Oxnard has a new police chief, and the city's mayor is among the last to know.

The Star reported that Mayor Tom Holden was "blindsided" by Monday's announcement that City Manager Ed Sotelo hired Jeri Williams, 44, to succeed Chief John Crombach.

Crombach left the department to work with Ventura County Sheriff Geoff Dean.

"This is a continuation of a very troubling pattern, which is the city manager acting on his own, in secret, and in contradiction of an established city policy, and something needs to be done about it," Holden told the Star.

Holden said that he was repeatedly assured, even as late as Friday, that he would be part of the selection process.

Apparently, other council members and the Oxnard police union expected to be involved but also were kept in the dark about the decision. Councilmen Bryan MacDonald, Dean Maulhardt, and Tim Flynn each expressed concern about Sotelo's unilateral decision.

One councilwoman defended Sotelo's hiring of the second female in the county to lead a department. Irene Pinkard said Sotelo didn't break any rules.

The Oxnard soap opera continues.

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant-- and a fearful master."  -George Washington

When a government makes a law, presumably to improve some social ill, it is limiting the range of actions an individual can take without penalty. It is impinging on their freedom. It is impossible for a law to exist that does not limit freedom in some way.

Often, that's a very good thing. Thankfully, it is illegal for private citizens to kill each other. Our freedom to kill our neighbor is impinged upon. If I committed that act, armed government agents would very quickly descend upon me and force me into a prison cell for a very long time, where my freedom would be restricted to the four walls of my cell.

Government is force, as George Washington said. Government can accomplish nothing without it. Every activity government undertakes is backed up by the threat of armed government agents committing violence on you if you don't go along--the fact is inescapable, but not always apparent. The government's use of force is obvious when it arrests and imprisons someone for committing murder. But what about nonviolent transgressions of the law--are they backed up by force as well? 

Yes, but the government tries other methods of coercion first.

If someone decides he doesn't want to pay his income tax, the government will begin its coercion softly, with stern letters and a fine. But if that and similar methods fail, the government will apply more and more pressure until finally it sends armed men to his house. Beginning in 1974, Irwin Schiff (father of former senatorial candidate Peter Schiff) stopped reporting his income on his tax returns, citing that the income tax was unconstitutional. He is currently serving a 13-year sentence in a federal prison cell for tax evasion. At some point, the government stopped sending him sternly worded letters and sent armed agents to handcuff and force him into a prison.

Tax evasion is a major crime, however. Certainly the government wouldn't use coercion for minor infractions, like parking tickets, right?

Not at first. But if someone kept collecting parking tickets, eventually a warrant will be issued for his arrest. The next time the offender is pulled over, an armed government agent will appear at his driver's side window to slap handcuffs on him and take him to jail. If the offender does not wish his freedom to be impinged upon, he can either attempt to fight off the officer or flee in his vehicle. Either way, if he doesn't go quietly, the government will use violence to compel him.

Almost all of us would choose not to go down that path by simply paying off the parking ticket, or by not breaking the law in the first place. But that does not change the fact that the threat of government-sanctioned violence permeates every single local, state, and federal law.

Laws, therefore, are extremely powerful things. People that create those laws, presumably the legislators, have an enormous amount of power. They, in effect, can determine if armed agents show up at your door or not. A city council doesn't think about that prospect when they vote to add a new traffic light, or impose an ordinance to regulate what additions citizens can add to their hovels. But in the final analysis, they are imposing rules on us at the point of a gun.

The fact that government is rooted in force isn't a bad thing. I'm no anarchist. Government is necessary. Laws are necessary. But before they are passed, legislators should fully realize that every single bill that crosses their desks is an authorization to use force on anyone who doesn't comply. And citizens should understand who they are sending into office to wield this power.

The brute force inherent in all government activities is a great argument for limiting its involvement in our lives. Progressives want more regulation--they want to regulate what food we eat and what cars we drive--seemingly with no end in sight. They see government as a toy at their disposal--like a child who finds his father's gun--unaware, in most cases, of the great violence attached to anything it does.

I'm not convinced that Global Warming is anthropogenic--that is, I'm not sure that there is a link between man-made pollution and climate change. I guess that makes me a Global Warming denier. In today's world, that's like admitting you're a Holocaust denier.

Once you're branded a Global Warming denier, those that are convinced that we are on the brink of destroying the world with our industrial activities immediately write you off as someone not worthy of debating. I must be incredibly stupid--or perhaps I am a tool of the polluting corporations. Otherwise, if I was rational I'd come to the "obvious" conclusion that almost everyone else has.

For any Progressive that is curious, let me offer a glimpse into how a Global Warming denier thinks.

First, we don't really deny that there is Global Warming--or at least we don't deny that the climate is changing. Progressives want to cast us as people so stupid that we can't see that the weather is different. It's in the moniker, after all--Global Warming denier.

It's a bit more complicated in that. I, for one, believe the climate is changing. I tell people that it seems all the seasons have shifted on step to the right. Summer is now a mild spring. Fall is now a hot summer. Where I live, the hottest week of the year seems to occur in October now.  I remember when June seemed like the hottest month of the year.

I differ with the Progressives on the cause of the changing. I'm well aware that climates change historically before civilization existed. The earth cooled and we had an Ice Age. It warmed and it went away. And so on to this very day.

Progressives point to evidence collected over the last hundred years that show that a) greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, and b) the temperature is increasing.

Even if the data is accurate--and I'm skeptical that data collected a hundred years ago is--it does not show a causal relationship. It may show that one might have to do with the other, but the data is far from showing cause. And that's what the debate is really about.

It may simply be that our pollutants are increasing at the same time the earth is going through one of its natural changes, fooling people into believing there is a relationship.  I'd like to settle that matter before we enact climate change laws that throttle the global economy.

Today, I read an article on CNN's website entitled, "Case for man-made warming increased in 2010, scientists say." Oh good, I thought, I can finally see some proof to convince me of what's oh-so-apparent to everyone else.

The UK's Met Office Hadley Center says data from a range of climate indicators continues to make an "overwhelming" case for long-term man-made global warming.

Overwhelming! I couldn't possibly be a rational person and still not be convinced by this article, right?

"As well as a clear increase in air temperature observed above both the land and sea we see observations which are all consistent with increasing greenhouse gases."

But here it is again. Essentially, the Met Office gathered data from 20 institutions worldwide and concluded that temperatures are increasing and so are greenhouse gases.

I still don't see proof of a causal relationship--I'm right back at the beginning. I see a potential relationship--but how can anyone reasonably say that when two graphs coincide it's because of a causal relationship?

In statistics, there exists a thing called a spurious relationship. Let's say we find a correlation between variable A and variable B. Now, most people assume that there are two possible outcomes: A caused B, or B caused A.

However, statisticians and logicians know that it is possible that neither of those maybe true. There could be an intervening third variable C that causes both A and B. In Latin, this logical fallacy is called "cum hoc ergo propter hoc," and it's a common trap that people fall into. [continue reading]

Americans will be heading to the airports this week, and some may be surprised with the new TSA full-body scanners and pat downs.

People are split--some say it is a necessary security precaution to catch terrorists; others say it's an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

"But at this point, TSA in consultation with counterterrorism experts have indicated to me that the procedures that they have been putting in place are the only ones right now that they consider to be effective against the kind of threat that we saw in the Christmas Day bombing," President Obama said.

Really, that's the only way? If a terrorist wants to do something, he can get past our "feel good" security checks. Meanwhile, passengers are delayed, inconvenienced, and sometimes humiliated.

I can guarantee you that if you stationed me at the security line in a blue shirt I could reduce the risk of terrorism to almost nothing and at the same time inconvenience very few passengers.

The reason I can do this is because I'm not politically correct. Political correctness, manifesting itself as a fear of offending a particular group of people, has forced us to implement policies that cost billions of dollars and fail to make us safer.

If 100 percent of airplane terrorism was committed by young Norwegian males, I'd give them extra scrutiny. It has nothing to do with racial or religious bigotry--it has to do with common sense.

Unfortunately, the Left abandoned that decades ago and we'll all suffer because of it this holiday season. 

"Tax-and-spend liberal" is an insult to Democrats in the political arena, but hey-- if it taxes like a liberal, and spends like a liberal, then it must be a tax-and-spend liberal. But some liberals should earn a special designation.

Taxing and spending is one thing when the economy is booming. It's still foolish economically, but at least during those times it's not prescribed as a solution to the debt.

But to propose taxing and spending to get us out of a recession? That's hard core.

The credit goes to Rep. Jan Shakowsky of the Chicago area. While she proposed cutting $143 billion in spending, mostly on defense, she also would also spend $200 billion in new spending "investments". According to Politico:

The money would go to states to avoid tax increases or spending cuts, to build infrastructure, and continue unemployment benefits. Schakowsky proposes the new spending as an addendum to her deficit-cutting.

 She wants to "invest" in a bailout to the states, so they can continue wasting money on unemployment and other social programs.

At the same time, she'd raise taxes on bonds and capital gains, and establish a cap-and-trade program. Schakowsky says she'd reduce the budget by $427 billion in 2015.

This is how a tax-and-spend liberal's mind works. Let's say a liberal is a small business owner (yes, I know it's a stretch, but play along). The business has $2 million in annual revenue, derived from sales of 200,000 widgets that each are priced at $10. But it also has $3 million in annual expenses, for a deficit of $1 million. How does the liberal plan to come up with the extra mil? By raising the price of each widget by $5, or 50 percent! On paper, that's 200,000 units at 5 bucks each, for an even mil. Problem solved.

Let's say people don't want to pay $15 for a widget that cost $10 last year, and 50 percent of them decide they don't need a widget or they buy them somewhere else.

Now her sales are 100,000 widgets at $15, or $1.5 million. She's lost half-a-million dollars in revenue.

When businesses need to make money, they lower prices to encourage economic activity. Have you ever heard of a coupon, Rep. Schakowsky? At this point, a lesson on the Laffer Curve is in order. Read up on it here.

Incidentally, I interviewed the Republican opponent she defeated a couple of weeks ago--he's the Harvard student that dared to question Barney Frank about his role in the nation's financial meltdown. Read it here.

Private storage facilities and U-Hauls are apparently experiencing booms in business.

If my second-hand knowledge is accurate, unprecedented numbers of families are downsizing to apartments from houses--temporarily storing their furniture and other belongings with storage rental companies and renting U-Hauls to move their stuff.

Meanwhile, home sales in Ventura County dropped to their lowest level in three years after the expiration of government incentives. According to Jack Kyser, the chief economic adviser for the Southern California Association of Governments:

Despite the dismal situation in the re-sale housing market, Kyser said, economists are still seeing a modest increase in new-home building as people look to apartments as good investment properties.

"Apartments are still viewed as a pretty good investment, even though you do have competition from people," he said. "Rental rates are still pretty solid."

With inflation on its way from a second round of "quantitative easing," coupled with more competition for apartments as more people lose their homes, expect high rental prices. 

Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan said President Obama is "a president in trouble" after the 2010 version of the Republican Revolution.

Noonan, addressing an audience at the Thousand Oaks Civic Arts Plaza Tuesday night, touched on a topic that bothers me about Obama and the Progressives.

Since last week's election, she said, Obama shows no sign of understanding why it happened, why he took such a drubbing. "So once again, he seems a little off-point, like he's not seeing the same reality as the American people."

Progressives have this thing about them where they think anyone who disagrees with them is just plain stupid. The universities, the high-society cocktail circuits, the chic A-list actors are all on their side.

But each of those groups has one thing in common, other than being factories churning out Progressive thinkers--they are all out of touch with the real world.

University professors strive for tenure, which is essentially another way of saying you don't have to compete for your job anymore. Unlike every other (private sector) employee in the world, tenured teachers don't have to stay on top of their game to remain viable. Wouldn't you love to have a job like that, where it's almost impossible to fire you? Consequently, teachers are shielded from market forces that affect businesses--yet they have plenty of free time to spout all sorts of theories on them, and they never have to apply their thoughts to a real-world situation. After all, their domain is a college campus, and what closer thing is there to an environment insulated from the rest of the world?

Then there's the high-society cocktail circuit. This is where your media elites and your trust-fund babies rub elbows to regurgitate information about the latest trendy causes, and guffaw at how ignorant people in flyover country are. The only people they associate with are other liberal elites, so they start thinking that their positions are the only real ones. Consider what longtime journalist Bernie Goldberg observed about these elites.

Just think back to that famous observation by the New Yorker's otherwise brilliant film critic Pauline Kael, who in 1972 couldn't figure out how Richard Nixon had won the presidency.

"I can't believe it!" she said. "I don't know a single person who voted for him!" Nixon carried forty-nine states to McGovern's one, for God's sake--and she wasn't kidding!

That's one of the biggest problems in big-time journalism: its elites are hopelessly out of touch with everyday Americans. Their friends are liberals, just as they are. They share the same values. Almost all of them think the same way on the big social issues of our time....After a while they start to believe that all civilized people think the same way they and their friends do.

Finally, we come to the A-list celebrities. Oh, the celebrities. Is there any group of people in the world more out of touch with reality than these people? Most probably don't know their own zip codes.

President Obama is a mix of all three out-of-touch groups--university professor, cocktail-circuit elite, and presidential rockstar.

He's never had a meaningful job in the private sector--he was a student, community activist, teacher, civil rights attorney, and a politician.

He is about as far removed from your average American as you can get, so it's no surprise he was blindsided when we turned against his Euro-socialist big-government policies.

But he learned the wrong lesson.

"[I]t's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand," Obama told "60 Minutes."

See? We're stupid. We weren't bright enough to understand what he was doing, so he needs to try harder to get it through our thick, gun-and-bible-clinging skulls.

It's not just an annoying habit of Progressives--the attitude that they know what's best drives everything about their agenda. In a nutshell, they believe that some of us are enlightened and do the right thing, and some aren't--and the ones that aren't need to be coerced into doing what is right by Big Government.

You don't recycle like you should or you drive a big SUV? You small-minded person. You need to have those choices made for you. So we'll just make laws to correct that.

You want plastic bags for your groceries? You don't understand what effect that has on the environment. We'll just have to ban those.

You didn't get your environmentally friendly light bulbs on your own? We'll just have to force you to buy the right ones by banning the "bad" ones.

You Neanderthals still like to own guns? We need to think about others' safety so you can't have those anymore.

And on and on it goes until one day the government is telling you that you can only have one child per family. Meanwhile, the "smart" people aren't bright enough to see where this road leads.

Controversial TV commentator Lou Dobbs--"controversial" because he delivered his conservative views on left-leaning CNN--will join Fox Business Network, according to the cable channel.

The news comes exactly a year after Dobbs' final program aired on CNN after almost 30 years with the cable news pioneer.

CNN couldn't quite stomach Dobbs' strong stance against illegal immigration and that he aired some segments on Barack Obama's citizenship (even though he said he himself believes Obama is a citizen).

While CNN shied away from reporting on rampant illegal immigration--an ongoing event that has shaken this country loose from its fiscal and social moorings--it eagerly airs specials such as Black in America, Gay in America, and Planet in Peril, all politically correct milquetoast pieces. Not exactly hard-hitting journalism.

Dobbs must have offended some liberal sensibilities by not being so politically correct. In other words, he addresses real issues, and in doing so will join fellow liberal media refugees John Stossel and Glenn Beck.

Like them, he'll have the opportunity to speak his mind freely on Fox Business Channel, when his show airs early next year.

Last night I watched the returns rolling and posted updates on my Facebook and Twitter accounts. I took upon myself the unenviable task of watching MSNBC's coverage of the election.

Keep in mind that this is the MSNBC that is constantly belittling Fox for being biased for Republicans.

Reputable cable news outfits generally have at least one bona fide objective journalist covering the returns. For example, Fox News doesn't have Glenn Beck,  Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity hosting the hard-news coverage.

MSNBC on the other hand? Well, I posted these updates last night:

Fox News has one hard news journalists, one conservative, and two liberals on their panel. MSNBC has 5 bombthrowers (including Matthews, Maddow, Olbermann, and O'Donnel) and zero conservatives.

and

The 5 liberal msnbc hosts interviewed bachmann, called her "moronic", then ridiculed the notion that msnbc is in the tank for the Democrats

So while Fox News didn't stack the deck with conservative commentators, MSNBC asked their entire stable of far-left talking-heads digest the news for their viewers--with no representation from the other side.

Ironically, the five liberals scoffed at the notion that MSNBC was in the tank for Democrats. Republicans might have objected--if any were included on the panel.

It should come as little surprise then that Mediate reported that Fox's coverage was fairer than MSNBC.

Politico:

MSNBC's election coverage was led by a panel comprised mostly of its opinionated prime-time hosts (Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, along with frequent contributor Eugene Robinson), with nary a conservative voice in the mix. In contrast, Fox News's was provided by two anchors from its straight-news dayside, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier, along with a panel that included conservatives like Karl Rove as well as liberals like Juan Williams.

Mediate:

Fox News offered a far more balanced set of analysts for the election coverage than did MSNBC.

New York Times:          

Credit where due, Fox also had a more, well, balanced panel much of the night than its competitor MSNBC. Holding forth from left of center for Fox were the recently-high-profile Juan Williams and Democratic political guru Joe Trippi. MSNBC's main lineup, on the other hand, was basically its center-to-left lineup of nightly hosts: Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.

This evidence seems to say that Fox News might not be as biased as the Left says it is--and that it's the Left who needs a lesson in fairness.

The Democrats grew by 13 percent or almost 20,000 voters. Republicans increased by less than 1,000, up less than 1 percent. Those declining to state a party affiliation rose by almost 10,000 voters, up 13.5 percent.

Although still a minority at 18 percent of almost 424,000 registered voters, the "decline to state" group tends to vote along more conservative lines, he said.