According to a Fox News Opinion poll, 58% of the American public are against the $14 Billion Big Auto bailout.
Last night, the U.S. House ignored public sentiments (not that that's wrong in and of itself), and passed the bill 237-170.
It's very important to look at the votes and issue a scorecard for Republicans:
Wisconsin:
Tom Petri- voted AGAINST the bill. Good vote.
Paul Ryan- voted FOR the bill. Ryan's vote is the one that concerns me more than any surrounding the whole situation. He was named as a possible "conservative" VP candidate for the McCain ticket. For a man who recently wrote in the November 25th issue of The Journal Times, "the road to economic recovery has been singularly focused on government spending. If economic growth were simply a function of government spending, our unprecedented spending from the public sector should produce unprecedented growth in the private sector. The failure of such fiscal stimulus proposals is obvious: government depends on the economy for its resources – not the other way around. As a recent study from the Heritage Foundation states, “Every dollar that government ‘injects’ into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed from the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another, " he surely didn't put his money where his mouth is. (Emphasis added by Founder's Porch). I'm usually an enormous fan of Rep. Ryan's, but maybe he'd had one too many Miller Lites before making this vote.
Jim Sensenbrenner- did not vote. He is currently in Poland at the global warming summit. No word if he's found magical coolant there.
Virginia:
Cantor- voted AGAINST the bill
Drake- voted AGAINST the bill
Forbes- voted AGAINST the bill
Goode- voted AGAINST the bill
Goodlatte- voted AGAINST the bill
Wittman- voted AGAINST the bill
Wolf- voted AGAINST the bill
Minnesota:
Michelle Bachmann- voted AGAINST it. It's very nice to never have to worry about whether Bachmann will waiver from her conservative roots.
John Kline- voted AGAINST it. Mr. Kline, a former Marine colonel and my representative, is a not appreciated as much as he should be by the GOP. In the eyes of any conservative, he should be viewed as a rock star. It's nice to know that my conservative district is being appropriately represented by Rep. Kline.
Jim Ramstad- voted FOR it. Usually I would chastize Rep. Ramstad, but he's on the way out. The important question, then, is whether or not his replacement, Erik Paulsen, would have voted differently. I certainly hope so and will try to contact him to find out.
According to the New York Times, one part of the bill's purpose is to, "immediately bring... workers’ wages in line with foreign companies like Nissan and Volkswagen."
It's a shame that a bill with that language could be supported by Republicans. Luckily, it appears as though the bill will not pass the Senate due, in large part, to Senator Mitch McConnell's opposition.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Star Tribune's Nick Coleman: Limitless Logical Lunacy
Today, the Star Tribune’s ever-present liberal voice lambasted Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, claiming the Governor does not spend enough time at the capital.
“If the state of Minnesota were "Titanic," this would be the part in the movie where some of the rich passengers put dresses on and try to sneak into the lifeboats,” Coleman writes.
Here’s my point-for-point destruction of Coleman’s argument. He blames conservatives for the economic failure, saying that our “hands off” approach to the economy is to blame. He apparently does not think Barney Frank and his liberal allies have much blame. The same Barney Frank who said in 2003 regarding proposed increases in Fannie May oversight: "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Coleman says, “Nice guys got us into it by not reining in greed and not funding government responsibly.”
He makes no mention of irresponsible spending, only a lack of funding (see: not raising taxes on the rich). Maybe he should blame a state legislature more concerned with a bill mandating private businesses open up their bathrooms to people with Irritable Bowl Syndrome than cutting spending.
Another point: If you’ll go back in time with me a few short weeks, you’ll remember liberals everywhere criticizing Sarah Palin for her lack of worldly knowledge, only having applied for a passport a few years before her Vice-Presidential bid. But in his column today, Coleman writes that Pawlenty, “On an endless circuit of talk shows and national appearances aimed at puffing his profile for 2012, Gov. Tim Pawlenty leaves Thursday on a trip to Israel that will come in handy during foreign policy debates ("I've visited our friends in Israel") but may not do much for Minnesota's pork producers.”
So, on the one hand, to liberals, Sarah Palin is a typical Red state simpleton “American Idiot” for never having traveled the world, but Tim Pawlenty traveling to Israel somehow is a bystander as the state of Minnesota “sinks.” Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Coleman also says that Minnesota “needs federal money, and deserves it,” because we send $40 billion in taxes to the federal government and only receive $31 billion back. If Coleman believes we should receive more than our $40 billion back, where does he think it comes from? A magical money tree? No! It comes from other states! So, apparently it’s OK if Minnesota takes money from other states, but not if other states take it from Minnesota. His conclusion (Minnesota shouldn’t give more money to the federal government than it receives) is correct, but his reasoning is seriously misguided. While I agree that Minnesota-and any other state- shouldn’t give more than it receives, we disagree on the reasonings- mine being rooted in a proper understanding of federalism and the Constitution, his being based on some false understanding of fairness. After all, if it’s private citizens, Coleman thinks the rich should pay more than the poor. But when it comes to states, the better off states have no responsibility to poorer states with more serious problems.
And finally, Coleman makes the assumption that an active governor (and therefore an active government) would be a good thing in this economic downturn- I refuse to label market corrections as a “crisis.” Simply put, he’s wrong.
Plainly put, it seems futile to argue against Coleman. No one actually puts stock in his opinion. But, often his opinions are indicative of overall liberal sentiments, so their destruction is important.
While I find it hard to defend Pawlenty on economics, it’s easy to show the errors in Nick Coleman’s logic.
“If the state of Minnesota were "Titanic," this would be the part in the movie where some of the rich passengers put dresses on and try to sneak into the lifeboats,” Coleman writes.
Here’s my point-for-point destruction of Coleman’s argument. He blames conservatives for the economic failure, saying that our “hands off” approach to the economy is to blame. He apparently does not think Barney Frank and his liberal allies have much blame. The same Barney Frank who said in 2003 regarding proposed increases in Fannie May oversight: "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Coleman says, “Nice guys got us into it by not reining in greed and not funding government responsibly.”
He makes no mention of irresponsible spending, only a lack of funding (see: not raising taxes on the rich). Maybe he should blame a state legislature more concerned with a bill mandating private businesses open up their bathrooms to people with Irritable Bowl Syndrome than cutting spending.
Another point: If you’ll go back in time with me a few short weeks, you’ll remember liberals everywhere criticizing Sarah Palin for her lack of worldly knowledge, only having applied for a passport a few years before her Vice-Presidential bid. But in his column today, Coleman writes that Pawlenty, “On an endless circuit of talk shows and national appearances aimed at puffing his profile for 2012, Gov. Tim Pawlenty leaves Thursday on a trip to Israel that will come in handy during foreign policy debates ("I've visited our friends in Israel") but may not do much for Minnesota's pork producers.”
So, on the one hand, to liberals, Sarah Palin is a typical Red state simpleton “American Idiot” for never having traveled the world, but Tim Pawlenty traveling to Israel somehow is a bystander as the state of Minnesota “sinks.” Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Coleman also says that Minnesota “needs federal money, and deserves it,” because we send $40 billion in taxes to the federal government and only receive $31 billion back. If Coleman believes we should receive more than our $40 billion back, where does he think it comes from? A magical money tree? No! It comes from other states! So, apparently it’s OK if Minnesota takes money from other states, but not if other states take it from Minnesota. His conclusion (Minnesota shouldn’t give more money to the federal government than it receives) is correct, but his reasoning is seriously misguided. While I agree that Minnesota-and any other state- shouldn’t give more than it receives, we disagree on the reasonings- mine being rooted in a proper understanding of federalism and the Constitution, his being based on some false understanding of fairness. After all, if it’s private citizens, Coleman thinks the rich should pay more than the poor. But when it comes to states, the better off states have no responsibility to poorer states with more serious problems.
And finally, Coleman makes the assumption that an active governor (and therefore an active government) would be a good thing in this economic downturn- I refuse to label market corrections as a “crisis.” Simply put, he’s wrong.
Plainly put, it seems futile to argue against Coleman. No one actually puts stock in his opinion. But, often his opinions are indicative of overall liberal sentiments, so their destruction is important.
While I find it hard to defend Pawlenty on economics, it’s easy to show the errors in Nick Coleman’s logic.
The Cult of Man
To paraphrase one loyal reader's gadfly of a question, "If we expect Muslims to loudly condemn the Islamist violence in Bombay, shouldn't we hold men to the same standard in instances of violence against women?"
Being a man of course is not a choice (er, alas, I suppose that's an antiquated axiom), but shouldn't men want to clear their name anyway?
Yes, if men killed 200 women in Bombay in the name of the universal cult of men (and took down the WTC/Pentagon, and beheaded, crucified, and suicide bombed women on a daily basis across the world in the name of men), men should make a point to condemn it.
But even so, Muslims were livid and wrote letters to my college newspaper when I suggested Islam might be a violent religion; Muslims torched embassies when the Danish cartoons made a similar insinuation. The Bombay Islamists made this point better than me or the Danes did, so shouldn't we expect more letters to the editor and more embassy torchings?
And yes, if a man passionately wrote letters or torched embassies to denounce the cult of man's inclination to violence, I'd expect him to vigorously denounce men who killed women in the name of men.
But here's the analogy's problem: Men don't share a common ideology based on the life of an illiterate pedophile who spent his life mutilating Arabs that opposed his delusional cult fantasy of a global caliphate. The ultimate ideal of Islam is for everyone to become Muslim. The ultimate aim of men is not for everyone to become men, I can assure you.
Besides, which ideology is it that reveres as the unalterable, ultimate, and perfect word of God a book that commands men to beat their wives if they are disloyal? Under which ideology are the females genitally mutilated so they can't experience sexual pleasure, and forced to sit in the back when they worship?
It begins with an "I" and ends in "slam," as Mark Steyn would say. He must have read this blog's posts before he wrote his most recent article: "Silence = Acceptance," because he makes the same points about calling the Islamists mere "gunmen," and the victims "ultra-orthodox."
If you're silent on AIDS, you were thought to accept it. What if you're silent on Islamist terror?
Being a man of course is not a choice (er, alas, I suppose that's an antiquated axiom), but shouldn't men want to clear their name anyway?
Yes, if men killed 200 women in Bombay in the name of the universal cult of men (and took down the WTC/Pentagon, and beheaded, crucified, and suicide bombed women on a daily basis across the world in the name of men), men should make a point to condemn it.
But even so, Muslims were livid and wrote letters to my college newspaper when I suggested Islam might be a violent religion; Muslims torched embassies when the Danish cartoons made a similar insinuation. The Bombay Islamists made this point better than me or the Danes did, so shouldn't we expect more letters to the editor and more embassy torchings?
And yes, if a man passionately wrote letters or torched embassies to denounce the cult of man's inclination to violence, I'd expect him to vigorously denounce men who killed women in the name of men.
But here's the analogy's problem: Men don't share a common ideology based on the life of an illiterate pedophile who spent his life mutilating Arabs that opposed his delusional cult fantasy of a global caliphate. The ultimate ideal of Islam is for everyone to become Muslim. The ultimate aim of men is not for everyone to become men, I can assure you.
Besides, which ideology is it that reveres as the unalterable, ultimate, and perfect word of God a book that commands men to beat their wives if they are disloyal? Under which ideology are the females genitally mutilated so they can't experience sexual pleasure, and forced to sit in the back when they worship?
It begins with an "I" and ends in "slam," as Mark Steyn would say. He must have read this blog's posts before he wrote his most recent article: "Silence = Acceptance," because he makes the same points about calling the Islamists mere "gunmen," and the victims "ultra-orthodox."
If you're silent on AIDS, you were thought to accept it. What if you're silent on Islamist terror?
Friday, December 5, 2008
5 December 1933 Headline: "Prohibition Ends After 13 Years"
Interesting note to end a Friday afternoon at work: 75 years ago today, Prohibition was repealed.
I seem to remember a story I read about Marquette University on the day Prohibition was repealed. It said that Miller Brewing Company opened up and beer flowed down Wisconsin Avenue to Marquette University where the party last for a whole week.
I plan on goin out tonight and celebrate this day in history by partaking in the consumption of a few alcoholic beverages. But, on a serious not. Whenever Prohibition is brought up it is always a good opportunity to talk about the current "War on Drugs" and whether or not a Prohibition of drugs is worthwhile in the U.S.
I seem to remember a story I read about Marquette University on the day Prohibition was repealed. It said that Miller Brewing Company opened up and beer flowed down Wisconsin Avenue to Marquette University where the party last for a whole week.
I plan on goin out tonight and celebrate this day in history by partaking in the consumption of a few alcoholic beverages. But, on a serious not. Whenever Prohibition is brought up it is always a good opportunity to talk about the current "War on Drugs" and whether or not a Prohibition of drugs is worthwhile in the U.S.
Why pity Bombay when you can pity yourself?
I only caught the end of the 92KQRS (Twin Cities) crew's discussion of the Islamist terrorism in Bombay (I regret previously using "Mumbai," which is to Bombay as "Myanmar" is to Burma) but if I were a Muslim apologist 10 seconds would have been enough for me to scoff and take offence. Since I am in fact an apologist of reason and liberty, however, I commend Tom Bernard and co.
Their point was, simply, Muslims get outraged over Muhammed cartoons, but are not so incensed after these murders in the name of Islam.
How many Muslims voiced self-pity and self-righteous indignation over the Danish cartoons, the Dutch films, and the prophet muhammed soccer balls, ice-cream treats, and teddy bear (you'd think an innocent teddy bear would be more deserving of the name of a prophet than us vulgar, mammilian humans, but it's the most common name in London). Where is all that emotion now, when Islamists killed a couple hundred infidels? Muslims get so worked up telling people like me Islam is a religion of peace. You'd think they'd get more worked up telling Islamists that. I regret it isn't so.
Woe to Islam, it's true spirit shines in these massacres.
Their point was, simply, Muslims get outraged over Muhammed cartoons, but are not so incensed after these murders in the name of Islam.
How many Muslims voiced self-pity and self-righteous indignation over the Danish cartoons, the Dutch films, and the prophet muhammed soccer balls, ice-cream treats, and teddy bear (you'd think an innocent teddy bear would be more deserving of the name of a prophet than us vulgar, mammilian humans, but it's the most common name in London). Where is all that emotion now, when Islamists killed a couple hundred infidels? Muslims get so worked up telling people like me Islam is a religion of peace. You'd think they'd get more worked up telling Islamists that. I regret it isn't so.
Woe to Islam, it's true spirit shines in these massacres.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Who Is This Man?
Much talk has been spent criticizing Barack Obama’s lack of experience. There have also been a number of groups concerned with his rather radical attachments. Further, he has no record of executive decision making. Despite what we speculate about this man, there is one thing we can all acknowledge: we don’t know what this guy will do or what he is capable of.
His recent appointments suggest some good news. Well, maybe not good news. It’s just not as bad as market-respecting, freedom-loving critics of Obama would have thought. Among them is his new Chairman of the Economic Recovery, the renowned Paul Volcker. The same man who partnered with Ronald Reagan to tame wild and unruly inflation. Interestingly, he is not what most free-market thinkers expected, as they feared the worst.
He may be reconsidering his tax proposals too. Is this true?
Similarly, his defense and military strategies are also painting a blurred outline of his upcoming tenure in office. In keeping Robert Gates in office and appointing Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State (who’s opinion is starkly different on Iraq, meeting with belligerent dictators, and the like) he has thumbed his metaphorical nose at the moveon.org crowd. He hasn’t actually committed to reducing any war efforts at all, simply moving the front to Afghanistan.
Don’t confuse what I’m saying. I’m not looking for the “bright side” of what will likely be a miserable four years. Obama has proposed some of the most unjust, harmful, and simply asinine governmental endeavors in American history. My point is simply to say we have what most conservatives and classic liberals pointed out long ago: an empty suit for president. He pays lip service to anything and anyone who will earn him support, yet he has set out his administration in another direction.
One thing we do know: he is as foolish as he is unpredictable. It’s going to be an uncomfortable four years.
His recent appointments suggest some good news. Well, maybe not good news. It’s just not as bad as market-respecting, freedom-loving critics of Obama would have thought. Among them is his new Chairman of the Economic Recovery, the renowned Paul Volcker. The same man who partnered with Ronald Reagan to tame wild and unruly inflation. Interestingly, he is not what most free-market thinkers expected, as they feared the worst.
He may be reconsidering his tax proposals too. Is this true?
Similarly, his defense and military strategies are also painting a blurred outline of his upcoming tenure in office. In keeping Robert Gates in office and appointing Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State (who’s opinion is starkly different on Iraq, meeting with belligerent dictators, and the like) he has thumbed his metaphorical nose at the moveon.org crowd. He hasn’t actually committed to reducing any war efforts at all, simply moving the front to Afghanistan.
Don’t confuse what I’m saying. I’m not looking for the “bright side” of what will likely be a miserable four years. Obama has proposed some of the most unjust, harmful, and simply asinine governmental endeavors in American history. My point is simply to say we have what most conservatives and classic liberals pointed out long ago: an empty suit for president. He pays lip service to anything and anyone who will earn him support, yet he has set out his administration in another direction.
One thing we do know: he is as foolish as he is unpredictable. It’s going to be an uncomfortable four years.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Happy Late Thanksgiving
Hey folks, hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving! I headed south to Charleston, SC with three Marine buddies. I also had the pleasure of visiting fellow-blogger Pat, who was staying with his father there.
On the day after Thanksgiving my buddies and I took driving/walking tour of Charleston. What a beautiful place it is. At one point, out of curiosity, we drove onto the campus of The Citadel to look around.
Then, this morning I read this headline on news Web sites: Marine killed recently in Iraq was a graduate of The Citadel, the college is reporting.
“Capt. Warren A. Frank was killed in action while distributing humanitarian aid in the Ninewa province of Iraq Nov. 25, according to the college.”
Rest easy Sir. Semper fi Marine.
On the day after Thanksgiving my buddies and I took driving/walking tour of Charleston. What a beautiful place it is. At one point, out of curiosity, we drove onto the campus of The Citadel to look around.
Then, this morning I read this headline on news Web sites: Marine killed recently in Iraq was a graduate of The Citadel, the college is reporting.
“Capt. Warren A. Frank was killed in action while distributing humanitarian aid in the Ninewa province of Iraq Nov. 25, according to the college.”
Rest easy Sir. Semper fi Marine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
