Not so random thought of the day

Who really is the Party, or more accurately perhaps, the culture of "No"?

Consider:

All the hundreds of billions (trillions?) we've dumped into various stimulus packages thus far don't seem to have helped employment in the private sector one bit. In fact, one could make the argument that the government spending has crowded out activity on the private side. Do you think we can cut back on that a bit, if not shut off the porkulus spigot entirely?

Answer: No


About the myriad of demand-side Keynesian programs and gimmicks? Yeah, those housing credits, Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, etc., etc. Hasn't helped. Is it possible we can re-think how better to spur demand and get the economy on track?

Answer: No


OK, then. What about our national sovereignty? Instead of the usual prattle about "comprehensive immigration reform" (which, come to think of it, really is the most transparent aspect of the political class, these days), can we get serious about border enforcement? Is it possible that we acknowledge that narco-violence and environmental destruction in the desert southwest is a huge problem and our laxity in addressing it in a clear and sober manner is part of that problem?

Answer: No


Incompetency is one thing but corrupt incompetency is entirely another. Would it be too much to ask of the political class for some transparency and a whiff of ethicalness in behavior and how they craft legislation? Transparency and ethics are the things they said they would return to D.C., after all. So, how about it?

Answer: No


Health care reform? No one read this thing. The political class that championed it has all but admitted that they haven't read it. And it was written by lobbyists from both the pharmaceutical and insurance industries - the very people demonized by the political class in order to get this filthy, rotten piece of crap rammed through sideways. Pelosi had a point: we are indeed finding out what's in this thing after the fact. And the more we find out about it, the bigger a complete disaster this thing is proving to be. The American people don't want it as recent election results are bearing-out. But it's still going to be inflicted upon us, right?







Answer: Yes!

Oh. We stand corrected. Sorry for wasting everybody's time.

Video clip of the day

Masato Akamatsu of the Hiroshima Toyo Carp doing his Spiderman impression.



What grabbed us, beyond the obvious of course, was the relative reserve of the home town fans.

OK, so it didn't have the significance of the drive off of Vic Wertz's bat in the '54 World Series but, a little more emotion, perhaps?

America's Vacation!

... and the quote of the day:

In January, President Obama insisted that "everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good. Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game."

Sometime back in the early 80s, we recall a particular cartoon from the formerly witty, insightful and uproariously funny strip Doonesbury. In it, a reporter was chiding President Reagan's press secretary regarding all the vacations the President seemed to take and what sort of message it was sending taking them during a recession. The press secretary responded in effect: "Hey, the way we look at it is the President's vacations are America's vacations. Every one's invited along!".

With that spirit in mind, book a flight over to Left Coast Rebel where CG has some commentary and some dazzling pictures of this year's America's vacation in Costa del Sol in the south of Spain.



Exit question: Anyone else here think it odd that the President celebrated his 49th birthday without his family? Like this trip to Spain could not have waited a few days?

Exit question #2: Still trying to figure out whether this administration is completely tone deaf or if they just don't give a rat's ass.

The sadly obligatory California same-sex ruling post

A FaceBook friend playfully chided on her wall that we all needed to get over our homophobia now that a federal judge struck down Prop. 8 .

Because supporters of gay marriage wanted so badly for this to be about homophobia, they got exactly what they wanted and as a result this whole ordeal became about intimidation, smearing and undemocratic end- arounds.

Now, before we get into this too deeply, let’s just say that we’re of two minds or more accurately, perhaps, two emotions regarding the issue of gay marriage. Flatly stated, we believe marriage to be that between a man and a woman. Period. Having said that, our passion index for this is relatively low. You won’t ever see us at a Pro Prop. 8 rally (if for no other reason than the fact we might be “outed”. More on this later.) nor will you ever see us in a knock down, drag out argument over the merits or detriments of gay marriage. It’s tough for us to argue against what two consenting adults want to do and how they wish to define it. (The issue of same-sex partners rearing children is another matter altogether that won’t be addressed here.)

However, where our passion index is quite sky-high is when a solitary figure, in this case, U.S. District Judge Vaughan R. Walker, strikes down what the voters of California had clearly stated as to the definition of marriage not just once but twice. It’s a phenomena that is catching, apparently, as just last week, a federal judge struck down a law in Arizona that flanges up with a Justice Department program regarding cooperation between local and federal officers with respect to immigration enforcement – the very same Justice Department that is bringing suit against Arizona for this same law.

Judge Walker ruled that California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions” Really? So that explains why the issue of defining marriage has shown up on the ballot twice already. And in the absence of any constitutionally- (State or U.S.) defined state of marriage, the voters, both times, defined marriage as that between a man and woman.

The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. In particular, he rejected the argument advanced by supporters of Proposition 8 that children of opposite-sex couples fare better than children of same-sex couples, saying that expert testimony in the trial provided no support for that argument.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

That’s nonsense. It’s called cultural tradition. A cultural tradition that has existed for thousands of years and which has informed various people and societies around the world, absent any moral or religious bias, that marriage is between a man and a woman. That Walker implies homophobia as the sole reason for believing in traditional marriage, he displays his own narrow-mindedness in this matter.

The trial appeared to be a lopsided show for the challengers, who called 16 witnesses, including researchers from the nation's top universities, and presented tearful testimony from gays and lesbians about why marriage mattered to them.

The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses, and both made concessions under cross-examination that helped the other side.

The sponsors complained that Walker's pretrial rulings had been unfair and that some of their prospective witnesses decided not to testify out of fear for their safety.
When Walker ruled that he would broadcast portions of the trial on the Internet, Proposition 8 proponents fought him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won a 5-4 ruling barring cameras in the courtroom.

When we said earlier we would worry about being “outed”, this is exactly what we were talking about. The thug tactics of the left resulted in Prop. 8 maps where the names and addresses of Prop. 8 donors were flagged on Google maps. So, congrats, people – your win was aided by previously behaving like a pack of brown shirt goons thus chilling any hopes of a fair hearing by your opposition.

So, this will be appealed to the Ninth circuit court of appeals and from there to the Supreme Court where all indications point to the fate of same-sex marriage in this country resting in the hands of the swing man, Anthony Kennedy.


Previous to this, we had felt that were we ever invited to a same-sex wedding, we would be honored to attend because it was not about us nor how we felt about same-sex marriage but about the happy couple. However, because of the undemocratic and thuggish nature of how this whole thing played out, the results are completely illegitimate in our mind and we now feel we could not attend such an event in good conscious.

Again, Congrats. Hope it was all worth it.


Previous posts on same-sex marriage, here.

Smack of the day

Smack

Where the fruited plain is mostly in the black

CNNMoney provides an interactive chart displaying each state's debt per capita, here.

Preview: The bluer the state, the more you owe. Not that you should do anything as rash as to draw any hard and fast conclusions from that. Just sayin'.

Radio KBwD is on the air (Special Edition)

Alright, peeps. Time for another installment of Sir Elton John Appreciation Week.

We can't take credit for the tune selection this time around, however. Temple of Mut suggested that while showing some love to Elton, why not simultaneously salute the good citizens of the Show-Me state that just last night, took ObamaCare to the woodshed by rejecting mandatory participation in O-Care. Indeed, when confronted with a creeping statist intervention to their private lives, Missourians proved themselves to be quite ungovernable.

'Dawg, a fully decomposed copy of this album is in a landfill somewhere out there so this one is for you.

Ladies and Gentlemen, from circa 1974, it's Elton John performing, "The Bitch is Back"



Leslie, at Temple of Mut, gets into the Elton act with her take on the fantasy of California's job killing AB 32, here. Thanks, Leslie!

Poll question of the week

It's been a little while since we've done one of these. In fact, it's partly because we were crushed by the fact that you all thought that Timothy Geithner was a bigger hack than that miserable hack that runs the Justice Department.

We've recovered.

You may have heard that the Cordoba House has been granted permission to be built near the site of Ground Zero. The poll is asking for your reaction, so please follow suit and please add any further commentary in the comment section.

Interesting side note from the New York's Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting yesterday where they voted to allow construction of the mosque: A construction worker, Andy Sullivan, who helped with the bucket brigades there at the site in the days after 9-11 had this to say regarding an important logistical matter:

Later, Sullivan told reporters that the controversy surrounding the mosque is far from over.

“You’re going to have a problem getting labor there,” he said. “Everyone I’ve talked to will not lift a finger to build that disgrace.”

Having spent 4 years back there while attending Seminary, New Yorkers are not the type to be trifled with. We see picket lines.




Addendum #1: OK, folks, one more certainty (but in a good way): death, taxes and Sarah B.'s commentary. Liberated from the comment section:

I think it is a horrible symbolic statement by the Islamic community. They have zero sensitivity to what the extreme elements of their faith did at that location. If Islam is a religion of peace, I say PROVE IT. Spend the next 10 years building a track record of sensitivity and activism that illustrates how tolerant they are of other faiths, a willingness to protect and nurture women, and banish and battle terrorism. Why the hell are WE the ones who are supposed to open our hearts to all their demands and whims? They need to be in the WORKING end of their relationship with peace loving, God fearing, law abiding America. They want to be here in this great nation, fine...pony up (and I don't mean financially).

Full disclosure: We voted (b). And lest you think we're getting weak in the knees, be it known, we think Sarah is spot-on. Much like today's ruling from a single judge here in California, there is a legal aspect to this as well as a PR one.

Now, we're not going to pretend to know what the real PR motive is of the people who wish to build this mosque. If it is to build a bridge to understanding and reconciliation then that is going to take years and years, if at all, considering the emotions surrounding this. There would appear to be more effective and discreet ways of doing so than building this structure within shouting distance of Ground Zero.

If, however, the motive is to symbolically provoke then, Mission Accomplished.

This story and the words and deeds that follow, through the planning stages, ground breaking, construction and dedication of this mosque will be the lead narrative of Muslim relations with respect to not only this country but the West.

Suffice to say, we're not looking forward to the next few years of construction development in the NYC.

Predictably, not at all really about health care

Just a reminder: If you are not at the table, you're on the menu.

WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and three other health insurers, criticized by Democrats during the overhaul debate, are seeking to influence how the new law will be implemented, and possibly change it, by campaigning for supportive congressional candidates.

Senior government-relations staff from UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Humana Inc., Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corp. have been meeting for at least two months to discuss the plan, which may include creation of a $20 million war chest, said two people familiar with the matter. The group also is debating whether Karen Ignagni should remain head of the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, said a third person familiar with the discussions. All declined to be named, as the talks are private.

The strategy sessions mark the first major public split from within the trade group, known as AHIP, over how to address the overhaul. The five largest publicly traded insurers may be unhappy with how the group represented them in the debate, said Paul Keckley, of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.

We're a little pressed for time but read the linked article if you can as it will only serve to re-enforce how much legislation, these days, is merely about picking winners and losers and vilifying the for-profit health insurers, unless of course, they throw some campaign cash your way.

MO don't need no stinking mandates

We really try to stay away from too much news-chasing but this was too note-worthy to pass up and, besides, we never blog about health care or anything.

Oh my.

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, sending a clear message of discontent to Washington and Democrats less than 100 days before the midterm elections.

71 percent of Missouri voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.

The Missouri law conflicts with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.

Tuesday's vote was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law. But it was also seen as a sign of growing voter disillusionment with federal policies and a show of strength by conservatives and the tea party movement.

"To us, it symbolized everything," said Annette Read, a tea party participant from suburban St. Louis who quit her online retail job to lead a yearlong campaign for the Missouri ballot measure. "The entire frustration in the country ... how our government has misspent, how they haven't listened to the people, this measure in general encompassed all of that."

The article states that opponents to the proposition did not put up much of a fight. Now, this could be a result of the ballot measure being largely symbolic as the article notes or possibly because of the enthusiasm deficit for the Obama agenda that has been whispered about in Democratic camps and the general unpopularity of ObamaCare.

Whichever, we'll take it. It's a tremendous signal sent to Washington by the voters of Missouri. Now, time to take this MOmentum and turn it into something not so symbolic in November.

Ornate, yet complex

Once again, what we're finding out about ObamaCare after ObamaCare has passed. As such, another entry for our bulging and constantly updated, running post, Nancy's Nuances: a journey of discovery.

Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas commissioned his people to put together the ObamaCare organization chart or as we like to call them, wiring diagrams - a basic one-line diagram that illustrates the relationships between all the different components, entities and departments within a larger organization.

But consider yourself forewarned. What you are about to see is something so mesmerizing, so dazzling and so brilliant you will indeed see the ObamaCare org chart as the perfect manifestation of its Creator.




Behold








(click to enlarge, if you dare)

Stunning, no?

We had to shrink it for it to be formatted to blogger so let's take a closer look at some of the finer details of this rendering:

68 new grant programs
47 bureaucratic entities
29 demonstration or pilot programs
6 regulatory systems
6 compliance standards
2 entitlements

And in very fine strokes that may or may not be visible to the human eye, we have:

$569 billion in higher taxes
$529 billion in cuts to Medicare
16 million more people dumped into Medicaid


A thing of rare beauty like this deserves to be shared. Print out copies and hand them out to family, friends and co-workers. Use them table mats or wall paper, anything to share the love. Hell, super size it and play naked Twister.

Because of the sheer grandeur and beauty of this, we get the feeling that when gazing upon it, The One gets very much the same feeling as he does when looking into the mirror. It is, after all, in his image.

Alas, Brady admits the committee analysts could not fit the entire ObamaCare org chart onto one sheet, rather it will require three. We know what you are asking yourself and we feel the exact same way: What did we ever do to deserve such a glorious fate?