Category Archives: Politics

Politics

BGE

I was very disappointed this November when Marylanders turned back on the excellent Mike Steele in favor of the reprehensible former Mayor of Baltimore, Martin O’Malley. It was the “Elect a Shithead” year, so I guess he qualified.

Oops.

Marylanders gained some insight into their new governor last week when the state’s Public Service Commission, controlled by Gov. Martin O’Malley, approved a 50 percent rate increase for residential customers of Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. The approval comes less than a year after a bitter gubernatorial campaign between Mr. O’Malley and incumbent Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.

Recall that Mr. O’Malley lambasted Mr. Ehrlich’s PSC for approving a 72 percent BGE rate increase – an increase that the Maryland General Assembly later scaled back to 15 percent. Mr. O’Malley told voters that Mr. Ehrlich and his commission were in the pockets of BGE. If Mr. O’Malley were elected governor, he promised, his administration would stand up to greedy energy companies and protect consumers.

Doing the math reveals the conceit: When the O’Malley PSC’s 50 percent increase is layered on top of the General Assembly-approved 15 percent hike, the result is a 72.5 percent BGE rate increase. (Example: On a $100 electricity bill, the original 15 percent increase raises it to $115. Add 50 percent of $115 – $57.50 – and you get a total bill of $172.50.)

Why is anyone surprised? I lived in Maryland for three years and saw right through O’Malley. He’s a Big City slickster and a liar who impresses the media while not really doing anything noteworthy. He did improve the efficiency of Baltimore’s government. But he has a tendency to fib on crime stats and taxes, and alternated passing the buck for anything bad that happened while claiming credit for anything good (a proceed aided by Baltimore’s unique “no is in responsible for anything” education system).

When I lived in Baltimore, the roads were terrible, the city was in paralysis anytime it snowed and the Mayor was running around telling everyone how much crime had improved. This was true, but only because it would have been hard to make things worse.

Not that he’s alone in these tendencies, of course. But it’s hard to get more blatant political shitheadism than his grandstanding on BGE.

'Culture', Politics

D-Day

Neal Boortz posts FDR’s moving call to prayer that he gave the American people on D-Day. I won’t quite it. Read the whle thing.

Now, back to gonzo politics. Notice something? No chest thumping. No boasting. No “mission accomplished” or “we’re gonna get ’em”. There’s a call to sacrifice, to give the last full measure.

Different times indeed.

Politics, War on Terror

Now We See That Good Will Always Triumph, Because Evil is Dumb

Seriously, folks, every day the terrorists remind me more and more of the keystone cops:

Homeland Security sources said there is no current threat at the airport and the attack as planned was “not technically feasible.

…

But if incidents like this are going to be used to bolster Bush’s image as a steely-eyed terrorist killer with his six-guns slung low on his hips, I think it’s only fair to point out that the terrorist he just gunned down in the town square was half retarded and trying to stab a woman with a banana.

Like Lee, I’m more attacking the “this proves Bush is amazing” people than the hard-working people who cracked this cell. They seem to be doing a good job here. And I’d rather have them crack a plot that won’t work than not crack one that will.

But again, notice how the plot was busted. No one was tortured. No civil rights were violated. These guys will be given criminal trials. Obeying the law, respecting the Constitution and treating our enemies better than they treat us can work, no matter what Rudy says.

Politics, War on Terror

Boortz Pops a Rivet

Neal Boortz:

How long was it going to take before a Defeatocrat came up with this one? John Murtha—our favorite moonbat from Pennsylvania—says that the terrorists arrested in the JFK plot were a product of the war in Iraq. Basically, if we had not gone into Iraq, this terrorist plot would never have come about. He is the boat with 9/11 conspiracy theorists and all those who sympathize with “freedom fighters” and the “peaceful” religion of Islam.

What has this man been smoking? If this was the excuse for the JFK plot, than who does he blame the 9/11 attacks on? He does not understand that the fundamental hatred of terrorists is not based on our presence in Iraq.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Murtha may be right or wrong. But the concept of “blowback” does not in any way support 9/11 conspiracy theories or provide comfort to terrorists. It’s a simple fucking fact. (And you thought fatherhood would make me lighten up.)

Have conservatives even read the 9/11 report? Being aware of blowback doesn’t automatically mean you’re even against the War in Iraq, least of all against the War on Terror. Blowback can be worth it — blowback can be a cost of war, just like dead American soldiers is a cost of war.

But to sit around and pretend that blowback doesn’t exist? To be frank, Boortz, that’s First Rank Moonbatism.

Culture War, Politics

Pills

Reason on a drugstore that refuses to stock contraceptives. This is becoming a weird battleground where Leftists assert women have a “right” to get the pill and Rightists assert pharmacists have a “right” not to dispense medication they don’t agree with.

To me, the issue comes down to ownership. The people who own the store get to decide what medication is sold there. If you don’t want to give birth control to women, don’t work there. You don’t have a “right” to pick and choose the medication you dispense for your employer any more than I have a “right” to tell my boss I won’t do the work he assigns. But I both of us have the freedom to quit and get a different job.

But by the same token, if a store refuse to carry birth control, don’t shop there. Women don’t have a “right” to demand a store carry birth control any more than I have a “right” to demand McDonald’s sell healthy salads. But we do have the freedom to go to another store.

Use it.

Politics, Socialism

On Your Own

Conservatives are piling on Hillary’s comment that Bush wants an “on your own” society while she wants a “we’re in in together” society.

There are three pieces of specific bullshit I’d like to address that everyone seems to be missing.

  • To call the current Administration an “on your own” society is horse manure. They didn’t leave Terry Schiavo on her own. They don’t want to leave three-week old feti on their own. They have jacked social spending through the roof, created the biggest expansion of socialized medicine in forty years and created or supported faith-based initiatives, bans on gay marriage, federal control of education, federal marriage counseling, etc. etc. The problem with this Administarion is that they won’t ever leave us “on our own”.
  • Second, we can not “be in it together” under government any more than Mr. Clinton could “feel our pain”. Suffering, tragedy, loss, struggle, desperation, adversity are things we will all face, no matter how much the Hillarys of the world try to coddle us. And no matter how sanctimonious Mrs. Clinton gets, that suffering can not be shared. How can she share my suffering . . . she doesn’t even know me! And given government’s record on these affairs, government can’t even ameliorate pain and suffering, let alone prevent, cure or share it. Only in the extreme circumstances of the Four Horsemen — things like natural disaster, drought, war, crime wave, etc. — can the blunt instrument of government help (when it’s not sending truckloads of water away from starving people).
  • Most importantly, the one thing everyone is missing on Hillary’s “on your own” nonsense is the insulting tacit implication that only government can help people. The United States is, in terms of private donation, easily the most charitable nation on Earth. But in HillaryWorld, there is no such thing as private charity; no such thing as private organizations like the Red Cross or Salvation Army; no churches or community centers; and vanished are the millions of Americans who donate billions of dollars and billions of hours to helping their fellows. (Granted, many liberals thinks this because they themselves give so little of their time and money to charity). No, in HillaryWorld, if government isn’t there to catch you when you fall, you’re “on your own”.

    • This contrast between “on your own” and “we’re in it together” has provoked a response from conservatives — real conservatives — because it exemplifies everything that’s wrong with liberal thinking. It is condescending, arrogant, presumptuous and ignorant.

    The only surprising thing is that it wasn’t President Bush that said it.

    Civil Liberties, Politics, Science and Edumacation, Taxes and Spending, War on Terror

    Friday Linkorama

    Taxes destroy an old amusement park. I hope the city thinks its worth their art subsidies and other waste.

    The internet weights about the same as a grain of sand.

    Cato on why we should be leery of Rudy:

    Here’s why: Throughout his career, Giuliani has displayed an authoritarian streak that would be all the more problematic in a man who would assume executive powers vastly expanded by President Bush.

    His support of water-borading is another reason. If Kerry were president right now, I’d support Rudy. But we need someone to repair our government’s adherence to constitutional principles.

    Finally, Congress is pushing back against the CIA gul-, er, prisons. Four of seven Republicans. Let’s hope this is just the beginning.

    The border agent decided the TB man didn’t seem sick so he just let him in.

    Yeah, we’re going to stop terrorism by closing the borders.

    Politics, Taxes and Spending

    Turning the Barrell Over

    Cato has the goods on the latest garbage:

    Eager to avoid the bad publicity of legislative earmarking, lawmakers are secretly calling or writing bureaucrats and demanding that they fund their pet projects by fiat. These projects-via-telephone, or “phonemarks,” are the hottest new gimmick on the Washington scene.

    Executive branch officials can dole out millions of dollars with impunity. And they avoid the scrutiny of the public, since they are done quietly and without any disclosure.

    But . . . but . . . but the Democrats are good?

    Now for a secret. The big problem in Washington isn’t earmarks. They’re just a symptom of the real problem: policymakers who believe the federal government should be all things to all people. Pork projects – disclosed or not – are inevitable in such an environment no matter what you call ‘em.

    Term limits. That’s the only way to stop this.

    Politics

    UN=BS

    The UN just proved, once again, that they have no business being trusted with any real power:

    Zimbabwe was recently elected to chair the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), to the dismay of human-rights groups and nations, like the United States, that would like the United Nations to take its responsibilities seriously. This election is more than a travesty; it is a cruel demonstration of disregard for the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe on the part of the U.N. and those African countries that helped Zimbabwe to the chairmanship.

    Seriously, I can understand — sort of — why liberals get excited about world government. Actually, I can’t. The Constitution of the United States is so vastly superior to anything else out there, I can’t imagine anyone would want to trade it in.

    Anyway, doesn’t reality have to intrude on liberal fantasies at some point? When the UN is appointing Robert fucking Mugabe’s government to figure out how to run Africa, doesn’t that tell you that something is deeply deeply wrong with this institution?

    Civil Liberties, Politics, Taxes and Spending

    NYT Hypocrisy

    Raise your hand if you’re surprised by the hypocrisy Neal Boortz has demonstrated in the NYT:

    It’s no surprise really. The New York Times came out in support of “a new 4 percent tax on income above $200,000 a year for married couples and above $100,000 for single taxpayers.” But liberal hypocrisy rears its ugly head when you consider the tens of millions of dollars the Times received in tax breaks, just so they could build their fancy headquarters in Manhattan. Oh and not to mention that they seized the city property by abusing a little power called eminent domain—and then viciously criticized the Supreme Court decision expanding eminent domain powers as “a set back to the ‘property rights’ movement.” For a paper that is so renown, I guess it lives by the saying “Do as I say, not as I do.” Too bad I can’t tell the IRS that when they come knocking on my door.

    The NYT actually runs some very good articles on science and the economy. But their editorial board basically gets faxes from the DNC and republishes them.

    OK, maybe they don’t. But could you honestly tell the difference?

    Politics, Socialism

    NOPEC

    Cato takes apart the latest stupidity on oil, the idea of passing an anti-trust law against OPEC.

    econd, what exactly gives the Congress the right to impose its economic regulations on state-owned companies that, for the most part, aren’t doing business in the United States? Do all national governments have this right, or only the United States? If the former, what’s to prevent Saudi Arabia from declaring it illegal for U.S. banks to charge interest on loans — an activity ostensibly banned in many Islamic countries? If the latter, then it’s a naked statement that U.S. policy is premised upon the idea that the biggest guy on the playground makes the rules for everyone else whether they like it or not. That is, might makes right.

    There is no limit to Congress’ arrogance. Or stupidity.

    Immigration, Politics

    Bits and Pieces

    Rather than write one big immigration post, maybe I’ll just let out bits and pieces as I respond to others’ bullshit:

    The labor market (and health inspectors) would no longer determine who came here; quotas were imposed on immigration from specific countries to reflect the ethnic composition of the nation in 1890. The apparatus of state was strong enough to enforce these restrictions, and, in any case, there was no market demand for immigrants during the depression of the 1930s and no way for them to come during World War II.

    This is laughable, especially coming from a conservative. Had there been no market for immigrants, the government wouldn’t have needed to act. And this policy led, indirectly, to the deaths of millions in the concentration camps when America refused to admit Jews in a wave of xenophobia.

    Then there’s Boortz:

    Strengthen the borders and make Americans get off their lazy butts, turn off American Idol, get off of welfare and fill the demand of these market forces.

    Unemployment in this country is about 4%, which is extraordinarily low.

    Then there’s Peggy Noonan:

    Should all legal immigration stop? No. We should make a list of what our nation needs, such as engineers and nurses, and then admit a lot of engineers and nurses. We should take in what we need to survive and flourish.

    Again, a Right Winger is saying that government should decide what our economy needs, rather than the market. We do need skilled people. But we also need low-wage workers.

    Of course, one way to diminish the need for low wage workers would be to diminish the agricultural subsidies which keep unprofitable businesses going. In many ways, it could be argued that illegal immigration is simply another business subsidy.