Here's Your Feel-Good Story of the Day

Environmental Protection Agency employees have not accepted Donald Trump’s victory and are still “coming to work in tears” more than two months after the election.

Do you even need to read the article to get a smile out of that! Think of it. The river-polluting, unlawful rule-making, responsibility-denying EPA is staffed with snowflakes reduced to tears because someone was elected who wants them to actually follow their mission as delineated by Congress, instead of morphing into the enviro-leviathan as it was doing before. 

BOY THAT WAS FUN TO WATCH

As noted in the last post I didn't think Hillary was inevitable. I had no idea what a ride the primaries and election would be. Now in 2016, the DNC-Media complex has gone bat-guano crazy and decided that they are suddenly filled with curiosity again. All the things they had no interest in for eight years -- holding the admin accountable, vetting statements, investigating corruption, questioning authority -- are back with a vengeance.

And they wonder why the new Trump admin sees them as the opposition party. Literally, the opposition party.

Maybe this will keep my interest. I have a history of popping in here every year or so. But I'm starting to write more than I read again.

Joe, Al and Lizzy Walk into a Bar...

Well, well, well.

Turns out having the Secret Service guard your server doesn't keep it from being hacked, or prevent the equipment from becoming a political football. As the un-inevitable Hillary! campaign takes on water, rumors swirl about the cadaverous creatures that could be called from the ranks of old white Democrats to replace her on the Treason Ticket.

Run Al!

Run Joe!

Even Fauxcahantas should get into it. Sure. Let's have a donnybrook, Dems. It'll be fun.

Pass the popcorn.

Republican Primary for 2016

After flitting about Twitter and Instagram for awhile, I'm settling in back here at TP to record the upcoming super-sized Republican primary. 

I'm Over at Ricochet.com

Wow. Just realized it's been the better part of a year since I updated this blog. I've never been a daily blogger, but that's kind of ridiculous, isn't it? If you like short pieces, please navigate over to ricochet.com and look me up: MJB Wolf.

In Praise of Steve Jobs

Note: This was adapted from a really long comment at althouse.com based on her post here: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/10/who-has-had-as-much-impact-on-business.html

I've read a lot of nonsense today about Steve Jobs. A man that brilliant deserves a little more respect from people -- many of whom may not have been alive in 1976 -- who are discounting what he did for Apple and technology in general.

For those of you saying Apple had zero impact on your life, yadda yadda, then you're not in publishing, marketing or graphic design. But every print or motion advertisement you've seen since 1979 was made with the assistance, if not solely on, a Mac. But first Mac -- following on Apple IIe -- opened up a world of personal computing before the PC world adopted those initials. That is, just a short few years after the CEO of IBM stated that the ENTIRE MARKET for computers added up to maybe 5 users, Apple proved that there was a viable HOME market for computing. The elegance and sophistication and power in the Mac design (aesthetic and operational) revolutionized many industries.

Every ad agency, art director, and small publisher adopted the Mac system because it was built to do tasks that the glorified typewriters sold by IBM just weren't suited well for. Creative ideas blossomed across the land by people using Macs. It doesn't matter if their market share was small, it was highly influential. And seeding schools with Macs was another brilliant stroke during Jobs first tenure as CEO.

Now, many comments here reflected the "sure they had great design but" argument. Your eliding a lot of unbelievable value with that big but in there! If you don't think Jobs mattered to Apple then you didn't see how they floundered without him, even though the designers had great ideas: Newton was a tablet computer long before the iPad but didn't have the elegance and power-packed features of the later iteration. It came out when Apple was rudderless. The kind of creative teams developed there needed a strong hand, a man with a good eye. Steve Jobs was that man.

And Apple welcomed him back in 1996 just in time to take advantage of powerful new chipsets and bigger brighter screens were being developed, as wireless systems were being designed and people were experimenting with hooking television and cable to their computers.

Sure it's easy today to look back and think the iMac and iPod and iPhone and iPad followed a natural progression. Maybe you even think anyone could have done it, but that's not the case. It would not have been this way but for Steve Jobs. Going against the norm for marketers, who are slavishly devoted to decoding customer signals and addicted to focus groups, Jobs lays it out in the quotes Ann posted today. They built the machine for tomorrow. Customers liked it. People bought it. They packed as much forward-thinking technology into the iPhone as they could, even things other phone makers didn't think of. Apps? People here have said, in so many words, that tell the people what to buy and they'll do it. Well, that's a clever, if cynical, way to phrase it. But it's completely wrong. Sometimes the customer DOESN'T know what he wants until he sees something and involuntarily says, "Wow!"

Steve Jobs knew how to organize an enormous multidimensional company made up of brilliant people and get them to make things that make people go wow. And, he did it in a way that can't be written about without using the word elegant. It's true.

If you're here today reading this comment then you know more about computers than your grandparents ever did. They have changed your life. And many of the things we use -- graphical user interfaces (as opposed to DOS commands), a mouse, a CPU separate from the screen and keyboard, a flat screen, app stores, huge catalogs of music )legally!) at your fingertips -- all those things are Apple inventions that were adapted to PC design over time.

Sure, Steve Jobs is not a revolutionary like Henry Ford, but after assembly lines, standardization and charcoal briquets what did Henry do? Steve Jobs kept going, kept pushing technology into directions that people needed but didn't yet know they wanted. It's easy to make fun of or even miss, because like any consummate master he made it look easy, even inevitable. But all these things were not inevitable and Apple is second to only Exxon Mobile in value right now, because it was led by a one-of-kind visionary named Steve Jobs.

The Civility Project

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/02/democrats_also_need_a_presidential_primary_in_2012_110793.html

Given your extremely uncivil rhetoric in the article linked above, I have only one question. How's that Civility Project going, Froda?

MJB Wolf

Lessons Learned from the Wiener Debacle

[Cough]

Tyranny of the Union Minority

I was reading something on Ricochet yesterday on American exceptionalism (and would link to it but their "search function" at Ricochet can't find an article with that term in it and I have to peck this out and get working) about which the comments veered into a discussion of why Conservatives cry about curtailed Liberty when they really mean we don't like taxes. The commenter (again, sorry I can't link to the idiots at Ricochet) went on to deride the conservative position on over-regulation, minimizing it as a "little red tape."

And all this got me thinking -- which is the real point of the geniuses who started Ricochet -- about how many Americans never try to start a business in this hostile environment (I live in California) or are aware of just how encroaching the administrative state really is. And I'm not blaming Obama for things that came before him, but he has taken this tendency of the state to administer business to death to a whole new level. And he has strong allies in this with unions, both public and private.

Maybe like most Americans, you are not aware that Obama's recess-appointed majority on the NLRB has stepped in to tell Boeing where they can and can't do business now. Maybe you didn't know that the Feds are killing the fishing industry in this country. But it is happening, the same way Obama is strangling the last vestiges of oil exploration and recovery in the USA -- even after a federal judge declared his moratorium illegal. (His contempt of court decisions is a rips subject for an intrepid reporter who wants to write real news.)

His contempt for free market principles is what most disturbs me about Obama. But what is harming America is this administrations all-out fealty to Big Labor -- which ain't so big anymore. At the behest of 7% of the work force, Obama is enforcing directives and stifling business. A small, nefarious minority of working Americans many of whom were coerced into joining their union, are wreaking havoc on the rest of us.

This tyranny of the minority cannot stand, and the majority will eventually vote out politicians who hew to the same line as president Obama.

Every Lie the Left Has Told...

The following is an excerpt from the Best of the Web column (WSJ Online) by James Taranto, from yesterday:

It's quite striking the way almost every lie the left ever told about the Tea Party has turned out to be true of the government unionists in Wisconsin and their supporters:

• Extreme rhetoric. The Wisconsin Republican Party has produced what Mediaite.org calls an "incredibly effective" video juxtaposing liberal complaints about allegedly extremist Tea Party rhetoric with unionist signs likening Gov. Walker to Hitler and other dictators. Left-wing journalists are making similar invidious comparisons: "Workers Toppled a Dictator in Egypt, but Might Be Silenced in Wisconsin" read the headline of a Washington Post column by Harold Meyerson last week. The other day on CNN we saw scenes of a Madison crowd chanting, "Kill the bill"--which was said to be violent and invidious a year ago, when "the bill" was ObamaCare.

• Violence. Blogress Ann Althouse, a state employee based in Madison, posted a video of municipal salt trucks blowing their horns in support of the unionists. A YouTube commenter responded (quoting verbatim), "whoever video taped this has no life and should be shot in the head." Unlike Frances Fox Piven, Althouse has never advocated violence, but don't expect the Times to give this the kind of coverage it gave Piven's claims that she had received threatening emails.

• Partisan AstroTurf. That's the Beltway term referring to a fake grassroots movement. Politico reported last week that "the Democratic National Committee's Organizing for America arm--the remnant of the 2008 Obama campaign--is playing an active role in organizing protests." A blogger at the OFA website, BarackObama.com, writes: "To our allies in the labor movement, to our brothers and sisters in public work, we stand with you, and we stand strong." We've also received emails from MoveOn.org, which says it's holding a pro-unionist rally outside our offices later this afternoon. Sorry, MOO, we're working at home today.

• Refusal to accept election results. Although Republicans have a majority in the Wisconsin Senate, Democrats have fled the state, taking advantage of the body's rules to deny the majority a quorum. The Indianapolis Star reports that Democrats from the Indiana House are employing the same tactic. Even Barack Obama, when he was an Illinois senator, usually voted "present."

• Stupidity. Remember "Teabonics," a photo album of misspelled Tea Party signs? The unionists can't spell any better--and some of them are teachers! Althouse got one photo of what we think is a woman holding a sign that reads " 'Open for business' = Closed for Negotiatins [sic]." Also, some of the teachers' tactics--in particular, fraudulently calling in sick and exploiting other people's children by enlisting them as protesters--seem not only unethical but calculated to repel the public. One blessing of low standards for public school teachers is that it ensures many of them are not bright enough to stage an effective protest.

The one exception: So far we haven't seen any evidence of racism by the Wisconsin unionists. But we're watching for it.

Greed of Public Employees Knows no Bounds

As events unfold in Wisconsin this week, it is good that people have a chance to see how the other half lives. And by half, I mean the small percentage of people employed by government entities around this country. Last Fall we heard about the city of Bell near Los Angeles, in which currupt officials voted themselves million dollar pay & benefits packages, often while collecting pensions from other municipalities.

Now we have the tableau in Packerland. Teachers leaving classrooms empty for a week so they can circle the capitol in Madison likening the new governor to Hitler. When 20% of their fellow Americans are un- or under-employed, they keep demanding ever larger pay and benefits packages. While we in California were recoiling from the Bell scandal, Wisconsin teachers were suing their health care provider to cover Viagra.

And when you ask them how much you should give,
The only answer is more, more more!

Now that the eyes of the world have turned to Wisconsin and the teachers union realizes how disgusting their display of pique appears to the very people who pay their way the complaint has turned to, "We already agreed to pay more for benefits, but [governor] Walker wants to break up the union."

Really? Where have we heard that kind of poorly constructed argument before? Oh, yes. It is the free market as death knell scenario, isn't it? As in, "No one will let a left winger have a radio show like Rush."

The argument has no merit when it comes to talk radio and it has no merit applied to unions. You see, one of Walker's reforms is to force the union to collect their own dues and stand in (secret ballot) elections yearly to be re certified. They call this union-busting. What it is is choice.

Ooh, the c word! You see, the "pro choice" party is vehemently anti-choice when it comes to any activity other than exterminating a womb inhabitant. No choice in schools, no choice in union, and they'd love to limit ballots to Democrat-only too. The problem in that plan is us. Specifically, there are more of us than there are them. And more specifically, there are more of us forced to part of them (unions) who would LOVE the choice of withholding dues and certification. LOVE IT!

I've been a union guy. I've been a teacher. And the union never did a thing for me, ever. Except take money out of my check. I might get some money back if I live to be 72, but it will be a pittance. (By the way, what would these union thugs in Madison say if the Governor raised their retirement age to 72? Huh?)

So these Greek-like dramas playing out in Madison are a lesson to us all. The naked greed on display is sickening. Usually, it is liberals calling conservatives greedy -- because we like to keep some of the money we earn. So this week and the days to come provide glorious lessons in who the real greedy grabbers are:

• School budgets have risen faster than inflation and enrollment combined over the last 20 years
• More children leave high school unable to read or write at a six-grade level in Milwaukee than in any other large city
  
• Private sector employees have taken pay cuts, and seen their budgets decimated by increased medical costs and higher co-pays
• No one I know has seen a raise larger than 1.5% in the last 5 years
  

So watch the Wisconsin Show with this in mind. You are witnessing the grand beginning of the death knell of Public Sector unions. Therefore, you will see a lot of screaming and gnashing of teeth. And you will see the thugs and teachers (groups that overlap some) make every excuse under the sun as to why their unions should not have to seek the consent of those it purports to lead. They know they cannot win free and secret ballots. They know they've promised more than they can keep. And they know the days of leading Democrats around by the nose are nearly over.

So watch them whine and thrash and gnash their teeth. Smile if you're so inclined. For we are going to win this one. The same way my Packers won their Big Game.

MJB Wolf ones a share of the Green Bay Packers, works for a company in Wisconsin, and loves the state. But MJB hates unions. Duh!

First Hand Account: Dem Dirty Tricks

In related news to the October Surprise post below, let me recount standard operating procedure in illegal campaigning. I taught in public schools in California for ten years. Everyone knows that teachers unions (and most unions in general) vote Democratic and then count on their elected favorites to lavish pay and benefits on them.

So far, nothing shocking, I know.

But in 1992 when George H.W. Bush was running against Bill Clinton for President, the union pulled a blatantly illegal stunt that did shock and surprise me. (Now I wouldn't be at all surprised. It happens all the time.) Against public law and school regulations the district I worked for copied and distributed a fax sent from California Teachers Association headquarters in Sacramento. They used school equipment, school time and school supplies -- not to teach -- to campaign for Clinton.

The fax was in Spanish and was distributed to all Hispanic children at my school. (I have no reason to believe that, having gone this far, the union didn't do this at other sites in the district.) The fax made three simple points:

• Tell your parents to vote for Bill Clinton
  
• If Bush is elected you will be kicked out of school
• If Bush is elected your parents will be deported

Nothing like some good clean campaigning is there? That's what your children are exposed to, whether it's this blatant or not, in the public schools.This is what your tax dollars pay for. This is what the "education establishment" would rather do than teach Johnny to read.

October Surprise

So Hugh Hewitt asked for our best ideas about October Surpises that the Obama administration may attempt, in an effort to affect the election this November. Hugh mentioned this in the coarse of reading a Jim Geraghty post from Obi Wan Kenobi.

Yesterday and today bring articles on the administration floating a payroll tax holiday. That is my pick for a likely October Surprise. I also don't think it will, though it has some advantages and disadvantages for the Obama regime.

ADVANTAGES

• BHO can finally finally do something that isn't radical far left in nature thereby distancing himself from the Harry & Nancy Show on the Hill
• As in item above, he finally does something to help the economy instead of damage it
  
• It could be highly beneficial for the economy, freeing up income that could be spent on things people have been putting off
  
• People who work would realize gain immediately, on their next paycheck
• Politically it frees Barry up to ignore the looming expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, as people would have an immediate "tax cut" in their hand
• It would serve to assuage the horrific changes (higher deductibles, higher employee contributions, higher co-pays) that people will begin hearing about very soon as "open enrollment" season opens
  

DISADVANTAGES

• It will come too late to help Democrats this cycle (but then does BHO really care about them anyway?)
• People may squirrel the savings away, continuing behavior noticed throughout the last 18 months, which would reduce the consumer effect such a move would "normally" result in
• Public reaction might not credit Obama with much, because of the looming medical insurance changes noted under Advantages above
• Public reaction would likely include, "See how reducing taxes helps? Now make the Bush tax cuts permanent, you idiot!"

Of all the scenarios that militate against this tax holiday are the administrations inherent antipathy to any tax cuts. Therefore, the largest danger is in the last bullet point. If people see immediate relief and the economy rebounds, then there will be great public and policy pressure to continue tax relief in some way or another. Thus, sadly, the best hope we have for a payroll tax holiday is if Obama thinks it will not work, or they find a way to do it in such a way as to actually prevent the benefits they nominally claim to be for (i.e. see health care and wall street "reform" packages). For example, they could say that the Bush tax cuts will definitely expire in January when they announce this tax holiday. But who knows?

The fact the idea has been floated on two successive days in two different venues by two different sources may indicate the White House is seriously considering it. I'm all for it, short or long term. The more money in the hands of consumers the better, now matter who benefits politically.

U.S. Ends Private Talks on Web Rules

[excerpted from Wall Street Journal August 6, 2010]

By AMY SCHATZ

WASHINGTON—U.S. officials called off closed-door talks with lobbyists aimed at reaching a compromise on ways to regulate Internet traffic, saying they couldn't reach a solution.

The meetings, which involved Internet and telecommunications giants, sought to give the Federal Communications Commission authority to act as an Internet traffic cop without the need to adopt controversial wholesale changes to the law.

The agency abandoned the talks a day after news reports that two participants, Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc., had reached a separate agreement on Internet traffic rules that would allow the phone giant to carry some broadband traffic at faster speeds.

People familiar with the situation said the talks were cut off abruptly. These people said FCC officials felt the Verizon-Google deal undermined their broader talks. The companies haven't publicly released the agreement.

At stake is how far the government can go to dictate the way Internet providers manage traffic on networks they have spent billions of dollars rolling out. The FCC has proposed s0-called net neutrality rules that would ensure carriers treat all content equally, and not slow or block access to websites.

...

For the past six weeks, a small group of lobbyists for both sides had been meeting privately at the FCC trying to hammer out a compromise. Consumer groups have taken to Twitter and blogs in recent weeks to blast the FCC's chairman, Julius Genachowski, for sponsoring private meetings with industry lobbyists. They argued the meetings violated the spirit of the Obama administration's pledge to open up government to more transparency.

A group of angry representatives of public interest groups were meeting with Mr. Genachowski about the issue in an FCC conference room Thursday afternoon when his chief of staff entered and announced that they'd pulled the plug on the lobbyists' negotiations, according to people familiar with the situation.

FCC officials declined to comment on the Verizon-Google agreement but had signaled their displeasure. On Thursday morning, Mr. Genachowski told reporters that any deal on net neutrality "that does not preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs would be unacceptable."

While Verizon and Google designed their agreement as a model for lawmakers and regulators on net neutrality, it includes several provisions that Web start-ups and Internet activists might find unacceptable, including one that would let companies pay a premium for faster delivery speeds to consumers, according to people briefed on the plan.

The Verizon-Google deal also wouldn't apply to wireless networks, according to these people.

Net neutrality proponents blasted the Verizon-Google agreement, saying reports of its contents point to it undermining the concept of net neutrality.

"The potential deal between two broadband behemoths underscores the need for the FCC to act quickly to protect the free and open Internet," said Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "In the absence of such action, it's increasingly clear that cozy cooperation between communications colossi will reign on the Internet."

Google and Verizon denied a news report that suggested their agreement represented a business deal in which Google would pay Verizon for faster delivery of its online content to Internet users.

The companies didn't deny that they have reached an agreement on net neutrality which they hope could be used as a model for future legislation or FCC rules.

"We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet," said Google spokeswoman Mistique Cano. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic." Google owns the Internet video site YouTube.

In a statement, Verizon didn't provide details but said the agreement aimed to create "an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation."
—Scott Morrison contributed to this article.

Write to Amy Schatz at Amy.Schatz@wsj.com

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411632530886558.html?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality#ixzz0wuJQYSWu

Tolerance & Civility

It doesn't get any clearer than this. Remember, Olberman works for Sunday Night Football. For those of you who don't realize, that means NFL games. He seems to have a special kind of hatred for Michelle Malkin.

Ignorance is Blitz

What an awesome week for proud and blustery displays of ignorance! The commissioner of the NFL doesn't know what Rush has said, but he knows he doesn't like it. Columnist Jonathan "I hate Bush" Chait doesn't know what's in the Baucus health care bill but supports it wholeheartedly. We have a president who repeatedly displays his total lack of historical knowledge to the point where one wonders if he is even curious about what actually has transpired in the world prior to his miraculous appearance on the political stage.

This willful blindness to facts infects the fourth estate to the point they are acting with absurdity: Fact-checking Saturday Night Live within days of running fake quotes from Rush Limbaugh. The trend was clear in last years campaign for President when the media en masse took no interest in Obama's past. Only when stories broke through from the Internet (Reverend Wright, for example) did the MSM even acknowledge Obama had a past, and friends that populate it.

When it comes to health care, many in the "mainstream" media love to repeat phrases that say, in essence, that the USA is the only first-world country that doesn't provide universal health care. Well, that must mean the rest of the world is full of examples of exactly how this experiment has played out. Germany has been trying to make it work for well over 100 years. But the networks would rather show you posters with Hitler mustaches on Obama than real-life examples of how government care works in practice. It would be unreal, but it fits a pattern of decay over the last few decades, as journalism gives way to analysis, which gives way to simple propaganda and featherbedding.

We have majorities in Congress proudly admitting they have not and will not read the bills that purport to change almost 20% of our economy and fundamentally alter forever the relationship between the individual and their government. They are proud of their ignorance, and heated in their condemnation of those who cry, "Wait a minute. Think this through." To the point where white SEIU union thugs beat up a black protester and the media turns away: "Nothing to see here. Move along." Unbelievable? Believe it.

Look for yourself upon this mess. Google it. Bing it. But don't rely on the media to tell you the facts. Those days are over.

For years I have noted in my experience, people who are the most vociferous critics of the Bible or Rush Limbaugh are the very ones who 99% of the time have spent time with neither. Ignorance allows them to state with conviction, "Rush is a racist!" Or that, "The Bible supports slavery." And now we have, "Rush supports slavery." So this blitz Rush experienced this week is the latest tsunami of misinformation fed to the public by race hustlers and malcontents, happily beamed into the households of America by "legitimate" news networks. In the meantime, the White House declares war on Fox news -- and sees that cable network's ratings fly through the roof.

NFL Made a Stupid Mistake

This week Roger Goodell showed he doesn't have the sense to run the NFL. He wimped out when he should have been strong. He let sportswriters and hatemongers (and yes I know that those groups overlap quite a bit) inform his opinion instead of using common sense.

I love the NFL and am a big fan of talk radio. I've listened to Rush for years, but have a wide range of other radio personalities to compare his performance to as well, like Jim Rome, Tom Lykis, Hugh Hewitt, Tammy Bruce, Art Bell, Michael Medved, Dennis Miller and lots of others. None of those guys or gals has displayed the consistent passion for the game of football and for the good sportsmanship the best of the players show than Rush Limbaugh. Not even Jim Rome. Rush is an enthusiastic fan, has demonstrated knowledge of the game and would have been the biggest booster the League has ever had.

Instead, Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football League, torpedoed that opportunity by saying Rush wasn't welcome in their little club, because he made divisive statements.

That's a load of crap. It's a phrase made up of weasel words and devoid of substance. To paraphrase a famous saying, "Divisive is in the ear of the hearer." The commissioner didn't cite anything specific or say Rush was racist, so we really don't know Roger the Most Sensitive's definition of divisive. But in 40 years of enjoying NFL games, news conferences, and commentary I can state with 100% certainty I have heard some pretty "divisive" things. It is a league that thrives on controversy and where there is controversy you can bet there is "divisiveness" of some sort. At least I think so.

The main problem then id the fact that Rush was being smeared as a racist for things he did not ever say, and then for things people interpreted as racist. Both are wrong, in my opinion. It is heinous if Goodell based his "unwelcome" statement on the lies that unscrupulous journalists spread about Limbaugh. I don't fault players who spoke out, because like many young people they don't actually watch the news, they hear about it on Twitter or from their friends. I'm sure there's a lot of urban mythology about Rush being racist. But Goodell should have checked with NFL players, current and former, who actually know Rush Limbaugh. Or at the very least checked the record.

Rush has been broadcasting for over 20 years, more than 15,000 hours of commentary, and most of the last few years is on record in transcript and podcast form. He sometimes says outrageous things, but he is clearly an equal-opportunity jester, puncturing the egos of liberals of every color and calling out good and bad behavior of athletes of all races. I can't believe anyone could listen to him for any length of time and truly hold the informed opinion that Rush is a racist. How could a racist introduce Americans to Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell as guest hosts? Why would a racist want any part of a team likely to be 70% African American?

Take the example of calling Obama a "halfricanAmerican" for example. I can't think of any way the contraction of "half African American" could be offensive. Obama is half African American. I know. He said so a million times during last years campaign. But that's one of the prime example cited by Hillary Clinton's media lapdog website.

Finally, on Donovan McNabb there was so little offensive in Rush's statements on ESPN that people had to interpret it, and embellish it to mean what they wanted it to. People have argued about the value of quarterbacks since before Sammy Baugh, so I can't believe it was Limbaugh questioning McNabb's contribution to the "eggles" as he calls them. So it boils down to the opinion Rush expressed that the media was invested in and eager for a black quarterback to succeed. Watch ESPN from the Doug Williams days on. Try and make the argument that counter's Limbaugh's based on their cheerleading for African Americans. You can't do it. They are constantly highlighting the success of black coaches couched in the "NFL trying to change its image" storyline. Why?

Because it is the NFL that has had the real problem on race, not Rush. Rush refuses to give anyone a pass because of their race, and that is what bugs Roger Goodell. It reminds him that there is a colorblind majority out there. Maybe it shames him. Maybe it should, but it shouldn't cause him to react in a knee-jerk fashion and throw a black flag on Rush.

The NFL made a stupid mistake this week. And it looks like they made a stupid mistake when the elevated Goodell to commissioner.

The President has a Math Problem

One thing Obama said in his ginormous health care reform speech stuck in my mind. Without getting into who is lying, or misrepresenting, or generally not playing nice on health care, I can say for certain that the President is WAY off on his math.

At one point he said -- and I know it's accurate because I bipped back the TiVo twice to make sure and asked my wife if he really said it and Jake Tapper heard it too -- that if we can "slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."

Wow, he must be thinking REALLY long-term! Let's solve for X shall we?

One-tenth of one per cent of X equals $4 trillion or

.01 * X = $4,000,000,000,000

X = $400,000,000,000,000

Therefore the amount of growth in healthcare costs is $400 trillion, although we don't know the rate because he provided no time component (how much of what by when). But just accepting his number, it takes a whole lot of per cent of anything to equal a trillion...or four. The growth of healthcare costs is about 8% per year now, so saving $4T might help the deficit, if it were possible.

Somehow, I think those numbers just don't add up. And the fact that no news story on his speech evinced skepticism about his numbers is astounding. But finally, remember when Newt Gingrich said we wanted to "slow the rate of growth for medicare" in the mid-1990s? Dude was hung out to dry. Called a dirtbag and a hater of old folks. Now, of course, as in many other things, when Obama says it the press just nods and says "Great!"

Times change, Baby!

The 3 Lies in Every Story on Health Care Reform

Every current article on health care reform (or "health insurance reform") contains at least three lies that the media repeats time after time. Of course, some articles have more than three, but that number seems to be the minimum daily requirement for the MSM. For convenience I'll use my local paper, The Riverside Press-Enterprise, which ran an article this morning by their Washington Bureau guy, Ben Goad. But you can have fun by applying the "3 Lie Test" to any article by a MSM source.

Obama's health care plan
The first line of the story contains the phrase "President Barack Obama's health care plan," which is a false premise. Obama has pointedly made clear in multiple interviews that he has not put forth a plan, nor has he given many specifics as to what a plan should include to get his signature. You can believe the Obama of 2003 and 2007 if you like the single payer plan, or you can believe President Obama who now says the current plans under consideration are in no way a "trojan horse" for a single payer system. What you cannot believe is that Obama has A Plan he provided to the public or to Congress. Such a thing does not exist.

In fact, this is a problem Obama has inflicted on himself twice this year, first with the stimulus bill that he outsourced to the two people with the lowest approval ratings in the country, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Of course, they larded it up with crap that can't and won't stimulate the economy, but are long-held wishes of the Left.

Public Undecided
The fourth paragraph of the story leads off with the phrase "Polls show the public is torn over Obama's vision for reform" and is but one variation of the "undecided meme" playing out in the media. And it is a bold-faced lie, one often paired with the "two sides in the debate break mostly along party lines" lie. The truth is more than three quarters of Americans polled are very concerned about the shape of the plans in Congress, and those in favor are dropping below "Elvis is alive" numbers. In fact, the most recent poll finds Americans are overwhelmingly happy -- 80% of them -- with the insurance they have and are worried that Congress will blow it up to make their universal health care plan viable. Nothing that has those kind of numbers can be a one party vs. the other debate. If you have a slice of America 80% wide, then you have what used to be called "bipartisan" support.

Which brings us the the third of the must-have lies for every article on health care:

Sales Job
Coming in the fifth paragraph of the story but widely reported everywhere, is the Big Sales Job lie. As evidence by my local paper's story this morning, and various videos burning up Youtube the real mission is by Democrats is to avoid public discussion at all, if possible, and if a debate must be joined to lie about what's in the bill or feign (let's hope) ignorance. I leave open the possibility that there could be real ignorance in Congress and the Executive Branch, of course. But the sales job meme is just another continuance of a theme the MSM hammered during the campaign, when it seemed that Barack could do no wrong, and words slipped off his silvery tongue to wild applause. Let's face it, unless he's selling Barack he can't sell worth squat!

This has become all too apparent as he holds press conference after prime time snoozer after on-site droning. The man is the best argument against health care reform every time he opens his mouth. The idea that he is any kind of a salesman is an insult to real sales professionals. The hallmark of a good salesman is the ability to provide value through solutions, typified by the well-worn car sales line, "What do I need to do to put you in this car today?" Have you ever heard Obama consider what the public would like to know about "health care reform" in order to make a wise decision? No! He doesn't care what you think, as long as you don't think too long or too hard about what Congress is doing.

The other trait common to good sales professionals is product knowledge, the ability to clearly communicate features and benefits of the service or widget they sell. The public is well aware that every "news conference" he's held on the subject has been famously devoid of actual facts about the bills under construction. Not only is he ignorant of the particulars, he is quick to give off the slimy vibe of someone trying to pull the wool over their customer's eyes. The media can say he is doing a bang-up sales job, but it is so patently false that fewer Americans are buying, and that is why there is such a rush to get a bill -- any bill --signed into law before the popular uprising leaves a permanent taint on the President.

This little post has gone on so long, I don't have time right now to expound on the various "lies of omission" that would round out my take on the article in question. But go ahead, test these lies against your local paper's story on health care reform today. Then ask yourself, "What are they not telling me?" (Hint: tax increases and budget deficits.)

[Edited for spelling and syntax about one hour after original post. Content is the same, just clearer now, I hope.]

Birthers and Truthers are both Stupid

Of all the conspiracy theories one could waste time on, the fretting and arguing over Barack Obama's citizenship is the dumbest. Even if he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, he is an American citizen because his mother was. So whether or not you "believe" the Hawaiian facsimile or not, it doesn't matter. If you are born of American parents -- or even just an American mother -- you are an American. Go ahead, ask a lawyer about that.

For example, if a US citizen is traveling in France and gives birth, the baby is not French. It is a US citizen. There are some countries that will confer dual citizenship, such as happened to friends of mine in South America when their parents where in the peace Corps. But still, being born of Americans they are American. But wait, you say, what about Mexican "anchor babies?" This is a strange interpretation of the Constitution that was invented by Democrats and rarely applies to immigrants other than Latinos crossing our southern border.

And it's not reciprocal. Try having a baby in Guadalajara and see if their government will claim it a s a citizen and give it welfare. In the end, the Birthers, like the psycho Truthers who think somehow the fumbling American government pulled off some grand conspiracy to take down the twin towers -- and got away with it despite thousands of people trying to prove it so -- will not let facts and the evidence in plain sight sway their opinion.