Our Green Future

There is some common theme here, but Sydney Brillo Duodenum can't quite put his paw on it.


From Autoblog:

Ever hear of neodymium? How about dysprosium or yttrium? Thulium or lutetium? These are just some of the metals that China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is considering either banning the exportation of, or at least severely limiting the amount that it will let leave the country. These precious metals are used in manufacturing new (and sometimes green) technologies, and China wants keep the goods available for its growing domestic use.

[...]

every Toyota Prius you've ever seen contains 25 pounds of rare earth elements.

[...]

Right now, China mines more than 95% of the rare earth minerals that are taken out of the ground.

New York Times: More Sun for Less: Solar Panels Drop in Price:

For solar shoppers these days, the price is right. Panel prices have fallen about 40 percent since the middle of last year, driven down partly by an increase in the supply of a crucial ingredient for panels, according to analysts at the investment bank Piper Jaffray.

[...]

Until recently, panel makers had been constrained by limited production of polysilicon, which goes into most types of panels. But more factories making the material have opened, as have more plants churning out the panels themselves — especially in China.

H/T: Sweetness and Light

WSJ: TCP to Sell Bulbs With Its Name in U.S.

Ellis Yan, the founder and CEO of fluorescent-light maker TCP Inc., said his company will begin selling TCP-branded products in North America this fall and plans to open a factory near Cleveland in about a year.

TCP already is the largest manufacturer of CFL bulbs sold in the U.S., according to industry players.

It produces 300 to 400 million CFL bulbs per year in China, selling many under brands such as GE Lighting, Osram Sylvania and Philips Lighting.

The Freedonia Group Inc. in Cleveland expects U.S. demand for advanced lighting products -- LEDs, CFLs, halogen lights and other products that will replace traditional incandescent bulbs -- to grow nearly 11% a year to $6.8 billion in 2013, driven by legislation that bans the sale of incandescent lamps starting in 2012.

Financial Times: BYD to sell electric car in US in 2010

BYD, the upstart Chinese car company backed by US investment guru Warren Buffett, said on Monday that it would start selling its e6 all-electric sedans in the US next year, a year ahead of schedule.

[...]

BYD is a global leader in rechargeable battery technology, but only a recent entrant to the Chinese car industry. Mr Wang, an engineer-turned-entrepeneur, plans to combine batteries with cars to spearhead a green revolution in electric vehicles, with the help of Chinese government subsidies.

Feeling Safer Every Day

Breaking News From Your Department of Homeland Security:

For Immediate Release

Office of the Press SecretaryContact: 202-282-8010

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano and more than 25 senior DHS officials today received training in medical emergency preparedness and response by instructors from the American Red Cross.

“Emergency preparedness requires both large-scale planning and personal readiness,” said Secretary Napolitano. “Learning these critical skills is fundamental to our preparedness efforts and the safety and security of all Americans when disasters strike.”

Secretary Napolitano was joined by newly-confirmed DHS Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer Dr. Alexander Garza, who assisted in leading the session and emphasized personal responsibility for all emergencies in advance of National Preparedness Month in September.

The training covered basic skills essential to helping in an emergency until professional responders arrive. During the two-hour session, Secretary Napolitano and her staff received hands-on training from Red Cross instructors in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), basic first aid and use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs)—recommended for use in all federal buildings.

This marks the first year the Red Cross has provided this type of training to federal officials in Washington, D.C. Last week, Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute and approximately 20 additional DHS senior staff members received the same training.

Here's a suggestion: train Ms. Napolitano and her staff on the use of night vision goggles, desert terrain navigation, field maintenance and assembly of the H&K P2000 and M4, and horseback riding, and then send them to the U.S. southwest border.

Today's Probing Question

Dad, when you were little and you got new shoes, did you wear them out of the store?

But, but . . . his heart was in the right place . . .

From Sweetness and Light, we are reminded how some men of power and high regard are so blinded by their passions and self-righteousness that they will commit treason.

The Crusader – Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, Paul Krengor

Appendix

TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY
_________________________________________
Special Importance Committee on State Security of the USSR 14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV Moscow
Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been trengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the "success of Reaganomics."

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit. Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information. If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee

V. Chebrikov

About That Kennedy, II

The News Hour with Jim Lehrer provides today's ration of nauseating Kennedy hagiography. Let's inspect the closing sentiments from the Deans of Washington Conventional Wisdom, Mark Shields and David Brooks.

Lehrer: [paraphrasing] final words on Kennedy?

Shields: Kennedy leaves a legacy of bipartisanship in the Senate, which is factious (sic) and fractured, and an unpleasant place. [He represented] an ability to stand firmly for what you believe and, at the same time, to see in those with whom you disagree a humanity and a capacity for compromise and consensus.

Brooks: He could exercise great anger, when he disapproved, but it was not resentment, and so it never got quite as personal, so for conservatives in the wilderness that is a model for them, to find the best in your tradition and to follow it the way he followed liberalism when it was in the wilderness during Reaganism.

Really?

An ability to stand firmly for what you believe and at the same time to see in those with whom you disagree a humanity and a capacity for compromise and consensus?

Really?

Not resentful and never personal?

Really?

1987 – Floor of the United States Senate:

Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, and I urge the Senate to reject it.

In the Watergate scandal of 1973, two distinguished Republicans — Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus — put integrity and the Constitution ahead of loyalty to a corrupt President. They refused to do Richard Nixon's dirty work, and they refused to obey his order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. The deed devolved on Solicitor General Robert Bork, who executed the unconscionable assignment that has become one of the darkest chapters for the rule of law in American history.

That act — later ruled illegal by a Federal court — is sufficient, by itself, to disqualify Mr. Bork from this new position to which he has been nominated. The man who fired Archibald Cox does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. Bork should also be rejected by the Senate because he stands for an extremist view of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court that would have placed him outside the mainstream of American constitutional jurisprudence in the 1960s, let alone the 1980s. He opposed the Public Accommodations Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed the one-man one-vote decision of the Supreme Court the same year. He has said that the First Amendment applies only to political speech, not literature or works of art or scientific expression.

Under the twin pressures of academic rejection and the prospect of Senate rejection, Mr. Bork subsequently retracted the most Neanderthal of these views on civil rights and the first amendment. But his mind-set is no less ominous today.

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be.

The damage that President Reagan will do through this nomination, if it is not rejected by the Senate, could live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Reagan is still our President. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate, and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and on the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

And did I mention that the nominee is a pedophile, eats puppies, sleeps with farm animals, worships Satan on the corpses of nuns and priests, and is incontinent? And he does not wash his hands after using the toilet.

This speech is credited with changing the tone of Washington and introducing the politics of personal destruction. Perhaps. Sydney Brillo Duodenum is highly dubious that Sen. Kennedy’s speech represented anything new in Washington polemics. That’s to argue that Joe Kennedy, Sr. was a saint and his son was the bad seed that changed the world. Perhaps what was new was the brio and lust with which the media, then fully aghast at the presumption of the Reagan Presidency, took the Kennedy harangue and used it to further indict Reagan and conservatives. Chickens and eggs.

In any event, the speech is a slice of the Edward Kennedy style. Yes, yes, he was a man of passion and belief in his causes, and you can’t fault him for consistently staying on message, but so often his advocacy was advanced by impugning the morality and intentions of his policy adversaries. A disagreement about the precise amount to increase the minimum wage is actually a discussion of undeserved gross corporate profit for heartless elitists versus a husbandless mother of three trying to make enough money to earn bus fare to take her to the ritzy part of town so she can search through the garbage bins of fancy restaurants.

In private, in the company of sycophants and fawners and Camelotians, he let bare the prime Kennedy signature. Some years ago, your host penetrated the Lion’s sanctum sanctorum, the Senator’s Embassy Row mansion, to attend a “Literary Night” PTA fundraiser for SBD’s child’s school (the literary draw being the Senator himself on the occasion of the publishing of one of his books on the policy route out of the supposed conservative hell that had been imposed on Washington).

The common image of Senator Kennedy is of a bloated, red-faced, tottering boulder in tweed and tiny loafers, screaming spittle into the well of the Senate chamber. But at that point in his purgatorio, Senator Kennedy had actually slimmed down, his face had lost its bulberous aspects and gin rumminess, his hair was not yellow, his eyes almost white and bagless, and he appeared to be holding steady with a simple Chardonnay. He looked somewhat svelte, healthy and chipper. But when he tacked into the welcoming hot gusts of wide eyed admiration billowing off the faces of Washington’s most elite and insufferable, in the living room of the Kennedy mansion, next to a piano on which sat a silver framed black and white portrait of the Kennedy clan playing football on the lawn in Hyannis, it took only minutes for him to transform into the red-faced, screaming spittle lion of the Senate, impugning his adversaries and practically questioning whether they deserved to live to see the next day. He denounced Bush. No surprise, really. But he accused him of literally destroying the country and ruining public education in the United States with No Child Left Behind, because it still wasn’t enough money and was framed by the canard of holding schools accountable. Kennedy accused Bush of doing so out of spite and absolute indifference to the future of children. Kennedy promised the assembled that he would not stop until education received the funding necessary to make this country great again. And he tied it to the minimum wage and abortion choice and civil rights and the entire Liberal Litany. This received many righteous head nods among the 20-something teachers in attendance as well as the parents. Strange, heaving stuff, particularly considering that Kennedy had worked so closely with Bush on crafting NCLB and appeared a the bill signing and glad handed all around. At one point, Kennedy simply appeared as a giant red balloon looming over the gathering, with all awaiting its explosion.

Brooks is absolutely wrong. It was personal and there was a great deal of resentment. Shields is absolutely wrong. Kennedy ascribed no humanity to conservatives. Whatever it was they had agreed to, though, it was apparently not enough; it was not fair. The impression was that compromise was and always would be unacceptable to this man, and any agreement or bipartisanship was something akin to a hudna, a tactical moment of peacemaking, during which you work to defeat your foe during the disadvantage occasioned by the weakness he showed in agreeing to a compromise.

In any event, it should come as no surprise that "Washington" would eulogize with more lies and misrepresentations of Kennedy. It's how they conducted themselves when he was alive.

Behold: The KFC Double Down Chicken Sandwich

Available only to lucky bastards in Rhode Island and Nebraska.

About That Kennedy

Sydney Brillo Duodenum's Catholic stringer Saul Menowitz weighs in on the passing of the Irish Chieftain .

Sorry, but I just can't get all weepy about his passing. My only real concern is that BHO not be able to use this "tragedy" to push death care through.

How should I feel about this? Ted is responsible for the death of a young girl, which, so far, has not been mentioned by the MSM, to my knowledge. It should be the lead in his obit.

He is a traitor to his faith, having caused great scandal in the Church, as the term scandal is used in the Church - causing confusion and leading people away from the Truth. He was a fanatic pro-abort pol.

His vision of America is contrary to mine in almost every way. He was a tax cheat, or at best used whatever legal means he could to avoid taxes, while advocating raising taxes on peeps like me.

He never ran a business, but traded on his family's name. He was a hypocrite - using his wealth and power to prevent a wind farm off of his Hyannis Port home, while promoting environmentalism regardless of the cost to the average, hardworking American.

That being said, he suffered greatly - having to witness the assassinations of his two brothers and identifying the remains of his nephew, who was supposed to bear the torch for Camelot. But then again, he probably got to hear firsthand accounts of what Marilyn Monroe looked like naked from his brothers. But I digress.

About the only thing I liked about him is that he was a drunk and Irish. But I can't say I'm sorry he's dead.

I'll pray for him. I'll pray that God's mercy overwhelms His justice, because I think Ted deserves to rot in Hell for his crimes. I'm not sorry he's dead, and I hope his version of America dies with him.

Clown Show

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Reserve Board has chosen Denis Hughes, president of the AFL-CIO in New York, to become chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to serve through the end of 2009. Hughes has been serving as acting Chairman since May.

The New York Fed chairmanship typically has gone to prominent Wall Street executives or academics. The ascension of a labor leader is a new twist for the New York Fed and a sign of the public pressure the Fed has been under to loosen its close ties to Wall Street.

The current brilliant financial tactician and Treasury Secretary Timmy Geithner honed his multiplication skills there.

Hughes is plainly and simply a hack. He is there to protect organized labor and shake down business. He has no history of acting outside of type. His appointment can do nothing but solidify the dysfunction and cynicism that has captured New York finance. He is the typical Obama appointee - a radical whose radicalism is somehow not indicative or emblematic of Obama's radicalism, who for some bizarre reason is still viewed as a go-go moderate. Oh, well Hughes represents organized labor, so he is not outside the mainstream. When organized labor represents but 11 percent of American workers, he most definitely is outside the American mainstream. He has no financial expertise to speak of. He's a shill and a jack boot.

Investor's Business Daily sums up the problems with this appointment:

Denis Hughes, president of the AFL-CIO in New York, has served as interim head of the New York Fed board since May. His ascent to one of the world's most important financial posts is another troubling sign of this administration's too-tight embrace of organized labor.

Understand, this is a time of great financial peril. That's the main reason why Bernanke was renominated. The idea of changing Fed leaders in the middle of a financial crisis was too much.

Bernanke has printed close to $2 trillion in new money to help refloat the economy. President Obama is no doubt happy — if for no other reason than it will let the White House claim its $787 billion "stimulus" is the real reason the economy's starting to grow again.

But the naming of Hughes as the top banker at the New York Fed is the real news. And it's quite astounding.

He has no significant finance experience. Nor does his educational background — "Brother Hughes," as the AFL-CIO's Web site calls him, has a B.S. degree from the Harry Van Arsdale School of Labor Studies at Empire State College — reassure us.

Of greater concern is his career as a bought-and-paid-for union official and political operative. The New York Fed chairmanship is hardly a place for a person whose entire career has been spent fighting and strong-arming the very people he'll now be regulating.

As American Thinker editor Ed Lasky put it, Hughes is someone "who may be more schooled in extracting concessions from corporate America than the intricacies of high finance."

Exactly. More to the point, can those on Wall Street who come before him in routine regulatory matters expect fair treatment? Will union issues become part of the New York Fed's agenda? Will banks find requests to expand or merge stymied because unions fear a loss of jobs somewhere?

These are more than just academic questions. The New York Fed is the primus inter pares, the first among equals, of all the Fed banks. It is the bank that executes the Fed board's will in the marketplace. It is the on-site regulator of Wall Street, playing, as its Web site says, "a leadership role in monetary policy, financial supervision and the payments system." Now it's headed by a union shill.

Putting this key Fed bank in the hands of a person whose experience suggests a bred-in-the-bone hostility to capitalism strikes us as bizarre at best and dangerous at worst. And it bears the unmistakable imprint of the White House. Just last week we wrote about plans to elevate former United Steelworkers adviser Ron Bloom from head of the auto task force to "industrial policy czar."

Putting so many union people in powerful positions of economic policymaking is a recipe for disaster. Since 1955, the share of the workers belonging to unions has plunged from 33% to about 11%. Still, though increasingly unpopular, unions have helped wreck two major industries: autos and steel. Not much of a track record.

But now, through politics, unions are getting rewarded with control of the economy — a very bad omen for American capitalism.

Perhaps there is hope in the limited nature of the appointment, as the Fed will choose 2010's replacement sometime in November or December. At the top of the list is the Fed's newly named Vice Chairman, Lee Bollinger. Bollinger is another leading financial expert and wunderkind, as evidenced by training as a lawyer, his tenure as Columbia University's 19th president, his abuse of affirmative action at University of Wisconsin, and his noted free speech advocacy, including ensuring that Iranian terrorist leader Mahmoud I'mmadinthehead was given a podium at Columbia University.

Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who keeps tearing around
And one who can't move
But where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns

Last Day Dawning

Sent from my iPhone

Posted via email from Sydney's posterous

Dinner: the Dogfish Head Raison D'Etre

Sent from my iPhone

Posted via email from Sydney's posterous

Dinner

Sent from my iPhone

Posted via email from Sydney's posterous

Your Host Dresses Up After A Day On the Sand

Sent from my iPhone

Posted via email from Sydney's posterous

Vacation Jail

Sent from my iPhone

Posted via email from Sydney's posterous

Untitled

Sent from my iPhone

Posted via email from Sydney's posterous

Chart O' the Day

Says Chart of the Day:

One positive outcome of the financial crisis was that gasoline prices did plunge from their record highs – down 60% peak to trough. Beginning at the end of 2008, however, gasoline prices have surged and are currently 61% above their December 2008 lows. Today’s chart provides some perspective on the recent spike with a long-term view of the average US price for a gallon of unleaded gasoline. It is interesting to note that most gasoline price spikes were a result of Middle East crises and often preceded or coincided with a US recession. So while gasoline prices are currently well below the record high levels of 2007, this recent rally has brought prices to a level well above what was witnessed from 1984-2004 – a two decade span of relative energy price stability.

What's In A Name

So far this week, Sydney Brillo Duodenum has been called a Klansman, an astroturfer, a racist, a Nazi, a mobster, a pistol packing assassin, a nut, a minority, a militiaman, a southerner, un-American, an evil monger, fishy, un-democratic but well-dressed, an extremist, partisan, in the way, a bus passenger, an intimidator, a silencer of regular people, a high-level Republican political operative, a demagogue, a shouter, disrespectful, and a heckler.

The worst of it though was when Sydney Brillo Duodenum Junior called SBD "the meanest dad in the world."

Kids say the darnedest things.

First Taste - Dogfish Head Theobroma

Dogfish Head Theobroma

Brewer: Dogfish Head Craft Brewery, Inc., Milton, DE

Location: Top of a Mayan pyramid in Bethesda, MD

Marketing BS: "Theobroma, or 'Food of the Gods,' is a re-creation of the premier chocolate beverage of the Americas, intended only for the gods, kings, and the elite. This liquid time capsule is based on the earliest chemical and archeological evidence of cacao in the New World, dating to before 1100 B.C., and enhanced by natural additivies of the later Mayan and Aztec drinks."

Other side of label: "Off-Centered Ales for Off-Centered People. As per the amazing molecular evidence, this ancient ale is brewed with honey, ancho chilies, ground annatto, Soconusco cocoa nibs and cocoa powder from our good friends at ASKINOSIE chocolate."

Marketing Translation: While on vacation at Copan during spring break, one of our summer brewing interns smuggled out some pottery shards, on which we found dried scum. We paid an intern in a molecular scientist's lab a lifetime supply of our winter seasonal brew to analyze the scum and make up a list of ingredients that, according to a Hollywood script, could constitute an ancient beer recipe brewed by chest slashing drunk ass Aztec priests.

Bottle/Label: This sucker's a pint of coiled danger. Makes your wife think you're drinking an entire bottle of wine. The label features a picture of a proto-Dora the Explorer popping out of a Mayan manhole cover.

Alcohol: 9%. Well, that certainly explains the non-stop bloody sacrifices, now doesn't it?

Method of Imbibation: A Guinness pint glass. Worked, as it held the head nicely and offered forth a full quafe of liquid complicity in pre-Columbian genocidal crimes against humanity.

The Pull: As silent as an obsidian blade making the final slash across the circumflex branch of some prole's left coronary artery.

First Swig: Completely surprising in its banality, but then mass murder at the hands of a cult to honor bloodlusting deities is pretty banal. What is so surprising is how modern this craft brew is. Nowhere to be found is chocolate or cocoa or cacao or ancho chilies or chocolate cocao or ancho chocolate cacao chilies or cocoa chilies or annatto chilie cocoa cacao or Countchocula. There aren't even any Soconusco cocoa nibs to tickle with one's tongue. There is, however, enough honey to cover the daily factory run of the HoneyCombs cereal plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas. It's reminiscent of Dogfish's Aprihop but without the apricots and full bore hoppiness. Nevertheless, while presiding over one's den on a Thursday evening, fresh from a full day of humiliations at the hands of eager Obamanauts, this beer will salve your tender soul and convince you that you too are an elitist, who, given enough time, will be pitching the heartless torsos of expendable seniors down a flight of stone steps, all in homage to a delusion of grandeur and progress and hope.

Competition: Dogfish Head Midas Touch Golden Elixir; Kirin Brewery Old Kingdom Beer

Recommendation: Drink it because you'll get a sweet buzz, which will make it easier to watch the first game of the Washington Redskins preseason as they fall miserably to the Baltimore Ravens. There ain't no sacrifice big enough to save this team.

Sitting Quietly in Their Homes, Listening to Him

Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal:

The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds—he is at home with those. He is a stranger to the country’s heart and character.

He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don’t take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don’t know they want to go and being told it’s good for them.

Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer—the same who listened to those speeches of his during the campaign, searching for their meaning.

It took this battle over health care to reveal the bloom coming off this rose, but that was coming. It began with the spectacle of the president, impelled to go abroad to apologize for his nation—repeatedly. It is not, in the end, the demonstrators in those town-hall meetings or the agitations of his political enemies that Mr. Obama should fear. It is the judgment of those Americans who have been sitting quietly in their homes, listening to him.

A Fishy Letter

Sydney Brillo Duodenum's Denver connection has forwarded to him an open letter from a private citizen - a Mr. J.T. Townsend - that was addressed to the Fishmonger-in-Chief. The letter concerns the Fishmonger-in-Chief's effort to sell his plan to socialize America's health care system, including requesting that the Fishmonger-in-Chief's supporters provide directly to the White House the names of Americans whom they believe are misrepresenting the President's plan to socialize America's health care system. This letter is very fishy. It smells like a freshly caught Red Snapper, filleted on deck, and dashed with lime and lemon juice, sea salt, cilantro, and minced garlic, onion and tomato. Delicious.

August 5, 2009, approximately 6 hours after learning of the existence of this link on the White House home page:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/


Dear Mr. President;

This morning, I learned of the existence of this link on the White House homepage: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

I was surprised, that in support of legislation that addresses what you consider one of the most important crises facing our nation – the current state of our healthcare industry - that instead of encouraging debate over solutions, you would allow your staff to create a website encouraging Americans to report to your White House “fishy” e-mails from their fellow citizens. To me, the existence of this site, and your encouraging of Americans to “get in the face” of those who disagree with your current view and proposed solution confirms that rather than engage in an active, intellectual debate regarding healthcare reform legislation, you’ve chosen to suppress and vilify the opposition. This is in direct contrast to your campaign rhetoric regarding cooperation and tolerance, and beneath the behavior of any principled leader.

During your campaign, you took on the mantle of high-minded principle, espousing your belief that a good leader needs to include everyone at the table, to tolerate ideas contrary to his own, and drive opposing sides to a workable compromise. Broadly, I agree with these premises. In execution, though, this website and your “in their face” comment abide by none of these principles. There are valid concerns regarding the healthcare reform legislation currently before our Congress. How does asking Americans to report their fellow citizens’ comments in opposition of this legislation to their White House, or telling them to get “in the face” of those who disagree, coincide with “tolerance”? Your actions demonstrate you do not value others’ opinions or debate.

American citizens have valid concerns about the legislation currently before Congress that coincides with your proposed solution for healthcare in the United States. The “Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things” website lists and dismisses three such concerns 1) the elimination of private coverage 2) control of personal finances 3) end of life care. The site coolly, but incorrectly, states that you have addressed all of these concerns. Indeed, the letter of the legislation does not eliminate a citizens’ current coverage, but it does affect their possibility of future coverage by a private insurer if they change employers or if they are an employer not currently providing health insurance. The ramifications of these measures on employment and wages have not been publicly articulated by you, and are the true heart of the concerns expressed in e-mails and editorials circulating the country.

As far as the control of personal finances, the taxes necessary to fund this program and its effects on the budget deficit have not been articulated by you to the satisfaction of this nation’s citizens. Numerous economic studies have been published in contradiction to the economic value you suppose will be created by a more efficient system, and you have yet to provide an accurate (GAO approved and independent private accounting firm) financial accounting of how much the program will cost and where the money will come from. This is a control of personal finance issue for every American citizen, as funds for government programs do not come from accounts generated by government revenues, but from the pockets of hard-working Americans.

Finally, I do not believe that you have addressed the end of life care issue, which is outlined in the legislation, and which you – in a nationally televised interview - dismissively said was not something you were aware of. It is not surprising you do not know that this provision is a part of the legislation. In fact, this and many other facts would be apparent to Americans if not for the existence of what is the most offensive part of the legislation that the website does not address – the current legislation before congress regarding healthcare reform is 1,100 pages long, and inclusive of hundreds of provisions and articles that you have never addressed publicly. Would you hold any other professional to such a low standard? You have not read the legislation in such a manner that makes you familiar with a provision that directly affects the pursuit of happiness of the citizens whose rights you are charged with protecting? Do you expect your military commanders to know the content of their written orders to subordinates? Do you expect the Federal Reserve to understand the contents of its written financial and economic reports? Do you expect businessmen to know the contents of the contracts they are signing? Do you expect doctors to know the contents of their patients’ files? And yet you present (as an adequate answer around legislation you say to be so important) that you’re not familiar with every bit of this legislation’s content? It is inexcusable that a President or any other government official would vote for or sign legislation without reading and understanding it in its entirety. If a law is so insignificant that it doesn’t need read to be passed, then it ought not to be passed at all.

I am ashamed that my nation’s highest-ranking, elected official discourages debate and has not articulated the ENTIRE content of legislation that will have such an intimate effect on my family and the families of my fellow citizens. The mantle of leadership in a true Republic is not demonstrated when the position is the vehicle by which you or any other leader promote your idea rough-shod over differing opinions. Instead, like any leader (and more so given the sanctity of your position), your responsibility is to convince by the eloquent presentation of facts.

I believe strongly one ought not to criticize without being prescriptive, so this is what I suggest you do to remedy the errors highlighted by the existence of this website.

Prescription for you, the President

• Act as a true leader – not a politician – and encourage active debate and deliberate consideration of the resulting legislation before it becomes law. The current “my solution is the only one” and rushing of congress to pass it as law is beneath any principled leader.

• Remove the facts are stubborn things website and quit actively encouraging Americans to “get in each other’s faces,” both of which are in direct contradiction to your campaign promises and rhetoric.

• Explain how this program will be funded – not with economically realized “value” – but accounting figures integrated into the current national budget.

and

• Do what the President ought to expect from every professional – fulfill your job responsibilities by knowing every fact of the documents (legislation) of your profession.

• Replace the “Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things” website with a site containing the proposed legislation and a personal note on every aspect of the bill and why you support it.

or

• Simplify the legislation to a digestible document that every citizen should read and consider.

• Present to the American people (article by article) the healthcare reform legislation in its entirety, and promise publicly that the plan includes nothing more and nothing less than what you have articulated.

Indeed, Mr. President, facts are stubborn things. Thus far, the facts are that you have acted contrary to your campaign promises and dismissively admitted you do not know the facts around what you’ve said is one of the most important pieces of legislation of our time.

I invite you to surprise me, because given your recent actions, I expect none of this to be done. Your website and “in your face comment,” are not indicative of a leader who would take these bold and difficult steps to gain support for your position.

Please, Mr. President, make me look the fool and live by your word.

Sincerely;


JT Townsend

Citizen