Dark Star

HOW LOW can the market go?: "We’ll see a few bear-market rallies, but I certainly have no reason to think it’s hit bottom. Of course, market bottoms are mostly visible in retrospect, but I’m not seeing many people who think it’s time to put money in. And, given current economic policies, I don’t know why anyone would."
[more...]

(Via Instapundit.)

WAGING WAR ON PROSPERITY: "President Lyndon Johnson’s administration was known for his War on Poverty. President Obama’s will become notable for his War on Prosperity.

We’re speaking, of course, of Obama’s plans to hike income taxes on the most wealthy 2 or 3 percent of the nation. He’s not just raising the top rate to 39.6 percent; he’s also disallowing about one-third of top earner’s deductions, whether for state and local taxes, charitable contributions or mortgage interest. This is an effective hike in their taxes by an average of about 20 percent."
[more...]

(Via Dick Morris.)

Bingo! Call It Communism: "I once wrote that we could play 'Communist Manifesto Bingo': once President Obama enacts or strengthens five planks from the Communist Manifesto, yell 'bingo' and you win."
[...]

(Via American Thinker.)

______________

Let's print up cards and play, we've got nothing better to do for fours years. Not that it will take that long to win.

Extinguishing Physician Conscience: "The Baby Boomers will be the first Americans to be denied available effective life-saving treatments for reasons of cost. The seeds for this mass liquidation have already been planted."

(Via American Thinker.)

Obama and the Stock Market: Is the Media Mentally Ill?: "Why isn't the press criticizing Obama's economic policies in which Wall Street is showing a complete lack of confidence?"

(Via Pajamas Media.)

______________

Oh, I wonder.

Where Conservatives Can Rally on Iraq: "The editors of National Review lay out their view of Obama's Iraq policy today and it's a line of argument that has gained fairly wide support among conservatives.

Yes, reducing force levels is OK, on the path that Odierno has charted out. The first wait-and-see evaluation should be after the Iraqi presidential election, though there probably ought to be at least a few-month waiting period to see how that's going to turn out. Tom Ricks reports that Obama's going to fudge the 'combat troops' issue by turning two BCTs into training brigades - we'll see what that looks like, as well as the overall posture.

2011 is still the more worrisome prospect. If you can't say exactly what Iraq will look like a year from now, how can we possibly be sure what it will look like in 30 months? Why say anything? This may be like Bush policy in the near term, but it's hard to imagine Bush making a big deal of the final withdrawal; rather, he would have waited and tried to negotiate a change to the SOFA.

Then there are just the two distinct personalities of the presidents: Bush was committed, heart and soul, to winning; Obama is committed to 'ending.' The rebuttable proposition ought to be that Obama is fundamentally not trustworthy on Iraq. How will Iraqis respond? They're happy that we're not drawing down too fast this year, but they're probably uncertain about what happens after that. The Iranians have expressed their displeasure thus far, but one subject at the meetings this coming spring will no doubt be how to play the longer-term game.

Obama's Iraq position has evolved a long way from his vote to cut off funding for the troops, and conservatives can praise that evolution -- but that doesn't mean conservatives can't highlight the uncertainty over the future. And we have to make clear that our strategy is not driven by 1] the clock, 2] the question of being there or NOT being there per se, but 3] the need to maintain and continue to build a partnership with Iraq. Conservatives can be agnostic about troop numbers (though it is worth noting that Obama looks a little like Bush I: Mission Accomplished, train-and-withdraw) but insistent about the long-term importance of our alliance with the Iraqis."

(Via The Weekly Standard.)

Those Evil Israelis: "Now, what's going on? Of course -- Israel Apartheid Week!

This year, IAW occurs in the wake of Israel's barbaric assault against the people of Gaza ...
Who were just minding their own business, right? Right."

(Via The Corner on NRO.)

There's No Home for Gitmo Inmates in Kansas: "LEAVENWORTH, Kan. -- Mayor Lisa Weakley can't think of a single good reason the federal government should transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Army's Fort Leavenworth in this city of 35,000.
She can, however, list many reasons why this community -- even though it's famed for its prisons and has the Defense Department's only maximum-security facility -- should not be their next home, starting with worries about the threat of terrorism.

'Is it really a bad thing not to want it in your backyard if you've got a really good, solid explanation?' she asks. 'We have geographical challenges, security concerns and economic concerns. These are different types of prisoners than we're used to.'"

(Via The Corner on NRO.)

FASTER, PLEASE: “Scientists have developed what appears to be a safer way to create a promising alt…: "FASTER, PLEASE: ‘Scientists have developed what appears to be a safer way to create a promising alternative to embryonic stem cells, boosting hopes that such cells could sidestep the moral and political quagmire that has hindered the development of a new generation of cures. The researchers produced the cells by using strands of genetic material, instead of potentially dangerous genetically engineered viruses, to coax skin cells into a state that appears biologically identical to embryonic stem cells.’"

(Via Instapundit.)

Uh... no.

______________

Leftwing Myths Busted: "John Hawkins interviews Michael Medved who busts many leftwing myths about America:

One of the classic definitions of an imperialist power is a nation with an insatiable appetite for domination, conquest, and new land. The best proof that the United States doesn't fit that definition is one word: Canada. This great and largely defenseless nation to our north has co-existed with our nation and since a failed attempt to capture Canada in the war of 1812, which we lost by the way, we have left Canada very much alone. If we had been the kind of greedy imperialist power that America's critics allege, then why did we establish flourishing independent republics and nations like Japan, Germany, the Philippines, South Korea -- nations that we once occupied?
The American way, even with nations we fought against in war, is to go in, achieve whatever military aims we mean to achieve, and then eventually to go home, in every case, leaving the nation impacted better off than it was before. I think that if you look at all of the flourishing parts of Planet Earth, almost without exception, it has a great deal to do with the United States.

If you look at the darkest corners of the earth, you'll find nations that have had much less to do with the United States. In other words, if you take a list of nations on one side and look at the nations that are more productive, more free, more enlightened -- and then take a list of nations on the other side that would include nations like North Korea, Cuba, or nations of the Islamic World, like Iran -- the nations that have been less influenced by our nation are the less fortunate nations of Planet Earth. That says a great deal about the true nature of American influence."

(Via The Jawa Report.)

Lieberman Asks, Why Are Court Docs Behind Paid Firewall?: "Law for sale? Senator Joe Lieberman wants the federal courts to explain why they charge 8 cents a page to see public court documents online. (So do we.)"

(Via Wired News.)

Taxes, Senator.

Appeals Court Allows Classified Evidence in Spy Case: "A federal appeals court clears the way for classified evidence to be used in a lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's once-secret warrantless spy program adopted in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks."

(Via Wired News.)

Good thinking, Judge.

Science V. Religion: "For those interested in the academy and these debates, this sounds just plain fascinating. Here's the set-up:




For those of you who do not know, on February 21st, the Central Division of the American Philosophical Association - the main professional body of American philosophers - hosted a kind of debate. I say 'kind of debate' because one philosopher gave a paper, the other commented and the first philosopher replied and the floor opened for questions. But in fact the session was a debate.

The debate was between Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett. Plantinga is one of the founders of the Society of Christian Philosophers and one of the fathers of the current desecularization of philosophy. He is widely regarded - even by his critics - as one of the finest epistemologists of the last fifty years and one of the finest philosophers of religion since the Medieval period. Daniel Dennett is one of the New Atheists and is a well-known proponent of atheistic Darwinism and critic of religion. He is widely regarded - even by his critics - as one of the most important early philosophers of mind that opened the field to cognitive science and evolutionary biology. He has contributed enormously to the serious study of the mind and its relationship to the brain. Both philosophers are over sixty and perhaps at the height of their philosophical powers. They have also faced off before but, as far as I know, not in person.

Plantinga was the presenter. The session asked the question of whether science and religion were compatible. Plantinga argues that they are and that in fact the scientific theory taken to be most incompatible with religion - evolutionary theory - is not only compatible with Christian theism (the religious view Plantinga defends) but is incompatible with Christian theism's most serious opponent in the scientific world - naturalism. Naturalism is the view that physics and the sciences can give a complete description of reality. Plantinga defines it as the view that there is no God or anything like God.

I was at the talk. It was packed with professional philosophers and graduate students in philosophy, most of whom sided with Dennett. I wrote live comments on the debate/session. I prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons, in particular because I am inclined towards Plantinga's position over Dennett's and were this to become well-known it could damage or destroy my career in analytic philosophy. This is something I prefer not to put my family through. I almost didn't publish these comments at all, but as far as I could tell, this would be the only public record of the discussion.

Friends, if you can identify me, I request that you keep my identity secret. I am sharing my thoughts as a service to the philosophical community and all those who have an interest in such debates. But I prefer not to suffer at the hands of my ardently secular colleagues. This is not to say that all secular analytic philosophers are this way; they most certainly are not. But enough of them are that I cannot risk being known publicly."

(Via The Corner on NRO.)

The Rand Brand: "The Age of Obama and the rotten economy have been good for the Rand estate: Sales of Atlas Shrugged are surging. (Hat tip: Kyle Smith.)"

(Via The Corner on NRO.)

Gates: Pakistan 'most worrisome' in Afghan war: "The 'most worrisome' part of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan has become the havens the Taliban and other insurgents have carved out in neighboring Pakistan, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday."

(Via CNN.com - World.)

Don't Worry -- Be Happy!: "One of the ironies of our transformation into a European socialist state is that the progressive is often targeted as much as the so-called right-wing nut. The double-income yuppie household in the Bay area, who paid a fortune for a rather modest home, and who voted for Obama, will soon learn of hope and change. They are now considered 'rich' and will pay thousands more in state, federal, and FICA payroll taxes, for victimized others who hitherto had no recourse to previously lean government services and entitlements.

The Europeans will soon learn that we are really multilateral now. Europe is, well, on its own, and so can properly go to the U.N. when it harbors worries about Russia, an Iranian missile, or a terrorist enclave. Supporters of Israel who voted for Obama can appreciate a rhetorical President who doesn't mangle 'nuclear' as Mr. Freeman, Ms. Power, et al. open bridges to Syria and Iran, pay for the Hamas reconstruction, and try to get back to the happy, calm years before 1967 when Israel was inside its 1948 borders and gave no offense. And for those who kept screaming that we were not liked abroad, we may well be now, since our positions will be pretty much like those that are shared by others, and even misunderstood states from Iran and Syria to Russia and North Korea will come to see that we have no intention of giving them any grounds for offense."

(Via The Corner on NRO.)

Bigger Is Better?: "So apparently it's about good politics, not good policy:

Conversations with an array of White House aides, allies and advisers make clear that Obama sees the massive size of his agenda as a political advantage, not a vulnerability. The decision to move big and quickly with a $3.6 trillion budget that tries to tackle not just an ailing economy but energy, education and health care was a deliberate strategy -- one that Obama believes leaves Washington's deck stacked decisively in his favor, no matter the final fate of his proposals."

(Via The Corner on NRO.)

Freddie Mac CEO to resign - CNNMoney.com: "Newly-appointed Freddie Mac CEO David Moffett said he will resign by March 13; successor is yet to be named. By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney."

(Via Google News.)

The Return of Gingrich: "Matt Bai's profile of Gingrich in the Times Magazine is worth a read. It's as accurate and unbiased a take in the mainstream press on a conservative as I can remember. Best quote:

'Most Republicans are not entrepreneurial,' he lamented to me. 'They're corporatists. They like the security and the comfort of a well-thought-out, highly boring boardroom meeting in which they do a PowerPoint once. And it worries them to have ideas, because ideas have edges, and they're not totally formed, and you've got to prove them, and they sound strange because they're new, and if it's new how do you know it's any good, because, after all, it's new and you've never heard it before.'

The most cringe-inducing bit, on the other hand, is when Gingrich says he is more like Benjamin Franklin than George Washington."

(Via The Corner on NRO.)

"Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket": "If anyone has any doubt that a cap and trade system will raise the cost of electricity for American consumers, here is a video of Barack Obama (from a conversation with San Francisco Chronicle editors in January of 2008) clearing it up:

Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, even, you know, regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

(Via The Corner on NRO.)

Obama to Sign Pork-Filled Spending Bill: "President will break campaign pledge, sign $410B budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects"

(Via FOXNews.com.)

Big surprise.