themselves if they thing the elimination of endorsement practices now corrects the appearance of bias. The bias remains everywhere else.

Second, the Czar cannot help but feel a little sinister about this. What if a newspaper was placed in an untenable position? For example, let us say that the newspaper editors know full well that their readership prefers a certain candidate to be endorsed, but the reality is that the candidate, an incumbent, has done such a pathetic job that there is nothing they can write to justify the endorsement?

What do you do? Do you whip up some high-level fluff about hope and change or something? No, because that regurgitates the pablum from an earlier endorsement. Do you list his accomplishments? But that risks a ridiculously brief sentence. Maybe two, if we are charitable. Do we do the honorable thing and endorse the opposition, even though they have not come close to settling on a specific candidate yet? Of course, then you will likely be accused of racism, if that original candidate were not a white male. Or even if the opposition ran a black male.

Or do we just announce that endorsements are a bad idea and completely wiggle out of it forever?

We just wonder.

The Czar Finds A Use For His Television

Well, the Czar found a superb way to waste an entire evening, which did not involve being further demoralized by the Black Hawks at all.

The Czar’s television set is wired to the Internet. Dunno why, really, but every so often the thing downloads updates from the manufacturer for who knows what purposes.

If you push the network button on the remote, it pops up an interface for Netflix as well as Youtube. We do not use the former, and have no particular interest in the latter when of course we can view Youtube from an iPad or computer elsewhere in the dacha, wirelessly.

But then, this afternoon, the Czar had an interesting idea that cost him the afternoon, dinner, and all the way to after dark. The Czar gathered the kids around the television, fired up Youtube, and in large screen format, watched a handful of classic episodes of Kolchak: The Night Stalker.

The Czar expects to get lots of email on this from Dr. J and assorted types. No, we are not referring to the disastrously unresearched remake a couple of years back, but the original show with Darren McGavin. The Czar loved this show when it was originally on television in the Autumn of 1974 to Spring of 1975. It was cancelled after only one season due to ratings—it spiked early, but viewers got creeped out and went to the friendlier fare of Sanford and Son. The Czar was so upset at the time that he went over to CBS’s local studios and tore them apart with his bare hands, terrifying the employees who tried to tell him that they had nothing to do with the cancellation because (a) the show was produced nationally not locally, and more importantly (b) was an ABC show.

Anyway, most of you probably do not remember it. Younger viewers shrug at the low budget effects, but miss the point of the show: atmosphere. Knowing the special effects budget consisted of even less than what Mandarin carries in his pocket, the directors used shadows, sound effects, and great sets to conceal the deficits and pile on the spook factor. Now add in the charisma of Darren McGavin and his biting sarcasm, brilliance at social engineering, and a superb supporting cast, and you wound up with some very clever shows. And the theme song is surprisingly cool.

Hollywood moguls Bob Gale and Bob Zemeckis wrote for the show, and The Sopranos David Chase cut his teeth working on it. Chris Carter struggled to produce the same feel on the partially ripped-off The X-Files, but never quite found a way to mesh the ingenuity of the show with the well-placed humor. Kolchak: The Night Stalker was exactly why the Czar never enjoyed The X-Files.

Our 9-year-old Цесаревич has seen a couple of episodes before on YouTube (which appear to be complete, except they are divided up into ten and fifteen minute slices), and has always wanted to see more. The 6-year-old Царевич has never seen even a part of one, and got hooked right away. Even the Царица herself drifted into an episode halfway through, grabbed a beef sandwich, sat down, and watched the rest and requested a couple more. She has no recollection of the show on her own, but found it surprisingly entertaining.

Not all the episodes are well-paced, and you do spot palm trees in the show’s Chicago settings, but the City appears as a full-on character itself. The Czar well remembers the Summer of 1974, when most of the stories take place, and Chicago looked exactly like that. Street names, suburbs, and neighborhoods are real and treated authentically. But the star of the show, McGavin, never turns in a bad performance as a first-rate investigative reporter forced to work at a fourth-rate newswire service who continuously finds murders that lack a logical explanation.

Watch a couple and spot actors you forgot about, or barely recognize because they were only youngsters starting out. SEE! Tom Skerritt starring as the junior US Senator from Illinois who never loses an election despite having little experience. That sounds familiar. SEE! Phil Silvers play a relatively straight role as a mensch who doubts his elderly friend was simply eaten by rats. SEE! What happens to people who cut through a funeral procession. It ain’t pretty.

Otherwise, just sit back and see. And have fun. And here come the emails!

What we learned today about Mr. Romney...

For those who didn't get the memo. Mr. Romney is crazy rich. He is worth around $200 million, earning $21.7 million dollars last year. He paid $3 million in taxes and gave almost $3 million away to charitable causes. Most of his money is in IRAs which are not taxed until you retire and take the money out. Most of their taxable income is from investment income.

In other news the Obama administration wants Catholic universities and other organizations to provide insurance plans compliant with the so-called reproductive services mandate by errant Catholic and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Dr. J. is looking forward to the lawsuit.

And, Obama's policies have been an unmitigated disaster (required reading for minions), per Senator DeMint, who has not had the opportunity to vote for a budget for 1000 days, thanks to Majority Leader Harry Reid.

I'm glad the pressing issue of the day is that a Ri¢hie Ri¢h level rich guy who is very generous with his wealth pays his taxes, and not that the current administration is running the economy into the ground and against freedom of religion when it does not agree with their world view.

Great job MSM! Way to keep the eye on the ball.

Tax Delinquency

According to the IRS, just over 98,000 civilian federal employees are delinquent on their federal taxes (this number does not represent any who are on a repayment plan) as of September 2010.  The grand total owed is over $1.03 Billion.  I'm sorry, if you work for the federal government and therefore are drawing your salary from tax revenue, you should be fired.  At a minimum, one would think this is real easy.  The federal government should simply garnish their federal wages in order to recover the money owed.   The data gets worse if one expands that to include all government employees (includes military) and retirees where the total amount due to the United States Treasury is over $3.4 Billion.  I'm glad Timmy Geithner is on top of this.

Mailbag - Heart plug edition

No, not that kind of heart plug. Operative R2DT writes in on thermal printer paper:

Dear Dr. J., 

Ok, I admit it. The subject was just to get your attention, but it is related to the purpose of the email. 

My niece, R2C2, had Geleophysic Dysplasia. She died when she was almost two. At the time, her older sister R2E2, was 5. 

The immediate cause of R2C2's death was heart failure. R2E2, when given the opportunity to raise money for the American Heart Association, literally jumped in with both feet. You can read more of R2C2 and R2E2's story here  - it's worth checking out. She has also created a 1 minute video for her fund raising efforts which you can see here . I'm not asking for money, but I was hoping you could send out a supportive tweet with links. 

Thanks for your time. 

Operative R2DT

Dear R2DT,

Dr. J. is sorry about the loss of your niece. Normally it is not Gormogon policy to use our forum for plugs, and Dr. J. may be on probation as a consequence, however, as you know, Dr. J. has a soft spot for the American Heart Association.  The Jedi Academy, like a legion of independent schools, hosts the AHA Jump Rope for Heart. The lil resident has lead her class in fundraising each year at the school, as the force is strong with that her, and she has no shame with regard to her use of the Jedi mind trick for a good cause.

Now for those not in the know, geleophysic dysplasia is a genetic disease resulting from a defect in the ADAMTS-like-2 gene. We do not know much about the protein. What we know, however is that it can interact with another protein called Latent Transforming Growth Factor-beta Binding Protein-1 (LTBP1). LTBP-1 is an important protein regulating the stretchyness of your connective tissue. Connective tissue is everywhere. It is the mortar between your cells (the bricks). ADAMTS-like-2, if it acts anything like other ADAMTS proteins is an enzyme that directly remodels other proteins, glycoproteins, proteoglycans, or such.

Anyway, for our readers, Geleophysic dysplasia results in short stature, and a classic happy appearing facial expression. Valvular heart disease (both narrowing and leakiness), narrowing of the pulmonary artery and even a hole between the atria can occur. The liver, and windpipe can be affected as well.  (Thank you NIH for the handy dandy summary). The cardiovascular defects, especially the valvular heart disease, can lead to unfavorable remodeling of the heart, and ultimately heart failure.

Well, Operative R2DT, you got Dr. J.'s attention with the rare and interesting disease. You have his deepest sympathies regarding your niece, and good luck to her sister.

Warmest Regards,

Dr. J.

Yep. Absolutely Yep.

Operative CN writes in with a quip so great the Czar laughed at its brilliance!

Regarding your recent article, “Isn't There Anything Bad We Can Find In This?”, here’s the headline as would be reported by gun control groups:

“Teen dead after vigilante shootout”

All they have to do is ignore the parts of the story that don’t fit their narrative. I learned it all from the complimentary copy of their home game!

We truly have the smartest readers in the world.

Mailbag - Diocesan Assessment Edition

Dr. J. received this missive from the Holy Roman Emperor, aka Operative HRE, via Papal bull. Seriously, it was a bull with one of them bunny ear hats. He writes:

Dear Dr. Jay, 

I read your entry, and I really liked it- I know a couple of people in finance, and they're extremely peeved whenever the media mentions it. 

I did note one line you wrote: "Shoot, Dr. J. could probably write a bigger check to his parish weekly than he does." 

You're in luck! My parish is currently accepting donations. 

God Bless, Operative HRE 

PS- I had to try. All the former pastors would haunt me if I didn't.

Heh. You got me there. Mrs. Dr. J. will bump up the check starting next week.

Tomorrow we will find out, BTW how many points Dr. J. got right on Romney tax controversies. This weekend on the news, Dr. J. heard Mitt discuss Mormonphobia and tithing with Chris Wallace. He also read an article on teh webs about Mitt's Cayman Island account. It was also mentioned somewhere that he's really really rich. WSJ is betting on some municipal bond action as well. No sign of any money in Chick-Fil-A, though...

Thanks for writing in!

And The Final Word on Tonight's Debate?

Boring.

None of the fire, really, of the weekend debate, but...eh, okay. So Mitt Romney is trying to be a little more tough guy, huh? Didn’t work, and he made Newt Gingrich look confident. Santorum seemed tired and irritable again, and not likely to win Florida, which—let’s face it—is his last stand, probably. Sad to say, this was one of Ron Paul’s best debates: clear, mostly short-winded, and restrained.

But gee whiz, can someone get Ron Paul a suit that fits? He seems to lose six or seven sizes between the start and finish of the debate.

What's inside Pandora's Box? A baby, that's what!

O wonder! 

How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! 

O brave new world! That has such people in it! 

Tempest Act V, Scene i

This post was inspired, in part by an email sent by Operative SMC who has been on deep cover assignment with the Jim Beam Distillery:

Dr. J, 

Happy new year! I haven't forgotten about you guys, but have been busy. Biospace has a rather comical, because the person is serious, article this month that just shows the absurdities that arise when the anti-population, non-feminine feminism (sometimes termed militant feminism, or deserves a boot to the gut feminism) and free time (the need to publish and do so in such a way that catches headlines) all cross in academia. For the Brits sake I hope this dope isn't at a public university, but in England I'm pretty sure every body is somehow being paid by the gov. 

I'm just surprised this didn't come out of one of our many fine institutions. 

Best, SMC

Thanks for writing in SMC. The timing of this article is perfect, because it allows Dr. J. to write a pro-life post on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

For our readers who love primary documents, the original article sited at Biospace was published in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.

The author, Anna Smajdor, has her doctorate in Medical Ethics from Imperial College and is a lecturer at East Anglia University in the UK. Yes, that East Anglia.

She spends the better part of fourteen pages (in the form of a rebuttal to another article in the same journal, which in itself is a buttal to a prior article written by her) making the case that pregnancy because of the biological and social burdens it imposes on mothers is a barrier to true equality of men and women. If one accepts these suppositions, ectogenesis (exogenesis might be a better term), of human life, therefore, should be a research priority, as it will liberate women from the yoke of biology. After spending a great deal of time arguing against her opponent's case, she ultimately concludes:

There is a fundamental and inexorable conflict between the demands of gestation and childbirth and the social values we share as human beings: independence, equality of opportunity, autonomy, education, and career and relationship fulfillment. When women achieve greater power and choice in their societies, they have fewer children and have them later in life. Or they have none. But if our species is to survive, children must be born. 

Currently women assume all the risks involved in reproduction, as well as all its burdens. Improvements in maternal/fetal medicine will not solve the problem.Indeed, they can compound it. Developments in fetal surgery, in which fetuses are operated on through the mother’s abdomen; increased prenatal testing and diagnosis; and discoveries about the effects of mothers’ behavior on the uterine environment all contribute to the vast pressure and constraint to which pregnant women, and potentially pregnant women, are subjected. 

Changes to financial and social structures may improve things marginally, but a better solution needs to be found. Either we view women as baby carriers who must subjugate their other interests to the well-being of their children or we acknowledge that our social values and level of medical expertise are no longer compatible with ‘‘natural’’ reproduction. 

CQHE 21, 101-102.

Or to put it simply, she manages to get 14 pages out of 'it's not fair that women have to make choices about when or if they are to have children and how to balance that with their careers, and to top it off, they might even die for their trouble!'

Her solution is develop artificial wombs because then, and only then you have true equality. She even argues that if you can live in world A which is our world, or world B which is a world where people have true equality because you can grow your baby in a tank with no downside to mom, socially, physically or economically, it would be a no brainer to choose side B. Right? Wrong.

First, let us go to science fiction writers, which are bioethicists whose works actually get read by millions. Four come to mind.

First is Aldous Huxley, who in Brave New World, presented us a horrific controlled society where children are not only grown in tanks, but 'poisoned' from a perfect Alpha template down to 'Beta's', "Gamma's," "Delta's" and grunt like "Epsilon's" with the rationalization that this was necessary because a society of all Alphas would result in out and out war because no one would want to take out the trash.  Therefore there have to be a balance of different tiers of society, and that the Alpha's would know how to strike that balance with a combination of social engineering, drugging and liberalized promiscuity, in other words, treat the lower members of society in a Pavlovian method.

Second is Frank Herbert. In his Dune Series (SPOILERS TO FOLLOW), the villanous Tleilaxu society are religious zealots who have deemed women as less than human and sexual reproduction unclean, so Tleilaxu women were 'converted' into bio-reactors called Axlotl tanks.  These Axlotl tanks were not used for in vitro sexual reproduction, but rather for cloning followed by mind transference, resulting in 'immortality.' All sorts of mischief came about because of this, including a revolt of Tleilaxu women who resented their subjugation, and a lack of respect for life on the part of the Tleilaxu, because they always had a 'back-up' body. (END SPOILERS)

Third is comic writer, John Byrne, whose version of Superman's home planet Krypton was also a Brave New World of sorts. All life was created via cloning in birthing matrixes as Kryptonians eschewed physical contact. We all know how Krypton ended, their own progressive hubris that they knew better blinded them to Jor-El's entreaties that the world was going to blow up.

Fourth, of course is our friend George Lucas, who had his hand in a few good movies in the 1970s and 1980s (THX-1138, American Graffiti, Star Wars, Empire Strikes back and Raiders of the Lost Ark) and other than make a lot of money, hasn't done much, artistically, since. Now of course, you know Dr. J. is talking about the Clone Wars. The 'Bad Guys' had a massive robot army do their killing for them, so the 'Good Guys' create a vast Clone Army programmed to be a slave society to the Republic and die on their behalf. The message here is that these artificially created lives, because they are preemptively modified (by rapid aging and enhanced obedience) are less human than free humans.

In summary, the problem that Dr. Smajdor has is her own selfishness. Her thesis, that natural gestation should be replaced with artificial gestation because it would enhance human freedom and equality between the sexes clearly stems from a warped perception of reality. Equality and for lack of a better word, 'identicality' are not the same thing and she wants homogeneous 'identicality' that transcends even biology.

It is a fact that men and women are clearly different at the genetic level, biochemical level, cellular level, and anatomic level. These differences do not make men or women superior to each other, but clearly belie a critical interdependence necessary for successful thriving and survival of the species. Even the most primitive and patriarchal societies in history have had fertility cults and a respect for women and motherhood because even the most primitive patriarch indeed had a mother. Dr. J. believes that routine utilization of artificial wombs would further degrade our respect for the sanctity of human life. As he said before, once one has artificial wombs, who is to say that one won't create an anencephalic clone for every individual, such that he has matched replacement organs, or that one won't  selectively enhance, degrade, or destroy individual developing individuals to suit the greater good of the utopian society.

Venus: No Life Yet

The Czar has already received questions about an extraordinary claim that there are signs of life on Venus. Specifically, a Russian scientist says he has photographic evidence of a disk, a black “flap,” and a scorpion-like creature.

The scientist is an idiot.

Three things you should know. The first is that Venus is hotter than Mercury. Venus is so hot, in fact, that the rocks on its surface glow cherry red, like coals in a fireplace. At night, which is considerably long on Venus, the ground glows pinkish red from the heat; you could read by the pink light. Venus also has an incredibly dense atmosphere, so much so that an aluminum can would be crushed in under a second. The surface pressure on Venus is just as bad as it is at the bottom of the ocean, and the air is composed of a rich blend of lethal carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid. Anything organic basically bursts into flame or is dissolved in seconds. The atmosphere evens out the intense temperature, so that even at the extreme North Pole of Venus, the conditions are the same as they are on the equator.

Moreover, and this is a major point, the entire surface of Venus shows that it has been subjected to a massive wiping. At some point in its history—recently, too, compared to what life would need to evolve—the entire surface of the planet was paved over by lava. We still do not know what caused this, but can pretty confidently say that any disks, flaps, or scorpions would have been incinerated even if they could survive the hellish conditions earlier.

Second thing to know: this does not rule out that life could feasible exist on Venus. High, high, high up in its perpetual cloud layer, above incredibe windspeeds and lightning strikes high above the surface, there are conditions that could be tolerated by simple life forms. The acid layer is below you, the winds are calmer and quiet, and pressure is at earthlike levels. Temperatures are well within what life as we expect it can tolerate. And we already know, at least on Earth, that entire species of microscopic life can exist floating around on gusts of high-altitude wind. So yes, there is a slim chance of non-disk, non-flap, and non-scorpionid life on Venus.

The third thing to know is that you should be very wary of any Soviet-era scientist claiming anything about Venus. The Soviets, you see, viewed Venus as their baby—especially after the Americans claimed the Moon and successfully sent probes to Mars and beyond. Up until the late 1970s, the Americans never really did much with Venus, whereas the Soviets did a lot of practical research on the planet.

Over a short period of time, the Soviets viewed Venus as their private propaganda playground, and numerous ridiculous discoveries were made that proved false. Most notable of the classic Soviet nonsense schemes was the Velikovsky theory, that put forth the idea that Venus magically ejected itself from Jupiter, flew all around the Earth causing most of the Old Testament stories (plagues, parting of the Red Sea, pausing of the Sun), and caused a host of other phenomena before settling into a quiet orbit around the Sun. This goofy idea still has thousands of believers today.

Anyway, the Russians, or at least one Russian scientist, might still have a crazy obsession with Venus. Beyond that, he needs a heckuva lot more proof than his mysterious photos.

Occupy Cupertino

In the past several months, we've all heard about the Occupy Wall Street and the complaints of some of the OWS movement about the "obscene profits" made by Wall Street firms.  How about this news:

Apple earned $400,000 in profit per employee last year.  That's more than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google.  Not once did I hear any of these slackers complain about Apple.  You know why?  It isn't hip to complain about a company that puts out cool products like the iPod or that new iPhone 54S. 

According to SAI's Business Insider, the profit is largely due to Apple's excellent global operations, specifically with overseas factories that are more flexible and more affordable and are in areas that offer more industrial skills than here in the United States.  When MSNBC asked Apple about bringing those jobs to the United States, a spokesman replied, "we sell iPhones in over a hundred countries. We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible."

This is highlighted by the exchange President Obama had with Steve Jobs last February at a dinner the President hosted in California for some of Silicon Valley's top luminaries:

Each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.
But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?
Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.
Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest. 

Now the easy question or attempt at a takedown on this point would be to challenge the size of the companies as I've used a statistic that is relevant to the number of employees for each company.  However, if we look at the 2010 data for each (latest I could find), Apple weighs in with 60,400 employees.  Exxon-Mobil would have a slightly harder time matching a profit-per-employee point with 83,600 employees.  But we've all heard about this obscene profit that the oil companies are making, clearly if Apple is outpacing that it must be some super iProfits.  Google and Goldman Sachs are both about half the size of Apple and therefore would have an easier time (mathematically) matching Apple's profit-per-employee number.  Heck, with all the obscene profits that the OWS movement is complaining about right at the feet of Goldman Sachs' New York offices, one would think that they have to be rolling in it.

So what we're left with is that the OWS crowd and others who target oil companies or financial institutions for making "too much profit" are ignorant or lazy in that they don't understand the bigger financial picture.  In fact, to Mitt Romney's point in the debate last week, profits are a good thing.  Profits are part of one's 401k plan or pension plan or other investment portfolio.  It represents the ability for a company to create new jobs.  Demonizing it is counterproductive to remedying this countries economic woes.  And, after all this, one is still angry about profit, you might want to drive west over to Cupertino and set up your rat-infested, crime-ridden, violence-begetting, tent farm outside Apple's headquarters.  Besides being in a nicer climate than say, New York City or Washington, DC in late January, it would be protesting a company that better fits the misguided protest's target.

As for me, I'm going to pop my iPod earphones back in, fire up a book on my iPad and tell GorT, Jr version 3 that he has 20 minutes left on iMac.