I'm all for this! In fact, can we make it retro-active so that Speaker Pelosi's "work" can help fund Obamacare?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Dems Seek to Tax Plastic Surgery
I'm all for this! In fact, can we make it retro-active so that Speaker Pelosi's "work" can help fund Obamacare?
A Funny New Blog
Not sure I'm ready to link to it as a regular read, but the concept is pretty funny. Introducing Sarah Palin's Uterus, a blog designed to drive Andrew Sullivan insane...
H/T: Instapundit
H/T: Instapundit
Friday, November 20, 2009
Racism. It's Not Just for People Anymore.
If anyone has ever adopted an animal from the SPCA (which I strongly encourage), you know how sad it is to see all the animals in there that are desperate to find their forever home. So animal shelters have to get creative at times in getting the word out on their animals. The Norfolk SPCA has attempted some such creativity--in conjunction with the holiday shopping season's Black Friday, they're having a Black Friday of their own, and all black pets (which are difficult to place, for reasons I don't understand), will be available at a discounted rate.
You know where this story is going, don't you? Yep. The local NAACP has expressed its dismay on how 'it's insensitive to African Americans who came to this nation as slaves and were sold.'
If anyone reading this can explain to me the connection, please help. And the good news is that not only is the Norfolk SPCA standing by their Black Friday event, but neighboring Virginia Beach is now hosting their own Black Friday event.
You know where this story is going, don't you? Yep. The local NAACP has expressed its dismay on how 'it's insensitive to African Americans who came to this nation as slaves and were sold.'
If anyone reading this can explain to me the connection, please help. And the good news is that not only is the Norfolk SPCA standing by their Black Friday event, but neighboring Virginia Beach is now hosting their own Black Friday event.
Anthropogenic Global Warming A Lot Of Hot Air?
The internet was abuzz this morning when news broke that the computers at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (aka - Hadley CRU) were hacked overnight and over one thousand emails and other documents were released into cyberspace.
Allegedly, many of the emails suggest that much of the AGW information disseminated by several prominent climatologists over the last decade or so either exaggerated the true impact of AGW or suppressed it altogether.
Uh oh.
Allegedly, many of the emails suggest that much of the AGW information disseminated by several prominent climatologists over the last decade or so either exaggerated the true impact of AGW or suppressed it altogether.
Uh oh.
Big Fat Friday Free For All
All Time High (April 1 2009): 192.2
Diet start (June 1): 189
Last Friday: 168.6 (10/30/09)
Today: 171.0
Goal: Sub 150
Moving in the wrong direction, obviously. Couple of reasons: 1) while I've been eating the things I should be eating, I've been eating more of them. 2) when eating out, I've begun to work the "appetizer" back into the rotation 3) Didn't weigh in the past two Fridays---been hiding.
No excuse. Gotta get back to work on this.
But enough of that--what's on your mind? Anything you need to get off your chest? Anything our President has done or hasn't done that is worthy of comment?
This is your day! Fire when ready, Gridley.
Diet start (June 1): 189
Last Friday: 168.6 (10/30/09)
Today: 171.0
Goal: Sub 150
Moving in the wrong direction, obviously. Couple of reasons: 1) while I've been eating the things I should be eating, I've been eating more of them. 2) when eating out, I've begun to work the "appetizer" back into the rotation 3) Didn't weigh in the past two Fridays---been hiding.
No excuse. Gotta get back to work on this.
But enough of that--what's on your mind? Anything you need to get off your chest? Anything our President has done or hasn't done that is worthy of comment?
This is your day! Fire when ready, Gridley.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Charles Murray on Glen Beck
Murray nails my objections to Glen Beck (throw Limbaugh in there for good measure) in a superb blog entry.
Feeling The Heat, Obama Administration Distances Itself From Mammogram Study
Ah yes, Hope and Change, promises to "end the politicization of science". We'll go where the science takes us. Right. So we'd expect the Obama Administration to come out fully in support of the findings of the independent US Preventive Services Task Force, right?
Not so fast, partner. Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius has ridden in to assure us all that the federal government will continue to sanction ridiculous defensive medicine and wasteful procedures that have little total impact on breast cancer survival rates, tell us that the new study "caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women and their families across this country," and she stressed that they were issued by "an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who . . . do not set federal policy and . . . don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."
No comment on the content or conclusions of the study. Just the first step in discrediting a truly expert panel by stressing they were "outside" the policy making process (good thing too, as we all know the real experts are right there in the Obama Team). Step two in discrediting the study comes later in the story, when we're told that for good measure, Sebelius later informed us in an interview with CNN that the task force members were appointed by the Bush Administration, leaving the obvious conclusion that their findings must of course, be tainted by their appointment.
Not so fast, partner. Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius has ridden in to assure us all that the federal government will continue to sanction ridiculous defensive medicine and wasteful procedures that have little total impact on breast cancer survival rates, tell us that the new study "caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women and their families across this country," and she stressed that they were issued by "an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who . . . do not set federal policy and . . . don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."
No comment on the content or conclusions of the study. Just the first step in discrediting a truly expert panel by stressing they were "outside" the policy making process (good thing too, as we all know the real experts are right there in the Obama Team). Step two in discrediting the study comes later in the story, when we're told that for good measure, Sebelius later informed us in an interview with CNN that the task force members were appointed by the Bush Administration, leaving the obvious conclusion that their findings must of course, be tainted by their appointment.
The Senate Has A Healthcare Bill
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has brought forth a bill for consideration by the Senate that blends the two major committee-born bills that had previously been wending their way through the Senate.
This bill has the primary advantage of being only slightly better than the House version, though this relative difference is akin to a choice between Maoism and Stalinism.
At $848B, the bill is indeed less expensive than the House version, and as we'll hear repeated over and over in the coming days, CBO projects it will cut the deficit by $130B. Of course, CBO is required to score bill as they are written, and for any of the "deficit reduction" to actually occur, the Congress would have to behave quite differently than it has for the last--oh, forty plus years of quasi-socialist medicine known as Medicare and Medicaid.
Reid has a less-onerous public option in his bill (state based "exchanges", from which states may "opt out"--though they may not "opt out" of the cost), and it is paid for with cuts to Medicare and through a tax on "gold-plated" health insurance policies (as opposed to the House bill, which levies a direct surtax on income above $500,000 for individuals and $1,000,000 for families (a 5% surtax, in addition to Medicare cuts).
Reid has done everything he possibly can to hold his fractious caucus together on this, but it remains to be seen whether he'll be able to convince his "moderate" Democrats from Red States to go for this.
So now we have the other side's playbook--the House as expected, has come forward with a horrific, expensive, and socialist takeover of the American healthcare system. The Senate has come forward with something just short of that. Republicans and Conservatives must align themselves against these bills even as they continue to advocate for positively messaged reforms--greater choice, greater market access, and lower costs.
This bill has the primary advantage of being only slightly better than the House version, though this relative difference is akin to a choice between Maoism and Stalinism.
At $848B, the bill is indeed less expensive than the House version, and as we'll hear repeated over and over in the coming days, CBO projects it will cut the deficit by $130B. Of course, CBO is required to score bill as they are written, and for any of the "deficit reduction" to actually occur, the Congress would have to behave quite differently than it has for the last--oh, forty plus years of quasi-socialist medicine known as Medicare and Medicaid.
Reid has a less-onerous public option in his bill (state based "exchanges", from which states may "opt out"--though they may not "opt out" of the cost), and it is paid for with cuts to Medicare and through a tax on "gold-plated" health insurance policies (as opposed to the House bill, which levies a direct surtax on income above $500,000 for individuals and $1,000,000 for families (a 5% surtax, in addition to Medicare cuts).
Reid has done everything he possibly can to hold his fractious caucus together on this, but it remains to be seen whether he'll be able to convince his "moderate" Democrats from Red States to go for this.
So now we have the other side's playbook--the House as expected, has come forward with a horrific, expensive, and socialist takeover of the American healthcare system. The Senate has come forward with something just short of that. Republicans and Conservatives must align themselves against these bills even as they continue to advocate for positively messaged reforms--greater choice, greater market access, and lower costs.
Jesse Jackson On Being A Black Man
"You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man." There you have it. Being a black man isn't just a cultural, racial, and social thing. You must THINK a certain way. Hogwash.
Iran Is In Israel's Crosshairs
With each and every step the Iranians take away from a deal on uranium enrichment, we get one step closer to Israel taking aggressive action.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Diversity and The Gifted/Talented
It seems that minorities are under-represented in the Commonwealth of Virginia's "Gifted and Talented" programs, which is of course, grounds for great concern in the office of the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (and soon to be ex-Governor of said Commonwealth). And so, the state's Education Department is launching a study.
Yes--let's do increase diversity in the gifted and talented programs. Let's put some special ed kids in there--you know--to diversify the student body (every class needs a kid who eats paste). Let's put a few "C" students in there too, in order to prop up the flagging self-esteem of some of our G/T kids whose bumper stickers and Kaplan courses aren't enough validation.
Yes--let's do increase diversity in the gifted and talented programs. Let's put some special ed kids in there--you know--to diversify the student body (every class needs a kid who eats paste). Let's put a few "C" students in there too, in order to prop up the flagging self-esteem of some of our G/T kids whose bumper stickers and Kaplan courses aren't enough validation.
A Little Helping of Sour Grapes From....The WaPost
Sorry to go to this well (again)--but the WaPost this morning provides so much material, it is hard to figure out what NOT to comment on.
This one's a winner. It seems that the Post's relentless advocacy of Creigh Deeds (unsuccessful) candidacy for Governor has put the folks there into a little snit. So much so, that they've now begun to reach out and whack Governor (Elect) McDonnell for his friends and donors--in this case, Pat Robertson.
Didn't they get enough of this during the race? Was McDonnell's attendance at Robertson's Law School not something the Post already informed us of (ad infinitum, ad nauseum)? Is there any secret that Robertson and McDonnell are politically acquainted?
Don't get me wrong--I think Robertson's a bit of a wing-nut. But what's the point of this editorial, except to take a cheap shot from the second place podium.
This one's a winner. It seems that the Post's relentless advocacy of Creigh Deeds (unsuccessful) candidacy for Governor has put the folks there into a little snit. So much so, that they've now begun to reach out and whack Governor (Elect) McDonnell for his friends and donors--in this case, Pat Robertson.
Didn't they get enough of this during the race? Was McDonnell's attendance at Robertson's Law School not something the Post already informed us of (ad infinitum, ad nauseum)? Is there any secret that Robertson and McDonnell are politically acquainted?
Don't get me wrong--I think Robertson's a bit of a wing-nut. But what's the point of this editorial, except to take a cheap shot from the second place podium.
WaPost in the Tank for Obama, Part 335
Washington Post "analyst" Alec MacGillis rides in to the rescue of an administration suffering from the pesky (Democrat) Congressional scrutiny over the number of jobs "created or saved" by their (non)stimulus package. His defense? Accounting for such things as the creation or "saving" of jobs is just hard, darn it! And besides--you guys (Congress) asked for these numbers--why, we wouldn't even be keeping them, they're so hard to track if it weren't for your meddling.
The Politics of Mammograms
So the second massive study in 12 years to reach the conclusion that routine mammograms for women in their 40's could be doing more harm than good has hit the streets and the reaction has been predictable.
Those who see this as nothing more than a ruse to cut total health care costs are accusing study proponents of abandoning women's health. Study proponents point to the size and scope of their study, and its non-ideological emphasis.
Here's the deal--you don't get to complain about rising health-care costs and tort reform (to discourage defensive medicine) at the same time you score cheap political points by questioning the timing or rationale for a study like this one. At some level of abstraction, we've got to go with the numbers. If the numbers tell us that there are too many false positives resulting in too many unnecessary procedures that have little or no impact on the survival rate--then we've got to go where the data takes us.
This really is an important test case for whether or not we're serious in this country about health-care reform--even the kinds of health-care reform that I and many readers of this blog want. If you want to control costs, you've got to discourage unnecessary procedures. If you discourage unnecessary procedures (known to some as "rationing"), some will slip through the cracks. Is this a risk we as a society are willing to take? Those who support Pelosi/Obamacare are dead wrong if they think the direction they are taking us in does not drive even more of these choices. It will, and patient care will be impacted.
Those who see this as nothing more than a ruse to cut total health care costs are accusing study proponents of abandoning women's health. Study proponents point to the size and scope of their study, and its non-ideological emphasis.
Here's the deal--you don't get to complain about rising health-care costs and tort reform (to discourage defensive medicine) at the same time you score cheap political points by questioning the timing or rationale for a study like this one. At some level of abstraction, we've got to go with the numbers. If the numbers tell us that there are too many false positives resulting in too many unnecessary procedures that have little or no impact on the survival rate--then we've got to go where the data takes us.
This really is an important test case for whether or not we're serious in this country about health-care reform--even the kinds of health-care reform that I and many readers of this blog want. If you want to control costs, you've got to discourage unnecessary procedures. If you discourage unnecessary procedures (known to some as "rationing"), some will slip through the cracks. Is this a risk we as a society are willing to take? Those who support Pelosi/Obamacare are dead wrong if they think the direction they are taking us in does not drive even more of these choices. It will, and patient care will be impacted.
Buyers Remorse at Cato?
I've written here before about my affinity for The Cato Institute, the premier libertarian think-tank in DC. I think they are intellectually honest, and they generally do a good job of helping to shape major policy debates by representing the all-important "small government/individual rights" view. Besides that, my homey Dr. C is a big wig there.
That said, I came across this little doozie on the Cato website this morning, dropped there by another big-wig, David Boaz. In it, Boaz brings our attention to yet another encroachment of big-Washington government upon our daily lives, an initiative to have the Feds provide oversight to subway systems.
I'm glad Boaz and Cato are on the beat here--but they simply don't have the standing to do so, given that Cato was an intellectual birthplace of Liberaltarianism, the fusion of liberal principles and libertarianism that rose up as a reaction to some of George Bush's policies. What I'm getting at here is while strict libertarians may have had some issues with GWB (as did strict Conservatives for that matter), did they really think they'd get anywhere in a one-night stand with modern American liberals? Did they really think that once they got in power, the left would suddenly transmogrify into a free-market, low regulation, bong-hit supporting movement (well, I suppose they are getting a little return on their investment in the Administration's treatment of medical pot)?
Libertarians need to make peace with the fact that they'll always be unhappy politically, because neither of the parties goes far enough for them, and neither of the major movements (conservatism or liberalism) aligns closely enough either. But the plain truth of the matter is that the Republican Party and the Conservative movement will always be closer to Libertarians--even when Libertarians try to make us jealous by "sleeping around".
That said, I came across this little doozie on the Cato website this morning, dropped there by another big-wig, David Boaz. In it, Boaz brings our attention to yet another encroachment of big-Washington government upon our daily lives, an initiative to have the Feds provide oversight to subway systems.
I'm glad Boaz and Cato are on the beat here--but they simply don't have the standing to do so, given that Cato was an intellectual birthplace of Liberaltarianism, the fusion of liberal principles and libertarianism that rose up as a reaction to some of George Bush's policies. What I'm getting at here is while strict libertarians may have had some issues with GWB (as did strict Conservatives for that matter), did they really think they'd get anywhere in a one-night stand with modern American liberals? Did they really think that once they got in power, the left would suddenly transmogrify into a free-market, low regulation, bong-hit supporting movement (well, I suppose they are getting a little return on their investment in the Administration's treatment of medical pot)?
Libertarians need to make peace with the fact that they'll always be unhappy politically, because neither of the parties goes far enough for them, and neither of the major movements (conservatism or liberalism) aligns closely enough either. But the plain truth of the matter is that the Republican Party and the Conservative movement will always be closer to Libertarians--even when Libertarians try to make us jealous by "sleeping around".
Military Senior Mentors Cashing In
This story is an absolute scandal. These retired flag and general officers should be highly regulated and closely watched.
Besides, then there'd be more cashing in for "Junior Mentors"!
Besides, then there'd be more cashing in for "Junior Mentors"!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I Deserve A Porsche
When the SCHIPs are down, make health care a children's crusade. Obama's Organizing for America today announced the winner of it health reform video challenge - a 30 second spot entitled "I Deserve Health Care", a short comprised entirely of children describing tales of future misery that will befall them because their parents couldn't afford health care.
(Democratic) Tricks Are for Kids
This little tutorial is the latest measure our Department of Commerce's Census Bureau has devised as an apparent stop gap measure made necessary because those two radical conservatives entrapped ACORN into the alleged and patently unjust appearance of supposed impropriety and rendered them ineligible to perform their unequalled service of providing reliable, accurate data about potential democrat voters, real or imagined. No problem, there is another demographic who is quite comfortable making up things and playing "let's pretend". No, not Hollywood elite, I mean, yes, them too, but we can't pay them enough to bother them with REAL work, so they're out. No, the government's solution to replace ACORN is "school kids". Yep. You know, those cute little buggers who run around still unaware of things like personal volume control, the myths of holiday beings of altruism, and, conveniently, political agendas such as the census in the hands of people who are intent on getting more votes and more money for social programs (and hence their social program government jobs) irrespective of the veracity of the data they harvest.It's the only way to get illegal immigrants counted? Unless you are counting them to determine how big a bus we need to carry them back to the border, I have two words: "so" and "what".
It's the only way to get actual citizens who are hiding from the government (i.e. fearful of being apprehended for a prior crime)? Hey, same two words.
Okay, then, what about all the LEGAL immigrants who don't speak English? I'll bet I got you on that one, Mudge! You're right, Alter Mudge, you did. I need two new words for that one: "learn" and "english".
Look, even the cold-hearted, uncompassionate bastard that I am realizes an accurate census is difficult to achieve. But using kids, although a considerable step up in reliability from ACORN who the Bureau was once intent on using, makes me wonder to what length we'll go to achieve the political agenda of the NeoSocs.
[Insert from http://online.wsj.com]
On Bowing To Japanese Emperors
I've avoided this one simply because I really didn't know the protocol involved...I still don't, but the kids of the UCONN College Republicans have a little primer to help the President see how other dignitaries have handled the "meet and greet" with the Emperor. Classic.
H/T--Mary Katherine Ham at The Weekly Standard-- who is incidentally, one of the hottest conservative women out there....
H/T--Mary Katherine Ham at The Weekly Standard-- who is incidentally, one of the hottest conservative women out there....
Monday, November 16, 2009
Governor sued for balancing the budget. That bastard!
From my beloved hometown comes the news that Gov Tim Pawlenty is being sued by the Democrat-controlled state legislature for the cardinal sin of...balancing the state budget.
Last summer T-Paw enraged the legislature by vetoing one tax hike after another to balance the budget. They gambled that eventually he'd be forced to come to the negotiating table. They gambled wrong, and he decided instead to make some real cuts to the bloated state budget.
So they sued him. They insist they're not suing him, but unless you're deaf, blind and dumb, you can see what they're up to.
I'm thinking this has to help Pawlenty.
Last summer T-Paw enraged the legislature by vetoing one tax hike after another to balance the budget. They gambled that eventually he'd be forced to come to the negotiating table. They gambled wrong, and he decided instead to make some real cuts to the bloated state budget.
So they sued him. They insist they're not suing him, but unless you're deaf, blind and dumb, you can see what they're up to.
I'm thinking this has to help Pawlenty.
600 Million Screaming Chinamen Can't Be Wrong
CNN reporter Emily Chang claims she was detained in Shanghai after displaying a tee-shirt on camera depicting Barack Obama as Chairman Mao.
Meteoric Rise and Shine
All you east coast US/Canada star watchers set your alarms for around 0330 tomorrow morning and go outside to watch the Leonid Meteor Shower. Although it is unlikely here to be of the intensity that another meteoric star, POTUS, will be able to see from Asia, it should nevertheless prove worth your while since we will have a new moon and Mars will be positioned on a radial that gives it the appearance of being the source of the meteors. The Leonid gets its name from its apparent origin being the constellation, Leo, but its actual origin is, of course, a comet, Tempel-Tuttle, which visits our "inner" solar system once every 33 years leaving a trail of comet "dust" which, when impacting our atmosphere, creates the appearance of "falling stars".
Picture from NASA (http://www.science.nasa.gov)
Picture from NASA (http://www.science.nasa.gov)
Phil Donahue Appointed National Phthalates During Pregnancy Association (NPDPA) Spokesma....Spokesperson
Unfortunate little revelation here from study results announced in the International Journal of Andrology where women who had been exposed to certain types of a substance known as "phthlates" gave birth to sons who exhibited "less masculine" forms of play behavior.
Apparently, the two forms of phthlates that were most attributable to this outcome are prevalent in products ranging from hospital surgical tubing to cosmetics. Anyway, thank goodness we aren't testing these sorts of things on animals...it's just so much better when we find out about outcomes like this when little Johnny asks Santa for a Barbie and Ken Playhouse.
By the way, just how long have these phthlates been around anyway?
Apparently, the two forms of phthlates that were most attributable to this outcome are prevalent in products ranging from hospital surgical tubing to cosmetics. Anyway, thank goodness we aren't testing these sorts of things on animals...it's just so much better when we find out about outcomes like this when little Johnny asks Santa for a Barbie and Ken Playhouse.
By the way, just how long have these phthlates been around anyway?
Hey FOX, Great News From The Great One at the Great Wall
"I am a big supporter of 'non-censorship'" -- B.H. Obama, speaking to students in China.
I couldn't help but be tickled by this story of (the) one tasting (the) one's own medicine in the Washington Post today. A handful of excerpts that caught my increasingly jaundiced eye:
[You mean the government plays an active role in limiting access to stories that are less than complimentary to it?]
and
[wait a minute, do the Chinese officials not understand what 'marquee event' means and who deemed it such?]
and
[Apparently, it is no longer sufficiently clear a distinction that Jiang felt comfortable saying, "I know the U.S. is more open than China."]
and, finally,
[It would be patently unfair of me to criticize a young Chinese student, even with a year in Ohio, for mistaking teleprompters as being distinct from documents.]
Oh, and by the way Mr. President, that "non-censorship" thing? Back here across the Pacific, we have a nifty little term for it: "free speech".
I couldn't help but be tickled by this story of (the) one tasting (the) one's own medicine in the Washington Post today. A handful of excerpts that caught my increasingly jaundiced eye:
The 7 p.m. news broadcast of CCTV is the most influential in China, reflecting the official government line and serving as the main source of television news for most people outside the major cities. But Obama's arrival in Shanghai was not even the lead story -- it was seventh in a line of stories that began with one on President Hu Jintao returning from the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Singapore.
[You mean the government plays an active role in limiting access to stories that are less than complimentary to it?]
and
When CCTV did mention Obama's visit, well into the broadcast, it was in a story of less than a minute that just noted his airport arrival and his meeting with the mayor of Shanghai. There was not a word about the forum with students, which the White House had billed as the marquee event of Obama's first trip to China.
[wait a minute, do the Chinese officials not understand what 'marquee event' means and who deemed it such?]
and
"I really agree with Obama's slogan, 'change' " said Jiang Yimeng, 19-year-old high school graduate. "I think the U.S. is more open than China."
[Apparently, it is no longer sufficiently clear a distinction that Jiang felt comfortable saying, "I know the U.S. is more open than China."]
and, finally,
Shi Tingchong, also 19 and a high school graduate, spent a year as an exchange student in Ohio. "I'm here because I worship him," she said. "I think he is someone who can really listen to us. Chinese government leaders just read from what's written down on documents."
[It would be patently unfair of me to criticize a young Chinese student, even with a year in Ohio, for mistaking teleprompters as being distinct from documents.]
Oh, and by the way Mr. President, that "non-censorship" thing? Back here across the Pacific, we have a nifty little term for it: "free speech".
If We Can Avoid Luxury Tax and Jail and Land on Chance, We'll Pay You Back Next Trip Around the Board
Looks as if Government Motors Corporation (GMC) is marching steadily toward its own economic recovery...just as one would expect with the new board of directors at the helm. It is making promises of paying back money it owes in the midst of a post-bailout, post-government take over, post-bankruptcy quarterly earnings report of MINUS $1.15 Billion.
No sweat. As in MONOPOLY, it isn't real money anyway.
No sweat. As in MONOPOLY, it isn't real money anyway.
A Long Time Ago...
Some on this space have recently expressed a feeling of bittersweet disappointment after a reunion concert of a band of their youth failed to transport them back to a gentler time and place . Last night, I may have found a loophole in the space-time continuum.
I took my nine-year old son to a performance of Star Wars In Concert at the Wachovia Centre in Philadelphia. The show consists of a full orchestra (the Royal Philharmonic) performing John Williams' original compositions from all six movies in front of a three-story high definition movie screen. Anthony Daniels, the actor who portrayed C3PO for all six films, appears live and provides a narrative of the saga.
John Williams has composed music for some of the most successful films of all time; and if you have a chance to see this concert (it's touring), you'll understand and appreciate his contribution to these films even more.
I was nine myself when the original Star Wars was released. And for a few hours at least, both nine-year olds were transfixed and transported to a galaxy far, far away...
I took my nine-year old son to a performance of Star Wars In Concert at the Wachovia Centre in Philadelphia. The show consists of a full orchestra (the Royal Philharmonic) performing John Williams' original compositions from all six movies in front of a three-story high definition movie screen. Anthony Daniels, the actor who portrayed C3PO for all six films, appears live and provides a narrative of the saga.
John Williams has composed music for some of the most successful films of all time; and if you have a chance to see this concert (it's touring), you'll understand and appreciate his contribution to these films even more.
I was nine myself when the original Star Wars was released. And for a few hours at least, both nine-year olds were transfixed and transported to a galaxy far, far away...
A Ten-Year Old Nails What Being a Captain Is All About
A friend sent me this, written by a 10-year old boy and published in the newsletter of the Society of Marine Port Engineers.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
If You Aren't Outraged, Then Someone Other Than Bush Must Have Done It
A few days late but thought it worth discussing. The Obama Administration Justice Department seized assets from several Islamic mosques inside the United States last week. It received what I would call "responsible reporting" (log it!) from the MSM. Read this article from the Baltimore Sun and see if you agree. Balanced reporting, explains the degree to which the government excluded the activities of the attendees of these mosques so as not to impede their First Amendment rights and to only seize the assets associated with those mosques (and other income earning real estate) where they had evidence (via phone taps, and other "Constitution-trampling activities" of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act) that it was supporting the Iranian government's ties to terrorist activities. FBI agents had even been videotaped going through dumpsters outside of various mosques, yet there was no public outrage, fueled by righteous indignation reporting and claims of trampling the Constitution (except in Democracy Today--but even there, they were uncharacteristically reserved in their "outrage"). Perhaps it's because, like so much else where the MSM has gone milquetoast on us, The One declared that he would NEVER do such "expedient" acts in the name of national security. Therefore, this is clearly beyond critical review:
The Sad State of the Republican Party in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Maryland
This is what passes for a Republican Party in my adopted home. Ridiculous.
Pac Sand, Baggers
President of the Pacific Obama, during his meetings with ASEAN leaders, apparently announced that he was bringing Obamachange to the world economy as well:
Like POTPAC, apparently, I am not much of an economist, but I wonder how does T.O. intend to deliver on this commitment to his PacPals? Don't get me wrong, curbing our consumption of imports and having more personal savings both appeal to me, but in this age of government-intervention in my personal decisions (those personal decisions where my choice does not involve the death of another human) I am deeply suspicious of the mechanisms he has in mind for his continental subjects east of The Pac.
Doesn't "strive to consume less" mean the same thing as "purchase fewer goods and resources"? If so, does this mean POTPAC is intending to enact policies to cut back US manufacturing of products for which consumption of resources is generally considered a necessity? At the consumption of goods level, does that mean that POTPAC has plans for our remaining personal discretionary earnings with which we tend to make such purchases?
And as for his "appeal" to Asian nations, isn't "make your own economies more dependent on your own domestic consumption than [continued] US profligacy pretty much the bellringer that he has little faith in American economic recovery? Or perhaps that he has great faith that his vision for a socialist America will in fact be realized and that his PacPals better get hot on reconfiguring their economies because POTPAC is taking America back to the Good Ol' Days:
Mr. Obama, in a speech Sunday, took his appeal for a new world economic order to the leaders of Asia that must help make it happen. He said the United States would strive to consume less, save more and restructure its economy around trade and exports. But he appealed to Asian nations to make their own economies more dependent on domestic consumption than U.S. profligacy.
Like POTPAC, apparently, I am not much of an economist, but I wonder how does T.O. intend to deliver on this commitment to his PacPals? Don't get me wrong, curbing our consumption of imports and having more personal savings both appeal to me, but in this age of government-intervention in my personal decisions (those personal decisions where my choice does not involve the death of another human) I am deeply suspicious of the mechanisms he has in mind for his continental subjects east of The Pac.
Doesn't "strive to consume less" mean the same thing as "purchase fewer goods and resources"? If so, does this mean POTPAC is intending to enact policies to cut back US manufacturing of products for which consumption of resources is generally considered a necessity? At the consumption of goods level, does that mean that POTPAC has plans for our remaining personal discretionary earnings with which we tend to make such purchases?
And as for his "appeal" to Asian nations, isn't "make your own economies more dependent on your own domestic consumption than [continued] US profligacy pretty much the bellringer that he has little faith in American economic recovery? Or perhaps that he has great faith that his vision for a socialist America will in fact be realized and that his PacPals better get hot on reconfiguring their economies because POTPAC is taking America back to the Good Ol' Days:
Uh Oh--Did the Dems Piss Off Seniors?
Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (which acts as an independent technical adviser to both the Congress and the Administration--as the article says, sort of like the CBO), has released a report saying that the recent bill passed by House Democrats would "sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday".
Here are some more juicy bits from the article:
"The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether."
and
"In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services."
What we see here is more evidence of the fact that the all powerful goal of universal coverage is going to come at the cost of wrecking what we already have in place. Medicare and Medicaid are already sub-optimal--and they'll only get worse from here if the Dems get their way. But the damage will not be limited to those already poorly administered examples of socialized medicine. It will soon come to ALL of our privately administered health insurance. All in the name of universal coverage for illegal aliens, young people who choose not to get care and those already enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid that the studies miss.
Here are some more juicy bits from the article:
"The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether."
and
"In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services."
What we see here is more evidence of the fact that the all powerful goal of universal coverage is going to come at the cost of wrecking what we already have in place. Medicare and Medicaid are already sub-optimal--and they'll only get worse from here if the Dems get their way. But the damage will not be limited to those already poorly administered examples of socialized medicine. It will soon come to ALL of our privately administered health insurance. All in the name of universal coverage for illegal aliens, young people who choose not to get care and those already enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid that the studies miss.
Our First "Pacific President"? Give Me A Break
The One is in Asia, part of his record first year of international travel (Nero, Rome)--and in a speech he referred to himself as "America's first Pacific President". Putting aside for a moment the fact that he is wrong (see John J. Pitney, JR on NRO), what IS IT with this guy, having to make virtually everything about HIMSELF? Now, I know what some of you are saying..."CW, it's awfully ironic that YOU would say such a thing, as you've never shied away from a self-referral." True enough--but all I can say is if I AM GETTING SICK OF IT, more humble and well-adjusted people damn sure ought to be going out of their minds by now.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Wanna See Something Way Cool?
Watch this video. It is a reconstruction of the US AIR Flight 1549 last summer, the one that ditched in the Hudson. Serious professionalism from the flight crew AND the air traffic controllers. Nicely done by all.
H/T: Instapundit
H/T: Instapundit
Not Everything Is Bigger In Texas
A woman in Waco, TX has been charged with theft by deception for lying about having cancer in order to raise money for breast enlargement surgery.
Authorities say Trista Jay Lathern spent $10,000 raised during a benefit in her honor on a boob job. Lathern went as far as shaving her head in an effort to look more like a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy. Ooo, a method actor.
Lathern is alleged to have wanted the impants to try to save her seven month marriage.
A case where the ends, however noble and spectacular, do not justify the means.
Authorities say Trista Jay Lathern spent $10,000 raised during a benefit in her honor on a boob job. Lathern went as far as shaving her head in an effort to look more like a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy. Ooo, a method actor.
Lathern is alleged to have wanted the impants to try to save her seven month marriage.
A case where the ends, however noble and spectacular, do not justify the means.
What I Wish My Videos Looked and Sounded Like
Check out Alfonzo Rachel's latest PJTV effort. Three minutes that every Republican ought to watch, and ought to appreciate.
KSM et al To Be Tried In Civilian Courts in NYC
I guess you could see this one coming, given statements the President has made and the waffling, unimpressive performance of his Attorney General thus far. Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his gang of merry men are going to be tried in the civilian criminal justice system in New York. Word is that all five of these miscreants will be tried together, and that prosecutors are likely to seek the death sentence.
We've talked here about "alternative futures"; that is, the strategic planning technique of looking at a number of "realities" that may develop, and then thinking about how one would react to those futures. I think some "alternative futures" thinking is in order here.
Firstly, I think the most likely outcome of this trial is that it will be 1) long 2) a circus 3) a proxy for Democrat/Obama retributive behavior toward the Bush Administration and 4) fatal to KSM and probably at least one or two others (as in, they will be convicted and they will earn the death penalty.
But let's think about another alternative future, shall we? Let's think about a future in which KSM gets off--not fully, of course, but winds up guilty of some crime other than one that earns him a one-way ticket to his 76 virgins. Can you imagine the political blow-back that will accrue to the Obama Administration if that is the case? Is this likely? N0t nearly as likely as the scenario described above, but MY GOD, how ruinous it would be if it were to come to pass.
Let's get one thing straight--military commissions, held in Guantanamo, could have worked. The Congress--working closely with the Justice Department and the DoD--could have created a military commissions framework in which these fellows could easily have been tried--one that would have passed Supreme Court muster and one in which the circus that will surely come would have been minimized. But no-- now the trial will become at least partially a trial of the Bush Administration--and a casualty of that process could be justice. Once this trial becomes focused on "waterboarding", all bets will be off and Katy bar the door.
Finally--these men are not criminals. They were unlawful combatants who perpetrated an act of war upon the United States of America. Trying them in our criminal justice system is a miscarriage of justice, and extends unto each one of them any and all liberties enjoyed by every American citizen when he or she steps into a courtroom. This is not the way it should be.
UPDATE: A nicely done editorial from NRO
We've talked here about "alternative futures"; that is, the strategic planning technique of looking at a number of "realities" that may develop, and then thinking about how one would react to those futures. I think some "alternative futures" thinking is in order here.
Firstly, I think the most likely outcome of this trial is that it will be 1) long 2) a circus 3) a proxy for Democrat/Obama retributive behavior toward the Bush Administration and 4) fatal to KSM and probably at least one or two others (as in, they will be convicted and they will earn the death penalty.
But let's think about another alternative future, shall we? Let's think about a future in which KSM gets off--not fully, of course, but winds up guilty of some crime other than one that earns him a one-way ticket to his 76 virgins. Can you imagine the political blow-back that will accrue to the Obama Administration if that is the case? Is this likely? N0t nearly as likely as the scenario described above, but MY GOD, how ruinous it would be if it were to come to pass.
Let's get one thing straight--military commissions, held in Guantanamo, could have worked. The Congress--working closely with the Justice Department and the DoD--could have created a military commissions framework in which these fellows could easily have been tried--one that would have passed Supreme Court muster and one in which the circus that will surely come would have been minimized. But no-- now the trial will become at least partially a trial of the Bush Administration--and a casualty of that process could be justice. Once this trial becomes focused on "waterboarding", all bets will be off and Katy bar the door.
Finally--these men are not criminals. They were unlawful combatants who perpetrated an act of war upon the United States of America. Trying them in our criminal justice system is a miscarriage of justice, and extends unto each one of them any and all liberties enjoyed by every American citizen when he or she steps into a courtroom. This is not the way it should be.
UPDATE: A nicely done editorial from NRO
Friday, November 13, 2009
A New Recommended Site
So yesterday I was at a business function and I had the opportunity to speak with a very bright woman, but I was unable to comprehend exactly what it was that she did for a living (though she did explain it).
So when I got home last night, I Googled her to see if I could get a better handle on it, and lo and behold, I found that she has a blog. Not only a blog--but a very literate, funny, and CONSERVATIVE blog.
So I am happy to introduce you to Pied Patter--The Iterate Ramblings of a Brilliant Mind.
So when I got home last night, I Googled her to see if I could get a better handle on it, and lo and behold, I found that she has a blog. Not only a blog--but a very literate, funny, and CONSERVATIVE blog.
So I am happy to introduce you to Pied Patter--The Iterate Ramblings of a Brilliant Mind.
Big Fat Friday Free For All
I'm not even gonna get on the scale today. It's been ridiculously rainy and cold, my running has suffered, I ate a chinese food dinner and a pizza dinner this week--I think I'll just put this off until next week.
But I will NOT put off BFFFFA!
What's on your mind people? Are there any subjects that you're dying to share? What's got your attention these days?
But I will NOT put off BFFFFA!
What's on your mind people? Are there any subjects that you're dying to share? What's got your attention these days?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
We're Doomed, Exhibit #27a
Clothes shopping circa 1959...
Which way are we evolving again?
Clothes shopping circa 2009...
Which way are we evolving again?
Jonah Goldberg is Wrong--Islam IS The Problem (sort of)
I think Jonah Goldberg is the smartest guy on our team--he's witty, self-effacing, and ridiculously well-educated. I agree with him almost all the time, and his mention of this blog on National Review Online was a huge deal.
Jonah's got a column up at NRO, and then a few blog posts that follow. In this work, Goldberg attempts to take on the difficult questions raised most recently by the terrorist acts at Fort Hood--and whether, as some on the Right would have us believe, Islam itself is "the problem". Goldberg ultimately believes that "The problem with formulating a serious public policy based on the assertion that Islam is the problem is that you guarantee Islam become even more of a problem. It's a bit like Schrodinger's cat. Right now Islam is both problem and solution. If we decide on one, we foreclose the possibility of the other." While evincing a genuine respect for those who do feel "...that Islam is, if not the problem, then at least it is a major problem", he ultimately believes that the more we focus on this as a problem with Islam, the more likely we are to push moderate Muslims into the Jihadist camp.
As I read through Jonah's work yesterday, I was reminded of an exchange I had during a weekend foreign policy seminar a few years ago, in which a pretentious French (but I repeat myself) academic apologist for world Islam was lecturing us on the folly of our policies. In an exchange, I opined that we had not sufficiently focused on Islam itself as the major contributor to extremism--to which he answered with a great dismissive laugh, "ha, ha, ha--would would you do, kill a billion Muslims in order to eliminate the problem." "No", I answered. "I actually don't remember us killing a whole lot of Russians in winning the Cold War. We exposed the emptiness of their ideas--this was the path to victory."
So I was somewhat interested in this part of Goldberg's analysis:
The problem with the Communism analogy is that Communism really was a novel and artificial imposition on society. You could appeal to Ukrainians as Ukrainians in an effort to get them to reject Communist ideology. The rhetoric of freedom had salience both as an appeal to individualism but also to national and cultural self-determination (we didn't call them "captive nations" for nothing). Islam isn't like that, at least not in most places (one exception that comes to mind is Iran where a Persian, nationalist, identity seems to many to be as authentic as the post-revolutionary ideology that rules the country now). In most Islamic countries, Islam isn't a foreign ideology imposed by revolutionaries from within or without. Islam is central to the culture, integral to their identity. Only a relative handful of Russians took great offense when you insulted Marxism, because Marxism was never central to the Russian identity. Indeed, my hunch is that at least in the years between Stalin's death and 1989, you were more likely to invite a punch in the nose from a typical Russian by insulting Tolstoy than by insulting Marx.
Jonah makes excellent points here about the NATURE of Communism and the NATURE of Islam. I agree--there are differences. Where he and I part company is in the IMPACT that such differences have on OUR approach to dealing with them as threats. Fear of radicalizing moderate Islam is insufficient reason for holstering one's rhetorical and ideological weapons, as it is this great mass in the middle that supplies the tacit support for and economic funding to--radical Islam. Without moderate Islam--there is no radical Islam.
So when I say that Islam IS the problem, I mean that the great mass of Muslims in the world who go about their business every day living their ordinary lives--but who nod their heads in agreement at every Tel Aviv pizza parlor bombing and who cheer the actions of Major Hassan. Some say that these reactions aren't Islam per se, but are more POLITICAL reactions to world and social events. I'd like to believe that is the case, but I am unpersuaded, especially given the propensity of moderate Muslims to mention religion in their implicit or explicit defense of these actions.
Others say that identifying Islam as the problem is a misreading of the basic tenets of a great religion--I say this isn't a theological debate, it is an existential struggle, brought about by a radical desire of a thin slice of modern Islam to re-establish a Caliphate. If--as defenders of Islam would have us believe--much of the modern rhetoric of Islamic extremism is inconsistent with Islam--then it is the responsibility of moderate Islam to cleanse itself of not only the rhetoric but of the impulse to support extremism. And, it is not only reasonable for US policy to strive to bring about this internal debate--it is ultimately likely to be the most successful path to settling this dustup on terms agreeable to the West AND to Islam.
So when I say that "Islam IS the Problem", I mean to be specific in defining "the problem". The problem to me is the great heat sink of support that moderate Islam provides radical Islam, and the rhetoric of religious unity and purity in which it is wrapped. There may be nothing wrong with Islam AS A RELIGION--but in its modern cultural expression, it is flawed--and focusing on it as "the problem" or "a big part of the problem" seems prudent to me.
Jonah's got a column up at NRO, and then a few blog posts that follow. In this work, Goldberg attempts to take on the difficult questions raised most recently by the terrorist acts at Fort Hood--and whether, as some on the Right would have us believe, Islam itself is "the problem". Goldberg ultimately believes that "The problem with formulating a serious public policy based on the assertion that Islam is the problem is that you guarantee Islam become even more of a problem. It's a bit like Schrodinger's cat. Right now Islam is both problem and solution. If we decide on one, we foreclose the possibility of the other." While evincing a genuine respect for those who do feel "...that Islam is, if not the problem, then at least it is a major problem", he ultimately believes that the more we focus on this as a problem with Islam, the more likely we are to push moderate Muslims into the Jihadist camp.
As I read through Jonah's work yesterday, I was reminded of an exchange I had during a weekend foreign policy seminar a few years ago, in which a pretentious French (but I repeat myself) academic apologist for world Islam was lecturing us on the folly of our policies. In an exchange, I opined that we had not sufficiently focused on Islam itself as the major contributor to extremism--to which he answered with a great dismissive laugh, "ha, ha, ha--would would you do, kill a billion Muslims in order to eliminate the problem." "No", I answered. "I actually don't remember us killing a whole lot of Russians in winning the Cold War. We exposed the emptiness of their ideas--this was the path to victory."
So I was somewhat interested in this part of Goldberg's analysis:
The problem with the Communism analogy is that Communism really was a novel and artificial imposition on society. You could appeal to Ukrainians as Ukrainians in an effort to get them to reject Communist ideology. The rhetoric of freedom had salience both as an appeal to individualism but also to national and cultural self-determination (we didn't call them "captive nations" for nothing). Islam isn't like that, at least not in most places (one exception that comes to mind is Iran where a Persian, nationalist, identity seems to many to be as authentic as the post-revolutionary ideology that rules the country now). In most Islamic countries, Islam isn't a foreign ideology imposed by revolutionaries from within or without. Islam is central to the culture, integral to their identity. Only a relative handful of Russians took great offense when you insulted Marxism, because Marxism was never central to the Russian identity. Indeed, my hunch is that at least in the years between Stalin's death and 1989, you were more likely to invite a punch in the nose from a typical Russian by insulting Tolstoy than by insulting Marx.
Jonah makes excellent points here about the NATURE of Communism and the NATURE of Islam. I agree--there are differences. Where he and I part company is in the IMPACT that such differences have on OUR approach to dealing with them as threats. Fear of radicalizing moderate Islam is insufficient reason for holstering one's rhetorical and ideological weapons, as it is this great mass in the middle that supplies the tacit support for and economic funding to--radical Islam. Without moderate Islam--there is no radical Islam.
So when I say that Islam IS the problem, I mean that the great mass of Muslims in the world who go about their business every day living their ordinary lives--but who nod their heads in agreement at every Tel Aviv pizza parlor bombing and who cheer the actions of Major Hassan. Some say that these reactions aren't Islam per se, but are more POLITICAL reactions to world and social events. I'd like to believe that is the case, but I am unpersuaded, especially given the propensity of moderate Muslims to mention religion in their implicit or explicit defense of these actions.
Others say that identifying Islam as the problem is a misreading of the basic tenets of a great religion--I say this isn't a theological debate, it is an existential struggle, brought about by a radical desire of a thin slice of modern Islam to re-establish a Caliphate. If--as defenders of Islam would have us believe--much of the modern rhetoric of Islamic extremism is inconsistent with Islam--then it is the responsibility of moderate Islam to cleanse itself of not only the rhetoric but of the impulse to support extremism. And, it is not only reasonable for US policy to strive to bring about this internal debate--it is ultimately likely to be the most successful path to settling this dustup on terms agreeable to the West AND to Islam.
So when I say that "Islam IS the Problem", I mean to be specific in defining "the problem". The problem to me is the great heat sink of support that moderate Islam provides radical Islam, and the rhetoric of religious unity and purity in which it is wrapped. There may be nothing wrong with Islam AS A RELIGION--but in its modern cultural expression, it is flawed--and focusing on it as "the problem" or "a big part of the problem" seems prudent to me.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Veterans Day
It is a good thing for us to spend a day thinking about the sacrifices made to make this land free. I think today about my Dad, the guy whose three years in the Navy created my 21. I think about LCDR Pat Dunn, a helluva propulsion engineer, a damn fine friend and a victim of the attack on the Pentagon. I think about the attack on the USS STARK on the day before I was commissioned in the Navy, and the men killed mostly while they slept.
I think about seemingly endless mid-watches in CIC with a truly great Naval Officer and an even better friend--known to many of you as Mudge. I think about the daily, unremitting pressure of working in the rare air of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, and the constant competence married to intellect and humor that was and is---Sally. I think about the early days on the ship that couldn't shoot straight, and the wonderful twenty-plus year friendship that came from that tour with BigFred.
I think today about what a sublime honor it was to command a destroyer, and how painlessly easy a job it was--not because of any great skill or talent I possessed--but because I had the good fortune of great mentors in life who taught me the value of setting the tone and then getting out of the way. I think today how fortunate I am that a ridiculous number of my "Facebook Friends" are Sailors who served with me in BULKELEY, who take great pride in our ship and who love to tell me about it.
I think about Kegger, Gordo, Butthead, and Vork. I think of Main Pecker, Jim Gannon, and the Ops Officer who got seasick virtually every day.
I think today about families around the country who miss their sons and daughters; some hoping that they'll come home soon and some because they know they never will.
I think today about the Navy SEAL I had a meeting with last week, honorably holding down a Pentagon nut-roll job all the while knowing that he'd rather be out there somewhere in the suck doing things that SEALS do. I am thankful that we have men like him. I could become distraught if I began to think of an America without them.
I think about a Marine Major I know whose safety I pray for more than any other husband of a former girlfriend I have.
I think about the miserable winter of 1777 at Valley Forge when the nation could have been stillborn but a great man kept it all together. I think about the better than half-a-million men killed to deliver on the promise made in 1776 yet delayed four score and seven years.
I think of the Rangers at Pont-du-Hoc; of the Marines at Fallujah, of the Navy at Leyte, of the Air Force over Hanoi. I think of the fights we've been in and the reasons we've been in them. I marvel that there are people in the world ignorant enough to believe that Americans have any real desire to be fighting in their shithole backyards.
But most of all, right about now I'm thinking about the thousands of Americans spread out around the world--Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Europe, Africa, at sea--allowing us to sleep soundly whilst they stand ready to visit violence upon those who would do us harm (Orwell). I am proud of them, and I am grateful to them.
I think about seemingly endless mid-watches in CIC with a truly great Naval Officer and an even better friend--known to many of you as Mudge. I think about the daily, unremitting pressure of working in the rare air of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, and the constant competence married to intellect and humor that was and is---Sally. I think about the early days on the ship that couldn't shoot straight, and the wonderful twenty-plus year friendship that came from that tour with BigFred.
I think today about what a sublime honor it was to command a destroyer, and how painlessly easy a job it was--not because of any great skill or talent I possessed--but because I had the good fortune of great mentors in life who taught me the value of setting the tone and then getting out of the way. I think today how fortunate I am that a ridiculous number of my "Facebook Friends" are Sailors who served with me in BULKELEY, who take great pride in our ship and who love to tell me about it.
I think about Kegger, Gordo, Butthead, and Vork. I think of Main Pecker, Jim Gannon, and the Ops Officer who got seasick virtually every day.
I think today about families around the country who miss their sons and daughters; some hoping that they'll come home soon and some because they know they never will.
I think today about the Navy SEAL I had a meeting with last week, honorably holding down a Pentagon nut-roll job all the while knowing that he'd rather be out there somewhere in the suck doing things that SEALS do. I am thankful that we have men like him. I could become distraught if I began to think of an America without them.
I think about a Marine Major I know whose safety I pray for more than any other husband of a former girlfriend I have.
I think about the miserable winter of 1777 at Valley Forge when the nation could have been stillborn but a great man kept it all together. I think about the better than half-a-million men killed to deliver on the promise made in 1776 yet delayed four score and seven years.
I think of the Rangers at Pont-du-Hoc; of the Marines at Fallujah, of the Navy at Leyte, of the Air Force over Hanoi. I think of the fights we've been in and the reasons we've been in them. I marvel that there are people in the world ignorant enough to believe that Americans have any real desire to be fighting in their shithole backyards.
But most of all, right about now I'm thinking about the thousands of Americans spread out around the world--Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Europe, Africa, at sea--allowing us to sleep soundly whilst they stand ready to visit violence upon those who would do us harm (Orwell). I am proud of them, and I am grateful to them.
A Stimulant To Stimulate The Stimulus
Keith Hennessey has picked up on an observation made by Stuart Varney over at Fox News the other day that President Obama appears to be planning additional stimulus on top of the $787 billion measure he signed last March. Varney bases his assertion on remarks made by the President last Friday. The money quote:
"We will also build on the measure I signed with further steps to grow our economy in the future. To that end, my economic team is looking at ideas such as additional investments in our aging roads and bridges, incentives to encourage families and businesses to make buildings more energy-efficient, additional tax cuts for businesses to create jobs, additional steps to increase the flow of credit to small businesses, and an aggressive agenda to promote exports and help American manufacturers sell their products around the world."
The implications of this statement are stunning. This is a call for additional spending of money we don't have on top of the trillions we can't pay for (also not inclusive of the $1.5 trillion price tag for health care when all is said and done).
If I was a freshman blue dog in a republican district, I'd be a little nervous.
"We will also build on the measure I signed with further steps to grow our economy in the future. To that end, my economic team is looking at ideas such as additional investments in our aging roads and bridges, incentives to encourage families and businesses to make buildings more energy-efficient, additional tax cuts for businesses to create jobs, additional steps to increase the flow of credit to small businesses, and an aggressive agenda to promote exports and help American manufacturers sell their products around the world."
The implications of this statement are stunning. This is a call for additional spending of money we don't have on top of the trillions we can't pay for (also not inclusive of the $1.5 trillion price tag for health care when all is said and done).
If I was a freshman blue dog in a republican district, I'd be a little nervous.
Nick Gillespie Reminds Us of Government's Reach
Nick Gillespie is one of the heavy hitters at Reason Magazine and Reason.com. Tune into this interesting little video describing the details of a battle between UPS and FEDEX, and how UPS is turning to the Feds (through the Teamsters) to screw FEDEX and raise their labor costs.
H/T NRO
H/T NRO
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Taken For A Ride
Continuing with the Green theme, Chrysler has quietly announced plans to scrap its electric car division - nicknamed ENVI for the environment - and will absorb the design team into its "normal vehicle development program." Read - there won't be an electric car in Chrysler's short- or mid-term future.
Chrysler had touted its electric car technology in its hat-in-hands pitch to the Feds last Winter, and as late as this past August had received $70 million in grants from the US Department of Energy to develop a test fleet of hybrid pickup trucks and minivans.
No word yet from Chrysler on whether it intends to return the grant.
Chrysler had touted its electric car technology in its hat-in-hands pitch to the Feds last Winter, and as late as this past August had received $70 million in grants from the US Department of Energy to develop a test fleet of hybrid pickup trucks and minivans.
No word yet from Chrysler on whether it intends to return the grant.
Brits Show Courage On Nuclear Power
If only we'd figure this one out....we're wasting precious time and resources on lots of chickens--t ways to produce energy that simply don't scale up. All the while, we've been doing it right for fifty years by harnessing the power of the atom.
You want reliable? Go nuclear. You want green? Go nuclear. You want to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy? Go nuclear. You want to REALLY be able to take your private transportation fleet electric? Go nuclear.
But no--not here. Not as long as Harry Reid is content to take $800M a year to build out Yucca Mountain while all the while refusing to allow any waste to be stored there (oh, and by the way, what we call waste the French call "fuel"--because they reprocess). We'll continue to pour good money after bad buying up millions of acres of land to dot with windmills and solar panels, instead of citing new reactors on the already approved sites throughout the country.
Our blindness to the benefit here is simply inexplicable.
You want reliable? Go nuclear. You want green? Go nuclear. You want to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy? Go nuclear. You want to REALLY be able to take your private transportation fleet electric? Go nuclear.
But no--not here. Not as long as Harry Reid is content to take $800M a year to build out Yucca Mountain while all the while refusing to allow any waste to be stored there (oh, and by the way, what we call waste the French call "fuel"--because they reprocess). We'll continue to pour good money after bad buying up millions of acres of land to dot with windmills and solar panels, instead of citing new reactors on the already approved sites throughout the country.
Our blindness to the benefit here is simply inexplicable.
What Passes For News At The Washington Post
Today, we're treated to this story (news? analysis?--it really isn't clear, at least in the online additions) in which our intrepid reporter (under the subheadline "It's a Grand Old Purging...") recounts the inside story of Dede Scozzafava's withdrawl from NY 23.
It really is part of the narrative that Ms. Scozzafava--who "fava's" 1) card check 2) gay marriage 3) the stimulus 4) Obamacare and 5) is married to a union organizer--was a "moderate" Republican. This is hogwash--the woman was a liberal, pure and simple. There is little or nothing but political opportunism in her choice of the Republican Party--as the district had previously been solidly Republican for decades.
It really is part of the narrative that Ms. Scozzafava--who "fava's" 1) card check 2) gay marriage 3) the stimulus 4) Obamacare and 5) is married to a union organizer--was a "moderate" Republican. This is hogwash--the woman was a liberal, pure and simple. There is little or nothing but political opportunism in her choice of the Republican Party--as the district had previously been solidly Republican for decades.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Where Were You When The Wall Came Down?
Tigerhawk's got this question on his site, and it made me think about it. You see, unlike a good deal of my generation, I don't have a very clear memory of this event--a little ironic for a guy so into politics and world affairs, huh?
I will rely on any old shipmates who read this to confirm, but I am almost certain we (the USS MCCANDLESS (FF 1084)) were down in the Caribbean doing Counter-narcotic operations--receiving news of this great miracle by naval message/news service every few hours. The iconic photos, the video--I saw none of it.
Where were you? What were you thinking? Do tell!
I will rely on any old shipmates who read this to confirm, but I am almost certain we (the USS MCCANDLESS (FF 1084)) were down in the Caribbean doing Counter-narcotic operations--receiving news of this great miracle by naval message/news service every few hours. The iconic photos, the video--I saw none of it.
Where were you? What were you thinking? Do tell!
Whatever Obama and Pelosi Do Will Be Good
No, I haven't lost my mind.
Had occasion to spend some time with some more liberal friends this past Sunday. Both are urbane, worldly, graduate school educated folks who have, in the past, exhibited an intellectual curiosity about life that has weighed heavily in my calculus to maintain friendships with them. Yesterday, they demonstrated a complete abdication of civic responsibility that strained credulity and those bonds of friendship. Despite having previously given health care reform as a major reason for supporting President Obama's candidacy, both were surprised to see that the House had passed "something" on health care. Not it had passed, but that there had a been a big debate about it until midnight. "Was it any good?" Naturally, I responded that from where I sat, "no." Then I asked the logical question, "But if health care reform was one of the main reasons for your support, shouldn't you at least be interested in the details?" No answer. They, of course, were dismayed to hear about the Stupak amendment. I said a quick serenity now under my breath and changed the topic so as not to ruin my Sunday.
Had occasion to spend some time with some more liberal friends this past Sunday. Both are urbane, worldly, graduate school educated folks who have, in the past, exhibited an intellectual curiosity about life that has weighed heavily in my calculus to maintain friendships with them. Yesterday, they demonstrated a complete abdication of civic responsibility that strained credulity and those bonds of friendship. Despite having previously given health care reform as a major reason for supporting President Obama's candidacy, both were surprised to see that the House had passed "something" on health care. Not it had passed, but that there had a been a big debate about it until midnight. "Was it any good?" Naturally, I responded that from where I sat, "no." Then I asked the logical question, "But if health care reform was one of the main reasons for your support, shouldn't you at least be interested in the details?" No answer. They, of course, were dismayed to hear about the Stupak amendment. I said a quick serenity now under my breath and changed the topic so as not to ruin my Sunday.
I have no illusions about the useful idiots*, but this exchange got me to wondering how many of the supposedly informed liberal voters have essentially handed over the reins to their folks and assume that everything is going to work out for the better. Trust, but verify. Maybe because Reagan said it, they've categorically dismissed it as bad advice.
*used by both sides
Ronald Reagan At The Wall
No less effective than the trumpets at Jericho--"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
No Terrorism Here, Move Along
The world's first vicitim of Pre-Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome ('cause that's really the only rational explanation for Nidal Hassan's act) is reported to have tried to make contact with Al Qaeda. Not that he's a terrorist or anything.
Tunku Varadarajan on "Going Muslim"
Maybe it was a coincidence that this Maj. Hasan is Muslim and that he executed his fellow soldiers. We'll find out in due time. Nonetheless, this politically correct overcompensation to avoid even the slightest consideration that his actions, if not born completely from his religion, may have been significantly influenced by the more radical elements in it, is ridiculous. Mr. Varadarajan at Forbes agrees.
Martin Feldstein and Perverse Incentives
A great column here by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, laying out for us why Obamacare's insistence on guaranteeing insurance to those even WITH pre-existing conditions provides a perverse incentive to drop healthcare altogether. A rational, healthy young person would be a fool to buy healthcare--pay cash for doctor's visits and if something catastrophic comes up, why, no insurance company will be able to turn you down. Fine them, you say? Fines in the current bills still provide our fine young cannibal with over $360 a month in extra walking-around money.
Hat Tip: Greg Mankiw
Hat Tip: Greg Mankiw
Sunday, November 8, 2009
A Great Autumn Day
I'll get back to Pelosi care tomorrow morning, but for now, I'll just think about the perfect Fall day we had today. Our farmer was out and took down 60 acres of soy beans--when the combine was headed in the other the direction, the girls climbed up on the truck to consider jumping into the carnival-like bean ocean.
We went for our first farm-stomp of the fall, back through the woods and along the stream. Lots of deer out and about, and the fields will be teeming with them over the next few days as they find the soybeans the farmer left behind.
Never fear Mudge, I obtained my Virginia out of state hunting license today, the waterfowl stamp should be in the mail, and I got my HIP number--so hunting trip #2 can proceed to the planning stage.
A good day indeed.
We went for our first farm-stomp of the fall, back through the woods and along the stream. Lots of deer out and about, and the fields will be teeming with them over the next few days as they find the soybeans the farmer left behind.
Never fear Mudge, I obtained my Virginia out of state hunting license today, the waterfowl stamp should be in the mail, and I got my HIP number--so hunting trip #2 can proceed to the planning stage.
A good day indeed.
What's In A Name?
From the New York Times, reporting on President Obama's effort to rally House Democrats in advance of yesterday's health care vote:
Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, "Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit" Democratic voters "and will encourage the extremists."
It would appear now that even The One is using sexual slang to marginalize dissenting opinion.
Does this mean people can now start referring to the anti-Prop 8 crowd as "c**ksuckers" without reprisal?
Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, "Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit" Democratic voters "and will encourage the extremists."
It would appear now that even The One is using sexual slang to marginalize dissenting opinion.
Does this mean people can now start referring to the anti-Prop 8 crowd as "c**ksuckers" without reprisal?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Second Law of Freedomdynamics
Monday marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. Two years prior, President Reagan made his famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech in which he also stated after noting that it was the 22nd anniversary of JFK's visit to Berlin and that three American presidents since had visited:
"We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it's our duty to speak in this place of freedom."
Well, there is already ample critique (and interesting defense) of our current American President's view of that "duty" and while I certainly have my own strong opinion on the matter, I am, rather, writing this because of the article I read today about witnesses to the fall of the wall recollecting their experiences of that day and night. I remember that day, watching from home, having recently returned from a deployment that included a port visit to the USSR, in Sevastopol on the Crimean peninsula where a year before, the Soviets rammed one of our guided-missile cruisers in international waters of the Black Sea. What I was watching on TV had to be the beginning of the end of the C0ld War and I still recall how privileged I felt to witness this transformation of freedom that was about to impact the globe. In the article, a former US Soldier reflected on the inability of the East German border guards to process the crowds of people seeking to pass through the checkpoints:
"Restrictions had been loosening for weeks as Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and other captive people streamed out of Eastern Europe to freedom in the West. After several weeks of unrest in East Germany, officials there announced that all citizens could visit West Germany and West Berlin. "As soon as the East Germans made the announcement, thousands of people came down to the wall in both the East and West," Anderson said. “We weren’t sure what was happening. "In the East, the border guards at first were pushing people back, they were trying to check identity cards,” he continued. “But then the pressure became just too much, and they just let people stream through. When they met West Berliners, it was the start of the most joyous celebration I have ever seen.” The first wave of people came at night, and thousands more came the next day. People climbed atop the wall, and East German border guards finally knocked a hole in it to ease transit, Anderson said. Tens of thousands of people drank champagne and threw flowers. U.S. soldiers just waved everybody through. "We were as happy as they were," he said.
In thermodynamics, the second law dictates that heat cannot flow from a colder medium to a warmer one. I wonder, is there anyone alive who really believes that all this historic outpouring of international joy being remembered as we approach the "fall of the wall", was because the free people in the west now had the opportunity to become communists?
"We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it's our duty to speak in this place of freedom."
Well, there is already ample critique (and interesting defense) of our current American President's view of that "duty" and while I certainly have my own strong opinion on the matter, I am, rather, writing this because of the article I read today about witnesses to the fall of the wall recollecting their experiences of that day and night. I remember that day, watching from home, having recently returned from a deployment that included a port visit to the USSR, in Sevastopol on the Crimean peninsula where a year before, the Soviets rammed one of our guided-missile cruisers in international waters of the Black Sea. What I was watching on TV had to be the beginning of the end of the C0ld War and I still recall how privileged I felt to witness this transformation of freedom that was about to impact the globe. In the article, a former US Soldier reflected on the inability of the East German border guards to process the crowds of people seeking to pass through the checkpoints:
"Restrictions had been loosening for weeks as Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and other captive people streamed out of Eastern Europe to freedom in the West. After several weeks of unrest in East Germany, officials there announced that all citizens could visit West Germany and West Berlin. "As soon as the East Germans made the announcement, thousands of people came down to the wall in both the East and West," Anderson said. “We weren’t sure what was happening. "In the East, the border guards at first were pushing people back, they were trying to check identity cards,” he continued. “But then the pressure became just too much, and they just let people stream through. When they met West Berliners, it was the start of the most joyous celebration I have ever seen.” The first wave of people came at night, and thousands more came the next day. People climbed atop the wall, and East German border guards finally knocked a hole in it to ease transit, Anderson said. Tens of thousands of people drank champagne and threw flowers. U.S. soldiers just waved everybody through. "We were as happy as they were," he said.
In thermodynamics, the second law dictates that heat cannot flow from a colder medium to a warmer one. I wonder, is there anyone alive who really believes that all this historic outpouring of international joy being remembered as we approach the "fall of the wall", was because the free people in the west now had the opportunity to become communists?
Party Purges on the Left
Lots of kvetching in the media these days about evil, horrible conservatives trying to boil out nice, reasonable moderates from the Republican Party. Seems that the strategy is also at work on the left, as Moveon.org looks to fund primary challengers to any Democrat who opposes healthcare legislation.
Libertarians vs. Neo-conservatives
Maybe a little wonky for general discussion, but I am fascinated by fissures on the right--not in the way the New York Times or Rachel Maddow is, mind you, but from the standpoint of organization theory and team dynamics.
Libertarians simply can't stand neo-conservatives. Here's a taste of that view from the founder of The Cato Institute, Washington's premier Libertarian think tank. Titled "The GOP Should Dump The Neocons", the main point here is that neo-conservatism's supposed happiness with big government and foreign policy adventurism really rankles Libertarians.
On the other side, I don't find myself seeing Neo-conservatives making a big a fuss over Libertarians. I think most actually admire Libertarianism, though they have come to conclude that Libertarianism is at best an alloying ideology, not sufficient on its own as a governing instrument.
I'm inclined to think that the successful movement will blend some of neo-conservatism's sense of American exceptionalism with some of libertarianism's mistrustful view of government. There's a certain intellectual contradiction at work in libertarianism's focus on individual freedom and liberty stopping at the 12 mile line off this nation's shores--of that I am certain.
Libertarians simply can't stand neo-conservatives. Here's a taste of that view from the founder of The Cato Institute, Washington's premier Libertarian think tank. Titled "The GOP Should Dump The Neocons", the main point here is that neo-conservatism's supposed happiness with big government and foreign policy adventurism really rankles Libertarians.
On the other side, I don't find myself seeing Neo-conservatives making a big a fuss over Libertarians. I think most actually admire Libertarianism, though they have come to conclude that Libertarianism is at best an alloying ideology, not sufficient on its own as a governing instrument.
I'm inclined to think that the successful movement will blend some of neo-conservatism's sense of American exceptionalism with some of libertarianism's mistrustful view of government. There's a certain intellectual contradiction at work in libertarianism's focus on individual freedom and liberty stopping at the 12 mile line off this nation's shores--of that I am certain.
No Thanks, I Just Lost My Appetite
Iron Chef America has announced a surprise ingredient that I just can't stomach.
The Decline of Law and Order
For years, Law and Order has been one of the few really great shows out there (along with Top Chef). Anyone else like it?
Or rather, does anyone else STILL like it? This year's season premiered with an episode about torture ordered by the Bush Administration, with Sam Waterston uttering the line 'it's about time someone prosecuted them.' Thanks for your subtlety. MESSAGE: someone needs to go after the last administration.
Last night featured back-to-back episodes. The first one featured a subplot about the police chief suffering through chemo treatments. Her son and husband encourage marijuana use to get through it, and she resists, citing her role as police chief. But she clearly succumbs, as her own superior at the Department takes her aside later and tells her he smells pot on her-and passes her some breath mints and a card with how to discreetly get more pot. MESSAGE: marijuana must be legalized.
The topper, though, was last night's second episode. A woman is killed because she stumbles on to the truth about an expensive drug with few actual benefits but that is a cash cow for big pharma. So big pharma becomes a pinata for all of the actors, with Sam Waterston uttering another gem: 'and this is why we can't get a health care plan passed in this country.' MESSAGE: insurance companies evil and the roadblock to progress.
I don't know how the last episode turned out, because we turned off the TV at the healthcare plan comment, and I sent a note to NBC saying we were done watching this show until they dropped the political agenda. I'm longing for the Fred Thompson/Jerry Ohrbach episodes and wondering why I can't even enjoy a favorite TV show with some sort of point being made.
Or rather, does anyone else STILL like it? This year's season premiered with an episode about torture ordered by the Bush Administration, with Sam Waterston uttering the line 'it's about time someone prosecuted them.' Thanks for your subtlety. MESSAGE: someone needs to go after the last administration.
Last night featured back-to-back episodes. The first one featured a subplot about the police chief suffering through chemo treatments. Her son and husband encourage marijuana use to get through it, and she resists, citing her role as police chief. But she clearly succumbs, as her own superior at the Department takes her aside later and tells her he smells pot on her-and passes her some breath mints and a card with how to discreetly get more pot. MESSAGE: marijuana must be legalized.
The topper, though, was last night's second episode. A woman is killed because she stumbles on to the truth about an expensive drug with few actual benefits but that is a cash cow for big pharma. So big pharma becomes a pinata for all of the actors, with Sam Waterston uttering another gem: 'and this is why we can't get a health care plan passed in this country.' MESSAGE: insurance companies evil and the roadblock to progress.
I don't know how the last episode turned out, because we turned off the TV at the healthcare plan comment, and I sent a note to NBC saying we were done watching this show until they dropped the political agenda. I'm longing for the Fred Thompson/Jerry Ohrbach episodes and wondering why I can't even enjoy a favorite TV show with some sort of point being made.
My Blue-Dog Congressman Makes The Right Choice
Representative Frank Kratovil (D-MD1) is apparently not going to vote against the Pelois/ObamaCare Bill that is believed will be voted upon today. I told Tom de Plume yesterday that I believed the bill wouldn't be voted on today--that the election Tuesday night told the Blue Dogs that people like the president but don't like his issues, and that it was safe to go your own way. Without their votes, the Dems would have a tough time getting to 218 votes, and Pelosi won't bring up a bill she can't pass. We'll see.
Kratovil is doing a good job straddling the line of his relatively Republican friendly (for Maryland, that is) district. He voted against the first version of the stimulus, but for the final version and cap and trade (wrapping himself in some utter BS language about it being good for farmers and watermen). Let's see if he can hang tough on this one, and more importantly, when a final bill comes up for a vote.
Kratovil is doing a good job straddling the line of his relatively Republican friendly (for Maryland, that is) district. He voted against the first version of the stimulus, but for the final version and cap and trade (wrapping himself in some utter BS language about it being good for farmers and watermen). Let's see if he can hang tough on this one, and more importantly, when a final bill comes up for a vote.
Friday, November 6, 2009
CWTV--Latest Video--The Obama Dichotomy
Ideology and idealism in on the domestic side, coldly rational, interest based approach on the foreign policy side. Seems to me he's got it bass ackwards.
Catch the latest video here.
UPDATE: I realize I should have said "domestic" policy at the :20 mark, not "foreign".
Catch the latest video here.
UPDATE: I realize I should have said "domestic" policy at the :20 mark, not "foreign".
Hey, That Wasn't In The Manifest!
A list of the weapons found by Israeli naval commando forces aboard the civilian freighter Francop from Iran en route to Hezbollah terrorist forces in Syria:
- 566,220 7.62 caliber rifle bullets
- 20,100 F1 fragment grenades
- 5,680 60mm mortar shells
- 2,316 81mm mortar shells
- 774 120mm mortar shells
- 690 122mm rockets
- 106 artillery shells
- 2,125 107mm rockets
- 685 rockets fuses
And a partridge in a pear tree.
Yes, these are the same Iranians who are developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
H/T: Weekly Standard
On What Passes For Political Analysis From Eugene Robinson
Pulitzer Prize (ooh, ahh) winning columnist Eugene Robinson treats us to this bit of doggerel summing up his thoughts on election night 2009. Typically insightful thoughts include the following:
"The big story from Tuesday's vote ought to be that independents, who gave Democrats their sweeping victory last November, went with the Republicans this time in New Jersey and Virginia. Indeed, Democrats are trying to figure out what this means. Given President Obama's continuing personal popularity, has his cool, nonconfrontational, consensus-building style been the right strategy all along? Or, as some on the left believe, did a lack of fight and fervor leave independents cold? Or was it all about the unemployment numbers?"
Robinson correctly identifies the "big story" from the election--that independents went over to the Republicans. His attempt however, to dissect the issue from the perspective of "Democrats" (but not him of course. He's a journalist), falls laughably short. Providing us with a choice of two possibilities--Robinson posits that the loss may have been because of a lack of emotion on the part of Dems OR unemployment numbers. Um---could it have been that the there has been disappointment with independents at the performance of the man who romanced them in the Presidential election? Could it be that they've measured the man and found him wanting, along with his policies? Could it be that there is a genuine movement in the country expressing serious doubt about the wisdom of moving forward with a decidedly neo-socialist program, and that that movement found voice in the election?
Nah. Those folks are all just Sarah Palin zombies. Nothing more to that--move along.
"The big story from Tuesday's vote ought to be that independents, who gave Democrats their sweeping victory last November, went with the Republicans this time in New Jersey and Virginia. Indeed, Democrats are trying to figure out what this means. Given President Obama's continuing personal popularity, has his cool, nonconfrontational, consensus-building style been the right strategy all along? Or, as some on the left believe, did a lack of fight and fervor leave independents cold? Or was it all about the unemployment numbers?"
Robinson correctly identifies the "big story" from the election--that independents went over to the Republicans. His attempt however, to dissect the issue from the perspective of "Democrats" (but not him of course. He's a journalist), falls laughably short. Providing us with a choice of two possibilities--Robinson posits that the loss may have been because of a lack of emotion on the part of Dems OR unemployment numbers. Um---could it have been that the there has been disappointment with independents at the performance of the man who romanced them in the Presidential election? Could it be that they've measured the man and found him wanting, along with his policies? Could it be that there is a genuine movement in the country expressing serious doubt about the wisdom of moving forward with a decidedly neo-socialist program, and that that movement found voice in the election?
Nah. Those folks are all just Sarah Palin zombies. Nothing more to that--move along.
Bob Dylan, Holiday Minstrel
Behold, a truly hilarious take-down of Bob Dylan's career. Never could quite understand why Dylan had such a following.
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Well everyone, it's time once again for BFFFFA! No weigh-in data today, as I've found that weighing in on two different scales (the farm, the Arlington apartment) screws with the data--so I'll wait until I'm back at the Farm tomorrow morning to do the weekly weigh-in.
What's on your minds? Still coming down from that pleasant election night high? Wondering what the hell happened at Fort Hood? Thinking it's about time President Obama began to actually take responsibility for the economy, rather than blaming George Bush for it?
Lots to chew on--so talk amongst yourselves.
What's on your minds? Still coming down from that pleasant election night high? Wondering what the hell happened at Fort Hood? Thinking it's about time President Obama began to actually take responsibility for the economy, rather than blaming George Bush for it?
Lots to chew on--so talk amongst yourselves.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Orszag: It's Still Bush's Fault
Keith Hennessey, economic advisor to George W. Bush, responds to Budget Director Peter Orszag's speech delivered at NYU yesterday.
He is displeased.
UPDATE FROM THE CW: Hennessey continues the pummeling today.
He is displeased.
UPDATE FROM THE CW: Hennessey continues the pummeling today.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
What I Saw at the Polling Place
Last post about the Virginia election, I promise. But I did witness something yesterday that told a tale of how informed the American electorate is, and deemed it worth sharing. (I deemed it worth sharing because when I just read this out loud to my dog, he appeared to be fascinated).
I was a pollwatcher yesterday at a precinct where Republicans traditionally underperform, a charitable way of saying we always get crucified. Because of voter apathy this year on the Dem side, low turnout was anticipated. In the end, 472 out of 1229 registered voters actually voted. This was a 100% African-American precinct, and I concluded that once they rolled the tape after the polls closed, I’d see at best 5 McDonnell votes. Surprise! Of those 472 votes, he actually received 82. But that's not the story...
The highlight of the day was the woman who showed up to vote mid-afternoon. She was probably mid-fifties and swept dramatically into the building, announcing she was here to vote for Obama. The pleasant pollworker lady informed her he was not on the ballot this year, but she could vote for the statewide candidates. She insisted no, this is where she voted for Obama last year and she wanted to do it again. Pleasant pollworker lady showed her a sample ballot and indicated who she COULD vote for. She was having none of this, insisting she needed to vote for Obama. After all, wasn't it Election Day? The Chief Election Officer finally intervened and told her she couldn’t vote for Obama for a few more years, guiding her toward the door as she spoke. The woman walked out grumbling, and my Democratic pollwatching counterpart leapt from his chair, exclaiming ‘that is a Democratic voter! You are disenfranchising her!’ I was ready to leap from my own chair when pleasant pollworker lady, who had to have been 88 years old, smacked him down hard.
It would be insulting to many voters, and downright wrong, to suggest that people like this are how Obama got elected. But they certainly contributed.
I was a pollwatcher yesterday at a precinct where Republicans traditionally underperform, a charitable way of saying we always get crucified. Because of voter apathy this year on the Dem side, low turnout was anticipated. In the end, 472 out of 1229 registered voters actually voted. This was a 100% African-American precinct, and I concluded that once they rolled the tape after the polls closed, I’d see at best 5 McDonnell votes. Surprise! Of those 472 votes, he actually received 82. But that's not the story...
The highlight of the day was the woman who showed up to vote mid-afternoon. She was probably mid-fifties and swept dramatically into the building, announcing she was here to vote for Obama. The pleasant pollworker lady informed her he was not on the ballot this year, but she could vote for the statewide candidates. She insisted no, this is where she voted for Obama last year and she wanted to do it again. Pleasant pollworker lady showed her a sample ballot and indicated who she COULD vote for. She was having none of this, insisting she needed to vote for Obama. After all, wasn't it Election Day? The Chief Election Officer finally intervened and told her she couldn’t vote for Obama for a few more years, guiding her toward the door as she spoke. The woman walked out grumbling, and my Democratic pollwatching counterpart leapt from his chair, exclaiming ‘that is a Democratic voter! You are disenfranchising her!’ I was ready to leap from my own chair when pleasant pollworker lady, who had to have been 88 years old, smacked him down hard.
It would be insulting to many voters, and downright wrong, to suggest that people like this are how Obama got elected. But they certainly contributed.
Bias? Maybe Not. Sloppy? Yes
So here's a story from CNN covering Maine's rejection of same-sex marriage by repealing the law their legislature had passed.
The story states that Mainers voted to "narrowly" repeal the law. The vote was 53%-47%.
I remember that being the same margin of victory of one Barack Hussein Obama in the recent Presidential race--though I don't remember ANYONE at CNN or any other media outlet referring to that margin as "narrow".
Funny, huh?
The story states that Mainers voted to "narrowly" repeal the law. The vote was 53%-47%.
I remember that being the same margin of victory of one Barack Hussein Obama in the recent Presidential race--though I don't remember ANYONE at CNN or any other media outlet referring to that margin as "narrow".
Funny, huh?
How Cool Is This?
Just picked up two tickets to see Bill Clinton and George W. Bush at Radio City Music Hall on February 25th 2010.
Who's with me?
Who's with me?
From the Navy Blog I Write For....
A little ditty on Space, Satellites, and the Navy. For those who don't get enough Navy.
Wrath of God – Meh…Wrath of Islam – Well, That’s Different
Filmmaker Roland Emmerich has admitted cutting a scene depicting the destruction of the Kaaba in Mecca from his new end-of-the-world film 2012 because he feared reprisals from the Islamic world.
"I wanted to do that...but my co-writer said that I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie," said the 53 year-old director. "And he was right. We have to all in the Western world think about this."
Emmerich's sensitivity does not appear to extend to Christian symbols, as the Christ the Redeemer statue's destruction is very prominently displayed in the film's trailer. "You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you do this with an Arab symbol, you would have a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit what the state of this world is," said Emmerich, who himself admits to being against organized religion.
And terrified of one in particular, it would seem.
"I wanted to do that...but my co-writer said that I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie," said the 53 year-old director. "And he was right. We have to all in the Western world think about this."
Emmerich's sensitivity does not appear to extend to Christian symbols, as the Christ the Redeemer statue's destruction is very prominently displayed in the film's trailer. "You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you do this with an Arab symbol, you would have a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit what the state of this world is," said Emmerich, who himself admits to being against organized religion.
And terrified of one in particular, it would seem.
Election Night Analysis
A few thoughts on last night's election returns. Read Sally's piece below for a great analysis of McDonnell's win in Virginia.
1. A good night for the GOP, but more of a bad night for Democrats. Independents are restive, and they are increasingly disillusioned with their alliance with Barack Obama. They still like him, mind you (we all do, of course. He's so damn likable!) , but they are beginning to wonder "where's the beef?" and "is all the hope and change simply a cover for creeping neo-socialism?" They didn't vote for that--they (independents) voted for Obama because they thought he would do a better job in alleviating the financial crisis that hit as the election revved up in the Fall of 2008. Now they (a few percentage points worth of them) are moving away from his party and back to where most of them came from--the right side of the spectrum (Republicans lost more self-identifiers to "independent" than Dems).
2. The Democrat win in upstate NY is unfortunate. The Republicans picked a liberal in DeDe Scozzafava--she was not a moderate, irrespective of what the New York Times or CNN tells you. And let's face it--Hoffman was kind of a an uninspiring guy. I followed this race exclusively over the interwebs recently, and hadn't seen any live/taped interviews with the guy until late yesterday afternoon. I was not impressed. Yes he seemed like a good guy, and yes, I'm sure he believes in his conservative ideas yada, yada, yada. But damn, what a boring guy--and not quick on his feet. The election also shows the weakness of the Republican Party (and the conservative movement) in the Northeast.
3. Barack Obama's got no coat-tails. Blue Dog Dems--especially those in Red States or in districts that have voted Republican--have little to fear when it comes to the President. His personal popularity does not translate to policy support. And I think Republicans should continue to hammer home on the theme of "hey, we like the guy too. Love to shoot baskets or drink beers with him. But running the country? Nah." Validate what independent voters are already feeling.
4. Republicans need to run out the clock on health care. No--this isn't "doing nothing". It's making sure something awful isn't done--which is after all, a conservative virtue. If they can delay things for a few more months, Obamacare as we know it will be dead, as fearful Democrats seek safe haven in an election year. Then they need to take a leadership position on real health-care reform--market based, individually oriented. They need not only to be seen leading on this, they need to lead on it.
5. And for the most ridiculous piece of election analysis I've seen this morning, I give you Mark Preston, CNN political editor. Preston starts out in a pained attempt to disassociate the old fashioned ass-whuppin' the Democrats got last night with anything to do with the head of their party, one Barack Hussein Obama. After utterly failing in that pursuit, he tries then to assure us that the REAL story here is the coming Civil War in the Republican Party. And they wonder why they're getting their clocks cleaned by Fox?
1. A good night for the GOP, but more of a bad night for Democrats. Independents are restive, and they are increasingly disillusioned with their alliance with Barack Obama. They still like him, mind you (we all do, of course. He's so damn likable!) , but they are beginning to wonder "where's the beef?" and "is all the hope and change simply a cover for creeping neo-socialism?" They didn't vote for that--they (independents) voted for Obama because they thought he would do a better job in alleviating the financial crisis that hit as the election revved up in the Fall of 2008. Now they (a few percentage points worth of them) are moving away from his party and back to where most of them came from--the right side of the spectrum (Republicans lost more self-identifiers to "independent" than Dems).
2. The Democrat win in upstate NY is unfortunate. The Republicans picked a liberal in DeDe Scozzafava--she was not a moderate, irrespective of what the New York Times or CNN tells you. And let's face it--Hoffman was kind of a an uninspiring guy. I followed this race exclusively over the interwebs recently, and hadn't seen any live/taped interviews with the guy until late yesterday afternoon. I was not impressed. Yes he seemed like a good guy, and yes, I'm sure he believes in his conservative ideas yada, yada, yada. But damn, what a boring guy--and not quick on his feet. The election also shows the weakness of the Republican Party (and the conservative movement) in the Northeast.
3. Barack Obama's got no coat-tails. Blue Dog Dems--especially those in Red States or in districts that have voted Republican--have little to fear when it comes to the President. His personal popularity does not translate to policy support. And I think Republicans should continue to hammer home on the theme of "hey, we like the guy too. Love to shoot baskets or drink beers with him. But running the country? Nah." Validate what independent voters are already feeling.
4. Republicans need to run out the clock on health care. No--this isn't "doing nothing". It's making sure something awful isn't done--which is after all, a conservative virtue. If they can delay things for a few more months, Obamacare as we know it will be dead, as fearful Democrats seek safe haven in an election year. Then they need to take a leadership position on real health-care reform--market based, individually oriented. They need not only to be seen leading on this, they need to lead on it.
5. And for the most ridiculous piece of election analysis I've seen this morning, I give you Mark Preston, CNN political editor. Preston starts out in a pained attempt to disassociate the old fashioned ass-whuppin' the Democrats got last night with anything to do with the head of their party, one Barack Hussein Obama. After utterly failing in that pursuit, he tries then to assure us that the REAL story here is the coming Civil War in the Republican Party. And they wonder why they're getting their clocks cleaned by Fox?
Good Riddance, Judge Bardwell
It seems this fellow in Louisiana, a Justice of the Peace, no less, has resigned his position. This, after gaining nationwide notoriety for having refused to perform a marriage ceremony for an interracial couple.
What a ridiculous fool.
I spend a lot of time criticizing the victimization merchants who masquerade as leaders of Black America. These folks make their living out of trying to make White Americans feel like it is still 1960, and the there never was a Civil Rights movement. And then a fool like this pops up and you gotta wonder whether it still is 1960 in some places. It certainly is in some hearts.
What a ridiculous fool.
I spend a lot of time criticizing the victimization merchants who masquerade as leaders of Black America. These folks make their living out of trying to make White Americans feel like it is still 1960, and the there never was a Civil Rights movement. And then a fool like this pops up and you gotta wonder whether it still is 1960 in some places. It certainly is in some hearts.
Ayn Rand Night at Cato
Again--living in the DC area is a feast for the brain. Went to The Cato Institute last week for a book forum featuring two authors who have recently released new books on Ayn Rand (catch the video of the event here.) I brought my home-boy Tim along with me, and we had a grand time in and among the Libertarian Illuminati (sitting behind us were Will Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey, Cato's resident purveyors of Liberaltarianism or "Progressive Fusion"--which to my mind is bunk).
The two authors were very different, but equally seemed to tell compelling stories. One, the younger, was an intellectual historian who focused on Rand's ideas and her impact. The other, a reporter/editor, focused on the personal side of Rand--something Rand controlled very tightly while alive.
Let's get the ugly stuff out of the way first--Rand was a bit of a nut, she surrounded herself with sycophants, she brooked no disagreement, and John Galt's speech was repetitious and over the top.
Aside from that--she was a genius, and a fantastic storyteller. No one has made as clear a case for the moral rectitude of capitalism, and the moral morass of collectivism.
Modern intellectuals like to make fun of Rand--citing the great fascination in which she is held by 19 year old frat boys (yep, I was one of them). But as one of the authors the other night put it, Rand was the "gateway drug" for many modern conservatives. Yes, most of us put aside her atheism and her disdain for any kind of social contract--but the love of the individual and his rights, the love of freedom, and the love of capitalism--all remain firmly etched in the psyche of the modern conservative.
The two authors were very different, but equally seemed to tell compelling stories. One, the younger, was an intellectual historian who focused on Rand's ideas and her impact. The other, a reporter/editor, focused on the personal side of Rand--something Rand controlled very tightly while alive.
Let's get the ugly stuff out of the way first--Rand was a bit of a nut, she surrounded herself with sycophants, she brooked no disagreement, and John Galt's speech was repetitious and over the top.
Aside from that--she was a genius, and a fantastic storyteller. No one has made as clear a case for the moral rectitude of capitalism, and the moral morass of collectivism.
Modern intellectuals like to make fun of Rand--citing the great fascination in which she is held by 19 year old frat boys (yep, I was one of them). But as one of the authors the other night put it, Rand was the "gateway drug" for many modern conservatives. Yes, most of us put aside her atheism and her disdain for any kind of social contract--but the love of the individual and his rights, the love of freedom, and the love of capitalism--all remain firmly etched in the psyche of the modern conservative.
Greg Mankiw v. Paul Krugman (Again)
I love these little dust-ups among Ivy League economics professors (one of whom is a Nobel Laureate--ooh, ah).
Mankiw is always cold, meticulous, fact based. Krugman is emotional, over the top, and intellectually dishonest.
Mankiw--a former member of the Bush Administration--strives to be non-ideological. Krugman cannot help it.
Mankiw is always cold, meticulous, fact based. Krugman is emotional, over the top, and intellectually dishonest.
Mankiw--a former member of the Bush Administration--strives to be non-ideological. Krugman cannot help it.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A Campaign so Well-Executed You Could Write a Thesis About It
I know it shouldn't be all about winning...but that doesn't mean it doesn't feel great tonight as Republicans sweep in the Old Dominion.
My fear is that national Republicans will trumpet this as a sign that America is rushing back to them. Let's face it, they're not-Independents are merely turning away from Democrats and Republicans, tired of losing, were motivated to get out and vote this year. But it shows that people are willing to listen to the Republicans and give them a chance. If they're smart they'll use it as an opportunity, and Republicans in 2010 and beyond would be very wise to use the McDonnell campaign as a template for future success. His oft-discussed thesis, in which he espoused some fairly antiquated ideas and what became the centerpiece of the Deeds' campaign, should have signaled the death knell of his gubernatorial (sorry, CW) hopes. Astonishingly, it had virtually no impact.
Why? People just don't care about that stuff in 2009. Liberal fatigue in Washington helped McDonnell, but the candidate himself deserves a lot of credit for running a brilliant campaign. Positive, disciplined, cheerful to the point of corny, and in tune with the electorate's concerns. He focused like a laser on those concerns and images of McDonnell just screamed 'competence.' Remarkably, he only slightly retracted some of the thesis comments, and otherwise made no apologies for any of them. This isn't Utah-this is a very purple state and it just elected an unapologetic social conservative.
The social conservatism is a whole other discussion, and I'm straying from my point, which is this: if the GOP runs good candidates, those candidates have a clear, concise and consistent message that is reflective of the public mood, and execute a positive and focused campaign, they will win. Period.
My fear is that national Republicans will trumpet this as a sign that America is rushing back to them. Let's face it, they're not-Independents are merely turning away from Democrats and Republicans, tired of losing, were motivated to get out and vote this year. But it shows that people are willing to listen to the Republicans and give them a chance. If they're smart they'll use it as an opportunity, and Republicans in 2010 and beyond would be very wise to use the McDonnell campaign as a template for future success. His oft-discussed thesis, in which he espoused some fairly antiquated ideas and what became the centerpiece of the Deeds' campaign, should have signaled the death knell of his gubernatorial (sorry, CW) hopes. Astonishingly, it had virtually no impact.
Why? People just don't care about that stuff in 2009. Liberal fatigue in Washington helped McDonnell, but the candidate himself deserves a lot of credit for running a brilliant campaign. Positive, disciplined, cheerful to the point of corny, and in tune with the electorate's concerns. He focused like a laser on those concerns and images of McDonnell just screamed 'competence.' Remarkably, he only slightly retracted some of the thesis comments, and otherwise made no apologies for any of them. This isn't Utah-this is a very purple state and it just elected an unapologetic social conservative.
The social conservatism is a whole other discussion, and I'm straying from my point, which is this: if the GOP runs good candidates, those candidates have a clear, concise and consistent message that is reflective of the public mood, and execute a positive and focused campaign, they will win. Period.
A Four-Minute Healthcare Video
Worth the time. She's smart, she's easy on the eyes, and she's right.
Jonah Goldberg Delivers!
The Conservative Wahoo has hit the big time! Our very first mention in the National Review Online (NRO).
I shall now name my firstborn "Cosmo".
I shall now name my firstborn "Cosmo".
Neo-Socialism
Anyone who puts himself out there as a conservative thinker/commentator will invariably find themselves the subject of critics who hurl the phrase "neo-con" or "neo-conservative" at them, as if there is no difference in "conservatism" and "neo-conservatism". There is. Neo-conservatism adds to a core of conservative domestic sensibility a new sense of American exceptionalism in the world and a concomitant duty to spread the benefits of democracy and liberalism (classical, not modern) throughout the world. Most who use the phrase "neo-con" these days mean it as an insult, largely code for "support for the failed policies of George Bush" or some other such drivel.
I propose that we now begin to refer to the policies of the Obama Administration as "Neo-Socialism". Not in some childish game of tit-for-tat, but in the recognition of the fundamental differences in classic socialism and the brand practiced by President Obama and his administration.
Here are, as far as I can see it, the defining characteristics of "Neo-socialism".
1. A belief in the concept that capitalism has failed, but can be resuscitated by a new partnership between government and business. This new partnership will be inherently more fair to more people.
2. A belief that competition isn't necessarily bad, and that government can and should be permitted to compete with private industry.
3. A belief that big government isn't necessarily bad; what is bad is BAD big government. Big, effective government is desirable.
4. A belief in the transcendent quality of the world community while de-valuing national interests. A sense of American relative and actual decline in the world, one that demands of us a more compliant approach to problem solving. A perception that American decline is not necessarily a bad thing.
I'm sure there's more--but this is a good start.
I propose that we now begin to refer to the policies of the Obama Administration as "Neo-Socialism". Not in some childish game of tit-for-tat, but in the recognition of the fundamental differences in classic socialism and the brand practiced by President Obama and his administration.
Here are, as far as I can see it, the defining characteristics of "Neo-socialism".
1. A belief in the concept that capitalism has failed, but can be resuscitated by a new partnership between government and business. This new partnership will be inherently more fair to more people.
2. A belief that competition isn't necessarily bad, and that government can and should be permitted to compete with private industry.
3. A belief that big government isn't necessarily bad; what is bad is BAD big government. Big, effective government is desirable.
4. A belief in the transcendent quality of the world community while de-valuing national interests. A sense of American relative and actual decline in the world, one that demands of us a more compliant approach to problem solving. A perception that American decline is not necessarily a bad thing.
I'm sure there's more--but this is a good start.
More Government Interference in the Marketplace
Just minutes after reading this little ditty, in which the GAO reveals that the government's take-over of Chrysler and GM has been a tad less--shall we say--hands off--than the Obama Administration would have had us believe, we come to this gem, in which Goldman Sachs seeks to buy millions of dollars in deflated assets from Fannie Mae; in the process, Fannie Mae improves its cash position and Goldman Sachs improves its tax position. Win-win, right? The essence of microeconomics (a transaction benefits both parties involved) right?
Not so fast, Comrade. What about THE PEOPLE?
You know, THE PEOPLE. The ones who had to "save" the financial industry--including both Fannie Mae and Goldman Sachs. THE PEOPLE demand that Fannie Mae receive better terms for the assets Goldman wants--irrespective of their market value--because that's what THE PEOPLE want! And hey, what is this stuff about Goldman Sachs making money? Didn't we just SAVE THEM? Aren't they supposed to be wards of the state? Read this baloney:
"Goldman is looking to buy millions of dollars in Fannie Mae assets in part because it would provide a tax benefit to the Wall Street bank, reducing its tax payments. But the deal comes at a sensitive time, when resentment remains over the ability of Wall Street firms like Goldman to rebound so quickly, racking up healthy profits after taking government bailouts at the height of the financial crisis."
So now we resent Wall Street firms who took the bailouts? Putting aside for a moment that many firms (not GS) were not PERMITTED to not take the bailouts, what in God's name did we bail them out FOR, if not to become profitable again? And what is it that will help them be more profitable? GOOD BUSINESS DECISIONS--like limiting one's tax liability. There's nothing dishonest or immoral about what they are doing. It isn't a "loophole"--it's good business. And in the process, the Government Owned Albatross also known as Fannie Mae gets an infusion of cash.
But the whole deal could get scrapped because nattering nabobs of neo-socialism (hey--that's it--the other side has made great sport of labeling everyone with whom they disagree a "neo-conservative; let's start calling them "neo-socialists!") don't believe "THE PEOPLE" are getting a good enough deal here because the ridiculous part federal part private beast they've created (Fannie Mae) can't get out of its own way.
Get out of the way, Mr. Obama.
Not so fast, Comrade. What about THE PEOPLE?
You know, THE PEOPLE. The ones who had to "save" the financial industry--including both Fannie Mae and Goldman Sachs. THE PEOPLE demand that Fannie Mae receive better terms for the assets Goldman wants--irrespective of their market value--because that's what THE PEOPLE want! And hey, what is this stuff about Goldman Sachs making money? Didn't we just SAVE THEM? Aren't they supposed to be wards of the state? Read this baloney:
"Goldman is looking to buy millions of dollars in Fannie Mae assets in part because it would provide a tax benefit to the Wall Street bank, reducing its tax payments. But the deal comes at a sensitive time, when resentment remains over the ability of Wall Street firms like Goldman to rebound so quickly, racking up healthy profits after taking government bailouts at the height of the financial crisis."
So now we resent Wall Street firms who took the bailouts? Putting aside for a moment that many firms (not GS) were not PERMITTED to not take the bailouts, what in God's name did we bail them out FOR, if not to become profitable again? And what is it that will help them be more profitable? GOOD BUSINESS DECISIONS--like limiting one's tax liability. There's nothing dishonest or immoral about what they are doing. It isn't a "loophole"--it's good business. And in the process, the Government Owned Albatross also known as Fannie Mae gets an infusion of cash.
But the whole deal could get scrapped because nattering nabobs of neo-socialism (hey--that's it--the other side has made great sport of labeling everyone with whom they disagree a "neo-conservative; let's start calling them "neo-socialists!") don't believe "THE PEOPLE" are getting a good enough deal here because the ridiculous part federal part private beast they've created (Fannie Mae) can't get out of its own way.
Get out of the way, Mr. Obama.
The "Saved" Job
I rise to join the chorus of incredulity protesting the continued use of the term "saved" jobs by the Administration. You know what I mean--that the stimulus had "created or saved" 642000 jobs.
This is ridiculous. Almost every "saved" job that is ever talked about in these discussions is a teacher or cop (naturally--because it wouldn't pull at the heartstrings if it were clerks and trashmen), bandied about as if there were NO OTHER OPTIONS. "LORD (Obama) BE PRAISED! The stimulus gave us money and we don't have to fire these people." But what about other cuts in services? What about aid to "community organizers"?
There is so much mischief tied up in the use of a phrase like "saved" jobs...but I fear it is in the lexicon for the distance now.
I hope and pray that when Republicans are back in power, we don't use it too. But I wouldn't bet on it.
This is ridiculous. Almost every "saved" job that is ever talked about in these discussions is a teacher or cop (naturally--because it wouldn't pull at the heartstrings if it were clerks and trashmen), bandied about as if there were NO OTHER OPTIONS. "LORD (Obama) BE PRAISED! The stimulus gave us money and we don't have to fire these people." But what about other cuts in services? What about aid to "community organizers"?
There is so much mischief tied up in the use of a phrase like "saved" jobs...but I fear it is in the lexicon for the distance now.
I hope and pray that when Republicans are back in power, we don't use it too. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
