Flight Of The Golden Goose
— LauraW

To Switzerland.

In a country with scant crude oil production of its own, the virtual energy boom has changed the canton or state of Zug, about 30 minutes' drive from Zurich, beyond all recognition. Its economy was based on farming until it slashed tax rates to attract commerce after World War Two.

SHUT. UP.

Lower taxes do that?

Screencap that article; there's no way Reuters' online editor meant for that startling admission of basic economic truth to see the light of day.

Over the past six months companies including offshore drilling contractors Noble Corp and Transocean, energy-focused engineering group Foster Wheeler and oilfield services company Weatherfield International have all announced plans to shift domicile to Switzerland.

Remember when the US was the land of economic opportunity?

UPDATE: Great quote from a Master Of The Fuckin' Obvious:

"They are still making some money by having lower taxes on companies," said Lee Sheppard, contributing editor to Tax Notes, a tax journal based in Washington DC.

"But they're not ever going to be making the amount that other governments are annoyed about losing."

Ahhh, such wisdom! Perhaps yes, MOFO; but Switzerland's winning strategy seems to be that they recognize 20% of something is still more than 40% of bupkis.

You fuckin' pinhead.

From Drudge.

Posted by: LauraW at 05:06 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Another Day, Another "Michael Steele Said What?" Post
— DrewM

Today's moment of awesomeness...abortion with GQ.

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?

Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.

The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think thatÂ’s an individual choice.

You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you donÂ’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?

The states should make that choice. ThatÂ’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states.Let them decide.

Steele has released a statement about his statement.

I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.

I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a "choice" before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue.

But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.

The issue here seems to be his statement that, "Yeah. I mean, again, I think thatÂ’s an individual choice."

In his um, clarification, he seems to be saying that he was simply stating a fact based on the law at the moment. Okay, but that's not what he was being asked, was it? I mean, everyone knows under current law women have a choice of whether or not to have an abortion. Is Steele really maintaining the reporter from GQ was giving him a pop quiz on the state of abortion law in America or that he was answering some sort of metaphysical question about free will?

Again the question was specifically, "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?" He says, "Yeah. I mean, again, I think thatÂ’s an individual choice."

How is that not Steele saying he thinks there is a right to abortion? Did he not recognize that question for what it was? I mean, it wasn't a trick, it was pretty straight forward and yet that's his answer?

You know what would be fun? If the new chairman of the RNC could get through an interview without saying something he has to explain or clarify later. Is that asking too much?

Posted by: DrewM at 04:38 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 626 words, total size 4 kb.

Top Headline Comments 03-12-09
— Gabriel Malor

I have a fever.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:34 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Overnight Open Thread: “Climate Researchers to Seek Citizen Scientists” (genghis)
— Open Blog

Subheadline: “A national program is hoping to recruit a new corps of 100,000 citizen scientists to monitor climate impacts on the living world.”

No, I canÂ’t see anything possibly going wrong with this method of data collection. HereÂ’s the article. Some excerpts:

”Valerie Hilt's yard brims with hollyhocks, hellebores and hyacinths. But it's her lilac bush that landed the Port Angeles great-grandmother in the annals of science.”

“Hilt, 70, is one of the last remaining lilac watchers in a network that once included 2,500 volunteers across the Western U.S. Their handwritten postcards grew into a powerful database that researchers have used to document how rising temperatures are hastening the onset of spring.”

“Now, a national program is hoping to recruit a new corps of 100,000 citizen scientists to monitor climate impacts on the living world. This time, volunteers can gather data on a wide range of plant species, from dandelions to Douglas fir. Next year, the network will expand to include birds, bugs and other animals.”

Eventually sheÂ’ll take her place in the pantheon of science alongside Newton, Einstein and the guy who first came up with this magical elixir.

”"You don't have to be a scientist to make these kinds of observations ... and it's amazing what can emerge from them." (like incredibly flawed and unreliable data sets you mean? –ed)

“Participants in the National Phenology Network will enter observations online, and the data will be freely available.”

“Phenology is the study of life-cycle timing, from bird migrations and tadpole metamorphosis to the explosion of wildflowers in mountain meadows. Researchers are discovering that even tiny changes in temperature can disrupt that timing, pushing some species toward extinction and favoring others.”

"Temperature governs every single biological reaction," said Lisa Crozier, a research ecologist at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle.”

AinÂ’t that the truth, as everyone here packing junk knows. ItÂ’s always shrinkage in the winter and droopiness in the summer. But thatÂ’s how Gaia intended things to be. Cold weather does bring other delights though, particularly if thereÂ’s a tight sweater involved.

Phenology, by the way, is not the same as Phrenology, though you can draw your own conclusions about the validity of either.

With the planet about to turn into a burned-out cinder, I’d like to announce a new charity effort in the overnight thread. I’m pleased to announce the launch of the “Adopt a Snowflake” program. Isn’t it about time we stepped up and took some action to try to save this endangered species? Before its too late? I’ll be setting up a special PayPal account tomorrow so you can help do your part.

Please help us save these innocent and lovable creatures.Time is running out.
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips to xgenghisx@gmail.com. Otherwise send tips to Ace.

Posted by: Open Blog at 08:09 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 490 words, total size 4 kb.

Watchmen Spawns "Watchfriend" Saturday Morning Cartoon
— Ace

Big h/t to Moe Lane.

Yeah, it's a goof. An awesome one.

Posted by: Ace at 06:49 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Hypocrisy Thy Name Is Obama
— DrewM

Monday Obama continued his string of undignified attacks on the previous administration, when he announced his views on the much maligned (by Democrats anyway) practice of presidential signing statements and his intention to use less of them.

Guess what the Dear Leader did today when he signed the omnibus spending bill.

[Obama] also issued a "signing statement" in which he objected to provisions of the bill that he said the Justice Department had advised "raise constitutional concerns." Among them are provisions that Obama said would "unduly interfere" with his authority in the foreign affairs arena by directing him how to proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with international organizations and foreign governments.

Another provision, Obama said, would limit his discretion to choose who performs specific functions in military missions.

Now in fairness, during the campaign Obama, unlike John McCain, never promised to do away with them, just to use them in a smarter way or something.

"The problem with this [the Bush] administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."

"Avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like"...is that anything like ignoring certain parts of the spending bill to get an extra vote or two?

I'm guessing that after a year, maybe two, the number of signing statements this administration issues will about the same as or greater than the Bush did during the same period.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:24 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

Grassley: We've Got 41 Votes to Sustain Filibuster Against Card Check
Plus: Teamster Thug Jimmy Hoffa Twitters: "Since when is the secret ballot a basic tenet of democracy?"
— Ace

To answer Jimmy Hoffa's question, "Um, since, like, 1000 BC?"

True, it's a novelty of sorts, and possibly just a fad, a flavor of the month; and yet, this upstart notion seems to have some good stuff going for it.

Earlier today, a link to a Teamsters press release appeared on
Twitter: http://twitter.com/efca. In this release, Teamster president Hoffa praised the House and Senate sponsors of card check and asked, “Since when is the secret ballot a basic tenet of democracy?”

Upon reading this statement, SOS Ballot Chairman Rep. Ernest Istook responded,

“Mr. Hoffa’s statement is the epitome of arrogance and willful ignorance.
The secret ballot has been a basic tenet of democracy since its earliest
beginnings in Greece. Skipping ahead a few millennia, modern democracy
has relied on secret ballots to ensure that the voting process is untainted by
coercion and intimidation, something I think he may be familiar with. He
should ask those Democratic sponsors in the House and Senate if they enjoyed
secret ballots in their leadership elections, and he also should ask Rep.
George Miller why he felt it necessary to ask the Mexican government to protect
secret ballots for their workers.

Chuck Grassley says the filibuster is in the bag:

“It won’t become law because we’ve got 41 Republicans sticking together against it … And it’s my understanding that we have some Democrats that are nervous about it, too. I don’t see how you can get around a filibuster. And it will be filibustered.”

What can I say about Obama's destruction of the right to free, secret voting in unionization? I hope he fails.

Thanks to Danny.

Posted by: Ace at 01:36 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Nancy Pelosi Caught In Lie About Demanding a Larger Plane
— Ace

Poor Nancy. Those pitiful luxury personal jets she was afforded weren't quite luxurious enough for her.

“the spkr office continues to ask the escort if they can get a bigger plane,” said one internal DOD email, dated September 4, 2008.

See her lie on video.

Her denial is from 2007, but the emails surfaced only recently, thus making this topical.

Thanks to PhillipF.

Posted by: Ace at 11:24 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Berliners Mount New Charm Offensive
— LauraW

BERLIN (Reuters) – Berlin has launched a new "friendliness" campaign to keep tourists flocking to the German capital during a time of economic crisis.

With the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall looming in November and the World Championships in athletics due in August, police, street cleaners, airport staff and taxi drivers have begun wearing special red pins to signal to visitors that they are ready to lend a helping hand.
----------------------------

"Berlin has a reputation in Germany of being a rude city, but we're a rude city with a heart. A heart, a third nipple, and hideously pierced genitals, to be more honest." said Rene Gorka, head of Berlin Partners, a marketing group that promotes the city. "Don't forget the vilest scheiss porn collection in the world," interjected Cornelius, Rene's live-in Whipping Midget, from his perch on a small leather crucifix at the far end of the office. At this, Rene dashed across the room and sodomized Cornelius viciously with a parsnip, praising him.

OK, no, not really.

Posted by: LauraW at 11:23 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

MSNBC Notices Earmark Hypocrisy... of Republicans
— Ace

Well played, sirs. Very well played.

Of course, those calling for an end to earmarks do in fact want an end to earmarks; but if no one else is giving theirs up, it's difficult to punish one's constituents alone.

If only there were some office holder, perhaps elected nationally, perhaps in some kind of "executive" capacity, who presided over the government and could block the excesses of congressmen with a single statement of negation. Let's call such a hypothetical power a "veto," from the Latin for "I say nay," and let us term my proposed nationally-elected presiding executive officer a "President," for lack of a better term.

Now, to take this hypothetical one step further: Let us postulate that a person running for this new office of "The Presidency" (pardon my neologism) would actually vow to exercise his nationally-bestowed authority to reform this earmark process, and end earmarks completely.

What's that you say? We do have a President, and he did in fact promise to veto a bill containing any earmarks at all?

Oh. Well then.

Thanks to DrewM again.

Bonus: Top GOP porker? Ron Paul.

Why pick on him, if I'm excusing others for going along with earmarks if no one else is willing to give up theirs?

Well:

1) He is one of the biggest yellers about small government. I certainly don't begrudge him that but...

2) Does such a yeller need to be the top Republican porker? Can't he satisfy himself with being, say, in the middle third of earmarkers?

And of course:

3) It's disappointing, because I've been told he's the Only Man Who Can Save America.

Posted by: Ace at 11:07 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.