Nothing Like a Spring Snow

We awoke today, Easter Day and a three days into spring, to snow. The sun then came out and melted all that snow. It then got to about 41 degrees and, believe it or not, it started snowing again. Hard. With huge wet snowflakes, blowing north to south in my yard, but south to north in my neighbor's yard. And it continued snowing even as the sun came out. In a word, it was weird.

I wonder how that all fits into the global warming alarmists' picture? I thought it fitting, given todays's snow, to highlight an interesting article in the The Australian titled Climate facts to warm to. Of course this article is categorized as opinion whereas a similar article in favor of the global warming hype would be considered to fall into the, ahem... climate category.

My favorite part:

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the
global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN,
most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned
professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us
hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial
gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice
age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of
empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling
and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to
be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way
towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon
footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre,
clean forgotten in six months.

The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of
regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come
to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more
plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate
"climate refugees".

Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as
the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to
junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed
as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye
what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our
times.

"The great moral issue and policy challenge of our times." Pshaw.

Cool New Tunes

I ripped this off Julie O's blog. Much better music gadget than last.fm because you can play the whole frikkin' song if you click on it, and it has a better selection of songs. And it doesn't time out like last.fm. I should probably reorder the songs, as there are more than a few "what the?" transitions. Still, I'm funny that way.

I'm kind of a big deal

So, the transmission on the Honda goes kaput. Not kaput as in "energetically disassembles" kaput, but it's noticeable that things are awry... askew... a-not-so-good. Lisa, in her OCD researchy way, discovered that this was a common problem for Hondas of our ilk and that your mileage may vary as to whether the dealership would stick it to you. So, we were prepared for a fight.

Upon dropping the vehicle off this morning, things were not looking good; we were headed in the direction of getting oh so stuck. The service guy feigned ignorance as to the commonplace nature of the problem.

Later, the dealership calls Lisa and the stick is on. $3500 for a new transmission. Pshaw! Lisa summoned her mighty bunny indignant righteousness and pounded her little fist verily, which resulted in her speaking to someone trained to deal with such a ferocious onslaught. "How many Hondas have you owned?" asked the Honda poopscreen. "Three" was the answer, with the clear implication that if they wanted to trade a $3500 transmission for a $35,000 sale on a new car, they were well on their way to success. The woman poopscreen takes this under advisement (note: I'm not using the term "poopscreen" derogatively--I'm a poopscreen, and for Honda no less).

Lisa calls me and I call the dealership. The service guy wants to argue over semantics about what is or isn't a "recall." I allow him this indulgence while I take notes. My plan is simple: I'm going to amass a body of evidence so overwhelming, so utterly complete and unassailable, and then call my contacts within Honda corporate and beat them about the head and shoulders until the word comes from on high to the dealership that this error on their part will be dealt with promptly and gratis.

After picking Lisa up from work, we plot our next step in the education of Honda. First, there's the "I'm kind of a big deal" spiel. Let them know that future business hinges on this decision. Let them know that should they resist, holy hell will rain down on them as Lisa, social media maven that she is, goes to war with Honda on the internet. While we're doing this, the phone rings. It's the service guy. There's a long pause. A really long pause. Is he waiting to see who speaks first? Oh, enough of this already! "Yes?" My response lingers with expectancy. "Would you be willing to pay a hundred dollar deductible?" "You mean instead of paying $3500?" "Yes, and you get a 3-year, 36,000-mile warranty." Victory! Because, I don't know how to put this, but I'm kind of a big deal.

*sigh*

And I thought I had this fairly well concealed.

Since you asked...

I've had a number of friends and acquaintances ask me about the upcoming election, so I thought I would share my views for all.

First, fair notice for those visiting for the first time or just don't know me well enough to get a sense of my politics: I'm a registered Republican and a paleoconservative. Life was good in the 80's and Reagan should be beatified. If you disagree--*shrug*

Also, this is admittedly a simplified view. I'm not a political wonk, economist, or someone "in the know." I'm a simple guy with simple thoughts.

I liken this to 1975 or 76. Probably more like 75. We had an unpopular war, made unpopular by the Left (though it's ironic that it was Johnson, a liberal Democrat, who escalated the Vietnam conflict, but I digress). Congress was controlled in 1975 by the Democrats, and it was Congress which ignored Ford when he practically pleaded for them to not cut off funding to support South Vietnam. With absolutely no support from the US, things turned out badly for the South Vietnamese. Furthermore, Ford was faulted for the loss of South Vietnam to the Communists by conservatives in the GOP.

Ford was also criticized by the GOP for negotiating with Panama to hand over the canal to their control. It was seen as being weak in protecting US interests.

We also had a faltering economy in 1975. We had 9% inflation in 75, with an increase to almost 14% by the time Carter left office. Unemployment was at about 8.4% on average. Not all Ford's fault, but like it or not, the President gets credit or blame for the economy whether it's warranted or not.

With Ford being blamed for all this, Reagan was seen as the party's salvation. Unfortunately, Reagan's attempt to reach out to the centrists in the party backfired, giving Ford the nomination. Thing is, most conservatives were disenchanted with Ford, and as such, stayed home on election day. The rest is regrettable history.

Now today...

We have an unpopular war, and while the Bush administration has tripped over its feet every step of the way in marketing the war, ultimately it's the same ideological group which has worked to make any military intervention on our part unpopular (except Kosovo, but that's because it was their idea). We have a Democrat-controlled Congress which is all too eager to pull our troops out and leave Iraq and Afghanistan to fend for themselves. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could end badly for both countries. And we have conservatives turning on Bush and his administration of the war.

Bush is criticized for his unwillingness to halt illegal immigration, as is McCain. It's seen as being weak on protecting US (sovereignty, domestic, economic and cultural) interests.

And then there's the economy. While both inflation and unemployment are relatively low, both are creeping up, which is getting a fair amount of negative press. The housing market is also seen as a crisis; given that it's where most people put their money, the effects of such could be much worse than a stock market crash.

While Bush isn't running, his legacy is. McCain is probably the closest thing to a standard bearer for that legacy in terms of supporting its policies. Unfortunately, many in the GOP are disenchanted with the legacy and want anyone but McCain (despite the fact that he's locked up the nomination quite handily). I say "unfortunately" because it's to the point that many Republicans are willing to chop off the nose to spite the face, and it's a foolish position to take. Some notable commentators, like Ann Coulter, have said they would rather vote for Clinton if McCain received the nomination, presumably because McCain isn't conservative enough. Others may be thinking more strategically. Re:

The problem with this thinking is that it demands an all or nothing approach. I've always considered conservatives to be generally a pragmatic lot and that politics is more business than personal. So I find such spoilsport thinking to be quite... alien. And the reality is, if conservatives decide to stay home on election day again ala 1976, or do the insane and vote for Obama or Clinton, then if it's all or nothing they want, it's nothing they'll get and it'll be an ugly next four years.

That said, I do think Obama has this won for some of the reasons alluded to in the Muir strips. Hope sells, and Obama is perceived as being the purveyor of hope while McCain is perceived as selling fear. For the uncommited 40% swing vote--the 40% which is likely to take their news in pablum form from the MSM--Obama is the savior. Nevermind that he's been silent on his position to most issues; he's photogenic, well-spoken, and he leaves the masses with a warm gooey feeling on the inside. Sadly, that's enough for most.

I'm not a McCain kinda guy; Fred was my guy. I think the best presidents are the reluctant ones. Still, I respect McCain's service and I think he's the GOP's best candidate to capture that 40%--the best candidate to win. I think he'll make a good CINC and that he won't cut & run from Iraq and Afghanistan. He also has cordial relations with the other side of the aisle, which is necessary when you don't control Congress. And, I think he'll be fairly well received by foreign leaders, but not as warmly received as Obama. Hell, even Canada's supporting him, in a manner of speaking; "blatantly unfair." Pshaw! No, not a McCain guy, but I'll be there on election day voting for him because ultimately it's better to get something than nothing. And if you need proof of that, turn on your way-back machine and remember 1977-1981.