ESPN was asking the question just now, “Is there a reason to cheer for Penn State?” My answer would be unequivocally that at game time yes, there is. The Penn State football program, and to some extent the university, was tainted by the behavior of its coaches, but the game itself is about the players. They were not and are not a part of the crime that was perpetrated upon the innocent, and they should not be deprived of the support of their peers and the voice of the crowd. Cheer on.
Unless they’re playing LSU or Alabama, of course.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Illogic Abounds
I did not watch Paul Ryan’s speech last night, I was more interested in some guys catching catfish by hand in muddy waters and fascinated by a “swamp guy” opening his mouth repeatedly to show us that he had no teeth. Good stuff, certainly more interesting than Paul Ryan, and I wasn’t tempted to slap anyone in the face.
I did, however, read much of his speech, and it convinced me not to vote for Mitt Romney. That’s a pretty good trick, since I had decided many months ago not to vote for Mitt Romney, but if Obama can cause an auto plant closure a full year before he takes office as President, then by damn Paul Ryan can determine my vote many months before he is nominated. If that doesn’t make sense, that’s fine; neither does Paul Ryan.
Meanwhile, Obama supporters are pointing out that the stock market is awesome and that corporate profits are at an all time high in order to refute Republican claims that “Obama is ruining the economy.” These people are supposedly Democrats, but they are crowing about the success of the oligarchy and ignoring that middle class income is declining, the number of people in poverty is increasing, and unemployment is still at unacceptably high levels and not improving.
Accepting the decline of the middle class and cheering about the stock market and corporate profits is not quite what I an accustomed to hearing from Democrats.
Update, 10:15am: Oh, this is a real knee slapper. Factcheck says that Ryan took "Factual Shortcuts" in his speech last night. Those were "factual shortcuts" that came out of his jackass grinning mouth. That loud bang you heard was my computer blowing up.
I did, however, read much of his speech, and it convinced me not to vote for Mitt Romney. That’s a pretty good trick, since I had decided many months ago not to vote for Mitt Romney, but if Obama can cause an auto plant closure a full year before he takes office as President, then by damn Paul Ryan can determine my vote many months before he is nominated. If that doesn’t make sense, that’s fine; neither does Paul Ryan.
Meanwhile, Obama supporters are pointing out that the stock market is awesome and that corporate profits are at an all time high in order to refute Republican claims that “Obama is ruining the economy.” These people are supposedly Democrats, but they are crowing about the success of the oligarchy and ignoring that middle class income is declining, the number of people in poverty is increasing, and unemployment is still at unacceptably high levels and not improving.
Accepting the decline of the middle class and cheering about the stock market and corporate profits is not quite what I an accustomed to hearing from Democrats.
Update, 10:15am: Oh, this is a real knee slapper. Factcheck says that Ryan took "Factual Shortcuts" in his speech last night. Those were "factual shortcuts" that came out of his jackass grinning mouth. That loud bang you heard was my computer blowing up.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Well, This Is A Reach
Glenn Greenwald has an article in his new venue, The Guardian’s US Edition, regarding three episodes of military discipline and what he calls “the perversion of the justice system and rule of law as nothing more than a weapon to legitimize even the most destructive state actions.” I’m usually a big fan of Greenwald, but I think he’s really stretching here.
The cases were the episode of the Marines urinating on corpses of the enemy and “troops” burning copies of the Koran, and in Israel a case where an American protestor threw herself in front of a military bulldozer and was killed. In the American cases, “no criminal charges are being brought,” and the soldiers are being subjected to administrative discipline. The Israeli court found, according to Greenwald, that “despite Corrie's wearing a bright orange vest” the bulldozer operator did not see her and that her death was an accident. Perhaps Greenwald has never operated a bulldozer, but objects in front of the blade are not visible to the operator whether they are bright orange or brown camoflage.
With respect to the two US rulings, I have trouble in regarding the actions
of individual solders as “state actions” which Greenwald thinks are being legitimized by these court rulings, and in any case they were issued by courts martial, not by the US Department of Justice, and so I have difficulty as seeing them as part of the “justice system” per se. Besides which, what “criminal charges” does he think should have been brought? These guys certainly exercised bad judgement, and undoubtedly violated some military codes of conduct, but what actual crimes did they commit?
I don’t know the facts of the Israeli case, but apparently Rachel Corrie was “protesting the demolition of a house in Gaza” when she was killed by a bulldozer. I have operated a bulldozer and I can tell you of my own knowledge that a bulldozer operator cannot see what is in front of him. He guides the machine by using reference points to either side of the machine, and standing in front of the machine in an effort to stop it is an act of utter stupidity amounting to suicide. The operator absolutely will not be able to see you, will run you down, and it will not be his fault. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I’m perfectly comfortable with the judge’s decision that her death was accidental.
I don’t disagree with Greenwald’s oft stated assertion that our system of law protects the wealthy and powerful in this country, and that it legitimizes unlawful action by the powerful, but I think he is using some very silly and trivial episodes to prove his case here, and in so doing I think he weakens his cause. It’s disappointing.
The cases were the episode of the Marines urinating on corpses of the enemy and “troops” burning copies of the Koran, and in Israel a case where an American protestor threw herself in front of a military bulldozer and was killed. In the American cases, “no criminal charges are being brought,” and the soldiers are being subjected to administrative discipline. The Israeli court found, according to Greenwald, that “despite Corrie's wearing a bright orange vest” the bulldozer operator did not see her and that her death was an accident. Perhaps Greenwald has never operated a bulldozer, but objects in front of the blade are not visible to the operator whether they are bright orange or brown camoflage.
With respect to the two US rulings, I have trouble in regarding the actions
of individual solders as “state actions” which Greenwald thinks are being legitimized by these court rulings, and in any case they were issued by courts martial, not by the US Department of Justice, and so I have difficulty as seeing them as part of the “justice system” per se. Besides which, what “criminal charges” does he think should have been brought? These guys certainly exercised bad judgement, and undoubtedly violated some military codes of conduct, but what actual crimes did they commit?
I don’t know the facts of the Israeli case, but apparently Rachel Corrie was “protesting the demolition of a house in Gaza” when she was killed by a bulldozer. I have operated a bulldozer and I can tell you of my own knowledge that a bulldozer operator cannot see what is in front of him. He guides the machine by using reference points to either side of the machine, and standing in front of the machine in an effort to stop it is an act of utter stupidity amounting to suicide. The operator absolutely will not be able to see you, will run you down, and it will not be his fault. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I’m perfectly comfortable with the judge’s decision that her death was accidental.
I don’t disagree with Greenwald’s oft stated assertion that our system of law protects the wealthy and powerful in this country, and that it legitimizes unlawful action by the powerful, but I think he is using some very silly and trivial episodes to prove his case here, and in so doing I think he weakens his cause. It’s disappointing.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
There's Potential Here
The future Archbishop for San Francisco was visiting San Diego this past weekend and was stopped at a police DUI checkpoint near the San Diego State University. He failed the sobriety test and was booked for driving with a blood alcohol content over the 0.08% legal limit.
He’d better get out of town quickly, or the Chargers will sign him up to play wide receiver.
He’d better get out of town quickly, or the Chargers will sign him up to play wide receiver.
Monday, August 27, 2012
The Politics of Baseless Charges
A couple of months ago opponents of Mitt Romney were taking him apart, both mockingly and with great seriousness, for “taking a $77,000 tax deduction” for his wife’s dressage horse. There was only one problem with that claim; he had not actually done what they claimed. He had listed the expense on his tax form, but had not deducted that expense from his current income. The listing was for the purpose of deducting those expenses from future income earned by the horse in competition.
That might explain why he is reluctant to release more of his returns; he doesn’t want the vultures picking through them to find more tidbits which they can misrepresent and use to attack him with. And so, of course, the vultures claim instead that “he must be hiding something terrible or he would release his returns, like everybody else has done in presidential elections for twenty years.”
John McCain, just four years ago, released only two years of tax returns and his wife, who controls the vast majority of their wealth, released none at all, and no accusations were made about McCain cheating on taxes, illegally hiding wealth, etc. Even to the extent that any comments were raised about McCain’s refusal to release returns, Obama declined to enter that fray, eschewing the negativity that such accusations involved.
So Mitt Romney is cheating on his income taxes, he is not paying any taxes, he is hiding wealth illegally and/or he is reneging on his commitment to his church. He can prove us wrong, we say, by releasing his tax returns. By saying that we acknowledge that we have no knowledge of what is in those returns, no evidence for our accusation that he is “hiding something” and that our charge is baseless.
The left claims that the charge that he’s hiding something is not baseless because, even though there is no evidence, there is impeccable logic; the only possible reason for him not to release his returns is that he’s hiding something which would be personally or politically damaging. Nonsense; I just offered another reason above, and yet another would be that he simply thinks that the details of his income are nobody’s business.
The left engages in “we get to make up stuff which discredits our opponent and he has to prove us wrong because we’re the good guys and he’s the one who’s a liar.” I can’t engage in that kind of practice because I am unable to resolve the “we get to make up stuff which discredits” part with the “he’s the one who’s a liar” part.
Whether or not the target of a baseless charge has the means to disprove the charge is irrelevant because the act of making a baseless accusation is, in and of itself, a fundamentally dishonest act.
From Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”
That might explain why he is reluctant to release more of his returns; he doesn’t want the vultures picking through them to find more tidbits which they can misrepresent and use to attack him with. And so, of course, the vultures claim instead that “he must be hiding something terrible or he would release his returns, like everybody else has done in presidential elections for twenty years.”
John McCain, just four years ago, released only two years of tax returns and his wife, who controls the vast majority of their wealth, released none at all, and no accusations were made about McCain cheating on taxes, illegally hiding wealth, etc. Even to the extent that any comments were raised about McCain’s refusal to release returns, Obama declined to enter that fray, eschewing the negativity that such accusations involved.
So Mitt Romney is cheating on his income taxes, he is not paying any taxes, he is hiding wealth illegally and/or he is reneging on his commitment to his church. He can prove us wrong, we say, by releasing his tax returns. By saying that we acknowledge that we have no knowledge of what is in those returns, no evidence for our accusation that he is “hiding something” and that our charge is baseless.
The left claims that the charge that he’s hiding something is not baseless because, even though there is no evidence, there is impeccable logic; the only possible reason for him not to release his returns is that he’s hiding something which would be personally or politically damaging. Nonsense; I just offered another reason above, and yet another would be that he simply thinks that the details of his income are nobody’s business.
The left engages in “we get to make up stuff which discredits our opponent and he has to prove us wrong because we’re the good guys and he’s the one who’s a liar.” I can’t engage in that kind of practice because I am unable to resolve the “we get to make up stuff which discredits” part with the “he’s the one who’s a liar” part.
Whether or not the target of a baseless charge has the means to disprove the charge is irrelevant because the act of making a baseless accusation is, in and of itself, a fundamentally dishonest act.
From Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Regular Season Racing
The commentary during regular season stock car racing sometimes rivals that of preseason NFL football. Other times it is somewhat inane but much more entertaining. Pictured above are two former NASCAR champions, Tony Stewart in the 14 and Matt Kenseth in the 17, battling for the race lead at Bristol last night. As you can see, it was not a rousing success, and the announcer’s laconic comment was “Well that didn’t work out for either one of them.” Indeed it did not.The 17 car was able to continue and Tony resisted efforts by the officials to get him into the ambulance for a checkup, loitering with his helmet in hand. The officials did not press their case because; well, when Tony is in a mood you best just sort of leave him alone. We all knew he was waiting for the 17 to circle around and that he did not have any sort of friendly greeting in mind. Turns out Tony is a championship helmet thrower, he scored a direct hit on Matt’s hood ornament.
Danica Patrick actually did pretty well, not really racing anyone but just staying out of trouble and trying to finish the race, which was a reasonable objective for her. She did not, as the announcers kept saying, “stay on the lead lap for 430 laps.” She was a lap down after lap 50, and was the third car a lap down on lap 59. It took three caution periods for the “lucky dog” feature to put her back on the lead lap, and nine more cautions bunching up the field to keep her there. She went a lap down again about lap 390, but another caution and “lucky dog” pass put her back on the lead lap again.
She then ruined a reasonably favorable impression when she was interviewed after a crash that was actually not her fault. After saying that she had not seen the replay and did not know what had happened, she made snide remarks about being on a track where “some people play fair and other people don’t.” The guy who hit her was passing her for position, lost traction and slid up into her. It’s racing and happened to plenty of others. None of them whined about “playing fair.”
Contrast that with Tony Stewart’s remarks after he was wrecked earlier.
“In the future I’m going to run over him every chance I get,” he said of Matt Kenseth. Race car drivers don’t whine.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Preseason Football
I have literally sat in a chair and watched paint dry, so I know what I'm talking about; doing that is more exciting than watching preseason NFL football. The drying paint thing is a long story; it was a long time ago and I was not entirely sober at the time, so it seemed like something the needed doing. Watching Billy Ray Smith interview celebrities on television last night while players cavorted on the gridiron silently in the background did not need doing. Especially since I was sober last night.
Anyone who goes by the name "Billy Ray" should not be appearing on television in anything but a comedy role. I guess it could be worse, he could go by the name "Billy Bob," and his role on Chargers preseason football is something of a comedy role, only he doesn't know it. He once interviewed the Mayor of San Diego about some tax initiative while showing the Chargers scoring an 80-yard touchdown, and did not let the action on the field interrupt his tax discussion for one second. He continued it through the extra point, and during the kickoff did the "while we were away..." thing.
Anyone who goes by the name "Billy Ray" should not be appearing on television in anything but a comedy role. I guess it could be worse, he could go by the name "Billy Bob," and his role on Chargers preseason football is something of a comedy role, only he doesn't know it. He once interviewed the Mayor of San Diego about some tax initiative while showing the Chargers scoring an 80-yard touchdown, and did not let the action on the field interrupt his tax discussion for one second. He continued it through the extra point, and during the kickoff did the "while we were away..." thing.
Friday, August 24, 2012
"Entitlement" Is Not A Dirty Word
Liberals (or “progressives”) have espoused a variation of this image, one which goes on to talk about privatization, which is a different subject altogether. At any rate, they are vigorously denying that the Social Security program is an “entitlement.”One definition of “entitlement” is “a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group,” but there is nothing inherently “dirty” about that, really. In any case, that is a secondary definition, established by common usage fairly recently in historical context and the primary definition is “a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract.” Which is why Social Security absolutely is an entitlement.
Beneficiaries of the Social Security entered into a contract that for all of their working lives they would pay money into a trust fund and that once they were no longer working they would receive that money back in the form of a retirement stipend. Having upheld their end of the contract, workers are entitled by contract to receive those benefits, and the government is bound by contract to honor their side of the deal and pay the stipend to which the contractees are entitled.
The second statement on that image, about the “problem” of government borrowing from the fund, is a canard. In fact, the trust fund has invested its surplus in the safest place possible anywhere in the world; in US Treasuries. That is not a problem by anyone’s definition of problem, since the investment with the absolute lowest risk of loss world wide is US government debt. No one has ever lost one cent by investing in US Treasuries, so how is that a “problem,” pray tell?
I never can understand why liberals allow the other side not only to define the argument for them, but even to distort the meanings of individual words, and not push back.
Liberals should be standing up and asserting that “entitlement” is not a dirty word; that an entitlement represents an obligation on the part of the US government no less binding than monetary debt. We should be shouting that in making the claims that they do about entitlements, conservatives are demanding the this nation default on its debt as surely as if it were to refuse to pay on bonds due for redemption; that they are demanding that the government refuse to honor contracts made in good faith.
Instead, we accept the premise of the big lie made by conservatives and hunker down in a defensive crouch, whimpering that “Social Security is not an entitlement.”
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Leave Her Alone?
Tony Stewart says that we should “leave Danica Patrick alone” and let her do her thing. “Let her learn” he says, without badgering her and putting too much pressure on her. I like Tony Stewart a lot, but he is full of crap here.
Why should we leave her alone? It’s not like she came into the sport as some sort of shrinking violet. She came storming onto the stock car racing scene like she was the best thing since the invention of the bikini; strutting her stuff, parading in dozens of commercials and advertisements and posing as a glamour girl in every venue that was available to her. She basked in the acclaim as a race driving phenomenon and disclaimed none of it, and every time something bad happened she blamed it on everyone except herself.
If she wanted to be “left alone in order to learn” she should have behaved in a manner that encouraged leaving her alone, and portrayed a person who thought she needed to learn and wanted to do so. She did none of that. She played the diva &, after displaying a comprehensive level of incompetence, is reaping the reward of her own behavior.
Why should we leave her alone? It’s not like she came into the sport as some sort of shrinking violet. She came storming onto the stock car racing scene like she was the best thing since the invention of the bikini; strutting her stuff, parading in dozens of commercials and advertisements and posing as a glamour girl in every venue that was available to her. She basked in the acclaim as a race driving phenomenon and disclaimed none of it, and every time something bad happened she blamed it on everyone except herself.
If she wanted to be “left alone in order to learn” she should have behaved in a manner that encouraged leaving her alone, and portrayed a person who thought she needed to learn and wanted to do so. She did none of that. She played the diva &, after displaying a comprehensive level of incompetence, is reaping the reward of her own behavior.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Wrong, No Solution
There was an editorial in the New York Times a week or so ago, which I can no longer locate for a proper citation, regarding medical costs. It posed an example of colon cancer, which could be detected by an inexpensive test called a “fecal occult blood test” or by a colonoscopy. We all know what the latter is, of course.
It made the argument between the more expensive test and the one of lesser cost as driving this nation’s high cost of health care, positing that we should be using the former less and the latter more, and suggested that some government regulation would probably be required to make that happen. Again we get both the wrong problem and the wrong solution.
After years of screaming objections to insurance companies dictating what procedures and tests our doctors could and could not order, we now want to put the government in a position of doing that instead? Or perhaps we want the government doing that in addition to the insurance company. If my doctor wants to order a test on me he would need to get permission not only from the insurance company, but from the government as well. The test was approved, but the patient died first.
The writer automatically went to “use the cheaper test” instead of asking a more intelligent question like, “Why does a colonoscopy cost so much?”
If a German bricklayer comes to the United States we do not question his ability to lay bricks, and as soon as he gets a green card he will be able to get a job here as a bricklayer. Similarly for auto and truck mechanics. But if a British surgeon comes to this country we will not allow him to practice medicine. Why not? Is the human body built differently or does it function differently in England than here? Of course not.
If foreign physicians were allowed to move to this country and practice medicine, we would not be paying our doctors anywhere near $250,000 per year as a starting wage, and our health care costs would plummet regardless of what tests and procedures doctors order on their patients.
Congress is mandating reductions in payments to Medicare, but they still refuse to allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for lower pricing on medications, to take advantage of the purchasing power they have due to the volume of business which they do with those drug companies. We used to call that “stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.”
Everywhere we look, applying wrong solutions to what is not the problem.
It made the argument between the more expensive test and the one of lesser cost as driving this nation’s high cost of health care, positing that we should be using the former less and the latter more, and suggested that some government regulation would probably be required to make that happen. Again we get both the wrong problem and the wrong solution.
After years of screaming objections to insurance companies dictating what procedures and tests our doctors could and could not order, we now want to put the government in a position of doing that instead? Or perhaps we want the government doing that in addition to the insurance company. If my doctor wants to order a test on me he would need to get permission not only from the insurance company, but from the government as well. The test was approved, but the patient died first.
The writer automatically went to “use the cheaper test” instead of asking a more intelligent question like, “Why does a colonoscopy cost so much?”
If a German bricklayer comes to the United States we do not question his ability to lay bricks, and as soon as he gets a green card he will be able to get a job here as a bricklayer. Similarly for auto and truck mechanics. But if a British surgeon comes to this country we will not allow him to practice medicine. Why not? Is the human body built differently or does it function differently in England than here? Of course not.
If foreign physicians were allowed to move to this country and practice medicine, we would not be paying our doctors anywhere near $250,000 per year as a starting wage, and our health care costs would plummet regardless of what tests and procedures doctors order on their patients.
Congress is mandating reductions in payments to Medicare, but they still refuse to allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for lower pricing on medications, to take advantage of the purchasing power they have due to the volume of business which they do with those drug companies. We used to call that “stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.”
Everywhere we look, applying wrong solutions to what is not the problem.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Tipping Point
I cannot remember a presidential election in my lifetime where I had a complete and utter loathing and a total lack of respect for both sides. Whoever slings the most mud wins, while America circles the drain.
I remained reasonably okay with Obama until he "went negative," but now every time I see him he's either slinging mud at Romney or Ryan, or he's threatening war with someone in the Middle East. If he's spoken about helping the people of this nation with anything other than tax cuts or some other program aimed at special interests for the purpose of obtaining their votes, I have not heard it.
I don't read articles about the presidential campaign, I don't watch political networks, and when a segment comes on the news about a presidential candidate I hit the mute button. I am not going to vote for a president, and if this is what the office has become I think this nation would be better off without one.
I remained reasonably okay with Obama until he "went negative," but now every time I see him he's either slinging mud at Romney or Ryan, or he's threatening war with someone in the Middle East. If he's spoken about helping the people of this nation with anything other than tax cuts or some other program aimed at special interests for the purpose of obtaining their votes, I have not heard it.
I don't read articles about the presidential campaign, I don't watch political networks, and when a segment comes on the news about a presidential candidate I hit the mute button. I am not going to vote for a president, and if this is what the office has become I think this nation would be better off without one.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Great Lines
Ian Welsh, who is Canadian, comments that America's founders understood "that standing armies were a great threat to liberty and that eternal war is the graveyard of freedom." We are seeing the truth of that today.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Fueling Consumption
Some of you will have a hard time believing that the excerpt below was written by a real, live honest-to-God economist, especially the part which I highlighted. Others will have no trouble believing it at all because, like me, you know that economists are by and large complete and utter idiots. It
was written by Dean Baker at Beat The Press.
He doesn’t go explain that latter bit. It would be accurate if the consumption was based on people selling those homes to extract the increased “home equity” in the form of cash in hand and then spending that cash, but for the most part it was people refinancing to exchange that increased equity for more debt. The consumption was driven, actually, by increased debt which used increasing home prices as a basis for “securing” the debt.
There was no increasing home equity fueling that consumption, because the portion of rising home prices which was used for consumption was offset by debt and was no longer equity at all. Equity cannot “fuel consumption” unless the asset is liquidated. The consumption to which Baker refers was fueled by debt.
was written by Dean Baker at Beat The Press.
The housing bubble was generating around $1.2 trillion in demand that disappeared when it collapsed. Half of this was in residential construction and half was in consumption driven by bubble generated home equity.
He doesn’t go explain that latter bit. It would be accurate if the consumption was based on people selling those homes to extract the increased “home equity” in the form of cash in hand and then spending that cash, but for the most part it was people refinancing to exchange that increased equity for more debt. The consumption was driven, actually, by increased debt which used increasing home prices as a basis for “securing” the debt.
There was no increasing home equity fueling that consumption, because the portion of rising home prices which was used for consumption was offset by debt and was no longer equity at all. Equity cannot “fuel consumption” unless the asset is liquidated. The consumption to which Baker refers was fueled by debt.
Friday, August 17, 2012
TV Review: Political Animals
I realize that when watching television dramas one needs to engage in some suspension of disbelief but, good God; Sigourney Weaver deserves better than to be spouting lines written by twelve year olds. I’m on the same wave length as my sister, who said she is still watching it because, “The series is so short that I figure I might as well see how it turns out.”
The latest episode involved a Chinese submarine going down 13 miles off of San Diego, with China so unwilling to admit spying on us that they were willing to let the crew of 100 die, and the American government so unwilling to let the crew die that they were willing to risk all out war with China. Oh, please. The scenario was so riddled with idiocy…
A real Chinese ambassador confronted with a charge of spying would most likely have responded along the lines of, “What? Are you on crack or something? Of course we’re spying on you. That’s what world powers do, they spy on each other. Hello?”
The USN submarine rescue operation is not in Hawaii, it’s in on Coronado Island in San Diego, so it wouldn’t take a couple days to get there, it would take just over an hour. Six hundred feet is actually not very deep, and would not present a difficult or tricky rescue, but the water 13 miles off San Diego is one whole hell of a lot deeper than 600 feet.
There’s also a few things wrong with the idea that the Chinese crew was going to “scuttle” the sub to avoid detection, and with that being an act that would spread radiation far and wide on the West Coast and kill millions. The most obvious flaw is that irradiating an ocean and killing millions is a pretty weird way to “escape detection.” I suspect that millions of dead people would be noticed pretty quickly and that it would not be particularly difficult to figure out what caused it.
The more subtle flaw is that we have lost two nuclear subs at sea and the Russians at least four, and the escape of radiation to the ocean has been zero. Even if, by some freak chance, the reactor vessel did breach, the reactors which power ships are infinitesimally smaller than the reactors which are used in shore based power generating stations, and the radiation release would not be even close to that described.
In the same episode a reporter (who is, of course, exquisitely beautiful) blackmails her way into accompanying the Secretary of State’s Chief of Staff (who is also the Secretary's son) on a trip to the West Coast on a private airplane that rivals Air Force one, has a dining room and a uniformed stewardess to serve dinner. Oh, jeez.
The Secretary of State doesn’t have a Chief of Staff, and if she did he would not be travelling on that kind of plane. If a reporter blackmailed him into taking her along he would not have her travelling in his private quarters, serving her dinner, and plying her with wine. He despises her and she is there because she is a blackmailer, remember?
As soon as that particular little scenario was revealed to us I told my wife he was going to have sex with her. Do I need to tell you I was right?
The latest episode involved a Chinese submarine going down 13 miles off of San Diego, with China so unwilling to admit spying on us that they were willing to let the crew of 100 die, and the American government so unwilling to let the crew die that they were willing to risk all out war with China. Oh, please. The scenario was so riddled with idiocy…
A real Chinese ambassador confronted with a charge of spying would most likely have responded along the lines of, “What? Are you on crack or something? Of course we’re spying on you. That’s what world powers do, they spy on each other. Hello?”
The USN submarine rescue operation is not in Hawaii, it’s in on Coronado Island in San Diego, so it wouldn’t take a couple days to get there, it would take just over an hour. Six hundred feet is actually not very deep, and would not present a difficult or tricky rescue, but the water 13 miles off San Diego is one whole hell of a lot deeper than 600 feet.
There’s also a few things wrong with the idea that the Chinese crew was going to “scuttle” the sub to avoid detection, and with that being an act that would spread radiation far and wide on the West Coast and kill millions. The most obvious flaw is that irradiating an ocean and killing millions is a pretty weird way to “escape detection.” I suspect that millions of dead people would be noticed pretty quickly and that it would not be particularly difficult to figure out what caused it.
The more subtle flaw is that we have lost two nuclear subs at sea and the Russians at least four, and the escape of radiation to the ocean has been zero. Even if, by some freak chance, the reactor vessel did breach, the reactors which power ships are infinitesimally smaller than the reactors which are used in shore based power generating stations, and the radiation release would not be even close to that described.
In the same episode a reporter (who is, of course, exquisitely beautiful) blackmails her way into accompanying the Secretary of State’s Chief of Staff (who is also the Secretary's son) on a trip to the West Coast on a private airplane that rivals Air Force one, has a dining room and a uniformed stewardess to serve dinner. Oh, jeez.
The Secretary of State doesn’t have a Chief of Staff, and if she did he would not be travelling on that kind of plane. If a reporter blackmailed him into taking her along he would not have her travelling in his private quarters, serving her dinner, and plying her with wine. He despises her and she is there because she is a blackmailer, remember?
As soon as that particular little scenario was revealed to us I told my wife he was going to have sex with her. Do I need to tell you I was right?
Now, That's A General
Presented, almost, without comment from Ynet News,
"Dempsey was painfully clear. He basically said that Israel should not disregard the opinions of its top security officials, stop the constant chatter on Iran and refrain from any acts that may have an adverse effect on the global economy. The general also meant to tell Israel that it mustn't believe that Netanyahu has any control over the US because he has friends in the Republican Party. Dempsey laid down the facts: Israel is not America, it does not possess the same capabilities, and if Netanyahu and Barak continue wreaking havoc – Israel won’t have America either."
More and more I like this General Dempsey, and applaud President Obama for appointing him as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"Dempsey was painfully clear. He basically said that Israel should not disregard the opinions of its top security officials, stop the constant chatter on Iran and refrain from any acts that may have an adverse effect on the global economy. The general also meant to tell Israel that it mustn't believe that Netanyahu has any control over the US because he has friends in the Republican Party. Dempsey laid down the facts: Israel is not America, it does not possess the same capabilities, and if Netanyahu and Barak continue wreaking havoc – Israel won’t have America either."
More and more I like this General Dempsey, and applaud President Obama for appointing him as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Mere Semantics
How come it is that when unemployment claims decrease by 2000 Bloomberg says that they "dropped slightly," but when they increase by 2000 Bloomberg says that they are "little changed" for the week?
Campaign Afoot
When is the last time that California cast its electoral votes for a Republican president? Quick, anyone? Perhaps Abraham Lincoln? Let me phrase the question another way; how likely is it that California will do so in 2012?
So as I'm watching television in the evening why do I keep seeing advertisements, repeatedly, which begin with, "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message?"
Update: Well, okay my bad. From 1952 through 1988, Republicans won every presidential election except Goldwater in 1964. Still... 2012?
So as I'm watching television in the evening why do I keep seeing advertisements, repeatedly, which begin with, "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message?"
Update: Well, okay my bad. From 1952 through 1988, Republicans won every presidential election except Goldwater in 1964. Still... 2012?
Today's "Big Ideas"
From Attywood, at Philadelphia’s Daily News, a guy who calls himself a liberal, we get this in an article Tuesday regarding the deficit,
First, that he is a self professed liberal talking about the deficit in the first place rather than about restoring jobs makes him an idiot. Politicians on both sides want to change the subject away from jobs because they have neither track record or constructive plans on that subject, but we should not allow them to distract us from what matters.
“Big ideas?” Raising taxes on the rich by three percentage points is not a big idea; it’s not even a small idea; it’s a tiny, infinitesimal idea. It cuts our deficit by 4% or less. It is tokenism and is presented by Democratic leadership as a distraction from the track record of the present legislators and President. It is designed to make us angry at rich people instead of at our elected government, and we are biting like suckerfish on a shiny lure.
“Big ideas?” Health care with “better records system and fewer unnecessary tests” is another case of thinking like midgets. Record systems is a good idea, but it’s impact on costs is trivial, and after complaining about insurance companies having veto power over the necessity of tests, do we really want to give that power to the government? This is another way of thinking small and talking big, of saying that we are addressing the cost problem of “for profit” health care without actually doing anything about it.
Health care reform was our chance to think big in this decade, to make a change that would really matter, and we were afraid to do that. The leader of this nation said that it would be “too disruptive.” Instead, we created 7600 pages of small thinking, with absolutely nothing new contained in it. A vast collection of small, unoriginal thoughts do not add up to a “big idea.”
There are three big ideas -- sharply cutting defense spending, restoring taxes on the wealthy to the rates of the booming 1990s, and smart health care cuts such as a better records system and reducing unnecessary tests -- that are so common sensical they should transcend ideology and party.
First, that he is a self professed liberal talking about the deficit in the first place rather than about restoring jobs makes him an idiot. Politicians on both sides want to change the subject away from jobs because they have neither track record or constructive plans on that subject, but we should not allow them to distract us from what matters.
“Big ideas?” Raising taxes on the rich by three percentage points is not a big idea; it’s not even a small idea; it’s a tiny, infinitesimal idea. It cuts our deficit by 4% or less. It is tokenism and is presented by Democratic leadership as a distraction from the track record of the present legislators and President. It is designed to make us angry at rich people instead of at our elected government, and we are biting like suckerfish on a shiny lure.
“Big ideas?” Health care with “better records system and fewer unnecessary tests” is another case of thinking like midgets. Record systems is a good idea, but it’s impact on costs is trivial, and after complaining about insurance companies having veto power over the necessity of tests, do we really want to give that power to the government? This is another way of thinking small and talking big, of saying that we are addressing the cost problem of “for profit” health care without actually doing anything about it.
Health care reform was our chance to think big in this decade, to make a change that would really matter, and we were afraid to do that. The leader of this nation said that it would be “too disruptive.” Instead, we created 7600 pages of small thinking, with absolutely nothing new contained in it. A vast collection of small, unoriginal thoughts do not add up to a “big idea.”
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
The Retail Sales Boom
CBS News did a piece about retail sales last night, citing no actual numbers but saying that they rose last month by the largest rate in five months. They spoke glowingly about how Colorado Springs would be able to keep the street lights on since their revenue depended on sales taxes. Happy, happy, happy.
The Los Angeles Times was even more rapturous, rhapsodizing about “consumers coming back” and jobs as “part time baristas at Starbucks” being gained. Boy, you know your economy is really booming when someone gets a part time position as a barista at Starbucks. Is that exciting, or what?
That part-time barista says that, "Now that I'm working, I've been spending most of my paychecks." The Times is all excited and claims the guy is
“…good news for the economy because consumer spending accounts for about 70% of economic activity.” Well, get on the phone to your stock broker, because with that part-time barista spending his paychecks, where can we go but back to the golden days of 2007?
The Times goes on to give us some numbers, saying that “The Commerce Department reported all major categories picking up. Sales of automobiles increased 0.8%, while retail sales other than autos rose 0.8% as well,“ and then quotes someone as saying that, "When consumers go on a spending spree, then the economy does well." Oy.
Well, 0.8% would hardly be a “spending spree” even if true, but it’s not.
The 0.8% increase was the number “adjusted for seasonal variation and holiday and trading-day differences.” The raw number, not adjusted, was a 3.8% decrease. You may place a lot of faith in “seasonal adjustments,” I do not, but whether you do or not, retailers and governments live on real dollars, not seasonal adjustments.
Money in real dollars that can be used to pay overhead, payroll and inventory, and to provide income is what stores are concerned about. The real money that came in to the cash registers of retailers decreased by 3.8% in July, and that is what the retailers have to deal with. It is the sales taxes on that 3.8% reduction that local governments will have to use for meeting the city’s bills.
A retailer can’t pay his employees with “seasonal adjustments,” and a city cannot keep the street lights on with “seasonal adjustments.” They need money, and in July the money went down, not up. That is a fact.
Paul Krugman loves that 0.8% increase because it’s a number for his spreadsheet that he can look at while he’s sitting in his ivy-covered office in Princeton thinking great thoughts. Democrats love that number because they can point to it and tell you that things are getting better. The guy running a clothing store in Phoenix regards that number as total bullshit, because he saw his sales go down by 3.8% in the real world.
The Los Angeles Times was even more rapturous, rhapsodizing about “consumers coming back” and jobs as “part time baristas at Starbucks” being gained. Boy, you know your economy is really booming when someone gets a part time position as a barista at Starbucks. Is that exciting, or what?
That part-time barista says that, "Now that I'm working, I've been spending most of my paychecks." The Times is all excited and claims the guy is
“…good news for the economy because consumer spending accounts for about 70% of economic activity.” Well, get on the phone to your stock broker, because with that part-time barista spending his paychecks, where can we go but back to the golden days of 2007?
The Times goes on to give us some numbers, saying that “The Commerce Department reported all major categories picking up. Sales of automobiles increased 0.8%, while retail sales other than autos rose 0.8% as well,“ and then quotes someone as saying that, "When consumers go on a spending spree, then the economy does well." Oy.
Well, 0.8% would hardly be a “spending spree” even if true, but it’s not.
The 0.8% increase was the number “adjusted for seasonal variation and holiday and trading-day differences.” The raw number, not adjusted, was a 3.8% decrease. You may place a lot of faith in “seasonal adjustments,” I do not, but whether you do or not, retailers and governments live on real dollars, not seasonal adjustments.
Money in real dollars that can be used to pay overhead, payroll and inventory, and to provide income is what stores are concerned about. The real money that came in to the cash registers of retailers decreased by 3.8% in July, and that is what the retailers have to deal with. It is the sales taxes on that 3.8% reduction that local governments will have to use for meeting the city’s bills.
A retailer can’t pay his employees with “seasonal adjustments,” and a city cannot keep the street lights on with “seasonal adjustments.” They need money, and in July the money went down, not up. That is a fact.
Paul Krugman loves that 0.8% increase because it’s a number for his spreadsheet that he can look at while he’s sitting in his ivy-covered office in Princeton thinking great thoughts. Democrats love that number because they can point to it and tell you that things are getting better. The guy running a clothing store in Phoenix regards that number as total bullshit, because he saw his sales go down by 3.8% in the real world.
Winners Count Their Money...
...and the losers cry foul. Juan Cole is becoming confused about who’s “buying our elections,” because now he’s hosting an article that says that the “Super PACs” funded by “47 billionaires” are being outspent by other PACs that are funded anonymously, so that we actually don’t know who it is that is buying our elections.
That sort of weakens his charge that, “They want something in return for their money,” since giving orders to the newly elected legislators is going to be difficult when they don’t know who the hell you are.
At least in the past we’ve waited until after we actually lost the elections before we started screaming about the election having been stolen. Now we’re bragging about how we’re going to win and preemptively crying foul at the same time, just in case we lose. Pathetic.
That sort of weakens his charge that, “They want something in return for their money,” since giving orders to the newly elected legislators is going to be difficult when they don’t know who the hell you are.
At least in the past we’ve waited until after we actually lost the elections before we started screaming about the election having been stolen. Now we’re bragging about how we’re going to win and preemptively crying foul at the same time, just in case we lose. Pathetic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)