Barack's Ed pick Arne Duncan's Chicago Public Schools misspent $67,000 on cappuccino machines. Sun Times:

In the case of the cappuccino machines, central office administrators split the order among 21 vocational schools to avoid competitive bidding required for purchases over $10,000. As a result CPS paid about $12,000 too much, according to Inspector General James Sullivan. "We were able to find the same machines cheaper online," he said.

"We also look at it as a waste of money because the schools didn't even know they were getting the equipment, schools didn't know how to use the machines and weren't prepared to implement them into the curriculum," Sullivan said.

Um. Well. I'm kind of speechless at this last one.

Does this give you an idea how much they already probably stretch the curriculum to include all manner of useless (but convenient for them) "instruction", like movie-watching and making endless origami doves or something. This in a pervasively failing school system. Another audit discovery was tampering with grades. (There's been some improvement, but even Mayor Daley damns with faint praise.)

Let's see--a study of Capuchin monks? Nah, we can't have that--these are the public schools. They grow an awful lot of coffee in Brazil? Maybe a class on the Chicago Way.

P.S. A one-time auditor of the CPS from some years ago tells me at least it wasn't homemade Kahlua in the Mr. Coffee, which was their biggest worry. Vodka instead of water.

--crossposted at BackyardConservative

Breaking self-imposed blogger silence during the Obama anointing:

Obama's Terrorist Pal Bill Ayers Turned Away at Canadian Border

(The) One man's freedom fighter is another one's terrorist. Bill Ayers, too terrorist even for those mild-mannered Canadians who accepted our draft dodgers back in the day.

But he's welcome in Floridastan.

P.S. How come he's not at the inauguration? Security concerns?

--crossposted at BackyardConservative

When I say it, I'm a right-wing nut. Howabout when a "left-wing nut" says it?

Obama's approach to the establishment media -- the TV and radio networks, wire services, newspapers and magazines that still cover the White House -- doesn't differ all that much from George W. Bush's. As in, their correspondents are not getting much access. They are tightly managed. The White House press office doesn't say very much, and what it says isn't very revealing. What's more, it's signaling that past press rituals will not necessarily be observed. The Obama team declined to give the New York Times a pre-inauguration interview. Yesterday, the White House didn't even let press photographers in to get some shots of Obama working in the Oval Office, provoking an AP announcement that it would not distribute what amounted to "visual press releases."

I find it almost amusing that people who marched in the street because they were lied to, are shrugging their shoulders now that "their guy" is in office. With Clinton it was "just sex", now with Obama its "just lies".

The implications of the policy of deception are very interesting. In the short term, it bridges the gap between the unreasonable expectations of his political supporters and the practical requirements of national security and other considerations.

In the long term it will prove amazingly corrosive.

Well, it's warm and sunny in the Windy City this morning but I know what they're talking about. Tribune:

Chicago is third on the list of America's most miserable cities, according to Forbes Magazine, trailing only Stockton, Calif., and Memphis.

Why? Says Forbes: "Lousy weather, long commutes, rising unemployment and the highest sales tax rate in the country are to blame for the Windy City being near the top of our list. High rates of corruption by public officials didn't help either."

Last night, the lovely bunny and I watched a cute little film called Lars and the Real Girl. Nobody saw this film if its 10 million worldwide gross is any indication.

Lars is a strange but harmless and even likable man. He holds down a job, goes to church but isolates himself to a pathological degree. Needless to say, he can't talk to girls. He ends up buying an anatomically correct sex doll, but his intentions aren't carnal. The doll becomes his girlfriend, betraying mental illness on his part far beyond the extreme shyness he's always displayed.

This is where the film gets interesting.

The small town greets this development with the expected incredulity and gossip, but unexpectedly begins to play into his delusion, treating Lars "girlfriend" as if she was real for his benefit. Hilarity ensures. Well, not exactly hilarity, but mildly amusing situations nonetheless.

A strange movie--or is it?

Society asks us to play along with obvious delusions all the time, to treat the metaphorical sex doll as if she was real. The Flight 93 memorial is a perfect example. The memorial design, even in its modified form, is an east (towards Mecca) facing cresent. Officials are arguing that its not a cresent , that its just a "broken circle", but its completely besides the point--the perception of this memorial, particularly in the Arab world, is that the U.S. built a memorial to Islam's victory over the west.

Why even go there?

Among bloggers, a recent topic of fascination concerns the question--"who is Ellie Light?"

Miss Light managed to get her letter to the editor published in 65 newspapers to date, each featuring a local address, which makes Ellie Light a property owner of the same rank as Oprah or Cindy McCain, or a sock puppet for the Obama administration.

If you read the letter, and her responses to reporter questions (by email), you get the growing sense that the latter case is the likely one.

You can read her letter here, and subsequent followups here and here.

The initial letter is the crystallization of a product from the Obama administration rhetoric factory--a logical fallacy called a complex question. A complex question is two conjoined propositions, one which is eminently reasonable, and the other dubious, controversial or just plain crazy. If you agree with the reasonable proposition then you are by implication, agreeing with the dubious one as well, which is how you get poll results that say that 53% of Utahns think we don't pay enough taxes. If you disagree, then your opposition is characterized as being contrary to the reasonable proposition rather than the crazy stuff.

In the Ellie Light (lightbringer--get it?) letter, that proposition is structured this way:

During his campaign, Obama clearly said that an economy that took eight years to break couldn't be fixed in a year...

1. Bush spent his presidency wrecking the economy. 2. It can't be fixed overnight. Those are two propositions, one which is complete bullshit, and the other a reasonable argument.

This kind of political dirty trick isn't the casual product of a concerned citizen writing the 'local' paper to express their views. Its the deliberate construct of political operatives.

Spin is simply an argument that favors your position. the "it can't be fixed overnight' argument is spin. The other is just garden variety deception, and in my view, that is the real heart of the matter with Barack Obama and the Democrats.

Scott Brown's act of political jiu jitsu occurred in under sixty days, during which we saw the administration and the Democrat Congress engage in some of the most egregious, anti-democratic and just plain immoral behavior that I can ever recall during my lifetime. The payoff of Ben Nelson, the creation of unions as a special class of citizen immune to a tax that applies broadly to the rest of Americans, the flat out lies of Janet Napolitano in the wake of an attempted terrorist attack.

As bad as the proposed policies of this administration have been, its the sleaze that has really destroyed their political capitol, and the Ellie Light episode illustrates how deeply entrenched that culture is. The decision to engaged in wicked behavior has become a reflex for these people.

That is why Ellie Light's little prank has become a story worth paying attention to.

A kooky wingnut freelance operation gone wrong.

Patterico:

When I first read a news story about this yesterday, it sounded to me like O’Keefe and company were being accused of an attempt to wiretap or bug Landrieu’s phones. Indeed, that’s the way I characterized the Government’s claim in my post based on a news story. But now I have had a chance to review the affidavit. And it doesn’t say that.

The link to the affidavit is here. I challenge you to find me the language that accuses O’Keefe et al. of a “plot to bug” Landrieu’s office, or an “alleged wiretap scheme.”

It isn’t there.

I saw this video and didn't laugh. I felt bad for Barack Obama, perhaps for the first time. Not so bad though that I could resist a snide title for the post.

I've decided not to comment extensively on the passage of Obamacare for one simple reason--I'm really angry.

No doubt there are plenty of places on the Internet, cable television and radio that you can go to hear people rant and rave about this. I don't want to--I want to win. Winning takes a clear strategy, extensive planning and a disciplined execution.

The Democrat behavior in this matter has been very uncharacteristic, and at first glance, desperate beyond anything I've seen in politics which normally operates on generational time scales. The history of all the various Democrat-initiated social programs has been to create a reservoir of political will though the use of the Democrats message machine--witness the stem cell debate, global warming, gay rights, etc., etc... They then use that to engineer bi-partisan support, as in the case of immigration reform.

This time around, it was practically an armed insurgency.

Why the change in tactics? What is the end game? Is it a winner or a loser?

These are the questions I want to be able to answer, but I can't while I feel this incredible urge to punch someone in the face...

Dave's post on environmentalist fraud made me recall this incident from a number of years ago.

Congressmen from western states called on the federal government to mount an investigation after government researchers were caught planting false evidence of endangered species in national forests.

The fraud was discovered when a U.S. Forest Service employee informed supervisors that five federal and two Washington State researchers had planted endangered lynx hairs in areas where the animals did not exist.

The researchers were conducting a four-year study of 57 forests in 16 states to determine the extent of endangered lynx habitat and what additional steps might be taken to protect the animal.

After learning of the allegations, the Forest Service conducted tests of the allegedly planted hairs and determined the hairs matched those of a lynx living in an animal preserve and of a pet lynx belonging to a federal employee.

Their justification? They simple knew there were Lynx in those areas and didn't think a lack of evidence should prevent these areas from being "protected". Let be clear about this--there is absolutely no difference between this kind of wacko environmentalist loon and the people who burned young women as witches--both were acting on completely subjective world views with a similar lack of concern for the consequences. On the one hand, people lost their lives under terrible torture, on the other, entire communities were deemed collateral damage to the environmentalist gaia-epiphany.

I still recommend "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomberg which gives chapter and verse on environmentalist shenanigans and shines the reality light on the actual state of the natural world. The Greenies did everything from trying to ban the book, to working to discredit Lomberg personally.

If a birther is someone who says Obama should release his birth certificate or be be deemed an illegitimate president, then I'm still one, so I'm glad to see Drudge and Breitbart give prominence to this video:

An ethnic Arab girl wins Miss America and some people--people with too little to do, go bonkers.

First of all, its remarkable that beauty pageants still exist, much less that people are still interested in watching them, but secondly--and I know this from personal experience--all beauty pageants, from the one they may or may not run in your home town, to Miss America and every other one you may have heard of--are all rigged.

Yep. Every single one of them.

The rigging is as innocuous as the subjective tastes of the judges to more egregious forms involving money, sex and politics. I frankly can't imagine anymore more demeaning to a young woman that slavishly remaking herself to suit the tastes of pageant officials, and paying for the privilege?

It occurs to me though that some conservative commentators don't appreciate the irony of the pick. There simply can't be anything more remote from radical Islam than an Arab beauty pageant winner. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if some Mullah declares a fatwa on Donald Trump for offending the honor of Muslim women.

Just ignore these chowder heads.

Incroyable! This is my instant reaction to the breaking news that the White House enlisted Bill Clinton to offer Rep Sestak a job to stay out of the Senate primary against Arlen Specter, whose vote was desperately needed to pass Obamacare.

The White House:
Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary....The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board.

18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code - Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

My comment:

1. It doesn't matter whether the position was compensated or not. If it did matter, then the statute would prohibit "compensated position" not "position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit". Clearly the Chief of Staff and the former President thought they were offering something of benefit to Sestak, else why bother?

2. This is far more cut and dried than Watergate, Plamegate or cigargate. The statute is clear.

3. This puts Obama and Clinton in the frame. I guess the defence will be "It depends on the meaning of 'or'".

4. They are all probably lying by omission anyway. Sestak said he was offered a high-ranking federal job.

5. REVENGE!!!!

Obama and Hayward, the 2 CEO's responsible for the Gulf screw-up, are both snakebit. For them every silver lining has a cloud.

A comment in the DT:

As for Hayward’s supposed PR disaster, we need to accept the cultural differences between Britain and the US. We believe you should stay calm and behave as if everything is under control in a crisis. They like to show how committed they are and involved emotionally in the problem.

There's some truth in that. Today Hayward is sailing with his son on his first few hours off since April 20th and the media feign outrage. Hey-ho. Anyway, writing as a punter long BP, it's obvious that Hayward has to go. The guy looks punch-drunk with snake bites - a mixed metaphor to be proud of, I think.

Now, Obama....

Mick intones:

Two nations separated by a common language? I'm sure some of that was in play, but truth be told, calm in the face of the storm is also considered a virtue here in the U.S.

Hayward's demeanor was perfect for BP, because shareholders, employees and executives all know that he shares their fate and concerns. The appearance of sang froid is, in my view, always an asset within this context, but what Hayward did not understand is that Gulf coast residents, and the nation at large, were not at all certain that Hayward and BP shared their specific fate or concerns. The American south has always had a streak of xenophobia running through it, and BP being perceived as a 'foreign' corporation with a 'foreign' chief wasn't helping.

That seemed obvious to me, but apparently escaped Hayward and his team, who would have benefited from hiring some PR consultants as soon as the situated developed. Before he could create a perception of control, he needed to create for the Gulf Coast what he took for granted at BP--a shared fate (BP has long been part of the Gulf coast community...). I would have set up camp and invited the governors of the various gulf states to join him for some helicopter tours and in-depth discussions, setting up some sort of coordinated response between the company and the states.

Hayward made a lot of mistakes, but he has an excuse--ignorance. What's Obama's excuse?

It is literally incomprehensible that Obama didn't jump on this like a hungry owl on a mouse caught out in the open. He had Clinton as an advisor (who handled the Florida hurricanes with aplomb), the negative example of Katrina, and a life-time of political experience to tell him that he needed to get on this thing within hours of it happening.

Obama still has some die-hard supporters in the media who'll keep on making excuses for his profound incompetence, but they are dwindling rapidly.

Mark agrees: I agree.

Actually I don't excuse Hayward. PR in a crisis is an indispensable attribute of his job. The best PR is calm, directed action, frankly explained with no quips. It's not mysterious.

The only xenophobia I've noticed is in Washington. In the UK the contrast with Piper Alpha is widely noted. In 1988 a US operated platform exploded in the North Sea killing 168 men. An enquiry judged the operator, Occidental, to be culpable. There were no boots on throats, yankeephobia or political posturing about this accident, just a determination to fix what was wrong. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister.