The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

When Life Gives You Lemons…

By

… pour yourself a shot of tequila and suck it up, buddy.

At least that’s the word on the street these days when it comes to buying a defective vehicle from Chrysler.  The L.A. Times reports that settlement checks issued under states’ “lemon laws” are bouncing like Nancy Pelosi during an Obama speech and complaints are being given as much attention as were the nationwide Tea Parties on April 15th.

Chryler’s Chapter 11 filing means that any settlement incurred before April 30th must must now be approved by the bankruptcy judge, but Chrysler has stated it has no plans of its own to ask the judge to approve any of them.  So just like everyone else holding unsecured Chyrsler debt, if you’ve ended up buying a defective Chrylser vehicle, well, in plain English you’re S.O.L.

And despite President Obama’s bold claims that the government will honor Chrysler warranties and such, according to consumer advocacy groups, the automotive task force has more important matters to handle.

Remind me, please.  Who thought having an uncle by the name of Sam in the car business would be a good thing?

Pass the Cuervo.

A Humane Step

By

The European Union voted by overwhelming majority this past Tuesday to ban the import of all seal products.  The BBC spoke with MEPs Diana Wallis, who drafted the parliament’s report on the trade in seal products, Arlese McCarthy, British Labor chair of the Parliament’s EU internal market committee, and Carl Schlyter, the Swedish Green who sits on the Parliament’s environment committee.  They noted that this follows the wishes of the majority of people, not only in the EU, but around the world, and they reiterated that despite the blatant and pathetic misuse of indigenous people by commercial fisheries to plead their case, the ban will not prevent indigenous people from continuing their sustainable hunts, nor will it stop their ability to sell by-products (crafts, etc.)  The ban also allows for what most of us already recognize as “game management” hunting, however, under the ban this may not be done for profit.

I personally applaud their actions.  It has already impacted this year’s Canadian slaughter – only 17% of this year’s quota have suffered the horrific cruelty of inept bludgeoning and being skinned alive.  And the price of baby seal pelts is down 86% as compared to 2006.

Canada and Norway continue to rattle their sabres, of course, threatening to take their case to the World Trade Organization, but with so many countries around the world having already closed their doors to baby seal pelts and products, they no longer have much of a case.  I pity the Canadians, whose government will spend more money to fight the ban than it brings in for a small number of non-indigenous people and an even smaller number of heavily-subsidized businesses, and particularly with the losses already seen this spring the reality is that those subsidies spent by Canada to support their “hunt” could put its handful of participants on the government dole for the 2-3 months some of them spend wacking babies, with money to spare.  Monies that could be better used to find realistic ways to co-exist with all the species involved, instead of erroneously blaming seals for the negative results of their overfishing practices.  Spurred on, I should add, by the world’s continuing great and greedy appetite for fish-on-demand; something that the EU would be wise to properly address themselves since they, too, are a part of the world’s overfishing problem. 

This is a tough issue, to be sure.  I continue to read the arguments coming from both sides; some sensible and practical, others purely emotional and inflammatory.  And I will be the first to say there aren’t any easy answers.  My personal stance is that there should never, ever be a market for cruelty (whether it is the exploitation of animals or humans) and that is the basis of my own personal and long-standing wish to see this particularly barbaric practice stopped.  Yet simple, moral goodness dictates we must watch out for one another, both humans and non-humans, and if we collectively choose to create a vacuum, we must consider that nature abhors them and then consider what may fill it, and make an honest attempt to steer those consequences towards something that is for the betterment of all involved.  In this case, better for baby seals, who will not find their first few weeks of life an encounter with abject pain and horrific suffering, and better for those about whom it may be said know no better than to mete out such cruelty on an annual basis, having grown up with an extremely limited perspective that fosters seeing other species as mere things instead of sentient beings. 

To those who are quick to make their justification for allowing any country to slaughter baby seals by comparing it to the oft-inhumaneness of agribusiness meat farming I say only that this is simply one step.  One small step, but it is one in the right direction.  It is one small manifestation of the thought that perhaps we can do things better, do things with less deliberate cruelty to those who share this world with we humans, and to take any action in that direction is something positive.

1st Amendment Attack: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act HR 1966

By

Who is Megan Meier and why do we need yet another law on the books to help prosecute a bully?

Megan Meier was the 13-year old who killed herself after an online “relationship” via Facebook went south.  She never knew that the relationship wasn’t with an “attractive” boy, but with a friend’s mother and others who had set out to deliberately humiliate her.  That friend’s mother, one Lori Drew, was indicted by a federal grand jury a year ago on three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress, and one count of criminal conspiracy.  She was found guilty on three lesser charges (reduced from felonies to misdemeanors by the jury) late last November. (The jury was deadlocked on the fourth felony charge of criminal conspiracy.)

One thing that often goes unmentioned is that Megan Meier had a long history of mental illness.  She had been treated by a psychiatrist since the 3rd grade and took a variety of medications, including antidepressants, Ritalin, and antipsychotics.  Megan wasn’t exactly your typical teenager and while my heart breaks for her and her family, in my opinion she was not one who should have been allowed to roam virtual society’s wilderness unsupervised, nor one with whom “faceless” relationships should have been encouraged.

But in yet another example of expecting everyone except those actually responsible to take responsibility, H. R. 1966 was introduced in the House last month.  Playing on our sympathies by calling it the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act”, sponsor Linda Sanches (D-CA) and her cohorts feel that we need to legislate morality by spelling out the need to go after anyone with the “intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior”.  The “electronic means” include “email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.”  The punishment is a fine and/or up to 2 years in prison.

Why?  According to H.R. 1966:

(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.

(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.

(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.

(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.

(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.

(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.

The internet has become a fact of life.  A recent fact of life.  But what is also a fact of life yet by no means recent is that it is a parent’s responsibility to protect their children.  No responsible parent would drop their child off in a strange city and leave them to wander around at will – alone – yet every day parents let their children sit in front of a computer and wander the vast wastelands of the internet, allow them to join sites like Facebook and other social networking sites, and find it amusing when they make what are little more than imaginary friends.  I’ve personally been online a long time and have seen countless adults  scammed by pathetic losers who find their social courage in anonymity.  Children have far less savvy and have far thinner skins to protect them from idiots.  But they are supposed to have their parents to protect them.  A job which isn’t particularly difficult when going onto the internet is a voluntary activity and that protection is as simple as turning the “ON/OFF” switch to the “OFF” position.

There are already laws on the books by which those who prey on others, both online and off, may be prosecuted.  We don’t need more and we certainly don’t need one that aims at such a broad target for nowhere is it specified that its protections are intended to cover solely those under the age of 18.  Meaning that anyone with a differing opinion may be cited using this legislation, which should be of particularly concern to people who blog.

“First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”  (Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, 2002)

Pushing For Fair & Balanced Reporting?

By

“It is important, though, for all of you, as you’re writing up these stories, to recognize that $17 billion taken out of our discretionary, non-defense budget, as well as portions of our defense budget, are significant.  They mean something.”

President Obama told journalists directly that they should stress the fact that the cuts are “significant”. 

As one article notes, $17 billion is, indeed, a large number.  When seen in a vacuum.  But as anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of mathematics is seeing, when compared to his $3.55 trillion 2010 budget and the 10-year projections now over $12 trillion, it’s just a drop in the bucket.

They mean something, alright. 

Change.

Chump change.

Still Nothing Good About ACORN

By

Glenn Beck interviewed Scott Levenson yesterday.  Mr. Levenson is the national spokesman for ACORN and I don’t know if he thought that trying to mimic Obama’s ridiculous performance on the Leno show was the way to go or if he’s really that big a hairball, but the point is if Levenson is the best that ACORN can do, then the dumbing down of America is surely real.  ACORN is currently up on charges of voter fraud in 14 states, and Levenson actually kept a straight face as he said it was only “employees” being charged.  Which is, of course, a bald-faced lie.  The organization itself is named in the Nevada lawsuit, for example, and that lawsuits continue to be filed speaks loudly of a pattern of criminal behavior that can be blamed only on those running it, for corporate culture is something imaged and then reinforced from the top down.

This win at all costs criminal mentality is, of course, the environment in which President Obama thrived early in his career.  Though he’s tried to distant himself from them ever since their criminal tactics began to surface, he’s not yet managed to shut down free speech and this part of his history cannot be rewritten to put him in a more favorable light.  Quite telling is that ACORN continues to reap the benefits of its association with the President, including his representing them in a 1995 lawsuit, standing to receive some $2 billion in TARP funds as well as assist with the 2010 census. 

Surely it isn’t a far stretch to imagine that an organization capable of drumming up voter registrations for some 30,000 people in Marion County, Indiana in 2008 – all of whom were NOT eligible to even register – is also capable of making sure that the census count that determines things like government representation comes out just the way their community organizer in chief wants it to come out. 

Equally frightening to think Obama could say “I won” with a straight face, isn’t it?

When Left Isn’t Right

By

This whole mess in which we find ourselves is made up of numerous strands, each interwoven with the others.  But underneath the fabric it creates lies perhaps the real root cause and that is an overall shift in cultural norms.  Certainly the media has always had a rather liberal bent; indeed, liberalism is rather the media’s very DNA for it has historically been the herald of every people’s movement away from tyranny and abuse.

When the media moves as far to the left as is the case in America and such overarching abundance as is found here deteriorates into materialism, things quickly begin to sour.  Andrew Klavan is a screenwriter, author, and contributor at PajamasMedia and one of his recent posts looks at the souring American culture from a unique perspective.  I recommend it highly.

But it was one of the comments on this piece that caught my attention.  One “Paul from Hamburg” posted, “The coverage of the tea parties did have one positive effect. It is now incredibly easy to separate the serious journalists and commentators from the Democratic shills:  Anyone who said “tea bag” can’t be considered a journalist.”

Touche.  In a nutshell, this statement authenticates Klavan’s exhortations to set aside the need for validation from those who wish the country to have only a single voice and to pursue excellence in the creative arenas based on the time-honored principles that are now so often met with ridicule.

For it is only by standing up for what is right and doing what is right, in all areas, that we can make the positive difference so desperately needed to save this country.

Negotiating Bankruptcy, Chicago-Style

By

What do GM and the Obama administration have in common?  In street vernacular, today’s phrase is “big dicks”.

Allegations are now surfacing that direct threats by the administration were used to cave certain Chrysler creditors into accepting bankruptcy restructuring agreements.  Certain senior creditors who protested their legal position of meriting payment in full before junior creditors and have now filed a motion against the Obamafioso on the reasonable and compelling basis that the government is in violation of the 5th Amendment.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a  “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.  I take it seriously when the mainstream media – after bashing every move made by President Bush during his presidency – doesn’t consider any of this something worth reporting.

Meantime,  GM’s back in the spotlight as it is again noted they spend some $17 million a year helping its retirees buy Viagra.

A Sign At The Times

By

You know things are going terribly wrong when the New York Times decides to reach for ratings by swinging the blade of President Obama’s infamous campaign trail budget scalpel right at at the throats of the administration.

In a “scoop” piece posted the other day, it leaked a report about the advertising campaign underway to change public perceptions of global warming and therefore gain public acceptance of the administration’s wish to further enslave, then drown the country in its idiotic tax scheme of cap & trade.  The alleged research upon which the summary report is based is being done by an organization called “ecoAmerica” (among ecoAmerica’s advisors is Wes Boyd, from MoveOn.org, which speaks volumes about their credibility and real intent).  Here is a snippet of its published statement of purpose.  Pay close attention to the italicized words:

Our biggest environmental challenge is global warming.
Al Gore labels it a “planetary emergency” and won
an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for getting the word out.
Magazines, movies, corporations, NGO’s, universities
and state governments have been sounding the alarm
and taking steps to address the issue.

Yet, Pew’s annual survey on public policy released in
January 2008 reports that global warming declined
from 38% to 35% as a “top priority” for Americans
over the past year. We rank it 20 on a list of 21
priorities. This is not a good sign if you’re working
to accelerate and enhance environmental solutions.

If we want Americans to change their priorities,
we need to change ours. Too often we think of people
primarily as just a step on the way to public policy.
We need to make people themselves a priority.

That’s our mission at ecoAmerica. We work to restore
deep and comprehensive connections between mainstream
Americans and their natural world, and change
their personal and voting behaviors.

 

I’m all for treading lightly across our Mother Earth, but the only ones who are going to benefit from all of this nonsense are the environmental groups who are utterly dependent upon having some crisis or another as their reason d’etre and donations so they don’t have to get a real job, people like Al Gore, who pollute their way around the world spreading the false gospel of fear, a handful of businesses hand-picked by the administration to handle the logistics of cap & trade, and other countries around the world who will more than happy to take in American manufacturing jobs.

It’s all very sneaky and slimey.  But par for the course from our community organizer in chief.

Quote Of The Day

By

Save energy.

Unplug Obama’s teleprompter.

 

If anyone was really serious about this, we’d also cap the amount of carbon dioxide emissions he emits by cancelling a few press conferences, too.

heh….