Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior
I found this article to be fascinating. One, from the perspective of just how phenomenally well this woman fits into a stereotype that I had in my mind; two, from a sense that in and among a great bit of really, really over the top stuff here--there is goodness in what she says; and three, just how inconsistent her approach is with a desire for well-balanced children.
We have become a nation of coddlers, bumper sticker purveyors who prop up our addicted children with endless validation and paeans to inflate their precious self-esteem. We elevate student loans to a natural right, and we mandate dependence on parental healthcare until an age long associated with having families of one's own.
Into this situation strides confident, lecturing Amy Chua, Yale Law professor and the anti-Christ to a generation of indulgent, guilt-ridden American parents.
I am often accused of being hard on children. I am consequence driven and patient and hard enough to outlast most of their histrionics. Much of what Professor Chua laid out seemed to me to be common sense, and yet, I came away with a nagging sense that something was missing. I now know what it is.
Joy. While I'm sure Ms. Chua's kids have acceptable instances of joy in their largely regimented lives, I find her prescription to be one designed--implicitly or explicitly--to destroy many of the joy-making opportunities to which children in America are routinely exposed. Is a sleepover really evil? Is a playdate really going to knock the little one off her rise to Julliard or MIT?
Ms Chua's plan seems perfectly suited to producing human equivalents of racing greyhounds--performance bred beings for whom larger social structures are ill-suited, and who ultimately find little place of comfort outside the realm of competence for which they were trained. I'm sure Professor Chua's little girls are wonderful creatures. But how different they must now feel from the world in which they live--with little prospect for that ever to change.
I see at work here something I see in the home schooling movement, or at least among some of its adherents--and that is, disdain for the larger culture and an impulse to isolate from it in order not to be infected by it. I don't like this.
Additionally, while I criticize our society for its over-indulgence in the artificial propping of the self-esteem of children, Professor Chua's approach seems equally out of proportion, but in favor of parents--as in, the job of the children is to perfectly reflect the wonder and insight of such effective parents. Her article drips with the sense that her sense of self will somehow be lessened if one of her children comes in second place, or that she would somehow have dishonored her parents had she wound up in pharmaceutical sales rather than as a Yale Law professor.
Aristotle got it right 2300 years ago when he described The Golden Mean as the desirable middle between two extremes. Professor Chua has done us all a service by describing one such extreme.
 |
| Professor Chua and her children |
Into this situation strides confident, lecturing Amy Chua, Yale Law professor and the anti-Christ to a generation of indulgent, guilt-ridden American parents.
I am often accused of being hard on children. I am consequence driven and patient and hard enough to outlast most of their histrionics. Much of what Professor Chua laid out seemed to me to be common sense, and yet, I came away with a nagging sense that something was missing. I now know what it is.
Joy. While I'm sure Ms. Chua's kids have acceptable instances of joy in their largely regimented lives, I find her prescription to be one designed--implicitly or explicitly--to destroy many of the joy-making opportunities to which children in America are routinely exposed. Is a sleepover really evil? Is a playdate really going to knock the little one off her rise to Julliard or MIT?
Ms Chua's plan seems perfectly suited to producing human equivalents of racing greyhounds--performance bred beings for whom larger social structures are ill-suited, and who ultimately find little place of comfort outside the realm of competence for which they were trained. I'm sure Professor Chua's little girls are wonderful creatures. But how different they must now feel from the world in which they live--with little prospect for that ever to change.
I see at work here something I see in the home schooling movement, or at least among some of its adherents--and that is, disdain for the larger culture and an impulse to isolate from it in order not to be infected by it. I don't like this.
Additionally, while I criticize our society for its over-indulgence in the artificial propping of the self-esteem of children, Professor Chua's approach seems equally out of proportion, but in favor of parents--as in, the job of the children is to perfectly reflect the wonder and insight of such effective parents. Her article drips with the sense that her sense of self will somehow be lessened if one of her children comes in second place, or that she would somehow have dishonored her parents had she wound up in pharmaceutical sales rather than as a Yale Law professor.
Aristotle got it right 2300 years ago when he described The Golden Mean as the desirable middle between two extremes. Professor Chua has done us all a service by describing one such extreme.
White Flight and the Democratic Party
Ron Brownstein's got a great piece in the National Journal on the decades in motion exodus of white voters from the Democratic Party. There is good news here for the Republican Party, but also some cautionary notes.
Democrats got shellacked among white voters in 2010, heaviest among non-college educated whites--who used to be part of the famous "Democratic coalition". No more. From the piece:
Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University, says that blue-collar disaffection from Democratic candidates reflects not only immediate economic distress but also a longer-term process of alienation from the party. “The noncollege whites … see themselves as a declining minority within the national Democratic Party, where they have very little control or influence on the policies,” he says. “The party is controlled by the coastal elites and nonwhites, and that is a very different kind of Democratic Party” than a generation ago.
Clinging to guns and God, blue collar whites look around and see a Democratic Party beholden to organized labor, illegal immigrant enablers, opponents of traditional family values and structures, and those who would more closely impose government upon everyday life--and they've decided that's not what they want. They have moved steadily to the Republican Party, and this is a good thing.
Interestingly enough, whites of all educational and socio-economic groups have moved more to the right, including that most lefty of all groups, highly educated women.
The question must be asked--and certainly it will be answered by some on the left--is this movement away from the Democratic Party racist? Many will think racism and a disdain for minorities is the driving force in this movement, rather than a growing discomfort with the priorities of the Democratic Party and its immoderate policies. This is the easy answer, the answer of those who presume the unquestioned wisdom of their ideas and then ascribe base motives to those who disagree, as principled disagreement is incongruous with such clear and rational thinking. Put another way, it MUST be racism, because Democratic and Liberal ideas are so darn reasonable.
Time for Republicans to pop the cork and celebrate a governing majority for the ages? Not by a long shot. The plain truth of the matter is that those groups making up the Democratic coalition display fertility rates dramatically greater than whites of all strata, thereby providing a self-sustaining base in each subsequent generation. Not that all will vote as their parents or friends do, but enough to keep the movement growing.
So, what's to be done?
The Republican Party must seek to identify those issues where non-college educated whites AND minorities share interest, and move forward with enlightened, Conservative policies to address them. Republicans don't have to attract huge chunks of the minority vote to gain and sustain a governing coalition; they simply have to peel enough off to offset the growth of the Democratic Party due to natural population growth. This means that the Republican Party doesn't have to become more like the Democratic Party--it simply needs to demonstrate that it has ideas and policies that are responsive to voter needs.
This demographic shift seems to me to be the most important trend in US politics for the next several decades, and a strategically thinking Republican Party would be planning now to be on the right side of it.
Democrats got shellacked among white voters in 2010, heaviest among non-college educated whites--who used to be part of the famous "Democratic coalition". No more. From the piece:
Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University, says that blue-collar disaffection from Democratic candidates reflects not only immediate economic distress but also a longer-term process of alienation from the party. “The noncollege whites … see themselves as a declining minority within the national Democratic Party, where they have very little control or influence on the policies,” he says. “The party is controlled by the coastal elites and nonwhites, and that is a very different kind of Democratic Party” than a generation ago.
Clinging to guns and God, blue collar whites look around and see a Democratic Party beholden to organized labor, illegal immigrant enablers, opponents of traditional family values and structures, and those who would more closely impose government upon everyday life--and they've decided that's not what they want. They have moved steadily to the Republican Party, and this is a good thing.
Interestingly enough, whites of all educational and socio-economic groups have moved more to the right, including that most lefty of all groups, highly educated women.
The question must be asked--and certainly it will be answered by some on the left--is this movement away from the Democratic Party racist? Many will think racism and a disdain for minorities is the driving force in this movement, rather than a growing discomfort with the priorities of the Democratic Party and its immoderate policies. This is the easy answer, the answer of those who presume the unquestioned wisdom of their ideas and then ascribe base motives to those who disagree, as principled disagreement is incongruous with such clear and rational thinking. Put another way, it MUST be racism, because Democratic and Liberal ideas are so darn reasonable.
Time for Republicans to pop the cork and celebrate a governing majority for the ages? Not by a long shot. The plain truth of the matter is that those groups making up the Democratic coalition display fertility rates dramatically greater than whites of all strata, thereby providing a self-sustaining base in each subsequent generation. Not that all will vote as their parents or friends do, but enough to keep the movement growing.
So, what's to be done?
The Republican Party must seek to identify those issues where non-college educated whites AND minorities share interest, and move forward with enlightened, Conservative policies to address them. Republicans don't have to attract huge chunks of the minority vote to gain and sustain a governing coalition; they simply have to peel enough off to offset the growth of the Democratic Party due to natural population growth. This means that the Republican Party doesn't have to become more like the Democratic Party--it simply needs to demonstrate that it has ideas and policies that are responsive to voter needs.
This demographic shift seems to me to be the most important trend in US politics for the next several decades, and a strategically thinking Republican Party would be planning now to be on the right side of it.
Who Is Responsible for Shooting Rep Giffords?
Apparently not the lunatic who purchased the gun, posted his farewell on Facebook, drove to the meeting and pulled out his gun, took aim at the Congresswoman and pulled the trigger (then repeated same to numerous others). No, according to virtually every news outlet today, it is those (of us) who disagree with her political philosophies and dare to exercise our First Amendment rights to do so pubicly with any degree of vigor.
Clearly, we'll get around to the real cause of this, which is of course, access to guns in our country, but for now (never let a good crisis go to waste) we can show the country just how much the citizens who did not embrace the hope and change of the last Congress and this Administration were the main enablers of this tragic outcome.
The media outlets were immediately raising "questions with which the nation is struggling" about the lack of civility in our political discourse. Today, they are awash with all the talking heads who are providing the clear answers: "violent rhetoric," "incivility", "disdain for government," "public becoming riled" are the reasons for the death of five citizens and the wounding of a Congressional Representative.
I could devote hours discussing this issue, but here's a litmus test regarding just how much the right condones this nutjob's actions: take a poll at just about any gathering of liberals/progressives and take the same poll at one of those racist, uncivil teaparty gatherings:
"Show of hands: how many believe the accused shooter should be executed immediately if found guilty of the crime with his Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to appeal exhausted?"
Of course, the libs/progs would be too busy wringing their hands to raise them, but I have little doubt you'd see a sea of tea partier hands in the air before you even got to the "..if found guilty..."
Meanwhile, the Senate Majority Leader, following up on the first half of Meet the Press which was devoted to the above lack of civil political discourse, very civilly said that more than half of the voters in the recent election "can't be serious about reducing the deficit, can't be serious about creating jobs, can't be serious about boosting the economy." It's so much better when it's "civil."
Footnote: Has anyone else noticed how many mass killings have been preceded by a posting on Facebook? Time for Social Networking Control Legislation.
Clearly, we'll get around to the real cause of this, which is of course, access to guns in our country, but for now (never let a good crisis go to waste) we can show the country just how much the citizens who did not embrace the hope and change of the last Congress and this Administration were the main enablers of this tragic outcome.
The media outlets were immediately raising "questions with which the nation is struggling" about the lack of civility in our political discourse. Today, they are awash with all the talking heads who are providing the clear answers: "violent rhetoric," "incivility", "disdain for government," "public becoming riled" are the reasons for the death of five citizens and the wounding of a Congressional Representative.
I could devote hours discussing this issue, but here's a litmus test regarding just how much the right condones this nutjob's actions: take a poll at just about any gathering of liberals/progressives and take the same poll at one of those racist, uncivil teaparty gatherings:
"Show of hands: how many believe the accused shooter should be executed immediately if found guilty of the crime with his Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to appeal exhausted?"
Of course, the libs/progs would be too busy wringing their hands to raise them, but I have little doubt you'd see a sea of tea partier hands in the air before you even got to the "..if found guilty..."
Meanwhile, the Senate Majority Leader, following up on the first half of Meet the Press which was devoted to the above lack of civil political discourse, very civilly said that more than half of the voters in the recent election "can't be serious about reducing the deficit, can't be serious about creating jobs, can't be serious about boosting the economy." It's so much better when it's "civil."
Footnote: Has anyone else noticed how many mass killings have been preceded by a posting on Facebook? Time for Social Networking Control Legislation.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
WaPost Hipsters Think Obama's Not a Man of the Left
Someone called Greg Sargent of the WaPost website writes: "As I noted yesterday, one problem with the William Daley pick is that it risks reinforcing a totally false interpretation of Obama's first two years: That he governed from the "left." This I love, that there are folks way out on the left who seriously believe the President didn't govern from the left in his first two years, because he wasn't as left as they are.
So blaming the electoral "shellacking" on his left wing ideas is (to these people) nonsense, because he obviously wasn't governing from the left.
Get it now?
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Agenda for Tonight's Conservative Wahoo Live! Internet Radio Program
Join me tonight on The Conservative Wahoo Live! internet radio program at 8PM Eastern time. Call in at 347.637.2203 Here are the subjects we'll be tackling:
- Advice to Speaker Boehner on what the legislative agenda should be
- George Will, Charles Krauthammer: Palin can’t/won’t win
- Representative Issa and his itch to investigate the Obama Administration
- Raise the Debt Ceiling? Senator Obama Didn’t Think So
- USS ENTERPRISE CO debacle
- NFL Playoff Discussion
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Radio Show Bleg
The radio show returns to the airwaves (well, the interwebs) Wednesday night--so what is it you want me to prepare to talk about?
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Rise and Fall of an Aircraft Carrier CO
Read a pretty good discussion of the issue and watch the video here, on Information Dissemination.
Here's what I wrote in the comment section:
I had hoped not to spend too much time on this, but a phone call from my brother raised the question, and now that I've formed an opinion, I'll share it with whomever might be interested.
1. Galrhan does a fantastic job of providing context to the situation. Big E was in the yards a long, long time, and bringing a Dinosaur like that out and getting it up to operational speed is a Herculean task, one that would stress the abilities of any leadership team. Captain Honors was confronted with the task of motivating a crew that had long since ceased to see itself as a sea-going concern, and he clearly resorted to some of the more theatrical elements of leadership in the hope of creating that motivation. Leadership without some sense of theater is sterile and does not elevate the performance of subordinates.
2. Some of this stuff is genuinely funny, and as a red-blooded American guy (and former SWO), I say "bravo". There was creativity and bawdy humor laced throughout what I watched and sitting here at my computer desk, I was roundly entertained.
3. I got the jokes--and that's the problem. What we see here is inside Navy baseball at the major league level--and if you're not "read in", all you see is hostility to homosexuals (not homophobia, as I saw no fear), frat boy treatment of women, and sexual innuendo. Stuff that our increasingly "disconnected from all things military" American public finds discontinuous with their image of the military, and all of which they are quite comfortable with having had exterminated from THEIR workplaces. Taking this and showing it on Youtube et cetera is quite shocking to folks who simply don't do what the Navy does.
4. But none of this should be surprising. In the absence of complaints from the crew, Captain Honors should have had the sense not to make videos like this. He's been through all the training, he's seen the Navy dragged through the mud post-Tailhook. He knows that the past twenty years have been about professionalizing and diversifying the Navy workforce to the extent that yes--it looks much more like what the Youtube crowd watching at home looks like. Putting aside the offense that everyday Americans are taking at what is portrayed in these videos, the likelihood that crewmembers in ENTERPRISE would be made uncomfortable by the videos seems self-evident. That they registered their complaints with Captain Honors and he did nothing to censor his behavior raises questions about his judgment and fitness for duty at more senior levels, let alone that one he was at.
5. Most distressing to me, where was the Captain? I can assure you, if either of my XO's was routinely making video content for "enjoyment" by the crew, I would have had an interested eye cocked to the monitor simply out of curiosity. Had content like this been produced, I'd have had their asses.
So--should Captain Honors be fired? No. He should be reprimanded, and he should stay in command. ENTERPRISE CO's don't grow on trees and that ship has important business to attend to.
But they need to speed up whatever pipeline his relief is in, because when the deployment is over, Captain Honors should seek other employment.
Here's what I wrote in the comment section:
1. Galrhan does a fantastic job of providing context to the situation. Big E was in the yards a long, long time, and bringing a Dinosaur like that out and getting it up to operational speed is a Herculean task, one that would stress the abilities of any leadership team. Captain Honors was confronted with the task of motivating a crew that had long since ceased to see itself as a sea-going concern, and he clearly resorted to some of the more theatrical elements of leadership in the hope of creating that motivation. Leadership without some sense of theater is sterile and does not elevate the performance of subordinates.
2. Some of this stuff is genuinely funny, and as a red-blooded American guy (and former SWO), I say "bravo". There was creativity and bawdy humor laced throughout what I watched and sitting here at my computer desk, I was roundly entertained.
3. I got the jokes--and that's the problem. What we see here is inside Navy baseball at the major league level--and if you're not "read in", all you see is hostility to homosexuals (not homophobia, as I saw no fear), frat boy treatment of women, and sexual innuendo. Stuff that our increasingly "disconnected from all things military" American public finds discontinuous with their image of the military, and all of which they are quite comfortable with having had exterminated from THEIR workplaces. Taking this and showing it on Youtube et cetera is quite shocking to folks who simply don't do what the Navy does.
4. But none of this should be surprising. In the absence of complaints from the crew, Captain Honors should have had the sense not to make videos like this. He's been through all the training, he's seen the Navy dragged through the mud post-Tailhook. He knows that the past twenty years have been about professionalizing and diversifying the Navy workforce to the extent that yes--it looks much more like what the Youtube crowd watching at home looks like. Putting aside the offense that everyday Americans are taking at what is portrayed in these videos, the likelihood that crewmembers in ENTERPRISE would be made uncomfortable by the videos seems self-evident. That they registered their complaints with Captain Honors and he did nothing to censor his behavior raises questions about his judgment and fitness for duty at more senior levels, let alone that one he was at.
5. Most distressing to me, where was the Captain? I can assure you, if either of my XO's was routinely making video content for "enjoyment" by the crew, I would have had an interested eye cocked to the monitor simply out of curiosity. Had content like this been produced, I'd have had their asses.
So--should Captain Honors be fired? No. He should be reprimanded, and he should stay in command. ENTERPRISE CO's don't grow on trees and that ship has important business to attend to.
But they need to speed up whatever pipeline his relief is in, because when the deployment is over, Captain Honors should seek other employment.
RNC Debate Today
Is anyone else:
1. Thoroughly unimpressed with the candidates for the head of the RNC?
2. Thoroughly uninterested in the "debate" to be held today?
1. Thoroughly unimpressed with the candidates for the head of the RNC?
2. Thoroughly uninterested in the "debate" to be held today?
Obama Administration "Corrupt"?
Incoming House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darell Issa called the Obama Administration "one of the most corrupt administrations" during an interview on Fox News Sunday.
I don't find this comment very helpful. Are there places where Issa's Committee should poke its nose? Absolutely. And when they've investigated and called witnesses and heard testimony and reached conclusions--then talk smack like that. In the absence of such investigations, Issa's words are irresponsible.
I don't find this comment very helpful. Are there places where Issa's Committee should poke its nose? Absolutely. And when they've investigated and called witnesses and heard testimony and reached conclusions--then talk smack like that. In the absence of such investigations, Issa's words are irresponsible.
Dueling Views of the World: Krugman v. Samuelson
Interesting comparison available this morning for those who care to dive in. NYT Columnist Paul Krugman and WaPost Columnist Robert Samuelson have columns up that provide amateur economists with a pretty solid sense of the scope of mainstream economics.
On the one hand, we have Krugman: So what can be done to accelerate this all-too-slow process of healing? A rational political system would long since have created a 21st-century version of the Works Progress Administration — we’d be putting the unemployed to work doing what needs to be done, repairing and improving our fraying infrastructure. In the political system we have, however, Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte, delivering the Republican weekly address on New Year’s Day, declared that “Job one is to stop wasteful Washington spending.” Basically, a "government didn't do enough" approach to accelerating the recovery, even after we've seen how ridiculously slow and inefficient such "spending" has been in providing any stimulus.
On the other hand, we have Samuelson: The trouble is that Obama, having stabilized the economy, weakened the recovery. What's missing from Summers's valedictory is any sense of contradiction between the administration's ambitious social and regulatory agenda and the business confidence necessary for hiring and investing. Of course, the connections existed. The health-care law raises hiring costs by requiring in 2014 that all firms with more than 50 employees provide health insurance or be fined. The law brims with complexities and uncertainties that make it hard to estimate the ultimate costs. Will firms with, say, 47 workers eagerly expand beyond 50 if that imposes all the extra costs? It seems doubtful.
Choices had to be made. The administration could either concentrate on promoting recovery or devote itself to more narrow and, usually, partisan objectives. It couldn't do both - at least, it couldn't do both effectively. Obama's solution was to pretend the choices didn't exist. The first hints of this occurred in the "stimulus" package, which provided money for some pet projects that provided precious little stimulus. Until last week, for example, only about 20 percent of the $8 billion committed to high-speed rail had been disbursed. Planning these massive projects takes time.
So there you have it--Krugman tells us that the key to continuing recovery is for the government to spend more money and Samuelson tells us that the key to recovery is the government ceasing anti-business policies. I'm with Samuelson.
On the one hand, we have Krugman: So what can be done to accelerate this all-too-slow process of healing? A rational political system would long since have created a 21st-century version of the Works Progress Administration — we’d be putting the unemployed to work doing what needs to be done, repairing and improving our fraying infrastructure. In the political system we have, however, Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte, delivering the Republican weekly address on New Year’s Day, declared that “Job one is to stop wasteful Washington spending.” Basically, a "government didn't do enough" approach to accelerating the recovery, even after we've seen how ridiculously slow and inefficient such "spending" has been in providing any stimulus.
On the other hand, we have Samuelson: The trouble is that Obama, having stabilized the economy, weakened the recovery. What's missing from Summers's valedictory is any sense of contradiction between the administration's ambitious social and regulatory agenda and the business confidence necessary for hiring and investing. Of course, the connections existed. The health-care law raises hiring costs by requiring in 2014 that all firms with more than 50 employees provide health insurance or be fined. The law brims with complexities and uncertainties that make it hard to estimate the ultimate costs. Will firms with, say, 47 workers eagerly expand beyond 50 if that imposes all the extra costs? It seems doubtful.
Choices had to be made. The administration could either concentrate on promoting recovery or devote itself to more narrow and, usually, partisan objectives. It couldn't do both - at least, it couldn't do both effectively. Obama's solution was to pretend the choices didn't exist. The first hints of this occurred in the "stimulus" package, which provided money for some pet projects that provided precious little stimulus. Until last week, for example, only about 20 percent of the $8 billion committed to high-speed rail had been disbursed. Planning these massive projects takes time.
So there you have it--Krugman tells us that the key to continuing recovery is for the government to spend more money and Samuelson tells us that the key to recovery is the government ceasing anti-business policies. I'm with Samuelson.
E.J. Dionne Starts 2011 as Wrong as He Was in 2010
From this morning's WaPost, reflexive liberal hack columnist E.J. Dionne engages in some revisionist history:
There is already a standard line of advice to Speaker-to-be John Boehner and his colleagues that goes like this: Democrats overreached in the last Congress by doing too much and ignoring "the center." Republicans should be careful not to make the same mistake, lest they lose their majority, too.
This counsel is wrong, partly because the premise is faulty. Democrats did not overreach in the 111th Congress. On the contrary, they compromised regularly. Compromise made the health-care bill far more complicated than it had to be and the original stimulus bill too small. Democrats would have been better off getting more done more quickly and more coherently.
Please, please, PLEASE Democrats--listen to E.J., who is telling you that you lost in November 2010 because you weren't liberal enough! Keep telling the American people that they are wrong--that MORE government is what they really need.
There is already a standard line of advice to Speaker-to-be John Boehner and his colleagues that goes like this: Democrats overreached in the last Congress by doing too much and ignoring "the center." Republicans should be careful not to make the same mistake, lest they lose their majority, too.
This counsel is wrong, partly because the premise is faulty. Democrats did not overreach in the 111th Congress. On the contrary, they compromised regularly. Compromise made the health-care bill far more complicated than it had to be and the original stimulus bill too small. Democrats would have been better off getting more done more quickly and more coherently.
Please, please, PLEASE Democrats--listen to E.J., who is telling you that you lost in November 2010 because you weren't liberal enough! Keep telling the American people that they are wrong--that MORE government is what they really need.
Monday Sports Roundup
There is no way a 7-9 team should be in the NFL playoffs.
I'll say it again, New Year's Day just isn't the same without the orgy of great college football it used to be.
What happened to the Big 10?
I'll say it again, New Year's Day just isn't the same without the orgy of great college football it used to be.
What happened to the Big 10?
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Europeans Confiscate Private Pensions
In order to make up sizable budget deficits, governments in Hungary, Bulgaria, and Poland have begun to sweep up some or all of their citizens' private pensions. See the story here.
Think this can't happen here? Think again.
(From a Glenn Reynolds Facebook Post)
Think this can't happen here? Think again.
(From a Glenn Reynolds Facebook Post)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
