SelwynDuke.com

In Praise of a Do-nothing Congress

2012-01-25T11:01:58-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

Here's a question: how can we expect to have small government if we condemn Congress for not growing it?

It's always a disturbing experience when you're accosted with a picture of Harry Reid, as I was upon logging on to Drudge last Monday afternoon. But at least his image bore a fitting caption: "MOST FUTILE EVER." I then clicked the link and found myself at The Washington Times – normally a quite sane organ of the media – and learned the meaning of the caption: the Times was lamenting a do-nothing Congress and presented Reid as its poster boy. Writes the paper, "It's official: Congress ended its least-productive year in modern history after passing 80 bills – fewer than during any other session since year-end records began being kept in 1947."

Writes Duke, "It's official: conservatives are completely confused about what begets big government."

The paper then expanded on its theme, pointing out that Congress set a record for "legislative futility" according to something called the "futility index."

I'll tell you what's futile: complaining about a loss of freedom while chastising legislators for not spawning enough bills.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but my understanding is that a "bill" that's signed by the president becomes a law. I also have this goofy notion that, except for certain housekeeping measures and repeals of old legislation, a law is by definition a removal of a freedom, as it states that there's something you must or must not do. Ergo, enslaved as I am by the old math, my figuring informs that the more laws we have, the less free we are. It then seems to follow – at least using my white male linear logic – that since we continually enact more laws but hardly ever rescind any, every year the progressives make us progressively less free.

Thus, when I see "do-nothing" and "Congress" in close proximity, it occurs to me that "do" has many definitions. And when government doeth, I think of the definition in the following Lord of the Flies dialogue: "The Chief and Roger.... They hate you, Ralph. They're going to do you."

So if you complain about a do-nothing Congress, I ask, what is it exactly that you want them to "do," whom do you think they'll "do" it to, and what do you think will be done to you? Our current Congress passed 80 bills. How many more do you want and how many more until we're done for?

The good news is that many of 2011's bills were simply housekeeping measures – such as spending reauthorization acts or extensions of already existing laws – so we probably didn't lose as many freedoms this time around as the bod...er...bill count would indicate. Really, though, what does it say about third-millennium America when Uncle Sam disgorges 80 pieces of legislation and we, like good little masochists, bend over and say, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"?

The reality is that we should want a do-nothing Congress. In fact, we should want a do-nothing president, do-nothing bureaucrats and hope that our military, police, firefighters and judges have to do little. And let's just think about where we'd be today if we actually had a do-nothing government for the last many years.

First and foremost, we wouldn't have ObamaCare. We wouldn't have had the bailouts that transferred trillions of dollars from the middle class to rich fat cats and Barack Obama cronies. Billions wouldn't have been wasted on Solyndra and numerous other green-energy scam companies. We wouldn't have McCain-Feingold, Dodd-Frank or the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We wouldn't have the October 2009 federal hate-crimes bill, which, like all such legislation, is an effort at thought control. We wouldn't have No Child Left Behind. We'd be free of the new taxes and plethora of regulations that Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus said would make it impossible for him to start his company today. There wouldn't be the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which gives unelected bureaucrats at the FDA the power to regulate the tobacco industry. There wouldn't be the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, which gives Big Brother unprecedented control over the people's ability to grow food. And we wouldn't have the National Defense Authorization Act, which empowers the government to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial. Are we "done" yet?

Note that the above examples are just a (very) short list, are virtually all unconstitutional, and all cost us dearly in terms of money, rights or both. And how many freedoms did we lose, from No Child Left Behind to Obama's kicking of the Constitution's behind? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it'd probably take Deep Blue or Rain Man to crunch those numbers.

So should we really be lamenting a government that isn't "productive" when the word doesn't quite mean in government what it does elsewhere? When an auto company is more productive, you get more cars. When a footwear maker is more productive, you get more shoes. When yours truly is more productive, you get more sage and scintillating prose. And when the state is more productive?

You get fewer freedoms.

This is why congress' legislation count is just like a golf score: the lower, the better

But if the Times really thinks it's like a bowling score, don't blame Dirty Harry Reid for 2011's lack of liberty strikes. After all, I can assure you that he aspires to be a very "productive" man. And if he and his gang retain the Senate and presidency and regain control of the House, they'll "do" a lot. In fact, they may do ya' permanent.

Place the blame for the 112^th Congress' relatively law-less state where it belongs: on the Tea Party types in power. They just don't do.

How You Can Tell if a Candidate Is Serious About Ending Illegal Migration

2012-01-22T10:24:05-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

Imagine that your son has a habit of sprinkling copious amounts of bird seed and setting up impromptu birdbaths in your yard. You then notice that your property is starting to seem like an aviary, and, as beautiful as the birds are, they’re becoming bothersome. So you approach your husband and ask him to remedy the problem. He then promises to build a scarecrow, but doesn’t complete the job.

And, when the situation persists and you again ask him to help, he simply scratches his head and replies, “You know, it’s just not realistic to remove all these birds from our property; it’s time-consuming, expensive, and uncompassionate to boot. Besides, every time I chase a few away, more come a little while later.” Now, given that he’s not even hinting at the obvious solution, let alone addressing it, would you think he was very serious about remedying the problem?

On illegal migration, our politicians are for the birds. When pressed on it, the best of them will talk about building fences, beefing up the border patrol, and, sometimes even, militarizing our southern border. And these measures are all well and good. But when asked what we should do about the 12 to 25 million illegals already on our shores, the issue suddenly becomes more complex than high-temperature superconductivity. The politicians will scratch their heads and then utter something to the effect of, “Well, we can’t deport 12 million people.” It’s a response that some say is a reason and others call an excuse. But I say that, in certain cases at least, it’s something else: a dodge. How do I know? Because obvious solutions can’t elude everyone.

Read the rest here.

Romney’s Whiteness and the Times’ Lightness: Both a Liability

2012-01-22T10:14:12-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

It’s interesting that liberals accuse traditionalists of wanting to turn back the clock. For they themselves live in 1952. To be precise, where those on the right want to resurrect the virtues of ages past, leftists think that vices long buried never died. It’s enough to make me want to bang my head against a wall; only, neurological damage has bad effects like uncontrollable drooling and a desire to read The New York Times.

Speaking of which, the Old Gay Lady recently published an opinion piece by one Lee Siegel titled "What's Race Got to Do With It?” Discussing the presidential campaign, Mr. Siegel advances the thesis that far from Mitt Romney being at a disadvantage because of what he is (a Mormon), he has an advantage because of what he is: “the whitest white man” running for the presidency. Writes Siegel:

[T]here has yet to be any discussion over the one quality that has subtly fueled his [Romney’s] candidacy thus far and could well put him over the top in the fall: his race. The simple, impolitely stated fact is that Mitt Romney is the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory.

Of course, I’m not talking about a strict count of melanin density. I’m referring to the countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways he telegraphs to a certain type of voter that he is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president. It is a whiteness grounded in a retro vision of the country, one of white picket fences and stay-at-home moms and fathers unashamed of working hard for corporate America.

Read the rest here.

If Republicans Want to Win, They Must Shed the Communist-inspired Word “Capitalism”

2012-01-20T02:14:22-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

One of the simplest rhetorical truths is that the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate. Yet, amazingly, we still see experienced conservative politicians with access to advanced polling operations and an array of advisors use the Lexicon of the Left. And this election cycle is no exception.

I could almost cringe when I hear – as I did repeatedly during Monday’s South Carolina GOP debate – Republicans talk about “capitalism.” “I believe in capitalism….” “Barack Obama doesn’t believe in capitalism…..” Capitalism this and capitalism that – look at me with my plump wallet, walking stick and tony top hat. Oh, it’s not that I don’t believe in free enterprise; it’s that we shouldn’t use words that conjure up sentiments akin to the preceding rhyme.

And polls inform that this is precisely what “capitalism” does. For example, Pew Research Center reports, “Slightly more than half (52%) react positively to the word ‘capitalism,’ compared with 37% who say they have a negative reaction.” According with this is a 2009 Rasmussen poll showing that, shockingly, “only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.” And the picture looks even worse with certain demographic groups. Writes Pew, “Fewer than half of young people, women, people with lower incomes and those with less education react positively to ‘capitalism.’”

The shame of this is not just that 37 percent is a large minority to alienate every time you talk economic sense; it’s that it’s not necessary to alienate them at all. And the reason why is hinted at by another 2009 Rasmussen poll, one finding that “just 35% of American voters believe that a free market economy is the same as a capitalist economy.” What does this tell us? It tells us that you could ask if a “free market” were better than socialism and more than 53 percent of Americans would say yes. It tells us that “capitalism” needs a rebranding. And the term all of us – especially the candidates – should be using is “economic freedom.”

This is such a no-brainer that it’s shocking how it still eludes presidential hopefuls. It’s especially so when you consider that Frank Luntz, famed pollster and author of the book Words That Work, has recently been echoing the lexical anti-capitalist message. Capitalism may put people to work, but the word doesn’t work with the people.

Some may now lament how we have allowed the left to demonize our terminology. But “capitalism” in the modern sense was never ours – and the left didn’t demonize it.

They spawned it.

In point of fact, it was originated by communism’s founding fathers.

The two culprits were French socialists Louis Blanc and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. True believers both, Blanc claimed that man’s evils were the result of pressures born of competition and gave us the principle “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” (Karl Marx stole it from Blanc), while the equally radical Proudhon believed that “property is theft.” Of course, Marx the great imitator then popularized “capitalism.”

And, sadly, conservatives now pick up that red ball and run with it (sometimes for president). The man on the street popularizes “capitalism” every time he utters the word. Writers popularize it with their pens. Talk-show hosts with their mouths. Presidential candidates do so in their debates. And every time we popularize the word, we depopularize what it represents.

Understand here the communists’ marketing technique. Since they wanted to replace economic freedom with their ism (ism denotes “system”), they had to cast the former as just another ism itself, as this makes them seem more interchangeable. But free enterprise isn’t a system in the sense that communism is because it’s what naturally results when people are afforded freedom: they will produce, sell, buy and consume. Hence what I have dubbed it: the Natural Economy. In contrast, what people typically view as a communist government requires a top-down, command-control, million-tentacled state to micromanage people’s lives. It is what you could call Unintelligent Design.

Yet as far as propaganda triumphs go, the design of the term “capitalism” is anything but. Since the best known synonym of “capital” is “money,” when you add the ism, it can easily be interpreted as “moneyism.” Now, do we really want to be stuck defending moneyism? And why should we accept such a one-dimensional term, anyway? I mean, sure, the Natural Economy has a monetary system, but it also involves production and consumption. Yet would we characterize it oh-so narrowly as “productionism” or “consumerism”? Let’s not be guilty of suckerism.

For too long the side that has defined the vocabulary of our debates has been the left. Social engineers in academia mint new terms (e.g., African-American) and co-opt old ones (e.g., gender), which are then transmitted to the populace and infused into common usage by the media and entertainment arenas. And what is the effect? Well, imagine that a French culture and a German one both vied for primacy within the same borders. If the Germans could convince the French to adopt their tongue, wouldn’t they already have won half the battle? Likewise, through the manipulation of language the left greases the skids for culture-war victory – and conservatives reflexively parrot their Libspeak.

Of course, the solution is simple, and we all have a part to play. The left has sought to turn economic freedom into a dirty concept; we must turn “capitalism” into a dirty word.

Don’t say it.

Don’t write it.

Don’t use it – except to damn it.

If we want economic freedom to live, “capitalism” must die.

The Hypocrisy and Foolishness of Warren Buffett

2012-01-18T23:42:19-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

Despite his advanced age, it appears Warren Buffett has never heard the admonition, “Practice what you preach.” And it seems that some of his apologists haven’t, either.

As you may know, Buffett has long been urging the government to seize more money from the rich, with the rationale that they have an obligation to pay more. In response, many traditionalists have told him to put up or shut up: If he truly believes in what he says, there’s nothing stopping him from writing a check to Big Brother as large as his socialism-espousing mouth. And now Buffett has a response:

He will if his critics will.

Read the rest here.

The Myth of Bad Republican Candidates

2012-01-17T04:14:18-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

Repeat a big Democrat talking point often enough, and it becomes the truth. There is a certain liberal narrative that has recently filtered down to many independents and even some conservatives: the idea that the current crop of Republican candidates is weak, wanting and worrisome. The lament is, “Hell’s bells, the guy in the White House is out of his depth, but what alternatives does the GOP offer?” The idea, I suppose, is that we might as well just re-elect Barack Obama. At least he has four years of golfing, government-growing and greenback-gobbling experience.

This characterization of the Republican field much reminds me of the gratuitous criticism of the U.S. by the hate-America-first crowd. Okay, you say America is a bad country. Compared to what? Some imaginary Utopia that will never exist? Because in the real world, the U.S. has been besting her competition for a long time.

Many repeat the statist talking point about the GOP contenders’ alleged ineptitude simply because of media spin and the branding iron of repetition. Yet others do, in fact, have unrealistic expectations. They have in mind an ideal, a utopia of a politician; a person who agrees with them on every major issue, possesses eloquence and decent looks, and has never strayed from ideological purity. And when this imaginary figure doesn’t appear, they ask, “Is this the best our political class has to offer?!”

Yet to what are we comparing these candidates? And are we being mindful of Bismarck’s sage observation that “[p]olitics is the art of the possible”? For even insofar as a true traditionalist’s ideal candidate does exist – and this is important to understand – he could not win election given the current state of our culture.

So there is something I’ll now say. And I must preface this by stating that, although no conventional label adequately describes my ideology, I have what many would call unassailable paleo-con credentials. My ideal presidential candidate is Selwyn Duke (I agree with myself almost 100 percent of the time); my second choice would be someone such as Alan Keyes. My vision for civilization is something akin to the Middle Ages meet Mayberry, with modern technology, the best virtues from every age and medieval piety. And when I apply my merciless standard, all our politicians look like Lilliputians. But I also live in the real world, and when I judge them under its light, something seems plain.

The current GOP hopefuls are the best group of presidential contenders we’ve had in a very long time.

Yes, you read that right.

Do you doubt this? If so, let’s look at what the real world has given us, taking both major parties into consideration.

I’ll start in 1972. That year the Democratic nominee was George McGovern, the ultra-lethargic ultra-liberal. He was trounced in the general by sitting President Richard Nixon, who was no great shakes himself. With policy as wanting as his persona, he gave us wage-and-price controls, the EPA and Title IX, among his statist triumphs. With Nixon’s resignation, the GOP would be represented four years later by Gerald Ford, who, being bald in a television age, wouldn’t have had the looks to win even if he hadn’t been a button-down-shirt, country-club Republican who pardoned his old boss. He was vanquished by peanut farmer Jimmy Carter – ‘nough said. Nineteen-eighty gave us Reagan, a once-in-a-lifetime figure who has become the almost mythological gold standard by which contemporary Republicans have the misfortune of being measured. In 1984 his opponent would be banal Minnesotan Walter Mondale, a fitting sacrificial lamb whose promise to raise taxes helped lower his vote count and author the worst Democratic electoral defeat in history. It would have been a neat trick finding someone who made Mondale look charismatic, but that’s exactly what the Democrats did with Ma. governor Michael Dukakis in ‘88. He lost George H.W. Bush, a Ford-like politician whose major selling point was status as Reagan’s vice-president. This wasn’t enough to carry the latter through four years later, however, when he lost to slick but soulless Bill Clinton. In ‘96 it was the Republicans’ turn to offer up the economics teacher from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off in the person of Bob Dole, whose candidacy was described by Pat Buchanan as “the bland leading the bland.” This brings us to the third millennium and George W. Bush, the big-spending, “misunderestimated” statist and his 2000 and 2004 opponents, Plastic Man Al Gore and the quite stuck-up John Kerry. And then in 2008 we had John McCain, who never saw an amnesty plan he didn’t like.

The above paragraph is what’s known as perspective. Most Republicans currently running for President are superior to every major-party nominee of the last 40 years except for Reagan, especially when factoring in both substance and style. All the candidates exude passion, most have some charisma and are at least relatively articulate (except for Perry, although he has been better of late), and most are more ideologically sound than everyone above except, again, for Reagan. More significantly, today’s contenders are actually talking about what should be central to American governance: adherence to our founding document, the Constitution. They’ve also been talking about fundamentally changing the tax code and eliminating federal agencies. Of course, it’s easier and more advantageous to do this today, as the Tea Party movement and unprecedented federal-government usurpation of power have made constitutionalism and proposals to cage the Big Brother beast fashionable. But this is the point. Sure, Machiavellian politicians will preach whatever is in style, but another factor is that our more constitutionally aware GOP electorate has allowed constitutionally-oriented candidates to finally have what will at least be their 15 minutes of fame – and hopefully their day in the sun.

One reason why the media want to portray the GOP hopefuls as inept and insane is obvious: the myth of Obama as Superman long ago was shattered. Thus, there’s only so much they can build the President up – they also must tear his opposition down. Yet another reason is something that vindicates my assessment of the Republican candidates: the leftists in the media really do see adherence to a two-hundred-year-old document as crazy. They actually do consider efforts to upend the statist status quo, disempower Washington and uphold states’ rights as radical. They truly do view traditional virtues as troglodytic. Remember, these are the folks who thought Reagan was a dolt and McCain a delight. If they don’t like you, you must be doing something right.

The reality is that, on balance, the GOP has the best set of contenders it has had in a very long time. The best of them outshine all presidential nominees (except you know who) of the last many decades, and whoever the Republican standard bearer will be, he’ll compare favorably to anyone in that group (except you know who).

Most significant, though, is this: consider all the individuals I’ve mentioned, past and present, and then pick the worst of them. Then realize that even he is better than the crypto-Marxist in the White House.

Silly Things We Hear: “Communism Works on Paper”

2012-01-15T01:54:31-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

While discussing on The View recently how North Korean heir Kim Jong Un enjoyed the luxury of being sent to a Swiss boarding school, Whoopi Goldberg said the following, “This is what happens with communism. It’s a great concept; on paper it makes perfect sense. But once you put a human being in power, it shifts. We saw it in Russia; we’ve seen it all over the world.”

Not surprisingly, this earned Goldberg some criticism. Yet, to be fair, her sentiment is a common one. It’s that supposedly enlightened, nuanced opinion stating that communism works great in theory — it’s just the practical application that’s problematic. And while Goldberg seems to accept that man’s nature will always ensure communism’s unworkability, others entertain a corollary of the above opinion: that the ideology could work if only the right people were at the helm.

The first thing we need to debunk is the on-paper-validity myth. Could you imagine a scientist, after observing a theory consistently fail when applied over decades, insist that it works on paper? Unless he was a climate-change warmist, he’d be laughed out of his field.

Read the rest here.

What conservatives and the GOP dare not say about immigration

2012-01-15T01:39:01-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

In a recent election piece, pundit Ann Coulter identified illegal migration as one of the two most important issues of our time. She writes that if we fail at halting it, “the country will be changed permanently.” She continues:

Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed. Even Supreme Court justices eventually die.

But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.

She expands on this later in the piece:

[W]e ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.

Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore.

…If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives – one pro-life and one pro-choice – can't win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it's buenas noches, muchachos.

Coulter is, of course, right – but she only dare hint at the real problem. The fact is that halting illegal migration will do nothing to forestall the socialist electoral shift to which she refers.

Question: Do you really think the demographic earthquake that turned the Golden State blue was mainly the result of illegal migration?

Or do you think that the legal variety might have had something to do with it?

There certainly are a few differences between legal immigration and illegal migration. For instance, we can’t know if someone sneaking into our country is a criminal, a terrorist or is carrying a disease. But the reality is that in most respects illegal migration is not a separate and distinct problem.

It is an exacerbation of the problem.

Because demographically speaking, legal immigration and illegal migration are virtually identical. Most all illegal migrants hail from the Third World and Asia, and – owing to the Immigration Act of 1965 (Ted Kennedy’s handiwork) – 85 percent of legal immigrants do as well.

In other words, yes, adding illegal migrants into the mix will help the statists take their California dreamin’ nationwide more quickly, but it will happen regardless unless we change our suicidal immigration model. So it really doesn’t matter if we “capitulate” on illegal migration or not, because we capitulated on the legalized version of it a long time ago. Now we’re only deciding whether Western civilization in the U.S. will get a death by 100 demographic cuts or 1000.

To be fair, Ann Coulter at least made passing mention of this reality when she slipped into her piece that “Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate [emphasis added]….” Yet with the exception of Pat Buchanan, yours truly and a few others, this is an area where you’re more likely to hear the truth from leftist commentators – when they’re licking their chops over how successful they’ve been at importing their voters. Just consider, for instance, a 2011 NPR piece in which Mara Liasson cites a study by Ruy Teixeira at liberal feel tank Center for American Progress and writes:

Recent surges in the number of Hispanics in Arizona and Georgia could make those states potentially friendlier to Democratic candidates as well next year [2012]. Teixeira thinks similar population shifts could make holding on to Pennsylvania, where the president campaigned Wednesday, a little bit easier.

And if you think it’ll be a bit easier in 2012, wait till you see 2022.

And 2032 and 2042? Well, Orwell’s calling.

The fact is that upon being naturalized, our modern-day immigrants generally vote Democrat by wide margins – irrespective of whether upon arrival they were labeled legal or illegal.

And this isn’t hard to understand. Would you expect a devout Muslim to relinquish his faith upon setting foot on American terra firma? Would you suppose that mere passage across a border could magically transform a committed communist into a fan of free markets? My point is that ideology is much like religion: It is something deep-seated. It becomes part of a person’s self-image and gives his life meaning. And whether or not America is still the land of the free, it’s certainly not the land of the free from harsh realities.

And the reality is this: Most of today’s immigrants’ native lands have socialist-type governments because their peoples support socialist politicians. This is why Democrats import them: so these new arrivals can support socialist politicians here. They’re casting the votes Americans won’t cast.

Unfortunately, though, the closest we come to discussing this is when statists write banal election-analysis pieces. Otherwise, immigration is framed as purely an economic issue. Are immigrants supplanting Americans or merely doing jobs natives won’t? Are they contributing more in taxes than they use in services? In a nutshell, we just argue about money.

But what does it profit a nation to absorb the world but to lose its soul?

The fact is that the immigration debate is nothing less than a discussion about what kind of civilization we’re going to be. For the people make the culture – not the other way around – and the culture makes the government. In just the way that the Islamic invasion of Egypt in the seventh century turned it into a Muslim and Arab land when it had been neither, if you replace America’s population with a Mexican or Muslim one, you no longer have a Western civilization. You have Mexico Norte or Iran West.

It’s the culture, stupid.

But don’t expect a serious discussion about this anytime soon. For we are in the grip of Immigrationism, the belief that immigration is always good and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy. It really is one of the most effective brainwashing con-jobs in history: Statists have made talk of what ensures their ultimate victory taboo. And Americans have been conditioned to accept as axiomatic a policy that guarantees the destruction of Western civilization in the U.S.

So if to you immigration is just a matter workers and labor costs, hospitals and services, and dollars and cents, then, hey, pesos and dinars can fill a bank account just as well. But if you’re concerned about the entire country having a Golden State electorate and San Francisco values, you cannot separate legal immigration from illegal migration. It’s all or nothing.

To only argue against amnesty is to fight for a half-measure – one that, ultimately, will still leave your children America dreamin’ on a California day.

Upset about Big Brother's ban on incandescent bulbs? Buy a heatball!

2012-01-15T01:14:43-05:00

This is just too good.

Many of you know that the federal ban on conventional incandescent light bulbs recently went into effect. And while House Republicans included a provision in a recent spending bill that will block funding for the ban's enforcement, it's said that it will have little effect; manufacturers have prepared for the new standards and will no doubt abide by the law. So does this mean we'll be forced to buy more expensive LED (light emitting diode) or CFL (compact fluorescent light) bulbs, the latter being those squiggly things said to be loaded with mercury? Not if we follow the lead of German businessman Siegfried Rotthaeuser.

After the European Union banned conventional incandescent bulbs, Rotthaeuser's entrepreneurial spirit was sparked. He started selling another product: heatballs.

What's a heatball? According to this Teutonic Knight of Freedom and Light, it is a "small heating device" that compensates for the loss of heat a home experiences when conventional light bulbs are swapped for more energy efficient ones. Here is an image of this novel new product.

At his English-version website, Rotthaeuser points out the convenience of his invention, writing, "A HEATBALL® is not a light bulb, but fits into the same socket!"

He then touts the new product as "The most original invention since the electric light bulb!" and explains, "Although a heatball is technically very similar to a light bulb, it is a heater rather than a source of light." Elaborating, he also states, "By using heatballs, the heating effort of a normal house is effectively assisted. A heatball is a source of heat. Or do you use your toaster as a desk lamp?"

A businessman with a conscience, however, Rotthaeuser also believes in truth in advertising. He thus is forthcoming about a certain unintended byproduct of his heating element, writing, "During its use as a heater, HEATBALLS have an unavoidable emission of light in the visible spectrum." Pity that. But if heatballs are anything at all like incandescent light bulbs, they should be very efficient little space heaters, indeed.

So maybe you believe that the ban on conventional incandescent bulbs is far afield from the government's rightful scope; perhaps you fret about how such a regulation is blatantly unconstitutional when instituted by the feds. If so, I can't help you. But if you have a tropical plant or pet hamster that needs a space heater — or if you simply want to save on oil or gas used for heating during the winter — buy some HEATBALLS®.

And, hey, something just occurred to me. With heatballs' unintended byproduct of light, you just might be able to forego buying those LED and CFL bulbs.

Stealing Elections for Democrats: Games the Media Play

2012-01-06T19:03:10-05:00

By Selwyn Duke

The Democrats have the best public-relations team in the world.

It’s called the U.S. media.

As a consequence, the Republicans essentially have to spot the Democrats a certain number of points every election. How much do the media steal for statists? While it’s hard to say if the figure is 10, 15 or 20 percent, how it’s stolen is obvious — if you’re not trapped in the Media Matrix.

When Texas Governor Rick Perry scuttled his election chances by forgetting in the CNBC GOP debate a third federal agency he’d like to abolish, it was headline news. And rightly so. Yet when Barack Obama indicated that our nation has 58 states, the media were missing in action. In fact, someone close to me had never even heard about the President’s incredible gaffe — although “gaffe” doesn’t really do such an unfathomable mistake justice — until recently when she watched a comedic campaign commercial I put together that includes footage of it (below):

Read the rest here.