Monthly Archives: December 2012

There’s Secession and There’s Secession

Posted on by
Reply

There are petitions on the White House’s Web site, signed by a sufficient number of petitioners to require a response from the White House, advocating secession from the union by various states.  These are being carefully ignored, but that’s a different story.

In Wisconsin, when the democratic process went against Democrats, those Democrats seceded from Wisconsin, decamping for motels in Illinois.  They remained in their state of rebellion for weeks, paralyzing Wisconsin’s government, attempting to destroy the democratic process they hated so much.

In Indiana, when the democratic process went against Democrats, those Democrats seceded from Indiana, also decamping for motels in Illinois.  They remained in their state of rebellion for weeks, paralyzing Indiana’s government, attempting to destroy the democratic process they hated so much.

Now, in Michigan, when the democratic process went against Democrats, those Democrats seceded from Michigan, this time relocating nearby.  That these Democrats’ rebellion failed so quickly (but not for lack of effort) was only because Michigan’s laws made the Michigan Democrats’ secession toothless.  There were sufficient majorities (and no need for supermajorities) in both houses of the state’s government from non-Democratic Party representatives and senators to form a quorum in each house, and neither the Michigan government nor Michigan citizens’ continued access to democracy were harmed materially by the Democrats’ rebellion.

The state citizens’ petitions to secede from the union were never serious efforts to depart; they were protests of an overweening federal government, gestures only.

The Democrats’ secessions from those three state governments were not gestures.  They were conducted for the avowed purpose of bringing down those democratically elected governments so Democrats could impose their minority will on the majority; so Democrats could override the will of the citizens as implemented by their elected representatives to their governments.  What the Democrats could not achieve through the democratic process they attempted to force into being by force of rebellion.

“Elections have consequences.”  But those consequences are acceptable only when they serve Progressive ends.  That’s the face of Progressivism and the Democratic Party today: rather than abide by a democratic election result, secede and try to prevent government from functioning.

China’s Aggressiveness, America’s Response

Posted on by
1

China recently announced guidelines, effective January 1, for its maritime “police” to board and seize foreign vessels in waters around the Paracel Islands, which are also claimed by Vietnam.

And

Chinese fishing boats ha[ve] cut the cables of [Vietnam’s] seismic survey ship last week.

And

Philippines Foreign Minister Albert del Rosario revealed…that China had communicated its intention to station ships permanently at the Scarborough Shoal….

Never mind that the Republic of the Philippines, with the support of international law, claims this area.

Indeed, the PRC claims, with a straight face, fully two-thirds of the South China Sea as its sovereign territory.

And

Beijing also continues to challenge Japan’s control over the Senkaku Islands….  Chinese maritime surveillance and fisheries vessels loiter outside the 12-mile territorial limit, occasionally crossing inside to force the Japanese coast guard to respond.

The PRC also objects to the US’ rotating token units of Marines through a basing facility in Darwin, Australia.  Such a move is an affront to Chinese sovereignty, you see.

Yet President Barack Obama is bent on gutting American defense capability by $500 billion, beginning next month, despite his own Defense Secretary’s warnings of the consequences.  Which gives new meaning to the phrase “leading from behind.”

Another Demonstration of Leading from Behind

Posted on by
1

…and of its…effectiveness.

Thomas Donnelly of The Weekly Standard wrote that

President Obama said at an August 20 news conference that it was a “red line for us [if] we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”  That would “change my calculus,” he declared.

But then came the weasel words.

But what has changed is the definition of “move.”  Apparently, it doesn’t mean the Syrian Army moving chemical rounds in order to use them on rebel forces or mixing the “precursor” elements that give a chemical warhead its lethality, but, in the clarifying words of National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, “ ’moving around’ means proliferation,” as in transferring them to Hezbollah.

Anything to avoid making a hard decision.  Please.

As long as the Obama administration continues to allow itself to be held hostage to such (imaginary) foreign threats—if that’s what the administration is doing—it will continue to be a helpless laughingstock in the eyes of our enemies.

Or, as William Kristol writes,

Obama’s inaction in Syria now is of a piece with his inaction in Iran in 2009, that the abandonment of Iraq in 2011 prefigured the prospective abandonment of Afghanistan over the next couple of years, and that defense cuts at home go hand in hand with an oh-so-light footprint abroad. The Obama administration has chosen a course of American retrenchment and retreat.

In which case, it’s not timidity but a deliberate retrograde advancement.  Which doesn’t change in any material way our enemies’ perception of us.

This is where trailing along behind events while yelling, “I’m going there, too” has gotten us.

Of Jobs Reports

Posted on by
Reply

The latest Jobs report came out last week, and the unemployment rate fell to 7.7%.  We haven’t been this well off in years.  Or have we?  James Pethokoukis, writing for AEIDeas, took a closer look.

First, a graph that’s been run in several places before, repeated in Pethokoukis’ article, and here:

You remember this.  It compares President Barack Obama’s…claims…about the unemployment rate under his Recovery Plan vs his projection of unemployment absent his plan with the actual unemployment rate.  The data in the latest Jobs report add to this [emphasis in the original].

The two-tenths drop in the unemployment rate was because people gave up looking for work. The labor force participation rate fell to 63.6% from 63.8% in October.  If it had just held steady since then, the unemployment rate would be back over 8%.  Indeed, if the LFP rate was just where it was in November 2011, the unemployment rate would be 8.3%.  Some 542,000 Americans left the labor force just last month.

If labor force participation was at its January 2009 level, the unemployment rate would be a whopping 10.7%.  Now, some of the drop in the LFP is due to demographic reasons, primarily the aging of the US population.  But even taking that into account would give you a much higher unemployment rate than 7.7%.  If you go by the pre-recession CBO forecast of the 2012 LFP rate, the unemployment rate would be 10.4%.

In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents to $23.63.  Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.7%.  Unfortunately, inflation—as measured by the consumer price index—has risen by 2.2% over the past year, meaning average hourly earnings have fallen by 0.5% in real terms.

And

The number of long-term unemployed remains at a sky-high 40.1%, the same as in August.

As the next graph illustrates.

Yet the Progressives in DC think this is proper.

Time for Some Humor

Posted on by
Reply

Or at least what passes for it in my house, with my very patient wife.

A fish walks into a bar. The bartender says, “What do you want?”
The fish croaks, “Water.”

A man walks into a bar and orders six whiskies.  He lines them up in a row and knocks back the first, third, and fifth glasses.  Then he gets up to leave. “Don”t you want the others?” asks the barman.  “You”ve only had three of your whiskies.”
“Best not,” replies the man.  “My doctor said it was only okay to have the odd drink.”

Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Doris.
Doris who?
Doris locked, that’s why I’m knocking!

I was raised as an only child, which really annoyed my sister.

Captain Aubrey: “Do you see those two weevils, Doctor?…Which would you choose?”
Dr. Maturin: “Neither. There’s not a scrap of difference between them. They’re the same species of Curculio.”
Captain Aubrey: “If you had to choose.  If you were forced to make a choice. If there were no other option.”
Dr. Maturin: “Well, then, if you’re going to push me.  I would choose the right-hand weevil.  It has significant advantage in both length and breadth.”
Captain Aubrey: “There, I have you!….  Do you not know that in the Service, one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?”

A vulture boards an airplane, carrying two dead raccoons.  The stewardess looks at him and says, “I’m sorry, sir, only one carrion allowed per passenger.”

Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet.  He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath.  This made him a super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.

And finally (mercifully?)

Q: How many elephants will fit into a Mini?
A: Four: Two in the front, two in the back.

Q: How many giraffes will fit into a Mini?
A: None. It’s full of elephants.

Q: How do you get two whales in a Mini?
A: Along the M4 and across the Severn Bridge.

Q: How do you know there are two elephants in your refrigerator?
A: You can hear giggling when the light goes out.

Q: How do you know there are three elephants in your refrigerator?
A: You can’t close the door.

Q: How do you know there are four elephants in your refrigerator?
A: There’s an empty Mini parked outside.