Has the country gone collectively insane? The California legislature is considering regulating the color of cars and reflectivity of paint to reduce the energy requirements to cool them.
More here.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
California on Track to Ban Black Cars
Has the country gone collectively insane? The California legislature is considering regulating the color of cars and reflectivity of paint to reduce the energy requirements to cool them.
More here.
Dude, I Want My Country Back!!!
It Is No Longer Our Country
Monday , March 30, 2009
By Neil Cavuto
Before you celebrate Rick Wagoner getting his just desserts, think about who just heaved him: the government. More to the point: the president of the United States.
Think about that. The leader of a country firing the leader of a business. Arguing since taxpayer dollars were involved, the leader of the country had perfect right firing the leader of the business getting those tax dollars.
Just like he had the same right to force Chrysler to merge with Fiat. And U.S. companies that have operations abroad to pay dearly for it here.
Justifying these Chavezian grabs for power on the notion that it is our money, misses an even greater point: It's no longer our country.
Not when the government routinely rescues businesses, then can justify running those businesses, what folks get paid at those businesses, whether they get bonuses at those businesses, and even -- in the case of the GM chairman -- whether they should be removed from those businesses.
It's no wonder Goldman Sachs wants to give back bailout dough it never wanted, but now isn't even permitted to return.
I see a pattern here: First, setting salary guidelines for executives at companies rescued by the government, then slipping in language extending such guidelines for companies that deal with companies rescued by the government.
This isn't a dash to lash. This is a dash for cash.
I cannot believe even the most fervent Obama supporter voted for this because — hear me out on this — when those in government who have a tough enough time policing their own books, start policing others' books, what new chapters have yet to be written?
Drug prices get out of whack; whack the drug companies.
Gas prices move up as demand moves up; heave the gas guys out.
No, this isn't about doing what is right for America. This is about destroying everything that is America.
Monday , March 30, 2009
By Neil Cavuto
Before you celebrate Rick Wagoner getting his just desserts, think about who just heaved him: the government. More to the point: the president of the United States.
Think about that. The leader of a country firing the leader of a business. Arguing since taxpayer dollars were involved, the leader of the country had perfect right firing the leader of the business getting those tax dollars.
Just like he had the same right to force Chrysler to merge with Fiat. And U.S. companies that have operations abroad to pay dearly for it here.
Justifying these Chavezian grabs for power on the notion that it is our money, misses an even greater point: It's no longer our country.
Not when the government routinely rescues businesses, then can justify running those businesses, what folks get paid at those businesses, whether they get bonuses at those businesses, and even -- in the case of the GM chairman -- whether they should be removed from those businesses.
It's no wonder Goldman Sachs wants to give back bailout dough it never wanted, but now isn't even permitted to return.
I see a pattern here: First, setting salary guidelines for executives at companies rescued by the government, then slipping in language extending such guidelines for companies that deal with companies rescued by the government.
This isn't a dash to lash. This is a dash for cash.
I cannot believe even the most fervent Obama supporter voted for this because — hear me out on this — when those in government who have a tough enough time policing their own books, start policing others' books, what new chapters have yet to be written?
Drug prices get out of whack; whack the drug companies.
Gas prices move up as demand moves up; heave the gas guys out.
No, this isn't about doing what is right for America. This is about destroying everything that is America.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Mark Steyn on Government "Investment"
Two Wheels on my Wagoner [Mark Steyn]
Incidentally, the government "overhaul" of GM is a useful shorthand for where we're heading:
The first quid pro quo for the government giving you money (or "investing", as President Obama and David Brooks say) is that it gets to regulate your behavior. Not just who sits on your board or (see Sarkozy last week) where your factory has to be. When the government "pays" for your health care, it reserves the right to deny (as in parts of Britain) heart disease treatment for smokers or hip replacement for the obese. Why be surprised? When the state's "paying" for your health, your lifestyle directly impacts its "investment."
The next stage is that, having gotten you used to having your behavior regulated, the state advances to approving not just what you do but what you're allowed to read, see, hear, think: See the "Canadian Content" regulations up north, and the enforcers of the "human rights" commissions. Or Britain's recent criminalization of "homophobic jokes."
You'd be surprised how painlessly and smoothly once-free peoples slip from government "investing" to government control.
National Review
Incidentally, the government "overhaul" of GM is a useful shorthand for where we're heading:
The first quid pro quo for the government giving you money (or "investing", as President Obama and David Brooks say) is that it gets to regulate your behavior. Not just who sits on your board or (see Sarkozy last week) where your factory has to be. When the government "pays" for your health care, it reserves the right to deny (as in parts of Britain) heart disease treatment for smokers or hip replacement for the obese. Why be surprised? When the state's "paying" for your health, your lifestyle directly impacts its "investment."
The next stage is that, having gotten you used to having your behavior regulated, the state advances to approving not just what you do but what you're allowed to read, see, hear, think: See the "Canadian Content" regulations up north, and the enforcers of the "human rights" commissions. Or Britain's recent criminalization of "homophobic jokes."
You'd be surprised how painlessly and smoothly once-free peoples slip from government "investing" to government control.
National Review
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Democratic Congress's Popularity at New Low
John at Powerline remarks on Rasmussen's new report that Sixty percent (60%) of U.S. voters now have an unfavorable opinion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including 42% Very Unfavorable.Too bad many voters in last November's election were so uninformed they thought the Republicans still controlled the Congress.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Nadine Nails It, Pt. II
Nadine Carroll, a frequent poster on Silicon Investor's Politics for Pros thread, hits another home run.
Just comparing Obama to Bill Clinton, I am struck by little semblance of logical coherence there is in Obama's utterances. Now Bill Clinton was no stranger to spin! But you could tell he knew what logical coherence was, and made efforts to simulate it in his pronouncements, or to obtain it altogether if possible. With Obama, I am not certain if he knows how slippery and dishonest he is being. He seems to regard this kind of slipshod structure of arguments as acceptable. Certainly, even pushing the program he is pushing, you could imagine a more honest argument for it.
To continue with this idea, I am toying with a very simple idea that seems to have occurred to almost none of our punditocracy -- that Obama is incapable of logical thought, having spent his whole life preferring cleverness to coherence.
I know, I know, the One is supposed to be so very bright, so everybody assumes that his hole-filled arguments must be that way on purpose. Even Bill O'Reilly sounds genuinely impressed with Obama. But the One has always operated in environments where quick, deft and slippery count for much more than logical, factual and coherent. Could it be that Obama and all his hearers have simply mistaken the first set of adjectives for the second?
Why else is this so-called great orator unable to muster a real argument for anything? Why can nobody quote line from the supposed great speeches he gave during the campaign or the inaugural, even those who swooned over them at the time? Why are none of his speeches memorable once they have been written down?
I think Obama is strictly Performance Art. Behind all the performance there is only a junior machine pol from Chicago.
In which case, we ain't seen nothin' yet, in terms of the general disillusionment.
Over a year ago, Charles Krauthammer predicted Obama's spell would burst shortly after Inauguration. He predicted a rude awakening. I think he was absolutely right, and we are seeing the process in motion.
Link Here
Just comparing Obama to Bill Clinton, I am struck by little semblance of logical coherence there is in Obama's utterances. Now Bill Clinton was no stranger to spin! But you could tell he knew what logical coherence was, and made efforts to simulate it in his pronouncements, or to obtain it altogether if possible. With Obama, I am not certain if he knows how slippery and dishonest he is being. He seems to regard this kind of slipshod structure of arguments as acceptable. Certainly, even pushing the program he is pushing, you could imagine a more honest argument for it.
To continue with this idea, I am toying with a very simple idea that seems to have occurred to almost none of our punditocracy -- that Obama is incapable of logical thought, having spent his whole life preferring cleverness to coherence.
I know, I know, the One is supposed to be so very bright, so everybody assumes that his hole-filled arguments must be that way on purpose. Even Bill O'Reilly sounds genuinely impressed with Obama. But the One has always operated in environments where quick, deft and slippery count for much more than logical, factual and coherent. Could it be that Obama and all his hearers have simply mistaken the first set of adjectives for the second?
Why else is this so-called great orator unable to muster a real argument for anything? Why can nobody quote line from the supposed great speeches he gave during the campaign or the inaugural, even those who swooned over them at the time? Why are none of his speeches memorable once they have been written down?
I think Obama is strictly Performance Art. Behind all the performance there is only a junior machine pol from Chicago.
In which case, we ain't seen nothin' yet, in terms of the general disillusionment.
Over a year ago, Charles Krauthammer predicted Obama's spell would burst shortly after Inauguration. He predicted a rude awakening. I think he was absolutely right, and we are seeing the process in motion.
Link Here
Mob Rule in Washington
In the last three months, we've been reduced to something like the ancient Athenian mob — with opportunistic politicians sometimes inciting, sometimes catering to an already-angry public.
The Greek comic playwright Aristophanes once described how screaming politicians — posing as men of the people — would sway Athenian citizens by offering them all sort of perks and goodies that the government had no idea of how to pay for.
We need [. . .] a Socrates in Washington right now, who would dare tell the American mob the truth of how we are descending into financial serfdom. But in this present mood, the aroused mob would first make him drink the hemlock.
Full Article
The Greek comic playwright Aristophanes once described how screaming politicians — posing as men of the people — would sway Athenian citizens by offering them all sort of perks and goodies that the government had no idea of how to pay for.
We need [. . .] a Socrates in Washington right now, who would dare tell the American mob the truth of how we are descending into financial serfdom. But in this present mood, the aroused mob would first make him drink the hemlock.
Full Article
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Teleprompter Obama
What's behind Obama's Teleprompter addiction?
President Obama's Teleprompter dependence has become so extreme that the little gadget has decided to enter the blogosphere with its own tell-all story.
Yes, it's good for a joke or two. But more serious discussion of the Teleprompter reliance of our new Orator-in-Chief mostly focuses on the irony and apparent contradiction that a president known for being an articulate graduate of Harvard Law School, and for the soaring rhetoric of his inspiring oratory, appears remarkably tongue-tied and awkward without his trusty Telly.
More at Obama's Teleprompter Addiction
President Obama's Teleprompter dependence has become so extreme that the little gadget has decided to enter the blogosphere with its own tell-all story.
Yes, it's good for a joke or two. But more serious discussion of the Teleprompter reliance of our new Orator-in-Chief mostly focuses on the irony and apparent contradiction that a president known for being an articulate graduate of Harvard Law School, and for the soaring rhetoric of his inspiring oratory, appears remarkably tongue-tied and awkward without his trusty Telly.
More at Obama's Teleprompter Addiction
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)