April 1, 2012

From Lexington: Overturned Cars After UK Win, But Not ‘Out of Control’?

Filed under: Education,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 6:42 pm

Don’t quite understand why this is datelined from Louisville, because the news is primarily from Lexington:

Fans burn couches, flip cars after Kentucky’s win

Riot police used pepper spray in small amounts for crowd control as thousands of rowdy fans swarmed into the streets near the University of Kentucky campus, overturning cars and lighting couches ablaze after a victory over cross-state rival Louisville in a Final Four matchup.

Police had been bracing for the possibility of post-game violence and resorted to pepper spray though large amounts weren’t needed before they ultimately began dispersing the throngs, Lexington police spokeswoman Sherelle Roberts said.

She said 150 officers deployed on the streets at one point to quell what she called “a very dangerous situation with the fires and the violence” that dragged on for hours.

Many streets had already been blocked off around Kentucky’s Lexington campus earlier to make way for the crowds, but sirens blared and police shut down more streets when the blazes broke out. Twitter feeds reported police in riot gear moved in to disperse crowds as some people on the streets were overturning and vandalizing vehicles and others smashed glass bottles.

Straub said the crowds began to disperse by about 11 p.m., nearly three hours after the game ended. But she said at no point had things “gotten out of control.”

I’d say that if people are overturning cars and setting, you’ve hit the “out of control” stage. Lexington isn’t Paris — or at least it isn’t supposed to be.

The sad thing (obviously besides the damage and any injuries which might have occcurred, which are sadder) is that this has the potential to distract the team from the task at hand.

Thoughts on Rubio’s Endorsement of Romney

Filed under: Activism,Health Care,Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Rose @ 12:45 pm

RubioQuestionMark2012Most folks steeped in local, state and national politics for any amount of time aren’t really surprised by anything, least of all the cluelessness and gullibility of the uninformed (which can certainly include ourselves at times), and while I wish I could say that I’ve always supported the best candidate, and in the most efficacious manner, I can’t.

As such, this piece isn’t an indictment so much as it is musings and insight from someone who knocks on doors, chases absentee ballots, organizes events and grows weary in November, like many others, from having to psych herself up to do those things for candidates she either didn’t support, or who have [ultimately] revealed themselves to be the very thing we fight.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio didn’t do anyone any favors by endorsing Mitt Romney last week, least of all himself.  In fact, all his endorsement did was make many of us consider that he is just like every other ambitious politician (shocker!), and as such, would have been much more helpful to the establishment & Mitt Romney – assuming that was his intent - had he stayed away from an official endorsement…

A group of us had the pleasure of hearing Senator Rubio speak a couple of weeks ago while he was in town touring with Ohio’s next Senator, Josh Mandel.  He (Rubio) was everything I imagine my mother thought JFK was when she heard him speak…eloquent, passionate, handsome and seemingly too young to have the the common sense paradigms he professed.  Oh yeah, I was going door-to-door for that one, but of course, as with all things Romney, that brief moment of resolve was ripped to shreds the moment Rubio endorsed him.

Why? Because Mitt Romney is the antithesis of everything Rubio so eloquently exalted…

The senator spoke about his parents naming hard work and perserverance as the path to live in the “nice neighborhoods” versus the necessity of lessening the position of someone who already lived there.  He spoke about unconstitutional power grabs and crony capitalism at every level of government.  He spoke about getting our fiscal house in order and the legacy of debt we are leaving our children.  But it wasn’t just what he said, it was how he said it (read: I believed him).  So, assuming that he’s in touch with the 75% of the GOP electorate who are “anybody but Romney,” why endorse Romney?

As is often the case, what I want the answer to be, is not necessarily what the answer ends up being, ha.  But before I go there, let me state the obvious: It is especially difficult in this arena to see inside a man’s heart, namely because what comes out of the mouth is so often filtered and mangled, that it seldom reflects the speaker’s true belief system.  There are a few [appreciated] exceptions of course, who facilitate our political discernment, ha.  But for the most part, you’d have to follow a candidate around 24/7 to vet them as well as we should, and even if we avoided stalking charges, the best among us will still fall.

So, like the old WWII poster depicting a soldier throwing a grenade into battle, we elect someone, and as they are being sworn in, think to ourselves the same thing as the soldier: “God help me if this is a dud!”

What’s worse is being virtually certain going in that the candidate is a dud, or at least less of a dud if there is such a thing, than the previous one.  The RINO establishment – which now sadly includes Rubio – continues to shove Mitt Romney down our throats, all the while expecting us to gleefully give them money, sweat equity and get out the vote efforts come crunch time.  And hey, why not…they have been soooo gracious about our candidates…NOT.

The establishment’s past hostility to Rubio is just one of the many reasons I have a hard time believing that despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and his ability to read, Senator Rubio genuinely believes that Romney is the best dud, er, candidate, for the job; genuinely believes that a race to the end of the primary season is bad for the party, ergo genuinely believes that endorsing Romney now, is what’s “best for the party,” and the nation.

Hard to believe because: 1) Romney has an atrocious record, and 2) No one appreciates or respects a coronation…not in America.  If we did, this thing would have been over a long time ago.

So options weighing in more heavily are probably:

  1. Winning must be put above everything else - which I don’t necessisarily disagree with in 2012, though I don’t define the election of Romney as ”winning.”  “Slowing down the bleeding” perhaps, “Putting us on a slower path toward socialism,” sure, but “winning?”  Uh, no.
  2. The endorsement pulls in the Tea Partiers garnering [Rubio's] favorability to benefit Romney and the establishment RINOs – even though that presupposes that they are all mind-numbed robots…one of very things most Tea Partiers work to change within the general electorate.
  3. He must look “reasonable” to the RINO’s…a “team player” so that as veep, or cabinet head, he will actually have an effectual role in policy (even though he’ll be overwhelmingly out-numbered by Massachussets-like moderates).

Look, most get why Rubio endorsed Romney; personally, I just wish he hadn’t.  At the end of the day, I’m simply tired of voting against someone, vs. for someone who is going to advance the cause of liberty.  Sadly, nothing that Romney has ever done as an elected official even remotely resembles that description.  Too, many of us complain about the early primary states deciding the nomimee for the rest of us, so in the interest of consistency, why to do that to others?  At least playing all 60 minutes of the game will allow people to have their voices heard until they see the writing on the wall.

But instead of letting the primaries play out, Rubio and all the others who have endorsed Romney have told us that they know better, and that it’s time to “fold ‘em.”  With all due respect, they are wrong.  No amount of time is going to change Romney’s record, nor is it going to reconcile him to the base.  In fact, contrary to Senator Rubio’s thought process, things are going to get exponentially worse for Romney as soon as he becomes the nominee.

Why? Because the lamestream media is just waiting to unleash all the truths about Romney of which those who started vetting him in 2004 are well aware.  Executive Branch tyranny. Big Government solutions. The FIRST coordinated assault on the Catholic Church.  By the time all the talking heads realize that the electability of Mitt Romney has been a myth since 2008, it will be too late.  In fact, now that I think about it, a floor fight might be the best thing for Romney, as it will lessen [his] expense to combat and the opportunity of the press to affect apathy among Karl Rove’s “beloved” independents.  Still, they want that coronation

Ya know, if Romney is the nominee, we may drag ourselves out of bed on November 6th, drink some coffee, roll our eyes as we drive past our polling location on the way to work; heave a heavy sigh at lunch as we drive past it again.  Go back to work and spend the rest of the day trying to psych ourselves up to exercise one of the greatest rights we have.  After work, we will force ourselves to drive to our polling location, park, walk past the salvo of poll workers and actually mark the oval next to a Republican socialist.  Then many of us will take the following week off to shower and throw up…the entire freaking time.

That’s what the Republican establishment has done to sully the extraordinary privilege to exercise our right to vote, and by drinking the Kool-Aid, Rubio has contributed as well (et tu, brother?).

Now let’s pretend Senator Rubio didn’t endorse Romney & our nominee is decided right before or at the convention.  This leaves us with the perception that Rubio – Mr. Tea Party – isn’t any happier about having a Republican socialist as the nominee anymore than we are…but as everyone had their say in the primaries, we must support the winner to the degree that our stomachs will allow.  Instead of taking off the week after the election to scrub our epidermis w/an SOS pad, maybe we take off the week before, and work the 72-hour push…not against Obama, but for Rubio – assuming he’s veep –  and the down-ticket races (which will help Romney).

The question is, will any amount of lackluster support help?  History says no.  But don’t worry, establishment RINO’s and pundits will NEVER blame Karl Rove’s ”beloved” independents if any losses are incurred, for there is at least one constant truth within this wayward, leaderless Republican Party: Conservatives will be blamed when they lose, and forsaken when they win. 

Just expect it , no embrace it…Marco Rubio has.

The Green Jobs Boondoggle

MoneyDownTheToilet“Doubling down” on barely 2% of the private workforce.

_____________________

Note: This column went up at PJ Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Friday.

_____________________

Fresh off attempting to tell us that the employment situation for blacks and Hispanics is getting so much better — when it isn’t — Uncle Sam’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has compiled its first estimate of how many “green jobs” there are in the economy. The spirit of 9/11 truther Van Jones, who also said we deserved the September 11 attacks two days after they occurred, and was also the White House’s green jobs czar for a time during 2009, apparently lives on.

The BLS couldn’t even get through the first paragraph of its new report without slinging the BS. It claimed that in 2010, “3.1 million jobs in the United States were associated with the production of green goods and services (GGS),” specifically those which “are found in businesses that produce goods and provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.”

Businesses? Far from entirely: “The private sector had 2.3 million GGS jobs and the public sector had 860,300.” The 2.3 million represents about 2.1% of all private-sector employment. Assuming BLS’s figures are right (if anything, they’re high), the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress which enabled it has been staggeringly irresponsible in throwing so much money at that portion of the economy. 7.7 million seasonally adjusted private-sector jobs were lost from January 2008 until June 2009, the official end of the recession; overall job stagnation continued for twenty months after that. Even if Team Obama thought they could increase GGS employment by 50%, and bravely assuming they could manage such an enterprise (it has been since shown beyond doubt that they didn’t know what they were doing), it still would have only replaced 15% of the jobs lost.

Thursday, President Obama, in bashing “subsidies” to oil companies which mostly represent legitimate deductions for money actually spent, insisted that the nation should “double-down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising.” They’ve learned nothing.

Government employees, who, last time I checked, do not work for “businesses,” held over 27% of GGS jobs in 2010 and made up almost 4% of the public workforce. No wonder governments at all levels latch onto every environmental initiative they can, as “being green” has significantly contributed to out-of-control public workforce bloat and public unions’ political power.

Quite a few public-sector “GGS” jobs not only produce nothing and provide no meaningful service; they also generate ream after ream of useless paper pronouncements while consuming ginormous amounts of energy-hogging bandwidth. BLS says that the public administration sector at state governments alone had 141,700 green jobs in 2010, which included “the enforcement of environmental regulations and the administration of environmental programs.” It really is a wonder that the private sector produces anything at all.

One thing at which the “green” portion of the public sector has become particularly adept is burning through taxpayer money. The Environmental Protection Agency now spends about $11 billion per year, up from an already ridiculous $8 billion three years ago. The EPA has nearly completed what it will consider the signature accomplishment of its 41-year existence if successful — the implementation of “a proposed rule for greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants … (which) experts believe ‘effectively bans new coal plants‘ in the United States.” In 2008, candidate Obama said he wanted to bankrupt companies if they tried to build new coal-burning plants. Since Congress wouldn’t create that situation by passing ruinous cap and trade legislation, Mr. “We Can’t Wait” is having the EPA do it for him.

When it comes to direct waste tied to GGS jobs, the Department of Energy (DOE), which produces no energy, knows no peer.

In early September 2011, the Washington Post reported that the 2009 stimulus plan’s $38.6 billion loan-guarantee program targeting green energy companies “has directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after giving out almost half the allocated amount.” Let’s see; $18.8 billion (the actual amount disbursed at the time) divided by 3,545 works out to $5.3 million per job. We’d have been much better off paying each new worker a couple hundred grand a year just to stay home.

Oh, but this is all supposedly okay, because these are only “loan guarantees.” Most of the money will get paid back, and the government won’t lose all that much, right? Wrong. Think Solyndra, Beacon Power, Ener1, and at least a half-dozen others. And they’re not done: The Wall Street Journal reported on March 23 that DOE “has placed nearly one-third of its clean-energy loan portfolio (10 of 32) on an internal ‘watch list’ for possible violations of terms or other concerns.” I suspect that there’s little reason to feel good about the other 22.

Subsequent events have shown that the administration’s green jobs obsession has been a monstrous waste of time and money on two levels. First, experience in the real world outside of rigged computer models based on missing raw data has shown that the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and alleged global warming is weak at best. CO2 has been increasing, but there’s been no net warming since 1998.

Second, fossil-fuel resource discoveries and recent advances in extraction technology have been so dramatic that, according to a recent report by Citigroup analysts, it is not unreasonable to believe that “North America’s production of oil and natural gas liquids (can) almost double to 26.6m barrels a day by 2020.”

That won’t happen if Obama and his bunch remain in charge after January 20, 2013 — which is yet another reason why the nation’s voters can’t allow it to happen.

Sunday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (040112)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 7:00 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.

__________________________________________

Positivity: Official Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally Video

Filed under: Activism,Positivity,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 6:45 am

From across the country (web URL; direct video link):

Go to Stand Up for Religious Freedom’s web site for more info.