This week, Mr. McCain called Nancy Pelosi an "inspiration to millions of Americans."
He's correct, in the sense that we all have this hope that The Picture of Dorian Grey was a documentary.
But to think of her as two heartbeats away is not terribly inspirational. Although terrible does come into play.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
A Three-Month Sprint
99 days to the election, and the electorate is none the wiser.
With a month of Olympics interrupting any flow, I must admit I find it kind of appalling that we'll be selecting the "leader of the free world" with about 60 days' worth of attention from the vast sea of undecided.
I guess we give it the attention it deserves.
I do have some advice for Mr. McCain. His campaign so far has been very reactive; Mr. Obama makes a speech, and then the McCain campaign complains about it (or "points out the flaws" if you're already a true believer). I don't think you can get elected if you can't define what you're for rather than just what you're against.
So here are my two themes for the race to the finish. First, I believe that Mr. Obama will select a lawyer as his running mate (90% chance). If so, I will begin referring to the team as "the two laywers" (bonus points for two Hahvahd Lawyers!!). Every reference to a laywer turned community activist turned politician serves to remind the undecided that these guys are not like "us". They are the guys you hated in school -- slick, smarmy, smug, and not nearly as smart as they think they are.
The rest of the narrative writes itself -- "The two lawyers, trained to argue whichever side is paying them -- they are advocates, not warriors. There's no idea or principle that they're willing to die for. Take national security -- the surge was an appropriate response to the situation. But they scored points arguing the other side. And now they're trapped with a position on withdrawal that isn't supported by the facts on the ground. They have no ability to change their minds based on the advice of military leadership. They will plod along, pursuing an incorrect, premature withdrawal. They have no definition of success except withdrawal. I believe we can succeed in leaving Iraq a better place -- a messy, dangerous, but hopeful burgeoning democracy in the Middle East. They can't -- I will."
"On the economy, energy prices are the fundamental factor that is causing so much pain for so many people. The two lawyers -- remember, the ones that sharks won't eat out of professional courtesy -- won their positions by promising to go after "speculators" and pursuing "alternative energy solutions". That's the lawyer's view of economics -- there must be somebody doing something wrong, rather than getting their hands dirty with basic laws of supply and demand. No! We need to invest in alternative energy solutions, but it will take time. In the shorter term, we must do the two things that can significantly affect supply and demand for oil. First, drill in America. Second, invest in increasing our nuclear energy generation. The two lawyers are smart guys -- maybe they even recognize that this is true -- but they can't get that idea through their supporters. What will it take? $8 per gallon gas? Solar cars? Everyone on buses or bicycles? When it comes to addressing this problem, they can't -- I will."
"They can't -- I will."
"They can't -- I will."
"They can't -- I will."
On earmarks -- "They can't -- I will."
On education -- "They can't -- I will."
On Iran -- "They can't -- I will."
On keeping their hands out of your pockets -- "They can't -- I will."
On spending your money wisely -- "They can't -- I will."
On working together, republicans and democrats, to solve some of the problems of the day -- "They can't -- I will. He hasn't, not even a little bit, not once in his three-year history in the Senate -- I have, continually, for twenty years. I'll get things done."
With a month of Olympics interrupting any flow, I must admit I find it kind of appalling that we'll be selecting the "leader of the free world" with about 60 days' worth of attention from the vast sea of undecided.
I guess we give it the attention it deserves.
I do have some advice for Mr. McCain. His campaign so far has been very reactive; Mr. Obama makes a speech, and then the McCain campaign complains about it (or "points out the flaws" if you're already a true believer). I don't think you can get elected if you can't define what you're for rather than just what you're against.
So here are my two themes for the race to the finish. First, I believe that Mr. Obama will select a lawyer as his running mate (90% chance). If so, I will begin referring to the team as "the two laywers" (bonus points for two Hahvahd Lawyers!!). Every reference to a laywer turned community activist turned politician serves to remind the undecided that these guys are not like "us". They are the guys you hated in school -- slick, smarmy, smug, and not nearly as smart as they think they are.
The rest of the narrative writes itself -- "The two lawyers, trained to argue whichever side is paying them -- they are advocates, not warriors. There's no idea or principle that they're willing to die for. Take national security -- the surge was an appropriate response to the situation. But they scored points arguing the other side. And now they're trapped with a position on withdrawal that isn't supported by the facts on the ground. They have no ability to change their minds based on the advice of military leadership. They will plod along, pursuing an incorrect, premature withdrawal. They have no definition of success except withdrawal. I believe we can succeed in leaving Iraq a better place -- a messy, dangerous, but hopeful burgeoning democracy in the Middle East. They can't -- I will."
"On the economy, energy prices are the fundamental factor that is causing so much pain for so many people. The two lawyers -- remember, the ones that sharks won't eat out of professional courtesy -- won their positions by promising to go after "speculators" and pursuing "alternative energy solutions". That's the lawyer's view of economics -- there must be somebody doing something wrong, rather than getting their hands dirty with basic laws of supply and demand. No! We need to invest in alternative energy solutions, but it will take time. In the shorter term, we must do the two things that can significantly affect supply and demand for oil. First, drill in America. Second, invest in increasing our nuclear energy generation. The two lawyers are smart guys -- maybe they even recognize that this is true -- but they can't get that idea through their supporters. What will it take? $8 per gallon gas? Solar cars? Everyone on buses or bicycles? When it comes to addressing this problem, they can't -- I will."
"They can't -- I will."
"They can't -- I will."
"They can't -- I will."
On earmarks -- "They can't -- I will."
On education -- "They can't -- I will."
On Iran -- "They can't -- I will."
On keeping their hands out of your pockets -- "They can't -- I will."
On spending your money wisely -- "They can't -- I will."
On working together, republicans and democrats, to solve some of the problems of the day -- "They can't -- I will. He hasn't, not even a little bit, not once in his three-year history in the Senate -- I have, continually, for twenty years. I'll get things done."
Friday, July 18, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Change you can believe in?
So, Mr. Obama will renege on his promise and be the first presidential candidate to refuse public funding for the general election.
You can't really argue with his logic. He can make (I guess 'raise' is the approved term) and spend more money outside the system than the $85M public funding maximum.
A tiny voice inside my head wishes that he wouldn't break the chain, but in any contest between public interest and self interest, self interest will win.
But to stand there in front of all of us (on videotape) and explain that he's doing it for "us" -- "So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system, and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people" -- goes beyond the pale.
Mr. Obama, are you out of your mind? Do not lie to me. You have no record of reaching across the aisle to put the nation's interest above rank-and-file democratic concerns. You have no record of making hard calls that might alienate your core constituency. Your positions on the issues of the day do not show any pattern of a "post-partisan new way of thinking".
So when you stand there and glibly lie -- and a lie is exactly what it is -- about your rationale, you demean yourself and you insult me.
You demean the hope that a lot of people are placing in you.
Your message promises much more than you are delivering. And if you can't tell the truth now, imagine how hard it will be next year?
And a few hours after I post this, we get the following from the Washington Post.
You can't really argue with his logic. He can make (I guess 'raise' is the approved term) and spend more money outside the system than the $85M public funding maximum.
A tiny voice inside my head wishes that he wouldn't break the chain, but in any contest between public interest and self interest, self interest will win.
But to stand there in front of all of us (on videotape) and explain that he's doing it for "us" -- "So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system, and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people" -- goes beyond the pale.
Mr. Obama, are you out of your mind? Do not lie to me. You have no record of reaching across the aisle to put the nation's interest above rank-and-file democratic concerns. You have no record of making hard calls that might alienate your core constituency. Your positions on the issues of the day do not show any pattern of a "post-partisan new way of thinking".
So when you stand there and glibly lie -- and a lie is exactly what it is -- about your rationale, you demean yourself and you insult me.
You demean the hope that a lot of people are placing in you.
Your message promises much more than you are delivering. And if you can't tell the truth now, imagine how hard it will be next year?
And a few hours after I post this, we get the following from the Washington Post.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Our Annual Walk for the Cause
I thought I'd take a moment from wondering where Mr. Obama will get his spiritual advice now to beg for a bit of help. Tomorrow, June 1, we will be walking in support of my son, Sean, at the Virginia Walk for the Cure.
This is our seventh walk, and I'm pleased to say that Sean is a healthy, normal 8-year old. The biggest differences are that (1) he gets to carry around a "cell phone", which is his insulin pump; (2) when he eats us out of house and home, the total devastation of our pantry is measured in grams of carbohydrate; and (3) "sick days" are a little more adventurous for us than for many parents.
So once a year, we need and ask for your help. Help Team Sean support the JDRF mission by donating. Here is the link:
This is our seventh walk, and I'm pleased to say that Sean is a healthy, normal 8-year old. The biggest differences are that (1) he gets to carry around a "cell phone", which is his insulin pump; (2) when he eats us out of house and home, the total devastation of our pantry is measured in grams of carbohydrate; and (3) "sick days" are a little more adventurous for us than for many parents.
So once a year, we need and ask for your help. Help Team Sean support the JDRF mission by donating. Here is the link:
URL: http://walk.jdrf.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=extranet.personalpage&confirmid=86750816
JDRF was founded in 1970 by the parents of children with type 1 diabetes - a disease that strikes children, adolescents, and adults suddenly, makes them insulin dependent for life, and carries the constant threat of devastating complications. Since inception, JDRF has provided more than $1 billion to diabetes research worldwide. More than 80 percent of JDRF's expenditures directly support research and research-related education. JDRF's mission is constant: to find a cure for diabetes and its complications through the support of research.
As always, thanks!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
America -- The Scariest Place on Earth
So, a Mr. Frank writes in the WSJ:
But now, Mr. Frank yearns for equality. Which phrase do you think Mr. Jefferson had in the first rough draft of the declaration?
These last 10-15 years have been a strange ride. Incredible dislocation, angst, jarring macroeconomic changes... but also amazing economic productivity, mind-boggling technological breakthroughs, and when I compare the health of the nation to that of the 1970's -- or the 1980's, for that matter -- there is no comparison.
So, Mr. Frank, you shoot for the government that sucks up 45% of GDP with 10% unemployment, a stagnating society with low birth rates and the inability to reconcile its economic abilities with its political-military responsibilities. In fact, in one of those societies, "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" is the basic organizing principle. If that's what he wants, then by all means get out there and evangelize the "French model".
The world will be a better place after we, the people, consider his request.
This outlook baffles me. If America means anything at all, the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" must be the centerpiece of our common goal. We have fallen short of that goal -- as every work of humankind has and will -- but who argues with that as the goal?"It is, in other words, a political disaster, with tax cuts, trade agreements, deregulatory measures, and enforcement decisions all finely crafted to benefit one part of society and leave the rest behind. Few of the voters who gave Ronald Reagan his landslide victories, it is fair to say, intended for this to be the outcome. They wanted their country to stand tall again, certainly; they wanted the scary regulators off their backs, maybe; but I can recall no conservative who trumpeted those long-ago elections – or any of the succeeding contests, for that matter – as a referendum on plutocracy.So let us have one now. Instead of pleasant talk about "change" and feats of beer drinking at the corner tavern, let us hear our candidates address this greatest issue of them all: What kind of country are we to be? A land of equality? Or a bankers' utopia – where the law of the land has achieved mystical oneness with the higher law of classical economics, and devil take the bottom 80%."
But now, Mr. Frank yearns for equality. Which phrase do you think Mr. Jefferson had in the first rough draft of the declaration?
(a) ...all men are created equal, and equal they should end,
(b) ...all men are created equal, and the rest is up to you...
(c) ...all men are created equal, and don't you get too far off the reservation, buddy!
Hyperbole in defense of liberty is no crime.(b) ...all men are created equal, and the rest is up to you...
(c) ...all men are created equal, and don't you get too far off the reservation, buddy!
These last 10-15 years have been a strange ride. Incredible dislocation, angst, jarring macroeconomic changes... but also amazing economic productivity, mind-boggling technological breakthroughs, and when I compare the health of the nation to that of the 1970's -- or the 1980's, for that matter -- there is no comparison.
So, Mr. Frank, you shoot for the government that sucks up 45% of GDP with 10% unemployment, a stagnating society with low birth rates and the inability to reconcile its economic abilities with its political-military responsibilities. In fact, in one of those societies, "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" is the basic organizing principle. If that's what he wants, then by all means get out there and evangelize the "French model".
The world will be a better place after we, the people, consider his request.
Friday, May 02, 2008
On Mssrs. Obama and Wright
I have found the events of the past couple of weeks deeply troubling, I think a lot more deeply than than I will be able to write, but it seems like it's worth a shot.
There are many ways to start peeling this onion. Let me start with Mr. Wright.
I don't agree with most of what I've heard from him, which clearly isn't his entire 20-year ministry, but nothing I have heard in his defense has been "he doesn't really believe that", so I'm going to assume that the remarks played so often are consistent with his overall message. Certainly, his recent public speaking engagements gave him a chance to refute or repudiate any errors of fact that have occurred.
I do not agree with his claim that 9/11 is an example of "chickens coming home to roost". That is an incorrect reading of the motivations of Al Queda certainly, and of Middle-Eastern/Muslim societies in general. But as a pastor, asking his flock to look within our society for Sin, I don't find it offensive or out-of-bounds to have that point of view.
I have a real deep problem with his claims that the government was involved in "inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color". The historical record is damning enough without having to make up, reinforce, and socialize conspiracy theories. “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.” No, it didn't. And while Wright (or you and I, for that matter) can surf the web and find some crazy site that claims to have evidence that HIV is a government invention, it only takes a modicum of judgement and discernment to figure out the correct answer. And that, Mr. Wright, is what you get paid for -- using your judgement and discernment in a leadership position.
And this is where someone should've nudged Mr. Obama. There, in a church filled with hundreds of Americans, a person in a position of influence used a casual lie that would/could/should have a dramatic impact on how each person in the room sees the world. And a leader that knows this, sees this, hears this, and realizes what kind of poison this lie carries should/could/must speak out. And Mr. Obama didn't; and still hasn't, really.
Another facet of this issue: the church I grew up in was a somewhat-racially-integrated Catholic Church in middle-class Detroit. I say "somewhat", because although there were many black families that attended, the numbers were not in proportion to the overall population (at least from my pre-teen recollections). So I thought "Black Churches" were just like mine, except for longer sermons and better music. Now I find that there's a big difference; I don't know how close to "normal" Trinity is, but it's clear that the "Black Church" faith experience is much different than my preconceived notions.
So maybe this is over, and I certainly believe it's not the most important thing in a President. But I do believe that Mr. Obama is a lot more like a "regular" politician than his supporters believe, and that his inexperience in campaigning and in governing will be an ongoing problem. Whether the problem ends in November or not is the fundamental question.
There are many ways to start peeling this onion. Let me start with Mr. Wright.
I don't agree with most of what I've heard from him, which clearly isn't his entire 20-year ministry, but nothing I have heard in his defense has been "he doesn't really believe that", so I'm going to assume that the remarks played so often are consistent with his overall message. Certainly, his recent public speaking engagements gave him a chance to refute or repudiate any errors of fact that have occurred.
I do not agree with his claim that 9/11 is an example of "chickens coming home to roost". That is an incorrect reading of the motivations of Al Queda certainly, and of Middle-Eastern/Muslim societies in general. But as a pastor, asking his flock to look within our society for Sin, I don't find it offensive or out-of-bounds to have that point of view.
I have a real deep problem with his claims that the government was involved in "inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color". The historical record is damning enough without having to make up, reinforce, and socialize conspiracy theories. “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.” No, it didn't. And while Wright (or you and I, for that matter) can surf the web and find some crazy site that claims to have evidence that HIV is a government invention, it only takes a modicum of judgement and discernment to figure out the correct answer. And that, Mr. Wright, is what you get paid for -- using your judgement and discernment in a leadership position.
And this is where someone should've nudged Mr. Obama. There, in a church filled with hundreds of Americans, a person in a position of influence used a casual lie that would/could/should have a dramatic impact on how each person in the room sees the world. And a leader that knows this, sees this, hears this, and realizes what kind of poison this lie carries should/could/must speak out. And Mr. Obama didn't; and still hasn't, really.
Another facet of this issue: the church I grew up in was a somewhat-racially-integrated Catholic Church in middle-class Detroit. I say "somewhat", because although there were many black families that attended, the numbers were not in proportion to the overall population (at least from my pre-teen recollections). So I thought "Black Churches" were just like mine, except for longer sermons and better music. Now I find that there's a big difference; I don't know how close to "normal" Trinity is, but it's clear that the "Black Church" faith experience is much different than my preconceived notions.
So maybe this is over, and I certainly believe it's not the most important thing in a President. But I do believe that Mr. Obama is a lot more like a "regular" politician than his supporters believe, and that his inexperience in campaigning and in governing will be an ongoing problem. Whether the problem ends in November or not is the fundamental question.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
First, Let's Kill all the Lawyers
Lawrence Lindsey writes in the WSJ about the Michigan/Florida voting fiasco. These are the same idiots who write the laws that get challenged and overturned in court (witness Virginia's Special-Tax-for-Road-Construction this year).
This is the typical liberal story -- create rules to force some sort of arbitrary legal compliance [because "normal rules" really don't specify when you can or can not have a vote], threaten a "nuclear option" [refuse to seat the delegates in any way, shape, or form], then watch as the rule gets ignored. And wait for more lawyers to get involved with claims of "disenfranchisement". So now the rulebreakers don't even have to suffer the consequences -- or if they do, it's because Team Obama worked hard in the background to torpedo any revote. As Homer Simpson would say, I am so smart, I am so smart, S M R T, I mean S M A R T."
So which of the Democratic Presidential candidates this go-round was not a lawyer?
PS -- here's the Washington Post article on the "other half" of Virginia's Road Improvement Money Scam. Wow... just wow.
This is the typical liberal story -- create rules to force some sort of arbitrary legal compliance [because "normal rules" really don't specify when you can or can not have a vote], threaten a "nuclear option" [refuse to seat the delegates in any way, shape, or form], then watch as the rule gets ignored. And wait for more lawyers to get involved with claims of "disenfranchisement". So now the rulebreakers don't even have to suffer the consequences -- or if they do, it's because Team Obama worked hard in the background to torpedo any revote. As Homer Simpson would say, I am so smart, I am so smart, S M R T, I mean S M A R T."
So which of the Democratic Presidential candidates this go-round was not a lawyer?
PS -- here's the Washington Post article on the "other half" of Virginia's Road Improvement Money Scam. Wow... just wow.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
As the noose tightens...
Much like global warming, (whether you believe global warming is real or not), the absolute inability of our government to deal with issues that coalesce beyond the next election cycle will come to a head more quickly than the weasels would like to think.
The next president, assuming two terms, will be the last one to preside over a net surplus in the social security "trust fund". This article lays out what that means.
Social Insecurity, Sooner Than You Think
By Allan Sloan
One of Washington's rites of spring is almost upon us. It's the wonks' version of the Cherry Blossom Festival: the release of the annual Social Security trustees' report showing the health of our nation's biggest social program. Each year, the report touches off a debate, mostly misguided, about ...
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702702.html?referrer=emailarticle
The next president, assuming two terms, will be the last one to preside over a net surplus in the social security "trust fund". This article lays out what that means.
Social Insecurity, Sooner Than You Think
By Allan Sloan
One of Washington's rites of spring is almost upon us. It's the wonks' version of the Cherry Blossom Festival: the release of the annual Social Security trustees' report showing the health of our nation's biggest social program. Each year, the report touches off a debate, mostly misguided, about ...
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702702.html?referrer=emailarticle
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Bear Stearns
This was a response to some (rare) economic blathering on Redskins Insider...
The key point is that there is a considerable spread between the risk that a typical investor is willing to take and the risk profile of these highly-leveraged, wildly overvalued mortgage-backed CDOs. So they're not worth the book value that a company like Bear Stearns has them listed at, and no one is attracted to them even at a discount price.
My analogy would be a car dealer that has a bright yellow AMC Pacer on the lot. It's not worth the $10,000 MSRP, and no one will buy it for $5,000, $6,000, or whatever less! Meanwhile, he's paying interest on the car, it's falling apart before his eyes (that's why it's a Pacer), and pretty soon the dealer starts thinking about giving it away just to stop the bleeding.
The government "rescue" of JP Morgan is equivalent to Chrysler taking over AMC [not that that would ever happen!], and the government stepping in as part of the transaction and providing a class-action lawsuit protection on all Pacers. In a reasonable world, the government will not have to lay out anything; if the market collapses, JP Morgan (Chrysler in the analogy) at least doesn't have to worry about a class action lawsuit.
The key point is that there is a considerable spread between the risk that a typical investor is willing to take and the risk profile of these highly-leveraged, wildly overvalued mortgage-backed CDOs. So they're not worth the book value that a company like Bear Stearns has them listed at, and no one is attracted to them even at a discount price.
My analogy would be a car dealer that has a bright yellow AMC Pacer on the lot. It's not worth the $10,000 MSRP, and no one will buy it for $5,000, $6,000, or whatever less! Meanwhile, he's paying interest on the car, it's falling apart before his eyes (that's why it's a Pacer), and pretty soon the dealer starts thinking about giving it away just to stop the bleeding.
The government "rescue" of JP Morgan is equivalent to Chrysler taking over AMC [not that that would ever happen!], and the government stepping in as part of the transaction and providing a class-action lawsuit protection on all Pacers. In a reasonable world, the government will not have to lay out anything; if the market collapses, JP Morgan (Chrysler in the analogy) at least doesn't have to worry about a class action lawsuit.
Time for the annual update
In the end, there's not that much more to say.
The presidential nomination process is winding down toward a messy, muddled conclusion. Since the traditional media are totally unprepared for anything other than a neat little package, over on Super Tuesday, it's been interesting to watch what's happened since.
In the end, the typical media reports have focused on the personalities, not the ideas, plans, and intentions.
Ask yourself this question; on Jan. 23, 2009. [your choice for president] sits in the Oval Office for the first time. What is the first thing (s)he wants to get done? How much do they expect it to cost? And how are they going to pay for it?
Then, how are they going to "work with the other side of the aisle" to "get things done"? Obama and Clinton will both have majorities in the Senate and House, quite possibly filibuster-proof. If that really happens, they may not need to talk to the republicans... for the first couple of items on the to-do list. It'll be like 1993 all over again. And it will be very interesting to see if any lessons convey.
The funny thing about the whining about McCain not being conservative enough is that with a congress that can quite possibly override a veto, there's no chance for any legislation that truly appeals to 'core' conservatives. McCain might be able to retain the current tax rates that are due to expire, but that's about it.
In any case, the fundamental issue is that the current federal budget is $3 trillion of a $13 trillion economy. Do you feel you're getting value for your investment?
The presidential nomination process is winding down toward a messy, muddled conclusion. Since the traditional media are totally unprepared for anything other than a neat little package, over on Super Tuesday, it's been interesting to watch what's happened since.
In the end, the typical media reports have focused on the personalities, not the ideas, plans, and intentions.
Ask yourself this question; on Jan. 23, 2009. [your choice for president] sits in the Oval Office for the first time. What is the first thing (s)he wants to get done? How much do they expect it to cost? And how are they going to pay for it?
Then, how are they going to "work with the other side of the aisle" to "get things done"? Obama and Clinton will both have majorities in the Senate and House, quite possibly filibuster-proof. If that really happens, they may not need to talk to the republicans... for the first couple of items on the to-do list. It'll be like 1993 all over again. And it will be very interesting to see if any lessons convey.
The funny thing about the whining about McCain not being conservative enough is that with a congress that can quite possibly override a veto, there's no chance for any legislation that truly appeals to 'core' conservatives. McCain might be able to retain the current tax rates that are due to expire, but that's about it.
In any case, the fundamental issue is that the current federal budget is $3 trillion of a $13 trillion economy. Do you feel you're getting value for your investment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
