Ed Cassidy, R.I.P.
Posted by on 12.6.12 @ 11:33PM
Drummer Ed Cassidy passed away today at the age of 89.
Cassidy began drumming as a teenager and over the years drummed with big band, jazz and country/western bands. Over the years, Cassidy played with the likes of Gerry Mulligan, Roland Kirk and Taj Mahal.
But Cassidy was best known for his stint with the psychadelic band Spirit. Cassidy stood out in the 60s because he had a shaved head, wore all black and was in his 40s. In fact, he was the stepfather of Spirit's lead guitarist Randy California. Needless to say, he kind of stood out when Spirit would appear on TV to perform their big hit "I Got a Line on You".
Cassidy often did drum solos barehanded which would influence Led Zeppelin's John Bonham. Led Zeppelin opened up for Spirit during a 1969 tour.
Cassidy was affectionately known as "Mr. Skin" and I leave you with that song.
Obama's "Flexibility" With Russia Begins?
Posted by on 12.6.12 @ 9:16PM
Today the Senate passed a landmark update to US law on Russia:
The U.S. Senate on Thursday repealed a trade sanction imposed 38 years ago to force the Soviet Union to allow Jews and other religious minorities to emigrate, replacing it with a modern-day punishment for human rights abuse that has enraged Russian officials.
The old law, one of the last vestiges of the Cold War, was called the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, named after a U.S. senator and a representative. The new law, passed 92 to 4, grants Russia and Moldova permanent normal trade relations, but it is coupled with the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which honors a dead Russian. The law blacklists Russians connected to the death of Magnitsky in police custody and to other gross human rights violations, prohibiting entrance to the United States and use of its banking system.
This was the end of a long battle that the White House lost. With Russia's admission to the World Trade Organization this year, American exporters began to be punished for the trade restrictions ostensibly required by Jackson-Vanik, even though the restrictions had in practice been routinely waived since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Obama administration sought a clean repeal of Jackson-Vanik uncoupled from the Magnitsky Act, but a bipartisan alliance in Congress rightly objected to the symbolism of normalizing trade relations with Russia without any acknowledgement of Moscow's current authoritarian orientation. With its direct sanctions on human rights violators, the Magnitsky Act is a welcome move toward raising the cost of that authoritarianism.
Here's how the State Department responded to the bill's passage:
The United States welcomes the passage by the Senate today of H.R. 6156, which terminates the application of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to Russia and Moldova and authorizes the President to extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to both countries. The passage of this bill will allow American businesses to reap the same economic opportunities in Russia’s markets that other World Trade Organization members receive, resulting in greater access for American workers, companies, farmers, ranchers, and service providers and the creation of more American jobs.
We share Congress’ goals of promoting respect for human rights in Russia, and consider democracy, human rights, and civil society to be important components of our relationship with the Russian government and the Russian people. We also support Moldova’s ongoing reform efforts and its aspirations for further integration into European institutions.
The emphasis is hard to miss. Foggy Bottom hails the benefits of Jackson-Vanik repeal, and refers only vaguely to the equally-important sanctions on Putin's thugs. The administration may claim to "share Congress' goal of promoting respect for human rights in Russia," but they can't bring themselves to endorse Congress' policy apporach to that goal, or even mention the word "Magnitsky" in their press release.
Recalling Obama's vow to Dmitry Medvedev that he'd have more "flexibility" on missile defense negotiations after re-election, it's hard not to worry that the administration's obsequious posture toward Russia may soon manifest itself beyond press releases.
Motoring Mutts
Posted by on 12.6.12 @ 5:31PM
Check out this item on my local Fox affiliate on how some dog trainers in New Zealand are training dogs to drive cars. That's right, motoring mutts. Gives a whole new dimension to motor voter laws, doesn't it? (Pole worker: "Do you have a photo ID with you, Shep? And what is your last name?") If the practice reaches our shores, will Obama soon be forcing insurance companies to provide free dog treats?
At least Monty won't be talking on a cell phone while driving. And surely he will be less of a risk on the road than Lindsay Lohan, though with apologies to Monty, that's setting the bar pretty low. We're probably all right until a cat or rabbit runs across the road in front of him.
There's no mention of why these folks, who clearly love dogs and have their best interests in mind, would want dogs behind the wheel of a car instead of hanging their heads out one of the car's windows lapping air, as God intended. Perhaps people in New Zealand just have more time on their hands than folks elsewhere.
This brings my best wishes to Monty and his furry colleagues. But perhaps dog trainers in New Zealand need to take a time-out and reassess their goals.
Obama Using Family as Prop Today
Posted by on 12.6.12 @ 2:50PM
Earlier today, it was widely reported that President Obama is meeting with a "middle-class" family to use them as a prop for his push to raise taxes on the wealthy. That family has now been identified on the White House blog:
Last week, President Obama called on Americans to speak out about what a $2,000 tax hike next year would mean for them and their families – and thousands of people from around the country are doing just that.
We’ve heard from more than 370,000 people in all 50 states, and many say that paying $2,000 more in taxes would force families to make some tough choices about their household budgets. For some, it might mean deciding whether to buy groceries or fill a prescription. For others, it would be the difference in making rent or paying tuition.
Tiffany, who lives in Northern Virginia with her husband, seven-year old son, and parents, is one of the many people who wrote in. The “picture of the 21st middle class,” her family decided on their multi-generation blended living situation to save money and spend more time together.
But with two sets of working adults – a teacher and an auto industry worker, and a child-care provider and postal worker –Tiffany said that her household would be doubly affected by a tax hike. And as a family of budding entrepreneurs, they would have less money to get their new businesses off the ground.
Today, President Obama will meet Tiffany and her family in their home, to talk more about how why it’s so important for Congress to pass the middle-class tax cuts before the end of the year, both for families like hers and our economy.
Before he arrives, get to know Tiffany and her family, and hear her talk in her own words about what a $2,000 tax hike would mean to them.
Now, of course, props are common for politicians. President Bush traveled with his mother to talk about Social Security reform. Former Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) brought a baby, Maggie, to the House floor during a one-minute speech. And there is the famous "kissing babies" all politicians must do.
However, visiting Tiffany's family seems like a stretch for the President. First, Tiffany's family lives in the suburbs around Washington, D.C. We are not told what their income is as a family, but we are informed they are a middle-class family. As a former native of New Hampshire, I know a family lives modestly well on a middle-class income. Given that the D.C. Metro area is the wealthiest region in America, and has held that position for multiple years thanks to an increase in the number of federal employees, lobbyists, and other people sucking off the teat of the taxpayer in the last couple of years, it strikes me that some of the financial difficulties Tiffany's family faces is at least partially a direct result of President Obama's policies.
Speaking of the Obama policies, how about that economy? The jobs report isn't likely to be all that hot, again thanks to the President's policies.
Third, the $2,000 tax hike the President is referring to -- the one that will devastate Tiffany's family -- is nothing compared to the $142,000 debt each person in her family has to face, thanks in part to President Obama's massive expansion of spending and the continuously poor economy.
Lastly, as I noted last night at Hot Air, the President has pretty poor priorities. He's willing to hold 98% of taxpayers hostage for an increase in taxes that will cover less than 2% of projected spending over the next decade, and do nothing for the $61 trillion in long-term debts, liabilities, and obligations Tiffany's son's generaiton will face as it ages. Never mind that Republicans have already offered at least two plans -- including a budget, a rarity in Democratic Party circles these days -- that would keep tax rates constant for the middle-class. The GOP's plans are woefully inadequate, especially the latest one, but they are plans that prevent Tiffany's family from seeing a $2,000 tax hike. I guess the President's care for the middle-class ends when political gain is around the corner.
Now, this emotional tug at the heart strings of Americans may garner more support for the President's tax hike proposal. It may not. But in the end, nothing replaces good policy for the fiscal future of America -- even if it doesn't sell as well as a multi-generational middle-class family.
Howard Dean: Raise Taxes on the Middle Class
Posted by on 12.6.12 @ 1:45PM
Well.
That didn't take long.
Our friends at Human Events have this from Howard Dean.
“…the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich.”
So there you have it. It isn't just the rich. As conservatives have long predicted, the Democrats are coming for the middle class.
They are coming for "everybody."
Clarity at last.
Bless you, Governor Dean.
And a Merry Christmas to you too!
We're "Tagged" for More Bad Policy
Posted by on 12.6.12 @ 1:01PM
I have the report at CFIF.
Short version: An extension of a ridiculous bailout for big banks and rich people who don't need it. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for deposits so big. It just further supports the bad idea of "too big to fail."
This was originally part of TARP. Ugh. It stinks. Please do read my report at CFIF.
Stay Healthy!
Posted by on 12.6.12 @ 12:11PM
Yes, I'm worried about the fiscal cliff, Obamacare, and all the other irreversible abominations which will result from President Obama's November victory. But the thing that keeps me up at night and really makes me shudder is an unexpected Supreme Court opening.
Stay Healthy!
By Asher Embry
To Antonin, Anthony, Clarence and Sam
And also to John (though still fuming I am);
I pray every night you stay chipper and stout
At least 'til O's term ends and he's finally out.
Ms. Kagan can gorge all she wants, I don't care.
And Breyer and Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
The others: good diets and early to bed --
We can't risk the Justice O'd put in their stead.
I'm sorry this verse is so morbid and curt;
O tipping the Court we must simply avert.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Ann Coulter's Blockbuster Immigration Column
Posted by on 12.6.12 @ 11:39AM
The always studious Ann Coulter has an amazing column out this morning on the nation's immigration issue.
Found here in Human Events, Ann has spent some time poring through the fine print of the election returns.
Her findings, made in studying the stats from Pew Research, startle. They must become part of the immigration debate to come with Republicans.
Did you know, for example, that Romney carried the youth vote? With 54% of the vote? To Obama's 41%?
Did you know that in fact Romney also carried, by a small margin, what Ann calls the "Lena Dunham demographic" -– women under 30?
All true.
Here's the problem. That 54% of the under-30 vote that Romney got? White as a polar bear.
In fact, it was Obama who won the youth vote -- and it wasn't because he was "offering free tuition and contraception." It's because the under-thirty vote is "the knife's edge of a demographic shift" to young immigrants who are turned into government dependents.
In Ann's words: "The youth vote is a snapshot of elections to come if nothing is done to reverse the deluge of unskilled immigrants pouring into the country as a result of Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration act. Eighty-five percent of legal immigrants since 1968 have come from the Third World. A majority of them are in need of government assistance."
It's a stunning, must read column -- and prefigures the immigration debate that looms ahead.
Jim DeMint Leaves Senate for Heritage
Posted by on 12.6.12 @ 10:53AM
Senator Jim DeMint, a stalwart champion of the Tea Party and principles of liberty, is resigning from the United States Senate to become the new President of the Heritage Foundation, replacing Heritage founder Ed Feulner.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/06/jim-demint-to-become-heritages-next-president/
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/271411-jim-demint-resigns-from-senate
The Day Ahead: Thursday, Dec. 6
Posted by on 12.6.12 @ 7:36AM
Hillary Clinton, Russian Counterpart Sergey Lavrov to meet for Syria Crisis Talks (CBS News)
Obama changes Tune on Budget (Washington Times)
GOP Senator backs Tax Rate Hike on Wealthy (CNN News)
In Egypt, Protests turn violent as political Crisis intensifies (Washington Post)
Obamacare: The Resistance Endures (National Review)
Gay Wash. Couples get Marriage Licenses (ABC News)
Philippine Typhoon Bopha Death Toll passes 300 (BBC News)
Legalizing Marijuana: Washington Law goes into Effect, allowing Recreational Use of Drug (Huffington Post)
Trail to a Hedge Fund, from a Cluster of Cases (NY Times)
Police: Suspect arrested in deadly New York Subway push (MSNBC)
Dave Brubeck, R.I.P.
Posted by on 12.5.12 @ 9:20PM
Jazz legend Dave Brubeck passed away today of heart failure one day shy of his 92nd birthday.
Brubeck is best known for the landmark 1959 album Time Out which showcased his experimentation with time signatures. Time Out features songs like "Blue Rondo a la Turk", "Three to Get Ready" and, most famously of all, the Paul Desmond penned "Take Five".
Some other notable Brubeck tunes include "Camptown Races", "It's a Raggy Waltz" and "Unsquare Dance".
In June 2010, I had the good fortune of seeing Brubeck in concert with Keith Lockhart and the Boston Pops at Symphony Hall. By this point, Brubeck's health had become frail and he had to be assisted to the piano. But once he started playing his timeless music, the years just fell away.
UPDATE: In a 2005 interview with the AP, Brubeck likened jazz to democracy:
Jazz is about freedom within discipline. Usually a dictatorship like in Russia and Germany will prevent jazz from being played because it just seemed to represent freedom, democracy and the United States.
Many people don't understand how disciplined you have to be to play jazz....And that is really the idea of democracy - freedom within the Constitution or discipline. You don't just get out there and do anything you want.
Words of wisdom. Now it is up to us to ensure this wisdom doesn't die with Dave Brubeck.
Bustin' Ben
Posted by on 12.5.12 @ 4:54PM
Not just because we both write for these pages, I generally enjoy Ben Stein's work. It's personable, obviously sincere, and conveys actual human emotion extraordinarily well.
But with increasing frequency, Ben's bombast regarding Republicans and tax policy is driving me up a wall. And since I have the privilege of being able to post my thoughts about this in a separate blog note where it might be seen by more people than a comment to Ben's note would be, I'm going to use that privilege.
In particular, I'd like to respond to these thoughts of Ben's from his American Spectator article today. I quote his tax-related paragraphs in full, to prevent any question of my taking his words out of context:
How did we ever get into the position of fighting like madmen to keep taxes low on billionaires? How can we possibly win if our position is to sacrifice the welfare of poor and lower middle class people to make sure we keep the taxes of very wealthy people low? Let's see: Obama is for keeping almost all entitlements and raising taxes on the rich (his definition of rich is insane but that's another story). Our GOP position is low taxes on the rich and cut entitlements and medical care for the poor. Hmmm, which is a winning position?
My old boss, Mr. Nixon, used to say, "Honesty may not be the best policy but it's worth trying once in a while."
So, Let's be honest: the ultra-rich do not need ultra-low taxes. The poor have a moral claim on the generosity of the nation if they are genuinely in need. Might we just try to align ourselves with the morally right position for fiscal policy?
Yes, government spends insanely too much. Yes, government is criminally wasteful. But the nation is racing towards bankruptcy. Do we right the course by taking from the very rich -- while searching like Sherlock Holmes for waste to cut? Why not? I'd like to see the party win the next election and being the party of the billionaires does not help us.
Wow, I was really enjoying the article until I got to this leftist muddle.
What part of "the taxes of the rich are not low" does Ben not get?
What part of "the top 1% pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes" does Ben not get?
What part of "the top 1% pay more than the bottom 90%" does Ben not get?
What part of "need for ultra-low taxes" being not just the wrong standard, but a horrifyingly dangerous one, does Ben not get?
What part of "we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem" does Ben not get?
What part of "from the inception of the War on Poverty, increased government spending has never substantially decreased poverty because welfare encourages the disease it purports to treat" does Ben not get?
I do have to thank Ben for distilling his deep errors down to one fundamental claim, that "the poor have a moral claim on the generosity of the nation..."
But "the nation" is not and cannot be generous since "the nation" does not have its own resources. It only has what it takes from its citizens. This means, therefore, that Ben believes the poor have a moral claim on the earnings of every non-poor individual in this country. Such an argument is morally false, but it's more than that. It is also the basis on which many regimes have not only failed to improve their citizens' well-being but have resorted to the worst atrocities imaginable to further their goals. It is a stance which gives moral sanction to almost any government action which claims to redistribute wealth.
Ben, you may be trying to cover the true nature of your views on taxation by harping on billionaires, for whom few have economic sympathy, and by repeating in capital letters that you are NOT RICH. But your statements about tax policy, about who "needs" low taxes, and about a "moral claim to generosity" are not just drivel; they are evil.
Dan Mitchell: Exposing Washington's Dishonest Budget Math
Posted by on 12.5.12 @ 4:23PM
A must-read as we go into a critical phase of budget negotiations between John Boehner and the White House:
ADVERTISEMENT
- Picking Up the Pieces
- Slouching Toward Dhimmitude
- Once There Were Greenvilles
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1978
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
-
Open Season on Bill Gates
Bill Gates and Microsoft have committed the crime of understanding the Information Age better than anyone else. Now the Reno Justice Department has joined forces with Gates's competitors to teach him a lesson, ignoring what his brilliant career could teach them.
-
RINO Survival Guide
On the trail with Arlen Specter.
-
PBS, R.I.P.
-
Confessions of a Beer Snob
-
Portrait of a Civilized Man
-
Why the Rescue Failed
There was more to Operation Eagle Claw's failure in the desert of Iran than Jimmy told us.
-
Crash Course
In mid-July, fragments of a fearsome comet are scheduled to blast into Jupiter -- just as the U.S. gets set to commemorate the silver anniversary of man's first steps on the moon. What are we doing watching it all from down here?
-
Wanna Party?
