Monday, August 31, 2009
Political Earthquake in Japan
The ruling Liberal Democratic Party in Japan was trounced in elections yesterday, ending its 54-year run in power. That's some run. Although all politics is local, the Obama Administration must watch this development carefully, as the Democratic Party in Japan came to power stressing a more "arms length" relationship with the US. Given the distance growing between us and the Brits, we simply can't afford to push another steadfast ally away. This will require deft statesmanship by the Obama Administration--standby for the announcement of a Japan Czar.....
Sunday, August 30, 2009
What Would Jefferson Say?
The University of Virginia was named to America's 25 "Douchiest" colleges list by GQ. See where yours placed here.
Hat tip: TigerHawk
Hat tip: TigerHawk
We May Have a Winner....
...in the "what car am I going to get" derby. Gotta wait about a year for it though, which will be plenty of time for me to figure out if I can afford it....
2011 Hyundai Equus
2011 Hyundai Equus
This One's Probably Gonna Hurt
In this morning's papers across Virginia, there's an article about GOP governor candidate Bob McDonnell's Regent University thesis in which he espouses his views of feminists as detrimental to the family, and a few other views that won't sit well with some women. Yes, these views are 20 years old and he claims his views have evolved over time; in fact, he has worked to pass some working mom-friendly legislation. McDonnell's opponent has worked to paint him as a Jerry Falwell-esque character and points to the Regent University connection as proof. (Regent is not the sum total of his education experience-he got his undergraduate degree from Notre Dame and a master's from BU).
Putting aside the content of the thesis, it's interesting that this 20-year old thesis is being pulled out, dusted off and trumpeted by the Washington Post at the time that Deeds' campaign is floundering somewhat. We learned last year that past associations and expressions of candidates really didn't matter.
So should this matter? I fear it will.
Putting aside the content of the thesis, it's interesting that this 20-year old thesis is being pulled out, dusted off and trumpeted by the Washington Post at the time that Deeds' campaign is floundering somewhat. We learned last year that past associations and expressions of candidates really didn't matter.
So should this matter? I fear it will.
Seniors and Socialized Medicine
Ezra Klein, annoying liberal-wunderkind of the Washington Post, poses a good question in his column this morning, one that Conservatives should already have been asking themselves (I have, have you?) and one for which Conservatives better have a good answer--certainly better than the answers that Klein puts forward to his own question.
Why are seniors--those most THOROUGHLY INVESTED IN GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE, so heavily against....government run health care? Let's face it--medicare is essentially socialized medicine, so this is really an inconvenient question for Conservatives to answer. Klein basically says its because Republican spin-meisters have so effectively brainwashed seniors into thinking that the "savings" to be wrung from Medicare to pay for a public option, will create diminished service to them. Klein blithely dismisses this fear, basically saying the savings are going to come from better and more efficient operations, not service cuts.
A couple of things.
1. Seniors don't view Medicare as socialized medicine. They see it--like they see their social security checks--as something they "earned" by paying into the system for so long. Though this is a clear misperception of the facts (one's social security benefit at least has SOME tenuous connection to what one pays in during a working life), that's how they see it.
2. The fear that they see is at least partly attributable to the sense that Medicare is already running on the ragged edge, and that spreading this model across the population would create changes--real, negative changes--to the level of care they get now. This is a rational fear, one that can't be dismissed as blithely as Klein tries.
3. Medicare, at a very understandable level of abstraction, appeals to many in this country from a compassionate and humanitarian perspective. These people look at our great and wealthy country and think a measure of its greatness is how it takes care of its old and sick. This is--incidentally--the perspective from which I come. I do believe the federal government has a role to play--a major role--in the provision of healthcare to its most vulnerable citizens (yes, citizens). In many cases, the most vulnerable--those with the least means and the most problems--are our elderly. But these same people don't necessarily believe that a measure of national greatness is how well a government provides healthcare to those with the means to provide it for themselves. Many who feel this way are seniors--seniors who see no problem in participating in Medicare (see above, Medicare as earned right) and nationalized health care (see Canada, Britain, etc). By the way, it is interesting to see that the REAL third rail of American politics--means testing for medicare--hasn't popped its head up here. I'd support ANY politician with the stones to bring this one up.
At the end of the day, there is some inconsistency in the opposition of older Americans to nationalized health care--when viewed from the Ezra Klein perspective. When viewed from a senior's perspective, it isn't so clear.
Politically, Conservatives need to make the distinctions between taking care of our most vulnerable--a government function--and the provision of routine life-long healthcare--not a government function. Along the way, I'd love to see the cost of medicare reduced NOT by reducing services but by denying them altogether to seniors who can afford it. But that's a fight for another day.....
Why are seniors--those most THOROUGHLY INVESTED IN GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE, so heavily against....government run health care? Let's face it--medicare is essentially socialized medicine, so this is really an inconvenient question for Conservatives to answer. Klein basically says its because Republican spin-meisters have so effectively brainwashed seniors into thinking that the "savings" to be wrung from Medicare to pay for a public option, will create diminished service to them. Klein blithely dismisses this fear, basically saying the savings are going to come from better and more efficient operations, not service cuts.
A couple of things.
1. Seniors don't view Medicare as socialized medicine. They see it--like they see their social security checks--as something they "earned" by paying into the system for so long. Though this is a clear misperception of the facts (one's social security benefit at least has SOME tenuous connection to what one pays in during a working life), that's how they see it.
2. The fear that they see is at least partly attributable to the sense that Medicare is already running on the ragged edge, and that spreading this model across the population would create changes--real, negative changes--to the level of care they get now. This is a rational fear, one that can't be dismissed as blithely as Klein tries.
3. Medicare, at a very understandable level of abstraction, appeals to many in this country from a compassionate and humanitarian perspective. These people look at our great and wealthy country and think a measure of its greatness is how it takes care of its old and sick. This is--incidentally--the perspective from which I come. I do believe the federal government has a role to play--a major role--in the provision of healthcare to its most vulnerable citizens (yes, citizens). In many cases, the most vulnerable--those with the least means and the most problems--are our elderly. But these same people don't necessarily believe that a measure of national greatness is how well a government provides healthcare to those with the means to provide it for themselves. Many who feel this way are seniors--seniors who see no problem in participating in Medicare (see above, Medicare as earned right) and nationalized health care (see Canada, Britain, etc). By the way, it is interesting to see that the REAL third rail of American politics--means testing for medicare--hasn't popped its head up here. I'd support ANY politician with the stones to bring this one up.
At the end of the day, there is some inconsistency in the opposition of older Americans to nationalized health care--when viewed from the Ezra Klein perspective. When viewed from a senior's perspective, it isn't so clear.
Politically, Conservatives need to make the distinctions between taking care of our most vulnerable--a government function--and the provision of routine life-long healthcare--not a government function. Along the way, I'd love to see the cost of medicare reduced NOT by reducing services but by denying them altogether to seniors who can afford it. But that's a fight for another day.....
Ted Kennedy's Letter to the Pope
President Obama delivered this letter to the Pope during a visit last month, at the behest of the dying senior senator from Massachusetts.
At the risk of re-igniting the (entertaining, largely civil, if "unbalanced") discussion of Senator Kennedy's life and impact, it is difficult to read this letter and not be touched by the humanity of the situation. A dying man appealing to his faith's earthly leader, to pray for him as he moves into what comes next.
Kennedy was flawed--deeply. But the things he states in this letter that he tried to do in his 50 year political career represent a very fair and thorough self-appraisal of his legislative goals. I rarely agreed with the man, but he tried hard to accomplish good things.
At the risk of re-igniting the (entertaining, largely civil, if "unbalanced") discussion of Senator Kennedy's life and impact, it is difficult to read this letter and not be touched by the humanity of the situation. A dying man appealing to his faith's earthly leader, to pray for him as he moves into what comes next.
Kennedy was flawed--deeply. But the things he states in this letter that he tried to do in his 50 year political career represent a very fair and thorough self-appraisal of his legislative goals. I rarely agreed with the man, but he tried hard to accomplish good things.
Suckers Rally?
From BFFFFA, Goldwater's Ghost asks:
"The DOW average is up over 9,000; a 44% increase from its 6,600 mark set six months ago. To what would you attribute this mini bull rally to:
• the mood of the market that the worst of the financial meltdown is over, and that the economy has “turned a corner”
• better-than-expected corporate earnings in some sectors
• it’s a suckers rally
• it was under-valued six months ago
• because The One said it to be so
Or is it something else?"
I think the rally is attributable to a couple of factors.
But he and I also discussed (and we've done so here on this blog) "The New Normal", and ladies and gentlemen, a Dow at 10K is about all you're gonna get for three-five years. We hit the "reset" switch, and our economy is simply a different one than it was before. Consumer spending isn't going to act as an engine of growth until unemployment decreases--dramatically. Even then, one hopes that America's spending and saving habits will have been altered by this experience (a guy can hope, can't he?). Add to this an almost certain tax increase on virtually everyone (not just the rich), and consumers are simply not going to have the same coin to throw around. Government pump-priming is running its course, and the mood in the country is one of contraction, not expansion. Business is expanding, slowly, with trepidation--as credit markets unglue and strategists re-assess the new landscape.
What is not going to act as an engine of growth is the housing market, a reliable factor in many recoveries. Here's where "the new normal" is going to be most different to those with short memories. Easy credit to buy houses is a thing of the past--so working through the glut of inventory out there on the real estate market is going to be a slow and painful process. People buy things to put in their new houses, so since folks won't be as mobile, they'll not be spending as much (another argument for detaching health insurance from employment--people would be more willing to move and switch jobs if they didn't have to worry about losing insurance--could act as a pump primer for the real estate market).
What I'm saying is that while I predicted a Dow at 10,200 on 31 December 2009 in my Predictions post, I did not develop that further. I've done that here today--get ready for a few years of hunkering down, l0w-slow growth, and having to be a lot smarter about one's investments than they were in the first decade of this century. The internet caused a boom; complex financial instruments led to another. We won't move off the low/slow growth curve until we've worked through the housing issue, and then growth will be more moderate and predictable--until the next great thing (likely in my opinion to be a breakthrough in energy technology) occurs.
"The DOW average is up over 9,000; a 44% increase from its 6,600 mark set six months ago. To what would you attribute this mini bull rally to:
• the mood of the market that the worst of the financial meltdown is over, and that the economy has “turned a corner”
• better-than-expected corporate earnings in some sectors
• it’s a suckers rally
• it was under-valued six months ago
• because The One said it to be so
Or is it something else?"
I think the rally is attributable to a couple of factors.
- The market was ridiculously over-valued at 14000, propped up by a financials sector that whose value was smoke and mirrors. The market was ridiculously undervalued at 6400, with the meltdown in financials causing a lack of confidence every where else. Good, solid companies were dragged down in value without any rational reason. 10000 is "the new normal" and what we see now is a correction to the correction.
- The actions of the late Bush and early Obama Administrations to ungum the credit/liquidity markets will be shown when all is said and done to be the only things government did that actually had a demonstrable impact on this recession ending. To suggest that the "stimulus" had anything to do with this rally is unsupportable. Strike that--I do think there is and was a psychological value to some investors in seeing that the President was all over this, albeit in a feckless, irresponsible, and ultimately unnecessary manner.
But he and I also discussed (and we've done so here on this blog) "The New Normal", and ladies and gentlemen, a Dow at 10K is about all you're gonna get for three-five years. We hit the "reset" switch, and our economy is simply a different one than it was before. Consumer spending isn't going to act as an engine of growth until unemployment decreases--dramatically. Even then, one hopes that America's spending and saving habits will have been altered by this experience (a guy can hope, can't he?). Add to this an almost certain tax increase on virtually everyone (not just the rich), and consumers are simply not going to have the same coin to throw around. Government pump-priming is running its course, and the mood in the country is one of contraction, not expansion. Business is expanding, slowly, with trepidation--as credit markets unglue and strategists re-assess the new landscape.
What is not going to act as an engine of growth is the housing market, a reliable factor in many recoveries. Here's where "the new normal" is going to be most different to those with short memories. Easy credit to buy houses is a thing of the past--so working through the glut of inventory out there on the real estate market is going to be a slow and painful process. People buy things to put in their new houses, so since folks won't be as mobile, they'll not be spending as much (another argument for detaching health insurance from employment--people would be more willing to move and switch jobs if they didn't have to worry about losing insurance--could act as a pump primer for the real estate market).
What I'm saying is that while I predicted a Dow at 10,200 on 31 December 2009 in my Predictions post, I did not develop that further. I've done that here today--get ready for a few years of hunkering down, l0w-slow growth, and having to be a lot smarter about one's investments than they were in the first decade of this century. The internet caused a boom; complex financial instruments led to another. We won't move off the low/slow growth curve until we've worked through the housing issue, and then growth will be more moderate and predictable--until the next great thing (likely in my opinion to be a breakthrough in energy technology) occurs.
Morale Problems at Langley
News here of some "issues" cropping up at the CIA, issues of trust and confidence, very human issues that can and will impact the quality of operations that selected, planned and executed. I love the one quote--"Big operation, big risk. Small operation, small risk. No operation, no risk". Throwing the CIA to the wolves is indefensible, and the Obama Administration is messing with national security now by alienating the front-line of our intelligence community.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Hello all--one day left here on the Outer Banks--no scale here, so no weigh-in (probably a good thing after the sloth and gluttony evidenced here).
It's your turn--what's on your mind? What burning issues are worthy of further debate here on the CW?
Fire away good citizens, fire away.
It's your turn--what's on your mind? What burning issues are worthy of further debate here on the CW?
Fire away good citizens, fire away.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Outer Banks Update
Well, two full days left here in Corolla, and I'm wondering where the time went. Two sets of family visitors have come and gone, brother Tom rolls in tonight to join Tim, Erika, The Kitten and the Kittens and me. The older kitten got to bring along a friend on the trip, kind of a sad story. She and her family have to move away from us on the Eastern Shore because her Dad got a new job. The girls are heartbroken, and are using this little trip as a "farewell", making little scrapbooks and the like. I'll never cease to be amazed at how different little girls are than little boys, and I'm not sure I'll ever be too good at figuring it out.
Played golf with Dad yesterday--quite an experience. It was HOT, and we were stuck behind a slow group who eventually got moving with the help of the marshals. He and I tied--both shot 105--but get this. My round broke down as a 62 on the first nine and a 43 on the second. I was so off my game--huge head case on the front nine. I really let the pace of play get to me--but once things opened up, I settled down and got myself together. My Dad's been playing for nearly 60 years, and he said he never saw one guy play two nines as differently as I did.
Had a big crab feast last night--I knew it had been years since my Dad had done so, and I have great memories of hours spent at Max's Cafe in Gloucester NJ--just Dad and me--eating so many crabs I couldn't see straight. Teaching a whole new generation the proper way of relieving the little buggers of their tasty--yet hard to access--meat.
Cigars purchased Sunday remain unsmoked--haven't had the courage to run the Kitten gauntlet on this one yet. Perhaps I'll be more courageous with Tom around, or at least I can blame the bad behavior on him. He'll show up with a big bottle of vodka--so the bad behavior will be easy to generate.
Trying to sell The Kitten on this whole Outer Banks thing--she's a very practical sort, and wonders why I spend all this money to come live for a week in a house that is further from the water than the one I live in full time. The kids love it though, able as they are to cruise the streets of our quaint little neighborhood on their bikes, stoked by the big screen downstairs solely devoted to their TV watching. The truth is, I've been coming down here for 25 years, and it represents a week completely removed from the life I lead the rest of the year. Each week here is more like the previous weeks I've spent and less like the life I leave behind. Its attraction remains the same--the sounds of the beach, the food, the laughs, the family and friends, and the weather. Maybe I'm just stopping time for a week--here, I'm 20 again.
I’ll Take Quotable Quotes For $400…
Quick – who said the following:
"This is the pattern and the record of the administration [on] jobs, Medicare, schools, issue after issue -- mislead, deceive, make up the needed facts, smear the character of any critics."
Mitch McConnell?
John Boehner?
Eric Cantor?
Rush Limbaugh?
No, no, no and no. The correct Jeopardy answer is “Who is Senator Ted Kennedy?” Kennedy made these remarks in 2004 about then-President George W. Bush in a speech delivered at the Brookings Institution.
Except at that time, Kennedy was speaking as a dissenting patriot instead of a swastika carrying, gun-toting racist wingnut.
"This is the pattern and the record of the administration [on] jobs, Medicare, schools, issue after issue -- mislead, deceive, make up the needed facts, smear the character of any critics."
Mitch McConnell?
John Boehner?
Eric Cantor?
Rush Limbaugh?
No, no, no and no. The correct Jeopardy answer is “Who is Senator Ted Kennedy?” Kennedy made these remarks in 2004 about then-President George W. Bush in a speech delivered at the Brookings Institution.
Except at that time, Kennedy was speaking as a dissenting patriot instead of a swastika carrying, gun-toting racist wingnut.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Bill Bennett On Ted Kennedy
From NRO's The Corner...
"There is a lot one could say of Senator Kennedy—positive from supporters, negative from critics. They say one should not speak ill of the dead. True. But I am of the view that one should not lie about the dead either. So I will not go on.
Whatever one thought of him, there is no one in the Senate of his force, sheer power, and impact. If you think there is his equal in this, tell me who it is.
He and I attended the same church, and whenever he saw me he would be pleasant. But in the political battles, he was a fierce and tough—and sometimes a ruthless—operator. When he spoke in the Senate, people paid attention, regardless of party. As CNN reports: "Kennedy was one of only six senators in U.S. history to serve more than 40 years. He was elected to eight full terms to become the second most-senior senator after West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd. He launched his political career in 1962, when he was elected to finish the unexpired Senate term of his brother, who became president in 1960. He won his first full term in 1964."
His biography is not complete without noting the tragedies of and in his family. Nor is it complete without saying he was an early and strong supporter of comprehensive health-care reform and also the campaign of Senator Barack Obama.
There are the personal failings and tragedies that will mark any obituary of his as well, including the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Were it not for his self-imposed recklessness, he may very well have been president.
He assaulted our causes and nominees with vigor and rancor. Still, in his day he was a powerful orator—and historians will mark his speech to the 1980 Democratic convention as a high water mark and example. To his supporters, I simply give them his words, and leave the rest to historians: “For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.” To the American Left, he was their lion. To the American conservative movement, he was our bane. But today, we put the politics aside and wish him and his family God’s peace."
A fairly evenhanded treatment for a man whom many might feel doesn't deserve it.
"There is a lot one could say of Senator Kennedy—positive from supporters, negative from critics. They say one should not speak ill of the dead. True. But I am of the view that one should not lie about the dead either. So I will not go on.
Whatever one thought of him, there is no one in the Senate of his force, sheer power, and impact. If you think there is his equal in this, tell me who it is.
He and I attended the same church, and whenever he saw me he would be pleasant. But in the political battles, he was a fierce and tough—and sometimes a ruthless—operator. When he spoke in the Senate, people paid attention, regardless of party. As CNN reports: "Kennedy was one of only six senators in U.S. history to serve more than 40 years. He was elected to eight full terms to become the second most-senior senator after West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd. He launched his political career in 1962, when he was elected to finish the unexpired Senate term of his brother, who became president in 1960. He won his first full term in 1964."
His biography is not complete without noting the tragedies of and in his family. Nor is it complete without saying he was an early and strong supporter of comprehensive health-care reform and also the campaign of Senator Barack Obama.
There are the personal failings and tragedies that will mark any obituary of his as well, including the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Were it not for his self-imposed recklessness, he may very well have been president.
He assaulted our causes and nominees with vigor and rancor. Still, in his day he was a powerful orator—and historians will mark his speech to the 1980 Democratic convention as a high water mark and example. To his supporters, I simply give them his words, and leave the rest to historians: “For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.” To the American Left, he was their lion. To the American conservative movement, he was our bane. But today, we put the politics aside and wish him and his family God’s peace."
A fairly evenhanded treatment for a man whom many might feel doesn't deserve it.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
If Life Gives You Lemons, DO NOT Make Lemonade!!!
Who would have thought all those ice cream sundaes, sodas and candy bars would be "bad" for your health? Well, it really caught me off guard too when the American Heart Association announced that, get this, all that sugar leads to obesity (WHAT?!!) which leads to heart disease (GET OUT OF TOWN!). I can't keep track of all this. Right here in none other than the ever truthful, ever reliable CW did I recently learn that it's really okay to be obese. So naturally I started increasing my intake of the aforementioned food groups. I mean, hey, don't we all want to live forever? Or at least as long as we can under whatever new health reform Pelosi-Reid-Obama bestow upon us?
Look, in all very brief and intermittent seriousness, there is little question that the American diet is somewhat inconsistent with what that Guy who designed the human digestive system had in mind for sustenance. I have done a fair amount of reading about how much better the body processses game meats, whole grains and fresh fruits and vegetables as humans used to do before Al Gore invented the internet (okay, it might have been a few years before that, my memory is clouded with this sugar high). One of the consistent themes I've seen proposed is this notion that we could take a dramatic stab at reducing this trend toward Americans', uhm, "huskiness", by simply eliminating the government subsidies on corn (How do you spell "OMG!" in Iowan?). Anyway, the mindset appears to be that corn is used to fatten cattle unnaturally on feedlots (oh, but how I DO love a nicely marbled delmonico), how it supplies the corn syrup industry which all by itself accounts for 80% of unnecessary calories (I made up that statistic--feel free to insert the correct number any of you corn lobbyists who might be reading--I suspect it may be higher), and how it makes driving rather than walking a little cheaper (except when you leave that damned ethanol in your tank too long and you have to ungunk your fuel lines)--all of which contribute to facilitating our proclivity to make personal choices that lead to us become more rotund.
I think subsidizing most anything is poor governing. There are ample market forces to encourage farmers to grow corn...and if there weren't why would we need to grow it anyway? But I also read a lot about the FDA and Dept of Agriculture and how many of their policies actually encourage the kinds of practices that have tainted the very food supply they mean to keep clean. Things like NAIS (National Animal Identification System) represent an unaffordable government burden on many small organic or, "beyond organic" farmers who are committed to providing food sources that are free of the kinds of diseases found in feed lots and industrial chicken houses that require all manner of innoculations and antibiotics and to give us options in our food supply that more closely represent pre-internet diet (okay, that apparently wasn't funny the first time either) pre-industrial farming/processed food diet. It will also impact the poor sot who has this crazy notion that the nation in which he lives actually affords him the freedom to own his own milk cow or goat, maybe a pig and some chickens so he can feed his family and barter with his neighbors for items they might grow. Not so fast...they are impacted too. There's a farmer near Staunton, VA who wrote a book, "Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal: War Stories from the Local Food Front" to document the battles he's had with USDA etc as he strives to raise food in humane, natural environments and in ways that exceed USDA requirements for "organic". I'll read it sometime and give you a book report.
So to summarize:
Lots of American's are fat and excess sugar is a nice, packet-sized culprit.
But, most Americans are fat because of their personal choices.
Of those choices, the government subsidizes or policy-izes many of the less healthy options from which Americans choose.
Many Americans are trying to provide healthier options but, in addition to the challenges of making themselves more vulnerable to weather fluctuations, insect infestations and natural predation, they are almost unanimously in agreement that their biggest challenge is the government.
Ultimately, we are still fat because of our personal choices.
But could we try to, maybe, level the playing field by exempting the small farmers who don't use feedlots or packed chicken houses, etc and who don't ship their goods farther than the nearest farmers market and ESPECIALLY those who just use their farms to feed their friends and family?
And couldn't we save a ton of money if we stopped subsidizing things that contribute to our less healthy choices and for which there is already a booming market?
And does anyone know of a book for brevity in writing?
Look, in all very brief and intermittent seriousness, there is little question that the American diet is somewhat inconsistent with what that Guy who designed the human digestive system had in mind for sustenance. I have done a fair amount of reading about how much better the body processses game meats, whole grains and fresh fruits and vegetables as humans used to do before Al Gore invented the internet (okay, it might have been a few years before that, my memory is clouded with this sugar high). One of the consistent themes I've seen proposed is this notion that we could take a dramatic stab at reducing this trend toward Americans', uhm, "huskiness", by simply eliminating the government subsidies on corn (How do you spell "OMG!" in Iowan?). Anyway, the mindset appears to be that corn is used to fatten cattle unnaturally on feedlots (oh, but how I DO love a nicely marbled delmonico), how it supplies the corn syrup industry which all by itself accounts for 80% of unnecessary calories (I made up that statistic--feel free to insert the correct number any of you corn lobbyists who might be reading--I suspect it may be higher), and how it makes driving rather than walking a little cheaper (except when you leave that damned ethanol in your tank too long and you have to ungunk your fuel lines)--all of which contribute to facilitating our proclivity to make personal choices that lead to us become more rotund.
I think subsidizing most anything is poor governing. There are ample market forces to encourage farmers to grow corn...and if there weren't why would we need to grow it anyway? But I also read a lot about the FDA and Dept of Agriculture and how many of their policies actually encourage the kinds of practices that have tainted the very food supply they mean to keep clean. Things like NAIS (National Animal Identification System) represent an unaffordable government burden on many small organic or, "beyond organic" farmers who are committed to providing food sources that are free of the kinds of diseases found in feed lots and industrial chicken houses that require all manner of innoculations and antibiotics and to give us options in our food supply that more closely represent pre-internet diet (okay, that apparently wasn't funny the first time either) pre-industrial farming/processed food diet. It will also impact the poor sot who has this crazy notion that the nation in which he lives actually affords him the freedom to own his own milk cow or goat, maybe a pig and some chickens so he can feed his family and barter with his neighbors for items they might grow. Not so fast...they are impacted too. There's a farmer near Staunton, VA who wrote a book, "Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal: War Stories from the Local Food Front" to document the battles he's had with USDA etc as he strives to raise food in humane, natural environments and in ways that exceed USDA requirements for "organic". I'll read it sometime and give you a book report.
So to summarize:
Lots of American's are fat and excess sugar is a nice, packet-sized culprit.
But, most Americans are fat because of their personal choices.
Of those choices, the government subsidizes or policy-izes many of the less healthy options from which Americans choose.
Many Americans are trying to provide healthier options but, in addition to the challenges of making themselves more vulnerable to weather fluctuations, insect infestations and natural predation, they are almost unanimously in agreement that their biggest challenge is the government.
Ultimately, we are still fat because of our personal choices.
But could we try to, maybe, level the playing field by exempting the small farmers who don't use feedlots or packed chicken houses, etc and who don't ship their goods farther than the nearest farmers market and ESPECIALLY those who just use their farms to feed their friends and family?
And couldn't we save a ton of money if we stopped subsidizing things that contribute to our less healthy choices and for which there is already a booming market?
And does anyone know of a book for brevity in writing?
Monday, August 24, 2009
So Transparent, You Can See Right Through It
The NRO’s Jonathan Adler remarked on The Corner last Saturday morning:
"Let's see now. Deficit projections are once again on the rise as Obama's approval rating falls. Health-care reform is faltering, climate-change legislation is stalled, and David Axlerod is under fire for his conflicts of interest. Seems like a good time to change the subject. Contents of the CIA inspector general's report on harsh interrogation methods have already leaked, so it won't do the trick. If I were a betting man, I'd expect something else to drop Monday or Tuesday."
We didn’t have to wait long at all – Attorney General Holder has announced that he is appointing a prosecutor to Investigate CIA terror interrogations.
Just the thing to whip up the gloomy party faithful into a Bushitler frenzy.
"Let's see now. Deficit projections are once again on the rise as Obama's approval rating falls. Health-care reform is faltering, climate-change legislation is stalled, and David Axlerod is under fire for his conflicts of interest. Seems like a good time to change the subject. Contents of the CIA inspector general's report on harsh interrogation methods have already leaked, so it won't do the trick. If I were a betting man, I'd expect something else to drop Monday or Tuesday."
We didn’t have to wait long at all – Attorney General Holder has announced that he is appointing a prosecutor to Investigate CIA terror interrogations.
Just the thing to whip up the gloomy party faithful into a Bushitler frenzy.
In Which I Disagree with Robert Samuelson on High Speed Rail
I am announcing in advance foreknowledge of skating out onto the thin ice, in that I am going to publicly disagree with a man 1) with whom I almost always agree and 2) who is about a kabillion times smarter than I.
That said, Robert Samuelson just plain gets it wrong in this piece in this morning's WaPost in which he criticizes the Obama Administration for its high speed rail plans on economic/fiscal grounds. Now don't go thinking I've gotten all Hope and Change on you--I'm not. I'm a huge fan of rail, of getting people off the roads and into mass transportation, and most importantly, of the federal government's role in interstate commerce.
Of course Samuelson has a point when he looks at the costs of rail infrastructure build-out. Of course it works best in areas of the country in which we have sufficient population density. But the arguments of cost, and the arguments against the subsidizing of the operations of high speed rail--ignore the likely benefits of such a system. We all look at the interstate highway system in the US as a marvel, as the "internet" before the internet--that which unleashed the economic vitality of the country as nothing prior to the inland waterways had. Do we think that the highways built themselves? Do we think that market forces prevailed, and private companies got together and laid down the macadam? Of course not. Hundreds of millions if not billions of American tax dollars went into the construction of the system from which we all now benefit.
Transportation infrastructure is one of the VERY FEW THINGS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO BE DOING. As I look at the tattered remains of federalism, of limited government, and of fiscal responsibility that remain after seven months of the Obama Administration, I can identify trillions of dollars of programs and initiatives that come up FAR SHORT of the federal role in the systematic upgrade of the country's transportation infrastructure. Getting passenger trains onto more track upon which only passenger traffic will move can and will move people faster--and also cargo that will not now have to share track with passenger trains.
I realize that some will want me to turn in my Ronald Reagan fan club button when I advocate FOR subsidizing rail construction and operation, but at the end of the day, THIS IS WHAT THE FEDS ARE FOR. Why not subsidize? Where do we think the "subsidies" come from in the first place? Our tax dollars, of course. When I think of the waste made of federal revenue, I realize the first and best use of tax dollars is to leave them in their natural state--income accrued by citizens. But close behind "provid(ing) for the common defense" comes promotion of the general welfare--something I believe an integrated transportation system in this country would go a long way toward enabling. High speed rail is a big part of that system.
That said, Robert Samuelson just plain gets it wrong in this piece in this morning's WaPost in which he criticizes the Obama Administration for its high speed rail plans on economic/fiscal grounds. Now don't go thinking I've gotten all Hope and Change on you--I'm not. I'm a huge fan of rail, of getting people off the roads and into mass transportation, and most importantly, of the federal government's role in interstate commerce.
Of course Samuelson has a point when he looks at the costs of rail infrastructure build-out. Of course it works best in areas of the country in which we have sufficient population density. But the arguments of cost, and the arguments against the subsidizing of the operations of high speed rail--ignore the likely benefits of such a system. We all look at the interstate highway system in the US as a marvel, as the "internet" before the internet--that which unleashed the economic vitality of the country as nothing prior to the inland waterways had. Do we think that the highways built themselves? Do we think that market forces prevailed, and private companies got together and laid down the macadam? Of course not. Hundreds of millions if not billions of American tax dollars went into the construction of the system from which we all now benefit.
Transportation infrastructure is one of the VERY FEW THINGS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO BE DOING. As I look at the tattered remains of federalism, of limited government, and of fiscal responsibility that remain after seven months of the Obama Administration, I can identify trillions of dollars of programs and initiatives that come up FAR SHORT of the federal role in the systematic upgrade of the country's transportation infrastructure. Getting passenger trains onto more track upon which only passenger traffic will move can and will move people faster--and also cargo that will not now have to share track with passenger trains.
I realize that some will want me to turn in my Ronald Reagan fan club button when I advocate FOR subsidizing rail construction and operation, but at the end of the day, THIS IS WHAT THE FEDS ARE FOR. Why not subsidize? Where do we think the "subsidies" come from in the first place? Our tax dollars, of course. When I think of the waste made of federal revenue, I realize the first and best use of tax dollars is to leave them in their natural state--income accrued by citizens. But close behind "provid(ing) for the common defense" comes promotion of the general welfare--something I believe an integrated transportation system in this country would go a long way toward enabling. High speed rail is a big part of that system.
Economic Theory and the Maryland Waterman
Fascinating story here in this morning's WaPost on a PhD inspired auction in the State of Maryland designed to buy back crabbing licenses from small-scale crabbers who--architects of the auction surmised--had over the years moved on to other professions or simply stopped crabbing. The licenses--originally had for $50--are no longer issued, and in an effort to winnow down the number of crabbers (related to the effort to better manage the blue-crab population), the State believed that a secret auction--in which no one would know what his neighbor offered his license for--would ultimately net the state the licenses it was looking for at the lowest prices.
Well, the whole shebang has turned out to be a failure. With over 2000 bids expected by the auction creators, less than 500 actually were submitted, many with bid prices that were considered exorbitant by the State.
What was at work here? Lots of things, mostly very human stories of people whose fathers and grandfathers had plied the waters contiguous to the Eastern Shore, for whom modern-day residents have great respect. Additionally, there is a bit of reminiscing for the glory days of long-gone-past here, when there were crabs for everyone and everyone could make a living pulling them out of the water.
And.....after living with a 7th generation Eastern Shore resident for a year now....I've come to identify a rather pronounced streak of stubbornness among residents of this part of Maryland (and indeed, in the house in which I reside)--along with a bit of disdain for the authority of local government.
No, the idea was a good one in at a University of Maryland faculty club where PhD's likely constructed it. In practice--it just didn't account for the Eastern Shore very well.
Well, the whole shebang has turned out to be a failure. With over 2000 bids expected by the auction creators, less than 500 actually were submitted, many with bid prices that were considered exorbitant by the State.
What was at work here? Lots of things, mostly very human stories of people whose fathers and grandfathers had plied the waters contiguous to the Eastern Shore, for whom modern-day residents have great respect. Additionally, there is a bit of reminiscing for the glory days of long-gone-past here, when there were crabs for everyone and everyone could make a living pulling them out of the water.
And.....after living with a 7th generation Eastern Shore resident for a year now....I've come to identify a rather pronounced streak of stubbornness among residents of this part of Maryland (and indeed, in the house in which I reside)--along with a bit of disdain for the authority of local government.
No, the idea was a good one in at a University of Maryland faculty club where PhD's likely constructed it. In practice--it just didn't account for the Eastern Shore very well.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Render Unto Obama What Is Obama’s…
An interesting if bizarre story found on Tigerhawk’s blog about the first supposed rendition of an alleged evildoer under the Obama Administration.
What was the heinous crime Raymond Azar allegedly committed to require such tactics? Invoice inflating.
Makes you wonder what the penalties will be for those opting not to get coverage under Obamacare.
What was the heinous crime Raymond Azar allegedly committed to require such tactics? Invoice inflating.
Makes you wonder what the penalties will be for those opting not to get coverage under Obamacare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
