The Necropolitan Sentinel

chi per lungo silenzio parea fioco

So, You Want To Write for The Conservatory?

Posted on July 19, 2011 By

9 Comments

Well, of course you do! Who wouldn’t?

We’re still looking for good columnists and special-issues people who want to adopt particular aspects of the news as their very own.

Let Joy know if you’d like to post as a columnist or topic writer. (Dan’s still on the road/helping his family out at present, which reminds me—I must remember to rearrange everything so he can’t find anything when he gets back to full-time status–I love this. It’s like having another brother to hassle—two, if you count our silent partner/webmaster.)

Mostly, the columns are posted in the Editor’s Pick section, which we want to be more than a sort of blog/place to put yesterday’s features so they don’t fall of the page. That section really needs jazzing up. Of course, I also promote stories from there to top-of-page status, and on a pretty regular basis.

I’m available for proofreading, and I’m assisting some of the columnists with artwork, as well. (A few of our writers simply place everything into draft, and I take it from there.)

So please get in touch with joy.mccann at the gmail place if you’d like to have your membership privileges bumped up, and a copy of our Writer’s Very Rough Guidelines sent to you. And let me know if you’d like to “dibs” a particular topic or type of story, or if you’re interested in doing old-fashioned reporting from a particular region or area.

How Much More “Green Jobs!” Success Can America Stand?

Posted on July 19, 2011 By

6 Comments

Green Vehicles Cars: Left-Moose, Right-Triac

When President Obama first began to speak of all the unbridled success “green jobs” would bring to his crony Jeffery Immelt the American people, folks responded with a cautionary tale of Spain’s “all in” experience; one that resulted in the loss of jobs overall and wasted money by the Spanish government-even Hillary admitted this to be the case!

In the wake of Solyndra’s high visibility failure, and its concomitant cost to U.S. taxpayers of 535 million dollars, some are questioning what the true cost of green jobs really is, and whether those jobs are as “sustainable” as proponents claim.

This week there is news out of Salinas, California, of what appears to be another “green jobs” failure. From KSBW comes the news that Green Vehicles Inc. is closing its doors for good, at a cost to taxpayers that isn’t insignigicant:

A Salinas car manufacturing company that was expected to build environmentally friendly electric cars and create new jobs folded before almost any vehicles could run off the assembly line. The city of Salinas had invested more than half a million dollars in Green Vehicles, an electric car start-up company.

All of that money is now gone, according to Green Vehicles President and Co-Founder Mike Ryan.

The start-up company set up shop in Salinas in the summer of 2009, after the city gave Ryan a $300,000 community development grant. When the company still ran into financial trouble last year, the city of Salinas handed Ryan an additional $240,000. Green Vehicles also received $187,000 from the California Energy Commission.

Salinas Mayor Dennis Donohue said he was “surprised and disappointed” by the news. City officials were equally irked that Ryan notified them through an email that his company had crashed and burned.

City leaders wooed Green Vehicles to jump-start the sputtering local company and turn Salinas into an “electric valley.” Donohue and Weir both voiced their high hopes for Green Vehicles. The start-up company promised city leaders that it would create 70 new jobs, and pay $700,000 in taxes a year to Salinas.

Now, from the outset I’d like to commend Mr. Ryan for trying to start up what he was confident would become a thriving business–no doubt taking advantage of Californians’ by-and-large heightened concern for the environment, subsidies offered by the Feds for electric vehicle purchases, and projected prices for his products that were a third less than either the Nissan Leaf or the Chevy Volt. It seems, though–by his own admission–he never secured enough private venture capital for the endeavor, and there were rumors that several investors were waiting for Ryan to secure a promised two million dollar grant from the California Energy Commission (CEC) before adding their own money to the mix.

For their part, of course, CEC dimisses their involvement and actions as a factor in the Green Vehicles closure:

“Our grants are paid in arrears and everyone–we thought–was fully aware of that. We write the checks only after receiving the proper paperwork, and that includes an invoice,” Gottleib said. “It would be unfortunate and inaccurate if anyone laid the blame for Green Vehicle’s decision [to close] at the feet of the state.”

And I’m inclined to agree . . .

Given California’s fiscal crunch over the last few years, a situation well known to residents as well as to many other Americans, it was unwise for Ryan to depend so heavily on the state’s contribution to his start-up funds. Unlike a DoD weapons project, wherein the end user is the U.S. Government, this was a private company hoping to manufacture vehicles for sale to the public at large. While it’s not unusual for local and state governments to provide businesses with incentives via grants and tax deferments, it appears that the Green Vehicles business plan relied on government funds at nearly every level in order to be a viable concern. And, really, that’s where the rub lies in many of these “Green Jobs!” promised panaceas.

The inconvenient truth is that save for a niche market, fully electric cars aren’t viable yet. Much of the problem has to do with batteries being unable to provide the same level of potential energy density as currently available fossil fuels. But there are many engineering challenges to be solved before EVs are practical for all but the shortest of ranges. The most advanced are probably those made by Tesla Motors, but in the past they too have received grants from the U.S. Department of Energy.

The bottom line really, for all “green energy” technologies, is that while the government can provide some research dollars to universities, it can’t effectively “jump start” the entire industry and guarantee that it survives in the long term. That will only come when the technology itself reaches a point of profitability, from both the consumer’s and the manufacturer’s viewpoints, as it has by-and-large with hybrid vehicles–which is reflected in those vehicles’ sales.

Green products have to be a viable alternative to existing technology on their merits alone, and be profitable to produce–otherwise, we as a nation are merely subsidizing someone else’s “environmentally friendly” lifestyle; either through our tax dollars or via the inherent inefficiency it foists upon our economy. They can’t provide a quick fix to our economy, or the environment, regardless of what any politician tells you.

What do you think? What is your opinion of green technology? Would you like to see a more technical analysis of EVs versus conventional autos? Tell us what you think; your opinions are always thought provoking :)

[Cross posted at POWIP]

DayByDay Annual Event on Now!

Posted on July 19, 2011 By

Reply

It’s time to go renew your “subscriptions” to the intellectual backbone of the blogosphere.

Seriously: Chris Muir is old school; he started his cartoon back around the time I began blogging in the early 2000s, and has been a pivotal part of the new media right for nearly a decade.

(While you’re at it, you might want to see how many of his books are available: Year 2009, Day Seven is an especially fine volume. Reading the foreword therein is a transcendent experience. It changed my life!)

EPIC RANT: O!ministration Is Greatest Impediment to Businesses Creating Jobs

Posted on July 19, 2011 By

7 Comments

The news was delivered by hotelier Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, in an earnings report conference call conducted this week. During the call, wherein the questions varied from inside-baseball share price and profit matter to the overall outlook for the markets his company has properties in, Mr. Wynn called out the Obama administration for being, “The Greatest Wet Blanket To Business And Job Creation In My Lifetime.” Here’s a taste from the transcript:

I believe in Las Vegas; I think its best days are ahead of it, but I’m afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what’s going on on this this debt-ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President, and nothing will get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year, that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

And I’m saying bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it, and I could spend the next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace [who] are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalat[ing]. Regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, you know — that keeps using that word “redistribution.”

Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they’re frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America. You bet. And until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it’s not going to change.

And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it, are going to sit in fear of the President. And you know, a lot of people don’t want to say that. They say oh, God, don’t be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama’s deal. And it’s Obama that’s responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe’s ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest, they’re holding too much money. You know, we haven’t heard that kind of thing except from pure socialists.

Everybody is afraid of the government. And there’s no need — there’s no need, you know, soft pedaling it. It’s the truth. It is the truth. And that’s true of Democratic businessmen, and Republican businessmen, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans, and I’m telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he’s gone, everybody is going to be sitting on their thumbs.
[emphasis-ed]

Wow . . . Pretty brutal stuff, eh? Brutally honest, that is . . . The full transcript is posted at Seeking Alpha. And RCP has audio of the rant posted as well, if you’d prefer to get the full flavor that his tone of voice imparts to the verbiage.

Oh, and as an aside, when Wynn compares the administration to straight up socialists he’s speaking from experience; in the call he mentions that it’s his company’s fifth year operating a casino in Macau; the property with the greatest growth prospects in his organization right now. For the geographically challenged among us, Macau is located in Communist China.

Although Wynn is a long outspoken critic of the administration’s regulatory policies and general business unfriendliness, the sentiment is nothing new. Other prominent businessmen such as Mort Zuckerman, no wingnut by any stretch of the imagination, have made many similar points, albeit couched in less strident language, for some time. Indeed, Mr. Obama’s class warfare schtick seems to be wearing a bit thin on even his old pal Warren Buffet.

It’s painfully clear to all but the most partisan Kool-Aid drinkers that this administration’s economic initiatives have failed miserably, as many knew they would; they are mere re-runs of past failed progressive policy prescriptions. And the breadth and magnitude of this failure really calls into question whether the President wants the economy to recover, or would prefer a crisis environment, if such is more conducive to implementing his radical transformative agenda, under the guise of urgent necessity for the good of our nation. Given that he’s clearly pursuing such a strategy in the current debt talks, it’s getting increasingly difficult to extend him the benefit of the doubt and assume he has nothing but good intent with respect to his larger social and economic agenda.

[Cross posted at POWIP]

State Surpluses Not “Unexpected”?

Posted on July 19, 2011 By

14 Comments

There has been a running gag on the right that every time bad economic news comes out, the MSM prefaces it with the word “unexpectedly.”

For example:

And that’s just from the last 30 days.

Somehow the MSM finds all this bad news unexpected, and yet via Glenn we see a story that does not include that magic word. And this is a story I would have thought warranted its use:

At least a dozen states ended fiscal 2011 with surpluses. Indiana reported one of the largest, with an extra $1.2 billion in its accounts. Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, on Friday authorized bonus payments of up to $1,000 for state employees. An employee who “meets expectations” will get $500, and those who “exceed expectations” will receive $750; “outstanding workers” will see an extra $1,000 in their August paychecks.

Look at the states with surpluses from this story: Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, and South Carolina. You will find a common thread in almost all of them. Can you guess what it is?

With the exception of Arkansas, all of these states have Republican Governors.

I guess that would explain the lack of the word “unexpected,” wouldn’t it?

(image via Serr8d’s cutting edge)

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Netflix It

Posted on July 19, 2011 By

5 Comments

Netflix customers are free to leave if they think the recent price increase is too steep–or to stay if they think the service is still a good value.

There: now all conservatives are happy.

Some on the right have been debating among themselves whether being ticked about the price increase is acceptable. But both sides are acting consistently with their principles–namely, by not wasting money like Barack Obama on shore leave.

The debate is over, and we all win. Let’s go to Dairy Queen to celebrate total victory! Neither faction members are right. Or both are. It merely depends on whether you’re a “keg is half empty” sort of person, or one who sees it as “half full.”

The decision made by each particular consumer is correct, as individuals always spend on what they think is a good deal. Or, in the case of the mailed plastic movie coasters, in some cases they don’t. Either way, they’re using their dollars in a matter they feel is effective. If they leave or if they stay, they’re right.

As with nature, the free market is indifferent to how you feel. Customers have every right to think that getting films from Netflix beats dealing with Redbox, cable, or one of the seven remaining physical Blockbusters. They also have every right to note that the disc mailer/film streamer is increasing fees by a dramatic percentage, while increasing benefits not at all. Make your own call as to which side is right.

Anyone with money and enough free time to enjoy movies could reach a different conclusion about the specifics. But customers will sort this out themselves, which may shock those who, say, think cutting our debt down from 14 figures will doom the economy.

Buying patterns won’t make everyone happy, especially dinosaurs like me who actually enjoy owning objects. For one, I miss acquiring CDs, as possessing such an item is evocative of the enjoyment contained within. I much prefer opening a jewel case and playing my rockin’ tunes off a disc while perusing the accompanying booklet to downloading music that exists in some voodoo ether.

I never thought I’d be an old-school, cane-waving grandpa type for liking a digital format. But customers are voting against me with their currency, leading to music stores lamentably shuttering. I have to make sure my copy of Quadrophenia remains unscratched as a result. Those are breaks, though, and progress benefits us on the whole even if some of us still stubbornly wish to collect dust.

Free marketeers should give their loyalty to business, not businesses. For one, I hold firmly that Walmart sucks, and not just because they supported Obamacare and joined with Michelle Obama to deter kids from eating anything delicious. It doesn’t even matter if one discounts its creepy dalliances with this administration: getting goods at one of Walmart’s outposts remains a soulless experience in the most utilitarian environment possible. Yeah, I try to shop elsewhere, even though it is not due to their massiveness.

Giant chains aren’t necessarily our friends despite how conservatives supposedly worship conglomerates. Bachmannians and Pawlentyites should be comfortable with holding that, say, Barnes & Noble is annoying & frustrating, or that the Southwest Jack Daniel’s Potato Skin Egg Rolls at T.G.I. Friday’s are as obnoxious as the restaurant’s service and ambiance.

By contrast, right-minded people should feel free to play against alleged type by patronizing independent shops, even if the outlets in question offer pretension instead of good deals and large inventories. Some NRA members or rattlesnake flag owners like that for whatever reason.

Feel free to shop at the bookstore that hosts readings of poems that don’t rhyme, or the hipster coffee house that prides itself upon never expanding to a second location. If you like it when clerks and baristas wear ironic t-shirts, go ahead and seek them out, even if you drive there in an SUV adorned with a “1.20.13”-themed bumper sticker.

Affordability is one benefit, but certainly not the only one. Free market participants are of course also allowed to weigh any particular establishment’s character, and determine whether parking is a pain in the ass–or if the customer service is less than snotty. Those are just some of the many factors to weigh when pondering where to fritter away one’s paycheck.

With that in mind, drink any damn beer you want, regardless of how many barrels the company brews. Eat at restaurants that have locations on seemingly every corner or just the one. Watch films at home using whatever service is advantageous. If you enjoy the quaintness of getting movies in the mail enough that you think it’s worth a couple of extra bucks per month, keep letting Netflix charge you for the privilege.

Everybody who decides to either retain or abandon the film delivery system will be making the correct move. Respecting those respective decisions embodies what conservatism is all about, even if a fellow Red State-minded friend chooses differently than you.

There will not be participation ribbons handed out, even though every person with an opinion about Netflix’s pricing plan is correct. But the fact remains that people are at their wisest when they are dealing with their own currency. Anyone who concludes that Old Man Flix’s offerings aren’t worth the expense any more can find something else to watch while drunk at home.

Anthony Bialy is a writer and “Red Eye conservative” in New York City. He tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Whose Money Is It, Anyway?

Posted on July 19, 2011 By

1 Comment

From GatewayPundit (and others), we see that Obama is doing his same ole number tricks:

Back in April of this year Barack Obama told the press that he “refused to extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy again.”
But, he’s not a socialist.

….
Of course, it was just another lie.

Verum Serum found the real numbers:

Here’s what Obama doesn’t tell you. Most of those cuts did not go to millionaires or billionaires. Let’s just look at the Bush tax cut extension that Obama signed last year. CNN Money broke down the figures this way:

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion…The bulk of that cost — $463 billion — is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest — $81.5 billion — is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

As per Rocketman, I wouldn’t be surprised to see 70% marginal rates back . . . heck, once upon a time, the rates went up to 94% . . . but I do want to step back from all the class envy and number-crunching to object to the “framing of the narrative.”

The rhetoric of “tax cuts” assumes there is some natural level of taxation that exists in the world, and that any deviation down from that is a great injustice.

Likewise, I hate hearing about “cutting spending” when what is actually occurring is, we’re cutting the rate of increase in spending . . . and there’s no actual decrease!

One example: you’ll hear the rhetoric that they’re cutting spending on education, say. Almost never is the situation that there is an absolute decrease in the amount of spending — usually what has happened was the original budget had baked-in a 10% increase, and now that has been lowered to only a 5% increase. Which doesn’t sound at all like cutting spending to me. The reference point shouldn’t have been a budget first draft–but rather what was actually spent or budgeted for the prior year.

I would love if we went to zero-based budgeting on both sides — taxation and spending — but it turns out that sort of thing doesn’t work in practice (somehow, magically, the ending budget is the prior year’s budget adjusted a little bit up, if you’re in government, or a little bit up or down, if you’re in business).

What would be nice is if Republicans talked about tax rates and not tax cuts from some mythical “natural” level of taxation.

The base assumption should be that people’s money belong to them, and not government.

So if a tax rate is cut from 40% to 30%, and others get a cut from 25% to 20%, it’s not eeeeevil rich people greedily withholding money from the government, and the middle class not getting its fair share. It’s that people get to hold onto their own money, and that’s a good thing–as they can spend it on what they want, and not to satisfy the rapacious appetites of some politicians.

Rich people are paying plenty in taxes (except, you know, when they don’t). And so are people all up and down the income scale (SocSec/Medicare taxes are really just another income tax — all that money is thrown in one bin, which is the upshot of Obama saying he doesn’t know if SocSec checks would be paid….)

The real side is spending: because there aren’t enough rich people to pay for the full measure of various promises made, everyone will end up paying for it.

So let’s start with the spending discussion, see how we can pay for it, and go from there.

Disarming the Citizens of Washington, D.C.

Posted on July 19, 2011 By

13 Comments

. . . was never a good idea, whether they are gay or straight. The unsinkable Jimmy LaSalvia of GOProud explains that hate crime legislation was not any more helpful than he had thought it would be when he was assaulted the other day:

It was such a nice day that I had ridden my bicycle to work, so I was on my bike when I approached them. I was on the street but kept to the right side of the lane so that cars could easily pass on my left. This put me within a couple of feet of the sidewalk, where the group was walking toward me.

Just as I got up to them, the assailant lunged off the sidewalk toward me and delivered a punch across my chest. The momentum of my bicycling drove me into his fist and arm, causing a shocking pain like I’ve never felt before. Just as I began to realize what was happening, I heard it. The words are still ringing in my ears as I write this — “Fucking faggot!”

The wind was knocked out of me, but as I regained my breath I screamed, “You!” and pointed at him. It was clear to me in that moment that my sexual orientation had motivated this attack.

Then there was a weird silence. Nobody knew what would happen next. The assailant and a couple of the others puffed up their chests and were obviously ready to continue the attack. I had been able to catch myself so that I didn’t come crashing down off the bike, but I was still in a vulnerable crouching position sort of under my bike, halfway on the street and partly in the gutter.

The situation could have gone either way: I could end up beaten or dead, or we could all go our separate ways.

All I could think to do was to get to my backpack and find my phone. As I fumbled for the phone, I heard one of them say, “Does he have a gun?”

So I kept my hand in my backpack, allowing them to wonder whether I was reaching for a gun. Then a couple of them started to run away, and the others soon followed. I got back on my bike and pedaled as fast as I could out of there.

Read the whole thing, please. There’s a lot more there.

Good for Jimmy; thank God for his excellent presence-of-mind. We were so worried when we found out that he’d been attacked. So not only does a pink pistol not have to be pink; in some instances, it doesn’t even have to exist.

First « 424425426427428 » Last