| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Whether it is Sanford, Ensign, Spitzer, McGreevey or Clinton, why can't these a******s keep their d***s to themselves? Guys, it ain't that hard, repeat after me: if you're married, you don't cheat. period. end of sentence.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Perhaps if Washington Metro management had been less concerned with spending billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of man hours to expand their (not-so-little) empire, they would not have ignored warnings to replace aging subway trains which may (emphasis on 'may') have prevented yesterday's fatal crash.
But as has happened elsewhere, taking care of the existing system takes a back seat to expansion. Taking care of existing bridges isn't as important as building new bridges. Maintaining existing roads and sewers and so on just isn't as sexy as building new roads and so on. Taking care of the existing military arsenal is secondary to building lots of shiny new jets and tanks. Existing school infrastructure crumbles while new schools are built. Building new stuff gives local politicians nice ribbon cutting ceremonies to attend... but it also, as may be the case here, leaves them needing to face the cameras to express their sorrow and condolences to the families of the victims.... just don't make the mistake of expecting them to apologize for the ramifications of their screwed up priorities.
I've made the point that while the recession is hurting segments of the economy, there are segments that should be suffering no ill effects. People with steady, safe jobs who didn't overpay for their house or take out an exotic mortgage may have suffered some deterioration in their retirement plans but ought to otherwise be doing okay.
Still, I wonder just how 7% of respondents rate the economy as good or excellent. Are they ignorant of what is going on? Are their expectations so low that this counts as good? Or are they incapable of looking outside their own situation?
Some of the suggestions for making NASCAR races more exciting involve putting a higher value on winning races (for example, limiting the Chase to drivers who have won a race).
These suggestions don't go far enough. Yes, there have been instances when a driver 'settles' for second place rather than push for a possible win risking a crash that could cost him points... and awarding more points to the race winner might be the incentive drivers close to the lead need to go for the win. But while this proposal might increase the intensity of those running at or near the front, it does nothing to change the dynamic for the other 38 or so drivers in the race. A driver running in 12th - 15th - 20h - 25th place usually has no chance for the win and thus has no incentive to do anything buy maintain his track position. And this proposal also does nothing to increase the intensity of racing during the early and middle segments of the race. At a lot of tracks, there is very little hard racing during the first 400 or so miles (of a 500 mile race); most drivers seem content with figuring out their car and staying out of trouble to give them a shot at a decent finishing position. Other than getting a measly 5 bonus points for leading a race (and the possibility of another 5 points for leading the most laps), there isn't anything that rewards a driver running in 28th place from making a push to pass the driver in 27th place, nor is there a real downside for a driver letting another driver pass him. Thus, the change that I would propose making would be to award points not just on a driver's finishing position but also on the driver's average position throughout the race as well. Drivers would be rewarded for passing as many drivers as they could and they'd be rewarded for keeping as many cars behind them as possible. A driver who finishes 8th after running in the top ten during most of the race would receive significantly more points than is now the case than the driver who finished 9th after running in the back of the pack for most of the day. With my proposal, a driver gets more points for passing other drivers and loses points for being passed. It gives drivers a incentive to pass the driver in front of them and to stay in front of the drivers behind him (it would also penalize those who hang out at the back at Talledega until the end). With this change, fans would see hard racing from the drop of the green flag through the end of the race... and not just at the front, but throughout the field. What more can a race fan ask for? Monday, June 22, 2009
A tale of two leaders...
Obama doesn't speak out in support of the protesters in Iran because he doesn't want the Mad Mullahs to get mad at him for this alleged 'meddling' in Iranian affairs. Ahmadinejad actually meddles in American affairs, by supporting and funding terrorists who attack and kill American soldiers and civilians, with no fear that he will suffer any consequences for doing so. Saturday, June 20, 2009
It's been said that Americans end up with the government they deserve... and based on the terrific logic employed by this Northern Virginia voter during the recent race for the Democratic Party nomination for Governor, we don't deserve a lot.
Granted, I didn't vote for Terry McAuliffe either (because, being a Republican, I didn't think it right to meddle in the Democratic primary), but this lady's logic for not voting for McAuliffe is just, how do I put it, ridiculous. She says she didn't vote for McAuliffe because, one, his campaign called her home too many times... and because she doesn't like Virginia's one-term limit for Governor which, supposedly would allow a carpetbagger (I guess she is referring to McAuliffe in this way) to use the position as a stepping-stone to a national career. Notice she didn't say she didn't vote for McAuliffe because of his positions on the issues... and as such, there are two scenarios: (1) she doesn't care about the issues at all, and thus decides to vote on something as trivial as the number of phone calls a campaign makes, or (2) she does care about the issues, and likes McAuliffe's positions better than that of his two opponents (if she didn't, she would have said she voted against McAuliffe on that basis) but was so put out by the something else that she decided to vote against the guy whose positions she liked best. If the former, what a dunce, deciding to vote on the basis of something as silly as the number of phone calls a candidate's campaign makes is pretty dumb. It's not as if McAuliffe himself made the phone calls, the calls were probably made pursuant to a campaign strategy designed and executed by McAullife's campaign staff. And if the latter, what a dunce, it is pretty stupid to not vote for the guy who you agree with on the issues because of something as silly as the number of phone calls the candidate's campaign made. Did it not occur to this voter that the calls would stop once the campaign was over? And if she did agree with McAuliffe on the issues, wouldn't having the phone ring be a small price to pay for seeing her candidate win? And the same holds true if she voted against McAuliffe - who she presumably agreed with on the issues - because of a belief that McAuliffe was going, like current Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, to check out early. First of all, Kaine ain't a carpetbagger and he has turned his attention elsewhere, so why not assue that McAuliffe's primary opponents would be just as likely to check out early? And, again presuming she liked McAuliffe's positions on the issues more than she like the other guys, wouldn't it be better to have the guy you like in office, even if he wasn't going to stick around for the full four years, than to have a guy who you don't like serving as Governor for four years? Yeah, yeah, she got on her soapbox, she doesn't like automated phone calls and she ain't happy with Virginia limiting its Governors to one term... but there are better ways of expressing one's dissatisfaction with that than voting against the guy who shares her positions on the issues. As I said, we get the representation we deserve. America didn't bother to check out Obama past the teleprompter speeches.. and we ended up with a President who doesn't really have too much going on in his head. Friday, June 19, 2009
I'm not a big fan - okay, I actually dislike - Congress going off and meddling in foreign affairs, whether it be Pelosi traipsing around the Middle East... or the House voting to condemn the Iranian regime's crackdown on the protests.
The President is charged with conducting foreign policy... and even when the President is on the wrong side of an issue, as Obama is now, it doesn't help when 535 Congressmen and Senators start acting like they're in charge. The last thing we should want our foreign enemies to see is any sign of disarray on our part. Having said that, it is nice to see liberal Democrats joining together with conservative Republicans to criticize the Mad Mullahs... and a nice way for Obama to see that he is very much isolated on this issue. Thursday, June 18, 2009
It's a ridiculous policy that predates the Obama Administration that keeps the United States from stopping and boarding ships that we believe pose a threat to our national security.
If there is a good belief that a North Korean ship is carrying nuclear material, then I don't want a President who thinks we need to ask the United Nations for permission to intercept this ship, I want a President who orders our military to stop the ship and take the appropriate action... in other words, I want a President who puts our security ahead of a desire to play nice with the idiots and enemies at the United Nations
There's a fair amount of criticism from the right aimed at ABC for their airing what amounts to an infomercial for Obamacare.
Yes, ABC is in the tank for Obama.. and yes, ABC is not going to put on the air anything that even comes close to criticism of Obama or his proposals. But does it matter? ABC's viewership is dropping... each year, they have fewer viewers. And the viewers they have are just as in the tank for Obama as ABC... so this infomercial will amount to little more than preaching to the choir. And if ABC draws viewers from CBS, NBC, MSNBC or CNN? The same holds true, as those networks have joined ABC in abandoning impartial and unbiased news coverage in favor of cheerleading liberal causes, these networks are left with a viewership that is pretty liberal and pretty much in favor of whatever Obama proposes to do... in other words, they're not the kind of people who are apt to complain about one-sided coverage of an issue... nor the kind of people who are apt to change their minds... there ain't no atheists watching network news. When you boil it down, this ABC infomercial will have as much impact on the debate as if the entire broadcast was viewed by large donors to the Democratic campaign committee.... which, come to think of it, is pretty much what is going to happen. And... somewhat tongue in cheek, I think we ought to compliment ABC. Having lost conservative and moderate viewers, they're reduced to battling NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN for the liberal viewer, and this is quite the coup. What's the point in offering conservative viewpoints if doing so will only drive liberal viewers to one's competitors? And it's not as if ABC offering up some conservative viewpoints is going to bring conservatives back to ABC so ABC has nothing to gain and everything to lose by NOT presenting a 100% slanted program. Good for them. Yes, it would be nice if they abandoned the pretense that they provide neutral coverage of the issues (just as Newsweek finally had the guts to admit), but who's been buying that line lately anyway? Wednesday, June 17, 2009
One defense of Obama's silence on what is going on in Iran is the claim that Obama doesn't want to antagonize the current regime, figuring that they aren't going to lose power, and hopes that this will help Obama in his (alleged) quest to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
The problem with this approach is that it presumes the Iranian regime is going to change its behavior based on how Obama responds to the disputed election results. n reality, the regime is going to do what it wants to do and how nice Obama is or isn't has no bearing on that calculus. If the Iranians want nuclear weapons, they are going to continue to pursue that dream, they're not going to quit because Obama doesn't criticize their rigging the election results or their shooting and beating protesters. If this is what he is doing, Obama's approach is another example of what I refer to as 'It's all about me', in which other countries act based on what Obama says and does and not on the basis of their own determination of what is - and isn't - in their interests. It's a dangerous mindset, one that keeps Obama from dealing with the world as it is and not as he wishes it were. Tuesday, June 16, 2009
According to David Ignatius, "The stormy Iranian elections are one more sign of how the world has been shaken up in the age of Barack Obama"
Excuse me? What exactly does Obama have to do with any of what is going on in Iran? Or, put another way, in what way are the events in Iran a reaction to Obama? Is Obama responsible for the level (however widespread it might be) of Iranian public dissatisfaction with Ahmadinejad (and the Mad Mullahs)? Put another way, if Obama wasn't around, would the Iranians be happy with the way things are going? I doubt it. It wasn't as if they were happy until Obama came around and only then figured out they didn't like the way things were going, dissatisfaction has been growing for years. Is Obama responsible for their voting for the challenger? Put another way, if Obama wasn't in office, would they have fallen into line and voted for Ahmadinejad? Again, I doubt it. Whether they thought Ahmadinejad would ever step aside, they did view these elections as their opportunity to express their dissatisfaction. Is Obama responsible for those who voted against Ahmadinejad pouring into the street protesting what they see as a stolen election? Put another way, if Obama wasn't the President, would they have meekly accepted the (rigged) outcome? Ignatius believes so, saying "Obama's opening to Iran seems to have encouraged the supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the former prime minister who finished second in the official results"... but, again, I doubt it. They may have been encouraged by what they perceive as Obama's outreach, but they most certainly are not naive enough to think that Obama is going to do anything to help them overturn the election results - or that the Mad Mullahs are in either fear or thrall of Obama and will thus accede to popular will. They're protesting because they're not happy with the way things are going... and they would have done so no matter who was sitting in the White House. Is Obama responsible for Ahmadinejad rigging the election results? Put another way, if Obama wasn't President, would Ahmadinejad have just let things play out and graciously left office? I doubt it, thugs don't give up power without a fight. There is no doubt that Ahmadinejad wasn't going to abide by election results that showed him losing... and rather than admit he lost and nullify or ignore the results, he simply fudged things to show that he won. And is Obama responsible for Ahmadinejad's crackdown on the protesters? Put another way, if Obama wasn't President, would Ahmadinejad have let the protests go on? I doubt it, the first thing dictators do is make sure protests aren't allowed to spiral out of control. Whether in Egypt or Russia, people know protesting against dictatorships puts them at risk of attack by the ruling regime. So just how has Obama affected the events in Iran? The answer: he hasn't, everything that is going on would have taken place regardless of who was occupying the White House. It's just silly for Ignatius to suggest otherwise. Monday, June 15, 2009
The conservative's guide to defeating Obamacare...
First, let's lay out the playing field. Most people have health insurance and while they're not completely happy, what they want more than anything else is to keep from losing their coverage, or having their benefits slashed or having to pay more for their coverage (whether through higher premiums or co-pays). To the extent that those with health insurance are dissatisfied with their current coverage, their big concerns are, in order: their out of pocket costs (premiums, co-pays and expenses for whatever isn't covered by insurance), the administrative hassle of dealing with insurance companies (referrals, getting the insurance company to cover a particular treatment, etc.), and the fear that they could lose their insurance (through job loss or employers ceasing to provide coverage) and, with it, their health care. As for the so-called 'uninsured', while some of them would certainly like coverage, some do not (unless it's free, as they're making the choice to go without coverage n favor of a pay-as-they-go plan)... but in any event, the number of these people pale in comparison to the people with coverage who care about the uninsured only to the extent that their own coverage and health care won't be negatively impacted. Thus, the key to defeating Obamacare is convincing the people with health insurance that Obama's proposals will NOT help them but will instead cost them more and will result in lesser coverage. Make these people scared enough and they'll flood Capitol Hill with protests so strong that anybody to the right of Nancy Pelosi will dread the consequences of backing Obama. And how to do this? Remind the public that government can't do anything cheaper than the private sector, hat as expensive as coverage is now and as much of a hassle it is now to deal with an insurance company, it will be 10 times worse if the government gets more involved. Scare the public by claiming that providing coverage to the uninsured will make their own coverage more expensive. Scare them by telling them that, contrary to Obama's claims, their taxes will go up as Obama searches for revenue to pay for coverage for the uninsured (and back that up with examples of the times Obama has backed away from earlier pledges). And they really scare the public by arguing that Obamacare will result in their employers dropping coverage and dumping the responsibility onto the government provided plan... with them getting screwed in the process. It will also help if the GOP has some proposals of their own (if for no other reason, than to answer Obama complaints that the GOP is just saying NO). Passing legislation that allows for more competition (by eliminating state restrictions and mandates) among insurance providers will lower prices for those with coverage. Allow small companies and individuals the ability to more easily band together to get group rates. Taking on plaintiff attorneys (by cutting their cut of the proceeds of any award, increasing the standard of proof) will reduce the administrative costs and malpractice insurance expense borne by doctors and, with it, keep medical costs from rising as fast as they have. Speeding up drug approval at the FDA will help get people better and at a lower cost than with existing treatments. This issue has the potential to breathe new life into the GOP... provided the GOP picks up the ball and does just a marginally competent job of running with it. Thursday, June 11, 2009
A central component of liberal 'nanny state' philosophy is the belief that Americans are generally too dumb and selfish to be allowed to make their own decisions... and that liberals, being smarter and more motivated to 'do good' than the rest of us, need to restrict the public's ability to manage and live their own lives... all, of course, in the pursuit of making things 'better' for us individually and for society as a whole. In other words, each restriction imposed on society by liberals is really being done 'for our own good'... even if we're not smart enough to realize it or grateful enough to thank them for their efforts.
An example of this is the Obama Administration's effort to restrict executive pay at financial firms (i.e., Wall Street). The Obama Administration has declared that 'excessive pay' is detrimental to a healthy society/economy and, as such, they are going to step in and restrict compensation to levels they deem appropriate. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no standard for defining 'excessive pay' and there is no evidence that 'excessive pay' is a net negative for society and the economy, even if there were such standards, in taking this action the Obama Administration is stripping the owners of these firms (the shareholders) of the right to determine the compensation packages for the employees who work for them. Contrary to the belief of those easily swayed by the rhetoric aimed at Wall Street, executives do not set their own compensation; as with every employee at every firm in America, they only get as much money as the owners of the firm (acting through the Board of Directors and management) think appropriate for the services being provided. If someone on Wall Street is getting $20 million a year in compensation, it is only because the people who sign their checks agreed to do so. It is the same dynamic that applies in professional sports, where, contrary to public perception, LeBron James doesn't get to set his pay, he only gets as much money as his employer (team owner) is willing to pay him. And it is no different as the situation you are in at work, where your pay is determined by your boss (acting on behalf of upper management who in turn are acting on behalf of the Board of Directors who are in turn acting on behalf of the shareholders) and where you determine the appropriate level of compensation for those who work for you. In instituting pay controls, whether just for Wall Street, or as this story suggests for American businesses across the board, the Obama Administration is telling the people who own and manage these companies that we are too stupid to be allowed to continue setting the compensation for the people who work for us... and that the Obama Administration, being smarter than the rest of us, will set compensation levels... all, of course, for our own good. Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Given that the Boston Globe is losing lots of money, revenues and circulation continue to drop and their unions refused to accept concessions (that probably were only going to cut the losses, not eliminate them altogether), the NYT shouldn't expect bids with a lot of zeroes. In fact, I can imagine the wags who would argue that the NYT ought to pay someone to take the Globe off their hands.
Having said that, and having lots of confidence in my ability to turn around flailing and failing operations, I hereby announce my willingness to pay the sum of $10,000 - in cash - for the Globe. Goldman Sachs, you know how to get in touch with me. I await your response. Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Let's delve into the Newspaper Guild's rejection of the Boston Globe contract offer...
By refusing to accept the pay and benefit cuts, the union is effectively saying one of two things: (1) they don't believe Globe management will actually follow through with its threats to impose harsher cuts, or (2) they don't care if Globe management does follow through and cut positions and salary, the employees are making a principled stand of some kind and are willing to lose their jobs and/or a good portion of their pay. Looking first at the second, it is hard to understand such a choice. Standing up for principle is a lot easier when the costs of doing so aren't as high as they are now. It's not as if newspaper jobs are going begging right now, it isn't as if the employees have a lot of employment choices. I doubt many of them have independent sources of money or spouses who make enough money to support the family. As for the second scenario, that the employees believe the Globe is bluffing, if they're right, then the employees would have been stupid to accept the contract - why volunteer to take less money than the boss is willing to pay? But, if it isn't the case, and Globe management will follow through on their threats, then the employees have ensured that there will be fewer of them and those who remain will earn less than would have been the case had the employees voted to ratify the contract. So... are the Globe employees justified in thinking management won't follow through? Their belief rests on the theory that management won't dare gut - or close down - the Globe, that the paper has such a history and place in journalism that management wouldn't dare risk the wrath of being tagged as the guys who thrashed such a hallowed institution. And there lies their mistake. They continue to think that what they do enjoys some kind of exemption from the rules of business that govern the way businesses operate. They still haven't come to grips with the reality that the newspaper business is no different than any other business: they need to bring in more money than they pay out, that newspaper owners are willing to take only so much money out of their pocket for the prestige and privilege of owning a paper, and the prestige of owning a newspaper is a lot less than it once was. It is possible that the NYT, the Globe's owners, will be willing to 'invest' even more money subsidizing the Globe... but my guess is that the NYT, suffering financially itself, would prefer that its money go to subsidize the NYT and not the paper in Boston. And if that's the case, the 277 Globe employees who voted to turn down the offer are going to be real unpopular... Monday, June 08, 2009
Hillary Clinton's threatening Iran with retaliation for an attack on Israel would be far more credible if the United States in general, and specificially the Obama Administration had more credibility.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Mad Mullahs are telling themselves, we hear Clinton blustering about... but when has the United States ever done something to us to back up their threats? Bush threatened us.... and did nothing. Obama hasn't even gone as far as making threats, in fact he is spending his time kissing our rear ends. So why should the Mad Mullahs believe that the United States would do anything to them if they nuke Israel? Sunday, June 07, 2009
Robert Kagan says Obama is a foreign policy idealist of the Woodrow Wilson variety, that "... if other nations have refused to cooperate with us, it is because they perceive the United States as aggressive or evil".
And this in a nutshell illustrates how utterly naive and, yes, stupid, Obama is think and act this way. Countries either cooperate or don't cooperate with us on any given issue because they think it is in their national interests to do so.... and whether an American President is perceived as arrogant and hostile (Bush) or warm and fuzzy and all apologetic (Obama) is so far down the list of items a country considers that it might as well not even be on the list. Is a country going to abandon a program that will improve its security because an Obama asks them nicely to do so? Will a country fail to take actions that will improve its economy because Bush doesn't go about asking them in a nice enough way? The answer to both is so obviously no that any one who argues to the contrary has by definition disqualified themselves from being taken seriously in any setting outside of a third grade civics class. Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons because Bush didn't ask them nicely to stop... and they won't stop because Obama says please. If China hasn't been sufficiently helpful with North Korea, it hasn't been because of Bush, it has been because China doesn't see an upside in doing so. France and Germany didn't refuse to send troops to Iraq because they thought Bush wasn't deferential enough, they wouldn't have sent troops if Obama had gotten down on his knees and begged them to. China and India aren't refusing to join climate control efforts because Bush was mean, they're doing so because they think doing so would run counter to their economic interests and they're not going to change their minds because Obama apologizes for American 'arrogance'. The real 'arrogance' lies with Obama thinking that the rest of the world looks first to how we act before deciding for themselves what they should do. If Obama were truly respectful of other countries, he would realize that we are less important to them than Obama thinks we are, that the leaders of France and England and Germany and China don't wake up every morning first thinking about what the United States is up to. Friday, June 05, 2009
As he did plead guilty to manslaughter, David Gabriel Watson may have indeed killed his wife during a honeymoon scuba trip... but if all the police had to go on was what was reported in this story, count me among the unconvinced...
So after her death he called the insurance company inquiring about her life insurance policy? Why wouldn't he do so? If he thought he was the beneficiary, is he just supposed to wait and assume the insurance company learned of her death and wrote him a check? Did he violate some standard for how long he was supposed to wait before calling? (thought: he's got to pay for the funeral, it might have occurred to him to use the insurance money for that?) And evidence of motive was provided by the wife's father's uncorroborated report that the husband asked his soon-to-be wife to make him the beneficiary and increase the amount of coverage.... excuse me? Doesn't it make sense that a husband is the beneficiary of the wife's insurance... and vice versa? And I don't know how much the policy was for, but it doesn't strike me as terribly amiss that, in discussing their soon-to-be-joint finances, and especially if they were thinking of starting a family, that they agree to raise the amount of their insurance coverage. And he was an experienced diver and she was a novice... so what? Being an experienced diver means you're less likely to kill yourself, it doesn't mean that you're going to be able to keep someone else from having difficulty... or be able to save someone who is having difficulty (it's not as if one regularly, or even occasionally is in a position of needing to assist another diver, so if and when such a situation arises, even so-called expert divers may find themselves in a situation they've never been in before). As I said, maybe he did do it... but there's nothing in the story that would have made me vote guilty if I were serving on the jury. Thursday, June 04, 2009
It surprises me that no elected Republican has taken a swing at the softballs that are Obama's policies and programs...
The public objects to Obama wanting to close Guantanamo... and there's pretty much no one with an (R) next to their name rising to lead the opposition. The public objects to Obama taking control of GM and the auto bailouts in general... and no one with an (R) next to their name is rising to lead the opposition. The public doesn't like the massive amounts of government spending Obama wants... and no one with an (R) next to their name is rising to lead the opposition. The public (I'm guessing here, in advance of the polls) doesn't like Obama traipsing around the world apologizing... and there's no one with an (R) next to their name rising to lead the opposition. The public doesn't support Obama going after the intelligence community for their efforts in keeping us safe after 9/11... and there's no one with an (R) next to their name rising to lead the opposition. The public doesn't support bailing out deadbeat homeowners... and there's no one with an (R) next to their name rising to lead the opposition. The public doesn't like affirmative action... and there's no one with an (R) next to their name rising to lead the opposition to Obama's attempts to keep it alive. And the public is against Obama's plan to 'reform' health care... and there's no one with an (R) next to their name rising to lead the opposition. The polls show that Obama is personally more popular than his policies... there are an awful lot of people who just don't like what Obama is trying to do... but unless the GOP grows a set, this opposition will remain dormant... and the GOP will remain in the minority. Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Obama is off visiting the dictators of the Middle East where supposedly a key part of his message will be "Stop saying one thing behind closed doors and saying something else publicly"
Let me break this down... I'll start by stipulating they are saying one thing privately and another thing publicly (for example, that they criticize Israel in public while, in private, being far more critical of and concerned about Iran). I then ask: are they unaware that they're doing so or are they doing so intentionally? If the former, then Obama would provide a useful service by pointing this out to them. But if the latter (as I believe is the case), then they obviously perceive a value in doing so. Any of you disagree with me? Given this, is Obama going to convince them that they are wrong, that they're not getting anything of value out of doing so? I doubt it, while Obama may not value the benefits the same, as they are not unintelligent they may overvalue slightly the benefits they're receiving but they're unlikely to be looking at a pile of s**t and thinking there's a pony in there. So, given that they're doing so on purpose and under the belief that it benefits them to do so, what does Obama do next? How does he get them to abandon something that provides them with value? Does he threaten to change the dynamic in some way, to impose a cost that dwarfs the benefits? I doubt this, while there are plenty of ways to do this, while Obama is willing - eager, even - to beat up on AIG executives, he is far less brave when it comes to the likes of this crowd Given that he won't threaten them with sanctions if they don't stop, does he try to bribe them, by giving them something else of equal or greater value than the benefits he is asking them to do without? This is the likely path he'll take. So what does he offer them? Does he think he could get away with offering them a relative handful of trinkets, something along the lines of some supposed Middle East expert who not too long ago argued that giving US visas to the Iranian soccer team and granting Iranian airliners landing rights in the US would get the Mad Mullahs to abandon their nuclear plans? No, even Obama can't be that stupid. So... if he can't get away with offering them junk, what does he offer them? Israel?... Letting down our guard against terror attacks... ??? I can't tell if Obama is clueless... naive... arrogant... foolish... stupid...or all of the above. Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Just because two events happen around the same time doesn't mean one event caused the other... sometimes one event just doesn't have anything to do with the other.
Which, contrary to Jim Manzi's assertion in the NY Post, is the case with GM's collapse and America's shift to services-dominated economy. Yes, GM collapsed at the same time services became a much larger component of our economy... but I find no evidence that the latter triggered the former. The evidence: * There are plenty of companies that still make things here in America and are financially successful. * The shrinkage in the manufacturing sector is attributable more to competition from foreign competition than it is due to the emergence of the likes of Intel, Microsoft and Google. And the so-called 'legacy' manufacturers have been hurt by non-union domestic competition paying less in worker compensation and getting more in worker productivity. * GM's problems existed long before the shift in the economy. GM's reputation for quality has been lousy for a long, long time (who remembers the old line 'don't buy a car built on either Friday or Monday'?) GM's employed more workers per car than its competitors and it paid its workers more than its competitors. * Notwithstanding the economic shift, GM could have survived if it had taken the necessary steps. GM didn't have to wait until it was bankrupt to close down excess capacity, to cut the number of brands and models, to reduce the size of its work force, to pressure the UAW to accept lower pay and benefits and convince its creditors to convert debt into equity. GM management's strategy was to apply a series of bandages to its wounds instead of opting for radical surgery. Yeah, the bandages slowed down the bleeding and kept the patient alive but GM management never fixed the problem, they never restored the patient to health. Everything GM is now doing, it could have done weeks, months and years ago. It didn't have to wait this long... and the taxpayer didn't have to waste $50 billion in the process. Monday, June 01, 2009
Re: Obama's plan to 'invest' another $30 billion in GM as a stepping stone to restoring GM and eventually selling off the government's 60% stake to the public...
Obviously, investors aren't now willing to invest $30 billion for 60% of the surviving GM... if they were, wouldn't it make sense to let them do so? They have taken a look at all aspects of GM - the fuel mileage dictates, the still-pricey labor contracts and restrictive work rules, their better funded competition, the ever-increasing level of federal government intrusion into business affairs - and have justifiably concluded that there is a high likelihood that GM will remain unprofitable and in no way will be worth anywhere near $50 billion. So why does Obama think that investors will be willing to do so in the not-too-distant future? What does he thinks he knows that he thinks they don't?
Abortion doctor gets murdered - presumably by an anti-abortionist - and the media world explodes with coverage, editorials blasting the anti-abortion movement and so on...
Soldier gets murdered (and another wounded) at a recruiting station - presumably* by an anti-military wingnut - and there's a fraction of the news coverage and, as best as I can tell, no ranting against liberals for having created an environment where someone thought it right to go kill American soldiers. Double standard on the part of the MSM? A sign that the life of an abortion provider is worth more than that of a soldier? Or a sign of maturity on the right that isn't present on the left? You tell me. * until the murderer is caught and it is definitely proven that he had no axe to grind with the military, I'll go with this. UPDATE: looks like the rabid right is just as quick to indict the left as the loony left is to condemn the right. A pox on them both.
Obama's 'date night' - and his unapologetic attitude to the cost and the disruption it incurred - brings back memories of Bill Clinton shutting down LAX in order to get a haircut.
Both incidents show a whole bunch of arrogance, what I've described as a 'because I can' attitude towards doing what they want with no consideration of those negatively effected. In Clinton's case, it was the thousands of people who had flights delayed. For Obama, it isn't really the money (what is $100,000 or so when you're burning through trillions of dollars?), but rather the attitude that taking his wife out for dinner is important enough to disrupt life for everybody who had to deal with the hassles of having roads shut down and having their movements restricted by the Secret Service. We'll grudgingly put up with security-related hassles when they are due to matters of state... but not for getting a haircut... nor for taking one's wife out for dinner and a show.
|