Breitbart: Investigate Acorn or else (updated)
Clarice Feldman
The most recent ACORN tape of the L.A. ACORN office is far from the last tape sting Andrew Breitbart has. Attorney General Holder keeps refusing to investigate what is an obvious nationwide criminal endeavor. Breitbart now threatens that if Holder does not investigate the rest of the tapes will be released just before the 2010 election when they will do most damage to the administration: Breitbart: There's a lot of hypocrisy and the dust has settled for ACORN and at the end of the day they've recognized that Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has not initiated an investigation into ACORN after we now have seven tapes. There were five initially that came out, ACORN was defunded by the Senate, was defunded by the House, lost it's link to the Census; while all that damage occurred, Congress didn't come in to investigate them, obviously not the Attorney General's office, and they've now realized let's get back into business because they realized that the dust settled and they were not being investigated, it was Hannah, James, and me who were being investigated, that's why we've been forced to offer this latest tape.
Hannity: Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?
Breitbart: Oh my goodness there are! Not only are there more tapes, it's not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it's not just ACORN, and we're going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don't give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.
h/t:Lucianne.com This is a refreshing change from the MSM mode of operation where Democrat scandal and illegality (like Edwards mistress, for example) is kept bottled up at election time.
Update:
Patterico revels in the idiocy of Los Angeles Times columnist James Rainey and Media Matters for America, who went out on a limb that has just been sawed off.
Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters
Clarice Feldman
There's big news for climate change students. A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU, Britain's largest climate research institute and a proponent of global warming, and seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the "evidence" on global warming; the unlawful destruction of records to cover up this fraud ,conspiracy,and deceit in the entire operation.
While hacking into the institute's records is inappropriate if not illegal, the activities disclosed appear illegal and damaging to science and the economies of the world.
At first many of us were inclined to dismiss the posted emails from the Institute as fraud, but the head of the institute admits the records were hacked and the emails seem genuine.
Here is a sample of the purportedly hacked material (1079 emails and 72 documents) available online:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich
*******************************************
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.*** Thomas Lifson adds:One interesting hacked email childishly insults American Thinker, by calling us "American Stinker." It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go - complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say - but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely - but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons - but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom. The problem is that the files and emails seem just too good to be true. A number of files seem to be smoking guns -- revealing how to resist Freedom of Information Act requests for their data (which would both be scientific misconduct and actually illegal); long-term marketing plans on how to push the climate-change agenda; and discussions of how to pressure peer-reviewed journals to stop accepting papers that disagree with the "accepted" view of global warming.
In other words, just what the skeptics have been suggesting for years. It seems just too neat, and we don't have independent verification of where the files came from. Someone who is willing to hack might also be willing to create fakes.
But then, the whole package is very large -- 63 megabytes -- and seems to be very internally consistent. Several people have already corroborated a number of the emails as being ones they wrote or received. The package also includes substantial data and computer programs, which are being explored as this is being written.
Obama goes from radiant to radioactive
Rosslyn Smith
After the 2008 election, Obama basked in a triumph of superlatives that would have made a Caesar returning for the barbarian wars blush, so thickly did the media slather on the paeans to semi-divine political status In 2010, it is starting to look like Obama may be worse than deadly Caesium-137 to incumbent Democrats.
James Geraghty at NRO's Campaign Spot writes that the Cook Political Report is now reporting that Obama has become so unpopular in the hinterland that multiple term Democrat Congressmen like Ike Skelton (MO-04, first term began in 1977), John Spratt (SC-05, first term in 1983), Bart Gordon (TN-06, 1985), John Tanner (TN-08 since 1989) and Rick Boucher (VA-09 since 1983) may be in for the political fight of their lives should they run for reelection and draw serious challengers. Cook describes Obama's status in these districts as "beyond radioactive." What makes this assessment particularly stunning is that Botcher and Gordon drew no Republican challenger in 2008, Tanner's opponent was totally disavowed by the local Republican Party and Spratt and Skelton won landslide victories with well over 60% of the vote. For those not familiar with the districts, Botcher represents most of southwestern Virginia, a rural area that is culturally as distant from Fairfax County and the other affluent suburbs of Washington, DC as the Grand Ole Opry is from La Scala. Gordon's district is a fat, reverse letter "C" that surrounds Nashville on the north, east and south. Tanner represents the entire northwest corner of Tennessee, beginning in the north suburbs of Memphis. Skelton represents west-central Missouri south of Kansas City and east to Jefferson City. Spratt represents north central South Carolina, the largest cities in the district being Rock Hill and Sumter. The Cook Political Report (which is hidden behind an expensive subscription fire wall) notes that: Less than a year out from Election Day, it's time to rethink who the vulnerable Democrats are. And if President Obama is the dominant issue of the 2010 midterms (and rarely has a midterm not been a referendum on the incumbent president), Democrats ought to be seriously concerned about districts where reliable surveys suggest voters are in open revolt against him. Democrats would rather not draw attention to their problems in these districts, but both parties recognize the sea change underway.
In 2006 and 2008 when the Democrats sought to recruit candidates for Congressional districts in small town America they looked to these multi-term Congressman as a prototype to recruit in small town districts if they wanted to win control of the House. Out went the flaming left wing radicals from the college towns in such districts, and in came the military veterans, business owners, church elders and former star jocks -- all with their small town vocabularies and main street values. That these models for the new Democrat majority may now themselves be in peril because of voter reaction to the President's policies speaks volumes about the difference a year can make in politics. It also suggests that the Democrats in suburban and small town districts who were first elected in 2006 and 2008 have good cause to be extremely nervous. They are on the horns of a dilemma. Should they thwart party leadership, they place themselves at risk a well-funded primary challenge from the left. If they don't distant themselves from the administration, it is a pretty safe bet a challenger with local popular support will make their ties to Obama's leftist agenda the major issue in the general election. It is still unknown whether the above five veterans will draw serious challengers in 2010. On the other hand, a locally known challenger to freshman Democrat Tom Perriello, (VA-5) entered the race over a month ago. Perriello won the sprawling rural district in south and central Virginia by only 800 votes and has antagonized many local voters since then with his actions on Health Care Reform. Recent Republican successes in Virginia and New Jersey as well as in many municipal elections around the nation are likely to cause even more candidates to toss their hats in the Congressional ring in the weeks and months to come.
Apology ideas submitted to Obama's Speechwriter
Lee Cary
(Emailed November 19, 2009 to Joe Biden for forwarding.)
Jon Favreau
White House Speechwriter
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.
Jon,
Recently, President Obama solicited “demonstrably good ideas” on how to improve the economy. In the spirit of offering good ideas in general, and assuming that you, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel are instrumental in proposing opportunities for the President to apologize for America as he travels abroad, I herein offer several demonstrably good ideas for additional Presidential apologies. Perhaps you’ll pass them on to David and Rahm.
If used, you need not credit me with any of these, Jon. If fact, I prefer you not credit me, since some come recommended by persons who will remain anonymous. Here’s a short list.
Presidential apologies are in order…
• …To the Barbary Pirates (BP) for being intimidated by U.S. Navy Commodore John Rodgers who, during the First Barbary War, threatened to remove Tripoli’s pasha from his throne and replace him with his brother if the BP’s continued to attack U.S. ship and demand tribute. It was an unjustified and hegemonistic intrusion into the affairs of a sovereign Muslim nation.
• …To the people of the former West Germany for our having participated in the imputation of a political system on that portion of Germany at the end of World War II. In doing so, we usurped their legally elected government led by the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
• …To the Russian government for taking advantage of their need for money and low-balling the purchase price we paid for Alaska.
• …To the French government for our taking advantage of their need for money and low-balling the purchase price we paid for the Louisiana Purchase.
• …To the North Korean government for our having meddled into the affairs of the Korean peninsula by coming to the aid of South Koreans when attacked by freedom fighters from the North.
• …To the world community for our having been environmentally insensitive during our visits to the moon where we space trash without thought to those who will follow us there and clean-up.
• …To the Empire of Japan for our provoking them into an attack on Pearl Harbor that eventually led to two events that the President would certainly like to apologize for, but just can’t bring himself to mention yet – the dropping of A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Jon, this is only a short list. I can easily expand it to, say, 100 more, including apologizes to Mexico for the War of 1846, to native Americans who were tricked into selling Manhattan Island for what a medium-priced lunch in a three star restaurant costs there today, to Somalia for recently murdering three of their pirates in cold blood without a trial…and many more. But the list above should be sufficient for a few weeks.
Keep up the fine speechwriting, Jon. America has much for which it needs to apologize.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lee Cary
Progressive Taxation is punishing success
Scott Strzelczyk
According to the National Taxpayers Union, the top 1% of federal income tax filers paid 36.89% and 40.42% of all federal income taxes in 2004 and 2007, respectively. That equates to a 9.6% increase in the percentage of taxes paid over the four year period.
Total tax collected increased by 44% from 2004 to 2007; however the top1% actual taxes paid increased by 54% in the same period. The top 25% paid nearly 87% of all federal income taxes in 2007, while the bottom 50% paid 2.89%. For Tax Year 2007 Percentiles Ranked by AGI
| AGI Threshold on Percentiles
| Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
| Top 1%
| $410,096
| 40.42
| Top 5%
| $160,041
| 60.63
| Top 10%
| $113,018
| 71.22
| Top 25%
| $66,532
| 86.59
| Top 50%
| $32,879
| 97.11
| Bottom 50%
| <$32,879
| 2.89
| Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
|
For Tax Year 2004 Percentiles Ranked by AGI
| AGI Threshold on Percentiles
| Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
| Top 1%
| $328,049
| 36.89
| Top 5%
| $137,056
| 57.13
| Top 10%
| $99,112
| 68.19
| Top 25%
| $60,041
| 84.86
| Top 50%
| $30,122
| 96.70
| Bottom 50%
| <$30,122
| 3.30
| Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
|
According to the Tax Foundation analysis of 2007 taxpayer data, the top 1% of federal income tax filers earned 22.8% of adjusted gross income but paid 40.42% of all federal income taxes. In 2007, there were a total of 141.1 million income tax returns filed across all filing statuses. Therefore, the top 1% includes 1.41 million federal income tax returns and the top 25% includes 35.27 million federal income tax returns.
According to the 2008 federal government budget (pg 21) the actual federal income taxes received by the federal government in 2007 was 1.169 trillion dollars. The top 1% paid $472.5 billion in federal income taxes. The top 25% paid $1.012 trillion in federal income taxes. The bottom 50% paid $33.84 billion in federal income taxes. Data in the chart below comes from the National Taxpayers Union, Tax Foundation data, and the 2008 federal government budget. Federal Income Tax Collected (in Billions)
| Percentiles Ranked by AGI
| 2004
| 2007
| 2007 # of income tax returns filed
| Top 1%
| 298.4
| 472.5
| 1.41 million
| Top 5%
| 462.2
| 584.5
| 7.1 million
| Top 10%
| 568.7
| 832.6
| 14.1 million
| Top 25%
| 686.5
| 1,012.2
| 35.27 million
| Top 50%
| 784.2
| 1,135.2
| 70.535 million
| Bottom 50%
| 24.8
| 33.8
| 70.535 million
| Total Federal income Taxes
| 809
| 1,169
| 141.1 million
|
The farce of Obama not knowing
Monte Kuligowski
Mr. Obama is very skilled at insulating himself from political fallout. The administration claims that Obama doesn’t know what his left hand man, Eric Holder, is doing. But in the matter of Holder’s decision to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to New York for a civilian trial, Obama’s fingerprints are inextricably attached.
Quite frankly the tacit decision to provide civilian trials was made by Obama himself earlier this year when he implemented his unprecedented policy of providing Miranda warnings to captured enemy combatants (or man-caused disaster makers, as Obama might call them).
Miranda rights have only one context: Civilian court.
Reading Miranda warnings to enemy combatants necessarily foresees trial in civilian court. There is absolutely no other reason for the warnings. Miranda warnings are provided by civilian police, whether state or federal, not by military officers. Military police apply UCMJ Article 31 (similar to Miranda) to military personnel. The FBI has the unfortunate task, under Obama, of mirandizing Islamist terrorists.
Mr. Obama most certainly knew civilian trials were forthcoming for terrorists captured in battle. More importantly, without Obama’s new approach to terrorism it never would have happened.
The seismic shift reflects Obama’s mindset of placing Islamic enemy combatants into the same category with common criminals. Mr. Obama apparently has something to prove to the world. For some crazy reason he actually believes the world will love him after providing civilian trials to enemy combatants hell-bent on destroying America.
Global peer pressure to appear refined and sophisticated in overseas contingency operations motivates Obama in his decision making. What he might not realize is that, while some of the world may love him, most of it may not respect America for being against her own interests.
What's the right term for David Frum?
Rosslyn Smith
There may be a term from the 1960s to describe pundit David Frum that has nothing to do with rebuilding a traditional centrist Republican majority, as the Canadian-born pundit purports would happen, should the party only follow his august advice. Nor is that term "perennial loser," as the centrist Republican Party was in Congress for 60 of the 64 years going back from 1995 to the Great Depression.
This is what Frum had to say during his new gig at CNN about Sarah Palin kicking off her book tour in the rust-belt city of Grand Rapids, Michigan. "This is a woman who has got into a position of leadership by sending very powerful sexual signals," Frum told reporter Judy Woodruff. "And we see that in the way that men like her much more than women do."
Frum obviously moves in far different circles than I do, because I have met a great many women in the past year at tea party events who see Sarah Palin as their heroine and role model. Nor is this the first time that Frum has obsessed that strong, attractive woman earned her clout via an illegitimate use of feminine wiles. McLeod mentions that Frum's reputation as a conservative is based on his brief period as a speechwriter for George W. Bush. I read Frum's book about working in the White House, The Right Man. According to Frum, Karen Hughes' role as a senior advisor to President Bush had everything to do with her sex and her status as a fellow Texan, and nothing at all to do with her political savvy or communication skills and particularly not her intellect, all of which Frum found seriously deficient. Frum struck me as an exceedingly petty man in that book, the self-described smartest kid in class who boasts frequently to outsiders of his minor achievements while never understanding why so few of the people who matter ever follow his advice on the subjects that really matter. He certainly came across as being pea green with envy over Karen Hughes' clout. It is also likely that David Frum didn't attract 1,500 people for signings over the entire tour of any of his several books, let alone 1,500 at a single stop on a chilly November weekday in a small city well off the beaten path, as Sarah Palin did in Grand Rapids. And while Frum strikes me as also being envious of the success of a great many men, I doubt that he would use similarly demeaning terms to explain their success. When I read Frum's attacks, first on Hughes and now on Palin, it reminded me of some of the boys I knew back in college. When the Dean's List came out the first semester after the college admitted its first class of female students, women were significantly over-represented. Those who spent their time out of the classroom at keggers or smoking dope knew that our success was because the professors couldn't take their eyes off our breasts or legs. It certainly wasn't because we all were smart to begin with, had strong values and, most of all, took our responsibilities very seriously. Welcome to the CNN fraternity, David. I am sure you will fit right in.
Top 10 Reasons you might be a progressive
Chris Duco
Top 10 reasons you might be a progressive:
10. If you are an ACORN employee who tried to organize other ACORN employees into a union but were stopped by ACORN's illegal union busting activities while ACORN fights to unionize OTHER companies... you might be a progressive.
9. If in the year 2009, you belong to a congressional caucus that uses skin color as it's only membership criteria... you might be a progressive.
8. If you are a congress person who belongs to a congressional caucus started by a self described socialist, and you think it is OK... you might be a progressive.
7. If you are a congress person in a "free country" who has a Freudian Slip and tells someone you want to nationalize their whole industry while at the same time you are directing tax payer dollars to save a company you are part owner of... you might be a progressive.
6. If you are the Ohio spokesperson for a Presidential campaign and you vote in that swing state instead of your home state as the law requires... you might be a progressive.
5. If you get an appointment in the Department of Transportation within that winning administration despite your illegal voter fraud activities... you might be a progressive.
4. If an organization you work for is paid almost a million dollars by a Presidential campaign to register voters, the organization endorses that campaign's candidate and only turns in registrations for that candidate's party and that organization is tax exempt... you might be a progressive.
3. If you call people who drive cross-country with hand made signs because they heard there was going to be a protest against big government "astro-turf" but you call the people paid below minimum wage waving professionally printed signs that were handed out to them as they get off a bus paid for by a PAC "grass roots"... you might be a progressive.
2. If you find yourself at a rally chanting that health care is a human right while forgetting that doctors are not slaves and you actually don't have a right to lay claim to their skills and abilities for free... you just might be a progressive.
1. If you think Carbon Dioxide, the gas required by plants to convert solar energy into usable chemical energy in the photosynthetic process, the very source of all food on the planet, is a pollutant... you might be a progressive.
Chris Duco served 8 years in the US Navy, 6 as a nuclear trained Machinist Mate aboard the most highly decorated ship in US history.
Graph of the Day for November 20, 2009
Randall Hoven
"When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading." Henny Youngman
"It takes only one drink to get me drunk. The trouble is, I can't remember if it's the thirteenth or the fourteenth." George Burns
"I drink therefore I am." W.C. Fields
Alcohol Consumption Per Capita (Liters)
 Hoven's Index for November 20, 2009 Blood alcohol content threshold for DUI offense: 0.08. Approximate blood alcohol content per "drink" for men*: 0.02, minus 0.01 per hour of drinking. For women*: 0.03 (minus 0.01/hr). Definition of "drink": 1.25 ounces of 80 proof liquor, or 12 ounces of beer, or 5 ounces of wine. *Actual values vary by weight and other factors.
Trouble in River City
Joseph Smith
As the pressure mounts from all sides on the Obama administration there is trouble brewing in Obama's inner circle of thug politics.
According to long time liberal Washington hand Elizabeth Drew writing in Politico, a dark cloud surrounds the White House over the demise last week of White House Counsel Greg Craig. At issue is the shabby treatment of a respected Washington hand, long-time Clinton associate, and early Obama supporter, as he was slow-drip-leaked out of the White House:
President Barack Obama is returning from his trek to Asia Thursday to a capital that is a considerably more dangerous place for him than when he departed.
While he was abroad, there was a palpable sense at home of something gone wrong. A critical mass of influential people who once held big hopes for his presidency began to wonder whether they had misjudged the man. Most significant, these doubters now find themselves with a new reluctance to defend Obama at a phase of his presidency when he needs defenders more urgently than ever.
This is the price Obama has paid with his complicity and most likely his active participation, in the shabbiest episode of his presidency.
[...]
What caused so many Obama supporters' stomachs to turn was that Obama could have stopped the leaking at any time; he or White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel could have arranged a dignified departure.
Yes, we knew, or should have, during the campaign that the supposed idealist Obama had a bit of the Chicago cut-throat in him, but there was little sign that he could be as brutal and heedless of loyalty as he was in the Craig affair. An unexpected climate of fear emanates from the Obama White House. [emphasis added]
Craig's replacement as White House Counsel fits right in with the climate of fear, as National Review details:
...what is even scarier is that we now have a White House counsel who has asserted that anyone who talks about voter fraud, including the type of massive voter-registration fraud committed by ACORN, should be investigated and prosecuted by the Justice Department for voter intimidation... Given the serious concerns about the politicalization of the Justice Department under Eric Holder, perhaps we should all be worried that the prosecutorial power of the Justice Department will be used against members of the opposition political party on this issue.
Holder himself is hanging on to the side of the bus, Treasury Secretary Geithner is under pressure this week from both sides to resign, and one Democrat Congressman has called for both Geithner and Larry Summers to resign. Not to mention pressure from the right on the Patrick Gaspards, Mark Lloyds, Cass Sunsteins and John Holdrens of the White House, who would have been flushed out in a more moderate administration.
The President, for his part, when asked this week about his plans for 2012 said "there are a whole series of choices that I'm making that I know are going to create some political turbulence." It appears there is already more than enough turbulence to go around.
The combination of a true-believer ideologue surrounded by incompetent ministers and a radical second tier, all protected by a gang of Chicago back-room boys, makes for a turbulent and nasty brew in the White House.
You got trouble Folks!
Right here in River City.
Trouble with a Capital T ...
(from The Music Man)
San Francisco booksellers would rather lose money than go 'Rogue'
Dirk Salvo
Despite San Francisco Bay Area bookseller claims that Sarah Palin's new book "Going Rogue" is "not for thinking people", the Amazon numbers say otherwise. On a mission to show that Palin's book is selling much worse than, say, the idea of reading Osama Bin Laden his Miranda rights, the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed several local booksellers to find out how well sales of "Going Rogue" were not going: "Our customers are thinking people," said Nathan Embretson, a bookseller at Pendragon Books in Oakland. "They're not into reading drivel." "Anything like that we wouldn't carry," said clerk Emily Stackhouse at Cover to Cover Books in San Francisco. "We're a small store and it would probably gross us all out. Some things you carry because of freedom of speech, but a book like that is just gross."
A cursory glance at the Amazon.com Bestsellers list reveals that non-thinkers are not only buying "Rogue", which clocks in at #1, but also the works of Stephen King (#2), Dan Brown (3), James Patterson (9), John Grisham (12), and Mitch Albom (16).
I thought it would be interesting to find out what the non-thinkers are not buying on Amazon: Nancy Pelosi's "Know Your Power", released April 2009, ranks #85,750. Barbara Boxer's "Blind Trust", released July 2009, ranks #687,029. Harry Reid's "The Good Fight: From Searchlight to Washington", released May 2009, #1,474,817. Sarah Palin's book has sold out of its first printing and had sales of 300,000 its first day.
Apparently the job of a "bookseller" in and around San Francisco is not so much to sell product, but rather to give comfort to like-minded individuals and convert the remaining unwashed masses to lockstep ideology. Politics trumps profit, even though profit generates the much needed tax revenue, job growth, and consumer spending this state dearly needs. (Author's note: I will not actually be purchasing a copy of "Going Rogue". See, my local San Francisco bookseller has a "buy 12, get one free" program and I just noticed that my next book is on the house. Would I dare make them special order "Going Rogue" just for me? You betcha!) Dirk Salvo
Democrats playing games with CBO numbers
Rick Moran
This is really not the CBO's fault, although you would think Director Douglas Elmendorf would explain some of the gimmicks being used by the Democrats on his blog. (He has done so in the past.) The long and short of it is this; Harry Reid is "cooking the books" regarding the true cost to the taxpayer of the senate's version of health care reform.
The Wall Street Journal:
Late yesterday members were still poring over the numbers and details of the new Reid bill, but reasons already are emerging to suspect that CBO's math doesn't add up. Most importantly, according to the Republican Policy Committee, the Reid bill games the CBO process by holding back the major spending until July of 2013. This is a trick Democrats have been playing with the health care cost numbers for months: counting ten years of revenues, but only seven years of spending. Senate Budget Committee Republicans today reestimated the price tag over the first ten years of full implementation and the cost of the bill is $2.5 trillion.What also has free marketeers outraged are the new taxes proposed by the Reid bill to pay for health care. According to the Republican Policy Committee analysis: "The bill includes a new Medicare payroll tax that, for the first time, will divert Medicare taxes to pay for a new entitlement." Small businesses would also be slapped with "play or pay" taxes if they don't cover their employees, though the details of those new taxes are not yet available. The bill features another Washington favorite, mandating benefits while requiring the states to pay for them. The Reid bill shifts large costs through Medicaid expansions at a time when states are already flat broke. Thus the restrained costs of the Senate bill are partly a deception, because they ignore the extra health care tab that will have to be paid by taxpayers in the 50 states.
As Ed Lasky so delicately put it in pointing me to this article, "What a crock." Indeed, the House bill performs similar magic with revenue and expenses - 7 years of paying for health care but figuring 10 years of revenue.
And the CBO is stuck. They have to give their assessment of the costs based on what's in the bill, not based on what tricks the Democrats want to play with the numbers. That's their job, but they might have been more responsible and pointed out this bit of legislative legerdemain. For Reid and the Democrats, it's full speed ahead with a vote on bringing the bill to the floor for debate scheduled for Saturday.
Hat Tip: Ed Lasky
Continue reading "Democrats playing games with CBO numbers" »
A parable about debt
David Jeffers
Imagine your child going off to college and you give him or her a credit card with an unlimited credit limit. Each month the bill comes in and each month your little high-roller is spending as though he or she has no responsibility for paying the bill. As a matter of fact your child doesn't have to pay; you do.
Next week during Thanksgiving break you decide you need to set down your child and explain that this unlimited spending must be stopped because the debt is becoming so large that you will not be able to pay it off and all you have will be lost.
You pick the perfect moment, take your collegian into your office, and show your prodigal all the spending that has left you on the brink of bankruptcy. The apple of your eye looks at you, listening intently and finally says,
Dad, it is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to your debt, even in the midst of this economic recovery, that at some point, your creditors could lose confidence in your ability to pay back this debt.
Do you think to yourself, "My goodness this college stuff is really catching on with my child. Look at how much he has already learned about economics!"
No, you don't think that; you think, "I need to take a walk so I don't wring his scrawny, irresponsible neck!" (Figuratively speaking, that is)
Undoubtedly the frustration of a parent with a spendthrift child running up his credit card debt requires immediate action, such as taking away the credit card.
That was my feeling yesterday watching Barack Obama's interview with Major Garrett of FOXNews.
The most amazing part of that interview was that Obama said the following with a straight face:
I think it is important though to recognize that if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the US economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.
My question for Barack Obama is, "Who do you consider as ‘we'?"
Great Britain's very own 'death panel'
Ethel C. Fenig
So, the elites laughed at Sarah Palin when she warned that a government run health system would bring about death panels. Well the ill--and their families--aren't laughing in England where there is a government run health system called the National Health Service (NHS). And while the NHS doesn't have a specific sub group labeled death panel it does have an institution with the ironic acronym NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) which
NICE has made another of its fateful (or "fatal") decisions: the drug, Nexavor, which significantly prolongs the life of liver cancer patients, and is widely available in other countries, is not be used by the NHS because it is too expensive. So all those who might have benefited from it have effectively been told that, on accounting principles, they are not worth keeping alive. Nice is functioning as what the US opponents of Obama's healthcare reforms call " a death panel". And because its edicts apply to the NHS as a whole, there is no possibility of appealing to a different Hospital Trust or a different GP in the hope of getting a different decision. That is the reality of a government monopoly system. The cancer research bodies and the agencies that care for terminal patients are appalled.
Appalled as they are, it is, as Janet Daley of England's Telegraph online, points out
But, on the present priorities (and limitations) of the NHS, this is a justifiable policy. There is only so much money that can be spent on healthcare and so the cost effectiveness of every intervention or medication must be judged in terms of the greater good: how best can these limited funds be used to cure what is curable and make a material difference to the lives of the largest number of people?
In other words, death panels. So laugh--and cry--when those same elites confidently state Obamacare won't include death panels. And remember mature ladies, postpone your mammogram for a few years--and save money.
The government's idea of 'accountability and transparency'
Ethel C. Fenig
So, you wondered how a government website , sponsored by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, devoted to showing how your tax stimulus money is distributed, did not notice that it listed disbursing over $6 billion to non existent Congressional districts, to non existent jobs?
Well, that's because it can't. ABC News Rick Klein reported received from the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board chairman, Earl Devaney explaining the problem. Sort of.
Your letter specifically asks if I am able to certify that the number of jobs reported as created/saved on Recovery.gov is accurate and auditable. No, I am not able to make this certification,"
Try using this line, I didn't sign my income tax form as I can't certify it "is accurate and auditable" with another government agency, the IRS.
Furthermore
Devaney said that while he can't yet provide a list of all entities that were required to submit information but failed to do so, "I expect to have access to this data shortly." He also said the board will seek to correct data that proves to be faulty, and is promising "increasingly higher levels of accuracy in the future."
Again, try promising the IRS "increasingly higher levels of accuracy in the future" when questioned about uh, discrepancies on your annual income tax statement.
Meanwhile
Separately, the administration has slashed more than 60,000 jobs from its most recent report on the program, because the reporting outlets submitted "unrealistic data."
The IRS does not take kindly to "unrealistic data."
And so now you have the government's definition of accountability and transparency.
|
|
|
