It seems difficult to believe that any Iranian organization, even ones around when this particular structure was built, would sanction putting the star of David on the roof - making this quite possibly the best prank in all of history.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Cute
Google Earth reveals Star of David on roof of Iran Air HQ.
It seems difficult to believe that any Iranian organization, even ones around when this particular structure was built, would sanction putting the star of David on the roof - making this quite possibly the best prank in all of history.
It seems difficult to believe that any Iranian organization, even ones around when this particular structure was built, would sanction putting the star of David on the roof - making this quite possibly the best prank in all of history.
How long until Ann Althouse has a TV show?
I predict instant stardom. I'm sure many, many networks could find spots in their lineups for her. CNN are you listening? Well, are you? She can have Reynolds on regularly in a sort of quid pro quo.
This is completely unrelated to the post below. I think.
This is completely unrelated to the post below. I think.
Smart Women
I admit I have a bit of a thing for smart women. I did not come to this realization about myself suddenly but rather over time have come to acknowledge that I tend to perk up and listen when I hear a smart woman analyze a particular topic - more so than when I hear a man do so. I have never analyzed it very much and the reason is not the point of this post. I'm sure many politically correct types could find something to be offended by in the implications of my appreciation of some women's reasoning but that's not the point of this post either. Others might say that we should look at all ideas as unbiased as possible; it's not the messenger that matters, rather the message. I'd like to think that I do that and unfortunately that hope about myself leads me to the possibility that perhaps I only think I pay more attention when I hear a smart woman talking because she is unique in an otherwise sea of male voices and the (comparatively) smaller pond of bland feminine ones - and so I just remember her after the fact. A mystery it is.
Regardless, Instapunk has linked a video of Melanie Phillips recently that I thought was interesting. It caught my eye because he calls her the "smartest woman in the world." High praise indeed. It is an interesting speech, but not because of anything specific that she talks about but instead because of the manner in which she reasons. I think I am safe in saying that she occupies a fairly narrow slice of the so-called political spectrum. I point this out not to dismiss her views or otherwise partition her but rather in the hopes that you will listen to what she says without dismissing her out of hand simply because you disagree with her on some issue or another. As she might say: The point is not to align yourself with or against this or that interest but rather to have the debate. So, it is the process, perhaps, that is paramount, not the messenger or even the message. Instapunk encourages you to stick with it through 16 mins but I thought much of it was interesting. For instance, the bit beginning at the 12:30 mark about virtue and "progressivism" mirrors points that Sowell has also made quite often. Her points about certain discussions being "beyond the pale" also remind me of Sowell's recounting of his time working on minimum wage laws in Puerto Rico. (Full version of Sowell on Charlie Rose here) Her prepared remarks go through about the 30 min mark and then she takes questions.
For extra credit compare and contrast the Janice Rogers Brown video linked above to Powerline's inspection of Obama's views on "American exceptionalism."
Regardless, Instapunk has linked a video of Melanie Phillips recently that I thought was interesting. It caught my eye because he calls her the "smartest woman in the world." High praise indeed. It is an interesting speech, but not because of anything specific that she talks about but instead because of the manner in which she reasons. I think I am safe in saying that she occupies a fairly narrow slice of the so-called political spectrum. I point this out not to dismiss her views or otherwise partition her but rather in the hopes that you will listen to what she says without dismissing her out of hand simply because you disagree with her on some issue or another. As she might say: The point is not to align yourself with or against this or that interest but rather to have the debate. So, it is the process, perhaps, that is paramount, not the messenger or even the message. Instapunk encourages you to stick with it through 16 mins but I thought much of it was interesting. For instance, the bit beginning at the 12:30 mark about virtue and "progressivism" mirrors points that Sowell has also made quite often. Her points about certain discussions being "beyond the pale" also remind me of Sowell's recounting of his time working on minimum wage laws in Puerto Rico. (Full version of Sowell on Charlie Rose here) Her prepared remarks go through about the 30 min mark and then she takes questions.
For extra credit compare and contrast the Janice Rogers Brown video linked above to Powerline's inspection of Obama's views on "American exceptionalism."
Monday, November 29, 2010
All smoke and no fire?
Democratic Congress makes one last push for DREAM Act - San Jose Mercury News.
Nothing, of course, will prevent the lame-duck Congress from voting on the Dream Act - or any other act for that matter. It smells awfully pander-ish to me though. Just sayin'.
On a semi-related note, shouldn't we really do something about that lame-duck session? Democratic it seems not.
Nothing, of course, will prevent the lame-duck Congress from voting on the Dream Act - or any other act for that matter. It smells awfully pander-ish to me though. Just sayin'.
On a semi-related note, shouldn't we really do something about that lame-duck session? Democratic it seems not.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Christie gets it
| Christie speaks in Washington DC, calling Newark schools 'absolutely disgraceful' |
Ace has a link of more of the same speech:
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Schwarzenegger proposes huge budget cuts
Drastic cuts that would bring state spending down to... err... 2008 levels.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
How much would you pay for Newsweek?
Washington Post Co. to Sell Newsweek
When the iPad was released various talking heads and industry watchers wondered if it could save the newspapers and magazines which have steadily seen their circulations plummet due to internet competition and outdated... "business models". See here: Weekend Video: Can iPad Save Newspapers Magazines? Here: Can the Apple iPad Save Magazines? and on and on we go...
But Wired asks the $64,000 question: Can the iPad Save Newsweek?
Well, today Newsweek answered, in a Web Exclusive of all things:
President Obama says devices like Apple's iPad are rotting our brains. He's right.
Well, C'est la vie I suppose.
The world has plainly lost its mind explains Daniel Lyons:
So there it is. Technology has rotted our brains to the point where Palin and Beck are considered serious people.
But this is the media's take on you, the public: It's not us. It's you. You have devolved. You don't, maybe can't, appreciate the insight that a magazine like Newsweek provides; you'd rather play Farmville and watch Fox. Simpletons.
"Chairman Donald E. Graham cites multi-year losses. 'We are exploring all options to fix that problem,' he said."
When the iPad was released various talking heads and industry watchers wondered if it could save the newspapers and magazines which have steadily seen their circulations plummet due to internet competition and outdated... "business models". See here: Weekend Video: Can iPad Save Newspapers Magazines? Here: Can the Apple iPad Save Magazines? and on and on we go...
But Wired asks the $64,000 question: Can the iPad Save Newsweek?
Well, today Newsweek answered, in a Web Exclusive of all things:
President Obama says devices like Apple's iPad are rotting our brains. He's right.
Well, C'est la vie I suppose.
The world has plainly lost its mind explains Daniel Lyons:
Meanwhile, in the midst of all this, Glenn Beck has become an influential television commentator, and Sarah Palin is a credible candidate for president in 2012. You think this is a coincidence?
No way. What's happening is this: we are being so overwhelmed by the noise and junk zooming past us that we're becoming immune to it. We've become a nation of Internet-powered imbeciles, with an ever-lower threshold for inanity.
Beck and Palin are the inevitable outcome of that devolution. They are what we deserve. They are, in fact, what we've created.
So there it is. Technology has rotted our brains to the point where Palin and Beck are considered serious people.
But this is the media's take on you, the public: It's not us. It's you. You have devolved. You don't, maybe can't, appreciate the insight that a magazine like Newsweek provides; you'd rather play Farmville and watch Fox. Simpletons.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Fail
Why one-size-fits-all education doesn’t work - The Boston Globe
Or, um, healthcare?
Via Cato.
Anyone who called for legislation to establish mandatory national standards for television programming or restaurant menus would be laughed at: Americans don’t think the government is competent to decide what shows they can watch on TV or what they can order for dinner when eating out. Is it any less risible to think that government knows best when it comes to your children’s education?
Or, um, healthcare?
Via Cato.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Charter school in tough neighborhood gets all its seniors into college - chicagotribune.com
Charter school in tough neighborhood gets all its seniors into college.
A lottery. Your educational future is determined by a lottery.
A LOTTERY.
"Urban Prep, a charter school that enrolls using a lottery in one of the city's more troubled neighborhoods, faced difficult odds. Only 4 percent of this year's senior class read at grade level as freshmen, according to Tim King, the school's CEO."
A lottery. Your educational future is determined by a lottery.
A LOTTERY.
Why We Must Fire Bad Teachers
Why We Must Fire Bad Teachers - Newsweek.com
"The relative decline of American education at the elementary- and high-school levels has long been a national embarrassment as well as a threat to the nation's future. Once upon a time, American students tested better than any other students in the world. Now, ranked against European schoolchildren, America does about as well as Lithuania, behind at least 10 other nations. Within the United States, the achievement gap between white students and poor and minority students stubbornly persists—and as the population of disadvantaged students grows, overall scores continue to sag."
If even Newsweek notices...
"The relative decline of American education at the elementary- and high-school levels has long been a national embarrassment as well as a threat to the nation's future. Once upon a time, American students tested better than any other students in the world. Now, ranked against European schoolchildren, America does about as well as Lithuania, behind at least 10 other nations. Within the United States, the achievement gap between white students and poor and minority students stubbornly persists—and as the population of disadvantaged students grows, overall scores continue to sag."
If even Newsweek notices...
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Four-Minute Guide to the Seven-Hour Summit
Heritage turns seven hours of government time into 4 minutes of... private time?
Video: The Four-Minute Guide to the Seven-Hour Summit | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Video: The Four-Minute Guide to the Seven-Hour Summit | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
How much do they spend per student in DC public schools?
Guess. Go ahead, guess. Annually per student... Yeah, you already know you're wrong, dontcha:
Correction on DC School Spending « John Stossel
Correction on DC School Spending « John Stossel
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Science and shopping
Why (most) women like to shop - msnbc.com
No comment.
In a new study, researchers propose that our mall-visiting behaviors harken back to the days when men hunted and women foraged.
Modern men, for example, generally want to get into a store and get right back out — just like their hunting forefathers wanted to find and bring meat home as quickly as possible. On the other hand, women get back to their foraging roots by sorting through racks of sweaters on sale — as if scanning plants for signs of ripeness.
No comment.
White House Hints of New Health Bill
White House Hints of New Health Bill - NYTimes.com
Hrmm...
With the House and the Senate still at loggerheads over their health care bills, the White House hinted on Tuesday that President Obama might post his own bill on the Internet before the bipartisan health care summit he is planning for Blair House next week.
Hrmm...
It's not me - it's you
WSJ: Failure of Liberal Governance:
H/T: The Corner
The political retirement of Evan Bayh, at age 54, is being portrayed by various sages as a result of too much partisanship, or the Senate's dysfunction, or even the systemic breakdown of American governance. Most of this is rationalization. The real story, of which Mr. Bayh's frustration is merely the latest sign, is the failure once again of liberal governance.
H/T: The Corner
Stossel: Education is too Important for a Government Monopoly
Education: Too Important for a Government Monopoly
Since 1980, government spending on education, adjusted for inflation, has nearly doubled. But test scores have been flat for decades.
Today we spend a stunning $11,000 a year per student...
Texas to challenge US greenhouse gas rules
Texas to challenge US greenhouse gas rules
This will be a popular move in Texas. Will it put Rick Perry over the top?
This will be a popular move in Texas. Will it put Rick Perry over the top?
Nuclear power aids White House climate push
So Drudge has this story up: Nuclear power aids White House climate push. Good for Obama, I hope that he follows through. This NYT article has a bit more information if you can handle the typical editorializing...
Update: The Heritage Foundation is not impressed:
Still, this might be the best we can hope for from this administration. Shouldn't we take what we can get?
Update: The Heritage Foundation is not impressed:
Expansive loan guarantee programs are wrought with problems. At a minimum, they create taxpayer liabilities, give recipients preferential treatment, and distort capital markets. Further, depending on how they are structured, they can remove incentives to decrease costs, stifle innovation, suppress private-sector financing solutions, perpetuate regulatory inefficiency, and encourage government dependence.
Still, this might be the best we can hope for from this administration. Shouldn't we take what we can get?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Greenpeace wants Indian people to starve
So I'm reading this story from Drudge about how people are freaking out in India over a GM (Genetically Modified) eggplant. As I'm reading the massive difficulties India is having feeding such a huge population (~1.2 bn) I start thinking to myself, "I bet Greenpeace is quoted in this article about how GM food is bad and yada yada..." Sure enough:
This is the major reason that I can't support groups like Greenpeace. Greenpeace seems to be for these great things such as helping the poor and saving the environment but they oppose simple policies that would actually help accomplish their supposed goals such as GM food, free trade, and nuclear power. It happens so consistently on many such issues that I wonder if their publicly stated mission is truly what they are about. Their positions seem to align more closely with an anti-capitalism ethos. Trees are a great example. You know who plants most of the new trees? Logging companies. Of course if you ask your local Greenpeace-ian about this curious point you'll usually get a blank stare or a denial of this easily verifiable fact. The smarter ones will transition to a supposed lack of "biodiversity" in the newly planted forests. I'm sorry, did you want to save trees or promote biodiversity? Maybe "Save the biodiversity" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Update: The Foundry is on the same page today. Must be something in the water...
Expanding India's food supply is crucial in a country of one billion people, with predictions the population might reach 1.4 billion by 2025.
The United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organisation has said food production will need to double by mid-century to meet demand from a growing world population, prompting calls for a second Green Revolution.
But Greenpeace maintains GM crops are a costly distraction from tackling hunger through fighting poverty and helping small holders in developing countries sell their products.
This is the major reason that I can't support groups like Greenpeace. Greenpeace seems to be for these great things such as helping the poor and saving the environment but they oppose simple policies that would actually help accomplish their supposed goals such as GM food, free trade, and nuclear power. It happens so consistently on many such issues that I wonder if their publicly stated mission is truly what they are about. Their positions seem to align more closely with an anti-capitalism ethos. Trees are a great example. You know who plants most of the new trees? Logging companies. Of course if you ask your local Greenpeace-ian about this curious point you'll usually get a blank stare or a denial of this easily verifiable fact. The smarter ones will transition to a supposed lack of "biodiversity" in the newly planted forests. I'm sorry, did you want to save trees or promote biodiversity? Maybe "Save the biodiversity" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Update: The Foundry is on the same page today. Must be something in the water...
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Other Side
Every so often I like to go over and see what's what on the Left's side of the universe. I find that it can be clarifying to see how the other side thinks... err, as it were.
For your viewing pleasure, today's example comes from The Nation, a bastion of liberal tolerance and understanding. Post-racial, post-gender, post-partisanship, post-conflict really. The Nation embodies the idea of what America could be if only we could all agree to just be Americans. The editors of The Nation have this to say about the Tea Party:
Err, well, ok so they're a little edgy but it's just for dramatic effect, really. The John Birch Society is one of those things leftists like to laugh about at parties to show how "in tune" they are with their peers. It's a cultural thing. Like Red Sox fans bitching about the Yankees or when people who... deal with lawyers, joke about killing all the lawyers or maybe like when Mullahs preach about wiping Israel off the map. They don't mean it literally - they are just, you know, socializing. In truth, the editors of The Nation, in that long liberal tradition of multiculturalism and acceptance want America to know that even though we don't always agree - we all truly want what's best for the country. Bring it home The Nation!
Ok, really, what a bunch of f*ckhead posers. I'm probably as supportive of a "Tea Party" like movement as you'll find - and I have no idea what they are even talking about. This is Grade A+ Bullshit right here. People pay for this magazine. I think. Perpetual war? Seriously? Upward redistribution of wealth? What is that? No, really, what is that? Is that like generally advocating against the regular redistribution of wealth? I guess you got me there then. Defense of corporate power? Corporate power? Like uh, in the governmental sense of the word? The we-will-throw-you-in-jail-if-you-don't-do-what-we-say kinda power? Er, no? Something else then... Sometimes I think liberals use "Corporate" as a prefixal curse word. Throw it in front of some other word, no matter how innocuous, for a phrase that shows you're on the right side in the battle for society's soul. Non-secular, of course - you know, a metaphoric soul. And finally we have "white Christian identity politics". Boy that's somethin' ain't it. Damn those white Christians... all identifying and shit. I presume black Christian identity politics are just peachy though, eh? Wouldn't wanna be racist...
For your viewing pleasure, today's example comes from The Nation, a bastion of liberal tolerance and understanding. Post-racial, post-gender, post-partisanship, post-conflict really. The Nation embodies the idea of what America could be if only we could all agree to just be Americans. The editors of The Nation have this to say about the Tea Party:
While the energy and outrage may be genuine and organic, we should not fool ourselves into seeing this as anything but a right-wing reactionary movement, one whose themes (jingoism, militarism and a cult of victimhood at the hands of sundry nefarious betrayers) are as old as the John Birch Society.
Err, well, ok so they're a little edgy but it's just for dramatic effect, really. The John Birch Society is one of those things leftists like to laugh about at parties to show how "in tune" they are with their peers. It's a cultural thing. Like Red Sox fans bitching about the Yankees or when people who... deal with lawyers, joke about killing all the lawyers or maybe like when Mullahs preach about wiping Israel off the map. They don't mean it literally - they are just, you know, socializing. In truth, the editors of The Nation, in that long liberal tradition of multiculturalism and acceptance want America to know that even though we don't always agree - we all truly want what's best for the country. Bring it home The Nation!
It is useful for branding purposes that the right-wing organizers and activists draping themselves in nostalgia for the founding fathers not find themselves tied in the public mind to the Republican Party, loathed by a significant minority of the electorate and distrusted by an overwhelming majority. The reason is not hard to divine: over the last decade, the GOP ran the country into the ground. While the party's rhetorical fidelity is to small government and a big military, it has for decades been operationally committed to no philosophy other than perpetual war, upward redistribution of wealth, the defense of corporate power and white Christian identity politics. But despite the tea party's arm's-length stance toward the GOP, these are precisely the values for which it stands.
Ok, really, what a bunch of f*ckhead posers. I'm probably as supportive of a "Tea Party" like movement as you'll find - and I have no idea what they are even talking about. This is Grade A+ Bullshit right here. People pay for this magazine. I think. Perpetual war? Seriously? Upward redistribution of wealth? What is that? No, really, what is that? Is that like generally advocating against the regular redistribution of wealth? I guess you got me there then. Defense of corporate power? Corporate power? Like uh, in the governmental sense of the word? The we-will-throw-you-in-jail-if-you-don't-do-what-we-say kinda power? Er, no? Something else then... Sometimes I think liberals use "Corporate" as a prefixal curse word. Throw it in front of some other word, no matter how innocuous, for a phrase that shows you're on the right side in the battle for society's soul. Non-secular, of course - you know, a metaphoric soul. And finally we have "white Christian identity politics". Boy that's somethin' ain't it. Damn those white Christians... all identifying and shit. I presume black Christian identity politics are just peachy though, eh? Wouldn't wanna be racist...
Administration may abandon civilian 9/11 trial
Administration may abandon civilian 9/11 trial.
Ok, so this is a bit of old news I wanted to say something about. I've said privately that I believe this administration really has no idea what it is doing. I see mistake after blunder and backtrack after clarification on a regular basis coming from the White House. Close Gitmo - keep Gitmo open. Leave Iraq - stay in Iraq. Surge in Afghanistan - wait 4 months to decide to surge in Afghanistan. Release torture photos - uh, oh, don't release torture photos. I vow no middle class tax hikes - I'm 'agnostic' about middle class tax hikes. Indefinite detention of terrorists is a terrible human rights violation - err, maybe it's not so bad, etc. etc.
And now maybe we don't wanna do civilian trials for the 9/11 planners in NYC. Who the hell knows, really? I get the feeling these guys are just playin' it by ear sometimes. Regardless of whether they actually do know what they are doing - this is what they project to me.
And this was an idea so ridiculously stupid it should have been laughed out of any half competent oval office. It's good that they might toss the idea but the fact that they actually put this in motion doesn't instill confidence. And really the fact that they walked it back doesn't either. If you're gonna get up to the bully pulpit and proclaim yourself the savior of America, the Free World, and even the Oceans Themselves then you shouldn't need to change your mind. You're right. Right?
Ok, so this is a bit of old news I wanted to say something about. I've said privately that I believe this administration really has no idea what it is doing. I see mistake after blunder and backtrack after clarification on a regular basis coming from the White House. Close Gitmo - keep Gitmo open. Leave Iraq - stay in Iraq. Surge in Afghanistan - wait 4 months to decide to surge in Afghanistan. Release torture photos - uh, oh, don't release torture photos. I vow no middle class tax hikes - I'm 'agnostic' about middle class tax hikes. Indefinite detention of terrorists is a terrible human rights violation - err, maybe it's not so bad, etc. etc.
And now maybe we don't wanna do civilian trials for the 9/11 planners in NYC. Who the hell knows, really? I get the feeling these guys are just playin' it by ear sometimes. Regardless of whether they actually do know what they are doing - this is what they project to me.
And this was an idea so ridiculously stupid it should have been laughed out of any half competent oval office. It's good that they might toss the idea but the fact that they actually put this in motion doesn't instill confidence. And really the fact that they walked it back doesn't either. If you're gonna get up to the bully pulpit and proclaim yourself the savior of America, the Free World, and even the Oceans Themselves then you shouldn't need to change your mind. You're right. Right?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
LAUSD's Dance of the Lemons
The Right Coast points out this story from CA: LAUSD's Dance of the Lemons. Over the course of the years I've had many people doubt my analysis about how the public education system in America works (or doesn't). Note that this article is 7 pages long. You could fill an endless number of books with these sorts of episodes. It is only with great difficulty that I am able to convince people that it is even possible things like this could be happening. The next problem, of course, is that they accept that this could happen in somewhere-else-land, like in NYC or LA but...
People there are crazy. That could never happen here.
People there are crazy. That could never happen here.
Corporate donations ok if you're black?
Before you groan, read this from over at Hot Air:
How Congressional Black Caucus got around McCain-Feingold.
The original story is from the NYT by Eric Lipton and Eric Lichtblau. I know, I know. I never would have thought they would report on something like this but this is quite the bit of journalist-ing here... so credit given where it's deserved. The NYT article has to be read to be believed. So, make sure you go read it (It's four pages).
The NYT included this handy graphic as well, showing who gave what (click takes you to the NYT website for a larger version):
(Larger local version of graphic)
I would be curious to know how much time "duties" for the Congressional Black Caucus soak up for these Congress-people. Consider: If I am a Hispanic, why would I vote for someone who spends a considerable amount of time working on policies, research, and handing out other 'goodies' designed, at least nominally, to specifically exclude me? If you, as a private citizen, wanna have some private club designed to help some particular group of people - knock yourself out - but should members of Congress, elected to represent entire states or districts at the federal level, be participating in race based entities that use their Congressional stature as a tool to raise money?
You don't say.
How Congressional Black Caucus got around McCain-Feingold.
WASHINGTON — When the Congressional Black Caucus wanted to pay off the mortgage on its foundation’s stately 1930s redbrick headquarters on Embassy Row, it turned to a familiar roster of friends: corporate backers like Wal-Mart, AT&T, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Altria, the nation’s largest tobacco company.
The original story is from the NYT by Eric Lipton and Eric Lichtblau. I know, I know. I never would have thought they would report on something like this but this is quite the bit of journalist-ing here... so credit given where it's deserved. The NYT article has to be read to be believed. So, make sure you go read it (It's four pages).
It [Congressional Black Caucus] has a traditional political fund-raising arm subject to federal rules. But it also has a network of nonprofit groups and charities that allow it to collect unlimited amounts of money from corporations and labor unions.
From 2004 to 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus’s political and charitable wings took in at least $55 million in corporate and union contributions, according to an analysis by The New York Times, an impressive amount even by the standards of a Washington awash in cash. Only $1 million of that went to the caucus’s political action committee; the rest poured into the largely unregulated nonprofit network.
The NYT included this handy graphic as well, showing who gave what (click takes you to the NYT website for a larger version):
(Larger local version of graphic)
I would be curious to know how much time "duties" for the Congressional Black Caucus soak up for these Congress-people. Consider: If I am a Hispanic, why would I vote for someone who spends a considerable amount of time working on policies, research, and handing out other 'goodies' designed, at least nominally, to specifically exclude me? If you, as a private citizen, wanna have some private club designed to help some particular group of people - knock yourself out - but should members of Congress, elected to represent entire states or districts at the federal level, be participating in race based entities that use their Congressional stature as a tool to raise money?
She [Elsie L. Scott, chief executive of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation] also acknowledged that if her charity did not have “Congressional Black Caucus” in its name, it would gather far less money. “If it were just the Institute for the Advancement of Black People — you already have the N.A.A.C.P.,” she said.
You don't say.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Kennedy won't run for re-election in RI
Kennedy won't run for re-election in RI
Yeah, that Kennedy. The farewell message was notably un-funny but Beth Lindstrom is rumored to be laughing her ass off anyway.
I'll take things that warm the cold, shriveled conservative heart for 500, Alex.
Yeah, that Kennedy. The farewell message was notably un-funny but Beth Lindstrom is rumored to be laughing her ass off anyway.
Once his term ends early next year, no one from the storied Kennedy family would hold political office in Washington for the first time in more than 60 years.
I'll take things that warm the cold, shriveled conservative heart for 500, Alex.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Sometimes I am amazed at what people manage to get paid for
Up today is Paul Krugman with his op-ed America Is Not Yet Lost over at NYTimes.com. Now, Krugman is upset. He is looking out over the sad, barren fields that a year ago he thought had been seeded so well by a Progressive movement that had won control over all levels of the federal elected government. House, Senate, Presidency... all theirs. The people were with them and although you aren't really supposed to count your chickens and all that... just look - it's obviously in the bag. Finally they would be able to follow through on their vision. Health insurance 'reform', cap and trade, green energy, war... they were gonna fix it all. Yes we can. And we can because we know how. We know how things should work and so don't you worry - we're just gonna take care of it. In the process we'll drag the bitter clingers across the finish line - against their own will if we have to - because that's how awesome we are.
But nothing has panned out like it should have. And so the finger pointing ensues. Who is to blame for this travesty? Well, Krugman has the answer: Republicans, of course. You see, even though Republicans up until Scott Brown's victory have not been able to do anything, practically speaking, to stop the Obama movement - they are still to blame. This requires a singular perspective on the universe: Democrats could have passed anything without the need for a single Republican vote. It was, of course, moderate Democrats that caused the trouble - since the Democrats needed every vote, Democrats like Landrieu and Nelson could play the ol' Washington Pork Hustle and get some goodies for their states. Despite the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it rush, people took a look at what was being proposed and didn't much care for it. They started putting heat on their representatives. Elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusett[e]s made moderates carefully consider the new political tailwinds.
I'm not going to get into that here but suffice to say that 'the people' are not terribly thrilled with how things are going. So what does all this mean? Well, let the man earn his (considerable) paycheck:
Well. We're doomed, apparently. Republicans have gone and killed America. By his example I guess we might have a century or so to sort this problem out... But we are simple people; what hope do we have of solving this immense problem? Help us Dr. Krugman!
Phew, emergency averted. Rejoice, the country is saved! Maybe you do deserve your money, Krugman. You dirty capitalist swine, you. Krugman: Saving civilization as we know it... for profit.
So, the Senate is the problem. See, the Senate has all these little pesky rules. And those rules are standing in the way of reform. Reform that will save the Empi... err, Republic. Which rules? Well, the filibuster, to be precise. And so the filibuster must go:
Now the obvious ploy is to point out that in 2005 Dr. Krugman had a slightly different take on the filibuster:
Yes, so in this regard Krugman is like the politicians; he's a bit of a hypocrite. No doubt he would claim that he meant it would be extremist to end the filibuster to appoint non Krugman-approved justices. But nixing the fili' to pass health insurance reform? Divine. Onward:
Nevermind the embarrassing lie about Republicans not offering any specific proposals and the justification of pet pork. The key to his thinking is: Goverment "makes things work". That's all you need to know, really. It justifies everything he says. Krugman looks at American Government like it's the engine in your car. Without it we are "paralyzed". The country will simply not function without the Government doing... well, something. But most of the time it is Government action that precipitates the very problems that people such as Krugman cry out for Government intervention to fix. Health insurance is a great example. We stifle competition and don't allow insurance policies to be purchased across State lines. We have tied health insurance to employment. We mandate what insurance companies must cover. Through these and many, many other regulations we have caused the price of health insurance to go up.
All of these problems were caused by the Government. How shall we go about fixing this? More Government, obviously. We will add even more layers of bureaucratic and government regulation or incentive which will, this time, fix the problems caused by the previous layers. Prior regulatory 'setbacks' (failures) are simply evidence of the need for further reform (intervention).
If you were an overpaid New York Times columnist you would understand.
But nothing has panned out like it should have. And so the finger pointing ensues. Who is to blame for this travesty? Well, Krugman has the answer: Republicans, of course. You see, even though Republicans up until Scott Brown's victory have not been able to do anything, practically speaking, to stop the Obama movement - they are still to blame. This requires a singular perspective on the universe: Democrats could have passed anything without the need for a single Republican vote. It was, of course, moderate Democrats that caused the trouble - since the Democrats needed every vote, Democrats like Landrieu and Nelson could play the ol' Washington Pork Hustle and get some goodies for their states. Despite the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it rush, people took a look at what was being proposed and didn't much care for it. They started putting heat on their representatives. Elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusett[e]s made moderates carefully consider the new political tailwinds.
I'm not going to get into that here but suffice to say that 'the people' are not terribly thrilled with how things are going. So what does all this mean? Well, let the man earn his (considerable) paycheck:
We’ve always known that America’s reign as the world’s greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic.
What we’re getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce. Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we’re paralyzed by procedure. Instead of re-enacting the decline and fall of Rome, we’re re-enacting the dissolution of 18th-century Poland.
A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.
Well. We're doomed, apparently. Republicans have gone and killed America. By his example I guess we might have a century or so to sort this problem out... But we are simple people; what hope do we have of solving this immense problem? Help us Dr. Krugman!
Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison.
Phew, emergency averted. Rejoice, the country is saved! Maybe you do deserve your money, Krugman. You dirty capitalist swine, you. Krugman: Saving civilization as we know it... for profit.
So, the Senate is the problem. See, the Senate has all these little pesky rules. And those rules are standing in the way of reform. Reform that will save the Empi... err, Republic. Which rules? Well, the filibuster, to be precise. And so the filibuster must go:
The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.
Now the obvious ploy is to point out that in 2005 Dr. Krugman had a slightly different take on the filibuster:
But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer.
Yes, so in this regard Krugman is like the politicians; he's a bit of a hypocrite. No doubt he would claim that he meant it would be extremist to end the filibuster to appoint non Krugman-approved justices. But nixing the fili' to pass health insurance reform? Divine. Onward:
Today, by contrast, the Republican leaders refuse to offer any specific proposals. They inveigh against the deficit — and last month their senators voted in lockstep against any increase in the federal debt limit, a move that would have precipitated another government shutdown if Democrats hadn’t had 60 votes. But they also denounce anything that might actually reduce the deficit, including, ironically, any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely.
And with the national G.O.P. having abdicated any responsibility for making things work, it’s only natural that individual senators should feel free to take the nation hostage until they get their pet projects funded.
Nevermind the embarrassing lie about Republicans not offering any specific proposals and the justification of pet pork. The key to his thinking is: Goverment "makes things work". That's all you need to know, really. It justifies everything he says. Krugman looks at American Government like it's the engine in your car. Without it we are "paralyzed". The country will simply not function without the Government doing... well, something. But most of the time it is Government action that precipitates the very problems that people such as Krugman cry out for Government intervention to fix. Health insurance is a great example. We stifle competition and don't allow insurance policies to be purchased across State lines. We have tied health insurance to employment. We mandate what insurance companies must cover. Through these and many, many other regulations we have caused the price of health insurance to go up.
All of these problems were caused by the Government. How shall we go about fixing this? More Government, obviously. We will add even more layers of bureaucratic and government regulation or incentive which will, this time, fix the problems caused by the previous layers. Prior regulatory 'setbacks' (failures) are simply evidence of the need for further reform (intervention).
If you were an overpaid New York Times columnist you would understand.
Medina, truther?
I have a special interest in this as a Texas resident. Apparently she went on Beck's radio show and well, here's the audio:
I like Beck's comment about Perry.
Ace has more.
I like Beck's comment about Perry.
Ace has more.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
White farmers urged to lobby Senate ag panel
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - The head of the National White Farmers Association is urging Caucasion farmers to strongly lobby lawmakers to get them to approve a $1.15 billion discrimination settlement.
The proposal to pay claims filed by the farmers who say the U.S. Department of Agriculture discriminated against them was included in the budget President Barack Obama sent to Congress last week.
NWFA founder John Boyd Jr. told about 200 supporters at a rally in Little Rock on Saturday that supporters now need to make sure the plan gets through.
He urged them to "light a fire" under Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat and the new head of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who faces a tough re-election campaign this year.
The what kind of Farmers Association?
Entitled joke
Patrick Kennedy: Scott Brown's candidacy 'a joke'.
This is especially funny considering the multiple controversies Patches has himself been involved in:
Yeah, we who are not entitled Congressmen - who got elected to office because of our last name - call that medication "whiskey".
In his defense though, when you're that shitfaced everything is funny.
This is especially funny considering the multiple controversies Patches has himself been involved in:
"Sometime around 2:45 a.m., I drove the few blocks to the Capitol complex believing I needed to vote," he said. "Apparently, I was disoriented from the medication."
Yeah, we who are not entitled Congressmen - who got elected to office because of our last name - call that medication "whiskey".
In his defense though, when you're that shitfaced everything is funny.
Blog spotlight gets impersonator arrested
When I first read about this I thought for sure it was a hoax -- nobody could really be this retarded democrat.
I'm not sure what to hope for here: some guy with a mental illness or that we have people living in America that might think this would be a funny stunt.
CDR Salamander: BG McSoulpatch arrested by FBI
I'm not sure what to hope for here: some guy with a mental illness or that we have people living in America that might think this would be a funny stunt.
CDR Salamander: BG McSoulpatch arrested by FBI
Friday, February 5, 2010
Latest Right Wing Conspiracy: People fleeing NJ because of.... taxes.
From the Ace sidebar:
N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart - - NJ.com
Only $70B?
Snooki was unavailable for comment.
N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart - - NJ.com
“This study makes it crystal clear that New Jersey’s tax policies are resulting in a significant decline in the state’s wealth,” said Dennis Bone, chairman of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and president of Verizon New Jersey.
Only $70B?
Snooki was unavailable for comment.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Sometimes you read a story that really shocks you
Today, this is that story.
I'll pause and let that soak in. Yes, Norway passed a law mandating the percentage of women occupying the board positions in companies. Why did they stop at 40 percent, you ask? Well, I guess they figured 50 percent would have been too fair.
So, how has this journey into enforcing social justice results turned out? Well, you can probably guess since I'm linking it... but as they say: read the whole thing.
The article also includes this quote which stuck out to me:
Now, I really have no idea who Benja is. I have never heard of her before in my life. I would like to think that she's being a bit humorous here, you know, women are "all powerful", nudge-nudge, wink-wink -- but I doubt it. I think she's being serious and if she wasn't the author of this piece certainly misrepresented her. No, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Benja is ... well, overselling here.
Obligatory exit questions: If you are a woman put on a board recently in Norway, given the difficulty in reaching the required 40% mark, how would you view your position on the board? How does that impact your interaction with the rest of the board?
In other news, in Norway there is such a thing as the "Equality Ministry".
H/T: VC
OSLO — Arni Hole remembers the shock wave that went through Norway’s business community in 2002 when the country’s trade and industry minister, Ansgar Gabrielsen, proposed a law requiring that 40 percent of all company board members be women.
...After months of heated debate, the measure was approved by a significant majority in Parliament, giving state-owned companies until 2006 to comply and publicly listed companies until 2008.
I'll pause and let that soak in. Yes, Norway passed a law mandating the percentage of women occupying the board positions in companies. Why did they stop at 40 percent, you ask? Well, I guess they figured 50 percent would have been too fair.
So, how has this journey into enforcing social justice results turned out? Well, you can probably guess since I'm linking it... but as they say: read the whole thing.
The article also includes this quote which stuck out to me:
“Power is not something that is given, it is something that you have to take,” said Benja Stig-Fagerland, a Danish economist who in 2003 helped lead an effort by the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise, the country’s main business lobby, to find female leaders.
“I don’t think I’ve ever heard a female oversell her capabilities,” she said.
Now, I really have no idea who Benja is. I have never heard of her before in my life. I would like to think that she's being a bit humorous here, you know, women are "all powerful", nudge-nudge, wink-wink -- but I doubt it. I think she's being serious and if she wasn't the author of this piece certainly misrepresented her. No, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Benja is ... well, overselling here.
Obligatory exit questions: If you are a woman put on a board recently in Norway, given the difficulty in reaching the required 40% mark, how would you view your position on the board? How does that impact your interaction with the rest of the board?
In other news, in Norway there is such a thing as the "Equality Ministry".
H/T: VC
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Interactive ideology map
Over at Gallup. Pretty neat. You can see how people line up in a state by state fashion according to (self described) Party (Rep/Dem) or Ideology(Con/Lib/Mod).
More on Citizens United
From Reason:
And Ilya Shapiro over at Cato @ Liberty has more.
And the counter-point: Democrats consider constitutional amendment to combat Supreme Court decision on campaign finance.
And Ilya Shapiro over at Cato @ Liberty has more.
And the counter-point: Democrats consider constitutional amendment to combat Supreme Court decision on campaign finance.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Danny Williams is getting heart surgery
Instapundit points out this bit of interesting news. Danny Williams is a Canadian Premier (similar to a US Governor). But he's coming to the US for heart surgery...
Hmmmmmmmm.
Hmmmmmmmm.
Budget round up
The Obama Administration released the FY 2011 budget. Reaction from around the tubes:
The President’s bigger budget | KeithHennessey.com
U.S. Deficit to Hit All-Time High - WSJ.com
How does Obama's 2011 projected deficit compare? - latimes.com
What Obama's budget plan may mean for California - latimes.com
Obama budget: Record spending, record deficit - Yahoo! News
Budget Would Raise Tax Rates on Wealthy, Limit Deductions - WSJ.com
The WSJ has an interesting interactive tool that lets you see details for revenue and spending here. That's where I stole the graphic below; hit the link to see more.
The President’s bigger budget | KeithHennessey.com
U.S. Deficit to Hit All-Time High - WSJ.com
How does Obama's 2011 projected deficit compare? - latimes.com
What Obama's budget plan may mean for California - latimes.com
Obama budget: Record spending, record deficit - Yahoo! News
Budget Would Raise Tax Rates on Wealthy, Limit Deductions - WSJ.com
The WSJ has an interesting interactive tool that lets you see details for revenue and spending here. That's where I stole the graphic below; hit the link to see more.
Reason has the footage of the budget actually being delivered on the Hill. It would be interesting to take a survey on how people feel watching this video. What other event does this remind you of? For me, something along the lines of a funeral. -- A famous person died and the reporters are morbidly snapping away as the casket goes by...
The rise of Private Spaceflight
Alan Boyle reports over at Cosmic Log.
Never fear, Senator. I'm sure Washington will ensure the proper regulation and oversight is in place so that private interests are able to compete with... the Russians.
No, the biggest shift had to do with who would be in charge of providing the successors to the space shuttle fleet, which is currently due for retirement by the end of this year. Instead of having its own human spaceflight program to service the space station, NASA said it would buy rides in private-sector space taxis. In Nelson's words, "the commercial boys" would be in the driver's seat.
"If the commercial boys don't work, then we are stuck for upwards of a decade relying on the Russians ... and that is not a good position to be in," the senator said.
Never fear, Senator. I'm sure Washington will ensure the proper regulation and oversight is in place so that private interests are able to compete with... the Russians.
Remember that 'War for Oil'?
How's that turning out anyway? Hitchens writes about a subject somewhat missing from MSM coverage...
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Remarkable Success in Public Education
In the video below John Stossel interviews Inez Tenenbaum when she was the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. This first aired in 2006 and during the interview Stossel asks Tenenbaum about the dismal performance of the South Carolina public schools. I'm snipping the part of the interview out that I want to focus on but the relevant segment starts at 22:40 if you'd like to check my editing.
Ms. Tenenbaum makes some strong comments in this interview. She seems confident and predicts great improvements for South Carolina students. I thought it would be interesting to see how her predictions panned out. If nothing else she deserves to be given credit for progress that has no doubt occurred since this interview took place. And of course that progress took place, right? I mean, just listen to how sure she was: (I've started this video at her segment which starts at 22:40 and it runs through about the 27:00 mark)
Here is her current bio. Ms. Tenenbaum is no longer the State Superintendent of Education, she was appointed by Barack Obama to be the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission in June 2009. Her bio states a couple things that are relevant to the topic at hand:
So, this woman was not an education system passerby, she was the SC Superintendent of Education for about 8 years.
Some time has passed since this interview so maybe we could check on the "remarkable success" South Carolina was anticipating in its K-12 education. The first thing we'll check are the State's SAT scores. Now, the College Board, who administers the SAT, doesn't recommend you compare the various States by SAT scores but this will be a good starting point for our discussion. The SAT scores by State can be found here. Ms. Tenenbaum would be pleased, no doubt, that South Carolina no longer has the worst State scores. They have moved up two slots and now Hawaii and Maine perform worse. And of course Washington DC if we're going to count them. Over on the right we can see the 10 year improvement for the tests that were given in 1999. (The SAT now has a writing component and improvement data is not available for that) We see that SC has improved 7 in Reading and 21 in Math. These are improvements on their old 1999 scores of 1.5% and 4.4% respectively. Keep in mind that is over 10 years. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether that qualifies as a remarkable success.
The real test (hah hah) however, is South Carolina's performance on the NAEP exams. NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress and is considered the gold standard by which to judge and compare a State's performance in education. It is administered by the National Center for Education Statistics which is part of the U.S. Department of Education. It is even referred to as "the nation's report card." NAEP does include private schools as well but they account for only 10% of students nationally. Let's see how SC compares:
The scores below are all 8th grade scores. It should be noted that in some of the earlier years some States did not participate. The maximum score is 500.
For Math, in 2000 SC was ranked 31st out of 41 with a score of 266. In 2009 they were 34/52 with a score of 280. A 5.3% score increase in nine years.
For Reading, in 1998 SC was ranked 31/38 with a score of 255. In 2009 they were 42/52 with a score of 257. A .7% score increase in eleven years.
For Science, in 2000 SC was ranked 34/39 with a score of 140. In 2009 they were 30/45 with a score of 145. A 3.6% score increase in nine years.
For Writing, in 1998 SC was ranked 32/37 with a score of 140. In 2009 they were 37/45 with a score of 148. A 5.7% score increase in eleven years.
In no area did South Carolina students do better than an average of about a .6% increase per year.
What does that bio say again?
I see. The fastest in the country, you say? Well, I suppose the other States should be um, concerned, yes?
Here is the National long term NAEP trend assessments for Reading and Math.
Reading (Click to enlarge):
Math (Click to enlarge):
Remarkable success.
This just proves we need more money in the education system right? I mean, if we had been spending more on education over these 30 years we would have a different story!
Well... you're probably a racist.
Ms. Tenenbaum makes some strong comments in this interview. She seems confident and predicts great improvements for South Carolina students. I thought it would be interesting to see how her predictions panned out. If nothing else she deserves to be given credit for progress that has no doubt occurred since this interview took place. And of course that progress took place, right? I mean, just listen to how sure she was: (I've started this video at her segment which starts at 22:40 and it runs through about the 27:00 mark)
Here is her current bio. Ms. Tenenbaum is no longer the State Superintendent of Education, she was appointed by Barack Obama to be the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission in June 2009. Her bio states a couple things that are relevant to the topic at hand:
Ms. Tenenbaum was elected South Carolina's State Superintendent of Education in 1998 and completed her second term in 2007. Throughout her career, Ms. Tenenbaum has been an energetic and determined advocate for children and families and has extensive experience in administrative and regulatory matters.
During her tenure as South Carolina's State Superintendent of Education, student achievement in South Carolina improved at the fastest rate in the nation, with scores increasing on every state, national, and international tests administered. At the end of Ms. Tenenbaum's tenure, the prestigious journal Education Week ranked South Carolina number one in the country for the quality of its academic standards, assessment, and accountability systems.
So, this woman was not an education system passerby, she was the SC Superintendent of Education for about 8 years.
Some time has passed since this interview so maybe we could check on the "remarkable success" South Carolina was anticipating in its K-12 education. The first thing we'll check are the State's SAT scores. Now, the College Board, who administers the SAT, doesn't recommend you compare the various States by SAT scores but this will be a good starting point for our discussion. The SAT scores by State can be found here. Ms. Tenenbaum would be pleased, no doubt, that South Carolina no longer has the worst State scores. They have moved up two slots and now Hawaii and Maine perform worse. And of course Washington DC if we're going to count them. Over on the right we can see the 10 year improvement for the tests that were given in 1999. (The SAT now has a writing component and improvement data is not available for that) We see that SC has improved 7 in Reading and 21 in Math. These are improvements on their old 1999 scores of 1.5% and 4.4% respectively. Keep in mind that is over 10 years. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether that qualifies as a remarkable success.
The real test (hah hah) however, is South Carolina's performance on the NAEP exams. NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress and is considered the gold standard by which to judge and compare a State's performance in education. It is administered by the National Center for Education Statistics which is part of the U.S. Department of Education. It is even referred to as "the nation's report card." NAEP does include private schools as well but they account for only 10% of students nationally. Let's see how SC compares:
The scores below are all 8th grade scores. It should be noted that in some of the earlier years some States did not participate. The maximum score is 500.
For Math, in 2000 SC was ranked 31st out of 41 with a score of 266. In 2009 they were 34/52 with a score of 280. A 5.3% score increase in nine years.
For Reading, in 1998 SC was ranked 31/38 with a score of 255. In 2009 they were 42/52 with a score of 257. A .7% score increase in eleven years.
For Science, in 2000 SC was ranked 34/39 with a score of 140. In 2009 they were 30/45 with a score of 145. A 3.6% score increase in nine years.
For Writing, in 1998 SC was ranked 32/37 with a score of 140. In 2009 they were 37/45 with a score of 148. A 5.7% score increase in eleven years.
In no area did South Carolina students do better than an average of about a .6% increase per year.
What does that bio say again?
During her tenure as South Carolina's State Superintendent of Education, student achievement in South Carolina improved at the fastest rate in the nation, with scores increasing on every state, national, and international tests administered.
I see. The fastest in the country, you say? Well, I suppose the other States should be um, concerned, yes?
Here is the National long term NAEP trend assessments for Reading and Math.
Reading (Click to enlarge):
Math (Click to enlarge):
Remarkable success.
This just proves we need more money in the education system right? I mean, if we had been spending more on education over these 30 years we would have a different story!
Well... you're probably a racist.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Disgusting moral populism
Jim Wallis on The Daily Show:
There are few things worse than self righteous, sophomoric thinking pushed through a populist message. It has a way of catching fire and even sloppy reasoning when it is put in a way that sounds good can become part of the every-day consciousness. Downstream this can lead to poor decisions and bad policy. During this interview Jim is metaphorically wagging his judgmental finger in your face and talking down to you about your moral failings like a disappointed father... while pimping his book on TV for profit. Look Jim, either you get to preach to people about "values" and castigate them for their worship of money or you get to write a book and make money off of it. You can't do both.
I looked to see if Jim was donating the profits from his book to this-or-that charity and I wasn't able to find anything. And I don't mean just some of the profits, I mean all of them. Why, you ask? Well, if he can draw an arbitrary line in the sand for what constitutes a morally approved charity donation - well then so can I.
Look, if you want to give to the relief effort in Haiti, by all means, give. And don't think that I necessarily approve of all bonuses either. Graft is graft and waste is waste but... and this may come as a shock to people like Jim, bonuses serve a purpose in the workplace - even in banking. How much does Jim know about running a bank? Not much I'd guess. Not that that keeps him from running his yap about it. Worse, he dresses his pronouncements in a sort of quasi-religious, motherly-pat-on-the-knee folks-ism. I know what's best for your soul, Dear. Oh, and I wrote a book about it. Only $19.95!
While the interview is chock full of populist cliches I want to talk about a few specifics here. At a certain point in the interview, he says that the bonus money should be appropriated in some manner other than to give it to the people who... what's the word... oh, worked for it. His first idea is Haiti. As I explained above, first - we don't need people like you lecturing us like children, and second - you first. Third, Jim has no idea what percentage of their income these bonuses constitute. In a sales position it is entirely possible to have a very significant portion of your income - that you rely on to, you know, feed your family - come in the form of "bonuses". Jim has no idea what these people do for a living, how specialized their particular skills are, how hard or long or smart they work, in what manner banks structure their pay to increase productivity, or how much they might (or might not) deserve to be compensated. He knows absolutely nothing about them. Except that they should give their money away. And Jim will be right there to morally bully them into doing the right thing. It's for the common good, you know. Fourth, a considerable percentage of this money will actually go back to one level of government or another. Before you blow that off, consider that both the Mayor of NYC and the Governor of New York have made comments opposing any sort of retro-active penalty, tax, or fee against these banks or persons. Why? Because NYC and the great state of New York tax the crap out of their citizens, especially high income ones, and they stand to collect a great deal from these bonuses. Mayor Bloomberg had this to say after the idea of keeping the bonuses in escrow was bandied about:
Food for thought, that.
Jim's second idea is that we use that $150 billion dollars to pay the deficit of the various States in the Union. Let it be known: we already do this. The federal government subsidizes the state budgets in all manner of ways. Name most any service that a State provides and you'll find a Federal dollar somewhere on the balance sheet for that service. Texas, for example, gets about 31% of it's revenue from the Federal Government. Wisconsin famously halted its plans to lower the drinking age to 19 - only for military service members - because the Feds would pull about $30 million in highway funds. The States already receive too much money from the Federal Government and are restricted and regulated correspondingly. There is no free lunch - and no Federal dollars without strings. Even if Jim means we should give to the States above and beyond what we already do, we wouldn't exactly be encouraging future fiscal responsibility by our State Governments if we bail them out after their spending bonanzas. Kinda like the banks...
What's that you say, this is exactly what we already did with the stimulus bill? Oh, that $787 billion monstrosity? Here's the full title:
Jim, your indignance was only about a year late. The States already got their billions.
His next idea is to use this money to "prevent mortgage foreclosures all the way through 2012". For the sake of discussion, I will assume that Jim has not developed the ability to see into the future and he is just speculating and using some formulation of projected mortgage foreclosure rates over the next two years. The reader that hasn't been in a coma for the past couple years will note the considerable lack of success recently in the arena of projecting said mortgage failure rates by people way more experienced and much smarter than Jim - but hey, we'll just let it slide and assume it to be true. No opportunity for graft or waste in a program like that, I daresay. And certainly pushing billions into the housing market in such a manner won't alter people's behavior in any way. Nah. I'm sure people, being the noble and altruistic beings that they are, will continue doing the right thing and go on paying that mortgage even though there's billions of dollars sitting around to "prevent" them from foreclosing on their house.
Mmm, what's that you say? There already is a $75 billion mortgage foreclosure prevention program? What the deuce!?
He does say one thing that I agree with him on. He derides the "too big to fail" line by banks and other financial organizations and says we should make them smaller. I agree completely; if your organization is so big that its failure will cause country sized collapses in the financial markets - then you need to be cut down.
Jim gives "greed" a good solid B+, populist bashing in the interview. In the interest of fairness I offer a counterpoint, Stossel: Greed is good. And more here on greed by Stossel, in video! (An excellent 6 part ABC special - watch this)
There are few things worse than self righteous, sophomoric thinking pushed through a populist message. It has a way of catching fire and even sloppy reasoning when it is put in a way that sounds good can become part of the every-day consciousness. Downstream this can lead to poor decisions and bad policy. During this interview Jim is metaphorically wagging his judgmental finger in your face and talking down to you about your moral failings like a disappointed father... while pimping his book on TV for profit. Look Jim, either you get to preach to people about "values" and castigate them for their worship of money or you get to write a book and make money off of it. You can't do both.
I looked to see if Jim was donating the profits from his book to this-or-that charity and I wasn't able to find anything. And I don't mean just some of the profits, I mean all of them. Why, you ask? Well, if he can draw an arbitrary line in the sand for what constitutes a morally approved charity donation - well then so can I.
Look, if you want to give to the relief effort in Haiti, by all means, give. And don't think that I necessarily approve of all bonuses either. Graft is graft and waste is waste but... and this may come as a shock to people like Jim, bonuses serve a purpose in the workplace - even in banking. How much does Jim know about running a bank? Not much I'd guess. Not that that keeps him from running his yap about it. Worse, he dresses his pronouncements in a sort of quasi-religious, motherly-pat-on-the-knee folks-ism. I know what's best for your soul, Dear. Oh, and I wrote a book about it. Only $19.95!
While the interview is chock full of populist cliches I want to talk about a few specifics here. At a certain point in the interview, he says that the bonus money should be appropriated in some manner other than to give it to the people who... what's the word... oh, worked for it. His first idea is Haiti. As I explained above, first - we don't need people like you lecturing us like children, and second - you first. Third, Jim has no idea what percentage of their income these bonuses constitute. In a sales position it is entirely possible to have a very significant portion of your income - that you rely on to, you know, feed your family - come in the form of "bonuses". Jim has no idea what these people do for a living, how specialized their particular skills are, how hard or long or smart they work, in what manner banks structure their pay to increase productivity, or how much they might (or might not) deserve to be compensated. He knows absolutely nothing about them. Except that they should give their money away. And Jim will be right there to morally bully them into doing the right thing. It's for the common good, you know. Fourth, a considerable percentage of this money will actually go back to one level of government or another. Before you blow that off, consider that both the Mayor of NYC and the Governor of New York have made comments opposing any sort of retro-active penalty, tax, or fee against these banks or persons. Why? Because NYC and the great state of New York tax the crap out of their citizens, especially high income ones, and they stand to collect a great deal from these bonuses. Mayor Bloomberg had this to say after the idea of keeping the bonuses in escrow was bandied about:
The mayor was so upset about the move -- and a suggestion that Wall Street bonuses be put in escrow, which means the money wouldn't be spent here, wouldn't help the city economy -- he responded with a proposal of his own for members of Congress.
"Maybe we should hold back their salaries for a decade or so and see whether the laws they pass work out," Bloomberg said.
Food for thought, that.
Jim's second idea is that we use that $150 billion dollars to pay the deficit of the various States in the Union. Let it be known: we already do this. The federal government subsidizes the state budgets in all manner of ways. Name most any service that a State provides and you'll find a Federal dollar somewhere on the balance sheet for that service. Texas, for example, gets about 31% of it's revenue from the Federal Government. Wisconsin famously halted its plans to lower the drinking age to 19 - only for military service members - because the Feds would pull about $30 million in highway funds. The States already receive too much money from the Federal Government and are restricted and regulated correspondingly. There is no free lunch - and no Federal dollars without strings. Even if Jim means we should give to the States above and beyond what we already do, we wouldn't exactly be encouraging future fiscal responsibility by our State Governments if we bail them out after their spending bonanzas. Kinda like the banks...
What's that you say, this is exactly what we already did with the stimulus bill? Oh, that $787 billion monstrosity? Here's the full title:
An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
Jim, your indignance was only about a year late. The States already got their billions.
His next idea is to use this money to "prevent mortgage foreclosures all the way through 2012". For the sake of discussion, I will assume that Jim has not developed the ability to see into the future and he is just speculating and using some formulation of projected mortgage foreclosure rates over the next two years. The reader that hasn't been in a coma for the past couple years will note the considerable lack of success recently in the arena of projecting said mortgage failure rates by people way more experienced and much smarter than Jim - but hey, we'll just let it slide and assume it to be true. No opportunity for graft or waste in a program like that, I daresay. And certainly pushing billions into the housing market in such a manner won't alter people's behavior in any way. Nah. I'm sure people, being the noble and altruistic beings that they are, will continue doing the right thing and go on paying that mortgage even though there's billions of dollars sitting around to "prevent" them from foreclosing on their house.
Mmm, what's that you say? There already is a $75 billion mortgage foreclosure prevention program? What the deuce!?
He does say one thing that I agree with him on. He derides the "too big to fail" line by banks and other financial organizations and says we should make them smaller. I agree completely; if your organization is so big that its failure will cause country sized collapses in the financial markets - then you need to be cut down.
Jim gives "greed" a good solid B+, populist bashing in the interview. In the interest of fairness I offer a counterpoint, Stossel: Greed is good. And more here on greed by Stossel, in video! (An excellent 6 part ABC special - watch this)
MSNBC reaction to Scott Brown victory
Instapunk (NSFW) links this piece from Glenn Garvin on the difference between the coverage of CNN, Fox, and MSNBC of the special election in Massachusetts. A snippet:
As they say, read the whole thing(SFW link).
If you watched CNN or Fox News last night, you got a balanced analysis of how Republican Scott Brown pulled off the political upset of the century (or, if you prefer, how Democrat Martha Coakley blew a dead solid electoral lock). Yes, I said Fox News, without irony. To be sure, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity made it clear they were rooting for Brown. But their shows also included a steady parade of liberal-leaning guests -- former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, Democratic party strategist Mary Anne Marsh, NPR commentator Juan Williams and radio host Alan Colmes. And pollster Frank Luntz interviewed a panel of two dozen or so Massachusetts voters, most of them Democrats, about how they voted and why. Practically every conceivable perspective on the election was represented.
And on MSNBC, you got practically every conceivable expression of venom against Brown and anybody who voted him. From Maddow's dark suspicions that the election was rigged -- she cited complaints about a grand total of six ballots out of about 2.25 million cast -- to Olbermann's suggestion in the video up above that the same Massachusets voters who went for Barack Obama by a 62-28 percent margin had suddenly realized they helped elect a black guy and went Republican in repentance, the network's coverage was idiotic, one-sided and downright ugly.
As they say, read the whole thing(SFW link).
Memo to Olbermann: You work for a corporation
Related: Jon Stewart mocks Olbermann over Scott Brown comments.
Update: Olbermann responds and reminds everyone of Affleck spoofing him on SNL:
From the Hot Air Headlines
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Pelosi says they don't have the votes
At WaPo.
What to watch out for next? The Republicans selling out of course. Don't forget that many (most) of these guys are big government types that have been on watch over the past couple decades as the size and scope of the federal government has expanded as never before. It would be easy for the Democrats to "cut a deal" by scaling back on some of the health insurance bill to get something passed which they can expand on at a later, less controversial time.
Hit Cato up for some actual reform ideas.
What to watch out for next? The Republicans selling out of course. Don't forget that many (most) of these guys are big government types that have been on watch over the past couple decades as the size and scope of the federal government has expanded as never before. It would be easy for the Democrats to "cut a deal" by scaling back on some of the health insurance bill to get something passed which they can expand on at a later, less controversial time.
Hit Cato up for some actual reform ideas.
Happy Birthday Major Winters
Richard Winters, Commander of Easy Company during World War II, turns 92 today.
Band of Brothers is an amazing mini-series by the way. I highly recommend it.
Band of Brothers is an amazing mini-series by the way. I highly recommend it.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Some post Brown victory wrap up
Brown on his election:
Ooooh, that's gonna leave a mark.
NYT: A Year Later, Voters Send a Different Message
Rasmussen: Brown Wins Stunning Victory in Massachusetts
WSJ: The Boston Tea Party.
Massachusetts voters tell Democrats to shelve ObamaCare.
New York Post: Heck of a Job, Brownie!
IBD: This is big for Romney too.
Wishful thinking by Fred Barnes? Healthcare is dead.
The Boston Globe says:
Here's Scott Brown's victory speech if you missed it.
Asked on NBC's "Today" show if the election was a referendum on Obama, he replied, "No, it's bigger than that."
Ooooh, that's gonna leave a mark.
NYT: A Year Later, Voters Send a Different Message
Rasmussen: Brown Wins Stunning Victory in Massachusetts
In the end, Brown pulled off the upset in large part because he won unaffiliated voters by a 73% to 25% margin. The senator-elect also picked up 23% of the vote from Democrats. [Our polling shows that 53% of voters in Massachusetts are Democrats, 21% Republican and 26% not affiliated with either party.]
WSJ: The Boston Tea Party.
Massachusetts voters tell Democrats to shelve ObamaCare.
New York Post: Heck of a Job, Brownie!
IBD: This is big for Romney too.
Wishful thinking by Fred Barnes? Healthcare is dead.
The Boston Globe says:
Brown’s strong win does not negate the resounding mandate that President Obama and Democrats in Congress received in 2008 to address escalating health costs, which are strangling businesses while pricing coverage beyond the reach of tens of millions of Americans. Both houses of Congress have already passed credible reform bills. At this point, President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should bring the legislative process to a close by pushing House members to pass the Senate version. Any necessary amendments can be addressed in the budget bill, which isn’t subject to the filibuster.
Here's Scott Brown's victory speech if you missed it.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Barney Frank reverses his reversal...
As soon as I saw this I knew I had to look into what Barney had been saying during the whole "nuclear option" shindig a while back. Here's Barney showing us why he's been a federal legislator for 28 years: Now that the Health Care legislation is in jeopardy the filibuster must go!
Over at The Jawa Report we have an old Boston Herald story:
Over at The Jawa Report we have an old Boston Herald story:
WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, who publicly crusaded against Senate filibusters 12 years ago, now says he opposes banning filibusters against judicial nominees - the so-called "nuclear option'' fueling a bruising Capitol Hill showdown.Right, Barney.
``I would vote against changing the filibuster rule right now,'' Frank (D-Newton) told the Herald in a telephone interview Thursday. Frank explained he still supports an ``across-the-board'' ban against all filibusters, but he opposes the Republican ``nuclear option'' because it only outlaws filibusters against judicial nominees.
In 1993, Frank led a public fight to end Senate filibusters, asserting in a Washington Post op-ed piece: ``I believe legislative bodies should scrupulously abide by two principles: complete openness and majority rule. The filibuster is a godsend to potential gridlockers.''
By the sword...
Massachusetts will elect its Senator today to fill the seat left by Ted Kennedy. With the election might go the fate of the Health Care legislation. Intrade and a variety of polls have Brown up:
But Zogby says it's Coakley by a point.
But Zogby says it's Coakley by a point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
