health care dog and pony show, or obakabuki as someone called it

Too much too say, but here's one great piece of info from the Politico:

"Republicans are watching the clock closely as Democrats have talked for nearly twice as long as they have so far this morning. Before Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn started talking, the time of possession was:

Democrats: about 74 minutes
Republicans: about 37 minutes"

so much for bipartisan, eh?

The Washington Times has updated the minutes counted.
"By the end of the televised event, Mr. Obama had spoken for 119 minutes - nine minutes more than the 110 minutes consumed by 17 Republicans. The 21 Democratic lawmakers used 114 minutes, giving the president and his supporters a whopping 233 minutes, according to a "talk clock" kept by GOP aides. "


What a joke, but I think the Rs made their point.

Re-Branding the Gov't

Sorry to just post a link to another Michelle Malkin post, but this is too good, and I have no other outlet for this stuff as Facebook is not the place for my politics.

Looks like the star and sickle to many, too.

Lots of hubbub about all the new logos out there, if you care to remember. More later, it's lunchtime!

Ok, there's been new information released about this and the logo has been in the works for a while, even pre-Obama. Strange.

White House site Fail

This is the blog that has the screen grab that says it all, by way of Michelle Malkin's site.

Hilarious reading, folks. What a pack of ____s are working in the White House!

Partisan and proud

Well, it's about time we all admitted it, right? I am a partisan and I am not at all sick of partisan politics.

Partisan means I have principles and am sticking to them, that I recognize when the other side is wrong and will not compromise my beliefs and stances so we get along: we'll get along when you see that I am correct in my conservative views and your liberal, progressive, Utopian pipe dreams are exactly what they are: damaging to freedom and damaging to people.

Partisan means saying "no" sometimes and saying "you lie" sometimes and saying "don't tread on me" sometimes. Partisan means that I won't agree to disagree and hope you still like me. Partisan means that if I see you doing something that is contrary to the very ideals and philosophies upon which this great nation was founded, I'm calling you out on it.

What I don't see in DC is enough partisanship, at least from the conservatives. Scott Brown just voted for a crap sandwich in the interest of "bipartisanship," which in this day and age means Republicans giving Democrats what they want. Don't believe me? Look it up. I'll give you a hint: who actually wrote no child left behind? Let's see, he's dead and Scott Brown has his old job.

See, if you have principles, stick to them. They are the rock to which you can anchor in tough times, and not feel like you have to get along. It's the classic story of the ship on course seeing the light of another ship and hailing it to change course to avoid collision. After several rebuffed attempts, finally the captain gets on and says "I am the captain of this freighter and insist you alter your course." The reply comes, "I am the keeper of this lighthouse, and if you don't want to be dashed upon the rocks, I insist you alter yours."

My principles are my lighthouse, and they are conservative ones. Personal responsibility, charity, limited government, liberty. These are not negotiable, up for compromise, nor will I deny them so that we get along, or act in a bipartisan fashion.

Snow means what, climate-wise, exactly?

Several excellent articles floating around the web lately about how the IPCC report on warming is crap. Now, you and I knew this, because we think with our brains not our hearts, and we look to the scientific method as a guide to evaluate science, but to many of our dear friends, this may come as a shock.

The WSJ has this.

The New York Post has this.

Now they both (and some others) acknowledge that a hard winter is not "climate" any more than some hot summers, but the crux is this: the "scientists" were and remain advocates for a particular view, not investigators looking to interpret data. That, and the data was bad. Too many temperature stations in stupid locations and too few to boot.

Please, people, wise up to the truth here (it's not "out there" it's right here :)) that it's a scam perpetrated by hucksters with an agenda. Some are in it because they really think it's a crisis and will do or say anything (Ed Begley Jr., for example, who I admire for walking the walk); some are in it for the money (GE and their compact fluorescent bulbs); some want to kill the US economy (the UN); some combine several of these into a scary mash-up (Al Gore).

Global Warming? Weather Channel Founder says "scam."

Thanks to Walter Williams for this one. You don't need me to recap, do you?

Here's the most important paragraph:

"The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their lost made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global warming claims. D'Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates."

I still don't get why seemingly intelligent people fall for this, but history is replete with examples of that, right? Galileo was jailed, eugenics, the-moon-landings-were-faked crazies, these all spring to mind.

What's your name?

So, during the sermon yesterday, the Pastor tells a little story about a colleague that used to get this pitch from his dad before going out (name changed, as I can't remember it):

"What's your name, son?"
"Lee."
"What's your family name, son?"
"Marrs."
How's that spelled?"
"M-a-r-r-s."
"Does that spell Smith? Jones? Johnson?"
"No, sir."
"Then make sure you act like a Marrs."

He then imagined Jesus asking the church (that is, asking us),

"What is your name?"
"Christian"
"Spell it."
"C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n."
"Does that spell New Age, or Self-help, or Anything Goes?"
"No, sir."
"What does it spell?"
"Christian."
"Then make sure you act like it."

Socailism in America, some appear to want it. Really.

Okay, I have to admin that I find this shocking:

Really? Have we failed our founders so miserably? Have we not taught the lessons of the wars we have fought, including the Cold War? My oldest brother used to say (not joke, but say) "do you know why they tore down the Berlin Wall? We lost." For those that don't get it, we are so much like the old Soviet Union that there was no point in keeping the wall up. Don't agree? Fine, but think about some of the laws passed and held up as Constitutional, like McCain Feingold or that unbelievable Supreme decision about eminent domain.

It makes me sad.

More climate lying investigated

Investigation! Of course, I doubt anything will come of it, but at least they're making a show of this embarrassment to actual science. Professor Mann is responsible for the totally discredited "hockey stick" temperature graph that Al Gore seems to think is real.

Obama admits to demonizing banks

In this article in the LA Times, our President said this in response to a question from Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas)

"So the point I'm making -- and Blanche is exactly right -- we've got to be non-ideological about our approach to these things. We've got to make sure that our party understands that, like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can't be demonizing every bank out there. "

I ask, then, which banks is it okay to demonize? Isn't that an admission that he's been demonizing some already? Isn't he saying that the demonizing of banks is an ideological action that they need to discontinue? That his and their natural ideological methodology is to demonize banks (and other industries/businesses)?

And wait, there's more:

"like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning." Do I need to comment on that, really? Really? REALLY? He acknowledges that his party might not like it if the financial system is healthy. Wow.

This is how our President sees things, and admits it, and the LA Times reports it, and yet, we hear crickets from everybody except Rush Limbaugh?

Take the A Train

So, Ohio's getting 400 million dollars from the federal kitty to start this Cincy to Cleveburg rail thingy (I love how the Governor calls it "a major step toward modernizing our state’s transportation infrastructure" like trains are more modern than cars or something. Like Streetcars are a step into the future in Cincinnati, right?).

So, allow me to ask a fairly long convoluted, leading question: if my country and state has spent and spends gajillions on the highways that allow me to drive to and from Cincinnati to Cleveland starting my trips any time I would like (530 mi. round trip) in about 9 hours (round trip) at a gas cost of about $50.88 (530mi @ 25mpg X $2.40 a gal), why, pray tell, would I ride a train that only leaves 4 times a day for $76.00 (round trip) that takes 12 hours (round trip) and that will cost my country and state additional (although admittedly fewer, but additional nonetheless) gajillions?

I'm just askin'.

Now don't think I haven't thought this through. I know that there will be "new jobs" (only they will be even more government (union) jobs), that there will be economic development along the rail line (at stations, one of which is likely within walking distance of my work, although it won't help me get here or anywhere), blah blah blah. What the reality is is that the economic development is only a shift: what about the jobs lost along the highway corridor? Oh, sure, those jobs won't be lost, you say, people will still be driving:. How can you lose that many car passengers to the rail, based on the rosy (and way overestimated, IMHO) passenger predictions and not lose highway drivers and the $$ they spend along I-71? Will, suddenly, new people be traveling? Nope.

What about the side trips? If I'm driving to Cleveland for something, I'm more likely to head over to something else to do in that part of the state and spend money, or make a weekend of it, right? Lost internal tourism dollars.

Most folks, when making their personal travel decisions will be primarily concerned with the above calculation. I know (by the number of Smart cars) that some use environmental impact as their primary cost/benefit analysis, but that is an extreme minority. That is reality, which is where this discussion needs to take place.

Ultimately, I just think it's hilarious that the "progressives" are looking to the past and calling it looking to the future. We replaced trains with highways for a reason. Amtrak is a losing proposition for a reason (and yes, the taxpayer subsidy to them is peanuts compared to highway dollars) so why try to replicate and grow a failed model?

Remember, this will be subsidized by tax dollars, as public transportation is, I get that, but even after the subsidy it is still more expensive and time consuming than driving: what would it cost if it was run only as a free enterprise, profit-making business?

**Update*** this writer from the Plain Dealer sees the boondoggle, too.
**Update*** this video from Reason TV sees the boondoggle, too, too.