Saturday, February 9, 2013

Jesse Jackson To Fugitive Murderer: I Feel Your Pain (because you are a negro!)

Breitbart's Big Government ^ | February 9, 2013 | Larry O'Connor

Yesterday on his Facebook page, professional victimologist and societal agitator Rev. Jesse Jackson posted an open letter to Christopher Dorner, the fugitive murderer whose manifesto reads like a battle cry from Jackson's own website.

*Dear Christopher Dorner,

I understand your feelings of hurt and pain. I make this plea to you to stop spreading the pain, the hurt, and the fear. Please stop. Don’t take any more lives.

Christopher, your mother is distraught and deeply concerned for your safety. There are many good and credible people in Los Angeles who will help you. Danny J. Bakewell Sr. (The Los Angeles Sentinel’s Executive Publisher/CEO), Bishop Noel Jones, Bishop Kenneth Ulmer and Rev. Charles Singleton are all individuals I know personally. I promise that they will gladly receive you...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Is rural mail delivery the real problem with the USPS budget?

Hotair ^ | 02/10/2013 | Jazz Shaw

It's Saturday, and I went out on the front porch this morning after shoveling out from Nemo and got the mail as usual. There was an advertisement trying to get me to switch homeowner's insurance and a coupon flyer for the local grocery store. That sort of surprise waiting in the mailbox doesn't exactly get me all up in arms over the Post Office's idea to cancel Saturday mail delivery. Up until now, I’ve been assuming that the Post Office is simply an unprofitable enterprise and they may have to put trucks out on the road less often to reduce costs. I suppose I’ve been mostly in line with Jon Stewart’s rather cynical take on the subject.
I can’t believe the business model of transporting letters with vehicles across the country for forty cents a pop is failing. Sorry… where ya want me to take that? Hawaii? Yeah, no trouble. I’ll put it on a plane, get it there in two days. Uh… ya got a quarter?
But perhaps there’s more to the story than that. Doug Mataconis links to Matthew Yglesias who seems to feel that government subsidy of more expensive deliveries to rural areas is part of the rot at the heart of this business model. What was once a lucrative monopoly, according to this line of thinking, has been squeezed out of the profit margins.
But the monopoly has become less lucrative and that’s not going to change in the future. That’s squeezed the budget, squeezed postal workers’ compensation packages, and is now squeezing the quality of nationwide mail service. As a country, we need to ask ourselves whether providing subsidized mail delivery to low-density areas is really a key national priority. Without the monopoly/universal service obligation, it’s not as if rural dwellers wouldn’t be able to get mail, it’s just that they might need to pay more in recognition of the fact that it’s inconvenient to provide delivery services to low-density areas. Nostalgia-drenched Paul Harvey Super Bowl ads aside, it’s not the case that rural Americans are unusually hard-pressed economically or are disproportionate contributors to the economy. They are, rather, the beneficiaries of numerous explicit and implicit subsidies, of which the Postal Service’s universal service obligation is one.
Doug seems to agree:
Most of the complaints one hears about privatizing first class mail and ending the USPS monopoly on its delivery center around the issue of what is to be done about delivery to rural areas. The basic idea behind is that it shouldn’t cost rural customers, or those who want to correspond with them, more to send first-class mail than it does to send first-class mail from one major city or suburb to another. There’s no economic rationale for this kind of policy. Indeed, it exists nowhere else almost nowhere else in the delivery business right now. If you want to send a package via USPS, you are generally going to pay based on where you’re sending it to. UPS prices its delivery services in much the same manner. The only place you see “flat-rate” pricing is in things such as overnight mail, which is based on an entirely different kind of business model from regular package shipping and for which the customer is paying a premium for the convenience of next-day, or 2nd-day, delivery of something that would ordinarily take a few days longer.
I’m no package delivery expert here, but I’d always sort of assumed that the United States Post Office was pretty much designed with an untenable business model baked into the cake. It’s something which is mandated by the Constitution, thereby bringing the government into the mix, but it’s being expected to run at a profit while conforming to a business model which no sane, private business would ever consider. It costs more to drive a letter or package fifty miles out into the boonies than it does to simply get it to a commercial hub in a city or suburb with the bulk of the parcels. If you charge the same amount for all of the letters, somebody is getting more value for the same price point than everyone else, simple as that. I suppose you have to average all the deliveries together to come up with a flat price which keeps you in the black, but it’s got to be one hell of a lot more than fifty cents per letter.
With that in mind, it’s hard to see how eliminating Saturday delivery does much to address the real problem. You’re still running the same losing business model… you’re just losing money more slowly by doing it one less day per week. I’m still not entirely opposed to just having the Post Office jack up the rates far enough to make the service profitable. If it costs more to mail junk – particularly bulk advertising and such – people might think more carefully about what they are mailing, rather than flooding our boxes. Exceptions could be made for free or low cost postage for the mailing of payments to utilities or answering required government correspondence. But do you really think it’s reasonable to be able to send a letter from Virginia to Oregon in two days for four bits?

The Unscary Sequester

 Wall Street Journal ^ | 02/09/2013

Washington is in a fit of collective terror over the "sequester," aka the impending across-the-board spending cuts. Trying to explain the zero economic growth at the end of 2012, White House spokesman Jay Carney blamed Republicans for "talk about letting the sequester kick in as though that were an acceptable thing." He left out that President Obama proposed the sequester in 2011.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hysteria is baseless. Most programs are hardly starved for money


Possibly the best W. C. Fields skit ever

A good skit for a snow day: "'Tain't a fit night out for man nor beast." Also, "Maw, I'm going out to milk the elk."

Piers Morgan serves hypocrisy piping hot and delicious (Jared Loughner vs. Chris Dorner)

American Thinker ^ | February 8, 2013 | Rick Moran

I can't write this without giggling like a 12 year old school girl. As all of you know, CNN's Piers Morgan has been on a gun grabbing crusade since the tragedy at Sandy Hook. He has shamlessly stood atop the dead bodies of little children to make a political cause out of gun control. And he has done it with the most extraordinary sanctimony and moral preening imaginable.
Now comes the case of the rogue LA police officer, Chris Dorner, whose obscene "manifesto" praises media elites, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, gun control efforts - and Piers Morgan.
Jim Treacher:
Apparently it's different this time, for some reason. Jared Loughner never so much as uttered Sarah Palin's name before his shooting spree, whereas Dorner specifically praised Morgan. Yet Morgan bears none of the responsibility he placed on Palin.
Odd, innit?
The left, needless to say, is blameless for Dorner's actions. Also needless to say, if his manifesto had extolled gun rights and called Obama "a vile and inhumane piece of sh*t" instead of Wayne LaPierre, this would be a five-alarm media inferno floating on a sea of sweaty rhetoric about The Conservative Movement turning to madness over gun control. The goal, as it was with Palin and as it always, always, always is in a situation like this, would be to cow law-abiding people on the right into softening their opposition to liberal policies or else be accused of complicity in some random crank's bloodletting. It's just a nastier version of Obama bringing kids up onstage when he signed those executive memos on guns last month: Instead of O implicitly accusing conservatives of being accomplices to murder, the immediate aftermath of a prominent act of violence tends to bring accusations that are more explicit...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama’s Passiveness over Benghazi Defended

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 9 Feb 2013 | John Semmens

Recent testimony at the Senate Armed Services Committee by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey disclosed that President Obama showed little interest in the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate.
“Some 90 minutes into the seven-hour siege I briefed the president with what I felt we knew at the time,” Panetta said. “He didn’t react. He asked no questions. He gave no instructions.”
How this sworn testimony should be interpreted in light of Obama’s unsworn assertion that he gave clear directives to “secure our personnel” posed a challenge for Press Secretary Jay Carney.
“The president is legendary for his coolness under pressure,” Carney bragged. “It is easy to see how Secretary Panetta might construe this as not reacting to the shocking news. The president’s incomparable brilliance obviously enabled him to grasp everything without having to ask any questions.”
“As for the Secretary’s impression that the president gave no instructions, let me point out that it is the Secretary’s job to anticipate what the president wants without having to be explicitly told,” Carney added. “This gives the president the flexibility to embrace or disavow whatever action may be taken or not taken as seems most advantageous as the situation develops. Seeing that the President won reelection two months later, it should be apparent that those who are now second guessing his artful handling of the crisis are off base.”

A Lefty Killer?

Wall Street Journal ^ | February 8, 2013 | James Taranto

Remember when liberal journalists and politicians tried to incite a moral panic by blaming a series of violent crimes on the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and assorted other bugbears?

 If you don't, Michelle Malkin has a refresher:

The 2009 massacre of three Pittsburgh police officers (which lib journos falsely blamed on Fox News, Glenn Beck, and the "heated, apocalyptic rhetoric of the anti-Obama forces"); the 2009 suicide insurance scam/murder hoax of Kentucky census worker Bill Sparkman (which New York magazine falsely blamed on Rush Limbaugh, "conservative media personalities, websites and even members of Congress"); the 2009 Holocaust-museum shooting (which MSNBC commentator Joan Walsh blamed on Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and yours truly); the 2010 Times Square jihad bomb plot (which Mayor Michael Bloomberg falsely blamed on tea-party activists protesting Obamacare); and the 2011 Tucson massacre, which liberals continue to blame on former GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
Not all of these crimes were without political motive: The Pittsburgh and Holocaust Museum killers reportedly were white supremacists, and a "jihadi bomb plot" is political by definition. But the claim that conservative media figures or the Tea Party was somehow to blame was a scurrilous lie designed to stigmatize critics of the party in power.
The case of Christopher Dorner seems tailor-made for conservatives who would like to start a moral panic about left-wing violence--or just to enjoy a little payback. As the Los Angeles Times reports, Dorner, an erstwhile officer in the Los Angeles Police Department, "is wanted in connection with a double homicide in Irvine on Sunday and the shooting of three police officers, one fatally, in Riverside County on Thursday":
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Conservative Doc Reveals Why He Spoke Out Against Obama’s Policies

The Blaze ^ | 2/8/2013 | Jason Howerton

With President Barack Obama sitting just feet away, Dr. Benjamin Carson stood up for conservative principles in his speech at Thursday’s National Prayer Breakfast, discussing the national debt, political correctness and even healthcare. Readers loved his speech so much that TheBlaze’s story on it went viral.
On Friday, Carson appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity” to explain why he felt compelled to speak out against the big government policies endorsed by Obama, in front of Obama.
Carson, a renown neurosurgeon, said the response to his speech has been “overwhelmingly” positive. However, he argued he didn’t make a conservative argument, but rather a “logical” and “common-sense” one.
“I don’t know where we left our brains,” he told host Sean Hannity.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Kate Upton's 2013 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover: What do you think?

zap2it ^

Model Kate Upton has done it again. She is the cover girl for the 2013 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue after gracing the magazine cover a year ago as well. Frankly, we like that the cover looks so natural -- no airbrushed on abs. The swimsuit issue this year traveled to all seven continents to shoot the pictorials and it looks as though Upton was one of the polar bares down at the South Pole. Brrrr!
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Police Helicopter Lands to Harass Woman For Her Papers

Activist Post ^ | Feb. 8, 2013 | YouTube

See the Video on YouTube

Does this make you feel safe?
6 heavily armed officers of the state - overpaid, and awaiting fat pensions - circle and harass a sweet lady out in the desert collecting rocks.
The use of a $5-8million helicopter that costs about $2000 per hour to fly, the six overpaid donut munchers inside and the illegal search of an innocent, harmless lady out collecting rocks is a travesty of justice and the American way.
What have they done to our country? Do you feel safe now?