Radioactive Communist Zombies

"Gun Free Zone" Murder

Yesterday there was a tragic murder in Tacoma, Washington.  A 30-year-old special education teacher was gunned down by a man who had been apparently stalking her for years.  The killing took place at the school where the woman taught before students arrived.

The woman had a protective order against the man, and he was out on bail after being arrested for violating that protective order.  He obviously violated it again to get close enough to kill her.  So, once again, fat lot of good a protective order did.  But the killing also happened in a "Weapons Free Zone" of the school in Washington State (which are all "Weapons Free Zones").  This woman relied on the state to protect her and now she's dead.  Because she was a teacher and worked in a "Weapons Free Zone" she didn't have the means to protect herself.  Perhaps that's why the killer chose that venue to attack her, knowing she would be defenseless and no one else would be able to stop him. 

"Weapons Free Zones" do not work.  They simply ensure that the most vulnerable are unable to protect themselves.  I've talked about this before in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings.  Gun control and gun-free (or weapons free) zones only leave victims unable to defend themselves.

The state couldn't protect this teacher.  And the state denied her the ability to protect herself or anyone else near her to protect her.

Hybrid Ferrari?

When automotive icons known for producing powerful, sporty, and exclusive cars start making hybrids (i.e., cars with electric motors and batteries), you know the end times are near.  First Porsche and now Ferrari are looking at making and selling to the public hybrid vehicles (although in Porsche's case, its their SUV the Cayenne).  But in Ferrari's case, since they don't make an SUV but only insanely fast and expensive sports cars, the hybrid will be on one of their cars:

Company CEO Luca di Montezemolo officially announced that a new hybrid version of the 599 will be unveiled at the Geneva Motor Show next month.

Speculation is what kind of hybrid and will it enhance performance or increase fuel economy (I suspect Ferrari owners aren't too concerned about fuel economy).  Electric motors, after all, have a lot of acceleration-enhancing torque (not that you'd know it driving a Prius).

So maybe a Ferrari hybrid will allow rich people to enjoy their Ferrari and pretend they are saving the planet at the same time.

The Ram-Through

After today's "Health Reform Summit" (which I caught about 10 minutes of while getting ready for work) the Democrats are going to ram through health care deform whether you like it or not.  Senator Bill Frist writing in the Wall Street Journal says doing on a 51-vote "reconciliation" is a bad idea:

Using the budget reconciliation procedure to pass health-care reform would be unprecedented because Congress has never used it to adopt major, substantive policy change. The Senate's health bill is without question such a change: It would fundamentally alter one-fifth of our economy.

But the Democrats want health care deform . . . badly.  Badly enough to defy the American people who don't want this reform (they want something to get better, they just don't know what).  The Democrats want this because a) it's a power grab of 1/5th the economy under government (meaning their) control and b) once everyone is dependent on the government for health care, it will almost guarantee a permanent Democrat majority as Republicans will be seen as the party of "no health care funding" while the Democrats can pay for health care with borrowed money at least for a while.  But as Margret Thatcher said: the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

If the Democrats vote through health care deform on 51 votes, we have to vote the bums out and put in Republicans to repeal it.

$7.75 Million per Home Weatherized

California has weatherized 12 homes despite receiving $93 million in stimulus money to weatherize homes.  That according to CalCoastNews.com.  And that's not the worst, Texas has weatherized zero homes (don't know how many millions in stimulus money Texas got to do so).

Just letting you know where your stimulus money is going. 

Stimulus was a Bad Deal

Today the CBO announced that it calculated that the nearly $800 billion stimulus created 1 million to 2.1 million jobs.

That may be true (I really doubt it), but the stimulus was still a bad deal.  Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Robert J. Barro says the stimulus sucked money out of the economy that could have gone to job creation:

The path of incremental government outlays over the five years in billions of dollars is +300, +300, 0, 0, 0, which adds up to +600. The path for GDP is +120, +180, +60, minus 330, minus 330, adding up to minus 300. GDP falls overall because the famous "balanced-budget multiplier"—the response of GDP when government spending and taxes rise together—is negative. This result accords with the familiar pattern whereby countries with larger public sectors tend to grow slower over the long term.

The projected effect on other parts of GDP (consumer expenditure, private investment, net exports) is minus 180, minus 120, +60, minus 330, minus 330, which adds up to minus 900. Thus, viewed over five years, the fiscal stimulus package is a way to get an extra $600 billion of public spending at the cost of $900 billion in private expenditure. This is a bad deal.

In other words, we spent a lot of money for not much GDP growth.  And the stimulus took money out of the economy that could have gone to job creation (I say that, not Mr. Barro but I'm sure he'd agree).

So yet more evidence that the stimulus was not a good idea economically.  But it was a great idea politically, for the Democrats.

Smokers are Dumb

A new study out showing that smokers have, on average, lower IQs than nonsmokers.  Reuters reports:

Young men who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day or more had IQ scores 7.5 points lower than non-smokers, Dr. Mark Weiser of Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer and his colleagues found.

Of course, this begs the question: does smoking make you dumb, or do you have to be dumb to smoke?

Apparently, you have to be dumb to smoke (as if that weren't obvious):

The researchers also compared IQs for 70 pairs of brothers in the group in which one brother smoked and the other did not. Again, average IQs for the non-smoking sibling were higher than for the smokers.

The findings suggest that lower IQ individuals are more likely to choose to smoke, rather than that smoking makes people less intelligent, Weiser and his team conclude.

I could see a whole marketing campaign for the tobacco industry.  Or as the study's authors suggest, a whole new anti-smoking campaign aimed at the less intelligent.  "Hey dummy: smoking will kill your ass!"

Oscar Nominees

This year there are ten best picture nominees for the Academy Awards (Oscars).  Which I believe is double the usual, previous number.  What's also interesting is the number of the nominees I've actually seen.  Usually its one to zero.  This year it's four.  I've seen:

1. District 9 (I liked)
2. The Hurt Locker (I really liked)
3. A Serious Man (I didn't like)
4. Up (I liked)

And . . . four other of the movies are in my Netflix queue:

1. Avatar
2. The Blind Side
3. An Education
4. Up in the AIr

Which leaves Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds" and "Precious" as movies I don't want to see.

Now I heard that they increased the number of Best Picture nominees in order to increase the popularity of the Oscars, i.e., bring in more viewers.   It almost seems as if they chose some of the nominees that way ("Up"? for best picture?).

So will I watch the Oscars?  Probably not.   

Stimulating Unemployment

Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute has a piecein Investors' Business Daily where he says that according to his calculations, the nearly $800 billion stimulus only caused higher unemployment:

My own estimate, in past articles available at cato.org, is that the stimulus act added about 2 percentage points to the unemployment rate.

Why is that?  Well, look at where most of the money went:

The bill was launched last year amid grandiose promises of "shovel ready" make-work projects.

In reality, as the CBO explains, "five programs accounted for more than 80% of the outlays from ARRA in 2009: Medicaid, unemployment compensation, Social Security ... grants to state and local governments ... and student aid."

In other words, what was labeled a "stimulus" bill was actually a stimulus to government transfer payments — cash and benefits that are primarily rewards for not working, or at least not working too hard.

And those transfer payments, especially extending unemployment benefits, increased unemployment.

So, without the stimulus, unemployment would have peaked at 8%?  Which is what Obama said it would peak at with the stimulus.  Or as I said back in November of 2008: Stimulus doesn't stimulate.

Smart Cars . . . Dumb Drivers

As cars get smarter and smarter, can your analog typical low-tech driver handle the new cars?  Joseph B. White asks that question in the Wall Street Journal (sub required).

Features such as electronic throttle controls, computer-controlled braking, push-button "keyless" ignition systems, new transmission designs and gas-electric hybrids present challenges to drivers who are accustomed to the well-known conventions that guided the designs of the analog cars of yesteryear.

Such simple tasks such as turning on the car can now vary from vehicle to vehicle (I was once completely flummoxed by a Prius).

So what's the solution?  Smarter drivers?  Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen.  So the government is likely to step in:

The NHTSA says it plans to take a "new look" at the concerns surrounding electronic systems—including worries that electromagnetic interference can throw them off. The agency is also weighing a move to require brake-override systems in all vehicles.

And look at standardizing vehicles so they are more alike in their function.

But really, it seems to me, if you want to drive, maybe you'd better learn how your car functions, first.  And not depend on the government to fix it for you.

Your 401(k): A Juicy Target

Just when you thought it was safe to be responsible, again.  You know, put money way for your retirement, comes along a hair-brained scheme to rob you of your savings. Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara writing in today's Investors' Business Daily recounts how there's a plan on the left to take your retirement in return for a promise to pay you money:

BusinessWeek reports that the Treasury and Labor departments are asking for public comment on "the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams."

In plain English, the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.

They will tell you that you are "investing" your money in U.S. Treasury bonds. But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds.

After all, they aren't already making the same bargain with you with Social Security, right?  Oh, wait, yes they are.  This proposal has friends in Congress:

This proposal follows hearings held last fall by House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., of the Ways and Means Committee focusing on "redirecting (IRA and 401k) tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute," as reported by InvestmentNews.com.

There's our old friend, Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott.

This is nothing but a money and power grab buy the left.  They don't like your freedom to invest your money as you see fit and spend it as you see fit.  Plus they need the money to pay off the mountain of debt Obama has run up.