It’s Saturday, July 13th, 2013…and though its the weekend, here’s The Gouge!

Leading off the weekend update, two videos, the first of which shows Asiana 214’s approach as Boeing intended…

…the second, courtesy of Balls Cotton and our middle son Mike, demonstrating how gullible the MSM has become:

Rumors Captain Wi Tu Lo is related to Asiana’s Chief Pilot Fry Tu Lo remain unconfirmed.

Yeah…the NTSB “confirmed” the names.  Seriously, Balls forwarded us an email with the crew names mere minutes before Mike found the KTVU “report” on YouTube.  It’s truly frightening how the 24/7 news cycle makes these fools air just about anything.  Then again, KTVU is in Oakland!

Next up, Jonah Goldberg points out the glaring flaws in The Obamao’s latest attempt at misdirection, aka, his purported plans for…

Making government ‘smarter’

Trying to do dumb things the smart way.

 

President Obama wants to make government “smarter.” Who could disagree with that? After all, it’s unlikely that even the biggest fans of big government believe the way government does what it does is the very best, very smartest way imaginable. Whether you’re an anarchist, a Leninist, or somewhere in between, everyone can agree that Uncle Sam could afford a few more IQ points.

Let’s put it another way. If government is going to do X, it should do X the smartest way possible. On that proposition both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party agree.

Alas, this momentary flash of consensus disappears before our eyes like a shooting star the moment we ask a related but very different question: Is it smart for the government to do X in the first place? For instance: I think it’s a dumb idea to tickle a grizzly-bear cub while it’s napping on its mother’s belly. But if I’m given no choice but to do it, I’ll eagerly inquire about what’s the smartest way to do a very dumb thing. And if I’m told there is no smart way to do such a dumb thing (which I assume is true), I’ll at least ask for tips on the least dumb way to do it.

In announcing his effort to make government smarter — an idea with a very old pedigree — Obama invoked two organizations he’d like government to emulate. The first was Google. We’ll return to that in a moment.

For years, many of the president’s critics, including yours truly, have complained that he’s always in campaign mode. Obama is more comfortable whipping up enthusiasm among his fans on college campuses than he is working with his own cabinet — never mind members of Congress — to actually get things done. So it was not without irony that the second exemplar Obama offered for the sorts of best practices the government should adopt was his own presidential campaign. It was “one of the most inclusive and most successful campaigns in American history,” he assured an audience largely composed of his own White House staff.

“We can’t take comfort in just being cynical,” the president admonished. “We all have a stake in government success — because the government is us.” This is among the president’s favorite formulations, and it gets to the heart of the problem. The government is not “us.” The government is — or is supposed to be — a collection of agencies that do things taxpayers and voters want done. In short, it is a tool.

Sometimes the smartest way to use a tool is not to use it at all. A garden rake is a useful tool. But it’s not useful for every task. No matter how smart the surgeon, there’s no smart way for him to use a rake to remove a kidney.

Google is a wonderful company, but Google is as relevant to the tasks of government as a garden rake is to the tasks of a surgeon. Similarly, a presidential campaign is a vital tool for electing a president. It is utterly useless for enforcing contracts or repelling foreign invaders.

One of the advantages both a presidential campaign and a company like Google have is that they can fire incompetent employees quite easily. The federal government has no such luxury. According to a study by USA Today, death is the greatest threat to job security at the EPA, HUD, and dozens of other agencies. In 2012, 0.4 percent of civilian employees were fired.

Similarly, whether a campaign succeeds or fails, it goes out of business the day after the election (at least that was the case until Obama created Organizing for America). When a business fails, it doesn’t necessarily go out of business, but it does stop selling its failed products; Coca-Cola stopped selling New Coke when no one wanted to buy it.

The day before the president announced his new initiative, the Washington Post profiled Marvin Horne, a farmer who owes the federal government $650,000 in fines. Why? He failed to comply with the Department of Agriculture’s national raisin-reserve program, created by the Truman administration, which even liberal Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan dubbed “just the world’s most outdated law.” The program stockpiles raisins in case of an emergency. Such emergencies — if they ever existed — ceased being a problem after World War II. It’s no surprise, alas, that government programs are as hard to fire as the employees working for them.

Which raises yet another irony. The only people in the world who don’t want the government to get much smarter are the ones working for it.

You know, government bureaucrats…

…the ones with the cushy retirement plans private sector citizens only dream of.

Speaking of the folks who spend your money like it grows on trees, here’s today’s installment of the “Your Tax Dollars At Work” segment, courtesy of Bret Baier and yet another egregious example of government fraud, waste and abuse…in the midst of sequestration:

Having a Cow

 

Three-quarters of a million taxpayer dollars are going to let people know how it feels to be a cow. Climate Wire reports the National Science Foundation awarded Stanford University $750,000 to research whether people eat less beef, after they’ve walked or grazed a mile in a cow’s hooves.

Study participants got down on all fours and were outfitted with a virtual reality helmet simulating what a cow might see on the way to slaughter. Then researchers looked at their meat consumption the following week. The results are not in yet.

The study’s director says the aim is to figure out if feeling sorry for cows could change human behavior and cut down on the carbon footprint that the beef industry makes. Critics say… well, you can guess what critics say.

Besides, if Stanford University or the National Science Foundation really need to know how a cow feels, Chicago Teacher’s Union president Karen Lewis would be happy to bovine…er,…opine…

…in return for dinner at Golden Corral’s all-you-can-eat buffet.

Turning from beef to barley, based on Amy Gerwing’s report at TheBlackSphere.net, absent an abject apology, we’ve drained our last Sam Adams:

Samuel Adams Beer Ejects God from the Declaration of Independence

 

Last week, while patriotic Americans celebrated the 237th birthday of our nation’s founding, Samuel Adams Beer commemorated Independence Day by brazenly undermining the very documents upon which our nation was founded.

A television ad, which ran over the Fourth of July weekend, depicts an eighteenth century tavern barkeep citing the Declaration of Independence saying:

“All men are created equal. They are endowed with certain unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

It didn’t take long for Samuel Adams’ Facebook page and Twitter feed to light up with protests from Americans who noticed the small but very significant omission of “by their Creator,” from the beer company’s rendition of the Declaration.

In response to a heated email that I swiftly sent off to the Vice President of Marketing at Samuel Adams, I received this response:

Thank you for your message about our recent TV ad and our use of some words from the Declaration of Independence, without the phrase “by our Creator.” We apologize that the omission offended you. That was never our intent. As you may already know, we adhere to an advertising code, established by the Beer Institute – a beer industry trade organization. The code states, “Beer advertising and marketing materials should not include religion or religious themes.” We agree with that, and follow those guidelines in our advertising and responsibly marketing our products.
Sincerely,
Michelle Sullivan
Senior Director of External Relations
Boston Beer Company

Apparently we are to accept the fact that the industry guidelines set by the Beer Industry trump the principles set forth in America’s founding documents? You know, those same founding documents that helped create the free market environment under which Samuel Adams Beer can enterprise and thrive.

It seems that Samuel Adams Relations Executive wants to dismiss this “adherence to guidelines” as a trivial matter. But for those Americans who have been watching the slow and steady devolution of our individual rights by an ever-expanding government, this omission is not insignificant.

If Samuel Adams Beer is going to market and sell beer evoking the name of perhaps our most religious founding father, then maybe they should brush up on their American History.

In the meantime, I penned this response to Ms. Sullivan:

Dear Ms. Sullivan,
Thank you for your prompt response. It’s unfortunate that Samuel Adams Beer and the Beer Industry categorize the Declaration of Independence as a “religious” document. Out of respect for the policies set forth by the Beer Industry, I can no longer in good conscience purchase your product. You see, the currency I use clearly states “in God we trust,” which is an overt violation of your industry standards.

We’re with Amy, particularly after noticing the fine print next to the depiction of Sam Adams in the company logo:

Brewer, yes; Patriot…not any more!

If you’d like to join us in voicing your disgust with a company which would favor industry trade practices over the bedrock principles on which this country was founded, feel free to call 888-661-2337 or visit http://www.samueladams.com/contact-us.

Moving on, submitted for your perusal, a manifestly asinine analysis of the common-sense abortion regulations Texas will hopefully soon enact from one Ben Sherman, writing at BurntOrangeReport.com:

Bro-Choice: How #HB2 Hurts Texas Men Who Like Women

 

Ben Sherman: we’re relatively certain impregnating women shouldn’t be one of his primary concerns.

The terrible anti-abortion bill being considered in the Texas legislature during this special session doesn’t just hurt women — it also hurts all of the men that have women in their lives that they care about. It’s crucial that Texas guys understand how Texas women’s bodily autonomy affects them, too. The fight being waged against the bill that would close all but six abortion clinics in Texas will only strengthen with more support.  

Forcing women to adhere to the anti-choice attitudes of state legislators forces men to do the same, and will have serious consequences both on men’s lives and lifestyles.

The old way of viewing reproductive rights as a women’s issue alone is easier and in some ways encouraged by outdated parts of masculine culture, and it’s wrong. When men stand with Texas women against this bill, they are also standing with Texas men.

Regardless of their ambiguous sexuality.

For an equally-absurd defense of infanticide, we turn to the latest from John McCormack writing at The Blog, courtesy of The Weekly Standard, who informs us…

Cecile Richards Can’t Explain Difference Between Gosnell Killings and Elective Late-Term Abortions

 

Don’t look for her to offer an explanation any time soon.

And just when you thought proponents of slaughtering the unborn couldn’t stoop any lower…

Here’s hoping her vagina enjoys fire and brimstone.

Then there’s today’s edition of Tales From the Darkside, and this must-read analysis of the reality behind the Zimmerman lynching, brought to us by Kevin Jackson and TheBlackSphere.com:

The Zimmerman Case Exposes Black Racism

 

The idea that black people will riot over the Zimmerman case should be an embarrassment to blacks. Unfortunately, far too many black Liberals are waiting to riot, hoping for the opportunity — like it’s a sale day at Macy’s. Obama did promise hope. Neither white people nor Latinos will riot, if Zimmerman is convicted. They have better things to do. Apparently many black people have nothing better to do.

It’s not necessarily the fault of black Liberals for being so stupid. The Democrats insured this level of absurdity. The idea that one case of a black teen being killed in some obscure town in America and we are back in the racially charged ‘60s. It goes to show you that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Democrats have all but insured the black Liberal derangement: black Liberals behaving like Pavlov’s dogs, salivating at the ringing of the bell of [purported] racism.

The ease with which Democrats and their operatives can so easily play black people is what should make America afraid. To get a race of people to riot over a case of an overzealous neighborhood watchman shooting and killing a teen who attacked him takes some doing. If you remove the race elements from this story, black people would have as much interest in this case as they would reruns of The Lawrence Welk Show.

Yet here we are. The Zimmerman case front and center—a 21st Century OJ trial, except this one black people want the defendant declared guilty. Thousands of black teens have been murdered since Martin’s death, yet Liberals have chosen to fixate on Martin’s death? Black Liberals should ask themselves why they have disproportionate emotion in this case versus the thousands of others.

Recall the young girl, Hadiya Pendleton who had visited with Obama at the White House, then two weeks later was unceremoniously gunned down in a drive-by shooting in Chicago? If only her murderer had been Zimmerman!

 

Hadiya Pendleton

Hadiya’s killers, aka, NOT Zimmerman!

However, since her killer was likely (Try DEFinitely!) black, there were no t-shirts with her face printed on them. Nor the almost countless other nameless, faceless black youth who are now just as dead as Trayvon Martin. Do their families not grieve? Do their deaths not demand justice?

Don’t expect the great uniter to showcase leadership in the Zimmerman case. (Unless to observe if he had a son, he’d have looked like the cherubic Trayvon…and that Zimmerman acted stupidly!) Obama will allow the racist attitudes of Liberals to flourish. That is the glue that binds him to black people, a group to whom he has shown little, real concern. Luckily for him, black people only care about Obama’s blackness.

It’s difficult to fathom that blacks have fought so hard against racism, only to become the most racist people in the country. Black Liberals don’t care about justice for Zimmerman, because he is the wrong color.

Truth be told, if Zimmerman were black, this case would be over and he would be a free man.

And for any Progressives out there questioning Jackson’s “right” to air his thoughts on Matters Noir, he’s…

…he’s just as entitled to his opinion as anyone else.

And in the Environmental Moment, as this forward from Jim Gleaves informs us, The Land of Fruits & Nuts continues to merit its moniker:

California regulators look to curb beach bonfires, citing climate change

 

A tradition dating back to the 1940s — bonfire pits on the beaches of southern California — is being targeted by state officials who say the popular pastime is no longer acceptable because of global warming and negative health consequences. “One fire pit burning one night, a few hours, a couple bundles of wood, emits as much as one average diesel truck on the road today driving over 500 miles,” said Dr. Philip Fine, of the Southern California Air Quality Management District (AQMD).

AQMD staff recommended banning open fires at the beach and removing the hundreds of concrete fire pits that stretch from San Diego to Los Angeles.

The proposal drew fire from beachgoers, who often show up early in the morning to reserve a spot. “I would be super bummed if they banned bonfires on the beach because it’s such a California thing,” said Los Angeles resident Liz Corona. “It’s such a fun, social thing to do with friends. And, um, I feel like it’s not really doing any harm, so why would they ban them?”

Local regulators may be easing off the proposal, and plan to vote on a compromise shortly.

But to the air quality police, the harm is evident. Air quality monitors miles from the beach pick up tiny particulates and carcinogens from burning wood that damage health. “There’s a lot of studies that definitely show that wood smoke, as well as just particulate matter in general, are very harmful to health,” Fine said. “There’s people living very close to these fire pits who tell us that they have smoke in their house, that they have respiratory problems, and this causes them to aggravate those respiratory problems.”

Initially, many thought the rules would go through without much opposition. Beachgoers are not an especially vocal or organized lobby. Leaf-blowers and gas-powered weed wackers cause far more air pollution than beach bonfires, but California chose not to regulate them after Hispanic lawmakers protested on behalf of landscapers.

Just so we understand Sacramento’s mentality, this is bad…

…while this is good:

If all this was really about the environment, wouldn’t they be equally damaging?!?  By the way, what’s the diesel emissions equivalent to the smoke and particulate matter generated by…

…California’s annual wildfires?

On the Lighter Side…

Finally, we’d like to close by offering an old friend, Steve Boss, our deepest sympathies on the passing of his father; Bossman, your entire family is in our thoughts and prayers.

Magoo