Happy Independence Day !!!

Our president has blown 3/4 of a trillion dollars in a failed Keynesian scheme (pardon the redundancy) to create employment.  The enterprise cost $278,000.00 per job saved, according to White House economists. 

The TSA, which for some reason I don't understand is providing security for private companies, recently made a 90-year old cancer patient remove her adult diaper before she could complete their security check. 

Because of minimum wage requirements, black teen unemployment has now hit 46%.  See previous post. 

I can't find anywhere to purchase gasoline that doesn't contain somewhere around 10% ethanol (which is required as a fuel additive not for environmental reasons, but for early Iowa caucus reasons). 

I can't stop purchasing an employee's labor without proving that I didn't do it because of his racial, demographic, political or sexual identity or preferences. 

Our president is illegally bombing Libya. 

Your newborn children are already $47,000 in debt.  That's $129,000 if they're dumb enough to contribute to the economy by becoming a taxpayer. 

The QT convenience store where I purchased gas last night had at least 20 "permits" on the wall, proving that our government has graciously allowed them to sell certain products and perform particular services. 

Gay and Lesbian marriage is still illegal in Texas. 

Marijuana prohibition is working exactly as planned.  We now have more black males in cages than The Confederacy every dreamed of.  A vast host of jailers, counselors, cops, narcs, border patrol agents, soldiers, pilots, prison-builders, union guards, drug-testing companies and other leeches are profiting nicely from their misery. 

Happy Independence Day !!!

Why white people should love the minimum wage laws

Please excuse me while I bet the crap out of this dead horse....one....more....time....with some help from the Wall Street Journal.  This is from an unsigned editorial that ran a few days ago:

Perhaps you've already noticed around the neighborhood, but this is a rotten summer for young Americans to find a job. The Department of Labor reported last week that a smaller share of 16-19 year-olds are working than at anytime since records began to be kept in 1948.

We've had stimulus packages, bold new initiatives, bailouts, TARP's, and an increase in government spending that would be the envy of every corporatist/fascist since Mussolini.  How in the heck can we have the lowest level of teen employment since 1948? 

Only 24% of teens, one in four, have jobs, compared to 42% as recently as the summer of 2001. The nearby chart chronicles the teen employment percentage over time, including the notable plunge in the last decade.

So instead of learning valuable job skills—getting out of bed before noon, showing up on time, being courteous to customers, operating a cash register or fork lift—millions of kids will spend the summer playing computer games or hanging out.

The lousy economic recovery explains much of this decline in teens working, and some is due to increases in teen summer school enrollment. Some is also cultural: Many parents don't put the same demands on teens as they once did to get out and work.

I respectfully disagree with The Wall Street Guys on this one.  I've been getting in about 65 hours a week since the first week of June.  Mrs. Sepulchre easily logs in the same number.  The Aggie, our offspring, has been putting in 70.  Yes, 70. 
Every summer, I get a cycle of calls from parents that I know, and they're always wondering if I've got a spot for their Jason, Jeremy, Justin, or Josh. 
If things go as planned, Dr. Ralph's youngest kid might be coming to work with us this summer. 
While there might be some parents who don't want their delicate little snowflakes to be stunted by premature labor, I've not met many.  There's something else going on in these unemployment numbers.  Back to the Wall Street Journal:

...But Congress has also contributed by passing one of the most ill-timed minimum wage increases in history. One of the first acts of the gone-but-not-forgotten Nancy Pelosi ascendancy was to raise the minimum wage in stages to $7.25 an hour in 2009 from $5.15 in 2007. Even liberals ought to understand that raising the cost of hiring the young and unskilled while employers are slashing payrolls is loopy economics.

Yeah.  Well.  Their battle-cry is "It's not fair !" or "Corporate greed !!" or "Would you want to work for $5.15 an hour?"
But it is indeed loopy economics. 

Or maybe not. The Center for American Progress, often called the think tank for the Obama White House, recently recommended another increase to $8.25 an hour. Though the U.S. unemployment rate is 9.1%, the thinkers assert that a rising wage would "stimulate economic growth to the tune of 50,000 new jobs." So if the government orders employers to pay more to hire workers when they're already not hiring, they'll somehow hire more workers. By this logic, if we raised the minimum wage to $25 an hour we'd have full employment.

Think about that for a moment.  Enjoy it.  Roll that sentence around in your mouth like a fine wine. The ironically named "Center For American Progress" is going to increase the sales of something by raising the price. 

Back on planet Earth, the minimum wage increase has coincided with the plunge in the percentage of working teens. Before the most recent wage hikes, roughly seven million teens were working. Now there are closer to five million with a job and paycheck.

So why in the hell would anyone in his right mind continue to defend these arbitrary minimum wages?  Could it be that The Sepulchre Family has benefitted at the expense of some of the unemployed?  Is The Aggie racking up overtime because she's gotten some advantages over those who are less skilled because they didn't get onto the employment ladder at an earlier age? 
Yes. 

Black teens have had the worst of it, with their unemployment rate rising to 41.6% in April from 29% in 2007, faster than almost any other group. A 2010 study by economists William Even of Miami University of Ohio and David Macpherson of Trinity University found that as a result of the $2.10 increase in minimum wage, "teen employment dropped by 6.9 percent. . . . For the teen population with less than 12 years of education completed, teen employment dropped by 12.4 percent." For teens priced out of the labor market, their wage fell to zero.

Whew.  Thank God my family is white, and can avoid the burden of government regulatory help of this kind. Perhaps if the Center For American Progress can get the minimum wage raised to $10.00 an hour, black teen unemployment will hit 75%, guaranteeing better employment opportunities for white folks like us. 
(Seriously, for more info on the racist origins of the minimum wage laws, go here.) 

The great tragedy is that even discussing the role of the minimum wage in teen unemployment seems to be a political taboo. The other day we saw ABC's George Stephanopoulos baiting Michele Bachmann on the minimum wage, as if refusing to raise it would be some epic political gaffe. Ms. Bachmann didn't back down from saying that the minimum wage has contributed to unemployment, though she didn't explain why.

The great tragedy is that even discussing the role of the minimum wage in teen unemployment seems to be a political taboo.

Yeah, thanks to our public school system, which does a great job of teaching victimology but a lousy job of teaching cause and effect, if you discuss anything about repealing minimum wage laws in public, you're painted as an evil, uncaring, slave-driver. 
And the people who arbitrarily increase these wages above the market level are painted as heroic champions of the people.  Go figure. 

What she or another candidate should do is stop playing defense and ask why Mr. Stephanopoulos doesn't seem to mind a black teen jobless rate of 41.6%. Someone truly brave would come out for a teenage sub-minimum wage of, say, $4 an hour. In certain circumstances employers can now pay teens a minimum of $4.25, but only for 90 days. This makes employers reluctant to hire at all. Make the case on moral grounds that a mandated wage that is too high blocks the young and unskilled from grabbing a place on the economic ladder.

Teenagers who work part-time while attending school generally make more money and have more successful careers as adults than kids who never work. As a 2006 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago put it: "The drop in teen labor force participation may also have implications for future productivity growth. In general, labor market experience tends to raise subsequent earnings."

The U.S. has long had a labor market flexible enough that when the economy grows, the jobless rate falls smartly. This time has been different, and the great danger is that Obamanomics has moved the U.S. to a permanently higher jobless rate as in so much of Europe. For America's teenagers this summer, that reality is already here.

But not at my house.  My kid is doing great, pulling in overtime pay with both hands and a shovel.

Her employer could take a risk and spread the wealth by hiring some of those black kids in the neighborhood where she works, but why bother?  Why take the risk on a new hire at a high rate when you can hire an experienced white girl who has been doing the job for two years already?

It's because of the minimum wage, one of the few Federal programs that has worked exactly as intended.  It guarantees full employment for whites at the expense of others.  I keep expecting it to show up on on the "Stuff White People Like" website. So thank you, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party.  Thank you, thank you, thank you. 

On Families And Nations And The Difference Between The Two

"The idea that the nation is one big family that must pull together translates in practice to the idea that the politicians are our parents and we are dysfunctional children who can't be trusted to spend our own money or make our own decisions."   - Harry Browne

You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need

This ultra-wholesome missive from Jim Messina, campaign manager of Obama For America, showed up in my inbox the other day:

Whited --

June 30th at 11:59 p.m. is the first big deadline of this campaign. At that moment, we'll close the books on this financial quarter and begin preparing our fundraising report to the Federal Election Commission, the press, and the public.
Our opponents are chasing Washington lobbyists and special-interest PACs for big checks ahead of the deadline. To them, and to most of the pundits, campaigns are all about how many millions of dollars each candidate can raise.
We disagree. Of course we have a budget and financial goals. But we believe that the true strength of our campaign is the number of everyday people owning a piece of it.
So we refuse money from Washington lobbyists and special-interest PACs. And rather than setting a goal of millions of dollars, we're setting a goal of 450,000 people owning a piece of this campaign by the June 30th deadline.
This report will serve as the definitive record of who was there to build this campaign from the very start, and you should be part of it. Please donate $5 or whatever you can afford and help us hit our goal.

Ok, all you retirees getting by on $8.00 per day, stop sending your money to Jimmy Swaggart.  Obama is trying to restrict his donations to only the most grassroots, non-connected, Washington outsiders possible.  Any widows with mites (Google it), please send them to Barack. 

A lot of people out there are wondering whether this campaign can inspire the kind of grassroots support that has been the foundation of our success. A lot of people out there are already saying we can't.

So we've got something to prove.
What happens between now and Thursday will shape the story of how the 2012 race began.
Help write that story with a donation of $5 or more here. 

Who the hell are these people who keep saying that Barack can't raise money?  Do they not read the newspapers or have access to the internet? 
And you gotta love the "we're only wanting $5.00 business.  It makes him sound like he's selling Girl Scout Cookies. 

And now for something completely different.  Remember, the Democrats are the party of the people, the party of the working class, the party that is protecting you from the fat cats and the lobbyists.  This is from The New York Holy Times:

President Obama’s $35,800-a-plate fund-raising dinner was the talk of Wall Street last week.


Held at Daniel, the Michelin three-star restaurant of Daniel Boulud on the Upper East Side, the event was seen as a test of the president’s popularity among the deep-pocketed financiers he has often vilified but has long relied on to finance his campaign. The tables were filled with moneymen like Marc Lasry, the billionaire founder of the hedge fund Avenue Capital; Robert Wolf, the chief executive of UBS Group Americas; and Mark T. Gallogly, a co-founder of Centerbridge Partners.

I'm sure those guys are flukes.  Hey, if flying fish are jumping into Obama's boat, it's hard to blame the guy.  But wait....

Mr. Obama’s dinner last week raised $2.3 million, outpacing an original projection of $1.5 million. And the Democratic National Committee raised $10.5 million in May, surpassing the Republican National Committee, which raised $6.2 million. The second quarter, which ends on Thursday, will give another glimpse of how the early fund-raising is shaping up.

Wow.  A whole lot of people have given the Dems five dollars (or more in some cases).

Here's Mick and Keef and The Stones.

Rod Blagovich - a symptom, not a disease

Rod Blagovich, former Illinois governor, was convicted of trying to sell the former senate seat of The Teleprompter Jesus to the highest bidder.  There was plenty of other stuff involved, but that was my favorite of the indictments. 

He's the 4th Illinois governor (see: Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, and George Ryan) to be sent down the river in about 35 years. 

So why do people want to keep giving more money and power and responsibility to politicians? 

It costs far, far more to win the election than the job pays.  In return for their contributions, most supporters of a candidate are going to be wanting far more than they've contributed. 

What results are we expecting?  Who are these angels that we apparently believe are going to flap down into these roles and govern honestly after spending millions to get a job that pays in thousands? 

The only solution to this problem, IMAO, is based on libertarian principles:

1) Institute a Flat Tax, with no exceptions for saving the environment, employing more people, growing wheat for ethanol, or saving the whales.  Anyone granting a tax break to a constituent can be assumed to be corrupt, and gets to go live with the Illinois governors. 

2) Shrink the size of government to the size of an infant dachshund.  They're going to spend about two billion on the next presidential election campaign.  Why?  Because it's worth it. 
If the government were to be involved in roads, infrastructure, the court system, defending the borders, and nothing else, (see: U.S. Constitution) the opportunities for graft would shrink exponentially.
Any politician wanting to get the government involved in activities in which government sucks (education, energy, housing, literacy, nutrition, changing the weather, etc.) can be assumed to be corrupt, and gets to go live with the Illinois governors.   

3) There is no #3. 

Michele Bachmann - Corporate Welfare Queen

From the L.A. Times:

Reporting from Washington— Rep. Michele Bachmann has been propelled into the 2012 presidential contest in part by her insistent calls to reduce federal spending, a pitch in tune with the big-government antipathy gripping many conservatives.


But the Minnesota Republican and her family have benefited personally from government aid, an examination of her record and finances shows. A counseling clinic run by her husband has received nearly $30,000 from the state of Minnesota in the last five years, money that in part came from the federal government. A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.

And she has sought to keep federal money flowing to her constituents. After publicly criticizing the Obama administration's stimulus program, Bachmann requested stimulus funds to support projects in her district. Although she has been a fierce critic of earmarks — calling them "part of the root problem with Washington's spending addiction" — the congresswoman nonetheless argued recently that transportation projects should not be considered congressional pork.

Next time you get one of those chain emails about the black lady with 8 kids in the supermarket paying for steaks and lobster with her food stamps, remember Michele Bachmann.  Send this link back to all the recipients.  Here are some details:
 
Yet despite her broadsides against "socialized medicine," Bachmann's husband, Marcus, applied for public funds for his counseling clinic, Bachmann & Associates. Since 2006, he has received nearly $30,000, according to Minnesota state records. The bulk of the money — $24,041 — came in the form of grants from the state Department of Human Services to train staff how to deal with clients suffering from chemical dependency and mental illness. That program was financed in part by the federal government.


Michele Bachmann lists the Lake Elmo, Minn.-based clinic — which aims to provide "quality Christian counseling in a sensitive, loving environment," according to its website — as one of her assets on her financial disclosure forms.

Another of Bachmann's assets — a family farm owned by her late father-in-law, Paul Bachmann — received nearly $260,000 in federal money between 1995 and 2008, largely from corn and dairy subsidies, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research organization that scrutinizes such subsidies. Paul Bachmann died in May 2009, but the congresswoman retains a partnership in the farm.

Bachmann said in December that the subsidies went to her in-laws and she never received "one penny" from the farm, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. However, in financial disclosure forms, she reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009.

Publicly, Bachmann has objected strongly to federal farm payments.

When she voted against the 2008 farm bill, a $307-billion package that would govern federal agriculture policy for five years, Bachmann declared that it was "loaded with unbelievably outrageous pork and subsidies for agricultural business and ethanol growers." She was one of two nays cast by Minnesota's eight-member delegation.

Well, good for her on that one.  If the government is going to throw your money at Michele Bachmann, she'd be a fool not to take it. 
But isn't it sorta sickening to see how much of your money the government gives to just one millionaire?  And then to realize this particular millionaire is just one recipient among several million others who get a big payout from Uncle Sam? 

*******************

The pic of the Welfare Queen came from here.  The Corporatism poster came from here.  Looks like Dan McCall's fine work, but I'm not sure. 

This is what happens when the government decides to get tough on the Mexican onion-pickers who are taking American jobs

Are you irritated by people who were born outside of the lines of latitude and longitude that you think of as your own? 
If someone was born on the oppositite side of an insignificant river from you, do you support laws to keep them from working on "your" side of the river? 
Do you want to get tough on our nation's onion-pickers, blueberry harvesters (and my forklift drivers) because their mothers birthed them in places that maps paint in a different color from your place? 
Do you want to keep Mexicans from doing jobs that you personally would try to avoid? 
In short, are you an asshole? 

I believe that the governor of Georgia can answer "yes" to all of these questions.

 
Here's Jay Bookman:

After enactment of House Bill 87, a law designed to drive illegal immigrants out of Georgia, state officials appear shocked to discover that HB 87 is, well, driving a lot of illegal immigrants out of Georgia.

It might almost be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
The resulting manpower shortage has forced state farmers to leave millions of dollars’ worth of blueberries, onions and other crops unharvested and rotting in the fields. It has also put state officials into something of a panic at the damage they’ve done to Georgia’s largest industry.
Barely a month ago, you might recall, Gov. Nathan Deal welcomed the TV cameras into his office as he proudly signed HB 87 into law. Two weeks later, with farmers howling, a scrambling Deal was forced to order a hasty investigation into the impact of the law he had just signed, as if all this had come as quite a surprise to him.

Well, if the Massey-Ferguson, Case, Kubota and Ford tractor dealers ever convince some government bureaucrat to outlaw John Deere tractors, we're going to have a tractor shortage.  If the bureaucrat is surprised by the "unexpected" shortage, you shouldn't be surprised - they generally have the density of cinderblocks.

(Go here for a glorious compilation of headlines using the word "unexpected" bureaucratic misunderstandings of cause and effect.)

So what solution did Governor Deal propose for those having to deal with his crisis? 

“The agriculture industry is the number one economic engine in Georgia and it is my sincere hope to find viable and law-abiding solutions to the current problem our farmers face,” Deal said in announcing the findings. In the meantime, Deal proposes that farmers try to hire the 2,000 unemployed criminal probationers estimated to live in southwest Georgia.

I propose that Governor Deal try out a few of those 2,000 unemployed criminal probationers in his own workforce, and let us all know how that works out for him.  1,500 of them were probably locked up because of his anti-marijuana laws.  Trying to solve the farmers' labor problem with the victims of his Drug War problem is nothing but a recipe for another problem. 
If you're going to harvest crops like onions and blueberries, you have to be in incredibly good shape. 

Governor Deal would probably get better result by putting the ex-cons to work in the Georgia Department Of Motor Vehicles or the Georgia Highway Patrol.  Ex-cons, at least the ones who work for me, are usually very polite. 
Here's where Jay Bookman goes off the rails:

It’s hard to envision a way out of this. Georgia farmers could try to solve the manpower shortage by offering higher wages, but that would create an entirely different set of problems. If they raise wages by a third to a half, which is probably what it would take, they would drive up their operating costs and put themselves at a severe price disadvantage against competitors in states without such tough immigration laws. That’s one of the major disadvantages of trying to implement immigration reform state by state, rather than all at once.

Bookman is deeply and profoundly wrong.  That's not a bug, it's a feature. 

New York legalized gay'n'lesbian marriage yesterday.  Because of its Southern Baptist infestation, Georgia is unlikely to do so anytime soon.  New York companies wanting to hire talented workers who just happen to be born gay or lesbian now have an advantage over Georgia companies.  The solution is for Georgia to get rid of its handicaps, not inflict similar disadvantages over New York. 

Texas doesn't have immigration laws as "tough" as those in Georgia.  Texans wanting to hire talented Canadians or Albanians now have an advantage over their Georgia counterparts.
 
Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, seems to be mentally stable.  Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, doesn't.  Indiana now has that advantage over Texas. 

Giving states the ability to try things out and experiment with different policies is a good thing.  When voters see that their policies have unintended consequences, they can change those policies. But without a "control group" in another state, they can't see the differences. 

Bookman gets back on track in his last few paragraphs.  His last sentence is brilliant:

The pain this is causing is real. People are going to lose their crops, and in some cases their farms. The small-town businesses that supply those farms with goods and services are going to suffer as well. For economically embattled rural Georgia, this could be a major blow.


In fact, with a federal court challenge filed last week, you have to wonder whether state officials aren’t secretly hoping to be rescued from this mess by the intervention of a judge. But given how the Georgia law is drafted and how the Supreme Court ruled in a recent case out of Arizona, I don’t think that’s likely.

We’re going to reap what we have sown, even if the farmers can’t.

Ok, that's all for today.  I have a crew of 30 bad-assed Mexicans to keep busy.  They are great, great people.  Georgia's loss is my gain. 

The picture of the Mexican migrant workers stealing American cucumber-picking jobs came from here.   The map showing the arbitrary lines and coastal borders where immigrants aren't welcome came from here.   The "No Deal" pic came from this Facebook page.   My boss who wants me to work on this beautiful Saturday morning came from Juarez Mexico. 

Gary Johnson didn't create ANY jobs as governor of New Mexico !!! Read the shocking story here !!!

Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson gets it. 
He came out with the following shocking statement in an interview with Reason magazine:

“The fact is, I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor.”...


“Don’t get me wrong....We are proud of this distinction. We had a 11.6 percent job growth that occurred during our two terms in office. But the headlines that accompanied that report—referring to governors, including me, as ‘job creators’—were just wrong.”

He claims that all he did was keep the path clear and keep government in check.  Compare Johnson's glorious statement to all the idiotic hand-wringing going on in D.C. about how Congress should do something to create jobs.  All Congress would have to do to create jobs is repeal their previous 50 years of work.  We would then have enough work to keep half the planet employed.

Finally.  A politician who understands the difference between the cheerleaders and the quarterbacks.

Ben Bernanke is puzzled

We've allowed the government to spend almost a trillion dollars on make-work projects to stimulate the economy. 

We've destroyed almost 3/4 of a million automobiles so we could recycle the metal and make new automobiles (see: Cash For Clunkers)

We've introduced ObamaCare, a program that has scared the living shit out of anyone foolish enough to consider hiring new employees. 

The Federal Reserve is printing new de-valued money faster than McDonald's prints Happy Meal boxes.

We've elected a president who would have to study for 5 years to rise to the level of "economic idiot".   

The National Labor Relations Board is now telling companies where they can and cannot build factories. 

The Democrat Party is floating all sorts of potential policies to raise taxes and punish success. 

And Ben Freakin' Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve, says he doesn't "have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting".   

I swear to God, he said it. 

Nice work if you can get it

James Hansen, one of the more famous of NASA's global warming/cooling/changing alarmists, has been milking the AGW cow in double shifts.  In addition to his government salary of $180,000.00, he's pulled in the following:

-- A shared $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation for his "profound contribution to humanity." Hansen's cut ranged from $333,000 to $500,000, Horner said, adding that the precise amount is not known because Hansen's publicly available financial disclosure form only shows the prize was "an amount in excess of $5,000."

-- The 2010 Blue Planet prize worth $550,000 from the Asahi Glass Foundation, which recognizes efforts to solve environmental issues.

-- The Sophie Prize for his "political activism," worth $100,000. The Sophie Prize is meant to "inspire people working towards a sustainable future."

-- Speaking fees totaling $48,164 from a range of mostly environmental organizations.

-- A $15,000 participation fee, waived by the W.J. Clinton Foundation for its 2009 Waterkeeper Conference.

-- $720,000 in legal advice and media consulting services provided by The George Soros Open Society Institute. Hansen said he did not take "direct" support from Soros but accepted "pro bono legal advice."

As long as the weather continues to get either warmer, cooler, or changier, Hansen will be able to claim that 1) he predicted it, and that 2) it is your fault, and that 3) taxpayers should continue to give him more money. 
Nice work if you can get it. 

The pic of Hansen traveling to a protest to speak out against traveling came from here. 

You can program The Teleprompter Jesus, but you can't program its audience

Last week, some of the spokesmodels for The Teleprompter Jesus got booed and jeered at the lefty-ish Netroots convention. 
Now people are starting to laugh at the content of the programs that are projected through The Teleprompter's neural interface, also known as Barack Obama. 

According to Politico, The Teleprompter and its Obama hardware were sent to a fundraiser and programmed to broadcast the following statement:

"Over the last 15 months we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs."

Granted, this is an idiotic statement.  For instance, I now employ about 20 good temp employees.  But because of their dismal public school educations, I've had to go through about 60 temp employees to find these 20 decent workers.  40 of them either couldn't read, couldn't write, or couldn't remember the "righty-tighty, lefty-loosey" rule for using an end wrench.  I had to release those 40 people back to the marketplace. 

The Teleprompter Programmers are counting situations like those 40 short-term jobs, some of which ended at 10:00 a.m. on the day they began, as a "job created".  (That's what they did with census workers who were re-hired for the same job multiple times.)  This is total bullshit.  The "jobs created" statistic doesn't matter.  The unemployment rate is all that matters. 

Sorry for the digression.  Back to my point....

Programmers, for the most part, are very literal people.  If you ask them to write lines of code that will cause one of the animatronic Barack Obamas to recite sentences like "Over the last 15 months we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs", that's what you'll get. 

And dammit, if you ask them to record the reaction to the speech in an official White House transcript, that's what you'll get.  This is from the official transcript of Monday's fundraiser, which went out to the press around 11:30 Monday night:

"Over the last 15 months we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs. (Laughter.)"

Whoops. 

According to Politico 44, this brought on a frenzy of wagering amongst the White House Press Corps, many of them betting on how long it would take the programmers to correct the reality-based transcript of the event. 
Whoever wagered closest to 4:04 p.m. Tuesday won the bets; that's when the program was altered to state "applause" instead of "laughter". 

I came of age hearing the following mantra from computer programmers:  "Computers cannot make a mistake.  People make mistakes". 

In this case, who made the mistake?  The programmers, by allowing The Teleprompter Jesus to display and broadcast an idiotic statement?  Or the audience, with their inappropriate laughter? 

Dammit, why aren't people following the program?  When can they be replaced with voters whose software doesn't have a "laughter" glitch? 

I had some really cool pictures selected to accompany this post, but the Blogspot software I use has a programming problem this morning.  Either that, or the White House programmers are already intervening and working on the "inappropriate laughter" bug that has infected the citizenry. 

The New York Times has felt a disturbance in The Force

From Nate Silver, writing in The New York Holy Times:

Libertarianism has been touted as the wave of America’s political future for many years, generally with more enthusiasm than evidence. But there are some tangible signs that Americans’ attitudes are in fact moving in that direction.
Since 1993, CNN has regularly asked a pair of questions that touch on libertarian views of the economy and society:

Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?
Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?

A libertarian, someone who believes that the government is best when it governs least, would typically choose the first view in the first question and the second view in the second.
In the polls, the responses to both questions had been fairly steady for many years. The economic question has showed little long-term trend, although tolerance for governmental intervention rose following the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The social libertarian viewpoint — that government should not favor any particular set of values — has gained a couple of percentage points since the 1990s but not more than that.
But in CNN’s latest version of the poll, conducted earlier this month, the libertarian response to both questions reached all-time highs. Some 63 percent of respondents said government was doing too much — up from 61 percent in 2010 and 52 percent in 2008 — while 50 percent said government should not favor any particular set of values, up from 44 percent in 2010 and 41 percent in 2008. (It was the first time that answer won a plurality in CNN’s poll.)



Whether people are as libertarian-minded in practice as they might believe themselves to be when they answer survey questions is another matter. Still, there have been visible shifts in public opinion on a number of issues, ranging from increasing tolerance for same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization on the one hand, to the skepticism over stimulus packages and the health-care overhaul on the other hand, that can be interpreted as a move toward more libertarian views.
The Tea Party movement also has some lineage in libertarian thinking. Although polls suggest that many people who participate in the Tea Party movement have quite socially conservative views, the movement spends little time emphasizing those positions, as compared with economic issues.

May this trend continue !!!

Under God ?

NBC is facing an internet firestorm because they deleted "Under God" from a depiction of The Pledge Of Allegiance. 
Here's Newsbusters:

NBC on Sunday decided to cut the words "under God" from the reading of the Pledge of Allegiance that accompanied the beginning of its coverage of the U.S. Open Golf Championship.
In fact, this happened twice during the show's introduction (video follows courtesy Mark Finkelstein with partial transcript):



Here's a picture from a 1943 yearbook, depicting the flag and the pledge. Notice anything missing?

"Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge Of Allegiance until 1954, during the Red Scare era.  How the nation survived before then remains a mystery. 

We were not founded as a nation "under god". 
The British Empire was, or at least thought of itself that way.  The king ruled by divine right, and to go against him was to go against god's established order.  When Jefferson, Paine, and others started questioning this system, they were reviled as filthy atheists or worse.  We forget what a radical departure from the norm it was for Jefferson to declare that "All men are created equal" in the Declaration Of Independence. 

One other thing about pledges, vows, loyalty oaths, and promises of eternal servitude....   No American should ever pledge total, unquestioning allegiance to anything political.  End of freakin' story. 

Our Pledge Of Allegiance was written by a freakin' Socialist. 

The motivation behind it was to train kiddies to follow their politicians into whatever battles the politicians chose for them to fight. 
Pledging obedience to a piece of cloth, no matter how many people have died for it, is un-American.  Dying for a flag, sacrificing your income for a flag, and proclaiming your unquestioning loyalty to a flag is a leftover relic from the Divine Right Of Kings era. 
Seriously, would you pledge allegiance to Barack Obama?  Mitt Romney?  Anthony Weiner?  The Department Of Motor Vehicles? 
Here's a pic from the 1920's that sums up my argument nicely. 

Pledging allegiance to your government isn't American.  It's Fascist. 

 

The new anti-Obama bumperstickers

Don Surber, a blogger whose typing I usually love, has posted some of the new anti-Obama bumperstickers. 
Some of them are funny, some are kinda harsh even by my jaded standards, and a few of them raise more questions than they answer. 
Mr. Surber blogs from a more or less Republican point of view.  Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that these bumperstickers will be found on Republican bumpers. 
Here's the first one.  Let's call it "ObamaZombies". 

The idea behind this one is that Obama's remaining supporters are an unthinking, brain-dead group.  Fair enough.  Unless you're a defense contractor, a federal employee, or a gay soldier (not that there's anything wrong with that), things are probably worse for you than they were two years ago. 

But wait a second....You can go here and learn that a Tea Party spokesperson is claiming that the Tea Party will support any Republican nominee against Barack Obama.  Any Republican?  Seriously?  Donald Trump or Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee?  Rick Freakin' Santorum?  Who are the brain-dead zombies here? 

Let's look at some of the other bumperstickers: 

1.  If this one is a reference to the birth certificate controversy, it is lame.  The man has produced a legit birth certificate  End of story. 
If this is a reference to Obama's asking "What would Belgium do?" when confronted with economic problems, the Republicans should examine the mote in their own collective eye.  They've voted for almost as many subsidies, price supports and corporate welfare schemes as the evil scheming socialists on the other side of the aisle. 

2. I totally agree. Nobody owes you crap. Let's end ethanol supports today. How about it, Senator Grassley (R-Iowa)?

3.   100% ANTI-OBAMA?  Well, it's good to have you in the Libertarian Party !!!!   Obama supports the War On Drugs and the Libertarians don't.  Obama is opposed to Gay and Lesbian marriage, and the Libertarians aren't. 

4.   If you look at the spending sprees of Bush Major, Bush Minor, and Ronald Reagan, this one will make you downright giggly.  Our current debt was caused by both factions of our government reaching across the aisle in a spirit of bi-partisan cooperation to work together and get things done, i.e. - screw you over.  Yes we can ! 

5.   Yes, we've all had enough.  We've had enough expensive wars, to use just one obvious example.  We don't want new wars, though.  We want the good ol' kind, like the ones against Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Republicans who will always wear a flag lapel pin.  No more new ones, though.  We've had enough. 

6.   This all depends on the next president, doesn't it?  The Republicans really might nominate a Global Warmist like Mitt Romney, who will probably continue the green giveaways.  Or a theocrat like Mike Huckabee or Michelle Bachmann.  How much longer are we going to support nominees because of their Republican or Democrat label?  Which party struck the match that Obama used as justification for burning down the house?   

7.   This one is kind of funny.  Mr. Hope'n'Change Nobel-winner has found new wars, bombed new countries, kept up the illegal wiretaps, carried on the rendition policies, and Gitmo is still open for business.  If we put in a Republican on January 20th, I'm going to buy one of these.  The corporate giveaways will continue, the military-industrial complex will continue to grow, and the debt ceiling will get raised a few more times.  Hide and watch for even more of the same. 

8.  Jimmy Carter was a deficit hawk compared to Reagan, Bush, and Bush.   Lordy, I'm tired of pointing this out. 

9.   This is another funny one.  I kinda like it.  Obama plays a lot of golf and he takes a lot of vacations.  What the hell do you want him to do?  Create more stimulus packages, bank bailouts, wars, and economic recovery plans?  If someone else could put The Aggie through college, I'd volunteer to caddy for Obama all day every day, if that's what it takes to keep Obama (or the next Republican nominee) from going to work on any more of the nation's problems. 
Please, please, please just leave us alone.  Stay out of the economy.  Stop trying to create jobs.  Please. 

10.   Or how about "Honk If I'm Paying For Your Tractor"?  "Honk If I'm Paying For Your Combine".  "Honk If I'm Paying For Your Bombs".  "Honk If I'm Paying For Your Child's Jail Cell".  "Honk If I'm Paying For Your Husband's Substance Abuse Counselor".  "Honk If I'm Paying For Your Tank".  "Honk If I'm Paying For Your Drug War". 
All of these are worthy bumperstickers.  May they spread throughout the nation.  How about it, Republicans?

11.   Of course it's all hype.  The next president will be elected because of hype.  In the libertarian view of things, electing a president shouldn't involve much hype.  If an election requires hype, then the government has grown too large. 

12.   This one is greatness.  It's perfect.  So as an alternative to ObamaCare, please give me a choice of who I can go to for medical care, drugs, or anything else that doesn't harm someone else.  If I want to go to a low-cost doctor or nurse, in the form of someone who didn't complete med school, is it anyone's business but mine?  Are the Republicans going to allow me to go to Ray Lewis to get stitches and a tetanus shot?  (He runs our wood shop, and is a former Marine medic.) 
It currently costs around a billion dollars to lawyer-proof a new medication.  Let me sign something stating that I want sue the supplier, and then allow me to try any new medication that I choose. 
I don't think this will ever happen.  It would piss off the trial lawyers too much.  And the Republicrats and Demoblicans are owned by the trial lawyers. 

13.   For those of us with low expectations, and who are aware that presidents are just like the rest of us (sometimes lazy, sinful, lying, grasping, Weiner-texting, and fallible) human beings, we're never disappointed or bummed out by presidential behavior. 
Our next president will not meet expectations.  That's why he should have very little power.  We shouldn't trust him, or Congress, any further than we can throw them. 

14.   See commentary on #13. 

15.   And voting for someone just because he's a Republican is just as dumb as voting for someone just because he's a Democrat.  You don't get a prize for guessing the winner, people. 

16.   This one is too big for a bumpersticker.  I don't know why Surber included it.  For those reading this in Europe and Asia, we have a series of commercials in the U.S. featuring a guy who dresses in a suit covered with dollar signs.  He sells a book about how to get money from government.  I don't know if it includes a section on selling them border fences, bombs, ethanol, soybeans, helicopters, and machine guns.  I don't know if the book has any info on boondoggles like George Bush's TARP program. 

17.   I can't argue with this one.  But doesn't it make you consider the need for another party to be represented on this scoreboard? 

18.   Yep.  He blows.  So did Nixon, Carter and Bush Jr.  So did LBJ.  Ford didn't have enough sense to stop inflation (all you have to do is quit printing money).  One could argue that the majority of Democrat and Republican presidents have sucked. 
Let's consider some other alternatives, alternatives that aren't so entangled with lobbyists, giveaways, and the status quo.  The Libertarian Party awaits. 

19.   Oh for the love of God, what do we have here?  The only thing missing is Pro-Marriage and Pro-Flag.  Is there anyone out there who believes that, say, Newt Gingrich spends a lot of time with God? 

20.   This one, considering the failure of Obama's "Shovel-Ready" projects, is just downright funny. 

21.   I don't like this one, even as someone who dishes out more than his fair share of snarkiness.  We don't have stupid voters; the current governing factions allow nothing but stupid choices and we've grown accustomed to it. 

22.   I don't like this one either.  The black slang seems kind of racist.  Plus, the Republican party serves up "small government" Kool-Aid in massive vats and buckets and pipelines and supertankers while doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to shrink the size of government. 

23.   Nah.  That would be Richard M. Nixon or FDR.  Nixon implemented wage and price controls that were outrageous enough to cause my political forefathers to form the Libertarian Party.  Then he started the National Endowment For The Arts. 
FDR planted the seeds that of most of the programs that got us 14 trillion in debt.  He outlawed private gold holdings.  He locked Japanese citizens into internment camps. 

24.  Well, yeah. 

25.   I'm not going to comment on this one.  I'm just going to follow it with a chart showing increases in the national debt by president. 

Now THAT is your brain on drugs. 

If you really want a smaller government, less debt, and more personal freedom, please consider the Libertarian Party in the 2012 elections. 

How about this for a bumpersticker? 

The most depressing thing I've ever read.

This just might be the most depressing thing I've ever read. 
Seriously. 

The experiment was prompted by Obama's recent comments that things like ATM's, airport check-in ticket scanners, and other technologies have killed a lot of jobs. 

Please pray for our nation.

Barack Obama and Libya and Superman and The Justice League and The Beatles

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. 

One of those laws states that Congress alone has the power to declare war.  If there's an emergency, the President can use the troops and planes and boats and bombs and nukes all he wants, but he has to get Congressional approval for anything lasting longer than 60 days. 

We've been bombing the crap out of Libya for longer than 60 days.  If this had been done by anyone but a Nobel Peace Prize-winning, warm and fuzzy, anti-militaristic Democrat, the calls for impeachment would be on the front page of every newspaper.   

John Boehner, under some pressure from people who wonder why we're getting involved in war number 4 or 5, depending on how you count, finally sent The Teleprompter Jesus a letter demanding to know why we were still involved without Congressional approval.  Here's what he got back:

The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the U.S. Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to NATO and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.

Where to begin, where to begin.....

Let's start with this:  We are NATO.  Just like we were with The Allies in the war against The Axis.  Just like Superman is a member of the Justice League.  If the Justice League fights together as a team, Superman is still fighting.  Having Aquaman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Captain Marvel by his side doesn't negate the fact that he's still fighting. 

Whenever Allen Patterson pounds something really stupid into the internet, he can't blame it on The Whited Sepulchre when he sobers up.  In the words of the Beatles....

"I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together."

The United States is 75% of NATO.  It wouldn't exist without us.   

Moving on, let's get to the business about providing "non-kinetic" support.  If Mexico were to invade Texas, and Cuba was supplying the Mexican navy with "non-kinetic" support, we would sink the Cuban supply ships that were providing Mexico with "non-kinetic" support.  We wouldn't think twice about it.

If we shot down a Mexican Air Force plane over San Antonio, and Cubans were aiding the Mexicans in search and rescue, we would try to stop the Cubans.  We would consider them as hostile combatants. 

Okay, about that "no-fly zone"....  If Mexico declared Texas to be a "no-fly zone", and Cuba helped "suppress and destroy" our air defenses, we would see it as an act of war on the part of Cuba, not the incident result of a non-kinetic military action. 

Regarding Obama's last point about "unmanned aerial vehicles"....  If you're getting bombs dropped on your head, I don't think you care if it's being done by the pilot in the plane, or an Air Force kid with a joystick at a base somewhere in Wisconsin.  The result is the same.  We're dropping bombs on Libya. 

Barack Obama needs to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Libya, because we're at war with Libya. 

Congress needs to man up and demand it.  Then vote it up or down.  That's how it is supposed to work. 

Speaking of  "I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together", here are The Beatles doing "I Am The Walrus". 

Ron Paul vs Anthony Weiner on the Drug War

Go here to see the text. 

Some Fairly Unique Synergized Solutions

This guy is accepting nominations for the Top 100 Cliches in the English language. 
I'll post my nominations later, mostly from the sports world, but he's off to a great start with no help from me.
(By the way, did you folks know that I'm employed by the world's leading value-added, vertically integrated, synergized supplier of Produce Elevation Solutions?  Yep.  That means we build all of the components of some really good fruitstands.) 

Here's th list so far: 
 1. It’s the economy, stupid.
2. A week is a long time in politics. Or variants thereof, such as, “If a week is a long time in politics then a month seems an eternity.”
3. What part of x don’t you understand? Although this one seems to have nearly died out already.
4. Way beyond, or way more.
5. Any time soon.
6. “Events, dear boy, events.” (Except as the name of an excellent political blog, currently in abeyance.)
7. Learning curve.
8. Raising awareness.
9. Celebrating diversity.
10. In any way, shape or form.
11. Inclusive.
12. Community, especially a vibrant one.
13. Hearts and minds.
14. Celebrity.
15. Makeover.
16. Lifestyle.
17. Going forward.
18. A forward policy.
19. A big ask.
20. At this moment in time.
21. Not fit for purpose.
22. Hard-working families.
23. Apologies for lack of postings.
24. Black hole (in a financial context).
25. The elephant in the room.
26. Perfect storm.
27. Seal the deal.
28. A good election to lose.
29. Game-changer.
30. Beginning an article with “So”.
31. IMO, IMHO, LOL, ROFL and so on. I mean, whose opinion is it going to be? Genuinely witty abbreviations, however, are permitted, for example, QTWTAIN, YYSSW, IICRS (Questions to Which the Answer is No; Yeah, Yeah, Sure, Sure, Whatever; Iraq Inquiry Coverage Rebuttal Service).
32. Vibrant (when used to mean lots of non-English people).
33. Progressive.
34. Arguably, as in “arguably the most perfect village in the Siebenburgen” (Spectator, 24 July 2010).
35. Headlines beginning “Now”, as in “Now You Pay for Prison Parties.”
36. We will take no lessons on x from y.
37. Beginning a report with “They came”.
38. Iconic.
39. “Action” as a verb.
40. Parameter.
41. The level of.
42. A sense of.
43. A series of.
44. The introduction of.
45. A package of. Especially measures.
46. A basket of.
47. A raft of.
48. A range of.
49. The prospect of.
50. (All) the hallmarks of.
51. “Leverage” as a verb.
52. U-turn as a verb.
53. Dislocate as a noun. Or disconnect.
54. Toilet, storyline or any other unsuitable noun as a verb.
55. Exponential or exponentially used to mean big or a lot.
56. Incredible or incredibly as intensifiers.
57. On a daily basis.
58. It’s in his/her/their DNA.
59. Let’s be clear.
60. At the end of the day.
61. Organic, to refer to anything unrelated to farming or to the chemical science that deals with carbon-based compounds.
62. “The truth is…” before the peddling of an opinion.
63. End of.
64. Any journey not describing travel from A to B.
65. A no-brainer.
66. Pot, kettle.
67. What’s not to like?
68. Max out (in relation to credit cards only).
69. He/she gets it. They get it. He/she/it just doesn’t get it.
70. “All the evidence tells us” to mean “I’ve read something about this somewhere that confirms my prejudices”.
71. Fairly unique.
72. Paradigm shift. Or anything to do with a paradigm.
73. Quantum leap, except to mean a very small change of fixed magnitude.
74. Step change.
75. Sea change.
76. Real people and the real world. In real time.
77. Coffee, the waking up and smelling thereof.
78. Ongoing.
79. Project, except in the construction industry.
80. “No longer.” (Following a loving description of The Way We Were.)
81. Agenda, except to describe a list of things to be discussed in a meeting.
82. Out of the box (especially thinking).
83. Kick the can down the road.
84. Psychodrama. (To describe any tense political relationship.)
85. Radar, to be on someone’s, or to be under the.
86. Name and shame.
87. Does what it says on the tin.
88. Stakeholder.
89. Deliverables.
90. Key (adjective). Especially keynote speech.
91. Enough already.
92. Who knew?
93. Epic fail.
94. See what I/he/she did there?
95. Not so much.
96. Beleaguered, except of a city, town or fort with turrets.
97. Rolling out, except carpet, wallpaper or logs.
98. Forward planning (until invention of time machine allowing other kinds).
99. “And yet, and yet …”
100. The suffix -gate added to any news theme supposedly embarrassing to a government.

Worst. Debate. Format. Ever.

I decided to Tivo last night's Republican debate, choosing to go drink coffee with The Aggie instead of liveblogging it.  Heck, they invited Donald Trump to participate, but didn't invite the only semi-Libertarian with executive-level experience (Gary Johnson). 

Spending time on something else last night was a good call.  Lord have mercy, what a horrible format.  Let's have the moderator ask a question of just a few candidates, then cut to someone in the audience who wants to spend a few minutes asking a question, giving two candidates 8 seconds to answer, let's bracket the commercials with cutesy "either/or" "Letterman/Leno" "sadism/masochism" questions, and then cut to another CNN personality who introduces someone in Gobbler's Notch, New Hampshire, who says something like this:

"Hello, my name is Whited, and I have a Libertarian blog at www.thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com, and while I have no children serving in the military, but I support our troops, and have written extensively on the subject for mulitple periodicals, and have dozens of dozens of Twitter followers, I'd like to ask the candidates a question that I believe goes to the heart of our predicament as taxpayers and voters.  As a blogger and a shipping manager (and a libertarian activist), I depend on a stable fuel supply to run my business.  While this does not have a direct correlation with ObamaCare, what would you do, as President, to defend marriage?" 

I've noticed this for years at literary and political events.  If you're lucky enough to ask, say, Stephen King or Ron Paul a question, get to the point.  The rest of the audience doesn't care about what books your currently reading, your job, or your motivation for asking the question. 

Just ask the question. 

A couple of other things.... When Newt started bragging that he wrote the Defense Of Marriage Act, I almost spewed my breakfast across the den.  I don't care who you are, that's funny. 

Last, with ALL Republicans at this event brandishing their small government credentials for an hour and a half last night, how is it that we're 14 trillion in debt ?

Ayn Rand and Jesus and wanting to have your cake and eat it too

From Rational Public Radio comes an interesting essay about the two factions within the Republican Party - the Ayn Rand faction and the Jesus faction:

This may surprise you but I'm about to agree, in very large part, with the left wing Christian group American Values Network. They recently wrote an essay claiming that Jesus and Ayn Rand were incompatible. That you couldn't hold the values of both simultaneously.


On the surface, that shouldn't be a very controversial position. After all Rand was a notoriously militant atheist philosopher. With the rise of the Tea Parties, Rand's influence has been growing. Rand Paul R-KY assigns some of her work as required reading for his staffers. The Solicitor General, arguing before the eleventh circuit court that Obamacare violated the "constitution of Ayn Rand", but not the constitution of the United States.

After long decades of violent rejection of Rand, the GOP is starting to accept some of her ideas. Slowly, and incompletely no doubt. However, Just as the Republicans of old despised Rand for her atheism (see National Review's slanderous review of Atlas Shrugged) the left hates her for her unflinching support of Capitalism and Free markets.

Rand has risen high enough on the collective radar of the collectivists that they feel the need to counter her influence. American Values Network has released a startlingly honest and accurate attack on her.

"GOP leaders and conservative pundits have brought upon themselves a crisis of values. Many who for years have been the loudest voices invoking the language of faith and moral values are now praising the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand whose teachings stand in direct contradiction to the Bible."



Don't get me wrong, they couldn't be more mistaken in their evaluation of the moral status of Rand and Jesus. However, they couldn't be more right about the conflict between the two. On one hand, there is the mystical altruism commanded by the Bible. The purest political implementation of Altruism is Communism.

Hit the link to read the rest.