E!!

One of my pet peeves is the funding of questionable “scientific” studies by federal agencies like the EPA. Another is the presentation of “junk science” in our court rooms by very well-compensated “expert” academics. A third is modern science’s obsession with gender issues, to the point of absurdity.  So naturally this headline by Curtis Porter at the American Council on Science & Health (ACSH) caught my eye:

Dr. Swan to Infant Boys: Stop Being So Girly

First, an excerpt from Porter’s piece:

So, WebMD relays the results of a new study by Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester Medical Center published in the International Journal of Andrology: “Mothers exposed to high levels of chemicals known as phthalates during pregnancy may have boys who are less likely to play with trucks and other male-typical toys or to play fight.”

If this sounds absurdly unscientific to you, it’s because it is. “Dr. Swan clearly started with her desired result and worked backwards to find some pseudo-scientific factors to justify it,” says ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross.

“Shanna Swan has made a career out of studying phthalates and trying to find reproductive effects from them,” says ACSH’s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, who has crossed swords with Dr. Swan on the subject before.

“A few years ago she conducted a study that alleged there was a ‘feminizing’ effect on baby boys from phthalate exposure based on a metric she made up called ‘anogenital distance,’” explains Dr. Ross. “That study has since become part of the lore of anti-science groups who dislike phthalates. This latest study is equally horrendous. I could go through the article and say all the ways it is completely nonsensical, and we’d be here all morning, but I will mention that she reverts to her preferred strategy of using parameters that she admits she made up on the spot when she’s watching these baby boys playing with toys.”

“This is junk science at its worst,” adds Dr. Whelan. “And I’d just like to point out that Shanna Swan recently got a $5 million dollar grant from the EPA to continue with this terrible research.”

Question 1:  It costs $5 million to screen boys and watch them play with trucks?

Question 2:  What is “anogenital distance” and why is it alleged to be a “feminizing” factor?

Question 3:  Who is Dr. Shanna Swan? ACSH, a well-respected organization, seems to disagree with a lot of her work.

A Google search on “Swan” and “expert” and “testimony” returned this article from Forbes. It answers two of my three questions. (“Anogenital distance” is the distance between the anus and the genitals. More on this in a bit.)

From the Forbes piece:

Once upon a time–this week, actually–mothers all over the world woke up and wondered whether their little boys were increasingly behaving like little girls. The cause for this sudden concern: a new study claiming chemicals in everyday plastics might be feminizing their brains.

Was this a feminist plot to end patriarchy and violence? A cunning plan by doll manufacturers in a hitherto-hidden war with toy-truck makers? A long-term strategy to improve the growth potential of grooming products for men? No, it was just another study that the media rushed into publication without any pause to examine how it was assembled.

However, what the reports failed to mention was the weak statistical data the authors of the study employed to reach this conclusion.

As the author of Forbes piece goes on to say, we live in a “virtual junkyard of information, a growing, steaming pile of statistical garbage and toxic nonsense that won’t decay and disappear.” False findings in modern “scientific” research are common, and researching the accuracy of research is now a field of scientific study. On top of that, the media’s eagerness to quote Swan and other so-called “experts” births, as the Forbes piece also points out, that mythical beast known as “a growing number of scientists.”

The author of the Forbes piece goes on to cite a number of court cases, including one that made it to the Supreme Court, in which Dr. Swan’s studies and testimony were so poorly regarded that they were ruled inadmissible.

So, now, the “anogenital” thing (again quoting from the Forbes piece):

Take the chemicals in vinyl and cosmetics that are supposedly feminizing baby boys. Though phthalates have been a target of environmental activist groups for years, they only rose to recent prominence thanks to one highly-publicized 2005 study by Shanna Swan.

Swan claimed that levels of certain phthalate metabolites in pregnant women correlated with a lower anogenital index (AGI) in their male children. AGI is a measurement of the distance from the anus to the base of the penis, divided by the weight at the time of measurement.

There wasn’t a consensus as to what a normal range for AGI was in baby boys or whether it is significant, but there was evidence that a shorter AGI correlated with a slower rate of testicular descent in animals. When a National Institutes of Health (NIH) expert panel later evaluated her study, it didn’t find her evidence wholly convincing. All the babies in the study had normal genitalia with no sign of defects.

But Swan wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle claiming that “In-utero exposures to phthalates can lead to birth defects and genital malformations … in baby boys.” Such a claim disregarded her own study and would never have passed peer review. Environmental activists and journalists then seized on her public comments as proof the public was at risk. Phthalates and Shanna Swan suddenly became the poster boy and girl for deformed penises.

Dr. Swan later mined through new data she compiled. On the basis of finding two correlations that reached statistical significance, she announced to the world that some phthalates could change male behavior and feminize little boys.

Two?

Two correlations are a long way away from evidence of causation, friends. On that basis, Swan feels justified striking fear in the hearts of mothers regarding the health and/or masculinity of their boys?  And Dr. Swan is supposed to be a well-respected expert in her field? It seems, as the Forbes piece said, that:

The logic of her approach to evaluating risk was so precautionary that virtually nothing could provide sufficient proof of safety while pretty much anything could provide sufficient proof of danger.

Right. And it is the potential danger of non-scientific “approaches” like Swan’s – including fabricating metrics like “anogenital distance,” over-valuing minor correlations, and placing unsubstantiated, theoretical op-eds in major newspapers – that fairness can be thwarted in our justice courts as well as in the court of public opinion.

It should be noted that such “methods” and “research” can also lead to unnecessary and costly EPA regulations that don’t make us one bit safer. Dr. Swan sure seems to be playing fast and loose with our tax dollars, which is the real source of the $5M in funding for her “research.”

Clever.  And sobering.

Nearly every argument in favor of universal (socialized) health care includes the premis that it is a “right.”  But according to the U.S. Constiution, this is not so.  Geoff Lawrence over at NPRI explains why by giving us a brief lesson (via the writings of John Locke) about how the Constitution does not in fact support “positive rights.”  If you wish to effectively debate someone on health care reform (or any other entitlement program), you must understand this fundamental concept.  I recommend that you read Geoff’s whole post, but here’s the opener to give you a taste:

In the ongoing debate over health care reform, I continue to hear pundits on the left claim that health care is a right. Yet, this notion that government exists to guarantee “positive rights” such as free health care completely misunderstands the development of constitutional government.

The entire notion of constitutional government can be traced to John Locke’s Second Treatise. Here it is explained that all men are endowed with a set of natural rights which include: life, liberty and property. In order to protect those rights, civilized individuals agree to a “social contract” in order to form a government whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of individuals. This is done by empowering government to restrain the actions of others (such as theft, physical violence, etc.) that might directly infringe on your own natural rights. Hence the expression “Your rights end where someone else’s begin.”

The primary problem with the concept of “positive rights” is that the purpose of government changes from protecting the natural rights of individuals to actively infringing upon those rights. Any requirement for government to provide individuals with a certain amount of goods means that those goods must first be confiscated from society – which is a limit on the natural right to control property.

Just so.

For a wonderful treatise on why the government should not be in the business of deciding whether or how much to take from us in order to give to select others, read this story that was told on the House floor by Davy Crockett when he was serving as a U.S. Representative from Tennessee.  It concerned two votes on spending bills and the temptation of Congress to distribute money that was not their own for “charitable” purposes.

Our federal and state legislatures, as well as the Oval Office, have too long been staffed by too many people who do not understand nor support our rights and protections as they ought to exist according to our Constitution.   Through the increasing willingness of we, the citizenry, to allow government to do what we, as individuals, ought to be doing – helping and giving to the poor and needy as we are able and as we feel called to do – we have permitted our great Republic to become a tax-laden “social democracy” that reduces rather than protects our prosperity and freedom.

On May 23, 1857, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote: “A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Are we there yet?  Not quite, but I fear we are getting dangerously close.  Educate yourselves, good people, and let us find ways to speak out and persuade others before this great Republic devolves into a pitiful excuse for the nation it once was.

A little Hill bird just emailed me to hurry up and flip on CSPAN.  Which I can’t do from my present location.  But if I could, I am told I would see/hear House Republican Leader John Boehner reading aloud.  The text?

A 300-page amendment to the Waxman-Markey energy bill that was dropped in at 3 a.m. this morning.  So…here we have Democrats trying to rush through what amounts to the largest tax in American history (Cap and Trade!) AND then slip in giant last minute amendments in the middle of the night.

Really, I’m surprised they didn’t think to slip a mickey in all the GOP drinks to make sure everyone slept through the financial rape of the American taxpayer.

Keep it classy, guys!

Update: If you want to call your congressman and urge him/her to vote against the “Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Legislation, H.R. 2454,” you can go here to get his/her phone number.  If you live in my district, which many of E!!’s Nevada readers do, your rep is Rep. Shelley Berkley.  Her office number in D.C. is (202)225-5965.

Update 2: If you don’t know why you should be against Cap and Trade, read this fact sheet by the Heritage Foundation.

Update 3: Read what newspapers around the country have said about it (page has  pithy quotes from major publications).

Update 4: Um, it passed.  By 8 votes.  As my friend Doug Busselman said on his blog:  “The forces of greater government control and those who favor destroying what’s left of our economy have won — 219-212. Thank goodness we have Senator Harry Reid to protect us — oh, nevermind!”

Update 5: The eight House Republicans who voted for the bill are:

Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
Mike Castle R (DW)
Mark Steven Eirk R (IL)
Leonard Lance R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
John McHugh R (NY)
Dave Reichert R (WA)
Chris Smith R (NJ)

Additionally, the following two Republicans ABSTAINED from the vote.

Jeff Flake R (AZ)
John Sullivan R (OK)

Update 6:  Campaign for Liberty has a list of all the Democrats who voted against.

You’ve probably heard the social drinker’s jovial party line, “I don’t drink any more.  (dramatic pause)  Don’t drink any less, either…”

Yuk-yuk.

Today’s Morning Bell says this joke pretty much sums up Obama’s proposal for pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation which comes equipped with an exception for entitemlement spending.  Their quoted quip: 

Commenting on President Obama’s exemption for entitlement spending in his PAYGO legislation, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget President Maya MacGuineas said: “This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor.”

Here’s a clip from the piece:

In theory, PAYGO sounds like common sense: Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere. In reality, PAYGO is nothing more than a political gimmick that only enables higher spending and exploding deficits. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl explains:

1) PAYGO has never been enforced

• During the 1991-2002 round of statutory PAYGO, Congress and the President still added more than $700 billion to the budget deficit and simply cancelled every single sequestration that would have enforced PAYGO.
• Since the 2007 creation of the PAYGO rule, Congress has waived it numerous times in order to add $600 billion to the deficit. In fact, the entire “stimulus” bill violated PAYGO; Congress simply ignored the rule.

2) PAYGO’s design is flawed

• PAYGO exempts all discretionary spending, and would also allow all current entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to continue growing on autopilot. It affects only new entitlements or tax cuts that may be created in the future.
• Even if PAYGO were fully enforced, entitlement spending would still grow 6 percent annually, and discretionary spending could grow without limit.

Already this year Obama expanded Medicaid liabilities by $200 billion over 10 years, and he is now pushing a public health insurance option that would cost $452 billion per year, or more than $6 trillion over a 10-year period. How does Obama plan to pay for all this new spending under his new PAYGO legislation? He doesn’t.

Obama is banking on trillions in exemptions to PAYGO over the next decade, including the one for his health care reform plan which will have to run big deficits if they get it passed.  PAYGO is a farce, sham, mockery, etc.  As is politics in this country.

Pass the vodka, please.

Excerpted and condensed from an email from Erick Erickson at RedState:

Obama has proposed sending the International Monetary Fund (IMF) billions of dollars as a quasi-bailout for European banks. 

The word is, House Republicans are going to vote in a block to oppose this, which means around thirty Democrats are needed to defeat the bill.   Blue Dog Dems are the key, along with Dems in districts that tilt Republican.  

Call 202-224-3121. Ask for the members of Congress below and tell them to oppose H.R. 2346, the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Bobby Bright AL-02
Parker Griffith AL-05
Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-01
Suzanne Kosmos FL-24
Walt Mitnick ID-01
Frank Kratovil MD-01
Glenn Nye VA-02
Tom Perriello VA-05Travis Childers (MS-01)
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05)
Gabby Giffords (AZ-08)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Bill Foster (IL-14)
Baron Hill (IN-09)

Yeah, I know what I said, but tomorrow ran a bit long. And right now it’s late and I’m really too tired to wax blogetic.  But I’ll give you a few interesting items to read:

– Gun Owners of Nevada SB-52 alert here. Raggio and Gansert’s contact numbers are conveniently provided.

– A moderate Democrat displeased with the leftward lurch of the Obama White House writes to the Las Vegas Sun here.

– On Friday, Carson City protestors protested about the state budget here.  The state Assembly overrode the governor’s veto so we now have a $6.9m budget and a $781 million tax increase to fund it.  (Gov. Gibbons’ proposed $6.2 billion budget, which legislators rejected, included a $220 million voter-approved room tax increase.) Me, I reject BOTH budgets as more than was needed – and more than Nevada can afford.

– If the facts are as represented, it seems a mistrial and re-trial for an Army Ranger would be in order here.  Personally, I don’t care if he shot the Al Quada operative while he was just sitting on the rock.  Why are we politely escorting known terrorists around anyway…?

– A seemingly worthy non-partisan breast cancer initiative petition is here. It urges Congress to pass legislation to end the practice of so-called “drive-through” mastectomies in which women are forced out of the hospital only hours after invasive breast cancer surgery.  Hours...?

If you can stomach it, Americans for Tax Reform has a recap of all the major fiscal and tax-related events since Inauguration Day.

Title:  Obama’s First 100 Days:  Higher Spending. More Debt. New Taxes. Broken Promises.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just a snippet:

Day 1 — January 20: In his Inaugural address, President Obama makes a noteworthy commitment to the American taxpayer:
 
“And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

Or two:

Day 41 — March 1: The Obama administration foreshadows another broken promise when Peter Orszag, appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, claims the 8,000 earmarks in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 are “last year’s business. We just need to move on.” The statement by Orszag in not consistent with Obama’s campaign promise made in the first presidential debate:
 
“And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” (Sept. 26, 2008. First Presidential Debate, Oxford, Miss.)

RTWT.

To read this NYT piece on the estate tax, you’d think its biggest problems are that conservative spin-meisters dubbed it “the death tax” as it came out of the gate – and that they “portray [it] as the Internal Revenue Service reaching beyond on the grave.”  (How dare they tell the truth like that?!)  The article’s obviously biased author, Carl Hulse, argues:  “Studies show that the tax hits merely a sliver of wealthy American families.”  Well, ok then.  As long as we are only raking a few people over the proverbial coals, why should we get excited?

Because the tax is unfair and ought to be illegal.  It amounts to double-taxation since those who have accumulated wealth have already paid taxes on their income throughout their lifetime.  The sums of money are not the issue.  Whether you are worth $10 million or $1 million or a nickel ninety-eight, you should not have to stop off for a last visit to the tax man on your way to the grave.

Harry Reid doesn’t think so, though.  Evidenced by the bulging of his veins during a recent Senate floor debate.  The issue?  A proposed amendment to permanently cut the death tax rate to 35% and to exempt estates worth less than $10 million per couple and $5 million for a single taxpayer.  (Obama and his minions want a 45% rate with a $7 million exemption.)

Every Republican voted for the lower rate, as did 10 Democrats.  But according to this piece in the WSG, Harry Reid called the amendment by Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) “outrageous,” a “stunning act of hypocrisy,” and a tax cut for those “at the very top of the food chain.”  And then (quote and comment from the WSJ):

“We can only turn the page from recession to recovery if we watch every single taxpayer dollar the way families watch every dollar in their budget.”  We’d say Mr. Reid was being deliberately ironic, but Harry doesn’t do irony.  He’s an outrage man.  And speaking of which, he was at that very moment working to pass a 2010 budget outline that includes record spending and trillions of dollars in new debt.

Yeah, we all know Reid is on board with unprecendented federal spending and national debt.

But let me get this other part straight.  Harry Reid equates your family income and budget with the federal government’s.  This might seem like a reasonable comparison at first glance, but it’s faulty to the core. Your household income is likely fixed at its current rate.  You have to (or should) limit your spending to what you take in.  You cannot demand more income from your employer.  And you probably aren’t borrowing large sums of money in order to “invest” in questionable and unproven endeavors.

The federal government’s revenue stream, on the other hand, is not fixed.  Legislators can increase the government’s revenue anytime by voting to create or raise taxes. They don’t play by the same rules and live within the same limits we do; they make the rules and set the limits (or lack thereof).  They can – and do – vote to spend whatever they wish, for whichever “stimulus” effort they want.  Evidenced by the current budget and tax talk on The Hill.  In short, there is no valid comparison.  Harry Reid and friends know this, or should.

But back to the death tax.  Bottom line:  there shouldn’t be one.  At all.

And the bottom line on Harry Reid and all those who support fleecing “a small sliver” of America’s wealthy as they draw their last breath?  To quote that king of outrage himself, they are engaged in “a stunning act of hypocrisy.”

Hat tip for the WSJ/Reid portion:  Veronique de Rugy @ The Corner

UPDATE:  A reader emails, and another comments, on something I think a lot of people don’t realize:  the estate tax applies to the recipient of the inheritance no matter the size of the gift.  So, if a benefactor who exceeds the exempted limit leaves you, say, $100,000 in his will, it is you who will owe the IRS $35,000. 

So much for only a small “sliver” of Americans being subject to this tax.  The very wealthy often make numerous bequests of varying sizes to relatives and other people who are not particularly wealthy (otherwise the bequest wouldn’t mean much), and all these recipients, however poor, are subject to the 35% tax rate.  Imagine a single mother living at or near poverty level who pays no (or next-to-no) income tax.  She receives $50,000 from a rich auntie and must then write the IRS a check for $17,500.  To her, that sum could mean a down payment on a small house, or cash payment for a decent new car, or a good start on a college education for her child…but instead, it will go to the federal government, to redistribute as it sees fit. 

Does this seem just to to anyone?  A suspicious mind might wonder if there is a deliberate intent to make sure the money doesn’t go to the descendants and/or friends of productive and successful people.

And Obama wants to raise the tax rate to 45%.

From Chuck’s Muth’s News & Views:

Now here’s the sort of talk we like to hear from a Republican governor…

“Common sense dictates that when you’re in a hole it’s vital you stop digging. Requiring our state to spend beyond its means for the next 24 months to be eligible for all the stimulus moneys guarantees that (our state) will dig itself a $740 million financial hole. Who helps us then? Do we raise taxes, and thereby weaken our competitiveness relative to other states and countries — or do we just summarily end programs for some of the neediest of our state?
 
“Or are we to plan on yet another round of stimulus windfall from Washington in two years — again, with money we don’t have? I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I do know the $740 million budget hole created would be the largest such hole in (our) state financial history.”

Unfortunately, that’s not Nevada’s tax-hiking Republican governor talking.  It’s a true conservative Republican governor talking:  South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. 

Wish there were more like him.  Wish he was our governor.

If  you can, call and urge these NV legislators to vote against the budget:

Sen. Reid       202-224-3542

Sen. Ensign     202-224-6244

Rep. Heller     202-225-6155

Numbers for the “Mod Squad” in the Senate:

Evan Bayh (IN): 202-224-5623
Mark Begich (AK): 202-224-3004
Michael Bennet (CO): 202-224-5852
Thomas Carper (DE): 202-224-2441
Kay Hagan (NC): 202-224-6342
Claire McCaskill (MO): 202-224-6154
Mary Landrieu (LA): 202-224-5824
Joe Lieberman (CT): 202-224-4041
Ben Nelson (NE): 202-224-6551
Jeanne Shaheen (NH): 202-224-2841

Also… these Republicans are on the fence:

Arlen Specter (PA): 202-224-4254
Olympia Snowe (ME): 202-224-5344

An online Colorado news source, Face the State, is now offering a monthly award for investigative reporting. 

Read the piece that won for March, written by citizen-journalist and Colorado resident Natalie Menten.  It is well-researched and obviously deserving.

Why is the existing “local media” so poor at investigating and reporting these kinds of stories?

Why is it left to private citizens to dig and delve (and spend their own money on FOIA requests) as they look for transparency in and accountablity from government?

We need transparency laws in every state.  The check registers of state and municipal agencies should be posted online for all to see.

Check out this web ad on Harry Reid’s back room dealings re: the protection of AIG bonuses.

Reid appointed himself to the Stimulus Conference Committee and masterminded the deal – and now refuses to talk about it.

Call Harry Reid and tell him you know what he did – and that you will be contributing money to defeat him in 2010:

1-866-SEN-REID

If you think – after the AIG/Bailout/Stimulus fiasco – that you can stomach listening to Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Frank, Dodd, and others pledging their faith in Obama’s commitment to restraint, accountability, and transparency, check out this video of compiled statements.

Hat Tip:  Ericka Andersen and www.GOP.gov

…because I will now praise Nevada Congresswoman Dina Titus for statements she made today in a Budget Committee meeting on The Hill:

“…I remain concerned about President Obama’s proposal to reduce the itemized deduction rate for families with incomes over $250,000.  I am particularly concerned with the impact this provision could have on housing and charitable giving.
 
“The Mortgage Interest Deduction (MID) is an important incentive that encourages Americans all over the country to buy homes.  Many consider the MID to be the single most important tax incentive facilitating home ownership in the United States.  I am concerned that reducing the value of this incentive would lead to the further deterioration of the housing market.  It has become evident over the past few years that the housing market is tied closely to the national economy as a whole.  With the economy in its current state, we simply cannot afford to make changes to the tax code that could lead to a further decline in home prices.  The housing market in Congressional District Three in Nevada – previously one of the fastest growing markets in the nation – is currently in shambles.  Today, nearly 58.2 percent of Las Vegas homes have negative equity.  We can’t afford to let prices drop any further by making it less attractive to buy a home.
 
“I am similarly concerned about the impact the proposal to reduce the itemized deduction rate could have on charitable giving.  The tax deduction for charitable giving encourages Americans to make contributions to philanthropic organizations, many of which have been hard hit by the economic crisis.  With so many people in need, the services many charities provide are in high demand.  I believe that it is the wrong time to make changes to the tax code that could make charitable contributions less attractive.”

Forthwith, let it not be said that I am unwilling to acknowledge sanity when it occasionally visits itself upon Congresswoman Titus.

Just when you thought your blood pressure couldn’t rise any higher over the ill-conceived, pork-stuffed stimulus bill on-which-the-ink-is-not-yet-dry, Nancy Pelosi says ANOTHER package may be needed.

(Note:  in Liberalspeak, “may” = “will”)

She cites “job growth” as the reason for “keeping the door open” in this extended season of stimulus.  And here I thought saving and creating jobs was the meat and potatoes of Stimulus ~ Part I.

No, silly!  That was just a teaser.  A mere morsel.  A yummy bite-sized bacon-wrapped appetizer.

Pelosi and Friends are now going to start cooking up the next course – the one that will really, Really fix everything – for your consumption.

If anyone feels the need to puke, the bathroom is that way —————->

David Brooks is suffering from buyer’s remorse re: his vote.  Says he,

“Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”

Meester Brooks:  Who eez thees “we” dat you speak uffh…?

Because Barack Obama is exactly who I thought he was.  As Mark Steyn put it on The Corner today:

a Big Government leftie with the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

At least my new blogger friend @ Gerbil Droppings makes me laugh about it.  (The graphic is worth the click-thru.)

Here’s a little two minute ditty I think you’ll all enjoy.  My complements to singer and song writer Kathleen Stewart and lyricist Steve Jones.

LOL

@ the Telegraph.

…is like giving whiskey, guns, and the car keys to your teenage son.”  — P.J. O’Rourke.

Apparently it’s also like giving him a whole fleet of new cars.  After he spends way more than needed – and then LOSES – the one you helped him get last year.

Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson @ NRO list and detail the 50 most outrageous items in the stimulus package.  This is the best, most comprehensive sum-up I’ve seen.  Read it and weep call your senator today.

Yesterday 18 free market and limited government leaders released a letter urging the Senate to reject “the Bill.” 

And Rasumussen reported that more Americans oppose the $1.2 trillion (including intest) bill than support it.   Here are some blurbs:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Meanwhile Congressional Republicans doubt whether the bill will save or create the 3 to 4 million jobs Obama and the Dems claim.

The bill is full of pork and nonsense and needs to be scrapped.

It is now the eve of the 75th convening of the Nevada Legislature.  But don’t get too excited, kids!  Tomorrow will be a day of glad-handing and back-slapping and silly grinning.

Anyone waiting for actual state business to be done will have to wait (at least) until Tuesday.  Longer, probably, since the the Dems still have not put forth a comprehensive budget proposal, and it’s going to be more than a 5 minute job to solve our $600 million budget shortfall.

Even then, with the Dem super-majority in the Assembly, the best that minority leader Heidi Gansert will be able to do is convince her team that supporting tax-and-spend policies is bad for their electoral futures.  And if they don’t believe her and choose to join the Dems in a “bi-partisan” action, I’m guessing it’ll be D-Day for them in 2010.

Update: Steve Sebellius has the Democrat “plan” – all two vague-sounding, double-spaced, extra large font pages of it – here.

RedState lists a few things the Senate plans to add to the Stimulus anti-Stimulus bill.

Because Americans are calling for “More pork, please!”

Leslie Carbone, on tomorrow’s Stimulus anti-Stimulus vote in the House, that is.

I was recently encouraged, by the executives of an organization that shall go unnamed so I can keep my day job, to write a letter to my Congressman touting the benefits of the Fix Housing First Proposal.

Here’s my letter.

Dear Congressman (or woman)(or Dina Titus):

Rumor has it that you are considering additional action in re: to the housing market. As I understand it, the Fix Housing First proposal consists of the following:

1. The federal government will offer a gi-normous and historically unprecedented supercalifrajalistic tax credit to anyone buying a house in 2009, and anyone who took last year’s lesser tax credit or bought their house prior that can bite the proverbial Big One because they aren’t getting doodleley squat. In essence, those retards who had the poor sense to purchase a domicile before you and your Wall Street pals f***cked the economy into a coma are SOL: too bad, so sad, cry me a Hudson River, etc.

2. In addition – and again, this is only for those bless’d and priveleged few who choose to buy homes in 2009 – the federal government will guarantee a super-sweet taxpayer-subsidized loan at a low, Low market rate of 2.99 or 3.99. Those who were short-sighted enough to finance their homes at 5, 6, or 7% – what a bunch of losers!! – will just have to continue at those rates and hope that sometime in this millenium, they or their unfortunate descendants can break even…or at least not have to file bankruptcy and sell special personal favors out behind the local WalMart.

Naturally, as someone who enjoys being regularly screwed over by my elected officials, I support the Fix Housing First proposal. In addition to priveleging a few citizens over the vast majority and attempting to artificially stimulate an entire industry with the taxpayer dollars OF that majority, it will effectively grind into dust my last vestiges of faith in fairness, equity, and the American Way.

I now realize that virtues such as these are for fools and idealists, and I thank you for freeing me from the naïve weltanschauung that has enslaved me for the better part of my life. Now instead of wasting my time aspiring to liberty and justice for all – what crack-smoking maniac thought up THAT ridiculous concept? – I can now embark on a life filled with bitterness, vitriol and rage and go to my grave cursing both man and God, as is only befitting of an enlightened person of the twenty-first century.

Congratulations on your confirmation into Congress.

Sincerely,

Citizen Sue

An open letter to the newspapers of America by Orson Scott Card.  A little long but full of facts and well worth the read.

Here’s the opening:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

Read the rest when you have the time.

Hat Tip:  The Venerable Mr. Crum (thanks, honey!)

Here is a graphical depiction of the connection(s) – and dollar amounts that passed – between: 

George Soros, MoveOn.org, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) project, the Woods Fund, Bill Ayers, ACORN (its housing division as well as voter registration group), Project Vote, Barack Obama, Fannie and Freddie, Johnson, Raines, and various senators and congressmen including Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and others.

All of this information is on record and verifiable. 

Even if you look at each connection in the most positive light possible, the thing as a whole is an eye opener.  If you’ve never understood or believed in the the possibility of a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy – or, if you prefer a nicer couching of things:  the possibility that activists on the Left have tremendous Power and wield it in ways that are often overlooked – now may be the time to reconsider.

If you want to Do Something, pass this on!

In re: to Sen. Dodd’s claim that he thought his Countrywide VIP status was a “courtesy” and didn’t mean he was getting anything that special, check out this WSJ piece. 

A former Countrywide Financial loan officer, Robert Feinberg, has come forward saying Dodd knowingly saved thousands on his 2003 re-fi’s as “part of a special program the California mortgage company had for the influential.” 

He says he’s in possession of internal company docs proving Dodd knew full well he was getting very preferential treatment as a “Friend of Angelo” Mozilo, Countrywide’s then-CEO. 

From the WSJ piece:

“People are referred into that department as ‘very important people.’ You’re told that your loan is priced from Angelo. As the ‘Friends of Angelo department,’ [the department] has to give them a sense of importance and explain the reduction of fees and the rate as a result of being a ‘Friend of Angelo,’” [Feinberg] says. According to a report by Dan Golden in Condé Nast Portfolio in August, other VIPs included Senator Kent Conrad. Mr. Golden reported that “Countrywide also offered special discounts to congressional staffers involved in housing issues.”

As to Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feinberg says he spoke to the Senator once or twice and mostly to his wife and that like other FOAs Mr. Dodd got “a float down,” which means that even after he had a preferred rate, when the prevailing rate dropped just before the closing, his rate was reduced again. Regular borrowers would pay extra for a last-minute adjustment, but not FOAs. “They were aware of it because they were notified and when they went to the closing they would see it,” Mr. Feinberg says, adding that he “always let people in the program know that they were getting a very good deal because they were ‘Friends of Angelo.’”

And:

One indicator of [Dodd's] influence is the $165,400 in campaign contributions — more than to any other politician — that Fan and Fred have given him since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These contributions are legal.

But favors like those Mr. Dodd is alleged to have received may not be.

Mr. Feinberg says he went public with his story because when he heard Senator Dodd on TV talking about predatory lending, he felt it was “hypocritical” and he says, “I just thought, ‘This is wrong.’”