Psychiatry defines a delusion as “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact”.  That is the perfect definition for what is happening to the far left (in which, I of course include MSNBC).

Over the weekend, an MSNBC host, Alex Witt, was incredulous that the mere election of Barack Obama was not enough to stop the dispicable attacks in Mumbai.  The correspondent she was talking to agreed with her.  The exchange, via Newsbusters:

ALEX WITT: You know, John, and it’s interesting because there are many who had such an optimistic and hopeful opinion of things, and you certainly can’t expect things to change [snaps fingers] on a dime overnight, but there are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.

JOHN YANG: He’s — it’s a rude awakening, a very, sort of, sober reminder of what he’s going to be facing in just a few weeks. And there is some concern also, there had been some concern, that during this period, during this, the transition period, between Election Day and Inauguration Day, that the enemies of the United States, those who don’t care for the United States no matter who’s leading it, would try and test the United States, would try to take advantage of this period, and I think that may be one thing that we’re seeing right now.

WITT: Okay, John Yang there in Chicago, following President-elect Barack Obama’s Thanksgiving Day dinner having been interrupted by all of this news from Mumbai. John, thank you very much.

I realize that I do not live in a perfect world, but I always hope that I live in a world where people are confronted with their mistakes and shortcomings and are able to learn from it.  You have crowned Barack Obama as leader of the free world based on this?!?  The assumption that he would warm the cockles of the hearts of our enemies?

First off, who on Earth has been predicting a lull in terror attacks?  Both attacks on the World Trade Center occurred within several months of a new president taking over, Clinton in February of 1993 and Bush in 2001.  And foreign terrorist attacks have also come during election cycles (Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005).  Anyone who was predicting calm and a winter of love is either not paying attention or, well, delusional.

Secondly, who are these people that are this disconnected with reality?  In the unlikely event any of you happen across this blog on the way to Daily Kos, let me explain something to you: al Qaeda does not care who we elect as president, they want us all dead.  All of us.  Not just the George Bushs and the John McCains, the John Boltons and Condi Rices, but the Barack Obamas, the Hillary Clintons, the Sashas and the Malias as well.  They want every single one of us killed.  Your liberal sensibilities are as meaningless to them as an ant’s menstrual cycle is to you.

If they could, they would come into your house at night, slit your children’s throat and hack off your head with your own kitchen knives.  The only reason that they have not yet is because 2,284,698 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been kicking their ass for seven years.

I was watching the Fox Pregame show in advance of the Giants-Steelers game yesterday.  Michael Strahan, a fantastic player and role model, was breaking down the Cowboys dysfunction.  He said this (or close to it) “The Cowboys have a lot of talent, but they don’t have that one guy who can rally the troops.  That one guys who’s running down the sidelines, saying we’re still in this, we can still win this.”

It hit a nerve, because I realized how pessimistic I’ve become about the election.  One of the wonderful things that about sports is it teaches us, on a smaller scale, how to handle life’s challenges.  They faced overwhelming odds, but in football as in life, 80% of it is just showing up.  They showed up, and they fought their heart out and one the greatest upset in Super Bowl history.  They proved that, in life as well as football, Nobody’s Perfect and Nothing’s Impossible.

So I’ll take a cue from my gap-toothed friend and take a more positive outlook on the election.  In football, the most important game is the first Sunday in February.  Once you get there, the only thing that matters is the final score.  In politics, it’s the first Tuesday in November.  The goal is the same: forget the past and make history.

So here is what we have going for us:

Obama’s true colors are beginning to show.
Obama is a good politician.  It’s hard to survive the grinding, corrupt Chicago political machine without the cold-hearted blood lust that drives most politicians.  But when you’re ahead 12 points in some polls, it becomes easier to let your guard down and let those independent voters see your true colors.  Take, for example, the recent backing of Card Check (the Unionization Plan for America), the Fairness Doctrine (No Free Speech for You) and redistribution of wealth.  This is why Joe the Plumber is getting so much play, as is the interview from 2001 where Obama expresses his regret that the Supreme Court has not imposed redistribution of wealth just as it imposed desegregation.

Obama is ahead in the polls, right?
As others have pointed out, the polls are somewhat suspect.  Obama and McCain are getting the same support from their base (85-90%) and are splitting undecideds evenly (45% each).  The only way Obama is leading by 12% is if you believe (as the pollsters apparently do), that there are up to 10% more Democrats than Republicans.  Although Democrats historically have more registered voters (it helps when fictional registrations like “Jive Turkey” and “Mickey Mouse” are 99.99% Democrat), the largest disparity in recent history was about 5%, not 10%.  That could mean that the polls are biased in Obama’s favor, meaning the polls that show Obama only up by 3% might be accurate (or even those might be too optimistic).

Overconfidence breeds complacency (voter edition).
Obama’s supporters are wildly overconfident.  There is already a tendency of young, first-time voters to “forget” to actually vote.  Obama leads in first time voters by something like 3-1.  Every first time voter that doesn’t show up is 3 times more damaging to Obama than to McCain.  If the polls show Obama leading by 12 points going into next week, not a lot of young voters will drag themselves out of bed to actually vote.  On top of that, if you’re leading by 10 points in Ohio, voter fraud might seem unnecessary.  ACORN staffers may actually be limited to one vote each.  It could be another Dewey beats Truman morning next Wednesday.

McCain is still the safe choice.
I believe it was Mort Kondrake that said in mid September, that a minor to midsized economic crisis benefits Obama, but a major one benefits McCain.  Since then, the crisis has gone from “probable bad year” to “possible depression.”  (I don’t believe that, but perception is the issue).  People have seen the Congress spend $700 billion of their money and the market continues to go down, losing over four times that in value.  Most average voters don’t know or care what McCain or Obama did or said about the bailout, what they’re realizing is that Big Government can’t get us out of the ditch it dug.  This benefits McCain in two ways: (1) he’s a check on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s greedy, money grubbing ways and (2) he’s a calm, tested hand at the wheel.  Obama is neither.

Americans are not that stupid.
Obama cannot be taken at his word that he will not raise taxes on the middle class.  Anyone who believes that was either in diapers during the Clinton years or ought to be now.  His credibility has taken on water and is listing more every day.  Every cry of racism, every dodge and weave of tough questions, every “spread the wealth around”; every “they’re bitter and cling to religion and guns” comment slowly paints him as a and elitist, Chicagoland, race baiting, smooth talking, radical Marxist, anti-military, sit-on-the-pot-until-the-sewer-rats-bite-your-nuts-off, waffling, McGovernite he really is.  I have faith that my fellow Americans will see through this facade and vote McCain.

It’s what everyone will be wearing in St. Paul:

Check out this and our other designs at the Daily Danet Store

Recently, Oprah, had an episode about healthcare.  Oprah, Michael Moore and other guests continued to refer to healthcare as a right.  Many people disagree with this fundamental issue, but have difficulty articulating why. So here is my best effort to explain to the five people who read this blog, why it is I believe that healthcare is not a “right.”

The classic response is that a right is not something someone gives you, but something that no one can take away.  This a good bumper sticker, but it is not terribly instructive if you’re not already convinced.  I don’t presume to solve the problem of escalating healthcare costs.  Due in part to rapid advances in medical treatments, ordinary people are being forced to choose between lifesaving treatments that didn’t exist only a few years ago and bankruptcy.  Rampant lawsuits, anti-healthcare provider forces and those evil profit seekers can be left for another time.  A more basic question, however, is whether you (and I) have a right to healthcare.

Rights are not unlimited.  Rights can be restricted or even taken away.  For example, you have the right to liberty (to walk freely wherever you please).  But others can restrict that right in certain circumstances.  You cannot, for example, walk freely through your neighbors bedroom at night.  That would violate their right to privacy.  If you commit a crime and are tried and convicted, your liberty can be revoked completely.

Rights really only make sense in the context of a lawful society.  Governments are instituted, as a basic matter, to determine where one person’s rights end and another’s begins. For example, you have a right to free speech, but others have a right against defamation.  If you say something untrue and defamatory about someone, the government can determine whose right trumps.

From the perspective of the government, a right is something that can be ensured to one citizen without taxing (in the broadest sense) another citizen.  For example, the government can ensure your right to free speech without any cost to anyone else.  No one has to listen (you do not, for example, have the right to be listened to).  Nor does anyone have to publish your work.  You do not, however, have the right to a full-page spread in the Wall Street Journal.  If, however, you can afford to, you can purchase one (or the Wall Street Journal) and say pretty much whatever you want.  (Subject, of course, to others’ rights to be free from defamation and other torts).

In a (mostly) free and (mostly) just society like ours, rights are plentiful.  You have, to name a few, the right to bear arms, the right to your life, your liberty, the pursuit of your happiness.  To be sure, however, this does not mean the government must buy you a gun.  Nor does it mean government must purchase the things that make you happy.  It only means that government cannot restrict these rights without due process of law.

This is the crux of the issue: there is a difference between a right and a need.  For example, you need food, clothing and shelter.  You have a right to pursue these needs; the government will not prevent you from buying a home, buying food or buying a new pair of jeans.  The government does not, however, owe you a house, food or clothing.  You have no right to housing, no right to food and no right to clothing.

Consider a small society of 100 people, with laws not too dissimilar to ours.  Let’s assume 2 of these people are unable, for whatever reason, to afford their own home.  Among the other people are a carpenter, a logger, a blacksmith, a painter and a plumber.  If the government is to provide those two people with housing, it has to either (i) tax everyone to pay the workmen to build the house or (ii) compel the workmen to build the house for free.  Either way, the government must take something of value to provide this need to those who cannot obtain it on their own.

So it is with healthcare.  You need healthcare.  Everyone does.  But in order to provide you with that need, the government has to take from someone else.  They either have to tax those who can afford it or compel the doctors, pharmacists and hospitals to provide it for free.  You may think, as clearly many do, that this is not such an evil thing.  Think back to that “free” house, though.  Think how hard those workmen would work if they knew that they either weren’t being paid for their efforts, or that some nebulous body called “taxpayers” were paying them.  Also, consider how many people would voluntarily buy their own house when they knew that others had gotten on for free.  Imagine the standard of construction and innovation that would develop if housing were treated as a right; as something the government needed to provide.

Of course, governments do this all the time.  They tax one citizen to pay for another’s welfare (literally and figuratively).  They tax me to pay for your social security.  They tax you to pay for my passport.  They tax all most of us to provide for our common defense.  The point, however, is that that does not make it a right.

Governments have many purposes.  The common defense is one that most people agree on as a valid rationale for taxes.  Saving the spotted owl, however, is debatable.  So too is providing healthcare.

UPDATE: You like me, you really, really like me.  Thanks to John Hawkins at Right Wing News and the David All Group for the acknowledgment!

Jim Gereghty at the Campaign Spot points out Obama’s flimsy New Math on tire pressure.  I agree with Jim in general, but I think there’s an easier way to make the point.  First, Obama’s connecting this with offshore oil drilling is ridiculous.  That’s like a doctor telling a man with a cold, if you lay down part of the day, you’d cough less and you won’t need so much cough syrup.  Okay, but why don’t I do both, would that be better?

In any event, Obama is claiming that properly inflating tires would have a significant impact on gas prices.  Let’s take Jim’s assumptions and see:

Assuming:

• The average commuter commutes 33 miles per day;
• The average car gets 24 mpg (unlikely, but okay);
• Improper tire pressure decreases efficiency by 2.5 mpg (average of 2-3 mpg);
• And 1 out of 3 commuters has improper tire pressure.

Take three random commuters: two travel 33 miles each at 24 mpg (1.375 gallons per day) and the other at 21.5 mpg (1.53 gallons).  The evil, unAmerican commuter is wasting .16 gallons per day.

To put into perspective, this means that uninflated tires increase domestic demand by .16 gallons for every 4.125 gallons.  (All three commuters with properly inflated tires would use (1.375 * 3 = ) 4.125 gallons.)   Put another way, this is an effect of less than 4% (.16 / 4.125).

Assuming you believe in the law of supply and demand, a 4% decrease in demand should correspond to at most a 4% decrease in price.  This ignores effects like stockpiling and the cost of the federal beauracracy needed to ensure compliance.  If the average price of gas is now roughly $4.00 per gallon, a 4% decrease would make it $3.84, saving $.16 per gallon.

To sum up, forcing every motorist to properly inflate their tires would save, at most, $.16 per gallon.

In contrast, the federal tax on gasoline is $.184 per gallon.  Wasn’t there a candidate who said that eliminating this tax was a “typical Washington gimmick” that wouldn’t amount to any real savings?

There are two conflicting views of reality fluttering through the Democratic Congress and both involve the effects of speculation.  On the one hand, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are absolutely convinced that speculators are driving up the price of oil.  On the other, Chuck Schumer is equally convinced that his open and public speculation about the financial health of a bank had no effect on its immediate collapse and takeover by the FDIC.  The terrible truth is that, like Democrats on most issues, they are both provably wrong.

When a market participant decides to buy (or sell) a futures contract on oil, they are betting that the future price will rise (or fall).  These “evil, manipulative speculators” are people who use oil or gas and need to manage their risk.  For example, if you run an airline, a large portion of your cost is the cost of fuel.  Unfortunately, there is no market for managing the risk of refined Jet-A fuel, so you have to rely on the proxy of crude oil.  For example, let’s say the price of oil on July 1, 2008 was $140 per barrel.  You believe the price will go up in a year, so you buy several contracts that will, theoretically let you buy oil in a year at today’s price.  If, on July 1, 2009, the price of oil is $200 per barrel, you have a piece of paper that allows you to buy a barrel for $140 and the other party makes up the difference.  If, on the other hand, the price goes down to $100 per barrel, you have to pay $140 (in reality, you pay $40 to the counterparty and no oil changes hands).

So, if your company uses a lot of oil, and you’re worried the price will go up, you would buy a lot of these contracts.  If the price does, indeed go up, you have the “profits” from the future contracts to offset the increased cost.  In other words, you enter into 10,000 of those contracts, your cost of jet-A goes up by $400,000, you can offset that cost by the $400,000 you receive from the futures contract.  As you (hopefully) can tell from my description, no where in the futures market is the price of oil manipulated.  People are speculating (that’s a Harvard word for guessing) about whether the price will go up or down, but no oil changes hands.

This is very similar to betting.  I can assure you from personal experience that betting on a team to win will in no way effect their chances of winning.  If Harry Reid were right about this, the favorite would win every sporting contest.  (And his home state of Nevada would lose a ton of legal and illegal revenue).  There is no economist that I’m aware of who has ever said that speculating has an impact on price.  Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, when the federal government banned commodity trading on onions the result was a disaster.  When market participants could not manage their risk, prices became more volatile, not less.  Learning from history, it seems, is not a part of the Democratic agenda.

Separately, Chuck Schumer (D-umbass) and senior senator from New York, decided he wanted to collapse a bank, apparently to prove he could do it, or more cynically, to advance the leftist anticorporate agenda.  His public letter questioning the solvency of Indymac led to two weeks of frantic withdrawals by depositors.  After the federal government needed to step in on Saturday and take over the bank, Schumer, surprising no one, tried to blame Bush.  after causing the bank collapse, Schumer charged that president Bush had “blamed the fire on the guy who called 911.”

This is how stupid or dishonest Chuck Schumer is.  Either he is so dumb that he doesn’t realize that openly questioning the solvency of a bank would cause its depositors to withdraw their money, or he is so dishonest, he believes that you are so stupid that he can get away with it.  When a sitting U.S. senator (frequently referred to as a failed lawyer) on the senate banking committee openly questions the solvency of a major bank, there are consequences.  People who either (1) still have faith in their goverment or (2) realize who monumentally stupid such a thing is to do; will rush to their bank and take out their money.  As Mr. Schumer appears immune to any real facts, he might want to re-watch “It’s a Wonderful Life,” as this was a major plot point.

Mr. Reid is the kind of idiot who thinks gamblers have an impact on the game.  Mr. Schumer is the kind of idiot who, when hiding with the Franks in the attic, sees nothing wrong with shouting “DO YOU THINK THE NAZIS CAN HEAR US?!?” in the middle of a ghestapho raid.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a patently unconstitutional ban on hand guns in Washington, D.C. In light of the Court’s recent stupidity involving child rape and habeas corpus for terrorists, this is a refreshing departure from idiocy.

It does, however, raise an interesting point: if you’re an 8-year old child in danger of being raped by your stepfather or killed by terrorists, your only hope is to arm yourself.

I have decided to keep track of the Obama Gaffe Machine in its ever-expanding work to test the mainstream media’s limits of denial. It has turned out to be a bit more ambitious than I first thought, so it is not yet done. Given the frenzy today, I thought it appropriate to launch a bit early.

Please feel free to comment or suggest new gaffes on the permanent Obama Gaffe page.

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama is fond of calling John McCain’s candidacy the “third term of George Bush.” John McCain lacks the flair necessary, but he would be far more justified in calling Barack Obama’s candidacy the second term of the Jimmy Carter failure. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison of Jimmy Carter’s and Barack Obama’s idiotic policies, but I just don’t have the time or emotional capacity to re-live the horrors of the 1970’s. Without doubt, however, the most obvious similarity between the two is their naked willingness to meet with dictators, fascists and terrorists.

Although the Obama campaign is now retreating from the dangerously naive policy set forth by Obama himself, the fact remains that Obama is open to meeting with Iran, without precondition. Preconditions, of course, are those “barriers to diplomacy,” such as “Before we meet with you, you have to stop killing U.S. soldiers and innocent civilians in Iraq,” or “Stop building your nuclear plants, or we won’t meet with you.” Obama now says that how would, of course, have “preparations” before meeting with a man who has called our ally a “rotting corpse” and promised its annihilation.

The term “preparation” is a wonderfully naive term. It makes it sound as if Obama has such a childish view of the world that he thinks McCain is criticizing him for not planning an itinerary. “Of course we’re going to have preparations. We’ve booked the flight, we have a suite of hotel rooms, and I even brought a pen and a notepad, so I can take dictation copious notes from my dear friend Mahmoud.”

In a speech on Sunday, however, Obama betrayed the depth of his naiveté.

(You should watch the video, as Obama’s “come on” demeanor speaks volumes of his attitude). Three things jumped out of his speech:

1. Negotiations brought down the Berlin wall. This is a fundamental misstatement of history. President Reagan’s unflinching anti-Communism, aggressive expansion of our military capabilities and his refusal to talk with Soviet hardliners like Chernenko lead to the internal and external reforms. And, not to be too dramatic, but Reagan’s demand to Gorbachev that he “tear down this wall”, was not made over an ornate conference table in a quiet Swiss hotel. It was made in front of the damn wall to a cheering crowd of Germans.
2. “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union did.” This is absurd. During the Cold War, the USSR could annihilate the United States and its allies, and vice versa. This stalemate, known as mutually assured destruction, only works with rational people. The Soviets were horribly brutal, but they were not about to cause the extinction of mankind to prove a point. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has never been successfully accused of being a rational person. While it is true that the Iranian military poses no serious threat to the United States military, the Enola Gay, similarly posed little or no threat to the Hiroshima police force. It was the nuclear device it carried that did all that damage. Obama’s idiotic assertion that these “tiny” countries “don’t pose a serious threat to us” begs the question, how many Israeli, European or U.S. cities would have to be sacrificed in nuclear holocausts before Obama realized that one man with a bomb is a serious threat to us?
3. “Iran spends 1/100th of what we spend on their military. If they ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they would’nt stand a chance.”I have to admit, this took me all of three minutes to debunk, most of which was spent looking for my calculator. According to publicly available data on the CIA website, Iran’s military expenditure in 2008 will be (2.5% of GDP) $21.3 billion (not sure if this includes their “peaceful nuclear program”). The U.S. military expenditure in 2008 (including fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and deployments on every continent) will be (4.05% of GDP) $561.3 billion. No matter how you cut it, Iran spends way more than 1/100th of what America spends on their military. In real dollars, Iran spends 1/25th of what the U.S. does on it’s military (four times what Obama implies). In terms of percentage of GDP, Iran spends more than half of what the U.S. spends. Per capita, Iran spends 1/6th what the United States spends. Anyway you look at the numbers 1/100th isn’t even close.

Obama has proven himself, again and again, to be naive on foreign policy (even suggesting we invade an ally and nuclear power, Pakistan). Although he seems to be backing off of his ridiculous policy now, who will be the voice of reason when, God forbid, President Obama’s ridiculous and dangerous ideas are not reigned in by an opposing nominee?

One of my coworkers here was surprised the other day when I mentioned I was in favor of a strong Democratic party. “You’re joking, right?” he said, impressed with my apparent deadpan. No, I’m not. While it’s true that I tend to vote Republican, and I support Republican principles of limited government, a strong military and I take pride in American values and history, I know that a strong Democratic party is necessary to keep the fat bloated idiots who represent us in check.

After six years of a Republican-controlled executive and six years of Republican-controlled legislature, the Republican party had become a disgusting reminder of the corruption of power. Look no further than yesterday’s interim election loss in the former stronghold of Mississippi. (A Democrat won the open seat by running on a limited government, socially conservative agenda.) Republicans have taken the American taxpayer for a ride, forgetting who it is that brought them to power. They have greedily stolen money from the public coffers in the hopes it would insure them against negative public opinion. Instead, it foments it.

Of course, had they had a true adversary, one who could stand on opposing principles and provide a legitimate challenge to their claimed authority, well, maybe the fall could have been prevented. In any event, two strong political parties provide Americans with what they really want, a government so tied up by political machinations it doesn’t have time or energy to screw with us.

Sadly, the Democratic party is as much a spoof of itself as the Hollywood liberal elitists it represents. Several commentators have noted in the past several days that the Democrats and the media are attempting to redefine “negative attacks” as any criticism of Obama (Abe Greenwald for example). And, as if to prove the point, the entire Democratic party has gone into a tizzy about President Bush’s comments today to the Knesset.

President Bush, without pointing to Obama or anyone else, noted that “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” Obama was quick to object (too quick, if you ask me). But what is telling about Obama’s (and Nancy Pelosi’s and Joe “Foul Mouth” Biden’s) response is the complete lack of denial. Obama has campaigned, in part, on the promise to hold talks with Iran and others without precondition (Robert Malley, one of his advisors has even gotten a head start). Isn’t it fair for someone, anyone, to question the validity of such an approach? Didn’t Carter fail miserably as president and later, as Palestinian stooge? Why is it, exactly, that this is unfair and out of bounds?

Nancy Pelosi: the comments are “beneath the dignity of the office.” Okay, that’s your opinion, but do you deny that the Democratic party, (including you) have advocated direct talks with terrorist nations?

Rahm Emanuel: Notes that, “The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge,” and whines that President Bush is not abiding by this time-honored tradition. Mr. Emanuel must have an exceedingly small capacity to recall recent events as the Democratic party seems to delight in attacking President Bush when he is overseas, even when he is visiting active war zones.

Joe Biden: Well, he’s nothing but a cranky bastard in need of a nap. There again, he blames Bush for an increase in terrorism, but doesn’t even attempt to defend the Democratic position of diplomacy at all costs.

Again, this speaks volumes of the weakness of the Democratic party. They are either unable, unwilling or unprincipled to such a degree that they cannot even bear to see a plank of their own presidential platform questioned by one of the least popular presidents in modern history. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.