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}
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
While fewer people getting laid off is welcome news, repeat after me, IT IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT! And it is NOT A SIGN OF RECOVERY!
An improvement is when more people find jobs than lose them. A sign of recovery is net hiring instead of net reductions in staff.
Analogy: you have a 101 degree temperature. An hour later, it's at 101. An hour after that, 102. An hour after that, 102.5. Are you recovering? Or are you getting more sick, albeit at a slower rate? You ain't getting better until your temperature starts to drop.
And the economy isn't there yet, we are still shedding more jobs than we're adding.
|
An improvement is when more people find jobs than lose them. A sign of recovery is net hiring instead of net reductions in staff.
Analogy: you have a 101 degree temperature. An hour later, it's at 101. An hour after that, 102. An hour after that, 102.5. Are you recovering? Or are you getting more sick, albeit at a slower rate? You ain't getting better until your temperature starts to drop.
And the economy isn't there yet, we are still shedding more jobs than we're adding.
|
Yeah, with all that is going right in the world, the State Department ought to be spending time and effort and money decorating the State Department building and the Blair House for the holidays. I'm sure that will win the 'hearts and minds' of people around the world.
|
|
I hate that the rules prevent Navy Seals from punching a terrorist in the mouth. I think getting punched in the mouth is the minimum a terrorist responsible for killing Americans ought to receive upon being captured.
But I also don't like it when soldiers/sailors/airmen ignore the rules and if they are found to have violated those rules they deserve to be punished.
For better or worse - and in my opinion, it is usually for the worse - the men in the field don't get to establish the rules by which they fight our enemies. I hate it that our guys are put in greater risk because of rules that limit their ability to fight back.
But these guys know the rules when they signed up. They agreed to follow the orders they are given. Subordinates aren't allowed to pick and choose which orders they want to follow and which they don't. They either follow the rules or they get out or they get punished.
|
But I also don't like it when soldiers/sailors/airmen ignore the rules and if they are found to have violated those rules they deserve to be punished.
For better or worse - and in my opinion, it is usually for the worse - the men in the field don't get to establish the rules by which they fight our enemies. I hate it that our guys are put in greater risk because of rules that limit their ability to fight back.
But these guys know the rules when they signed up. They agreed to follow the orders they are given. Subordinates aren't allowed to pick and choose which orders they want to follow and which they don't. They either follow the rules or they get out or they get punished.
|
Monday, November 23, 2009
Might be interesting to see the impact the Fort Hood killer's possible insanity defense will go over with the crazies who got all excited over his killing 13 people. By extension, if he's motivated by Islamic fanaticism and he's deemed crazy, what does it say about all the others just like him?
|
|
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Regarding the Democrats 'bribing' Senators to support Obamacare...
Pre-bribe, there are two positions a Senator can have: the legislation is good or it is bad. The question is whether the 'bribe' is sufficient to take a bad bill and turn it into a good bill.
I doubt that $300 million in 'bribes' is sufficient to turn a bad bill into a good bill for the people of Louisiana... thus, Landrieu accepting - and bragging about accepting - a 'bribe' of that size to vote for the bill still screws Louisiana residents, albeit $400 million less screwed than would have been the case. (Yes, technically the vote was only to start debate on the bill, but as the 'bribe' is only paid if the bill passes, so I look at Landrieu as having committed to voting for the bill itself).
Now if Landrieu had concluded the bill was good, then she has enhanced a good bill to the tune of $300 million, a definite home run for her state. But given that she claimed to be undecided up to the last minute, it would be hard to argue that she had all along intended to vote for the bill.
There is one twist: the bill is bad but Landrieu figured it would pass anyway so this was her way of getting something out of it for Louisiana. Unfortunately for this argument, her vote would have kept the bill from being passed so it's hard for her to argue that bill supporters had more than enough votes. And the fact that they had to offer up a $300 million 'bribe' is proof they didn't have the vote: why give away money if they didn't need to?
Hopefully, Louisiana residents will see past her focus on the $300 million she 'found' for the state to the overall negatives that this bill has for them.
|
Pre-bribe, there are two positions a Senator can have: the legislation is good or it is bad. The question is whether the 'bribe' is sufficient to take a bad bill and turn it into a good bill.
I doubt that $300 million in 'bribes' is sufficient to turn a bad bill into a good bill for the people of Louisiana... thus, Landrieu accepting - and bragging about accepting - a 'bribe' of that size to vote for the bill still screws Louisiana residents, albeit $400 million less screwed than would have been the case. (Yes, technically the vote was only to start debate on the bill, but as the 'bribe' is only paid if the bill passes, so I look at Landrieu as having committed to voting for the bill itself).
Now if Landrieu had concluded the bill was good, then she has enhanced a good bill to the tune of $300 million, a definite home run for her state. But given that she claimed to be undecided up to the last minute, it would be hard to argue that she had all along intended to vote for the bill.
There is one twist: the bill is bad but Landrieu figured it would pass anyway so this was her way of getting something out of it for Louisiana. Unfortunately for this argument, her vote would have kept the bill from being passed so it's hard for her to argue that bill supporters had more than enough votes. And the fact that they had to offer up a $300 million 'bribe' is proof they didn't have the vote: why give away money if they didn't need to?
Hopefully, Louisiana residents will see past her focus on the $300 million she 'found' for the state to the overall negatives that this bill has for them.
|
Thursday, November 19, 2009
I know how betrayed and disappointed I was when Bush turned out to be nothing like the President I thought he was going to be. Instead of getting a President who would watch the budget and limit government spending, who wouldn't engage in nation building, who would be a somewhat effective defender of conservative principles and who leave the GOP in no worse shape than he found it, we ended up with a guy who blew the budget, let spending spiral, did nothing while the economy collapsed, embarked on a stupid plan to force democracy on the Middle East, a waste of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and set the stage for the Democrats to take control of Washington. Bush was so bad that at times I really wondered if we wouldn't have been better off if either Gore or Kerry had won. And when he left office, my thoughts ran more to 'good riddance' than 'sorry to see you go'.
I wonder if Obama's supporters - and in particular, the independents whose support put him over the top - are starting to feel the same way about Obama. No matter how much he tries to blame Bush, they know the economy is worse off now than it was when Obama was elected and worse than the day he took office, they know employers have dumped millions of jobs. While they might have liked the abstract of a President who was less arrogant towards the rest of the world, I wonder if they really are all that excited watching Obama bow and apologize to the world. I wonder how safer they feel with Obama deciding to hold the terror trials in NYC rather than in the relative safety and obscurity of Guantanamo Bay, with Justice Department policy being set by lawyers who not too long ago were volunteering to work on behalf of our terrorist enemies. I wonder if they like that their health insurance is going to cost them more and cover less. I wonder how they feel about the all but certain likelihood that their taxes will be going up at the same time the value of their house keeps going down.
If I were an independent who had voted for Obama, I can't imagine the scenario in which I would be impressed with the job he has done. I can't imagine them telling themselves they're better off now than on the day he took office. Like me, they're probably glad Bush is gone but completely disillusioned with what Obama is doing. And unlike me, having voted for Obama, I wonder the extent to which they're feeling betrayed and stupid for having fallen for the hype. Maybe they're not at the point where they wish they had voted for McCain but I wonder how far away from that thought they really are...
|
I wonder if Obama's supporters - and in particular, the independents whose support put him over the top - are starting to feel the same way about Obama. No matter how much he tries to blame Bush, they know the economy is worse off now than it was when Obama was elected and worse than the day he took office, they know employers have dumped millions of jobs. While they might have liked the abstract of a President who was less arrogant towards the rest of the world, I wonder if they really are all that excited watching Obama bow and apologize to the world. I wonder how safer they feel with Obama deciding to hold the terror trials in NYC rather than in the relative safety and obscurity of Guantanamo Bay, with Justice Department policy being set by lawyers who not too long ago were volunteering to work on behalf of our terrorist enemies. I wonder if they like that their health insurance is going to cost them more and cover less. I wonder how they feel about the all but certain likelihood that their taxes will be going up at the same time the value of their house keeps going down.
If I were an independent who had voted for Obama, I can't imagine the scenario in which I would be impressed with the job he has done. I can't imagine them telling themselves they're better off now than on the day he took office. Like me, they're probably glad Bush is gone but completely disillusioned with what Obama is doing. And unlike me, having voted for Obama, I wonder the extent to which they're feeling betrayed and stupid for having fallen for the hype. Maybe they're not at the point where they wish they had voted for McCain but I wonder how far away from that thought they really are...
|
Why exactly did Nicholas Cage, better known for his acting than his serving as United Nation's Ambassador on Drugs and Crime, need to go to Kenya to visit with jailed Somali pirates in order to figure out why they were pirates?
Let's see, people turn to crime - which includes piracy - if (1) they determine the risk/reward of criminal behavior is better than the alternatives available to them, and (2) they have no moral compass to deter them from doing something in their financial best interests.
So my guess is that these pirates told Cage that they had no other prospects that presented them with the same economic benefits and that they didn't figure there was much of a chance of getting caught and jailed (or blown out of the water by US Navy Seals).
There is also the possibility that jail is a step up for some of these criminals, that they're better fed and sheltered than if they stayed in Somali, thus making them even less fearful of the consequences of being caught. An easy solution to this is to lower the living standards for jailed criminals, making their lives more miserable than if they stayed home and out of trouble. An even easier solution is to summarily execute anyone caught engaging in piracy, thus providing would-be pirates with a much lower reward/risk ratio.
Another question: most ambassadors are ambassadors to some PLACE. Where exactly can one find 'Drugs and Crime' on a map? Does the United Nations have an ambassador to recreation? to shopping?
|
Let's see, people turn to crime - which includes piracy - if (1) they determine the risk/reward of criminal behavior is better than the alternatives available to them, and (2) they have no moral compass to deter them from doing something in their financial best interests.
So my guess is that these pirates told Cage that they had no other prospects that presented them with the same economic benefits and that they didn't figure there was much of a chance of getting caught and jailed (or blown out of the water by US Navy Seals).
There is also the possibility that jail is a step up for some of these criminals, that they're better fed and sheltered than if they stayed in Somali, thus making them even less fearful of the consequences of being caught. An easy solution to this is to lower the living standards for jailed criminals, making their lives more miserable than if they stayed home and out of trouble. An even easier solution is to summarily execute anyone caught engaging in piracy, thus providing would-be pirates with a much lower reward/risk ratio.
Another question: most ambassadors are ambassadors to some PLACE. Where exactly can one find 'Drugs and Crime' on a map? Does the United Nations have an ambassador to recreation? to shopping?
|
While technically Jimmy Johnson only has to finish 25th or better on Sunday to win his 4th championship, in reality, he probably doesn't have to finish even that high.
Mark Martin is currently 108 points behind Johnson. With Johnson getting 34 points just for starting on Sunday, Martin has to come up with 143 points to win (Johnson wins any tie based on his having more wins than Martin).
So if Martin wins the race and gets the 10 bonus points for leading the most laps, he'd get 195 points on Sunday, giving him 6,579 for the season; Johnson would need the 87 points that goes with 25th place to win the title (if Johnson led any laps, he could finish 26th, if by some chance he led the most laps, he could finish 27th and still win).
But the odds are against Martin pulling a 195 point day. A 3rd place finish for Martin (even with maximum bonus points) would let Johnson finish as low as far back as 32nd (and without needing any bonus points). A 5th place finish for Martin (again with maximum bonus points) would let Johnson finish as far back as 36th (again without needing any bonus laps). Interestingly, the NASCAR point system would take points away faster for Martin finishing lower at the front than it would from Johnson finishing lower at the back (at the front, each position is worth 4 or 5 points, at the back, each position is only worth 3).
And if Martin only pulls off a top 10, leading some laps but not most? He'd end up with 6,523 points, leaving Johnson to come up with 31 points for the championship... which meaning Johnson wins just by starting.
So while the announcers on Sunday are going to do their best to hype the possibility that Martin may pull it out and take the championship away from Johnson, Martin has to come pretty close to winning the race to do so... and that is if Johnson comes in close to last.
Of course... with a handful of cars likely to start and park, if Johnson can stay out of trouble for the first handful of laps, he is probably guaranteed close to 37th place points, leaving Martin needing to finish among the top five.
Given this, since Johnson and crew chief Chad Knaus have always said their #1 focus is winning the championship, Johnson would improve his odds by dropping back from the pack and running laps by himself until the start and parkers pull off, ensuring him the 37th place finish that is probably enough... at which point he can then jump into the fray and pass the handful of cars he would need to lock things up and without worrying about what might happen in those early dangerous laps.
|
Mark Martin is currently 108 points behind Johnson. With Johnson getting 34 points just for starting on Sunday, Martin has to come up with 143 points to win (Johnson wins any tie based on his having more wins than Martin).
So if Martin wins the race and gets the 10 bonus points for leading the most laps, he'd get 195 points on Sunday, giving him 6,579 for the season; Johnson would need the 87 points that goes with 25th place to win the title (if Johnson led any laps, he could finish 26th, if by some chance he led the most laps, he could finish 27th and still win).
But the odds are against Martin pulling a 195 point day. A 3rd place finish for Martin (even with maximum bonus points) would let Johnson finish as low as far back as 32nd (and without needing any bonus points). A 5th place finish for Martin (again with maximum bonus points) would let Johnson finish as far back as 36th (again without needing any bonus laps). Interestingly, the NASCAR point system would take points away faster for Martin finishing lower at the front than it would from Johnson finishing lower at the back (at the front, each position is worth 4 or 5 points, at the back, each position is only worth 3).
And if Martin only pulls off a top 10, leading some laps but not most? He'd end up with 6,523 points, leaving Johnson to come up with 31 points for the championship... which meaning Johnson wins just by starting.
So while the announcers on Sunday are going to do their best to hype the possibility that Martin may pull it out and take the championship away from Johnson, Martin has to come pretty close to winning the race to do so... and that is if Johnson comes in close to last.
Of course... with a handful of cars likely to start and park, if Johnson can stay out of trouble for the first handful of laps, he is probably guaranteed close to 37th place points, leaving Martin needing to finish among the top five.
Given this, since Johnson and crew chief Chad Knaus have always said their #1 focus is winning the championship, Johnson would improve his odds by dropping back from the pack and running laps by himself until the start and parkers pull off, ensuring him the 37th place finish that is probably enough... at which point he can then jump into the fray and pass the handful of cars he would need to lock things up and without worrying about what might happen in those early dangerous laps.
|
Paging Glenn Beck, paging Glenn Beck...
What kind of mileage and ratings do you think you can get attacking the Obama Justice Department for hiring lawyers who worked for terrorists?
Whatever the American public might think about the legal principle that criminals in general and terrorists in particular have the right to counsel, I think the public would really draw the line at having attorneys who VOLUNTEERED to represent our enemies coming to work at the Justice Department that is supposed to be keeping us safe from those enemies.
I know attorneys are fond of claiming that representing someone doesn't mean that the attorney buys into and shares their client's political philosophy (notwithstanding evidence to the contrary such as this, an attorney who represents a crook isn't necessarily a crook himself) but I'm pretty confident there's a much higher likelihood that attorneys who VOLUNTEER to represent terrorists would be at least somewhat more supportive of the terrorists than attorneys who thought terrorists were scum who should be taken out back and shot and thus wouldn't have volunteered to represent them.
And with the fight against terror being the life and death matter that it is, is there any justification for the Justice Department to hire attorneys who are more likely than not to be at least somewhat supportive of terrorists? Shouldn't we be able to agree that VOLUNTEERING to represent terrorists ought to disqualify someone for employment at the Justice Department... the Pentagon... and the White House?
|
What kind of mileage and ratings do you think you can get attacking the Obama Justice Department for hiring lawyers who worked for terrorists?
Whatever the American public might think about the legal principle that criminals in general and terrorists in particular have the right to counsel, I think the public would really draw the line at having attorneys who VOLUNTEERED to represent our enemies coming to work at the Justice Department that is supposed to be keeping us safe from those enemies.
I know attorneys are fond of claiming that representing someone doesn't mean that the attorney buys into and shares their client's political philosophy (notwithstanding evidence to the contrary such as this, an attorney who represents a crook isn't necessarily a crook himself) but I'm pretty confident there's a much higher likelihood that attorneys who VOLUNTEER to represent terrorists would be at least somewhat more supportive of the terrorists than attorneys who thought terrorists were scum who should be taken out back and shot and thus wouldn't have volunteered to represent them.
And with the fight against terror being the life and death matter that it is, is there any justification for the Justice Department to hire attorneys who are more likely than not to be at least somewhat supportive of terrorists? Shouldn't we be able to agree that VOLUNTEERING to represent terrorists ought to disqualify someone for employment at the Justice Department... the Pentagon... and the White House?
|
The role of our military is to protect Americans from harm. The primary way it does so is by deterring our enemies from attacking us... and by retaliating against any enemy who does in fact attack us.
With this in mind, the 'strengths' of our military are those factors which make it less likely that anyone will attack us and which improve the effectiveness of our retaliation.
So... how exactly does Army Chief of Staff Casey, recently cited as saying "Our diversity ... is a strength", figure that 'diversity' is something that makes our military more able to deter our enemies and punish those who attack us?
Modern tanks and warplanes are a strength, troops that are better at killing our enemy than our enemy is at killing them are a strength, logistics that allow for our military to deploy faster than our enemies is a strength. 'Diversity' doesn't make our planes fly faster, our tanks shoot farther, our troops improve their kill ratio.
Do our enemies factor the racial, sexual and religious composition of our troops into their determination of whether to attack us? Do they fear facing a military comprised of Protestant straight white guys less than they fear a military made up of a mix of races, religions, gender and sexual preferences?
I don't know of any good reason to exclude women, Muslims, blacks or, for that matter, gays from military service... but that's not the same thing as arguing that our killing power goes down if we don't include them.
Casey's remarks strike me as someone who has forgotten what he is supposed to be doing... tis a shame that our military leaders are comprised of people like him. It isn't good for the military, it isn't good for America.
|
With this in mind, the 'strengths' of our military are those factors which make it less likely that anyone will attack us and which improve the effectiveness of our retaliation.
So... how exactly does Army Chief of Staff Casey, recently cited as saying "Our diversity ... is a strength", figure that 'diversity' is something that makes our military more able to deter our enemies and punish those who attack us?
Modern tanks and warplanes are a strength, troops that are better at killing our enemy than our enemy is at killing them are a strength, logistics that allow for our military to deploy faster than our enemies is a strength. 'Diversity' doesn't make our planes fly faster, our tanks shoot farther, our troops improve their kill ratio.
Do our enemies factor the racial, sexual and religious composition of our troops into their determination of whether to attack us? Do they fear facing a military comprised of Protestant straight white guys less than they fear a military made up of a mix of races, religions, gender and sexual preferences?
I don't know of any good reason to exclude women, Muslims, blacks or, for that matter, gays from military service... but that's not the same thing as arguing that our killing power goes down if we don't include them.
Casey's remarks strike me as someone who has forgotten what he is supposed to be doing... tis a shame that our military leaders are comprised of people like him. It isn't good for the military, it isn't good for America.
|
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
I don't understand why NYT columnist Thomas Friedman gets such respect. Geez, if I can pick apart his arguments in a couple of minutes, how good can he be?
Here is an excerpt of his column today, with my thoughts in bold italics...
The energy, climate, water and pollution implications of adding another 2.5 billion mouths to feed, clothe, house and transport will be staggering. And this is coming, unless, as the deniers apparently believe, a global pandemic or a mass outbreak of abstinence will freeze world population — forever.
How many times have gloom and doomers tried scaring people with claims that the world is running out of resources, we're running out of space? We have no place for our garbage! We can't hope to feed all these people! It was bogus when the likes of Paul Ehrlich was making money selling books claiming that we were are doomed, it's sad that Friedman is trotting out the same dead horse to support his proposals.
So either the opponents of a serious energy/climate bill with a price on carbon don’t care about our being addicted to oil and dependent on petro-dictators forever or they really believe that we will not be adding 2.5 billion more people who want to live like us, so the price of oil won’t go up very far and, therefore, we shouldn’t raise taxes to stimulate clean, renewable alternatives and energy efficiency.
Thomas, you ignorant fool. We care about being dependent on petro-dictators... which is why we argue for more exploration and development both here in the United States as well as places controlled by friendlies. We also don't have objections to developing alternative energy sources, we just don't want our economy crippled in the process.
And there's more:
"Green hawks believe otherwise.... It has to be. And we believe that the country that invents and deploys the most E.T. (energy technology) will enjoy the most economic security, energy security, national security, innovative companies and global respect. And we believe that country must be America... And we believe the best way to launch E.T. is to set a fixed, long-term price on carbon — combine it with the Obama team’s impressive stimulus for green-tech — and then let the free market and innovation do the rest".
So, let's see, you want the free market to play a big part in developing ET... but only after you interfere with the free market by taxing carbon-based energy? You fear the effects of higher prices for carbon-based energy... and your response is to push up the price for carbon-based energy? If you want America to pay higher prices for carbon-based energy, why not just let the free market process play out? If you're right, America will be jump at developing lower priced energy sources... and with our ingenuity, we'd be sure to do so and without the resentment at our own government for being the ones driving up energy prices (wouldn't it be better if we were mad at the Saudis than our own government?). And if you're wrong and the price of carbon-based energy doesn't go through the roof, perhaps because exploration and development generates additional reserves, then so be it, we'll be happy to keep filling up our cars with gasoline and burning coal to provide electricity... and without having the economy take a hit for no good reason. Why fiddle where there's no need to fiddle?
And wait, there's still more:
So, as I said, you don’t believe in global warming? You’re wrong, but I’ll let you enjoy it until your beach house gets washed away.
Probably because you're a New York elitist who vacations on Long Island, you don't realize that I don't have a beach house, nor do most Americans. You also make the assumption - without offering any proof - that the effect of global warming would be a net negative. I'd be happy to play golf in 70 degree weather in January. I'd be happy not having to heat my house six months a year. Aren't there areas in the world that would become more productive agriculturally? And wouldn't that help to feed all the people wanting, as you put it, 'American sized Big Macs'?
What we have here is a failure (cue music from Guns and Roses). Friedman, by his own admission, buys into the whole global warming dogma, complete with apocalyptic consequences for us all if we don't rid ourselves of our addiction to gas. But as neither he nor his comrades have been able to convince America that we need to do so in order to (perhaps) slow down temperature growth (that may not be happening and which we may not be responsible for in the first place), he is trying another track: we're not supposed to give up gas because of global warming but because our economy will crash if we don't. I guess the easiest way of describing his strategy is something along the lines of "if you can't get what you want by scaring them with X, try scaring them with Y.... and if that doesn't work, try scaring them with Z".
|
Here is an excerpt of his column today, with my thoughts in bold italics...
The energy, climate, water and pollution implications of adding another 2.5 billion mouths to feed, clothe, house and transport will be staggering. And this is coming, unless, as the deniers apparently believe, a global pandemic or a mass outbreak of abstinence will freeze world population — forever.
How many times have gloom and doomers tried scaring people with claims that the world is running out of resources, we're running out of space? We have no place for our garbage! We can't hope to feed all these people! It was bogus when the likes of Paul Ehrlich was making money selling books claiming that we were are doomed, it's sad that Friedman is trotting out the same dead horse to support his proposals.
So either the opponents of a serious energy/climate bill with a price on carbon don’t care about our being addicted to oil and dependent on petro-dictators forever or they really believe that we will not be adding 2.5 billion more people who want to live like us, so the price of oil won’t go up very far and, therefore, we shouldn’t raise taxes to stimulate clean, renewable alternatives and energy efficiency.
Thomas, you ignorant fool. We care about being dependent on petro-dictators... which is why we argue for more exploration and development both here in the United States as well as places controlled by friendlies. We also don't have objections to developing alternative energy sources, we just don't want our economy crippled in the process.
And there's more:
"Green hawks believe otherwise.... It has to be. And we believe that the country that invents and deploys the most E.T. (energy technology) will enjoy the most economic security, energy security, national security, innovative companies and global respect. And we believe that country must be America... And we believe the best way to launch E.T. is to set a fixed, long-term price on carbon — combine it with the Obama team’s impressive stimulus for green-tech — and then let the free market and innovation do the rest".
So, let's see, you want the free market to play a big part in developing ET... but only after you interfere with the free market by taxing carbon-based energy? You fear the effects of higher prices for carbon-based energy... and your response is to push up the price for carbon-based energy? If you want America to pay higher prices for carbon-based energy, why not just let the free market process play out? If you're right, America will be jump at developing lower priced energy sources... and with our ingenuity, we'd be sure to do so and without the resentment at our own government for being the ones driving up energy prices (wouldn't it be better if we were mad at the Saudis than our own government?). And if you're wrong and the price of carbon-based energy doesn't go through the roof, perhaps because exploration and development generates additional reserves, then so be it, we'll be happy to keep filling up our cars with gasoline and burning coal to provide electricity... and without having the economy take a hit for no good reason. Why fiddle where there's no need to fiddle?
And wait, there's still more:
So, as I said, you don’t believe in global warming? You’re wrong, but I’ll let you enjoy it until your beach house gets washed away.
Probably because you're a New York elitist who vacations on Long Island, you don't realize that I don't have a beach house, nor do most Americans. You also make the assumption - without offering any proof - that the effect of global warming would be a net negative. I'd be happy to play golf in 70 degree weather in January. I'd be happy not having to heat my house six months a year. Aren't there areas in the world that would become more productive agriculturally? And wouldn't that help to feed all the people wanting, as you put it, 'American sized Big Macs'?
What we have here is a failure (cue music from Guns and Roses). Friedman, by his own admission, buys into the whole global warming dogma, complete with apocalyptic consequences for us all if we don't rid ourselves of our addiction to gas. But as neither he nor his comrades have been able to convince America that we need to do so in order to (perhaps) slow down temperature growth (that may not be happening and which we may not be responsible for in the first place), he is trying another track: we're not supposed to give up gas because of global warming but because our economy will crash if we don't. I guess the easiest way of describing his strategy is something along the lines of "if you can't get what you want by scaring them with X, try scaring them with Y.... and if that doesn't work, try scaring them with Z".
|
During the Bush presidency, there were many times where one agency or another came out with findings or issued a report or released some bit of information that served to undermine a Bush position or policy (the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that claimed that Iran had stopped its work on nukes is but one example)... and pretty much every time, there were cries from the right how unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats were looking to trash Bush policies with which they didn't agree.
So now comes a government task force that recommends that regular mammograms aren't necessary for most women under the age of 50, a recommendation that runs counter to current guidelines that recommend routine mammograms for women starting at age 40.
And this news is released just when people are worried about whether Obamacare will result in medical care being rationed by government and in particular, by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats... and the last thing Obama wants now is a real life situation where unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats are calling for reductions in the amount of medical care people receive.
Does this mean that there is at least one conservative somewhere in the bowels of government?
|
So now comes a government task force that recommends that regular mammograms aren't necessary for most women under the age of 50, a recommendation that runs counter to current guidelines that recommend routine mammograms for women starting at age 40.
And this news is released just when people are worried about whether Obamacare will result in medical care being rationed by government and in particular, by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats... and the last thing Obama wants now is a real life situation where unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats are calling for reductions in the amount of medical care people receive.
Does this mean that there is at least one conservative somewhere in the bowels of government?
|
Jeffrey Flier, Dean of the Harvard Medical School, like so many other people, makes a mistake when he claims that employer provided health care enjoys tax advantages that result in overinsurance and higher costs.
Let's think about this in common sense terms. An employer is going to provide compensation to workers only up to an amount where his employees are satisfied. The compensation will consist of a combination of salary and other benefits such as vacation time, retirement plan contributions, medical insurance, free coffee, etc.
Most of the other benefits will have a cost to the employer that gets factored into the employer-employee arrangement. The employee will appreciate only those benefits that provide him with a desired benefit. To the extent that the employee doesn't use or feel a need for a certain benefit, the employee will discount its value to him. Since there is a cost to the employer of providing these benefits, the employer isn't getting his money's worth if any of these benefits don't generate employee satisfaction (in ordinary English, the boss ain't going to pay for something if there's nothing in it for him).
Employees do like getting medical insurance as part of their compensation package. But they're not going to appreciate a package that provides them with more coverage than they feel they need. And since it costs more to provide additional coverage, if the boss doesn't think the employees are going to value the added coverage, then the boss isn't going to provide that coverage, he'll take that money and spend it on something else that he thinks his employees will appreciate.
Thus, there is no incentive for the employer to provide too much insurance to employees, with 'too much' being defined as more insurance than the employee thinks he or she will use (for example, providing nursing home care benefits to a workforce comprised of teenagers isn't going to go over very well and thus isn't likely to be contained in such a package).
And neither is there an incentive for the employee to demand more coverage than they think appropriate. Most employers insist that employees bear at least some of the cost of medical insurance coverage. In most cases, the higher the coverage, the higher the cost to the employee so this would discourage employees from demanding coverage in excess of the amount they thought necessary. And even if employees in a particular situation didn't have to pay more, since everybody knows medical coverage is expensive, they'd be silly if they asked their employer to spend dollars on coverage they didn't need instead of spending on something more to their liking.
So where is the incentive for employers to provide their employees with unnecessary coverage? There isn't one.
And as far as the tax advantages of employer provided health care, the employer is ambivalent, he gets no more of a deduction for providing health care than he would if he paid the same amount out in straight salary. And while it is cheaper for an employee to receive employer provided health care coverage than to buy it himself, as I pointed out above, there is no incentive for the employee to ask for more than he thinks necessary. No more coverage, no less coverage, just the right amount.
And there is one final common sense repudiation of the claim that employers provide too much coverage to their employees.... for all of you who get coverage through your employers, how many of you feel you're getting too much? What's that, none of you do? I thought so.
|
Let's think about this in common sense terms. An employer is going to provide compensation to workers only up to an amount where his employees are satisfied. The compensation will consist of a combination of salary and other benefits such as vacation time, retirement plan contributions, medical insurance, free coffee, etc.
Most of the other benefits will have a cost to the employer that gets factored into the employer-employee arrangement. The employee will appreciate only those benefits that provide him with a desired benefit. To the extent that the employee doesn't use or feel a need for a certain benefit, the employee will discount its value to him. Since there is a cost to the employer of providing these benefits, the employer isn't getting his money's worth if any of these benefits don't generate employee satisfaction (in ordinary English, the boss ain't going to pay for something if there's nothing in it for him).
Employees do like getting medical insurance as part of their compensation package. But they're not going to appreciate a package that provides them with more coverage than they feel they need. And since it costs more to provide additional coverage, if the boss doesn't think the employees are going to value the added coverage, then the boss isn't going to provide that coverage, he'll take that money and spend it on something else that he thinks his employees will appreciate.
Thus, there is no incentive for the employer to provide too much insurance to employees, with 'too much' being defined as more insurance than the employee thinks he or she will use (for example, providing nursing home care benefits to a workforce comprised of teenagers isn't going to go over very well and thus isn't likely to be contained in such a package).
And neither is there an incentive for the employee to demand more coverage than they think appropriate. Most employers insist that employees bear at least some of the cost of medical insurance coverage. In most cases, the higher the coverage, the higher the cost to the employee so this would discourage employees from demanding coverage in excess of the amount they thought necessary. And even if employees in a particular situation didn't have to pay more, since everybody knows medical coverage is expensive, they'd be silly if they asked their employer to spend dollars on coverage they didn't need instead of spending on something more to their liking.
So where is the incentive for employers to provide their employees with unnecessary coverage? There isn't one.
And as far as the tax advantages of employer provided health care, the employer is ambivalent, he gets no more of a deduction for providing health care than he would if he paid the same amount out in straight salary. And while it is cheaper for an employee to receive employer provided health care coverage than to buy it himself, as I pointed out above, there is no incentive for the employee to ask for more than he thinks necessary. No more coverage, no less coverage, just the right amount.
And there is one final common sense repudiation of the claim that employers provide too much coverage to their employees.... for all of you who get coverage through your employers, how many of you feel you're getting too much? What's that, none of you do? I thought so.
|
How can Obama both predict Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and sentenced to death AND claim that he isn't prejudging the outcome of the trial?
|
|
Here's why Obama's latest approval rating of 53% is worse than it seems...
Obama is over 50% only because he has overwhelming support from Democrats as neither a majority of Independents (45%) nor Republicans (18%) approve of the job he is doing. In other words, he is supported by his liberal base and no one else.
And he needs support from somewhere else, in particular the Independents. In any given race, it is presumed that the Democratic candidate will get support from the Democrats and the Republican candidate will get support from the Republicans... making the Independents the constituency whose support is critical to winning election.
And he doesn't have that support right now. They don't support him on his handling of foreign policy in general and they support his handling of Afghanistan even less. I'll infer from the poll results that they're not thrilled with his handling of the economy either.
Just as Lyndon Johnson was reported to have said "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost middle America", so too if Obama if losing middle America, then he's losing his chances of getting a second term. Having support from your own party is good, but it ain't good enough.
|
Obama is over 50% only because he has overwhelming support from Democrats as neither a majority of Independents (45%) nor Republicans (18%) approve of the job he is doing. In other words, he is supported by his liberal base and no one else.
And he needs support from somewhere else, in particular the Independents. In any given race, it is presumed that the Democratic candidate will get support from the Democrats and the Republican candidate will get support from the Republicans... making the Independents the constituency whose support is critical to winning election.
And he doesn't have that support right now. They don't support him on his handling of foreign policy in general and they support his handling of Afghanistan even less. I'll infer from the poll results that they're not thrilled with his handling of the economy either.
Just as Lyndon Johnson was reported to have said "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost middle America", so too if Obama if losing middle America, then he's losing his chances of getting a second term. Having support from your own party is good, but it ain't good enough.
|
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
In business, there are two kinds of decisions: those that are made with an eye towards the bottom line and those that are made for reasons of ego.
And it is often hard for an outside observer to determine which decisions were made because the decision maker thought it would lead to improved profits and which decisions were made because the decision maker just wanted to do so.
For example, take CNN's decision to not only sever ties with Lou Dobbs, but to reportedly pay him $8 million to go away.
Presumably, Dobbs's show was a net positive to CNN's bottom line, bringing in advertising revenue that exceeded the costs of producing the show. So forcing out Dobbs is going to cost CNN not only the net profit it was making but also the $8 million in goodbye money it paid Dobbs.
What does CNN get in return that could justify the hit to the bottom line?
It has a time slot that it needs to fill... and with someone or something that would bring in as much money as it was getting with Dobbs.
It is possible that CNN has such a personality in mind and thinks this new program can make more than Dobbs. But since Dobbs' ratings were higher than for many of the other CNN shows, let's presume that CNN had other shows that produced less of a profit, so bottom line economics would have CNN putting the new show in Dobbs's slot and moving Dobbs to a slot currently occupied by a show making less money.
But CNN didn't do that, they forced Dobbs out altogether.
Is it possible that CNN felt its overall profitability was being hurt by Dobbs, that even though Dobbs was profitable, he was having a negative impact on their other shows, resulting in a net negative for Dobbs?
Maybe, and if that is the case, we should expect to see viewership rising for CNN's other shows - and with it, ad revenue - once all the viewers boycotting CNN because of Dobbs come back to CNN.
But my guess is that isn't the case, that CNN's anemic ratings weren't due to viewers upset that CNN gave Dobbs a platform but rather because CNN's shows just aren't that good.
And if that is the case, then CNN will have turned out to have made this decision on ego grounds: they're going to feel emotionally better not having Dobbs.
|
And it is often hard for an outside observer to determine which decisions were made because the decision maker thought it would lead to improved profits and which decisions were made because the decision maker just wanted to do so.
For example, take CNN's decision to not only sever ties with Lou Dobbs, but to reportedly pay him $8 million to go away.
Presumably, Dobbs's show was a net positive to CNN's bottom line, bringing in advertising revenue that exceeded the costs of producing the show. So forcing out Dobbs is going to cost CNN not only the net profit it was making but also the $8 million in goodbye money it paid Dobbs.
What does CNN get in return that could justify the hit to the bottom line?
It has a time slot that it needs to fill... and with someone or something that would bring in as much money as it was getting with Dobbs.
It is possible that CNN has such a personality in mind and thinks this new program can make more than Dobbs. But since Dobbs' ratings were higher than for many of the other CNN shows, let's presume that CNN had other shows that produced less of a profit, so bottom line economics would have CNN putting the new show in Dobbs's slot and moving Dobbs to a slot currently occupied by a show making less money.
But CNN didn't do that, they forced Dobbs out altogether.
Is it possible that CNN felt its overall profitability was being hurt by Dobbs, that even though Dobbs was profitable, he was having a negative impact on their other shows, resulting in a net negative for Dobbs?
Maybe, and if that is the case, we should expect to see viewership rising for CNN's other shows - and with it, ad revenue - once all the viewers boycotting CNN because of Dobbs come back to CNN.
But my guess is that isn't the case, that CNN's anemic ratings weren't due to viewers upset that CNN gave Dobbs a platform but rather because CNN's shows just aren't that good.
And if that is the case, then CNN will have turned out to have made this decision on ego grounds: they're going to feel emotionally better not having Dobbs.
|
There's been some fun poked at the Obama Administration's claims that stimulus money was spent to create jobs in Congressional districts.... that don't exist.
Most of the criticism is focused on the jobs aspect. My question involves the money itself: if the money didn't go to those non-existent districts, then where did it go? As it was reported spent, presumably it isn't in government bank accounts, so where is it?
Is it simply a case of the Obama Administration mis-identifying the district in which the money was spent? Or is the money truly missing? Or was it diverted to someone's pocket?
|
Most of the criticism is focused on the jobs aspect. My question involves the money itself: if the money didn't go to those non-existent districts, then where did it go? As it was reported spent, presumably it isn't in government bank accounts, so where is it?
Is it simply a case of the Obama Administration mis-identifying the district in which the money was spent? Or is the money truly missing? Or was it diverted to someone's pocket?
|
Monday, November 16, 2009
Legal Translation 101:
Lawyer says: 'client did not have either an attorney or a manager present when he signed the contract' and 'they had a cadre of lawyers so they had a one-sided agreement'.
Lawyer means: my client is an idiot who shouldn't be held responsible for his own actions.
|
Lawyer says: 'client did not have either an attorney or a manager present when he signed the contract' and 'they had a cadre of lawyers so they had a one-sided agreement'.
Lawyer means: my client is an idiot who shouldn't be held responsible for his own actions.
|
Yes, it is good that GM lost less money last quarter than in previous quarters, but it is not necessarily a sign that GM is 'turning its business around'... just as reports that there were fewer layoffs last month than in previous months isn't necessarily a sign that the economy is turning around.
A company that is losing $1 billion is in better shape than a company that is losing $5 billion, just as an economy that is shedding 500,000 jobs a month is in better shape that an economy that is shedding 600,000 jobs a month. But a reduction in the 'burn rate' can't be extrapolated into a projection of profitability in the case of GM or growth in jobs in the case of the economy as a whole.
Let's start with GM: they lost less money due to a combination of expense cuts and a small growth in the number of cars sold. A lot of companies can cut their way to profitability, but GM doesn't have that option as their union contracts limit GM management's ability to keep cutting. Thus, GM profitability is likely to depend on GM selling a lot more cars than it is now.
And that is going to be tough to do. With economies down across the globe, growth in one area will likely be offset with declines elsewhere. Other car companies are going to be competing for the customers that exist. And GM's customer base is going to take a hit due to boycotts over GM getting a bailout and GM slashing brands and dealerships. Add to that GM having a bad reputation in terms of product quality and I don't see where the growth is going to come from that GM needs to be profitable.
As for the economy, getting businesses to step back from the ledge and stop cutting jobs is one thing. But it is a different game altogether to get businesses optimistic enough to go out and start hiring... and hiring is what drives economic growth over the long term.
And what is the prognosis for businesses starting to feel so good about the future that they're going to start hiring? Not good in my mind. The health care reform battle scares businesses, they don't know the extent to which they'll be forced to spend more on their employee's health care... so why hire anyone new until things get sorted out? They also don't see a business friendly Washington, they feel Washington is more likely to pass additional business-unfriendly regulations and tax hikes than anything they feel would be considered pro-growth. They see stimulus money going to state and local governments and not the private sector. They see a White House whose most frequent visitor was a labor leader who wants to make it even easier to organize unions at union-free businesses.
So my guess is that GM is nowhere near becoming long-term profitable... and the economy is nowhere near growing again. Reductions in losses are nice... but they're not growth... and I don't see the foundation for real positive news on either front.
|
A company that is losing $1 billion is in better shape than a company that is losing $5 billion, just as an economy that is shedding 500,000 jobs a month is in better shape that an economy that is shedding 600,000 jobs a month. But a reduction in the 'burn rate' can't be extrapolated into a projection of profitability in the case of GM or growth in jobs in the case of the economy as a whole.
Let's start with GM: they lost less money due to a combination of expense cuts and a small growth in the number of cars sold. A lot of companies can cut their way to profitability, but GM doesn't have that option as their union contracts limit GM management's ability to keep cutting. Thus, GM profitability is likely to depend on GM selling a lot more cars than it is now.
And that is going to be tough to do. With economies down across the globe, growth in one area will likely be offset with declines elsewhere. Other car companies are going to be competing for the customers that exist. And GM's customer base is going to take a hit due to boycotts over GM getting a bailout and GM slashing brands and dealerships. Add to that GM having a bad reputation in terms of product quality and I don't see where the growth is going to come from that GM needs to be profitable.
As for the economy, getting businesses to step back from the ledge and stop cutting jobs is one thing. But it is a different game altogether to get businesses optimistic enough to go out and start hiring... and hiring is what drives economic growth over the long term.
And what is the prognosis for businesses starting to feel so good about the future that they're going to start hiring? Not good in my mind. The health care reform battle scares businesses, they don't know the extent to which they'll be forced to spend more on their employee's health care... so why hire anyone new until things get sorted out? They also don't see a business friendly Washington, they feel Washington is more likely to pass additional business-unfriendly regulations and tax hikes than anything they feel would be considered pro-growth. They see stimulus money going to state and local governments and not the private sector. They see a White House whose most frequent visitor was a labor leader who wants to make it even easier to organize unions at union-free businesses.
So my guess is that GM is nowhere near becoming long-term profitable... and the economy is nowhere near growing again. Reductions in losses are nice... but they're not growth... and I don't see the foundation for real positive news on either front.
|
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.
|