Posts
The Australian is going forward with a program pioneered in China to censor the entire Internet in Australia without any opt-out available. The program was originally designed to be targeted only at child pornography, but has already been extended to other topics, such as anorexia and euthanasia. Of course, the websites that are targeted are repugnant, but that is not the issue. It is a clear pattern that once the tools are made available to governments, under the guise of sacred cows such as child porn or terrorism, they are almost always then used against a much broader range of targets. For an example, the expanded wiretap authority granted to the US government was used in the exact way it was promised not to be.
I would have no issue with an opt-in program to protect children, but that's a world of difference from a universal censorship program at the hands of a government bureaucrat. There is little doubt in my mind that this program will be used for political purposes, and quite likely without that facet being announced.
A much more efficient way of combating child porn would be giving up the pointless, resource intensive "War On Drugs". These resources, rather than being used to persecute harmless personal drug use, and it's supply, should instead be directed to a productive goal. The fight against child porn is a much better use of these resources.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
When France Thinks You're Weak On Defense, That's Not Good
Apparently the President of France thinks that Mr. Obama's position on Iran is "utterly immature" and "formulations empty of all content". Of course, you won't hear this in the MSM.
It is not good when the President of a country that is the home of both modern mainstream leftism and philosophically abstract political theory says such a thing. Granted, Mr. Sarkozy is center-right in France, but that's not saying much. Even Mr. Obama is far to the right of Mr. Sarkozy.
The suppression of anything critical of Mr. Obama by the mainstream media is so overwhelming, it's staggering that Mr. Obama isn't leading by more. The MSM have completely forfeited any credibility after this election.
It is not good when the President of a country that is the home of both modern mainstream leftism and philosophically abstract political theory says such a thing. Granted, Mr. Sarkozy is center-right in France, but that's not saying much. Even Mr. Obama is far to the right of Mr. Sarkozy.
The suppression of anything critical of Mr. Obama by the mainstream media is so overwhelming, it's staggering that Mr. Obama isn't leading by more. The MSM have completely forfeited any credibility after this election.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
More Corporate Socialism
As much as I rail against traditional socialism, there is another type of socialism which is just as repugnant, corporate socialism. This is when some company who can't run itself goes running to the government for a handout. These are usually big companies which are far removed from it's founders, who were usually entrepreneurs, not beggars in Gucci. Though the Market Stabilization bill was characterized as handouts, most, if not all, the money was used either for legitimate transactions or loans.
The prime example of this is the $10 billion that GM and Chrysler are asking for to allow them to survive long enough to merge. This is on top of $25 billion in loan assistance they already got. This is repulsive. These are two companies that have been absolutely run into the ground by pure incompetence by everyone involved, from the greedy, idiotic unions, to the brain dead executives who couldn't run a mint profitably. So they come asking for another handout, and they'll probably get it. Which means another decade or so of whining while companies who aren't run by idiots beat them by running a business instead of a charity, before they finally go under.
In a perfect world, they would be bought out by Toyota, so the factories would be run efficiently, the non-worthless jobs would be saved, and the handful of good models would survive. But instead the big 3 will become the big two, and continue to be showcases of poorly run corporation losing tons of money. This is making a mockery out of capitalism, and everyone involved should be ashamed, from the dirty politicians buying votes and campaign contributions, to the incompetent executives, to the short-sighted unions who sealed their own fate.
Don't lecture me with the Buy American! nonsense. First, the Japanese car companies provide plenty of American jobs, while the Big 3 outsource plenty outside the US. Second, Japanese car companies pay their workers competitive wages, and those workers are happier with their jobs than the those that work for the Big 3.
More to the point, since I believe in the market, I buy the best product, period. There may be a few extreme exceptions, but for the most part, that is what makes the system work. What, really, are you saying when you say that American industry will survive only on charity? If they can't run a profitable company, they should shut down or sell it to someone who can, not survive on pity sales built on protectionist nonsense.
Mark my words, we will be asked to bail these idiots out again before long. Corporate welfare is just like regular welfare, it destroys industriousness, and makes slaves out of workers. It is an addiction which can only be fixed by first admitting the problem.
The prime example of this is the $10 billion that GM and Chrysler are asking for to allow them to survive long enough to merge. This is on top of $25 billion in loan assistance they already got. This is repulsive. These are two companies that have been absolutely run into the ground by pure incompetence by everyone involved, from the greedy, idiotic unions, to the brain dead executives who couldn't run a mint profitably. So they come asking for another handout, and they'll probably get it. Which means another decade or so of whining while companies who aren't run by idiots beat them by running a business instead of a charity, before they finally go under.
In a perfect world, they would be bought out by Toyota, so the factories would be run efficiently, the non-worthless jobs would be saved, and the handful of good models would survive. But instead the big 3 will become the big two, and continue to be showcases of poorly run corporation losing tons of money. This is making a mockery out of capitalism, and everyone involved should be ashamed, from the dirty politicians buying votes and campaign contributions, to the incompetent executives, to the short-sighted unions who sealed their own fate.
Don't lecture me with the Buy American! nonsense. First, the Japanese car companies provide plenty of American jobs, while the Big 3 outsource plenty outside the US. Second, Japanese car companies pay their workers competitive wages, and those workers are happier with their jobs than the those that work for the Big 3.
More to the point, since I believe in the market, I buy the best product, period. There may be a few extreme exceptions, but for the most part, that is what makes the system work. What, really, are you saying when you say that American industry will survive only on charity? If they can't run a profitable company, they should shut down or sell it to someone who can, not survive on pity sales built on protectionist nonsense.
Mark my words, we will be asked to bail these idiots out again before long. Corporate welfare is just like regular welfare, it destroys industriousness, and makes slaves out of workers. It is an addiction which can only be fixed by first admitting the problem.
Who Are The 5%?
One of the mantras from the Obama campaign is that 95% of people will get a tax cut under his plan. The implication by the campaign, and the media, is that only very wealthy people would be taxed. Setting aside for the moment whether it is right to tax the successful punitively, let us examine who would fall into this 5%. Fortune had a great article on this, one of the first in depth pieces I've seen in anything close to the MSM.
The conception of the rich that Mr. Obama wants people to have is multi-millionaires and billionaires. However, these are not those who will be most directly impacted by the tax increases under Mr. Obama. There are several reasons for this. The first, simplest reason is that the very rich pay someone to hide their money from taxes. I would be lying if I said I knew exactly how to do it, but I understand the general outlines. Second, most of the very rich's income is not taxed in the way that most people's is. They generally aren't filing W-2s. Yes, Mr. Obama's increased capital gains tax will hit them, but it will still be lower than the rate on employee income. Third, the absolute wealthiest won't even notice. Take away $10 billion from Warren Buffet, and it wouldn't affect him in the least. Now, the stereotypical wealthy do pay taxes, make no mistake, however, it is not the impact on them which is most dangerous.
There are five million households who take in between $250,000 and $500,000 a year. This is where the real pain hits under the Obama plan(though also to an extent, the McCain plan, just to a lesser degree). Generally speaking, these are professional families with children. They often live in places where the cost of living is high. Most live sensibly, saving much of their after tax money for their child's schooling and for retirement.
Let's start by looking at the typical expenses of one of these families, especially how they differ from stereotypical middle class families. They have enormous childcare expenses, since both parents usually work, and rarely just 40 hours. They save large amount of money for their children's education, since the children will likely be ineligible for any need-based aid. They also save massive amounts for retirement, for several reasons. They are often middle aged, and spent much of their youth either in school or building their business or career, so they are often behind in saving. They also have jobs that are not easy to replace with similar income, or they may have income that is directly tied to the economy, or an industry. Thus, they need to save a higher rate than many. Many are also ineligible for the best retirement plans, such as Roth IRA's, and thus need to save more money to get the same returns. However, all of this comes after taxes, and these families experience taxes differently than the stereotypical middle class. Outside these families and those wealthier than them, most people pay an effective tax rate that is much lower than their marginal tax rate. This is because most Americans deduct a massive amount of their income from their taxable income, everything from other taxes paid to mortgage payments. However, all these deductions are phased out for these families. So they pay many times more in taxes than families that make half as much.
These are the people who made good decisions, got extra education, started a business or worked very hard in their career. They did what everybody knows you are supposed to do, but few people did. These are people who were studying instead of partying, were working instead of watching tv, who worked long and hard. Now they are being punished for succeeding.
They are also critical to the economy. Who do you think buys products (besides poorly made cars) made in America? Not poor people, they buy imported cheap crap at Walmart. Who employs people? The 660,000 companies owned by those who make over $250,000 and are taxed on their company profits as personal income. The high-wage earners, who are responsible for most of the productivity growth in corporate America. The people who spend all their time either working, or with their family, so they hire someone to do all the other things, from mow their grass to fix their car. Self-sufficiency is not good for the modern economy.
Here is what Mr. Obama doesn't understand. He claims he wants to create high paying jobs. But how? Unions? How did that work out for the domestic automakers? It does you no good to be guaranteed $65 an hour for every hour you work at unskilled labor when the company is bankrupt. Have everyone work for the government? The government needs the private sector to leech off of, it can't sustain itself. Even Europe has figured that out. Order people to pay more? Same problem as the Union. If you tax these families into oblivion, you do real damage to the economy. There is a point at which if you punish success enough it will deter it.
The conception of the rich that Mr. Obama wants people to have is multi-millionaires and billionaires. However, these are not those who will be most directly impacted by the tax increases under Mr. Obama. There are several reasons for this. The first, simplest reason is that the very rich pay someone to hide their money from taxes. I would be lying if I said I knew exactly how to do it, but I understand the general outlines. Second, most of the very rich's income is not taxed in the way that most people's is. They generally aren't filing W-2s. Yes, Mr. Obama's increased capital gains tax will hit them, but it will still be lower than the rate on employee income. Third, the absolute wealthiest won't even notice. Take away $10 billion from Warren Buffet, and it wouldn't affect him in the least. Now, the stereotypical wealthy do pay taxes, make no mistake, however, it is not the impact on them which is most dangerous.
There are five million households who take in between $250,000 and $500,000 a year. This is where the real pain hits under the Obama plan(though also to an extent, the McCain plan, just to a lesser degree). Generally speaking, these are professional families with children. They often live in places where the cost of living is high. Most live sensibly, saving much of their after tax money for their child's schooling and for retirement.
Let's start by looking at the typical expenses of one of these families, especially how they differ from stereotypical middle class families. They have enormous childcare expenses, since both parents usually work, and rarely just 40 hours. They save large amount of money for their children's education, since the children will likely be ineligible for any need-based aid. They also save massive amounts for retirement, for several reasons. They are often middle aged, and spent much of their youth either in school or building their business or career, so they are often behind in saving. They also have jobs that are not easy to replace with similar income, or they may have income that is directly tied to the economy, or an industry. Thus, they need to save a higher rate than many. Many are also ineligible for the best retirement plans, such as Roth IRA's, and thus need to save more money to get the same returns. However, all of this comes after taxes, and these families experience taxes differently than the stereotypical middle class. Outside these families and those wealthier than them, most people pay an effective tax rate that is much lower than their marginal tax rate. This is because most Americans deduct a massive amount of their income from their taxable income, everything from other taxes paid to mortgage payments. However, all these deductions are phased out for these families. So they pay many times more in taxes than families that make half as much.
These are the people who made good decisions, got extra education, started a business or worked very hard in their career. They did what everybody knows you are supposed to do, but few people did. These are people who were studying instead of partying, were working instead of watching tv, who worked long and hard. Now they are being punished for succeeding.
They are also critical to the economy. Who do you think buys products (besides poorly made cars) made in America? Not poor people, they buy imported cheap crap at Walmart. Who employs people? The 660,000 companies owned by those who make over $250,000 and are taxed on their company profits as personal income. The high-wage earners, who are responsible for most of the productivity growth in corporate America. The people who spend all their time either working, or with their family, so they hire someone to do all the other things, from mow their grass to fix their car. Self-sufficiency is not good for the modern economy.
Here is what Mr. Obama doesn't understand. He claims he wants to create high paying jobs. But how? Unions? How did that work out for the domestic automakers? It does you no good to be guaranteed $65 an hour for every hour you work at unskilled labor when the company is bankrupt. Have everyone work for the government? The government needs the private sector to leech off of, it can't sustain itself. Even Europe has figured that out. Order people to pay more? Same problem as the Union. If you tax these families into oblivion, you do real damage to the economy. There is a point at which if you punish success enough it will deter it.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Real Question: Honesty
As you may have already heard, an audio clip has surfaced of Mr. Obama endorsing wealth redistribution, and suggesting the common interpretation of the Constitution was flawed for not including it. While this further confirms why he is, to me, the greater of the two major evils to choose from this election, I think many are drawing too complex of a conclusion from the clip.
The views Mr. Obama espouses in this audio clip, which not surprisingly is so far being ignored by the MSM, are radical for US politics, but not really for academia. Loyal readers will remember that I indeed speculated that these were the type of beliefs Mr. Obama picked up in academia, which is where they are most commonly held.
The real issue here is that this is directly refutes countless statements by Mr. Obama and his surrogates. Honesty is the question. If Mr. Obama held these views, then discarded them, and was honest about the process, few could fault him. However, deceiving the public is another story.
The views Mr. Obama espouses in this audio clip, which not surprisingly is so far being ignored by the MSM, are radical for US politics, but not really for academia. Loyal readers will remember that I indeed speculated that these were the type of beliefs Mr. Obama picked up in academia, which is where they are most commonly held.
The real issue here is that this is directly refutes countless statements by Mr. Obama and his surrogates. Honesty is the question. If Mr. Obama held these views, then discarded them, and was honest about the process, few could fault him. However, deceiving the public is another story.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Election Violence
In the final, heated days leading up to an election, there is a lot of emotion ready to boil over. This election is likely going to be the worst in memory. Although a victory by Mr. Obama is likely to lead to smoldering undercurrents of resentment, especially in rural areas, this pales in comparison to what may happen if he loses.
A McCain victory is not as unlikely as the media would have to believe. The polls which was most accurate last election was IBD/TIPP. Mr. McCain is very close in this poll, actually right at the limit of the margin for error, and with almost 12% undecided. I believe that voters who decide late will break for Mr. McCain. I also believe if Mr. McCain wins the election, he very likely could lose the popular vote.
If indeed Mr. McCain does triumph, there could very well be large scale unrest and possibly riots. The ground is already prepared, with Essence already running articles quoting people saying that the Republicans are disenfranchising black voters. Some think it could be bad either way:
"If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,” said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. “If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him….. This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.”
Many cities will see increased police presence. Hopefully this will deter the worst of it. The place which is likely to see the worst violence is Chicago, Mr. Obama's hometown. It is already the murder capital of the US, surpassing cities with well over double it's population. (Side rant: This, by the way, happened while Mr. Obama was on the city council. It also happened in a city with extremely totalitarian gun control. Note that these things do not help crime. I, for one, will be glad not to be in Chicago, without a means of defense for myself, when the election occurs.)
I hope that America's long history of peaceful election nights will hold. But I fear it will not.
A McCain victory is not as unlikely as the media would have to believe. The polls which was most accurate last election was IBD/TIPP. Mr. McCain is very close in this poll, actually right at the limit of the margin for error, and with almost 12% undecided. I believe that voters who decide late will break for Mr. McCain. I also believe if Mr. McCain wins the election, he very likely could lose the popular vote.
If indeed Mr. McCain does triumph, there could very well be large scale unrest and possibly riots. The ground is already prepared, with Essence already running articles quoting people saying that the Republicans are disenfranchising black voters. Some think it could be bad either way:
"If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,” said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. “If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him….. This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.”
Many cities will see increased police presence. Hopefully this will deter the worst of it. The place which is likely to see the worst violence is Chicago, Mr. Obama's hometown. It is already the murder capital of the US, surpassing cities with well over double it's population. (Side rant: This, by the way, happened while Mr. Obama was on the city council. It also happened in a city with extremely totalitarian gun control. Note that these things do not help crime. I, for one, will be glad not to be in Chicago, without a means of defense for myself, when the election occurs.)
I hope that America's long history of peaceful election nights will hold. But I fear it will not.
Friday, October 24, 2008
A Common Enemy
As even hardcore political junkies like myself are getting sick of talking about the election, I decided to switch topics entirely.
Two NFL stars have been in the news recently for battles with infection. Kellen Winslow II was suspended for talking about his staph infection and making negative comments about his organization. Tom Brady, the reigning superstar of the NFL, has had to have multiple surgeries to clean infection out of his reconstructed knee. Mr. Brady's infection has not been clarified as staph or not, though it is hardly unlikely that staph is the culprit.
The infection of two NFL players reminded me of the danger that staph poses. These should be among the least likely people in the world to get an infection, as they have quite literally the best health care money can buy. They are also in peak condition, and are resilient human beings. In fact, I believe resiliency and toughness separate out the good from the great in the NFL, as it often comes down to who can survive or endure long enough to have a great career, more so than who has the peak talent.
Staph should not be underestimated, it kills more people in the US than AIDS. Yet it is rare to hear about it on the news, unless there is a local outbreak, usually at a high school.
This election season, it is easy to get wrapped up in differences of opinion and politics, and lose sight of the fact that any way you view it, we have common enemies. I am guilty of it myself. Let us not be completely blinded by these differences that we ignore the things that threaten us all.
Two NFL stars have been in the news recently for battles with infection. Kellen Winslow II was suspended for talking about his staph infection and making negative comments about his organization. Tom Brady, the reigning superstar of the NFL, has had to have multiple surgeries to clean infection out of his reconstructed knee. Mr. Brady's infection has not been clarified as staph or not, though it is hardly unlikely that staph is the culprit.
The infection of two NFL players reminded me of the danger that staph poses. These should be among the least likely people in the world to get an infection, as they have quite literally the best health care money can buy. They are also in peak condition, and are resilient human beings. In fact, I believe resiliency and toughness separate out the good from the great in the NFL, as it often comes down to who can survive or endure long enough to have a great career, more so than who has the peak talent.
Staph should not be underestimated, it kills more people in the US than AIDS. Yet it is rare to hear about it on the news, unless there is a local outbreak, usually at a high school.
This election season, it is easy to get wrapped up in differences of opinion and politics, and lose sight of the fact that any way you view it, we have common enemies. I am guilty of it myself. Let us not be completely blinded by these differences that we ignore the things that threaten us all.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
More On The Powell Endorsement
Since there has been an unusual amount of feedback on my criticism of Gen. Powell's endorsement of Mr. Obama, which I am glad to see and welcome, I thought I would go more in depth with my opinion, which seems to be a minority one. I am going to post the meat of the endorsement, along with my line by line response to it. Transcript. (My responses in bold)
MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you're prepared to support?
MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you're prepared to support?
GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. (It is simply factually incorrect that going from Bush/Cheney to McCain/Palin is moving to the right.) And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president."
And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. (This ignores the fact that Mr. McCain and the Republicans tried to regulate Freddie and Fannie years ago and were stopped by the Democrats.) And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. (Well, Mr. McCain was unsure what to tell people who wanted government handouts to fix everything. It took him a while to be able to stomach that, and to his shame, he did. Which is the only reason he still polls in double digits with swing voters.) And that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. (However, Gen. Powell explictly and on stage endorsed Vice President Cheney, who exemplified the right wing that Gen. Powell decries.) She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made. (The debate over Ms. Palin's qualifications to be Vice President vs. Mr. Obama's to be President have been done to death, with each side unconvinced of the other.)
On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.(Note: No specific policies cited.) I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. (Perhaps because that is characteristic of the candidate trailing in the polls?) Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values. (How exactly is he doing this? If it's because he's young and black, that's not really something it's possible for Mr. McCain to duplicate.)
And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? (Why does the Obama Campaign bring up the Keating 5, from which Mr. McCain was all but exonerated from?) And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship(This is, to say the least, an opinion. It was double digit contacts that lasted over many years.) that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. (Imagine this: Mr. McCain had the same type of links to someone who bombed abortion clinics. What is the Democratic response?)What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate.
Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. (Again, what basis is there for this? Can anyone explain to me how Ms. Palin is to the right of Mr. Cheney?) I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. (Isn't one of the things Mr. McCain got his "maverick" reputation for by being one of the Republican Senators who voted in the Clinton choices for the supreme court, over objections from the Republican party?)I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. (As though the DNC does not use this as one of it's major talking points, and employ people with this exact assignment to go to Union strongholds.) Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. (Even now Gen. Powell still insists on linking 9/11 and Iraq. Old habits die hard.) Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the (Note: no longer "my" party)party, we have these kinds of expressions. (But no one who supports Mr. Obama supports anything offensive? Mr. McCain is responsible for changing, single handedly, all his supporters views?)
So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.(Note: still no policies cited.) I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
End of transript.
I still fail to see what policies of Mr. Obama's that Mr. Powell supports over Mr. McCain's. In fact, the issue Mr. Obama based his early campaign on is that the Iraq war was wrong. Mr. Powell was deeply involved in waging that war. Even when it is pointed out that Mr. Obama's position is opposed by Gen. Powell, Gen. Powell's response is that the next president will not affect Iraq policy that much. That's pretty weak justification for the lack of agreement on the defining issue of the early part of Mr. Obama campaign.
Gen. Powell's endorsement boils down to liking Mr. Obama's personality and style more than Mr. McCains, wanting to get back at the Bush administration and the belief Mr. Obama will win. He is entitled to vote on that basis. However, he should be honest about his reasons.
There are legitimate, internally consistant reasons to vote for Mr. Obama. These would include any of the following being your primary issue:
1. Gay Rights
2. Pro-Choice
3. More Gun Control
4. More distributed income
5. Anti-Iraq war
6. Union empowerment
7. Enviroment
8. Anti-Free Trade
9. Universal Health Care
10. Climate Change
The list goes on, but the point is clear. If any of these were your major issue, it would make sense to vote for Mr. Obama. Gen. Powell did not list any of these.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Powell's Betrayal
Today, Gen. Powell endorsed Mr. Obama for president. Today, I lost a fair amount of respect for Gen. Powell. The reasons are not the most simple, so allow me to elaborate.
From the beginning of my opposition to Mr. Obama's campaign, I have said the one motivation of his supporters I could not argue with was the desire of their children to have a President who looked like them, so they would know they could be President one day. I still do not begrudge this reason, and would not begrudge it from Gen. Powell.
Gen. Powell said that his endorsement was not about race, and I believe him.
Sadly, it appears that the reason is political opportunism.
As Gen. Powell is widely considered one of the most respected Americans, this is a surprising, and probably to many offensive, statement. Allow me to defend it.
The platforms of both parties have been known for months, if not years. If the endorsement were based on this, it could have been made long ago. Instead, it was used as an October surprise against Gen. Powell's own party. If it were a simple personal feeling, there could have been a press release, and Gen. Powell could have answered questions about it in a single media appearance. Instead, it was stage-managed, with suspense raised to magnify it's effect. It was a calculated move.
Gen. Powell gave several reasons for betraying his party, but they all revolved around the notion that the Republican party is becoming too right wing. This is so ludicrous that it is hard to believe he said this. Gen. Powell served in the two farthest right administrations in modern history. He can plead duty for the Reagan administration, but he has no such defense for the second Bush administration. It is a distinction without a difference anyway, as most of the people are the same, just with different titles. These are people, by the way, who hate, loathe and revile Mr. McCain for his liberalism. Who believed that it was so important that he be prevented from defiling the Republican party with his liberalism that they were willing to slander a war hero, to break any code of morals, to defeat him. He chose to be part of this type administration with his eyes wide open. Yet he now claims he cannot support their once rival from the left, becuase that (relatively)leftist rival is too right wing? He points to Ms. Palin's selection as evidence of this rightward shift, yet Ms. Palin is Vladamir Lenin compared to many in the Reagan/Bush II administrations. Gen. Powell's explanation is insulting to the public.
This leads us to Gen. Powell's real motivation, whether completely conscious or not, political opportunism, a political application of the vaunted Powell Doctrine. Throughout Powell's career, he resisted action, even while implementing it. This earned him the nickname "The Reluctant Warrior". Of course, this also allowed him to play both sides, taking credit for success while hedging against failure. This can be seen most clearly in the run up to the second Iraq war. Gen. Powell again appeared reluctant to attack, while at the same time implementing his part of the action. When it went bad, he washed his hands of it and quit. His hedge was successful, and he escaped much criticism. The act of courage would have been to resign in protest of the invasion, but that would have denied him the credit if it succeeded.
Now, after withholding his opinion until a late hour, when the polls and prevailing belief favor Mr. Obama, Gen. Powell has attacked, again with overwhelming force, parroting the Obama campaigns talking points. This time, instead of outgunned, conscripted Iraqis, the target of his attack was his own party.
He has once again hedged his position as well, contributing the maximum to the McCain campaign.
From the beginning of my opposition to Mr. Obama's campaign, I have said the one motivation of his supporters I could not argue with was the desire of their children to have a President who looked like them, so they would know they could be President one day. I still do not begrudge this reason, and would not begrudge it from Gen. Powell.
Gen. Powell said that his endorsement was not about race, and I believe him.
Sadly, it appears that the reason is political opportunism.
As Gen. Powell is widely considered one of the most respected Americans, this is a surprising, and probably to many offensive, statement. Allow me to defend it.
The platforms of both parties have been known for months, if not years. If the endorsement were based on this, it could have been made long ago. Instead, it was used as an October surprise against Gen. Powell's own party. If it were a simple personal feeling, there could have been a press release, and Gen. Powell could have answered questions about it in a single media appearance. Instead, it was stage-managed, with suspense raised to magnify it's effect. It was a calculated move.
Gen. Powell gave several reasons for betraying his party, but they all revolved around the notion that the Republican party is becoming too right wing. This is so ludicrous that it is hard to believe he said this. Gen. Powell served in the two farthest right administrations in modern history. He can plead duty for the Reagan administration, but he has no such defense for the second Bush administration. It is a distinction without a difference anyway, as most of the people are the same, just with different titles. These are people, by the way, who hate, loathe and revile Mr. McCain for his liberalism. Who believed that it was so important that he be prevented from defiling the Republican party with his liberalism that they were willing to slander a war hero, to break any code of morals, to defeat him. He chose to be part of this type administration with his eyes wide open. Yet he now claims he cannot support their once rival from the left, becuase that (relatively)leftist rival is too right wing? He points to Ms. Palin's selection as evidence of this rightward shift, yet Ms. Palin is Vladamir Lenin compared to many in the Reagan/Bush II administrations. Gen. Powell's explanation is insulting to the public.
This leads us to Gen. Powell's real motivation, whether completely conscious or not, political opportunism, a political application of the vaunted Powell Doctrine. Throughout Powell's career, he resisted action, even while implementing it. This earned him the nickname "The Reluctant Warrior". Of course, this also allowed him to play both sides, taking credit for success while hedging against failure. This can be seen most clearly in the run up to the second Iraq war. Gen. Powell again appeared reluctant to attack, while at the same time implementing his part of the action. When it went bad, he washed his hands of it and quit. His hedge was successful, and he escaped much criticism. The act of courage would have been to resign in protest of the invasion, but that would have denied him the credit if it succeeded.
Now, after withholding his opinion until a late hour, when the polls and prevailing belief favor Mr. Obama, Gen. Powell has attacked, again with overwhelming force, parroting the Obama campaigns talking points. This time, instead of outgunned, conscripted Iraqis, the target of his attack was his own party.
He has once again hedged his position as well, contributing the maximum to the McCain campaign.
The Great Schlep
There has been a fair amount of innovation in Mr. Obama campaign (certainly more so than in his policies). One intriguing one is called The Great Schlep, where young Jewish people are urged to go down and convinced their grandparents to vote for Mr. Obama. They need to overcome several issues, including race, but one of the largest is the fear that Mr. Obama will not support Israel enough. There is anecdotal evidence that the movement is having some effect.
One problem. Rev. Jackson, who is not an advisor to Mr. Obama, but whose son runs Mr. Obama's campaign, thinks that Mr. Obama will actually not be very pro-Israel.
One problem. Rev. Jackson, who is not an advisor to Mr. Obama, but whose son runs Mr. Obama's campaign, thinks that Mr. Obama will actually not be very pro-Israel.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
McCain's Last Hope: Joe The Plumber?
In the waning days of a campaign in which he has not been able to find traction for his message, Mr. McCain may have found an ally in an unlikely figure. Joe the Plumber had the courage to tell Mr. Obama, to his face, that Mr. Obama's plan would punish his success by raising his taxes. Mr. McCain mentioned Joe several times in the debate, but it is too early to tell if he will resonate with voters. Mr. Biden said he didn't know any Joe the Plumbers in his neighborhood, though he also can't remember which restaurants are still open there either. He also lumped in Joe with all other plumbers and with other blue collar professions. Therein lies the issue. The point is not that Joe is a plumber, but that he wants to own a business.
This is the distinction that is critical. Mr. Obama's plan would punish successful small businesses. Don't be distracted by all this "98% of small businesses make less than 250k" nonsense that is spewed about. Those businesses are either hobby businesses, which are run on the side, or without the real intent of making significant profit, or are new businesses struggling to get off the ground. According to the Small Business Administration, 50% of small businesses fail in the first 5 years. Many people also own multiple small busniesses. When you isolate down to established, full time, profit oriented businesspeople, the percentage who earn over 250k is significant.
The reason for this is because owning a small business is risky and hard work. As noted above there is a significant risk of failure. Your pay is not guaranteed. Unlike an employee, who shows up and gets paid, unless let go, small businesses only make profit if they make it happen, regardless of excuses or luck. They also often plough significant amounts of their own savings into starting their business, only to lose it all if the business fails. They work long hours, in fact, according to the SBA, they should expect to work twelve hours a day, six or seven days a week.
Why would anyone want to do this? Because of the possibility of making good money and providing a good life for their family. Why should they be punished for their ambition and hard work?
If someone wants to take the easy path and work for someone else, it is their right. They can stake their fortunes on those who run the company, and share in the good and the bad. This is what most of America does. However, they should not be allow to punish those who decided to work hard to accomplish something more, to force the successful to pay for tax cuts and tax credits/backdoor welfare for those who don't. Those who succeed should not be forced to bear the cost of everybody. Those who didn't risk to start the business should not reap the rewards.
It may be obvious that I have people I know and admire in mind when I write this. Two, in particular, come to mind. While they come from different backgrounds, one from an elite college, the other barely literate, and operate very different businesses, each worked extremely hard to establish their business. Each worked twelve hour days routinely, and invested incredible amounts of effort into their business. Both now after years of work, are able to provide very well for their family. Both would be severely punished under Mr. Obama's tax plan. Each one is hoping, or praying, for a defeat for Mr. Obama, even though neither likes Mr. McCain.
This is the distinction that is critical. Mr. Obama's plan would punish successful small businesses. Don't be distracted by all this "98% of small businesses make less than 250k" nonsense that is spewed about. Those businesses are either hobby businesses, which are run on the side, or without the real intent of making significant profit, or are new businesses struggling to get off the ground. According to the Small Business Administration, 50% of small businesses fail in the first 5 years. Many people also own multiple small busniesses. When you isolate down to established, full time, profit oriented businesspeople, the percentage who earn over 250k is significant.
The reason for this is because owning a small business is risky and hard work. As noted above there is a significant risk of failure. Your pay is not guaranteed. Unlike an employee, who shows up and gets paid, unless let go, small businesses only make profit if they make it happen, regardless of excuses or luck. They also often plough significant amounts of their own savings into starting their business, only to lose it all if the business fails. They work long hours, in fact, according to the SBA, they should expect to work twelve hours a day, six or seven days a week.
Why would anyone want to do this? Because of the possibility of making good money and providing a good life for their family. Why should they be punished for their ambition and hard work?
If someone wants to take the easy path and work for someone else, it is their right. They can stake their fortunes on those who run the company, and share in the good and the bad. This is what most of America does. However, they should not be allow to punish those who decided to work hard to accomplish something more, to force the successful to pay for tax cuts and tax credits/backdoor welfare for those who don't. Those who succeed should not be forced to bear the cost of everybody. Those who didn't risk to start the business should not reap the rewards.
It may be obvious that I have people I know and admire in mind when I write this. Two, in particular, come to mind. While they come from different backgrounds, one from an elite college, the other barely literate, and operate very different businesses, each worked extremely hard to establish their business. Each worked twelve hour days routinely, and invested incredible amounts of effort into their business. Both now after years of work, are able to provide very well for their family. Both would be severely punished under Mr. Obama's tax plan. Each one is hoping, or praying, for a defeat for Mr. Obama, even though neither likes Mr. McCain.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Stem Cells And Global Warming
Very controversial issues have a way of being discussed and often decided too quickly. For instance, there has been much anguish, political and societal bloodshed and acrimony over stem cells. The issue was often painted very starkly, with sides calling each other either murderers of the unborn or savages standing in the way of cures for the sick. Then, poof, a new discovery (actually a part of a series of discoveries) means the whole debate can go away. We can make stem cells without abortion. Blam, problem solved.
The question is, will Global Warming be the next issue to be resolved by matters outside politics. We have seen the evidence that global warming had occurred. What has still not been proved is that this is caused solely by man. This winter is already setting records for coldness. Last year, the glaciers in Alaska grew, rather than shrank. The jury is still out on the cause of climate change, and what exactly that change will be.
While there is still no good reason not to switch to renewable energy, we should also be cautious not to do too much damage in a rush to prevent something that we don't know is happening, and don't know why it may happen. As recently as the 1970's there were warnings of global cooling, and they have since been challenged, with many now folding the data into the global warming theory. The key here is to focus on things that make sense outside climate change, such as electric cars and renewable energy, rather than things that would only impact a possible problem.
The question is, will Global Warming be the next issue to be resolved by matters outside politics. We have seen the evidence that global warming had occurred. What has still not been proved is that this is caused solely by man. This winter is already setting records for coldness. Last year, the glaciers in Alaska grew, rather than shrank. The jury is still out on the cause of climate change, and what exactly that change will be.
While there is still no good reason not to switch to renewable energy, we should also be cautious not to do too much damage in a rush to prevent something that we don't know is happening, and don't know why it may happen. As recently as the 1970's there were warnings of global cooling, and they have since been challenged, with many now folding the data into the global warming theory. The key here is to focus on things that make sense outside climate change, such as electric cars and renewable energy, rather than things that would only impact a possible problem.
McCain Could Learn From The NRA
The McCain campaign could learn a lot from the NRA on how to address voters. These ads are the perfect tone for both the base, and the rural working class which are the most important swing voters this year:
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Who Checks The Fact Checkers?
With the accusations and counter-accusations going on, much as been made, especially by CNN, about FactCheck.org. They claim to be non-partisan. I myself had not really questioned this. Then I read this hyperbolic blog post and started glancing over their write-ups with a little closer scrutiny.
I started with Gun Rights, a topic important to me, and on which I have read a lot of propaganda, on both sides. Wow. The response to the NRA reads like something straight out of the Brady campaign, and is hardly an objective source. The section on banning of hunting cartridges is laughable. It claims that Sen. Kennedy's propaganda for the bill should be substituted for the bill's actual language. The language would in fact ban the vast majority of hunting ammo, if enforced by anyone with any anti-gun bias. Here's how: It bans ammo that can pierce armor and (for rifles) is "designed or marketed" as such. Any round that is used for hunting something larger than a groundhog will rip right through a IIA vest, which is what most police wear to stop handgun rounds. Virtually all rounds are advertised to have good "penetration" which is implicitly known by hunters to refer to animal flesh. Add the two together and add in any desire to ban the round, and under the legalisation, it's illegal. In fact, the round used by the military for killing humans, the M16's 5.56mm, is illegal for deer hunting, because it is too weak. Animals that are hunted are a lot harder to kill than humans. I could go on and on about this section's flaws, but I'll move on.
To make sure this wasn't isolated, I checked on the VP debate section, the most recent one I watched. There were twice as many corrections of Ms. Palin as Mr. Biden. Both made plenty of mistakes (here is a list of Biden gaffes they could have picked from). Factcheck.org did not even mention possibly the most bizzare, when Mr. Biden claimed the US and France defeated Hezbollah, and he and Mr. Obama wanted to send in NATO forces. Nothing that could ever be construed as that ever happened.
I then checked the Presidential debates. In the second debate, Mr. McCain was corrected twice as much, and in the first he is corrected five times to Mr. Obama's three times. So in three debates Factcheck.org corrected the Republican ticket 13 times and the Democratic ticket 7 times. Both sides made plenty of mistakes, so any non-exhaustive list is selective. A non-partisan list therefore, should pick an equal number of examples of each. Yet each time, significantly more Republican mistakes were pointed out.
Factcheck.org does point out mistakes by the Democratic ticket. They are not pure propaganda. However, to me, they fail the nonpartisan sniff test. Their information should be taken with a grain of salt.
I started with Gun Rights, a topic important to me, and on which I have read a lot of propaganda, on both sides. Wow. The response to the NRA reads like something straight out of the Brady campaign, and is hardly an objective source. The section on banning of hunting cartridges is laughable. It claims that Sen. Kennedy's propaganda for the bill should be substituted for the bill's actual language. The language would in fact ban the vast majority of hunting ammo, if enforced by anyone with any anti-gun bias. Here's how: It bans ammo that can pierce armor and (for rifles) is "designed or marketed" as such. Any round that is used for hunting something larger than a groundhog will rip right through a IIA vest, which is what most police wear to stop handgun rounds. Virtually all rounds are advertised to have good "penetration" which is implicitly known by hunters to refer to animal flesh. Add the two together and add in any desire to ban the round, and under the legalisation, it's illegal. In fact, the round used by the military for killing humans, the M16's 5.56mm, is illegal for deer hunting, because it is too weak. Animals that are hunted are a lot harder to kill than humans. I could go on and on about this section's flaws, but I'll move on.
To make sure this wasn't isolated, I checked on the VP debate section, the most recent one I watched. There were twice as many corrections of Ms. Palin as Mr. Biden. Both made plenty of mistakes (here is a list of Biden gaffes they could have picked from). Factcheck.org did not even mention possibly the most bizzare, when Mr. Biden claimed the US and France defeated Hezbollah, and he and Mr. Obama wanted to send in NATO forces. Nothing that could ever be construed as that ever happened.
I then checked the Presidential debates. In the second debate, Mr. McCain was corrected twice as much, and in the first he is corrected five times to Mr. Obama's three times. So in three debates Factcheck.org corrected the Republican ticket 13 times and the Democratic ticket 7 times. Both sides made plenty of mistakes, so any non-exhaustive list is selective. A non-partisan list therefore, should pick an equal number of examples of each. Yet each time, significantly more Republican mistakes were pointed out.
Factcheck.org does point out mistakes by the Democratic ticket. They are not pure propaganda. However, to me, they fail the nonpartisan sniff test. Their information should be taken with a grain of salt.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Academia and Marxism
Academia's link to Marxist philosophy is well known. In history, the schools of thought are Pre-Marxist, Marxist, and Post-Marxist. The relevant question is, what effect, conscious or subconscious, does this leave imprinted on those who spend significant time in academia? I spent a mere 15 months at a University before graduating, and though there were certainly other factors, I found myself drifting to the left. Though the real world again changed my mind, I remember the effect.
Mr. Obama spent significant time in Academia, and it could be argued that he shows signs of that Marxist influence. He has said he wants to "spread the wealth around", which, of course, is one of the central tenants of Marxism. Another Marxist classic is turning neighbors against each other, or as Mr. Obama said "Get in their face". Mr. Obama has also hardly been a champion of free speech in this election. Fidel Castro all but endorses him. Mr. Obama also supports drafting women, hardly a centrist position. Then there is the issue of his association with Mr. Ayers.
This is not to say that Mr. Obama would abolish private property upon becoming President, nor that he is a Communist plant. However, the whiff of Marxism is a legitimate issue. Mr. Obama would only help himself by directly addressing it.
Mr. Obama spent significant time in Academia, and it could be argued that he shows signs of that Marxist influence. He has said he wants to "spread the wealth around", which, of course, is one of the central tenants of Marxism. Another Marxist classic is turning neighbors against each other, or as Mr. Obama said "Get in their face". Mr. Obama has also hardly been a champion of free speech in this election. Fidel Castro all but endorses him. Mr. Obama also supports drafting women, hardly a centrist position. Then there is the issue of his association with Mr. Ayers.
This is not to say that Mr. Obama would abolish private property upon becoming President, nor that he is a Communist plant. However, the whiff of Marxism is a legitimate issue. Mr. Obama would only help himself by directly addressing it.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
An Obama Theory You Haven't Heard Before
As I was glancing through one the blogosphere, I happened upon an article on Copious Dissent which linked to an interesting article. In it, the author argues that Bill Ayers, the weatherman/domestic terrorist/some guy from Mr. Obama's neighborhood, actually wrote "Dreams of My Father", not Mr. Obama. If proved to be true, or even just that Mr. Obama did not write the book, this would completely change the race. While the article is somewhat convincing, and in any case raises some interesting questions, it is hardly a smoking gun. However, it will be interesting to see what, if anything comes of this. As any student of history can tell you, there is no shortage of outrageous slander in Presidential races, nor shortage of "dispelled rumors" that were proved years later.
If anything does come of it, you can be sure that Mr. Obama's surrogates will blame Mr. McCain, as they have for some of the ugly rhetoric now common at Republican rallies. While Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin have been uneven in the depths they are sinking to, this misses the point. There are very few "McCain voters". Most people who are voting for him are really voting against Mr. Obama. Thus, while he has a responsibility to be civil, he cannot be blamed for many of his "supporters" actions. Sadly, it looks quite possible that this country may see some post-election violence, regardless of outcome.
If anything does come of it, you can be sure that Mr. Obama's surrogates will blame Mr. McCain, as they have for some of the ugly rhetoric now common at Republican rallies. While Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin have been uneven in the depths they are sinking to, this misses the point. There are very few "McCain voters". Most people who are voting for him are really voting against Mr. Obama. Thus, while he has a responsibility to be civil, he cannot be blamed for many of his "supporters" actions. Sadly, it looks quite possible that this country may see some post-election violence, regardless of outcome.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Assorted Developments On The Trail And In The Market
Things are looking very dour for the McCain/Palin ticket right now. The report on Troopergate did not go her way. William Buckley's son is endorsing Mr. Obama, and as much for character reasons as policy. Both Gallup and Zogby are showing bad news.
The chaos in the market are not helping either. Mr. Obama generally does best when the focus is on the economy. Ironically, a policy implemented by the Bush administration, a short-term ban on short-selling, probably helped Mr. Obama, by delaying the carnage until now. At the moment, it looks as though the support for the Dow is at 8000. This is, of course, barring any major development. It also means the Dow has another 450 points to drop before support kicks in. Another bloody Monday is likely.
The chaos in the market are not helping either. Mr. Obama generally does best when the focus is on the economy. Ironically, a policy implemented by the Bush administration, a short-term ban on short-selling, probably helped Mr. Obama, by delaying the carnage until now. At the moment, it looks as though the support for the Dow is at 8000. This is, of course, barring any major development. It also means the Dow has another 450 points to drop before support kicks in. Another bloody Monday is likely.
Friday, October 10, 2008
How Much Should You Trust The Government?
Remember when President Bush said that only calls from terrorists would be intercepted under the staggeringly expanded international wiretap authority he asked for? Well, according to two of the people running the program, that was a lie. Basically all calls, personal or not, from the Middle East to America were recorded and transcribed. More proof that the government will always use whatever authority they are granted and then some.
Great credit here must go to the two whistle-blowers for having the courage to come forward. It cannot be easy to cross the NSA. Without their sacrifice, there is no telling how long this would have gone undiscovered.
Don't expect to see this story covered enough in the MSM. Not only do they not care much about civil liberties, there will be plenty of other scary headlines. The Dow will likely plunge again tomorrow, not even a dead cat bounce yet.
Great credit here must go to the two whistle-blowers for having the courage to come forward. It cannot be easy to cross the NSA. Without their sacrifice, there is no telling how long this would have gone undiscovered.
Don't expect to see this story covered enough in the MSM. Not only do they not care much about civil liberties, there will be plenty of other scary headlines. The Dow will likely plunge again tomorrow, not even a dead cat bounce yet.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Election Musings
For the first time, I've been tempted to waver on my election prediction of Mr. McCain winning a very narrow victory. Gallup has Mr. Obama ahead by 9%. The race is increasingly solely about the economy, and many, including one of my favorite publications, The Economist, think Mr. Obama, or at least his advisers, may be better prepared to handle it.
I've told people, if you're not pro-life, and don't think you'll ever have money, I can't quickly explain to you why McCain will help you more. It takes time most voters "don't have" to explain the corporate tax structure's effect on the economy, the downside of taxing the well-off and capital gains, and how a "windfall" tax on oil companies is not going to help. Most voters don't follow politics enough to understand that everyone is better off when the same party doesn't control all three houses(Reps, Senate, White).
All this being said, I still see Mr. McCain pulling out a narrow victory. In the more relevant poll of likely voters, he is within the margin of error. October is a politically long month, and there is less known about Mr. Obama than Mr. McCain, making any October surprise likely to go right.
Ironically, the economy is likely to undergo it's (at least invisible to Joe Voter) turnaround before the next president has an effect. The relentless rate cuts by the Fed, along with falling oil prices, will have an effect before the next presidents policies, and they will be larger. Warren Buffet is already buying, a sign the bottom is near, if not here yet. Housing sales are already starting to pick up, due to market forces. The Stabilization Bill, along with massive injections of liquidity, has yet to take effect. Whoever wins the election is likely to inherit a recovering economy, which will be beginning to boom as he is up for re-election.
I've told people, if you're not pro-life, and don't think you'll ever have money, I can't quickly explain to you why McCain will help you more. It takes time most voters "don't have" to explain the corporate tax structure's effect on the economy, the downside of taxing the well-off and capital gains, and how a "windfall" tax on oil companies is not going to help. Most voters don't follow politics enough to understand that everyone is better off when the same party doesn't control all three houses(Reps, Senate, White).
All this being said, I still see Mr. McCain pulling out a narrow victory. In the more relevant poll of likely voters, he is within the margin of error. October is a politically long month, and there is less known about Mr. Obama than Mr. McCain, making any October surprise likely to go right.
Ironically, the economy is likely to undergo it's (at least invisible to Joe Voter) turnaround before the next president has an effect. The relentless rate cuts by the Fed, along with falling oil prices, will have an effect before the next presidents policies, and they will be larger. Warren Buffet is already buying, a sign the bottom is near, if not here yet. Housing sales are already starting to pick up, due to market forces. The Stabilization Bill, along with massive injections of liquidity, has yet to take effect. Whoever wins the election is likely to inherit a recovering economy, which will be beginning to boom as he is up for re-election.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Sans-Culottes For Obama?
Mr. Obama's campaign for "Change" seems to be looking back over 200 years, to the days of the Sans-cullotes, who turned the French Revolution into the senseless bloodbath that led to Napoleon. The poorest of the poor, the Sans-cullotes knew only that they wanted change, and were willing to do anything to accomplish it. However, they had no firm agenda, and were led by emotion more than reason. They eventually turned on their own leaders, sending them to the guillotine. Having done this, they eliminated their influence on government, and went back to being disenfranchised.
Now, once again, a campaign for "Change" is drawing support from the same group. In Ohio, an Obama surrogate group is driving around in vans, picking up the homeless, drug addicted and felons, and taking them to the polls to vote. This is facilitated by Ohio's nonsensical election laws that allow basically anyone who shows up at a polling place to vote.
This brings up the question which I raised earlier, which is how much voice should those who do not fund the government, who are not, in a sense, shareholders, have in it? It is very doubtful, to say the least, that these are taxpayers. They are, in essence, playing with house money. If they can vote in someone who will give the money, health care and other benefits, but they will not have to pay anything regardless, is there any doubt which way they will vote? When this fails to bring them prosperity, will they then vote in someone who demands responsibility of them? Or will they vote in someone who supports ever more punitive measures against the successful?
Now, once again, a campaign for "Change" is drawing support from the same group. In Ohio, an Obama surrogate group is driving around in vans, picking up the homeless, drug addicted and felons, and taking them to the polls to vote. This is facilitated by Ohio's nonsensical election laws that allow basically anyone who shows up at a polling place to vote.
This brings up the question which I raised earlier, which is how much voice should those who do not fund the government, who are not, in a sense, shareholders, have in it? It is very doubtful, to say the least, that these are taxpayers. They are, in essence, playing with house money. If they can vote in someone who will give the money, health care and other benefits, but they will not have to pay anything regardless, is there any doubt which way they will vote? When this fails to bring them prosperity, will they then vote in someone who demands responsibility of them? Or will they vote in someone who supports ever more punitive measures against the successful?
Monday, October 6, 2008
McCain Tries To Fight Back On Economy
Having a history of saying he does not know much about the economy, along with a (questionably founded) belief by the public that Mr. Obama does, has hurt Mr. McCain very badly as of late. He tries to fight back with a new ad, which puts the blame for the mortgage crisis on the Democrats. It's strongest point is a clip by former President Clinton in which he says that Democrats blocked reforms of Freddie and Fannie by Republicans and himself.
It may well be an impossibly uphill battle to try to win the economy as an issue for Mr. McCain. Public sentiment is very much against him, and there is a historical perception of the Republican Party being very cozy with the "rich". Mr. McCain may have to settle for merely chipping away at the lead Mr. Obama has established.
While there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis, let us not forget the roots of it. The creation of Freddie and Fannie, along with their nurturing and protection from regulation, along the Community Reinvestment Act (though there is not yet a consensus that this directly cause the housing bubble, it certainly did not help) was the domain of the Democrats. Both major parties share blame for a lack of regulation on CDS's, the WMD of the financial world, and on the over lending of the Federal Reserve. Republicans bear a slight majority of the blame for other sundry failures to regulate Wall Street.
Makes you wish there were more than two viable political parties, doesn't it?
It may well be an impossibly uphill battle to try to win the economy as an issue for Mr. McCain. Public sentiment is very much against him, and there is a historical perception of the Republican Party being very cozy with the "rich". Mr. McCain may have to settle for merely chipping away at the lead Mr. Obama has established.
While there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis, let us not forget the roots of it. The creation of Freddie and Fannie, along with their nurturing and protection from regulation, along the Community Reinvestment Act (though there is not yet a consensus that this directly cause the housing bubble, it certainly did not help) was the domain of the Democrats. Both major parties share blame for a lack of regulation on CDS's, the WMD of the financial world, and on the over lending of the Federal Reserve. Republicans bear a slight majority of the blame for other sundry failures to regulate Wall Street.
Makes you wish there were more than two viable political parties, doesn't it?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
No Taxes- No Vote
In my journeys through the blogosphere, I ran into this article. It is an editorial, however, I personally do not trust the facts cited in the article to be reliable enough to quote. However, the central tenant is sound. The author's argument is that the 30% of America who does not pay taxes(actually 40+% when you add in those who do not even file) tend to poll for Mr. Obama. He cites numbers which cannot be verified, since he doesn't disclose his research. I have yet to find a set of polls which is sorted by income. (If anyone knows of any, please comment) However, it would seem likely that lower income voters would tend towards Mr. Obama. Due to lack of statistics here, let us step back, and look at the issue more remotely. (Side note: this does illustrate the lie of one of Mr. Obama's constant refrains, that 95% of people would get a tax cut under his plan. If half of those people don't pay taxes, you can't cut their taxes. You can give them a government subsidy, or back-door welfare, but that's not a tax cut.)
Isn't it only fair that so long as any income group pays income taxes that paying taxes be a prerequisite to voting? After all, if a group pays no taxes, and especially if that group receives government aid, what right do they have to vote taxes onto others? They have no incentive to relieve the tax burden of the taxpayers, as they get all the rewards and none of the expense. Indeed we see how this has already happened, with the top 1% paying more and more each year and the bottom 80% paying less and less. Those who do not have success punish it greatly.
Of course, there should be some option for those who would not pay taxes to vote. Let them pay an optional tax of say, the highest rate on $1000 per bracket of gross income.(To preempt the inevitable, I personally would support a corresponding plan for war and the draft.) So if their gross income was in the third bracket, they would pay 35% of $3000, or $1050. In this way, they share the pain of taxation if they wish to vote. No representation without taxation.
Isn't it only fair that so long as any income group pays income taxes that paying taxes be a prerequisite to voting? After all, if a group pays no taxes, and especially if that group receives government aid, what right do they have to vote taxes onto others? They have no incentive to relieve the tax burden of the taxpayers, as they get all the rewards and none of the expense. Indeed we see how this has already happened, with the top 1% paying more and more each year and the bottom 80% paying less and less. Those who do not have success punish it greatly.
Of course, there should be some option for those who would not pay taxes to vote. Let them pay an optional tax of say, the highest rate on $1000 per bracket of gross income.(To preempt the inevitable, I personally would support a corresponding plan for war and the draft.) So if their gross income was in the third bracket, they would pay 35% of $3000, or $1050. In this way, they share the pain of taxation if they wish to vote. No representation without taxation.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Modified Stabilization Bill Passes House
The Stabilization bill that passed the House today is not a bailout. Rather it will be the last option for companies to take, as the measures added to insure the plan makes back it's capital will give pause to anyone considering taking part. Though some companies will take up the offer, they will do so grudgingly. Proof is this was the 200+ point drop of the Dow after passage of the bill.
Of course, the bill was heavily modified from it's original form, with additions ranging from wise, such as the AMT extension and warrants for stocks of the companies participating, to neutral, such as raising the FDIC amount to $250,000, to absurd, such as a $200 million+ tax break for children's archery set makers.
The bill in final is tough medicine. It may keep firms from failing, but will extract quite a price. It may stabilize the market, but it will not prosper it. Most of the opposition to the bill came from a lack of understanding, though some also objected on other grounds. This bill is likely the most palatable form to the most people. Only time will tell if it works.
Of course, the bill was heavily modified from it's original form, with additions ranging from wise, such as the AMT extension and warrants for stocks of the companies participating, to neutral, such as raising the FDIC amount to $250,000, to absurd, such as a $200 million+ tax break for children's archery set makers.
The bill in final is tough medicine. It may keep firms from failing, but will extract quite a price. It may stabilize the market, but it will not prosper it. Most of the opposition to the bill came from a lack of understanding, though some also objected on other grounds. This bill is likely the most palatable form to the most people. Only time will tell if it works.
Worst Case Election Scenario?
The Washington Times had a piece about the worst case scenarios for the election. Though mostly far fetched, it's an unique read. Interesting things to keep in mind as we enter the final 30 days, and the time of the "October surprise".
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Democratic 527 Group: Democratic Voters "Idiots"
Sometimes a news story comes along that is shocking because somebody finally says what everybody on both sides knows is true about their own party. In this case, a 527 group in Colorado, in a memo coordinating with elected officials(hmm, not sure that is kosher) listed one of the key responsibilities of labor as "educating the idiots" who he defined as minorities, GED's, and dropouts. There are so many angles here that I can't even cover all of them. First off, can you imagine if a Republican called minorities idiots that needed to be told what to do?
However, the central point is more general. Doubtless, many Democrats legitimately are concerned for the "underprivileged" that they seek to help. However, many either pity them and believe they must be told what to do, or simply exploit them for political gain. This is not an either/or proposition, and much of it is subconscious.
What this illustrates is the difference between the two positions. Libertarians, and real Conservatives, believe that people should be empowered to do as much as possible of their own thinking. Democrats (along with neocons and much of the religious right) believe they know what is best for everyone, and therefore that they should dictate it. Inherent in this is a disdain for the intellect and rights of the majority of people, that only the political class has the "right" views on how to live life, and should impose it on others. Whether or not this is related to Communist belief systems, with their emphasis on the "revolutionaries"(political class) controlling everything "for the good of the people", I leave to the reader to decide.
The left will retort that only the rich have choices, that the poor are forced into situations where there hand is forced(another Marxist principle, called determinism, but I digress). For example, they no doubt would claim that only the rich have the choice of health insurance, as the poor cannot afford it. Sidestepping truths such as personal responsibility, let us look at the situation more closely. What they really mean is that if you give the rich the choice of paying for the poor's insurance, they may not, which in their twisted logic means the poor are deprived of choice. Now, under the libertarian/Conservative plan, the rich can still choose to help the poor (who exactly do you think funds charities?), but under the liberal plan, the rich cannot choose not to help, the political class has made that choice. Since they don't believe the poor have choices(determinism), their goal is the elimination of choice. (Side note: isn't it interesting that choice now is assumed to mean about abortion unless otherwise quantified?)
In fact, the Democratic extreme is almost devoid of choice. You can't choose your income, you can't choose to own guns, you can't choose your health care(it's state-run), you can't choose you kid's school, you can't choose your sexuality(different kind of can't, but related principle), you can't choose to be public about your faith, you can't choose to play "violent" sports, you can't choose anything except whether or not to have an abortion(but a doctor can't choose not to help you). Of course, apparently that's what all feminism/Democracy comes down to, which is why Ms. Palin is reviled by so many.
Given this, it's not surprising that the Democrats would have to tell the "idiot""minority""dropouts" what to do. They don't believe they have a choice. They don't believe they should have a choice. What is surprising is that they admit it. What isn't surprising is how this won't affect the election. After all, they're "idiots". That's why they vote Democrat.
However, the central point is more general. Doubtless, many Democrats legitimately are concerned for the "underprivileged" that they seek to help. However, many either pity them and believe they must be told what to do, or simply exploit them for political gain. This is not an either/or proposition, and much of it is subconscious.
What this illustrates is the difference between the two positions. Libertarians, and real Conservatives, believe that people should be empowered to do as much as possible of their own thinking. Democrats (along with neocons and much of the religious right) believe they know what is best for everyone, and therefore that they should dictate it. Inherent in this is a disdain for the intellect and rights of the majority of people, that only the political class has the "right" views on how to live life, and should impose it on others. Whether or not this is related to Communist belief systems, with their emphasis on the "revolutionaries"(political class) controlling everything "for the good of the people", I leave to the reader to decide.
The left will retort that only the rich have choices, that the poor are forced into situations where there hand is forced(another Marxist principle, called determinism, but I digress). For example, they no doubt would claim that only the rich have the choice of health insurance, as the poor cannot afford it. Sidestepping truths such as personal responsibility, let us look at the situation more closely. What they really mean is that if you give the rich the choice of paying for the poor's insurance, they may not, which in their twisted logic means the poor are deprived of choice. Now, under the libertarian/Conservative plan, the rich can still choose to help the poor (who exactly do you think funds charities?), but under the liberal plan, the rich cannot choose not to help, the political class has made that choice. Since they don't believe the poor have choices(determinism), their goal is the elimination of choice. (Side note: isn't it interesting that choice now is assumed to mean about abortion unless otherwise quantified?)
In fact, the Democratic extreme is almost devoid of choice. You can't choose your income, you can't choose to own guns, you can't choose your health care(it's state-run), you can't choose you kid's school, you can't choose your sexuality(different kind of can't, but related principle), you can't choose to be public about your faith, you can't choose to play "violent" sports, you can't choose anything except whether or not to have an abortion(but a doctor can't choose not to help you). Of course, apparently that's what all feminism/Democracy comes down to, which is why Ms. Palin is reviled by so many.
Given this, it's not surprising that the Democrats would have to tell the "idiot""minority""dropouts" what to do. They don't believe they have a choice. They don't believe they should have a choice. What is surprising is that they admit it. What isn't surprising is how this won't affect the election. After all, they're "idiots". That's why they vote Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
