Miscellany: 7/31/10

Belated Second Blogiversary

I forgot to mention in Thursday's post that it was my second blogiversary...I guess I'll have to send myself flowers. About 587 published posts in two years. That's somewhat of a misnomer because of the unit of analysis. I have written some lengthy posts and most of my posts have multiple sections whereas many bloggers publish as little as a paragraph.

My mom occasionally looks at my posts and is puzzled by why I put so much time into something hardly anyone ever reads--I don't make any money at it, after all. I think I can best explain in terms of an example from my teaching experience.

When I joined the UTEP business school, the MIS faculty consisted of a PhD graduate from another recognized MIS academic program (Texas Tech) and a couple of lecturers, one of whom was more of a practitioner and the other a Latino. [I ended up socializing more with the latter; I remember going him and another professor to a fantastic restaurant in Juarez, my first time across the border since my dad was stationed in Laredo. My friend had a lothario reputation, although we never discussed it. One urban legend was that the college urgently had to reach him once, and the person answering the call from their hotel room was a female student.] Me, I never got so much as a love note in 8 years of university teaching; the only time I can remember seeing a coed student outside a school building was near graduate housing just off the UH campus and along the path towards parking lots. A newly married former student spotted me and asked me to escort her to parking.

[It wasn't a safe area; I used to jog along the perimeter of campus in the late evening until one time as I was jogging a couple of young adult black male cyclists rode in my direction on the sidewalk when the one closer to me unexpectedly punched me hard in the face (I was listening to music on my Walkman and really wasn't paying attention to them); I could feel his knuckle on the surface of my eye. Of course, the campus police had nothing much to go on when I reported the crime. Days later, my eye was still so badly swollen my auditing professor asked me if I had walked into a door or something.]

Anyway, the Texas Tech graduate had basically recruited me; as I mentioned in an earlier post, the business college had applied, but not received, AACSB accreditation; they wanted my list of publications on file before the accreditation committee froze the application. So months later, I was depending on my new colleague for advice on the new courses I was teaching. in particular, a data structures course, taught in the early evening schedule. What I recall from the conversation was his philosophy on how the course was taught, how many computer assignments he did in teaching the course, etc. What he didn't tell me was that the students weren't happy with his format; the popular practitioner lecturer had frequently taught the data structures/database management courses and basically ignored course guidelines, teaching some database concepts in the first course and using the second course as sort of a local business internship program. The university really didn't care what he was doing, so long as students gave him high marks at the end of semester evaluation forms... I don't recall the exact number but I had something like 12-15 students the first week, maybe half of that number the second week, and soon I was down to 2 or 3 students (by the final drop date).

I was shocked, because nothing like that had ever happened before or since; I've had drops before, but nothing approaching that. I went to my colleague and confronted him. He then admitted he was telling me how he thought the course should be taught and his students didn't like it either. There is a natural resistance to change, and quite frankly, in my opinion, most of my students considered classes as punches on a job ticket diploma, and the less they had to do in getting their tickets punched, the better. There was little awareness with how their learning and training in the classroom would serve them in the long run competing against others from more rigorous programs.

But all that is spilled milk; the question is--how do I handle a classroom of 2 or 3 students? Obviously in that scenario you have more time for individual attention, but I still had lectures to plan and computer assignments and tests to write and grade. I was still spending a serious amount of time investing in a first-time course preparation. Whether I had 3 students or 30, I was putting in the same amount of effort. I still have to laugh at once reading an anonymous student at a former college hypothesize that my purpose for making a class rigorous was to force enough students into dropping to lessen the amount of time grading tests and assignments. Grading takes a trivial amount of time...

Hopefully my reader has gotten the point in my long example. I have to think through our national issues; I'm  in the process of fleshing out my own political philosophy, and in a matter of speaking, writing this blog is cathartic. In the process I'm looking at topical issues and analyzing them in what I consider an even-handed, constructive, pragmatic manner; I dislike red meat/strident or overly personal views.

[I'm sure Shirley Sherrod might disagree, but I never accused her of  being a racist; I was really more concerned about her, in this allegedly redemptive/transforming speech, simply switching from one stereotype to another, whether we are talking about the scapegoat upper-class or the absurd straw man characterization of the Bush Administration. All she is doing is redirecting her personal frustrations; what is truly redemptive is treating your adversaries with dignity and respect, patience, and even temperament. I mentioned in an earlier post about the fact her father was murdered by a white man never brought to justice. That's a horrible thing to live with for the rest of your life. But when you are a professional, you don't let your personal feelings get in the way of doing your job. I have dealt with bosses, colleagues, clients, students, and others whom have done things to me which violate any standard of civility. But I have the ability to control how I respond to an adverse situation. The issue I had with the Sherrod video was not the motive behind her initial response to the white farmer--it was her lack of professionalism. My reaction would have been the same if the video was about her response to a black male farmer making a sexist remark. You move on--you don't escalate the situation, and you don't abuse your authority. It's called gracefully handling a bad situation.]

Whether my readership is in the hundreds or millions (HINT: I don't think any of the popular American conservative bloggers seem to be aware of my little blog), I'm going to go through the same process of thinking through the issues and organizing my thoughts. My blog is not cookie-cutter; my format, positions, analyses, and  sense of humor are unlike anything else I've seen on the web. I don't know if I'll be able to continue my recent pattern of blogging daily on multiple topics, but the progressive Democratic Congress and Obama Administration are like the gift that keeps giving.

Social Security, Pelosi, and the State of Denial

Obama and his fellow progressives are so much in a State of Denial, I'm surprised they haven't adopted it as the 51st state with 3 progressive votes in the Congress (a Congressman and two Senators)...

Progressives are trying to engage in conceptual gymnastics, redefining social security not as a self-financing, lockbox but as an "insurance" program, where those who haven't saved enough during their lifetimes can draw and those who have carefully saved to supplement their promised retirement income, which is not a gift but a compulsory retirement contribution program--well, if a politician or government bureaucrat thinks he or she doesn't need the money, well, they lose it.

This is not an insurance program; an insurance program spreads risk, particularly catastrophic risk. Economically successful people do have risks, of course; for instance, an investment banker who died during 9/11 probably left a young family without income to support payment of a significant mortgage and related expenses. A businessman may get into a serious auto accident, leaving the victim requiring assistance and significant health expenses for the rest of his life. The ongoing Gulf oil crisis is yet another example, with BP looking to sell billions in assets to cover losses associated with the industrial accident.

But old age is not catastrophe: it's a blessing. And believe it or not, people managed to live long, full lives before FDR introduced social security in the 1930's, when 16 workers supported each retiree. (There are other beneficiaries besides retirees, but I'm addressing the predominant beneficiaries.) Keep in mind that there were relatives, charities, and other alternatives; doctors donated services.

There are a number of things we conservatives hate about the current social security program. First and most important, it creates moral hazard. When government guarantees retirement income, even with only modest contributions into the system to qualify, people make other economic decisions based on that guarantee. In particular, if the government is going to guarantee me a comfortable living after reaching the age of 62, why should I save for the future? Even if I've only working a few years at a minimum wage and never tried to get ahead, e.g., further education or training for a higher-paying career, taking on a second job or whatever, why should I deprive myself? People could reach retirement with little or no savings by making little of the opportunities available to them as American citizens and developing bad habits (e.g., spending money they didn't have instead of putting something away for a rainy day). This is the exact problem that the recent "financial reform" was trying to grapple with in terms of banks: since the government guarantees depositors up to a certain amount of money, banks were able to free up some capital to engage in riskier loans or other transactions. But the hypocritical progressives who see moral hazard with government guarantees to business pretend not to see the same with government guarantees to retirees.

A second reason we hate it is because Democrats have perverted the program; in fact, the reserve has never been invested in income-produced assets, like timberlands, which can be harvested on a cyclic basis; in fact, social security reserves are required to invest in Treasury bills, i.e., covering progressive Democratic drunken sailor spending. The system doesn't get a return of misspent federal dollars. We own pieces of bad spending ideas, not natural resources that generate returns to investors. Instead of the reserve throwing off cash in the form of dividends from a diversified asset base, money being "invested" by employees and employer matches are simply repackaged and sent directly to recipients, with any leftover contributions used to paper over part of this year's deficit. In fact, some reports have it that receipts aren't enough to cover this year as some intending to retire at 65 opting instead for earlier retirement because of the bad economy, hitting the program with a double whammy because they've lost the contribution money while have to disburse more.

A third general reason is because the Democrats, who have run for decades on increasing benefits to politically powerful retirees, refuse to make adjustments to accommodate changes in actuarial factors, i.e., longer lifespans and hence benefits. Many, if not most retirees take out far more in benefits than they ever put into the program, and Democrats have continued to support benefit increases over and beyond legitimate cost of living increases and to oppose eligibility restrictions, including raising the eligibility ages.

It's not surprising that Pelosi rules out any meaningful steps to shore up the social security reserve, including some of the constructive suggestions made in the last paragraph. No doubt she would be receptive to means-testing, because it fits right into the rest of her class warfare agenda: means-testing, lifting contribution caps, etc. Make no mistake--she's talking about transforming social security into welfare.

What do I think needs to be done? I've discussed this in other posts: raised eligibility criteria; diversification of reserve assets;  and capped disbursements/payment increases. (In fact, I'm intrigued by the concept of a uniform distribution.) What this country can't afford is Democrats failing to deal with ALL disbursements of the federal budget, including retiree benefits--nothing can be "off the table". What we have to do is make sure people are aware of the need to save for retirement and that government payouts are only a foundation of retirement income they must supplement.

A Struggling Economy and Convoluted Tax Code

I did not watch Obama's visit on "The View"; while Joy Behar basked in the glow of The One and proclaimed,  for all the TV audience to hear, His Administration's many great works, He spoke to the masses, and they pondered the meanings of each and every Word: Yes, He did know the Hollywood starlet Lindsay Lohan was in jail (but did they get the answer to the question all Hollywood wanted to know: would she get a Presidential pardon?), He said he didn't know of Snooki (but Snooki is still upset with The One over the tanning surtax in the health bill (she's reasonably sure that John McCain would not be taxing her tanning sessions, and she feels The One can't identity with a white woman's need to get a good tan!)).... But He did point out His accomplishment of economic growth and private sector job growth over the last few months.

Of course, Obama didn't mention the fact that the GDP grew less than expected last quarter (about 2.4%) and 2-year bond rates dropping/bond prices prices rising for a ninth straight week while longer-term rates increased.With bond prices increasing/yields decreasing to multi-month lows and payrolls expected to drop for a second consecutive month, this is not good for the economy. We will probably see the Fed, led by Helicopter Ben, buy Treasury notes in an effort to bolster the money supply from ruinous deflation (as in the Great Depression).

I am sympathetic to Burman's argument that instead of freezing discretionary spending, Obama and the Congress should freeze tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are tax breaks for politically favored groups (the most prominent of which include health care insurance and mortgage interest subsidies). I have long argued against obfuscation of the tax code; basically, one company's tax break has to be made up by raising compensatory revenue elsewhere--including unconscionable debt inherited by our children and grandchildren. To me, things like the popular cash-for-clunkers program were bad ideas--a select number of windfall consumers, already in the market for new cars, got major tax breaks for modest fuel-efficiency gains in the wake of $4-plus/gallon  (and the companies selling more fuel-efficient vehicles got a windfall opportunity to protect their profit margins at Uncle Sam's expense). I want to see Bernanke take into account the fact that American workers are on a spending strike of shorts, saving for a rainy day, which shows just what confidence of American consumers and businesses in Obama's economic policies.

Obama can't be so naive as to believe raising tax rates from 35% to 39.6% on the top 2-3% is going to make up for the trillions he and his fellow Democrats are permanently adding to federal spending. I suspect he's doing his imitation of the Gray Davis "hide-the-bad-news-until-after-the-election" trick. He knows that raising taxes on everyone is the only way he is going to be able to pay the bills, which will burden a fragile recovery, and he also knows that admitting such now would make his party's chances even worse this fall.

Political Cartoon

Steve Breen is wrong; Obama is aware of Iraq and Afghanistan, but the real enemies are Fox News and the GOP....

Quote of the Day

Curiosity is a lust of the mind.
Thomas Hobbes

Musical Interlude: American Songbook Series.

Fred Astaire, "Night and Day". Sigh...Cole Porter--need I say more? Probably the greatest songwriter ever. One of my favorite CD's is a collection of hit performances of Cole Porter tunes...

Miscellany: 7/30/10

Oil Spill Response Bill: Thumbs WAY Down!

How is it possible for one political party to come up with so many consistently appallingly bad policy ideas? This must be what it's like to be a legitimate conservative in Europe: if and when you finally manage to get a turn at the helm of some progressive overbuilt "unsinkable" Titanic--mere yards away from an iceberg, out of open water to maneuver the ship around! So far the Democrats have managed to strong-arm some 200 bills over the objections with only a unanimous GOP Senate vote able to block things.

This pig is wearing even more lipstick than the usual Democratic pig. Democrats always use a lot of spin in coming up with glitzy, misleading titles; I'm surprised they haven't dared the Republicans to vote against the  "we love puppy dogs" or "no tax cuts for terrorists" acts... The oil spill legislation which barely passed the House today had the usual grab bag of tax hikes, retroactive liability changes, an Anglophobic, punitive indefinite ban on one company (BP), based in one industrial accident which hardly constitutes a pattern of behavior, from participating in future lease bids, a validation of the White House's illegal moratorium on deepwater and shallower drilling (after permits were already issued), etc.

You know, the progressive Democrats talk a good game about supporting small and middle-sized companies, but when they effectively raise the costs of liability, the only ones which can compete in this market and afford the steep increases in insurance costs will be deep-pocketed big corporations; we already know the prospective impact of reduced competition. The real effect of the legislation is to raise the costs of domestic oil exploration and production; it doesn't help our eroding domestic production and losses of well-paying American energy jobs. If, in effect, bureaucrats didn't have realistic time to properly review permits and/or liability limits have not kept up with energy costs, there was room for legitimate bipartisan agreement. But this is yet another example of Democrats pushing on a string--for instance, BP has already disbursed far more than the statutory limits. There is no real cost sharing being done by the government, but the progressive Democrats are still shaking down the private sector using the pretext of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. It's intellectually dishonest and shameful.

The Argument from Judge Susan Bolton Which Annoyed Me the Most

Rich Lowry rightly characterized Judge Bolton's preliminary injunction decision against Arizona's immigration law judicial gymnastics. But talk about things that make you go hmmmm: Bolton worries that Arizona's law will be so successful that ICE will be swamped with crackdowns on hotel maids, gardeners, and farm workers from Arizona, they won't have enough resources to keep up with the drug runners and other high-value targets. In other words, the federal government is the puppet on Arizona's strings.

This is a very curious argument on several grounds. First of all, it could be applied to any lawbreaking, not just immigration. Why go after people who run red lights or ignore road signs? It just diverts local resources from pursuing homicides... Second, it's blatantly discriminatory. Immigrants who are not from the Americas have to play by the rules. Third, does the judge not realize it's hypocritical for a Congress and Administration whom by September will have run up a $3T debt have money for everything else suddenly get budget-conscious when it comes to border protection?

Judge Bolton, first of all, when undocumented visitors are arrested or otherwise detailed by police, primarily on the basis of ancillary grounds (e.g., a traffic violation and the driver can't produce suitable identification), law enforcement already tip off ICE, without Arizona's new law. Second, it isn't your job to worry about administrative issues. That's the function of the Executive Branch. The problem, if anything, results from weak administration since the last reform was enacted in 1986. We also paid a severe price, 9/11, for failing to have reformed a convoluted intelligence system with insufficient accountability and turf battles.

Weiner: The Uncivil Behavior of a Democratic Congressman

I now have yet another nominee for this year's Jackass of the Year competition:



Political Cartoon

IBD cartoonist Michael Ramirez reminds us that the appearance on "The View" with doting progressives (except the show's token moderate/conservative Elizabeth Hasselbeck) promoting a fairly pathetic record (is it really surprising that a lopsided Democratic Congress and President can run up the score on a lot of trivial priorities?) really left the big issues that have resulted in Obama's deep plunge in approval ratings unsaid....Well, Obama easily fended off Hasselbeck's attempts to talk about Obama's misleading "saved jobs" from the stimulus bill and tried to hype his string of modest record of private sector increases; since December 2007, the economy has lost about 8 million jobs, somewhat less than half that on Obama's rush, despite his heavily promoted stimulus bill.. So a few months of small increases barely keeps up with new workers joining the labor force, never mind long-term unemployed...

Quote of the Day

The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.
Walter Bagehot

Musical Interlude: The American Songbook Series. The songs I'll feature in this series are listed in a Direct Source Vintage Vaults CD compilation.

Ethel Merman, "I've Got Rhythm".  I didn't find a specific standalone Youtube video (well, there is an uploaded unique disco version of the tune by Ethel Merman, but I didn't buy Pat Boone's heavy metal experiment either). However, the tune is briefly reprised in this wonderful medley from the Queen of Broadway.

Miscellany: 7/29/10

Quote of the Day
Anyone can sympathize with the sufferings of a friend, 
but it requires a very fine nature to sympathize with a friend's success.
Oscar Wilde

Congratulations, Second Lieutenant Renée

Renée is following the footsteps of her mom as an Air Force nurse, representing a third generation of national service (her maternal grandfather and father retired from the Air Force). One of my 9 nieces and my godchild, Renée is a fellow southpaw and military brat, a degreed registered nurse (like her mom, my little sister Diane), and an amazing soccer player. Renée does not necessarily agree with the political musings of her crazy old uncle...Renée is a gift from God, and she is the first of her generation in the family to serve in the military. Knowing extraordinary young people like Renée are serving our military makes me proud and confident in our nation's future.

Follow-Up Odds and Ends

If you go back to my earlier posts, you'll see I made two recent predictions that were right on the money. First, I predicted BP CEO Tony Hayward would be replaced in the near future, and of course earlier this week, BP announced Hayward would leave his post to head up a joint venture between BP and Russia. In a sense I feel bad for him because he is a very talented, intelligent executive whom happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and seemed to have a penchant for doing or saying the wrong things from a public relations standpoint. It reminds me of George W. Bush, whom ended up taking the blame for the fact that the Democratic mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana failed to evacuate New Orleans, as the President urgently requested them to do. Still, leadership requires you to accept responsibility because of the nature of your position, not your personal culpability. Incidentally, this morning marked my third consecutive fill-up at a local BP gas station as I continue my buycott in support of independent retailers serving as scapegoats for the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Second, in an earlier post this week, I mocked Obama's appearance on today's The View, an ABC-TV joint-anchored women's talk show, predicting he would get a question on Ms. Shirley Sherrod and I mocked his following in the wake of 4'9" Snooki, whom stars in a show I've never watched, called Jersey Shore. In fact, apparently both comments were spot on based on prominent clips from the broadcast. What are the odds that anchor Joy Behar would ask Obama for his reaction if Snooki was to run for mayor of Wasilla (Sarah Palin's home town)?

Some Recent Post Follow-Ups

• Shirley Sherrod. I have to say I have mixed feelings about writing about Ms. Sherrod in a critical manner. After all, this woman lost her dad at the hands of a white murderer, whom was never brought to justice. I can readily understand how she would personalize such a tragedy. I've similarly felt strongly about the morally unconscionable injustices done to Japanese Americans during WWII. But Ms. Sherrod has responded to the situation saying that she intends to sue Andrew Breitbart. For what, exactly? Excerpting a part of her speech? You can argue that the clip is not representative of the speech as a whole. But the fact of the matter is that the full speech was available to both NAACP and the White House, and both of the parties did not give Ms. Sherrod due process. So Ms. Sherrod is picking the wrong side to go after; the First Amendment protects Mr. Breitbart. There are no legal or moral requirements for Breitbart to give Ms. Sherrod final edit approval. Breitbart has made his own news, claiming he had been holding on that clip in reserve, waiting for basely charges of Tea Party racism to resurface. Knowing political correctness on racial issues has not reformed over the past several years, Mr. Breitbart's decision to push the issue of double standards on racism led to a predictable result. But husband Charles' rant, “Finally We Must Stop the White Man & His Uncle Tom From Stealing Our Elections" and even conservative columnists like Peggy Noonan calling the Sherrod speech a "teachable moment"? Give me a break... If a white man would ever vocalize in a similar way, we would never be discussing the issue of context.  That being said, I'm a problem solver by nature. I know the world isn't fair. I know the characterizations of the Tea Party movement as racist are completely bogus. Mr. Breitbart, you are playing with fire on the race issue. But you had to know what you did would cause a firestorm.
• Earlier this week I discussed the case of 3 Bell, CA managers making a few to several hundred thousand dollars a year. The City Council met, after the story, and slashed four of their own salaries for a part-time position from $100K to $8K a year (and a couple announced they won't seek reelection).

Political Cartoon

Eric Allie notes the burden of federal empire building by the progressive Democrats is unsustainable. I think what is particularly obnoxious is the way that the progressives argue in an obsoleted Keynesian fashion that  government payrolls are intrinsically virtuous, because their workers spend money in the economy (and, of course, the Democrats would have you believe all government workers are teachers in the classroom and cops on the street, not $800K/year city managers in California...  Earth to Democrats: ALL workers spend money in the economy. However, the private sector can't print money to sustain a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy.

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 2009.

This is the last in my chart hit retrospective. It's getting hard to write these because few melodic pop songs make the charts, and I don't personally care for the dominant hip hop/rap genre. I'll next start an American songbook series.

Kelly Clarkson, "Already Gone"



Jordin Sparks, "Battlefield"



Owl City, "Fireflies"



Rob Thomas, "Her Diamonds"

Miscellany: 7/28/10

Quote of the Day
No pleasure philosophy, 
no sensuality, 
no place nor power, 
no material success 
can for a moment give such inner satisfaction 
as the sense of living 
for good purposes, 
for maintenance of integrity, 
for the preservation of self-approval.
Minot Simons



Looking at My Pageviews...

Blogger has recently introduced a new Stats feature which allows cross-tabbing of pageviews. Over the past 3 months, about two-thirds of my readers are fellow Americans. What I find particularly intriguing is that roughly half of my international pageviews come from Denmark; of the remainder, the UK, Luxembourg, South Korea, and my ancestral homeland, Canada are the most frequent. I will say that that I have been a huge mark for the EU's taking a more fiscally responsible course than the Obama Administration. I've always been strongly pro-immigrant and am appalled by what I see as an Anglophobic response to the Deepwater Horizon  tragedy. For some reason, last Saturday's post has gotten the most recent views.

Probably the most notable post was the one I wrote about my former UH MBA marketing professor, George Zinkhan, whom had subsequently gone to the University of Georgia and made national headlines over a murder/suicide a year ago last April; someone in Australia excerpted part of my post on his website, and a reporter from Athens, GA (home of the University of Georgia) left me a voice mail. (I declined returning the call because I had not been in contact with him since I earned my doctorate.)

I personally think this is a very unique blog, and I expect that most readers will disagree with me on many issues. I use a lot of American idioms and plays on words, and I think I've got a good sense of humor (there are some inspired sarcasm and ad libs, and I also poke fun at myself).  But to all readers (even those who find themselves on my blog by accident), thank you for your time, and I look forward to your next visit.

The Arizona Immigration Law: 
Judge Susan Bolton's Mixed Bag Ruling

I've made my position on the immigration kerfuffle clear: first, I believe we should treat all visitors to the country with dignity and respect; second, I want a fully functioning, robust temporary worker program; third, all visitors must respect our laws; fourth, the Obama Administration is disingenuously rationalizing its arbitrarily, politically motivated immigration enforcement; fifth, I do not think it's constitutional or good public policy for Arizona to essentially subsidize federal enforcement. That's intrinsically morally hazardous. What's to keep the Obama Administration from, say, refusing to accept illegal aliens from Arizona and force the state to pay for them? Big difference: the Obama Administration prints money; Arizona can't. The Obama Administration can force Arizona into debt by abusing its managerial prerogative.

Ultimately, we need to take care of the Obama problem in 2012. There is reason to believe that Obama's abuse of power is grounds for impeachment, but until something like another terrorist attack on the homeland (God forbid) happens, which can be traced back to the Obama Administration's ambivalent immigration enforcement activities, we won't get any movement by Democrats. On the other hand, if Obama, who got lucky (thank God) on the Christmas and Times Square bombers, assumes that  luck is a sustainable policy and we get hit, I expect every Congressional Democrat will throw Obama under the bus.

Judge Susan Bolton's injunction against core features of the legislation, indicating the burden of the law will fall on the backs of legal residents, is unconvincing and will ultimately be thrown out by the US Supreme Court. For example, driving is a privilege. It requires a valid license. A valid license requires documentation. Visitors, whether in Arizona or a different state, have to comply. I'm fuzzy on how the new Arizona law differs in a substantive matter. If a state police officer arrested an illegal before today versus tomorrow, how does ICE distinguish the arrests other than arbitrarily?

On the other hand, I'm pleased to see the judge left intact state crackdowns on local sanctuary cities. My fellow conservatives would be well served to back off: they aren't strong enough in Congress, Obama and company are moving against popular opinion, not a winning long-term strategy, and angry attacks against illegal aliens will turn off Latinos. Take what you've been given (including the sanctuaries)  and appeal to the Supreme Court.

Schwarzenegger (R-CA) Renews Furloughs (Again) 
During Budget Impasse: Thumbs Up

Roughly 150,000 to 200,000 state employees will be required to take 3 unpaid days a month until California has a new budget. This iteration has a smaller pool of workers, mostly because 6 small unions have agreed to a 15% pay cut. Whereas Schwarzenegger has departed from Republicans on many public policy issues (gay marriage, the environment,  the stimulus bill, etc.), he has done the best he can given the current legislature to be a fiscal conservative.

Political Cartoon

IBD cartoonist Michael Ramirez notes that the real problem he's facing, with sharply lower approval numbers,  is underexposure to the American people and housewives in particular. I mean, how can Obama fail to follow up after other celebrities like Snooki have guested on the show? What are the chances he won't get a question about Ms. Sherrod? It's not like there are other things going on closer to DC where he might have made an appearance--like the national Scout Jamboree...

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 2008

David Cook, "The Time of My Life"



Madonna/Justin Timberlake, "4 Minutes"



Daughtry, "Feels Like Tonight"



Trace Adkins, "You're Gonna Miss This"

Miscellany: 7/27/10

Will the Government Motors' Volt Charge Up Sales?

A product's usability can be measured using a number of criteria--in the case of a car, it includes things like physical comfort of the driver and passengers, its functionality under a wide variety of driving conditions, and its reliability or limited downtime. The human factors or ergonomics of a car include considerations of its physical, safety and cognitive fitness to drivers; for example, to what extent can a driver's seat and accessories (e.g., seat belts) be adjusted  to accommodate very tall, short or obese people? Is there a learning curve if the car has new technology or features?

There are special considerations to the new GM Volt: its extraordinary cost ($41K) (of course, Obama will help you finance your purchase with a $7500 credit, courtesy of your children and grandchildren); its unprecedented use of battery technologies; and your risk in buying a state-of-the-art product from a financially troubled automaker.

Obviously the range on low-cost overnight charges will make a significant dent in driving costs, but there are drawbacks if you go beyond the range (the Volt will kick in with gasoline processing): where can you find a charging station or get a battery swap within a relatively short period of time.

I am skeptical. In theory this sounds very appealing--for example, shifting from gasoline to power generated from a nuclear power plant. But I think Obama and the other progressive Dems are pushing on a string; anyone who can afford a $41,0000 new car probably would buy it without the tax bribe, just for the status of being the first in their family, neighborhood, etc., to own one, or to score political points (e.g., "I'm an environmentalist; I'm doing my part..."). It should be interesting to see how Chevrolet (not Chevy) plays this market introduction. A radical product introduction at a high price without key infrastructure like public or private charging facilities in place in a tough economy? It's going to be interesting to see how GM plays this and if it tries any out-of-the-box approach;  if it can't find a gasoline retailer willing to partner for charging stations or battery exchanges, will it consider using its dealership network to seed the effort? And how will competitors respond? One thing is for sure: if Obama has any say in corporate decisions, I'm putting money on the other side... My gut tells me this experiment will not work--but they possibly could use the technology to build an interesting hybrid play...

I Just KNOW Obama Will Work This Story into His Class Warfare Rhetoric...

The Wall Street Journal recently published a study reporting the 25 most highly compensated executives of public corporations over the past decade. Leading the list by far is Oracle Corporation's Larry Ellison, whom picked up nearly $1.9B in compensation, about 97% of which came from selling his stock options, as he was one of the CEO's whom fairly earned his compensation, tripling the company stock price. (In contrast, PC entrepreneur Michael Dell, also on the list, pulled in about a quarter of Ellison's take, while his company's stock dived about two-thirds in value).

I first became acquainted with Oracle's signature relational database product (i.e., using Structured Query Language, introduced by IBM) at UH. My graduate database classes in the early 80's used version 2 on an IBM competitor's mainframe (the current version is 11G). I've professionally administered Oracle databases since 1993 (if anyone deserved a cut of that $1.9B cut...) Of course, I've owned Oracle stock in the past, the largest positions taken back in 1998 when I was a senior principal consultant for Oracle Consulting's public sector practice. [I have to laugh at one memory, when I was working on a project for the City of Oakland. The IT manager pulled me aside one day and said I was the only Oracle employee on the project from whom they felt they were getting their money's worth...] I left Oracle over subsequent project assignment decisions made by my practice manager; in particular, I was assigned a non-DBA deliverable at one Chicago area project where I would have had to make up numbers and I refused as a matter of professional ethics.

Oracle allowed a modest stock discount on limit employee stock purchases. I sold at some time after I left Oracle at a good price (I didn't triple my money, but I'm not complaining; Mr. IRS was very happy). Mr. Ellison and the famous Bill Gates (Microsoft) have had a noted rivalry for years (Microsoft sells a widely established competitive product called SQL Server). One of the ways they competed was over net worth; at one point, both were worth over $40B. Larry Ellison is a rather colorful person whom I've never personally met. One story was he imported a lot of rocks from Japan in building his estate; for those unfamiliar with the glories of Larryland, here's a good article. A former boss who lived in the San Francisco suburbs claimed that Larry Ellison showed up at some school production my boss was heading (apparently their kids attended the same school), and naturally Larry felt it was his right to take over the production. Not this time...

I don't personally think Ellison was worth as much as he earned--almost double the next person in line. No doubt people will complain Obama, in contrast, made only $400K a year.  (I think Obama is way overpaid.) But as Babe Ruth once said about making more than the President, "I had a better year than Hoover." Larry Ellison certainly had better years than Obama.

Political Cartoon

Remember in the late 1990's when, with a GOP Congressional lockdown on Clintonian superspending and the federal budget in surplus (i.e., mandatory social security reserves able to cover the balance of red ink),  people were actually starting to worry about where to buy T-bills... A decade later, IBD cartoonist Michael Ramirez shows how the Obama Administration, in one term of office, is on track to exceed almost all of federal debt accumulated up to George W. Bush's Presidency. The "Yes, We Can" voters felt that Obama could surely lead them through troubled waters; instead, the surging red ink from progressive ineffective superspending has poured over the banks, overwhelming the best attempts of a limited number of conservatives to impede its progress, and the result is the flooding of our economy, staining all of us and future generations.

Quote of the Day

Seek ye first the good things of the mind, and the rest will either be supplied or its loss will not be felt.
Sir Francis Bacon

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 2007

Plain White T's, "Hey There, Delilah"



Carrie Underwood, "Before He Cheats"



Elliott Yamin, "Wait for You"



Daughtry, "Home"

Miscellany: 7/26/10

Bell Association to Stop the Abuse: Thumbs WAY Up!

Let's start this discussion by raising a question: how much do you think a small city manager makes, say, in the Midwest. I will note, according to PayScale.com, salary/bonus packages of city managers, based on some  300 data points, ranged from $60-123K.

Okay, now suppose I told you that a blue-collar suburb of a major metropolitan city has a population of 40,000, one in 6 of which lives below the poverty range. What do you figure? Maybe the bottom third of that range?

Now suppose I tell you we are talking about Bell, CA, a suburb of Los Angeles. I expect that my reader is wary--all bets are off when we are talking about La La Land. So let me start which was sparked by a Los Angeles Times investigation; the Associated Press reports:

• Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo made $787,637 a year, getting a series of raises since being hired in 1993 at $72,000. [Has your own pay gone up by a factor of 10 over the same period?]
• Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia made $376,288 a year
• Police Chief Randy Adams earned $457,000 — $150,000 more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck.

Now if I told you being on the city council was a part-time position, what do you think the mayor and 3 of the the four other members of the council make? By now, it probably shouldn't shock you they average about $100,000.

The three individuals listed above have already resigned under pressure, and the grassroots organization the Bell Association to Stop the Abuse has targeted the other members of the Six-Figure Club, wearing shirts with the saying "My City is More Corrupt Than Your City". (I'm a huge mark for this grassroots organization.)

Just a word to the Bell Association--do you have any idea what public pension in the state of California that the $800K/year city manager will be drawing? Your job is only half done...

Oliver Stone: A Has-Been Director on a No-Return Path of Irrelevance

Probably the most influential film I've ever seen was not an Oliver Stone flick in the theater. It was a dated WWII documentary film I saw in high school. Nothing had prepared me for what I was to see: stacks of emaciated, nude corpses, a murder factory, the haunting eyes of a young female victim staring into the camera. There are a number of staggeringly evil things in life I'll never understand, including the Akazu genocide in Rwanda and the killing fields in Cambodia. I think because of the Jewish roots to my Christian faith I was particularly horrified by the Holocaust, even though it happened years before I was born.

Now, of course, I realize that Oliver Stone wants to promote his projects and one of the ways one can keep himself in the public eye is to do or say outrageous things. So now Oliver Stone is working on a project for a premium cable network of an alternate history of the US that "Rush Limbaugh is not going to like". He vows to put a more human context for "scapegoated" villains like Hitler and Stalin. Oliver also dismissed atrocities against Jews during the war, comparing the larger number of Russian casualties, and revived old prejudices of Jews controlling the media, etc.

Enough, Mr. Stone! I haven't paid to see one of your films in years and probably wouldn't watch them if the download was free. I'm not into conspiracy theories and revisionist histories, and your doing things like palling around with socialists or Marxists like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro doesn't inflame my passions; it simply validates your poor judgment. It's not surprising a progressive thinks he or she "knows" what conservatives think, but context doesn't not make a monster a saint. Yes, the Russians suffered horrific losses during Hitler's invasion.  That simply reflects the multi-dimensional aspects of Hitler's crimes against humanity.

Political Cartoon

Lisa Benson notes that Obama's economic policies seem to be on the wrong track and don't seem to be getting anywhere. But have no fear--if he runs out of gas, he'll fuel up on the nation's credit card.

Quote of the Day

There is more hunger for love and appreciation in this world than for bread.
Mother Teresa

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 2006

Justin Timberlake, "SexyBack"



Daniel Powter, "Bad Day"



Natasha Bedingfield, "Unwritten"



Bon Jovi, "Who Says You Can't Go Home"

Miscellany: 7/25/10

Jim Webb, Diversity Programs, and  Shirley Sherrod

Yes, my faithful readers are probably trying to figure out what more I could possibly say about Shirley Sherrod. (I wouldn't be surprised if CNN plans to petition the Vatican to have Ms. Sherrod declared a living saint based on the potential of what she can do to improve race relations... I can just see it now: Ms. Sherrod's next act of racial transformation will be inviting Andrew Breitbart over to dinner. They'll toast marshmallows over the campfire and sing Kumbuya.)

The truth is, I don't feel comfortable discussing race. I attended racially and ethnically diverse schools; my dad was in a fully integrated military. However, I didn't feel all that powerful being a single white male. [Being a Franco American whose ancestors migrated to the Fall River area (then a textile capital) during the Quebec diaspora), one of 11.8 million (including other ethnicities, such as Cajun and Louisiana Creole) out of 308 million people, isn't that common. Probably the most prominent French Canadian entertainer is Céline Dion, and singer/actress Madonna and actress Angelina Jolie had Franco-American mothers.]  Being a single white male certainly didn't help me get job interviews in academia with colleges actively promoting diversity criteria; I remember campaigning for a campus visit to a private Oklahoma university, but they didn't have a woman on their department roster.

I don't underestimate the difficulties faced by people of color, including Ms. Sherrod. I think, though, most of us from other ethnicities seem to identity with the great American melting pot. Many of these came from cultures with a deep reverence for education; in fact, many Vietnamese immigrants were valedictorians of their high school; I mentioned in other posts the Honduran immigrant appellate court nominee Miguel Estrada, whom barely spoke English at 17 when he immigrated and then graduated with high honors from Columbia and Harvard Law School respectively. It's not clear that American culture really appreciates higher education. You find the familiar encouragement, e.g., by Obama or Sherrod, for young people to get professional degrees (e.g., law school or medical school)--as if we need any more lawyers! It would be nice if we saw more emphasis on bright young people getting degrees in the basic sciences or engineering...When I was a grad student at UH, one of the organization behavior professors on the faculty went to Europe to teach for a semester or two; he returned, mentioning how he was treated like royalty. My students, on the other hand, often tried calling me, without asking, by my given name, and when I returned to professional data processing after my brief academic career, I was confidentially advised to drop mention of the PhD.

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) (no, not the talented songwriter Jimmy Webb who wrote "MacArthur Park" and "All I Know") wrote an article last week in the Wall Street Journal entitled, "Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege."  He doesn't quite phrase his thesis as I would; but basically affirmative action programs have grown in complexity over the years to cover almost all ethnicities, including some categories which have not suffered the historic disadvantages. He's not backtracking on the continuing relevance of  affirmative action to blacks, but he points out that in many cases, poor whites in the South experience similar issues. In a certain sense, he is arguing that the affirmative action program should have been oriented towards socioeconomically challenged regions, in particular the old South, which has had less income and tax money available for public education.

What does this have to do with Shirley Sherrod? (In fact, Jim Webb doesn't mention Sherrod in his article.) Well, keep in mind what Shirley said in terms of her own racial transformation: she became aware of the fact that this white farmer facing bankruptcy was facing the same type of problems as her black clients. Thus, they had a common adversary: the white moneyed interests. In fact, Jim Webb makes a very similar point in alleging the white elite used racial tensions to divide and conquer the lower class.

I'm not convinced in most cases that "training wheel" affirmative action programs have lived up to their promise (or the money spent), and this tree has gained many rings over the years, following the typical pattern of progressive government empire building. The idea that you can continue to blame all of society's problems on a shrinking pool of white males is intuitively absurd; Jim Webb rightly calls the status quo procrustean.

Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor fervently wished that the need for affirmation action would melt away in time, i.e., that it would no longer be necessary to provide an institutional helping hand to help target disadvantaged individuals and businesses to succeed. In fact, I think Senator Webb is right (although he didn't conclude as I do here): we need to streamline processes, focus limited resources, validate results, and recognize the limitations of government. Putting someone into college whom is not ready for college-level work doesn't help the school or student. Not every business succeeds or deserves to succeed. At some point you have to take the training wheels off the bike and ride just like everybody else.

The Democrats Won't Let Go Of Class Warfare on Taxes

The Democrats refuse to let go of the Bill Clinton tax rate increase for the upper-income as the Holy Grail of right taxation. I oppose this, and I've never made enough money to have to pay the top rate.

If I hear one more progressive cite how Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, I'm going to play a game of whack-a-mole. Tax rates are RELATIVE, not absolute. We don't pay progressive rates for other goods or services. For example, we check out at the supermarket counter, we don't pay based on our adjusted gross income off last year's tax form. We don't pay $1 for a loaf of bread, but Warren has to pay $90. (If the supermarket was stupid enough to do that, I'll be happy to sell my loaf of bread to Warren for $45.) So let's say Warren Buffett makes $5M at a 25% overall tax burden, and his secretary makes $50K at 28%. (These numbers are fictitious just to make a point. Assume no payroll tax and uniform application of the tax rate in question.) The secretary pays $14K in taxes and Warren Buffett pays $1.25M. Now why is it Buffett getting a break when he gets no more common defense or Supreme Court or other government expenditures than the secretary but he pays 90 times the amount of tax as the secretary. The idea that it's only right that he should pay a 40% tax burden, or $2M just seems wildly unfair.

Let's first remember that the well-to-do don't just pay federal taxes. They also face progressive state and/or local income taxes, among other taxes. Moreover, many small businesses are taxed at the owner's tax rate, which means while big corporations are taxed at, say, 35%, the effective tax rate for the small business can top that rate.

What the President and most of the Congressional Democrats are trying to do is force more revenue from the same stream of income. Raising tax rates never achieves its desired results. It essentially raises the cost of earning income. There are a number of things I can do:  for example, I can defer income, I can take more of my compensation package in stock (paying lower capital gains taxes), I can shift more of my capital into tax-advantaged investments, I can move to a place with lower taxes, or I can decide to take an extended vacation.

This cherry-picking by the Democrats (everybody gets tax cuts except the top 3 to 5%) is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The last thing you want to do is make an already too progressive tax system even more progressive. It punishes someone for being economically successful. It can deprive companies of capital needed to expand. More importantly, even if you tax away all income, you run out of rich people very quickly. You need to treat people fairly--either everybody gets tax breaks, or  nobody gets tax breaks. But allowing tax cuts to expire at the end of the year may help federal revenues this year, i.e., basically rich people will have an incentive to push up income from future periods. This may be good for this calendar year's receipts, but it will be long-term foolish.

No wonder Bernanke urged the Congress to renew all the Bush tax cuts--to prop up next year's growth. Echoing this point of view are three prominent more conservative Democrats: Bayh, Conrad, and Nelson (NE). Let's hope that the tax cuts (actually, the current status quo) continue. Tax rate increases in a fragile economy are never a good idea. But if you are going to let the tax cuts expire, as Greenspan notes, you can't pick winners and losers. Everyone, including the middle-class, has to go back to the old rates.Obama may not agree but that's because his objection is based on ideology, not sound economics.

Political Cartoon

Lisa Benson spoofs how Obama doesn't see why job recovery in the private sector is so weak. Oh, gosh, I wonder... Taxes are going up at the end of the year; with a tax-tax here, and a tax-tax there, here a bank tax, there a health tax, everywhere a tax-tax... And a takeover here, and a bankruptcy there; And a shakedown here, and a pay czar there. And let's look at the government's current portfolio of private sector subsidiaries: AIG, the GSE's, GM, Chrysler,... You can see 101 examples of how Obama's policies distort the economy and create uncertainty, e.g., the cash for clunkers bill, subsidies for new home buyers, etc. If and when these type programs run out of money or end, sales crash in the sense the policy borrows customer purchases from the near future. Obama frequently explains we can't afford to do nothing. He's dead wrong; desperation in economic policy (as well as in life) can be unproductive; patience is a virtue. Obama's hiring spree, in the middle of a weak economy, constitutes a permanent increase in the cost of federal operations, at the very time we should be downsizing ultra-expensive federal employees, whom by some estimates cost on average  $100K each in wages and benefits, far above the average household income/benefits. Also, the massive federal deficit and national debt requires significant interest expenses, crowding out other expenditures, and the debt competes with the private sector for investment dollars.

Quote of the Day

I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
Margaret Thatcher

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 2005

Kelly Clarkson, "Since U Been Gone"



Mariah Carey, "We Belong Together"



Rob Thomas, "Lonely No More"



Kelly Clarkson, "Because of You"

Miscellany: 7/24/10

Big Government: Hands Off My Blog!

My blog's 7 readers today (hi, Mom!) deserve a right to read what I've written, without a Censor Czar raising his or her ugly head. (My commentaries are an all-natural sleep aid... Mom likes the videos...)

Yesterday, CNN co-anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts decided to use the Shirley Sherrod kerfuffle to talk about the need to regulate anonymous bloggers. Of course, Andrew Breitbart is hardly anonymous. This is typical progressive hubris: there is incivility on the Internet--and an incivility among people in real life. And of course the 20% of the American public which is progressive feels it is their place in the universe to impose their wills on the remaining 80%. Progressive politics follows a trademark pattern: they focus, say on the 15% of the American people who choose not to buy health insurance (maybe, for instance, because they don't like being forced to pay for middlemen to the transaction or to subsidize the health costs of irresponsible people). And they will tell you they are really motivated about those 15% (even though the law guarantees emergency care at hospitals). What they are really doing is hoping that you will draw inferences about those 15%, which, in fact, aren't true; for example, the reason they don't have health insurance is because they can't afford it...

Now they will absolutely pinky swear that your own existing health insurance won't be affected at all. But the fact is, once the government, which already has a 50% market share of the industry, gets its beachhead, it's just a matter of time: if the progressive government accepts only the poor risks, sooner or later they'll make the usual class warfare arguments. It's the way that the GSE's went from about a 6% in the 1960's to nearly half of the market by the time of the economic tsunami.

Is there irresponsible behavior on the web? Of course; I discussed Megan Meier and Phoebe Prince in posts. But the CNN anchors aren't pointing out that the vast majority of irresponsible blogging is done by progressive bloggers, not conservative ones. Do a Google search on almost any topic; you will often see dozens of copycat progressive missives to any one conservative post. During the 2008 campaign, no sooner would McCain release a Youtube video when almost immediately dozens of nastily-worded feedback messages would appear. Now it's one thing over a proportionate number of adverse comments appearing, but given the fact nearly 1 of every 2 voters supported McCain and I had to search through dozens of comments to find a handful of favorable messages illustrates the disproportionate impact of progressives; keep in mind over twice as many people consider themselves as conservative. Most of us conservatives were raised with faith and morals, to disagree with an idea, not with the person, to listen and not interrupt, to be fair-minded and respectful. When I was a professor, I once failed a student whom had supported me against malcontents, and I have given A's to students whom personally made my flesh crawl.

Am I judgmental, e.g., against Ms. Sherrod? I think in life we make decisions on whom we like and don't like. I have experienced certain injustices in my life and career which will never appear on a blog post. But let's take for instance Ms. Sherrod being forced to resign under what she believes to have been unjust circumstances. I once lost an Oracle ERP DBA consulting gig at a West Coast-based nutrition products company. A client DBA, on an unrelated project, had asked for my advice on an Oracle warning message, and so I took time during my lunch hour, which was not billed to the client. In the process I discovered his test database was down, with a key datafile missing. The DBA demanded that I blame the client Unix administrator for causing the problem. I had no evidence to support that allegation and refused. I listed two strategies for how to deal with the test database problem. I later discovered from the ERP DBA (whose position I was transitioning into) that the troublemaker client DBA, who was not included in the candidate interview process, had gone to the IT department head and told him I allegedly lacked communication skills. The IT manager never talked to me (beyond a brief meeting at the start of the gig).

Almost immediately after leaving the building that day, I got a cell call from my company's account manager. He told me that the client had called and I was not to go back. He then started screaming at me for screwing up a business relationship he had spent 6 months trying to develop. [In fact, the gig was to handle production DBA duties until the company filled the relevant full-time position posted on its website.] The sales guy said that he would see to it I never worked on another engagement he had anything to say about it. I lost my job.

Now when you've had an experience like that, and you hear about Mrs. Sherrod's experience, it's very hard to be empathetic. No one forced her to give that speech.  No one forced her to use language that she herself would find objectionable if it had been directed at her. When members in the audience expressed their approval at how she put that white farmer in his place, she didn't rebuke them. Were the white farmer and his wife, reportedly now friends with Ms. Sherrod, consulted on being referenced in an unflattering way in a public speech? And whereas she may not have directly violated the letter of the law in terms of the Hatch Act,  her reckless, unsubstantiated allegations that the Bush Administration was racist (yes, the same Bush Administration which vastly increased foreign aid to black Africa to alleviate HIV and AIDS, attributed to helping save millions of lives) and partisan class warfare rant definitely violated the spirit of the law and, without a doubt, professional ethics. There were ways to make her points in a more discreet, objective, professional manner. And whereas I understand Ms. Sherrod's class warfare views are consistent with the President's, she was not elected to office or serving in a policymaking role, and her speech was knowingly inconsistent with Obama's post-racial, inclusive politics.

I don't particularly like or respect Shirley Sherrod as a person. I think what a good person would have done is to take the higher road. In fact, the full speech she gave weeks ago has reached a far wider audience than she ever dreamed possible. There was no reason for her to threaten a lawsuit against Breitbart; there was no need for her to attack the conservative press. In fact, Fox News never played the clip until AFTER the White House forced her to resign. If any news organization has responded to the story, it's CNN with its slobbering love affair for all things Shirley Sherrod. With softball, doting interviews, anchors assuming their polemical judgments of the incident as established "facts" and  a staged photo op reunion with the now famous white farmer and his wife, CNN has blurred the line between reporting and advocacy; at least Fox News makes an effort to represent the alternative point of view with several liberal/progressive commentators.

I have to laugh as I read multiple members of the liberal mass media now talk about Shirley Sherrod's "power" and new-found status as an expert on race relations. The one, inescapable fact that has emerged from this incident is yet another example of this administration acting before thinking (do I really need to go over the KSM trial, the federal judge striking down the initial offshore drilling moratorium, the hastily-passed, bloated stimulus package, Holder's astute reflection on the Arizona Immigration Act without first reading it, and the angry response from the administration and the Democratic legislative leadership when corporations started making adjustments in financial accounts after the health care bill was passed?) I feel sorry for the significant others of progressive males...

Even the White House indicated the part of the speech Breitbart presented on his website was morally unacceptable. No, the crime was not emphasizing enough the redemptive nature of her speech. Oh, yes: that well-known journalistic imperative: get the full story. Of course that's how we cover news. The President gives a speech; it gets reduced to a few sound bites--and the more unusual the sound bite, the better. Does anyone remember what else was said when candidate Obama claimed that there were 57 states? Or when Dan Quayle misspelled 'potato'? Or how Michael Moore focused on the President's reaction in the classroom on 9/11?

Rush Limbaugh, RINO's and More

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis, but his recent rant , aimed at a group of GOP politicians expressing concern about hardline Republican Tea Party candidates, including former Majority Leader Trent Lott  and others (including Lindsey Graham (R-SC)), deserves a dissenting opinion. Let us not forget, Mr. Limbaugh. that not one of the politicians discussed in active service (not to mention the moderate Maine senators) voted for the corrupt Senate health care bill or the recently failed "tax-and-trade" energy bill; they didn't support the bloated budget.

Over the past week one of my cousins in New England griped about the hours it took at the DMV for her teenage daughter to take her driving test. Consider what one current Republican governor and dark horse White House candidate, Mitch Daniels, did:

The state Bureau of Motor Vehicles, another patronage sump that was routinely ranked one of the worst in the country, was drastically reorganized. “He likes metrics,” Kitchell said. “He likes to measure outcomes.” Every line item in the state budget has at least one objective formula attached to it to indicate how well each service is being delivered. Regulatory agencies track the speed with which permits and variances are granted. The economic development agency has to compare the hourly wage of each new job brought to the state with the average hourly wage of existing jobs. In the case of the BMV, the two most important metrics were wait times and customer satisfaction. Now each receipt is stamped with the time the customer arrives and the time his transaction is completed. Wait times have dropped from over 40 minutes to under 10 minutes. Surveys put customer satisfaction at 97 percent. 

Now let me try to explain to Rush Limbaugh what the elections of 2010 and 2012 are all about. What people are often voting for is GOOD GOVERNMENT. Former Senator D'Amato (R-NY)'s nickname was "Senator Pothole". (I'm not talking about delivering local pork like the late Robert Byrd (D-WV).) I'm talking about the capacity of government to function effectively--e.g., for a Congressman to cut through government red tape for his constituents. A 2004 evacuation plan for the city of New Orleans means nothing if state and local officials refuse to use it. Fire booms recommended over 15 years ago to help handle oil spills don't mean anything if they aren't immediately available as needed.

Rush Limbaugh needs to come to grips with why the Republicans, who should be getting huge boosts from being out of power in a tough environment, often draw even lower ratings than the hapless Congressional Democrats clearly taking the country in the wrong direction. He has to be honest with the fact that the national debt almost doubled under the Bush Administration, Bush exacerbated the Medicare solvency problem with the new prescription drug coverage, and we've had the greatest domestic spending expansion since FDR. In short, conservatives have a credibility problem. This is not to say that tax-and-spending Democrats have a blank check; this is clear from tanking ratings for Obama and Congressional Democrats.

I agree with Rush Limbaugh that the biggest priority is getting rid of Obama in 2012--but the election of 2010 may largely frame how 2012 goes. Quite possibly the worst scenario for Republicans is winning weak control and Obama wielding the veto and running against a co-opted GOP Congress in 2012. The last thing voters want to deal with are new Congressional Republicans bent on rerunning ideological battles of the past, like the Civil Rights Act and social security. The American people are tired of ideological battles while the futures of their children and grandchildren are dying out under an unsustainable federal debt. They want a government to live within its means, restraints in government growth, and better execution of the government--whether it's responding to a threat on the homeland, a national disaster, or intelligence and security working together cohesively.

I am tired of Rush's angry rhetoric. We need a more civil, practical legislature. Like it or not, Rush, elections in purple states are won at the margins. And at the margins are independents and moderates. Politicians like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul need to live and dream independents and moderates: how to reach them and gain their confidence. It's not going to come from radical policy moves with voters worried about the unintended consequences to government services. What the Republicans should discuss is a pro-growth economic policy, fixing entitlements and real cuts in budgets, not simply cuts in budget increases. AND NO LITMUS TESTS to further alienate voters.

Political Cartoon

Eric Allie notes that the financial reform package, which allegedly attempts to address Wild West banks (of course, progressives fail to note this is among the most highly regulated industries in the world), actually has the perverse effect of making it more difficult and expensive for small businesses to obtain and utilize credit. Contrary to progressive attempts to rewrite history, efforts to modernize our financial services industry to enable its competitiveness in global financial markets was not the issue: the speculative real estate market was aided and abetted in large part due to political pressure to put riskier, lower-income people into homes, easy money policies, and government's failure to effectively regulate the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) which were buying up and implicitly guaranteeing these loans to buyers with little equity. There is little doubt in my mind the ambiguity of government policies contributed to the bubble and the ensuing correction; if the government had done a better job of restricting the transfer to the American taxpayer of the risk posed by the use of subsidized Treasury funds in buying questionable mortgage notes, banks would have been stuck with its bad loans. Government can never guarantee economic success of banks any more than banks can guarantee economic success of their customers. What government needs to do is not to regulate MORE, but rather to regulate MORE EFFECTIVELY. Among other things, this requires questioning and limiting the use, nature and extent of government guarantees, banning and/or spinning off crony capitalist ties which intrinsically corrupt the banking industry (e.g., subsidizing the GSE's), and hiring competent, proactive regulators.

Quote of the Day

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs
1 Corinthians 13:4-5

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 2004

Maroon 5, "This Love"



Kelly Clarkson, "Breakaway"



U2, "Vertigo"



Sheryl Crow, "The First Cut is the Deepest"

Miscellany: 7/23/10

Shirley Sherrod's 15 Minutes of Fame Goes Into Overtime

I never thought I would be writing about an obscure, mediocre government bureaucrat for a third consecutive post. One of my favorite targets has been Sarah Palin, and I've often mocked Fox News Channel for having a slobbering love affair with all things Sarah Palin. Well, now, CNN seems to be trying to exploit the Sherrod kerfuffle for ratings in its own slobbering love affair for all things Shirley Sherrod.

There's an interesting part of this story I wasn't aware of. Of course, NAACP issued a strong condemnation of the speech segment that Breitbart had posted, even though it already had copies of the speech before Breitbart ever posted the infamous segment. But even more interesting is the fact that Sherrod herself seemed to be aware of the imminent release of the video and had forwarded a copy of the speech to Agriculture Secretary Vilsack nearly a week before Breitbart's posting.

I have no interest in promoting CNN's sympathetic interviews, including Anderson Cooper's interview with Ms. Sherrod. But accusing Breitbart of racism, an all-out attack on the first black President, and wanting to turn back the clock on race relations is absurd; her own interviews now are becoming more morally unjust than her original clip. Ms. Sherrod owes Breitbart a personal apology.

We live in a politically correct world of victims--no doubt the bottom 95% of workers whom Obama favors. I'm sick and tired of people whom demonstrate a lack of civility by throwing around charges of racism, sexism, and homophobia (among other charges) with little credible evidence other than a difference of opinion. It was very clear why Ms. Sherrod's speech was excerpted: there had been baseless allegations of racism made about the Tea Party (including reports that progressives had sent plants to Tea Parties to guarantee controversy); the NAACP was one of the chief institutional promoters of that point of view.

Ms. Sherrod doesn't accuse the people whom threw her under the bus--the NAACP and the Obama Administration--of misconduct, but she thinks it's unfair for Andrew Breitbart to hold her responsible for things she said, as she actually said them. She unconscionably, ludicrously and wrecklessly hurls racist allegations at the Bush Administration, Fox News, and Andrew Breitbart. Such spurious allegations transform the meaning of racism to refer to anyone whom objects to the politically correct status quo. What it does is desensitize people to LEGITIMATE issues of racism, sexism and the like.

Somehow I'm not impressed by someone whom describes, in her own words, sending a white farmer to a lawyer to one "of his own kind" calling someone else a racist. Andrew Breitbart's "racism" was publishing an excerpt of Sherrod's speech on his website. Sherrod throws around the word at the drop of a hat, as if she's some self-evident, self-appointed race czar.

Ms. Sherrod's lack of civility and the intellectually shallow and lazy, polemical analysis of the kerfuffle in fact is yet another indictment of the growing vacuousness and irrelevance of modern American progressivism.

Charlie Rangel: Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me

It's become clear that the Democrats have a mess on their hands with yesterday's announcement that Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), on a leave of absence as chairman of Ways & Means, would be tried for various offenses (including the questionable use of rent-control apartments, use of his mailing privileges, and other matters). The GOP is still smarting over the Congressman Mark Foley scandal (involving young adult male pages). This scandal involves one of the Congress' most powerful legislators, and let us not forget what happened in 1994 when  previous power broker Rostenkowski lost reelection.


Political Cartoon

Chip Bok notes how the Obama Administration, first rebuked on the 6-month drilling moratorium by their own experts and then by a federal judge, is determined to jam their moratorium down the nation's throat, directly increasing America's dependence on foreign oil and destroying lucrative American jobs in the process, as a matter of principle and electoral privilege. The Obama Administration is sort of like the jerk you remember as a kid, the kid nobody wants to play with, because he can't bear the thought of losing, and so he decides to change the rules in the middle of the game or knock over the game board so nobody wins.

Quote of the Day

Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
Walter Lippmann

Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 2003

Beyoncé, "Crazy in Love"



Céline Dion, "I Drove All Night"



Jewel, "Intuition"



Dido, "White Flag"



Clay Aiken, "Invisible"