We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
In less than 40 months, Obama destroyed the greatest bipartisan good will that any recent president has enjoyed, and has done more to discredit Keynesian neo-socialist politics than have all of talk radio, Fox News, and the internet combined. In just two years, he took a Democratic Congress and lost the House in the largest midterm setback since 1938. In other words, the people — fifty percent of whom either do not pay federal income taxes or receive some sort of state or federal entitlement or both — saw the best face of modern neo-socialism imaginable, and they were not quite sold on it.
Second, it is hard to screw up America in just four years. Look at it this way: gas and oil production has soared despite, not because of, the federal government. The rest of the world — the unraveling European Union, the Arab Spring, Putin’s Russia, aging Japan, authoritarian China, the recrudescent Marxism in Latin America — reminds us of American exceptionalism. The verdict from Wisconsin is that the statist model is over. The public union, big pension, non-fireable employee model is left only with an “après nous, le déluge“ sigh. The private sector is not doing fine, but shortly will be when it is assured taxes won’t soar, energy will be cheaper, and Obamacare will cease. The irony is that the last four years have reminded us of what we still can be, and how we differ from most other places in the world.
What is amazing to me is that there were any votes on the Supremes opposed. Why would anybody in America want to squelch voices and opinions? Unless they have contempt for the peoples' opinions?
It's a sickness, and it has a foothold, but not quite a majority, on the Court. We The People need all points of view, and we have the duty to apply our BS Detectors and biases as best we can. Seems to me that politicians are the biggest purveyors of self-interested BS, but their expensive speech cannot be outlawed.
No president in memory has done more to divide America than Barack Obama. Exploiting every division for political gain, he has pitted poor against rich, blacks and Hispanics against whites, gays against straights, women against men, young against old, and union members against business and government leaders. Mainstream Americans are tired of these divisions, and they want a president who speaks of "believing in America," not believing in black America, Hispanic America, young America, female America, gay America, or unionized America.
The American people are tired of change. What they want is jobs, better wages, stability, and security.
...you directly imply that I am a “denier”, as I am highly skeptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (not just “anthropogenic global warming”, which is plausible if not measurable, although there are honest grounds to doubt even this associated with the details of the Carbon Cycle that remain unresolved by model or experiment). Since I am a theoretical physicist, I find this enormously offensive. I might as well label you an idiot for using it, when you’ve never met me, have no idea of my competence or the strength of my arguments for or against any aspect of climate dynamics (because on this list I argue both points of view as the science demands and am just as vigorous in smacking down bullshit physics used to challenge some aspect of CAGW as I am to question the physics or statistical analysis or modelling used to “prove” it). But honestly, you probably aren’t an idiot (are you?) and no useful purpose is served by ad hominem or emotionally loaded human descriptors
I took Chemistry from a Nobel winner chemist in a classroom of 250 eager students, many of them hopeful pre-meds. He clearly had been assigned to one undergrad class, but he didn't seem to resent it.
He had fun talking to a class of undergrads, but he talked about whatever he wanted to, whatever was on his mind. He liked to talk about how the planet was running out of oil so there would be no substrate left for medicines and organic chemicals. He said everything you need to know is in the textbook and, if you are confused, try to grab a TA.
Well, the impatient TAs had zero interest in that chore. As a result, many of us formed study groups which were great fun. I wanted to learn Chem so as not to be an ignorant person, and later took Organic for the same reason, despite being a History major. The Chem exams were a bitch. The five in my study group all got As, back before grade inflation. Science grades were curved. The reason our group did so well was partly because one of our study approaches was to create difficult problems for eachother. We'd meet at night in an empty classroom and do everything on the blackboard (remember them?).
If the Supreme Court could decide that a “living constitution” reflected the failures of laissez-faire capitalism in the 1930s, which is what we’re told it did, then why can’t it decide that a living constitution must recognize the failures of big government in the 21st Century?
This is from back when F&F was ordered by Obama in 2009 (thanks, reader):
Thus, a lousy and aggressive, if reckless, border plan, OK'ed by Obama and Holder, that resulted tragically. A fatal SNAFU, resulting in American deaths and many Mexican deaths. Why not just say so? Admit a well-intentioned but ultimately tragic error. That is termed "manning-up." There is nothing much to conceal here that I can see.
Unless there are tons of unfortunate emails about the PR approach to the mess that would be embarassing to the Administration. Stupid, unnessary cover-up? Stupid, stupid, stupid. Or am I missing something?
This is stupid stuff. The Admin's covert leaks to the media are the bigger scandal. This is a sideshow, despite these terrible and unnecessary deaths. Nobody died in Watergate.
The MSM pundits always wail about "ungovernable" when their pets fail at their jobs. I remember when NYC was said to be ungovernable when Dinkins was mayor. It was amusing and gratifying to see how governable, prosperous, and civilized NYC became when Giuliani was elected.
Obama certainly tilted America leftward, but he didn't do it through inspiration, he did it through deception. This was not an administration that created a new consensus, but one that functioned as its own closed door consensus that it occasionally stepped out to announce to the American People.
Not only didn't Obama win the argument, but he lost the election. Congress snapped back to the right so fast that it might have been a rubber band on steroids. And this was to Obama's advantage because it allowed him to spend the next two years blaming his own laziness, corruption and ineptitude on a Congress which had only tilted right because of him.
...guiding all this would be the world’s premiere political body and bastion of freedom, fairness, democracy and human rights – the UN General Assembly.
To guide this “fundamental” shift toward the sustainability paradigm, the Group laid down eight principles – the key being the “precautionary principle,” which forbids any activity that might involve risk or “do harm.” Its own sustainability prescriptions are, of course, exempted from any reviews under the precautionary principle.
The worst economic recovery since World War II that Obama and the Democrats midwifed has exposed the failure of the notion that the government can create economic growth and wealth rather than merely expropriating it from the creative and productive, and that centralized planning and regulating by “experts” can more efficiently allocate resources than the free market does. But more important is the underlying idea of progressivism that Obama’s policies is predicated on: Perfect justice, prosperity, and equality are possible if enlightened elites are given the power to organize and run society according to “scientific” knowledge about human nature and behavior. For two centuries this hubristic idea has led to failure, misery, and murder on a vast scale, yet progressives continue to increase government power in order to create this impossible utopia. Obamacare is just the latest iteration of this frequently demonstrated fallacy that complex human behavior, which reflects the unpredictable free will of millions of unique individuals, can be organized, controlled and regimented in order to achieve some dream-world utopia. That progressives still cling to this exploded idea despite the evidence of history and a disintegrating E.U. shows just how reactionary and blinkered they are.
During the American Revolution, it was, "Give me Liberty or give me death." Today it's, "Give me Universal Health Care or give me death." And the alternative to death is a nanny state that controls every aspect of our lives, only for us to die anyway. Fighting for Liberty may occasionally make men immortal, but fighting for government bureaucracy just makes them slaves.
To win re-election, Obama has "gone rogue," boldly going where no Democrat has gone before. Obama in essence has said, screw it. I am not going to masquerade as a moderate. I am going to campaign as a full blown anti-capitalism, anti-Constitution progressive/socialist!
While global warming alarmists cloak themselves in the mantle of science, the truth is that there is nothing scientific about their enterprise. The models that are the sole basis for global warming alarmism have been proved conclusively to be wrong. That really is all that needs to be said about the matter. The fact that alarmists and their supporters in the media and in politics continue to try to foist discredited theories onto the public shows that their real interest is not science, but politics and power.
Watching President Obama flop around like a fish out of water, careening from gaffe to desperation to dishonesty, I find myself searching for ways to put his troubling behavior into historic perspective.
Is this The Unmaking of a President? Or is it The Unmasking? Perhaps we are witnessing an American Tragedy. Or maybe we’re seeing final proof his election was The Great Mistake.
All those fit the facts, and lead to a shared conclusion. So far, the 2012 election has almost nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Even the GOP doesn’t love its choice, but the race is a dead heat because Obama is so disappointing.
It may be sneaky, cynical, and seems like a unconstitutional abuse of power, but this is hardball politics being played here. It's a power play, to mix metaphors.
Here are the clever parts: Obama preempts Rubio's plan (they want to kneecap Rubio), it helps with some key states, and anybody who opposes the idea seems cruel (it's not as if most Americans worry about Constitutional nuance - mostly people seem to just like an idea, not like it, or not care).
So whether his proposal ever comes to pass or not, Obama has called "Check!" on the Hispanic and immigration issue. Maybe Checkmate on the politics of those issues.
He is following the plan to pander to each constituency, each "community" he can. Solidifying a possibly-wavering base of voters with goodies of all sorts, and conveying caring sentiments. Obama wants to win. I don't know why. I spose it's a sport and winning is the point.
Axelrod has lots of tricks up his sleeve. He's from Chicago so you cannot misunderestimate him. They play rough, and they cheat without qualms. See Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws. Laws are just a nuisance when there is so much at stake.
Whether you knew it or not, he was always worrying about you, always caring. He made decisions you never knew about that made your life better. He shielded you from knowledge of the evils of the world as long as he could. He helped give your childhood a hint of magic.
Perhaps the most difficult question in urban planning is how our cities became so ugly. This question is seldom asked by urban planners because it is their discipline that claims to be the beautifying motor for American cities. Indeed, the planning profession often controls the now ubiquitous architectural approval committees that exist in nearly every city and town. Zoning has been expanded under the planning culture to include judgment on the artfulness and beauty of structures.
It is precisely the nexus of planning and government that creates the problem. Planning cannot exist outside of the governmental context. Government supplies the power and the legitimacy of planning. But why government plans is the real question. Does government serve the cause of economic advancement for a city and see to it that beauty counts in its commercial success? Or is planning really a vehicle used to build a social utopia in which it designs an environment that aims to advance a vision of how people are supposed to live, without regard to the city’s economic life?
Most Americans do not remember the details of the Watergate charges and facts, if they ever knew them. Instead, the word Watergate has been used to villify President Nixon, most of what he stood for, and almost any scandal since is called a -gate. Fred Thompson was the Republican counsel on the Congressional Watergate Committee. In a look back that is important to read, Thompson reflects on the context, the charges, the findings and what the findings ignored. As the subtitle of the piece says, "Caricatures of the evil Nixon don’t help us learn how to counter abuses of power." Today, we still suffer, not just domestic breakins or coverups but the far worse wholesale usurpation of Congressional power by this President, the betrayal of allies, and the gross undermining of our national security. A taste of Thompson:
Today, the office of the president, along with the entire executive branch of government, grows with each administration, bringing less accountability and more opportunity for improper activity. Today, unelected bureaucrats tell states what they can and cannot do about the enforcement of their own well-established laws. Federal regulations run every aspect of American life,even as the Supreme Court regularly slaps them down. These actions on the part of the executive branch are not criminal, but neither were many of the arrogant and foolish things the Watergate crowd did. At issue here is not just a few bad individuals. At issue is the way power can be used and abused. Watergate was not the first time the darker side of human nature manifested itself, nor was it the last time.
Consider the issue of the inherent powers of the presidency, especially with regard to national security. It was activities in this area — before the crimes of Watergate took place — that are relevant and sometimes overlooked today.
What led to the Watergate cover-up was the fear that an investigation would reveal non-Watergate activities by the “plumbers’ unit” in the White House, which had been set up to “plug leaks,” among other things. Daniel Ellsberg had leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1970, and the plumbers broke into the office of his psychiatrist to root out information about him. They wiretapped reporters, even White House aides. The list of their offenses is long.
Oh, and remember, millions of lives were lost to the communist takeover of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, once the Watergate reaction put a large Democrat majority in Congress.
Growing Pell-Mell - The government’s program to help low-income students is out of control:
There are two major problems with the program: Not only has it expanded to cover more than half of all students, but almost anyone—regardless of academic background—can qualify. Recipients must meet only a minimal academic standard: obtaining a high school diploma or the equivalent. There are no minimum SAT scores or GPAs.
Consequently, many grant recipients go to college but flunk out or lose interest, often going deep into debt at the same time.
Like housing, government tried to orient higher education through a social engineering lens and “established Sallie Mae in 1972 to encourage banks to loan more money for college. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 allowed the government to loan money directly to students. The following year the Taxpayer Relief Act extended tax breaks to student loan borrowers. Predictably, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates at historically low levels, making college loans cheaper.”
In the meantime, “the price of a college education soared…[and] by law, lenders cannot even deny Stafford and Perkins loans (types of federal student loans) based on the borrower’s credit or employment status. What other reason is there to deny a loan?
We put a guy in the White House who has no experience running anything. In that sense, the joke’s on us. But again, it’s not a joke. America simply cannot afford another four years of on-the-job training. There may have been times in our country’s history where having an untested leader in the White House would have been fine, but this is certainly not one of those times. Yes, President Obama needs to go because his liberal policies are wrong and bad for America. But it’s worse than that; it’s basic incompetence. He is also the most incompetent president since Jimmy Carter.
A specter is haunting the academy—the specter of “new communism.” A worldview recently the source of immense suffering and misery, and responsible for more deaths than fascism and Nazism, is mounting a comeback; a new form of left-wing totalitarianism that enjoys intellectual celebrity but aspires to political power.
One of our many brilliant readers came up with a theory about the terrifying and unsightly "obesity crisis." People aren't smoking tobacco enough, anymore. That's the real cause. People used to have an enjoyable, relaxing smoke in the office instead of a donut or two.
Where's the graph that demonstrates the correlation between overweight and not smoking?
Tobacco satisfies oral greed, suppresses appetite, produces serenity, conveys an air of edgy sophistication, brings big bucks to greedy governments and tobacco farmers like Al Gore - and we must always remember that "A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke."
Now I'm sure I am in big trouble with the nannies...
Hollywood gripped by pressure system from China - To appease China and gain access to moviegoers and financing, movies include positive references to the nation (no Chinese villains!) and face censorship.
As Larry Summers put it during one of our interviews, 50 years from now people will remember that Obama gave us health care, not how long the recession lasted. The problem is that, in 2012, voters are still a lot more concerned about the recovery.
Obama is on the wrong side of the union debate - The president wants to send more federal money to states that just funnel it into bloated pension obligations. And Americans are tired of it
CNN: 
Those two peacocks 
Genius Israeli scientists have produced a 
A History of Women’s Bathing Suits
Impact of Student Debt on Future Housing Demand
Rules of storytelling
