With such a crowded field... how did we let this go for so long?

.


We’ve drifted away from the practice for the last 2 or 3 years but we had previously been in the habit of awarding the truly horrible journalism the Walter Duranty Putridity in Journalism Award, in honor of the eponymous Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times reporter and Communist sympathizer.


So bad was the column by David Brooks a couple of weeks ago, we have decided to resurrect the award and reprint our blog response to it below. Congratulations, Brooksy, for taking home the not-so-coveted Walter Duranty Putridity in Journalism Award for 2013:

When shilling for an autocracy is so much easier than swallowing your pride

We've all been there. We read something or listen to someone and your jaw hits the floor with the simultaneous thought, perhaps voiced out loud, "Where has this guy been?", or "What planet is this dude living on?"


David Brooks (pictured), employing what is now a cottage industry in political punditry: decrying gridlock and/or a "dysfunctional" Washington D.C., gave us that moment in his latest column titled "Strengthen the Presidency."


To be fair, Brooks does bring up some valid points. Yes, there are too many K Street lobbyists. Yes, moneyed interests skew legislation to the benefit of just a few. We know all this but Brooks' solution to the problem, as strongly suggested by the title of the column is both dangerous and foolish.


First, though, some false assumptions by Brooks:

"... it is possible to mobilize the executive branch to come to policy conclusion on something like immigration reform. It’s nearly impossible for Congress to lead us to a conclusion about anything.

It's "reform" and "reform" is inherently good, right? No. Not really. You can dress up that pig and call it anything you want and it's still just a pig and the current amnesty plan not to mention Dodd-Frank Fin-Reg and, of course, the mother of all reform pigs, the Affordable Care Act are all proof of that. And please note how easy Brooks can assert singular executive action as a preferable course all in the name of "doing something" whatever that "something" is.

"Fourth, Congressional deliberations, to the extent they exist at all, are rooted in rigid political frameworks. Some agencies, especially places like the Office of Management and Budget, are reasonably removed from excessive partisanship."

Good. We'll keep saying for as long as we have to, but in our constitutional republic, passing laws is supposed to be and is necessarily designed to be difficult... at least it used to be. The Senate's sobriquet as the most deliberative body on the planet was, we thought, a point of pride. Again, this notion that Congress must do “something” is simply wrong-headed. Mere activity of Congress does not equate to beneficial nor productive legislation. There are far worse things than “legislative inactivity” and “legislative activity” would be one of those.

Fifth, executive branch officials, if they were liberated from rigid Congressional strictures, would have more discretion to respond to their screw-ups, like the Obamacare implementation. Finally, the nation can take it out on a president’s party when a president’s laws don’t work. That doesn’t happen in Congressional elections, where most have safe seats.

Now, Brooks is just talking wacky. When he says "respond" does he mean the blizzard of waivers, delays and exemptions the administration has rained down from on high since ObamaCare became law and which has served only to add confusion to an already overly-complex and byzantine law and served only to reinforce the perception of utter incompetence of this administration? Is that what he means by "respond"? God help us. We're bordering on banana republic territory as it is and Brooks appears blissfully unaware that his "respond" mechanism of the executive branch is the main reason why.

And about those safe seats… Tell that to the scores of now-former congressional Democrats that got swept out of office in that 2010 midterm shellacking which was a direct result of the electorate's "response" to ObamaCare.


But, believe it or not, Brooks isn’t done… not by a long shot. Here’s the paragraph justifying more concentrated and constitutional republic-shunning power-grabbing and which is tied directly to his fifth point above:

This is a good moment to advocate greater executive branch power because we’ve just seen a monumental example of executive branch incompetence: the botched Obamacare rollout. It’s important to advocate greater executive branch power in a chastened mood. It’s not that the executive branch is trustworthy; it’s just that we’re better off when the presidency is strong than we are when the rentier groups are strong, or when Congress, which is now completely captured by the rentier groups, is strong.

Insane. Simply insane. Brooks lays out exactly why it’s such a bad idea to give the executive branch more power and then doubles down by advocating exactly for that.

And let’s take a quick moment to disabuse ourselves this notion that somehow the executive branch is more insulated from special interests than Congress. For one, the Department of Energy green loan program has been nothing but a pay-off to administration cronies, bundlers and campaign donors.

And the absolute lack of accountability in the scandals involving the IRS, NSA snooping, Fast and Furious and Benghazi are all indicative of responding to political pressure from like-minded political interests. Whether its K Street or within the vast federal leviathan, what does it matter?

If you think that the most powerful office in the world is somehow more insulated from the pressure of interests groups than a congressman, we believe you’d be sadly mistaken.


Poor David Brooks, the center-right columnist of America’s paper of record. Pride is a tough thing to swallow and since he’s been an Obama apologist for years now, it’s probably the easiest path now to double down on proposing the executive branch power grabs for his boy that has already been happening for years. Power grabs that are completely at odds with the ideals of a constitutional republic but it’s apparent that brushing aside political inconveniences trump any fidelity to separation of powers and checks and balances.


Brooks’ assumptions that this can all be justified because of the fundamental decency of one man is that of foolishness and shortsightedness.


Exit question(s) for our liberal friends out there. Sure, it’s all good because of the unsurpassed righteousness, benevolence and wisdom of Barack Obama. But he’s only going to be in office for a little over 3 more years. What then? The executive orders and unilateral actions that had you all so exorcised during the Bush years and that you either turned a blind eye towards or actively cheered during the Obama regime… What now? All those assumed and accrued powers will be turned over to someone infinitely less-saintly than the current occupier of the Oval Office. What will you say then?


We're not holding our breath waiting for an answer.

(end of article)



And we do have a video category for this award for the first time. Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC… come on down and get your hardware while the rest of us enjoy the this montage of the 5 dumbest things you said this year.



It’s no surprise that Fox News skews right and blonde but we’ve got to hand it to the folks at MSNBC for stretching beyond the widely-held standards of common sense and graciousness to achieve previously-thought unimaginable levels of poor taste and derangement. An atta boy all around to that entire network.




That's it, gang. Have a safe and enjoyable New Year's and we'll see you all in 2014.

Not necessarily what you were expecting, huh?

As left-brained, conserva-libertarian suburbanites, one can imagine that womens’ studies and feminism are not our strong suit. However, we’ve had a mad crush on Camille Paglia, our imaginary lesbian Western Classicist girlfriend, for years.


The lede from the Wall St. Journal:

'What you're seeing is how a civilization commits suicide," says Camille Paglia. This self-described "notorious Amazon feminist" isn't telling anyone to Lean In or asking Why Women Still Can't Have It All. No, her indictment may be as surprising as it is wide-ranging: The military is out of fashion, Americans undervalue manual labor, schools neuter male students, opinion makers deny the biological differences between men and women, and sexiness is dead. And that's just 20 minutes of our three-hour conversation.

Judging by the way social media has been blowing up over the linked article over the weekend, it’s like everybody has just awakened to what she has been saying for over two decades.


Read entire interview at the link.

.

Video clip of the day

.

Reason.com presents their 5th annual year-end Nanny of the Year:







We're it not for term limits, one could probably safely retire this award with Bloomy. Unfortunately, just because he will no longer be mayor of NYC, doesn't mean he won't be around to nag after people as his hilariously ineffective and expensive Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) has proven.


And while we can perhaps sympathize with the plight of Ms. Berry and others in wanting to protect their children, the results of this legislation will create special protections for a separate class of people. This is undemocratic (and is why we are fiercely opposed to hate crime laws which is a story for another time), ergo, we are against it. Besides, who is going to come up with the legal definition of “celebrity” by which people can be prosecuted? The potential vagaries and potential for abuse (no pictures of pols’ kids?) makes this a complete non-starter in our book.



Our vote, however, is with cigarette boy up there in Oregon. The de-normalizing of smoking and smokers continues apace and as Mayor Bloomy has amply demonstrated, once you start criminalizing cigarettes, it’s an easy path to trans-fats, salt or any another item a petty tyrant finds personally distasteful.



With that goes a Holiday message to Nannies all across the fruited plain of this beautiful country of ours:

“Quit banning s**t we like!”

Tending to some blog title-related business

Knocking back a few Sierra Nevada Pale Ales after a de-hydrating Hash House Harrier run 10 years ago was our "gateway" moment in getting into the craft beer scene, particularly that of the West Coast hoppy IPA (India Pale Ale) varieties.


Much like the internet, we scarcely knew what we were doing and how we were doing it before latching on to the craft beer scene.


Anyway...


The Brewer's Association released their craft beer economic impact report where they claim that the craft beer industry contributed $33.9 billion to the U.S. economy in 2012.


From the report:

According to a new analysis by the Brewers Association (BA)—the not-for-profit trade association that represents the majority of U.S. breweries—small and independent American craft brewers contributed $33.9 billion to the U.S. economy in 2012.

The figure is derived from the total impact of beer brewed by craft brewers as it moves through the three-tier system (breweries, wholesalers and retailers), as well as all non-beer products that brewpub restaurants sell.

"With a strong presence across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, craft breweries are a vibrant and flourishing economic force at the local, state and national level,” said Bart Watson, staff economist, Brewers Association. “As consumers continue to demand a wide range of high quality, full-flavored beers, small and independent craft brewers are meeting this growing demand with innovative offerings, creating high levels of economic value in the process.”

Here's a breakdown by state:

As one would expect, California is lead dog with $4.7 billion contributed to the state economy.


Obviously, the "gross" stats will skew towards the more populous states in the union as we don't really see states like Ohio and Texas being hotbeds for craft beer.



So, let's take a look at the states on a per capital basis:

Ah, much better. Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, Maine and Montana, in that order, are the top 5.


Predictably, craft beer is strongest on the West Coast, the interior mountain west and the northeast while the southern and heartland states lag considerably.



How about some more numbers from 2012:

2,347 : number of craft breweries operating in the U.S.

1,132 : number of brewpubs

13,235,917 : number of barrels of beer brewed by craft breweries with an estimated retail dollar value of $11.9 billion

360,000 : number of jobs provided by the industry

As you may know, San Diego is home to a fantastic beer scene so do yourself a favor and give it a shot. If you feel a tad intimidated by the "scene" do what we do and hit up places that a) have a good variety of solid to excellent beers and b) a friendly staff who would love to walk you through the process of ordering a beer that best suits your palate and not be stand-offish pricks about it (we're looking at you Toronado).


Hoffer's in La Mesa, K and B Wine Cellars in Del Cerro and to a lesser extent because they are always so damn crowded, Alpine Beer Co. in Alpine fit the bill. It's the holidays... hit'em up and Merry Christmas from the entire staff here at Beers with Demo.


P.S. What were we thinking...? If Belgian beers are your thing and you aren't going to Brabant in South Park, you're doing it all wrong. And while you're at it, say hi to Max. He'll be there, trust us.



.
.

Some not so random thoughts on this Duck Dynasty thing

Events have unfolded so quickly and there have been so many twists and turns
in the whole Duck Dynasty/Phil Robertson kerkuffle we haven't had sufficient
time to digest all the goings on in order to comment upon them.



A few observations, however, are in order:

1) A&E looks spineless and duplicitous in this whole affair. A&E wins
our Capt. Louis Renault award for being shocked... shocked that the star of
their reality... R-E-A-L-I-T-Y... show might just have views on
homosexuality and express them in a manner as would many other southern,
rural Christians. To our knowledge, Duck Dynasty was the highest rated
cable series ever, making A&E tons of money and they fold like a lawn chair
when push comes to shove.


2) Golly, did Cracker Barrel backpedal faster than a corner covering a go-route
when after removing from their restaurants anything Phil
Robertson-related, they put it all back up after hearing from their
constituents? How bizarre is it that Cracker Barrel, of all places, might
think their customer base of red-staters might give a hoot about what GLAAD
thinks?


3) Disappointed in our fellow travelers on the right, Louisiana Governor
Bobby Jindal being chief among those, who thought this was a free-speech
issue. In our way of thinking, for it to be a free speech issue, the
government would need to be involved. That's how it works. The
government wasn't involved via censoring or otherwise butting into A&E's
affairs, advocacy groups were so it wasn't a free speech issue rather a
we're-totally-offended-by-what-this-straight-guy-said-so-were-going-to-press
ure-A&E-to-shut-this-guy-down issue. Huge difference.


And speaking of speech... the following is an old post and a favorite of
ours as free speech has become a more and more valued right to us over the
years and which we believe has parallels to L'affaire Duck Dynasty.

Exceptional Speech


All free speech isn't created equally or interpreted equally everywhere as
the show trials of Canadian human rights commissions of Mark Steyn and Ezra
Levant have proven. But is our free speech better than Canadian and European
free speech? Some here think we need to revisit the concept that was deemed
important enough to be drafted No. 1 overall when it came time for our
nation's founders to make their selections of really, really important
rights.


But why does it seem that on the whole a more restrictive interpretation of
free speech, and thus a more liberal interpretation of hate speech, occurs
in countries that appear to have the most difficulties with restive
immigrant minority groups. Is there a causal relationship? We think there
may be.


The fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has a near 100%
conviction rate is proof-positive of giving an air of legitimacy to quite
anything that an aggrieved plaintiff may bring before it as "hate speech".
If you as the aggrieved are almost always guaranteed satisfaction from this
particular court system every time you cry foul, then the hate speech bar is
lowered to the point where being offended or feeling your group has been
incited against with respect to nearly anything written or said is indeed,
culturally and legally, justifiable.


The whole system both legally and culturally in Canada and much of Europe
thus invites grievances, promotes isolation and discourages assimilation.


Let's contrast that with the United States where Muslims don't riot or burn
American flags, where there are no fatwas declared against writers and
filmmakers are not murdered while walking down the street and the hate
speech bar is set much, much higher.


Precisely because the bar is set higher, the legitimization of hate speech
is much more infrequent. Rather than officially recognize alleged hate
speech in courts of law, the rantings of say, a Jeremiah Wright or the
suggestions by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that the acceptance of
homosexuality in this country was, in part, responsible for 9-11, it is
instead held up for public scorn, ridicule and mocking.. as it should. The
question of legitimacy is taken off the table and in fact, it is viewed not
as court-defined "hate speech" but rather, "illegitimate speech." In other
words, speech that is outside the legitimate circle of polite and civil
discourse.


We will not take you to court, we will, however, make fun of you and then
simply ignore you.


A perfect case-in-point for this is the Iranian mad-bomber, Mahmoud
Ahmedinejad, who came to New York last year to make a number of speeches and
appearances. We understood the calls for banning and/or boycotting his
speeches but we generally came down on the side of letting the man speak
knowing that the true Mahmoud would reveal himself and sho'nuff, the raving
lunatic, homophobe and anti-semite we knew him to be did not disappoint.


Despite the serious nature of what he said, we, collectively, mocked and ridiculed the guy,
essentially turning Ahmedinejad into a late-night punch line effectively
neutering and delegitimizing his message.


A Canadian, himself recognizes this exceptionalism. Jason Gratl a lawyer for
the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association:

"Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech," Mr. Gratl
said in a telephone interview. "We don't subscribe to a marketplace of
ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for
verbal combat."


And Mr. Steyn: "Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable
with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish
the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world."

This exceptionalism is worth preserving. We've seen how free speech
interpretation works elsewhere and the results are less than American.


Embrace the hatred of hate speech laws.

(end of old post)




Over the weekend it was reported that GLAAD now wants Robertson to spend
some time with gays there in Louisiana as if his current chastening wasn't
enough. This re-education camp mentality is troubling and would suggest we are losing the tough-mindedness of which Mr. Gratl speaks.

Video clip of the day

.

Check out what passes for intelligent political discourse these days in this exchange between Piers Morgan and Barbara Walters on Morgan's show on CNN.


(transcript is below video embed)

Via NewsBusters:

PIERS MORGAN, HOST: You have interviewed every president of my lifetime. Why is Obama facing so much opposition now? Why is he struggling so much to really fulfill the great flame of ambition and excitement that he was elected on originally in 2009?

BARBARA WALTERS: Well, you've touched on it to a degree. He made so many promises. We thought that he was going to be - I shouldn't say this at Christmastime, but - the next messiah. And the whole ObamaCare, or whatever you want to call it, the Affordable Health Act, it just hasn't worked for him, and he's stumbled around on it, and people feel very disappointed because they expected more.

It's very difficult when the expectations for you are very high. You're almost better off when they are low and then they rise and rise. His were very high and they've dropped. But you know, he still has several years to go. What does he have, three years, Piers? And, you know, there will be a lot of changes, one thinks in that time.

The quantity and degree of infantilism displayed by these two chronological adults is stunning.


From a practical, reality-based standpoint, what the hell does "...fulfill the great flame of ambition and excitement..." even mean? If immigration "reform" legislation somehow managed to land on the President's desk for his signature, would that more satisfy Morgan's delusions of grandeur? Seriously, what sort of concrete achievement clears Morgan's goalpost? Wasn't ruining this nation's healthcare system enough?


And we can ask the same of Walters . These two are standard-bearers for modern day progressivism and they are talking like 6 yr. olds. Specifically, to what "change" is Walters referring? Is it a policy position... a specific piece of legislation... a court appointment... what? Their words hold no actual meaning. With respect to the messianic Obama, they have deluded themselves into reducing everything they say to bromides, cliches and campaign sloganeering.


It is duly noted that Clintonista, John Podesta, who has been brought into the White House to shake things up, has likened House Republicans to Jonestown cult followers (also duly noted and in a bit of irony, Jones before decamping to Guyana was somewhat of a star in California Democratic politics in the mid-70s). This is known as projecting as only Kool Aid-drinking progressives circa 2013, can convince themselves that things like "kill lists" and a domestic spying program are A-OK as long as the the Dear Leader is at the helm.


"... fulfill the great flame of ambition and excitement..." is it any wonder this Presidency has been such a disaster when that sort of completely unserious language is the coin of the realm for this President's supporters and the Beltway at large. A disaster borne of the conceit that the man actually believes his own bulls**t.



Alas, much like how bagels are merely a vehicle for the heavenly cream cheese upon which it sets, this entire post is merely a vehicle for, hands-down, the creepiest, un-democratic, bootlicking campaign video of all-time.

Don't be that guy

.

Didn’t get an invite to the party? No worries. Show up anyway with that six pack… er, now four pack of Natural Lite and let the good times roll.

District of Columbia officials are recruiting young residents this weekend to enroll in ObamaCare by showing up where they “party by night and shop by day.”

Officials on Saturday visited two Footlocker stores where Nike’s exclusive Air Jordan 12 “Taxi” sneakers were going on sale. And they are scheduled to visit two Denny’s restaurants from 2 a.m. to 4 p.m. Sunday.

“My motto is ‘Get them health care while you get them Jordans,” DC Health Links representative Vanessa Brooks told Fox News outside a Footlocker in the city’s downtown.

“Get some health care to go along with them taxis, OK?” Brooks told those at the store. “You got to have it. And you need it.”

The Obama administration and other supporters of the Affordable Care Act have worked hard since enrollment started in October to connect with young people, knowing their participation will help cover the cost of the elderly and others who need more medical care.

However, problems with the federal ObamaCare website and the 14 state-run sites appear to have made the tech-savvy generation wary of the entire program, combined with members’ general feeling they won’t get sick or injured, which has prompted Brooks and other D.C. Health Link officials to call them “young invincibles.”

Terrific. ObamaCare has been reduced to being that 40-something creeper with the bad hair at the house party.


And what a marketing disaster to call this target demographic whom you are depending upon to support this federal Ponzi scheme, “Young Invincibles”. What better way to get people to sign up for healthcare insurance than to re-enforce the belief of their own indestructibility. Wouldn’t “Young Vulnerables” be a step in the right direction? Or, if you wanted to cut right to the chase, how about “Young Compliants”?


As it stands, the “YCs” aren’t signing up. It’s the “Old and Sick”, a demographic that ObamaCare wants nothing to do with… at least not if the YCs aren’t going to pick up the tab for them.


After all, who but the sick aid elderly are going to have the patience and time to wade through the still-glitch-riddled state and federal exchange sites?


Not us. We’ll see you all later on tonight at IHOP.


Hollah. Yo.



h/t: @TriciaNC1

When shilling for an autocracy is so much easier than swallowing your pride

.

We've all been there. We read something or listen to someone and your jaw hits the floor with the simultaneous thought, perhaps voiced out loud, "Where has this guy been?", or "What planet is this dude living on?"


David Brooks (pictured), employing what is now a cottage industry in political punditry: decrying gridlock and/or a "dysfunctional" Washington D.C., gave us that moment in his latest column titled "Strengthen the Presidency."


To be fair, Brooks does bring up some valid points. Yes, there are too many K Street lobbyists. Yes, moneyed interests skew legislation to the benefit of just a few. We know all this but Brooks' solution to the problem, as strongly suggested by the title of the column is both dangerous and foolish.


First, though, some false assumptions by Brooks:

"... it is possible to mobilize the executive branch to come to policy conclusion on something like immigration reform. It’s nearly impossible for Congress to lead us to a conclusion about anything.

It's "reform" and "reform" is inherently good, right? No. Not really. You can dress up that pig and call it anything you want and it's still just a pig and the current amnesty plan not to mention Dodd-Frank Fin-Reg and, of course, the mother of all reform pigs, the Affordable Care Act are all proof of that. And please note how easy Brooks can assert singular executive action as a preferable course all in the name of "doing something" whatever that "something" is.

"Fourth, Congressional deliberations, to the extent they exist at all, are rooted in rigid political frameworks. Some agencies, especially places like the Office of Management and Budget, are reasonably removed from excessive partisanship."

Good. We'll keep saying for as long as we have to, but in our constitutional republic, passing laws is supposed to be and is necessarily designed to be difficult... at least it used to be. The Senate's sobriquet as the most deliberative body on the planet was, we thought, a point of pride. Again, this notion that Congress must do “something” is simply wrong-headed. Mere activity of Congress does not equate to beneficial nor productive legislation. There are far worse things than “legislative inactivity” and “legislative activity” would be one of those.

Fifth, executive branch officials, if they were liberated from rigid Congressional strictures, would have more discretion to respond to their screw-ups, like the Obamacare implementation. Finally, the nation can take it out on a president’s party when a president’s laws don’t work. That doesn’t happen in Congressional elections, where most have safe seats.

Now, Brooks is just talking wacky. When he says "respond" does he mean the blizzard of waivers, delays and exemptions the administration has rained down from on high since ObamaCare became law and which has served only to add confusion to an already overly-complex and byzantine law and served only to reinforce the perception of utter incompetence of this administration? Is that what he means by "respond"? God help us. We're bordering on banana republic territory as it is and Brooks appears blissfully unaware that his "respond" mechanism of the executive branch is the main reason why.

And about those safe seats… Tell that to the scores of now-former congressional Democrats that got swept out of office in that 2010 midterm shellacking which was a direct result of the electorate's "response" to ObamaCare.


But, believe it or not, Brooks isn’t done… not by a long shot. Here’s the paragraph justifying more concentrated and constitutional republic-shunning power-grabbing and which is tied directly to his fifth point above:

This is a good moment to advocate greater executive branch power because we’ve just seen a monumental example of executive branch incompetence: the botched Obamacare rollout. It’s important to advocate greater executive branch power in a chastened mood. It’s not that the executive branch is trustworthy; it’s just that we’re better off when the presidency is strong than we are when the rentier groups are strong, or when Congress, which is now completely captured by the rentier groups, is strong.

Insane. Simply insane. Brooks lays out exactly why it’s such a bad idea to give the executive branch more power and then doubles down by advocating exactly for that.

And let’s take a quick moment to disabuse ourselves this notion that somehow the executive branch is more insulated from special interests than Congress. For one, the Department of Energy green loan program has been nothing but a pay-off to administration cronies, bundlers and campaign donors.

And the absolute lack of accountability in the scandals involving the IRS, NSA snooping, Fast and Furious and Benghazi are all indicative of responding to political pressure from like-minded political interests. Whether its K Street or within the vast federal leviathan, what does it matter?

If you think that the most powerful office in the world is somehow more insulated from the pressure of interests groups than a congressman, we believe you’d be sadly mistaken.


Poor David Brooks, the center-right columnist of America’s paper of record. Pride is a tough thing to swallow and since he’s been an Obama apologist for years now, it’s probably the easiest path now to double down on proposing the executive branch power grabs for his boy that has already been happening for years. Power grabs that are completely at odds with the ideals of a constitutional republic but it’s apparent that brushing aside political inconveniences trump any fidelity to separation of powers and checks and balances.


Brooks’ assumptions that this can all be justified because of the fundamental decency of one man is that of foolishness and shortsightedness.


Exit question(s) for our liberal friends out there. Sure, it’s all good because of the unsurpassed righteousness, benevolence and wisdom of Barack Obama. But he’s only going to be in office for a little over 3 more years. What then? The executive orders and unilateral actions that had you all so exorcised during the Bush years and that you either turned a blind eye towards or actively cheered during the Obama regime… What now? All those assumed and accrued powers will be turned over to someone infinitely less-saintly than the current occupier of the Oval Office. What will you say then?


We're not holding our breath waiting for an answer.


.

Correct sentiment, bad execution

.

Our idea of hell: Being stuck on a cross-country flight in the middle seat between two dudes rambling on about their fantasy football team. Ugh. We shudder at the mere thought because there is nothing more interesting on the planet than your own fantasy team and nothing least interesting than everyone else’s. That’s a bad combo.


So, we’ve been interested to see whether or not the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) moves to lift the ban which currently hangs in the balance.


Two Republican congressmen, however, are not going to wait for the FCC to act and have introduced legislation to keep the in-flight cell phone ban in place.



From The Hill:

Political momentum to keep a ban on cellphone calls during flights gained momentum Monday as lawmakers said it would be crazy to allow them.

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) became the second lawmaker after Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) to offer legislation to keep the ban in place.

“Let’s face it, airplane cabins are by nature noisy, crowded, and confined,” said Shuster, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “For those few hours in the air with 150 other people, it’s just common sense that we all keep our personal lives to ourselves and stay off the phone.”

Right on! We couldn’t agree more. Keep at it fellas:

“For passengers, being able to use their phones and tablets to get online or send text messages is a useful in-flight option,” Shuster said. “But if passengers are going to be forced to listen to the gossip in the aisle seat, it’s going to make for a very long flight.”

Shuster and Alexander, who both face primary challenges in 2014, say they are responding to popular opinion.

“Imagine two million passengers, hurtling through space, trapped in 17-inch-wide seats, yapping their innermost thoughts,” Alexander said last week in a statement. “The Transportation Security Administration would have to hire three times as many air marshals to deal with the fistfights.”

“Stop and think about what we hear now in airport lobbies from those who wander around shouting personal details into a microphone: babbling about last night’s love life, bathroom plans, next week’s schedule, orders to an assistant, arguments with spouses,” Alexander said.

“Imagine this noise while you travel, restrained by your seatbelt, unable to escape,” the senator continued. “The FCC commissioners will earn the gratitude of the two million Americans who fly each day by deciding: text messages, yes; conversations, no.”

These guys are saying exactly what they are thinking but they’re wrong… dead wrong on the issue of legislating a cell phone ban.


Call us wacko birds but we thought the Republican brand was to not be buttinskis in private enterprise matters and though we realize the regulated nature of the airline industry is what it is, this would be a perfect opportunity to let the airlines themselves figure this out.


For those of you averse to free market mechanics, why don’t we just settle on the concept of freedom of choice. Freedom of choice for the airlines to make their own business decisions on how to handle this and freedom of choice for you the consumer on which airline to patronize depending upon those airlines’ business decisions.


How about smoking/non-smoking flights and/or sections? How about slapping a big fat scarlet letter on the cell phoners to shame them out of the market completely? We’ve essentially done the same thing to smokers, why not stigmatize these other social undesirables as well? The possibilities are endless.


Sorry, (R) congress-critters. Time to let the airlines and consumers figure out this one.


.

We'd better be careful...

.

... because we're in danger of becoming the only western industrialized nation without Gestapo-like speech police.



Via Charles Cooke at The Corner

A SHOP boss was arrested and quizzed by police for eight hours for cracking Nelson Mandela jokes on the internet.

Neil Phillips said he was fingerprinted, DNA-swabbed and had his computers seized.

The 44-year-old was held after posting: "My PC takes so long to shut down I've decided to call it Nelson Mandela."

Another read: "Free Mandela - switch the power off."

But police swooped after a councillor complained over the gags about the former South African leader, who passed away on Thursday, aged 95.

(italics, ours)

That's actually pretty damn funny. But now back to the unfunny part.

Mr Phillips, who runs Crumbs sandwich shop in Rugeley, Staffs, was arrested after complaints by Cllr Tim Jones about the one-liners, aired when the anti-apartheid hero was critically ill.

Mr Phillips who insisted he meant no harm, said: "It was an awful experience. I was fingerprinted, they took DNA and my computer.

"It was a couple of jokes, Bernard Manning type," he added. "There was no hatred. What happened to freedom of speech? I think they over-reacted massively."

Continue reading at the link where Cooke (a British ex-pat now making his living in the States) explains which speech law passed in 1986 Mr. Phillips was found suspected of violating (the article does not mention what, if any punishment, Phillips received. No matter. The damage had been done).


For years we have been warned that the chains of tyranny and theocratic autocracy would descend from the right. It's never happened. Quite to the contrary, what you read above is a progressive wet dream. After all, who would want to live in a society where one even runs the risk of being offended by someone's untoward choice of words? How can you talk of free speech when we're talking about feelings, here, man?


And please note that in crossing British speech laws, one does not even need to be the target of said hurled unpleasantries. One need only feel aggrieved on behalf of someone else... a dead person in this case... in order for the offender to be frog-marched to the local constabularies for questioning and DNA swabs.


It's frightening to think that this happened in the land of our closest ally and cultural Western civilization kin. This is why we have and will continue to opposes speech laws and particularly hate-speech laws at every turn. The progressive vision of controlling your speech and the thought that generates that speech is the goal here. Never forget this: it's not about potentially offending, embarrassing, shaming or even slandering someone else. Like "sensible" gun control laws, it's never about what they say it is - it's strictly about control pure and simple.


Freedom and liberty are concepts with which people outside the royal faculty lounge cannot be trusted. You, friends, are simply not advanced enough nor trustworthy enough to be entrusted with these constitutionally-enshrined guarantees.


Let's fight to make sure what you read above never happens here because western Europe appears to be more and more acceptance of the tyranny progressives have always warned us about yet it is their ideology from whence this tyranny springs.

.

Video clip of the day

.

The absurdities surrounding the Affordable Care Act abound so you can just file the following under "You just can't make this up".


From the Daily Caller:

The Department of Health and Human Services has crowned a YouTube video entitled “Forget About The Price Tag” as the grand prize winner in a contest meant to encourage young people to sign up for Obamacare.

The video contest, announced in August — in partnership with a group called Young Invincibles — encouraged participants to produce clips filled with pro-Obamacare messaging.

HHS’s grand prize-winning video, announced Monday by the White House, features a young woman named Erin McDonald singing an Obamacare-loving version of Jessie J’s hit single, “Price Tag.”

A law sold on the premise that other people are going to pay for your healthcare... so of course, the winning video is titled "Forget About The Price Tag."


And when these Young Invincibles, who are being counted on to foot the bill for this entire Ponzi scheme get smacked up side the head by sticker shock, it's... no biggie, man... forget about the price tag.


Another brilliant marketing ploy by Team O: telling 20 and 30-somethings hammered by sky-rocketing premiums that it's all for the greater good when making the world a better place via the Affordable Care Act.


When you are convinced you are the smartest kids in the room and that your crap doesn't stink, we suppose it leads you to do and say all sort of critically un-selfaware things.

.