Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it...
BLOGS I REALLY LIKE...
OxBlog
Volokh Conspiracy
ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico
QandO
Powerline
RightWingNutHouse
Ace
Lorie Byrd
PoliPundit
LGF
Wizbang
INDCJournal
JustOneMinute
RightWingNews
Three Sheets
LaShawn
XRLQ
Betsy's Page
OTHERS NICE ENOUGH TO LINK ME...
SortaPundit
Don Luskin
California Yankee
Let It Bleed
TechieVampire
SecureLiberty
BenedictBlog
StopTheACLU
ProteinWisdom
Election Projection
The LiberalWrong
Autonomoussource
RatherGate
HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit
AND EVEN THOUGH HE'S USUALLY WRONG...
Mark Kleiman
HE WHO DOESN'T LIKE BEING CALLED A HYPOCRITE The Moderate Voice
Email Steve
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Obama started running for President years ago. He won the Democratic nomination the summer of last year. He won election over a year ago. He took office close to 10 months ago.
At all of those times, he knew the economy was in trouble. At all of those times, he knew that we weren't 'winning' in Afghanistan.
Plenty of time to start thinking on what he wanted to do to address both of those problem areas.
He signed on to a stimulus plan that was supposed to turn around the economy. He fired the commander in Afghanistan and replaced him with someone more to his liking.
And while he continues to 'dither' on what to do about Afghanistan, he is convening a forum on joblessness in December where he will reportedly listen to ideas as to how best rescue the economy.
Not a bad idea.... seven months ago! It isn't as if he - or anyone else - should have been thinking that the stimulus plan was working (truly he didn't believe his Administration's hype about 'jobs saved or created', did he?). He's known for months that unemployment was going up and expected to go even higher, with hundreds of thousands of monthly layoffs. He's known for months that businesses and individuals are pessimistic and he should have known that pessimistic businesses don't hire and pessimistic individuals don't buy.
Back when Obama signed the stimulus into law, there should have been some thinking and planning about what to do if the plan didn't achieve what it was supposed to achieve. Only a fool goes into an operation unprepared for the possibility that Plan A isn't going to work... it's only prudent to have a Plan B in mind (as well as a Plan C and possibly a Plan D). Mechanics have a Plan B ('if replacing the alternator doesn't work, we'll replace the entire engine'). Generals have a Plan B ('we will sweep around the front, if we run into resistance, we'll fall back and call for airstrikes'). Car salesmen have a Plan B ('I'll start with emphasizing how nice they look in the car, if that doesn't work, I'll throw in a free oil change').
The only people who don't have Plan Bs in mind are those who are delusional to the point where they can't imagine their ideas not working.
Perhaps Obama could have spent some of the time he's spent golfing and taking his wife out on dates and going to Copenhagen to make a pitch for the Olympics and traveling the world apologizing for the United States on something else.... like coming up with a Plan B? And even if he didn't want to spend the time on it, with hundreds of White House staffers, as well as staff he could have drawn from other agencies and departments, there wasn't a shortage of people that Obama could have asked to start preparing his some options if Plan A didn't work... if only Obama had thought that coming up with a Plan B was a good idea.
So with the economy continuing to suffer, where is Obama's Plan B? Apparently, he doesn't have one. Apparently, he is just now starting to gather ideas that could go into formulating a Plan B. Correction, he is going to wait until December to start gathering ideas. Add to that the time necessary to sift through those ideas and coalesce them into a coherent proposal and the time necessary to work that proposal through a Congress that is going to grow increasingly preoccupied with the fall elections and it is pretty clear that we're not going to see anything for months and months to come... and given that no program is going to have instantaneous results, even more months until we start to see the benefits of whatever they end up coming up with.
And to add insult to injury, not only does he not have a Plan B, he is apparently just now concluding that he needs a Plan B, that Plan A isn't working (common sense deduction on my part: if he had done so earlier, then he would have issued his call for a forum earlier as well, right?).
Wow.
|
At all of those times, he knew the economy was in trouble. At all of those times, he knew that we weren't 'winning' in Afghanistan.
Plenty of time to start thinking on what he wanted to do to address both of those problem areas.
He signed on to a stimulus plan that was supposed to turn around the economy. He fired the commander in Afghanistan and replaced him with someone more to his liking.
And while he continues to 'dither' on what to do about Afghanistan, he is convening a forum on joblessness in December where he will reportedly listen to ideas as to how best rescue the economy.
Not a bad idea.... seven months ago! It isn't as if he - or anyone else - should have been thinking that the stimulus plan was working (truly he didn't believe his Administration's hype about 'jobs saved or created', did he?). He's known for months that unemployment was going up and expected to go even higher, with hundreds of thousands of monthly layoffs. He's known for months that businesses and individuals are pessimistic and he should have known that pessimistic businesses don't hire and pessimistic individuals don't buy.
Back when Obama signed the stimulus into law, there should have been some thinking and planning about what to do if the plan didn't achieve what it was supposed to achieve. Only a fool goes into an operation unprepared for the possibility that Plan A isn't going to work... it's only prudent to have a Plan B in mind (as well as a Plan C and possibly a Plan D). Mechanics have a Plan B ('if replacing the alternator doesn't work, we'll replace the entire engine'). Generals have a Plan B ('we will sweep around the front, if we run into resistance, we'll fall back and call for airstrikes'). Car salesmen have a Plan B ('I'll start with emphasizing how nice they look in the car, if that doesn't work, I'll throw in a free oil change').
The only people who don't have Plan Bs in mind are those who are delusional to the point where they can't imagine their ideas not working.
Perhaps Obama could have spent some of the time he's spent golfing and taking his wife out on dates and going to Copenhagen to make a pitch for the Olympics and traveling the world apologizing for the United States on something else.... like coming up with a Plan B? And even if he didn't want to spend the time on it, with hundreds of White House staffers, as well as staff he could have drawn from other agencies and departments, there wasn't a shortage of people that Obama could have asked to start preparing his some options if Plan A didn't work... if only Obama had thought that coming up with a Plan B was a good idea.
So with the economy continuing to suffer, where is Obama's Plan B? Apparently, he doesn't have one. Apparently, he is just now starting to gather ideas that could go into formulating a Plan B. Correction, he is going to wait until December to start gathering ideas. Add to that the time necessary to sift through those ideas and coalesce them into a coherent proposal and the time necessary to work that proposal through a Congress that is going to grow increasingly preoccupied with the fall elections and it is pretty clear that we're not going to see anything for months and months to come... and given that no program is going to have instantaneous results, even more months until we start to see the benefits of whatever they end up coming up with.
And to add insult to injury, not only does he not have a Plan B, he is apparently just now concluding that he needs a Plan B, that Plan A isn't working (common sense deduction on my part: if he had done so earlier, then he would have issued his call for a forum earlier as well, right?).
Wow.
|
Let's examine Obama's rejection of all the Afghanistan war options presented to him in the context of regular Joe Smith making a decision.
The easiest decisions for Joe to make are those where Joe (1) knows what he wants to accomplish, (2) has the necessary resources available to him, and (3) doesn't have to get permission from someone else, and (4) has the experience and knowledge to choose from the various options for following through.
For example, if Joe is deciding on what he's going to do on vacation, it is pretty straightforward if Joe knows where he wants to go and what he wants to do while there, has the money and the time that he needs to go there, doesn't have to ask permission from a boss or spouse, and has enough experience to decide from the various trip packages which one best suits his objectives.
It isn't so easy, and understandably so, if Joe just can't decide what he wants to do or has to persuade a reluctant spouse that it would be fun, or doesn't have the money or can't get the time off or has no idea what is involved in, for example, sailing around the world or taking a safari to Africa.
For Obama and Afghanistan, some of these issues shouldn't be a factor: he has pretty much an unlimited budget, he doesn't have to ask anybody's permission. While he himself doesn't have expertise in military operations, with his military advisers, he has the equivalent of a travel agent who does have the expertise to fill in where he can't.
So what's missing, what accounts for his dithering, why is he still unable to make a decision?
One possibility is that Obama doesn't trust his travel agents, that he suspects they're trying to sell him a bad, overpriced experience, that they care more about themselves than in helping him enjoy his vacation experience, that they're not listening to him, that they're trying to sell him a trip to Finland instead of the trip to Bermuda that he said he wanted.
But I am skeptical about this as a possibility. Obama handpicked his travel agents (i.e., military advisers). He hasn't had a bad experience with them that makes him suspect them now. In fact, he hasn't had any experience with them. Maybe there is someone whispering in his ear telling him bad things about his advisers, but if this were so, why hasn't Obama gone and picked himself another set of advisers.
Another possibility is that he doesn't know what he wants to accomplish. To paraphrase someone, you can't get there if you don't know where you want to go.
But that's unlikely. He's talked enough about what he wants to accomplish - kill Al Qaeda, deny the Taliban the ability to regain control and/or terrorize the population and have a friendly, democratic government willing to help keep America safe - that I dismiss this as a possibility.
Another possibility is that he is mentally or emotionally unable to make the decision and issue the orders... so he looks to put it off as long as possible. As I thought Bush held off going after Iran because he wasn't emotionally able to deal with the casualties - and the public criticism - from another conflict, maybe Obama is holding off because he feels that until he makes a decision he can avoid thinking of this as his fight and thus avoid the guilt that comes from having soldiers die carrying out his orders.
I don't know what it is, but I can't imagine it being for a good reason.
|
The easiest decisions for Joe to make are those where Joe (1) knows what he wants to accomplish, (2) has the necessary resources available to him, and (3) doesn't have to get permission from someone else, and (4) has the experience and knowledge to choose from the various options for following through.
For example, if Joe is deciding on what he's going to do on vacation, it is pretty straightforward if Joe knows where he wants to go and what he wants to do while there, has the money and the time that he needs to go there, doesn't have to ask permission from a boss or spouse, and has enough experience to decide from the various trip packages which one best suits his objectives.
It isn't so easy, and understandably so, if Joe just can't decide what he wants to do or has to persuade a reluctant spouse that it would be fun, or doesn't have the money or can't get the time off or has no idea what is involved in, for example, sailing around the world or taking a safari to Africa.
For Obama and Afghanistan, some of these issues shouldn't be a factor: he has pretty much an unlimited budget, he doesn't have to ask anybody's permission. While he himself doesn't have expertise in military operations, with his military advisers, he has the equivalent of a travel agent who does have the expertise to fill in where he can't.
So what's missing, what accounts for his dithering, why is he still unable to make a decision?
One possibility is that Obama doesn't trust his travel agents, that he suspects they're trying to sell him a bad, overpriced experience, that they care more about themselves than in helping him enjoy his vacation experience, that they're not listening to him, that they're trying to sell him a trip to Finland instead of the trip to Bermuda that he said he wanted.
But I am skeptical about this as a possibility. Obama handpicked his travel agents (i.e., military advisers). He hasn't had a bad experience with them that makes him suspect them now. In fact, he hasn't had any experience with them. Maybe there is someone whispering in his ear telling him bad things about his advisers, but if this were so, why hasn't Obama gone and picked himself another set of advisers.
Another possibility is that he doesn't know what he wants to accomplish. To paraphrase someone, you can't get there if you don't know where you want to go.
But that's unlikely. He's talked enough about what he wants to accomplish - kill Al Qaeda, deny the Taliban the ability to regain control and/or terrorize the population and have a friendly, democratic government willing to help keep America safe - that I dismiss this as a possibility.
Another possibility is that he is mentally or emotionally unable to make the decision and issue the orders... so he looks to put it off as long as possible. As I thought Bush held off going after Iran because he wasn't emotionally able to deal with the casualties - and the public criticism - from another conflict, maybe Obama is holding off because he feels that until he makes a decision he can avoid thinking of this as his fight and thus avoid the guilt that comes from having soldiers die carrying out his orders.
I don't know what it is, but I can't imagine it being for a good reason.
|
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
While 9/11 took place during Bush's presidency, it was agreed that he shouldn't take all of the blame, that he hadn't enough time in office to completely undo the triple sins of the Clinton Administration: not taking terrorism seriously enough, intelligence agencies that couldn't and wouldn't talk to one another and a 'law enforcement' approach that worried more about probable cause and warrants and maintaining walls between agencies than in gathering and sharing and acting on the intelligence that could have prevented the attacks from taking place.
So... the same logic dictates that Bush should receive a lot of the blame for what happened at Fort Hood. Obama's been in office a bit under 10 months, not much longer than Bush was on 9/11. And it wasn't Obama that put in the rules and attitudes that kept authorities from learning and acting on the intelligence that could have prevented this attack from taking place.
While one usually associates the Democrats with pushing PC thinking that keeps people from reporting suspicious behavior for fear of being labeled a bigot and that keeps people in the military from doing the same for fear of being seen as not sufficiently supportive of the diverse military Army Chief of Staff Casey is so proud of, this isn't an attitude that sprung up only in January of this year (and if anyone can provide evidence that Obama reversed a Bush policy that would have prevented this attack, I stand ready to back off).
Bush was a huge proponent of the 'we're not at war with Muslims' mantra that did so much to discourage critical examination of suspicious behavior of Muslims; it was members of the Bush Administration who criticized the actions taken against the 'flying imans'. Bush was the President when the attitudes in the military were set and hardened. Bush promoted and retained those who are now in top spots at the Pentagon, it isn't as if these guys all went soft only after Bush left office. Bush was the President when agencies were supposed to give up their turf wars to instead focus on sharing information with one another; Bush presided over a huge government re-organization that was supposed to eliminate screw ups such as this. Bush was the President whose Vice President famously said they didn't want to wait until the smoking gun was a mushroom cloud.... as it turns out, the smoking gun was a smoking gun.
Hasan was able to do what he did because the people and policies Bush put in place were not up to the task. And for a President whose supporters claimed kept us safe ever since 9/11, I think the Fort Hood shootings is pretty good evidence that the reason we weren't attacked isn't because we were detecting and preemptively acting against threats such as Hasan... we weren't attacked in spite of what Bush was doing and not because of him.
|
So... the same logic dictates that Bush should receive a lot of the blame for what happened at Fort Hood. Obama's been in office a bit under 10 months, not much longer than Bush was on 9/11. And it wasn't Obama that put in the rules and attitudes that kept authorities from learning and acting on the intelligence that could have prevented this attack from taking place.
While one usually associates the Democrats with pushing PC thinking that keeps people from reporting suspicious behavior for fear of being labeled a bigot and that keeps people in the military from doing the same for fear of being seen as not sufficiently supportive of the diverse military Army Chief of Staff Casey is so proud of, this isn't an attitude that sprung up only in January of this year (and if anyone can provide evidence that Obama reversed a Bush policy that would have prevented this attack, I stand ready to back off).
Bush was a huge proponent of the 'we're not at war with Muslims' mantra that did so much to discourage critical examination of suspicious behavior of Muslims; it was members of the Bush Administration who criticized the actions taken against the 'flying imans'. Bush was the President when the attitudes in the military were set and hardened. Bush promoted and retained those who are now in top spots at the Pentagon, it isn't as if these guys all went soft only after Bush left office. Bush was the President when agencies were supposed to give up their turf wars to instead focus on sharing information with one another; Bush presided over a huge government re-organization that was supposed to eliminate screw ups such as this. Bush was the President whose Vice President famously said they didn't want to wait until the smoking gun was a mushroom cloud.... as it turns out, the smoking gun was a smoking gun.
Hasan was able to do what he did because the people and policies Bush put in place were not up to the task. And for a President whose supporters claimed kept us safe ever since 9/11, I think the Fort Hood shootings is pretty good evidence that the reason we weren't attacked isn't because we were detecting and preemptively acting against threats such as Hasan... we weren't attacked in spite of what Bush was doing and not because of him.
|
Did Obama actually say the killings at Fort Hood were "incomprehensible"?
Per the dictionary, incomprehensible means, as one might think, unable to be understood... so I have to ask, how stupid is Obama if he can't understand what happened?
A nut went off and killed 13 people and wounded more than thirty others. What part of that is incomprehensible? That nuts kill people? That sometime nuts are able to kill a bunch of people before they're stopped?
Or is Obama referring not to the act itself but rather the motivation(s) of the nut? Sorry, move along, there's nothing here that is incomprehensible. Whether he was driven by (in no particular order and without endorsing any) radical Islam, fear of being shipped overseas, vicarious PTSD, the alleged hazing he received as a Muslim or anything else, again, what is so incomprehensible about those?
There is NOTHING incomprehensible about any of this. I know it and the soldiers at Fort Hood who had the 'honor' of listening to Obama know this. They might have been surprised that it happened, but they have no problem understanding what happened... and with more information, they'll have no problem understanding why it happened.
Jeez, for a guy who's supposed to be the cat's meow when it comes to eloquent speeches, sometimes Obama - even with TOTUS present - just really screws the pooch.
|
Per the dictionary, incomprehensible means, as one might think, unable to be understood... so I have to ask, how stupid is Obama if he can't understand what happened?
A nut went off and killed 13 people and wounded more than thirty others. What part of that is incomprehensible? That nuts kill people? That sometime nuts are able to kill a bunch of people before they're stopped?
Or is Obama referring not to the act itself but rather the motivation(s) of the nut? Sorry, move along, there's nothing here that is incomprehensible. Whether he was driven by (in no particular order and without endorsing any) radical Islam, fear of being shipped overseas, vicarious PTSD, the alleged hazing he received as a Muslim or anything else, again, what is so incomprehensible about those?
There is NOTHING incomprehensible about any of this. I know it and the soldiers at Fort Hood who had the 'honor' of listening to Obama know this. They might have been surprised that it happened, but they have no problem understanding what happened... and with more information, they'll have no problem understanding why it happened.
Jeez, for a guy who's supposed to be the cat's meow when it comes to eloquent speeches, sometimes Obama - even with TOTUS present - just really screws the pooch.
|
CNN is having their 'Hero of the Year' vote right now, and in typical CNN/liberal style, their 'heroes' are, as far as I can tell, all people who have done nice things but not things that I would call heroic.
A hero is someone who voluntarily puts his own life at risk to save others. A hero is not merely someone who saves other people. For example, by my definition, Chesley Sullenberger, the pilot who did a heck of a job landing his stricken airplane in the middle of the Hudson River isn't a hero... because his life was already at risk, he didn't put it at risk.
And a hero definitely isn't someone who does good deeds. Yeah, I know the dictionary definition could be interpreted that way, so CNN is saved by the technicality, but I think the word ought to be saved for the very small number of people who truly do heroic acts.
Saved, for example, for someone like Fort Hood police officer Kimberly Munley, who didn't have to charge into the shooting zone, who never would have been disciplined or second guessed had she stayed outside and waited for backup, but who instead risked her life in order to save the lives of others.
And where is Munley among the nominees on the CNN site? Nowhere to be found. Disappointing, but not surprising. And unfortunately, there's no ability to cast write-in votes for Officer Munley.
And the MSM wonders what they're doing wrong, why their readership and, in the case of CNN, their viewership, well, how do I put it, that's right, s***s and keeps falling. Any business that is that out of touch with its customers and prospects is going to find itself with fewer customers... and the MSM, for all of their talk that they are somehow special, is no different.
|
A hero is someone who voluntarily puts his own life at risk to save others. A hero is not merely someone who saves other people. For example, by my definition, Chesley Sullenberger, the pilot who did a heck of a job landing his stricken airplane in the middle of the Hudson River isn't a hero... because his life was already at risk, he didn't put it at risk.
And a hero definitely isn't someone who does good deeds. Yeah, I know the dictionary definition could be interpreted that way, so CNN is saved by the technicality, but I think the word ought to be saved for the very small number of people who truly do heroic acts.
Saved, for example, for someone like Fort Hood police officer Kimberly Munley, who didn't have to charge into the shooting zone, who never would have been disciplined or second guessed had she stayed outside and waited for backup, but who instead risked her life in order to save the lives of others.
And where is Munley among the nominees on the CNN site? Nowhere to be found. Disappointing, but not surprising. And unfortunately, there's no ability to cast write-in votes for Officer Munley.
And the MSM wonders what they're doing wrong, why their readership and, in the case of CNN, their viewership, well, how do I put it, that's right, s***s and keeps falling. Any business that is that out of touch with its customers and prospects is going to find itself with fewer customers... and the MSM, for all of their talk that they are somehow special, is no different.
|
I didn't vote for Tim Kaine four years ago, mostly because I tend not to vote for Democrats, in part because Kaine is anti-death penalty and I figured he would issue blanket clemency to everybody on death row.
So I need to applaud his decision to not let Beltway sniper off the hook. Muhammad is the poster child for someone deserving execution and it's nice to see that Kaine - as he promised during the campaign, a promise I didn't believe - isn't going to let his personal opposition to the death penalty stand in the way of justice.
|
So I need to applaud his decision to not let Beltway sniper off the hook. Muhammad is the poster child for someone deserving execution and it's nice to see that Kaine - as he promised during the campaign, a promise I didn't believe - isn't going to let his personal opposition to the death penalty stand in the way of justice.
|
Slate's legal writer Dahlia Lithwick is a good liberal, so on cue she takes shots at conservative Clarence Thomas "Now, as Cookie Monster well knows, asking questions is a very good way to find out about things. Someone should tell Justice Clarence Thomas", an obvious dig at Thomas famously not asking questions at oral arguments.
And Lithwick's fawning over liberals keeps her from pointing out that asking questions at oral arguments about issues that one could - and should - have known well before oral arguments isn't a great way of impressing Cookie Monster... that is, of course, if the clueless Justice is the great liberal hope, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who not only once but twice asks questions I would be embarrassed to not have known the answer prior to oral arguments (asking whether educational and vocational training are available to the LWOP kids, and why one of the petitioner's co-perpetrators' sentences were dramatically lower than his).
If Ginsberg had prepped for this case, as one ought to be safe in presuming, and if these issues were important to her, then why didn't she find out the answers ahead of time? Neither question is such that it could only have been answered in oral arguments. And neither question, as far as I can tell, is relevant to the question before the court that day. But to suggest a liberal fave is not that bright? Not for Lithwick.
|
And Lithwick's fawning over liberals keeps her from pointing out that asking questions at oral arguments about issues that one could - and should - have known well before oral arguments isn't a great way of impressing Cookie Monster... that is, of course, if the clueless Justice is the great liberal hope, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who not only once but twice asks questions I would be embarrassed to not have known the answer prior to oral arguments (asking whether educational and vocational training are available to the LWOP kids, and why one of the petitioner's co-perpetrators' sentences were dramatically lower than his).
If Ginsberg had prepped for this case, as one ought to be safe in presuming, and if these issues were important to her, then why didn't she find out the answers ahead of time? Neither question is such that it could only have been answered in oral arguments. And neither question, as far as I can tell, is relevant to the question before the court that day. But to suggest a liberal fave is not that bright? Not for Lithwick.
|
Monday, November 09, 2009
The dog not barking.... Chapter too many to count.
A continuing series documenting the number of times the GOP fails to take advantage of the opportunities their opponents give them.
For example, Obama fails to attend the celebration of the collapse of the Berlin Wall... and who on the GOP rose to the podium to criticize him for having time to speak with our enemies but not for celebrating victories over Communism?
Or how about Obama making derogatory comments aimed at those protesting against Obamacare? He's gotten criticized by right-leaning bloggers, but who among the elected Republicans rose to criticize Obama? Right, no one.
Or Obama's inappropriate use of the shootings at Fort Hood to encourage Democratic Representatives to vote for Obamacare?
Or the Obama Administration's use of bogus numbers to justify its stimulus?
To quote Bob Dole, where is the outrage?
The GOP can't expect people who don't follow the minutia of politics to pick up on this stuff out of thin air, they need to jump in front of some microphones and start writing some newspaper op-eds.
To mangle a metaphor, it's as if the GOP is at bat, Obama is floating softballs down the middle of the plate and the GOP not only isn't hitting the ball out of the park, they're not even swinging.
And not only is the GOP not stepping up to the plate, they've got RNC head Michael Steele acting like an idiot. Even if what he says is true, what good does it do the GOP for Steele to bring it up?
|
A continuing series documenting the number of times the GOP fails to take advantage of the opportunities their opponents give them.
For example, Obama fails to attend the celebration of the collapse of the Berlin Wall... and who on the GOP rose to the podium to criticize him for having time to speak with our enemies but not for celebrating victories over Communism?
Or how about Obama making derogatory comments aimed at those protesting against Obamacare? He's gotten criticized by right-leaning bloggers, but who among the elected Republicans rose to criticize Obama? Right, no one.
Or Obama's inappropriate use of the shootings at Fort Hood to encourage Democratic Representatives to vote for Obamacare?
Or the Obama Administration's use of bogus numbers to justify its stimulus?
To quote Bob Dole, where is the outrage?
The GOP can't expect people who don't follow the minutia of politics to pick up on this stuff out of thin air, they need to jump in front of some microphones and start writing some newspaper op-eds.
To mangle a metaphor, it's as if the GOP is at bat, Obama is floating softballs down the middle of the plate and the GOP not only isn't hitting the ball out of the park, they're not even swinging.
And not only is the GOP not stepping up to the plate, they've got RNC head Michael Steele acting like an idiot. Even if what he says is true, what good does it do the GOP for Steele to bring it up?
|
Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth...
I figured the WSJ article "What's Wrong With Charitable Giving—and How to Fix It" had to be a parody or farce... but it isn't.
The author's argument is that those with money 'owe' it to the recipients (to no surprise, including organizations such as that which employ the author). He argues that charitable organizations should be forced to give away more of their resources on an annual basis, that donors are being stingy (this one alone amazes me, the claim that people donating money are stingy), that the process of doling out money should be changed to make it easier for those asking for money to ask for money, that money be given on a long term basis and to organizations which the author deems worthy.
But the fatal flaw in the author's arguments is that the money isn't his and thus it isn't up to him or other would-be recipients of charity to dictate the terms of that charity. Whether an individual giving away his or her own money or a foundation giving away money in accordance to its charter, those who have the money have the right to dictate the terms by which they give it away. If someone wants to give their money to help cause X or cause Y, it isn't for this schmuck to tell them no, they have to give it to somebody else because he deems them more worthy. If a foundation wants to give away money on an annual basis, in part because doing so allows them to monitor that it is being used in accordance with the foundation's mission, that is their prerogative.
If organizations such as that which employ the author don't like the terms by which they're being offered money, they're free to turn it down and look elsewhere for funding.... and not b***h that they're not being given enough of someone else's money.
|
I figured the WSJ article "What's Wrong With Charitable Giving—and How to Fix It" had to be a parody or farce... but it isn't.
The author's argument is that those with money 'owe' it to the recipients (to no surprise, including organizations such as that which employ the author). He argues that charitable organizations should be forced to give away more of their resources on an annual basis, that donors are being stingy (this one alone amazes me, the claim that people donating money are stingy), that the process of doling out money should be changed to make it easier for those asking for money to ask for money, that money be given on a long term basis and to organizations which the author deems worthy.
But the fatal flaw in the author's arguments is that the money isn't his and thus it isn't up to him or other would-be recipients of charity to dictate the terms of that charity. Whether an individual giving away his or her own money or a foundation giving away money in accordance to its charter, those who have the money have the right to dictate the terms by which they give it away. If someone wants to give their money to help cause X or cause Y, it isn't for this schmuck to tell them no, they have to give it to somebody else because he deems them more worthy. If a foundation wants to give away money on an annual basis, in part because doing so allows them to monitor that it is being used in accordance with the foundation's mission, that is their prerogative.
If organizations such as that which employ the author don't like the terms by which they're being offered money, they're free to turn it down and look elsewhere for funding.... and not b***h that they're not being given enough of someone else's money.
|
Isn't German Chancellor Merkel thanking Gorbachev for his part in the collapse of the Berlin Wall somewhat akin to Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo thanking Philadelphia Eagle cornerback Sheldon Brown for blowing the coverage that allowed Dallas to score the winning touchdown?
It isn't as if Gorbachev set out to preside over the dismantling of the Soviet Union, of which the collapse of the Berlin Wall was the defining image.
Gorbachev was the political equivalent of a doctor who subjected a somewhat ill patient to an experimental treatment (perestroika) that only succeeds in killing the patient... and getting thanked by those mentioned in the will.
|
It isn't as if Gorbachev set out to preside over the dismantling of the Soviet Union, of which the collapse of the Berlin Wall was the defining image.
Gorbachev was the political equivalent of a doctor who subjected a somewhat ill patient to an experimental treatment (perestroika) that only succeeds in killing the patient... and getting thanked by those mentioned in the will.
|
It will be interesting if the conservatives who called for investigating who leaked classified information on NSA interception of terrorist communications also call for an investigation into the (apparent) leak of classified information that the intelligence agencies were aware that the Fort Hood shooter had attempted to contact Al Qaeda?
|
|
Larry Johnson wasn't released by the Chiefs because of the gay slurs he allegedly made, he was released, in order, because the Chiefs suck and aren't going anywhere and because he sucks and isn't worth the money the Chiefs were otherwise obligated to pay him.
Does anybody doubt that if the Chiefs were in the hunt for the playoffs and/or Johnson was performing at 1,000 yard levels that they wouldn't have kept him?
|
Does anybody doubt that if the Chiefs were in the hunt for the playoffs and/or Johnson was performing at 1,000 yard levels that they wouldn't have kept him?
|
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Just a reminder in case anyone needs reminding...
We wouldn't be facing government takeover of health care if:
BUSH HADN'T BEEN SUCH A COMPLETE DISASTER AS PRESIDENT
and/or
MCCAIN HADN'T BEEN SUCH A COMPLETE DISASTER AS A CANDIDATE
and/or
THE CONGRESSIONAL GOP HADN'T BEEN SUCH A COMPLETE DISASTER AS THE MAJORITY
If any of the above were true, does anybody think that Obama would be President? Or is he was, that the Democrats would have the margins in Congress that they have?
I don't know how much time Bush spent thinking about his legacy. But to the extent he did, he probably would like to be remembered as the President who made us safer by bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East.
But not only did he fail to do that, his legacy should be that of having screwed things up so bad (granted, per above, not on his own) that the Democrats were given a once in a lifetime chance to wreak their agenda on the country.
|
We wouldn't be facing government takeover of health care if:
BUSH HADN'T BEEN SUCH A COMPLETE DISASTER AS PRESIDENT
and/or
MCCAIN HADN'T BEEN SUCH A COMPLETE DISASTER AS A CANDIDATE
and/or
THE CONGRESSIONAL GOP HADN'T BEEN SUCH A COMPLETE DISASTER AS THE MAJORITY
If any of the above were true, does anybody think that Obama would be President? Or is he was, that the Democrats would have the margins in Congress that they have?
I don't know how much time Bush spent thinking about his legacy. But to the extent he did, he probably would like to be remembered as the President who made us safer by bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East.
But not only did he fail to do that, his legacy should be that of having screwed things up so bad (granted, per above, not on his own) that the Democrats were given a once in a lifetime chance to wreak their agenda on the country.
|
Friday, November 06, 2009
At what point is society justified in taking action against someone who has not committed a crime?
A lot of conservative blogs are complaining (and here) that authorities did nothing about the Fort Hood shooter despite having ample evidence that "military and medical officials recognized what was going on with this major and chose to do nothing about it".
But none of his (alleged) actions amounted to a crime. It isn't a crime to be Muslim, it isn't a crime to be a soldier who is Muslim, it isn't a crime to be a soldier who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas, it isn't a crime to be a soldier who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms, it isn't a crime to be a solider who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms who posts comments on Internet message boards that are somewhat sympathetic towards suicide bombers, it isn't a crime to be a solider who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms who posts comments on Internet message boards that are somewhat sympathetic towards suicide bombers who gives away his furniture and other belongings, nor is it a crime to be a solider who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms who posts comments on Internet message boards that are somewhat sympathetic towards suicide bombers who gives away his furniture and other belongings who had received a poor performance rating at his last post.
It is possible that there is a point at which there are so many concerns that it becomes more prudent to act preemptively, but unlike the movie 'Minority Report', doing so can never be shown to be 100% justified... so where is the line drawn?
It isn't as if every soldier with the above characteristics is a terrorist waiting to strike. And it isn't as if every terrorist is going to have those characteristics.
So is it being Muslim that triggers the discharge? Being Muslim and not wanting to go overseas? Or does being Muslim have nothing to do with it, that not wanting to go overseas and spending time on the firing range will be more determinative of latent terrorists than the other characteristics attributed to the shooter?
And keeping in mind that there (thankfully) haven't been enough examples to build a statistically reliable model for predicting which soldiers are terrorists, any model is going to be based on nothing more than someone's hunch. Are we comfortable with taking action against someone based on a hunch? It's one thing to monitor someone on a hunch, it's quite another to take action against them on a feeling that something is wrong with them.
And add to this the very real issue of medical doctors who look for ways to avoid having to repay the military for having paid for their not-so-inexpensive medical education, perhaps by posing as unstable and/or a poor performer, and I think it is quite justifiable that the military was being careful before jumping to conclusions that this guy was a threat and kicking him out of the military and/or seeking to court-martial him.
|
A lot of conservative blogs are complaining (and here) that authorities did nothing about the Fort Hood shooter despite having ample evidence that "military and medical officials recognized what was going on with this major and chose to do nothing about it".
But none of his (alleged) actions amounted to a crime. It isn't a crime to be Muslim, it isn't a crime to be a soldier who is Muslim, it isn't a crime to be a soldier who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas, it isn't a crime to be a soldier who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms, it isn't a crime to be a solider who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms who posts comments on Internet message boards that are somewhat sympathetic towards suicide bombers, it isn't a crime to be a solider who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms who posts comments on Internet message boards that are somewhat sympathetic towards suicide bombers who gives away his furniture and other belongings, nor is it a crime to be a solider who is Muslim who doesn't want to be deployed overseas and spends time practicing with firearms who posts comments on Internet message boards that are somewhat sympathetic towards suicide bombers who gives away his furniture and other belongings who had received a poor performance rating at his last post.
It is possible that there is a point at which there are so many concerns that it becomes more prudent to act preemptively, but unlike the movie 'Minority Report', doing so can never be shown to be 100% justified... so where is the line drawn?
It isn't as if every soldier with the above characteristics is a terrorist waiting to strike. And it isn't as if every terrorist is going to have those characteristics.
So is it being Muslim that triggers the discharge? Being Muslim and not wanting to go overseas? Or does being Muslim have nothing to do with it, that not wanting to go overseas and spending time on the firing range will be more determinative of latent terrorists than the other characteristics attributed to the shooter?
And keeping in mind that there (thankfully) haven't been enough examples to build a statistically reliable model for predicting which soldiers are terrorists, any model is going to be based on nothing more than someone's hunch. Are we comfortable with taking action against someone based on a hunch? It's one thing to monitor someone on a hunch, it's quite another to take action against them on a feeling that something is wrong with them.
And add to this the very real issue of medical doctors who look for ways to avoid having to repay the military for having paid for their not-so-inexpensive medical education, perhaps by posing as unstable and/or a poor performer, and I think it is quite justifiable that the military was being careful before jumping to conclusions that this guy was a threat and kicking him out of the military and/or seeking to court-martial him.
|
Thursday, November 05, 2009
One often solves multi-variable algebra equations (such as 3X + Y = 27) by first rephrasing one of the variables in terms of the other and inserting it into the equation (not sure I'm describing it well but please bear with me).
And this approach can work elsewhere as well.
Take for example the Wall Street Journal editorial headline "Voters fear that liberal policies are endangering economic recovery.
Now replace 'liberal policies' with 'take from me to give to others'
and replace 'economic recovery' with 'my job security, health care and retirement prospects'
and you have "Voters fear taking from me to give to others are endangering my job security, health care and retirement prospects"... in other words, a apt description of what is happening across the country... and as such, voters aren't going to be too happy with those who are proposing to do just that.
I've argued before that most people are willing to help others... but only to the extent doing so doesn't involve too great a sacrifice (obvious exceptions include the military and police). Put another way, charity is a luxury, something that is indulged only after the basic necessities are taken care of. While someone may do without steak, very few people will agree to go to go without food so someone they're not related to can eat. Very few people will willingly give up a portion of their paycheck to save the job of someone else. Yes, there's a degree of selfishness involved, in that people look to take care of themselves before they help someone else, but it's also basic human nature.
And liberal policies are viewed by most people as benefiting someone other than themselves. People don't view welfare programs and subsidized housing as something that benefits them, they (and rightly so, based on the numbers, there are fewer people on welfare and receiving subsidized housing than those who don't) view these programs as helping someone else. Card check union organizing? Doesn't help me. Providing health care to those without coverage? Ditto, it benefits someone else, not me. Pushing banks to loan money to people with bad credit ratings and/or no real income? Not me, I have a job and decent credit. In fact, I'm not sure of a single liberal program that benefits the majority of people in this country. Social Security? Nope, most people aren't getting checks. Medicare? Medicaid? Sorry, no. Minimum wage laws? Not even close.
And right now, an awful lot of the public doesn't feel their basic necessities are being taken care of. And of these people, those who look to the government to take care of them (example: the woman in the Obama video who said something along the lines of that Obama was going to take care of her mortgage) are going to have no problem with what Obama is doing. But for everybody else, who either doesn't look to the government or would but has no confidence the government is up to the task), they're feeling mighty vulnerable... and people who are worried about having a job, having to face higher health care premiums, a house that has dropped in value and a 401(k) that isn't going to let them retire on a beach aren't much in the mood to support policies that amount to taking even more money out of their pocket to give to someone - and less deserving - else.
And voters view conservative policies as 'taking care of me before I take care of someone else'. It's the safe harbor one turns to in times of uncertainty. When one doesn't feel safe, you lock up the criminals, you don't run the risk of rehabilitation gone wrong. And when one isn't sure there is going to be a job, let alone a raise, that's when they become a bit more reluctant to see their taxes go up. When their businesses are facing layoffs, they're not excited about higher corporate taxes and regulations that make it layoffs even more likely.
This isn't to say that there aren't 'compassionate conservatives' or people who claim to be liberals who first look out for themselves, I'm commenting on the way the public defines 'liberal policies' and 'conservative policies'.
So, you ask, how did liberal Obama win last year with all of the uncertainty going on? Doesn't his election disprove your theory? Well, I respond, it's not theory, it's proven fact. And remember Obama did a heck of job (along with his sycophantic media friends) of hiding his liberal views, he painted himself as 'post-partisan', the public didn't consider themselves as voting for a liberal (and as a side note, didn't most of the Democrats who took GOP seats describe themselves as somewhat conservative?.
And just as nature abhors a vacuum, even in troubled times, if no one represents the conservative viewpoint, then the public isn't going to turn to what isn't there, and McCain certainly didn't paint himself as the safe harbor conservative people wanted. McCain not only ran as the non-conservative conservative, a position that appealed to few people, he did a terrible job of it.
Ta da.
|
And this approach can work elsewhere as well.
Take for example the Wall Street Journal editorial headline "Voters fear that liberal policies are endangering economic recovery.
Now replace 'liberal policies' with 'take from me to give to others'
and replace 'economic recovery' with 'my job security, health care and retirement prospects'
and you have "Voters fear taking from me to give to others are endangering my job security, health care and retirement prospects"... in other words, a apt description of what is happening across the country... and as such, voters aren't going to be too happy with those who are proposing to do just that.
I've argued before that most people are willing to help others... but only to the extent doing so doesn't involve too great a sacrifice (obvious exceptions include the military and police). Put another way, charity is a luxury, something that is indulged only after the basic necessities are taken care of. While someone may do without steak, very few people will agree to go to go without food so someone they're not related to can eat. Very few people will willingly give up a portion of their paycheck to save the job of someone else. Yes, there's a degree of selfishness involved, in that people look to take care of themselves before they help someone else, but it's also basic human nature.
And liberal policies are viewed by most people as benefiting someone other than themselves. People don't view welfare programs and subsidized housing as something that benefits them, they (and rightly so, based on the numbers, there are fewer people on welfare and receiving subsidized housing than those who don't) view these programs as helping someone else. Card check union organizing? Doesn't help me. Providing health care to those without coverage? Ditto, it benefits someone else, not me. Pushing banks to loan money to people with bad credit ratings and/or no real income? Not me, I have a job and decent credit. In fact, I'm not sure of a single liberal program that benefits the majority of people in this country. Social Security? Nope, most people aren't getting checks. Medicare? Medicaid? Sorry, no. Minimum wage laws? Not even close.
And right now, an awful lot of the public doesn't feel their basic necessities are being taken care of. And of these people, those who look to the government to take care of them (example: the woman in the Obama video who said something along the lines of that Obama was going to take care of her mortgage) are going to have no problem with what Obama is doing. But for everybody else, who either doesn't look to the government or would but has no confidence the government is up to the task), they're feeling mighty vulnerable... and people who are worried about having a job, having to face higher health care premiums, a house that has dropped in value and a 401(k) that isn't going to let them retire on a beach aren't much in the mood to support policies that amount to taking even more money out of their pocket to give to someone - and less deserving - else.
And voters view conservative policies as 'taking care of me before I take care of someone else'. It's the safe harbor one turns to in times of uncertainty. When one doesn't feel safe, you lock up the criminals, you don't run the risk of rehabilitation gone wrong. And when one isn't sure there is going to be a job, let alone a raise, that's when they become a bit more reluctant to see their taxes go up. When their businesses are facing layoffs, they're not excited about higher corporate taxes and regulations that make it layoffs even more likely.
This isn't to say that there aren't 'compassionate conservatives' or people who claim to be liberals who first look out for themselves, I'm commenting on the way the public defines 'liberal policies' and 'conservative policies'.
So, you ask, how did liberal Obama win last year with all of the uncertainty going on? Doesn't his election disprove your theory? Well, I respond, it's not theory, it's proven fact. And remember Obama did a heck of job (along with his sycophantic media friends) of hiding his liberal views, he painted himself as 'post-partisan', the public didn't consider themselves as voting for a liberal (and as a side note, didn't most of the Democrats who took GOP seats describe themselves as somewhat conservative?.
And just as nature abhors a vacuum, even in troubled times, if no one represents the conservative viewpoint, then the public isn't going to turn to what isn't there, and McCain certainly didn't paint himself as the safe harbor conservative people wanted. McCain not only ran as the non-conservative conservative, a position that appealed to few people, he did a terrible job of it.
Ta da.
|
If taxes were a big deal in both the Virginia and New Jersey races for governor, considering that state taxes are usually lower than federal (income and payroll) taxes), wouldn't it stand to reason that taxes (and, in particular, raising them) would be an even bigger issue on the national stage?
A 10% hike in state income taxes or a similar boost in the state sales tax is going to hurt a whole lot less than a 10% in federal income taxes.
|
A 10% hike in state income taxes or a similar boost in the state sales tax is going to hurt a whole lot less than a 10% in federal income taxes.
|
I don't think health insurance companies should be forced to cover pre-existing conditions... or, more to the point, I don't think people with insurance should have their premiums raised to provide medical coverage for pre-existing conditions.
If our elected representatives want to provide medical care to people with pre-existing conditions who don't have the money to pay for that care themselves, then they ought to acknowledge this and write the check directly.
But if our elected representatives want to provide this coverage, it is inconsistent to, as is being proposed, delay coverage for six months.
If Congress says it isn't right that people with pre-existing conditions can't get someone else to cover most of the cost of treating those conditions... doesn't Congress have the obligation to pay for that treatment from Day One? What rationale justifies saying to someone 'yes, you shouldn't have to pay for that treatment yourself, but we're not going to start paying for six months?'.
And it doesn't make medical sense either. Delaying coverage for six months will only lead to people holding off on getting care during the gap... which will lead to people needing more care once they get coverage. If keeping people from getting sick and needing care is a key component to reducing health care outlays, how does encouraging someone to do without treatment for six months going to help?
|
If our elected representatives want to provide medical care to people with pre-existing conditions who don't have the money to pay for that care themselves, then they ought to acknowledge this and write the check directly.
But if our elected representatives want to provide this coverage, it is inconsistent to, as is being proposed, delay coverage for six months.
If Congress says it isn't right that people with pre-existing conditions can't get someone else to cover most of the cost of treating those conditions... doesn't Congress have the obligation to pay for that treatment from Day One? What rationale justifies saying to someone 'yes, you shouldn't have to pay for that treatment yourself, but we're not going to start paying for six months?'.
And it doesn't make medical sense either. Delaying coverage for six months will only lead to people holding off on getting care during the gap... which will lead to people needing more care once they get coverage. If keeping people from getting sick and needing care is a key component to reducing health care outlays, how does encouraging someone to do without treatment for six months going to help?
|
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
You can run but you can't hide.... no, that doesn't quite work to describe why White House efforts to distance themselves from yesterday's vote isn't going to work.
Voters will decide whether the losses were because of Obama, despite Obama or had nothing to do with Obama, but they're going to decide on their own and not merely follow the story line pushed by the Obama Administration... or, for that matter, spin pushed by jubilant Republicans.
Nor, for that matter, are voters going to blindly accept Michael Steele's
pronouncement that 'voters rejected Obama's policies'.
|
Voters will decide whether the losses were because of Obama, despite Obama or had nothing to do with Obama, but they're going to decide on their own and not merely follow the story line pushed by the Obama Administration... or, for that matter, spin pushed by jubilant Republicans.
Nor, for that matter, are voters going to blindly accept Michael Steele's
pronouncement that 'voters rejected Obama's policies'.
|
Lessons from yesterday:
Sarah Palin excites hard conservatives but does no good with anybody else. She probably alienates the moderate voters whose support the GOP needs.
A public fight within the GOP may be good for Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's ratings, but it doesn't help get GOP - or conservative - candidates elected. Such fights only reinforce the mushy middle's fear that conservative candidates do not represent their interests.
McDonnell's victory shows a conservative can win... but by emphasizing conservative issues that resonate with the moderates (such as taxes and government spending) and not the issues that excite conservatives but scare the moderates (such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.). A note: the last GOP governor in Virginia, Jim Gilmore, won by running on a very explicit anti-tax platform.
The results should be a nail in the coffin that claimed the 2008 results were an endorsement of liberal policies and candidates and a repudiation of all things Republican and conservative. Obama's win, as well as that of the other Democrats who unseated GOP incumbents, was due more to voter antipathy towards Bush and incumbents in general than it was due to a seismic shift in voter philosophy. The vote wasn't a repudiation of Obama specifically, but it was a rejection that conservatism is dead or that the voters have bought into a big government, big spending model.
The results should also shut up those conservatives who argue that targeting conservatives is the key to victory. Granted, GOP candidates can't win without conservatives showing up to vote, but that isn't enough, neither McDonnell nor Christie would have won if they didn't capture the majority of self-described independent voters... and as I wrote above, the key to these voters is to focus on what they want to hear, not what the conservatives want to tell them.
A nod to the non-barking dog: what wasn't present during this campaign were Republicans caught up in scandal or exhibiting extreme incompetence (I'm excluding Scozzafava on this one). There weren't any GOP representatives caught texting inappropriate messages to teens. There wasn't a Bush mangling the aftermath of a natural disaster. There weren't any GOP candidates caught being unfaithful to their wives (Sanford happened too long ago to have an impact during this cycle). Granted, politics is local, but it sure helps GOP candidates if their fellow Republicans can keep from making a***s of themselves. And neither were there any GOP candidates or other officeholders scaring voters with racially insensitive comments or taking controversial stances on hot-button issues. There weren't any GOP figures off making waves on immigration or proposing to outlaw abortion or demanding that every schoolkid be forced to memorize the Bible or stuff like that. The mushy middle doesn't identify themselves as Republicans because they don't want to 'tarnish' themselves by being too closely affiliated with those they consider wacko... and the less airtime the wackos get, the easier it is to convince these moderates to vote for Republicans.
Those are the lessons I think were taught yesterday. Of course, everybody will read into yesterday what they want to see. Palin supporters will claim her support helped Doug Hoffman more than it hurt... but it's hard to argue with the statistics that had him coming in second. Obama supporters will claim yesterday was a bunch of one-off local events, with no significance to the national stage.
One outcome I am pretty confident of (and depressed about at the same time): yesterday's results are confirmation of the polls that indicate a majority of the public doesn't approve of what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do. Up to yesterday, Obama and the Democrats have tried to ignore the polls showing opposition to their health care reform and their environmental policies and their spending and stimulus plans, claiming that the polls didn't accurately reflect the mood of the people. But it's hard to argue with election results. And while they'll try to claim (see above) that yesterday's results don't mean anything to the Democratic agenda, they're going to find it harder to deny that their policies run counter to what the public wants.
But rather than tailor back their platform, I believe they're going to double down and push even harder. Most of the Democrats are in safe seats, they fear having to face an even more liberal in the primary than they fear their GOP challenger. Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election for another three years. So while they figure some of their colleagues may take a hit next fall (still a long way off), they know they'll never again have the numbers with which to force through their agenda.
Thankfully, there is no way to analyze yesterday's results and conclude the public disapproved of Republican opposition to Obama... so any fear that the GOP might have had of being seen on the wrong end of the issues ought to have dissipated.... giving them the excuse to stand together in opposition to Obama... and while GOP opposition by itself isn't enough, it is enough to deny any vulnerable Democrats the safety of claiming their support of Obama had bi-partisan backing. The key to defeating Obama's agenda was always in the hands of the not-so-liberal Democrats on the Hill... and I doubt that many of them slept soundly last night.
|
Sarah Palin excites hard conservatives but does no good with anybody else. She probably alienates the moderate voters whose support the GOP needs.
A public fight within the GOP may be good for Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's ratings, but it doesn't help get GOP - or conservative - candidates elected. Such fights only reinforce the mushy middle's fear that conservative candidates do not represent their interests.
McDonnell's victory shows a conservative can win... but by emphasizing conservative issues that resonate with the moderates (such as taxes and government spending) and not the issues that excite conservatives but scare the moderates (such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.). A note: the last GOP governor in Virginia, Jim Gilmore, won by running on a very explicit anti-tax platform.
The results should be a nail in the coffin that claimed the 2008 results were an endorsement of liberal policies and candidates and a repudiation of all things Republican and conservative. Obama's win, as well as that of the other Democrats who unseated GOP incumbents, was due more to voter antipathy towards Bush and incumbents in general than it was due to a seismic shift in voter philosophy. The vote wasn't a repudiation of Obama specifically, but it was a rejection that conservatism is dead or that the voters have bought into a big government, big spending model.
The results should also shut up those conservatives who argue that targeting conservatives is the key to victory. Granted, GOP candidates can't win without conservatives showing up to vote, but that isn't enough, neither McDonnell nor Christie would have won if they didn't capture the majority of self-described independent voters... and as I wrote above, the key to these voters is to focus on what they want to hear, not what the conservatives want to tell them.
A nod to the non-barking dog: what wasn't present during this campaign were Republicans caught up in scandal or exhibiting extreme incompetence (I'm excluding Scozzafava on this one). There weren't any GOP representatives caught texting inappropriate messages to teens. There wasn't a Bush mangling the aftermath of a natural disaster. There weren't any GOP candidates caught being unfaithful to their wives (Sanford happened too long ago to have an impact during this cycle). Granted, politics is local, but it sure helps GOP candidates if their fellow Republicans can keep from making a***s of themselves. And neither were there any GOP candidates or other officeholders scaring voters with racially insensitive comments or taking controversial stances on hot-button issues. There weren't any GOP figures off making waves on immigration or proposing to outlaw abortion or demanding that every schoolkid be forced to memorize the Bible or stuff like that. The mushy middle doesn't identify themselves as Republicans because they don't want to 'tarnish' themselves by being too closely affiliated with those they consider wacko... and the less airtime the wackos get, the easier it is to convince these moderates to vote for Republicans.
Those are the lessons I think were taught yesterday. Of course, everybody will read into yesterday what they want to see. Palin supporters will claim her support helped Doug Hoffman more than it hurt... but it's hard to argue with the statistics that had him coming in second. Obama supporters will claim yesterday was a bunch of one-off local events, with no significance to the national stage.
One outcome I am pretty confident of (and depressed about at the same time): yesterday's results are confirmation of the polls that indicate a majority of the public doesn't approve of what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do. Up to yesterday, Obama and the Democrats have tried to ignore the polls showing opposition to their health care reform and their environmental policies and their spending and stimulus plans, claiming that the polls didn't accurately reflect the mood of the people. But it's hard to argue with election results. And while they'll try to claim (see above) that yesterday's results don't mean anything to the Democratic agenda, they're going to find it harder to deny that their policies run counter to what the public wants.
But rather than tailor back their platform, I believe they're going to double down and push even harder. Most of the Democrats are in safe seats, they fear having to face an even more liberal in the primary than they fear their GOP challenger. Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election for another three years. So while they figure some of their colleagues may take a hit next fall (still a long way off), they know they'll never again have the numbers with which to force through their agenda.
Thankfully, there is no way to analyze yesterday's results and conclude the public disapproved of Republican opposition to Obama... so any fear that the GOP might have had of being seen on the wrong end of the issues ought to have dissipated.... giving them the excuse to stand together in opposition to Obama... and while GOP opposition by itself isn't enough, it is enough to deny any vulnerable Democrats the safety of claiming their support of Obama had bi-partisan backing. The key to defeating Obama's agenda was always in the hands of the not-so-liberal Democrats on the Hill... and I doubt that many of them slept soundly last night.
|
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
The lesson from the NY23 race is NOT that the GOP should nominate only conservatives but rather that there is no need for the GOP to nominate a liberal Republican in districts where there is sufficient support for a conservative nominee to win. But where there isn't enough support, nominating conservative candidates is political suicide.
And the lesson from the Virginia Governor's race is NOT that it is enough to nominate conservative candidates but rather that conservative candidates need to keep from scaring off the moderate voters whose votes are needed. McDonnell is definitely a conservative but he campaigned on issues that not only didn't scare off moderate voters but actually resonated with them.
|
And the lesson from the Virginia Governor's race is NOT that it is enough to nominate conservative candidates but rather that conservative candidates need to keep from scaring off the moderate voters whose votes are needed. McDonnell is definitely a conservative but he campaigned on issues that not only didn't scare off moderate voters but actually resonated with them.
|
It's never government spending that is the problem, it's always a 'lack of revenue'...
The DC area subway system is short of money and the Washington Post dutifully reports that a falloff in subway riders is responsible. Instead of a 3% jump in ridership, due to the recession and the aftermath of a subway crash earlier this year, actual ridership has fallen 6%.
Of course, if the Metro system hadn't based their spending plans on a 'I have a dream of more riders', and instead had set spending levels on a more conservative estimate of ridership, they wouldn't be facing a cash shortage. Or if they had not figured on spending ALL of the revenue they hoped to get and instead had given themselves a cushion, then they wouldn't be facing a cash shortage.
Normally, I don't like it when governments look to raise taxes and fees when they run short of money, but since subway riders pay but a fraction of the true cost of their rides, I have no problem with raising fares.
But that alone isn't going to solve Metro's cash problems, they're not planning on raising fares enough to cover the shortfall. It would be nice if they took a knife and cut some spending, but that just isn't in the DNA of a government bureaucrat.
|
The DC area subway system is short of money and the Washington Post dutifully reports that a falloff in subway riders is responsible. Instead of a 3% jump in ridership, due to the recession and the aftermath of a subway crash earlier this year, actual ridership has fallen 6%.
Of course, if the Metro system hadn't based their spending plans on a 'I have a dream of more riders', and instead had set spending levels on a more conservative estimate of ridership, they wouldn't be facing a cash shortage. Or if they had not figured on spending ALL of the revenue they hoped to get and instead had given themselves a cushion, then they wouldn't be facing a cash shortage.
Normally, I don't like it when governments look to raise taxes and fees when they run short of money, but since subway riders pay but a fraction of the true cost of their rides, I have no problem with raising fares.
But that alone isn't going to solve Metro's cash problems, they're not planning on raising fares enough to cover the shortfall. It would be nice if they took a knife and cut some spending, but that just isn't in the DNA of a government bureaucrat.
|
Monday, November 02, 2009
Trading on insider information is basically illegal... but where is the harm that justifies calling the foul?
Let's look at two ways in which an 'insider' takes advantage of their inside information: someone with inside information buys stock in advance of the release of good news and someone with inside information sells stock in advance of the release of bad news.
In both cases, the 'insider' gets a better price than they would had they not acted until the information become public knowledge. In the former, the insider gets to buy at a lower price, for the latter, they get to sell at a higher price. The insider certainly benefits, but who gets hurt? As counter intuitive as it might seem as the markets are often thought of as a zero sum game (in which one's gain has to be offset by someone else's loss) , just because someone benefits doesn't mean that someone else suffered.
Let's start with the insider who buys in advance of the release of good news that will drive the stock price higher. They're buying from someone who wants to sell and at a price the seller is willing to accept. The seller is not being forced to sell, nor is the seller being forced to sell at a lower price than they want, the seller is putting in his sell order at the then-current price and taking his cash to do with whatever they want. They're getting what they wanted, so how are they being hurt?
Sure, they're not going to reap the benefit of the good news, but they weren't planning on holding the stock anyway. They're losing out because the good news hasn't been made public, but they're not losing because someone else was buying on the basis of that news. In fact, the seller may actually benefit from the insider buying stock as, were that buyer not buying stock, the selling price of those shares might actually be even lower (it would depend on the amount of stock being purchased and whether it was enough to 'move' the markets, but in no case, would someone buying stock put downward pressure on a stock price).
Now let's look at the insider who sells in advance of bad news. This situation is almost a perfect mirror of the above example. The insider is selling stock to a willing buyer at the price the buyer is willing to pay. The buyer isn't paying any more than he wants to pay, he's not being forced to buy stock he doesn't want to buy. As with the above, the buyer is hurt because he doesn't know of the bad news, but he're not being hurt because an insider is selling. And as with the above, the buyer may actually be getting a better price than he would otherwise have to pay as the insider selling stock puts some downward pressure on the stock price; absent the insider selling, the asking price for those shares might be a tick higher.
So I don't see where insider trading harms the 'innocent' buyers and sellers. Anyone want to enlighten me?
|
Let's look at two ways in which an 'insider' takes advantage of their inside information: someone with inside information buys stock in advance of the release of good news and someone with inside information sells stock in advance of the release of bad news.
In both cases, the 'insider' gets a better price than they would had they not acted until the information become public knowledge. In the former, the insider gets to buy at a lower price, for the latter, they get to sell at a higher price. The insider certainly benefits, but who gets hurt? As counter intuitive as it might seem as the markets are often thought of as a zero sum game (in which one's gain has to be offset by someone else's loss) , just because someone benefits doesn't mean that someone else suffered.
Let's start with the insider who buys in advance of the release of good news that will drive the stock price higher. They're buying from someone who wants to sell and at a price the seller is willing to accept. The seller is not being forced to sell, nor is the seller being forced to sell at a lower price than they want, the seller is putting in his sell order at the then-current price and taking his cash to do with whatever they want. They're getting what they wanted, so how are they being hurt?
Sure, they're not going to reap the benefit of the good news, but they weren't planning on holding the stock anyway. They're losing out because the good news hasn't been made public, but they're not losing because someone else was buying on the basis of that news. In fact, the seller may actually benefit from the insider buying stock as, were that buyer not buying stock, the selling price of those shares might actually be even lower (it would depend on the amount of stock being purchased and whether it was enough to 'move' the markets, but in no case, would someone buying stock put downward pressure on a stock price).
Now let's look at the insider who sells in advance of bad news. This situation is almost a perfect mirror of the above example. The insider is selling stock to a willing buyer at the price the buyer is willing to pay. The buyer isn't paying any more than he wants to pay, he's not being forced to buy stock he doesn't want to buy. As with the above, the buyer is hurt because he doesn't know of the bad news, but he're not being hurt because an insider is selling. And as with the above, the buyer may actually be getting a better price than he would otherwise have to pay as the insider selling stock puts some downward pressure on the stock price; absent the insider selling, the asking price for those shares might be a tick higher.
So I don't see where insider trading harms the 'innocent' buyers and sellers. Anyone want to enlighten me?
|
Who else is old enough to remember when Newt Gingrich was leading the charge against the GOP establishment? When he blasted then-minority leader Bob Michel for being too cozy with the Democrats? When there was no way he'd support a candidate as liberal as Dede Scozzafava?
And now he's become the establishment, encouraging voters to support candidates not on the basis of their views but rather because they have an (R) next to their name.
|
And now he's become the establishment, encouraging voters to support candidates not on the basis of their views but rather because they have an (R) next to their name.
|
Sunday, November 01, 2009
What does it mean for a candidate to be endorsed by a union of government workers?
In pretty much all cases, it means that the candidate is the candidate who is most in favor of raising taxes, expanding the size of the government work force and diminishing any effective public control over the activities of the particular union.
In other words, a union endorsement ought to serve as a call for conservative and moderate voters to vote for the other candidate.
Government workers can be divided into four groups: police, fire, teachers and everybody else. Each group is primarily concerned with whether a candidate is going to support increasing the size of their workforce and giving raises to their members. If the candidate is, they get the endorsement.
There are some side issues. The police endorsement may hinge in part on whether a particular candidate has a history of demonizing the police. The teachers dislike candidates who dare to interfere in the curriculum.
But it almost always comes down to which candidate is more willing to throw money at the public workers.
Of course, the union never describes it as such. They always claim the candidate they endorse is, for example, 'the best for the kids'.
But anyone who believes that teachers are more interested in the kids they teach than in their own wallets is also apt to buy beachfront property in Arizona and bridges in Brooklyn. The same for anyone who thinks government clerks and bureaucrats are really interested in providing as much public service as can for as little money as possible.
Doubt it? Imagine there was a pill that would immediately bestow someone with all the knowledge they would gain from 12 years of public school. Do you think the teachers would be in favor? Or a pill that eliminated all crime and, with it, the need for a police department? How many police officers, for all of their talk about wanting to 'protect and serve' the public, would be supportive.. compared to the number who would do away with the pill in order to keep their jobs? Or if there existed a pocket sized fire extinguisher that could put out a ten-alarm fire? I imagine there would be a few firemen willing to break a few laws in order to make sure that device never made it to market.
For all their talk, the public is way down on their list of concerns. Not surprisingly, they care less about us than they care about their own paychecks, their own pensions and their ability to go about their day with as little interference from outsiders as possible.
So when I hear a candidate brag about their having been endorsed by a public workers union, I hear a candidate telling me they are putting the interests of public workers ahead of my interests. In other words, I hear them telling me to vote for the other candidate.
|
In pretty much all cases, it means that the candidate is the candidate who is most in favor of raising taxes, expanding the size of the government work force and diminishing any effective public control over the activities of the particular union.
In other words, a union endorsement ought to serve as a call for conservative and moderate voters to vote for the other candidate.
Government workers can be divided into four groups: police, fire, teachers and everybody else. Each group is primarily concerned with whether a candidate is going to support increasing the size of their workforce and giving raises to their members. If the candidate is, they get the endorsement.
There are some side issues. The police endorsement may hinge in part on whether a particular candidate has a history of demonizing the police. The teachers dislike candidates who dare to interfere in the curriculum.
But it almost always comes down to which candidate is more willing to throw money at the public workers.
Of course, the union never describes it as such. They always claim the candidate they endorse is, for example, 'the best for the kids'.
But anyone who believes that teachers are more interested in the kids they teach than in their own wallets is also apt to buy beachfront property in Arizona and bridges in Brooklyn. The same for anyone who thinks government clerks and bureaucrats are really interested in providing as much public service as can for as little money as possible.
Doubt it? Imagine there was a pill that would immediately bestow someone with all the knowledge they would gain from 12 years of public school. Do you think the teachers would be in favor? Or a pill that eliminated all crime and, with it, the need for a police department? How many police officers, for all of their talk about wanting to 'protect and serve' the public, would be supportive.. compared to the number who would do away with the pill in order to keep their jobs? Or if there existed a pocket sized fire extinguisher that could put out a ten-alarm fire? I imagine there would be a few firemen willing to break a few laws in order to make sure that device never made it to market.
For all their talk, the public is way down on their list of concerns. Not surprisingly, they care less about us than they care about their own paychecks, their own pensions and their ability to go about their day with as little interference from outsiders as possible.
So when I hear a candidate brag about their having been endorsed by a public workers union, I hear a candidate telling me they are putting the interests of public workers ahead of my interests. In other words, I hear them telling me to vote for the other candidate.
|
Democrats decry the claim that their health care plans would result in government rationing of health care, and they're particularly upset over the suggestion that 'death panels' would deny care to the chronically sick and the elderly.
But why should the public believe them, especially in the rationale they're using to limit the use of flex health spending accounts because, in part, "... it would help curb overuse of medical care" and that such plans create "an incentive for people to spend all the money even if they don't have pressing needs" (My italics).
Isn't that the exact thing critics are worried about, that government will use its power to decide what is and what isn't 'pressing needs' and to limit access to care for anything they decide isn't that important?
Of course, the Democrats could simply remove the requirement that health spending account money be spent within a designated period, thus removing the need to spend money on care that they don't think is so pressing... but that wouldn't raise any tax revenue, would it?
|
But why should the public believe them, especially in the rationale they're using to limit the use of flex health spending accounts because, in part, "... it would help curb overuse of medical care" and that such plans create "an incentive for people to spend all the money even if they don't have pressing needs" (My italics).
Isn't that the exact thing critics are worried about, that government will use its power to decide what is and what isn't 'pressing needs' and to limit access to care for anything they decide isn't that important?
Of course, the Democrats could simply remove the requirement that health spending account money be spent within a designated period, thus removing the need to spend money on care that they don't think is so pressing... but that wouldn't raise any tax revenue, would it?
|