Analytics

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Miscellany: 4/20/11

Quote of the Day

Curiosity is one of the permanent and certain characteristics of a vigorous mind.
Samuel Johnson

Birthers, Donald Trump, and Doug Casey

I remember reading that a famous rock singer didn't really listen to other rock acts in his off-time; in fact, he preferred to listen to classical music. I think in part, he wanted to ensure his own songwriting was fresh and not unduly influenced by others. I similarly write my commentaries, preferring to put my own spin on things. [I do, on occasion, read the work of other commentators, but it's more the exception than the rule. I have mentioned a number of columnists whose work I consistently respect: George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell; I also have admired a few others (say, Michael Barone, Peggy Noonan and Debra Saunders).]

I can't help noticing that yesterday's post (in which I came down hard against the birther position and also made it clear Donald Trump, whose candidacy I had publicly panned earlier, doesn't have a shot) got only about a third of the pageviews of Monday's post. I have, of course, telegraphed on multiple occasions my disdain against the birther delusion.

It's not only that I despise red meat politics, but I'm particularly critical of people whom attempt to politically exploit a situation by attempting to stake a middle ground where a fringe position (like the birthers) is treated as a legitimate viewpoint. Or politicians like John McCain have to resort to euphemisms to find good things to say about Sarah Palin short of an endorsement, which he pointedly hasn't done. It's all political spin. Sarah Palin has said supportive things of Donald Trump's bizarre state-of-denial stand in favor of the birther fallacy; Trump in turn used every bit of flattery at his disposal to return the favor.

I have to admit I was curious about libertarian/free market investor Doug Casey's take was on Trump:
One of his main characteristics is the extreme certainty he projects about everything – mainly because he says it, and therefore believes it... Jingoism plays well to an unhappy audience...In uncertain times, people want to believe in someone who is certain he knows what’s right and what should be done. At such times they also want a strong, aggressive leader. 
One of the things that came up in the Wall Street Journal interview I saw was that the Chinese are taking “unfair advantage” of Americans by selling them inexpensive goods that improve their standard of living. To Trump, this is ripping us off, and he, as president, would make sure it doesn’t happen. He mentioned import tariffs, specifically. He also mentioned Colombia, among others, saying that although he believes in free trade, he also believes in “fair trade.” This, of course, is a contradiction; the moment you impose restrictions on trade for political reasons, no matter how “fair” some people think those constraints may be, it ceases to be free.... he thinks he’s a capitalist because he’s been a winner in the marketplace. But cutting deals with his banking and political buddies to make money in real estate, and using borrowed money while the property bubble was still inflating, is not like building a whole new business... He believes in tariffs and quotas and all sorts of government interventions. 
The capite censi, the booboisie, come to think they can get something for nothing from the magic cornucopia of the state. In Trump’s case, a lot of the things he proposes will sound like good ideas to an economically miseducated population...The way he was pandering to Sarah Palin, in particular, struck me as a shrewd move. He partially did it to reward her for backing him up about the birth issue with Obama – also because he knows Boobus americanus likes Palin...But she’s a dim bulb without any knowledge or experience of consequence. She’s like a female George Bush... Not nearly enough harsh things were said about Bush, who will vie with Obama for being the worst president in U.S. history...he does have business experience – cutting costs, making layoffs, etc., so it’s hard to see how he could be worse than Obama... but then, I didn’t see how Obama could be worse than Bush, nor how Bush could be worse than Clinton.
I seriously doubt Doug Casey will ever find my little blog and read it, but I have to laugh because he's spot on all over the place. I've said a lot of things about Sarah Palin, but what's interesting is we libertarians are far more concerned about her thin knowledge, experience, and record. I would add a particularly thin skin for a politician.

I can point to several recent published criticisms I've made of Bush, but I think Casey is insulting George Bush by comparing him to Sarah Palin. For one thing, George Bush considered the selection of Sarah Palin as VP a blunder on John McCain's part; George Bush holds two Ivy League degrees, while Sarah Palin while running for governor in 2006 made a virtue of not having a position on pending Alaskan state legislation. I also think George Bush is more of a principled politician than Palin, whom is much more of populist and political opportunist.

I am particularly annoyed by Trump's scapegoating China on the issue of jobs; Doug Casey's tongue-in-cheek characterization of Trump's unprincipled protectionism is amusing. How preventing lower-income people from being able to stretch their income for relevant good and services is "fair", I don't know. But I don't think Trump is alone here: the same ludicrous nonsense on "fair trade" has been made by Barack Obama. And, of course, Obama is all about pandering to the capite censi. I think Casey might more persuasively characterize Donald Trump as a jingoistic Barack Obama, someone whom is in danger of exploding an already overextended, excessive military budget while at the same time criticizing the Obama deficits.

The other thing Doug Casey didn't mention is the obvious damage being done to Trump's name brand. The birther nonsense is badly damaging Trump's credibility and personal and professional reputation. (Of course, one could argue that Trump's past business failures should have done the same....)

David Harsanyi, "If Washington Is So Great, Let's ALL Pay For It": Thumbs UP!

One of the things that truly annoys me about Obama's misleading political spin is a disingenuous attempt to co-opt the term "shared sacrifice". There is some incoherent economic argument being made some people did well over the past decade and lower-income people have struggled because of recessionary economies at the beginning and end of the decade, this was some kind of a zero-sum game and the people that did well did so at the expense of the lower-income people. Therefore, it's up to government to return to the lower-income people the allegedly ill-gotten gains of the people that succeeded: "if you manage to accumulate enough profit -- presumably by robbing the needy, the elderly, the handicapped and the environment -- by default, it belongs to the IRS." So if Apple grew through innovative products and services (e.g., iPhone, iPad, iTunes, etc.), Jobs owes even more to the IRS to fund Obama's "spread the wealth around" programs.

What exactly does Obama mean by "shared sacrifice"?
The Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, estimated this week that 45 percent of U.S. households paid not a single dollar in federal income tax for 2010. And The Fiscal Times reported this week that "for the first time since the Great Depression, households are receiving more income from the government than they are paying the government in taxes." Rather than shared responsibility, we have a growing number of people who rely on others to pay for their votes as they become increasingly disconnected from the cost of government. If, as the enlightened voices on the left contend, the American people deeply love their federal services, their dependency programs, their regulations, their industrious public education department, let's all pay.
Isn't it amazing that the same political philosophy which says you should have to pay for health insurance (even if you don't want or need it) doesn't seem to think lower-income people should have to pay a dime towards government programs supporting them? Even lower-income people spent money on things--why is a tax "less equal" than, say, insurance, food, utilities, etc.? The point is--the more one is personally vested in government revenue, the more one wants to spend it minimally and effectively.

Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update

Atomic Power Review:

IAEA notes:

  • daily: Various manual coolant supplying techniques continue to be provided as needed. White smoke still emitted from reactors 2 through 4. Pumping from the reactor 2 turbine room basement to the rad waste storage tank (earlier this week verified for no leaks). One sample of sand lance (fish) proved above LNT standards.
The Hiroshima Syndrome blogger discusses that there were more contaminants in the reactor 2 spent fuel pool sample than in the reactor 4 spent fuel pool, the reactor 6 turbine basement water has been pumped to the reactor's condenser, and a French company has been given a contract to create the water treatment facility; new examples of Hiroshima Syndrome include the Japanese PM backing a Markey-like bill and some discrimination against people from near the Fukushima Daiichi facilities.


Political Humor

"Obama will participate in a town hall meeting hosted on Facebook. So just like everyone else in America, Obama will be on Facebook when he should be working." - Conan O'Brien

[Given his recent low favorable ratings, Obama likes the fact that Facebook has only a like button, not a dislike button. But he doesn't think the like button is working on his Facebook page...]

"Forty percent of Americans say they would rather cut their own hair than do their taxes. And then there are people that would rather do neither. I'm talking to you, Willie Nelson." - Craig Ferguson

[NOW I understand Donald Trump's hair....No wonder he wants tax reform...]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

ABBA,"Super Trouper". Frida is AMAZING in this performance...

Posted by at