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

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

We Need To Get Out Of The U.N.

I really don't want to be associated with (nor provide tax donations to) any organization that is run by such mindless idiots:

Syria. Sits in judgment on human rights. As decreed by the United Nations.  At the very time that Syrian forces are committing horrific human rights abuses and are slaughtering innocent people in the streets of Damasus.

For the love of God.


Is this even possible?

The numbers tell a different story. In 2008, 95% of votes cast by black Americans went to Obama.


Statistically speaking, you can't get much more racist than that.

Want To Try Again?

You may remember this ditty from a few weeks ago:

"The latest trend you're missing out on is... typewriters?

"That's right, typewriters aren't just for famous authors and technophobes. They're everywhere nowadays, from brick-and-mortar vintage typewriter stores to iPad docks that look like a typewriter.

I, of course, scoffed:

"I don't know, nor care, why typewriters are "everywhere" nowadays, unless they've become the newest trend in boat anchors.

"So am I to believe that there are people out in the world who would rather type on a typewriter?

"Have they lost their minds?"

As it turns out, the only person to have lost his mind is the moron who wrote that bit of lunacy. In reality:
The end of the line: Last typewriter factory left in the world closes its doors
London Daily Mail

It's an invention that revolutionised the way we work, becoming an essential piece of office equipment for the best part of a century.

But after years of sterling service, that bane for secretaries has reached the end of the line.

Godrej and Boyce - the last company left in the world that was still manufacturing typewriters - has shut down its production plant in Mumbai, India with just a few hundred machines left in stock. [link]
They're everywhere!  They're everywhere! 

I'll bet this guy is still planning on making a killing with his Enron stock too.

Laugher of the Day

This seems so ... expected.  Get a bunch of Democrats together to tackle this - "Cleveland deemed most miserable city in USA" - and this - "Cleveland rated poorest big city in U.S." - and how will they respond?

With this, naturally:

An outdoor smoking ban and a ban on trans fats.


Tying all this together, how do the people of Cleveland react? 

With their feet:

"Cleveland leads big cities in population loss, census figures show."

I don't know.  Do you laugh at Democrats for being fools or do you imprison them for the damage that they do?

Oh, until you decide?  They're in charge of Cleveland again tomorrow. And the next day.  And ...

Don't They Have More Important Things To Do?

You know, I read stories like this and wonder: What's the story behind the story?
Congress's Sour Grapes
Wall Street Journal

Congress specializes in giving nice names to bad bills, and the latest is the Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (Care) Act. This purports to give states and communities more authority to regulate alcohol. In fact, its purpose is to prevent out-of-state wine producers from selling directly to consumers around the country.

The federal government and states have been in a tug-of-war over alcohol regulation since the 21st Amendment passed in 1933. That amendment gave states the right to decide whether to go wet or stay dry. But the Supreme Court in 2005 came down decisively in favor of the feds in Granholm v. Heald. The Court struck down laws in New York and Michigan allowing in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers while forbidding out-of-state wineries from doing the same. The Court ruled that while the 21st amendment gives states the authority to regulate alcohol within their borders, the Constitution's Commerce Clause bars them from erecting such protectionist barriers.

Enter the Care Act, which would strip alcohol businesses of their Commerce Clause protections and thus eliminate their ability to sue states in federal court. [link]
Okay.  So that's the story.  But what's the story behind the story?  Why would someone in Congress feel it necessary to introduce this kind of protectionist legislation when there are so many other pressing issues facing this country of ours?  And why do it (in this the age of eBay, internet marketing, and global commerce) when this kind of wall-building has proven time and again to be detrimental to consumers' way of life?

For an answer we turn to the guy who introduced the bill, one Jason Chaffetz of Utah.  Here's his explanation.  Or not:

I want to preserve states’ rights to decide the appropriate regulation of alcohol within their borders.  Most importantly, the bill preserves the status quo on Utah’s unique regulatory regime, and reaffirms the presumed validity of Utah’s laws.

He's a states' rights champion?  Are we to believe that?

As a bit of background, this is a fight that has been ongoing for years between beer and wine wholesalers - who want to limit our access to out-of-state purchases of the goods they sell to retailers down the street from you - and producers - who are set up to sell direct over the internet, anywhere in the country.  Some politicians side with the wholesalers, some with producers, retailers, and the public.  

For a bit of a taste of how bad this gets, the New York Times reports:

"Alabama oenophiles [jf: i.e. wine lovers] can order wine only from an out-of-state producer if they have received written approval from the state’s Beverage Control Board. Wineries can ship into Indiana and Delaware only to consumers who have visited the winery and made a purchase in person. In 37 states, residents are prohibited from ordering wine from online retailers or auction houses or even joining wine-of-the-month clubs."

Believe it or not.

And it's not limited to beer and wine.  One state even regulates the sale of out-of-state caskets to in-state consumers.  To protect "states' rights," if not dead consumers, one might expect to be told.

Here in Virginia, this battle was fought and the free exercise of commerce was - more or less - won.

But why Utah and why this Chaffetz person?  This article hints that his motivation might come from the fact that he's a Mormon and Utah is crawling with Mormons.  This one suggests that the congressman is beholden to beer and wine distributors because they are major donors to his reelection fund.  This blast from a Utah libertarian would have us believe that Jason Chaffetz has a voting history of being opposed to liberty.

Whatever the reason for it, Chaffetz is wrong to try to inhibit interstate commerce.  Today it's wine.  Tomorrow it's computers.  Or movies.  Or books.  Or Google (for God's sake).

The nation has moved beyond these circa 1920's interstate trade barriers.  It would do the good congressman well to do the same.

Krugman's Just a Politician

Politician.  A word that carries with it everything one conjures when thinking about rats and snakes.

Michelle Malkin makes note this morning of the fact that New York Times columnist politician Paul Krugman was once in favor of raising the retirement age when it comes to Medicare (considering the proposal to be "sensible") but now ridicules Republicans for suggesting that we do just that.

Slimy, man.  And so not pretty.