Earth Hour And Stuff

So...no posts since Wednesday...

Yep, it's been that kind of week. I'm pretty bummed, too, because I usually love to post about Earth Hour. What? What's Earth Hour? Well, even though this is a few hours late, it's still worth blogging about. I thought that a fantastic summary of the whole thing was done by Danny Huddleston at RedState:

Never heard of earth hour? Me neither until I read this article in the LA Times online edition:

Get ready to fade to black. Millions of people around the world are expected to turn off their lights at 8:30 p.m. local time Saturday — no matter what time zone they’re in — to observe Earth Hour. Never heard of it? It was started in 2007 by the WWF conservation organization to make a statement about energy overuse and how it affects the planet.

Times Square, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Las Vegas Strip, Niagara Falls, the Opera House in Sydney, and many more landmarks around the world plan to douse the lights, according to Earth Hour’s website.

In Southern California, the Queen Mary will blast its horn at 8:30 p.m. to indicate the beginning of Earth Hour. Then the Long Beach landmark will turn off lights on its smokestacks, the string of lights atop the ship and other areas as well as encourage guests staying in staterooms to do likewise.

I’ve decided to celebrate earth hour this year in a slightly different way. I’m going to turn all my lights on. I’m celebrating man’s emergence from darkness. Man’s use of technology that has saved millions from poverty and starvation. Won’t you join me this year in the ritual lighting of an endangered species; the incandescent light bulb?

All kidding aside, no one will be hurt by this silly event designed to make liberals feel good about themselves but the same can’t be said about other liberal policies. From the millions of African children who have died of malaria because DDT was effectively banned to starvation increasing in the third world because we have decided to turn food into fuel. Even something as simple as not allowing people to clear brush around their property which creates a fire hazard. (See this tragic story in the Australian Press) The progressives never give a second thought to the unintended results of their policies.

At least for one hour on Saturday they won’t have to look at themselves in the mirror.

And that's really the point, isn't it? Liberals always seem hung up on performing fantastically banal feats of emotional prowess simply for the purpose of feeling good. Doesn't matter what actually happens, mind you. They just want the credit for caring.

While that's all fine and dandy, ask yourself which is more important: to feel good about caring, or to actually do something that makes a difference? In the real world, if you want something done or someone needs genuine help...don't call a liberal. They'll be too busy fighting for a cause they really care about.

It's Official: DELL. IS. CRAP.

I'm done. That's it, that's all, finito. I have officially decided that I will no longer endorse Dell computers.

While I'm sure the folks in Austin are quaking in their boots at the avalanche of lost business that my new official position will cause them, I felt compelled to share with you the experiences that led me to this point.

I've been a Dell buyer since college. When I decided to graduate from my self-built computer to an off-the-shelf model, Dell was the hottest game in town. I had good experiences with them for a number of years (a perfect record, in fact, outside of a brief period of horror caused by Microsoft Windows ME, which wasn't Dell's fault), and recommended them over and over to numerous people. I can't recall having a single hardware failure, and the customer support was more than sufficient on the few times I actually needed it.

Then...things changed. A couple years ago we purchased an Inspiron 1521 notebook. In short, it was crap. From the first unboxing, it had problems. I can't even begin to relate them all, but there were both hardware issues and software issues. It also got extremely hot on the underside, so we purchased a slice with extra fans to help keep it cool. I do know that I spent hours upon hours on the phone with their tech support, who inevitably came back to one answer: reinstall Windows. As much as it is a pain in the tookus for non-techies to backup their stuff, reinstall Windows, and restore everything the way it was, can you imagine what it was like for a constant tinkerer like me? My favorite analogy to this is that of knocking down and rebuilding an entire house in order to fix a leaky ceiling. It's extreme overkill. It's just not practical, and there are other ways to locate and resolve the problem, but Dell wasn't interested in that. However, with over a decade of warm fuzzies behind me, I pluckily played the game with tech support for far longer than I should have. If it helps illustrate the depths of the problems we had with that piece of crap, let me tell you that I was able to request/guilt/cajole/demand the following items out of them for free:

- a replacement notebook (same model as the defective one)
- a new printer
- a second new printer (significantly better and much fancier than the defective one)
- a 12' printer cable (as opposed to the 6' one it came with)
- a wireless card for the fancy printer
- a kit containing a power adapter for home and car use
- a memory upgrade

Now, I'm no professional negotiator. And, if you've ever tried to squeeze any of these things out of a company like Dell or HP in the past, you know that they just don't give this stuff out. But, like I said, this beast was total crap. And it was running Vista, but again, that was a Microsoft thing, and they could only do so much with that. But mostly, it was crap. They knew it, I knew it, and they knew I knew it, probably because I would let them do their tech support thing and inevitably end at recommending I reinstall Windows, then do my own research to discover the real problem and fix it myself. Naturally, I had to call them back and inform them of just how incompetent and ineffective their tech support people were. It was quite an effective tactic, as you can see.

Not long after that, though, it was time to ditch this one and get something new. This time we were in a good place and prepared to spend a bit more money on a bit nicer machine. I still had that loyalty thing nagging me, and we'd only had one disastrous machine out of many, so I ended up purchasing another Inspiron notebook. I wiped and reinstalled the old one and set it up for the kids to use for their games and school work. It appears to be content with that minimal level of use, and has worked well ever since (as long as we keep it on the cooling slice).

However, after purchasing a shiny new black notebook (an Inspiron 1564) just a few months ago, the one-time disaster became a pattern. This new one was an entry-level notebook, but with a few choice upgrades, so it wasn't a bottom-shelf model at all. And yet...here's what's gone wrong with this piece of crap:

- the DVD drive was dead when I took it out of the box and had to be replaced
- there were immediate software issues, and they rolled out their standard answer yet again: reinstall Windows (after doing my own research, it appears it was not, in fact, Windows, but one of the other applications I was installing that was causing some kind of conflict...but they never dug deep enough to figure that out)
- the hard drive died and had to be replaced
- random reboots began occurring

That random reboot thing is infuriating. Sometimes it happened overnight (during a backup or other overnight project). Sometimes it happened during the day while it was just sitting there on the desk while I was away at work. Sometimes it happened right in the middle of me typing up an e-mail or document. Sometimes it happened as often as three times a day. Infuriating is definitely the word. I called tech support in late January about that, and they couldn't find anything wrong with the hardware. Guess what their answer was? Reinstall Windows. Shocker. I decided I would reinstall Windows when I was good and ready to do so, and I would just deal with the reboots until then.

About a week ago, I just about threw the thing through the office window after a reboot during a particularly important e-mail. I probably would have if I could have sold the pieces of the wreckage afterward, but that was the last straw. I listed the thing on Craigslist. In the process of forcing myself to put the thing (gently) back down on the desk, I noticed that the bottom of the laptop was getting hot. I mean REALLY hot. As in hot enough to make you pull your hand away. Hmmm...

Okay, fine. We're still within the warranty period (yes, as hard as all that may be to believe, this is a 9-month old computer!), so I might as well make certain they follow through on every possible replacement to which they are legally obligated. Also, I'm pretty sure no one is going to want to buy something that is literally smoldering through their pants and curling up the hairs on their thighs. So I called tech support once more. I was almost hoping they wouldn't find anything. Fortunately for them, one of their diagnostic tools revealed that the hard drive was failing. Yep, AGAIN. But I don't think it's an accident.

Consider how long you've had your own computer...have you had to replace the hard drive yet? I suspect some of you have, but those were more than likely at least four or five years old, right? It is far more common for the original hard drive to outlast the computer's processing power's ability to run current software. A standard hard drive is old technology and typically lasts for thousands upon thousands of hours of operation. To have two of them fail in the span of 9 months stretches credulity. Consider also the fact that the previous version of this notebook (the 1521 noted above) had overheating problems, as well as the fact that the 1564 notebook is built with the back portion of it being on a raised lip, providing almost a full inch of clearance between the desk and the bottom of the notebook. Consider also that the 1564 was marketed for (from what I can tell) only a few months in 2010. What do all of these things point to?

I suspect there is some design flaw in this particular model that is literally frying the hard drive, and by the time Dell figured it out, the only recourse they had was to pull the model from active sales.

Since we're still under warranty, the new drive will cost me nothing, but it will cost Dell a long-time customer. As soon as the new hard drive arrives, I'll install it and try to find a buyer to take this off my hands. I suspect it'll work fine for at least a few months, and probably even longer if the new owner decides to use a cooling slice, which I will suggest. But I'm done. I'm tired of putting up with substandard junk because of outdated and misplaced loyalty. I'm not yet sure what I'll get to replace this thing, but I'm confident it won't be a Dell, and it'll be much less hassle. Heck, I may just stick with my Droid X for a while!

So there's my story. If you're looking for a new computer -- especially an entry-level notebook -- avoid Dell Inspirons like the plague.

Trouble On The Horizon?

The recent news of a proposed T-Mobile/AT&T merger was apparently a surprise to almost everyone.  But is it a good surprise?  Time will tell, but...

Right now, there are four major carriers. Verizon and AT&T are the biggest, with around 94 million and 86 million customers, respectively. Sprint's got 50 million, T-Mobile around 34 million. In the new landscape, you'll have two mega-carriers: AT&T, with 120 million or so, and Verizon, with around 94 million (probably a million or two more by the time the deal closes). And then Sprint. Which'll be half the size of the second largest carrier, and a little more than a third as big as the almighty AT&T. Obviously, that concentrates enormous, near-duopoly powers in the hands of AT&T and Verizon.

Yeah, there are local carriers that compete against the big boys on price here and there, but I think it's safe to say that most people want to use their mobile phone no matter where they go...including vacations, trips to the grandparents, to Disney World, to the beach, and so on.  Local carriers are just that - local only.  But let's get back to the competition.  In short, competition is essential -- not just desired, but required -- for any industry to innovate, grow, and develop, not to mention provide any kind of decent product or customer experience.  Case in point:

T-Mobile was the major carrier that competed the most on price and customer service. Right now it's known as the cheap carrier. But having T-Mobile and Sprint be notably cheaper than the big two brought prices down for everybody. Remember whenT-Mobile and Sprint sparked the unlimited calling war? Well, we're currently in the middle of an unlimited data war—also thanks to the smaller carriers. T-Mobile and Sprint will soon be the only carriers offering unlimited data—AT&T's switched to tiered, and Verizon will make the jump this summer. Text message fees are still totally ridiculous. ...

Same thing with phone choice. T-Mobile took chances and brought us the Sidekick—the precursor to what we expect in a modern, internet-connected phone, in many ways—and the first major Android phone, the G1. (Albeit, AT&T took a chance with the first iPhone, so we'll give them that.) AT&T's first Android phones weren't even announced for another year and a half. And they sucked, to boot. (The first decent AT&T Android phone, the Captivate didn't launch until summer of last year. Ridiculous.) Without T-Mobile, there's one less major national GSM carrier for phone makers to pitch phones to, less competition to enable a wider array of groundbreaking phones in a market that's filled to the brim with sh***y handsets. Now we'll have one major GSM carrier in the US offering phones, and no real alternatives. And its track record, especially when it comes to Android, is fairly crummy.

I think most people who own a current AT&T phone would attest to the questionable quality of their network, whether it's an Android phone or an iPhone.  Sure, they may have slightly wider coverage, but does that really count for much when your calls are constantly being dropped and your phone has been neutered of features (Android users, you know what I'm talking about)?

Even if everything goes well, AT&T's plans don't really integrate things until at least 2013, and some key pieces of the picture -- like genuine 4G broadband speeds for smartphones -- don't even have a projected date yet!  The bottom line:

Right now, the end result looks like less competition, less choice, fewer phones, higher prices and marginally better service years down the road (which AT&T was promising already anyway). Awesome.

Awesome, indeed.

And let's not forget one other monumental pit of quicksand...the government:

There are also untold and unpredictable lobbying and regulatory consequences. As Om Malik points out, Sprint and T-Mobile used to stand against Verizon and AT&T on a bunch of regulatory stuff—now Sprint will be all alone. (Maybe so alone it'll need to merge with somebody else. Sascha Segan may not be far off here, imagining a scenario where we wind up with nothing but Verizon and AT&T and how it would play out.)

You know my opinion of Congress.  The general rule of thumb is that if they can screw something up and make it more complicated and expensive while simultaneously less effective and desirable, they will.  We've already seen Verizon dirtying their fingers with Congress on net neutrality, so you can bet your bottom dollar both future mega-carriers would dive in head first.  When there's no free market competition and Congress is involved...well, I call that the makings of an unmitigated disaster.

But that's just me.

Another Tragedy Twisted Into Political Gamesmanship By The Left, More Energy Policy Discussion

In what has become as predictable as tragic natural disasters themselves, the Left has once again attempted to twist such an event into their own political gain. It's disgusting, but depressingly typical. Case in point:

The March 11 earthquake off the coast of Japan and the ensuing tsunami is a tragedy hard to comprehend. Thousands are dead, entire villages are gone and hundreds of thousands are homeless. As the days pass, the death toll continues to climb. The U.S. military has mobilized to assist in relief efforts, while we and millions of others offer our prayers for the Japanese people.

Sadly, even in the midst of chaos and human suffering, the usual suspects have a political ax to grind. In this case, that ax is nuclear power. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in northeast Japan has been a focal point since last week's catastrophe. When the earthquake hit, the plant automatically shut down and switched to generator power. It was designed to withstand an 8.2-magnitude quake; in fact, it survived a 9.0-magnitude one, which is many times stronger.

However, the ensuing tsunami destroyed the generators, and the debris-filled water contaminated the reserve coolant. The reactors soon heated up, pressure built, and the resulting explosions released radiation into the atmosphere. The jury is still out as to the impact this will have, though there has been no shortage of anti-nuclear hysteria on the Left.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) ran to the nearest microphone to pronounce the disaster "another Chernobyl" (it's nothing of the sort) and to call for the Obama administration to curtail any new nuclear reactors in the U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said that we should "put the brakes on right now until we understand the ramifications of what's happened in Japan." In the media, many of the alarmed so-called experts are actually just shills for anti-nuclear organizations.

Other voices, including even The New York Times, have been more measured. The Times wrote, "The unfolding Japanese tragedy also should prompt Americans to closely study our own plans for coping with natural disasters and with potential nuclear plant accidents to make sure they are, indeed, strong enough." We completely agree. In fact, 30 American nuclear reactors have similar or identical designs to the 40-year-old plant in Fukushima. While our facilities should be reviewed and updated as necessary, none are subject to tsunamis.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu was also on the right side, telling a House panel, "The American people should have full confidence that the United States has rigorous safety regulations in place to ensure that our nuclear power is generated safely and responsibly." He added that the administration "is committed to learning from Japan's experience." We hope the follow-through is as good as the rhetoric.

The U.S. hasn't built a new plant since 1979, the year of the Three Mile Island accident. In other words, the brakes have been on for 32 years. Even still, nuclear power provides 20 percent of our electricity. New, safer reactors are close to coming on line, and it should go without saying that our technology has come a long way in three decades. The situation at Fukushima is indeed grave, but any call for a nuclear moratorium in response is overwrought. Indeed, it's often mere political opportunism for those who oppose nuclear power under any circumstances.

And, like the dawn follows the darkness, Obama is now calling for a review of our nuclear power strategy.

While we're on the subject of energy sources, let's look at the continuing saga of Obama's misguided energy policy:

Sometimes, one has to wonder whether Barack Obama ever bothered to interact with anyone outside his ivory-tower inner circle … or buy a car in the last 40 years. Last Friday, while trying to commiserate with Americans suddenly hammered by skyrocketing gas and food prices, he offered this analysis of the American auto market:

“You may want to buy a fuel-efficient car,” quoth Obama, “but you may not be able to afford it. And so you’re stuck with the old clunker that’s getting 8 or 10 miles a gallon.”

Er, sure … if you’re “stuck” with a classic 1956 Ford Thunderbird, or something of that vintage, when American auto muscle meant big tailfins, solid steel construction, and gas guzzling supreme. If you’re fortunate enough to own a running vehicle of that type, you’re likely feeling pretty proud rather than stuck, too. Other than the original Hummer (again, hardly a choice for cost-conscious consumers in the first place), what was the last mass-market car to have an MPG even close to only getting 10 MPG? Even my 1973 Buick Century Luxus, which had to be one of the heaviest sedans ever made and came with a 350 V8 (optional to a 455 V8), got 14 MPG in the city.

...it wasn’t the economy models that were the gas guzzlers, not 40 years ago and certainly not in any of the cars still on the road. The more fuel-efficient cars that cars get, the lower on the price scale they tend to be as well, usually because you get less car: smaller engines, smaller frames, less carrying capacity. The gas guzzlers tend to be larger, more expensive vehicles — although these days, to get to the 8-MPG range, you’d have to drive a fairly large commercial truck. Or a half-track.

Does Obama know anyone who actually bought a car? Or drove one himself?

This helps shed some light on where he's coming from, which in turn helps us understand his view of American energy policy. In short, he's out of touch, and his radical Leftist background and training have taught him that America is the source of all evil in the world (especially in terms of energy usage), and that we need to pay more for energy. You know, like this:

Some more grim details [on the Chevy Volt], though: almost 49 grand (not including tax credit) for a car that’s actually a glorified hybrid (the gas engine has to be on if you want to take this sucker on the highway); and the effective gas mileage is somewhere around 27 mpg. Now, that sounds great if you’re the President - because Obama thinks that the average clunker out there gets 8 to 10 mpg, mostly because the President is an urban liberal* who probably hasn’t driven himself anywhere in the last decade - but it’s a bit more disconcerting for the rest of the population to be told that this Government Fiat car is the Wave of the Future.

I mean, we were told the same thing about Soylent Green.

Anyway, if you think that I’m being too cruel about the Volt, apparently it’s nothing compared to Consumer Reports’ initial assessment, which appears in the April 2011 issue and is distinctly unkind - to the point where the reviewer in two separate places explicitly questioned whether buying one of these things made anything like logical sense. That article, by the way, casually notes one under-mentioned but actually critical point: the lack of a ambient heating system. The way the Consumer Reports reviewer put it? “You have seat heaters, which keep your body warm, but your feet get cold and your hands get cold…” - which is bad enough for commuters. But it’s even worse for parents who thought that they could use this vehicle to do anything like a long trip in wintertime.

Free advice? Don’t.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Which means that he comes from an insular subculture that does not drive on a regular basis, does not drive long distances, and that adamantly refuses to voluntarily interact with other subcultures except in the most stylized and controlled circumstances.

But hey, by all means, let's keep ignoring the fact that the U.S. has more untapped fossil fuel resources than any other country in the world, and let's keep ignoring the fact that under Obama's policies, gas prices have gone up 67% in just the past two years. The reality is that until the American people throw Obama and Leftist liberals like him out of office, they're going to continue lying about these things.

Oh, and by the way...does anyone remember this?

“Critics (of Arctic drilling), including Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., say the drilling plan would violate the nation’s last remaining pristine wilderness. Moreover, they charge, the oil would consist of a 6-month supply for the nation, and would not be ready for use by consumers for up to 10 years.”

That newspaper article was written April 2, 2001. For those of you in Rio Linda, that would be ten years ago.

Likewise, roughly ten years ago on July 3, 2001, the Bush Administration began consideration of drilling in the outer continental shelf.

Democrats opposed that too because it would take up to ten years to see a return on investment. In other words, it would take until about right now to see a return on investment.

I sure hope they are better at forecasting health care than oil futures. Otherwise, if we don’t repeal Obamacare, we’re screwed in ten years on that too.

And every other policy that Obama and his ilk are forcing onto the American people against our will!

But back to the current time, and current urgent issues. What is Obama doing right now? Demonstrating an astoundingly poor grasp of the situation, he is traveling to Brazil to promote American exports...kind of:

...the timing is very suspect. As mentioned above, the federal government is now six months late with its budget, and its deficit exceeds 10% of America’s GDP. Those are both crises which demand presidential involvement, if not leadership, and instead Obama wants to go on tour. Also, with the UN resolution approving a no-fly zone, shouldn’t the Commander in Chief be in town to oversee the advent of American military action, assuming that the momentary cease-fire in Libya doesn’t moot the effort? The beginning of hostilities is a strange time for a President to be taking off for a business trip.

But even putting that aside, if boosting exports is the idea, then where is Colombia on the tour? We could boost exports if Obama would press for ratification of the free-trade agreement signed in November 2006 — an agreement that largely benefits the US, as Colombia already exports to the US without tariffs now, thanks to incentives offered for drug interdiction. Almost two years ago, Obama promised to push for ratification, but hasn’t done anything since to back up that pledge. Tellingly, Obama doesn’t even bother to mention Colombia in this essay, despite its staunch support for American interests in the southern hemisphere and its action against drug cartels that have put its officeholders at considerable personal risk.

Even while heading out of town, it seems that Obama finds ways to avoid leadership.

And with each new major issue or problem or international crisis that emerges, we see again and again just how lacking in leadership he is. Funny how a guy with no practical experience other than 'community organizing' makes for a really crappy President, isn't it? Who would'a thunk it?

Is This What The Royals Have Come To?

It's no secret that I've never been a big fan of baseball.  I find it to be pretty dull, and it just rubs me the wrong way how these guys are so vastly overpaid for achieving a 30-35% success rate.  I'll freely admit to being a VERY fair-weathered fan in terms of the Royals in particular.  If they're doing well, sure, I'll pay a little bit of attention simply because they're the hometown team, and I do wish them success.  True, I enjoy the ballpark atmosphere every now and then, just for the ambiance of it...but it's not worth more than a few bucks per person to me to do so.  However, they've been so awful for so long that it's really just plain hard to get too excited about them.  I'm obviously no expert, but it has always struck me as curious that they seem to trade away all of their best players, too, but maybe I just don't understand the grand strategy that has ***cough, cough*** brought such tremendous success to the organization over the past quarter century.

I will also freely confess that their effort to create a fabulous and catchy phrase almost never fails to amuse me.  Catch the thrill?  I would, if there was one.  It's a hit?  If they could muster up a few, it might be.  There have been a bunch of them through the years based on some variation of belief...and if that's what they're relying on, it's no wonder they've sucked eggs for a very long time.

Nevertheless, this year's brand new marketing campaign seems to strike a definite low point.  I've heard multiple commercials on the radio now, and the primary selling point seems to be the fact that the Royals have ***drum roll, please*** the best farm team in the country.

Really??

If that's the best they've got, they might as well just cash it in now, right?  Yes, I understand that today's farm team is tomorrow's starting lineup...but come on.  Twenty bucks says they end up trading away two-thirds of this supposed magical farm team before they get brought up to the majors, anyway.

I hope they have a better year in 2011, I really do.  But someone seems to have been napping when they cut those commercials.  What a joke.

Videos Of The Day

Awesome stuff...

...on gas prices:

Even Bill Clinton says delay in permitting are “ridiculous“. Gas prices are out of control. I don’t even have to relate the skyrocketing prices to the economy, because we all know how it’s affecting our personal economies.

When the Drill Here, Drill Now campaign launched in 2008, it went from internet petition to major grassroots movement in a matter of months. It’s time for that to happen again.
Find out more here.

Say it with me folks. Mr. President: Drill here, drill now. So we can all pay less.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2011/03/17/drill-here-drill-now-pay-less/

Ah, but remember, his position is precisely opposite:

"...under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket...because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal plants will have to retrofit their operations, that will cost money that they will pass on to consumers..."

...on debt:

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2011/03/16/video-say-debt-50-times-fast/

The longer Obama and his merry band of hardcore radical Leftists (i.e. Democrats...) remain in power, the worse these things will get. And the worse off we will all be.

Because when they're not actively rolling out their radical Socialist agenda contrary to the Constitution and the American people, they're ignoring historic events in Libya, Egypt, Japan, and multiple expanding crises here at home for the truly important things like this:

'Nuff said.

I Know It's Just Minimum Wage, But Still...

On a recent trip through the drive-thru at McDonald's, we had quite an experience. The short version is that they got everything wrong.

Everything.  Literally.

Wrong side. Wrong sauce for the chicken nuggets. Not enough orders of chicken nuggets. Wrong drink. Wrong toy. No, I'm not exaggerating.

What's the point of a drive-thru if you still have to go inside to get them to fix everything they screwed up?

I realize these people probably aren't rocket scientists, and I also realize that doing the drive-thru window presents a unique set of challenges...but come on! How hard is it to push buttons on the screen, read the screen, and then put the proper items in the bag? Where is the pride in doing a job well? Sure, maybe it isn't a dream job, but it's still a job that deals with customers and needs to be done right. Even absent that, where is the manager to ensure quality control and customer service? The peons might be bottom rung workers, but managers sure shouldn't be.

I did my time in food service years ago, and I know what's reasonable and what's unacceptable. I've been there and done that, and I understand. I like to think that makes me even more sympathetic when things are rough but the people are doing their best...but it also makes me less so when they're just doing it poorly. You know my thing for high quality customer service. I know how crazy it can get at times, especially if you're short-staffed, but that's really no excuse for the monumental screw-up they pulled that day.

And oh, by the way...when I went in to get our order corrected, guess how many people they had working that day?

11.

Only about half of them were doing anything at all, but apparently they were being distracted by those who were doing nothing, so none of them were right. It was absolutely ridiculous.

Obama Appoints a Czar Czar

Remember Obama's 'czars'?  The President is allowed to appoint a group of advisors to manage the various aspects of the U.S. government.  The various Secretaries (Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, etc.) function as high-level subject matter experts that advise the President to help him establish and modify national policy.  This is known as the Cabinet.  This is all very common, accepted practice, and pretty much every President has done it.  No problem.

Where Barack Obama left the ranch is in appointing not only his Cabinet, but also several dozen -- yes, several dozen -- advisors to also run specific aspects of national policy.  They're informally known as 'czars', and they include such wonderful people as...

Cass Sunstein

 --- Obama's Regulatory Czar; says America is too racist for socialism, and is an open Communist

Kevin Jennings

 --- Obama's Safe Schools Czar; wants to implement pro-gay curriculum for Kindergarteners, supports the North American Man/Boy Love Association, wrote the foreword for a book on pedophilia, defended the murder of someone in the name of standing up for gays,funded pornographic anti-Christian art displayed at Harvard, and is attacking the Boy Scouts of America and covering up the statutory rape of a minor

Ron Bloom

 --- Obama's Manufacturing Czar; promotes Communist mass-murderer Mao Tse-Tung

Anita Dunn

 --- Obama's White House Communications Director; told high school students in May 2009 that one of her favorite political philosophers was Communist mass-murderer Mao Tse Tung

Andy Stern

 --- Obama's most frequent visitor to the White House; President of SEIU (huge union organization), has visited the WH over 20 times in the past few months, is dedicated to building a global organization through the use of government power and intimidation, advocates redistribution of wealth

Susan Crawford

 --- Obama's Internet Czar; attempted to nationalize and control the entire Internet

Quentin Young

 --- Obama's long-time friend and personal physician; a dedicated Marxist and member of Communist organizations through the years, seeks government control over all health care in America

John Holdren

 --- Obama's top science adviser; advocates forced abortions and sterilizations, believes that a fetus will 'eventually' grow into a human being when it's a few years old

Carol Browner

 --- Obama's Climate Czar; radical socialist who was caught telling her people not to put anything in writing so that they could never be held accountable for anything, member of global organizations that demand wealthy countries ruin themselves to pay for poor countries' eco-development, also destroyed files in violation of a federal judge's order

And this is just a start. Many, many more czars are described here.

Alas, all of these czars are starting to become too much to manage, so Obama has had to make another appointment.  You just can't make this stuff up:

Thanks to a habit of disengagement on issues and a plethora of "czars" in his administration, Barack Obama had to tap Tom Gavin to manage his own Cabinet:

During the first two years of President Obama's term, the administration fully embraced just a few of his superstar picks – people such as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. But many more agency chiefs conducted their business in relative anonymity, sometimes after running afoul of White House officials.

Both sides were deeply disgruntled. Agency heads privately complained that the White House was a "fortress" that was unwilling to accept input and that micromanaged their departments. Senior administration advisers rolled their eyes in staff meetings at the mention of certain Cabinet members, participants said. …

The larger mission is to make the dealings between the Cabinet and the White House more functional, several senior officials said. Daley, a former commerce secretary himself, has been calling agency heads for input, asking about the process over the past two years – and promising that it will change.

At the same time, the White House recently created the position of Cabinet communications director, appointing media adviser Tom Gavin to the job. The goal, according to the official statement, is "to better coordinate with and utilize members of the Cabinet" and is a "high priority."

In the past, the job title of the person tasked with coordinating utilizing members of the Cabinet was the President of the United States. Of course, in the past the American electorate hired a man with actual executive experience and success for the position, too. This is what happens when amateurs get hired and expect on-the-job training.

This amuses me greatly.  A Czar Czar?  Of course, why not?  It makes as much sense as any of these other czars.

And then it makes me furious.  Remember - these people are un-elected and, in most cases, not even approved by the Senate as the Constitution requires...and yet they are being paid exorbitant salaries and dictating the highest levels of American policy.  The fact that even Obama himself needs someone to help him keep track of them speaks volumes about how out of control it has become.

I can't wait until the next election.  This madness has to stop.

On Race And Obama's Racism

I thought this was a great thought-provoking piece from Lloyd Marcus at American Thinker:

Please consider the validity of what I am about to say rather than having a knee jerk reaction dismissing it as being "over the top."   Folks, we have an irresponsible egocentric evil man occupying the Oval Office. 

The Democrats and the liberal mainstream media sold the American people on Obama, "the man."  Despite Obama's zero experience at running anything, they said a leader with his spirit and heart was"what we have been waiting for".

Fearful of criticizing our first black president, politicians politely say, "President Obama's policies have been unfruitful," while ignoring the huge elephant in America's living room.

The elephant of which I speak and America's major problem is "Obama, the man"; socialist, divisive and evil.

My dad says a snake can stay under water a very long time just like a fish. But eventually, it must come up for air. Why? Because, it is not a fish. It is a snake. Obama continues to come up for air revealing his true self.

President Obama said the Tea Party is racist. That's the unmistakable meaning of his statement that race is a "key component" of Tea Party protests. The liberal media, NAACP and Democrats have been relentlessly promoting this same baseless allegation. When final confirmation comes down from the highest office in the land, the Oval Office, that the Tea Party is racist; the allegation becomes "official" in the minds of millions. President Obama is slandering millions of decent hard working Americans who simply disagree with his progressive/socialist agenda.

Think of the repercussions. Obama's indictment of the Tea Party will birth tremendous racial discord across America in schools, churches, and civic life.  Obama's proclamation will cause Americans to double down on their already extreme caution when criticizing our black president.  Sadly, I suspect such intimidation is a part of Obama's plan; anything to empower his mission to "fundamentally transform America."

Make no mistake about it, Obama and company have successfully intimidated many white Americans into not dissing the black president in public.

I stopped in a fast food restaurant for a burger. Around fifteen white seniors were having lunch. I overheard them ranting about Obama's overreaches and socialist policies. Upon seeing me, a black man, they became silent. I was tempted to say, "Please continue, I hold-heartedly agree with you!" Too bad they did not notice my Tea Party Express t-shirt.

Barack Hussein Obama received more votes than any other presidential candidate in American history. So Obama alleging millions of Tea Party patriots are simply upset because America elected a black president is disingenuous, absurd and manipulative.

Obama is exploiting his race and sacrificing national race relations solely to implement his progressive/socialist agenda. Callously and strategically, the President of the United States is pitting millions of black and white Americans against each other. Lord help us, that is pure evil.

Quoting deceased make-up legend, Mary Kay, "Leadership spreads from the top down."

A fine black young adult whom I have known for years has always appeared to be racially color blind.  He idolizes Obama.  Suddenly, I have noticed this kid beginning to view everything through a racial lens. His latest absurd statement, "Friends" is a racist TV show because there are no black cast members."

While I admit this example is anecdotal, I suspect Obama's divisiveness is inspiring millions of Americans to choose sides along racial lines.

Before knowing the facts, Obama immediately assumed the white police officer was guilty of racial profiling in the Professor Gates case.  This suggests Obama has racial emotional baggage.  Such a luxury cannot be afforded the president of "all Americans."

Obama is not who most Americans thought he was and is exactly who the liberal mainstream media hoped he would be: their Great Black Hope for implementing their progressive/socialist agenda.

They will do whatever it takes to protect Obama; ignoring his character flaws, lawlessness, deceptions and lies. If Obama says two plus two equals five, the liberal media will defend it as being the "New Math."  We cannot trust the liberal media to tell us the truth regarding Obama.

Obama's inauguration brought tears to the eyes of millions of Americans. Blacks are only 12% of our nation's population, which means it took many million white votes to put Obama in the Oval Office. Thus, most of the American tears of joy were white.

President Obama is fully aware of this truth.

Obama willfully dividing Americans by exploiting his race for political gain is a despicable betrayal of the whites who elected him. But even more disturbing, it reveals the true character of the man running our country. America deserves much, much better.

I agree.  This goes back to my suggestion that Barack Obama is fundamentally an ideologue.  He has an agenda (remember, he campaigned on 'transforming America') and he will pursue it no matter what, even his own political future.  He once said that he'd accept being a one-term President if that meant he accomplished his agenda, and I believe he meant that.  When Bill Clinton suffered massive Congressional losses in the 1994 election, and thus faced a GOP Congress, he moderated.  That's why some of the things that happened during his Presidency (welfare reform, balanced budget amendment, etc.) were quite conservative in nature.  Clinton was, above all things, a savvy politician interested in his own power and well-being, and pragmatically chose to move to the center in order to score a second term.

Obama is not pragmatic.  He's an ideologue.  I do not for a second believe that he's going to moderate after the historic 2010 election.  He pledged to fight a potential new GOP majority before the election, he pledged to fight against the GOP majority after it materialized, and his actions and policies ever since have indicated no change in direction.  In one sense it's a good thing because America is really getting an under-the-undies look at full-fledged liberalism, and to America's credit, that liberalism is being rejected.  Of course, it's possible that, if Obama's agenda is not actively rolled back, he can push enough liberal policies far enough that America will never fully recover.  I think a lot of that will depend on the next election.

Regardless, at the center of everything Obama does is the idea of class warfare, envy, deceit, and divide-and-conquer, and the first line of division for him is always race.  His philosophy foreshadowed it, his words reveal it, and his actions prove it.

Can There Be Any Doubt The Bloom Is Off The Rose?

Remember this?

My, how things change:

The White House is ramping up an effort to promote a nationwide competition to decide which high school wins a commencement speech by President Obama.

An internal White House memo indicates that the White House is facing a shortage of applications less than a week before the deadline.

The competition was extended from the February 25 deadline until Friday, March 11 after few schools met the original application deadline. CBS News has learned a White House Communications Office internal memo dated February 22 noted “a major issue with the Commencement Challenge.”

“As of yesterday we had received 14 applications and the deadline is Friday,” the memo said. The memo also urged recipients to, “please keep the application number close hold.”

I've often tossed around the idea that Obama is either a raving Leftist or a total incompetent, and that debate rears its head once again here:

Allahpundit called this “losing the future,” and that’s not the only amateurish bungle in this episode. Instead of announcing that only 14 of America’s 37,000 high schools (count as of 2001, anyway) bothered to respond to the contest for a success rate of 0.038%, why not just quietly pick one of the 14 that did apply without sending up a red flag via e-mail? That way, no one would have to know how few wanted Obama, and the event wouldn’t be a reminder of just how unhip Obama has become even with young Americans.

We know that this is a right-of-center nation that fundamentally disagrees with most of Obama's fundamental governing philosophy, so much of this rejection is likely due to that fact. However, the last two years have also revealed that Obama chronically votes present on tricky or contentious issues, or at least waits until the initial smoke clears before joining in the discussion. He has suffered countless foreign policy gaffes, supported our enemies and berated our allies. He has been caught in lie after lie after lie, and the media's lips have been proven to be firmly fixed to his hind quarters the whole time, or his approval rating would be in the teens. All of these things have also eroded what was an extremely high support rate when he entered office:


So, what is causing this plummet? Is it his ideology, or his incompetence?

I vote both. It's not everyone who can manage to lose support from the brainwashed youth and their brainwashed teachers.

All You Mac Lovers Who Think Macs Have Bulletproof Security...

...think again.  Conventional wisdom says that Microsoft Windows has the weakest security because Microsoft is always pushing out security updates, and essentially every major security breach that actually hits the news is related to Windows.  While it's true that the software giant has plenty of issues, it's not nearly so clear that they're the weakest of the bunch.  Allow me to demonstrate.

Every year at a gathering of security experts and hackers called Pwn2Own (pronounced "pone to own"*), various hardware and software platforms are tested to see just how secure they really are.  I believe that the standard prize for successfully hacking your way in is a chunk of cash and keeping the hardware that was hacked in exchange for revealing how you did it.  It's really a nice setup, and everyone wins in the end - the hacker gets a significant prize, the manufacturer learns how to plug some critical holes, and the consumer world gets a better product.

Anyway, back to the Mac misconception.  In the 2008 contest, a fully patched Macbook Air running Safari was the first machine/browser to be hacked on the second day of the contest.  In 2009, another fully patched Macbook running Safari was the first machine/browser hacked...but this time it took just a few seconds.  Last year's contest saw this:

Two security researchers succeeded in exploiting a fully-updated iPhone 3GS in a matter of seconds--the first time the iPhone 2.0 has been hacked . Charlie Miller, famous for compromising a fully-patched Macbook the past two years, succeeded once again in hacking the Macbook to take the Pwn2Own prize.

Clearly, this is a trend, and Apple's products regularly have weaker security than their Windows counterparts (both IE and Firefox lasted longer each year).  So where is this misconception that Macs are more secure coming from?

Irrelevance.

No, seriously.  If you look at market share, Microsoft Windows has roughly 90% saturation, with Macs coming in at a piddly 5%.  People think Macs are secure because they're irrelevant.  There are so few of them on the market that it's simply not worth the time and effort for hackers to bother with.

Do Macs have some benefits and strong points?  Sure.  Should people continue to buy Macs?  Personally, I don't believe there is anything a Mac can do that a Windows machine can't, and Macs really suffer from a nasty combination of inflated pricing and too few choices...but if you want to buy a Mac, go for it.  Just don't fool yourself into thinking that simply having a Mac will keep you safe.  The bottom line is that all platforms and browsers have their weaknesses, and a smart consumer will take additional steps to protect their own security.

Of course, Google's new Chrome browser seems to be bulletproof so far in this year's contest...we'll see how that turns out.

*side note: if you're wondering where the word pwn ("pone") came from, it was the result of gamers gloating over the digital carcass of their vanquished foes by mis-typing "i own you" as "i pwn you".  Rather than learn how to type, the gamer crowd simply decided this was devilishly cool, thus the word pwn was born.

They Stole My Awesomely Awesome Idea...!!!

Ever since college, I've had it in my mind that if I ever became fabulously wealthy I would start a college scholarship fund for middle-class Christian white males.  Unfortunately (or fortunately, for middle-class Christian white males), someone else beat me to it:

A non-profit group has launched a college scholarship for a demographic it claims are under-represented in society - white men.  The Former Majority Association for Equality will give grants of $500 to any man from Texas who is at least '25 per cent Caucasian', has good grades and can demonstrate they are in need.

Its founder Colby Bohannan claims whites feel 'excluded' when they apply to college and that they are 'left out' when it comes to funding.  The provocative move risks a backlash by anti-racism groups but college officials in Texas have said there is little they can do to prevent it.  Mr Bohannan, a former Texas State University student and Iraq veteran, said the group was named because of the idea that 'if you're not a male, and if you're not white, you're called a minority'.

'I'm not sure white males are the majority any more,' he said. 'If everyone else can find scholarships, why are we left out?'

He added that the group is not taking a stance on affirmative action and has denounced racism.  'It's time in our society to look at the way our culture views race,' he said. 'It's time to give everyone an equal shot.'

FMAFE plans to offer four $500 scholarships to any college, inside Texas or outside the state, for the forthcoming academic year.  So far it has raised more than $1,600.

I think this is a fantastic idea!  If you've dealt with college funding anytime in the past 20 years, you know that there are a zillion different minority scholarships out there for skin color (not white), gender (not male), religious affiliation (not Christian), and other things.  While it's obviously a very good thing to help out people who need it...but don't middle-class Christian white males need help, too?  Damn skippy.

I'd love to see Jesse Jackson or some other such race baiter take a shot at them.  I mean, really, wouldn't it be such an easy thing to put him in his place?  Just because minorities need help doesn't mean no one in the majority does, and how is it 'fair' to hammer one to benefit the other?  Isn't civil rights all about giving everyone a chance to better themselves?  And, isn't this fund being provided by private donations?  The article doesn't say for sure, but if they're raising money, it's a safe bet.  There's not a damn thing the race baiters can say about this, and it would just add to the beauty if they tried.  Stuff like this really just proves that they're not as interested in breaking down racial barriers and promoting equal opportunities for everyone as they are in emphasizing racial differences and promoting one race over another.

Ironically, this scholarship doesn't even require full 100% 'whiteness' to qualify.  Heck, even our own wonderful 'black' President could qualify.  What's that you say?  You didn't remember that he's only half black (and thus, also half white)?  Hm, strange that everyone should forget that, now that we're *ahem* all about equal opportunities for everyone and all...

Gas Prices And Environment Stupidity Update

We've talked about gas prices and how the Obama administration's policies have directly and deliberately been affecting them for the worse. I hate to beat a dead horse, but it's something that is immediately, obvious, and painful for everyone, so I think it's important that the proper cause is nailed to the effect we're all seeing.

If you've filled up lately, you know that prices are well above $3.00/gallon now. Brace yourself - many people think it will almost double that by the end of the year.

Stopping this progression is really quite simple. Obama needs to start approving drilling permits for American oil companies. An increase in the domestic oil supply would make a world of difference in the cost, as well as reducing our dependence on an increasingly volatile situation in the Middle East.



Fortunately, it appears as though at least a few people in Washington get it:

I [David Vitter, Senator from Louisiana] am introducing new legislation in the near future that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil – from countries like Libya – by finally unshackling our own domestic energy sector from excessive regulation, while also directing a portion of those revenues to continued funding for alternative and renewable resources. Renewables and alternative fuels may be the future, but only our current administration has fooled itself into thinking these potential alternative fuels are right around the corner. We need our traditional energy resources as a bridge to help free us from dependence on foreign sources and sudden price fluctuations caused by uncontrollable world events.

Arguably most the important benefit of my bill to harness our energy sector’s potential: It would put many more Americans back to work than any of the other ‘job creation’ plans we’ve seen before Congress, while also reducing our federal and trade deficits. ...

Until the administration responds to my repeated requests to start issuing at least 15 new exploratory permits, I’ll continue to block two of Obama’s key nominations for administration positions: Scott Doney, Obama’s nominee to be NOAA chief scientist and Dan Ashe, President Obama’s nominee to head the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department of the Interior.

Finally, someone with the stones to play hardball! Will he hold firm? I hope so. Someone needs to. Remember, both Barack Obama and his energy Secretary have been on record as saying they want $8-9 per gallon gasoline, just like in Europe. They're deliberately holding back supply as a way to force the price up, and it's going to take some serious spine to force them to back down. Some calls and e-mails from angry constituents across America would help, too.

And don't think for a moment that the economic impact is lost on the Obama administration, either. Remember, they want as many people dependent upon government benefits as possible because it increases their power and influence. High unemployment feeds right into that, and gouging the energy sector (in the name of global warming, of course) is a win-win for them. Here's why:

Today, the Labor Department released its monthly jobs report showing that the U.S. economy added 192,000 jobs in February and unemployment fell to 8.9 percent. While it is always great news that more Americans are finding jobs, the reality is that the economy could be doing much better. Since the Obama recovery began 20 months ago, the national unemployment rate has fallen only half a point, from 9.4 percent in July 2009 to 8.9 percent today. Contrast those anemic results with the robust job growth that occurred during the Reagan recovery in the ’80s. By the 20-month mark of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had dropped from 10.8 percent to 7.5 percent – a 3.3-point drop.

So why was the Reagan recovery so strong and why is the Obama recovery so weak? Just look at the best job markets in 2010 according to Gallup: “More than half of the 10 best job markets in 2010 were in energy- and commodity-producing states.” And what has President Obama done to help this job growth spread? Nothing. In fact, his cancellation of drilling permits across the West and his offshore drilling slowdown have undoubtedly slowed job creation in this sector.

So where are all these jobs coming from?

Gallup explains: “Reflecting the growth of the federal government, the District of Columbia was not only the second-best job market but also the second-most improved job market in 2010.” The Department of Labor Statistics confirms Gallup’s analysis: Since President Barack Obama was sworn into office, the private sector workforce has shrunk by 2.6 percent while shedding 2.9 million jobs, but the federal workforce (excluding Census and Postal workers) has grown by 7 percent while adding more than 144,000 jobs.

Barack Obama is deliberately throttling the private sector and instead growing the government using the non-existent, lying, debunked 'threat' of global warming to justify his policies.

See how this all fits together?



Let's shift focus a bit and see how the efforts to combat the non-existent, lying, debunked 'threat' of global warming are going. Did you know that NASA's new mission (courtesy of the Obama administration) is to monitor global warming from space? Too bad it's a complete failure:

A rocket carrying an Earth-observation satellite plummeted into the Pacific Ocean after a failed launch attempt Friday, the second-straight blow to NASA’s weakened environmental monitoring program.

The Taurus XL rocket carrying NASA’s Glory satellite lifted off early Friday morning from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but fell to the sea several minutes later. The same thing happened to another climate-monitoring satellite two years ago with the same type of rocket.

The hypocrisy of this effort is, as usual, pretty hard to miss:

What do you suppose is the carbon footprint of just the study of global warming? The study of anthropogenic global warming just has to be one of the leading causes of anthropogenic global warming, yet the industry is continually given a pass things like this...

Oh, but let's not stop there with the carbon footprints. Let's look at the Head Honcho himself. Surely he's cutting back on 'dangerous' uses of carbon, right? Hm, well, not really, at least not if you count up the carbon footprint of flying in a personal trainer from Chicago two to four times per week to help the Obamas work out.

At what point can we go ahead and stop getting lectured by these people about our carbon footprint?

Finally, we come to a story that really captures the inevitable end result of government dictating environmental morality to the masses: the Chevy Volt. The hype began over a year ago, and we have finally witnessed the birth of the ultimate earth-saving electric vehicle. So how's it going? Hahahahahahahahahaha:

Sales numbers for the Chevy Volt are out and you'll never guess how many of these future machines consumers gobbled up in the month of February. Go ahead and try. I'll wait.Is that your final answer? Okay. Well the real number is:

281.

Yup. 281 Volts were sold in February. That might sound terrible to you, but it's actually really strong. Because Nissan only sold 67 Leafs (Leaves?), and the Leaf is both cheaper and, as far as over-priced econo-boxes go, way better than the Volt. So really, the Volt is doing pretty great.

Now if you wanted to be a Grumpy Gus and fixate on the bad news, it's true that the trend isn't great. In January, GM moved 321 Volts, so February represents a 12 percent decline. But again, there's a bright side: Leaf sales dropped by 23 percent! So actually, the Volt has better legs than its prime competitor, too.

Of course, Obama has demanded 1 million of these duds to be on the roads by 2015. At the current rate of sales, it would actually take about 228 years to hit that number, but the good news is that with the sale of each Volt and Leaf, the government flushes $7500 of taxpayer money down the toilet as a subsidy. So, the fewer of these that sell, the better off we all are (and no, Obama's adoring disciples don't count because they don't pay taxes).

So why aren't they selling? Well, I can think of several reasons right off the top of my head. First, it's way too expensive ($50k), and with the economy being what it is (you know, with 9% unemployment and all), people aren't as willing to spend loads of cash on political hobby purchases. Second, more and more Americans have awakened to the fact that the liberal propaganda is blatantly wrong - humanity is not the cause of global warming. Thus, there is really no reason to buy a stupid car like this in the first place. Third, it's simply not practical - there are no charging stations anywhere, and even if they were readily available, it takes several hours to charge the stupid things up enough to drive home from work. Fourth, they're dinky little plastic boxes, and Americans generally don't like those as much as they do full-size cars or trucks and SUVs. Fifth, lots of people live in cold weather climates, and electric cars aren't as efficient or reliable in cold weather. Finally, they just plain suck:

"When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The Volt isn't particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it's not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy," said David Champion, the senior director of Consumer Reports auto testing center at a meeting with reporters here. "This is going to be a tough sell to the average consumer."

The magazine said in its testing in Connecticut during a harsh winter, its Volt is getting 25 to 27 miles on electric power alone. ...

Champion noted the Volt is about twice as expensive as a Prius.

He was said the five hour time to recharge the Volt was "annoying" and was also critical of the power of the Volt heating system.

"You have seat heaters, which keep your body warm, but your feet get cold and your hands get cold," Champion said.

... there are a lot of trade-offs.

"They are going to live with the compromises the vehicle delivers," Champion said. "When you look at it from a purely logical point of view, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense."

Pay more because of someone else's worthless pet cause, and get an inferior product as the result? Gee, what a shocker that they're selling like disease-infested camels. But don't expect Obama to back off. He'll come up with some way of forcing them on us even harder before too long...you can count on it. You know, like, maybe...implementing policies that jack the gas price up to $8-9 per gallon...? (Hm, it's amazing how all this just fits together, isn't it?)

On a completely unrelated note:

President Obama’s job approval ratings have taken a dive this week in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, and the number of voters who give him favorable ratings for leadership has fallen to its lowest level since he took office in January 2009.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 37% of Likely U.S. Voters now say the president is doing a good or excellent job as a leader. Forty percent (40%) rate his performance as poor.

Just thought I'd throw that in. I'm sure it's a complete coincidence, though.

Cartoons by Michael Ramirez