As the details start to roll in about the Fort Hood shooting, it seems more and more obvious that the shooter was indeed motivated by Muslim extremism. Reports of him yelling "Allah Akbar" as he fired the shots should be a pretty good hint as to his motive.
Which makes even more ridiculous the reaction from Congressman Jim McDermott I just heard on the radio. He said the shooting was a "symptom of a stressed military," and showed the need for "mental health counseling." He was quoted as saying we need to end the "stigma" associated with seeking mental health services.
So McDermott thinks that Hasan, who was a mental health medical professional, might not have passed out new bellybuttons to his military colleagues if a sense of shame had not kept him from seeking out mental health counseling?
This guy is such a dope.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Interpreting NY-23
Here come the post-mortems on the results of NY-23 last night.
Democrats will say it shows the dysfunction of the Republican party, because they ate their own and delivered a victory to the Democrat. They will say it lays bare the rift in the Republican party between the Tea Party element and the party establishment, and ensures that there will be contested primaries all over the country that will further damage the party and weaken it for 2010.
I don't see it that way. I think this has a few relevant facets.
The party screwed up big time by putting Scozzafava up as the candidate. There was no nominating election - it was done by a handful of party establishment types. From the start it was clear that she was a horrible fit for the district. Had they simply put up even a minimally acceptable candidate, they would have rolled to victory and avoided this whole mess.
Hoffman wasn't really an ideal candidate himself. He was pretty much a stiff. Zero charisma. Kind of the fringe type of guy who would step into this kind of a breach - a situation that isn't usually going to attract the most polished and mainstream person, and he wasn't.
So the fact that he lost isn't all that surprising.
Scozzafava proved herself, in the end, to be everything her opponents said she was when she gracelessly endorsed the Democrat. In her heart, she was a Democrat. Why the party ran her is mysterious.
But this loss isn't altogether a bad thing. First, Owens is almost certainly a one termer. This is a Republican district.
So on the negative side of the ledger, we have a one term Democrat in a Republican district. On the positive side, we have a very strong message sent to the establishment Republicans: NO MORE RINOS IN DISTRICTS WHERE A CONSERVATIVE CAN WIN!
And guess what? President Obama is doing a very good job at bringing Conservatism back into vogue again, which means that there will be LOTS of districts where a real conservative can win.
NY-23 was indeed a family fight, and there was some collateral damage. But the result will be a party that fields candidates who are far more in step with the reality of the political facts on the ground.
It was a wake up call to an out-of-step Republican party establishment, and it is a good thing it happened.
Democrats will say it shows the dysfunction of the Republican party, because they ate their own and delivered a victory to the Democrat. They will say it lays bare the rift in the Republican party between the Tea Party element and the party establishment, and ensures that there will be contested primaries all over the country that will further damage the party and weaken it for 2010.
I don't see it that way. I think this has a few relevant facets.
The party screwed up big time by putting Scozzafava up as the candidate. There was no nominating election - it was done by a handful of party establishment types. From the start it was clear that she was a horrible fit for the district. Had they simply put up even a minimally acceptable candidate, they would have rolled to victory and avoided this whole mess.
Hoffman wasn't really an ideal candidate himself. He was pretty much a stiff. Zero charisma. Kind of the fringe type of guy who would step into this kind of a breach - a situation that isn't usually going to attract the most polished and mainstream person, and he wasn't.
So the fact that he lost isn't all that surprising.
Scozzafava proved herself, in the end, to be everything her opponents said she was when she gracelessly endorsed the Democrat. In her heart, she was a Democrat. Why the party ran her is mysterious.
But this loss isn't altogether a bad thing. First, Owens is almost certainly a one termer. This is a Republican district.
So on the negative side of the ledger, we have a one term Democrat in a Republican district. On the positive side, we have a very strong message sent to the establishment Republicans: NO MORE RINOS IN DISTRICTS WHERE A CONSERVATIVE CAN WIN!
And guess what? President Obama is doing a very good job at bringing Conservatism back into vogue again, which means that there will be LOTS of districts where a real conservative can win.
NY-23 was indeed a family fight, and there was some collateral damage. But the result will be a party that fields candidates who are far more in step with the reality of the political facts on the ground.
It was a wake up call to an out-of-step Republican party establishment, and it is a good thing it happened.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
2009 election night
As I write this, it is so far a Republican sweep in the races that have been called so far. The one race not yet determined is the famed NY-23rd district, where the Conservative party candidate is behind by about 4,000 votes with 65% of the count done.
So what does it mean?
I don't know how this can be spun any other way than to say that independent and swing voters moved hard away from the Democrats, and that it means trouble for the Obama agenda and Democrat candidates in 2010.
Over at BlueOregon tonight, there isn't so much as a whisper about the election results. After crowing for a year about the demise of the Republican party, there doesn't seem to be much self-reflection when the first post-Obama election provides them with a small but stern rebuke.
I guess this shouldn't be a surprise. There was nothing on BlueOregon about the apalling "green-gate" scandal in which Kulongoski basically lied about the cost of his tax credit scheme. Kari Chisolm wrote a post today called "Quick Hits: catching up on the weekend," in which he gave a rundown of the major political news stories of the weekend.
The green-gate story wasn't even mentioned!
That is how one-party states become two party states.
Will the 2009 election be a harbringer for 2010 in Oregon and nationally? I think that is a distinct possibility. Obama ran as a moderate, and has governed as a radical. That is not where the people of this country reside.
So what does it mean?
I don't know how this can be spun any other way than to say that independent and swing voters moved hard away from the Democrats, and that it means trouble for the Obama agenda and Democrat candidates in 2010.
Over at BlueOregon tonight, there isn't so much as a whisper about the election results. After crowing for a year about the demise of the Republican party, there doesn't seem to be much self-reflection when the first post-Obama election provides them with a small but stern rebuke.
I guess this shouldn't be a surprise. There was nothing on BlueOregon about the apalling "green-gate" scandal in which Kulongoski basically lied about the cost of his tax credit scheme. Kari Chisolm wrote a post today called "Quick Hits: catching up on the weekend," in which he gave a rundown of the major political news stories of the weekend.
The green-gate story wasn't even mentioned!
That is how one-party states become two party states.
Will the 2009 election be a harbringer for 2010 in Oregon and nationally? I think that is a distinct possibility. Obama ran as a moderate, and has governed as a radical. That is not where the people of this country reside.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Governor: "I am NOT corrupt. Just incompetent"
I am insulted, and you should be too.
I mean, you would think they would respect us enough to try to come up with some excuse that at least sounds marginally plausible. But they don't. They know that any old excuse will do, because in our one party state nobody will hold them accountable for wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
I am talking about the Business Energy Tax Credit, and the revelation in yesterday's Oregonian that the Governor's office pressured the Department of Energy to lowball the estimates on how much the tax credit would be used. They were only off by a factor of 40 or so.
When two Department of Energy staffers (one former, one current) say that they were instructed to put down as low an estimate as possible, what is the Governor's response? From the Oregonian:
"Kulongoski staff members deny that the governor or anyone on his staff directed the Energy Department to lowball the costs and said the huge disparity between early cost projections and actual expenses was simply a bad guess. They say no one understood how popular the tax credit would become."
This is just laugh out loud funny. Mind you, they were estimating the impact of raising the tax credit to $20 million per project. And their estimate: $1.2 million in '07-'09 and $4.1 million for '09-'11.
Someone will have to explain that to me. Bad guess indeed.
So they would have us believe that they are really stupid enough to make an estimate like this, and not see how ridiculous it is on its face. As if they asked themselves: "Gee, if we raise the tax credit from $3.5 million to $20 million, how much will get used? Probably about $1.2 million. Yeah, let's go with that."
And when they are caught red-handed, with two different inside sources who say the Governor's office pressured them to minimize the number, they just claim incompetence!
Question: Will Oregonians continue to put up with this BS?
I mean, you would think they would respect us enough to try to come up with some excuse that at least sounds marginally plausible. But they don't. They know that any old excuse will do, because in our one party state nobody will hold them accountable for wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
I am talking about the Business Energy Tax Credit, and the revelation in yesterday's Oregonian that the Governor's office pressured the Department of Energy to lowball the estimates on how much the tax credit would be used. They were only off by a factor of 40 or so.
When two Department of Energy staffers (one former, one current) say that they were instructed to put down as low an estimate as possible, what is the Governor's response? From the Oregonian:
"Kulongoski staff members deny that the governor or anyone on his staff directed the Energy Department to lowball the costs and said the huge disparity between early cost projections and actual expenses was simply a bad guess. They say no one understood how popular the tax credit would become."
This is just laugh out loud funny. Mind you, they were estimating the impact of raising the tax credit to $20 million per project. And their estimate: $1.2 million in '07-'09 and $4.1 million for '09-'11.
Someone will have to explain that to me. Bad guess indeed.
So they would have us believe that they are really stupid enough to make an estimate like this, and not see how ridiculous it is on its face. As if they asked themselves: "Gee, if we raise the tax credit from $3.5 million to $20 million, how much will get used? Probably about $1.2 million. Yeah, let's go with that."
And when they are caught red-handed, with two different inside sources who say the Governor's office pressured them to minimize the number, they just claim incompetence!
Question: Will Oregonians continue to put up with this BS?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Here they go again
Sam Adams is just back from DC where he was trying to get $20 million out of the feds to help pay for the latest "linchpin" project that they are just CERTAIN will pay for itself many times over by attracting untold levels of economic activity.
Untold, of course, because nobody can actually explain in concrete terms exactly how the thing will create any jobs or value.
The story is in Willamette Week. The want to build a monument to "sustainability" - an office building that produces all its own electricity. Of course that requires the thing to be hotter in summer and cooler in winter than most of us would want in a building for $31 per square foot. (Which puts it a level above class A office space.)
Heck all sorts of people will line up to have their office in a place where they sweat all summer and freeze all winter, especially if it costs more. Guess who will occupy the space? Sustainability-trough-feeding non-profits and government agencies.
But I mostly LOVE the serious economic analysis they did to show how if we build this outrageously expensive building with taxpayer funds, that it will spur all sorts of economic benefits. Here is what the Chancellor of the Oregon University System, a financial partner in the deal to the tune of $80 million in bonds, says:
"This is going to brand Oregon as a leader in the sustainability movement,” Kenton says. “We think of this building as a portal. People are going to want to come here and connect with it, and it will drive a whole bunch of economic value to the state.”
So there we have it. A "portal" that will "drive a whole bunch of economic value" to Oregon.
And on the strength of that extensive econometric analysis, we commit tens of millions of taxpayer funds.
OK then.
Untold, of course, because nobody can actually explain in concrete terms exactly how the thing will create any jobs or value.
The story is in Willamette Week. The want to build a monument to "sustainability" - an office building that produces all its own electricity. Of course that requires the thing to be hotter in summer and cooler in winter than most of us would want in a building for $31 per square foot. (Which puts it a level above class A office space.)
Heck all sorts of people will line up to have their office in a place where they sweat all summer and freeze all winter, especially if it costs more. Guess who will occupy the space? Sustainability-trough-feeding non-profits and government agencies.
But I mostly LOVE the serious economic analysis they did to show how if we build this outrageously expensive building with taxpayer funds, that it will spur all sorts of economic benefits. Here is what the Chancellor of the Oregon University System, a financial partner in the deal to the tune of $80 million in bonds, says:
"This is going to brand Oregon as a leader in the sustainability movement,” Kenton says. “We think of this building as a portal. People are going to want to come here and connect with it, and it will drive a whole bunch of economic value to the state.”
So there we have it. A "portal" that will "drive a whole bunch of economic value" to Oregon.
And on the strength of that extensive econometric analysis, we commit tens of millions of taxpayer funds.
OK then.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Central planning is dead. Long live central planning
An article in the Portland Tribune this week is a great example of the ability of our local politicians and planners to refuse to acknowledge the failures of their policies.
The article, to summarize, says: "Shucks, it turns out that remodeling an entire region into our vision of new urbania, with bike paths and lite rail and high density makes those dastardly folks who actually employ people want to leave. Who knew? Guess we need our planners to turn their talents to planning the economy."
The hubris of these folks is startling. Faced with the utter failure of their "livability" dreams and schemes, now they pretend to be able to plan what industries will have job growth. "Clusters" they call them. And they want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to put their helpful stamp on these burgeoning new employment sectors.
Never mind that the last next big thing, Biotech, which was the justification for their last several hundred million dollar boondoggle, so far has been an utter failure.
Nothing like failure to make them create new plans! It certainly couldn't be that planning itself is a failure. That would mean they wouldn't have jobs!
And THOSE jobs are the ones that these folks REALLY care about!
The article, to summarize, says: "Shucks, it turns out that remodeling an entire region into our vision of new urbania, with bike paths and lite rail and high density makes those dastardly folks who actually employ people want to leave. Who knew? Guess we need our planners to turn their talents to planning the economy."
The hubris of these folks is startling. Faced with the utter failure of their "livability" dreams and schemes, now they pretend to be able to plan what industries will have job growth. "Clusters" they call them. And they want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to put their helpful stamp on these burgeoning new employment sectors.
Never mind that the last next big thing, Biotech, which was the justification for their last several hundred million dollar boondoggle, so far has been an utter failure.
Nothing like failure to make them create new plans! It certainly couldn't be that planning itself is a failure. That would mean they wouldn't have jobs!
And THOSE jobs are the ones that these folks REALLY care about!
Friday, October 02, 2009
On cue, the Oregonian praises Nike
What a surprise that the day after Nike announces it wants everyone in the U.S. to pay higher energy prices, the Oregonian praises them and the other large corporations that are on board with carbon tax legislation.
The lead editorial also praises the "forward looking" companies that support Cap & Trade, such as General Electric, Duke Energy, Exelon, and PG&E.
Forward looking? Is the Oregonian really that gullible, or are they just fundamentally dishonest? Do they NOT know that each and every one of these companies is simply "rent-seeking?" These corporations have a huge financial stake in the the government making fossil fuel energy less competitive. The mandates and controls that would result from carbon taxes will put billions in their coffers.
For the Oregonian to pretend that somehow these companies are just being good corporate citizens is just plainly dishonest.
The lead editorial also praises the "forward looking" companies that support Cap & Trade, such as General Electric, Duke Energy, Exelon, and PG&E.
Forward looking? Is the Oregonian really that gullible, or are they just fundamentally dishonest? Do they NOT know that each and every one of these companies is simply "rent-seeking?" These corporations have a huge financial stake in the the government making fossil fuel energy less competitive. The mandates and controls that would result from carbon taxes will put billions in their coffers.
For the Oregonian to pretend that somehow these companies are just being good corporate citizens is just plainly dishonest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
