Because, Ultimately, Poland Is Right On This

One of the Czar’s relatives was executed by the Nazis for helping Jews escape from Poland, by hiding them on his farm until the heat was off. True fact.

Two Three thoughts about the President’s comments about Polish death camps (sic).

Thought #1: To those on the Right, Americans probably do not need a primer on why the Poles are so outraged by the statement. The fact that Poles were outraged is more than enough. Admittedly, most Americans probably think Auschwitz was in Germany; they do not realize the Nazis had death camps in several places, in different countries, all operating at capacity. But to those on the Left, who cannot understand why the Poles would be outraged when it was totally obvious what the President meant, the simple thing to do here is to man up and apologize. Yeah, you didn’t think. It happens to the best of us, or in your case, it happens to liberals, too. Say you’re sorry.

Thought #2: To the Poles, face it. The President is never going to apologize because frankly, you irritate him with your petty grievances. The White House offered a statement of regret, as in, “we regret you were offended.” This of course is not an apology and means nothing. It is no different when your spouse says “I’m sorry if you’re made about this,” which means “...but I’m not budging.” Unless Poland intends on somehow voting for Obama in the Fall, forget it. And Polish Americans old enough to vote are also old enough to understand what Communism did to Poland—they vote Republican anyway. Apology not forthcoming.

Thought #3: Look, the Czar is no apologist for Obama. But what happened here was very likely a proofing or editing screw up. The original draft probably said something like “Nazi death camps in Poland.” Editor One simply crossed out Nazi because, really, what other kind were there in World War II? Editor Two read “death camps in Poland,” and thought that seemed wordy. He changed it to “Polish death camps.” Okay, the Czar gets it. Editors do things like that. The text got put up on the telly, and the President read it as written. We get it. So simply say that, and apologize for it. Then you are out of the mess. But no, the Obama adminstration will hem and haw, waffle here and dither there, and never get around to saying they screwed up, and frankly, this outrages is a little bit your own fault, isn’t it, Poland? Et cetera.

Yeah, this was a stupid fumble all right, and the Press gets a nod for covering it. But the reality is that while this might not have been easy to prevent with ill-considered editing, recovering from it would have been pathetically easy to do. Now, of course, it’t too late.

I Don't Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

The Obama Administration is out touting all the great jobs they've "created or saved".  Except that the jobs reports haven't been that great.  I'm sure someone had to tackle and duct tape Joe Biden's mouth before he declared "Summer of Recovery III: Now we really mean it".  The jobs report for May estimates 133,000 jobs added from April to May.  Analysts had expected to see at least 150,000 jobs added.  In addition, the April jobs report was revised down from 119,000 jobs added to 113,000 jobs added. 

House Republicans have sent 28 jobs bills to the Senate only to watch Senate leader Harry Reid (D-NV) table them.  Of course, I'm sure the Senate is busy working on the federal budget...oh wait:


Keep in mind as of late 2010, Obama needed to add 230,000 jobs per month through his second term to return to the breakeven point. Even the New York Times dives into an analysis of the jobs numbers and concludes that he needs to add 151,000 jobs per month to avoid being an underdog to Romney. So maybe this "jobs recovery" doesn't mean what they think it means.

So Shall You Reap

Well, one of us was bound to say something about Mayor Bloomberg’s Progressive Campaign to rid the Big Apple of the Dreaded Dr. Pepper.

Suffice it to say, when you elect a Progressive, you give him the sense that you really want his opinion. And few things are more unpleasant for a large number of people than a Progressive who thinks he might be onto something here.

Like a kid in a candy store with an unlimited line of credit.

Also, to the folks on Good Morning America, sugar is not toxic. In fact, you would die without it.

Unintended Consequences

One of GorT's beliefs is that liberals are generally short-sighted in their attempts to remedy perceived problems.  In other words, they look for immediate fixes without considering what the longer term consequences are...or what the unintended consequences could be.

The New York Times shines a light on one of these in a news piece today titled, "Wasting Time Is New Divide in Digital Era".  During the beginning of the rise of the Internet in the 1990s, there was a disparity between the more wealthy and the poor as far as access and ownership of digital products and media.  As the article says, it was termed, "the digital divide".  According to the NYT and the column's author, Matt Richtel, the efforts worked and narrowed that divide but it created an "unintended side effect".  Namely, children in poorer families are spending significantly more time using electronic devices in a recreational manner than educational when compared with the more affluent children.

Policy makers, researchers and the government are troubled by this and want to fix it.  Thankfully, Mr. Richtel identifies the problem early on in the article:

This growing time-wasting gap, policy makers and researchers say, is more a reflection of the ability of parents to monitor and limit how children use technology than of access to it.

Here is where the wheels come off the bus.  Of course, the proposed solutions are federal funds for the FCC to create a "digital literacy corps" that would deploy to schools, libraries, and organizations like the Boys & Girls Club, the NAACP and others in order to provide training to parents.  Note, they are saying that it is not the ability as parents to control the behavior of the kids but rather the ability of parents to understand technology in order to monitor/limit their kids.
Thought #1:  The easiest way to address this is through the parents enforcing limits at home.  Our computers are in a public space in our home and we can monitor what and how long the kids are on it.  Portable devices such as iTouches, laptops, Nooks, iPads, etc require a bit more effort by parents, but it is doable.  Without any additional training, software, or help.  Talk to them.  Find where they are hiding in your house.  Have them park their cellphone in a common place or drawer while they don't need it.  Stand up and tell your son or daughter, "No".  And don't back down.  Have some guidelines - when homework is done and you've had some exercise, then you can goof off on the computer, XBox, Wii, cell phone, etc. for some amount of time.  Unsupervised and unbounded kids gain a sense of entitlement that they should be able to have as much computer time as they want.  And do what they want on the devices.  This leads no where good.  Online bullying, teasing, and other inappropriate behavior.
Thought #2:  Maybe a broad access - read ownership - of these devices isn't a good thing after all.  A case in point is illustrated later in the article:

The concerns are brought to life in families like those of Markiy Cook, a thoughtful 12-year-old in Oakland who loves technology.

At home, where money is tight, his family has two laptops, an Xbox 360 and a Nintendo Wii, and he has his own phone. He uses them mostly for Facebook, YouTube, texting and playing games.

He particularly likes playing them on the weekends.

“I stay up all night, until like 7 in the morning,” he said, laughing sheepishly. “It’s why I’m so tired on Monday.”

His grades are suffering. His grade-point average is barely over 1.0, putting him at the bottom of his class. He wants to be a biologist when he grows up, he said.

Money is tight and they have two laptops, an XBox and a Wii and a 12 year old has his own cellphone.  In GorT's house, we have 1 laptop (albeit GorT and Mrs. GorT have work-provided laptops as well), one XBox and one Wii and the XBox is a recent addition.  If money were tight, we wouldn't have all of this.  And we have a house rule that you have to be 13 in order to get a cellphone - largely because before then you aren't doing anything to require a cellphone and we're not buying you one and paying a cellphone plan for your entertainment.  Money isn't tight but we aren't spending it willy-nilly.  And guess what?  They just admitted in a national news article that they are violating ther Terms & Conditions of Facebook.  You must be 13 in order to sign up for an account.  Again, something they don't need before 13.

And another example:

Alejandro Zamora, 13, an eighth grader, calls himself “a Facebook freak.” His mother, Olivia Montesdeoca, said she liked the idea of him using the computer (until it recently broke) but did not have much luck getting him to use it for homework.

“He’d have a fit. He’d have a tantrum,” she said, adding that she really did not understand some of what he did online. “I have no idea about YouTube. I’ve never even heard of a webcam.”

Guess what, Mrs. Montesdeoca - let him have a fit.  He is 13 years old, if he throws a tantrum then treat him like the baby he's acting like.  It is real simple: you are the parent - he is the child.  

At least one example was positive - the Ross family in Boston:

“If you just buy the computer and don’t guide them on the computer, of course it’s going to be misused,” Ms. Ross said.

Thought #3:  Sure, new technology requires training and employing filters and other restrictions or learning how to see what your kids are (or have been) doing on the computer can be difficult to learn if you are not tech-savvy.  But as stated above, there are simpler answers that probably get us to an 80% solution.  For the rest, I question what the effectiveness of these digital literacy trainers will be.  And how busy they will be.  Of course, it'll be more jobs "created or saved" but there is likely a better use of those funds.
Thought #4:  Xbox 360s, Wiis, iTouch, etc. are not aimed at educational purposes.  Closing the digital divide by providing entertainment systems clearly illustrates the failure of this idea.  But as we examine this issue, we'll get into the liberal argument that it isn't "fair".  The proper response would be to ask, "how far do we need to go?"  Do they need an XBox, cellphone with unlimited texting plans, a laptop and an iPad?  Nope.  And should we be using federal grant money or other funds for the underprivileged to get these types of devices?  Nope.

Venus!

There is an astronomical event next week that you should really try to see.  It happens in 8-year offset pairs and then a gap of over a century - it's the transit of Venus.  A transit of a planet is when it passes in between the Sun and the Earth.  Due to the orbital geometries, Venus does two transits eight years apart and then the next pair happen over a century later.  The last pair took place in 1874 and 1882 and the first part of the current pair took place back in 2004 with the next transit to take place next week.  After that, you'll have to wait until 2117 and 2125 - a pair that GorT has already seen, it was awesome, but a pair that the rest of you might not be around to witness.

GorT will likely watch this event with his replicants - in fact, the science teacher at the parochial school that the youngest two replicants attend might make it a bonus assignment as she is a big astronomy fan.  For us in North America, the transit is partially visible and we can observe it as the Sun is setting.  For all the details, including how to watch it safely (DO NOT LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN) I refer you to the excellent blog, Bad Astronomy.  Read up - there are plenty of resources and links.  It is a rare event that shouldn't be missed.  If anything, it should provide some perspective.  Consider that the Sun is 115 times wider than Venus but since Venus is about 100 million km closer to Earth, Venus will appear to be about 1/30th of the Sun. 

For those of us in the Washington, DC area, the transit begins at 22:03:48 UTC which is 10:03:48pm.  But wait, that's after sunset, right?  No.  UTC (Universal Coordinated Time) is 4 hours offset from Eastern Daylight Time, so it will start at 6:03:48pm EDT and end at 6:21:27pm.  The Sun should be about 25 degrees above the horizon.  Other cities times are available here.

My Daddy Drives A Prius

'Puter's had enough with this pseudonymous blogging. After all, how much money can one man possibly need? Blogging's made 'Puter fabulously wealthy and an even bigger egomaniac than he used to be. 

With all his leisure time, 'Puter figured he'd better find an honorable pursuit to fill his countless hours, lest he succumb to fin de siecle malaise. It was either get a pastime, or join Czar in drinking too much absinthe and Absorbine Jr. and forcing Sleestak, Dat Ho and the Tcho-Tchos to play full contact, nude, Crisco-covered Twister for our amusement. Again.

'Puter's been wracking his brain for an appropriate avocation, one for which his rare combination of super-genius IQ, unspeakably horrible visage, misanthropy, sociopathic temperament and tenuous grip on reality.  Then, yesterday, as he was gutting and cleaning the neighborhood pets he'd stalked and killed overnight, it hit him.  'Puter's going to write a children's book! 

It's going to be a great book, once he finds a publisher. 'Puter's even thinking about recruiting Czar to illustrate.  Underneath Czar's flea and tick infested hairy hide, he's a talented artist.  You should see his renderings of Paris put to the torch, done in rendered pet fat, of all things. Czar is quite the literalist.

So here's 'Puter's first draft.

My Daddy Drives a Prius

A Little Golden Book by 'Puter Gormogon
Graphically Illustrated by Czar Gormogon

My Daddy drives a Prius
My Mommy drives a Volt.
They say we must save Gaia,
And carbon is for dolts.

We only shop at Whole Foods
Our produce quickly rots
Our family eats organic
Better than have-nots.

Dad works for Solyndra
Mom works for GM
Obama's a great cap't'list
To hear the tale from them.

Mom nixed my jabs for polio,
Dad vetoed DPT.
They're smarter than the scientists
No autism for me!

But now my sky's all sooty,
And my river runs with lead.
Coal burned to charge car batteries,
Killed my pet bird dead.

I picked up salmonella
From a migrant's rancid pee.
I'll not again eat organic foods,
More specific, strawberries.

My parents' jobs are gone now,
We're in a real big fix.
Mom supports our family
Playing bingo, turning tricks.

I never did get autism,
But I did get HPV.
I spend my days scratching parts
One usually can't see.

But my parents, they were never wrong,
They'll tell you, yesirree.
But how come all their bad ideas
Always end up hurting me?

'Puter can envision the critical acclaim for his magnum opus.  He's certain to get one of them fancy-schmancy awards.  You know the ones.  The ones publishers stick on books they want you to make your kids read. Like that Nude Berry award.  Or the Cow-on-Top award.  Man, now that's high class. And you can't spell "high class" without "'Puter."

So, if any of you minions out there are publishers, drop 'Puter a line. Let's corrupt the youth and get rich doing it.

Transparent as a Brick Wall

Do you remember President Obama's pledge for having a transparent government?  Maybe not.  Let me refresh your memory:

[The Obama] Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Many took the phrase, "creating an unprecedented level of openness" to mean that it would be more open...but maybe we all read that wrong.  Maybe he is aiming for an "unprecedented" low level of transparency.

Case in point: Over six months ago, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) who is the ranking member on the Senate's Committee on the Budget, requested specific information about the Department of Interior's possible preferential treatment of several "green energy" efforts.  The Interior Department has yet to adequately respond.  On Tuesday, the House Oversight Chairman, Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Sessions sent a letter requesting the Interior hand over the communications in question by June 12th or face compulsory processes. 

Seven solar companies received fast-tracked lease approvals in a no-bid process and they also received loan guarantees worth billions from the Department of Energy under its renewable energy loan program, as well as renewable energy grants from the Treasury Department.

The Free Beacon reported on the extensive political ties among the solar companies, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Commerce Department.  In addition, emails from BrightSource, one of the seven companies, apparently show a direct link from the company to the Obama Administration.  Current Commerce Secretary, John Bryson was chairman of BrightSource at the time of the emails.  There are questions as to whether the companies were allow to bypass environmental regulations as their projects were approved much faster than oil and gas projects.

Where is the press on this?  Absent. 


Do you think I'm being selective about this?  What about public statements by Obama officials like these:


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States is working “behind the scenes” to address the ongoing violence in Syria that has left thousands dead at the hands of the Syrian regime

Wasserman Schultz told the crowd [at the Kol Ami Emanu-El temple in Plantation, Florida], “Behind closed doors, Israel has had no better friend then Barack Obama."

Behind the scenes?  Behind closed doors?  Sounds like a lot of transparency there. Maybe he's emulating Pelosi's "most open, honest, and ethical Congress ever"

Nice Summer Reading

Sonny Bunch has a superb summary of recent political shifts on the Left, as told by Liberal sources complaining about the Right. Not only is it ingenious, but it is smack on the money.

Basically, the Left has been complaining for some time about a growing extremism on the Right, that the GOP is increasingly out of touch, and that moderate Republicans could never get elected by their own parties these days. In fact, as his walkthrough shows, this is actually true of the Left, and yet to be demonstrated on the Right.

Fun, short, and well-composed. What isn’t to like?

'Puter, Jr. Earns An Ass Whuppin'

'Puter's amid three of the biggest deals of his professional career at the moment.  So, naturally, Mrs. 'Puter informs 'Puter he's got to leave work at 2:15 to pick up 'Puter, Jr. at Jesuit Institution of Lower Learning ("JILL," for short) and ferry 'Puter, Jr. to a dentist appointment across town scheduled for 3:00.

It hasn't really rained Upstate in two weeks. Today, at 2:00, the heavens opened and thunderstorms commenced to lash the area with heavy rain, high winds and hail.  Regardless, 'Puter dutifully walks out to his 'Putermobile and humps his weary ass across town to fetch and to deliver 'Puter, Jr. to his dentist appointment.

Imagine 'Puter's delight when 'Puter, Jr. hops in the 'Putermobile, sloshing water onto the editing 'Puter brought to occupy his time in the waiting room, and declares he had received not one but two JUGs* from the same teacher today.  To call 'Puter ticked off at his spawn would be to significantly understate his level of consternation.**

'Puter pried some of the details out of 'Puter, Jr. during the rain-soaked drive, but 'Puter, Jr. kept the more sordid details to himself.  'Puter got 'Puter, Jr. to his appointment, deposited him at home and returned to the office to continue his work.  Mrs. 'Puter called 'Puter about 20 minutes after 'Puter returned, fired up beyond all recognition. 'Puter tried calming her down, telling her of course the spawn would be punished.  In between threats against her son's life the likes of which 'Puter'd never be able to duplicate, Mrs. 'Puter asked if 'Puter had seen 'Puter, Jr.'s teacher's email.

'Puter hurriedly sorted through his inbox, finding the source of Mrs. 'Puter's rage:

Mr. and Mrs. ['Puter],

I wanted to bring your attention to an incident that happened today in class. Recently ['Puter, Jr.] has been making comments under his breath, but most prevalent today. The comments, I find, to be extremely disrespectful such as "someone else should teach this class" or "this is pointless". The comments are loud enough to suggest an intention of being heard. He was asked to leave class today, given the assignment and returned later, during flex, and continued such comments. He has had a very negative attitude towards me and any activity we seem to be doing in class.

I told ['Puter, Jr.] that he can be mad at me if he wants, but I am still available to answer any questions that he has. He did not yet take advantage of that offer.

I believe some of this is stemmed from a frustration (to what extent, I am not sure) of the material. He seems to not enjoy review assignments, which we will be doing for the next 3 days. Although he has done well throughout the year, the material is more challenging than he was used to seeing in Math 7 and he will need to put forth more of an effort in order to familiarize himself with what has been covered.

A positive attitude can go a long way!

Thank you for your time. If you have any questions please feel free to continue the discuss. I am open to any and all suggestions on how to proceed in dealing with this.

Thank you,

['Puter, Jr.'s Teacher]

'Puter took a few moments to calm down after hanging up with Mrs. 'Puter.  After sufficient mood-stabilizing swigs from Czar's seemingly endless stash of Cointreau and Castrol, 'Puter replied as follows:

Dear ['Puter, Jr.'s Teacher],

Thank you for your email. It is much appreciated, as it confirms many of my suspicions regarding ['Puter, Jr.'s] unacceptable behavior in your class today.

['Puter, Jr.] had a dentist appointment* at 3:00 this afternoon, so I picked him up at [JILL] at 2:30. To ['Puter, Jr.'s] credit, he immediately told me he had talked himself into not merely one, but two JUGs. I asked ['Puter, Jr.] what he had done to deserve such negative attention from you.

['Puter, Jr.] told me he received the first JUG for “mumbling” and “making noise” while tasked with review worksheets. I asked him what specifically he said, and he avoided answering. I pressed him, asking if he had referred to you, to a fellow student or to your class in a negative manner. Again, he again avoided the issue. I took from ['Puter, Jr.'s] evasiveness that he had been disrespectful to you at a minimum.

As for the second JUG, ['Puter, Jr.] informed me he had objected to the first JUG. Upon examination, ['Puter, Jr.] admitted he had disrespectfully and loudly done so in front of your class. I told him in no uncertain terms his behavior was not acceptable. I told ['Puter, Jr.] it is never appropriate to address a teacher in such manner, and even more inappropriate to do so in front of anyone else, much less in front of a classroom full of students.

We fully support your decision to reward ['Puter, Jr.'s] patently unacceptable behavior with two JUGs. It is your classroom, run by your rules. If you believe a conference regarding ['Puter, Jr.'s] conduct would be helpful, one or both of us will make ourselves available at your convenience. If you have any further issues with ['Puter, Jr.] – any at all – please call me.

As to the academic issues, I have noticed ['Puter, Jr.] seems to be increasingly frustrated with what he considers “busy work.” I believe that “busy work” for ['Puter, Jr.] means “things he doesn’t quite understand fully.” I agree that part of his dismissive behavior results from not completely grasping the material and being unwilling or unable to admit he needs assistance to do so. ['Puter, Jr.] also shows an increased tendency to work only as hard as he thinks he needs to work to achieve his desired result, and not just in school. I hold ['Puter, Jr.] to the same academic standard my father held me: work as hard as you can and behave yourself, and good grades will come. Effort and conduct are what ultimately drive success, in the classroom and in life. Clearly, ['Puter, Jr.] is failing to meet this standard.

We will discuss with ['Puter, Jr.] his academic issues as well, with an eye toward encouraging him to seek out help from you (and other teachers) on his own. We do not want to seek the help on ['Puter, Jr.'s] behalf, except as may be absolutely necessary. It is most important for ['Puter, Jr.] to learn to self-evaluate his academic performance, to realize when he needs assistance and to seek appropriate assistance on his own. Of course, we are monitoring and supporting ['Puter, Jr.] as he learns to do so. We are open to any suggestions you may have to assist in this process. Again, we are available to a conference at your convenience if you think it is advisable.

In conclusion, I apologize to you for my son’s behavior. ['Puter, Jr.] is well aware his behavior today was an embarrassment not only to him, but to his family as well. We will not tolerate such behavior. ['Puter, Jr.] is at home as I write this drafting a note of apology to you for my review. If you do not receive ['Puter, Jr.'s] note tomorrow, I would appreciate you letting me know. Further, rest assured ['Puter, Jr.] will be appropriately punished in order to dissuade him from behaving in such a manner again.

Regards,

['Puter]

'Puter and Mrs. 'Puter will be having a sit-down with 'Puter, Jr. this evening.  And it's not going to go well for one of us.  Most likely for 'Puter, Jr., but 'Puter's been known in such situations to inadvertently call in an airstrike from Mrs. 'Puter on his own position. 

*JUG is the Jesuit equivalent of detention. 'Puter's heard it referred to as short for "Judgment Under God," but in the Jesuit Institution of Lower Learning 'Puter attended, it was "Justice Under God." 'Puter, Jr.'s JILL states JUG is short for "jugum," the Latin word for "yoke." Under any definition, JUG is unpleasant, providing Jesuits an opportunity to exercise their creative powers to inflict pain while educating you further. 

**To tell the entire story, before the other Gormogons rat him out, 'Puter was a charter member of the 30 Plus Club at his JILL.  That is, 'Puter received over 30 JUGs his senior year.  If 'Puter's remembering correctly, far over 30 JUGs, and mostly for the same sort of loud-mouthed disrespectfulness for which 'Puter, Jr. is now gaining notoriety.

'Puter Scooter?

Uncle Jay returns from Internet purgatory to let us know he has been hanging around the Castle parking lot, wherein the found this:

It is not the Czar’s, for verily a motorbike he does not ride. Could be a hotel guest?

More Media Hysteria

Frequently, folks on the Right accuse the mainstream media of throwing out distraction stories—tales calculated to drive you away from lefty scandals, Democrat Party screw-ups, and general Keystone-Koppery from the liberals. Alas, in the previous three years, the average member of the public has gotten very good at spotting these.

Every so often, though, the media distracts themselves with bizarre and ultimately pointless exercises in stupid journalism. No, not intentionally to conceal or obfuscate facts... but just because they get obsessed with some weird collection of stories that a few editors independently decide must be a trend.

Exhibit A this week is necrotizing fasciitis, which is in a dozen stories this week. You probably know this by its media given name Flesh Eating Bacteria!, of which only the last work is accurate: the bacteria simply kills skin and muscle tissue and does not eat anything.

To be sure, it is terrible and horrible and often preventable. But there are two aspects the media never bother to get around telling you:

First, it is extremely rare. Once again, you need to focus on the flu, which is still a major killer. But the flu is boring, so media want to spice things up with some science-fiction sounding plague. And, we should mention, cases of necrotizing fasciitis are not exactly increasing.

Second, for every case the media decides to report on, many more go unreported by them. Indeed, there is hardly any rhyme or reason to which story gets picked up and which ignored. They are all tragic or unlucky, but the media bag-toss of coverage is another indicator that this is a trumped up story. The media, you see, still think it’s 1899 and that panics and hysterias make good stories.

Suffice it to say, while most doctors encounter at least one case of necrotizing fasciitis in their careers, this is a rare condition that requires you to already have a form of sepsis, and if follow generally good infection-fighting procedures (clean up cuts and bandage them), you can prevent it. As such, if you suspect you have an infection, a quick visit to the doctor can result in standard anti-infection treatments that kill the bacteria before they start.

Seriously, it’s like taking one bizarre form of freak accident—say, folks getting their feet caught in some hydraulic stamper used in light manufacturing—and reporting on a few cases every month to create the sense there is this sinister trend out there.

Of course, the sooner you lose interest in these stories, the faster they go away. Hint. Hint.

Environmental Disorder

One finds that arguing with an environmentalist is empowering for them within 5 minutes, and disastrous for them within 10 minutes. In other words, the longer you engage them, the worse they do.

What it comes down to is that your average environmentalist simply wants mankind to reject all technology and go back to some subsistence farming utopia that, of course, never existed. Like Rousseau’s noble savage, we will never advance as a society until we give up society. Or something.

As proof of this, consider their arguments about energy.

• Oil. Bad. Kills fish, pollutes the air, slicks the waterways.
• Coal. Awful! Produces CO₂ and is going to burn us alive if rising oceans don’t drown us first..
• Nuclear. Are you kidding? Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, meltdowns, Godzilla, all of it.
• Fusion. Science fiction. Plus one good earthquake and France blows up.
• Solar. Not useful. Requires millions of square feet of collectors, which kills birds, absorbs heat, raises temperatures.
• Geothermal. Disgusting. Releases poison gases, and can destroy the land if the ground shifts.
• Wind Power. Nope. Also kills birds, plus we now know that windmills force warm air down and raise global temperatures.
• Tidal. Horrible. Kills fish, strangles dolphins.
• Hydroelectric. Ghastly. Have you seen what damming a river does to the land? It chokes half of it while drowning the other half.
• Biofuels. Nice, but requires massive agricultural monopolization, and this is unsustainable.

Okay, so what method of energy production provides the best solution?

They haven’t got an answer, and no matter what alien technology you promote, there will be consequences that recommend against it. And there have to be consequences: thermodynamics ensures you don’t get something for nothing. Even zero point energy, which is all science fiction, results in entropy.

No, the real goal is not to prevent some minor or major catastrophic loss of control—the goal is to put you back in a cave, freezing to death without fire (produces CO and smoke). Confront an environmentalist with that, and they won’t be able to refute it. In short, energy isn’t the problem with the environment: humans are the problem.

Now, supposing you were to promote this idea: envision a form of energy that costs little to maintain, is initially paid for by large corporations but is amortized by its consumers for only pennies each, can be strictly controlled and monitored for environmental compliance, can operate well within the framework of existing regulations, employs thousands, results in massive amounts of continuing electrical output, produces the least amount of readily manageable waste, and emits pure water vapor as an exhaust—which actually increases albedo and helps cool the environment. Would you go for it?

And when the environmentalist agrees, smile and say “Nuclear, baby.”

Anti-Climatic

The great and wonderous Borepatch writes into the Czar (and jeez, we hope we had his permission to reprint this; ah well, not much we can do about it now) to say:

Your outstanding post covered the subject of Dr. Leakey entirely satisfactorily, which means of course that I need to spout off.

My opinion is that the dumbest thing that Leakey said was the bit about persuading people on the evidence, that the "data is solid." The scandal of Climate Science today is that the data is anything but:

- 70% of weather stations have thermometers that are not calibrated to within 2 degrees (C) of true, and yet are supposed to be measuring a fraction of a degree change per decade.

- Climate science is the only branch of science I know where the data is routinely changed (gridded, averaged, adjusted). Interesting that nobody ever seems to go back to see how the adjusted data compares with the raw data (quite poorly, actually).

- Climate science is the only branch of science I know where scientists consistently refuse to release their data. Nobody can check their work to see if mistakes or miscalculations (say, invalid statistical algorithms) are present.

- Climate science is the only branch of science where it is considered allowable for scientists to discard a portion of the data set and replace it with a different data set and not specify this in their paper. The scientists guilty of the notorious "hide the decline" episode are still at work, still receiving grant funding, and still authors of the IPCC Assessment Report.

Please excuse me if I'm not impressed with Leakey's idea of using solid data to convince people. In Climate Science, as in Gandhi's (likely apocryphal) comment when asked his opinion of Western Civilization, that would be a very nice thing indeed.

If you actually respect the data, and want to use the data to understand the world, Climate Science is a mess.

Certainly the Czar is not about to top that commentary.

But he will add one thing. Borepatch, for our readers who may not yet read his blog every day, is one of the very few folks who have actually read and analyzed a considerable portion of the climate data on both sides of the argument. The Czar thinks it safe to say that Borepatch is an agnostic on climate change. Not a denier, but a true άγνώστικος: a not-knower. And Borepatch hates not knowing, but what else can you do when we keep getting force-fed the idea of global warming.

The Gormogons take the related position that something seems to be happening with the global climate, but none of us will ever find out—not until the angry, insidious politicizing of the issue is stopped and the normal scientific method is resumed.

The one thing the Czar intended to say a couple of paragraphs back is a recurring, backstabbing fallacy that he keeps hearing from proponents of climate change: “My data is better than your data,” they say to people like Borepatch.

First, data is plural. Second, and more urgently, whose data? Roughly 99% of the people who admonish us skeptical folk have no claim to any data whatsoever: they are common people like us; they not only are not climatologists, they aren’t even scientists, and—unlike Borepatch—they haven’t read any of the data on either side whatsoever. They ain’t your data, people. Not until you done the work yourself. Until then, all you have is a guess you like better than the other guy’s.

The Czar has studied quite a bit of meterology and climatology in his days, and can do a fair amount of the basic math involved in these sciences. He cannot help but smile patronizingly at people that tell him he doesn’t know what he’s talking about; these are people who can barely read a thermometer, let alone demonstrate the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Before you admonish another person for not using good data, make damn sure you have done the necessary coursework—beyond seeing an Al Gore movie, that is, or reading bullet points off a website you hope makes you sound smart.

Borepatch, to put it mildly, has historically taken both sides of the argument quite seriously, and has literally run some of the most provocative data models. Over time, and with considerable degree of calm rationale, Borepatch has assessed that the global climate change studies, methods, and conclusions are warped and distorted to a political end. He has done the leg work. You should listen to him before you criticize his conclusions.

You can always pop on over to his site to see how much he has to say on the subject, especially if you want it presented in a clear, concise, and friendly manner.

Obama Knows Nothing About Catholics

Wow. Go to Google news and check out how many stories there are about the “Vatileaks” scandal.

Vatileaks? What, Vatigate was taken? Is —leaks the new tag the media can use as a shorthand cliché for a person who releases confidential information? The Czar is so tired of the media.

Anyhow, if you are not a Catholic, you might not understand why this is so bad for the Church. And if you are a Catholic, you certainly do not understand why this is bad.

This is much ado about nada. Look at the headlines, screaming about how this reveals concealment! Corruption! Scandal! Outrage!

Let the Czar simplify the media’s message for you: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BAD! VOTE OBAMAAAAA!

Regardless of your religious persuasion, you may not be aware that the Catholic Church is planning a major offensive in the next few days, basically rallying national support to defeat Obama in the Fall. Yes, the President’s asinine and contemptible middle finger to Catholics has drawn the ire of the last group powerful enough to take him on.

If Catholics do vote as a bloc—which they can and will do once every dozen years or more—the results will be disastrous for Obama. This is why the President has been sweet-talking them and hanging out with liberal Catholic groups. It is why pseudo-Catholics like Maureen Dowd and E.J. Dionne have been attempting to write screeds convincing real Catholics that liberalism is a better branch of Catholicism (feel free to use our search box above, and type in puter to see all of their handiwork destroyed).

Unfortunately, the Church is being pretty straight up with its membership: there are no liberal Catholics. There are only Catholics. And as such, the Church expects her members to defend her. Message ends.

What we have is without question is the Obama campaign’s War on Catholics. No, not fictitious go-for-brokes like the War on Women or the new War on Children: but a serious, organized attempt to disrupt and scatter Catholics. With Catholics splitting their votes, there is hope for an Obama re-election. With Catholics pissed off, as they seem to be, Obama would need the Jewish vote to win, and we already know how that’s going.

This is a serious miscalculation, and one which historians will necessarily debate long after 2016. The single mistake was trying to ramrod the HHS letter into action, and assuming that Catholics would pick Obama over God, the way the media have. Given that so many Catholics voted for him, he thought it was a cinch.

In fact, Obama thinks he understood Catholics perfectly well—although a photograph of the Obamas meeting with Pope Benedict XVI shows Michelle in a 1940s-style veil that women have not needed to wear in the Church in almost 50 years. Evidently, the Obamas watched old movies and cracked open a dusty textbook to learn a little about Catholics before representing Americans to the Pope.

The point is, Obama Knows Nothing about Catholics (see what we did there?), and instead of admitting he screwed the pooch over that HHS letter, he doubled down and assumed American Catholics would rebel to get, you know, Free Stuff. But they did rebel: against him. And rather than admit, again, his error (Catholics are forgiving, by and large), he had his cadre of media followers try to explain why abortion and birth control are good things for Catholics, and conservatives like Rick Santorum have no place in the Church.

Of course, this blew up in their faces; so now we are going to try hardball and expose the Church as a bunch of sinister old men who cannot be trusted—for the 100th time. But this is also failing, and there seems to be no nuclear option left. In fact, this probably was the nuclear option: how long has the media and Democratic party known about the Pope’s butler and had him queued up and ready to go?

Surely the Obama administration is not calling their strategy to disrupt, divide, and dismiss the Catholic vote a “War on Catholics.” But indeed the Church is treating it as such, and the Obama campaign may have royally annoyed a sleeping giant.

In Other Words, Shut Up Leakey

For the record, and right up front, the Czar is a significant proponent of evolutionary theory. For him, the evidence is overwhelming and consistent.

But when Richard Leakey says that the debate will soon be over, the Czar rolls his eyes. Where have we heard that before?

Well, right here: global climate change. And lest you think this is merely far-fetched paranoia on our part, Leakey adds:

If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive, then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.

Evolution isn’t a global challenge, so he must surely be talking about climate change.

The Czar raises his hand, and he wishes to speak; and you had best give us permission, because you do not want that hand to come down hard.

What Leakey is saying is that the science is settled. The debate is over. The whole thing is 100% clear.

And Leakey is, despite his education, still quite ignorant.

Science is a process, dude. To say science is ever settled is to say evolution is a done deed and it’s over. There is no provision in evolutionary theory that is so rock-solid that some scientist in 5, 10, or 500 years will say “Well, that’s mostly correct, but....”

And for Leakey, an anthropologist, to use this as fodder for proving something totally unrelated within climatology is just fatuous. The science is never settled there, either: there is always more data, more observations, more tests, and more improvement of understanding. Leakey has nothing to say about climate change other than to express his personal opinion, much as the Czar is.

“But he’s a scientist,” say the whiners, “and therefore perfectly qualified to render a secure statement.” But no scientist would ever say that. No scientist would ever dismiss further inquiry. A real scientist would ask (a) who settled it, (b) how good is the data, (c) can it be reproduced, and (d) whether its settlement is itself testable.

This is pure political BS and nothing more, and is no more interesting or noteworthy than Ashley Judd’s hysterical diatribe against Sarah Palin the Wolf Butcher. A dumb, ignorant statement trumped up to sound way more than it is. Leakey, alas, ought to know better.

And if he is so certain that evolution is settled, then it makes little sense for anyone in anthropology to continue searching for bones in the African sands. Of course, the Czar is not nearly an expert in anthropology, so perhaps he shouldn’t speak in disciplines in which he does not concentrate.

Also, scientists were pretty clear that Newtonian physics were a settled science, too. Ask Einstein how that turned out.

In Which the Czar Muses

Two probably unrelated political thoughts.

First, this Elizabeth Warren nonsense. The Czar understands that Massachusetts voters don’t seem to care that she may or may not have Cherokee ancestry: they seem to be zeroing in on whether she can do the damn job. Good for Massachusetts. Of course, the real question is whether Harvard should drop her like a hot rock for lying on her paperwork. One may argue that Warren could simply have been mistaken about her ancestry—things like this do happen from time to time—but there does seem to be no evidence that she was mistaken at all. She seems to have made it all up, and continued to fabricate this nonsense until, seemingly, she began to believe it herself. Point: this is Harvard’s problem about academic honesty. And it is a doozy, with serious consequences either way.

Second, this Joe Biden nonsense. Call the Czar an optimist at your own risk, but lately the mainstream media seems hell-bent on exposing Biden for the dimwitted tool he really is. Yes, from the Left. The Czar can only conclude that the Left wants Obama to dump Biden off the ticket and go to Clinton for the obvious reasons:

1. Clinton is a stalwart Progressive, and Biden just says whatever nonsense whips through his head. In short, the media see Clinton as the more serious politician. Biden is a car wreck.
2. Clinton is the only Obama administration member with anything like a successful track record, even in the last three years. Obama? Squat. Biden? Even less. Yeah, they see her as ammunition against the GOP.
3. A little buyers’ remorse from them. Yeah, maybe Clinton would have been the more successful President than the thin-skinned Narcissus of Petulance. But rather than confess this regret, the media merely hope to encourage a change they like better.
4. The media must be recognizing that historical trends in polling seem to be moving like clockwork to a decisive Romney victory, and dammit, Biden is just too good at helping the GOP when they most need it.

The Czar believes, as do many of us on the Right, that Obama is not going to admit a mistake of this magnitude, and is not going to replace Biden no matter how painful the result. Given the large number of people sharing this view, why does speculation continue about a Clinton-for-Biden switch? The Czar concludes: it actually comes from the Left.

Romney's neither a Keynesian, nor a fool.

Dr. J. stumbled on this over at the Esquire Blog. How he got there, he's not sure. Perhaps a twitter link. Nevertheless, someone named Charles P. Pierce, who is clearly a Democrat partisan, is demonstrating his ignorance of both politics and economics.

He picks up on an exchange during Gov. Romney's Time interview with Mark Halperin, a journalist who has aggravated individuals on both the left and the right for various and sundry things he's written and said.

Let's go to the tape:

Halperin: I want to get to a lot of those, and let’s go to spending, which is a big thing for you, one of the bases of comparison – you say you’d cut spending a lot more than the President has. And like most governors I know, you can get down in the detail. A lot of people don’t know that about you; you can really get your arms around a policy issue and go deep, so let’s talk about spending. You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly? 

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

So, Mr. Pierce takes umbrage with the first couple of sentences of Gov. Romney's answer.

He quips:

Now, as it readily admits, the blog's knowledge of economics is limited to the blog's first law of economics — Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money — and it also believes that most professional economists arrive at their conclusions by reading the entrails of doves and cutting up goats on a rock, so it may be wrong here, but didn't Romney, in saying that, pretty much blow up the entire rationale for over 30 years of Republican economics right there? Cutting government spending will throw us into a recession or depression? No Christmas cards from the Ryan household this year, Willard. 

Here is what he cut out of Romney's answer to Mr. Halperin.

What you do is you make adjustments on a basis that show, in the first year, actions that over time get you to a balanced budget. So I’m not saying I’m going to come up with ideas five or ten years from now that get us to a balanced budget. Instead I’m going to take action immediately by eliminating programs like Obamacare, which become more and more expensive down the road – by eliminating them, we get to a balanced budget. And I’d do it in a way that does not have a huge reduction in the first year, but instead has an increasing reduction as time goes on, and given the growth of the economy, you don’t have a reduction in the overall scale of the GDP. I don’t want to have us go into a recession in order to balance the budget. I’d like to have us have high rates of growth at the same time we bring down federal spending, on, if you will, a ramp that’s affordable, but that does not cause us to enter into a economic decline.

So Romney's plan is both smart economically and politically.

Economically it is wise in that it cuts government spending in a way that doesn't diminish the GDP as the cuts are offset by private sector growth. It further cuts the government's role moving forward at a rate that is based on private sector gains. As the private sector heats up, there is less of a need for government spending. Any 'pain' caused by government spending cuts will be less likely to be felt. There will be screaming banshees to be sure, however. Ask Scott Walker.

Politically it is smart because if he cuts government spending too fast, then total GDP declines, which with regard to real economic impact is may not be a big deal, as most of the Obama administration's spending (e.g. Solyndra, various and sundry kickbacks to union friends) appears to be an economic divisor rather than an economic multiplier. but it is a huge politically.

Remember, the definition of a recession is 'at least two straight quarters of negative economic growth.' If Mr. Romney enjoyed any negative economic growth during his time in office the left will be screaming like a bunch of wounded harpies.

So, lets do a thought experiment. If Mr. Romney cut government spending too fast (5% in the first year, then even left it at 0% the remaining time) and we saw 0% growth in the first year and 3% growth each year thereafter, the GDP would look something like this:


You can see a recession leading right up to the midterms. Cutting spending too fast is a political liability and modern Americans and the politicians they elect would prefer the easy thing to the right thing, which is a bitter pill.

Mr. Romney's economic plan may make recovery easier to swallow, by avoiding some, if not all of this initial negative growth. It sounds like it would turn us in the right direction with a little bit of time. Dr. J. believes though that the slope of his growth line will be less steep than it would be with a tougher initial tack, but if taking his time is what will actually permit our economy to be set in the right direction than he remains a far more palatable choice then President Obama who is hellbent on making us the next Greece.

An Eye on the Electoral Count

Dr. J.'s buddy, Jamie Jeffords, at the Eye of Polyphemus, writes today regarding potential Blue-state pickoffs for Mr. Romney. Now, Dr. J. quibbles about they way he defines a blue state (a state that went for Obama in 2008, rather than a state that over the last few election has been firmly blue or red, but like Dr. J. said, that's a minor point).

He did make this interesting point about Virginia that got Dr. J. to worry.

I am cautiously optimistic about Virginia, but those blue-ish DC suburbs in the northern part of the state are loaded with self-loathing affluent progressives who feel obligated to guide the rest of the red state yokels whom they believe do not know any better. On a less snaky note, Gov. Bob McDonnell’s organization handed Mitt Romney the primary. It may put him over the in the commonwealth in November. McDonnell will noty (sic.) be Romney’s running mate, but a Cabinet post is his for the taking.

Those affluent blue-ish DC suburbs are might become bluer in the near future given the tax increase that affluent Montgomery County Marylanders are facing, making it a tougher battleground in the future. However Dr. J. doesn't expect the state to enjoy a demographic shift due to an exodus from navy blue Maryland in time for November. That being said, you never know.

Go read the rest of Jamie's predictions. He did a great job prognosticating the Republican Primaries (nailing the trifecta almost every time) so his analysis of the battleground states is worth reading.

Oh yeah, the bonus babe of the day is Catwoman.

Careful What You Wish For

The New York Times Sunday Review has a strange editorial that seems completely diconnected from reality. Are you shocked?

Entitled “Bring Back the Real Maverick,” the piece covers how Senator John McCain (R-2008) is interested in a law that requires political donors in amounts of $10,000 or more to reveal their names to the public.

McCain explains that his reasoning all revolves around the revelation of which unions are the biggest donors. Whatever—the Czar thinks that private political contributions should stay private as a matter of, well, privacy. Not to worry: the bill has almost no support from either party in the Senate.

And the editorial board thinks that is a shame. As they put it:

Americans need to know who is for disclosure and who wants to hide the truth about big donors and misleading ads.

Really, now? Really?

Didn’t you help elect the Full Disclosure President, who has been listed as among the most manipulative and secretive presidents ever? And let us count up the negative and misleading ads and see which party’s candidates is exploting them. Hint: it isn’t the party of the guy openly running on his record.

Gay Intolerance

The Gormogons like to play compare and contrast in order to reach a higher sense of understanding.

Yesterday, the Czar excoriated the vile Charles Worley for his know-nothing rant about gays. In response, the Czar received what he considers a highly typical response from another thinker on the right, FJR of Virginia:

Charles Worley is an embarrassment to the pulpit and to the Baptist faith. I watched the short clip of his performance (I can’t call that preaching because it certainly wasn’t God inspired). I sat in stunned silence as I listened to his hate filled rant. I’m opposed to gay marriage and do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle but I love my gay/lesbian friends and would never treat them with anything other than love and kindness. Worley is a moron and he is as bad as any fundamentalist Islamist. He certainly isn’t preaching any Christian doctrine that I’m familiar with. God hates homosexuality but he also hates ignorance so maybe we should lock Worley up until he learns how to interpret scripture correctly. Or maybe Worley is a homophobe because of some suppressed tendencies. Who knows but your eloquent description of him as a jackass hits the nail on the head.

This is a perfect summation, and the Czar changed not a word of it. She blasts the hatred of the man, thoroughly repudiates his venom, and points out quite clearly that while the whole over-the-top lifestyle is unacceptable to her, she still dearly loves people, gay or otherwise.

Now let us contrast to this to our dear friend Madeleine McAulay, long-time FotG, who wrote largely the same opinion on her Faith, Hope, and Politics site. She cares little for same sex marriage, and theorized that President Obama was wrong to claim, for political points, that he does support it.

She received extremely obscene messages, including a couple of death threats, from folks on the Left. Not that her age has anything to do with her political beliefs—it doesn’t—but she makes no secret of her youth, and the blatantly sexually offensive nature of the comments cannot be excused: people are threatening a high school girl, which makes these messages very serious in their nature.

The Czar has said it before, many times, and feels compelled to say it again. The gay and lesbian community loves to badger the religious, the conservatives, and the right for all these imaginary grievances. But they knowingly overlook the most egregiously offensive source of their own problems: themselves.

The gay community needs to purge itself as fully as possible of all these hateful, pissy, dramatic, bullying, threatening, and poison-spewing lunatics that totally destroy the logic behind their pleas for tolerance. Trust someone who knows: “Tolerate us or we’ll kill you” is not effective marketing.

Likewise, we get hate mail, too, whenever we write about some bizarre event in the gay community and elect to use a photograph from some outrageous parade, in which participants are provocatively dressed or bedazzled in some over-the-top fashion. It seems that we promote stereotypes by doing so. As always, check the URL on those photo sources: they come from the gay community. If the gay community wants the rest of us to take you seriously, then you need to—once again—find the people trashing your image at these events and ask them to leave. They are the ones promoting it.

Another contrasting example. Tea Party members have quietly and carefully asked protest participants to (a) stop wearing outlandish 18th Century costumes and (b) leave rifles and visible firearms at home. Why? Because it detracts and ultimately humiliates the message. When you have members who make a crass joke out of your message or provoke or worry non-members, you need to police it.

Or, you could send death threats to wonderful high school juniors for worrying openly about the motives of her President. Which one, would a reasonable and undecided person think is more effective?

The gay community will continue to have a hard time enjoying the full freedoms they expect of this country, if they allow so many of their own members to bully, harrass, intimidate, threaten, or terrorize non-members, and likewise if they allow some members to promote the rest of you as debauched, lunatic, and sexually deranged freaks.

Gay and lesbian readers should pause and ask themselves if they really feel they have accomplished much in the last 20 years. If not, how else do you account for it? The diminished influence of the religious right? The static conservative majority who expresses, in poll after poll increased acceptance? The open inclusion of gays in popular media?

Or is it something within your own ranks?

The coy southpaw from Chappaqua, NY

Yesterday on the Fox News Special Report Online post-show broadcast, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training, by the way, intimated that Obama wouldn't replace our gaffetastic Vice President Biden with Secretary Clinton for the 2012 race. His reasoning was that Obama is too narcissistic. That being said, he made the caveat that he wasn't using his psychiatrist's cap.

In his own words:

“Obama, I think, can never bring himself to do something very large, like this, which would show that he needs the Clintons, particularly Hillary, to win.” 

“I just think for Obama to show himself as being weak and needing this to win is more than he can ever muster,” Krauthammer added. “So I think the odds are low. I could be wrong — rarely, but it’s happened.” 

Dr. J. agrees with Dr. Krauthammer's assessment (Dr. J. got an A in Psychiatry, back in medical school, BTW.) but would temper it, and you will see why, below the video clip.



A few weeks ago, before Mother's Day actually, Dr. J. was at the local Hallmark Store buying insanely marked up cards from this Catholic family owned formerly small business. You see, Dr. J. cares enough to send the very best.

While he was there, he was taken by the conversation a loud, brash, outspoken 55ish year old woman was having with one of the cashiers. The woman had a New York accent, Long Island, specifically, and was clearly a Democrat. The thrust of her conversation was that she was hoping that President Obama would dump Biden for Hillary Clinton in the VP slot. The last time this topic was in the news was about that time.

Now Dr. J. is one of those people who can't keep his mouth shut. Dr. J. is also one of those people who is sufficiently skilled at keeping himself on topic (when speaking, anyway) that he isn't going to offend the listener with his interjection. He tends to stay away from land-mine like interjections.

Dr. J. raised the point that despite the dreams and fantasies of those Democrats who for whatever reason were putting their hopes and dreams in Hillary Clinton to be the first woman President, it would be a mistake for Obama, or any president to replace his Vice President, unless the VP disgraced the office (and being a bonehead doesn't meet that threshold), or became incapacitated and unable to fulfill the obligations he is charged with. Spiro Agnew resigned under charges of bribery back in 1973, after his re-election. That's the sort of threshold for replacing a VP that Dr. J. is talking about.

It was discussed in the media whether or not Dan Quayle, Al Gore, and Dick Cheney should be replaced during the re-election race. Nothing ever came of it.

You see, in the modern era, the first decision any presidential candidate makes is who his vice president will be. By replacing that person the president istacitly saying that his first decision was a wrong decision. In so doing he loses a lot of credibility with voters whether or not he or the voters consciously realize that or not.

So Dr. J. agrees with Dr. K. that Obama is a narcissist and that replacing Biden would make him look weak, but he also would like to add that those are true, true and unrelated.

Obama is certainly the most narcissistic individual to hold the office of President in the modern era, but even the most self actualized executive would not make that mistake for the very same reasons.

E.J. Dionne and Maureen Dowd: Roman Catholicism's Fifth Column

Hey, E.J! You dropped your thirty
pieces of silver! Don't worry. MoDo
will get them for you.

'Puter guesses portraying Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd as Roman Catholicism's fifth column is a bit inflammatory, and perhaps a tad inaccurate.  Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd are more appropriately described as quislings.

E.J. Dionne continues his epic run for the title of the most self-deluded, self-proclaimed Catholic of all time with his column today in the Washington Post. Mr. Dionne opines that the Catholic bishop's law suit aimed at overturning
Obama's contraception mandate is a political stunt, specifically intended in bad faith to target President Obama's reelection prospects.

'Puter told you yesterday that this was coming.  We see that Ms. Dowd and Mr. Dionne are united in pressing the same message: the Catholic Church is politically motivated and should be ignored not only by the secular world, but by Catholics themselves.

The Left is Hell-bent on destroying the Catholic Church's moral authority, as the Catholic Church is one of the few remaining cultural institutions with large enough influence to take on the government.  Further, the Church's moral authority, while severely diminished, is still far superior to that of the government, no matter which party's running it. It is apparent to 'Puter that, based on the Left's behavior, liberals view the Catholic Church as the last foe to be vanquished in order to usher in the unending reign of their false god, Big Government.

And who better to take on the Catholic Church? Why, two revered liberal columnists who call themselves Catholic, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. What evidence, you say? The evidence is plainly in their thoughts and in their words, in what they have done and what they have failed to do.  We know Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd by the company they keep.

So, long way around, but back to Mr. Dionne's column. As is typical, Mr. Dionne presents his readers the world as he wishes it were, rather than the world as it is.

Let's start with this howler, that's at the end of Mr. Dionne's piffle, but is demonstrative of his delusional state: "For too long, the Catholic Church’s stance on public issues has been defined by the outspokenness of its most conservative bishops and the reticence of moderate and progressive prelates."

Oh. Yes. Well.  If you say so, Mr. Dionne. 'Puter guesses that we should just ignore the past 50 years of post-Vatican II hippie horseshit that's been crammed down the faithful's throat by disobedient and misguided prelates.  Everything from supine (and likely supportive) bishops ignoring former governor Mario Cuomo's famous "sure, I'm pro-abortion publicly, but you should see how pro-life I am in my private life" weasel out to the bishops ignoring the homosexual bath house mentality prevalent in the 1970s seminaries.  This leaves aside the travesty that is the current American Catholic Mass (and it's uniquely horrible music).

To hear Mr. Dionne tell it, the conservative Catholic bishops are on a Sherman's March through the Catholic state, razing, raping and burning doctrine, dogma and catechism on their way to the sea. Garbage, Mr. Dionne.  If you actually believe this, 'Puter'd be shocked.  In fact, 'Puter's betting you know the truth is the exact opposite of your claim.  America's conservative Catholic bishops are clawing back the Faith from the hands of those (like you) who have gleefully used it for your own political purposes for years.

Let's continue.  Mr. Dionne's argument essential argument is that the bishops pending challenge to ObamaCare's contraception mandate is an ill-advised political ploy.  Mr. Dionne bases this argument on the following "facts":

1. Lots of American dioceses chose not to join the suit. 

This fact, while true on its face, tells us exactly nothing. Mr. Dionne intends this fact to mislead his readers.  It is likely that the dioceses' attorneys determined to use fewer, more powerful and better known Catholic institutions as plaintiffs to maximize impact.  This is a normal and accepted litigation strategy.  Let the stars shine.  How many non-Catholics would say, "Jeez, if the diocese of East Podunkville is fired up, then there really must be something wrong!" Right. No one.  Now substitute for "diocese of East Podunkville" "the University of Notre Dame." Or "the Archdiocese of Washington." Or the "Archdiocese of New York."  Right.  A whole lot more non-Catholics are familiar with these institutions.  They're the traditional backbone of American Catholicism.

2. Some bishops in California think the suit is premature.

Well, perhaps these bishops are lawyers.  'Puter doesn't know.  What 'Puter does know is that if you wait until any regulation is implemented, it's too late.  You've lost.  Momentum is on the government's side at that point, and judges are far less inclined to intrude. Further, 'Puter's betting that the unnamed and named California clerics are likely in Mr. Dionne's quasi-Catholic wing of the Church.  These folks are comfortable with the "come as you are, take what you want" cafeteria Catholicism prevalent since Vatican II.

3. Liberal Catholics have kept quiet about their concerns.

Horseshit. Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd, not to mention every Catholic and non-Catholic shrill harpy talking head on MSNBC, have droned on, day after endless day, about how the Catholic Church has been taken over by the conservative wing, and dagnabit, they're out to get Obama and all of us enlightened Catholics. You know, enlightened. As in those Catholics like Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd who choose to ignore the uncomfortable or unpopular or inconvenient Church teachings.  The little ones like transubstantiation and the consistent ethic of life.

4. Mr. Dionne doesn't like the Fortnight for Freedom.

Well then.  That settles it. Mr. Dionne's word is law, after all.  And, really, he must be correct.  A religious organization pushing back against a government dedicated to overturning longstanding and fundamental American freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights? And not in some lame Amendment like the Second Amendment that only Tea Party crazies like, but in the uber-cool First Amendment that protects the rights of the press and individuals to speak their minds.  People just like Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd.  It's madness if we let people protect their own rights and freedoms. After all, Mr. Dionne tells us we have a perfectly good government to do that for us.

5. Mr. Dionne doesn't like the Vatican's smackdown of the hard left ladies who lunch and otherwise form the membership of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

Of course Mr. Dionne hates the Vatican's smackdown of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.  It's an obvious sign of the Vatican's rededication to enforcing its doctrine at all levels, whether ordained or lay.  The LCWR has been far afield of Catholic doctrine for a very long time, much as Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd have been.  Of course nominal Catholics don't like being told to shape up and shut up, or get the [heck] out.  It's got to be disconcerting, particularly when you've been liturgically dancing to the beat of a different folk group drummer for going on 50 years now.  But too danged bad.  Rules are rules, and should be followed.  And if the good sisters don't like it, they should go Protestant.  Despite 'Puter's appreciation of the opportunity afforded by Mr. Dionne to revisit his smackdown of the LCWR, 'Puter fails to see the relevance of this point.

6. A single bishop cried to a noted leftist Catholic rag that he really and for true doesn't like the bishop's lawsuit.

America is a well-known hard left Jesuit rag, famed for putting forth positions at odds with the Church. And so to is Bishop Stephen E. Blaire, the cited bishop of Stockton. Further, the Bishop may have an axed to grind with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops'  hierarchy, as he lost the a recent election to chair an important committee because of claims he ignored the sexual abuse of children by priests under his supervision. 'Puter finds this interesting, as Mr. Dionne has been known to excoriate his claimed Church for ignoring child sexual abuse by priests. But, any port in a storm, right Mr. Dionne?

7. The lawsuit is political.

Of course it is.  By nature, the lawsuit must be.  The government charged with protecting and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help them God is attempting to ignore the Constitution's mandates itself.  What the heck else did Mr. Dionne expect it to be? The lawsuit happens to be against the Obama Administration because they're the only administration stupid enough to ignore the religious freedoms of a mainstream religion big enough to punch back.  Whatever one thinks of Obama's contraception mandate, one must admit it was colossally stupid for the Obama Administration to take on the Catholic Church.  This one decision may spell the end for Obama's presidency.

8. Some bishops are going to ignore the Fortnight for Freedom.

So what?  The Catholic Church is a big tent, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has no authority to force a bishop to take any action whatsoever within his bishopric.  Only the Vatican may do so. What exactly does this have to do with anything?

9. Catholics were united against the contraception mandate in February. Why damage the unity?

Catholics were united against ObamaCare's contraceptive mandate in February because conservative Catholics shamed liberal Catholics into it.  Liberal Catholics couldn't even pretend that requiring Catholic institutions to pay for employees' birth control wasn't a gross violation of the First Amendment.  Upon realizing that they'd massively screwed up and alienated an important constituency, the Obama Administration, aided and abetted by liberal "Catholics" like Mr. Dionne, set about creating a fig leaf so that liberal Catholics could claim the issue was resolved.  The Obama Administration's compromise, the one Mr. Dionne cites for its Solomonic wisdom? The compromise is to permit religious organizations an additional year before imposing the exact same mandate on them.  Some compromise.

10. The Great and Wise Obama fixed everything with the compromise anyway, so why are you complaining?

If you can't see E.J. Dionne for what he is after reading today's column, then you have actively chosen to ignore fact.  Mr. Dionne is a willing shill for the Obama Administration posing as a Catholic. Mr. Dionne is also an apologist for all nominal Catholics who want to ignore the Church's millenia old doctrine, dogma, catechism and Magisterium and still claim they are in any meaningful way Catholic.

Cardinal Wuerl summed it up quite nicely in his column in yesterday's Washington Post.  You should really read the whole thing.  The bishops' lawsuit is not anti-Obama.  It is pro-freedom. The suit is dedicated to re-establishing the endangered (yet bedrock) principle that people in America are free to worship as they see fit, without government interference. That's it. Nothing more.  Here's some choice words the good Cardinal.  'Puter defies you to find error in them:

The Catholic Church has not picked this fight. We are simply trying to defend our — and other faith groups’ — long-standing rights. While the administration wants to regulate religion, we are not trying to force anything on anyone. Allowing religious organizations to serve the public does not violate the separation of church and state. Conscripting us into advancing government objectives against our conscience does.

This struggle is all about the Bill of Rights. You don’t have to agree with the Catholic Church and its teachings to agree that the government shouldn’t force us to violate our beliefs. People of all faiths or no faith should cherish the right to follow one’s conscience. We do not want to tell the government what it must do. We simply ask the same of them.

This is exactly why Mr. Dionne, Ms. Dowd and their comrades on the Left hate the Catholic Church and work to discredit it from within and without.  The Catholic Church stands four-square opposed to government diktats. A shorter synopsis of the Cardinal's column might read, "Get out of our way, leave us the Hell alone, and let us get on with our work, as we've done for 2,000 years." The Left can't tolerate independence.  It's dangerous to government supremacy when people think and act for themselves, even collectively, without government control.

Again, it's time to pick sides.  Who do you stand with? Mr. Dionne and his leftist compatriots arguing for government control of every area of your life? Or do you stand, like 'Puter, with the Catholic Church and those of us who believe in limited government and personal responsibility.

Choose.

That Is A Tough One

This about sums it up - remember all the liberals are touting all the wonderful policies and programs that Obama led that saved the economy:

Space Cowboy - Venn Diagram Edition

Mine, Mine, Mine, All Mine.

Having attended Saturday evening Mass this past weekend, GorT and Mrs. GorT were enjoying a leisurely Sunday morning by watching some Sunday morning news shows over breakfast.  One show had Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) on to discuss his sponsorship of the "ex-PATRIOT" Act.  While others have compared it to the Soviet-style exit taxes and Grover Norquist compared it to Nazi, Rhodesian and South African tax schemes, I found something else disturbing about the Senator's discussion.

During some of the open dialogue with the hosts, Senator Casey threw out some estimate of the amount of taxes Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin which was in the millions of dollars and claimed that without such legislation, the United States would have to "make up" that lost tax revenue.  Excuse me?

This is a key area where liberals and conservatives differ.  Liberals will focus on the rich investor, creator, leader, or founder of a company and decry how much they earn and how little they pay in taxes.  Conservatives will laud the same people for taking that risk and growing our economy by investing capital, time, and other resources and creating - not "creating or saving" - jobs.  Currently it had created somewhere north of 3,500 jobs.  It is looking to populate a Menlo Park, California campus with over 9,000 employees in the next five years.  Not only is that growth for Facebook, but the businesses in and around Menlo Park will see an economic uptick.

To you liberals out there, this is 3,500 employees now paying income taxes to the United States.  As they exercise their options and sell their shares, they will be paying capital gains taxes to the United States.  This is creating revenue for the United States.  Revenue the country did not have prior to the existence of Facebook.  So instead of being greedy and targeting the rich investor who is leaving, why not focus on creating an atmosphere that encourages more investors, founders, and entrepreneurs to create businesses here in the United States?

Unfortunately, the hosts did not pick up on that tidbit.  Mrs. GorT did and almost spat our her coffee screaming, "it wasn't here to start with, idiot!!"  We need to pressure these liberal idiots.  Letting something like that slide only allows the continuation of the envious warfare that they are engendering in this country.  We need to stop allowing politicians to take deficit cutting credits for costs that weren't going to be there to start.  We need to focus on creating and improving the business environment for American job growth.  Revamp education like we've said we've needed to do for the last 60 years.  Overhaul and simplify the tax code.  Review and streamline federal regulations - keep appropriate safeguards in place, but eliminate ones that are restricting job growth.  And stop allowing politicians off the hook for soundbite answers that make no sense.

Cultural Catholics, Liberal Columnists, President Obama and Other Pretenders

The last few days have seen a rash of rationalizing columns from the liberal nominally Catholic nomenklatura.  And yes, 'Puter means to use "rash" in its most nasty, suppurating, syphilitic form to describe the detached ramblings of Maureen Dowd (here, in Sunday's New York Times; here in today's NYT) and E.J. Dionne (here, in today's Washington Post).

Before 'Puter tears down Ms. Dowd (a/k/a MoDo, the PoMo Ho) and Mr. Dionne's columns, he has this question for his faithful minions.  What's with the sudden plague of liberal, nominally Catholic liberal elites trashing the Holy Mother Church? In 'Puter's feeble mind, there are two answers:

1. Liberals, especially their lackeys in the media, are terrified that The Great And Powerful O is blowing his reelection. See, e.g., Michael Gerson's competing column in yesterday's Washington Post, here.

2. Liberals want to discredit the Church's moral authority in order thereby to discredit the Church's criticism of Obama's contraception mandate specifically and ObamaCare generally. See, e.g., Archbishop Donald Wuerl's explanatory column in today's Washington Post, here.

To liberals, it's a win-win.  Return their secular savior to the White House and smash the greatest perceived obstacle to his institution of heaven on Earth (i.e., the overweening liberal nanny state), the Roman Catholic Church. 

'Puter's got some thoughts on these topics, in excruciating detail, but he's short on time at the moment.  Perhaps 'Puter will return to the topic at a later time.  Then again, if 'Puter gets to the vodka first, a return to this topic, let alone any coherent topic, is unlikely.