State of the Union

The State of the Union address was not given last night by the President: it was given 10 days ago by the People of Massachusetts. An out-of-touch and delusional talking head gave a speech last night that insulted just about everyone: to the extent that Obama vowed to stay the course, he continues to insult the electorate.

What sort of lunatic ranting was aired last night?

To start with, Obama insulted the Supreme Court last night criticizing that body's recent decision protecting the First Amendment. Not bad enough that our President should whine and complain that he did not get his way in public, but he did so in front of six of the same nine, robed and present on official business seated right before him. In effect, he lectured another branch of government on how to do their business. I can guarantee you that each of the six seated there has forgotten more law than Obama -- one-time Constitutional Law professor (tell me that was not a political appointment) -- ever knew. Justice Alito was so shocked that he mouthed "that is not true." Hence, no less a jurist than a Supreme Court Justice has opined that Obama is a liar. And they will not make good enemies. Obama stated that we would open our country to interference by foreign countries in our political process: Obama is flat wrong and Alito is right -- the opinion specifically excludes foreign nationals and corporations from the ruling. Either Mr. Law Professor can't parse a Supreme Court decision, or he was lying for political gain.

Somehow Obama has not received the message of the People and if the commies in Massachusetts can elect Scott Brown, then you have to believe that the vast tracts of Red State voters would send the same message: (1) we don't want your brand of healthcare; (2) we want effective immigration control; (3) we want national security; (4) we don't want more taxes; (5) we don't want cap and trade; (6) we want jobs, not political payoffs.

Instead, Obama chose to promise to continue with "health insurance reform" ... somehow the "care" got dropped? Move the marble and see if he can pass it? Here's a thought ... if Obama can save $500 billion in medicare "waste" and fraud, how much has he saved for us in the past year? Or is that only something he is willing to do if we agree to the "package?"I don't see how elimination of fraud and waste could hurt at any time?

Obama told us he cut taxes for 95% of Americans. "With all due respect" (Obama's words to the Supremes) ... bullshit. What he did is cut the withholding in the weekly paycheck -- so that the Average American takes home about $13.95 each week. THAT is Obama's tax cut. In point of fact, not a single taxation bracket has been reduced for ANY taxpayer. In point of fact, the Democrats have let 70 (that is seven-oh) tax cuts the needed renewal lapse, so that as of January 1, 2010 they are back in force. So by doing nothing, they effectively raised taxes, though by their counting they are not responsible.  Far more misleading is that over 45% of Americans pay no Federal Income Taxes at all ... The "tax cuts" are really increased unearned subsidies to this group -- these are refundable tax credits.

The single most important thing on the minds of Americans is jobs. Obama barely mention jobs, and in passing asserted that the stimulus bill "saved" 2 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office disagrees. And on his watch, Obama over 3 million jobs were lost -- 2.7 million since the stimulus was passed and 3.4 total since Obama took office.  Unemployment went above 10%, though Obama told us prior to and just after the election that if we trust him unemployment will not exceed 8%. The real number is closer to 17%, since the 10% figure only captures those registered as actively seeking employment -- those who have given up are exlcuded.

Obama continues to drink the cap and trade poison: "for those who have yet to believe the overwhelming scientific evidence that exists on climate change..." He ignores the FACT that large amounts of data have been effectively forged. He ignores the FACT that "irrefutable evidence" of Himalayan glacier melt has its source in a man who admits that it was conjecture and not supported by ANY scientific evidence. He ignores the FACT that the Russians who have reviewed data used by the global warming conspirators at East Anglia Univ in the U.K. have stated that their data was cherry picked and even then was flat wrong, causing a skew in the numbers of over 1 degree centigrade - or over 70% of the claimed increase in total.

Another surprise in the speech: so all of a sudden Obama wants to build nuclear powerplants: it was the Democrats and their allies that have stymied all attempts to build and develop nuclear power since 1970. And that is FACT my friends. FACT.  Obama now wants to have clean coal powerplants too. In his campaign, he promised that anyone trying to build coal-fired powerplants would be financially ruined. HE would make it too expensive. How does that fit in with cap-and-trade? Bonus to Goldman Sachs? Of all the things on the minds of American voters (according to Pugh Polling) global warming is dead last. How come he had to wait for a year before deciding that these were good ideas?

Mr. Obama could have been mistaken for a spokesman for Exxon-Mobil in the way he appeared to advocate drilling for American oil.  It seems as if he is hell-bent to annoy the far left enviro-wackos, the same people that voted for him, but equally feels too superior to come to the middle.

He wants to freeze government spending. Hah. Already it went from 20% of GDP to 24% on his watch, and his "freeze" will put it back to 23%? BFD. In the next three years the Obama administration will borrow more that the United States borrowed in its previous 230 years, together, and including Bush's catastrophic spending mess. Obama can do in 3 what the United States did in 230.  That's change I can do without.

Since he has only spent about $200 billion of the stimulus money ... how about spending some on jobs? He did say that he spent $159 billion on 640,329 jobs created .. about $160,000 per job. But more than 75,000 of those jobs are highly doubtful according to the Washington Examiner, or "clearly imaginary."


Obama used the word "I" over 95 times (and "me" 18 times) in his speech -- long enough to have been drafted by Castro's speechwriters. It was an unrepentant ego-fest ... that popinjay strutted Mussolini-esque in front of the nation, chin tilted upwards as if to say "tough." If Obama had had anything to credit himself with that had happened in the last year, he would have trumpeted like an elephant, but instead all the bad things were the fault of Boosh.  That sort of playground amateurishness won't work anymore.  And THAT is the State of the Union.

Failblog -- Obama's foreign policy.

Sorry, there is no "win," except for the guy who supplies the Kremlin with Depends -- Putin must be getting a rash from pissing himself laughing at us.

Let's grade our President's first year at foreign policy (in no particular order):

1. Speeches around the world apologizing (particularly to the French at Strasbourg -- Google it) for our past arrogance and actions = F

2. Closing Gitmo to satisfy Liberals and Europeans (and messing it up) = F

3. Waiting 8 months to send more troops -- or do anything -- to Kabul after being begged = F

4. Failure to confront Iran in ANY meaningful form, even when confronted with new undisclosed enrichment centrifuges = F

5. Failure to secure any new assistance from the French or Germans for Afghanistan = F

6. Failure to pull out troops from Iraq as promised = F

7. Failure to secure arms treaty with Russians as promised = F

8. Failure to protect U.S. from terrorist attacks from abroad = F

9. Failure to confront piracy in Somalia / Indian Ocean =F

10. Subbing of the U.K. (our "special" friends) = F

11. Snubbing Sarkozy socially (wonder why he's screwing us now?) = F

12. Snubbing Merkel (ditto to #11) = F

13. Kissing ass to Putin and Medvedev (who ignore you) = F

14. Having Russian Duma members refuse to shake your hand (and having it on film that your tried a whole line of them) = F

15. Bowing to the Saudi King, bowing to Emperor Hirohito = F

16. Dissing the U.S. in Cairo in front of the whole Arab world = F

17. Backing the Marxist dictators in Honduras = F

18. Canceling anti-missile system embarrassing Poland (a real ally), Hungary, Czech Rep. etc. in order to appease Putin (who pissed his pants again) = F

19. Abject failure to get Chinese to do anything about trade surplus = F

20. Beijing visit public bitch slapping by Chinese for excess U.S. borrowing = F

21. Copenhagen trip and climate speeches (what about carbon footprint of U.S. delegation) = F

22. Blatant payoff trip to try to get Olympics for Chicago = F

23. Gift of DVDs to Gordon Brown = F

24. Presenting "reset" button (mistranslated) to Moscow (seen as capitulation) = F

25. End "War on Terror" initiate Overseas Contingency Operation (idiots) = F

26. Extended "Hand of Friendship" to Sudanese genocide leader Omar (WTF?) = F

27. Removal of bust of Churchill from Oval Office = F

28. Bragging in State of Union address about assassination total of Taliban / Al Qaeda leaders by Predator drones = F

29. Accepting Nobel Peace Prize -- without having done anything yet = F

30. Screwing our only true friends in Middle East (Israel) to force concessions only to have Arab state (Saudis) reject compromise = F

And this list does not even touch Chavez, Castro and Mexico. Does not even consider the border and immigration fiasco which is also part of foreign policy. It does not address the blunders with Hamas and Syria, or the laughable failure to do ANYTHING to contain North Korea.

Oh, this makes my head reel -- and they though that Bush-Cheney were idiots!!!

In sum, a RESOUNDING F for FAILURE. And we haven't even addressed the lies of the State of the Union speech.

NIMBY or just graft?

The Obama administration has decided to fund/lend Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras billions of dollars for the exploration of Brazil's Tupi oil field near Rio.

But get this: it is an offshore oil field. So we Americans who could definitely use some offshore drilling ourselves can't ... for environmental and other concerns (only the DNC could tell you what those might be that are so important that we can kiss Middle Eastern butt forever). We are talking $2 billion -- with an option for more.

Let's think about this a sec.... The U.S. is broke and Petrobras is one of the largest oil companies in the world, and hardly broke at all. The Bush-led attempt to drill offshore was shut down in 2007 by a lunatic in the Federal Court system ... but it is not clear if this court order applies to ALL offshore drilling. Still, as with many things, the Obama administration does what suits them, even if it is a violation of the spirit or letter of the law for regular Americans.

But there is a "kicker" here: Petrobras has one VERY large shareholder. His name is George Soros. And as we know, Soros was a huge supporter of the Obama campaign and to Democrat causes generally. We also know that Soros is a "progressive" in the mold of moveon.org (which he funds) and other ultra-liberal causes. That this financing would see to violate every notion on which the Dems in Congress have fought attempts to tap American oil exploitation, seems to be swept under the rug.

Another Liberal / Democrat double standard? Or simple pay-off graft in the Chicago style by our "Dear Leader?"

And what are the odds that in the State of the Union Obama attempts to portray himself as an outsider? An independent? That he tries to paper over his middle-class stab in the back as the champion of the middle class? Get set to hear a raft of lies that will astound you. I am not sure if I can watch -- I may just have to read the transcript: the sight of his Highness Emperor O spouting lies and his toadies on the left kissing his heine with standing ovations might make me lose chow. The thought of a "smiling" Pelosi makes my stomach turn.

More flakes and nuts...

While on the elliptical machine at the gym today my choices were: (1) a soap on CBS; (2) a soap on NBC; (3) a soap on ABC; (4) Judge Pirro; (5) CNN: and (6) ESPN. Since football is essentially over, baseball hasn't started college hoops was the topic. ESPN was out then. I can't stand soaps, so natch network TV. Judge Pirro is amusing but that would be like spending the day in small claims in East Boston ... so I tuned in to CNN.

What the hell are they smoking at CNN?

Haiti was the topic and how badly we are blundering about there. I was kind of relieved that Obama was President, so at least I did not have to listen to more Boosh-Bashing. So I thought. You see, some bald-headed cretin was interviewing an activist Jewish bloke about the refugee problem. We were told that the U.S. refusing to receive all of the Haitian refugees was a repeat of the St. Louis affair where a shipload of Europeans Jews were turned away from various countries only to be sent back to Europe -- and presumably eventual demise in Hitler's death camps. Seriously.

We are told that the problem here is that the United States refuses to accept as refugees those fleeing economic hardship or natural disaster. Under Boosh Senior (see, it is amazing how leftists manage to blame a Boosh -- anything to shift blame from Obama), we started intercepting Haitians at sea to return them to their country -- unwilling to listen to their claims of political persecution (which would be a valid refugee claim). If they had made it to our shores, we would have to at least give them a little due process: if caught in the boats, they just get a free ride home.

Clearly, opined the host and guest, this was unfair (and tantamount to consigning these poor innocent people to the hell of their homeland), and that was prior to the quake.

What both of these idiots missed is this simple point: if you grant everyone and anyone refugee status merely because they claim political refugee status, we would have every migrant worker in Central and South America living in Section 8 housing in Boston within the week. The people have been leaving Haiti for economic reasons, pure and simple. Similarly, that the vast majority of Latin American states are failed, corrupt economies and societies is NOT AMERICA'S FAULT, and nor is it America's responsibility to accept their poor. Send them to Chavez in Venezuela -- he claims that the quake was caused by a U.S. secret weapon, anyway!

Back to "Morons on the Ones" -- CNN.

"Why," postulated the guest, "can't we take cruise ships and fill them full of these suffering people and bring them all to the United States?" "They are homeless, so let's give them homes." The CNN talking head agreed wholeheartedly. Uh, you might as well empty Haiti and give them all U.S. citizenship. 'cause nobody will be left -- everyone in the whole country will suddenly be homeless. And if you think for one moment that you are going to be able to catch the Haitians to ship them back home once the crisis is over ... you need to "up" your meds. Of course, the French would accuse us of seizing the inhabitants and putting them in detention camps while we plundered Haiti ... sorry Sarko, you guys already did that for some 200 years: there's nothing left.

Looking at the big picture, I don't see where 200 years of mismanagement and folly should suddenly (or always) be the problem of the U.S. taxpayer. And I'd hate to have them here to vote for all of the Obama handouts that would follow ... and help re-elect Obama. But the largest problem is precedent: we do it for Haiti, we do it for everyone. It is already a large enough problem with those that DO manage to sneak into our country. We don't need to give up entirely.

So no matter how great the humanitarian need -- it is better to deal with it on Haitian land than on U.S. soil. So let's send supplies. Ships. Airfields. Why not send Nancy Peolsi's 757 to carry Haitian orphans to various world capitals that have declared they want them? How about sending a couple of thousand to Berkeley California to be cared for by the municipality there? If the world lets us, we can go in there dig, re-construct and build for a lot less then we have to spend in Iraq. Let the French contribute, as well as the English journalists who can't figure out why U.S. troops have to have weapons with them. The Germans could donate some excellent machinery, the Chinese have lots of spare cash....

WHY IS THE WORLD LOOKING AT THIS DISASTER AS AN AMERICAN PROBLEM? WHAT IF WE JUST GO HOME?

Haiti

We are all horrified by the human suffering resulting from the 7.1 earthquake in Haiti. The unimaginable chaos and pain caused by the collapse of the slums and other buildings is too painful to watch.

That sort of human tragedy can happen anywhere, but the magnitude is largely due to the fact that Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, and the people were living in shanty towns, the major buildings in disrepair and built by corrupt contractors substituting concrete for sand. So what is the deal?

France is ALL OVER the United States for its failures to provide enough aid fast enough -- so when do the French get to critique our humanitarian aid? Where is it written that the French are the arbiters of aid-skill? Where are your aircraft carriers, and hospital ships France? Where are your helicopters that can lift water and food to the needy? Where are your troops to keep looters and gangs wielding machetes off the streets? You cowered behind the American umbrella of security since 1945 -- contributing essentially nothing and now we are the aggressors?

France claims that we are invading Haiti ... we left Haiti in 1935 and since then, it has been a long downward slide into a bucket of crap. But why? We Americans spent 7 years in Haiti 1928-35 and more than doubled paved roads (actually provided almost all they have, even to date). More than doubled hospitals. Provided sewers, fresh water, electricity -- none of which has been serviced or upgraded since. It is NOT the U.S.'s problem, never has been, and never will be.

The notion of an American invasion is particularly rich from the French. In case they have forgotten, twice Americans "invaded" France, chiefly to help the French to avoid having to learn German. You lousy, chicken-ass, weasels. The reality of the matter is that this mess of shit is almost exclusively French in origin. And for over 200 years, they have sort of been the patron saints of Haitian chaos.

France's history of screwing up its former colonies is not limited to Haiti, however. Let's just run through a little list ... French Indo-china ... Vietnam? Cote d'Ivoire? Chad? Central African Republic? Mali, Niger, Benin, Senegal, Mauritania, Republic of Congo, French Somalia, Lebanon, Algeria, Tunisia, French Polynesia. In short, if you want a list of some of the poorest, most wretched, violent and war-torn countries on Earth, it is hard not to look at former French colonies as a starting place.

For reasons of full disclosure, those colonies that have remained with France (or France wanted to keep) have done better than those who were given their "freedom" first. Mauritius and Reunion have done "ok" but are sliding further backwards, their sole asset being tourism. St Barths and the various island holdings still considered Departments of France are like pieces of France with a reggae falvor. But where France did the typical colonial thing, there is nothing but chaos.

So what's the deal with Haiti? Back in the early 1700's Haiti was the prize: it was the largest exporter of sugar in the world. And to extract this bounty, France imported tens of thousands of slaves every year because they died of cruel and inhuman treatment by the tens of thousands. French-style as opposed to the merely barbaric of the English, Spanish and Americans.

And then came the French revolution ... but those wonder patriots did nothing to assist their poor oppressed black possessions. The Citoyens of Paris made too much money from Haiti. However, a certain slave called Toussaint was inspired by the revolution and led a slave uprising which, suprisingly, finally defeated Napoleon's army gaining independence in 1804. That was the first successful slave uprising (maybe only?), the second republic in the Western Hemisphere and he first black republic.

The French were pissed. But rather than re-invade to re-establish the plantations (800 sugar and 3000 coffee) which they had destroyed in leaving -- to prevent them from falling into slave hands -- the French decided to strangle the new country economically. They put up a blockade preventing trade: and who but the English could kick France's ass on the high seas? No-one. The English didn't care, their plantations in Jamaica and elsewhere were doing just fine.

To get France off of their backs and recognize independence, France demanded 150 million gold francs compensation for their lost industry and land. Haiti had no choice but to accept. Let's put this into perspective. The Louisiana Purchase was less than half of that, paid by a country producing hundreds of times more revenue. Alaska was bought for a few percent of that. But by force of cannon, the French extracted what they figured the whole country was worth, lock stock and barrel, plus lost revenues and profits: probably the single most expensive ransom ever paid. To cope, Haiti started to take loans out from America, Britain and elsewhere. And because Haiti was a poor credit risk, the rates were devastating. This debt was not extinguished until 1947. Money that could have been used to build an infrastructure went to France and the bankers (interest to bankers, principal to France).

It might be interesting to note that some of the vaunted French schools may have had part of their buildings paid for by the poor blacks of Haiti. In about 2000 Haiti demanded restitution for the extortion of the past 200 years from France, about $30 billion to help reconstruct the country. France's heist had left the country deforested, without infrastructure and economically unable to find its feet.

And France has the "gaul" to tell the Americans that we are invading Haiti and screwing up our relief efforts.

#41

Scott Brown somehow managed to kick over the apple cart.

And listening to Barney Fwank, Kerry and others ... Liberals and Democrats still don't get it. The people that voted for Brown were not the "intellectual elite", they were working people, small business owners, contractors ... taxpayers. The supporters of the Democrat machine are NOT Scott Brown voters. Nor are the voters in the precincts of the Berkshires, Middlesex County (that's Cambridge that voted 88% for Coakley), or Provincetown (84% Coakley) or Martha's Vineyard (about 70% blended for Coakley). Newton ... home of Bawney Fwank ... 74%. Coakley, Concord, Lexington and Lincoln ... about 65% in the Democrat tank. Boston ... 70+% Some of the richest towns in the State.

No. Scott Brown voters came from Hingham, Dedham, Woburn, Saugus, Plymouth, the North Shore, the Lower Cape, Gloucester ... and by better than 10%. Places where people work and pay taxes. Middle class and working class people, NOT the Democrat/Liberal idea of Republican rich. Woburn!!! A defunct mill town, a hockey town, a town of their beloved High School football team, the Tanners. Yet, they voted Brown.

You see, the reality is this: the Democratic Party largely represents the rich, intellectual elite and poor welfare recipients ... the people that the Liberal rich wish to support to assuage their guilt at being rich. The ideologically motivated. Not a lot of self-made wealthy in that group: those people have to work hard and fight to keep the rewards of their labor. The welfare-poor obviously have a lot to gain from Democrats, as theirs are the pockets that the self-appointed Robin Hoods of Lexington wish to fill. The Newton rich? Their political choices are dictated by culture and mass psychosis: they still vote for Bwaney Fwank.

The poor wishing to work and "make it" voted for Scott Brown, someone whose mother was on Welfare. Someone who modeled to put himself through law school, someone who served over 20 years in the military -- itself long the refuge of the American poor wishing to succeed in the American Dream.

People wishing to save to own a little house that they can afford without a handout ... voted for Brown. Policemen and firemen ... voted for Brown. Small contractors, guys with a few pickups and a small crew of men dependent on them for bread on the table ... voted for Brown. Fishermen in Gloucester ... voted for Brown. Hairdressers in Andover ... voted for Brown.

Regular Americans voted for Brown.

And that is what this election represents: regular Americans electing one of their own, someone outside the political elite, a hockey Dad, someone who started with zilch and is going to go to Washington. It echos a '30's movie starring Jimmy Stewart. Democrats do not understand the the party of the Regular American is increasingly Republican by default -- the Regular American is most likely an Independent. If there was a socially responsible choice, small "c" conservative, with a humanistic flavor, then Regular Americans would vote that way. Somehow Obama conned them into believing that he might be that person. No more.

The 2008 election was not a mandate for a Liberal revolution. It was the product of disgust with a Republican leadership that was out of touch. This election, in the MOST liberal state in the nation, repudiates the notion of a mandate completely. It proclaims loudly and clearly that America is still dominated by a sensible majority and want sensible government. And that does not mean the Obama - Pelosi - Reid agenda. The People have spoken through the ballot box: "I will not be ignored. I will not be bullied. I will not lie down while you steal the fruits of my labor. DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!"

Mr. Obama, there are tea chests floating in Boston Harbor, and as it was with King George, your time is up. There is a lantern in the Old North Church lit once more by the people of the Commonwealth, and the American People are on the other side waiting for the signal.

People all over America have woken up to a new possibility, the political awakening of the Average Jane/Joe. And THAT is not good news for Democrats.

Tax the rich

In this case, I agree.

Simply put, while Obama is tapping into the public's anger at the massive bank profits to cover his own spending spree, he is absolutely correct in pointing the finger at them.

It is true that the government itself is responsible for the seeds of the financial crisis: enforcing "affordable housing for all" and then essentially guaranteeing foolish lending.... But the banks took this misstep too far. They: (1) bought into it as being free, and riskless money at its core; (2) figured out how to leverage the risks to make larger profits; (3) rewarded those who took the risks on the bank balance sheets lavishly; (4) sought to pawn off as "safe investments" the notion that the property market was a one way affair (which given cheap money seems reasonable on its face); and (5) cynically took the government bailout, turned around and started doing it all over again. Then they had the bad taste to go to the trough for record payouts while the VAST majority of the country is in financial ruins ... ruins that the banks are overwhelmingly responsible for.

So Obama threatens to tax them. Jamie Dimon from Morgan states that tax anyone as a punishment "is a bad idea." You know, Jamie, as a whole I agree. But in your case, I'd like to see you taking the bus to work -- if you had a job at all.

Mr. Dimon as well as his co-conspirators at Goldman, Barlcays, HSBC, BoA, Morgan Stanley just don't "get" it. They created this mess, provked the government into guaranteeing trillions (net effect) of debt that the banks created -- or should have known better than to create -- and then see themselves as victims of political opportunism. In earlier days they would have been lynched by a populist mob. The cost to every one of us taxpayers is massive: each of us and our children are on the hook for the lost trillions ... the banks won't lend (all of a sudden they have a conscience about this???) and real unemployment is over 17%.

The banks need to pay each and every one of us back for their greed and hubris until we are made whole. Yes, Barney Frwank may have been the primary government motivator in "forcing you" to make bad loans ... but you knew they were bad loans, you sold those bad loans as "safe investments" to the public and then -- this is the killer -- you bet against those very same investments using such things as credit default swaps. As all the shit came tumbling down, and you got caught with your fingers in the pie (liberal use and absue of metaphors) you came pleading for help ... to us, the taxpayers. So we went further into debt, handing you our savings, with which you promptly went out and bought a Ferrari. And somehow you want us to feel bad for you.

The Republicans are, technically, correct about the abuse of government power to target a tax at one specific revenue producing industry -- to punish the few. But you know? This fiscal conservative would like to see their bonuses capped at 100% of salary for the next 10 years, salaries capped at CPI increases or decreases, and ROI over 15% returned to the government to fund education and pay down bailout spending (maybe 50/50). If the bankers don't like that, they can go out and find other jobs, there are plenty of people that will be willing to take their places.

AND, before you cretins at a certain nameless bank go saying that you didn't need the bailout, so why should you be punished ... I'd like to see a Congressional inquiry examine just how much you DID sell off to others, how much of the AIG money you did get (which is taxpayer money) ... the word on the street is $60 billion and that does not appear directly as a TARP handout. Rumor also has it that your institution was the LARGEST pruveyor of toxic junk over the 5 years prior to the crisis --only you had the good sense to offload it to others, whereas the now-defunct and bailed out institutions kept too much on their own balance sheets. How about tallying up all that bad paper (from everyone) and saying you can have your bonuses back when that is paid off?

Coffin Corner

A bizarre term, but a possible explanation of what happened to that Air France airliner that disappeared on its way from Brazil to Paris.

What is it? Coffin corner describes the place in the performance envelope of a jetliner where it simply falls out of the sky.

At low speeds and at low altitudes we know this as a "stall," that is, there is not enough lift being supplied by the wings to support the aircraft. As the aircraft gets lighter, the stall speed decreases -- gliders are light enough that convection, heat rising is enough to support the craft. A brick, passing through the air in a suitable direction and angle of attack has lift too, but not enough to support that weight: it falls like a "brick."

At very high altitudes the amount of air passing over the wings (of say an Airbus A-330) at great speed only generates enough lift to barely support the aircraft. The higher you fly, the less air and hence, lift. The higher you fly the less resistance to the wind and more efficient the aircraft -- you go faster for less fuel.

So the tendency is to operate modern jet aircraft as high as practical, without unduly risking a simple stall for lack of lift. This determines the operating ceiling of an aircraft. A U-2 spyplane has very long wings and is relatively light: the amount of lift generated as compared to weight allows the aircraft to fly very high indeed, in very thin air. Concorde flew at 60,000 ... primarily because it was fast enough to generate the required lift to operate at that altitude ... sort of a balance: it was only able to be that fast because it could fly that high, and it had four massive afterburning Rolls-Royce Olympus engines sucking down special fuel.

But there is another element in this deal which creates the coffin bit of the stall corner ... critical mach number ("CMN"). CMN is where at a given speed airflow starts to separate from the wing surface -- at least in aircraft not designed to operate supersonically (impractical wing configuration for a heavy load passenger aircraft -- landing/take off speeds are too high). What this means is that while you are flying fast to generate lift to support a massive commercial aircraft in the sky (as fast as fuel consumption / power allows), you also can reach the point where all of a sudden the flow over the wing separates and suddenly you do not have lift anymore. This causes a sudden pitch nose forward.

Coffin corner can thus be described as the intersection between the line where you reach critical mach, and stall speed. Any slower, you stall and fall. Any faster, you exceed critical mach and you lose lift -- and fall. If, all of a sudden, apparent wind speed suddenly changes, you can easily fall out of coffin corner: in a thunderstorm, winds can veer 180 degree within a single cloud, with speeds over 100mph in that "wind shear." Instantaneous violation of the border of Coffin Corner. Your aircraft will fall out of the sky.

Of course, if your aircraft is well designed and stable, as soon as the apparent wind re-establishes and laminar flow over the wings reasserts itself, your airplane will fly again: provided that it didn't pitch straight nose-down, that your pilots are alert, and the aircraft is well built to sustain the stresses of falling 10,000 feet at near-supersonic speeds.

So far, it seems that Boeing 747s which are among the fastest (nay, it is THE fastest sub-sonic heavy-haul airliner) have been able to recover: there are many, many examples of 747s dropping 10-15,000 feet over the Pacific and recovering -- none that we know of have failed. Most likely that is good design, well trained pilots, a very tough airplane and a better weight/lift characteristic than "others." Also, it is a stable and old-fashioned plane: hydraulics, not electrics. It is emphatically not "fly-by-wire." In my book that is fine for military craft, but in the light of the foregoing, I am not sure I really want to fly in a thunderstorm in an electric aircraft near coffin corner.

So, picture this: you are in a fly-by-wire A-330 at 35,000 feet over the inter-tropical convergence zone over the Atlantic. You are comfortably settled in the corner of the aircraft's performance envelope: high and fast. You cannot go around the line of thunderstorms ahead. You cannot climb over them, as Concorde did. You must pass through them. The correct move would be to lose altitude, slow down (so you don't shake the plane apart), look for the weakest activity through your doppler radar ... and batten down the hatches, under manual control.

Alternatively, you can just set the autopilot and let it do its business: you are in a modern jet, with modern avionics and an unstable (but more fuel efficient) aircraft that is probably better handled by the computer. BUT you get hit by lightening. The computers try to reset as you hit wind shear and fly outside of coffin corner. Your plane pitches nose forward (if you are not strapped in, you will not be able to get back to your seat and you hit free fall in a nose down angle). You have no control, your computers are still trying to reset and provide control, you get hit by more lightening, the plane is hit by another wind shear ... it starts to spin.

Sayonara.

The passengers most probably would ride that aluminum tube right into the Atlantic. Maybe the wings would be ripped off by g-forces, maybe not. Maybe all the circuits simply go dead and the plane flutters to the ocean.

Happy thoughts....

Scott Brown

Is running for the "Kennedy Seat" or at least that is what the news media in Massachusetts thinks. And that is the hurdle he faces: MassHole Democrats think that there is some entitlement to the seat for the candidate put forward by the Party (similar to the "Party" in Soviet times). Martha Croakem agrees.

Scott Brown, however reminds us that the seat belongs to the People of the Commonwealth, and it is the People that get to chose who gets to be seated in it, not the Democratic Party.

Similarly, Scott Brown ran a TV spot yesterday using the image of JFK. Croakem was aghast, think that it was misleading and irreverent to use JFK's image in an ad for a Republican -- a blatant attempt to steal some Kennedy glory for himself (same age-ish and military background as JFK, also good looking). "I mean, JFK was a Democrat." Here is some delicious irony: the clip showed JFK saying that he advocates an "across the board cut in income taxes to stimulate employment." Precisely what Scott Brown advocates and precisely what the Democratic Party does not want.

Brown, in an interview with TV after the ad ran, points out that the Democratic Party has apparently come VERY far from the roots and beliefs of a JFK Democrat. The meaning being, JFK would be a fiscally conservative Republican today, at least in this regard -- and perhaps many others. Croakem was not convinced....

I like Scott Brown.

Health Care -- Lies, more lies and DAMN lies.

C-Span will not get its wish. Obama lied at least 8 times about open door discussions and no backroom dealing relating to our healthcare "debate." As an aside ... doesn't debate imply that there might be two or more opposed sides engaged in some sort of give and take of ideas? And I don't mean, Harry Reid debating with Nancy Pelosi how best to pay for the unmentionable ... who to screw first or best.

An Op-Ed in the Journal opens ones eyes ... The U.S. is ranked 37th in the world in overall performance by the WHO. The who? WHO? An anti-american leftist multi-national redistribution institution? Yes that one.

How does WHO get to 37th? Because of a SUBJECTIVE adjustment (just like those subjective temperature adjustments to calculate global warming) that reflects -- in the judgment of WHO officers -- how well a country COULD HAVE DONE in relation to its resources. You can bet that a bunch of bureaucrats will always point to the capitalist model and scream inefficiencies ... and laud places like Greece and Cuba.

IT so happens that the U.S. has the shortest waiting time for non-emergency surgery in the world. England -- an Obama model of universal care -- has one of the longest (including tens of dozens of 3rd world countries). WHO does rank the U.S. as #1 (of 191 countries) for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient." Isn't that exactly what we are trying to achieve for our citizens? And I could care less about the citizens of other countries -- not my problem, I don't pay their taxes, and they should not sponge off of my taxes. And this is the system we want to destroy?

Greece, ranked #14 by WHO, had a one year survival rate of 50% for heart transplant patients compared to the U.S.'s 94%. The 5 year rate was 34% and 90%, respectively. So ... the head of the Baylor Uni., program in Dallas went back to his native Greece and brought their rates nearly to U.S. levels. That education and know-how is AMERICAN. If we go to the socialist medical system, we will see that fall to old Greek levels quickly -- innovation will be lost and incentive squashed. American have received more Nobel (not that this really means anything for "peace") prizes for medicine that the rest of the world combined. Innovation happens here. Want to change that? What for?

The U.S ranks first or second in the world in transplants (meaing the people get to live) for: kidneys, liver, hearts and replacements of knees, heart by-passes (obesity, anyone?), stents, etc. The list goes on.

In Canada -- wonderful system -- 1 million out of 35 million are current waiting for surgery and another million waiting even to see a specialist.

Instead of changing this system, lets make it more affordable by preventing the oligopolies created by our inability to shop for insurance over state lines. Let's stifle the lotto created by lawsuits -- tort reform now -- and if we have to, create a matching system for those with pre-existing conditions. But lets not screw with this, the best medical system in the world.

NIMBY -- Democrat / Liberals strike again

Nantucket sound: ... pristine ... needing preservation.

Our economy: ... needing freedom from foreign oil.

Our threat from "global warming": ... demanding instant response, even if it hurts.

Wind power: ... in abundance waiting to be harvested.

Problem: ... weenies on Nantucket Sound don't want a wind farm in their playground.

Discussion: A bunch of hypocrite greenie-weenies want a farm to be put elsewhere, anywhere but their back yard. To protect their investment in prime Cape Real Estate, they have confected no end of rubbish excuses. Simply put, as a prime area to harvest wind energy, you can hardly get better than Nantucket Sound. That is, if you buy on to the notion that wind power is economically a good idea -- which it really isn't, given the huge subsidies required to "make it work."

So you have this problem, you want to be green, you want to advance wind power, you are frightened of global warming, you want to decrease our dependence on foreign energy -- but you don't want to screw up your real estate vlaues on the Cape. Ignore that BS about birds, sailboats, fish, etc. -- those concerns will be valid in any place where economically close-to-viable wind power is available. You either buy into the idea of economically senseless power or you don't. Even the birds will have to make a (the ultimate, perhaps) sacrifice (I actually sort-of do buy in).

Solution: ... Cheat. You get some native Americans to claim some type of tribal right (Wampanoags in this case, who really want a Casino, and can buy the votes if they go along with the Kennedy-types) and get the Sound placed on the national register. Presto! You can't build the farm. Instead, you will target Buzzard's Bay (not as well connected, too many conservatives and Republicans there) -- which actually DOES have shipping concerns that are not present in Nan-Sound. Oh well. All Politics are local.

Back from the Holidays and Annoyed at the President

Mr. Obama ... you have got to be kidding.

14 Days after the attempted terrorist attack -- that so very nearly succeeded and is claimed by Al Qaeda -- you manage to stumble out a pathetic mea cupla. Only after blaming just about every federal agency he could dig up? You finally blurt out "we are at war with Al Qaeda?" Has it somehow escaped your liberal-addled brain that a moron like Bush has been saying that since 9/11? Just because Bush is a moron does not mean that he cannot see what a moderately-well educated second grader could figure out.

And where does this place you now in the forbidden "war on terrorism" policy. Is Al Qaeda somehow different from "terrorism?" Is Al Qaeda a sovereign state? A political party? Or a terrorist organization bent on our destruction? Hmmm?

Your intelligence services let you down because everyone in them is terrified about being hauled up before some liberal kangaroo court for "human rights abuses." Who in their right mind would single out a single, crazy (black) Nigerian that has visited Yemen and been reported to the CIA by his own father. Wouldn't that be profiling? Wouldn't I lose my job and pension at the Company if I were bold/rash enough to venture that this cat should be stopped from even thinking about America, let alone flying into Detroit?

Obama, you bring this down on your own head. Look at the REAL moron you have in charge of Homeland Security: is Napolitano the most pathetic excuse for leader or not? We are talking about someone who when confronted with a narrowly averted disaster states, " the system worked perfectly." Can you get stupider? You see, in bureaucrat-land (of which the CIA is emphatically and charter member) "process" is everything. AND THESE MORONS ARE GOING TO PROCESS YOUR HEALTH CARE TOO. Trust them? I don't.

You know what else annoys me? The failure of Congress to do anything about the tax roll-backs that are expiring. So Obama will not be hung for "raising" taxes, these are things that someone else did (Clinton) and someone else tried to extinguish (Bush) incrementally and are now being brought back in full force. Try: DEATH TAX. Call it what you want, but that is what it is. Republicans tried to phase it out -- 2010 was the zero year. In 2011, without any action by Congress, it goes back to 55%. That means literally "death" to innumerable family businesses, ruin to jobs and confiscation of what people worked so hard to create.

Try: AMT -- it was only designed to catch the richest 100 American (really!!!!), but now it will snag $63 billion from Americans making as little as $75,000. No way Obama is going to fail to collect that tidy sum. Try: tax deduction for local and state taxes --- another $1.85 billion is corralled up again. The tax credit for R&D by companies (which keeps us competitive in the World Market) ... has been suspended. Another $7 billion. How about the 50% write off that allows small businesses to make capital spending purchases ... which creates jobs ... gone.

In all, according to the WSJ, 70 taxes went into force on Jan. 1, 2010 Obama's henchmen will shift the blame for this and claim that it was "not their doing" --- but what has really happened is "their not doing" anything to prevent this burden from being imposed. A sin of omission rather than commission. Another way of putting it: screwed by Pelosi and Reid again, their master O chuckling behind the scenes.