| 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, September 30, 2009
There are some things that I consider to be so vile and sick that I am pretty much okay with summarily executing anyone convicted of (or pleading guilty to committing) such an act.
And a 44 year old man having sex with a girl he knows is only 13 certainly qualifies as one of those acts. Men do not have sex with girls. Doing so is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is sick, sick, sick. Period. No excuses. And any man who fails to follow this simple rule is, by definition, so mentally sick and morally deficient that society is best served by killing them as quickly as a firing squad can be put together. Whether Polanski forced himself on the girl is irrelevant as even if she participated willingly (as willingly as someone under the age of consent can be), what he did was still sick and he still should have been taken out back and shot. Whether he drugged her is irrelevant as even if she wasn't drugged or she was drugged but by someone else, what he did was still sick and he still should have been taken out back and shot. And the fact that he wasn't shot and was apparently going to receive some minimal jail time is testament that our criminal justice system doesn't do a good job of properly punishing those who need it. Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Is 'chutzpah' the right term for the woman who blasted Bank of America for "usurp(ing) the wealth of this great nation by the outright rape and pillage of middle-class Americans whose sweat and toil built it"... even though she herself doesn't have a job?
Well, as one of those middle class Americans who do have a job at which I (figuratively) sweat and toil, I don't need - or want - her coming to my defense. Apparently Bank of America never learned that appeasing (economic) terrorists is a bad idea as they backed off hiking the woman's interest rate. Maybe they're taking their cue from the Obama Administration where appeasing terrorists is Job #1. I'm sure the suits in the Bank of America PR department figure giving in was the simplest way of defusing the situation. Unfortunately for that line of thinking, there are hundreds of thousands of people who now know that complaining can get the bank to back down.... how many thousands of newly complaining customers is Bank of America customer service representatives going to have to handle over the next few weeks? And when they back down, as I am sure they will, how many millions of dollars of lost revenue is this move going to cost Bank of America? Gee, what a perfect case of shortsighted thinking on Bank of America's part. And let us not ignore the simple fact that if this woman hadn't run up a credit card balance and hadn't been late on a couple of payments then she wouldn't have had her rate increased. She screwed up and doesn't want to suffer the consequences of her screw up. So all it takes is a video to get out of one's obligations. Maybe I should do a video complaining about having to pay my mortgage every month. Yeah, I know, I borrowed the money, but why should that matter? And another peeve of mine is with 'consumer groups' who don't represent my interests. I'm a consumer and I have no problem at all with banks raising credit card fees. In fact, I applaud these moves as I - a frequent credit card user who doesn't carry a balance - would likely have to pay more than I do now - which is nothing - if credit card issuers weren't able to make their profits from users who do run up balances and only make minimal payments and run over their limit and forget to send in their check every now and then. Let's call these groups what they are: advocates for debtors.
With the economy still not doing well... and Iran well on its way to building a nuclear bomb... and with there no strategy for Afghanistan... and with health care reform in disarray...
Obama decides to jet off to Europe to push Chicago for the Olympics. Where oh where is the GOP on this? There aren't too many times when one gets an issue served up on a platter like this or being thrown a softball right down the middle of the plate... so where is the GOP blasting Obama for his misdirected efforts? And even better, spending close to a million taxpayer dollars on his little mission? C'mon GOP, speak up.... this ought to be worth another couple point drop in Obama's ratings... but only if you speak up. And based on what I wrote last night, there's a good chance Obama might pull it off and land the Olympics for Chicago. And if he does, he's going to get a bump in the ratings... so it is even more critical that the GOP get out ahead on this, so any positive bump in his ratings is offset by critics pointing out that landing the Olympics is peanuts to fixing what ails America... UPDATE: I guess Michael Steele blasting Obama is better than nothing....
Are 'Hollywood' and the French defending Roman Polanski because raping a 13 year old girl is a small price to get masterpieces such as Chinatown or Rosemary's Baby?
Or is it because they know that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks? I don't know that either Harvey Weinstein or the French culture minister engage in behavior similar to Polanski's, but if one looks at what Hollywood and the French consider normal, raping kids is a few standard deviations closer to their norms than it is to what normal America considers acceptable behavior. And being afraid of slippery slopes, perhaps they feel it necessary to defend Polanski. After all, if what Polanski did can be excused as no big deal, then whatever behavior they engage in certainly floats in the safe harbor. Monday, September 28, 2009
YOU READ IT HERE FIRST!!!
The reason Obama has spent the better part of the eight months of his Presidency apologizing for America's 'sins' is not because he is anti-American or because he is ashamed of America. Nor does he really intend to reverse the substance of Bush's foreign policies... The reason is that Obama wants the Olympics in Chicago. And what better way to curry favor with the members of the International Olympic Committee than to show them how nicer America is since Obama took over from the despicable Bush? It was pretty much a given that the IOC would rather give up their pampered lifestyle than award the Olympic Games to the United States while Bush was President. The members of the IOC have to play nice with the ruling elites of their home countries... the people who hate Bush and everything he represented and would have 'rewarded' anyone stupid enough to give the Olympics to the United States by yanking them off the committee. And yet the IOC knows they make more money from games held in the US than anywhere else - advertising support is higher, TV rights fees are higher. So the IOC was definitely in a tight spot: wanting the money needed to subsidize their lavish spending but not willing to thumb their nose of the political elites of their home countries. Then along comes the anti-Bush (at least in public) Obama who goes out of his way to bash America and Bush... thus giving the IOC the political cover they need to award the games to Chicago. Of course, this may leave a mark... Thursday, September 24, 2009
There are a number of ways a President loses popular support...
One such way is when the President tries to advance policies that lack popular support due to public perception that such legislation would negatively affect them. There is no faster way to lose support than to be seen as an instrument of harm rather than good. Another is when the President tries to advance policies that lack public support, not so much because the public is opposed to the particular policy, but rather due to the public feeling that other - more important - issues should command the President's time and attention. A twist of the previous point is when the President advances an idealistic position that the public feels shows the President as being dangerously idealistic and not grounded in reality. Another way of losing support is for the President to be seen as making America look bad. Americans like to feel proud of their country and they don't like anyone - whether foreign or domestic - who makes fun of America or portrays America as somehow being deficient... or even worse, claims America is responsible for the world's problems. And yet another way of losing support is having the public think the President as having an undesirable personality trait, such as being untruthful, corrupt, excessively arrogant or vain or simply not being a nice person. People like to like their Presidents (the 'would you like to have a beer with the President?') and it's harder to like a President if you don't like him as a person. It is important for a President's opponents to not rest their entire strategy on a single plank.. or, for that matter, on a single issue. Opponents need to fight across the board: they need to convince the public that the President is failing them on each of the above points. And if and when opponents can do so... it is but a matter of time before the President has upside down approval ratings and is vulnerable to defeat. It is important to remember that no matter how appealing a challenger might be, the public isn't going to deny re-election to a President who hasn't disappointed them... so Job #1 for the opposition is to keep up a steady drumbeat of how the President is failing the public. It shouldn't be hard for the Republicans to make the case about Obama. Whether it is his pushing a health insurance package that most people feel will negatively affect them, to spending his time apologizing for America, to signing on to the dangerously call to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama has given his opponents more than enough ammo to (figuratively) kill his Presidency. It is only a question of whether the GOP can effectively take advantage of the gifts Obama is giving them. I have my doubts, the GOP isn't known for its tactical proficiency... but I am more than willing to be shown that they're up to the task.
This poll purporting to show that the public doesn't view Obama as 'overexposed' actually illustrates how little the public pays attention to the MSM Sunday talk shows, press conferences and other offerings.
After all, per the old puzzler, can one be overexposed if no one is watching him overexpose himself? Along those lines, if Obama had appeared on Fox, which has viewership well in excess than that of the liberal outlets, then the results of the poll might have been a bit different. I guess Obama was doing himself a favor limiting himself to channels (relatively) no one watches.
It's a given that if a Republican candidate has some skeleton of sorts in their closet that the liberal media will not only discover said skeleton but will hammer the candidate with it... even if it is a decades old college paper.
So I'm not surprised that the Washington Post discovered Bob McDonnell's college thesis and pushed the theme that the thesis proves McDonnell to be unfit for office. But... are there no skeletons in Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds' past? The guy has spent years in office and hasn't said or done anything that can be played up to make him look bad? I know the MSM can't be counted on to investigate liberal candidates with the same enthusiasm as they have for derailing conservative candidates. But where are all the conservative bloggers? What about the conservative (relatively speaking) Washington Times? Fox News? Deeds can't be as pure as Ivory soap. There has to be something out there, something in his past that would cause voters to have second thoughts about voting for him in six weeks. C'mon guys, find it. Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants Obama to see Iran as a friend...
I don't know, do friends sponsor terrorist attacks on their friends? Do friends send their military into another country to kill their friends? Do friends threaten to vaporize their friend's friend? Do friends portray their friend as 'the Great Satan'? If that is the definition of friend, I'm afraid we're going to need a new dictionary.
Evidence of the MSM's liberal bias can be found not just in the content of stories, such as where they unfairly slime conservatives but also in the picking of the stories they choose to run and the placement given to particular stories. The MSM can be counted on to not just run stories that portray conservatives in a bad light but to give those stories prominent 'above the fold' placement while either not running at all stories that reflect badly on liberals or, if they are run, burying them inside the folds of the paper.
Given this, it is pretty much a given that any story run on the top of Page A1 will follow the above guidelines... it will be either a hit piece on conservatives or a promo for some liberal cause. So I have to admit, I was initially puzzled by the Washington Post's lead story today: "Less Peril for Civilians, but More for Troops As U.S. Toll in Afghanistan Rises, Lawmakers And Families Are Questioning New Restrictions" The article addresses claims that the military's restrictive rules of engagement are valuing Afghan civilians more highly than American soldiers and leading to more American deaths than would be the case if our soldiers were given more leeway in seeking out and confronting the enemy. And the story - surprisingly - doesn't depict critics as being petty and small minded, bigoted or motivated by greed, the story actually is respectful to them and their positions. So... what is the Post's motivation in running this story and running it now? Let's run through some possibilities... First, let's eliminate the unlikely candidates. No, the Post hasn't developed a soft side for American soldiers and marines. No, there is no pro-military mole at the Post who snuck in late and night and substituted this article for the typical anti-military story the Post would be expected to run. My guess is that the story is an attack on General McChrystal, who implemented these policies, at a time when he is arguing for more troops for Afghanistan (and, reportedly, threatening to resign if he doesn't receive the support he is asking for). What better way of knocking the guy than by portraying him as responsible for the unnecessary deaths of American soldiers? Why should Obama give McChrystal more troops if he isn't taking care of them? What better way of scaring military families than by claiming that the generals care less about their sons and fathers and brothers than they do about some peasant farmer? What better way of giving Democrat Congressmen some talking points about how they're not opposing an increase in troops levels because they're anti-war but rather because they care too much about our troops than to send them where they're going to be placed at even greater risk because - in the view of their commanders - American troops have to die in order to 'win the hearts and minds' of the Afghans? What makes this whole story a bit surreal is that I've been making the same points myself, and going back to Iraq. I very much hate the calculus that puts American soldiers in a position where they're not allowed to defend themselves. I hate the policy that requires field commanders to think about anything other than doing what they need to do to keep their soldiers safe. And now the Washington Post jumps in. Strange bedfellows indeed. Tuesday, September 22, 2009
A flood hits a major American city and the President is nowhere to be found.
So where is Obama as Atlanta struggles to deal with several feet of water? Is he on the scene? Monitoring the situation from the crisis desk at the White House? Has he responded to the request Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue made several hours ago for Obama to declare the area a federal disaster zone? No, he's off gallivanting at the United Nations, close to a thousand miles away from the devastation. Interesting that an American President would think that appearing at the UN was more important than the welfare of the people he represents. And interesting, but not surprising, that NOT A SINGLE newspaper has taken Obama to task the way they did with Bush in the aftermath of Katrina. One might be inclined to infer from the lack of condemnation that the MSM no longer cares about flood victims... or is it that they only care about flood victims when it is a Republican President allegedly not doing enough? Monday, September 21, 2009
Allow me to rain on the claim that 45,000 deaths per year are 'associated' with the lack of health insurance...
At least for the three examples cited in the article, one can just as easily associate stupidity with their deaths. Yes, it costs money to see a doctor (whether one has insurance or doesn't) but it is stupid to not see a doctor when one is sick. Nothing prevented them from going to a clinic and getting checked out, but they decided - all voluntarily - to save some money and run the risk that they had something that could kill them. They made a number of choices - not to take jobs that provided health insurance, to not buy insurance on their own, to not see a doctor when they fell ill - choices that turned out bad, and I'm supposed to feel so guilty that I should support Obama's preferred single payer health insurance program? Ain't happening. And while I'm at it, the woman (the second example in the story) died from a undiagnosed heart problem. Yes, if she had seen a doctor who diagnosed the problem, she may not have died. But there isn't anything in the story that indicates that she was suffering from any symptoms that would have led to her condition being diagnosed. And lots of people with health insurance die from undiagnosed heart problems... and from cancer that isn't detected until it's too late... and from other undiagnosed problems. One can only treat what one knows about... and having insurance doesn't mean everything gets diagnosed.
There is definitely a benefit of knowing the specifics of what one is talking about...
If Obama had done that, he wouldn't have argued that forcing people to buy health insurance isn't a tax... only to be contradicted by the text of the bill itself.
According to Dave Matthews, "there's a good population of people in this country that are terrified of the president only because he's black".
Let's see, Obama got 53% of the vote, almost 67 million votes. Presumably, Obama being black didn't terrify these folks. And if any of these folks are now terrified of Obama, I'd argue it is because of his actions since becoming President... and not because they've all of a sudden decided that they really are scared of a black President. And of the 58 million people who voted for McCain, keep in mind that Bush got 62 million votes back in 2004. Viewed another way, 62 million people voted against the Democrat four years ago when the Democratic nominee was about as pale as a white guy can be... so how does one infer racism into McCain's vote? Would Matthews really argue that even fewer people would have voted for McCain but for Obama being black? And of the millions of people who didn't vote, how terrified could they be of a black President if they didn't even get off their butt to vote against him? Let's look at this issue from a different perspective: are there really any Americans who would like what Obama is doing but for the fact that he is black? Are there any people who could be expected to support a huge expansion of federal government power but are opposed only because the black guy is in charge? Anybody who would want the federal government to take over GM and Chrysler but only if there was a white guy in the White House? Anybody who would otherwise support bending over for the likes of Russia, Iran and North Korea, but is terrified if Obama is the one doing the bending over? Face it, the people who like what Obama is doing would like it no matter what color Obama is and the people who oppose Obama are doing so because they don't want any President doing what Obama is doing. Reminds me of a line I once heard on a basketball court "I'm not saying you suck because you're black, I'm saying you suck because you suck".... and yes, there are some black guys who do suck at basketball.
I disagree with the Obama Administration's position re: Honduras, but not, as Mary Anastasia O'Grady laments, because they're not being supportive of 'democracy'.
'Supporting democracy' should never be the driving force in American foreign policy. American foreign policy should focus on taking action and positions that help advance America's security and economic interests. I would rather we support a friendly dictator than an antagonistic democracy... in order, the spectrum runs from friendly democracy to friendly dictator to unfriendly democracy to unfriendly dictator. It would be one thing if, in opposing the 'democracy' in Honduras, the Obama Administration was supporting a group that was more friendly to the United States... but they're not, the Obama Administration has not only turned its back on a friendly democracy, they're supporting antagonistic dictators.
It has a nice pop to it, but writing that Congress looking into the fees banks charge borrowers is "the latest sign that the financial crisis is shifting the balance of power from banks toward borrowers" signifies a complete ignorance of reality.
Repeat after me: the balance of power will ALWAYS be with those who have the money... for the simple reason that people with money won't lend if they think the balance of power has shifted to borrowers. And the fact that banks and credit card firms are still lending indicates that they don't think that any such shift has taken place. Granted, banks may not have as much power as they have previously had, that they have had some restrictions placed on what they can do and when they can do it... they may now have, to arbitrarily pick a number, only 80% of the power they used to have. For example, instead of immediately being able to foreclose on a house, they have to jump through some hoops, or instead of immediately being able to raise the interest rate lenders now have to wait some prescribed time.... but who in their right mind would consider this a shift in power to the borrower? Yes, I would rather be a borrower with some protection than no protection, but in no way would I consider myself to have the upper hand. Granted, this shift - down to 80% from whatever level it used to be - is technically a shift towards the borrower. And thus, this shift may be what the reporters are referring to.. but my guess is that they weren't, that they do think that borrowers somehow now have the upper hand when it comes to dealing with banks.
Yes, the Gallup poll shows that most Americans think the federal government is trying to do too much.
But.... so what? The problem with trying to exploit this issue is that there is no consensus on WHAT the federal government is doing wrong. Some people are upset over the government bailing out financial institutions, while others are upset over government regulation of health care, with still others upset over stimulus spending. And on every issue there are going to be people who actually like what the government is doing. Thus, a politician can only run against government in the abstract, not against a litany of programs. A politician can win some votes by proposing to eliminate or scale back stimulus spending but he'll likely lose votes from those who like (probably because they think they benefit from) the stimulus spending. The same holds true for every other issue: gain some votes from those opposed, lose votes from those in favor. This is what happened with Ross Perot, who got a bunch of votes running as the anti-status quo, but he was unable to actually turn his support into a political party.... precisely because there was no consensus - other than against government - among his voters. And this is the same dynamic that holds with pork barrel spending. People can oppose this in the abstract, but they all love it when it comes to spending in their own districts. So while it may be fun to pick up on this anti-government sentiment, it is darned hard to harness it...
I'm not in thrall to the so-called 'elite' colleges but Washington Post columnist Jay Matthews uses logical fallacies in arguing that they're over-rated.
Yes, there are a lot of successful people who graduated from schools that don't make the A-list (and as he points out, there are some successful people who didn't finish college at all). But in any analysis, there are going to be outliers. There will be people who don't go to college who do well, there will be those who go to a highly regarded school and bomb out in life, in the same way that there will be some number of kids who grow up in lousy conditions who go on to be successful and there will some number of kids from privilege who end up failures. A better analysis would be to look at how the 'typical ' student at a top rated school does compared to similar students at other colleges. Put another way, does the average graduate from, say, Yale, do better in life (however that is measured) than the average graduate from a lesser-regarded school? We know that the average high school graduate does better than the typical high school drop out and that the typical college graduate does better than someone with just a high school education. So it's not illogical to think that the most graduates from top-rated schools will do better than most of the people who graduate from lesser-ranked schools. Thursday, September 17, 2009
I mostly agree with the sentiments but object to his claim that "(conservatives) deserve to govern" America (italics are mine).
Maybe it was just a poor choice of words, but if not, it represents the same elitist attitude as found on the left. No one deserves to govern America, one can seek to EARN the opportunity.
I disagree with Andy McCarthy's view that "not much comment is warranted" about Nancy Pelosi's choking up over fears of political violence.
Whether accused of being racist by Jimmy Carter or accused of fomenting violence by Nancy Pelosi, the absolute last thing the GOP can afford to do is stay silent. It's not enough, as McCarthy seems to think, that some accusations are so lame that they can be ignored. Accusing their political opponents of being racist, sexist and prone to violence is a staple of the left... and no such accusation can - or should - go unaddressed by the target of the slur. And I don't want the GOP to go meekly and offer their usual tripe about how they're not prejudiced.... or offer some weak-a** 'sorry if anybody was offended by something we said'. I want someone in the GOP to go Joe Welch on the Pelosis and the Carters, hitting them with the one-tow of 'have you no decency? How dare you slur us and the millions of people who we represent because we don't agree with you?'... and 'if you have any evidence that I am acting out of racism, then step up produce it... or STFU'. And then the GOP needs to follow up by accusing the left of resorting to such despicable tactics because they can't defend whatever issue is being debated... whether it is health insurance reform now or affirmative action or whatever... and pointing out that just as the sun rises in the east, so too can the public expect to hear some liberal somewhere start cackling about right-wing racism... or violence... or greed. How nice would it be for the next time a liberal starts up along those lines for the public to starting thinking.... 'oh boy, there they go again'... The reason the left resorts to such tactics is that they've learned it works... for far too long the right has shied away from confronting the left... and the public has taken note of the silence. Most people figure that if they were accused of something vile, they'd be in their accusers face, demanding that they retract and apologize... and when the GOP doesn't respond in the way the public thinks they would if they were innocent, then the public starts to wonder if there isn't some fire behind the smoke. It is time - past time - for the right to stand quiet while being accused of racism and violent tendencies. It is time for the right to start acting like someone who has just been insulted. And luckily - and somewhat to my surprise - some in the GOP are fighting back. Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The (potentially tongue in cheek) call for a special prosecutor to look into Acorn are eerily reminiscent of the calls to investigate Halliburton. Just as the Bush Justice Department couldn't be trusted to investigate Cheney's former employer, so too is the Obama Justice Department not to be trusted to investigate the organization with which Obama has had such close dealings.
Not to pat myself on the back (okay, I am doing just that) but I definitely nailed the whole 'dissent is racism' meme last fall.
And I quote (myself, of course): On one hand, Obama winning will put an end to accusations this country is so biased that it won't elect a black President. On the other hand, Obama winning will only lead to accusations of racism levied at anyone who disagrees with whatever Obama wants to do as President. Oppose his budget, you're racist. Refuse to confirm Bill Ayers as Education Secretary, you're racist. Geez, am I good or what?
While votes are votes and getting more votes leads to victory, the GOP needs to realize that there is a big difference between getting votes from people who are voting against incumbents as a means of expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo and getting votes from people who genuinely support GOP policies.
The GOP definitely ought to cultivate and welcome voters who are p***ed off at the Democrats... but to maintain a long term hold, the GOP needs to have a platform that the public will buy into. It is a bit akin to being the guy who happens to be around when the hot looking girl has a fight with her boyfriend because her boyfriend said something mean to her. If you want it to turn into anything more than a short lived rebound affair, you better figure out a way of getting her to like you for who you are... and not solely because of who you are not. And that isn't happening with the GOP. The public is having some serious buyer's remorse with Obama and the Democrats... but the GOP has done very little to convince the public that the GOP's offerings are more to the public's liking. Unfortunately, the GOP (as did the Democrats when Bush and the GOP were screwing things up a few years back) mistakes the public's losing affection for the incumbent Democrats as affection for the GOP. They think that because people are upset with Obama's policies that the public is endorsing GOP programs. But that isn't what is happening. Tuesday, September 15, 2009
STEVE'S POLITICAL DICTIONARY - It all depends on where you're sitting...
Lack of respect - when someone from the other side criticizes someone on your side. Speaking truth to power - when someone on your side criticizes someone on the other side. Playing politics - what the other side does to accomplish things you don't like. Carrying out the will of the people - what your side does when accomplishing things the other side doesn't like. Wasteful spending - taxpayer money spent on things you don't like. Pork - a variation of 'wasteful spending, used to describe taxpayer money spent in someone else's district. Worthwhile investment - taxpayer money spent on things you do like. Judicial activism - when judges rule in ways you don't like. Upholding the Constitution - when judges rule in ways you do like. Demonizing the opposition - when the other side complains about you. Respectful criticism - when your side complains about the other side. Heeding the will of the people - justification for your position when backed by a majority of voters. Showing leadership / Doing what's right - justification for your position when opposed by a majority of voters. Move on / Get over it - what your side says when the other side wants to keep talking about something you don't like. Sweeping under the rug - what the other side does when trying to change the focus from something you want to keep talking about. Exercising executive privilege - what a President of your party does when not disclosing something demanded by the other side. Obstruction / abuse of power - what a President of the other side does when not disclosing something demanded by your side. Constitutional duty of oversight - when a Congress controlled by your party investigates a President from the other party. Witch hunts - when a Congress controlled by the other side investigates a President from your party. Monday, September 14, 2009
James Taranto writes that he doesn't understand Southern heritage, then goes on to write that the Confederate flag represents "secession and slavery ". Well, it might represent that to him, and it might to some Southerners, but my guess is that there are some Southerners for whom it represents something else.
Taranto, channeling Pauline Kael, seems to think that since everybody he knows thinks of the flag in that way, that must mean that everyone everywhere thinks of the flag that way. Perhaps if Taranto had an ancestor who fought in the Civil War, as South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson did, he might feel differently.
This fight over whether schools are required to inform students that they don't have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance brings to mind something I saw last weekend at the NASCAR race in Richmond. A couple of (inebriated, although that may have been incidental to what happened) fans loudly objected to another fan not removing his hat during the recitation of the Pledge and the playing of the national anthem... so much so that a police officer had to intervene to calm one of the guys down.
Yes, taking off one's hat is a sign of respect. But the guy had the right to not show his respect... and the two protesting bozos, for all of their ranting that they had served in Iraq defending the flag (whether true or not, who knows?), seem to be rather ignorant that one of our rights as Americans is the ability to not show respect to the flag, to our national anthem, or to our President. We have the right to boo. We have the right to criticize. And we have the right to not show respect in the same way others do. I don't sing the national anthem, I don't recite the pledge along with others. I don't salute the flag. I don't take off my hat (because I don't wear hats!). And people shouldn't have to be told that they have the right to opt out, to not take off their hat, to not sing along. If they (or, in this case, their parents) don't care enough to find out what rights they have and don't have, then I am not going to lose any sleep if they don't opt out of doing something they obviously don't care that much about in the first place.
An aspect of 'judicial activism' that doesn't get much press is when judges over-rule negotiated settlements between the government and a particular target.
For example, a federal judge declared as 'inadequate' a $33 million penalty Bank of America agreed to pay to settle allegations that it acted improperly during its acquisition of Merrill Lynch. Whatever the merit of the charges against Bank of America, the SEC felt a $33 million fine was a sufficient punishment. Sure, a judge has the legal right to reject these types of settlements, but in doing so, he is declaring as irrelevant the views of the people we picked to look out for our financial interests. The judge declared that he knows better than all of the people at the SEC. And maybe he does. But unless there is clear evidence that a prosecutor is acting improperly, judges should refrain from injecting their opinions into the process.
I don't think they're necessary, but Obama's 'czars' are not anti-democratic. They report to the President, they're presumed to act at the direction of the President and if the President can fire them anytime he likes... and the last I checked, the President was elected democratically. It doesn't matter that Congress doesn't get to confirm them; I think it is wrong that Congress gets to confirm so many of the people a President picks to help implement his agenda. Democracy means being able to hold someone accountable and while we can't kick out a particular czar, we can certainly deny Obama re-election if we don't (as seems to be the case) like what he is doing.
Maybe I'm being a bit anal about this, but this Newsweek reporter's comment that "... didn't have the misfortune of being caught on YouTube" needs to be addressed...
YouTube doesn't 'catch' anyone. YouTube is a web service where one can see, among other things, videos of people taken by other people using video cameras of some kind.
Supposedly, Obama's dropping support is due to racism...
But if so... Did the people who now no longer support Obama all just turn racist? If so, which is the chicken and which is the egg? Did their turning racist lead to them changing their mind and no longer supporting Obama? If so, why would someone who supported (and potentially even voted for) a black President turn into a racist? Or was their turning racist a result of their no longer supporting Obama? And if so, is it really fair to blame racism for Obama's dropping support when the racism was a consequence of the drop in support and not the cause. Or perhaps they were always racist but somehow - and just a few months ago - willing to put aside their racism to support Obama? If so, what did Obama do - or is no longer doing - that caused racists to ignore their prejudice and support him? This reminds me of the politicians lament that the same people who were smart enough to elect them to office aren't smart enough to listen to on the issues.
Even though the passengers on United flight 93 had already shown that 9/11 was a one-off event, that America was no longer at risk of hijacked passenger flights being flown into hi-rises, the government went and set up the Transportation Security Agency and gave it all sorts of power to do what it felt was needed to prevent another 9/11.
So tens of thousands of government workers were hired at a cost of billions and billions of dollars, and millions upon millions of fliers were inconvenienced - if not worse - as the government went about putting into effect all sorts of rules and regulations... all with the goal of preventing something that wasn't going to happen again anyway. And the same holds true in the aftermath of the financial crash last year. Left to itself, the market would self-correct for what happened.... but the government, determined to throw its weight around, is looking to institute all sorts of rules and regulations in order to prevent a recurrence... a recurrence that wouldn't have happened anyway. Let's review the failings that contributed to the crash... and how the market would have self-corrected... and how government is, ironically, making a relapse more rather than less likely. The biggest failure involved institutions buying assets of unknown quality. Financial institutions bought mortgages and other assets without knowing the underlying fundamentals of their holdings. They bought 'insurance' from companies without knowing whether the provider had the resources to cover claims. They extended credit to one another without knowing if their trading partners were solid. They relied on ratings without knowing the basis on which those ratings were issued. The second failure was in the supervisory structure. Employees were allowed to operate without adult supervision. Stockholders didn't monitor the boards of directors, the directors didn't properly monitor management and senior management didn't properly monitor and manage the traders and bankers. Mortgage providers didn't monitor and manage their brokers. Hedge fund and mutual fund investors didn't monitor and manage their investment managers. The third failure was with the compensation structure. Not so much with the amount of money but rather with the way in which compensation was paid out in ways that de-linked the interests of the employee from that of ownership. The fourth major failure was management's failure to keep single business units from threatening the health of the entire company. Companies - and especially large, diversified companies - ought to be able to survive problems in any given area - or even more than one area at a time - without running the risk that the entire company could collapse. And the fifth major failure was the belief (not always accurate, as in the case of Lehman Brothers) that government would keep companies from failing, that these companies could do what they wanted without suffering the consequences. Now... given that most people are not stupid, 'Wall Street' would have learned from its mistakes and taken the steps to keep those problems from recurring. Note: this isn't to say that they would be able to keep other problems from arising, just that they wouldn't let the same problems hurt them again. Financial institutions would have taken the steps to understand what assets they held. They would have insisted that mortgage originators retain some degree of risk for the securities. They would have done a better job of due diligence on the financial health of their trading partners. They would have investigated the ratings firms, there would have been no more blind reliance on ratings from S&Ps and Moodys. They would have better aligned employee incentives with the long-term financial health of the company. They would have kept from placing any more bet-the-company maneuvers. The boards would have instituted systems and controls to better monitor management and management would have been monitored and controlled staff. Investors would no longer hand money to hedge funds without getting more information and control over the investment. Contrary to what most people in government believe, they are not the pendulum that corrects for out-of-balance situations in life. People do... and on our own... and without the need for a village to do so for us. In fact, having government fiddle about keeps people from doing what we would otherwise do. Management won't stop making bet-the-company investments if they continue to believe that government will protect them from the consequences of making bad investments. Unions won't take a long term view if they believe government will save them from not having done so. Investors won't do the due diligence on their financial advisers if they think government will make them whole if they guess wrong. There isn't anything that comes to mind where government trying to fix a business does in fact make it better. Taking over GM and Chrysler and 'cash for clunkers' did not 'fix' the auto industry. Taking over AIG hasn't fixed the financial industry. Instituting tariffs on Chinese-made tires won't fix the domestic tire industry. But that inconvenient fact will not keep Congress and Presidents from acting as if they possess the special insight and power to succeed where their predecessors have all failed. Their arrogance is only matched by their lack of basic business sense. Friday, September 11, 2009
Vladimir Putin's announcement that Russia will not support either military action or sanctions on Iran should be a total and final repudiation of the charge that Bush's 'attitude' was responsible for the lack of an international effort to prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.
Man, I like being proven right... and yet it sucks at the same time. I argued - and to friends who ought to have known better - that countries decide what to do based on their assessment of whether something is good or bad and not on whether the leader of another country is nice to them or not. France didn't decide to not send troops to Iraq because of Bush, but because they decided doing so wasn't in their interests. Likewise, North Korea's breaking of previous agreements isn't because of Bush, but because North Korea decided it was better for them to do so than to not do so. And now Russia announces - as I knew they would - that they're not going to support any meaningful program that tries to force Iran to back down. It may be because Russia isn't worried about Iran using those nukes on Russia.. or it might be because Russia hopes to benefit when Iran does use them against Israel and/or American interests... or it might be because Russia figures Israel will take out Iran's nuclear program so they're playing 'free rider' on the outcome. Either way, Russia has made the calculation that they benefit from not agreeing to participate in a sanctions program. And they did so even with the opposite-of-Bush Obama in the White House. As I said at the beginning, this should be the final repudiation of the anti-Bush complaint... but it won't be. Bush's critics (at least those who faulted Bush for his style, as opposed to me, who criticized the substance of Bush's foreign policy) can't accept that style counts for very little in the real world.
Here's a (scary) thought: are those in favor of Obamacare lying to the Census Bureau about not having health insurance in order to drive up the reported numbers of people without health insurance... with the hope that this artificially high number will tug on the emotional heartstrings of America and lead to public support of a program to provide health insurance to the millions upon millions of Americans that go without?
According to the Census Bureau, the number of uninsured Americans are derived from surveys in which people are asked if they have health insurance. And while the Census Bureau acknowledges the possibility of 'wrong answers' (page 3), there really isn't anything they can do to detect and correct for it when it comes to respondents lying about whether they have or don't have health insurance. It isn't as if the Census Bureau runs a match of respondents against the coverage lists of health insurance providers to confirm that they don't have coverage. And while it is possible that an equal number of people without health insurance could lie and claim they do have it, I can't imagine why they would do so... unlike liberals who aren't averse to manipulating the process in order to get what they want.
9/11 thoughts...
Unlike Lorie, my reactions wasn't "shock, disbelief, and sadness, but most of all a vulnerability that did not exist on September 10". Why should anyone have been shocked? Islamic radicals had been attacking us -and successfully - for years. It was silly to think they weren't still trying to do so - and in a big way. It was silly to think that America was doing what it took to detect and prevent such attacks. We were vulnerable then... and we still are. We still don't do what needs to be done to protect ourselves. Every day I wake up, I halfway expect to hear of another successful attack on America. Pearl Harbor is not such a good analogy for 9/11. Yes, 9/11 was a sneak attack, on American soil (I know Hawaii wasn't at the time) and we took a lot of casualties, but while Pearl Harbor was the opening salvo in a war that many thought wouldn't take place, 9/11 was but one battle in an on-going conflict. I think the Japanese attack on our forces in the Philippines is a better analogy, for there too American defenses were unprepared despite our having knowledge we were in a war. As I've written before, Bush botched our response by framing this as a 'War on Terror', when it wasn't so much the tactics of our enemies that we were fighting as the enemies themselves, and regardless of the tactics they chose. Put another way, it isn't as if we would have been okay if the Islamic radicals had attacked a US military base while wearing uniforms. Creating the Department of Homeland Security was another huge mistake, and for two reasons. The problem wasn't that we lacked the structure to defend ourselves, we already had an FBI, a military, intelligence agencies and so on. The problems were that not enough people took Islamic radicalism seriously enough (they still don't, even with having created DHS) and bureaucratic competition kept agencies from working together. Creating DHS didn't do anything to change the former and there is no less competition between agencies within a Department than there is between Departments. 95% of the security procedures put in place at airports is a waste of time and money. The tactic the 9/11 attackers employed was obsolete as soon as news got out of the first place hitting the WTC. Never again would passengers sit passively while attackers took control and never again would the aircrew meekly hand over the controls. Yet TSA employs most of their effort at screening passengers and searching for contraband such as scissors and sewing needles and not enough effort at searching for explosives. And as far as remembering 9/11, I'll remember it as a battle we lost in a larger war... along the lines of the above-mentioned Philippines, Kasserine Pass, the initial stages of the Battle of the Bulge. I'll remember it as the day our lack of preparedness came back to bite us in the rear. I'll remember it as the day most Americans finally realized we were at war. Unfortunately, even though our enemies haven't surrendered, they haven't given up their goals, most Americans seem far too willing to put out of their mind that we're still at war and we're still vulnerable... and it doesn't help that our President is more focused on turning today into a 'day of service' than a reminder that we need to stay prepared and stay on the offense against our enemies. Thursday, September 10, 2009
When Bush was President, a fair number of people said he was responsible for Iran pursuing nuclear weapons... if only, they said, Bush had done X or Y differently, then Iran would have abandoned their pursuit of nukes and all would be well with the world.
So then how do they account for Iran's having (and I'm quoting) "rejected any compromise" with the West over its nuclear program? Don't the Mad Mullahs know Obama is the anti-Bush? Aren't they aware Obama has fallen over backwards showing them how nice and un-like Bush he is? And yet the Mad Mullahs continue to do the same things that they did while Bush was in office? They're not willing to compromise? They're insisting on doing what they want, and regardless of whether doing so is something others don't like? I'm not really expecting any of Bush's critics to acknowledge that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons had nothing to do with the tone Bush took... or with whether there were bi-lateral or multi-lateral discussions... or with whether Bush shouldn't have included Iran in the 'axis of evil'... but I'm not holding my breath.
Captain Ed is off a bit in saying (paraphrasing) that Obama is upset he "can't sell refrigerators to Eskimos".
While Eskimos don't need refrigerators, there's nothing inherently wrong with them. Obamacare, on the other hand, is downright dangerous.
I think Joe Wilson could have handled the apology angle a whole lot better than he did...
Here's the apology I would have written for Wilson: "I am sorry, but I just wasn't able to sit and listen politely while our country's President made one false claim after another. America deserves to have a President who doesn't lie in order to advance his partisan agenda". In other words, it wasn't Wilson's fault, Obama forced him to act impolitely. By taking this road, Wilson would have ensured that the discussion didn't focus just on him... and later, on how magnanimous Obama was to accept Wilson's apology. Obamacare opponents need to show America that Obama isn't telling them the truth... not when he claims that the program will be deficit neutral... not when he claims that illegals won't get subsidized care... not when he claims that abortion won't get paid for... not when he claims that everybody can stick with what they have. And in order to do that, someone has to be willing to stand up and declare that the emperor has no clothes. Joe Wilson could have been that person... but he gave up that chance by taking the wimpy way out.
South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson yelling "You lie" at Obama during Obama's speech to Congress may have been a breach of decorum (one that was matched, with much less recriminations, by Democrats during Bush's presidency)...
... but it also will cause some viewers (as well as those just now hearing about the incident) to wonder if there isn't some smoke behind the fire, whether Obama is indeed playing fast and loose with the facts... ... and given the trouble Obamacare is in right now, the last thing Obama can afford is to lose any more credibility than he already has.
When you take a survey of people watching Obama's speech last night... and you factor in that there likely more pro-Obama watchers than anti-Obama or even neutral-Obama watchers.... then is it any surprise that Obama got positive ratings?
For a clear picture of how highly the MSM values its people and how low they value soldiers, look to the Washington Post's coverage of the British raid in Afghanistan to free a NYT reporter held by the Taliban.
In the print edition, the front page tease for the story which is on A11 reads "A New York Times reporter held by the Taliban is rescued by troops from his native Britain, but his Afghan interpreter is killed". On the Post web site, the link for the story reads "Afghans Angry Over Death of Interpreter in Raid That Rescued N.Y. Times Reporter". The lead of the story itself "The dramatic rescue of New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell, a British-born journalist who was plucked unharmed from a Taliban hideout in a pre-dawn raid Wednesday by British special forces, was greeted with relief by his colleagues and co-workers in Afghanistan. But the relief was overshadowed by grief and anger among many Afghan journalists and others over the death of Farrell's Afghan interpreter, Sultan Munadi, who was shot dead in a firefight during the raid and whose body was left behind while the commandos whisked Farrell to safety". Note the common thread: it is all about the NYT reporter and the Afghan interpreter who worked for the NYT. The Post story then manages to work in references to the air raid last week that, along with a bunch of Taliban, killed some number of so-called civilians who were in the vicinity. Oh... and then the Post gets around to mentioning that a British paratrooper was killed in the raid to rescue the reporter. The soldier risked - and lost - his life to save a reporter... and the Post doesn't rate it worthy of note until after they've addressed the 'real' news. So let's look at the pecking order: NYT reporter... Afghan interpreter... Afghan 'tensions'... dead soldier. And what makes the whole thing worse is that the reporter was there covering the aftermath of the above-mentioned air raid... and no doubt with the intention of coming up with whatever he could that would make the military look bad. That is the type of person the British paratrooper lost his life saving. If it were up to me, the paratrooper would be alive and the reporter not so much. Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Years ago, when encountering someone with a different opinion than me on some issue, I thought I would be able to convince them that I was right.... after all, right is right, and their being on the 'wrong' side meant that they simply were missing some piece of information that would cause them to see the light. I figured I just needed to figure out what they weren't seeing or understanding.
And when my attempts fell short, I figured I must have screwed up the presentation... after all, right is right, and anyone with full command of the facts would obviously take the 'right' position... so I would just go back to the beginning and start over showing them what they were getting wrong.... and I would do this again and again and again. And then it hit me, their failure to agree with me wasn't a failure on my part, it was a failure on theirs. Something in their head was preventing them from seeing things as I did. Maybe it was their having been dropped on their head earlier in life. Maybe it was something they were taught or not taught in school. Maybe it was a result of the drugs they took or didn't take while younger. But whatever the cause, it was clear that they were physically and mentally unable to process information the same way I did. And over the years, I modified this thinking: it wasn't so much that they were unable as they were unwilling to look at things the same way I did... and the reason for this is that they had different values and believed in different things than I did. They believed big government could be efficient. They believed that taking money from someone could be justified by someone else claiming to need the money. They believed that the crazies in the world could be dealt with rationally. They believed that it was okay to limit what people could do with their own property. They believed that Bush would allow the 9/11 attacks to happen. But did I accept this? No, I doubled down and put even more effort into convincing them they were wrong. I was so sure of my persuasiveness that I (with a capital I) would be able to convince them their value system was screwed up. I would be able to rescue them from the silly beliefs that trapped them in the world of delusional liberalism. Of course I couldn't... and the reason is that liberals are missing the switch that allows them to see that their ideas can't stand up to scrutiny. It doesn't how much you show them that socialized anything doesn't work, they just can't accept that. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that at some point you just have to accept that there's no convincing them that you're right, no matter how hard you huff and no matter how hard you puff. They're just not going to get on board. Once they've made up their minds, there's no going back. And so it is with Obama's speech tonight. He is so enamored with what he believes are his superior oratorical skills that he refuses to accept that there are a whole lot of people who disagree with him on health care and who aren't going to change their mind no matter how many speeches he gives and no matter how much he tries to marginalize and demonize his opponents. A President with less (unjustified) confidence would recognize this and move on. He would try to buy off his opponents, by giving them something they want in return for supporting something he wants. He would follow the adage of staying quiet and having people think he had political capital than speak, have no one listen and reveal his support is an inch deep. But Obama can't do that. He's got to keep trying to convince his opponents that they're wrong to oppose him. He'll use facts, he'll use anecdotes, he'll use rhetoric, he'll belittle his opponents. But he won't succeed.... not because he hasn't come up with the right argument... but because his opponents just have different values than he does. Tuesday, September 08, 2009
The line-in-the-sand health care issues for conservatives...
* No one should be forced to either buy insurance or pay a penalty. * No government run insurance provider... not now, not under some 'trigger' provision (if it is wrong for the government to get into the business of running an insurance company, it is wrong now and it is wrong in the future). * No health insurance subsidy for illegal immigrants (and with a real enforcement mechanism, not the toothless provision that the Democrats seem determined to impose). * No taxation of employer paid health insurance premiums (whether or not accompanied by a supposed offsetting tax credit; conservatives don't raise taxes). * No penalty for employers who do not offer health insurance (if workers people feel health insurance is that important, they will shun employers who don't offer insurance... in other words, there is no need to legislate what the market will take care of on its own). Unfortunately, some Republicans seem determined to violate one or more of the above. Idiots, they deserve their minority status And if the GOP wants or feels the need to offer up some reforms of their own: * Allow consumers to purchase health insurance from providers licensed in other states (if need be, perhaps to minimize trampling on 'states rights', allow for nationally chartered insurance companies and allow them to market across state lines). * Reform malpractice law by instituting nationwide caps on pain and suffering damages. * Override state laws mandating minimum levels of coverage to allow insurance providers to offer reduced coverage 'catastrophic coverage' policies (it is far better to allow people to buy some insurance than to keep them out of the market altogether).
On behalf of all those who don't want to pay higher health insurance premiums and who didn't lie on their health insurance application, I thank the insurance companies for rescinding coverage of people who lied by no disclosing pre-existing conditions when they applied for coverage.
Insurance premiums are established based on expected levels of benefits payouts; those in good health get charged lower rates than those in not-so-good health. And by hiding their pre-existing conditions, these frauds not only obtained insurance coverage at a discount to the price they would have been charged had they been honest, their fraud costs the rest of us money in the form of higher premiums charged to offset the higher than expected payouts for these frauds (it is analogous to shoplifting: stores factor losses from shoplifting into the prices they charge everybody else). Of course, the MSM and the liberals don't care about folks who play by the rules. To them, we're simply a source of money to fund their pet causes. Friday, September 04, 2009
A US jet blew up a couple of tanker trucks in Afghanistan, killing a bunch of Taliban insurgents along with some number of civilians who had gathered to siphon fuel.
Which is what I call a win-win-win. Dead enemies and a signal to supposed civilians that it can be dangerous to hang around the Taliban and a signal to the Taliban that hiding among civilians doesn't mean they're safe from attack. Of course, this is dreaming on my part. I expect that our PC-driven military will soon apologize for the civilian deaths and move to institute even more restrictive rules of engagement. Thursday, September 03, 2009
Some random thoughts on Obama addressing Congress next week in an attempt to what is described as 'winning back control' of the health care debate.
First off, Congress is not his real audience, they're just a conduit to the audience Obama really needs to reach: the American people, and specifically, (1) voters from purple states (neither reliably Democratic nor Republican) where it wouldn't take much of a shift to hand the seat back to the GOP and (2) constituents of the so-called 'Blue Dogs', the somewhat moderate Democrats who fear losing their seats next fall if they support Obamacare. Obama needs to convince these voters to back off. In order to do so, Obama has to understand why they're angry. And this is where most politicians, especially politicians who are liberal elitists, have a lot of problems: they don't understand regular folks, they don't like regular folks, they don't hang out with regular folks, they don't speak the same language as regular folks... and as a result, when they try to connect with regular folks, they come across as patronizing and phony. But Obama will try anyway. And he will fail. These people are angry because they're afraid. And they're afraid because they think they are going to come out on the short end of the straw. But there isn't a single fear that Obama can address. Some fear their taxes going up to pay for something that isn't going to benefit them. Others fear having their insurance premiums rise, while others fear increased hassle and wait times to see a doctor. Some feel that the quality of their health care would suffer, while still others fear being denied coverage as a result of the rationing they feel would be the inevitable result of Obamacare. Obama can't address all of these concerns, there isn't enough time to do so in a single speech. And when one doesn't have time to address everything in detail, there are two standard fallbacks. One approach is to take a 'don't trust the people who are scaring you, they're liars and cheats and not really on your side'. Obama may try this by going after those he feels have led the opposition: greedy pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies, evil conservatives who play off fear and so on. But this is a tough path: one needs a lot of standing to convince someone to stop listening to the people they've been listening to... and Obama doesn't have that stature anymore. The second approach is a variation of the 'hey, trust me to do the right thing'... but here too, Obama doesn't have this arrow in the quiver. He's squandered much of the goodwill he had at the beginning of his term, people aren't as trusting now as they were eight months ago. He doesn't have a track record to run on: he can't point to having done X or Y as proof that the public should trust him on this issue. Even worse for Obama is his tendency to paint his critics as uninformed, greedy, whatever (this is SOP for liberals, their opponents are never legitimately concerned). It is one thing when he is attacking Republican officeholders, but in this case, his opponents are the very people he is trying to reach... and a general rule is that one doesn't insult (or, per the above, patronize) the audience. But Obama won't be able to keep from making his audience think that Obama is dismissing their fears as illegitimate (one of this favorite rhetorical devices is the 'some people say' as a way of marginalizing their criticism... but here the 'some people' is the audience he is trying to reach). Obama may also (and my guess is he probably will) try to paint Obamacare as an obligation society has to those less well off and that the public has an obligation to support him. And here too he will come up short. Not being regular folk, he doesn't understand that our generosity only kicks in when we feel secure... and that we're not feeling real secure right now. People don't give when they think they're going to need the money themselves... and they're not going to go along with something that they think will make them less secure. All in all, Obama has a tough task... one not made any easier by his not understanding his audience... and his not being able to address their concerns... and his not being able to argue without attacking his opponents as petty. Wednesday, September 02, 2009
According to the Washington Post, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell is trying to "salvage women's vote".
But seeing as 'salvage' means to raise something that has sunk or trying to save something in danger and there's no evidence that McDonnell's support from women has indeed sunk or is even in danger, I think the Post headline is wishful thinking rather than a neutral unbiased reporting of the facts.
It's said that generals always fight the last war and so it ought not come as a surprise that General Petraeus, fresh off his 'win' in Iraq, is using pretty much the same tactics in Afghanistan, and even so despite that there are probably more differences than similarities between Iraq and Afghanistan.
And it ought not come as a surprise that our enemies, having seen those tactics used in Iraq, have adapted their tactics. Combine that with overly restrictive rules of engagement placed on our forces operating in Afghanistan and it is pretty easy to see why our guys are having some major trouble in Afghanistan. Tuesday, September 01, 2009
The question that has yet to be asked about Charles Rangel: how does a guy who has been in Congress since 1971 accumulate that much of a net worth?
There's nothing in his background to suggest he or his wife comes from wealth nor that either of them have held any type of well-paying job that would allow them to amass hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets. Think about it: even with today's relatively low tax rates, to accumulate a million or so in assets requires him to have saved and/or earned at least 30% more than that... and his House salary, while certainly not low, ain't high enough to allow someone to slice that much off the net check. Bribes? Kickbacks from staff? Pocketing unearned per diem payments? Gifts from those seeking legislative favors? Sweetheart financial investments, ala Hillary Clinton's commodities investing? (and she had the decency to stop at a mere $100,000 in profits). As is often said, the cover up is usually worse than the underlying crime. But not always. And even when it is, the cover up takes place because there is something someone doesn't want known.... and I think in this case, Rangel trying to hide that he has so much money makes me think he really doesn't want people asking or looking into just how a poor civil servant could have legally accumulated as much as he has.
It shouldn't take a Princeton Professor to explain why Obama underestimated the opposition to his health care plans... and a Princeton Professor ought to be smart enough to recognize that telling Obama to use his 'bully pulpit' isn't going to work.
Obama's mistake was in thinking his election meant the country approved of what Obama wanted to do. How could they, when his winning was more of a repudiation of Bush and McCain than it was an endorsement of Obama? How could they, when Obama hid his liberalism and disguised his proposals in mushy feel-good moderate language? By the way, this was the same mistake that Bush made in 2004 after defeating Kerry, when Bush mistakenly felt the people had endorsed him rather than declaring that Kerry was too much of a clown for them to vote for... a mistake that cost Bush when he pushed to reform Social Security. And because the people didn't support Obama's positions, then climbing the bully pulpit isn't going to work. No matter how eloquent he is, Obama is not going to be able to convince voters who aren't liberals to support liberal programs.
|