Blog Archives

KISS

Posted on by

I’m not a KISS fan… I’ve never bought an album of theirs or know any of their songs off the top of my head… but I must say I really enjoyed watching this interview with their lead singer, Paul Stanley:

Here’s a great quote from the interview:

Paul:  The dance music is expendable, quite honestly because its interchangeable.  you can virtually take any one of those tracks… and take one of 10 singers and put it on… and it really doesn’t change [the music].  So.. is it successful, ya, is it serving a pupose, absolutley… will it stand the test of time… the genere might but I don’t think that necessarily most of those artists will.

Interviewer:  Does it bother you that the artists aren’t really playing instruments?

Paul:  I’m bothered by very little at this point in my life.  I find it troublesome that when people go to see an act live… they aren’t seeing something live.  They are seeing it live (I should correct it) but they aren’t hearing it live.  Is that person up there dancing around? Absolutely. Are they singing? Not a chance.  Is the band playing? Hardly.  You could virtually have the band walk off stage… have the singer walk off stage and just keep that music playing and that’s bothersome to me because I think that people deserve more… people deserve more than just a show.  They deserve passion, they deserve real sweat, they deserve commitment… and thats the kind of music I grew up listening to.  So… I think that the people miss out.  They may enjoy it… but there is a lot more to be had.

 

Luck or design?

Posted on by

Its sounding more and more like we wouldn’t be here at all unless someone designed this place to be habitable:

Earth is the sole abode of intelligent life in the galaxy, the product of a profoundly improbable sequence of cosmic, geologic and climatic events—some thoroughly documented, some inferable from fragmentary evidence—that allowed our planet to become a unique refuge where life could develop to its full potential.

Chief among these, paradoxically, was a near-cataclysmic planetary collision during Earth’s infancy, which gave birth to the moon. Such encounters were relatively common in the harum-scarum chaos of an early solar system that teemed with veering planets and asteroids. In its suicidal blow against our world, the Mars-size impactor generated enough heat to liquefy both itself and Earth’s exterior. Its dense, metallic core plunged inward to join our planet’s existing metallic center, while the rest swept up part of the fiery terrestrial shell to form the moon.

One consequence of Earth’s tumultuous youth was the thinning of its rocky crust. This has provided the planet with a lively tectonic existence, complete with vapor-spewing volcanoes, continents that divide and drift, and an ecologically advantageous global-temperature-regulation system. Earth’s swollen metallic core remained liquid; its constant churning gives rise to electrical currents that generate a far-flung magnetic cocoon that shields us from dangerous solar particles. (The creation of Eden is far more complex than one might have heard.)

Another fortuitous coincidence on Mr. Gribbin’s checklist is the moon’s large size relative to Earth, a ratio unique in the solar system. Without such a gravitational partner to restrain the disrupting tugs of the sun and Jupiter, our planet might suffer paroxysms of axis-tilting. (Try to run a civilization when your once-temperate hemisphere suddenly heels over to an Arctic orientation.) Mr. Gribbin outlines how a series of climate-altering Ice Ages and tectonic shifts benefited human ancestors roaming the grasslands of East Africa.

liberalism’s failure on display

Posted on by

Just look how things are working out for one of the most liberal states in the country:

Though too few noticed, this month Moody’s downgraded Illinois state debt to A2 from A1, the lowest among the 50 states. That’s worse even than California. The state’s cost of borrowing for $800 million of new 10-year general obligation bonds rose to 3.1%—which is 110 basis points higher than the 2% on top-rated 10-year bonds of more financially secure states.

This wasn’t supposed to happen. Only a year ago, Governor Pat Quinn and his fellow Democrats raised individual income taxes by 67% and the corporate tax rate by 46%. They did it to raise $7 billion in revenue, as the Governor put it, to “get Illinois back on fiscal sound footing” and improve the state’s credit rating.

So much for that. In its downgrade statement, Moody’s panned Illinois lawmakers for “a legislative session in which the state took no steps to implement lasting solutions to its severe pension underfunding or to its chronic bill payment delays.” An analysis by Bloomberg finds that the assets in the pension fund will only cover “45% of projected liabilities, the least of any state.” And—no surprise—in part because the tax increases have caused companies to leave Illinois, the state budget office confesses that as of this month the state still has $6.8 billion in unpaid bills and unaddressed obligations.

How much more evidence do we need that high taxes and big government are unsustainable?  Do liberals even care?

A Redistribution Campaign

Posted on by

Charles Krauthammer is really on fire in the Washington Post:

…Obama introduced a shiny new twist — the Buffett Rule, a minimum 30 percent rate for millionaires. Sounds novel. But it’s a tired replay of the alternative minimum tax, originally created in 1969 to bring to heel all of 155 underpaying fat cats. Following the fate of other such do-goodism, the AMT then metastasized into a $40 billion monster that today entraps millions of middle-class taxpayers.

There isn’t even a pretense that the Buffett Rule will do anything for economic growth or job creation (other than provide lucrative work for the sharp tax lawyers who will be gaming the new system for the very same rich). Which should not surprise. Back in 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support raising the capital-gains tax rate (the intended effect of the Buffett Rule) if this would decrease government revenue.

Obama said yes. In the name of fairness.

This is redistribution for its own sake — the cost be damned…

[Obama] Can’t run on his record… His platform is fairness, wrapped around a plethora of little things, one mini-industrial policy after another — the conceit nicely encapsulated by his proclamation that “I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or to Germany.” As if he can command these industries into existence. As if Washington funding a thousand Solyndras will make solar economically viable.

As usual… adding my thoughts to to someone as intelligent as Krauthammer will likely do a disservice to him so … I wont.

sad truth…

Posted on by

unfortunately… I think this guy might be on to something:

The secret shame of the conservative base is that they’ve internalized the enemy’s secular cosmopolitan value set and status hierarchy—hence this obsession with the idea that somewhere, someone who went to Harvard might be snickering at them.

And if that wasn’t convincing enough…

Or consider the study Ryan Sager highlighted a while back, showing that many SUV owners don’t merely think their choice of vehicles is harmless or morally neutral, but positively virtuous. Apparently the “moralistic critique of their consumption choices readily inspired Hummer owners to adopt the role of the moral protagonist who defends American national ideals.” Note two things here.  First, this is classic ressentiment: It’s not just that SUVs are great in themselves because they somehow “embody” some set of ideals. They’re goodjust because they symbolize an inversion of the “anti-American” values of critics. Second, think what it reveals that people feel the need to construct these kinds of absurd rationalizations—to make their cars heroic rather than simply denying that they do much harm. It betrays an incredible sensitivity, not to excessive taxes or regulations on the vehicles, but to the feeling of being judged.

 

SOTU Response

Posted on by

Mitch Daniels had a compelling response to the President’s State of the Union address:

“In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt.  And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead.  The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends.  No nation, no entity, large or small, public or private, can thrive, or survive intact, with debts as huge as ours.

“The President’s grand experiment in trickle-down government has held back rather than sped economic recovery.  He seems to sincerely believe we can build a middle class out of government jobs paid for with borrowed dollars.  In fact, it works the other way: a government as big and bossy as this one is maintained on the backs of the middle class, and those who hope to join it.

 

tax failure in Illinois.

Posted on by

Liberal’s solution to everything:  higher taxes.  Let’s see how that’s working out in President Obama’s home state:

As WBBM Newsradio’s Regine Schlesinger reports, officially, the state [of Illinois] has a backlog of more than $4.25 billion in unpaid bills.

But Illinois State Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka says when one factors in other bills, the figure is closer to around $8.5 billion.

Topinka says this is extremely disappointing, since a year ago, the state sharply increased income taxes (by 67 percent) and corporate taxes.

“After the largest tax hike in our history, the state continues to be in this precarious fiscal position with persistent payment delays, and frankly, the situation is unlikely to significantly improve in the near term,” she said.

Some state officials say the solution is more borrowing to pay the bills, but Topinka says the solution is to cut spending.

our passive-aggressive president

Posted on by

From James Taranto on WSJonline.

One way of thinking about the administration’s approach is that it reflects a passive-aggressive attitude. Congress obliges the president to make a decision, so he makes one, but he also makes clear that it isn’t really a decision and he doesn’t appreciate being rushed. The administration’s approach to the economy has been consistently passive-aggressive. First it was “we inherited this mess.” Then, as time passed and that claim became decreasingly plausible, the bad economy became the fault of the “do-nothing Congress.”

Obama’s supporters in the media likewise try to shift responsibility away from the president. And while they sometimes have a point–the president’s power over the economy is limited–the passive-aggressive approach is even used to explain away Obama’s policy decisions.