The Arapahoe High School gunman was a right-wing Tea Party conservative

You've probably heard about the latest school shooting, this time at Arapahoe High in Colorado. A kid that everyone describes as totally normal walked into his school and shot two students. 

The shooter, Karl Pierson was a friendly, average kid who ran track and was on the debate team.  He did have some "extreme" political views (extreme economic conservatism) but no one dreamed he would ever open fire in a high school. 

This kid has done extreme harm to the cause of liberty and freedom. 

Here's the Denver Post:

In one Facebook post, Pierson viciously attacks the philosophies of economist Karl Marx, who through his condemnation of Capitalism pushed the notion that the Capitalist system would eventually implode and be replaced by Socialism.  In another post, Pierson describes his economic philosophy as "Free Market Libertarian."

"I'm wanting to ask all the Democrats and Leftists, why hasn't the Stimulus Package improved the economy?" he wrote. "If Keynesianism works so well, why aren't we seeing increased employment?"

Pierson also appears to mock Democrats on another Facebook post, writing "you Democrats are so cute" and posting an image that reads: "The Democrat Party: Health Care: Give us money, Climate Change: Give us power, Gun Violence: Give us power, Women's Rights: Give us control, More War: Give us spending. Is this really the side you want to be on?"

And since young Karl Pierson's economic conservatism is against everything that the mainstream media stands for, that's how the Denver Post chose to begin their story. 

WHOOPS! 

Sorry folks.  I screwed up. 

Karl Pierson was a full blown Keynesian tax-and-spend advocate.  Had he been the type of kid that shows up at Tea Party rallies wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt, that's all you would be hearing about today.  I shouldn't be politicizing this tragedy, and he was probably too young to know stimulus from strawberries, but you can bet your ass that the boy's political leanings would be all over the media had he been a right-wing economic conservative. 

Here's the legit Denver Post excerpt.  You have to read most of the article to get to these little nuggets.  

In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith, who through his invisible-hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as "Keynesian."

"I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn't the market correcting itself?" he wrote. "If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn't it be able to overpower regulations?"

Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing "you republicans are so cute" and posting an image that reads: "The Republican Party: Health Care: Let 'em Die, Climate Change: Let 'em Die, Gun Violence: Let 'em Die, Women's Rights: Let 'em Die, More War: Let 'em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?"

We'll never really know what caused the Karl Pierson tragedy.  But had he been on the other side of the political spectrum, you know what they would've blamed.   

Does anyone know anything at all about the new proposed budget?

Something has happened in the U.S. House Of Representatives but I have no idea what it is.  Most commentators are acting as if the lion has gotten cozy with the lamb.  I haven't seen anything like it since Jimmy Carter got Begin and Sadat to hang out at Camp David for a few weekends. 

It has something to do with the House agreeing on a possible budget deal, but no one is mentioning the most important thing about a budget.  If you read this within a couple of days after December 12th, check out Memeorandum for some typical articles.  None of them will tell you the most important thing about the budget. 

I'm afraid that people are going to start "reaching across the aisle" and "getting something done". 

"Tea Party groups have been marginalized."  That phrase is showing up a lot. 

Nancy Pelosi has said that they should "embrace the suck".  Whatever that means.  Something about restoring $20 billion in defense cuts.  As if we need more defending. 

The New York Holy Times has no important details about the proposed budget. 

CNN has no details.  But economic conservatives have experienced "diminished influence".   

Everyone in the mainstream media is typing their asses off about this budget, but no one has written the most important thing. 

How much further are they going to put you in debt? 

All the rest is noise....

 

Time magazine covers, then and now

Here's the cover from Time magazine's "Person(s) Of The Year" award issue from 2003.  Two corporate whistleblowers and a lady from the FBI who thought the Feds could've done more to prevent 9-11. 

Flash forward ten years.  Bradley Manning.  Edward Snowden.  Julian Assange.  Now THOSE are some whistleblowers.  All three have done incredibly important things for the cause of liberty, and at great personal risk.  They make the three ladies shown above look like mid-level managers who finally had the courage to use the company Suggestion Box. 

 Manning will probably die in a cage and Snowden and Assange can't travel freely. 

Here's to Time magazine going the way of Newsweek.  Sooner, not later.  Good riddance. 
Die quickly, mainstream media.  Die quickly. 

Who Was The Most Intriguing Person Of 2012?

What makes someone intriguing?

What makes you take a few minutes to swing by someone else's workspace to hear what they have to say? 

I have some employees and some co-managers that I try to contact as often as possible.  They're usually up to something different, something out of the ordinary. 

There are others who depress the living hell out of me, because when I ask them about their night, what they did with their lives, etc., they say that they went home and watched "Dancing With The Stars".  To each his own, and all that, but we have a limited amount of time on this planet to define ourselves. 

I think that former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is intriguing.  I think he has ideas about government that are different from almost anything else out there.  Get out of other countries' bidness.  Reduce the size of the military.  Cut government by 43%.  End the Drug War.  End the ban on gay marriage.  Gary Johnson will say these things in short, concise sound bites.  Try to find a recording of someone from the Obama/Boehner team saying the same things in words anyone can understand.   

I've hung out with Governor Johnson a couple of times and listened to him explain how he could have easily cut New Mexico's state government size in half, and no one woulda noticed. 

Gary Johnson climbed Everest with a broken foot.  He paraglides.  Hops on his bike and goes a hundred miles every now and then.  I sat beside him at our Joe T. Garcia's fundraiser, and they brought him a special order, one that someone had obviously arranged long ahead of time.  This platter of meat made an Atkins Plan look like something from a donut shop.  A serious carnivore, that Gary Johnson. 

On the other hand, there's Barack H. Obama. 

I swear, I think I can finish his sentences for him.  At this point, I wouldn't go out of my way to hear his opinions on the NBA draft, much less his opinions on the economy, the unemployment rate, foreign relations, or the national debt. 

He's an absolute failure on all of those issues.  Why his blather is of interest to anyone is beyond me. 

CNN just named Barack Obama the "Most Intriguing Person Of 2012".   

See no Benghazi, Hear no Benghazi, Report no Benghazi !!

Don't be so nosy

This editorial actually ran on the CNN website yesterday. 
Swear to God, they published it. 
It's about the "Fast And Furious" debacle, the one where the government sent thousands of guns across the Rio Grande to prove that American guns were crossing the Rio Grande.  Then a couple of Federal Agents got shot with them. 

I didn't edit any of this.  Here's the kicker:

By allowing guns to infiltrate Mexico's drug cartel, we thought we could trace them up the ladder to the leaders. Take off the head and the body dies. As for the innocent people who lost their lives? Collateral damage. That's the uncomfortable backstory to this scandal. And there are likely other operations like it in our nation's history that we don't even have a clue about.

And maybe it's better for us not to be so nosy, not to know everything because, to paraphrase the famous line from the movie "A Few Good Men," many of us won't be able to handle the truth.

Yes.  Yes.  Yes. 
Go back to watching "Dancing With The Stars".  Take some happy pills.  Don't be "so nosy". 

You probably couldn't handle the truth: We're trying to continue the War On Drugs, maintain the Drug Lords' monopoly, plus prove that you really shouldn't be allowed to keep those pistols in your house. 

Don't be so nosy. 

Nothing to see here.  Move along, people, move along. 

On the Sunday morning political talk shows

Here's a sampling of the Sunday morning political mess my TIVO is recording while I'm typing this, compliments of Hot Air:

NBC’s Meet the Press: David Axelrod, Obama campaign chief strategist; Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Rep. Peter King (R-NY); E.J. Dionne, Brookings and Washington Post; David Brooks, New York Times; Helene Cooper, New York Times; Chuck Todd, NBC

ABC’s This Week: Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX); Keith Olbermann; George Will, ABC; Donna Brazile, political strategist; Matthew Dowd, political strategist; Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal

CBS’ Face the Nation: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX); Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD); Tom Comburn (R-OK); Norah O’Donnell, CBS; Stephanie Cutter, deputy Obama campaign manager; Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to Romney campaign; Melinda Henneberger, Washington Post; Major Garrett, National Journal; John Dickerson, CBS; Cornel West, Princeton University; Tavis Smiley, talk show host

Fox News Sunday: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT); Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN);

CNN’s State of the Union: David Axelrod, Obama campaign chief strategist; Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL); Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD); Dana Bash, CNN; Jeff Zeleny, New York Times

I watch this junk so you don't have to. 

I can sometimes predict what those folks are going to say long before they say it. 

Ughhhh. 

Believe it or not, Meet The Press usually includes David Brooks of the New York Holy Times because he's an economic conservative and will provide "balance". 

You might remember Brooks as the guy who called the ouster of Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett "a damned outrage". 

Please note that the Court Eunuchs Of The ObamaMedia give Teleprompter Jesus programmer David Axelrod a slot on both CNN and Meet The Press. 

ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" is one of the most astounding examples of media bias you'll see this year.  Truly astounding. 

First of all, can you get drunk enough to imagine ABC airing a program called "This Week With Karl Rove"?  I can't either, but the two Stephanopoulos and Rove essentially had the same White House job.
George's guests this week include Susan Collins of Maine, one of only three Republicans to vote for Obama's Porkulus Bill. 
He's got Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who once took to the podium in Congress to complain of the National Weather Service giving hurricanes nothing but "lilly white" names, and proposed giving hurricanes names like "Keisha, Jamal and Deshawn".  She has also described the Tea Party as racist. 
Keith Olbermann, so left-wing rabid and so afflicted with all the logical symptoms of that condition that even Al Gore won't give him any more money, is on board this morning. 
George Will is actually an interesting guy and is worth listening to.  Will came out in favor of weed legalization last week. 
Staphanopoulos has another Clinton Senior Advisor dropping in: Donna Brazile.
Matthew Dowd used to work for Texas Democrat Bob Bullock.  Then he worked for Texas Republican George W. Bush.  After that, he gained some notoriety by writing long pieces apologizing for the harm he did to Democrat John Kerry.  Matthew Dowd used to be a flip-flopper, but then he changed his mind. 
Rounding out the discussion with George is Reagan Speechwriter and Republican journalist Peggy Noonan.  Four years ago, Noonan endorsed Barack Obama.
Is anyone at ABC even pretending that they aren't in the tank for Obama and rank Statism of the worst sort????

Out of the entire unholy lot of Talking Heads broadcasting this Sunday morning, hosts and guests, Mitch Daniels is the only one of the bunch who comes within missile-launch distance of being a libertarian. 

Here's a modest proposal for the Fox Business channel, the closest thing we have to a libertarian-ish network (they cancelled Napolitano's show, but still air John Stossel).  It would be called "What The Hell Were You Thinking?"  Here's a sample lineup:

Fox Business "What The Hell Were You Thinking?"  John Jay Myers (Libertarian - TX); John Stossel, Fox Business; Gary Johnson (Libertarian - New Mexico); Nick Gillespie, Reason Magazine; David Axelrod, Obama campaign chief strategist;  Four libertarians strap David Axelrod into a chair and review the Obama record on the economy and civil liberties while asking "What the hell were you thinking?"  Next week's guest: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. 

I don't know about you, but I'd watch it. 

The media brainwashing picture came from here. 

The Daily Paul on Gary Johnson

Someone at The Daily Paul, one of the many unofficial Ron Paul websites, has done an interesting compare/contrast piece on The Good Doctor and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson. 


Johnson is now seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for president.  Here goes:

For a while now, Gary Johnson supporters have been pointing out one simple fact: even as a Republican, the media had completely blacked Gary Johnson out, even worse than what they did for the iconic Ron Paul. Now, after pondering that fact, I think I know why.

Gary Johnson, being so similar to Ron Paul, is a "second witness" to the political truths that Ron Paul expresses. Worse, he is evidence that those truths work.

Gary Johnson, as a libertarian-leaning Republican, ousted incumbant governor of New Mexico by a significant margin (at least 40% more than his opponent) in a state with a heavy Democrat voting population (2-1). This by itself doesn't prove much, but then he got reelected against a hispanic Democrat by a similarly significant margin, being the first NM governor in years to be elected a second consecutive term ever; in New Mexico, there was a law holding term limits to 1. That had changed in 1991, 2 years before Johnson was elected.

This is evidence that a libertarian-leaning Republican can easily compete and win against multiple establishment opponents. This record proves that freedom -- libertarianism -- is indeed popular. If Gary Johnson did it in New Mexico, Ron Paul can do it nation-wide.

While in office, Gary Johnson vetoed so many bills, and line item vetoed even more that he earned a nickname, "Governor Veto." Anytime someone approached him with a bill, he'd ask if government should be involved with that to begin with. Through cutting costs, he succeeded in balancing the budget, even as he cut taxes. He left NM with a surplus. I'm sure that if he had proposed a bill to get rid of the imposed term limits, he could have stayed in the office longer than 8 years.

Gary Johnson did this completely independent of Ron Paul. He was not a "Ron Paul Republican" following the footsteps of his hero. He probably didn't even know he was a libertarian. He just wanted to bring common sense to the governor's chair

Do you see how dangerous this story is to those trying to block Ron Paul out?

Hit the link at the top to read the whole thing. 

I don't believe that there is an organized conspiracy trying to block out Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or anyone else trying to reduce the size of the government machine.  Republican party muckety-mucks and Mainstream Media Munchkins have become so fascinated with their access to power that they can't imagine that power being diluted without it hurting themselves.  They're simply responding to market forces by looking out for their own interests.   

Think about it....If you've spent 20 years cultivating a relationship with John Boehner, either as a Republican party supporter or as a media member, you don't want to see your investment downgraded. 

If a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson ever win the presidency and if Libertarians ever get control of Congress, think of the miles and miles of abandoned housing and office space that would surround Washington D.C.....there simply wouldn't be a demand for it.  Not much work would be going on there. 

For D.C. residents and workers, opposing this doesn't require a conspiracy. 

The fantasy picture of a post-libertarian D.C. suburb came from here. 
The picture of the Libertarian Party's fantasy ticket for 2012 came from here. 

Answers to a few questions

Question:  Why are Libertarian politicians like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul so popular among college students? 

Answer:  Because many years from now, today's college students and their children and their grandchildren are the demographic who will still be stuck paying for all of today's spending. 

Question:  Why are Libertarian politicians like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul so popular among active military, and why do they receive such a large percentage of military political campaign donations? 

Answer:  Because active military members know that it is Demoblicans and Republicrats who are working hardest to get them killed, not Libertarians. 

Question:  In the recent New Hampshire primary, when Romney finished first, Ron Paul finished second, and Rick Santorum finished third, why did Rick Santorum claim that he actually finished second? 

Answer:  Because Santorum knows that Ron Paul is not a Republican, he's a Libertarian. 

Question:  When discussing whether or not Ron Paul will possibly run on a second-party third-party ticket, why don't the members of the Mainstream Media ever say the name of this party?  Why do they fear the "L" word? 

Answer:  Because their sources, their Rolodexes, their cell phones and their earnings potential all come from their access to Republicrats and Demoblicans.  And, as the C-SPAN crews recently recorded by accident, if a Libertarian is ever elected president, 2/3rds of the Pentagon Press Corps will lose their jobs.  Ditto for the rest of the Washington media.  There simply won't be much going on for them to write or talk about, once the initial cutbacks are in place.  Therefore, the Lamestream Media try to de-legitimize any parties except for the Crips and the Bloods.  Or whatever you want to call them. 

I hope this helps. 

What Ron Paul said vs. What people think Ron Paul said

Here's something from the recent debate:

Wolf Blitzer: You’re a physician, Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.


A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides: “You know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it.” But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

Ron Paul: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him. … But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced …. That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks.


I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
… And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it.


This whole idea, that’s the reason the cost is so high. 

The cost is so high because they dump it on the government. It becomes a bureaucracy; it becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar; we have lack of competition. There’s no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.


Here's what the Lamestream Media is reporting that Ron Paul said:

Ron Paul: "Let 'em all die !!!   Die, die, die !!!"
*********

I think there's a difference. 

From the CBS News website Gift Shop

Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Kennedy. 

'Nuff said. 

Die quickly, Mainstream Media.  die quickly. 

Jon Stewart nails it. In Orwellian terms, Ron Paul is an Un-Person

Jon Stewart nails it.
There's something weird going on in the Lamestream Media coverage of Ron Paul.
Enjoy.

In which the Fort Worth Star-Telegram fails to ask the big questions

Jim Fuquay of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has written a lengthy front page article about rising prices for food, fuel, and clothing. 

The print version explains that bad weather has driven up food prices. 

Mr. Fuquay says that  competition from China is sending fuel prices upward. 

Nowhere in the entire article does Mr. Fuquay ask the obvious questions....

"Why in the hell is the government printing so much money, and when will it stop?" 

Here's Ron Paul on the real cause of inflation:

Because no one understands that inflation is growth in the monetary supply, no one is able to combat it effectively. We hear all sorts of hand-wringing about increasing inflation, and all sorts of explanations about how rising oil and food prices will make inflation worse. At the same time, the fact that MZM, the closest approximation to total money supply that still is reported by the Fed, is still rising by almost 15% per year and that M2 is rising significantly as well is quietly ignored. The pundits have causation backwards: it is inflation that leads to rising prices of oil and food, and not vice versa.


Until the cause of inflation is understood, no effective strategy can be undertaken to combat it. The problem, however, is that the government does not want inflation to be done away with. Inflation benefits debtors and harms creditors, and the United States government is the biggest debtor of all. The United States government, the banking monopoly under the Federal Reserve System, and politically-connected firms and industries are the first entities to take advantage of new money injected into the system, before prices increase. As the increased supply of money begins to chase the same number of goods, prices rise, and the average American suffers. Poor and middle-class Americans are always the hardest hit by inflation, as the weakening dollar makes the imported goods that many Americans depend on more expensive.

Governments love to talk about "things" costing more.  They almost never talk about dollars being worth less.
Why is it that the unpaid bloggers are the ones who have to point this out? 

The Mainstream Media's bias against Libertarians

A few days ago, Mark Halperin created this chart for Time magazine. 

Ok, it's his chart.  He doesn't have to include anyone that he doesn't want to. 
But he's got Newt on there, along with Palin and Bachmann. 

At the time this was published, Newt was polling at 10%.  So was Ron Paul.  Where is Ron Paul on the chart?  Where is Gary Johnson? 

I watched Meet The Depressed last Sunday.  All sorts of Republican long shots were mentioned during the panel discussion, but with little or no mention of Paul or Johnson.  I noticed the same thing on The McLaughlin Group.  I think Eleanor Clift mentioned Paul in passing, saying something like "Ron Paul is in there, but he's really a libertarian". 

I could list dozens of other examples of an anti-libertarian bias in the media, but I'll go ahead and get to the point. 

The Mainstream Political Media, as a general rule, cannot stand libertarianism.  IMHO, here's why:

To make it to the top in political journalism, one must cultivate contacts in government, and guard and cherish those contacts above all else.  
Political reporters have to understand the political system, and how things get done in government.  The better their understanding, the better their salary, prestige, and status. 

But here comes a group of people who think electing a new president should be no more important than choosing a new lawncare service.  If libertarians were elected in large enough numbers, government wouldn't be nearly as important.  Therefore, political media wouldn't be as important. 

After the initial spending cuts of 55%, and the bulldozing of various Federal buildings, and the closing of overseas military bases, and the decimation of the bureaucrats, and the release of our Drug War POW's, and the public flogging of Paul Krugman, the Mainstream Media would have very little to write about.

Imagine the following fantasy news article.....

Washington (CNN) -- A group of military contractors, lobbyists, and manufacturing trade associations met with Senator John Spivey (L-Texas) to secure funding for a new BR549 bomber, a defense program guaranteed to create jobs for working Americans, help our economy, and protect our border with Canada. 
Senator Spivey said "No".
The group then met with Senator John Jay Myers (L-Texas) who told them "Not just no, but HELL no."   
Not much happened after that. 

Imagine you're a professional typist/reporter.  What had you rather type and report about? 
Government leaving people the hell alone? 
Or Obama's efforts to save the economy, Libya, Egypt, Social Security, education, the dollar, and everything else the government has screwed up? 

The in-depth analysis you deserve

Is there a Master Teleprompter? Can we prove that He exists?

From Breitbart TV:

Is it a coincidence when reporters and anchors all use the exact same words when describing the 111th Congress in such flattering and historic language? From network anchors in New York to local news across the country, where do they all get the same words?

This video contains some pretty funny stuff, and it raises a theological question, just in time for Christmas.... Is there a Master Teleprompter Programmer?  A single higher power before whom we should all bow and pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor? 
After all, if the spokespeople of all these primitive cultures speak the same language, use the same words, and have the same value system, doesn't that imply that there is a Great Typist In The Sky who has written these words in all our hearts? 

If not, then these are just a bunch of Statist sock puppets reading the required list of Democrat talking points.

You decide.

But how are we going to pay for the tax cuts?

From Townhall.com:

In recent American history three presidents, Republicans Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush—and Democrat icon John Fitzgerald Kennedy—all lowered taxes in response to economic recessions. In all three cases, more money flowed into federal coffers than expected, and all three recessions ended.

But, in the words of David Gregory of Meet The Press, how are we going to pay for a tax cut? 

In 2003, President Bush lowered income, capital gains and dividend tax rates. As a result of the Bush tax cuts, the amount of revenue flowing into the federal Treasury over the next four years surged by over 40%, or $743 billion. To illustrate how the tax cuts boosted the economy, Gross Domestic Product grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was a robust 4.1%. While some of that growth was naturally occurring, the sudden and dramatic turnaround in the economy began at the exact moment those pro-growth policies were enacted.

But David Gregory of Meet The Press has a good point, and he makes it every freakin' Sunday morning....How are these tax cut going to be paid for? 

Yet, despite compelling evidence, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats intend to raise taxes beginning in 2011 by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The top marginal tax rate will increase from 35% to 39.6%, capital gains rates will increase from 15% to 20%, and dividend rates will increase from 15% to as high as 39.6%.

Good for them !  We can't have tax cuts that favor the rich unless the tax cuts are paid for. 
Be sure to watch David Gregory on Meet The Press this Sunday.  I hope the talking points that The White House gives him haven't changed. 

The picture of the David Gregory puppet came from here. 

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram - now the size of a 1970's advertising insert

From The Fort Worth Star-Telegram.    I've put the only words that matter in bold print:

The version of the Star-Telegram published Monday represents months of work and millions of dollars spent to improve the legibility of the paper. In addition to a new design for our pages, we're completing one of the biggest press upgrades in our history.

To make it easier to find your favorite sections, we've color-coded them: The local section is red, Sports is blue, Work & Money is green, and Your Life is orange. We've also used blue on the front page to highlight the Star-Telegram name.

Classified sections are teal and have been completely redesigned with larger type and an easier-to-read format that includes wider columns.

The new typeface we have chosen for articles is the same size as what we've been using, but it prints larger. The typeface, called Quiosco, was specially designed to improve readability on narrower pages.

Our new design will also improve legibility by reducing the practice of putting small type on gray or color backgrounds.

To improve our reproduction, the Star-Telegram is upgrading the presses, replacing much of the equipment that we've used for more than a decade.

We're also switching to a higher grade of newsprint. Although there may be a short breaking-in process, the visual result should be readily apparent to our readers in the next several weeks.

Because the printed page is more compact -- and easier to handle as a result -- we've had to move some comics, daily features and puzzles to maintain their size.

Go here to see what the front page looks like now.  It's kind of a milder USA Today. 

There isn't as much of it, but they're giving it their best shot.  The Tim Madigan/Ron Ennis series on local neurosurgeon Dave Donahue is one of the best I've read in a while. 

Maybe the Star-Telegram will make it.  Hope so.  Sometimes you have to cut back before you can grow. 

The Old Media is not happy with The New Media. Government must intervene.

From The New York Times, via Reason magazine's Hit & Run blog:

Google says it only tweaks its algorithm to improve its searches. Some Web sites that have accused Google of unfair placing are merely collections of links with next to no original content of their own, precisely the kind of sites that Google’s search algorithm screens out to better answer queries....Still, the potential impact of Google’s algorithm on the Internet economy is such that it is worth exploring ways to ensure that the editorial policy guiding Google’s tweaks is solely intended to improve the quality of the results and not to help Google’s other businesses....

Full disclosure, before I go any further into this rant.  Google owns Blogger/Blogspot.  It doesn't cost me a dime to use Blogger/Blogspot.  And when I put Google ads on my site, my traffic from Google searches increased by about 50%. 
In my arrogant opinion, that's nobody's business but mine and Google's. 
For reasons that I don't understand, this site is now one of the top search results for pictures of Macaulay Culkin.  Do I have the best pictures of Macaulay Culkin?  I don't know or care.  But people are using Google to find them here.  If they don't like what Google and I provide, they can use Yahoo.  Or Bing.  Or Dogpile.  I don't think anyone has ever put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to use Google. 

Now, let's continue....

Some early suggestions for how to accomplish this include having Google explain with some specified level of detail the editorial policy that guides its tweaks. Another would be to give some government commission the power to look at those tweaks.

Oh God.  Some idiot wants a government commission to look into the problem. 
And finally....

....if Google is to continue to be the main map to the information highway, it concerns us all that it leads us fairly to where we want to go.

Reason magazine's Peter Suderman, of course, politely suggests that The New York Times and The United States government butt the hell out of Google's succesful business model. 
Mr. Suderman doesn't take it far enough. 
Let's re-write that last sentence from the NYT:

....if The New York times is to continue to be the biggest newspaper in the Dead Tree Media, it concerns us all that they give us balanced information, or at least an admission of Statist bias, in everything they publish. 

We need a government commission to look at the statist, lefty bias of the New York Times.  We need to be sitting in on their editorial board meetings.  We need the power to preview every article they publish, with an eye toward detecting favoritism toward their preferred politicians, causes, and advertisers. 
Granted, nobody forces anyone to purchase The New York Times.
But that's not the point.  They're successful.  If they're successful, they're powerful.  If they're powerful, we need to be able to control them. 

Dammit, somebody, somewhere is reading things that somebody else doesn't like. 

Government must intervene. 

6 suggestions for creating jobs

On Meet The Press yesterday, I watched former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, the Republican National Committee’s Ed Gillespie, and New York Times typist David Brooks.  The sat in a circle and lamented the current failure of the Statist dream.


They were trying to decide how to create jobs and “grow” the economy. It would have been funny had it not been so depressing. Some level of government pump-priming was assumed by all to be necessary. Needless interference from Washington munchkins was a given. No one really questioned the level of harm caused by the recent Porkulus, TARP, Detroit and Wall Street bailouts. Even ideas about tax cuts were presented as “for small businesses only”, as if the janitors at General Electric weren’t worth a raise, but the millionaire owners of a Mom’n’Pop enterprises should automatically get a tax break.

(One important thing to remember: Corporations don’t pay taxes. People do. Corporations merely aid the government in collecting taxes from people - they funnel money to Uncle Sam from their employees, their vendors, customers, and their owners.)

Ford, Maddow, Gillespie and Brooks, along with their lords and masters in government, are like the folks whose only tool is a hammer. Everything looks like a nail. The only remaining solution in their toolbag is to take away everything, and then parcel it back out to the people whose behavior they like.

Imagine that you are a small business owner, one of the ones now beloved by politicians everywhere. Or imagine that you are one of Obama's greedy mega-business owners and that you have difficulty speaking because of all the steak and lobster stuffed into your cheeks and the multiple cigars in your mouth that you lit with $100 bills stolen from the savings of orphans.

Imagine that you’re either one of those types of guys. There’s really no difference between the two, except for lobbying power. What would encourage you to hire more people? More speeches from The Teleprompter Jesus? “Investments” of more of your tax money into green “energy”? (Note the scorn quotes.) Would you feel better about hiring more people if the government passed another Porkulus Plan to spend even more money on….government?

I think not. Ask yourself if the following proposals might be more effective:

1. We currently have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Cut that tax rate in half. Let businesses keep the money that they’re earning and let them spend it as they see fit. They can spend it on themselves, on employees, on equipment, on paying vendors, or giving the savings to customers. Either way, it will still get spent or invested. Letting Bill Gates or Mark Cuban or even Jerry Jones spend the money is always a better choice than letting Obama, Reid and Pelosi give the money to their constitutents. If that means there’s less money to be squandered by the Richland Hills Texas City Planning Department, well, so be it.

2. The teen unemployment rate is hovering around 40-50%. We just had a minimum wage increase from $5.25 to $7.25 an hour. Statists are always, always, always surprised when these arbitrary price-fixes hurt teen employment. I have teenagers show up every day looking for work, and some of them might already be worth $10.00 or $12.00 an hour to my employer. Some of them are worth about $3.00 an hour, if motivated with cattle prods. Some of them aren’t worth the amount of CO2 they pump into the environment every day. I would be willing to take a chance on hiring trainloads of these kids if I could do so at around $4.00 an hour. Some of them would be making $12.00 within a year. Most would not. Others would quit within the first week. The only way to find out who is in which group? Hire a bunch of them. But I’m not taking that chance at $7.25 an hour.

3. The black unemployment rate is now at 15%, as compared to a nationwide rate of 9.6%. Why is this? It’s because if I hire a black guy and he doesn’t work out, I’m going to have to spend countless hours with our Human Resources department proving that I’m not a racist who discriminates against black people. The black employee that I let go will automatically be given unemployment compensation, whereas we usually fight those claims filed by someone in a non-protected group. If employees couldn’t sue employers who didn’t want to employ them any longer, just like grocery stores or lawn services can’t sue me when I stop employing them, we might again see minority employment once again pass white employment levels. (Do a bit o’Googling to find out when that was last true. Hint: use the key words “Davis Bacon Act”.)

4. When you hire a babysitter, do you look forward to withholding and paying her taxes? Do you feel obligated to provide for her health insurance? Do you believe that babysitters should be unionized, without benefit of a secret ballot election, and that you should then be forced to hire ONLY union babysitters? Would collecting taxes, providing healthcare, and paying more for union babysitters cause you to hire more or less of them? Please be brief with your response.

5. Our president delights, absolutely delights, in demonizing successful large businesses and employers who want to hang onto the money they earn after they take the risk of hiring people. Could whoever programs his teleprompter change the script and get that idiot to stop doing that? He’s scaring people.

6. Central banks are starting to look at dollars as if they were hand-grenades dipped in HIV vaseline. These people know that the current regime isn’t going to stop throwing money to its constituents as if every day is Mardi Gras, and billions are beads. They know that the Obama/Bernanke/Pelosi Axis Of Inflation is about to start firing up the printing presses. Could we encourage them to stop spending, since dollars are the only currency we can use in the U.S., and we don’t want the market to be flooded with them?

I don’t have an economics degree, and I will never, ever be selected as a talking head on Meet The Press. But I do hire people. Or don't.  It just depends on the incentives, doesn't it?