Like I was saying Jacob Weisberg Is an Idiot a corresponding screed from one my favorite bloggers Dan Collins at Piece of Work in Progress.  Visit his site, but remember who sent you, and don't forget to come back...

No sooner do I see a headline addressing a nagging conundrum like this:

Why Are Liberals So Condescending?  In the Washington Post no less. (Some assistant editor is in for a tongue lashing.) 

It is followed immediately by another headline proving the point:

Blame the Childish, Ignorant American Public typical fare for Slate Magazine

The first by Associate Professor of Politics at U of VA Gerard Alexander tries to explain what has become so painfully apparent to so many.  Therein I noticed echoes of my previous post BTW:

...'This worldview was on display in the popular liberal reaction to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Rather than engage in a discussion about the complexities of free speech in politics, liberals have largely argued that the decision will "open the floodgates for special interests" to influence American elections, as the president warned in his State of the Union address. In other words, it was all part of the conspiracy to support conservative candidates for their nefarious, self-serving ends. 

Wish I'd've said that, oh wait a minute, I think I did...

The other is by Jacob Weisberg, Editor, Slate Magazine.  You remember, the one who so sagefully pronounced in 2008 that the ONLY reason Obama could lose was racism.

Funny, I don't recall hearing anything from him on how non-racist America is since November 2008.

Seriously, is it any wonder why we talk past each other?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ten little words, seven of which are single syllable, fairly simple, and still the subject of heated political debate recently stoked by the Supreme Court.  Ten words I would like to have tattooed, in reverse for mirror gazing, on the foreheads of Russ Feingold, John McCain, Barack Obama, along with the 4 dissenters.

The fallout form the recent SCOTUS decision to enforce the constitutional right to free speech has all the usual suspects making all the usual suspect claims. Those who disagree with the courts decision, who I like to call free speech opponents, are renewing their fear mongering that there will a tsunami of money flowing into politics corrupting the system.  To which a casual observer might ask, and that would be different how?  These same folks already whine about too much money in politics, a specious claim at best since, according to George Will, who I am loathe to second-guess, advises that the amount of money spent on the last, most expensive general election ever, is roughly equal to that of what Americans spend on potato chips per year.  Snack on that.

It’s not about the amount, it’s about the transparency.  I find no inconsistency with the right to free speech in a law that would require full disclosure of every penny donated to every candidate.  The web offers the perfect tool for such transparency and a free and open society, as ours is alleged to be, should embrace the opportunity to shed light on the deepest, arguably darkest corners of our political process.  Divulge how much, to whom, from whom, and let the voters figure out whether it's kosher or not. But instead we get statist political careerists, but I repeat myself, promising to design new routes around the ruling and retrofit speech controls back into law. So much for that oath of office thing.  Opponents of the first amendment, like their counterparts on the second amendment, are always about limiting someone else's rights and never about enforcing the plain text. 

There are a couple of other curiosities about the debate.  First, the predictable changing of the subject.  Somehow the ruling has been reduced/transformed from an enforcement of the first amendment question to whether corporations should be allowed a voice in politics.  Why should’t they?  Corporations are made up of people, a group who, by common investment, are exercising their first amendment right to peaceably assemble.  When corporate heads decide to advocate politically it should be at the behest and in the best interest of their investors. People invest in corporations to make money, not political advocacy, which they can do much more effectively on their own.  If they don’t like who the corporation endorses they can and should dump the stock.

Transparency will show that overly generous corporations are trying to gain a legislative or policy advantage for their product or service.  Astute business analysts and investors need to tune in to the idea that corporate/political system-gaming obfuscates that a corporations good or service must have shortcomings if they have to rely on legislative advantage to compete.  Of course a curious media shining a light on these connections would be helpful, if they too weren't corporations seeking their own advantages.  Look for an increasing role by the alternative media in this regard.    

To allow the government any control over any political message is to stand the right of free speech on its head. I can’t be the only guy to notice this debate hardly ever includes the recipients responsibility in the roll of political donations.  They are, after all, the ones who finally decide whether to accept or return those nasty donations.  Political careerists who advocate for government control over political speech are admitting that they are incapable of making those decisions.  Sorry folks, if you can't make that call your judgment on everything is suspect.  Find another line of work.         

I also find it a rather bizarre disconnect that those so dedicated to abridging the speech of corporations would never dream of not taxing them. Muzzling an entity on one hand while taxing them with the other is about as stark of an example of taxation without representation as you are likely to find.  In what other arena than government would the concept of a mute payer even exist?   With every transaction, even the payment of taxes, there is an implied warranty and assumption of good faith.  The assumption with taxes is that it is for your benefit but also that, as the financier, you have a voice in determining what those benefits should be.  I’m no constitutional expert like the President but it looks to me like taking money and then passing laws limiting the payers ability to comment infringes the right to redress grievances as well.

In the end the libertarian credo that the best thing for free speech is more, not less, speech.  It is up to the individual listener to decide, tune in, turn off, or refute what they decide to hear - - not the governments which is steadily becoming the mother of all special interests. 

   

The coolest things about a blog is that any passing thought that may occur to you eventually gets fleshed out by someone who is paid to research, think, and report about such things.

As an example I was pondering a post called They're Called Stereotypes For a Reason wherein I recognize how perfectly President Obama fits the old "Democrats-are-big-governmnet-tax-and-spend-liberals-who-are-weak-on-defense" stereotype.   

The list of support for that assertion is growing by the hour, almost to the point where even those who "don't follow politics" are beginnig to notice.  

Anyway, for a great expansion on that passing thought I direct you to a piece by Real Clear Politics columnist  David Paul Kuhn Dems Haunted by Revived Stereotypes.  
h/t instapundit

But, Friday is Krauthammer Day here at the murmur:

the nub:
This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

The line I wish I'd written:
For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism.

The brilliance of brevity.

to RTWT: Charles Krauthammer: The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010

In other business...

I got the following, much to my consternation, for the second time today.  This time it pissed me off because it seems to have legs.  Perhaps you've seen it...
     
There recently was an article in the St. Petersburg Fl. Times. The

Business Section asked readers for ideas on: "How Would
You Fix the Economy?"

 I think this guy nailed it!
 _____

Dear Mr. President,

Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy. Instead
of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the
 money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.
 You can call it the "Patriotic
 Retirement Plan":

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them
 $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new American CAR. Forty million cars ordered – Auto Industry fixed..

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage – Housing
 Crisis fixed.

It can't get any easier than that!!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their
taxes....

Mr. President, while you're at it, make Congress retire on Social
Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!

If you think this would work, please forward to everyone you know.

If not, please disregard.

I got this once, heard Rush actually read on air and ALMOST posted it here.  Problem is I hope to be taken seriously, I like to defy and frustrate random fact-checkers by citing a source or verifiable stat.  So before posting this the first time I got it I did a little math. 

Here's the problem: 1 million x 40 million = 40 TRILLION!!!

So instead of "if you think this would work, please forward....", buy a fucking calculator, use it, and think again.  This isn't a common sense solution to our economic problems, it's a sure recipe for planetary financial collapse.

Rather than a conservative who knows what he's talking about the author of this letter is more likely a frustrated liberal whose only question is never whether to throw more money at a problem but only how much.   

It's disheartening to see something like this get traction in conservative circles.  It makes us look as out to lunch on fiscal sanity as the left.   

Seriously people, when you get stuff like this give it a smell test.  (it's pretty easy really, test my math now, google "how much is 40 million X 1 million") The fundamental ineptitude at basic arithmetic is a big part of the problem.  Shit like this proves the point and doesn't help, which in a cynical way, sort of explains how it got by the editors at the St. Petersburg Times.  

"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."   Samuel Adams, 1776

Let's do this.

As recording secretary of the recently chartered C4 cabal I have been entrusted to formulate our endorsement of GOOOH, and to alert readers here and my personal e-mail list about the grass roots group  www.goooh.com  or Get Out of Our House.

This group has made it their mission to drive a dagger through the heart of political careerism by replacing the entire US House of Representatives in November - - THIS November. 

Ladies and gentlemen, gird your loins and tighten your chin straps, the rebellion is about to commence.

Please click and browse www.goooh.com to find out more and join the cause, unless of course the status quo is OK with you, and in which case I would need to ask why in the hell are you hanging around here?
 
GOOOH is a non-partisan effort first organized during the Bush administration, though I am sure that won't stop certain elements of the loony left from equating them to the Klan, it's just how they roll these days, and even more predictable than it is pathetic.   

The fundamental premise, one which I have held for years, is that a random group of everyday Americans cannot possibly do a worse job of running this country than political careerists.   

Should you share that view click through the link, www.goooh.com  , sign up, and support the cause.  Feel free to cut and paste the following as your requested testimonial.  After that, cut, paste and circulate this memo, or send a this link www.heartlandmurmurs.co to your friends and ask everyone on your mailing list to join the cause as well. 

                                                                PRO BONO INFINITUM! 


The official C4 endorsement: 

Whereas in recognition of the fact that we have a virtually unretractable and near hopelessly entrenched political duopoly that systematically and purposefully reduces electoral choices to a lesser of 2 evils and

Whereas said 2 party system has spawned, cultivated, and nurtured political careerism as the tyrannically wielded mechanism that prioritizes the perpetuation of incumbency over sound governance and  

Whereas money = power political careerism has resulted in a cesspool of dirty money and governance -by-spoils-system on steroids and

Whereas the likelihood that the odds of a pack of self serving parasites will initiate correction, either self-imposed or by constitutional means, of this cancer on our republic is virtually non-existent so then

WE hereby wholeheartedly endorse GOOOH in its effort to
REPLACE EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES this election year, 2010, through grass roots, citizen-imposed term limits via the ballot box.

Enjoy economics professor Dr Thomas Sowell somewhat scathing commentary and the cognitve disconnect between political rhetoric and economic reality.  Not exactly news but still nice to have credentialed expert validate a long held and increasingly obvious suspision.  

The nub: they pull stuff out of their asses routinely.

The nugget: "It is of course no secret that there is no free lunch. It is just an inconvenient distraction that gets left out of political rhetoric."

The whole thing:

Politicians in Wonderland‎

 

My little intro page to the blog here tells me it's been 69 days since my last entry.  No excuses but plenty of reasons.

First of all, I am enjoying how the overall debate is going in spite of my absence.  Even though sausage making can sometimes be unsightly the overall direction of the argument is leaning right and, at the risk of dislocating my shoulder from patting myself on the back, many of my predictions are coming true.  Saying I told you so gets a little tedious after awhile.

Secondly, others, a bevy of Doctors, Hansen, Sowell, Krauthammer, and Zero, to be exact are all saying most everything I can say except better and more consistently. 

So I while I have been ignoring the actual log part of the blog I have been giving some thought on how to upgrade the web part in a way that keeps it interesting to me and both my readers, as opposed to both my readers and me. 

That said it I have been lovingly admonished to just keep writing so I will endeavor to increase that for it's own sake.  God musicians, and I have the privilege of having some close friends who surpass that description and then some, do not improve by keeping their instruments in the case.  I expect the same is true for writers.

Third, the writing takes away time otherwise used for income generation.  Growing kids eat more and there are three college tutitions in the not too distant fuiture.  Ideally the aforementioned upgrades will involve a series of monetization options in the hopes that I could at least pay for site upkeep and hopefully at least some of the lost time.  I guess getting the tip jar fixed would be a good place to start. 

Anyway some changes are in store here at the murmur.  First thoughts are to, at the very least, link to the good Doctors offerings with comment and or refutations on a more consistent basis.  Another idea would be to disable the comment section ala Instapundit, or a register the the comment section like Hot Air.  I also have to start a blogroll, link to facebook, get some advertisers etc etc.

So there you have it dear readers.  The state of the blog address 2010.

Please feel free to opine on upgrade ideas while the comment thread is still open.  Just remember what Grandma used to say, if if don't have anything nice to say - -  shut the fuck up, or something like that... 

Tomorrow: a word on GOOOH aka, get out of our house.

Thanks for stopping by.

Facts are..

This courtesy the Gentleman from Utah: Orrin Hatch
h/t Protein Wisdom (look around while you're there.  Some choice comments on citizen Sarah)

I am going to spend my time before this historic vote to highlight some very important numbers, so every member of this chamber understands what they are voting to advance. Make no mistake, our actions today will not be without consequences. History and our future generations will judge us on this. Here are some numbers:

· 0 – the number of provisions prohibiting the rationing of health care.
· 0 – the number of government-run entitlement programs that are financially sound over the long-term.
· 10.2 percent – our national unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years.
· 70 – total number of government programs authorized by the bill.
· 1,697 – times the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given authority to determine or define provisions in this bill.
· 2,074 – total pages in this bill.
· 2010 – the year Americans start paying higher taxes to pay for this bill
· 2014 – the year when this bill actually starts most of the major provisions of this bill
· $6.8 million – cost to taxpayers per word
· $8 billion – the total amount of new taxes on Americans who do not buy Washington-defined health care.
· $465 billion – Cuts in Medicare at a time when it faces a $38 trillion unfunded liability to finance more government spending.
· $494 billion – total amount of new taxes in this bill
· $2.5 trillion – the real cost of the bill
· $12 trillion – our total national debt

Honestly, with all the problems we have to deal with, is a simple breech of protocol really that big a deal?  I am noticing it's a lot of Obama's loudest critics, those who continue to point out he is all style and no substance, count me in agreement btw, that insist on making a huge deal out this strictly stylistic mistake. 

This just shows his style is lacking too.  Be content with that instead of carrying on like it's a faux pa of historic magnitude.  Good Grief.  Settle down people.  These are signs of early onset Obama Derangement Syndrome and we've got 3 years to go.  Pace yourselves as I am pretty sure we haven't seen the worst of it.  Keep it up and you'll only appear as sane as those who suffered Bush Derangement Syndrome.  Let's keep the crazy in it's proper home on the left.
 
I like Ramirez' take :

I gotta hunch those hidden college transcripts show 0 credits in fundamentals of economics.  But who needs transcripts when the evidence of the brilliance is so apparent? To a critical mass looking and sounding smart is quite enough thank you.  

Also found this interesting : Jobs Saved or Created in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853&page=1

Pretty amazing but I will give them credit for consistency.  I mean the new statistical measurement of "saved" jobs was manufactured out of thin air, just like all these phantom congressional districts.

Since 80+ % of us are still working I presume we are all beholden to the dear leader for saving our jobs right?

...all you have to do is take a look at public education.

Greg Forster at Pajamas Media fleshes out an idea I posited on a facebook comment when I asked someone why on earth would Americans find it acceptacle to let the Government unions AFSCME and SEIU do to health care what the government and UAW did to the auto industry and the government and NEA did to public education?  

Needless to say, the prospect is something less than pretty  RTWT here: