I can’t believe that New York Governor David Patterson will actually appoint Caroline Kennedy to Hillary Clinton’s senate seat, but I thought I’d better write about it while it’s still a possibility. I have to believe that after reading her interviews in the New York papers that he wouldn’t dare, but hey, I’m the guy who said Hillary would never be appointed Secretary of State.
The interviews were nothing short of atrocious. Here’s a short example of her style and rhythm:
DH: Why is it that you apparently did not give Senator Clinton any kind of advance warning that you’d be coming out for Senator Obama?
CK: Um, I’m not going to talk about that particular process, but —
DH: Why’s that?
CK: Because those conversations that I have had and had during that time are not something that I think is relevant right now.
NC: How come it isn’t relevant? It kind of goes to your relationship with the person that you’re trying to succeed in the Senate.
CK: I think this is about the future, and, um, you know, that’s what I want to talk about, which is, what’s going on in our state, you know, why I would be the best person to help deliver for New York. We’re facing, you know, an economic crisis, the paper this morning said there’s, you know, five billion dollars of construction projects which just stopped, you know, that’s, you know — conversations a year ago, that’s — beside that, I don’t, as I said, I have conversations with a lot of people, and those are confidential.
Well there you go. For those of you counting, that was six “you knows” in two sentences. The rest of the interview is simply vapid. It’s hard to believe she is a lawyer. In fact, I suspect that she is a lawyer in name only. And by that I mean that she has never practiced law in any real sense, although she does have a law degree. From what I can see she has spent her life on various boards of various charitable organizations and a volunteer job (for $1 per year) for the NYC Dept of Education, where it has been reported, she never showed up. She also didn’t show up to vote according to records, and hasn’t given money to any candidates to speak of. When she has given support, her intentions remain murky. For instance, she gave money to Hillary Clinton for her senate run as well as her presidential campaign. She then turned around and publicly endorsed her opponent, Barrack Obama. (HRC then gave back $2,300 of her contribution) That was generally seen as the death blow to HRC. And when asked about her voting intentions she declared that even though she had worked for the campaign of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg (an Independent) she would be voting for the Democrat candidate. So that clears that up.
I hate to get personal about this, but I suspect that, like her brother (couldn’t pass the bar); she’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Whenever they talk about her pedigree, it’s often overlooked that her mother was something of an airhead. And her father’s singular intellectual accomplishment was winning the Pulitzer Prize by submitting Profiles in Courage for publication (Ted Sorenson wrote it.) Don’t get me wrong. JFK was a rock ribbed cold warrior, tax cutting conservative who was gunned down by a radical leftist. That made sense at the time, but then Democrats turned his legacy (myth) into a civil rights visionary who was cut down by the “forces of intolerance.” He wasn’t. He was dragged, kicking and screaming into the civil rights debate. Memoirs and first hand accounts have shown that he was deeply suspicious and distrustful of Martin Luther King. They really had no idea where he (MLK) was going to end up and therefore were concerned about appearing to support him. Civil rights did not get serious presidential support until LBJ. Anyway, Caroline Kennedy has many people pulling for her and they are not deterred by the comparisons to Sarah Palin on qualifications. The wacko Dems are still saying that getting elected mayor of Wasilla and then governor of Alaska just can’t compare to holding down a no show, $1 a year volunteer job with the NY public schools. At least not if your last name is Schlossberg, um I mean, you know, Kennedy.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Disappointment Parade
I wrote recently that Obama was elected by a coalition of interests who are now in line to be disappointed. There were many reasons that various groups voted for Obama, and I contend, that few of them had to do with his policy positions. The sheer variety of reasons insures that some voters will be disappointed, I said. So it shouldn’t have come to me as a surprise that an Obama voter woke up today to news that would disappoint him. What surprised me was who the first disappointed voter was: me. That’s right, I voted for Obama. To be sure, it was the primary when I did so, but my reasoning was valid. I was not voting to cynically nominate the Democrat I thought easiest to beat, although I knew others who did just that. No, I voted for the very specific intent to make Obama the nominee because I thought the Democrat pick was likely to win. And I didn’t want it to be Hillary Clinton. So imagine my thoughts when I heard that the anointed one has picked Hillary for his Secretary of State. She is truly like the movie monster that will not die.
I had been saying for days that this was all a rouse. Her name being floated for Sec. of State was nothing more than Obama paying her off by elevating her profile in the international arena. There was no way this would actually happen. Well slap my ass and call me Sally.
Well I may have been the first, but I wasn’t the only one. During the campaign I must have read a dozen columns by pundits who harped on the need for the new president to “sell” shared sacrifice to the American people. He would have to lead by being straight with them. Bush had never made it clear that sacrifices had to be made. The new guy would have to do that. It would be like the myth of FDR “leading us out of the depression” (He did nothing of the sort.) Americans would pull together and tough it out, sharing the burden, whatever that may be. But apparently letting GM go bankrupt is more pain than he is willing to face.
And make no mistake; bailing out GM is very different than saving the financial services industry. The automobile industry is not in trouble. The American automobile industry isn’t even in trouble. Plants in Alabama are humming along spitting out cars that are selling just fine. They just happen to be Hondas and Mercedes Benz. This is a case where the bad moves by GM are well documented and clearly attributable to the company itself. They do not deserve to be saved. And if they are, it will mean that the guys who run it will make even worse decisions in the future because they will know that the government will be there to save them when they do. I guess we’re just going to sacrifice elsewhere.
I had been saying for days that this was all a rouse. Her name being floated for Sec. of State was nothing more than Obama paying her off by elevating her profile in the international arena. There was no way this would actually happen. Well slap my ass and call me Sally.
Well I may have been the first, but I wasn’t the only one. During the campaign I must have read a dozen columns by pundits who harped on the need for the new president to “sell” shared sacrifice to the American people. He would have to lead by being straight with them. Bush had never made it clear that sacrifices had to be made. The new guy would have to do that. It would be like the myth of FDR “leading us out of the depression” (He did nothing of the sort.) Americans would pull together and tough it out, sharing the burden, whatever that may be. But apparently letting GM go bankrupt is more pain than he is willing to face.
And make no mistake; bailing out GM is very different than saving the financial services industry. The automobile industry is not in trouble. The American automobile industry isn’t even in trouble. Plants in Alabama are humming along spitting out cars that are selling just fine. They just happen to be Hondas and Mercedes Benz. This is a case where the bad moves by GM are well documented and clearly attributable to the company itself. They do not deserve to be saved. And if they are, it will mean that the guys who run it will make even worse decisions in the future because they will know that the government will be there to save them when they do. I guess we’re just going to sacrifice elsewhere.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Original Sin, Reconciliation and Absolution
It finally came to me. I last wrote about how I didn’t think all the Obama voters were on the same page. They voted Obama for a variety of reasons, but I hadn’t been able to pinpoint the reason so many folks who considered themselves “conservative,” had voted for him. But thinking about the “feel good” atmosphere that seemed so obvious to me, helped form my hypothesis. Voting for Obama was reconciliation that removed the Original sin of slavery, and will lead to absolution for historic discrimination against blacks. A vote for Obama said “I am not a racist and America is not a racist country. Now you have proof.”
Towards the end of the campaign, the one thing that liberal pundits kept pushing, were the quotes from conservative pundits who had switched over to Obama or were at least critical of McCain. David Brook’s line that Palin was a “cancer on the GOP” got more circulation than anything else he has written since he joined the New York Times. You’d be hard pressed to find a liberal who didn’t quote it in his column. Most people didn’t even know who Christopher Buckley was before he endorsed Obama. But within days everybody knew he was the son of recently deceased conservative icon, William F. Buckley. They heard all about his voting for Obama, but I doubt they heard his response when asked if he feared Obama’s liberal agenda. I don’t have the exact quote, but he basically said he didn’t think that Obama would actually be able to implement everything he wanted because cooler heads would prevail when he started getting advice from folks who knew better. That, he felt, made it safe to vote for him. Considering the people most likely to end up in his cabinet, I take no comfort from that notion. Nationalized health care, no new drilling, a hasty exit from Iraq and redistribution of wealth are what his true believers expect for him to deliver. And something tells me he does not wish to disappoint them right off the bat.
I heard this morning that Obama plans to start his administration by immediately reversing many of the executive orders that Bush had signed. Not surprisingly, one of them was to expand the stem cell lines that are eligible for federal research dollars. That won’t strike any chords. Nobody will come crashing to Earth on that one. But the next one listed was to kill any expanded off shore drilling. You may recall that during the campaign, even Obama had to say he supported that. More than two thirds of Americans did and he wasn’t about to hand an issue like that to McCain. Even the Democrat congress lifted their ban because of voter support. So would this reversal be called “lying,” or will some softer sounding term be put forth? At the very least sentences will be parsed. (“I only said I was for SOME expanded drilling.”)
It’s going to be a while before reality steps in for the “conservatives” who opted for absolution on slavery. They are currently enjoying that renewed feeling one gets from going to confession.
Towards the end of the campaign, the one thing that liberal pundits kept pushing, were the quotes from conservative pundits who had switched over to Obama or were at least critical of McCain. David Brook’s line that Palin was a “cancer on the GOP” got more circulation than anything else he has written since he joined the New York Times. You’d be hard pressed to find a liberal who didn’t quote it in his column. Most people didn’t even know who Christopher Buckley was before he endorsed Obama. But within days everybody knew he was the son of recently deceased conservative icon, William F. Buckley. They heard all about his voting for Obama, but I doubt they heard his response when asked if he feared Obama’s liberal agenda. I don’t have the exact quote, but he basically said he didn’t think that Obama would actually be able to implement everything he wanted because cooler heads would prevail when he started getting advice from folks who knew better. That, he felt, made it safe to vote for him. Considering the people most likely to end up in his cabinet, I take no comfort from that notion. Nationalized health care, no new drilling, a hasty exit from Iraq and redistribution of wealth are what his true believers expect for him to deliver. And something tells me he does not wish to disappoint them right off the bat.
I heard this morning that Obama plans to start his administration by immediately reversing many of the executive orders that Bush had signed. Not surprisingly, one of them was to expand the stem cell lines that are eligible for federal research dollars. That won’t strike any chords. Nobody will come crashing to Earth on that one. But the next one listed was to kill any expanded off shore drilling. You may recall that during the campaign, even Obama had to say he supported that. More than two thirds of Americans did and he wasn’t about to hand an issue like that to McCain. Even the Democrat congress lifted their ban because of voter support. So would this reversal be called “lying,” or will some softer sounding term be put forth? At the very least sentences will be parsed. (“I only said I was for SOME expanded drilling.”)
It’s going to be a while before reality steps in for the “conservatives” who opted for absolution on slavery. They are currently enjoying that renewed feeling one gets from going to confession.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Feelin' All Right
OK, I went zero for 3 on my political predictions. I think I'll refrain from that in the future. I'm not very good at prognosticating, I think I do better at seeing what has happened. Which brings me to this writing.
It dawned on me today what it was that I had witnessed in the elections just ended. But I believe that what it really came down to was that voting for Obama was the feel-good vote of the season. By that, I mean that the act of voting itself, made many people feel really good about themselves. The reasons for feeling good were many and varied. There were the true believers of liberalism, of course. But there are just too many stories out there about certain demographic groups level of support to think that they were all in agreement about motives. For instance, while both black and gay voters went overwhelmingly for Obama, it seems that the huge black turnout, in California, also helped push the gay marriage ban over the top, much to the consternation of gays, their presumed ally. My guess is that when they cast their Obama votes, each group left the polls feeling pretty good about what they had just done, but for different reasons. There also was a 1968 feeling coming from the young people. Among students, I think one would have to have been a brave, true believer to have shown support for McCain to their peers. There was a sense that Iraq was their Viet Nam and they were going to make the revolution succeed, this time. Hispanics backed Obama 2 to 1, although McCain had been been on their side during the immigration bill debates.
I don't want this to sound like sour grapes. And I'm certainly not going to say what liberals did in 2000 and 2004 (That the American people are basically stupid), but I refuse to believe that this was about liberal policy. A very embarrassing audio tape was circulated around the Internet a few weeks before the election. Some smart ass radio DJs sent a guy in to Harlem where he interviewed random people about why they were voting for Obama. To be honest, it was a set-up on several levels, but I still think it was telling. They'd ask the person to choose between several choices of policy positions that they felt mattered most as the reason they were voting for Obama. But the choices were all McCain's positions. So they'd ask something like, "Which do think is more important, Obama's desire to stay the course in Iraq or his pledge to appoint pro-life judges?" Often, the answer was "both," or they'd make comments like "I think it's more important that he stay the course in Iraq."
I just don't think they were all on the same page, which will make for an interesting clash of expectations down the road.
It dawned on me today what it was that I had witnessed in the elections just ended. But I believe that what it really came down to was that voting for Obama was the feel-good vote of the season. By that, I mean that the act of voting itself, made many people feel really good about themselves. The reasons for feeling good were many and varied. There were the true believers of liberalism, of course. But there are just too many stories out there about certain demographic groups level of support to think that they were all in agreement about motives. For instance, while both black and gay voters went overwhelmingly for Obama, it seems that the huge black turnout, in California, also helped push the gay marriage ban over the top, much to the consternation of gays, their presumed ally. My guess is that when they cast their Obama votes, each group left the polls feeling pretty good about what they had just done, but for different reasons. There also was a 1968 feeling coming from the young people. Among students, I think one would have to have been a brave, true believer to have shown support for McCain to their peers. There was a sense that Iraq was their Viet Nam and they were going to make the revolution succeed, this time. Hispanics backed Obama 2 to 1, although McCain had been been on their side during the immigration bill debates.
I don't want this to sound like sour grapes. And I'm certainly not going to say what liberals did in 2000 and 2004 (That the American people are basically stupid), but I refuse to believe that this was about liberal policy. A very embarrassing audio tape was circulated around the Internet a few weeks before the election. Some smart ass radio DJs sent a guy in to Harlem where he interviewed random people about why they were voting for Obama. To be honest, it was a set-up on several levels, but I still think it was telling. They'd ask the person to choose between several choices of policy positions that they felt mattered most as the reason they were voting for Obama. But the choices were all McCain's positions. So they'd ask something like, "Which do think is more important, Obama's desire to stay the course in Iraq or his pledge to appoint pro-life judges?" Often, the answer was "both," or they'd make comments like "I think it's more important that he stay the course in Iraq."
I just don't think they were all on the same page, which will make for an interesting clash of expectations down the road.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
All Hung Up
Hanging American presidents in effigy has been a time honored tradition for decades, if not centuries. George W. Bush probably holds the record for most executions in effigy, but maybe LBJ could give him a run for his money considering the volume of Viet Nam protests. Certainly nobody ever got too worked up about it. Usually, if it was domestic and particularly threatening, the Secret Service would make a perfunctory house call to make sure people understood that this could be seen as a threat and they needed to tread carefully.
But the candidacy of Barrack Obama has put this practice in an uncomfortable spotlight. A fellow from West Hollywood put up a Halloween display that featured Sarah Palin hanging from a noose. It made the wire services and a few people complained. Notably, the guy who was quoted in the story as saying he thought is was in bad taste, refused to give his last name, while the guy who put the display up gave first, middle and last. The display stayed up for a few days, with the owner defiantly claiming free speech rights. But on the third day, a not-so-funny thing happened. Some college students in Kentucky hung an effigy of Barrack Obama from a tree. Suddenly, this was serious. The president of the University declared that the perpetrators would be caught and prosecuted, and then made good on it. Two twenty year olds were arrested for disorderly conduct and burglary (they apparently lifted the mannequin from a frat house) and bond was set at $7,600 for each of them. I’ve heard of lower bail for manslaughter charges. This was essentially a prank. Of course there were no arrests in West Hollywood.
What will be interesting to see is what will happen after the election. After the euphoria of having elected Obama wears off, the rest of the world will go back to despising the United States. Barrack Obama, much to the consternation of his supporters, will become the face of American hegemony. And the third world doesn’t relate to the racist lynchings that took place in the American south. So they will very likely hang Obama when they rally in Tehran or Islamabad. I just wonder how the American left will react and how far they’ll go to try and straighten out these folks. I can’t see them ignoring it.
But the candidacy of Barrack Obama has put this practice in an uncomfortable spotlight. A fellow from West Hollywood put up a Halloween display that featured Sarah Palin hanging from a noose. It made the wire services and a few people complained. Notably, the guy who was quoted in the story as saying he thought is was in bad taste, refused to give his last name, while the guy who put the display up gave first, middle and last. The display stayed up for a few days, with the owner defiantly claiming free speech rights. But on the third day, a not-so-funny thing happened. Some college students in Kentucky hung an effigy of Barrack Obama from a tree. Suddenly, this was serious. The president of the University declared that the perpetrators would be caught and prosecuted, and then made good on it. Two twenty year olds were arrested for disorderly conduct and burglary (they apparently lifted the mannequin from a frat house) and bond was set at $7,600 for each of them. I’ve heard of lower bail for manslaughter charges. This was essentially a prank. Of course there were no arrests in West Hollywood.
What will be interesting to see is what will happen after the election. After the euphoria of having elected Obama wears off, the rest of the world will go back to despising the United States. Barrack Obama, much to the consternation of his supporters, will become the face of American hegemony. And the third world doesn’t relate to the racist lynchings that took place in the American south. So they will very likely hang Obama when they rally in Tehran or Islamabad. I just wonder how the American left will react and how far they’ll go to try and straighten out these folks. I can’t see them ignoring it.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Bipartisanship
Yesterday Nancy Pelosi made the following statement in response to a suggestion that Democrats would run roughshod over Republicans should they control both congress and the White House:
"But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan."
Now at first you might be tempted to think she has plainly stated an oxymoron. But that would only be because you don't know the Democrat definition of "bipartisan." To Democrats, bipartisan means you abandon your position and adopt the liberal one. Then we are all happy, and that's bipartisanship.
"But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan."
Now at first you might be tempted to think she has plainly stated an oxymoron. But that would only be because you don't know the Democrat definition of "bipartisan." To Democrats, bipartisan means you abandon your position and adopt the liberal one. Then we are all happy, and that's bipartisanship.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Predictions
I wanted to put these on the record with a time stamp:
Obama goes with Sebelius, fuck the Clintons! McCain goes with Lieberman.
McCain wins in November. Democrats form circular firing squads and drink kool aid.
Brett Favre has a better year than Aaron Rodgers.
Ted Thompson is eventually bought out of his contract. The better Favre does, the sooner.
UPDATE Aug 25th: OK, I'm 0 for 1 as Obama picks Biden. But I take some satisfaction that Dick Morris came out this morning and said how it was a big mistake that he didn't take Kathleen Sebelius because he really needs a woman on the ticket. And I also agree with his assessment that this now prersents an opportunity for John McCain to pick Kay Bailey Hutchinson. The opportunity would not have been there had he taken Sebelius. I now say it's even 50-50 on Lieberman vs. Hutchinson.
UPDATE Aug 29th: Well I might be 0 for two, but he did pick a woman, which is great. Furthermore, when they vote in November, both halves of the ticket will have sons serving in Iraq. But you should hear the nervous "laughter" over at the Huffington Post. She is being trashed and ridiculed as short on experience and being clearly seen as a cynical pick to get support from the disaffected Clinton supporters. They are putting out wild predictions of the pick being a disaster, but they are obviously whistling past the graveyard. Lots of bluster with a deep undercurrent of concern. This is a great pick. The Dems are predicting that Biden will "have her for lunch." I'd just love to see that. Really. Like Rick Lazio looked, he will come across as bullying a woman and that won't help.
UPDATE Oct. 3rd
My politcal predictions are not faring well, but Favre had six touchdowns and lead the Jets to victory, while Aaron Rodgers left the game with 3 interceptions and may not start this weekend.
Obama goes with Sebelius, fuck the Clintons! McCain goes with Lieberman.
McCain wins in November. Democrats form circular firing squads and drink kool aid.
Brett Favre has a better year than Aaron Rodgers.
Ted Thompson is eventually bought out of his contract. The better Favre does, the sooner.
UPDATE Aug 25th: OK, I'm 0 for 1 as Obama picks Biden. But I take some satisfaction that Dick Morris came out this morning and said how it was a big mistake that he didn't take Kathleen Sebelius because he really needs a woman on the ticket. And I also agree with his assessment that this now prersents an opportunity for John McCain to pick Kay Bailey Hutchinson. The opportunity would not have been there had he taken Sebelius. I now say it's even 50-50 on Lieberman vs. Hutchinson.
UPDATE Aug 29th: Well I might be 0 for two, but he did pick a woman, which is great. Furthermore, when they vote in November, both halves of the ticket will have sons serving in Iraq. But you should hear the nervous "laughter" over at the Huffington Post. She is being trashed and ridiculed as short on experience and being clearly seen as a cynical pick to get support from the disaffected Clinton supporters. They are putting out wild predictions of the pick being a disaster, but they are obviously whistling past the graveyard. Lots of bluster with a deep undercurrent of concern. This is a great pick. The Dems are predicting that Biden will "have her for lunch." I'd just love to see that. Really. Like Rick Lazio looked, he will come across as bullying a woman and that won't help.
UPDATE Oct. 3rd
My politcal predictions are not faring well, but Favre had six touchdowns and lead the Jets to victory, while Aaron Rodgers left the game with 3 interceptions and may not start this weekend.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Bizzaro World
The incredible lack of knowledge about basic economics in this country has lead us directly into Bizzaro World. You remember Bizzarro World don't you. That was the parallel universe in the Superman comic books where everything was reversed. Ugly was beautiful, people collected trash instead of throwing it out and doctors made you sick instead of curing you. Well, we're there.
Obama the Redeemer was in Florida flip-flopping on off shore drilling. Now, he might be for it, but only if it will help break the gridlock and get meaningful energy reform passed.
Yeah, that and the fact that polls overwhelming show voters favor drilling. But in the middle of his speech a black man interrupted and demanded that Obama answer about "the attacks against the African-American community" by the "same U.S. government that you aspire to lead." He pointed to sub-prime mortgages aimed at black and Latino communities, instances of police profiling, the Jena Six and the slow response to Hurricane Katrina.
Sub-prime mortgages were “aimed” at blacks and Latinos. Just like a gun. You see those bastards at Country Wide were just lying in wait. They spotted those juicy credit risks and just pounced. They cleverly induced their targets into this hopeless situation by giving them money that they clearly knew they couldn’t pay back. But they gave them the loans anyway, the bastards. They knew it was only a matter of time before the adjustable rates would rise, the exploited blacks and Latinos would default and fulfill their master plan to corner the market on bad debts and abandoned homes. Of course this was all just a side benefit. Their real objective was to financially ruin as many black and Latino families as they possibly could. Well heck, it was even worth ruining a few white families as long as they nailed the minorities. And it worked beautifully. Just look at the riches they reaped in the last quarter alone! Thornburg Mortgage took a $3 billion loss and Merril managed a $2.24 billion loss. J.P. Morgan was a little less successful. They only managed a $1.1 billion loss.
If this weren’t bad enough, Obama defended himself by agreeing. In fact he had always been against “predatory lending.”
I’d like for everybody to take a minute or two to say that term, “predatory lending” out loud and reflect on it.
OK, first I’d like to point out that when Obama was being a “community organizer” in Chicago, he was heavily involved with the liberal activist group ACORN. They did a lot of fraudulent voter registration, but they also issued many tirades aimed at banks and mortgage companies. They did “studies” where they “determined” that since blacks were getting turned down for mortgages at a higher rate than whites, this was clear evidence of racial discrimination. Of course a mortgage application isn’t allowed to ask a person’s race, but they figured that info got through somehow (nod, nod, wink, wink.) And furthermore, it wasn’t just race, it was location too. This, they called “redlining.” Here the banks were simply saying that’s not a part of town where we want to loan. And they were saying that because those parts were predominately black.
It was pointed out to ACORN that Asians were approved at a higher rate than whites, but they really didn’t have an explanation for that. Likewise, when this “sophisticated point” was made: If blacks were being held to a higher credit standard than whites, then it would follow that the backs who did receive mortgages would likely have a lower default rate, correct? Yes, that would seem to be correct. Unfortunately for ACORN the blacks who did receive mortgages actually had higher default rates.
Despite those facts, great pressure was exerted on the banks to make these loans to people they had deemed uncreditworthy in places that they did not want to lend. Laws were passed to make it easier to loan that money, and the banks complied. It was either that or get sued. But that was then and now they are "predators."
But what really struck me as perverse this week was the reaction to the news that ExxonMobil had a quarterly profit of $11.68 billion. People were outraged. They were offended and angry. Obama spoke of taking that money and using it to send checks of $1,000 to $500 to middle and lower class families (Hillary threatened to take their profits in the previous quarter.) Greed, which was identified as the reason behind these “obscene” profits, was denounced. Everyone seemed to agree, these profits were “excessive,” I mean, they were just too much.
And on the other side of the newspaper page was a different profit story. It was about how General Motors was posting a $15.5 billion loss. I could only assume such news would add a little cheer to a liberal’s day. Certainly this was something of a counter weight to the bad news that ExxonMobil had posted the largest corporate profit in history. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Aside from the fact that virtually every 401k and IRA in America has some oil stock, when did profits become bad? Do these people understand how big a part of our economy ExxonMobil represents? Do they know how many people they employ at very good wages? Do they understand the amount of assets they control? Do they know that oil companies are the ones researching and investing in those alternative energy sources they all like to hype, like wind and solar? Do they understand that those profits are exactly the source of funding for that research and investing? I’d have to say the answer to all those questions is no, they don’t understand.
Obama the Redeemer was in Florida flip-flopping on off shore drilling. Now, he might be for it, but only if it will help break the gridlock and get meaningful energy reform passed.
Yeah, that and the fact that polls overwhelming show voters favor drilling. But in the middle of his speech a black man interrupted and demanded that Obama answer about "the attacks against the African-American community" by the "same U.S. government that you aspire to lead." He pointed to sub-prime mortgages aimed at black and Latino communities, instances of police profiling, the Jena Six and the slow response to Hurricane Katrina.
Sub-prime mortgages were “aimed” at blacks and Latinos. Just like a gun. You see those bastards at Country Wide were just lying in wait. They spotted those juicy credit risks and just pounced. They cleverly induced their targets into this hopeless situation by giving them money that they clearly knew they couldn’t pay back. But they gave them the loans anyway, the bastards. They knew it was only a matter of time before the adjustable rates would rise, the exploited blacks and Latinos would default and fulfill their master plan to corner the market on bad debts and abandoned homes. Of course this was all just a side benefit. Their real objective was to financially ruin as many black and Latino families as they possibly could. Well heck, it was even worth ruining a few white families as long as they nailed the minorities. And it worked beautifully. Just look at the riches they reaped in the last quarter alone! Thornburg Mortgage took a $3 billion loss and Merril managed a $2.24 billion loss. J.P. Morgan was a little less successful. They only managed a $1.1 billion loss.
If this weren’t bad enough, Obama defended himself by agreeing. In fact he had always been against “predatory lending.”
I’d like for everybody to take a minute or two to say that term, “predatory lending” out loud and reflect on it.
OK, first I’d like to point out that when Obama was being a “community organizer” in Chicago, he was heavily involved with the liberal activist group ACORN. They did a lot of fraudulent voter registration, but they also issued many tirades aimed at banks and mortgage companies. They did “studies” where they “determined” that since blacks were getting turned down for mortgages at a higher rate than whites, this was clear evidence of racial discrimination. Of course a mortgage application isn’t allowed to ask a person’s race, but they figured that info got through somehow (nod, nod, wink, wink.) And furthermore, it wasn’t just race, it was location too. This, they called “redlining.” Here the banks were simply saying that’s not a part of town where we want to loan. And they were saying that because those parts were predominately black.
It was pointed out to ACORN that Asians were approved at a higher rate than whites, but they really didn’t have an explanation for that. Likewise, when this “sophisticated point” was made: If blacks were being held to a higher credit standard than whites, then it would follow that the backs who did receive mortgages would likely have a lower default rate, correct? Yes, that would seem to be correct. Unfortunately for ACORN the blacks who did receive mortgages actually had higher default rates.
Despite those facts, great pressure was exerted on the banks to make these loans to people they had deemed uncreditworthy in places that they did not want to lend. Laws were passed to make it easier to loan that money, and the banks complied. It was either that or get sued. But that was then and now they are "predators."
But what really struck me as perverse this week was the reaction to the news that ExxonMobil had a quarterly profit of $11.68 billion. People were outraged. They were offended and angry. Obama spoke of taking that money and using it to send checks of $1,000 to $500 to middle and lower class families (Hillary threatened to take their profits in the previous quarter.) Greed, which was identified as the reason behind these “obscene” profits, was denounced. Everyone seemed to agree, these profits were “excessive,” I mean, they were just too much.
And on the other side of the newspaper page was a different profit story. It was about how General Motors was posting a $15.5 billion loss. I could only assume such news would add a little cheer to a liberal’s day. Certainly this was something of a counter weight to the bad news that ExxonMobil had posted the largest corporate profit in history. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Aside from the fact that virtually every 401k and IRA in America has some oil stock, when did profits become bad? Do these people understand how big a part of our economy ExxonMobil represents? Do they know how many people they employ at very good wages? Do they understand the amount of assets they control? Do they know that oil companies are the ones researching and investing in those alternative energy sources they all like to hype, like wind and solar? Do they understand that those profits are exactly the source of funding for that research and investing? I’d have to say the answer to all those questions is no, they don’t understand.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Energy Obstructionists
There is just no pleasing the tree huggers.
When it comes to formulating a national energy policy, there is nothing that can please them. Oil is downright evil in their book. Coal isn't far behind. Ethanol? It will make food more expensive. Wind power? The turbines kill lots of birds and they spoil the view. Nuclear power? Are you kidding? What do we do with the waste? We can't be absolutely certain that the waste will be handled in a safe manner. So what energy sources does a good environmentalist prefer? Why wave technology and cold fusion of course. And for those who are smugly pointing out that neither of those technologies are currently available, I just want to say you must be one of those global warming deniers.
There are problems with every kind of energy. If the liberals would recognize that one simple fact, we might be able to move forward and make some choices. And, yes, that means trade offs, something that makes those of the liberal persuasion go crazy. They just don't seem to understand that we are not going to come up with a fuel that produces oxygen as it burns and is in abundant supply.
I don't know if I believe that man made global warming is taking place or not, but if I did believe that I'd certainly be looking hard at the one type of energy that produces zero greenhouse gasses, nuclear. But it turns out that Jane Fonda made a movie 25 years ago about a fictional nuclear disaster and we haven't gotten over it yet. But here is something to ponder if you are concerned about how we would reassure ourselves that nuclear waste in the United States was being handled properly: China has recently opened 8 new nuclear plants, and has another 45 on the drawing board. It appears that nobody in China has ever seen The China Syndrome. So while you can sleep better knowing that Americans will not have to face the question of how to safely handle our nuclear waste, I'm hoping you will now lose a lot of sleep wondering if China, where they just had a devastating earthquake, has built those new plants up to code.
My point is the nuclear plants are going to be built. It's just a matter of who will build them where and who is capable of doing so safely. So from what I see, it looks like we are convinced that the Chinese can do it better than us.
When it comes to formulating a national energy policy, there is nothing that can please them. Oil is downright evil in their book. Coal isn't far behind. Ethanol? It will make food more expensive. Wind power? The turbines kill lots of birds and they spoil the view. Nuclear power? Are you kidding? What do we do with the waste? We can't be absolutely certain that the waste will be handled in a safe manner. So what energy sources does a good environmentalist prefer? Why wave technology and cold fusion of course. And for those who are smugly pointing out that neither of those technologies are currently available, I just want to say you must be one of those global warming deniers.
There are problems with every kind of energy. If the liberals would recognize that one simple fact, we might be able to move forward and make some choices. And, yes, that means trade offs, something that makes those of the liberal persuasion go crazy. They just don't seem to understand that we are not going to come up with a fuel that produces oxygen as it burns and is in abundant supply.
I don't know if I believe that man made global warming is taking place or not, but if I did believe that I'd certainly be looking hard at the one type of energy that produces zero greenhouse gasses, nuclear. But it turns out that Jane Fonda made a movie 25 years ago about a fictional nuclear disaster and we haven't gotten over it yet. But here is something to ponder if you are concerned about how we would reassure ourselves that nuclear waste in the United States was being handled properly: China has recently opened 8 new nuclear plants, and has another 45 on the drawing board. It appears that nobody in China has ever seen The China Syndrome. So while you can sleep better knowing that Americans will not have to face the question of how to safely handle our nuclear waste, I'm hoping you will now lose a lot of sleep wondering if China, where they just had a devastating earthquake, has built those new plants up to code.
My point is the nuclear plants are going to be built. It's just a matter of who will build them where and who is capable of doing so safely. So from what I see, it looks like we are convinced that the Chinese can do it better than us.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Recession, To Be, or Not To Be
On the way into work this morning, I heard the radio news lady tease the upcoming newscast on the hour. I can't recall all the exact words, but the gist of it was that we're certainly in the midst of an economic downturn, "which the administration STILL refuses to call a recession." The tone was of course that this administration is just denying what is obvious to every right thinking Madisonian. It was said as if this is another example of Bush not being in touch with reality.
Since economics is so universally misunderstood, I feel compelled to start with a definition. A recession is defined as having had two straight quarters of negative growth in our economy. Now I know this part requires some lateral thinking, but just hang with me and I'll get you through it. If you read that definition closely, you'll notice that it is in the past tense. That is, the two quarters must have already ended. And I'm hoping you'll agree that in order to accurately record the results from a particular quarter, you must wait for that quarter to end and then collect all the necessary data. So, BY DEFINITION, WE WILL NEVER KNOW THAT WE ARE IN A RECESSION UNTIL WE ARE SIX MONTHS INTO IT.
So, you may say, "But that's just a technical point, we all can see what's going on, we can pretty much guess that a recession is under way, can't we?"
And you'd be right. But you'd still be guessing. But there is an even bigger point as to why it is not a good idea for public officials to speculate thusly. That would be the phenomenon that occurs regularly in economics, the self fullfilling prophecy. It is a fact that the "prevailing wisdom" has a real and immediate effect on the economy. If I can convince a majority of people that the cost of gasoline is going to rise $1 a gallon by next week, you can bet that the price will rise. Commodity speculators would buy up futures contracts and regular folks would simply go top off their tanks. And prices would rise as a result. If I convince them the price will drop, speculators will bet on a price decline and consumers will ride the bus and wait for the lower prices to arrive, which will drive prices down.
I don't have the ability to convince enough people. But public figures such as the President or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve certainly do, and that's why they tend to be very careful about what they say. If the President starts talking about how awful the economy is, he will absolutely make it worse. If the Fed Chairman mentions that he is now buying Euros, you can bet that the dollar will soon be in a freefall.
So just understand, that when ANY President is faced with an economy that is likely in recession, you should never expect for him to offer confirmation or a prediction.It can only make things worse.
Since economics is so universally misunderstood, I feel compelled to start with a definition. A recession is defined as having had two straight quarters of negative growth in our economy. Now I know this part requires some lateral thinking, but just hang with me and I'll get you through it. If you read that definition closely, you'll notice that it is in the past tense. That is, the two quarters must have already ended. And I'm hoping you'll agree that in order to accurately record the results from a particular quarter, you must wait for that quarter to end and then collect all the necessary data. So, BY DEFINITION, WE WILL NEVER KNOW THAT WE ARE IN A RECESSION UNTIL WE ARE SIX MONTHS INTO IT.
So, you may say, "But that's just a technical point, we all can see what's going on, we can pretty much guess that a recession is under way, can't we?"
And you'd be right. But you'd still be guessing. But there is an even bigger point as to why it is not a good idea for public officials to speculate thusly. That would be the phenomenon that occurs regularly in economics, the self fullfilling prophecy. It is a fact that the "prevailing wisdom" has a real and immediate effect on the economy. If I can convince a majority of people that the cost of gasoline is going to rise $1 a gallon by next week, you can bet that the price will rise. Commodity speculators would buy up futures contracts and regular folks would simply go top off their tanks. And prices would rise as a result. If I convince them the price will drop, speculators will bet on a price decline and consumers will ride the bus and wait for the lower prices to arrive, which will drive prices down.
I don't have the ability to convince enough people. But public figures such as the President or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve certainly do, and that's why they tend to be very careful about what they say. If the President starts talking about how awful the economy is, he will absolutely make it worse. If the Fed Chairman mentions that he is now buying Euros, you can bet that the dollar will soon be in a freefall.
So just understand, that when ANY President is faced with an economy that is likely in recession, you should never expect for him to offer confirmation or a prediction.It can only make things worse.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Wooden Stake in Hand
Yes, once again we are poised over the sleeping vampire with a stake in one hand and a mallet in the other. Will she awaken at the last minute and once again cheat death? Well it is Hillary and I won’t make the same mistake and count her out before I see the body. I need to see her feet curl up under the house. I am writing this today (2/13/2008) so that I can be on record as predicting the nastiness that I believe is coming.
Last night Barack Obama spoke here in Madison in front of a packed Kohl Center crowd with the overflow watching from the Nicholas-Johnson Pavilion next door. He took the stage a little late, because, I believe, they were waiting for the official results from the Maryland primary. He was then able to lead off with an announcement that they had just captured their eighth primary/caucus in a row. The experts have been putting the pencil to the scenarios unfolding and their judgment is that she is toast. She is apparently going to concede Wisconsin and Hawaii to Obama and try to make her last stand in Ohio and Texas. The problem with that strategy, they say, is that she is already in a position that says she has to win the remaining contests with at least a 55% to 45% margin. But with each additional primary she loses, that percentage goes up. After she loses in Wisconsin and Hawaii, that percentage goes to 57%. If she then loses the next group (Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota) it goes to 60%. Considering that she lost Virginia 63% to 37%, that’s looks pretty much impossible. He’s got all the momentum, which is even more important in politics than it is in football. He’s got, and is raising more money, and he is having a whirlwind romance with the media. And all of those are good reasons that he’d better double the size of his secret service protection detail.
I’m only half joking when I suggest she’d try to take him out physically. Her preferred method will likely be a sudden revelation about something shady in Obama’s past. They hinted a long time ago that they had a real juicy bit on Barack when they were trying to promote the idea that he can’t beat the Republicans. Of course it was always pitched that they, the Clintons, would never think of releasing that information, but they had no doubt the Republicans would when they thought the time was right. Which implied that would be right after he secures the nomination. See? Then it would be too late to have Hillary rescue the Dems. Clinton surrogates have been whispering for months now that “Well, we all know that there is a certain element in the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black man.” But the problem with that canard is that they never consider that there is also a large element who will never vote for a white woman either. And furthermore, neither of those two groups were ever likely to vote for a liberal Democrat to begin with! So you are really talking about losing votes you never had.
But look, the bottom line is Clinton is losing. And that is not acceptable to Clinton Inc. They may have gotten burned after going negative in South Carolina, but that won’t stop them because going negative is what they know and what they know works. I’m predicting that a “scandalous” issue will surface. It will not come directly from the Clinton camp. They will try to make sure their fingerprints aren’t blatantly on it, but frankly, that’s of secondary concern now. Everybody will suspect it came from them anyway, so they won’t be able to totally avoid any blowback. But they can see that if they don’t bring his train to a screeching halt, and soon, none of this will matter. I think (hope?) that she is not the least bit interested in the VP slot. That would require an eight year wait for her turn and God knows how she’ll be viewed by then. I said a year ago that she’d pick Bill Richardson as her VP, but now I’ve heard that Bill recently ripped Richardson when he wouldn’t endorse Hillary. Supposedly the comment to his one time UN Ambassador and Energy Secretary was “What? Two cabinet appointments weren’t enough?” God I hope that’s a true story. I think Richardson, like the Super Delegates, is waiting to see who comes out on top. In fact, he’d probably be more valuable as Obama’s VP than he would as Hillary’s.
I’m fully expecting to update this post once the scandal breaks.
2/21/08 Update:
She got absolutely trounced in Wisconsin and Hawaii so they uncorked the scandal.
So far the "scandal" has fizzled. About 5 days ago Clinton Inc. fed a story to reporters that Obama was plagarizing his speeches. They showed them clips of a recent Obama speech and then clips from Governor Deval Patrick's (D-Mass.) speech from two years ago using the same language. Oh, and then they denied that they were the source, naturally. It got no traction at all. It makes me think that they really don't have anything on him, or they would have used it. At this point even her most ardent supporters are admitting that she's toast, and are reduced to speculating on the reasons why she is losing. And the parade of negative stories just keep on coming. Lots of stuff about the profligate spending and their mounting finacial woes. But they just can't stop themselves from spinning the story. Check this quote from a Politico story:
" Clinton’s 2007 year-end report showed her owing more than $5 million to vendors ranging from phone bank firms and pollsters to charter airline operators and telephone companies. Her campaign last month dismissed those debts as a matter of bookkeeping. "These are not true debts accruing by (sic) the campaign, but simply unpaid invoices," said spokesman Blake Zeff.
Zeff pointed out the campaign at the end of 2007 had enough money in the bank to pay off its debts (it finished the year with $13 million on hand after subtracting the debt and contributions earmarked for the general election). "Sometimes invoices are not paid immediately because we need additional information for our records, or to verify expenses," said Zeff. "
Mr Zeff should take an elementary accounting class so that he might discover that unpaid invoices are exactly and precisely "true debts accruing to the campaign." But aside from that, does he really expect us to believe that they haven't paid $1,300 to Dunkin' Donuts because they need additional information for their records? Like how many were jelly filled?
Last night Barack Obama spoke here in Madison in front of a packed Kohl Center crowd with the overflow watching from the Nicholas-Johnson Pavilion next door. He took the stage a little late, because, I believe, they were waiting for the official results from the Maryland primary. He was then able to lead off with an announcement that they had just captured their eighth primary/caucus in a row. The experts have been putting the pencil to the scenarios unfolding and their judgment is that she is toast. She is apparently going to concede Wisconsin and Hawaii to Obama and try to make her last stand in Ohio and Texas. The problem with that strategy, they say, is that she is already in a position that says she has to win the remaining contests with at least a 55% to 45% margin. But with each additional primary she loses, that percentage goes up. After she loses in Wisconsin and Hawaii, that percentage goes to 57%. If she then loses the next group (Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota) it goes to 60%. Considering that she lost Virginia 63% to 37%, that’s looks pretty much impossible. He’s got all the momentum, which is even more important in politics than it is in football. He’s got, and is raising more money, and he is having a whirlwind romance with the media. And all of those are good reasons that he’d better double the size of his secret service protection detail.
I’m only half joking when I suggest she’d try to take him out physically. Her preferred method will likely be a sudden revelation about something shady in Obama’s past. They hinted a long time ago that they had a real juicy bit on Barack when they were trying to promote the idea that he can’t beat the Republicans. Of course it was always pitched that they, the Clintons, would never think of releasing that information, but they had no doubt the Republicans would when they thought the time was right. Which implied that would be right after he secures the nomination. See? Then it would be too late to have Hillary rescue the Dems. Clinton surrogates have been whispering for months now that “Well, we all know that there is a certain element in the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black man.” But the problem with that canard is that they never consider that there is also a large element who will never vote for a white woman either. And furthermore, neither of those two groups were ever likely to vote for a liberal Democrat to begin with! So you are really talking about losing votes you never had.
But look, the bottom line is Clinton is losing. And that is not acceptable to Clinton Inc. They may have gotten burned after going negative in South Carolina, but that won’t stop them because going negative is what they know and what they know works. I’m predicting that a “scandalous” issue will surface. It will not come directly from the Clinton camp. They will try to make sure their fingerprints aren’t blatantly on it, but frankly, that’s of secondary concern now. Everybody will suspect it came from them anyway, so they won’t be able to totally avoid any blowback. But they can see that if they don’t bring his train to a screeching halt, and soon, none of this will matter. I think (hope?) that she is not the least bit interested in the VP slot. That would require an eight year wait for her turn and God knows how she’ll be viewed by then. I said a year ago that she’d pick Bill Richardson as her VP, but now I’ve heard that Bill recently ripped Richardson when he wouldn’t endorse Hillary. Supposedly the comment to his one time UN Ambassador and Energy Secretary was “What? Two cabinet appointments weren’t enough?” God I hope that’s a true story. I think Richardson, like the Super Delegates, is waiting to see who comes out on top. In fact, he’d probably be more valuable as Obama’s VP than he would as Hillary’s.
I’m fully expecting to update this post once the scandal breaks.
2/21/08 Update:
She got absolutely trounced in Wisconsin and Hawaii so they uncorked the scandal.
So far the "scandal" has fizzled. About 5 days ago Clinton Inc. fed a story to reporters that Obama was plagarizing his speeches. They showed them clips of a recent Obama speech and then clips from Governor Deval Patrick's (D-Mass.) speech from two years ago using the same language. Oh, and then they denied that they were the source, naturally. It got no traction at all. It makes me think that they really don't have anything on him, or they would have used it. At this point even her most ardent supporters are admitting that she's toast, and are reduced to speculating on the reasons why she is losing. And the parade of negative stories just keep on coming. Lots of stuff about the profligate spending and their mounting finacial woes. But they just can't stop themselves from spinning the story. Check this quote from a Politico story:
" Clinton’s 2007 year-end report showed her owing more than $5 million to vendors ranging from phone bank firms and pollsters to charter airline operators and telephone companies. Her campaign last month dismissed those debts as a matter of bookkeeping. "These are not true debts accruing by (sic) the campaign, but simply unpaid invoices," said spokesman Blake Zeff.
Zeff pointed out the campaign at the end of 2007 had enough money in the bank to pay off its debts (it finished the year with $13 million on hand after subtracting the debt and contributions earmarked for the general election). "Sometimes invoices are not paid immediately because we need additional information for our records, or to verify expenses," said Zeff. "
Mr Zeff should take an elementary accounting class so that he might discover that unpaid invoices are exactly and precisely "true debts accruing to the campaign." But aside from that, does he really expect us to believe that they haven't paid $1,300 to Dunkin' Donuts because they need additional information for their records? Like how many were jelly filled?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Women and Minorities
The joke goes like this. One day God gets fed up with the world and decides that he’s going to end the world and bring about the apocalypse. So, as a courtesy, he calls up the New York Times and tells them what he’s going to do. At first they don’t believe him, but he performs a few miracles and pretty soon they’re convinced they are talking to The Almighty. So the next morning the Times headline was “World to End Today! Women and Minorities to be Hit Hardest.”
Seriously, though, the term “Women and Minorities” is curious because of how the terms seem so intertwined while they are often at odds. Women, for instance, are a majority. They may only be a small one, but by being slightly more than 50%, they are the only group who can lay stake to that claim. Anyway, in yesterdays Wisconsin State Journal there was a story about the Madison Affirmative Action Commission and a study they released on the ethnic and gender make up of city managers. It was oh so typical of the position these kinds of commissions tend to take. It even had the obligatory misleading statistic to back up their findings. I could have told you their findings before reading a word, but sure enough the opening sentence stated that the city “should do more to hire and give equal pay to women and minority managers and top paid professionals...” Nothing surprising there. Later in the article they mention that “women and minority managers and top paid professionals make about 95% of the earnings of men or non-minorities...” (By the way, isn’t that worded in an odd manner? If you are not a woman, a man or a minority, what kind of “non-minority” could you be? Are they double counting white women when it suits there agenda? Are they counting minority men twice?) And they point out that the gap for agency heads is even bigger with the women and minorities only getting 86% as much as men.
But then they toss in the caveat that the “reports don’t factor individual seniority or level, or education into the formulas.” And my question would be, why not? Was that too difficult to do? I don’t think so. Aren’t those factors the most likely to have a dramatic effect on ones’ income in a bureaucracy? Of course they are. By leaving those factors out are you more likely come up with a report that says there is work to be done to close the gap? Obviously yes, unless it turned out that the women and minorities were the ones with the superior education or seniority level, in which case their argument would be even stronger. And that is exactly why I’m pretty sure that was not the case. They would not have missed that opportunity.
But the kicker came in the paragraphs that had the raw numbers:
“Just 34 percent of the city’s 429 top paid professionals are women and 10 percent are minorities, about the same as 2003, the report says.
Yet women represent 41 percent and minorities 8 percent of the available labor pool for those top positions, Dane County and state data show.”
That’s right, minorities are actually 25% over represented, and women are only 20% under represented. The differences are small I agree, and I’m not looking to get 2% of the minorities fired just to even things up. But don’t you think they could at least acknowledge that there isn’t a need to hire more to close a gap that isn’t there? Couldn’t you say we’re doing great on minorities but we have way to go on women? Why can’t these groups be separated since their circumstances are different?
The lefties are always so mind numbed in their quest to support women and minorities they can’t even recognize success. I remember a few years ago there was an article about a teacher at West High School who was something of a curmudgeon. He’d sit his van outside and smoke cigarettes while he graded papers. He complained about the lack of male teachers and thought it was not a good thing that one gender dominated the profession. When they went to the head of the DPI for a comment all she could come up with was that they were trying to hire more women and minorities.
Seriously, though, the term “Women and Minorities” is curious because of how the terms seem so intertwined while they are often at odds. Women, for instance, are a majority. They may only be a small one, but by being slightly more than 50%, they are the only group who can lay stake to that claim. Anyway, in yesterdays Wisconsin State Journal there was a story about the Madison Affirmative Action Commission and a study they released on the ethnic and gender make up of city managers. It was oh so typical of the position these kinds of commissions tend to take. It even had the obligatory misleading statistic to back up their findings. I could have told you their findings before reading a word, but sure enough the opening sentence stated that the city “should do more to hire and give equal pay to women and minority managers and top paid professionals...” Nothing surprising there. Later in the article they mention that “women and minority managers and top paid professionals make about 95% of the earnings of men or non-minorities...” (By the way, isn’t that worded in an odd manner? If you are not a woman, a man or a minority, what kind of “non-minority” could you be? Are they double counting white women when it suits there agenda? Are they counting minority men twice?) And they point out that the gap for agency heads is even bigger with the women and minorities only getting 86% as much as men.
But then they toss in the caveat that the “reports don’t factor individual seniority or level, or education into the formulas.” And my question would be, why not? Was that too difficult to do? I don’t think so. Aren’t those factors the most likely to have a dramatic effect on ones’ income in a bureaucracy? Of course they are. By leaving those factors out are you more likely come up with a report that says there is work to be done to close the gap? Obviously yes, unless it turned out that the women and minorities were the ones with the superior education or seniority level, in which case their argument would be even stronger. And that is exactly why I’m pretty sure that was not the case. They would not have missed that opportunity.
But the kicker came in the paragraphs that had the raw numbers:
“Just 34 percent of the city’s 429 top paid professionals are women and 10 percent are minorities, about the same as 2003, the report says.
Yet women represent 41 percent and minorities 8 percent of the available labor pool for those top positions, Dane County and state data show.”
That’s right, minorities are actually 25% over represented, and women are only 20% under represented. The differences are small I agree, and I’m not looking to get 2% of the minorities fired just to even things up. But don’t you think they could at least acknowledge that there isn’t a need to hire more to close a gap that isn’t there? Couldn’t you say we’re doing great on minorities but we have way to go on women? Why can’t these groups be separated since their circumstances are different?
The lefties are always so mind numbed in their quest to support women and minorities they can’t even recognize success. I remember a few years ago there was an article about a teacher at West High School who was something of a curmudgeon. He’d sit his van outside and smoke cigarettes while he graded papers. He complained about the lack of male teachers and thought it was not a good thing that one gender dominated the profession. When they went to the head of the DPI for a comment all she could come up with was that they were trying to hire more women and minorities.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Just Quotes
Today's posting will consist solely of two quotes and a news item.
Quote #1
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
-- T. S. Eliot
Quote #2
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis
News Item
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans
Quote #1
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
-- T. S. Eliot
Quote #2
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis
News Item
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans
Friday, February 1, 2008
More Carbon Nuetral Nonsense
Today I heard a radio spot from Madison Gas and Electric. They are now offering a program where they claim that if you send them a little more money each month ("$6 for the average home") that they will see to it that 100% of the carbon your electricity produces will be 'offset." Does anybody actually believe this? Considering that my average energy bill is around $300 per month, they are saying that for a measley 2% more they can totally eliminate my carbon footprint. So why don't they just go ahead and do it and raise my rates 2%? Even the Citizens Utility Board would buy in to that. Certainly a 2% increase would br worth ending the "dire" threat of global warming. It would stop it instantly. Even conservatives like me would approve of it so we wouldn't have to keep hearing all that idiotic whinning about how we 're going to have to kill the economy in order to save the planet. And they'd have to stop giving Al Gore major awards (The only one he hasn't bagged yet is a Tony.)
My guess as to why this is being ignored is that most people instinctively know that you probably can't offset the carbon produced by $300 worth of electricity and gas with $6, no matter what you do with it.
My guess as to why this is being ignored is that most people instinctively know that you probably can't offset the carbon produced by $300 worth of electricity and gas with $6, no matter what you do with it.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Got a Lot of 'splainin' to do
Well, OK, maybe I was a little premature in thinking that Hillary was history. The day after I wrote that, the polls turned out to be incredibly wrong, and I mean Dewey-defeats-Truman kind of wrong. There was not a single poll saying she was going to win. A few had her losing by 2 or 3 points, but most had Obama by 10 to 12 points. She won by 2-3 points. The pollsters spent a little time analyzing it, but all they could come up with were theories about late breaking trends, Hillary crying and folks changing their minds in the voting booth. Interestingly, Dennis Kuccinich thought the results were strange enough to ask for a recount. Apparently the difference in machine counted totals versus hand counted ones made him suspicious. I have always said the voter “fraud” of 2000 and 2004 was a paranoid fantasy of the screwball left, and I’m sure this is too, but if anybody would actually stoop to that, it would be the Clintons.
But now what was looking like a cake walk has suddenly become interesting and is being bitterly contested. The Clintons have chosen to attack Obama through surrogates, that much is clear. They realize that she looks bad when attacking the first legitimate black candidate for President, so we are now seeing others taking on Obama on her behalf. Recently, I’ve seen hit pieces by the likes of hubby Bill, Barney Frank (his sister heads up Hillary’s campaign), James Schlesinger (Arthur Jr.’s son), Robert Johnson (Chairman of BET) and Andrew Young. But it’s turning out to be a lot trickier than they thought. Every cheap shot now has to be accompanied by a lengthy and tortured explanation because it seems blacks aren’t exactly down with this strategy.
The Clintons seem to think that the drug storyline is the one that should work best. I say that because despite the backlash that occurred when her campaign chair in New Hampshire tried it out and had to resign, they tried it again this weekend! This time it was BET founder Robert L. Johnson. Perhaps they thought that if it came from another black man, it would be received differently. It wasn’t. Here is the exact quote:
“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved.”
He then also made some disparaging remarks comparing Obama to the Sidney Poitier character in “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner.” But the best part was the convoluted spin that he had to try when the predictable shit hit the fan. Here is what he had to say a few hours later:
“My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect. When Hillary Clinton was in her twenties she worked to provide protections for abused and battered children and helped ensure that children with disabilities could attend public school.
That results oriented leadership — even as a young person — is the reason I am supporting Hillary Clinton.”
Of course nobody is buying it. Obama’s campaign rightly called it tortured and pointed out that this spin doesn’t fit the quote. But it’s merely one of the cases of backtracking that her campaign has had to do. Over the weekend Bill and Hillary both were everywhere trying to spin his “fairy tale” comment. And wouldn’t you just know it, we all got that one wrong too. You see we just weren’t paying close enough attention and aren’t smart enough to understand what Bill says in plain English. We all know Bush is illiterate and can’t be understood in any language, especially English. But Bill is such a master of the spoken word that a two minute monologue could take days to explain properly. You see it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Bill & Hill spent the weekend ‘splainin’ fairy tales and their historical revisions on the life of Martin Luther King.
Now, to be fair (not that I feel any compulsion to be with the Clintons) some of these remarks came from people just trying to “help.” Like the supporter who introduced Hillary with an observation that while JFK had started Civil Rights legislation, it was LBJ who saw it through because JFK was assassinated. People were wondering if he was suggesting that Obama was going to be killed. Personally, I think the one that will have legs in this campaign was Hillary’s remark in Vegas. While trying to peel away Hispanics from the union endorsement that Obama received, a guy said his wife was in the country illegally. To rousing applause Hillary said “No woman is illegal.” Really? What about men? Is nobody illegal?
UPDATE: The Clintons were called on the drug reference, but have decided that they will accept Johnson's explanation and not demand that he step down. And they have obviously taken steps to insure that even the mention of illegal drugs by their campaign will not be tolerated. They even sent the head of the campaign, Mark Penn, on to Hardball to make this point perfectly clear. Here is what he said:
“Well, I think we've made clear that the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising.”
See? Like he said, they will not be talking about COCAINE use anymore at all. In fact, they think it is a shame that the subject of COCAINE use, and possibly COCAINE sales, were ever even brought up. But if somebody were to bring up COCAINE, it certainly wouldn't be us. Maybe those other guys over at the Edwards campaign said COCAINE, but nobody over here said it. Outloud. On TV. Not us. We don't want to run that kind of campaign, what you think we are a bunch of CRACKHEADS?
But now what was looking like a cake walk has suddenly become interesting and is being bitterly contested. The Clintons have chosen to attack Obama through surrogates, that much is clear. They realize that she looks bad when attacking the first legitimate black candidate for President, so we are now seeing others taking on Obama on her behalf. Recently, I’ve seen hit pieces by the likes of hubby Bill, Barney Frank (his sister heads up Hillary’s campaign), James Schlesinger (Arthur Jr.’s son), Robert Johnson (Chairman of BET) and Andrew Young. But it’s turning out to be a lot trickier than they thought. Every cheap shot now has to be accompanied by a lengthy and tortured explanation because it seems blacks aren’t exactly down with this strategy.
The Clintons seem to think that the drug storyline is the one that should work best. I say that because despite the backlash that occurred when her campaign chair in New Hampshire tried it out and had to resign, they tried it again this weekend! This time it was BET founder Robert L. Johnson. Perhaps they thought that if it came from another black man, it would be received differently. It wasn’t. Here is the exact quote:
“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved.”
He then also made some disparaging remarks comparing Obama to the Sidney Poitier character in “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner.” But the best part was the convoluted spin that he had to try when the predictable shit hit the fan. Here is what he had to say a few hours later:
“My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect. When Hillary Clinton was in her twenties she worked to provide protections for abused and battered children and helped ensure that children with disabilities could attend public school.
That results oriented leadership — even as a young person — is the reason I am supporting Hillary Clinton.”
Of course nobody is buying it. Obama’s campaign rightly called it tortured and pointed out that this spin doesn’t fit the quote. But it’s merely one of the cases of backtracking that her campaign has had to do. Over the weekend Bill and Hillary both were everywhere trying to spin his “fairy tale” comment. And wouldn’t you just know it, we all got that one wrong too. You see we just weren’t paying close enough attention and aren’t smart enough to understand what Bill says in plain English. We all know Bush is illiterate and can’t be understood in any language, especially English. But Bill is such a master of the spoken word that a two minute monologue could take days to explain properly. You see it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Bill & Hill spent the weekend ‘splainin’ fairy tales and their historical revisions on the life of Martin Luther King.
Now, to be fair (not that I feel any compulsion to be with the Clintons) some of these remarks came from people just trying to “help.” Like the supporter who introduced Hillary with an observation that while JFK had started Civil Rights legislation, it was LBJ who saw it through because JFK was assassinated. People were wondering if he was suggesting that Obama was going to be killed. Personally, I think the one that will have legs in this campaign was Hillary’s remark in Vegas. While trying to peel away Hispanics from the union endorsement that Obama received, a guy said his wife was in the country illegally. To rousing applause Hillary said “No woman is illegal.” Really? What about men? Is nobody illegal?
UPDATE: The Clintons were called on the drug reference, but have decided that they will accept Johnson's explanation and not demand that he step down. And they have obviously taken steps to insure that even the mention of illegal drugs by their campaign will not be tolerated. They even sent the head of the campaign, Mark Penn, on to Hardball to make this point perfectly clear. Here is what he said:
“Well, I think we've made clear that the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising.”
See? Like he said, they will not be talking about COCAINE use anymore at all. In fact, they think it is a shame that the subject of COCAINE use, and possibly COCAINE sales, were ever even brought up. But if somebody were to bring up COCAINE, it certainly wouldn't be us. Maybe those other guys over at the Edwards campaign said COCAINE, but nobody over here said it. Outloud. On TV. Not us. We don't want to run that kind of campaign, what you think we are a bunch of CRACKHEADS?
Monday, January 7, 2008
Schadenfreude
It just doesn’t get any better than this.
I have been saying, ever since he left office, that Bill Clinton governed about as close to conservative (or at least close to the center) as anybody of my persuasion could have hoped for. There is no doubt that any other Democrat would have made moves that were far more liberal. And you’d think that would please me, or at least offer some consolation on having a Democrat in the White House. But the problem I always had with Bill is that he wasn’t doing anything because he thought it was the right thing to do. He was doing it because it would help his approval ratings and help get him re-elected.
Dick Morris was his political guru right up until the he appeared on the cover of Newsweek one week for being Clinton’s Sherpa, leading him through the political minefields, and then on the cover of The National Enquirer the next for sucking the toes of a hooker and sharing White House secrets with her. Morris had, up until then, advised mostly conservatives. And he was much despised in the Clinton White House for constantly pulling Bill to the right on the positions he would take. Books and columns written later bear this out. Morris himself has written about how Bill would come ask him if he could take a certain position on a matter. Morris would then do a poll and conduct a focus group and then report back. Clinton took his advice, religiously and even continued consulting with him, secretly, after he was forced out. Policy was being determined by polls and focus groups.
That is what really bothered me about Bill, and what I also fully expected to get from the “inevitable” election of Hillary. And it’s what the liberals hate about her too! Arianna Huffington, the late Molly Ivins and just about any true lefty felt the same way about her triangulating.
So, what’s the schadenfreude all about? Well 3 days ago Hillary came in third in the Iowa Caucus. Now the polls show her more than ten points behind Obama in New Hampshire, which has it’s primary tomorrow and she’s now behind IN THE NATIONAL POLLS! And Drudge has a story that she’s contemplating dropping out so as not to harm the “Clinton brand” any further.
Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, one of the Clinton’s Hollywood benefactors, once claimed that “When they bury Bill and Hillary, each one of them will be lying next to an ex-President.” Looks like she was only half right.
I have been saying, ever since he left office, that Bill Clinton governed about as close to conservative (or at least close to the center) as anybody of my persuasion could have hoped for. There is no doubt that any other Democrat would have made moves that were far more liberal. And you’d think that would please me, or at least offer some consolation on having a Democrat in the White House. But the problem I always had with Bill is that he wasn’t doing anything because he thought it was the right thing to do. He was doing it because it would help his approval ratings and help get him re-elected.
Dick Morris was his political guru right up until the he appeared on the cover of Newsweek one week for being Clinton’s Sherpa, leading him through the political minefields, and then on the cover of The National Enquirer the next for sucking the toes of a hooker and sharing White House secrets with her. Morris had, up until then, advised mostly conservatives. And he was much despised in the Clinton White House for constantly pulling Bill to the right on the positions he would take. Books and columns written later bear this out. Morris himself has written about how Bill would come ask him if he could take a certain position on a matter. Morris would then do a poll and conduct a focus group and then report back. Clinton took his advice, religiously and even continued consulting with him, secretly, after he was forced out. Policy was being determined by polls and focus groups.
That is what really bothered me about Bill, and what I also fully expected to get from the “inevitable” election of Hillary. And it’s what the liberals hate about her too! Arianna Huffington, the late Molly Ivins and just about any true lefty felt the same way about her triangulating.
So, what’s the schadenfreude all about? Well 3 days ago Hillary came in third in the Iowa Caucus. Now the polls show her more than ten points behind Obama in New Hampshire, which has it’s primary tomorrow and she’s now behind IN THE NATIONAL POLLS! And Drudge has a story that she’s contemplating dropping out so as not to harm the “Clinton brand” any further.
Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, one of the Clinton’s Hollywood benefactors, once claimed that “When they bury Bill and Hillary, each one of them will be lying next to an ex-President.” Looks like she was only half right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)