Conservatism Lives!

I saw Billy Mays as a downloadable Mii for the Wii yesterday. It really struck me as an odd thing. Here stood a tiny cartoon caricature of a man who has become famous for nothing more than selling things on TV. Things. Plural. If its “new”, “revolutionary”, or “not available in stores”, there’s a pretty good chance Billy Mays is pushing it in an infomercial. In a sense, Billy Mays is our modern day version of the snake oil salesman. The thing is, no one seems to mind. We’re used to it. We have become accustomed to being “sold”. We assume that most people we encounter have some sort of hidden agenda. Sarcasm is a standard method of communication. Consequently, sincerity is in short supply these days.

Like any resource, scarcity increases demand and therefore value. Politics is certainly no exception. One thing Obama definitely had going for him during the campaign and even since, is that he comes across as a man of deep sincerity. That’s appealing. Plain and simple. The problem is that the seduction of sincerity obscures the honest evaluation of the message.

To put it simply, sincerity is not an adequate evaluation of a man’s ideas or ideals. Hitler was sincere. Mao was sincere. Even Osama Bin laden is sincere. Unfortunately, in our sincerity starved society, sincerity seems to be enough to convince most people that its presence alone grants merit. That is a foolish, and dangerous place to find ourselves. 

Promotional Shot of AF1 Buzzing the NYC Skyline

I am reminded of the scene from the movie Close Encounters when the Air Force general presents a picture to a crowd of agitated citizens and says “This… is a UFO.”  They all begin to babble excitedly, and then the General pulls the photo back and tells them the truth: it’s actually a photo of a pie plate thrown into the air by his son.  I like that scene.  It cracks me up a little.

Today, I get to be like that Air Force General.

A week or so ago, citizens of New York City were understandably thrown into a momentary panic when a large jetliner was seen buzzing the city.  The jetliner in question was not, however, being operated by terrorists (technically).  It was, in fact, Air Force One, the official plane of the President of the United States.  So what was it doing swooping ominously over the New York skyline, unannounced and apparently so secretly that President Obama himself said he didn’t know about it?  Well, according to the official administration explanation, they were taking promotional pictures of it.

Here is a sample of one of the pictures taken during that shoot.

Looks pretty good, doesn’t it?  I mean, that’s obviously the New York skyline behind it, majestic and bustling, lit with the new sun of a bright spring day.  And there, of course, is the great jet itself, swooping grandly along the coast, angling gently toward JFK airport.

Or not.

No, it isn’t a pie plate thrown into the air by my son.  It’s a composite I made in Photoshop.  It took me about twenty minutes, and that includes doing a quick online image search to find usable pictures of both Air Force One and the New York City skyline (post 9-11, of course).  Granted, I am a graphic artist.  This is what I do for a living.  It was kind of fun, but not much of a challenge, really.

Which brings me to my question: If the administration’s explanation of that bizarre, unannounced flight over New York is true, then it seems like a rather preposterous length to go to get a photo that, arguably, might actually look better when faked in Photoshop.  Fishy?  Or just incomprehensibly inept?

Frankly, I think this is just a fabulous, blinding example of why the government is so shamelessly awful at running things.  So someone decides that a cool PR shot of the President’s jet over NYC would be cool.  What’s the most obvious way to get that shot?  Well, you send that mofo up, dammit, along with a contingent of fighters with photographers in the copilot’s seats.  So it costs $328,000 or so.  That’s nothing to an organization that measures its budget in the trillions, right?  Does it even occur to someone to consider a cheaper (and saner) alternative?  Pfft.  Why would it?

Granted, I’m not the cheapest graphic artist out there, but I’d have been happy to help the government out in this endeavor.  They could have kept AF1 on the ground, saved the population of New York from nearly losing their breakfasts, and in the end gotten some arguably better promo shots.  I could have even airbrushed the jet up a bit, just like they do with the supermodels on the SI swimsuit edition– taken off a few of those extra pounds here and there, maybe given it a sexy, thinning highlight along its fuselage.

I wouldn’t have charged $328,000.  Heck, I’d have done it for a measly $250,000.  After all, it’d be government work, right?

Recently, the Obama team has released records of “torture” methods used by the Bush administration on terrorist militants. While the Obama team has chosen not to release any of the life-saving information obtained via said torture methods, they have made a rather serious and damning proclamation about the dangers posed by such actions. America’s use of torture on terrorist detainees, the administration claims, will function as a recruiting tool within the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

Unfortunately, they seem to have a valid point, as evidenced by the release of a recent surveillance document. The following is a transcript of a covertly recorded conversation between an Iraqi teenager and a terrorist recruiter. It may well change your position on the current torture debate.

—–  (transmission begins with the sound of a closing door) —–

“So you are considering a career as an Al Qaeda terrorist, yes?”

“Well… I guess so.”

“You have reservations. This is perfectly natural. Tell me, what is the nature of your apprehension?”

“I don’t know. I mean, what if I get caught? You know? I mean, the Americans… they’re the most powerful military in the world. I hear they torture their prisoners for information. I just… I just don’t know if I could face something like that. I mean, it isn’t all just fun and bombs, you know?”

“You hear correctly, my young friend. The Americans do torture captured terrorist militants. I have a brother in Gitmo. I had two friends who were at Abu Graib. You probably know them. Muhammad and Muhammad.”

“Muhammad’s boys? Yeah sure. My older brother went to school with them. We all used to play cops and suiciders in the back yard.”

“Indeed. The point is, all of them have witnessed and experienced the great Satan’s torture techniques.”

“And lived to tell of them?”

(indistinct; possibly a snicker) “You could put it that way. Let me show you a picture. This was just released by the new American President. It is a ‘candid’ photo of what torture looks like at the hands of the Americans.”

(gasps) “What are they doing to that man?”

“They are grabbing his face. This is what they call a ‘face grab’.”

“Let me guess: this was right before they cut his face off with an electric knife?”

“You would think so, right? I mean, that only makes sense. Alas, no.”

“Did they force him to eat broken glass, maybe?”

“Not a single shard.”

“Then they gouged out his eyes. With a spoon, right? They popped out his eyes and made him look at himself as they urinated on him. Is that it?”

“No, no, and no.”

(Horrified) “Then what? Oh, Allah, what did they do to him?”

“Nothing. After the face grab, he went to the commissary and had a nice rice pilaf and coffee. Weak coffee, I understand. The Americans try, they really do, but they just don’t know how to brew the bean. It’s surprising, really.”

“That’s it?”

“That is it.”

“But surely they were merely teasing him. Surely the next day… I mean, what about Abu Graib? The things I have heard—”

“Are mostly camel fodder. Do you want to know what really happened at Abu Graib?”

“I’m not sure I do. I… I have nightmares…”

(noise of a drawer opening, closing. A pause.) “What is this? A fraternity party at Mosul U?”

“It is from an American newspaper story. This…” (suppressed laughter) “This is a picture of the ‘cruelty’ committed at Abu Graib.”

“…this?”

“Yes.”

“Are those ladies’ panties?”

“Mm-hmm.”

“You are yanking my chain.”

“I yank no chains. This is what they call torture. There are Americans for whom this would be a sort of secret fantasy. And not a few of our own countrymen. Am I right? Huh? Yes?”

(Sheepish laughter) “Maybe. Yes. Ah-hah ha!”

(Mocking voice) “Oh no! A dog is barking at me! A leashed dog! I might get dog spit on my nice prison jumpsuit! Oh my goodness gracious! Dear me, there are ladies underpants on my head! Oh what will they do next? A lap-dance? Please, no!”

(Both laughing.)

“All right, all right, I get the point. But that can’t be all they do. I mean, the Americans, they’re as wily as the devil. They play terrible, godless games with their prisoners. I have heard how they can get inside a man’s very own mind, make him afraid, play on his deepest terrors. They have technology that makes nightmares come true, that brings a man’s secret horrors to life.”

“Alas, this is true. My brother, Muhammad, in Gitmo. He has experienced this.”

“He has? What? Tell me! What was his greatest fear?”

(Long, meaningful pause.) “Caterpillars.”

(Ten seconds of silence.)

“Caterpillars?”

“Well, that’s what he told them. They asked him what he was most afraid of, and it was the first thing that came into his head. He considered telling them he was terrified of hot fudge sundaes, but he thought even they wouldn’t believe that. So he said caterpillars.”

“Ooookay. So what did they do? Bio-engineer some sort giant carnivorous caterpillar and drop him off in a forest full of them with only a chicken bone for a weapon?”

“You’d think so, no? I mean, that would have been pretty cool. Scary, yes. But cool.”

“Dead cool.”

“No.”

“Then what? Tell me!”

“They put him in a room with one.”

“One what? One caterpillar?”

“Yes.”

“A regular caterpillar? No genetically enhanced fangs? No poison barbs?”

“Not so much as an electric stinger.”

(laughing again) “You are yanking my chain! Come on, admit it!”

“I tell you, I yank no chains. This is what the Americans do. And you know what? You know what is the most amusing thing of all? They feel bad for it.”

“No!”

“They do! They really do! They berate themselves for it. They conduct big crying fits on their Sunday morning talking shows, telling each other how horrible they are, how they must apologize and beg our forgiveness before we get really mad and do something equally bad to them! Like, oh I don’t know, spilling hot chocolate on them or something.”

“No way!”

“Yes way. They are so riddled with guilt that they give us Korans and prayer rugs—while we are in their custody! They give us lawyers to defend us. It’s true! It would be funny if it wasn’t so totally pathetic. But still, I mean come on, it is pretty funny, is it not?”

“They do know what we do to their people when we catch them, right?”

“Are you kidding? We send them videos! We broadcast the beheadings like spectator sports! We drag their bodies around the streets like piñatas and send them the pieces that are left! It doesn’t matter!”

“Impossible. It must be a trick.”

“Shh!” (Long pause, then whispering) “Do you hear that?”

“What?”

“Stalking… footsteps… coming for you… look out! It’s a… paper tiger!”

(both laughing)

(Falsetto voice) “Meow, meow! Do you have a lawyer! Meow! Are you comfortable? Do you need a new Koran? Meow, meow! Tell me where the bomb is or I’ll… I’ll take away your dessert! I may even grab your face a little! I may stick you in a room with a fuzzy bug! Mee-OW!!”

(growing serious) “That’s all well and good, but what about…”

“Yes, tell me. Get it all out. What is your last worry?”

“Well… what about… waterboarding?”

“I see. You have heard of this. Do you know what it is?”

(pause) “I’ve heard… things. Even the Americans are terrified to talk about it.”

“This is true. And that should tell you everything you need to know about them.”

“But what is it? Do they stick you in a box and fill the box with water until you drown?”

“No. But that’s a pretty good one. Try again.”

“Do they… do they nail you to a board and force you to drink so much water that your stomach explodes?”

“Allah akbar, boy, where do you get this stuff? Heavens no.”

“Well, what is it then? I have to know!”

“You say you have older brothers, yes?”

“Yes.”

“Did you ever go to the pool with them?”

“Ugh, yes. They used to tease me. They’d dunk me under the water and then let me up and laugh at me, and then do it again and again. My mother would get so mad at them. Once, I got so much water in my nose that a little bit came out my mouth. It tasted really gross and I had to go sit by the side of the pool for a few minutes. My mom gave me some Fritos and Kool-aid. I hated those guys.”

“Welcome to the resistance, my young friend. Muhammad here will suit you up and get you your machine gun. You have to grow your own beard.”

“Yes sir!”

“And son?”

“Yes sir?”

“If you purposely get yourself caught by the Americans just to go to Gitmo and have Harry Potter audiobooks played at you, I will come there and cut off your head myself.”

(grinning) “You totally would, too. Meow!!”

—– (laughter. Tape ends) —–

Well, I’m a bit late on this one, but it looks like the Obama administration is making strategic moves to clarify its position on drugs and particularly the use, if not legalization, of marijuana. Many a stoner had high hopes that an Obama administration would bring with it a much more lax stance on drug enforcement if not an outright legalization of marijuana use. In his book, “Dreams From My Father”, he admitted to having actually inhaled more than one illegal substance in his own youth when he said:

“I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years.  Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.  Not smack, though.  …”

(Nice to know he laid off the heroin.) Furthermore, the words of Obama seemed to offer even more hope when the Washington Times unearthed a  video from his 2004 Senate race in which he openly supports the “decriminalization” of marijuana use, but not the “legalization”. (Side note; only a liberal could with a straight face say that they support “decriminalizing” something, but not “legalizing” it). Nevertheless, in his much publicized online town hall meeting at the end of March, Obama firmly stated the he was not for the legalization of marijuana. (A statement that was later reiterated and strengthened by his press secretary Robert Gibbs).

Well take heart, potheads of America. While the president has “officially” denied that he supports your cause, last week he sent a clear message to stoners everywhere. That’s right, he hired actor Kal Penn to work for the White House Office of Public Liason. Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t recognize the name? Perhaps if I told you that he hired Kumar, of the Harold and Kumar stoner movie franchise it would ring a bell? (See the movie plot summaries here and here). Smoke ‘em  if you got ‘em, people. there’s a new liaison in town.

It is not unusual for me to come across blog posts that I wish I’d written myself. This weekend lent itself to another such occasion when I stumbled across Mean Dean’s Semi-Definitive List of things Obama has done right. As is often the nature of these things, I have never met Mean Dean and really don’t even really have any idea who he is. (Other than the fact that we are somehow connected through two or three degrees of separation through mutual acquaintances). At any rate, while his blog doesn’t necessarily seem to be political in nature, Dean has really produced a politically oriented gem here. I highly suggest you check it out. Enjoy.

President Obama is fond of blaming our budget deficit and ballooning national debt on his predecessor. Just about as often as he is given the opportunity, he claims that he “inherited” the deficit. While it may be true that he inherited “a” deficit, he certainly did not inherit our “current” deficit or certainly our projected future deficit. It doesn’t take a math genius to figure out that you can’t pass a $1 trillion “stimulus” bill (all borrowed money) followed days later by a $410 billion “omnibus spending” bill (also all borrowed money) and not have record deficits. The non partisan Congressional Budget Office released their analysis of the Obama budget a few days ago. The Washington Post was kind enough to publish the graph below (their story here). President Obama is beyond simple political “spin” here. Clearly, the man is just plain lying on this. Interesting side note as well. Both the CBO and Obama administration projections assume a strong economic recovery over the next few years. These numbers will be even worse if the recession lingers.

Whenever President Obama is asked about the environment, his budget, or his economic recovery plan, he always mentions the term “cap and trade” as a vital part of those plans. Consequently, it begs the question; what is he capping and what is he trading and perhaps more importantly, why? While the term has been getting some press, I don’t think most people have a clue what it means or what the implications of it are. So let’s start at the beginning. What does he want to “cap”? In short, greenhouse gas emissions. What does he want to “trade”? In short, the “right” to emit “greenhouse gasses” in the first place.

Now, the more important question; why? Well, for starters Obama has said that the program will raise anywhere from $300 to $650 billion depending on which speech you’re talking about or who you’re reading (Business Week says $646 billion, the Washington Times says $300 billion). This would be accomplished by the government creating a new licensing department in which licenses to emit greenhouse gasses were sold. In theory, by capping the number of licenses (or at least the amount of gasses permitted per license or some similar mechanism) the plan would have an immediate impact on overall emissions by more or less making it illegal to emit more than a given amount of greenhouse gasses. Now, if you A) believe in global warming and B) believe that it is man made (which is not as universally accepted as your liberal friends would have you believe as evidenced by over 700 scientists worldwide dissenting from a recent U.N. published report, authored by only 52 scientists by the way, claiming that global warming is man made), then I’m sure this sounds like a great plan. Especially since the government will be pulling in big bucks from everyone’s favorite villain; big business.

Let me ask some more basic questions here though. Exactly which businesses will be impacted the most, and exactly how are they going to be expected to pony up $300 to $650 billion dollars to purchase a previously unnecessary license just to keep operating? (Licenses which are also likely to reduce their ability to operate as is, as one of the stated goals of the licensing mechanism is to reduce greenhouse gas production from current levels.) It seems to me that the companies most likely to suffer from such a program would be the companies who traditionally emit the most greenhouse gasses; manufacturing and energy production companies.

We’ve already seen what happens to manufacturing companies in America when their costs increase; they leave. So with our unemployment rate skyrocketing why on earth would we pursue a course of action that will increase the basic cost of doing business for companies that provide employment in an economic sector that is already hurting? We cannot behave as if business in the United States exists in a vacuum. We exist in a global economy. If the U.S. government makes it too difficult or cumbersome or costly for companies to operate here at home; make no mistake, they WILL go somewhere more friendly. Businesses MUST earn a profit in order to survive. I’m sorry of that offends you, but its an economic reality. As long as product is moving and they have revenue, the best way to maintain profitability is to control costs. If costs are too high in one geographic area or country, you move. Its that simple.

As for the energy production companies who don’t really have the luxury of moving, does anyone expect them just to eat that cost? Absolutely they will not. They will increase prices like every company since the dawn of man when faced with an unavoidable increased cost of production. And who will be forced to pay those increased costs? That’s right. You and I. You think it was horrific when the price of gas spiked? Wait until your electric bill starts climbing, or your natural gas or heating oil bill. Let me be clear. President Obama’s plan to impose a “cap and trade” emissions plan on business is nothing short of a back door tax on every single American family. The sole purpose of which is to pursue an environmental agenda that lacks even the most basic consensus.

This is the kind of thing that makes me question President Obama’s basic judgment and connection to reality. Is he so tied to and blinded by his environmental agenda that he is incapable of recognizing the real burden that will be imposed on the average American family by implementing it? Or does he just not care?

The President says that this type of program is crucial to the development of new technologies that will make us “energy independent”. However, the cap and trade program can only achieve that goal by making current energy technologies so expensive that otherwise expensive alternatives are suddenly cost competitive. (Much like the enormous subsidies for ethanol). The net result of which is that the average cost for energy is artificially inflated by government intervention and the average consumer gets an instant cost of living increase. Our basic economy has been rocked to the core. The jobless rate is through the roof. Billions of dollars in wealth that was sitting in average Americans’ savings accounts and 401(k)’s has been eviscerated. And still, our President continues to shoehorn his environmental agenda into our faltering economy and force an already financially battered citizenry to pay more for basic necessities like energy. (See a full report from the George C. Marshall Institute here or read a summary from U.S. News and World Report here.) I just don’t get it. Do you?

According to the AP, the Obama Administration is seeking increased and unprecedented powers to seize control of banking “related” companies. Specifically, Tim “Turbo Tax” Geithner wants his Treasury department granted the new power. With the TARP program passed by the Bush administration and the “Stimulus” package passed by the Obama administration, the U.S. government now has equity stakes in an insurance company, two of the three American auto makers, and several other financial services companies. Where does the government expansion and intrusion stop? The market works when it is allowed to work. The more intervention by the government that we allow, the further off balance the market becomes and the more unstable it becomes in the long term. Plain and simple.

Poorly run companies must be allowed to fail so that better run companies can expand. This allows efficiencies to increase, quality to improve, availability to rise and prices to fall. Propping up inefficient entities rips off the tax payers twice at the same time; firstly by increasing the debt load of the country and the tax burden that they must bear and secondly by increasing the cost of goods by allowing inefficiencies in the market to persist.

More to the point though, WHY does ANYONE want the government in charge of ANYTHING more than what is absolutely required? When is the last time that you had an interaction of ANY kind with a government service of ANY kind and walked away thinking it was well run? Been to the DMV lately? Know anyone that has had to deal with social services? Turned on C-Span?

I am more convinced than ever now though that president Obama fully intends to force as much of our economy into the “public sector” and under government control as he possibly can. he recently proposed reducing the tax benefit for “wealthy” Americans who contribute to charities. I believe this serves two goals for him. Firstly, it increases (in theory) tax revenues by reducing write offs for an unpopular portion of the population and secondly it weakens “private” charitable organizations who provide overlapping services as the government. By weakening the private charities he will increase the need for and dependence on government services.

I’m sure some of you will call me crazy for that one. Nevertheless, if there is one thing I know about liberals, it is that they believe that in the end, the “proletariat” is best served by government calling as many of the shots as possible. I, and my fellow conservatives on the other hand, fall more in line with the great Ronald Reagan who famously said:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

I’m growing weary of saying that I hate politics, but I really do. Part of the reason is that no one ever says what they really mean, and lately that has been front and center with “health care reform”. President Obama has been leading a charge, backed up by congressional Democrats and some Republicans to tackle “health care reform”. The talking heads echo the White House and point out that record numbers of people and businesses now agree that we need “health care reform”.

Frankly, you’d have to be an idiot to think that we don’t need some sort of “reform” to our health care system. Insurance premiums have been increasing at double digit percentages for close to a decade. Lawsuits have driven the cost of malpractice insurance in some states so high that some doctors are choosing to leave or simply stop practicing; decreasing the availability of healthcare in those areas. In short, the cost of healthcare has been skyrocketing for years and the availability of it has been decreasing proportionately. Everyone knows this. You would literally be out of your mind to be “against health care reform.”

My problem is that the President isn’t just talking about “reform”. He’s talking about some form of “universal healthcare” and or nationalized plan. I am personally opposed to that route, but I just wish that our leaders would have the honesty and openness to say what they mean so that we can have a real debate about it. (Perhaps be a little more “transparent”??) Any good debater knows that the best way to win an argument is to control the terms. If you control the terms, you win before you begin. By defining the discussion as “health care reform” rather than “health care nationalization”, the Obama Administration has effectively framed the argument in such a way that their detractors will be seen as lunatics. Unfortunately for you and I, that political savvy is about to deny us our right to an honest discussion.

President Obama continues to disappoint me. I have no problem having open, honest, and respectful dialogue with anyone who has an opposing viewpoint to my own. What I simply cannot stand is intellectual dishonestly and political game playing. It is becoming more and more clear that team Obama is not only making huge power grabs and wealth transfers to the Federal government, but they are also getting into the habit of regularly flat out lying about their intentions and what it is that they’re actually doing.

During the campaign, Obama made a point to reach out to pro-life advocates and  evangelical Christians specifically by offering the message that while he supported abortion on demand, he was mostly interested in working together to “reduce the number of abortions”. He hammered this point relentlessly on the campaign trail, but perhaps most famously in the “debate” hosted by Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in California. He has continued this rhetoric into his administration. However, his actions are proving to be far different than his words.

As has now been widely reported, just three days after taking office, Obama lifted the ban on using U.S. funds overseas to fund abortions. Fine. Whatever. Argue over that, if you like. Clinton did it too. I disagree with it wholeheartedly, but that ban has essentially flip flopped back and forth every time a D or an R gets into the Presidency. Now, however, he’s going to a new level. For the past 30 years, health care providers have been protected by what has commonly been known as the “conscience clause”. This law allows a health care provider to refuse to perform (among other things) abortions because they morally object to the procedure. As one of his final acts in office, President Bush expanded this protection to additional services and health care professionals. President Obama announced a few days ago that he intended to repeal the “conscience clause” essentially using President Bush’s expansion of the law as an excuse to rescind the entire thing. If he is successful, this means that doctors and other health care professionals who morally object to killing an unborn child could be jailed for refusing to do so. (Full story from the L.A. Times here and CNN here.) How, I ask you, does ANY of this help to “reduce the number of abortions”? It doesn’t. What it DOES do is continue Obama’s march toward the Federal government’s control over our lives and the legalized theft of our freedoms and liberties as Americans. I don’t know about you, but if he’s this far in after two months, I’m stoked for the next 46.