High Plains Blogger

Obituary

2010-04-21T13:58:00.000-05:00

Dave Sinkula, 40, Coon Rapids, MN, died on April 14th, 2010 after a long battle with melanoma. Services will be held at 10:00 a.m. at Eastgate Funeral Service Chapel, 2302 E Divide Ave, Bismarck, ND, with Rev. Paul Becker officiating. Burial will be held in Fairview Cemetery, 2929 E Century Ave, Bismarck, ND.

Visitation will be held from 5 to 8 p.m. at Eastgate Funeral Service, Bismarck.

Dave was born on March 8, 1970, in Bismarck, ND, to Donald and Lillian Sinkula. He lived in Bismarck, in the same house with his parents and his sister Karen, for 18 years. After graduating from Century High, he attended the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, ND, from 1988 – 1992, pursuing a degree in Electrical Engineering. While at UND, Dave began his first of seven co-op work assignments with 3M Co., mostly in the St. Paul, MN area. In the fall of 1992 Dave transferred to North Dakota State University in Fargo, ND. He completed his Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering in December of 1994.

Following graduation, Dave went to work at Phoenix International Corp. in Fargo. Feeling an urge to leave the Red River Valley and start fresh, Dave left in August 1995, headed for the Twin Cities. He decided to meander a bit before arriving at his destination, passing through Austin, TX and Colorado Springs, CO to visit friends in a roundabout vacation before settling into job hunting full time.

It took until December of 1995 for Dave to find a job as an embedded software engineer for Interactive Technologies, Inc. in North Saint Paul, MN. He really enjoyed working at ITI with a wonderful group of people to both work and play with.

In the boom times that were the late 1990’s, Dave left ITI and began working at J. Gordon Electronic Design, Inc., Fridley, MN in 1998. Like ITI, Dave loved being with JGED both for the work and the people he worked with.

Boom gave way to bust, Dave was laid off; he later found a job with Ecowater Systems in Woodbury, MN.

Dave met Angie Olson at a friend’s wedding in 1997. The two have lived in their current residence in Coon Rapids since 1999. After a long period of getting to know one another and Angie’s daughter Brooke Jundt, the two were married on July 12, 2003 at Corpus Christi Catholic Church in Bismarck. Their marriage was blessed with a daughter, Heather Maggie Maye Sinkula, born on June 6, 2004.

Dave loved to laugh and was most fond of being a dad. Dave enjoyed fishing, hunting, camping, and loved to work in his garden. Most can agree that he spent quite a bit of time on his computer – often spent working with pictures and video, and later blogging and micro-blogging.

He is survived by his mother Lil; his sister Karen and nephews Michael and James Truong (Seattle, WA); his wife, Angie; his daughter, Heather; and step-daughter Brooke. He was preceded in death by his father, Donald (October 11, 2009).

Tax Day Tea Party - St. Paul, MN

2009-04-15T21:26:00.003-05:00

Here are some pictures from the Tax Day Tea Party in St. Paul, MN.

Click here for a slideshow.

Still Not Ready for Prime Time

2009-03-09T22:00:00.007-05:00

Obama seems to be sauntering still. Let's take a cursory look at a few examples.

No luck with foreign policy:

Poor Obama. He's "Too Tired"
Um, what exactly did this man and his cadre of buffoons expect?

He's the leader of the free world.

He can't afford the luxury of being "overwhelmed". This is further proof that he and his administration just had no clue what they were getting themselves into.

It's not just enough to win a campaign, and you can't run a country with speeches rife with rhetoric.

I guess I would be tired too if my goal was to demolish a 233 year old capitalistic democracy into a fully functioning socialist regime in a 5 week period.

Mr. Obama thought that running the government was going to be as smooth and easy as running his "well-oiled machine" of a campaign.

If he can't even accomplish getting dinner and gifts right with another family, what the hell kind of faith should we have in his ability to hold the office?

We're in trouble...
Too Tired For Diplomacy or Foreign Affairs? Not Interested? Or Overwhelmed By The Job?
And here we were led to believe Mr. Obama was this cool, multitasker under full control and able to handle everything the job entailed.

That’s what we were led to believe.

Some of us, however, said that of all the jobs on the planet this wasn’t the one for OJT. This isn’t a job where one aspect of the duties can be ignored to concentrate on others.

Guess which group looks more prescient at the moment?

Obama Reassures Nation: I Didn't Deliberately Snub Brits, I'm Just "Overwhelmed"
That's what I want to hear from my president -- that he's "overwhelmed."

This excuse is weak coming from a UPS customer satisfaction representative.

But then, this is the first real job Obama's ever held, so I guess we'll just have to bear with him as he gets on the job training at being at an actual job.

He's not filling me with confidence with his handling of the economy:

Is It Any Wonder The Market Continues To Sink?
[An extensive list.]

All this in barely a month's time. And to think that more of the same is on the way seems to be sinking in. Investors are watching closely and not caring for what they see. Sooner or later, the market will rally — but not without good reason to do so.

The President's Radicalism is killing the Dow

Any questions?

Or his ability to appoint a Cabinet...

Hope and Change: Another Cabinet appointee with tax problems

The good news? After the back taxes owed by Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle, Hilda Solis’ bill looks like petty cash. The nominee for Secretary of Labor became the third Barack Obama Cabinet appointee to have undisclosed tax problems.

[...]

That makes 25% of Obama’s original Hope and Change Cabinet picks comprised by tax evaders. Add that to the fourth scandal of Bill Richardson’s pay-for-play federal grand jury investigation, and we have a full-blown vetting disaster. And that doesn’t even count new Attorney General Eric Holder’s politicization of Justice ten years ago on behalf of Bill Clinton in the FALN and Marc Rich pardons, or the dozen-plus lobbyists hired by the President Who Hates Lobbyists.

[...]

Have we had a more incompetent vetting process in the White House over such a short period of time? When we criticized Barack Obama’s lack of executive experience, even we didn’t think it was going to be this bad.

What can you do other than laugh? And who better to help with that than iowahawk?

If I don't try to find some humor in this, I'd be stuck dwelling on the proposition that this country has elevated a completely unqualified individual to "lead" us in a time of great crisis, and that he might not have a clue as to what he's doing.

Update: Great minds think alike -or- I somehow managed to write up a piece right before someone else did it better: The 10 Biggest Amateur Mistakes By the Obama Administration So Far

More Thoughts on the Economy

2009-03-01T22:30:00.002-06:00

There are a few more items on the economy I wanted to mention, continuing from earlier. First, income tax rates:

Now let's take a look at corporate tax rates. In general, corporate tax rates are falling:

AS THE effects of the financial crisis ripple out into the wider economy, businesses are struggling. With access to credit all but choked off and global demand falling, firms are keen for any help they can get. America's big companies have a friend in John McCain, who says he will cut the top federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. Once state and local taxes are added, the combined rate amounts to an average 40% of profits, the second highest in rich countries. Over the past decade, corporate-tax rates have fallen considerably, especially in the countries of the European Union.

Why is it so difficult to consider that tax relief can stimulate economic growth?

Cut Payroll Tax Rates:
For about the cost of the $825 billion House version of the stimulus bill, payroll taxes for Social Security could be cut in half, says former Federal Reserve Board member Lawrence B. Lindsey.
A 3 percentage-point reduction in payroll taxes would increase workers' take home pay an average of $1,500.
Reducing the employer's tax share by 3 percentage points would increase businesses' cash flow an average of $1,500 per worker.
This tax cut would reduce unemployment by lowering labor costs.
Cut Corporate Tax Rates:
Cutting taxes on future profits is much more likely to spur new investment.
Congressional Republicans propose a step in the right direction: reducing the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent -- the average rate in the European Union.
This would encourage businesses to hire additional workers, accelerate investment and make American companies more competitive internationally.
Cut Capital Gains Tax Rates:
Republicans have also proposed reducing the capital gains tax levied on the increased value of an asset, such as stock or real estate, when it is sold.
The current 15 percent rate is scheduled to rise to 20 percent as the Bush tax cuts expire.
Making the lower rate permanent would be helpful.
Past capital gains tax cuts have yielded an immediate increase in government revenue.

Lately in the news there have been Liberals griping about the Republican party being about nothing but tax cuts. Well, why not? It seems that in the US our taxes are still too high. And these high taxes are exasperating the effects of the recession we are now in. Or maybe they could at least consider that high small business corporate tax rates hurt the economy? Can we not at least consider tax competition?

The last piece I wanted to mention was The Optimum Government.

If you knew economic growth and new job creation begin to slow when total government spending is larger than about 25 percent of the economy, and you knew total government spending in the United States is about 36 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), would you propose policies to make government larger or smaller to create more jobs and boost economic growth?

Over the last few decades, many economists have done studies on the "optimum" size of government. A new study just completed shows the optimum size of government is less than 25 percent of GDP.

So we have a bit of evidence here to suggest that the highest marginal tax rate should be no more than 20%, and that the optimal size of government is around 25% of the GDP.

Rather than increasing the size of government, the empirical evidence shows that sharply reducing taxes, regulations, and government spending down to at least 25 percent of GDP would do the most to spur economic growth and create more jobs over the long run.

Again, is the Obama economic plan doing everything in its power to chase business out of the US?

Thoughts on the Economy

2009-03-01T16:00:00.002-06:00

Did you ever run across an interesting item and then forget or lose a reference to it? Search as you might, you just can't remember the keywords that would ordinarily conjure it up in a search engine? I've had that happen more times than I care to recall, despite efforts to avoid just that. But occasionally good fortune smiles upon you, and something new brings it to you. I did have a bit of good fortune the other day, so I want to jot a few things down.

The item I was searching for was a chart in the article You Can't Soak the Rich.

The chart nearby, updating the evidence to 2007, confirms Hauser's Law. The federal tax "yield" (revenues divided by GDP) has remained close to 19.5%, even as the top tax bracket was brought down from 91% to the present 35%. This is what scientists call an "independence theorem," and it cuts the Gordian Knot of tax policy debate.

What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax rates on the rich – if they knew about it.

Mentioned in the WSJ article, the Laffer Curve might be quickly explained in this video I found here:

Thomas Sowell helps break down "the rich" a bit in his article, Who's Rich?

A number of other rich people have at various times likewise declared that they do not need what are called "tax cuts for the rich." But, whatever political points such rhetoric may score, it confuses issues that are long overdue to be clarified.

One of the most basic confusions is between income and wealth. You can have high income and low wealth or vice versa. We have all heard of athletes and entertainers who have earned millions and yet ended up broke. There are also people of relatively modest incomes who have saved and invested enough over the years to leave surprisingly large amounts of wealth to their heirs.

Income tax cuts apply to income, not wealth. So the fact that some rich people say that they do not need a tax cut means nothing because they are not getting a tax cut on their wealth, since their wealth is not being taxed anyway.

Looked at differently, high tax rates hit people who are currently earning high incomes -- usually late in life, after having worked their way up in their professions over a period of decades. Genuinely rich people who have never had to work a day in their lives -- people like Congressman Kennedy -- are unaffected by income taxes, except on what they are currently earning, which may be a tiny fraction of what they own.

In other words, soak-the-rich tax rates do not in fact soak the rich. They soak people who are currently earning the rewards of having contributed to the economy. High income taxes punish people for becoming prosperous, not for having been born rich.

The wealthy can elude taxes; they always have, they always will. Some might just choose to take their business elsewhere. The real question, to me, are:

In this economy, why is Obama trying to Soak the Rich!?
Won't that just drive us further to the right on the Laffer Curve, decreasing tax receipts and increasing our debt?
And all done by way of the massive 'stimulus' plan which is already increasing our debt?

When you find yourself stuck in a hole, aren't you supposed to stop digging?

What's New Here?

2009-03-01T12:00:00.000-06:00

The other day a news item popped up in my news reader:

Iraq Withdrawal Plan Gains G.O.P. Support

WASHINGTON – President Obama won crucial backing Thursday for his Iraq military drawdown plan from leading Congressional Republicans, including Senator John McCain, the party’s presidential nominee who spent much of last year debating the war with Mr. Obama.

As the president prepared to fly to Camp Lejenue, N.C., on Friday to announce his decision to pull combat forces out by August 2010 but leave behind a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops, he reassured Congressional leaders from both parties that his plan would not jeopardize hard-won stability in Iraq.

I know that I was supposed to be thinking that this was Obama following through on his campaign pledge that "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most". But to me it sounded more familiar; it sounded like the Patraeus plan begun under Bush:

US draws down forces as Iraqis stand up security forces

The plan for the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to take over Iraq security is directly linked to the US plan to draw down forces and as briefed by General Petraeus in September 2007.

I recommend reading the whole article. Here I will just grab some numbers...

Reduction from 20 to 15 combat brigades.
Multinational Forces Iraq completed the drawdown from 20 to 15 combat brigades in July 2008.
Reduction from 15 to 12 brigades.
The decision to draw down forces will be made by September 2008 so that the drawdown can be completed by January 2009.
Reduction from 12 to 10 brigades.
The decision to draw down forces will be made by March 2009 so that the drawdown can be completed by July 2009.
Reducing from 10 to 7 brigades.
The decision to draw down forces will be made by September 2009 so that the drawdown can be completed by January 2010.
Reduction from 7 to 5 brigades.
The decision to draw down forces will be made by March 2010 so that the drawdown can be completed by July 2010.
Reducing from 5 to 0 brigades.
The decision to draw down forces will be made by September 2010 so that the drawdown can be completed by January 2011.

I was a bit slow in writing this, and I see that in the meantime I was not the only one who noticed this similarity. I found IBDeditorials captured my thoughts best:

The Bush Pullout
Iraq War: President Obama traveled to Camp Lejeune, N.C., on Friday to announce that the U.S. would stay in Iraq at least until 2012 and keep 50,000 troops there even after combat ends. Sound familiar?

Obama's withdrawal plan would take U.S. forces in Iraq down from a current 142,000 troops to 35,000 to 50,000. Under the status of forces agreement between the U.S. and Iran, negotiated and signed last year by the Bush administration, all forces must be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

In short, though President Obama will get credit, it was Bush's plan — not Obama's.

Again, I recommend reading the whole article.

The devil, I guess, is in the Details:

The Status of Forces Agreement and Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq have vanished from the White House web page - but they're apparently still being implemented.

It's official: any combat forces in Iraq after August 2010 will be called something else.

Of course, much of this was entirely predictable, given the logistics. Is there anything new here that Obama has done, other than twiddling numbers and dates a bit and claiming credit for others' efforts?

Hitting the Ground Sauntering

2009-01-25T16:00:00.000-06:00

In one of his first acts as president, Obama signed several executive orders. I caught a clip of the press conference on the radio.

He first says the United States "will not torture". I'll get to that in a moment. My attention was really captured by, "we will close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp and determine how to deal with those who have been held there". At this point, I began to wonder what the hell the transition team was spending their time on if not determining what they were going to do Day 1. Then I wondered, "close Gitmo first, figure out what to do with them later?"

So I've got this initial bad taste in my mouth as I read some more details of things in the following days. The Truth On Gitmo brought to my attention What the President’s Executive Order really means:

. . . Contrary to reports, Obama did not shut down Gitmo. Rather, he issued an order saying he will (or, to be precise, he intends to and is willing to commit in advance to) shut down Gitmo in a year’s time. This, to mix a metaphor, is kicking the can as far down the road as he possibly can without being penalized for delay of game. Or, to mix yet another metaphor, Obama is promising to write a popular book in a year’s time and is happy to pocket a sizable advance of good will and commentary now; book to be written later. Until then, however, other actions, like the shuttering of other detention centers, will have an immediate impact.

About that Presidential Executive Order on Interrogations…, notes that far from being something new and different, Obama may have just rescinded and reissued Bush policy:

It’s not. It IS the Bush Administration’s 2007 Executive Order 13440.

About this point I'm thinking, "Great. Obama's big deal on torture is merely a regurgitation of existing US policy under Bush; but of course the press goes wild. Still we're going to close Gitmo and then figure out what to do." At this point I'm more or less speechless and shaking my head, rolling my eyes.

Then it turns out (and I'm shocked -- shocked!) that there is recidivism from Gitmo:

Return to Jihad

Two former Guantánamo detainees appear in a newly released al Qaeda propaganda video, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, an organization that monitors terrorist media. The former Guantánamo inmates have been identified as Said Ali al Shihri and Abu Hareth Muhammad al Awfi. Al Awfi is also known as Mohamed Atiq Awayd al Harbi, a kunya (or nickname) meaning that he is from the al Harbi tribe on the Arabian peninsula.

According to a report that first appeared in The New York Times last week, al Shihri was recently identified as the deputy of al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen and may have played a direct role in al Qaeda’s attack on the American embassy in Sana'a, Yemen's capital, in September of 2008. That attack killed ten civilians, along with six terrorists. Al Awfi has been identified as an al Qaeda field commander.

So what do we have here? Reissuing of bad old Bush interrogation policy under an Obama letterhead to placate the press, but effectively changing nothing? Kicking decision-making further down the road with regard to enemy combatants? What other big decisions will Obama put on the back burner? Maybe a Clear and Present Danger?

Before issuing such a "bold initiative" and "outreach" toward the theocrats ruling in Tehran, Mr. Obama's advisers should have shown their boss the report provided late last month to French President Nicolas Sarkozy from a nonpartisan parliamentary commission on Iran's nuclear program. The report details Tehran's success in circumventing U.N. sanctions and concludes that Iranian scientists already have the know-how to build a nuclear weapon and that unless action is taken to prevent it, they will possess all necessary technology, equipment and fissile material to deploy nuclear weapons no later than the end of next year, "perhaps sooner."

All of this reminds me of one of the things I really hated about the Clinton era: the opinion-poll presidency. I like to think of it as "the long-term goal of the month". There really wasn't much of an executive branch under Clinton. Maybe Obama will usher in a new Republican Revolution, but I'm not holding my breath. I think the stakes or more serious now than 15 years ago, and I don't feel that Obama is up to the task.

Roe v Wade Anniversary

2009-01-22T23:00:00.005-06:00

Let me begin with an introductory link or two. In First Day, First Attack On Pro-Life Cause, we have a segue from the ~~immaculation~~ inauguration to the Obama Administration.

Thursday is the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, when thousands of Pro-Lifers annually descend on Washington for the March for Life.

So, it is “above his pay grade” to decide what human life is, but he can use MY TAX DOLLARS to kill human life without bothering his conscience a wit. That is the logic of Goebbels, not Lincoln or anyone else.

Yes. Isn't that quaint. Well, It Was 36 Years Ago Today…

Today though, on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade – the Supreme Court decision that struck down nearly all state bans and restrictions on abortion — it seems somehow appropriate to discuss the matter.

First up, is there anyone who is willing to argue that Roe v. Wade is a well-written decision? Regardless of one’s position on the issue, it’s a mess. It invented entire legal concepts to back up its decision, and shows every sign of backwards reasoning — coming up with the decision on the case, then working from there to find some rationale to justify it. Other Supreme Court rulings have been just plain wrong-headed — Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind — but they were usually based on existing laws and a careful study of the Constitution. Not here, though — Justice Blackmun found an implied right to privacy within the 9th and 14th Amendment, and declared that abortion fell in there somewhere.

It does seem appropriate, and I agree that it is a legal mess. The legal side is something I hadn't really thought about until I happened upon Roe V Wade - The Unconstitutional Decision. I not only recommend reading it, I also recommend revisiting it on occasion. I have quoted several paragraphs from the article here:

First, it would seem apparent that the unborn was not specifically mentioned at the time because the framers of the Constitution did not have adequate medical knowledge to know what we do now about the biology of the unborn; or, they assumed that it would be clear that the unborn was covered, since they didn't deem it necessary to specify that each stage of a person's development was constitutionally protected. The Court seemed perfectly content to ignore these very real possibilities, and placed the liberty of the woman above the unborn's right to live.

Secondly, The Ninth Amendment, which the Court used to justify their position in Griswold, ironically, directly contradicts this decision. As discussed earlier, the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The word retain, designates that the rights expressly guaranteed by the constitutional text should not be interpreted so as to deny rights not specified, but that preexisted in the Constitution. One would assume that the Court would have questioned whether the "right" to terminate a pregnancy would "deny or disparage" a right "retained" by the people. Had the Court questioned this, its distinction between "potential" and "full" human life would have been seen as an obvious violation of the right to life.

The right to life? Yes, the right to life - ever heard of that? It's one of those unalienable rights that's mentioned in the nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal" and are endowed by their Creator with the certain unalienable rights, one being the right to life. The Declaration is clear that this right belongs equally to all human beings. Thus, under this definition of the right to life, there can be no distinction based upon whether human life is "potential" or full. Yet, that is the core distinction of Roe v Wade, and it directly contradicts the right to life retained by the people according to the Ninth Amendment! So ironically, the Ninth Amendment was used to justify a newly found, unmentioned right to privacy that magically extends to the right to abort, when in fact, denying the unborn rights based on the fact that the unborn is inside, rather than outside the womb, contradicts the Ninth Amendment! In addition, the Court used the Ninth Amendment to justify this unmentioned right to privacy, yet then turned around and denied the unborn rights because the unborn child was not specifically mentioned! So how can we say that we have a constitutional right to privacy that extends to abortion even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution, and then turn around and deny rights to another human because the unborn wasn't specifically mentioned!? Roe actually extended this nonexistent right, saying the 14th amendment went even further than the Bill of Rights.

(Reminder to read the whole thing.)

Ridden with contradictions and highly debatable constitutional decisions, I hope that one day Roe v Wade is chalked up, just like Dred Scott v Sanford, as one of the grievous errors of the Supreme Court, and overturned. Until then, it seems as if the discrimination will continue against those who are unable speak for themselves - the type of discrimination the Constitution should fight against, not justify.

I find myself in very much agreement with the arguments presented above. In addition, I remember not long ago having happened upon “Right to life” vs. “License to kill”: A Libertarian Case for the Pro-Life Position. This article is well worth visiting in full as well. My thoughts on abortion are generally shared there in the mix of the last two linked articles.

Update: One more link for good measure: Why Roe v. Wade Needs to be Overturned.

Odds and Ends

2009-01-21T22:30:00.001-06:00

RedState: America’s First African-American (Acting) President brought to my attention this bit of trivia:

The Volokh Conspiracy relays the legal analysis of one Professor Ken Katkin, who wonders in print who was president betwen the time President Bush’s term expired at noon on Tuesday, and President Obama took the oath of office late at 12:04. Its a thought experiment more than anything, but its a fun one.

Skipping ahead a bit...

(11) Accordingly, from 12:00 noon until 12:01 p.m. (when Vice President Biden took the oath of office and became Vice President), Condoleeza Rice was momentarily the Acting President of the United States, our first African-American President.
Congratulations, Condoleezza Rice, our first African-American (Acting) President, and first female president too! Which, of course, makes President Barack Obama our second black President.

Libertarian Republican: Sarah Palin: Ever the optimist, her hearts in the right place, but... I have to admire her persistent optimism.

iowahawk: Hope. Change. Apocalyptic Garbage Blizzards. Damn environmentalists.

Moonbattery: Hitler on Hollyweirdo Pledge of Fealty to Obama. Also, What Obamunists Want of Their God:

7. Ban private health insurance.
6. Revoke the Bush tax cuts, plunging us farther into recession.
5. Permanently close facilities to incarcerate bloodthirsty terrorists who are trying to kill us.
4. Waste still more fortunes on light rail boondoggles.
3. Stop teaching abstinence and train children how to fornicate.
2. Become the "greenest" country in the world, despite the totalitarian measures this would require and the economic collapse it would cause.
1. End marijuana prohibition.

American Thinker: The smoker-in-chief -- I've got no problem with that, maybe smokers will regain a shred of dignity.

Ace continues to make me laugh at titles like these:

I Didn't See This Coming: WhiteHouse.Gov Says That If Iran Continues to Seek Bomb in Face of Tough Diplomacy, Obama Will Immediately... Step Up His Tough Diplomacy

Geithner: I Take Full Responsibility for the Mistakes TurboTax Made (which brings up a nagging question about Geithner)

Here are some interesting observations from The Patriot Room: A Conservative’s View of Gandhi’s 7 Blunders.

Obama Tipping His Hand to the Military?

2009-01-21T20:45:00.001-06:00

LGF notes that Obama Snubs Medal of Honor Ball:

Another milestone for our new President: he’s the first President in 56 years to snub the American Legion’s “Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball.”
The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. It started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first inauguration.

Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations, among them the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

DrewM has a few words on this as well:

No time for Medal of Honor and Purple Heart recipients or paralyzed vets? Yeah, honeymoon...over.

Obama did manage to make it to the Commander in Chief's Ball which was a good thing. Of course in 2005 George W. Bush managed to find time to make it to both balls.

Is this a sign of the respect our military can expect from President Obama?

Update: Whoops! Missed a post at BlackFive, where other inauguration balls that Obama did attend were pointed out. Priorities, I guess.

Same Thing, Only Different

2009-01-21T20:00:00.001-06:00

A picture is worth a thousand words, but this video does an impressive job of encapsulating media bias -- especially with regard to Bush for the past 8 years.

Jonah Goldberg finds that "this segment from the Daily Show was pretty revealing." GatewayPundit calls it Bush III, as does the Anchoress:

Obama = Bush 3?

Oh, the headline is just there to piss some people off, but I was really shocked (and somewhat gratified) to see this bit by the Daily Show.

“YOU’RE the same rhetoric!”

Hey, credit Jon Stewart with daring to acknowledge what no one in the press will, even if he’d rather not: that the “arrogant swaggering cowboy” did the things he did, and said what he said, because those are the things you do and say to terrorists, whether the Upper West Side likes it, or not.

She goes on to add,

As an aside, did you note the hesitancy of the audience to laugh at this stuff? They’re really so besotted, they think they’re not supposed to laugh or question President Obama, who Hollywood is declaring we must “pledge to serve.”

And,

And besides, as we’ve heard for the last 8 years, dissent is still “the highest form of patriotism,” and we learned yesterday, “it’s cool again to be patriotic!”

The Bookworm went with the takeaway that Obama's rhetoric is Hopeynochangey: "I’m no great fan of Jon Stewart’s almost nihilistic humor, but this one pretty much nailed it." The same for Hot Air:

Obama’s inaugural address not so Changey

Overheard on the Mall by a Telegraph correspondent: “I thought the speech was sh*t.” Ah, but even The One’s turds are gilded and smell of roses, Juan Williams reminds us, thanks to the media’s racially-tinged reluctance to spoil an historic moment they helped create.

Bush’s own speechwriter, Michael Gerson, found it interesting but cliche. Which, given what you’re about to see, makes perfect sense. Exit question: Is the difference between the “Italian food” and “Chinese food” here a simple matter of Obama delivering his speech in the cadence of Black English?

The Daily Show FINALLY Notices the Bush/Obama Mind-Meld from Flopping Aces and the Heritage blog both seem to side on the Bush equals Obama side:

Did President Obama’s Speech Sound Familiar?

If you thought parts of President Obama’s speech yesterday sounded familiar, or conservative, you may be on to something. Jon Stewart certainly took notice.

It doesn't even need to be Bush, by the way: Didn’t McCain Say The Same Thing President Obama?

It's amazing how all the 'stupid' and 'idiotic' rhetoric is now like poetry from Heaven when all that has changed as the person speaking the words. If the words aren't all that bad, how 'wonderful' could things have been if the media had thought highly of them during the Bush years?

The Adults Have Left the White House

2009-01-20T22:30:00.003-06:00

Leave it to Liberals to loudly and proudly act like bratty teenagers with their parents away and the house to themselves. In the past day or two, all of the long-lost memories of the Clintons leaving the White House stealing furniture and the staff vandalizing keyboards have come rushing back.

The Anchoress captures quite a number of examples of juvenile and classless behavior.

In fact, Jay Nordlinger sums up my take on the speech, very neatly:
3. What a great, great shame that Chief Justice Roberts screwed up the oath-administering. A great shame. This is a video clip for all time — an “iconic moment.” I’m sure he feels terrible about it. Possibly, he was “nervous as a whore in church,” as an old southern friend of mine used to say. Obama wasn’t.

4. I thought Obama did the minimum about Bush — the barest minimum: “I thank him for his service,” or something. He could have done a lot more: not with more words, but with better, truer, more gracious words. Bush has certainly done a lot. For one thing, he is passing on to his successor the means with which to fight the War on Terror.

5. Obama said something like, “It’s time to quit putting off the unpleasant decisions.” Geez: Making unpleasant decisions, in both the domestic and foreign spheres, was Bush’s specialty. In fact, he sacrificed a good deal of political popularity because of it.

6. I liked Obama’s nod to Dorothy Fields, the lyricist — who wrote, “Pick yourself up, take a deep breath, dust yourself off, and start all over again.” And, by the way, my favorite recording of that song — a Kern song — is by McNair and Previn, on this album.

7. Obama talked about “restoring science to its rightful place.” I thought that was a cheap, stupid shot. The opinion-makers will love it, of course.

8. He suggested — more like said — that Bush had jettisoned American ideals in order to pursue security. That is a slander, pure and simple. Slandering your predecessor is not a good way to start a presidency.
Indeed. One of the most egregious untruths told again and again (and now accepted as “true” by people with incurious minds) is the absolute LIE that President Bush was “against science” especially as pertains to Stem Cell Research. I’ve written about the lies and distortions about Bush’s excellent policy often and often. The bottom line: President Bush SUPPORTED Stem Cell Research, and his strictures on EMBRYONIC scr related to beginning NEW embryonic lines. Gah, I’m sick of saying it - but go check “Embryonic Stem Cells” or “Stem Cell Research” in my categories. It was, as Nordlinger says, a VERY cheap shot. And yes, #8 is slander. But “this is politics.” And clearly Bush forgave him, as he’s forgiven a ton of slander these past years.

Things started popping up in my Reader this morning. For warmups, there was I Pledge, iowahawk's replied to the Pledge of Obama Allegiance video that ruffled feathers. True North was not happy with Hollywood either: Casting Off The Shackles Of Immense Weath, Position And Prestige

Andrew Breitbart at Big Hollywood on the cavalcade of hypocritical celebs who, mirabile dictu, are pledging to change the world for the better now that Bush is out of office.

But about 10am Central Time it started to pick up.

Let's not forget the media:

So this is The "Era of Maturity?" Odd how the misbehaving lummoxes were at both ends of the Bush era, but from the Left both times. How long before the grown-ups return?

Update: Here are two more from the day after as a bit of followup.

Inaugural Blessings

2009-01-20T11:00:00.000-06:00

How about a bit of irreverent humor to kick off the Obama Administration?

He Ventured Forth to Bring Light to the World

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

H/T Leo_Pusateri

Let Freedom Ring

2009-01-19T05:00:00.003-06:00

When I was young, I hadn't discovered that I was a Conservative. Now, I hear things in a better way.

Some parts that stand out most to me are:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

"Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring—when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children—black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics—will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

In my opinion, today's Liberals have wrongly claimed that they bear this torch lit decades ago. (I don't necessarily equate Republicans with Conservatives, nor Democrats with Liberals. But in large measure, the intended meaning is presented if you interchange each set of terms.)

I see Conservatism: The ideology of diversity:

Aren’t you sick of Democrats claiming forever that they are the party of diversity, and tolerance? They talk and talk, and the crusty old GOP delivers. We don’t care about the identity of the person, as long as he/she shares our values and principles. We don’t care about the gender, sexual orientation or a few unorthodox ideas in a person. All we ask is, “Is the person capable of doing the job at hand? Does he/she share a good portion of our values?”

[...]

We don’t care if these people are men or women, straight or gay. White, black or brown. They are where they are because of their principles, values and expertise. As long as you follow the basic tenets of conservatism, we don’t nitpick your position on every little thing. We don’t even mind pro-choice people, as long as a rabid pro-choice position is not the primary badge you wear.

In the context of the Republican Party being but a vehicle for advancing Conservative goals, I understand Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

Conservatives seek freedom. We should keep in mind the words of Dr. King as we continue the struggle to bring freedom. I reject the Orwellian newspeak that seeks to disallow freedom of thought under the guise of diversity. It's a start, but King's words were a start too.

Farewell to Bush

2009-01-18T23:00:00.001-06:00

In the past week there have been a lot of Bush farewells. I think I've found that I've probably got nothing new to add. The Bush Thankathon at Flopping Aces and The Anchoress' Thank You, President Bush cover things very well. What I can add, I suppose, is some of the impressions I will be left with.

I will remember, of course, the terrorist attach on 9/11. On thing I recall is feeling a lot better to have President Bush at the helm, as opposed to a President Gore.

And for that matter, for the second term I am glad not to have had President Kerry.

For election 2004, I also remember voting in large part for SCOTUS. Roberts and Alito were justification of that vote to me.

I will mostly remember it as an era in which the mainstream media lost their collective minds. The examples of bias are legion, so much so that it is now next to impossible to even attempt to summarize how absolutely derelict 'journalists' were in their duty.

I wish Bush had discovered his veto pen much sooner, and I can't count the number of times I wish 'bipartisanship' had been flushed down the toilet. If only he could have been able to articulate conservative positions and push them in Congress. His first term utterly wasted the opportunity of a lifetime on domestic policy. But given the requisite focus on Islamofascist terrorism, I can cut him some slack.

I will retain, also, all of the images of a president moved with emotion. Choking back tears in the aftermaths of the tragedies that our nation faced -- not a saccharin "I feel your pain". Never in my lifetime will I ever expect to see a man so utterly savaged on a day-in, day-out basis.

How will history judge President George W. Bush? Time will tell. The effects of the War in Iraq will not be known for years to come. Nor will the extent of the state of the American and the global economy. Do I think he could have been better? Of course. Do I think things could have been worse were he not the 43rd president of the United States. Definitely.

Cause and Effect

2009-01-09T21:15:00.004-06:00

Earlier today in the feed, I had commented on an item I shared: Unemployment Hits 7.2%, 16-Year High (January 9, 2009).

Back in September and October, as Obama was looking more and more likely of becoming the next president, I was forwarding material about businesses getting cold feet over an Obama administration (contemplating higher taxes, more regulation, etc.), and those business preparing to shed jobs in that scenario.

I hadn't really read more than the title by the point -- my memory was flooded with recollections of a number of articles I'd seen just a few months ago.

Looking back, I see that there were -- unsurprisingly -- earlier articles that were saying the same thing, but there wasn't the sense of urgency until closer to the November election. For example, in Big Mac: The Taxpayer-Friendly Candidate (June 11, 2008), Lawrence Kudlow makes clear the understanding of the candidates as of this past summer:

The McCain-Obama contrast couldn't be more stark. Obama wants to use the tax system to redistribute income and wealth, not to grow the economy. He constantly talks about rewarding work over wealth. This is pure class warfare.

Obama doesn't seem to understand that our nation was founded on the principle of equality of opportunity, and that private enterprise, not government, is the main economic driver. Obama intensely dislikes businesses. He would repeal all the Bush tax cuts and raise the corporate tax.

A similar note is struck in Democrats Drive an Economic Downturn (July 10, 2008):

Remember the grief Dick Cheney received in late 2000, and then President Bush in early 2001, when they were accused of “talking down the economy”?

In summer of 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, presidential candidate Barack Obama, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid aren’t merely talking the economy down; they’re taking it down.

They have created what I am calling the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy. Businesses and investors are responding to their total lack of seriousness by battening down the hatches and preparing for the worst.

Businesspeople now face ugly realities. Their full ugliness has only come to the fore in the past month or so, as energy prices have reached record highs, and as the clamor for Washington to act has grown.

Fast forward a couple months later -- I was interested in several letters I'd seen. Let's start with this one, Scaling Down (September 29, 2008).

Just thought I’d send some thoughts from small-business America. My husband’s business is a canary in the coalmine. When tax policies are favorable to business, he hires more guys, buys more goods, etc. When he is taxed more heavily, he fires people, doesn’t buy anything new, etc. Well, duh. So, at the mere thought of a President Obama, he has paid off his debt, canceled new spending, and jotted a list of whom to “let go.”

The first of the guys will get the news tomorrow. And these are not minimum-wage earners. These are “rich” guys, making between $200,000 and $250,000 a year.

My husband will make sure that we’re okay, money-wise, but he won’t give himself a paycheck that will just be sent to Washington. He’ll make sure that he’s not in “rich guy” tax territory. So, he will not spend his money, not show a profit, and scale his workforce down to the bare minimum.

Multiply this scenario across the country and you’ll see the Obama effect: unemployment, recession, etc. No business owner will vote for this man, but many a “middle-class worker” will vote himself out of a job. Sad the Republican can’t articulate this.

Or how about Step up, folks! Watch as the Obama hand is quicker than the eye (October 10 2008)?

And now, America, we introduce the Great Obama! The world’s most gifted political magician! A thing of wonder. A thing of awe. Just watch him defy politics, economics, even gravity! (And hold your applause until the end, please.)

To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don’t pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he “cut” zero? Abracadabra! It’s called a “refundable tax credit.” It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don’t. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as “welfare,” but please try not to ruin the show.

For his next trick, the Great Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he’ll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation’s biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. It’s simple, really. He has a wand.

Maybe Joe the Plumber and Mark the Trucker (October 16, 2008)?

I always like to read what you write, particularly when you stand for life. Good take on Joe. I am married to Mark the Trucker. He owns a small transportation business (approx 15 employees). He started with one truck in 1978. I'm pretty proud of him. He was also my high school sweetheart and still a hunk.

Anyway, the point I want to make is that small businesses are usually S-Corps or LLCs, and that means what they cannot deduct as business expenses is taxed as personal income. That puts most small business in a higher tax bracket than the one they would qualify for if only their real earnings were taxed. Also, this predicament disqualifies their children from receiving financial aid for college—we are "wealthy" by FAFSA standards.

In the transport industry an owner has to keep sinking-fund, so to speak. Engines blow up, accidents happen, and the price of replacing an 18 wheel tractor or a specialty trailer is very expensive. My husband is taxed a higher rate on income that is really not income. He puts a large percentage of it back into his business, as I know most entrepreneurs do. We live on a modest percentage of what appears "wealth" to Senator Obama.

My husband's employees understand that. They see how we live and they respect their boss because he pays a fair wage and does provide health care and contribute to their 401ks. He's not a Fat Cat or Robber Baron.

They recognize every time they pass through the toll booth and the EZ Pass registers that their boss is being taxed. They see more taxes when they fuel his rigs. They know that Interstate permits are more taxes. He pays Unemployment and Workman's Comp, as well as half of their Social Security taxes. They recognize this.

And Kathryn they all vote Republican.

My gut feeling is that Joe works for a man like my husband, and wants to buy the business. Joe is like my husband and his employees. They work hard and dream bigger. There are a lot of Joes and Marks out here and they all don't own businesses yet, but they dream. They know less government is best government. I sent that Joe clip to my husband as soon as it became available on Youtube. He has passed it around. Thanks for reading this far.

But the next two really start to drive the message home. In a Letter from a small business owner (October 25, 2008), the message is mixed in with a sense of irony.

Dear Fellow Business Owners,

As a business owner who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next president, and that my taxes and fees will go up in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Customer will have to see an increase in my fees to them of about 8 to 10%. I will also have to lay off six of my employees. This really bothered me as I believe we are family here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what I did.

I strolled thru the parking lot and found eight Obama bumper stickers on my employees' cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.

I can't think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know.

I am sending this letter to all business owners that I know.

New Company Policies (October 26, 2008) may be more tongue-in-cheek, but it echoes the same theme.

As of November 5, 2008, our company will implement a few new policies that are in keeping with new, inspiring themes of change and fairness:
All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common account that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a "fair shake".

All staff-level workers (non-Manager positions) will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common account, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".

We anticipate that the employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".

The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because there will be free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and you can stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our Democratic Congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts.
If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, please contact your Democratic Congress c/o the Capitol Building, Washington DC. They are well-known for responding to inquiries in a timely fashion.

On a forum I visit, the topic of attributing the economic downturn to Obama had arisen. Some were wondering how Obama could receive any blame if he hadn't even "done" anything yet. (Doing nothing didn't stop him from becoming president. [/aside]) I responded with this:

I was thinking of mentioning Intrade vs Obama earlier; thankfully Doug Ross must have been thinking of the same thing. And his output is likely much nicer and more colorful: Barack Obama and The Wisdom of Crowds.

A followup: A brief postscript to this week's Wisdom of Crowds post.

Now I've decided to do a little graphing of my own:

As it became clear that Obama would be the next president, the market reacted.

I haven't even mentioned the bailouts and all that. Of course this played a significant role -- but electing more Democrats in Congress probably didn't help, as the infamous Burning Down the House video made clear.

So am I surprised that unemployment has risen? Hardly. The American people voted to raise unemployment. And taxes on the middle class. And burden us with more government regulations. And trade some of our freedoms for a sense of security (what's that Ben Franklin quote?). I suppose we'll all just blame Bush.

Update: I happened upon 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years a bit late. Better late than never.

Technical Note

2009-01-05T23:45:00.002-06:00

I'm always tinkering with web gadgets, but I just wanted to mention some of the recent changes.

If you hadn't noticed, I don't tend to post blog entries very regularly. But I do pass many an item on through my feeds (I may have mentioned this previously).

You may notice that I have a few blog posts that I've accumulated, I hope you enjoy them. But if you haven't noticed yet, most of what I "post" is via the microblogging of Google Reader shares and Tweets. On the upper right I have tried to highlight my Reader Shared Items and its feed (a quick sample is at the top of this blog), and Twitter links. That tends to be the majority of my activity at present.

Many of the gadgets I toy around with are RSS-centric. It took me a while, but the other day I wandered to FeedBurner and reburned a couple of feeds there. I have been getting involved with Twitter lately, and one recent addition to my online meanderings was #diggcons. The two blend together nicely in that I can insert the linkies for Digg This!, Stumble This!, Twit This!, etc. into the feed. I hope this adds ease and utility for subscribers.

My tweeps (map gadget), meet my feed. Subscribers, meet my similar-but-not-the-same Twitter.

One final note to those who have taken the time to send me replies in Twitter or commented on my blog posts: thank you for taking the time to do so.

Senator Smalley

2009-01-05T23:00:00.007-06:00

I'm just shaking my head. I try to be somehow amused by articles that pass by:

It's Magic! Al Franken creates 359 votes out of thin air
Have the Dems Stolen Another Election? Franken to Be Named Winner in Minnesota
Funny Business in Minnesota In which every dubious ruling seems to help Al Franken.

And those are just a few among many, but let me add to it today's Jason Lewis Show:

I don't care to be one who goes with the "they stole the election", though there are plenty of things that could be mentioned -- or were mentioned in the above articles and podcast. But what struck me as I listened to some morning radio, is that this particular race could have easily turned out quite differently. And it could have turned out in favor of a Republican candidate very easily; Franken made himself very, very beatable (as if in a rational world that any effort would be necessary).

The real problem that may have slipped by in all the commotion, to me at least, is that Sen. Coleman was defeated because of his record. Because he's a RINO. Because he was not a very good representative of conservatives. Here is one measure, compiled from Citizens Against Government Waste's 2007 data.

This vote has similarities to Tim Pawlenty's 2006 re-election. And this was going right along with the '06 midterms.

The incumbent majority party, the Republican Party had controlled the house since the 1994 election and was defeated by the Democrats who won a majority in the House ending 12 years in opposition.

This whole thing is just a glimpse into the Republican party that discarded fiscal conservatism and went on a spending spree. Here is Clue #1 to the GOP: if you want to win in future elections, you need to run fiscal conservatives. If Coleman had acted as a fiscal conservative, he would be inside the beltway for another term.

The election is over, the recount is done as far as I care. In my opinion, the lunatics are now running the asylum. So let me wish Sen. ~~Smalley~~ Franken the best. I'm still shaking my head.

Twitter and Other Blogging Tools

2008-12-07T17:30:00.006-06:00

While still recovering from discomfort related to the surgery the other day, I had a moment of inspiration between Hugh Hewitt's post and my frozen garage. I've already mentioned a bit of the history of this "blog", so why not describe what I'm currently doing and where I think I'm headed as well?

Lately there has been much buzz about Twitter. Like other things, I'd heard of it and then sort of back-burnered it until recently. Now I'm really getting into it and enjoying the new discoveries I've made with it. And since I signed myself up to be a mentor, why not have a little summary of what I think I know now?

I'm less of a "traditional" blogger and more of a linkburner:

Linkburner: I share what I like from my RSS feeds with Twitter (and vise-versa, and mish-mashed). I hope others might enjoy the items I share as well.

In part, I doff my figurative hat to the many folks who express themselves much better than I tend to by recirculating various articles that attract my interest via my own means. I had been doing that before I'd gotten into Twitter, so it became moreso an extension of what I was already doing. As I try to point out on this site, "It's the Feeds!"

Moving to Twitter

The feed that I consider to be the "main attraction" is my Google Reader Shared Items. I am most recently calling this my Linkblog. This feed of course is "RSS-able", meaning that it can be syndicated and subscribed to by anyone who might care to.

I have about 100 feeds (some of which are displayed in the Blogroll) from which I draw much of my material that I share. At some point I had come across a GreaseMonkey script, which I now note has been tweaked due to a recent change in Reader, that allowed me to tweet from a single click right out of Reader.

This was the precursor to my involvement with Twitter. Once I had gotten involved, I started searching the web for numerous Twitter tools and gadgets. And that brings us fairly close to the present.

Twitter Tools I Use

There are oodles of tools that turn up if I search on "Google Reader Twitter". Some I currently use or have tried out. Tailor your own search to your favorite existing tools and I'm sure that there is some common ground and some tools specific to your usage. Most folks have heard of TinyURL, which is useful on its own but especially so in the Twitter world: the 140-character limit makes using these "tinying" URL redirecters indispensable. I mostly use Twurl.nl, (I like click-tracking), but there are many available -- SnipURL might be another popular one. For these couple I have mentioned, I like the bookmarklet sitting at the ready on my Firefox.

Another tool that has come into much use for me lately is TwitterFeed. Here is where I have automated tweeting from my Google Reader Shared Items feed to my Twitter account. It is more geared towards a blog feed, but any (or many) RSS or atom feed(s) can be set up.

[Click for full-size image.]

(There seems to be some issue with TwitterFeed returning to the logged-in state after logging in -- I make the seemingly failed attempt to login and then return to its home page and find myself logged in.)

Other Things

Following who seems interested in what I find interesting is something that Twitter seems quite good at. I like TwInfluence and TwitterGrader for that. There are some desktop applications, such as Twhirl and TweetDeck, both of which I have and make occasional use of; BrightKit also caught my attention recently.

But I'm mostly operating out of the browser, which for me is Firefox. I like the add-ons TwitterFox and PowerTwitter. Keep searching for "Twitter tools" and find new things. Just don't forget to have something of interest to tweet.

Just now I discovered TweetWheel, so I've got something new to check out.

Blog Note

2008-11-29T14:00:00.006-06:00

I was very surprised the other day when I happened upon this article: Why Conservatives Should Be Using Twitter And 200 "People" You Should Be Following. I shared it with Google Reader and Tweeted it right away. I intended to return to it later in the day to add folks to follow. It wasn't until returning to the article that I had noticed that I was included on the list. Thank you Duane Lester and all who deemed me worthy of inclusion in this group of talented people.

For new visitors, thank you for stopping by. You may notice that I have a few blog posts that I've accumulated, I hope you enjoy them. But if you haven't noticed yet, most of what I "post" is via the microblogging of Google Reader shares and Tweets. On the upper right I have tried to highlight my Reader Shared Items and its feed (a quick sample is at the top of this blog), and Twitter links. That tends to be the majority of my activity at present.

I am out of town visiting my family and friends in Bismarck, ND this Thanksgiving weekend. So my online time is much more limited, as it should be, and I'm on a borrowed system.

But next week starting Wednesday my activity is likely to be much diminished for a period TBD. I have surgery to remove some tumors from my liver, and I don't really know how fast I'll be bouncing back from that. When I'm around and about, I'll be back to sharing the things I find of interest.

We now return you to your regular surfing!

Interesting Times

2008-11-24T00:00:00.004-06:00

It keeps coming up, but this time in between the election and inauguration day was the speculated time frame in which one or two nightmare scenarios might materialize: the American Hiroshima (which I've mentioned previously) attack or an EMP attack (or both). Recently, the Wall Street Journal published the article, What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do. Here are a few "highlights":

Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.

But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.

Let us be clear. A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.

Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America's finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.

There was this nugget from the Daily Pundit a while ago too:

Little Congressional Interest in EMP Threat - Defense News
Once again, a congressional commission is warning that an electromagnetic pulse attack against the United States could wipe out the nation’s electronics-dependent civilization. And again, hardly anyone is listening.

Only a handful of the 60 members of the House Armed Services Committee showed up for a hearing on the EMP threat July 10, and most didn’t stick around for the whole two-hour session.

…There is “a high likelihood” than an EMP attack would damage the “electrical power systems, electronics and information systems upon which American society depends.” The effect “on critical infrastructures could be sufficient to qualify as catastrophic to the nation,” Graham said.

…In a March report to lawmakers, the Congressional Research Service said, “the threat of an EMP attack against the United States is hard to assess.” The CRS did not dispute claims about the catastrophic nature of an EMP attack.

And this one from Winds of Change:

EMP, Again

There's a lot of chatter about Iranian EMP again (it seems to come back periodically). here's Walid Phares over at the Counterterrorism Blog:
Over the past seven months I have been interacting with US Homeland Security and European defense officials and experts on a the potential next threat to the West, more particularly against mainland America. The signature of that strategic menace is EMP: Electro Magnetic Pulse; a weapon of the future, already available in design, construction and possible deployment. As eyes are focused on the Iranian nuclear threat, and as we began recently to understand that the missile advances are as important then the fissile material development, attention is now being drawn by private sector projects and some in the defense world to what can cause a wider circle of damages and thus more deterrence against US national security.
In short, and I borrow from the Project "Shield America.org," an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack could be triggered by a nuclear warhead detonated at high altitude over America. The resulting blast would create an EMP, a shockwave that could "cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure." Even if a high-altitude EMP kills nobody at first, it would paralyze a large section of the United States. The lingering practical and economic effects would take anywhere from hours to years to resolve: when secondary effects are considered, an EMP could be even deadlier than a direct nuclear strike against the mainland. Indeed, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett has written: "Where the terrorist airliner attacks of 9/11 killed thousands, a terrorist EMP attack could indirectly kill millions and conceivably cause the permanent collapse of our entire society."

So I'm not the only one thinking about the EMP. But I also wonder what may be up with the Al Qaeda plan. I haven't heard much about it in a while.

Al Qaeda Announces Attack to Rival Hiroshima (Video)

It's a bit confusing that this story did not get more attention yesterday.
Granted it comes from Al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that democrats deny is actually operating in Iraq, but the magnitude of the threat should have garnered it a few headlines in the media outlets anyway. You'd think.

FOX News reported on the story:

The Daily Telegraph reported on Monday:

AL-QAEDA leaders in Iraq are planning the first "large-scale" terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report.

Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning an attack on "a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki" in an attempt to "shake the Roman throne", a reference to the West, according to The Times newspaper in the UK.

Another plot could be timed to coincide with Tony Blair stepping down as prime minister, an event described by Al-Qaeda planners as a "change in the head of the company".

The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al-Qaeda is active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised attacks it has been waging against British and American soldiers in Iraq.
More on those guys who aren't supposed to be in Iraq.

Even quoting an earlier incarnation of myself, there was this:

Phantom Menace
Given that the US is the biggest problem, I revisited some topics that are apparently on the lighter side.

'Al-Qaida has nukes'
According to a report in the Arabic newspaper al-Hayat, Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network bought tactical nuclear weapons from Ukraine in 1998.

The report says the terrorists still have the "suitcase nuke" weapons and are storing them in safe places for possible use.

The newspaper said al-Qaida bought the weapons in suitcases in a deal arranged when Ukrainian scientists visited the Afghan city of Kandahar in 1998. The city was then a stronghold of the Taliban movement, which was allied with al-Qaida.

WorldNetDaily first broke the story of al-Qaida's purchase of suitcase nukes Oct. 3, 2002. Paul Williams, an FBI consultant on international terrorism said then bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network purchased 20 suitcase nuclear weapons from former KGB agents in 1998 for $30 million.

His book, "Al Qaeda: Brotherhood of Terror," also says this deal was one of at least three in the last decade in which al-Qaida purchased small nuclear weapons or weapons-grade nuclear uranium.

That same year, according to Williams, bin Laden succeeded in buying the 20 suitcase nukes from Chechen Mafia figures, including former KGB agents. The $30 million deal was partly cash and partly heroin with a street value of $700 million.
I believe I remember an interview of Dr. Paul Williams by Bob Davis back on June 18, 2007, but the podcast is no longer available. The memorable line from the Dr. Williams that has stuck with me: "I saw the check."

But at least it is comforting to know that an American Hiroshima is no big deal to Euroliberals.

Sure it's been "planned" for quite some time with nothing coming of it. But then again, so was 9/11. But what I find most salient is the current time frame. The rising of a nuclear Iran and tensions with Israel also lead folks to predict changes on the horizon:

Bolton: Israel might attack Iran between Election Day and Inauguration Day

Let’s hope he’s right at least about nothing happening before the election, as the paranoia about Israel acting at Bush’s behest to initiate a crisis that might benefit McCain would blow as sky high as Iran’s reactors after an IAF raid.
“The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations.

“They’re also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there’s no telling what impact it could have on the election.”…

“An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy,” said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush’s ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.

“With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran’s side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development.”
How would Israel hitting Iran in December after Obama wins spare them the diplomatic “consequences” Bolton warns of here? Any attack after Election Day, or even before if Obama’s out to a big lead late in the race, will result in a major foreign policy crisis being foisted on him as he enters office without his having been consulted. If anything, waiting until after he’s elected but before he’s sworn in would be the supreme insult since it would look like a panic move precipitated by a total lack of confidence in the new administration to handle the Iranian threat. Which, needless to say, may be justifiable, but it’s bound to make for poisonous relations between President Obama and the Israelis. Bolton’s point, I take it, is that an Obama victory will leave Israel with the awful choice of hitting Iran at the price of (potentially) alienating the new U.S. government versus trusting the new government and risking Iran going nuclear — although if that’s true then logically they should want to act as soon as possible, election or no, since that would let them deal with the threat while also minimizing the political implications in the U.S. while we’re still four months away from the election.

Or this:

Would Obama's election mean Mideast nuclear war?

If Obama (already endorsed by Hamas) is elected President in November (instead of someone Israel could trust to support it), between Election Day 2008 and Inauguration Day 2009, Israel, with or without the aid of the United States, may deem military action against Iran essential to its national security.

Much speculation has been about the time frame in which we now find ourselves. I find it most certainly of interest the goings on in the Middle East right now. We don't really know how advanced Iran's nuclear program is, we don't really know to what extent Al Qaeda has any operational capability for its claims, we don't know what triggers might exist for America's enemies regarding Bush and Obama, and we don't know how politics in the Levant will affect things either. It rather looks like a perfect storm brewing.

Soon after 9/11 I realized my generation and those following had come to live the ancient Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times.

Update: Thanks for the link DailyPundit!

Victory in Iraq Day

2008-11-22T00:00:00.003-06:00

Thank you, American armed forces!

Picture Source

And good luck to the people of Iraq.

H/T Zombie

VIDay: Spread the Word

2008-11-18T10:45:00.001-06:00

See Zombie for details.

WE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ

And since there will never be a ticker-tape parade down Fifth Avenue in New York for our troops, it's up to us, the people, to arrange a virtual ticker-tape parade. An online victory celebration.

Saturday, November 22, 2008 is the day of that celebration: Victory in Iraq Day.

One More 'What If?'

2008-11-08T21:30:00.001-06:00

This isn't another "What if Obama wins?" type of thing. That has already been settled.

What if Obama is not good? That is, where might he end up in the historical rankings of presidents? Much attention has been brought to his historic run, but how will he govern and how will history judge him afterward?

Sure it's way too soon to speculate, but overtly or otherwise race has been thrown into this -- arguably by both sides. If he turns out to be a great president then it will indeed be a great thing for this nation and its citizens. But what would be the price if he ended up as a mediocre or poor president? Would that have a negative effect in the future regarding race and the presidency? Or race relations in general?

I guess I'll have to try to be optimistic and believe he will at least be a good president. Anyone is welcome to prove my political viewpoints to be lacking if it benefits this country and its people. And now is the time to prove me wrong.

The Next Four Years

2008-11-05T22:05:00.006-06:00

One must congratulate president-elect Obama for having done what few would have thought possible. My reasons for framing it that way have nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the policies and politics he represents. But he has indeed won the office by the vote of the American people, and that is no small task.

There has been myriad discussions online that probably go from one extreme to another. A few salient issues have been raised, but at this point it's been a fair amount of gloating from the Left and doomsaying or "here's what we've gotta do now" from the Right. Bleh.

Amid all the campaign promises kept, modified, and discarded, I have absolutely no idea where this country is headed. I do have my concerns, though.

Will he and the Democrat congressional majorities raise every tax they see? I talked to a younger fellow the other day and he seemed to think that the "95% of people will get a tax cut" should be taken at face value. Color me skeptical.

If taxes are raised, how badly will this effect the economy? This same fellow also mentioned some history and that this country has had higher taxes before. True indeed, but aren't we in "the information age"? When this country had more of the manufacturing jobs, and there was far less mobility for people than we currently enjoy, and when trade barriers were stronger, and when banking regulations were stricter, then sure -- it was easier to keep the people rich and poor alike pinned down. I would hope that we aren't planning to return to that in order to tax the rich.

Whether or not the speculation in the last paragraph is fact or my misremembering, I have noted over the years that I work more software folks now located in Ireland and Poland. Have higher taxes in the US already pushed jobs elsewhere?

Wrapup

2008-11-05T20:00:00.001-06:00

Wow. It has been one long political season. Now that the election is over, I find myself spent, drained. Surely that is in large part because "I lost". I'm sure things would be different if I were "on the winning team", but alas not this time around.

I've been in various moods in the past 24 hours, but some of my thoughts have about the past year have crept into that. Towards the end of this election I was already growing weary of the sheer volume of items arriving in my Reader.

As you can see, around 1000 items on a weekday were presenting themselves for my perusal. To get down to skimming the 300ish items to find probably 50 to share really lent itself more toward quantity and perhaps less quality. But the season was very fruitful in the thick of things. I also figured that anyone following the feed could pick and choose items of interest and maybe find 5-10 that were worth their while.

So even before the election I was planning on cutting back on the volume a bit. I did some version control backups of some things last night, and I'll be changing things up a little. Of the stray thoughts I've had regarding this blog, one has been how things have evolved over the past year or so. So if you'll indulge me, the following will be a bit of a history of this blog.

A History of High Plains Blogger

The roots of this actually probably started about a decade ago. I'm a programmer by profession, and I'd happened upon Yahoo! Groups, which was at the time an email list "forum". I participated in these basically discussing code issues for several years, learning a great deal.

The next step for me was discovering forums. Very quickly I preferred that medium because I could highlight things, edit my typos, and fix things up to be how I wanted. And I stayed pretty well on the straight and narrow and only got into code discussions. But at the same time I would "eavesdrop" on political issues being discussed on some sites' "General Discussions" or "Lounge" sub-forums. The topics interested me, but I generally did not post my opinions.

This probably brings us up to about 2004-2005. I saw a prevalence of Liberal ideas being presented with a dearth of Conservatives and such ideas represented. And so I branched out into lengthy and wonderful arguments that formed the core idea that this blog seeks to pursue. By 2007ish, I was getting tired of the repeating the same stuff in response to newcomers dredging up older threads.

I didn't really take to blogs right away, but eventually I moved away from a programming forum's associated blog because I wanted more freedom and flexibility in posting. That led me to MyOpera where I started The Observatory. The name in part reflects that I'm not out preach, but rather to observe and offer my perspective.

As I got going with The Observatory, I enjoyed adding pictures, audio, movies, and other gadgets to help dress up the commentary. In parallel, I was discovering new tools and technologies. Among them was the addictive Google Reader, which simplified how I happened upon the things I liked to read.

In this process, I had to get an account with Google, so I had its Mail and soon found its Notebook useful as well. I decided that I might want to take advantage of some of the shared functionality and made by move to this Google blog as well (although I did make an attempt with WordPress to start).

Also during this time, I was separating out "the political me", "the programmer me", and "the friend/family guy me" into separate online presences. If you hadn't guessed, this blog is "the political me". Since I had been exposing myself to these new technologies, I was also experimenting with others as well. A little MySpace here, some FaceBook there, and IRC in part driving and assisting discover. Well, it's notsomuch IRC itself, it's the folks I chat with there that have provided me with arguments, ideas, discussions, and technical help.

I take a little bit here and a little bit there and incorporate bits and pieces into this blog. For a while I had made quite a bit of use of Yahoo! Pipes as well. I've incorporated an IRC channel into this blog. But as the summer months came and went, I was spending almost 100% of my time microblogging, if that, with Google Reader. And then came Twitter, and then Twurl as a tie-ins with that.

I'd like to back away from the microblogging and get back to the more traditional type of blogging -- we'll see how that goes.

VP Debate Wrap-Up

2008-10-02T23:09:00.003-05:00

What did I take away from the debate?

Sarah Palin will not have the terms dictated to her. If she doesn't like the attack, she will turn it back to a focus on America and everyday Americans. This is both beneficial when it comes to foreign and domestic policy.

Sarah Palin is an everyday American. She doesn't need focus groups to understand the basics.

Sarah Palin can take a 30-year Washington insider and make him backpedal. Just what the doctor ordered.

Sarah Palin is a leader. Joe Biden could answer with statistics and put me to sleep; Sarah could cut to the chase.

Sarah Palin is positive on America's future. Joe Biden and Barack Obama are negative.

Gov. Palin did not hit it out of the park. She did what she needed to do. Show that she could get into the game, step up to the plate, and hit that fastball. And wind up safely on base with perhaps a few RBIs. Without homefield advantage. After the 7th inning stretch. With a good closer. And down by a few runs. Result: tie game, Palin in scoring position. John McCain's turn up at bat.

The VP Debate

2008-10-02T22:04:00.006-05:00

From Twitter:

	PatrickRuffini Facebook: Patrick Ruffini is rejoicing at Palin's big win. http://twurl.nl/a1nja6 11 minutes ago from twitterfeed
	PatrickRuffini This CNN focus group is a joke. Most were at least leaners #vpdebate 23 minutes ago from twitterrific
	PatrickRuffini CNN focus group of "uncommitted" voters filled with registered Rs and Ds #vpdebate 25 minutes ago from twitterrific
	PatrickRuffini Borger a hack #vpdebate 33 minutes ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Hm. Not outta the park. But it was a 2- or 3-run double or triple, leaving her in scoring position. 35 minutes ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Biden is putting me to sleep. 42 minutes ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Dials strong on palin close. Women generally more trusting than men #vpdebate 42 minutes ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Wow. She closed damn well. 42 minutes ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Biden: I led the fight against Bork #vpdebate about 1 hour ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Biden and a lame, canned setup. about 1 hour ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Damn Biden looks ruffled. about 1 hour ago from web
	PatrickRuffini She is getting under his skin #vpdebate about 1 hour ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Heh. Palin is change. Biden is a legislator. Palin is an inspired leader, Biden is a bitter bragger. about 1 hour ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Article I is Legislative. about 1 hour ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Dang. Too many notes. about 1 hour ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Doesn't funding originate in the House? about 1 hour ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Palin dominates #vpdebate about 1 hour ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr The 3rd grader shout-out was very nice. about 1 hour ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr D'oh! I thought Biden would fininsh with 'capitulation'. about 1 hour ago from web

	HighPlainsBlogr _This_ is Sarah's moment to talk to conservatives. about 1 hour ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Shoot, I missed that. about 1 hour ago from web
	PatrickRuffini This will cause the conservative weak sisters like Parker and brooks to stfu #vpdebate about 1 hour ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr What I really love is the way she "blows off" both Biden and the moderator. about 1 hour ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr She has 3 positives to every negative about America; he has 3 negatives to every positive. about 1 hour ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Member of the Media @mikemadden sez Palin prob wins by not tripping up on foreign policy about 1 hour ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Biden cornered to attacking Bush. Does she have the upper hand? about 1 hour ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Reform is coming #vpdebate about 1 hour ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Obama a friend of Israel?!? I nearly spit out my beer! about 1 hour ago from web
	PatrickRuffini A fine start to the Palin for President campaign #vpdebate about 1 hour ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Moderator goes on the offensive? about 1 hour ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr It's in AfPak because it's NOT in Iraq. Why is that? about 1 hour ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Barracuda! about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini I will say that the dials go nowhere whenever we talk Iraq. May have been the issue at last debate #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr YES! about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Biden is good at what he does. about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Yes, the Petraeus mention was waited on. about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Biden almost looked rattled. But he turned it nicely. about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Very nice handling of the gay issue. Again -- hitting home. about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr I don't know whether Biden's hammering of McCain's voting record is effective. Half the right hates his voting record. about 2 hours ago from web

	HighPlainsBlogr Clarification on 'carbon caps', please. about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Ouch. about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Heh. I hope she swats that '10 years' remark. about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr "What is true and what is false about the causes?" Loaded question. Softball. about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Heh. What the heck. Walk into the lion's den and then dictate terms of your own. I'll go with that. about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini This is an entertaining debate #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	PatrickRuffini Men don't like bidens mortgage proposal #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Adjust the principal? about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Chapter 7 to chapter 13? Huh? DCspeak #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr She still seems nervous, but I think she's up so far (but I'm obviously biased). about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Palin has completely redeemed herself tonight #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Heh. "We want to emulate Palin". Go with that Joe. about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr A Democrat eliminate spending? Where? about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Is he handing her the energy platform? about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr (Well, we should have taken the Bush $15,000 plan.) about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr Nice. (The federalized health care comment.) And the state lines mention too. about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Gloria Borger is a hack about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	PatrickRuffini Men dials went nuts on the government not the solution line #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific

	HighPlainsBlogr Sweet. Invoking Reagan -- she knows our code! about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Biden all Washington speak #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Heh. I hope she swats the 95% number out of the park. about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Hugely relieved #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Biden off with the gloves. Sarah bearing her teeth. about 2 hours ago from web
	HighPlainsBlogr I like the 'government to live with less' -- better it than us. about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini CNN analysts on HD say Palin winning #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	PatrickRuffini Biden is too cold and can't be himself #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr I liked her reply: talking to the American people, not about programs, strategies, etc. about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini I mean seriously she broke the dials on the last one #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Hmm. about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Women dials really high on Palin on CNN. #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr She started a bit tight again, but ended effervescent. about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini Palin talking directly to the camera. McCain didn't. #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Hm. She seems a little tight, but worked that okay. about 2 hours ago from web
	PatrickRuffini W00t #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	PatrickRuffini Very effective personalization of the issue. Women dials moving higher. #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	PatrickRuffini Begala scores a point for Palin off that moment? about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	PatrickRuffini Can I call you Joe? #vpdebate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Echo the nervousness. about 2 hours ago from web

	PatrickRuffini Extremely nervous about this debate about 2 hours ago from twitterrific
	HighPlainsBlogr Getting ready for the VP Debate. I may be twittering here and/or in the "VP Debate" room/channel. about 3 hours ago from web

Long, But Succinct

2008-09-26T23:52:00.013-05:00

Update: Copyright-issue-free version.

Update: The "I'm Voting Democrat" video.

Palin, Palin, Palin

2008-09-21T22:06:00.001-05:00

She plays her role as the #2 on the ticket far, far better than whoever it was Obama picked. But I find her stumping quite refreshing nonetheless.

Rally in Blaine, MN

2008-09-20T21:42:00.003-05:00

I missed the rally the other day, but a friend sent me this:

The local news had some video:

I had only made it this close:

Maybe next time.

Grinning. Ear. To. Ear.

2008-09-03T22:23:00.011-05:00

Update:
Sarah Palin's Address to the RNC

Priceless

2008-08-30T02:00:00.008-05:00

Stadium filled to capacity: Plenty?
Speech on the MLK anniversary: Lost opportunity?
Fawning by almost all the MSM: Loss of all integrity?
Absolutely nothing on Obama 12 hours later: Priceless

Vote Swung

2008-08-30T01:59:00.002-05:00

It's been a trying day to attempt writing this. 'Trying' in the sense of the day your child is born (for a guy, at least). Joy. Relief. A new outlook on life. Clouds parted. Hope and change. (Alright, too mushy, too cliche.)

But for conservatives who had pretty much been relegated to the sidelines since January, today was manna from Heaven. After listening to Obama's acceptance speech last night, which I was panning in real time on IRC, I had the most wonderful news to entertain me less that 12 hours later.

Frankly, I've forgotten most of what Obama said. As a political move, John McCain did the unbelievable. I'm not exactly a fan of John McCain. But he did something I thought he would never be able to do. There are so many blogs and sites I should link to while writing, but I can't wipe the smile off my face (I hope they understand, and perhaps I'll edit it in after the fact).

"I found myself optimist again," and "I think I've actually been giddy since this morning" were some reactions from us hard-headed conservative types. "I almost forgot what to be conservative felt like, and she seems to be one." "As far as I am concerned now I can say I'll go happy to the voting booth."

My moment of reaching critical mass (stubbornness inherited from my Dad), was when I began think about being heir-apparent to the Republican Party. Having a real, down-to-earth, Conservative(!) leading the GOP into the future. I began to daydream about a future Palin/Jindal ticket, and I was won over.

She absolutely dominated my feed today. Another item also swayed me. I love it, I absolutely love it. It was a bucket of water on Obama's lit cigarette. The Obama camp's first spitefully classless response to the class to which he had been treated spoke volumes.

So here is something I never thought I'd see here:

Yes we can!

On the Lighter Side

2008-08-04T22:57:00.004-05:00

What are your favorite parts from this?

Mine include:

'Darth Barack' going for the lightsaber.
"Why is it you Liberals think you can make Kool-Aid sweeter by adding more water?"
"You wearin' me out with the Kentucky Fried analogies, brotha."
The 'force lightning'.

I hope you enjoyed that as much as I did!

H/T: Doug Ross @ Journal

American Hiroshima

2008-08-01T17:51:00.015-05:00

The "American Hiroshima" plan is something I'd heard about a while back, but it revisited me again from my Google Reader. It came in the form of an audio podcast that came with the following description: "Dr Hugh Cort from the American Foundation for Counter-Terrorism Policy on how OBL might have 10 suitcase nukes to set off in the US".

I found it interesting and thought I'd pass it along. See also the "must read" items from The American Foundation for Counter-Terrorism Policy and Research.

Remembering the Fallen

2008-07-23T20:00:00.010-05:00

For what little I can do to express my thanks to those who have put themselves in harm's way, I offer this.

Casualty Map By State
Casualty Map in Reverse Chronological Order
Casualty List in Reverse Chronological Order

These Pipes make lists or maps pointing to the home towns of our fallen soldiers, many with pictures, that we may remember them.

I have "stickied" this lower down the page.

Update: Here is a file that can be used with Google Earth. I've tried to get it to work with Google Maps, but to no avail.

Smaller pipe searches seem to work on the fly: Minnesota. If you edit the state abbreviation near the end of the link, you can try other states -- but those with higher numbers have difficulty rendering.

http://maps.google.com/...%26_render%3Dkml%26operation%3Doif%26state%3DMN&ie=UTF8&z=6

The same could be done to change from oif to oef.

Update: Now working in Google Maps(?)

Update: Success with Google Maps at last.

View Larger Map

Update: Rearranged the stickies.

RNC Shenanigans

2008-06-25T12:05:00.009-05:00

On my morning commute, I was listening to the Chris Baker show. The topic: "Katherine Kersten from the Star Tribune joins the show to discuss protesters and their plans for disruption at the upcoming RNC."

Her article, Legal challenge is in line with plans to disrupt GOP convention, doesn't hit nearly as hard as the things they discussed on the program. In short, what she has to say would put awash the idea that the protest is a mere First Amendment issue.

These groups indeed look to spread chaos in hopes of preventing freedom of assembly and speech:

Tales from the Inbox

2008-06-19T20:19:00.002-05:00

Cojones: Congressional Democrats openly endorse communism

Silly me: I thought communism was dead. But it appears to have risen like a phoenix on Dianabol -- at least in the minds of Congressional Democrats and Obama supporters.

Echoes of the peanut man: déjà vu all over again

A blast from the past, courtesy of the Department of Energy's official website:
Price controls on oil

A windfall profits tax

Taxpayer-funded boondoggles on solar energy

Taxpayer-funded boondoggles on synthetic fuels

The Audacity of Abandonment

If I were a supporter of Barack Obama I would be nervous. Why? Is it his inexperience, his radical connections, or his stale liberal positions? Nope. I would be nervous because he seems fundamentally incapable of sticking with his principles on a host of issues large and small.

[...]

Obama supporters laud him as a different politician; as someone who can change the way Washington works and bring real solutions to our problems. But how can you trust a candidate who so easily capitulates in the face of criticism and regularly breaks his promises? Is this really change you can believe in?

I can’t believe it, but maybe Hillary was right. Maybe Obama’s campaign is “just words.”

Of Course People Who Are Anti-American Want Obama.

You know, it's funny; the Left tells everyone that will listen that the rest of the world hates America, but then they brag that these very same people would be excited to have Barack Obama in the White House.

Well, of course they would. These people want to see the United States weakened and humiliated. Heck, even the author is saying that many people in that region see us as the Great Satan. Why would they ever want to see Satan prosper? The obvious answer is that they wouldn't.

So, yes, they are amazed that Americans would be so foolish as to put a man in the White House, like Barack Obama, who will weaken the country. It's like the Lilliputians, gaping in awe as Gulliver willingly lies down and allows them to bind him with chains.

Obama is a naive, weak, inexperienced, foolish man and the greatest gift we could give to people who don't wish our country well would be to put him in the White House.

Obama Promises Change -- But What Kind?

Freedom on the Rise and Fall

2008-06-19T19:06:00.007-05:00

Contrasts in the news today...

Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back

BAGHDAD: Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Daily Blog Buzz: Another Oil Option

As the calls for domestic drilling grow louder, some Democrats have another idea: nationalize the oil refineries! During a House briefing yesterday, Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey said, "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."

Link: sevenload.com

So an American congressman proposes we act like Saddam? While Iraq chooses privatization? True irony would be to bequeath the dreamt-of free democracy while America votes to go socialist.

At first I was offended by this video:

Now I realize I'm looking at interviews with two future members of Congress.

Why were American oil companies chosen by Iraq?

Assem Jihad, the Oil Ministry spokesman, said the ministry chose companies it was comfortable working with under the charitable memorandum of understanding agreements, and for their technical prowess. "Because of that, they got the priority," he said.

Too bad we can't do that here. And hopefully for the Iraqis, these companies will hold onto their technical prowess if the Democrats get away with stealing them from their owners.

Nationalize This!

Women's Suffrage and the Size of Government

2008-05-30T13:02:00.004-05:00

I only caught a brief excerpt from today's Rush Limbaugh program, but he was reading some bits from - I believe - How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government? It is a freely available 75-page pdf whose abstract reads as follows.

This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.

Interesting points were raised by Rush, but I haven't caught the whole thing.

Two other links for me to follow up on this with:

More People think that Women's Suffrage Helps Explain the Growth of Government (John Lott's blog post)
Female Voters Give Themselves a Bad Name (American Thinker)

Update: This must have been the item that Rush was reading on air: Is There Really a Bias Against Women in Politics? History Suggests Otherwise

Write-In Vote

2008-05-25T11:04:00.002-05:00

Aha! I had a moment of inspiration the other night.

[05-24 00:13:17] * hpb may have had an epipanhy.
[05-24 00:13:33] hpb: I think I figured out my write-in votes this year...
[05-24 00:13:49] other: do tell
[05-24 00:13:54] * hpb thanks the garage for still allowing cigarette smoking.
[05-24 00:14:56] hpb: Either a Thomas Sowell/Walter Williams ticket, or Sowell/Larry Elder.

It was brought up previously, and I'm still in agreement with this: a way to vote my views in a way that is not likely to be spun.

I still like what Fred writes. And I guess it is rather Reaganesque to support the party's candidate, but I just find it difficult to support McCain.

Thomas Sowell - Walter E. Williams - Larry Elder!

Searching for a Candidate

2008-05-12T18:00:00.004-05:00

In the past weeks, I've been trying to figure out where I stand to best choose a candidate to waste my vote on this fall (I live in Minnesota -- our electoral votes will go to the Democratic nominee).

Part of this madness started by trying to see whether I'm Chicago school or Austrian school (lately, I tend to think Austrian). One item I enjoyed recently on my journey was How I Became a Christian Libertarian by Steven Yates at LewRockwell.com. Currently, I think this comes as close to the mark as I've seen.

I consider myself to be a conservative, and that leaves me feeling a little left out in the upcoming 2008 presidential election. I'm not alone in thinking For President: None of the Above, but I doubt I've got a whole lot of company. [Or so I thought until I read the comments here.]

Some can put The Republican Party's Real Problem In A Nutshell. My version is that the GOP merely decided to tack left and chuck the conservatives.

I'd started writing this about a week ago before similarly-themed hoopla broke out. I'm a patient shopper -- I'll keep looking.

Expelled Discussion Takes Another Turn

2008-05-05T18:00:00.012-05:00

I've been following the Expelled saga since before it was released. There was even some local hoopla prior to its release. It all seemed like humorous reading for a while, encountering delicious lines like this:

The film shockingly exposes the blatant hypocrisy of the scientific establishment. As Stein says in the film, “Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science.”

I've wandered through many articles on the topic of Intelligent Design, atheism, Darwinian evolution, and such. I find it almost as entertaining as the global warming tennis match. Irony like this is just funny:

One highlight among many is Stein’s one-on-one interview with Richard Dawkins, the dashing Brit who has made a small fortune as the world’s most visible neo-Darwinist.

To his credit, and to the utter discomfort of the public education establishment, Dawkins does not shy from discussing the atheistic implications of Darwinism.

Indeed, Dawkin’s anti-deity call to arms, The God Delusion, has sold more than a million copies worldwide. Where Dawkins wanders into a black hole of his own making is in his discussion of the origins of life on earth.

To Stein’s astonishment, Dawkins concedes that life might indeed have a designer but that designer almost assuredly was a more highly evolved being from another planet, not “God.”

Stein does not respond. He does not need to. For the past hour of the film, the audience has met one scientist after another whose academic careers have been derailed for daring to suggest the possibility of intelligent design.

If only they had thought to put the designer on another planet!

I keep meaning to put it in my NetFlix queue, and fill my time with reviews and commentary such as this one from American Thinker or another from Human Events.

And along the way another brouhaha erupted. And I too wondered if Ben Stein missed his own point. In the meantime, I continue to watch this Darwinian tennis match -- my head bobbing this way and that. And also, of course, reading articles such Ben Stein Provokes the Liberal Wrath by Phyllis Schlafly. The Dang Thing.

Quote of the Day

2008-05-05T18:00:00.010-05:00

“Kids staying in school, Americans living longer: Bush Blamed.”

Hillary Clinton on Bill O'Reilly

2008-05-04T16:21:00.004-05:00

I didn't see it live, so I'm catching up now.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Related:
Confronting Hillary, By Bill O'Reilly
O'Reilly-Clinton Interview Shows Dem Flaw, By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
No Cure for Pandering, By Debra J. Saunders

Pork and Bridges

2008-05-01T18:49:00.006-05:00

Ed Morrissey points out that Pork did not bring down the St. Anthony Bridge.

Minnesotans spend $2.2 billion a year on transportation, more than three times what we spend on public safety (fire and police). It’s the second-largest portion of the discretionary budget in this state, and for good reason. Winters take their toll on roads and bridges, and both are constantly in inspection and repair statuses. The St. Anthony Bridge was no exception to that. Unfortunately, the design flaw didn’t become apparent until the bridge collapsed.

The particulars, perhaps, but in regard to the basic design flaw I beg to differ.

The National Bridge Inventory contains a report on this bridge from 2003. It reports the following items:
Deck Condition: Fair.
Superstructure Condition: Poor.
Substructure Condition: Satisfactory.
Scour: Foundations determined to be stable.
Bridge Railings: Meets currently acceptable standards.
Structural Evaluation: Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as-is.
Water Adequacy Evaluation: Superior to present desirable criteria.
Bridge Sufficiency Rating: 50%
A University of Minnesota Civil Engineer in a report to MN-DOT recently noted that this bridge is considered to be a non-redundant structure. That is, if any one member fails, the entire bridge can collapse. A key factor is that there are only four pylons holding up the arch. Any damage to any one pylon would be catastrophic. The textbook example of a non-redundant bridge is the Silver Bridge over the Ohio River. It failed shortly before Christmas in 1967 resulting in 46 deaths. A single piece of hardware failed due to a tiny manufacturing defect. But that piece was non-redundant, and the entire bridge collapsed into the icy river. Today, bridge engineers design bridges so that any single piece of the bridge can fail without causing the entire bridge to collapse. It is tragic that the I-35W bridge was built a few years too early to benefit from that lesson.

So I might give a little more credence to the fact that a basic design flaw was identified 40 years prior. One might have thought that this would have pushed it toward the top of the list for replacement, but then again, I'm no bridge designer. (How many non-redundant bridges are still out there that also should be replaced -- hopefully before we use our highway funds and gas taxes for bike paths?)

As it happens, these are the same men who played the lead role in the $286 billion 2005 federal highway bill. That's the bill that diverted billions of dollars of gas tax money away from urgent road and bridge projects toward Member earmarks for bike paths, nature trails and inefficient urban transit systems.

Sure pork did not bring the bridge down, but if Minnesota Spends $1 Billion a Year for Neglible Light Rail Congestion Relief, you'd think maybe some of these distractions are certainly not helping. How about an earmark for a bridge with a known design flaw? One that is right out of a major metropolitan downtown area that was Minnesota's fifth–busiest, carrying 140,000 vehicles daily.

No, pork did not cause the gusset to fail. But IT’S ABOUT PRIORITIES: BIKE TRAILS OR HIGHWAYS? And if pork is the higher priority, then I'm not willing to toss it out as not being part of the problem. Monday morning quarterbacking, sure, but still...

10. Over 40% of the money earmarked by Congressman Oberstar for Minnesota from the 2005 Transportation bill went to bike trails, transit, and other non-road related spending. There was even a $25 million appropriation for a "non-motorized" transportation pilot program in the Twin Cities - using YOUR gas tax dollars.

How much of transportation funding goes elsewhere? Is our legislature even now addressing the funding priorities? Or does it still have systemic issues?

The transportation debate in Minnesota is multifarious and most of the time pits the usual political forces against one another. By leaving the pending $1 billion pork strewn bonding bill (which could have been spent for roads and bridges, but instead will go for rail, zoos, bike paths, and happy trails) out of the debate, Mr. Kupchella has left his viewers wanting. And by saying the vehicle sales tax or MVET diversion of at least 40% to transit isn't really a "diversion" of funds because "that was decided by public vote just a few years ago" (actually it was just in '06), Mr. Kupchella seems to be suggesting that anything the voters or politicians decide on is above reproach. Strange idea for a newsman.

And do they still have their Hands In The Cookie Jar?

Taxes and Spending

2008-04-30T10:33:00.002-05:00

In Social Security and Medicare Projections: 2008, the following caught my attention.

Can Higher Taxes Solve the Problem? The CBO also found that if federal income tax rates are adjusted to allow the government to continue its current level of activity and balance the budget:
The lowest marginal tax bracket of 10 percent would have to rise to 26 percent.
The 25 percent marginal tax bracket would increase to 66 percent.
The current highest marginal tax bracket (35 percent) would have to rise to 92 percent!
Additionally, the top corporate income tax rate of 35 percent would have to increase to 92 percent.

Wow.

Bush: A Better Catholic Than Some Catholics?

2008-04-17T20:05:00.004-05:00

Lisa Fabrizio in The Pope in America:

It is noteworthy that the President granted a rare interview to EWTN, the Catholic TV network. When asked by interviewer Raymond Arroyo what he saw when he looked into the eyes of the Pope, he quickly answered, “God.” In some ways President Bush, a Methodist, is a better Catholic than many actual Catholics in Washington. After all, in addition to his commitment to the poor in Africa and elsewhere, he is in agreement with the Church on its five ‘non-negotiable’ issues: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia and homosexual “marriage.” Compare his record on these issues with ‘cradle’ Catholic congressmen like Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi.Then consider the following letter to Cardinal McCarrick, former Archbishop of Washington, DC, entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” written by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2004:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Update (related, June 12, 2008): St. John’s Fort

Hillary v Obama, Round XXXVIII

2008-04-16T22:22:00.008-05:00

I didn't watch the debate, but I'll take Ed's word for it:

The last Democratic debate has finally concluded, and perhaps the last chances of ending the primaries early. Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderaters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock. However, the big winner didn’t even take the stage tonight.

And later,

The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they’re speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight.

Beware of Imposters

2008-04-06T16:07:00.002-05:00

(Found via email.)

Freedom of Speech

2008-03-25T21:50:00.009-05:00

Forest Lake event canceled; too political says the "Red Star", the "Star and Sickle", a local paper. The story was first brought to me on my morning commute on the radio, almost perpetually tuned to KTLK.

I discovered the story in print from Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner. Since Forest Lake is but a suburb or two over, this really got me steamed. Frankly, I would have hoped for a better title from the Strip, perhaps "Leftist Group 'Democratic Underground' Nixes Free Speech by Veterans Group".

Many blogs have kept me abreast of this appalling story throughout the day. Powerline was a good example: Heroes too hot for Forest Lake Area High School. But later on, Blackfive produced The left has no heroes with the following video well worth viewing:

Later, Powerline had more followup with The National Heroes Tour Comes to Minnesota. And a Jason Lewis podcast had further discussion.

I haven't taken in all of these items. I get off track simply thinking about Leftists' perpetual claim to being defenders of free speech -- as long as there is no dissent, I guess. But the gall of protesting the true defenders of free speech is simply beyond the pale.

Updates:

As The Election Turns

2008-03-24T22:05:00.004-05:00

So around this RINO's digs it has been amusing to read the news as of late. The Republican candidates had their battle early and it looked as if they were going to be bogged down in a mess. With the indicators falling more and more to John McCain, I found myself rooting for a brokered convention. But since I never really knew what that entailed, I now find it much more amusing to watch from the sidelines.

You've got Hillary's Bosnia gaffe as a sideshow, Name That Party going on with elected officials, and of course all the "Typical White Person" jokes you can shake a stick at.

It's funnier than watching the Exorcist!

No, I must admit it is far more entertaining to watch Hillary and Obama duke it out. And spend their money on each other. And have the mainstream media spin lame attempts at manufacturing counterpoints, badly, but the lefties managed to do it worse.

It's not that I'm happy with McCain, even though the pundits make the thought increasingly less difficult to stomach. It's just that seeing the left beat itself up is entirely too amusing. Add to it Rush's Operation Chaos and it's hard to keep a straight face.

The Obama Kerfuffle

2008-03-19T21:00:00.004-05:00

I had to search the logfiles of an IRC channel I frequent to reassure myself that until this past weekend I had not really considered the race angle in regard to the 2008 presidential race. Yup, pretty much what I thought -- all this time I've thought of him pretty much a leftist. A Liberal. Perhaps I even had a chuckle about Marxist connections after the Che Guevera flag flap. Up until this past weekend.

Then the Rev. Wright material flooded the blogosphere. I took humor in the ensuing frenzy. And still, it was the character issue that was being noted (finally) in the mainstream media that I was most tickled by. And as the raging waters continued flowing, the racism angle started to rear. I could be amused and have an oddly quizzical expression towards a white middle-class type of Obama supporter, but to me that still wasn't the issue.

And then came Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech. It arrived in my RSS reader amongst my usual conservative-leaning subscriptions. In fact, I skimmed right into the meat of the speech, before I realized it was his speech. The first paragraph was my hook not to skim and move on to the next item in the reader. And then I got to paragraphs two and three and I had to take a closer look at what I was reading because it seemed to be taking a turn I wasn't expecting. And then I discovered that it was "the speech".

For me, this was the point at which I felt Obama made race an issue; previously he had "transcended race". And with this speech he chose to embrace it, to wrap himself in it fully. And essentially to transform from an unabashed Leftist and inexperienced candidate whose grand rhetoric lacked substance into merely on opportunistic black politician like those who have gone before him.

I've shared piles of articles and snippets on the feed, and pretty much everybody has already aired his views. For ease of future reference, let me just capture the "highlights".

Obama's Incredible Denial Concerning His Pastor

Anderson Cooper: Romney’s church clearly relevant, Obama’s church not so much

Obama Denounces Pastor, Continuing Circular Firing Squad

'He Probably Wasn’t Listening in Church'

Deconstructing Obama's lawyerly evasions on Wright

Obama in Indiana: “[T]he forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again”

BUSTED... Obama Knew Wright Was Wrong Last Year

Knowing Obama by the Company He Keeps

SteynOnline - EVERYONE'S A VICTIM

Down the memory hole: Wright’s testimonial deleted from Obama’s website

YouTube Pulls Reverend Wright Video

Obama's Faith: 'Complex,' or Just Calculated?

INDEED: One understands why that might not seem obvious

ANOTHER UPDATE: Oprah Winfrey goes to Wright's church, too?

Obama's Church Web Site 'Disappears' the 'Black Value System' (Update: They Missed a PDF)

Obama’s Class Warfare Will Turn on the Voters He Claims to Help

Obama to deliver “major speech” on race tomorrow; Update: The Jeremiah

The Religious Wright

Damn chickens

Double Life of Barack Obama

The Dishonesty of Hope

And then I encountered "the speech". Up to this point, it was to me just news about a presidential candidate caught in a tough spot: backpedaling on an issue of his character. After listening to a podcast of "the speech" and reading the transcript, mixed in with others' similar reactions around the blogosphere, I had to accept that from that point onward that Obama no longer "transcended race".

Schism

2008-02-19T13:01:00.003-06:00

The Anchoress has a fine article, Mama, We're All RINOs Now. It is a different perspective on an earlier take.

The wicked irony here is that the “true conservatives” (or TCs) who are busily kicking every flawed Republican to the curb will tell you in a heartbeat that they are “conservatives first, Republicans second” — which means, if we’re being logical, that they, the “true conservatives,” are actually the “true RINOs.” And I suppose the so-called RINOs are actually then Conservatives in Name Only, or CINOs. So, the TCs are actually RINOs and the RINOs are actually CINOs, except some of them really are conservatives; they’re just not conservative enough to be “true.” So they’re the “just not conservative enough moderate conservatives who also have no principles” or JNCEMCWAHNPs.
My head hurts.

I hear ya. But as this article heads toward the eventual -- wait for it -- "electability" argument my attention suddenly falls away. It's not intentional, I have just long since tired of hearing it. In my opinion it has been the "electability" argument that has been the wind blowing the GOP portside for so long.

And along the way, new voters see nothing being offered by the Republican party -- especially a lot of young voters. By attempting to cater to them, they've just looked like wannabees. News flash: those folks can see right through it and they go for the real thing. Let me talks slowly so this might sink in: by making half-assed attempts to expand the base, you showed these folks their true calling on the other side of the aisle; and at the same time you dumped the former base overboard. So now, after letting this fester for many years, it's all the conservatives' fault 'cuz you tossed us out.

Well at least the Anchoress does by far a better and fairer job of presenting the GOP schism than, say, Gregg Jackson:

Why are the spoiled elites complaining about McCain like a bunch of petulant children when the reality is that, collectively, they share considerable blame for the fact that McCain is our likely nominee?

Ah, yes. Now we're to the "grow up" caterwauling. I believe I'll being to take that as "thank you". So let me politely reply: you're welcome.

McCain Apologists

2008-02-19T11:11:00.007-06:00

In yet another round of "Come On, Vote McCain", I happened upon Why I Will Vote for McCain. And its the same old spin all over again.

Was Eisenhower a conservative? No. Nixon? No. Bush (either one)? No. McCain? No. Republicans, yes — it’s a famously big tent — and with some conservative positions. But having conservative positions is not the same as being a conservative.

Yeah, that's great. Let's look back 50 years -- when the country as a whole was probably at least twice as conservative as it is now -- to find a "success" story for the GOP when it didn't go conservative?

Nevertheless, McCain is clearly a Republican, with some conservative positions.

I'm sorry, what was the point supposed to be? Just stating the obvious? Let's just skip ahead to today's conservative smackdown.

It is time for conservatives to accept reality (accepting reality is another conservative trait); and the reality is (1) John McCain will be the Republican nominee for president and (2) he will make a far better president than the Democratic alternative.

Here's a Vanna, I'd like to buy a clue please! freebie to the GOP and apologists: conservatives want a candidate to vote for, not some ballot option to receive my "not the Democrat/Liberal" vote.

Until this most salient tidbit sinks into the Republican party's collective head, they'll have to keep repeating this grade. Hey, perhaps one day Republicans will accept this reality too.

A Time for Choosing

2008-02-15T13:12:00.003-06:00

I began to write this shortly after Super-Duper Tuesday and the analysis fallout, before Fred and Mitt cast their support for John McCain.

GOP to Conservative: Shut Up and Do As We Say

Merely 10 days ago I voted in my first caucus. I enjoyed the experience. For the record, I went with the write-in Fred approach. It felt very satisfying in a manner best stated by John Quincy Adams:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

When I cast my vote, I was voting for the platform I felt best represented my views. The candidate who championed them, unfortunately, had already dropped out of the race. But there it was, officially on record, a reflection of my views expressed clearly to all.

And in the ensuing days following the outcome that anointed John McCain the presumptive GOP nominee, I endured the wrath of the establishment, endlessly berating me for my foolishness. In GOP Has Some Growing Up to Do I was told I need to "grow up" and "get a grip".

If JFK can run with LBJ – if Ronald Reagan can run with George H.W. Bush, if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can come close to slow dancing on a debate stage after their January tension – surely conservatives unhappy at batting .500 with their nominee can get a grip by November.

Oddly, the GOP machine's outrage was echoed by the MSM: Lauer to Coulter: Aren't All You Conservatives Like 3-Year-Olds?

Friday’s edition of Today on NBC had several conservative-denigrating moments over the ideological direction of presumptive GOP nominee John McCain. Matt Lauer interviewed columnist Ann Coulter. He threw a spitball about conservatives being babies: "Critics of conservative voices right now are saying for the first time in a very long time, the conservatives have lost. They haven't been able to choose their nominee and it's the political version now of a 3-year-old saying, ‘if you can't play the game the way I want to play, I'm taking my football and I'm going home.’ How do you respond to that?"

If that's not a loud cry telling me strange things are afoot at the Circle K, then color me confused.

There are many principled reasons for a conservative to take issue with John McCain. this wasn't just an oops or two. But I'm supposed to set all that aside and be awestruck because McCain's lifetime ACU Rating of 82 (hmm, it was most recently 65 in 2006).

McCain Supporters' "Surge"

Upon being presented with thoughtful reasoning, McCain supporters went on the offensive. Let's start with Why every conservative should vote for John McCain in November.

I understand some of us do not intend to vote for John McCain as the Republican nominee* in November. I voted that way for a decade myself. "I have to make the party earn my vote," I thought. In 2004 I did a few hours of research, examining the candidates from all the top parties, not just Bush and Kerry, before coming to the conclusion that I had to vote for President Bush on the issues. So I know how this thinking works.

In evaluating each party's probable nominee, I will assume that the following issues matter in deciding how to vote: taxes, spending, government growth, winning the war (at home and abroad), border security, and the runaway judiciary.

Oh, trust me, I'm not taking my eyes off the issues. But before continuing let's also consider the bare-knuckled approach in WHY I AM SICK TO DEATH OF BOTH PARTIES for example.

Better yet, how will it feel to watch our boys coming home from Iraq while al-Qaeda dances in the streets with glee before moving back into places that many of our soldiers paid the ultimate price to clean them out in the first place? How does re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine grab ya, Doc? You’d be off TV quicker than you could say “equal time.”

And how long would it take for your head to explode before a Hillbama administration named a couple of Supreme Court Justices who would laugh in your face if you suggested overturning Roe v Wade?

Your choice was to allow this to happen. My choice is to prevent it at all costs. Who holds the moral upper hand here, Doc? Whose position would end up being best for America?

But its not about America. It’s about selfishness. It’s about the arrogant belief that your conscience is more important than the future of the country. That’s one helluva conscience you’ve got there, Doc. Why not feed it a little more self-inflated ego and top it off with a little moral blindness while you’re at it.

There we go -- that's what I needed to hear. Tell me to follow the heard or else it's all my fault. Even one of my favorite columnists tells me, Yes, McCain!.

Thoughts on 2006

I voted similarly in the midterm elections, writing in conservative names against two sitting RINOs. I didn't stay home. The message of 2006 was lost and spun by the GOP that the losses indicated that the party needed to move further to the left. For months I shook my head because I could not imagine analysts being that thick. It almost makes you want to grab a party official at both shoulders and shout, "We screamed that the party was moving to far to the left for our support, and your solution is to move further to the left!?!"

Much of the reason behind this idiocy has been the complete disregard for the "small government" conservatives. After 2004, they were cast aside. I vividly remember people voting Democrat in 2006 because they were seen -- and not without merit -- as better stewards of financial responsibility. As if this wasn't yet another wake-up call to the GOP.

Oh, but it's Conservatives on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown?

“This year’s election will be unusually consequential. In 2006, Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress. Democrats also now hold a majority of governors’ mansions and state legislatures. The Left long has been regnant on America’s campuses, in the mainstream news media, in the entertainment industry, and in the unions. A Clinton or Obama victory would put all levers of power into the same hands. What would Democratic Party bosses do with that? How about statehood for Washington, D.C., which would provide two new Democratic votes in the Senate? How about appointing judges who regard the Constitution as clay, and using immigration policy to expand the Left’s electoral margins? These and other creative maneuvers could create an anti-conservative majority that would last a generation or more. Most worrisome of all: Americans today are engaged in a conflict as serious as any we have ever fought... Thinking hard about such questions over the months ahead would be not just alright; it would be commendable—and conservative.” —Clifford May

Ah. But ....what about the Supreme Court?Yes, let's turn some attention to the Supreme Court. My votes for George W. Bush produced two justices I'm happy with. Do I believe McCain's promise? At this point, no. Nor did I believe Rudy's promise either. Why not? All it takes is simple sleight of hand for either to have said, "But now the situation has changed." Insert whatever reasoning you care for: Democrat House and Senate majorities, "bipartisianship", whatever. What I needed to believe this was a history of being a conservative, and thus far I found that history lacking.

The "Youth Vote"

It seems to me that the GOP has been busy booting the small government and less spending crowds from its midst. And now, they have to top it off be smacking conservatives around.

But I also think the GOP was done very little to attract the millions of new voters. Let's consider the group of Americans born between 1982-1990. This 8 year span of new voters has little or not recollection of Ronald Reagan's presidency. They may have overheard some grumblings about the President George H. W. Bush. But the older ones will recall the good times of the 1990's which happened to have had Bill Clinton in the White House.

But mostly they will recall the last seven years of George W. Bush as president. And all of the nonstop negative press that has gone on since he took office. I think the entire group would be hard-pressed to remember a time in which "everyone" hated the sitting president. Also keep in mind that these folks likely are now in, or recently left, the lands of public and higher education.

I wonder how many of these new voters have half a clue about the policy considerations they have made when it comes to their choice for president. From my interactions with this younger generation, I find myself currently underwhelmed.

Invoking Reagan

Sound reasoning in favor of McCain may be found in Thoughts on the Current Mess. More thoughts swirling around are presented in Who Wants to be a Loser? But they're really going for the jugular when the name Ronald Reagan is brought up. We're told we need to be pragmatic instead of Redefining Conservatism

This just in: Ronald Reagan is dead and he's not coming back. Now, can conservatives please move on?

Reagan always spoke about the future and its possibilities. Today's conservatives, however, can't seem to break with the past and the nostalgia for the Reagan years. Even in his letter to the American people in 1994 in which he revealed he suffered from Alzheimer's disease, Reagan wrote of his "eternal optimism" for the country's future. Too many modern conservatives seem embedded in a concrete slab of pessimism, preferring to go over a bridge and drown rather than "compromise" their "principles." If you can't get elected, your principles can be talked about on the lecture circuit, but are unlikely to be adopted in Washington.

Or perhaps we need to toe the line and follow the 11th commandment, mentioned in Parties Trade Historical Roles.

"Thou shalt not attack other Republicans," decrees Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment.

I personally don't think this was intended to allow the foxes free access to the henhouse. More recently this crusher comes along: Ronald Reagan Would Back McCain By Michael Reagan. At this point, I respectfully disagree. I don't think I'm the only one that can throw Reagan right back at the GOP:

I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.

Has the Republican Party left me? Let me spend a little more time reading and rereading The Speech, a Candidate's Statement on Federalism, and the Executive Order on Federalism. If I can find John McCain in there, he deserves my vote.

In the meantime however I wonder if this is The Last Straw, or, The Final Nail In...

As for the future of the disenfranchised conservatives that the Republican party has pushed off to the “right wing” and relegated to a minority faction of the party, there may be hope on the horizon. There is a grass roots effort going on now to establish the American Conservative Party, which could become a home for disenfranchised conservative Republicans.

It’s going to take time for this effort to get off the ground and become a viable party. I suggest you look at the discussions as this effort is being formed to consider if this is something you may be interested in. Right now it is in the discussion stages, just as our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were at one point in history.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
-- Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence.

God Bless America and help to guide her through these troubled times.

Indeed.

Update: One item I intended to mention in regard to the youth vote, or even the general overall "pulse" was in regard to voter turnout. Consider as a small example the state of Virginia: Democrats 985280, Republicans 487478. The Democrats have a 2:1 advantage in voting. This trend has been noticeable in a number of states as well.

That is the core fault with the 2008 election. It will not matter who the Republican candidate is. The seeds of the downfall were sown years ago, and the grassroots efforts are the only thing that can rebuild it. In 2008, this will not be possible.

Therefore, now is the time to go with principle and start rebuilding at the local level. The only question that remains is, do we continue with the GOP or start something new. And our answer will be gleaned from the GOP's response to conservatives -- not vice-versa.

The RINO is Dead!

2008-02-06T14:35:00.000-06:00

The RINO is dead! Long live the RINO!

Minnesota Precinct Caucus

2008-02-05T21:38:00.000-06:00

I don't know how Minnesota ended up.

I don't know how my congressional district ended up.

I don't even know how my ward ended up.

But I do know how my precinct ended up, in my first trip to the Minnesota Precinct Caucus.

The high school parking lot looked pretty packed to me, but then again this was my first venture, so I really don't know how the turnout would be gauged. But it was interesting to see folks of all ages turning out to have a say.

I didn't stick around the entire time; I left while still considering proposals, amendments, and what-not to consider as being part of the Minnesota Republican Party Platform. There may have been a few quibbles that I might have brought up, but the overall platform really spelled out a lot of things I am in agreement with.

I also met a man running for my MN House Seat, Troy Buchholz. Now I've got some extra reading to do.

McCain/Thompson

2008-02-03T14:54:00.001-06:00

As a FredHead, since Fred dropped out of the fray I have been wandering in the woods. I dismissed some early bits about Fred having actually been running for Vice President. But some other items that I have read lately make me stop to think.

During my wandering, I came across another angle or two. Since indeed my vote would show up without spin, I was comfortable with that approach. After all John Quincy Adams once said,

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

When I came across The War for The GOP, however, I started rethinking things a little. I also recalled an odd piece of information.

In the statement, Thompson did not say whether he would endorse any of his former rivals. He was one of a handful of members of Congress who supported Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2000 in his unsuccessful race against George W. Bush for the party nomination.

I also recall Mystery Solved! about Fred just happening to show up at the right time and take out McCain's upstart rival in Mike Huckabee.

Last night's debate in South Carolina has produced two story-lines from the laptops of the national press corps: (1) McCain unscathed, and (2) Fred Thompson is back. The former seems true enough. The latter sort of misses the point.

Fred Thompson can't be back. He hasn't been anywhere. He announced his candidacy three months ago and promptly...disappeared. Which raised the question: What in the world does Fred Thompson hope to accomplish with his non-campaign campaign? Put another way, at what point does losing to Ron Paul become too humiliating?

Happily enough, politics is a dynamic business. Things change. And by the time Fred Thompson arrived on the stage in South Carolina last night, circumstances had conspired to make him useful. His task: take out the preacher man on behalf of his friend Sen. John McCain and on behalf of the national Republican Party. In return, well, let's just say this: there would be a "quid" for the "quo."

So if indeed "A Deal Was Made" as Daily Pundit puts it, so goes some of my reason for being a Fred supporter. In it's own way, if true, it indicates to me that Fred was not sincere in the issues he brought forth. If Fred really is what he ran as, then to me a McCain/Thompson ticket is an attempt to put lipstick on a pig.

After 8 years of George W. Bush, conservative like me may just be a little too leery of yet another rope-a-dope towards "compassionate conservatism" -- translation: RINO.

Update: Wikipedia article had changed.

Why Will the Republican Party Lose?

2008-01-20T01:34:00.000-06:00

I'll give you 4 reasons: Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain.

If the GOP can't find a conservative for the election, it's a done deal.

How long does this have to play out? Didn't Goldwater make it plain in '64? Didn't Reagan accomplish it in the '80's? Conservatism wins.

I've tried to run with the herd for the past 8 years, but RINO after RINO have continued to screw the party. So what's the GOP solution? Go even more RINO? That's why we're losing.

Let's say there's 50 million Republican voters, 10 mil apiece for the above mentioned Democrats, and 10 million conservatives. You've already lost, Republican Party.

Not just the White House, but you've spent 8 years ensuring the loss of the Senate and House as well. Wasn't 2006 a wake-up call? For the love of God, quit hitting the snooze bar.

The ONLY way to WIN is by offering a true conservative. Otherwise it is only going to be some form of a watered down Hillary or Obama.

It is so frustrating to watch the Republican Party go the way of the Whigs into irrelevance by its insistance on being Lefty Light. Okay, I'm a FredHead. I'll just have to sit on the sidelines and watch the GOP commit suicide and let the conservative movement go underground.

Thanks.

Thanks for the next 4 years.