| 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
|
Friday, January 28, 2011
Maybe someone who is smarter than me can explain the logic in this...
The State Department is calling on Egyptian government "to immediately address the legitimate grievances of protesters surging through the streets" and suggesting the the US might withhold some of the $1.5 billion of foreign aid Egypt receives from us. Does the State Department not realize that dictators value retaining power over anything else, which includes addressing their subject's 'legitimate grievances'? And that dictators will do just about anything to retain power, including shooting as many protesters as is necessary to retain control? And that dictators know that losing power will absolutely cost them whatever foreign aid their country receives? So does the State Department think that Mubarak will step down rather than jeopardize the foreign aid? Do they think that Mubarak is only interested in staying in power if he can do so without cracking a few thousand heads? So what's the point? Other than hearing themselves talk, that is?
Here's how the GOP can overcome the Congressional Budget Office claim that repealing Obamacare would worsen the deficit.
As has been pointed out, the CBO is obligated to score the bill as it is written, they're not allowed to discount the law's gimmicks and other maneuvers that create - on paper - the impression that the law is a net positive to the federal budget. This has helped the law's supporters... and it can help the law's critics if they follow these simple steps. The law is full of all sorts of provisions that are supposed to increase taxes. One is the '1099' rule which is - according to the law - supposed to bring in billions of extra dollars in taxes. Another is the extra taxes all the to-be-hired IRS agents are supposed to bring in. Well... if the GOP forces through a repeal of the 1099 provision... and by one means or another keeps all these IRS agents from being hired... all of the increases in federal revenue associated with these provisions also go away... changing the fiscal outlook for Obamacare as a whole and forcing the CBO to alter its assessment. A win-win for conservatives. Eliminate tax hikes... and with them, change the financial scorecard for Obamacare. Friday, January 14, 2011
Albeit for different reasons, I agree with those who want cutbacks in the amount of government financial aid and loans given to those attending for-profit colleges and tech schools. Unlike most of the critics, who I believe dislike the very concept of for-profit school, I agree with Donald Graham that they do serve a purpose... I just don't think the federal government needs to be giving or even loaning money to students to attend these schools... or any school for that matter.
If Graham, as well as those in charge of the so-called public universities, thinks that the students attending their schools are gaining an education well worth the cost, then let them provide the financial aid and loans to the students themselves. Why should a company with the deep pockets that the Washington Post Company has need the federal government to loan money to their customers (oops, I mean students)? With all of the money the Harvards and the Princetons and the Yales have, why shouldn't they themselves be financing the cost of being a customer? It is of a similar vein to the arguments for making mortgage loan originators keep a portion of the loan themselves... businesses are going to be more careful with who they loan money to if they have to eat the loan if the borrower doesn't repay. The same should be true for schools. Let's hold them responsible for making sure they're only admitting those students who have the desire and the brains to pay back the loans. And if the schools look at certain kids and decide that they don't quite measure up, shouldn't that be taken as prima facie evidence that we as a society shouldn't be loaning that person money?
The 'lack of civility' in politics is not the problem, it is but a symptom of a system in which getting one's way is very, very, very important to an awful lot of people.
It is pretty well accepted - on both sides of the aisle - that there's no need to 'play nice' when the stakes are high. There are no Marquis of Queensberry rules to follow when one is in a life and death struggle. Soldiers don't have to let the enemy shoot first. People getting mugged don't have to refrain from fighting back with deadly force. Parents don't have to obey the speed limit when chasing after someone who has just grabbed their kid off the street. And plenty of people think politics fall into such a category, that winning elections and passing legislation to one's liking is so vitally important that one is not only allowed to do just about anything, but that one should do just about anything to make sure their side wins. To fiscal conservatives, there isn't much worse in life than having a government that unhesitatingly spends as much money as our government is doing. To social conservatives, there isn't much worse than a government that not only allows but encourages abortions. To someone who lives in mortal fear of being killed in a terrorist attack, there isn't much worse than a government that they think is lackadaisical towards terrorism. The same can be said of those on the left, with all of their fears that life as they know it was over with a government that does the kinds of things it does while a Republican is president, whether it be Guantanamo Bay, wiretapping suspected terrorists, cutting taxes or failing to spend as much on social programs as they would like. Given how important these people feel about having the 'right' set of economic and social policies, it is no surprise that many of them have take a no-holds barred approach to politics (which is nothing more than the process by which we decide who gets to do what). In fact, given the stakes, it would be a surprise if people didn't react as vociferously as they do. This is the thinking that leads a Ted Kennedy to totally misrepresent Bork's record in order to keep Bork off the Supreme Court. It is what led Bill Clinton to insinuate that the right was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. It is what leads the birthers to pursue their delusion that Obama isn't an American citizen and thus isn't eligible to be President. It is what leads talk show hosts and political pundits - on both sides - to use the language and rhetoric they do. The solution? There isn't one. Some say that a less active and intrusive government would lead those who dislike the current state of affairs to tone down their rhetoric... but having a less active government is precisely what a number of other people fear the most... so any gain from one side is offset by increased anxiety from the other side. Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Something to keep in mind when thinking about the left's attempt to blame conservatives for the shootings in Phoenix.... this is simply another front in their ongoing campaign to delegitimize those who disagree with them.
They know from experience that calling an opponent a racist (or sexist... or homophobic... or xenophobic... or whatever) puts that person on the defensive and diverts media and public attention towards their accusations and away from the substance of the policy argument their opponent is trying to make... and if the left is lucky, they never have to defend their substance of their own arguments. We saw this when the left attempted to depict the tea partiers as a bunch of racists instead of standing up and defending the substance of their economic policies. We've seen it when anybody arguing for clamping down on illegal immigration is accused by the left of being bigoted against Hispanics. We saw it when conservatives arguing against the Lilly Ledbetter legislation were accused of being anti-women. It is simply (yes, simply) a twist of this strategy when liberals accuse conservatives of creating an environment in which killings like this take place. By throwing out these accusations, they hope to delegitimize their political opponents in the eyes of the vast mushy middle of independent (and somewhat detached from the daily political fights over policy) voters... all in hopes of making these independent voters just a tad more skeptical of whatever it is that the Palins, Limbaughs, Hannity's, Becks and so on say the next time there's a political battle over one policy or another. And, as the conservatives are slowly learning, the best way to counter this is not by rushing to show that we aren't racist or whatever it is the left is accusing us of being, but rather by going right back on the attack and calling the liberal attackers what they are... a bunch of pathetic crazies. Tuesday, January 11, 2011
As evidence that even people who are normally normal can do dumb things, NY Republican Peter King is reportedly planning on introducing legislation that would outlaw carrying a weapon within 1,000 feet of a government official.
Aside from pointing out the obvious that anyone wishing to attack a government official isn't going to be deterred by such a law, this proposal has the potential of make a criminal out of anyone who happened to have a gun within such a distance... and even if they didn't know there was a government official within 1,000 feet of them. Let's imagine some scenarios... Someone with a gun driving by a building in which there is a government official... someone with a gun watching a movie in a theater in which a government official is also watching the movie... someone with a gun filling his gas tank at a gas station at the same time a government official drives by in their car. Good move, King. Way to show the public that you're not one of the clowns who after such an incident can't wait to rush to the podium with some cockamamie proposal to show that you care... Monday, January 03, 2011
Just as I can no longer watch Mel Gibson movies or episodes of Seinfeld*, I fear that I no longer will be able to watch any of the Schwarzenegger movies that I liked so much (yeah, I admit it, I liked his movies), as I can't separate the actor from the idiot he is in real life.
* or anything with Rob Reiner in it... or written by Aaron Sorkin...
No way is Facebook worth $50 billion... except, perhaps, to those who truly believe suckers are born every minute.
With 2010 revenue reportedly at $2 billion, the company would have to be valued at 25 times revenue. That's revenue, mind you, not earnings, a more traditional barometer of measuring valuations. For Facebook to be worth that much money, someone has to be figuring that Facebook will eventually find a way of monetizing their supposed 500 million users (I know for a fact that a bunch of people are running multiple user accounts). Sure, Facebook is making money from people playing virtual reality games that run through the site.... but how many people do they think really want to play such silly time-consuming games? Enough to generate billions of dollars of profit? Unlikely. As for ads, while the number of ads posted on Facebook continue to rise, more and more are finding that such ads pretty much suck for generating revenue for the advertiser. Unlike Google, where users go looking for a links, nobody logs on to Facebook looking to click on the ads that pop up on the right side of the page. Like display ads in newspapers and banner sites on other web sites, users are conditioning their minds to filter out that clutter. And no clicks soon turn into no ads and no ads don't add up to a lot of revenue. Me thinks the investors are figuring the public is too dumb to realize that there is no there there, at least as far as profits are concerned, and will jump at the chance to own a piece of such a hot property. As is often the case, the first investors will get bailed out by the stupidity of the public... which will get stuck with owning a piece of a company that will never provide a positive return on their investment.
|