Right Thinking From The Left Coast
I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have. - Thomas Jefferson

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Riding The Eco-Friendly Rails

I’m extremely skeptical of various supposedly eco-friendly light rail projects.  Most of the existing ones are money losers.  They are outrageously expensive and mostly hyped by people who have a vested interest in them.  Detroit wants to build one that serves no purpose.  Atlanta wants to build one that’s equally useless.  But even the most generous studies have concluded that these things are massive financial sinkholes, draining millions out of our economy.  The big rail lines our President wants to build would suck hundreds of millions a year out of our economy in maintaining and operating a useless and expensive rail system.

Well, that may be the tip of the iceberg.  An article at the economist claims these aren’t just bad for the economy, they’re bad for the environment:

Amtrak’s passenger services are sparse compared with Europe’s. But America’s freight railways are one of the unsung transport successes of the past 30 years. They are universally recognised in the industry as the best in the world.

This is another one of things we can thank Jimmy Carter for.  No, seriously.  His deregulation of the rail industry turned an economic sinkhole into a powerhouse.  Since then, rail use has tripled while the cost has been cut in half.

But many of the plans for high speed rail involve using existing track.  For every passenger car that would be put on the existing tracks, six freight cars would have to come off.  And if those cars come off the tracks, their cargo goes onto trucks.  Gas-guzzling, smog-belching, traffic-congesting trucks.  In terms of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, rail is massively more efficient than trucking.  This is especially true since Bush 43, with no attention from the media, forced the industry to upgrade their engines to far cleaner and more efficient models.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to put high-speed rail, at least in its current iteration, into the same bin as corn ethanol fuel.  This is looking more and more like a boondoggle, supported by special interests and slathered with glowing and false environmentalist claims.  Time to put a fork in this one.  At least for now.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/24/10 at 08:55 AM in Politics   Law, & Economics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Are You Ready For A War?

This is rather disturbing:

In a sharp escalation of hostility along their disputed sea border, North Korean and South Korean forces traded fire Tuesday, a deadly skirmish that jacked up diplomatic tensions in a volatile region.

Two South Korean marines were killed and 15 South Korean soldiers and civilians were wounded when the North fired about 100 rounds of artillery at Yeonpyeong Island in the Yellow Sea, South Korea authorities said, according to the South Korean Yonhap news agency.

South Korea’s military responded with more than 80 rounds of artillery and deployed fighter jets to counter the fire, defense officials said.

Firing between the two sides lasted for about an hour in the Yellow Sea, a longstanding flashpoint between the two Koreas. In March, a South Korean warship, the Cheonan, was sunk in the area with the loss of 46 lives in a suspected North Korean torpedo attack.

The Norks are claiming South Korea provoked this with military exercises but their statement has phrases taken right out of the Standard Communist Playbook.  More telling is what everyone else is saying.  People who might know what’s going on behind the iron curtain—Russia and China—are condemning the attack.  The White House has not pulled its punches at all.  If the South had really provoked this, everyone would be claiming both sides were to blame.  That they’re not tells me they know exactly what happened.

Watchers on our side think it had to do with our revelation and condemnation of their new uranium enrichment facility.  That’s possible.  But it may also just be that Lil’ Kim’s screws are coming even looser.

I actually don’t think this will come to a war.  Rather, it will go one of two ways.  We will either stay in an escalated tension situation for a while or China will get sick of propping up this lunatic and cut him loose.  The latter might involve Kim rolling tanks into South Korea without Chinese support and getting smashed, depending on how deep his dementia goes.  But I don’t think the Chinese are so stupid as to let Korean War II get started.  If nothing else, they can’t finance our side of it.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/23/10 at 07:03 AM in Politics   Law, & Economics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, November 22, 2010

Wisdom from the Left

In keeping with Radley Balko’s theory that libertarianism sort of happens to you, I present this remarkable editorial from last week’s WaPo:

As a Democrat whose politics are undeniably liberal on social issues, I lamented the outcome of the midterm elections. But as an entrepreneur with two software start-ups under my belt, I couldn’t help but celebrate - and more than a little. As the fall campaigns wore on, I had found myself listening closely to the Tea Party, nursing the hope that its message would push both major parties to change the way they do business.

To understand my motivation, pick up the November issue of Washingtonian magazine. The annual Salary Survey notes on Page 81 that top trade association leaders (industry lobbyists) make multimillion-dollar salaries to “keep tabs on what the federal government was doing or might do.”

These outsize earnings are symptomatic of a disease that is slowly killing the American economy. We are creating so much regulation - over tax policy, health care, financial activity - that smart people have figured out that they can get rich faster and more easily by manipulating rules on behalf of existing corporations than by creating net new activity and wealth. Gamesmanship pays better than entrepreneurship.

Many of our financial problems over the last decade are rooted in this grim truth.  Enron, for example, was crap with actual energy.  But they were fantastic at manipulating the rules of California’s “deregulation” to make themselves rich.  Our entire financial sector has become defined by people finding ways around the rules and through the system.  As a result, instead of straight lines, our financial system was more like a cat’s cradle.  So when one sector collapsed, it took others with it.  Thus overbuilding in Florida destroyed the 403b of some poor teacher in Iowa.

Panner goes on to site healthcare reform, finance reform and the tax code as three specific examples of stifling innovation.  I’ve hammered all three but healthcare, at the moment, is simply the gift that keeps on giving.  Check out this recent story about how the reform bill is having ... gasp! ... unintended consequences:

When Congress passed the health care law, it envisioned doctors and hospitals joining forces, coordinating care and holding down costs, with the prospect of earning government bonuses for controlling costs.

Now, eight months into the new law there is a growing frenzy of mergers involving hospitals, clinics and doctor groups eager to share costs and savings, and cash in on the incentives. They, in turn, have deployed a small army of lawyers and lobbyists trying to persuade the Obama administration to relax or waive a body of older laws intended to thwart health care monopolies, and to protect against shoddy care and fraudulent billing of patients or Medicare.

Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve — by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses.

Notice the running theme—health care providers are innovating on ways to profit under the new law, not ways to provide better healthcare.  This is what always happens when the heavy arm of the fed comes in.

Panner doesn’t mention it, but EPA has been a problem as well:

In this case, EPA is forcing people to pour money into corn-based ethanol, something that is actually bad for the environment.  That’s money that could be going to real energy-saving innovation.  The opportunity costs alone—never mind the regulatory cost—is staggering.

At some point, the Left is going to have to realize that we can’t save the world this way.  This is particularly true of the environment: you can’t create “green jobs” with top-down management and a regulatory structure that makes it more profitable to play at politics than science.

There are some voices of sense out there.  I don’t know what Philip Howard’s (author of “The Death of Common Sense") political leanings are, but his writing always feels progressive. He’s spent twenty years pointing out that hyper-regulation destroys efforts to improve society.  Matt Yglesias has recently been blogging about stupid licensing regulations (and getting hell for it from his readers).  But it’s going to take more people experiencing the frustration of entrepreneurship to realize just how badly we’ve gone wrong.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/22/10 at 08:03 AM in Politics   Law, & Economics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Saturday, November 20, 2010

The Ongoing Rapiscan Saga

Once again, I find myself supporting one side of an issue because the opposing side is so condescending.

In this case, it’s the X-ray backscatter devices and gropings law-abiding Americans are having to endure at airports.  I’ve been hitting this all week, so I’ll just give the edited highlights: there is little evidence of their effectiveness and none that they would have prevented any recent plots.  There is concern that experts have significantly underestimated the health risk of the X-ray devices.  And, on general principle, I oppose policies that treat average Americans like criminals.  This is why I oppose gun control, support the Fourth Amendment and oppose drug testing.  Finally, Rapiscan is a very powerful company that numbers, among its many lobbyists, Michael Chertoff, who is using his former DHS position to shill for them.

But the editorials in support of the devices are what is really turning me over the edge. Radley Balko breaks down Time magazine’s recent editorial on the subject, in keeping with his theme that the media does not have a liberal bias but a statist one:

Altman doesn’t really get into whether these invasive new measures will actually make flying any safer, or whether the x-ray machines themselves are safe for passengers (where’s that damned Precautionary Principle when you need it?). No, his evidence that all this talk about the government abrogating our rights in the name of security theater is mere “drama”, “tailor-made for the Internet’s ephemeral obsessions” is a series of quotes saying as much from . . . members of the government.

It’s especially rich to see this in Time, a magazine with a long history of ginning up hysteria over the likes of Pokemon, satanic cults, dirty words, Internet porn, and has never met a faddish new drug that wasn’t just as bad as heroin. Of course, Time’s attempts to gin up moral panic have always at root been about people exercising their personal freedom in ways Time writers and editors find objectionable; the stories are always wrapped in urgent we must do something appeals for government to protect people from themselves. The TSA backlash is about government violating personal freedom. So of course now is the hour for a Time correspondent to step up all sober-minded like to call foul on the protests.

Indeed.  If people were protesting in favor of these devices, I’m sure Time would support them.  They always give favorable coverage to people agitating to eat away at our fundamental freedom and personal dignity.

Then there’s this piece from Dana Milibank smarmily asserting that the GOP is against national security because of the delay in New Start and the opposition to the scanners.  Typical quote:

Then there’s the backlash over the new imaging and pat-downs being used to screen airport passengers for explosives. A CBS News poll found that 81 percent of Americans favor use of the new imaging machines, but Republican lawmakers feel otherwise.

This 81% figure means nothing.  It doesn’t matter if 100% of people support a policy if it’s wrong.  And I would venture that 80% of the American public has not experienced these things yet.  I haven’t, despite my travel, because I fly out of a small airport and often to foreign countries.  We’ll see if that figure stays up when people experience this system first-hand.

In the House, Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) has already introduced legislation rescinding the new security. Meanwhile, Republican senators, rediscovering their inner civil libertarians, this week took turns criticizing Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole over the administration’s tightened security.


Pistole’s response should shame Johanns and his colleagues. “If your question is, do I understand the sensitivities of people? Yes. If you’re asking, am I going to change the policies? No, because I think that it is being informed by the latest intelligence, the latest efforts by terrorists to kill our people in the air. No, I’m not going to change those policies.”

Again see the media bias.  You will rarely find a better distillation of statism than Milibank’s, which translates to “Fuck you, the government has told you to do this, you have to trust them, you ignorant ingrates.” Milibank also shows a spectacular ignorance in criticizing Ron Paul.  Paul has always been a civil libertarian, was one of the few Republicans who opposed George W. Bush’s policies and has long been a critic of the drug war (a policy the state-worshipping Milibank probably also thinks is dandy.) And this become ridiculous when you realize that Milibank is not calling out the fair weather civil libertarians who protested loudly against Bush and are silent now.

As I turn this issue over in my head, however, one factor continues to jump out at me.  Beyond Rapidscan’s profits and the safety of the devices and the Fourth Amendment and everything else, I keep returning to this though:

Janet Napolitano needs to be fired.

If these things are necessary and effective, she’s done a shitty job of making this clear.  The response of the government has been a series of “shut up and do as you’re told” statements that are increasingly angry and dismissive.  She seems completely unaware that there are tradeoffs between security and hassles and the some people may judge those tradeoffs differently than she does (assuming she judges them at all).  The DHS has completely misjudged the reaction to this.

But more importantly, it’s becoming increasingly clear that there is a disconnect between terror threats and the response of the Federal government to those threats.  During the Bush era, their airport security policies made some sense.  In response to 9/11, they banned knives on flights, locked the cockpit doors and put more sky marshalls in the air.  I would argue that the main weakness that caused 9/11 was the policy of cooperating with hijackers—a policy the passengers of United 93 firmly ended.  But all of that made sense.  It all directly addressed what had happened.

Then after Richard Reid, we began scanning shoes.  I think this gets a bit silly when we’re talking about my daughter’s sandals and other governments don’t do this, thinking it a waste of time.  But at least it was a targeted response.  Then they banned liquids in response to the UK plot.  This was pushing the edge a bit since it’s not clear that liquid explosives are a real menace.  But again, the policy matched the threat.

Since Obama and Napolitano have taken over, however, a disconnect has developed.  They look less like a government responding to specific threats than a government that has a list of actions and is using each incident to check them off.  A man tries to explode his underwear, so they forbid people from standing up when the plane is near to landing, which had nothing to do with what happened (primarily an intelligence failure).  Cargo bombs are sent out --- exploiting a weakness specifically cited by previous committees—and we get an upping of the body scanners and pat-downs.  This has nothing to do with what happened.

Any way you slice it, Napolitano is showing an incompetence when it comes to dealing with the public.  Either she is not explaining this policy well or she does not care whether the policy is connected to specific threats.  I would argue that one of the basic jobs of the DHS secretary is to coordinate security responses to the both specific threats and the public’s tolerance for them.  If she can’t do it, isn’t there someone else who can?

Update: Well, at least the Democrats have a solution to our TSA woes: unions.

Update: An op-ed points out something I did not know: airports can opt out of TSA and use private screening.  Here’s hoping.

Update: Hoo, boy.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/20/10 at 08:48 PM in Politics   Law, & Economics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

The law for thee, not for me

Wesley Snipes, a guy I actually enjoyed watching in movies, has been sentenced to jail time for tax evasionCharley Rangel, a congressmen that did the same stuff and was involved in many more nefarious criminal acts, but only got censure, was unavailable for comment. Personally I would have much preferred Snipes have been given the censure and Rangel put in jail. At least Snipes does something worthy.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/20/10 at 07:34 PM in Decline of Western Civilization   Left Wing Idiocy   Politics   Law, & Economics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, November 19, 2010


I’m not really sure why the GOP is fucking around with the New START treaty and trying to keep it from coming up for a vote.  This would seem like a no brainer:

The Republicans who are throwing up obstacles to ratification, including Senator-elect Mark Kirk, are already going against the consensus of the military, most arms control experts, and most prominent former national security officials. There are others, such as George Voinovich, trying to haggle with the administration for Polish visa waivers in exchange for supporting the treaty when the government of Poland strongly supports ratification and has no interest in trying to tie the visa issue to the treaty. What this means is that resistance to New START is not just purely political and “totally without merit,” but that there seems to be no way to make the relevant Senate Republicans see that they are actively working against something strongly endorsed by the institutions and allies they would normally support

The New START treaty that Obama got out of the Russians is not some hippy communist bed-wetter thing.  It’s the only way to resume inspections of the Russian arsenal that is pointed at us, continuing a program that was initially started under peace hippy Ronald Reagan. It would help continue efforts to track down missing weapons and build a missile shield.  As a condition of getting it passed, Obama agreed with senate Republicans to spend money modernizing our own nuclear deterrent.  And the price of this is cutting our nuclear arsenal by a tiny fraction of what Reagan, Bush I and Bush II did.

So what’s the problem?  Kagan demolishes most of the objections easily.  It really does seem like this is just about denying Obama an accomplishment.

And that’s a bad bad sign.  Our country has serious problems right now.  We did not put Republicans in power to sit on their hands for two years while they campaign for 2012.  We put them in to start moving the country in the right direction—at least as well as they can while Obama is still at 1600 PA.  If the country is going to be fixed, the man in the White House is going to get some credit for it, deserved or not.  If the GOP is so determined to hit Obama that they’ll hurt national security, what the hell are they going to do about the economy, the job situation and the deficit?

Quit screwing around, guys.  Just pass this and move on.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/19/10 at 10:32 PM in Politics   Law, & Economics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Latest news about liberals…

They all suffer from mental illness of one kind or another. It sucks to go through life believing the stuff liberals do, I would be depressed too if I was a collectivist.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/19/10 at 11:39 AM in Deep Thoughts   Fun and Humor   Health Care  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Four Loko For Loco

The Nanny State is very fast these days:

Federal agencies moved aggressively Wednesday to eliminate from the market the potent alcoholic “energy” drinks spiked with caffeine that have become wildly popular on college campuses in recent years.

In letters to four companies, the Food and Drug Administration said it had concluded that adding caffeine to alcohol created “adulterated” products that were unsafe and illegal. If the companies do not take action within 15 days, the FDA could begin seizing the products or seek a court order barring companies from continuing to sell the products.

Simultaneously, Treasury Department officials announced that, based on the FDA’s conclusion, the companies would be told that the products had been mislabeled and were, therefore, illegal to be shipped. And the Federal Trade Commission informed the same four firms that marketing their seven products risked violating federal law.

The drinks, sometimes called a “blackout in a can,” contain high levels of alcohol and caffeine. The mixture creates a state of “wide-awake drunk” that makes it difficult for people to realize how intoxicated they are and enables them to consume far more alcohol than they otherwise would without passing out, officials said. That puts them at increased risk for alcohol poisoning, engaging in risky behavior such as driving drunk, and committing or being the victims of sexual assaults, they said. Consuming one can of Four Loko - the most popular product - has been compared to drinking five cans of beer and a cup of coffee.

Now, forget that this sort of thing can be created by anyone with a soft drink and a bottle of alcohol—I’m fond of rum and coke myself.  Ignore the instant screaming over a few high-profile incidents which would likely be lost in the noise of alcoholic mayhem if not for the involvement of “energy” drinks—young people get drunk and alcohol-poisoned by the thousands just fine without them.  Ignore that it’s perfectly legal to drink far more potent stuff—like whiskey.

What amazes me is how fast and how hard the uber-tolertant Obama Administration has moved here.  There’s been almost no public debate, certainly no evaluation of just how dangerous these things may or may not be.  They reacted, quickly and brutally, to something supposedly bad that people were putting into their bodies (the same has been going on, at the state level, with salvia divinorum).  And their actions have caused at least two of the makers to slink away in terror.

(Also notice that the two students they quote about this are under age.  Maybe if we relaxed or eliminated our ridiculous drinking age, students would be sophisticated enough not to bother with such vile stuff (or maybe not—young people are stupid).  But that’s another argument.)

We are increasingly ruled by hysterics who are more interested in what the media is bleating about than science, information and data.  It’s one thing to ban or restrict known carcinogens like cigarettes or known dangerous drugs like alcohol.  But to ban before even trying to find out how bad these are? Because, of the thousands of people who go to hospitals or drive drunk because of alcohol, an unknown number involved these drinks?  That’s the Nanny State on Four Loko.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/18/10 at 10:38 PM in Politics   Law, & Economics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


Various idiots are jumping for joy because GM had their public offering and it was a success.  They are even claiming—falsely as it happens—that we won’t lose any money on the deal.  They are more wrong than they can imagine.

First off, of course the IPO was a success.  Would you buy a stock in a company that was subsidized, given billions in tax incentives, had been allowed to have a politically-controlled bankruptcy that discharged many of their debts and had the implicit backing of the US government?  Most people would think that was a decent risk.

But second, the profitability of this exercise was never the real problem.  Cato talks about what is seen and what is unseen:

For what is seen, Rattner admirably admits of a cost.  And that cost is not insignificant.  It is anywhere from $65 billion to $82 billion (the range of the cost of the bailout) minus what is being paid back and what investors are willing to pay for GM shares—in the “single-digit billion range,” as Rattner says.  But Rattner is willing to stand by that trade-off, claiming his efforts and the billions in “government exposure” were a small price to pay for saving the U.S. auto industry, as it were.  It’s merely a difference in philosophy or compassion that animates bailout critics, according to this position.

No.  Not so fast.  All along (quite contemptuously in this op-ed, which I criticized here) Rattner has been unwilling to acknowledge the costs that are unseen.  Those unseen costs include:

the added uncertainty that pervades the private sector and assigns higher risks and thus higher costs to investing and hiring (whom might government favor or punish next?);

the diversion of resources from productive to political purposes in the business community (instead of buying that machinery to churn out better or more lawn mower engines, better to hire lobbyists to keep Washington apprised of how important we are or how this or that policy might be beneficial to the national employment picture!);

excessive risk-taking and other uneconomic behavior that falls under the rubric of moral hazard from entities that might consider themselves too-big-to-fail (perhaps, even, the New GM!);

growing aversion to—and rising cost of—corporate debt (don’t forget what happened to Chrysler’s “preferred” bondholders in the bankruptcy process!);

the sales and market share that should have gone to Ford or Honda or VW as part of the evolutionary market process;

the fruitful R&D expenditures of those more disciplined companies;

the expansion of job opportunities at those companies and their suppliers;

productivity gains passed on to workers in the form of higher wages or to consumers as lower prices;

the diminution of the credibility needed to discourage foreign governments from meddling in markets, often to the detriment of U.S. enterprises.

The list goes on.

Indeed it does.  The fools cheering this event see GM selling shares and think that’s wonderful.  They don’t see the far more dynamic and far less costly automotive sector we might have had if we had let GM do what every company without such massive political clout has to do.  This lack of vision extends to new levels of absurdity when they claim this didn’t just save GMs 200,000 employees (who would, of course, never have found work with another auto company) but the jobs of GMs suppliers (who would, of course, never have sold supplies to another auto company).

Having GM back is not a bad thing and maybe the company can build on this.  I would love to see their plants cranking out good profitable vehicles in the future (i.e., not the Volt).  But it could have done this anyway without stiffing GMs investors in favor of the unions, without all kinds of federal interference and without creating a moral hazard visible from space.

That’s the point: it didn’t have to be this way.  And we may never grasp the full impact of this bailout on our economy because such effects tend to be subtle.  Unfortunately, our politicians aren’t focused on “create the best system and let it run”.  They’re focused on things that get headlines from an economically ignorant media and commentariat.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/18/10 at 04:55 PM in Politics   Law, & Economics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

As I expected, the public courts system drops the ball

When the Obama team took over and huffed and puffed about how much more nobler they were than their predecessors - because they would treat enemy combatants like common criminals and put them through our court system instead of evil military tribunals, in my opinion because they wanted to paint the use said tribunals as something Machiavellian in nature to score cheap political points with people that have a hard time with the fact that things like this practically always fail to work in the real world as well as we would like them too – I predicted trouble. I was especially astounded by Holders nonchalant claim that he was certain that they would be able to get real and meaningful convictions against these terrorists. Well, at the risk of again saying “I told you so”, we have the results of the first such trial proving me right.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/18/10 at 10:07 AM in Deep Thoughts   Elections   Election 2008   Left Wing Idiocy   Politics   Law, & Economics   The Press Machine   War on Terror/Axis of Evil  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The Scanner Rebellion

To me, the backlash against the X-ray scanners and pat-downs isn’t told in the number of bloggers and commentators objecting to it (here is my favorite article of the day, which points out that the recent cargo plain bombs were stopped by searches targeted based on intelligence, not X-ray devices).  It’s told in the vehement reactions of government officials defending the policy.

Airline passengers who object to any type of physical screening are not going to fly anywhere, the head of the Transportation Security Administration told a congressional committee Tuesday.

Quizzed by lawmakers about a controversial new airport procedure that uses revealing full-body scan machines and intimate “pat-downs” of those who object or set off alarms, TSA Administrator John S. Pistole appealed to the flying public to become “partners” in the effort to combat terrorism.

But Pistole told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that his inspectors at 453 of the nation’s airports are not going to back down in the face of complaints that techniques are invasive.

Claire McCaskill described them as love pats.

This is another of those astonishing moments where the government decided to do something and was shocked that the public may not like it so much.  Their reaction, as dumb as it is inevitable, is to tell us to shut up and do as we’re told (another example: Lahood wants cell phones to be disabled in moving vehicles).

This is going to get interesting.

Update: The Washington Examiner points out that the people who manufacture the nudie scanners have a lot of powerful lobbyists, including Bush’s former TSA head.

Also, this:

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/17/10 at 02:51 PM in Politics   Law, & Economics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Stuff like this is why organized religion bothers me…

Seriously, the Greek Orthodox Church just told the Greek government that vigilance is required to prevent the antichrist from making a manifestation on new ID cards to be issued next year. WTF??? Seriously I am already in a major battle with our SS Administration because they won’t issue me 666-66-6666 as my social security number, and now these Greeks are all bent out of shape because the Greek government might use that number and the anti-Christ might nab it? I am certain that all government employees everywhere are in league with the Devil for sure, so when the anti-Christ applies for his ID in Europe, they will have that number reserved for him just like our SS Admin has the number I want locked for when he wants an ID here. In the mean time I can’t go around causing mayhem by showing people my cool new SS ID. Jeebus!

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/17/10 at 12:55 PM in Fun and Humor   Religion and Sky Pixies  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

After the sadness comes anger, then…?

Yesterday I told you about all the whining and cryb-abying. The left was all down about the American people giving them the beat down of a lifetime for basically pissing on our legs and telling us it was just warm rain. Hey, you lefties pissed us off. Now they too seem to be angry and taking it out on the leadership:

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/17/10 at 08:58 AM in Elections   Election 2010   Left Wing Idiocy   The Press Machine  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Run Pelosi, Run! PLEASE!!11!!

I sure as hell hope Nancy prevails. She has been a boon to conservatives and the Tea Party. She is so disconnected and left leaning that she can only represent the nuttiest on the left, and while I have seen how when the nutty left controls the demcorats the other side forgets its principles, I like at least for now, that the radicalized nuts on the left have full control of what the demcorat party does, because there is no more sure fire way to turn Americans sour on these collectivists and their stupid, than having the nutty left walk their walk. Nancy is just the gift that keeps on giving. I so hope she prevails.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/17/10 at 08:21 AM in Elections   Election 2010   Left Wing Idiocy   Tooting My Own Horn  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

He Was Framed

It’s confirmed: Charlie Rangel was framed on two out of 13 counts:

A House ethics panel has convicted Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) on 11 of 13 counts of violating House ethics rules.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the adjudicatory subcommittee and the full House ethics committee, announced the decision late Tuesday morning following an abbreviated public trial of the 20-term lawmaker and nearly six hours of deliberations.

“We have tried to act with fairness, led only by the facts and the law,” Lofgren said. “We believe we have accomplished that mission.”

The full ethics panel will now convene a sanctions hearing to recommend a punishment. Serious sanctions — including formal reprimand, censure or expulsion — require a vote on the House floor. Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote, while a reprimand, which Rangel refused to agree to in July, or a censure would need just a simple majority. The ethics panel could also impose a fine and diminish some of Rangel’s privileges.

I suspect he will get censured and his constituents will continue to re-elect him.  Indeed, that’s why, of all the ethical violations going on in Congress, they went after this one.  They can convict him and look good.  But nothing will happen as a result.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/17/10 at 07:50 AM in Politics   Law, & Economics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink
Page 2 of 5 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »