Miscellany:10/31/12

Quote of the Day
Coming together is a beginning. 
Keeping together is progress. 
Working together is success.
 Henry Ford

While Obama Continues to Spike the Football on UBL

This quote courtesy of IBD:

After all, according to Richard Miniter's book "Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him," it was at the urging of White House adviser Valerie Jarrett that President Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden three times before finally approving the May 2, 2011, Navy SEAL mission. Her concern: the political harm to Obama if the mission failed.

What if UBL had left while Obama dithered? I'm troubled by Obama putting politics above leadership.

Don't Tell Me Words Don't Matter:
Revisiting the Crowley Debate Screw-Up

I've read reports of emails, messages, drone video, alleged orders to stand down on confronting the attack. But, not to be beating a dead horse, but let's go back to the Rose Garden Sept. 12 transcript:

• He speaks "acts of terror". He unambiguously references to Benghazi as an attack or this act on multiple times. It's clear  that he is making a general point, and two paragraphs earlier he specifically references the "9/11 attacks".
• Somebody could argue Obama was including the Benghazi attack with the original 9/11 attacks, but that is highly unlikely from context. Why? A number  of reasons:

• He doesn't use the term specifically with respect to Benghazi. Instead he seems to contrast "this terrible act", not "this act of terror". 
• He specifically references the film, like his administration constantly over the next 2 weeks " We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence." Notice he uses the term 'senseless', i.e., "without discernible meaning or purpose". Terrorist acts are not random acts of violence.
• For a guy whom notably avoided tipping off the Pakistan government about UBL, "we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people." Killers: criminals, not terrorists. 

Maryland Election Politics: Ballot Initiatives

The first two amendments involve certain qualifications for county orphan court judges to be member in good standing with the state bar. As a libertarian I always worry about anti-competitive effects of crony restrictions (e.g., suppose an experienced orphan court judge from Ohio, not yet admitted to the Maryland bar, moved into the county, and the local candidates had no such experience: it's not clear why you need to be certified on all Maryland law to be an orphan court judge).

I haven't  found a lot on the motivation here (a gap analysis review of judicial position qualifications?), but requiring a minimal, independent standard of legal competence for a local/state judge seems reasonable on its face.

The third question expedites the process of removing convicted elected officials from office. A big thumbs UP here. public service is a privilege, not right.

Question 4 is Maryland's version of the Dream Act; generally allows for resident Maryland high school students to qualify for in-state resident college tuition. This blog is pro-immigration and the question does not involve trumping federal supremacy on immigration vs. the Constitution. I don't want tuition double standards for resident Maryland high school graduates. The TV ads are so progressive, morally self-superior over-the-top nonsense, they almost make me want to vote against it in spite. But a fourth thumbs up.

Question 5 is a referendum on Maryland's gerrymandered districts to protect Maryland's Congressional Democrats. This is a big THUMBS Down,

Question 6 is a referendum on Maryland's legalization of "gay marriage". This is a big  THUMBS DOWN. I have written multiple posts on this; I don't have a problem with civil unions or domestic partnerships. The ads lately had me confused because I saw the PRO-side answer ad first, about a teacher denying this law would affect (implied) sex education in the classroom  (maybe she's a math teacher?)

It turns out the traditional side points out after the Massachusetts court created "gay marriage", schools started teaching acceptable gay couple lifestyles as early as second grade with no parental right to know. I would have preferred keeping this out of the debate. The teaching of progressive propaganda in public schools is a different topic (remember those chilling videos of little kids singing Obama cult songs?)

Question 7 expands state-sanctioned gambling: thumbs down. I distinctly don't like opaque, wheeler-dealer processes between companies and legislatures, related tax deals, a history of legislative lock-box raids and budget shell games. But I particularly hate state protectionist arguments and tying a vice to alleged jobs. One ubiquitous ad stars a massive retired local pro football player Jon Ogden and then talking about gambling money from other residents as somehow it's "Maryland money" (as if the only reason Marylanders gamble elsewhere is no Maryland casinos--wait: there are a couple already, but some still gamble out of state.)  I don't gamble, rarely drink, don't smoke, don't use drugs, don't pick up hookers, etc. As a libertarian, I oppose cracking down on victimless stupidity. But I always thought it was perverse to depend on stupid people funding government programs, like education in this case being used to sell this corrupt bargain.

Election 2012 Countdown

Hurricane Sandy has affected polling; Obama seems to have tightened the race a bit; you have to wonder, though.  if storm-caused early voting cancelled days won't hurt the Deems more: GOP voters will show up this election. Early voting is down from 4 years back, and the big turnout helped Obama. But the Obama campaign is playing last-minute defense in the Midwest in states once thought blue, e.g., PA, MI, WI, IA, etc.  This has all the signs of a losing campaign: they are shifting resources in the short time left and leaving other tossup states uncovered. There's also some evidence their strongest supporters have already locked up their votes

Here's an interesting blurb from newsmax about how much Mitt Romney has sacrificed since he left Bain in 1999 to serve in the public sector:

And while Romney is today worth an estimated $230 million, it is indisputable he could have accumulated a far greater fortune had he not left Bain.

Forbes calculates that had he remained at Bain, Romney’s stake in the company would be worth $1.5 billion today. Bloomberg has come to a similar conclusion, estimating that his stake would be worth $1.32 billion.

By leaving Bain when he did, Romney missed out on a decade of lucrative performance fees and the ability to claim some of the firm’s most profitable deals, which all told could have brought in another $500 million.

Had he remained at Bain, then, Romney would “probably be worth $2 billion by now,” Vardi writes, adding that Romney “has consistently shown that he is willing to sacrifice huge sums of money in order to chase his political dreams.”

News flash to Obama: Romney has already  given up more than a little bit more. 

By the way, has anyone noticed MSNBC is continuing to promote its Lean Forward campaign even after Obama adopted Forward as its campaign theme  

CATO Institute, "The Truth about Fusion Centers": 
Thumbs UP!

I mentioned yesterday that I had to rewrite my post from scratch.  Fusion centers were supposed to develop  synergies among local, state and federal law enforcement. As Cato points out, these centers went on spending sprees (e.g., more PC's than staffers; James Bond-like gizmos unnecessary for their responsibilities, etc.) This is but an ongoing history of inadequate management controls where Dems are arguing they've eliminated Medicare fraud after 4 decades (yeah, right....)

This reminds me: Citizens Against Government Waste has released its 2011 Congressional ratings here.
Check out the ratings of Congressmen and Senators up for reelection, Below 40% is unfriendly or hostile. Most Dems rate in that category, including Senate incumbents from Missouri, Montana,Washington, Florida, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Michigan. Two Congressmen running for Senate (Flake R-AZ and Mack R-FL) rate as heroes.

California Prop 36 Thee Strikes Reform: Thumbs UP!

According to Ballotpedia:

"Proposition 36, specifically, will if enacted:

• Revise the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent".
• Authorize re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.
• Continue to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession".
• Maintain the life sentence penalty for felons with "non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation.

Reducing the sentences of these current prisoners (point 2) could result in saving the state somewhere between $150 to $200 million a year."



Political Humor

"Don't ask, don't tell" is back. Not for gays in the military — it's President Obama's new policy for questions about Libya. - Jay Leno

[It also describes Obama's position on news conferences and Fox News interviews,] 

I don’t know if you guys caught the show last night, but because of Hurricane Sandy, we had to do the show to a bunch of empty seats — or as Clint Eastwood calls that, “a full house.”- Jimmy Fallon

[Or as Obama or Biden call it, a "campaign rally".]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Carpenters, "Merry Christmas, Darling".  Most pop acts have a trademark contemporary Christmas hit--doesn't this song feel like snuggling near your babe on a cold night in front of a crackling fire?

Miscellany: 10/30/12

Quote of the Day

Let no one delay the study of philosophy when young nor weary of it when old.
Epicurus

Over the Hump: Hurricane Sandy

I realize over 7.5 million without power and over 30 fatalities {my thought and prayers to the families). the howling wind and heavy rain peaked overnight, with only a brief outage in my case.

An Earlier One-Off Posted

I wrote a somewhat tongue-in-cheek "Why You Should Read Me" earlier today.

I somehow lost my first draft of this post which I'm having to rewrite from memory. Part of it I'll include in tomorrow's post.

Beware the "Hurricane Sandy Stimulus/Recovery"

This is just a variation of Bastiat's broken window fallacy where an act of God breaks a window. The window replacement transaction ripples through the economy with a high multiple. Of course the shopkeeper isn't better off than when he had the original window and the window cost in his pocket to  buy things.

Even if you build again newer, better, the insurers aren't better off; their reserves are lower to cover other events. Don  Boudreaux writes another signature spot-on pithy letter on related "Vulgar Keynesianism".  Let me assure you government does its part: say, failing to maintain public infrastructure,  never mind the hugely subsidized federal flood insurance program.

A Libertarian Critique: Obama/Romney the Same? 
Thumbs DOWN!

I'm a huge fan of Cafe Hayek's Russ Roberts' weekly podcast EconTalk (highly recommended). But, whereas I agree with most of the points he makes in this post from an economic standpoint--in particular, I have criticized Romney on the China issue and I have criticized singling out small business, I find the overall analysis fairly superficial, failing to take into account necessary political context. We know from the past 4 abysmal years of the Obama Presidency to separate rhetoric from performance. Romney has always had a messaging problem (e.g., "flip-flops"), which I attributed to trying to win statewide election in a deep blue state of Massachusetts. (During the recent debates, I cringed to hear him pay lip service to the progressivity of federal revenue outcomes: a proportional/flat rate system would control for the anti-growth effect of a progressive tax scheme.)

First, I think it's disingenuous to compare Romney to Bush, which is buying into a polemical  Obama talking point. (Not to mention Russ can't seriously compare Bush's deficits which were less than half of Obama's). In fact, Romney was asked a related question during the debates. The GOP is talking about holding the federal government to at most 20% of GDP. Romney has dealt with underwater companies, an Olympics, and state; Bush rarely vetoed--but debt did not exceed the size of the economy. Almost all conservatives, including myself, criticized Bush policies, like expanding, without funding, Medicare benefits (the Dems are politically disingenuous here because they wanted MORE unfunded liability, not less, e.g., "closing the doughnut hole"), the huge funding increases in domestic spending, particularly, education, and the giant DHS bureaucracy.

Why won't Romney be more specific on cuts? Look at what happened in Europe for modest reform. Any budget cut will bring opponents out of the woodwork. Obama will demagogue against any cut:  it's political suicide in a tough election. Personally, I think the American people would prefer straight talk and legitimate shared sacrifice (not Obama's perverse use of the phrase which is code for class warfare policies).  Obviously what Romney can do depends on the cards he's dealt: if voters keep spendthrift Democratic senators in power, fiscal reform is more difficult  (if the GOP controls the Senate, you can do more in filibuster-proof budget reconciliation). But Romney had an 87% Dem legislature in Massachusetts and still managed to balance the budget--and did not shy away  from vetoes. The next Congress will sustain his vetoes.

Russ doesn't seem to be aware that Romney has a 59-point economic plan:  there was pressure on him to distill his economic program into a more manageable set for voters. I have made the same points about China and the need for broad-based versus winners and losers policies. Romney has long talked about lowering globally noncompetitive business tax rates--not just for small companies.

So why is Romney stressing "small" in his talking points? I think it has to do with the fact that small companies (like my late Grandfather's grocery) are part of the GOP base, and Obama has thought that he is clever in trying to pander for in, a stealth fashion, small business in an extension of class warfare policies; just like the professional military, a traditional GOP constituency,  is not buying into Obama's pandering to military families,  neither is small business, choked by government regulations: even if you're shielded partially from anti-competitive regulations, the incentive is not to grow your business and jobs: we need broad-based regulatory reform to offset the economic drag (hidden cost) of nearly $1.75T on business and ultimately consumers.

I'm not going to analyze everything Roberts said here, but the Obama "more of the same" 'plan' was only recently released (Obama put a higher priority on attacking Romney.) Just one point here: Obama has already nationalized college student loans. Of course he is trying to grab traditional control from states/locals in education, not unlike healthcare.

I would make a couple of points here Roberts doesn't: (1) we need to privatize education; (2) I don't like to see education/training promoted as a publicly-funded way of subsidizing employee development costs.

Political Humor

What? No Obama disguise as he spread the treats around? No zucchini,carrot and celery sticks for fun-size Snickers bars?



Musical Interlude: my Favorite Groups

The Carpenters, 'We've Only Just Begun". A classic often played at wedding receptions and graduations. This is a unique quasi-a capella version.

Why You Should Read Me

I  imagine if I was a skeptical reader I might say, "This guy has been an IT professor and practitioner... Who is he to speak on economics or politics? Where is his PhD in economics, 300 published aticles in peer-reviewed publications and/or Nobel Prize."  I'm not, and never have been, an political operative, an historian, or a pollster.

My mom's review was, "These are your opinions--who cares? It's boring. I do like your little music videos, though." Thanks, Mom!  (I am my mother's son...)

Here's my answer:

• I'm an interdisciplinary researcher by nature. MIS itself is a fusion discipline, borrowing from diverse disciplines (technical, applied psychology, etc.)  and methodologies. I have published a number of peer-reviewed empirical research articles, and have served as a reviewer. I love research design and methods and  have used a number of different statistical  packages (e.g., I was one of the first MIS academics to report confirmatory factor analysis results.) I have published in  other disciplines (e.g., technical and professional communication and human factors/ergonomics). I have a strong background in math and philosophy (including political/social philosophy) and 2 graduate degrees in business (including courses in finance and economics and an accounting minor ). I am not  intimidated by researchers in other disciplines--I understand limitations say of economic  models and when researchers make conclusions beyond the data.
• I'm an excellent, persuasive communicator, both written and verbal. It's not just that I've been a full-time, not adjunct,  professor for 5 years (and halftime teaching fellow for 3 more)--I've had to turn around projects without line authority and gained management support in personal and business meetings.
• I have a definite point of view but am a straight shooter. I have criticized conservatives and libertarians. I have sharply criticized state immigration laws and various right-wing red meat talking points (e.g., the birther controversy)
• I am a constructive critic, and I excel at problem solving  I am a realist, pragmatist and not an ideologue. For example, Massachusetts is not going to elect a libertarian to state-wide office, but it will elect a moderate Republican whom is a fiscal conservative. It is true that I've been sharply critical of progressive politicians, but I dislike the predictable hypocritical nonstop political spin, the state of denial over ineffective Keynesian policies and unsustainable senior benefits and chronic federal deficits
• I think my miscellany format is distinctive and don't think I've seen a similar blog anywhere, I have a good sense of humor, I work hard on the readability, organization, and documentation of my commentaries,  I try to vary the topics and avoid being overly repetitive--and, yes, Mom, I embed good music videos

Miscellany: 10/29/12

Quote of the Day
We come into this world crying 
while all around us are smiling. 
May we so live that we go out of this world smiling 
while everybody around us is weeping.
Persian proverb

Hurricane Sandy: No Outage Yet

I've heard the wind since last night; my power briefly flickered off late afternoon, but I'm still online as of this post.

My Old IL Congressional District, Dold, and the Tea Party

I returned to Illinois in 2001 to work for a Naperville (SW  Chicago suburb) headquartered government contracting company for a suburban Milwaukee project. The company wanted me to live in Wisconsin, but the project was only for a few months and they had only one Wisconsin client. I used to live in a different SW suburb about 15 miles away. The daily commute from the southwest suburbs was unacceptable; the Wisconsin commute from the NW suburbs was long but uncongested: I decided on a NW suburb near a Metra station (to downtown Chivago): Buffalo Grove. Ironically I lived within 1.5 miles of a plant for a former California employer (in fact they used to be headquartered there).

Now Senator Kirk used to be my Congressman until I moved to Maryland a few years later for a job. It is a purplish upscale district. Kirk is a party moderate; he is/was one of the few pragmatic Republicans with a chance to carry Illinois statewide. People seem to foget the GOP controlled the governor's mansion until the downfall of former Secretary of State George Ryan, undone by complications from a DMV drivers license bribery scandal. (There was I believe a horrific accident involving I believe a cleric's family and a truck driver holding a tainted drivers license.) Chicagoland has always been controlled by the Democratic machine, but most of the rest of the state leans GOP: usually it's a question of whether the Dems can pile up insurmountable leads in Chicago. In 2002 Blago came to power; and the GOP has mostly been in exile, paying for Ryan's sins.

Conservatives went all out to derail Kirk's nomination to the Senate for his vote on climate change, which died in the Senate. Kirk prides himself as environment-friendly. The Dems went all out to try to grab Kirk's open seat.

I'm not sure how I got on Kirk successor Dold's email list; maybe it came from a Kirk email list. But the point is Dold is a pragmatist and he is getting targeted by his opponent as a Tea Party "extremist". The latest mailing features I think a Tribune cartoonist showing Dold's opponent throwing teabags at  Dold, saying, "Drat! None of them are sticking."

I want to rant a bit about idiotic morally self-superior progressives, yes, the same hypocrites whom  are intolerant over sport team nicknames,are, in fact, creating a straw man. I've consistently found fellow conservatives and libertarians to be the nicest people I've ever met. I've mentioned my maternal grandfather, a mom-and-pop grocer and a rare Massachusetts Republican. He would often tell me about opening his store (a few blocks away) at night for a customer to buy something he needed. His store barely survived the Depression. My Mom told me a lot of people owed him money, and he could have gone after them but didn't. He was a member of St. Vincent de Paul ,contributed to Boys Town, and volunteered at church. He loved his grandkids; I remember during my fifth and sixth grade we briefly lived with him while dad was securing family housing at new assignments; Mom would send us to pick up groceries at the store. He had a huge jar of Hershey's kisses on the counter and sneak a few into the bag for us. I remember visiting him while my family was in Europe. We never talked about politics, but he loved to watch the national news. Then  out of the blue one day, he started lecturing passionately to me on the evil of abortion. He was preaching to the choir; I felt like saying , "Grandfather, I don't even have a girlfriend yet."

The Tea Party doesn't go around key-scratching cars with Obama bumper stickers (and I live in an area where about 75% of the Sam's Club members and nearly all employees are people of color; there are several stickers in my complex parking lot); we don't threaten riots or  assassinations,calling people we don't agree with "racists"  or go around defacing Obama signs. We don't go  around go around engaging in voter fraud, illegal multiple voting, buying votes with cigarettes and pizza, etc. Our candidates don't act like juvenile jerks in front of a national audience: constantly talking over and interrupting our opponents, staring,  eye-rolling, waving arms, laughing, smirking, etc.

I think the worst I've heard was a prank of someone dumping a load of horse manure in front of an Ohio Dem office (cleanup after Harry Reid's speeches?)

Progressives who  try to hurl the term "Tea Party" or more pejorative references are creating a straw man. First, there are probably less a dozen "true believer" legislators, e.g., rejecting government intrusion on individual rights (e.g., Kelo, the Patriot Act, etc.) and morally hazardous social policies and want scaled back foreign intervention policy, and an end to crony capitalism (e.g., the GSE's, the Fed, etc.) Second, unsustainable, inefficient, ineffective  federal programs delivered by well-paid, impersonal  bureaucrats are hardly comparable to charities in the private sector

The reality is a President who borrows 40 cents on the dollar after promising to halve the deficit, adds over $5T to the national debt, more than any multiple-term President, close to the entire debt through Clinton and has rarely proposed anything more than statistically insignificant or accounting gimmick cuts demonizes his opposition  and refuses to compromise.

Election Countdown 2012

With the election 8 days off, I'll make a summary under this feature heading; the Battleground Poll predicts Romney will win the popular vote 52-47. This is consistent with my previously published conjecture Romney would flip the results of 2008:  53-46 and over 320 votes . Gallup is reporting 1 of 7 voters has already cast ballots consistent with the Battleground poll.The best showing of Obama in RCP this week are 2 polls with a 1-point lead and under 50%, i.e. undecideds (unlikely to break for Obama). Two  generic Congressional ballots now show the GOP with the lead. Battleground says the GOP will hold the House; the Senate is tougher with difficult battles to hold Massachusetts and Maine and tight but likely defenses of Arizona, Indiana, and Nevada. The GOP is likely  to take North Dakota and Nebraska. Romney may have coattails in tightly-contested Montana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Missouri.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Carpenters, "Close to You". The best-singing, cutest drummer in history (sorry, Ringo and Phil Collins). I earlier  wrote that this, which I consider the Carpenters' signature hit, came over the radio one night, and I serenaded my then girlfriend by singing along--and  did the same when the Beatles' "Something" closely followed. She then sang to me--a cappella. It was one of those spontaneous magic moments in life you live for.

Miscellany: 10/28/12

Quote of the Day
We know what we are,
but know not what we may be.
William Shakespeare

Congratulations, World Series Champs SF Giants!

The Giants swept the Tigers in 4 games, for their second crown in 3 years, after an improbable comeback in the NLCS. I'm an AL fan, but the Giants' pitchers completely shut down the powerful  Tigers lineup.Triple crown Cabrera did get a wind-aided homer tonight--he took a called third strike to end the game, but It seemed the Tigers slumped badly all at the same, worst time--or maybe the Giants' pitching is that damn good.

Preparing for Hurricane Sandy

The calm before storm--you wouldn't know. I absolutely love cool, crisp autumn days with soft, cool breezes. I think "Autumn Leaves" (below) was a featured selection in my high school choir's first concert

I remember waiting for word of Dad's assignment after his isolated tour in Southeast Asia; I didn't care where (say, Michigan) so long as there was a change of season. Even though I'm a native Texan, I did not initially take well the news we were moving to South Texas. My fears were confirmed; it hit 95 on our first Christmas, our front yard had brown grass with maybe 2 inches of rain over 9 months  Perfect training ground for new pilots, of course.

 There are things you learn from past storms: I made sure I was parked away from trees, you eat stuff from your freezer, you charge up your devices (cellphone, iPod shuffle, etc.), you wash a load of clothes,  you double-check your rechargeable lantern is charged, etc.

I'll try to set up some scheduled posts over the next few days and overwrite boilerplate with commentaries as my Internet service remains available.





Bill O'Reilly, Romney, Obama & Benghazi

I haven't watched the Factor in months, but i do download  his daily talking points memo. O'Reilly was beside himself after the last debate critical of Romney's taking a ball on Schieffer's softball pitch to lead off. I would have handled it differently than Romney  (and note that the President had the same question and spun his way through it). I do think it was odd that Romney was asked first, a point O'Reilly never raised.

I an a noninterventionist, but by any objective standard, Obama was not forthcoming; the Administration botched things. I think if Obama had gone first, Romney was prepared to cross.

First, I think Romney was concerned about Obama counterattacking the Romney campaign's premature response to the  Egypt/Benghazi incidents (before we learned of the ambassador's murder); second, Romney didn't want to be accused of politically exploiting a tragedy; third, Obama would have been in a state of denial, denying anything Romney said;  the burden of proof was on Romney.  Finally, there's the question of "what would you have done?", especially if requested resources weren't sufficient to repel the attack.

I think one question I haven't heard addressed is: if the Benghazi consulate was considered vulnerable, why was the ambassador there? I'm not trying to blame the victim: it's just the date has high significance for these groups, and the ambassador would likely have been safer at the embassy.

One thing as a libertarian has me absolutely seething about is the idiot responsible for putting an ad on Pakistan television publicly distancing itself from that controversial film. I object to the film based on matters of civility, but did the US pay for ads in Vatican City when say the National Endowment for the Arts subsidized (not merely tolerated) Serrano's much more offensive "Piss Christ"? Leftist civil libertarians at the time were dismissive that "some" Christians might be offended  by the appearance of a Christ figure submerged in the "artist"'s own urine. (This is a typical hypocritical leftist pseudo-apology (I wonder if they would feel the same way if a conservative artist released "Defecate Obama" using stimulus money ).) The idea of Obama, Clinton and their Progressive-Censors-Are-More-Equal stance spending money they don't have so they can dubiously mitigate the effects of radical, trouble-making clerics  (as if Obama has any credibility by playing Whack-a-Mole with drone attacks and collateral damage and/or the clerics care about whether the government made or subsidized the film). It's not just this Administration threw our constitution under the bus, but they basically played into the hands of uncivil malcontents.

What would I have said in Romney's place? First, it was clear from the outset that the Egypt and Libya incidents were different and the ambassador's death was the result of  a military/terrorist attack, and the Obama Administration knowingly misled the American people through its minions (e.g., Susan Rice). It's one thing to redact sensitive information; it's another thing to be in a state of denial. Second, there seem to be management problems in the State Dept. Recall the nearly tragic circumstances of the underwear bomber, and now this disagreement between State and national intelligence. Another point is that the US meddling in the Libyan conflict during the Arab spring had consequences. Finally, protection of our diplomats in job #1, and I would make clear that a Romney Administration would be sensitive to requests for additional  security.

The Tea Party, Rape and Abortion

I seriously want to kick Indiana GOP Senate candidate Murdoch's ass.  I cannot understand why Tea Party favorites let themselves get trapped into talking about cases of abortion and rape. The percentage of rape-caused pregnancies is negligible, I got an email alert--probably the night of a debate by one of my mainstream media alerts quoting Murdoch about carrying a rapist's baby to term.

How Murdoch got trapped on this after the Akin kerfuffle blows my mind. I do expect Akin and Murdoch to eventually win their races, but some facts of life: first, the Tea Party has no position on abortion. Second, there is no chance of passing a pro-life amendment given the number of pro-abortion choice Dem senators in the next Congress. Third, if there is a consensus view, it  is that abortion comes under the police function of states

I'm pro-life. I understand where Akin and Murdoch are coming from, but given the status quo I see one of 2 possible viable alternatives: (1) restoring state regulation including extenuating circumstance exceptions (like mother's life or rape) and/or (2) banning abortion, short of risk to the mother's life,  after signs of the baby's functional  organ activity  (e.g., a baby's heartbeat).  I also think you could restrict the type of abortion to facilitate the baby's chances to survive a procedure (e.g., born alive versus D&C).

But "it''s the economy, stupid". Arguing state regulation should be the default Tea Party response.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Carpenters, "Ticket to Ride". This Beatles' cover off their first A&M LP didn't quite hit Top 40; their next single, "Close to You", would be their first #1 (3 on the hot 100, over a dozen on adult contemporary) and they never looked back. Richard brilliantly retools the arrangement here in the now familiar Carpenters' sound), slow and poignant (it takes testicular fortitude to alter a classic Beatles hit but here  it works: the student exceeds the master). This performance showcases Karen's rich lower register--just flawless, seemingly effortless technique: she has a way of projecting in an intimate manner--like she is singing just for you, almost like the female version of Sinatra for the Baby Boomers.

Miscellany: 10/27/12

Quote of the Day
There is no worse tyranny than that of a majority. 
The test of democracy is not that the majority should always get its way 
but how far minorities are respected.
John Stuart Mill

Possible Interruption in Blog Publishing 
Due to Hurricane Sandy

The projected path I see is north through New Jersey and Pennsylvania but all of Maryland is within range. Having experienced Hurricane Alicia as a PhD student in Houston, and seeing an earlier multi-day outage of a few days, I do not underestimate the possibility of high winds and falling trees causing another publication gap.

True Leadership vs Obama

Romney has been talking about lowering globally noncompetitive business tax rates for years, and Obama, after 4 years, the first 2 with super-majorities in both chambers of Congress never making it a priority, says he's now has a plan, too.  Yeah, right. Go through the 2000 pages of legal fine-print: exclusions, caps, tax burden shifting. Do you honestly believe he's going to stop subsidizing green energy companies, shifting their tax burden onto others? Do you think he's going to stop his hypocritical attacks on decades-old accounting treatment on oil drillers/producers? Note that energy companies often pay at the high end of corporate tax rates while green  energy companies are net takers from government policies. I don't believe in government subsidies

We have seen Obama repeatedly  attempt to co-opt conservative language and concepts: "fair and balanced" or "shared sacrifice" becomes some convoluted concept of class warfare with alleged middle class victimization, Medicare fraud, medical malpractice reform, increased domestic energy production, etc. For example, when drilling on federal lands declines on your watch, you put an unauthorized moratorium on Gulf drilling, even on already granted permits, and you only open up only 5% of desired offshore and none off blue state coasts, it is completely disingenuous to claim an all-of-the-above solution.

By the way, I want to rant about terms like "all-of-the-above" strategies. What I want to hear is a free market in energy--no subsidies to Big Green, no subsidized loans to Big Nuclear, no tax breaks for any company (including Big Oil). That's not a strategy: it's a free market

Obama has clearly been reactive, not proactive as President: spending bills during the last Congress contained earmarks which he swore off during the 2008 campaign; ObamaCare contained an individual mandate he similarly opposed, he failed to make immigration a priority, he did nothing to back Simpson-Bowles or present a comparable alternative. We saw Obama playing a game of chicken over the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010, which had employers scrambling for contingency plans; he then played chicken over the debt ceiling increase; and 2 months before the Bush cuts and mandatory spending cuts are triggered by the debt ceiling deal, we once again have Obama procrastinating.

I cannot even imagine this kind of managerial incompetence under a competent executive like Romney, never minding the fact that 40 cents of every dollar Obama spends is borrowed from future taxpayers...

So Obama is finally discussing a second term agenda, but as I predicted a long time ago, this is more of the same, more attempts to spend money he doesn't have on key special interest priorities, trying to control  traditionally state/local administrated public schools, more throwing good money over bad in Big Green Energy, and make-work money-losing Infrastructure plays, like high speed rail. First of all, these are politically dead on arrival, assuming at minimum 40 GOP senators. Second, any money Obama could get would be negligible in the context of a $15T economy.

If Obama had a clue on leading the country he would have shown it by now. He hired Clinton's best economists.Why did he wait until the last weeks of the campaign to release a plan? Why has he spent the last 5 months running negative ads against Romney instead of articulating a specific, positive agenda? He's no better than my former students waiting until the day before an exam to start studying.

Political Potpourri

Gallup and Rasmussen daily tracking have Romney at 50 or better with at least a 4-point lead, and both show Obama approval ratings at 47 or lower. There could be a number of factors, but clearly the last two debates haven't helped Obama's standing in the polls. Romney is within a nickel or so in Ohio,  Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and a dime in Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Oregon; even California is within a dozen. I think Romney will win New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida now. I think Romney will win a majority within a dime; I would not be surprised to see Romney flip Obama's 2008 victory, winning 53% of the vote and over 320 electoral votes. I think that Romney is on a mini-Reagan surge, due in part to the Obama/Biden obnoxious behavior during the debates. Romney's net favorables are now above Obama's, which I attribute to Obama's unpresidential behavior.

Drudge is linking to a number of different stories: e.g., illegal voting by non-citizen Somalis in Ohio, Dems burning or defacing Romney signs and burning accompanying American flags, threats to riot if Romney is elected, Dems buying votes with pizza, etc.. Probably the most interesting unusual story is Moshe Shak's Bible code prediction of Romney's victory; let's just say the GOP needs to get out the vote and not wait for divine intervention.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Carpenters, "Looking for Love". I thought about waiting to present the Carpenters for a duets theme, but Richard rarely sang in the foreground. I remember singing Carpenter hits in high school choir, I got a cassette from the rest of my family when my Dad got assigned to an AFB in Germany  when I was at OLL with the family singing "Sing". My cousin Jacquie was the vocalist for a trio (doing gigs like wedding receptions) and performed a number of Carpenter covers. The Carpenters mostly covered other people's material (including a few remakes), but Richard was a talented songwriter, too (one of my favorite originals is "I Need to be in Love"--I felt that the song described me). I was unfamiliar with their first single (below) written by Richad, a faster pace than their trademark hits. What can you say about Karen's voice? Rolling Stone characterized her voice as "chocolate-and-cream alto", her as a new type of torch singer. I remember that just like Olivia Newton-John, Karen was unhappy with her squeaky clean, girl next door  image, but it was part of her charm: in my favorite hit "Close to You", for a few minutes I could pretend that  she was singing about my "eyes of blue": Karen was the kind of girl you dream of marrying and having a family with. Done far too soon,  tragically dying of anorexia. That's the fear I've had for my nieces, all beautiful young ladies at a healthy weight, a couple of them already taken--that some thoughtless person's comments would undermine their self-confidence; my oldest niece, now the married mother of 3, was taunted over her weight in high school.

Miscellany: 10/26/12

Quote of the Day
Fill your paper with the breathings of your heart...
William Wordsworth

Sunday Talk Soup

I haven't watched a backlog of Sunday talk podcasts, but to start with, they are unbalanced. For example, you have Krugman on ABC, but you don't have someone from the monetarist or Austrian Schools to  combat "pick-and-choose" data sets. Similarly MTP has recurring guests like Mike Murphy, not the most principled conservative spokesman. Or, say, Gingrich, a former Romney rival for the GOP nod, whom complained bitterly about the campaign, being predictably asked by Gregory, basically trying to get him to admit what Romney is doing to Obama is no different from what Romney did to him.

Going back to 10/7 edition of MTP after the first debate,one topic was the (phony) September jobs report  and essentially ridiculing GE iconic CEO Jack Welch for advancing a "conspiracy theory" because of the timing--the biggest drop in official unemployment since 1983 (behind his back of course).

Nobody is disputing the establishment survey (consistent with the past--rather, it's the anomalous jump of 600,000 part-time household survey jobs). In my peer-reviewed empirical articles I specifically addressed outliers in study data. Why would you have a huge jump in a slow economy?  It's radically inconsistent with past surveys and other data. The conservative Breitbart website has a thesis: the winding down of morally hazardous, overly generous  federal unemployment insurance.

The explanation has a certain appeal: unemployment pays more than  (say) minimum wage; those on benefits milk the benefits for the entire period of eligibility, waiting in vain for the "Obama recovery" to generate full-time opportunities. Then with the money cut off, they settle for whatever income they could get--even low-paying part-time work. There is some anecdotal evidence of this; I have two male relatives by marriage in my extended family affected by the Great Recession and on unemployment at one point concurrently. The older relative took a part-time job at a local university; the younger one said something to the effect "I could do that, too, but I would clear less than I would make on unemployment." Penny-wise, pound-foolish: you may need to explain the gap to future employers,

Here's the problem I have with that thesis: the establishment survey includes part-time workers on payrolls So unless we are talking about a mysterious explosion of self-employment jobs (say, contractors not on W-2...)  In my experience, contractors tend to first feel the ax when companies cut back. A couple of years back I did a contract for hire for a federal contractor. About a week before the end of the contract when they were supposed to hire me full-time, I got called into a meeting where they explained they couldn't make the offer because they incurred some project-related costs CMS refused to cover and they had a couple of developers rolling off an expiring contract in 2 months they wanted to keep on staff. They said they wanted the opportunity to come back later to make an offer if they got more funding (never happened).

The round-table started talking about the economy and the Obama campaign stooges went on their talking points: Gibbs wanting to compare George W. Bush, let's remember Bush faced the aftereffects of the Internet bubble bust, 9/11 (which devastated the airlines and hospitality industries), and corporate scandals. Bush also inherited the Clinton tax hikes. Recall the Bush tax cuts were implemented in 2 phases, the second in 2003; the fact is that federal revenues were strong during  Bush's second term until 2008. Obama not only inherited Bush's lower taxes, but the combined fiscal and monetary stimulus is without precedent, Regulations, however, are a form of taxation.It would have been better to let the market find its bottom  Barack "We Can't Afford To Do Nothing" Obama effectively picked at the economy's scabs before they had a chance to heal.

Another soundbite deals with Obama's alleged role in a more robust manufacturing sector recovery: let's point out only 1 in 10  jobs is in the manufacturing  sector, but it is disingenuous for Obama to claim credit for the rebound: Obama has done little to open new markets and his tax-and-regulate regime is counterproductive. This expansion has been more value added, not based on failed business models with low-skill commodity labor.

Courtesy of US Chamber

Obama Is the New  Herbert Hoover

On multiple occasions I have cited the 1932 election where Hoover ran on a fairly liberal/government intervention program; FDR had talking points most Tea Party members would agree with. Recall that 1929 was Hoover's first year in office.  Boaz of CATO summarizes Horwitz as follows:

• He almost doubled federal spending from 1929 to 1933.
• He expanded public works projects to “create jobs.”
• He pressured businesses not to cut wages, even in the face of deflation.
• He signed the Davis-Bacon Act and the Norris-LaGuardia acts to prop up unions.
• He signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff.
• He created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
• He proposed and signed the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Four Tops, "Indestructible". Remember the smash Olympics soundtrack from the late 80's with Whitney Houston's brilliant "One Moment in Time". This is, hands down, my favorite Four Tops track; I loved it the first time I heard it and have probably played it hundreds of times. This concludes my Four Tops retrospective. Next group: the Carpenters.

Miscellany: 10/25/12

Quote of the Day
They may forget what you said, 
but they will never forget 
how you make them feel.
Carol Buchner

New JOTY Nominee

One piece of work, amateurish, immature,  unpresidential, smirk-amatic, potty-mouthed, dismissive, interrupt-omatic, eye-rolling, arm-waving, evil-eye staring Barack Obama also joins joins his uncouth smiling, laughing running mate in my crowded tongue-in-cheek "award"  for the following soundbite from Rolling Stone:

 “We arrived at the Oval Office for our 45-minute interview … on the morning of October 11th. … As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. … [S]he said, ‘Tell him: You can do it.’ Obama grinned. … ‘You know, kids have good instincts,’ Obama offered. ‘They look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.”’”

Poor Barack. He can't help it. He was born without a bar of a soap in his mouth. No wonder Drudge has a link showing the gender gap (i.e., Obama leading among women) has closed.

I'm Done With Colin Powell

In life, I've learned to deal with the fact that even friends and family sharply disagree with me on issues or political candidates. Personally I honestly believe (I could pass a polygraph) that anyone who votes for the reelection of Obama must be mentally challenged: the Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism fools you once, shame on him; fools you twice, shame on you. If you still believe in progressive  propaganda after decades of federal meddling have resulted in food stamp nation,  failed inner cities and failed public school systems, rising poverty, declining household income and net worth, and believe a laundry list of excuses of a failed Presidency willing to do or say anything in a desperate attempt to remain in power, you have lost my respect for your judgment. When I heard The (Incompetent) One's rally cry "Four more years", It's like one of those anti-drug ads: 'This is your brain on drugs'.

Nevertheless I believe my relatives beyond  my mom's immediate family in Massachusetts will probably still vote for The (Vacuous) One. Now I've gone out of the way to accommodate moderates in the GOP (including Giuliani, Pataki, the Maine senators, Scott Brown, etc.). Now when I heard  Colin Powell declined to make an endorsement in May, my honest thought was that he wanted to maximize the impact of his endorsement by waiting until near the end of the campaign, that he was posturing to make his position look like it was  deliberate; he had to wait until after the debates to maintain this disingenuous facade. I never believed for a second Powell was going to admit he had changed his mind about Obama, that his original decision was wrong..

Powell in the interim had come out in favor of "gay marriage" , just like Obama. It's one thing, Mr. Powell, to vote for your chosen candidate for any or no  reasons, but here's a word to the wise: It's one thing to deliver an opinion based on your military and State Department experience, but you have have no expertise or background in economic or fiscal matters, and the last thing an expert would do is quote from Obama campaign talking points:

One of the most coveted endorsements remaining in the 2012 presidential race, Powell said Obama walked into a horrendous economic situation and has begun to turn it around.

“I think, generally, we’ve come out of the dive and we’re starting to gain altitude,” said Powell, who served as George W. Bush’s secretary of state. “It doesn’t mean all our problems are solved.”

While Powell, a Republican, said that he had the “utmost respect” for Romney, he charged that the former Massachusetts governor hasn’t outlined how he would pay for increased defense spending or for his proposed across-the-board tax cut.

What hubris: no government can fix an economy: what fix? The recession ended in June 2009, and very little of the massive stimulus plan had been dispersed by then. Started to work? The lowest job and economic growth in decades, Many of the jobs in the much cited string  were below labor force additions, never mind whittling down 23 million unemployed or underemployed. Obama's policies have added to employer cost burden and uncertainty of planning (e.g., the upcoming fiscal cliff)

Yes, Romney has: economic growth through broadening the tax base, capping some aggregate deductions for upper income, and increased tax revenues from improved personal and business incomes. There are multiple studies backing Romney, not to mention nearly 700 economists.

Let's see: even in terms of your expertise, I recently saw a Military Times poll showing nearly 2 of every 3 professional military support Romney not to mention 4 former Secretaries of State, including your successor
have endorsed. You have lost your credibility and my respect.

Obama's Latest Ad

The latest one I've seen is called "determination"-which is a retooled personally narrated version of the Morgan Freeman ad I debunked a few posts back.

There's just no quit in America and you're seeing that right now. Over five million new jobs, exports up forty one percent, home values rising, our auto industry back and our heroes are coming home.

We're not there yet. But we've made real progress and the last thing we should do is turn back now. 

Here's my plan for the next four years: Making education and training a national priority; building on our manufacturing boom; boosting American-made energy; reducing the deficits responsibly by cutting where we can, and asking the wealthy to pay a little more. And ending the war in Afghanistan, so we can do some nation-building here at home. That's the right path.

So read my plan, compare it to Governor Romney's and decide which is better for you. It's an honor to be your President and I'm asking for your vote. So together we can keep moving America forward.

Let me respond to a few points:

• we lost 5 million just in 2008; we have the lowest labor force participation rate in decades., and official unemployment has dipped below 8.0 only one month, the highest average unemployment rate since the Depression despite massive federal spending, record low interest rates, and trillions injected into the economy by the Fed. Only a few months of job growth have surpassed the number just needed to accommodate new workers, never mind hiring record long-term unemployed.
• export growth has slowed because of a struggling global economy;much of our export growth has been due to China which since the Bush Administration has been letting the yuan appreciate against the dollar; Obama has done nothing to negotiate  new trade deals beyond the 3 Bush negotiated
• home price improvement is both modest and reflects artificially low mortgage interest rates manipulated by the Fed
•  Ford and foreign  auto plants did not require crony unionist bailouts, Obama is still tens of billions in the red in Government Motors stock.
• the last thing we need is to sustain bad government intervention policies which have led to falling household income and net worth and an anemic jobless recovery
• no, I'm opposed to centralizing public education,or throwing more money at failing public school monopolies; we need real competition
• NO to government "investments" (spending--period)--no more special tax deal, e.g., manufacturing vs. the service sector
• Obama has done little to expand oil and gas development on federal lands
• Obama has never even proposed an aggregate year over year cut; his "cuts" have been statistically insignificant and often gimmicks (like trimming future increases)
• "pay a little more"--refers to crippling economic growth by hiking investment taxes and raising marginal rates.  The private sector spends money better than the public sector
• Romney has also committed to a 2014 Afghanistan withdrawal date. No. Any savings from the Gulf region must be used to lower the unsustainable deficit--not be used as Obama's slush fund

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Supremes//Four Tops, "River Deep, Mountain High". One of my favorite songs period. What male vocalist wouldn't dream of being Levi Stubbs for a day harmonizing with the greatest girl group of all time, the Supremes. I read on a Spector compilation George Harrison called the Ike and Tina Turner version a "perfect record" and I agree. In my rich fantasy life, I would sing this song with Joss Stone.

Miscellany: 10/24/12

Quote of the Day
When you hold resentment toward another,&
you are bound to that person or condition by an
emotional link that is stronger than steel.;
Forgiveness is the only way to dissolve that link and get free.
Catherine Ponder

Donald Trump: PLEASE SHUT UP!

I had a lot more respect for the Donald before he started ranting about China and got caught up with the birther nonsense (Celebrity Apprentice is great TV). I don't think you have to resort to obscure background checks in a desperate attempt to disqualify someone whom won the Presidency in 2008 fair and square, no matter how thin his resume. The American voters are responsible for voting an unqualified candidate into office. I KNEW Obama was lying about not knowing about Jeremiah Wright's radical sermons (I understood why he lied: personally, if I had political ambitions, I would have distanced myself, but it was a way of connecting with the black community in Chicago, his key support base) : but I thought McCain was right in not pursuing the issue during the general campaign: Obama's own rhetoric and style differed from Wright's. I looked at Wright like Obama's crazy old uncle: he embarrasses you. but what can you do? He's got a mind of his own, and he's family. (My own 21 nephews and nieces can probably relate),

I studied the original Karl Marx (and other philosophers) during my social philosophy class at OLL. This blog clearly is as far as you can getaway from collectivist.

There were rumors that Obama sold illicit drugs and/or had homosexual relationships during his college years (and/or the Obama's at one point were close to divorce), I'm not concerned with the mistakes people may have done in the past--after all, I voted Democrat during my salad days: I plead temporary insanity. Past behavior is not indicative of future performance. Most of this garbage simply reinforces people already against Obama--you risk a backlash from swing voters over dirty campaign tricks. Yes, I know that the Left is a bunch of hypocrites, trying to make issues of alleged high school pranks by Romney or how he transported his dog on a 1983 family vacation.

Romney is right to reject this line of personal attack. We are on track to add another $10T to the national debt over the coming decade, we have anemic economic and job growth; we have over $40T in unfunded liabilities and we are facing Taxmageddon on New Year's Day and Central-Planner-in-Chief Obama, without any substantive plan, is whistling "Don't Worry--Be Happy". If Mitt can't close the deal with the facts on the ground, Tabloid Politics won't get the job done either.

I have to admit Trump's hype had sparked my curiosity: what did he have that would constitute an October surprise? Say, a plot by Al Qaeda or Iran intended to help Obama win reelection? Or something that tarnishes the First Family's squeaky clean image: a Lewinsky-style sex scandal or spousal abuse allegations? No, it's a charity challenge involving Obama's grades and Ivy League admissions...

Not going to happen; among other things, Obama is set for life: pensions, book deals, speaking or appearance fees, his picks of company boards or university presidencies or endowed chairs. Arthur C. Brook's research shows progressives are relative tightwads when it comes to charity; they think they've done their fair share by getting the government to pick the other guy's pocket. But let's apply some common sense: the Obama campaign obviously feels it's not to their advantage to release this information or they would have released it by now. I have no information but what if, for instance, Obama took an economics class, failed it and had to retake it. That would be very embarrassing. Or perhaps he took classes with radical names or topics.

I can say he is reasonably bright and articulate; in the past I've embedded a 2001 WBEZ interview (e.g., on redistribution strategies) he did where he described the distinction between negative and positive rights); he was able to succeed where other candidates of color hadn't and he routed a field of more experienced, accomplished candidates in 2008. I can't speak to his ability as a lawyer, I don't think he clerked at SCOTUS, fronted major cases or was named partner. Presumably the University of Chicago reviewed his credentials before hiring him as lecturer; I'm not sure about the relevance of or the nature and extent of his legal scholarship beyond being an editor of Harvard Law Review (presumably this was not a tenure-track position); I'm not familiar with his evaluation by students or the administration. But clearly writing two commercially successful books and his public speaking prowess speak for themselves.

But regardless of how Obama got into Columbia and Harvard, these are not diploma mills. Still, I would think with impressive academic credentials other than his political success, he underachieved. You don't need a Harvard law degree to be a community organizer. An articulate young man of color with a Harvard Law Degree and editor of the Harvard Law Review--granted I'm not a lawyer and don't know the market, but in my academic field with analogous credentials, every school with a vacancy would have been chasing after him.

Most gifted academics, including myself, are aware of our limitations I don't doubt Obama is bright: he has done well in multiple debates over two election campaigns. But Obama has always been a little too full of himself. The unpopularity of ObamaCare he attributed to a messaging, not a policy issue (never mind the precedent of HillaryCare). He was sure he would not suffer a mid-term rebuke like Clinton (because he was a better politician). I'm not about to write what I would have done in his place during the 111th Congress and how I would have run a campaign against Romney but Obama made so many unforced errors obvious to an armchair strategist, but just to point out a few obvious things: It was idealism and then centrism that won him him the Presidency: you dance with whom brought you; sometimes you need to sacrifice lesser pieces on the way to checkmate; in computing batting averages, singles count as much as home runs; to catch a lot of fish, you need to cast a larger net.



Libertarian Credo

There are times, like in watching this video, when I think about going back to school and picking up a second doctorate in my first love, philosophy. My God, how I miss William Buckley. Notice Reagan and Buckley considered themselves like me: a fusion libertarian conservative. The most interesting question  is at the end: for example, is there a role for government is, say charity hospitals are insufficient. I distinguish a number of factors--was there a breach of the common defense, an act of God or other factors beyond one's locus of control (e.g., birth defects), the imminent danger, nature and extent of illness and treatment, moral hazard considerations, etc.



Obama Channeling His Inner Don Rickles
(But the Real Joke Is His Presidency)

I would not embed campaign hype--this is a collage of actual soundbites effectively done. Nobody in the real economy would work for or with this guy (I wouldn't--even if I needed a job). I nominate John Boehner for living saint--I don't envy the tribulations with having to deal with this guy.



Entertainment Potpourri

• CWTV: "Beauty and the Beast". Thumbs UP! The storyline has changed from the late 80's classic: in this version, it comes across like a take of the Incredible Hulk meets the Fugitive. The introductory clip was embedded several posts back: Catherine called her mother after finding a dead car battery closing up at work late one night. For some reason, men have been tailing the mother and shoot her dead in front of Catherine. Catherine attempts to flee in a nearby forest but the men follow. The armed men  track her down  and are about to execute her when Vincent emerges and mauls the attackers.  Flash forward . Catherine is now a detective, consumed with uncovering why those men attacked her mother. she encounters Vincent. Vincent explains that he was part of a military experiment gone wrong to develop super warriors. When stimulated (adrenal gland), he transforms into a Hulk-like beast. Officially he was KIA but escaped and (like other experimental subjects) is being hunted down. He is living in an abandoned warehouse with a trusted friend. Catherine is convinced there is some connection between her mother's and Vincent's cases. When I last checked, iTunes had the first episode available for free download and subsequent episodes are also available on demand on the CWTV website after scheduled Thursday evening telecasts.
• UConn Women's Basketball Coach Wants To Lower the Hoop: Thumbs DOWN! What's next--shrinking the 100M sprint ? It's bad enough women play fewer sets in tennis matches but demand the same prize money.... I have nothing against tall, pretty women with long legs (other than the fact they don't want to date shorter guys)--and today it seems like college female basketball centers start at 6'5"; by junior high and barely 5'0" before puberty kicked in (with female classmates up to a foot taller) I could routinely hit regulation layups, foul shots and long jumpers. If an average-height guy could at least touch a regulation net with mediocre jumping ability, what about a much taller woman with longer arms and legs? To be honest  I almost never watch women's basketball (except maybe some Olympic games), I generally find the pace slower,the play less fluid, aggressive and.or acrobatic (there are exceptions, of course): boring. The last time I remember playing was a pickup game at UH Catholic Newman, and while we were all friends, it was very physical, lots of hard bumps. With all due respect to Geno Auriemma, lowering the basket or any other gimmick (e.g., widening the hoop, shrinking the basketball or the distances  from the  foul line or 3-point line) won't work. It has more to do with style of play, quickness, and shot  artistry. It's like when the Bulls won their last championship with Jordan. Everyone knew Jordan was getting the ball and he would still drill the shot, nothing but net. There are some sports where I prefer to watch women--e.g., gymnastics, figure skating  and beach volleyball

But as to bringing up that piece of paternalistic governmental garbage Title IX: you can't guarantee equality of outcomes, college football shouldn't be subsidizing sports that don't pay their own way (men's or women's). I never watch women's basketball on TV (college or WNBA). I wouldn't accept free admission. I'm tired of Congress sticking its nose in baseball/steroids, boxing,  scripted sports entertainment (wrestling), etc. Doesn't Congress have better things to do with its time, like reforming government operations?

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Four Tops, "Still Waters Run Deep"

Miscellany: 10/23/12

Quote of the Day
Wise sayings often fall on barren ground, 
but a kind word is never thrown away.
Arthur Helps

Follow-Up Odds and Ends

• Miscellany: 10/22/12: Presidential Debate 3 :Romney Wins a Strategic Victory

I don't often quote other commentators but Tim Stanley is spot on:

Romney won the third presidential debate – and how he did it was encapsulated in a single exchange. The candidates were discussing military spending and Romney had just accused Obama of making harmful cutbacks. The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.” 

But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan). More importantly, this was one example of many in which the President insulted, patronized and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for?

The real difference was in style. In his closing statement... Romney channeled Reagan by looking straight into the camera and asserting his faith in America But it was infinitely preferable to Obama’s constant, nasty attacks. Sometimes in life, the nice guys do win. Romney won the first debate by a mile. Because Romney’s win was so decisive, it sparked an image change: Americans started to think of him as presidential material. That’s why Obama winning the second debate by an inch made little impact – people were watching Romney not to see him land punches but to see how well he could take them. He won the third debate because, by the end of the night, his and Obama’s positions in the narrative arc had switched. Romney now looks like the President and Obama looks like the challenger.

I'll comment further. The one thing I was worried about was that Romney might let Obama get under his skin and have a Gov. Perry moment and say something like "I'll bet you your Illinois state pension--you know, the same one that invests in China and tax havens..." Obama fell right into Romney's trap: he basically disqualified himself from reelection in front of a national audience. He was a jerk, by any objective standard, and voters don't like to vote for jerks. he doesn't get a do-over. He lost the first debate decisively and trying to out-jab  Romney in the next 2 rounds and sneaking in cheap shots and violating rules of conduct can result in point deductions from voter referees. The clock ran out on him. Ironically the incumbent needs more debates.

The one thing I've been constantly worried over the past 2 years is the fact of Obama's personal popularity--it was masking the unpopularity of his progressive policies in a center-right nation. But a lousy economy forced his hand. I predicted that he would do what all incumbent politicians  facing a tough reelection (e;g., Gray Davis, Rod Blagojevich): they go negative. When your appeal to voters is based not on your record or policies  (there are reasons you don't hear ObamaCare or Dodd N. Frankenstein mentioned in Obama's ubiquitous ads), that's a double-edged sword.

I  remember how Maryland Gov. Ehrlich (R) with majority approval ratings lost to Baltimore Mayor O'Malley. There are a couple of things I've pointed out the last couple of weeks--I've noticed Romney's net favorables catch up to Obama's declining ones and I've seen Romney winning national polls even with Obama approval moving from the mid-40's to near 50. And then there was a focus group (MSNBC ?) after the second debate where i I first heard a female voter say "I like Obama personally, BUT" It was clear to an armchair strategist  like me (although granted one data point is not a trend) Obama was/is in trouble of losing the best thing going for him.

After I wrote the above paragraph, I stumbled across this Washington Times blurb:

Mitt Romney crossed a major threshold early this week, moving above 50 percent in his favorability rating with voters, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls — and for the first time in the campaign he now leads President Obama on that measure.

The Republican presidential nominee has clearly benefited from the debates. He had a 44.5 percent favorability rating at the end of September, before the debates. But by Monday, when he and Mr. Obama faced off for the final debate of the campaign, Mr. Romney’s favorability average was up to 50.5 percent.

The last thing Obama needed at this stage was to act like an  amateurish, immature, petulant  smartass trying to yank his big brother's chain. Maybe that plays well at San Francisco cocktail parties as a follow-up to mocking Midwesterners clinging to their Bibles and guns, but it probably doesn't play well with soccer moms--or hockey moms. Notice that Obama  wouldn't have dared to pull the "not like playing Battleship" or "bayonets/horses" lines with John McCain, a  retired Navy officer with 40 years in Congress, whom supports Romney's position noting the Asian strategy doesn't work with an undersized Navy.

The problem is the Obama campaign went so personal and negative for so long, a different Romney showed up to the debates. Second, Obama has surrounded himself with yes men focusing on soundbites that played mostly to the base. In a manner of speaking, he has a demoralized  base (no Gitmo closure, no climate change,  no immigration, more fatalities in Afghanistan, renewal of controversial Patriot Act provisions, declining household net worth, the lowest labor rate participation in decades, particularly among certain racial/ethnic groups, half of the idealist college graduates who supported Obama  can't find jobs,  etc.) Obama's initial charm was in a positive vision, an end to partisan gridlock--it wasn't business-as-usual divisive partisan red meat  and other group think progressive agenda items, which all the Dem candidates shared; Obama only seems to understand zero-sum politics--no real negotiations  or compromise, he's been constantly running, often in personal terms, against Bush, against the Tea Party or GOP "obstructionists", or against Romney. If I'm tired of defensiveness, excuses, and nonstop political spin. so are probably all but partisan Democrats.

Most of us conservatives  could see this coming. Bill Clinton was smart enough to realize the significance of his mid-term rebuke, and did a course correction. Obama's rebuke was far more significant and his response was to be dismissive of the people's mandate. Obama fought real reform tooth and nail; he refused to back Simpson-Bowles, If  he had proposed,say, an across-the-board 4% cut, year over year:if he had closed on broad-based business tax cuts, etc., he would have made the GOP's case against him more difficult. What we now see is uncertainty about expiring payroll tax cuts, across the board Bush tax cuts, and sequestration cuts hitting all at once. We still don't see a deal from Obama on the table 2 months before end of the year. This is NOT leadership.

Annabelle, my niece Faith feels your pain; she has 5 big brothers and no sister. What a beautiful sweetheart; adults  booing a smart girl? Not cool...



Another Obama Debate LIE Debunked

I'm not exactly sure what Obama learned in public sex education. But I learned that making babies has more to do with an ovary, not a  mammary. Why Obama thinks Planned Parenthood provides mammograms, I don't know. Maybe Nancy Pelosi helped him prep for the debate,  e.g.,  you have to pass subsidies for Planned Parenthood  before we know what the subsidies cover.

In my view , there are a number of nonprofit organizations doing worthy things, e.g., the Red Cross. But I oppose subsidies to nonprofits. In the case of Planned Parenthood,  I don't want a shell game being used to subsidize abortion services. Let them find private donors.



Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Four Tops, 'If I Were A Carpenter".  One of my favorite songs ever (since I've never been married I've never really sung it. I believe the original hit version was from Bobby Darin. My personal favorite version  has to be from the immortal Johnny Cash and June Carter. Speaking of the Man in Black, my favorite song of his (I was more of a country pop fan then) I specifically remember phoning in (and heard my voice on the radio making the request for "What is Truth"): I also liked other more subtle anti-war songs like Bobby Goldsboro's "Broomstick Cowboy" and Glen Campbell's "Galveston" (Jimmy Webb is a songwriting god). (Say a prayer for Glen whom is suffering from Alzheimer's; I even like some of his sentimental songs like "Dreams of the Everyday Housewife" and "Honey, Come Back").

Miscellany: 10/22/12

Quote of the Day
Know or listen to those who know.
Baltasar Gracian

Presidential Debate Round 3:
Foreign Policy
My Verdict: Romney Wins A Strategic Victory

I think Romney missed (perhaps intentionally)  a softball pitch on the Benghazi attack, including the unfulfilled requests for more security. I think tonight Romney had some goals--to show he was calm, cool and collected, not impulsive or a hothead, to show that he was well-informed; he was a more "big picture" guy, and I actually thought by expressing agreement with Obama at points, not only underscored his more bipartisan approach  but was also engaging in a form of debate rope-a-dope, making it clear Obama's attacks would be a double-edged sword. Most importantly, Romney did not make a Gerald Ford-style (Poland) gaffe. I thought  Romney gave some very powerful counter-attacks, particularly when Obama tried to squeeze the economy back into the debate. Romney's closing  was very compelling and powerful  I heard Krauthammer make a similar analysis in unabashedly saying Romney decisively won the debate and he actually gave the second to Obama on points,

I'm not in a state of denial I've seen some quick polls favoring Obama (CBS and CNN--which gave Obama a  small plurality, not majority victory over Romney, and 44% thinking Romney outperforming expectation and half the rest saying he met expectations).  I think the Frank Luntz  focus group of undecideds also voted Obama won the debate. Let me point out I was most worried about this debate because I think unlike the economy, Romney couldn't claim an experience edge over Obama on foreign policy, Obama has access to knowledge and intelligence Romney doesn't. An aggressive challenger  has to be careful of, say politicizing policy. So unless you're career military, diplomat or federal legislator on relevant committees, you're playing on an incumbent's home field. I think most people may have given Obama the edge because he was aggressive. Well, he had to be. The second debate didn't halt Romney's momentum .Maybe Obama won the round of questions--but he needed to land a TKO, and at best he won a battle he should have won on points. I know the fact checkers will back Romney on the flash points, and the disrespectful, condescending soundbites (you don't know today's military) will not play well with moderates and independents. Rove on Fox after the debate made a couple of telling points behind the flash polls--over 60 percent found both Obama and Romney Presidential with only a couple of points in favor of Obama. That's really bad news for Obama--that means a clear majority sees Romney as a capable alternative to Obama. I think it means undecideds will likely break to Romney's advantage. Second, Obama needed a game changer  and he didn't get it. He mostly shored up his base and this debate didn't sway many voters.

Obama was dead wrong that he did not want--and in fact, failed to negotiate--a residual  force in Iraq after the withdrawal schedule, on the Detroit bankruptcy, etc. Obama was pretty obnoxious,  petty and non-Presidential, by any objective standard: he repeatedly interrupted Romney at one point, not even letting Romney finish his statement  he was openly disrespectful, making faces, smirking, rolling eyes.

I'm getting tired of hearing Obama spike the football on the UBL killing. I wish Romney would  have brought have brought up the talking points of the terrorist attack in Benghazi as a failure in Obama foreign policy, spreading collateral damage from drone attacks as not bettering our image in the Muslim world (and Egyptian protesters arguing there are a billion Osama's).

Personally I would have kicked Obama's ass over his obnoxious, condescending remark that Romney's concern over a smaller Navy showed he was out of touch with today's military, that the military has gone beyond horses and bayonets, they also now  have submarines and aircraft carriers. News flash to The (Incompetent) One: the military still uses horses and bayonets (e.g., Afghanistan), and about 1916? "The 1903 advent of heavier-than-air, fixed-wing aircraft was closely followed in 1910 by the first experimental take-off of such an airplane from the deck of a United States Navy vessel (cruiser USS Birmingham), and the first experimental landings were conducted in 1911.  In 1918, HMS Argus became the world's first carrier capable of launching and landing naval aircraft." "During the American Civil War both sides successfully built working submarines."  It sounds like we have a Commander-in-Chief who skipped history class (doesn't know much about history).

My own view: anyone who thinks the last 4 years have been successful under Obama's foreign policy is delusional.  We just saw an attempt to blow up the NY Fed building foiled ; we've seen attacks on embassies and consulates that remind me of the seizure of our embassy in Tehran in the 1970's. We have seen massacres of civilians across the Middle East and Gulf region, spreading drone attacks, post-UBL issues in Pakistan, an aging air fleet as Russia and China are modernizing their military--and an Obama Administration seemingly disorganized and operating seat of the pants (consider the conflict between State and National Intelligence over Benghazi). We have the utter stupidity of a so-called President publishing a withdrawal schedule before surge troops engaged in a single operation--and waving a victory flag after 2000 deaths in Afghanistan, most on his watch.

Unlike the debaters, I do have more non interventionist views and see a need to reform DoD and deal with the military-industrial complex. I do give Romney credit for not giving a blank check on Syria or pushing back from a 2014 exit from Afghanistan. I really want to see the drone attacks scaled back--I think they are counterproductive.

I don't normally embed GOP/RNC videos but this is actually a good digest of commentaries, not candidate hype.



Boudreaux, the Middle Class and Abused Statics

 Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek is one of my favorite free market economists. He recently wrote one of his trademark pithy open letters responding to allegations free trade is responsible for destroying the middle class:

Overlook the flawed ‘economics’ that leads Messrs. Barlett and Steele to mistakenly conclude that trade with low-wage countries impoverishes ordinary people in higher-wage countries. Focus instead on their assertion that America’s middle-class is in “demise.” Recent data from the Census Bureau show that assertion to be flat wrong. Reckoned in 2009 dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation) the percent of households in America that are poor or lower-middle-income is shrinking while the percentage that are upper-middle-income and wealthy is rising.

Here is a markup of a critical response. Notice the chart references aggregated income, not households. Boudreaux notes the apples/oranges comparison

In my letter to Paul Solman I reference Census Bureau table #690, entitled “Money Income of Households — Percent Distribution by Income Level, Race, and Hispanic Origin, in Constant (2009) Dollars.”  This table reports, for each year from 1967 through 2009, the percent of American households earning annual money incomes in different brackets – Under $15,000; $15,000 to $24,999; $25,000 to $34,999; $35,000 to $49,999; $50,000 to $74,999; $75,000 to $99,999; and $100,000 and over..the percent of all American households earning inflation-adjusted incomes in the lower income brackets is falling while the percent of households earning incomes in the higher brackets is rising.

These data do not reference trade data. Boudreaux is making a broader point of more households in upper income over time.  I know that was true for my folks. Not upper income but in a higher quintile: my Dad eventually got a better paying job after retiring from the military as an NCO; my Mom started working full-time after my baby sister was in school; they eventually bought a better house and ate out more, and I earlier mentioned how my younger siblings had soda and ice cream at will; when I lived at home those were special occasion treats.

The main reason I wrote this segment is to show how progressives abuse statistics to fit their talking points. I also  point out free trade allows consumers to benefit from more competitive pricing and stretch their income.

Political Humor

link on Drudge: "Man busted for throwing pennies into Dem HQ; 'All he has left after being taxed by Obama'.."

[The only change he can believe in--his own...It doesn't surprise me intolerant elitist Dems had him arrested for giving his two cents. Why should they, of all people, object to his spreading some change around? No doubt they prefer their donations in the amount of $199 from a Chinese credit card.]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Four Tops, "Walk Away, Renée"  The given name is the middle name of my first godchild, my baby sister, and the first name of my second goddaughter, the middle child of my 14-months younger sister, our youngest sister's godmother. Soulful hit remake of  one of my favorite 60's hits; the original from Left Banke is embedded below