Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Education in America: Two Stories
Both of these stories courtesy of Instapundit, who provided the links.
The first involves that LA school where two of the teachers were recently arrested for despicable acts of sexual abuse perpetrated on very young students. Mark Berndt allegedly fed his students his semen, blindfolded them and placed cockroaches on their hands and faces--his students being kids between the ages of 6 and 10--and had been the subject of prior complaints by parents.going back to at least 2008 Martin Bernard Springer taught second grade and is accused of fondling two girls, both about 7 years old.The principal of another LAUSD school sent home a message with her students that contained this astounding paragraph:
The other story is about rampant nannyism in North Carolina. There, a preschooler's homemade lunch consisting of a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, apple juice and chips was trashed and the little girl was given a cafeteria lunch consisting of (referencing the photo in the linked article) five chicken nuggets, a muffin of some kind, raw vegetables with some kind of white dressing, corn, chocolate milk (can't determine whether it's reduced fat) and a slice of watermelon. According to the story, the child ate three of the chicken nuggets and the rest of the lunch was trashed.
Now, putting aside the issue of whether it's a proper function of the federal government to micromanage the content of school lunches, it seems to me at first glance that the federally-approved lunch was way too much food for a pre-K kid. Not good in this time of a national obesity epidemic. Tsk, tsk. The more important issue in my mind is what right does the government have, absent criminal abuse, to interfere with the relationship between this little girl and her mother, whether on the subject of school lunches or anything else? This is overreach of the most egregious kind, and a waste of taxpayer money to boot.
And the educational establishment wonders why more and more people are opting for home-schooling or private schools?
I fear we're getting closer and closer to "torches and pitchforks", but it won't be against Wall Street.
(0) comments
The first involves that LA school where two of the teachers were recently arrested for despicable acts of sexual abuse perpetrated on very young students. Mark Berndt allegedly fed his students his semen, blindfolded them and placed cockroaches on their hands and faces--his students being kids between the ages of 6 and 10--and had been the subject of prior complaints by parents.going back to at least 2008 Martin Bernard Springer taught second grade and is accused of fondling two girls, both about 7 years old.The principal of another LAUSD school sent home a message with her students that contained this astounding paragraph:
As I reflect on the disturbing occurrences at Miramonte, I am more confused over the fact that the children did not report. How is it that the children did not believe that what the teacher was doing to them was wrong? How could being blindfolded, placed in a closet, and having cockroaches placed on them not be wrong? I believe that the teachers involved in these heinous acts preyed on the most vulnerable of the children; children of poverty, children of abuse, children with uninvolved parents, and children of undocumented parents.Just to make it clear what the author of the piece--and I--find so egregious, I've highlighted the offending words. This principal is blaming the students and their parents for allowing these acts to occur.
The other story is about rampant nannyism in North Carolina. There, a preschooler's homemade lunch consisting of a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, apple juice and chips was trashed and the little girl was given a cafeteria lunch consisting of (referencing the photo in the linked article) five chicken nuggets, a muffin of some kind, raw vegetables with some kind of white dressing, corn, chocolate milk (can't determine whether it's reduced fat) and a slice of watermelon. According to the story, the child ate three of the chicken nuggets and the rest of the lunch was trashed.
Now, putting aside the issue of whether it's a proper function of the federal government to micromanage the content of school lunches, it seems to me at first glance that the federally-approved lunch was way too much food for a pre-K kid. Not good in this time of a national obesity epidemic. Tsk, tsk. The more important issue in my mind is what right does the government have, absent criminal abuse, to interfere with the relationship between this little girl and her mother, whether on the subject of school lunches or anything else? This is overreach of the most egregious kind, and a waste of taxpayer money to boot.
And the educational establishment wonders why more and more people are opting for home-schooling or private schools?
I fear we're getting closer and closer to "torches and pitchforks", but it won't be against Wall Street.
Labels: Education, government, schools
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Immutable Laws
Reading the papers and online news about what's going on in Europe, China, Washington, New York, California and other places around the world, it occurs to me that there are several types of laws that no politician, legislature, dictator or elected leader, however powerful, can change, affect or do anything whatsoever about, except possibly to delay the inevitable in some limited circumstances. Among these are the laws of mathematics, the laws of physics, the laws of economics and the law of unintended consequences with its famous corollary, Murphy's Law.
Any action taken contrary to or in disregard of any of these laws is doomed to failure. Sometimes that failure is catastrophic. For example, I'm no expert but it seems what is going on in the Eurozone is a prime candidate for such a catastrophe.
The unfortunate part is that the politicians, etc., who take such actions usually either are not around to experience the consequences of their hubris or exempt themselves from those consequences, and the masses of people affected by those actions usually suffer out of all proportion to their behavior.
In this election season in the United States, we would do well to ascertain who among the candidates at all levels (including incumbents) are most and least likely to ignore or violate those immutable laws, and vote accordingly.
Labels: Economics, government, Law, politicians
Friday, August 05, 2011
Wake Up Call!
The news broke about 15 minutes ago that S&P downgraded US Government debt to AA+ from AAA. This is reportedly the first credit downgrade in US history. If there is any better evidence that Obama's economic policy (if it could be called a "policy") didn't work and isn't working, and if there is any better evidence that our political class doesn't have a clue, I can't imagine what it might be. Congratulations Pres. O, former Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, Pres. Bush, and all the Appropriators. Thank you very much. May all of you lose your next election and be permanently barred (pursuant to Sen. Kerry's sage advice, see below) from appearing or speaking on, or being quoted by, or interviewed in, any media whatsoever.
I have a modest proposal for what a modified economic policy should be: GET THE F*@K OUT OF THE WAY!!!!
(0) comments
I have a modest proposal for what a modified economic policy should be: GET THE F*@K OUT OF THE WAY!!!!
Labels: Debt, Economics, Economy, Finance, government, Leadership, Obama, politicians, Recession
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
The Debt "Deal" II
So, all over the media yesterday and this morning are comments, headlines and assertions that the "Tea Party won", that it "permanently changed the conversation" and that "from now on there'll never be an increase in the debt limit that doesn't involve deficit reduction".
OK, so how come it doesn't feel like the powers of light won?
How come both Obama and Chuckie Schumer both stated yesterday that now we've put the debt limit fight behind us, we can get back to the business of "investing" in new infrastructure, training, education, etc. ad nauseam. Doesn't sound like the conversation changed much to me.
(0) comments
OK, so how come it doesn't feel like the powers of light won?
How come both Obama and Chuckie Schumer both stated yesterday that now we've put the debt limit fight behind us, we can get back to the business of "investing" in new infrastructure, training, education, etc. ad nauseam. Doesn't sound like the conversation changed much to me.
Labels: Debt, Deficit, Democrats, Federal budget, government, Obama, Tea Party
Monday, August 01, 2011
The Debt "Deal"
A friend of mine used to say, "When someone's getting a "deal", someone's getting dealt." As has become habitual during the Obama regime, big, consequential legislation is being promoted without anyone really knowing what's in it. How has Obamacare worked out so far, hmmmm? Like Ann Althouse, I am not at all sure that the "deal" is as great for the conservatives (i.e., the forces of light) as the NYT, WaPo, Harry Reid, Sheila Jackson Lee and others of their persuasion (i.e., the forces of darkness) say it is--particularly in light of this item on Fox News Online.
I'm getting a baaaad feeling about this.
(0) comments
I'm getting a baaaad feeling about this.
Labels: Congress, Debt, Deficit, government, politics, Taxes
Friday, July 08, 2011
Epic Economic Fail
The President's (and Pelosi's and Reid's) "stimulus" program and associated policies have failed miserably. Witness today's news on jobs created and unemployment rate for June. Anybody who denies that the President's policies have failed is either insane or an idiot. The whole thing has been a Keynesian wet dream, and it has produced what one might expect from a wet dream--a sticky mess.
Congress MUST act now to reduce government spending, reduce the size of government and ease overly restrictive regulations and policies (the Canadian pipeline being only one case in point) in order to give the private sector some confidence that whatever they create won't be effectively confiscated. Any politician of any party who votes to kick the can down the road or votes in favor of anything that will increase the budget deficit (i.e., increase the national debt) should be turned out of office at the earliest opportunity. And by the way, the use of the term "spending cut" to describe a reduction in the increase in spending should be cause for tarring and feathering.
On its part, the public MUST wean itself from sucking at the federal teat and each person has to take steps to ensure his own economic well-being, as best he can. The alternative is turning the world's largest economy into mega-Greece, complete with riots in the streets.
If the people of this country spent as much time and effort focusing on the problems we face and studying the potential solutions as we have on the Casey Anthony trial, I'd feel a lot better about our future prospects. As it is, it feels more like we're on a party barge floating downstream on the Niagara River, and hardly anyone's listening to the roar of the falls.
(0) comments
Congress MUST act now to reduce government spending, reduce the size of government and ease overly restrictive regulations and policies (the Canadian pipeline being only one case in point) in order to give the private sector some confidence that whatever they create won't be effectively confiscated. Any politician of any party who votes to kick the can down the road or votes in favor of anything that will increase the budget deficit (i.e., increase the national debt) should be turned out of office at the earliest opportunity. And by the way, the use of the term "spending cut" to describe a reduction in the increase in spending should be cause for tarring and feathering.
On its part, the public MUST wean itself from sucking at the federal teat and each person has to take steps to ensure his own economic well-being, as best he can. The alternative is turning the world's largest economy into mega-Greece, complete with riots in the streets.
If the people of this country spent as much time and effort focusing on the problems we face and studying the potential solutions as we have on the Casey Anthony trial, I'd feel a lot better about our future prospects. As it is, it feels more like we're on a party barge floating downstream on the Niagara River, and hardly anyone's listening to the roar of the falls.
Labels: Congress, Deficit, Economy, Federal budget, Financial crisis, government, Obama, Pelosi, Recession, Regulation, Reid, Stimulus, Unemployment
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Hope and Change
I've repeatedly said in the past that I think Obama wants to turn the United States into pre-Thatcher UK, and once I even agreed that he wants to turn the US into Haiti. But hopenchange continues unabated, and I am coming around to the opinion that he wants to turn the whole country into Detroit, by doing stuff like this.
(0) comments
Labels: Deficit, Detroit, government, Michigan, Obama, UK
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Throw the President Under The Bus
Let's face it, friends, we've elected as our President a narcissistic incompetent boob who makes Hamlet look decisive, and who's giving socialism a bad name. The man couldn't lead himself into a mens room, and his foreign policy consists of emboldening our enemies while simultaneously alienating our allies. He has made himself a national liability, and as Glenn Reynolds has repeatedly said, a reprise of the Carter years is now the best case scenario for the Obama administration.
If the Democrats in Congress are smart, they'll throw him under the bus and start working with the Repubs to solve the budget, debt and policy problems that are rapidly heading toward becoming an existential threat to our Republic. (Not that I have any hope for the likes of Reid and Pelosi.) This process has to be bipartisan, because if it's not, neither side will have the political courage to push what needs to be done to bring spending under control and allow the economy to reenergize itself. A cheap way to start would be to kill Cap 'n' Tax once and for all, get rid of Elizabeth Warren and her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and generally get out of the business of regulating everything at the Federal level. States need to have more power to manage their own affairs, because most of them are on the verge of going broke.
In order to have a zero-debt national budget, spending would have to be cut by at least 30 percent, and if you believe the Wikipedia article, more like 40 percent in FY 2012. That's on the order of a $1.5 trillion reduction in spending, yet Congress is wasting time and perfectly good oxygen arguing over whether to cut $6 billion (Dems) or $60 billion (Repubs) from spending in the current fiscal year. Let's use $50 billion as a compromise--let's see, that's 5 followed by 10 zeros divided by 15 followed by 11 zeros--canceling zeros ... 5 over 150 equals 3 and 1/3 percent, or .0333 of what needs to be cut in order to stop the national debt from growing. And Harry Reid and his buddies talk about "draconian" cuts proposed by the Repubs. Idiots! We need to get rid of whole departments!
Not that there's a shortage of idiocy floating around. The MSM won't report this because they're ideologically in bed with the Reids and Pelosis of the world, so voters, who have a vague idea that we have too much debt and are adding to it at the rate of some $4 billion a day, still don't grasp either the magnitude of the problem or how close we are to crashing. I know austerity is painful, but not as painful as a total fiscal collapse of the country.
All I can say is that our political class better start growing some cojones or we'll all be dumpster diving for dinner before we know it, because the crash will make the Great Depression seem like a kindergarten picnic.
(0) comments
If the Democrats in Congress are smart, they'll throw him under the bus and start working with the Repubs to solve the budget, debt and policy problems that are rapidly heading toward becoming an existential threat to our Republic. (Not that I have any hope for the likes of Reid and Pelosi.) This process has to be bipartisan, because if it's not, neither side will have the political courage to push what needs to be done to bring spending under control and allow the economy to reenergize itself. A cheap way to start would be to kill Cap 'n' Tax once and for all, get rid of Elizabeth Warren and her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and generally get out of the business of regulating everything at the Federal level. States need to have more power to manage their own affairs, because most of them are on the verge of going broke.
In order to have a zero-debt national budget, spending would have to be cut by at least 30 percent, and if you believe the Wikipedia article, more like 40 percent in FY 2012. That's on the order of a $1.5 trillion reduction in spending, yet Congress is wasting time and perfectly good oxygen arguing over whether to cut $6 billion (Dems) or $60 billion (Repubs) from spending in the current fiscal year. Let's use $50 billion as a compromise--let's see, that's 5 followed by 10 zeros divided by 15 followed by 11 zeros--canceling zeros ... 5 over 150 equals 3 and 1/3 percent, or .0333 of what needs to be cut in order to stop the national debt from growing. And Harry Reid and his buddies talk about "draconian" cuts proposed by the Repubs. Idiots! We need to get rid of whole departments!
Not that there's a shortage of idiocy floating around. The MSM won't report this because they're ideologically in bed with the Reids and Pelosis of the world, so voters, who have a vague idea that we have too much debt and are adding to it at the rate of some $4 billion a day, still don't grasp either the magnitude of the problem or how close we are to crashing. I know austerity is painful, but not as painful as a total fiscal collapse of the country.
All I can say is that our political class better start growing some cojones or we'll all be dumpster diving for dinner before we know it, because the crash will make the Great Depression seem like a kindergarten picnic.
Labels: Congress, Debt, Deficit, Democrats, Federal budget, government, Media inanity, Obama, Pelosi, politicians, politics, Reid, Republicans
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Civility, Violent and Eliminationalist Rhetoric
The next time some dumbass lefty tries to tell you that the Tea Party engages in uncivil and violence-promoting rhetoric and the Left does not, answer with one word: Madison. OK, so the Wisconsin GOP made the video--do you really think the whole thing was CGI? Hmmmm?
(0) comments
Labels: Democrats, Financial Reform, government, Political correctness, politicians, politics, the Left
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Recovery Summer?
The image to the left (click to enlarge), which appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, 31 August as part of this story (might be behind a subscription firewall), is definitely worth a thousand words.
I'm no economist, but what these graphs say to me is, the recovery is anemic and might be headed for a "double dip", the stimulus didn't work, and the Administration and its allies in Congress have both made the recession worse and are killing economic recovery as a result of excessive and irresponsible debt and tax measures.
We MUST get rid of those people in November. If we don't, look at the videos of recent events in Greece--that's what our cities will look like in another year.
Labels: Congress, Debt, Deficit, Democrats, Economics, Economy, government, Obama, Recession, Recovery, Stimulus, Tax policy
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Obama's Speeches
I watched the signing of the Finance Reform bill a little while ago. Sad.
What's sadder (because I weep for my country that it has chosen Mr. Obama to be President), is that every time I hear Obama speak, I am reminded of the old joke about the Three Big Lies.
For those of you who were born yesterday, the Three Big Lies are:
(0) comments
What's sadder (because I weep for my country that it has chosen Mr. Obama to be President), is that every time I hear Obama speak, I am reminded of the old joke about the Three Big Lies.
For those of you who were born yesterday, the Three Big Lies are:
"This won't hurt a bit."How much damage can this guy, along with his allies Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Dems in Congress, do before he's turned out of office? I don't want to find out, because I suspect that it will involve our Constitution being rendered a dead letter.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
"Of course I'll respect you in the morning." (or some variation on that theme)
Labels: Constitution, Democrats, Financial Reform, government, Humor, Obama, Pelosi, Reid
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Musings
It seems to me that one of the reasons people are getting angry at Pres. Obama for not doing more, earlier about the Gulf oil disaster is that he has spent his presidency from day one trying to convince people that government is the source of all that is good. In fact, he seemed to be trying to make government a god--omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. Now, faced with the oil spill, government, in particular his government, is clueless, largely absent and impotent.
That's bad for Obama, but probably good in the long run for the country because it might shock people out of their foolish belief that the government will protect and save them.
The United States, which is exceptional in the world for more reasons than I could list here, became what it is largely because its people didn't stand around waiting for the king, or czar, or prince-bishop or emperor to tell them what to do. They faced their problems and hardships, dealt with them as best they could and eventually conquered them by ingenuity and hard work, all without intervention by the government. That all started to change around the 1800s but the foundation was sound and the nation continued to benefit from this history.
Sure, mistakes were made, but show me a centralized government anywhere else in the world that has made fewer mistakes over the same period of time. If you can do it, maybe we'll all learn something, but I suspect that if such a government exists, if you dig into the history you'll find that its success came from empowering the individual, or at least the local community to do what was best for itself.
(0) comments
That's bad for Obama, but probably good in the long run for the country because it might shock people out of their foolish belief that the government will protect and save them.
The United States, which is exceptional in the world for more reasons than I could list here, became what it is largely because its people didn't stand around waiting for the king, or czar, or prince-bishop or emperor to tell them what to do. They faced their problems and hardships, dealt with them as best they could and eventually conquered them by ingenuity and hard work, all without intervention by the government. That all started to change around the 1800s but the foundation was sound and the nation continued to benefit from this history.
Sure, mistakes were made, but show me a centralized government anywhere else in the world that has made fewer mistakes over the same period of time. If you can do it, maybe we'll all learn something, but I suspect that if such a government exists, if you dig into the history you'll find that its success came from empowering the individual, or at least the local community to do what was best for itself.
Labels: government, Gulf oil spill, Obama, politics
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
FI Award #2
FI Award* number two goes to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), former US Navy Admiral and contender for the Senate seat to be vacated by "true blue" Arlen Specter at the end of the current term, for his stellar performance on Meet the Press" last Sunday.
Several months ago, Sestak revealed that someone in the Obama White House had offered him a job, intimating the offer was conditional on Sestak withdrawing from the Dem. primary against the aforementioned exemplar of honorable behavior, Sen. Specter. When asked for clarification, Sestak has consistently stonewalled. Any politician worth his stripes would have realized that it is now time to shut up, but on Sunday, Sestak brought the old news back to the front burner by repeating his claim before stonewalling again. But don't rely on that right wing tool Fox News--the LA Times has a lot to say about it as well (in an unexpectedly snarky piece), and even presents a transcript of the conversation. That Sestak permitted this issue to bubble up again suggests that he just might not be ready for prime time, and that's why he's FI #2.
The White House, of course, has joined Sestak in the "see no evil, hear no evil" club (too late for "speak no evil"). According to WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Obama's answer to "Baghdad Bob," "[L]awyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And nothing inappropriate happened." Hmmm. Fox, meet henhouse.
By the way, it is a crime under 18 USC Sec. 600 for a government official to offer a job to a candidate to induce that candidate to withdraw from an election. Here's the entire text of that law:
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is trying to get to the bottom of this, but I don't expect he'll get anywhere unless some "deep throat" comes forward, or unless the White House offers up some lamb for sacrifice.
Hope and Change!
* For explanation of the FI Award, go here.
(0) comments
Several months ago, Sestak revealed that someone in the Obama White House had offered him a job, intimating the offer was conditional on Sestak withdrawing from the Dem. primary against the aforementioned exemplar of honorable behavior, Sen. Specter. When asked for clarification, Sestak has consistently stonewalled. Any politician worth his stripes would have realized that it is now time to shut up, but on Sunday, Sestak brought the old news back to the front burner by repeating his claim before stonewalling again. But don't rely on that right wing tool Fox News--the LA Times has a lot to say about it as well (in an unexpectedly snarky piece), and even presents a transcript of the conversation. That Sestak permitted this issue to bubble up again suggests that he just might not be ready for prime time, and that's why he's FI #2.
The White House, of course, has joined Sestak in the "see no evil, hear no evil" club (too late for "speak no evil"). According to WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Obama's answer to "Baghdad Bob," "[L]awyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And nothing inappropriate happened." Hmmm. Fox, meet henhouse.
By the way, it is a crime under 18 USC Sec. 600 for a government official to offer a job to a candidate to induce that candidate to withdraw from an election. Here's the entire text of that law:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is trying to get to the bottom of this, but I don't expect he'll get anywhere unless some "deep throat" comes forward, or unless the White House offers up some lamb for sacrifice.
Hope and Change!
* For explanation of the FI Award, go here.
Labels: Democrats, Election, government, politics
Friday, February 05, 2010
Fisking the Obama Budget Message
Keith Hennessey dismantles President Obama's whiny budget message, and provides rational and well-reasoned talking points for anyone who has to argue with liberals on the subject. It's a must-read.
(0) comments
Labels: Economics, Economy, Federal budget, Finance, government, Obama, Tax policy
Monday, December 28, 2009
What the Christmas Bomber Hath Wrought
Randy Barnett has helpfully posted the latest security directive issued by the TSA here.
I wonder what this is going to do to passenger air traffic between the US and elsewhere. And what it's going to do to the airlines' earnings.
Here's what CNNMoney.com is reporting at this writing. All the airlines are down between roughly 2% and 5.4% excepting, interestingly, Northwest.
(0) comments
I wonder what this is going to do to passenger air traffic between the US and elsewhere. And what it's going to do to the airlines' earnings.
Here's what CNNMoney.com is reporting at this writing. All the airlines are down between roughly 2% and 5.4% excepting, interestingly, Northwest.
Labels: Airlines, bombings, government, Regulation, Terrorism
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Joe Izuzu and Weasels
A couple days ago I was watching Mr. Obama expound on the necessity for the Senate to pass the abomination known as health care reform. He went on and on about how the bill would lower costs and improve health care for all Americans. Just then it hit me--Barack Obama is Joe Isuzu!
I mean, just think about it. He said he didn't want to take over the banking industry and here he is setting salary caps and doing other things that have the banks scrambling to get out from under TARP.
He said he had no interest in running the auto companies, and here we have GM and Chrysler as subsidiaries of the US Treasury.
He said Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the good war, and here we are, with Obama following essentially the Bush plan for Iraq (which I happen to think is a good thing, but that's not the point); and in Afghanistan he announced a strategy back in what, February? He appointed his hand-picked general, an expert in counterinsurgency, and told him to go slay the dragon. Five or six months later the general came back to him and said he needed 40,000 additional troops to carry out the mission. Obama then took 3 months to re-evaluate the mission, and then gave the hand-picked general three quarters of what he asked for, while throwing in a bonus for the enemy by setting a withdrawal "guideline." It's a testimony to Gen. McChrystal's patriotism and professionalism that he didn't resign.
It seems every time Obama says he has no interest in doing something, it turns out that is exactly what he does. So far he hasn't channeled Flip Wilson's "The devil made me do it!" but I'm waiting.
What a concept--Joe Isuzu combined with Flip Wilson. Except I don't think Obama is or will be all that funny.
As for the weasels, just look at the Dems in Congress. Both houses. Especially Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. "Whore" is too good a word. The behavior of Harry Reid and his minions is nothing short of shameful. Their arrogance and stupidity in ignoring both their Republican colleagues and the clear desire of the American people in passing their versions of Obamacare is breathtaking. If either version (or some cobbled-together "compromise") gets signed into law, they'll be taking more than breath. Hold on to your wallets. What will be the effect of all the tax increases, on top of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, on the so-called economic recovery? I'm seeing a double-dip recession, with the second "dip" looking more like a bathtub.
I'm hoping I'm wrong and that the American people and economy will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of the current recession. If they do, it will happen in spite of the efforts of Obama and his fellow travelers.
(0) comments
I mean, just think about it. He said he didn't want to take over the banking industry and here he is setting salary caps and doing other things that have the banks scrambling to get out from under TARP.
He said he had no interest in running the auto companies, and here we have GM and Chrysler as subsidiaries of the US Treasury.
He said Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the good war, and here we are, with Obama following essentially the Bush plan for Iraq (which I happen to think is a good thing, but that's not the point); and in Afghanistan he announced a strategy back in what, February? He appointed his hand-picked general, an expert in counterinsurgency, and told him to go slay the dragon. Five or six months later the general came back to him and said he needed 40,000 additional troops to carry out the mission. Obama then took 3 months to re-evaluate the mission, and then gave the hand-picked general three quarters of what he asked for, while throwing in a bonus for the enemy by setting a withdrawal "guideline." It's a testimony to Gen. McChrystal's patriotism and professionalism that he didn't resign.
It seems every time Obama says he has no interest in doing something, it turns out that is exactly what he does. So far he hasn't channeled Flip Wilson's "The devil made me do it!" but I'm waiting.
What a concept--Joe Isuzu combined with Flip Wilson. Except I don't think Obama is or will be all that funny.
As for the weasels, just look at the Dems in Congress. Both houses. Especially Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. "Whore" is too good a word. The behavior of Harry Reid and his minions is nothing short of shameful. Their arrogance and stupidity in ignoring both their Republican colleagues and the clear desire of the American people in passing their versions of Obamacare is breathtaking. If either version (or some cobbled-together "compromise") gets signed into law, they'll be taking more than breath. Hold on to your wallets. What will be the effect of all the tax increases, on top of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, on the so-called economic recovery? I'm seeing a double-dip recession, with the second "dip" looking more like a bathtub.
I'm hoping I'm wrong and that the American people and economy will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of the current recession. If they do, it will happen in spite of the efforts of Obama and his fellow travelers.
Labels: Congress, Democrats, Economics, Economy, government, Health Care, Obama, politics, Tax policy
Monday, October 19, 2009
The United States of Emasculation
I have reluctantly come to the opinion that the United States is deeply engaged in, to put it in most vulgar terms, cutting its own balls off.
This process began, at the latest, during the Clinton administration (remember the "peace dividend"?) and continued at a diminished rate during the Bush administration, but in the past the instrument used might be likened to a political scalpel, whereas now the Obama administration favors a chainsaw.
Let's look at the record. In a little under 10 months the Obama administration, with its allies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, has enacted legislation and adopted policies that has tripled or quadrupled (depending on whom you believe) the deficit for FY 2009 and which has given rise to a projected annual deficit of $1 trillion(!) for each year of the coming decade. That means the national debt will increase by $10 trillion over that period (the annual deficit being the amount that must be borrowed in order to pay for government programs that cannot be paid for using tax revenues). And this doesn't count whatever the health care "reform" now going through the Congressional sausage factory will cost.
At some point, either taxes will have to be raised to confiscatory rates to pay the interest on the accumulated debt (not to mention the principal) or the debt will be monetized, which will result in extreme inflation. I won't go into the decrease in the confidence in the dollar in international markets, which will have its own unpleasant effects on both the US economy and US stature among the nations of the world.
Politically, Mr. Obama has to all reports gained immense popularity in other countries as a result of his globe-trotting campaign of apology for America's success over the last 200 years, and especially since the end of WWII. Unfortunately, none of this is reflected in improved relationships with other nations. Rather, it has given rise to fear among our allies and contempt among our enemies.
Our allies fear that the US will abdicate its role as defender of freedom (the US military being the only one that can stand up to Russia;s and China's) and that they will finally either have to take responsibility for their own defense or kowtow to the likes of Russia and China now, and perhaps Iran and Venezuela later. The willingness, and maybe even ability of the US to maintain the strongest military in the world is now in question for the first time since 1950.
Our enemies now believe that the United States is unwilling to do what it takes to deter them from acting to the detriment of the United States and its allies. For example, Obama canceled the ABM installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, but has received no quid pro quo from Russia in terms of the Iranian nuclear program nor anywhere else. Russia is embarked on a program to make Western Europe dependent on Russian natural gas, which will give it immence leverage over our NATO allies. Even Iran itself seems convinced that the Obama administration has no stomach for military intervention and so is willingly engaging in useless negotiations to keep us busy while it continues its enrichment and weapons programs, including both bomb manufacture and delivery systems.
I could go on and on with examples of how the Obama administration is seemingly embarked on a program to sap the economic, military and diplomatic strength of the United States. The result is not going to be pretty, either in terms of our standard of living or our security.
Realizing that Mr. Obama will not be running in next year's Congressional elections, I believe that the only thing that will rescue the United States from a very bleak future is to unseat the enablers in Congress who are either actively pursuing or going along with Obama's programs. This includes Republicans as well as the perhaps more obvious Democrats. But if Obama's supporters lose their majorities, then a lot of the damage might be aborted before the programs take root and begin to grow.
The problem is, as Glenn Reynolds has pointed out many times, our present political class is the worst in our nation's history. I personally suspect that a majority of them would have been bunko artists, but they're too incompetent to make it in the marketplace, so they ran for elective office instead, where they commit a form of bunko every day and it's legal. The honorable members of Congress are in the minority, and in my observation it's difficult to attract people who both have talent and honor to run for office.
To quote C3PO, "We're doomed!" Where are Luke Skywalker, Obi-wan, Yoda and Han Solo when we need them?
(0) comments
This process began, at the latest, during the Clinton administration (remember the "peace dividend"?) and continued at a diminished rate during the Bush administration, but in the past the instrument used might be likened to a political scalpel, whereas now the Obama administration favors a chainsaw.
Let's look at the record. In a little under 10 months the Obama administration, with its allies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, has enacted legislation and adopted policies that has tripled or quadrupled (depending on whom you believe) the deficit for FY 2009 and which has given rise to a projected annual deficit of $1 trillion(!) for each year of the coming decade. That means the national debt will increase by $10 trillion over that period (the annual deficit being the amount that must be borrowed in order to pay for government programs that cannot be paid for using tax revenues). And this doesn't count whatever the health care "reform" now going through the Congressional sausage factory will cost.
At some point, either taxes will have to be raised to confiscatory rates to pay the interest on the accumulated debt (not to mention the principal) or the debt will be monetized, which will result in extreme inflation. I won't go into the decrease in the confidence in the dollar in international markets, which will have its own unpleasant effects on both the US economy and US stature among the nations of the world.
Politically, Mr. Obama has to all reports gained immense popularity in other countries as a result of his globe-trotting campaign of apology for America's success over the last 200 years, and especially since the end of WWII. Unfortunately, none of this is reflected in improved relationships with other nations. Rather, it has given rise to fear among our allies and contempt among our enemies.
Our allies fear that the US will abdicate its role as defender of freedom (the US military being the only one that can stand up to Russia;s and China's) and that they will finally either have to take responsibility for their own defense or kowtow to the likes of Russia and China now, and perhaps Iran and Venezuela later. The willingness, and maybe even ability of the US to maintain the strongest military in the world is now in question for the first time since 1950.
Our enemies now believe that the United States is unwilling to do what it takes to deter them from acting to the detriment of the United States and its allies. For example, Obama canceled the ABM installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, but has received no quid pro quo from Russia in terms of the Iranian nuclear program nor anywhere else. Russia is embarked on a program to make Western Europe dependent on Russian natural gas, which will give it immence leverage over our NATO allies. Even Iran itself seems convinced that the Obama administration has no stomach for military intervention and so is willingly engaging in useless negotiations to keep us busy while it continues its enrichment and weapons programs, including both bomb manufacture and delivery systems.
I could go on and on with examples of how the Obama administration is seemingly embarked on a program to sap the economic, military and diplomatic strength of the United States. The result is not going to be pretty, either in terms of our standard of living or our security.
Realizing that Mr. Obama will not be running in next year's Congressional elections, I believe that the only thing that will rescue the United States from a very bleak future is to unseat the enablers in Congress who are either actively pursuing or going along with Obama's programs. This includes Republicans as well as the perhaps more obvious Democrats. But if Obama's supporters lose their majorities, then a lot of the damage might be aborted before the programs take root and begin to grow.
The problem is, as Glenn Reynolds has pointed out many times, our present political class is the worst in our nation's history. I personally suspect that a majority of them would have been bunko artists, but they're too incompetent to make it in the marketplace, so they ran for elective office instead, where they commit a form of bunko every day and it's legal. The honorable members of Congress are in the minority, and in my observation it's difficult to attract people who both have talent and honor to run for office.
To quote C3PO, "We're doomed!" Where are Luke Skywalker, Obi-wan, Yoda and Han Solo when we need them?
Labels: Congress, Democrats, diplomacy, Economics, Finance, government, Obama, politics
Friday, May 22, 2009
Rampant Cowardice
Having opened up a can of worms with her accusation that the CIA regularly misleads (i.e., lies to) Congress, which I hear is a federal felony, Ms. Pelosi today refused to utter a single word on the subject, other than to say that she stands by her statement but will say no more about it. Seems to me she's decided, having dodged the Congressional investigation bullet thanks to a compliant Democratic caucus, to hunker down and wait for the storm to blow over. While that may be the politically safe thing to do, especially since she can't seem to get her story straight on the details of what she knew and when, it is cowardice of the first order. Is this the person we want to be two heartbeats away from the Presidency?
Not in my USA.
Lots of cowardice, too on the part of the compliant media, who apparently accepted Pelosi's stonewalling without making a fuss. Not to mention Democrat members of Congress who know in their hearts that an accusation of a crime by the Speaker of the House of Representatives really needs to be followed to the end, but who don't have the guts to demand it because of party loyalty. What about loyalty to the United States of America?
I'm getting to the point of believing we'd have a better government by picking 535 people at random from the voter rolls to serve in the House and Senate than the professionally pusillanimous pimps we have now.
(0) comments
Not in my USA.
Lots of cowardice, too on the part of the compliant media, who apparently accepted Pelosi's stonewalling without making a fuss. Not to mention Democrat members of Congress who know in their hearts that an accusation of a crime by the Speaker of the House of Representatives really needs to be followed to the end, but who don't have the guts to demand it because of party loyalty. What about loyalty to the United States of America?
I'm getting to the point of believing we'd have a better government by picking 535 people at random from the voter rolls to serve in the House and Senate than the professionally pusillanimous pimps we have now.
Labels: CIA, Congress, Democrats, government, Media inanity, Pelosi
Monday, May 04, 2009
Obama's Plan For Taxing Overseas Income
Just listened to Mr. Obama outline his plan, broadcast on FNC. One phrase he used a lot is "fair share." Now, in my lifetime, every time I've heard a politician say those words, it invariably meant a tax increase on everybody, not just on the "targeted" group.
Once again, I'm astounded at how closely the language coming out of the Obama administration resembles that used by the "looters" in Atlas Shrugged.
Also, (I hear the black helicopter now) am I the only one to notice how much our President seems to emulate Chancellor Palpatine? (/cynical humor)
(0) comments
Once again, I'm astounded at how closely the language coming out of the Obama administration resembles that used by the "looters" in Atlas Shrugged.
Also, (I hear the black helicopter now) am I the only one to notice how much our President seems to emulate Chancellor Palpatine? (/cynical humor)
Labels: Economics, Finance, government, Obama, politics, Tax policy, Taxes
Saturday, April 11, 2009
It Was A Bow
I'm moved to comment on this story because it seemingly won't go away.
He bowed. No matter how you spin it, Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, and it wasn't even in Saudi Arabia that he did it. The real issue is, what does it signify?
From what I've read, I understand that it is a long-time tradition, if not policy, that American presidents do not bow to any monarch, going back to the founding of the Nation. Our revolution, after all, was about replacing a monarchy with a republican form of government, and in theory no monarch has any greater status than any other individual, hence no bowing.
I also understand that some presidents have broken that tradition on rare occasions.
So what's with Obama's bow? People say the man is brilliant, and presumably is smart enough to hire a good chief of protocol to tell him how to act in situations like the one in point. So, either the Big O (apologies to Oscar Robertson, former NBA star) didn't hire a chief of protocol, or hired an inept one, or hired a good one and didn't listen to him/her. In any case, ignorance is no excuse, particularly for such a brilliant man. I am therefore persuaded that Obama knew exactly what he was doing, and did it with a purpose. After all, he's brilliant.
Why, then, would Obama do such a thing, especially if, being brilliant, he must have known that it would give rise to a kerfuffle of, dare I say it, regal proportions? I think he must have been sending a message to the world that in his administration, America is abdicating the superpower position that it has earned over the last century or so by expending its blood and treasure in defense of Europe, first against the Nazis and then against the Soviets, and in defense of Asia, and the Pacific nations, first against the Japanese, then those same nations including Japan against the Soviets and the PRC and its proxies.
Apparently that message is being picked up, not only by the usual suspects (e.g., Iran, North Korea) but also by the piss-ant pirates of Somalia and others. I'm not the only one who's noticed, either. See this scathing piece in the UK's Telegraph.
The MSM is still reporting that Obama personally has good positive poll numbers, although the numbers relating to his policies has been steadily declining since inauguration. The American public is willing to cut the guy a lot of slack, but if his policies result in what I think they will, they'll be hanging him in effigy and, well, marching with pitchforks and torches. I wouldn't be surprised to see the first "impeach Obama" bumper stickers by Thanksgiving.
UPDATE 20090411:1252PDT-- It looks like Beldar sees things a bit differently from me, although he gets to pretty much the same place.
(0) comments
He bowed. No matter how you spin it, Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, and it wasn't even in Saudi Arabia that he did it. The real issue is, what does it signify?
From what I've read, I understand that it is a long-time tradition, if not policy, that American presidents do not bow to any monarch, going back to the founding of the Nation. Our revolution, after all, was about replacing a monarchy with a republican form of government, and in theory no monarch has any greater status than any other individual, hence no bowing.
I also understand that some presidents have broken that tradition on rare occasions.
So what's with Obama's bow? People say the man is brilliant, and presumably is smart enough to hire a good chief of protocol to tell him how to act in situations like the one in point. So, either the Big O (apologies to Oscar Robertson, former NBA star) didn't hire a chief of protocol, or hired an inept one, or hired a good one and didn't listen to him/her. In any case, ignorance is no excuse, particularly for such a brilliant man. I am therefore persuaded that Obama knew exactly what he was doing, and did it with a purpose. After all, he's brilliant.
Why, then, would Obama do such a thing, especially if, being brilliant, he must have known that it would give rise to a kerfuffle of, dare I say it, regal proportions? I think he must have been sending a message to the world that in his administration, America is abdicating the superpower position that it has earned over the last century or so by expending its blood and treasure in defense of Europe, first against the Nazis and then against the Soviets, and in defense of Asia, and the Pacific nations, first against the Japanese, then those same nations including Japan against the Soviets and the PRC and its proxies.
Apparently that message is being picked up, not only by the usual suspects (e.g., Iran, North Korea) but also by the piss-ant pirates of Somalia and others. I'm not the only one who's noticed, either. See this scathing piece in the UK's Telegraph.
The MSM is still reporting that Obama personally has good positive poll numbers, although the numbers relating to his policies has been steadily declining since inauguration. The American public is willing to cut the guy a lot of slack, but if his policies result in what I think they will, they'll be hanging him in effigy and, well, marching with pitchforks and torches. I wouldn't be surprised to see the first "impeach Obama" bumper stickers by Thanksgiving.
UPDATE 20090411:1252PDT-- It looks like Beldar sees things a bit differently from me, although he gets to pretty much the same place.
Labels: defense, diplomacy, government, Obama, politics
