Why President Obama is either ignorant or a liar

19 07 2013

I try not to call names, but at some point, it becomes impossible to do otherwise.  His Highness, King Barack, First of that Name, opined today on the Zimmerman case.  Once again, he managed to make it about him, rather than whether there was an execution or miscarriage of justice in Florida.  Opinions can differ about the case, but the facts were established by the testimony at trial.  To ignore that, and to posit a completely different scenario in order to score political points, is simply disingenuous.

For those not following along, Obama made two particularly idiotic statements during his remarks.  First, he stated, “If Trayvon Martin was of age and he was armed, could he have ‘stood his ground’ on that sidewalk?” Obama said.  This is idiotic for two reasons.  First, the ‘stand your ground’ law was not part of the Zimmerman case, was not argued by the parties, and was not relied upon by the defense.  It makes as much sense to bring that up as it would to say the government should re-evaluate the infield fly rule.  It is simply inapplicable.  Further, his statement demonstrates either gross ignorance or intentional falsification.  By implying that Martin was entitled to ‘stand his ground’ under the facts produced at trial requires that he believe that Zimmerman assaulted Martin and was on top of Martin, battering him.  In fact, the testimony was that the first instance of violence was from Martin, who punched Zimmerman hard enough to break his nose, and was then on top Zimmerman, pounding his head into the sidewalk.  The forensic evidence support this scenario, as the injuries to Zimmerman were consistent with the punch and the battering, and the only physical wounds to Martin, besides the gunshot wound, was damage to his knuckles consistent with a punch.  Additionally, the forensic expert testified that the would track and other forensic details were consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman. Finally, the only independent witness to the event, Scott, testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him.  Ignorance of the facts is no excuse, especially in an explosive social situation.

Second, Obama said, “If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”  In fact, the media recently reported, although with not nearly the saturation of the Martin coverage, that same scenario played in just the way he posited.  The result was exactly the same. Roderick Scott, a black man, was accused of shooting a white teenager in roughly similar circumstances.  Scott was acquitted.  No riots, no calls for bogus ‘civil rights’ inquiries, no saturation coverage.  There is no possibility that the White House did not know about the Scott case, as it has been a mild sensation on the Internet the last couple of days.  See http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/m-what_if_trayvon_had_been_white_and_the_shooter_black.html#.UemN_mrogxM.twitter 

Obama is therefore either ignorant or disingenuous.  Either one is frightening.


2012 Election in a nutshell

9 10 2012

From Mark Steyn:

Give it a week or so, and, in a grand harmonic convergence of Democrat talking points, Big Bird will be dating Sandra Fluke.

Doesn’t a hate crime require the occurrence of a crime?

21 08 2012

From the New York CBS affiliate: “NYPD Probing Hare Crime After Bacon Found at Staten Island Ramadan Site.”

What’s the underlying crime?  Is it illegal in New York to be a dick?

It’s not just a good idea, it’s the Law!

10 08 2012

It’s a law most people have never heard of, yet controls their life more than any other.  The law is unbending, unwavering, and merciless.  Why do people put up with it?  It’s human nature.  This horrific law, that runs our lives, is the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Every act, every decision, every choice we make has consequences.  Some of them are planned, some are beneficial, and some are unintended.  The unintended consequences generally result from the reaction of a third party reacting to a decision we make.  Say, for example, people like bacon.  People buy more bacon.  Bacon becomes a fixture in popular culture.  Bacon starts showing up in unusual places, like Burger King milkshakes.  A Burger King milkshake is an unintended consequence of the popularity of bacon.

Other consequences are not so benign as bacon-flavored milkshakes.  Economists are familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons, which I consider a sub-species of the Law of Unintended Consequences.  But of all the people who should be the most familiar with the Law, the ones who seem to be the most intentionally obtuse are bureaucrats.  For some reason, most bureaucrats seem to think that the Balm of Good Intentions will dispel the Law of Unintended Consequences.  Time and again, the real world rears up and confounds the best intentions of the nattering classes.

Today’s prime example comes from UN and their carbon-trading scheme.  Briefly, the UN awards carbon-credits for destruction of GHGs that can be purchased by companies to offset their own emissions.  In theory, emissions go down due to destruction of GHGs.

In practice, not so much.  The New York Times reports that firms in Asia have ramped UP production of GHGs for the purposes of selling the credits they get for destroying them.  And, in a move that should surprise no-one, they chose the most destructive GHG, in order to maximize the credits. (CO2 = 1 credit, HFC-22 = 11,700 credits).

So far, no surprises.  Every economics student know that people react to incentives.  When you incentivise an activity, you get more of the activity.  The Times describes the issue, and then quotes one of the NGO bureaucrats who helped create the scheme:

“I was a climate negotiator, and no one had this in mind,” said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It turns out you get nearly 100 times more from credits than it costs to do it. It turned the economics of the business on its head.”

The breathtaking ignorance of the drafters of this boggles the mind.  Who would have thought that if you make it more lucrative to create something for the purpose of destroying it, people would start doing that?  Now there’s a scramble to correct the problem, which will, of course, lead to more unintended consequences, and the cycle continues.

The other side of the coin

20 07 2012

The drought is going to complicate things, that’s for sure.  How bad it will be, and what effects it will have, is as yet unclear.  However, it does illustrate something I’ve been considering for some time.

I recall a former pastor at my church bemoaning the US economy.  He complained that the US was 5% of world population and consumed 40% of resources (or some such PC crap).  I asked him to consider what percentage of world production was generated by that resource usage, but he would not credit that view.

How does that relate to the drought (I hear you ask)?  Consider this:  from the Financial Times

The drought in the US, which supplies nearly half the world’s exports of corn and much of its soyabeans and wheat, will reverberate well beyond its borders, affecting consumers from Egypt to China.


I would submit that 40% of the resources producing 50% of the exported food is not a bad utilization of resources.  And that does not take into account any other contribution by the US, such as the demand created for products produced for export by other countries, IP produced, and the positive effect of US leadership (what little of it there is now).

Just some food (as it were) for thought.

Dems beclown themselves (again)

13 07 2012

From http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/exclusive-democrats-dump-opposition-research-on-top-vice-presidential-contenders/:

In a non-descript Washington, DC office building within sight of the United States Capitol, a team of more than a dozen Democratic researchers have spent the last few months examining every nook and cranny of the records of several GOP vice presidential contenders.

The researchers work for the super PAC, American Bridge 21st Century, which is unveiling a new website on Friday called VeepMistakes.com. The site features more than 1,300 pages of opposition research and scores of video clips.

Veep Mistakes?  I’d think that list would begin and end with Joe Biden.

How to make a movie

25 10 2011

I don’t know diddly about the process of making movies or the work that goes into them.  But if I had to guess the most effective way to make good movies, it would look a lot like the way Joss Whedon made “Much Ado About Nothing.”  Just from reading the stories from the actors, it sounds like a lot of fun, and a real collaborative effort.  Amy Acker’s comments were especially interesting.  Can’t wait to see the movie!