Merry Christmas!

I hope that each and every one of you can take some time to enjoy with your family and friends. Through all of the boxes, bows, and buffets, I encourage you to take a moment to remember why we celebrate Christmas.

Luke 1:26-38
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town in Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin who was to be married to a man named Joseph, of the family of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary.

And the angel came in to her and said, "Peace be with you, to whom special grace has been given; the Lord is with you."

But she was greatly troubled at his words, and said to herself, "What may be the purpose of these words?"

The angel said to her, "Have no fear, Mary, for you have God's approval. And see, you will give birth to a son, and his name will be Jesus. He will be great, and will be named the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God will give him the kingdom of David, his father:
He will have rule over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Mary said to the angel, "How may this be, because I have had no knowledge of a man?"

The angel in answer said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will come to rest on you, and so that which will come to birth will be named holy, Son of God. Even now Elisabeth, who is of your family, is to be a mother, though she is old: and this is the sixth month with her who was without children. For there is nothing which God is not able to do."

Mary said: "I am the servant of the Lord; may it be to me as you say." And the angel went away.

Luke 2:1-20
Now it came about in those days that an order went out from Caesar Augustus that there was to be a numbering of all the world. This was the first numbering, which was made when Quirinius was ruler of Syria. And all men went to be numbered, everyone to his town.

Joseph went up from Galilee, out of the town of Nazareth, into Judaea, to Bethlehem, the town of David, because he was of the house and family of David, to be put on the list with Mary, his future wife, who was about to become a mother. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. She had her first son; and folding him in linen, she put him to rest in the place where the cattle had their food, because there was no room for them in the house.

And in the same country there were keepers of sheep in the fields, watching over their flock by night. An angel of the Lord came to them, and the glory of the Lord was shining round about them: and fear came on them.

The angel said, "Have no fear; for truly, I give you good news of great joy which will be for all the people: For on this day, in the town of David, a Saviour has come to birth, who is Christ the Lord. This is the sign to you: you will see a young child folded in linen, in the place where the cattle have their food."

And suddenly there was with the angel a great band of spirits from heaven, giving praise to God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on the earth peace among men with whom he is well pleased."

When the angels had gone away from them into Heaven, the keepers of the sheep said to one another, "Let us go now to Bethlehem, and see this thing which has come about, which the Lord has made clear to us."

They came quickly, and saw Mary and Joseph, and the child in the place where the cattle had their food. And when they saw it, they gave them an account of the things which had been said to them about the child. All those to whose ears it came were full of wonder at the things said by the keepers of the sheep.

But Mary kept all these words in her heart, and gave much thought to them. Then the keepers of the sheep went back, giving glory and praise to God for all the things which had come to their ears and which they had seen, as it had been said to them.




Merry Christmas!!!

Christmas Lights, Part 4

The final installment of the Christmas sound and light show:

By the way, the website is Never Enough Lights, and it has everything you could want to know about setting this up and doing it yourself...

It's Time...

...for me to take a vacation. I will be signing off for a few days after tomorrow's Christmas Day message. If something momentous occurs, I'll try to post a quick update, but given the time of year, I'm guessing most people will be focusing on family and friends, as they should be.

Merry Christmas!

Global Warming Oogedy-Boogedy

It's that time of year when we start seeing list after list of the most amazing, disappointing, surprising, [fill-in-the-blank]ing things of 2008. One list, in particular, is worth pointing out (h/t The Jawa Report):

Global warming preachers have had a shocking 2008. So many of their predictions this year went splat.

Here's their problem: they've been scaring us for so long that it's now possible to check if things are turning out as hot as they warned.

Here are just some of the dire, world-ending predictions made by global warming fanatics that somehow failed to happen despite the authoritative certainty of the prognosticators:

1. Our cities will die of thirst
2. Our [Australia's] reef will die
3. Goodbye, north pole
4. Beware huge winds
5. Giant hailstones will smash through your roof
6. No more skiing
7. Perth will bake dry
8. Islands will drown
9. Britain will swelter
10. We'll be hotter

Visit the link for the actual data used to bust these myths (yes, we use real data on this side of the argument). The other side, naturally, doesn't need data because they have the certainty of their convictions. For example, these are a few of the things in the past year which they say were caused by -- or soon will be -- global warming...without any clear or convincing data:

1. Cannibalism
2. The Death of the Loch Ness Monster
3. Beer Gets More Expensive
4. Pythons Take Over America
5. Kidney Stones
6. Skinny Whales
7. Shark Attacks
8. Black Hawk Down
9. Frozen Penguin Babies
10. Killer Stingray Invasion

Again, visit the link for the data.

Ignoranceville must be a nice place to live, because these global warming nutballs rarely leave it. When they do, they always make sure to wrap themselves in a nice, warm blanket of obliviousness to ward off the cold of reality.

There's my two cents.

God's Gifts

Michelle Malkin has a moving column that pays tribute to a few specific individuals as well as some larger concepts:

God's Gifts
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

The Wal-Mart stampede in Long Island last month exposed the ugliest side of the Christmas season. But not all Americans live by "The Blitz Line Starts Here" credo. Not all of us rush to store shelves in search of the greatest gifts. Sometimes, they can be discovered in the hearts and souls of total strangers. If only you look.

What an extraordinary treasure America was given in Dong Yun Yoon. The naturalized American from Korea lost his entire family in a San Diego military jet crash three weeks ago. The tragedy claimed the lives of his infant daughter, toddler daughter, wife, and mother-in-law. It wrecked his house and upended his world.

But Mr. Yoon refused to blame the pilot or bash the military. At a press conference near the site of the crash, the grieving father and husband urged his fellow citizens to pray for the pilot: "He is one of our treasures for the country…I don't blame him. I don't have any hard feelings. I know he did everything he could."

In an age of shoe-tossing temper tantrums, anti-troop bigotry, and litigation gone wild, Mr. Yoon demonstrated both amazing grace and unbending patriotism in the face of unfathomable pain. His heart-wrenching plea for forgiveness resounded across the country — and around the world. Five hundred people from both the civilian and military communities came to lift Mr. Yoon up at his family's memorial service. The assistant pastor of his church reported that they had received more than 1,000 phone calls and e-mail messages offering condolences and financial support.

Mr. Yoon's suffering and sacrifice are powerful reminders of the preciousness of life — reminders that money can't buy.

Haleigh Poutre is another of those priceless gifts. She's the miracle child who was nearly beaten to death by her barbaric stepfather three years ago. Hooked to a ventilator in a comatose state, she was then nearly condemned to death by Massachusetts medical experts and the state's criminally negligent child welfare bureaucracy, which hastily declared her to be in a hopeless vegetative state and wanted to pull the plug on her life.

God had a different plan. The government's campaign to kill her was stopped after the then-11-year-old girl started breathing on her own and responding to commands. This little girl with an iron will to live has been nursed back to health by an amazing team of caring therapists. Her plight brought end-of-life issues again to the fore — issues that so many on both the left and right would prefer to ignore.

Haleigh the "vegetable" can now write her name, brush her own hair, and feed herself. Haleigh's suffering and sacrifice carry powerful reminders against blind trust in the deadly duo of Big Nanny and Big Medicine — reminders that money can't buy.

The life of Master Sgt. Anthony Davis gives us one more invaluable gift this year. On Thanksgiving weekend, his family learned that he had been killed while delivering humanitarian supplies in Biaj, Iraq. He had served in the Army for 26 years. He loved his job and he believed in his mission. The Baltimore native was married and had five children and one grandchild. His wife and daughter also served in the military.

Sergeant Davis was killed while distributing water and food in Biaj, about 250 miles north of Baghdad. He died, his family said, doing what he loved. "He was Army in every sense of the word," Jorge Tardi, Sergeant Davis' brother-in-law, told the Baltimore Sun. "He believed in our effort over there in Iraq. It wasn't just a job. It wasn't just a benefit. It wasn't just hardship pay. He was a patriot."

Sergeant Davis was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and a Bronze Star, but what his family will remember most is commitment to them. He was a peacemaker, they said, and a mentor to all. "'A positive impact on somebody's life can change their life for the better,' That's a quote from him," his son Jerel said at his funeral. He "instilled in his children the importance of getting to know God."

Sergeant Davis's service sacrifice serves as powerful reminders never to take for granted the cherished gifts of family, faith, and freedom — reminders that money can't buy.

I thought this was a good bit of perspective on Christmas Eve.

There's my two cents.

UAW: No Concessions, Thank You Very Much

Well, this was completely predictable.

The White House joined the ranks of socialism in bailout out GM and Chrysler with taxpayer dollars provided the companies change their business model into something resembling a profitable company.  One of the biggest -- if not THE biggest -- causes of GM and Chrysler failing is their obligations to the unions.  As Mark Steyn observed:

General Motors now has a market valuation about a third of Bed, Bath & Beyond, and no one says your Swash 700 Elongated Biscuit Toilet Seat Bidet is too big to fail. GM has a market capitalization of about $2.4 billion. For purposes of comparison, Toyota's market cap is $100 billion and change (the change being bigger than the whole of GM). General Motors, like the other two geezers of the Old Three, is a vast retirement home with a small money-losing auto subsidiary. The UAW is AARP in an Edsel: It has three times as many retirees and widows as "workers" (I use the term loosely). GM has 96,000 employees but provides health benefits to a million people.

How do you make that math add up? Not by selling cars: Honda and Nissan make a pretax operating profit per vehicle of around $1,600; Ford, Chrysler and GM make a loss of $500 to $1,500. That's to say, they lose money on every vehicle they sell.

The only thing that can possibly save these car companies is to completely overhaul their deals with the UAW.  Of course, the predictable part of this is the inherent logic involved in understanding the relationship between the Big 3 and the UAW.  Since the UAW has shown absolutely no sign of significant concessions in the past, one might logically conclude that there is absolutely no reason to think they'd show any sign of significant concession in the future.  Amazingly, logic prevails once again:

The nation's automakers are preparing to ask for wage and benefits concessions from their workers in early January to meet the conditions of a $17.4 billion federal aid package, but labor officials say they will seek to renegotiate the terms of the bailout rather than make those sacrifices.

The remarks by union leaders have set up yet another contentious battle in the auto industry.

In agreeing to provide federal assistance to General Motors and Chrysler, the White House demanded the firms cut worker compensation to the levels paid at the U.S. divisions of Toyota, Nissan and Honda. But Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers, said earlier this week that he would seek to remove the wage-reduction provision of the loan, calling it "an undue tax on the workers" who have already made "major" sacrifices for the benefit of the auto industry.

Gettelfinger said that what is being asked of the autoworkers — who agreed to concessions in 2003, 2005 and 2007 — is "unrealistic." He has said he wants to work with President-elect Barack Obama to remove the wage provision.

…Critics of U.S. automakers say that they pay their workers, who are unionized, far higher wages than those of nonunionized workers at foreign-owned automobile plants. But union leaders say many of their members actually make less. In many cases, the truth depends on how the compensation is calculated — whether it includes bonus pay and benefits, for instance.

The stakes in the talks between the unions and the automakers are high. If GM and Chrysler are unsuccessful in convincing labor officials, as well as bondholders and other stakeholders, to go along with a broad restructuring plan, the government could call off the loans and let the companies declare bankruptcy or fail.

Good!  That would be the best possible outcome from all this!

For more background information on just how awful those poor, poor union workers have it, check my previous posts here, here, and here.  The thing to remember here is that the UAW is a parasite, literally sucking the life out of the Big 3.  By refusing to make meaningful concessions (like getting rid of the jobs bank and bringing wages into line with the rest of the industry), the parasite is signaling its readiness to ride the host organism into the throes of death.  Gettelfinger and his cronies are essentially saying that they're happy to kill the goose, as long as they get one last golden egg out of it.

A question for UAW workers: which is better, a $45/hr. job without the jobs bank, or no job at all?

That's the potential decision you face.  Your union bosses have chosen no job at all on your behalf, but I suppose that makes sense when they're pulling down 7-figure salaries and will receive a substantial golden parachute while you go to the unemployment office.  I'm also struck by the irony of how the UAW is totally escaping the blame for threatening to allow the entire auto industry to go under, thus eliminating 3 million jobs (if the pro-bailout folks are to be believed).  Go figure.

Gee whiz whillikers, aren't unions great?

There's my two cents.

Blago Update Follow-Up: More Questions

Hot Air provides this analysis:

Politico headlines this article with "Obama's five rules of scandal response," but at least at first Kenneth Vogel and Carrie Budoff Brown exhibit a healthy skepticism of Team Obama's self-exoneration.  They manage to miss one "rule" as well, but first let's look at the questions they raise from incoming White House Counsel Greg Craig's argument released late yesterday:

Why did Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett communicate with Craig through her lawyer, who the report does not name, and how many conversations did incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have with Blagojevich?

The report says Emanuel urged Blagojevich to tap Jarrett for the Senate seat during "one or two telephone calls." But in the next paragraph, it refers to "those early conversations with the governor," and in a conference call unveiling the report, Craig said Emanuel "had a couple of conversations with the governor."

Equally unclear is what exactly was reviewed in the report that conclude that nothing inappropriate occurs, and whether there were any transition emails or other records covering the Senate seat selection process.

"We asked each individual who we thought might have had some contact or some communication that would be meaningful" to reconstruct "any contacts or communications, and that would include checking cell phone records or emails, and we inquired about that," Craig said. He added that "we've got the information that is required," and said he didn't know of any written communications.

Also, the report revealed that prosecutors interviewed Obama, himself, and did so after he had publicly declared he had been unaware of Blagojevich's alleged plot to sell off the Senate seat Obama had vacated after winning the presidency, raising questions about why they took the unusual step of interviewing the president-elect, what they asked him and whether he was under oath.

I'm a little curious about that myself.  Craig never mentions that, which tends to make me think he wasn't under oath when Fitzgerald questioned him.  Presidents almost never testify under oath (recall what happened to the one who did), and I'd bet that Fitzgerald would have kept to that tradition in any initial interview.  Even approaching him for the investigation seems unusual, as Politico notes.  It seems that Fitzgerald needed further clarification than Obama's flat denials, and it would be interesting to know why — and why Team Obama never bothered to mention the interview themselves.

Jennifer Rubin has more questions, but says the real test will be for the media.  Will they do their jobs and investigate potential abuses of power — or will they just blithely accept Obama's assurances that there's nothing to see here and move on?  After all, Obama's legal counsel surely would have released damaging information if there was any to be found … right?

The test now is really one for the MSM. Will they resume their role as adversarial inquisitor, and insist at each press conference that all questions on the topic be answered? Or will they accept the Obama team's word as gospel — something they would surely never do for other administrations? There is plenty of work to be done and angles to pursue. After the holidays we'll find out if the media has any intention of doing any of that.

At least Politico seems interested in asking some questions, some of them the same as Jennifer's.  They did, however, miss one rule of scandal response that Obama has learned: release potentially controversial information on the eve of holidays so that few pay attention.

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire, and we're seeing more and more smoke billowing out of this one.

I'll keep you up to date with this non-scandal scandal as events progress.

There's my two cents.

Summing Up Bailout Mania

It truly doesn't get any better than this:



JUST SAY NO!!!

There's my two cents.

Obama Clears Himself

Best non-scandal scandal headline of the day (via LGF):

Obama team probe of Obama team finds no Obama team impropriety

Whew, what a relief! I'm sure the Obama team is sleeping much better tonight knowing that this horrendous ordeal is over. The L.A. Times has a surprisingly sarcastic report; I tried to excerpt it, but it's just such good entertainment that you really should read the whole thing:

The Barack Obama presidential transition office today finally released its own report on its own internal investigation of its own contacts with legally challenged Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. And you'll be comforted to know the Obama folks found no impropriety whatsoever by Obama folks.

So go back to wrapping holiday presents or pretending you're working at your dIllinois Democrats governor Rod Blagojevich, then-senator Barack Obama and still-mayor Richard M. Daley in happier pre-criminal complaint timesesk and checking out Obama's important abs. All is well with the coming World of Change.

Speaking of tidy packages, the five-page report was not released in the morning as things are when public attention is desired.

It was released at 4:30 Eastern time to provide minimal exam time before the network news. But that's probably a coincidence.

According to the report by Greg Craig, an incoming White House attorney, Obama personnel had numerous contacts with the governor's office but no one ever suspected that Blagojevich, who's been under federal investigation for three years now, was doing anything wrong.

Craig said the feds have interviewed Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who inherited Blagojevich's 5th District House seat, and Valerie Jarrett, a newly named White House aide, as part of the governor's investigation. Emanuel did suggest some names but there was never any bargaining.

None of these Obama-Blagojevich contacts is a shock. It would be surprising if an exiting senator's office was not in touch with a nominating governor's office of the same party on his/her successor, although Obama promised immediately after Nov. 4 he would not be involved.

But given the *&#$%# excerpts read aloud two weeks ago by Chicago U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald apparently showing the governor demanding money for state business, aid and the "golden" revenue opportunity of peddling a Senate nomination, the media world was curious to know what did Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a longtime political pal of Blagojevich, say on those wiretaps.

Fitzgerald has said Obama is not involved in the investigation.

Pulling together all of the Obama contacts apparently took longer than expected because days passed. Then out of the blue Obama's team said that Fitzgerald's team had provided perfect cover by asking them to hold off a week so as not to threaten interviews in the the federal investigation of the governor. Why? Because Blagojevich still didn't know he was bugged?

On Friday, Fitzgerald's offWhite House Chief of Staff designate Rahm Emanuel who's gone on vacation to Africa and his boss president-elect Barack Obamaice reportedly asked Obama's team to push the report release day back to Tuesday from Monday.

At the time we suggested politicians prefer to release not positive news when people aren't paying attention, like John Edwards doing his TV affair confession on a summer Friday night when 14 people are watching the tube.

Oh, look, here we are 24 hours from Christmas Eve. Few are paying attention. The world has moved on. Looks like Mark Teixeira has been bought by the Yankees for $180 million.

Obama is in Hawaii working out in a Secret Service bubble, so he certainly won't be talking. He'll leave the political world to watch wannabe senator Caroline Kennedy pull a Sarah Palin with the media.

Emanuel, the transition team told Huffington Post today, has just a little bit ago -- in fact, we just missed him -- left for a long-planned family vacation in that place that every North Side Chicago family dreams of visiting for the year-end holidays, somewhere in Africa. We're not told the area code. Likely on a safari. With no cell coverage, of course. So he's not around to talk.

So, amazingly, there won't be any Obama person on news video to run in endless tube loops over the slow holiday. Just the five report pages, which makes for poor TV video.

There may, however, be some future amendments. The Obama team did not keep phone logs, so their contact list was developed from memory, which may or may not match the federal wiretap chronology if it's ever released.

Fitzgerald, who so helpfully asked Obama to hush up his internal report when people were most interested, is busy doing his job as the only really investigative arm perusing Illinois politics. Now that his hand was forced by the alleged impending sale of Obama's vacant Senate seat, the clock is running on an indictment of Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris.

Oh, and did we mention, four weeks from today a little before noon Eastern time, Obama becomes boss of Fitzgerald and all the other U.S. attorneys? What do you want to bet that despite the Democratic Cook County clamoring Fitzgerald stays on a while?

While it's clear that Obama is trying to just ignore the whole mess, it may not be that easy. First, if there is really nothing going on, why did they release this report late in the day just 36 hours before the biggest holiday of the year? Very few people have politics on their mind right now (kudos to you for keeping up!), so the report is sure to generate little coverage. Also, there are still questions swirling around the timing of the interviews, and the hubris that Obama and his team are displaying by brushing everything under the rug is starting to annoy even the Kool-Aid drinking press. It's not generally wise to ignore the press when they get their panties in a bunch about something, and you know it's suspicious when even they are asking more questions than Obama wants to answer.

Gateway Pundit posts an interview with long-time political reporter Bill Sammon, who thinks there is still a minefield of potential problems to navigate:

I will point out my own conclusions once again: even if there is no actual wrongdoing here (and it still doesn't look like there is), Obama is choosing to be cagey about it, and that's not the transparency he promised. He has apparently chosen to lie about it, first saying there had been no contact, then admitting there was, which is the same old politics of corruption that Washington is sadly good at producing. That's not the new kind of politics he promised. He and his team started out by botching this mess, and have continued botching it with each passing day. That's not the sort of incompetence that America needs in its top leadership.

Change! Hope! (there is nothing to see here...) Change! Hope! (there is nothing to see here...)

There's my two cents.

Christmas Lights, Part 3

Tonight's Christmas sound and light show:

More On The Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition

You may recall a few weeks ago I posted a satirical advertisement from Iowahawk about the Congressional Motors' Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition vehicle. In addition to the print advertisement, they've now produced a commercial to go with it. It is in the spirit of the auto bailout and the new socialism sweeping the nation that I present you with that commercial (h/t The Jawa Report):

I can't wait to get mine!

There's my two cents.

A Fun TV Moment

For a miracle that had nothing to do with the Obamessiah, check this out:

Yes, that's the same guy...what are the odds of that?? :)

Defining Conservatism

In trying to paint the differences between conservatives and liberals, we need to have a basic understanding of what each is.  This column by Harris R. Sherline does an outstanding job of defining the two:

It's no surprise, I'm sure, that I am a registered Republican. However, I consider myself more a "conservative" than a Republican. For me, it's more about principles and values than it is about political party. I don't have a particularly strong allegiance to the Republic Party, whereas I am an avid believer in Conservatism. If a true "Conservative" party were to emerge, I would change my registration in an instant.

That said, my reasons for being a "Conservative" are primarily based on what I believe are the differences in the core beliefs of Liberal and Conservative adherents, which are founded on their respective philosophies about human nature, what motivates people, and how to best organize the economic activity of societies.

Liberals generally tend to believe it is wrong for people to accumulate wealth or to have income substantially in excess of their individual needs. Their core concept is that, in general, everyone should derive the same or similar benefits from the available resources, which are finite, thus requiring government to be organized as a top down structure of decision-making. This in turn limits individual freedom of choice. They also believe societies work best when they are organized around this principle, with command and control authority concentrated at the top.

The most extreme example of this principle is Communism, which attempts to centralize all key production, pricing and distribution decisions about the millions of products and services that are made every day throughout a society. The failure of the USSR within a single century clearly proved that this doesn't work. Unfortunately, true believers don't see it that way, they just think the Soviets didn't do it right. On the other hand, Conservatives generally believe the best way to organize society is to allow maximum decision-making by individuals acting in their own self interest, as they themselves perceive it.

The primary difference between the two concepts is found in the degree of personal freedom and government control that each permits or requires. "Conservative" economic philosophy is based on the idea that people are motivated by self interest, while the economic (political) philosophy of Liberals is that individuals are (or should be) motivated by some higher standard.

Liberal economic models are based on the principle that the size of the economic pie is static, that those who are highly successful can only succeed at the expense of others, whereas Conservatives believe that the growth of the economy is based on increased productivity, which means the size of the economy is potentially unlimited.

Human nature leads people to act in their own self-interest. However, this does not mean self-interest is necessarily defined in economic terms. People also work for rewards other than money: power, position, status, security, even love or altruism. But whatever their individual motivation, it is always self-interest in one form or another.

The concept that in America we are all "created equal" is being perverted by Liberalism to mean equality of outcome, that everyone should derive the same or similar benefits from society. But, the world doesn't work that way. No two people are really "equal" in all respects. Some are smarter, better educated, shrewder, better looking, more personable, have more drive or ambition than others, and no form of government can alter that reality.

For true "conservatives" and for me personally, the most important core value is having the individual freedom to pursue our own happiness as we define it for ourselves, with a minimum of interference from government.

This is one of the best definition pieces I've yet read, and I can't agree more!  Again, it all comes down to who has the power (i.e. the freedom to make decisions): the individual, or the state?  If you want the state to control your life or the lives of others, you're fundamentally a liberal.  If you want the freedom to make your own choices about your life, you're fundamentally a conservative.  That's what most of America is, if the numbers are any indication.

It's not rocket science, but it does require an understanding of the motivations and theories behind the words.  With that understanding, you can act (and vote) accordingly.

There's my two cents.

Brainless In Seattle

You just can't make this stuff up:

To hear the city's spin, Seattle's road crews are making "great progress" in clearing the ice-caked streets.

But it turns out "plowed streets" in Seattle actually means "snow-packed," as in there's snow and ice left on major arterials by design.

"We're trying to create a hard-packed surface," said Alex Wiggins, chief of staff for the Seattle Department of Transportation. "It doesn't look like anything you'd find in Chicago or New York."

You mean like actual cleared pavement, Mr. Wiggins?

As you read this next section of the article, keep in mind that this is coming from Seattle, one of the most liberal cities in one of the most liberal states in the country:

The city's approach means crews clear the roads enough for all-wheel and four-wheel-drive vehicles, or those with front-wheel drive cars as long as they are using chains, Wiggins said.

What strikes you as odd about that?  Hm...liberals...4-wheel drive vehicles...trucks and SUVs?...hmmm...

Yep, Seattle actually has a policy of clearing roads only enough to allow passage from the very same hated and eeeeeevil SUVs that liberals are always trying to get rid of!  Brilliant move, libs.

Now, you may be wondering why this is an issue at all...

The icy streets are the result of Seattle's refusal to use salt, an effective ice-buster used by the state Department of Transportation and cities accustomed to dealing with heavy winter snows.

"If we were using salt, you'd see patches of bare road because salt is very effective," Wiggins said. "We decided not to utilize salt because it's not a healthy addition to Puget Sound."

By ruling out salt and some of the chemicals routinely used by snowbound cities, Seattle has embraced a less-effective strategy for clearing roads, namely sand sprinkled on top of snowpack along major arterials, and a chemical de-icer that is effective when temperatures are below 32 degrees.

Seattle also equips its plows with rubber blades. That minimizes the damage to roads and manhole covers, but it doesn't scrape off the ice, Wiggins said.

That leaves many drivers, including Seattle police, pretty much on their own until nature does to the snow what the sand can't: melt it.

The city's patrol cars are rear-wheel drive. And even with tire chains, officers are avoiding hills and responding on foot, according to a West Precinct officer.

Sand happens to be cheaper, but it has its own problems:

Many cities are moving away from sand because it clogs the sewers, runs into waterways, creates air pollution and costs more to clean up.

"We never use sand," said Ann Williams, spokeswoman for Denver's Department of Public Works. "Sand causes dust, and there's also water-quality issues where it goes into streets and into our rivers."

Instead, it sprays an "anti-icing" agent on dry roads before the snow falls and then a combination of chemicals to melt the ice.

And, of course, there's this little bit of Seattle (ahem) competence to examine:

Between Thursday and Monday, the city spread about 6,000 tons of sand on 1,531 miles of streets it considers major arterials.

The tonnage, sprinkled atop the packed snow, amounts to 1.4 pounds of sand per linear foot of roadway, an amount one expert said might be too little to provide effective traction.

"Hmmm. Six thousand tons of sand for that length of road doesn't seem like it's enough," said Diane Spector, a water-resources planner for Wenck Associates, which evaluated snow and ice clearance for nine cities in the Midwest.

Okay, so let's review.  Seattle has deliberately declined to use an effective road treatment plan that is well-accepted by other major cities around the country.  Instead, in an attempt to prevent road salt from getting out into Puget Sound -- which, by the way, is a salt water estuary that also connects to the Pacific Ocean, another body of salt water -- Seattle is spreading sand.  This reduces water quality, creates more air pollution, and is more expensive to clean up, but it's okay because they're spreading it too thinly to be effective, anyway.  The net result is that they are intentionally letting their roads remain covered in snow and ice, preventing vital civic services like the police from moving about freely, and also requiring those dreaded SUVs to be used more frequently.

This is a terrific example of how stupid environmentalism supercedes logic and reason, and leads to direct and completely avoidable danger to people.  It would be funny, if real people weren't at risk.  Michelle Malkin points out the specific danger in this case:

"Sunday was full of car crashes, even after several pleas from State Patrol and local police to stay off the roads.

The State Patrol responded to 157 collisions Sunday in King County. …

Between noon and midnight on Saturday, the State Patrol responded to 246 collisions … in King County." "Snow: Sunday Traffic accidents by the numbers"

Way to go liberals!  Now, just imagine what they'll do with control of the economy, the military, and the whole country...

There's my two cents.

The Meaning Of Money

The Jawa Report posts on the meaning of money as described in Atlas Shrugged.  This is excellent information for all Americans to understand:

Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich – will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt – and of his life, as he deserves.

Then you will see the rise of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

For being written half a century ago, this book amazingly seems to be speaking of current events, does it not?  That's because human nature is human nature.  The same things that have corrupted men for thousands of years still corrupt men, and the same things that keep men honorable for thousands of years still keep men honorable.  The same principles that govern and motivate both corrupt and honorable men exist today, and each of us must choose which we will follow.  Our elected leaders also have to make that choice, and it would be wise for us as a people to choose honorable leaders rather than corrupt ones.

Oops.

There's my two cents.

Where's The Minority Shame?

Dennis Prager writes an excellent column on something that I think people need to think about:

Gay Pride. Jewish Pride. Black pride. Hispanic Pride. Multiculturalism. Ethnic pride. Minority rights vs. tyranny of the majority.

For a generation, America has been awash in the celebration of minorities and minorities celebration of themselves. Just recall Black is Beautiful or I am a woman, I am invincible.

At the same time, the majority group in America -- white Christians -- has been allowed to celebrate very little. Rather, they have constantly been reminded of what they should be ashamed of -- their racism, sexism, homophobia, patriarchy, and xenophobia -- real and alleged.

But what about minority shame?

Why does one almost never hear expressions of group shame from members of any American group other than white Christians (specifically, white Christian male heterosexuals)? Are the only evildoers in America white male heterosexual Christians? Is there something inherently wrong about members of minorities expressing anything but group pride? Are there no minority sins worthy of shame? The latter is in fact the argument advanced by many intellectuals concerning black racism, for example. For a generation, college students have been taught that it is impossible for blacks to be racist because only the racial group in power, i.e. whites, can express racism.

Of course, that is nonsense. A black can be a racist just as a white can be one. A minority race might not have the power to implement racist national policies but that hardly means that no minority group, or any individual, can be a racist.

All this came to mind recently when, by coincidence, I read two things about the minority group of which I am a member -- Jews. I just completed reading Anthony Beevors The Fall of Berlin 1945, in which the author writes that in the midst of the massive rape of German women (millions of girls and women of all ages) by Red Army troops, Jewish officers in the Red Army were known to be the one group that protected German girls and women. In Beevors words, Red Army officers who were Jewish went out of their way to protect German women and girls. I fully admit to a sense of Jewish pride when I read that.

The next day I read a news report that because of the objections of one kindergartners mother, a public school in North Carolina had banned the singing of Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer because the song contained the word Christmas. I blame the school officials first and foremost for this craven and foolish decision. But when the news report noted that the woman was Jewish, my heart sank. Just as I had read the Beevor report and felt a surge of Jewish pride, I read the North Carolina story and felt a surge of Jewish shame.

It was a surge of Jewish shame that years ago led to one of the largest demonstrations of Israeli Jews in Israels history. They were demonstrating against the massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps in Lebanon. The killings were committed by Lebanese Christian militias, but they took place while Israel occupied that area of Lebanon. It would seem, then, that group shame is a good thing.

There are at least three reasons:
1. It is maturing. Only children think only well of themselves. A group that only expresses pride is essentially a group of children.
2. If one expresses group pride, one is morally obligated to express group shame. Obviously, this does not apply to any person who does not identify with, let alone take pride in being a member of, a group.
3. If only the majority group is expected to express shame, then only the majority group is expected to be governed by rules of morality. It is, ironically, the highest moral compliment to Americas white Christians that they are the only American group of whom expressions of shame are expected. It means more is morally expected of them than of anyone else.

The relative absence of expressions of shame in the Muslim world over the atrocities committed in Islams name is an example of the above. The labeling of blacks who express shame over disproportionate rates of violent crime and out-of-wedlock births in the black community as Uncle Toms is another. The absence of any expression of shame in the gay community over the current blacklisting -- and attempts to economically destroy -- anyone who donated to the California proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman is another example. When Sen. Joseph McCarthy blacklisted people in Hollywood for real or alleged support for the Communist Party, he was finally shut up with the words, Have you no shame, sir?

Expressing group shame when morally necessary is not airing dirty linen or giving solace to ones ideological enemies. It is, rather, one of the highest expressions of moral development. And it is therefore universally applicable. Being a minority doesnt exempt its members from moral responsibility. It will be a great day for America and the world when minorities begin to express shame as well as pride. In fact, there is real pride in expressing shame. Minorities should give it a try.

This backs up my oft-mentioned assertion that of the racism that exists today, almost all of it rests inside the minority groups themselves.  Can you imagine what would happen if someone tried to start a magazine called 'Ivory'?  How about White Entertainment Television?  The list of examples could go on and on.  Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that organizations or commercial enterprises targeted at specific groups of people are a bad thing.  Far from it.  In fact, that's the core of pretty much all businesses - a product or service is targeted for a specific group of people who are likely to buy that product or service.  No, the problem is the double standard that something may be okay for one people group but not another.

After reading Prager's column, I think a lot of that double standard boils down to a profound lack of shame combined with the liberal mantra that minorities are incapable of overcoming their obstacles (which are all the majority's fault, of course).

It's a destructive combination that serves to shackle people who are perfectly intelligent and capable, and have a load of talent to share with and contribute to this nation which would benefit us all.  With a little bit of appropriate shame, who knows what those minorities could accomplish?  They may even be able to stop being a victim long enough to achieve something.

There's my two cents.

Health Care Costs And Freedom

One of the absolute best voices in the conservative sphere in terms of boiling complex issues down into simple terms that everyone can understand is Rush Limbaugh.  He recently took on the issue of how freedom affects the cost of health care.  It was an outstanding explanation of the difference between freedom and socialism.  Take a look at this exchange with a caller (emphasis mine):

CALLER: Hey, I hear you talk a lot about how people who can't pay their own way -- you know, you gripe about people that go to the doctor and the hospital and stuff like that and can't pay their own way. If you're in an accident or you break your leg or you're hurt working and you can't pay the co-pay or you just can't pay for it outright, what should happen to people like that?

RUSH: In the first place, to correct your premise, I do not gripe about people who can't pay their own way. Today and yesterday, for example, I spent countless minutes explaining why that's the case when it comes to health care. It borders on the criminal what has happened in the health care, the artificial elevation in price versus value. There's no way a Band-Aid costs $300 bucks in a hospital, [but] that's what it's going to cost you because somebody else is paying the bill and there are a lot of people that go to the hospital that don't pay, so those who do pay have to pick it up. The point I'm trying to make here about all this is that all of this debt that people have taken on, the government, financial institution, banks, all these with high leverages, 30-to-one debt ratio, I mean it's absurd to have only one dollar on hand for every 30 dollars you owe, that's going to come home to roost someday, it elevates the price of houses, it elevates the price of every good and service. When you go buy a car, you're really not buying a $35,000 car, you're buying whatever monthly payment you could afford. When you buy a house, you're not buying a $250,000 house, you're buying a mortgage with the monthly rate you can afford, and the house is not yours for 25 or 30 years, depending on the length of the mortgage.

If everything was priced in such a way that you could only buy it if you paid the full price, I guarantee you the price of everything would be lowered. Now, there are exceptions, obviously. People cannot go out and buy houses by writing a check, and most people can't go out and buy cars. Debt's a good thing. I mean it's using other people's money for development, to increase the quality of life is fine, but when debt extends to buying debt to buy more debt so that with that debt you can buy more so-called securities, which, the last thing they are these days is secure, this just has a rollover yo-yo effect here that elevates the price of everything, so that when you do break your leg or you do have something catastrophic, you're out of luck, there's no way you can pay for it. But 50 years ago people could.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: Forty years ago people could, before the government got involved. The problem here is not insurance companies. The problem is people who don't pay and government who makes up for it by taxing everybody else and hospitals who have to raise their prices. Now, I know what the root of your question is. Basically I'm a pick 'em up by the bootstraps guy, and you think you're hear me speak and what you're thinking is "let everybody fend for themselves come hell or high water"?

CALLER: Well, I'm kind of gathering that, yes.

RUSH: No. Quite the opposite. I think that those in this country who are capable should be left alone to reach whatever height they choose. If you want to have a life where your income is $20,000 a year, that's your business and fine. Don't blame anybody else when you don't earn $30 or $40 if you're satisfied with $20. At the same time, I think that the notion here that people's lives are improved, their self-love, their self-appreciation is enhanced by their achievements, by the things they accomplish. If you just give capable people things, they're not going to achieve it, they're going to come to expect it and they're going to reach a comfort level at some point that will limit them further in working on their own behalf, but they're also going to resent the fact that a lot of people have more than they do because they think the system is rigged when it isn't. There are plenty of people in our society who are sick, who are, for whatever reason, incapable of helping themselves. We're a compassionate people, and I and a whole lot of other Americans will go out of our way to help our fellow citizens who literally can't help themselves. What bugs a lot of people is to see entirely capable people give up on life and decide to become dependent on whatever their elected official or government can do for them, because we look at that, I look at that, Grant, and I look at the people in government as helping to destroy those people's lives.

See, I believe we all only get one life. We all only get one chance. And it's so precious. We're so busy living our lives, we don't stop to think how fortunate we are to be alive and what that means. We don't stop to think how fortunate we are to be human rather than, say, a dog or cat. We're too busy. We live our lives in the greatest country on earth, a country that offers and has since its interception, more opportunity, more freedom, more prosperity than human beings in history, any human beings in history have ever known. It is simply unnecessary for Americans to check out. It is unnecessary for capable Americans to give up. It is unnecessary for capable Americans to feel down on their luck as Americans because everybody has bad luck.

But if there's one place on this planet where bad luck can be turned to good fortune with a little action, it's the United States of America. Be thankful you don't live in Cuba, be thankful you don't live in Venezuela, be thankful you don't live in Russia, be thankful you don't live in the Middle East. You live in the best place on earth. Genuine achievement through work is one of the most self-rewarding things. It is where many people really take their identities, from their work, what they accomplish, their passions, their desires, what it is they do and go out and do it, and they make things for other people, they invent things for other people. They perform services for other people. And they try to do it, those that really succeed, to the best of their ability.

Now, I don't have resentment for those who aren't trying. I have pity. And I also don't entirely blame them. Many of them have been told by Democrat liberal politicians for decades that the deck is stacked against them in this country because they're either black or they're women or they're some kind of minority or what have you, and that evil, rich Republicans and white people or whatever other kind of successful people you're talking about, are preventing them from getting where they want to go. This country will permit anybody to get where he wants to go if that person has stick-to-itiveness, has a little dose of realism and understands it isn't going to be easy and there's going to be a lot of unfairness along the way and there's going to be a lot of excrement sandwiches along the way, but there are going to be tremendous awards, too. But if you believe in a political philosophy that says your chances are nil, you really don't have any hope, the country's best days are behind it, and the only way we can make things fair is to take from those who have unfairly achieved more than others. They're asking you to be made happy by the suffering of others, not by your own success and good fortune.

I think it's a crying shame, but it's reality. It's a crying shame we've gotten to the point where, use your example, you have a car wreck, and you break your leg, and you have to go to the hospital and you have to stay there for a couple days or weeks depending on how had been it is, that you can't afford it, but there is insurance for it now, the insurance is high priced, as we all know. Most employers, people think, are paying for it, but you have to realize you're paying for everything you get. You just don't see a lot of it. You're paying for your benefits package at work. You just never see it. I've long contended that if people were given the full boat of what they're paid in the form of salary, then you go buy your health care and then you go buy this and whatever the company is providing for you, I guarantee you that happening en masse nationwide, all that competition for services, prices would come down. We're going the wrong direction here, though, Grant. We're talking about nationalizing health care. Obama wants to make sure that everybody's ensured and that everybody gets coverage, with the illusion that nobody's going to be paying for it. You are going to be paying for it and so am I. But despite this recession, we got more opportunity than 99% of people in the world here.

This is a brilliant way of illustrating the difference in core philosophy between conservatism and liberalism.  Conservatism says the individual can succeed if he or she works hard and struggles through the tough times.  Liberalism says the individual doesn't have a chance, so he or she shouldn't even bother trying.  Limbaugh is exactly correct that people who give up and resign themselves to being taken care of by the government never achieve anything.  When was the last time you heard of someone on the welfare rolls making a breakthrough discovery, solving a real-life problem, or providing jobs for thousands of Americans?  They don't.  It's not because they don't have the means to do so, it's because they have given up on the opportunity to achieve those things.  They've decided to allow the government provide what they need rather than going out and providing it for themselves, thus placing severe limitations on themselves.  The people who achieve success are the ones who fight through adversity, work hard, and reach toward their dreams.  You may only achieve 50% of your dreams throughout your lifetime, but you will miss 100% of the dreams you never even try for.

The cliche holds true: if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.  Liberals believe in handing out as many fish as possible because that keeps as many people as possible dependent upon the government, thus the government has more power and control.

On the other hand, conservatives believe that everyone benefits from a man who learns to fish.  The man gets a fish and also learns a skill that he can use to continue benefiting himself and his family.  On top of that, the man can use his skills to help those around him, teaching others to fish, selling his fish at the market, etc.

See the difference?

This is the ideological struggle that we face as we move into 2009 - Obama and the Dems in Congress are far-Left liberals, bent on putting as many people onto government handout programs as possible.  They want more power, which means they need more control.  They will promise Americans the moon and the stars while making it sound like they'll be free.  Of course, the key thing to remember is that the government has zero money on its own - everything it has must be taken from American taxpayers first.  So, the more handouts the government promises, the higher the tax burden we all face.  It's that simple.

If we lose this battle, we lose the freedom upon which America was founded, and for which America stands in the world today.  The country won't cease to exist, but it will cease to exist as the beacon of freedom in an ever-darkening world.  We are in for a dark chapter over the next 2-4 years, but this is a battle that we must win if we want to provide a free and opportunity-rich nation for our children and grandchildren.  It all starts with core conservative principles in people honest and strong enough to hold them, and strong enough to stand up and fight for them.  Just like our Founding Fathers did.

There's my two cents.

The Great Darkness Crisis Of 2008 And Other Environmental Updates

As you know, I am passionate about the environment. So, I want to pass along a couple updates that you might find interesting.

First is a segment from Lou Dobbs' show on -- of all places! -- CNN. Get a load of this incredible bit of rational, logical analysis:

These guys had better start brushing up on their resumes, I think.

Here are some excerpts from a couple very interesting stories on wind power:

Wind energy will be an early test for Obama

The wind industry, its lobbyists, and other wind advocates have, for more than a decade, greatly overstated the environmental, energy and economic benefits of wind energy and understated or ignored the very high true cost of electricity from wind energy as well as its adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts. With assistance from DOE and NREL (using tax dollars), the industry has misled the public, media, and government officials. They have secured federal and state policies, tax breaks and subsidies that have:

• Shifted billions of dollars in tax burden and other costs from "wind farm" owners to ordinary taxpayers and electric customers, and

• Misdirected billions in capital investment dollars to energy projects ("wind farms") that produce very little electricity - which electricity is low in value because it is intermittent, volatile, unreliable with little of it, if any, available on hot weekday afternoons in July and August when electricity is most needed and has high value.

Check out the link above for over a dozen of the biggest myths about wind power.

Wind power greenies admit blowing wind

The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) has agreed to scale down its calculation for the amount of harmful carbon dioxide emission that can be eliminated by using wind turbines to generate electricity instead of burning fossil fuels such as coal or gas.

The move is a serious setback for the advocates of wind power, as it will be regarded as a concession that twice as many wind turbines as previously calculated will be needed to provide the same degree of reduction in Britain's carbon emissions.

For several years the BWEA – which lobbies on behalf of wind power firms – claimed that electricity from wind turbines 'displaces' 860 grams of carbon dioxide emission for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated.

However it has now halved that figure to 430 grams, following discussions with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Wind power is just a bunch of hot air, as I've noted before.

Rush Limbaugh highlighted this on his radio show last week, and it is truly worthy of consideration:

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but I have detected a new crisis that I have named "the daylight change crisis". I first noticed it sometime around the end of June this year. I started paying attention and created computer models and sure enough I was right! We are losing daylight at an astonishing rate. Each day we are losing approximately 2 minutes of day light and my computer models predict total darkness by next July.

I have been able to detect this phenomenon around the entire Northern Hemisphere. And here is the scary part: the day light appears to be leaking to the Southern Hemisphere.

I thought I should bring it to the attention of great scientists like Al Gore so he can help solve this new crisis.

Update: Important new data reveals that the serious environmental consequences of daylight change have already begun.

Here's the update about the environmental consequences:

I have some frightening new information from my daylight change research. The data indicates drastic changes to the environment that have already started.

Many species of birds and millions of individual birds have left the northern hemisphere. The impact of the loss of these birds is unimaginable.

Insect life has been severely affected and most can no longer be observed.

Large mammals have been observed lying in a state of near death torpor in their dens.

Crop production has fallen to dangerously low levels. My models predict famine in the near future.

These and other effects of the loss of day light demand our immediate attention if we are to prevent a climate catastrophe.

Where is Al Gore when we need him?

Whatever you do, don't ponder these things too deeply...just drink your Kool-Aid and PREPARE FOR THE END OF THE WORLD!!!

There's my two cents.

Christmas Lights, Part 2

Here's tonight's Christmas lights video:

Link Roundup

Today's link roundup is once again full of goodies...

In the USofA:

• Reps in 2010.
  
• Re-drafting the Constitution?!
  
• The Employee Free Choice Act is unconstitutional.
  
• Jobs Americans won't do? Really?
• Bush, Cheney personally comfort troops and families.
  
• Why be a conservative?
  
• Sorting out the GOP Chairman race.
• Climate crisis = logic crisis.
• Judicial activism amendment.
  
• Shocker: liberals are only generous with other people's money (i.e. taxes).
  

Economy

• A bailout alternative.
  
• A warning on economic dogma.
  
• Stimulus or else!
• McCain suddenly opposed to bailouts (too little, too late, you idiot).
  

The Obamessiah

• Obama's mortgage almost $1 million over the legal limit.
  
• Is Obama vulnerable to blackmail?
• Labor Secretary is a dangerous choice for American workers.
  
• Taking Obama at his word on guns...why not?
  
• The crooked story behind change.gov.
  
• Pelosi makes a power play.
  

Around the world

• U.S., Israel on collision course.
  
• Dems secretly agreed on wiretapping.
  
• About those 16 months...
  

Now you're caught up!