Golden Oldie

I was just perusing the archives here and found this interesting little reminder about Democratic efforts last year (and I'm looking at you, FSP) to astroturf support of socialized health care about one year ago to the day.

Just a reminder as to who is astroturfing whom these days...

Denial

Our good friend Judd Legum is in complete denial about the anti-tax movement sweeping the country. Legum, who takes offense to the fact that somebody carried this sign around a tea party protest elsewhere, has this smart-ass comment:

Those involved with organizing the protests appear to be a distinct minority.

Mind you:

• There have been hundreds of tea parties around the nation with participation ranging in the thousands.
• Pro-Obama protests draw fewer people than a high school history class.

The fact of the matter is that Legum and the rest of the extreme left in this country do not understand the problems the Tea Party crowd has with them. Namely the fact that we alreay pay too much in taxes and that irresponsible spending that puts our nation further and further in debt is not supported by the preponderance of Americans.

If Legum wants to come out and support higher taxes, more staist government, and the continued dimunition of economic and personal liberty, he can own it all he wants. But Legum is in a considerably large state of denial if he thinks he is anything but far, far, FAR outside the modern American mainstream. Then again, that shouldn't be a surprise, given the low opinion that a lot of Democrats I have spoken with have for Legum....

I dare Legum to have a counter, anti-Tea Party protest on Wednesday. See how many people show up for that one, skippy.

At it Again

Well, Judd Legum is at it again, and he's getting this lying thing down pretty pat, because he got caught in another bold-faced lie. Legum apparently is running for the House of Delegates here in Anne Arundel County in District 30 (as if the district couldn't be any more poorly represented by Speaker Busch and by Delegate Virginia Clagett, but alas) and he is targeting incumbent Republican Delegate Ron George.

Legum of course thinks of himself to be quite the hotshot, so he told the blog The Plum Line this litte doozy:

Still, Legum is better known for his work at Think Progress, and this campaign could be a historic first in a sense. Legum tells us he’s pretty certain that he’s the first national blogger to attempt a campaign for elected office, and as best as I can determine, he’s right.

Which of course is patently ridiculous when you consider the fact that RedState Chairman Erick Erickson was elected to the City Council of Macon, Georgia two years ago (though really blogger Greg Sargent is at just at big of fault for doing no fact checking whatsoever).

I get that Judd Legum seems to think a lot of himself (and why not, I guess that when you get bought off by George Soros you can just make it all up on the fly) but rarely has a candidate for the House of Delegates jettisoned their credibility so quickly.

Then again, he is now appearing on the website Crooks and Liars, so maybe he has finally discovered truth in advertising....

Meanwhile....

More bad news in Washington, as Congressional Democrats are about to require national service from our children and, potentially, redefine how non-profit corporations are operated in America. As a small government conservative and a non-profit Board Chairman, color me less than enthusiastic about Washington determining how non-profit activities are going to be operated.

Lots more over at RedState on this issue, and check out Sen. Jim DeMint trying to bring some common sense to the issue:

Liberals need to help save the planet for a change

This story gets to combine two of my least favorite things in life: pork and global warming hysteria. Observe:

The use of crop-based biofuels could speed up rather than slow down global warming by fueling the destruction of rainforests, scientists warned Saturday.

Once heralded as the answer to oil, biofuels have become increasingly controversial because of their impact on food prices and the amount of energy it takes to produce them.

They could also be responsible for pumping far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they could possibly save as a replacement for fossil fuels, according to a study released Saturday.

Whoops.

Now, we've all had this massive rush in Washington to subsidize corn based ethanol, mainly because they grow a lot of corn in Iowa and they happen to have a Presidential Caucus there. All of the Democratic pork producers love it, because they get to bolster their Presidential cred, make environmentalists happy, and get to say they are "protecting the family farm."

And remember: this 'aint our first rodeo with noting the dangers of biofuels.

One of the big problems that Republicans like myself have has little to do with the idea of using alternative fuels; exploring new ideas and innovation makes good sense. But our problem has been and continues to be this rush to judgment for the latest and greatest fad that will purportedly "save the environment" when, in fact, the science on that is unproven at best or shows that we are doing even more damage at worse.

Rushing to judgment means we all pay. And we are all paying dearly for rushing to judgment and pork barrell spending on envirofuels.

Next thing you know, we're going to be taking about perpetual motion engines as a national priority....

Della goes Balls Deep

Apparently all of Baltimore City's problems have been solved. Why else would State Senator George Della of Baltimore City introduce legislation aimed at beer pong in the city?

Don't believe me? Here's some verbiage directly from the text of the legislation:

(B) A HOLDER OF A RETAIL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES LICENSE OR
OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A BOTTLE CLUB MAY NOT PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE, OR ALLOW ON THE PREMISES A GAME COMMONLY KNOWN AS BEER PONG OR ANY OTHER GAME OR CONTEST THAT INVOLVES DRINKING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES OR THE AWARDING OF DRINKS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AS PRIZES.

Really? Is this really necessary? Do we really need to impugn on the freedom of Baltimore City residents, businesses, and bar patrons by micromanaging the lives of its citizenry like this? Does this really need to be a state issue?

Oh.....and did the homicides, rampant drug used, urban decay, and ghastly public schools in Baltimore City suddenly get fixed over night? Because otherwise, Senator Della is seriously asleep at the switch.

There is no other way to say this: Senator Della needs to loosen up, get a life, and focus on the legitimate problems that Baltimore City has. And I assure you the beer pong is far, far, FAR from the list of priorities facing the city. And you never know; if this Carrie Nation act keeps up, maybe another team of rivals will form to bring some common sense to the situation...

I Get Letters....

Judd Legum springs to Judd Legum's defense by email:

Dear Brian:

Thanks for your interest in my blog.

I just wanted to respond briefly to the following claim: "Legum stating that people support the stimulus package is nothing short of a bold-faced lie."

Actually I wrote that "a new poll by Gallup shows that the American people strongly support Obama's handling of the stimulus issue." This statement is fully supported by the Gallup poll. Here is a direct quote from Gallup: "The American public gives President Barack Obama a strong 67% approval rating for the way in which he is handling the government's efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill."

The Rassmuessen poll is interesting but does not ask the same question.

Feel free to contact me if there is any further confusion.

-- Judd

Of course the issue here is always in the phrasing of the statement, as it always is with the liberals.

This, you'll remember, is what the premise of Legum's post was:

Steele said that “the president is upside-down with the voters on this issue.”

THAT is the operative statement in Legum's post, the intimation that Michael Steele was at fault for stating that Obama is opposing the will of the American people....something that the is clearly demonstrable in the Rasmussen poll. The reason that the Rasmussen poll doesn't ask about the President's handling of the stimulus issue is irrelevant because the people of this nation oppose the stimulus regardless.

The nuance Legum tries here is cute, but glosses over the lack of support for people of this Democratic boondoggle.

Don't Look Now....

.....but the local whack jobs are already doing their part to try to bring down Michael Steele.

Well, I suppose you can never expect the fringe left to actually want to debate on the merits of issues, now can you? Especially with the criminal class of leadership they seem to want to foist upon the state and the country these days...

Students learn to Make Benefit Glorious Leader

What better time to bring partisan politics into the classroom:

As today's presidential inauguration approached, Donna Schmitz's art students bubbled over with excitement - and paint.

Gripping paint brushes in their tiny, blue-stained fingers, every student at Lothian Elementary School contributed a brush stroke and a signature to their inaugural group project: a larger-than-life image of President Barack Obama painted on a huge cardboard box once used to ship a SMART board to the school.

"It's bringing history into the art classroom," Ms. Schmitz said last week.

I am completely disgusted that my taxpayer dollars were used to fund such an overtly partisan, Orwellian task. This isn't "brining art into the classroom." This is forcing students to show their support for Obama in a frankly Soviet fashion.

It's one thing to discuss the inauguration, watch the inauguration, and discuss its meaning. But to bring this kind of partisanship into the classroom is a bridge way too far...

The End of the Innocence

Not to get all Don Henley on everybody, but is the fringe left finally starting to grow up on the issue of global warming? Because a long article basically debunking the idea, debunking Al Gore, and shooting down a bunch of other global warming strawmen appear on.....The Huffington Post.

You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.

Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

And it (surprisingly) goes on line this, noting that:

1. The phrase "Climate change" is redundant;
2. Al Gore and company are "flat-earthers" for knowingly misinterpreting the relationship between climate change and the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
   
3. Record sea-ice growth in Antarctica.

Author Harold Ambler closes with this:

To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.

So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.

Now, there is a lot to find interesting here, not the least of which is that somebody on one of the left's largest "news-sources" finally is starting to agree with people like me and Mark Newgent on the fallacy that is global warming. And it is also interesting that such an idea being floated by somebody on the left didn't bubble up until long after the hysteria was used as one way of helping to propel Barack Obama to the White House.

What is most interesting to me is the fact that this may be the beginning of the end of the loony left, at least in it's most vocal form.

When you think back to the 1960's, 60's radicalism as we remember it really didn't start getting moving until the escalation in Vietnam in 1965. At that point, things in America were still relatively good. Obviously, it wasn't good for everybody (race relations being the most obvious of these examples) but it was relatively easy to protest the war and protest against the government when the preponderance of society had food and shelter. The Sixties as a movement reached their cultural apex in 1969 with Woodstock and their political apex in 1972 with the nomination of George McGovern.

But what really killed the Sixties zeitgeist? Sure, McGovern's defeat helped. But look at what was going on in 1973. Gas shortages. Economic troubles. U.S. withdrawal in Vietnam. Once the protesters and rabblerousers began to worry about their own backyard, they didn't seem to worry too much about protesting the war and the government anymore. Perhaps the combination of victory in Iraq, the election of Obama, and the downward spiral of the economy is brining the so-called "reality based community" back to an actual reality for once, and beginning to question thing such as global warming hysteria. When folks realize that proposed global warming "solutions" may unnecessarily inflict further harm upon an already beaten down economy, those ideas really don't look like such a great solution anymore.

Speculation about the reasons for the stand down on global warming policy aside (and I think there may be other reasons out there that I did not necessarily touch on) I find it somewhat comforting that people on the left side of the aisle are finally starting to look critically at so called arguments for global warming policy change, and are starting to take the more reasoned position that a lot of us took some time ago...

Who Needs Freedom?

If you read the Baltimore Sun on a regular basis, you read a lot of editorials which are trite, juvenile, unenlightened, and asinine. But not many of those columns were as disturbing as the one in this morning's paper penned by Roy Gothie of the Maryland State Highway Administration. While Gothie makes valid points about the need to protect the health of the Bay, what he writes is a frightening vision into an O'Malleyian dystopia.

In Gothie's world, people only have property rights at the whim and call of the state:

The modern concept of property rights substantially contributes to the Chesapeake Bay's continued decline. At this point, tinkering around the edges of the issue with minor changes to laws and regulations will no longer be enough to save the bay. Only a societal decision to redefine an individual's rights regarding property can restore the bay and other critical ecosystems.

Developers, industrialists, homeowners and farmers have long assumed that the core bundle of rights attached to a piece of property exists to benefit the property owners. This is not exactly the case. Property rights are creations of the state, designed to ensure a stable, civil society and a functioning economy. Thus, any property rights a land owner possesses exist mainly to serve the greater public good.

Read that again.

Thus, any property rights a land owner possesses exist mainly to serve the greater public good.

In the warped mind of this state bureaucrat, your property rights are valid only so long as what you do with the land conforms to what the state decides is in the state's best interest. If this guy had his way, you would not be able to do anything on your property, property that you have purchased, property that you rightfully have paid for, unless the state allows you to do it in the name of the state and the name of the citizenry.

Rarely, if ever, has the Baltimore Sun ever printed such a direct and vicious assault on the American way of life than it has with this column. I am extremely disturbed by the fact that an individual who has such an anti-American, anti-freedom view of private property rights is, in fact, employed by the state as a planner. What decisions are being made by the State Highway Administration that deal with your property rights and the property rights of your neighbors? In what ways does Roy Gothie believe that the state can put your land to better use than you can? Perhaps it's time for a full and comprehensive investigation into SHA's land use activities

Private property rights are a basic human right, one that has been a part of civilized societies for thousands of years. Unfortunately, sometimes you get delusional folks such as Roy Gothie who believe that humans can't handle our basic human rights. I think maybe the state of Maryland should ship him back to Michigan, whence he came. We can certainly use our state resources better than employing people with such radical views...

Class is in session

Eric Luedtke, after discussing some language from Progressive Maryland, on the state of working Maryland:

This is what makes efforts like increasing the minimum wage, strengthening the living wage, guaranteeing paid sick days, finding ways to get people health insurance, and reinforcing labor protections are so important.Our economic growth is leaving too many behind.

So let's follow Luedtke's logic here.

1. Maryland's economy is leaving too many people behind.
2. We need more Government to fix the problem.

Now, let's talk about real reasons why middle and working class families are in their current state:

1. Government has gotten too big.
   
2. Martin O'Malley and Annapolis Democrats cannot control spending.
3. Martin O'Malley and Annapolis Democrats cannot control their urge to raise taxes on the middle and working classes.
4. Businesses who can afford to leave Maryland are due to higher taxes, more regulations, and labor unfriendly laws like living and prevailing wage laws.
   
5. Fewer and fewer jobs are left for middle and working class employees.
6. The left responds by calling for even bigger government.
7. Return to step 2 and repeat.

If Luedtke is serious about helping Maryland's middle and working class families (and I have no doubt that he is not and would rather put politics first) he will call for the reduction of lower taxes, reduced government spending, and a regulatory environment that encourages job growth here in Maryland.

People on the fringe left like Luedtke need to realize that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Class dismissed.

The Bay Bridge, Traffic Safety, and the Human Condition

A couple of stories tie together here today.

First off, the Sun's resident totalitarian Michael Dresser wants to turn the Bay Bridge into Big Brother's Rumpus Room:

That's why there is nowhere in the state where the case is stronger for vigorous use of video technology to enforce the law. Not just to issue automated speeding tickets but also to identify other offenders who can be pulled over once they're off the bridge. I'd like to see a defendant in District Court try to explain away video evidence of tailgating.

There's also a strong argument that traffic violations on the authority's bridges and tunnels deserve tougher sanctions. If fines are doubled in work zones, why not triple them on the Bay Bridge and other toll facilities? (The Harbor Tunnel, Fort McHenry Tunnel, Key Bridge, the U.S. 40 bridge over the Susquehanna and the U.S. 301 bridge over the Potomac. I'd exempt the toll section of Interstate 95 because it doesn't raise the same issues.)

It wouldn't take long before folks absorbed the message that Maryland toll bridges and tunnels are someplace where you drive as if your mom were in the car.

Of course, what Dresser suggests is patently illegal under state law. And frankly, it's a bit Pollyannaish too. Only a liberal would dare suggest that the presence of a camera is going to deter insane or criminal behavior. If they did, the areas around police cameras in Baltimore would be the safest places in Maryland. Why is that not so? Because cameras can only punish the act. They do not prevent the act itself and thus do nothing to protect the public safety, as liberals like to suggest.

Using technology to catch drivers on the Bay Bridge would be no different, and would probably serve only one purpose; revenue enhancement. We have see speed and red-light cameras across the country installed in places where they serve little purpose but to line the pockets of local government, to say nothing of the fact that they create traffic headaches and likely cause accidents. Of course, facts never stopped Dresser from promoting nonsense before...

While Dresser wants to baby us, an article in the Wilson Quarterly goes in a....different direction:

In the last few years, however, one traffic engineer did achieve a measure of global celebrity, known, if not exactly by name, then by his ideas. His name was Hans Monderman. The idea that made Monderman, who died of cancer in January at the age of 62, most famous is that traditional traffic safety ­infra­structure—­warning signs, traffic lights, metal railings, curbs, painted lines, speed bumps, and so ­on—­is not only often unnecessary, but can endanger those it is meant to protect.

As I drove with Monderman through the northern Dutch province of Friesland several years ago, he repeatedly pointed out offending traffic signs. “Do you really think that no one would perceive there is a bridge over there?” he might ask, about a sign warning that a bridge was ahead. “Why explain it?” He would follow with a characteristic maxim: “When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots.”

Emphasis mine....and read the whole thing. Because Monderman was right. The nanny state, in all of its forms, creates nothing but babies, people who cannot function without government oversight. Overregulation, overprotection dumbs us down. It's why kids who used to ride their bikes without helmets in the middle of the road to play ball at a neighbors house stay inside because parents are afraid of getting sued for a cut sustained on their property and overprotective parents want to dress their kids up enough pads before getting on a bike to take part in a jousting event. Is it any wonder kids are sedentary and show no interest in fiddling with things, and no interest in being outside?

And that is the kind of logic that people like Dresser wants to apply to the highways, and people like Dresser want to apply to every situation. They want to over-regulate to the point where nobody is safe. Sure, Monderman's principles on traffic control are revolutionary and perhaps a little too over the top. But are they really any different, as I noted before, from the laws of the Autobahn which has few regulations, but find those regulations strictly enforced? At the very least, Monderman's ideas appeal to our basic principles that the government that governs best governs least, and idea subscribed to by the majority of averaged Americas.

Finally, as a tribute to Monderman and finger in the eye of Dresser, I heartily endorse this idea from Donald Sensing:

So it's less polluting to drive than fly, right? And it appears that is is rapidly becoming just as quick to drive as fly on not only short-range flights, but increasingly on medium-range flights as well.

So here's my global-warming-fighting plan: significantly increase the speed limits on the nation's interstate highways. That will make driving rather than flying even more appealing, more financially attractive and less time consuming.

By "significantly increase" the speed limits, I mean to triple-digit speeds. The present limit in Tennessee in 70 mph. So let's reset it to 100, minimum.

Here, here. A plan that fights global warming, a plan that provides for greater national security, and a plan that embraces Monderman's idea for relatively unregulated roads. Quite Panglossian.

When can we sign up?

I Get Letters

Needless to say that yesterday's post about Paul Foer earned me a nastygram....from Paul Foer:

from	Paul Foer
to		brian@briangriffiths.com
date		Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:36 AM
subject		Thanks for all the free publicity of my ideas......

We've never met, yet you sure have taken an interest in me. I appreciate the fact that you read Capital Punishment, take me so seriously and pay so much attention to what you label as my "fringe left" views that you feel compelled to tell even more people about it--who then visit my blog. I think it's funny that you say I resort to "yelling" because I put a few sentences in bold. At least I don't resort to immature name-calling.

Regarding the Bay Bridges, you confidently feel that we'll alway have the energy available to power all the vehicles you anticipate for years and years to come. Okay. Talk about sticking one's head in the sand. There's plenty of it at the beach, so enjoy your next trip there...over two spans or ten....why not just build a fifty lane bridge? More bridges everywhere.....

It's bad enough that your views don't consider the tremendous changes we will are undergoing now, but to attack someone whose views you don't like or agree with is just silly. Now you'll turn around and whine that I'm like the people described in "Liberal Fascism" or some such thing. But you don't know me. You know nothing about me.


Paul Foer

Wow. Foer does realize that I am not promoting his ideas....I'm mocking them for their lack of foresight, thought, and reason.

If that weren't bad enough, he then tries to completely change the argument. At no point in my rebuttal of his post did I talk about fuel. Why? Because something is going to power cars. I don't know if it will be gas, ethanol, sawgrass, hydrogen, or chicken droppings, but the people of this country will be using cars. That's not going to change anytime soon. People have been using personal, land based conveyances since a minor invention 5700 years ago. If Foer believes that is going to stop, that we won't evolve to cleaner fuels, than he is even more naïve than I thought he was.

This is my favorite part:

but to attack someone whose views you don't like or agree with is just silly. Now you'll turn around and whine that I'm like the people described in "Liberal Fascism" or some such thing.

You mean like this?

No, Mayor Moyer, you're just a mean-spirited, angry, paranoid incompetent as mayor. You are not a bad person. Rough around the edges perhaps. Quick to anger. Not always warm and fuzzy. We can handle that. But please, we have a municipal government to run, a corporate body, and it just keeps getting worse.

Yeah, couldn't imagine how I'd find you a hypocrite.

Besides Foer. I know what your game is. You make money off of the transit industry, so naturally he is going to denigrate alternatives in an effort to put some money in his pocket. It kinda reminds me of this (warning, language):



Foer also makes money on boating, including gas-guzzling motorboats. So I'm not exactly sure I want to get preached at on the environment by somebody who makes a living on things that guzzle more gas than my Saturn.

I point out people like Foer because these are the people who think they know better than you. Paul Foer thinks he is better than me, better than you, and better than anybody involved in politics or government. In truth, he's just a bitter guy, mad that he wasn't old enough to be a hippie, so bitter that even reasonable liberals like Bruce Godfrey have trouble getting a meaningful conversation out of. I point people like Foer out because these are the people that are brining nothing constructive to the political conversation, and people like him need to be exposed for what they really are.

No need to wait to start building Third Span

Long before Sunday morning's tragic accident on the Bay Bridge, the need has been existent for a new span across the Chesapeake Bay. This has little to do with the accident, and everything to do with traffic, congestion, and public safety.

Well Paul Foer, ever the voice of failure and bad public policy, spouted off about how horrible that thought was:

It was not long after the recent fatal crash on our Bay Bridges (yes there are two of them as well as the bridge-tunnel near Norfolk) that some clamored for another crossing, a third span...yada yada yada...Okay-how often is there a fatal or serious crash on the bridges? Well they happen, but seriously, how often? Any more than on any other busy road? Of course the aftermath of tie-ups is worse, but does this mean we need another bridge? Sure, if you just want to build and develop and slash and burn, go ahead and make another bridge.

Of course, the construction of the new bridge has little to do with growth and little to do with development. Those are county zoning issues that are not impacted by the state. True, it may make the Eastern Shore more accessible, but isn't that the point of building a new span? Not necessarily for development, but to allow to improve the economy and to provide a more adequate public safety capability for the Shore?

I mean, does anybody really want to see a 25-mile backup on Route 50 if thousands of Eastern Shore residents are trying to evacuate to the Western Shore due to an imminently landfalling hurricane? Because even with a contraflow traffic pattern, five lanes going westbound would not be able to handle that capacity in an emergency, and if an accident were to close one of the spans during that evacuation the impact could be catastrophic.

Foer continues:

But we cannot build our way out of this one. The first crossing was in 1952 and then just 21 years later we opened a second one. Even if we could and did build a third to open in five years or so, would we find ourselves crying for another--a fourth crossing in the year 2020 or 2025? And we must ask ourselves that given what we can reasonably expect about the future of oil and all energy, as well as the environmental concerns, are we sure we really want to keep building as usual, imposing 1950's solutions on 21st and 22nd century challenges? If traffic is the problem and cars and roads make traffic, why would we want to continue adding cars and roads in order to alleviate traffic? Surely the argument is vastly more complex than I make it here, but we must really face the facts and ask ourselves if building more roads and highways is a viable or even sustainable option.

Obviously, Foer wants to talk about the need for a fourth span when we haven't even built the third span. As usually, Foer goes straight for the strawman argument that we may need to do more in the future. Well, not if you plan appropriately now. I have called for a six-lane span to be built at the current site, which would allow for eleven lanes of traffic crossing the Bay. And the span can even be constructed in a manner that allows multi-modal transportation options, including light or heavy rail, and dedicated rapid bus transit lanes. That's not a "1950's solution"; that's a solution that looks toward the future and allows for considerable relief options for transportation planners.

And if Foer wants to make an environmental argument, I say this: isn't it more environmentally sound for traffic to move at a reasonable rate than to have a five-mile backup of cars inefficiently spewing pollutants into the atmosphere?

Then, because Foer has no intelligible points to make, he switches over to yelling:

THE DAYS OF CHEAP OIL ARE OVER. EVENTUALLY WE WILL RUN OUT. EVERY ALTERNATIVE IS FRAUGHT WITH DIFFICULTY AND DOWNSIDES. HOWEVER, WE MUST FACE THE FACTS AND THEY ARE THAT WE CANNOT BUILD OURSELVES OUT OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION. IT MAY HAVE WORKED IN SOME PLACES FOR SOME TIMES, BUT THOSE DAYS ARE BEHIND US.

Of course, we can build ourselves out of congestion by adding highway lane-miles to our infrastructure. Foer says we can't, because only because the thought makes him unhappy and he likes to pout. Obviously if you expand highway capacity, you reduce highway congestion. Even a third-grader could figure that out.

The ostrich philosophy of the left, that by sticking our head in the sand and hoping our traffic problems disappear, is problematic. We do not have a transportation infrastructure that can sustain the amount of traffic in the area, the legacy of the de-mapping trend from the 60's and 70's (something I wrote about three years ago). Not dealing with the issue, by not adding more lane-miles to Maryland's transportation system, we are doing little but to further degrade the economic, public safety, and yes environmental posture of our state..

We have the capability to do this, to not only build a third span, but also improve mass transit options, through privatization as I have long been advocating. This project needs to be started, and started as quickly as humanly possible.

Take the Hint

Well, the joker who came up with the "Big O" is just not going to take no for an answer:

At first, Rick Husong was stunned by the overwhelming wave of negative and sometimes crude reactions to his bid revealed in Whispers last week to build a pro-Sen. Barack Obama movement around a hand salute dubbed the Big-O. Among the hundreds of comments posted on the Whispers site were those comparing it to a gang gesture, a Nazi salute, or worse. "This is how Sieg Heil got started. And, no I'm not saying Obama is Hitler. I just think people should be careful about slipping into a personality cult for a charismatic leader," wrote Jake of Tennessee. Husong tells me that he was pretty depressed by the reaction to his idea and free design offered on the website of Loyalty Inc., his California creative company. That is until he heard of a fan walking on Venice Beach wearing a T-shirt displaying the artwork. In fact, despite the tsunami of criticism, the artwork has been downloaded 7,700 times and his site has been hit 214,000 times since the first Whisper went live. "I would call that a raving success," he says, adding that he plans to make his Big-O the "peace sign of our generation."

Well, don't let abject failure and public humiliation keep you down, right?

And then Husong, the founder of this "movement" goes off into space cadet territory:

He also E-mailed me last night to say that the hits on the artwork have inspired him to push even harder to build a movement around the hand signal. Here's what he wrote: "Our symbol 'O' is about much more than Barack Obama. It's a symbol of unity, hope, solidarity, and an end to the divisiveness that has plagued this country for too long. It is the peace sign of our generation; a sign for those who are tired of the fear, the hatred, the greed, and the ignorance. There will be resistance, democracy requires it, but we believe that the good in the American people will persevere.

The peace sign of our generation? A slick, corporately produced hand symbol that is reminds people that Barack Obama is little more than a slick, media production? All flash, no substance. That's what he wants to publicize a hand symbol for? At least the peace sign was an organically developed hand gesture, developed by people who were part of a movement. It was not something that an advertising agency came up with, like this one is, for a candidate who is desperately trying to create an air of substance around his candidacy.

The good news is that while Obama supporters figure out new and creative ways to show their loyalty and subjugation to Obama cult, their savior is out losing the election, so I suppose they need to find something to pump them up.

Astroturfing Health Care

FSP is shopping this on its front page in an effort to astroturf the creation of a socialist health care system:

Quite simply, with rising health care costs (including $50 billion per year to pay for insurance industry advertising) being born out by working families and American businesses, health care is a top economic concern. To keep American workers at their best, and to keep American business competitive in the world, something has to change.

Nancy Pelosi has recently declared health care expansion to be #2 on her list of legislative priorities, right after ending the Iraq war. In the past month, tens of thousands of Americans have told us they want quality, affordable health care for all. Now it's time to ask Congress.

So, Congress, which side are you on? Are you with us for quality, affordable health care for all? Or are you with the insurance companies, working to preserve our broken system?

We've set up a quick and easy way for you to contact your Members of Congress and ask them if they support our vision for health care reform. Just click here and enter in your phone number and address. Choose the elected official you want to talk to and in a few moments, we'll call your phone and connect you automatically.

Over the next few weeks, we want to make 100,000 calls to Congress, asking every Member which side they are on. We need your help to do it, so please click here to call!

I'm not really going to get into the idea of public health care, because there is a general consensus that it would be a disaster. But there are a few things that bother me with this, not the least of which is the fact that the author of the piece, Jason Rosenbaum, is employed by the Health Care for America Now group and Isaac chose not to point that out, which is disappointing.

What is not surprising, however, is the fact that the fringe left needs to try and create a groundswell of support for the issue of socialist health care. Because there is no support for it. The general public understands that when you have government run health care, you get government run solutions. The quality of care is diminished. The availability of care is diminished. Even the most important preventative procedures get a patient waitlisted and people resort to their own measures. Think of an HMO on steroids, and that's what the Democratic plan is.

Jon Henke wrote a piece for The Next Right yesterday afternoon that is very timely, given the left's attempt to further ruin American health care:

However, there are three problems with what Krugman claims about Medicare being "immensely popular"...

1. The recipients of Medicare get it, basically, for free. Since they're not paying for it at the point of purchase, it's not surprising that they think it's quite a nice thing.
2. Indeed, a lot of the real costs of Medicare lie in the future. And they are enormous. The costs are being hidden for now, while voters mostly approve of the more tangible benefits. Should voters ever have a chance to make a real cost/benefit trade-off, we'll see just how much they actually value it.
3. But, you might argue, polls show that 76% of Americans approve of Medicare. And so they do. But look what else those polls show about public approval of Medicare...

And that, my friends, is the problem. The most important plank of the Democrats plan is that it is a single-payer system available to everybody. But it is hard to create support for such a system when:

1. The costs of such a system would require draconian tax increases in an economy that cannot handle them;
2. The existing public health system already in place is one of the most reviled programs in government.

As usual, with the left it's about power, not about helping people, the same people who block affordable health care to the poor. The public would be best to ignore the health care solution the left wishes to manufacture support for.

Just Pathetic

Need I say more (H/T Moe Lane):

And now, if a Los Angeles creative agency gets its way, Sen. Barack Obama will see fans meet him with his own salute like the one above. "Our goal is to see a crowd of 75,000 people at Obama's nomination speech holding their hands above their heads, fingers laced together in support of a new direction for this country, a renewed hope, and acceptance of responsibility for our future," says Rick Husong, owner of The Loyalty Inc. Husong tells me that he got the idea after seeing the famous Obama-Progress poster by artist Shepherd Fairey. "We wanted to get involved some way," he says. So, the agency came up with their own a symbol of hope and progress that also plays off Obama's name. "We thought, 'Let's try and start a movement where even while walking down the street, people would hold up the O and you would know that they were for Obama,' " says Husong.

What a pathetic, cheap, and desperate attempt to create gravitas and a sense of community around Obama.

Unfortunately, I can think of a couple of other movements started where people could identify their fellow travelers while walking down the street. Let's just say those didn't turn out too well....

You Don't Say

Who didn't see this coming?

A liberal lobbying group has given its former director its highest rating on a legislative scorecard that generally favored Democrats.

Progressive Maryland's scorecard — covering the General Assembly's 2007 special session and the 2008 legislative session — gave Del. Tom Hucker a 99 out of 100 in its rankings. Twenty percent of the score came from a subjective ''leadership" evaluation in which Hucker received a 19 out of 20.

Sean Dobson, Progressive Maryland's executive director, saw nothing unusual in Hucker's ranking.

''He's a lifetime advocate for working families, so it's not surprising at all," Dobson said.

Of course, this isn't the first time that Progressive Maryland has covered for Delegate Hucker. Back in May, Hucker was outed as being wined and dined by lobbyists in direct contradiction to Progressive Maryland's stances, and not at peep was heard out of the group. The Hucker/Progressive Maryland lovefest is so bad, even the left is tired of it. FSP poster "lefty" (hardly a friend of our side) had this to say about it:

(1) Progressive Maryland has turned into Tom Hucker, Inc., (2) Tom Hucker supported the bill calling for the slots referendum, and (3) Tom Hucker doesn't want the public to know about (2), it's not really surprising to see PM "sitting this one out." Yes, the union/activist divide probably had something to do with it, too, but unfortunately the interests of Tom Hucker have overridden pretty much everything else at Tom Hucker, Inc.

So for Progressive Maryland to design a survey that makes Tom Hucker look good is, shall we say, a bit unsurprising.

The real star of this story, however, is House Minority Leader Tony O'Donnell

Republicans received low scores, which pleased House Minority Leader Anthony J. O'Donnell, who received a 3.

''I am actually happy of my very low score with that organization, and actually disappointed that I scored three points. I'm going to have to work harder to reduce it," said O'Donnell (R-Dist. 29C) of Lusby.

He called Progressive Maryland a socialist front.

‘‘I don’t say that rhetorically. These are the political socialists who have rebranded themselves as quote-unquote progressives to fool Marylanders and American citizens,” he said. ‘‘They have not been able to get a political foothold under their previous banner of the Socialist Party of America, so they’ve rebranded themselves.”

Thanks goodness that the Minority Leader is willing to call a spade a spade here. I wish Progressive Maryland and Delegate Hucker could be as honest...

So much for Hollywood's worship of "Truth to Power"

The Hollywood left always like to rally around the flag of somebody who stands up to Republicans or, more specifically, stand up to the Bush Administration. They are "saying truth to power" as the kids like to say.

Well, actor Jon Voight wrote a column in fact stating truth to power, at least the truth to the powers that be in the Democratic Party:

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

A very much needed slap to the face of the Hollywood left.

Of course, the mindset of the fringe of the fringe of the fringe of American society can be best summed up by this idiotic post by some idiot named Jeffrey Wells at a blog called "Hollywood Elsewhere":

My honest deep-down reaction is that I now have a reason to feel negatively about the guy. I'm not saying Voight is on the HE shit list (although the idea certainly feels good -- just as it felt good to imagine the same thing last spring about Tina Fey when she became a rabid Hillary person on SNL), and I certainly don't think a symbolic condemnation along these lines would matter much to anyone. Nonetheless, it's going to be hard henceforth not to think of Voight as some kind of diseased wingnut.

That's right, the people who are trying to entertain America thinks that anybody who doesn't believe the Barack Obama, and that people who are not obsequiously subservient to the extreme leftist direction he is taking the Democratic Party and the direction he wants to take America, these people think that you and I (and probably 52% of their potential audience) are diseased. Diseased.

What a sad and pathetic statement from a sad and shallow community that isn't half as smart as they think they are.

What of course is most humorous is the fact that the same people who glorify Communist sympathizers who were blacklisted during the 1950's, these people who stood out for the crowd and stood up and spoke truth to power, are the same ones who ostracize conservatives for speaking up for the things that they believe in. These people are shallow, smug, and narrow minded in ways that I cannot dream of.

Hollywood's intolerance in the name of tolerance is said and pathetic, and maybe explains why the movies that most push a left-wing agenda bomb at the box office.