The Termination of Texas Tech Football Coach Mike Leach
As an alumnus of the University of Texas and the University of Houston (traditional defunct Southwest Conference rivals), I'm not a fan of Texas Tech football. In fact, Texas Tech's fluke last-second victory over Texas last year kept UT from playing for the national championship. Occasionally I'll talk sports in my posts, but my interest is not strong enough to write a series of posts. (But in case you're wondering, I believe that Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, and Mark McGuire belong in the baseball Hall of Fame (and I think the Hall, by snubbing the true stars of the sport, undermines its own credibility).)
I'm not a lawyer, but I find Texas Tech's grounds for terminating Leach "for cause" to be arbitrary and pathetic, at least based on what has been discussed in public to date. What I do know is Adam James, the receiver son of former SMU and NFL running back Craig James, was disciplined by the coach, whom apparently didn't buy Adam's complaints regarding a possible concussion. The fact that Craig James decided to abuse his position as a prominent cable sports analyst to personally attack the coach over his son's treatment is unconscionable; since when is it a good idea for a daddy to fight his college sophomore son's battles for him?
Now I understand football coaches don't always believe excuses from student athletes, and the punishment perhaps wounded his pride (and personally I don't agree with how the coach responded to this issue); but these sorts of things or worse happen every day. I remember getting swatted by my high school football coach (whom also taught gym) on multiple occasions which in my judgment was totally unjustified (it didn't stop until he threatened me one time too many, and I told him that my parents were going to sue him if he touched me again). One incident in particular sticks in my mind; I had a high school friend, Duane, whom ran cross-country. So one day, an overwhelming compulsion to tell a bad pun got the better of me in the boys' locker room; I picked up a can of athlete foot spray and handed it to Duane, saying since he had the feet of an athlete, maybe he needed this. The coach spotted me holding the can (there was an unwritten rule against touching any property related to a sports program) I got at least 5 whacks from the thick board with drilled holes on my backside--in front of everyone in class. So Adam James is effectively told to go stand in a corner for a couple of hours? Cry me a river... [There must be more to the story, but the coach hardly got due process from an administration looking for an excuse to fire him; I mean, college football coaches deal with more significant injuries to their players all the time, and it shouldn't have taken 10 years and multiple contract renewals for a legitimate case against Coach Leach to surface.]
Ironically, if anyone should sympathize with James, I should. I don't write much about my Navy experience (other than to note I got an honorable discharge), but I developed a severe ear infection in Orlando, leaving me with an equilibrium problem, lightheaded and dizzy on my feet. The Navy physician I saw told me put me on some meds to deal with the infection and told me to tell my boss that I should be given light duty until the infection cleared up. My superior officer was having none of that; there was no middle ground: either I work on a normal duty schedule or I get a bed chit (i.e., 24-hour bedrest). He was convinced it was all an act on my part. He contemptuously taunted me in his best baby voice, suggesting maybe he should pull a fellow math instructor out of class, just to drive me back to the clinic, because he couldn't want me blacking out on the way there... Anyone who has served in the military realizes you cannot respond in kind to boorish behavior from a superior officer. I was fully prepared to take the risk of driving into a telephone pole rather than have to put up with this guy's unprofessional behavior for a moment longer. I reported what my boss said to me (i.e., about needing the bed chit), and the doctor at first argued with me, "We don't give bed chits for this condition. Didn't you tell him what I told you about light desk duty?" I told him to go ahead and call my boss, but the doctor finally believed me (i.e., he knew that I never pushed for a bed chit when I first saw him), wrote me the chit, and I thought my boss was going to burst a blood vessel when I presented him with the chit.
I know concussions are serious problems--certainly more than a temporary ear infection. I know what it's like being unfairly evaluated and publicly humiliated by someone whom is widely respected. But I do not respect what Adam James and his father have done in response; I also know what it's like for university administrators to use frivolous student complaints to obfuscate their politically-motivated agenda against a professor or coach. Shame on all of them!
McCain and Cantwell Are Wrong to Pursue
Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall
I was amused to see a debate on Fox News this morning by a debate between a FNC investment analyst and someone representing community banks on a quixotic attempt by McCain and Cantwell to reinstate a Depression-era anachronism that was rightly repealed a decade ago. (What are these two going to do next--propose a resolution saying the world is flat?) I have enormous respect for John McCain (in a post exactly one year ago, I named him my Man of the Year), but this is one of those things where his populist streak overrules his conservative principles. McCain never deserved his "wild west deregulator" reputation the Obama campaign and national media sought to pin on him.
The Obama Administration, to its credit, despite the measure's support by Obama advisor former Fed Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, whom I credit with breaking the back of inflation around the turn of the 1980's, has resisted an attempt to turn back the clock, which would instantly cripple our ability to compete on the global stage. I would argue that the correct action would have been to let the big institutions fail, and let the private enterprise system work. Of course, I don't buy into the Obama Administration's attempt to ensnare the financial market with its regulatory empire building. The issue was not one of absent regulation; it was of dysfunctional regulation. It wasn't rocket science when home mortgages were being written for people without a down payment or documentation of income and implicitly backed by the federal government.
Musical Interlude: Guy Lombardo "Auld Lang Syne"
For those whose idea of a New Year's Eve tradition is watching Ryan Seacrest ring in the new year or decade, mine was watching Guy Lombardo on New Year's Eve on CBS-TV. (I guess people now know I didn't have a girlfriend all those New Year's Eve's.) There was something endearing watching people my grandparents' age having a blast and being hopeful for the coming new year. I wasn't really interested in punk rock versions of Scottish poet Robert Burns' famous song; there is something timeless, smooth, sweet and enchanting in the Royal Canadians' version
Auld Lang Syne (The Good Old Days)
Robert Burns
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll take a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne
We twa hae run aboot the braes
And pou'd the gowans fine;
we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin' auld lang syne
We two hae paidled i' the burn,
Frae mornin' sun till dine;
But seas between us braid hae roar'd
Sin' auld lang syne
And here's a hand, my trusty friend,
And gie's a hand o' thine;
We'll take a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll take a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Miscellany: 12/30/09
Happy Birthday to....
The NBC Today Show hosts Matt Lauer and Meredith Vieira, the world's greatest golfer (Tiger Woods), the world's best basketball player (LeBron James), Sandy Koufax who won the pitching "triple crown" (wins, strikeouts and ERA) in 1963, 1965, and 1966 in his unanimous pan-Major League Cy Young wins, and was the first pitcher to throw 4 no-hitters (one of which was a rare "perfect game") by the time he retired at the age of 30, two of the Monkees (Davy Jones and Michael Nesmith), conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, and the singer of today's musical interlude, my favorite hit from the early 60's.
Oh, and there's somebody else, but I can't seem to remember... You know what they say: the memory is the first to go...
Dems Determined Not to be Typecast as Soft on Homeland Security
The Democrats are determined not to be portrayed as weak on homeland security. How many times over the past 8 years have we heard Democrats repeatedly all but accuse Bush of failing to act on his August 2001 briefing? So we now have "inconvenient truths" like the Nigerian terrorist's father surfacing last month warning of his son's radical views, the terrorist's name got added to a 500,000-plus "people of interest" file, but did not filter down to the 4000-member no fly list or "additional screening" 14,000-member list. Not to mention pre-Christmas intelligence from Yemen of an unnamed Nigerian being prepared for a terrorist attack. Now how many Nigerians pay cash for a ticket, check no luggage on an international flight, are on the people of interest list, and hold a US visa? Connect the dots...
I don't blame Obama any more than I blame Bush given the imprecise nature of briefings, but surely we've learned something over the past 8 years. Terrorism in the skies is no longer a novel concept. What is interesting is watching Obama operate: this seems to be a replay of his johnny-come-lately jawboning against executive bonuses earlier this year, except this time he's dealing with turf battles and government inertia within his own administration.
The Democrats are trying to turn the tables on the Republicans based on votes last summer on Homeland Security. There are a couple of relevant issues. First, there was the desire to fund new technology, which could better detect certain hidden weapons--but also had the effect of providing a de facto nude image of the passenger, which many liberals and conservative libertarians consider a privacy issue. Most conservatives wanted less intrusive methods (e.g., the use of drug-sniffing dogs). But unless you force everyone to use this screening technology, it's only as effective as your sampling procedure, and the fact is that progressives tend to regard "profiling" (i.e., risk-based selection) as inherently unfair. Second, the House Republicans were upset at being shut out of being able to bring to the floor their own amendments on a number of spending bills and so voted against the bill as a clearly identified political protest. I have my own criticisms to make about Congressional Republicans, but being soft on terrorism is not one of them; there's the record of no repeated incident following 9/11 under the Bush Administration. (And, if I"m not mistaken, the Nigerian terrorist, now nicknamed in the media as the "underwear bomber", boarded the plane in Amsterdam, not a US airport.)
The key issue is not how much money Democrats can throw inefficiently at a Homeland Security issues or add to bureaucratic complexity and lack of accountability. But Secretary Napolitano Sunday seemed to be taking political credit ("the system worked") for something that was clearly more due to terrorist incompetence or bad luck than in the system's effectiveness. This is dangerous, because the logical lesson we would learn from an HHS take-away that "the system worked" is maintenance of the status quo. That's manifestly absurd and a state of denial.
The system would have worked if the terrorist had never boarded in Amsterdam in the first place. I don't really know or care how this is done (whether a powerful new technology or drug-sniffing dogs or a portfolio approach). One thing is for sure: Democratic defensiveness is not the answer.
Political Cartoon
RJ Matson wants you to know that after you walked in the snow looking for a job and later hung your stockings to dry, Santa Obama and his fellow Democratic elves Harry and Nancy will be by shortly with more national debt cash to burn (but, unfortunately, nothing left to put in your stockings). How wisely did they spend their $787B stimulus? Let us count some of their ways:
Musical Interlude: Happy Birthday to Singer Del Shannon:
The NBC Today Show hosts Matt Lauer and Meredith Vieira, the world's greatest golfer (Tiger Woods), the world's best basketball player (LeBron James), Sandy Koufax who won the pitching "triple crown" (wins, strikeouts and ERA) in 1963, 1965, and 1966 in his unanimous pan-Major League Cy Young wins, and was the first pitcher to throw 4 no-hitters (one of which was a rare "perfect game") by the time he retired at the age of 30, two of the Monkees (Davy Jones and Michael Nesmith), conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, and the singer of today's musical interlude, my favorite hit from the early 60's.
Oh, and there's somebody else, but I can't seem to remember... You know what they say: the memory is the first to go...
Dems Determined Not to be Typecast as Soft on Homeland Security
The Democrats are determined not to be portrayed as weak on homeland security. How many times over the past 8 years have we heard Democrats repeatedly all but accuse Bush of failing to act on his August 2001 briefing? So we now have "inconvenient truths" like the Nigerian terrorist's father surfacing last month warning of his son's radical views, the terrorist's name got added to a 500,000-plus "people of interest" file, but did not filter down to the 4000-member no fly list or "additional screening" 14,000-member list. Not to mention pre-Christmas intelligence from Yemen of an unnamed Nigerian being prepared for a terrorist attack. Now how many Nigerians pay cash for a ticket, check no luggage on an international flight, are on the people of interest list, and hold a US visa? Connect the dots...
I don't blame Obama any more than I blame Bush given the imprecise nature of briefings, but surely we've learned something over the past 8 years. Terrorism in the skies is no longer a novel concept. What is interesting is watching Obama operate: this seems to be a replay of his johnny-come-lately jawboning against executive bonuses earlier this year, except this time he's dealing with turf battles and government inertia within his own administration.
The Democrats are trying to turn the tables on the Republicans based on votes last summer on Homeland Security. There are a couple of relevant issues. First, there was the desire to fund new technology, which could better detect certain hidden weapons--but also had the effect of providing a de facto nude image of the passenger, which many liberals and conservative libertarians consider a privacy issue. Most conservatives wanted less intrusive methods (e.g., the use of drug-sniffing dogs). But unless you force everyone to use this screening technology, it's only as effective as your sampling procedure, and the fact is that progressives tend to regard "profiling" (i.e., risk-based selection) as inherently unfair. Second, the House Republicans were upset at being shut out of being able to bring to the floor their own amendments on a number of spending bills and so voted against the bill as a clearly identified political protest. I have my own criticisms to make about Congressional Republicans, but being soft on terrorism is not one of them; there's the record of no repeated incident following 9/11 under the Bush Administration. (And, if I"m not mistaken, the Nigerian terrorist, now nicknamed in the media as the "underwear bomber", boarded the plane in Amsterdam, not a US airport.)
The key issue is not how much money Democrats can throw inefficiently at a Homeland Security issues or add to bureaucratic complexity and lack of accountability. But Secretary Napolitano Sunday seemed to be taking political credit ("the system worked") for something that was clearly more due to terrorist incompetence or bad luck than in the system's effectiveness. This is dangerous, because the logical lesson we would learn from an HHS take-away that "the system worked" is maintenance of the status quo. That's manifestly absurd and a state of denial.
The system would have worked if the terrorist had never boarded in Amsterdam in the first place. I don't really know or care how this is done (whether a powerful new technology or drug-sniffing dogs or a portfolio approach). One thing is for sure: Democratic defensiveness is not the answer.
Political Cartoon
RJ Matson wants you to know that after you walked in the snow looking for a job and later hung your stockings to dry, Santa Obama and his fellow Democratic elves Harry and Nancy will be by shortly with more national debt cash to burn (but, unfortunately, nothing left to put in your stockings). How wisely did they spend their $787B stimulus? Let us count some of their ways:
- over $200K for the NIH to study the #1 thing taxpaying parents want to hear about: the sexual behavior of their college kids
- $5M investment in green energy for a mostly empty Tennessee shopping mall
- over $1.5M to study fossils in Argentina
- over $200K to conduct exit polls in Africa
- over $200K to figure out why men don't like to wear rubbers during sex
- almost $1M to study how ants (versus people) work
- $100K to put on progressive-theme puppet shows
Musical Interlude: Happy Birthday to Singer Del Shannon:
His Signature Hit: "Runaway"
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
MIscellany: 12/29/09
And on the Fourth Day The One Ventured Forth to Speak on NWA Flight 253
I'm somewhat amused that my initial attempts of an Internet searchfor a transcript of Obama's remarks yesterday on Flight 253 came up empty. I then discovered a Washington Post link via a conservative blogger by doing a search on the same phrase other conservatives also apparently noticed: "isolated extremist".
The Politics of Symbolism shines throughout this transcript; it took until the Christmas incident for Obama to decide there was a need for an airline safety review. Anyone want to make a bet that Obama's eventual "solution" is to "stimulate the economy" by hiring more and more TSA personnel?
Never Underestimate the Stupidity of a Government Bureaucrat
I did quite a bit of business travel until about a month before 9/11. Then I went on my first business-related flight several months after 9/11 (and the failed shoe bombing incident). (The interruption in business travel had more to do with clients willing to pick up expenses.) I ended up getting detailed searched each way, I lost track of what happened to my shoes, and TSA personnel seemed more interested in exercising authority than in patiently explaining things to passengers not used to the new rules and regulations. (In this case, there was this pack mentality where I was surrounded by 2 or 3 TSA personnel talking to me at the same time, someone searching me, someone taking my shoes, etc.)
I'm sure every passenger has his or her favorite horror story, and I'm sure there will be readers whom will believe their story trumps mine. But probably the most exasperating one for me was when I won the "detailed search" lottery after waiting an unusually long period in the security line and the time cutting a little too close to departure time. So I go through the search, race to the gate--just in time--when the agent stops me and refuses to let me board, saying that my boarding pass--which had the lottery notice--had not been stamped. My response is--you've got to be kidding; how the heck am I supposed to know that the TSA personnel were required to stamp the boarding pass? How is it my problem if the TSA personnel screw up? Am I supposed to know to ask them--"I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job--I don't work for TSA or the airlines, but aren't you supposed to do something to my boarding pass before I leave here?" It's not like you're given a piece of paper at the outset saying, "WARNING: If you leave here without getting your boarding pass stamped, it's your problem."
So the gate agent said, "I can't let you on the flight; I could lose my job over this," almost with a note of pride of a job well done in terms of catching me as if I was attempting to sneak by him onto the flight! So then they page someone from TSA to the gate. As you might guess, the TSA did not break any speed records in getting to the gate. I'm like--don't they track this in their system? Can't they verify my checked status real-time? Of course not! In the meanwhile, the pilots are unhappy about my not boarding in a timely fashion, another person on standby wants my seat, and finally the TSA agent shows up. And then subjects me to a free, complimentary mandatory second search (in front of everyone, of course). If the first search wasn't stamped, as far as the TSA was concerned, it never happened. When I briefly protested, the response was, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way. The hard way is you end up going back to the security checkpoint with me and missing your flight."
I instinctively realized--this is nuts! It had nothing to do with my inconvenience or annoyance. I think the American people have all but given federal bureaucrats a blank check to make arbitrary rules and regulations allegedly in the spirit of flight safety. What's particularly exasperating is these petty infringements on liberty started under the Bush Administration. Things have relaxed a bit--you no longer have restrictions on nail files and knitting needles. It's like TSA personnel stay up late at night dreaming up scenarios of, for example, people fashioning weapons out of tubes of toothpaste, baby teethers or gel deodorants; I wonder if there's a rule against small-busted women wearing falsies onto flights...
I don't think they get it. There was a famous book a few years back called "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" (by Robert Fulghum). I don't recall if the author discussed bullies, but everybody knows what bullies are like--they rarely pick on someone their own size. The point is--you can't guard against everything. I hardly know how a terrorist thinks, but I understand the concepts of surprise attacks, decoys, and soft targets. It may very well be the case that some groups take it as a challenge to fashion a weapon out of allowed TSA exemptions, although I suspect that the government is focusing an undue amount of resources on certain classes of threats; it's like squeezing a balloon--expect a pin prick on the other side of the balloon you haven't grasped.
Bruce Schneier wrote an interesting relevant essay a few years ago titled "Terrorists Don't Do Movie Plots"; let's stop the madness. Do we really need to restrict juvenile diabetics from being able to go to the bathroom during the final hour of a flight as a knee-jerk overreaction to NWA Flight 253?
Political Cartoon
Chip Bok, using the context of the well-known Ally Bank ad (below), expertly mocks Senate Majority Harry "Bad Santa" Reid, recently quoted as saying (in response to the Louisiana Purchase/Cornhusker Kickback kerfuffle) ""I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them. And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them." (Reid has respect only for those politicians whom have the audacity to speak up for their fair share of theloot taxpayer dollars.) Notice that Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson's pony is gobbling up greens (as in taxpayer greenbacks); Nelson's rationalizations come out the other end...
Ally Bank Commercial
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Joe Cocker Track: "When the Night Comes"
This is a Bryan Adams' penned song, but Joe Cocker made the song his own. Joe Cocker, of course, also has his own niche based on songs like "You Are So Beautiful" and remakes of "The Letter" (the Boxtops) and "With a Little Help From My Friends" (the Beatles). I loved Cocker's version of this song so much, I bought a second copy of the "Best of Joe Cocker" when I couldn't find my first copy after a move.
I'm somewhat amused that my initial attempts of an Internet searchfor a transcript of Obama's remarks yesterday on Flight 253 came up empty. I then discovered a Washington Post link via a conservative blogger by doing a search on the same phrase other conservatives also apparently noticed: "isolated extremist".
This incident, like several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist.First, the White House needs better fact checkers: the hero who subdued Farouk Abdulmutallab was not an American citizen or the flight crew, but Dutchman Jasper Schuringa. Second, what is notable is the group Al Qaeda goes entirely unmentioned despite claims of the suspect himself, and in fact a relevant Al Qaeda group came forth to claim responsibility. Third, perhaps it's just a reflexive part of his legal training, but is it necessary for Obama to say "a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body"? Is there any doubt something happened on Flight 253? Do we speak of the alleged burns on the suspect's body? Is Obama really more concerned about the American legal rights of a Nigerian terrorist?
The Politics of Symbolism shines throughout this transcript; it took until the Christmas incident for Obama to decide there was a need for an airline safety review. Anyone want to make a bet that Obama's eventual "solution" is to "stimulate the economy" by hiring more and more TSA personnel?
Never Underestimate the Stupidity of a Government Bureaucrat
I did quite a bit of business travel until about a month before 9/11. Then I went on my first business-related flight several months after 9/11 (and the failed shoe bombing incident). (The interruption in business travel had more to do with clients willing to pick up expenses.) I ended up getting detailed searched each way, I lost track of what happened to my shoes, and TSA personnel seemed more interested in exercising authority than in patiently explaining things to passengers not used to the new rules and regulations. (In this case, there was this pack mentality where I was surrounded by 2 or 3 TSA personnel talking to me at the same time, someone searching me, someone taking my shoes, etc.)
I'm sure every passenger has his or her favorite horror story, and I'm sure there will be readers whom will believe their story trumps mine. But probably the most exasperating one for me was when I won the "detailed search" lottery after waiting an unusually long period in the security line and the time cutting a little too close to departure time. So I go through the search, race to the gate--just in time--when the agent stops me and refuses to let me board, saying that my boarding pass--which had the lottery notice--had not been stamped. My response is--you've got to be kidding; how the heck am I supposed to know that the TSA personnel were required to stamp the boarding pass? How is it my problem if the TSA personnel screw up? Am I supposed to know to ask them--"I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job--I don't work for TSA or the airlines, but aren't you supposed to do something to my boarding pass before I leave here?" It's not like you're given a piece of paper at the outset saying, "WARNING: If you leave here without getting your boarding pass stamped, it's your problem."
So the gate agent said, "I can't let you on the flight; I could lose my job over this," almost with a note of pride of a job well done in terms of catching me as if I was attempting to sneak by him onto the flight! So then they page someone from TSA to the gate. As you might guess, the TSA did not break any speed records in getting to the gate. I'm like--don't they track this in their system? Can't they verify my checked status real-time? Of course not! In the meanwhile, the pilots are unhappy about my not boarding in a timely fashion, another person on standby wants my seat, and finally the TSA agent shows up. And then subjects me to a free, complimentary mandatory second search (in front of everyone, of course). If the first search wasn't stamped, as far as the TSA was concerned, it never happened. When I briefly protested, the response was, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way. The hard way is you end up going back to the security checkpoint with me and missing your flight."
I instinctively realized--this is nuts! It had nothing to do with my inconvenience or annoyance. I think the American people have all but given federal bureaucrats a blank check to make arbitrary rules and regulations allegedly in the spirit of flight safety. What's particularly exasperating is these petty infringements on liberty started under the Bush Administration. Things have relaxed a bit--you no longer have restrictions on nail files and knitting needles. It's like TSA personnel stay up late at night dreaming up scenarios of, for example, people fashioning weapons out of tubes of toothpaste, baby teethers or gel deodorants; I wonder if there's a rule against small-busted women wearing falsies onto flights...
I don't think they get it. There was a famous book a few years back called "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" (by Robert Fulghum). I don't recall if the author discussed bullies, but everybody knows what bullies are like--they rarely pick on someone their own size. The point is--you can't guard against everything. I hardly know how a terrorist thinks, but I understand the concepts of surprise attacks, decoys, and soft targets. It may very well be the case that some groups take it as a challenge to fashion a weapon out of allowed TSA exemptions, although I suspect that the government is focusing an undue amount of resources on certain classes of threats; it's like squeezing a balloon--expect a pin prick on the other side of the balloon you haven't grasped.
Bruce Schneier wrote an interesting relevant essay a few years ago titled "Terrorists Don't Do Movie Plots"; let's stop the madness. Do we really need to restrict juvenile diabetics from being able to go to the bathroom during the final hour of a flight as a knee-jerk overreaction to NWA Flight 253?
Political Cartoon
Chip Bok, using the context of the well-known Ally Bank ad (below), expertly mocks Senate Majority Harry "Bad Santa" Reid, recently quoted as saying (in response to the Louisiana Purchase/Cornhusker Kickback kerfuffle) ""I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them. And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them." (Reid has respect only for those politicians whom have the audacity to speak up for their fair share of the
Ally Bank Commercial
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Joe Cocker Track: "When the Night Comes"
This is a Bryan Adams' penned song, but Joe Cocker made the song his own. Joe Cocker, of course, also has his own niche based on songs like "You Are So Beautiful" and remakes of "The Letter" (the Boxtops) and "With a Little Help From My Friends" (the Beatles). I loved Cocker's version of this song so much, I bought a second copy of the "Best of Joe Cocker" when I couldn't find my first copy after a move.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Miscellany: 12/28/09
HHS Secretary Janet Napolitano: Who is She Kidding?
"The system worked" and "everything happened that should have"? We were only spared of a horrific tragedy on Christmas over Detroit (as in the case of the "shoe bombing" incident) by sheer luck (the detonator failed) and assistance by certain passengers in apprehending the suspect. I do dislike the inevitable Monday morning quarterbacking or fingerpointing that occurs after an actual incident (e.g., 9/11) or a close call. What is more troubling in this case was that the explosive substance (PETN) was the same used during the two failed attempts. And of course there are the other reported things which you think should have triggered suspicion, e.g., no luggage for an international passenger and a one-way ticket paid with cash.
To be fair, Secretary Napolitano on Fox News this morning admitted to failures in the system. Perhaps she thought yesterday that she needed to reassure passengers that everything is in control--sort of her Alexander Haig moment (remember the attempted Reagan assassination?) But to almost anyone hearing her, she seemed to be out of touch and in a state of denial.
Obama's Katrina-like Response to Flight 253
Remember how the Dems criticized Bush being on vacation when in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina we had a disaster on the streets of New Orleans? Yet Obama, who is so quick to the draw when it comes to Don Imus making a joke about a college women's basketball team or the arrest of his Harvard professor friend, is now on day 3 following the NWA flight 253 incident with no meaningful response (other than to predictably call for a review on airline security measures).
The Rich Get Richer?
The way the progressives tell it, you would think that after 2 terms of the Bush Administration, the rich got richer. But in reviewing where we were 10 years ago (in the usual 10-year reviews), the Wall Street Journal reveals that even with this year's rebound, the Dow is not ahead in NOMINAL terms with where it was 10 years ago; more importantly, if you factor in inflation, the Dow Jones would have to gain another 28% or so from where it stands now just to break even. And, of course, you are taxed on NOMINAL gains, not REAL gains, which is utterly absurd. To some extent the amount is mitigated by lower taxes on long-term gains, but it depends on how long you have held the investment. The Obama Administration, of course, supports a consumer spending bias (relative to savings and investment), but given its record of nearly equaling the deficit in Bush's entire second term in just the first year of its term in office, should we be surprised by anemic job growth?
A Bond Guru Believes That Fed Reserve Chair Bernanke is Underestimating Inflation
Well, this isn't really rocket science since the Fed has kept interest rates are near zero but many consumers have seen prices pick up at the grocery store, and the Democrats are using health care inflation to justify their so-called reform measure. What is news is Bill Tedford, who at the helm of Stephens market-beating bond portfolio, has joined the ranks of inflation bugs whom believes that all the easy money sloshing around the economy will lead to inflation (and hence is advocating traditional inflation hedges, such as commodities and precious metals). (To be fair, Fed Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke believes that economic slack in a recessionary environment offsets inflation risk.) The argument is that increases in the monetary base above GDP growth roughly tracks inflation growth. Tedford notes that over the past 15 months, even discounting excess reserves, the monetary base has increased by 11%--a period during which we had negative or very modest increases in GDP. I would also be very wary of a double-dip recession if the Fed is forced to raise rates sharply.
I was rather intrigued hearing former Speaker Gingrich talk of a different bubble this time after seeing bubbles in the Internet economy, real estate and energy--this time, the government spending bubble. I'm really concerned that Obama is underestimating the effect of his debt explosion on the international investor--if foreign investment in US bonds falls off, government interest payments are going to skyrocket and cause spending dilemmas.
Political Cartoon
IBD cartoonist Michael Ramirez tweaks Senators "Louisiana Purchase" and "Cornhusker Kickback". As I recently wrote, "In other words, we already know what they are; Reid was just haggling over the price." Attention, "Congressman" Grayson: Who are the real K Street whores? At least when Spitzer was haggling, he didn't put millions or billions on the national credit card. There's little honor in the nation's second oldest profession.
Musical Interlude: Gary Wright "Phantom Writer"
Gary Wright had two monster hits in 1976: "Dream Weaver" and "Love is Alive". Gary Wright had an innovative twist on his musical arrangements in the rock era: no use of guitar. I remember bringing my copy of his follow-up LP ("The Light of Smiles") to a friend's party, but he quickly pulled the album before it got to my favorite Gary Wright track: "Phantom Writer", the lead single which barely missed cracking the top 40. I couldn't find a Youtube video featuring the track, so click on the link to hear a sample full song play at lala.com; I also think the song lyrics on various websites are wrong, but I would need to get my LP out of storage:
Listen to "Phantom Writer" @ lala.com
"The system worked" and "everything happened that should have"? We were only spared of a horrific tragedy on Christmas over Detroit (as in the case of the "shoe bombing" incident) by sheer luck (the detonator failed) and assistance by certain passengers in apprehending the suspect. I do dislike the inevitable Monday morning quarterbacking or fingerpointing that occurs after an actual incident (e.g., 9/11) or a close call. What is more troubling in this case was that the explosive substance (PETN) was the same used during the two failed attempts. And of course there are the other reported things which you think should have triggered suspicion, e.g., no luggage for an international passenger and a one-way ticket paid with cash.
To be fair, Secretary Napolitano on Fox News this morning admitted to failures in the system. Perhaps she thought yesterday that she needed to reassure passengers that everything is in control--sort of her Alexander Haig moment (remember the attempted Reagan assassination?) But to almost anyone hearing her, she seemed to be out of touch and in a state of denial.
Obama's Katrina-like Response to Flight 253
Remember how the Dems criticized Bush being on vacation when in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina we had a disaster on the streets of New Orleans? Yet Obama, who is so quick to the draw when it comes to Don Imus making a joke about a college women's basketball team or the arrest of his Harvard professor friend, is now on day 3 following the NWA flight 253 incident with no meaningful response (other than to predictably call for a review on airline security measures).
The Rich Get Richer?
The way the progressives tell it, you would think that after 2 terms of the Bush Administration, the rich got richer. But in reviewing where we were 10 years ago (in the usual 10-year reviews), the Wall Street Journal reveals that even with this year's rebound, the Dow is not ahead in NOMINAL terms with where it was 10 years ago; more importantly, if you factor in inflation, the Dow Jones would have to gain another 28% or so from where it stands now just to break even. And, of course, you are taxed on NOMINAL gains, not REAL gains, which is utterly absurd. To some extent the amount is mitigated by lower taxes on long-term gains, but it depends on how long you have held the investment. The Obama Administration, of course, supports a consumer spending bias (relative to savings and investment), but given its record of nearly equaling the deficit in Bush's entire second term in just the first year of its term in office, should we be surprised by anemic job growth?
A Bond Guru Believes That Fed Reserve Chair Bernanke is Underestimating Inflation
Well, this isn't really rocket science since the Fed has kept interest rates are near zero but many consumers have seen prices pick up at the grocery store, and the Democrats are using health care inflation to justify their so-called reform measure. What is news is Bill Tedford, who at the helm of Stephens market-beating bond portfolio, has joined the ranks of inflation bugs whom believes that all the easy money sloshing around the economy will lead to inflation (and hence is advocating traditional inflation hedges, such as commodities and precious metals). (To be fair, Fed Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke believes that economic slack in a recessionary environment offsets inflation risk.) The argument is that increases in the monetary base above GDP growth roughly tracks inflation growth. Tedford notes that over the past 15 months, even discounting excess reserves, the monetary base has increased by 11%--a period during which we had negative or very modest increases in GDP. I would also be very wary of a double-dip recession if the Fed is forced to raise rates sharply.
I was rather intrigued hearing former Speaker Gingrich talk of a different bubble this time after seeing bubbles in the Internet economy, real estate and energy--this time, the government spending bubble. I'm really concerned that Obama is underestimating the effect of his debt explosion on the international investor--if foreign investment in US bonds falls off, government interest payments are going to skyrocket and cause spending dilemmas.
Political Cartoon
IBD cartoonist Michael Ramirez tweaks Senators "Louisiana Purchase" and "Cornhusker Kickback". As I recently wrote, "In other words, we already know what they are; Reid was just haggling over the price." Attention, "Congressman" Grayson: Who are the real K Street whores? At least when Spitzer was haggling, he didn't put millions or billions on the national credit card. There's little honor in the nation's second oldest profession.
Musical Interlude: Gary Wright "Phantom Writer"
Gary Wright had two monster hits in 1976: "Dream Weaver" and "Love is Alive". Gary Wright had an innovative twist on his musical arrangements in the rock era: no use of guitar. I remember bringing my copy of his follow-up LP ("The Light of Smiles") to a friend's party, but he quickly pulled the album before it got to my favorite Gary Wright track: "Phantom Writer", the lead single which barely missed cracking the top 40. I couldn't find a Youtube video featuring the track, so click on the link to hear a sample full song play at lala.com; I also think the song lyrics on various websites are wrong, but I would need to get my LP out of storage:
Listen to "Phantom Writer" @ lala.com
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Miscellany: 12/27/09
Christmas Terror
There was the Christmas Eve attack against the 82-year-old pontiff (Pope Benedict XVI) by a mid-20's woman, Susanna Maiolo, pulling the Holy Father to the ground. According to some reports, she had attempted to do the same thing last year but had been intercepted. It appears that the woman has mental health issues and was not part of any conspiracy. However, if a standalone woman is able to penetrate Vatican security, one has to be concerned about vulnerability to other, more serious risks.
Then there's attempted terrorist attack of alleged Al Qaeda-linked Umar Mutalla, whom sought to take down NWA flight 253 on its final spproach to Detroit by trying to ignite a chemical explosive device PETN (fortunately with a defective makeshift detonator) reportedly sewn into his underwear. We now can expect after-the-fact security measures of the sort that followed the foiled attempt by shoe bomber Richard Reid (e.g., new restrictions on passenger behavior during the final hour of a flight). There are also questions being raised about Amsterdam (Flight 253 origin) screening procedures, how Mutalla got a US visa when Britain, in fact, declined to issue him one of theirs, and the fact that Mutalla's Nigerian father had previously gone to the US Embassy, to alert them about his son's religious radicalism.
I'm more concerned about Monday morning quarterbacking; we already know what Al Qaeda sympathizers took away was not regret over the possible loss of innocent lives but the need to build better detonators. We need to be more proactive and focused; we need less emphasis on Draconian restrictions on ordinary American citizens, better coordinated intelligence and improved filtering of suspect passengers. I am troubled by the ongoing Democratic progressive mentality of conceptualizing terrorist activities as merely criminal in nature (e.g., the disputes over importing Gitmo detainees to an Illinois prison, the upcoming New York show trials of KSM, etc.), anxiety over risk-based security measures (e.g., higher scrutiny for Middle Eastern or Islamic passengers), and exaggerated politically-motivated demonization of the opposition (e.g., pro-life, veterans, and right-wing groups).
William Daley: "Keep the Big Tent Big"
William Daley, son of the legendary Chicago mayor and brother of the current mayor, is a former Commerce Secretary in the Clinton Administration and clearly concerned about the announced 5 Democratic centrist retirements and conversion (Parker Griffith). He's worried about the results of the Democratic strategy of recruiting moderates and conservatives for purple or red districts in the 2006 and 2008 elections is going to be undone. He tiptoes around the core issues--extraordinary Democratic spending and enactment of an expensive progressive agenda in the middle of the biggest recession in decades on things like health care and the environment--and doesn't address the failure of centrists to join forces with the Republicans to mitigate the agenda. (Remember how Phil Gramm used to be a Democrat and as a leader of the so-called Boll Weevils worked to help enact Reagan's tax cuts?) He does point out the progressive netroots are engaging in their own counterproductive ideological litmus tests.
I think Daley is in a state of denial in arguing against a conservative agenda; according to a much-publicized NPR survey last March, self-identified conservatives were 45%, moderates 35%, and progressives 19%. I do think the Republicans would be better served to mirror the Democrats' 2006 strategy, running pragmatic candidates in blue and purple states and districts (e.g., Mark Kirk in Illinois and Mike Castle in Delaware) and focus on a more problem-solving than an ideological agenda in 2010 and 2012. Even if the GOP was to somehow regain control in the Senate (unlikely) and the House (a long shot) in the mid-terms, it can anticipate Obama to adopt Clinton's centrist tactics following the 1994 election, and the Democrats, barring an election blowout, will easily block any attempt to gut Obamacare. What the Republicans can do is to mitigate government growth and force Obama to negotiate with them instead of around them.
A Favorite Movie Clip From the 80's
While I was working towards my UH doctorate on a limited income, I would occasionally go to a dollar cinema and buy some popcorn. I had no clue what "The Neverending Story" was about but was quickly swept up in the family film's plot; if the reader hasn't seen the movie, a young boy (Bastian) is being bullied and finds refuge in an antique bookstore, where he starts reading a very unique book with an Escher-like, self-reflexive quality--he becomes part of the story. In this key scene ("Moonchild"), Bastian must choose to save Fantasia from the surrounding Nothing, by giving the Childlike Empress her name: he must say the name of his beloved late mother.
Political Cartoon
Gary Varvel portrays the progressive pickpockets in the Trojan horse Democratic Party Health Care Bill.
There was the Christmas Eve attack against the 82-year-old pontiff (Pope Benedict XVI) by a mid-20's woman, Susanna Maiolo, pulling the Holy Father to the ground. According to some reports, she had attempted to do the same thing last year but had been intercepted. It appears that the woman has mental health issues and was not part of any conspiracy. However, if a standalone woman is able to penetrate Vatican security, one has to be concerned about vulnerability to other, more serious risks.
Then there's attempted terrorist attack of alleged Al Qaeda-linked Umar Mutalla, whom sought to take down NWA flight 253 on its final spproach to Detroit by trying to ignite a chemical explosive device PETN (fortunately with a defective makeshift detonator) reportedly sewn into his underwear. We now can expect after-the-fact security measures of the sort that followed the foiled attempt by shoe bomber Richard Reid (e.g., new restrictions on passenger behavior during the final hour of a flight). There are also questions being raised about Amsterdam (Flight 253 origin) screening procedures, how Mutalla got a US visa when Britain, in fact, declined to issue him one of theirs, and the fact that Mutalla's Nigerian father had previously gone to the US Embassy, to alert them about his son's religious radicalism.
I'm more concerned about Monday morning quarterbacking; we already know what Al Qaeda sympathizers took away was not regret over the possible loss of innocent lives but the need to build better detonators. We need to be more proactive and focused; we need less emphasis on Draconian restrictions on ordinary American citizens, better coordinated intelligence and improved filtering of suspect passengers. I am troubled by the ongoing Democratic progressive mentality of conceptualizing terrorist activities as merely criminal in nature (e.g., the disputes over importing Gitmo detainees to an Illinois prison, the upcoming New York show trials of KSM, etc.), anxiety over risk-based security measures (e.g., higher scrutiny for Middle Eastern or Islamic passengers), and exaggerated politically-motivated demonization of the opposition (e.g., pro-life, veterans, and right-wing groups).
William Daley: "Keep the Big Tent Big"
William Daley, son of the legendary Chicago mayor and brother of the current mayor, is a former Commerce Secretary in the Clinton Administration and clearly concerned about the announced 5 Democratic centrist retirements and conversion (Parker Griffith). He's worried about the results of the Democratic strategy of recruiting moderates and conservatives for purple or red districts in the 2006 and 2008 elections is going to be undone. He tiptoes around the core issues--extraordinary Democratic spending and enactment of an expensive progressive agenda in the middle of the biggest recession in decades on things like health care and the environment--and doesn't address the failure of centrists to join forces with the Republicans to mitigate the agenda. (Remember how Phil Gramm used to be a Democrat and as a leader of the so-called Boll Weevils worked to help enact Reagan's tax cuts?) He does point out the progressive netroots are engaging in their own counterproductive ideological litmus tests.
I think Daley is in a state of denial in arguing against a conservative agenda; according to a much-publicized NPR survey last March, self-identified conservatives were 45%, moderates 35%, and progressives 19%. I do think the Republicans would be better served to mirror the Democrats' 2006 strategy, running pragmatic candidates in blue and purple states and districts (e.g., Mark Kirk in Illinois and Mike Castle in Delaware) and focus on a more problem-solving than an ideological agenda in 2010 and 2012. Even if the GOP was to somehow regain control in the Senate (unlikely) and the House (a long shot) in the mid-terms, it can anticipate Obama to adopt Clinton's centrist tactics following the 1994 election, and the Democrats, barring an election blowout, will easily block any attempt to gut Obamacare. What the Republicans can do is to mitigate government growth and force Obama to negotiate with them instead of around them.
A Favorite Movie Clip From the 80's
While I was working towards my UH doctorate on a limited income, I would occasionally go to a dollar cinema and buy some popcorn. I had no clue what "The Neverending Story" was about but was quickly swept up in the family film's plot; if the reader hasn't seen the movie, a young boy (Bastian) is being bullied and finds refuge in an antique bookstore, where he starts reading a very unique book with an Escher-like, self-reflexive quality--he becomes part of the story. In this key scene ("Moonchild"), Bastian must choose to save Fantasia from the surrounding Nothing, by giving the Childlike Empress her name: he must say the name of his beloved late mother.
Political Cartoon
Gary Varvel portrays the progressive pickpockets in the Trojan horse Democratic Party Health Care Bill.
Musical Interlude: The Babys' "Everytime I Think of You"
This is one of those songs I love singing, pretending to be John Waite for a few minutes (I have tweaked the lyrics in my own version--for some reason, for years, I've been adding the verse "everytime I see your face" at the end of the song...) Why can't songwriters write songs like this any more?
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Miscellany: 12/26/09
Freddie and Fannie Get Payback on Their Obama Investment
As we noted in last year's posts, Barack Obama during his brief Senate career had already attracted more contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae than all but one senator. So while the nation's attention this week was drawn to the Democratic Party Health Care Bill and the Congress raising the ceiling of the national debt, the Treasury Department quietly raised the caps limiting government funding to roughly $200B each (so far the GSE's have together used a total of about $110B), not to mention de facto government executive compensation packages for up to $6M (without bionic parts). The motivation for this decision was expiring Executive Branch authority to make such decisions without explicit Congressional approval. The rationale is the duopoly's massive exposure to the mortgage market and hence "too big to fail"; the Obama Administration tells us this step is needed to reassure the markets; I'm concerned, with the economy showing signs of bottoming out and the housing market starting to stabilize, why the administration is moving to lift caps on nearly half a trillion when "only" a quarter of existing authorized debt has been used. (I do get the fact a number of gimmick mortgages are at or near the trigger reset point, potentially triggering a new wave of mortgage defaults. I could support the conversion of gimmick loans to fixed-rate, long-term mortgages without principal write-offs.)
But I don't believe that Congress gave the White House a blank check; there was a reason for establishing the cap in the first place, and any raises in the cap should require explicit Congressional approval. Second, there seems to be all sorts of moral hazard here; the fact is that a government-sponsored duopoly unnecessarily exposed the American taxpayer to a disproportionate share of the risk in the mortgage market. (Apparently the progressive anti-trust agenda has a blind spot when it comes to government or government-sponsored organizations.) If the government is going to provide funding to the private sector, it should be so on a consistent basis, not by picking winners and losers in the marketplace. I would like to see a breakup of the duopoly to diversify risk (e.g., on a regional basis) and stripping away of special Treasury or other government privileges. For the Obama Administration to lift the debt limits without making the hard decisions involving the future of the GSE's is not unlike announcing of Gitmo without first deciding where the imprisoned detainees were to go.
Pagan Display Redux
The Nativity-Winter Solstice controversy erupted in Illinois this year (I had commented on a similar kerfuffle last year in the state of Washington). A Republican candidate for Illinois comptroller, William J. Kelly, attempted to turn away from public view a provocative atheist sign and was stopped and escorted from the building by local security.
The sign displays the same verbiage that set off the Washington state furor, i.e.,
What most people understand is that if atheists were secure in their (lack of) beliefs, they wouldn't feel the need to disparage people of faith. They would be better off backing away from condescending put-downs of people of faith, hypocritically creating their own devils and intolerant creeds in the process. As for the Illinois state (and other) bureaucrats, how about growing a pair and doing the right thing?
Political Cartoon
IBD's Michael Ramirez recalls how self-evident scientific "truths" have constantly been superseded with improved knowledge and technology. I think what astonishes me is how many scientists have bought into the conspiracy as exposed by Climategate, not questioning the predictive validity of current climate models and the nature, extent and replication of purported evidence. Scanning editorial cartoons, e.g., at theweek.com, it was clear that Ramirez' point of view is a minority one; most cartoonists seem to have drawn their cartoons after rewatching Al Gore's propaganda film. The common theme was to mock skeptics: tell it to the drowning polar bears.
Post-Christmas Reflection: Musical Interlude: Live Aid, "Do They Know It's Christmas Time"
God bless those whom see their brother in a stranger, including those far away, and feed the bodies and souls of those in need of a short-term helping hand; let's call it the multiplier of love.
As we noted in last year's posts, Barack Obama during his brief Senate career had already attracted more contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae than all but one senator. So while the nation's attention this week was drawn to the Democratic Party Health Care Bill and the Congress raising the ceiling of the national debt, the Treasury Department quietly raised the caps limiting government funding to roughly $200B each (so far the GSE's have together used a total of about $110B), not to mention de facto government executive compensation packages for up to $6M (without bionic parts). The motivation for this decision was expiring Executive Branch authority to make such decisions without explicit Congressional approval. The rationale is the duopoly's massive exposure to the mortgage market and hence "too big to fail"; the Obama Administration tells us this step is needed to reassure the markets; I'm concerned, with the economy showing signs of bottoming out and the housing market starting to stabilize, why the administration is moving to lift caps on nearly half a trillion when "only" a quarter of existing authorized debt has been used. (I do get the fact a number of gimmick mortgages are at or near the trigger reset point, potentially triggering a new wave of mortgage defaults. I could support the conversion of gimmick loans to fixed-rate, long-term mortgages without principal write-offs.)
But I don't believe that Congress gave the White House a blank check; there was a reason for establishing the cap in the first place, and any raises in the cap should require explicit Congressional approval. Second, there seems to be all sorts of moral hazard here; the fact is that a government-sponsored duopoly unnecessarily exposed the American taxpayer to a disproportionate share of the risk in the mortgage market. (Apparently the progressive anti-trust agenda has a blind spot when it comes to government or government-sponsored organizations.) If the government is going to provide funding to the private sector, it should be so on a consistent basis, not by picking winners and losers in the marketplace. I would like to see a breakup of the duopoly to diversify risk (e.g., on a regional basis) and stripping away of special Treasury or other government privileges. For the Obama Administration to lift the debt limits without making the hard decisions involving the future of the GSE's is not unlike announcing of Gitmo without first deciding where the imprisoned detainees were to go.
Pagan Display Redux
The Nativity-Winter Solstice controversy erupted in Illinois this year (I had commented on a similar kerfuffle last year in the state of Washington). A Republican candidate for Illinois comptroller, William J. Kelly, attempted to turn away from public view a provocative atheist sign and was stopped and escorted from the building by local security.
The sign displays the same verbiage that set off the Washington state furor, i.e.,
At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.My viewpoint, as a person of faith, is unchanged from my earlier discussion. I don't have a problem with a positively-toned message with traditional pagan symbols. But the Nativity scene essentially heralds the promise of a newborn child, something that even an atheist parent could appreciate; in fact, some argue that similar myths were devised to promote the authenticity and significance of certain individuals (e.g., Roman emperors). It would be one thing if the Nativity scene was accompanied by a religious rant, arguing that man is more than a handful of dust, that atheists are in a state of denial and short-sighted, foolishly turning away the gift of salvation (cf. Pascal's wager). The atheists in this message are essentially mocking people of faith; this is a one-sided, disrespectful display, and comparing the exhibits is apples and oranges. Illinois state officials, by refusing to enforce standards of civility and allowing hostile, "in-your-face" exhibits, have no moral standing. This is NOT a matter of "free speech", any more than limiting the use of disrespectful language or gratuitous nudity on television, newspapers or websites.
What most people understand is that if atheists were secure in their (lack of) beliefs, they wouldn't feel the need to disparage people of faith. They would be better off backing away from condescending put-downs of people of faith, hypocritically creating their own devils and intolerant creeds in the process. As for the Illinois state (and other) bureaucrats, how about growing a pair and doing the right thing?
Political Cartoon
IBD's Michael Ramirez recalls how self-evident scientific "truths" have constantly been superseded with improved knowledge and technology. I think what astonishes me is how many scientists have bought into the conspiracy as exposed by Climategate, not questioning the predictive validity of current climate models and the nature, extent and replication of purported evidence. Scanning editorial cartoons, e.g., at theweek.com, it was clear that Ramirez' point of view is a minority one; most cartoonists seem to have drawn their cartoons after rewatching Al Gore's propaganda film. The common theme was to mock skeptics: tell it to the drowning polar bears.
Post-Christmas Reflection: Musical Interlude: Live Aid, "Do They Know It's Christmas Time"
God bless those whom see their brother in a stranger, including those far away, and feed the bodies and souls of those in need of a short-term helping hand; let's call it the multiplier of love.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Miscellany: 12/25/09
Things That Make You Go Hmmm
Steve Kelley invites you to consider why, if the Democratic Party Health Care Bill is really as good as its hype alleges, why is it necessary to bribe senators to vote for it?
Progressive Anglican Priests: Theft You Can Believe In...
One of my best friends, a liberal accounting professor in San Diego, once attempted to convince me that everyone should be willing to pay a little more for fast food in order to pay a "living wage" to minimum-wage employees. I rarely eat fast food, but I was always bothered by his argument, which confounds business with charity. I don't consider wages a reflection of a worker's performance or his worthiness as an individual but of labor supply and demand. My friend might have been willing to pay a higher price for his food, but I'm not sure lower-income families can afford the higher prices or lower-skilled workers would appreciate the shrinking supply of relevant jobs.
Pastor Tim Jones apparently believes that the Ten Commandments are a "living document":
A UK priest has defended his comments that it is acceptable to steal from large companies.
Tim Jones, parish priest of St Lawrence and St Hilda, told his congregation in York, northern England: "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift."
I would ask that they [steal] from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices
As course, the cleric knows where to point fingers:
I would say to [my critics]: Compare how much you are spending on yourself this Christmas compared to how much you have given to people in desperate situations
I could swear I read somewhere (Mt. 7:1-2), "Judge not, lest you be judged." And "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' (Lk. 7:34). Perhaps instead of putting so much of their money in Father Tim's collection plate, people should find a more worthy secular humanistic cause...
Of course, Father Tim links the moral acceptability of stealing with the size of the company. Never mind, for example, that pensioners may depend on dividends from large companies. He swears that stealing this way is innocuous; the big companies won't even miss it. I guess God didn't have enough space on those stone tablets to fit in Father Tim's moral ambiguity, nuances and fine print.
Today's Cartoon
Dana Summers reminds us of the reason for the season:
Christmas Musical Interlude: Bing Crosby's "White Christmas"
The best-selling single of all time, sung by the master crooner:
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Miscellany: 12/24/09
The US Senate Passes the Democratic Party Health Care Bill (and Raises the Debt Ceiling)
Senator Jim Bunning, you have some "splaining to do" over being AWOL as the Senate Democrats this morning defeated the Senate Republicans 60-39 in passing the Democratic Party Health Care Bill. The bill now goes to conference committee for the House and Senate to reconcile bill differences (pick your poison). I suspect given the fragile nature of the Senate Democratic sausage it will probably establish the basic framework of the final bill. To add insult to injury, the Senate Democrats voted to raise the debt ceiling a few hundred billion dollars to cover the costs of their unconscionable spending sprees.
McCaskill: The Grinch is a Republican?
First of all, this blog is called "an American conservative", not a "Republican". I used to be a registered Democrat, even while my perspective became more conservative in the early 1980's as I took graduate business school courses (which were non-ideological). In these posts, I have been heavily critical of the Bush Administration and Republican Congress' record on fiscal discipline (including earmarks), a dated political agenda, and political litmus tests for Congressional candidates.
McCaskill on Fox News was interviewed and quickly dismissed concerns of the GOP as hypocritical (e.g., earmarks), preposterously arguing that the federal government will expand health insurance coverage while reducing the budget deficit. Let me make a quick point on this: dealing with earmarks is similar to private sector plans dealing with high-risk/cost patients. It's a lot easier to do this when the same constraints apply to everyone and the risks or benefits are spread equally or on a nonpartisan basis of merit. Just like no private sector insurer wants to get stuck with a disproportionate number of below-cost policyholders, no Congressman likes his constituents having to subsidize the earmarks going to other districts. It's what I call the Sally Brown (sister to Charlie) rationalization: all I want is my fair share. That being said, the issue I have with earmarks is the inherent corruption; it is morally indefensible to be passing projects of questionable merit given an historic revenue shortfall. But let's keep in mind the disingenuous nature of McCaskill's criticism; she's trying to distract American taxpayers from the huge sums of money being spent in the Democratic Party Health Care Bill with the proportionately modest percentage spent on earmarks; this is not a quid pro quo.
As for saying that the Grinch may be a Republican, I will be charitable and say that I think she's referring to the conservative Grinch whom refunded most of what Whoville residents themselves earned, not the progressive tax agent Grinch whom decided Whoville residents hadn't paid enough taxes and moved to confiscate their possessions.
But Is the Democratic Party Bill on Health Care Constitutional?
There are a couple of interesting Constitutional questions addressing aspects of the Democratic bill, the first being the mandates themselves (since when can you force people to buy certain goods or services?) Our Founding Fathers didn't dictate the nature of the contracts between health care consumers and providers. If politicians can require health insurance (versus, say, paying for treatment as needed), where do you draw the line? Can they decide whether you rent or buy housing? Force you to pay for meals in approved restaurants? This seems, on its face, an unprecedented assault on the Fifth Amendment, not to mention the Tenth Amendment, usurping the historic primacy of the states in regulating health care.
Second, there is the equal protection issue Senator Lindsey Graham has raised with regards to Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback"... The idea that Nebraskan citizens will be exempt from the increased state burden on Medicaid expansion means that other states are having to subsidize those costs. This flatly contradicts any concept of equal protection.
There's also the point of Richard Epstein, whom notes that the Democratic Party Bill will attempt to penalize health care insurers with more than 10% administrative costs, arguing for a refund to related policyholders. This is arbitrary and capricious, because smaller companies have fewer goods and services to spread their overhead. This policy is grossly unfair to smaller businesses and anti-competitive in nature, exposing the inherent corruption of government in conjunction with Big Insurance, squeezing out their smaller competitors. This is an unprecedented regulatory overreach.
So even if the Congressional Democrats pass their health bill without Republican support (other entitlements, including Medicare, drew significant GOP support in contrast), expect the US Supreme Court to be forced to address some unsettled Constitutional issues.
Bonus Christmas Novelty Track: Kenosha (WI) Police, "12 Days of Christmas"
Political Cartoon
Steve Breen reminds us that "haste makes government waste". All votes are final; no rationalizations accepted. Personally, I think the Citizens Against Government Waste should announce a recall of all those Democratic Congressmen/women bought off by the leadership. I want the GAO to qualify its opinion on whether Democratic hype constitutes a fair presentation of financial statements in the bill, including all appropriate disclosures; they should also require all copies of said bill to be stamped with an explicit warning: "This bill may be hazardous to your financial future."
An Addendum to My Holiday Movie List
There are a couple of well-written TV movie additions to my earlier published list of favorites:
The Note (2007). Genie Francis plays Peyton Macgruder, a newspaper human interest columnist whose dwindling readership has put her job in jeopardy. An airplane crash off the coast left no survivors. Peyton discovers a note on the beach that she believes could have been written in the last few moments of the flight. The father wrote words of forgiveness, so his child was not left with the finality of their last unpleasant encounter. Is Peyton's impassioned search to find the note's intended recipient among surviving family members of victims motivated by her own need for forgiveness?
The Christmas Hope (2009). The social worker wife and her airline pilot husband find their relationship is on the rocks in the aftermath of their only teenage son's tragic auto accident death. One of the social worker's clients is a young girl whose single mother, a waitress with songwriting ambitions, was struck and killed by a motorist, and the couple takes her in as foster parents. There are a couple of subplots here, including a young doctor's haunted memory of the first patient he lost, and the pilot befriends a young man apparently heading down the wrong path in life. The orphan is convinced that her late mother will keep a Christmas promise, and she has an imaginary friend. [Speaking as an uncle who unconditionally loves his 9 nieces, I'm disgusted by the girl's uncle, a miserable excuse for a human being whose only interest is not the custody of his adorable sweetheart niece but financial exploitation of his sister's death.]
Bonus Political Cartoon
My favorite cartoonist, Michael Ramirez, has a thought-provoking, spot-on exhibit in commemoration of today's expected passage of the Democratic Party Health Care Bill in the Senate:
Christmas Musical Interlude: Eagles' "Please Come Home for Christmas"
Senator Jim Bunning, you have some "splaining to do" over being AWOL as the Senate Democrats this morning defeated the Senate Republicans 60-39 in passing the Democratic Party Health Care Bill. The bill now goes to conference committee for the House and Senate to reconcile bill differences (pick your poison). I suspect given the fragile nature of the Senate Democratic sausage it will probably establish the basic framework of the final bill. To add insult to injury, the Senate Democrats voted to raise the debt ceiling a few hundred billion dollars to cover the costs of their unconscionable spending sprees.
McCaskill: The Grinch is a Republican?
First of all, this blog is called "an American conservative", not a "Republican". I used to be a registered Democrat, even while my perspective became more conservative in the early 1980's as I took graduate business school courses (which were non-ideological). In these posts, I have been heavily critical of the Bush Administration and Republican Congress' record on fiscal discipline (including earmarks), a dated political agenda, and political litmus tests for Congressional candidates.
McCaskill on Fox News was interviewed and quickly dismissed concerns of the GOP as hypocritical (e.g., earmarks), preposterously arguing that the federal government will expand health insurance coverage while reducing the budget deficit. Let me make a quick point on this: dealing with earmarks is similar to private sector plans dealing with high-risk/cost patients. It's a lot easier to do this when the same constraints apply to everyone and the risks or benefits are spread equally or on a nonpartisan basis of merit. Just like no private sector insurer wants to get stuck with a disproportionate number of below-cost policyholders, no Congressman likes his constituents having to subsidize the earmarks going to other districts. It's what I call the Sally Brown (sister to Charlie) rationalization: all I want is my fair share. That being said, the issue I have with earmarks is the inherent corruption; it is morally indefensible to be passing projects of questionable merit given an historic revenue shortfall. But let's keep in mind the disingenuous nature of McCaskill's criticism; she's trying to distract American taxpayers from the huge sums of money being spent in the Democratic Party Health Care Bill with the proportionately modest percentage spent on earmarks; this is not a quid pro quo.
As for saying that the Grinch may be a Republican, I will be charitable and say that I think she's referring to the conservative Grinch whom refunded most of what Whoville residents themselves earned, not the progressive tax agent Grinch whom decided Whoville residents hadn't paid enough taxes and moved to confiscate their possessions.
But Is the Democratic Party Bill on Health Care Constitutional?
There are a couple of interesting Constitutional questions addressing aspects of the Democratic bill, the first being the mandates themselves (since when can you force people to buy certain goods or services?) Our Founding Fathers didn't dictate the nature of the contracts between health care consumers and providers. If politicians can require health insurance (versus, say, paying for treatment as needed), where do you draw the line? Can they decide whether you rent or buy housing? Force you to pay for meals in approved restaurants? This seems, on its face, an unprecedented assault on the Fifth Amendment, not to mention the Tenth Amendment, usurping the historic primacy of the states in regulating health care.
Second, there is the equal protection issue Senator Lindsey Graham has raised with regards to Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback"... The idea that Nebraskan citizens will be exempt from the increased state burden on Medicaid expansion means that other states are having to subsidize those costs. This flatly contradicts any concept of equal protection.
There's also the point of Richard Epstein, whom notes that the Democratic Party Bill will attempt to penalize health care insurers with more than 10% administrative costs, arguing for a refund to related policyholders. This is arbitrary and capricious, because smaller companies have fewer goods and services to spread their overhead. This policy is grossly unfair to smaller businesses and anti-competitive in nature, exposing the inherent corruption of government in conjunction with Big Insurance, squeezing out their smaller competitors. This is an unprecedented regulatory overreach.
So even if the Congressional Democrats pass their health bill without Republican support (other entitlements, including Medicare, drew significant GOP support in contrast), expect the US Supreme Court to be forced to address some unsettled Constitutional issues.
Bonus Christmas Novelty Track: Kenosha (WI) Police, "12 Days of Christmas"
Political Cartoon
Steve Breen reminds us that "haste makes government waste". All votes are final; no rationalizations accepted. Personally, I think the Citizens Against Government Waste should announce a recall of all those Democratic Congressmen/women bought off by the leadership. I want the GAO to qualify its opinion on whether Democratic hype constitutes a fair presentation of financial statements in the bill, including all appropriate disclosures; they should also require all copies of said bill to be stamped with an explicit warning: "This bill may be hazardous to your financial future."
An Addendum to My Holiday Movie List
There are a couple of well-written TV movie additions to my earlier published list of favorites:
The Note (2007). Genie Francis plays Peyton Macgruder, a newspaper human interest columnist whose dwindling readership has put her job in jeopardy. An airplane crash off the coast left no survivors. Peyton discovers a note on the beach that she believes could have been written in the last few moments of the flight. The father wrote words of forgiveness, so his child was not left with the finality of their last unpleasant encounter. Is Peyton's impassioned search to find the note's intended recipient among surviving family members of victims motivated by her own need for forgiveness?
The Christmas Hope (2009). The social worker wife and her airline pilot husband find their relationship is on the rocks in the aftermath of their only teenage son's tragic auto accident death. One of the social worker's clients is a young girl whose single mother, a waitress with songwriting ambitions, was struck and killed by a motorist, and the couple takes her in as foster parents. There are a couple of subplots here, including a young doctor's haunted memory of the first patient he lost, and the pilot befriends a young man apparently heading down the wrong path in life. The orphan is convinced that her late mother will keep a Christmas promise, and she has an imaginary friend. [Speaking as an uncle who unconditionally loves his 9 nieces, I'm disgusted by the girl's uncle, a miserable excuse for a human being whose only interest is not the custody of his adorable sweetheart niece but financial exploitation of his sister's death.]
Bonus Political Cartoon
My favorite cartoonist, Michael Ramirez, has a thought-provoking, spot-on exhibit in commemoration of today's expected passage of the Democratic Party Health Care Bill in the Senate:
Christmas Musical Interlude: Eagles' "Please Come Home for Christmas"
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Miscellany: 12/23/09
Praise God! Sean Goldman is Finally Coming Home!
Brazil's chief justice Gilmar Mendes late yesterday finally put an end to the Brazilian stepfather's legal nonsense keeping American Sean Goldman from returning to his father David's custody, even after Sean's mother died in childbirth. Hats off to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other American diplomats and their Brazilian counterparts whom worked to enforce a matter legally decided by the 1980 Hague Convention and its signatories.
Welcome to the Right Side, Rep. Parker Griffith!
Alabama freshman Democratic Congressman Griffith, a radiation oncologist, has decided to migrate to the Light Side (i.e., the Republicans, whom didn't participate in partisan back room deals or schedule 1 AM votes), particularly given how the Dem leadership from the Dark Side, under Speaker Nancy "I Was Not Briefed on Waterboarding" Pelosi and Senate Majority Harry "Let's Make a Deal" Reid, has botched legitimate health care reform...
Political Cartoon
John Cole reminds us: "It's the Economy, Stupid!"
Christmas Musical Interlude: Paul McCartney's "Wonderful Christmas Time"
Paul McCartney, the most brilliant pop melody writer among the Beatles (if not pop music as a whole--even if he had done nothing more than write "Yesterday", in my judgment the greatest pop single of all time), crafted this delightful track in the late 1970's which just seems to radiate with happiness of being with family and friends this time of year.
Brazil's chief justice Gilmar Mendes late yesterday finally put an end to the Brazilian stepfather's legal nonsense keeping American Sean Goldman from returning to his father David's custody, even after Sean's mother died in childbirth. Hats off to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other American diplomats and their Brazilian counterparts whom worked to enforce a matter legally decided by the 1980 Hague Convention and its signatories.
Welcome to the Right Side, Rep. Parker Griffith!
Alabama freshman Democratic Congressman Griffith, a radiation oncologist, has decided to migrate to the Light Side (i.e., the Republicans, whom didn't participate in partisan back room deals or schedule 1 AM votes), particularly given how the Dem leadership from the Dark Side, under Speaker Nancy "I Was Not Briefed on Waterboarding" Pelosi and Senate Majority Harry "Let's Make a Deal" Reid, has botched legitimate health care reform...
Political Cartoon
John Cole reminds us: "It's the Economy, Stupid!"
Christmas Musical Interlude: Paul McCartney's "Wonderful Christmas Time"
Paul McCartney, the most brilliant pop melody writer among the Beatles (if not pop music as a whole--even if he had done nothing more than write "Yesterday", in my judgment the greatest pop single of all time), crafted this delightful track in the late 1970's which just seems to radiate with happiness of being with family and friends this time of year.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Miscellany: 12/22/09
Notable Quotables
George Will commenting on Senators Mary "Louisiana Purchase" Landrieu and Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson:
The Green Revolution Lives
The Ayatollah Montazeri, who broke with the ruling Iranian theocracy in the late 1980's and has been one of its harshest critics, was buried yesterday in Qom. This follows recent admissions from the ruling government that some protesters of the recent tainted reelection of Ahmadinejad had been beaten and killed by guards after coroners denied official explanations that the protesters died from illnesses. We are confident that the spirit of the Green Revolution lives on, and one day the dreams of Neda Soltan and other Iranian patriots will be realized.
Political Cartoon
Eric Allie points out the excuse, which I'm sure must have been signed by The One's personal physician, Howard Dean: "We're going to bash Bush in New Hampshire, Then we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York ... And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take it back to the White House! And then we're going to take it to England and France and Germany and we're going to Jerusalem and Cairo and Kabul, and we're next going to Moscow and Beijing and Tokyo and then back to the White House. And then we're going on MSNBC, and CNN and NBC and ABC and CBS (but not Fox News). Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!"
Christmas Musical Interlude: Nat King Cole's "The Christmas Song"
This Nat King Cole signature Christmas tune was on the playlist for my high school choir's Christmas concert. My fellow students were critics, thinking our performance was a little flat at spots. But fortunately my readers don't have to settle for clips of my high school choir performance when Nat King Cole's extraordinary interpretation of Mel Torme's timeless classic is available:
George Will commenting on Senators Mary "Louisiana Purchase" Landrieu and Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson:
Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above looting the nation for local benefits.In other words, we already know what they are; Reid was just haggling over the price. (Nelson won his state an exemption of the increased state burden assumed by expanding Medicaid eligibility; Landrieu's price, as reported in an earlier post, was a $300M "fix".)
The Green Revolution Lives
The Ayatollah Montazeri, who broke with the ruling Iranian theocracy in the late 1980's and has been one of its harshest critics, was buried yesterday in Qom. This follows recent admissions from the ruling government that some protesters of the recent tainted reelection of Ahmadinejad had been beaten and killed by guards after coroners denied official explanations that the protesters died from illnesses. We are confident that the spirit of the Green Revolution lives on, and one day the dreams of Neda Soltan and other Iranian patriots will be realized.
Political Cartoon
Eric Allie points out the excuse, which I'm sure must have been signed by The One's personal physician, Howard Dean: "We're going to bash Bush in New Hampshire, Then we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York ... And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take it back to the White House! And then we're going to take it to England and France and Germany and we're going to Jerusalem and Cairo and Kabul, and we're next going to Moscow and Beijing and Tokyo and then back to the White House. And then we're going on MSNBC, and CNN and NBC and ABC and CBS (but not Fox News). Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!"
Christmas Musical Interlude: Nat King Cole's "The Christmas Song"
This Nat King Cole signature Christmas tune was on the playlist for my high school choir's Christmas concert. My fellow students were critics, thinking our performance was a little flat at spots. But fortunately my readers don't have to settle for clips of my high school choir performance when Nat King Cole's extraordinary interpretation of Mel Torme's timeless classic is available:
Monday, December 21, 2009
Miscellany: 12/21/09
Senate in the Dead of Night Clears Way for Democratic Party Health Care Act
John McCain, who has served the people of Arizona since 1982 as a Congressman and US Senator, a key bipartisan, notes that this is unprecedented in his experience; there was no meaningful bipartisan outreach. One only need be reminded of Obama's transparency rhetoric during the campaign: why is necessary to have a cloture vote at 1AM? Something which might affect one-sixth of the US economy? The vote was purely party line as not even Senator Snowe from Maine, whom cast a crucial vote within committee, validated this Democratic back room deal.
Post Update: Sean Goldman
Back in June, I wrote a post advocating the return of 9-year-old Sean Goldman from Brazil to his American father David. Sean's mother Bruna supposedly was taking her young son home for a visit to her homeland; she made a decision once in Brazil to divorce David. David has not seen his son in years, despite multiple trips to Brazil. Bruna remarried and died last year in childbirth. Sean's politically connected stepfather has refused to hand over Sean and has successfully obtained a number of injunctions putting off the inevitable, since this is a matter decided by international treaties. Last week a Brazilian federal court unanimously ruled in favor of David's custody of Sean with a target of last Friday, but once again the stepfather filed an injunction to the Brazilian Supreme Court.
ClimateGate: A Few Comments
Other than a late September post where I cited the disputed data (reported by others) underlying the so-called hockey stick evidence supporting global warming theory, I've mostly kept silent about Climategate. In explaining this, one needs to understand the basic concepts underlying the scientific method and theory. In science, we validate a theory by testing a hypothetical relationship between constructs (e.g., man-made carbon dioxide and the climate), obtaining relevant objective evidence using standard methods and measures. This evidence should be available on request by other scientists; this becomes particularly important when study results seem to be inconsistent with other studies. Results should be subject to review by qualified scientists, independent of the authors and with no vested interest in the study results; their principal responsibility is attesting to the application of generally-accepted scientific methods, measures, and appropriate statistical analyses and to the fit of the authors' conclusions to the observed data.
Apparently some unidentified party hacked into an email system including exchanges among some of the key scientists supporting the global warming theory. For example, there were emails expressing unreported concerns about evidence, discussing how to get rid of a scientific journal editor whom wasn't sufficiently committed to global warming ideology (and/or boycotting independently-minded scientific journals), and getting global warming-friendly reviewers placed with top journals. But perhaps most damning is a tacit self-admission of cherry-picking data points to accommodate their hypothesis and constant rejection or evasions of calls to share their study data.
How do I say this? What these emails, if accurate, show are scientists not only involved in fraud but in an unconscionable breach of professional ethics. Science is not ideology; it does not engage in groupthink beyond common agreement on the tools and techniques using to conduct and evaluate empirical research. A manipulated study is like a Ponzi scheme--ultimately undone by the inability of other scientists to validate or replicate the results using conventional methodology. Yes, they may postpone the day of reckoning by trying to control editorial boards to ban dissent, but there are too many honest scientists and means of communicating conflicting studies not under the control of any conspiracy.
The fact is scientists have been trying to make a case for global warming over the past decade, and if anything, we've been more of a bias towards cooling temperatures. How does the global warming theory fit the observed data? Surely this is a case where convoluted explanations conjecturing about a blip in the data should be subject to Ockham's razor. And one thing is for sure--you don't need to go to extremes of hiding data and stifling dissent if you know the data legitimately is behind your point of view.
The Senate minority report on the climate change issue cites over 400 scientists debunking the science behind global warming. What's worse is that we have politicians, e.g., President Obama, without scientific expertise, proposing drastic changes to our economy to accommodate not real science but some sort of politically correct ideology masking as science. The Senate should reject the climate change bill.
Political Cartoon
Ken Catalino spoofs the 1983 Christmas movie classic. No doubt Ralphie Parker is role-playing Obama IRS agent 007 holding up Santa for unpaid taxes, living in a tax haven at the North Pole. All the Democrats want is what they have coming to them (to pay for their multi-trillion dollar spending sprees), all they want is their fair share.
Christmas Musical Interlude: Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas is You"
The greatest pop songstress belts out her Christmas signature hit. A bachelor can only dream of hanging red fishnet stockings in the hope that Santa will deliver his dream girl; Nick Cannon is a very lucky man.
John McCain, who has served the people of Arizona since 1982 as a Congressman and US Senator, a key bipartisan, notes that this is unprecedented in his experience; there was no meaningful bipartisan outreach. One only need be reminded of Obama's transparency rhetoric during the campaign: why is necessary to have a cloture vote at 1AM? Something which might affect one-sixth of the US economy? The vote was purely party line as not even Senator Snowe from Maine, whom cast a crucial vote within committee, validated this Democratic back room deal.
Post Update: Sean Goldman
Back in June, I wrote a post advocating the return of 9-year-old Sean Goldman from Brazil to his American father David. Sean's mother Bruna supposedly was taking her young son home for a visit to her homeland; she made a decision once in Brazil to divorce David. David has not seen his son in years, despite multiple trips to Brazil. Bruna remarried and died last year in childbirth. Sean's politically connected stepfather has refused to hand over Sean and has successfully obtained a number of injunctions putting off the inevitable, since this is a matter decided by international treaties. Last week a Brazilian federal court unanimously ruled in favor of David's custody of Sean with a target of last Friday, but once again the stepfather filed an injunction to the Brazilian Supreme Court.
ClimateGate: A Few Comments
Other than a late September post where I cited the disputed data (reported by others) underlying the so-called hockey stick evidence supporting global warming theory, I've mostly kept silent about Climategate. In explaining this, one needs to understand the basic concepts underlying the scientific method and theory. In science, we validate a theory by testing a hypothetical relationship between constructs (e.g., man-made carbon dioxide and the climate), obtaining relevant objective evidence using standard methods and measures. This evidence should be available on request by other scientists; this becomes particularly important when study results seem to be inconsistent with other studies. Results should be subject to review by qualified scientists, independent of the authors and with no vested interest in the study results; their principal responsibility is attesting to the application of generally-accepted scientific methods, measures, and appropriate statistical analyses and to the fit of the authors' conclusions to the observed data.
Apparently some unidentified party hacked into an email system including exchanges among some of the key scientists supporting the global warming theory. For example, there were emails expressing unreported concerns about evidence, discussing how to get rid of a scientific journal editor whom wasn't sufficiently committed to global warming ideology (and/or boycotting independently-minded scientific journals), and getting global warming-friendly reviewers placed with top journals. But perhaps most damning is a tacit self-admission of cherry-picking data points to accommodate their hypothesis and constant rejection or evasions of calls to share their study data.
How do I say this? What these emails, if accurate, show are scientists not only involved in fraud but in an unconscionable breach of professional ethics. Science is not ideology; it does not engage in groupthink beyond common agreement on the tools and techniques using to conduct and evaluate empirical research. A manipulated study is like a Ponzi scheme--ultimately undone by the inability of other scientists to validate or replicate the results using conventional methodology. Yes, they may postpone the day of reckoning by trying to control editorial boards to ban dissent, but there are too many honest scientists and means of communicating conflicting studies not under the control of any conspiracy.
The fact is scientists have been trying to make a case for global warming over the past decade, and if anything, we've been more of a bias towards cooling temperatures. How does the global warming theory fit the observed data? Surely this is a case where convoluted explanations conjecturing about a blip in the data should be subject to Ockham's razor. And one thing is for sure--you don't need to go to extremes of hiding data and stifling dissent if you know the data legitimately is behind your point of view.
The Senate minority report on the climate change issue cites over 400 scientists debunking the science behind global warming. What's worse is that we have politicians, e.g., President Obama, without scientific expertise, proposing drastic changes to our economy to accommodate not real science but some sort of politically correct ideology masking as science. The Senate should reject the climate change bill.
Political Cartoon
Ken Catalino spoofs the 1983 Christmas movie classic. No doubt Ralphie Parker is role-playing Obama IRS agent 007 holding up Santa for unpaid taxes, living in a tax haven at the North Pole. All the Democrats want is what they have coming to them (to pay for their multi-trillion dollar spending sprees), all they want is their fair share.
Christmas Musical Interlude: Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas is You"
The greatest pop songstress belts out her Christmas signature hit. A bachelor can only dream of hanging red fishnet stockings in the hope that Santa will deliver his dream girl; Nick Cannon is a very lucky man.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Miscellany: 12/20/09
Kimberly Strassel's "Democrats on the Health-Care Precipice": Some Comments
What has become a rather curious ritual almost nobody else I've read comments about is Obama's knee-jerk praise anytime the Democratic-led House or Senate comes up with some back office, wheeler-dealer convoluted legislative proposal, which bears almost no recognizable resemblance to campaign high-sounding rhetoric. Senator Mary "Louisiana Purchase" Landrieu (D-LA) went on the Senate floor to complain about conservative bloggers reporting her alleged sellout for $100M on health care: "It is not a $100 million fix, it is a $300 million fix". Point well-taken, Senator: we should never underestimate a Democratic politician's willingness to spend public money for political gain.
Obama's cheerleading reminds me about some programmed patronizing flattery I once got doing some computerized training program. I finished a short chapter with no exercise when this feedback flashed on the green congratulating me for all my hard work. In fact, all I had done was click through 2 or 3 pages. I actually went back to see if there was some exercise I hadn't noticed. Clicking through a couple of pages certainly wasn't worthy of praise. Praise for minimal or mediocre effort is hardly inspiring; it devalues the concept.
The White House, in response to sagging polls on health care reform, is spinning some nonsense about how people will warm up to their version of health care "reform" once it's law. I think that's a state of denial. The Democrats will be held accountable for any benefit gaps or deficiencies in whatever bill emerges, any increases over cost projections or any restrictions on eligibility. The Democrats are setting unrealistic expectations that "reform" will bring down costs, cost savings from Medicare subsidizing the cost (never mind the fact that we have a huge unfunded mandate in Medicare, which any alleged savings should shore up), and the number of uninsured will all but disappear. Yet the Democrats have yet to provide a convincing case that this convoluted wheeling and dealing in Congress will result in success state experiments in Massachusetts, Oregon, and elsewhere haven't been able to achieve. And with the Democrats all doing the heavy lifting to pass a bill (because they refuse bipartisan compromise), the Republicans will be able to tie any and all shortcomings directly to Democratic incumbents.
Kimberly Strassel points out that Republicans are very competitive in a number of states with Democratic Senate seats up for grabs; Colorado, North Dakota, and Delaware could flip; New York and California are in play, as well as Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Illinois, and Nevada, with announced or expected GOP candidates leading or tied with incumbents. There are just over 10 months until then, which is a lifetime in politics. I've seen some Democratic senators or candidates inching back up, including Reid and Dodd, widely considered the most vulnerable Democrats. The GOP expects to make a significant dent in the House, where 4 Democratic incumbents have already announced they will not run for reelection. Conventional political wisdom makes it unlikely that the Dems will come out of the mid-terms holding or increasing their positions. The magnitude of Democratic losses will depend on a number of factors, the principal one being whether the economy will have rebounded sufficiently. The Democrats will be in a bad position if unemployment has not dipped back below the 7.6% at Obama's inauguration; just holding serve won't be good enough. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and of course Obama and the Democratic Congress will attempt to attribute any cyclic recovery as proof that their stimulus and other domestic spending agendas are working.
But the real take-away from the column involves the real motives behind the Democrats' puzzling obsession with health care reform. It's best understood in the context of the recent Medicare for 55 and above kerfuffle and GOP complaints over cuts to Medicare. As more than one progressive noted: many Republicans had been opposed to Medicare on concept, and so their opposition to cuts in Medicare funding seem politically convenient. To an extent, that's true. However, when most Americans have been paying into Medicare for years, it's become a fact of life; the GOP concern over the Medicare expansion had more to do with counterproductive cuts in doctor and hospital repayments, already subsidized by the private sector, while simultaneously contracting the private sector share. This really amounts to a de facto tax on people in private-sector plans (or paying for services a la carte).
The progressives want to scapegoat the profits of private-sector insurers, but that's wrong on multiple levels. The private sector is intrinsically motivated to minimize costs, including adoption of creative destructive technologies and techniques; in many cases, markups are a percentage over underlying costs; hence, like in last year's oil price squeeze, oil company profits followed the oil price spike; they also dropped in the aftermath of the economic tsunami. But even when gas was $4.50/gallon, gas station operators didn't sell as much gas, so even though their profits were higher per fill-up, they had fewer customers filling up as customers sought to mitigate the cost shock, e.g., cutting back on discretionary driving, using mass transit, etc. And whereas the energy companies reported huge profits, the stock market prices in future profits, and it did not believe the profits were sustainable long-term. The same type thing occurs in the pricing, say, of alternative energy stocks, oil sand stocks, etc., which become profitable at a certain price point for conventionally-produced oil; oil exporters know that which is why sometimes they will call for a price target below the current market price.
We see the same kind of response in terms of health insurance. For example, some policyholders will elect to choose lower-premium higher-deductible plan. Others may elect to do the historical practice of a la carte payment, not paying towards middleman administrative costs (private sector or government). But the progressive theory that the real cost driver is private health insurer windfall profits is preposterous. For one thing, the government is already covering almost half of the population. Second, the industry is already heavily regulated on the state level, Third, non-profits (e.g., Blue Cross) compete in many, if not most of these state markets, and all things being equal, the nonprofits would take market share away from private sector insurers whom did not price their policies competitively. If private companies can make profits in competing with non-profits, why is this an issue? Perhaps they're doing a better job managing their costs. Fourth, profits are the thermostat of the private sector; there are lots of private health insurers. The major issue is any barrier to entry in state markets. Fifth, those who espouse a conspiracy theory need to come with a logical explanation of why this market power suddenly materialized, across the board, in individually-regulated markets. Industry consolidation is driven not so much to obtain pricing power but to increase the scalability of revenues while streamlining redundant costs. If the states are legitimately concerned about the anti-competitive effects of industry consolidation, they should look at lowering barriers of entry (including excessive regulation and expensive mandates).
The real goal of the progressives, as Strassel notes, is getting the American people hooked on government health care (my analogy: not unlike a drug pusher hooking new customers with free or limited-term attractive pricing). All they need to establish at this point is a beachhead. Then it's a matter of conventional government scope creep (just like the handling of SCHIP) But they will also want to make things opaque, e.g., by establishing a value-added tax which yields a prodigious amount of federal money, rather than annual battles over blown health care budgets. If they have to bait the hook of Democratic senators from purple or red states (e.g., Colorado, Louisiana, and Nebraska) and sacrifice Blue Dog Congressmen or centrist Democratic senators whom will pay a steep price their next election, they're willing to do that.
And that's why I think Obama is cheering on whatever piece of health care sausage the Congress sends to him. He knows once he's established that beachhead, the conservatives will have to take on a vested interest of new entitlement enrollees, and he's willing to pay any price for that, even his own reelection.
Job Stimulus II
Because the first one worked so well (and, of course, the Democrats were prescient in that they didn't pass what they really needed the first time when they had the votes...) The new proposal includes new tax incentives (e.g., to have people weatherize their homes--as if intrinsic energy cost incentives aren't enough).
Congressional Democrats scotched the idea of tax incentives for employers during stimulus I (i.e., $787B) because of union paranoia that it might encourage employers to bounce workers (lay off and rehire), simply to pocket the tax credit. This is just ludicrous; most employers have a vested interest in the training and experience of employees, which more than offset gimmicky hiring practices and tax breaks. You cannot bribe employers to hold onto workers during recessionary times. If a company's revenues and profits are falling, they have to cut costs. Unfortunately, labor costs are significant in many companies' goods and services.
It is not a decision made lightly. When I started working for computer consulting companies over a dozen years ago, companies were often willing to hire to the bench (i.e., non-billable) in order to be able to staff projects as quickly as possible. More recent experiences have been that the companies want the consultant billable from day 1, and if you roll off a billable project and there's not another project opening, you may be laid off immediately or when you dip below a certain minimal utilization rate. The bottom line is for a company to remain a viable concern, it needs to service its customers; if it grows, it adds whatever number of employees needed to service those new customers or the increased demand of existing customers. If it doesn't adequately staff to accommodate its customers' needs, it loses customers. An employer will often to resort to whatever tactics are necessary to keep its employees (e.g., reduced hours vs. layoffs). It's not really going to make decisions based on small, temporary tax credits.
In fact, I would argue that gimmicks are not likely to interest employers looking to add long-term employees. For example, stimulus tax cuts to households are often saved rather than spent (and recent $15 tax cuts per paycheck were not that material to goose the economy). It would make far more sense to push for a permanent business-side payroll tax cut.
Some tax relief for the unemployed and the like would be reasonable (just don't call it a stimulus). As for confounding the idea of stimulus with Obama's green energy industrial policy or throwing more money on questionable infrastructure projects, not a chance. I am for a long-term infrastructure commitment where project selection is depoliticized; just don't try to insult my intelligence by portraying wheeling and dealing for crony infrastructure projects as "stimulus": the Bridge to Nowhere was not economic miracle-grow.
Political Cartoon
Bob Englehart mocks the politically correct notions underlying the massive subsidies propping up so-called green technology. But Al Gore is probably more worried about Rudolph's 400 quarts worth of methane burps a day. What sort of policies will politically-correct environmentalists dream of next? Exterminating the world's cattle population? Razing methane-producing swamps?
Christmas Musical Interlude: The King's "Blue Christmas"
How can I have a Christmas hit countdown without the King of Rock 'N Roll, Elvis Presley? Here is his signature Christmas song...
What has become a rather curious ritual almost nobody else I've read comments about is Obama's knee-jerk praise anytime the Democratic-led House or Senate comes up with some back office, wheeler-dealer convoluted legislative proposal, which bears almost no recognizable resemblance to campaign high-sounding rhetoric. Senator Mary "Louisiana Purchase" Landrieu (D-LA) went on the Senate floor to complain about conservative bloggers reporting her alleged sellout for $100M on health care: "It is not a $100 million fix, it is a $300 million fix". Point well-taken, Senator: we should never underestimate a Democratic politician's willingness to spend public money for political gain.
Obama's cheerleading reminds me about some programmed patronizing flattery I once got doing some computerized training program. I finished a short chapter with no exercise when this feedback flashed on the green congratulating me for all my hard work. In fact, all I had done was click through 2 or 3 pages. I actually went back to see if there was some exercise I hadn't noticed. Clicking through a couple of pages certainly wasn't worthy of praise. Praise for minimal or mediocre effort is hardly inspiring; it devalues the concept.
The White House, in response to sagging polls on health care reform, is spinning some nonsense about how people will warm up to their version of health care "reform" once it's law. I think that's a state of denial. The Democrats will be held accountable for any benefit gaps or deficiencies in whatever bill emerges, any increases over cost projections or any restrictions on eligibility. The Democrats are setting unrealistic expectations that "reform" will bring down costs, cost savings from Medicare subsidizing the cost (never mind the fact that we have a huge unfunded mandate in Medicare, which any alleged savings should shore up), and the number of uninsured will all but disappear. Yet the Democrats have yet to provide a convincing case that this convoluted wheeling and dealing in Congress will result in success state experiments in Massachusetts, Oregon, and elsewhere haven't been able to achieve. And with the Democrats all doing the heavy lifting to pass a bill (because they refuse bipartisan compromise), the Republicans will be able to tie any and all shortcomings directly to Democratic incumbents.
Kimberly Strassel points out that Republicans are very competitive in a number of states with Democratic Senate seats up for grabs; Colorado, North Dakota, and Delaware could flip; New York and California are in play, as well as Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Illinois, and Nevada, with announced or expected GOP candidates leading or tied with incumbents. There are just over 10 months until then, which is a lifetime in politics. I've seen some Democratic senators or candidates inching back up, including Reid and Dodd, widely considered the most vulnerable Democrats. The GOP expects to make a significant dent in the House, where 4 Democratic incumbents have already announced they will not run for reelection. Conventional political wisdom makes it unlikely that the Dems will come out of the mid-terms holding or increasing their positions. The magnitude of Democratic losses will depend on a number of factors, the principal one being whether the economy will have rebounded sufficiently. The Democrats will be in a bad position if unemployment has not dipped back below the 7.6% at Obama's inauguration; just holding serve won't be good enough. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and of course Obama and the Democratic Congress will attempt to attribute any cyclic recovery as proof that their stimulus and other domestic spending agendas are working.
But the real take-away from the column involves the real motives behind the Democrats' puzzling obsession with health care reform. It's best understood in the context of the recent Medicare for 55 and above kerfuffle and GOP complaints over cuts to Medicare. As more than one progressive noted: many Republicans had been opposed to Medicare on concept, and so their opposition to cuts in Medicare funding seem politically convenient. To an extent, that's true. However, when most Americans have been paying into Medicare for years, it's become a fact of life; the GOP concern over the Medicare expansion had more to do with counterproductive cuts in doctor and hospital repayments, already subsidized by the private sector, while simultaneously contracting the private sector share. This really amounts to a de facto tax on people in private-sector plans (or paying for services a la carte).
The progressives want to scapegoat the profits of private-sector insurers, but that's wrong on multiple levels. The private sector is intrinsically motivated to minimize costs, including adoption of creative destructive technologies and techniques; in many cases, markups are a percentage over underlying costs; hence, like in last year's oil price squeeze, oil company profits followed the oil price spike; they also dropped in the aftermath of the economic tsunami. But even when gas was $4.50/gallon, gas station operators didn't sell as much gas, so even though their profits were higher per fill-up, they had fewer customers filling up as customers sought to mitigate the cost shock, e.g., cutting back on discretionary driving, using mass transit, etc. And whereas the energy companies reported huge profits, the stock market prices in future profits, and it did not believe the profits were sustainable long-term. The same type thing occurs in the pricing, say, of alternative energy stocks, oil sand stocks, etc., which become profitable at a certain price point for conventionally-produced oil; oil exporters know that which is why sometimes they will call for a price target below the current market price.
We see the same kind of response in terms of health insurance. For example, some policyholders will elect to choose lower-premium higher-deductible plan. Others may elect to do the historical practice of a la carte payment, not paying towards middleman administrative costs (private sector or government). But the progressive theory that the real cost driver is private health insurer windfall profits is preposterous. For one thing, the government is already covering almost half of the population. Second, the industry is already heavily regulated on the state level, Third, non-profits (e.g., Blue Cross) compete in many, if not most of these state markets, and all things being equal, the nonprofits would take market share away from private sector insurers whom did not price their policies competitively. If private companies can make profits in competing with non-profits, why is this an issue? Perhaps they're doing a better job managing their costs. Fourth, profits are the thermostat of the private sector; there are lots of private health insurers. The major issue is any barrier to entry in state markets. Fifth, those who espouse a conspiracy theory need to come with a logical explanation of why this market power suddenly materialized, across the board, in individually-regulated markets. Industry consolidation is driven not so much to obtain pricing power but to increase the scalability of revenues while streamlining redundant costs. If the states are legitimately concerned about the anti-competitive effects of industry consolidation, they should look at lowering barriers of entry (including excessive regulation and expensive mandates).
The real goal of the progressives, as Strassel notes, is getting the American people hooked on government health care (my analogy: not unlike a drug pusher hooking new customers with free or limited-term attractive pricing). All they need to establish at this point is a beachhead. Then it's a matter of conventional government scope creep (just like the handling of SCHIP) But they will also want to make things opaque, e.g., by establishing a value-added tax which yields a prodigious amount of federal money, rather than annual battles over blown health care budgets. If they have to bait the hook of Democratic senators from purple or red states (e.g., Colorado, Louisiana, and Nebraska) and sacrifice Blue Dog Congressmen or centrist Democratic senators whom will pay a steep price their next election, they're willing to do that.
And that's why I think Obama is cheering on whatever piece of health care sausage the Congress sends to him. He knows once he's established that beachhead, the conservatives will have to take on a vested interest of new entitlement enrollees, and he's willing to pay any price for that, even his own reelection.
Job Stimulus II
Because the first one worked so well (and, of course, the Democrats were prescient in that they didn't pass what they really needed the first time when they had the votes...) The new proposal includes new tax incentives (e.g., to have people weatherize their homes--as if intrinsic energy cost incentives aren't enough).
Congressional Democrats scotched the idea of tax incentives for employers during stimulus I (i.e., $787B) because of union paranoia that it might encourage employers to bounce workers (lay off and rehire), simply to pocket the tax credit. This is just ludicrous; most employers have a vested interest in the training and experience of employees, which more than offset gimmicky hiring practices and tax breaks. You cannot bribe employers to hold onto workers during recessionary times. If a company's revenues and profits are falling, they have to cut costs. Unfortunately, labor costs are significant in many companies' goods and services.
It is not a decision made lightly. When I started working for computer consulting companies over a dozen years ago, companies were often willing to hire to the bench (i.e., non-billable) in order to be able to staff projects as quickly as possible. More recent experiences have been that the companies want the consultant billable from day 1, and if you roll off a billable project and there's not another project opening, you may be laid off immediately or when you dip below a certain minimal utilization rate. The bottom line is for a company to remain a viable concern, it needs to service its customers; if it grows, it adds whatever number of employees needed to service those new customers or the increased demand of existing customers. If it doesn't adequately staff to accommodate its customers' needs, it loses customers. An employer will often to resort to whatever tactics are necessary to keep its employees (e.g., reduced hours vs. layoffs). It's not really going to make decisions based on small, temporary tax credits.
In fact, I would argue that gimmicks are not likely to interest employers looking to add long-term employees. For example, stimulus tax cuts to households are often saved rather than spent (and recent $15 tax cuts per paycheck were not that material to goose the economy). It would make far more sense to push for a permanent business-side payroll tax cut.
Some tax relief for the unemployed and the like would be reasonable (just don't call it a stimulus). As for confounding the idea of stimulus with Obama's green energy industrial policy or throwing more money on questionable infrastructure projects, not a chance. I am for a long-term infrastructure commitment where project selection is depoliticized; just don't try to insult my intelligence by portraying wheeling and dealing for crony infrastructure projects as "stimulus": the Bridge to Nowhere was not economic miracle-grow.
Political Cartoon
Bob Englehart mocks the politically correct notions underlying the massive subsidies propping up so-called green technology. But Al Gore is probably more worried about Rudolph's 400 quarts worth of methane burps a day. What sort of policies will politically-correct environmentalists dream of next? Exterminating the world's cattle population? Razing methane-producing swamps?
Christmas Musical Interlude: The King's "Blue Christmas"
How can I have a Christmas hit countdown without the King of Rock 'N Roll, Elvis Presley? Here is his signature Christmas song...
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Man of the Year 2009: Rick Santelli
Image courtesy of thegreatilluminator.com
It was the "rant heard around the world"; the Democrats, flush off an election sweep and their strongest majorities in years and marginalizing opposition Republicans as little more than naysayers, sought to move on their presumptive mandate of wildcard change, including unprecedented spending sprees and various tax giveaways, especially to workers whom do not contribute towards federal government overhead; why would those who have no vested interest, given the fact they are being given money earned by other people and future generations, have any interest in holding the Democrats' feet to the fire of fiscal discipline?
I've already pointed out in other posts the Democrats' conceptually incoherent, self-serving arguments against the Republicans and the Bush Administration: on one hand, they've attacked the Republicans' budget deficits, while arguing the Republicans didn't spend enough on domestic programs and entitlements. (They will argue that it's because the rich didn't pay enough taxes and we were spending money in the Gulf Region, but the fact is that high-end tax rates are only modestly lower than under Clinton, and the deficits went beyond any Gulf War spending.) The fact is that George W. Bush was hardly a fiscal conservative with the highest increases in domestic spending since LBJ--but the Democrats have qualitatively surged beyond Bush's record of spending, nearly quadrupling the deficit. We are no longer shocked by Democrats pushing trillion-dollar bills on strings, e.g., health care "reform" and climate change.
What finally set off CNBC reporter Rick Santelli was yet another Obama/Dem "spread the wealth" legislative gimmick, this one involving government subsidies to income-qualified mortgage holders. In the warped progressive world view, any time a lower-income individual enters into a contract, he or she is "exploited" by definition to the other party. It's the ultimate buyer's remorse--never mind the fact that the bank, on foreclosure, would have to post a loss in a down market. The same goes with routine progressive threats to enact cramdown legislation, i.e., forcing the banks to forgive loan principle, something that would threaten bank solvency. The idea is that only one party in the transaction assumes any risk or responsibility--the creditor. There are all sorts of moral hazard at play: the government becomes the nanny state where individuals and businesses are condescending viewed as incapable of handling risk; hence, government bureaucrats relieve them of any need to think on their own. The price? The loss of individual liberty, as the creeping vines of progressive government slowly entangle its citizens, limiting their ability to live their lives, build businesses, or get credit. Why should individuals or businesses exercise responsibility, e.g., negotiate the best price for a house, etc., knowing the next time they are in a bind in an adverse market, the government will bail them out? The problem, of course, is when you try to micromanage risk, you undercut the foundation of American economic growth.
Rick Santelli's rant spoke to the heart of the center-right nation. For years, the country had seen political bickering gridlock the federal government, led by both parties; the citizens narrowly elected an inexperienced politican whom ran as a Washington outsider, promising a post-partisan government. But the nation had been victimized by an obscene "bait-and-switch", where instead of putting a halt to the large deficits under Bush, the Democrats, in fact, put overspending on steroids, where instead of bipartisan compromise, the Democrats cherry-picked a few Republicans to ram costly partisan bills down the nation's throat, future generations be damned.
There are definite echoes of a past campaign, some 17 years ago, when Ross Perot captured the imagination of nearly 20 percent of the national vote, based on disgust with both political parties and concern over the lack of fiscal discipline. The Tea Party movement, which seemed to rise up almost overnight in response to Rick Santelli's clarion call, goes beyond just the unconscionable deficits we are racking up on the backs of future generations, which will face an ultra-competitive global economy. There is a fundamental disconnect between the progressive agenda and traditional American values; there is a sense that the government of the people and for the people has become a corrupt institution singularly focused on its own survival, growth and scope of its authority and control at the expense of the individual and the private sector. To quote Howard Beale from the movie Network: 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'
Rasmussen reports some surprising strength of Tea Party reformers if they were to formalize into a political party, including substantial support from independents and Republicans; in addition, he finds that up to 66% of the American people want smaller government, with fewer taxes and services, a key Tea Party belief. Personally, I think it would be a mistake for the Tea Party movement to do so; Perot's appeal was mostly to fiscal conservatives whom would normally align with Republicans and supply-side conservatives furious with Bush's betrayal of his "no-new-taxes" pledge (something Clinton disingenuously pointed out at every opportunity, explicitly challenging Bush's credibility, knowing full well that Congressional Democrats hadn't balanced the federal budget in over 20 years in power and the tax changes in question were a condition for Democratic cooperation). I think the Tea Party movement will better serve its ends by remaining nonpartisan and not formally endorsing candidates, but I think they should encourage the candidacies of those in either political party committed to the ideals of smaller governments, lower taxes and spending, and fewer regulations. They should hold those legislators accountable whom have been part of the problem and not the solution.
This recognition of Rick Santelli comes without compensation or a plaque, being little more than a few bytes stored on Google servers, just a note of appreciation for a reporter whom did more than simply read the news but spoke his mind and, in the process, spoke for the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)