You may have noticed lack of posting the last couple of days - I've been on vacation but will be returning next week, with a vengeance. Okay, maybe not exactly with a vengeance, but it sounds good.
Meanwhile enjoy the Musical Interlude.
July 31, 2009
Friday Musical Interlude - July 31, 2009
Friday Musical Interlude - July 31, 2009
No Heaven - DJ Champion (and a bonus thrown in below)
No message, just a catchy couple of tunes.
BONUS: Keep on Ridin' (not the original video, but the original song with a cool video added to it).
No Heaven - DJ Champion (and a bonus thrown in below)
No message, just a catchy couple of tunes.
BONUS: Keep on Ridin' (not the original video, but the original song with a cool video added to it).
July 27, 2009
Obama approval ratings fire sale
From Rasmussen, this:
I just want to say 'woo hoo!' but it doesn't mean much if the President is still getting his way on legislation. That means that this information should provide a rallying point for those who oppose his agenda to ramp up their opposition efforts to his agenda.
If not, it represents nothing more than a wasted opportunity.
The Law of Unintended Consequences
Ah, to have the opportunity to blog full time. The opportunity to blog thoughts and ideas might then be able to keep up with the reality of Obama's Presidency. Every action has consequences. This is particularly true in politics and in public policy. And it's especially true of the current regime, because with the headlong charge into so many of these government spending programs, and changes to laws, even unsure of many of the intended consequences since he packages were written by a select few, and read cover to cover by even fewer.
With the blistering pace of the spending that's occurred during the Leeroy Jenkins (WARNING: the link contains obscenities. But it is funny and also instructive.) approach to policy implementation over the last several months, things are bound to go wrong. And that's just from a planned perspective. Unplanned things will happen to a great degree, and based on past examples of unintended consequences, some of the possibilities can be anticipated. Because there are thousands of unread pages of legislation, some cannot be. And that's the real danger.
Everything from Cap & Trade, to the bank bailouts, to GM, to he health care plans all pose real threats, both seen and unsee.
The Library of Economics and Liberty provides the following definition of Unintended Consequences.
If it's sometimes responsible for negative consequences, how can it be a positive reality? Because the invisible hand is people looking out for their own interests, and that's always a good thing - the alternative is the nanny state. But the negative consequences that can result from many people reacting the same way to the same new circumstance can be negative for the nation, or state or city.
And that's the point in the phrase above "and especially of government". Governments take actions, people react in order to further or defend their own interests, and the fallout can negatively or unexpectedly affect the government and the citizenry of the nation. And there are many examples that should be examined as instructive in today's governmental environment, already rife with unintended consequences, and poised to have those effects multiplied by reaction to the liberal policies being enacted.
[Emphasis Added]
That phrase sounds quite similar to "the fierce urgency of now". No doubt similarly, the unintended consequences will follow the same way the phrase from 1936 was recirculated in it's more modern form.
In the coming weeks, I will be taking a look at some of these examples in greater detail, and relate the fallout to current events.
With the blistering pace of the spending that's occurred during the Leeroy Jenkins (WARNING: the link contains obscenities. But it is funny and also instructive.) approach to policy implementation over the last several months, things are bound to go wrong. And that's just from a planned perspective. Unplanned things will happen to a great degree, and based on past examples of unintended consequences, some of the possibilities can be anticipated. Because there are thousands of unread pages of legislation, some cannot be. And that's the real danger.
Everything from Cap & Trade, to the bank bailouts, to GM, to he health care plans all pose real threats, both seen and unsee.
The Library of Economics and Liberty provides the following definition of Unintended Consequences.
The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended. Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it.The page on the topic goes on to site the Invisible Hand as described by Adam Smith as the most positive example of positive unintended consequences. I'd put it a little differently. The invisible hand is a positive reality that is in larger part responsible for many unintended consequences, both positive and negative.
If it's sometimes responsible for negative consequences, how can it be a positive reality? Because the invisible hand is people looking out for their own interests, and that's always a good thing - the alternative is the nanny state. But the negative consequences that can result from many people reacting the same way to the same new circumstance can be negative for the nation, or state or city.
And that's the point in the phrase above "and especially of government". Governments take actions, people react in order to further or defend their own interests, and the fallout can negatively or unexpectedly affect the government and the citizenry of the nation. And there are many examples that should be examined as instructive in today's governmental environment, already rife with unintended consequences, and poised to have those effects multiplied by reaction to the liberal policies being enacted.
The first and most complete analysis of the concept of unintended consequences was done in 1936 by the American sociologist Robert K. Merton. In an influential article titled “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action,” Merton identified five sources of unanticipated consequences. The first two—and the most pervasive—were “ignorance” and “error.”
Merton labeled the third source the “imperious immediacy of interest.” By that he was referring to instances in which someone wants the intended consequence of an action so much that he purposefully chooses to ignore any unintended effects. (That type of willful ignorance is very different from true ignorance.)
[Emphasis Added]
That phrase sounds quite similar to "the fierce urgency of now". No doubt similarly, the unintended consequences will follow the same way the phrase from 1936 was recirculated in it's more modern form.
In the coming weeks, I will be taking a look at some of these examples in greater detail, and relate the fallout to current events.
Presidential Diva
Me. ME. ME. ME! ME!!!
You're going to ruin my Presidency. (And I won't let that happen.) But this isn't about me.
Although, things have been going so well up until now. I gave the Queen of England an iPod with my speeches on it. Even she realizes how great and important I am. The people of Europe adore me, just like in America. And I'm only just beginning.
Soon I'll have cancer cured, the middle east solved to my liking, China will on board with everything I do, health care and cap and trade are just the beginning.
I am so awesome! Just look at my press clippings! I'm the greatest President ever. I can do no wrong.
*************************
Does this mean that if things start to go wrong he will shave his head, divorce Kevin Federline and end up in celebrity rehab?
You're going to ruin my Presidency. (And I won't let that happen.) But this isn't about me.
Although, things have been going so well up until now. I gave the Queen of England an iPod with my speeches on it. Even she realizes how great and important I am. The people of Europe adore me, just like in America. And I'm only just beginning.
Soon I'll have cancer cured, the middle east solved to my liking, China will on board with everything I do, health care and cap and trade are just the beginning.
I am so awesome! Just look at my press clippings! I'm the greatest President ever. I can do no wrong.
*************************
Does this mean that if things start to go wrong he will shave his head, divorce Kevin Federline and end up in celebrity rehab?
July 26, 2009
July 25, 2009
Saturday Learning Series - Free to Choose Part 3
Milton Friedman's Freedom to Choose - Anatomy of a crisis.
The Great Depression has been popularly viewed as a failure of capitalism. The stock market crash, the failure of the Bank of the United States, loss of personal savings, were visible symbols supporting this belief. As Friedman explains, the real cause was the unseen failure of government policy and action. Yet this crisis resulting from government failure leads to decades of government expansion.
For more economics and history, search Nonsensible Shoes for "Saturday Learning Series".
July 24, 2009
July 23, 2009
Health Care is Unsolvable This Way Mr. President
The OECD put out a report in 2006, on Health Care Quality Indicators. In evaluating and comparing transnational health care systems they based the broad assessments on a number of factors. These factors were as follows;
In order to simplify the number of dimensions it's worth grouping them a little more tightly, which I've arbitrarily done below.-Acceptability-Accessibility
-Appropriateness
-Capacity
-Capability
-Continuity
-Effectiveness
-Efficiency
-Equity
-Responsiveness
-Safety
-Sustainability
-Timeliness
Quality consists of most of the dimensions above - effectiveness, safety, responsiveness, acceptability, appropriateness, timeliness, capability and continuity
Quantity consists of accessibility and also timeliness (which is in a way, a sub-dimension of quality too)
Equity is it's own dimension, and
Cost is it's own dimension as well.
These 4 dimensions represent competing requirements for a health care industry. They need to provide the best quality care, to as many people as possible (quantity) as fairly as possible (equity) and as inexpensively as possible. Clearly these are competing priority. Now try to imagine that those 4 dimensions are equidistant from each other.
Quality versus Quantity: Assume you have 1 doctor and 100 patients that need to be seen. The doctor works 8 hours a day. He's overworked and gets no lunch. So he's on duty 480 minutes per day. How does he divide his time? Well he could spend all 480 minutes on one patient. That patient would have the BEST possible health care for her sprained ankle imaginable. But the other 99 patients would be pretty upset. Conversely he could spend exactly one minute with each patient. Great for a small cut, but bad for that sprained ankle or the other patient with a tumor. The best solution is somewhere in between, and likely not the same amount of time between patients. These health care requirements compete with each other.Quality versus Cost The patient with the scraped knee needs a bandage. There's cheap bandages ($1 each) or gauze ($4 each) or the newly developed anti-bacterial liquid oxygenated free radical inhibiting thermo bandages ($1000, don't look it up they don't really exist). Obviously the latter bandage offers the best protection and recovery opportunity but it costs a lot of money (regardless of who pays for it). Conversely the cheapest bandage might not be as good as the middle choice but it is cheaper. Again - the dimensions compete with each other.
Quality versus Equity: Going back to our 100 patients, let's assume that patients are prioritized on a triage system; Urgent, non-urgent and ambulatory (there are actually two other levels, but let's keep it simple). By the very nature of the varying degrees of importance, some patients will be seen sooner than others, even if they arrived at the medical facility much later than someone less critical. By the very nature of the responsiveness and/or timeliness (quality) to critical care patients, they are foregoing equality (equity) of the patients. In other words they are based on malady not people. All afflictions are not equal, and by not taking a first come first serve approach to address the urgency of the situation, the medical practitioners are sacrificing the equality (equity) of treatment to all patients.
Quantity versus Cost: Doctors and nurses are a finite resource. In our example above, we could improve the amount of time the doctor could spend with each patient if we were to hire a second doctor. The obvious downside? It will cost more to pay two doctors than to pay one.
Quantity versus Equity: This is a variation of the Quality versus Equity issue. If every one of our 100 patients merited equal time with the doctor then it would have to be set to the level that provided adequate time with the worst case patient. Otherwise the doctor is wasting 10 minutes with a patient who needs an hour, and spending 10 minutes with a patient who needs 2 minutes. Equity is an amorphous dimensional goal anyway. Are we talking about equal treatment for equal conditions? And if so, does that mean that every doctor has to have the same skill level as every other doctor? If we doubled the doctors and the 2nd doctor was better than the first, in order for everyone to have equal care, they would need to see the second doctor, and the first might as well be standing outside selling gum. And it's not just true for doctors and nurses - think of the divergent quality of beds, sheets, and hospital equipment. And think of the location of hospitals. Do we want everyone to have to travel the same maximum distance to a hospital? If that's the case does it apply to sparsely populated areas of Alaska? How many hospitals would it take? And if we did that, then the hospitals would have to be smaller there than say in L.A., which itself is an inequality. Head-spinning.
Cost versus Equity: This one is likewise a spin-off of quantity versus equity. In order to ensure that each of our 100 patients gets the same treatment, we are going to as mentioned above, bring the level up to the highest required patient visit time, not the lowest. It means more doctor hours and more expensive supplies. In other words equality costs more money. alternatively you could lower the standards so that everyone gets the same doctor time, but at the minimum level required for the least in need patient. It would be far cheaper and equality would be assured, but quality would suffer in most cases except for that 100th patient who needed the least attention.
What has Obama promised? Universal Health Care (quantity and some degree of equity) with no or little additional cost. All that leaves is quality to surrender ground in exchange for these other promises. Either quality goes down or one or more of his portions of Obama-care promises has to give.
There are no easy trade offs here, because everything is a trade off. Don't be fooled by the cost-savings argument the President is making about savings. If there are savings to be found in the system they have been found by someone already. If the President is bound and determined to redistribute the wealth of those who are leveraging any found savings by spreading the benefit around you run into another supply and demand issue. If the savings mean reducing insurance company profits, it means reducing available coverage. Why provide a service for sale if your profits no longer exist? You'd better move that investment elsewhere. The only option left is to replace the missing coverage with Government Health Care - something he said he wasn't going to force upon Americans. Oops.
I'm just saying.
Press Conference Yawner
I know this is supposed to be big. It's about the life or death of Obamacare. It's about the Obama legacy and the possible ruination or 'crowning achievement' of his Presidency. There are trillions of dollars at stake and the possible ruination of the economy.
I'm supposed to be this rabidly political guy (and I am). But I just couldn't draw up much enthusiasm for this propaganda conference of Obama's last night. But this was my impression of the press conference:
Honestly, it held all the attraction of an unending egg timer. It was his fourth prime time press conference. That's something that Bush took 8 years to manage. Perhaps we were being spoiled by President Bush - his press conferences were no shining lights either. But he did manage far too few of them, just as Obama is doing far too many. They both offered different types of frustration. One had too little information - especially in light of the fact that 2 wars were being fought. The other has too little information - the press conferences reveal NOTHING other than getting more air time for The One in order to prop up his flagging job approval numbers and thereby help his Obamacare effort.
He didn't speak truthfully. Even the Associated Press is starting to figure that out. He didn't offer details. He attacked Republicans (as I'd expected). Really, there was nothing new there. It was for the purpose of getting his face out there again in prime time and remind everyone about the feel-good days of the Obama victory and then flip that energy into a pro-Obamacare direction. It just might fail this time.
I'm supposed to be this rabidly political guy (and I am). But I just couldn't draw up much enthusiasm for this propaganda conference of Obama's last night. But this was my impression of the press conference:
Honestly, it held all the attraction of an unending egg timer. It was his fourth prime time press conference. That's something that Bush took 8 years to manage. Perhaps we were being spoiled by President Bush - his press conferences were no shining lights either. But he did manage far too few of them, just as Obama is doing far too many. They both offered different types of frustration. One had too little information - especially in light of the fact that 2 wars were being fought. The other has too little information - the press conferences reveal NOTHING other than getting more air time for The One in order to prop up his flagging job approval numbers and thereby help his Obamacare effort.
He didn't speak truthfully. Even the Associated Press is starting to figure that out. He didn't offer details. He attacked Republicans (as I'd expected). Really, there was nothing new there. It was for the purpose of getting his face out there again in prime time and remind everyone about the feel-good days of the Obama victory and then flip that energy into a pro-Obamacare direction. It just might fail this time.
Will the press turn on Obama now?
Will the press turn on Obama now that things are headed a little south for him? It's certainly possible. But it depends on a couple of things. Remember, they were believers in the cause even though the cause was defined in the sketchiest of terms: Hope, Change, and for them specifically, the power of the press to influence the masses. But the Obama victory has been won last November.
Up until that point his deceptions and inconsistencies were tolerated because it was necessary to stay on message - hope and change - for victory. Even after the victory there was euphoria and there was a need to have the "I told you so." moment. So the deceptions were still tolerated. And the delays in implementing utopia were okay.
But the time for a grace period will not be indefinite. And if the situation merits it, the press will throw Obama under the bus faster than you can say "abysmal job approval ratings". Its a matter of self preservation. If the press is seen as backing the guy everyone sees as ineffective or worse, you lose whatever credibility you think you still have.
That's not to say the mainstream press aren't true believers. They predominantly are. But they are as much true believers in their liberal utopia as the are believers in The One. If he becomes a threat to that utopia because of his unpopularity, it is as bad as if he were a threat to their supposed credibility. With reluctance, they could jettison him.
It won't happen on its own. They may be impatient or somewhat disillusioned that he hasn't cure the world's ills yet, but they still believe. They still think he inherited economic and international hell from that devil Bush. He still has a grace period with them that would, unimpeded extend beyond four years.
But external factors like his level of popularity, will influence the level of their kid gloves with him. It will influence their patience and ultimately, if things deteriorate enough, their belief in his messiah-like status.
This is good news for conservatives as the cracks have already started to appear. Today, the Associated Press did a fact check on Obama's propaganda conference last night. They found mistakes. Would that have been possible at the Love-In that was his first propaganda conference? Well, it didn't really happen. Instead he got questions like 'if you were a tree...' from the NY Times.
What it means for Republicans in 2010
True it took 6 months for his popularity to come down this far. In this climate, the popularity decline was bound to be front-end loaded. So Obama's continued popularity decline may continue at a slower pace than we've seen so far. But over 10 points in 6 months (Gallup had him at 68% day one and 57% today) means that even at have the rate of decline to date, he will be down by 15 points in his first year. From 68% to 53% by next January, still seems manageable for Democrats in the mid-term elections. If the popularity decline continues at an even slower pace, his popularity might be at or slightly below 50% by the November 2010 election day. Good news for Republicans.
Of course not as good as if you straight-lined the decline in which case his popularity would be in the tank. If he has lost roughly 10 points in 6 months, then over the 22 months from inauguration day until the mid-term elections he will have lost 36% of his job approval rating, and he'd be sitting 32%. Hardly a winning recipe for Democrat success. But that's not going to happen. Here's why - at that rate over the 46 months from his inauguration until the next Presidential election, his job approval ratings would have fallen by 77% from their starting point of 68% (that's not 77% of 68%, but rather 77% total). In other words, his popularity would be at minus 9%. Absurd.
But it displays the fallacy of straight-lining his popularity decline. It doesn't work. And it doesn't continue at that rate for another reason. Each incremental percentage point of loss is theoretically more difficult than the last. As you move from reluctant Obama voters, to fence sitters and towards die-hard Obama supporters, each becomes harder and harder to convince the President is doing a bad job. So the rate of popularity decline - barring an unforeseen event like a national disaster or national major achievement (which would reverse it) - has to slow down.
The President is becoming less and less popular - no one could live up to the pre-election hype and reality is setting in for many people. It will continue, and you can expect that depending on the speed of the decline, the press to increasingly join in with the blue dog Democrats, who are apparently destroying the Obama Presidency.
Up until that point his deceptions and inconsistencies were tolerated because it was necessary to stay on message - hope and change - for victory. Even after the victory there was euphoria and there was a need to have the "I told you so." moment. So the deceptions were still tolerated. And the delays in implementing utopia were okay.
But the time for a grace period will not be indefinite. And if the situation merits it, the press will throw Obama under the bus faster than you can say "abysmal job approval ratings". Its a matter of self preservation. If the press is seen as backing the guy everyone sees as ineffective or worse, you lose whatever credibility you think you still have.
That's not to say the mainstream press aren't true believers. They predominantly are. But they are as much true believers in their liberal utopia as the are believers in The One. If he becomes a threat to that utopia because of his unpopularity, it is as bad as if he were a threat to their supposed credibility. With reluctance, they could jettison him.
It won't happen on its own. They may be impatient or somewhat disillusioned that he hasn't cure the world's ills yet, but they still believe. They still think he inherited economic and international hell from that devil Bush. He still has a grace period with them that would, unimpeded extend beyond four years.
But external factors like his level of popularity, will influence the level of their kid gloves with him. It will influence their patience and ultimately, if things deteriorate enough, their belief in his messiah-like status.
This is good news for conservatives as the cracks have already started to appear. Today, the Associated Press did a fact check on Obama's propaganda conference last night. They found mistakes. Would that have been possible at the Love-In that was his first propaganda conference? Well, it didn't really happen. Instead he got questions like 'if you were a tree...' from the NY Times.
What it means for Republicans in 2010
True it took 6 months for his popularity to come down this far. In this climate, the popularity decline was bound to be front-end loaded. So Obama's continued popularity decline may continue at a slower pace than we've seen so far. But over 10 points in 6 months (Gallup had him at 68% day one and 57% today) means that even at have the rate of decline to date, he will be down by 15 points in his first year. From 68% to 53% by next January, still seems manageable for Democrats in the mid-term elections. If the popularity decline continues at an even slower pace, his popularity might be at or slightly below 50% by the November 2010 election day. Good news for Republicans.
Of course not as good as if you straight-lined the decline in which case his popularity would be in the tank. If he has lost roughly 10 points in 6 months, then over the 22 months from inauguration day until the mid-term elections he will have lost 36% of his job approval rating, and he'd be sitting 32%. Hardly a winning recipe for Democrat success. But that's not going to happen. Here's why - at that rate over the 46 months from his inauguration until the next Presidential election, his job approval ratings would have fallen by 77% from their starting point of 68% (that's not 77% of 68%, but rather 77% total). In other words, his popularity would be at minus 9%. Absurd.
But it displays the fallacy of straight-lining his popularity decline. It doesn't work. And it doesn't continue at that rate for another reason. Each incremental percentage point of loss is theoretically more difficult than the last. As you move from reluctant Obama voters, to fence sitters and towards die-hard Obama supporters, each becomes harder and harder to convince the President is doing a bad job. So the rate of popularity decline - barring an unforeseen event like a national disaster or national major achievement (which would reverse it) - has to slow down.
The President is becoming less and less popular - no one could live up to the pre-election hype and reality is setting in for many people. It will continue, and you can expect that depending on the speed of the decline, the press to increasingly join in with the blue dog Democrats, who are apparently destroying the Obama Presidency.
July 22, 2009
Lessons from Obama-land 100
There will be many lessons that come out of the current Presidency, but the two most glaring examples of "What have we learned?" so far relate to the President's strategic approach to his agenda. The first lesson appears to be that you can be too aggressive for your own agenda.
By charging out of the gate on the stimulus package, and then the omnibus bill, by not letting the crisis 'go to waste', the President set himself up for resistance and potentially failure on any subsequent bill. Cap and Trade squeaked through Congress and may die in the Senate. The Health Care bill, once it exists, may face stronger resistance and may in fact fail entirely. President Bush, if you recall, wanted to spend the political capital from his second election win in 2004 (NOT his first, in case you are a stolen-election-of-2000 zombie). He tried to spend it on "Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."
Notice what he said first - Social Security. Did it change? No. Did it go anywhere? Not really. Why? It was too aggressive an issue . It happened to President Bush and it's starting to happen to President Obama - resistance. When confronted with radical agendas, politicians in Congress scurry back to the middle of the political spectrum to protect their careers. The political middle is the same thing as inertia because change is hard and doing nothing is easier for people to take. The President may want to have universal health care, but the cost, rightly, scares many Democrats. Particularly those in vulnerable districts, but in general, Congressional Representatives don't want to rock the boat too much. They want to be re-elected.
The lesson is that if you are too aggressive, you lose support quickly. It's hard to imagine now, but at this rate, Obama could be a lame duck President by the end of his first year in office. No doubt it will end up being tagged as a problem of racism if that happens. As a corollary to the lesson, it may turn out that any future President's real impact ends up being determined in the first 100 days. Beyond that they might end up predominantly as an administrator. If that turns out to be the rule - beyond 100 days you can't get anything done, then the lesson is to be as aggressive as you can in those early days to take advantage of the grace period you've been given. Or perhaps it's a chicken and egg argument. Maybe a less aggressive first 100 days might free up more flexibility beyond that window. That version of events is not likely to happen to any future President. America is a quick fix society, with short attention spans and heavy political filters on the people's focus.
There's another lesson to be taken from Obama-land, just over 100 days into it. That lesson is that experience matters. Lack of understanding has led to a lot of questionable decisions by the President. From alienating Israel, to allowing North Korea to run wild, to embracing socialist dictators and responding slowly and meekly to an uprising in Iran, the decisions have lurched from wrong to bad to worse. On cap and trade and the stimulus bill he's put ideology before pragmatism - in the midst of a steep recession, he's spent trillions and loaded the country up with unsustainable debt.
Community organizer experience, a barely warmed Senate seat and a campaign for President, did not give the man any qualifications for the Presidency and it shows. He still views the Presidency as a soap box and will use it at every chance he gets to try to convince people of his ideology. That's not running the country, it's running his agenda. It's more in tune with his underexposed activist roots than what the country needs.
John McCain may have been a mamby-pamby ultra-soft lefty conservative, but you would not now be a majority shareholder in GM. Wait, scratch that, you aren't - the government is. The government isn't you - it's Obama and Pelosi and Reid. You get nothing.
Experience matters. Obama doesn't realize it, and neither does the press, or much of the public. But he's in over his head and things will only get worse until he is forced to cool his jets on his torrid pace of attempts at radical reform. It will be interesting to see if time, combined with the growing reluctance of Democrats manage to cool those jets for him.
By charging out of the gate on the stimulus package, and then the omnibus bill, by not letting the crisis 'go to waste', the President set himself up for resistance and potentially failure on any subsequent bill. Cap and Trade squeaked through Congress and may die in the Senate. The Health Care bill, once it exists, may face stronger resistance and may in fact fail entirely. President Bush, if you recall, wanted to spend the political capital from his second election win in 2004 (NOT his first, in case you are a stolen-election-of-2000 zombie). He tried to spend it on "Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."
Notice what he said first - Social Security. Did it change? No. Did it go anywhere? Not really. Why? It was too aggressive an issue . It happened to President Bush and it's starting to happen to President Obama - resistance. When confronted with radical agendas, politicians in Congress scurry back to the middle of the political spectrum to protect their careers. The political middle is the same thing as inertia because change is hard and doing nothing is easier for people to take. The President may want to have universal health care, but the cost, rightly, scares many Democrats. Particularly those in vulnerable districts, but in general, Congressional Representatives don't want to rock the boat too much. They want to be re-elected.
The lesson is that if you are too aggressive, you lose support quickly. It's hard to imagine now, but at this rate, Obama could be a lame duck President by the end of his first year in office. No doubt it will end up being tagged as a problem of racism if that happens. As a corollary to the lesson, it may turn out that any future President's real impact ends up being determined in the first 100 days. Beyond that they might end up predominantly as an administrator. If that turns out to be the rule - beyond 100 days you can't get anything done, then the lesson is to be as aggressive as you can in those early days to take advantage of the grace period you've been given. Or perhaps it's a chicken and egg argument. Maybe a less aggressive first 100 days might free up more flexibility beyond that window. That version of events is not likely to happen to any future President. America is a quick fix society, with short attention spans and heavy political filters on the people's focus.
There's another lesson to be taken from Obama-land, just over 100 days into it. That lesson is that experience matters. Lack of understanding has led to a lot of questionable decisions by the President. From alienating Israel, to allowing North Korea to run wild, to embracing socialist dictators and responding slowly and meekly to an uprising in Iran, the decisions have lurched from wrong to bad to worse. On cap and trade and the stimulus bill he's put ideology before pragmatism - in the midst of a steep recession, he's spent trillions and loaded the country up with unsustainable debt.
Community organizer experience, a barely warmed Senate seat and a campaign for President, did not give the man any qualifications for the Presidency and it shows. He still views the Presidency as a soap box and will use it at every chance he gets to try to convince people of his ideology. That's not running the country, it's running his agenda. It's more in tune with his underexposed activist roots than what the country needs.
John McCain may have been a mamby-pamby ultra-soft lefty conservative, but you would not now be a majority shareholder in GM. Wait, scratch that, you aren't - the government is. The government isn't you - it's Obama and Pelosi and Reid. You get nothing.
Experience matters. Obama doesn't realize it, and neither does the press, or much of the public. But he's in over his head and things will only get worse until he is forced to cool his jets on his torrid pace of attempts at radical reform. It will be interesting to see if time, combined with the growing reluctance of Democrats manage to cool those jets for him.
GREAT NEWS: Another Obama Press Conference
Tonight. In case you missed all the previous President Obama press conferences, there's another tonight. President Obama, Superman that he is, will once again take to the airwaves to address the nation via press conference, in an attempt to resuscitate the flagging support for his undesigned but oh-so-needed Obamacare plan. More than once in the past he has gone to the people and revived his slowly diminishing support. He plans to do it again. What does he plan to say? He'll likely badmouth Republican 'partisans' for not coming together on what's needed for America. He'll likely address the reluctant Democrats and try to convince them that they are missing the boat on the greatest opportunity since the invention of the wheel. And he'll likely address Americans, albeit indirectly, by trying to incite them to call their Congressional representatives in support of his unwritten plan.
Congress has only weeks before it's recess (the irony that word implies is just too rich), and Obama wants it done. Way to rush it Mr. President. Keep pushing and you'll guarantee it gets killed. And that's a good thing.
So just a quick temperature check before the speech. These ratings will likely still get a bump after his address tonight, but I suspect they won't be as big or prolonged as they were on previous attempts at pinning the ratings up.
Here's Rasmussen;
Here's the data dump from Gallup;
Let's look again in a few days.
Congress has only weeks before it's recess (the irony that word implies is just too rich), and Obama wants it done. Way to rush it Mr. President. Keep pushing and you'll guarantee it gets killed. And that's a good thing.
So just a quick temperature check before the speech. These ratings will likely still get a bump after his address tonight, but I suspect they won't be as big or prolonged as they were on previous attempts at pinning the ratings up.
Here's Rasmussen;
Here's the data dump from Gallup;
Let's look again in a few days.
TARP - It's who you know
CIT Financial, financier to a large number of small to medium businesses, is on the brink of collapse, despite having received TARP funds during the recent round of bank bailouts.
CIT is not small. If it were to fail, it would represent the biggest bank collapse since Washington Mutual last year.July 13 (Bloomberg) -- CIT Group Inc., the century-old lender that hasn’t been able to persuade the government to back its debt sales, says its demise would put 760 manufacturing clients at risk of failure and “precipitate a crisis” for as many as 300,000 retailers.
A collapse would ripple across the “small and medium-sized businesses who rely on CIT to operate -- to pay their vendors, ship goods to their customers and make their payroll,” the New York-based lender said in internal documents obtained by Bloomberg News that make the case for its importance to the U.S. economy. CIT spokesman Curt Ritter declined to comment on the documents.
CIT executives spoke with regulators during the past two days, according to a person familiar with the talks, after its bonds and shares tumbled on concern that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. won’t allow the lender into its bond-guarantee program created last year to unfreeze debt markets. CIT may default as soon as April, when a $2.1 billion credit line matures, according to Fitch Ratings.
The FDIC is concerned that standing behind CIT debt would put taxpayer money at risk because the company’s credit quality is worsening, people familiar with the regulator’s thinking, who declined to be identified because the talks are private, said last week. Since Nov. 25 the FDIC has backed $274 billion in bond sales under its Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, designed to give creditworthy borrowers access to funds after debt markets seized up following the failure of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
The federal agency, run by Chairman Sheila Bair, is in discussions with CIT about how the lender can strengthen its financial position to get approval, including raising capital, said one of the people. CIT’s measures to improve its credit quality, such as by transferring assets to its bank, have been insufficient, the person said.
The TARP bailouts were poorly thought out, and poorly executed. The poor execution continues. Even though TARP was a bad idea, it is done. The money is set aside to bail out failing banks. Perhaps CIT does not meet the federal means tests. It doesn't matter. This is not about CIT. CIT could fail catastrophically for all it matters to me, if they made bad banking decisions. Remember, recessions are a necessity - they weed out inefficient companies and undesirable business practices - they should be allowed to happen. CIT may have made some terrible decisions and should be allowed to fail. Or maybe they made good decisions. Again it doesn't matter because it's not about CIT.
It's about the 760 manufacturing clients and 300,000 retailers. That's a lot of jobs. That's a lot of GDP dollars. Unless you want to put all of that at risk, wouldn't this be a bank worth taking a second look at rescuing? If rescue is required, and now the law of the land (TARP), then who more worthy than a bank that is the lender of choice to so many employers? What about those lost jobs, or missed payrolls? And what of the ripple effect caused by allowing it to fail?
If you aren't trying to deliberately shoot the economy in the foot, doesn't it seem counter-productive to create a TARP fund and then not use it in this case? Unless of course, rescuing the economy is not your goal - damaging it is. Or perhaps the real goal is to line the pockets of friends of the victorious. Maybe it's just who you know. Friends of the President get free taxpayer bailout money. If you aren't on that list then too bad for you.
I'm anti-bailout. But TARP is a done deal. Since those funds are already allocated for bank rescues, since that's a sunk cost at this point, it begs the question - if not this type of situation, what exactly are they saving those funds for anyway?
National Bankruptcy - Lessons From The Past
People have short attention spans. It was probably always true, but it is especially so in today's fast-paced Internet age. People are daily bombarded with non-static external stimuli - television, radio, text messages, cell phones, the Internet. The ability to keep up is dependent on weeding out information and focusing on items of core importance. This is not a symptom of a degrading mental capacity nationwide, rather it's a sign that people have adapted to the pace of today's daily life as has been required.
For most Americans, aggravating as it is to those of us who focus on politics and national interest, this means filtering out the daily flow of information involving political events. It's not important to the day-to-day lives of most Americans. That works as a positive for politicians of every stripe, who seemingly can get away with virtually anything and still be re-elected or even elected (like the President). People's attention focuses on those issues only during a narrow election cycle window that typically doesn't even include the primaries. And when it comes into focus, it's easy enough to throw up an array of interpretations that are at odds with the truth and obscure people's understanding enough to get re-elected (like Ayers, et. al.).
So it comes as no surprise that lessons from the distant past are not learned by the people or by the politicians in charge. The public doesn't have time for it and the politicians don't have a need for it. That's why they can recycle the Keynesian arguments in pretty new packaging and make it seem innovative and a break from the past. People don't have time to fact check this stuff, and the 'journalistic' press typically won't do it for them because they (1) love the Democrats and BELIEVE in them, particularly Obama and (2) they suffer from the same myopic problem of attention span as everyone else, plus they are apparently afflicted with a good dose of sloth, too busy parroting what someone else has said to actually do investigative work. Maybe it's just budgetary constraints, I can't say for certain.
But there are lessons to be learned from the past, that have clearly been missed. Case in point back in 1975, New York city was on the verge of bankruptcy. Milton Friedman wrote in Free To Choose;
He SHOULD have been challenged by the press during the election campaign but we already know why he wasn't (see paragraph 3 above in case you've already filtered that out). Should they be forgiven for dereliction of duty? Absolutely not.
He SHOULD have been challenged by voters but we know why he wasn't (paragraph 2). Should they be forgiven? Well, no. Unfortunately they require some of the blame for the current fiscal nightmare that is snowballing under the Obama administration. When the country goes bankrupt, who will be there to bail out the USA? NYC had an out, America's only possible bailout could come from China. Is that what people want: "in return for which New York City surrendered control over it's affairs, becoming a closely supervised ward of the state and federal governments." Substitute New York City for the US and 'state and federal ' with Chinese and see how that reads.
What can be done? Can Obama be rehabilitated to fiscal sanity? Doubtful. Can the press be rehabilitated to do their jobs properly? Doubtful. That leaves only the American public to come to their senses before it's too late. 2010 may be meaningful, but that may be too late. Realize the fierce urgency of now to borrow a phrase, and kill any effort towards cap and trade, and towards nationalizing health care before they set the country back decades and put it on an unstable bankruptcy-inducing path.
For most Americans, aggravating as it is to those of us who focus on politics and national interest, this means filtering out the daily flow of information involving political events. It's not important to the day-to-day lives of most Americans. That works as a positive for politicians of every stripe, who seemingly can get away with virtually anything and still be re-elected or even elected (like the President). People's attention focuses on those issues only during a narrow election cycle window that typically doesn't even include the primaries. And when it comes into focus, it's easy enough to throw up an array of interpretations that are at odds with the truth and obscure people's understanding enough to get re-elected (like Ayers, et. al.).
So it comes as no surprise that lessons from the distant past are not learned by the people or by the politicians in charge. The public doesn't have time for it and the politicians don't have a need for it. That's why they can recycle the Keynesian arguments in pretty new packaging and make it seem innovative and a break from the past. People don't have time to fact check this stuff, and the 'journalistic' press typically won't do it for them because they (1) love the Democrats and BELIEVE in them, particularly Obama and (2) they suffer from the same myopic problem of attention span as everyone else, plus they are apparently afflicted with a good dose of sloth, too busy parroting what someone else has said to actually do investigative work. Maybe it's just budgetary constraints, I can't say for certain.
But there are lessons to be learned from the past, that have clearly been missed. Case in point back in 1975, New York city was on the verge of bankruptcy. Milton Friedman wrote in Free To Choose;
New York City is the most dramatic example in the United States of trying to do good through government programs. New York is the most welfare-oriented community in the United States. Spending by the city government is larger relative to it's population than any other city in the United States - double that in Chicago. The philosophy that guided the city was expressed by Mayor Robert Wagner in his 1965 budget message: "I do not propose to permit our fiscal problems to set the limits of our commitments to meet the essential needs of the people of the city." Wagner and his successors proceeded to interpret the "essential needs" very broadly indeed. But more money, more programs, more taxes didn't work. They led to financial catastrophe without "meeting the essential needs of the people", even on a narrow interpretation, let alone Wagner's. Bankruptcy was prevented only by assistance from the federal government and the State of New York, in return for which New York City surrendered control over it's affairs, becoming a closely supervised ward of the state and federal governments.
New Yorkers naturally sought to blame outside forces for their problem, but Ken Autella wrote in a recent book, New York "was not compelled to to create a vast municipal hospital or City University system, to continue free tuition, institute open enrollment, ignore budget limitations, impose the steepest taxes in the nation, borrow beyond its means, subsidize middle-income housing, continue rigid rent controls, reward municipal workers with lush pension, pay and fringe benefits."
He quips, "Goaded by liberalism's compassion and ideological commitment to the redistribution of wealth, New Yorker officials helped redistribute much of the tax base and thousands of jobs out of New York."
Anyone paying attention to that situation that occurred back in 1975, would know the obvious lessons encompassed in those 3 short paragraphs. California didn't learn the lesson and got themselves as a state into the same trouble. The President, being not much older than myself (he's closing in on 48) might not be aware of the events that transpired in NYC in the late 1960's and the 1970's. But he certainly either hasn't seen or hasn't learned the lesson. He talked about much of the same time-worn, disproven policies that NYC was trying decades ago and failed. He specifically mentioned spreading around the wealth to Joe the plumber during the election campaign. If he wasn't aware of the lessons from NYC, surely he must of seen the same problem being faced in California today? Could he not learn from that scenario instead? Apparently not.
If he weren't ruining the country, the President could be forgiven for his blind ideological allegiance to a socialist agenda. But he is ruining the country and should not be forgiven. He should be challenged.He SHOULD have been challenged by the press during the election campaign but we already know why he wasn't (see paragraph 3 above in case you've already filtered that out). Should they be forgiven for dereliction of duty? Absolutely not.
He SHOULD have been challenged by voters but we know why he wasn't (paragraph 2). Should they be forgiven? Well, no. Unfortunately they require some of the blame for the current fiscal nightmare that is snowballing under the Obama administration. When the country goes bankrupt, who will be there to bail out the USA? NYC had an out, America's only possible bailout could come from China. Is that what people want: "in return for which New York City surrendered control over it's affairs, becoming a closely supervised ward of the state and federal governments." Substitute New York City for the US and 'state and federal ' with Chinese and see how that reads.
What can be done? Can Obama be rehabilitated to fiscal sanity? Doubtful. Can the press be rehabilitated to do their jobs properly? Doubtful. That leaves only the American public to come to their senses before it's too late. 2010 may be meaningful, but that may be too late. Realize the fierce urgency of now to borrow a phrase, and kill any effort towards cap and trade, and towards nationalizing health care before they set the country back decades and put it on an unstable bankruptcy-inducing path.
July 21, 2009
J'accuse!
Ultra left liberals are terrific for accusing conservatives of having ulterior motives when they themselves are the ones couching their true agendas in safe sounding terms and false agendas. They are wonderful of accusing conservatives of racism, sexism, greed, and any other number of evil behaviors that they themselves exhibit.
It's part of their playbook. Make outrageous claims to hide your own outrageous behavior. Then if the claims are returned back at you, you accuse the accuser of being reactionary and defensive, of parroting your 'real' claims and your own agenda isn't exposed.
Now according to Stratfor, on July 17th in Iran, a semi-spontaneous outburst at an anti-Ahmedinejad protest, chants of "death to Russia" erupted. Strange. "Death to America" is normal, and recently "death to China" has recently been added. But why Russia?
According to the Stratfor article Russia has openly accused the United States of fermenting and fostering the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine where the country turned from Russia towards a pro-Western world view via a popular uprising. And similarly Ahmedinejad and his allies have accused Britain and the United States of sparking the Green Revolution in Iran. Why? The Ahmedinejad camp clearly are claiming supporters they do not have, and clearly the election was not clean at a minimum and rigged at worst. They know it, and they know that everyone knows it. So by blaming others they are trying to stop the counter claims that they are responsible. They are levelling the playing field by having counter claims to the truth.
It's just another example to be aware could happen. It could happen to you. It could happen to other conservatives. When you hear that radical crackpots dispute the 'truth' about global warming, remember who is accusing them of that - the radical crackpots - with an agenda - themselves.
It's part of their playbook. Make outrageous claims to hide your own outrageous behavior. Then if the claims are returned back at you, you accuse the accuser of being reactionary and defensive, of parroting your 'real' claims and your own agenda isn't exposed.
Now according to Stratfor, on July 17th in Iran, a semi-spontaneous outburst at an anti-Ahmedinejad protest, chants of "death to Russia" erupted. Strange. "Death to America" is normal, and recently "death to China" has recently been added. But why Russia?
According to the Stratfor article Russia has openly accused the United States of fermenting and fostering the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine where the country turned from Russia towards a pro-Western world view via a popular uprising. And similarly Ahmedinejad and his allies have accused Britain and the United States of sparking the Green Revolution in Iran. Why? The Ahmedinejad camp clearly are claiming supporters they do not have, and clearly the election was not clean at a minimum and rigged at worst. They know it, and they know that everyone knows it. So by blaming others they are trying to stop the counter claims that they are responsible. They are levelling the playing field by having counter claims to the truth.
It's just another example to be aware could happen. It could happen to you. It could happen to other conservatives. When you hear that radical crackpots dispute the 'truth' about global warming, remember who is accusing them of that - the radical crackpots - with an agenda - themselves.
July 20, 2009
Family Business Notion Disabused
Time for some pure liassez faire capitalism. People often like to think of the company they work for as a family. While that quaint notion may be plausible in many instances you do yourself no favor. particularly in a recession, to blindly believe that is the case for you. After all, while an employer may see it that way, when push comes to shove, and he or she has to choose between laying off some employees or eventually all of them, how do you think they'll react?
If you don't know for sure, it doesn't benefit you to think that way. While you may be unnecessarily paranoid to protect yourself by having a resume prepared, by being ready to find alternatives, and by keepng yourself employable, you are simply keeping your own best interests in mind by staying prepared and staying necessary. It's the free market for labor at it's most basic level - personal.
And it's a variation of the premise of pray for the best and prepare for the worst. You may indeed be in job where your employer is an angel, and you may be safe. If so, you are lucky. Even still why chance anything less than 100% certainty? Keep learning, keep adding value and stay aware of the economy and of what opportunities exist,even if you never intend to pursue them. A choice of jobs is better than no choice. Alway.
If you don't know for sure, it doesn't benefit you to think that way. While you may be unnecessarily paranoid to protect yourself by having a resume prepared, by being ready to find alternatives, and by keepng yourself employable, you are simply keeping your own best interests in mind by staying prepared and staying necessary. It's the free market for labor at it's most basic level - personal.
And it's a variation of the premise of pray for the best and prepare for the worst. You may indeed be in job where your employer is an angel, and you may be safe. If so, you are lucky. Even still why chance anything less than 100% certainty? Keep learning, keep adding value and stay aware of the economy and of what opportunities exist,even if you never intend to pursue them. A choice of jobs is better than no choice. Alway.
Congratulations America & Lessons from Apollo
40 years ago today 3 Americans landed on the moon, with the help of an army of scientists and engineers. It represents an achievement that must be commended by friend and foe alike. As a friend of the United States I would like to add my voice of congratulations to the country, NASA and the astronauts involved for such a remarkable achievement. It was, and remains, a remarkable feat. It is arguably the epitome of human endeavor to date, and perhaps also the pinnacle of the golden age of America.
BUT...
It cannot go unnoticed as ironic that Walter Cronkite, the iconic broadcaster of his day, and verbal chronologer of the historic event, died the weekend before the 40th anniversary of that event (which is today, if you didn't already know). If the irony is lost on you, let me explain.
If America reached the height of its pre-eminence during the Apollo program, it has since lost much of its status during the subsequent decades. Cronkite's death is simply a personification of the end of America's golden age. That is not to say further golden ages are not possible, but rather that this one is quite definitely done.
It is also not to say that in the decades afterwards, America did not have occasion to shine, and shine brightly. However, it did not shine again equally as brilliantly as it did on that day.
The intervening years, despite the best efforts of conservatives to counter the decay, have brought forth a plethora of social engineering efforts and an associated amount of mammoth spending. Yet there is still poverty. There is still a declining American manufacturing sector. The problems have not gone away. They have even worsened in some respects. Yet the government asks for more - more power, and more of your money, despite the fact that their solutions have not proved effective.
The intervening years, despite the best efforts of conservatives to counter the decay, have brought forth a plethora of social engineering efforts and an associated amount of mammoth spending. Yet there is still poverty. There is still a declining American manufacturing sector. The problems have not gone away. They have even worsened in some respects. Yet the government asks for more - more power, and more of your money, despite the fact that their solutions have not proved effective.
If you were a doctor and the patient was asking for more medicine but it wasn't curing him, would you give it to him? No. You would try to find a different medicine to use. So why continue to submit your economic freedom to the government in frequent but minuscule (until now) doses that eat away at your liberty? There is no reason to continue.
Except under a tyranny of oppression, ordinary people do not live and die by government edict. Attempts to engineer behavior beyond moral absolutes (e.g. murder is criminal, the penalty is imprisonment or death), are doomed to failure. Even the basic precepts of criminal justice do not deter absolutely everyone. So it is foolhardy to expect that efforts to change beliefs via Congressional legislation would fare anything beyond poorly. Yet the misguided efforts persist. They may persist with the best of intentions, but the road to national hell is paved with good intentions.
The government now owns the lion's share of the American auto industry - directly or through Presidential intimidation or edict. They are planning the same for health care. It does not matter that they cannot change personal opinion by creating new laws - if they control more and more of the economy it does not matter what you believe or do not believe. As long as they control the purse strings, you have no choice but to obey - willingly or not.
What is needed right now is a healthy dose of libertarianism. I'm much more a conservative than a libertarian (generally, not absolutely) but right now the country, i.e. the patient, needs that injection. That's the medicine that will work for the patient. There has been such a creeping power consolidation over the last 40 years (and further back for that matter) that the country needs a jolt back towards economic and social liberty in order to avoid becoming terminal. If creeping government control is the disease, it has now accelerated and become like an aggressive, malignant cancer. If it’s not treated immediately the country may not survive.
Enough doom and gloom. I have every confidence that the American people will deal with this soon by 2010 at the latest but by continued protest in the interim). They will do so with or without the understanding that this creeping tyranny is the very thing the founding fathers of the nation were most concerned with, and rightly so.
The real lesson from the lunar landing is the fact that American ingenuity is not dead. The amazing talents that led to that Herculean effort still exist aplenty in America. Arguably there is more of that intellectual capital at the disposal of the nation (not the government). That talent however, has been dammed, channeled and redirected into less productive efforts. The country is capable of an infinite number of golden ages. Just like the economic boom cycles, innovation need not be a peak once and ebb thereafter story. In fact, while it may not be a continuous boom, there really is now ebb needed - just the hiccups of rapid and slow innovation. That is, if people understand that such a miraculous cycle requires no magical orchestration from some omnipotent Presidential or Congressional adjudicator. It simply needs the liberty that unleashes personal creativity.
Except under a tyranny of oppression, ordinary people do not live and die by government edict. Attempts to engineer behavior beyond moral absolutes (e.g. murder is criminal, the penalty is imprisonment or death), are doomed to failure. Even the basic precepts of criminal justice do not deter absolutely everyone. So it is foolhardy to expect that efforts to change beliefs via Congressional legislation would fare anything beyond poorly. Yet the misguided efforts persist. They may persist with the best of intentions, but the road to national hell is paved with good intentions.
The government now owns the lion's share of the American auto industry - directly or through Presidential intimidation or edict. They are planning the same for health care. It does not matter that they cannot change personal opinion by creating new laws - if they control more and more of the economy it does not matter what you believe or do not believe. As long as they control the purse strings, you have no choice but to obey - willingly or not.
What is needed right now is a healthy dose of libertarianism. I'm much more a conservative than a libertarian (generally, not absolutely) but right now the country, i.e. the patient, needs that injection. That's the medicine that will work for the patient. There has been such a creeping power consolidation over the last 40 years (and further back for that matter) that the country needs a jolt back towards economic and social liberty in order to avoid becoming terminal. If creeping government control is the disease, it has now accelerated and become like an aggressive, malignant cancer. If it’s not treated immediately the country may not survive.
Enough doom and gloom. I have every confidence that the American people will deal with this soon by 2010 at the latest but by continued protest in the interim). They will do so with or without the understanding that this creeping tyranny is the very thing the founding fathers of the nation were most concerned with, and rightly so.
The real lesson from the lunar landing is the fact that American ingenuity is not dead. The amazing talents that led to that Herculean effort still exist aplenty in America. Arguably there is more of that intellectual capital at the disposal of the nation (not the government). That talent however, has been dammed, channeled and redirected into less productive efforts. The country is capable of an infinite number of golden ages. Just like the economic boom cycles, innovation need not be a peak once and ebb thereafter story. In fact, while it may not be a continuous boom, there really is now ebb needed - just the hiccups of rapid and slow innovation. That is, if people understand that such a miraculous cycle requires no magical orchestration from some omnipotent Presidential or Congressional adjudicator. It simply needs the liberty that unleashes personal creativity.
There is no other option open - either individual freedom, or congratulatory praise for something that happened 40 years ago.
FOOTNOTE: big government advocates will argue that NASA was an arm of the government that accomplished this feat. NASA was set up in 1958 as an independent agency to achieve a goal as defined by the government, but it did so with relative independence. Unlike the interference the government does as far as the disciple of economics, apparently it generally knew better than to interfere with the scientists and physicists involved in solving the complexities of a mission to the moon. As a result, the effort was successful. Further, the government placed no restrictions on the freedom of its citizenry to becoming physicists. Nor did it place quotas on minority physicists comprising a specified percentage of the NASA employed physicists. The result - NASA went after the best it could get, including for example preeminent rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, who worked for Nazi Germany during WWII. The probability of success of the lunar mission might have been very different if NASA were to be guided by the principles espoused by modern liberals with respect to quotas, affirmative action and the federal government deciding more than they are equipped to make informed decisions on.
July 19, 2009
Modern liberalism is simply identity politics
The Conservative Mama points out another instance of liberal identity politics on prominent display by Senator Barbara Boxer. And of course there's the current issue of the nomination to the Supreme Court of Justice Sotomayor, who appears to have a penchant for reverse discrimination (i.e. discrimination) also pointing out the same set of ideals or game plans.
So why are liberals this deeply involved in identity politics? Is it because they truly think that they are helping the downtrodden or is it a matter of political calculation? That's a chicken and egg discussion, but there's no denying that it's something liberal-leaning politicians attempt to use to their advantage - either by suggesting that those who disagree are socially wrong (a la Boxer) or just calculating the number of special interest groups that they need to cobble together for political victory.
The sad reality is that after 50 years of a welfare experiment, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, there are still millions at or below the poverty line. What does that say to liberals? We need more - we haven't done enough. What it says to rational people is that maybe the method being applied isn't working. Maybe it doesn't work. Maybe there's a different approach we should consider?
In the coming weeks I'm going to be taking a look at the Law of Unintended Consequences - this is one area that liberal socialists need to take a long hard look in the mirror and start to face the reality of their actions. Otherwise we might be forced to come to the conclusion that they already know that their policies don't work. They might already know that their policies in some cases, in fact work in quite the opposite direction of their stated goals. And if they know that already, then maybe the liberal democrats, backed by an oddly high percentage of the wealthy, are the ones who are really against equality, opportunity and freedom and are actually interested in preserving the status quo.
Something to think about.
So why are liberals this deeply involved in identity politics? Is it because they truly think that they are helping the downtrodden or is it a matter of political calculation? That's a chicken and egg discussion, but there's no denying that it's something liberal-leaning politicians attempt to use to their advantage - either by suggesting that those who disagree are socially wrong (a la Boxer) or just calculating the number of special interest groups that they need to cobble together for political victory.
The sad reality is that after 50 years of a welfare experiment, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, there are still millions at or below the poverty line. What does that say to liberals? We need more - we haven't done enough. What it says to rational people is that maybe the method being applied isn't working. Maybe it doesn't work. Maybe there's a different approach we should consider?
In the coming weeks I'm going to be taking a look at the Law of Unintended Consequences - this is one area that liberal socialists need to take a long hard look in the mirror and start to face the reality of their actions. Otherwise we might be forced to come to the conclusion that they already know that their policies don't work. They might already know that their policies in some cases, in fact work in quite the opposite direction of their stated goals. And if they know that already, then maybe the liberal democrats, backed by an oddly high percentage of the wealthy, are the ones who are really against equality, opportunity and freedom and are actually interested in preserving the status quo.
Something to think about.
July 18, 2009
Saturday Learning Series - Free to Choose Part 2
Milton Friedman explains the more involved governments become, the worse off the economy gets;
Government planning and detailed control of economic activity lessens productive innovation, and consumer choice. Good, better, best, are replaced by "approved" or "authorized." Friedman shows how "established" industries or methods, seek government protection or subsidization in their attempts to stop or limit product improvements which they don't control. Friedman visits India, Japan and U.S.
For more economics and history, search Nonsensible Shoes for "Saturday Learning Series".
July 17, 2009
No, really? These guys in charge of health care?
Joe Biden:
C'mon America! Are you serious???!!!
“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.
“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
C'mon America! Are you serious???!!!
OMG! You want these people in charge of health care?
The government? In charge of health care? WHY??? If they can't get this right, I wouldn't want them in charge of a bake sale.
Apparently, NASA, a government agency, ERASED the original footage of the first moon landing. One of the biggest events in the history of humanity to date, and they didn't think to keep copies?!?
Luckily they were able to find copies to do a restoration from. But shouldn't the originals have gone to the Smithsonian right away?
The added irony is that the tapes were degaussed for re-use in order to save money. Hey, here's an idea; shut down the Department of Housing and Urban Development instead, save the tapes.
If we nationalize health care in the US, maybe the government can re-use the parchment the Constitution is written on to save money and save trees at the same time.
Jeez!!!
Apparently, NASA, a government agency, ERASED the original footage of the first moon landing. One of the biggest events in the history of humanity to date, and they didn't think to keep copies?!?
Luckily they were able to find copies to do a restoration from. But shouldn't the originals have gone to the Smithsonian right away?
The added irony is that the tapes were degaussed for re-use in order to save money. Hey, here's an idea; shut down the Department of Housing and Urban Development instead, save the tapes.
If we nationalize health care in the US, maybe the government can re-use the parchment the Constitution is written on to save money and save trees at the same time.
Jeez!!!
Nonsensible's #9 Dream - Imminent Death for everyone.
So I'm sitting in my car driving along at 55 mph and all of a sudden in the road up ahead, stretching side to side across the highway, is a brick wall. Its kind of hazy out but I'm pretty sure that's what it is. And its getting closer awfully fast.
It can't be real. The first thing I do is a sanity check - there aren't brick walls in the middle of roads. To be sure I'm not losing my mind or I'm just over-tired, I turn on my GPS and sure enough, it's telling me there's a brick wall in a mile.
My first thought is to get off at the exit just ahead and find another route to get to my destination. But my GPS suddenly speaks up; "Accelerate to 90 mph. And continue straight for 11 miles."
There's no arguing with a GPS. It's a dumb terminal receiving coordinates from a satellite and working from a pre-programmed map. It won't listen. It's locked into a plan.
Of course that plan has me ending in a hellacious ball of fire very soon. So I wake up my passengers who having taken their turns driving are catching some sleep. I tell them we have to get off the exit now or we will crash. Except they don't seem to notice the encroaching brick wall or the even more imminent last exit before our doom. They want me to listen to the GPS. I guess they figure I've let us get behind schedule. And I guess they figure there's NO WAY a GPS system can be wrong.
"Accelerate to 90 mph immediately and continue straight for 10.7 miles." Dispassionate.
Right about now is the time in a dream that people normally wake up, except that's not happening this time. And while I'm thinking that, I foolishly pass the last exit. I can still just slam on the breaks, right? Nope - they are broken. And there appears to be no way to navigate around the wall any more because it extends off into the forest on either side of the highway.
Worse still, all the cars behind me are accelerating - on both sides of the road. There really is no way out. I curse myself for not acting when I had the chance.
And as I prepare myself for our impending doom, I'm forced to be comforted by the fact that everyone about to crash is at least covered by government health care. Too bad the ambulances are rushing headlong into the wall too.
It can't be real. The first thing I do is a sanity check - there aren't brick walls in the middle of roads. To be sure I'm not losing my mind or I'm just over-tired, I turn on my GPS and sure enough, it's telling me there's a brick wall in a mile.
My first thought is to get off at the exit just ahead and find another route to get to my destination. But my GPS suddenly speaks up; "Accelerate to 90 mph. And continue straight for 11 miles."
There's no arguing with a GPS. It's a dumb terminal receiving coordinates from a satellite and working from a pre-programmed map. It won't listen. It's locked into a plan.
Of course that plan has me ending in a hellacious ball of fire very soon. So I wake up my passengers who having taken their turns driving are catching some sleep. I tell them we have to get off the exit now or we will crash. Except they don't seem to notice the encroaching brick wall or the even more imminent last exit before our doom. They want me to listen to the GPS. I guess they figure I've let us get behind schedule. And I guess they figure there's NO WAY a GPS system can be wrong.
"Accelerate to 90 mph immediately and continue straight for 10.7 miles." Dispassionate.
Right about now is the time in a dream that people normally wake up, except that's not happening this time. And while I'm thinking that, I foolishly pass the last exit. I can still just slam on the breaks, right? Nope - they are broken. And there appears to be no way to navigate around the wall any more because it extends off into the forest on either side of the highway.
Worse still, all the cars behind me are accelerating - on both sides of the road. There really is no way out. I curse myself for not acting when I had the chance.
And as I prepare myself for our impending doom, I'm forced to be comforted by the fact that everyone about to crash is at least covered by government health care. Too bad the ambulances are rushing headlong into the wall too.
Friday Musical Interlude - July 17, 2009
Liam Lynch -United States of Whatever
Ever get the feeling the Democrats really 'get' this title?
Ever get the feeling the Democrats really 'get' this title?
July 16, 2009
Political ju-jitsu - Palin style?
Political ju-jitsu is an art form - taking the strength of your opponent and using it to your own advantage, and their own detriment or weakness. Conversely, the same can be said for understanding your own weakness and turning it into your own strength or to your own advantage. It's a beautiful concept, but it's something that neither Republicans nor Democrats generally are very adept at doing.But there are exceptions. And we just might be seeing a brilliant ju-jitsu style play by Sarah Palin and the RNCC. Whether you think Sarah Palin is ready to be VP or not, her political instincts and personality can overcome a lot. Back prior to the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, his supporters were regarded as 'yahoos', now he is revered on the right as a visionary President and admitted by many on the left to be a likable guy and a great communicator. He rode his vision and charm to victory and his leadership and character insured a repeat victory of electoral landslide proportions. What did he have that Sarah Palin doesn't?
Well there were some things - he was the most effective elected communicator the Republicans have ever produced. To compare anyone to Reagan's ability to connect is unfair. But it's not necessary - conservatives can win without Reaganesque aplomb - witness George W. Bush. Even the conservatives who liked him couldn't mount a credible argument that he wasn't rhetorically challenged. So he must have had something other than that working for him.
Reagan had an abysmal Jimmy Carter incumbency working for him pre-1980. While Obama's media worshippers may prevent his approval ratings from combing Carterian or Bushian depths, he will not be sitting at 58% approval in 2 or 3 years. Guaranteed. But again, advantage Reagan.
Perhaps Reagan's greatest advantage over Palin was the fact that while he was unfairly portrayed as an unknowing 'cowboy', he did have some intellectual bona fides he could charge back with; for example his televised debate with William F. Buckley over the Panama Canal issue lends credence that he can carry on intelligent conversations. While Sarah Palin doesn't have that to lean on because she simple is much closer to the early part of a political career than Reagan was in 1980 or even 1976, she does have some opportunities to challenge the conventional thinking over the next two plus years. And that's where the political ju-jitsu starts to become apparent in one of two ways. It turns out, contrary to the current conventional wisdom, that the resigning as Governor is a brilliant strategic maneuver for Palin.
Political Ju-Jitsu Item #1
As Governor, Palin was bound to get bogged down both agenda-wise and politically as well. The Democrats and the MSM had her exactly here they wanted her - on the defensive, back on her heels fending off personal attacks (e.g. David Letterman style), fending off personal lawsuits, and trying to explain herself in the face of countless unwarranted and baseless criticisms that were compounding her image as an intellectual lightweight.
If she'd stayed on, the cycle would continue until she had no credibility left in America or even Alaska. In other words, the Democrats smelled blood and they would not have let up until Palin was destroyed. Even if they had not destroyed her, they would have been able to prevent her from doing what she needed to do to improve her image - go on the offensive.
It wouldn't matter if between now and 2012 Sarah Palin learned, understood and memorized every political, economic and foreign relations theory, concept and essay ever put to paper from The Art of War to The Road To Serfdom and beyond. Image is everything. As Marshall McLuhan said, 'the medium is the message', and the medium right now is a pervasive liberal press. It's so bad that many conservatives got into the act of Palin-bashing too. How do you overcome that with out a paradigm shift? You don't.
So what did Governor Palin do? She took that political advantage away from liberals by doing the one thing they had over her - her elected office. Bam - No more frivolous lawsuits. Bam - no more daily news cycle opportunities. She's free to concentrate on fundraising and getting together a game plan and a team for 2012 or whatever her aim is, without the constant filter light of a Yellow Dog Democrat media. Yes, she's still be visible, but the press will be forced to primarily move on to the likes of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (oh look, it's started). Why? Because on the surface it would appear she's made herself yesterday's news.
Was she honest about her reasons for quitting? Likely - the hounding became a detriment to her family and and her state. And she did mention that she would move on to bigger and better things for the conservative movement. Did she tip her hand at all by hinting moving on? I don't think so - I think she counted on the press doing exactly what they did and it works perfectly if this is as calculated a move as I suspect.
The press was surprised (along with most everyone else). Likely many in the liberal media were full of themselves for destroying a potentially iconic conservative figure before she had the chance to develop into just that. The liberal press mindset: disaster averted, Palin is no longer a credible threat to President Obama in 2012.
Even some of the press on the right forgot to remember who friends were and got into the act. Why did she give up. She's weak. Maybe women really can't compete in the political arena because they're too sensitive to handle it. Tell that to Margaret Thatcher, or Golda Meir. Or the other argument that by giving up Alaska's governorship, she's simply bowing out of politics altogether, and who could blame her after all the savagery from the left. Blindness to reality is pretty easy in a 24 hour news cycle. The big picture often gets lost in the rush to report.
Perhaps many on the right were seduced by the stick-to-it-ivness of President Bush. He stuck to his guns and kept the country safe from September 12th 2001 to his last day in office. Noble. But that same mentality can become a weakness if it strays into stubborn refusal to deal with reality. Palin avoided exactly that - she saw the political reality for her in Alaska for what it was - a flaming wreck of a car crash - and decided to not let that happen.
Because the media primarily followed their anti-Palin playbook, something she no doubt counted on, she liberated herself from a great deal of scrutiny and gave herself room to maneuver over the next few years. That's an important step in changing from a defensive posture to one that's designed to move towards taking a turn on the offensive.
Which brings us to the second tactical advantage she's afforded herself, and the GOP.
Political Ju-Jitsu Item #2
There has been a perceived weakness since last November within the GOP -infighting. And to be fair, a lot of it is deserved. Evidence of the moderate versus conservative conservative wings of the Republican party abounds - Rush versus Powell, Meghan McCain versus most of the party, the RNCC versus Sarah Palin or Rush versus Steele for example. But despite the undercurrent of differing views simmering a potential on-going soul search for the GOP, the infighting has started, mercifully, to die down. Yes differing views exist. That's actually a good thing. We don't need a party that marches lockstep to oblivion the way the Democrats seem to be doing with The One. A party devoid of divergent ideas is a party devoid of thinking. And a party devoid of thought is a party of fools.
Back to Palin. The infighting is a huge weakness for Republicans. They should be focusing on the real opponent - liberals. Even perceived infighting diminishes the party as a credible source of leadership. If they can't get their act together, amongst themselves, how can the public trust them to lead? But the infighting lends itself to a huge opportunity for both Palin and the Republican National Conservative Caucus.
Apparently they've considered the opportunity and are possibly already acting on it. Under the cover of discord, the RNCC and Palin could be divvying up duties and concentrating their respective efforts based on their respective strengths. Palin will work on turnout and fundraising country-wide for congressional representatives for 2010. Meanwhile the RNCC can focus on recruitment and development of quality candidates in districts that don't overlap with the efforts of Palin. Meanwhile, the MSM continues the infighting narrative and loses focus on what's really going on; a developing and co-ordinated effort to affect a massive Congressional change in 2010.
If that's the case, honestly, it's a brilliant stroke. Perhaps the ju-jitsu goes even deeper than that. Back in early June when Palin was invited and then snubbed by the RNCC as a speaker at a fundraiser, there was a lot of finger pointing. What if the supposed miscommunication and/or snubbing was planned? What if the whole thing was a ruse to throw off the press?
After all, as conservatives we know how the press will portray all things conservative. Why not, instead of just fuming about it, pre-determine the what the media spin will be to a given bit of news (in this case political conservative news), and decide how to use it to your own advantage?
Dirty politics? Maybe a little. My question is 'so what'? If you don't get dirty at that level (and this really isn't all that dirty so much as it is sneaky), you're going to lose.
Is it political ju-jitsu on the part of Palin and the RNCC? I hope so. It would be absolutely delicious to catch the media and the Democrats completely flat footed staring into the spin/hype of their own creation.
July 15, 2009
Global Financial Crisis and Federal Government Intervention
There's a good post on Carpe Diem about how the Global Financial Crisis, Mortgage Tsunami, Housing Bubble Can All Be Traced to Federal Government Intervention to Create Affordable Housing
Worth a read.
Worth a read.
July 14, 2009
Obama slip sliding away.
With unemployment at 9.5%, it should come as no surprise to see Rasmussen reports showing Obama in negative territory and Gallup finally starting to follow suit;
PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. President Barack Obama averaged a 58% job approval rating for the first eight days of July, down from an average of 61% for June. His approval rating is down most significantly among independents, to 53% so far in July from an average of 59% in June; it has dropped two points among Republicans (from 25% in June to 23% so far in July) and has gone up a point among Democrats, to 90%.
T.O.T.U.S. can't take it, attempts suicide
Fed up with the ineffectual Presidential squirming under the pressure of economic reality, the TOTUS tried to end it all.
No word on the condition of the teleprompter.
No word on the condition of the teleprompter.
Trending Tax Freedom Day
Prior to the Great Depression, in 1929, the day of the year that the average American worker stopped working for the government and started working for himself was February 12th. That means that if every dollar the average worker had made went to the government to pay his or her taxes, by February 12th, he or she would be done paying taxes and would keep all the money he or she earned for the remainder of the year.
The nominal peak of tax freedom day occurred under Bill Clinton, in 1999 at about May 3rd. The tax freedom date had fluctuated under President Bush but generally declined in a non-linear path. For the last two years the date has dropped dramatically to about April 13th - the lowest level since 1967.
So how, do you ask, can Americans think that they are over-taxed and that in the midst of a federal budget deficit crisis, conservatives be asking for tax breaks? Good question.
The answer is one word: nominal
All of the above numbers represent tax dollars that are actually paid. It does not account for the real tax freedom day, which is severely altered by government deficits. The money the average American pays to the government is larger than what is really seen on your W-2 form.
Take a look at this graph provided by Tax Foundation.
The nominal peak of tax freedom day occurred under Bill Clinton, in 1999 at about May 3rd. The tax freedom date had fluctuated under President Bush but generally declined in a non-linear path. For the last two years the date has dropped dramatically to about April 13th - the lowest level since 1967.
So how, do you ask, can Americans think that they are over-taxed and that in the midst of a federal budget deficit crisis, conservatives be asking for tax breaks? Good question.
The answer is one word: nominal
All of the above numbers represent tax dollars that are actually paid. It does not account for the real tax freedom day, which is severely altered by government deficits. The money the average American pays to the government is larger than what is really seen on your W-2 form.
Take a look at this graph provided by Tax Foundation.
What is striking from the graph is the effect that recessions have - nominal tax freedom day tends to decline, while real tax freedom day typically rises. Of course if the government is going to run deficits to create it's stimulus then the real rates would indeed spike - you just wouldn't see them because either you will pay for them at some time in the future when you are socked with higher taxes, or else your children and grandchildren will get stuck with it.
There is no free stimulus lunch, EVER. So the next question is, why not raise taxes to cover the deficit so the nominal tax freedom day reflects the real day as closely as possible?
The answer is again one word: politics.
It would be political suicide on a massive scale if the American public were to immediately see the impact of the gargantuan spending bill the Democrats are running up. They are banking on the effects not being visible prior to the next set of elections in 2010 and 2012. Look at 2009 on the graph. If that tax bill came to you today, the difference on your W-2 would be astonishing. You'd be at Tea Parties every weekend.
The other side of the equation is the lingering effects of not the deficit but the national debt. Factoring decades of snowballing national debt into the equation, Tax Freedom Day based on the formulas used by Tax Foundation is likely somewhere near the end of the year. In other words, we are get closer to the point of no tax freedom day, ever.
President Obama is trying to sell the American public on the idea of a free lunch. There is no such thing!
July 13, 2009
Iran hasn't gone away
Just a gentle reminder that the protesters in Iran are still there.
The chaos has not resulted in any significant support from the President. That's a travesty.
The chaos has not resulted in any significant support from the President. That's a travesty.
July 12, 2009
Obama is Moving the Goal Posts on Recovery
Remember the Democrats complaining that President Bush had supposedly moved the goalposts when the focus of the Iraq invasion 'switched' from weapons of mass destruction to countering an Axis of Evil regime and liberating the country? Supposedly. My rhetorical question is this; why wouldn't they bother to applies the same standard to President Obama, who has recently done some real re-definitions of his own?
Ronald Reagan Quote
“We've gone astray from first principles. We've lost sight of the rule that individual freedom and ingenuity are at the very core of everything that we've accomplished. Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.”
~Ronald Reagan
~Ronald Reagan
July 11, 2009
Saturday Learning Series - Free to Choose Part 1
Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman's first in the Free To Choose series, The Power of the Market.
Free market economics, free trade, individual liberty all, noble concepts, are rooted in fundamental logic and sensible conservative ideals. Milton Friedman does a magnificent job of simplifying the ideas and conveying them to the viewer. The series on PBS in the 1980's is just as instructive today.
For more economics and history, search Nonsensible Shoes for "Saturday Learning Series".
This is a wonderful explanation of simple economics. Learn it.
For more economics and history, search Nonsensible Shoes for "Saturday Learning Series".
This is a wonderful explanation of simple economics. Learn it.
July 10, 2009
Friday Musical Interlude - July 10, 2009
There's 'old' and 'new' today.
Tulsa Time - Eric Clapton
Or there's this from the Ting Tings - That's Not My Name
Tulsa Time - Eric Clapton
Or there's this from the Ting Tings - That's Not My Name
July 9, 2009
Do As I Say, Not As I Do
Mobile Post
Three stories in the news today add to the massive stockpile of evidence that sanctimonious liberals want you to 'do as I say, not as I do'. It should no longer come as any surprise to anyone that liberals who supposedly want to make the world a better place by helping the poor, helping the environment or helping the children or elderly, want their efforts to affect a change in how people behave but they themselves, expect to be exempt from that set of rules they want to see imposed.
The obvious example is Al Gore jetting around the world to spew global warming propaganda - and jet exhaust. And what is with his home that uses something like a trillion kilowatts of power every second and burns more natural gas than a fleet of natural-gas-powered buses (yes, that's an exaggeration)? Shouldn't he be living in a tiki hut somewhere?
And now comes word (courtesy of Hot Air, in turn courtesy of the American Spectator) that radical community activist group ACORN is involved in a project, under the pretense of helping the poor, of displacing the poor for a mega-project involving the New Jersey Nets.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/09/acorn-sells-out-the-poor
«In the world of corporate shakedowns it is commonplace for liberal activist groups to use the money they extract from a supposed "donor" to fund operations, but it is very unusual for a group to take money in exchange for betraying those it is supposed to represent.
But the far-left activist group ACORN, which claims to defend the poor from what ACORN ally Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) last year called America's "capitalist predators," is doing precisely that. "»
For anyone who missed the hypocrisy, let me spell it out for you. The organization that tries to enforce community standards on organizations it deems as too capitalistic, feels it's okay to violate those standards itself because, after all, ACORN knows what's best for America, so the ends justify the means.
And that's the problem with liberal activists in a nutshell. They have a deeply held opinion that they know what is best for America and for the world. No one else understands. And since they are the guardians of what is right and pure its okay for them to violate their own moral compass. Just not you.
Which brings us to our second story from Deceiver.com. Again a Hat Tip to Hot Air.
http://deceiver.com/2009/07/08/greenpeace-cleans-up-environment-by-littering/
That's right, Greenpeace decided the best way to stop global warming was to litter. And to illegally scale Mt. Rushmore. It's a double whammy of hypocrisy; don't wreck the earth, but it's okay if we do AND let's get President Obama to change the laws for tougher global warming rules and penalties by breaking the law.
The chain of double standards gets clearer the more you pay attention.
Next story. Again, a hat tip to Hot Air - the only site among those I regularly frequent that I have had a chance to visit this morning, which should by now be obvious to readers of this post.
From PDN
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/07/new-york-times-magazine-withdraws-possibly-altered-photo-essay.html
This one is yet to be confirmed but sure appears to be the case. The New York Times, bastion of truth (as liberals see it) has run a photo caption contest in a clear effort to remain viable in an online world. No problem there, other than the reason they are in financial trouble is not because they don't have a valid online business model - its because they are blatantly biased and not always factual. That's a problem with a newspaper. They are supposed to report news - they are not called an editorial paper, news should be primary.
But the bigger problem is this, after a recent history of made up stories, you'd think they would bend over backwards to be truthful. But the photo caption contest photos were doctored. Either the Times has a shortage of editors and fact checkers or else they don't care to check facts if it interrupts their narrative.
Given their blatant bias in ideology its hard to believe it isn't deliberate. And if that is the case the NYT has abandoned journalism for advocacy. An organization that demands full disclosure and wants to be regarded as a source of truth is being dishonest. They would howl if they caught Fox News lying or making a factual mistake. So, do as they say, not as they do.
But I'm willing to give the NYT the benefit of the doubt. They did pull the photos, even if it was because they were caught in a lie/mistake. Mistakes happen. The problem is that their political bent lends itself to continued errors. And they seem to want to be bailed out with TARP money. But they don't want to change their business model. They don't want to be about accuracy and facts. And still, cutting the Times some slack, there's hypocrisy on their part.
And there are other examples. Think of the Supreme court overturning the Sotomayor 'reverse discrimination'. Discrimination is bad if you are doing it against a non-caucasian but don't do it the other way around!
Liberals love to tell people what to do. And in many cases they feel exempt from the rules they establish. And for those liberals, the ones in power, they are using their belief system to impose. The hypocrisy proves that its about power over others. It proves there is an unspoken two tier system "us and them". That is elitism. That is autocratic. And that, is what was the crucible for the birth of America, which was a rebellion against injustice.
Do as we say, not as we do is inherently unjust. So how can anyone who wants fairness and justice seriously consider voting Democrats?
Three stories in the news today add to the massive stockpile of evidence that sanctimonious liberals want you to 'do as I say, not as I do'. It should no longer come as any surprise to anyone that liberals who supposedly want to make the world a better place by helping the poor, helping the environment or helping the children or elderly, want their efforts to affect a change in how people behave but they themselves, expect to be exempt from that set of rules they want to see imposed.
The obvious example is Al Gore jetting around the world to spew global warming propaganda - and jet exhaust. And what is with his home that uses something like a trillion kilowatts of power every second and burns more natural gas than a fleet of natural-gas-powered buses (yes, that's an exaggeration)? Shouldn't he be living in a tiki hut somewhere?
And now comes word (courtesy of Hot Air, in turn courtesy of the American Spectator) that radical community activist group ACORN is involved in a project, under the pretense of helping the poor, of displacing the poor for a mega-project involving the New Jersey Nets.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/09/acorn-sells-out-the-poor
«In the world of corporate shakedowns it is commonplace for liberal activist groups to use the money they extract from a supposed "donor" to fund operations, but it is very unusual for a group to take money in exchange for betraying those it is supposed to represent.
But the far-left activist group ACORN, which claims to defend the poor from what ACORN ally Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) last year called America's "capitalist predators," is doing precisely that. "»
For anyone who missed the hypocrisy, let me spell it out for you. The organization that tries to enforce community standards on organizations it deems as too capitalistic, feels it's okay to violate those standards itself because, after all, ACORN knows what's best for America, so the ends justify the means.
And that's the problem with liberal activists in a nutshell. They have a deeply held opinion that they know what is best for America and for the world. No one else understands. And since they are the guardians of what is right and pure its okay for them to violate their own moral compass. Just not you.
Which brings us to our second story from Deceiver.com. Again a Hat Tip to Hot Air.
http://deceiver.com/2009/07/08/greenpeace-cleans-up-environment-by-littering/
That's right, Greenpeace decided the best way to stop global warming was to litter. And to illegally scale Mt. Rushmore. It's a double whammy of hypocrisy; don't wreck the earth, but it's okay if we do AND let's get President Obama to change the laws for tougher global warming rules and penalties by breaking the law.
The chain of double standards gets clearer the more you pay attention.
Next story. Again, a hat tip to Hot Air - the only site among those I regularly frequent that I have had a chance to visit this morning, which should by now be obvious to readers of this post.
From PDN
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/07/new-york-times-magazine-withdraws-possibly-altered-photo-essay.html
This one is yet to be confirmed but sure appears to be the case. The New York Times, bastion of truth (as liberals see it) has run a photo caption contest in a clear effort to remain viable in an online world. No problem there, other than the reason they are in financial trouble is not because they don't have a valid online business model - its because they are blatantly biased and not always factual. That's a problem with a newspaper. They are supposed to report news - they are not called an editorial paper, news should be primary.
But the bigger problem is this, after a recent history of made up stories, you'd think they would bend over backwards to be truthful. But the photo caption contest photos were doctored. Either the Times has a shortage of editors and fact checkers or else they don't care to check facts if it interrupts their narrative.
Given their blatant bias in ideology its hard to believe it isn't deliberate. And if that is the case the NYT has abandoned journalism for advocacy. An organization that demands full disclosure and wants to be regarded as a source of truth is being dishonest. They would howl if they caught Fox News lying or making a factual mistake. So, do as they say, not as they do.
But I'm willing to give the NYT the benefit of the doubt. They did pull the photos, even if it was because they were caught in a lie/mistake. Mistakes happen. The problem is that their political bent lends itself to continued errors. And they seem to want to be bailed out with TARP money. But they don't want to change their business model. They don't want to be about accuracy and facts. And still, cutting the Times some slack, there's hypocrisy on their part.
And there are other examples. Think of the Supreme court overturning the Sotomayor 'reverse discrimination'. Discrimination is bad if you are doing it against a non-caucasian but don't do it the other way around!
Liberals love to tell people what to do. And in many cases they feel exempt from the rules they establish. And for those liberals, the ones in power, they are using their belief system to impose. The hypocrisy proves that its about power over others. It proves there is an unspoken two tier system "us and them". That is elitism. That is autocratic. And that, is what was the crucible for the birth of America, which was a rebellion against injustice.
Do as we say, not as we do is inherently unjust. So how can anyone who wants fairness and justice seriously consider voting Democrats?
July 8, 2009
Affordable Housing Debacle - Reminding You About Democrat Failures
First there was the red flag being raised before the election that the housing crisis was caused by government intervention, NOT de-regulation was the cause of the global financial crisis.
Remember this video?
Now comes the proof. The government did it. Carpe Diem has the story.
Remember this video?
Now comes the proof. The government did it. Carpe Diem has the story.
The real tragedy of the government’s affordable housing policy is the impact on average Americans, particularly those of modest means. Millions of these borrowers, who were supposed to have been helped by federal affordable housing policy, have now been forced into delinquency and foreclosure, destroying their asset base, their credit, and in some cases their families. For example, Latino homeowners, who once appeared to be among the most frequent beneficiaries of affordable housing policies, are now the victims of the policies that their political representatives in Washington once championed.And yet Latinos predominantly vote Democrat. Democrats count on your inattention to keep power. They could not possibly be so wrong and get away with so much otherwise.
Obama - still trending down
Maybe it takes looking like an annoyance to a Russian leader to keep the Obama trend trajectory moving along. In any case yesterday's Rasmussen Reports Presidential index showed this;
Overall approval according to Rasmussen is at 52% versus 47% disapproval - his worst showing yet.
Meanwhile Gallup has his approval at a relatively sky high 58% and his disapproval at a measly 35%. That's still his worst disapproval showing and close to his worst approval rating yet by Gallup's standards.
Interestingly if you look into the Gallup numbers his eroding support is among conservatives down from 40% to 25% in June. The high initial approval rating from conservatives could have be attributed to respecting the office rather than the policies or the candidate. Still, I find it hard to believe that Obama's support among conservatives would ever be 40%, and that given his track record it would be as high as 25% today.
Gallup also shows Democrat support is at 89%, down from 91% - in other words, flat. And Independent support has barely eroded from 62% at inauguration to 59% in June. Not all Democrats are as left leaning as President Obama, and Independents certainly aren't. So the Gallup numbers are suspect as far as I'm concerned.
Both polls show are showing natural downward trend, Gallup's is agonizingly slow while Rasmussen's has been a steady change. The decline is inevitable, it's just the rate and/or depth of the decline that is in question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
