People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Friday, June 05, 2009

Can We Call These 'Green' Jobs?

Governor Kaine, having nothing better to do ..., is coming to Southwest Virginia to make us think he cares about the plight of the poor people of Appalachia.

Caring. That comes in lieu of his actually doing anything about the plight of the poor people of Appalachia.

But never mind.

In his stopover, Kaine, according to the Roanoke Times, is going to take a tour of Mountain Rose Vineyards.

Why is that important?

Because Mountain Rose Vineyards was built on land that had once been a surface mine.

Kilo reacts:
Governor Kaine to Visit Mountain Rose Vineyard in Wise - Not possible without Mountain Top Removal

Our part-time governor will visit my local winery Friday. As he tours the beautiful and productive site he will see the end result of surface mining. Land that was mined and provided jobs and tax revenue many years ago that now is still providing jobs and revenue paired with beauty.
This is significant because we hear, from whiners like those at the Roanoke Times, that surface mining permanently scars the landscape and renders irreparable damage to a fragile ecological balance of flora, fawna, and boulders. And such bullshit.

Mountain Rose Vineyard's existence slaps that notion in the face. Where once inaccessible rocky crags existed, the fruit of the vine doth now grow.

I have in the past criticized Governor Kaine for his foolish notion that we can create tens of thousands of "green" jobs in the commonwealth. I don't take back that criticism because he refers to windmill and solar manufacturing jobs - a number that can better be counted on one's toes.

But Mountain Rose Vineyard gives support to the idea that green jobs are out there to be nurtured. If in small numbers.

Numbers that we'll cheer any day.

Put To The Test

I let you in on "Jerry's first rule of public discourse" the other day. That being:

If you say it (or write it), stand by it. If you're not going to stand by it, keep your mouth shut

So on Wednesday I wrote this about one Rachel Sklar who made some hard-up blogger's "
10 Hottest Liberal Women In Politics list:

"Rachel Sklar? I don't know who she is but she has to be a vegetarian. Would someone get her a burger? And some makeup? And a hair brush?"

Guess what. Guess who emailed me that afternoon?


I'll give her credit. She wasn't angry or even snippy. (Well, maybe she was angry but she didn't let it show). Ms. Sklar's response to my post was, in truth, and to her credit, a bit benign (for some mysterious reason). The contents of her email aren't mine to divulge, but let it suffice to say I cringed when I opened it.

But understand. I live by Jerry's First Rule Of Public Discourse. While I could have started backpedaling and making nice, which is what a weasel would do, I stand by what I wrote. The woman looks like, according to the photo provided anyway, she needs to sit down to a plate of red meat, gain some iron and protein, and fill them bones out.

Yeah, she is (or was) an editor for The Huffington Post. And yes, as it turns out, she's written for a number of major publications around the country.

But that doesn't affect the impression engendered.

I am willing to give a bit though. I am prepared to accept the fact that her diet isn't her problem. I'm fully prepared to believe her sickly appearance is due to a greater extent to the fact that she's Canadian and it's in her great-frozen-north genes.

And that circumstance no amount of porterhouse is going to make go away.

The Struggle Continues

It appears that the judiciary still has liberal holdouts when it comes to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. The Bill of Rights? Well, it only applies if states or municipalities say it does.

George Wallace vindicated!

This is bizarre:
Sotomayor Guns For The 2nd Amendment
Investor's Business Daily editorial

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected subsequent suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, both of which believe the Constitution prevents citizens from defending themselves.

The Circuit Court decision was written by Judge Frank Easterbrook and joined by Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer. Easterbrook's reasoning is fascinating. According to him, the Revolution was fought and independence won so that the Founding Fathers could write a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that applied only to the District of Columbia.

"Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government," Easterbrook wrote, "while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state." We're all for federalism, but the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Constitution.

Surely he can't be serious. But he is, and agreeing with him is Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. [link]
The argument provided by the learned judge was made 46 years ago in a schoolhouse doorway on the University of Alabama campus by another champion of federalism:
As Governor and Chief Magistrate of the State of Alabama I deem it to be my solemn obligation and duty to stand before you representing the rights and sovereignty of this State and its peoples.

The unwelcomed, unwanted, unwarranted and force-induced intrusion upon the campus of the University of Alabama today of the might of the Central Government offers frightful example of the oppression of the rights, privileges and sovereignty of this State by officers of the Federal Government. This intrusion results solely from force, or threat of force, undignified by any reasonable application of the principle of law, reason and justice.
The speaker of those words was reviled by the left in this country in his time. Now they champion his cause.

Can we be far from "Whites only"?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Growing the Flock

This is one way to fill the pews on Sunday morning:
Gun-loving pastor to his flock: Piece be with you
By Dylan T. Lovan, Associated Press

Louisville, Ky. – A Kentucky pastor is inviting his flock to bring guns to church to celebrate the Fourth of July and the Second Amendment.

New Bethel Church is welcoming "responsible handgun owners" to wear their firearms inside the church June 27, a Saturday. An ad says there will be a handgun raffle, patriotic music and information on gun safety.

"We're just going to celebrate the upcoming theme of the birth of our nation," said pastor Ken Pagano. "And we're not ashamed to say that there was a strong belief in God and firearms — without that this country wouldn't be here." [link]
Well, okay. Whatever trips your trigger, I guess.

This Might Be a Bit Much

If I were an Israeli I'd certainly be questioning Obama's leanings too. Even if the questioning might become a bit strident:

Obama is demanding that the Israelis cease building bedroom additions onto their homes in the settlements. But what demand is he making of the Palestinians?

When he orders Hezballah out of Lebanon, then we'll know he's not a Jew-hater.

- -

For more on the push-back, and the origins of the poster above, go here.

To Every Action There Is a Reaction

For those of you dimwits out there who think Obama is going to tax the rich and American corporations till they bleed and the rich and the CEO's are simply going to ask for a band aid in return, read and wise up:
Ballmer Says Tax Would Move Microsoft Jobs Offshore
By Ryan J. Donmoyer, Bloomberg.com

June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.”

Ballmer said that, while the Obama proposals would preserve expense deductions related to research and experimentation costs, the overall deduction limits for companies that defer tax on foreign profits would raise the cost of employing U.S. workers. Fiduciary responsibility to shareholders would require Microsoft to cut costs, he said, meaning many jobs would be moved out of the country. [link]
Some will say "good riddance" when Microsoft starts moving thousands of jobs offshore. But is that the healthy attitude?

The Democrats are destroying the last vestiges of competitive edge that this country had for a hundred years. And nobody's trying to stop them.

The Obligatory Obama Speech Post

I know I'm supposed to address The Speech that Obama delivered yesterday in Cairo. But I haven't much of anything to say. I was working and didn't listen to it. From the snippets that were played on the radio, though, I have but one observation:

Been there. Done that.

Based on what I heard, it's clear that every president since Jimmy Carter has given that same speech, with the same themes, the same platitudes, the same rhetoric, the same admonitions, the same promises. The purpose? To address the strained relations between the Muslim world and the civilized world. Relations that soured in or around 1095 when Pope Urban II ruffled Muslim feathers for the first time. And even that probably wasn't the first time.

The only exception with this speech would be in Obama's calling for recognition of a Palestinian state. But even that isn't groundbreaking. It is, though, a phenomenon of recent decades.

Anyway, here's what someone else thought of the speech.

It was a kumbaya singalong with Muslims, Shia included, and there’s no place for ultimatums in a drum circle. What made it lame, apart from didactic Mr. Rogers-esque pap like, “It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share,” was how few concrete solutions it offered, opting instead for the usual “le Change, c’est moi” persona-as-policy Obama shtick. As Andrew Bolt put it, “Of actual proposals to solve anything he has few. He’s offering not plans but himself. He is the Healer.” The NYT admitted the same thing buried 15 paragraphs in, natch. Politico actually reached this surreal depth in trying to rationalize why the speech was so important:

"The 55-minute speech was remarkable and historic not so much for the delivery or even the words, but for the context, the orator, the moment. Obama included blunt talk about the United States, Israel, Iraq, his predecessor and al Qaeda."

When you’ve got the media calling you an oratorical genius notwithstanding the content or delivery of your speeches, you’ve got it made, kid. [link]
That last line says it all.

A towering speech for all time. The contents of which will be forgotten by next week.

Jimmy Carter.
Ronald Reagan.
George Bush.
Bill Clinton.
George Bush.
Sarah Palin ...

More On Those Settlements

Charles Krauthammer:
The Settlements Myth

What's the issue? No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them -- not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that. The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns -- even before negotiations.

The entire "natural growth" issue is a concoction. Is the peace process moribund because a teacher in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is making an addition to her house to accommodate new grandchildren?

In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo yesterday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.

Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements. [link]
Not just that. Obama and his contemptible band of State Department sympathizers are also trying to tie Iranian nuclear machinations to those same Israeli settlements, telling us that nothing can be done about Iran developing The Bomb because Israel is putting up garages next to existing homes on land that Israel has governed for forty years.

It's shameful.

Quote of the Day

Investor's Business Daily on Obama's speech:

[A]s if speaking on the set of Dr. Phil, [Obama] claimed "we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors."

In fact, the Muslims that America has a problem with — i.e., Islamofascists — seldom have trouble expressing what they hold in their hearts. Often it's sheer hatred for the West.

"Cairo Candy," June 4, 2009