Washed Out - Feel It All Around

Weird video, good music:

Washed Out is the stage name of the American chillwave musician Ernest Greene (born in 1983, Perry, Georgia).

Toro y Moi remix:

Hugo Chavez's Daughter's Fistful of American Dollars

Cross-posted from the Left Coast Rebel

Drudge has a link up at the Daily Mail, "Daddy won't be pleased... Hugo Chávez's daughter sparks outrage in Venezuela after posting picture with U.S. dollar bills."

The report claims that native Venezuelans under the totalitarian thumb of Hugo Chavez are "seething" that his 14-year-old daughter Rosines had access to American dollars and was flaunting her stash on the 'net:

If anything I find it fascinating that the teenage daughter of a brutal communist despot is fascinated with what is still perceived as the symbol of freedom and capitalism across the world -- the American dollar (I see there's some 2-dollar bills in there, kind of strange).

Scrolling through the comments, I caught this from a Daily Mail reader:

In 2009, I visited former Soviet/Eastern Bloc countries. I did not realise it was possible to visit old KGB headquarters (now terror museums) and if I learnt nothing new (e.g. torture chambers, execution rooms), the experiences were upsetting and, of course, testimony to what happened under communism; as were the views of locals who told of how they queued for everything whilst the communist elite lived well. So, it was pleasant to relax and visit the churches of Tallin (Estonia) where I fell into conversation with an exiled Venezuelan. After I'd expressed concerns re: Chavez (he'd just tried to change the constitution to allow him indefinite re-election), she replied, and I quote from my diary, 'We, the young people, voted him in. Yes, change was vital, but, what have we done? He thinks he is Fidel and we live in a police state that tolerates no opposition'. A privileged elite + fear? As someone once said, 'Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it'.

Fascinating words of wisdom. Why is it that young people fall for statist pipe-dreams that turn entire nations into prison camps? For some reason, young people gravitate to the utopian ideals that socialism, communism, progressivism and statism of all stripes represent (or are sold to the masses as representing). Think about it: much of the pain we are feeling in this nation has taken hold due in a large part to the fact that young people fell for socialism-lite in America -- Hope and Change.

The problem with collectivism is that the downside -- the cause and effect of loss of individual freedom -- is never considered as the certain part of the equation that it is.

Gordon Hodson: Conservatives Are Innately Inferior...

...but we shouldn’t stigmatize these racists, because they were born that way -- right?

Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology...

...lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies ... we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice.

Gordon Hodson, Michael A Busseri, Brock University*

Few will have the opportunity to scrutinize Hodson's report because the deficiencies of this poorly-designed retrospective study are hidden behind a paywall, but politically charged "science" should always be viewed with skepticism.

Ironically, the science of intelligence is usually an anathema to progressive intellectuals. (Perhaps this is true because the heritability of intelligence poses a threat to the politics of radical egalitarianism).

But I digress.

Celebrated progressive scientists have insisted that it’s racist or stupid to take seriously the mountains of data that show differences in IQ between human populations, and they believe that "general intelligence" is not a valid concept. But IQ research suddenly becomes valid when it's construed to tell progressives something they want to hear about racism, giving them justification for bigoted attitudes against conservatives.

The mind-warping hypocrisy and willful ignorance is astonishing.

"Some of his best friends are conservative."

Gordon Hodson

Phone: (905)688-5550 ext.5127

e-mail: ghodson@brocku.ca

*Emphasis added

Update: James Taranto sums it up very well...

So IQ tests are racist, except when they're used to "prove" that people with "socially conservative ideologies" are racist and intellectually inferior.

John Hawkins' Take on Mitt Romney's Electability

Maybe we should just ask Mitt: Are you electable?Graphic c/o ExposeMittRomney.com

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

"Let's be perfectly honest: Mitt Romney excites no one except for Mormons, political consultants, and Jennifer Rubin...To everybody else on the right, Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama would be a "lesser of two evils" election where we'd grudgingly back Mitt because we wouldn’t lose as badly with him in the White House as we would with Obama. That's not the sort of thing that gets people fired up to make phone calls, canvass neighborhoods, or even put up "I heart Mitt" signs in their yards."

--John Hawkins, Townhall.com, December 27, 2011: "7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney's Electability is a Myth"

I would add neo-conservative liberal flake A.M. talker Michael Medved to Hawkins' short list of fervent, unflappable Romney-bots.

Hawkins' seven-point list on Romney's unelectability is spot-on (I missed it with the busy holiday); here's a synopsis and my take on each point from his article (his words in italics):

1) Likeability (Mitt's lack thereof). I tell friends that Mitt Romney reminds me of that opportunist fraud of yesteryear -- "Tricky Dick" Nixon. I don't know what others see (that steady 20% primary voter); I see Romney as stiff, cold, robotic and unlikable. So does Hawkins; Hawkins thinks voters in January, 2012 will too.

2) Mitt's a loser. Writes Hawkins, "There's a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he's "not a career politician." It's because he's not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of the vote." No analysis needed on my part. Again, just why is ultra-liberal Mitt "inevitable"?

3) He's too liberal for the South in the General. My heart is in the South, as opposed to the Left Coast where I hail from, and I agree, he's too Northeast-liberal.

4) The "inevitability" establishment canard won't play for poo-poo in the General. Hawkins writes, "Yet, every one of those advantages disappears if he becomes the nominee. Suddenly Obama will be the more experienced candidate in the race for the presidency. He will also have more money and a better organization than Mitt. Moreover, in a general election, the establishment and beltway media will be aligned against Romney, not for him. Suddenly, Romney will go from getting a free pass to being public enemy #1 for the entire mainstream media." I'll add to this: and because he's a liberal, the conservative grassroots won't coalesce around him, even given the stakes. I saw this dynamic with my own eyes with John McCain's "Maverick" run. Conservative voters in the GOP bastion of San Diego just stayed home.

5) Bain. I don't necessarily agree with Hawkins that Bain is Romney's albatross. But, his lack of defense for his record is certainly suspect. Voters can sniff out a fraud. And Romney's likely tepid support for his capitalist record will sink his ship. And given the choice between even a socialist -- Obama -- and a fraud (Romney) they will unfortunately choose... a socialist. It happened in 2008 after all. Plus, the Obama $1,000,000,000 Machine will absolutely roast Romney with Bain.

6) Mormonism. Hawkins thinks religious bigotry will play against Romney. Not sure about that, who knows? My opinion has always been that Romney is bad because he's a statist, not because he has a certain faith.

7) Flip-flopper. This also dovetails into 5) above, when voters face a choice between a fraud (flip-flopper) and the real socialist deal, they will likely choose the real deal. Mitt's flips and flops beg the question -- even from a political junkie like me -- what does he believe? What does he stand for? What's his core. Answer: nothing but the status quo. And we all know where the status quo is heading for in this country.

Read Hawkins' Townhall.com piece and debate it out in the comments.

Updated: Brilliance from Dr. Milton Wolf @ the Washington Times:

“Mitt Romney is masterful at defending Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich is masterful at defending conservatism... Mr. Romney is like the Apple app store for candidates: Got a problem? There’s an app for that. What’s your tax plan? There’s an answer for that. Flip-flops? There’s an answer for that. Romneycare? Bain Capital? There are answers for those. Job plan? There’s a 59-point answer for that… When given opportunities to defend conservatism with questions about his tax returns and hunting, Mr. Romney stammered through painful answers and defended only himself, not conservatism.”

Stuff Libs Say

Is There a "Real" Romney?

Speaking from his heart?

"I love this land, I love its Constitution, I revere its founders, I will restore those principles, I will get America back to work, and I'll make sure that we remain the shining city on the hill."

Check, check, check, check, check ... and check.

Are we to believe that these are the thoughts that run through Romney's mind when he lays his head on his pillow at night?

Is there a "real" Romney hidden somewhere, waiting to be unveiled? It's time to bring him out.

If Romney can't be authentic, he will continue to struggle in the primaries. But if the authentic Mitt Romney is revealed, will Republican voters like what they see?

Maybe these questions lead us to Romney's own Catch-2012.

Rick 1, Mitt 1, Newt 1

I'm surprised Newt won so big in SC. Intrade had his probability of winning at about 7% as recently as a week ago. I seriously considered buying up all of Newt's shares at that point, but I never expected Newt to crush Romney like this.

There's a lot of discussion in the conservosphere about how and why Newt's debate performance has impacted his momentum. But almost everyone agrees that the debates have been the decisive factor.

I think the take home message is that the "Not-Romney" sentiment is still very strong, and that sentiment has coalesced around Newt as a consequence of Newt's forceful repudiation of the abusive anti-conservative media establishment.

That said, I still think it's Romney's nomination to lose. This might be the last Not-Romney win for quite some time.

As I noted earlier, the next five contests will be in Romney-friendly territory. Newt has an advantage in the south, but we're going to be out of the core southern states for a while now. Florida is up next, but Florida is more of a regional hybrid with swing state tendencies, and Florida's Jeb Bush, a popular ex-governor, is expected to endorse Romney soon (update).

Addendum: Good insights from The Other McCain:

...Mitt’s “inevitable” mojo spell is now decisively broken, and the questions now are multiple: Can Mitt get his mojo back? Will Newt be able to avoid further “drama”? Can Santorum get the financial resources to stay in the race, hoping to be the last man standing if Newt auto-destructs?

Read the rest...

Update II: Good insights from Red State:

Newt Gingrich Wins. What It Means...

The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since...

Read the rest...

Update III: DON'T MISS THIS:

Conservatives (accurately) perceive the media mainstream to be a de facto organ of the liberal left, and by extension, the Democratic Party - and they understand that conservative governance is absolutely impossible unless that organ is defeated or co-opted. On the latter count, ask President John McCain how his co-option efforts went. When Newt Gingrich crushes a hapless journalist, he isn't just tossing up a parlor trick: he's demonstrating an indispensable prerequisite to conservative governance today.

Read the rest...

Cuba Drilling off Key West; Keystone Pipeline's Obama-Directed Demise

Their man listened. Photo credit: TarSandAction/Flickr

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

Mission accomplished, Barry:

(Washington Post) President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn’t often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and — beyond the symbolism — won’t even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his reelection that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.

Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won’t get much. Stopping the pipeline won’t halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global-warming emissions. Indeed, Obama’s decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.

Now consider how Obama’s decision hurts the United States. For starters, it insults and antagonizes a strong ally; getting future Canadian cooperation on other issues will be harder. Next, it threatens a large source of relatively secure oil that, combined with new discoveries in the United States, could reduce (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign oil.

Finally, Obama’s decision forgoes all the project’s jobs. There’s some dispute over the magnitude. Project sponsor TransCanada claims 20,000, split between construction (13,000) and manufacturing (7,000) of everything from pumps to control equipment. Apparently, this refers to “job years,” meaning one job for one year. If so, the actual number of jobs would be about half that spread over two years. Whatever the figure, it’s in the thousands and thus important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor.

The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans could repudiate such a huge supply of nearby energy. There’s no guarantee that tar-sands oil will go to China; pipelines to the Pacific would have to be built. But it creates the possibility when the oil’s natural market is the United States...

Read the rest.

Zero Hedge has the political-societal implications of Dear Leader's move:

But it is not only crude. Wonder why no jobs are being created? Wonder why despite record low mortgage rates there is no bottom in sight for housing? Simple - nobody can plan one month, let alone one year ahead for any US-based venture or business. The political risk is simply too great - whether it is contract law (see GM and Chrysler) or simple solvency (see record high levels of cash hoarded by companies), it is there, and as long as it is there, there will be no hiring, no capex spending, no growth, and no real improvement in the economy, the real economy, not that defined by where the Russell 2000 closes on any given day.

On a related note, as our nation languishes, guess who's taking advantage of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? If you guessed communist Cuba, you guessed right. It gets worse, though. Not only are the red-communist Cubans now drilling just miles (60-70) off of Key West, Florida, they are doing so from a Chinese-manufactured oil rig under the guidance of Repson, a Spanish oil firm. Plus, we are barred from buying the oil from the Cubans which are estimated to be sitting on several billion barrels of reserves (they say 20 billion, the U.S. government says it's closer to 5 billion).

Truly the only way to stop madness like this is to drastically scale back the power -- money -- of the Federal Leviathan. Starving the beast is the only way we will finally heal this nation and get us off this national suicide trajectory. And that doesn't mean slashing taxes while not cutting spending, Republicans.

Which presidential candidate today has the gravitas and track record to usher in such a scaling back?

Protecting Obama With Juiced-up Sex Stories

Once again, Newt uses his jujitsu against a partisan media attack:

"I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans."

(Transcript)

Newt did the viewers a great service by forcing John King out of left-wing hack mode and into the role of humble moderator.

One of the four men in the debate could become the next president of the United States, but instead of discussing issues of national importance (which might make Barack Obama look bad), CNN was launching partisan attack, wasting valuable time on old tabloid gossip.

Newt changed the tone for the better, for the rest of the debate.

Newt hasn't earned my coveted endorsement, but I think he won the day.

Fixed It: Obama's New Campaign Ad

Obama has released his first ad for the 2012 presidential campaign. There were a few small problems. I took the liberty of making some adjustments:

You're welcome, Mr. Obama!

Original propaganda here.

Update:

Near the end of the video, Obama points to a quote from Politifact from January 21, 2009: "kept a campaign promise to toughen ethics rules." A couple of observations:

1. Does this have anything to do with his energy policy? It looks like this quote is almost completely unrelated to the main theme of the video.
2. This is an old quote. Has Obama been as "tough" with lobbyists as he was the day after inauguration?

Update II:

The Lonely Conservative: Obama Can’t Run On His Record, So He’s Making One Up

Update III:

Obama takes credit for things he didn't do and he fabricates the rest. Even the Washington Post can't swallow these lies:

...figures are correct, but they are also not tethered to anything Obama has done.

...the Energy Department cited a host of reasons why foreign oil imports have declined, noting the main reason was “a significant contraction in consumption” because of the poor economy and changes in efficiency that began “two years before the 2008 crisis”—ie, before Obama took office.

Then, in bold type, the ad proclaims: President Obama “kept a campaign promise to toughen ethics rules” and it cites: “PolitiFact, 1/21/09.”

Politifact did write that on Jan. 21, 2009, but then it almost immediately changed its ruling as Obama began granting waivers to his ethics policy...

The suggestion that Obama was responsible for the 2.7 million clean-energy jobs or the decline in foreign oil imports is bad enough... We have more trouble with the citation of PolitiFact.

Update IV:

Obama's First Ad Riddled with Falsehoods...

Politifact: “We Rate Obama's ‘Revolving Door’ Policy For Former Lobbyists His Biggest Broken Promise...”

Solyndra, Obama’s Poster-Child For “American Ingenuity And Dynamism,” Declared Bankruptcy...

Obama did not create 2.7 million green jobs...

This is a bad way to start a presidential ad campaign, even by Democrat standards.