Double Standards (Political Edition)

Remember when Sarah Palin said that "you can see Russia from Alaska"?  No, she never said, "I can see Russia from my house".  That was a Saturday Night Live parody that political ignoramuses ascribe to her.  Sarah Palin was, of course, right.  You can see Russia from the Alaska across the Bering Straight.

"Liberals", naturally, ridiculed her for making a factually accurate statement.  They always know better, even when they're wrong. 

Compare that with how they treat Pres Obama's many geographical errors.

Mr. Obama’s geographical confusion has become habitual. He once claimed that he had been to all “57 states.” He also assumed that Kentucky was closer to Arkansas than it was to his adjacent home state of Illinois. 

In reference to the Falkland Islands, Mr. Obama called them the Maldives — islands southwest of India — apparently in a botched effort to use the Argentine-preferred Malvinas. The two island groups may sound somewhat alike, but they are continents apart. Again, without basic geographical knowledge, the president’s commentary on the Falklands is rendered superficial. 

When in the state of Hawaii, Mr. Obama announced that he was in “Asia.” He lamented that the U.S. Army’s Arabic-language translators assigned to Iraq could better be used in Afghanistan, failing to recognize that Arabic isn’t the language of Afghanistan. For that matter, he apparently thought Austrians speak a language other than German.

Remember, Sarah Palin made a factually accurate statement about her home state, and was ridiculed for it.  Pres Obama made multiple abysmally ignorant statements about his country and both his home states (Hawaii and Illinois).  Clearly, the "Liberal" media mocked him mercifully for it, right?

Of course not!  Haven't you been paying attention?

The president’s geographical illiteracy is a symptom of the nation’s growing ignorance of once-essential subjects such as geography and history. The former is often not taught anymore as a required subject in our schools and colleges. The latter has often been redefined as race, class and gender oppression to score melodramatic points in the present rather than to learn from the tragedy of the past.

See?  When Sarah Palin makes a factually accurate statement, she's an idiot.  When The One makes multiple ignorant statements, it's everyone else's fault.  Gotta love how that works.

To be fair, the author I quoted above - Victor Davis Hanson - is a conservative, which is why he was willing to point out all those ignorant statements.  "Liberals" won't even admit they exist.

Obamacare: Told You So (Continued)

Those of us who support economic liberty warned that Obamacare would result in an increase of part time employment, vs full time employment.  Obamacare supporters shrieked, "racist!" 

Told you so.

Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. 

“To tell somebody that you’ve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me,” said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. “I know the impact I’m having on some of my employees.”  

Goodridge said he’s cutting the hours of 50 workers to no more than 29 a week so he won’t trigger the provision in the new health care law that requires employers to offer coverage to employees who work 30 hours or more per week. The provision takes effect in 16 months.

Hey, now that they mention it, this couldn't possibly have anything to do with the report that 97% of jobs created in 2013 are part time, could it?

“Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work,” said Keith Hall, a senior researcher at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center.

“That is really remarkable.” 

Hall is no ordinary academic. He ran the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that puts out the monthly jobs report, from 2008 to 2012. Over the past six months, he said, the Household Survey shows 963,000 more people reporting that they were employed, and 936,000 of them reported they’re in part-time jobs. 

“That is a really high number for a six-month period,” Hall said. “I’m not sure that has ever happened over six months before.”

“There is something going on if such a large share of the hiring is part time,” Hall said. ... 

Hall speculated that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, shorthanded as Obamacare, might be resulting in employers shifting workers to part-time status to avoid coming health care obligations. 

“There’s been so much talk about the effects of Obamacare on part-time work,” he said. “This is such an unusual thing to see.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/02/198432/most-2013-job-growth-is-in-part.html#.Uf-UcGRAS7g#storylink=cpy

 What?  You mean businesses respond to the economic incentives artificially created by government policies?  No way!  Of course, anyone with any understanding of economics - or common sense - would've seen this coming.  As Chris Conover wrote before the BLS report was published...

Denialism may be too strong a term.[1] But there seem to be a lot of people arguing that Obamacare has little or nothing to do with the rise in part-time employment. Some deny the rise is even happening, while others are content to deny that Obamacare is the culprit. Admittedly, it takes a little detective work, but if we systematically review the available empirical evidence in an even-handed fashion, the conclusion seems inescapable: Obamacare is accelerating a disturbing trend towards “a nation of part-timers.” This is not good news for America.

 So, is this consequence of Obamacare intended, or unintended?

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/02/198432/most-2013-job-growth-is-in-part.html#.Uf-UcGRAS7g#storylink=cpy

The Free Market Cure

You may have seen this graphic floating around Facebook.

Apparently, that quote comes from a speech he gave at Georgetown University. 

“Aid is just a stopgap,” he said. “Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid. We need Africa to become an economic powerhouse.”

Bono is right, of course.  But it's always nice to have data to support your beliefs.  So, here it is.

The US and UK, with economic policies that respected property rights and economic liberty far more than China's, grew steadily in GDP/capita, which is a pretty good indicator of increasing wealth.  When China loosened economic regulations, their GDP/capita skyrocketed.

So, economic liberty leads to economic prosperity.  Great!  Which way are we headed now?  According to the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, we're 10th in the world, and dropping.

US Economic Freedom score over time

According to the Heritage Foundation...

Registering a loss of economic freedom for the fifth consecutive year, the U.S. has recorded its lowest Index score since 2000. Dynamic entrepreneurial growth is stifled by ever-more-bloated government and a trend toward cronyism that erodes the rule of law. More than three years after the end of recession in June 2009, the U.S. continues to suffer from policy choices that have led to the slowest recovery in 70 years.

All in the name of helping the poor, of course.  Ironic, isn't it?

Man of Steel Review

Stop me if you've heard this one.  A wise, celestial being sends his only begotten son to Earth, telling him, "You will give them an ideal to strive towards.  They'll race behind you.  They will stumble.  They will fall.  But in time, they will join you in the sun", and "You can save them all".  The son is raised by an ordinary, yet noble, hard working man.  At the age of 33, the son reveals his identity and origin to the world, performing works of wonder to save humanity from an enemy they couldn't possibly fight themselves.

Sound familiar?  Of course it does!  I'm referring to Superman!



I don't want to give too much away, but a few things really stood out to me.  First, the writers changed some details of Superman's origin, though not the overall story.  It should still satisfy most comic book nerds.

Second, Superman's Kryptonian parents play a much bigger role in this movie than in previous iterations of the story.  Russell Crowe did a great job as Jor-El, Superman's father.  He was back in "Gladiator" mode.  Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, as his Earthly parents, didn't have as much to do, so they really didn't have an opportunity to shine.

Third, there's a strong theme about the influence fathers have on their sons running through the script.  I've noticed a lot of that in superhero movies lately.  Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man and Wolverine all have "daddy issues" in their current movie incarnations.  Some are straight out of the source material, some are new.  I don't know if that is a case of lazy writing, or a real reflection of current cultural issues.

Fourth, Superman's Kryptonian enemy, General Zod, is far superior in this movie to his previous appearance in Superman II.  His motivations are clearer and make more sense, and Michael Shannon was excellent.  He was intense and menacing without being cheesy.


Zod and his henchmen are the perfect foils for Superman.  Together, they're more powerful than he is.  They can actually threaten him.  I really don't see how other villains will stack up (with one exception I'll discuss later).

That brings me to another point.  This Superman is less powerful than previous ones.  He gets fatigued, hurt, even injured.  He strains against huge weights to the point of exhaustion.  I see that positively.  Previous Superman stories make him too powerful.  Nothing can hurt or threaten him (except for Kryptonite).  Where's the drama in that?

The one theme that runs most prominently through the story, however, is that of Superman as a Christ figure, as I detailed at the beginning of this post.  I read one review that claimed this wasn't so, since Superman does not sacrifice himself in this movie.  However, Christopher Nolan, who produced "Man of Steel", directed the latest Batman trilogy with a clear story arc linking all three films.  I suspect this will be a similar case.  I predict the next movie will feature Lex Luthor, and the last will feature Doomsday.

Speaking of directing, the special effects were astounding, the fight scenes were exciting and the story never really let up, all of which we expect from director Zack Snyder.

What's not to like?  Well, the excessive amounts of unnecessary shaky cam and weird close-ups.  Also, Aimee and I both thought Amy Adams was miscast as Lois Lane.  She's an outstanding actress, but she just didn't pull off the part of a hard-nosed, tenacious reporter.  Other than that, not much.

"Man of Steel" is a fun, exciting, entertaining, intergalactic slug-fest.  But it's much more than that.  The best superhero movies use the outlandish fantasy inherent to them to convey universal themes found in the best stories, from Homer to today.  The "Dark Knight" trilogy did that better than any other, but I suspect a "Man of Steel" trilogy may surpass it.

Capitalism is Good for the Environment

Remember the Kyoto Protocol?  It's alright if you don't.  Nobody else seems to.  Which is funny, because "Environmentalists" warned of war, famine, pestilence and death if the world didn't ratify it.  No, seriously.  

Then-VP Al Gore signed the treaty, but the US Senate never ratified it, making it invalid in the US.  Leftists, of course, blamed President Bush, because everything is Bush's fault.  Supposedly, Americans' "Commercialism and greed overcome all common sense and thought for the welfare of future generations. This failure causes hatred not only of the Bush administration, but of American commercialism in general".  Also, the refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was a failure of American leadership in the world.

Sixteen years later, we "greedy" Americans must look more dastardly than ever, right?  Wrong.

In 2012, a surprising twist and without ever ratifying it, the United States became the first major industrialized nation in the world to meet the United Nation’s original Kyoto Protocol 2012 target for CO2 reductions.

 

How is this possible?  How did we "greedy" Americans succeed in meeting the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol - having never ratified it - while all those virtuous nations that enthusiastically signed the treaty failed?

One word.  Frack.

The largest drop in emissions in 2012 came from coal, which is used almost exclusively for electricity generation (see figure below). During 2012, particularly in the spring and early summer, low natural gas prices led to competition between natural gas- and coal-fired electric power generators. Lower natural gas prices resulted in reduced levels of coal generation, and increased natural gas generation—a less carbon-intensive fuel for power generation, which shifted power generation from the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel (coal) to the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel (natural gas).

We know that the increased supply of natural gas in the US economy resulted from advances in, and the increased use of, hydraulic fracturing techniques, which unlock reserves that were previously inaccessible.  We also know that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) techniques became economically viable because of the recent increase in energy prices.  Higher prices created an incentive to invest in fracking.  Fracking increased supply, which, along with innovations spurred by competition, resulted in lower natural gas prices, and that prompted energy producers to switch from coal to natural gas.

In other words, free markets succeeded where bloated, collectivist government mandates failed.  In other words, American "greed" turned out to be more virtuous than multinational "virtue". 

There is another, less rosy possible reason why the US's carbon emissions fell since 2007.  The recession began in 2007, and the American economy remains weak.  A weak economy results in reduced energy consumption and demand.  But I don't think that was a major factor here.  After all, Europe's economy is even weaker than that of the US, but all European nations failed to meet their Kyoto goals.

The lesson here is one sensible people learned when they saw the devastation the Soviet Union caused to its environment - free markets work, even in environmental matters.

But don't expect "Environmentalists" to embrace free market solutions to environmental problems.  "Environmentalists" are, for the most part, watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside.  Environmental concerns are an excuse for them to give government even greater power over people's lives.  No matter how well free market solutions prove to work, most "Environmentalists" will always reject them, because their main concern is not the environment.  Their main concern is bloated, morbidly obese, inescapable government.

Indian Motorcycle's Thunder Stroke V-Twin

Ever since the Indian motorcycle company expired in 1953, it's been like a movie franchise that keeps running long after it's gone stale, producing a worse sequel with each iteration.  Many have tried to resurrect Indian.  All have failed. 

In 2011, international motor sport giant, Polaris, acquired Indian.  At the time, I considered it a mistake.  Polaris already builds the Victory line of cruiser motorcycles, and adding Indian to the mix seemed to me like adding more of the same.  I thought (and still think) Polaris needed to diversify and venture into areas of the motorcycle market Victory does not cover.

Indian just released the first images of their new "Thunder Stroke" 111 cubic inch (1,819 cc) V-Twin engine.  Paul Crowe of "The Kneeslider" writes,

Although it's a brand new engine, they drew heavily from classic Indian engine designs. The 49 degree, 111 cubic inch V-Twin has 3 cams, parallel pushrods and down firing exhausts. The intake is on the left. It's unit construction providing direct drive between the crankshaft and clutch. The 6 speed overdrive transmission handles the 115+ foot pounds of torque.

My first impression is that this engine's internals may have been designed by an engineer, but externally it looks designed by an artist.  Engineers don't build things this pretty.  This looks like an Art Deco sculpture, or something out of a Steam Punk comic book.  It's beautiful.  I can't wait to see the rest of the bike.

I'm not a fan of cruisers, but the reality is that cruisers dominate the American motorcycle market.  Therefore, with few exceptions, manufacturers need strong cruiser lines to perform well in the US, and Polaris seems to be doing very good things with Indian, unlike previous owners. 

I'd love it if Polaris proves me wrong.  An increase in motorcycle manufacturing in the US is a good thing, no matter what style of motorcycles they manufacture.  Besides, if they're successful enough, they'll eventually have to venture out into motorcycle styles I prefer.

That's my hope, anyway.

UPDATE: Motorcycle USA has a lot more information, specifications and photos.  Here's my favorite.

But Indian Motorcycle wasn’t content to solely treat the crowd to the sight and sound of the new V-Twin. They also debuted a custom-built streamliner named the “Spirit of Munro” built to house the Thunder Stroke 111. Named in honor of Burt Munro’s, “Munro Special,” a 1920 Indian Scout that shattered the under-1000cc land-speed record in 1967, this is not a mere replica. Complete with a custom chassis, exhaust, and intake, it features a chain drive conversion for the tall gearing requisite of a streamliner.

If you haven't watched the movie, The World's Fastest Indian, which dramatizes Munro's Bonneville quest, you're missing out big time.

12-Year-Old Girl Shoots Intruder

According to the anti-self-defense crowd, civilians shouldn't be allowed to own guns for self defense because only a SWAT-trained expert is capable defending himself with a gun.  And we know they think women, in particular, are too stupid, flaky, paranoid and impulsive to be trusted with their own self defense. This 12-year-old girls proves them wrong.

By the way, the dirt bag she shot has a history of kidnapping young girls.