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

Friday, January 29, 2010

They Found That Poor Little Boy

He had been tossed into the trash.  And ended up in the landfill.

There is no punishment harsh enough ...
Body found at Roanoke Co. landfill
By Amanda Codispoti, Roanoke Times

Amid acres of the Roanoke Valley's forgotten waste, a team of people looking for toddler Aveion Lewis on Wednesday found the body of a small child.

Police Chief Joe Gaskins could not say with certainty that the body found in a Western Roanoke County landfill was that of Aveion's. The medical examiner will identify the remains and a cause of death.

Roanoke Commonwealth's Attorney Donald Caldwell said Wednesday evening that he had previously planned to present a murder charge against the child's stepfather, Brandon Lockett, to the grand jury on Monday.

Now that police have discovered a child's body, that may change, Caldwell said. [link]
My son, Jarrod, as a member of Roanoke's Swift Water Rescue team, spent hours searching for little Aveion's body in the Roanoke River, hoping they find it, and yet hoping they don't.

As it turned out, the body lie amid the other refuse in a landfill not far from Jarrod's home.

Brandon Lockett, it is reported, has confessed to having killed the boy.  Maybe now he'll confess to having tossed the child into the garbage as well.

When the news came Paula suggested that there is no punishment on this earth that fits the crime committed.  I reminded her that Virginia has, at least, the death penalty for scum like Brandon Lockett.

But Paula is right.  There's no punishment within the law that fits this crime.  He deserves to feel pain.  Suffering.  Like tiny Aveion did. And more.

So much more.

Now We're Talkin'

Ask anyone in Southwest Virginia who has to pay AEP to keep their lights on and you will find unanimity when it comes to cultivating cheap sources of energy.  And I'm not talking about the silly and distracting "green energy" which won't ever amount to much beyond being a big contributor to our national debt.  I'm talking coal.  And ...
Obama Said to Seek $54 Billion in Nuclear-Power Loan Guarantees 
By Daniel Whitten and Hans Nichols, Bloomberg

Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, acting on a pledge to support nuclear power, will propose tripling loan guarantees for new reactors to more than $54 billion, two people familiar with the plan said.

The additional loan guarantees in Obama’s budget, which will be released on Feb. 1, are part of an effort to bolster nuclear-power production after Obama called for doing so in his State of the Union address Jan. 27. Today, the Energy Department plans to announce creation of a panel to find a solution to storing the waste generated by nuclear plants.

“To create more of these clean-energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives,” Obama said in his speech. “That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear-power plants in this country. ” [link]
He might have pledged to fight the powerful environmentalist lobby to keep the costs of bringing additional quantities of nuclear energy to market from reaching into the trillions.  But Obama is a Democrat, so we can't expect too much.

Beyond that ... 

Here's the bottom line: Electricity rates are going through the roof (see note about environmentalists above).  Unaffordably and unsustainably.  We need a lot more (cheap) energy to drive the price back down so as to keep poor people from turning off their heat because they can't afford it.  It's getting that bad.

Nuclear energy will save lives.

So here's to Obama's effort to resurrect the nuclear industry.  May he succeed beyond our wildest imaginations.

That's Not a Good Argument

Defenders of President Obama will invariably use as a justification of his actions the now-tired line, "But Bush did it too!"  Like that means it's not bad if it was done before.  Especially by the "conservative" Mr. Bush.  Whatever "it" may involve. 

It's annoying, to say the least.  And irrelevant without doubt.

And there's this:
Obama Perpetuates the Myth of Bush as Free-Marketeer
By Ilya Somin, The Volokh Conspiracy

In the State of the Union, Obama continued to blame Bush and the Republicans for our current economic problems. This is understandable for two reasons. First,the GOP does deserve a good deal of blame, though my list of their misdeeds would probably look different from Obama’s. Second, pretty much any president in Obama’s position would do the same thing.

Much less defensible is Obama’s attempt to claim that the Republicans purused free market policies during the last eight years, and thereby caused the economic crisis ...

In reality, of course, the Bush-era GOP greatly expanded government control of the economy, including major increases in spending, regulation, and federal “investment” in education.

The Bush as free marketeer meme is an important prop in the Democrats’ case for massively expanding government control of the economy today. Logically, of course, it is possible to argue for such an expansion even if Bush did it too. Maybe he just didn’t go far enough, or didn’t calibrate his interventions as precisely as the Democrats plan to with theirs. From the standpoint of political rhetoric, however, it’s much easier for Obama to justify greatly expanded government if he can portray it as the opposite of his discredited predecessor’s policy. The gambit probably wouldn’t work if the public knew the facts about what Bush did. Obama, however, may be banking on widespread political ignorance, reinforced by the GOP’s image as the pro-free market party. He is far from the first politician to try to take advantage of ignorance. The Republicans have hardly been above doing the same thing when it suited their interests. But the fact that everyone does it doesn’t make it right. [link]
Bush as free marketeer.  I have to chuckle.

"But the fact that everyone does it doesn’t make it right."  That's for all you Obama supporters.  In fact it's wrong.  Time to come up with an actual argument.

Bouncing Off The Walls

When are these guys going to start thinking before they act?
White House asks Justice Department to look for other places to hold 9/11 terror trial
By Kenneth R. Bazinet, Adam Lisberg and Samuel Goldsmith, New York Daily News

The White House ordered the Justice Department Thursday night to consider other places to try the 9/11 terror suspects after a wave of opposition to holding the trial in lower Manhattan.

The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would "prefer that they did it elsewhere" and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.

The order to consider new venues does not change the White House's position that Mohammed should be tried in civilian court. [link]
I'm thinking Obama could move the terrorist trial to San Francisco where folks seem to have a special place in their hearts for those who hate America and want it destroyed.

Or he could move the trial here to the mountains of Southwest Virginia where we have a special liking for Islamists too.  We hear they make good kindling.

You Want a Strategy?

You want a strategy?

How 'bout this for a theme, an outgrowth of the hundreds of Tea Party protests that have taken place over the last twelve months:

Tear it down. Start over again.

The American people, in overwhelming numbers, know the system is broken and hurtling toward certain doom.

Anything less than A New Beginning will only lengthen the timetable.

- - -

Doom as exemplified by this.

The 'Copenhagen Effect' Comes To Denver?

Obama traveled to Copenhagen to win over the Olympic Committee. They rejected him.

He traveled to Copenhagen again to get climate change legislation approved. He was rejected again.

Mr. Magic then traveled to New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts to help Jon Corzine, Creigh Deeds, and Martha Coakley win. 

All lost.

He now heads to Denver, Colorado to assist the campaign of one Michael Bennet.  Poor guy.
Obama coming to help Bennet in February
Associated Press

Denver — The White House has confirmed that President Barack Obama will visit Colorado in February to attend an event with U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet.

White House spokesman Adam Abrams said Thursday that the details are still being worked out.

Craig Hughes, Bennet's campaign manager, says Obama will be in Colorado to campaign for the senator, who is running for election. A date hasn't been set.

Bennet was appointed by fellow Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter to the Senate last year to complete Ken Salazar's term. Obama appointed Salazar as Interior secretary. [link]
Oh, dear.  What did Bennet do to deserve this?

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

A Post Mortem On Obama's Speech

From Peggy Noonan:

"The central fact of the speech was the contradiction at its heart. It repeatedly asserted that Washington is the answer to everything. At the same time it painted a picture of Washington as a sick and broken place. It was a speech that argued against itself: You need us to heal you. Don't trust us, we think of no one but ourselves."

And the Democrats cheered every word of it. 

- - -

James Taranto adds this:

"If the voters of Massachusetts sent a message, President Obama refuses to listen."

On The Law Professor's Understanding of the Law

Obama, for those not aware of it, was a law professor before he became what he's become.  One wonders, when reading the following what his understanding of the law amounted to:
Obama v. the Supremes
Alito wins the oral, and factual, argument.
Wall Street Journal editorial

We're not among those who think the Supreme Court is above criticism. Especially in recent decades as the judiciary has become more political, and has encroached on the powers of Congress and the executive, politicians in the other branches have an obligation to defend their powers. Mr. Obama may have exhibited bad manners in sandbagging the Justices without warning on national TV, but he has every right to disagree with their rulings.

But could a graduate of Harvard Law School at least get his facts right? "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Mr. Obama averred. "Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Let's unpack the falsehoods. The Court didn't reverse "a century of law," but merely two more recent precedents, one from 1990 and part of another from 2003. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in 1990 had set the Court in a markedly new direction in limiting independent corporate campaign expenditures. This is the outlier case that needed to be overturned.

Mr. Obama is also a sudden convert to stare decisis. Does he now believe that all Court precedents of a certain duration are sacrosanct, such as Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal, 1896), which was overturned by Brown v. Board (1954)? Or Bowers v. Hardwick (a ban on sodomy, 1986), which was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas (2003)?

The President's claim about "foreign entities" bankrolling U.S. political campaigns is also false, since the Court did not overrule laws limiting such contributions. His use of "foreign" was a conscious attempt to inflame public and Congressional opinion against the Court. Coming from a President who fancies himself a citizen of the world, and who has gone so far as foreswear American exceptionalism, this leap into talk-show nativism is certainly illuminating. What will they think of that one in the cafes of Berlin?

Desperate Presidents do desperate things, and Mr. Obama's riff against the Supremes reveals a President who—let us try to follow Mr. Obama's admonition about changing the "tone" of our politics—lacks grace under pressure. [link requires subscription]
On a separate note, I was able to watch the clip showing Justice Alito's reaction to Obama spewing these various falsehoods.  The one in which Alito shook his head and mouthed the words, "Not true."  There will be those who will cheer his response and there will be those who'll denounce him for it.  I find it interesting that nobody opposes audience members reacting to the president's speech - as Alito is defensively responding to Obama's attack Senators Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray are also shaking their heads (up and down) and rising to clap and cheer - they only oppose negative reactions.  At least this year and with this president.


But understand, I believe in participatory meetings.  I'd have been in the audience starting a chant, "You lied! You lied!  You lied!"  I find hugfests to be so much a waste of time.

- - -

James Taranto:

"How can you tell when President Obama is lying? Justice Samuel Alito's lips move.

"If the president of the United States is going to display his contempt for a coequal branch of government and the First Amendment, you'd think he could at least be troubled to get his facts straight."

A Perspective On Unions

From one who works side-by-side with card carrying members.

In yesterday's comments to this blog post I found one from "Krispy."  He or she offers some valuable perspective:

I might be able to provide a little insight. I'm a private sector laborer who isn't part of the local union. To some of my union co-workers I'm a leper. But I'm not gonna knock these people, most of them are just honest folks who want to make a living.

The corporations aren't really doing anything to decrease the need for unions, as far as I can tell. That's not the issue. What's happening is that the unions (especially the big umbrella outfits) are marginalizing themselves from the top down. It isn't about protecting honest working people anymore, that idea is anachronistic. Big labor today is just a political movement, and they're increasingly out of step with the rank and file who they rely on for dues.

And make no mistake, that's all a man with a lunch pail is to big labor: We're just the golden goose. They'll gut us at the drop of a hat. And we know it.

Of course there are still very passionate pro-union people on local levels ... but when you talk to them it becomes obvious that their fervor is really their religion. It's simple fundamentalism, and like all fundamentalists, they see outsiders as the enemy. If you don't share their beliefs, you're an anathema. They believe what they believe on faith, and evidence to the contrary simply has to be lies. It's simple: Grandaddy was a union man, daddy was a union man, and so am I. Gimme that old time religion.

As more and more people wake up to how destructive (or, at best, irrelevant) big labor is ... and as more and more of the old-timers retire ... there is less and less willingness to accept what we're told just based on faith. The younger people in the workplace are paying attention to the world around us (what the UAW has done to Detroit, how happy non-union Wal-Mart employees tend to be, how badly big labor wants to take away blind elections and right-to-work laws, etc) and we're more willing to question what the unions tell us. It's supposed to be a business relationship, not a religion. The union halls are supposed to be business offices, not churches. And if what the unions have to offer is a losing proposition, why should we buy what they're selling?

My two cents.
Two cents worth far more than two cents.  Thanks, Krispy.