Change is coming again

"Follow the money," Watergate source Deep Throat told Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the movie, "All the President's Men."

It's still good advice.

On Friday, the Washington Post reported that "Democratic political committees have seen a decline in their fundraising fortunes this year."

That's odd, isn't it?

Democrats control the House and the Senate and the White House. They chair all the committees, appoint all the regulators, and write all the laws and rules that cause billions of dollars to shift this way or that way on the turn of a phrase.

Wouldn't you think they'd be raking in the campaign contributions from people and businesses with a lot to gain or lose?

Well, they're not.

There's "complacency among their rank-and-file donors," the Post reports, and also "a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party's harsh rhetoric about big business."

That analysis may be a bit too mild.

Rank-and-file Democratic donors worked furiously during the campaign to elect a Democratic president and a Democratic House and Senate with unstoppable majorities. They were energized, as we recall, by the prospect of an early end to the war in Iraq and by the promise of a health care reform bill that would give everybody everything for free.

So far, they're 0 and 2.

They may not be complacent as much as they're enraged.

And while there's no reason to doubt that the "wealthiest givers" dislike the Democrats' rhetorical attacks on a different business every week, self-interest would dictate that the donors would continue to donate, just to make sure the attacks stay rhetorical.

Even if the "wealthiest givers" didn't want the Democrats to be re-elected, they could be expected to donate out of fear that they would be re-elected.

So if they're not donating, it may mean they have judged that the Democrats -- despite their control of Congress and the White House -- are irrelevant.

Can that be right?

Let's get the crystal ball and gaze deeply into the polls.

On September 17, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported that support for President Obama has slipped noticeably among independents: "About six-in-ten independents now say Obama is able to get things done (57%), down from 71% in February; 34% say he is not able to get things done, up from just 12% then. There also have been substantial increases in the proportions of independents who say Obama is not a strong leader (from 12% to 29%) and not trustworthy (from 15% to 31%)."

In addition, the percentage of independents who say Obama "cares about people like them" dropped from 80% in February to 71% in September, while 47% of independents now say Obama is "liberal," up from 37% in February.

The importance of these small changes is magnified by the fact that independents are the critical swing voters, the difference between victory and defeat in every close election.

The overall poll numbers are falling, too. CBS News reported Thursday that President Obama's approval rating stands at 56 percent, although on specific issues "Americans are less enthusiastic about his performance." His approval ratings for his handling of the economy, health care, and Afghanistan are 50%, 47% and 44%, respectively.

Today's Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll, which queries likely voters instead of all adults, has President Obama's approval rating at 48% and his disapproval rating at 51%.

And he hasn't even tackled immigration reform yet.

So maybe it's not surprising that the Democrats are having trouble raising money. It doesn't matter that they won the last election. Their own supporters believe they've lost the next one.


Copyright 2009


.

Tabloid update: "Obama's Secret Enemies List"

The cover of this week's Globe tabloid prominently features a picture of President Barack Obama, elegantly dressed in a gray suit with an American flag lapel pin, staring suspiciously at the reader next to the headline, "Obama's Secret Enemies List!"

In a "world exclusive," the magazine reveals "25 names -- WHO the president wants to silence and WHY!"

Glenn Beck, Pat Boone, Toby Keith and Sarah Palin are pictured on the cover next to the president's disapproving glare.

"Under relentless assault from a mob of vicious critics," the story begins, "President Barack Obama has drawn up a secret list of enemies he aims to take down -- one by one!"

The Globe reports that President Obama had been inclined to view the attacks as part of the job, but first lady Michelle Obama -- pictured in a sleeveless pink dress flexing her arms -- urged him to fight back lest he be "branded a wimp."

"Obama is going to do whatever he can to discredit these people," the Globe's insider reports, "He wants them silenced!"

According to the Globe, this was the reason President Obama had lunch with former President Bill Clinton in New York on September 14. Mr. Obama, looking for a way to "counterattack his enemies," sought advice from Mr. Clinton.

"Bill is a real street fighter," the Globe's insider said, "He spent eight years dealing with withering criticism from his political rivals. But he knew how to fight back. The Republicans just couldn't beat him. He knows all the dirty tricks."

Don't look at us, that's what it said.

According to the Globe, President Clinton has met "several times" with President Obama to discuss the problem of dealing with his enemies.

So if you happen to read that Pat Boone, who wrote that he'd like to see President Obama's real birth certificate, is trailer-park trash, or that Sarah Palin, who wrote that she doesn't want her parents or her disabled child forced to stand in front of Obama's death panels to prove they're worthy of health care, is a stalker, or that Glenn Beck, who publicized the background and beliefs of now-dumped green jobs czar Van Jones, came on to him when Hillary was out of the country, don't believe it.

The 25 names on the "Roster of Revenge," in case you're wondering, are: Glenn Beck, Larry Sinclair, Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Orly Taitz, Pat Boone, Jon Voight, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Rupert Murdoch, Jesse Jackson, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, Toby Keith, Rex Rammell, Hank Williams Jr., Steven Anderson, Saul Anuzis, Bill Cunningham, Paul Krugman, John Rich, Wiley Drake, Alex Jones and Michelle Malkin.

Oddly, the Globe left Humana off the enemies list even though it received an actual gag order from the Obama administration when it tried to tell its Medicare Advantage enrollees that the Obama plan for health care reform would result in cuts to their benefits.

"It has come to our attention," Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote to Chairman Henry Waxman last week, "that the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) recently ordered insurance companies to cease communications to their customers about potential Congressional cuts to the Medicare Advantage program. Given the White House's support for these changes to Medicare Advantage, we are greatly troubled that the Administration may be abusing its resources to stifle criticism of the bills moving through Congress."

The congressmen demanded to see "the full list of insurance companies targeted by CMS for their communications" and "the origination of Acting Director Teresa DeCaro’s decision to issue gag orders."

So far, silence.


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier posts, "How Michelle Obama killed 'green jobs'" and "Henry Waxman's optional Constitution."

.

John Cleese does Johnny Carson

There are a lot of comedians on television today who try to imitate Johnny Carson. Some of them die trying. Nightly.

Johnny Carson was more than just topical monologues and shtick with the band. He was also the gold standard of alimony jokes.

Johnny Carson's alimony jokes, like Jack Benny's cheap jokes, were so much a part of the character that the jokes were in the silences as much as in the lines.

Now comes word that the great master of bitter ex-wife jokes has a challenger for the title.

A couple of years ago, you might remember, we tried fiercely but unsuccessfully to get tickets to see John Cleese, who was performing at Pepperdine University in Malibu (See "Groucho Marx cheers up John Cleese.")

That's why, when TicketMaster sent us an e-mail that John Cleese would be performing in the Los Angeles area on November 15, and that tickets were going on sale at 12:00 noon on July 24, we set an alarm clock and bought two tickets in Orchestra Row A.

Then in August, we spotted this in the Daily Telegraph of London:

John Cleese in £12 million divorce settlement

John Cleese has reached a £12 million settlement in his acrimonious divorce from his third wife Alyce Faye Eichelberger.

The Oscar nominated comedy actor is giving his former wife £8 million in cash and assets which include an apartment in New York, a £2 million mews house in fashionable Holland Park in west London, and half a beach house in Santa Barbara in California which is yet to be sold.

Ms. Faye Eichelberger, an American psychotherapist, will also receive £600,000 a year for seven years. The papers to finalise the financial settlement were lodged in the courts in California last week.

Cleese, 70, who is in the New Forest writing a barbed one man show to be called Alimony Tour Year One, has revealed his anger at the size of the divorce settlement which will make his former wife, who he was married to for 16 years, richer than him.

And that's how we discovered that we contributed $176.30 to the Alyce Faye Eichelberger Get-Off-My-Back Fund.

"In my 70th year," Mr. Cleese told a reporter, "I will still be spending two months a year doing work that is of no interest to me and which is probably slightly spiritually depleting in order to feed the beast."

America Wants To Know hopes the upcoming tour dates don't fall into that category.

We think a shot of alimony jokes in November is a fine way to innoculate the human spirit against the cloying, depressing and endless holiday season.

"I don't think people really understand how essential we [comedians] are to their sanity," Groucho Marx wrote.

Some of us do.


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: Here's a link to information about John Cleese's tour, and here are the tour dates.

John Cleese itinerary:
(Dates are subject to change.)

October 30
Modesto, CA
Gallo Center For The Arts

November 2
Portland, OR
Newmark Theatre

November 3
Seattle, WA
Moore Theatre

November 4
Eugene, OR
McDonald Theatre

November 6
Arcata, CA
John Van Duzer Theatre

November 7
Davis, CA
Mondavi Performing Arts Center

November 8
Redwood City, CA
Fox Theatre

November 10
Chico, CA
Laxson Auditorium

November 11
Yountville, CA
Lincoln Theater Napa Valley

November 13
Carmel, CA
Sunset Cultural Center

November 14
Glendale, CA
Alex Theatre

November 15
Thousand Oaks, CA
Fred Kavli Theatre

November 17
Long Beach, CA
Carpenter Performing Arts Center

November 18
San Diego, CA
Spreckels Theatre

November 20
Scottsdale, AZ
Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts

Tabloid update: "Bush secret collapse"

The cover of this week's Globe tabloid screams from the checkstand that former President George W. Bush is "suicidal and paranoid" and has suffered a "secret collapse after he accuses Laura of betraying him."

"Betraying" is in bold yellow letters, underlined.

Inside, the betrayal turns out to be -- get ready -- a television interview that Laura Bush gave to CNN.

"When he heard what Laura was saying, his face became flushed with anger and you could see his whole body stiffen up," the Globe's "insider" reports.

"How could you," the Globe says the president muttered, wiping tears from his eyes.

Bet you're wondering what Mrs. Bush said.

Get ready.

CNN asked Mrs. Bush if she thought President Obama was doing a good job. "I think he is," the former first lady answered, "I think he has got a lot on his plate and he has tackled a lot to start with, and that has probably made it more difficult."

"George just couldn't believe it -- he felt it was a low and cruel blow," the Globe's insider says. "He's been in a deep funk ever since."

America Wants To Know is a little skeptical that President Bush went off the deep end -- "berserk" is the word the Globe used -- over the first lady's bland and characteristically diplomatic remarks, but the Globe says friends of the president fear he may try to end it all.

"Why is she doing this to me?" the tabloid says President Bush asked.

Obviously he hasn't been reading the Globe for the last three years. Mr. President, if you're reading this, click here and here and here and here to find out what you've missed.

Copyright 2009

.

Obama's true colors

It's starting to become clear why President Obama's advisers keep that TelePrompter in front of him.

On Friday, the president gave five television interviews to be broadcast on Sunday. According to the Associated Press, this is part of what he told NBC News when asked if he thought the opposition to his policies was racial in nature:

"It's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic, and that is, What's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another? ... This is not a new argument, and it always evokes passions."

Really.

Can you think of another elected official in the United States -- any elected official, let alone a president -- who ever said, at any time, that we have to "balance freedom with our need to look out for one another?"

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a new argument.

At least in this country it is.

What's wrong with him? Successful American presidents don't go around saying their policies are going to reduce freedom in America, certainly not because freedom has to be "balanced" with the need to take care of the poor. They don't dismiss angry voters and massive protest demonstrations with a statement like "it always evokes passions," as if American citizens defending their freedom from intrusion by their own government is some kind of bar fight over a football game.

What a paternalistic, condescending, arrogant, collectivist, politically suicidal thing to say.

We defy anyone to cite even one example in all of recorded history of less freedom leading to more prosperity for anyone except government officials and their cronies, but that's not the point. Freedom does not have to be justified to government officials who think they're supervising a debate over how much of it the people of the United States ought to have.

The last time the American people were this agitated over the federal government having too much power may have been 1789, when the ratification of the Constitution would have failed if not for the promise to add amendments to strengthen the guarantee of liberty. The Bill of Rights was the result.

There's nothing in it about balancing freedom with the need to look out for one another.

Freedom is not something that is granted to us by our government. Freedom is a condition that exists under a government of limited power.

The Constitution limits the power of the federal government.

That means you do not have to wake up in the morning and ask yourself what the government wants you to do today, or what it will let you do today, or what kind of light bulbs, automobile, snack food, or health insurance the federal government will allow you to have or force you to buy.

Someone who was in the Reagan administration told an interviewer once that it was easy to work for Ronald Reagan, because everybody knew where he stood. For example, he was generally against taxes and generally in favor of a strong military.

It's starting to look like it's easy to work for President Obama, too. He's generally against more freedom and generally in favor of more government force. He's generally in favor of using government power to prop up unions and of using the tax code to bleed small businesses. He's generally in favor of positions taken by Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, and generally against positions taken by Britain, Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic, and the people of Honduras who threw out that guy who tried to make himself president for life.

In 2008, when those eloquent Ted Sorenson speeches flowed over the TelePrompter and into our living rooms, Barack Obama looked to some people like a breath of fresh air.

He is a cloud of stale smoke.


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier posts, "Obama admits it," and "Barack Obama explains socialism," in the 2005 post, "Why the Iraq policy isn't working," and in "Defending Capitalism" at www.SusanShelley.com.

.

Racist?

Only in America would a congressman who was complaining about Mexican illegal immigrants be accused of bigotry against an African-American president, while Tea Party protesters are accused of refusing to accept a president who's black, when what they're plainly upset about is that he's Red.





On Tuesday, a parade of Democrats complained that South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson's "You lie!" comment during President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress was racist.

Congressional Black Caucus member Hank Johnson, Democrat of Georgia, said this: "I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. That's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked. Congressman Wilson represents it. He's the face of it."

And then the august and austere voice of former president Jimmy Carter chimed in with this, in an interview with NBC News: "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."

If President Obama was the man he professed to be during the campaign, he would use one of his hourly television appearances this week to call for an end to this kind of bogus race-baiting rhetoric.

The country didn't mysteriously suffer a bout of amnesia during the 2008 election cycle, only to awaken in August of 2009 to the news that the president is black. It's absurd and insulting and desperate for Democrats to characterize a legitimate argument over deficit spending and federal government intervention in health care as racial bigotry.

President Obama can demonstrate genuine leadership by making a clear statement that people who disagree with him about health care reform are not racists because of it.

Silence is acquiescence.


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: By ascribing good motives to everyone and working backwards, America Wants To Know has identified the origins of today's argument. You can read about it in the earlier post, "Why we're fighting."

.

Tabloid update: Clinton! Parkinson's! Michelle! Baby Tragedy!

In what might be a sign that the economy is getting better, the cover of this week's Globe tabloid makes a real effort to look like bad news.

If we were in a Second Great Depression, magazines would be giving us Fred-and-Ginger fluff, inspirational stories, and pictures of cute pets.

Instead, the Globe headlines scream, "Clinton Fighting Parkinson's Disease" and "Michelle Obama Baby Tragedy." America Wants To Know is happy to report that neither of those things is true, according to the stories inside the magazine.

"Bill Clinton has Parkinson's disease, worried friends fear," the story on page six begins. The worried friends are cited as the source of this story on the cover, too, but you have to look very closely to see it. "Clinton Fighting Parkinson's Disease" is in one-inch bold type, all caps, and "-- Pals Fear" is underneath in letters just a touch taller than a sixteenth of an inch.

There is nothing funny about Parkinson's disease, but President Clinton said he doesn't have Parkinson's disease. He said he was thoroughly tested, and his doctors have told him that the tremors in his hands are a "normal aging phenomenon."

We know what you're thinking -- that it depends on the meaning of "normal" -- but you should know that he could be telling the truth. You can look up "essential tremor" on the MayoHealth.org website if you're interested, and if you found this post because you're Googling for information for yourself or a family member, America Wants To Know would like to say, "Don't be discouraged. There are a lot of different drugs to treat the symptoms of Parkinson's disease and you should talk to a neurologist to find the one that gives you good results with the fewest side effects. Hang in there."

Now, back to our story.

The Globe restrains itself all the way to the middle of page seven, but then it can't wait any more and it bursts out with, "'One of the complications of Parkinson's disease can be erectile dysfunction, in which a man can have trouble obtaining or maintaining an erection,' says neurologist Dr. Alberto Espay, a University of Cincinnati Parkinson's expert. 'For a man who prides himself on his sexual prowess, this can be troubling and perhaps depressing.'"

Then there's a two-paragraph recap of the former president's affairs and sex scandals, and you have to hand it to the Globe for getting it all in so tightly.

Sorry.

The Globe reports that Viagra and testosterone "can sometimes help Parkinson's sufferers conquer impotence," but we're guessing the Secretary of State would file this information under, "Don't help me."

Speaking of performance problems, the Globe reports that Michelle Obama has hit on a brilliant idea to "save her husband's presidency."

"As the President's approval ratings plummet under the weight of his controversial health care reform, the escalating war in Afghanistan and the still sputtering economy, the Obamas have been working overtime trying to conceive," the Globe's sources report.

Yes, according to the Globe, the first lady wants another child. The Globe's "insider" says: "Michelle would like to shake things up by providing a new, sympathetic storyline. Everyone loves a baby, and they've been strongly advised by key aides that having a new child would send his approval ratings through the roof."

So, what's the "baby tragedy" to which the cover's headline refers?

"The Obamas have had no luck conceiving," the Globe's insider reveals. "But they refuse to give up."

Michelle, please. The guy's running seven banks, two wars, General Motors and an insurance company. He needs his sleep.


Copyright 2009


Editor's note: Catch up on your tabloid reading with "Political marriages on the rocks!" and "Obama gay cover-up!"

.

Obama admits it

Last night in a speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama admitted that his plan for health care reform will reduce freedom in America.

"You see," the president said, "our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom."

The president believes that in the case of health care reform, the "gains in security from government action" are worth "the added constraints on our freedom."

Do you?

America Wants To Know has been making the point for some time that collectivism is the opposite of freedom. To the extent that you have one, you can't have the other.

The last person we ever expected to agree with us was President Obama.


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: You might be interested in reading "Defending Capitalism" at www.SusanShelley.com, and in the 2007 post, "Barack Obama explains socialism."

.

The secret health plan

Senator Max Baucus has a secret.

That is, he had a secret until today, when the Associated Press obtained a copy of it.

The secret is what's in his compromise health care reform plan, the one that's been touted as the core of the soon-to-be consolidated health care reform bill that some Democrats intend to ram through the House and Senate before the end of the year.

"A top senator is calling for fines of up to $3,800 on families who fail to get medical insurance after a health care overhaul goes into effect," the AP reported, "The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage."

Well, not "just like" auto coverage. If you don't own a car, you don't have to buy auto coverage. However, if you don't have a job with benefits, or $3,000 to $10,000 a year for health insurance, the Democrats want to make you a criminal.

But wait, surely the kind-hearted Senator Baucus has sympathy for criminals.

Yes, of course he does.

The plan "would provide tax credits to help cover the cost for people making up to three times the federal poverty level. That's about $66,000 for a family of four, and $32,000 for an individual," the AP reveals.

Tax credits don't help you if you don't owe any taxes because you're not working, and unemployment is almost ten percent in this country.

So the tax credits are probably "refundable," which is another way of saying the government will send money that was withheld from someone else's paycheck to the people who need help buying mandatory health insurance. They'll just call it a tax credit in the hope that you won't notice.

This generosity with other people's money is expected to allow everyone to buy insurance.

"Those who still don't sign up would face hefty fines, starting at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families," the AP reported.

Apparently the federal government will have to verify everybody's earnings and assets, to be sure the "tax credits" are going to people who meet the financial-need test.

It's not clear if these income verifications would be handled by the IRS, or if some new federal agency would have unlimited access to IRS data, or if there will be a brand-new financial auditing agency to look at everybody's income and assets in the name of protecting the taxpayers.

What is clear is that health care reform is dead, although we're still going to have to sit through a two-month siege of televised speeches and rallies. But don't worry. If it didn't revive Michael Jackson it's not going to revive health care reform.


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier posts, "Bad at math," "Just kill it," "Yes we can and no we won't," and "Gazing into the future."

.

How Michelle Obama killed 'green jobs'

Not since the Clinton administration dug up that donor they buried at Arlington has the midnight hour been such a busy time in Washington.

On Saturday night, just before midnight Eastern time, White House 'green jobs' czar Van Jones released a bitter resignation letter. "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," he wrote. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

You don't have to be an enemy of the people to wonder how a man with Van Jones' background and beliefs got himself on the public payroll.

As if it wasn't enough that he described himself as a Communist and signed on to the accusation that President George W. Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen, Van Jones also is on record supporting Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther now sitting on death row for the murder of a police officer.

"A White House official conceded Sunday that Jones' past statements weren't as thoroughly scrubbed due to his relatively low rank," Politico reported late Sunday night. And then they said this: "Jones' selection also was propelled by powerful patrons, who included the first lady and the vice president."

Yet the Politico report goes on to say Vice President Biden met Van Jones for the first time in February, at an administration-sponsored roundtable. Here's Mr. Jones' account of their meeting:

"I just spoke from my heart and [Biden] looked me right in the eye...It wasn’t like he was taking notes or distracted...And he’s taken those ideas on board and that’s the kind of person he is, he is very down to earth...and I’ve since worked very closely with him and his staff to get a lot of those ideas implemented,” Jones said.

How many people do you suppose Joe Biden has looked "right in the eye," exactly that way, over the course of his phenomenally successful career in politics? It's like a scene right out of "Primary Colors."

Did an experienced politician like Joe Biden see last week's news stories about Van Jones and say, "He's my guy and I'm standing by him?"

America Wants To Know wouldn't bet a lot of money on that.

That leaves the other "powerful patron," first lady Michelle Obama.

Politico reports:

At a commencement address in the spring, first lady Michelle Obama held Jones up as an example to students of people who are doing interesting and innovative work.

"And then there's Van Jones, who recently joined the Obama administration, a special adviser to the president on green jobs. Van started out as a grassroots organizer and became an advocate and a creator of 'green collar' jobs – jobs that are not only good for the environment, but also provide good wages and career advancement for both skilled and unskilled workers," she said.

What exactly are these 'green jobs' that require no skill and pay good wages?

It's a mystery.

"There was little immediate talk of possible successors to Jones," Politico reported, "largely due to the sense he would be difficult to replace in an advisory post designed specifically for him, due to his past work in promoting 'green jobs.'"

Does anything about that strike you as odd?

If the task of creating 'green jobs' is so important, why is there only one person who can do it? And why is that person a former grassroots organizer? Wouldn't you expect the 'green jobs' czar to be a person with a background in science or engineering or energy, or management, or even government?

Back in May, America Wants To Know wrote to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to complain about the cap-and-trade climate-change legislation, which is designed to raise energy prices in order to force consumers to use less energy. We heard back from Rep. Waxman a month later.

"The American Clean Energy and Security Act will create millions of clean energy jobs," the chairman wrote.

What are these jobs, and why was Van Jones put in charge of creating them?

This is where we need a Chicago-to-English dictionary.

As it happens, America Wants To Know is a former Chicagoan and never throws away a book.

Here it is, on page 472:

Green jobs = Patronage jobs

Of course. Now it all makes sense.

The Democrats had a plan to pass legislation that would make everyone in America pay higher prices for energy. Then the government would take a cut by charging for licenses and permits, funneling some of that cash to the most reliable Democratic constituencies in the form of phony-baloney jobs that "provide good wages and career advancement for both skilled and unskilled workers."

That's why the guy in charge of creating 'green jobs' was a grassroots organizer. He knows who's owed a payoff for registering voters, ringing doorbells, driving people to the polls on Election Day, and getting Democrats elected.

This is not a position that can be filled by a scientist.

This is a job for a corrupt Chicago pol.

They might have gotten away with it, but the Obama administration foolishly entrusted this sensitive post to a flamboyant Californian with a deep love for the camera, and that brought the 'green jobs' scam into the spotlight.

If Michelle Obama is responsible for bringing Van Jones into the administration, the first lady has secured her legacy.

"There's Michelle Obama," Democrats will say when they see her, "She's the one who ruined it for everybody."


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "What Barack Obama didn't say."

.

The trouble with e-books

Forrester Research released a study this week which concluded that e-book readers are still too expensive to reach "the widest range of U.S. consumers."

The devices would have to be priced at $50, Forrester said, for consumers to think the "superior functionality" of electronic-book readers is worth the money. The e-readers have high-resolution screens that are easier on the eyes when reading, compared to the screens on smartphones which can also be used for reading e-books.

This is bad news for the makers of e-book readers, because $50 doesn't even cover the cost of the screen alone. E-readers are currently priced somewhere between $200 and $500.

"The majority of consumers don't care enough about reading or technology to invest in this type of single-purpose device at anything close to realistic prices," the study said.

However, Forrester still believes e-readers will have "phenomenal economic and social impact as they prove to consumers that digital reading can be a pleasurable experience."

Do they vibrate?

That's not a facetious question, or at least it's not a completely facetious question. America Wants To Know has written before that new technologies succeed with the public in direct proportion to their ability to display pornography, and those e-ink display screens are no match for an iPhone with a wireless connection to the Internet.

It's hard (sorry) difficult to get firm (sorry) reliable numbers, but if you believe people bought their first CD-ROM drive and satellite dish for the interactive encyclopedia and the East Coast feed of the NBC Nightly News, here's some advice: Delete those lottery and inheritance e-mails from Nigeria, they're not true either.

In addition to their inability to compete with Internet porn, e-readers have another fatal defect.

Nobody can see what you're reading.

You don't have to spend much time talking to people before you realize that more people buy books than read them.

Apparently there's a Rolex effect in the book business. Even though a $15 watch will tell the time equally well, people will pay a lot of money for a Rolex because it sends a message that the wearer is successful and wealthy.

In the same way, carrying around a book that "everybody" is talking about sends a message that the person carrying that book is informed, elite, interesting, and intelligent.

You don't actually have to read it. As long as it's displayed casually on a desk or coffee table, carried into a Starbucks, used to save a seat at the airport or placed prominently in a bookcase, it will do its job.

A Kindle, on the other hand, just sits there looking blank.

Another problem for e-readers becomes obvious when you study the bestseller lists the week before Christmas and the week after New Year's.

There are tens of millions of people in this country with male relatives who simply do not need another tie or sweater.

So every December, the bestseller list is jammed with weighty biographies of presidents and generals, with inspiring stories of CEOs and athletes, with somber books about wars and thick volumes on narrow slices of history.

They're wrapped as gifts and placed under Christmas trees and happily received as a compliment to the recipient's discerning intelligence.

They look really nice on the coffee table. The cover art is always rich and elegant.

A Sony e-Reader can't hold a Kindle to it (sorry).


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier posts, "Porn's Great Depression," "Howard Stern and the big secret" and "105-year-old Internet porn."

.

Why we're fighting

Believe it or not, the battle over health care reform has its roots in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court ruling that banned racial segregation in schools.

The Brown ruling was a landmark decision because it reversed the precedents which stretched all the way back to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were very careful to leave racial segregation untouched. Twice they specifically refused to adopt language that banned discrimination on the basis of race, citing their fear that the courts might use that language to strike down racial segregation, a result, they said, that was "not intended."

When the 20th century Supreme Court struck down racial segregation, the justices were asserting the power of the federal courts to set aside both precedents and statutes in order to achieve justice, a result that they believed could not be achieved by strictly following the Constitution.

Racial segregation, like slavery before it, was protected by the Constitution's division of power between the states and the federal government. It takes the approval of three-quarters of the states to amend the Constitution, and that's a very steep hill to climb. Who knows how many generations of African-Americans might have been forced by law to live as second-class citizens if the Supreme Court and the federal government had not stretched their powers in order to force the states to ban racial discrimination.

But here's the problem.

Not everything is slavery.

In fact, nothing else is slavery. No other injustice compares to turning people into property, so that the Constitution's vitally important protection of property rights would perversely hold people in bondage in the name of liberty.

Even though women, and immigrants, and gays, and Jews, and Catholics have experienced discrimination in the United States, nothing compares to slavery.

Nothing.

However, to many people who came of age in the post-Brown era, any attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing fairness of any kind, on any issue, is equivalent to opposing court-ordered desegregation.

That's why so many people are accusing health care reform opponents of racism, as House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel did on Thursday.

Is it racist to want to hold the federal government to the constitutional limits of its power?

In the case of school segregation, it was.

But is private health insurance like segregation? Is market pricing for pharmaceuticals like segregation? Is state-by-state regulation of insurance companies like segregation?

Are locally-controlled school curricula like segregation? Are lower federal taxes like segregation? Is a balanced budget like segregation?

You would think so, to listen to some politicians. Yesterday Vice President Joe Biden called the $787 billion stimulus bill "morally right."

Reasonable people can disagree over whether it is "morally right" to borrow money for federal spending and then send the bill to everybody's grandchildren, but right now we're all too angry at each other to be reasonable.

The health care reform bill is a dead body, and the politicians pretending to revive it are just maneuvering to get somebody else's fingerprints on the knife. But this is an argument we're going to keep having until we face the fact that Brown v. Board of Education was necessarily unconstitutional, and not a model for the expanded use of federal government power to solve every problem.


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: For more information and complete source notes on the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and the desegregation cases, please see the appendix to The 37th Amendment at www.ExtremeInk.com/appendix.htm.

.