Cartago Delenda Est

The House Of Representatives Has Just Seceded From The Union

2009-11-07T23:33:00.000-08:00

I think the rest of us are going to need to follow their lead.

You Know It's True

2009-11-06T21:47:00.001-08:00

FOR CERTAIN VALUES OF THE WORD “WE,” ANYWAY: Chris Matthews: We may never know if religion was a factor at Fort Hood.

Plus this: “You’ll know it’s okay to start speculating about Hasan’s motives when cops find a Glenn Beck book on his bookshelf. In fact, if the same ‘PTSD by proxy’ elements had been present in Hasan’s bio but it turned out he’d attended a tea party or two, we’d already be well into hour 30 of a full-on media speculation orgy.”

"Divisive Unanimity"

2009-11-06T15:33:00.001-08:00

Spectator piece highlights that an issue that has had 31 wins at the ballot box and zero losses is not an example of "divisive".

The piece ends:

But can a measure that has passed in every state in which it has been put before the voters be called divisive? Not with a straight face. Thirty-one for thirty-one isn't division. It's unanimity.

With This Post I'd Like To Give A Shout Out To Dr. Joe Medicine Crow

2009-11-06T14:41:00.001-08:00

Link. Who, BTW, did not receive the Congressional Medal of Honor, but why should the C-in-C worry himself about unimportant military-related details?

Make It Stop!!

2009-11-06T14:40:00.001-08:00

Amusing Anchoress rant.

When You Claim You're Not Going To Come After Churches, This Is Why We Don't Believe You

2009-11-06T10:33:00.000-08:00

GayPatriot:

Why do Gay Leaders Have this Compulsion to Out their Adversaries?

It seems gay leaders exist to make my point about their incompetence to appeal to those whose minds they most need to change. Now, we learn that the leader of the No on 1 campaign in Maine, instead of learning from the campaign’s mistakes, intends to target those voters in the Pine Tree State:

No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.””

Yeah, that kind of rhetoric will really help you change minds. How about saying something like this

We came up short this time, but who’d have thought that five years ago, we could have got 47% of Maine citizens to vote for gay marriage. We need to look closely at our campaign, figure out where we went wrong and make a stronger case next time, telling voters why marriage is good and why it’s good for gay people.

Let me give Mr. Connolly a piece of advice, angry rhetoric is not going to change minds. You need to make the case for gay marriage not against those who voted against it. ’Cause if you want to win next time, you’re going to need some of their votes.

They aren't seeking to change minds. They are seeking to impose their will. Period. End of story. How they handle these elections is just a foretaste of what they intend should they ever win.

This'll Brighten Your Day. Not.

2009-11-05T12:40:00.000-08:00

The wounded animal can still kill us.

Serious Noir

2009-11-05T11:44:00.000-08:00

Found by Lileks.

Boo

2009-11-04T15:06:00.000-08:00

Cartoon:

Deluded Ghoul

2009-11-04T14:48:00.001-08:00

Great Comment

2009-11-04T13:51:00.000-08:00

Here:

“If Republicans want to win, they should nominate Republicans in the first place, not RINOs who will be challenged by Conservatives and end up splitting the vote.”

The Dems are driving the Car of State toward a sheer cliff at 90 miles per hour. The “moderate” Republicans are yelling, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, there! Let’s keep it under the speed limit!”

And when we actual conservatives ask, “Why not simply stop and go the other direction?” the “moderate” Republicans reply, “You *have* to vote for us, you have nowhere else to go. What are you going to do, vote for the Democrats?”

Well, that dog don’t hunt no more — it’s a distinction with no difference whether the Car of State goes over the cliff at 90 miles per hour or at 55.

Sounds Like A Plan

2009-11-04T10:33:00.001-08:00

Some real world education for the young'uns:

How to turn your kids into lifelong tax cutters

My former White House colleague Tevi Troy suggested the following method for turning children into lifelong tax cutters.

1. Make each of your kids spread his or her Halloween candy out on the kitchen table.
2. Take one-third of it.
3. Say, “That’s called TAXES.”
4. Repeat each Halloween.

I figure it will take maybe two years of this to turn them into lifelong tax cutters.

For most kids, this is probably the first income they have earned through their own labor. Maybe it’s better they learn about taxes now, rather than 10-15 years from now when they first ask “Who the h*** is FICA?”

They're Watching. Closely.

2009-11-04T10:26:00.000-08:00

Hewitt:

A Mob With Walkers, Headed for the Voting Booth

Some televised reports of exit poll data last night suggested that seniors had supplied Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell with large margins in their winning campaigns. Glenn Reynolds writes this morning that the president's magic has faded, but it may actually be much worse than a fade. The president, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid may have succeeded in solidifying seniors and those who care for them into a massive anti-Democrat block, one that was first startled and is now deeply angry over the proposed massive cuts to Medicare and the inevitable rationing of health care embedded in all versions of Obamcare.

...

The Congressional Democrats should know that seniors especially are watching every vote and that seniors know every single Democratic senator has the power to block the bill and stop the cuts to Medicare.

The Virginia and New Jersey elections were about policy, specifically the failed year-long effort to create jobs by printing money and the still on-going attempt to have the federal government seize control of American medicine while raising taxes to sky-high rates.

American voters suspended their suspicion of liberals and the left a year ago to give the young, attractive, new post-partisan candidate a try at bat in the middle of incredibly stressful times. Turns out that President Obama is a Chicago pol with not a lick of "new" when it comes to economics, but a great deal of "old" and "failed" economic theory and an incredible lust for centralization of power in D.C. The large lurch to the left that he has led has cost him the enthusiasm of all but his hard left base. Continuing to push the radical agenda will cost elected Democrats their jobs.

The first real referenda on the Obama Administration came in last night, and state wide votes in two big, diverse and important states sent a message to the Hill, one that the White House won't want heard, but which every instinct of political survival will oblige Democrats to study carefully.

It will be very uncomfortable for Senate Democrats and Blue Dogs in the House to vote no on Obamacare and to actually use their power to block the bill, but uncomfortable beats unemployed, and if Obamacare passes, that's exactly what is waiting for many, many Democrats.

The Bell Tolls For Thee

2009-11-04T10:09:00.000-08:00

Dick Morris:

Obviously, Christie's victory is a body blow to Obama after Corzine outspent the Republican by five-to-one and the president put on a serious push for the incumbent. Corzine's defeat sends a message that the nation is moving sharply against Obama.

But Virginia results are the most important. More than 80 Democratic congressmen and 20 senators come from states that John McCain carried in 2008. For them, the sudden switch in Virginia, a swing state that Obama actually carried, heralds tough political times ahead.

New Jersey is the quintessential blue state. If it goes Republican, blue state congressmen needn't worry. Their districts are likely still safe. But when a Republican in Virginia wins by 20 points, it sends a message to red-state Democratic congressmen to take cover.

Polls indicate a declining level of popular approval of the Obama policies (Rasmussen shows his job approval at 46 percent), but to see actual Democrats losing or barely squeaking out victories in solidly blue states sends a far clearer message to the Democrats in Congress.

Until last night, Democratic moderates, the so-called blue dogs, could bask in the light of their candidate's success in 2008. But now they must hear hoof beats behind them. The party discipline on which Obama depends to pass a health-care program that Americans reject by 42 percent for, 55 percent against (Rasmussen again) will only work if beleaguered Democratic incumbents can wrap themselves in Obama's cloak and tough out the popular criticism. But the limits of Obama's drawing power are readily apparent in the Republicans' 20-point victory in Virginia and the race in New Jersey.

In the coming weeks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be asking their troops to cast potentially career-ending votes for health-care changes, Medicare cuts, higher taxes and fines on the uninsured. Whether they take that risk depends on their faith in Obama's drawing power.

But the votes in Virginia, in particular, show the limits of Obama's appeal. The winner, Bob McDonnell, won the attorney general's race in the last election by a few tenths of a percent over the same opponent. That he coasted to so huge a victory in the swing state of Virginia now has to send a message to red-state Democratic congressmen: Obama may be able to survive in the deep water into which he is leading his party, but you can't.

Haunting Numbers For The New Members Of The Congressional Democrat Majority

2009-11-04T09:57:00.000-08:00

You guys are on notice. Michael Barone:

Finally, third, what will be the impact of these elections on forthcoming votes in Congress on the Democratic leaddership’s controversial and unpopular health legislation. The Virginia Board of Elections give us some hints when it aggregates the results by congressional district. In the 2008 elections three Democrats captured three previously Republican congressional districts in Virginia, giving Democrats six of the eleven-member delegation.

The results of the gubernatorial election show that at least some of these Democrats are imperiled.

In the 2nd congressional district, where Democrat Glenn Nye beat Republican incumbent Thelma Drake 52%-47%, McDonnell beat Deeds 62%-38%. In the 5th congressional district, where Democrat Tom Perriello beat Republican incumbent Virgil Goode 50.01%-49.85%, or a margin of 727 popular votes, the lowest in the country, McDonnell beat Deeds 61%-39%. In the 11th congressional district, where Democrat Gerry Connally won 55%-43% a district vacated by Republican incumbent Tom Davis, McDonnell beat Deeds 55%-45%. And the southwest, coal-producing “Fighting Ninth,” represented since 1982 by Democrat Rick Boucher, voted 67%-33% for McDonnell.

I cannot imagine that Congressmen Nye, Perriello, Connally and Boucher have not already accessed the websites which have shown the position of their constituents in a contest which, while like all governorship contests has its own specific features, was also in its contrast on issue positions reasonably congruent with those prevailing on national issues. And I can certainly respond with sympathy if any or all of these incumbents responded to these numbers with a two-word comment of which I will relay only the first word which is, “Oh.”

The 2009 election results are certainly not going to make it easy for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to round up the needed 218 votes for Democrats’ health care bills.

The Democrats in general, if they have any sense of self-preservation, really need to get busy stripping Pelosi and Reid of their positions. The bottom line is simple. America is not a nation of commies. If rank-and-file Congressional Democrats (most of whom I would imagine are not commies themselves) manage to kick the commies out of power in their own party, they stand a vastly increased chance of keeping their own jobs.

Now, That's Spin

2009-11-04T09:51:00.000-08:00

The equivalent of "Mineola Man Survives N.J. Nuclear Holocaust!" as the first headline about an attack.

Link

Good Questions

2009-11-04T09:45:00.000-08:00

VDH:

What has the liberal leadership become? It garners more Wall Street money than the Republicans. The high-income brackets favored Obama. The shriller the populist or nihilist—think everyone from Arianna Huffington to Michael Moore to Noam Chomsky to Gore Vidal—the nicer the home. Think of the vast diversity of such celebrity hypocrisy: John Edward’s “two nations” is defined by his own vast estate—and those outside it. Michael Moore profits in the millions from, of course, damning profit-driven capitalism.

A Sean Penn or Oliver Stone praises the egalitarianism of Latin American thugs whose socialist utopias would jail both in short order if they ever moved in pursuance of their egalitarian rhetoric. The Obama populist team hires Wall Street insiders to bail out friends, whose firms they will shortly join when out of office.

Rev. Wright is back in the news. In Animal Farm, pigs-on-two-legs fashion he is sermonizing on the joys of socialism as he is ensconced in a three-story, 10,000 sq. ft. mansion, paid for by his relatively modest flock in thanks to his virulent race-baiting (the real story of his Fox-news-aired clips was not his racism or anti-Americanism, but the standing ovations he received from his congregation for his unadulterated hate.). A Nancy Pelosi shouts slogans from the barricades, while her husband subsidizes her aristocratic liberalism through a network of arcane deal-making. Chris Dodd worries about the roguery of credit card companies while he finagles an Irish getaway “cottage” through influence peddling. The list could go on.

More than hypocrisy

But everyone is a hypocrite, you object? Again, the mystery is not liberal hypocrisy—as I have written, after all, pompadour-haired, leisure-suited evangelical preachers are regularly caught in flagrante delicto or up-from-the-bootstraps corporate farmers garner vast federal ag. subsidies—but rather the apparent unconcern that revolutionary populism and the desire for great wealth and the elitism it bestows don’t mix.

What are we to make of the George Soroses and Warren Buffetts and the club of the mega wealthy preferring the populist rhetoric of Barack Obama? Why did a “redistributive change”, “spread the wealth” Barack Obama move into a million-dollar mansion, or a “truth to power” Valerie Jarrett make out like a bandit from questionable insider Chicago real estate deals, or Rahm Emanuel cash grab as a director of a scandal-plagued Freddie Mac, or raise-our-taxes Timothy Geithner’s in the most tawdry fashion avoid taxes? In short, why the liberal fascination with money and privilege—and populism?

He goes on to look at some possible answers.

Piling Insanity On Insanity

2009-11-04T09:33:00.000-08:00

Who in their right mind would lend this government money for ten years at 3.5%? But wait, if that's not crazy enough, Denninger has some good news:

From The Wall Street Examiner comes this:

Another anomaly of note is the fact that 10 year Fannie paper is now yielding less than 10 year Treasuries. This is another sign of mass psychosis. Unfortunately, the source of the infection has been Bernanke’s insane policy of piling up risky MBS paper on the Fed’s balance sheet. Wave after weekly wave of Fed buying has created one of the most ridiculous market distortions in history. Unfortunately, the problem it was designed to solve, the housing market collapse, isn’t responding.

This is more than ridiculous. It is in fact outrageous.

The GSEs are in fact bankrupt. This is why they were taken into "conservatorship" and have required roughly $100 billion in direct taxpayer subsidy to remain "breathing", much like a brain-stem-only human requires thousands of dollars a day in direct input in the form of a ventilator and mechanical feeding (not to mention diaper changes and similar) to remain "alive."

This distortion allegedly is supposed to "help" the housing market.

It has done no such thing.

It has led Barney Frank to pronounce that intentionally making bad loans is a "policy", and the market laughs, knowing that The Fed is directly monetizing the very same debt - after saying it wouldn't.

If you hand out hundreds of billions of dollars for what are worthless securities (or at least those against which any rational person would demand a HUGE haircut) you are in fact doing nothing other than debasing the currency and printing money.

The worst part of The Fed's action isn't that they're printing money. It is that the outrageous actions of these "lenders" are being rewarded - that is, do a bad thing, make an unsupportable loan, distort the market on purpose and The Fed (and government) comes along and rewards you.

This is in fact no different than what government did during the entire housing bubble. Make bad loans, loot the economy, it's ok - you can make millions in bonuses, even if you ripped off both home buyers AND investors.

Now we're doing the same thing "writ large" and right under the public's nose, and yet we "justify" it by claiming it is being done to "stabilize" the housing market.

If this "printed money" went to consumers instead and Fannie and Freddie were allowed to crumble into dust, at least the average American would get some of the benefit, even if he or she subsequently got crushed by the currency devaluation.

But no! Instead the oligarchs make off with their outsize salaries, those who put together questionable (if not outright fraudulent) accounting continue to get paid, the government continues to run it's revolving door with Wall Street and the "GSE"s, and we the people continue to get screwed.

Dawkins Finds It Plausible, And, Hey, Isn't That Enough?

2009-11-04T09:31:00.001-08:00

A very solid takedown.

Like An Argument Overheard

2009-11-04T09:19:00.000-08:00

A hammer and tongs ID/Darwinist dialog, interesting to me, anyway.

After Yet Another Electoral Defeat Of That Thing Known To Its Proponents As "Gay Marriage"

2009-11-04T09:07:00.000-08:00

A good discussion at GayPatriot.

More Children Of The Corn

2009-11-04T08:49:00.000-08:00

Not North Korea.

A Crucial Point, Well Expressed

2009-11-03T13:38:00.000-08:00

Link:

The rest of the chapter is devoted to retracing Darwin’s steps over the issue of variation under domestication, and again adds some detail but no new ideas. It is remarkable for what it leaves out. Crucially, Dawkins restates unequivocal terms Darwin’s key belief that we can safely and reasonably extrapolate direct and repeatable observations about variation and selection by skilled human hands (he gives plenty of uncontentious examples of this, just as Darwin did) to believe that there are NO limits to variation. The latter proposition would have to be true if Darwin were right, but it isn’t true, as we can observe.

Dawkins says a great deal about dog breeding, but ignores the programme about ‘pedigree dogs and mutant monsters' which I blogged about last year. This showed clearly that variation was strictly limited, and that while you could (as Dawkins reminds us) breed all kinds of dog from a wolf, you sooner or later come up against a rigid envelope. To approach the limit of the dog species envelope is to court disaster, as sterility and sickness appear due to inbreeding.

The 'evidence man' is very selective about what evidence he considers fit to print. Several times he insists that variation canot be limited, but he fails to consider the results from dog breeding which show that dogs are always dogs, and when you breed them too far from the created original, sick and sterile dogs.

WARNING-Species envelope ahead-no through road.

The species envelope, for dogs, sheep, cats, men, apples and all other living creatures, appears to be rigid and impassable. All sorts of varieties of dogs have been bred, but never anything that wasn’t a dog. Time doesn’t help, because the species envelope is reached quite soon (under selective breeding, which works far faster than natural selection)and natural selection would not even have progressed thus far, for reasons which Dawkins inadvertently acknowledged (as did Darwin). Left to themselves, pedigree dogs will interbreed and go back to the tougher, more ‘survivable’ mongrel. This means that they won’t even come near the boundaries of the species envelope, let alone pass through it. Unlike his imaginary walk through evolutionary deep time, this is a repeatable observation, a real experiment, not a ‘thought’ experiment. And the facts of the species envelope, which cannot be passed however hard breeders have tried, consigns Darwin’s dream of the unbroken tree of life to the dustbin of failed hypotheses [at least a tree caused by his purported mechanism, rather than a programmed unfolding --ed], and does so long before we get on to the subjects of genetic entropy and irreducible complexity.

Not All Outspoken Atheists Are Jerks

2009-11-03T13:28:00.000-08:00

Which is quite upsetting to the ones who are.

Michael Ruse has a few things of note to say to his more-atheist-than-thou critics.

Amusing Slogan

2009-11-03T13:03:00.000-08:00

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Lifted from comments here.