Ben Stein is conservative. Sure he's not all ideological neo Bush-like conservative. But he's actually an economist, so he gets that ideology doesn't work. But he's conservative alright. Watch some episodes of Larry King from during the election. You'll hear what I'm saying.
To hear Ben Stein talk about the bailouts. To hear him contextualize it within the framework of a possible depression. To hear him vociferously support pumping money into our ailing economy. That's enough for me. I'm going with Ben Stein.
I don't know what I think about the bailouts really. I'm torn. But the stakes are so high, that the points to make and the ideologies to spout should all sound a bit petty at this point.
I'm trying to forget that the bank bailout seems to be a blooper of old boys club proportions. To hell with transparency. F*** ethics.
So on to the car bailout. Far less money. Far more transparency, or at least attention. Unfortunately, way too political. Now to save the business UAW needs to make concessions. But they are, aren't they? Still the southern Republicans point their fingers. And worse, they have seen the light: exploit the dire situation the ideological end. Unions, be thee gone!
Aren't we in enough of a mess becauase of Republicans? Let's say it out loud. Point fingers where you might, but this mess has Republican written all over it. This, friends, is why Republicans win elections. They have no shame.
And even though they need to shut up, some of what they have to say isn't so ridiculous.
I especially like the whole insuring private investment logic... But still, forteen billion is a pennies. Let's choose the battle, guys, and save some jobs.
I think...
13 December 2008
11 December 2008
Joe the Plumber: Not Just Your Average American Skinhead
In an interview on December 10th with Glenn Beck, "Joe the Plumber" aka Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, went all Machiavelli on McCain and asserted the following:
--John McCain: "dirty" and "appalling"
--Sarah Palin: "the real deal"
--Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State: appointment "unconstitutional." (sited Sean Hannity as his source following Glenn Beck's correction)
--Barack Obama: Links Obama with Adolph Hitler via socialism viz a viz gun control.
Is Joe the Plumber really a key player in the future Republican party? Will PALIN & THE PLUMBER be the next stroke of Rovian campaign madness/genius? Will Obama's economic policy be sound enough to return our country to a point of complacency wherein voters elect gimmicks over Governers?
For a transcript of Joe the Plumber's interview, go to: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/19055/
For Your Consideration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber
Joe the Plumber's Political Ambitions, Courtesy of Wikipedia:
Draft campaign for Ohio's 9th congressional district
Since his meeting with Barack Obama, a campaign to draft Wurzelbacher to run for the United States House of Representatives in the 2010 election started with the website joewurzelbacher2010.com.[39] The Washington Times and the Boston Herald have reported that this campaign's goal is to draft Wurzelbacher to run against Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio's 9th congressional district.[40][41] The website was created by Trevor Lair (presently the chairman of the Massachusetts College Republicans),[42] Derek Khanna,[43] and The Massachusetts Alliance of College Republicans.[44] The website encourages visitors to sign an online petition that supports Wurzelbacher’s run for office.[45][42] Laura Ingraham asked Wurzelbacher, on October 24, 2008, if he would run against Rep. Marcy Kaptur. Wurzelbacher responded that he had considered the run and would be "up for it".[46]
Opinions on taxation and welfare
In an October interview, Wurzelbacher said, "You know a lot of the stuff that our government is doing right now is all about taxation without representation and you know the last time that happened a couple guys got together and threw the Brits out."[47]
Wurzelbacher opposes the existing American Social Security program. He told CNN, "Social Security is a joke. I have parents; I don't need another set of parents called the government. You know, let me take my money and invest it how I please. Social Security I've never believed in, don't like it. I hate that it's forced on me."[48]
ABC News reported on October 16 that there is a judgment lien against Wurzelbacher for non-payment of $1,182 in Ohio state income taxes dating to January 2007, but "no action has been taken against him outside of filing the lien." Barb Losie, deputy clerk of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, said that "there is a 99 percent chance [Wurzelbacher] doesn't know about the lien, unless he did a credit report or was ready to pay his taxes."[49] While on Hannity & Colmes, Wurzelbacher stated that he was unaware of the tax lien prior to it being reported in the press, and felt he was being attacked because of his question of Obama.[50]
Wurzelbacher has also acknowledged that his parents were on welfare twice while he was growing up. Asked by Alan Colmes whether that constituted "taking somebody else's money and giving it to you", Wurzelbacher responded that he had "paid into welfare. It's something to be used, not abused, as it often is, Alan."[51]
--John McCain: "dirty" and "appalling"
--Sarah Palin: "the real deal"
--Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State: appointment "unconstitutional." (sited Sean Hannity as his source following Glenn Beck's correction)
--Barack Obama: Links Obama with Adolph Hitler via socialism viz a viz gun control.
Is Joe the Plumber really a key player in the future Republican party? Will PALIN & THE PLUMBER be the next stroke of Rovian campaign madness/genius? Will Obama's economic policy be sound enough to return our country to a point of complacency wherein voters elect gimmicks over Governers?
For a transcript of Joe the Plumber's interview, go to: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/19055/
For Your Consideration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber
Joe the Plumber's Political Ambitions, Courtesy of Wikipedia:
Draft campaign for Ohio's 9th congressional district
Since his meeting with Barack Obama, a campaign to draft Wurzelbacher to run for the United States House of Representatives in the 2010 election started with the website joewurzelbacher2010.com.[39] The Washington Times and the Boston Herald have reported that this campaign's goal is to draft Wurzelbacher to run against Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio's 9th congressional district.[40][41] The website was created by Trevor Lair (presently the chairman of the Massachusetts College Republicans),[42] Derek Khanna,[43] and The Massachusetts Alliance of College Republicans.[44] The website encourages visitors to sign an online petition that supports Wurzelbacher’s run for office.[45][42] Laura Ingraham asked Wurzelbacher, on October 24, 2008, if he would run against Rep. Marcy Kaptur. Wurzelbacher responded that he had considered the run and would be "up for it".[46]
Opinions on taxation and welfare
In an October interview, Wurzelbacher said, "You know a lot of the stuff that our government is doing right now is all about taxation without representation and you know the last time that happened a couple guys got together and threw the Brits out."[47]
Wurzelbacher opposes the existing American Social Security program. He told CNN, "Social Security is a joke. I have parents; I don't need another set of parents called the government. You know, let me take my money and invest it how I please. Social Security I've never believed in, don't like it. I hate that it's forced on me."[48]
ABC News reported on October 16 that there is a judgment lien against Wurzelbacher for non-payment of $1,182 in Ohio state income taxes dating to January 2007, but "no action has been taken against him outside of filing the lien." Barb Losie, deputy clerk of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, said that "there is a 99 percent chance [Wurzelbacher] doesn't know about the lien, unless he did a credit report or was ready to pay his taxes."[49] While on Hannity & Colmes, Wurzelbacher stated that he was unaware of the tax lien prior to it being reported in the press, and felt he was being attacked because of his question of Obama.[50]
Wurzelbacher has also acknowledged that his parents were on welfare twice while he was growing up. Asked by Alan Colmes whether that constituted "taking somebody else's money and giving it to you", Wurzelbacher responded that he had "paid into welfare. It's something to be used, not abused, as it often is, Alan."[51]
09 December 2008
Is the Bailout a Bust?
It may well be too early to call the bailout a best. But it sure does reek of the same "hoard the wealth" policies perpetuated as "free market" by the most despicable administration I hope I'll ever see.
The bailout packages for each recipient should be transparent. They are not. Rumors of million dollar packages and bonuses for failed CEO's run rampant.
I've overheard more than a few times frustrated everyday Americans deliberate out loud: What if I don't pay my taxes. Tax money that rewards failure may give creedance to this notion.
In order to make sure that this bailout doesn't just bail out failed executives, the Government should require the following and make it public domain. The public, after all, just became shareholders in lots of failed businesses.
TRANSPARENCY IS NECESSARY! All shareholder documents, detailed executive compensation packages, and accounting for each penny of each bailout package should be public domain and available online.
The bailout packages for each recipient should be transparent. They are not. Rumors of million dollar packages and bonuses for failed CEO's run rampant.
I've overheard more than a few times frustrated everyday Americans deliberate out loud: What if I don't pay my taxes. Tax money that rewards failure may give creedance to this notion.
In order to make sure that this bailout doesn't just bail out failed executives, the Government should require the following and make it public domain. The public, after all, just became shareholders in lots of failed businesses.
TRANSPARENCY IS NECESSARY! All shareholder documents, detailed executive compensation packages, and accounting for each penny of each bailout package should be public domain and available online.
10 November 2008
The Fires of Prop 8 Rage On to Warm Rove's Fuzzy
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
If you're Karl Rove, you're cringing. In his Neo-Nazi-Conservative Jerry Lawler Christian America, the hippie notion of equality about as credulous as a free market in practice. If Rove could revise this part of history, he might link Jefferson with marijuana and promote a new philosophy: "All Men Are Created Equal. Unless They Aren't."
This election year was momentous for two reasons. First, Barack Obama became the first biracial man to become President of the United States of America. Second, the most expensive proposition campaign in California history - Prop 8 to ban gay marriage - was voted into law. This action reinforces that all men are not created equal, nor are all women, nor are all persons.
A sad side note seems to be that socially conservative black men may have pushed this vote from fringe proposition into law. These are the men for whom Civil Rights is a central issue in America. These are the men, for whom a racist, President Harry S. Truman, overcame the faulty fundamentals of his upbringing to champion a Civil Rights agenda.
Truman's fundamental wrong was, for him, self-evident: How do we lead the world and champion democracy and freedom, when we reward our black heroes who fought to win WWII are with the promise of inequality and secregation. The details in the struggles of blacks, or gays, or Jews, or Muslims may well be different. The fundamentally wrong intentions and motives of those powerful few who initiate such un-American legislation remains the same. These, my friends, are the politics of white supremacy. They remain alive and well.
Instead of white sheets, the Roves and Coulters and Limbaughs mask themselves with a false sense of patriotism and a contrivance of religion. Instead of torches, they use their words.
They appeal to and exploit precisely those ideals that Americans hold so dear: a distinctly American love of country and the hope that there is a reward for this struggle called life.
If you're with them, you are a patriot with a sweet place in Heaven. If you aren't, you're a terrorist going to hell.
This quartet of lynchpins and their respective Armies in politics, the media, and Big Business might be rendered irrational if they weren't getting so rich. To the misfortune of so many, greed is rational. But it benefits so few.
The few it benfits, however, are strong. YES ON PROPOSITION 8 is the fuel that may stoke the fire of Karl Rove's war. Shortly after John McCain conceded, Karl Rove went on Fox News to analyze the failed campaign that he ran. He quickly diverted the discourse to the battles that were won on the gay marriage front. In four years, as Obama's sharp decisions leave Americans content, gay marriage just may be contentious enough for a Rove campaign of slander and divisiveness. It is one of those issues, like gun control, abortion, and stem cell research, that has been made an issue to draw yourself from the core functions of our government: security, economy, health care, and education.
The passage of Proposotion 8 is unconstitutional, un-American, and wrong. The personal nature for those on one side of the issue has intensified the battle. This likely shocks those who were disaffected on the other. Outcry from leaders and angry civilian demonstrations are, perhaps, foregone conclusions. And Rove's diabolical madness may well look like genius again in four years.
How do we do our part to divert the disaster of the Presidential Bride of Rovenstein? For most the answer is simply keep the faith. The war on white supremacy, like the war on terror, should be fought free from the public eye. Demonstrations are cathartic; but they also exacerbate the problem and strengthen Karl Rove's long running polemic Republican strategy.
Remember, all men are still created equal. According to Jefferson, this idea is self evident. If those for NO ON PROPOSITION 8 can stand back from the fire, we can contain it for those who will work hard to uphold a clear constitutional right. Perhaps, in Obama's America of Change and Unity, everyone can see past the disagreements and move forward on the common grounds of our struggles.
And if there's one thing that is plenty available in this failed economy it's cheap common grounds on which to struggle.
Check out the following websites:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Harry_Truman_civil_rights.htm
Saboteurs of Marriage
Ann Coulter: Have you ever noticed that whenever Democrats lose presidential elections, they always blame it on the personal qualities of their candidate? Kerry was a dork, Gore was a stiff, Dukakis was a bloodless android, Mondale was a sad sack.
This blame-the-messenger thesis allows Democrats to conclude that their message was fine -- nothing should be changed! The American people are clamoring for higher taxes, big government, a defeatist foreign policy, gay marriage, the whole magilla. It was just this particular candidate's personality.
Bill O'Reilly: Traditionally, Americans have rejected that kind of nanny state, but make no mistake, that is what the far left sees as "economic justice."And then there are "San Francisco values."
That is the George Soros vision of legalized narcotics and prostitution, unfettered abortion rights, legalized euthanasia, and gay marriage, to name just a few social issues. Soros, a big time contributor to MoveOn, believes America should be a libertine society where moral judgments about social behavior are unacceptable.
So, where will Barack Obama be on those issues? He says he personally opposes gay marriage, but I can't imagine him working against it. He's also fine with abortion in cases where the health of the mother is an issue. Of course, the health of the mother could be a panic attack or a headache. Based upon his voting record in the past, I expect Obama to be extremely liberal when social legislation is presented to him. I also expect Ruth Bader Ginsburg to have a new best friend if a Supreme Court opening occurs.
If you're Karl Rove, you're cringing. In his Neo-Nazi-Conservative Jerry Lawler Christian America, the hippie notion of equality about as credulous as a free market in practice. If Rove could revise this part of history, he might link Jefferson with marijuana and promote a new philosophy: "All Men Are Created Equal. Unless They Aren't."
This election year was momentous for two reasons. First, Barack Obama became the first biracial man to become President of the United States of America. Second, the most expensive proposition campaign in California history - Prop 8 to ban gay marriage - was voted into law. This action reinforces that all men are not created equal, nor are all women, nor are all persons.
A sad side note seems to be that socially conservative black men may have pushed this vote from fringe proposition into law. These are the men for whom Civil Rights is a central issue in America. These are the men, for whom a racist, President Harry S. Truman, overcame the faulty fundamentals of his upbringing to champion a Civil Rights agenda.
Truman's fundamental wrong was, for him, self-evident: How do we lead the world and champion democracy and freedom, when we reward our black heroes who fought to win WWII are with the promise of inequality and secregation. The details in the struggles of blacks, or gays, or Jews, or Muslims may well be different. The fundamentally wrong intentions and motives of those powerful few who initiate such un-American legislation remains the same. These, my friends, are the politics of white supremacy. They remain alive and well.
Instead of white sheets, the Roves and Coulters and Limbaughs mask themselves with a false sense of patriotism and a contrivance of religion. Instead of torches, they use their words.
They appeal to and exploit precisely those ideals that Americans hold so dear: a distinctly American love of country and the hope that there is a reward for this struggle called life.
If you're with them, you are a patriot with a sweet place in Heaven. If you aren't, you're a terrorist going to hell.
This quartet of lynchpins and their respective Armies in politics, the media, and Big Business might be rendered irrational if they weren't getting so rich. To the misfortune of so many, greed is rational. But it benefits so few.
The few it benfits, however, are strong. YES ON PROPOSITION 8 is the fuel that may stoke the fire of Karl Rove's war. Shortly after John McCain conceded, Karl Rove went on Fox News to analyze the failed campaign that he ran. He quickly diverted the discourse to the battles that were won on the gay marriage front. In four years, as Obama's sharp decisions leave Americans content, gay marriage just may be contentious enough for a Rove campaign of slander and divisiveness. It is one of those issues, like gun control, abortion, and stem cell research, that has been made an issue to draw yourself from the core functions of our government: security, economy, health care, and education.
The passage of Proposotion 8 is unconstitutional, un-American, and wrong. The personal nature for those on one side of the issue has intensified the battle. This likely shocks those who were disaffected on the other. Outcry from leaders and angry civilian demonstrations are, perhaps, foregone conclusions. And Rove's diabolical madness may well look like genius again in four years.
How do we do our part to divert the disaster of the Presidential Bride of Rovenstein? For most the answer is simply keep the faith. The war on white supremacy, like the war on terror, should be fought free from the public eye. Demonstrations are cathartic; but they also exacerbate the problem and strengthen Karl Rove's long running polemic Republican strategy.
Remember, all men are still created equal. According to Jefferson, this idea is self evident. If those for NO ON PROPOSITION 8 can stand back from the fire, we can contain it for those who will work hard to uphold a clear constitutional right. Perhaps, in Obama's America of Change and Unity, everyone can see past the disagreements and move forward on the common grounds of our struggles.
And if there's one thing that is plenty available in this failed economy it's cheap common grounds on which to struggle.
Check out the following websites:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Harry_Truman_civil_rights.htm
Saboteurs of Marriage
Ann Coulter: Have you ever noticed that whenever Democrats lose presidential elections, they always blame it on the personal qualities of their candidate? Kerry was a dork, Gore was a stiff, Dukakis was a bloodless android, Mondale was a sad sack.
This blame-the-messenger thesis allows Democrats to conclude that their message was fine -- nothing should be changed! The American people are clamoring for higher taxes, big government, a defeatist foreign policy, gay marriage, the whole magilla. It was just this particular candidate's personality.
Bill O'Reilly: Traditionally, Americans have rejected that kind of nanny state, but make no mistake, that is what the far left sees as "economic justice."And then there are "San Francisco values."
That is the George Soros vision of legalized narcotics and prostitution, unfettered abortion rights, legalized euthanasia, and gay marriage, to name just a few social issues. Soros, a big time contributor to MoveOn, believes America should be a libertine society where moral judgments about social behavior are unacceptable.
So, where will Barack Obama be on those issues? He says he personally opposes gay marriage, but I can't imagine him working against it. He's also fine with abortion in cases where the health of the mother is an issue. Of course, the health of the mother could be a panic attack or a headache. Based upon his voting record in the past, I expect Obama to be extremely liberal when social legislation is presented to him. I also expect Ruth Bader Ginsburg to have a new best friend if a Supreme Court opening occurs.
06 November 2008
Piyush "Bobby" Jindal: Con or Neo Con?
Here's one to watch: Republican Bobby Jindal.
Is he a good Republican, a bad Republican, or not a Republican at all? Time, allegiances, and voting records will tell.
But my good Republican friend, whom I consider a good Republican because he believes in small government and low taxes, insists that this Indian-American - and not pretty, white Sarah Palin - is the future of the Republican party.
For now, and for your consideration - Bobby Jindal, Republican Governer of Louisianna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal
Is he a good Republican, a bad Republican, or not a Republican at all? Time, allegiances, and voting records will tell.
But my good Republican friend, whom I consider a good Republican because he believes in small government and low taxes, insists that this Indian-American - and not pretty, white Sarah Palin - is the future of the Republican party.
For now, and for your consideration - Bobby Jindal, Republican Governer of Louisianna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal
Big 10 for Obama; Defeat the BCS: Yes We Can
BIG TEN FOR OBAMA:
Tonight, Chris Matthews all of the home states of Big 10 football went for Obama. Fitting since Obama won this race with a great defense, a few big plays on offense, and success in the red zone.
OBAMA WANTS A PLAYOFF:
Monday, Barack Obama called for a playoff system in college football. Dan Wetzel took it a step further, and earned some pennance for dissing the Big Ten with one heartfelt plea:
"Mr. Delany, tear down this wall."
Dan Wetzel's column: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-obamabcs110508&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Tonight, Chris Matthews all of the home states of Big 10 football went for Obama. Fitting since Obama won this race with a great defense, a few big plays on offense, and success in the red zone.
OBAMA WANTS A PLAYOFF:
Monday, Barack Obama called for a playoff system in college football. Dan Wetzel took it a step further, and earned some pennance for dissing the Big Ten with one heartfelt plea:
"Mr. Delany, tear down this wall."
Dan Wetzel's column: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-obamabcs110508&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
The President's Joke
Today, the President joked, "As January 20th approaches some of you may feel anxious...looking for work...kicked out of your house...I know how you feel."
It's appropriate that this out-of-touch President, elected for his ability to connect with American's, made light of the dismal effects of his administration.
I wonder just how many Americans facing the loss of their homes and trying to find jobs, were laughing.
It's appropriate that this out-of-touch President, elected for his ability to connect with American's, made light of the dismal effects of his administration.
I wonder just how many Americans facing the loss of their homes and trying to find jobs, were laughing.
05 November 2008
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Condoleezza Rice is what you want in a Secretary of State. She's analytical, focused, smart, clear, and dispassionate. She believes in transformational dipolomacy. And I believe she was frequently the voice of reason in an unreasonable administration.
The wounds of the war in Iraq may well be too fresh. But hear this: The buck didn't stop with Bush, the buck stopped with Condoleezza Rice. And I believe her intent, unlike most of Bush's cronyopolis of an administration, is pure.
You might not know (courtesy of Wikipedia)--
Her favorite composer is Johannes Brahms, because she thinks Brahms's music is "passionate but not sentimental."
In fact, you might not know a LOT about Condoleezza Rice, so for your consideration courtesy of Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condaleeza_Rice
The wounds of the war in Iraq may well be too fresh. But hear this: The buck didn't stop with Bush, the buck stopped with Condoleezza Rice. And I believe her intent, unlike most of Bush's cronyopolis of an administration, is pure.
You might not know (courtesy of Wikipedia)--
Her favorite composer is Johannes Brahms, because she thinks Brahms's music is "passionate but not sentimental."
In fact, you might not know a LOT about Condoleezza Rice, so for your consideration courtesy of Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condaleeza_Rice
04 November 2008
Republoid Recovery Strategy (RRS), Phase 1
It's already begun. No sooner did Brit Hum invoke the shocked voice of God to narrate us through Obama's celebration did we cut to hot blonde reporter girl to start to redefine the failures of the Republican party both in this campaign and over the past eight years.
The initial phase of the Republoid Recovery Strategy (RRS) is taking form:
1, PLAY THE VICTIM AND MAKE IT A REPUBLICAN PITY PARTY (Hopefully Rush Won't Hoard the Good Stuff)
2, REVISE, REDEFINE, AND DIVERT
3, MAKE IT SUBTLE, BUT MAKE IT OFTEN: MAKE IT ABOUT RACISM
OBSERVED TONIGHT ON FOX NEWS:
POOR LITTLE REPUBLICANS
Fox News Babe, Megan, kicks off the transition from Election coverage to RRS-Phase 1, suggesting that Republicans might have been victims of their own success in the war on terrorism.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
Karl Rove, the political analyst, sits down to analyze where the Republican campaign - run by Karl Rove, the campaign strategist - went wrong. I would argue that this might be more spin than analysis, except--
AS LONG AS THERE ARE GAY MARRIAGES TO BAN, REPUBLICANS HAVE A CHANCE
After some illogical jibbrish, Karl Rove the analyst went all campaign strategisty and diverted talk of Republican failure to his divisive masterstroke, Gay marriage. That's what he gave us as evidence of Republican relevance: that Florida voted to ban Gay marriage.
I think he wants praise, so I'll be the first to reach across ideological lines and say: Good job, Karl. You get an A for the day!
The initial phase of the Republoid Recovery Strategy (RRS) is taking form:
1, PLAY THE VICTIM AND MAKE IT A REPUBLICAN PITY PARTY (Hopefully Rush Won't Hoard the Good Stuff)
2, REVISE, REDEFINE, AND DIVERT
3, MAKE IT SUBTLE, BUT MAKE IT OFTEN: MAKE IT ABOUT RACISM
OBSERVED TONIGHT ON FOX NEWS:
POOR LITTLE REPUBLICANS
Fox News Babe, Megan, kicks off the transition from Election coverage to RRS-Phase 1, suggesting that Republicans might have been victims of their own success in the war on terrorism.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
Karl Rove, the political analyst, sits down to analyze where the Republican campaign - run by Karl Rove, the campaign strategist - went wrong. I would argue that this might be more spin than analysis, except--
AS LONG AS THERE ARE GAY MARRIAGES TO BAN, REPUBLICANS HAVE A CHANCE
After some illogical jibbrish, Karl Rove the analyst went all campaign strategisty and diverted talk of Republican failure to his divisive masterstroke, Gay marriage. That's what he gave us as evidence of Republican relevance: that Florida voted to ban Gay marriage.
I think he wants praise, so I'll be the first to reach across ideological lines and say: Good job, Karl. You get an A for the day!
Fox News Coverage of Obama's Big Night
As hundreds of thousands of proud Americans embraced CHANGE, Fox News' gamely effort to look like sportsman rising to the occasion of The New America was little more than subtle spin and dissappointment and shock, each hoping to get off air as soon as possible to phone their stock brokers and sell of their stock in Big Oil and in Jerry Fallwell.
Among the highlights in Brit Hume's narration--
1) JOE BIDEN ENTERS: Hume ponders Joe Biden's loquaciousness in oration with a deadpan suggestion that they might just go home and show back up tomorrow just in time for Biden to finish and them to comment (spin).
2) BARACK OBAMA WAVING TO CROWDS OF HAPPY PEOPLE:
--Hume acknowledge that Obama's campaign was skilled in raising money and spending it well.
--Hume asks (rhetorically?), What is there on the Obama list of proposals? Where is there a new, big idea?
3) CAMERA PANNS OVER THE MASSES, AN INERSECTION OF URBAN AND MIDDLE AMERICA: In the midst of the celebration of blacks, whites, browns, and mixes, of the young, and the old, Brit Hume's voice rises like the voice of God, his words but words said in a tone reducing the bigness of this moment to a head scratch, as if to say: "Is this really what my world has come to."
BACK IN THE STUDIO--
The internal Republican blame game begins as Brit Hume points the finger at the man who against all odds might still have a fighting chance if the popular vote mattered. In disgust, "John McCain does what he always does, he fought for something he believes in." What came after was nonsensical and lacked even faulty Republican logic. I'm sure that logic will be alive in well come tomorrow morning.
Among the highlights in Brit Hume's narration--
1) JOE BIDEN ENTERS: Hume ponders Joe Biden's loquaciousness in oration with a deadpan suggestion that they might just go home and show back up tomorrow just in time for Biden to finish and them to comment (spin).
2) BARACK OBAMA WAVING TO CROWDS OF HAPPY PEOPLE:
--Hume acknowledge that Obama's campaign was skilled in raising money and spending it well.
--Hume asks (rhetorically?), What is there on the Obama list of proposals? Where is there a new, big idea?
3) CAMERA PANNS OVER THE MASSES, AN INERSECTION OF URBAN AND MIDDLE AMERICA: In the midst of the celebration of blacks, whites, browns, and mixes, of the young, and the old, Brit Hume's voice rises like the voice of God, his words but words said in a tone reducing the bigness of this moment to a head scratch, as if to say: "Is this really what my world has come to."
BACK IN THE STUDIO--
The internal Republican blame game begins as Brit Hume points the finger at the man who against all odds might still have a fighting chance if the popular vote mattered. In disgust, "John McCain does what he always does, he fought for something he believes in." What came after was nonsensical and lacked even faulty Republican logic. I'm sure that logic will be alive in well come tomorrow morning.
Winners Vote For Winners: Pete Carrol, Head Coach, USC
In his press conference today, he delivered a rousing and spot on commentary denouncing the BCS system. But that couldn't rain on his day.
On his vote for Barack Obama, Pete Carrol concluded his press conference on a positive note: “(I) was excited about it, fired up for it,” Carroll said.
THE BCS SYSTEM SUCKS -- FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
Pete Carrol: "BCS System Stinks"
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-t25-usc-bcsblues&prov=ap&type=lgns
Joe Paterno: "Bogus"
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24791887/
On his vote for Barack Obama, Pete Carrol concluded his press conference on a positive note: “(I) was excited about it, fired up for it,” Carroll said.
THE BCS SYSTEM SUCKS -- FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
Pete Carrol: "BCS System Stinks"
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-t25-usc-bcsblues&prov=ap&type=lgns
Joe Paterno: "Bogus"
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24791887/
A Nation Reborn: Battlelines erased, Rhetoric redefined
Let's relish these precious moments! I'll wait until January to take a deep breath.
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
A battleground state used to be a closely contested race for a basket of electoral votes that decide general Presidential election.
On this day, a battleground state became a media- and Republican- contrived "contest" that transpires as a rollover 2/3 majority victory for hope and change.
This wasn't a battle, my friends. It was over before it began.
It's a good day to be a Pennsylvanian, even if I'm temporarily out of town on business!
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
A battleground state used to be a closely contested race for a basket of electoral votes that decide general Presidential election.
On this day, a battleground state became a media- and Republican- contrived "contest" that transpires as a rollover 2/3 majority victory for hope and change.
This wasn't a battle, my friends. It was over before it began.
It's a good day to be a Pennsylvanian, even if I'm temporarily out of town on business!
Coulter and Limbaugh and Bush, Oh My!
And now, a quick Election Day reminder!
The Coulters, Limbaughs, Bushes, and Hannities go on record as everyman, as Joe the Plumbers, who feel the pain of middle America.
But while middle America suffers, the millionaire posers and liars go to their drug dea -- doctors and cushion the opulence of their lifestyles with prescription heroin. If they emerge from this oppulence it's to launch humiliating smear campaigns, usually against Democrats and occasionaly men in senate named John McCain. Oh yeah, and there are frequent trips to the bank done laughing with buckets full of money spent by Joe the Plumbers on books filled with faulty reasoning at best and outright lies at worst.
The Coulters, Limbaughs, Bushes, and Hannities go on record as everyman, as Joe the Plumbers, who feel the pain of middle America.
But while middle America suffers, the millionaire posers and liars go to their drug dea -- doctors and cushion the opulence of their lifestyles with prescription heroin. If they emerge from this oppulence it's to launch humiliating smear campaigns, usually against Democrats and occasionaly men in senate named John McCain. Oh yeah, and there are frequent trips to the bank done laughing with buckets full of money spent by Joe the Plumbers on books filled with faulty reasoning at best and outright lies at worst.
03 November 2008
Mavericks or Cons: John McCain and Sarah Palin
If their policies completely miss the mark in meeting the necessities in addressing our dim economic realities and clear national security failures, the question still lingers--
Are John McCain and Sarah Palin Mavericks Still Looking for Reform, Or Cons Exploiting Politics for Personal Wealth and Gain?
Forgive me for my mental imbalances in advance. It's Election Day, after all. And regardless of their policies, there are intangibles that I can't shake. I said it back in the day, and I'll say it again. I like them. I don't know if they quite understand fundamental economics, and I think they have struggled in this election to reconcile between their fondness for the reform minded America of the 80's and the realities of today's Republican party leadership: irresponsibility, cronyism, Big Government, small ideas, hatemongers posing as Christians; white supremacists posing as television hosts and political commentators who have redefined freedom, patrioticism, taxing that has left middle America divided and angry and in many cases resigned to hopelessness.
Maybe I've mistaken the fight in their eyes:
John McCain, tired and fighting for an the outdated agenda. In a different day and in a different political environment, McCain's campaign would be some wierd Reagon-Truman-Obama hybrid. He looks defeated. But still he stands. This is his ground. He will fight for it! And then he reminds us that he's never let us down and he won't let us down. He means it. John McCain is not George Bush. But he fell in line like a good soldier and put his political fate in the hands of George Bush's Republican Party. They didn't quite turn on him, because the never supported him. No money. No legitimacy. McCain's the only guy who could keep it close. I think they hoped he was to old to put up a fight. It was painful, but McCain fought and for a day or two a couple weeks ago he took his campaign back.
John McCain is a maverick because he stood up and defended Barack Obama as a good family man with a great wife and wonderful kids when the movement of his campaign had been toward painting him as a terrorist. John McCain might well have won the election had he gone with it. And they'll all decry his failure behind closed doors. But at least John McCain lived up to his promise as more than a maverick in his own party. Senator John McCain gets the lifetime achievement award for his service to America.
Sarah Palin maverick index is TBD. Her record in Alaska seems reform minded. She's got maverick tendencies. It's 11 O'Clock the night before the election, and Sarah Palin looks tired and annoyed. But she's still fighting, and she tells middle America that she will fight for them to eliminate capital gains tax and they applaud and she seems more passionate, as if she really believes she's fighting for them. If she can become an agent of change and reform within the Republican party to eliminate ties to big oil and religious fundmentalist hatemongers that drive their party positions on social issues, she may well put the small back in small government. And who knows, maybe she'll put the down back in the trickles of Reagonomics, a theory that Reagon himself fumbled in the red zone of his Presidency.
For now, Sarah Palin's maverick is on probation. Time, judgement, and party allegiances will tell.
Are John McCain and Sarah Palin Mavericks Still Looking for Reform, Or Cons Exploiting Politics for Personal Wealth and Gain?
Forgive me for my mental imbalances in advance. It's Election Day, after all. And regardless of their policies, there are intangibles that I can't shake. I said it back in the day, and I'll say it again. I like them. I don't know if they quite understand fundamental economics, and I think they have struggled in this election to reconcile between their fondness for the reform minded America of the 80's and the realities of today's Republican party leadership: irresponsibility, cronyism, Big Government, small ideas, hatemongers posing as Christians; white supremacists posing as television hosts and political commentators who have redefined freedom, patrioticism, taxing that has left middle America divided and angry and in many cases resigned to hopelessness.
Maybe I've mistaken the fight in their eyes:
John McCain, tired and fighting for an the outdated agenda. In a different day and in a different political environment, McCain's campaign would be some wierd Reagon-Truman-Obama hybrid. He looks defeated. But still he stands. This is his ground. He will fight for it! And then he reminds us that he's never let us down and he won't let us down. He means it. John McCain is not George Bush. But he fell in line like a good soldier and put his political fate in the hands of George Bush's Republican Party. They didn't quite turn on him, because the never supported him. No money. No legitimacy. McCain's the only guy who could keep it close. I think they hoped he was to old to put up a fight. It was painful, but McCain fought and for a day or two a couple weeks ago he took his campaign back.
John McCain is a maverick because he stood up and defended Barack Obama as a good family man with a great wife and wonderful kids when the movement of his campaign had been toward painting him as a terrorist. John McCain might well have won the election had he gone with it. And they'll all decry his failure behind closed doors. But at least John McCain lived up to his promise as more than a maverick in his own party. Senator John McCain gets the lifetime achievement award for his service to America.
Sarah Palin maverick index is TBD. Her record in Alaska seems reform minded. She's got maverick tendencies. It's 11 O'Clock the night before the election, and Sarah Palin looks tired and annoyed. But she's still fighting, and she tells middle America that she will fight for them to eliminate capital gains tax and they applaud and she seems more passionate, as if she really believes she's fighting for them. If she can become an agent of change and reform within the Republican party to eliminate ties to big oil and religious fundmentalist hatemongers that drive their party positions on social issues, she may well put the small back in small government. And who knows, maybe she'll put the down back in the trickles of Reagonomics, a theory that Reagon himself fumbled in the red zone of his Presidency.
For now, Sarah Palin's maverick is on probation. Time, judgement, and party allegiances will tell.
31 October 2008
Change Your Middle Name To Hussein
To show you're ready for change, change your middle name to Hussein on all your online profiles through November 4. Oh, the meaningless of names...
30 October 2008
Ann Coulter is Anti-Semitic
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
Courtesy of Wikipedia--
On October 8, 2007, Coulter ignited yet more controversy when she was quoted as saying that Jews should be "perfected" into Christians. She was talking about Republicans with Donny Deutsch, a Jewish CNBC talk-show host, and implied that she considered Christianity a virtue. Deutsch asked her, "It would be better if we were all Christian?", to which Coulter replied "Yes". Deutsch asked her, "We should all be Christian?", and got the same response, with an invitation to come to church. Later on, Coulter said, "we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say", saying that this was what Christianity was, and she compared the 'New Testament to Federal Express. Further, Coulter said that Christians considered themselves to be perfected Jews. Deutsch implied that this was an anti-Semitic remark, but Coulter said she didn't consider it to be a hateful comment.
In an April 2, 2008 column, she characterized Barack Obama's book Dreams From My Father as a "Dimestore Mein Kampf." Coulter writes, "He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it's 'easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you.' Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.
In a May 2007 article looking back at the life of the recently deceased evangelical Reverend Jerry Falwell, Coulter commented on Falwell's statement after the 9/11 attacks that "pagans", abortionists, feminists, and gays and lesbians, among others, helped make the attacks happen. In her article, Coulter stated that she disagreed with Falwell's statement, "because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and 'the Reverend' Barry Lynn."[116]
Oh, and don't forget to peruse her archive of political musings:
ANNCOULTER.COM
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/archives.cgi
She's the love child of Hitler and Mugabe, born to the parents who later gave birth to that wierd guy in The Da Vinci Code. But regardless of her dangerous rhetoric, she is the pretty blonde package that Republicans frequently package their hateful rhetoric in. But I give Ann Coulter credit for one thing: despite her prettiness, and perhaps in spite of it, she doesn't pretend to be anything less than a reprehensible "conservative bigot."
And she gets away with being anti-semitic by falling in hard line with America's support of Israel.
It's amazing that Sean Hannity welcomes her anti-semitic bullshit with open arms. Employing Republican campaign logic, you could say that Sean Hannity welcomes anti-semiticism with open arms.
We should start a new news channel dedicated to the 24hour discredit of the phony folksy cronies posing as the voice of middle America, painting Democrats as taxers, and not owning up to their own highbrow tax relief which they hold as close as possible to their cold, Godless hearts.
Courtesy of Wikipedia--
On October 8, 2007, Coulter ignited yet more controversy when she was quoted as saying that Jews should be "perfected" into Christians. She was talking about Republicans with Donny Deutsch, a Jewish CNBC talk-show host, and implied that she considered Christianity a virtue. Deutsch asked her, "It would be better if we were all Christian?", to which Coulter replied "Yes". Deutsch asked her, "We should all be Christian?", and got the same response, with an invitation to come to church. Later on, Coulter said, "we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say", saying that this was what Christianity was, and she compared the 'New Testament to Federal Express. Further, Coulter said that Christians considered themselves to be perfected Jews. Deutsch implied that this was an anti-Semitic remark, but Coulter said she didn't consider it to be a hateful comment.
In an April 2, 2008 column, she characterized Barack Obama's book Dreams From My Father as a "Dimestore Mein Kampf." Coulter writes, "He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it's 'easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you.' Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.
In a May 2007 article looking back at the life of the recently deceased evangelical Reverend Jerry Falwell, Coulter commented on Falwell's statement after the 9/11 attacks that "pagans", abortionists, feminists, and gays and lesbians, among others, helped make the attacks happen. In her article, Coulter stated that she disagreed with Falwell's statement, "because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and 'the Reverend' Barry Lynn."[116]
Oh, and don't forget to peruse her archive of political musings:
ANNCOULTER.COM
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/archives.cgi
She's the love child of Hitler and Mugabe, born to the parents who later gave birth to that wierd guy in The Da Vinci Code. But regardless of her dangerous rhetoric, she is the pretty blonde package that Republicans frequently package their hateful rhetoric in. But I give Ann Coulter credit for one thing: despite her prettiness, and perhaps in spite of it, she doesn't pretend to be anything less than a reprehensible "conservative bigot."
And she gets away with being anti-semitic by falling in hard line with America's support of Israel.
It's amazing that Sean Hannity welcomes her anti-semitic bullshit with open arms. Employing Republican campaign logic, you could say that Sean Hannity welcomes anti-semiticism with open arms.
We should start a new news channel dedicated to the 24hour discredit of the phony folksy cronies posing as the voice of middle America, painting Democrats as taxers, and not owning up to their own highbrow tax relief which they hold as close as possible to their cold, Godless hearts.
24 October 2008
Ten Days Until the Election, Ten Proposals for Campaign Reform
Ten Proposals for Campaign Reform
ONE: MARKETING HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS
Eliminate negative television advertising. Negative television advertising is defined as any advertising that mentions the other candidate. The net effect of this campaign reform would revolutionize the selection of the selection of our leader by would to refocussing candidates message to the electorate on their agenda and what they bring to the table. And it would go far in eliminating over-the-top speculation on what the other candidate will [not] do.
Marketing is great for consumer products. If the product doesn't quite live up to the marketing, you're not stuck with it for the next four years. I don't care how pretty my President is, I just want him to occasionally remind me why I love this country so much!
TWO: HAPPY ELECTION DAY
Make election day a national holiday. This will give everyone time to get to the polls. Plus, its a great opportunity to stimulate the economy. Election day sales. A jumpstart on holiday shopping. But more than anything.
THREE: REAL TIME VOTING
Digital real time voting with uniform rules across all states. It goes like this: Voter scans their ID, scans their thumb, signs their name, votes on touch screen, prints their receipt. Upon completion their votes are sent to a central state hub and onto a national hub instantaneously. Done. Eliminate human error.
FOUR: ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
It was probably necessary back in the day. But today we have the ability to create technology to let the popular vote count. If the majority of Americans vote for one candidate, but Florida narrowly goes the other way...there's something wrong.
FIVE: REQUIRE THAT ALL CITIZENS VOTE
Make it a civic duty that all voters vote.
SIX: LOWER THE VOTING AGE TO 16
Voting should be taught at the high school level. It should be taught with ethics (bipartisan). Sixteen year olds are affected by policy; paying for college is two years away.
SEVEN: MAJOR PARTY PRIMARIES END EARLIER
We hate elections because we hate the marketing and smear campaigns. Take out the marketing (1), and give the candidates more time to campaign from the stump and communicate their actual policies. Increase the number of debates, make them focused, and spread them out.
EIGHT: POST COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PROPOSALS ONLINE
Transparency is key and it allows the American public to get more involved in the political process.
NINE: DISCOURAGE NEWSPAPER ENDORSEMENTS
It shouldn't be the media's job to tell Americans what candidate to vote for. It is the media's job to present each candidate and their agenda without bias and let American's decide. Don't regulate the media, but discourage this practice.
TEN: MINIMIZE SPIN
Spin does a major disservice to the American public. Debates are almost irrelevant to the spin doctoring which in effect tells Ameicans what the candidates said, whether or not it is truly what the candidates said.
ONE: MARKETING HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS
Eliminate negative television advertising. Negative television advertising is defined as any advertising that mentions the other candidate. The net effect of this campaign reform would revolutionize the selection of the selection of our leader by would to refocussing candidates message to the electorate on their agenda and what they bring to the table. And it would go far in eliminating over-the-top speculation on what the other candidate will [not] do.
Marketing is great for consumer products. If the product doesn't quite live up to the marketing, you're not stuck with it for the next four years. I don't care how pretty my President is, I just want him to occasionally remind me why I love this country so much!
TWO: HAPPY ELECTION DAY
Make election day a national holiday. This will give everyone time to get to the polls. Plus, its a great opportunity to stimulate the economy. Election day sales. A jumpstart on holiday shopping. But more than anything.
THREE: REAL TIME VOTING
Digital real time voting with uniform rules across all states. It goes like this: Voter scans their ID, scans their thumb, signs their name, votes on touch screen, prints their receipt. Upon completion their votes are sent to a central state hub and onto a national hub instantaneously. Done. Eliminate human error.
FOUR: ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
It was probably necessary back in the day. But today we have the ability to create technology to let the popular vote count. If the majority of Americans vote for one candidate, but Florida narrowly goes the other way...there's something wrong.
FIVE: REQUIRE THAT ALL CITIZENS VOTE
Make it a civic duty that all voters vote.
SIX: LOWER THE VOTING AGE TO 16
Voting should be taught at the high school level. It should be taught with ethics (bipartisan). Sixteen year olds are affected by policy; paying for college is two years away.
SEVEN: MAJOR PARTY PRIMARIES END EARLIER
We hate elections because we hate the marketing and smear campaigns. Take out the marketing (1), and give the candidates more time to campaign from the stump and communicate their actual policies. Increase the number of debates, make them focused, and spread them out.
EIGHT: POST COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PROPOSALS ONLINE
Transparency is key and it allows the American public to get more involved in the political process.
NINE: DISCOURAGE NEWSPAPER ENDORSEMENTS
It shouldn't be the media's job to tell Americans what candidate to vote for. It is the media's job to present each candidate and their agenda without bias and let American's decide. Don't regulate the media, but discourage this practice.
TEN: MINIMIZE SPIN
Spin does a major disservice to the American public. Debates are almost irrelevant to the spin doctoring which in effect tells Ameicans what the candidates said, whether or not it is truly what the candidates said.
21 October 2008
Reaganomics & Generation Y
I remember the 80's. Even I get caught off guard by one of the super cheesy VH1 specials from which, after multiple idle hours, I emerge from far more self-aware than I was before.
It's easy for my generation to discount the 80's. We were elementry school kids who came of age in the 90's as the X generation emerged in a contrast so direct it bordered on ridicule of the hyper perky over-the-topness of the 80's.
But we should not discount the tangible fondness for this bygone Reagan-era. Many recall it as an era of good. Economies boomed. Communism fell. Diplomacy pushed it. The kids just said no.
Reagonomics and free enterprise is considered by many the crux of these grand times. Keep the scandalous government out of the market, because they don't understand it. Leave it up to the businessmen to execute business. Let the Treasury set rates that respond to the free market flow of business. Its Capitalism at its best. But its ideology.
Ideology is perfection. Execution of ideology must account for human error. And the form of ideological capitalism enacted by the Bush regime reflects human error, albeit you can argue, premeditated human error.
The difference between Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Jr/Sr is that Ronald Reagan led a country, whereas the Bushes have acted more like agents of Big Oil (among other wealthy establishments of Old White Men). They're annoyed by government and governing.
The tax reform act of 1986 was a bipartisan attempt to broaden the tax base and eliminate tax favoratism spearheaded by Reagan. It has proven to be a failure because the trickle down never trickled down. But it is evidence that Reagan was a President who governed, not one bucked the government, to say nothing of the Constitation.
Ethics has become a hippie notion in the Bush regime. It makes sense that the lack of ethics extends to business, where execution is do what you want but make sure hit the bottom line.
It's the bottom line, stupid.
But the bottomline is usually spun or inflated or both so that the market thinks it's good. And in the short run it works and companies successfully trick the market. And they reward themselves with parties, business trips for pleasure, and agregious executive compensation. And to keep up with the Lehman's, other companies follow suit. Keep executives happy. Keep shareholders happy. And fuck stakeholders.
The market always calls the bluff in the long run. And that's when companies like Lehman's fail.
People want to know why Lehman's failed. But they want specifics. Faulty accounting? Bad lending practices? There are countless factors. But the fundamental problem is unethical leadership.
Lehman's is a failure. And it's failed CEO, Richard S. Fuld, Jr., will live with the pain of that failure for the rest of his life. But I'm sure the $45 million he earned in 2007 will ease the pain of failure. It's his low level employees that will actually suffer the real effects.
How's this affect Gen Y? Well, quite simply: GEN Y is a generation with unlimited potential and little opportunity. And that opportunity becomes less with every new fiscal regulation removed, and every unethical business practic practiced.
The ideals of Reagonomics have failed under two Bushes. There was a trickle down effect alright. But it wasn't money. It was failure. And it trickled down from the Bush regime into big business.
And now my generation won't just be the first generation to move back home after college. We'll be the first generation to face moving home after 30.
At least Big Oil still making money. For now. Bush made sure of that.
For your consideration:
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/live-blogging-questions-for-richard-s-fuld-jr/ Fuld admits that lack of government regulation was a factor.
Quit blaming poor wittle George Bush for everything. There are plenty assholes in his family to blame, like: His second cousin.
Lehman Brothers Investment Management Director George Herbert Walker IV, second cousin to U. S. President George Walker Bush, dismissed the proposal, going so far as to actually apologize to other members of the Lehman Brothers executive committee for the idea of bonus reduction having been suggested. He wrote, "Sorry team. I am not sure what's in the water at Neuberger Berman. I'm embarrassed and I apologize."
It's easy for my generation to discount the 80's. We were elementry school kids who came of age in the 90's as the X generation emerged in a contrast so direct it bordered on ridicule of the hyper perky over-the-topness of the 80's.
But we should not discount the tangible fondness for this bygone Reagan-era. Many recall it as an era of good. Economies boomed. Communism fell. Diplomacy pushed it. The kids just said no.
Reagonomics and free enterprise is considered by many the crux of these grand times. Keep the scandalous government out of the market, because they don't understand it. Leave it up to the businessmen to execute business. Let the Treasury set rates that respond to the free market flow of business. Its Capitalism at its best. But its ideology.
Ideology is perfection. Execution of ideology must account for human error. And the form of ideological capitalism enacted by the Bush regime reflects human error, albeit you can argue, premeditated human error.
The difference between Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Jr/Sr is that Ronald Reagan led a country, whereas the Bushes have acted more like agents of Big Oil (among other wealthy establishments of Old White Men). They're annoyed by government and governing.
The tax reform act of 1986 was a bipartisan attempt to broaden the tax base and eliminate tax favoratism spearheaded by Reagan. It has proven to be a failure because the trickle down never trickled down. But it is evidence that Reagan was a President who governed, not one bucked the government, to say nothing of the Constitation.
Ethics has become a hippie notion in the Bush regime. It makes sense that the lack of ethics extends to business, where execution is do what you want but make sure hit the bottom line.
It's the bottom line, stupid.
But the bottomline is usually spun or inflated or both so that the market thinks it's good. And in the short run it works and companies successfully trick the market. And they reward themselves with parties, business trips for pleasure, and agregious executive compensation. And to keep up with the Lehman's, other companies follow suit. Keep executives happy. Keep shareholders happy. And fuck stakeholders.
The market always calls the bluff in the long run. And that's when companies like Lehman's fail.
People want to know why Lehman's failed. But they want specifics. Faulty accounting? Bad lending practices? There are countless factors. But the fundamental problem is unethical leadership.
Lehman's is a failure. And it's failed CEO, Richard S. Fuld, Jr., will live with the pain of that failure for the rest of his life. But I'm sure the $45 million he earned in 2007 will ease the pain of failure. It's his low level employees that will actually suffer the real effects.
How's this affect Gen Y? Well, quite simply: GEN Y is a generation with unlimited potential and little opportunity. And that opportunity becomes less with every new fiscal regulation removed, and every unethical business practic practiced.
The ideals of Reagonomics have failed under two Bushes. There was a trickle down effect alright. But it wasn't money. It was failure. And it trickled down from the Bush regime into big business.
And now my generation won't just be the first generation to move back home after college. We'll be the first generation to face moving home after 30.
At least Big Oil still making money. For now. Bush made sure of that.
For your consideration:
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/live-blogging-questions-for-richard-s-fuld-jr/ Fuld admits that lack of government regulation was a factor.
Quit blaming poor wittle George Bush for everything. There are plenty assholes in his family to blame, like: His second cousin.
Lehman Brothers Investment Management Director George Herbert Walker IV, second cousin to U. S. President George Walker Bush, dismissed the proposal, going so far as to actually apologize to other members of the Lehman Brothers executive committee for the idea of bonus reduction having been suggested. He wrote, "Sorry team. I am not sure what's in the water at Neuberger Berman. I'm embarrassed and I apologize."
Rent Controls, Socialism of the Elite
Santa Monica sure was pleasant tonight. I gave a friend a lift to his friends place. They live in a very nice townhouse on a quaint, quiet street near the beach. Another townhouse at a diagnol across the street was up for rent. I made a snide crack about neighborhood watches and screening. But I guess one person's joke is another's reality. On this Marc O'Cherrian street, the subject of suitable neighbors is alive and well.
I remain uncertain how the subject turned to rent controls, but it seems like logical-ish progression. And the conversation itself was brief and thin. It's what was left unsaid that speaks measures.
One of the deliberately spoken roommates, a purchaser for a computer retail outlet, hates the idea of rent controls. Keep it expensive. Price the trash out. But he didn't say much after that. His computer wasn't communicating with the printer, and he had something he needed to print.
The other favored rent controls. He thought that the elimination of rent controls would disenfranchise poor black folk.
I sided with the computer illiterate computer purchaser. Living at the beach is a priviledge. And housing prices are something that should be market based, because in a responsibly run economy housing prices steadily and significantly appreciate over time. It's the nest you put all your eggs in. It's your nest egg.
But lets take this even further: When was the last time the "poor black folk" had the opportunity to find one of these beach front rent controlled apartments?
I hear about rent controls all the time. But only from my "good family" friends. Rent controls are controlled by priviledge. You don't find rent controls on Craigslist. You find rent controls because your rich big sister finally was able to buy her house by the beach, or your roommate in grad school is backpacking in Europe. You know what I mean. There's a significant difference between rent controls and low income housing.
I guess it's not so Marc O'Cherrian after all, although I wouldn't go so far as to call it Bushian. If the projects is American socialism for the poor, you might call rent controls socialism for the elite.
I remain uncertain how the subject turned to rent controls, but it seems like logical-ish progression. And the conversation itself was brief and thin. It's what was left unsaid that speaks measures.
One of the deliberately spoken roommates, a purchaser for a computer retail outlet, hates the idea of rent controls. Keep it expensive. Price the trash out. But he didn't say much after that. His computer wasn't communicating with the printer, and he had something he needed to print.
The other favored rent controls. He thought that the elimination of rent controls would disenfranchise poor black folk.
I sided with the computer illiterate computer purchaser. Living at the beach is a priviledge. And housing prices are something that should be market based, because in a responsibly run economy housing prices steadily and significantly appreciate over time. It's the nest you put all your eggs in. It's your nest egg.
But lets take this even further: When was the last time the "poor black folk" had the opportunity to find one of these beach front rent controlled apartments?
I hear about rent controls all the time. But only from my "good family" friends. Rent controls are controlled by priviledge. You don't find rent controls on Craigslist. You find rent controls because your rich big sister finally was able to buy her house by the beach, or your roommate in grad school is backpacking in Europe. You know what I mean. There's a significant difference between rent controls and low income housing.
I guess it's not so Marc O'Cherrian after all, although I wouldn't go so far as to call it Bushian. If the projects is American socialism for the poor, you might call rent controls socialism for the elite.
15 October 2008
John McCain's Back in the Race
John McCain is a hero. I don't know who that was pretending to be John McCain. But finally, the real John McCain is back.
And I got news for ye, Sarah Palin: John McCain's the maverick. It's his running mate that's little more than a sideshow gimmick. And how dare ye tell John McCain there to put on some fighting gloves. This is a prisoner of war yer talkin too, dearie!
This John McCain we all love, the one who stands up to his advisors and stands beside his opponents when its the right thing to do. This is bipartisan. This is the Republican I might have voted for eight years ago.
When I cast my vote for Barack Obama, it will be because he is the best man for the job.
But John McCain deserves praise for reminding us why he's one of the best men in politics!
3/10/2009: Not that I reserve judgement on Sarah Palin; my opinion of her since this has shifted a bit. The campaign she became the poster child for wasn't hers. Her governing of Alaska had some maverick qualities. Now if she can just take the next few years to study economics, the lower 48 states and Hawaii, brush up on American history and government, and read up on what is going on in the rest of the world she might actually have some skills to go along with her maverick. To lead the free world, she at least has to get past Katie Couric...
And I got news for ye, Sarah Palin: John McCain's the maverick. It's his running mate that's little more than a sideshow gimmick. And how dare ye tell John McCain there to put on some fighting gloves. This is a prisoner of war yer talkin too, dearie!
This John McCain we all love, the one who stands up to his advisors and stands beside his opponents when its the right thing to do. This is bipartisan. This is the Republican I might have voted for eight years ago.
When I cast my vote for Barack Obama, it will be because he is the best man for the job.
But John McCain deserves praise for reminding us why he's one of the best men in politics!
3/10/2009: Not that I reserve judgement on Sarah Palin; my opinion of her since this has shifted a bit. The campaign she became the poster child for wasn't hers. Her governing of Alaska had some maverick qualities. Now if she can just take the next few years to study economics, the lower 48 states and Hawaii, brush up on American history and government, and read up on what is going on in the rest of the world she might actually have some skills to go along with her maverick. To lead the free world, she at least has to get past Katie Couric...
19 September 2008
The Winds of ...ahem... Change: John McCain's Got Gas
Yes, John McCain said it. And thanks to YouTube, he won't be able to take it back.
"The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
I think he mistook the economy's fundamentals for his last fart. Silent. Deadly.
When something crumbles as quickly and completely as the United States economy, its fundamentals are many smelly things. Strong is not one of them. Fundamentally strong economies withstand bad gas, bad decisions, bad weather and bad wars. They rebound with limited government intervention.
We are in the midst of a great depression, not because our economy is fundamentally strong, but because our economy, under the unwatchful eye of Pres. George W. Bush's administration, is fundamentally weak.
Call me unpatriotic, but I call it like I see it. And I will call the duck a duck when it quacks. Especially when the duck is as lame as a Republican economist, or worse, a Republican running for President.
Deregulation of our markets is contingent on corporate decisionmakers making purely economic decisions. The goals of pure economics is to increase overall societal welfare. In a deregulated economy, a corporation becomes a microcosm of a country and therefore must make decisions that increase overall "societal welfare" in their company.
We are currently engulfed in a derugulated economy where decision making benefits a privledged few. I agree with Senator McCain. Our corporate culture is filled with nepotism and individual greed. Deregulated economies are economies contingent upon the best decisionsmakers making the best decisions in the company's best interest. Nepotism usually eliminates the idea of the "best decisionmaker." Individual greed eliminates the idea of the "company's best interest." And thus we are left with Today's deregulated economy, which is as far away from the best as you can get!
Today, September 19, 2008, the American middle class is at a point of collapse. If it the collapse continues, the American social order will become more feudal in nature and more prone to internal violence and revolution. Social unrest always gives way to social upheaval.
The lower middle class in America live paycheck to paycheck. Advancement opportunities are dim. Budgets are tight. And there is no room for emergencies, because today's emergency is tomorrow's mortgage foreclosure.
And tomorrow's mortgage foreclosure was Thursday's Great Depression.
"Quack," said John McCain. "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Peeeee...uuuuuuuew!
"The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
I think he mistook the economy's fundamentals for his last fart. Silent. Deadly.
When something crumbles as quickly and completely as the United States economy, its fundamentals are many smelly things. Strong is not one of them. Fundamentally strong economies withstand bad gas, bad decisions, bad weather and bad wars. They rebound with limited government intervention.
We are in the midst of a great depression, not because our economy is fundamentally strong, but because our economy, under the unwatchful eye of Pres. George W. Bush's administration, is fundamentally weak.
Call me unpatriotic, but I call it like I see it. And I will call the duck a duck when it quacks. Especially when the duck is as lame as a Republican economist, or worse, a Republican running for President.
Deregulation of our markets is contingent on corporate decisionmakers making purely economic decisions. The goals of pure economics is to increase overall societal welfare. In a deregulated economy, a corporation becomes a microcosm of a country and therefore must make decisions that increase overall "societal welfare" in their company.
We are currently engulfed in a derugulated economy where decision making benefits a privledged few. I agree with Senator McCain. Our corporate culture is filled with nepotism and individual greed. Deregulated economies are economies contingent upon the best decisionsmakers making the best decisions in the company's best interest. Nepotism usually eliminates the idea of the "best decisionmaker." Individual greed eliminates the idea of the "company's best interest." And thus we are left with Today's deregulated economy, which is as far away from the best as you can get!
Today, September 19, 2008, the American middle class is at a point of collapse. If it the collapse continues, the American social order will become more feudal in nature and more prone to internal violence and revolution. Social unrest always gives way to social upheaval.
The lower middle class in America live paycheck to paycheck. Advancement opportunities are dim. Budgets are tight. And there is no room for emergencies, because today's emergency is tomorrow's mortgage foreclosure.
And tomorrow's mortgage foreclosure was Thursday's Great Depression.
"Quack," said John McCain. "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Peeeee...uuuuuuuew!
10 September 2008
Smile! You're on the Red Light Camera
I want to be clear. I support implementation of the red light camera. While they probably save fewer lives than they receive credit for from their admirers in local government, they do prevent many accidents and injuries.
However, the implementation of these cameras should put the burden of proof on the law enforcement agency. Procedural breakdowns should always favor the recipient of the ticket, especially in cases with little effect on traffic safety. Cases like mine.
My brush with the little digital nark happened last February on my way home from working the grave shift at Jerry's Deli. I take the same route almost every night. The calm left by the halt of traffic is refreshing at 3:00 AM. I don't pay as much attention to traffic at 3:00 AM on empty streets as I do at 3:00 PM during rush hour. Who would?
On this particular night, I was obviously not paying even less attention, and got my picture taken. I deserved a ticket because I ran a red light. And I've seen 2001 enough to know not to mess with HAL 2000. And so for two weeks I checked my mail nervously expecting a ticket. To my delight, they let me off. I stupidly reasoned that someone was paying attention and realized that this incident didn't exactly violate anyone's safety.
Boy was I wrong. You might imagine my surprise six months later a collection notice in excess of $600 (for no reason apparent on the notice). It took me more than a week to research the notice and track down the office and deputy responsible for my red light ticket. I discovered that my check had been sent to to the wrong street number: 4128 instead of 4728.
I finally got my ticket in the mail a day after my first traffic court date and six months after
my red light flub. At this point, my life was an apple to the orange that might life was six months prior when a $370 ticket was an annoyance. That $370 now is part of a past due car payment.
But that's my problem, not LA's and not that little camera's.
But even if I take the human element out of the equation it's at least not acceptable to receive notification that the ticket exists from a collection notice sent six months after the accident. But the perfectly named Officer Porsche assured me it happens all the time. He reFew. That lowered my total due from $600 to $370. But since my bank account lingered around $0 it hardly made a difference.
Turns out CA state law requires that a red light camera citation must be delivered within 15 days of the alleged violation date. Of course, the commissioner of traffic court who delivered her 30 minute opening remarks with the cynical bravado of Judge Judy dismissed my request to dismiss as "rigamarole." She said that these windows didn't apply to red light tickets. I didn't want to further anger Her Honor by asking exactly why the law exists since red light tickets are like the only tickets you can receive by mail. But who has time for rationale when there city cash flows are in question.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if someone would just review my case for 2 minutes. I'm not asking for them to do anything except their job. But ignorance is bliss, I guess, and their incentives program is likely not to give some smart ass kid a legally justified break. Besides I appear to have many advantages that the guy who just got out of prison in front of me does not. In short, its only $370, right?
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if my $370 were an investment into the most glaring failure of Los Angeles government and transportation authorities: the lack of a cohesive and effective public transportation system. Instead it will be wasted on some freeway or major roadway expansion project that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars and hinder traffic flow for years and that barely keeps up with traffic.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if knew that the officer I saw the other day briefly and irresponsibly turn on his siren to avoid a red light had a reason other than his hopefully newfound position of authority. If he had actually hit me, which he almost did, it would have been my fault. I did fail to yield, after all.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if the fire were avoidable.
However, the implementation of these cameras should put the burden of proof on the law enforcement agency. Procedural breakdowns should always favor the recipient of the ticket, especially in cases with little effect on traffic safety. Cases like mine.
My brush with the little digital nark happened last February on my way home from working the grave shift at Jerry's Deli. I take the same route almost every night. The calm left by the halt of traffic is refreshing at 3:00 AM. I don't pay as much attention to traffic at 3:00 AM on empty streets as I do at 3:00 PM during rush hour. Who would?
On this particular night, I was obviously not paying even less attention, and got my picture taken. I deserved a ticket because I ran a red light. And I've seen 2001 enough to know not to mess with HAL 2000. And so for two weeks I checked my mail nervously expecting a ticket. To my delight, they let me off. I stupidly reasoned that someone was paying attention and realized that this incident didn't exactly violate anyone's safety.
Boy was I wrong. You might imagine my surprise six months later a collection notice in excess of $600 (for no reason apparent on the notice). It took me more than a week to research the notice and track down the office and deputy responsible for my red light ticket. I discovered that my check had been sent to to the wrong street number: 4128 instead of 4728.
I finally got my ticket in the mail a day after my first traffic court date and six months after
my red light flub. At this point, my life was an apple to the orange that might life was six months prior when a $370 ticket was an annoyance. That $370 now is part of a past due car payment.
But that's my problem, not LA's and not that little camera's.
But even if I take the human element out of the equation it's at least not acceptable to receive notification that the ticket exists from a collection notice sent six months after the accident. But the perfectly named Officer Porsche assured me it happens all the time. He reFew. That lowered my total due from $600 to $370. But since my bank account lingered around $0 it hardly made a difference.
Turns out CA state law requires that a red light camera citation must be delivered within 15 days of the alleged violation date. Of course, the commissioner of traffic court who delivered her 30 minute opening remarks with the cynical bravado of Judge Judy dismissed my request to dismiss as "rigamarole." She said that these windows didn't apply to red light tickets. I didn't want to further anger Her Honor by asking exactly why the law exists since red light tickets are like the only tickets you can receive by mail. But who has time for rationale when there city cash flows are in question.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if someone would just review my case for 2 minutes. I'm not asking for them to do anything except their job. But ignorance is bliss, I guess, and their incentives program is likely not to give some smart ass kid a legally justified break. Besides I appear to have many advantages that the guy who just got out of prison in front of me does not. In short, its only $370, right?
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if my $370 were an investment into the most glaring failure of Los Angeles government and transportation authorities: the lack of a cohesive and effective public transportation system. Instead it will be wasted on some freeway or major roadway expansion project that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars and hinder traffic flow for years and that barely keeps up with traffic.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if knew that the officer I saw the other day briefly and irresponsibly turn on his siren to avoid a red light had a reason other than his hopefully newfound position of authority. If he had actually hit me, which he almost did, it would have been my fault. I did fail to yield, after all.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if the fire were avoidable.
09 September 2008
2008 Summer Olympics Opinion: The Best is the Best
At the 1976 Montreal Olympics, Nadia Comenici created an iconic image in her dismount from the uneven bars. The judges called it perfect and gave her a ten. It was the first ten awarded in gymnastics at the Olympics in the modern era. She made history that night. She was 14 years old. Bela Karolyi was her coach.
How the rules have changed! Nadia Comenici would not have made history in 2008. It’s not because the judging system has changed and the perfect 10 is no longer the standard. Instead, Comenici would not have competed because of the minimum age requirement. If by some twist of fate or fancy paperwork doctoring she made it into the competition, an eccentric and outspoken American coach named Bela Karolyi would cry fowl and call the Romanians cheaters.
Without the perfect ten standard, Comenici’s iconography might have been simply great biography. But the new judging system does one thing adequately: it manages human error/favor. The age limit is another example of human error that needs changed. It’s arbitrary, discriminatory, and hinders greatness in gymnasts that peak young.
Gymnastics is fickle; it’s a revolving door for the new and old. The physical and mental demands of the sport make injury likely and peak sustenance difficult. It’s rare that fans can follow their favorite gymnasts, like Nadia Comenici and Shannon Miller, through multiple Olympics.
Age limiting might be well intended to reduce injury (physical and mental) among young female athletes. But at the end of the day, age limiting will not do anything to reform the problems it was created to reform.
If these problems exist, blame bad coaches. Bad coaches don’t realize the limits of their gymnasts. Bad coaches push their gymnasts too hard. Bad coaches skim over fundamentals. Bad coaches don’t teach proper technique. Bad coaches don’t teach their competitors how to deal with the pressures of competition. Bad coaches create bad athletes. Bad athletes injure themselves. Bad coaches should be accountable.
And young female athletes of any age should have the opportunity to excel. Whatever her age, He Kexin’s uneven bars routine exhibited a remarkable degree of difficulty executed with ease and near-perfection. To minimize her achievement is to minimize the achievements of Olympic gold medalists of all ages who realized the upper limits of their natural potential.
The American women made no excuses for their silver medal; it simply wasn’t their night and the Chinese were better. All-around gold medalist Nastasia Liukin wouldn’t criticize the ridiculous tiebreaker that awarded her already controversial Chinese rival He Kexin the gold medal on the uneven bars; the system had already been good to her. I guess when you’re a gymnast, accountability becomes habit. As usual, leave it to the children in the arena to act like adults.
Dustin Newcombe
August 22, 2008
How the rules have changed! Nadia Comenici would not have made history in 2008. It’s not because the judging system has changed and the perfect 10 is no longer the standard. Instead, Comenici would not have competed because of the minimum age requirement. If by some twist of fate or fancy paperwork doctoring she made it into the competition, an eccentric and outspoken American coach named Bela Karolyi would cry fowl and call the Romanians cheaters.
Without the perfect ten standard, Comenici’s iconography might have been simply great biography. But the new judging system does one thing adequately: it manages human error/favor. The age limit is another example of human error that needs changed. It’s arbitrary, discriminatory, and hinders greatness in gymnasts that peak young.
Gymnastics is fickle; it’s a revolving door for the new and old. The physical and mental demands of the sport make injury likely and peak sustenance difficult. It’s rare that fans can follow their favorite gymnasts, like Nadia Comenici and Shannon Miller, through multiple Olympics.
Age limiting might be well intended to reduce injury (physical and mental) among young female athletes. But at the end of the day, age limiting will not do anything to reform the problems it was created to reform.
If these problems exist, blame bad coaches. Bad coaches don’t realize the limits of their gymnasts. Bad coaches push their gymnasts too hard. Bad coaches skim over fundamentals. Bad coaches don’t teach proper technique. Bad coaches don’t teach their competitors how to deal with the pressures of competition. Bad coaches create bad athletes. Bad athletes injure themselves. Bad coaches should be accountable.
And young female athletes of any age should have the opportunity to excel. Whatever her age, He Kexin’s uneven bars routine exhibited a remarkable degree of difficulty executed with ease and near-perfection. To minimize her achievement is to minimize the achievements of Olympic gold medalists of all ages who realized the upper limits of their natural potential.
The American women made no excuses for their silver medal; it simply wasn’t their night and the Chinese were better. All-around gold medalist Nastasia Liukin wouldn’t criticize the ridiculous tiebreaker that awarded her already controversial Chinese rival He Kexin the gold medal on the uneven bars; the system had already been good to her. I guess when you’re a gymnast, accountability becomes habit. As usual, leave it to the children in the arena to act like adults.
Dustin Newcombe
August 22, 2008
08 September 2008
Call It What It Is: Big Government
They'll tell you its necessary and they're fighting for America. They're right it is necessary. But they're lying because they're fighting to save face. And they'll never certainly never call it what it is: Big Government.
If Democrats were in charge it wouldn't have gotten here. There would be no BIG housing crises that call for BIG government intervention. Because there would have been limited government leadership all along.
Democrats aren't calling for big government. They're calling for limited government leadership. Call it limited liability government, or LLG for short.
Limited liability governments are governments that tax so they can invest wisely to increase the welfare of its country.
Big Governments, like that created by the administration of President George W. Bush, wreck economies, start wars, take on divisive social agendas, and take over the two largest insurers of mortgages, among other things.
And surely even the most staunch Republican would agree that when you have two wars going down abroad the last thing you can afford to manage is the nations two largest insurers of mortgage lending. But that's just what the current administration has no choice but to do.
It's funny, the administration of George W. Bush got it all wrong. It took 7 1/2 years of lame duck governing before they went it to crisis mode with 6 months to go.
Lucky for W, that he had time to take a two week vacation from watching the Olympics (which must have been draining), because ol boy gotta lot of backpedalling to do to catch up with Barack!
If Democrats were in charge it wouldn't have gotten here. There would be no BIG housing crises that call for BIG government intervention. Because there would have been limited government leadership all along.
Democrats aren't calling for big government. They're calling for limited government leadership. Call it limited liability government, or LLG for short.
Limited liability governments are governments that tax so they can invest wisely to increase the welfare of its country.
Big Governments, like that created by the administration of President George W. Bush, wreck economies, start wars, take on divisive social agendas, and take over the two largest insurers of mortgages, among other things.
And surely even the most staunch Republican would agree that when you have two wars going down abroad the last thing you can afford to manage is the nations two largest insurers of mortgage lending. But that's just what the current administration has no choice but to do.
It's funny, the administration of George W. Bush got it all wrong. It took 7 1/2 years of lame duck governing before they went it to crisis mode with 6 months to go.
Lucky for W, that he had time to take a two week vacation from watching the Olympics (which must have been draining), because ol boy gotta lot of backpedalling to do to catch up with Barack!
05 September 2008
An Economic Justification for Universal Health Care
Higher taxes and lower quality health care are the generally-cited reasons against universal health care. These reasons are speculative at best and fraudulent at worst. That they are presented as fact does a disservice to all Americans. Many uninsured Americans do not get the health care they need. Many insured Americans do not get the health care they deserve. To make sure all Americans have access to the best health care they can afford, America needs to take a chance on universal health care.
It is necessary to make clear that the implementation of universal health care doesn’t necessitate the elimination of privatized health care. Privatized health care will exist as long as there is a market for privatized health care. Universal health care would coexist and act as a check and balance for privatized health care. Universal health care would ensure that Americans who can afford privatized health care receive top of the line health care because privatized health care should at least be better than universal health care.
The notion that universal health care means a tax hike for most working Americans is a falsehood spread by politicians on behalf of lobbyists for insurance and prescription drug agencies. There may or may not be an tax increase. But no matter how fiscally conservative a regime claims to be, the necessity of taxing remains and the question of how much to tax and how to spend those taxes becomes the issue. Effective governments execute policy effectively so that taxes are spent in ways that increase the overall welfare of a country. Taxes are an investment, and while we as Americans have little say in how much we are taxed, we can elect leaders who will make sound investment decisions and cut fatty spending. In fact, if fatty spending on things like campaign financing and advertising were cut and those budgets were shifted toward universal health care, citizens may avoid a tax hike altogether.
Universal health care is a sound investment decision. A healthy nation is a happy nation. A healthy nation is a smart nation. A healthy nation is a productive nation. A universal health care system gives health care workers a compelling incentive to cure patients the first time. A second round of treatments is a waste of time and additional work without a benefit. The current system of health care is predicated on ethics and insurance companies. The incentive for the doctors is backwards. It rewards doctors for prolonged treatment.
Even if there is a hike, the check and balance check and balance of universal health care may well be worth the extra taxes they pay levied the wealthiest Americans. The incentive for prolonged treatment might remain constant, but the check and balance of the universal system makes it necessary for your doctor to give you top-of-the-line treatment at a cost determined by the market instead of some combination of insurance and health care executives. After all, wealthy Americans won't pay more for expensive health care if that in the universal system is better.
We may never be able to assess the cost per person of a universal health care system versus the cost benefit to health care consumers in the private sector. But with proper execution, benefits like lowers costs and better service in the private sector should follow.
Other consumer benefits might result from the need to change the model for insurance companies and new incentives for drug companies.
To be clear, this is not a critique of the hardworking individuals in the health care profession who dedicate their lives to bettering others’ lives. Rather, this is to suggest that a universal health care system can serve all Americans better.
Dustin Newcombe
8/6/2008
It is necessary to make clear that the implementation of universal health care doesn’t necessitate the elimination of privatized health care. Privatized health care will exist as long as there is a market for privatized health care. Universal health care would coexist and act as a check and balance for privatized health care. Universal health care would ensure that Americans who can afford privatized health care receive top of the line health care because privatized health care should at least be better than universal health care.
The notion that universal health care means a tax hike for most working Americans is a falsehood spread by politicians on behalf of lobbyists for insurance and prescription drug agencies. There may or may not be an tax increase. But no matter how fiscally conservative a regime claims to be, the necessity of taxing remains and the question of how much to tax and how to spend those taxes becomes the issue. Effective governments execute policy effectively so that taxes are spent in ways that increase the overall welfare of a country. Taxes are an investment, and while we as Americans have little say in how much we are taxed, we can elect leaders who will make sound investment decisions and cut fatty spending. In fact, if fatty spending on things like campaign financing and advertising were cut and those budgets were shifted toward universal health care, citizens may avoid a tax hike altogether.
Universal health care is a sound investment decision. A healthy nation is a happy nation. A healthy nation is a smart nation. A healthy nation is a productive nation. A universal health care system gives health care workers a compelling incentive to cure patients the first time. A second round of treatments is a waste of time and additional work without a benefit. The current system of health care is predicated on ethics and insurance companies. The incentive for the doctors is backwards. It rewards doctors for prolonged treatment.
Even if there is a hike, the check and balance check and balance of universal health care may well be worth the extra taxes they pay levied the wealthiest Americans. The incentive for prolonged treatment might remain constant, but the check and balance of the universal system makes it necessary for your doctor to give you top-of-the-line treatment at a cost determined by the market instead of some combination of insurance and health care executives. After all, wealthy Americans won't pay more for expensive health care if that in the universal system is better.
We may never be able to assess the cost per person of a universal health care system versus the cost benefit to health care consumers in the private sector. But with proper execution, benefits like lowers costs and better service in the private sector should follow.
Other consumer benefits might result from the need to change the model for insurance companies and new incentives for drug companies.
To be clear, this is not a critique of the hardworking individuals in the health care profession who dedicate their lives to bettering others’ lives. Rather, this is to suggest that a universal health care system can serve all Americans better.
Dustin Newcombe
8/6/2008
Karl Rove's Bride of Young Frankenstein
A now for the speech that turned the republican tide...but for the better?
I have to say for all its nonsense, I liked this speech. Sure it was the political equivalent of an In Touch Weekly article. But I like In Touch Weekly. And maybe they'll leave Brittany alone, at least until November when Barack Obama wins the election.
There was a Romy-and-Michelle-guilty-pleasure quality to this speech. It was almost refreshing. I'm cringing, and I know you must be too. While I wouldn't vote for her, I would SO make her made-for-tv-move (or at least her E! True Hollywood Story). It's Missus Smith Goes to Washington spun with Bride of Young Frankenstien.
You can't write stuff this good. I can't write stuff this good. I don't think anybody can write stuff this good.
A PTA Soccer Mom turned small town mayor, turned state governer, turned vice presidential candidate. And on top of that, she has 5 kids including a newborn, a pregnent teen, and a 19 year old soon off to war. She has a husband she calls "my guy." She's a former beauty queen. She attended rifle training in Kuwait. Need I go on? Like SERIOUSLY who is this?
In all seriousity, I want the movie rights. Because the life of Sarah Palin is a part that Sandra Bullock was born to play! And when Sandra Bullock was born, somebody should have told her to stay away from 90% of the parts she's played!
But back to Palin: Was it just me, or was this a heartfelt, relatable, funny, and non-nonsense bit of political nonsense delivered with soccer mom gusto. On top of that, take away the glasses and the bangs and girl's a looka!
I'm scared. I'm scared that Sarah Palin may be Karl Rove's Bride of Young Frankenstein. And if there is any legitimacy at all to my claim, it could be the best stroke of misguided, misleading political genius this side of wishy washy.
Or maybe Sarah Palin is just that unremarkably remarkable, a homespun republican reformer tenacious enough to take the plunge even if the current is strong and the waters way over her head.
But I will admit it right here right now. I like this chick. Not to vote for. But maybe to hunt caribou with in Kuwait!
I have to say for all its nonsense, I liked this speech. Sure it was the political equivalent of an In Touch Weekly article. But I like In Touch Weekly. And maybe they'll leave Brittany alone, at least until November when Barack Obama wins the election.
There was a Romy-and-Michelle-guilty-pleasure quality to this speech. It was almost refreshing. I'm cringing, and I know you must be too. While I wouldn't vote for her, I would SO make her made-for-tv-move (or at least her E! True Hollywood Story). It's Missus Smith Goes to Washington spun with Bride of Young Frankenstien.
You can't write stuff this good. I can't write stuff this good. I don't think anybody can write stuff this good.
A PTA Soccer Mom turned small town mayor, turned state governer, turned vice presidential candidate. And on top of that, she has 5 kids including a newborn, a pregnent teen, and a 19 year old soon off to war. She has a husband she calls "my guy." She's a former beauty queen. She attended rifle training in Kuwait. Need I go on? Like SERIOUSLY who is this?
In all seriousity, I want the movie rights. Because the life of Sarah Palin is a part that Sandra Bullock was born to play! And when Sandra Bullock was born, somebody should have told her to stay away from 90% of the parts she's played!
But back to Palin: Was it just me, or was this a heartfelt, relatable, funny, and non-nonsense bit of political nonsense delivered with soccer mom gusto. On top of that, take away the glasses and the bangs and girl's a looka!
I'm scared. I'm scared that Sarah Palin may be Karl Rove's Bride of Young Frankenstein. And if there is any legitimacy at all to my claim, it could be the best stroke of misguided, misleading political genius this side of wishy washy.
Or maybe Sarah Palin is just that unremarkably remarkable, a homespun republican reformer tenacious enough to take the plunge even if the current is strong and the waters way over her head.
But I will admit it right here right now. I like this chick. Not to vote for. But maybe to hunt caribou with in Kuwait!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)