dewey from detroit

Hey Detroit - don’t worry; we are on correct path comrades!

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:59:00 +0000

On Powerline, Steven Hayward reports on the President’s much vaunted career as a constitutional professor: Barack Obama, Constitutional Ignoramus, explaining just exactly how narrow his academic scope was:

His course on constitutional law, one of several constitutional law courses on the U of C curriculum, dealt exclusively with the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment—the favorite, all-purpose clause for liberal jurists to use to right wrongs and make us more equal by judicial fiat. There is no evidence that Obama ever taught courses that considered other aspects of constitutionalism, such as executive power, the separation of powers, the Commerce Clause, or judicial review itself.

He claims to have a copy of one of Obama’s final exam questions from his U of C class on constitutional law:

I have a copy of one of his final exams. It is a long hypothetical involving civil rights, which begins thus:

“In part, Hardsville’s racial isolation is the result of white flight and the limited economic means at the disposal of the black community. It is also well documented, however, that Hardsville’s racial isolation arose in part due to decisions by a white-controlled city government prior to the seventies that were purposely discriminatory.”

As MOTUS has pointed out:

“You would have to be an ignoramus not to be able to figure out what the ~~wright~~ right answer to this question from Professor Obama is.”

Let’s hope the press corpse is at least as smart as his constitutional law students were.

Oh, and just for the record: Detroit got 100% on that test, butt still hasn’t figured out the right answer.”

Detroit: I give it an A-

Pay attention America, as Detroit slogs through the only conceivable end of 40 years of complete and abject dereliction of fiduciary duty on the part of its stewards, there is lesson to be learned. This is what happens when you govern with only one side of the ledger.

Don’t worry: we are on correct path comrades!

Linked By NOBO2012 on Free Republic, Thanks!

WTF Theatre Episode 7: #ILikeObamacare

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:13:00 +0000

Did you get your flash-email from David Axelrod yesterday announcing the new #ILikeObamacare?

MOTUS has the full story in case you didn’t get your own copy.

Cody and Skyler got the email, and like the good Seattle-based liberals they are, they’re all over it:

I especially liked the post script to David’s email announcing the #ILikeObamacare” (his hashtag, not mine):

P.S. -- Side note: Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security "Roosevelt Security"? Or if Medicare was "LBJ-Care"? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?

My initial reactions: 1. Who, exactly, are “these guys?” 2. neither Social Security nor Medicare was as universally disliked by members of both parties as Obamacare now is. 3. By “long view” does he mean the point at which these plans become unsustainable due to underfunding and/or confiscation of the monies that were supposed to be set aside in order to fund them? If so, with Obamacare that would be immediately. And lastly, 4. If he’s complaining about the use of the term “Obamacare,” why didn’t be choose #ILiketheAffordableCareAct? I doubt that hashtag was already taken.

But again, I ask questions assuming this Administration has any recognition of or appreciation for consistency.

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, Thanks!

Political Theatre and the Fluke Files

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:38:00 +0000

Is there anyone who hasn’t heard Sandra Fluke’s soulful pseudo-Congressional testimony on the need for universities to provide women stew-dents with “free” contraceptives?

The Left’s newest not-ready-for-prime-time Spokes-mouth: not a fluke

If I understand her argument correctly as to why someone else should foot the bill , it’s because contraceptive rights are part of a larger body of “women’s rights” related to “reproductive rights.”

I must admit, I don’t know what “reproductive rights” are; if it weren’t for the specific reference to contraceptives I would have guessed it was a new, neutralized term for abortion. But no; although related to the body of abortion rights and women’s rights to “decide” this appears to be a newly identified “right.” One that nobody is really arguing with other than it being defined as a “right” that somehow requires someone else to pay for. Ironically –at least in the context of the abortion debate - this “right” is perceived by the rest of the sentient world as a free “choice” not a right. But we find ourselves immersed in these straw men controversies precisely because words no longer mean anything in the political milieu.

Straw men are critical players when you need a good controversy to whip your base into outrage and frenzy. And nothing gets the boots on the ground to show up at the box office like a good controversy in the theater of the absurd. Church vs. Women’s Rights vs State: that’s a formula for guaranteed heavy turnout.

The demand for new hits in the Left’s political theatre is precisely why we’ve seen the sudden demand for religious organizations to recognize and fund this new “fundamental right.” It’s also why we were entertained by the Fluke/Pelosi circus performance.

Let’s review the situation: Ms. Fluke is a 3rd year law student at Georgetown, attending on a Public Interest scholarship (i.e. she wants to be just like Barack Hussein Obama when she grows up, which technically, at age 31, she has). She advertises herself as a “reproductive rights activist.” Where, one wonders, does a person find employment in that productive - no pun intended - field? And what, pray-tell, does a reproductive rights activist activate?

Fluke also notes that she is past president of Law School Reproductive Justice (LSRJ). I don’t know if it’s just me, but when I hear the word “justice’ thrown out by the Left in any context I reflexively reach for my wallet, as in true postmodern fashion they’ve redefined justice to mean redistribution.

Seriously, I don’t know how anyone other than a political hack like Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her ragtag Democrat Steering and Policy Committee could listen to Fluke’s “testimony” and not laugh out loud: it defines the overused word “ludicrous.” In fact, I don’t know how anyone could watch and not want to slap this smug, self-righteous collectivist across the face. She is an embarrassment to her sex.

Okay, I get it; coeds have a lot more sex now than they did even back in the good old days of the sexual revolution. And I also get that they don’t want to be “punished” with a baby. But here’s the inconvenient truth for the Democrats: abortion seems to be losing some of it’s Facebook friends. While it was once – at least in feminist camps – the go-to solution for a pregnant young coed who wasn’t ready to be a mother, it has become less appealing over time. Apparently the now readily available early term ultrasounds that clearly show developing life in the womb are giving some women pause. It’s always harder to make moral decisions when reality intrudes with facts.

So while I’m still at a loss as to what reproductive justice is, I am certain of its political intent: the establishment of a new secular sacrament around which the Left can rally the brethren. While people may argue how best to interpret the results of the most recent Gallup Poll on abortion, it will be hard to argue that it doesn’t indicate a shift away from the enthusiastic embrace of abortion that it has enjoyed over recent decades. In short, abortion is no longer the annuity payout at the polling booth that it once was, and the Left is scrambling to find it’s sequel.

Enter “reproductive rights” and say “hello” to contraception – the new answer to women’s rights campaign issues. First introduced to the debate, literally, by Democratic Party hack and MSM mouthpiece George Stephanopoulos. Brilliant! While everyone was blowing off contraception as a dumb question for a presidential debate, the Libs were busy prepping Sandra Fluke for her debut “testimony” on the political stage and Obama was busy mandating contraceptive coverage for ALL women by their employer, regardless of conscientious objector status .

So, forgive me, but Sandra Fluke is not a fluke. She’s part of the Left’s new strategy. Frankly I’m shocked by the outpouring of support and agreement with this stupid new strategy, and even more shocked by the defense of Fluke and her harebrained argument for this being a basic human right warranting government funding.

Proving once again that you should never underestimate the moronic depths that the Left will plumb in search of the moronic response it seeks to elicit from it’s moronic base.

The Left’s political theatre of the absurd will continue. To combat it, just remember to ask yourself:

What Would Brietbart Do?

IMPORTANT CLOSING NOTE: BigFurHat, of iOwnTheWorld, created this graphic along with several others. He has negotiated a deal with the owner of Anthem Studios (a personal friend of Breitbart) to produce and sell “Breitbart Is Here” t-shirts and bumper stickers, with all profits going to the Breitbart family.

BigFurHat has offered to send you a free high resolution jpg of this graphic (for personal, non-commercial use only) if you email him at bigfurhat.mail@gmail.com. Go here to see BigFurHat’s collection and then go here to buy a “Breitbart Is Here” t-shirt. I put a link to the “BIH” store in my side bar over there on the RIGHT. Use it to help Breitbart continue to take care of his family. If you’re a blogger, you can help by snagging a copy of the “BIH” graphic and link and posting it on your blog.

We Are All Breitbart Now

“So Long, Frank Lloyd Wright”: Simon & Garfunkel

NOTE: posted by She-Dewey, so enough with the misogynist allegations.

We’ve Lost a Great Warrior

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:36:00 +0000

Andrew Breitbart 1969-2012

R.I.P. Andrew. We will miss you.

The war will resume later today.

UPDATE: WEASEL ZIPPERS documents the ever-classy left’s disgusting reaction. What is wrong with these people?

Enfant Terrible, or Why are American Parents Inferior?

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:45:00 +0000

Article originally posted at American Thinker, February 18, 2012

When it comes to parenting, I find myself siding with the French. Quelle surprise!

Allow me to turn your attention to an article in last Saturday's Wall Street Journal: "Why French Parents are Superior." It's a catchy title, but a more accurate one would be "Why American Parents are Inferior," because it appears that the French are simply doing what one might expect of anyone in the role.

We join author Pamela Druckerman after a harrowing vacation weekend in a French coastal city with her husband and toddler, where we immediately get a hint at the nature of the problem.

[W]ithin a few minutes she was spilling salt shakers and tearing apart sugar packets. Then she demanded to be sprung from her high chair so she could dash around the restaurant and bolt dangerously toward the docks.

When ineffectual parents cave in to a toddler's unreasonable and dangerous "demands," you've already lost the war, ma chouette. Let the record reflect, however, that the parental units did the best they could:

Our strategy was to finish the meal quickly. We ordered while being seated, then begged the server to rush out some bread and bring us our appetizers and main courses at the same time. While my husband took a few bites of fish, I made sure that Bean didn't get kicked by a waiter or lost at sea. Then we switched. We left enormous, apologetic tips to compensate for the arc of torn napkins and calamari around our table.

Unfortunately, no compensation was left for the other patrons of the brasserie, who were no doubt as entertained as the staff were by these hapless parents' offspring's performance art.

Then, a glint of light in the darkness:

... I started noticing that the French families around us didn't look like they were sharing our mealtime agony. ... French toddlers were sitting contentedly in their high chairs, waiting for their food, or eating fish and even vegetables. There was no shrieking or whining. And there was no debris around their tables.

I myself have observed this apparently now-unusual family dinnertime dynamic with Japanese families in restaurants around Detroit. I've also seen it in other flyover outposts -- Iowa, Nebraska, Utah. Think of it: whole families of bitter clingers acting civilized.

It gets better (or worse):

I realized it wasn't just mealtime that was different. ... Why was it, for example, that in the hundreds of hours I'd clocked at French playgrounds, I'd never seen a child (except my own) throw a temper tantrum? Why didn't my French friends ever need to rush off the phone because their kids were demanding something? Why hadn't their living rooms been taken over by teepees and toy kitchens, the way ours had?

Let's try to noodle this out on our own, as it's a little early in the game to buy a clue.

When American families visited our home, the parents usually spent much of the visit refereeing their kids' spats, helping their toddlers do laps around the kitchen island, or getting down on the floor to build Lego villages. When French friends visited, by contrast, the grownups had coffee and the children played happily by themselves.

Nope; still no clue. Unable to crack this perplexing mystery, Druckerman dedicated five years of research to get to the bottom of this conundrum and write a book. Here's what she discovered:

Middle-class French parents ... have values that look familiar to me. They are zealous about talking to their kids, showing them nature and reading them lots of books. They take them to tennis lessons, painting classes and interactive science museums.

Yet the French have managed to be involved with their families without becoming obsessive.

Sooo...children are not the center of the entire universe? Both they and you might benefit from a more balanced approach? Who knew? Apparently almost everybody:

This problem has been painstakingly diagnosed, critiqued and named: overparenting, hyperparenting, helicopter parenting, and my personal favorite, the kindergarchy. Nobody seems to like the relentless, unhappy pace of American parenting, least of all parents themselves.

They say recognizing the problem is the first step. Here's a bit of unsolicited advice that may advance the beleaguered author to step two: "If it hurts your head to hit it against the wall, maybe you should stop doing that."

Our intrepid parent soldiers on. Recognizing that French children seem to be better-behaved than her own brats, she conducts some investigative reporting and asks French parents how they discipline their children. It turns out that they don't "discipline" them, as the author understands the term, in the sense of imposing punishment. Rather, they "educate" their children on how to behave. We "old ones" might call that "training," which implicitly involves some form of "discipline" if the "training" doesn't result in the desired behavior. But I understand that that conjures up uncomfortable comparisons to housebreaking a puppy. Developing a properly socialized human being is much more complicated, so "educate" it is.

Here are some of the French tricks of proper "education" that Druckerman uncovered:

One of the keys to this education is the simple act of learning how to wait. It is why the French babies I meet mostly sleep through the night from two or three months old. Their parents don't pick them up the second they start crying, allowing the babies to learn how to fall back asleep.

Ah yes, the age-old dilemma: to Dr. Spock or not to Dr. Spock.

[Learning to wait] is also why French toddlers will sit happily at a restaurant. Rather than snacking all day like American children, they mostly have to wait until mealtime to eat. (French kids consistently have three meals a day and one snack around 4 p.m.)

Three meals and an after-school snack? What a concept! Maybe if more American parents adopted that pattern, Michelle Obama wouldn't have to be carping constantly about our kids' fat behinds.

It turns out that a proper French childhood "education" includes learning the fine discipline -- if I may use that word -- of delayed gratification. Additionally, French children are also "educated" in the equally fine art of amusing themselves sans constant parental interaction. Imagine that! Independence! That sounds very...well, American. Or at least it used to.

Ms. Druckerman discovered that researchers have determined that children who learn how to control their urges by delaying gratification also develop other helpful coping skills:

[T]he good delayers were better at concentrating and reasoning, and didn't "tend to go to pieces under stress[.]"

Could properly "educating" children to be patient, as it used to be known, actually have other beneficial effects? she wonders incredulously:

Could it be that teaching children how to delay gratification -- as middle-class French parents do -- actually makes them calmer and more resilient? Might this partly explain why middle-class American kids, who are in general more used to getting what they want right away, so often fall apart under stress?

Well, it's not as if Americans don't want their children to be patient:

But patience isn't a skill that we hone quite as assiduously as French parents do. We tend to view whether kids are good at waiting as a matter of temperament. In our view, parents either luck out and get a child who waits well or they don't.

Right. Just like with those puppies. You either luck out and get a good one who knows he's supposed to pee only outdoors, or you get a bad one who needs a more thorough "education."

While American parents in general and our author in particular seem to struggle with getting their children to behave, the French have deftly identified for these poor people the (obvious) source of the problem: allowing the children to be in charge. The consequences of this unnatural order of things elude the French's American counterparts.

After a while, it struck me that most French descriptions of American kids include this phrase "n'importe quoi," meaning "whatever" or "anything they like." It suggests that the American kids don't have firm boundaries, that their parents lack authority, and that anything goes. It's the antithesis of the French ideal of the cadre, or frame, that French parents often talk about. Cadre means that kids have very firm limits about certain things -- that's the frame -- and that the parents strictly enforce these. But inside the cadre, French parents entrust their kids with quite a lot of freedom and autonomy.

Wow! This is almost like rocket science or something! Maybe the French really are better than we are! Wait, there's more.

Authority is one of the most impressive parts of French parenting -- and perhaps the toughest one to master. Many French parents I meet have an easy, calm authority with their children that I can only envy.

Ah, there’s the rub: authority. For a large segment of American parents, authority is anathema: associated with mental rigidity and the exertion of illegitimate power and control. Why this distorted view? Thank our twelve to eighteen year public liberal emersion education system. Those who fall sway to this indoctrination program emerge as liberal adults fully invested in liberalism’s first principles: equality, fairness and non-judgmentalism.

Liberal parents attempt to raise their offspring according to these guiding principles. (Unlike their conservative peers who managed to escape with their critical thinking skills intact and raise their kids, well, more like the French.) For liberals, the highest moral standard is fairness and there is no sin greater than being judgmental.

As parents they find themselves in constant conflict with their key values. Exercising parental authority to exert control over their child requires inequality of treatment on occasion and near constant judmentalism. No wonder liberal parents are always stressed. And no wonder the author envies the French who, au contraire, are genetically judgmental and have no problem whatsoever with authority.

Their kids actually listen to them. French children aren't constantly dashing off, talking back, or engaging in prolonged negotiations.

So what exactly is it about French parenting that is superior? This is what I gather: they are not uncomfortable treating their children like untrained puppies until such time as the children have learned to stop peeing in the house. Which is to say: French parents assume the role of alpha dog with their children rather than the other way around.

Seriously, how hard is this? If you feel you need coaching but can’t afford to live in France for a year, get in touch with one of your conservative friends with kids and spend a few weekends observing them.

Through a Portal Darkly

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:09:00 +0000

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"

When a constitutional republic enacts a law that provides a portal to tyranny, the citizens ought not be surprised when someone throws the door wide open and strolls through.

I speak of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); the tyrant, of course, is President Obama.

The APA was enacted in 1946 after nearly 10 years of fierce debate over how to manage and control all the new federal agencies created as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s legislative plan (New Deal) to deliver the country from the grasp of social and economic hardships stemming from the Great Depression. (sound familiar?) FDR was the first Democratic President to not let a good crisis go to waste.

As Congress became increasingly concerned with the expanding powers that these federal agencies possessed they moved to enact the APA. It’s purpose was to regulate and control agencies by imposing administrative procedures on rule making. It’s passage was contentious, as its opponents had serious concerns with the entire framework of federal agencies – fearing they could grow too large, too powerful and end up as de facto legislative entities.

They argued that unelected, unaccountable agencies making administrative law presented grave threats to our republic. Some were even had concerns over the constitutionality of agencies with such broad powers: arguing that they violated the intent of separation of powers. We really should pay more attention to the naysayers and Cassandras in our midst.

The major issue the APA’s opponents (mostly Republicans and southern Democrats) had with the bill was that it codified a system that provided a blueprint for creating an ever expanding federal government. But in the end a compromise bill was struck that ostensibly expressed "the nation's decision to permit extensive government, but to avoid dictatorship and central planning." (1)

Well, that was the theory. We definitely got the extensive government. Thus far we’ve avoided dictatorship but with the latest intrusions by the Obama Administration into the State’s business, it appears we have embraced a federal form of central planning and may even have one step on the ladder of dictatorship.

There were 425 federal agencies created between 1946 and 1996, some that started out small and grew large, and some that started out large and grew huge. That was 16 years ago. The number for all three branches of the federal government has now grown to about 1300. If you have time you can count them yourself , but it’s clearly well north of 425.

Does this begin to suggest the nature and scope of the problem? 1300 fiefdoms with the power to adjudicate, legislate, and enforce laws within their specific areas of delegated power. They "legislate" through the power of rulemaking bestowed under the auspices of the APA.

The rulemaking and regulatory power of Federal administrative agencies has been abused for decades by bureaucratic despots large and small. It was only a matter of time before a president stepped in to avail himself of this most useful mechanism in advancing his own agenda when faced with a recalcitrant Congress. That time has arrived. That president is Obama.

When President Obama says “We Can’t Wait” it is not simply campaign rhetoric. He means he won’t wait. He’s lawyered up with the best Chicago-rules style legal beagles money and power can buy. Squeaking legality out of the dark reaches of the law is their specialty. They are so sharp they make Clinton’s parsing seems parsimonious by comparison.

Exhibit A, from the Presidential mouthpiece last October:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said President Barack Obama will “continue” to act “independently” without congressional authorization to “benefit the American people” as part of the White House’s “We Can’t Wait” campaign.

“He [Obama] fully understands that the kinds of things that are contained within the American Jobs Act require congressional action, require laws being passed, and that’s why he’s pressing for Congress to take action legislatively,” Carney told reporters on Monday at the White House.

“But he can also act independently or, rather, administratively, and exercise his executive authority to benefit the American people in other ways. And he will continue to do that.”

Carney dismissed House Speaker John Boehner’s disapproval of the president acting unilaterally.

“I was asked about this concern, which I would just suggest is misplaced, because the president is acting well within his authority, well within his constitutional authority,” Carney said

So here’s the takeaway: Obama knows his plans require legislative action, but he doesn’t care. He’ll find a workaround.

He’s told us as much before. Before he decided to base his campaign strategy on running against a do-nothing Congress, allowing him to blame Congress for not passing his comprehensive immigration reform, he told a La Raza group that "some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own" -- a prospect Obama said he found "very tempting." before quickly adding "that's not how our system works." Good to know.

He reiterated this sentiment again later last year when speaking to another gathering of Hispanics, saying 'when it comes to the issue of immigration, ‘I'd like to work my way around Congress.'" But noted “The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books I have to enforce.” Although he did locate a “loophole” (which he generally dislikes) that allowed him to enforce them discriminately; he unilaterally changed immigration law enforcement last summer by announcing that the government will no longer initiate deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants unless they have committed serious crimes. No doubt he’ll find other ways to “work around Congress” on immigration as the election grows close. Executive orders are always a good bet.

The President has also found ways to “work around Congress” with respect to his clean energy agenda. Since they failed to pass his Cut and Cap bill he’s used the Department of Energy to provide loans to alternative energy companies like Solyndra, the Department of Transportation to set stringent fuel standards that dictate auto manufacturing standards, and the EPA to implement his green energy policy.

As of last summer the EPA flexed it’s regulatory power by announcing a policy that will close down 20% of the nation’s coal plants in 2012 under their Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (at a cost of $130 billion – there’s a real economic stimulus rabbit hole). And they are off to a good start: 3 plants in West Virginia, 4 in Ohio and 25 elsewhere. Another campaign promise kept: (“If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”).

Together the actions of these administrative agencies – an abuse of regulatory power – are implementing provisions of the Cut and Cap legislation rejected by Congress. In the process, they are making us dangerously more dependent on foreign oil…or on solar panels, windmills and batteries if you’re a Kool-Aid drinker.

Here are several additional examples of how Obama’s regulatory agencies have advanced his green agenda by “working around” the do-nothing Congress (which, foolishly, continues to fund these out-of-control agencies):

Environmental (EPA) concerns were cited as the reason Obama rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline (the oil will now be going to China, the world’s #1 polluter).

The administration has turned the Gulf of Mexico into a “no drill” zone, ignoring court orders and using the permit process to halt development.

Shell oil having spent $4 billion trying to develop tracts, already leased and paid for, north of Alaska, gave up when the EPA denied permits to begin exploratory drilling.

Arguably, all of the above actions are unconstitutional. But they pale in comparison to federal rules being established as law by the three federal departments ( Treasury, Labor and Health and Human Services) granted oversight (by Congress) and hence rulemaking authority for the “Affordable Care Act.” Although we needn’t worry because our Constitution provides for a separation of powers that won’t permit them to run amok right?

The mandate that’s raised so many shackles was actually placed into Federal Law as of last Friday. It requires insurers provide mandatory coverage of contraception, abortifacients and sterilization, despite the providers beliefs, “conscience thing” or wishes. As we discussed earlier, this is precisely what Nancy Pelosi meant in her infamous “ we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" comment. And what we found out was that every woman has a “right” to “free” contraceptives and abortions. (I hope you feel like a complete idiot now, former Representative Stupak). Now may be a good time to point out that dictators can grant and, more importantly, retract rights at will - as long as they are allowed to go unchecked. But we needn’t worry, because our Constitution provides for checks and balances, right? Right?

Regarding the unconstitutional mandate regarding contraceptive coverage, the “accommodation” announced by Obama last week has done nothing to calm the fury. Not that he really cares. What precisely does it take for the people of this country to wake up and realize their liberties are being washed down the drain one deathly drip, drip, drip at a time?

Here is one thing that is wrong with our body politic: you cannot delegate the type of power Congress has relegated to unelected, unaccountable agencies. Our founders knew this. They thought they had provided against it through the enumeration and separation of powers.

Since the 1940’s, Congress has grown increasingly comfortable with basking in the glory of giving a thumbs up or thumbs down to a legal abstraction, and letting the hard work of actually governing to the concepts fall on the backs of nameless, faceless bureaucrats and functionaries. Federal Agencies are neither elected nor accountable to any constituents. Indeed, as Obama continues to circumvent Congress by making “recess” appointments, they’re not even accountable to Congress.

So here’s the problem: Obama can trammel all over the Constitution (e.g. non-recess recess appointments, auto bailouts that blatantly circumvented the rule of law, illegal deep-water drilling ban) as long as no one stands up to stop him. It should be Congress’ responsibility to stop this outrage. It should be them launching investigations, holding hearings discussing impeachment. It should be Congress that moves to defund every single agency, department or bureau that continues to write autocratic administrative law that recklessly disregards the provisions of the Constitution. It should be Congress that takes back the responsibility for implementing the bills they write.

But if Congress refuses to hold the Executive branch accountable, take the responsibility back from unaccountable bureaucrats, cut off funds to despotic federal agencies, put us back on a path to Constitutional government than it is up to us: we the people. Do not send any member of Congress back to Washington who is lazy, moronic, corrupt or all of the above. That should pretty much give us a clean slate.

Make WTF 2012 count.

(1)Shepard, George. Fierce Compromise: The Administrative Procedure Act Emerges from New Deal Politics. 90 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1557 (1996)

If God wanted me to use a computer, he wouldn’t have invented books.

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:50:00 +0000

Thanks to “Guest” over on MOTUS, we have access to rare footage of the world’s first documented tech support guy, performing his nerd magic for another hapless “user.”

Still clueless after all these years.

Drip, drip, drip…the sound of our liberty leaking away

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:51:00 +0000

When Nancy Pelosi said “ But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." she didn’t mean because Congress was too lazy to read the thousands of pages carefully crafted by the minions of legislative aides with law degrees hired to incorporate the provisions specified by key lobbyists. Although they are – too lazy, that is.

No, what Pelosi meant was that the real work doesn’t get started until after a bill is passed by our duly elected representatives and signed into law by the President. Then the bill gets handed off to the administrators in a myriad of agencies, commissions and subcommittees within any one of 15 Executive Departments in the Executive Branch to give it the teeth that make it enforceable. This bureaucratic labyrinth of advocates, functionaries, and mini-despots uses every bit of power vested in them – and it’s quite a lot – to advance the agenda of whoever brought them to the dance. To paraphrase Stalin, “those who legislate decide nothing. Those who regulate decide everything ...”

Obama’s recent constitutional snafu involving mandated contraception in conjunction with the implementation of the “Affordable Care Act” illustrates precisely what Nancy Pelosi meant: Congress doesn’t decide how these laws are going to work in the real world, the people who write the administrative rules do. And this isn’t the first rodeo for those folks. They know how to rope and tie those doggies.

The beauty of this arrangement - for Congress members - is that handing off the rule making to some nameless “agency” to write “administrative rules” provides them with wide and deep coverage. If their constituents become upset by the law’s impact, the Senator/Congressman can claim that wasn’t the way it was intended to work. It’s very much like Obama’s “Don’t blame me, it’s the Do-nothing Congress” gambit, only in reverse.

By off-loading the rather important detail of actually implementing legislation, Congress is freed up to focus on their other very important job of spreading the wealth around, often ensuring it stops with them. This division of labor is also what allows states the luxury of electing to Congress such luminaries as Maxine Waters, Shirley Jackson Lee, and Frederica Wilson ( Don’t worry about the racial profile: these 3 are truly the worst. There are many non-black, non-female members who are likewise functional morons, but this trio, despite whatever degrees they hold from whatever fine institutions, are an embarrassment to themselves, their constituents and the electoral process.)

To be sure, the job doesn’t demand much brain power anymore. Which explains why so many members of Congress forget to pay their taxes, misappropriate campaign funds and have time to Tweet pictures of their private parts.

Maybe we should consider a return to the time when Congress focused on actually enacting the legislation they passed, instead of figuring out how to maximize their personal wealth by practicing legal (for them) insider trading. In fact, one might question the constitutionality of the Legislative Branch delegating key responsibilities back to the Executive Branch. It does rather upset the concept of separation of powers. Come back tomorrow for a more thorough discussion of the unconstitutionality of this decades long abdication of responsibility.

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, Thanks!

A Mark Steyn Thought on Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 15:53:00 +0000

Glories stream from heaven afar,

                          heavenly hosts sing Alleluia!

                          With the angels let us sing,

                          Alleluia to our King;

                          Christ the Savior is born

Merry Christmas. Raise your voice in song. Sing of peace on Earth to men of good will. Pray for the men of good will.

And ponder along with Mr. Steyn the price extracted for the sound of silence in a world still populated with too many men of ill-will:

Silent Night

December 24, 2011 2:10 P.M.

By Mark Steyn

On this Christmas Eve, one of the great unreported stories throughout what we used to call Christendom is the persecution of Christians around the world. In Egypt, the “Arab Spring” is going so swimmingly that Copts are already fleeing Egypt and, for those Christians that remain, Midnight Mass has to be held in the daylight for security reasons. In Iraq, midnight services have been canceled entirely for fear of bloodshed, part of the remorseless de-Christianizing that has been going on, quite shamefully, under an American imperium.

Not merely the media but Christian leaders in the west seem to be embarrassed by behavior that doesn’t conform to their dimwitted sappiness about “Facebook Revolutions”. It took a Jew to deliver this line:

When Lord Sacks, chief rabbi in England, rose in the House of Lords to speak about the persecution of Christians, he quoted Martin Luther King. “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Amen.

And God bless us, everyone.

A Christmas Blessing 2011

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:25:00 +0000

Christmas greetings to you and yours from Team Dewey & the flatsimile team. Please click to zoom in on our card for a reminder of what has been sacrificed to ensure that we remain free to celebrate the day in the religious tradition (or not) of our choice.

Photo Mosaic by Flatsimile Studios

Fallen Heroes photos via Washington Post.

Mannheim Steamroller: Veni, Veni (O Come, O Come Emmanuel)

Blessings to all of our troops and their families during this season of real hope. Drag to re-center and zoom into other areas.

Originally posted December 25, 2009

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, Thanks!

Life, and Music, Recycled

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:21:00 +0000

Life, recycled

I’ve never been a really big fan of recycling for the sake of recycling: only if things serve a real purpose in the do-over bin of life. Cottage cheese containers: definitely. Tin foil, aluminum cans? Not so much. That’s what God created landfills for. But a piece by Vanderleun on how to recycle a stopped heart has given me pause to reconsider my whole attitude towards the subject.

Gerard has recently been run through the recycle plant himself, so to speak, and has thankfully lived to tell about it. He’s written several posts on the experience and the latest, Staying Alive, offers a Vanderleunian ramble down some seldom traveled byways. And as an added bonus, it provides a complete diversion from the day-to-day body politic. It includes an inspired recycling of a Beethoven classic, Moonlight Sonata. Accompanying the music is the narrative of a short stint through terrains most of us have not yet ventured and are probably none to anxious to do so. But Gerard would almost have you believe that being snatched back from the abyss is an enlightening experience of the soul that we might want to try. Almost.

He reflects on Milton, and Milton’s observation that “God doth not need.” Neediness is our purview. Although I’m not that fond of Milton, this is from one of the few poems I was required to memorize in high school, which I dutiful did, but in the memorizing completely missed the point of the sonnet. The only line that I can now reliably recall is the last:

When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one Talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest He returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts. Who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly: thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait."

…and that only because I’ve muttered it to myself and anyone within earshot hundreds if not thousands of times - again, always missing the point. My prattling was most often a reflection of the cynicism common to those of us raised impatiently in an era requiring terminal patience. But occasionally, in moments of doubt and tortuous waiting for the arrival of inevitably bad news, I’ve whispered it to myself in earnest, hoping I might finally comprehend the full import of its truth. I still don’t. But it’s meaning crystalizes a bit more each year as I’m repeatedly called to assembly and notice a dwindling number of dear old friends and loved ones left to stand and wait with me. Thus we grow wise.

After enjoying the post and music video, and as is often the case when standing around and waiting on one thing, another thing caught my eye and diverted me on a new path. And so it is I wandered beyond my intended destination of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata to multiple renditions of Bach’s Cello Song, the Prelude. Which get’s me back to my original thought, in case you’re still following along, on recycling.

I think I’ve lit upon something that recycling is perfect for: music. I have no quarrel with (some) new music, in fact I quite like some of it, but do we really need any new music? When musicians can do this with some of the old music? Behold, J. S. Bach’s Cello Song, two ways:

…for one cello, with Yo Yo Ma:

and one for 8 cellos, from Stephen Sharp Nelson:

This is music good enough to last the ages. But I completely understand if you still feel the need for something a little newer, more modern. Feel free now to return to your Christmas impulse buying on Amazon. I understand they have specials on Cee Lo Green and Lady Gaga CDs this week.

Projecting Romney: it’s a defense mechanism

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 18:49:00 +0000

Justin A. Frank M.D. is an author who practices and teaches psychoanalysis in Washington D. C.

As of late, his specialty has been psychoanalyzing people he doesn’t exactly know, and who aren’t exactly his patients. Since that is a clear violation of the American Psychiatry Association’s code of ethics which states "it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement" you might think that would be a problem for Dr. Frank. And it would, I suppose, were he currently a member of the APA, which he’s not.

He is the author of Bush on the Couch in which he renders his astute, professional opinion regarding the psyche of George W. Bush. His conclusions: Bush suffers from megalomania, is probably incapable of true compassion, shows signs of sadism, and - as an untreated alcoholic - is in constant danger of a relapse. Further, in Frank's opinion, GWB manifests the symptoms of a "dry drunk," principally irritability, judgmentalism and a rigid, inflexible world view. Whew! Pretty thorough. I’m sure his research is too. Because he’s an author, and a professor.

He has also recently released a new book: Obama on the Couch. Unlike Bush, Frank finds Obama to be in “excellent mental health”, with “a few blind spots” due primarily to his fractured upbringing that has left him with a need to achieve consensus. Although he does concede that those “blindspots” could be dangerous to Obama’s presidency, there is no discussion of megalomania, lack of compassion, sadism, alcoholism, irritability or judgementalism causing a rigid inflexible world view. So he’s got that going for him.

On the differences between his two non-patients, Frank concludes:

"One thinks only in terms of either/or – that’s Bush: You’re with us or against us. Obama has the ability to stop and think and not immediately characterize people into good or bad. Writing a book about Obama was much more of a challenge in one way because I really like and admire him. Bush I really was frightened of, because I came to feel that he was not competent to be president."

Oh, and one last thing: Bush has trouble with abstract, flexible thinking, whereas Obama is…what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh yes – a genius.

With that by way of background, let’s see what the psychoanalysis-for-dummies Doc has to say about the psyches of the Republican rank and file in his article “Why the GOP Won’t Embrace Mitt Romney.” For purposes of simplification, he has thrown everyone with an R after their name into two buckets of group-thinkers: the Tea Partiers and the rest of the just-normally-stupid Republicans. I find his insight illuminating, albeit more so of the liberal mind than the conservative one. I believe that’s called “projection” in Dr. Frank’s field.

In fact, as they struggle to settle on a leader by indulging in serial infatuation with a variety of unelectable alternatives to the front-runner,

Democrats used to call this “vetting” and up until the 2008 campaign actually did it for their own candidates. At that point in time they stopped vetting their own and began performing this service exclusively for candidates for the opposition. It might have been better for everyone had they focused more on their own team. Instead, they skipped the vetting process in lieu of a popularity contest that eventually boiled down to a consensus on the “clean articulate, light-skinned Negro.” Just for fun though, Mondo Frazier completed the vetting process for them and published the results in The Secret Life of Barack Hussein Obama. Odd, though, that no one had time to do it back in 2008 when Obama was still bright and shiny, and in need of a prodding or two.

the Republicans are revealing a fundamental fact about a large and controlling segment of the party: they can only tolerate leaders who are simpler than Mitt Romney seems to be.

Remember, like Bush, all R-words seem to have trouble handling complexity. But to Dr. Frank, some appear stupider than others:

The “anybody-but-Mitt” attraction to simpler alternatives is just the latest expression of a concept known as the attraction to non-thought, an unconscious defense first identified by British psychoanalyst Gianna Williams.

Actually, “non-thought” was a term used previously by Robert Jay Lifton in his 1961 book “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism” in which he wrote:

“The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliche. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. In[Chinese Communist] thought reform, for instance, the phrase "bourgeois mentality" is used to encompass and critically dismiss ordinarily troublesome concerns like the quest for individual expression, the exploration of alternative ideas, and the search of perspective and balance ... (loaded language is) the "language of non-thought."

He is, of course, talking about brainwashing. One might argue that the lemming march to Barack Hussein Obama’s coronation more closely resembles brain-washing than does the Republicans’ reluctance to accept as their candidate a man many fear is wobbly on his commitment to conservative values. Or I suppose it could just be Republicans’ “attraction to non-thought.” I don’t know, I’m not a psychiatrist.

Dr. Frank continues his analysis:

The appeal of the phenomenon is simple: why make the effort to entertain notions of complexity when to do so invites the risk of psychic chaos that uncertainty can produce?

Now, I’m not a psychiatrist – did I mention that? - but that sure sounds like a case of liberal projection as it seems to likewise describe the phenomenon of Obama’s mercurial rise through the ranks of the Democratic party back in 2006-08. Despite reports of his great big brain, can you get much simpler than HOPE and CHANGE? Apparently. YES WE CAN!

Unless of course Dr. Frank actually buys the story of Obama’s complexity and superior-to-all-mere-mortals intellect. In that case, it may be the doc who’s brainwashed and is therefore unaware that under that glossy veneer, Obama – alleged savior and messiah - is nothing more than a drug store cowboy.

Dr. Frank continues:

“Now the attraction to non-thought is exacerbated by our collective insecurity in response to the shakiness of our economy. In practice, this defense, motivated by a denial of the messiness of reality, extends to a hatred directed against anyone who tries to challenge that denial.”

Excuse me; but are we still speaking about Republicans? Because that theory could certainly explain the visceral, spittle inducing vitriol of the Left directed, serially, at Bush, Sarah Palin, the entire Tea Party, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry and Herman Cain. But again, I’m not a psychiatrist.

“Though Obama is the primary target of that hatred, expressed in the automatic rejection of every proposal he makes,”

That phenomenon sounds familiar; what is it that it reminds me of…oh yes! Bush-derangement syndrome.

The Republican resistance to Romney is rooted in this same mindset, expressed as a desperate need to find a leader who is simple, certain, and who will never change his mind.

Yep. Simpletons-‘R- Us. It’s actually even simpler than that. Republicans are simply looking for someone who believes in the supremacy of the Constitution and won’t change his mind about upholding its principles once elected. I will concede to the part about it being a desperate need.

Like Obama, Romney is perceived as Other — wealthy, northern and Mormon, which arouses deep distrust bordering on hatred among Tea Party voters.

Really? Because I had no idea that Obama was wealthy, northern or Mormon. And for the record, what the “Tea Party voters” really hate are candidates who would be comfortable replacing the Constitution’s “simplicity” with an ideological “complexity” that the founding fathers never intended.

Compared to his Republican rivals, whose rhetoric can rarely be confused with sophisticated thought based on a command of history or the facts,

Nice way to work in the innuendo again that Palin is a moron, Bachman is a moron, Perry is a moron and that non-liberal black guy – you know, the serial sexual harasser – is an “imbecile.” The field really couldn’t get much more unsophisticated than that, could it? You do have to wonder how they’d all do, though, if they got themselves a good teleprompter to process all their thoughts.

Back to Romney:

he comes off as a thinker and as different as the exotic Obama.

Exotic isn’t the problem here. For one thing, I doubt Tea Party advocates would find a “wealthy, northern, Mormon” to be exotic, especially if he believed in lower taxes, limited government and fiscal control. “Exotic” in an American political context is a term that is best reserved for a our soulless, naked Marxist President who claims to be an American but acts more like a citizen of the world; and I don’t mean that in a good way.

We won’t hear Romney revealing an ignorance of history to rival either Michele Bachmann’s or Sarah Palin’s.

…because, being a wealthy northern guy, he’s far more so-phis-ti-cated than any of those middleclass gals from fly-over country, the hick from Texas and the self-made non-liberal black guy from the south.

And though (Romney) is clearly comfortable reversing or denying past political positions for the sake of political expedience, and pandering to the either/or outlooks of the Tea faction of the party,

For the Left, who value pragmatism and consensus above all else, being able to switch positions on a dime and pander is considered a distinct advantage. That’s why they’re known as the party of pragmatic pandering, and the Republicans are known as the Party of “no.”

he is not afraid of presenting himself as capable of both/and thought processes.

Because Frank believes that “both/and” is the expression of an expansive mind that can grasp complexities that the little judgmental minds of “either/or” thinking cannot. The “both/and” sensibility offers the promise of a wonderful “have your cake and eat it too,” world; unlike the dull, limiting world of “either/or” where you have to live within your means and sometimes choose between bread and circuses.

So it would seem that Dr. Justin Frank has inadvertently explained why Republicans are not excited about Romney - and Democrats are! Regardless of what Romney says, many Republicans remain suspect of his commitment to the critical principles of conservatives. And so do the Democrats!

That’s the reason the Democrats are so interested in “helping” the Republicans pick the right candidate to run against. They don’t want to admit it, but they know it’s possible that the unthinkable could happen; the smartest man ever to be elected president could lose his reelection bid due to this lousy economy that Bush saddled him with.

In that event, they surely don’t want to be stuck with the winner being an “either/or” president committed to lower taxes, spending cuts and less government. They would be much more comfortable with a wealthy northerner sophisticated enough to grasp the value of a “both/and” proposition.

Someone more like Romney who’s nuanced (i.e. will vacillate as necessary) enough for their elite sensibilities. That pesky “Mormon” issue may give them pause, but they’ll just have to hold their noses in the privacy of the voting booth and pull the “R” lever anyway.

H/T Hot Air

Patience is not a virtue, it’s a strategy

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:05:00 +0000

Gerard is back, literally from the dead, and that’s a very good thing for all of us who rely on his blog to help lift the fog.

Patience: if you don’t build it will it still come?

He has penned a piece on patience that, whether you’ve ever suffered a cardiac infarction or not, may be beneficial. Especially if you are not by nature patient:

I am not a patient man. In counting from one to ten I tend to skip five, six, and seven… The only time that patience seems to be my strong point is when it comes to elective pain. In that case, procrastination is my destination.

The American Digest proprietor recently suffered a heart attack: a “near death” experience if you will. In the “coming back” stage he’s discovered that his mortality, while tangible, is still negotiably fungible. One of the terms of negotiation of course is patience: a virtue he confesses to being rather unfamiliar with. What Type A out there cannot relate?

If you have the patience, or are willing to begin cultivating it, you’ll find it worthy of a Monday contemplation. Many of his loyal readers have commented, but by far my favorite is from Rick Locke who, in the course of supporting the concept of patience, explains the bifurcated personality of the optimistically pessimistic: (emphasis added by your resident optimistic pessimist)

What you have to do is give over optimism, at least the sort of bumptious, forceful optimism that demands that the next thing be better. That's how the OWS kiddies got where they are. No matter how well things turn out there's always something not quite perfect, so they get disappointed and either bitter or furious, depending on personality. The true pessimist, on the other hand, goes through life with a spring in his step and a smile on his face; nothing happens that's worse than expected, and all his surprises are happy ones.

The only quibble I would have is that what he refers to as pessimism is embraced by many of us addicted to critical thinking as “realism”.

Realists: the only ones who will tell you when you have a glass full of piss

So there it is, OWIES of America. I’m telling you this for your own good: don’t drink the Kool-Aid. It pays to wait patiently for something a bit more palatable.

Between Obama and a ham sandwich, take the ham sandwich. And give 100 points.

Anybody But Obama 2012

Wait for it.

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, Thanks

Catholic University of America and the Slippery Slope of Accommodation. UPDATE

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:04:00 +0000

I apologize for having so little time available for blogging lately, but I pass along for your consideration this thought provoking message that I received yesterday from Dan Friedman. It is a simple example of what is meant by a “slippery slope.” I would remind you that we’re still slipping, heading for the bottom and, as the laws of physics dictate, the speed is accelerating.

From Mr. Friedman:

This is a good time to reiterate Friedman’s Laws of History #2: Wherever and whenever, Muslims reach a certain strength and critical mass, they seek to dominate the surrounding non-Muslim community.

One of my correspondents sent this along today:

Subject: Liberal Catholic University hoisted on its own petard

In 2009 at the request of the Obama regime, Georgetown University covered up a cruxifix (sic) in a hall where President Obama was to make a speech. The President had asked to speak at Georgetown, they had not invited him.

Georgetown University Hid Religious Symbols at White House Request

Here are the symbols found so offensive by the White House. We probably shouldn’t allow religious universities in Washington D.C. anyway, because the whole town is really a government entity.

Also in 2009, Notre Dame University invited President Obama, the most pro-abortion president in US history based on his legislative voting record, to be its commencement speaker in spite of objections by many Catholics in and around the University.

Notre Dame Students Protest as Pro-choice President Obama Picked to Give Commencement Address

As you can see, the protestors lost to those who voted for the awesomeness of the Won’s rhetorical genius, Catholic values be damned. Literally. But you know what – Notre Dame isn’t really Catholic in the old fashioned sense anyway.

Now, Catholic University - a private university - is being sued by Muslim students because it has Catholic symbols in every room - which offends the Muslims.

Apparently, a private institution allegedly cannot have its own religious symbols within its building without offending Muslims demanding their own religious rituals on their terms.

I don't know about you, but I would tell these students to be very careful to not let the door hit them in the behind as they left the building, never to return. But that's just me.

Catholic University is more likely to capitulate its principles just like Georgetown and Notre Dame did for President Obama.

Do Crosses at Catholic University Violate “Human Rights: of Muslims?

Quote:

The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations that Catholic University violated the human rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers.

The investigation alleges that Muslim students “must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”

Unquote.

We’re all aware of the fact that there are Muslim factions committed to suicide missions. I’m concerned that America has factions that are likewise, but unknowingly, committed to the same end. WAKE UP OUT THERE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

Honestly, some days I just really can’t take it any more.

Georgetown University

Catholic University of America

Hey - you know what we really don’t need in Washington anyway? Two intolerant Catholic universities! How about we use our Supreme Court authorized powers of imminent domain to confiscate one of these from the Church and give it to the Muslims? Because they don’t have a university of their own and that would make everything a lot fairer; and keep the Muslims off our back for awhile.

UPDATE From Dan Freidman:

An email I sent out recently, “Liberal Catholics Find They Let The Fox Thru The Door,” was based on a piece of erroneous information contained in the source I cited:

“Now, Catholic University - a private university - is being sued by Muslim students because it has Catholic symbols in every room - which offends the Muslims.”

In fact, no Muslims students are involved in the complaint, as I learned in this report from the Blaze. It seems this is the work of one attorney, John F. Banzhaf III, with a long track record in “public interest” law. In the past, NYC-born Banzhaf has tilted against the tobacco industry, women’s rights, and once sued Spiro Agnew to recover the bribes he received.

Based on what I know now, the skew that this incident is another Muslim attack on our freedoms is unjustified. Better to clear that up now. There are more than enough real Muslim attacks on our freedoms to go around.

H/T Jerry Gordon of the Iconoclast

Although none of this negates the lesson of the slippery slope. It also speaks volumes about George Washington University’s Law School (read the Blaze article for a sample of Prof Banzhaf’s activist philosophy).

Ennui On Wall Street

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:59:00 +0000

It’s not as if some of the 99% don’t have good reason to be upset. Having learned very little about critical thinking in K-12, they embraced the myth that all they had to do to realize the American Dream was plunk down the money for a college degree. Some got useless degrees, and some got degrees that might have been valuable even a short while ago. But once law schools began pumping out lawyers faster than bagels, as chronicled by Glenn Reynolds, not only are law degrees of questionable value, but in the inevitable trickle down flow of economics, so, too, are paralegal degrees. Those jobs are being gobbled up by credentialed lawyer-wanna-bees. I’m pretty sure you can get a paralegal degree in 2 years at a community college.

If that’s not prima facie evidence of some kind of fraud, I don’t know what is.

Exhibit 1 in the “The paralegal vs. the lawyers” case. Allegation: Lawyers who paid five times as much for their degrees as I did stole my job. That’s not fair!

Setting aside the whole issue of over-education, the ennui on Wall Street movement was inevitable. Beginning sometime in the 70’s, parents, in concert with the education system, began trying to shield children from life’s inevitable disappointments rather than preparing them to deflect them. Accordingly, kids received gifts not just on their birthdays, but on their siblings birthdays as well. so as not to suffer from the trauma of getting nothing when someone else was getting something.

And so it began. Soon all teams received trophies, everyone got a gold star for something and at the end of the school year every student was honored with an “award” for not much of anything. Self esteem was as important as actual accomplishment, and everyone was “special” for something. Unfortunately this enlightened approach to education failed to clarify for the kids that once they moved out of mommy and daddy’s house (sometime around age 35), life really wasn’t going to be fair, and no one else was likely to appreciate their “specialness.”

As coincidence would have it, at that same moment in time the education system began its now decades long commitment to replacing a moral value judgment system with the self-leveling floor of moral relativism. No longer were things evaluated on the basis of “right” and “wrong.” America’s moral compass was replaced with a politically correct, multi-cultural gyroscope that was perpetually seeking, but never quite finding, equilibrium. In this brave new world, all ideas and all people were deemed equally valid. With such a tenuous tether to reality can we really blame the Gen Xers, and their Millennial followers for expecting life to be fair?

Discovering the inherent unfairness of life for the very first time while simultaneously being kicked in the teeth by an economy set on “death spiral” can be quite overwhelming. So yes, I do understand some of the disillusionment these young and young-ish Occupy Wall Streeters are feeling. I’ve been accused of being mean and heartless for not empathizing with their lot, but frankly most of them have had altogether too much empathy in their lives and way too little reality. And if taken at face value there are a lot of truly sad stories being posted. But yes, I’m skeptical. This is the “look at me” generation who learned histrionics before they graduated out of the child safety seat. Many of them are natural performers by the time they reach middle school. So do I suspect a bit of embellishment? Yes. Yes I do.

And then there is the whole group of simply pathetic whiners: “I’m doing ok because mommy and daddy could afford to send me to a great school, but I feel so bad for those of you who are not in the 1% like I am.” That’s what passes as compassion in empathy camp down at the end of the road, and to the left. “I feel your pain, man!”

Then there’s a raft of “I’m doing fine now, but that could all change in a moment” stories. Yes, it could. For any of us, for ever and always. Where’s the news here? And here, verbatim, is one of my favorites: “Is it my fault I chose happiness over money?” You have got to be kidding. What kind of a question is that? I’ll assume rhetorical. And just a tad histrionic.

I get it that some people just can’t find their way out of the tunnel with a flashlight, and that occasionally there’s a train coming from the opposite direction. But to the rest of this angry mob that has relied on the MSM for what little knowledge they have about business and economics (and it is little) all I can say is you’ve been sent in to fight straw men. And the OWS organizers are relying on your continued ignorance to keep you flailing at them through the 2012 election. Nothing smells like a Democratic victory like a ginned up grievance.

Through their media “education” the 99% have come to believe that the housing collapse was exclusively the purview of “banks” who sold “credit default swaps”- a term they learned on NPR but I sincerely doubt many could explain. They rail at corporations and corporate corruption and corporate lobbying without reflecting for a moment on the fact that their friends and OWS benefactors, big labor, are part and parcel of the crony capitalism pact as well.

My biggest problem with this group is that they don’t realize they are just the useful idiots that the people who wish to control your lives always find to do their bidding. Willing pawns.

And so they protest: believing that it is the nameless, faceless “corporations” fault that they can’t get the job they want, banks’ greed that created the housing-bubble, and the government’s responsibility to educate them (for free) heal them (for free) and pay them when they are unemployed. Like they do in all those wonderful European socialist countries they want to move to. They aren’t aware of the fact that those countries are even closer to economic collapse than we are.

We didn’t arrive at this point by accident, anymore than the OWS crowd arrived in Zuccotti park “by accident.” The Marxists-by-any-other-name have been working feverishly for half a century. They own the Left wing of this country and by extension they own the MSM – the gateway to the heart of the culture. They also own the education cartel – the gateway to the mind. Kids get leftist propaganda pumped into their heads from kindergarten on: a constant, consistent socialist philosophy promulgating the new collectivism, “social justice,” in every curriculum from geography to math. As I wrote back in 2008:

The “social justice” platform doesn’t just lean left, it takes a hard left turn head-on into the wall of socialism. The philosophy of “social justice” has become firmly entrenched in the Education schools of most colleges and universities. This philosophy teaches the subjection of the individual will for the benefit of the masses. This patently communist theory is fueling the whole contemporary education platform. What exactly is social justice? For the liberal interpretation it is a radical philosophy that is opposed to such basic American traditions as individual justice and free market economy. Nothing critical mind you, just the basis of the political system upon which our republic was founded. It supports a major redistribution of wealth through exorbitant taxation, and isn’t fond of personal property rights either.

This radical doctrine holds that America is an oppressive society that is systemically racist, sexist and classist and therefore institutionally discriminates against women, non-whites, working Americans and the poor. One of the leaders of this educational philosophy is William Ayers …editor of the Columbia Teachers College 12 volume series “Teaching for Social Justice” which is used in numerous education programs across the country. An analysis of the curriculum reveals a radical philosophical belief that free-market capitalism … is the most oppressive practice amongst a sea of oppressive practices...

Combine 12+ years of programmed classroom anti-capitalist propaganda with kids who believe they’re special and that all of their wants, needs and desires will be met, and you have created a generation of people predisposed to entitlement. Add to that predisposition the idealism of a life-unlived, a mountain of student debt, an eroding economy and you have a group ripe for agitation. Bring in the organizing arms of the two largest professional agitators on the planet – organized labor and the Democratic party - and throw in the council of the left wing media and you’ve almost guaranteed yourself a revolution.

Mark Steyn predicts it will usher in geopolitical decline of the US, with none of the niceties that accompanied Europe’s decline:

As I said, these are more or less conventional symptoms of geopolitical decline: Great powers still go through the motions but increasingly ineffectually. But what the Council on Foreign Relations types often miss is that, for the man in the street, decline can be very pleasant. In Britain, France, Spain, and the Netherlands, the average citizen lives better than he ever did at the height of Empire. Today’s Europeans enjoy more comfortable lives, have better health, and take more vacations than their grandparents did. The state went into decline, but its subjects enjoyed immense upward mobility. Americans could be forgiven for concluding that, if this is “decline,” bring it on.

But it’s not going to be like that for the United States: Unlike Europe geopolitical decline and mass downward mobility will go hand in hand. Indeed, they’re already underway. Whenever the economy goes south, experts talk of the housing “bubble,” the tech “bubble,” the credit “bubble.” But the real bubble is the 1950 “American moment,” and our failure to understand that moments are not permanent. The United States emerged from the Second World War as the only industrial power with its factories intact and its cities not reduced to rubble, and assumed that that unprecedented preeminence would last forever: We would always be so far ahead and so flush with cash that we could do anything and spend anything and we would still be Number One. That was the thinking of Detroit’s automakers when they figured they could afford to buy off the unions. The industrial powerhouse of 1950 is now a crime-ridden wasteland with a functioning literacy rate equivalent to West African basket-cases. And yes, Detroit is an outlier, but look at the assumptions its rulers made, and then wonder whether it will seem quite such an outlier in the future.

Don’t say I haven’t been trying to warn you - about Detroit I mean.

Meanwhile the ingenious force behind OWS continues to gather to their fold the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to live free and dump their wretched refuse on the golden door of Wall Street’s banks and America’s corporations. The 99% crowd is easy to make fun of (and we have: here, here and here) because of their economic and social naivety and their narcissistic neediness but we can’t simply dismiss them as a bunch of malcontents because they have powerful interests at their back.

As the professional rabble-rousers take more control and the OWS continues to take council from all of their highly trained free advisors, we are beginning to notice something on the We are the 99% site: the posters are aging in front of our eyes. It looks like the professional drum beaters are succeeding in sucking the adults into their grievance game too. Instead of trying to help their kids get a grip on reality and dealing with it, they are jumping into the pity pit along with them.

We are living in dangerous times. The Left has tapped into a vein that can provide constant lifeblood for their class warfare. Organize yourselves for the next election. I don’t care if you’ve never done anything political in your entire life: do something this time around. The opposition may be ignorant, but they are far from stupid when it comes to knowing how to agitate to get their vote out. We have to organize ours.

Although, in closing, I’ll grant you that some of them might be stupid too:

I give up: you tell me. Nice donkey ears though.

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, Thanks!

“Up Against the Wall, Mother Jones, Inc.” The OWS Crowd Gets Tough.

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 03:46:00 +0000

H/T Doug Ross

I must tell you that for the first time in my life I actually fear for the country’s ability to maintain social order.

When you have a ruling party stoking the fires of class warfare, it’s probably time to order Glen Beck’s emergency food kit.

We have a pack of economic imbeciles, orchestrated by community organizers and union-mob bosses, who have gone on holiday to set up camp and get in people’s faces in order to rage against unfairness and corporations. I would be dumbfounded if you could find more than 1 in 1000 of the merry pranksters who could correctly explain how a corporation actually makes money. Or coherently explain what they are trying to achieve by Occupying Wall Street. I will disregard the fantasy ~~Christmas~~ Winter Holiday wish list published on their website. It was so moronically ignorant of even the most rudimentary economic concepts and common sense that even some of the squatters felt compelled to disavow it.

And yet, unlike the Tea Party’s “angry mob” this one seems to pass muster with the administration. The President commends them, his press secretary says it’s just like the Tea Party, only democratic, Pelosi defends them and Biden agrees. Meanwhile commie Van Jones is actively fomenting a revolution. I’m sure he wishes that Obama hadn’t dragged his feet on getting that civilian police force in place that’s going to be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the military.”

It doesn’t seem like such an innocuous way to create or save civil service jobs now, does it?

What the HELL is going on around here?

Allow me to explain. They are the Wons they’ve been waiting for. This is what they came to do. Really. Like paranoia, just because Glen Beck is crazy doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

If you still don’t believe that the Marxist/socialists have had their eyes on America as their prize for a long, long time, you’ve either not been paying attention or you’re one of the progressive sheeple “occupying” Wall Street who thinks you just dreamed up the socialist nirvana of America without borders and corporations all on your own. Or, worse yet, you are one of the titans of Wall Street who donated a gazillion dollars to “Organizing for Obama” to elect this posse of Stalinist morons.

As we’ve discussed ad nauseum, socialist doctrine has been insidiously co-opted and incorporated into the curriculum of the public schools for the past 50 years. And once you’ve indoctrinated the next generation, you own their minds, you own their politics – you own them. Tyranny has showed up in cultures throughout history through many different vehicles. But 20th century tyranny has always been preceded and accompanied by propaganda and agitprop, most notably in the schools. Because, as I just mentioned, once you own their minds, you own their generation.

Back in the early 90’s I had a colleague who I considered a bit reactionary, and altogether too extreme for polite society, because he and his wife had decided to homeschool their children. In retrospect, they appear to have had the wisdom of Solomon and the foresight of a Steve Jobs.

Of course, it’s not as if the Marxist/socialists tried very hard to hide their agenda. They told anyone listening exactly what they intended to do. They told us exactly how they intended to do it. We were just all too busy, and, let’s face it, no one really thought that America would ever give itself over to communism. We’re independent. And free. And we practically invented modern democracy and free market capitalism, right?

It seems that while we were busily complacent, others were busily… busy. Very busy indeed.

And if I still don’t have your attention, it’s time to revisit the Cloward-Piven Strategy for America. The strategy was originally unearthed by David Horowitz in Discover the Networks:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

The strategy was further explored by James Simpson in a series of articles in American Thinker. In this one he cites the original source article:

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

It gives a rather more sinister twist to the term “community organizer” does it not?

The Coward and Piven strategy was made famous by Glenn Beck – you know: that whacky guy with the whacky agenda? Cassandra’s come in every guise. So let’s not focus on the messenger while the other side, with their nihilistic agenda, continues to Grind America Down.

Do you like my new corporate logo?

For the record: Mother Jones Inc. is a 501(c)(3) “not for profit” corporation: that doesn’t mean they don’t make a lot of money, it just means they don’t have to pay any taxes on it. So you could say that they’re not paying their fair share – not helping to spread the wealth around. They get a pass though, because they’re sort of an “educational” public service. See how that works?

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, Thanks!

Yes, Steve Jobs’ Life Was Special

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:45:00 +0000

A special Toy Story, brought to you by Steve Jobs

In retrospect, pretty much everyone agrees that Steven Jobs was one of the masters of the 2oth century universe. His vision, creativity, intelligence, commitment and work ethic allowed him to shift life into a new, faster lane.

So much has already been written about his exceptional gifts and contributions to the modern world that I can’t add much. Everyone knows by now just how special his gifts were and how special his life was.

But did you know that his birth mother knew he was special even before he was born? Maybe that’s why the young, unmarried graduate student chose life for her baby rather than abortion. I choose to believe she knew that her baby’s life was special. Because, yes, every life is special.

I’m sure Paul and Clara Jobs felt that the baby boy they adopted and named Steven was special. I’m quite certain they were glad that his mother choose to give birth to her out-of- wedlock baby (what an anachronism that is) rather than death. I doubt that any of them knew exactly how special their son would one day be considered in the eyes of the techno-world, but the first time any of them held him I bet they knew he was very special anyway.

The world, although saddened today by Steven Jobs passing, is still glad that Joanne Schiebel chose life.

Kevin D. Williamson has a fine column at NRO regarding Jobs and the Occupy Wall Street crowd if you’re so inclined:

“I was down at the Occupy Wall Street protest today, and never has the divide between the iPhone world and the politics world been so clear: I saw a bunch of people very well-served by their computers and telephones (very often Apple products) but undeniably shortchanged by our government-run cartel education system. And the tragedy for them — and for us — is that they will spend their energy trying to expand the sphere of the ineffective, hidebound, rent-seeking, unproductive political world, giving the Barney Franks and Tom DeLays an even stronger whip hand over the Steve Jobses and Henry Fords. And they — and we — will be poorer for it.”

Prepare yourselves, the administration is hell-bent on instigating a real-live class warfare. God help them; once they get it launched and realize they can’t control it any better than they could the “democratic” revolution in Egypt and Libya, they’ll need it.

Governor Granholm’s Plan To Go Green

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:03:00 +0000

In his column today, Granholm’s Perfect Bad Example, William McGurn reviews former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm’s wretched 8 year track record.

Jennifer Granholm, “When We Were Very Young”

Some politicians give us failure. Some politicians give us failure mixed with spectacle. Once in a generation, a politician gives us failure and misunderstanding so colossal that his or her bad example rises to the level of public service.

To this elite few belongs Jennifer Granholm.

Thus William McGurn launches into his evisceration of Michigan’s former governor. I got the impression that if she had just shut up and gone away, he wouldn’t have bothered, but since she’s hawking her book he felt compelled to launch the bunker buster:

With this kind of record, most politicos might take refuge in prudence. Not Ms. Granholm. Today she is running around the nation selling a book and a message. The book is called "A Governor's Story: The Fight for Jobs and America's Economic Future." Her message—that Granholm's Michigan shows the way forward—has been taken seriously in all the places you might expect: the New York Times and Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."

The “record” that she racked up in her 8 year reign of democratic talking points includes, but is not limited to these ignoble achievements:

On her watch, the state's ranking in per capita GDP plummeted to 41st place from 24th, Detroit's population shriveled to its lowest level since 1910, and Michigan earned the dubious distinction of being the only state to suffer a net out-migration this past decade.

I remind you that before Barack Obama, Jennifer Granholm was the new sparkly thing in the Democrats bling bag. She was frequently fawned over by the MSM as a Rock Star: young, photogenic, a law degree from a prestigious law school and impressive credentials (i.e. she was young, photogenic, had a prestigious law degree and was a member of the correct party). In fact there was more than a little consternation expressed that she would be ineligible to run for President after she had righted Michigan’s ship of state (which she was bound to do, because she was, well, young, photogenic…) because, having been born in Canada, she didn’t meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen. That was back when those things were still important, and before Jennifer’s administration ushered Michigan into the dust bin of once great industrial states.

As Mr. McGurn points out, Granholm herself, along with her husband are among the growing number of Michigan ex-pats, having relocated to Berkely to teach yet another generation the fallacious public policy of Keynesian economic intervention and government overreach as a solution to all social ills, particularly poverty.

At the top of Ms. Granholm's claims is that she knows that low taxes and lean government are no prescription for growth because she tried supply-side and found it wanting. To prove her point, her appendix lists 99 business and 17 individual "tax cuts" she approved. She notes likewise that both state spending and the number of state employees dropped during her time.

In fact, almost all Ms. Granholm's "tax cuts" are tax credits or other forms of tax preferences. A less delicate way of saying this is that far from reducing rates for everyone, Ms. Granholm played favorites. That meant a more complicated tax code where trendy businesses (green jobs, anyone?) that would fail without subsidies are effectively underwritten by non-favored businesses and other taxpayers.

Nor does she mention - let alone hype - the fact that her tax record includes a $1.4 billion tax increase in business and personal taxes in 2007. Nor was there any mention of the tax increase she tried to foist on the backs of Michigan businesses and individuals on her way out the door in an effort to make the state coffers appear less depleted at the end of her tenure than they actually were.

But McGurn is fair: recognizing that the worst of Michigan’s blights during her tenure, the loss of an astounding 630,000 Michigan jobs “were the result of larger economic trends and events.” He points out however that:

More contestable is her assertion that her industrial policy—throwing state and federal dollars at pet progressive industries such as advanced battery technology—is the answer.

You can add to that every other hair-brained green project that some huckster thought they could promote in order to peel off some tax payer funded bucks. Granholm, like most Democrats, firmly believes that “politicians and their bureaucrats will channel capital better than a market representing tens of millions of individual investor decisions.” But that belief often leads to embarrassing results as Solyndra recently demonstrated. Granholm discovered this the hard way too:

A year and a half before Americans learned about Solyndra, Gov. Granholm stood next to Flint businessman Richard Short at a press conference and declared that the $9.1 million in state tax credits that her government had awarded his renewable energy company would mean 765 jobs. The next day, Mr. Short was arrested.

Turns out Ms. Granholm's people had not known that their champion of green jobs was a convicted felon out on parole. Two months ago he was sentenced to prison after pleading no contest to making fraudulent statements on his application for the energy credits.

As the Michigan Mackinac Center points out, the Granholm state investment schemes in green energy program was a classic case of “a hamburger today on the if-come tomorrow.” In 2006, Gov. Granholm proudly stated: "In five years, you're going to be blown away by the strength and diversity of Michigan's transformed economy."

Yeah, well we’re still waiting. The reason Michigan isn’t looking anything close to a rock solid Democratic state in 2012 is because Michigan residents, seeking a pleasant peninsula, looked around and have concluded that “if you liked Gov. Granholm's Michigan, you'll love President Obama's America,” and have decided to opt out next time around.

I can tell you with authority, there’s precious little left in Michigan to like, let alone love. Jennifer isn’t very bright or shiny any more, and the state she left behind is growing downright ugly. But as liberals always do, she’s off to new climes now, denying that any of the state’s ills are due to her policies.

“Now We Are Six” and growing rather tattered around the corners

If only we’d built more windmills…we could have watched Michigan go green even faster.

This might explain something about the “Education Bubble” too.

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 02:57:00 +0000

For anyone who can’t envision a world without the Department of Education and all of the important things they do “for the children,” go read Doug Ross’ Top Five Reasons to Abolish the Department of Education.

Although you really need go no further than #5: Spending by the Department of Education has skyrocketed with absolutely no effect on test scores.

Not quite an inverse relationship, but certainly not a positive correlation: makes you wonder doesn’t it?

Go see why Doug urges you to to support the eradication of this useless, unconstitutional appendage of the teachers' unions.

And for the record, this is but one of many government behemoths that exist primarily to throw their weight around via rules and regulations that make it more difficult to do whatever it is they were originally conceived to expedite. Such is the lot of bureaucracies.

How’s all that free falling working out for you? Checked your chute lately?

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:16:00 +0000

Well finally. Democrats are beginning to feel our pain. They’re starting to get the slightest glimmer of how the rest of us have been feeling for the past 32 months.

Warning: the following may cause nausea. The only antidote is to stop free falling.

Experience Zero Gravity from Betty Wants In on Vimeo.

Soft landings, while theoretically possible, are not guaranteed.

H/T Vanderleun at American Digest who writes/finds more good stuff in 24 hours than you can possible read/watch in the same time frame.

Freedom of Speech? No Thanks, We Prefer to Censor Ourselves.

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:07:00 +0000

“Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism.”

Oscar Wilde

I see Paul Krugman is reading his tea leaves again. What they are telling him is that America was hijacked. No, not by a band of jihadi terrorists, worse: the evil powers of the Right. He claims they exploited the atrocity committed by the terrorists, thereby turning 9/11 into a day of shame. So he no longer finds it worthy of our commemoration.

I think Krugman should turn in his turban. His tea leaf reading of the cultural milieu isn’t any more accurate than his reading of economics. Maybe he should switch to Tennessee Tea. It may not improve his social/economic forecasts, but it should make him a bit less cranky.

Oh Great Seer! Paul Krugman: our economic, cultural and spiritual diviner.

The New York Times’ economic guru is, of course, flat-out wrong. Not only is it appropriate to commemorate 9/11, it’s essential. However, I do take exception to the manner in which the media has taken to memorializing this extraordinary historical event.

As with many rituals in modern culture, the ceremony of the 9/11 anniversary has assumed more significance than the event itself. Despite the media’s best attempts to employ their highest degree of constraint and use their most reverent tones for covering the anniversary, their recounting of the event still ends up feeling more like a Hallmark card than a thoughtful reflection on the terrorist act that ushered in a new American era.

Part of that is due to the perceived competitive need to provide 24/7 coverage. A “reminiscence" that stretches over days what could be presented in a few hours is bound to contain a lot of filler of questionable quality that devalues the event being covered. 9/11 is no exception. The hours of personal vignettes, intended to elicit an emotional reaction, simply enervate us. Overexposed to an endless stream of anguishing stories of grief and suffering, our nervous systems just shut down. Everything after that is cheap. Of course we are sucked into these wrenching stories of pain and loss – we are only human. But exploiting that human reaction - at the price of glossing over the real significance of the terrorist attack - is disgraceful.

Numbness is not what we should take away from a 9/11 retrospective. We should come away with moral clarity: about the the existence of abject evil and our responsibility to fight it in every guise it reappears in. For that we need to remember who did this to us, as a nation, and why? Rage against an evil enemy is not an inappropriate response: without righteous anger, morality loses its footing.

It would be helpful if the forth estate at least attempted to execute it’s self-assigned role of informing the citizenry of the truth, in order that good citizens could react appropriately. Honest reporting of the evil and ongoing danger of Islamofascism would help us know where and how to direct our rage. Which I presume is why, instead of exposing Islamofascism, the media diminishes it: rage against Islamofascism is not in the PC handbook. It’s not the evil that dare not speak it’s name, it’s the evil whose name the media dare not speak.

Yet one of the principal roles of the federal government is to protect the homeland. How are we the people to know who to elect to best do that if we don’t know precisely what we need protection from? Shall we just leave that to our betters to figure out? I’m uncomfortable with that. I would like our enemies more clearly fleshed out so I can better evaluate who I trust to defend us against them - and who I do not. It would be helpful if the media participated in that exercise. But that isn’t the role the networks cast for themselves in this year’s coverage of the 9/11 atrocity. They chose to go for the cheap, emotional “entertainment” value.

I think the news outlets should leave that to the other 400 channels whose stated mission is to provide entertainment. At one time the news media was considered the watchdog of society. But at some point they decided it was much more fun to have a dog in the fight and truth has been a relative matter ever since.

Around that same time the media – for whom the freedom of speech clause was arguably created – decided to conform to a new concept of free speech in America: freedom of politically correctly speech. Which implies a constitutional right that does not exist: the right not to be offended.

And so our 9/11 memorials, like most news coming from any main stream outlet, is self-censored to ensure that we don’t offend. Especially Muslims. And if that means we play down the role of the Wahhabi based medieval pseudo-religion of the Islamofascists, so be it.

Hence, 9/11 has been systematically cleaned up and dumbed down to “a tragic event” carried out by 19 ‘fanatics’ that destroyed two American skyscrapers, killing 3000 innocent people and shattered our lives on that clear September morning.” That’s about all you’ll get from the mainstream. You have to go to the fifth estate to find any truthful reporting on the enemy in our midst. Naturally, many of these sources are considered “haters” which by definition means they aren’t politically correct. But many of us have discovered that the truth is often not politically correct. It may be worth asking why that is – but that’s another post.

The politically correct world of news reporting means that once a year, on the anniversary of the “tragic event” committed by the 19 “hijackers of the religion of peace” we are subjected to memorials at Ground Zero (at least as long as we can still call it that) that become a bit more sanitized each year. This year we even removed the clutter of firefighters and clergy from the ceremony. If the 9/11 memorial becomes any more an act of narcissistic national navel gazing it will be just Mayor Bloomberg and 12 Imams - and it will be held at the new Ground Zero Mosque.

In 2009 the Obama administration re-designated 9/11, previously named “Patriot Day,” as “ National Day of Service and Remembrance.” This is government-speak at its finest: a not-so-subtle attempt at shape-shifting our perceptions of that day.

It’s also a classic example of the insidious creep of politically correct, government designed thought policing. Your government wants to replace your horrible memories of that day by helping you feel good about yourself by contributing to the common cause. Go ahead! Hug each other if you must, in memory of the horrible way 3000 of our citizens perished in that “tragic event” Just remember, the real meaning of the day is about giving service to others: just like your government does! That way we get all the cheap sentimentality without actually having to deal with the inconvenience of the morality play – more like a Kodak moment.

That’s how political correctness, combined with “Big-Government-knows-what’s-better-for-you” thinking works. “Move along, nothing to see here.” It manipulates our collective consciousness and herds the drones toward a more “correct” way to respond to destruction of the World Trade Center by Islamofascists: Clean up a park! Paint a youth center! Make a sandwich at the soup kitchen!

Making sandwiches! For those less fortunate!

And what are we to do in regard to the religious fanaticism of Islamofascists? I already told you, there’s nothing to see there, move along. Our new politically correct world of free speech dictates that we not try to single out the practitioners of the religion of peace as terrorists. Why, terrorists are just as likely these days to be homegrown right wing fanatics anyway. So let’s embrace our Muslim brothers, and their quaint customs, in the same way we have been “taught” to reflexively respond to every other protected class, with inclusion. We are to drape it in a mantle of diversity and worship its “uniqueness.” We are to bend our culture to accommodate their culture. Even if their culture is corrosively un-American. Even if their culture is based on a pseudo-religious-political philosophy bent on reversing the trajectory of human history. It’s not our place to be judgmental.

I wonder if any member of “The Greatest Generation” ever considered turning December 7 into a national day of service? Probably not; they most likely figured they had executed their service during the Big War. You remember the Greatest Generation’s Big War don’t you? If not maybe you should visit one of the Holocaust museums for a quick history lesson.

In fact, Holocaust museums provide a pretty good template for how to memorialize monstrous evil: Never forget. Never forget: absolute evil does exist on this earth. Never forget: when combined with absolute power, absolute evil unleashes unspeakable atrocities. Never forget: when the world attempts to appease the current monster of absolute evil, they are signing their own death certificate.

History has already written every story, already provided every conceivable ending. But we prefer to believe that history begins the day we were born.

File under: “Why blogging matters”

Update: Here’s an link to an excellent example of one form of the media’s self-censorship: Journalistic Priority: Pro-diversity Spin h/t Vanderleun

Cross-Posted at REDSTATE

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, Thanks!

WTF Episode 6: Just Clowning Around with the American Jobs Bill

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:53:00 +0000

Skyler and Cody are still both employed in the green energy business, but they’re getting a little nervous following the closing of Solyndra.

We join them in their Seattle condo as they anxiously watch President Obama explain his big new American Jobs Plan:

Janeane, isn’t that sort of uh…racist?

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:19:00 +0000

Ah! Our adorable little Jannie Garofalo! She’s up to her crazy, angry progressive girlfriend hijinks again.

Garofalo also said successful businessman Herman Cain is either being paid to run or is suffering from Stockholm syndrome because he is a "person of color" running as a Republican in the party's presidential primary.

"[He's] in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherent in the Republican party, the conservative movement, the Tea Party certainly. [In] the last 30 years the Republican party has been moving more and more to the right, but also race-baiting more. Gay-baiting more. Religion-baiting more," Garofalo said

"But, Herman Cain, I feel like, is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that you go like 'I love that, that can't be racist. He's a black guy, a black guy asking for Obama being impeached.' Or 'it's a black guy whose anti-Muslim. It's a black guy who is a Tea Party guy.'"

I dunno, isn’t it a little, uh… racist to assume that a “person of color” is unable to think for himself, Janeane? Especially a very successful one with a BA in mathematics and a MS in computer science? Or do you just think that all “persons of color” need to be told how to “think right” (think “right” - that’s just a figure of speech, don’t get your bundies grundled) because they are completely unable to grasp the complexity of your progressive world?

But then, maybe it takes a comedian and provocateur educated in History and American Studies (what exactly does “studies” include, I wonder?) to recognize a victim of Stockholm syndrome.

And as I’ve mentioned before, Jannie, nice tats:

For the record though – just my uneducated opinion - I don’t think you got your money’s worth from the cosmetic surgeon. Looks a little, eh…stretchy around the mouth. But with your style sense, I don’t think you really have to worry about it.

And that ends my lesson in “American Studies” for the day.

File under: she-Dewey from hell/mean girl politics

Update: Video from Anonymous Commenter. Thanks!

Ask yourself: would your dog pee on your leg? I guess if your dog owns you, it does help explain that whole “angry woman” thing.

Hoping For a Hybrid? Seriously?

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:12:00 +0000

Hope for a Volt? You dolt.

This article reminds me of something, but I just can’t quite put my finger on what it is right now: What to do if your hybrid’s battery dies? Here are a few excerpts:

You might think that a hybrid vehicle's electric motor would be a godsend if you ran out of gas; it could provide enough power to get you to a gas station. But Chevrolet's Tahoe and Silverado hybrids, for example, completely shut down if they run out of gas. There's no coasting—and no limping to a gas station on the battery, even if the main battery is fully charged…

GM's official word is that driving its big "two-mode" hybrid trucks without gas leaves the large propulsion battery vulnerable to damage, so it protects the expensive (estimated at more than $5000) battery shutting down the vehicle.

And they are not the only ones who do this “to protect the expensive battery.” The Nissan Altima does the same thing.

The Toyota Prius and the Lexus CT200h and Lexus HS 250h will allow you to run on battery power, but not for long: careful (i.e., slow) driving might eek out another 2 miles. But then the battery runs out and the real fun begins:

However—and this is important—the Prius won't let you drive the main battery down to absolutely no charge. When the battery becomes discharged to a certain point, the car is programmed to fire up the gasoline engine, which normally would recharge the battery as it charges the car. If you're out of gas, though, the Prius will try (and fail) three times to start the engine, and then it will go totally dead. Once this happens, a fault code must be reset in the car's engine computer before it can be started again.

Resetting the engine computer requires a technician. And apparently towing a dead Prius can be an issue too:

Since there is no conventional neutral in the transmission, pushing a dead Prius will be more difficult because the electric motor/generator system is also being turned. That leads to a bit of a problem in some hybrids: If they are flat-towed by a tow strap, they could generate electricity that could overheat the motor/generator.

But good news: not all hybrids are as bad as some of the other hybrids:

Kia's Optima Hybrid is designed to run without the electric drive system being very noticeable to the driver. So like the GM and Nissan hybrids, it will stop if it runs dry of gasoline. But, on the plus side, you don't need any code to restart the Kia (which also uses a belt-driven combination alternator/starter).

Before concluding:

So running a hybrid out of gas doesn't necessarily mean you can drive it on battery power alone, and killing the battery in a hybrid may or may not mean a lengthy charge time at a dealer. It all depends on which hybrid you own. No matter which one you're driving, though, reviving it when it's dead is seldom as simple as finding some gas, pouring it in the tank and turning the key. Perhaps, then, a bit of range anxiety isn't a bad thing.

I wonder if these pesky little inconveniences could have anything to do with the worst-than-abysmal sales of Government Motors’ Chevy Volts last month? Sure, they’re expensive, even with the the very generous $7800 tax payer funded rebate. But still, 125 units, for the whole month? Wow, that makes them seem like white elephants. Come to think of it, they are, by definition, white elephants.

The Edsel, up till now the Auto industry’s biggest White Elephant.

So what is it that this whole electric car fiasco reminds me of again? Oh yes! Now I remember: the EPA guidelines for cleaning up a broken CFL (aka curly fry light bulb)!

Download and print a three-page
PDF version of this overview and the
detailed recommendations (91K, about PDF)
en español (30K, about PDF)

Call the Hazmat team! Clean up in aisle 2.

There are three pages of instructions for the cleanup, but to get the gist, all you really need to see is step #1: “Have people and pets leave the room.” For a broken light bulb. I think that qualifies the curly fry light bulb as the poster child for “white elephants.”

I know what you’re thinking: you won’t need the hazmat team’s number on your speed dial because you’re very careful and won’t be breaking any of those curly-mercury bulbs. Think again: Do you have any downlights in your ceiling? How about flood lights?

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission, the taxpayer funded bureaucracy that protects you from products that other federal funded bureaucracies require you to use, issued a recall notice yesterday for Philips curly-mercury floodlight bulbs. It seems that the glue that holds the glass and mercury in the socket doesn’t work. When the glue (made in China) fails you’d better not be under it, because the curly-mercury bulb (made in China) does a free-fall from the sky!

911…911…911…Curly-Mercury Light Bulb Suicide! Cleanup in My Living Room!!!

But nobody ever said that making our big old carbon footprints small enough to walk lightly on the planet would be easy, now did they?

So, a big thank you to everyone involved in the adoption of these profligate new mouse traps (both hybrids and the CFLs) that perform half as well as the originals they are intended to replace and cost up to 1000 times more. Thank you Congress! Thank you GE. Thank you EPA! Thank you idiot, ideological MSM! Thank you, all you sheeple who are too busy, too lazy or too dumb to think for yourselves! Oh, and a special shout-out to Al Gore, the political, spiritual, and material leader of these flacks.

In Global Warming we Trust: and the money just follows

H/T Instapundit

You might also be interested in:

I Don’t Care about the Debt Ceiling: the Sky is Falling

Blinded by the Light

CAFE Curtains for Detroit

Skepticism: All that’s Right with the World

A PSA brought to you by the ‘Tea Party Downgrade’ echo chamber

noreply@blogger.com (DEWEY FROM DETROIT) — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:06:00 +0000

Politicos, celebrities, donors and close friends – about 200 in all - gathered to eat, drink, dance and celebrate President Obama’s 50th birthday party last Thursday. The party, which was closed to the press for obvious reasons, came in the midst of the stock market crash and bad economic reports, and ahead of the historic downgrade of the U.S. credit rating.

Per MOTUS: add 6, divide by 100 to get our GDP

According to unofficial reports, guests danced barefoot in the grass to the strains of Hip Hop music streaming from inside the White House. Reportedly, the electric slide was a popular dance, but no doubt the Dougie was performed as well. Michelle Obama has immortalized it as part of her “bust a move” campaign against childhood obesity:

I feel compelled to warn you, however, that under certain circumstances “doin’ the Dougie” may be hazardous to your health.

For example, here are the top ten reasons not to ‘Dougie’ in traffic:

You could get hit by an ice cream truck

You could get hit by an ice cream truck

You could get hit by an ice cream truck

You could get hit by an ice cream truck

You could get hit by an ice cream truck

You could get hit by an ice cream truck

You could get hit by an ice cream truck

You could get hit by an ice cream truck

You could get hit by an ice cream truck

You could get hit by an ice cream truck

Remember that. But in case you’re not convinced:

h/t curmudgeonly via Larwyn’s Linx

This public service safety announcement has been brought to you by “the Tea Party Downgrade” echo chamber.