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

Monday, December 07, 2009

This Is The Roanoke Times On Drugs

One can only shake one's head in wonder and amazement:
A worthless prescription for jobs

When it comes to jobs, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor has nothing to offer but stale remedies and hypocrisy.

Last week, the Virginia representative released a list of seven ways to boost job creation without spending federal money.

What's the plan? It will sound familiar: Freeze federal spending. Cut taxes. Reduce or eliminate regulation. Approve free trade agreements. Allow more domestic drilling and other energy production.

That's it. The same "plan" Republicans have been calling for since there have been Republicans. The same "plan" they mostly implemented during the Bush presidency.

The same "plan," in other words, that helped get us to 10 percent unemployment in the first place. [link]
This is such bullshit that I don't know where to begin.  But here are a few points to consider.

"The same 'plan' they mostly implemented during the Bush presidency."

1) In his eight years in office, Bush added $632,000,000 to the federal budget.

According to the Times Bush froze federal spending.  In light of that statistic, when in the Bush presidency was a freeze implemented - at all or "mostly"?

2)  The Times wants you to believe that Bush did his darnedest to "reduce or eliminate regulation."  But here's a fact:

"In number of pages, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), ... with the 2007 edition totaling 145,816 pages, was more than 4,500 pages longer than in 2001, when Bush took office, and almost 8,000 pages longer than in 2000."

He "reduce[d] or eliminate[d] regulation"?  I'm searching for which one.

3)  The Times: "Approve free trade agreements." If you consider NAFTA and the renegotiation of GATT to be the most sweeping and influential trade agreements to have ever been developed, and if you understand that they were both negotiated by a Democratic president - Bill Clinton - and approved by a Democratically controlled Senate, when in the Bush presidency was either implemented - at all or "mostly"?

4) "Allow more domestic drilling."  This chart of domestic production speaks for itself:

Click on the image to enlarge it.

When in the Bush presidency was more drilling implemented?

5) "Allow ... other energy production."  What does that even mean?  Nuclear?  Don't make me laugh.  Solar?  Wind?  Aren't these the jokers who have been in favor of alternative energy sources?

6) They did get one right: Bush "cut taxes."  About which the Heritage Foundation has this:
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Heck, all those are just facts though. Why let them get in the way of a mindless, baseless, juvenile, mythical  screed?

One more thing: Bush can be blamed for a rising unemployment rate to be sure.  But from 2002 to 2009 (the Bush years) unemployment increased 1.1%. And from 2002 to 2008 it rose exactly 0.0%.  Look it up.

In the Obama years year it's gone from 5.8% to 10.0%.

"The same 'plan,' in other words, that helped get us to 10 percent unemployment."  Propaganda.  Feckless propaganda.

Obama's Disapproval Rating Climbs

Disapproval now stands at 48.3%.

Approval at 47.8%.

It will get worse from here.

Openly and often criticizing the USA, and attempting to subvert every institution in this country that Americans hold dear will have that effect.

Food For Thought

I used to refer to Bill Clinton as our first existential president.  Often accused of lying through his teeth, I always felt that he was, rather, telling us what he truly believed.  At that point in time. The fact that what he believed today was the exact opposite of what he believed yesterday made sense in that context.  He was for big government.  He was against big government.  He was for taxing the rich and against it.  He wasn't fudging.  He simply believed in those varying positions depending on the day.  And time.  And on what he had for lunch.  And on the nookie factor.

Interestingly, when challenged on his conflicting positions, he'd always respond by saying his positions never changed at all; that he'd always held to his current stance on specific issues.  And he wasn't lying.  Because he believed what he was saying. 

Well, if Clinton was our first existential president, can Obama be our first teleological president?

Steven Den Beste:
[T]o materialists, it’s apparent that socialism is a nice idea, but one that doesn’t work and shouldn’t be adopted.

To teleologists, none of that matters. What matters is the fact that it’s a beautiful idea. It’s how things should be. In a world in which socialism was implemented and which worked the way the teleologists think it should work, you really would have a utopia. The fact that it’s invariably failed when used doesn’t change any of that.

Why does teleology (in this mutated form) matter? Because right now we have a teleologist as our President.

Matthew Continetti says that we’re in “a year of magical thinking.” And to someone who has grown up with a materialist view of the universe, it could certainly seem that way. But what’s really going on is that Obama has this kind of world view. And that explains everything he’s done.

It explains his foreign policy. To a teleologists, it just makes sense that everyone should want to get along. If you unclench your fist and hold out your hand, everyone else will unclench their fists, and become your friends. So Obama is doing that, and as we know the result has been a shambles.

It explains his economic policy. Teleologists inherently don’t believe in unintended side effects when it comes to implementing their idealistic policies. Obviously it should be possible to provide free health care to everyone without wrecking the economy; it’s just how things really should be, so that’s how it will be. Where will the money come from? That’s the kind of question that materialists ask; teleologists don’t concern themselves with such trivial. It’ll happen somehow, because it’s obviously how it should turn out. To say we shouldn’t do it is to be heartless, uncaring — and those things are more important than mundane claims that it won’t work. If you just believe, it will work.

Of course, it won’t work. The materialists are right about that. But when it fails (if it gets tried) the teleologists will blame the negative vibes of all the materialist doubters for the failure. If only they’d come on board and supported it, then it would have come out OK.
Explains a lot, I think.  Not that it'll make the outcome any less damaging.  But at least it helps explain why Obama is executing like he is completely detached from reality.

Quote of the Day

From Glenn Reynolds:
HOT AIR AND CARBON: Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges.

I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.
I wouldn't hold my breath.

What environmentally-conscious friend of the earth would want to give up la vita loca?

I Suppose This Was Inevitable

The issue of skin tone raises its ugly head again.  Should we be surprised?
Tiger's troubles widen his distance from blacks
By Esse Washington, Associated Press

Amid all the headlines generated by Tiger Woods' troubles , the puzzling car accident, the suggestions of marital turmoil and multiple mistresses , little attention has been given to the race of the women linked with the world's greatest golfer. Except in the black community.

When three white women were said to be romantically involved with Woods in addition to his blonde, Swedish wife, blogs, airwaves and barbershops started humming, and Woods' already tenuous standing among many blacks took a beating. [link]
Odd that I never noticed that.

Guess you have to be a racist to not have picked up on the fact that Woods's girlfriends are of a different skin color than Tiger.

It'll never go away.  They'll never let it go away.

Why Climategate Changes Everything

And how weblogs made it happen:
Climate of Uncertainty Heats Up
By Gordon Crovitz, writing in the Wall Street Journal

Climategate began with the disclosure of emails and other documents showing how leading global-warming scientists had evaded peer review and refused to disclose data. Over the past week, there have been resignations and investigations of top scientists in England and the U.S.

More details will come out as the leaked documents get fully parsed, but already one certainty is the end of certainty. The one-sidedness of the views of the most influential scientists had led many to believe in the gospel of global warming.

Unlike Watergate, Climategate didn't come to light because investigative journalists ferreted out the truth. Instead, this story so far has played itself out largely on blogs, often run by the same scientists who had a hard time getting printed in the scientific journals. Climategate has provided a voice to the scientists who had been frozen out of the debate.


There are three other data sets on historic temperatures, but blogging scientists have pointed out that they aren't completely independent of the now-dubious East Anglia assertions. Atmospheric data from satellites, for example, rely on the East Anglia surface data to calibrate their measurements. [link]
That last point is extremely important to the understanding of what's going on here.  There are four repositories of basal climate data on the entire planet upon which all climate temperature research is performed.  Only four.  Including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.  And those other three have drawn from the Climatic Research Unit (the gang that is at the center of this scandal) surface data for their calculations.  So all studies done to date are to be considered flawed as their underlying measurements and calculations are contaminated.

The roots are diseased.  The organic structure is unhealthy. And must die.

And it's been the weblog world that has made this startling discovery, no thanks to those professional "investigators" out there who are paid to come up with this kind of revelation.

It's a different world we live in now.  The internet age.

This Is Not Nice

Another ... creative Christmas decoration:

Uhhhhh ...

Click on the image to enlarge it.