| 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
|
Monday, August 31, 2009
Why do I have the feeling that the claim by Obama's National Security Adviser that the Obama Administration has put more terrorists out of commission than the Bush Administration is going to be about as hard to verify as the claims from Obama's economic advisers that Obama's stimulus package has created or saved millions of jobs?
Who needs a 'tally sheet saying (the Obama Administration) are killing more people, capturing more people than (the Bush Administration) did...' when you can just make it up? When you can just claim the 'numbers are going up'? And did anyone else notice the Freudian (?) slip when Jones says Obama is discussing things with "other rulers"? Is that how Jones sees Obama, as a ruler? Or is it how Obama sees himself? Or how, with one breath, he took exception to Cheney's complaint that Obama is taking steps that will make America less safe, then follows it up by pretty much acknowledging that Holder's pursuit of the CIA will 'have a chilling effect on the willingness of CIA officers to do what they are told to do'? Unless one thinks CIA officers contribute nothing of value, how can one think that their willingness to do their jobs isn't going to have a negative impact on our country's security?
Offering up a persuasive rebuttal to the evidence used to convict someone doesn't mean he is innocent of the charges.
Showing that the Democrats don't have a monopoly on stupidity, Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas argues that if the Democrats pass Obamacare, then (the GOP will win control of Congress, making him Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee) "we'll repeal it".
Barton isn't stupid for suggesting that there would be a voter backlash... but for leaving out the inconvenient fact that Obama would still be President and able - and presumably willing - to veto any GOP-sponsored repeal. Or is Barton suggesting that voter backlash would be so strong that Congress would vote to repeal Obamacare by veto-proof majorities? If he is, then he isn't stupid, just delusional. Sunday, August 30, 2009
There's some debate going on whether what is being called 'torture' yielded worthwhile information... to some people, if indeed valuable information was obtained, it supposedly lessens the crime, to others, it doesn't matter, torture is bad, bad, bad, and should never be used, no matter how many American lives might be saved from the information procured via these techniques.
And I think both sides have it wrong. Keeping our enemies from harming us is very, very, very important to our health. To accomplish this task, our side has a range of options, from surrendering and appeasing our enemies on one side to nuking them out of existence on the other. Torturing our enemies falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, somewhere between sticking out our tongues at them and killing them along with their families and neighbors and sowing their lands with salt. While they'd probably prefer the former (for those having trouble following, having us stick out our tongues at them), given the choice between the latter and being abused a bit, I reckon our enemies would probably prefer to accept a little torture. Torture can also (and should) be looked at as a tool our side can use to help keep us safe, along with bombs and bullets. Taking tools away from our craftsmen makes as little sense as taking bullets away from our infantrymen or bombs away from our pilots. No commander should ever send men into battle with one hand tied behind their back, and voluntarily taking tools out of the arsenal is doing just that. Abusing detainees is a tool that can be used by our side to help keep our side safe. It is no different than bullets and bombs. In this context, it doesn't matter whether a particular session of enhanced interrogation gains us something of value, any more than it matters whether a particular bullet or artillery shell hits its target. No weapon works all the time, and holding enhanced interrogation to such a high standard is as silly as punishing a soldier for not hitting a target with every shot. What matters is whether the cumulative use of a weapon program produces results. Just as it would be a problem if every bullet fired missed its mark, so too would it be a problem if no 'torture' session produced worthwhile information. But it wouldn't be a problem because 'torture' was inherently bad, it would be a problem because it doesn't do any good to use a weapon that has zero reliability.
A few thoughts on England (through Scotland, technically somewhat independent) releasing a convicted terrorist in return for oil from Libya...
In a way it is turnaround is fair play, as isn't the West we usually the ones paying to have hostages released? Here, Libya had to cough up some serious scratch of value in return for someone they hold dear... and, depending on the extent of the oil contracts, the ransom payment could reach into the billions, much less than the mere millions that is the going rate for a hostage. Nor is there anything inherently wrong with the transaction (let's call it what it was). England gave up something they really didn't want in return for something they did want. They made the decision that, as a whole, they come out better getting these oil deals than they would have been holding on to the one terrorist convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. Let's see, we can keep spending tens of thousands a year taking care of this murderer (do you really believe he has only months to live?) or we can save ourselves the money and get something in return? How does one say win-win in British? As far as England losing the moral high ground or in some way signifying that they're not serious about fighting terrorists, I disagree. How many terrorist-supporting regimes are going to smile thinking that the price for ransoming their heroes is so high? A few billion paid in ransom here, a few billion there and pretty soon we're talking real money, enough to put a real crimp in their bank account. And the high ransom can serve as another deterrent. Sponsors now have to factor in the size of the ransom along with the other costs of running a terrorist operation. The cost of dynamite and false identities is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of dollars it will take to 'rescue' any of their heroes who happen to fall into custody. Finally, as to there not being a lot of complaining from the left on this one, I figure it is due to their not wanting to criticize a country they have held out to be better than America. How can America's liberals expect to convince the American public to adopt the British health care plan if at the same time they're complaining about how unethical the Brits are?
In the days after 9/11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a fair amount of discussion that society would stop using words such as 'battle' and 'war' to describe situations such as football games and political contests that didn't come close to meeting the definition of a real war or a real battle.
And the same was said of using the word 'hero'. A real hero was someone like the firemen who died trying to save workers trapped in the World Trade Center, the passengers on Flight 93 who gave their lives to protect their fellow Americans, or the too-many-to-count soldiers who risked their lives to save the lives of their comrades... and not someone who merely did something nice for someone else. To be a real hero meant risking one's life to help save the lives of others. To a lessor extent, one could apply 'hero' to someone taking a huge risk of perhaps a financial or social measure on behalf of their family or fellow Americans. But in either context, one must be taking a risk of losing something very important to be considered a hero. One doesn't get to wear the label by merely doing nice things. A millionaire who gives away a relative pittance isn't a hero. Someone who rescues someone else from danger isn't a hero if they haven't exposed themselves to some kind of danger (for example, yelling 'watch out' to a pedestrian about to be hit by an oncoming car. Doing so is great, but as it doesn't involve taking a risk, doing so doesn't make one a hero). So tell me, just how was Ted Kennedy a 'hero'? Per the dictionary definition, while Kennedy was admired, what were the 'brave deeds' that he was admired for? When exactly did he exhibit 'courage'? He never risked his life (insert obligatory Mary Jo Kopechne comment here). He never risked his money or social ostracism pursuing whatever he believed in. He never risked his office by taking on an unpopular position that he felt was in the nation's best interests. He never did anything that would come close to behavior that would justify using the words 'hero' and 'Ted Kennedy' in the same sentence. Calling Ted Kennedy a hero is an insult to real heroes. By why let this stop the liberals from calling Kennedy a hero? They don't have a lot going for themselves right now, the public is negative on just about everything in the liberal agenda: Obamacare, gay marriage, raising taxes, traveling around the world apologizing for America, cap and trade. They need an inspiration, something to motivate the crazies to keep sending in money. The left doesn't have any real heroes, at least not anyone who's met that definition in the past twenty or so years, so why not just change the definition? And that is far more important than reserving the word 'hero' for those who truly have done something to deserve it. Friday, August 28, 2009
The MSM adored Ted Kennedy and, apropos of Pauline Kael, would naturally assume that everybody else was as infatuated with Kennedy as they were...
Thus, it would only make sense for the networks to hold prime time tributes to Kennedy, right? They'd get to show their love for Kennedy and get great ratings from all the millions upon millions of people who would want to tune in... Except... for the fact that (next to) nobody tuned into watch. CBS's homage ran behind Wipeout, America's Got Talent and even a Bones re-run. Kennedy couldn't even beat out a re-run of Bones? 'Hey, honey, we can watch the Kennedy tribute or a show where we already know how it turns out... let's watch the re-run' And ABC's tribute ran behind Law and Order SVU and CSI:NY... two more repeats beating out Kennedy. Ah, there's nothing like the smell of liberal media waking up to the smell of poor ratings... and costing their networks hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) in lost advertising revenue. Ordinarily, I would have some sympathy for those in an industry that is losing viewers and readers by the tens of thousands and revenue by the billions... but these fools are bringing it on themselves. If they insist on running shows that people don't want to see, they deserve the consequences. Thursday, August 27, 2009
White House spokesman Bill Burton says no one bemoaned Bush taking vacation?
How about here? Or here? Or here? Or here? Yeah, I guess it didn't happen... just like Obama's mouthpiece says.
Let's see, pirates open fire on a US Navy helicopter - an act of war - and there's no payback? The helicopter doesn't fire back, no reinforcements are called to the scene, nothing.
Just as most voters don't bother voting based on the specific positions of a candidate, choosing instead to simply vote on the basis of whether the candidate has an (R) or a (D) next to their name by using that label as a shorthand read of the policies that candidate is likely to support and oppose, most of the people expressing an opinion on Obamacare probably aren't doing so on the basis of a particular position but rather on whether they trust someone with a (D) next to their name or whether they don't.
Thus, the polls showing a majority of Americans opposed to Obamacare is indicative that the public doesn't much trust the Democrats. It doesn't mean that the public is ready to again put their faith in the Republicans, but the Republicans can't win unless and until the public grows to regret having given power to the Democrats. Employers don't go looking for a replacement until they've reached the conclusion that they've made a bad hire... and so too is it with voters: they don't look to the replacements until they've decided that the guy in office doesn't deserve to stay there. I just hope that when the public comes looking, the Republicans do a better job of presenting themselves as competent and qualified than they've done the last couple of elections. Wednesday, August 26, 2009
A dissenting view from the tributes for Ted Kennedy...
I think Ted Kennedy was a horrible person and the country would have been better off had he never been been a Senator. I think the programs (welfare, high taxes, high regulation, federal government intrusion into all aspects of life) he pushed have been a net negative for America and the tactics he used were deplorable. He was the embodiment of the 'win at all costs' attitude found way too often in Washington. He was hypocritical, reckless, a drunk, a philanderer and a cheat. The expression 'born on third base and thought he hit a triple' applied far more to him than to its original target. He was given everything he had, he earned nothing on his own. He avoided taking responsibility for his actions (i.e., Kopechne). I don't care that conservatives such as Orrin Hatch were friends with Kennedy; being friends with Kennedy makes Hatch looks worse than it makes Kennedy look good. There are some people who are so bad that they need to be avoided and those who don't do so are only proving their own shortcomings. It is always possible that his replacement could be someone as bad or worse, but I find it hard to believe that the Senate and America won't both be mightily improved now that he's gone. Good riddance. Mind you, I'm not rejoicing that he's dead... I'm rejoicing he's out of the Senate and can no longer do any harm.
Looking at the Cash for Clunkers numbers being tossed around...
First, who believes that the program really generated 700,000 new car sales? Yes, there were 690,114 cars sold (based on the vouchers submitted), but are we to believe that NONE of those cars would have been sold during the period but for the program? And how many of the cars sold through the program were in lieu of a non-qualifying car that would have been the buyer's first choice but for the program? And of the cars that truly wouldn't have been sold during this period but for the program, how many would have been sold in the not too distant future? Wouldn't it be more accurate to estimate and report on the amount of the marginal increase in sales volume? Ah, that would be too tough and would require the reporter to present the story in a less-flattering way. And what about the Obama Administration's claim that 42,000 jobs would be 'created or saved' during the second half of the year because of this program? Is there any claim that ought to have less credibility than an impossible-to-verify claim of 'saving jobs'? No, employers don't call up the Labor Department to report jobs that aren't cut as a result of some government program.
So what that the Democrats are attempting to use Kennedy's death as a rallying cry for passing health care reform?
Does one expect any Republicans to drop their opposition because Kennedy died? Yeah, I can see it, 'I don't like the plan, my constituents don't like the plan, but I'm going to vote for it because Ted Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate, would have wanted me to'. Right, that will happen. And does one expect the public opposition to dissipate? That people aren't going to protest against a really bad idea because they're afraid of being seen as insufficiently respectful of Kennedy's death? ADDED THOUGHT: if the GOP rolls over in the 'spirit of Ted', then they deserve their minority status.
Just as liberals were wrong to think that Obama's victory meant voters approved of a more activist government, conservatives are wrong to think that Obama's current troubles are indicative that voters want less government in their lives.
Repeat after me, and for as long as it takes to get the point: the public is not philosophically opposed to government nor are they philosophically supportive of government... the public cares only whether they will benefit or suffer as a result of government action. If the public thinks government program X is going to benefit them, they don't care how it comes about, they're going to be supportive of the government providing them with X, and no matter how large that government might be. Conversely, if the public think government program Y is going to be detrimental to their finances and well-being, they're going to oppose the government providing them with Y, no matter how small that government might be. For example, people tend to support tax hikes if they think they're not going to be the ones taxed and that they're going to benefit in some way from the money being taken from the taxpayers having to pay higher taxes. They support increases in government spending so long as they think they benefit from the roads or whatever the money is being spent on and so long as they don't see their taxes or costs going up to pay for that spending. They support intrusive anti-terrorism efforts at airports so long as they think the benefits of those efforts (keeping them from being blown out of the sky) are greater than the hassle of having to take off their shoes before going through the metal detector. And the same holds true with businesses. Businesses support government subsidies, provided they're the ones receiving those subsidies and not their competitors. Likewise, businesses support government regulations so long as they feel the negative impact is greater on their competitors than on themselves (examples: Wal-Mart supporting companies having to provide health care to their employees, and Netscape supporting the anti-trust attack on Microsoft). Obamacare is flopping because Ohama hasn't been able to convince the public that they will benefit from it... and not because the public thinks government is too big. Tuesday, August 25, 2009
'Rule of law' is never the argument of choice for someone advocating a particular course of action; it ranks near the bottom of preferred arguments and those who use that argument are tacitly admitting they not only have nothing else in their rhetorical quiver with which to convince the audience to support their position, but also, and more importantly, that adopting the proposal will negatively impact the target.
Someone trying to convince someone to support a particular position will almost always prefer to try and convince the target he or she will personally benefit from the proposal, while opponents will try to convince the target the opposite is true, that he or she will personally suffer if the proposal is adopted. It is only when an advocate can't come up with something to convince someone that they will benefit (perhaps because the proposal doesn't provide a benefit to the audience) does the advocate turn to such amorphous arguments such as 'rule of law' and 'fairness', both of which are shorthand for 'you should go along even though you're going to suffer'. To illustrate, when the GOP tried to push Bill Clinton out of office, they couldn't convince the public that they would be better off if Clinton was removed from office so the GOP tried - and got nowhere - using the 'Clinton lied, so he shouldn't be President)' argument, a close cousin of the 'rule of law'. Given the choice between 'rule of law' and having Al Gore take over the Presidency on one hand versus overlooking Clinton's procedural deficiencies, the public naturally chose the latter. And so it is with those who cite 'rule of law' in arguing for prosecuting CIA employees who allegedly played too rough while interrogating terrorists. Those arguing for prosecution have no arguments to convince the public that they will benefit from going after CIA agents, in large part because there are no benefits from doing so, so they trot out the 'rule of law' argument in hopes that people will fail to consider that prosecuting CIA agents provides no benefit to anyone other than our enemies and those with a grudge against the CIA and the Bush Administration. Think about it: if advocates for prosecution had an argument that prosecution would make us safer, don't you think they'd use that argument? And just as the public ignored those arguments during the Lewinsky kerfuffle, the public ought to ignore those arguments now. Monday, August 24, 2009
It is a sign of just how screwed up some people are that reports that the CIA threatened terrorists to get them to talk has been met with such outrage.
Are the CIA's critics upset because they know the information gained from these terrorists was of no use? No, they don't know and, even more importantly, they don't care what information was gained from these interrogations. Are the CIA's critics upset because they know the CIA could have gained the same information through other, more acceptable techniques? No, they don't know this, and any claims that the CIA could have gotten just as much - or more - information by using other techniques is nothing more than uneducated and uninformed guessing. So let me put it in very straightforward terms: the critics would rather the CIA not gotten the information than to have gotten it via the methods that were used. And they don't care that American lives were saved with the information. To them, treating terrorists with 'respect' is more important than gaining information that can be used to protect Americans from terrorist attack. Some of these idiots make the claim that not using these techniques actually saves more American lives, as news of these methods being used only incites the terrorists to increase the level and intensity of attacks. But this claim is shot down by the irrefutable fact that terrorists already have all the incentive they need to attack us, they have attacked us long before they knew any such tactics were used, and they would have continued to try and attack us even if these tactics were never used. To me, patriotism is placing the welfare of one's fellow Americans ahead of the welfare of everybody else. Protecting the lives of my friends and neighbors comes before ensuring that terrorists are treated nicely in prison. Thus, there is only one word that comes close to describing those who would sacrifice American lives as a direct result of protecting the well being of foreign terrorists: anti-American. And while I would have permitted even more than the tactics described in the linked article, it is a sign of just how anti-American these critics are that they're objecting to techniques that just scared the terrorists. They were made to believe that they would be tortured or killed, none were. And yet that is just too much for these anti-American idiots. Sunday, August 23, 2009
Unlike Rosemary Port, when I criticize someone, I don't post anonymously... as Port did in writing not-so-nice things about model Liskula Cohen.
And now Port is angry at Google for having revealed her name to Cohen's attorneys and is threatening to sue Google for violating her rights. What a goof... her and her attorney, Salvatore Strazzullo, who claims that Google violated its fiduciary responsibility to "protect her expectation of anonymity". What part of 'ordered by the court' do Cohen and Strazzullo not understand? It isn't as if Google rushed out and volunteered the information; Google tried hard to protect the identity of the jerk who took anonymous (and allegedly libelous) shots at someone she had had a previous bad experience (and how brave of Port, that rather than confront Cohen openly, she decided to slam her via a blog posting?). It was only after the court ruled Google had to provide Cohen with Port's identity that Google did so. Is Strazzullo going to argue that Google should have defied the court? How can an attorney, supposedly an agent of the court, argue that a court order is something that can be ignored? And (ignoring the impossibility of Strazzullo winning) if Strazzullo does win the $15 million in damages that he is seeking, what would he think of Google ignoring that court order? Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Michelle Malkin blasts Obama adviser David Axelrod for a conflict of interest in that he's advising Obama on health care at the same time the firm he founded and which currently employs his son is receiving money from a number of outfits to help promote Obama's health care initiative (I may be off a bit on the details of the recap, look to her post for the details). Malkin quotes (and presumably endorses) someone who summarizes the issue as: Axelrod "owns firm, man takes government job, man sells firm and firm owes man $2 million (if firm goes bust, man out $2 mil), firm lands multi-million dollar contracts from organizations doing business with the government on a top issue for the person man works for and man is out advocating for".
If true. deserving of criticism, it is a heck of a conflict of interest. Typical of Washington politicians, even among those (like Obama) who profess to be whiter than white when it comes to running 'the most ethical administration ever'. And... isn't what Axelrod is now doing somewhat similar (okay, very similar) to former Vice President Cheney and his former employer, Halliburton? Cheney didn't own the firm but he cashed out big time to become Vice President and was to receive payments from Halliburton after he took office... while Halliburton landed multi-million (actually, I believe, multi-billion) contracts with the government for work in Iraq... which was certainly a top issue for the person (Bush) that Cheney went to work for. I don't remember too many conservatives criticizing Cheney at the time; what little there was concerned more the appearance of a conflict rather than a real conflict. And while I believe Cheney gave up some of the deferred money due him, it sure did look bad at the time. Anyway, my point is not to criticize Cheney but rather those who gave him a pass but are now up in arms over Axelrod. It would be nice if conservatives didn't have selective outrage. I expect the liberals to be hypocrites but I wish conservatives had a little more principle. And no, the fact that conservatives didn't complain about Cheney doesn't mean it is okay for Axelrod.
Why do liberals favor a single-payer health plan, the so-called 'public option'? And by liberals, I don't mean them as a group but rather as individuals?
People tend to support programs that they believe will provide them with a financial or emotional benefit. People who pay lots of taxes tend to support tax cuts, people who send their kids to public schools tend to support spending on public schools and people who live in fear of dying in a terrorist attack tend to support military action against terrorists. Conversely, people tend to oppose programs they believe will adversely affect them on an individual basis. Fewer people would support military action if they were tagged for duty on the front lines. Fewer people would support parole for violent criminals if those criminals were housed next door. Fewer people would support higher welfare spending if their taxes were increased. Fewer people would support cutbacks in local government spending if it meant shutting down the fire stations next to their homes. There are some people who are willing to sacrifice something on an individual basis in order to achieve a social goal, such as a rich guy who is willing to pay more in tax so the government has more money to spend on drug rehabilitation programs, but these people are few and far between... in the battle between preserving one's pocketbook and safety on one hand and some vague social program on the other, the former trumps the latter pretty much 99 times out of 100. So the fact that so many liberals are in favor of the public plan (in fact, liberals are the only group in favor of it), so much so that they've threatened to withdraw their support for Obamacare if Obama drops government run health care, makes me wonder what their logic is in thinking that they individually will benefit (or, at the least, won't suffer) if such a plan is put into place. Let's look at the two aspects of any health insurance program, government run or not: coverage and cost. As for coverage, maybe the liberals are drinking the kool-aid that Obama is peddling and they think that they won't lose their current employer-provided health care coverage? Perhaps they not only think they won't lose their existing coverage but the existence of a government run program will lead to their getting a better deal from their existing health insurance provider? Or is it that they know they'd lose their current private coverage but are so enamored with the wonders of government that they think that government provided coverage will be better for them than whatever it is that they now have? Or perhaps they think that good liberals such as themselves will receive a pass to jump straight to the front of the line, bypassing all the conservatives and other opponents who, by their opposition, prove they're less deserving of care? Or do they know that the coverage they end up will be less than what they have now, but are willing to martyr themselves and their families so that all the poor folks currently lacking health insurance can finally get it? As to the cost of the program, if they're drinking the kool-aid regarding their being able to keep their existing coverage, then maybe it's not too far-fetched to think that they've taken a second swallow and believe Obama when he says that the government run program won't be a drain on the budget, that the costs of providing coverage to all of the uninsured can be financed just by eliminating fraud and waste and from the wallets of greedy corrupt insurance executives? Or do they accept that government run health care, like any government run program will be a huge drain - to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year - but believe that someone else )i.e., 'the rich', with the rich being defined as someone other than themselves?) will pick up the tab? I can't be sure, but I think the answer might have something to do with their being liberal. Liberals, by definition, don't view themselves as bound by such things as logic and reality, they live in an alternate universe where such things like rationing and cost controls and unbridled demand just don't exist. Or perhaps the simple answer (and there's always a simple answer) is that they haven't bothered to get into the details of the plan and learn how it will negatively impact them and their families... to a good liberal, the fact that this program is opposed by conservatives is reason #1 for them to support it. Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Let's combine (1) the recent reports of states running out of money, laying off state workers and cutting back on public services, (2) the report that the federal government is way behind on processing 'cash for clunker' claims, and (3) the public's standard disdain for the quality and competence of those who choose to go work for the government....
and produce a commercial where a patient and his doctor are trying to get emergency approval for a medical procedure from the bureaucrats at the 'public option'... only to have the phone ring and ring and ring... and when the phone is answered they hear only an announcement that the office has been temporarily closed for budget reasons... and when the patient heads off to the office in person, he sees these bureaucrats overwhelmed by the number of claim requests on their desks... while talking on their cellphones, playing solitaire on their laptops and taking naps.... while the voice over asks: "when you absolutely positively need someone to pick up the phone... having to call the government can be downright unhealthy" Monday, August 17, 2009
Once the public option is in fact killed off, conservatives need to focus their attention on killing off the so-called 'individual mandate', where everybody is required to purchase health insurance (or pay a fee of some sorts in recompense for not doing so).
While the mandate might lower health insurance costs for others (as healthy individuals would likely pay more in premiums than they would incur in costs, the precise reason many choose to do without health insurance), having the government force people to buy something they don't want isn't a principle that can be found on any list of conservative principles. And forcing people to buy health insurance isn't analogous to auto insurance. Car owners are only required to buy liability insurance to make sure other drivers are reimbursed if someone else is at fault, nobody is required to buy comprehensive coverage. Auto insurance is more analogous to vaccinations, where the justification for the program is not so much as to keep an individual kid safe as it is to keep other people from being infected by the kid who didn't get his shots. Friday, August 14, 2009
NYC, NY State and California = the municipal and state versions of GM...
With GM, the unions, with the acquiescence of management, loaded GM with such high labor costs and restrictive work rules that GM couldn't wring enough money from its customers to avoid going bankrupt. And, to cite just one example, this is just what has happened with California. Its unions, with management (its elected officials) acquiescence, have so loaded the state budget with costs and restrictions so high that California can no longer wring enough money from its customers (taxpayers) to keep from going bankrupt. GM had some attractive elements: the relatively few high-quality high-value cars that they produced every now and then. But there weren't enough people willing to buy these cars to offset all the billions that GM wasted elsewhere. California also has some attractive elements: its climate, a diverse and decent workforce. But there aren't enough people who have to live in California and are willing to pay high taxes to offset all the billions that California is wasting on its public unions, education and welfare programs. And just as GM's management kept putting off confronting the union, so too have California's elected officials put off confronting the public unions and other drags on the state finances. GM's management did so because they were more afraid of the short term consequences of a strike than the long term consequences of not addressing the issue; California's elected officials haven't confronted the public unions because they have been more afraid of having the union mobilize against them and costing them re-election than they've been afraid of the long term consequences of not getting state spending under control. GM's luck ran out earlier than California's, as GM can't force people to buy its lower quality cars at a high price, while California has a greater ability, at least in the short term, to force taxpayers to pay more and more to cover the costs of the giveaways to public unions. But as California's private economy continues to slide and more of California's wealthy decide to move out of state or otherwise shift income out of California's reach, California, like GM, is going to find it impossible to support its bloated workforce with less and less revenue. And just as GM crashed, so too will California. It will have to cut jobs.. and much more than the lip service cuts it claims to have made. It will have to stop spending as much on welfare programs and other programs that don't benefit taxpayers. It won't be pretty... but it is going to happen.
Lavonne Drummond is upset that Ebay wouldn't let her sell the naming rights to her 7th child... a decision she claims cost her $15,000, money the unemployed Drummond says would have helped her pay her past due bills.
Of course, NOT HAVING MORE KIDS would also help, wouldn't it? Wednesday, August 12, 2009
It all depends on the meaning of...
Getting a degree from the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) is NOT the same thing as getting a degree from the University of Maryland, College Park (UMCP). The latter is what most people think of as the University of Maryland. The former is an adjunct that caters to older and part time students. UMCP has 30,000 or so students and nationally ranked athletics, UMUC has a relative handful of students and no athletic programs at all. UMCP has some real tough admission standards, UMUC lets pretty much anybody in. UMCP has an impressive faculty, UMUC much less so. UMCP actually demands that its students develop proficiency in the subject matter, UMUC, how shall I put it, is known for its easy course work and is where UMCP students go to fill in gaps in their coursework. In other words, attending and graduating and teaching at UMCP is something that counts for something while attending and graduating and teaching at UMUC isn't all that impressive. So while Vivek Kundra, Obama's Chief Information Officer, having received a master's from UMUC, is technically correct to claim a master's degree from the University of Maryland, he is nonetheless guilty of misleading people. UMCP and UMUC aren't one and the same... and everybody who has attended either of the two knows that. Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Cliff May makes the argument (actually, he made the point a while back on The Daily Show) that if Truman isn't a war criminal for dropping nukes on Japan, then neither are the interrogators who may have subjected terrorists to a bit of coercive interrogation.
But the standard for determining whether someone is a war criminal is not the number of deaths caused, nor whether the disputed actions saved lives, nor whether the action didn't permanently disable someone, but rather whether their actions violated the accepted rules of war. By this standard, Truman is in the clear as, while the method of doing so was new, destroying cities and killing civilians was a long-accepted tactic used in hopes of ending an conflict. On the other hand, most civilized countries had long ago agreed to forgo the use of coercive interrogation (a decision I disagree with but that's beside the point)... and as such, using banned tactics could justify charging someone as a war criminal. Not that I would do so... Monday, August 10, 2009
I don't think Trojan Horse is the best metaphor for Obama's health care plans, I would go with the secret for cooking frogs. If you drop them right in boiling water, they jump out. But if you start with warm water and gradually increase the temperature, they stay in the pot. And so it would be with Obama's public plan: it would gradually raise the temperature on staying with private insurers, eventually resulting in killing off private health insurance altogether.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
A great line - and from someone self-described as a registered Democrat - yesterday from one of the town halls (and I'm paraphrasing until I can find the exact quote)...
How can Obama hope to redo all of American health insurance in just a few weeks when it took him six months to figure out what kind of dog to get his kids? UPDATE: It looks like the line has been around for a little while, but it is still great to see even Democrats have picked up on the absurdity.
Something to keep in mind when hearing reports of upticks in factory orders or consumer spending or reductions in the rate of layoffs...
It isn't so much that the economy is improving - at least as far as how people usually think of an improving economy - as that consumers and businesses are backing away from their doomsday scenarios. With all the doom and gloom last fall (and noticeably, a total lack of any coherent counter) a lot of people and businesses did the financial equivalent of going to the mattresses; fearing that even worse conditions were in the not-too-distant future, they cut discretionary spending and even delayed purchasing necessities, businesses laid off workers, many in advance of the expected economic collapse, and cut back investment spending... all in excess of the cuts they would have made if the prognosis wasn't so dire. And as the worst case scenarios didn't come to pass, consumers and businesses have let off the brakes a bit... and in doing so, are lifting the indicators ahead of where they were last month and the month before that. And in coming months, we'll probably see reductions in the number of layoffs... not because the economy is improving, but rather because businesses are no longer under pressure to reduce staff ahead of the depression they no longer see in the future. We'll continue to see boosts in auto sales... not because people are making more money and looking to spend it, but rather because of individuals who would have bought a new car but held off thinking that they were going to lose their job and home. The same will hold true for vacations and other forms of discretionary spending... we don't have more money than we did last month, we're just starting to relax and thus are more comfortable spending the money we do have. And when Obama (invariably) tries to take credit for the 'improving' economy, remember it isn't because of anything he has done, it is because people no longer believe the economy is going to crash... so ask yourself how much Obama has helped people get more comfortable, less fearful.... and my answer is not much at all, not much at all. Wednesday, August 05, 2009
I don't know if it's better to describe Maryland Democratic Congressman Frank Kravotil as not understanding arithmetic or not understanding health care or not understanding either...
He argues for revamping the health care system because of the costs of providing care to the uninsured... saying that "It's about getting them (the uninsured) into the system so they pay into it"... and that doing so "... reduce the cost for the rest of us". Where to start criticizing, where to start... How about with his implying the uninsured don't "pay into the system" when in fact a fair number of those without health insurance do in fact pay for some if not all of their health care costs? Moving on to a more substantive complaint with his comments, the 'rest of us' pay for health care for the uninsured in the form of higher fees for service from hospitals and doctors to make up for what they don't receive from the uninsured... a dynamic that doesn't change if these uninsured are forced or encouraged or whatever to buy insurance. The 'rest of us' would still have to pay the costs of providing health care to these people that exceed what they would pay in premiums. As I have written before, if you establish that the cost of the nation receiving X amount of health care is $Y, then unless you figure out a way of providing X amount of health care for a cost something less than $Y, then all you're doing is arguing about whose pocket(s) the $Y is coming out of... and pretty much across the board, the Democrats plans all result in the same thing: the healthy, wealthy and prudent having to pick up the tab for the sick, poor and stupid. You could argue (I'd disagree, but you can argue) that society should provide quality health care to everybody regardless of income, health or intelligence... but spare me the insult of trying to convince me that it isn't going to cost me both a bunch of money and a decrease in the quality of care that I receive. Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Henry Waxman was on The Daily Show tonight and he offered up these pearls...
They (the Democrats) want to fix the problems with health insurance, specifically keeping people from being rejected because of pre-existing conditions, losing their coverage when they get sick and having a lifetime cap on coverage... all while making it easy for people to get insurance. Now how does he plan to reconcile the latter with the former, to square the circle? Congress can legislate the first three... which will increase the amount insurance providers pay out in benefits... which will lead to premium price hikes... which will make it harder for people to afford health insurance. Does Waxman not know that health insurance companies are basically conduits through which money passes from patient to doctor, with the insurance company receiving a small percentage for keeping track of all the paperwork? If you mandate that health insurance must cover X and Y, then the costs of X and Y are going to be paid not by the health insurance carrier but by those buying health insurance. Put another way, if Congress mandates that health insurance covers more than it now does, or that sicker people can buy coverage at the same rates as healthy people, then health insurance is going to cost more... which, according to my thinking, sure doesn't make health insurance easier to buy. Society may decide that everybody should pay so that somebody with a heart condition can get health insurance, and at a price no higher than paid by someone without a heart condition (akin to bad drivers getting auto insurance at the same rate as good drivers)... but that sure isn't the way Congress is putting it. And it probably won't matter. The Democrats have the votes and the tumultuous town halls make great video but won't deter them from pushing ahead.
I'm not a crime scene investigator but something isn't right in calling this an apparent suicide. There is no report of a note. No reports of any depression. The woman ordered room service around midnight (and was reported missing about 9 AM)... did she want to make sure she wasn't hungry as she froze to death in the frigid Alaskan waters? Or was she so unhappy with the quality of the food that it drove her to jump overboard?
I can understand the cruise line wanting to call this a suicide... but why would the reporter buy that without any evidence supporting that claim? And it is nitpicking, but people committing suicide haven't 'fallen overboard' as much as they've 'jumped overboard'.
Since the Obama White House is looking for tips on 'fishy' claims about Obama's health care package, may I suggest that we help them out.... by sending them excerpts of Obama's own claims?
After all, is there anything more 'fishy' than Obama's claims that ordinary Americans will be able to keep their current health insurance? Or how about his claim that there will be a net savings from implementing his plan? Or his claim that, despite evidence to the contrary, he isn't out to eliminate employer-provided health insurance? Or his insinuation that ENTs are performing unnecessary tonsillectomies in order to pad their take home pay? Or his implying that we could all take the blue pill (or was it the red one?) and get just as well for half the cost... but for the evil greedy pharmaceutical companies? With as many 'fishy' claims Obama has made, we ought to be able to keep the White House busy for quite a while...
With Obama moving to take credit for a supposedly improving economy, the GOP must respond - and quickly - to keep the American people from giving Obama credit for something he has had nothing to do with.
They need to ask Obama, if the economy is working, why are so many more people out of work than when he took office? And how can he say the economy is improving if companies are still dumping thousands of employees? They need to point out that Obama's stimulus plan has accomplished nothing. They can point out that, notwithstanding Oregon's silly attempt to count temporary jobs as 'jobs' created' by the stimulus, we haven't gained much of anything. For added pleasure, they can point to the silly expenditures that have been made and ask Obama to explain how paying for offensive arts exhibits has improved the economy. They can point out that Obama's rescue plans have also done nothing. They can point out that close to nobody has received mortgage relief. They can point out that Detroit is still laying off thousands of workers and idling plants. They can argue that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on financial rescues is a cure worse than the disease. Whatever they do, the GOP can not sit and let Obama take credit for (1) something that ain't happening and (2) something that his actions made worse. Monday, August 03, 2009
Plaxico Burress, no longer a Giants wide receiver, gets indicted by a New York grand jury on weapons charges.
Antonio Pierce, who the Giants haven't released, gets a pass from the same New York grand jury... despite admitting having possession of the same handgun that Burress shot himself with. I guess there weren't any Cowboy or Redskins fans on the grand jury?
Looks like Obama's kissing up to the Mad Mullahs helped defuse tensions when three American hikers were detained in Iran... oh wait, Iran has accused the three of working for the CIA.
So Obama grovels.... and Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, they continue to quash peaceful protests, the continue to support insurgents in Iraq, they arrest American tourists and accuse them of spying. Sort of the same stuff that happened during the Bush years, eh? What's the point of kissing up to dictators if you're not going to get something out of it?
Since the 'Cash for Clunkers' is a stimulus plan that is actually working, the GOP ought to endorse adding money.... and offsetting the increase with a decrease on some silly component of Obama's stimulus plan. Heaven knows that is a target rich environment.
I'm no Lindsey Graham fan, but what exactly is the favor he did for conservatives by touting Joe Lieberman as McCain's running mate?
Oh, that's right, getting McCain to turn to Sarah Palin? Yeah, that turned out oh so good, a blow out loss to Obama. Palin is probably the only person who could make the public think that Biden had his act together. And while (some) conservatives (the dumb ones) think Palin is the greatest thing since Joey Logano (nickname: sliced bread), she has absolutely no credibility with the American people... and she never will. She has (and even before resigning as Governor) no chance of winning a general election. She is so toxic that GOP candidates will be well advised to keep their distance. In fact, I consider Palin to be McCain's latest and greatest 'f**k you' to the GOP. The rabid right is so enamored with her that GOP candidates will have to pander even more to the right in hopes of slicing off slivers of her support during the primaries... which will kill them in the general election. By picking Palin, McCain has pretty much ensured that Obama gets re-elected in 2012. Some favor for conservatives... Sunday, August 02, 2009
Something to ask yourself about the Democrats Selling Health Care Reform...
I can't think of the last thing that I liked that I had to be sold on the idea of doing. Selling is what a salesman has to do when the customer doesn't think the promised benefits are worth the price they're being asked to pay. If their health care reform proposals were so good, why does it have to be sold to us? If it was so good, shouldn't the benefits be patently obvious to one and all? If it was so good, wouldn't we be demanding that Congress pass it now?
|