Archive for November, 2010
22 Nov 2010

So We Didn’t Take the Senate… This Time

, , , ,

Peter Robinson opines that Mitch McConnell is going to calling the shots much of the time anyway.

Over the last couple of weeks, though, I’ve noticed that Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, has sounded a lot chirpier–and, frankly, a lot more aggressive–than a man ought to sound when he’s just drawn a bad hand. Why? Well, after looking over a few statistics, I think I know. Sen. McConnell doesn’t believe he’s drawn a bad hand at all. Just take a look a this:

Twenty-three Democratic senators must face re-election in two years (actually, 21 Democrats plus Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, both Independents who caucus with the Democrats).

* Of those 23, five represent states that John McCain carried in 2008 and George W. Bush carried in 2004. To wit: Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia (although just elected this year, Manchin is merely filling out the unexpired term of the late Sen. Byrd).

* Four more Democratic senators facing re-election come from states that McCain lost in 2008–but that Bush carried four years earlier. Namely: Bill Nelson of Florida, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Jim Webb of Virginia.

Which means?

Which means that although he’ll have only 46 votes in the new Congress to call his own, Mitch McConnell will find that no fewer than nine Democrats are willing–perhaps even eager–to work with him.

22 Nov 2010

“Voting is a Pleasure”

,

According to the Young Socialists of Catalonia.

The American viewer can tell immediately that she voted for the wrong reasons for the wrong party.

22 Nov 2010

Why Congress Was Unpopular

, ,

from Rico via Theo.

22 Nov 2010

General Assembly Passes Self Defense Bill in Pennsylvania

, , ,

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has passed a bill rejecting the “obligation to retreat” theory and vigorously affirming the right of self defense.

Philadelphia Inquirer:

“The General Assembly finds that:

“(1) It is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.

“(2) The castle doctrine is a common-law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a home is a person’s castle.

“(3) … The Constitution of Pennsylvania guarantees that the ‘right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.’

“(4) Persons residing in or visiting this commonwealth have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles.

“(5) No person should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack outside the person’s home or vehicle.”

The question is whether democrat, pro-Gun Control Governor Edward Rendell will sign the bill, or defy strong public support by vetoing it.

If the bill passes into law, watch crime rates plummet in Pennsylvania.

22 Nov 2010

Iowahawk: “Comply With Me”

, , ,

21 Nov 2010

Viral Email Humor

, , ,

When public policies begin attracting this kind of ridicule and bitter satire from the general population, intelligent leaders would change the policies. The American establishment, e.g., both Bush & Obama, cannot produce intelligent leaders anymore as our educational system is far more successful at inculcating self-confidence and self-entitlement on the basis of the credentials it issues than it is at inculcating common sense. American leaders don’t listen to the people; they listen to credentialed, well-qualified advisers and commentators who, chances are, have their heads equally up the very same place.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse via Matador Network.

20 Nov 2010

Best Line of the Day

, ,

“I’m just looking for a girl who is a lady in public and a TSA screener in the bedroom.”

Tweeted by Ric Andersen via Tunku Varadarajan and Walter Olson.

20 Nov 2010

Why Liberalism Failed

, , , , , , ,

Joel Kotkin argues that old-style New Deal liberalism aspired to improve general prosperity and new Obama-style liberalism proposes to facilitate the ability of the New Class intelligentsia to tell everybody else what to do. The New Deal erected massive federal dams and contemporary liberalism bans Happy Meals. The appeal of the petty dictatorship of the self righteous is inevitably restricted to the urban enclaves where the elites themselves live and to college communities full of brainwashed undergraduates.

Liberalism once embraced the mission of fostering upward mobility and a stronger economy. But liberalism’s appeal has diminished, particularly among middle-class voters, as it has become increasingly control-oriented and economically cumbersome.

Today, according to most recent polling, no more than one in five voters call themselves liberal. …

Modern-day liberalism… is often ambivalent about expanding the economy — preferring a mix of redistribution with redirection along green lines. Its base of political shock troops, public-employee unions, appears only tangentially interested in the health of the overall economy.

In the short run, the diminishment of middle-of-the-road Democrats at the state and national level will probably only worsen these tendencies, leaving a rump party tied to the coastal regions, big cities and college towns. There, many voters are dependents of government, subsidized students or public employees, or wealthy creative people, college professors and business service providers. …

The failure of Obama-style liberalism has less to do with government activism than with how the administration defined its activism. Rather than deal with basic concerns, it appeared to endorse the notion of bringing the federal government into aspects of life — from health care to zoning — traditionally controlled at the local level.

This approach is unpopular even among “millennials,” who, with minorities, represent the best hope for the Democratic left. As the generational chroniclers Morley Winograd and Michael Hais point out, millennials favor government action — but generally at the local level, which is seen as more effective and collaborative. Top-down solutions from “experts,” Winograd and Hais write in a forthcoming book, are as offensive to millennials as the right’s penchant for dictating lifestyles.

Often eager to micromanage people’s lives, contemporary liberalism tends to obsess on the ephemeral while missing the substantial. Measures such as San Francisco’s recent ban on Happy Meals follow efforts to control the minutiae of daily life. This approach trivializes the serious things government should do to boost economic growth and opportunity.

Perhaps worst of all, the new liberals suffer from what British author Austin Williams has labeled a “poverty of ambition.” FDR offered a New Deal for the middle class, President Harry S. Truman offered a Fair Deal and President John F. Kennedy pushed us to reach the moon.

In contrast, contemporary liberals seem more concerned about controlling soda consumption and choo-chooing back to 19th-century urbanism. This poverty of ambition hurts Democrats outside the urban centers. For example, when I met with mayors from small, traditionally Democratic cities in Kentucky and asked what the stimulus had done for them, almost uniformly they said it accomplished little or nothing. …

Of course, green, public-sector-dominated politics can work — as it has in fiscally challenged blue havens such as California and New York. But then, a net 3 million more people — many from the middle class — have left these two states in the past 10 years.

If this defines success, you have to wonder what constitutes failure.

Read the whole thing.

Hat tip to Bird Dog.

20 Nov 2010

TSA Announces Facebook Integration For Full Body Scanners

, , ,

Wonder-Tonic:

John Pistole, the head of the Transportation Security Administration, announced yesterday that full body scanners at airports across the nation will be seamlessly integrated with Facebook next month, allowing travelers to save, tag, and share their near-naked security photos with friends, family, and co-workers through the popular social networking site.

Hat tip to Walter Olson.

19 Nov 2010

8-14-23

, , ,

Daniel Henniger identifies serious tax reform as the key issue that Congressional Republicans ought to make the centerpiece of the alternative they offer to the American people.

Last week the two chairmen of President Barack Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, issued a set of “draft” recommendations that includes this: a new U.S. individual income tax system with only three rates—8%, 14% and 23%. You would have to move to Estonia to get a top marginal rate near 23%. Also, they would drop the U.S.’s self-destructive corporate rate of 35% to 26%.

Then yesterday came another “bipartisan” group, led by former Sen. Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton’s OMB director and also a member of the deficit commission. Their goal: a system “to improve incentives to work, save and invest” with two personal tax rates of 15% and 27%, and a corporate rate of 27%. Theirs includes a 6.5% sales tax; Bowles-Simpson, a surprise, has no sales tax.

Proving reform fever can catch anyone, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on Tuesday called for a fundamental overhaul of our tax system, which “is not a sensible way to run a country.”

Lower tax rates are suddenly moving to the center of the political debate.

Saving the most important for last, Michigan GOP Congressman Dave Camp, who surely will be chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee in January, delivered a strong reform speech Tuesday. “What we need,” said Rep. Camp (also a member of the Bowles-Simpson commission), “is a comprehensive reform of the tax code that expands the tax base and lowers rates.”

Putting this in context: The current fight between the Obama White House and congressional Republicans over whether the top rate should be 39.6% or 35%, notwithstanding its immediate importance for the economy, is a ridiculous sideshow to what serious people now want to do to sync up our tax system with the goal of strong economic growth.

Words found nowhere in the deficit commission’s draft include “fairness,” “the wealthiest,” and “the top 1%.” The explicit purpose of its tax proposals is to “make America the best place in the world to start and grow a business.”

Even in our current political universe of smirking cynics, this is progress—a bipartisan presidential group has put the subject of lower tax rates at the center of the policy debate.

Yes, yes, I understand the deficit commission gets down to 8-14-23 by eliminating every hallowed tax expenditure in the tax code and by taxing capital gains at ordinary rates.

But still. 23%.

Feel free to sniff at a 23% top rate. I won’t. The new Republican Congress shouldn’t either. Nor should the lifeboat full of moderate Democratic senators heading toward the 2012 whirlpool.

Read the whole thing.

The country wants real action taken to turn the economy around. This is the proposal that would do it.

19 Nov 2010

“Don’t Touch My Junk”

, , ,

Charles Krauthammer celebrates the latest American folk hero, the 31-year-old programmer who sparked a nationwide revolt against against the Kafkaesque indignities visited upon ordinary travelers by the Transportation Safety Authority.

John Tyner, cleverly armed with an iPhone to give YouTube immortality to the encounter, took exception to the TSA guard about to give him the benefit of Homeland Security’s newest brainstorm – the upgraded, full-palm, up the groin, all-body pat-down. In a stroke, the young man ascended to myth, or at least the next edition of Bartlett’s, warning the agent not to “touch my junk.”

Not quite the 18th-century elegance of “Don’t Tread on Me,” but the age of Twitter has a different cadence from the age of the musket. What the modern battle cry lacks in archaic charm, it makes up for in full-body syllabic punch. …

That riff is a crowd-pleaser because everyone knows that the entire apparatus of the security line is a national homage to political correctness. Nowhere do more people meekly acquiesce to more useless inconvenience and needless indignity for less purpose. Wizened seniors strain to untie their shoes; beltless salesmen struggle comically to hold up their pants; 3-year-olds scream while being searched insanely for explosives – when everyone, everyone, knows that none of these people is a threat to anyone.

The ultimate idiocy is the full-body screening of the pilot. The pilot doesn’t need a bomb or box cutter to bring down a plane. All he has to do is drive it into the water, like the EgyptAir pilot who crashed his plane off Nantucket while intoning “I rely on God,” killing all on board.

But we must not bring that up. We pretend that we go through this nonsense as a small price paid to ensure the safety of air travel. Rubbish. This has nothing to do with safety – 95 percent of these inspections, searches, shoe removals and pat-downs are ridiculously unnecessary. The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling – when the profile of the airline attacker is narrow, concrete, uniquely definable and universally known. So instead of seeking out terrorists, we seek out tubes of gel in stroller pouches.

The junk man’s revolt marks the point at which a docile public declares that it will tolerate only so much idiocy. Metal detector? Back-of-the-hand pat? Okay. We will swallow hard and pretend airline attackers are randomly distributed in the population.

But now you insist on a full-body scan, a fairly accurate representation of my naked image to be viewed by a total stranger? Or alternatively, the full-body pat-down, which, as the junk man correctly noted, would be sexual assault if performed by anyone else?

This time you have gone too far, Big Bro’. The sleeping giant awakes. Take my shoes, remove my belt, waste my time and try my patience. But don’t touch my junk.

18 Nov 2010

Chinese Imperial Vase Sells for £51.6m

, , , ,

null

Cleaning out a house near Heathrow Airport inherited from their deceased aunt and uncle, a British family found sitting on the mantel an old vase. They took it to an auction house, where the vase was identified as genuine piece of Chinese Imperial porcelain, probably looted from one of the summer palaces in 1860 by British and French troops during the Second Opium War.

These vases must have considerable sentimental value, as two very determined Chinese bidders proceeded to drive the sales price of this (to my eye) overly busy and noisome object into the stratosphere, establishing a new price record for a piece of Oriental art.

The Art Newspaper:

A Qianlong period (c.1740) Imperial yang cai reticulated double-walled vase with six-character reign mark has became the most expensive Chinese work of art ever to sell at auction anywhere in the world. It sold for £51.6m ($83m) at Bainbridge’s Auctions, in the west London suburb of Ruislip, to an anonymous Chinese buyer in the room. It is not yet known whether he represented a mainland Chinese institution or private buyer. The price beat the previous record of RMB436.8m ($65.95m) set at Beijing Poly in June 2010 for a Song Dynasty scroll by Huang Tingjian (1045-1105).

The vase was discovered during a routine valuation at a house in the London satellite town of Pinner. Its owners had inherited it from a relative, who they believe acquired it in the 1930s. “They had no idea what it was, but we could see that it was good—we gradually realized how special it was when our expert cataloguer began to do some research”, said Jane Bainbridge, co-partner in the auction house.

The estimate was set at £800,000-£1.2m, but rumours began to circulate that it could reach the £15m mark after an advert was posted in the British trade newspaper Antiques Trade Gazette two weeks ago. It was timed to tie in with the annual Asian Art in London sales and exhibitions. “People began to phone us up from all over the world after that”, said Bainbridge. …

The term yang cai translates as “foreign colours” and refers to the palette of enamels that were introduced from Europe around 1685, and later became associated with the famille rose export wares.

The 16-inch (40.5cm) high vase is of ovoid form with celadon glazed pierced body of interlocking chilong, through which could be seen the inner body of Ming style blue and white scrolling flowers. Four medallions around the body are decorated with varied pairs of fish set against modelled and carved waves.

null
null

Your are browsing
the Archives of Never Yet Melted for November 2010.











Feeds
Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)
Feed Shark