It Finally Happened

After the Virginia Tech shootings I wrote a piece about how just one student or faculty member could have made a difference had they been armed. Certainly I wasn't the only one. There were even Virginia Tech students who wrote that they were qualified for conceal/carry permits, but had not carried their weapons because the school banned them from doing so. Of course the argument makes the liberals go absolutely ballistic with their quick comparisons to the "wild west" and their bumper sticker slogans about needing "less guns, not more." I kept hoping something like this would happen. And now it has.

Yesterday, another 20ish disturbed young man shot several people in a Denver suburb and then drove to Colorado Springs and attacked a church full of people, killing people at random. But lo and behold, an armed church goer, a woman who volunteered as a security guard, pulled out her own gun and shot the loser dead. According to reports she charged him with her gun drawn and probably saved hundreds of lives. The shooter was just "walking and shooting" when she confronted him. Reports say that he had "thousands" of rounds of ammunition on him along with three guns. He had written on a blog that he intended to kill as many Christians as he could

Planting Season

It came out over the weekend that Hillary Clinton was caught planting questions on her campaign stops in Iowa. Hillary's reaction was that she didn't know about it, that it had been "staff" and that they wouldn't do it again. That is "again," as in "again today." They got caught doing it again the next day. That's when the story became "everyybody does it." I believe that it's a logical conclusion that Hillary not only knew about it but likely instigated it. Think about it. What would you do if a "staffer" sought out, on their own, to plant a question for your benefit, but wound up embarrassing you and your campaign? If it happened that way, they'd be fired in a heartbeat. Fire them and you certainly look like somebody in charge of your own campaign. You look like somebody who is willing to make a tough decision and wants to play it straight. You'd be somebody who values honesty and principles over the personal loyalty of subordinates. And there is only one reason you wouldn't fire the person responsible. That would be because you told them to do it. Now, if you fire them, they blow the whistle on YOU. I mean they're loyal, but not without a paycheck. So you have to cover for them. It's my understanding that nobody was fired.

Anyway, here's the transcript from the planted question news conference:

Question: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming How does your plan combat climate change?

Clinton: “Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it’s usually young people that ask me about global warming. And that’s because we always try to have a young person ask this particular planted question. And we ask them to preface the question with the phrase ‘As a young person...’ just so that point is not missed. The next question that is going to be asked is about terrorism and I believe we’ve arranged for an Iraq war veteran to begin that question with ‘As an Iraq war veteran...’ Our focus groups indicate that is a highly effective technique. Next question? You, the young man dressed in combat fatigues with the orange sticker on your forehead.”

Question: “As an Iraq war veteran, I’d like to know how you can tell the difference between Sunni terrorists and Shiite terrorists.

Clinton: “I think the Shiites wear turbans while the Sunnis wear those dish rags tied on with a rope. Next? The young woman dressed in pink, with the orange sticker on her forehead.”

Question: “Will you personally pull the trigger at Dick Cheney’s execution?”

Clinton: “Whoa there! We haven’t even brought charges yet. But since you asked the question, yes I will.” (winks) Next? Way in the back, the man in a business suit with the orange sticker on your lapel.”

Question: “As a businessman, I’d like to know if there is any possible way that I can pay more in taxes? I just don’t feel as though I’m doing my fair share.

Clinton: “ I am hearing this more and more here in Iowa because my campaign manager thinks we can trick people into thinking that raising taxes was your idea! I’m not entirely convinced, but hey, you heard what the man said. He wants his taxes raised. Who am I to argue?

The Debate That Wasn't

This morning the Today Show opened with a story about last night's debate of Republican presidential candidates. The election is still over a year away and these debates have been going on for over six months now. I cannot believe anybody is actually watching them with the idea of deciding who to vote for. Any blogger who writes about these snore fests has long ago made his choice. He is watching it the same way you watch a football game, cheering his favorite on to victory and eagerly pointing out the other guy's stumbles.

So why cover this one so pointedly? Well it was being held at historically black Morgan State University and the BIG story according to NBC was not who was there but who wasn't. The four front runners (Romney, Guliani, McCain and Fred Thompson) claimed scheduling conflicts and were no shows. I have to admit, I don't really understand why. It does seem highly unlikely that they all had engagements that they couldn't break, especially when it offered an opportunity to hog the spotlight as the only front runner to show up. Of course the angle NBC took was that it was a clear sign of racism within the GOP.

But what was funny was that they kept pointing out that the other candidates would reap tremendous advantage because those guys weren't there and now the also-rans would get all the ink. They then failed to even mention by name the guys who were going to get all that good ink. They showed them criticizing the no-shows but they didn't even identify the speakers, and trust me there aren't that many people who could pick Mike Huckabee out of a line up. Meanwhile the front runners were named again and again as being the guys who would pay the price. As for the actual content of the debate, your guess is as good as mine because there was not one clip shown. Not a word was spoken about an issue. There wasn't even the concept of an issue.

They also gave stern warnings that this was going to be seen as a slight to the black community and would cost them big time in the general election. Aside from the fact that Democrats already get over 90% of the black vote, it's always annoying to hear your opponents express deep concern over your welfare. So it's really hard to watch the likes of Meredith Viera, Matt Lauer and Tim Russert wringing their hands and shaking their heads over the problems the GOP is facing in 2008 when you know as soon as the camera is off, they will more likely be punching their fists in the air ala Tiger Woods.

And it's understandable that the press would react that way, because after all this is the very first time that candidates chose to snub a presidential debate being snonsored by a respected black institution, as long as you don't count the one sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus that Hillary, Obamba, Edwards and Richardson ditched.

Discrimination Rears It's Ugly Head Again.

Many observers have weighed in on the double standard that is clearly at work in the scandalous case of Senator Larry Craig (R-Soddom). And frankly this case hits a little too close to home. You see, I too, take a “wide stance” in the bathroom stall. It’s not something I talk about a lot, for obvious reasons. I have quietly discussed the matter with other wide standers. Most people don’t even know that there is vast network comprised of “widers,” as we like to say. But trust me, we are taking this seriously, and we are not about to take it sitting down.

If you only knew how often we are subjected to police harassment you’d join us in the streets. This has got to stop. Each time we “assume the position” we risk another trip to the security office where we are forced to defend our constitutional right to take a stance. And if we are not allowed to take the stance we prefer, (it’s actually more like a necessity than a preference) you can bet that your right to take a certain position will be scrutinized as well. And what will you say when that day comes? I’m reminded of the lessons we learned from Nazi Germany: “When they came for the bathroom loiterers, I did not complain because I was not a loiterer. When they came for the guys who lean way back at the urinals, I said nothing because I didn’t lean way back. But when they came for the wide standers, there was no one left to speak up for me.”

I can only quote a great American President who bravely proclaimed, “This will not stand! (widely)”

Why Daddy Is a Pinhead

It turns out that here in Madison we have an “author” who has gotten some national attention for his work. When I heard about his first book, I didn’t realize that he lived here in Madison, although I might have guessed that. That’s because I heard the title from Rush Limbaugh and it was called Why Mommy is a Democrat.

Of course it’s a children’s book and he made the papers again today by announcing that he has written a follow up called Why Daddy is a Democrat. In the article, they gave a sample line from Mommy:

“Democrats make sure everyone always has enough to eat, just like Mommy does.”

The “author’ is a fellow by the name of Jeremy Zilber. As far as his real vocation is concerned, the article points out that he, “most recently had temporary teaching assignments at UW-Madison and Lawrence University in Appleton.” So in other words he is an unemployed, over-degreed slacker, right up there with Kevin Barrett, our 9/11 nutcase.

Zilber says that as far as what his critics say, he is most bothered by those who call it propaganda. But he says “I think the book will encourage children to want to learn more about politics." And in fact he may have something there. Let’s look at the sample line from Mommy. When a child reads the line that says Democrats make sure everybody has enough to eat, a question will pop into the child’s mind. That question will be “So who are the evil doers that are trying to keep people hungry?” And with a minimal amount or research that child will learn that it is Republicans who take time out from torturing kittens and puppies to make sure that, somewhere, a child will go to bed hungry. See? He learned it on his own. Zilber’s not telling them WHAT to think, merely HOW to think. Isn’t that what good teachers do?

So I’m thinking maybe I’ve got this guy all wrong. To determine the truth, I did a little snooping and found out where this Zilber lives. Then I went by his house and rifled through his trash where I found a draft copy of his yet to be published, Why Daddy is a Democrat. I’m sure he won’t mind my sharing a few quotes with you. And it appears that he is continuing with the practice of not mentioning Republicans by name so that little Johnny can find this stuff out on his own.

“Democrats believe in free money, like the checks Daddy gets from the Department of Workforce Development. There are other kinds of people who get money by murdering people, exploiting minorities and defiling the Earth. They are not Democrats.”

“Democrats love ALL the children. Then there are those other people who fornicate with sheep and then eat their offspring. They are not Democrats.”

“Democrats are a lot like your dog, Buster. They wag their tails and lick your face and they will always love you. But that Rottweiler down the street who mangled your ankle last year? He is not a Democrat. He’s not even an Independent who will caucus with the Democrats.”

“Remember when your Uncle Bunky taught you how to play ‘Hide the meat puppet’? Well I hope I don’t have to point out that Uncle Bunky is not a Democrat. If you become a Democrat, he will stay away and leave you alone”


So it looks like I owe Professor Zilber an apology. He is merely providing the tools for the sifting and winnowing that they will be asked to do when they are adults.

A Crock

This Miss New Jersey blackmail story is absurd. Photos that do not show her naked, nor drinking under age, nor doing anything else particularly offensive, are supposedly sent with the threat that they will be revealed unless she resigns? Unless this is being done by Miss First Runner Up (who will of course assume those duties should Miss New Jersey, for whatever reason, be unable to fulfil her obligations as Miss New Jersey...) I think it is Miss New Jersey herself who is doing this. Think about it. She just did not one, but two segments on the Today show this morning. She was there to release the photos, supposedly in order to "quell the uproar." I think the truth is she felt she didn't get enough mileage out of the original story. She is now the ONLY state title holder who is known to millions of people and regularly being featured on national television. When asked why she was revealing them now she replied, "I want to end this ... It’s time to reveal them." Yep, that it'll end it for sure. Oh and by the way, she thinks those photos were taken from a web site on which she had posted them. But they were meant to be private, because it was password protected.

Perspective

Just in case you are as outraged by the President's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence as the liberals seem to be, here is something to keep in mind for perspective. Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 21 individuals convicted of drug dealing. The cases were mostly cocaine with a few heroin, PCP and meth violations. He negated 400 YEARS in prison sentences and commuted one death sentence to life in prison. But of course that's nothing next to a conviction for remebering things differently than Tim Russert.

Veep

I wish Hillary would just go ahead and name Bill Richardson as her runnig mate now. I do believe it is a done deal. In fact, if it starts to get down to the wire in her race with Obama, watch for her to name Richardson as her Veep before the convention. She'd prefer to do it after getting the nomination, but if it looks like that's in danger she'll throw the Hail Mary.

Foreign vs Domestic

The left has been complaining about the President’s NSA wiretapping program ever since they first found out about it. It was instituted to try and catch terrorists but you’d think it was out there tracking down anybody who doesn’t watch Fox News. Now there are issues here that would justify a debate or serious discussion on the matter. But one of the left’s favorite tactics is to slap a label on the issue that not only defines the program in their terms; it usually does so in a way that negates your argument. Think “Pro-choice.” I mean who’s not for freedom of choice? In this case the label is “domestic warrantless wiretapping.” It may be a mouthful, but it gets in all their misleading points. Every article you read by a lefty will, at least, use “domestic.” The reason is because only domestic wiretapping without a warrant is illegal. So what defines “domestic?”

If we were talking about trade, we’d all agree that if I sold something to somebody in the US that would be domestic trade. But if I sell it to somebody in another country, that would be foreign trade. But since only foreign eavesdropping is allowed, all communication involving just one person in the US is domestic. From there they are only a half step away from suggesting that the FBI is listening to you in the confessional. And now that they have established the vernacular, they no longer explain or point out that one of the callers must be on foreign soil. They have now turned foreign into domestic before your very eyes. Neat trick.

Male Victim Syndrome

It seems that there is only one group of Americans who can be criticized, lampooned or bashed without consequence. That would be white, Christian, males of course. Being the largest minority (yes we are a minority) means that there are no PC considerations with which to bother. Apparently it is not possible to offend us. The columnist Leonard Pitts wrote a piece that essentially said we have such an advantage that it’s virtually impossible for us to garner any sympathy no matter what the offense.

While I don’t agree with Pitts, I think there are many who do. And there is enough awareness on that point that men themselves will often remain silent rather than air a legitimate gripe. You will never hear a man point out the huge difference between how Father’s Day is treated as compared to Mother’s Day. It would just sound too petty.

But last week I was visiting a big city. I was sitting around the hotel room watching daytime TV when a show called Cheaters came on. I had heard about but never seen it. So I watched two episodes with a constant wince. It involves a suspicious spouse or boy/girl friend who suspects they are being cheated on. They contact the sleazy host who then proceeds to sic a group of high tech private investigators on the suspected cheater. After they gather enough evidence, the host, offended mate and a camera crew descend on the cheater for a confrontation that is sure to include fireworks. They actually caught one couple in bed. It is beyond tacky.

But I did notice one thing about it. They had all kinds of couples. And when the woman was the doing the confronting, without fail, she attacked the man. That seems perfectly normal. After all he had betrayed her trust. But when the man was doing the confronting, he also attacked the man! Then they had the final couple. They were two lesbians and sure enough one of them was secretly seeing a guy on the side. So of course the other lesbian also attacked the man. Considering that the man was a bigger and tougher opponent in each case, I think there's someting to this.

Ironic Turn of Events

A short blurb in the papers that most people probably missed contained an extremely ironic aspect. It seems that the Chinese communists have had a policy in place since 1989 that says you are not supposed to even make reference to the Tiananmen Square massacre of that same year. But apparently an ad appeared in one of their newspapers that paid tribute to the "..mothers of June 4 victims." When the authorities saw the ad, they launched an investigation as to how this was slipped past the censors. They discovered that the particular government censor who missed it was quite young. And since any mention of the event had been banned all these years, she had never heard of it. I guess you re-write history at your own peril.

Born to Run

There are two kinds of people who choose to run for President of the United States. There those individuals who either hear a calling to public service or have it thrust upon them, and there are those who were born to run. If you’ve read many presidential biographies you know that quite a few guys who end up in that office have sought it their entire lives. Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and LBJ are examples of the latter kind who actually got elected. Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are also of that type, they just haven’t been able to get there yet. Those who were “called” include Ronald Reagan, Eisenhower and Truman. JFK and George W. Bush had it thrust upon them. The most telling characteristic of the born-to-runs is their very early entry into politics, usually as soon as is possible. Bill Clinton went straight from law school to being a law professor at the University of Arkansas. He held that position for a mere year before mounting a campaign for Attorney General of that state. Richard Nixon ran for congress as soon as he was discharged from the Navy after WWII, getting elected in 1946 at the age of 33. LBJ told people he was going to be president while he was still a teenager. John Kerry arrived in Vietnam and promptly told his commanding officer that he was the “next JFK.” He also took an 8mm film camera to collect future campaign footage. Al Gore was raised to be president, period.

Some would include JFK in that group, but it was actually his older brother Joe who was the designated future president in his family. Jack was allowed to be a cavorting playboy up until Joe died during WWII. It was only then that Jack was expected to pick up the baton.

So, what’s the point? For the born-to-runs, winning the prize is what it’s all about. Anything they say or do is merely the vehicle that gets them to the White House. And in general, there is little they won’t say or do to get there. Bill Clinton was the epitome of a finger-in-the-wind politician. His triangulating was masterful. Of course it helped immensely that he had a third candidate (Perot) off which to triangulate, but he might have won anyway. He co-opted conservative issues like welfare reform, NAFTA and the death penalty, wisely recognizing they were not enough to piss off his liberal base. Plus he had the charisma and smoothness to make his flip flops seem consistent. They didn’t call him Slick Willie for nothing. Hillary, on the other hand, only has the ambition.

But the guys who were called (or called out) actually have a sense of duty and honor. I shouldn’t let it get to me, but the most annoying thing that liberals say to me is when they insist that George W. Bush is driven by the vilest motives that they can come up with. If he’s not “rewarding his buddies in the oil business,” then he’s plotting with Osama Bin laden to start a war and give no-bid contracts to Haliburton. But the truth is that, in his family, public service is considered an obligation and an honor, not a prize. When I look at George these days I wonder that if he knew then what he knows now, would he have run? My guess is not, but he understands his duty now and will carry on regardless of the slings and arrows.

Shortages and Pinheads

My favorite writer on economic matters is Dr. Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institute at Stanford. He always says that whenever an economist hears about shortages, he immediately asks about price controls. Unfortunately this connection is apparently only made by economists. Ask anybody who doesn’t really know economics why we had gas shortages back in the late 70’s and they will tell you it was Big Oil or perhaps OPEC who were just busy making “obscene” profits. But the fact is it was price controls that created that shortage, and our Governor, Jim Doyle is trying to get one going again.

It’s weird to me why this connection is never made, it’s really so logical and avoidable. Let’s say you are Marathon Oil. You have oil and gas to sell. The Governor of Wisconsin declares that he wants a tax on oil. No big deal, every state has a gasoline tax. Ah, but this law has a new wrinkle. This law says that you are forbidden from “passing along” any price increase to the consumer. This tax must come directly from you, Marathon Oil. You must eat this tax, and we’d really like to see you grimace when you pay it because, we really hate you and all the things you do. We’d like to be assured that it hurts. This tax is meant as punishment, pure and simple.

So what are you going to do? I mean Wisconsin is the only state where you sell gasoline isn’t it? It’s not? You mean there are other states where you can sell your oil and not face lower profits and risk jail? Hmmmmmmmmm.....let me think about this for a minute, I want to make sure I understand this. I can sell my oil in Minnesota or Iowa and not pay the tax. I can even make up for the lost volume by lowering the price a couple of cents in those other states and I’ll still come out better than if I sold it in Wisconsin.. Sure there will be gasoline shortages in Wisconsin, but hey, they should take that issue up with their Governor. It’s their problem.

That is essentially what happened over the weekend. Marathon Oil announced that if this tax is passed, they will simply sell less oil in Wisconsin. This was not a threat, just a statement of obvious fact. They didn’t have to give this a lot of thought. In today’s market, the oil companies are going to sell all the oil they have to sell. It’s just a matter of where and to whom. If you can sell it there and make more than if you sell it here, which are you going to do? You can call it a tax, but it’s effect is more like a price control and it will have the same result as a price control; shortages. But maybe Governor Pinhead will come up with a law to make Marathon sell their oil in Wisconsin. Yeah, that’s it, we’ll make them sell us the oil, and we’ll tax ‘em into oblivion. After all, they are truly bad people who do nothing but take money out of our pockets.

UPDATE: May 30, 2007

Yesterday I posted this rant. In today's Wisconsin State Journal the AP had a story repeating Doyle's talking points but thankfully included a comment from an oil company executive pointing out that it is absurd to cite a company's world wide profit and then compare it to the amount of income tax the company paid to the state of Wisconsin. After all the only thing they do in Wisconsin is sell gasoline to retailers, which is a pretty insignificant part of their operation. But an executive from Murphy Oil made this observation:

"Dave Podratz, a Murphy Oil executive, said the company had financial losses after Hurricane Katrina damaged its production facilities in the South. A Wisconsin tax on oil company profits would be an incentive for Murphy to try to sell more of its gas in Minnesota, he said."

Wow, who could have predicted that?

Big Oil Update

UPDATE: The Wisconsin Department of Revenue today sheepishly confirmed what I said before. They were careful not to appear as opposing Doyle's hairbrained "can't-pass-it-on" tax, so they just put out a statement that their analysis showed that it would inevitably raise gasoline prices as much as $.05 per gallon. They also declared that such a law would be almost impossible to enforce. Trust me, this won't faze the pinheads in the least. It will be full speed ahead.

UPDATE II (5/11/07) Well, Department of Revenue be damned! Apparently the fact that it will raise gasoline prices and the fact that they can’t enforce such a law are not enough to stop Jim Doyle from being a demagogue on this issue. His press conference was pathetic. The highlight was when he invoked poll results as justification for going after “big oil.” (BTW, does that mean “little oil” is off the hook? You know there are small oil companies.) He declared that this is a good tax because “the majority of people in Wisconsin support it.” All I could think of was a quote I recently read in a Jonah Goldberg column. “The people of Nebraska are for free silver, and I am for free silver,” proclaimed William Jennings Bryan. “I will look up the arguments later.”

I wonder how the poll question read. I’m thinking it went something like, “Would you favor taxing the crap out of the big oil companies, as long as we can guarantee they can’t pass it on to you?” I think it would be hard for the typical high school drop out to answer that any way but “yes.” By the way, they would also answer “yes” if you asked them if they’d like to get a free Playstation 3, but that doesn’t mean we should give them one. He launched into a bit about how oil companies benefited form the roads we build here and then generously offered that he doesn’t expect for them to pay for ALL the roads, just a portion. And of course he couldn’t let a microphone pass by without mentioning big oil profits.So I’m going to point out, again, that the typical profit, industry wide, on a gallon of gas is between 8 and 9 cents. While the Wisconsin tax alone is 32 cents per gallon. So whatever profits they make in Wisconsin, the state is making four times as much (which apparently is not enough.) And keep in mind that the oil companies actually do something. They find, pump, transport and refine that oil into gasoline before shipping it to Wisconsin. On the other hand the state of Wisconsin does nothing other than collect their cut.

The Logical Conclusion

You could see this coming; it was only a matter of time. Once the global warming crowd had a chance to sit down and think about all the ways that we supposedly contribute to their theory of climate change, they were inevitably going to arrive at the conclusion that living is bad for all of us.

One guy has decided that mankind is simply a “virus in shoes.” A British think tank has declared that having children is “bad for the planet” and should be frowned upon the same as “long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.” And finally, a travel writer has decided that “ travelling is so environmentally destructive that there is no such thing as a genuinely ethical holiday.” He compares the travel industry to big tobacco, and wants the industry to educate travellers about the damage their holidays do to the environment. I suppose that means little warning signs like the ones on a pack of cigarettes.
“WARNING: Taking this cross country flight may put New York City underwater!”

And Sheryl Crow is back on the scene. She got all sorts of grief heaped upon her when she made a suggestion about limiting toilet paper. So the public ridiculed her for a couple of days and she issued a statement that she had been joking, of course. But it had the same feel as the Keith Richards fiasco when he stated that he had snorted his father’s ashes and then said he was just joking. I think they were both caught saying something that only sounded incredibly stupid to them when they heard it the next day. That’s when it became a “joke.” But Crow has now written about how galled she is by the “arrogance” of those who don’t see it her way. That’s funny because “arrogant” is exactly how I would describe Crow and her cohort, Laurie David. They are so sure they are right. You’d think that when somebody is in the business of predicting the future, they might couch their words or at least choose them carefully. These people talk as if they are looking back on history with 20 20 vision.

Who knows, maybe they’re right. But if they are, then I think we need to follow this train of thought to it’s logical conclusion. For example, it should be obvious to everybody that it is a frivolous waste of energy to travel around the country putting on concerts, even in a bio diesel bus. Bio diesel may put out less greenhouse gas than regular diesel, but it’s not zero. And what about all the concert goers, are they only riding bicycles to the show? If Sheryl Crow doesn’t come to town, all those people wouldn’t fire up their hybrid SUV’s and take yet another unnecessary trip across town. Her music can be delivered over the internet. There is no valid reason to go on tour any more, even to “raise our awareness.” There aren’t enough light bulbs to change that could make up for the waste a full fledged rock tour could produce. And don’t give me this crap about how you’re doing it in such and such a way that produces less greenhouse gas. Let me know when it’s zero.

And hey, Leonardo DiCaprio, what’s with the movie making? Talk about a frivolous waste! I wonder how many flights on a private jet you take during each film? And that’s just you. I’m sure Martin Scorcese and Jack Nicholson make a few runs for golf on the weekends. The budget on some of these films is in the hundreds of millions. How much gasoline and coal might that entail? And all for what? So teenagers will have someplace to drive their dates on Saturday night? Hardly seems like a crucial economic function to me. We don’t need movies.

Converts

It occurred to me the other day as I was listening to an interview/book promo on the TV with Bernard Goldberg. He’s the former CBS reporter who wrote Bias which “exposed” the rampant liberal bias amongst the media elite. I put quotes around exposed because it’s not like we didn’t know it was there all along. Sort of like saying Balboa “discovered” the Pacific Ocean. What, nobody knew it was there before? But I digress.

Goldberg is one of those who lived his life believing that liberalism was the enlightened point of view to which all intelligent people subscribed. All his friends and colleagues were liberals and therefore, he received a lot of positive reinforcement for his views. But then he had an epiphany. I don’t know what particular experience triggered his conversion to conservatism, I didn’t read his book. But there are others. Dennis Miller, Ron Silver and Evan Sayet come to mind, mainly because they are celebrities. (Sayet is a writer who ironically used to write comedy for leftist Bill Maher.) And their conversions were directly related to 9/11. But ask any conservative and he’ll probably be able to tell you of someone he knows who is a conservative convert. I consider myself one. Growing up in Texas in the 60’s and 70’s, being liberal was a natural, rebellious position to adopt. It wasn’t until I got serious about getting my college degree and entering the workforce that I began to question liberalism. Then I moved to Madison and found out what liberals were really like. John Wayne had a good line about it. He said “Sure, I was a socialist....when I was a sophomore in college.” The Great Communicator himself, Ronald Reagan, began as a Democrat, as did one of his great cabinet appointments, Jeanne Kirkpatrick.

So what was it that occurred to me? Where are the conservatives who converted to liberalism? The only one I could think of was writer David Brock, and I’m not so sure he actually qualifies as a convert. Brock wrote the hit piece, The Real Anita Hill (a bit nutty, and a bit slutty) when he was writing for the American Spectator. It was a reaction to her testimony that tried to sink Clarence Thomas in his bid to get on the Supreme Court. But Brock’s sudden about face may have had as much to do with him coming out of the closet as a gay man as it did about his politics. And even then, he didn’t reject all of his previous writings. He merely said he was “blinded” and mislead by right wing partisans.

Regardless, liberals convert to conservatism due to either a sudden epiphany or a slow realization that you could dub maturity. In other words, either they were mugged or they grew up. But maturity doesn’t ever seem to turn conservatives into liberals and I can’t think of any event or trauma that causes folks to go liberal.

Learn the Rules!

I just experienced another incident at the 4 way stop that makes me crazy. If you understand who has the right of way at such an intersection, then you know what I mean. It's that guy who is so gracious and patient, that he always waves you through the intersection. But he's not really being gracious or polite at all. He waves you through because he hasn't got a clue as to who actually should be going first and this is the solution to his ignorance. On occasion, I've stubbornly out waited them and then yelled, "LEARN THE RULES!!!" when they pass by. I didn't do that today, but the idiot did have that look on his face that annoys the hell out of me. It's sort of like he's going to let you go first, but he wishes you'd hurry up about it as he waves you through. And the wave has a certain impatience to it as well as a hint of command behind it. Of course, he was waiting at a full stop when I got to the intersection so it makes me wonder WTF he thinks the rules actually are.

No Controlling Authority

Understand something first. I do not own a gun and never have. But I was born with the right to own one, and if the notion ever strikes me to go buy one, I plan to do just that, without government interference. Of course the only reason anybody is talking about gun control at this time is due to the Virginia Tech shootings that killed 32 plus the shooter. And just like every other tragedy of this type, the first thing that comes up is gun control. I suppose that’s because one of the first things that people think is, “If he had tried to do this with, say a baseball bat, he’d either get too tired or sick after killing two or three people. And that makes perfect sense as long as you stop right there and never have another occasion to employ logic again in your life. “Mad man can’t get gun, tragedy is averted. End of story.” See, it all works out very nice and neat. Next issue, please.

But as soon as you start to ask the obvious questions, don’t be surprised when things turn ugly. Next time you hear this sort of thing, try making the following point: Start out by establishing what many experts in the field will confirm, namely that it is very near impossible to stop a committed, suicidal terrorist. That includes the Chos of the world along with Islamic terrorists everywhere seeking out their little slice of heaven, complete with 72 virgins. They cannot be deterred, even by their own destruction. You can seldom identify them or their plans ahead of time. That’s right; there is not a single thing in this world that can stop somebody like Cho. Except, perhaps somebody else who happens to be there and also has a gun.

Be sure to step back after you say this because even if the person you are talking to does not leap for your throat with both hands, there is still the danger that they will spontaneously combust and explode. You do not need to supply the follow up logic concerning police response time, concealed carry laws or the reassurance that criminals get from knowing their victims are unarmed. They already know those things, which is why they stand a good chance of detonating on the spot. In fact, when they leap to the obvious conclusion about where you are heading with this, deny it.

“I’m not advocating anything! I never said we should all go around packing heat did I? I’m not for turning it into the old west again. All I said was, there is one, and only one way that a guy like that could be stopped. I just stated a fact. Draw your own conclusions.” And step back, again.

“Everybody armed? That’s crazy,” they’ll say.

You should reply, “No, what Cho did was crazy, I’m just trying to deal with it.”

Couldn't Resist

One of the reasons why I even write this blog is so that I don't always feel compelled to rant at politicians and journalists individually. But when I read today about the reaction by Quad City barbers to a story about John Edwards getting a couple of $400 haircuts, I just couldn't resist. I wrote to John Edwards campaign and gave him a bit of advice on how he should deal with this embarrassing detail. He's been called "The Breck Girl" by Rush Limbaugh for years now, and the subject of a popular You Tube video that shows him fussing over his hair for five minutes with the song I Feel Pretty dubbed over it. If he were to take my advice he would score big points and reverse his image as a preening, vain metrosexual.

In the article, the barbers were aghast that anybody would pay $400 for a haircut. In their world that's not even possible. The average cost around town was $10-$12, but they also mentioned that you can get one for $7.50 from a supervised, student barber. What I told Edwards to do was go to Bettendorf walk into the local barber college and say, "I hear you can get a haircut here for $7.50? I'd hate to tell you what I've been payin'." Then get the haircut and, maybe even tell the supervisor to take a walk. And the best thing that could happen would be to get a slightly bad haircut. He'd come out looking like he had a sense of humor and a lot more connected to the common man he purports to represent. Oh, and his hair will grow out. Won't happen, no huevos.

Fraud or Faux Fraud?

Recently there were articles in both the New York Times and the Wisconsin State Journal that addressed the issue of voter fraud. At least that's what they said they were doing. The gist of both articles was that when they finally looked at the number and nature or the total prosecutions for voter fraud, they were forced to conclude that it was a non-issue. There were heavy handed suggestions that Republicans had only pursued this issue because it afforded them the opportunity to suppress minority voting. And in that regard they linked it to a study that showed when picture ID's were required, voting by both blacks and hispanics dropped significantly, and by more than whites.

The main reason for their conclusion was the fact that there were only about 120 cases where charges were filed, and only 86 convictions. They didn't give a detailed breakdown, but it seemed from my reading that the largest group of offenders were convicted felons. And if you didn't get the point before, they helpfully described the 14 cases in Milwaukee as " most black, poor, Democratic and first-time voters." Often, they simply hadn't understood the terms of their parole. So, the point was, if there aren't many convictions, then it really can't be a problem.

To me, that's like saying since there are very few arrests and convictions of people for spray painting graffiti, then we really must not have a graffiti problem. One person responded to that analogy by saying that we can see the graffiti. We know there's a problem there. I thanked him for making my point. There is no visible effect from voter fraud. Unlike other crimes that actually supply the impetus to launch an investigation, nobody even knows a crime has occurred in voter fraud. Which brings me back to the preponderence of felons voting in the cases they did pursue. Well that makes perfect sense to me. It's the one type of voter fraud where you have something to work with, namely the cross referencing of voter rolls with the list of convicted felons. Seems easy enough to me. And since they found so few, I'd even acquiesce that felons are not a significant problem.

But the one they really don't want to talk about is non-citizens. I had an exchange of emails with a columnist who was trumpeting the NYT's conclusion. We went back and forth about five times. In my very first note I mentioned that the type of fraud that held the most potential was from non-citizens. I pointed out that we have something like 41,000 illegal aliens in Wisconsin and who knows how many legal alien residents, none of whom are eligible to vote. Couple that with a complete lack of safeguards at Wisconsin polls (No ID needed, just bring in your utility bill!) and you've got a very reckless situation. I mean these people DO have a dog in this fight and, I would think, be motivated to effect the political process. Then think about the fact that the Wisconsin Presidential election in 2000 was decided by some 6,000 votes, and some 10,000 in 2004.

But no matter that I kept asking about that type of fraud, he simply wouldn't address it. He wouldn't respond on that point, but continued to hammer away with his arguments on any other point I had made. We don't have a master list of non-citizens to cross reference. Virtually the only way you'd catch one voting is if somebody else turned them in or directed suspicion their way. Of course the columnist is a liberal, so it was hard to tell if he was just stubbornly refusing to concede a point or if he was too worried about being politically incorrect by casting aspersions on hispanics.

The flaw with the study showing that voting among minorities dropped with the introduction of a photo ID requirement is that it did not address why they chose not to vote. Furthermore, they were never qualified as to their legal status either. I mean, I know this is an off-the-wall notion, but is it possible that this percentage of people who decided not to vote, did so because they were, in fact, non-eligible voters who decided, now, they might get busted? So perhaps that study was actually proving the point that we DO have a problem. I think one group dropped by ten percent and the other by six. Either way that's a significant number. But the libs assume it's just poor ignorant legal voters who were "intimidated" to the point that they were disenfranchised, while perhaps they were just intimidated into not voting illegally.

THE Story II

Just an update on Day 5 of the Don Imus story. He was finally fired yesterday after 5 days of tortuous, wall to wall coverage. This of course presents a real problem for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, namely how to keep both the story going and their faces in front of a camera. The Governor of New Jersey was seriously injured in an SUV crash while on his way to (you guessed it!) the meeting between Don Imus and the Rutgers women's team. John Corzine may have been critically injured but it was still a distant second to THE story, after a mention (second) at the show's opening, they didn't give details of his accident until a full twenty minutes into the Today show. I believe the direct quote was "MY LEG, MY LEG" But there are signs it may finally be coming to an end. It only occupied the first twenty minutes today, where the Imus had taken up a full hour every other day this week.

An interesting detail emerged from the Corzine story:

"Bobby Juska of Forked River, who was on the scene of the accident, said Corzine's legs were hanging out of the window after the accident. He said, "The governor was screaming 'My leg! My leg!'"
The governor does not usually wear a seat belt, a law enforcement official told the Associated Press, but it is unknown whether he was wearing one at the time of the crash.

Update!! I guess the trooper was going 91 mph, and was possibly reading his Blackberry.

Raising Awareness

We all know that there are some words that have a meaning far removed from their original intent. "Diversity" is a good example. It used to mean a collection of different things, opinions or viewpoints. Now it means just the opposite. When a liberal complains that a school board or a city council "is not diverse enough," they mean there are not enough liberals for their tastes. Their idea of diversity is to have a black liberal, a Hispanic liberal, a gay liberal, a native American liberal and an Asian liberal. The only kind of liberal they don't care about would be a white liberal. I mean white liberals are OK, they're just not "diverse enough." Of course far worse than a white person of any stripe, would be a black conservative. Black conservatives have no diversity at all. Despite being different, indeed, they are the anti-Christs of diversity and are welcomed nowhere.

But another term that has come to mean anything but it's actual meaning is "raising awareness." Take Leonardo DiCaprio and Sheryl Crow. Please. They are both ga-ga over Al Gore and his freight train of fear. Cheryl Crow has teamed up with environmental wacko Laurie David to tour the country (in a bio diesel bus, of course) playing at colleges across the country to "raise awareness about global warming."

Now are you under the impression that global warming is not being talked about enough these days? Is this a subject about which nobody is interested? My casual observations say otherwise. In fact, it seems to be the most overblown, over hyped issue in the world. The last thing anybody needs to do about it is "raise awareness." I say that because even if you believe it's really happening and that it's mankind's fault, the issue should be about what to do to solve or reverse it. But instead we get our awareness "raised." This accomplishes something very important. It puts millions of people into a panic about something they have no control over, unless you count killing yourself and your family for the good of the planet. That would be a good thing in their eyes, but anything short of that is lame.

And why does it always fall to a Hollywood liberal who is usually a high school graduate, at best, to educate us on the issue? Because they have time on their hands and a guilty conscience. They are busy bodies whose own lives are both blessed and cursed. They make lots of money, but their personal lives are, to put it plainly, shit. They are in search of something that will make them feel much better about themselves. And unfortunately, that seems to be making you feel worse about yourself and your lot in life. Their lives are so empty that they need somebody to tell them they are really doing something for the greater good. And since they are really big stars, quietly delivering meals on wheels to shut ins just won't do. No, they require massive good deeds to match their massive egos. They could forgo all the private jet trips and reduce the amount of carbon they generated, but telling people about a trip you didn't take really doesn't elevate your stature in Hollywood. Crisscrossing the country so that you can appear at a demonstration, or present a slide show, now that's activism a publicist can sink his teeth into. Oh, and you should buy some carbon offsets to take care of all that jet fuel you burned. For the uninitiated, carbon offsets are financial instruments that turn actual carbon emissions into a mixture of oxygen and distilled water that can be used to irrigate organic produce in Africa. There is also some evidence that they cure AIDS.

So when Leonardo and Sheryl come to town and raise our awareness, we can go on a carbon offset shopping spree. We'll have those glaciers advancing in no time.

THE Story

Ok, just two quick things. First, there is one, and only one news story today. The Today show opened with it for a full hour. There is nothing more important than this story and the main stream media has pounced on it. I am of course referring to that issue that is at the forefront of EVERYBODY'S thoughts and concerns: Whether or not Don Imus should be fired or merely suspended for calling the Rutgers womens' basketball team "nappy headed hos." The importance of this issue is only magnified by the multiple nuances swirling about. This matter cuts to the very core of who we are and how we view ourselves as a nation. The outcome will have repercusions for generations to come. On the other hand, I have no idea why he's on the air to begin with. He's not funny, even when he's not being a racist.

Ther best part was when Al Sharpton said that this kind of language needs to never be heard on the airwavwes again. But I don't believe he really thinks that because it would mean he'd be out of a job along with Jesse Jackson. They are both racial ambulance chasers and the only reason anybody talks to them at all is to hear their outrage on things like this. Without a Don Imus, or a Michael Richards to feed them controversy, we wouldn't even know who they were.

The second thing is Barack Obamba has joined John Edwards in boycotting the presidential debate that is being sponsored by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus, of which he is a member. It makes you wonder if the strategy is to pander to the Fox hating left, or to avoid a situation where you might say something stuipid or get caught making a girly sounding scream ala Howard Dean.

Conspiracy!!

So yesterday I walk into my pub and am immediately met by a young woman who I have known for several years now. She is a smart and ambitious woman of 25 who Mrs. Morant and I have "adopted." Her real parents, in addition to being somewhat dysfuntional, don't live in Madison. Michelle is also a big liberal, who knows better than to try and engage me in a political debate. While she is firm in what she considers to be the "right" political philosophy, she is usually far better informed on the details of Anna Nicole Smith than she is on current events. She keeps current only on those things that seem to interest 25 year old females, and that's not politics. Experience has taught her that if she is going to argue with me she had better bring her lunch and she had better be informed. So she seldom picks a fight with me on such matters. Now I like Michelle, and that was what was so disheartening about what she said.

She hands me a newly burned DVD and tells me, "Just watch it. And watch it with your wife. She'll enjoy it more than you." So I ask, "What is it?"

"It's a conspiracy DVD."

Michelle has always been into conspiracies. She wrote a college paper on the Kennedy assassination and is convinced that Oswald did not act alone. So I said "Kennedy?"

"No," she replied, "nine eleven."

This ruins my day. I am absolutely stunned. Of course these wacko theories have been going around since nine twelve, but this is somebody I know. And she is wide eyed with conviction. "I was never one of those who thought this was possible. But this is scientific evidence! There is actual scientific evidence on that DVD."

"Like what?"

"Lots of stuff. It's all these little things that come together."

"And who do these little things all point to as being behind this?"

"The Government."

"Michelle, a conspiracy like that would have to involve thousands of people."

"Exactly."

"And they've all managed to keep it secret?"

"Yes."

"In six years not one of the thousands has broken ranks and talked? Why not?"

"They're afraid they'll be killed!"

"By?"

"The Government."

When I point out to her that the Government is not a monolithic institution of robots, but comprised of individuals, she accuses me of being naive. "The government is a huge and powerful organization. They can do anything they want and get away with it, " she says. "You can't tell me you're 50 years old and don't believe the government is capable of stuff like this."

All I can think of is how can she be so STUPID. I'd like to use a less harsh word, but stupid really is the best one. I try to have her look at the big picture so that she can see for herself how ludicrous this notion is. "Michelle, two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead. This government can't keep the legitimate secrets that are held by the designated secret keepers! Ever heard of the NSA warrantless wiretapping? Yeah? So has Al-qaeda. That same government wasn't able to keep the CIA extraordinary rendition program secret either. So the people you think are the most incompetent boobs in the world, the ones you think got it completely wrong on Iraq, lead by the biggest moron who ever held public office, were able to execute the most diabolical, cynical mass murder in history without leaving a clue. They would have had to have explicit detailed knowledge of the 9/11 attacks in advance. I assume, if it's the government, that some elements of the military would have to have been involved. I mean you gotta have explosive experts right? And these guys would be just fine with one of the planes slamming into the Pentagon? And the politicians who are in on it would be OK with a plane slamming into the Capitol, which is where the Pennsylvania plane was headed. And how did they sneak thousands of pounds of high explosives into the World Trade Center ahead of time? And how were they able to plant them, with detonators, in all the right places? And why did they even have to plant them in the first place? What, crashing the planes into the buildings and setting them on fire while killing hundreds on impact wasn't enough?"

If all you're doing is providing a pretext for war (that's the non sequitur motive) why do you have to bring the whole building down? Oh, and then there's building No. 7. That's the one that collapsed on it's own after the two towers went down. The wackos are fond of saying that it would have been impossible to have happened without explosives. Of course we've never had two buildings of that size collapse under any circumstances, so I don't know to what they are using for reference.

Look, it's one thing to go around speculating on the Kennedy assassination. Sort of harmless fun. But this is insanity. And why did they do it? Oil, of course. You see Dick Cheney only has a net worth of between $30 and $100 million. Obviously that's not enough. He decided he had to murder thousands of his fellow Americans so that Haliburton could prosper even more. And even though he has yet to get his hands on that Iraqi oil, he will soon enough. Then they'll be going after the Iranian oil.

I wrote all this before viewing the DVD so that I could commit to paper the things I knew I'd be thinking while I watched it. I'll write Conspiracy Part II after I watch it.

Forget short memories, try no memory.

I can’t think of another instance where the blatant liberal bias of the press is more evident than the non-scandal over the firing of eight lousy U.S. Attorneys. This morning the Today show opened with “Under fire! Attorney General Alberto Gonzales takes heat over…..” Whatever. Suddenly this is a “scandal” even though there is only the slightest hint that there was a political motive behind the firings. That whiff of impropriety comes only from the vague notion that some of these eight did not aggressively pursue accusations of voter fraud against Democrats. Every story you’ll read on this includes the caveat that all U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and that firing them is his prerogative. But then they immediately shift gears and delve into the “politicization” of the Justice Department. Of all people, Hillary then calls for Gonzales’ resignation. When Good Morning America at least asked how that differed from her husband firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, she claimed "There is a great difference, when a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It's not done on a case-by-case basis where you didn't do what some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh' and every president has done that." The only problem is that is a blatant lie. Previous presidents including Carter and Reagan left all the attorneys in place. What’s more, one of those who Clinton fired was investigating political ally Dan Rostenkowski and another one was investigating their Whitewater land deal. The firings ended both of those investigations. Those investigations were later restarted, but surley he delayed both of them.

And then local moonbat liberal Dave Zweifel of the Capital Times proves that Bush can do no right. His contention is that the real scandal is the ones he didn’t fire because they are still out there “harassing Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance."

His column today is a study in bait and switch. The headline and opening paragraph say that it’s about the real scandal involving Gov. Jim Doyle and the tens of thousands funneled to him through straw donors by a millionaire who wanted to get a casino project approved that would make him even richer. In the second paragraph Doyle is offered partial absolution when Zweifel declares that it doesn’t matter if he actually did a quid pro quo, because it’s the appearance that matters. Conveniently, this allows him to go no further in pursuit of that question. But by the 4th paragraph he diverts into a purely speculative mode where he wonders out loud how former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson managed to avoid getting caught because according to Zweifel he invented and perfected “pay for play.” Of course no proof whatsoever is offered for this charge, but his conviction that it took place is certainly stronger than his any he has about Doyle’s actions, which involves actual evidence.

Then the real message is delivered in the next four paragraphs. Want to take a guess? Well if you said Bush skullduggery in the Justice Department firings, you’d be correct. So we get lip service paid to a Dem scandal before he hammers Republicans on pure speculation. What an asshole.

Big Oil, Big Profits, Big Target

Wisconsin governor, Jim Doyle, has Big Oil in his crosshairs again. Last year, when gas topped $3 a gallon, he threatened to have oil company executives subpoenaed so that he could kick their butts in public. But gas prices dropped and he maintained a commanding lead over his Republican challenger, so the idea faded away. Then Exxon announced their record profits of some $39 billion. Naturally, everybody in Madison was appalled and offended.

Now I expect that reaction from the typical Madison liberal for several reasons. The first and biggest reason is that most people in general, and, seemingly, liberals in particular, haven’t got a clue about how our economy works and the role that prices and profits play in that economy. Oh, they will give lip service to “supply and demand,” recognizing that those two things do affect prices. And they will also offer faint praise for small or what they consider “reasonable” profits. But their perspective on the economy as a whole is naïve at best and, often, flat out wrong.

The first fundamental mistake they make is to treat the money supply as a fixed amount, and financial activities as a zero sum game. And that is why they get so offended when somebody makes a profit. If somebody made a profit, that means somebody else lost money. In their minds, Exxon took $39 billion out of our collective pockets and they don’t intend to give it back. And to make matters worse, the executives at Exxon are probably going to use that money to buy themselves another Hummer and maybe an Escalade for the wife. Oh, the injustice of it all. Why you could eliminate poverty with that $39 billion! Hillary declared that she wanted to “take those profits and put them into a strategic energy fund.” It was bad enough that she felt perfectly comfortable “taking” somebody else’s private property, but you should really look at the clip on Youtube to see her facial expression when she says the phrase “record profits.” It’s akin to the face you’d make if you were to say the words “rancid monkey vomit.” She is beyond appalled. Profits are bad, and huge profits are hugely bad. To them, profits are just another way of saying “money we screwed people out of.” They equate it with stealing, even though they know enough not to say that out loud.

The aggravating thing about their prevailing attitude is this notion that Big Oil lucked out and doesn’t really deserve those profits. And using the term “windfall profits” is ideal for that purpose. Of course the high price of oil (which they do not control) was the reason for most of that profit. But where were they when oil was stuck at $13 per barrel? Well maybe I get ticked off about it because I grew up in oil country and worked in the industry. But I do have a pretty good idea about what’s involved in the “awl bidness.” So let me point out a few details you’ll never hear from Jim Doyle.

Great offense was taken because of the shear size of the profit, $39 billion. But not mentioned is the fact that Exxon has assets of $223 billion that they used to make that $39 billion. That’s a return on investment of 18%. That’s pretty good, but not unheard of in the way of a return.


Oil industry profits work out to about $.08 for each gallon of gas they sell. Their net cash flow is even less because capital expenditures are deducted in the form of depreciation spread over many years. For their $.08 per gallon they explore for, find, drill, pump, transport, refine, and transport again so that you can pick up a pump handle and fill your gas tank. The state of Wisconsin on the other hand gets $.32 per gallon each time you fill up. What do they do for it you ask? They pass laws saying you have to pay them $.32 per gallon. The federal government is somewhat less of a pig. They pass laws that say you only have to pay them $.18 per gallon.

So Doyle wants to tax the oil companies with a special tax that “cannot be passed on to the consumer.” I don’t know how he plans to do that, but he suggested that they would audit the oil companies and there would be jail time for the executives if it was found they were “passing the tax on.” Considering the ambiguity of such a situation, if I were an oil company executive, I’d try to stop doing business in Wisconsin. Why would you risk it? Doyle wants a trophy. He’d like nothing better than to see the president of Exxon doing the perp walk. And frankly, so would the morons who blame oil companies for high prices. I think they believe there is one guy at each oil company who gets up each morning and says “I wonder what we should charge for a gallon of gas today?” Let them get their gas from someone else. Maybe a few years of chronic shortages and gas lines would bring them around.

Nope, we can’t let those oil companies “pass it on.” After all, the state doesn’t pass it on. They just take it directly out of your pocket.

UPDATE: The Wisconsin Department of Revenue today sheepishly confirmed what I said before. They were careful not to appear as opposing Doyle's hairbrained "can't-pass-it-on" tax, so they just put out a statement that their analysis showed that it would inevitably raise gasoline prices as much as $.05 per gallon. They also declared that such a law would be almost impossible to enforce. Trust me, this won't faze the pinheads in the least. It will be full speed ahead.

UPDATE II (5/11/07) Well, Department of Revenue be damned! Apparently the fact that it will raise gasoline prices and the fact that they can’t enforce such a law are not enough to stop Jim Doyle from being a demagogue on this issue. His press conference was pathetic. The highlight was when he invoked poll results as justification for going after “big oil.” (BTW, does that mean “little oil” is off the hook? You know there are small oil companies.) He declared that this is a good tax because “the majority of people in Wisconsin support it.” All I could think of was a quote I recently read in a Jonah Goldberg column. “The people of Nebraska are for free silver, and I am for free silver,” proclaimed William Jennings Bryan. “I will look up the arguments later.”

I wonder how the poll question read. I’m thinking it went something like, “Would you favor taxing the crap out of the big oil companies, as long as we can guarantee they can’t pass it on to you?” I think it would be hard for the typical high school drop out to answer that any way but “yes.” By the way, they would also answer “yes” if you asked them if they’d like to get a free Playstation 3, but that doesn’t mean we should give them one. He launched into a bit about how oil companies benefited form the roads we build here and then generously offered that he doesn’t expect for them to pay for ALL the roads, just a portion. And of course he couldn’t let a microphone pass by without mentioning big oil profits.

So I’m going to point out, again, that the typical profit, industry wide, on a gallon of gas is between 8 and 9 cents. While the Wisconsin tax alone is 32 cents per gallon. So whatever profits they make in Wisconsin, the state is making four times as much (which apparently not enough.) And keep in mind that the oil companies actually do something. They find, pump, transport and refine that oil into gasoline before shipping it to Wisconsin. On the other hand the state of Wisconsin does nothing other than collect their cut.

The Carbon-Neutral Hustle

So Al Gore gets nailed by some group who managed to get a hold of the energy bills for his Tennessee mansion. It turns out that he consumes more than 20 times what the average American household consumes. Last August he consumed twice as much in one month as the average house consumes in a year. Of course this makes for a rather inconvenient truth considering that he makes his living these days going around scolding other Americans for their extravagant energy consumption. To defend himself, Gore sends out spokesperson Kale Kreider who points out that Gore leads a “carbon-neutral lifestyle” and purchases enough energy from renewable sources to "balance 100% of his electricity costs."

Gore is not the first to trot out this defense when accused of hypocrisy (which is usually considered by liberals to be worse than murder.) This carbon credit thing comes in real handy at times. Flew your private jet across country to play golf? Purchase some carbon credits and you’re home free. It’s like it never happened. Buy some more and you can cancel out the all the carbon that your Hummer limo produces when you commute 50 miles a day. If you’re feeling especially noble, you can purchase enough carbon credits to give yourself a negative carbon footprint so that you are not only covering all your carbon, but also soaking up some that the guy down the street is spewing.

What, you say? You don’t quite understand how that works? Well that’s because it doesn’t. Energy consumption is not reduced at all. This is like putting eleven on the volume knob so you can be “one louder.” The only things that are reduced are your guilt and how much money you have. This is Pope Leo X selling indulgences. Yes, it’s a law of economics that people will tend to buy less of something at higher prices, and more of something at lower prices. That is the self-limiting role that prices play. YOU make the decision to buy less of something because while the price is high, you still need it. But what if you don’t really need it and are buying it for altruistic reasons? The price at which you buy less would be a lot lower I think. Not that I want one, but a universal individual cap on consumption is the only way this would work. After your nth ton of carbon we start taxing you.

The carbon credit system is an economic incentive to reduce carbon emissions. And economic incentives do have an effect on the way people behave. But as Al Gore demonstrates here, the desired effect is decidedly not achieved. Gore didn’t alter his lifestyle; he simply ponied up the “tax.” How is this any different than the rich guy who doesn’t care when gas goes to $4/gallon because he's got the money? Gore’s purchase of “renewable” energy would only be significant if he used it instead of the other energy, not in addition to. Some of the programs do things like plant trees to offset consumption, but wouldn’t those trees do a better job if you weren’t matching them up with new emissions? Those trees could scrub existing emissions instead of the stuff you just created.

Rap Sheet

A short article in the Wisconsin State Journal last weekend was interesting for a couple of reasons. Basically it was about a “riot” that had occurred Sunday night at the High Noon Saloon. About twenty police officers were called to the bar to quell a melee involving up to 50 people. Twice in the article it was mentioned that marijuana was present, even going as far as to attribute the violence to it’s presence. Police spokesman Mike Hanson said “Marijuana mixed with alcohol fueled the aggressive atmosphere that led to the fights.”

I thought that was a rather curious statement to make since most people think that weed usually has just the opposite effect. I even remember an article a couple of years ago during that rash of soccer riots in Europe that one plan they seriously considered to control the hooligans was to make sure they had access to pot because they were far less likely to start some violence when under it’s influence. So Hanson’s comment made no sense to me and I wondered why he would say that. Reading on in the article I think I found the reason.

They interviewed a bartender and the bar owner, Cathy Dethmers, about the brawl. They both tried to downplay the seriousness of the fight naturally, although the bartender said it was "10 times worse" than any previous fight he'd seen at the High Noon. Dethmers then leaked the tidbit nobody wanted to mention. The article quoted her:

Dethmers said more than 100 customers were at the bar to hear a R&B disc jockey, and she expected it to be "a mellow kind of night."
Although the show also featured hip-hop, Dethmers said the fight had nothing to do with the music. But she said she did not intend to work with the show's promoter again.
"I've booked plenty of my own hip-hop and not had any problems," Dethmers said. "It was a handful of troublemakers that just happened to come to the show."

In the other Madison newspaper, The Crapital Times, the article was almost identical except that there was no reference to hip hop at all. (For those of you who may not know it, our two competing dailies have a somewhat incestuous relationship. They have a convoluted ownership arrangement involving a holding company that allows them to appear separate while they are actually the same entity. They do compete for readers, but they have divvied up things so that they don’t really step on each others toes. The State Journal does a morning edition and the Sunday paper and they are moderately conservative. The Capital Times does the afternoon edition and is wacko liberal. Often, identical news articles appear in each.)

Trust me when I say that the omission by the Cap Times was no accident. You see we’ve already been down this road before. Within the past year a popular downtown bar called the Majestic was forced to close when they experienced similar outbreaks of violence. This place had a rotation of acts throughout the week. They’d have old time burlesque one night, drag queens the next and “Late Night Catechism” the next. Of course the violence exclusively happened on hip hop night. They tried metal detectors at the door. They hired private security to supplement the substantial police presence that was now required each time they had hip hop. And when the cops did arrest somebody, invariably, the guy who got shot/stabbed/beaten would refuse to cooperate and the perp would be set free. Nothing worked and they were eventually shut down. And throughout the entire affair the hue and cry was “Hip hop does not cause violence. The music is not the problem.” They even had an editorial written by a young newspaper intern who said she could prove the music was not the problem. She liked and listened to hip hop, and she had never been violent! Case closed.

When Dethmers said “the fight had nothing to do with the music” she was right only in the sense that the thugs involved were probably not fighting over who’s better, 50 Cent or Snoop Dogg. Yes, I’m sure it was a “handful of troublemakers,” but they didn’t “just happen to come to the show.” They sought that show out and they will again the next time somebody puts on a hip hop show.

Slim Tuesday

Well last night was a series of disappointments. First, the UW Badgers lost a tough game at Michigan State. All Big Ten road games are tough, and the Spartans were sky high with the newly minted No.1 team in the country visiting. They had a guy who hit six three-pointers and they took us completely out of our game. At the end, we were reduced to exclusively shooting threes, which we CAN do, but it's not our forte. And it's probably the worst aspect of Alando Tucker's game (next to his free throw shooting.) So when you saw him heaving them from downtown at the end, you knew we were in trouble. And to make matters worse, ESPN had Brent Freakin' Musburger doing the broadcast. I can't stand him. Among the annoying things he does is say WIS-con-sin instead of wis-CON-sin. I know, Bob Griese saying WES-con-sin is worse, but just barely. Then half way through the game he says "Wow, WIS-con-sin is a much better team than I thought they'd be." Hey you moron, they're ranked No.1, that should tell you they're REALLY good shouldn't it? But what he was really saying was, "I've never seen this team play, but they're WIS-con-sin so I assumed they were lousy." Then he reads off his little note cards with trivia about the various players to give you the impression that he really knows these teams intimately.

So after the game Mrs. Rant and I head out to celebrate Fat Tuesday. Our first stop is my bar, which shall remain nameless (because I am there all the time.) A few guys had beads on, but we were the only ones wearing masks. They had a decent band but the crowd was small and pretty sedate. So after a couple of beers, we decided to find something a little more exciting. We headed to The Club Tavern in Middleton. Now The Club Tavern has developed a reputation for Mardi Gras. They have multiple bands and lots of beads, that you have to earn the old fashioned way. Rumour has it that the owners "salted the mine" in years past. That is, they hired "professional" flashers to insure that the guys were not disappointed. I don't know if they still do that, because I've not been able to even get in the building on Fat Tuesday and this was no exception. The line at the door (all guys) was probably 30 at 9 o'clock and they appeared to be metering them in as people left. The side streets looked like Camp Randall on a football Saturday with cars parked on lawns and every other conceivable space. There was a cop car parked on the corner and it was a traffic hassle just to drive by and turn around.

So, we tried Irish Waters just down the road. As we walked in, about ten guys were walking out in a group. One of them says, "You guys can take over now." As we came through the doors I saw what he meant. They had been the only ones there and the entire place was empty now. So we headed to Gray's Tied House in Verona. On the way there, I encountered doofi (plural for doofus) on the highway. The first idiot was in the lane next to me and aggressively trying to race ahead of me and get into my lane, which was the inside lane of two left turn lanes getting onto the beltline. The second idiot was in front of him. The arrow was red but the second idiot was anticipating it turning green as he approached. Consequently, when it didn't change, he wound up in the middle of the intersection with the cross traffic trying to get around him. That's when he threw it in reverse and slammed into idiot number one just as the light turned green. My guess is they were both drunk and now had to deal with a wreck and possibly the cops. I laughed all the way to Verona. The Tied House was a morgue as well, but after driving that far we decided to stop for one. I regretted that right away when I noticed the bartender was the same arrogant jerk I'd had before. If you've ever been there you probably know the guy I'm talking about. Think "snotty bitch." If you didn't know better you might think he owns the place. He's got an attitude and a smart mouth. His comments are actually quite snippy and hostile, but when he makes them, he follows it with a laugh that's supposed to say "I'm just kidding." Sort of like the Dwight Yokum character in "Slingblade."

Anyway, I tried to convey the idea that maybe the Club Tavern might have figured out how to cash in on Mardi Gras while these other places were missing the boat. He looked at me like I was from outer space and said something dismissive. So I tried to make the point more personal by saying "Well, no offense, but look at your place" making a sweeping gesture at the almost empty bar. Instead of acknowledging my point, he walked away in a huff. Two things are obvious here. One, Gray's does not have ownership present at that site, and some people should not be in any type of service job.

Do You Consult Your Dentist About Brain Surgery?

The scientists listed below comprise the Board of Directors of AAAS, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. They issued a statement on 2/18/07 that basically amounts to taking a shot at George W. Bush for what they consider foot dragging on global warming. On their web site they claim AAAS “serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals.” While I’m not sure what constitutes “serving,” I’m pretty sure they don’t speak for ten million individuals. In fact, this statement was generated by the Board of Directors listed below. What is interesting here is that there is not a single expert in Climate Change. Much like the impressive list of scientists who lent their names to Al Gore for his film, there is a noticeable lack of experts in the actual field they are writing about. Don’t get me wrong, I’m impressed that Dr. Dowling has an MD (from Harvard no less) AND a PhD in Biology, but why weren’t they talking to the premier Climatologist in the country, or at least the top Climatologist at Harvard (where the majority seem to have a connection.) And I wouldn’t mind if they were on the board along with some climate experts. You know, to add some “diversity” (God, I hate that word!).

The worst part is that the thrust of their statement is “It’s time to end the debate.” And that seems to be the chorus these days. Just admit they are right and we can all move on to solving this problem that they alternately say is unsolvable and irreversible. But PLEASE can we just stop talking about it! The glaciers are retreating! No, not all of them and no, we really don’t know why some are advancing. No we don’t have all the answers and we certainly don’t have a solution. But, damn it, it’s time to stop the debate. You must be one of those global warming deniers.




Dr. Gilbert S. Omenn – MD & PhD Genetics
Dr. John Holdren – Engineering & Physics
Dr. David Baltimore - Biologist
Dr. David E. Shaw – Computer Scientist
Mr. William T. Golden – Not a scientist, but did give AAAS $5.25 million
Dr. Alan I. Leshner – PhD Physiological Psychology
Dr. Rosina M. Bierbaum – BS Biology, PhD Ecology & Evolution
Dr. John E. Dowling – MD & PhD Biology
Dr. Lynn Enquist – Molecular Biology
Dr. Susan Fitzpatrick – Health Risk Management
Dr. Alice Gast – Chemical Engineering
Dr. Thomas D. Pollard - MD
Dr. Peter R. Stang - Chemistry
Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan – BS Earth Sciences, PhD Geology

Invested In Defeat

A most disturbing situation has developed amongst Democrats, particularly those with presidential aspirations. Politically, they are heavily invested in defeat in Iraq. Ask yourself what is the worst thing that could possibly happen to the political future of Hillary, Biden, Obamba, Kerry and Harry Reid? A clear cut victory in Iraq in the next two years. Of course, they can't appear to actually take that position, so their posture is that we have already lost, and NOTHING can change that. If they can convince you that it's already over, they don't have to address what they want the outcome to be. And clearly, they want us to lose. Or more specifically, they want George W. Bush to lose, and that doesn't happen if he has success in Iraq.

Now I realize that it's possible to actually believe that Iraq is a lost cause and therefore not worth one more casualty. But the Democrats' actions belie that notion. A little over a year ago, Hillary, Biden and Kerry all criticized Bush for not sending enough troops. Harry Reid thought a surge was a good idea just a couple of months ago. The about face came as soon as Bush decided to heed their advice. Once he was for it, they had to oppose it. And that is what they are all about, knee jerk opposition. If you are trying to ride Bush's unpopularity to the White House, you cannot afford an upswing in his poll numbers. From where I stand there are only a few individuals who are actually willing to have the courage of their convictions. And they are at different ends of the spectrum. When asked about his unique stance of wanting even more of a troop surge than Bush, John McCain stated that he'd rather lose an election than a war. On the other end, Russ Fiengold is willing to suffer the consequences of cutting off funding for the war in order to force capitulation. As repugnant as that idea is, you have to admire his courage in taking that position. (Although, he does have the comfort of knowing his proposal doesn't have a chance, at this point.) I wish we could hook them all up to a polygraph machine and simply ask them, "Do you want to win this war?"

Bake Sale

It was announced yesterday that Air America Radio has found another set of deep pockets to keep it's sorry ass on the air a little longer. But probably not that much longer. One of their original investors is a guy here in Madison, WI (The Peoples Republic of Madison) named Terry Kelly. He apparently dumped so much cash on this dog that he finally decided that you need more than just a lot of angry Bush haters to make a radio network economically viable. Advertisers would be nice. And usually, advertisers like RATINGS. That is unless you can convince them to spend money for a cause. That's what they did here. Clear Channel decided to shut down the Air America affiliate in Madison, in favor of an all sports format. Of course all the far lefties in this town (and there are lots of them), decided to hold a "bake sale." That is after Clear Channel explained to them that the format switch was due to the fact that nobody wanted to buy time on their sorry line up, and not due to corporate right wingers wanting to stop them from "talking truth to power." Not fully buying that explanation, they at least realized that advertising did have to be part of the equation. Ergo, the bake sale. Mustering all the "activists" they could find, they hit up every liberal that was even thinking about starting a business and convinced them to buy advertising time anyway. With commitments in hand, they were able to convince Clear Channel to reverse field and keep AAR going. Of course the activists refused to see the proof that Clear Channel (like most corporate types) couldn't care less about what gets them revenue, as long as they get it. They viewed it as some sort of political victory, as if they had protested Clear Channel into capitulating. Funny, usually they are more than willing to criticize corporations for only paying attention to the bottom line. But in this case they seem convinced that it was their activism and not the advertising commitments that made the difference. You would think that somebody in that group would realize that Rush doesn't have to hold bake sales to keep his network going. It will be interesting to see how long these folks will throw money at a broadcast failure.