Airline "Saddle Seat" to Cram those Passengers Aboard

I've never liked plane travel. And for those of you who, like me are not afraid to fly but don't like being herded like cattle into tiny seats, the world just might be getting worse for you. The Telegraph is reporting on the new "SkyRider" seat that will be unveiled at a conference this week.

From the article by Andrew Hough:

"The new 'saddle' seat, to be unveiled at a conference this week, increases the number of seats an airline can have in its economy class.

"The design, named the 'SkyRider', allows just 23 inches of legroom, which is about seven inches less than the average seat's space of 30 inches.

"Shaped similar to a horse saddle, passengers sit at an angle, with their weight taken on by their legs. It allows seats to be overlapped.

[...]

"The makers say the seat would allow budget airlines, such as Ryanair, to cram more passengers into their tight cabins.

"The seat, designed by Italian design firm Aviointeriors Group, based in Latina, in the country's south-west, is to be unveiled this week at the Aircraft Interiors Expo Americas conference in Long Beach, California.

"But while the designers claim it does not affect passenger comfort, they say it would only be suitable for flights of up to three hours.

"'We feel extremely confident that this concept will ... have great appeal to airlines for economic purposes,' Dominique Menoud, the company's director general, told USA Today.

"'For flights anywhere from one to possibly even up to three hours ... this would be comfortable seating.'"

And now my favorite line delivered while hawking the cram concept:

"'The seat ... is like a saddle [Dominique Menoud continues]. Cowboys ride eight hours on their horses during the day and still feel comfortable in the saddle.'"

Yeah, baby! That's totally convinced me!

I wonder how many cowboys the Aviointeriors Group interviewed for design recommendations... I would think that a cowboy-- or pretty much anyone who has ever been on a horse for any length of time-- would've been able to tell them that it takes a lot of time (and a fair amount of soreness) to get used to being in a saddle-- training that most airline just don't have. I just sort of assume that the vast majority of airline passengers aren't going to be cowboys or horseback riding enthusiasts, but maybe I'm wrong. Still, cowboys will probably enjoy the SkyRider seating, as long as they don't mind their face being a few inches away from the seat back in front of them (see second picture).

This thing looks to me like something that would come out of the Age-of-Communism Eastern Europe (why am I reminded of the Yugo and the cloth East German car?) where they didn't actively hate their customers-- they just possessed a high degree of antipathy toward them.

The article mentions that Menoud claims several unnamed airlines are interested in these seats. Take heart however, as these seats are highly unlikely to measure up to current safety standards.

Obama the Boring Scapegoat?

Check out Jennifer Rubin's short piece "Obama Is Borrrring!" (h/t Nickie Goomba).

From Rubin's piece:

"Obama’s public persona is so predictable and his image so overexposed that even the left is over him. He’s gone from fascinating and cool to a crashing bore in less than two years. Greg Sargent: 'Seems the consensus is that Obama’s presser [Friday] was way too boring, substantive and unemotional to produce an abrupt and massive enough turnaround in the polls to guarantee in advance that Dems hold their majority.' Ditto, hisses Maureen Dowd: 'How did the first president of color become so colorless?' Well, he ran out of catchphrases and revealed himself to be less articulate than George Bush. Dowd admits he sounds downright loopy at times"

[...]

"Why are liberals so bored all of a sudden? Conservatives, of course, rolled their eyes over his New Age-like campaign rhetoric and have begun to pine for Bill Clinton, who, at least, was intellectually creative and amusing. There are, I think, several things at work."

[...]

"Second, it is easier to admit that the candidate they swooned for is boring than it is to say he’s incompetent (or an empty suit). The former implies that Obama has lost his charm, the latter suggests that their own judgment was faulty. This also neatly sidesteps the troubling matter that Obama’s policies have tanked. (If he could only be more eloquent about the trillions spent, the public wouldn’t dessert him, the thinking goes.)"

I find that last idea particularly interesting.

Will the Left readily drop Obama to save the face of their agendas? Will they actively place the blame for the unpopularity of big government policies and laws on the president? Would America buy the attempt?

Certainly it's much too early to suggest that the Left is trotting out Obama as a scapegoat, although the Democrat candidates distancing of themselves from Obama does not demonstrate great confidence in the chief executive.

I think it's more likely the Left will blame the Republicans once their expected House takeover is completed. As ObamaCare, the bill for Obama's spending sprees-- er, um "stimulus packages"-- and the rest wreak havoc on the economy the Dems will blame Boehner and the rest of the House Republicans (the Party of No, remember?) for America's woes.

The next two years are going to be ugly, and the 2012 presidential campaign will probably be as polite and respectful as the Hillary Clinton/Obama race for the 2008 Democratic nomination. If the stakes weren't so incredibly high for the US at this point in time, all of this would be very amusing.

Poverty Numbers Jump to Record Gains in America

Not particularly surprising, but...

From the AP article by Hope Yen and Liz Sidoti:

"Census figures for 2009 — the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat's presidency — are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings.

"It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase — from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent — would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.

[...]

"Interviews with six demographers who closely track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures are likely to show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.

"Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980 when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent during the energy crisis [emphasis mine]."

So there was a jump of 1.3% (from 11.7 to 13) in 1980 during the energy crisis, but now we're getting ready for a possible 1.8% jump from 13.8 to 15%. So poverty is more widespread then during the energy crisis. Hmm. Yet after more than 18 months, Obama and the Dems continue to blame Bush. Funny. And exactly how long ago did Bush have a Republican Congress to work with?

Perhaps these accompanying news stories might add some depth to these numbers (h/t Tom Blumer [below] for first two links).

From myFoxNY: "Homelessness Up 50% In New York City"

"If you think you've been seeing more people sleep on city streets, statistics back up the perception. The homeless population living on New York City streets has gone up 50 percent in the past year, according to city statistics reported by the HellsKitchenLife.com blog.

"The New York City Department of Homeless Services conducts a yearly survey of the streets of the city to count the number of homeless who are not in shelters. The HOPE survey was conducted in January 2010.

"The number of homeless in the borough of Manhattan was up 47 percent in the past year, according to the count. The 2010 count had 1,145 people living in the streets. That is up 368 from 2009."

From blogs.courant.com: "Homelessness among youth up 41 percent in the last two years"

"First Focus and the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth recently released a study that marks 'unprecedented increases' in the number of homeless children and youth nationwide."

And more locally:

From Ashland Daily Tidings: "In Oregon and Douglas County, homeless numbers rise"

"The two of them [Peggy no last name given and companion] are part of a growing homeless population in Douglas County and Oregon. Homelessness is on the rise in both the county and the state, according to the results of an annual statewide count conducted in January.
Results of the count were recently released by Oregon Housing and Community Services. The agency uses the data to bring state funding to programs that help the homeless in the areas needing it most.

"Partnering agencies in all 36 Oregon counties helped tabulate results. UCAN handled the Douglas County count.

"The survey showed 19,207 people were homeless in Oregon in January, up from 17,122 the previous year, according to a Oregon Housing and Community Services news release. In Douglas County, the homeless population increased from 818 people in 2009 to 989 this year. The county's 2008 results tallied 501 homeless people."

From the Mental Health Association of Portland: "Homeless numbers rise in Oregon, according to new report"

"A report released June 9 provides some insight into Oregon’s rising homeless population, and shows that mental illness and substance abuse are significant factors in a problem affecting 19,207 people statewide.

"The report, based on a one-night count by Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS), also indicates 31 percent of those experiencing homelessness are children. The number of homeless families with children rose 33 percent from 2009.

"OHCS deputy director Rick Crager said unemployment was a primary driver in Oregon’s 'unprecedented' level of homelessness. Mental illness and addiction, however, also play a huge role."

Also check out Tom Blumer's take on the AP article at newsbusters.org.

From Blumer's analysis:

"What's remarkable, though, is how a government report that the media, especially the AP, has traditionally treated as an indicator of society's alleged failure to take care of its neediest --with the blame often directly aimed at Republicans and conservatives -- is now primarily a political problem for the party in power. Yen and Sidoti engage in a presidential pity party, and in the process come off as indifferent about what the numbers, for all their imperfections (and they are substantial), might mean in human terms -- again, something the press normally obsesses over, especially when a Republican or conservative is president. This time, it seems that if Ms. Yen and Ms. Sidoti had their way, this unfortunate information would be held until at least November 3."

Hope & Change...

Not Forgotten

Obama Administration Levels Threat Against Health Insurers for Spreading "Misinformation"

From the Volokh Conspiracy comes this news release from the Department of Health and Human Services (an open letter from Kathleen Sebelius Secretary of Health and Human Services to Karen Ignagni President and Chief Executive OfficerAmerica’s Health Insurance Plans).

"It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases....

"According to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal.... Any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law....

"Given the importance of the new protections and the facts about their impact on costs, I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act. Moreover, I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections....

"Already, my Department has provided 46 states with resources to strengthen the review and transparency of proposed premiums. Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers. We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections....

"It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start...."

Gosh, that sounds like a thinly-veiled threat to me. Sebelius seems to be esstentially saying "don't you dare blame the Obama Administration and its health care law or else." Considering that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was given a stranglehold on the health insurance industry by the passage of ObamaCare, this threat has real teeth behind it. Of course, these sort of threats seem to be a logical result of Obama's economically fascist law. Toe- the-line or pay the price, because we regulate you and we can destroy you.

I've got to agree with what Eugene Volokh says in his post:

"The precise nature of the threat — as with so many threats — is not made entirely clear, so the legal analysis of the threat is also unclear. For instance, if the 'zero tolerance for ... misinformation' policy simply means that the government will respond to misinformation with public criticism, that is permissible.

"But if the Administration is threatening to use its considerable regulatory power to retaliate against insurance companies that, in the Administration’s view, are conveying 'misinformation' — for instance, because their financial analyses disagree with the Administration’s financial analyses — that strikes me as quite troubling.

"I suppose the Administration could defend some such regulatory action on the grounds that the letters to enrollees are a form of commercial advertising, and are therefore constitutionally unprotected if they are 'misleading.' Still, even if such action would be constitutionally permissible, it would be quite troubling, as would threats that seem to hint as such action: It would involve the Administration’s deliberately trying to suppress criticism of its policies, under a 'misinformation' standard that sounds highly subjective and politically contestable. (Consider the reference 'to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts' — what about the analysis of other industry and academic experts?)

"Perhaps I’m missing some important context here. But my first reaction is that this is ominous behavior on the Administration’s part, and seems to have both the intent and effect of suppressing criticism of the Administration’s policies — including criticism that simply expresses opinions the Administration dislikes, and makes estimates that it disagrees with, and not just criticism that contains objectively demonstrable 'misinformation.'"

Ominous indeed. Obama has made a regular practice of suppressing criticism to his administration from repeated attempts to box out Fox News to flagging "fishy" information received through rumors, e-mails, and blogs. Obama works very hard at stifling dissent. It seems to me that the HHS is just following through on the Obama's Administration previous heavy-handed and thuggish attempts to threaten and bully away criticism-- or in this case just plain facts.

ObamaCare must be repealed. No compromises.

VDH: "Our Waning Obama Worship"

Check out Victor Davis Hanson's op/ed "Our Waning Obama Worship" at the National Review Online.

From Hanson:

"Apparently the liberal elite did not consider that perfect storm of events that elected a northern liberal in a way that had been impossible with George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry. Instead, they really believed that Obama’s election was proof that at last America had shed its odious -isms and -ologies. America was now ready for an updated FDR New Deal — as if, after seven decades, America had never tasted Social Security, unemployment and disability insurance, a 40-hour work week, and trillions in unfunded pensions and entitlements. In this 'never let a crisis go to waste' teachable moment, the cognitive elite was convinced that America had at last crossed the liberal threshold and so evolved from the passé equality of opportunity to the promised equality of result.

"But now a grouchy elite and a petulant president see that they were sorely mistaken about us, and Mr. Obama’s election was more flukish than predestined. Americans were given government takeovers of business, multi-trillion-dollar deficits, promised higher taxes, a path to socialized medicine, and an end to building the odious border fence — with, to top it all off, accusations from the likes of Van Jones and Eric Holder, apologies and bows abroad, and the beer summit. And yet the rustic ingrates are rejecting both the benefactor and his munificence."

Read the whole piece.

While many MSM columnists are conjuring every conceivable excuse for Americans not wanting to let Obama to run this country into the ground (either we're being racist and/or acting like spoiled brats), it's nice to see people not being cowed by the bullies in the media.

Man Arrested for Firing Gun to Defend His Family and House

From CBS News in New York:

"He was arrested for protecting his property and family.

"But it’s how the Long Island man did it that police say crossed the line.

"He got an AK-47 assault rifle, pulled the trigger and he ended up in jail, reports CBS 2's Pablo Guzman.

"George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious 'MS-13.' He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.

"'I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, "Can you please leave?" Grier said.

"Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.

"'He starts threatening my family, my life. "Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead." So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,' Grier said.

Grier was later arrested. John Lewis is Grier’s attorney.

"'What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,' Lewis said."

[...]

"You may think a person has the right to defend their home. But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force. Grier said he never saw anyone pull out a gun, so a court would have to decide on firing the gun.

"Police determined Grier had the gun legally. He has no criminal record. And so he was not charged for the weapon."

So what's the point of owning a gun if you can't use it? I suppose that the "correct" response in this case is to huddle fearfully inside your house and wait for the police to show up.

Obama Calls for Spending $50 Billion More on Infrastructure

Oh, great... Apparently $787 billion wasn't enough to keep unemployment in check, so $50 billion more should do the trick. Right?

That seems to be the upshot of Obama's speech according to The New York Times.

From the article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg:

"President Obama on Monday is to call for as much as $50 billion in government spending to start up a long-term public works plan emphasizing transportation projects – roads, rail and airport runways – over the next six years.

"Mr. Obama will lay out the plan, which is intended to promote the quick creation of construction jobs but would require Congressional approval, during a trip to Milwaukee on Monday afternoon, where he will observe Labor Day by attending a union festival. The spending is one part of a broader economic recovery package that Mr. Obama is to unveil during a speech in Cleveland on Wednesday.

"With Democrats looking at a bleak election season, in large part because of high unemployment, the White House has been scrambling to find ways to jump-start the sagging economy."

I'm not so sure that announcing broad, new spending programs is really going to help the Democrats this election cycle. Yes, many voters are concerned about unemployment, but many are also concerned about deficits and government spending. Plus, most realize that the original stimulus package was an abject failure at accomplishing its stated purpose. Spending $50 billion doesn't seem to be the best idea for placating any of these concerns.

"White House officials said Mr. Obama wanted to rebuild 15,000 miles of roads, construct and maintain 4,000 miles of railway – enough track to span the continent — and rehabilitate or reconstruct 150 miles of airport runways while putting in place a system that would reduce travel time and airport delays."

That last line sort of sounds like Obama selling ObamaCare, doesn't it? The "travel times and airport delays at airports will be reduced while runways are rebuilt" line reminds me of the "expanding coverage and increasing subsidies without increasing the deficit" shtick. Sometimes I am convinced that the Obama Administration thinks we're all Mortimer Snerds or something.

"The $787 billion economic recovery act passed by Congress at the beginning of Mr. Obama’s presidency already included considerable spending on roads and other transportation infrastructure. But the White House says Mr. Obama’s new plan is different, because it would focus on a 'long-term vision' as well as create jobs in the near term."

Oh, good. This money will focus on "long-term visions." Well, I'm sure that the $50 billion will cover all of Obama's vision... And I guess this means that the $787 billion dollar stimulus was simply for short-term gains-- like keeping unemployment below 8%.

"Since the end of last year, when the long-term surface transportation legislation expired, infrastructure investments have been continued on a temporary basis, even as a trust fund that finances them has fallen into insolvency, the White House said. Mr. Obama’s plan would call on Congress to enact a long-term reauthorization of that bill."

Wait a minute. The long-term surface transportation legislation expired at the end of last year? How long did this long-term surface legislation last? Nine months? And they're already begging for more money to make busy-work construction projects to once again "decrease" unemployment? Talk about doubling down on stupid.

India Bans Corporal Punishment and Mental Harassment in Schools-- Along with Detentions and Expulsions

I admit that I am absolutely clueless as to what schools are like in India. Still, I'm not so sure banning detention is the best idea...

From an article in The Times of India:

"With some incidents of harsh punishments meted out to children apparently weighing heavy on his mind, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday said the school environment should be 'free from fear, trauma and anxiety' to make the Right to Education (RTE) a grand national movement.

"'The RTE Act bans corporal punishment and mental harassment. It also bans detention and expulsion. These provisions have led many teachers to question how discipline will be maintained in the classroom,' he said."

[...]

"He said that the answer to the issue of maintaining discipline was given by philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti who said, 'Discipline is an easy way to control a child, but it does not help him to understand the problems involved in living...If the teacher can give full attention to each child, observing and helping him, then compulsion or domination or discipline in any form may be unnecessary'."

Well, good luck with that, I guess. But, I'm really not so sure that a teacher giving their undivided attention to every student all the time is really possible... let alone all that practical... let alone that such attention would actually work in place of any form of punishment.

Added New Links! Kristin's Mishmash and Nickie Goomba

I thought I'd better update my Blog List. I've been really bad about that for the last several months.

First there's Kristin's Mishmash. Check out her blog. Right now she's blogging about a petition making the rounds that would ban lead from ammunition and fishing sinkers. Such crap in Washington now...

Second is the Nickie Goomba site. Very funny stuff. Right now there's a caption contest for a picture of a trenchcoated Putin contemplating a rock. "If they they knew... I am the Batman."

Also put up links to Israel National News and The Jerusalem Post.

All are now listed on the Blog List to the left. Check them out, especially Goomba and Kristin's Mishmash.

Riot Erupts Over Bread Prices in Mozambique

In the city of Maputo, capital of Mozambique, riots erupted during protests over high bread prices. Here in the US, especially in the current political climate, it's easy to overlook the rest of the world outside our borders.

From the Reuters article:

"Streets in Maputo's city centre were eerily deserted after Wednesday's protests which saw seven people, including two children, killed.

"In other parts of Maputo, witnesses said police opened fire on protesters in the impoverished suburb of Zimpeto but there were no immediate reports of deaths or injuries."

[...]

"In the city centre, where hundreds of protesters fought running battles with police on Wednesday, soldiers were clearing up burning barricades where shops were closed and no public transport ran. Thousands of people angered by a 30 per cent increase in the price of bread and higher electricity and water tariffs took to streets in protests which quickly turned violent.

"'I opted to join the protests because life is very difficult with these hikes, the government has turned a deaf ear to our long grievances, they only need us during election time,' said Teofilo Pedro, a resident of the industrial suburb of Matola on Maputo's outskirts."

Oregon Senator Backing Off from Federal Individual Health Care Mandate-- After Voting for It

Sen. Wyden has apparently decided that Oregonians don't really like economically fascist laws that force Americans to purchase federally regulated health insurance. He reached this conclusion after voting for a law containing such a mandate, as well as featuring such a mandate in his own health care bill-- the Healthy Americans Act.

From the Huffington Post via LibertyCentral.org:

"One of the most innovative voices in the health care debate, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), is accelerating the process of exempting his state from some of the national reforms passed under President Barack Obama.

"The Oregon Democrat is seeking to take advantage of a provision he helped write into the legislation that allows states to set up their own health care systems as long as they meet minimal requirements established by the Department of Health and Human Services. In a letter to the state’s Health Authority office, Wyden announced that he will introduce legislation to accelerate the start date for state waivers from 2017 to 2014, if not earlier for Oregon specifically.

"In addition, he strongly suggested that the state should use the provision to exempt Oregon from the individual mandate, which would penalize those individuals who refuse to purchase insurance coverage. The mandate was a feature of Wyden’s own health care bill but has proved to be remarkably unpopular among voters."

Yes, the individual health mandate was remarkably unpopular. It would certainly seem that Wyden believes that backing off from that single hot button topic will help diffuse the issue. Of course there are a few other aspects of the law that Americans don't like as well... Such as:

1) The fact that federal bureaucracies will determine Americans health care requirements (does anybody really want to start lobbying for their particular maladies, worries, or diseases to be covered?)

2) The fact that the law will cost $1.2 trillion in its first ten years according to the CBO

3) The fact that that it extraordinarily unlikely that Americans will be able to keep their health coverage if they like it (as confirmed by internal administration documents), despite promises to the contrary

4) The fact that Americans' health premiums will rise under ObamaCare

5) The fact that the government will ration health care much in the way Britain's National Health Service does

Strangely, Wyden doesn't seem to have any answers for these concerns... but hey Oregon will be able to opt out of the mandate-- just as long as all Oregon health care plans conform to the federal government's national guidelines that will change from year to year as the federal boards change coverage requirements yearly. Well, that makes everything better, doesn't it?

This law must be repealed. No compromises.

Obama to UN: I'm a Great Leap Forward for Human Rights in America

I had a dental appointment today, so not much blogging as I try to not chew a hole into the side of my cheek.

Check out this opinion piece in the Washington Examiner today. Obama has submitted a report to the UN declaring his administration to be a great leap forward for the United States. Ah yes, egotism-- the mark of a true humanitarian.

From the editorial:

"President Obama's administration recently submitted a report to the United Nations on human rights in America. The 29-page report shows the nation badly flawed but fortunate to have a Nobel Prize winner as its leader. The report is billed as 'a partial snapshot of the current human rights situation in the United States, including some of the areas where problems persist in our society.' Among the nation's shortcomings listed in the report:

[...]

"» It's too hard to form a union, the document says -- either that or unions have just become less relevant. But don't worry, 'there are several bills in our Congress that seek to strengthen workers' rights' -- bills like "card check," which will help institutionalize union intimidation and coercion by taking away a worker's right to a secret ballot.

"The report also notes that as bad as our human rights situation is, help is on the way -- all thanks to Obama:

"» America made 'great strides' in human rights when 'President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law.' That's better known as Obamacare, the law that 60 percent of us want repealed.

[...]

"» The report mentions that in recent months, 'the Department of Justice has worked to strengthen enforcement of federal voting rights laws.' (So, just pretend, at least for a moment, that the New Black Panther case never happened.)

"You get the picture: This is a self-serving political document that portrays Obama policies as great leaps forward, and things he opposes as steps backward. In the Bush years, America ignored the UN High Commission on Human Rights because the panel too often gave voice and sometimes positions of leadership to such human rights beacons as Cuba and China. Now, under Obama, our government is producing propaganda for world consumption at the expense of the American people. In other words, Obama has not merely joined Cuba and China on the commission, he is imitating their leaders' tactics, too."

I just love how Obama is so quick to herald the passing of unpopular and economically fascist laws like ObamaCare as being progress toward human rights. Benito Mussolini, that great champion of human civil rights, would be so proud...

R.I.P. Satoshi Kon (1963 - 2010)

This weekend I heard the sad news that Japanese animator Satoshi Kon died of pancreatic cancer on Aug. 24th. He was only 46.

Mr. Kon was an anime director of great renown and, more importantly, of great skill and artistic sensibility. As an animator the style of his drawings were unique, rooted in traditional anime but with a personal touch that was distinctly his own. I could always identify a Kon project within seconds by its look. As a filmmaker, his work was always unconventional and varied from the touching comedy of Tokyo Godfathers, to the stylized suspense of Perfect Blue (his first feature), to the fascinating exploration of the connection between dreams, reality, and the internet with Paprika (an acknowledged influence of the current film Inception).

As a fan of Kon's work, I found his films to be uniformly intelligent and thought-provoking. Beyond that, Kon's films demonstrated a great pathos and interest in the experience of being human. He courageously delved into metaphysical and epistemological questions with wit, honesty, and intellect. Yet, Kon never allowed his work to be swallowed up by its themes, to devolve into something meaninglessly abstract. And he always respected the intelligence of his audience, refusing to "dumb down" his films into something trite. Kon used his work to examine issues, not to editorialize them. He never gave in to the temptation to preach through his films and instead allowed the unforced plot, uncontrived characters, and contemplative themes to play out "naturally." Kon trusted that his work would speak for itself-- a hallmark of true artistry.

The world has lost a great artist. Satoshi Kon will be missed.

10th Anniversary

My wife and I are celebrating our 10th anniversary today. I don't usually get very personal in such a specific way in my blog entries, but today is a special day for my wife and I.

Anyway, it's going to be a pleasantly busy weekend so I won't be back blogging until Monday. See you then.

Cash for Clunkers: Subsidies for Raising the Price of Used Cars for Working Class Families

As the fallout from the "Cash for Clunkers" program has become more readily apparent, we are once again confronted with the fact that Obama and his economic advisory team really have no clue about what they're doing.

Ed Morrisey has this from HotAir.com:

"With home prices falling, fewer people employed, and every economic indicator on the dashboard flashing red, deflation has started to become a big enough worry that the Fed has adjusted its monetary policy to account for it. There are no such worries in the used-car industry, however. Prices have jumped 10% overall and in some cases as much as a third for used cars, thanks not to demand as much as a restricted supply after the government destroyed billions of dollars in assets as part of its Cash for Clunkers program last year (via Instapundit):

"[quoting from edmunds Daily] 'Car buyers on average paid $1,800 more for a used vehicle in July than they paid a year ago at this time, according to Edmunds.com data. That’s a 10.3 percent increase, bringing the average cost of a 3-year-old vehicle to $19,248. The price of a Cadillac Escalade spiked nearly 36 percent. “A lack of confidence in the economy is driving more people to used cars, putting upward pricing pressure on a limited supply of vehicles,” said Joe Spina, a senior analyst for Edmunds. …'

"'Spina said that at this time last year, a troubled economy had consumers buying less- expensive fuel-efficient vehicles and trading in "gas guzzlers" through Cash for Clunkers (more formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System). "Now, those who need trucks and large SUVs are buying them and in many cases are turning to used vehicles as a way to save money," he said. "Prices are high because this demand comes at a time when inventory is low as a result of the current shortage of lease returns and trade-ins for vehicles of this type." And, he said, while prices are indeed very high now, last year’s prices were low, making the gains even more dramatic.'

"In other words, there was real and rational demand for the cars that the Obama administration sent to the grinders. That demand hasn’t stopped, even if tainted with political incorrectness.

[...]

"As predicted last year, the people most hurt by the price increases are those who can least afford them. The used-car market usually attracts people who need transportation on a budget, who cannot afford to buy new. By destroying a quarter’s worth of trade-ins in three weeks and permanently taking them off the market, the Obama administration has forced an artificial inflation by supply restriction. Moreover, they did so by subsidizing new-car sales that would have occurred anyway, eating up three billion dollars in taxpayer money.

"In other words, the White House spent $3 billion to make used cars more expensive for working-class families. Nice work."

Jason Kuznicki has an excellent post on this (h/t Jacobson at Legal Insurrection):

"That’s because money isn’t wealth. Money is at best a measure of wealth, which actually consists of goods. Money retains its value as long as there are goods to be traded for it. When the goods disappear, the economy grows poorer, regardless of how the money is shuffled around.

"And the payback isn’t long in coming — today’s used car prices are soaring owing to reduced supply. (This link gives even more dramatic numbers, but I’m less sure of them. h/t Radley Balko.)

"See how that works? You can’t get something for nothing. Cash for Clunkers turns out to have been a highly inefficient wealth-transfer program, that is, one that destroyed a bunch of wealth along the way. It gave wealth to those already relatively wealthy people who did the government’s bidding (that is, those who could afford to part with a used car and buy a new one). And now it’s taking wealth from those relatively poor people who need a used car today — in the form of higher prices.

[...]

"And this is what passes for a successful government program."

Don't worry though. It was all Bush's fault...

More Obama Deceit: The "Lives Touched" Stimulus Headcount

While putting an absurdly positive spin on the $787 billion economic "stimulus" package which saved us from the unemployment rate reaching 8%-- oh wait, I'm sorry it did and then some... but it was all Bush's fault-- the US Department of Energy (DOE) came up with a new term that will haunt us.

First there was "jobs created" by the stimulus, but then there didn't readily appear to be a whole lot of jobs created by the money. Next was "jobs created or saved" a wonderful bit of post-modernist thought which requires basically no proof for the numbers. After all, if only 10,000 jobs remained in the US, the Obama Administration could claim they were "saved" by the stimulus and it would've been worse without it. Yet, even that doesn't seem to be enough, so now the DOE have trotted out the new, touchy-feely sounding phrase "lives touched" by the stimulus.

Of course from the sound of it, every man, woman and child in the US is touched by the stimulus-- mostly with the feel of the stimulus going after their wallets. But wait, there is a definition of it. Rusty Weiss and NewsBusters.org has the details.

From Weiss' article:

"In late July, a Government Accountability Office report circulated which analyzed stimulus funding being spent by the Department of Energy. The main gist of that report involved the cost of each job being generated by the stimulus bill - a staggering $194,000. Tucked away in that report was a phrase that was new to most of us, a way to calculate jobs through a term called 'lives touched'.

"Last week it was confirmed that some departments being funded by the stimulus are indeed using the metric ‘lives touched' - a regression from the absurd ‘jobs saved or created', which was already a step down from the incalculable ‘jobs created'.

"A spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explains:

"'Lives Touched' is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds. This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act.'

"Essentially, the Obama administration had figured out another way to inflate job numbers to better fit their claims of success. And yet, the media has remained largely silent on this matter. Even as Vice-President Biden released a report on the Recovery Act yesterday, with a specific focus on the Department of Energy and job creation."

[...]

"The Biden report being cited, The Recovery Act: Transforming the American Economy Through Innovation, references several companies that have generated jobs through the Recovery Act. Each footnote in the report explains that the job estimates are from a company's own reports, which is the norm for reporting job results through the recovery website.

"Referring back to the CH2M company, we know that their reports include a directive to use numbers which estimate 'lives touched' by the stimulus. We not only know this from the spokesperson's explanation of the metric above, but by the reporting instructions provided to subcontractors which defines the phrase as '(the) total number of workers who have directly charged 1 or more hours of work time to a ... contract.'

"One hour of work and your life has been touched.

"Additionally, the instructions state that, 'The lives touched headcount will remain the same or increase over time as new workers become involved with ARRA contracts. The total headcount will never decrease.'

"In other words, a temporary, part-time, or seasonal worker can come into a project, work no more than one hour on said project, and that person will continue to appear in the headcount with each report. They will not be removed upon their departure from the project."

[...]

"When these numbers are presented publicly and then parroted through the mainstream media who have clearly not done their homework, as was the case with yesterday's Biden report, the result is deceit. The administration provided job estimates while failing to provide any context or explanation as to how the numbers were derived.

"An example of this can be seen in an April News Flash provided by the Office of Environmental Management. The chart on the right tallies up the total headcount or ‘lives touched' as 20,249. A statement on the left claims that 'EM Recovery Act funding has employed over 20,000 workers on stimulus projects in 12 states.'

"Which is it, employed or touched?

"A contract award summary for the National Opinion Research Center speaks volumes of the disparity. In their ‘description of jobs created' section, they explain how the numbers are derived:

"'...the total headcount, (the number of "lives touched" or, the number of people who have labor hours funded by stimulus funds, not distinguishing between part-time and full-time, or the length of the job, as of June 30th is a combined total of 480 staff members hired/retained as of the end of the quarter.'

"The summary then goes on to explain that only 2 of the 480 jobs being discussed were newly created positions. Two jobs, but a grand total of 480 are being reported. That's a markup up of 24,000%.

"It would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

"It's all part of the overall deception, however. The White House continues to throw out random numbers in their quest to convince the public that their behemoth stimulus bill is saving jobs at a massive rate [emphasis mine]."

Way to pad those numbers, boys. Too bad none of this actually creates jobs, but then the Obama Administration has always been all about simple appearances-- from inauthentic apologies, to bows to foreign nobility. No wonder Obama polls so well in Hollywood.

Battling the Claims of Islamaphobia, and the Left's Fickle Favors

Check out Jonah Goldberg's short piece at the National Review Online (h/t Anne Leary at Backyard Conservative).

From Goldberg's article:

"According to the FBI, hate crimes against Muslims increased by a staggering 1,600 percent in 2001. That sounds serious! But wait, the increase is a math mirage. There were 28 anti-Islamic incidents in 2000. That number climbed to 481 the year a bunch of Muslim terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on Sept. 11.

"Regardless, 2001 was the zenith or, looked at through the prism of our national shame, the nadir of the much-discussed anti-Muslim backlash in the United States — and civil libertarians and Muslim activists insisted it was 1930s Germany all over again. The following year, the number of anti-Islamic hate-crime incidents (overwhelmingly, nonviolent vandalism and nasty words) dropped to 155. In 2003, there were 149 such incidents. And the number has hovered around the mid-100s or lower ever since.

"Sure, even one hate crime is too many. But does that sound like an anti-Muslim backlash to you?

"Let’s put this in even sharper focus. America is, outside of Israel, probably the most receptive and tolerant country in the world to Jews. And yet, in every year since 9/11, more Jews have been hate-crime victims than Muslims. A lot more.

"In 2001, there were twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as there were anti-Muslim, according to the FBI. In 2002 and pretty much every year since, anti-Jewish incidents have outstripped anti-Muslim incidents by at least 6 to 1. Why aren’t we talking about the anti-Jewish climate in America?

"Because there isn’t one. And there isn’t an anti-Muslim climate either. Yes, there’s a lot of heated rhetoric on the Internet. Absolutely, some Americans don’t like Muslims. But if you watch TV or movies, or read, say, the op-ed page of the New York Times — never mind left-wing blogs — you’ll hear much more open bigotry toward evangelical Christians (in blogspeak, the 'Taliban wing of the Republican party') than you will toward Muslims [emphasis mine]."

Not a bad bit of work from Goldberg. However I have to add that America doesn't talk about an anti-Jewish climate in the US because there is no political gain in it for the Democrats and the Left-friendly portions of the media.

The Left champions those they perceive as victims. Marxism, a theory inextricably based on class conflict and revolution, requires such a narrow oppressed/oppressor focus. The watered down theory of Marxism, mainstream Socialism, retains its oppressed/oppressor and revolutionist nature. Succeeding therefore disqualifies a people, however arbitrarily perceived and projected upon by the Left, from the Left's good graces.

During the formation of Israel, Jews enjoyed wide support by the American Left. The Jewish people had been devastated, in the truest sense of the word, by the Holocaust and were poster children for the Left's good graces. Yet, as Israel succeeded in defending itself from the Arab nations surrounding it, as it established itself as a viable and prosperous country, the Left's view changed. Suddenly the terrorist activities of the PLO became understandable to the Left, perversely evolving into legitimate and laudable.

By succeeding and prospering, Israel managed to price themselves right out of the Left's good graces. And by extension, real or not, American Jews are no longer favored by the Left's media and Jewish hate crimes are not hidden away, but are considered to be not a big a deal. After all, the thought goes, Israel brings such actions upon Jews by oppressing the Palestinians. Should the Palestinian leadership succeed in their bid to wipe Israel from the face of the map, I'm sure the Left would suddenly be very sympathetic to the plight of the Jews. After all, the Jewish people could then be used to, once again, demonstrate how compassionate and charitable the Left is.

Goldberg should also be commended for devoting the right amount of time to the accusations. The American Left has used the strategy of crying "racist" to control an issue (see the infamous Journolist for some of the most blatant examples). By forcing conservatives to sputter and defend themselves from the charge, the Left takes control of the debate. Goldberg briefly smacks down Time and the Left's strategic but still atrocious accusation, and then moves on. That's the correct response.

Obama Stimulus: $787 Billion-- Total Cost of Iraqi War $709 Billion

So the stimulus cost more than the entire Iraqi War...

Check out this Washington Examiner op/ed by Mark Tapscott (h/t Instapundit):

"Expect to hear a lot about how much the Iraq war cost in the days ahead from Democrats worried about voter wrath against their unprecedented spending excesses.

"The meme is simple: The economy is in a shambles because of Bush's economic policies and his war in Iraq. As American Thinker's Randall Hoven points out, that's the message being peddled by lefties as diverse as former Clinton political strategist James Carville, economist Joseph Stiglitz, and The Nation's Washington editor, Christopher Hayes.

"The key point in the mantra is an alleged $3 trillion cost for the war. Well, it was expensive to be sure, in both blood and treasure, but, as Hoven notes, the CBO puts the total cost at $709 billion. To put that figure in the proper context of overall spending since the war began in 2003[.]"

And what did the stimulus accomplish again? Oh right, it kept unemployment under 8%-- wait, no it didn't. It "saved" millions of jobs, or so Obama, Pelosi, Reid keep desperately repeating. I suppose that they want us to believe that without it, unemployment would be hovering around 25% or there about, and all because of Bush and Cheney and greed... or something.

Here's some other facts from the CBO report via Tapscott quoting Randall Hoven:

Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.

Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.

During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

And those numbers are simply from the "stimulus." This does not count the $1 trillion+ costs from ObamaCare, nor any other government programs that Obama et al have been pushing or have already passed.

Don't worry though, Obama and the Dems will fix it all by blaming Bush and Cheney. Now don't thank them all at once.

Scared Dems Essentially Admit ObamaCare Won't Reduce Deficit

Yes, I'm late with this, but better late then never. Right?

The Dems have abandoned pitching ObamaCare as a cost-saving measure. Go figure... And now their strategy is to tell sob stories...um, I mean... personal narratives and to promise to change the legislation in the future. Hope and Change, this time in desperation...

From the Politico.com article by Ben Smith:

"Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to 'improve it.'

[...]

"The presentation [a PowerPoint presentation organized by FamiliesUSA] concedes that groups typically supportive of Democratic causes — people under 40, non-college-educated women and Hispanic voters — have not been won over by the plan. Indeed, it stresses repeatedly, many are unaware that the legislation has passed, an astonishing shortcoming in the White House's all-out communications effort.

[...]

"The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House's first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed.

"'Many don’t believe health care reform will help the economy,' says one slide.

"The presentation's final page of 'Don'ts' counsels against claiming 'the law will reduce costs and [the] deficit.'

"The presentation advises, instead, sales pitches that play on personal narratives and promises to change the legislation.

"'People can be moved from initial skepticism and support for repeal of the law to favorable feelings and resisting repeal,' it says. 'Use personal stories — coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law benefits people at the individual level — to convey critical benefits of reform.'

"The presentation also counsels against the kind of grand claims of change that accompanied the legislation's passage.

"'Keep claims small and credible; don’t overpromise or "spin" what the law delivers,' it says, suggesting supporters say, 'The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps many people. Now we’ll work to improve it.'

"The Herndon Alliance, which presented the research, is a low-profile group that coordinated liberal messaging in favor of the public option in health care. Its 'partners' include health care legislation's heavyweight supporters: AARP, AFL-CIO, SEIU, Health Care for America Now, MoveOn and La Raza, among many others."

Can you believe this is a political strategy? "The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps many people. Now we’ll work to improve it?" After 2000+ pages of legislation were passed as law, now we'll work to improve it? How? Maybe with another 4000 pages? Come on.

Americans didn't want this badly written, economically fascist law jammed down their throats and now we're angry about it. Trying to weasel out of the responsibility by saying "Sure we said it was perfect, but now we admit we're wrong and now just trust us and we'll improve it," isn't going to work anymore then ObamaCare itself will work.

This law must be repealed. No compromises.