Showing newest 43 of 51 posts from January 2009. Show older posts
Showing newest 43 of 51 posts from January 2009. Show older posts

Friday, January 30, 2009

New Feature: TTKS Links of the Week

With all apologies or thanks to ESPN's the Sports Guy, we'll be adding an exciting new feature to Time to Keep Score by posting links to interesting articles, funny stuff, or whatever else we find out there in the Internet. Most of it will be in keeping with our theme, but some will probably be just for fun. Enjoy, and feel free to use the comments to provide links of your own.

Here is a funny article from the Washington Post on Al Gore ("the Goracle") and his prophetic status as the American Global Warming Guru. (Thanks to the Drudge Report for bringing it to my attention.)

In this article from the Heritage Foundation, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) shreds the stimulus bill fairly intelligently, while at the same time laying out a more conservative alternative (I like that near-rhyme, by the way). Still looking for an equally intelligent defense of the bill from the other side.

This opinion piece from Peggy Noonan at the WSJ talked about the stimulus bill as a missed opportunity for the President. Reader David brought this to our attention in a recent comment. An excerpt:

Consider the moment. House Republicans had conceded that dramatic action was needed and had grown utterly supportive of the idea of federal jobs creation on a large scale. All that was needed was a sober, seriously focused piece of legislation that honestly tried to meet the need, one that everyone could tinker with a little and claim as their own. Instead, as Rep. Mike Pence is reported to have said to the president, "Know that we're praying for you. . . . But know that there has been no negotiation [with Republicans] on the bill—we had absolutely no say." The final bill was privately agreed by most and publicly conceded by many to be a big, messy, largely off-point and philosophically chaotic piece of legislation. The Congressional Budget Office says only 25% of the money will even go out in the first year. This newspaper, in its analysis, argues that only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus.



And, just for kicks, a bit of election humor (of the nonpartisan variety) from out there on the Internet (Thanks to TTKS Buddy Daniel for passing it on):

"The following is a funny and true story shared by KC Williams who teaches AP Government at Santa Fe High School. In one of KC's classes, they were discussing the qualifications to be president of the United States . It was pretty simple.

"The candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.

"However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president.

"KC and the class were just taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating

"'What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by c-section?'

"And someday she'll vote."

Read more...

What to do with GITMO prisoners???

Check out this fantastic bit of hyperbole by friend of TTKS, David:

"And Sam, please, before you talk about the closure of Gitmo, propose what you want to do with the people inside.
Maybe you can offer them an exchange student housing in your house, with your kids, or maybe just at your neighborhood, so you can show them that America is really a nice place, and then their "loved ones" will like us more and will stop blowing themselves up."

This is an important question that Jon Stewart answered earlier this week. Check it out:



I'm with Jon... feed 'em to the braineaters!

Read more...

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Jihad ≠ Muslim

Yes, that is the simple lesson for today. I know, it is complicated. Let me jot that down one more time for you:

Jihad ≠ Muslim


I wrote this comment in response to fellow author, Adam's post below but it has me all hot and bothered so I had to be a poor sport and throw it on the front page:

Adam, you entirely misunderstood Obama's message to the Muslim world.

Obama knows he won't win over the 'Jihadists.' That is not his target audience.

His audience is the 99% of Muslims who have never participated in a violent act but are skeptical of a United States that calls their country part of an 'axis of evil' or stacks their countrymen on top of each other in the nude in a make-shift prison camp and holds and tortures their loved ones indefinitely against international standards of war.

I broke down the numbers to make this easier for you:

There are roughly 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide.

You report that there have been 12650 'Jihad' attacks since 2001.

That means for every 118,577 Muslims there was one attack.

For sake of argument, lets say that 100 'Jihadists' were involved in the planning of each attack. That would mean that 1.26 million Muslims are 'Jihadists'

And that would also mean that 1.498 Billion Muslims out of the 1.5 Billion in the world are not Jihadists...

Obama's message was timely and brilliant. He is taking the ammunition out of the hands of those who would recruit terrorists.

He understands, as the former administration never did, that we can fight Jihad and terrorism without pitting the whole Muslim world against us. He understands that closing Guantanamo Bay was a powerful symbol that the United States is not above the law. He understands that the men and women in the Armed Forces will act with the same dedication, passion and patriotism in stopping any and all suspected terrorists without infuriating the entire Middle East.


Read more...

The Bloodless Jihad

In 2008 10,779 people died in 2,204 Jihad attacks. 18,213 people were critically injured. Since 2001 there have been 12,650 Jihad attacks worldwide.

All from the “Religion of Peace”.

Barack Obama recently appeared on an Arab television station. He declared that “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."

Somehow I am not convinced that millions of Jihadists are simply going to put away a millennium of hatred and war and ideology simply because Barack Obama has stated that “we are not your enemy”.

Obama seems to utterly misunderstand the war and the enemy that plagues the United States–and the non-muslim world at large. We are not in a position to decide who our enemies are. The Jihadi militants and the Islamist supremacists have always and forever sought to convert by the sword. Muhammad decimated the city of Mecca with his armies. His religion of peace was taken to the Arab world with the mantra of convert or die. “Christians & Jewish martyrs say; ‘I will die for what I believe’. A Muslim martyr says; ‘you will die for what I believe’.

The “bold diplomacy” of “we are not your enemy” is either ignorant, or a denial of the history of Jihad. And yet, just days into the Age of Obama, his repeated mantra to the Islamic world has been for them to “unclench” their fists, and grasp the hand of friendship.

This is beyond naivete.

Islamic supremacists have no interest in being friends. They have no interest in “peace and prosperity”. They desire only to kill non-Muslims. Consider the Bombay attacks. Muslims taken hostage were set free. Non-muslims were shot in the head. A small Jewish center was attacked, where the Rabbi and his wife were brutally tortured, sexually violated, and unceremoniously murdered.

Indeed, those attacks offered a looking glass into the worldwide Jihad.

But bombings and shootings and hijackings are not the only weapons of Jihad. There are also weapons that assault the public opinion. And the result of these weapons is nearly as devastating as any explosion or bullet.

Obama has promised to strengthen federal hate crime legislation. Which means that potentially, a filmmaker here in the United States will face criminal charges for an anti-Jihad film. Or an anti-Catholic film. Or an anti-Mormon book. Conversely, making a film in praise of a certain world view could also be construed as “hate speech”.

Consider the case of Geert Wilders, a filmmaker in the Netherlands who produced a movie critical of radical Islam. He now faces criminal prosecution. His terrible crime? The “insult of Islamic worshippers”.

Robert Spencer elaborates:

The insult of Islamic worshippers”? The very idea of trying someone for insulting someone else is absurd, and unmasks the Dutch initiative as an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. The one who judges what is an actionable insult and what isn’t is the one who has the power to control the discourse -- and that’s what the prosecution of Wilders is all about. If insulting someone is a crime, can those who are insulted by hate speech laws bring suit against their framers?

The action against Wilders is taking place against the backdrop of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference’s efforts at the United Nations to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam -- including “defamation of Islam” that goes under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.”

If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West -- in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis, non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Thus this initiative not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.


Luckily we live in the United States of America where free speech is unfettered. Right? Except, perhaps not. Already the chattering about re-instating the Fairness Doctrine is starting to be heard on Capitol Hill. Already Democrat law makers are trying to silence dissenters and agitators like Rush Limbaugh. Even the President himself, the supposed “great-uniter” has blurted publicly that people who want to “get things done” should not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

The Fairness Doctrine, and an increase in Hate Speech legislation will mandate that only certain views be acceptable to express. And anything contrary to the law will be subject to criminal prosecution.

Again, Robert Spencer offers insight:

....the Fairness Doctrine initiative shows that its [free speech] protections can be chipped away. And “hate speech” laws could be justified by a declaration that free speech is still a constitutional right, but after all, every right has its limits: “hate speech” will be specifically exempted from its protections -- and “hate speech” will be defined to encompass speaking honestly about the actual texts and teachings of Islam that contain exhortations to violence and assertions of supremacism, unless one is referencing such material approvingly as a believer.

For to speak of such things in any other way would be to “insult” Muslims, as has Geert Wilders.

The looming battle over the Fairness Doctrine -- which Doctrine is essentially an attempt to muzzle political dissent -- will reveal a great deal about what opponents of Islamization stateside can expect next.

Lovers of freedom should be watching the Wilders case very closely -- as President Obama is already making abundantly clear -- it could happen here.


So the next time the talking heads on television start to soften the Islamic Supremacism that we see unfolding around the world, keep in mind the war that is being fought without bullets and bombs. The war for the hearts and minds of men. As soon as it becomes unacceptable and unlawful to preach the truth about terrorists, then the rest of the Jihadi victory will be forgone conclusion.

Read more...

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Rush Limbaugh is not the man I knew


Ok so we've all heard about how Rush is a right wing bomb thrower who spews venom and bile daily on his radio show. President Obama in fact directed his 16 inch guns in Rush's direction when he told Congress (and America) to stop listening to Rush. I crack open the WSJ this evening (ok I was reading it on my wife's ipod while trying to fall asleep) and I see an article from Rush. Oh goody, his response!

First the title:

My Bipartisan Stimulus


Hmm, this doesn't seem to be going in the right direction, I thought he'd be launching salvos of Tomahawk guided missiles of verbal annihilation at the White House.

I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don't believe his is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades.


Ahh, there it is, he is getting ready for that classic Rush-broadside. Loading up the clever play on words with "porkulus" to substitute for "stimulus", he's just winding things up.

Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.

Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.


Huh? Curveball, he's acknowledging the other side's view and admitting there is support for the Keynesian approach?

Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."


Oh thanks Rush, that jab was well placed in showing how arrogant the White House has been behaving since ascending (I chose that word carefully) to power. Now let's lay it on.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.


He just blew my mind. Striking a deal with the other side, that's unpossible. Rush doesn't allow for that sort of appeasement, is this really the Rush I thought I knew?

We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.

In this new era of responsibility, let's use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy -- and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn't know the difference. This is about jobs now.


Excellent. Rush wants to keep score on which economic approach works best. That is what we need. That is change we can believe in. I'd like to publicly acknowledge that Rush has surprised me on this article. I was fully expecting something different, and instead I got something thought provoking and NEW for once. Of course Obama will probably end up saying, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that." Why would anyone believe him when he talked about a new era of bipartisanship anyway, campaign trail speeches are for suckers.

Read more...

Our Blog Goal

The evolution of this blog has been and continues to be interesting and surprising to us (the authors), and may be so to the readers as well. We've had a facelift, as you can see, which we're shamelessly proud of, and we've added a couple talented writers.

One may wonder what our purpose is for blogging. In fact, we've intensely debated that among ourselves in many a gmail chain.

Below is our proposed blog goal, and we welcome your insight/feedback on this statement:

Make a proverbial punching bag out of Sam our token left-leaning author.

We kid! We kid! But we admit, it may sometimes appear that way.

The real proposed statement is as follows:

Keeping score implies something important is on the line; it begets passion, competition and even conflict. In keeping score we size up the issues we believe are important -- issues that we are willing to voice our opinion about without any expectation of accord or tacit approval. So call it how you see it.

Again, we invite anyone interested to weigh in on this statement and the general goal of this blog as you see it.

Read more...

Living Without an Income

Later this year I will be leaving my job to pursue an MBA. I've been planning on it for years, though not necessarily saving for it. There will be some level of debt associated with the MBA so my wife and I have tried to prepare ourselves mentally for life on loans. As I've started to think about how that will be, I've wondered what other alternatives there are for access to cash when you lose your income - whether that loss of income is expected (grad school) or unexpected (layoff).

I came across this article today that helped me understand a couple options for cash and the consequences/benefits with those options. Here's a nice excerpt that summarizes the article:

Consider two people with $100,000 in their retirement plans. One borrows $50,000 from his plan. The other borrows $50,000 on credit cards. Both end up out of work for years and eventually file for bankruptcy.

The first person gets the shaft. He's left with just $50,000 in his retirement account, as he spent the rest. And he probably owes Uncle Sam about $12,000 in taxes and penalties too.

The second person? His credit's a mess, but his debts are wiped clear in court and he walks away completely free – and with $100,000 still sitting in his retirement account.

Fair? Who said anything about fair?

My 401(k) ain't nowhere close to $100k, it's more like $4.01(k), but that settles the internal question of whether or not it's worth touching it (extreme situations aside). And, while credit card debt is frowned upon generally, if there was nowhere else to turn, it's at least a viable lifeline. Some of you have undoubtedly been there before: living without an income. What's your experience?

This topic raises another question, and that is how ethical is bankruptcy (speaking of inidividuals not corporations)?

Read more...

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Econ 101

Read more...

Stimulating Reading

From the desk of House Republican Leader, John Boehner, 20 Fast Facts about the Obama spending spree:

1. The $825 billion package slated for a House vote later this week will exceed more than $1.1 trillion when adding in the interest ($300 plus billion) between 2009-2019 to pay for it.

2. The Capitol Hill Democrats’ plan includes funding for contraceptives; regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer funded contraception, there is no question that it has NOTHING to do with the economy.

3. The legislation could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which has been accused of voter fraud, is reportedly under federal investigation; and played a key role in the housing meltdown.

4. Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats’ proposal:

· $650 million for digital TV coupons.

· $600 million for new cars for the federal government.

· $6 billion for colleges/universities – many which have billion dollar endowments.

· $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.

· $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters.

· $200 million for the National Mall, including $21 million for sod.


5. The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion. That means more than a third of this plan’s spending provisions are dedicated to creating new government programs.

6. The plan provides spending in at least 150 different federal programs, ranging from Amtrak to the Transportation Security Administration. Is this the “targeted” plan Democratic leaders promised?

7. Even though the legislation contains at least 152 separate spending proposals, the authors of the plan can only say that 34 have any chance at keeping or growing jobs.

8. Just one in seven dollars of an $18.5 billion expenditure on “energy efficiency” and “renewable energy programs” would be spent within the next 18 months.

9. The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.

10. The House Democrats’ bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

11. The bill provides enough spending – $825 billion – to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700. $825 billion is enough to give every person in Ohio $72,000.

12. $825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the United States $22,000.

13. Although the House Democrats’ proposal has been billed as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, in actuality only $30 billion of the bill – or three percent – is for road and highway spending. A recent study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that only 25 percent of infrastructure dollars can be spent in the first year, making the one year total less than $7 billion.

14. Much of the funding within the House Democrats’ proposal will go to programs that already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) – a program that already has $16 billion on hand. States also are sitting on some $9 billion in unused highway funds – funds that Congress is prepared to rescind later this year.

15. All board members of the “Accountability and Transparency Board” created by this legislation are appointees of the President; none will be appointed by Congress.

16. A scant 2.7 percent, or $22.3 billion of the overall package, is dedicated to small business tax relief.

17. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the legislation increases by seven million the number of people who get a check back from the IRS that exceeds what they paid in payroll and income taxes.

18. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit at the center of the plan amounts to $1.37 a day, or about the price of a cup of coffee.

19. Almost one-third of the so-called “tax relief” in the House Democrats’ bill is spending in disguise, meaning that true tax relief makes up only 24 percent of the total package – not the 40 percent that President Obama had requested.

20. $825 billion is just the beginning – many Capitol Hill Democrats want to spend even more taxpayer dollars on their “stimulus” plan. In fact, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), told Roll Call earlier this month, “I would not be surprised to see us go further on some of these programs down the line.”

Read more...

Bipartisanship Under Obama

I've been vexed of late as to whether GOP leadership will merely slide into the role that the Dems held under Bush, whether they will sell out their conservative heritage and just be "softly" liberal, or whether they will push conservative solutions that are viable alternatives to some of Obama's more frighteningly liberal agenda.

Mickey Edwards, a player in the Reagan administration and co-founded the Heritage Foundation (conservative think-tank), wrote a very interesting op-ed piece in the L.A. Times this week in which he stated:

If proposals seem unworkable or unwise (if they do not contain provisions for taxpayers to recoup their investment; if they do not allow for taxpayers, as de facto shareholders, to insist on sound management practices; if they would allow government officials to make production and pricing decisions), conservatives have a responsibility to resist. But they also have an obligation to propose alternative solutions. It is government's job -- Reagan again -- to provide opportunity and foster productivity. With the nation in financial collapse, nothing is more imprudent -- more antithetical to true conservatism -- than to do nothing.

I maintain that "doing nothing" is exactly what the Dems did as a minority and then a majority during the problems of the Bush era. If the GOP wants to be a relevant player, it needs to eschew that tendency. And President Obama, with all his talk of unity and inclusion, needs to publicly and quickly take Dem leaders to the woodshed for any inkling of taunting, exclusion, and pettiness.

Republicans would be wise to distance themselves from platforms that are,

anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs.


Further,

They [must cease] to worship small government and [turn] their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.

The fact is, President Obama has as much potential to support conservative solutions as he does liberal ones. He's a family man, he's religious, he's a self-made man, he has stated that he opposes same-sex marriages (though he's been a bit confusing on that one), and the liberal voting base of the poor, the minorities, etc. will be just as likely to embrace conservative solutions as they are liberal ones, as long as they are solutions.

I believe that those solutions exist. What I'm frustrated with is GOP leadership's lack of ability to push those forward.

Read more...

Monday, January 26, 2009

News Flash: Clean Air = Better Health


So it turns out cleaner air makes you live longer according to a study published by researchers at BYU (my alma mater) and Harvard. I know, I know, earth shattering. Right? But this study is getting a lot of attention.

The study examined 51 metropolitan areas in the U.S. and found that from 1998 to 2000, cleaner air added an average of 5 months to peoples lives. Pittsburg was one of the most drastic, realizing a 10 month increase in life expectancy attributed to their efforts to control air pollution (Go Steelers!). Add that up and that is a lot of living! Pro-life enough for you?

If you are not reading between the lines of the business implications in all this, let me spell it out for you: This is terrible news!

Now that people's health is inextricably linked to cleaner air there are going to be overwhelming calls for even cleaner air! Please! Will you people ever be satisfied? Where is your patriotism? Some are called to give their lives on the battlefields from shrapnel and bullets for this country. For others, dying from cancer because they lived downstream from the steel plant is the true test of a patriot's metal (no pun intended). Can't you see that both benefit this great nation equally?

I predict that in Obama's first term the EPA will further burden businesses with higher air quality standards. More environmental regulation means less profits for companies and consequently, a lower GDP and lower standard of living for you. This means that we will be able to wage less wars and occupations to spread democracy throughout the world!

A healthier economy or a healthier you? The choice is clear for all Great Americans.

Read more...

Inexcusable!

The irony coming from the press, and the Democratic Party (but I repeat myself) is astounding:

MATT LAUER: While Caroline Kennedy's Senate bid crashed and burned some Democrats are burning at the way New York's governor handled the whole affair. NBC's Andrea Mitchell is in Washington. Andrea, good morning to you.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Good morning.

LAUER: And we're basically talking about three dynasties here. And let's start with the first one. The Kennedys. How did they come out of this whole thing?

MITCHELL: They are furious, Matt. They are furious because basically people close to the governor are believed to have trashed Caroline Kennedy's reputation, even after she withdrew. And there's no excuse for that at all. There's no excuse in any case. But the fact that they went after her on personal issues and put it all out there for the tabloid press after she had withdrawn - inexcusable.


There's no excuse for attacking someone on a personal issue in any case? In any case Andrea Mitchell? Not even the case of a female conservative governor of a conservative state? Not even then?

Inexcusable, indeed.

Read more...

More: Hope and Change

Nancy Pelosi:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.


One of the "consequences of the downturn in our economy" is population control? Like China, perhaps?

I wonder where Nancy Pelosi would draw the line between 'reducing costs' and euthanasia. After all, ridding the world of costly elderly people would also save money. Perhaps, like Logan's Run, we ought to just start eliminating anyone who is a burden on the "system". The poor, the elderly, the sick, the dependent. Even the disagreeable.

All for the common good right?

Read more...

"Why the Bush years weren't so bad"

Now that's a headline you don't see everyday. Steve Landsburg, the original pop economist (author of the The Armchair Economist and More Sex is Safer Sex among others) wrote a quick little reminder about why things aren't as horrible as some are making them out to be.


Start with this: You are better off than you were four years ago. After adjusting for inflation, the average American earns about $2500 a year more today than on the day of W's second inaugural. That same average American now spends a little less time at the office or on the assembly line, and a little more time on vacation or on the couch. He or she shops online for products that were unimaginable just four years ago. (How many of you read this morning's paper on your Kindle or iPhone?) The air is cleaner than it was a decade ago and life expectancy is up.

Not that the last president had much to do with any of this. He didn't. It's the way the modern world works. Things improve. Incomes rise, work hours fall, the quality of goods improves. Few things in economics are as consistent as the growth of real GDP per capita over the past 200 years


Amen.

Read more...

Sunday, January 25, 2009

The video...

Grizz, I think the video is worth posting...



Why would we want to use the MOST skilled labor in our infrastructure spending? It's certainly better to use less skilled labor and to discriminate in the process.

Read more...

'Hope and Change' Quote of the Week

From Obama economic advisor Robert Reich:

I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. … I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. … Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.

Read more...

They called me "Ace"



I aced all my classes too...

Read more...

Saturday, January 24, 2009

This Peaceful Country

Interesting reader posts from the WSJ on the inauguration. With all the love being tossed around and comments about the patriotic zeal gripping the country some readers gave interesting thoughts as to why.

Markos "Kos" Moulitsas's musings on patriotism prompted this observation from reader Tom Haight:

Having lived in the D.C. area for the last few inaugurations, I think you missed the best argument that Moulitsas's comments on the Obama inauguration were unwittingly funny.

Simply put, he's right about the atmosphere at the inaugurations. The Mall was a lot friendlier this week than during the past two inaugurations, so I did an anecdotal survey. Turns out most of my conservative friends who went to the last two Bush inaugurations (and are still in D.C.) also went to Obama's inauguration and were there chanting for the new president too. Because my friends were there cheering and decked out in red, white and blue (which liberals can now be seen wearing again), everyone thought they fit right in.

Contrast that to 2001, when they had to tolerate screaming liberals protesting Bush's "selection" by the Supreme Court's "partisan decision to place him in the White House," and 2005, when they had to put up with the CodePink and MoveOn.org protests.

When you cast it in that light, of course the atmosphere this week was nicer! Of course there were fewer people being divisive! And thus Moulitsas takes away the wrong conclusion, because he is completely oblivious to the fact that it is the generosity and patriotism of conservatives that allowed it to happen. Paradoxically, the intolerance of some liberals (and the responses by a minority of conservatives) made all conservatives look confrontational, but the patriotic unity of the conservatives who went down to the mall this week made all liberals look magnanimous and generous.

James White sounds a similar theme:

When a defeated political right doesn't try to score political points on every minor scandal (e.g., the treatment of Timothy Geithner vs. the treatment of Alberto Gonzales in the U.S. attorney kerfuffle), when the right cheers and supports what is good for America with no regard to the president's political affiliation (vs. the left cheering for an Iraq failure in order to hang it on "Bushitler"), and when Republicans don't embrace their political fringe to raise money--well, until the next election (vs. the Dems' use of the nutroots and the Cindy Sheehan crowd), then will Obama get the credit for changing the tone in Washington?

My guess is yes, and the Republicans won't care.

It's as if the teenage son finally turns down the volume on his bedroom stereo and then demands thanks from his parents for the peace and quiet. The parents are so happy to have a quiet home that they don't mind the teenage son patting himself on the back for something that was in his control in the first place.

Read more...

Friday, January 23, 2009

Keeping Score of Our Negativity Bias


We are talking a lot in my Organizational Behavior class about common obstacles to organizational change. One psychological phenomenon caught my attention in thinking about this blog. Negativity Bias.

Negativity Bias says simply that the bad gets our attention more than the good. It is deep-seeded into our evolution as a species. When grand-daddy, Homo erectus bent down at the water hole to get a drink he was more concerned about the saber-toothed tiger on the other side of the pond than the beautiful orchids he was squatting in. It was a survival thing.

But like many of our instinctual penchants, Negativity Bias lingers on. It is the reason negative political ads have more impact than positive ones and the reason a column exists in your local paper about recent crime and not about recent 'good works.'

Last night I couldn't sleep so I decided to investigate the extent to which Negativity Bias prevails in Time To Keep Score. I combed through the nearly 200 articles we've authored in the last 4 months looking for the Negativity Bias. My methodology was loose but I went through and quickly catagorized each post into one of three categories: Negative, Positive and Nuetral (I threw out any post that did not include TTKS author commentary).

Results:
Negative posts: 51% (89)
Positive posts: 19% (33)
Neutral posts: 22% (38)

So yeah, calling out negative actions, policies, etc. prevails on this blog as it does in the vast majority of societal commentary-based blogs. But that is not a bad thing and I think I speak for the rest of the authors in making no apoligies for it. Sure it is nice to stop and smell the roses every so often but keeping score means staying firmly based in our negativity bias for our organizations, nations and blogs to survive.

Read more...

The Blue Dog in New York


The Democrats are up in arms this morning over the announcement from New York Governor Paterson that Hillary Clinton’s senate seat will be filled by a little known representative from New York by the name of Kirsten Gillibrand.

The Party is upset because Gillibrand is a Blue Dog democrat and in many arenas is the polar opposite of Hillary Clinton. The big sin that seems to have everyone buzzing is that she’s an opponent of gun-control. The NRA has given Gillbrand a 100% approval rating, which is a welcome sound to us gun-toting, redneck republicans. She’s also a fiscal conservative and appears to be lukewarm in her support of gay marriage.

She’s a mother of two, a tireless worker, and slim on experience, but is known to not be shy to take stand on her positions and buck the trend of her party. Sounds familiar. One website even used the word “mavericky” to describe a few of her positions. Another site, after telling of how Gillibrand worked 13 hours straight one day prior to delivering her now 6 month old child spouted “Take THAT, Sarah Palin!”

Why not thank Sarah Palin? The left and the media now know exactly how to handle the situation. There are certainly ways to go about discrediting her. Why not start with making sure that her two children are actually hers? Any chance her 6 month old belongs to someone else and she’s just playing the fall girl? Maybe the media can bombard her hometown and scour it for any dirty clues. She’s a Catholic, so maybe we ought to do a little due diligence on her religious views. Better yet, maybe harass her priest. Let Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric take a few pot shots at her. Are we sure she’s conversant on the Bush Doctrine?

There will be none of this. A few lefty columnists are sure to piss and moan a bit, but in the end they’ll all just move on in the name of Hope and Unity, then aim to kick her out in the next election cycle.

Read more...

The Elephant in the Room

Ok, fine, I'll be the one to bring it up. Does it bother anyone else that we have to wait 2 weeks between the Conference Championships and the Super Bowl? Don't fool yourself into thinking this is allowing the spotlight to remain on the historic Inauguration. This is a total money thing. The NFL willingly allows the momentum to screetch to a halt in the first week as manufacturers and retailers gear up for week 2, which is when the money is made. The momentum revs back up in week 2, but honestly? I think most people get tired of the wait. 14 days is way too long for the fans, but more importantly, I think it's too long for the teams involved. I get that it's nice to have 2 weeks for players to get healthy and nurse some nagging injuries, but c'mon, it's the NFL. That week-to-week grind is amazing. Teams typically just have a couple days to game plan for the next opponent, but this unusual extended prep time doesn't guarantee a spectacular product. Super Bowls are rarely great games (last year's being an extreme exception).

So as much as I love the NFL, and I do love it, I wish we only had one week in between so that we would see a more exciting game, with teams getting roughly the same preparation time as they usually do. It'll never happen, but whatever.

Secondly, why do we need the Super Bowl to be played on the first Sunday in February? That's just dumb.

Well, Thank bin Laden for that. See, the Big Game used to be played on the final Sunday in January but when we put life on hold in the wake of 9.11, we moved everything back a week...and then never moved it back in subsequent years. We should put it to a vote and see how many people prefer the Super Bowl in January. Look, November baseball is ridiculous. And so is February football.

Phew! There, I said it.

As for the game itself, I would love to see the Arizona Cardinals topple the Steelers. Part of it is my hatred for the Steelers for getting a cheap win over my Seattle Seahaws in Super Bowl XL, and part of it is seeing the lowly Cardinals finally getting their chance. Even though they are a divisional rival, I'm jumping on the Cardinal bandwagon.

Read more...

Rise Up, O Legislative Branch

So Ms. Pelosi is excited to finally be able to get to work now that the "10 pound anvil" of Bush's presidency was removed from her head via Marine One.

Well good for her. I'm relieved too, the poor thing. She's been saddled with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, nothing but battles to win, and a friendly majority in both houses with which to win them and potential to expand that majority for the past two Congressional terms. What a tough environment in which "arguably the second most powerful person in Washington" can effectively shape the course of what should be the most influential policy-making governmental branch out of the three. Please.

A significant-yet-oft overlooked danger to good governance is the tyranny of the executive over the legislative. Presidential power (and by extension that of the executive generally) has quietly expanded steadily, most notably since the New Deal. And yet, in Congress there is opportunity for strong leadership to check that executive**, even when the parties are friendly to each other.

When Congress merely waits for a friendly President to aggressively push an agenda, the legislature becomes a mere extension of the administrative state, a means to an end, and fails to truly be the representative branch of government that it ought to be. Even from within the same party, the two branches are designed to have fundamentally different agendas, and the pursuit of those agendas and the resulting conflict should theoretically provide for some of the best policy allowed for under the Constitution.

I submit that President Bush's 'failed policies' should be attributed no less to an acquiescent friendly Congress during the earlier years of his presidency and a spineless, whiny, complaining Congress during the later years. I shudder to think of what kinds of trouble a majority of yes men (and yes women) will get us into during the first two years of Obama's presidency.

**Democrats held a majority in Congress during much of the Republican-dominated presidencies of the 70s and 80s, with House Speakers Carl Albert and Tip O'Neill serving opposite Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. Republican Newt Gingrich was a powerful opponent of Bill Clinton during the 90s. In the Senate, Senator LBJ was notably a very strong driver of policy which made him a logical second to JFK.

Read more...

Thursday, January 22, 2009

36 Years. 50 Million.


It was 36 years ago today that Roe v. Wade was signed into law. In the time since, over 50 million abortions have been performed in the United States. 50 million lives snuffed out, before they ever had a chance to live. Which is why I feel the video clip posted below is so ironic. In many, many circles the conditions that Barack Obama was conceived under would have justified and even required him being aborted. But he wasn't.

And yet, he is the most pro-abortion president in the history of the United States.

It ought to be pointed out on this day that the central ideology, the overriding theme to all U.S. policy and law is the guiding principle of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That simple and profound phrase is subtle in its specificity. Life and liberty are not something to be pursued. They are granted by default. They are fundamental. They are inalienable.

Happiness, on the other hand is no guarantee. But the pursuit of it, is.

So who are we to say who may live and who may die? I believe that Christian groups are so adamantly pro-life because they recognize that the creation of life is the one aspect of mortality that directly imitates the literal work of God. To tamper with that, for the sake of social and cultural convenience is abhorrent.

A culture of life is a culture of vitality and growth. There is only depression, digression, and unhappiness in a culture of death. To wrap the unfortunate process of abortion in the glittery paper of 'human rights' or 'female rights' is at best, misleading. It flails the rights of the unborn, the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

...the abortion battle is over abortion and whether the unborn child counts as a human person, but where one comes out on that question is, I believe, powerfully influenced by a host of other beliefs and attitudes aptly summarized in the pro-life language of a culture of death versus a culture of life. There are two cultures, one focused on rights and laws and the other on rights and wrongs; one focused on maximizing individual self-expression and the other on reinforcing community and responsibility.
Read the entire article. It is an unemotional discussion on the Life and Choice movements, and worth the time spent reading it.

However, to keep emotion out of the argument is a challenge for me. Especially when I have heard the 10 week old heartbeats of twins, or watched them via ultra sound in the womb kicking and moving and... living.

Our recent experience with our twins brought the abortion argument into sharp focus for me. And although they are not our first children, our experience with them differed because of the inherent increase of risk that comes with twins. And so ultra-sounds were performed earlier and more often. The so called 'viability' of the babies was obvious and evident from the very beginning. The beating of their hearts were separate from one another, and independent of the mother. For all the magic of hearing one heartbeat over the machine, it paled in comparison to hearing two.

But beyond the physical evidence of life, there was something occurring (and it has occurred with all 5 of our kids) much less tangible, much less clinical. My wife spent much of the 38 weeks she carried them describing the personalities of the children. Our daughter was fussy and dominant, she was moving constantly, kicking, turning, rolling. Exactly as she does now. Our son was more docile, mellow, quiet. He was content to sit comfortably idle, curious in his surrounding. Exactly as he is now.

On this the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I hope each of us takes a moment to stop and think about the ramifications of 50 million lives that never were. The clamoring and indignant righteous outrage about soldiers who have died in combat, or rights violated by marriage amendments, civil discrimination and warrant-less wiretaps seems petty when one considers the rights of the 50 million people whose lives never were, simply because it would have been socially inconvenient, embarrassing or burdensome to bring them into the world.

Read more...

Charities Keeping Score

Uh oh. Looks like government needs to step in and mandate fairness in charitable giving as there is a marked difference in charitable contributions between the two political ideologues.

You're probably thinking that the left wingers are those that care the most and therefore donate the most.

In May of last year, the Gallup polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, "liberal" or "very liberal" respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.

These disparities were not due to differences in income. People who said they were "very conservative" gave 4.5% of their income to charity, on average; "conservatives" gave 3.6%; "moderates" gave 3%; "liberals" gave 1.5%; and "very liberal" folks gave 1.2%.


Dang. Well maybe it was due to all those bible thumping right wingers giving to their local churches?

It appears this is no longer the case, however: The 2008 data tell us that secular conservatives are now outperforming their secular liberal counterparts. Compare two people who attend religious services less than once per year (or never) and who are also identical in terms of income, education, sex, age and family status -- but one is on the political right while the other is on the left. The secular liberal will give, on average, $1,100 less to charity per year than the secular conservative. The conservative charity edge cannot be explained away by gifts to churches.


Blocked again. Could the record Obama donations have crowded out charitable giving from the left?
Perhaps you suspect that the vast political contributions given to the Obama campaign -- $742 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, versus $367 million for the McCain campaign -- were crowding out charitable giving by the left. But political donations, impressive as they were this year by historical standards, were still miniscule compared to the approximately $300 billion Americans gave charitably in 2008. Adding political and charitable gifts together would not change the overall giving patterns.


There must be something that explains this disparity. It just doesn't make sense that the greedy right wing fat cats are more charitable than the caring, feeling-your-pain liberals.

It turns out the response in 2008 was dramatically different for left and right. For instance, a 10% decrease in family income for a conservative was associated with a 10% decrease in giving. The same income decrease for a liberal family led to a 16% giving drop. In other words, if this relationship continues to hold, the recession will almost certainly exacerbate the giving differences between left and right.


I can think of some "change" that might benefit this country. Increase the charitable giving deduction or at least punish those that aren't "giving" their fair share.

Read more...

Quote to Ponder

"And Mr. Bush, a man of core decency and integrity, was right not to reply in kind when Democratic leaders called him a liar and a loser. The price of trying to change the tone in Washington was to be often pummeled by lesser men.

Few presidents had as many challenges arise during their eight years, had as many tough calls to make in such a partisan-charged environment, or had to act in the face of such hostile media and elite opinion."

Read more...

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

A Brief History Lesson

Read more...

Hmm, no red flag about Geithner?

Obama's proposed Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, apologized today for the great disruption he caused with the discovery of his $34k unpaid employment taxes. He spoke today at his confirmation hearing. Here is one snippet:

Throughout my career, I have had the great privilege of serving our country in institutions responsible for U.S. economic policy.

In these roles, I learned several important lessons about government and economic policy.

I'm sure one of those important lessons was the importance of integrity in financial dealings.

Ok, so everyone makes mistakes. Is Geithner's gaffe really that terrible? Does it call into question in any way his qualifications for heading up the Treasury Department?

I personally think that no matter your status in life you can figure out how to get your taxes done properly. Every taxpayer knows someone who can help with tax paperwork, even if it isn't in the form of a gift card to H&R Block. So if anyone else can do it, how come Geithner can't figure it out?

Maybe his ineptitude in paying taxes has no relevance on the fact that he is known as a keen economic mind, but I think it is a significant enough of a mistake (not the amount, but the number of years and apparent dishonesty) to be sufficient for his removal from the nomination.

Just because the general public tends to be forgiving doesn't mean that a situation like Geithner's doesn't require some serious consequences. I suggest the punishment involve more than paying up and apologizing. Otherwise, how is the lesson truly learned?

Read more...

Keeping Score In Gaza


Thank goodness for the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas on Sunday. I understand that all Israeli troops are now withdrawn from the Gaza Strip. So things are pretty much back to the way they were before the 22 day brawl, right?

Politically, yes. But not if you ask the friends and family of the 1313 people that died in the conflict. In keeping with the theme of the blog, I thought I'd tally those deaths up for you:

Israeli dead: 13

Palestinian dead: 1300

No typos. Hey, at least we know our latest missiles work. Congress just approved another $2.06 billion in military aid to Israel (no, that does not include economic aid... just military) which is roughly 30% of our foreign aid budget.

Israeli/Palestinian relations are extremely complex and I don't claim to understand all the history behind it. But if missile shrapnel landed in my yard with a American flag on it, I'd be asking some questions too.

Interesting documentary on the 'Israeli Lobby' courtesy of freedocumentaries.org if anyone is interested.

A note to prospective commentators: Please refrain from lecturing me about our interests in the region. I understand our ongoing relationship with Israel is very important.

Read more...

Clean Up

image: RedState

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

~Barack Obama, inaugural address, 1.20.09


It looks like the first duty that someone will have to "seize gladly" is cleaning up after the inaugural euphoria. I am certain however, that those whose duty this will be, will tackle the mammoth task with an old fashioned can-do attitude of joy and the "knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit" as cleaning up the historical trash on the lawn. I would suppose that the trash itself will be preserved in bronze and proudly displayed in the museums whose facades it once littered.

I also have a feeling that this will not be the first time Americans will need to clean up after Obama.

Read more...

Happy Birthday, Ryan!



TTKS Readers,

Please join me in wishing one of our finest contributors, Ryan, a very Happy Birthday today!

All the best, RG!

Read more...

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

God Bless Our President

He needs it. Look at the toll a presidency can take on a man.

Dubya, 2000



Dubya, 2008



Slick Willy, 1992



Slick Willy, 2000



Bush Senior, 1988



Bush Senior, 1992



Ronnie, 1980



Ronnie, 1988 (granted, he started out pretty old and has the benefit of quite a bit of hair dye, but still...)



Mr. Lincoln, circa 1860



Mr. Lincoln, 1864 (tough to tell with the black and white, but he aged significantly during his four years)

Read more...

What about the other 48%

Today is a holiday in NYC. The commute was empty coming into the city and the tower where I work is pretty empty as well. I've also noticed that a lot of communication from leaders within the company have been increasing the frequency of invoking the name of Obama. Everywhere I read or hear about the historical moment of today, the change we have in store, how nice Obama's body is, etc. You've all heard plenty from Adam on that subject.

What I ask though is what about the other 48% that did not vote for Obama and do not agree with his political views? An argument can be made that he is our president so we should all be happy about this day, and I'm sure Sam is in the process of typing that in the comment section right now. That is not how our country has operated since George Washington stepped down and let Adams and Jefferson fight it out.

So why our companies willing to alienate potentially half of their employee populations to cheer lead on this day? Why not keep things apolitical? I suspect that companies were not doing the same thing at either of Bush's inaugurations or even for Clinton's.

I'm afraid that companies are falling for the media's love over Obama and confusing that with total universal adoration. I think companies should be careful on this issue as it has the potential to backfire. Are things different at Walmart, General Mills, and P&G (companies HQed in heartland states)?

Read more...

Appropriate. And Ironic.

Read more...

Monday, January 19, 2009

Our Dear Leader



The hysteria gripping the nation on the eve of this history making historical inauguration is tangible. And historical. The 'I have a Dream' speech, delivered by the man we remember today, will tomorrow be fulfilled. Like the Law of Moses after Christ, it will be done away with, as a new, higher law becomes the gospel of the land.

The artists and poets and beatniks and bohemian elites are awash in the spirit of patriotism and unity and hope and change. At long last the dark history of slavery and oppression and imperialism has been vanquished. America, the beautiful, is now actually beautiful.

Beautiful like the ultra-creepy artwork featuring our new and benevolent Dear Leader:




In the true spirit of propaganda and personality worship Obama will assume the throne of the New United States, a land in need of a "new declaration of independence". At long last, the sacred "Third Way" will embrace our very souls and carry us down the sweeping current of progress, hope, and change.

In fact, that spirit of unity is holding the world captive. Even our enemies are enthralled at the calming influence for calm that Obama calmly and stoically exports. An aura of docile, and yet bold authority engulfs the air around him, settling the nervous, jittery, trigger-finger-ism of neocon militant warmongering.

Even the Pakistanis are celebrating this day of historical history making historicity:



Obama is not even president yet, but already has reached that coveted status of being burned in effigy by Islamic supremacists. It took Bush at least a year to achieve that vaunted honor.

And of course, 'Death to Obama' is an endearing term.

Read more...

More GWB

First of all, great post on President Bush, Grizz. Very well said and articulated. No matter what Sam says, I believe the Curious Case of George W. Bush will be discussed at length over the next several years and the real conclusions still remain to be drawn.

Thomas Sowell posted a great piece last Friday on President Bush. I thought I'd share a few gems from it:

"Whatever history's verdict on the Bush administration might be, it is likely to be very different from what we hear from the talking heads on television or read from the know-it-alls on editorial pages."

"Unfortunately, people who are protected from dangers often conclude that there are no dangers. This is most painfully visible among those Americans who are hysterical over the government's intercepting international phone calls, in order to disrupt international terrorist networks. "

"We can only hope that it will not take the sight of an American city lying in radioactive ruins to wake people up to the dangers that George W. Bush protected us against, despite an unending chorus of carping. "

"No one in his right mind would say that the Bush administration was flawless. But many of their worst political mistakes were the kinds of mistakes that decent people often make when dealing with indecent people, both domestically and internationally. "

"Whatever the merits or demerits of going to war against Saddam Hussein, the question whether he had weapons of mass destruction immediately at hand makes a better talking point than a serious argument."

"President Bush was not the only national leader who thought Saddam Hussein had such weapons, nor were such weapons the only reason why the Iraqi dictator posed a continuing danger that all diplomatic efforts, over more than a decade, had failed to extinguish. "

"This issue can be debated, and no doubt will be debated for years, if not generations, to come. But the irresponsible charge that "Bush lied" for some nefarious purpose-- to trade "blood for oil" or to generate business for Halliburton, for example-- is more than a slander against him. It undermines our whole nation and gives comfort to our enemies around the world."
I think the conclusions drawn on his administration in the coming years will hinge on the same issues that Bush haters have damned it for: the war in Iraq and the war on terror. It would take one domestic terrorist attack during the next administration and people would start remembering how much safer it felt while Bush was in charge. If Iraq remains an ally and a partner in the war on terror and stands as a nation that embraces democracy, I imagine the conclusions on the accomplishments of the Iraq War will sound a bit different. In my opinion, the jury is still out.

Read more...

How we got here

This is from last year, they have some new clips out, but it is useful to begin at the beginning.

Read more...

Mr. President, Thank You.

Dear George W. Bush,

Thank you. Thank you for standing up in the face of an adversary that despised you, mis-characterized you, lied about you, and even burned you in effigy. The American left is obnoxious, angry, and unhinged. Lesser men have folded their will and principle in the spirit of so called 'bipartisanship and unity'. But you, as you so often reminded us, "stayed the course". Thank you for ignoring their chattering criticism and for making difficult decisions in the face of enormous evil. I have appreciated your candid, if at times inarticulate, demeanor and style. I have laughed and cringed and facepalmed along with the rest of the nation at some of your "Bushisms".

But you have always been a man of integrity and honesty. Your vision for the world has spread the light of freedom and democracy to dark corners of the earth, places in which those same chattering critics breathlessly declared would never be able to grasp the ideas that democracy and liberty encompass.

Thank you for your relentless pursuit of terrorists throughout the world. I can only hope that your replacement will continue the dogged chase, and that he too will help cripple the faceless enemy that threatens our existence. The world is better off today than it was in 2000. And though there is turmoil and uncertainty and death and war, there is also light and faith.

I have not always understood, nor I have always agreed, with your decisions. Your recent abandonment of free market principles has been mind-boggling. The corporate bailouts and golden parachutes have left a bitter taste in my mouth, especially so since The President-elect will use those funds and ideas to propel government spending and intervention into an unprecedented tailspin. I cannot, nor will I attempt to, defend the bailout fever that gripped your final months in office. However, I believe you made the decision to press forward down that road with the best of intentions. Intentions that, as you ought to have known, came with devastating and unforeseen results.

But we are safe. For now.

It is a great blessing, and a reflection of your effective presidency that our nation is in a position to gripe and complain at all. After September 11, 2001 there was nothing but questions plaguing the minds of each citizen. Our lives were forever changed, forever altered. The world was no longer a welcoming and encouraging place. In the blink of an eye it became dark and subversive.

But you did not fear. There were no interment camps of Arab-Americans. There were no propaganda wars, and there were no McCarthy-esque accusations and fear mongering. Within months our economy recovered, confidence grew, and our enemy was weakened.

Thank you.

Your legacy many not ever be appreciated. Your name may be a curse for generations to come. The whispering elites and the blowhard pundits, the terrorists defenders, and the treasonous, unrelenting radical left will never understand, nor will they ever care to understand, the sense of duty and honor that has driven your mission these past eight years.

But there are some of us who understand.

And we will remember the chance for liberty you brought to 100 million people in the Arab world. We will remember the prosperity at home, and the victories abroad.

We will remember.

And for that, again Mr. President, thank you.



Read more...

Sunday, January 18, 2009

End of "War on Terror"?

As we await the final hours of the transition to President Obama, it's worth considering how the new administration will tackle the war on terror. Perhaps the best place to start is by redefining what 'war on terror' means and coming up with a better, more descriptive term for the war.

I came across this suggestion in the WSJ that I thought was pretty useful. The question posed is simple: What or who are we attacking since terror is an inadequate term?

The answer: Islamic supremacy. The analogous term, white supremacy, is in no way offensive to whites, Indeed, condemnations of white supremacy generally succeed at shaming whites into shunning groups like the Ku Klux Klan, just as the West hopes to shame Muslims into shunning Islamic supremacist groups.

We would define Islamic supremacy as follows: a doctrine that seeks to subjugate or exterminate non-Muslims, or convert them to Islam by force. This is slightly different from white supremacy, in that there is no such thing as a racial conversion--but we think the analogy is close enough to be useful.


Sounds pretty good to me.

The change in personnel in the White House provides a nice excuse for the review of our strategy against Islamic supremacy and while we may not or should not change much, I think it's certainly beneficial to re-evaluate and/or re-define our target so we're all on the same page.

Read more...

Dow 5,000



I’ve had this on my mind for a while. Can the Dow hit 5,000? Ever since the Dow made the trek down to 7,500 late last year, I’ve been rather intrigued. We’ve since seen the Dow march back up to close to 9,000 and back to 8,000. Analyst expectations for 2009 appear to be grim, but are they grim enough for 5,000?

Our resident market expert, Ryan, can offer a more candid analysis I'm sure, but I thought I’d throw a few of my thoughts out.

Earnings will be adversely affected by a few factors. First, in the absence of loose credit, companies lose the boost of leverage. Second, corporate taxes won’t be as low as they’ve been now that Obama and the Dems are running the show. Third, more and more regulation.

Aside from lower earnings going forward, we still may see large companies fail. This would be especially painful if we continue to see large financial institutions kick the bucket. We will also see the government pump more and more money into the mix via bailouts and economic stimulus packages. A loss in dollar confidence would be another fatal blow. There are always the wildcards: terrorist attacks, wars, and/or oil prices among others.

Back in October 2007 when the Dow peaked at over 14,000 a lot of people were warning that we were headed for a huge market adjustment. I think most people thought that those predicting 8,000 were crazy, and yet, here we are. Is 5,000 that inconceivable? It’s a 3,000 point drop from our current level, but that brief flirtation with 7,500 really got my attention.

Ryan?

Read more...

The Farewell Address



I debated saying anything about Bush's farewell address but I knew none of my fellow authors would, God bless 'em. But I have a few minutes on this frosty Sabbath day so I guess I will.

Watch the clip. It is the last few seconds of Mr. Bush in the limelight. If you watched it live, you know it just had a weird awkwardness kind of quality to it. Maybe because it was more of the same stuff we've been hearing... like this:

"I thank you for giving me a chance to defend a record that I am going to continue to defend, because I think it's a good, strong record," the president declared.

Yeah, yeah. We got it already. A prophet is not loved in his own country. History will look graciously upon you in future generations. You're right. We're wrong (by we, I mean the 2/3s of us that think his presidency was a failure. See the latest poll here).

I believe what follows sums up the nation's collective consiousness nicely:

Posted on the door of the White House press room before the event:

"ONE CORRESPONDENT PER ORGANIZATION"

"STANDING ROOM ONLY FOR NON-SEAT HOLDERS."

Turns out they had to stage interns in the two rows of press chairs that were left unoccupied for the farewell address.

Goodbye, Mr. President.

Read more...

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Cyclists get stimulated


Do you ride your bike to work? Are you getting paid for it? I just found out about a little piece of the $700 billion bailout that made my day. There must be some do-gooder lobbyists on Capitol Hill working pro-bono for the bike commuters of America because we are now eligible for a $20 per month reimbursement for riding in to work. Seriously... check it out here.

If you are like me you would pay to ride. Not the other way around. I have to brag about the fact that I cruised in yesterday with a wind chill of 19 degrees below zero. Booya! But back to the reimbursement. It is called the Bicycle Commuter Act and with $700 billion on the table it obviously isn't even a drop in the bucket and truth be told, its your company who gets the reimbursement, not you.

That's right. It is designed to encourage companies to encourage you to ride your bike to work. I know. Pretty retarded, huh? But what is wrong with making your employer aware that you are aware of this and that you want your fair share?

Depending on your relationship with your supervisor that might not go over so well but we have to milk this one. How about pushing for workout facilities or showers at work? With our amazing American health care system, companies are getting desperate, paying for us to do any kind of weight watchers, nicotine patches, etc. to keep us out of the doctors office. I don't know of any data out there to point to but I'll bet that the investment of a gym and showers at work would significantly reduce health care expenses for your organization. So tell the guys in the neighboring cubicles to join you in pushing for a bike commuter-friendly work place.

Cyclists of the world, unite!

Read more...

Friday, January 16, 2009

Proof of how lazy I am



So this is how my IM chat went yesterday with Adam.

4:33 PM Adam: thought maybe it was your plane that just landed in teh river
4:37 PM me: did a plane crash?
Adam: in the hudson river
4:38 PM apparently nobody was killed
first reports are that the pilot made an amazing landing
me: whoa
hudson river is literally a 20 feet walk from my apt
4:39 PM Adam: look out your window
4:43 PM me: too cold
4:44 PM Adam: go outside!
5:14 PM me: i just saw it!
Adam: in person?
me: yeah
Adam: it almost landed on your house
5:15 PM me: plane is floating down the river
Adam: you didnt hear anything when it landed?
me: no

While it can be argued that I'm a bit lazy, at least I'm not stupid. However one of the reporters at the Bloomberg press conference cannot make that same argument.
Mayor Bloomberg said, "Last question"
So some reporter/aspiring actress asked a beauty for the last question, something to the effect of, "Will we be able to recover the black box from the plane."

This was asked as graphics of the plane were there floating down the river. I think everyone in the room was in shock at how stupid the question was. It was almost like in her reporting class at college that was one of the checklist question after a plane crash, make sure you ask about the black box, it shows you understand plane technology and have an eye for details.

Instead it alerted everyone in the room and watching on TV that an idiot had just opened their mouth.

Read more...

Thursday, January 15, 2009

The 'Only' Solution.



During the campaign season, President-elect Obama made clear his intentions for the United States of America. He spoke with clarity of the need for a bigger, more influential government, one unfettered by the “restraints of the constitution.” He spoke of a National Civilian Task Force, stronger than the United States military. He spoke of group sacrifice in many forms, including what kind of cars we drive, how far we drive them, what temperature our homes are kept at and how unhealthy we will be allowed to be.

In short, he proclaimed that the government would be in charge of every aspect of our lives. From what we eat to how we spend, the government was going to be involved.

The financial crisis is the ideal cover for this government intervention.

“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” So said the now missing in action Raum Emanuel. And just what are those “important things that you would otherwise avoid”?

Who knows?

But one thing is certain. The government is going to expand beyond anything we have seen in history. And if history has taught us anything, it is that big governments lead to an increase in financial distress, and to an increase of incompetence. Big government causes decreases in personal liberty, military might and free market enterprise.

But for Barack Obama, a massive government, heavily involved in the lives of its citizens is the “only solution” to our current problems. It is the “only solution” to social and economic turmoil and the “only solution” for changing the behavior of the American people. In other words, Obama plans to use crisis, and the largest government in world history to implement every warmed over liberal policy ever conceived.

Which is why he has stated that he plans to create 600,000 new government jobs. Six hundred thousand.

Already the road is being built for universal health and day care, the socialization of the free market, and the government mandate of “healthy living” and “green living”. Not far behind are more restrictions on free speech, irrational gun laws, mandated abortion, and a foreign policy based on “bold diplomacy” that will cost the lives of American soldiers, and possibly civilians. For those listening closely to Obama’s words during the campaign season, instead of being distracted by all the mindless chanting, this is not surprising. Throughout his stump speeches are references, cryptic and overt, to increased government involvement in our lives. Recently Obama declared that “everyone is going to have to sacrifice, everyone is going to have some skin in the game.”

And what if I don’t want to “sacrifice”?

I suppose then, that the National Civilian Security Force will put me to work in the rice fields.

Indeed, this all begs the question: When has liberal policy ever led to an increase of prosperity, freedom, liberty, and independence?

Or conversely: When has liberal policy ever not lead to an increase in poverty, economic depression, widespread despair, and longer unemployment lines?

It is interesting that liberal politics are not the politics of results, but rather the politics of intent. Or as Hillary likes to say, the “politics of meaning”. And with the focus on intent, rather than results, those results can be altogether ignored. For example:

It doesn’t matter that the New Deal prolonged the great depression; it was intended to end it.

It doesn’t matter that the War on Poverty led to more poverty; it was intended to eliminate it.

It doesn’t matter that minimum wage leads to more unemployment; it is intended to increase employment.

It doesn’t matter that universal health care eliminates incentives for excellence, and thus decimates the population of competent doctors. It is intended to help the poor people.

This fits in line with Obama’s entire career. the housing projects he championed in Chicago have now been either bulldozed or condemned. His education theories, and the millions of dollars he and Bill Ayers threw at them have helped Chicago students become some of the worst in America. But all that is irrelevant, because his intent behind his failed career in Illinois was good.

I predict four years of good intentions ahead of us.

History is a stark, and brilliant teacher when it comes to economic and political “experimentation”, as FDR put it. Especially when it comes to the well-intentioned, but destined to fail economic dogma of, yes, here comes that bad word again, socialism.

And while the failed examples of German, Italian and Soviet socialism (all kindred spirits, but different in detail) are common and widely accepted, it is worth noting that Obama has spent a lifetime at the feet of socialists and marxists. One can assume that the ideological honey poured into his ears drowned out the historical failures of such ideology. But then again, perhaps he believes that because he is Barack Obama, he can cause the failures of the past to become the successes of the future based solely on the fact that he is, who he is.

Who could possibly ever forget:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth


So, while the iconic examples of European socialism are overplayed, they are still in fact striking examples of the utter and consistent failure of Socialism, Fascism, Marxism, Communism and every other “ism” of the left. China, Cuba, South America and even that mostly irrelevant country to the north, Canada, continue to show that socialism, and all its siblings, leads to, at best mediocrity, and at worst, genocide –in one form or another.

And yet that is exactly what Barack Obama is ready to bring back to the United States. Socialism, not genocide. Yes, back to the U.S. It has been here before, most prominetly under FDR. So the while comparisons to Obama are lame, they do bear some historical accuracy, although not the kind I think time Magazine was going for when they ran the fawning manipulation of the famous FDR-esque photo of The One.

And did American socialism, like European socialism fail? Absolutely.

Even before FDR, Woodrow Wilson, who has been called the world’s first fascist dictator implemented policy and prose that, surprisingly, influenced such stalwart socialists as Mussolini and Stalin. Yes, that Mussolini and that Stalin. FDR nationalized everything he could in order to hold back the tide of a financial crisis, when the solution was, as it so often is with financial turmoil, to let the free market correct itself. Instead the depression lingered onward, unemployment grew, and national despair increased. But not to worry, artists were painting murals and posters (some quite neat, incidentally), roads were being built, museums constructed and bridges repaired. Sound familiar?

But today’s crisis is nothing near the Great Depression. The American people are the punch lines to an ongoing national ruse. Our situation today is nothing like the recession and the crash that led to the depression.

But it could get that way, if Obama follows through on his promises of killing domestic industry, raising the taxes of “rich” people, and his 1.2 trillion dollar (and rising) stimulus package. Spending money is not the solution to a problem that spending money has caused.

But it is the only method Obama knows.

And for the people, who are to worried about witnessing history to read anything about history, it is distasteful to question the policy or the career of Barack H. Obama. Instead, we are to smile and wave at the historical historicity of this historic election and inauguration, which will cost some 200 million dollars. Again, Obama demonstrates that his only real competence comes in spending tax-payer money.

It would take a very small executive order to fix the current economic distress. A moratorium on capital gains and corporate taxes would send the market skyrocketing, restore consumer and investor confidence, put money in peoples pockets, and encourage businesses to expand and hire. In other words, the solution is for the government to stand down, step aside, and, as it always has been in situations like this, let the market correct itself.

Which is why I am extremely skeptical, and even frightened when Obama declares with all the confidence that ignorance can breed that government is “the only solution” to our problems. Such an attitude is not new, nor is it uncommon. But it is on the wrong side of history.

But nobody seems to realize that.

Or care.

Read more...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP