MLive Asks: Does West Michigan need more visible minority and gay faces to attract a creative class?

To which I have to ask, what in the heck is a gay face?

You know, gays have that certain...look. Really?

I mean, if I ever tried to define a "gay face" I would be ridiculed as homophobic and a hater. Yet, it would seem to be entirely reasonable for a whole class of artists to be attracted to a community that projects a look that we heterosexuals would be remiss to identify or, absent any obviousities, investigate.

Would it be wrong for masses of unemployed straight guys to pretend overt gayness in order to attract an expansion in the arts? If so, what exactly is overt gayness? Is it any more obvious that a gay face? Could such acting in itself be construed as anti-gay or would it be seen as an act of community bonding?

These are questions that only those in chosen identity groups should ask or answer and I renounce myself for the queries.

So, how long will we have to wait before a government sponsored job-training program is launched to attract any related industries?

Why We Are Here

What is too often forgotten when people consider the current situation our economy is in is that the brakes were being applied to growth and wealth creation even before Fannie May, Freddie Mac and AIG (among others) collapsed.

Months prior to the rest of us finding out that Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick had absconded with millions of taxpayer dollars as a reward for pimping insolvent home loans, the cost of energy was already climbing at a frenzied pace.

As a fill-up crashed through the $30, $40 and $50 barriers for those driving even pretend mostly plastic cars, consumers were already being forced to ponder the priorities of vacationing in upstate Michigan or putting away a little cash in order to be able to make it to work the following week.

And that was the plan.

If there is one certainty in this world, it is that elitist Americans hate them some wrong energy.

Energy that is inexpensive is considered wrong for America. Inexpensive energy by definition promotes the use of that energy. As such, energy a consumer can actually afford to painlessly use is part and parcel to the perceived problem. It had to be made more expensive!

The great American slowdown is, then, not a bug, but a price that has to be paid. While progressive politicians and sympathetic journalists alike lament the "unexpected" continuance of our economic malaise, the bright side is that not only has our energy thirst been somewhat slaked, but our carbon footprint has been downsized!

As Barack Obama promised in his run up to the presidential election "[energy] prices must necessarily skyrocket." He knew already, prior to his election, that his energy plan would raise energy prices, because it was necessary. His current energy secretary surmised that what needed to be done was to raise American gasoline prices to the levels suffered in Europe.

Our government's offensive against the American energy industry is a multi-pronged attack.

Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling has crippled employment along the Gulf coast while also driving a number of drilling rigs to waters off the coasts of other nations. (Not to worry, we'll be their biggest customer!)

While his EPA tries to put the kibosh to newly discovered west Texas oil fields, his EPA also tries to castrate an energy industry waiting to capitalize on tar sands, oil shale and natural gasa.

His new regulations against coal fired electrical plants are designed to raise electricity prices on those of us who now have the time to watch The View while anxiously awaiting our unemployment checks.

Interjected into the whole mix is the benevolent hand of a government that picks winners and losers among corporations that salivate at the ringing of a public bell.

A window company that buy into the government's ideology can expect a nice fat check to the detriment of its competition. Companies that agree to enter into the production of inefficient green energy can expect kickbacks that not only make the otherwise insolvent operations profitable, but can also ride their ill gotten profitability into a new and less competitive era once those companies who lost out on the blessings of government graft fall by the wayside.

A giant Michigan chemical companies that supports public/private partnerships in the development of solar energy might miraculously receive a huge grant to help develop facilities. A large national company that endorses the government's overall energy policies can inexplicably pay no corporate income taxes on billions of dollars in profits. And a corn ethanol industry that sprouted up at the behest of visionary bureaucrats can survive today because government dictates the use of its products while at the same time it bails out otherwise insolvent producers and growers. (Never you mind the rising cost of eggs.)

Ah, but it would be too easy to blame all of this on admitted progressives, for Republican voters share much of the blame. They have for far too long voted for members of the (R) party not knowing what the R stands for.

One such perpetually elected GOP whiz is former Michigan Rep. Vern Ehlers who is joining with other foundationless Republicans in endorsing yet more government involvement in private enterprise in order to achieve their desired outcome.

In a letter sent to President Barack Obama, the 15 signatories – including recently retired Michigan Congressman Vernon Ehlers – say that to reduce dependence on foreign oil and maintain a clean environment, upcoming Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for 2017 to 2025 should be aggressive.

Ehlers is a nuclear physicist for God's sake. He is a brilliant man, and yet he either misunderstands economics entirely or has unfortunately recognized the breadth and depth of his own unmatched brilliance. Who needs the free market or capitalist principles when one can merely project his own brilliance upon others? Ehlers is a member of a vast army of foundationless Republicans that wear the proud colors of the GOP in much the same way that a nation of die hard basketball fans jumped onto the bandwagon of the Miami Heat, at least that is, until game six.

It is discouraging that we cannot, as conservatives, make the effort to vet out even the most obvious of non-conservative stances among our own candidates. We have a full plate of candidates on the GOP side currently running for president, and yet the leader of that bunch of would-be nominees is an embracer of big-government solutions so vast it would make JFK blush.

Until the conservative movement is able to articulate effectively its message to not only the masses but to those who seemingly say they already identify with it, we will continue to languish within a society slowly losing its freedoms, its exceptionalism, its direction and, ultimately, its viability.

That we have not, to this point, is why we are here. That we may not in the near future is, most likely, why we would remain.

Shrinkage!

Finally, Anthony Weiner has spilled the beans and confessed to his inappropriate behavior. He betrayed his wife, he lied to the American people, he tried to blame the incident on those who made the evidence public, and he dragged a number of others into a feculent pool where only a betraying, lying and false witnessing politician should wade.

I don't give a hoot about Anthony Weiner's dilemma though I feel badly that those naive enough to hitch their wagon to him must suffer for his indiscretions.

He can stay in office for all I care. He doesn't belong to me--he is a Dem and that type of behavior is completely acceptable for a Democrat as far as I'm concerned. If he can hold onto his job--the simps in NYC are getting exactly what they deserve--a guy who is no more loyal to his wife than he would be to any one of his constituents.

Now, the next time a Republican does this sort of thing I'm going to be asking for his head on a plaque. As an independent that feels he was left by the Republican Party left over the past couple of decades, I still pine for the GOP of old, the GOP that tosses out horses' asses that look remarkably like Anthony Weiner.

San Fran Nan and her brain addled kin can demand that Republicans leave office whenever they foolishly text someone that they shouldn't. (Which they do.) Let her for all I care. I don't care what she says and the day that my actions bear in any way on her words is the day you might as well put a bullet in my aching skull.

After all, as conservatives, we expect more from those that represent us than do progressives.

Crossing Over

Bono enters the dark realm.

U2's Bono is what we would call a philanthropist. He has made his fortune and has, as a result, made efforts to steer the windfall of that fortune onto those who have not been as successful.

His charities are many but perhaps his best known is his work in Africa. Not only has Bono given millions to those on that continent, but he has teamed with others (even twisted a few arms) to maximize the financial efforts in toto.

Private giving and giving through taxation to the poor are two completely different things. One is divine, the other is a tragedy on multiple levels.

First of all, private charities are exponentially more efficient than are governmental agencies. Many private charities can (humbly) boast that over three quarters of the money that they collect is given directly to the cause. Government, by the time it has sucked out enough money to cover overpaid and inefficient bureaucracy, can brag about its contribution of about thirty percent.

Many conservatives lament what unending charity does to unquenchable recipients. I am of like mind. But, the most sinister thing about government benevolence is the long term impact it has on would be private givers.

With inefficient government taking on the role of wealth redistributor it has effectively allowed would be charitable givers to abdicate their moral responsibilities toward taking care of others. (Of course, with government taxation taking an ever larger bite out of earners' salaries there is substantially less money left over to give of freely, even if a person wanted to.)

Many a person depends on government to take care of others, and as long as they are taxpayers (never mind that about fifty percent of Americans pay no income taxes at all,) they feel that they have done their duty. Fail.

Which brings me back to Bono.

A tax protest group from Art Uncut will attend U2's performance on June 24 to campaign against the group's "convoluted" tax affairs, accusing them of avoiding taxes which could have helped exactly the sort of people Bono publicly cares about so dearly.

U2 moved a portion of their business affairs from Ireland to the Netherlands in 2006, reportedly in order to avoid a limit on lucrative tax breaks for artists in the republic.

The protest group have said that they do not intend to interrupt the band's performance, but hope to make sure their message is visible.

They plan to float a large bundle of cash from one section of the crowd under an Irish flag to another section under a Dutch flag. The message "Bono Pay Up" will be spelt (sic) out in lights.

An Art Uncut spokesperson said: "Bono claims to care about the developing world, but U2 greedily indulges in the very kind of tax avoidance which is crippling the poor nations of this world."

How many people has Bono employed? How many people have benefited from the charity of his free giving? How many others have been made aware of the plight of others through his many causes?

The cretin protesters would rather have government do their duty for them. It matters little to them that a quarter given privately does as much for the recipient as does a dollar taken forcibly from the pockets of the productive to be redistributed.

It is difficult to know who the protesters are, but I would hazard a guess that a good many of them work for government sponsored charities and therefore depend on Bono's taxes to grant them a paycheck.

Ignorance at the Top of the Teaching Profession

Are there any members of the MEA who teach (or understand) economics, history, or psychology?

Anyone?

If so, please explain to me how the MEA (and other teachers' unions) can spend its membership dues in a way that exposes its collective ignorance on these subjects so blatantly while not motivating any significant cries of protest from its membership?

If the membership of these huge and powerful unions truly believes that employers are the cause of our nation's economic strife, how can we ever expect the next generation of consumers, employees, and employers to to be any smarter than the horses' asses leading the MEA today?

Germany to Shut Down Nukes Permanently

An enlightened Germany has decided to cut itself off at the knees--it has determined that the wealth, and the modern conveniences it produces, are not worth the risk of a tsunami creating a nuclear accident on its soil. Or something.

Germany's coalition government has announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country's nuclear power plants phased out by 2022.

The decision makes Germany the biggest industrial power to announce plans to give up nuclear energy.

One has to wonder how the German populace will feel about such a decision in the next decade or so as substantially less efficient energy sources become exponentially more expensive and herald in the economic stagnation, poorer living conditions, and poverty that such a change in policy will surely cause.

This is not to say that nuclear energy is cheap energy. It is more expensive than is energy driven by fossil fuels, but it is substantially less expensive than the "green technologies" that are being praised as the answer to the world's growing energy crisis. Which all seems to fit the German psyche just fine as German environmentalists and bureaucrats also seek a world where the use of coal and oil are largely discontinued.

At this point in our history, we simply possess neither the technologies nor the wealth necessary to adequately replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy as drivers to our modern economies. We are slowly creeping toward these goals, but we are far from finding the solutions.

There are only two possible short term answers then, despite any shallow protestations to the contrary. One is to merely accept lower living standards on a par with those portions of the world that today riot over the suffering created by their poor current living standards. A second is to merely, and intentionally, motivate a vast reduction of human life on planet Earth.

Many environmentalists and bureaucrats believe that they can simply leverage great advancements in our energy future by shoving absconded (or borrowed) money at solutions they perceive might work.

Corn ethanol is just such a disaster--where bureaucrats decided outside the free market that burning a renewable fuel would be a great solution to an energy shortage. Now that corn and other agricultural products' prices have risen dramatically, after millions of people around the world have starved, after Iowa has turned itself into a net importer of corn rather than an exporter, and after numerous ethanol producers are operating via government subsidy and under the protection of bankruptcy, we are discovering that the production of corn ethanol for energy is a net energy loser.

Studies have shown that more energy is used in the planting, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, and transporting of corn and ethanol than energy it can produce. (Not to mention that it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol.) Oh, and if that doesn't rot your socks off, ethanol is significantly less efficient per gallon than is gasoline.

Similar discoveries are being made in the wind and solar realms--though I suppose we can be thankful that tens of thousands aren't starving over the installation of massive and hideous bird-killing whirligigs that many refuse to even have built in their own neighborhoods.

These emerging and government driven technologies produce energy that is vastly more expensive to produce, vastly less efficient, and vastly less reliable than is either fossil or nuclear energy.

Manufacturing costs are huge, and transporting the energy from areas that are sufficiently sunny or windy enough to provide ample production make the expense of the energy ridiculously high--all this for a product that is likely not to work when the need is greatest.

Which will leave Germany exactly where?

Tomorrow's ultimate energy solutions will only come to fruition with the investment of wealth that today's inexpensive energy helps to create. Germany feels it can get there, instead, by destroying its country's short term wealth, and then by forcing contrived and undiscovered government solutions onto a gullible and helpless public.

The US, while not quite so addled, has within its borders a substantial number of politicians willing to ransom the livelihoods of their subjects to do the exact same thing.

The human experience on Earth, that is, up until the wealth generated by the industrial revolution and a previously untried economic experiment called "capitalism," was misery. It was disease, blight, starvation, endless labor, and poverty. It is still the way that many people on this Earth live.

If German leaders have their way, it is the way that future generations of Germans will be living too.

Regulate the Internet!

There have been many movements designed to wrest control of the internet away from private interests.

Visions of usage fees, desires to stamp out ideologies, and a simple hankering to control all things human are the chief forces behind these movements.

The UN, Congress, and now the G8 are huddling in their palaces devising strategies in which to control, further regulate, and curb our human thoughts in this newest of human frontiers.

This quote in the New York Times got my attention, spoken by one who is considered one of Europe's most conservative statesmen:

[...] Mr. Sarkozy, who convened a special gathering of the global digerati in Paris on the eve of the G-8 meeting. Calling the rise of the Internet a “revolution,” Mr. Sarkozy compared its impact to that of two previous transforming episodes in global history: the age of exploration and the industrial revolution.

The Internet revolution “doesn’t have a flag, it doesn’t have a slogan, it belongs to everyone,” he said, citing the recent uprisings in the Arab world as examples of its positive effects.

Before an audience that included top executives of some of the world’s largest Internet companies, including Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay, he added, however: “The universe you represent is not a parallel universe. Nobody should forget that governments are the only legitimate representatives of the will of the people in our democracies. To forget this is to risk democratic chaos and anarchy.”

No, it doesn't have a flag and it doesn't have a slogan. And yet, Nicolas Sarkozy sees the internet, while being unowned by anyone, as a conduit for government control because government is the only legitimate representative of the people.

So much for the electronic economies that have burgeoned because of the internet outside of government control, the millions of jobs they have helped create, the efficiencies that have grown, the new sciences that have been expanded because of it, and the expansive personal freedoms that have exploded as a result of switches, routers, and the home computer.

All completely illegitimate.

Pipe it through the government and those geniuses in charge of it (such as Mr. Sarkozy himself,) and you might get his blessing. Otherwise, get bent.

Words and Actions

This is exactly what we need...good old fashioned conservative thought.

"We need to encourage this kind of change all across America. We need to reward the reforms that are driven not by Washington, but by principals and teachers and parents. That's how we'll make progress in education — not from the top down, but from the bottom up."

Such flowing truth.

Who is the genius that spoke these words?

Obama promoted his Race to the Top initiative, which has states compete for education money. But the program has drawn criticism and Republicans on Capitol Hill are unwilling to devote new money to it. He also renewed his call for Congress to send him a rewrite of No Child Left Behind, the nation's governing education law.

"We need to promote reform that gets results while encouraging communities to figure out what's best for their kids. That why it's so important that Congress replace No Child Left Behind this year — so schools have that flexibility," Obama said. "Reform just can't wait."

One has to wonder how a system that purposefully removes parents, teachers, and local school boards from the educational decision process will somehow miraculously allow parents, teachers, and local school boards to "make progress in education — not from the top down, but from the bottom up."

Or, am I assuming too much when I believe that Obama knows up from down?

I Know He's Exciting Because The Media Tells Me So

I was surprised to find out the other day that Jon Huntsman was taking the GOP presidential campaign by storm. I was so surprised because I only vaguely remember hearing his name, and that vague recollection had him pegged as the brave rescuer of Little Red Riding Hood.

Such mental ambiguity is odd for a guy like me who spends too much of his time worrying about the sad state of all things political and particularly worrying about the state of the saddest of all political parties, the Republican. (It's actually a tie between the GOP and Dems, but I'm rounding up.)

As a former student of journalism I am always skeptical of mass media when they tell me what I am thinking. Bias in journalism is not always so obvious as to be read within the articles posted above the fold on page 1A. No, where most of journalism's bias is manifest is in what it chooses to put on 1A versus what it buries on page 12 or doesn't write about at all.

In other words, a person has to investigate for himself what has been omitted entirely or pooh-poohed (a word I learned from the AP Handbook) sufficiently to land face first opposite Aunt Mildred's recipe for sweet onion and artichoke pie.

Jon Huntsman has become a favored candidate of the media. One could debate the reasons behind this, but I believe it is because of Huntsman's track record of political moderation and his propensity to "reach across the aisle."

When newspapers across the country were choosing their endorsements for the GOP presidential nomination during the last cycle, paper after paper opted for the moderate John McCain. And, why not? John McCain's politics were of the type that most editorial boards across this land would be thrilled to put up with if they had to choose among GOP conservatives. They weren't choosing what candidate best reflected the ideas and desires of conservatives, they were choosing which GOP candidate best reflected the liberal viewpoints harbored within the editorial board.

Herman Cain is a candidate who also has low name recognition. He is much more conservative than is Huntsman and is also a guy who rose to the top of corporate America rather than being born on the top rung. As a conservative person myself, and after researching a lot on the candidates that are currently crisscrossing America, I think Herman Cain, as well as any other candidate, reflects the conservative political values that I hold most important to me. (There are two or three others on par with Cain.)

Perhaps Jon Huntsman is the next John McCain; a man who the progressive media has christened as the best possible candidate to satisfy the political bent of liberal newspapers around the country. We can expect Huntsman to fill the editorial pages of more and more newspapers as they promote him in an attempt to raise his name recognition and tout his experience.

Then, should Huntsman ever get the nomination, the editorialists can turn on him as viciously as they did the Maverick--which, from my point of view, is the way they should have ravaged him from the get-go.

Herman Cain, on the other hand, will have his face pasted to a black and white ink portrait of a smiling Aunt Mildred located somewhere between the obits and the free pet classifieds. If anywhere.

Tomato, Tomahto

Certainly we could all use the wisdom of Whoopi Goldberg at a time like this--a woman so aware of the life forces around her that she can pronounce unerringly whether a sexual assault is either of the non-rape variety, or, you know, of the rape-rape species.

Such pronouncements can prove invaluable when the accused is of a particular political or artistic bent. We saw this in the case of Roman Polanski, an admitted pedophile whose actions of drugging an underage girl and then sodomizing her against her will were, according to Whoopi, of the previously undefined non rape-rape variety.

Roman's defense? All men like teenagers which, apparently, was enough for Ms. Goldberg. If Ms. Goldberg was in charge, all such universal and unassailable sexual impulses would carry with them immediate absolution, regardless as to whether the sinner actually asked for forgiveness or instead fled the shackles of his plea deal and lived out the rest of his free days gleefully enjoying the sweet memories of a drug addled minor decades his junior.

It was, however, Polanski's sensitive devotion to the arts that helped salve the rather casual objections of Polanski's transgression to artists such as Goldberg, Harrison Ford, Harvey Weinstein, Anne Applebaum, and the sadly aging Debra Winger. Who were we, after all, to stand between a man of the arts and his libido?

Another sex crime is rocking the world today, that of IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Now, certainly the Strauss-Kahn situation varies with the Polanski situation in that Strauss-Kahn is innocent until proven guilty and has admitted no guilt. Polanski admitted guilt but then fled.

What does remain the same is the inability for leftists to accept the potential evil of persons housed within their own ideological circle.

Seventy percent of French socialist party members believe that Strauss-Kahn is the victim of a conspiracy to ruin his political aspirations which include the potential presidency of France. That the uber socialist Strauss-Kahn was staying in a $3,000 per night hotel room is just nit-picking minutia and not indicative of any hypocrisy.

One thing that I like about conservatives. While our standards are not rigidly upheld by every member on every occasion, when a supposed member strays from his ideological foundation he is lambasted for it by those on the right. When Mark Foley is smitten with a house page, he is rousted from office. When Gary Studds does that and even more, he is elevated to a position of power within the Democrat Party.

We will have to see how all of this turns out in a court of law as Strauss-Kahn is not deserving of any diplomatic protections and he will be tried.

Perhaps we could get Whoopi to tell us what's up and save us all a lot of time.

No Guilt Here!

"If you're going to ... try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it."

So says a man who just last year won a multi-million dollar lottery prize when confronted with the fact that he still uses food stamps.

So much for the old Kennedy quote..."ask not what your country can do for you...blah, blah, blah."

Entitlement is a disease.

On the road again...

I'm on the road again and, as Mom and my other reader has probably noted, I don't get an opportunity to write very often while I'm out of town.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy to be holding down a job of today, but I just wish it wasn't in lieu of one of the yet to be created Michigan jobs of tomorrow favored by our former Governor Jennifer Granholm.

I'll try to do better next week but there are no promises.

California Finds Something Else to Regulate

On a hat tip from Overlawyered, a bill has been introduced in California to help provide for a safer lodging workplace.

Section 6714 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
6714. (a) The standards board shall, no later than September 1, 2012, adopt an occupational safety and health standard for lodging establishment housekeeping. The standard shall apply to all hotels, motels, and other lodging establishments in California. The standard shall require all of the following:
(1) The use of a fitted sheet, instead of a flat sheet, as the bottom sheet on all beds within the lodging establishment. For the purpose of this section, a "fitted sheet" means a bed sheet containing elastic or similar material sewn into each of the four corners that allows the sheet to stay in place over the mattress.
(2) The use of long-handled tools such as mops or similar devices in order to eliminate the practice by housekeepers of working in a stooped, kneeling, or squatting position in order to clean bathroom floors, walls, tubs, toilets, and other bathroom surfaces.

Is there no portion of the American business landscape that some unfortunately elected fop hasn't decided that he can run more efficiently and more effectively himself?

I've got news for California State Senator De León, if you show me a toilet that has been cleaned without effort of "stooping, kneeling, or squatting" I will show you a toilet that is teeming with bacteria and unfit for Mr. De León's backside to utilize.

Realistically, how are housekeepers even supposed to clean underneath the toilet seat if they cannot even stoop to lift the lid?

When a state believes it has the wisdom and wherewithal to regulate even the proper cleaning of toilets down at the local Super8, it is clearly engaged in systematic overreach.

California is billions of dollars in debt, pining for another federal bailout, driving thousands of employers out of the state every year over the high cost of doing business, and abjectly delusional when it comes to getting its expenses or revenues in line.

If this is any indication, it hasn't even started trying to figure it out.

Having it Both Ways

Either Usama bin Laden was a Muslim or he was not.

He would have told you, prior to his head being blown apart like a misguided suicide bomber, that he was a Muslim. His followers, both during and after the blowing up of schools, weddings, hotels, subways, trains, airplanes, and city squares would tell you the same thing.

And yet, most of those within the western politic would describe Usama and his bloodthirsty minions as "misunderstanders of Islam." Western governments have undergone painstaking effort in separating the images of the jihadist bin Laden and the peaceful followers of Islam who are the "vast majority" of Muslim believers.

Our own government has fallen into this trap as well. George W. Bush has called Islam "a religion of peace." He also said "Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn't follow the great traditions of Islam. They've hijacked a great religion." He also said: "All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith -- face of Islam."

Current President Barack Obama has had a few things to say about Islam himself: “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

Both men have taken great care in addressing Muslim masses so as to be sure not to offend or to paint America's War on Terror as a War on Islam. Both men have made it known that they do not believe that terrorism is a part of true Islam. They both made it clear that they believed that Usama bin Laden, as a purveyor of terror, was not a true follower of the Islamic faith.

So, why is it, after the US heroically carried out a raid deep into Pakistan that lead to the timely death of Usama bin Laden, that US authorities felt it necessary to carefully treat Usama's carcass as if it were an esteemed vessel of Islam? Why would we, after our last two presidents have adamantly noted, and indeed, after moderate Muslims the world over have demanded, that terrorism has no part in Islam and that those who engage in terrorism are not true Muslims, even attempt to do anything other than unceremoniously dump Obama's body in a nameless garbage pit?

Either bin Laden was a Muslim or he was not. Perhaps the US isn't as clear on this concept as it has tried to convince us that it is.

Talk Nice to My Volt!

Does anyone else think this is as funny as I do?

BMW CEO Jim O'Donnell has apparently experienced great criticism for his comments about electrical vehicles. So much so that he has had to issue an apology. Yes, he has finally crossed the line--he has insulted a blessed technology.

His horrible mistake in judgment? He announced that he believed in a "free economy," that tax credits should be ended, and that electric vehicles would not work for most people.

One only hopes he also engaged in a little flagellation and that hate crime legislation can soon be introduced that includes insensitivity toward techno groupies.

"I sincerely apologize if I have offended the strong network of electric vehicle advocates whose support has been deeply meaningful to us at BMW."

It is accepted by most of us that we should not insult overly sensitive people for their race, religion, weight, social status, or disability, but now we cannot even insult a technology for fear of offending its followers.

Between Him and His Maker

Most of the world celebrates today the demise of one Usama bin Laden at the hand of American Navy Seals. Certainly those that took to the streets at Ground Zero, in Times Square, in Annapolis, and at the White House had celebration on their minds.

There are deeply rooted political consequences of such an action, an action that our President deserves credit for. Some international political truths are also, now, becoming crystal clear. But somehow, on this day at least, I find myself largely being able to ignore such trivialities.

Those who do not celebrate are generally making threats upon the celebrators. This morning, already, the jihad continues. Already, in planning rooms across the planet, forces for freedom continue to plot the death or capture of those who will find promotion in the vacuum left by Usama's sodden corpse.

And yet today I find myself singing this verse over and over...

na-na-na-na
na-na-na-na
hey, hey, hey, goodbye...

For the more reflective today, let us not forget, meeting one's maker is no different than meeting one's final judge. We did what we had to do and took him out. Now God will decide.

A Non-Fiction Windmill Story

Over at Watts Up With That:

Consider the Oldbury wind turbine, which WattsUpWithThat.com reveals was installed a couple of years ago at a primary school in the Midlands at a cost of £5000 sterling plus Vicious Additional Taxation at 17.5% (US $9694 in all).

In the first full year of the Oldbury White Elephant’s 20-year life it generated a gratifying 209 kilowatt-hours of electricity – enough to power a single 100-Watt reading-lamp for less than three months. The rest of the year you’ll have to find something else to do in bed.

This is one of the technologies the very wise in the US are favoring over pumping oil or burning coal. The government favored technology actually sucks wealth out of our economy while those chosen by the free market shower our country with wealth producing efficient energy.

For centuries the human condition on Earth was misery. It was famine, disease, abject poverty, starvation, disco. Cheap energy's infusion into free market capitalism has changed all of that. The vast majority of today's poverty stricken own cell phones, have cable television, access to transportation, education, housing, and food.

Yet, this is what the elite in America are willing to sacrifice in their skirt chasing of green energy solutions. It is both a mathematical and economic certainty that future generations of Americans will be much poorer, sicker, hungrier and more desperate than they are now if our leaders' continue to chart a course toward the purposeful destruction of American wealth.

It is certainly a price they are willing to have the rest of us pay.

Zimbabwe President Visits Vatican

Perhaps a miracle will be performed on the detached hands of the political adversaries of Robert Mugabe. At least that way the sufferers at Mugabe's Marxist (and still attached) Catholic hand might see some benefit to their leader's presence at the beatification of Pope John Paul II in Rome.

Mugabe is, simply stated, a butcher of humans (and he ain't the best friend of currency either.) This is not a rarity for Marxist heads of state. What is somewhat surprising is that the man is apparently entitled to witness the beatification because of the office he holds.

Mugabe is a head of state whose abuses caused him human rights sanctions as far back as 2002. Since then his followers have killed, maimed and terrorized his political foes in a campaign of violence designed to keep him in the office for which he lost a popular election.

But, it would seem that with bloody retainment of power comes great privilege, and Mr. Mugabe is wielding the privilege like Michael Moore would a meaty ham bone among the starving at the gate. That such privilege is bestowed upon Mugabe by the Vatican (and the Italians who have allowed him free passage despite sanctions) is the worst sort of blatant hypocrisy.

If The Vatican, the one sovereign country on Earth dedicated to the belief in and the teachings of Jesus Christ cannot, even within their own bureaucracy, find excuse enough to keep Mugabe away from this theater we can pretty much toss the country's name into the column of generic and rudderless appeaser states that already span the Earth despite their glossy wrapping.

Perhaps the homeless, the tortured, the burned, the terrorized, and the handless Zimbabweans can catch it on television.

Putting Oil into Context

In a post titled Facts About Oil over at Powerline, John Hinderaker outlines a few truths about the evil oil industry that our benevolent president would rather you not worry your pretty little heads about.

A Tea Partiers Assessment

One thing that I respect about the tea party is its above board nature. It is a movement that openly advocates its positions and attempts to achieve its objectives through conventional and lawful means.

It is a movement replete with individuals that understand the importance of the rule of law, the difference between a representative republic and a democracy, and appreciates the role that individuals have in society. It embraces a person's rights of life, freedom, and the unfettered pursuit for a better life.

All of these things are in stark contrast to not only the progressive left, but also to centrist politicians who have adopted a belief that government should provide for individuals and identity groups those things that they fail to provide for themselves (irrespective of any attempt to self provide, and sometimes whether the providees even desire the interjection.)

The tea parties seek change at the ballot box. Most progressives will settle for a ballot box solution if one is readily apparent (particularly if enough illegal or dead voters are able to partake in the effort,) but absent their candidates being elected will just as opportunistically pursue change through judicial fiat or bureaucratic regulation, that is, except for those high called brave statesmen that flee beyond the nearest state border.

An obvious example of this is when climate change legislation ground to a halt in the US Congress, EPA regulators in the Obama administration predictably assumed an unprecedented expansion of regulatory powers they justified through hazy interpretations of the Clean Air Act.

Another recent example of these shenanigans is the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking to block Boeing's attempt to build aircraft in South Carolina rather than producing them in union dominated Washington state. The NLRB is positing that Boeing's attempt to produce aircraft in a right to work state is in direct response to belligerent union activities that interrupted production at their established factory.

Now, mind you, Boeing is not shuttering any Seattle area plant. (In fact, employment in that area is actually increased over the past few years.) And Boeing is not shifting the production of one aircraft from Seattle to South Carolina. (The factory in SC is for the new Dreamliner aircraft.)

And yet, the NLRB is seeking to halt production in South Carolina in direct appeasement of the deep pocketed labor unions in Washington state that helped elevate President Obama to victory.

When President Obama bought himself a couple of car companies he said out loud and on many occasions that he had no desire to run a car company. However, it should be noted, that many of the new products being touted by GM today are ones blessed by government authorities for their harmony with government environmental and energy policy. He also was able to seat a more union friendly board, provide some ownership of the new entities to the unions, kick out a few established industry executives to be replaces with government chosen alternatives, and continued to fund speculative industries whose production would fishtail nicely with government's energy and environmental policy.

Boeing is a different and perhaps even more sinister matter. Here, government regulators are attempting to interject themselves directly into the managerial matters of a private enterprise in order to grant its most favored electoral constituency unprecedented powers over a company they draw their paychecks from.

There is no doubt that businesses are under attack in America. They are seen as greedy corporations with few redeeming qualities. The wealth that they generate for workers are largely ignored because of the wealth that is also generated for stockholders and company officers. As the valued presidential adviser Bill Ayers said recently in an interview "With great wealth comes great theft."

Capitalism is unfair. Boeing, as such, is a thief. And government regulators are today's Robin Hoods setting matters of wealth aright while assisting themselves in perpetuating their continued regulatory status.

Debt and the growth of government (along with the fact that the Republican Party offered up a centrist candidate in the last presidential election) were the primary causes behind the growth of the tea party movement. It is the overreach of government regulators and their unrelenting invasion into the private sector that will provide the incentive to keep the movement vibrant and growing.

This fight is just beginning.