A Weekend Gut Check

No, nothing about the candy that we're all consuming.

This gut check is more of a spiritual nature.

Kim Clark was Dean of Harvard Business School and currently serves as the President of BYU-Idaho. He spoke to students at BYU about a month ago on the topic of stripping ourselves of pride. Some points of his message may not be perfectly clear to those less familiar with Mormonism, but his message is not one of extreme Mormon doctrine -- it's as Christian as it gets.

Find 30 minutes, listen, and apply.

Kim B. Clark Are Ye Stripped of Pride? September 29, 2009 BYU Broadcasting

Read more...

Alex Rodriguez

So, was A-Rod just pretending he had conquered the October demons?

No doubt the Yanks would not have made it to the WS if it weren't for A-Rod in the first two series.

But how the tables have turned!

Granted, eight ABs does not a good sample make, but he has been horrific in this little, but oh-so-important dataset.

If the Yankees win the series without A-Rod delivering a single meaningful hit, what's his legacy? Mr. Early October?

I sure hope Cole Hamels can conjure up the mojo from last year because I think it would be fantastic to see A-Rod continue to be A-Rod and have the Yankees fall short.

Read more...

Stimulus, Indeed!

The White House is now claiming that the American Repression and Redistribution Act (that is the name isn't it?) has "saved or created" 1 million jobs.

Why not just say 50 million?

Or 100 billion?

If you are going to make stuff up, may as well make it spectacular, right?

I did find one use of the money to be very real, hard stimulus however. In fact, the data shows a very sharp upward movement in heretofore slumping numbers. What is that project?

In New York, college freshmen at Syracuse University will divulge the details of their sex lives. This will cost taxpayers $219,000, and is specifically targeted at studying the sex habits of college females.

Uh... can I get in on that study?



More awesome uses of our money here.

(This post saved or created a lot of sex for college freshman)

Read more...

Three's Company

I don't often pay much attention to Congressional elections in far away and exotic locations like upstate New York. But this year there is a pretty interesting race going on that has garnered the attention of bloggers, journalists and heavy political players.

The reason I think it is so compelling is that it will be the first election that features the three different types of candidates that represent the national mood.

First there is the Democrat:

Bill Owens. He represents the apparent surge in Democratic appeal, and is hoping to cash some of that "Hopeanchange" credit that Barack Obama was supposed to be building.

Then there is the Republican:

Dede Scozzafava. She was nominated by the GOP and represents the "establishment" Republican and so-called "big tenter". She takes those stances even further, and is oddly enough, even being backed by the Working Families Party, which is one of many front groups for ACORN. She is as liberal as most Democrats, and her nomination has, at least initially, backfired on the GOP. Her poll numbers have plummeted in recent weeks.

And finally you have the Conservative:

Doug Hoffman was passed over for the GOP nomination by the party bosses. So he is running under the Conservative Party nomination. He started slowly, but backed by big time endorsements from Sarah Palin and others, has steadily seen his poll numbers rise.

So here we have the perfect reflection of politics in America right now. Keep in mind that the NY23 district is very conservative. It has been held by a Republican since 1871. I think in that 1871 election it was Democrat Joe Biden who lost the bid. He has since moved to Delaware where in 1890 he became a Senator. He is the Vice President today, at age 356.

Where was I?

Oh. Right. President Obama tagged the sitting GOP congressmen for an Administration job, and I think did so in hopes of picking up a (D) seat in the House (a Supermajority is just not enough to get anything done) through this special election. That may still happen. And if it doesn't, then I suppose the President's gamble was a wash - nothing lost, nothing gained.

Although a Hoffman victory could really be a thorn in the president's side, only because I'd think the (D) and the (R) would be much more amiable to his policies than the (C).

This is also a nice, albeit very small, indicator of how serious the Tea Party movement was. Was it just a chance to yell and rant a little? Or is there something bigger at work here? Were we serious about voting on principle? Or will we, when it matters, toe the Party line?

We'll find out Tuesday.

Keep your eye on the VA and NJ Gubernatorial races as well. In both states (D)'s are being seriously challenged by (R)'s.

Read more...

More on Health Care: The Most Expensive 1% to Care For

Part I:

My brother-in-law, currently a resident radiologist and very concerned about what his future profession might look like compared with what he expected going in to medical school, turned me on to the following information from www.docs4patientcare.org. I'm not sure if any of the doctors in that organization have been invited to any of the president's photo-ops with folks in white coats.

The upshot is that there is a sector with a large impact on healthcare costs where no reform is being discussed except from extreme rhetoric from the right (oddly enough). Apparently, 1/3 of all health care dollars spent in the United States are spent on 1% of the population that consists of the following:

1) Patients in the final one month of life.
2) NICU patients.
3) Dialysis patients.
4) Transplant patients.

In all fairness to those who are in one of these groups through no fault of their own, there is a disturbing majority of patients who are in groups 2-4 due to poor life decisions (or the decisions of their parents), e.g., moms on drugs, poor control of diabetes, obesity, alcohol and tobacco abuse.

Check out the website for their suggestions about this, but here's my question about folks who need expensive care due largely to their own life choices: Is there any way that the system can be reformed to provide less of a cushion for people who drain the capacity of providers at expense to fellow consumers due solely to poor life choices? Would limiting their coverage provide any sort of incentive towards better behavior?

I suspect not. (And let me be clear: NICU babies who are crack babies or similar have nothing but pity and we have an obligation to give them a shot at a good life.) My understanding is that folks with that type of poor health and poor life habits that lead to that kind of drain aren't doing so with the mentality that "their insurance will take care of it." I suspect that more often than not they're poorer or are in otherwise bad situations anyway. This leads to another question: is part of the real problem America's poor health habits and the poor health habits of the poor? Our nation's poor and lower middle class are remarkably well-fed. Also, take a look at the patrons of most convenience stores buying cigs and beer. Not a lot of BMWs in those parking lots.

So is the real reform that's needed on an educative level? I'm not a proponent of forbidding McDonald's to exist or heavily regulating what they sell, but the free market only works for everybody's mutual good with a marketplace educated as to the real consequences of their purchases. Those fries look awfully good when advertised, and if I don't have a real understanding of how eating them every day can bust my gut and affect my health down the road, I'm probably not going to be able to pass them up when it's a cheap, tasty option.

I suspect that the real reform that is most needed and will provide the best results is a cultural reform. I'm not sure how that can actually work on a government level and it probably shouldn't. What types of incentives can we create to help this cultural shift?

Read more...

Missing! Please help....

If you've seen this man, please notify him that his presence is missed.



Sam, if you're out there, we need you back. Me disagreeing with Adam is nothing but conservative-on-conservative crime.

Read more...

Make Up Your Friggin' Mind

Yesterday, the Commander in Chief promised the armed services that he will "never rush the solemn decision to send [them] into harm's way."

What a bunch of crap. What an example of how little stock you can put into campaign promises and statements of candidates on the outside. You'd think we'd have learned after "Read my lips," how different the realities of the Office are from the stump.

The president's statements during his nomination acceptance speech encapsulated the candidate's views on the war in Afghanistan:

"When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

Apparently, the president, while a junior senator and with as much access as any public servant to intelligence and information about the goings and doings of the war, had it right: give the men and women in Afghanistan the resources they need to get the job done. Get bin Laden, cripple Al Qaeda, and get home.

But now, he needs more information while his advisers whine on his behalf that we need more time to assess the situation properly and that apparently none of the questions that need answering were dealt with in the 6-7 years of the war during the Bush presidency. Buddy, your team was elected because theoretically you'd thought through these questions and were merely stifled in your efforts to carry out your answers to them by being then in the minority. You were elected because it was thought you'd already thought this crap through and had answers ready to go.

You've had enough time to think about it. The surge in Iraq worked and you barely had the decency to acknowledge it. I'm not naive enough to assume that strategy in Iraq is transferable to what is a very different theatre in Afghanistan, but if you're not going to send more troops and resources over, at least have the decency to come up with a morally compelling reason why the thousands of men and women who died on 9/11 can no longer have their justice. Have the courage to say that we were wrong to seek that justice in the first place and we should drastically change our course.

But lead the troops somewhere, man. You owe it to them to give them direction or to at least give them the courtesy of devoting your full attention or something close to it to that deliberation and decision.

Get it done, Mr. President.

Read more...

G.O.A.T.

Greatest. Of. All. Time.

Muhammad Ali gave himself the title of G.O.A.T.

Others have applied it to themselves as well (shamed U.S. sprinter, Tim Montgomery, tatted it on his shoulder, for example).

And occasionally we talk about Tiger Woods as being better at golf than anybody is at anything else. Or is it Roger Federer who is better at tennis than anyone is at anything else?

Some have said that Michael Jordan is the best there is and the best there ever will be. At anything. G.O.A.T. defined!

But, there is but one G.O.A.T. And that person is Mariano Rivera.

He only has one pitch, but it's a nearly unhittable one. Of his cutter, Mariano agreed in a recent SI article that it was a gift from God, "Ohhhhh yeah. A thousand percent. A thousand percent sure. Just a gift from the Lord."

Whatever the source is for that cut fastball, it's likely that his unflappable nerves came from there too. He may as well be faceless and nameless as you see in the photo because he rarely has any expression. Just straight business.


Rivera's stat line is nothing that needs repeating because Joe Buck pretty much gushes over it every Yankee game, but the stat line is part of the proof of Rivera's G.O.A.T. status.

.77 postseason ERA in 84 games and 128 innings (a sufficient sample size, btw). 5.6 hits allowed/9 innings; .1 home runs allowed/9 innings; 1.3 walks allowed/9 innings; 7.3 strikeouts/9 innings.

There was that little blip in 2004 when the Red Sox somehow figured Rivera out, and then a bloop single from Gonzalez in 2001. But there has never been a better closer in baseball.

Therefore, the following statement, which I throw out there in the context of sports*:

Nobody is better at what they do than Mariano Rivera is at throwing the cutter and closing out baseball games. Nobody. No. Body.

G.O.A.T.

*Let's not discuss whether Obama is better at reading a teleprompter than Rivera is at saving games.

Read more...

An Idea for Health Care Reform

I'm still working on thinking this through, but ESPN's Tuesday Morning Quarterback Gregg Easterbrook put the following idea out there for a decent shot at health care reform that would achieve a lot of the liberal goals without blowing the whole thing up. Here's my summary of the suggestions found in his article between one third of the way and halfway down:

1. Require that everyone have health care or deal with nasty tax penalties. Before you freak out, wait.

2. Eliminate any restrictions on "pre-existing condition" requirements. The biggest insurers' argument I've heard against this is that people will buy only when sick and then cancel coverage when they're not. See number 1.

3. Reform the way providers price things. That's not to mean that a government bureaucracy sets prices for various procedures and what-not, but TMQ lists as examples of what kind of reform is needed as requiring providers to price one way and one way only. That leads to no difference in price for the uninsured, the Medicare-insured, or the PPO-insured. Also, require providers to post prices for procedures or allow them to be discussed over the phone in some way. There's no way to "shop" for procedures right now in any meaningful way, so there's no incentive for providers to price as they would in a rational marketplace.

4. Move towards a culture of "catastrophe-only" health insurance and then foot the rest of the bill yourself. In essence, he argues that we make health insurance a bit more like homeowner's insurance. I'm a little unclear as to how this is supposed to happen, but the author points out that most of the cost of healthcare isn't borne by the consumers of it (even across the spectrum of the insured) but by the government or by the employers themselves. So, if a consumer pays $5000 in insurance and the employer pays $10,000, that's $10,000 less that the employer can pay you. If you were on the hook for your own "maintenance" healthcare costs (your checkups, your bone settings, your stitches) in a system where prices are set in a real market, you could probably easily cover it with the $10,000 more you were able to make from your employer and likely come out ahead.

I thought the points were good, and as is often the case with Easterbrook, a little unconventional while keeping a logical base. I can usually poke a hole or two in his ideas, but these seem pretty good. What are your thoughts?

Read more...

Salary Cuts and Pay Czars

Kenneth Feinberg's intention to cap salaries at TARP companies presents an interesting paradox. Most taxpayers, myself included, were a bit miffed knowing that our tax dollars were going to bail out companies headed by irresponsible nit wits. So hearing that these execs might not get their monster bonuses almost sounds gratifying, but I think its a horrible idea.

David Harsanyi wrote a great article last week about this issue and begins by saying:

"What's more infuriating, a government "pay czar" who can dictate the salaries of private-sector citizens or some corporate welfare queen who has the nerve to complain about a salary cut?"

I find the "pay czar" concept more infuriating because of the precedent it sets. Harsanyi makes a great point when he states:

"Let's not forget that the compensation of many of these CEOs would have ended up at absolute zero had the market dictated their terms rather than Washington. Today many CEOs no doubt feel comfortable taking outsize bonuses and compensation exactly because they know full well that failure is not an option. Washington won't allow it, artificially propping up incompetence."

It always boils down to the incentives. Which poses the question "What incentives will pay cuts create?" And the answer should be obvious.

"If the administration actually follows through," writes Alex Tabarrok, an economist at George Mason University and blogger at the popular "Marginal Revolution," "most of these executives will quit and get higher paying jobs elsewhere. Executives not directly affected by the pay cuts will also quit when they see their prospects for future salary gains have been cut. Chaos will be created at these firms as top people leave in droves. Will the administration then order people back to work?"

Hey, why not?

Despite this undercurrent, the administration continues to expand needless intervention and "investments" into the economy that offer only the illusion of safety and a reality of stagnation.

And that's exactly what empty words, unlimited taxpayer funding and uninhibited regulatory power can buy you.

Read more...

Wolf it Down

This is a bit dated, but I've been meaning to post it here for a while:

CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer went on Jeopardy and got beat down – badly. He finished with negative $4600. Who is the genius who beat CNN's most prestigious anchor? Andy Richter. The comic. And because the celebs are playing for charity, they all get to participate in Final Jeopardy, but since Blitzer was in the red, Alex Trebeck had to spot him some house money. Yeah, Wolf Blitzer received his very own "to big too fail" bailout.

And more recently, Soledad O'Brien, also a CNN anchor was trounced (but at least finished in the black) by Spinal Tap star Michael McKean and NBA legend Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

I wonder if Blitzer and CNN will take the time to fact check the episode he appeared on? His performance was, in the end, nearly indistinguishable from one of those 'celebrity jeopardy' skits on SNL.

Explaining the network anchors poor performances, an unnamed "CNN insider" said that "They are reporters, not trivia experts. And the buzzer is complicated."

Indeed. Damn those pesky, complicated buttons!

Read more...

Quote of the Week

It has been a while since we played the 'name that quote' game here at TTKS. I'll make it easy for you this week:

… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.

This was apparently written in who's Columbia thesis?

A) Barack Obama

B) Barack Obama

C) Barack Obama

D) All of the Above

Read more...

Subtraction by Addition

Nancy Pelosi was intervied by a CNBC reporter yesterday. This exchange was just priceless. Can there be any doubt that Capitol Hill is swarmed by rampant economic ignorance?

MARIA BARTIROMO: But-- on the tax issue, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would essentially be a tax increase.

NANCY PELOSI: That wasn't a tax increase. It is...it is...eliminating a tax, uh, decrease that was there.

So let me try and understand the Berkeley logic here: Allowing a tax cut to expire, which will raise taxes, is NOT a tax increase, but rather it is just an elimination of a tax decrease?

I guess that fits with the chic economic meme in Washington D.C. right now. Sort of like "abandoning the free market to save the free market" or claiming that jobs have been "saved and or created" and that the American Recovery and Reinvestment boondoggle has sparked an economic recovery – even though 49 of 50 states have lost jobs since its passing.

But let's be honest, that wasn't a job decrease, it was an elimination of a job increase, uh...that was there.

Isn't that right, Madam Speaker?

Read more...

Olbermann Tells Elder Oaks to "Shut the hell up."

Visit msnbc.com for http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

If for some reason the embed doesn't work, you can follow this link.

Read more...

Are You Kidding Me?

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Democratic staff for the House oversight committee, in response to the Republicans' refusal to remove a video dogging on the Dems' take on the Countrywide VIP loan scandal, get this: changed the locks to the committee room. So, the Republicans now have to ask their counterparts permission to enter the committee room where they once enjoyed free access.

Petty much?

In all fairness, does anyone know of the GOP doing anything similarly asinine in response to Dems?

Read more...

Mr. April Doing His Thing

So... Remember that discussion about athletes that you drop what you're doing to watch. When does Mr. April make it to that list?

Read more...

The Office Wedding Dance

For those unfamiliar with the reference from The Office.

Read more...

Cruel and...Hilarious?

Japan has the most bizarre game shows on Earth. I'm not sure how this one is actually played, other than getting a big laugh at the expense of a terrified contestant not actually in on the joke. The title of the show is, appropriately, Panic Face King:

Read more...

Thug Speech

I am finding the story about Rush Limbaugh and the St. Louis Rams utterly fascinating. There is simply no credible reason to deny Rush a stake in an NFL team, in fact, he'd make a great owner. He loves football. He understands football. And he has hundreds of millions of dollars. One of his potential partners is Dave Checketts, who has an impressive NHL and NBA track record. Those two alone ought to be a blockbuster ownership team.

Except, Rush Limbaugh is the most hated man in America. That is, if you are an elected official with a (D) after your name, or you work for a 3 letter news agency.

The stenogrophers in the media are repeating verbatim a racist statement attributed to Rush. Roger Goodell is swallowing the reports without even bothering to chew. Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay has vowed to block a Limbaugh bid, which is rich in irony. The son of the most hated owner in NFL history is accusing Rush of being divisive.

The statement?

"Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

There is but one problem: Rush never said it. Nobody can source it. There is no record of it. It never happened.

And yet, the NFL and the media are spitting it out as if they have no ability to think for themselves. There is no curiosity in our news and sports media anymore. In the end, if Rush is denied it will be because of this political views. Isn't that what all the various Reverends like to call "discrimination"?

This is still the United States. I realize there is an effort to try and change that, but for now, the Constitution is still the supreme law of this nation, and it still protects political opinion - however "divisive".

But this really has nothing to do with Limbaugh. What we are witnessing is the thuggery of the left in full force. I wonder if Keith Olbermann, the lefty host of a show on MSNBC that nobody watches and former ESPN employee, and current NBC football talking head, wanted to buy an NFL team if there'd be an orchestrated smear campaign against him? After all, Olbermann has been "divisive". But even he supports Rush's bid for the Rams.

This is simple thuggery. And as Americans, we all ought to reject this kind of behavior, regardless of the political views of Rush Limbaugh.

Read more...

A Call to Action

Obama To Enter Diplomatic Talks With Raging Wildfire

Read more...

Wynn Win

Steve Wynn is the owner of Wynn Resorts in Las Vegas. He employs 20,000 people. Jennifer Granholm is the Governor of Michigan. She oversees the nations highest unemployment rate - 15.2%. Both of them appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. I did not see the interview live (I was busy winning a bike race...hey, we earned a little bravado!) but heard about it and went back and read the transcripts.

Now, I wonder if Jennifer Granholm is really the best person to be in front of cameras defending the role of government and the stimulus bill? The State she governs has been muddled in depression era economics for years. She has only continued that trend. 3.7B dollars of stimulus money has been handed out to Michigan. To what end? Redistribution, of course. Your money is being taken by the government, and used "to help low-income residents from becoming homeless and homeless residents to find housing." Remember how ridiculous it was when people worried Barack Obama was going to spread the wealth around? After all, "when you spread the wealth around, its good for everyone" right?

Steve Wynn, in his condescending tone and without even cracking a smile, destroys the Obamanomics of redistribution and uncontrolled spending. The only response Governor Granholm can muster is that "there are people happy we have a minimum wage in this country". She seems to miss the point that without a job, minimum wage is fairly irrelevant. Although with 25% of Michigan residents living in poverty, I suppose Granholm knows a little something about minimum wage jobs.

Wynn's most powerful statement was when he said that the "economists have had their moment, everybody with no experience in creating jobs have had their moment". He also said that the greatest enemy to the middle class is unhinged government spending.

The White House is not going to like this at all. Has the Center for American Progress organized a Wynn Resorts boycott yet?

And just for emphasis, I think it is worth repeating the amazing interview of two Detroit residents, eager to cash in on Obama bucks. Marxism is wonderful isn't it?

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN #1: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN #1: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where's it coming from?

WOMAN #1: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from, but he givin' it to us, to help us.

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!

WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

What happens when "Obama's stash" is empty?

Read more...

Limbaugh and Sharpton

For a moment, let's set aside any biases or ill-will (even hatred) we may have for either or both of these two individuals, Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton.

Rush is reportedly joining up with Dave Checketts to bid for the lowly St. Louis Rams. Al is adamently against such a bid because one time Rush said something stupid on ESPN six years ago.

The original comment from Rush, just so we're all on the same page: "Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Again, like it or not, that was six years ago.

Back to the present and Al says that Rush has been divisive and "anti-NFL," whatever that means, so he (Rush) should not be allowed to have ownership in a team.

If Rush is anti-NFL why would he want to own a team? Furthermore, if this one comment from six years ago, which was followed by the requisite resignation and apology, is the only evidence that Rush is divisive, does Al's argument hold any water whatsoever?

When you couple Sharpton's letter with that of the NFLPA boss (also black), do you think the Limbaugh-Checketts bid will have a chance in the Commissioner's office?

--

Thought experiment: Say Jon Stewart says something disparaging on-air about a actor's popularity due to ethnicity. Then years later, he wants to buy a film studio and produce films. Would there be any backlash about this? Would anyone care?

So, does this have more to do with the fact that it's Rush, the fact that it's two conservatives, or the fact that there was once a semi-racial comment made?

So many questions.

Read more...

A Worthy Response

From my favorite daily column, Best of the Web.

The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization's highest ideals.
He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than "the indispensable nation," as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

Full post cited here:

Read more...

Wow.

[Insert the snarky/incredulous/dubious/annoyed/frustrated/albeit-mildly-bemused comment of your choice about our 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner here]

In other news, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig named the Chicago White Sox the World Series champs due to the team's favored status with President Barack Obama.

This comes shortly after the announcement that the President's ceremonial first pitch earlier this year puts him just ahead of Zach Greinke and CC Sabathia for the AL Cy Young.

In International News, Nobel Committee for Chemistry Chairman Gunnar von Heijne expressed disappointment at President Obama's award of the Peace Prize as the Chemistry Committee had planned on giving their award to the President. Said the chairman: "What can we say? He makes a hell of a martini."

Read more...

Backcountry Markets are Great, But Let's Get More People on the Mountain

Note: This post is a response to Adam's post entitled "Backcountry Markets" from earlier today.

Interesting take, Adam.

You know, lots of people enjoy and have a perfectly good time at a ski resort. It's expensive, but they do it. They don't have the stomach for backcountry skiing, aren't skilled enough to make the effort, and can be a drag on others. They get stuck in the effort due to their lack of knowledge, experience, skill, and initiative, and require rescue. They want and need a ski resort or at least they think they do and that mental state is at least as important as their actual capacity.

I bring up the point not to debate whether they know what they're missing but to raise two questions:

1) Where do you propose that novice skiers get their lessons in the free market before they put their lives and livelihoods on the line in the backcountry?

2) When it requires more effort and initiative than many can afford to be able to comfortably get to a place where one can succeed in the backcountry and enjoy it, and when the comfortable ski resort is available and more along the lines of a skier's expectations, how do you convince them that life will be better if they go backcountry skiing?

I think that the arguments of "free market good," "regulated market bad" just don't resonate anymore. I worry terribly that proponents of the free market, while using the lofty rhetoric of liberty and freedom are, frankly, missing the point and the opportunity to win converts from those who don't have that vision.

The reality is that there are a lot of people out there who don't think that the American Dream is to be able to creatively take risks. They've never once been taught that because the problems of poverty, discrimination, erosion of the family, and generations of cynicism about what can be achieved have so diminished their vision that their dream is merely to own something.

The America that these folks live in has been painted as something different than what you’ve illustrated, Adam.

Now, I firmly dismiss that there is even a whiff of truth to the notion that society has put folks in that type of situation in a place where they can never achieve their American dream. I believe in the same American dream that you do. But you have to understand that to a person who’s never seen more than an hourly job it rings hollow to hear that they should clam up about wanting more from America and just let successful people get more successful in the hopes that they’ll create better jobs with better pay for them.

In short, you’re saying that someone who never learned to ski should be told that they’d have more fun if they just let more and more people around them get in the backcountry. In fact, by extension, you’re saying that they’ll have more fun skiing if we just closed ski resorts and said that if they want to learn to ski, they should get their butts on the backcountry.

We conservatives need to understand that the elitism of many prominent GOP leaders and conservative media types is ringing very similar to the snobbery of the liberal elites both in Washington and the media during the Bush.

I dug the metaphor, Adam. You got any ideas as to how to answer the first question and get more people comfortably on the hill without shattering your version of the American dream?

Read more...