“Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism.”

Oscar Wilde

I see Paul Krugman is reading his tea leaves again. What they are telling him is that America was hijacked. No, not by a band of jihadi terrorists, worse: the evil powers of the Right. He claims they exploited the atrocity committed by the terrorists,  thereby turning 9/11 into a day of shame. So he no longer finds it worthy of our commemoration.

I think Krugman should turn in his turban. His tea leaf reading of the cultural milieu isn’t any more accurate than his reading of economics. Maybe he should switch to Tennessee Tea. It may not improve his social/economic forecasts, but it should make him a bit less cranky.

Oh Great Seer! Paul Krugman: our economic, cultural and spiritual diviner.

The New York Times’ economic guru is, of course, flat-out wrong. Not only is it appropriate to commemorate 9/11, it’s essential. However, I do take exception to the manner in which the media has taken to memorializing this extraordinary historical event.

As with many rituals in modern culture, the ceremony of the 9/11 anniversary has assumed more significance than the event itself.  Despite the media’s best attempts to employ their highest degree of constraint and use their most reverent tones for covering the anniversary, their recounting of the event still ends up feeling more like a Hallmark card than a thoughtful  reflection on the terrorist act that ushered in a new American era.

Part of that is due to the perceived competitive need to provide 24/7 coverage. A “reminiscence”  that stretches over days what could be presented in a few hours is bound to contain a lot of filler of questionable quality that devalues the event being covered. 9/11 is no exception. The hours of personal vignettes, intended to elicit an emotional reaction, simply enervate us. Overexposed to an endless stream of anguishing stories of grief and suffering, our nervous systems just shut down. Everything after that is cheap.  Of course we are sucked into these wrenching stories of pain and loss – we are only human. But exploiting that human reaction – at the price of glossing over the real significance of the terrorist attack – is disgraceful.

Numbness is not what we should take away from a 9/11 retrospective. We should come away with moral clarity: about the the existence of abject evil and our responsibility to fight it in every guise it reappears in. For that we need to remember who did this to us, as a nation, and why? Rage against an evil enemy is not an inappropriate response: without righteous anger, morality loses its footing.

It would be helpful if the forth estate at least attempted to execute it’s self-assigned role of informing the citizenry of the truth, in order that good citizens could react appropriately. Honest reporting of the evil and ongoing danger of Islamofascism would help us know where and how to direct our rage. Which I presume is why, instead of exposing Islamofascism, the media diminishes it: rage against Islamofascism is not in the PC handbook. It’s not the evil that dare not speak it’s name, it’s the evil whose name the media dare not speak. 

Yet one of the principal roles of the federal government is to protect the homeland. How are we the people to know who to elect to best do that if we don’t know precisely what we need protection from? Shall we just leave that to our betters to figure out? I’m uncomfortable with that. I would like our enemies more clearly fleshed out so I can better evaluate who I trust to defend us against them – and who I do not. It would be helpful if the media participated in that exercise. But that isn’t the role the networks cast for themselves in this year’s coverage of the 9/11 atrocity. They chose to go for the cheap, emotional “entertainment” value.

I think the news outlets should leave that to the other 400 channels whose stated mission is to provide entertainment. At one time the news media was considered the watchdog of society. But at some point they decided it was much more fun to have a dog in the fight and truth has been a relative matter ever since.

Around that same time the media – for whom the freedom of speech clause was arguably created – decided to conform to a new concept of free speech in America: freedom of politically correctly speech. Which implies a constitutional right that does not exist: the right not to be offended.

And so our 9/11 memorials, like most news coming from any main stream outlet, is self-censored to ensure that we don’t offend. Especially Muslims. And if that means we play down the role of the Wahhabi based medieval pseudo-religion of the Islamofascists, so be it.

Hence, 9/11 has been systematically cleaned up and dumbed down to “a tragic event” carried out by 19 ‘fanatics’ that destroyed two American skyscrapers, killing 3000 innocent people and shattered our lives on that clear September morning.” That’s about all you’ll get from the mainstream. You have to go to the fifth estate to find any truthful reporting on the enemy in our midst. Naturally, many of these sources are considered “haters” which by definition means they aren’t politically correct. But many of us have discovered that the truth is often not politically correct. It may be worth asking  why that is – but that’s another post.

The politically correct world of news reporting means that once a year, on the anniversary of the “tragic event” committed by the 19 “hijackers of the religion of peace” we are subjected to  memorials at Ground Zero (at least as long as we can still call it that) that become a bit more sanitized each year. This year we even removed the clutter of firefighters and clergy from the ceremony. If the 9/11 memorial becomes any more an act of narcissistic national navel gazing it will be just Mayor Bloomberg and 12 Imams – and it will be held at the new Ground Zero Mosque.

In 2009 the Obama administration re-designated 9/11, previously named “Patriot Day,”  as “ National Day of Service and Remembrance.” This is government-speak at its finest: a not-so-subtle attempt at shape-shifting our perceptions of that day.

It’s also a classic example of the insidious creep of politically correct, government designed thought policing. Your government wants to replace your horrible memories of that day by helping you feel good about yourself by contributing to the common cause. Go ahead! Hug each other if you must, in memory of the horrible way 3000 of our citizens perished in that “tragic event” Just remember, the real meaning of the day is about giving service to others: just like your government does! That way we get all the cheap sentimentality without actually having to deal with the inconvenience of the morality play – more like a Kodak moment.

That’s how political correctness, combined with  “Big-Government-knows-what’s-better-for-you” thinking works.  “Move along, nothing to see here.” It manipulates our collective consciousness and herds the drones toward a more “correct” way to respond to destruction of the World Trade Center by Islamofascists: Clean up a park! Paint a youth center! Make a sandwich at the soup kitchen!

Making sandwiches!  For those less fortunate!

And what are we to do in regard to the religious fanaticism of Islamofascists? I already told you, there’s nothing to see there, move along. Our new politically correct world of free speech dictates that we not try to single out the practitioners of the religion of peace as terrorists. Why, terrorists are just as likely these days to be homegrown right wing fanatics anyway. So let’s embrace our Muslim brothers, and their quaint customs, in the same way we have been “taught” to reflexively respond to every other protected class, with inclusion. We are to drape it in a mantle of diversity and worship its “uniqueness.” We are to bend our culture to accommodate their culture. Even if their culture is corrosively un-American. Even if their culture is based on a pseudo-religious-political philosophy bent on reversing the trajectory of human history. It’s not our place to be judgmental.

I wonder if any member of “The Greatest Generation” ever considered turning December 7 into a national day of service? Probably not; they most likely figured they had executed their service during the Big War. You remember the Greatest Generation’s Big War don’t you?  If not maybe you should visit one of the Holocaust museums for a quick history lesson.

In fact, Holocaust museums provide a pretty good template for how to memorialize monstrous evil: Never forget. Never forget: absolute evil does exist on this earth.  Never forget: when combined with absolute power, absolute evil unleashes unspeakable atrocities.  Never forget: when the world attempts to appease the current monster of absolute evil, they are signing their own death certificate.

History has already written every story,  already provided every conceivable ending. But we prefer to believe that history begins the day we were born.

 File under: “Why blogging matters”

Cross-posted at Dewey From Detroit

It’s really not so much the audacity of hope as it is arrogance

Dear Mr. President,

I’ve taken the time to listen to, and read, your remarks at the press conference last night. With all due respect (I just love that expression, don’t you?) instead of celebrating America’s dynamic union and seeking to partner with us to meet common challenges, there were times where you showed arrogance and were dismissive, even derisive. And – dare I say this? – disingenuous, as well

Knowing how you feel about Americans demonstrating this behavior abroad, I thought you might appreciate some feedback on how you came across, in the heartland. You know, from a real boots-on-the- ground American?

To that end, I’ve taken the liberty of reproducing a copy of your remarks  and highlighted in red areas of concern. Also, knowing that you dwell in that special, rarefied atmosphere that is  Washington D.C. I thought it might be helpful if I pointed out how a regular guy like me might perceive your remarks. To that end, I’ve taken the time to annotate specific instances where, again, with all due respect, you lost most of us. Due, specifically, to your arrogance, derisiveness, dismissiveness and/or disingenuousness.

I hope you have time to review my comments, because I think they could really help you win back those Americans who got off -or never got on -  your high speed rail to nowhere. If you care to get back to me with your responses, I’ll be happy to pass them on to my blog’s millions of readers. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

July 22, 2011

Remarks by the President

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

6:06 P.M. EDT

I just got a call about a half hour ago from Speaker Boehner who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations that we’ve been engaged in here at the White House for a big deficit reduction and debt reduction package. (See? Right out of the box, derisive. Most presidents would have said something like “ the talks broke down over disagreement regarding the size and scope of the tax increase.” What you said, if I may paraphrase, was “that arrogant little prick had the unmitigated gall to walk away!? From ME?!” See the difference?) And I thought it would be useful for me to just give you some insight into where we were and why I think that we should have moved forward with a big deal. (I presume you mean your big debt deal, not the one of our “dynamic union.” But unlike Obamacare, you’re not really holding all of the aces any more. Assuming that people should do things  your way just because  “I won” and “I’m the President” is,  frankly, rather arrogant.)

Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. (I  think it’s fair to say that nearly all of the “discretionary” spending was in defense. That might be considered by some to be disingenuous.) We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.  We believed that it was possible to shape those in a way that preserved the integrity of the system, (As I understand it, you intend to preserve them in every way, just pretending to cut them by using the usual Congressional  accounting standards  comprised primarily of smoke and mirrors. Again, disingenuous. And  derisive, in that you think we’ll all swallow another mouthful of that hogwash.) made them available for the next generation, and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way. (Certainly not before you plan on leaving office, sometime around 2034? I think you see my point, above. More hogwash.)

In addition, what we sought was revenues  that were actually less than what the Gang of Six signed off on. (just a nit, but we seem to have a subject-verb disagreement there – and LOL @ “Gang of Six!” I love it when you talk like one of the guys!) So you had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans (always good to in include the R-words in a “bipartisan group” but again, a little derisive) who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that they’ve been working off of.  What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes — tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base. (Three problems: 1st, and here’s that disingenuous thing again, eliminating “loopholes,” and deductions is the same as raising taxes. And besides, blanket terms like “loopholes”  don’t set well with “the folks” after the debacle of  Obamacare. We want specifics, details. How about a little more of that transparency we heard so much about? we don’t feel good about deals cut behind closed doors, why don’t you go to the floor of the House and Congress and have C-span cover the “negotiations” in like you (disingenuously) promised.  2ndly, it’s a bit derisive to expect us to fall for the old “trust us, we’ll reform the tax code later and you’ll love it:” it’s the oldest trick in the book, and we aren’t that stupid. How about specifics? Honest, we don’t need our betters to process this for us.  3rd: read our lips, NO NEW TAXES –aka, “revenues.” There you go again, with the dismissiveness.)

So let me reiterate what we were offering.  We were offering a deal that called for as much discretionary  (entitlement programs are not considered “discretionary” in your vernacular, are they?) savings as the Gang of Six.  We were calling for taxes (don’t you mean “revenues?”) that were less than what the Gang of Six had proposed.  And we were calling for modifications (as opposed to “reductions” – do you see where I’m going here?) to entitlement programs, would have saved just as much over the 10-year window (the window that doesn’t open until 2034; are you following me here? That’s totally disingenuous).  In other words, this was an extraordinarily fair (almost an oxymoron) deal.  If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue. (You really don’t get it do you? We’re spending too much: and BTW nobody before your administration referred to taxes as “revenue”. Generally you have to do something in order to generate revenue. Collecting taxes does not qualify as “doing something.” And here’s an interesting little bit of trivia for you:  tax “revenues” are currently the same % of GDP as they’ve  been historically. Government spending doesn’t increase GDP, that’s why it’s so damn hard to spend your way out of a recession. You do know that, right? As The Big Dawg’s loveable band of crazed Democratic operatives used to say: It’s the economy, Stupid! Say – you might want to see if Carville and Begala are available.)

But in the interest of being serious about deficit reduction, I was willing to take a lot of heat from my party (that’s my BIG boy!) — and I spoke to Democratic leaders yesterday, and although they didn’t sign off on a plan, they were willing to engage in serious negotiations, despite a lot of heat from a lot of interest groups (we know, the usual suspects who are not used to being told “no” by anyone.) around the country, in order to make sure that we actually dealt with this problem. (I’m just wondering: what did you promise them down the line? Because we know they don’t take “no” for an answer, unlike Republicans. Maybe in the interest of transparency you could share that with us?)

It is hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this kind of deal.  And, frankly, if you look at the commentary, there are a lot of Republicans  that are puzzled as to why it couldn’t get done.  In fact, there are a lot of Republican voters out there who are puzzled as to why it couldn’t get done. Because the fact of the matter is the vast majority of the American people believe we should have a balanced approach. (Would that be the 2/3 of Americans in CNN’s poll who favor the Cut, Cap and Balance Bill? Or the 65% who are opposed to the Gang of Six plan? Or the other 80% that agree with you?)

Now, if you do not have any revenues, as the most recent Republican plan that’s been put forward both in the House and the Senate proposed, if you have no revenues at all, what that means is more of a burden on seniors, more drastic cuts to education, more drastic cuts to research, a bigger burden on services that are going to middle-class families all across the country. (Well no, that’s just disingenuous. There’s trillions of dollars to pick and choose from. Leave the seniors out of it, but feel free to eliminate the Department of Education – a misnomer if ever there was one. I also offer up the EPA , and then we could build hydro-electric plants too. And as far as “research” goes: any government funded function that invented the religion of global warming ought to have it’s heart cut out. Before the golden age of federal grants, college professors used to teach, conduct research – with grad students – and publish their results, all for the salary that the college could afford. Now they earn a princes income, they don’t teach, barely talk to students and spend most of their time “overseeing” the writing of “their” grant requests and research projects while  flying all over the world to “present” their “findings.” All of  which will be refuted by new research, equally non-scientific, in less than the span of a computer’s useful life. So I vote to ax federal research grants too. So far they’ve  just made people dumber. And don’t even get me started on “arts” grants. Pretty sure they’re not in the Constitution.)  And it essentially asks nothing of corporate jet owners, it asks nothing of oil and gas companies, it asks nothing from folks like me who’ve done extremely well and can afford to do a little bit more.(Dude, you’ve run that one up and down the flag pole so often it’s getting threadbare. STFU.)

In other words, if you don’t have revenues, the entire thing ends up being tilted on the backs of the poor and middle-class families.  And the majority of Americans don’t agree on that approach. (See above for discussion on which “majority” we’re talking about.)

So here’s what we’re going to do.  We have now run out of time.  I told Speaker Boehner, I’ve told Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, I’ve told Harry Reid, and I’ve told Mitch McConnell I want them here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. (That sounds presidential) We have run out of time. And they are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default.  (Yeah, see, that petulant crap? Not so much. It’s like the grand slam: arrogant, derisive, dismissive and disingenuous.) And they can come up with any plans that they want and bring them up here and we will work on them.  The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013. (Seriously? Did you really say that? Your petulance is beginning to sound like hysteria, boss.)

And the reason for it is we’ve now seen how difficult it is to get any kind of deal done.  The economy is already weakened. (Well, thanks for setting that straight. And for noticing.) And the notion that five or six or eight months from now we’ll be in a better position to try to solve this problem makes no sense.

In addition, if we can’t come up with a serious plan for actual deficit and debt reduction, and all we’re doing is extending the debt ceiling for another six, seven, eight months, then the probabilities of downgrading U.S. credit are increased, and that will be an additional cloud over the economy and make it more difficult for us and more difficult for businesses to create jobs that the American people so desperately need. (Somebody’s been getting coached in Economics 101! Good on ‘ya, Prez!)

So they will come down here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.  I expect them to have an answer in terms of how they intend to get this thing done over the course of the next week.  The American people expect action.  (Hey Bozo, the American people expect a President that knows a tax from a revenue, and can at least buy a damn clue in the leadership department. But to paraphrase a great man  “we go to battle with the President we have, not the President we wish we had.” And again, knock off the imperial BS, we’re getting tired of it.) I continue to believe that a package that is balanced and actually has serious debt and deficit reduction is the right way to go. (Duh) And the American people I think are fed up with political posturing and an inability for politicians to take responsible action as opposed to dodge their responsibilities. (We undoubtedly disagree on what the meaning of “responsible” is, but at least we agree on the concept.)

With that, I’m going to take some questions.(snip)

I hope you’ve found this to be useful, Mr. President. If you’d like, I’d be happy to highlight and annotate your Q&A responses to the reporters when you went off prompter. You will be surprised to know that some critics found that segment of the presser even more petulant, arrogant, dismissive, derisive and disingenuous. Some even tossed in  “childish” and “peevish.” But they were probably just grandstanding.

Just let me know, because I’m currently unemployed here in Detroit, the cradle of American liberalism and former beacon of capitalism. Since I wasn’t a member of the United Auto Workers union  at either of your car companies I can’t benefit from your generous gift to their union pension plan. Which is a long way of saying I have plenty of time on my hands to help you out.

In fact, since most of my life savings were held in Chrysler and Delphi preferred bonds,  which you seized for pennies on the dollar in order to give the major share to the union for their pension plans, I desperately need a job. (Just as an aside Mr. President, I’m still wondering how that transaction could have been legal. Because up until that point in time, preferred bond holders were considered to have contractual rights – embedded right in the bonds – that guaranteed them first rights of payment, specifically in the case of bankruptcy. But I guess you just waived that right? Because you’re the President? Do you see how people might consider that to be arrogant, derisive… well, you get the point. Anyway, I hope you don’t take this personally, but I’m still looking into the legality of that whole transaction. )

So, let me know if I can help you out in any other way. I’m here to serve.

I hope you get this debt thing ironed out in time to play a round of golf on Sunday. Tell the boys the mulligans are on me, all around.

Sincerely,

Dewey from Detroit

Cross Posted at Dewey From Detroit

RFK Jr Green advocate, Cape Wind antagonist. Go figure.

As the Church Lady from SNL might say,  “Well, isn’t that SPE-CIAL?!”

Environmental lawyer, green-at-any-cost activist and all around limousine liberal, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is opposed to the Cape Wind project. Cape Wind is a 25 square mile, greener-than-green, cleaner-than-clean, alternative energy wind farm on Nantucket Sound;  directly in the line of sight from Hyannis. You know – famous Kennedy lair and elite playground of hypocrites too many to mention.

Today’s Wall Street Journal ran RFK Jr.’s opposition in his editorial titled Nantucket’s Wind Power Rip-off.  Hopefully it was there as either a humor piece or to highlight the complete audacity of such hypocrites. More likely it was given column space because someone, likewise “special” requested its placement. The alternate titles that immediately cross your mind are endless: “Help! Someone’s goring MY ox!,” “Charlatan opposes blow-hards” or “NIMBY  finds his calculator.”

That the scion of the Kennedy family could write something of this caliber for publication demonstrates proof positive that the Kennedy DNA ran out of functioning brain-stock after the JFK generation – and had started to thin out dangerously even towards the end of that run of progeny. Either that or he believes that everyone can be shammed as easily as the limo-liberals in his bubble world.

Let’s review RFK Jr.’s rant:

Someone needs to tell the politicians in Boston and Washington that Cape Wind, the long-stalled plan to cover 25 square miles of pristine Nantucket Sound with 130 massive steel windmill-turbine towers, is a rip-off. That someone is most likely to be the newly enlightened electricity ratepayers—and voters—of Massachusetts.

Yes, eventually those pesky voters discover the truth.

In the past few months it has become clearer than ever how much this giveaway of public property is going to cost them if Cape Wind is ever built. The numbers are staggering.

And this would be a surprise to…whom?

Vermont wants to take its nuclear plant off line and replace it with clean, green power from HydroQuebec—power available to Massachusetts utilities—at a cost of six cents per kilowatt hour (kwh). Cape Wind electricity, by a conservative estimate and based on figures they filed with the state, comes in at 25 cents per kwh.

Why, that’s shocking! Who knew green energy could be such an expensive “rip-off!”  But wait, is that hydro-power? The kind environmentalists have blocked all across America because of the damming of rivers?  “When will we stop killing our fishies?”

In Massachusetts, the utility company NSTAR has fought off intense political pressure to commit to buying Cape Wind’s power when and if it becomes available. CEO Tom May has repeatedly said such a contract would impose far too large a burden on his ratepayers.

Odd, that has never impressed greenies in the past. Isn’t clean, carbon free energy worth whatever it cost, because we’re saving the planet? 

Instead, and to meet the state’s requirements that utilities purchase 3.5% of their power from “green” sources, NSTAR has contracted with several far less expensive land-based wind-power providers.

Yes, that state mandated “green” power could really backfire on us.

According to NSTAR’s own filings to certify compliance with the green-power requirement, these contracts come in at $111 million below market averages over the standard contract period of 15 years. The price of Cape Wind power comes in at well over $1 billion above market averages, according to Cape Wind’s own regulatory filings about its contract with National Grid, the utility company that has agreed to buy half its power.

Hmmm. It sort of sounds like wind-turbine power is not, dare I say it? Cost effective? Maybe we could revisit those river dams?

If the sea-based wind farm off Nantucket did begin operating, it is safe to deduce that National Grid customers would be getting fleeced compared to their NSTAR neighbors. The land-based wind alternatives that have sprouted up over the last decade have given utilities far cheaper alternatives to the unbuilt Cape Wind.

But not cheaper than any form of conventional power generation, and wa-ay not cheaper than hydro-power. But again, there is that pesky dam issue with the fish. 

 

Bluntly put: Whether you agree or disagree with the fishermen, homeowners and environmentalists who have fought Cape Wind for a decade, [ed. aside from the fishermen, they’re mostly all Kennedys. And shouldn’t that be ‘fisherpersons”? the fact is this project makes no sense for ratepayers and taxpayers. Vastly cheaper forms of energy, and not just wind, are now available.

No sh*t, Sherlock. We’ve been trying to make that point for, well, a decade or more.

Despite this, there are ominous signs that NSTAR, after years of fighting off pressure by the state of Massachusetts to jam its customers with higher costs, is being told to accept the higher costs after all. The state’s leverage? A proposed merger of NSTAR with Northeast Utilities.

Don’t you hate it when that happens? Having your own crap jammed down your own throat?

In only the latest example of how heavy-handed Cape Wind’s backers are, Massachusetts has suddenly agreed to change the rules for utilities as they apply to mergers and the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions. In effect, the state administration is trying to hold hostage the proposed NSTAR-Northeast Utilities merger unless the two electric companies agree to buy Cape Wind’s power.

Where do those special interest project groups learn to be so heavy-handed? Oh, that’s right: community organizers. And race mongers.

Stopping Cape Wind is no longer merely about preventing the desecration of sacred Native American land, including land now under shallow waters in the Sound, where the turbines would also obstruct religiously significant views of the sunrise and sunset.

Did he write that with a straight face? Really?

It is no longer simply about protecting fish and fishing—which Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has moved to do for other areas of the state. Those reasons, along with protecting the safety of boats and planes while saving Cape Cod and the Islands from a devastating blow to tourism and property values, are still valid.

Operative term: property values.

Stopping Cape Wind is now about preventing us from buying into a boondoggle: from investing desperately needed federal, state and ratepayer dollars in a single project, on public land, for the benefit of a private developer when better and cheaper renewable energy—from wind and water power—is abundantly available.

So Mr. Kennedy, may I put you down as being in favor of building new hydro-dam projects in America? How do you feel about fracking –as long as it’s not done on or anywhere near Cape Cod?

Although Graydon Carter declared that irony was dead a decade ago , I think it is now fair to say it has been resuscitated – and to it’s original meaning. But progressives still have no sense of humor. It’s like the adage, “It’s always funny until it’s about you.” Suffice it to say, this is all about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Can we now announce the official end of the run of Camelot on the American stage?

          To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
           Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
           To the last syllable of recorded time;
           And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
          The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
          Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
          That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
          And then is heard no more. It is a tale
          Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
          Signifying nothing — Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, 19-28)

* “Jane, you ignorant slut” is the tag line from SNL’s infamous Point/Counterpoint segment with Dan Akyroyd and Jane Curtin   

Cross-posted at Dewey from Detroit    

Immelt and the Won peer into the abyss that they’ve created. Together.

“The people who are part of the business sector, the people in this room, have got to stop complaining about government and get some action underway,” he told the group. “There’s no excuse today for lack of leadership. The truth is we all need to be part of the solution.”

That certainly sounds like our acting President. It smacks of his signature style; a patronizing, derogatory pronunciation that combines equal parts ‘harpy’ and ‘preachy’ with trite. It’s the same tone your over-promoted, over-his-head boss uses when he realizes he’s lost the support of the troops; the tone that sets your jaw hard, causing your teeth to grind down on each other.

But no, it wasn’t Obama. It was Jeffrey Immelt. GE’s CEO. Jack Welch’s hand picked successor. I still don’t get that. What was he thinking?

This was Immelt carrying Obama’s water at a U. S. Chamber of Commerce jobs summit last week, following the release of another “disappointing” – and no doubt surprising (perpetually) – jobs report that showed growth had ground to a virtual stand still.

Why, you may ask, would the CEO and chair of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness tell the group of business representatives that it fell on them to fix things? I thought the economy was one area the government took full responsibility for – outside of election years of course. So, why would Jeff be telling business people that it’s their responsibility to take more risks and – get this – bring back jobs that had been moved overseas. Excuse me? This from the Chairman of G -“we bring good things to China”- E?

But hey, I get it: there just aren’t a lot of other silver arrows in the old quiver right now. And since Immelt was named chair of the COJ, he has brought a few token jobs back on-shore, in order to avoid being nailed with the hypocrite designation when he preaches to other companies. The PR department got out in front of that one.

Immelt also announced that his Council on Jobs has “made a number of recommendations for changes in government policies that should help job creation, such as the executive order announced Monday asking independent agencies to rid their books of old and outdated regulations. Wow! That’s insightful; worthy of an executive task force comprised of a slew of top corporate executives and bureaucrats. I’m amazed it only took them 6 months to come up with that recession buster.

Obama clearly picked the right “jobs czar”  to “task” with the responsibility of  finding solutions to America’s unemployment crisis.

“Get rid of outdated regulations?” He has got to be joking. That’s the kind of thing you come up with when the economy is humming along like clockwork and you just don’t want to mess it up. It’s not what you do when unemployment is 9.2% (19% actual), GDP growth languishing under 2%, oil prices broaching another all time high and the Volt is still spinning its coal-fired wheels in the ditch.

But this sage recommendation came as result of the Council on Jobs report that “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.” Let the record further reflect that the President, Immelt and the rest of the Council tittered hardily at this excellent little joke on the American taxpayer.

While he held the Chamber audience captive, Immelt took the opportunity to further shill for the administration by lecturing Chamber members on why it’s critical to raise the debt ceiling, immediately! And yes, you can put him down as being in favor of “shared responsibility” in order to reduce our deficit. He’s all in with the other 80% of Americans who want their taxes raised.

In case you’re wondering, there is no compensation for being “Jobs Czar. ” Not directly anyway. Immelt’s executive compensation at GE is determined in large part by how well GE’s bottom line does. The payoff for all of his heavy lifting around Washington will be reflected in stock options to be cashed in later. I’m betting he’s hoping to cash in much later, when the Republicans are once again in charge and stop talking about additional taxes on the fat cats who make “more money than they need.”

Because after all, and let me make this crystal clear: it’s not about the money. It’s about the amount you get to keep.

If you would like to review all the ways GE’s bottom line has benefited through its ties to the administration, go visit Sadhill’s post : “Bankrupt-Bailed Out-Government-Owned-Tax-Free-Overseas-Job-Outsourcing GE”  and check out the compendium at the end.

Who says you can’t buy love?

The way forward? You do a 180 and run like hell in the other direction. WTF, dude?

Cross-posted at Dewey From Detroit

I now it’s  “Shut Up and Sing” Wednesday, but Alec Baldwin is just going to have to wait another week for his slot on my honor role. Due to breaking news, I’ve expanded my awards selection candidate list – this week only –beyond the usual “celebrities speaking stupidly” to  include stupid international organizations chartered to:

1. maintain international peace and security
2. develop friendly relations among nations
3. achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character

Yes, this week’s winner hands down is the United Nations for their upcoming proposal to give “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans. When they say “you can’t make this stuff up” this is what they’re talking about.

Here are the essentials:

Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to “dominate and exploit” — to the point that the “well-being and existence of many beings” is now threatened.

Complete story here.

Aside from the fact that I don’t see anywhere in the UN charter a mandate to protect cockroaches (although it does so routinely), I will say this; I do believe that in Communist Bolivia under the rule of Evo Morales that bugs, indeed, have the same rights as humans.

I have nothing else to say. Other than “congratulations” to the UN: I didn’t believe it could possibly prove itself to be more dangerously inane than it already is. A good reminder of why we can never allow our cynicism to grow lazy. One World Order never sleeps.

Cultural side note: the last UN initiative to protect bug rights by banning DDT resulted in the humane salvation of trillions of mosquitoes, while killing, regrettably, 30 million humans.

If you were a bug, what kind of a bug would you be?

Say your prayers, mister

photos: SoothBrush

crossposted on DeweyfromDetroit

Cross-posted on Dewey From Detroit

 

“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.”

“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival.” 

Winston Churchill

Ann Barnhardt has given voice to the evil whose name we dare not speak: Islam. The religion of peace. If you are one of the few people who frequent conservative blog sites who hasn’t seen the Barnhardt videos you can view them here.

Ann’s articulate and unapologetic take down of not just the religion of peace, but its politically correct apologists and appeasers has generated an enormous amount of online buzz. Much of it is resoundingly supportive: people who feel someone has finally found their voice, and given words to their frustration. Others have been dismayed by what they consider her unnecessary stridency, and fear it will be responsible for even more violence and deaths at the hands of radical Islamists (inadvertently punctuating Barnhardt’s point for her). And some, of course, who feel she is a narrow-minded, ignorant moron who should just shut up and/or suffer physical harm (likewise reinforcing her points).

Here is a synopsis of her three-pronged treatise: first, she abhors much of Islam’s circumscribed teachings which are sub-human,  perverted and would be considered criminal anywhere outside of Sharia law. Secondly, she condemns America’s  inexplicable embrace of the “religion’s” essential premises which are antithetical to freedom and democracy. And third, she finds our political leaders willingness to compromise our values and principles to accommodate this anti-American, anti-democratic “religion” despicable, cowardly and treasonous.

She focuses her attack on the appeasement mindset, as exhibited by Lindsey Graham on Face the Nation last Sunday, that serves to excuse the horrifically violent behavior of  practitioners of the religion of peace while condemning the non-violent acts (sorry, burning a Koran is not violent in any normal meaning of the term) of Terry Jones. Barnhart simply points out the supreme stupidity of such fallacious logic. She attempts to explain to the “can’t we all just get along” crowd why we can’t; why it is completely illogical to think that we can somehow appease and accommodate this bizarro, stone age political philosophy of submission, misogyny and pedophilia masquerading as religion.

You can mark me down as unequivocally in Ann’s  bacon-smeared-Koran-burning camp.  I, too, am sick to death of people who think that if we just tone down the rhetoric and are more responsive to the sensibilities of the aggrieved practitioners of the religion of peace we can keep a lid on the shenanigans of the militant Islamic fascists. If we just acquiesce a little, maybe they’ll  stop with the atrocities: like the brutal decapitations of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, to put a face on 2 of them, the car bombings, the self-immolating human firecrackers trying to down airliners and the crazy fly-boys who land jets in skyscrapers.

Not only is that thinking lethally wrong, it’s delusional. It is a weasel’s gateway to hell. Appeasement of people whose philosophy is diametrically opposed to democratic principles always and necessarily creeps stealthily towards tyranny. Appeasement is not designed to mollify the likes of the Amish or the Lutherans, who are no threat, but rather it seeks to mollify the strident. Appeasement is designed for those who would do us harm and have proved themselves to be inherently dangerous, in hopes that they will take what we have to give and wander off to find a different victim.  Intimidation is their method of extortion: if they were not intimidating, e.g. the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam and fundamental Islamists, there would be no reason to acquiesce to there requests.  Get it? And no, that doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me a realist.  I don’t see anyone suggesting that we need to appease Catholics. Or Jews. Or Evangelical Christians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists or even Scientologists – regardless of their skin color. None of these peaceful religious sects want to kill or maim us simply because they don’t like who we are and how we live.  And more importantly, their “religion” doesn’t instruct them to do so.

So let’s be clear: appeasement is reserved for those we consider dangerous to our way of life. In that regard alone it is the most counterintuitive strategy imaginable, as it gives more power to those who threaten us. And the greater the threat to our way of life, the larger the price of appeasement, and the more power we willingly hand over to the enemy. The appeasement route as a strategic defense is a historical, verifiable act of insanity. Anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows this.

Islam has launched a coordinated marketing program on par with that of  the Nazi’s, except Hitler had nowhere near as many useful idiots espousing his propaganda for him. The “religion of peace” has garnered support, deference and alms from every influential organization in this country: politicians, the MSM, academics and Hollywood. In a classic case of “who you gonna’ believe, me or your lyin’ eyes” mendacity, we have been told that violent Islamists are but a small portion of the much larger population of moderate Muslims practicing the religion of peace. Even if we were to accept that premise – which I grow less and less inclined to do as I examine their most holy book more and more – let me ask this: if the fanatical minority is so small, why is the West bending over backwards to appease all Muslims? What, other than their “religion’s” antipathy towards all things Western, makes the West feel they must be treated with far more deference than any of the established Western religions?

Peaceful Muslims demonstrating in London

Why are Muslims not working with Western nations to root out this “tiny minority?” What’s wrong with this picture? Where are all those moderate Muslims we keep hearing about? We can take their silence to be apathy at best and complicity at worst. Either way, the peaceful majority is irrelevant .

Why do we continue to co-opt our moral sensibilities to accommodate theirs? If they feel the Koran is not just a holy book, but the most holy book, why must we concede this point by physically placing it above all other books in libraries and book stores?

Will this appease our Muslim brethren? No my friend, it will not. Because the only way they will be appeased is by complete submission to Allah. Read the teachings in their most holy book for yourself.  And yet our naïve President believes that we can just sit down and reason with these people to achieve peace and harmony. His worldview lacks one vital touchstone of reality: you cannot reason with zealots. Nor can you appease them.  If you could, the conflict between Palestine and Israel would be over by now.

Let’s analyze the art of appeasement exclusively with our left brain and leave the right brain to deal with something where feelings might actually be beneficial, like deciding who to vote for on American Idol.

My first question is, “on what grounds are we to reason with people who harbor unreasonable hatred toward anyone who is not like them?” People whose most holy book instructs them to kill all infidels – that seems rather exclusionary doesn’t it? Just like racists. 

How might one go about reasoning with racists do you suppose, in order to get them to stop lynching black people? Maybe we could all just agree that, when in public, blacks must cover themselves from head to toe in – oh, I don’t know, maybe a burka – in order not to offend the racists? Would that work? Not enough? OK, then how about if we ban them from using public water fountains and bathrooms? How’s that?

Secondly, how do you suppose we can reason with people whose religion teaches that Jews are inhuman, lower and dirtier than a dog? That almost sounds anti-Semitic. How shall we reason with anti-Semites? I suppose we could look to history for some insight into this, as this was one of the  dilemmas Chamberlain dealt with. Perhaps we could follow his lead and give them a country in exchange for leaving ours alone. Israel, perhaps?

Next – and this one might be a bit sticky – how best to reason with members of the religion of peace who believe women can legally be raped and beaten? You might think we  would have gotten some direction in this regard from N.O.W., but so far, nothing. They must be conducting research to determine if it’s a hate crime.  So again, let me ask: how shall we reason with people who bury women up to their necks and stone them to death for the alleged sin of adultery? (I say “alleged” because apparently this maneuver is also used on occasion to get rid of one wife too many, in order to make way for a new one, but that’s an entirely different issue, covered under “sharia law”) Since this practice sounds like misogyny, let’s see if we can determine a way to reason with and appease misogynists. How would free, independent women meet them half way on this? How about if we agree that all non-Muslim women will wear burka’s on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, except during the most holy season of Ramadan, when they will wear them 7 days a week? Does that work for you? Not enough? OK, they can’t drive cars or go to school either. Is that adequate?

And now, about that Koran burning thing: Is it really such a big deal if we all just agree that it should be illegal to burn the most holy Koran? And as long as we’re writing a new law anyway, there are some of the practitioners of the religion of peace who would like to have us include the requirement that everyone purchase a Koran, and keep it in their home at all times. Up high. Above any and all other books you may also have in your home. Is that Ok? Oh, and come to think of it, there are a few books that they would like to ban from being kept in the home along with the most holy Koran. Specifically, the Bible. Any problem with that? Besides, I think that restriction might already be included somewhere in the 2000 plus pages of ObamaCare legislation, or the gazillion pages of ObamaCare implementation regulations.

Oh, one last thing that our friends, the practitioners of the religion of peace want to include in that ban on Koran burning  legislation: now that you all have a Koran on the top shelf in your house. They want you to read it. Five times a day, and twice more on Fridays. You’ll know exactly when, since the Civil Defense System has recently been upgraded as part of our “Investing in America’s Infrastructure” program for “Winning the Future.”  It will now be used to issue the daily Call to Prayer, “one of the prettiest sounds on earth.” WTF, indeed.

H/T: RBJ thanks for the photos

 Cross-posted at Dewey From Detroit

In the words of Harry S. Truman,

Lest We Forget

“Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid . They have earned our undying gratitude. America will never forget their sacrifices.”

A1C Zac Cuddeback was shot in the head by an Islamofascist in Germany last week. Yesterday he made his final return home to O’Fallon, Illinois.  He will be laid to eternal rest today, March 12, 2011. Officiating will be Father Bill Hitpas, who also baptized Zac just 21 years ago at St. Nicholas’s church.

He was welcomed home last evening in a procession that made it’s way from nearby Scott Air Force Base to Zac’s uncle’s house in O’Fallon. The processional route was lined with 1000 flags  provided by the VFW and placed by local townspeople.

Also lining the route as Zac came home were his soldier colleagues from the Air Force Base, a local Boy Scout Troop, and hundreds of people who just wanted to turn out to express their condolences and to offer a small thanks to Zac. Instead, to their surprise, Zac’s family thanked them for coming. These are the kind of people you’re likely to find in fly over country.

The somber military procession began  at the Air Force base and rolled slowly through town. It was headed up by fire and emergency trucks from surrounding towns and over 200 Patriot Guard Riders who  have made it their mission to accompany fallen heroes to their final resting place, and to shelter and protect the family from the likes of viral protestors from Westboro Baptist church.

Patriot Guard Riders and first responders

Earlier last week people, churches, businesses and schools all over town honored Zac in any way they could. To some people it might seem a perfunctory gesture and even inconsequential, especially in comparison to the sacrifice made by Zac. But imagine if Zac were your son, brother, grandson, husband, nephew or friend. You would feel otherwise. You would feel the small gesture was quite profound. And you would be grateful.

Because you would know that sometimes simply recognizing great sacrifice is all we can do.

Also in advance of yesterday’s funeral cortege, soldiers and locals turned out to plant flags along the entire funeral route.

They began in the cornfields outside of town,

continued into town:

and through the suburban style neighborhoods

to the home of Zac’s uncle, where he laid last night.

If you’ve seen Taking Chance, the story of Lt. Col. Michael Strobl’s mission as a military escort accompanying the body of a fallen Marine home to his family in Wyoming, you might better understand the sense of honor and dignity that overwhelms everyone involved in delivering a fallen soldier home.

There is nothing inauthentic in this journey. People turn out simply to bow their heads and thank the selfless soldier who gave his own life to protect our values and way of life. You form the natural sort of bond that we do with our guardians. It is not one that can be manufactured of – or from – cheap emotions. Rather, it is an indelible linkage to something in our life that’s good and true.  It is at once simple and profound: a bond that requires no words to explain why we fight, and why we must.

Lest we forget.

Photos via Boots on the Ground

UPDATED WITH NEW PHOTOS:

New photos filed by Boots on the Ground from today’s funeral for American hero A1C Zac Cuddeback. No words required. (and yes, Westboro slugs did show up, but were contained by townspeople and Patriot Guards so as not to disrupt the memorial)

Rest in Peace Brave Soldier

Cross posted on MOTUS: Michelle Obama’s Mirror and Dewey from Detroit

The Obama administration is repeating the mistakes of President Jimmy Carter’s failed energy policies, which marred his term and stigmatized the 1970s. They are leading us straight into another national energy disaster.

While there’s little to disagree with in Forbes’ opinion piece, it’s really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama repeating Carter’s mistakes. It inspired me to update my 2009 Welcome Back Carter flatsimile video to capture some of the new similarities that have cropped up between JC an BO since then:

But still, there’s much more. Carter, like Obama, faced a drastic erosion of the value of the US dollar and a persistent trade deficit, much of it a result of US dependence on foreign oil – a situation that his administration did nothing to correct.

Obama’s deficit is a bit more complex. There’s the continuing dependence on foreign oil, a foreign trade policy favoring foreign countries, and – the elephant in the Capital Rotunda – runaway federal spending. And just like Carter’s, the Obama administration is doing nothing to rectify any of them. It’s almost as if he’s following Carter’s spent entrails on purpose.

Here are a few of the other uncanny similarities between these two presidents that I couldn’t squeeze into my video:

ENERGY POLICY (NOT)

In mid-1979 Carter advanced his long-term energy program. He proposed a limit on imported oil, gradual price decontrol on domestically produced oil, a stringent program of conservation, and development of alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear, and geothermal power, oil and gas from shale and coal, and synthetic fuels.

Obama favors much of this policy, although for different reasons: Jimmy Carter didn’t yet know about globull warming when he put his policy together. He therefore didn’t know about the damage that oil, shale gas, and coal would inflict on the planet. So naturally they’re not included in Obama’s list of domestic fuel sources. Neither is nuclear: too scary. So that leaves solar, geothermal, that new-fangled concept – wind… and mice on treadmills.

BUILDING A DEFICIT

Carter began his administration with a $27.7 billion deficit, 4 years later, it had grown a whopping 113%, to $59 billion. Obama’s 2011 deficit is forecast to hit $1.5 trillion. That’s trillion, my man. And still growing. Match point, Obama.

GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACIES

Jimmy Carter, in his wisdom, created the departments of education and energy; Obama has found additional uses for both departments, including getting out the vote, WTF (winning the future) and shutting down the oil industry.

APPEASING THE HAVE-NOTS BY GIVING THEM STUFF

Carter, in a misguided attempt to soften America’s stance towards third world dictators, determined it was necessary to remove America’s “colonial outpost” in Panama and hence gave the strategic and economically important Panama Canal – built and paid for by American taxpayers – away.

Obama has softened America’s stance towards everyone. And it appears that he wants to give Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of California back to Mexico.

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE

Carter fought for a National Health Insurance, but, alas, did not find support for it in Congress.

Obama fought for National Health Insurance, “found” support for it in Congress, but, alas, not so much amongst the American people.

UNFORTUNATE FAMILY MEMBERS

Both Carter and Obama had radical-liberal mothers, and embarrassing brothers.

Stanley Ann Dunham in her “art” days.

AUTO BAILOUTS

Both Carter (1979) and Obama (2009) bailed Chrysler out. While they rebounded in less than 3 years last time around, this time they’re owned by an Italian bicycle company.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Both presidents have resided over awesome unemployment rates. It’s a little hard to compare unemployment rates under Carter to prior presidents, as his administration was the first to remove the “chronically unemployed” from the reported numbers. And even with that little trick, the official rate leveled out around 7.5% at the end of his administration. Obama’s had that number beat 6 months in. And we don’t even knows what bureaucratic tricks have been applied to keep unemployment below 10%?

INFLATION

Carter’s presidency presided over chronically high inflation, with the national rate hitting 13.6% in 1980, the year he lost to Reagan. With the unemployment rate also running high, Carter bested the “misery index” that he had mocked his opponent, Jerry Ford, about in 1976. It stood at 13.5% when he beat Ford, and rose in each subsequent year, settling at 20.8% when he lost his bid for re-election.

Thus far, Obama’s been lucky. Inflation hasn’t spiked along with unemployment to create the kind of stagflation that generates a really high misery index. But with corn still being subsidized to make ethanol (an inherently less efficient fuel), look for everything related to corn to continue to inch up: meat, eggs and any food that uses corn syrup as a sweetener. Likewise, with our insanely missing-in-action energy policy, combined with continuing bans on all types of domestic drilling, and unstable supply and prices from the Middle East (not to mention the new carbon standards that the EPA has deemed to impose on businesses) look for the price of EVERYTHING to go up. There are few commodities or services that don’t have energy costs embedded in their price.

ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS

The three Mile Island nuclear accident occurred on Carter’s watch. The partial core meltdown (completely contained, with no resulting deaths or injuries) followed by media panic and environmentalist histrionics resulted in the de facto shuttering of the nuclear power plant industry in the U.S.. There has not been one newly commissioned nuclear plant since. In fact, 120 plants on the drawing board at the time were cancelled. Of the 104 plants operating today (or in the case of Watts Bar, still being constructed) none were commissioned after 1974. We are decades behind other industrial countries in every aspect of nuclear power. The power source once touted as “too cheap to meter” is now too expensive for a utility to even propose to the Public Service Commission.

The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill occurred on Obama’s watch, and it appears that he intends to follow Carter’s lead by doing his best to shut down the oil industry too. We’ll all be off-grid soon. As I said before, it’s almost uncanny.

So there you have it. Still not a comprehensive list of all the similarities between these two candidates for “worst U.S. President, ever.” For example I didn’t mention that Chris Matthews was a speech writer in the Carter Administration, did I? And now, 30 years later, here he is – still a mouthpiece for the Administration. Only now, he actually gives the speeches for the President; nightly on Ms.NBC.

Chris Matthews reads the SOTU from TOTUS for POTUS

And while Carter had Zbigniev Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor to guide him on all critical international issues,

Jimmy Carter with Zbigniev, back in the day

Obama has his daughter, Mika Brzezinski, carrying water every day on Morning Joe.

And sometimes, Dad still stops by to help with the really heavy lifting.

(In case you don’t know what mess ZbIgniev was cleaning up after, you simply must watch Niall Ferguson dismantle an entire panel of Ms.NBC talking heads.)

Cross-posted on DeweyfromDetroit

In a new weekly event named in honor of Laura Ingraham’s book of the same title I’m issuing an appeal to celebrities like Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo and Sheryl Crow who feel compelled to share their wondrous knowledge of global warming, economics and the dangers of genetically modified seeds with their adoring fans.(Or in the case of Tom Cruise, his vast knowledge of Psychiatry and psycho-tropic drugs, derived from his years of study at the school of Scientology.) Please; all I’m asking is that you stick to whatever shtick you know well enough to get paid for.

I’m awarding the inaugural honorarium to Charles Ferguson, director of “Inside Job” the movie that won the Oscar for “best documentary”the other night. It’s about Wall Street’s avarice and misdeeds. **yawn**

Here are the opening remarks of Mr. Ferguson’s acceptance speech:

“Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong,”

Yes, that’s true. Not a one of them is in jail.  A lot of them are working in the Obama administration. One of them just retired from the Senate as a result of his involvement in the Countrywide mortgage scandal (Chris Dodd) and another one just got re-elected to the House of Representatives (Barney Frank) despite his major involvement in the Fannie and Freddie failure. And another one of them practically bankrolled the entire Obama candidacy (George Soros).

Others in the liberal media contend that “almost everything that the White House has done has been haunted by the personnel and the money of Goldman….” And even the World Socialist Web Site has complained about Obama’s Wall Street ties.

So, no, Charles. Not in jail. Perhaps because, even stipulating to the fact that many people did many things that many consider unethical, they may not have done anything illegal. You can’t prosecute people simply  for acting in ways that you or I consider unethical. Not yet anyway.

As is often the case when technology and innovation get ahead of the curve, legal constraints lag behind. in these situations, there will always be people working in the shadowy margins. Their actions may have been unwise, speculative, greedy – and by most decent standards -  unethical. But unwise, speculative, greedy and unethical are not currently illegal.   Of course, there’s always RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiztions Act). It can be used “to indict a ham sandwich,” but I digress.

Ferguson, who holds a doctorate in Political Science from M.I.T. made his fortune by developing the first visual webpage software which was subsequently sold to Microsoft and  incorporated into its Word program. After that, Ferguson got into movie making. I’m betting that, like most everybody else, he lost a goodly portion of his net worth in the ‘08 financial meltdown. But losing money in the market -  even combined with his PhD and his contribution to Microsoft’s Word – doesn’t make him an expert in finance, financial markets and complex systems.

With respect to Charles’ Shut Up and Sing tag:  I’m not sure what his basic talent/skill is any more. He used to be a software designer, but since cashing out of that business he’s made two political, but uninformed, documentaries. I can’t comment on his first movie No End in Sight which is about the “quagmire” in Iraq. I haven’t seen it, but it was released about the same time it became apparent that the surge was working.

So while he may have an ability to make movies, I’m not sure documentaries is his genre,although the standards for “documentaries” do seem to be a bit wobbly. What I can tell you for certain is his basic documentary skills do NOT include analyzing the breakdown of financial markets. When your logic can be picked apart and ridiculed by the New York Post’s movie critic, you’re skating on thin ice my man.

I’d be willing to bet that his research for the documentary was similar to that of the Democratic members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee. Which is to say, no stone was left unturned in search of facts that supported their initial assumptions, but  boulders that marked the spots where pesky facts that wandered off storyline were gingerly walked around. I suppose if that technique is good enough for science – which it apparently is these days – it’s good enough for movies and Congressional commissions.

If you watch Inside Job, do so with the knowledge that it is biased, slanted and uninformed. Although it is slightly better than Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone take down of Goldman Sachs: an even less informed “analysis” that the Left has been quoting since it was published last Spring as though its author actually knew something about financial markets. (See Megan McCardle’s disassembly of Taibbi’s piece rather than reading the original. You’ll learn a lot more.

I’m clear on what the “shut-up” part of this guy’s tag refers to. I’m just not clear on what the “sing” portion of the talent competition entails for Chuck at this point. I guess we could always use a new Microsoft software program  that actually worked.

PS. And oh, by the way: “reliable sources” are now alleging that the entire financial crash may have been due to: Financial Terrorism. Something to think about. I mean, in the grander scheme of things.

h/t Larwyn

Cross-posted on Dewey From Detroit

SadHill News reports on the latest abuse of presidential powers: Obama administration drops defense of anti-gay marriage-law:

(Reuters) President Barack Obama has determined that a federal law that barred gay marriages was unconstitutional and told government lawyers to stop defending it in court, the U.S. Justice Department said on Wednesday, a move that will likely anger some conservative voters.

A U.S. judge had ruled that a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) banning gay marriages was unconstitutional, but the administration had appealed, stating that it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged.

Apparently our Community Organizer in Chief and part time Constitutional Law professor has deemed it necessary to usurp the powers of the Supreme Court, thereby saving us thousands of dollars. All part of his deficit reduction plan. (See Buh-Bye sidebar, to see how we’re doing so far.)

Also, be sure to check out SadHill if  you’re a Monty Python fan.