Over FCC Plans, MSM Finally a Bit Curious re Obama Admin – UPDATED

Logo of the United States Federal Communicatio...

Logo of the United States Federal Communications Commission, used on their website prior to 2002 or 2003, and still used on some publications and areas of their website. The central part of the logo is also used on products which conform to FCC requirements. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Elizabeth Scalia (The Anchoress) over at Patheos published a barn burner on the FCC’s brilliant idea to put an observer, watcher, minder, political officer, commissar, er zampolit in American newsrooms. The latest really stupid idea from the most tone deaf bunch of politicians/bureaucrats ever seen in America. Anyway, while I’ve given you an excerpt, you really, really need to read this one. Go and do so, and then we’ll talk a bit.

Some may disagree, but I will dare to repeat myself, because I think I am right: The biggest problem in our nation is not the Democrats, or the Republicans; it is not the Obama Administration, just as it wasn’t the Bush Administration, and it won’t be future Clinton or Warren Administrations. Our biggest problem is that the press has voluntarily surrendered its freedoms for the sake of idols and ideologies..

Because this is true, our government is either factionalizedfictionalized and bombarded with daily media outrage and indignation, or it is given an utterly free pass, with no accountability required. Either way, it is a process of illusion, which gives assist to the necessary distraction, and that’s all.

I didn’t want to write about this today. The truth is, I don’t even want to write about politics, anymore, because it’s all distraction and illusion and theater. I’d be happy to write about prayer and scripture, and nothing else, for the rest of my life, and maybe that’s what I’ll be doing, soon enough. But I am passionate about journalism, passionate about the need for a free press, and so I had to write, today. Without a curious press interested in protecting its own freedoms, there is no there, there. We might as well just put down the mics and turn out the lights, because it’s over.

Over FCC Plans, MSM Finally a Bit Curious re Obama Admin – UPDATED.

The ends justify the means.

I would like to say that she is wrong, but she’s not. I would like to say that the alternative media can do the job, but they can’t, not yet.But they had better get there soon, because we are going to need them.

Religion, Guns, Speech, Press, Property, Privacy, even Due Process,are there any of our right that are not under assault? If we allow this to get much worse, we will soon pass a tipping point, and we will slide into what Churchill called “a new dark age, made more protracted, perhaps, by the perversions of science”. If it is stopped, it will be in America, where rights are defined and absolute, or used to be

It’s time to wake up, or it will end.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Love and War | The Little Knife

STN261402_403797kSiobahn, the author of this piece is a young woman in England, and she talks here about some of the problems endemic to our societies. I was going to comment on hers, and realized that it was going to be far too long for a commbox. So I thought I’d do it this way.

She worries some about intrinsic good, and I’d have to say that some are and some aren’t and most are somewhere in the middle (and it also depends on how you define good and evil). She also (like us all) has trouble with defining words like “humanity”, “culture”, and ‘love”. Well we all do.

The real problem here is, I think, the collectivist mindset. People aren’t anything, really, That person is good, that one is bad, and so forth. You just can’t make valid generalizations. Other than vapidities like, “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all Islamic terrorists are Muslim”, it’s just not overly useful for interpersonal relations. Although it does have some uses in government, sociology and police work, I suppose. In police work it’s called profiling.


Recent events (including the assault of a friend) have led me to think about how that humanitarian part of our personalities acts in different situations. It’s an intriguing thing to consider.

For example, the Gropegate case is worth looking at under this lens, despite it being ‘old news’.  What troubled me in this scenario was the deliberate blurring of lines – lines that should clearly have signalled the divide between right and wrong. Despite recent developments, the only constant still appears to be the idea that a woman’s voice is still somehow less substantial than a man’s, or that women denouncing or reporting sexist behaviour are seen as hysterical ‘shouters’, or fundamentalist Feminists.

[I'm breaking into this paragraph to make sure we know what she's referring to]

Since I don’t read the New York Post, I had to Google Gropegate. It seems to be that some New York Assemblyman (or men) groped some female staffers, then paid them off after they went to the AG, or something like that. I’m assuming they are all Democrats simply because the Post doesn’t mention any affiliations :-)

Anyway, in my world, any man who gropes a woman who is in a subordinate position to him isn’t much of a man, nor is he fit for any position of trust. And a guy who attempts to buy off his victims is filth, beneath contempt, as is a law enforcement official who would even consider letting such a thing happen. Scum of the earth.

Statistics demonstrate this coerced silence, by the conspicuous absence of data. In 2004, the British Crime Survey decided to institute a self-completion module, since they realised that talking face-to-face about domestic abuse, sexual assault, and stalking, actively dissuaded victims from coming forward. The self-completion method appears to have produced “more reliable figures and also includes experiences of victims who did not report the incident to the police” (1).

So why do women not report these incidents to the police? Because they are difficult to prove? Because it might be dangerous? Because it’s humiliating? Because they potentially stand to lose everything? That is how victim culture works. It is not always possible for victims to find the strength to stand up for themselves. That is where our humanity ought to kick in; when others need help, and we give it to them.

She’s right, of course. And that they got no help is despicable. Personally, I consider it in the same class of behavioral dysfunction as bullying, and like that, is susceptible to being cured by a hard right cross to the side of the head. The problem is that predators like this are better at targeting, usually, so they find soft targets that will not resist. I know what my response would be if I came upon it, I hope somebody would make bail for me.

The following refers to a case in the British Liberal Democratic Party, again including a cover-up:

This wasn’t altogether the case, recently, when Rennard’s defenders seemed, almost without exception, to be using hideously flimsy arguments to justify his actions, or saying that women should essentially get over alleged sexual misconduct, because shit happens in the real world; [...]

That’s one thing that I just can’t get over with these people, their propensity for blaming the victim. Rennard, just like those Democrats in Albany is responsible for his actions, just like the rest of us. It doesn’t matter at all what the woman/man/boy/ or girl does, he’s responsible for what he does. I suppose if she walked in naked except for a sign that said “grope me” in so many words, it might be different but, short of that, it’s his problem.

I suppose my point is this: “Touching over clothing” as a caveat for sexual misconduct  is not good enough. That’s like saying, “Yes, I violated her, but I used a condom. Also, you can’t prove anything, and so what?”

Read the whole article at Love and War | The Little Knife.

NO, it is not good enough, they are human beings with exactly the same rights as these so-called overlords, and sooner or later our societies are going to have to take out the trash. Personally, as a man, my first thought is always, if you did that to my wife/ girlfriend/ sister/ and especially daughter the least of your problems would be the legal system. You’d have a fair chance of telling God about it, because I despise people who take advantage of subordinates, especially women, just because they are weaker than them. I’d call them scum of the earth again, but I won’t because that is giving them far too much credit.


Enhanced by Zemanta

The ‘first girl friend’


The French are different from ‘les Anglo-Saxons’, as de Gaulle called the British and the Americans. You can say that again. Whatever the many shortcomings of our politicians and of us as an electorate, it is impossible to imagine either a President or a Prime Minister openly cheating on his wife and, after an election, moving his girl friend into the White House of 10 Downing Street. Indeed, with some notable exceptions (Lloyd George and FDR and ‘Slick Willy’ for example), our leaders have tended to be faithful spouses and perhaps even a little uxorious (you only have to see Obama with Mishy to know what that means). A simple lot, we take the view that if a man is faithful to his wife and his marriage vows, he might also be inclined to that kind of honesty elsewhere. Of course, as Jimmy Carter or Gordon Brown show, being a faithful husband does not mean you are going to be a good leader and make the right decisions – but then if you start with the wrong political principles, you’re going to end in a ditch; and there’s always the argument that none of these guys is going to get everything right :)

But the French, ah well, they are different. De Gaulle was, by all counts, a good husband, and as a faithful and even devout Catholic, set an example none of his successors have followed. In this they have been helped by the French media, which even now will not report (unless as with M Hollande pushed into it) on the private life of their leaders. Thus Mitterand, who actually lived with one of his mistresses and had a child by her, carried on in this way until, at his funeral, the press asked who the young woman grieving for him was; it was his daughter. M. Chirac was notoriously unsafe in taxis, or, indeed, anywhere else when a woman was alone with him; he and President Clinton were both up for the JFK award for adultery. Quite why their wives let them get away with it I have never understood. When I found myself in this position, my husband became my ex-husband as fast as the law would allow. Yes, I gave him a chance, and he showed all the devotion to his wedding vows of M. Hollande, so out he went.

It was Henry Kissinger who said power was an aphrodisiac, and I forget who said that politics was a way for ugly people to pull people of the opposite sex, but they were right. Hollande is no Brad Pitt (though they are about the same age). I could understand a girl getting weak at the knees for John Wayne (done it often enough myself), but for this pudgy garlic muncher? Ladies, come on, you French women are supposed to be able to give us mere Anglo-Saxons a lesson is sophistication. Where’s the sophistication in letting some middle-aged politico cheat on his partner with you?

Yes, I am a Christian, and an Anglo-Saxon, and I believe in forgiveness, but not in being a door-map. I’ve perhaps been fortunate in that no powerful man has ever asked me to be his mistress, but if he did, he’d better duck, as I pack a good right-hook.

So, the ‘first girl friend’ is no more, although she has been allowed to pack her stuff with an armed escort. If that was me, it would be Hollande who’d be needing armed protection – but hey, I am not a sophisticated French woman, just a girl who believes fidelity matters.

The Hammer of Reality and Green Energy

Ball and stick model of ethanol

Ball and stick model of ethanol (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There’s been enough going on that I’ve kind of let energy slide lately. I shouldn’t, like all the other projects built on magic and wishful thinking, they are running into the hard wall of reality. Some would say they are getting hammered. I tend to think of the hammer of reality as Mjølner, the modern incarnation of Thor’s Hammer, that can level mountains at a single stroke.

And Mjølner has been busy lately, rather than me rewriting it, I’ll simply excerpt from Marita Moon’s latest, and you can find the details at the link.

The whole idea of green energy—renewable resources—grew out of an energy reality that was much different from today’s. It was in the 1970s, following the OPEC Oil Embargo that solar panels began popping up on rooftops and “gasohol” subsidies were enacted. It was believed that green energy would move the U.S. off of foreign oil and prevent oil from being used as an economic weapon against us.

Today, that entire paradigm has been upended and OPEC’s power has been virtually neutered by increasing domestic oil production and decreasing gasoline consumption.

Jay Lehr, Heartland Institute science director, likens continuing “as though our new energy riches did not exist” to “ignoring our telecommunication revolution by supporting operator-assisted telephones with party lines.”



Mandated for blending into America’s gasoline supply in 2007 through the Energy Security and Independence Act, ethanol now has an unlikely coalition of opponents—including car and small-engine manufacturers, oil companies and refiners, and food producers and some environmental groups.

A national movement is growing and calling for the end of the ethanol mandates that, according to the WSJ, have “drained the Treasury of almost $40 billion” since the first gasohol subsides were enacted in 1978. Realize the word “Treasury,” used here, really means “taxpayer.”

“At the end of 2011, the ethanol industry lost a $6 billion per year tax-credit subsidy,” the WP points out. But the mandate for the American consumer to use ethanol remains through what Senator David Vitter (R-LA) calls: “a fundamentally flawed program that limps along year after year.”

Imagine the surprise, given that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy asserts: “Biofuels are a key part of the Obama Administration’s ‘all of the above’ energy strategy, helping to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, cut carbon pollution and create jobs,” when, on November 15, the EPA gave a nod toward market and technological realities and, for the first time, proposed a reduction in the renewable volume obligations—below 2012 and 2013 levels.

On a call with reporters, a senior administration official explained: “While under the law volumes of renewable fuel are set to increase each year this unanticipated reduction in fuel consumption brings us to a point where the realities of the fuel market must be addressed to properly implement the program.”

The WP describes the problem: “Mixing more and more ethanol into a fixed or shrinking pool of fuel would bump up against the capacity of existing engines to burn it, as well as the capacity of the existing distribution network to pump it.” It states: “The downward revision of roughly 3 billion gallons is the first such reduction since Congress enacted the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in 2007.”

The EPA’s decision is lauded by AAA President and CEO Bob Darbelnet: “The EPA has finally put consumers first.” He said the targets in the 2007 law are “unreachable without putting motorists and their vehicles at risk.”


Ethanol has been dealt a blow.

Here’s one of those rare times when the EPA is on the right track, likely it’s for the wrong reasons but even small blessings are welcome. I sit in the midst of millions of acres of corn, lots of it subsidized by ethanol, and I’ll tell you it’s a crock, it made a little sense when we were short of oil. So dod running the Germans running King Tiger tanks on charcoal, but it’s decidedly suboptimal.

And while I’m bashing my neighbors, have you noticed how bad soda made from corn syrup tastes, do you even remember what it used to taste like? You can still get the real stuff, look for Coke (and Pepsi too) products imported from Mexico. Here they are commonly available, and are made with real sugar.

Why are we in this spot? Because for about half of forever we have protected our sugar crop growers with ridiculously high tariffs, leading to corn being used instead, it’s not as good,  but it is affordable. If the sugar guys can’t make it without my tax money, they, like corn farmers should go out of business.


While the ethanol mandate hasn’t been eliminated, the administration has wavered and has given a nod toward “market and technological reality.” Likewise, those of us oppose government mandates and subsidies were handed a small victory in Arizona when, on November 14, the commissioners tipped their hand by setting a new direction for solar energy policy. In a 3-2 vote, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) took a step and added a monthly fee onto the utility bills of new solar customers to make them pay for using and maintaining the power grid.

While the ACC decision didn’t make national headlines, as the EPA decision did, it has huge national implications.

The issue is net-metering—a policy that allows customers with solar panels to receive full retail credit for power they deliver to the grid. Supporters of the current policy—including President Obama—believe that ending it “would kill their business.” Opponents believe it “unfairly shifts costs from solar homes to non-solar homes.”

The ACC vote kept the net-metering program, but added a small fee that solar supporters call “troubling.” Officials for SolarCity and SunRun—companies that install solar arrays—have reportedly said: “The new fees mean fewer customers will be able realize any savings.”

“What amounts to a $5 charge is a big hit to the solar industry,” said Bryan Miller, SunRun vice president for public policy and power markets. “In our experience, you need to show customers some savings.”

Considering that Arizona Public Service Co. (APS) wanted to cut the rate paid to customers with solar and wanted a much larger fee added, the ACC decision might not seem like a victory. In fact, the solar supporters called it a victory for their side, claiming “policymakers in Arizona stood up for its citizens, by rejecting an attempt from the state’s largest utility to squash rooftop solar.” But that’s not the full story.


Renewable energy has suffered a setback in both the EPA ethanol decision and the ACC solar decision. Shouldn’t wind be next?

That’s an improvement but I see no particular reason any producer of solar power should be paid more than the wholesale rate for peak power, otherwise we are simply subsidizing inefficient suppliers at the expense of consumers.


On November 14, fifty-two Congressmen signed a letter, organized by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), calling for the end of the wind production tax credit (PTC). In the letter addressed to Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, they point out that the PTC, which was scheduled to end on December 31, 2012, was extended “during the closing hours of the last Congress,” as a part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA). Not only was it extended, but it was enhanced by modifying the eligibility criteria. Originally, wind turbines needed to be “placed in service” by the end of the expiration of the PTC to qualify for the tax credit. Under ATRA, they need only to be “under construction” to qualify.

The letter points out: “If a wind project developer merely places a 5% deposit on a project initiated in 2013, it will have at least until 2015 and possibly 2016 to place the project in service and obtain the PTC. That means that a wind project that ‘begins construction’ in 2013 could receive subsidies until 2026.”

Like ethanol and solar, “the growth in wind is driven not by market demand, but by a combination of state renewable portfolio standards and a tax credit that is now more valuable than the price of the electricity the plants actually generate.”


These mandates and tax credits are remnants of an outdated energy policy that is akin to “ignoring our telecommunication revolution by supporting operator-assisted telephones with party lines.” America’s energy paradigm has changed and our energy policies need to keep up and be revised to fit our new reality.

Subsidizing green energy is like supporting operator-assisted telephones with party lines « Sago.

As always, if you want efficiency, which translates to the lowest price, let the market decide, without government intervention.

Go, Mjølner, Go

A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude: On the Prairie

English: The official logo of the University o...

English: The official logo of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Many of you know that I completely discount the whole climate alarmism as essentially nonsense. The climate has been changing as long as there has been a climate. Probably about the fourth day, “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:” Genesis 1: 14. But in any case it’s nothing new.

So it’s ironic that I have friends at the University of East Anglia, that hotbed of UK corrupt science, that ran on government subsidies (or maybe still does). I don’t kid them about it much because they are good conservative people who know corruption when they see it, and are as honest the day is long.

I’m even gladder that I don’t as I write this introduction, because it seems that the University of Nebraska, Lincoln is every bit as corrupt, and in the exact same way, so I hope they will extend me the same courtesy, as I have said so often in the last few years, “I didn’t vote for this s**t.”

Still I’m a technical guy, and a religious one as well. Yes, there are quite a few around, you just don’t hear about us, because we’re not the ones getting the corrupt grants that so many universities run on anymore, and that may kill the universities yet if they don’t fix it. You see, science is like math: A=A and 2+2=4 not 3.9756 and a good excuse. In other words what is; is, and always has been, and always will be.

Do humans have an effect on climate? Probably, but it is so small that it is immeasurable. Mankind is a prideful beast however, who wants to take credit for things he didn’t and can’t do.

And so another story of a corrupt institution and how it will sell whatever answer its political masters want, if the price is high enough. maybe someday our universities will once again do real, peer-reviewed, honest science. But it’s unlikely to be soon, unless we shut off the government cash-teat.

The crazy goings-on in Nebraska cannot be ignored – especially because they are symptomatic of much bigger problems. As our article notes, Nebraska scientists are refusing to participate in a study that state legislators want to examine natural causes of climate change, unless it is revised to include human influences. In fact, they won’t even suggest that other scientists participate in it. Including ONLY human influences in climate studies doesn’t seem to bother alarmists one whit. But focusing for a change only on natural factors is cause for outrage.

Their stance seems mystifying – until one examines climate change financing, political correctitude, and determination to gain control over people’s lives and livelihoods. Dennis Mitchell and I survey the problem in this week’s column, and point out that these attitudes are found far beyond the Cornhusker Kickback State.

Thank you for posting our article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,


A climate of fear, cash and correctitude 

Trashing real science to protect grants, prestige, and desire to control energy, economy, lives.

By Paul Driessen and Dennis Mitchell

Earth’s geological, archaeological and written histories are replete with climate changes: big and small, short and long, benign, beneficial, catastrophic and everything in between.

The Medieval Warm Period (950-1300 AD or CE) was a boon for agriculture, civilization and Viking settlers in Greenland. The Little Ice Age that followed (1300-1850) was calamitous, as were the Dust Bowl and the extended droughts that vanquished the Anasazi and Mayan cultures;cyclical droughts and floodsin Africa, Asia and Australia; and periods of vicious hurricanes and tornadoes. Repeated Pleistocene Epoch ice ages covered much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-thick ice sheets that denuded continents, stunted plant growth, and dropped ocean levels 400 feet for thousands of years.

Modern environmentalism, coupled with fears first of global cooling and then of global warming, persuaded politicians to launch the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its original goal was to assess possible human influences on global warming and potential risks of human-induced warming. However, it wasn’t long before the Panel minimized, ignored and dismissed non-human factors to such a degree that its posture became the mantra that onlyhumans are now affecting climate.

Over the last three decades, five IPCC “assessment reports,” dozens of computer models, scores of conferences and thousands of papers focused almost entirely on human fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas emissions, as being responsible for “dangerous” global warming, climate change, climate “disruption,” and almost every “extreme” weather or climate event. Tens of billions of dollars have supported these efforts, while only a few million have been devoted to analyses of all factors – natural and human – that affect and drive planetary climate change.

You would think researchers would welcome an opportunity to balance that vast library of one-sided research with an analysis of the natural causes of climate change – to enable them to evaluate the relative impact of human activities, more accurately predict future changes, and ensure that communities, states and nations can plan for, mitigate and adapt to those impacts. You would be wrong.

A few weeks agoNebraska lawmakers called for a wide-ranging study of “cyclical” climate change. Funded by the state, the $44,000 effort was to be limited to natural causes – not additional speculation about manmade effects. Amazingly, University of Nebraska scientists are not just refusing to participate in the study, unless it includes human influences. One climatologist at the university’s National Drought Mitigation Center actually said he would not be comfortable circulating a study proposal or asking other scientists to participate in it; in fact, he “would not send it out” to anyone. The director of the High Plains Climate Center sniffed, “If it’s only natural causes, we would not be interested.”

Their dismissive stance seems mystifying – until one examines climate change politics and financing.

None of these Nebraska scientists seems reluctant to accept far larger sums for “research” that focuses solely on human causes; nor do professors at Penn State, Virginia, George Mason or other academic or research institutions. They’re likewise not shy about connecting “dangerous manmade global warming” to dwindling frog populations, shrinking Italian pasta supplies, clownfish getting lost, cockroaches migrating, anscores of other remote toridiculous assertions – if the claims bring in research grants.

American taxpayers alone are providing billions of dollars annually for such research, through the EPA and numerous other government agencies – and the colleges, universities and other institutions routinely take 40% or more off the top for “project management” and “overhead.” None of them wants to derail that gravy train, and all fear that accepting grants to study natural factors or climate cycles would imperil funding from sources that have ideological, political or crony corporatist reasons for making grants tied to manmade warming, renewable energy and related topics. Perhaps they would be tempted if the Nebraska legislators were offering $4 million or even $440,000. But a lousy $44,000?

Peer pressure, eco-activist harassment, politically correct posturing, and shared ideologies about fossil fuels, forced economic transformations and wealth redistribution via energy policies also play a major role, especially on campuses. Racial and sexual diversity is applauded, encouraged, even required, as is political diversity across the “entire” spectrum from communist to “progressive.” But diversity of opinion is restricted to 20×20-foot “free speech zones,” and would-be free speech practitioners are vilified, exiled to academic Siberia, dismissed or penalized – as “climate skeptics” from Delaware, Oregon, Virginia and other institutions can testify. Robust debate about energy and climate issues is denounced and obstructed.

A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | PA Pundits – International.

Video Thursday

I don’t completely agree with the video here. It’s a bit too conspiratorial for me. But it’s not exactly wrong either.

But one thing I want you to remember, while much of this video is true, I think, minus some of the more lurid conspiracy elements, the American Dream isn’t really, entirely, or even mostly about economics is it? It’s about freedom, and while economics plays a part, there are other parts, that need strengthening as well.

Then there is this, which is superficial, but not, I think, false.



%d bloggers like this: