Out of the Mainstream - Science Edition

Back in the Saddle

It's been quite a long break, and just to get things rolling again, some fun science-related articles that I have been collecting:

Finally proof that computer gaming and science go hand-in-hand:

Experience Relativity Firsthand In MIT Video Game That Slows The Speed Of Light

By Clay Dillow, Posted 11.07.2012 at 3:00 pm

When light slows to the speed of a stroll, things get very, very strange.

Nice to see Materials Science & Engineering making the national news!

Paper-thin super material stops flying bullets

By Alyssa Danigelis, Published November 14, 2012

Bulletproofing for soldiers and law enforcement officers has lightened up considerably in recent years, but it promises to get insanely thin with new nanotechnology coming out of MIT and Rice University.

And a fun commentary on Albert Einstein... or at least, his brain!

Einstein’s brain was different from other people’s

By Deborah Byrd - November 19, 2012

A new study led by Florida State University evolutionary anthropologist Dean Falk has revealed that portions of the brain of Albert Einstein are unlike those of most people. The differences could relate to Einstein’s unique discoveries about the nature of space and time. 

Our Dawning New Age...

On CNN tonight, they talked about the "new electorate", the young, minorities, etc.  About the same time, I stumbled on this tidbit from an NCAAP poll:

95% blacks say Feds should provide jobs 

Paul Bedard - November 6, 2012 - 2:33 pm  

Providing an 11th hour clue to how blacks will vote on the presidential stage, 95 percent of African Americans believe that the federal government should be the nation's jobs creator...

I think this is representative of this "new electorate"...  The only way to win them is to buy them.  I don't know why, and I don't know how, but my generation and younger have somehow convinced themselves that government, not individual initiative, is the engine of civilization, prosperity, and progress.

There's a quote attributed to Ben Franklin that sums up the dawning new age that this philosophy will bring:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

When democracy becomes a tool to expropriate what you want from others, we are all slaves.

What does it mean for you and me today? Maybe nothing... but the long, inexorable decline has truly begun.

Still true today...

This is exactly what I posted to Facebook four years ago on the Monday before the 2008 election:

To any who remain undecided, or who might be swayed in the final hours:

Here are two relevant definitions of "freedom" from dictionary.com:

"2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.  

3. the power to determine action without restraint."

And a couple of quotes from Ben Franklin:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

It may be tempting to cede freedom to government in exchange for the promise of "universal" health insurance, or a tax system where only the "rich" pay taxes, or "protection" from Chinese/Japanese/Mexican companies, but, ultimately, it won't work.

If anything, the last century has demonstrated that government control and government planning always do worse than freedom. (See the end of the cold war.)

Barack Obama has many high hopes for and eloquent words about government. But at the end of the day, he honestly believes that government control is better than freedom. Education, taxes, trade, domestic economics, labor relations--on all of these issues, his faith lies in central government control and central government planning.

I honestly believe that this is completely wrong, and that his leadership would be a disaster for our nation....

 This is at least as true today. Maybe even more so, as Obama has nothing to offer but more of the same divisive, punitive, central-planning, government-centered ideas.  I cannot support such a philosophy.

Summaries of the Benghazi incident... is this really Obama's doctrine?

If you get your news from CNN, Jon Stewart, the NY Times, or any other MSM media outlet, you probably don't know much about Benghazi... and, whatever you know, you're probably having a hard time figuring out why some people keep talking about it.

In case you need a bit of catching up, here are two relatively up to date summaries (one more sanitized than the other):

Benghazi: Obama's Actions Amount To A Shameful Dereliction Of Duty

Peter Ferrara, 10/25/2012 @ 9:19AM 

"Enough facts are in the public record about the Benghazi murders of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 others, including two Marines, that a final judgment can be rendered on President Obama’s handling of the affair.  Obama’s actions, or inactions, amounted to dereliction of duty, and worse."

Benghazi Timeline: The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack

Eugene Kiely, October 26, 2012 at FactCheck.org


We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. ... [But] we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack...[,] they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.



Note that even FactCheck.org can't get the lipstick on this pig!

I've already commented on the fact that there were American assets in place that were refused permission to defend Ambassador Stevens and his team.  We still don't know exactly who the feckless coward is that couldn't authorize every available means to defend these Americans... and MSM sure isn't asking.

Now, though, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is digging the Obama team an even bigger hole.  Here's Panetta's summary of why no help was ordered:

"(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation." 

I have a feeling that the idea of sitting on our hands while allowing an attack to proceed until we know "what's taking place" would surprise most Marines, Rangers, and Special Forces.  But then, Jonah Goldberg has pretty well covered how utterly ridiculous this statement is...

But let's think about this for a moment... is this really Obama's doctrine?  Let people die while the administration and DOD struggle to get their glasses on straight?  Wait to order up a defense until we've got all the details on any attack?  If Obama's defense establishment was so parallelized by this Benghazi incident, what would they look like during a larger crisis?  No wonder they thought going after bin Laden was some kind of gutsy call!

October Surprise: Hurricane Sandy

Will Hurricane Sandy be Obama's "McCain and the financial crisis" moment... or Romney's?

In 2004, McCain, thinking that the financial crisis was a big deal (it was) and that being Presidential meant running around with your head cut off, suspended his campaign and rushed back to Washington to... basically do nothing.  Obama, by contrast, kept on keeping on with his attacks on McCain, and ultimately just parroted Congressional Dems on the crisis.

Real crises are difficult beasts for politicians in the middle of a major race, let alone right at the end.  My sense is that Romney's steady, focused approach (combined with Chris Christie's presence as Governor of the state about to be the coming ashore point of Sandy!) gives him a leg up on Obama.  Obama is already reportedly planning a visit to FEMA headquarters... I'm guessing this'll appear to be exactly what it is:  posturing by getting in the way of the people actually doing the work.

That said, both candidates better tread lightly.....

Which brings us to what people along the heavily populated east coast between Virginia and Long Island should do...  Sitting well in the heartland of America behind an entire mountain range, I can afford to prognosticate.  And the National Hurricane Center's website is great for prognosticating.

That said, my take is that the wind will definitely knock out lots of power.  The rain will result in plenty of local flooding.  But neither of these effects will be a huge deal.  The thing that I think deserves some looking at, is the NHC's storm surge predictions.  It's the storm surge that overwhelmed New Orleans, and it'll be the storm surge that will really inundate low-lying communities... e.g., like large portions of Manhattan.

Bloomberg has closed the subway, and ordered evacuations of the lowest areas of the NYC.  Only time will tell the ultimate outcome.  For the time being, if your on the east coast, get stuff to higher floors, get ready to be without power, and, if you're in a storm-surge susceptible area: get out. 

"Out of the Mainstream", Weekend reads II

In this edition:

• Romney's tax policy is actually great policy, and good politics... that's why Obama is struggling to take it down no matter what.
• The WSJ climbs on my Federalism band wagon!
• Another reason Obama's "Horses and bayonets" sneer is full of holes
• Can the philosophical origins of modern economic malaise be laid at the feet of modern consumerist narcissism?

WSJ: Romney's Tax Deduction Cap: Good Tax Policy, Better Politics

Linked 10/20/2012 by Paul L. Caron at TaxProf Blog

"[D]etails aside, the tax cap is a big idea, and potentially a very good one. The proposal makes economic sense to the extent that it helps to pay for lower marginal tax rates. ...

The idea may be even better politically."

Plenty of Debates, Not Much About States

Democrats regard federalism as quaint, Republicans at least pay lip service to it.

David B. Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley, October 23, 2012

"The idea that the Constitution grants only limited and enumerated powers and leaves the remainder to the states is foreign to those who believe that the national government should or even could address voters' every concern. But contrary to the view widely shared by the political class, Washington—in particular, Congress—does not have the power to pass any law it wants in the name of the 'general welfare.'"

Holes in the Hull 

Liberals confuse sneering for intellectual confidence.

By Jonah Goldberg, OCTOBER 26, 2012 12:00 A.M.

"This struck me as an example of how thoroughly liberalism has confused sneering for intellectual confidence. It shouldn't be surprising, given that comedy shows often substitute for news programs, particularly for younger liberals. That's probably why the president has been spending more time talking to DJs, entertainment shows, and comedians than to reporters. He desperately needs the support of low-information voters, who've replaced the old adage 'it’s funny because it's true' with 'if it's funny, it must be true.'"

Guest Post: Narcissism, Consumerism And The End Of Growth

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/20/2012 10:16 -0400 at ZeroHedge

"We need a third way that offers people work, resilience and authentic meaning. In my view, that cannot come from the Central State or the global corporate workplace: it can only come from a relocalized economy in revitalized communities."

We let them die, let the killers get away, then lied about what happened.

"What this means is that we have the forces in the air and on the ground to have stopped the attack at any point, eliminating the terrorists and saving American lives."

AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire

Bob Owens - October 26, 2012 - 9:50 am


The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets....

It was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types, including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the administration had let it fire. 

CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

By Jennifer Griffin - October 26, 2012



"...an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. "


Maybe there were military or diplomatic reasons to allow the attack to proceed unhindered.  But then why did Obama and his surrogates continue to claim that the problem was free speech??  This was an attack on America, entirely unrelated to some specific expression of free speech.

An American ambassador was murdered, American forces refused to intervene, and the American President went to the UN and told the world that he believes in free speech... unless it pisses off Muslims, and, therefore, though murder is terrible, the people who really need to change their ways are those that speak ill of Muhammed.

Amazing.

"Attacking me is not an agenda..."

The narrative has slipped away from Obama... which means the attacks are just going to get increasingly shrill and hysterical.

This is a pretty good line from Romney:



But more revealing is how far out of Obama's control the overall narrative has swung.  Reading through the static, it appears Team Obama is now desperately trying to build a "Romney as flip-flopper" narrative.  This is completely reactionary as Obama reels from the discovery by everyday Americans that Romney isn't the psychotic, "imprison-women-in-the-1950s", "Ebeenezer-Scrooge-what-are-the-poor-houses-full?" monster Obama and the MSM have been making him out to be.

The flip-flopper approach is also unlikely to hold water as Romney increasingly focuses past Obama and continues to lock in on actual ideas and policies.  Every day Romney spends talking about what he'll do when he's President while Obama shrilly (literally--have you listened to his voice when he gets himself worked up into attack-attack-attack mode?) and derisively attacks Romney (instead of talking about his own ideas) is a win for Romney.

E.J. Dionne captures the overall meme nicely.  This article is a complete mess--it's not even internally consistent (is the tea party dead, or is it just marching under a "false flag"?)--but it nicely demonstrates how the "flip-flopper" line boils down to the fact that Romney has never been what the lefties have claimed he is.  As this becomes clear to America, those ensconced in the liberal narrative are left spluttering "Romney has changed his stripes."  Hilariously enough, it was those same lefties, hoping to bring Romney down in the GOP primaries, that so relished exposing Mitt's moderate positions in an effort to scare off the same tea partiers that Dionne incoherently dismisses.

In any case, as the narrative continues to drift away from Obama, I can guarantee that the attacks will get more outlandish and shrill.  Should be a fun ride.

We interrupt this narrative...

Everybody loves a good zinger... right?

#Narrativefail.

Full version.

Regarding Federalism...

Will we be a free people, warts and all, or will we empower an over-class to force those who disagree with us to behave as we want?

A friend of mine commented on my recent abortion posting, saying, in part:

[Return control of abortion policy to s]tates and local communities? That would be the worst. At the federal level there is a much better chance that the extremes even out. The smaller the unit, the larger the outliers can get. Do I want politicians, such as Todd Akin and Paul Broun, or worse, the people who elect them, decide such important questions? No, thanks... We would still have segragation if it was up to some "local communities"…

So much of this is opposite my entire philosophy of government!  On the one hand, my friend says "Do I want politicians… decid[ing] such an important question? No[.]" But, paradoxically, he says this in support of an argument that the distant federal government should, in fact, decide such an important question!

For me, if government is going to decide an important and controversial issue, then the government deciding said issue should be the most responsive and most accessible to me.  By every metric, this means local government.  The proportional value of my vote, my contribution dollars, my time, and my actual voice are all orders of magnitude more important and influential in a local election than in even a state election.

We sometimes miss this point, that we truly have influence in local elections, because our media is almost entirely focused on national politics.  Often we do not even know the names of our local politicians.  But even today, they have immense influence on our everyday lives, and, by the way, they live in our very own communities and neighborhoods.  Unlike national- or even state-level politicians, we can actually talk with our local politicians.

Beyond this, note how my friend seeks to use government:  to "even out" extremes.  Do you understand what that means?  The idea is to use central control to achieve some kind of normalized universal outcome, and enforce that across the entire populace.  Such a result minimizes individual liberty, and maximizes government power and control by setting up some kind of arbiter, I assume majoritarianism (pure democracy), interpreted, presumably, by some all powerful professional bureaucracy.  This bureaucracy would necessarily be distant and deaf to anything I (or you) would have to say, and would be held in thrall (as national politics is today) to the large, organized special interests (labor, corporations, etc.).

In contrast, I hold as ideal a place where the patchwork of local personalities results in a patchwork of local law and conditions.  This maximizes individual freedom, ensuring that the most people possible would live under the policy they agreed with, and, most importantly, maximizing the influence and importance of individual citizens (you and me) in determining policy.

This difference is easily examined!  The central control vision seeks something akin to a strong centralized EU, where a patchwork of nations is subsumed into a bland and culture-less whole.  My friend, I must admit, argues this, in part from personal experience, as he has seen how allowing localities to do as they please can result in terrible outcomes for people locked in repressive enclaves.  But there is the crux of it.  In my ideal federal nation, ones ability to move and shift between localities is unfettered.  Unlike the Europe of old where national boundaries not only marked huge differences in policy, but also represented almost insurmountable barriers for the average citizen to move across, I envision a world in which a move to the next locality over would be trivial and common place.

Where as advocates of central control seek an authority to achieve normalized outcomes by fiat or dictate (on the basis of majoritarianism or not), I seek to allow free people to achieve normalized outcomes by free choice.  It's like gas stations.  Why don't you see individual gas stations charging crazy prices?  Because they know you can just go down the street to another gas station.  The same would be true of laws.  Would there be variation?  Yes.  Variation to things that you or I would find unacceptable?  Sure.  But this would be a good thing… because then both you and I, and those whom we disagree with on various issues could all live in maximum freedom--they under laws we cannot accept, and we under other laws.

This is not some utopian vision.  It is a real and present vision that has been operative in this country for generations.  True, since the founding, the lazy expedient of surrendering local control (and therefore local responsibility) to increasingly distant and faceless higher government has eviscerated entire swaths of federalism, we know that it works.  We live it (still) every day.

On the issue of abortion, we will never all agree. Any "normalized national outcome" will always be anathema to half (or more) of the population.  There is a better, freer way.  Stop trying to dictate the un-agreeable from distant and unresponsive Washington.  End the vitriol, and oppression by handing control back to people who you see in church or at the grocery store or the gym.

As for segregation, the suggestion is that "we" would still have it, if left to local communities.  I think this is probably true, official segregation would likely still exist in bigoted enclaves. But any community left in the US that would support official segregationist policies is already a community few would choose to live in.  That is, if a community would support official segregation, they're surely already bigots.  As things stand, it's just that there isn't a obvious public way to identify these communities.

But I don't think that quite addresses the point that was being made.  The point is that segregation is "bad".  But is democracy, then, just a tool for us to enforce our "enlightened" will on others?  I reject this…. and have written at length about this idea of using the power of government and democracy to enforce morality.  Here's the key passage--and note, the question of federalism itself is just a re-casting of this same question:

In truth, all of this reduces to a stark philosophical question: will we be a free people, warts and all, or will we empower an over-class to force those who disagree with us to behave as we want? This is not a new fight... it's an extension of all humanities struggle to wrest civilization from our world. It was the founders fight against England and amongst themselves. In Obama and the policy questions of today we only come to a kind of culmination... never in recent history has the division been so stark. I know my choice, and you can trace all of my policy positions directly to it... but have you made your choice? Have you considered the relation of your individual policy positions to this fundamental question?

It really is OK to support Mitt Romney...

Liberals and progressives have worked desperately to make it socially unacceptable to support Mitt Romney.  Thankfully those attempts are now falling apart.

You are not a social pariah for believing in individual liberty, and for supporting freedom over central government control.  You're not racist/anti-women/anti-immigrant/anti-environment/anti-"middle class" if you support Romney.  He isn't going to occupy your vagina, or enslave you to Exxon-Mobil, or do whatever the progressive lefty meme of the moment claims.  You, and a lot of other people, just believe that Obama's redistributionist, class warfare, government-centered policies are wrong for America.  And I agree with you.

Remember a few weeks ago when the MSM was already conducting pre-election autopsies on the Romney campaign.  They struggled manfully to be the fork stuck in the Romney effort.  Lot's of wishful thinking there, apparently:

Gallup shows durable 7-point lead for Romney among likely voters
10/21/2012

The problem isn't Obama's presentation, or that he's not aggressive enough.  The problem is his policies.  And Americans are seeing this increasingly clearly.

See the numbers and trends at right on the linked page.

I tend to believe the subtle shift underlying the evolution in these numbers is because people in the middle are taking a few seconds to actual hear Romney speak himself, or are taking a look at what he actually says, e.g., on his website.  As more of us come out supporting Romney, and make rational, reasoned, positive cases for doing so, the crumbling facade of the liberal narratives against Romney, will continue to fall.

It'll be interesting to see how shrill the progressives and the MSM get... Nobody keys your car for supporting Obama.  Now that he is down in the polls, what tactics do you think we'll see?  The final outcome will be all about turnout.  The Republicans are pretty motivated.  But the MSM , big labor, and all the usual suspects will be doing everything in power to disrupt and influence the final outcome.

It's going to be an interesting ride!

On the subject of abortion, or "reproductive rights", or whatever...

It's interesting to me how exercised people get over abortion.  Not because it isn't an issue deserving of passion and intensity, but because of how well it illustrates the brilliance of our political system... and how desperately both sides of the issue struggle to pervert that brilliance.

You see, the true believers are certain that human life begins at conception, or that until the moment of live birth pregnancy is just an infection with a parasitic clump of cells. How can we reconcile these views--that abortion is necessarily murder, and that without abortion women are slaves?

The point is, we can't reconcile them.  These views are fundamentally incompatible.

So... what then do we do?  Do we allow routine murder or enslave half the population?  Well, if we listen the rabid foot soldiers of the pro-this or pro-that armies, we MUST absolutely adopt one position or the other, and simply dictate to those who don't agree with us.

But this is a ridiculous perversion of our nation! There is no way we must absolutely dictate our position to those who disagree. We have a solution to this problem at our fingertips!  It's called federalism.

You see, the world is full of unknowable, unanswerable questions and judgments.  We are all different, and all reach different conclusions.  But our system of government has been intentionally designed to accommodate this! Under our system, only the most broadly agreed policies are to be enacted at the federal level.  For any policy so enacted dictates to all citizens, and there is no recourse but submission to any that disagree.  In contrast, more controversial or less agreed issues should be handled by the states, or even local communities.  In this way, those that agree can establish their governments as they see fit, and not impinge on those who disagree!

Even democratically enacted policies (which the current Federal policy on abortion is not) are subject to the "tyranny of the masses" flaw--that democracy allows 50.1% of the population to dictate to the other 49.9%.  Hence the fundamental importance of federalism in enabling democracy.  Remember that at the time of the founding, no human democracy had ever succeeded.  It is the combination of representative government and federalism with democracy that make democratic government viable. Why have we forgotten this?  Why do the zealots of the abortion debate so often reject this?

The federal government should have no say in the legality or illegality of abortion.  There is no way that we can broadly agree on this issue.  It must be left to the states and local governments.

...And why shouldn't it be?  Why would it be wrong for abortion to be legal some places and not others?  The only argument I can come up with is that if state's made it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion.  But this is clearly wrong, and clearly unconstitutional, no matter what the history of the issue is.  Interstate commerce, which surely includes services, can not be controlled by the states.

It is so simple.  Allow federalism to do what it was designed to do... allow us to live together though we fundamentally disagree!

Now, of course, we come to the election of the moment.  And here, we all know, the supporters of Barack Obama have been vehemently, desperately painting Mitt Romney as "anti-woman"... why?  Because he personally opposes abortion, and politically believes.... what?...

Quoting directly from Romney's campaign website:

Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

There it is... federalism!

Mitt Romney does not want to dictate abortion policy to you.  He simply wants to empower you and your neighbors to decide for yourselves.  This is freedom.  Yes, some places will likely outlaw abortion.  But we are clearly a divided nation, and many places will not.

Do not succumb to the irrational and wasted anger of the true zealots.  You may firmly believe that legal abortion is murder, or that making abortion illegal is enslavement of women, but do you also believe you have the right to dictate your moral views to the entire nation?  Return power over this controversial issue to where it belongs:  the states and local communities.

Not only is the whole abortion debate completely inappropriate at the federal level, but to attack Mitt Romney for living the essence of our federal democracy--by holding strong personal beliefs, but acknowledging the primacy of democratic self-government--is ridiculous.

But didn't we already catch the guy responsible??

It was just yesterday that Obama was at the UN assuring the world that the problem was free speech

Hillary Clinton drops strong hint that Al Qaeda was behind Libya attack

By Howard LaFranchi | Christian Science Monitor – 9/27/2012

Hillary Clinton told a UN meeting on security in North Africa that the Libya attack points to how several extremist groups – including an Al Qaeda affiliate – are destabilizing the region.



See also:  What the unraveling of Obama's Benghazi narrative tells us.

What the unraveling of Obama's Benghazi narrative tells us

Obama was sure he could free oppressed people better than Bush.  He was wrong.

There's an untold story here, in my opinion.  I think that Obama thought he could do better than Bush.  Bush ended up claiming that advancing freedom was the primary motivation for his "wars of choice", as the Dems call our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Obama, I think, was certain he could do better--in fact, that he could "advance freedom" without deploying ground forces at all. Obama and his acolytes were sure they could precipitate a greater birth of freedom than anything Bush's bloody dying and stumbling managed.  Hence, as Morrissey puts it, "Obama pushed Hosni Mubarak out of power in Egypt, and he bombed Qaddafi out of power in Libya."  ...and now he's left the aftermath to his hands-off "smart diplomacy."

There are plenty of problems with this... but let's just point out one. If you remember, Bush tried basically the same thing: invade Iraq, get rid of the bad guys, then get out.  Bush learned pretty quickly, and at great cost in lives, that nature abhors a (power) vacuum.  The "wars of choice" that liberals so revile are really the "occupations" and grinding wars of attrition that are, in fact, the US trying to fill the sudden power vacuums created by the removal of prior regimes.  These "occupations" are intended to give democratic and liberal institutions time to establish themselves--hopefully strong enough to resist the extremists and terrorists who make it their living to not only be ready to take advantage of power vacuums, but to, in fact, create them.

You would think that the Alinsky-trained Obama would understand this.  How does the line go, something about making sure to take advantage of every crisis.  This is exactly what every extremist and terrorist on earth is doing... the only difference between an Alinsky-ite "activist" and a radical Islamist "terrorist" is that one seeks through violence and destruction to *create crisis* in order to take advantage of them, while the other peaceably protests until a good crisis comes along.

So here is Obama, joyfully and proudly helping to create a power vacuum with no intention whatsoever of doing anything to fill that vacuum.  What could go wrong?  Well, my friend, reap the whirlwind.  The Muslim Brotherhood surely is......



CS Monitor: Say, this admission on Benghazi terrorist attack might cause Obama a few problems

POSTED AT 10:01 AM ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY

The cover story offered by the White House shows just how badly they miscalculated on the Arab Spring, and the inevitable seizure of power by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the rise of AQ in eastern Libya, two utterly predictable consequences of Obama’s interventions.  It also shows that the Obama administration, from the top down, understood just how bad this story was — and either lied to themselves, lied to us, or a bit of both in order to avoid the consequences of it.  That might be the most damaging revelation of all.

"Out of the Mainstream" - Weekend reads

Some MSM-narrative-busting things I'm reading but don't have the time or energy to post on in detail.

In this edition:

• Propaganda Update: TV Networks Will Be Asked to Boost ObamaCare In Plots of Their Top Shows

By Tim Graham | September 15, 2012 | 10:29 

Abby Goodnough of The New York Times is reporting [that California] has hired a PR firm (with federal government money)... to tap major network TV shows like "Grey's Anatomy" and "Modern Family" to sell Americans on the health care law.

• Mastermind of World Trade Center bombing to be “transferred” to Egypt?

September 17, 2012 - 4:47 pm - by Roger Kimball

You know the old expression “It’s always worse than you think”?  In that department, anyway, the Obama administration is the gift that keeps on giving.

 I thought a line had been crossed when sheriffs showed up at midnight to bundle away a man who had made an anti-Islamic  movie that embarrassed the President. Then there was the murder of our Ambassador and three other Americans in Libya: the administration’ response: blame Romney, apologize for the “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”

Will there ever be a last straw for the MSM that is acting as Obama’s press corps? Is there anything Obama could do that would make them say “Enough!” and stand up for America? What would it take?  

 How about this: the announcement that the Obama administration is considering transferring the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing, to Egypt “for humanitarian and health reasons.” Incredulous?  Then you underestimate the Islamophilc nature of the Obama administration.

• The Obama you don't know

The Washington Examiner - September 19, 2012 | 10:19 pm | Modified: September 20, 2012 at 12:06 am

...With his air of reasonableness and moderation, he has projected a remarkably likable persona. Even in the midst of a historically dirty campaign for re-election, his likability numbers remain impressive, as seen in a recent AP-GFK Poll that found 53 percent of adults have a favorable view of him.

 But beyond the spin and the polls, a starkly different picture emerges. It is a portrait of a man quite unlike his image, not a visionary reformer but rather a classic Chicago machine pol who thrives on rewarding himself and his friends with the spoils of public office, and who uses his position to punish his enemies.

• Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR | Associated Press – Thu, Sep 20, 2012

Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

• How to plan a career in your 20s to stay home with kids in your 30s

Penelope Trunk, September 14th, 2012

Forbes just published a survey that shows that 84% of working women want to stay home with kids . The new job that everyone wants is stay-at-home mom....

So now that we are acknowledging that women aspire to stay home with kids, the question remains, “What should women do in their twenties to get to that life they want in their thirties?”

Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, is famous for telling women don’t quit before you quit. She says women should see if they want to stay home with kids before they start fading out of the their work life. This is great advice for the 16% of women who don’t want to stay home with kids. But for everyone else, it seems very smart to start preparing to shift your work life to accommodate the shift in your identity to becoming a mom.

Here’s how to make that shift work for you...

That's one way to change the conversation!

Massive #NARRATIVEFAIL:  Romney releases taxes, turns out he's not a greedy bastard!

POOR MITT. APPARENTLY, NOTHING HE DOES MAKES THEM HAPPY. 

Glenn Reynolds at 2:53 pm, September 12, 2012

Romney Tax Returns Released, Left outraged Romney paid too MUCH in taxes, gave 30 percent to charity; Reid, Biden hardest hit.

I'm pretty surprised he did this... although, it very much reminds me of the Saving Private Ryan scene where Horvath is going to shoot Reiben for insubordination. To break the mood/conversation/action and bring everyone back into perspective, Miller (Hanks) asks what the pool on his job back home is up to... Then he casually but forcefully announces that "back home" he's an English teacher.

Bash Romney all you want.  Bash away.  Yes, he's rich and a politician.  But he's also family man, an honest man, a religious man, successful businessman, and, put this in your pipe and smoke it, "back home" he's a generous man.

Sacrificing even the children to maintain government (and union?) control

Better that everybody suffers than allow some the opportunity at a better education

There are a couple of threads to this story:  (1) that the Metro Nashville Public School (MNPS) Board has rejected, for the third time, and in defiance of a TN State School Board directive, an application by Great Hearts Academies to establish a charter school in Nashville, (2) that in response the TN State School Board has now withheld $3.4M in administrative support funds from MNPS, and (3) in parallel MNPS Board members are admitting that people all over the district are looking into a state law that allows parents and teachers to take over control of a public school from the School Board by "charter-izing" the school.

What the heck is going on in Nashville??  Well, it's really quite simple. Residents pay lots of money in taxes to support public schools. Lots of parents are dissatisfied with the quality of education being provided in exchange for those tax dollars. These parents are (shockingly!) thinking that breaking the one-size-fits-no-one dictatorial monopoly that the MNPS Board imposes on schooling in Nashville might not be a good thing, and are looking for ways to offer Nashville students (their children) more and better options. The MNPS Board, knowing a threat to their power and personal missions ("not what you think is best for your children, but what we think is best for whoever we think should get the best") when they see one, are stubbornly fighting back...

Bottom line:  Great Hearts Academics, which runs about a dozen very well-respected charter schools in Arizona wants to put a charter school in Nashville. Charters in TN receive public money equivalent to what the public schools receive for each student they enroll. Charters must satisfy all local school requirements but are permitted to set higher standards---wait... what?  You need permission to set higher standards?  Well, in fact, you do.  Even things like offering a longer school day are forbidden to regular public schools!  Amazing, no?  Anyways, I digress. Charters in TN are simply public schools run by organizations other than the School Board.  So the establishment of a charter in TN is simply a taking away of power from a School Board, and an empowerment of... what? A corporation?... Well, no!, as state law requires that parents control the board that oversees a charter school.

You see how evil this all is... right?... right??

In this case, because Great Hearts is known for very high academic performance in Arizona (seemingly a good thing), Nashville school board members (5 out of 9, in fact) have reached the conclusion that such a charter in Nashville will be a de facto segregated school, despite the fact, that, as a public charter in TN, must obey TN state law, which reads (find this text yourself here):

49-13-113.  Enrollment.  

  (a) Participation in a public charter school shall be based on parental choice or the choice of the legal guardian or custodian.

(b)  (1) A charter school shall enroll an eligible pupil who submits a timely application, unless the number of applications exceeds the capacity of a program, class, grade level or building.

   (2)  (A) If applications exceed the planned capacity of the public charter school, the following preferences shall apply:

         (i) Pupils in attendance in the previous school year at any public school that converts to become a public charter school;

         (ii) Pupils attending public schools within the LEA in which the public charter school is located, if those pupils would otherwise be included in the area in which the public charter school will focus;

         (iii) Children residing within the LEA service area in which the public charter school is located, but who are not enrolled in public schools, if those children would otherwise be included in the area in which the public charter school will focus; and

         (iv) Children residing outside the LEA in which the public charter school is located and whose needs would be included in the area in which the public charter school will focus.

      (B) If enrollment within a group of preference set out in subdivision (b)(2)(A) exceeds the planned capacity of the school, enrollment within that group shall be determined on the basis of a lottery.

(c) Subject to the requirements of subsections (a) and (b), preference may be afforded to the children of a teacher, sponsor or member of the governing body of the charter school, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of total enrollment or twenty-five (25) students, whichever is less.

(d) Subject to the requirement of subsections (a) and (b), preference may be afforded to the siblings of a pupil who is already enrolled.

Did you catch that?? In other words, charters have to enroll students the say way the normal publics do!  Anybody who wants it, gets in, so long as there is room!

SO WHAT IS THE MNPS' OBJECTION?

They would rather EVERYONE continue to suffer lower standards and poorer outcomes than give up a bit of power to offer EVERYONE the possibility of something better than the local government schools.  Classic.

Oh, right, it gets even better.  How much better do people expect a charter to be than the MNPS government schools?  So much better that people "all over" Nasvhville are looking into taking over their local MNPS school using a never-before-used state law that allows parents and teachers to wrest control of a school from the local school board.  Amazing.

Good thing the citizens have the MNPS Board looking out for them and their children!

Metro defies state, denies Great Hearts

Lisa Fingeroot, 8:07 PM, Sep 11, 2012

In a surprise move, the Metro Nashville school board defied the state’s education power structure Tuesday and denied a controversial charter school for Nashville’s West Side over concerns that it would cater mainly to wealthy, white families.


Nashville schools to lose $3.4M over rejection of Great Hearts: 
TN Department of Education to withhold funds after Metro school board rejected charter school

Nate Rau, 8:52 AM, Sep 18, 2012

The Tennessee Department of Education is expected to announce as early as today that it will withhold more than $3 million in education funds from Metro Nashville Public Schools in response to the board’s decision last week to reject the Great Hearts Academy charter school application.

Nashville parents explore taking over schools: Never-before-used state triggers law allows public schools to be converted into charters

Nate Rau, 11:42 PM, Sep 19, 2012

Dissatisfied parents and elected officials from West Nashville are exploring a never-before-utilized state law that would allow a public school to be converted into a parent-controlled charter school.

Boy, that went away quick...

Maybe this is why that whole Romney video thing has disappeared from the MSM so quickly!

64% Think Too Many Americans Dependent on Government Financial Aid

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Americans strongly believe that there is too much government dependency in the country today. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 64% of Adults think there are too many Americans dependent on the government for financial aid. Just 10% think not enough Americans are dependent on the government, while 16% say the level of dependency is about right.

Oops!!  I thought Romney was way out of the mainstream... a psychopath!  Turns out, America agrees with him!

Annals of Stupid Government

We really should turn over something important, like healthcare, to government!

Classic example of unintended consequences. If only politicians could take lessons from doctors in "first rules".  When you enunciate a moral good (that kids eat less and healthier lunches) and attempt to use government to dictate it, though, you will invariable get it wrong and be swamped with unintended side effects.  The point being:  the Federal government has no business sticking it's nose into school lunches.  (Hat Tip:  Shelly Fox)

Students strike against new federal school lunch rules

Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel Editorial

By 7 a.m. Monday, senior Nick Blohm already had burned about 250 calories in the Mukwonago High School weight room.

He grabbed a bagel and a Gatorade afterward; if he eats before lifting, he gets sick.

That was followed by eight periods in the classroom, and then three hours of football practice. By the time he headed home, he had burned upward of 3,000 calories - his coach thinks the number is even higher.

But the calorie cap for his school lunch? 850 calories.

"Please, sir, I want some more!"

Mom sues police and neighbor after she is arrested for letting her kids play outside

By Claudine Zap | The Sideshow – 22 hrs ago

Allowing your kids to play on scooters outside the house on a quiet street seems innocent--and common--enough. But a Texas mom was arrested and spent the night in jail after a neighbor complained that the children were unsupervised.

The parent, Tammy Cooper, disputes the "humiliating" charge, saying she was watching the kids, ages 6 and 9, the whole time from a lawn chair.

And one for state and local government, too, of course!  I am an equal opportunity ridiculer...

City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant lot


By Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo! News | The Sideshow – September 20, 2012

A business developer in the Philadelphia neighborhood of Point Breeze is facing legal action after voluntarily cleaning up more than 40 tons of trash from a vacant lot neighboring his local business.

"Out of the Mainstream" Round-up

Just in case you were getting comfortable in the narrative...

So you thought the video of Romney was damning... I mean if you don't think about it too deeply, it sure sounds bad.  Slam dunk, right?  I mean, it's not like the Nixon tapes or anything where critical sections are missing.... right?... right?

What about the missing two minutes? Mystery over gap in secret tapes of Mitt Romney's '47 per cent' fundraiser

By TOBY HARNDEN

PUBLISHED: 12:55 EST, 19 September 2012 | UPDATED: 16:14 EST, 19 September 2012

via The Daily Mail

Mother Jones admits that 'one to two minutes' of the Republican nominee's embarrassing fundraising video may be missing.

MORE:

SELECTIVE EDIT? MOTHER JONES ADMITS ROMNEY TAPE MISSING 'ONE TO TWO MINUTES'

by JOEL B. POLLAK  19 Sep 2012, 12:04 AM PDT

via Big Journalism

Mother Jones, the left-wing magazine that released a controversial video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's remarks to a fundraiser in May, now admits that it has no full tape of what Romney said, and that its video is missing "one to two minutes" at the most important moment.

Strange... I seem to remember a guerilla-warfare style video kerfuffle during which the MSM was certain that the videos had been selectively edited.  I wonder why the MSM isn't just all over this instance of "missing minutes"?  Oh, right... how could I forget the double standard??

“Complete” video of Romney missing 1-2 minutes of remarks on the 47%

POSTED AT 10:41 AM ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY

    

The last 48 hours of media commentary has evinced an interesting, and entirely unsurprising, double standard, or perhaps triple standard. 

Of course, there's always a conspiracy theory...  I don't know that I completely believe this... but it certainly is convienent, and the animated gif at the end of this post is pretty damning.  Note that the subtle changes look like they are due to changes in focal plane and depth of focus due to the two new foreground objects.

Romney Tape Gap NOT Recording Error (UPDATED)

by KEVIN posted on SEPTEMBER 19, 2012

I think that I can prove that the Romney tape “1-2 minute gap” was not the result of a technical failure, but instead was done in post-production.

Then, of course, there's this hilarious tidbit... "self-fashioned Democratic opposition researcher"... HA!

Carter grandson arranged Romney video's release

By JOSH LEDERMAN | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago

Midway through a routine Internet search, James Carter IV stumbled upon a video that just didn't seem right. The grandson of former President Jimmy Carter and a self-fashioned Democratic opposition researcher...

Bottom line:  I don't think it matters.  Romney's point was simple, and already clear from the video that we have been shown: that there are a host of people who believe that the solution to the ills of society is for government to "do something" or "provide something"--this is what Romney calls a "government-centered" society--and that these people will vote against Romney no matter what.  

For me, I look at it more fundamentally... it's the crux of so many exchanges I've been having recently, the idea that just because you think (or a majority of Americans think) that something is morally good, that does not mean that we should use government to force everyone to act according to your beliefs.  I'd rather not re-hash.  You can read the long presentation of this concept here, if you care to and haven't already.

Whatever the case, if you fundamentally believe that government should solve our problems, then you reject Romney's statements and are likely offended by them.  But if you believe that it is not the proper role of government to enforce morality on your neighbors, then however "inelegant" Romney may claim his statement was, you likely want to say, "Well, yeah, exactly!" every time you hear it replayed.

So does it matter whether comments critical to the context of Romney's statement were excised? Probably not.  But if you find yourself being swayed one way or another by this video... think carefully. Romney is right. Relying on and empowering government to dictate moral choices (e.g., "nobody should be without health insurance in a developed country, therefore we must all pay more to provide it to those who don't have it") is a path orthogonal to and away from freedom... and, like elections, choosing such paths has consequences. 

Decide for yourself whether government should be used as a tool to force those you disagree with to behave the way you want them to.  Decide for yourself whether you want the lazy ease of knowing that government is making you behave morally, instead of accepting the challenge and behaving morally of your own volition.

"Canada rises to Top Five in world economic freedom ranking as U.S. plummets to 18th"

But income inequality is down... right?

Canada rises to Top Five in world economic freedom ranking as U.S. plummets to 18th

Sarah Boesveld | Sep 18, 2012 6:31 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 18, 2012 3:17 PM ET
via the National Post

Canada has taken its place among the Top 5 countries with the most economic freedom, according to a new Fraser Institute report — now leaps and bounds ahead of the United States thanks to the gradual shrinking of the Canadian government since the mid-1990s as America’s just got bigger.



Another nice litmus test... Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?  Then ask yourself if the domestic policies you support are consistent with your answer...

Wouldn't want to engage too much...

On moving discussion and comments out of the Facebook universe.

I've moved most of my posting and commenting off of Facebook. Nobody's told me to my face that I'm... too challenging... but I'm sure I've deafened more than one ear! It is interesting to me, though. People put up comments, ideas, posts that I can only assume they have actually thought about, and therefore that they are not only ready to, but interested in, exploring and exchanging over. There are a lot of people, though, I sense, that don't approach the world as I do... I'm constantly pondering, forming opinions, discussing and debating opinions, reforming opinions, and re-debating, seeking that feeling of self-awareness and confidence that only emerges from opening yourself to the ideas and visions of others.

My sense is that there are a lot of people who want to be able to broadcast their worldview, but not have to engage over it. I don't really understand that perspective, but I can surely honor their wishes. So if you want to subject yourself to my overbearing, over-opinionated, ever-sleep-deprived invitations to debate, disagree, digress, and digest, click through my comments and posts. If not, ignore them--as you're probably already doing.

As for me, though, I don't say or post things I don't believe. I don't believe things that I have not pondered and considered. I do not ponder and consider things that I am not fully open to discussing. I seek to discover that I am wrong *far* more than I seek to end up being right, for being wrong and discovering it is the only way to more clearly and vibrantly see the world.

I'd love to sit with you and work for us both to see the world more clearly.

Moving forward, I'll generally post both comments and links as click-throughs, such that those not interested won't be spammed, or at least not spammed as much. I'm still working on the mechanics, but hopefully I can find some nice medium were we can have a healthy and vigorous back-and-forth, without darkening the pages of those not interested.

Fair Share

Sure, let's have a discussion of what our "fair share" is...

Your Taxes At Work: All You Need To Know About Who Pays What Taxes In The US

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/18/2012 18:56 -0400

Presented with little comment - since the charts speak for themselves. From Buffett to a Burger-flipper, everyone has a view - driven in large part by their anchoring bias of who they choose to listen to. The graphics below will help, we hope, to clarify that thinking - whether you are the 1%, 47%, or 99%...






Obviously I don't know what "fair share" means...  Gotta love Orwellian language!

Politics and Facebook

I read a great statistic in a related article... that there were 1.8 million tweets on election day 2008.  There are that many tweets now in just six minutes.  What role, then, for social media generally in politics?

Many aghast at Facebook friends' politics, study finds

by Chris Matyszczyk  March 12, 2012 5:28 PM PDT

It seems, astonishingly, that people aren't quite so familiar with how politically peculiar their Facebook friends are. At least that's what a Pew Study says. It also says 75 percent post something political.

Some on Facebook enjoy having their views challenged... few, I suspect, enjoy the mindless spamming of the extremist meme of the moment. At least I like to think I may count myself among the former.

Can it really be, though, that we are aghast at what others in FB acquaintances support?  Aghast: surprise or shock, particularly in at a negative or unhappy discovery.  Are you really "aghast" that someone might disagree with you?

A while back, in a comment on FB I can't find, I asserted that we are all working for the same end:  the best for everybody. If you don't think that is so, then you and I can have little to talk about.  But that's the critical question, though... and it's answer is truly revealing:  Do you believe that we are all working for the best for everybody?  I do think our recent political history is a stumbling block though. We are not accustomed to sustained and reasoned argumentation on our most sensitive topics. Our public discourse has devolved to utter sloganeering, and is generally devoid of true probity. I think this makes it hard for us to consider objective much of the "secondary discourse" we see written (or posted!) around us.

Hence, in respect for those who long for the FB of 2008... a new forum for much of my political commentary.  Feel free to comment yourself, below... Just log onto Google first....