Regarding my little post about health care costs, I'm not preaching against the ACA here, even though at times I have said that it should have been a better program and I dislike some of the flaws that are built into it. I'm making a different point here. I’m asking where are the promised and currently advertised cost saving benefits of the program.
When someone is telling me that the sky is blue and I look and observe that it is gray, I don't merely assume that I am wrong or that I cannot trust my eyes. I ask what is the difference between "his blue" and "my gray." I find out that he lives 300 miles east of me and that the rainstorm that is covering my sky has not yet reached where he lives and that explains it. His sky is blue, mine is gray and the discrepancy is explained.
The ACA was described for one full year of debate prior to its passage as a program to provide insurance for people who didn't have it and to lower the cost of health care. The latter was not some secondary unimportant discussion, it was a fundamental and important goal of the program, otherwise it offered nothing for people who already had insurance, which is some 85% of the people in the country. What it offered for 15% was insurance availability, and what it offered for 85% was a reduction in the terrifying increases in the cost of health care. Without the promise of lowering costs it would have had very little support, because it would have offered nothing for the majority of voters, and it would not have passed.
After it passed there has been much praise about how well it is lowering the cost of health care, and that is at odds with my observation. I don't see it doing that and I want to know why your skies are blue and mine are gray. I'm not going to assume that gray is blue merely because you tell me so or you claim that I'm colorblind. I’m not going to accept your assurance that the program is a success despite, “sure some people will pay higher costs,” because that was never advertised as part of the deal.
The program was not sold as “some people will pay higher costs and some people will save money.” The program was sold as being a program that would “lower the cost of health care.” It is, apparently, providing insurance for people who previously didn’t have it and it is, apparently, doing so at affordable costs to those people, but where is it “lowering the cost of health care” for the rest of us?
Before ACA passed my health care expenses were increasing about 10% per year. Then they increased 25% and 30% and I was told that ACA hadn't fully kicked in yet. Well it fully kicks in next year and my costs are going up 77%. Who is getting the savings promised by ACA, and why are they getting them while I am not? How many people are seeing the same thing I am and are not having their voices heard?
Look, I would even be willing to pay a bit more for health insurance in order for people without insurance to get insurance, if that was the way the program had been sold to me, just as I am willing to pay higher taxes for people to have a social safety net,. But that was not the deal that was sold and is being touted as today’s success. Don’t promise me lower costs and then piss in my ear and tell me it's raining.
If the way it's working out is that some people are paying higher costs in order for people without insurance to get it, then we should admit that that's the way it's working out. We should admit that Plan A of insuring the uninsurable along with lower costs didn’t work and so we’re going with Plan B which is to insure the uninsurable and raise costs. But I’m fed up with being told that ACA is lowering costs and watching costs go up faster than ever.
Saturday, November 02, 2013
Friday, November 01, 2013
Side Effects
One of the medications prescribed for our cat, which is labeled for "Feline Molly Robinson," has displayed on its label, "Warning; may cause slight drowsiness." Seriously? On medication for a cat?
It kind of shakes your confidence in the vetinary pharmacy. Should you be dispensing medication for a feline if you think that "slight drowsiness" is in any way remotely detectable in a cat? Or that anyone tending the cat would notice and be concerned by it?
It kind of shakes your confidence in the vetinary pharmacy. Should you be dispensing medication for a feline if you think that "slight drowsiness" is in any way remotely detectable in a cat? Or that anyone tending the cat would notice and be concerned by it?
Bending The Cost
We just got the information for next year's health insurance from my wife's employer. Between premiums and increases in deductibles and copays, what we pay for health care next year will increase by 77% over our cost in 2013. "Health care reform" is doing such a wonderful job of "bending the curve" of the cost of health care. 77% increase.
2013's increase was 25%, and 2012's was 30%. Helluva job, Democrats.
2013's increase was 25%, and 2012's was 30%. Helluva job, Democrats.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Junk Policies
I don’t happen to think it is an important part of “health care reform” but it’s a matter of honesty; not so much in the initial premise as in the nature of the response to the kerfuffle.
“If you like the insurance policy you have, you will be able to keep it,” Obama promised, specifically and repeatedly, a statement which rather slaps him in the face when millions of Americans receive letters canceling their policies because those policies do not meet standards set by “health care reform” legislation.
His response is to attack the policies, calling them “junk policies,” which is at best tone deaf. He often insults his supporters in that fashion, in this case telling them that they were pretty stupid to be liking those trashy, worthless “junk policies.” They only thought that they liked them, and if they read them or had half a brain, they would not have liked them at all because they are “junk.” They are so much better off now that he has denied them the ability to keep the garbage they liked having and can now “buy better policies at an affordable price.” He does not define “affordable.”
Democrats in general have taken up the refrain. One of them was on Piers Morgan last night screaming over the top of anyone else’s attempt to say anything that “These are junk policies that nobody wants to buy.” A variant on that was “They stopped selling them because they are garbage policies that nobody would buy,” which doesn’t quite square with the fact that it has been the insurance companies doing the canceling, not the policy holders.
One “progressive” described such a policy as being garbage because it didn’t pay for routine office visits. “If she goes to the doctor once a week, she gets to pay $648/yr in premiums and another $6525/year to the doctor,” as if going to the doctor once per week is a realistic expectation. In fact, the policy holder was quite happy with the “catastrophic coverage,” because she is a healthy young person and is covered in the event of a disaster. She doesn’t want to buy car insurance that pays for oil changes, either.
I would not necessarily agree with that point of view, but it’s not my call. Who am I to tell her what she should want? “If you like the policy you have,” Obama said. If he had gone on and added, “If you are stupid enough to like a junk policy then we are going to save you from your stupidity and require you to buy a better policy at a higher price,” then I suspect that “health care reform” would have been significantly less popular.
“If you like the insurance policy you have, you will be able to keep it,” Obama promised, specifically and repeatedly, a statement which rather slaps him in the face when millions of Americans receive letters canceling their policies because those policies do not meet standards set by “health care reform” legislation.
His response is to attack the policies, calling them “junk policies,” which is at best tone deaf. He often insults his supporters in that fashion, in this case telling them that they were pretty stupid to be liking those trashy, worthless “junk policies.” They only thought that they liked them, and if they read them or had half a brain, they would not have liked them at all because they are “junk.” They are so much better off now that he has denied them the ability to keep the garbage they liked having and can now “buy better policies at an affordable price.” He does not define “affordable.”
Democrats in general have taken up the refrain. One of them was on Piers Morgan last night screaming over the top of anyone else’s attempt to say anything that “These are junk policies that nobody wants to buy.” A variant on that was “They stopped selling them because they are garbage policies that nobody would buy,” which doesn’t quite square with the fact that it has been the insurance companies doing the canceling, not the policy holders.
One “progressive” described such a policy as being garbage because it didn’t pay for routine office visits. “If she goes to the doctor once a week, she gets to pay $648/yr in premiums and another $6525/year to the doctor,” as if going to the doctor once per week is a realistic expectation. In fact, the policy holder was quite happy with the “catastrophic coverage,” because she is a healthy young person and is covered in the event of a disaster. She doesn’t want to buy car insurance that pays for oil changes, either.
I would not necessarily agree with that point of view, but it’s not my call. Who am I to tell her what she should want? “If you like the policy you have,” Obama said. If he had gone on and added, “If you are stupid enough to like a junk policy then we are going to save you from your stupidity and require you to buy a better policy at a higher price,” then I suspect that “health care reform” would have been significantly less popular.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Inconsistencies and Contradictions
The people who say this “health care reform” legislation will not work do not know what they are talking about. The people who say that it will work also do not know what they are talking about. The problem is twofold. First, the legislation is so convoluted and complex that no one can know everything that it actually does. Second, even in it’s most basic form it is an experiment. The policy prices emerging from the smoke and the hall of mirrors are guesses, and only time will tell if they will prove workable.
This “reform” was doomed from the start, because while everyone wanted it, no one was willing to pay anything or sacrifice anything to get it. The government was unwilling to increase its budget to accomplish it. People who already had insurance were unwilling to give that up. People on Medicare were not willing to see changes made to that program. Voters were unwilling to be taxed to pay for it. People who wanted insurance didn’t want to have to pay to get it. We all know the stake that medical providers, drug companies and health insurance companies had in this issue.
And so we have a “health care reform” which is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. Government is by nature coercive, but this mess is gratuitously so. It forces businesses to sell a product to one group of persons on which it will lose money, and balances that by forcing another group of persons to buy a product which they neither want or need to buy. The claim is that one will balance the other, but no one has the slightest idea whether that is actually so or not. It may be nothing more than an urban myth.
When forcing an individual to buy a product which he cannot afford, the government pays a large portion of the premium, but it does so by "savings in Medicare," which means less medical care for old people, and by a tax on medical devices, which means higher prices for those devices and higher costs for medical care. So we're reducing care and increasing costs for one group who needs medical care to pay the premiums for another group who is being forced to buy coverage they don't need.
The claim is that reductions in Medicare will be borne by the providers and not by elderly people, which means that providers being paid by Medicare will provide the same or more care for the elderly while charging billions of dollars less. And pigs will fly, but not on this planet.
And the supposition is that a tax on medical devices will “reduce expenditures for” medical care. It may indeed mean that we will use fewer devices, because the cost of those devices will increase as a result of imposing a tax on them, but that is a far different proposition than “reducing the cost of” medical care. If the stated goal of the reform had been to reduce the amount spent on health care by reducing the amount of health care delivered, the “health care reform” movement would have been one hell of a lot less popular than it is.
Instead we get the claim that the “reform” is going to raise standards for insurance and deliver better health care for lower insurance premiums, which defies logic. Millions of people are having their “bare bones” policies cancelled as we speak because those policies do not meet the new standards, and are being told that they can sign up for new policies that do meet those standards at much higher premiums, so we know already that insurance companies are not going to deliver more benefits with lower premiums. Why is anyone surprised?
At every turn it looks like we are providing more care one place by providing less care somewhere else and pretending to lower costs here by raising costs somewhere else. And given that there was no willingness to pay or sacrifice anything to achieve reform, how could it be anything other than that sort of trade off?
This “reform” was doomed from the start, because while everyone wanted it, no one was willing to pay anything or sacrifice anything to get it. The government was unwilling to increase its budget to accomplish it. People who already had insurance were unwilling to give that up. People on Medicare were not willing to see changes made to that program. Voters were unwilling to be taxed to pay for it. People who wanted insurance didn’t want to have to pay to get it. We all know the stake that medical providers, drug companies and health insurance companies had in this issue.
And so we have a “health care reform” which is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. Government is by nature coercive, but this mess is gratuitously so. It forces businesses to sell a product to one group of persons on which it will lose money, and balances that by forcing another group of persons to buy a product which they neither want or need to buy. The claim is that one will balance the other, but no one has the slightest idea whether that is actually so or not. It may be nothing more than an urban myth.
When forcing an individual to buy a product which he cannot afford, the government pays a large portion of the premium, but it does so by "savings in Medicare," which means less medical care for old people, and by a tax on medical devices, which means higher prices for those devices and higher costs for medical care. So we're reducing care and increasing costs for one group who needs medical care to pay the premiums for another group who is being forced to buy coverage they don't need.
The claim is that reductions in Medicare will be borne by the providers and not by elderly people, which means that providers being paid by Medicare will provide the same or more care for the elderly while charging billions of dollars less. And pigs will fly, but not on this planet.
And the supposition is that a tax on medical devices will “reduce expenditures for” medical care. It may indeed mean that we will use fewer devices, because the cost of those devices will increase as a result of imposing a tax on them, but that is a far different proposition than “reducing the cost of” medical care. If the stated goal of the reform had been to reduce the amount spent on health care by reducing the amount of health care delivered, the “health care reform” movement would have been one hell of a lot less popular than it is.
Instead we get the claim that the “reform” is going to raise standards for insurance and deliver better health care for lower insurance premiums, which defies logic. Millions of people are having their “bare bones” policies cancelled as we speak because those policies do not meet the new standards, and are being told that they can sign up for new policies that do meet those standards at much higher premiums, so we know already that insurance companies are not going to deliver more benefits with lower premiums. Why is anyone surprised?
At every turn it looks like we are providing more care one place by providing less care somewhere else and pretending to lower costs here by raising costs somewhere else. And given that there was no willingness to pay or sacrifice anything to achieve reform, how could it be anything other than that sort of trade off?
Monday, October 28, 2013
Great Football Moment
For those of you who missed it, the Detroit Lions, trailing the Dallas Cowboys by six and needing a touchdown to win, receive the ball at their own ten-yard line with one minute remaining in the game and no timeouts left. Matthew Stafford throws a forty yard completion to the sideline, which stops the clock. He then throws a twenty yard completion to the middle of the field, and with thirty seconds left thirty yarder which is caught and downed inside the one yard line. The crowd is freaking out, because this is a Detroit home game.
Matthew Stafford races down the field, frantically gesturing at his team to hurry up and pointing at the ground with his right arm, indicating that he is going to spike the ball to stop the clock. The teams are lined up, the ball is snapped, and Stafford does not spike the ball. He jumps up and thrusts the ball over the linemen and into the end zone. Touchdown.
There is a brief moment of silence as everyone tries to figure out what just happened. Everyone, that is, except Matthew Stafford and the side judge who is signaling with both arms straight up in the air that a touchdown has been scored. Then everyone notices the side judge and pandemonium erupts. They still have to kick the extra point for the win, but…
I’m pretty sure that the only one who knew that Matthew Stafford was going to do that was Matthew Stafford. The Cowboys certainly did not know, because when the ball was snapped not one Dallas player moved. The Lions linemen didn’t know, because when the ball was snapped not one of them moved either, and when their quarterback scored they were, “What?”
And the best part is, the Dallas Cowboys got humiliated.
Matthew Stafford races down the field, frantically gesturing at his team to hurry up and pointing at the ground with his right arm, indicating that he is going to spike the ball to stop the clock. The teams are lined up, the ball is snapped, and Stafford does not spike the ball. He jumps up and thrusts the ball over the linemen and into the end zone. Touchdown.
There is a brief moment of silence as everyone tries to figure out what just happened. Everyone, that is, except Matthew Stafford and the side judge who is signaling with both arms straight up in the air that a touchdown has been scored. Then everyone notices the side judge and pandemonium erupts. They still have to kick the extra point for the win, but…
I’m pretty sure that the only one who knew that Matthew Stafford was going to do that was Matthew Stafford. The Cowboys certainly did not know, because when the ball was snapped not one Dallas player moved. The Lions linemen didn’t know, because when the ball was snapped not one of them moved either, and when their quarterback scored they were, “What?”
And the best part is, the Dallas Cowboys got humiliated.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
The Last Thing We Need
Some guy wrote at length that the solution for mass shootings was to have everyone armed, so that if a shooter started waving a gun around then he could be stopped by the people he had chosen as victims because, being armed themselves, they would not be victims. They could whip out their trusty pistols and kill him instead and the problem would be solved.
There are a couple of problems that I see with this, the first being that in all probability instead of shooting the bad guy they would shoot each other and the casualty count would be increased. The last thing you need in an enclosed space is bullets flying everywhere.
The bigger problem is the handicap that it places on law enforcement. One of the cardinal rules for shooting scenes is that non-uniformed officers never enter the building, because uniformed officers who do enter will promptly take down anyone they see who is wielding a gun and is not in uniform, assuming he is a bad guy. If all of the good guys are armed as well as the bad guys, how do the officers know who to take down?
Idiots who advocate a universally armed citizenry as an antidote to violence are woefully ignorant of history. The wild west at one time consisted of a universally armed citizenry, and the death rate became so high that Wyatt Earp banned handguns in Dodge City.
There are a couple of problems that I see with this, the first being that in all probability instead of shooting the bad guy they would shoot each other and the casualty count would be increased. The last thing you need in an enclosed space is bullets flying everywhere.
The bigger problem is the handicap that it places on law enforcement. One of the cardinal rules for shooting scenes is that non-uniformed officers never enter the building, because uniformed officers who do enter will promptly take down anyone they see who is wielding a gun and is not in uniform, assuming he is a bad guy. If all of the good guys are armed as well as the bad guys, how do the officers know who to take down?
Idiots who advocate a universally armed citizenry as an antidote to violence are woefully ignorant of history. The wild west at one time consisted of a universally armed citizenry, and the death rate became so high that Wyatt Earp banned handguns in Dodge City.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Bye Week
I have been basing Sunday dinner on who the Chargers play each week; cheese steak sandwiches when we play the Eagles, for instance. The Chargers have a bye this week so we're not having Sunday dinner. Seems logical to me, but my wife is not going along with that plan. She can be a little bit unreasonable sometimes.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Good Debt, Bad Debt
A writer in a liberal discussion group (they call themselves “progressives” now) wrote of “two kinds of debt,” one of which is “…going into the hole while building a military you don't need, fighting stupid wars, pouring Treasury money into bonuses for the bankers who already pocketed billions while gambling away your inheritance, etc.”
The other type is “…borrowing in order to put people to work building high-speed transcontinental rail, providing the whole country with broadband access, building a green energy network, setting up a true national health system, and similar things that will result in improving people's lives and healing the planet.”
Note that the first is “going into the hole” while the second is “borrowing.”
He then goes on to say that, “Conservatives always favor the former kind of debt, and progressives, the latter kind,” and that conservatives use the former kind to prevent progressives from creating the latter kind.
He cannot, of course, name one progressive politician who has proposed any one of the things he claims progressives favor, because no one has proposed actually doing any of those things. Some high speed rail was included in the laughably named “stimulus bill” of 2009, but not enough to complete any one intercity project, and certainly there was no pretense of even beginning a transcontinental one.
On the other hand, the Democratic Congress of 2007-2011 not only continued military spending unabated, it funded increased spending for the “surge” in Iraq and it passed TARP to bail out the banks. I can’t support the claim of Treasury money going into the bonuses for bankers, because Congress did specify that TARP money could not be used for that purpose.
I also cannot support the writer’s rather odd claim that conservatives use the bad kind of debt to prevent progressives from creating the good kind of debt, whatever that means. They don’t have to do that because in all the years I have been following politics I have never seen a politician suggest doing any one of the things he suggests that good debt would do.
You don’t have to stop someone from doing what they aren’t trying to do.
The other type is “…borrowing in order to put people to work building high-speed transcontinental rail, providing the whole country with broadband access, building a green energy network, setting up a true national health system, and similar things that will result in improving people's lives and healing the planet.”
Note that the first is “going into the hole” while the second is “borrowing.”
He then goes on to say that, “Conservatives always favor the former kind of debt, and progressives, the latter kind,” and that conservatives use the former kind to prevent progressives from creating the latter kind.
He cannot, of course, name one progressive politician who has proposed any one of the things he claims progressives favor, because no one has proposed actually doing any of those things. Some high speed rail was included in the laughably named “stimulus bill” of 2009, but not enough to complete any one intercity project, and certainly there was no pretense of even beginning a transcontinental one.
On the other hand, the Democratic Congress of 2007-2011 not only continued military spending unabated, it funded increased spending for the “surge” in Iraq and it passed TARP to bail out the banks. I can’t support the claim of Treasury money going into the bonuses for bankers, because Congress did specify that TARP money could not be used for that purpose.
I also cannot support the writer’s rather odd claim that conservatives use the bad kind of debt to prevent progressives from creating the good kind of debt, whatever that means. They don’t have to do that because in all the years I have been following politics I have never seen a politician suggest doing any one of the things he suggests that good debt would do.
You don’t have to stop someone from doing what they aren’t trying to do.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Observations
Piers Morgan spent his entire hour last night in conversation with three generations of Buffett; Warren, son and grandson. It proved beyond any remaining question that the Buffetts are the most utterly boring family in this nation. The hilarity over total trivia was astonishing. The second generation Buffett spoke of buying a car when he graduated from high school and had Piers Morgan in hysterics. "I paid $7300," he said, "which was a lot of money back then," and Piers almost fell out of his chair laughing. Wierd.
Kieth Olbermann's show featured Kieth Olbermann for, I believe, four weeks and then was turned over to Larry King because having worked for a whole month Keith needed some time off. Since then it has been hosted by Colin Cowherd, who is not bad, actually, certainly better than Larry King, but why is it called the "Keith Olbermann Show" wheh he has hosted it for only four out of the ten weeks it has been on the air?
Why am I watching either one of these idiots? Good question. Nine in the evening is when I clean up the kitchen while my wife is getting ready for bed. It takes her much longer to do that than it does me. Not being critical, it's a gender thing. I get it. Women are wonderful people and the world would be much poorer without them. My life would be much poorer without my wife. It's all good; life, not television.
It's called "On My Mind," and what's on my mind is frequently fairly trivial.
Kieth Olbermann's show featured Kieth Olbermann for, I believe, four weeks and then was turned over to Larry King because having worked for a whole month Keith needed some time off. Since then it has been hosted by Colin Cowherd, who is not bad, actually, certainly better than Larry King, but why is it called the "Keith Olbermann Show" wheh he has hosted it for only four out of the ten weeks it has been on the air?
Why am I watching either one of these idiots? Good question. Nine in the evening is when I clean up the kitchen while my wife is getting ready for bed. It takes her much longer to do that than it does me. Not being critical, it's a gender thing. I get it. Women are wonderful people and the world would be much poorer without them. My life would be much poorer without my wife. It's all good; life, not television.
It's called "On My Mind," and what's on my mind is frequently fairly trivial.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Decisions, Decisions
Much of the excitement about Obamacare boils down to the reality that we have found another way to hide the cost of health care. The nice low premiums that we will have to pay on the “exchanges” do not include the amount that the government pays in subsidy and do not reveal the deductibles or copays. In point of fact, the cost of one’s health care is not covered by the amount stated.
“I will pay only $74.75 per month for health care,” a writer gleefully crows. Actually, the writer will pay that for health insurance, without ever receiving one drop of actual health care. The government will pay a good deal more than that to complete the payment for health insurance, and still no health care has been delivered. When actual health care is required, the writer will incur additional expense for the deductible, and even after the deductible is met, the insurance will cover only a percentage of the health care cost.
We rant about how expensive health care is and about “bending the curve” of that cost, but we are actually happy if we can merely hide the cost and/or let someone else pay it.
One correspondent was rejoicing over obtaining a policy on the exchange at a lower premium than he had been paying. When questioned further, it turned out that the old policy had a $1000 deductible and the new one had a $5000 deductible. He was saving $2200 per year to obtain a policy with a $4000 higher deductible, and so while he would pay $2200 less in premiums he would pay $4000 more in out-of-pocket cost, so the only way he saves money is if he doesn’t get sick. He was basing his health insurance decision on the assumption that he would not incur health care costs, and getting all excited about health insurance while assuming that he didn’t actually need it.
Our decision making ability in this country is badly impaired.
“I will pay only $74.75 per month for health care,” a writer gleefully crows. Actually, the writer will pay that for health insurance, without ever receiving one drop of actual health care. The government will pay a good deal more than that to complete the payment for health insurance, and still no health care has been delivered. When actual health care is required, the writer will incur additional expense for the deductible, and even after the deductible is met, the insurance will cover only a percentage of the health care cost.
We rant about how expensive health care is and about “bending the curve” of that cost, but we are actually happy if we can merely hide the cost and/or let someone else pay it.
One correspondent was rejoicing over obtaining a policy on the exchange at a lower premium than he had been paying. When questioned further, it turned out that the old policy had a $1000 deductible and the new one had a $5000 deductible. He was saving $2200 per year to obtain a policy with a $4000 higher deductible, and so while he would pay $2200 less in premiums he would pay $4000 more in out-of-pocket cost, so the only way he saves money is if he doesn’t get sick. He was basing his health insurance decision on the assumption that he would not incur health care costs, and getting all excited about health insurance while assuming that he didn’t actually need it.
Our decision making ability in this country is badly impaired.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
CBS News Sucks
CBS Evening News has developed a habit of whoring for its "60 Minutes" show on a regular basis. They run clips from that show as a "news item" with the show's logo in the lower corner, and then advise that you can see the entire piece on "our prime time news magazine Sunday night." Yecch.
They also now believe that is a story is worth running, it is worth running every evening all week. This week we were supposed to be utterly fascinated by the plight of refugees leaving North Africa for an obscure island in the Med. They claimed they were talking about Syrian refugees, but those were most certainly not Syrian people; probably Somalis. They advertised that they were going to be "onboard with a Navy rescue ship," not telling us in advance that it was the Italian Navy and that it was routine patrol rather than a rescue mission. Why is the action of the Italian Navy in foreign waters news in the United States?
They also now believe that is a story is worth running, it is worth running every evening all week. This week we were supposed to be utterly fascinated by the plight of refugees leaving North Africa for an obscure island in the Med. They claimed they were talking about Syrian refugees, but those were most certainly not Syrian people; probably Somalis. They advertised that they were going to be "onboard with a Navy rescue ship," not telling us in advance that it was the Italian Navy and that it was routine patrol rather than a rescue mission. Why is the action of the Italian Navy in foreign waters news in the United States?
Thursday, October 17, 2013
African Tulip Tree
The camera angles exaggerate slightly the amount of vertical growth, but it has been phenomenal; when planted last year it barely reached the bottom of the lower window, and now it is very nearly at the top of it. The flowers are only the beginning, as there are eight more clumps which have not yet opened. Watching this grow this summer has been fun. Click on the image for a larger version.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Round Two Begins
Molly survived heartworm about eight years ago, so now she is starting a campaign against a second invader; a lymphoma in her small intestine. It is a slow growing kind, which the vet says is treatable and probably curable, so she tells us to be optimistic.She is taking pills twice per day, twelve different medications, and is reasonably cooperative in that process, merely raising one paw in protest and looking somewhat indignant afterward. She does get treats once the process is finished. She also gets chemotherapy at the vet every three weeks. The staff there cracks up at her demeanor, which is all meek and passive until she reaches her limit and hisses at them.
The vet was describing the factors in our favor, one being that she is a Calico, who are very durable, and another that she is female, which are far tougher than males. “She’s not a wimpy male,” she was saying and caught me sort of glaring at her. “I’m talking about cats,” she added somewhat hastily. My wife cracked up.
“Listen,” I told the vet. ”I’ve had a heart attack, several strokes, severe emphysema, Parkinson’s Disease, a metal plate and seven fractures in my right leg and three in my left and I walk without a limp. Don’t talk to me about wimpy males.”
Anyway, she assured us that because of the type of chemotherapy and because cats are neurologically different than people, the therapy will have little or no effect on Molly and no, her hair will not fall out.
Update, 9:30am: I looked up the term "well differentiated," which the vet used to describe the condition, and it means the cells are spread out and have not coalesced into a tumor. There are none in the blood stream either, all of which makes them easier to kill, so that's good news.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Why Not A Balanced Budget?
In a comment to an earlier post Bruce asked what the problem was with having a balanced budget and why an economist would claim that a balanced budget is a bad idea. The answer lies in the totally unchallenged statement by politicians and economists both that “consumer spending is 70% of our economy” and that restoring a healthy economy requires restoring that 70% which is consumer spending.
That would be fine, and was fine, so long as that money was being spent on goods and services made in this country, but that is not the case and has not been for many years. A considerable part of that spending is for goods from other countries, which is reflected in our balance of trade deficit, and which no one ever talks about. It is a huge negative, has been for many years, and it reflects wealth leaving this country and not returning. That means that we consume more than we produce, and that means that our economy depends upon the accumulation of more and more debt.
During the housing boom much of that debt was accrued by the private sector, while at other times debt has been accumulated by the business sector. But in order to continue consuming more than we produce, somewhere we have to create more and more debt.
When the private sector cannot assume any more debt, and the business sector cannot do so, then government must assume debt, which is where we are now. So the economists are, to that degree, correct. An attempt to balance the budget, either by reducing government spending or by raising taxes, would be disastrous.
If we ceased accepting the simplistic insanity of “restoring consumer spending” and restored a productive economy in which production balanced consumption and in which our balance of trade was a net positive, then we could balance the federal government budget quite safely without harming the economy at all, because such an economy would not have to accumulate debt in order to maintain itself.
Politicians may not know that. Economists do, they just don’t want to say so, because doing that would be too hard.
That would be fine, and was fine, so long as that money was being spent on goods and services made in this country, but that is not the case and has not been for many years. A considerable part of that spending is for goods from other countries, which is reflected in our balance of trade deficit, and which no one ever talks about. It is a huge negative, has been for many years, and it reflects wealth leaving this country and not returning. That means that we consume more than we produce, and that means that our economy depends upon the accumulation of more and more debt.
During the housing boom much of that debt was accrued by the private sector, while at other times debt has been accumulated by the business sector. But in order to continue consuming more than we produce, somewhere we have to create more and more debt.
When the private sector cannot assume any more debt, and the business sector cannot do so, then government must assume debt, which is where we are now. So the economists are, to that degree, correct. An attempt to balance the budget, either by reducing government spending or by raising taxes, would be disastrous.
If we ceased accepting the simplistic insanity of “restoring consumer spending” and restored a productive economy in which production balanced consumption and in which our balance of trade was a net positive, then we could balance the federal government budget quite safely without harming the economy at all, because such an economy would not have to accumulate debt in order to maintain itself.
Politicians may not know that. Economists do, they just don’t want to say so, because doing that would be too hard.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Due to the shutdown...
The NASA website says, "Due to the government shutdown the website is not being updated," with a picture of the US Capitol building. Um, isn't that itself an update?
The Ivory Tower Speaks
Well, well, well, Paul Krugman finally admits that failure to raise the debt ceiling and default on national debt are not synonymous. Not that I actually care. That’s all a “sounding brass” kind of noise, and in the long run the debt ceiling is going to be raised. We all know that. It just points out the idiocy of the conversation.
In a post yesterday he posits a theory in which failure to raise the debt ceiling would not automatically and inevitably cause default on debt and result in a world wide economic Armageddon, supposing that when the ceiling is reached, “Treasury manages to engage in ‘prioritization’ -- paying interest on bonds, so that all the burden falls on other kinds of spending.”
He then says that doing so would require balancing the budget, an act that would be fully as disastrous as defaulting on the national debt, leading to “a Great Recession-sized event.” Well, it was fun while it lasted, but we all knew the dean of the Princeton Ivory Tower would never go along with a cessation of borrowing, and of course he has charts.
He points out that the “cash-flow deficit is a bit more than 4 percent of GDP,” because nothing ever matters except in the degree to which it is a percentage of GDP. I’m surprised he doesn’t relate greenhouse gasses to GDP. “Carbon dioxide is dangerously close to 4% of GDP, so we need to run our cars on gold dust.”
There is the rather scary fact, as he points out, that the government’s deficit spending is 4% of a GDP which is growing at only 2% per year. So there is a certain amount of national self delusion in this “economic recovery” we are in, because if you take away that 4% which is simply the expenditure of borrowed money, then our economy actually has a negative 2% growth rate. That most certainly is not recovery.
In a post yesterday he posits a theory in which failure to raise the debt ceiling would not automatically and inevitably cause default on debt and result in a world wide economic Armageddon, supposing that when the ceiling is reached, “Treasury manages to engage in ‘prioritization’ -- paying interest on bonds, so that all the burden falls on other kinds of spending.”
He then says that doing so would require balancing the budget, an act that would be fully as disastrous as defaulting on the national debt, leading to “a Great Recession-sized event.” Well, it was fun while it lasted, but we all knew the dean of the Princeton Ivory Tower would never go along with a cessation of borrowing, and of course he has charts.
He points out that the “cash-flow deficit is a bit more than 4 percent of GDP,” because nothing ever matters except in the degree to which it is a percentage of GDP. I’m surprised he doesn’t relate greenhouse gasses to GDP. “Carbon dioxide is dangerously close to 4% of GDP, so we need to run our cars on gold dust.”
There is the rather scary fact, as he points out, that the government’s deficit spending is 4% of a GDP which is growing at only 2% per year. So there is a certain amount of national self delusion in this “economic recovery” we are in, because if you take away that 4% which is simply the expenditure of borrowed money, then our economy actually has a negative 2% growth rate. That most certainly is not recovery.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Flipping Over Deja Vu
Some years ago I read an article about what was touted as a “new idea” in manufacturing, which was that the company had the manufacturing branch participate in the design of each new product so that ease and cost of manufacture became part of the design. An example was given of a panel which was presently being assembled using eight different fasteners and required five different tools, and the new panel was reduced to two fasteners which were installed with one tool. Purchasing cost was decreased by having to buy fewer parts, and manufacturing cost was dramatically reduced by the worker no longer having to lay down and pick up various tools.
My reaction was not to think about how smart the company was, but to wonder what idiot designed the existing panel to begin with, and to ask why they ever quit having manufacturing participate in the design process. When I came out of the plant and into the office my first job was detail drafting, and before starting any set of detail drawings I was always told, “Run this by manufacturing to see how they want to make it.”
Now the New York Times has an article about “flipped schools,” which it says is a controversial new idea, in which students watch teacher’s lecture at home on video and then do lab experiments and such in class while the teacher circulates and supervises. My response is, “What? This is new?” When did high school become a process of students sitting in class and listening to teachers recite lectures? And why in the hell would it do that? Maybe now we know why high schools are graduating idiots.
When I was in high school our homework consisted in large part of reading assignments, and in class the teacher would ask questions and hold discussions with the class to make sure we understood the subject, to amplify upon what was in the book, and to make us think about the subject and apply it to life. We didn’t skimp on the reading assignments, because if we did we would be deeply humiliated the next day in class.
So now they are going back to this model, only they’re using videos instead of books of course, and they call it a controversial and exciting new idea. More, they are finding out that it works. Fancy that.
My reaction was not to think about how smart the company was, but to wonder what idiot designed the existing panel to begin with, and to ask why they ever quit having manufacturing participate in the design process. When I came out of the plant and into the office my first job was detail drafting, and before starting any set of detail drawings I was always told, “Run this by manufacturing to see how they want to make it.”
Now the New York Times has an article about “flipped schools,” which it says is a controversial new idea, in which students watch teacher’s lecture at home on video and then do lab experiments and such in class while the teacher circulates and supervises. My response is, “What? This is new?” When did high school become a process of students sitting in class and listening to teachers recite lectures? And why in the hell would it do that? Maybe now we know why high schools are graduating idiots.
When I was in high school our homework consisted in large part of reading assignments, and in class the teacher would ask questions and hold discussions with the class to make sure we understood the subject, to amplify upon what was in the book, and to make us think about the subject and apply it to life. We didn’t skimp on the reading assignments, because if we did we would be deeply humiliated the next day in class.
So now they are going back to this model, only they’re using videos instead of books of course, and they call it a controversial and exciting new idea. More, they are finding out that it works. Fancy that.
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Full Faith And Credit
I’m still trying to wrap my head around this “full faith and credit of the United States” thing, in which neither side makes any sense. I’m not even going to try to understand the single platinum coin worth $5 trillion, or the various people quoting the 14th amendment who apparently think it was written by people who did not speak English. That amendment is clearly about the validity of debt, not payment of it.
As I read the thinking of people who are dedicated to maintaining it, the “full faith and credit of the United States” does not depend on the United States being solvent. We have not been solvent for many years and none of them are demanding that we be solvent or even head in that direction.
It does not depend on the United States being fiscally responsible. We certainly are not that either, and not only are they not demanding that we exercise any fiscal responsibility, but when anyone does do so they shout that person down and accuse him of being unpatriotic.
“The full faith and credit of the United States” depends on the nation being able to continue borrowing money unhindered by limitations on the amount of borrowing. As soon as the United States makes a decision that it will quit borrowing money, the world will lose faith in its economic power, and the economy of the nation and the world will collapse.
On what planet does that make any sense whatever?
Everyone agrees that the government shutdown is a bad thing, that Republicans are to blame, and that Republican policies are evil, but no one questions the importance of maintaining the “full faith and credit of the United States” by assuring unlimited borrowing, because the Democrats say so, and they’re the good guys.
As I read the thinking of people who are dedicated to maintaining it, the “full faith and credit of the United States” does not depend on the United States being solvent. We have not been solvent for many years and none of them are demanding that we be solvent or even head in that direction.
It does not depend on the United States being fiscally responsible. We certainly are not that either, and not only are they not demanding that we exercise any fiscal responsibility, but when anyone does do so they shout that person down and accuse him of being unpatriotic.
“The full faith and credit of the United States” depends on the nation being able to continue borrowing money unhindered by limitations on the amount of borrowing. As soon as the United States makes a decision that it will quit borrowing money, the world will lose faith in its economic power, and the economy of the nation and the world will collapse.
On what planet does that make any sense whatever?
Everyone agrees that the government shutdown is a bad thing, that Republicans are to blame, and that Republican policies are evil, but no one questions the importance of maintaining the “full faith and credit of the United States” by assuring unlimited borrowing, because the Democrats say so, and they’re the good guys.
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
Fiscal Responsibility?
Reasonable people seem to be agreed that failure to raise the debt ceiling would be insane because “it would be irresponsible to make the U.S. default on its debt.” All Democrats and even many Republicans agree on that. All economists agree on that as a matter of economic principle.
President Obama has warned that the dent ceiling must be increased because, “the country will no longer be able to meet its financial obligations unless its borrowing power is extended by Oct. 17.”
The only ones not wanting to raise the debt ceiling are a handful of idiots who wear boots or loafers because they don’t know how to tie their shoes.
Now that we have that established, let’s think about what “reasonable people” are saying. They’re saying that we cannot pay our debts unless we borrow more money. Think about that for a moment. In order, they say, to avoid destroying the world’s economy due to the world losing faith in our ability to pay our debt, we need to borrow money to pay our existing debt. Because without borrowing more money we can’t pay our debt, the admission of which would crash the world’s economy.
They’re saying that we cannot pay our bills without borrowing more money which is the very definition of “insolvency,” but they don’t call it that, they call it “maintaining the full faith and credit of the United States.”
There is an enormous contingent raging about the “irresponsibility” of failing to raise our credit limit so that we can continue borrowing money to pay our bills, but it’s only that little handful of idiots who don’t know how to tie their shoes who are concerned about the irresponsibility of a government that for all but one year out of the last seventy has been spending borrowed money.
We have utterly destroyed the meaning of “fiscal responsibility.”
President Obama has warned that the dent ceiling must be increased because, “the country will no longer be able to meet its financial obligations unless its borrowing power is extended by Oct. 17.”
The only ones not wanting to raise the debt ceiling are a handful of idiots who wear boots or loafers because they don’t know how to tie their shoes.
Now that we have that established, let’s think about what “reasonable people” are saying. They’re saying that we cannot pay our debts unless we borrow more money. Think about that for a moment. In order, they say, to avoid destroying the world’s economy due to the world losing faith in our ability to pay our debt, we need to borrow money to pay our existing debt. Because without borrowing more money we can’t pay our debt, the admission of which would crash the world’s economy.
They’re saying that we cannot pay our bills without borrowing more money which is the very definition of “insolvency,” but they don’t call it that, they call it “maintaining the full faith and credit of the United States.”
There is an enormous contingent raging about the “irresponsibility” of failing to raise our credit limit so that we can continue borrowing money to pay our bills, but it’s only that little handful of idiots who don’t know how to tie their shoes who are concerned about the irresponsibility of a government that for all but one year out of the last seventy has been spending borrowed money.
We have utterly destroyed the meaning of “fiscal responsibility.”
Monday, October 07, 2013
Embarrassed?
Danica Patrick crashed in the first turn of the first lap yesterday, finishing 43rd and last in the Sprint Cup race at Kansas Speedway. The announcers and driver spoke of the accident as it was something that happened all by itself, was some sort of spontaneous event having nothing to do with the driver, which actually may be true. I think the car was embarrassed by the color it was painted; decided "I'm not staying out here for 267 laps looking like this," and turned itself into the wall. Sort of a vehicular form of hari kari. Regardless of cause, race cars don't want to be pink.What can one say about the Chargers? That they're not the Giants? Philip Rivers threw the same number of interceptions that Eli Manning did yesterday. Three.
I told my wife that the Broncos beat the Cowboys by 51-48 yesterday and she said that she didn't realize that the basketball season had started yet. What interested me about that game was that about half of the time when the receiver caught a pass, on both teams, there was no defender within five yards of him. What were they doing?
Sunday, October 06, 2013
"Reasonable" Con Job
Just as Bush did before them, the Obama administration has said to Iran that it will negotiate with them regarding their nuclear program, but not until after they have dismantled their nuclear program. I’ve never understood the logic of that approach.
It’s like saying to my neighbor that I will negotiate with him over the nature of his tree, but not until he first cuts down the tree. That's just silly. After he cuts down the tree, what is there to negotiate about? He cuts down the tree and I just say, “Haha, you lose.”
Now Obama and the Democrats are saying to the Republicans that they will negotiate with them over spending, but not until after the Republicans allow passage of a “clean spending bill.”
Saying that they will negotiate, that “we’ll negotiate over all sorts of things,” sounds so very reasonable, but what is there to negotiate after the bill is passed? Unless I’m missing something about the legislative process, after the Republican House passes the Senate’s “clean spending bill” the President signs it and tells the Republicans to piss up a rope. Some negotiations.
It’s like saying to my neighbor that I will negotiate with him over the nature of his tree, but not until he first cuts down the tree. That's just silly. After he cuts down the tree, what is there to negotiate about? He cuts down the tree and I just say, “Haha, you lose.”
Now Obama and the Democrats are saying to the Republicans that they will negotiate with them over spending, but not until after the Republicans allow passage of a “clean spending bill.”
Saying that they will negotiate, that “we’ll negotiate over all sorts of things,” sounds so very reasonable, but what is there to negotiate after the bill is passed? Unless I’m missing something about the legislative process, after the Republican House passes the Senate’s “clean spending bill” the President signs it and tells the Republicans to piss up a rope. Some negotiations.
Saturday, October 05, 2013
Democratic Complacency
I think the Democrats are being a little too comfortable sitting back and letting the Republicans look bad, while doing nothing to alleviate the situation. They should be at least be trying to take some affirmative action to end the stalemate; instead they are simply pointing fingers and saying, “See, it’s all their fault.”
Democrats are calling Republicans “obstructionist,” but it’s Republicans who are passing bills and Democrats who are killing them in the Senate. Democrats claim to be passing bills in the Senate, but that is political posturing because these are revenue bills which, by dictate of the constitution, must originate in the House.
Yes, Democrats are on the populist side, and in a position of logic and reason, but the optics are not in their favor in the long run, and they need to be thinking about that.
Democrats are calling Republicans “obstructionist,” but it’s Republicans who are passing bills and Democrats who are killing them in the Senate. Democrats claim to be passing bills in the Senate, but that is political posturing because these are revenue bills which, by dictate of the constitution, must originate in the House.
Yes, Democrats are on the populist side, and in a position of logic and reason, but the optics are not in their favor in the long run, and they need to be thinking about that.
Partisan Delusion
I usually make allowances for Obamabots, but this comment took me all aback and left me in irons. (That’s sailing talk. I watched the America’s Cup too long.) I commented that Obama had largely ignored his liberal base and this was one of the responses,
Oh my goodness, let’s start with the “national health care” that the liberal base supposedly got. Even calling that legislation “health care reform” is a stretch, because it’s basis has nothing to do with health care but with health insurance, which it requires everyone to purchase from private corporations. That is a very, very long way from “national health care.”
His “championing of homosexual rights” is almost as much of a stretch. For four full years he said simply that “don’t ask don’t tell” would be repealed “at the right time” without saying what that time might be. It was repealed because Congress responded to gay activism and Obama responded to Joe Biden shaming him into action by acting first. As to gay marriage, his view on the subject is to this day still “evolving,” and his administration has declined to participate in two cases on the subject at the Supreme Court.
As to the claim that he has brought “an end to the war on terror,” one has to simply laugh and hope that the writer will seek mental help. We’re still at war in Afghanistan and seeking to maintain a troop presence there after the war nominally ends. We are still employing Hellfire missiles fired from drones to kill people whose names we do not even know in at least four Islamic countries because they look like they might be “extremists.” We’re still foaming at the mouth over Syria and Iran. The “national security” apparatus is at an all time high and still growing, there is still incessant fear mongering about Al Queda and the war on whistleblowers rages unabated.
Finally, anyone who thinks there is “likely another amnesty coming” is, at best, using a seriously bad choice of words. Obama championed immigration reform during the 2012 campaign season long enough to secure the Hispanic vote and has not spoken of it since, and even then he avoided the term “amnesty” like it contained four letters; was careful to promise that whatever he offered it would not be amnesty.
At least there was no claim of him ending the war in Iraq.
The liberal base got national health care, championing of homosexual rights, an end to the “war on terror” and likely another amnesty coming soon, that’s not being ignored in my opinion.
Oh my goodness, let’s start with the “national health care” that the liberal base supposedly got. Even calling that legislation “health care reform” is a stretch, because it’s basis has nothing to do with health care but with health insurance, which it requires everyone to purchase from private corporations. That is a very, very long way from “national health care.”
His “championing of homosexual rights” is almost as much of a stretch. For four full years he said simply that “don’t ask don’t tell” would be repealed “at the right time” without saying what that time might be. It was repealed because Congress responded to gay activism and Obama responded to Joe Biden shaming him into action by acting first. As to gay marriage, his view on the subject is to this day still “evolving,” and his administration has declined to participate in two cases on the subject at the Supreme Court.
As to the claim that he has brought “an end to the war on terror,” one has to simply laugh and hope that the writer will seek mental help. We’re still at war in Afghanistan and seeking to maintain a troop presence there after the war nominally ends. We are still employing Hellfire missiles fired from drones to kill people whose names we do not even know in at least four Islamic countries because they look like they might be “extremists.” We’re still foaming at the mouth over Syria and Iran. The “national security” apparatus is at an all time high and still growing, there is still incessant fear mongering about Al Queda and the war on whistleblowers rages unabated.
Finally, anyone who thinks there is “likely another amnesty coming” is, at best, using a seriously bad choice of words. Obama championed immigration reform during the 2012 campaign season long enough to secure the Hispanic vote and has not spoken of it since, and even then he avoided the term “amnesty” like it contained four letters; was careful to promise that whatever he offered it would not be amnesty.
At least there was no claim of him ending the war in Iraq.
Friday, October 04, 2013
Preserving Disorder
Every time the Obama administration feels that it is or might become unpopular it launches a campaign to get the name Al Queda in the news as often as possible and the media, of course, is happy to oblige. CBS Evening News has been on a real binge since the government shutdown, even though Obama is blaming the Republicans for it.
Last night they were celebrating the twenty-year anniversary of “Blackhawk Down,” complete with a “never before seen” film clip, and said that the mission was about capturing an “Al Queda affiliated warlord” in Mogadishu, which is an awesomely stupid and/or dishonest statement.
Whatever Mohamed Farrah Aidid was, he most certainly was not in any way affiliated with Al Queda or in sympathy with its goals. He was a Somali national, educated in the Soviet Union, who rebelled against the then Somali king and declared himself to be the head of the new Somali government. He was one of several vying in violent and bloodthirsty conflict for that role.
As a point of interest, he and his fellow warlords were later overthrown by the Islamic Courts Union, despite the fact that the United States was actively backing the warlords. Wait, we were backing the warlords after the “Blackhawk Down” incident?
Well, Aidid was dead by that time, so the conflict was less than it might have been, but it was still a bit odd. We claimed the ICU was harboring Al Queda, which it almost certainly was not. And this was another proxy war that we lost, because the ICU prevailed and established a considerable degree of order in the nation, which had known none under the warlords.
Nonetheless, we wanted the ICU gone, so we prevailed upon Kenya and Nigeria to invade and depose them, and assisted them in that process, thereby restoring total disorder to Somalia and returning it to its previous status as a failed state. We excel at creating disorder. At any rate, that opened the door for Al Shabab, which certainly is an element of Al Queda, to enter the country so in addition to introducing Al Queda to Iraq we also introduced them to Somalia.
CBS Evening News did not, of course, report any of this. The only Al Queda they mentioned in Somalia was Aidid, whose name they did not use and who was not actually Al Queda.
On Wednesday they ran a piece which was supportive of the war on whistleblowers, but which was also utterly incoherent.
It began, innocently enough, by blaming the New York Times for damaging the “war against terrorists” by reporting on the conversation within Al Queda which was intercepted and which led to the shutdown of nineteen American embassies. That link, CBS says, “went silent” as soon as the Times article appeared, and so the intelligence agencies lost a valuable asset.
They then said that “the material stolen by Snowden is almost certainly in the hands of the Chinese and the Russians,” and declaimed at great length about how damaging that is to our ability to deter terrorists from dropping a nuclear bomb on New York City. Haha, take that New York Times.
Okay, I made up the part about the nuclear bomb, but what does publication of one event by the Times have to do with unpublished documents taken six months earlier? And why is possession of those documents by China and Russia harmful? Are they suggesting that either of those nations sponsors terrorism? Or that they will pass the information on to terrorists?
Russia, at least, is actually working with us to stop terrorists. Does no one recall that some time back they notified us that a couple guys were headed our way who might be terrorists and we ignored them? The upshot of that was that the two guys set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, and I don’t recall any real words of praise about how Russians were such good guys for trying to prevent the tragedy.
Anyway, they kept condemning anyone who is willing to tell us what the government is doing. It was kind of ironic watching the news media saying that the news media should not report the news.
Last night they were celebrating the twenty-year anniversary of “Blackhawk Down,” complete with a “never before seen” film clip, and said that the mission was about capturing an “Al Queda affiliated warlord” in Mogadishu, which is an awesomely stupid and/or dishonest statement.
Whatever Mohamed Farrah Aidid was, he most certainly was not in any way affiliated with Al Queda or in sympathy with its goals. He was a Somali national, educated in the Soviet Union, who rebelled against the then Somali king and declared himself to be the head of the new Somali government. He was one of several vying in violent and bloodthirsty conflict for that role.
As a point of interest, he and his fellow warlords were later overthrown by the Islamic Courts Union, despite the fact that the United States was actively backing the warlords. Wait, we were backing the warlords after the “Blackhawk Down” incident?
Well, Aidid was dead by that time, so the conflict was less than it might have been, but it was still a bit odd. We claimed the ICU was harboring Al Queda, which it almost certainly was not. And this was another proxy war that we lost, because the ICU prevailed and established a considerable degree of order in the nation, which had known none under the warlords.
Nonetheless, we wanted the ICU gone, so we prevailed upon Kenya and Nigeria to invade and depose them, and assisted them in that process, thereby restoring total disorder to Somalia and returning it to its previous status as a failed state. We excel at creating disorder. At any rate, that opened the door for Al Shabab, which certainly is an element of Al Queda, to enter the country so in addition to introducing Al Queda to Iraq we also introduced them to Somalia.
CBS Evening News did not, of course, report any of this. The only Al Queda they mentioned in Somalia was Aidid, whose name they did not use and who was not actually Al Queda.
On Wednesday they ran a piece which was supportive of the war on whistleblowers, but which was also utterly incoherent.
It began, innocently enough, by blaming the New York Times for damaging the “war against terrorists” by reporting on the conversation within Al Queda which was intercepted and which led to the shutdown of nineteen American embassies. That link, CBS says, “went silent” as soon as the Times article appeared, and so the intelligence agencies lost a valuable asset.
They then said that “the material stolen by Snowden is almost certainly in the hands of the Chinese and the Russians,” and declaimed at great length about how damaging that is to our ability to deter terrorists from dropping a nuclear bomb on New York City. Haha, take that New York Times.
Okay, I made up the part about the nuclear bomb, but what does publication of one event by the Times have to do with unpublished documents taken six months earlier? And why is possession of those documents by China and Russia harmful? Are they suggesting that either of those nations sponsors terrorism? Or that they will pass the information on to terrorists?
Russia, at least, is actually working with us to stop terrorists. Does no one recall that some time back they notified us that a couple guys were headed our way who might be terrorists and we ignored them? The upshot of that was that the two guys set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, and I don’t recall any real words of praise about how Russians were such good guys for trying to prevent the tragedy.
Anyway, they kept condemning anyone who is willing to tell us what the government is doing. It was kind of ironic watching the news media saying that the news media should not report the news.
Thursday, October 03, 2013
The Pox Is In Both Houses
To say that our government is becoming increasingly dysfunctional is so trite as to be hardly worth saying, but it’s time to ask what the hell are we going to do about it and when are we going to do it?
In the present “crisis” the government has failed so many times to pass a budget that it quit even trying to do so and resorted to passing “continuing resolutions” to operate the government financially. These resolutions had to be of shorter and shorter duration in order to pass, and now they cannot pass one as short as three fucking months.
The government has always lied to us, but until recently they at least tried to conceal the lies. Now they don’t even try to make the lies remotely believable, nor do they make any real attempt to conceal from us the fact that they are lying. The revelation that the Director of National Intelligence lies to Congress is met with a huge yawn. The director of the NSA admits that the reports of “dozens of terror plots” that the administration has been telling us about was vastly exaggerated, and no one cares. Obama says that “no one is listening to your phone calls” and just three days later a report comes out that proves him a bald faced liar; no one cares.
Congress has constituted itself to render the minority party utterly irrelevant, denying it the ability to participate in governance. When Democrats were in the minority they accepted irrelevance and whined about how the Republicans were not treating them fairly. Now that Republicans are in the minority they reject irrelevance in the only manner that is available to them. Democrats are happy to allow them to do so, complaining about “obstructionism,” and blaming everything on their opposition for their own political gain.
Americans have short memories. It’s only been seven years, but we threw out a Republican Congress and installed a Democratic one in order to end the war in Iraq and put a stop to the Bush imperial presidency. We got the “surge” in Iraq, immunity for the telecom industry with regard to spying on Americans and TARP. We elected Obama to change the way things are done in Washington, and we all know how that worked out.
Democrats are saying this mess is all the fault of Republicans, but no one’s skirts are clean in Washington today. The entire government is foul with corruption, greed, money and influence peddling. If the American people had either intelligence or courage we would throw them all out, but we will not.
They will promise lower taxes and we will reelect them.
In the present “crisis” the government has failed so many times to pass a budget that it quit even trying to do so and resorted to passing “continuing resolutions” to operate the government financially. These resolutions had to be of shorter and shorter duration in order to pass, and now they cannot pass one as short as three fucking months.
The government has always lied to us, but until recently they at least tried to conceal the lies. Now they don’t even try to make the lies remotely believable, nor do they make any real attempt to conceal from us the fact that they are lying. The revelation that the Director of National Intelligence lies to Congress is met with a huge yawn. The director of the NSA admits that the reports of “dozens of terror plots” that the administration has been telling us about was vastly exaggerated, and no one cares. Obama says that “no one is listening to your phone calls” and just three days later a report comes out that proves him a bald faced liar; no one cares.
Congress has constituted itself to render the minority party utterly irrelevant, denying it the ability to participate in governance. When Democrats were in the minority they accepted irrelevance and whined about how the Republicans were not treating them fairly. Now that Republicans are in the minority they reject irrelevance in the only manner that is available to them. Democrats are happy to allow them to do so, complaining about “obstructionism,” and blaming everything on their opposition for their own political gain.
Americans have short memories. It’s only been seven years, but we threw out a Republican Congress and installed a Democratic one in order to end the war in Iraq and put a stop to the Bush imperial presidency. We got the “surge” in Iraq, immunity for the telecom industry with regard to spying on Americans and TARP. We elected Obama to change the way things are done in Washington, and we all know how that worked out.
Democrats are saying this mess is all the fault of Republicans, but no one’s skirts are clean in Washington today. The entire government is foul with corruption, greed, money and influence peddling. If the American people had either intelligence or courage we would throw them all out, but we will not.
They will promise lower taxes and we will reelect them.
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
It's All About Leverage
Obama’s position of “I’m not going to negotiate” is unattractive. It may be the correct position, because certainly the Republican position is utterly absurd, but it is tactless in its optics. A position in which he said that “There are points on which I am not prepared to be flexible," accompanied by a willingness to have talks would be a lot more sympathetic.
Americans like “tough guys” though, and I guess he is playing to that.
Although it sounds eminently reasonable, there is actually a certain unreasonableness in the Democratic insistence that “Congress pass the clean spending bill now and then we will negotiate everything else.” It is, in effect, asking the Republicans to surrender and then negotiate the terms of that surrender after they have emerged from their positions, laid down their arms, and put on the handcuffs.
Republicans have very little leverage. Democrats have the threat of presidential veto, and control of the Senate. Republicans have the House, and the only thing that gives them is control of revenue. They control nothing else, only revenue bills, and Democrats are demanding that they surrender on the revenue bill and only then will they negotiate on all the other bills; the ones where Republicans have no leverage whatever.
I don’t see this as a case of both sides currently being at fault, but that doesn’t mean that Obama and company has clean skirts. Obama has been a terrible negotiator, frequently making concessions before negotiations even began and then making further concessions during the process. He has backed himself into a position where he really can concede no further, and if he had been a better negotiator earlier we would not be here now.
It’s often true that the earlier you precipitate something the less disastrous that precipitation will be. There really was no need for this.
Americans like “tough guys” though, and I guess he is playing to that.
Although it sounds eminently reasonable, there is actually a certain unreasonableness in the Democratic insistence that “Congress pass the clean spending bill now and then we will negotiate everything else.” It is, in effect, asking the Republicans to surrender and then negotiate the terms of that surrender after they have emerged from their positions, laid down their arms, and put on the handcuffs.
Republicans have very little leverage. Democrats have the threat of presidential veto, and control of the Senate. Republicans have the House, and the only thing that gives them is control of revenue. They control nothing else, only revenue bills, and Democrats are demanding that they surrender on the revenue bill and only then will they negotiate on all the other bills; the ones where Republicans have no leverage whatever.
I don’t see this as a case of both sides currently being at fault, but that doesn’t mean that Obama and company has clean skirts. Obama has been a terrible negotiator, frequently making concessions before negotiations even began and then making further concessions during the process. He has backed himself into a position where he really can concede no further, and if he had been a better negotiator earlier we would not be here now.
It’s often true that the earlier you precipitate something the less disastrous that precipitation will be. There really was no need for this.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Weekend Thoughts
In how many ways was it emotional to see the final act of number 42 in New York? I’m not even a baseball fan, but watching the clip of Rivera’s last pitch brought tears to my eyes. The last pitch by the greatest closer of all time, and the last appearance of the most famous number in baseball. Awesome.
There is, as always this time of year, mumbling about modifying NASCAR’s “Chase For The Championship,” which is sort of like a playoff system. Matt Kenseth says, however, that NASCAR should “leave the Chase alone for now.” That’s not surprising, given that he has won the first two races of the Chase and is leading for the championship by 14 points.
Chargers tight end Antonio Gates is again spouting the line about the team losing games by “just missing one play.” As I wrote after lest week’s game,
That is not “just one play” short of a win, regardless of the score. They were 15 plays short last week, and in any case, one play does not gain 68 yards rushing and 115 yards passing that the Chargers were short in terms of yardage that day. You cannot correct a problem when you do not admit that you have a problem.
Time to go brace myself for LSU at Georgia. Geaux Tigers.
There is, as always this time of year, mumbling about modifying NASCAR’s “Chase For The Championship,” which is sort of like a playoff system. Matt Kenseth says, however, that NASCAR should “leave the Chase alone for now.” That’s not surprising, given that he has won the first two races of the Chase and is leading for the championship by 14 points.
Chargers tight end Antonio Gates is again spouting the line about the team losing games by “just missing one play.” As I wrote after lest week’s game,
The Chargers were outgained on the ground by 170 yards to 102 yards. We were outpassed by 299 yards to 184 yards. Tennessee ran 68 plays to our 53. We gave up 299 passing yards to a team that passed for 246 yards in its two previous games combined, and surrendered 170 rushing yards to a team with a previous high of 119 yards.
That is not “just one play” short of a win, regardless of the score. They were 15 plays short last week, and in any case, one play does not gain 68 yards rushing and 115 yards passing that the Chargers were short in terms of yardage that day. You cannot correct a problem when you do not admit that you have a problem.
Time to go brace myself for LSU at Georgia. Geaux Tigers.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Krugman Yet Again
Krugman wrote a post in his blog yesterday that starts off by wondering whether current economic policy is stupid or evil, and then asking why we need to choose. Indeed. It can, of course, as he does not proceed to suggest, be both at the same time.
He says that “problem of maintaining adequate aggregate demand is going to be very persistent,” which I think is a masterpiece of understatement given that wages are declining and the government really doesn’t give a shit about that, and goes on to say that “monetary policy could no longer do the job of stabilizing the economy” as if it was ever able to do that in the first place, given all of the bouncing around that our economy has historically been subject to.
It's also a bit odd to think that demand is something that needs to be created, rather than something that happens by itself. Sort of like making someone love you. It either happens or it doesn't.
He then makes the profound observation that “if monetary policy is assigned the task of discouraging people from excessive borrowing, it can’t pursue full employment and price stability,” because full employment and price stability require excessive borrowing and cannot be achieved without it, you know. What is he smoking, because I want some of that good stuff.
He then poses a dreadful thought, asking, “And here’s the worrisome thing: what if it turns out that we need ever-growing debt to stay out of a liquidity trap?” Hello? The world is out here Doctor Krugman. Are you just now figuring that out?
He follows that with his favorite hobby horse, higher inflation, saying that, “One answer could be a higher inflation target, so that the real interest rate can go more negative. I’m for it!” So if you were thinking about saving for retirement, forget it. Paul Krugman wants you to work until you physically can no longer do so, at which point your kids will borrow money to take care of you. That will work fine, though, because inflation will eventually reduce their debt to somewhere in the neighborhood of five cents, while their kids borrow money to take care of them.
And here we have the famous “debt only matters as a percentage of GDP,” which is one of the biggest and stupidest lies of all time. GDP is not a measure of wealth, it is a measure of cash flow, and not a particularly accurate one at that, and comparing debt to cash flow is a financial absurdity. Debt is offset against assets, wealth, not against cash flow.
If I pay you $50 to mow my lawn, and you pay me $50 to mow your lawn, according to Paul Krugman we can borrow about $90 between us because we have created $100 of GDP. We have not created a single dollar of wealth; I am out the $50 I paid you and enriched by the $50 you paid me, and you are in the same boat. But that $90 debt is offset by that totally imaginary and meaningless $100 GDP.
If we repeat the process the following month, we can increase our joint debt to $180 because we have increased our GDP to $200. Despite the fact that we now owe $180 instead of $90, we are not any deeper in debt because we still only owe 90% of our GDP. How long can we repeat this before the bank quits lending us money?
“Debt only matters as a percentage of GDP” is saying that you can borrow $90,000 because you are spending $100,000 per year. We don’t care about your income, we don’t care what assets you have, we don’t care how rich you are. Your income might be only $50,000, but since you are spending $100,000 per year we will allow you to borrow $90,000.
Think, too, about the last part of Krugman’s statement, “the higher the level of debt, the higher the allowable deficit.” The more you owe, the more you can spend above your income. The higher your debt, the faster you can create additional debt. That is utterly absurd on the face of it. Only a crazy person would say that. Or an economist.
He says that “problem of maintaining adequate aggregate demand is going to be very persistent,” which I think is a masterpiece of understatement given that wages are declining and the government really doesn’t give a shit about that, and goes on to say that “monetary policy could no longer do the job of stabilizing the economy” as if it was ever able to do that in the first place, given all of the bouncing around that our economy has historically been subject to.
It's also a bit odd to think that demand is something that needs to be created, rather than something that happens by itself. Sort of like making someone love you. It either happens or it doesn't.
He then makes the profound observation that “if monetary policy is assigned the task of discouraging people from excessive borrowing, it can’t pursue full employment and price stability,” because full employment and price stability require excessive borrowing and cannot be achieved without it, you know. What is he smoking, because I want some of that good stuff.
He then poses a dreadful thought, asking, “And here’s the worrisome thing: what if it turns out that we need ever-growing debt to stay out of a liquidity trap?” Hello? The world is out here Doctor Krugman. Are you just now figuring that out?
He follows that with his favorite hobby horse, higher inflation, saying that, “One answer could be a higher inflation target, so that the real interest rate can go more negative. I’m for it!” So if you were thinking about saving for retirement, forget it. Paul Krugman wants you to work until you physically can no longer do so, at which point your kids will borrow money to take care of you. That will work fine, though, because inflation will eventually reduce their debt to somewhere in the neighborhood of five cents, while their kids borrow money to take care of them.
"Another answer could be sustained, deficit-financed fiscal stimulus. But, you say, this would lead to exploding public debt! Actually, no – not if the real interest rate is persistently below the economy’s growth rate, which it will certainly be if it’s persistently negative. In that case the government can run a primary deficit even while keeping the debt-GDP ratio constant – and the higher the level of debt, the higher the allowable deficit."
And here we have the famous “debt only matters as a percentage of GDP,” which is one of the biggest and stupidest lies of all time. GDP is not a measure of wealth, it is a measure of cash flow, and not a particularly accurate one at that, and comparing debt to cash flow is a financial absurdity. Debt is offset against assets, wealth, not against cash flow.
If I pay you $50 to mow my lawn, and you pay me $50 to mow your lawn, according to Paul Krugman we can borrow about $90 between us because we have created $100 of GDP. We have not created a single dollar of wealth; I am out the $50 I paid you and enriched by the $50 you paid me, and you are in the same boat. But that $90 debt is offset by that totally imaginary and meaningless $100 GDP.
If we repeat the process the following month, we can increase our joint debt to $180 because we have increased our GDP to $200. Despite the fact that we now owe $180 instead of $90, we are not any deeper in debt because we still only owe 90% of our GDP. How long can we repeat this before the bank quits lending us money?
“Debt only matters as a percentage of GDP” is saying that you can borrow $90,000 because you are spending $100,000 per year. We don’t care about your income, we don’t care what assets you have, we don’t care how rich you are. Your income might be only $50,000, but since you are spending $100,000 per year we will allow you to borrow $90,000.
Think, too, about the last part of Krugman’s statement, “the higher the level of debt, the higher the allowable deficit.” The more you owe, the more you can spend above your income. The higher your debt, the faster you can create additional debt. That is utterly absurd on the face of it. Only a crazy person would say that. Or an economist.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Yikes !
Oracle Team USA should be called Miracle Team USA. They have won seven straight, preventing the Kiwis from winning the single race that would send the Cup to New Zealand. Final race is tomorrow, and I don't see how New Zealand has a chance. Oracle has not been beating the Kiwis, they have been slaughtering them.
In the second race today New Zealand won the start, led the downwind leg and was leading at the leeward mark by 17 seconds. Oracle not only took the lead going to windward, but was leading by 57 seconds at the windward mark. It was a bloodbath. The announcers were reduced to stammering.
In the second race today New Zealand won the start, led the downwind leg and was leading at the leeward mark by 17 seconds. Oracle not only took the lead going to windward, but was leading by 57 seconds at the windward mark. It was a bloodbath. The announcers were reduced to stammering.
PITA Feline
Molly has been dealing with some dietary issues, which reached a peak on Sunday; not only refusing to eat, but barfing up water and having a mild case of diarrhea. So, right after the Chargers lost we took her to the emergency vet, where she was kept overnight on IV fluids and medication. It was not fun going to bed with her not here.Yesterday we took her to a feline internist (!) for exam, blood work and an ultrasound. Turns out they believe she has pancreatitis, but they can’t quite prove it. We are now medicating her for it, with five different pills twice per day. She doesn’t care for that, but pretty much takes it in stride.
She is doing fine today, eating canned food and demanding attention when she is not sleeping. They had to shave her belly for the ultrasound, which bothers me more than it seems to bother her.
You do not even want to know how much all of that cost.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Weekend Fizzle
The San Diego Chargers are again saying that it was “a few little things” and that “we just did not finish” that caused them to lose the game yesterday. At least I didn’t hear “we know what to do and we’ll do it” as we tended to hear under Norv Turner.
The Chargers were outgained on the ground by 170 yards to 102 yards. We were outpassed by 299 yards to 184 yards. Tennessee ran 68 plays to our 53. We gave up 299 passing yards to a team that passed for 246 yards in its two previous games combined, and surrendered 170 rushing yards to a team with a previous high of 119 yards.
Their quarterback ran for 68 yards, while our star running back, Ryan Matthews, ran for 58 yards. Locker did it on 5 carries, Matthews needed 16 carries for ten fewer yards, and his longest run was 8 yards to 39 for Locker. Locker is their quarterback.
Those things are not “few” nor are they “little.” Those things are dismal. It was not as close as the score would seem to imply; we were thoroughly trounced in every aspect of the game.
A happier fizzle occurred on San Francisco Bay yesterday. New Zealand needed only one win to take home the America’s Cup trophy and they didn’t get it. Oracle USA won both races, and won them with enough margin to make it seem quite possible that they might pull off four more in a row for the successful defense.
I am still not happy with what they have done to this contest, but the racing has been better than I anticipated, and the coverage is simply spectacular. NBC Sports is doing a lovely job of persentation, and the announcers are delightful. There are downsides to presenting it in the confined waters of the Golden Gate, but what a treat for spectators it has provided! Overall, a good decision.
LSU did not fizzle, and it is beginning to look like they might be a legitimate contender to unseat the Crimson Tide. Maybe I’m just being sentimental, but the Tide is looking a tad vulnerable right now.
The SDSU Aztecs, on the other hand, added to the weekend fizzle. With an upset in the making, they throw two interceptions in the last three minutes and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It's not even October yet, I know that because my wall calender is still on August, and they are predicting a Santa Ana wind for tomorrow. For those who don't know, that is a wind out of the desert and it can, and often does, bring wildfires. Bad ones.
The Chargers were outgained on the ground by 170 yards to 102 yards. We were outpassed by 299 yards to 184 yards. Tennessee ran 68 plays to our 53. We gave up 299 passing yards to a team that passed for 246 yards in its two previous games combined, and surrendered 170 rushing yards to a team with a previous high of 119 yards.
Their quarterback ran for 68 yards, while our star running back, Ryan Matthews, ran for 58 yards. Locker did it on 5 carries, Matthews needed 16 carries for ten fewer yards, and his longest run was 8 yards to 39 for Locker. Locker is their quarterback.
Those things are not “few” nor are they “little.” Those things are dismal. It was not as close as the score would seem to imply; we were thoroughly trounced in every aspect of the game.
A happier fizzle occurred on San Francisco Bay yesterday. New Zealand needed only one win to take home the America’s Cup trophy and they didn’t get it. Oracle USA won both races, and won them with enough margin to make it seem quite possible that they might pull off four more in a row for the successful defense.
I am still not happy with what they have done to this contest, but the racing has been better than I anticipated, and the coverage is simply spectacular. NBC Sports is doing a lovely job of persentation, and the announcers are delightful. There are downsides to presenting it in the confined waters of the Golden Gate, but what a treat for spectators it has provided! Overall, a good decision.
LSU did not fizzle, and it is beginning to look like they might be a legitimate contender to unseat the Crimson Tide. Maybe I’m just being sentimental, but the Tide is looking a tad vulnerable right now.
The SDSU Aztecs, on the other hand, added to the weekend fizzle. With an upset in the making, they throw two interceptions in the last three minutes and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It's not even October yet, I know that because my wall calender is still on August, and they are predicting a Santa Ana wind for tomorrow. For those who don't know, that is a wind out of the desert and it can, and often does, bring wildfires. Bad ones.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Partisanship
Partisan politics has not only become rancorous, it has descended into illogic and insanity as each side tries desperately to defend positions which are becoming increasingly indefensible.
I have some small measure of respect for conservatives, who at least have some degree of consistency in their basic argument; they don’t want to impose taxes and they don’t want the government to spend money. I think their basic position is mistaken and without question they have taken arguments in defense of and positions with respect to it to ridiculous and destructive extremes, but at least the two parts of their basic ideology are not fundamentally at odds with each other.
I used to have great respect for what were then “tax and spend” liberals who felt that government should spend money to provide programs which created a social safety net and strengthened the social fabric of the nation, and that it should impose taxes sufficient to pay for those programs. They passed legislation such as Social Security, in which a person pays into the program for a lifetime and benefits from it upon retirement.
That group has now become “cut taxes and spend” liberals who still favor the government programs, but who no longer favor the imposition of taxes because suffering American voters cannot afford to pay taxes. They demonize health insurance companies as being the evil empire and then pass legislation which requires every citizen to purchase insurance from those evil health insurance companies.
They demonize “big business” as being the cause of American impoverishment, and claim that if they can just tax big business heavily enough to drive down their profits then the workers who are employed by big business will somehow become enriched.
The inconsistencies of the positions held by today’s liberals are myriad and baffling to me, and if you point that out and ask for clarification they simply become angry and call you names. Liberals actually spend far more time slinging accusations of “stupidity” and “insanity” at members of their opposition, and calling them “evil,” than they do either defending their own views or criticizing the opposition’s policies.
Neither side really makes any sense, but at least conservatives have not painted themselves into a corner and resorted to yelling, “Your mother wears combat boots.”
I have some small measure of respect for conservatives, who at least have some degree of consistency in their basic argument; they don’t want to impose taxes and they don’t want the government to spend money. I think their basic position is mistaken and without question they have taken arguments in defense of and positions with respect to it to ridiculous and destructive extremes, but at least the two parts of their basic ideology are not fundamentally at odds with each other.
I used to have great respect for what were then “tax and spend” liberals who felt that government should spend money to provide programs which created a social safety net and strengthened the social fabric of the nation, and that it should impose taxes sufficient to pay for those programs. They passed legislation such as Social Security, in which a person pays into the program for a lifetime and benefits from it upon retirement.
That group has now become “cut taxes and spend” liberals who still favor the government programs, but who no longer favor the imposition of taxes because suffering American voters cannot afford to pay taxes. They demonize health insurance companies as being the evil empire and then pass legislation which requires every citizen to purchase insurance from those evil health insurance companies.
They demonize “big business” as being the cause of American impoverishment, and claim that if they can just tax big business heavily enough to drive down their profits then the workers who are employed by big business will somehow become enriched.
The inconsistencies of the positions held by today’s liberals are myriad and baffling to me, and if you point that out and ask for clarification they simply become angry and call you names. Liberals actually spend far more time slinging accusations of “stupidity” and “insanity” at members of their opposition, and calling them “evil,” than they do either defending their own views or criticizing the opposition’s policies.
Neither side really makes any sense, but at least conservatives have not painted themselves into a corner and resorted to yelling, “Your mother wears combat boots.”
Friday, September 20, 2013
Clarification, Part Two
I will attempt to clarify my disdain for “tax the rich,” today. Of course we should tax the rich. We should to a lesser extent tax the middle class as well. We have been on a tax cutting binge for the past three decades, a plot fomented by pandering politicians as a sop to obtain votes from ignorant and greedy voters.
I certainly believe that our tax code should be significantly more progressive than it currently is, and it should be higher at all levels of income with the possible exception of the very lowest income level. My reasoning is that we should have a sustainable social fabric which serves the needs of the people of this nation, one which is paid for and not one that is propped up by ever increasing debt.
I was recently involved in a discussion where a person insisted that “tax the rich” would promote growth because a higher marginal tax rate would discourage “keeping profits” and make hiring additional employees a “good investment,” thereby creating jobs. The idea is ludicrous, since employment is not an investment decision but rather is a market decision, but even if it were I abhor the idea of government using the tax code to manipulate the business environment.
“Tax the rich” is a populist slogan invented to suggest to the masses that they can have the benefit of government programs without having to pay for them; that they can receive benefit and require someone else to foot the bill. Free lunch. Obama loyalists keep talking about wanting to “reverse the Bush tax cuts,” but they only want to reverse that part which affected the rich, and they want to keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. They want to eat their cake and have it at the same time.
Voters are real big on “support the troops,” so long as “the troops” are not 99% of the American voters; the people who are supporting the troops by putting magnets on their cars. That is not what General George Patton meant when he said that war is about “making some other poor bastard die for his country.”
Every person who benefits from living in this nation should have a stake in maintaining it as a viable entity, if not by personal service then at least by paying some small portion of the monetary cost of operating its government. That does not mean “making some other poor bastard die for it” and taxing the rich.
I certainly believe that our tax code should be significantly more progressive than it currently is, and it should be higher at all levels of income with the possible exception of the very lowest income level. My reasoning is that we should have a sustainable social fabric which serves the needs of the people of this nation, one which is paid for and not one that is propped up by ever increasing debt.
I was recently involved in a discussion where a person insisted that “tax the rich” would promote growth because a higher marginal tax rate would discourage “keeping profits” and make hiring additional employees a “good investment,” thereby creating jobs. The idea is ludicrous, since employment is not an investment decision but rather is a market decision, but even if it were I abhor the idea of government using the tax code to manipulate the business environment.
“Tax the rich” is a populist slogan invented to suggest to the masses that they can have the benefit of government programs without having to pay for them; that they can receive benefit and require someone else to foot the bill. Free lunch. Obama loyalists keep talking about wanting to “reverse the Bush tax cuts,” but they only want to reverse that part which affected the rich, and they want to keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. They want to eat their cake and have it at the same time.
Voters are real big on “support the troops,” so long as “the troops” are not 99% of the American voters; the people who are supporting the troops by putting magnets on their cars. That is not what General George Patton meant when he said that war is about “making some other poor bastard die for his country.”
Every person who benefits from living in this nation should have a stake in maintaining it as a viable entity, if not by personal service then at least by paying some small portion of the monetary cost of operating its government. That does not mean “making some other poor bastard die for it” and taxing the rich.
NFL Football Thought
Watched the game last night. Notwithstanding the ravings of three sets of announcers about the awesomeness of the Eagles and Chip Kelly, what record is Piladelphia going to have to reach before everyone admits that a college offense in the NFL is not a viable proposition? It seems that 1-3 hasn't quite done it, but cracks are beginning to appear in the facade of media adoration.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Clarification
Perhaps I should clarify what I wrote earlier about California driver’s licenses. I don’t care if this state wants to issue driver’s licenses to illegal residents. It’s no skin off my nose and if it makes people feel good than by all means go for it. My post was merely to point out the illogicality of Governor Brown’s statement that doing so will allow illegal immigrants to “drive to work safely and legally.”
First of all I know of no manner in which having a driver’s license makes one safer behind the wheel of a car. The idiot who was racing at 110 mph and killed himself and his three passengers had a valid driver’s license, as did the moron who was texting when she hit a bridge abutment. I have no data to prove it, but I'm willing to bet that a great many more accidents are caused by drivers who do have licenses than by those who do not.
Further, illegal immigrants are not even in this country legally, so how can they drive in this country legally? And, since they cannot legally work in this country, the legality or illegality of their driving to work is of very little consequence.
There is the advantage of licensing illegals, in that it does lead to a greater likelihood of them being insured, but “driving to work legally” is simply not a benefit of issuing licenses, and Brown’s statement is absurd in its entirety.
As is the concept of issuing an identification card which is labeled as not being for the purpose of identification. If it is not for that purpose, why does it have a holographic photograph and a thumbprint? Why make the “non-identification” driver’s license be in all respects identical to the one which can be used for identification other than a label saying that it cannot be used for identification, while including on it all of the features which permit it to be used for identification?
Like most moves made by any government, this whole thing is done on a whim, without in any way thinking it through.
First of all I know of no manner in which having a driver’s license makes one safer behind the wheel of a car. The idiot who was racing at 110 mph and killed himself and his three passengers had a valid driver’s license, as did the moron who was texting when she hit a bridge abutment. I have no data to prove it, but I'm willing to bet that a great many more accidents are caused by drivers who do have licenses than by those who do not.
Further, illegal immigrants are not even in this country legally, so how can they drive in this country legally? And, since they cannot legally work in this country, the legality or illegality of their driving to work is of very little consequence.
There is the advantage of licensing illegals, in that it does lead to a greater likelihood of them being insured, but “driving to work legally” is simply not a benefit of issuing licenses, and Brown’s statement is absurd in its entirety.
As is the concept of issuing an identification card which is labeled as not being for the purpose of identification. If it is not for that purpose, why does it have a holographic photograph and a thumbprint? Why make the “non-identification” driver’s license be in all respects identical to the one which can be used for identification other than a label saying that it cannot be used for identification, while including on it all of the features which permit it to be used for identification?
Like most moves made by any government, this whole thing is done on a whim, without in any way thinking it through.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Sunday Circus
Yes, Bruce, after a Saturday Circus on Sunday and a Sunday Circus on Saturday, we now have a Sunday Circus on Monday. Try to keep up.
San Diego sportswriters have finally learned their lesson. They are deliriously happy about the Chargers win yesterday, but they are not using the words “Super Bowl,” or even suggesting what will happen next week in Nashville. None of them have gone so far as to admit that the Eagles’ defense stinks, but let’s not expect too much.
They are, on the other hand, saying that the Chargers’ defense stinks, which is kind of ridiculous. That defense held Philadelphia to 89 yards total on the ground, including Vick. When the offense gave up two turnovers they permitted the Eagles to score zero points off of them. The Eagles had first and goal three times without scoring a touchdown, including the one in the fourth quarter which set the Chargers up to win with a field goal.
Bad Eagles defense or not, celebration is appropriate. We’ve played bad defenses before and lost. We played well on both sides of the line of scrimmage yesterday, only punted once in the entire game, and won.
Again I was struck by the blind admiration the announcers displayed for Michael Vick, constantly swooning over his “pinpoint accuracy” as a passer, etc. Never mind that at least six times he had a receiver wide open and, even though not pressured by the San Diego defense, threw the ball where the open receiver was not. At least two of those mis-thrown passes would have been touchdowns. The truth is that Vick is a highly erratic passer; at times very precise and at other times unexplainably badly inaccurate.
NASCAR has added yet another rule for yet another rather bizarre reason, having to do with restarts. Actually it has to do with their fecklessness in enforcing the rule on restarts.
There is a marked “restart zone” prior to the start/finish line within which the leader is supposed to initiate the restart by jumping on the gas. If he does not do so the starter, the guy in the platform above the line, will wave the green flag to restart the race. The second place car, who restarts beside the leader, must not cross the start/finish line ahead of the leader.
That last part has been violated rather frequently lately without the officials noticing, and drivers have been complaining vigorously; sometimes with validity, sometimes not. The officials have noticed a time or two and penalized the offending driver, but usually they just blow the complaints off with some sort of excuse such as that the leader spun his tires, or that he drove slowly on purpose. (?!)
So NASCAR has now dropped the last part of that rule, the part about the leader having to cross the start/finish line first, so as to “remove the subjective judgement part” of the restart rule. Weird. If looking at which car crossed the line first is a “subjective judgement” on a restart, then why is it not a “subjective judgement” in determining who won the race?
San Diego sportswriters have finally learned their lesson. They are deliriously happy about the Chargers win yesterday, but they are not using the words “Super Bowl,” or even suggesting what will happen next week in Nashville. None of them have gone so far as to admit that the Eagles’ defense stinks, but let’s not expect too much.
They are, on the other hand, saying that the Chargers’ defense stinks, which is kind of ridiculous. That defense held Philadelphia to 89 yards total on the ground, including Vick. When the offense gave up two turnovers they permitted the Eagles to score zero points off of them. The Eagles had first and goal three times without scoring a touchdown, including the one in the fourth quarter which set the Chargers up to win with a field goal.
Bad Eagles defense or not, celebration is appropriate. We’ve played bad defenses before and lost. We played well on both sides of the line of scrimmage yesterday, only punted once in the entire game, and won.
Again I was struck by the blind admiration the announcers displayed for Michael Vick, constantly swooning over his “pinpoint accuracy” as a passer, etc. Never mind that at least six times he had a receiver wide open and, even though not pressured by the San Diego defense, threw the ball where the open receiver was not. At least two of those mis-thrown passes would have been touchdowns. The truth is that Vick is a highly erratic passer; at times very precise and at other times unexplainably badly inaccurate.
NASCAR has added yet another rule for yet another rather bizarre reason, having to do with restarts. Actually it has to do with their fecklessness in enforcing the rule on restarts.
There is a marked “restart zone” prior to the start/finish line within which the leader is supposed to initiate the restart by jumping on the gas. If he does not do so the starter, the guy in the platform above the line, will wave the green flag to restart the race. The second place car, who restarts beside the leader, must not cross the start/finish line ahead of the leader.
That last part has been violated rather frequently lately without the officials noticing, and drivers have been complaining vigorously; sometimes with validity, sometimes not. The officials have noticed a time or two and penalized the offending driver, but usually they just blow the complaints off with some sort of excuse such as that the leader spun his tires, or that he drove slowly on purpose. (?!)
So NASCAR has now dropped the last part of that rule, the part about the leader having to cross the start/finish line first, so as to “remove the subjective judgement part” of the restart rule. Weird. If looking at which car crossed the line first is a “subjective judgement” on a restart, then why is it not a “subjective judgement” in determining who won the race?
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Saturday Circus
I would not say that Nick Saban got his revenge. Yes, Bama won the game, but his defense letting the opponent rack up 42 points was humiliating no matter what his offense did, and his offense did it against a weak defense.
It was amazing to watch the sycophancy displayed by the announcers in the form of endless adoring discussion of “Johnny Football” no matter what he did. At one point he was scrambling Fran Tarkington-style to avoid a pass rush on third and twelve, was more than twenty yards behind the line of scrimmage, and threw up an unguided air ball into the center of the field. The pass was a horrible decision, it had the trajectory of a punt and was as likely to be caught be a defender as by one of his own. Had anyone else thrown that pass the announcers would have been declaiming it as absolute stupidity, but because it was thrown by “Johnny Football” and by sheer good fortune was caught by an Aggie for a first down, they were going crazy about what a brilliant pass it was and raving about the thrower’s athleticism.
We will undoubtedly see a lot of high scoring college football games, because the new rule about “targeting” has made defensive secondary players afraid to play pass defense. Not only can you not hit a pass receiver before the ball arrives, you now cannot hit him after the ball arrives either without fear of not only being penalized but of being ejected from the game. You are, apparently, required to tackle him without hitting him, which is a pretty neat trick.
An Alabama defender went for the interception. He had both hands on the ball in front of the receiver, made contact with the receiver shoulder to shoulder, and was flagged for “targeting.” The ejection was overturned by replay, but the penalty for pass interference was not. It seems the referees are told to “err on the side of receiver safety.” I’ll tell you how that receiver can be completely safe. He can sit on his sofa and watch the game on television at home. Football is not a noncontact sport.
During that play the cat left the living room in some degree of haste. My wife came from the back room to assure herself that I was okay. Always nice to know she cares. The referee probably does not actually have some of the habits of which I was accusing him.
Utah’s coach, by the way, is an idiot. Yes, Lee, that was addressed to you. On offense in overtime he went with two weak running plays and kicked a field goal. He had to know OSU would score a touchdown, given that they had done so on each of their last four possessions.
It was amazing to watch the sycophancy displayed by the announcers in the form of endless adoring discussion of “Johnny Football” no matter what he did. At one point he was scrambling Fran Tarkington-style to avoid a pass rush on third and twelve, was more than twenty yards behind the line of scrimmage, and threw up an unguided air ball into the center of the field. The pass was a horrible decision, it had the trajectory of a punt and was as likely to be caught be a defender as by one of his own. Had anyone else thrown that pass the announcers would have been declaiming it as absolute stupidity, but because it was thrown by “Johnny Football” and by sheer good fortune was caught by an Aggie for a first down, they were going crazy about what a brilliant pass it was and raving about the thrower’s athleticism.
We will undoubtedly see a lot of high scoring college football games, because the new rule about “targeting” has made defensive secondary players afraid to play pass defense. Not only can you not hit a pass receiver before the ball arrives, you now cannot hit him after the ball arrives either without fear of not only being penalized but of being ejected from the game. You are, apparently, required to tackle him without hitting him, which is a pretty neat trick.
An Alabama defender went for the interception. He had both hands on the ball in front of the receiver, made contact with the receiver shoulder to shoulder, and was flagged for “targeting.” The ejection was overturned by replay, but the penalty for pass interference was not. It seems the referees are told to “err on the side of receiver safety.” I’ll tell you how that receiver can be completely safe. He can sit on his sofa and watch the game on television at home. Football is not a noncontact sport.
During that play the cat left the living room in some degree of haste. My wife came from the back room to assure herself that I was okay. Always nice to know she cares. The referee probably does not actually have some of the habits of which I was accusing him.
Utah’s coach, by the way, is an idiot. Yes, Lee, that was addressed to you. On offense in overtime he went with two weak running plays and kicked a field goal. He had to know OSU would score a touchdown, given that they had done so on each of their last four possessions.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Sunday Circus
Well, NASCAR has now lost it completely. As in, gone completely nuts. As in, have had their brains scrambled by listening to too many unmuffled car engines. Maybe this generation of the France family wasn’t very bright to begin with.
Last weekend’s race was the final one to set the 12-car field for the “Chase,” which is NASCAR’s version of the playoffs. The top twelve cars will be the ones competing for the championship and, during last weekend's race the cheating to manipulate the standings rose to awe inspiring levels.
Clint Boywer, who is locked into the Chase, spun his car on purpose so that a team mate, Martin Truex, could advance position during the ensuing caution. That was not sufficient to get Truex in, so Brian Vickers, another team mate who was not in the Chase, simply pulled into the pits to give Treux another position. That resulted in Truex being in the Chase and Ryan Newman, who drives for a different team, being out.
Meanwhile, the Penske team was conspiring with another team to have their driver slow down so that their driver, Joey Logano, could gain position. That worked and got Logano in the Chase, but it knocked Jeff Gordon who, again, drives for a different team, out.
All of this is against the rules, and they are not even trying to hide it; the cars are spinning and pitting right out in front of God, fans, officials and everybody, and the negotiations are happening on radios that have the frequencies published so that fans can listen in. The whole thing is resembling a scene out of “Talledega Nights” and I’m looking for Ricky Bobby to show up in his underwear any minute.
So NASCAR decides they need to take corrective action and issues penalties which result in Truex being out of the Chase and Newman being in. Unfortunately, it leaves Boywer, the guy who started the whole mess with his fake spinout, in the Chase and it leaves Logano in and Jeff Gordon out, so there is still a lot of grumbling.
NASCAR’s next move, then, is to "expand the Chase" to 13 cars and put Jeff Gordon in, which is beyond bizarre. About the only one who is happy about that is Jeff Gordon. Everyone else wants to know why, since Logano’s team cheated to get him in, he isn’t penalized as the other team was, which would put him out and Gordon in, instead of this nonsense about "expanding the Chase."
Gordon’s own teammate, Jimmy Johnson, is even complaining about the move, saying that having 13 cars in the Chase rather than 12, “alters the dynamics” of the deal. He’s obviously nervous about the fact that his average finish in the last four races is 35th, so I’m not taking him very seriously.
Last weekend’s race was the final one to set the 12-car field for the “Chase,” which is NASCAR’s version of the playoffs. The top twelve cars will be the ones competing for the championship and, during last weekend's race the cheating to manipulate the standings rose to awe inspiring levels.
Clint Boywer, who is locked into the Chase, spun his car on purpose so that a team mate, Martin Truex, could advance position during the ensuing caution. That was not sufficient to get Truex in, so Brian Vickers, another team mate who was not in the Chase, simply pulled into the pits to give Treux another position. That resulted in Truex being in the Chase and Ryan Newman, who drives for a different team, being out.
Meanwhile, the Penske team was conspiring with another team to have their driver slow down so that their driver, Joey Logano, could gain position. That worked and got Logano in the Chase, but it knocked Jeff Gordon who, again, drives for a different team, out.
All of this is against the rules, and they are not even trying to hide it; the cars are spinning and pitting right out in front of God, fans, officials and everybody, and the negotiations are happening on radios that have the frequencies published so that fans can listen in. The whole thing is resembling a scene out of “Talledega Nights” and I’m looking for Ricky Bobby to show up in his underwear any minute.
So NASCAR decides they need to take corrective action and issues penalties which result in Truex being out of the Chase and Newman being in. Unfortunately, it leaves Boywer, the guy who started the whole mess with his fake spinout, in the Chase and it leaves Logano in and Jeff Gordon out, so there is still a lot of grumbling.
NASCAR’s next move, then, is to "expand the Chase" to 13 cars and put Jeff Gordon in, which is beyond bizarre. About the only one who is happy about that is Jeff Gordon. Everyone else wants to know why, since Logano’s team cheated to get him in, he isn’t penalized as the other team was, which would put him out and Gordon in, instead of this nonsense about "expanding the Chase."
Gordon’s own teammate, Jimmy Johnson, is even complaining about the move, saying that having 13 cars in the Chase rather than 12, “alters the dynamics” of the deal. He’s obviously nervous about the fact that his average finish in the last four races is 35th, so I’m not taking him very seriously.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Side Effect, You Say?
The vet prescribed a new medication for Molly, which I picked up yesterday. I noted on the label a warning that the drug "may cause a slight degree of drowsiness." Seriously? We're talking about a cat here; a creature closely related to a vegetable. How are we supposed to tell if the medication causes any amount of drowsiness, let alone a slight one?
California Dreaming
California now has a law making it possible for illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, which clashes somewhat with our compliance with the federal Real ID Act, under which one has to present a birth certificate proving US citizenship, or some other documentation proving legality, in order to obtain a state identification. The license, apparently, will be marked with a “DP” to indicate that it is for driving privileges only, which illegal immigrants claim is discriminatory. I’m not sure why illegal immigrants think that they should not be discriminated against in this manner, but...
Governor Brown said that this “will enable millions of people to get to work safely and legally.” There is the fact that it is still against the law to hire anyone who does not have official permission to be in this country, so this new law may allow them to get to work legally, but it won’t allow them to actually work legally. Perhaps it should be pointed out that Governor Brown is older than I am and may be suffering from dementia.
Supporters of the law say that "unauthorized immigrants are already driving, and that this law will encourage them to be trained, tested and obtain insurance." The logic of this thinking rather escapes me. People are robbing banks rather frequently, too, so perhaps we should pass a law making bank robbing legal so that bank robbers could be “trained, tested and obtain insurance” as well.
Yes, I realize the simile is not entirely valid and that very few insurance companies would issue bank robbing insurance, but I’m engaging in some artistic literary license here. Some might call it bullshit, actually, but I feel sorry for them.
The governor also said that this will “send a message to Washington that immigration reform is long overdue.” I have no idea why the governor thinks that, and I suspect that it will mostly send a message to the rest of the country that California is nuts.
But then, the rest of the country already knew that.
Governor Brown said that this “will enable millions of people to get to work safely and legally.” There is the fact that it is still against the law to hire anyone who does not have official permission to be in this country, so this new law may allow them to get to work legally, but it won’t allow them to actually work legally. Perhaps it should be pointed out that Governor Brown is older than I am and may be suffering from dementia.
Supporters of the law say that "unauthorized immigrants are already driving, and that this law will encourage them to be trained, tested and obtain insurance." The logic of this thinking rather escapes me. People are robbing banks rather frequently, too, so perhaps we should pass a law making bank robbing legal so that bank robbers could be “trained, tested and obtain insurance” as well.
Yes, I realize the simile is not entirely valid and that very few insurance companies would issue bank robbing insurance, but I’m engaging in some artistic literary license here. Some might call it bullshit, actually, but I feel sorry for them.
The governor also said that this will “send a message to Washington that immigration reform is long overdue.” I have no idea why the governor thinks that, and I suspect that it will mostly send a message to the rest of the country that California is nuts.
But then, the rest of the country already knew that.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
The Chattering Class
I was channel surfing yesterday and stayed on MSNBC for an insufferable fifteen minutes or so, watching some jackass with a British accent pontificate about the horrors of the Republican Party. Why is the media so infatuated with British accents? Do they think people with that accent sound intelligent? If you listen to what they are actually saying, they sound like blithering idiots.
Anyway, Martin Bashir introduced his “panel,” one of whom it turned out wasn’t actually there (The fallible miracle of Skype. Hello? Hello?), and introduced the topic by saying that, “On a day which is supposed to be above politics, why are the Republicans being so critical of Obama?” They then proceeded to spend the next quarter hour discussing just how horrible the Republicans are.
No one seemed to notice the irony of the opening statement, suggesting that they think that Republicans should be above politics on this day, or perhaps legislators should, but that they certainly should not.
What they were discussing was not, furthermore, what any legislator was doing, or any legislation which was being proposed or passed in Congress, but merely what various Republican legislators were saying about Obama. “Senator Schmuckbutt said that Obama is weak on flag waving, so let’s discuss. Why would he say something like that?”
The topic here is nothing more than name calling, words with no more depth than “Your mother is ugly.” Name calling is lazy rhetoric; what one resorts to when one has run out of legitimate arguments, either because no more exist or because one does not know what they are, and these idiots are spending a quarter hour of national air time chattering about it.
And we wonder why voters in this nation are ignorant.
Anyway, Martin Bashir introduced his “panel,” one of whom it turned out wasn’t actually there (The fallible miracle of Skype. Hello? Hello?), and introduced the topic by saying that, “On a day which is supposed to be above politics, why are the Republicans being so critical of Obama?” They then proceeded to spend the next quarter hour discussing just how horrible the Republicans are.
No one seemed to notice the irony of the opening statement, suggesting that they think that Republicans should be above politics on this day, or perhaps legislators should, but that they certainly should not.
What they were discussing was not, furthermore, what any legislator was doing, or any legislation which was being proposed or passed in Congress, but merely what various Republican legislators were saying about Obama. “Senator Schmuckbutt said that Obama is weak on flag waving, so let’s discuss. Why would he say something like that?”
The topic here is nothing more than name calling, words with no more depth than “Your mother is ugly.” Name calling is lazy rhetoric; what one resorts to when one has run out of legitimate arguments, either because no more exist or because one does not know what they are, and these idiots are spending a quarter hour of national air time chattering about it.
And we wonder why voters in this nation are ignorant.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Well, That Was Confusing
When Obama told us last night that he was going to “talk to us about Syria” I wasn’t expecting much in the way of validity, but his opening statement set the bar really low. “What began,” he said, “as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad…” Apparently he’s been watching CBS Evening News.
The protests would more accurately be described as “food riots” than as protests against the government pro se, and “peaceful” is a relative term. I don’t actually know how brutal Assad actually was, and am inclined to doubt that he was any more brutal than several dictators whose governments we support to this day, but Assad enjoys even now the support of quite a large portion of the civilian portion of his country, including two million Christians. Everyone seems to overlook that, implying that the only ones on his side are soldiers who are somehow forced to fight for him.
Anyway, having given us a history lesson, which included “American GIs in WW1” and the Nazis of course, because any such speech has to include Hitler even if not by name, he goes on to describe how utterly essential it is that we launch a military strike on Syria, then says that thanks to Russia we aren’t doing it right now, and finally reminds us how utterly essential a military strikes remains. I was left with the impression that we’ll do it after Russia is finished flubbing around.
The long and the short of it, of course, is that he was about to lose the vote in Congress and Russia saved his ass by allowing him to call off the vote. The cult of personality surrounding Obama is claiming that makes him look brilliant and puts him on top of the issue as a three dimensional chess player, but I regard that claim as utterly delusional. He was insisting on a military attack that no other nation in the world supported, that Congress was about to vote down, and that is wildly unpopular among his constituency and a foreign government came up with a solution that he’d never thought of. Whatever that is, it most certainly is not brilliant.
Naturally, he had to present Syria’s chemical weapons as a “national security threat” to us, using a “slippery slope” argument that was convoluted and, to say the least, tenuous.
“If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.” It has not, of course, actually been proven that they started using chemical weapons
“As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.” Other than the bad grammar, that is what's called a non sequitur.
“Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.” We could, of course, avoid that by not having our troops on the battlefields, but we can’t expect Obama to think of that solution.
“And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.” And we have come back to the threat of terrorists because Saddam Hussein was going to give nuclear bombs to Osama bin Laden.
“If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.” He later says the threat of retaliation against our allies is irrelevant because these nations are fully capable of defending themselves, so…
“And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction,” And we have to fight global warming because of watermelons.
“and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.” And who could have predicted that this would be about Iran?
Not to mention that no one has proven that Iran even wants to have a nuclear weapon, let alone is trying to develop one. And of course, several high ranking military people have suggested that Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon would not really be a problem; a suggestion which is backed up by the fact that a large number of countries already posses nuclear weapons and have not used them. Except us, of course.
He says, then, that the purpose of the military strike is to make clear to Assad that “we will not tolerate their [chemical weapons] use.”
Interesting. This started out as a world ban on these weapons and how the world felt about them, and suddenly it is about what we, and we alone, will not tolerate. That may be related to the fact that the rest of the world refused to join the “coalition of the willing” in using force against Syria.
In answer to the assertion that “we should not be the world’s policeman” he launched into some flowery dissertation about the “burden of leadership” and something to do with “seven decades,” but I think he was speaking in tongues by that time, because he lost me completely. I think he was saying that in fact we should be the world's policeman, or that we actually are or something, but it sounded like bullshit to me.
Of course, the whole thing had been sounding like that, so…
The protests would more accurately be described as “food riots” than as protests against the government pro se, and “peaceful” is a relative term. I don’t actually know how brutal Assad actually was, and am inclined to doubt that he was any more brutal than several dictators whose governments we support to this day, but Assad enjoys even now the support of quite a large portion of the civilian portion of his country, including two million Christians. Everyone seems to overlook that, implying that the only ones on his side are soldiers who are somehow forced to fight for him.
Anyway, having given us a history lesson, which included “American GIs in WW1” and the Nazis of course, because any such speech has to include Hitler even if not by name, he goes on to describe how utterly essential it is that we launch a military strike on Syria, then says that thanks to Russia we aren’t doing it right now, and finally reminds us how utterly essential a military strikes remains. I was left with the impression that we’ll do it after Russia is finished flubbing around.
The long and the short of it, of course, is that he was about to lose the vote in Congress and Russia saved his ass by allowing him to call off the vote. The cult of personality surrounding Obama is claiming that makes him look brilliant and puts him on top of the issue as a three dimensional chess player, but I regard that claim as utterly delusional. He was insisting on a military attack that no other nation in the world supported, that Congress was about to vote down, and that is wildly unpopular among his constituency and a foreign government came up with a solution that he’d never thought of. Whatever that is, it most certainly is not brilliant.
Naturally, he had to present Syria’s chemical weapons as a “national security threat” to us, using a “slippery slope” argument that was convoluted and, to say the least, tenuous.
“If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.” It has not, of course, actually been proven that they started using chemical weapons
“As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.” Other than the bad grammar, that is what's called a non sequitur.
“Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.” We could, of course, avoid that by not having our troops on the battlefields, but we can’t expect Obama to think of that solution.
“And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.” And we have come back to the threat of terrorists because Saddam Hussein was going to give nuclear bombs to Osama bin Laden.
“If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.” He later says the threat of retaliation against our allies is irrelevant because these nations are fully capable of defending themselves, so…
“And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction,” And we have to fight global warming because of watermelons.
“and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.” And who could have predicted that this would be about Iran?
Not to mention that no one has proven that Iran even wants to have a nuclear weapon, let alone is trying to develop one. And of course, several high ranking military people have suggested that Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon would not really be a problem; a suggestion which is backed up by the fact that a large number of countries already posses nuclear weapons and have not used them. Except us, of course.
He says, then, that the purpose of the military strike is to make clear to Assad that “we will not tolerate their [chemical weapons] use.”
Interesting. This started out as a world ban on these weapons and how the world felt about them, and suddenly it is about what we, and we alone, will not tolerate. That may be related to the fact that the rest of the world refused to join the “coalition of the willing” in using force against Syria.
In answer to the assertion that “we should not be the world’s policeman” he launched into some flowery dissertation about the “burden of leadership” and something to do with “seven decades,” but I think he was speaking in tongues by that time, because he lost me completely. I think he was saying that in fact we should be the world's policeman, or that we actually are or something, but it sounded like bullshit to me.
Of course, the whole thing had been sounding like that, so…
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
It's Still 2012
The Chargers are leading at halftime 21-7 and the stadium is rocking. Philip Rivers has thrown three touchdown passes. Everyone is dazzled, for some reason, that Ryan Matthews has carried nine times for 33 yards. I don't find that very impressive, but at least he hasn't fumbled or broken a collarbone.
The Chargers receive the opening kickoff in the second half, score on their opening drive and are leading 28-7. The crowd goes wild. The all-white uniforms should be accompanied by Superman capes.
And then the offense falls on its face while the defense falls on it ass, and special teams contributes a penalty on a Texans field goal kick, which is followed by a Matt Schaub touchdown. Ryan Matthews carries four times for zero yards in the second half. Philip Rivers throws an interception in the fourth quarter which is returned for a Taxans touchdown. The defense repeatedly cannot stop third and more than ten. The Chargers have zero first downs in the fourth quarter.
The final score is a 31-28 Texas win. Why is that so familiar?
The Chargers receive the opening kickoff in the second half, score on their opening drive and are leading 28-7. The crowd goes wild. The all-white uniforms should be accompanied by Superman capes.
And then the offense falls on its face while the defense falls on it ass, and special teams contributes a penalty on a Texans field goal kick, which is followed by a Matt Schaub touchdown. Ryan Matthews carries four times for zero yards in the second half. Philip Rivers throws an interception in the fourth quarter which is returned for a Taxans touchdown. The defense repeatedly cannot stop third and more than ten. The Chargers have zero first downs in the fourth quarter.
The final score is a 31-28 Texas win. Why is that so familiar?
Sunday, September 08, 2013
Bad Course, Bad Boat, Bad Sailing
America's Cup started yesterday; two races on San Francisco Bay. The American defender started two races down due to an unprecedented penalty and must win eleven races against only nine for the challenger from New Zealand. I doubt they will win even one. They lost both races yesterday; one by more than 40 seconds and the other by more than a full minute. That margin in actual sailboats, which move at eight or nine knots, would be bad, but in these ridiculous contraptions moving at 50mph, it is utterly a blowout.
The announcers keep bleating about the course being five legs, but two of the legs are only a few seconds, and in actual fact there is one upwind leg and two downwind legs, which is ridiculous. Beating to windward is by far the better test of sailing, and it was the upwind leg where the Kiwis utterly destroyed Oracle. In a real sailing match the trailing boat could maneuver to find better wind or could engage the leader in a tacking duel, but with these so-called "boats" and with such a ridiculously confined course nothing of the sort is possible. What a joke.
The announcers keep bleating about the course being five legs, but two of the legs are only a few seconds, and in actual fact there is one upwind leg and two downwind legs, which is ridiculous. Beating to windward is by far the better test of sailing, and it was the upwind leg where the Kiwis utterly destroyed Oracle. In a real sailing match the trailing boat could maneuver to find better wind or could engage the leader in a tacking duel, but with these so-called "boats" and with such a ridiculously confined course nothing of the sort is possible. What a joke.
Friday, September 06, 2013
"Oh, Just Screw Democracy"
Obama has gone nucking futs. From ABC News this morning:
What lessons of World War II? Japan directly attacked us. Did he forget that part? Does he think Congress went against the will of the people in declaring war after Pearl Harbor? What fucking history book has he been reading? Is he claiming that Syria is responsible for 9 fucking 11 now? What is he smoking? My computer just blew up.
Let's quit pretending that our government is supposed to represent the will of the people. We only do democracy when it's convenient. When it gets difficult we just resort to blatant oligarchy.
Update: Commenters elsewhere pointed out that his rhetoric is even worse than the conclusion to which I jumped. He's echoing Bush by comparing, in this case, Assad to Hitler. We can no longer appease Assad, we have to stop him before he invades and conquers the rest of the world and engages in genocide at an unprecedented level.
That argument is so entirely bogus that it simply never occurrd to me.
Hitler was engaged in a campaign of continental domination and conquest, and in genocide.
Assad, this Assad, has not even threatened a neighboring country. He made an offer of peace treaties with Isreal and the US, which both nations rejected without even meeting with him. He is fighting an internal civil war, not a war of agression anywhere, and has no designs of agression anywhere. His government has been a secular one, encompassing Sunni, Shiite, Alawite and Christians.
He is "killing his own people" not in the form of genocide, but in fighting a civil war. That is no more genocide than was the shelling of Visckburg during our Civil War. No one, as far as I've seen, has even accused him of engaging in genocide.
The rebels, on the other hand, have lobbed shells and rockets into Turkey and into Lebanon. They have conducted ethnic killings in Shiite villages that they have overrun, have killed Christians merely for being Christians, and are burning Christian churches.
Let's applaud Obama for repeating the Bush argument for war; an argument which is entirely bogus.
President Obama today conceded that he could fail to convince the American public to back proposed U.S. military strikes against Syria, but said that members of Congress should vote to approve the action anyway.
...
But, Obama said, members of Congress need to consider the lessons of World War II and their own consciences and vote 'yes' to authorize the use of force, even if it means going against the opinion of the majority of their constituents.
What lessons of World War II? Japan directly attacked us. Did he forget that part? Does he think Congress went against the will of the people in declaring war after Pearl Harbor? What fucking history book has he been reading? Is he claiming that Syria is responsible for 9 fucking 11 now? What is he smoking? My computer just blew up.
Let's quit pretending that our government is supposed to represent the will of the people. We only do democracy when it's convenient. When it gets difficult we just resort to blatant oligarchy.
Update: Commenters elsewhere pointed out that his rhetoric is even worse than the conclusion to which I jumped. He's echoing Bush by comparing, in this case, Assad to Hitler. We can no longer appease Assad, we have to stop him before he invades and conquers the rest of the world and engages in genocide at an unprecedented level.
That argument is so entirely bogus that it simply never occurrd to me.
Hitler was engaged in a campaign of continental domination and conquest, and in genocide.
Assad, this Assad, has not even threatened a neighboring country. He made an offer of peace treaties with Isreal and the US, which both nations rejected without even meeting with him. He is fighting an internal civil war, not a war of agression anywhere, and has no designs of agression anywhere. His government has been a secular one, encompassing Sunni, Shiite, Alawite and Christians.
He is "killing his own people" not in the form of genocide, but in fighting a civil war. That is no more genocide than was the shelling of Visckburg during our Civil War. No one, as far as I've seen, has even accused him of engaging in genocide.
The rebels, on the other hand, have lobbed shells and rockets into Turkey and into Lebanon. They have conducted ethnic killings in Shiite villages that they have overrun, have killed Christians merely for being Christians, and are burning Christian churches.
Let's applaud Obama for repeating the Bush argument for war; an argument which is entirely bogus.
There He Goes Again
Speaking at the G-20, Obama said that, “I did not draw a red line, history drew a red line” on the use of chemical weapons, and made reference to the 1925 Geneva Conventions. The man is overly fond of meaningless rhetoric, and has forgotten about YouTube.
First, even assuming the validity of his premise, history records, it does not act. “History” did not draw the red line, the crafters and signatories of the treaty did so. That, however, is a minor point. We also have him on YouTube saying, “that would be a game changer for me, that would change my calculations.” Social media has tripped up many people who try to avoid the consequences of their own words and actions.
Furthermore, when use of chemical weapons was first “documented,” he blew that off and said that the “red line” would be repeated or regular use of such weapons. That rather obviates using the Geneva Conventions as justification for his planned attack, because the convention does not specify a degree of use. It says that any use of chemical weapons is a violation, and Obama has already overlooked several uses which are as thoroughly documented as the incident he is presently claiming as justification.
Inconveniently for Obama, those incidents are rather convincingly attributed to the rebel forces, not to the Syrian government.
For two years we have been being told by the administration that we cannot assist the rebels because their forces include too many radicals and extremists and we don’t know who is who. Now, suddenly, when we have decided that we do want to intervene, Kerry is telling us that radicals and extremists male up only a small portion of the rebels, and that we know who and where they are. Why does that sound like utter bullshit? Because it is utter bullshit.
Finally, Kerry and Defense Secretary Hagel assure us that a military strike in Syria is not “going to war” and that there is absolutely no possibility of blowback in the form of retaliatory attacks either on us or on our allies. Pardon me if I find it impossible to believe that they are not lying through their teeth on the first, and that they have any idea at all what they are talking about on the second.
Twelve years ago this month we regarded the destruction of two buildings in this nation an “act of war,” and we retaliated by invading, destroying and occupying two nations and killing tens of thousands of their citizens, not to mention mounting a decade-long terror campaign in three other Islamic nations using unmanned drones and Hellfire missiles. Now we claim that attacking a seventh Islamic nation with a hundred or so cruise missiles is not an act of war, and that doing so should not and will not invite retaliation.
That is the epitome of dishonesty and very definition of insanity.
First, even assuming the validity of his premise, history records, it does not act. “History” did not draw the red line, the crafters and signatories of the treaty did so. That, however, is a minor point. We also have him on YouTube saying, “that would be a game changer for me, that would change my calculations.” Social media has tripped up many people who try to avoid the consequences of their own words and actions.
Furthermore, when use of chemical weapons was first “documented,” he blew that off and said that the “red line” would be repeated or regular use of such weapons. That rather obviates using the Geneva Conventions as justification for his planned attack, because the convention does not specify a degree of use. It says that any use of chemical weapons is a violation, and Obama has already overlooked several uses which are as thoroughly documented as the incident he is presently claiming as justification.
Inconveniently for Obama, those incidents are rather convincingly attributed to the rebel forces, not to the Syrian government.
For two years we have been being told by the administration that we cannot assist the rebels because their forces include too many radicals and extremists and we don’t know who is who. Now, suddenly, when we have decided that we do want to intervene, Kerry is telling us that radicals and extremists male up only a small portion of the rebels, and that we know who and where they are. Why does that sound like utter bullshit? Because it is utter bullshit.
Finally, Kerry and Defense Secretary Hagel assure us that a military strike in Syria is not “going to war” and that there is absolutely no possibility of blowback in the form of retaliatory attacks either on us or on our allies. Pardon me if I find it impossible to believe that they are not lying through their teeth on the first, and that they have any idea at all what they are talking about on the second.
Twelve years ago this month we regarded the destruction of two buildings in this nation an “act of war,” and we retaliated by invading, destroying and occupying two nations and killing tens of thousands of their citizens, not to mention mounting a decade-long terror campaign in three other Islamic nations using unmanned drones and Hellfire missiles. Now we claim that attacking a seventh Islamic nation with a hundred or so cruise missiles is not an act of war, and that doing so should not and will not invite retaliation.
That is the epitome of dishonesty and very definition of insanity.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
It's About Regime Change
I spent some time yesterday watching the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the Syrian issue, and my first thought is to wonder why we keep electing idiots to public office. Probably because only idiots run for public office. Anyone with a grain of sense doesn’t want the job.
One thing that struck me was that there is a strong undercurrent of “regime change” in the administration’s position, no matter how much they try to deny it. Kerry and Hagel both spoke repeatedly of “leveling the playing field,” of “degrading Assad’s overall capability,” and of the goal of removing Assad from power. They admitted that the Syrian air bases would be a target, because airplanes can be used to deliver chemical weapons.
Such has not been the case so far, but destroying air bases would certainly affect the balance of power in the civil war. That is supposedly not the goal of this intervention, but regime change was supposedly not the goal of intervention in Libya, either, until it was. While the purpose of this strike is supposedly about punishing the use of chemical weapons, Kerry and Hagel did a lot of talking about the goal of removing Assad from office and achieving a negotiated settlement of the civil war.
I seldom agree with anything Rand Paul says, but he came up with a few points that rather make sense. The first was to ask that Obama commit to being bound by the Congressional legislation. If, he says, Obama is reserving the right to attack Syria even if Congress votes not to allow him to do so, then Obama is making a farce of the Congress and of the legislative process, and the whole thing is a joke. Kerry had no real answer for that; a lot of words, but no real answer.
Paul’s second issue was to point out that Assad has acted very irrationally by using chemical weapons, so if we make a “punitive strike,” why do we assume that he will respond to that in a logical manner? How do we know, he asks, that the strike will not merely make him angry and cause him to use them again?
Kerry got very huffy at that point, pounded on the table and retorted that, “I can guarantee you, guarantee you sir, that he absolutely will use them again if we don’t strike.” (emphasis Kerry's) It was dramatic, but it didn’t seem to me that he answered Paul’s question.
Paul didn’t think so either, because he merely repeated his question, and added a few more uncertainties. How, he wanted to know, do we know that Russia will do nothing? How do we know that Iran and Hezbollah will do nothing? How do we know that Israel will not be attacked? He suggested that we are creating a great many risks with this “punishment” of Assad with no assurance that it will even do what we intend for it to do.
Make no mistake, this is about “regime change” and the outcome is highly uncertain.
One thing that struck me was that there is a strong undercurrent of “regime change” in the administration’s position, no matter how much they try to deny it. Kerry and Hagel both spoke repeatedly of “leveling the playing field,” of “degrading Assad’s overall capability,” and of the goal of removing Assad from power. They admitted that the Syrian air bases would be a target, because airplanes can be used to deliver chemical weapons.
Such has not been the case so far, but destroying air bases would certainly affect the balance of power in the civil war. That is supposedly not the goal of this intervention, but regime change was supposedly not the goal of intervention in Libya, either, until it was. While the purpose of this strike is supposedly about punishing the use of chemical weapons, Kerry and Hagel did a lot of talking about the goal of removing Assad from office and achieving a negotiated settlement of the civil war.
I seldom agree with anything Rand Paul says, but he came up with a few points that rather make sense. The first was to ask that Obama commit to being bound by the Congressional legislation. If, he says, Obama is reserving the right to attack Syria even if Congress votes not to allow him to do so, then Obama is making a farce of the Congress and of the legislative process, and the whole thing is a joke. Kerry had no real answer for that; a lot of words, but no real answer.
Paul’s second issue was to point out that Assad has acted very irrationally by using chemical weapons, so if we make a “punitive strike,” why do we assume that he will respond to that in a logical manner? How do we know, he asks, that the strike will not merely make him angry and cause him to use them again?
Kerry got very huffy at that point, pounded on the table and retorted that, “I can guarantee you, guarantee you sir, that he absolutely will use them again if we don’t strike.” (emphasis Kerry's) It was dramatic, but it didn’t seem to me that he answered Paul’s question.
Paul didn’t think so either, because he merely repeated his question, and added a few more uncertainties. How, he wanted to know, do we know that Russia will do nothing? How do we know that Iran and Hezbollah will do nothing? How do we know that Israel will not be attacked? He suggested that we are creating a great many risks with this “punishment” of Assad with no assurance that it will even do what we intend for it to do.
Make no mistake, this is about “regime change” and the outcome is highly uncertain.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
Resolving To Be Stupid
The draft resolution (pdf) which the White House has submitted to Congress for the authorization of the use of military force in Syria contains some interesting things.
Paragraph 1 reads, “Whereas, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria, killing more than 1,000 innocent Syrians;”
France and the United States are the only ones who are certain of that, and no other country, including France, claims more than about 350 people were killed. John Kerry says specifically that 1,429 were killed but cites no authority for that number.
To quote a Republican Senator from Wisconsin, “I have in my hand a list of 329 members of Congress who are card carrying members of the Communist party.” He made the statement often, and the number changed each time.
Paragraph 4 says that, “Congress found that Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;”
It doesn’t spell out the nature of that threat. Perhaps model airplanes flying over the United States like miniature crop dusters. Sorry, that was Bush and the chemical weapons in Iraq. The resolution also doesn’t say why, if the threat has existed since 2003, when Congress made this finding, it has not been necessary to do anything about it for ten years but now suddenly is. Unless the suspicion that Asad can throw these weapons 85 miles means that he can and will throw them 8000 miles.
The real oddity is in Paragraph 7, which says, “the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process;”
Followed by, “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate…”
This is not typical Congressional committee idiocy, this is a draft written by the executive for Congress to pass, and is a real masterpiece of non sequitur. “This can only be solved by negotiation, so let’s go bomb the shit out of it.” On what planet does that make any sense?
Paragraph 1 reads, “Whereas, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria, killing more than 1,000 innocent Syrians;”
France and the United States are the only ones who are certain of that, and no other country, including France, claims more than about 350 people were killed. John Kerry says specifically that 1,429 were killed but cites no authority for that number.
To quote a Republican Senator from Wisconsin, “I have in my hand a list of 329 members of Congress who are card carrying members of the Communist party.” He made the statement often, and the number changed each time.
Paragraph 4 says that, “Congress found that Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;”
It doesn’t spell out the nature of that threat. Perhaps model airplanes flying over the United States like miniature crop dusters. Sorry, that was Bush and the chemical weapons in Iraq. The resolution also doesn’t say why, if the threat has existed since 2003, when Congress made this finding, it has not been necessary to do anything about it for ten years but now suddenly is. Unless the suspicion that Asad can throw these weapons 85 miles means that he can and will throw them 8000 miles.
The real oddity is in Paragraph 7, which says, “the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process;”
Followed by, “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate…”
This is not typical Congressional committee idiocy, this is a draft written by the executive for Congress to pass, and is a real masterpiece of non sequitur. “This can only be solved by negotiation, so let’s go bomb the shit out of it.” On what planet does that make any sense?
Sunday, September 01, 2013
It's Football Time
Well, LSU won, but it was not pretty. The offense was fine most of the time, especially Mettenberger, who showed vastly improved maturity. I wonder how much of that has to do with Cam Cameron. The defense was its usual self in the first half; tunnel vision and missed assignments but giving up only three points to the opposing offense. In the second half, facing a running quarterback, they looked like buffoons.
Fortunately it’s almost three months before they face that cocky, arrogant, money signaling, piece of crap with his autographing pantomime. I’m hoping that somebody breaks his fucking leg between now and then. In three places. Failing that, perhaps Les Miles has time to teach his eighth-grade ladies how to tackle a quarterback.
My family tells me I was supposed to favor TCU because my father went to school there. Well, big deal. He also went to Texas A&M, and I’m certainly not rooting for them. Anyway, despite having been born in Texas himself and having two children born there (not me thank God), my father always tried to pretend he’d never even been in the state. He regarded it as a blighted piece of leftover dirt that we should have given back to Mexico.
Silo Tech, which is what Jayhawk fans call KSU, fell to a really good FCS team. So did 5 other FBS teams, which maybe ought to tell us something.
San Diego State was one of them, on the short end of a 40-19 score to Eastern Illinios. Wait; is Illinois wide enough to have an "Eastern" anything? Rocky Long is not noted for being stoic, and he was not last night. He would not let the players speak to the media and said, "That was a bad a performance as I've ever been around." Happily for me, the game was not televised locally, but the morning writeups do not treat the Aztecs kindly.
North Dakota State earned their victory over KSU. They finished the game after trailing by four, with a nine minute march down the field to score the winning touchdown with twenty seconds left. That was a machine-like, precision march which is seldom seen in college football, and it was a thing of beauty. The stadium went silent halfway through it, because it was obvious what was going to happen.
Utah, which for some reason is in the Pac 12 South, had to work to beat a quality Utah State team. There is one state north of Utah, but there are a hell of a lot more to the south of it. Anyway, no surprise, as Utah lost to Utah State last year, and the Aggies are going to win quite a few games.
Screw a bunch of missiles and Middle East hellholes, it’s college football season.
Update, 20 minutes later: Well, shit. So there are two states north of Utah and only one state south of it, and maybe it does belong in the Pac 12 South. What do I know; I'm 12 miles north of Mexico.
When I lived in Atlanta I had a friend in Columbus, Georgia who regarded me as a Yankee. Not because of where I lived before, but because I lived in Atlanta. All things are relative.
Fortunately it’s almost three months before they face that cocky, arrogant, money signaling, piece of crap with his autographing pantomime. I’m hoping that somebody breaks his fucking leg between now and then. In three places. Failing that, perhaps Les Miles has time to teach his eighth-grade ladies how to tackle a quarterback.
My family tells me I was supposed to favor TCU because my father went to school there. Well, big deal. He also went to Texas A&M, and I’m certainly not rooting for them. Anyway, despite having been born in Texas himself and having two children born there (not me thank God), my father always tried to pretend he’d never even been in the state. He regarded it as a blighted piece of leftover dirt that we should have given back to Mexico.
Silo Tech, which is what Jayhawk fans call KSU, fell to a really good FCS team. So did 5 other FBS teams, which maybe ought to tell us something.
San Diego State was one of them, on the short end of a 40-19 score to Eastern Illinios. Wait; is Illinois wide enough to have an "Eastern" anything? Rocky Long is not noted for being stoic, and he was not last night. He would not let the players speak to the media and said, "That was a bad a performance as I've ever been around." Happily for me, the game was not televised locally, but the morning writeups do not treat the Aztecs kindly.
North Dakota State earned their victory over KSU. They finished the game after trailing by four, with a nine minute march down the field to score the winning touchdown with twenty seconds left. That was a machine-like, precision march which is seldom seen in college football, and it was a thing of beauty. The stadium went silent halfway through it, because it was obvious what was going to happen.
Utah, which for some reason is in the Pac 12 South, had to work to beat a quality Utah State team. There is one state north of Utah, but there are a hell of a lot more to the south of it. Anyway, no surprise, as Utah lost to Utah State last year, and the Aggies are going to win quite a few games.
Screw a bunch of missiles and Middle East hellholes, it’s college football season.
Update, 20 minutes later: Well, shit. So there are two states north of Utah and only one state south of it, and maybe it does belong in the Pac 12 South. What do I know; I'm 12 miles north of Mexico.
When I lived in Atlanta I had a friend in Columbus, Georgia who regarded me as a Yankee. Not because of where I lived before, but because I lived in Atlanta. All things are relative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)