Amongst the pundit class, there seems to be a consensus that the "ObamaCare" individual mandate provision is going down and, perhaps, the entire bill with it.
Is this awful (from a progressive perspective)? Yes, this is awful.
But is it the end of the world (metaphorically speaking)? Absolutely not.
Let's not forget that this was really a conservative bill, anyway. The individual mandate was an idea spawned in The Heritage Foundation (a right-wing think tank). Paul Krugman was one of many journalists/pundits who recognized that "ObamaCare" was to the right of President Richard Nixon's proposal in 1974.
So, while I am not necessarily fully trying to talk Furriners readers (or myself) into believing this is absolutely going to, in the long run, prove to be a good thing because it provides an opportunity to get a better bill. It does just that, I suppose. Of course, technically, everyday is an opportunity to make your life, your nation, and your world a better place... and most of us do nothing of the sort (at least, not beyond the incidental benefit we do in being consumers and producers, parents and mentors, friends and neighbors, etc - all important, of course - and not in that order).
Anyway, this post has taken an unexpected turn; I didn't necessarily plan on going down that path. What I planned on focusing on was a quote I pulled from yesterday's The Dylan Ratigan Show. Before I quote it, I would like to add that this is merely a succinct summation of what I was already saying around the Furriners offices on Tuesday afternoon after the initial reports of "Train Wreck".
Without further ado, here is a quote from Rob Cox from Reuters on The DR Show:
(Republicans) have to be careful what they wish for here. Strike it down. Beat it up. Get it declared unconstitutional. They can "win"... and they can deal with 50 million uninsured people - with no plan. Good luck.
Exactly. That said, the American electorate do perplex me. We've had 30+ years of policies favoring special interests and the rich and, yet, the electorate is not voting in politicians committed to reversing these policies. So consider me disappointed, yet hopeful, yet forelorn.
We all, as Americans, deserve better.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Yeah, Yeah. Too Soon.
I was watching The Last Word on Tuesday night and Lawrence O'Donnell decided to give "the last word" to his MSNBC colleague, Reverend Al Sharpton. He proceeded to play a clip of Rev. Sharpton speaking about his 87 year old mother who had just passed away in Alabama. In referencing how the country has changed in her lifetime, Rev. Sharpton says:
When she was born in (Alabama) in 1925, she didn't have the right to vote.
Am I the only A-hole who watched that segment and whose first thought was "hmmmm, you know, Al, if she was born in the United States in 2012, she still wouldn't have the right to vote." Why? Because newborns don't vote!
When she was born in (Alabama) in 1925, she didn't have the right to vote.
Am I the only A-hole who watched that segment and whose first thought was "hmmmm, you know, Al, if she was born in the United States in 2012, she still wouldn't have the right to vote." Why? Because newborns don't vote!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Missile defense boondoggle
Much has been made recently of a private conversation President Obama had with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Apparently Obama offered some compromise on our European missile defense system in exchange for a reduction in nuclear weapons.
Obviously the president would have preferred for this private conversation to have been kept private but the implication that Obama is sacrificing our security are vastly overstated. In test after test missile defense systems have failed to do the job they were designed to do while costing tax payers billions.
If Obama was a businessman he would be hailed as a genius for giving away a program that doesn't even work in exchange for something that is valuable to his company.
We are no longer in a cold war and even if a missile defense system worked, times have changed and our technology and tactics need to change with it. But to conservatives no defense boondoggle is too expensive and this president, no matter how far to the right he moves, will never be viewed as a success.
Obviously the president would have preferred for this private conversation to have been kept private but the implication that Obama is sacrificing our security are vastly overstated. In test after test missile defense systems have failed to do the job they were designed to do while costing tax payers billions.
If Obama was a businessman he would be hailed as a genius for giving away a program that doesn't even work in exchange for something that is valuable to his company.
We are no longer in a cold war and even if a missile defense system worked, times have changed and our technology and tactics need to change with it. But to conservatives no defense boondoggle is too expensive and this president, no matter how far to the right he moves, will never be viewed as a success.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Santorum's glass house
Rick Santorum lost his cool yesterday when responding to a NY Time reporter who misrepresented a statement Santorum made regarding Mitt Romney. Santorum termed the reporter’s question as "BS" and told him to "stop lying". To be fair running for President is no easy task and it would certainly test ones patience but that doesn't change the fact that people should expect more from someone running for the highest office in the land.
Having said that I really don't think this little outburst should change how people view Rick Santorum. What people should find troubling is how hypocritical Santorum's response is. Last month Santorum made a number of false claims regarding euthanasia in the Netherlands. When confronted about these lies a Santorum spokesman said that Rick was just saying "what's in his heart".
So when the lies come from the media it is proof that the media is bunch of leftist in the tank for Obama but when they come from a man hoping to become president, all that is important is that he believes his lies are true in his heart.
The good news is Santorum must have a huge heart because the Netherland euthanasia "facts" are not the first time Rick has stretched the truth.
Other instances include the time -
Rick was wrong about abortion statistics
Rick was wrong about birthrate statistics
Rick was wrong about female suicide and crime rate statistics
Rick misrepresented a political dispute
Rick claimed he didn't vote for a steel bailout
Rick was wrong on the Massachusetts health care law
Rick was wrong on the Massachusetts health care law a second time
Rick was wrong about Obama's stance on marriage
Rick misrepresented Obama's statements on Iran
Rick was wrong about the ACA's Medicare advisory panel
Rick was wrong about the amount of money the government borrows
Rick was wrong on Obama's stance on drilling in Alaska
While the NY Times reporter may have been off base with the question he asked, calling him a liar is the ultimate in glass houses coming from Rick Santorum.
Having said that I really don't think this little outburst should change how people view Rick Santorum. What people should find troubling is how hypocritical Santorum's response is. Last month Santorum made a number of false claims regarding euthanasia in the Netherlands. When confronted about these lies a Santorum spokesman said that Rick was just saying "what's in his heart".
So when the lies come from the media it is proof that the media is bunch of leftist in the tank for Obama but when they come from a man hoping to become president, all that is important is that he believes his lies are true in his heart.
The good news is Santorum must have a huge heart because the Netherland euthanasia "facts" are not the first time Rick has stretched the truth.
Other instances include the time -
Rick was wrong about abortion statistics
Rick was wrong about birthrate statistics
Rick was wrong about female suicide and crime rate statistics
Rick misrepresented a political dispute
Rick claimed he didn't vote for a steel bailout
Rick was wrong on the Massachusetts health care law
Rick was wrong on the Massachusetts health care law a second time
Rick was wrong about Obama's stance on marriage
Rick misrepresented Obama's statements on Iran
Rick was wrong about the ACA's Medicare advisory panel
Rick was wrong about the amount of money the government borrows
Rick was wrong on Obama's stance on drilling in Alaska
While the NY Times reporter may have been off base with the question he asked, calling him a liar is the ultimate in glass houses coming from Rick Santorum.
Monday, March 26, 2012
March Pet Peeve
One of the timeless joys of being a sports fan is complaining about the announcers. For example, my parents generation bitched about Howard Cosell. My generation - given the huge increase in television coverage of all sports - get to whine about dozens of sportscasters who get on our nerves for reasons big and small.
The reason I bring this up is there seems to be a theme amongst the analysts doing the tournament games for CBS. They all have a hissy-fit every time a player takes a "quick" shot. It's like they all were forced to watch Hoosiers Clockwork Orange-style and have unanimously embraced Coach Norman Dale's philosophy on passing the ball several times before taking a shot. Steve Kerr will exhort the team to "run their stuff" before taking a shot; Bill Raftery will chide any player who doesn't "show patience".
Call me...uh, what is the opposite of "old fashioned"?, but I don't accept this line of thinking. "Running your stuff" is best viewed as a means to an end; and what is that end? It's getting an open shot! If you have an open shot without "running your stuff", take the shot! At least that is my opinion.
Anyway, if the New Yorks Knicks GM happens to find this blog post, please feel free to request a resume when you look to permanently fill the head coaching vacancy created by the departure of Mike D'Antoni. I am willing to work weekends. You offer health insurance, right?
The reason I bring this up is there seems to be a theme amongst the analysts doing the tournament games for CBS. They all have a hissy-fit every time a player takes a "quick" shot. It's like they all were forced to watch Hoosiers Clockwork Orange-style and have unanimously embraced Coach Norman Dale's philosophy on passing the ball several times before taking a shot. Steve Kerr will exhort the team to "run their stuff" before taking a shot; Bill Raftery will chide any player who doesn't "show patience".
Call me...uh, what is the opposite of "old fashioned"?, but I don't accept this line of thinking. "Running your stuff" is best viewed as a means to an end; and what is that end? It's getting an open shot! If you have an open shot without "running your stuff", take the shot! At least that is my opinion.
Anyway, if the New Yorks Knicks GM happens to find this blog post, please feel free to request a resume when you look to permanently fill the head coaching vacancy created by the departure of Mike D'Antoni. I am willing to work weekends. You offer health insurance, right?
Friday, March 23, 2012
The rich pay absolutely positively no taxes - except for the taxes they do pay
Every time the topic of taxes comes up the liberals talk about how the rich aren't taxed enough and the conservatives counter with the 47% that pay no taxes as well as the following chart.
The chart shows the number of tax returns that have a positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and their percentage of the overall income and taxes paid. The typical take away is that the top 1% only earn 16.90% of the wages yet they pay 36.70% of the taxes. This of course indicates that the super rich not only pay their fair share but they cover some of your share as well.
The problem I have with this table is that it uses AGI as its starting point. 23% of tax returns owe no federal taxes not because of extravagant loopholes and credits but due to standard deductions. In all of the debates over tax rates I have never heard the argument that the standard deduction is the problem. This probably stems from the fact that everyone who pays taxes receives the standard deduction. While the standard deduction does vary it is essentially fair across all income levels.
So if everyone takes advantage of the standard deduction and it is not one of the areas of concern regarding tax inequality then why would you use a data set that doesn't take the standard deduction into account?
If you use everyone with a positive return after standard deductions as your starting point instead of everyone with a positive return at the AGI it has a dramatic affect on the percentages.
Using this method the Top 1% ($450,000 and above) earn 31.65% of the income but only pay 21.83% of the taxes. Similarly the next category of the top 1-5% ($175,000 - $450,000) earn 18.46% of the income while paying only 14.29% of the taxes while the top 5-10% (125,000 - 175,000) earn 17.45% of the income and pay 12.96%. The bottom 50% ($50,000 and lower) on the other hand earn 9.49% of the income and pay 14.82% of the taxes. This leaves the remaining 40% ($50,000 - $160,000) earning 23% of the income and paying 36% of the taxes.
If looked at this way the data shows that the bottom 90% pay a far higher percentage of their income than the top 10%. Does this mean that liberals are right and the rich don't pay their fair share? Maybe. Maybe not. But the real point is that it all depends on how you look at it. It seems to me that starting at AGI gives you the biggest slant towards the rich while starting after the deductions gives the biggest slant towards the poor and middle class. In the end neither analysis proves anything by itself because there are multiple ways to analyze the same data set.
Unfortunately, all too often, our desire to be right trumps our desire to find the truth so we end up using one narrow interpretation simple because it supports our beliefs. This makes for good debates but terrible solutions.
The chart shows the number of tax returns that have a positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and their percentage of the overall income and taxes paid. The typical take away is that the top 1% only earn 16.90% of the wages yet they pay 36.70% of the taxes. This of course indicates that the super rich not only pay their fair share but they cover some of your share as well.
The problem I have with this table is that it uses AGI as its starting point. 23% of tax returns owe no federal taxes not because of extravagant loopholes and credits but due to standard deductions. In all of the debates over tax rates I have never heard the argument that the standard deduction is the problem. This probably stems from the fact that everyone who pays taxes receives the standard deduction. While the standard deduction does vary it is essentially fair across all income levels.
So if everyone takes advantage of the standard deduction and it is not one of the areas of concern regarding tax inequality then why would you use a data set that doesn't take the standard deduction into account?
If you use everyone with a positive return after standard deductions as your starting point instead of everyone with a positive return at the AGI it has a dramatic affect on the percentages.
Using this method the Top 1% ($450,000 and above) earn 31.65% of the income but only pay 21.83% of the taxes. Similarly the next category of the top 1-5% ($175,000 - $450,000) earn 18.46% of the income while paying only 14.29% of the taxes while the top 5-10% (125,000 - 175,000) earn 17.45% of the income and pay 12.96%. The bottom 50% ($50,000 and lower) on the other hand earn 9.49% of the income and pay 14.82% of the taxes. This leaves the remaining 40% ($50,000 - $160,000) earning 23% of the income and paying 36% of the taxes.
If looked at this way the data shows that the bottom 90% pay a far higher percentage of their income than the top 10%. Does this mean that liberals are right and the rich don't pay their fair share? Maybe. Maybe not. But the real point is that it all depends on how you look at it. It seems to me that starting at AGI gives you the biggest slant towards the rich while starting after the deductions gives the biggest slant towards the poor and middle class. In the end neither analysis proves anything by itself because there are multiple ways to analyze the same data set.
Unfortunately, all too often, our desire to be right trumps our desire to find the truth so we end up using one narrow interpretation simple because it supports our beliefs. This makes for good debates but terrible solutions.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Breaking News: Politicians waste time and play politics
It has been suggested recently that the President was using the Sandra Fluke flap as a political tool. It has also been suggested that by choosing to use some of his personal time on a passion of his, college basketball, the President was wasting time that could have been better spent on more pressing issues. I tend to believe that both of these ideas are off base but never the less, they are out there because someone thinks they have merit.
With this in mind I recently read an op-ed piece that Tim Walberg penned for the Daily Telegraph in Adrian, MI to assure his constituents that he is working hard to defend them. One of the ways Representative Walberg is accomplishing this goal is by fighting tooth and nail to defeat the evil empire known as the EPA from implementing a new regulation that could adversely affect local farmers. To defend his constituents from this impending regulation Mr. Walberg voted for The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. You may ask yourself what EPA regulation does this Act prevent? Well there is no impending regulation from the EPA regarding farm dust. As a matter of fact more than a month before Tim Walberg voted for this Act, an EPA assistant administrator testified before the Energy and Commerce subcommittee that, as the government body in charge of coarse particle pollution, they were keeping existing EPA standards in place. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson later reaffirmed this decision by stating that the agency’s regulation of coarse particulate matter would be retained with no revisions
If the President taking an hour our two out of his day to fill out an NCAA bracket is a waste of time then what do you call writing, debating and voting on an Act that solves a problem that doesn't exist?
Of course just voting on the bill won't let all of Tim Walberg's constituents know about the important work he is doing in congress so his staff put together an op-ed to let everyone know about his accomplishment. So not only did Mr. Walberg vote for an Act that prevents the EPA from doing something they had no plans on doing, he is publicly bragging about it.
If the President making a private phone call to a US citizen is political grandstanding then what do you call writing an op-ed extolling your own virtues?
If the complaint is that politicians waste time on unnecessary endeavors and focus too much on getting reelected then I agree but acting like these problems only exist on one side of the aisle or only in the oval office is practically the definition of playing politics.
With this in mind I recently read an op-ed piece that Tim Walberg penned for the Daily Telegraph in Adrian, MI to assure his constituents that he is working hard to defend them. One of the ways Representative Walberg is accomplishing this goal is by fighting tooth and nail to defeat the evil empire known as the EPA from implementing a new regulation that could adversely affect local farmers. To defend his constituents from this impending regulation Mr. Walberg voted for The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. You may ask yourself what EPA regulation does this Act prevent? Well there is no impending regulation from the EPA regarding farm dust. As a matter of fact more than a month before Tim Walberg voted for this Act, an EPA assistant administrator testified before the Energy and Commerce subcommittee that, as the government body in charge of coarse particle pollution, they were keeping existing EPA standards in place. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson later reaffirmed this decision by stating that the agency’s regulation of coarse particulate matter would be retained with no revisions
If the President taking an hour our two out of his day to fill out an NCAA bracket is a waste of time then what do you call writing, debating and voting on an Act that solves a problem that doesn't exist?
Of course just voting on the bill won't let all of Tim Walberg's constituents know about the important work he is doing in congress so his staff put together an op-ed to let everyone know about his accomplishment. So not only did Mr. Walberg vote for an Act that prevents the EPA from doing something they had no plans on doing, he is publicly bragging about it.
If the President making a private phone call to a US citizen is political grandstanding then what do you call writing an op-ed extolling your own virtues?
If the complaint is that politicians waste time on unnecessary endeavors and focus too much on getting reelected then I agree but acting like these problems only exist on one side of the aisle or only in the oval office is practically the definition of playing politics.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Who is to blame for high gas prices
For the past few weeks it has become an obsession of the right to blame President Obama for increasing gas prices. They will point out that gas prices doubled since his inauguration while ignoring that prices were at a 6 year low due to a worldwide recession. They say the President wanted higher gas prices as part of some great environmentalist agenda then ignore his actually comments that never support this claim.
Back in 2008 when gas hit "record highs" it was Democrats blaming then President Bush for the high prices and Republicans giving the defense. Here are a few examples:
Cal Thomas - 11-22-08 - "The facts are...no President has the power to increase or lower gas prices. Those are market forces."
Neil Cavuto - 5-20-08 - "you got China and India slopping up all of that oil faster than we can these days and that that is the not so sinister response to what’s going on. Nothing to do with the President"
Bill O'Reilly - 4-23-08 - "Most American's are getting hammered by high gas prices. Yesterday oil hit a record high and politicians cannot do a thing about it."
Cheryl Casone - 7-1-08 - "You know at this point it really is tough for this President to be honest with you because he really doesn’t have any control what’s going to happen with the markets and the economy and with oil prices and supply and demand and gasoline it really is out of this President's hands"
Dr Dan Yergin - 7-18-08 - (before Senate Republicans and Democrats as part of a one day energy summit) the reason for high gas prices: speculation, the weak dollar, geopolitics or volatile world events, like Iran's nuclear ambitions, and a "shortage psychology."
Bill O'Reilly with Former VP of New York Mercantile Exchange, John D'Agostino - 4-29-08 - (O'Reilly)"OPEC sets the price for a barrel of oil. And they keep raising it and raising it and raising it. Dick Cheney went over there and tried to say, “Hey, give us a break.” They gave Cheney the middle digit. All right? So they can — they can charge whatever they want to charge, correct?" (D'Agostino)D: "Well, OPEC sets the supply for what they can produce. The price of oil is actually set in exchange at trades in New York and in London, as well."
Marianne Lavalle (US News & World Report) on Greta Van Susteren - 6-18-08 - "the energy economists in the government made and assessment just a few weeks ago and what they came up with was (drilling in Anwar) it would reduce the price of oil about $0.40 a barrel or maybe as much as $1.40 a barrel" (Van Susteren) "So what did that do to my gallon of gas?" (Lavalle) "Did not really change it much at all.”
Bill O'Reilly - 4-21-08 - "The next time you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices understand that it’s complete BS."
Ben Lieberman (Energy Analyst Heritage Foundation) - 5-22-07 - "the biggest factor (in increasing gas prices) is the rise in the price of oil."
The reality is that these statements were accurate then and they are accurate now. Politicians have little to no affect on the price of gasoline. Blaming the President is a political move used by both sides to excite the foot soldiers. Unfortunately it works every time.
Back in 2008 when gas hit "record highs" it was Democrats blaming then President Bush for the high prices and Republicans giving the defense. Here are a few examples:
Cal Thomas - 11-22-08 - "The facts are...no President has the power to increase or lower gas prices. Those are market forces."
Neil Cavuto - 5-20-08 - "you got China and India slopping up all of that oil faster than we can these days and that that is the not so sinister response to what’s going on. Nothing to do with the President"
Bill O'Reilly - 4-23-08 - "Most American's are getting hammered by high gas prices. Yesterday oil hit a record high and politicians cannot do a thing about it."
Cheryl Casone - 7-1-08 - "You know at this point it really is tough for this President to be honest with you because he really doesn’t have any control what’s going to happen with the markets and the economy and with oil prices and supply and demand and gasoline it really is out of this President's hands"
Dr Dan Yergin - 7-18-08 - (before Senate Republicans and Democrats as part of a one day energy summit) the reason for high gas prices: speculation, the weak dollar, geopolitics or volatile world events, like Iran's nuclear ambitions, and a "shortage psychology."
Bill O'Reilly with Former VP of New York Mercantile Exchange, John D'Agostino - 4-29-08 - (O'Reilly)"OPEC sets the price for a barrel of oil. And they keep raising it and raising it and raising it. Dick Cheney went over there and tried to say, “Hey, give us a break.” They gave Cheney the middle digit. All right? So they can — they can charge whatever they want to charge, correct?" (D'Agostino)D: "Well, OPEC sets the supply for what they can produce. The price of oil is actually set in exchange at trades in New York and in London, as well."
Marianne Lavalle (US News & World Report) on Greta Van Susteren - 6-18-08 - "the energy economists in the government made and assessment just a few weeks ago and what they came up with was (drilling in Anwar) it would reduce the price of oil about $0.40 a barrel or maybe as much as $1.40 a barrel" (Van Susteren) "So what did that do to my gallon of gas?" (Lavalle) "Did not really change it much at all.”
Bill O'Reilly - 4-21-08 - "The next time you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices understand that it’s complete BS."
Ben Lieberman (Energy Analyst Heritage Foundation) - 5-22-07 - "the biggest factor (in increasing gas prices) is the rise in the price of oil."
The reality is that these statements were accurate then and they are accurate now. Politicians have little to no affect on the price of gasoline. Blaming the President is a political move used by both sides to excite the foot soldiers. Unfortunately it works every time.
Tony Kornheiser is a Backslider
Just an hour or so ago, I mentioned in an award eligible blog post that yours truly and Elijah Moon have differences. I mean, what is with all the racist jokes he tells around the Furriners offices?!? It makes me uncomfortable.
Anyway, one thing we totally 100% agree on that Sam Bradford has been ridiculously overrated by the national media. I may focus on it in an absolutist way (Bradford sucks!!) while Elijah seemed somewhat more perturbed by it in a relative sense (Another "expert" has Bradford rated ahead of Matt Stafford! I call bullshit!!). I feel like we're both right.
As the 2011 season progressed, it did seem as if some in the national media did finally start to catch on. There were at least whispers that maybe he was overrated. In fact, an October 28, 2011 column by ESPN's Bill Simmons ranked Sam Bradford as the #29 QB in the league (sort of).
I thought things were going in the right direction. Then, yesterday, on PTI, Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon were having a discussion of the Redskins trade to move up to presumably draft Robert Griffin III with the #2 pick in 2012 draft. In expression some reservation about the trade, Tony Kornheiser said:
It would be interesting to get a poll of NFL GMs and HCs to see who they'd rather have: Sam Bradford or Josh Freeman? I'm not saying I think really highly of Freeman either - but I will say that I would take Freeman over Bradford.
And the really easy choice? Matthew Stafford over any of them.
Anyway, one thing we totally 100% agree on that Sam Bradford has been ridiculously overrated by the national media. I may focus on it in an absolutist way (Bradford sucks!!) while Elijah seemed somewhat more perturbed by it in a relative sense (Another "expert" has Bradford rated ahead of Matt Stafford! I call bullshit!!). I feel like we're both right.
As the 2011 season progressed, it did seem as if some in the national media did finally start to catch on. There were at least whispers that maybe he was overrated. In fact, an October 28, 2011 column by ESPN's Bill Simmons ranked Sam Bradford as the #29 QB in the league (sort of).
I thought things were going in the right direction. Then, yesterday, on PTI, Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon were having a discussion of the Redskins trade to move up to presumably draft Robert Griffin III with the #2 pick in 2012 draft. In expression some reservation about the trade, Tony Kornheiser said:
You look at that conference - the Big 12 - the past ten years, every team runs a spread, every quarterback throws for 80,000 yards, but only (Sam) Bradford so far looks real good. Josh Freeman? Colt McCoy? Ehh. Do you want Vince Young? Do you want Blaine Gabbert? So I don't know... we'll see.
It would be interesting to get a poll of NFL GMs and HCs to see who they'd rather have: Sam Bradford or Josh Freeman? I'm not saying I think really highly of Freeman either - but I will say that I would take Freeman over Bradford.
And the really easy choice? Matthew Stafford over any of them.
Most Insufferable Day Of The Year!
There are several key differences between myself and Elijah Moon. I like good music. He has chosen, oddly, to like bad music. Go figure. There are other differences too - but that one is key.
Another key difference is that while Elijah Moon really does not want to hear about your fantasy football team, I have that aversion about who you picked in your NCAA brackets.
So, here's my message to the world:
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR "SLEEPERS"!!
They are total guesses. You know it. I know it. The American people know it.
If you get one or more right, it does not mean you had any great insight. It means you beat the odds. Period.
So, while the mandate on Detroit's leading sports talk radio station this morning, 97.1 The Ticket, was to call in and "give us your sleepers", I feel I must write a blog entry that warns anybody in the Furriners offices that tells me who their sleeper is today, I just might punch them in the face.
Another key difference is that while Elijah Moon really does not want to hear about your fantasy football team, I have that aversion about who you picked in your NCAA brackets.
So, here's my message to the world:
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR "SLEEPERS"!!
They are total guesses. You know it. I know it. The American people know it.
If you get one or more right, it does not mean you had any great insight. It means you beat the odds. Period.
So, while the mandate on Detroit's leading sports talk radio station this morning, 97.1 The Ticket, was to call in and "give us your sleepers", I feel I must write a blog entry that warns anybody in the Furriners offices that tells me who their sleeper is today, I just might punch them in the face.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Rationalizing for Rush
There has been an ongoing conversation on this blog over the past week regarding Rush Limbaugh's "two words" with both sides agreeing that what he said was wrong. That is of course the last point at which they agree.
With that in mind I wanted to address a few items.
First, it should be noted that Rush didn't just say two unkind words about Sandra Fluke. He leveled over 20 personal attacks (jokes) on her and her family. One of the big things that those who are rationalizing the comments by Rush seem to be missing is that 99% of women have used birth control so when Rush calls Sandra Fluke a "slut" for using birth control that is covered under insurance, he is essentially calling every woman who uses birth control covered by insurance a "slut".
It is not breaking news that the fringe talking heads make inappropriate comments but when you pigeonhole an entire group you tend to see a backlash. Making this a liberal media issue also completely misses the point. Rush Limbaugh has the most listened to radio show in the US. Unfortunately for Rush and his supporters this means he is also the biggest target. His words are powerful and so are the reactions.
Consider Tiger Woods. Have other golfers cheated on their wives? Sure they have. But none of them will get the airtime for their indiscretions that Tiger did because none of them have the status that Tiger does not because the liberal media has it out for Tiger.
Also consider Ted Nugent. Back in 2007 he made the following statements about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
"Obama, he's a piece of sh**. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bit**."
After these comments there was no apology from Ted Nugent or President Bush. There was no outcry from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN. In fact they don't seem to have even covered it. Instead Ted is considered a "friend of the show" by Sean Hannity and was interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN.
The point being Rush Limbaugh gets the biggest push back because he is the biggest bully on the playground. Going to the "liberal media" well every time a conservative hero puts their foot in their mouth only diminishes an already questionable paradigm.
The other thing that I find peculiar is how this debate has turned in to a criticism of the President. It has been suggested that calling Sandra Fluke was purely a political move since he did not take similar actions for insults by liberal talking heads. If the President was playing politics with this phone call he would have called a press conference to apologize. Instead he made a private call that became public. It should also be noted that Sandra Fluke was not just the target of Rush Limbaugh. She was also attacked by Patricia Heaton and others on Twitter, Facebook and blogs everywhere. When Bill Maher used inappropriate language to describe Sarah Palin it didn't start a tidalwave of personal attacks on Sarah Palin. The President called to apologize for everything that Sandra has been put through for deciding to give a voice to her side in front of congress not just because Rush Limbaugh's insults.
The media frenzy over this story started long before the President made his call and it is a perversion of the facts to suggest that a private call to a US citizen who testified before congress resulting in a litany of personal attacks could be viewed as political grandstanding. Ironically the one thing that really should be considered a purely political move is turning Rush Limbaugh's personal attacks into a critique on the President.
With that in mind I wanted to address a few items.
First, it should be noted that Rush didn't just say two unkind words about Sandra Fluke. He leveled over 20 personal attacks (jokes) on her and her family. One of the big things that those who are rationalizing the comments by Rush seem to be missing is that 99% of women have used birth control so when Rush calls Sandra Fluke a "slut" for using birth control that is covered under insurance, he is essentially calling every woman who uses birth control covered by insurance a "slut".
It is not breaking news that the fringe talking heads make inappropriate comments but when you pigeonhole an entire group you tend to see a backlash. Making this a liberal media issue also completely misses the point. Rush Limbaugh has the most listened to radio show in the US. Unfortunately for Rush and his supporters this means he is also the biggest target. His words are powerful and so are the reactions.
Consider Tiger Woods. Have other golfers cheated on their wives? Sure they have. But none of them will get the airtime for their indiscretions that Tiger did because none of them have the status that Tiger does not because the liberal media has it out for Tiger.
Also consider Ted Nugent. Back in 2007 he made the following statements about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
"Obama, he's a piece of sh**. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bit**."
After these comments there was no apology from Ted Nugent or President Bush. There was no outcry from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN. In fact they don't seem to have even covered it. Instead Ted is considered a "friend of the show" by Sean Hannity and was interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN.
The point being Rush Limbaugh gets the biggest push back because he is the biggest bully on the playground. Going to the "liberal media" well every time a conservative hero puts their foot in their mouth only diminishes an already questionable paradigm.
The other thing that I find peculiar is how this debate has turned in to a criticism of the President. It has been suggested that calling Sandra Fluke was purely a political move since he did not take similar actions for insults by liberal talking heads. If the President was playing politics with this phone call he would have called a press conference to apologize. Instead he made a private call that became public. It should also be noted that Sandra Fluke was not just the target of Rush Limbaugh. She was also attacked by Patricia Heaton and others on Twitter, Facebook and blogs everywhere. When Bill Maher used inappropriate language to describe Sarah Palin it didn't start a tidalwave of personal attacks on Sarah Palin. The President called to apologize for everything that Sandra has been put through for deciding to give a voice to her side in front of congress not just because Rush Limbaugh's insults.
The media frenzy over this story started long before the President made his call and it is a perversion of the facts to suggest that a private call to a US citizen who testified before congress resulting in a litany of personal attacks could be viewed as political grandstanding. Ironically the one thing that really should be considered a purely political move is turning Rush Limbaugh's personal attacks into a critique on the President.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Santorum: Bringing us back from the brink.
The best thing about having Rick Santorum in the race for President is that he has finally helped focus the debate on the most pressing issue facing the country - moral values. After all, who better to set the moral compass of the US than politicians?
In an example of how Rick is leading us in the right direction he has taken to attacking President Obama on defunding abstinence only education stating:
"In fact, he (Obama) has required programs not to talk about marriage, not to talk about abstinence, if -- in order to get federal funds.""
While some may focus on the reality that none of this statement is factually accurate and point out that the Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as Obamacare, contains $110 million in grants for abstinence education, what is really important here is that Rick has us talking about the vital moral issues that are the ruin of this country.
With that being said if you still believe that being factually accurate is paramount to making good decisions regarding the values of this country there are plenty of facts that support Rick's beliefs.
For instance, Rick believes that Obama is a snob for suggesting everyone should attend college. Fact - A greater percentage of high school students are virgins than college students. Much like Obama's plan to take gun rights away this data proves that the President is trying to ruin America by forcing our young people into a culture rampant with dirty lusty sexy sex.
The good news is that another survey shows that the higher the IQ for a young person the lower the likelihood that they will have sex. So when Rick is elected President and mandates abstinence only education, the teaching of evolution, and grants for homeschooling we should see an immediate jump in the IQ of our students which will of course lead to less naughty business for the kids.
This same survey also shows that 0% of students pursuing a degree in Studio Arts at Wellesley College were virgins in contrast to 83% of Chemistry, and Mathematics students. Once Rick gets a hold of this information I assume he, like any good patriot, will demand an immediate end to all Studio Art programs in the US. Obviously Studio Art degrees are part of the larger socialist agenda being pushed by this President and must be stopped.
Thank God for Rick Santorum.
In an example of how Rick is leading us in the right direction he has taken to attacking President Obama on defunding abstinence only education stating:
"In fact, he (Obama) has required programs not to talk about marriage, not to talk about abstinence, if -- in order to get federal funds.""
While some may focus on the reality that none of this statement is factually accurate and point out that the Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as Obamacare, contains $110 million in grants for abstinence education, what is really important here is that Rick has us talking about the vital moral issues that are the ruin of this country.
With that being said if you still believe that being factually accurate is paramount to making good decisions regarding the values of this country there are plenty of facts that support Rick's beliefs.
For instance, Rick believes that Obama is a snob for suggesting everyone should attend college. Fact - A greater percentage of high school students are virgins than college students. Much like Obama's plan to take gun rights away this data proves that the President is trying to ruin America by forcing our young people into a culture rampant with dirty lusty sexy sex.
The good news is that another survey shows that the higher the IQ for a young person the lower the likelihood that they will have sex. So when Rick is elected President and mandates abstinence only education, the teaching of evolution, and grants for homeschooling we should see an immediate jump in the IQ of our students which will of course lead to less naughty business for the kids.
This same survey also shows that 0% of students pursuing a degree in Studio Arts at Wellesley College were virgins in contrast to 83% of Chemistry, and Mathematics students. Once Rick gets a hold of this information I assume he, like any good patriot, will demand an immediate end to all Studio Art programs in the US. Obviously Studio Art degrees are part of the larger socialist agenda being pushed by this President and must be stopped.
Thank God for Rick Santorum.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Outsourcing America at your expense
I wanted to follow up slightly on a post of mine from last week regarding infrastructure spending which there were a considerable number of good comments on.
As I mentioned previously the President is pushing infrastructure spending as part of his job creation plan and Republicans are balking at the idea because of the costs associated with infrastructure spending. The reason the President keeps coming back to infrastructure spending is because it has a good return on investment when compared with other actions the government can take. According to Moody's the Bush tax cuts return $0.29 per dollar spent while infrastructure has a return of $1.59 per dollar spent.
The conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, reported that Americans gained more than $788 billion of economic activity a year from transportation infrastructure while spending only $185 billion a year for that infrastructure.
It should also be noted that we are currently underspending on infrastructure and this under spending by federal and state governments thanks to a poor economy and the belt tightening that has come with it, is having unintended consequences.
For example Chicago is leasing out all of their parking meters to an investment group working through Morgan Stanley with a state owned investment arm of Abu Dhabi owning a significant share and possibly a majority stake. To make matters worse shortly after the sale the price for parking jumped by as much as 300 %. Additionally the city has had to pay millions of dollars for times when the parking meters were unusable. So while the Mayor gets to claim it's a great deal for the Chicago tax payers because they get an immediate influx of cash, the reality is that if the city had maintained control of the meters and just changed the rates they could have had a long term return much higher than their one time deal.
In Virginia, the city of Chesapeake considered closing a bridge because they couldn't afford to fix it or tear it down. In the end they sold the bridge to a private company who plans on nearly doubling the toll to pay for the fixes.
Perhaps the real problem here is that the government doesn't charge enough for their services. Take the US Postal Service for example. Data shows that shipping via USPS is significantly cheaper than using UPS or FedEx regardless of the package. But try and raise the cost of a stamp and people go nuts. Their first reaction is that postal employees or overpaid or this is just another government organization wasting money while completely ignoring the revenue side of things.
We used to take pride in our world leading infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam and the Erie Canal but with today's obsession for austerity and keeping tax rates low we are not only losing our standing as a country with the greatest infrastructure in the world we are also losing out on the economic activity that this infrastructure provides.
The reality is that like it or not infrastructure spending is going to happen and if Americans aren't willing to pay for it with taxes then they will pay for it with tolls which will include a profit margin that the government doesn't. If we are lucky these profits will go to American companies but recent reports suggest other countries like China are interested in investing heavily in American infrastructure. Who would have thought that it would be the communist country making the best use of capitalism? And all at the expense of the American tax payer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
