No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

February 20, 2010

Obama’s True Colors

by @ 11:34. Filed under Miscellaneous.

For me it was never a close call.  From the first time I learned anything about then Senator Barack Obama, I was convinced that he was a left wing (as opposed to liberal) politician.  I read his book, “The Audacity of Hope.”  It is an Orwellian work, in which Obama touts his moderate credentials while providing a big spending, big government solution to every problem known to man.

Then the presidential campaign started.  We quickly learned about Obama’s participation in the Chicago Democratic machine, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers.  There is a good chance your mommy told you, “You will be judged by the company you keep.”  And you know what?  Looking at the company someone keeps is usually a pretty good indicator of who that person is.

We have recently learned that the President intends to push the stalled health care legislation through Congress using the “reconciliation” process, thereby avoiding the need to get 60 votes in the Senate. There is now only one reason to continue down this path: an undying commitment to government control of the largest single sector of the U.S. economy.

The people do not want this.  Every credible poll shows a 15% to 20% disapproval gap.  It is a budget buster.  There is no chance to get Republican support and claim bipartisanship.  Members of the President’s own party inside Congress don’t want this.  It seems almost every Democratic analyst that isn’t on the White House payroll thinks this is a bad idea.  Americans understand that the economy in general, and the unemployment rate in particular, is a much bigger priority.  And you can’t even argue that Obama is looking at the pure politics of the situation.  Forcing passage of the health care legislation will take a dreadful November outlook for Democrats and make it worse.

Forcing this through under these circumstances will once and for all demonstrate what many of us have known all along.  This president is hell bent on a statist system in America. How on earth did “the land of the free and the home of the brave” come to this? It is beyond disturbing.

CPAC semi-live blog – Day 3

by @ 7:49. Filed under CPAC.

I may have missed the start of Rick Santorum’s speech, but he’s still on as I start this. Like yesterday, I’ll be using CoverItLive to do this deal.

February 19, 2010

A Fairy Tale

by @ 9:57. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Once upon a time there was Global Warming.  Al Gore and others made up a bunch of data and went on evangelical tours to convince people that “The End Is Near!”  Increased hurricanes, increased tornadoes, melting glaciers, rising ocean levels, extinction of polar bears, destruction of food crops were just some of the horrific results that we were supposed to experience if we didn’t act immediately to move our economy back to one that reflected something from the 18th Century.  We were told this was urgent!  We were told we only had ten years to change our ways or go beyond the point of no return.

We didn’t change.

Some time passed, actually most of the ten year urgent zone, and something odd was noticed.  Hurricanes and tornadoes didn’t increase, their occurrence rates stayed flat or even reduced.  Polar bears didn’t disappear, they actually increased in numbers.  Worse of all, temperatures were no longer increasing, they were flat or (HORRORS!) in some cases, even decreasing.  How could any of this be?  None of this was supposed to happen with “Global Warming!”

The warming zealots condescendingly chided us for asking “what happened to the warming,” and explained that “Global warming was only part of the equation.”  As they fully understood the complexities climatic interactions, they told us that “warming was only a part of the equation.  Actually,” they continued, “cooling can also be part of the equation.  While our concern was originally focused on warming, the real issue is “Climate Change” which includes any variation in climate that we can use to fool you into believing our desire to control your actions!”

And so, the term “Climate Change” was born not as a definition of reality but as a result of sleight of hand where just like a magician, they didn’t want you to pay attention to the real issue and the real action of the trick.

For months there has been concern about what would/will happen if China, the largest holder and buyer of US treasuries, decided they were full and didn’t want to obtain any more.  This past week, the US held another treasury auction.  We found out at that auction that indeed, China is now full.  Not only did China not buy many treasury offerings, they became and net seller of treasuries in December of ’09.

If indeed China is full of treasuries or worse, if China is net selling treasuries, the financing of President Obama’s massive deficits will become a big challenge.  If US debt is not absorbed in the open market and no change is made in the debt required due to the huge spending budgets, the solutions become ugly.  Dramatically higher interest rates and force inflation are just two of the prettier ways of dealing with the situation.  Other options are far less attractive.

One would think that the Obama administration would be paying attention to the change in China’s attitude.  One would think that if Obama were really serious about his newly announced appreciation for fiscal conservatism, he would be using this event as an indicator of our need for change.  He would point at it and say “we’re at the end of our borrowing limits, we need to change now!”

One would think.

When asked what if anything, the change in China’s treasury appetite meant, Top White House adviser Lawrence Summers said:

The truth is that these numbers fluctuate and that there’s a wide range of holders of Treasury debt.

Like “Global Warming” before it, President Obama’s concern for “budget deficits” appear to be transforming underthe  inconvenient and untimely facts that face it.  As “Global Warming” became “Climate Change”, a “debt crisis” is now just “portfolio diversity” according to Larry Summers.

Yeah, right.  Now, let me tell you the one about the three bears!

Live from CPAC – Day 2

by @ 7:43. Filed under CPAC.

Sorry about the lack of actual blog coverage yesterday. To make up for that, I’m firing up Cover It Live to do Day 2 coverage.

Revisions/extensions (11:00 am 2/19/2010) – I can’t get the CiL console to respond. I’ll have to do this the old-fashioned way when interesting things happen.

R&E part 2 (11:21 am 2/19/2010) – CiL seems to be back, but I will be away from the keyboard for a bit.

February 18, 2010

Poll-a-copia, Senate edition

by @ 17:13. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

Rasmussen Reports expanded and extended upon their Russ Feingold-v-Tommy Thompson matchup last month, this time including the two announced Republican challengers. The quick-and-dirty numbers:

– Thompson 48%, Feingold 43% (up from a 47%/43% Thompson advantage last month)
– Feingold 47%, Terrence Wall 39%
– Feingold 47%, Dave Westlake 37%

As Rasmussen noted, incumbents who can’t get to 50%, especially against a couple of people little-better-known than John Doe, are in trouble. Of note, the “undecideds” in all three matchups are, to within the margin of rounding, equal to the margin between the major candidates.

Roll bloat – Fedoras, cannoli, and cameras

by @ 5:40. Filed under CPAC, The Blog.

One of the great things about CPAC is that one meets new great people. Things haven’t even officially started, and DaTechGuy crossed my path. (Un)fortunately, in addition to the fedoras and the cannoli, he brought his camera, and shockingly, it didn’t break with me on the wrong side of it.

February 17, 2010

Pre-CPAC Hot Read Part Deux – Jimmie Bise and Stacy McCain CPAC guide

by @ 10:11. Filed under CPAC.

Jimmie Bise, who like me attended his first CPAC last year, wrote a guide for rookies making their first appearance (bullet points here):

1) Dress for Success…and a Lot of Walking.
2) Prioritize.
3) Grabbing Grub:
4) Prepare for Brushes with Conservative Fame:
5) Love the Nightlife, But Not Too Much:
6) Remember Why You Came:

Meanwhile, Robert Stacy McCain has the plan for sneaking into the big events:

Yeah. Then there’s Plan B: Hang out with me in the hotel lobby bar, saunter down to the main ballroom right after the crowd reaches fire-code capacity, then I’ll tell my buddy the security guy that you’re a VIP and — presto! — you’re in like Flynn.

For some reason, Plan B works best when the alleged VIP is an extremely attractive woman. And here’s the thing: Even if Plan B doesn’t work, we just go back to the lobby bar, which is where all the real fun is, anyway.

That’s a Plan B I can get behind.

I wish I had that guide last year, but I lived, overspent, and learned. Catch you on the flip side.

Pre-CPAC Hot Read – Troglopundit looking for a million hits

by @ 9:33. Filed under Miscellaneous.

The most-famous caveman blogger to ever come out of Baraboo, Lance Burri, needs your help. The TrogloPundit is about to turn one, and he seems to be of the mind that he should be as popular as Robert Stacy McCain:

As many of you will have noticed, the past 355 days have not – repeat not – placed TrogloPundit in contention to join the fabled Million Hits in a Year club. That’s why I’m telling you about my anniversary a day short.

See, it’s not too late. All we need is…well…about six hundred and seventy-six thousand hits between now and 11:59 pm tomorrow. That’s it! Okay, a little more than that, I think. Make it six hundred and seventy-seven thousand hits, just to be safe. And that’ll make One Million Hits!

Go. Hit Trog again and again and again. Most of you haven’t seen him when he is REALLY desperate. I have. It’s not a pretty sight, completely unlike this shameless theft from Trog…

Pot, Meet Kettle

by @ 5:10. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

It’s not often that I fisk an entire article but this one was so blatant it deserved a response.

Frank: Partisanship is out of control in Congress

Even the title is laughable. Other than Nancy Pelosi, I can’t think of anyone in Congress who is as arrogant, belittling, as drunk on their own power or as partisan as Barney Frank!

At a book signing at the University of Massachusetts, Frank commented on Evan Bayh’s retirement announcement:

“I don’t understand how you make things better from the outside. I share the frustration, but I would have hoped he would have stayed around and voted to change the filibuster rule,” Frank said.

Really? You can’t think of one way that it would be better to be on the outside than on the inside? Other than the obvious point that Frank being out would definitely lower the partisanship, how about if you were a Representative who actually had a conscience, a Representative who did not think driving the country into an inescapable black hole of debt? What if you thought that the far left of your party had become so partisan that they had severed themselves from all sense of reality? What if you were tired of being counted amongst those who were responsible for the destruction of the United States? What if you thought that your party leadership were part of the problem? What if you actually paid attention to your constituents and heard the anger, frustration and concern? If you were that person, wouldn’t you think that going to your constituents with a clean slate and removing your personal desires from the equation might be a good thing?

But partisanship was a theme to which he returned again and again, saying he believes a clear shift began under Republican Newt Gingrich’s tenure as House speaker in the second half of the 1990s.

Before that, he said, Democrats and Republicans could disagree but remain cordial and work toward compromise. Now, though, the pressure to please the party’s base to win primary elections has spawned a Congress in which the sides are “very ideologically differentiated,” he said.

“Compromise” has been a word that means we continually slide to the left. On days that Republicans are called “ideologues,” we slide just a bit to the left. On days that Republicans cosponsor legislation with Democrats, we run wildly to the left. While there may be some legitimate argument that the United States has moved left socially, moving left fiscally means a complete disregard for basic economics.

We are now “very ideologically differentiated” because fiscally, we are at a dire point. The Left wants to abandon any fiscal discipline of any kind. They want to spend with the belief that examples of economic stagnation of Europe and the demise of the Soviet Union’s economy were a result of not having people who were enlightened enough to create money out of thin air as the current Left believes they can. The Right, whether they actually believe it or it is now fashionable, want to stop the country from committing financial Harri Kari. The reason that people like Frank see this as partisanship is that the Left is incapable of seeing any issue in the terms of black and white or right and wrong. The core of the Left ideology is that everybody’s opinion is as valid as the next person. There is no right or wrong, just opinions. This thinking leaves them claiming that all issues should be negotiated and compromised. I don’t think anyone with a correct brain would believe that what Hitler did to the Jews was able to be compromised about. What the Left is looking to do the US financially has the potential to have consequences every bit as horrific.

Frank goes on to blame the partisanship in the electorate on where people choose to get their information:

He believes that’s also evident in the electorate, in which the most ardent liberals and conservatives are getting their news from such different sources that they often seem to be discussing completely different topics.

“People are almost in a parallel universe. They are not getting a common set of facts and most of the people they talk to are those who agree with them,” Frank said.

Barney, Barney, Barney, facts, by their very definition are, well, facts. There can not be more than one set of facts in a situation. “Barney says” is not fact. While it may (highly unlikely) contain facts, it is not all fact.

If Barney wants to complain about us getting information from the people we know who we agree with, perhaps Barney should look at the legislative process. If Barney listened to his own words, he would be much more open to opposing health care reform, shrinking or disbanding FREDDIE and FANNIE and avoiding additional spending of any kind!

Barney Frank is the worst kind of hypocrite.  Not only does he not see his own failings, he actually views his failings as being the answer to the problem he sees as existing.

Much as been made of President Obama’s ego and his apparent lack of appreciation for reality.  President Obama is Aristotle to Frank’s Peter Pan when it comes to living in reality.  Who knows, with the election of Scott Brown, anything now seems possible!

February 16, 2010

But Who Are The Partisans?

by @ 5:20. Filed under Politics - National.

If not the biggest surprise in fact, certainly the Evan Bayh retirement announcement will likely go down as the biggest surprise in timing.  Bayh announced his retirement with just four days remaining until the the filing deadline for the primary.  As an aside, if you’d like to know how things go if no one files, see Steve’s post here.

In his statement, Senator Bayh pointed to the level of partisanship in Congress as the reason he would not seek another term:

After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned. For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples’ business is not being done.

It would seem logical that Bayh is blaming Republicans for partisanship.  That’s what all the left pundits, well, those who haven’t eviscerated him for giving them only 4 days, will say.  But, consider some seemingly random bits of information.

A bit later in Bay’s statement, he specifically called out examples of partisanship:

Just last week, a major piece of legislation to create jobs — the public’s top priority — fell apart amid complaints from both the left and right.

By accounts from all political persuasions, it was Harry Reid who pulled this bill.

Also from his statement:

Two weeks ago, the Senate voted down a bipartisan commission to deal with one of the greatest threats facing our nation: our exploding deficits and debt. The measure would have passed, but seven members who had endorsed the idea instead voted “no” for short-term political reasons.

Some may say that the second statement is pointed at Republicans.  Those “somes” however, would be missing the fact that there were just as many Democrats as Republicans who voted against this commission, 23 of each to be exact.  As with so many other issues during Obama’s first year, the Democrats had more than enough votes to pass the legislation but couldn’t get the job done.  Perhaps more interesting, President Obama himself who now talks constantly about the need to cut the deficit, didn’t endorse this commission until the day before the vote.

As much as the two items in Bayh’s statement make me wonder what he is thinking, there are other items, acts of his during the past few days, that raise far more questions for me.

First, according to a couple of sources, Bayh told his staff of his decision last Friday.  All accounts have Bayh informing President Obama of his decision early Monday morning.  According to numerous reports, Bayh did not tell the Majority Leader, Harry Reid, until late Monday morning after the news had been leaked to the press. 

Why would Bayh not tell President Obama about his decision until Monday morning?  If he thought Obama had the right policies and just hadn’t been able to explain the situation to the American people, would Bayh have at least gotten his counsel before he made his decision. 

Perhaps even more puzzling is why Bayh would wait until after news had leaked to inform Harry Reid.  I would think that Reid would have a bunch of questions for Bayh in an attempt to figure out what Bayh’s announcment might mean on strategy for legislation that Reid may choose to pursue this year.

The second issue is the timing of Bayh’s announcement.  Bayh announced with so few days left prior to the primary that one of two things are happening.  Either, he or the State’s Democrat leaders have a hand picked person waiting with the prerequisite number of signatures to get on the ballot or, this process will bypass the the primaries and leave the decision of who will run to the Democrat leadership of the state.  In either event, it would appear that Bayh has orchestrated this to keep the far left organizations from having much influence on the choice of the candidate.

On the surface, it may appear that Bayh is pointing to Republican partisanship as the reason he is leaving the Senate, However, after looking at his statements, and examining his acts, I’m not so sure.  While there are likely some Republicans that Bayh may point to, it seems more likely that Bayh’s comments are pointed to the extreme left of his own party. 

It is the extreme left of his party that shut Republicans out of the stimulus bill.  It was the extreme left of his party that shut the Republicans out of health care reform.  The policies of the extreme left, led by Obama, Reid and Pelosi, have left us buried in debt with only the benevolence of the Chinese keeping us from bankruptcy.  Finally, it is the extremely partisan politics and policies of President Obama, representing the far left, that has turned vast numbers of Americans against the Democrats and may have earned Bayh a defeat even had he decided to stay.

If I were to quote Evan Bayh’s thoughts, they would be those of the immortal Pogo:

We have met the enemy and the enemy is us

Update 8:29 – If you think my theory was cracked, take a look at this little out take from CNN’s report on Bayh’s retirement:

“He hates the Senate, hates the left bloggers,” a friend and longtime adviser to Bayh said. “They are getting their wish, pure Democrats in the minority.”

OK, admittedly, getting support for my theories from  CNN may not exactly elevate my argument but you get your friends where you get your friends! 

February 15, 2010

Good-bye, Sen. Bayh

by @ 11:05. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Ed Morrissey, who tipped me for finding something in Indiana law regarding what happens if there is no Dem primary)

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza reports that Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) will not seek re-election. This surprising move comes as the deadline for qualifying for ballot access in the May partisan primary approaches. First, a quick review of the ballot access qualifications and timeline (from pages 16-17 of the 2010 Indiana Candidate Guide):

  • A candidate for either the Democratic or Republican nomination for US Senate must get 4,500 signatures on a petition of nomination, with 500 coming from each of Indidana’s 9 Congressional districts.
  • The county voter registration office in every county where a petition was circulated must receive the petitions for certification no later than noon local time Tuesday, February 16.
  • The certified petitions must be filed with the Elections Division of the Secretary of State’s office in Indianapolis by noon Eastern Friday, February 19.

Now, you might say that leaves the Democrats in a lurch if nobody can get on the ballot. However, Indiana also contemplated a scenario where one of the major parties might not have anybody qualify for a partisan primary ballot (pages 9-10 of the Candidate Guide – all emphasis in the original):

If No Candidate Runs In a Major Party Primary

On occasion, no candidate will file for the Democratic or Republican Party nomination to an office before a primary election. If this occurs, the vacancy may not be filled before the primary. (IC 3-13-1-2)

Immediately following the primary election, the political party may begin the process of filling the ballot vacancy. However, no political party is ever required to fill a ballot vacancy, even if an individual wishes to run as a candidate for the vacant nomination.

For federal, statewide, and state legislative candidates, the state chairman of a political party calls a caucus of the precinct committeemen within the district…. (IC 3-13-1-6; 3-13-1-7; 3-13-1-8)

A person who wishes to be selected by the caucus to fill a ballot vacancy for a federal, statewide, state legislative office, judicial office, or the office of prosecuting attorney must file a CAN-31 form with both the caucus chairman and the Election Division….

The deadline for the Democratic or Republican Party to conduct a political party caucus to fill a vacancy existing on the general election ballot resulting from a vacancy on the primary election ballot is Wednesday June 30, 2010 (IC 3-13-1-2; IC 3-13-1-7).

As Ed noted in Update IV of his post, “…(T)hat process is almost certain to produce a liberal ideologue — the exact opposite of what Indiana Democrats need for the midterms.”

Monday Hot Read – Jon Ward’s “Paul Ryan explains his votes for TARP, bailouts and tax on AIG bonuses”

by @ 9:20. Tags:
Filed under Politics - National.

Last week, Matt Lewis hit Paul Ryan on a trio of “not exactly” fiscally/small-government conservative votes at the end of the previous and the start of the current Congress. Jon Ward asked Ryan directly about each of the three votes (quotes from Ryan, with interjections from me breaking up the blockquotes):

You know I don’t hear it here at home that much. You’ve got to remember Obama won my district. Dukakis and Gore won my district. Clinton won my district. So I don’t come from, you know, a red area. So I think it’s important to keep in mind where I come from. I don’t hear that here.

It may not exactly be “that much”, but I will verify that Ryan has heard it from the district (specifically me). I will point out that before Mark Neumann finally broke through in 1994 (after failing miserably in 1992 and narrowly losing in a special election in 1993) and before Ryan made it a “safe R” district, the district was a very-safe Democratic district represented for years by Les Aspen.

TARP. I’ll take one at a time. I believe we were on the cusp of a deflationary spiral which would have created a Depression. I think that’s probably pretty likely. If we would have allowed that to happen, I think we would have had a big government agenda sweeping through this country so fast that we wouldn’t have recovered from it. So in order to prevent a Depression and a complete evisceration of the free market system we have, I think it was necessary. It wasn’t a fun vote. You don’t get to choose the kind of votes you want. But I just think as far as the long term objectives that I have — which are restoring the principles of this country — I think it was necessary to prevent those principles from being really kind of wiped out for a generation.

I know a lot of people don’t like to hear it (especially those with short memories), but support for/opposition against TARP, at least in its originally-conceived form of being a very-temporary holding of real assets that could not be dumped on the open market without the open market crashing, was a far closer call than the 20/10 vision of history made it.

Auto. Really clear. The president’s chief of staff [Josh Bolten] made it extremely clear to me before the vote, which is either the auto companies get the money that was put in the Energy Department for them already — a bill that I voted against because I didn’t want to give them that money, which was only within the $25 billion, money that was already expended but not obligated — or the president was going to give them TARP, with no limit. That’s what they told me. That’s what the president’s chief of staff explained to me. I said, ‘Well, I don’t want them to get TARP. We want to keep TARP on a [inaudible]. We don’t want to expand it. So give them that Energy Department money that at least puts them out of TARP, and is limited.’ Well, where are we now? What I feared would happen did happen. The bill failed, and now they’ve got $87 billion from TARP, money we’re not going to get back. And now TARP, as a precedent established by the Bush administration, whereby the Obama administration now has turned this thing into its latest slush fund. And so I voted for that to prevent precisely what has happened, which I feared would happen.

It’s a question of semantics here. Does one see that particular vote (which died in the Senate) as a “limit the damage” attempt or an opportunity to stand in complete opposition? Do remember that, at the time, Ryan’s hometown was home to a GM truck assembly plant, and that Chrysler had an engine plant in the district.

Would “limiting” the cash available for that bailout to $25 billion stopped the government takeover of GM and Chrysler? I don’t know. However, it would have prevented the Treasury from providing the debtor-in-possesion financing that greased the nationalization skids.

The whole AIG thing, you know that was — you know I obviously regret that one. I was angry at the time because I was worried that all these companies were jumping into TARP thinking they could use TARP as a way to best their competitors, as a way to get cheaper credit, to get money at cheaper rates, at the expense of their smaller competitors. And so I was seeing TARP as sort of a new tool of crony capitalism, and I thought it’d be a good signal to send to the large banks who were jumping into this thing, who really didn’t need it: ‘Stay away from this, don’t get in bed with the government, even though it might in the short term give you a leg up on your competitors, you’ll be burned. That was what was running through my mind at the time, given the fact that we had about six hours notice on the vote, and our lawyers were telling us that it was not a bill of attainder. Now when a week went by, and our lawyers had a chance to read it more clearly and carefully, they reversed their opinion of the bill and said it was in fact a bill of attainder, which therefore should not have passed…. The other thing that bothered me was the Democrats were in a real political pinch, because Chris Dodd wrote in the exemption for those bonuses in the bill, and they were on the hook for it. And they were trying to get themselves off the hook and Republicans on the hook. And that bothered me too, was just the political cynicism behind it bothered me and I didn’t want to give the Democrats that as well. So those were the thoughts running through my mind when I had to make more or less the snap judgment on that bill.

The “don’t get in bed” portion of that was the off-the-record answer I alluded to last week (which, going back through the archives, was not exactly off-the-record). The fact that Ryan admitted he made a mistake is new, and refreshing.

February 14, 2010

Snow on the ground. Acting like a fool with all that snow on the ground.

by @ 21:15. Filed under Global "Warming".

(H/Ts for the retreat by the acolytes – Ed Morrissey, and H/T for the sea-level mismeasurement – JammieWearingFool)

There have been three four items of interest over the weekend regarding the implosion of the religion of Gorebal “Warming”:

That first item is significant because it blows up one of the “other” indicators the IPCC is using to justify their warming claims while admitting to the contamination problem in the third item – the amount of snow cover.

Also note that none of the sources are from American media. To be fair, USA Today noted the snowfall that I sourced directly from the NWS (though they excluded Hawaii because the search hadn’t been completed). The other two items both come from British media. Interesting, isn’t it?

Revisions/extensions (9:28 pm 2/14/2010) – And the hits just keep on coming.

Daytona 500 random thoughts

by @ 20:07. Filed under Sports.

– First things first, congratulations to Jamie McMurray for winning the longest Daytona “500” (or should it be Daytona 520?) in history. That was some serious driving to come back from bad-loose midrace. I wish Roush had been able to hang onto him (or get rid of David Ragan).

– We almost could call it the Roushketeer Invitational. In addition to McMurray winning it, we had Greg Biffle 3rd, Matt Kenseth 8th (more on him in a bit), Carl Edwards 9th, Jeff Burton 11th, Mark Martin 12th, Ragan 16th and Kurt Busch 22nd.

– While the 8th place finish for Kenseth was good considering up until the last restart he had been bascially mid-20s all day and half the night, it’s not exactly how I’d draw it up – “Let’s put the wrong shocks in the car, run wicked-loose all day, get a Darlington stripe, replace the shocks after the first red flag, chew up the splitter just before the second red flag, fix that after red flag #2, and then hang around in the back of the lead pack until the white flag, which won’t be until lap 207.”

– Speaking of all day and half the night, that was an epic pavement fail in turn 2. You just can’t have potholes appearing right where the right-side tires need to be on the bottom groove. I don’t care what Tony Stewart and Edwards say – it’s time to repave the track. Oh, and repaving just a portion just isn’t going to cut it. Trust me on this one.

February 13, 2010

Nationwide opener random thoughts

by @ 20:23. Filed under Sports.

– I agree with Jeff Gluck (late of Scene Daily, now at SBNation.com) that something needs to be done with rained-out qualifying. There were inarguably a few good cars that missed out on the race because they were unfortunate enough to be way down on the qualifying draw.

At the very least, NASCAR could have the go-or-go-homers qualify and start behind the “guaranteed” drivers. It would be better if NASCAR would be open to moving qualifying from its scheduled time to get it in.

– Related to that, Jack Roush (likely with some cash from Paul Menard’s dad John) bought Menard’s way into the race after the new-for-2010 #98 team drew the 49th position in the qualifying order and initially got frozen out after the rainout. While higher-profile drivers buying a “field-filler’s” starting spot is nothing new in NASCAR, usually it involves the owner of the bought-out team getting the owners’ points earned by the replacement driver.

What makes the Menard/Roush purchase so unusual is that they paid 5 teams (the drawn-into-the-show-and-scheduled-to-be-start-and-parked #97 NEMCO Chevy of Jeff Fuller, plus the 4 teams between them and the 43rd spot) to withdraw from the event. The significance of that is that the #98 not only gets the 150 owners’ points instead of the 16 they would have picked up in the “normal” deal, the teams that pulled out, which includes a couple of teams that hoped to run the full schedule, don’t get either the points or the attempt credit. Of course, since only the start-and-park NEMCO team would have otherwise picked up cash, and Menard was easily strong enough to have made the field had there been qualifying, maybe it’s time for a poll.

– Speaking of Menard, he took out the first of two females in the race, Chrissy Wallace, just as the cars got all the way up to speed.

– The other female in the race, Danica Patrick, took a car from an organization (JR Motorsports) that is capable of putting a front-running car out there and ran mid-pack until she drove right into the first Big One. In short, just another rookie performance.

– Speaking of JR Motorsports, her car owner, Dale Earnhardt Jr., was the biggest victim of the second Big One, taking a ride on the roof after he got turned on the backstretch.

– In the end, another spring Daytona race, another Tony Stewart win. Except for the snake-bit heartaches in the Daytona 500 and 5 fewer Cup trophies, it’s fair to say that Smoke is this generation’s Dale Earnhardt St.

February 12, 2010

Official – NRE to be in the CPAC Bloggers Lounge

by @ 7:58. Filed under CPAC.

I got the official and good news from Erick Erickson that I will be in the CPAC Bloggers Lounge presented by RedState.

For those of you who haven’t yet made it to CPAC, it is not too late to register. They’ll have Sen. Jim DeMint kick things off, Glenn Beck close things out, and a heap of fun in the middle (and only some of it during the official activities).

For those of you who are young, or at least young at heart, Kevin McCullough and Stephen Baldwin put together XPAC. They’ll have WiFi, the Fox News Strategy Room, games, and all-day/all-night Thursday and Friday activities.

Poll-a-copia, right-of-center edition

by @ 7:39. Filed under Politics - National.

John Hawkins over at Right Wing News once again took the temperature of the right end of the blogosphere, this time in response to a rather kooky Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll of “self-identified ‘Republicans'”. I honestly don’t remember (Shoebox:  I did it.  Usually I forget these things.  This one didn’t require a lot of thought and I’m good at that!)  whether it was Shoebox or I that provided the answers for the blog (it’s been that kind of week), but I’ll fire in my two-cents’ worth (my answers are bolded, and the “not sures” from the Kos poll, which are not tabulated in the RWN straw poll, are not copied here):

Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English? (RWN – 24% favor/76% oppose, Kos – 26% favor/59% oppose)

That doesn’t go far enough. Illegal aliens also need to go back to their country of orgin, apply properly, and enter the line at the point they do so.  Shoebox:ditto

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people? (RWN – 29% yes/71% no, Kos – 31% yes/36% no)

Obama hates conservatives regardless of skin color.  Shoebox:  Ditto

Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election? (RWN – 20% yes/80% no, Kos – 21% yes/24% no)

Allow me to clarify. Without ACORN and affiliated groups, including the Soros-bought-and-paid for secretaries of state, Shoebox and Birdman would not be calling Al Franken “Senator”. However, Obama’s election was by beyond the margin of fraud.  Shoebox:  I voted no because this was based on the Presidential election.  I agree with Steve on the Franken mess.

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military? (RWN – 53% yes/47% no, Kos – 26% yes/55% no)

The key word here is “openly”. For the record, I am also against co-ed military units where fraternization cannot reasonably be limited. What a military member does off-base, so long as it doesn’t violate the laws or involve intimate relations with another military member, does not matter.

Shoebox:  This was the hardest one for me.  I believe in equal employment opportunities regardless of sexual orientation, therefore I voted yes.  The “openly” for me is almost irrelevant because as best I know, it’s not a good thing to be caught “openly” having heterosexual sex while on duty.  I believe the real issue comes down to performance.  As long as we keep the ACLU out of it, I think the military has plenty of ways to deal with disruptive behavior of any kind.  I don’t think the government needs to micromanage this one.

Should same sex couples be allowed to marry? (RWN – 24% yes/76% no, Kos – 7% yes/77% no

For those who say that marriage is simply a religious function, explain why the former Soviet Union sanctioned marriages and specifically limited it to one man and one woman.

Shoebox:  ditto 

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not? (RWN – 11% yes/88% no, Kos – 39% yes/32% no

Obama meets the Constitutional requirements of the office of President, was duly elected in accordance with the Constitution, and hasn’t done anything like lie to a grand jury or direct a coverup of a break-in.

Shoebox:  I’ll put one caveat on Steve’s point; we haven’t heard the testimony on the Blagojevich case yet!

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not? (RWN – 86% yes/14% no, Kos – 42% yes/36% no)

See above.  Shoebox:  distraction.  Move on!

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist? (RWN – 89% yes/11% no, Kos 63% yes/21% no)

If one seizes companies like a socialist, one parcels out pieces of said seized companies to favored political interests, specifically unions, like a socialist, and one dictates the maximum level of compensation at companies not quite completely under the ownership of the government like a socialist, one is a socialist.

Shoebox:  I marked yes but I actually think he is a Marxist.

Do you believe your state should secede from the United States? (RWN – 6% yes/94% no, Kos – 23% yes/58% no)

We’re not at that point in the course of human events where it is necessary to dissolve those political bands…yet.

Shoebox:  Besides, at least while I’m living in MN, there’s no way we’d leave the losing side!

John also asks a question not asked by Kos/Research 2000 that has had (see below) Shoebox on one side, Birdman on the other, and me somewhere in limbo.

Do you think the Democrats are going to pass a health care bill? (26% yes/74% no)

Call me hopeful, but I don’t see how Nancy Pelosi has 217 (yes, the majority is 217 now that there are two vacancies) votes for the abortion-and-payoffs Senate version of PlaceboCare. I also don’t see the troika of Obama/Pelosi/Harry Reid accepting anything less than full socializatin of health care complete with full abortion-on-demand funding. If they couldn’t ram the full monty through in the 6 months they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, despite having said full monty allegedly certified for “reconciliation”,….

Shoebox:  anything is possible but I think this is dead.  I think there are too many electoral bodies stacking up even for ideologues like Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

Nobody’s a Bigger Nobody Than Me!

by @ 5:57. Filed under Miscellaneous.

For at least the past two years, Democrats have been putting conservatives and Republicans down as a bunch of nobodies.  At a fund raiser in April, 2008, then candidate Obama, called us a bunch of bitter clingers.  In April, 2009 as the tea party protests were gaining momentum, Nancy Pelosi called us astroturf.

A recent Gallup poll had President Obama in a statistical dead heat with an unnamed Republican candidate.  The same poll showed that when a name was put in for the Republican candidate, the highest support was for Mitt Romney at 14%.  You might ask, “What does this mean?”  Well, what it means is that “nobody” is the favorite Republican candidate and, as of today, Nobody is in a dead heat against President Obama in the 2012 Presidential election.

I read the headline of the poll story today, thought about it for awhile and an idea hit me like broken clasp off of Dolly Parton’s bra…I’m a nobody!

Don’t mistake my comment.  I’m not lamenting or feeling sorry for myself.  Actually, I’m elated!  Based on all of the comments from Democrat leadership over the past couple of years I’m Nobody.  Gallup says that with a little effort, I could be the next president!

As I was contemplating whether it was conceivable to run for president (this is all rather sudden), Stephen Green aka Vodkapundit tweeted back:

Problem is, “Nobody” probably polls better against Obama than any of the likely GOP somebodies.

Upon hearing this, I first thought “Now I have trouble.”  But, after thinking about it a bit more it dawned me; I’m not a GOP somebody.  In fact, I’m a general Nobody and I’m also a GOP Nobody!

The way I see things there is no one who is a bigger general Nobody than me.  Even if there was, there is certainly no one who is a bigger GOP Nobody than me!  Based on Gallup, I can be President in 2012 with less effort than it takes me to write a post here a few days each week.

Therefore, after considering the “encouragement” from Vodkapundit, with no further ado, I, Shoebox, the biggest Nobody within the GOP, announce my candidacy for President of the United States! Please note that while Ralph Nader will also likely run as a nobody, he will not run as a GOP nobody!

While I would appreciate you telling other people about my candidacy, don’t bother, I’m Nobody so they won’t know me!

Here’s my first campaign poster.  What do you think?

February 11, 2010

Open Thread Thursday – the nuclear edition

by @ 9:16. Filed under Open Thread Thursday, War.

This is the Emergency Blogging System. It has been activated because the Iranians supposedly are “nuclear”. We’ll discuss that after we bring back one of the old Scramble songs…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wafLyT451o[/youtube]

The first thing to remember is that the Iranians have had a bit of a history of overstating technological achievements. However, given that the Mad Mullahs that run Iran see the US as the Great Satan and have vowed to extinguish both the US and Israel by every means available, it is prudent to treat the news as credible.

They claimed to have achieved 20% uranium-235 enrichment. That is far beyond what the typical reactor needs, though there are certain types of reactors that do use it, mostly Japanese- and Russian-design fast/breeder reactors. The Iranians claim to want to use it in a research reactor to produce medical isotopes; however, this appears to be the first time the existence of that “reactor” has been mentioned. Also, there are doubts on whether the Iranians can create fuel rods out of 20% 235U.

20% 235U enrichment also is significantly below the standard for nuclear weapons. However, it can be fashioned into a crude and huge weapon suitable for shipment in a transport container or cargo plane.

And now this thread is yours. This concludes the Emergency Broadcast System portion of this post.

February 10, 2010

Cartilage from stem cells

by @ 18:00. Filed under Health.

(H/T – Kevin Binversie)

ScienceDaily reports that researchers at a Big Ten university found a way to do the naturally-impossible using stem cells – create new cartilage in adults:

Northwestern University researchers are the first to design a bioactive nanomaterial that promotes the growth of new cartilage in vivo and without the use of expensive growth factors. Minimally invasive, the therapy activates the bone marrow stem cells and produces natural cartilage. No conventional therapy can do this….

Damaged cartilage can lead to joint pain and loss of physical function and eventually to osteoarthritis, a disorder with an estimated economic impact approaching $65 billion in the United States. With an aging and increasingly active population, this is expected to grow….

Type II collagen is the major protein in articular cartilage, the smooth, white connective tissue that covers the ends of bones where they come together to form joints.

“Our material of nanoscopic fibers stimulates stem cells present in bone marrow to produce cartilage containing type II collagen and repair the damaged joint,” Shah said. “A procedure called microfracture is the most common technique currently used by doctors, but it tends to produce a cartilage having predominantly type I collagen which is more like scar tissue.”

The Northwestern gel is injected as a liquid to the area of the damaged joint, where it then self-assembles and forms a solid. This extracellular matrix, which mimics what cells usually see, binds by molecular design one of the most important growth factors for the repair and regeneration of cartilage. By keeping the growth factor concentrated and localized, the cartilage cells have the opportunity to regenerate.

As Kevin noted, embryonic stem cells are (once again) not involved. Why do I get the feeling that UW backed the wrong end of stem-cell research?

Evan “Waldo” Bayh (D-not exactly IN)

by @ 17:03. Filed under Politics - National.

Remember when the Left made hay with former Sen. Norm Coleman’s DC housing arrangements? Jim Geraghty the Indispensible found that Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN Who Knows Where) used the business address of his campaign treasurer as his “home-state address of record” on his current Statement of Candidacy. Said Statement of Candidacy was filed with the secretary of the Senate, and signed by Bayh, in July 2005.

While the Constitution is silent on the DC-area living arrangements of Senators, it isn’t exactly silent on where a Senator must be living at the time of his or her election. From Article I, Section 3 (emphasis added):

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Roll bloat – Owning the roll edition

by @ 16:13. Filed under The Blog.

BigFurHat found the Obamese thread Shoebox put together, and his (or perhaps her) readers kicked in some seriously-good suggestions. Based partly on that, partly on The Obamas comic, and partly on the other work the gang does there, it’s past time to add iOwnTheWorld to the seriously-overstuffed roll.

The Party of “No”

by @ 5:21. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

Earlier this week, President Obama announced that he would hold a televised meeting that would include himself and leaders of both Congressional Chambers on February 25th.  According to Obama, the purpose of the meeting is to hear ideas from all parties, forge them in a bipartisan bill and get health care reform passed.

Coincidental with the announcement of his desire to hear Republican input on health care, Obama has increased the volume and frequency of accusing Republicans of being the “party of no.”  Last Wednesday, President Obama called Republicans “obstructionists” during a meeting with Democrat lawmakers.  On Monday of this week, President Obama characterized the Republican desire to start the health care process over again as “doing nothing.”  With this kind of rhetoric, some, including myself, wonder whether President Obama is sincere in is attempt to hear ideas or whether the health care meeting is a first step in an attempt to color the Republicans as the “party of no” in an attempt to save the sure November disaster waiting for the Democrats.

Today, President Obama had a closed door meeting with Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner.  The meeting was set to discuss what was to be included in and how to pass a “jobs bill.”  Reportedly, on the topic of credits for jobs created, Nancy Pelosi expressed skepticism of the bill and said that she knew of no one who believed the plan would actually create any jobs!

Hallelujah!  I’m not sure that I’ve ever agreed with Nancy Pelosi before!  Further, I think this may be the first time this session that Pelosi and Boehner agree, although they may not realize it!

Boenher has diagnosed the problem properly.  Jobs are not returning because businesses have too many uncertainties.  Health care costs, energy costs, capital gains, income taxes and many other items are currently being considered by the Obama administration.  In each case, the administration is proposing legislation that would either cost businesses more or put further regulation on their ability to do business.  When businesses see uncertainty that they have no ability to hedge against, they respond by taking less risk.  Taking less risk translates to less hiring and fewer jobs.

Pelosi is also right, even though she doesn’t know why.  Given the uncertainty described previously, jobs credits will have little to no effect on hiring.  The issue, simply, is that employers are not hiring because they see high risk in expanding their business.  Increasing hiring, even if it’s partially paid for by the government, does nothing to change the broader economic issues.

Who would have guessed that when it came to assessing a jobs program, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner would be on the same side of the argument, neither party wants to pursue one.

So, who’s the “party of no” now?

February 9, 2010

Drinking Right officially postponed 1 week

by @ 14:05. Tags:
Filed under Miscellaneous.

This is the Emergency Blogging System. It has been activated because for the first time in history, Drinking Right has been postponed due to the weather, with the main Drinking Right next week (aka Fat Tuesday and local non-partisan primary day). However, if one is brave stupid, Steve will still be at Papa’s somewhere around 7 tonight because he has a snow beast, and Nick might be there because he’s within walking distance.

This has been the Emergency Blogging System.

Tuesday Hot Read Part Deux – David Dodenhoff, Ph.D’s “Government Doing What Government Does: The Case of Food Stamps in Wisconsin”

by @ 8:04. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

David Dodenhoff, Ph.D, took a look at the shocking growth of food stamps in Wisconsin for the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, specifically the 50% growth between 2002 and 2008. The takeaway (emphasis in the original):

That, unfortunately, is the way government tends to work. When elected officials act, they typically claim to be addressing some public policy problem or other. It’s funny, though, how the solutions they proffer always seem to solve a political problem, namely, “How can I maximize my chances for reelection?” New programs and extensions of existing programs, like SNAP, allow politicians to distribute benefits to particular constituencies, while spreading the costs over a broad base of taxpayers. The political benefits are obvious; whether or not progress has been made on the underlying policy issue is almost beside the point.

Bureaucrats have a similar problem to solve: “How can I keep my job?” Negotiated civil service and union protections are part of the answer. Another answer, though, is this: “Make yourself indispensible.” New programs and extensions of existing programs mean that there’s always more work to be done, which makes the idea of bureaucratic downsizing a very hard sell.

The result is a public sector that sees its own unrelenting growth not as many Americans see it—that is, as an urgent problem—but as a solution; in fact, as the one solution that always makes sense.

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]