On the heels of Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame I thought we'd lighten things up a bit and talk about . . . abortion! More specifically, I'd like to echo our President's call for a more civil tone in the abortion debate. That might seem like an oxymoron, and it probably is, but for over 35 years now we've tried screaming at each other and it hasn't worked, so how about trying something else?
In the abortion debate, I am an anomaly. I am the only person I know of (though I'm quite sure there are many others) who has actually changed their mind on this issue (from pro-life to pro-choice). Apart from being raised Catholic, when I became a Republican in the mid-90s one of the main reasons I was pro-life is that I saw abortion as another example of a growing trend where people have a "victim" mentality and don't believe that they are responsible for their own actions. Judas Priest "made" my son kill himself. Marilyn Manson "made" those kids shoot up Columbine. Grand Theft Auto "made" these teenagers steal cars. I didn't like the detachment from personal responsibility that seemed to be growing in our culture. In many ways I still feel that way. At that time it was simply a matter of "you knew when you had sex that a baby was a possibility and now you've got to deal with the consequences of your actions." At that time I should add that I was still in favor of abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or endangerment to the mother.
As weird as it sounds, the thing that actually made me change my mind about abortion was reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. For those that have not read it, no, abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the story. But what is present is Rand's philosophy of objectivism, which (to express it extremely simplisticly) emphasizes total respect for the rights of individuals and, as an extension of that, laissez-faire capitalism. It is very critical of people (and particularly government) intervening in the name of the "greater good." So I started thinking about some of the implications of this. Rand would say that most social programs are bad, because they perpetuate this victim mentality among those whom they purport to help. It's along the lines of "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, but teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Rand would say that it's far better to allow the entrepreneurs of the world to thrive and create opportunities for the lower economic classes to seize, but only if they are willing to work for it. So, how does this relate to abortion? Well, I realized that if I was going to be in favor of eliminating a lot of social programs and telling the lower class that they wouldn't receive anymore handouts, it would be inconsistent to say "oh, and we're going to force you to have that baby even though we won't help you support it." It seemed to me that the only way I could justify being "cold" towards welfare is if I could truly say "well, it was your choice to have that baby."
Writing and rereading that paragraph feels very strange to me now. That's not really the reason I am pro-choice now but that really is the rationale that first led me to change my mind. Since that time I've become a little more pragmatic in believing that women who want abortions will still find ways to get them. I've also been swayed by things such as Freakonomics, which makes a fairly convincing case that Roe v Wade was the single biggest influence in the sudden drop in the crime rates in major urban cities in the early 90s.
So I bring all that up as background as a way of saying that I really do see both sides of this issue; at one time in my life I have passionately argued both sides of this. Even though I have a definite opinion on this issue, I by no means think that I'm unequivocally right. Hence, the only people whose opinion I don't respect on this issue are those who can't see how it's a very, very murky issue.
The question basically comes down to this: at what point does human life start? And one of the main troubles is that science can't answer that question for us. Most people agree that in the moment after you have a fertilized egg you don't have a human life yet and most people would also agree that the moment right before birth you do. So then you start counting forward and backwards. How about a minute after fertilization? A day? A month? How about a day, week, month before birth?
So, of course, with science unable to provide a definitive answer religion is all too happy to step in. That in and of itself is not a bad thing. Religion is there precisely to provide the answers that science cannot (yet) give us. It's just quite unfortunate that a religion (Christianity) that is above all about love, peace, and forgiveness is often presented with a face akin to that of a rabid dog on this issue.
If you are a Christian, you probably should be against abortion. If you believe that only the hand of God has the ability to create a human life, then it makes sense that you believe that life begins at conception. But you should also understand that your belief is just that: a belief. It's not a fact. And you should also be able to see that those who aren't Christians don't have that clear-cut answer, and for them it's a far murkier issue. A good Christian needs to be able to reconcle the fact that it is possible to be both a good moral person and be pro-choice.
I'm not suggesting that will change their mind on the abortion issue. I am hopeful though, that it will help change the tone.
(cringes as he hits "publish post", knowing that the last time abortion was brought up on this blog we got a crazy reverend advocating the bombing of abortion clinics in the comments)
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Deja Vu All Over Again
Almost exactly a year ago I asked the question "Has Hollywood finally run out of ideas?" Today I ask the same question about Broadway. Christy and I had the pleasure and torture (respectively) of seeing Legally Blonde: The Musical on Friday night. Back in December we bought tickets to a series of 4 plays and this one was the first. The other three are Fiddler on the Roof, The Addams Family, and a new play called Spring Awakening. So that's one out of 4 original theatre productions. Then last week I get a form in the mail soliciting a renewal for the next series. Those plays: Young Frankenstein, Dreamgirls, 101 Dalmations, and the token one new play In the Heights. So one out of 4 again. Then, as I was scanning through the playbill (which, by the way, was the highlight of the performance) I noticed an ad for Mary Poppins and a "coming soon" poster for Shrek: The Musical. Oh, and by the way, the theatre where we're seeing all these (The Oriental) just got done housing Wicked for the last 3 and a half years. Technically, Wicked is an original (but only in the strictest sense) but it's still a prequel (and doesn't everybody just love prequels!) and certainly only "works" if the audience is familiar with The Wizard of Oz.
Has Broadway now basically become the new action figures for movies? Something that just automatically accompanies a hit film/franchise? If we wait long enough are we going to see musical versions of The Dark Knight and Saw (actually, that I would like to see)? It's not so much that the plays aren't new. Apart from the plays that have been turned into movies (e.g. Chicago, Phantom of the Opera, Rent) there really is not a DVD equivalent for theatre, so I don't really have a problem with Cats or Fiddler on the Roof coming around every couple years. I just don't like the ultra-formulaic exercise of taking an existing movie, transplanting all scenes and plot points wholesale into a stage script, and slapping together super-cheesy, bubble-gum pop ballads and inserting them every 5 minutes and calling it something "All New!" It just shows a tremendous lack of creativity. It seems like Broadway is following the lead of Hollywood in that they are so terrified of making an expensive flop that unless Andrew Lloyd Weber is willing to attach his name to it you'd better already have a built-in audience or it's not getting made.
Look, I am not a complete artistic purist by any stretch of the imagination. Hollywood and Broadway only exist to make money. I always thought that the job of a producer and director was to look at something and see promise and/or to say, at various points in the process, "ok, it's good but we need to do X here, " or "it's dragging in this spot, we need to rewrite this so we don't lose the audience." To me, this seems like 1) producers have lost all cajones and are afraid to take any risk; or 2) they have absolutely no idea how to spot good ideas/scripts anymore and they know it.
It used to be that movies were seen as "for the masses" and theatre was viewed as being (for lack of a better term) more cultured. To use an analogy, if the average movie is a Miller Lite, than theatre was a Heineken. Not for everyone, but for those that like it there's no comparison on the quality. So now it seems like Broadway has decided that there isn't enough money in Heineken so they better start serving Miller Lite too. That's all well and good, but if I'm now gonna get the same product at 4-5 times the price, remind me why I'm going again?
Has Broadway now basically become the new action figures for movies? Something that just automatically accompanies a hit film/franchise? If we wait long enough are we going to see musical versions of The Dark Knight and Saw (actually, that I would like to see)? It's not so much that the plays aren't new. Apart from the plays that have been turned into movies (e.g. Chicago, Phantom of the Opera, Rent) there really is not a DVD equivalent for theatre, so I don't really have a problem with Cats or Fiddler on the Roof coming around every couple years. I just don't like the ultra-formulaic exercise of taking an existing movie, transplanting all scenes and plot points wholesale into a stage script, and slapping together super-cheesy, bubble-gum pop ballads and inserting them every 5 minutes and calling it something "All New!" It just shows a tremendous lack of creativity. It seems like Broadway is following the lead of Hollywood in that they are so terrified of making an expensive flop that unless Andrew Lloyd Weber is willing to attach his name to it you'd better already have a built-in audience or it's not getting made.
Look, I am not a complete artistic purist by any stretch of the imagination. Hollywood and Broadway only exist to make money. I always thought that the job of a producer and director was to look at something and see promise and/or to say, at various points in the process, "ok, it's good but we need to do X here, " or "it's dragging in this spot, we need to rewrite this so we don't lose the audience." To me, this seems like 1) producers have lost all cajones and are afraid to take any risk; or 2) they have absolutely no idea how to spot good ideas/scripts anymore and they know it.
It used to be that movies were seen as "for the masses" and theatre was viewed as being (for lack of a better term) more cultured. To use an analogy, if the average movie is a Miller Lite, than theatre was a Heineken. Not for everyone, but for those that like it there's no comparison on the quality. So now it seems like Broadway has decided that there isn't enough money in Heineken so they better start serving Miller Lite too. That's all well and good, but if I'm now gonna get the same product at 4-5 times the price, remind me why I'm going again?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Food for Thought
First off, although very minor this is probably the funniest story of the year. It's good to see that there appear to be others besides me with a Taco Bell obsession.
Next, from an article in the New York Times, a new report shows Medicare and Social Security now going broke even earlier than expected. Social Security is now set to go bust in 2037 (4 years earlier than previously estimated), while Medicare will be broke by 2017 (2 years earlier than thought). While estimates are notoriously inaccurate, like the weather they tend to get more and more accurate the shorter the projection, and 2017 isn't that far away anymore. The culprit is, of course, the recession, so initially when I read this my first thought was "yeah, but once the economy improves it'll push those dates back out again, right?" Wrong. The current estimates already assume that the economy will return to growth later this year. Which means that if that doesn't happen the reality will be even worse, perhaps significantly so.
I'm not bringing this up for gloom and doom sake. Of the things that I worry about, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare don't even make the top 20. Of course, that might be because I already assume that those programs won't be around by the time I qualify for them. But I digress. From the article: "Spending on Social Security and Medicare totaled more than $1 trillion last year, accounting for more than one-third of the federal budget." So we're already at 1/3 the budget yearly and the baby-boomers have only just started to retire. It's important to keep things in perspective and in that respect all of this debate over stimulus plans and increased government spending programs, while still important, is really just something of a sideshow. The truth is that no matter what else happens, you will never have a sustainable balanced budget if you don't figure out how to manage these two programs. And to manage them, one of two things needs to occur: 1) raise taxes or 2) cut benefits. Some combination of the two is probably the most likely outcome. Anyone who tells you we can have the same benefits without raising taxes is mathematically challenged at best and a deceitful windbag at worst.
I think this would also be a good time to point out how disastrous the Republican plan for the privatization of social security accounts looks right now. Obviously we can't say for sure, because it looked pretty good for the 10 years before last October, but if the Social Security endowment had been in the stock market it would have easily shed 25% of its value and probably shaved about 10 years off of the projected insolvency date. And before anyone jumps down my throat for more Republican-bashing, I was fully in favor of this plan too so I am admitting that I was wrong as well. Maybe it will recover and still look like a good long-term plan again in the future, but I've already seen enough to think that a separation of retiree income from the ups and downs of the stock market is a good thing.
Next, from an article in the New York Times, a new report shows Medicare and Social Security now going broke even earlier than expected. Social Security is now set to go bust in 2037 (4 years earlier than previously estimated), while Medicare will be broke by 2017 (2 years earlier than thought). While estimates are notoriously inaccurate, like the weather they tend to get more and more accurate the shorter the projection, and 2017 isn't that far away anymore. The culprit is, of course, the recession, so initially when I read this my first thought was "yeah, but once the economy improves it'll push those dates back out again, right?" Wrong. The current estimates already assume that the economy will return to growth later this year. Which means that if that doesn't happen the reality will be even worse, perhaps significantly so.
I'm not bringing this up for gloom and doom sake. Of the things that I worry about, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare don't even make the top 20. Of course, that might be because I already assume that those programs won't be around by the time I qualify for them. But I digress. From the article: "Spending on Social Security and Medicare totaled more than $1 trillion last year, accounting for more than one-third of the federal budget." So we're already at 1/3 the budget yearly and the baby-boomers have only just started to retire. It's important to keep things in perspective and in that respect all of this debate over stimulus plans and increased government spending programs, while still important, is really just something of a sideshow. The truth is that no matter what else happens, you will never have a sustainable balanced budget if you don't figure out how to manage these two programs. And to manage them, one of two things needs to occur: 1) raise taxes or 2) cut benefits. Some combination of the two is probably the most likely outcome. Anyone who tells you we can have the same benefits without raising taxes is mathematically challenged at best and a deceitful windbag at worst.
I think this would also be a good time to point out how disastrous the Republican plan for the privatization of social security accounts looks right now. Obviously we can't say for sure, because it looked pretty good for the 10 years before last October, but if the Social Security endowment had been in the stock market it would have easily shed 25% of its value and probably shaved about 10 years off of the projected insolvency date. And before anyone jumps down my throat for more Republican-bashing, I was fully in favor of this plan too so I am admitting that I was wrong as well. Maybe it will recover and still look like a good long-term plan again in the future, but I've already seen enough to think that a separation of retiree income from the ups and downs of the stock market is a good thing.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Just Asking
Can someone explain to me why the movie Catwoman is on AMC? AMC, by the way, stands for American Movie Classics. Or at least it used to. Apparently, although they have not officially changed their name they've taken a page from KFC and just want to now be known ambiguously by their initials. All I know is that the only thing "classic" about that film is that it is a classic example of how to lose all the prestige of winning a Best Actress Oscar as quickly as possible.
Can we get a little consistency in the headlines please? I open up this article and I feel pretty good and then I open this one and I feel like I should run around screaming with my hands waving frantically over my head Godzilla-movie style. So, let me see if I've got this straight: either the swine flu epidemic is almost over or it's on its way to infecting one third of the world's population. That is (ahem) a bit of a large range. Maybe I should do this thing Price Is Right style and bid 2 billion and 1 people infected. Can I get my own article then? My favorite part though is the WHO chief who was quoted as saying "This is a benchmark from the past. Please do not interpret this as a prediction for the future." Judging by the title of the article, it doesn't look like they listened to him. Here's a good investment tip: put money in the pharmaceutical companies that make flu shots.
And finally, what the f*ck is wrong with people? OK, let's make it multiple choice:
When you are getting into a fight over beer pong, are you:
Can we get a little consistency in the headlines please? I open up this article and I feel pretty good and then I open this one and I feel like I should run around screaming with my hands waving frantically over my head Godzilla-movie style. So, let me see if I've got this straight: either the swine flu epidemic is almost over or it's on its way to infecting one third of the world's population. That is (ahem) a bit of a large range. Maybe I should do this thing Price Is Right style and bid 2 billion and 1 people infected. Can I get my own article then? My favorite part though is the WHO chief who was quoted as saying "This is a benchmark from the past. Please do not interpret this as a prediction for the future." Judging by the title of the article, it doesn't look like they listened to him. Here's a good investment tip: put money in the pharmaceutical companies that make flu shots.
And finally, what the f*ck is wrong with people? OK, let's make it multiple choice:
When you are getting into a fight over beer pong, are you:
A) Psychotically competitive
B) In desperate need of anger management counseling
C) An irredeemable douchebag
D) All of the above
Thursday, April 30, 2009
It's Morning Again in America
Contributed by guest blogger Joe Mays:
Americans are slowly waking up with a horrific hangover, and we are saying as we did twenty-five years ago - It's morning again in America.
Ronald Reagan's 1984 ad campaign, which etched this slogan into our collective history, focused on a calmly determined and optimistic population that was putting the pieces of our fractured country back together through hard work and determination. It's no wonder that, given these troubled times, Americans all over this country are waking up saying, "Was Dick Cheney really in my bed?"
Yes, we have a bad hangover.
But Americans are optimistic and rightly so. The latest ABC/Washinton Post poll finds that over two-thirds of us approve of the job that President Obama is doing, and for the first time in six years we think our nation is on the right track. The polls, in this case, are correct. We are moving in the right direction. Just as one might grasp for a glass of water after a late-night binge, Americans elected a new and different President. And now we are all looking for a way to repair the damage and leave future generations with a nation better than how we found it. I see evidence of this on both the left and the right. The left is looking to invest in and change our education system, health care system, energy policy, and our environment. The right is finally furious with the massive debts that we have amassed. Of course, these two goals are at odds - it's impossible to make investments that require us to spend money we don't have *and* reduce our debt at the same time. But at least we're all concerned with issues that will make our country better rather than what we can do to keep the late-night binge going.
This alone will make our country stronger. As long as every American - Republican, Democratic, and Independent - keeps future generations in mind and makes their voices heard and calmly works for what they believe in, we will all fight. And we'll all eventually prosper. This is what makes our nation great.
Those who are acquainted with me know I'm not a morning person. But this is a morning I'm happy to get up for.
Americans are slowly waking up with a horrific hangover, and we are saying as we did twenty-five years ago - It's morning again in America.
Ronald Reagan's 1984 ad campaign, which etched this slogan into our collective history, focused on a calmly determined and optimistic population that was putting the pieces of our fractured country back together through hard work and determination. It's no wonder that, given these troubled times, Americans all over this country are waking up saying, "Was Dick Cheney really in my bed?"
Yes, we have a bad hangover.
But Americans are optimistic and rightly so. The latest ABC/Washinton Post poll finds that over two-thirds of us approve of the job that President Obama is doing, and for the first time in six years we think our nation is on the right track. The polls, in this case, are correct. We are moving in the right direction. Just as one might grasp for a glass of water after a late-night binge, Americans elected a new and different President. And now we are all looking for a way to repair the damage and leave future generations with a nation better than how we found it. I see evidence of this on both the left and the right. The left is looking to invest in and change our education system, health care system, energy policy, and our environment. The right is finally furious with the massive debts that we have amassed. Of course, these two goals are at odds - it's impossible to make investments that require us to spend money we don't have *and* reduce our debt at the same time. But at least we're all concerned with issues that will make our country better rather than what we can do to keep the late-night binge going.
This alone will make our country stronger. As long as every American - Republican, Democratic, and Independent - keeps future generations in mind and makes their voices heard and calmly works for what they believe in, we will all fight. And we'll all eventually prosper. This is what makes our nation great.
Those who are acquainted with me know I'm not a morning person. But this is a morning I'm happy to get up for.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Huh?
OK, I promise that I'm not going to turn this into a reprinting of every RNC e-mail, but I got another one yesterday that I found interesting. The best way I can think to describe it is schizophrenic. The big news yesterday was Sen. Arlen Specter's defection from the Republican to the Democratic party. This move, along with Al Franken's eventual seating (and he will be seated) will give the Democratic party a fillibuster-proof 60 members in the Senate. Obviously this does not make the RNC happy. Here's Michael Steele's take:
OK, that's all well and good. If you looked at the latest poll numbers, Specter was losing significantly to his Republican primary challenger (lagging by 21% according to this poll), so you can certainly see an element of opportunism here. However, Steele goes on to say this:
Huh? Let me see if I've got this right. Steele says that Specter's claim that he is more ideologically a Democrat is crap. He was going to lose in the primary because of his left-wing voting record. Anybody else see the contradiction here? If he has a left-wing voting record, isn't that pretty much absolute proof that he is ideologically more a Democrat than a Republican?
Of course, I don't believe that he has a "left-wing" voting record. He has pretty much been a right-centrist for most of his career (and here are the numbers to back that up). As such, this probably isn't as much of a game-changer as it appears to be on the surface. Specter was one of the potential Republicans that the Democrats could swing to their side in legislation (as they did with the stimulus vote) and I believe that's still primarily where he will be. The idea that he will now blindly back the Democratic party on every issue is unfounded. The Republicans should now view him as someone that they potentially can pick off to stop legislation. To that end, it's probably not the best of ideas to be trashing him all over the place in the media.
For the next post, I'm going to do something a little different. Or, rather, I won't be doing anything at all. We will have a first here on Better Than Life: a guest blogger! The inimitable Joe Mays will be contributing a post. Look for that on Friday.
Finally, on a personal note Christy had her 20-week ultrasound today. Most importantly, we found out that the baby is developing right on schedule and everything looks healthy and great! Of most interest to everyone else, we also found out the sex of the soon-to-be-newest Delaney! I have agreed to let my wife break that story, so (if you don't have it bookmarked already) head on over to Christy's blog for the big news!
Specter claimed it was philosophical--and pointed his finger of blame at Republicans all over America for his defection to the Democrats. He told us all to go jump in the lake today.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word he said.
Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. He loves the title of Senator more than he loves the party--and the principles--that elected him and nurtured him.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word he said.
Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. He loves the title of Senator more than he loves the party--and the principles--that elected him and nurtured him.
OK, that's all well and good. If you looked at the latest poll numbers, Specter was losing significantly to his Republican primary challenger (lagging by 21% according to this poll), so you can certainly see an element of opportunism here. However, Steele goes on to say this:
Facing defeat in Pennsylvania's 2010 Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record, and an end to his 30 year career in the U.S. Senate, he has peddled his services--and his vote--to the leftist Obama Democrats who aim to remake America with their leftist plan.
Huh? Let me see if I've got this right. Steele says that Specter's claim that he is more ideologically a Democrat is crap. He was going to lose in the primary because of his left-wing voting record. Anybody else see the contradiction here? If he has a left-wing voting record, isn't that pretty much absolute proof that he is ideologically more a Democrat than a Republican?
Of course, I don't believe that he has a "left-wing" voting record. He has pretty much been a right-centrist for most of his career (and here are the numbers to back that up). As such, this probably isn't as much of a game-changer as it appears to be on the surface. Specter was one of the potential Republicans that the Democrats could swing to their side in legislation (as they did with the stimulus vote) and I believe that's still primarily where he will be. The idea that he will now blindly back the Democratic party on every issue is unfounded. The Republicans should now view him as someone that they potentially can pick off to stop legislation. To that end, it's probably not the best of ideas to be trashing him all over the place in the media.
For the next post, I'm going to do something a little different. Or, rather, I won't be doing anything at all. We will have a first here on Better Than Life: a guest blogger! The inimitable Joe Mays will be contributing a post. Look for that on Friday.
Finally, on a personal note Christy had her 20-week ultrasound today. Most importantly, we found out that the baby is developing right on schedule and everything looks healthy and great! Of most interest to everyone else, we also found out the sex of the soon-to-be-newest Delaney! I have agreed to let my wife break that story, so (if you don't have it bookmarked already) head on over to Christy's blog for the big news!
Friday, April 24, 2009
Window into the RNC Mind
As I have mentioned before, due to my one-time campaign contribution to John McCain in the primaries, I now have the joy of being on the RNC e-mail mailing list. As such, I get 1-2 e-mails a week from them (usually asking me for money). I read them for the same reason that I watch Bill O'Reilly's talking points everyday: I don't want to be accused of getting all my information from one side and I am perpetually hopeful that a sane, rational conservative voice will once again emerge from within the Republican party. Well, this week's 2 e-mails pissed me off more than usual so I wanted to share them. I apologize in advance that this will be very long, but one of my biggest problems with these e-mails is a complete distortion of facts and out-of-context quotes and I don't want to make the same mistake. Anyway, given my lack of blogging recently you should have plenty of time to get through it all by the time I post next.
So here is e-mail #1, in it's entirety (From Michael Steele; Subject: More Profiles in Arrogance; Note that all bolded words appear that way in the original e-mail. I have italicized the whole thing to make it stand apart from my words):
Dear John,
Recently in his speech in France, Barack Obama called America "arrogant." 1 I'm sure the French loved it -- And so did the liberal press.
But who is this president who calls the American people arrogant?
This is the same politician whose supporters anointed him "The One" and a candidate who boasted that his election would be remembered as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." 2
This is the same man who indicated his disdain for small town and working Americans when he said they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," while addressing a group of San Francisco caviar and champagne liberal elitists.
How arrogant is that? Arrogant enough?
In truth, President Obama seems to champion the twisted "Blame-America First" mentality of the worst of the American left.
More importantly, it shows an absence of wisdom to criticize the United States while on foreign soil, and then join with the Pelosi-Reid Democrats in Congress to do everything possible to end American exceptionalism and create a weak, dependent socialist state patterned after the examples of Europe.
• He has taken steps towards nationalizing American auto companies; firing executives while leaving in power the same Union Bosses who funded his campaign and helped cripple the U.S.'s manufacturing base.
• He has refused to let financial firms pay back taxpayer-funded bailout loans 3 so he can make them hostages to the whims of the Federal government.
• As a lawyer, Obama once sued the same financial institutions on behalf of radical groups like ACORN for failing to use leftist social engineering criteria for lending instead of an applicant's ability to repay a loan.
• He campaigned on "transparency" and "integrity" in government and then has nominated a rogue gallery of tax evaders, Washington bureaucrats, and lobbyists to run his Administration.
• Obama brazenly follows his chief of staff's maxim of "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before" 4 to cripple our free markets with massive taxation and spending that wrests away our freedoms and puts even our great-grandchildren in debt.
• And now, anyone who dares speak out against or challenge Obama's ultra-liberal agenda, such as the hundreds of thousands of patriots who attended last week's Tea Parties, should expect to be labeled "unhealthy" by this Adminstration. 5 Now, THAT is arrogance!
You know that Barack Obama's hubris and charisma conceal the inexperience and lack of wisdom that our country cannot afford in its president.
And though the teleprompter and mainstream media liberals may delay America's realization of the peril the Obama White House portends for our future for a while, the eventual failure of leftist policies and ineffective leadership will not.
We must be ready when that time comes.
Please help the Republican Party's effort to spread the word about the Democrats' arrogance of power and support GOP Members of Congress as they work to hold the Obama Democrats accountable to the American people, by making a contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to the Republican National Committee today. Your gift will also help support the recruitment and election of principled candidates who will defeat the Democrats in 2009 and 2010 and lay the groundwork for ending Barack Obama's grip on power in 2012. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. John, the RNC is working hard to hold back the Obama Democrats' damaging, arrogant power grab -- please take this opportunity right now to support our fight against ineffective leadership and failed legislation by making a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to the RNC today. Thank you.
1 "[A]rrogant." (President Barack Obama, Town Hall, Strasbourg, France, 4/3/09)
2"[T]he moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks After The Democrat Primary, St. Paul, MN, 6/3/08)
3"[R]efused to let financial firms pay back taxpayer-funded bailout loans..." (Stuart Varney, "Obama Wants To Control The Banks," The Wall Street Journal, 4/4/09)
4"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before." (Gerald F. Seib, "In Crisis, Opportunity For Obama," The Wall Street Journal, 11/21/08)
5"I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy," (David Axelrod, "Face the Nation" 4/19/09)
OK, well I don't want to turn this into something with the length of a thesis paper, so I'm just going to pick a couple of these to address. Just want to make it clear that just because I am not specifically commenting on it does not mean that I am conceding it as a valid criticism of Obama.
So, first of all, here's some irony for you. Following up the statement "Barack Obama called America 'arrogant'" with "I'm sure the French loved it." That is precisely the type of arrogance he was talking about. And it wasn't a slam on America; if anything it was a slam on the Bush administration. The quote comes from this BBC article and the full quote is "He said the US had been 'arrogant' and 'dismissive' towards its allies, while there was "insidious" anti-Americanism in Europe. He said these attitudes had to change." This is classic diplomacy. You can't go to Europe and say "this anti-americanism needs to stop" - that would be arrogant - you need to say "we've both made mistakes and we need to start over again."
Next, I have a real problem with the line that he was " a candidate who boasted that his election would be remembered as 'the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal'." This is an utterly ridiculous distortion. You can read the transcript of the speech that it was taken from here , but here is the full quote: "The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals."
From a simple scorecard standpoint, the words "I" or "me" appear 4 times in the above; the words "we" and "our" appear 8. This strikes me as a call to action for all Americans, not an "I am the One that can make it happen."
Apart from that, it's the general tone of the e-mail that bothers me, but more on that later.
Here is e-mail #2 (From Michael Steele; Subject: Your Weekly Trunk):
Issue 7 April 21, 2009
Welcome to The Weekly Trunk -- The Republican National Committee's new weekly email update on all the latest news and political happenings. The goal of The Weekly Trunk is to inform and arm you with the facts you need to spread our conservative message and refute the misstatements of the Democrats.
This week's issue features...
More Afraid of U.S. Veterans than Muslim Terrorists?
In the topsy-turvy Obama Department of Homeland Security, real terrorists sponsor "man-caused disasters" and our own valiant veterans are the threat. (Jonah Goldberg, "(Right) Winging It at the DHS: What's the Real Threat to Our Country?" National Review Online, 4/17/09)
What's Your Opinion? Do you believe with the Obama Administration that our military veterans should be labeled as "terrorists?" View Chairman Steele's video on this topic. We want to hear from you. Post a video on the RNC's Facebook page today and let your voice be heard.
Tell It Like It Is, Governors
Republican Governors Haley Barbour and Mark Sanford shed some light on the hyper-partisan policies of the Obama Democrats. (Harry Enten & Jade Taenzler, "GOP Govs Hammer Obama," MSNBC, 4/16/09)
The Never Ending Campaign
Perhaps he agrees that he was a much better presidential candidate than he is a president -- because his campaign is still running. (Kenneth P. Vogel, "Obama Campaign Still Funds Operations," Politico, 4/15/09)
Eco-Madness
Despite mounting evidence that the world is actually on a cooling trend, Obama's green zealots push forward their plan to cripple our economy with unnecessary environmental regulations. (Tom LoBianco, "EPA Ups Pressure for Climate Change Action; 'Endangerment Finding' Seen as Step Toward Regulation," The Washington Times, 4/17/09)
What Will It Be Next Week, Governor Sebelius?
Last week it was tax evasion for President Obama's health secretary nominee, Kansas Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius. This week, it's an "oversight" in reporting political donations from an abortionist. ("Sebelius Lowballed Donations From Abortion Doc: She Got About $35,000, Nearly Three Times the $12,450 She Had Reported," Associated Press/MSNBC, 4/13/09)
The Democrats' False Diagnosis
Democrats are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to debating private vs. public health care. (Kerry N. Weems & Benjamin E. Sasse, "Is Government Health Insurance Cheap? The False Comparison Between the Costs of Public and Private Medical Plans," The Wall Street Journal, 4/14/09)
So It's OK Now, Is It?
Barack Obama pursues PR tactics for which President Bush was derided. (Jim Treacher, "Staged Military Photo Ops Suddenly Awesome," Hot Air, 4/14/09)
Card Check Reality Check?
With Democrats now in power, are unions learning how very bad their plan to take away workers' right to a secret ballot vote on unionization looks? (Michael Barone, "Unions Can't Dictate an Increase in Power," The Detroit News, 4/15/09)
Department of Propaganda?
Former L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks wants government funding for "independent" media. How independent would government-funded media likely be? ("Obama Appointee Suggests Radical Plan for Newspaper Bailout," FOXNews.com, 4/16/09)
New Best Friends Forever?
Newt Gingrich comments on Barack Obama's chumminess with Venezuelan Marxist strongman Hugo Chavez. ("Gingrich Raps Obama on Chavez Summit Greeting," The Associated Press, 4/20/09)
Blame America First, Last & Always...
Barack Obama follows up the tactic of his Attorney General, Eric Holder, and falsely blames America for Mexico's problems with firearms violence. (Editorial, "Obama's Gun Lies," The Washington Times, 4/20/09)
A Lack of Intelligence
Former Attorney General Mukasey and former CIA Director Hayden explain the negative impact of the Obama Administration's handling of intelligence gathering. (Michael Hayden & Michael B. Mukasey, "The President Ties His Own Hands on Terror: The Point of Interrogation is Intelligence, Not Confession," The Wall Street Journal, 4/17/09)
Check out this definitive list of Vice President Joe Biden's long and impressive history of gaffess (Biden's List of Political Blunders," FOXNews.com, 4/17/09)
Again, just gonna pick out a few to highlight.
Firstly, the U.S. Veterans vs. Muslim terrorists comment. Come on? Really? If we're now just making things up that neither Obama or his administration ever said, here's some suggestions for next week's e-mail: "Obama denies gravity: says we can all fly if we just believe", "Obama to the uninsured: 'Hurry up and die already'", "Obama comes out against children, thinks all babies should be eaten at birth." The link that the RNC provides is to an article in the National Review which is a criticism of this report. Since I'm sure you are sick of clicking on links by now, I'll summarize. The report says that right-wing extremist groups (and defines these as mainly white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups) may be using the election of the first black president as well as the current economic downturn as recruiting tools. It then goes on to say that one of the groups that they think will be targeted will be "disgruntled U.S. veterans." At no point does the report come even remotely close to saying that this danger is even in the same league as foreign terrorists. This is just a complete fabrication. But I do have to give the National Review article credit for its dissent. I mean, it's not like any disgruntled war vet has ever joined an anti-government group and then committed an act of terrorism in the U.S. I mean, apart from this guy.
Secondly (and you knew it was coming), is the "Eco-Madness" paragraph. Well, at least now I have some clarification. I have always believed that most Republicans did not believe in climate change and were merely paying the issue lip service, and now I have proof. The link the RNC provides mentions absolutely nothing about this alleged "cooling trend." Presumably, it comes from this article by George Will. Let's be clear. I love George Will. Absolutely adore him. He's definitely my favorite political pundit and he's probably in my top-10 list of people I'd most like to meet. But he is just dead wrong on this issue. Nate Silver at fivethiryeight.com does a great job of taking Will to task on this issue here. Not gonna say anymore about it now because my views on this subject have been well chronicled on this blog.
So this brings me to my final point, which is a statement on the tone of both of these e-mails. Apart from providing completion, my ulterior motive in presenting the complete texts of both e-mails was to highlight something about them. Or, more accurately, to highlight something that is not present. And that is an idea. Not one single idea of what the Republicans want to do. Not one single piece of legislation that they are trying to get through which they are urging us to call up our local Congressman and support. Not even a vision of what they believe are the major legislative challenges. Well, that's not quite true. They state one objective quite clearly: "the RNC is working hard to hold back the Obama Democrats' damaging, arrogant power grab." There it is in plain english; they are the party of "no". Their objective is not to "provide a constructive opposition and support the conservative values of our constituency" it's just "to hold back the Obama Democrats." This infuriates me because I do not like unchecked power. I desperately want a sane, rational counter-point to the Democratic party. Congressional Democrats will (and have) put ridiculously wasteful spending and protectionist measures into bills. I want a conservative opposition that is willing to compromise so that we get bills which give the best chance of having a positive impact on the U.S. But this is following the Rush playbook: rant and rave against everything they do; hope it fails; then get back into power in the ensuing backlash. That might be good politics, but it's horrible governing. In the short-term it isolates those in the middle while at the same time whips up your base into a frenzy. When instead of saying "we don't agree with this policy and here's why" you say "this policy is just another example of Obama trying make America a weak, dependent, socialist state" it is not surprising that people start getting pushed towards extremism. Maybe I was just naive, but I actually expected more from the Republicans. It makes me angry, but more than anything it just saddens me. I think my party is officially dead.
And just in case you're not completely sick of reading political e-mails, as a counterpoint I present the text of the e-mail I received from the Obama administration (also soliciting money from me) last week (From David Plouffe; Subject: Calls For Failure):
John --
It makes you wonder whether they see the same thing we do.
Advocates for the status quo are calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle. They're playing the same old political games and offering the same failed policies at a time of crisis.
In the coming days, opponents will do everything they can to destroy the President's proposed budget, a bold plan to help fix our broken economy and healthcare system and finally make energy and education the priority we all know they must be.
The change we need won't come without a fight -- no meaningful change ever does. Just like in the campaign, Barack Obama can't win without you by his side. Town by town, block by block, this grassroots movement is organizing and uniting Americans behind the President's plan.
But to finish what we started, we need resources.
Will you join the fight? Before Monday, April 13th, make a donation of $25 or more to help President Obama turn this country around.
We know that Washington won't change overnight. It'll take time, commitment, and money, but this grassroots movement can make change a reality -- affordable health care, a clean energy economy, and quality education for all. We know we are asking a lot from you -- but the stakes couldn't be higher.
It's why we worked so hard to elect President Obama, and he's counting on us to follow through. Today, you can make a difference.
Jo Ann from Charlotte, NC, has joined thousands of other supporters this week to support this movement and reject the same old politics:
I am a sixty-two year old woman on disability. I followed the election closely and did what I could to get Obama elected. Since he was inaugurated, I have watched in awe to see how much has already been accomplished. I live in Charlotte, NC where the unemployment rates are double digits and going up. My youngest son was out of work for 8 months because the company he worked for went out of business. So many workers and families are losing jobs and homes. There's so much more to be done, but this budget has to be passed and the programs have to be put into practice before things start to recover. That's why I support President Obama and his plans.
Americans like Jo Ann deserve better than the kind of divisive politics we've seen year after year. They deserve a truthful debate about real issues and a budget that will turn this economy around so that they can turn their lives around.
We need to seize this crucial moment to help pass this budget and invest in the one thing that can make President Obama's promises of change a reality -- the movement you built.
Before the Monday deadline, strengthen this movement. Make a donation of $25 or more today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/fightattacks
Thank you for all that you do,
David Plouffe
So here is e-mail #1, in it's entirety (From Michael Steele; Subject: More Profiles in Arrogance; Note that all bolded words appear that way in the original e-mail. I have italicized the whole thing to make it stand apart from my words):
Dear John,
Recently in his speech in France, Barack Obama called America "arrogant." 1 I'm sure the French loved it -- And so did the liberal press.
But who is this president who calls the American people arrogant?
This is the same politician whose supporters anointed him "The One" and a candidate who boasted that his election would be remembered as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." 2
This is the same man who indicated his disdain for small town and working Americans when he said they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," while addressing a group of San Francisco caviar and champagne liberal elitists.
How arrogant is that? Arrogant enough?
In truth, President Obama seems to champion the twisted "Blame-America First" mentality of the worst of the American left.
More importantly, it shows an absence of wisdom to criticize the United States while on foreign soil, and then join with the Pelosi-Reid Democrats in Congress to do everything possible to end American exceptionalism and create a weak, dependent socialist state patterned after the examples of Europe.
• He has taken steps towards nationalizing American auto companies; firing executives while leaving in power the same Union Bosses who funded his campaign and helped cripple the U.S.'s manufacturing base.
• He has refused to let financial firms pay back taxpayer-funded bailout loans 3 so he can make them hostages to the whims of the Federal government.
• As a lawyer, Obama once sued the same financial institutions on behalf of radical groups like ACORN for failing to use leftist social engineering criteria for lending instead of an applicant's ability to repay a loan.
• He campaigned on "transparency" and "integrity" in government and then has nominated a rogue gallery of tax evaders, Washington bureaucrats, and lobbyists to run his Administration.
• Obama brazenly follows his chief of staff's maxim of "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before" 4 to cripple our free markets with massive taxation and spending that wrests away our freedoms and puts even our great-grandchildren in debt.
• And now, anyone who dares speak out against or challenge Obama's ultra-liberal agenda, such as the hundreds of thousands of patriots who attended last week's Tea Parties, should expect to be labeled "unhealthy" by this Adminstration. 5 Now, THAT is arrogance!
You know that Barack Obama's hubris and charisma conceal the inexperience and lack of wisdom that our country cannot afford in its president.
And though the teleprompter and mainstream media liberals may delay America's realization of the peril the Obama White House portends for our future for a while, the eventual failure of leftist policies and ineffective leadership will not.
We must be ready when that time comes.
Please help the Republican Party's effort to spread the word about the Democrats' arrogance of power and support GOP Members of Congress as they work to hold the Obama Democrats accountable to the American people, by making a contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to the Republican National Committee today. Your gift will also help support the recruitment and election of principled candidates who will defeat the Democrats in 2009 and 2010 and lay the groundwork for ending Barack Obama's grip on power in 2012. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. John, the RNC is working hard to hold back the Obama Democrats' damaging, arrogant power grab -- please take this opportunity right now to support our fight against ineffective leadership and failed legislation by making a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to the RNC today. Thank you.
1 "[A]rrogant." (President Barack Obama, Town Hall, Strasbourg, France, 4/3/09)
2"[T]he moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks After The Democrat Primary, St. Paul, MN, 6/3/08)
3"[R]efused to let financial firms pay back taxpayer-funded bailout loans..." (Stuart Varney, "Obama Wants To Control The Banks," The Wall Street Journal, 4/4/09)
4"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before." (Gerald F. Seib, "In Crisis, Opportunity For Obama," The Wall Street Journal, 11/21/08)
5"I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy," (David Axelrod, "Face the Nation" 4/19/09)
OK, well I don't want to turn this into something with the length of a thesis paper, so I'm just going to pick a couple of these to address. Just want to make it clear that just because I am not specifically commenting on it does not mean that I am conceding it as a valid criticism of Obama.
So, first of all, here's some irony for you. Following up the statement "Barack Obama called America 'arrogant'" with "I'm sure the French loved it." That is precisely the type of arrogance he was talking about. And it wasn't a slam on America; if anything it was a slam on the Bush administration. The quote comes from this BBC article and the full quote is "He said the US had been 'arrogant' and 'dismissive' towards its allies, while there was "insidious" anti-Americanism in Europe. He said these attitudes had to change." This is classic diplomacy. You can't go to Europe and say "this anti-americanism needs to stop" - that would be arrogant - you need to say "we've both made mistakes and we need to start over again."
Next, I have a real problem with the line that he was " a candidate who boasted that his election would be remembered as 'the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal'." This is an utterly ridiculous distortion. You can read the transcript of the speech that it was taken from here , but here is the full quote: "The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals."
From a simple scorecard standpoint, the words "I" or "me" appear 4 times in the above; the words "we" and "our" appear 8. This strikes me as a call to action for all Americans, not an "I am the One that can make it happen."
Apart from that, it's the general tone of the e-mail that bothers me, but more on that later.
Here is e-mail #2 (From Michael Steele; Subject: Your Weekly Trunk):
Issue 7 April 21, 2009
Welcome to The Weekly Trunk -- The Republican National Committee's new weekly email update on all the latest news and political happenings. The goal of The Weekly Trunk is to inform and arm you with the facts you need to spread our conservative message and refute the misstatements of the Democrats.
This week's issue features...
More Afraid of U.S. Veterans than Muslim Terrorists?
In the topsy-turvy Obama Department of Homeland Security, real terrorists sponsor "man-caused disasters" and our own valiant veterans are the threat. (Jonah Goldberg, "(Right) Winging It at the DHS: What's the Real Threat to Our Country?" National Review Online, 4/17/09)
What's Your Opinion? Do you believe with the Obama Administration that our military veterans should be labeled as "terrorists?" View Chairman Steele's video on this topic. We want to hear from you. Post a video on the RNC's Facebook page today and let your voice be heard.
Tell It Like It Is, Governors
Republican Governors Haley Barbour and Mark Sanford shed some light on the hyper-partisan policies of the Obama Democrats. (Harry Enten & Jade Taenzler, "GOP Govs Hammer Obama," MSNBC, 4/16/09)
The Never Ending Campaign
Perhaps he agrees that he was a much better presidential candidate than he is a president -- because his campaign is still running. (Kenneth P. Vogel, "Obama Campaign Still Funds Operations," Politico, 4/15/09)
Eco-Madness
Despite mounting evidence that the world is actually on a cooling trend, Obama's green zealots push forward their plan to cripple our economy with unnecessary environmental regulations. (Tom LoBianco, "EPA Ups Pressure for Climate Change Action; 'Endangerment Finding' Seen as Step Toward Regulation," The Washington Times, 4/17/09)
What Will It Be Next Week, Governor Sebelius?
Last week it was tax evasion for President Obama's health secretary nominee, Kansas Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius. This week, it's an "oversight" in reporting political donations from an abortionist. ("Sebelius Lowballed Donations From Abortion Doc: She Got About $35,000, Nearly Three Times the $12,450 She Had Reported," Associated Press/MSNBC, 4/13/09)
The Democrats' False Diagnosis
Democrats are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to debating private vs. public health care. (Kerry N. Weems & Benjamin E. Sasse, "Is Government Health Insurance Cheap? The False Comparison Between the Costs of Public and Private Medical Plans," The Wall Street Journal, 4/14/09)
So It's OK Now, Is It?
Barack Obama pursues PR tactics for which President Bush was derided. (Jim Treacher, "Staged Military Photo Ops Suddenly Awesome," Hot Air, 4/14/09)
Card Check Reality Check?
With Democrats now in power, are unions learning how very bad their plan to take away workers' right to a secret ballot vote on unionization looks? (Michael Barone, "Unions Can't Dictate an Increase in Power," The Detroit News, 4/15/09)
Department of Propaganda?
Former L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks wants government funding for "independent" media. How independent would government-funded media likely be? ("Obama Appointee Suggests Radical Plan for Newspaper Bailout," FOXNews.com, 4/16/09)
New Best Friends Forever?
Newt Gingrich comments on Barack Obama's chumminess with Venezuelan Marxist strongman Hugo Chavez. ("Gingrich Raps Obama on Chavez Summit Greeting," The Associated Press, 4/20/09)
Blame America First, Last & Always...
Barack Obama follows up the tactic of his Attorney General, Eric Holder, and falsely blames America for Mexico's problems with firearms violence. (Editorial, "Obama's Gun Lies," The Washington Times, 4/20/09)
A Lack of Intelligence
Former Attorney General Mukasey and former CIA Director Hayden explain the negative impact of the Obama Administration's handling of intelligence gathering. (Michael Hayden & Michael B. Mukasey, "The President Ties His Own Hands on Terror: The Point of Interrogation is Intelligence, Not Confession," The Wall Street Journal, 4/17/09)
Check out this definitive list of Vice President Joe Biden's long and impressive history of gaffess (Biden's List of Political Blunders," FOXNews.com, 4/17/09)
Again, just gonna pick out a few to highlight.
Firstly, the U.S. Veterans vs. Muslim terrorists comment. Come on? Really? If we're now just making things up that neither Obama or his administration ever said, here's some suggestions for next week's e-mail: "Obama denies gravity: says we can all fly if we just believe", "Obama to the uninsured: 'Hurry up and die already'", "Obama comes out against children, thinks all babies should be eaten at birth." The link that the RNC provides is to an article in the National Review which is a criticism of this report. Since I'm sure you are sick of clicking on links by now, I'll summarize. The report says that right-wing extremist groups (and defines these as mainly white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups) may be using the election of the first black president as well as the current economic downturn as recruiting tools. It then goes on to say that one of the groups that they think will be targeted will be "disgruntled U.S. veterans." At no point does the report come even remotely close to saying that this danger is even in the same league as foreign terrorists. This is just a complete fabrication. But I do have to give the National Review article credit for its dissent. I mean, it's not like any disgruntled war vet has ever joined an anti-government group and then committed an act of terrorism in the U.S. I mean, apart from this guy.
Secondly (and you knew it was coming), is the "Eco-Madness" paragraph. Well, at least now I have some clarification. I have always believed that most Republicans did not believe in climate change and were merely paying the issue lip service, and now I have proof. The link the RNC provides mentions absolutely nothing about this alleged "cooling trend." Presumably, it comes from this article by George Will. Let's be clear. I love George Will. Absolutely adore him. He's definitely my favorite political pundit and he's probably in my top-10 list of people I'd most like to meet. But he is just dead wrong on this issue. Nate Silver at fivethiryeight.com does a great job of taking Will to task on this issue here. Not gonna say anymore about it now because my views on this subject have been well chronicled on this blog.
So this brings me to my final point, which is a statement on the tone of both of these e-mails. Apart from providing completion, my ulterior motive in presenting the complete texts of both e-mails was to highlight something about them. Or, more accurately, to highlight something that is not present. And that is an idea. Not one single idea of what the Republicans want to do. Not one single piece of legislation that they are trying to get through which they are urging us to call up our local Congressman and support. Not even a vision of what they believe are the major legislative challenges. Well, that's not quite true. They state one objective quite clearly: "the RNC is working hard to hold back the Obama Democrats' damaging, arrogant power grab." There it is in plain english; they are the party of "no". Their objective is not to "provide a constructive opposition and support the conservative values of our constituency" it's just "to hold back the Obama Democrats." This infuriates me because I do not like unchecked power. I desperately want a sane, rational counter-point to the Democratic party. Congressional Democrats will (and have) put ridiculously wasteful spending and protectionist measures into bills. I want a conservative opposition that is willing to compromise so that we get bills which give the best chance of having a positive impact on the U.S. But this is following the Rush playbook: rant and rave against everything they do; hope it fails; then get back into power in the ensuing backlash. That might be good politics, but it's horrible governing. In the short-term it isolates those in the middle while at the same time whips up your base into a frenzy. When instead of saying "we don't agree with this policy and here's why" you say "this policy is just another example of Obama trying make America a weak, dependent, socialist state" it is not surprising that people start getting pushed towards extremism. Maybe I was just naive, but I actually expected more from the Republicans. It makes me angry, but more than anything it just saddens me. I think my party is officially dead.
And just in case you're not completely sick of reading political e-mails, as a counterpoint I present the text of the e-mail I received from the Obama administration (also soliciting money from me) last week (From David Plouffe; Subject: Calls For Failure):
John --
It makes you wonder whether they see the same thing we do.
Advocates for the status quo are calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle. They're playing the same old political games and offering the same failed policies at a time of crisis.
In the coming days, opponents will do everything they can to destroy the President's proposed budget, a bold plan to help fix our broken economy and healthcare system and finally make energy and education the priority we all know they must be.
The change we need won't come without a fight -- no meaningful change ever does. Just like in the campaign, Barack Obama can't win without you by his side. Town by town, block by block, this grassroots movement is organizing and uniting Americans behind the President's plan.
But to finish what we started, we need resources.
Will you join the fight? Before Monday, April 13th, make a donation of $25 or more to help President Obama turn this country around.
We know that Washington won't change overnight. It'll take time, commitment, and money, but this grassroots movement can make change a reality -- affordable health care, a clean energy economy, and quality education for all. We know we are asking a lot from you -- but the stakes couldn't be higher.
It's why we worked so hard to elect President Obama, and he's counting on us to follow through. Today, you can make a difference.
Jo Ann from Charlotte, NC, has joined thousands of other supporters this week to support this movement and reject the same old politics:
I am a sixty-two year old woman on disability. I followed the election closely and did what I could to get Obama elected. Since he was inaugurated, I have watched in awe to see how much has already been accomplished. I live in Charlotte, NC where the unemployment rates are double digits and going up. My youngest son was out of work for 8 months because the company he worked for went out of business. So many workers and families are losing jobs and homes. There's so much more to be done, but this budget has to be passed and the programs have to be put into practice before things start to recover. That's why I support President Obama and his plans.
Americans like Jo Ann deserve better than the kind of divisive politics we've seen year after year. They deserve a truthful debate about real issues and a budget that will turn this economy around so that they can turn their lives around.
We need to seize this crucial moment to help pass this budget and invest in the one thing that can make President Obama's promises of change a reality -- the movement you built.
Before the Monday deadline, strengthen this movement. Make a donation of $25 or more today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/fightattacks
Thank you for all that you do,
David Plouffe
Friday, April 03, 2009
Fiscal Inferno Revisited
Time again, I think, to revisit one of my favorit topics: the national debt. And you know what that means: more graphs!
As has probably been evident over the past couple months, something has been increasingly bothering me. It's the rebirth of fiscal conservatism and rise of the deficit hawks in the Republican party after what seems like 8 years of silence on the issue. This is a big issue for me because it is one of the main things that drew me into the Republican party back in the mid-90s. I saw myself then, as I do now, as being aligned conservatively on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. The idea of limited government, free markets, and a balanced budget has always struck me as the right way to run a government.
This might seem to be at odds with my recent political leanings. After all, I supported Obama (who certainly wants to increase the size of government) as well as the stimulus plan and budget (which will certainly increase the national debt). But it isn't that I stopped believing in my core values: I just stopped believing the Republicans.
So I tried to take a step back and look at the issue objectively. Have I allowed the Bush years to unfairly bias me against Republicans or am I justified in my skepticism? Are Republican administrations really better at handling the debt?
I once again visited the US Treasury and Bureau of Economic Analysis to get my data. I took the annual GDP and national debt numbers over the last 50 years and expressed debt as a percent of GDP. I then calculated the difference year over year. As a technical note, since all debt figures were given in that current year's dollars I had to use that year's current dollars for GDP as well (i.e. I didn't use "Real" GDP or chained-2000 dollars, as most GDP figures use). You can check out the results in the following graph (and I've also attached all my data to the bottom of the post):
So what does this tell us? Well, the 0 line represents no change to debt as a percentage of GDP so as an oversimplification anything below the 0 line is "good" and everything above it is "bad". One thing that is clear is that as a country we did a pretty good job of fiscal restraint from ~1959-1974 and a generally lousy job since then. In the last 50 years we have managed to reduce the debt (as a % of GDP) 25 times while increasing it 25. Unfortunately, 19 of those 25 occurred from 1959-1981, which means we've only managed it 6 times in the last 28 years.
But that's not the question I set about to answer. The question is how do Democratic administrations compare to Republicans in handling the debt? Here's a break-down of the administrations that have managed to reduce the debt:
Republicans
Eisenhower (2)
Nixon (5)
Nixon/Ford (1)
Reagan (1)
GW Bush (1)
Democrats
Kennedy (3)
Carter (2)
Johnson (5)
Clinton (5)
So the score comes out 10 for Republican presidents and 15 for Democrats. That's surprising in and of itself, but it's even moreso when you consider that Republicans have been in the Oval Office one and half times more than Democrats over the last 50 years (30 years to 20).
Obviously, all of this is a gross over-simplification. The President is not a dictator and the behavior of Congress certainly plays more than a minor role in determining this. There's a good argument to be made that Clinton's 5 years are at least partially the work of the Gingrich Republicans in Congress, and that the almost complete lack of reduction during the Reagan years is at least partially attributable to a Democratic congress. The George W years though, where Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress for 6 years and produced 1 year of debt reduction, are hard to ignore. Especially since they are the most recent.
The numbers bear out that, for whatever reason, Republican administrations simply do not do a better job of handling deficits than Democratic ones, and there's in fact a pretty good argument that they are worse at it.
In the end I guess what I am saying is that even though I believe in fiscal restraint, when given the choice between a party that tells me they are going to spend a lot of money on government and then does it and a party who tells me they won't spend a lot of money and then does anyway, give me the party that is more honest. Republicans have had a great scam going on the last 30 years. They say "government doesn't work" and then they create more government and when it fails they say "See? Told you." Maybe the Democrats don't have any better ideas but at least I can believe them when they say "we're going to create more government and spend more." It does pain me that those two options seem to be my only choices.
Bottom line is that if Republicans ever regain power and actually follow through on their fiscally conservative rhetoric, I'll be happy to jump on board again with them. Until that day, though, consider me an Independent.
Debt and GDP data
As has probably been evident over the past couple months, something has been increasingly bothering me. It's the rebirth of fiscal conservatism and rise of the deficit hawks in the Republican party after what seems like 8 years of silence on the issue. This is a big issue for me because it is one of the main things that drew me into the Republican party back in the mid-90s. I saw myself then, as I do now, as being aligned conservatively on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. The idea of limited government, free markets, and a balanced budget has always struck me as the right way to run a government.
This might seem to be at odds with my recent political leanings. After all, I supported Obama (who certainly wants to increase the size of government) as well as the stimulus plan and budget (which will certainly increase the national debt). But it isn't that I stopped believing in my core values: I just stopped believing the Republicans.
So I tried to take a step back and look at the issue objectively. Have I allowed the Bush years to unfairly bias me against Republicans or am I justified in my skepticism? Are Republican administrations really better at handling the debt?
I once again visited the US Treasury and Bureau of Economic Analysis to get my data. I took the annual GDP and national debt numbers over the last 50 years and expressed debt as a percent of GDP. I then calculated the difference year over year. As a technical note, since all debt figures were given in that current year's dollars I had to use that year's current dollars for GDP as well (i.e. I didn't use "Real" GDP or chained-2000 dollars, as most GDP figures use). You can check out the results in the following graph (and I've also attached all my data to the bottom of the post):
So what does this tell us? Well, the 0 line represents no change to debt as a percentage of GDP so as an oversimplification anything below the 0 line is "good" and everything above it is "bad". One thing that is clear is that as a country we did a pretty good job of fiscal restraint from ~1959-1974 and a generally lousy job since then. In the last 50 years we have managed to reduce the debt (as a % of GDP) 25 times while increasing it 25. Unfortunately, 19 of those 25 occurred from 1959-1981, which means we've only managed it 6 times in the last 28 years.
But that's not the question I set about to answer. The question is how do Democratic administrations compare to Republicans in handling the debt? Here's a break-down of the administrations that have managed to reduce the debt:
Republicans
Eisenhower (2)
Nixon (5)
Nixon/Ford (1)
Reagan (1)
GW Bush (1)
Democrats
Kennedy (3)
Carter (2)
Johnson (5)
Clinton (5)
So the score comes out 10 for Republican presidents and 15 for Democrats. That's surprising in and of itself, but it's even moreso when you consider that Republicans have been in the Oval Office one and half times more than Democrats over the last 50 years (30 years to 20).
Obviously, all of this is a gross over-simplification. The President is not a dictator and the behavior of Congress certainly plays more than a minor role in determining this. There's a good argument to be made that Clinton's 5 years are at least partially the work of the Gingrich Republicans in Congress, and that the almost complete lack of reduction during the Reagan years is at least partially attributable to a Democratic congress. The George W years though, where Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress for 6 years and produced 1 year of debt reduction, are hard to ignore. Especially since they are the most recent.
The numbers bear out that, for whatever reason, Republican administrations simply do not do a better job of handling deficits than Democratic ones, and there's in fact a pretty good argument that they are worse at it.
In the end I guess what I am saying is that even though I believe in fiscal restraint, when given the choice between a party that tells me they are going to spend a lot of money on government and then does it and a party who tells me they won't spend a lot of money and then does anyway, give me the party that is more honest. Republicans have had a great scam going on the last 30 years. They say "government doesn't work" and then they create more government and when it fails they say "See? Told you." Maybe the Democrats don't have any better ideas but at least I can believe them when they say "we're going to create more government and spend more." It does pain me that those two options seem to be my only choices.
Bottom line is that if Republicans ever regain power and actually follow through on their fiscally conservative rhetoric, I'll be happy to jump on board again with them. Until that day, though, consider me an Independent.
Debt and GDP data
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
When Bad News is Good
So the stock market has largely been going up the last couple of weeks. That is of course good but is not of and by itself all that interesting. What is interesting is why it's been going up. At first blush, most of the headlines talk about stocks rising higher on good economic news. But when you read a little closer, you realize that it's not good news at all; it's bad news that's not as bad as it was expected to be. A sample just from today. Right now the Dow is up 100 points and the headline on Yahoo! Finance reads "Wall Street Pares Losses After Better-Than-Expected Economic Data." So what is this "better-than-expected" data? Pending home sales rebounded in March from a record low in February (in other words, March is the 2nd worst month on record), an index of manufacturing activity contracted in March but by a little less than expected, and construction spending dropped in February for the fifth straight month but at a slower pace than in January. So by and large nothing is getting better; it's just getting worse more slowly.
I'm not at all trying to dismiss the positive gains that the market has made, nor am I trying to say that people shouldn't be feeling a little better about the economy in general. The name of the game during a recession is trying to find a floor, and the slowing of the rate of deterioration is definitely a sign that we could be nearing that floor soon. But just a cursory glance at historical economic data will show you that both recessions and expansions are wrought with false troughs and peaks. I just find it a bit ironic that data which would ordinarily be seen as very bad news in this context is now seen as a reason for optimism. It's kind of like hearing that a school burned down and everyone inside died, and then throwing a party when you find out that one kid actually made it out alive.
In other news, we are exactly 5 days away from the Cubs opener. I am hoping to put together my annual Cubs preview over the weekend. I know that you all can't wait.
I'm not at all trying to dismiss the positive gains that the market has made, nor am I trying to say that people shouldn't be feeling a little better about the economy in general. The name of the game during a recession is trying to find a floor, and the slowing of the rate of deterioration is definitely a sign that we could be nearing that floor soon. But just a cursory glance at historical economic data will show you that both recessions and expansions are wrought with false troughs and peaks. I just find it a bit ironic that data which would ordinarily be seen as very bad news in this context is now seen as a reason for optimism. It's kind of like hearing that a school burned down and everyone inside died, and then throwing a party when you find out that one kid actually made it out alive.
In other news, we are exactly 5 days away from the Cubs opener. I am hoping to put together my annual Cubs preview over the weekend. I know that you all can't wait.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
20 Minute Sprint Post
OK, I've got 20 minutes before my next meeting and I just want to get something down before it becomes approximately 4 ice ages since I last posted.
I'm too lazy to think of new topics, so I will take the suggestions made in the comments of my previous post.
First, the Economist had a big article discussing different countries' drug policies. Though just about everything has been tried, the result is almost always the same: varying degrees of failure. The most successful seem to be the most liberal policies (where success is defined as the least users of "hard" drugs). The end recommendation of the article was basically one for legalization. I think it will come as no surprise to anyone that knows me that I am in support of that. If not outright legalization, then at least decriminalization where drug use is treated as a health problem rather than a criminal offense. This is not to say that I believe that drug users are victims (they're not) but just that the choice to pollute your own body is a personal decision that shouldn't be legislated. "My body, my choice" may be the rallying cry for pro-choice activists but it could just as easily be one for advocates of decriminalization. Of course, outright legalization would have the added benefits of giving the government something new to tax while at the same time dealing a big blow to the profits of organized crime and cartels. I also think it would be quite a bit better if you allowed ordinary citizens to grow a weed plant in their backyard and harvest it themselves for personal use instead of forcing them to go deal with shady individuals in shady areas (and yes I know they're not really "forcing" them to do that). Beyond anything though, the number one reason to change the drug policies in this country is that they don't work. People aren't being deterred; people continue to be locked-up (and supported by taxpayer money) for non-violent crimes, and the occasional joint-smoker is made to feel like he's a social degenerate while the occasional drinker gets "This Bud's for you!" 20 times an hour every time they turn on a sports broadcast.
Now for the Madoff question that Weir brought up. Obviously the idea of people giving back their profits is ridiculous. They obtained their money by legal means even if Madoff didn't (kind of similar to the Pam Anderson sex tape where the video distributor got to keep his profits because he legally bought the rights from a guy who had stolen it). I also think that getting your money back is just as ridiculous. Enron and Worldcom investors didn't get their money (or even their 401(k)s) back when they were defrauded; this is no different. The tax question, however, is a little more interesting, but in the end I think it's just as bunk. Much like when you're sitting at a blackjack table, you don't really have profits until you take all the chips up to the cashier and cash out. Until then it's all just prospective profit. As an investor you are always entitled to recover what you put in (your basis) tax-free. Anything above and beyond that is rightfully taxed, regardless of how much else you think you still have in your stack.
I'm too lazy to think of new topics, so I will take the suggestions made in the comments of my previous post.
First, the Economist had a big article discussing different countries' drug policies. Though just about everything has been tried, the result is almost always the same: varying degrees of failure. The most successful seem to be the most liberal policies (where success is defined as the least users of "hard" drugs). The end recommendation of the article was basically one for legalization. I think it will come as no surprise to anyone that knows me that I am in support of that. If not outright legalization, then at least decriminalization where drug use is treated as a health problem rather than a criminal offense. This is not to say that I believe that drug users are victims (they're not) but just that the choice to pollute your own body is a personal decision that shouldn't be legislated. "My body, my choice" may be the rallying cry for pro-choice activists but it could just as easily be one for advocates of decriminalization. Of course, outright legalization would have the added benefits of giving the government something new to tax while at the same time dealing a big blow to the profits of organized crime and cartels. I also think it would be quite a bit better if you allowed ordinary citizens to grow a weed plant in their backyard and harvest it themselves for personal use instead of forcing them to go deal with shady individuals in shady areas (and yes I know they're not really "forcing" them to do that). Beyond anything though, the number one reason to change the drug policies in this country is that they don't work. People aren't being deterred; people continue to be locked-up (and supported by taxpayer money) for non-violent crimes, and the occasional joint-smoker is made to feel like he's a social degenerate while the occasional drinker gets "This Bud's for you!" 20 times an hour every time they turn on a sports broadcast.
Now for the Madoff question that Weir brought up. Obviously the idea of people giving back their profits is ridiculous. They obtained their money by legal means even if Madoff didn't (kind of similar to the Pam Anderson sex tape where the video distributor got to keep his profits because he legally bought the rights from a guy who had stolen it). I also think that getting your money back is just as ridiculous. Enron and Worldcom investors didn't get their money (or even their 401(k)s) back when they were defrauded; this is no different. The tax question, however, is a little more interesting, but in the end I think it's just as bunk. Much like when you're sitting at a blackjack table, you don't really have profits until you take all the chips up to the cashier and cash out. Until then it's all just prospective profit. As an investor you are always entitled to recover what you put in (your basis) tax-free. Anything above and beyond that is rightfully taxed, regardless of how much else you think you still have in your stack.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
New Fangled Technology!
Quote of the day
"Sam, you are a pyromaniac in a field of straw men" George Will to Sam Donaldson during a debate on the stimulus on This Week
Today's Fun Fact
The only two days of the year in which there are no professional sports games (MLB, NBA, NHL, or NFL) are the day before and the day after the MLB all-star game. And since the day before the all-star game has the Home-run derby, that really makes only one truly sportsless day.
I continue to be unbelievably swamped at work and I continue to know that no one cares about my excuses.
This week I took two great leaps forward into the 21st century. The first leap was with my cell phone. I no longer am stuck with my wife's used, pink Razr that I have been toting around for the last year. Even though I had purchased a Cubs cover for it in a feeble attempt to hide my shame, all that really did was manage to call attention to the little pieces of bright pink that shone through. I had been hoping to hold out for an iPhone but with our T-Mobile contract that wasn't going to happen for another year, so I went with the G1 (i.e. the Google phone) instead. Haven't had time to try out all the bells and whistles yet but so far I like it. Surfing the net is fast and just as convenient as on the iPhone and I like the one-touch access to Gmail. Another feature that I think is really cool (although I haven't used yet) is that it has a UPC scanner so if you're in a store and see something you like you can scan it and it will instantly do a search for the best price for that product so you can avoid getting hosed on the price and/or making another trip to return it.
The other leap forward was that I finally got my Kindle yesterday. I had ordered it on Christmas day but everything was backordered for so long that I just got it now. Personally, I think the reason everything was backed up was because they knew that they were releasing the Kindle 2 in late February and they didn't want to keep shipping 1st-generation Kindles and then come out with the upgraded version a month later. I always joked that the new Kindle would come out a week after I got mine, but I truthfully would have been super pissed if that had really happened. Fortunately, they upgraded everyone who had not received their Kindle yet so I can now say that I am one of the 1st people to receive a Kindle 2. Have only played around with it a little since I am (gasp) still reading an actual book, but everything I've tried has worked exactly as advertised. It accesses the Kindle store via a wireless network and you can easily download almost any book you can think of in about a minute. I also signed up for a 2-week free trial of the New York Times and when I woke up this morning it had already downloaded it and it was waiting for me. I also found out that you can e-mail Word documents and PDFs to it so that you can read those as well on it. You basically never really need to carry around a piece of paper ever again (except for my Economist, which isn't available for the Kindle yet). A couple other neat things: you can underline and save passages you like to "My clippings" to share with other people later, you can add notes anywhere, it can hold over 1500 books and even after you delete them off the device Amazon stores them for you and you can add them back at any time, you get instant access to Wikipedia, and you can also just move the cursor to any word you don't understand and it instantly gives you the definition. Lastly, they have this interesting but weird "text-to-speech" function where the device will actually read to you. It's an odd robotic voice that obviously can't get the intonation and emphasis right but it does work. Probably something I'll never use, but it's still neat. OK, here ends the commercial for the Kindle.
Both of these new toys will get good use during our trip out to Phoenix next week! We leave on Friday and are seeing 4 Cubs games (including 2 Cubs vs. Sox). We're also taking a side trip up to Vegas next Wednesday to see the Cubs game there and also see Love, which I have heard amazing things about. It would also be nice if during that trip I could leave Vegas a winner for once but we all know that's not gonna happen.
In any case, I will try to get a blog of some substance together before we leave or, if nothing else, will blog from the laptop poolside just to make everyone jealous.
Hope everyone is having a good week!
"Sam, you are a pyromaniac in a field of straw men" George Will to Sam Donaldson during a debate on the stimulus on This Week
Today's Fun Fact
The only two days of the year in which there are no professional sports games (MLB, NBA, NHL, or NFL) are the day before and the day after the MLB all-star game. And since the day before the all-star game has the Home-run derby, that really makes only one truly sportsless day.
I continue to be unbelievably swamped at work and I continue to know that no one cares about my excuses.
This week I took two great leaps forward into the 21st century. The first leap was with my cell phone. I no longer am stuck with my wife's used, pink Razr that I have been toting around for the last year. Even though I had purchased a Cubs cover for it in a feeble attempt to hide my shame, all that really did was manage to call attention to the little pieces of bright pink that shone through. I had been hoping to hold out for an iPhone but with our T-Mobile contract that wasn't going to happen for another year, so I went with the G1 (i.e. the Google phone) instead. Haven't had time to try out all the bells and whistles yet but so far I like it. Surfing the net is fast and just as convenient as on the iPhone and I like the one-touch access to Gmail. Another feature that I think is really cool (although I haven't used yet) is that it has a UPC scanner so if you're in a store and see something you like you can scan it and it will instantly do a search for the best price for that product so you can avoid getting hosed on the price and/or making another trip to return it.
The other leap forward was that I finally got my Kindle yesterday. I had ordered it on Christmas day but everything was backordered for so long that I just got it now. Personally, I think the reason everything was backed up was because they knew that they were releasing the Kindle 2 in late February and they didn't want to keep shipping 1st-generation Kindles and then come out with the upgraded version a month later. I always joked that the new Kindle would come out a week after I got mine, but I truthfully would have been super pissed if that had really happened. Fortunately, they upgraded everyone who had not received their Kindle yet so I can now say that I am one of the 1st people to receive a Kindle 2. Have only played around with it a little since I am (gasp) still reading an actual book, but everything I've tried has worked exactly as advertised. It accesses the Kindle store via a wireless network and you can easily download almost any book you can think of in about a minute. I also signed up for a 2-week free trial of the New York Times and when I woke up this morning it had already downloaded it and it was waiting for me. I also found out that you can e-mail Word documents and PDFs to it so that you can read those as well on it. You basically never really need to carry around a piece of paper ever again (except for my Economist, which isn't available for the Kindle yet). A couple other neat things: you can underline and save passages you like to "My clippings" to share with other people later, you can add notes anywhere, it can hold over 1500 books and even after you delete them off the device Amazon stores them for you and you can add them back at any time, you get instant access to Wikipedia, and you can also just move the cursor to any word you don't understand and it instantly gives you the definition. Lastly, they have this interesting but weird "text-to-speech" function where the device will actually read to you. It's an odd robotic voice that obviously can't get the intonation and emphasis right but it does work. Probably something I'll never use, but it's still neat. OK, here ends the commercial for the Kindle.
Both of these new toys will get good use during our trip out to Phoenix next week! We leave on Friday and are seeing 4 Cubs games (including 2 Cubs vs. Sox). We're also taking a side trip up to Vegas next Wednesday to see the Cubs game there and also see Love, which I have heard amazing things about. It would also be nice if during that trip I could leave Vegas a winner for once but we all know that's not gonna happen.
In any case, I will try to get a blog of some substance together before we leave or, if nothing else, will blog from the laptop poolside just to make everyone jealous.
Hope everyone is having a good week!
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Roland With the Punches
Quote of the day:
"It's easy to quit smoking. I've done it hundreds of times." - Mark Twain
Today's Fun Facts:
A bit of alternate universe movie history for you. Tom Selleck was originally cast as Indiana Jones but had to turn it down when the producers of Magnum P.I. wouldn’t let him out of his contract. Eric Stoltz was cast as Marty McFly for 6 weeks before being dubbed “too intense” by producers. The role of Sigourney Weaver’s neighbor in Ghostbusters (Louis Tully) was specifically written for John Candy; when he couldn’t commit it was given to Rick Moranis instead. Both Will Smith and Ewan McGregor turned down the role of Neo in The Matrix. Cary Grant turned down the role of 007 in Dr. No and it went to Sean Connery instead. Connery paid it forward years later by turning down the role of Gandalf, as he reportedly had never read the Tolkien books and didn’t understand the plot.
So Donald Trump's Trump Entertainment filed for bankruptcy today. I really don't care too much about that, but I did find it amusing that the Yahoo! news article about it used this picture of him:
So our dearly departed governor is back in the news in a roundabout way via the new controversey over Roland Burris. Mr. Burris recently decided to enlighten us that former Gov. Blagojevich did in fact hit him up for cash to get the inside track on the Senate seat. Mr. Burris doesn't see it as a big deal that he failed to inform us of this earlier. In fact, apparently it's the impeachment committee's fault for not asking him the correct question: "There were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony." Nevermind the fact that this new statement contradicts an earlier sworn statement and the testimony he made about his contact with the governor's office. I just have to ask the question: has it finally gotten ridiculous enough that we can agree to have a special election rather than let governors appoint replacements? If not, I'd like to know what else needs to happen. One thing's for sure. Even if Burris does survive this, he can kiss his re-election chances goodbye. In fact, I doubt he even makes it out of the Democratic primary.
And once again on the stimulus (set to be signed by Obama today) I have a new rule. Democrats, stop quoting the Moody's Economy study like it's the Bible and Republicans stop quoting noted economist Marty Feldstein's opposition to the stimulus. They both were legitimate points but you have made them and made them again. And then kept making them for another 2 weeks. Now let it go. Find some other sources.
"It's easy to quit smoking. I've done it hundreds of times." - Mark Twain
Today's Fun Facts:
A bit of alternate universe movie history for you. Tom Selleck was originally cast as Indiana Jones but had to turn it down when the producers of Magnum P.I. wouldn’t let him out of his contract. Eric Stoltz was cast as Marty McFly for 6 weeks before being dubbed “too intense” by producers. The role of Sigourney Weaver’s neighbor in Ghostbusters (Louis Tully) was specifically written for John Candy; when he couldn’t commit it was given to Rick Moranis instead. Both Will Smith and Ewan McGregor turned down the role of Neo in The Matrix. Cary Grant turned down the role of 007 in Dr. No and it went to Sean Connery instead. Connery paid it forward years later by turning down the role of Gandalf, as he reportedly had never read the Tolkien books and didn’t understand the plot.
So Donald Trump's Trump Entertainment filed for bankruptcy today. I really don't care too much about that, but I did find it amusing that the Yahoo! news article about it used this picture of him:
So our dearly departed governor is back in the news in a roundabout way via the new controversey over Roland Burris. Mr. Burris recently decided to enlighten us that former Gov. Blagojevich did in fact hit him up for cash to get the inside track on the Senate seat. Mr. Burris doesn't see it as a big deal that he failed to inform us of this earlier. In fact, apparently it's the impeachment committee's fault for not asking him the correct question: "There were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony." Nevermind the fact that this new statement contradicts an earlier sworn statement and the testimony he made about his contact with the governor's office. I just have to ask the question: has it finally gotten ridiculous enough that we can agree to have a special election rather than let governors appoint replacements? If not, I'd like to know what else needs to happen. One thing's for sure. Even if Burris does survive this, he can kiss his re-election chances goodbye. In fact, I doubt he even makes it out of the Democratic primary.
And once again on the stimulus (set to be signed by Obama today) I have a new rule. Democrats, stop quoting the Moody's Economy study like it's the Bible and Republicans stop quoting noted economist Marty Feldstein's opposition to the stimulus. They both were legitimate points but you have made them and made them again. And then kept making them for another 2 weeks. Now let it go. Find some other sources.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Another Week Another Lonely, Solitary Post
Quote of the day:
"God does not play dice with the universe. He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time." - Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett from the book Good Omens
Today's Fun Fact:
Climate change too boring of an apocalyptic scenario for you? Here's a new thing you can lose sleep over. Right now scientists calculate that there is a roughly 1 in 45,000 chance that the asteroid Apophis will collide with the Earth sometime in 2036. Just as a point of comparison, the odds of you winning the jackpot in the IL state lotto is 1 in 20,358,520. That means that it is 450 times more likely that all life on Earth will be extinguished in 2036 than it is that you will win the lotto. Regardless, I'd still recommend doing all we can to keep Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck alive till 2036, just in case.
So it's been another busy week for me again at work and alas, that has meant another skimpy week for you, my loyal reader(s). As I am sitting down to write this the House has just passed the new compromise version of the stimulus package and the Senate may pass it later today so that Congress can take their planned recess. Funny how fast things can move when people are itching to get to vacation. I also have always found it amusing that we use the term "recess" in government, since the only other place it's used is in grade schools. Something about the image of John McCain, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Lindsey Graham all running out of the Capitol at 3:00 to get a big game of kickball together just makes me smile. But I digress . . .
I don't want to go into too much depth on the stimulus bill; I'll just say that I think it's definitely imperfect but it's better than nothing so I'm glad that it's passing. There is one particular aspect about this entire stimulus debate that has really irked me, and it is again the lack of ideologues to find a middle ground. All I have heard from the right the past 2 weeks is overtures urging all of us to bow down and prey at the altar of the almighty tax cut. And from the left you get the opposite, an urging that the stimulus should be no tax cuts and all spending.
Well, what does the empirical data tell us? Rachel Maddow (and other liberals) have been quoting ad nauseam this report from Moody's:
"God does not play dice with the universe. He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time." - Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett from the book Good Omens
Today's Fun Fact:
Climate change too boring of an apocalyptic scenario for you? Here's a new thing you can lose sleep over. Right now scientists calculate that there is a roughly 1 in 45,000 chance that the asteroid Apophis will collide with the Earth sometime in 2036. Just as a point of comparison, the odds of you winning the jackpot in the IL state lotto is 1 in 20,358,520. That means that it is 450 times more likely that all life on Earth will be extinguished in 2036 than it is that you will win the lotto. Regardless, I'd still recommend doing all we can to keep Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck alive till 2036, just in case.
So it's been another busy week for me again at work and alas, that has meant another skimpy week for you, my loyal reader(s). As I am sitting down to write this the House has just passed the new compromise version of the stimulus package and the Senate may pass it later today so that Congress can take their planned recess. Funny how fast things can move when people are itching to get to vacation. I also have always found it amusing that we use the term "recess" in government, since the only other place it's used is in grade schools. Something about the image of John McCain, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Lindsey Graham all running out of the Capitol at 3:00 to get a big game of kickball together just makes me smile. But I digress . . .
I don't want to go into too much depth on the stimulus bill; I'll just say that I think it's definitely imperfect but it's better than nothing so I'm glad that it's passing. There is one particular aspect about this entire stimulus debate that has really irked me, and it is again the lack of ideologues to find a middle ground. All I have heard from the right the past 2 weeks is overtures urging all of us to bow down and prey at the altar of the almighty tax cut. And from the left you get the opposite, an urging that the stimulus should be no tax cuts and all spending.
Well, what does the empirical data tell us? Rachel Maddow (and other liberals) have been quoting ad nauseam this report from Moody's:
The highlights being that food stamps, unemployment benefits, and infrastructure spending are all vastly superior to tax cuts. This is being used as one of the justifications for why the stimulus plan should be void of all tax cuts. Of course, that's just one study. Here is one from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) via the Economist:
What strikes me most about this table is the incredible range of each category. Almost all of them can be either a negative or positive multiplier (i.e. really good ideas or really bad ones).
The bottom line for me on this is that no one really knows what is best. I see absolutely 0 evidence to support a stimulus package of all tax cuts and I don't really see a reason to go all the other way either. It seems to me that the prudent option is a mix of both, and that's exactly what the current stimulus bill is (about 60/40 spending and tax cuts). Personally, I'd prefer there be a lot more going to infrastructure, green energy, and education but you know what? I'm not going to demand perfection because I realize that there are millions of other American taxpayers that will be asked to pay for this whose goals aren't exactly in line with mine and I just wish there was more of that spirit in Washington. Even though I politically understand why the Republicans have chosen such a hard line with regard to this bill, it still saddens me. The doomsday cries of "if this legislation passes, it'll be a very bad day for America" (John McCain) are met with the over-optimism of "this bill is the right size and scope necessary to truly help us turn things around" (Rep. Ed Perlmutter). As usual, the truth lies in the middle. And, suprisingly, you know who actually has it right? Bill O'Reilly: "I wish I could predict what will happen, but I can't. And I believe no one can. This economic collapse is simply too complicated and chaotic."
Friday, February 06, 2009
All Talk and No Stimulus Make John an Angry Boy
Just to clarify, the above is a movie reference. For those that have seen it, I'm sure it's obvious.
So, predictably, after having my most consistent posting week ever I follow it up with a very weak one. And certainly not for lack of interesting things to talk about. It's just one of those weeks where I have been completely slammed at work and by the time I get home I just want to do something mindless and not have to form coherent sentences either verbally or in print.
Anyway, I've got about 20 minutes before my next meeting so I'm gonna go with some rapid fire thoughts here.
In terms of our government, I can basically summarize by saying this: right now I'm pissed at everyone. A rundown of my grievances:
Obama - Remember that pledge to not have any lobbyists in his administration? Yeah, well apparently he doesn't . I do understand that there are about 8,000 people in total that are being hired by the administration and not all lobbyists are evil, but much with the case of the campaign finance flip-flop, none of the facts changed between the time when he made a promise and when he went back on it, so why has his position changed?
McCain - I got a lovely e-mail from Sen. McCain on Tuesday urging me to sign an online petition saying that I want Congress to vote no to the stimulus bill. That's it. Just tell them to vote no. Not tell them to work closer with Republicans to craft a better bill, not tell them to support a different bill that they think is better. Nope, no new ideas. Just vote no. That's crap. I know that there are a lot that different economists in different camps disagree on, but the one thing that there is almost unanimous consent on is that even an unbelievably crappy and pork-laden stimulus package is superior to doing nothing right now.
Republicans - Screw you guys and all your faux-concern about budget deficits and wasteful spending. I remember very clearly the days of Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" that brought Congress to the Republican party in 94. It was one of the core reasons why I became a Republican in the first place. But suddenly as soon as you controlled both Congress and the White House, fiscal discipline wasn't a concern anymore. Do you all need to be reminded of 2003, when you voted for a reform of Medicare that added $8 trillion of unfunded liability. For those doing the math at home, that's over 8 times the amount of the current proposed stimulus package. Where were the budget hawks then?
Furthermore, in their list of grievances with the stimulus package, about half the items really are things that will create or help retain jobs. Isn't that the point of a stimulus bill? Case in point, here are some things they list:
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
That's just a few. All of the above are tasks that will need to be performed by people. People who, presumably, will be paid to complete said tasks. When they are paid, they will use this money to purchase goods and services, which will stimulate the economy. Stop me if I'm getting too technical here.
Democrats - Screw you guys for putting a bunch of wasteful crap in this stimulus bill. This was not the time to shove through all your pet projects that you've been denied the last 8 years. I can blame the Republicans for pulling the trigger, but I blame you for loading the gun and handing it to them. Among some of the legitimate grievances that the Republicans have with the bill:
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $150 million for honeybee insurance
And not only can you not bring in bipartisan support, you apparently can't even get partisan support! The vote in the Senate was supposed to occur last night, but Harry Reid called it off because he didn't think he had the votes. At least the Republicans knew how to shove a bill down the throats of the opposition when they had the numbers.
In the words of Homer Simpson: "When will people learn? Democracy doesn't work!"
So, predictably, after having my most consistent posting week ever I follow it up with a very weak one. And certainly not for lack of interesting things to talk about. It's just one of those weeks where I have been completely slammed at work and by the time I get home I just want to do something mindless and not have to form coherent sentences either verbally or in print.
Anyway, I've got about 20 minutes before my next meeting so I'm gonna go with some rapid fire thoughts here.
In terms of our government, I can basically summarize by saying this: right now I'm pissed at everyone. A rundown of my grievances:
Obama - Remember that pledge to not have any lobbyists in his administration? Yeah, well apparently he doesn't . I do understand that there are about 8,000 people in total that are being hired by the administration and not all lobbyists are evil, but much with the case of the campaign finance flip-flop, none of the facts changed between the time when he made a promise and when he went back on it, so why has his position changed?
McCain - I got a lovely e-mail from Sen. McCain on Tuesday urging me to sign an online petition saying that I want Congress to vote no to the stimulus bill. That's it. Just tell them to vote no. Not tell them to work closer with Republicans to craft a better bill, not tell them to support a different bill that they think is better. Nope, no new ideas. Just vote no. That's crap. I know that there are a lot that different economists in different camps disagree on, but the one thing that there is almost unanimous consent on is that even an unbelievably crappy and pork-laden stimulus package is superior to doing nothing right now.
Republicans - Screw you guys and all your faux-concern about budget deficits and wasteful spending. I remember very clearly the days of Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" that brought Congress to the Republican party in 94. It was one of the core reasons why I became a Republican in the first place. But suddenly as soon as you controlled both Congress and the White House, fiscal discipline wasn't a concern anymore. Do you all need to be reminded of 2003, when you voted for a reform of Medicare that added $8 trillion of unfunded liability. For those doing the math at home, that's over 8 times the amount of the current proposed stimulus package. Where were the budget hawks then?
Furthermore, in their list of grievances with the stimulus package, about half the items really are things that will create or help retain jobs. Isn't that the point of a stimulus bill? Case in point, here are some things they list:
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
That's just a few. All of the above are tasks that will need to be performed by people. People who, presumably, will be paid to complete said tasks. When they are paid, they will use this money to purchase goods and services, which will stimulate the economy. Stop me if I'm getting too technical here.
Democrats - Screw you guys for putting a bunch of wasteful crap in this stimulus bill. This was not the time to shove through all your pet projects that you've been denied the last 8 years. I can blame the Republicans for pulling the trigger, but I blame you for loading the gun and handing it to them. Among some of the legitimate grievances that the Republicans have with the bill:
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $150 million for honeybee insurance
And not only can you not bring in bipartisan support, you apparently can't even get partisan support! The vote in the Senate was supposed to occur last night, but Harry Reid called it off because he didn't think he had the votes. At least the Republicans knew how to shove a bill down the throats of the opposition when they had the numbers.
In the words of Homer Simpson: "When will people learn? Democracy doesn't work!"
Friday, January 30, 2009
End of a Busy Week
Quote of the day:
“I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps and I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and The Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the US should help the US or should help South Africa and should help The Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for our children.” – Lauren Upton (Miss Teen South Carolina) when asked why she thought one-fifth of Americans could not locate the United States on a world map.
Today's Fun Fact:
The animal with the fastest resting heartbeat is the hummingbird, at 1400 beats per minute. The slowest is the blue whale, at between 4 and 8. However, the heartbeats of some small animals (such as the hedgehog and ground squirrel) get down to around 5 beats per minute while they are hibernating.
First of all, I'd like to pat myself on the back a little bit for writing a new post every day this week. I have no doubt that Blue Cross is just as thrilled that they have paid me as I did it. Actually, it was a pretty eventful week, so it wasn't altogether that difficult.
So, we now officially have Gov. Quinn. I worked out right after work and then went straight to curling, so I missed both Blagojevich's speech to the legislature and the official announcement that he had been removed. While I still have some reservations over the exact manner in which he was removed, I am very happy he's gone and I hope the state and the country can move on pretty quickly. There is too much to be done on both a state and national level for us to continue to be distracted by this.
So, another day and another piece of grim economic news. A report released today reveals that GDP contracted by 3.8% during the 4th quarter, the largest contraction since 1982. Curiously enough, I can't confirm in any of the news stories if this is real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) GDP or just nominal. I believe that it's nominal, because I don't think that we have the inflation numbers for 2008 yet. While this news is certainly not a shock (analysts had actually been forecasting a 5.1% drop) the seemingly endless roll of daily negative economic news continues and cannot be good for consumer confidence. And in this we have another example of Keynes' "paradox of thrift"; hard times make people spend less and save more at exactly the time when the economy needs them to do the exact opposite. Each piece of bad news just makes people clamp down tighter, which furthers the cycle onward. This is, of course, the flipside to both the dot-com and housing booms, when everyone knew it was a bubble and assets were overvalued but people kept buying and spending anyway.
You can't help but laugh at the irony that on the day we announce the biggest GDP drop in 27 years, Exxon announces that they have broken the US record for annual profit at $45.2 billion. While I am still most definitely a capitalist and defend a company's right to make as much money as they can for their shareholders, I think this is further evidence that oil companies are a lot quicker on the trigger in increasing gas prices when the price of oil per barrel goes up than they are when it goes down. I also think that this is further evidence (as if we needed more) of the need to branch out into alternative energy sources. It is just not good for the country to have such a high concentration of profits in any one industry. Through lobbying and campaign contributions, it simply buys you a far too disproportionate amount of influence in the legislature. And while I don't believe that all oil execs are greedy, soulless, cash whores I also don't believe that none of them are. But I don't think that the key to breaking the energy monopoly is through increased regulation or windfall taxes (though I'm not completely deadset against either). Rather, I think it can only be accomplished when the constituency sends the message that unless their local reps get serious about at least leveling the playing field for alternative energy, they will soon find themselves out of a job.
Finally, and on the lighter side, this story bothered me . As a result of fertility treatment, a woman gave birth to octuplets this week. OK, I'm fine with that. If you wanna get pregnant and can't do it naturally I think it's perfectly fine to utilize all the resources of the modern medical science industry. And sometimes, as a byproduct of that, the results can be too successful. So that's all well and good. Here's the part that bothers me. She already had 6 kids. While I don't think there should be a limit per se on when you are and are not allowed to seek fertility treatment, I think (as in most things) that a healthy dose of common sense is warranted. When you've already got 6 kids and you can't get pregnant again, that's your body's way of telling you to stop. The story also says that amongst her brood are 2-year-old twins. That means that she got pregnant this time when they were only 15-23 months old, so it's not like she tried for years naturally before going to fertility as a last resort.
On a more philosophical level, at what point does it cross into borderline child abuse? How can two people possibly give each child the individual attention that they deserve when there are 14 of them? And this is coming from someone who's dad was one of 10 kids. At least that was spread out over 19 years, so basically 1 every two years. You can definitely see how that can happen if you don't believe in birth control (which, as a good catholic family in the 40s and 50s, they didn't). But this little baby factory has now churned out 14 in 7 years. Talk about unnatural! My question is this: what happens when she goes in for more fertility treatments next year?
“I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps and I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and The Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the US should help the US or should help South Africa and should help The Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for our children.” – Lauren Upton (Miss Teen South Carolina) when asked why she thought one-fifth of Americans could not locate the United States on a world map.
Today's Fun Fact:
The animal with the fastest resting heartbeat is the hummingbird, at 1400 beats per minute. The slowest is the blue whale, at between 4 and 8. However, the heartbeats of some small animals (such as the hedgehog and ground squirrel) get down to around 5 beats per minute while they are hibernating.
First of all, I'd like to pat myself on the back a little bit for writing a new post every day this week. I have no doubt that Blue Cross is just as thrilled that they have paid me as I did it. Actually, it was a pretty eventful week, so it wasn't altogether that difficult.
So, we now officially have Gov. Quinn. I worked out right after work and then went straight to curling, so I missed both Blagojevich's speech to the legislature and the official announcement that he had been removed. While I still have some reservations over the exact manner in which he was removed, I am very happy he's gone and I hope the state and the country can move on pretty quickly. There is too much to be done on both a state and national level for us to continue to be distracted by this.
So, another day and another piece of grim economic news. A report released today reveals that GDP contracted by 3.8% during the 4th quarter, the largest contraction since 1982. Curiously enough, I can't confirm in any of the news stories if this is real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) GDP or just nominal. I believe that it's nominal, because I don't think that we have the inflation numbers for 2008 yet. While this news is certainly not a shock (analysts had actually been forecasting a 5.1% drop) the seemingly endless roll of daily negative economic news continues and cannot be good for consumer confidence. And in this we have another example of Keynes' "paradox of thrift"; hard times make people spend less and save more at exactly the time when the economy needs them to do the exact opposite. Each piece of bad news just makes people clamp down tighter, which furthers the cycle onward. This is, of course, the flipside to both the dot-com and housing booms, when everyone knew it was a bubble and assets were overvalued but people kept buying and spending anyway.
You can't help but laugh at the irony that on the day we announce the biggest GDP drop in 27 years, Exxon announces that they have broken the US record for annual profit at $45.2 billion. While I am still most definitely a capitalist and defend a company's right to make as much money as they can for their shareholders, I think this is further evidence that oil companies are a lot quicker on the trigger in increasing gas prices when the price of oil per barrel goes up than they are when it goes down. I also think that this is further evidence (as if we needed more) of the need to branch out into alternative energy sources. It is just not good for the country to have such a high concentration of profits in any one industry. Through lobbying and campaign contributions, it simply buys you a far too disproportionate amount of influence in the legislature. And while I don't believe that all oil execs are greedy, soulless, cash whores I also don't believe that none of them are. But I don't think that the key to breaking the energy monopoly is through increased regulation or windfall taxes (though I'm not completely deadset against either). Rather, I think it can only be accomplished when the constituency sends the message that unless their local reps get serious about at least leveling the playing field for alternative energy, they will soon find themselves out of a job.
Finally, and on the lighter side, this story bothered me . As a result of fertility treatment, a woman gave birth to octuplets this week. OK, I'm fine with that. If you wanna get pregnant and can't do it naturally I think it's perfectly fine to utilize all the resources of the modern medical science industry. And sometimes, as a byproduct of that, the results can be too successful. So that's all well and good. Here's the part that bothers me. She already had 6 kids. While I don't think there should be a limit per se on when you are and are not allowed to seek fertility treatment, I think (as in most things) that a healthy dose of common sense is warranted. When you've already got 6 kids and you can't get pregnant again, that's your body's way of telling you to stop. The story also says that amongst her brood are 2-year-old twins. That means that she got pregnant this time when they were only 15-23 months old, so it's not like she tried for years naturally before going to fertility as a last resort.
On a more philosophical level, at what point does it cross into borderline child abuse? How can two people possibly give each child the individual attention that they deserve when there are 14 of them? And this is coming from someone who's dad was one of 10 kids. At least that was spread out over 19 years, so basically 1 every two years. You can definitely see how that can happen if you don't believe in birth control (which, as a good catholic family in the 40s and 50s, they didn't). But this little baby factory has now churned out 14 in 7 years. Talk about unnatural! My question is this: what happens when she goes in for more fertility treatments next year?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Obama Impaled on Olive Branch
Quote of the Day:
“If a woman tells you she's twenty and looks sixteen, she's twelve. If she tells you she's twenty-six and looks twenty-six, she's damn near fourty.” – Chris Rock
Today's Fun Fact:
Despite the images we’ve all seen in our grade school science books, it isn’t possible to draw a map of our solar system to scale. On a sheet of paper, with Earth reduced to about the diameter of a pea, Jupiter would be over a thousand feet away and Pluto would be a mile and a half away (and about the size of a bacterium, so you wouldn’t be able to see it anyway).
So the $819 billion stimulus bill passed the House late yesterday. It passed despite (at last count) exactly 0 Republicans voting for it. While it's not altogether unusual for a vote to line up almost exclusively along party lines, this one was notable for the fact that Obama at least made an effort to achieve bipartisanship on it. How much of an effort you think he made probably depends on your overall opinion of him. In an attempt to garner Republican support, he removed funding for planned parenthood groups and funding to renovate the national Mall (both criticized as wasteful spending by the Republicans) while adding some of the additional tax cuts the Republicans are asking for.
The question now being asked is should Obama have even bothered with his overtures? It seems that Republicans think he is somewhat cornered by his promises of bipartisanship. If he fails to make any compromises they can argue that he is shutting them out of the process and reneging on his promise to work with them, and if he fails to go far enough to meet them they can still vote it down (even though they know it will pass) so that they can criticize it when parts of it inevitably don't work. Basically, they want to morph the Obama "I never voted for this war" platform to "I never voted for this stimulus" in the 2010 elections. In essence, they are gambling that the stimulus will either not work, not work quick enough, or just be unpopular. They would say they are not "gambling", since they seem pretty sure it's not going to work.
Personally, I think the Republicans are playing a dangerous game. According to Gallup, Obama currently has an overall 64% approval rating, and 45% amongst Republicans. That's bound to decrease as the recession deepens (as almost all experts think it will). Still, if the public perceives that the Republicans are more interested in blocking the Obama agenda than they are in stimulating the economy it may end up pleasing the 16% that currently disapprove of Obama at the expense of pissing off everyone else.
So should Obama even bother trying to court Republican support if they seem so intent to rebuff it? The only real point of compromise is to give and get concessions from both sides. Why water down the bill you want in the name of appeasing a group that's still going to criticize the legislation anyway? With future legislation (starting with this stimulus bill in the Senate) I think Obama should take the tactic of sitting down with Republican leadership and saying that while he likes the bill the way it is, he is willing to make certain compromises in order to gain bipartisan support. However, if after making those compromises Republicans indicate that they still will not support it he should tell them he is getting rid of all the revisions and going with the bill as originally written. If the legislation is going to be criticized anyway, let it truly be your legislation that you take the heat for. It's true that Republicans can still fillibuster in the Senate, but that would really be a game of political chicken in this climate. Opposing a bill is one thing, but outright blocking a vote is not likely to win them any new supporters.
“If a woman tells you she's twenty and looks sixteen, she's twelve. If she tells you she's twenty-six and looks twenty-six, she's damn near fourty.” – Chris Rock
Today's Fun Fact:
Despite the images we’ve all seen in our grade school science books, it isn’t possible to draw a map of our solar system to scale. On a sheet of paper, with Earth reduced to about the diameter of a pea, Jupiter would be over a thousand feet away and Pluto would be a mile and a half away (and about the size of a bacterium, so you wouldn’t be able to see it anyway).
So the $819 billion stimulus bill passed the House late yesterday. It passed despite (at last count) exactly 0 Republicans voting for it. While it's not altogether unusual for a vote to line up almost exclusively along party lines, this one was notable for the fact that Obama at least made an effort to achieve bipartisanship on it. How much of an effort you think he made probably depends on your overall opinion of him. In an attempt to garner Republican support, he removed funding for planned parenthood groups and funding to renovate the national Mall (both criticized as wasteful spending by the Republicans) while adding some of the additional tax cuts the Republicans are asking for.
The question now being asked is should Obama have even bothered with his overtures? It seems that Republicans think he is somewhat cornered by his promises of bipartisanship. If he fails to make any compromises they can argue that he is shutting them out of the process and reneging on his promise to work with them, and if he fails to go far enough to meet them they can still vote it down (even though they know it will pass) so that they can criticize it when parts of it inevitably don't work. Basically, they want to morph the Obama "I never voted for this war" platform to "I never voted for this stimulus" in the 2010 elections. In essence, they are gambling that the stimulus will either not work, not work quick enough, or just be unpopular. They would say they are not "gambling", since they seem pretty sure it's not going to work.
Personally, I think the Republicans are playing a dangerous game. According to Gallup, Obama currently has an overall 64% approval rating, and 45% amongst Republicans. That's bound to decrease as the recession deepens (as almost all experts think it will). Still, if the public perceives that the Republicans are more interested in blocking the Obama agenda than they are in stimulating the economy it may end up pleasing the 16% that currently disapprove of Obama at the expense of pissing off everyone else.
So should Obama even bother trying to court Republican support if they seem so intent to rebuff it? The only real point of compromise is to give and get concessions from both sides. Why water down the bill you want in the name of appeasing a group that's still going to criticize the legislation anyway? With future legislation (starting with this stimulus bill in the Senate) I think Obama should take the tactic of sitting down with Republican leadership and saying that while he likes the bill the way it is, he is willing to make certain compromises in order to gain bipartisan support. However, if after making those compromises Republicans indicate that they still will not support it he should tell them he is getting rid of all the revisions and going with the bill as originally written. If the legislation is going to be criticized anyway, let it truly be your legislation that you take the heat for. It's true that Republicans can still fillibuster in the Senate, but that would really be a game of political chicken in this climate. Opposing a bill is one thing, but outright blocking a vote is not likely to win them any new supporters.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
A Couple New Things I'm Trying
Quote of the day:
“Now that's using the powers of the executive branch to help people who need help, not unlike what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was president, and he helped Great Britain because Congress was not willing to allow the United States to shore up Britain in its fight against the Nazis” – Gov. Blagojevich
Today's Fun Fact:
The modern military salute has its origins in Medieval Times. When a knight rode up to a castle to announce himself to the lord and lady, he would take his right hand and raise his visor to show that it was really him and not an impostor and then drop his arm to let the visor fall down again.
So I decided that I'm going to try to start my blogs off with a quote and a bit of useless trivia. Why? Why not.
Yesterday as I was going through my mail I came upon some literature for an Evanston mayoral candidate. When I read that his name was Barnaby Dinges I swear that the glass of water I was drinking nearly shot out my nose. Though his website specifies that his name is pronounced DIN-jiss (and not ding-gus) it still strikes me as a rather unfortunate name to have in seeking public office.
Lastly, I need a little bit of help. Every year I come up with a goal (or series of goals) for myself. I don't really refer to them as resolutions, but I guess that's what they are. Two years ago it was to get my MBA and run the marathon, and last year it was to get my CPA. This year I'm having difficulty coming up with some. So far the biggest one I have is in some ways very trivial and in some ways one of the most challenging. In an effort to avoid hangovers, I have made it my goal to never drink more than 6 beers in any 24-hour period. I have, however, granted myself two exemptions to this (Super Bowl Sunday and March Madness weekend). Other than that though, I have accomplished a couple rather pedestrian achievements (modding my PSP and beating the original Legend of Zelda in under an hour) and I only have one more (learn to juggle). I have been "working" on a novel for a few years now (i.e. I wrote 10 pages 2 years ago and haven't touched it since) so I was thinking of making it a goal to finish my first draft of it. Anyone else have any ideas on what aspirations I should set for myself?
“Now that's using the powers of the executive branch to help people who need help, not unlike what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was president, and he helped Great Britain because Congress was not willing to allow the United States to shore up Britain in its fight against the Nazis” – Gov. Blagojevich
Today's Fun Fact:
The modern military salute has its origins in Medieval Times. When a knight rode up to a castle to announce himself to the lord and lady, he would take his right hand and raise his visor to show that it was really him and not an impostor and then drop his arm to let the visor fall down again.
So I decided that I'm going to try to start my blogs off with a quote and a bit of useless trivia. Why? Why not.
Yesterday as I was going through my mail I came upon some literature for an Evanston mayoral candidate. When I read that his name was Barnaby Dinges I swear that the glass of water I was drinking nearly shot out my nose. Though his website specifies that his name is pronounced DIN-jiss (and not ding-gus) it still strikes me as a rather unfortunate name to have in seeking public office.
Lastly, I need a little bit of help. Every year I come up with a goal (or series of goals) for myself. I don't really refer to them as resolutions, but I guess that's what they are. Two years ago it was to get my MBA and run the marathon, and last year it was to get my CPA. This year I'm having difficulty coming up with some. So far the biggest one I have is in some ways very trivial and in some ways one of the most challenging. In an effort to avoid hangovers, I have made it my goal to never drink more than 6 beers in any 24-hour period. I have, however, granted myself two exemptions to this (Super Bowl Sunday and March Madness weekend). Other than that though, I have accomplished a couple rather pedestrian achievements (modding my PSP and beating the original Legend of Zelda in under an hour) and I only have one more (learn to juggle). I have been "working" on a novel for a few years now (i.e. I wrote 10 pages 2 years ago and haven't touched it since) so I was thinking of making it a goal to finish my first draft of it. Anyone else have any ideas on what aspirations I should set for myself?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Geithner In; Blago (soon to be) Out
So, Geithner was confirmed yesterday and is now officially the Treasury Secretary. Obviously as my post yesterday would indicate I am pleased by this, but I'm ready to move on.
Our embattled governor's impeachment trial got underway yesterday while good old Roddy (or, as the Daily Show dubbed him, "Scumdog Million-hairs") decided to forego the proceedings in favor of a whirlwind media tour. This whole situation has brought up something of a moral dilemma for me. On one hand, I absolutely want him out of office. Despite his claims, I do not believe that it is possible for a number of the phrases he was caught on tape using to be within the bounds of the law in any context. It is abundantly clear to me (as well as to most of the general populace) that he is guilty of trying to personally profit from the US Senate appointment. At the same time though, I do kind of agree with him that the impeachment trial is something of a farce. Basically, the legislature has decided to throw in lots of other politically-motivated charges that would never warrant an impeachment by themselves. And Blagojevich will not be given the full opportunity to defend himself due to limitations imposed because of how they might interfere with the criminal case. I said the other day that "a correct decision obtained through incorrect means is still a correct decision" and on those grounds I guess I have to still be in favor of his removal since overall I do think it's the right decision. But it has made me reconsider my position on recall elections. Previously I have been against them because I think the last thing we need is even more perpetual campaigning and a politician that governs by the poll numbers. However, this is exactly the type of situation where a recall election makes sense. I just can't figure out how you can install a recall provision for cases like this without opening the door to mass political manipulation.
And I don't know whether to laugh or cry at all the ridiculous statements being made by Blago over the last week. At last count he had compared his "courage" in making decisions to FDR, his arrest to Pearl Harbor, and likened his "persecution" now to Gandhi and MLK. Mr. Blagojevich, though I don't agree with any of those, you do remind me of this one guy that went around professing his innocence when the whole world knew he was guilty: OJ. Guess you can hope that your criminal trial goes as well as his did (well, as well as his FIRST one at any rate).
Our embattled governor's impeachment trial got underway yesterday while good old Roddy (or, as the Daily Show dubbed him, "Scumdog Million-hairs") decided to forego the proceedings in favor of a whirlwind media tour. This whole situation has brought up something of a moral dilemma for me. On one hand, I absolutely want him out of office. Despite his claims, I do not believe that it is possible for a number of the phrases he was caught on tape using to be within the bounds of the law in any context. It is abundantly clear to me (as well as to most of the general populace) that he is guilty of trying to personally profit from the US Senate appointment. At the same time though, I do kind of agree with him that the impeachment trial is something of a farce. Basically, the legislature has decided to throw in lots of other politically-motivated charges that would never warrant an impeachment by themselves. And Blagojevich will not be given the full opportunity to defend himself due to limitations imposed because of how they might interfere with the criminal case. I said the other day that "a correct decision obtained through incorrect means is still a correct decision" and on those grounds I guess I have to still be in favor of his removal since overall I do think it's the right decision. But it has made me reconsider my position on recall elections. Previously I have been against them because I think the last thing we need is even more perpetual campaigning and a politician that governs by the poll numbers. However, this is exactly the type of situation where a recall election makes sense. I just can't figure out how you can install a recall provision for cases like this without opening the door to mass political manipulation.
And I don't know whether to laugh or cry at all the ridiculous statements being made by Blago over the last week. At last count he had compared his "courage" in making decisions to FDR, his arrest to Pearl Harbor, and likened his "persecution" now to Gandhi and MLK. Mr. Blagojevich, though I don't agree with any of those, you do remind me of this one guy that went around professing his innocence when the whole world knew he was guilty: OJ. Guess you can hope that your criminal trial goes as well as his did (well, as well as his FIRST one at any rate).
Monday, January 26, 2009
Why I Don't Care About Tim Geithner's Tax Problems
Some of you may have noticed me lighting the fuse on the Tim Geithner discussion and then falling silent once we had a few comments. I was all set to respond but then realized that I had quite a bit to say and decided to make it a separate blog post instead.
For the uninitiated, I will attempt to summarize the Geithner situation using just the known facts. Geithner is Obama's nominee for Treasury Secretary. Normally, this post gets minimal coverage but with the financial crisis front and center and the fact that his predecessor (Hank Paulson) became something of an overnight celebrity there is a great deal more scrutiny than there has been in the past. In any case, it has recently come to light that when Mr. Geithner was head of the IMF he failed to pay necessary self-employment taxes to the IRS from 2001-2004. In 2006, he was audited for his 2003 and 2004 returns and ended up paying ~$15,000 in back taxes. It's reasonable to assume that he knew at that time that he had made the same error on his 2001 and 2002 returns as well, but he failed to file an amended return. It was only during the current vetting process that he paid the back taxes on those returns.
This is another of those "scandals" where I just don't see where the issue is. He owed back taxes and he is now current. To me, that's the end of the story. I suspect that it's seen as a bigger deal because as Treasury Secretary he will be the head of the IRS and it's something of an embarassment to still be owing money to the organization he will be overseeing. Fair enough but it still doesn't, and shouldn't, preclude him from the nomination.
There's also been a lot of remarks about him using TurboTax to file his returns, like that's somehow a negative. I'm a CPA and I have used and will continue to use a TurboTax-type program (TaxAct) for my returns as well. Why? Because it's easier, and there's less chance for error. I will also continue to use calculators and spreadsheets even though I am capable of arithmetic and I will continue to use Word and this blog even though I am fully capable of writing things out by hand.
By the way, pay particular attention to the fact that I said "less chance" and not "no chance" for error. Using TaxAct did not stop me from making an error on our 2006 return.
So on the specifics of this case, I don't think there's anything here that warrants a withdrawal or even a holdup of his confirmation. But in a larger sense, this represents something I am growing increasingly tired of in politics, and that's the over-scrutiny and demands for perfection in the private lives of our public officials. Pardon me, but from a privacy standpoint how is someone's minor tax issues anyone else's business? And it's not me calling these issues minor, it's the IRS. They never even so much as assessed Geithner a penalty for any of his errors (and even we got penalized when I messed up our returns). Before anyone jumps on me for partisanship, you may recall that it was on this blog just a few short months ago that I said that all the talk on Palin's family (whether or not the baby was hers, how long she waited to go to the hospital during labor, etc) should have been out of bounds. And in that case we were talking about an elected official. Here we are merely talking about an employee (albeit a very powerful employee). The debate should have nothing to do with whether or not you personally want Geithner in the position, it should have everything to do with whether or not there are grounds to bar him from it. In my opinion, it's not even close. I believe that the proper analogy is saying that someone can't be made Chief of police because you find out that they have a couple unpaid parking tickets.
For the uninitiated, I will attempt to summarize the Geithner situation using just the known facts. Geithner is Obama's nominee for Treasury Secretary. Normally, this post gets minimal coverage but with the financial crisis front and center and the fact that his predecessor (Hank Paulson) became something of an overnight celebrity there is a great deal more scrutiny than there has been in the past. In any case, it has recently come to light that when Mr. Geithner was head of the IMF he failed to pay necessary self-employment taxes to the IRS from 2001-2004. In 2006, he was audited for his 2003 and 2004 returns and ended up paying ~$15,000 in back taxes. It's reasonable to assume that he knew at that time that he had made the same error on his 2001 and 2002 returns as well, but he failed to file an amended return. It was only during the current vetting process that he paid the back taxes on those returns.
This is another of those "scandals" where I just don't see where the issue is. He owed back taxes and he is now current. To me, that's the end of the story. I suspect that it's seen as a bigger deal because as Treasury Secretary he will be the head of the IRS and it's something of an embarassment to still be owing money to the organization he will be overseeing. Fair enough but it still doesn't, and shouldn't, preclude him from the nomination.
There's also been a lot of remarks about him using TurboTax to file his returns, like that's somehow a negative. I'm a CPA and I have used and will continue to use a TurboTax-type program (TaxAct) for my returns as well. Why? Because it's easier, and there's less chance for error. I will also continue to use calculators and spreadsheets even though I am capable of arithmetic and I will continue to use Word and this blog even though I am fully capable of writing things out by hand.
By the way, pay particular attention to the fact that I said "less chance" and not "no chance" for error. Using TaxAct did not stop me from making an error on our 2006 return.
So on the specifics of this case, I don't think there's anything here that warrants a withdrawal or even a holdup of his confirmation. But in a larger sense, this represents something I am growing increasingly tired of in politics, and that's the over-scrutiny and demands for perfection in the private lives of our public officials. Pardon me, but from a privacy standpoint how is someone's minor tax issues anyone else's business? And it's not me calling these issues minor, it's the IRS. They never even so much as assessed Geithner a penalty for any of his errors (and even we got penalized when I messed up our returns). Before anyone jumps on me for partisanship, you may recall that it was on this blog just a few short months ago that I said that all the talk on Palin's family (whether or not the baby was hers, how long she waited to go to the hospital during labor, etc) should have been out of bounds. And in that case we were talking about an elected official. Here we are merely talking about an employee (albeit a very powerful employee). The debate should have nothing to do with whether or not you personally want Geithner in the position, it should have everything to do with whether or not there are grounds to bar him from it. In my opinion, it's not even close. I believe that the proper analogy is saying that someone can't be made Chief of police because you find out that they have a couple unpaid parking tickets.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Happy Inauguration Day!
Have meetings most of the day, so just have a couple real quick comments.
In the bipartisan spirit, I'm going to say something nice about our soon to be former President Bush. In case you are ever hard pressed to name one good thing that the man ever did, I think this qualifies. By executive order, he is designating nearly 200,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean as conservation areas. This will make him the person that has protected more of the oceans than anyone else in the world. Now, overall I think that policies of sustainability are preferable to pure conservation (in much the way that I believe that drinking responsibly is preferable to prohibition), but given all the challenges and (often) years of time it takes to get such policies in place (especially since so much of it involves international waters) I think that this was a good idea.
As for our incoming President, I was reading the latest Economist this morning on the way in, and I think that this summed things up pretty well:
"The next four, or eight, years may be a disappointment, a triumphant renewal, or something in between. Mr Obama is inexperienced, and right now the world looks especially forbidding. But he is a respectful and thoughtful man, and that is a good start.
In the bipartisan spirit, I'm going to say something nice about our soon to be former President Bush. In case you are ever hard pressed to name one good thing that the man ever did, I think this qualifies. By executive order, he is designating nearly 200,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean as conservation areas. This will make him the person that has protected more of the oceans than anyone else in the world. Now, overall I think that policies of sustainability are preferable to pure conservation (in much the way that I believe that drinking responsibly is preferable to prohibition), but given all the challenges and (often) years of time it takes to get such policies in place (especially since so much of it involves international waters) I think that this was a good idea.
As for our incoming President, I was reading the latest Economist this morning on the way in, and I think that this summed things up pretty well:
"The next four, or eight, years may be a disappointment, a triumphant renewal, or something in between. Mr Obama is inexperienced, and right now the world looks especially forbidding. But he is a respectful and thoughtful man, and that is a good start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
