The Nacilbupera Guzzle

Whoever examines with attention the history of the dearths and famines … will find, I believe, that a dearth never has arisen from any combination among the inland dealers in corn, nor from any other cause but a real scarcity, occasioned sometimes perhaps, and in some particular places, by the waste of war, but in by far the greatest number of cases by the fault of the seasons; and that a famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconveniences of a dearth. (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations IV.5.44)

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Cherilyn Eagar Ignored, Then Falsely Accused

Bob Lonsberry is a wonderful conservative talk-show host in Utah on 105.7 KNRS and Nacilbupera enjoys listening to his wisdom in regards to many local and national political topics.

Bob has endorsed Jason Chaffetz for Senate both in writing and on his radio show. Nacilbupera shares Lonsberry's admiration for Chaffetz but instead of seeing Chaffetz run in 2010 against Bennett, would love to see Chaffetz go up in 2012 against Hatch (presuming Hatch foolishly decides to run again). Additionally, Chaffetz has given no indication of running against Bennett but wisely--more of of not to be tied to one's words rather than seriously debating a run--he has not ruled out running.

In an Aug 29th straw poll (yes, straw polls aren't necessarily the most reliable but they're what we've got), both Cherilyn Eagar and Mark Shurtleff garnished more votes than the incumbent Bennett. This was a newsworthy item published throughout the state media and picked up by the political sections in the national media as well. However, on Lonsberry's very next show held on Monday, Aug. 31th, Lonsberry began the show never mentioning Cherilyn Eagar's name or the significant percentage of vote she received in the poll.

On that Monday, Lonsberry described for his listeners the 2010 Senate race in the Republican Party as between incumbent Bennett and Mark Shurtleff both of whom Lonsberry mentioned he would like to get on the air to be heard. Everyone else (including Cherilyn Eagar) got this stinging rebuke:

To be honest with you not one of them has a snowball's chance in Elko of getting anywhere near the general election. All of them in the convention and primary system will be cyphers; they will be non-entities...(archived program here).
Lonsberry further indicated that everyone outside of his estimation of the two serious contenders were doing "ego-exercise" and were "gum[ming] up the works." Pretty harsh words for citizens trying to do their patriotic duty and serve the country.

Although Lonsberry is entitled to his opinions, it seemed unfair and disingenuous to (1) omit the used of Eagar's name completely from discussion of the race and (2) omit the fact of the straw poll the broadcast-day after its occurrence. Perhaps Lonsberry was constrained by his employer not to mention Eagar's name as she has substituted for a competing talk radio show. We sent Lonsberry a nice email (click on image to read) which he never did respond to. (Lonsberry, you're still welcome to respond to our email or this post.)

Fast forward to 8am this morning when Lonsberry hosted a "Who do you back for Senate in 2010?" call-in where viewers could discuss the "prominent contest between Bennett and Shurtleff" or Jason Chaffetz, Lonsberry's pick (show archived here; discussion begins at 1:48:50). Again no mention of Cherilyn Eagar. Then came the tidalwave flood of Eagar calls into the station; sincere citizens pointing to the alignment of Eagar's values to theirs. (Interesting sideline: Eagar also compares herself ideologically to Chaffetz.)

Lonsberry, obviously dismayed by the plethora of pro-Eagar calls, began reading from an Action Alert (copy of Alert published by blogger True Politics USA) he had received the previous night from the Eagar campaign encouraging supporters to call in. Instead of acquiescing that Eagar has large and growing support in Utah, he made it seem that all the callers were from out of state since the Action Alert had mentioned 8am mountain time show topic broadcast time and if Eagar wanted in-state supporters she would have omitted the time zone in the Action Alert.

Lonsberry is flawed in his attacking Eagar's use of the words mountain time for two reasons: (1) a time zone is giving for convenience of listeners of the program who are Utah voters who may be temporarily out-of-state on business or vacation. We know all of Utah is mountain time, but it is easy to get distracted with time zones when you are out of state. (2) Lonsberry should have tracked the area codes of the callers if he felt the callers were out-of-state--after all, we only have two Utah issued area codes and Lonsberry could have screened callers with only the 801- and 435- prefixes were he to be so flooded with out-of-state calls. Indeed, Lonsberry failed to mention a single example of anyone who called in being from out-of-state.

Lonsberry also accused Eagar of being dishonest and "trying to create a false public perception" by requesting supporters to call in. Wrong! Lonsberry had multiple public announcements on his program prior to the phone-in event and all candidates could have, should have, or perhaps actually did encourage their supporters to phone in just as Eagar did. How does Lonsberry know that Action Alerts weren't also sent out by other campaigns? Lonsberry discounted the idea that perhaps Eagar supporters are more vocal because we were slided from your mention earlier and wanted to have our voice heard (for the record: Nacilbupera did not call the Lonsberry show today). Lonsberry: how were we to voice our opinion as you asked us to do without trying to "create a false impression." We could either call in or not call in. Ironically if these noble souls hadn't called in, then you could have accused Eagar of "creating a false public perception" by hiding true existing public support for a leading candidate.

The only reason Lonsberry gave for his dismissal of Cherilyn Eagar was as follows:

I just don't believe she's competent to be United States Senator...I believe this is an exercise in vanity.
Lonsberry failed to have a serious discussion of her business experience or experience as a conservative activist. He also failed to reason with the audience what it is that he feels makes her "incompetent." If you label someone, then you need to discuss the supporting facts for that label. Perhaps Lonsberry feels that prior political office is requisite; we answer give us someone with principles and integrity and they will be a thousand times better public servant than an established, polished politician.

Nacilbupera feels Lonsberry has pre-emptively dismissed Eagar. In the end, we Eagar supporters need to prove to Lonsberry he misjudged Eagar. We need to get her through the convention and show that she is for real. Lonsberry seems rather set in his ways but we always hope that someone we respect so much in so many other discussions will at last come to the table of reason and respect for the principles Eagar stands for and the great Senator she will be for our state. We don't need Lonsberry support to win our case with the good people of Utah, but it sure might be nice if Lonsberry were to be honest about the facts with his listeners, quit the labeling, and show some common decency for our candidate and campaign.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

On Main Stream Media

Bernie Goldberg in his Monday blog--highlighted on an interview with Bill O'Reilly--points out the ineptitude of the current accepted use of term "Mainstream Media" or MSM. In Nacilbupera's view the true "main stream" is now Fox News. Fox, with by far the largest viewership, breaks the stories such as the Van Jones and the current ACORN scandals. If you are in the news business and don't cover these stories, you are not reporting on the issues important to Americans as we keep our country safe from corruption.

Nacilbupera doesn't really care about ABC, CBS, or NBC because the stories they break are irrelevant. They are biased Democratic cheerleaders in media decay. We had to depend on the National Enquirer to tell us of a Presidental candidate (John Edwards) lying about an affair and an out-of-wedlock child.

We have pointed out on this blog some of the biases that exist on the media and find these progressive, liberal, and sometimes socialistic views outside of main stream America. As Goldberg points out how can you possibly call that branch of the media MSM? Goldberg with good reason called for a renaming of MSM.

We have noticed other commentators using alternative terms to describe the liberal likes of MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and many newspapers like the NY Times. Bill O'Reilly often uses the term "establishment media" while Rush Limbaugh likes "drive-by media."

Commentators on Goldberg's blog had all good ideas, perhaps the closest to our sentiment was a proposal by Steven Friday to use the term "legacy media." We like the term because it conveys the sense of the outdatedness of those medium: newspapers and pre-cable television both of which have experienced tremendous declines in followership. We don't like the term however because the word "legacy" often conveys a positive residual, such as when one leaves a legacy for their posterity. These leftist media organizations are currently leaving little in the way of positive residual for us to be proud of.

So thus it is we have decided for the purposes of this blog to use a phrase we coined--"old school media"--to describe the out-of-mode leftist media that has fallen out of fashion with most everyone except the progressive elitists. And yes MSNBC, you are so old school.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

To Bennett and Hatch: How Dare You Call Yourselves Conservatives!

Cass Sunstein, was confirmed by the Senate late last week as the new head of the OIRA (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs), commonly known as the new "regulatory czar."

His nomination was filibustered by the Republicans, but both of our Senators--Hatch and Bennett--voted for cloture being among only six Republicans to do so. If this weren't bad enough, both Hatch and Bennett joined the Democrats in confirming him 57-40.

Nacilbupera feels betrayed. In his quest for a third term Bennett declares himself as "Utah's Conservative Choice." Yeah, right! we answer.

Since when is any of the following radical ideology promoted by Mr. Sunstein considered part of the conservative agenda?
  • Giving animals "rights"
  • Abolishing hunting (he recanted this in his confirmation hearing that is not his view)
  • Advocates the Socialist/Communistic ideals of FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights
  • Views political discussion on the Internet as a possible threat to democracy (good thing we got MSNBC and the NY Times to tell us the truth, huh Cass?)

Nacilbupera feels like challenging Bennett on his conservative position and yell out in honor of Joe Wilson: Bob Bennett You Lie! You tell us you are a conservative but you dishonor your cause with your votes. Own up to the truths of Wyden-Bennett you advocate.

My fellow Utahns and Americans, let us honor Bennett with the old chant of of the radicals Bennett confirms: Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Robert Bennett has got to go!!

Just another reason to vote for Cherilyn Eagar in 2010.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

On Obama's Speech to the Schoolchildren

Nacilbupera collected three points mostly overlooked in mass media about Obamas speech yesterday to the schoolchildren.

(1) Parents of concerned children--afraid of indoctrination from a President who unapologetically appoints a radical Communist to his leadership--are mocked for their worry. This is unfair because what the parents were most afraid of was the content of the followup/discussion questions such as, "What can I do to help the President?" It was only AFTER concerned parents spoke up that the controversial discussion materials were removed. Nacilbupera feels these parents are paying attention to their child's education and praises them.

(2) In a story highlighted by Greta Van Susteren, Greta points out the unfair standards of the previous speech by Bush 41 to children: the Washington Post front page after Bush's speech front page story suggested the speech was staged for the president's political benefit. This turned into a Democratic witch hunt and an investigation was conducted to examine why $26K (read here $26K not $26M not $26B not $26T) was spent by the Bush administration "in an era of scarce resources" (Gephardt).

In contrast, today's front page Washington Post (see image, left) no such accusations of political malfeasance are made. Nacilbupera condemns such outrageous media hypocrisy.

(3) Final point: it is not the role of federal government to intervene in state affairs. The President could have addressed both parents and children using the internet, radio, or television; the point is he had other options. Nacilbupera feels that pending an immediate catastrophic national emergency (IE nukes from North Korea or Iran are on their way) really, an address to the schoolchildren of the state should be done by the state's chief executive, the governor. Obama's speech to the children is a mis-education in the proper separation of powers between our state and federal government.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Nacilbupera vs. Maddow: the video

We made this video as a response to promote the truth behind Maddow's false gay marriage-lowers-divorce assertion. Please watch/rate/share. Thanks.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Axelrod Ignorant On Van Jones

Thanks to the many bloggers, talk radio, Glenn Beck, and others radical, self-proclaimed Communist Anthony Van Jones has been exposed for who he is and the things he has said including being among those who signed a petition calling for an investigation into a government conspiracy causing the 9/11 attacks.
It interested Nacilbupera to note that despite all the coverage, Obama did not take any step to fire Van Jones nor did Obama censure him at any time. This is supported by today's Meet the Press interview with David Axelrod,

Q: "Did he [the President] personally order that [he]Van Jones be fired?
A: "Absolutely not. This was Van Jones' own decision."

Q: "But was the President offended by what he [Van Jones] said?"
A: "I haven't spoken to the President about this."

Q: "You find it what he [Van Jones] said objectionable?"
A: "Well I haven't read all his comments either."

What???? You haven't read Van Jones' comments? What kind of a lazy, misinformed public bureaucrat are you? Do we need to send Katie Couric over there to ask you what newspapers you read, David Axelrod? Do you think you could read the highly publicized comments of a radical appointee in your administration and maybe you could get back to us and let us know if you find it objectionable for a 9/11 truther, self-proclaimed communist, who calls Republicans "a**-holes", to be advising the President of the United States? Is it beyond your job description to do this????

As Van Jones was an Obama appointee one can only surmise lacking any sort of denunciation, that Obama agrees with the radical ideology of Van Jones. Nacilbupera cannot have confidence in an administration that doesn't know a radical from a patriot and doesn't read highly publicized comments about their own appointees. And Axelrod wants us to trust this administration--who is so thorough with all their appointees--with our health care? Absurd.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Rachel Maddow Misrepresents Massachusetts Divorce Statistics In Support of Same-Sex Marriage

In the above broadcast segment this week Rachel Maddow of MSNBC reports:

"...New government provisional statistics show that in 2008 Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the country. Ta-Da! The rate of divorces in Massachusetts was 2.2 per thousand when gay people started getting married in Massachusetts. The rate of divorces per thousand is now down even further to 2.0 per thousand. That's the lowest divorce rate in the county. In fact Massachusetts divorce rates are now down to pre-WWII levels--1940. So awkwardly, turns out gay marriage is a Defense of Marriage Act."

Maddow's conclusion that gay marriage stifles divorce didn't maks much sense to us so we broke it down to see if she were correct and came up with the following four points with which we take issue:

Point #1: Maddow's conclusion that the MA divorce rate is 2.0 per thousand is false.

As Maddow premises without pause or caution for the listener, the 2008 Massachusetts divorce statistics are provisional. These statistics are published by the CDC and are found here. The graphic below is taken directly from table 2b near the bottom of the link page:

From this table, we gather that Massachusetts had 12,992 provisional divorces in 2008. The divorce rate is calculated by dividing that number into the population of MA from the 2000 census 6.3M and multiplying by 1000. The resulting divorce rate figure (12992/6.3M x 1000) is 2.o46 or rounded down to the "2.0 per 1000" as Maddow quotes.

The footnote #1 cautions: "Figures based on monthly counts and may be underreported." Indeed it cautions:

There is considerable variability among the states in the procedures that are used to submit the counts of marriages and divorces to NCHS and in the extent to which the states update their counts of marriages and divorces as new information is received. Therefore, counts vary in their completeness. Marriage and divorce counts, unlike other provisional data, may be updated after the end of a data year if final counts are provided by the state.

Thus the CDC, unlike Maddow's glaring omission, cautions in saying that the number could be larger, but that is the count they have so far. What is concerning is the huge disparity in MA divorces between the provisional December 2008 figure of 147 and the actual December 2007 figure of 1006--a difference of 859 divorces or reduction of 85% versus the prior year. No other state figures such a prominent decline for December year-over-year (check for yourself!) begging the questions:

Are the Massachusetts provisional divorces for December 2008 underreported?
If so, could the impact of underreported divorces impact the entire year?

Although we don't know for sure the answer to the first question, the second is answered with a resounding "yes." If the actual December 2008 divorces were, for example, equal to December 2007, the total number of divorces in MA would climb to 13, 851 (12,992+859) the MA divorce rate for the entire year would equal 2.2 per 1000--which is coincidentally, the same exact MA divorce rate Maddow correctly cites as the divorce rate before legalized MA same-sex marriage.

Point #1 concludes that although Maddow correctly cites the word "provisional" in her premise, her conclusion is flawed because the condition is dropped. Maddow could have correctly concluded "If the provisional statistics--which the CDC notes may be understated--are correct, the divorce rate in MA will drop to 2.0 per 1000."

Point #2: Divorce is slightly on the decline nationally

Let's examine the national divorce rate:

2004 = 3.7 (see CDC report here for 2004-2006 figures)
2005 = 3.6
2006 = 3.6 or 3.7 (measured two ways)
2007 = 3.6 (see table A2 here)
2008 = 3.5 (provisional)

A logical conclusion from this data is that divorce nationally has been on a small decline during the time since MA legalized same-sex marriage. All things equal, MA should realize a decline as well. In order to support Maddow's conclusion that MA same-sex marriage contributes to the decline of divorce rates, additional data would needed to show how MA declined more than other states.

Point #3: Massachusetts historically has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

Maddow's "Ta-Da" fact that Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the country for 2008 is trite news. In fact, it would be noteworthy "Ta-Da" if Massachusetts didn't have the lowest divorce rate. By examining historical statistics, MA is clearly stingy on divorces compared to any other state perhaps foremost due to the massive numbers of Catholics in the state. Legalized same-sex marriage has nothing to do with Massachusetts' 2008 divorce rate viz-a-viz other states.

Point #4: Massachusetts divorce rate actually increased after passage of same-sex marriage.

Again, by examining the CDC's historical statistics on Massachusetts' divorce rates we find the following divorce rates per 1000 population:

2004 = 2.2
2005 = 2.2
2006 = 2.3
2007 = 2.3

Thus we see that the divorce rate actually increased in 2006 and 2007 from its 2.2 level Maddow cites. But Maddow neglects to mention this increase and focus only on the 2008 number which is, as we stated (point #1 above), provisional. The latest non-provisional--and therefore wholly accurate--numbers is for year 2007 and indicate that while the country is seeing modest decreases in the divorce rate (point #2 above), Massachusetts is experiencing modest increases in the divorce rate!

In conclusion, could it be that Maddow, herself openly gay (wikipedia), has misrepresented the facts to support the gay agenda of legalized same-sex marriage? Is in reality the exact opposite happening that same-sex marriage isn't defending or preserving marriage but contributing to divorce? Because of blatant misrepresentations of fact such as this by Maddow, Nacilbupera does not rely on Maddow nor the MSNBC network for accurate reporting. But what say you?

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

John Culberson on Social Media

Blogger Right Klik found a TOTALLY AWESOME Aug. 29th C-SPAN2 vid of Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) talking about social media with the Republican viewpoint on the broken promises of Obama and attempts by Nancy Pelosi to stifle truth strewn throughout the media.

It was also our first introduction to Qik. The vid is well worth the 25 minutes and we could have gone 60.


The video can also be accessed here.