The Washington Post--which heartily endorsed President Obama--has decided to move up its 2013 dividend payment to stockholders (including that noted "soak the rich" advocate Warren Buffet) to December 27 2012, so as to allow said shareholders to benefit from the 15% rate on capital gains/dividend income rather than the feared increased rate that President Obama advocates for and which many believe will be part of a compromise with Republicans, if one occurs.
The hypocrisy here is abundant but certainly not unexpected.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Friday, December 7, 2012
Amerika or America?
Ok, I'm going to go off the rails a bit here so bear with me.
This is an advert for a book I've been reading lately. Ordinarily I'd have finished it by now but the fact is I can only take it in small doses. It is a really unfair, nakedly slanderous portrayal of Southerners using cherry-picked facts, libelous misrepresentations and outright lies to feed the prejudices and misconceptions of liberals, whom I would guess have never been to the South, have no desire to go to the South and never will go to the South. But that's not all it is. It is an attack on supposed intransigent conservative thought and the folly of trying to change such a backward, ignorant culture into something the rest of the country can live with. The author represents progressives as victims held hostage by semi-literate Rednecks thereby impeding their inevitable march towards economic and social justice as defined by...well progressives. His writing style is often humorous but invariable mean-spirited and vicious with an air of conceit and superiority which I'm sure plays well in some areas of the country. The New York Times reviewed the book so have a look if you're interested in what they think: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/books/better-off-without-em-by-chuck-thompson.html?_r=0.
Now ordinarily I'd use something like this to drag my Yankee friends over the coals a bit. I've never been shy about poking fun at other cultures, races, religions; you name it. My feeling is everybody is just a little too uptight about our differences and frankly as long as you don't ask me to subsidize your lifestyle, religion, sex et cetera I don't care. But that's not the world we live in now. And although I find this book infuriatingly dishonest, I very much appreciate the author actually coming out and saying, for the record, what is obviously liberal/progressive orthodoxy.
Therefore I have to concede the author's point. You are Better Off Without 'Em ; and us you. I cannot see this country surviving in it's present form much longer, and for a number of reasons, first being cultural. Once we all spoke the same language, we had lots of differences but we shared a uniquely American identity of patriotism, respect for family, hard work, ingenuity and a strong commitment to the rule of law and liberty; all the things that talk show conservatives call "American Exceptionalism". This is not the case anymore. We have two diametrically opposed philosophies at odds with each other, a divided country with no possibility of political reconciliation or compromise. An animal born with two heads always dies, and so it goes with countries.
The country is not the country anymore. Some say we conservatives lost the country with this election, I say we lost it with Simpson-Mizzoli in 1986. Amnesty was a bad precedent that encouraged lawbreaking and rewarded lawbreakers. Now, nearly thirty years later Hispanic unmarried mothers on the dole and MS-13 gangbangers tip the electoral scales for progressives. As Pat Buchanan said, conservatives will either do something about illegal immigrants or illegal immigrants will do something about conservatives. Well now they have.
We have illegitimacy rates (otherwise know as future criminals, welfare whores, anything but productive law abiding citizens) at 70% for African-Americans, 60% Hispanics, 40% Whites and 22% Asians. High School dropout rates for minorities are already high, what will they look like in 10-20 years? And the only thing higher are minority birth rates. We live in a global economy. Just how well will we be able to compete in a high-tech future with the majority of our citizens uneducated, unmotivated, with a sense of entitlement, and the rest old, decrepit and on social security. Clearly the progressive welfare-state model is untenable.
With social turmoil comes economic turmoil comes political turmoil. America will not stand in its present form. I have no idea when or how it will eventually come to pass, I just know it will. But rather than the country being torn apart along geographic, ethnic or cultural boundaries it should be along philosophical lines. Let the progressives go one way and the Constitutionalists another. Lincoln famously said "A house divided against itself cannot stand." For those of us who value liberty (both economic and political), who understand rights and obligations and the proper role of the state, for us the choice must be made in the very near future to stay or go.
So, harsh but enlightened warning based on facts or crazy as hell Redneck refighting the Civil War? You be the judge, but time will tell.
On Sports Radio
As some of you know, I am a political animal. This aspect of my nature was on full display during the recent Presidential contest, but readers got only a glimpse into the sickness with which I was aflicted.
I am also a defense consultant, with my clients located mostly 75 miles (at least) away. I spend a good deal of time in my car, with the radio or (some of you) on my cell phone as my company. For the vast majority of the past six months, I listened to two radio stations on Satellite Radio--Politics of the US (POTUS) and Patriot (Conservative). I would switch between the two, when POTUS (which tries to go down the middle but often fails) veered too far left, and when the red meat guys on Patriot went over the edge.
This practice left me exhausted. I find it difficult to listen to either now. My sense of dread and fatalism tells me we made our bed, now it is time to lie in it.
So I've changed my listening habits (note to self: buy new Teaching Company Courses, pass old ones to Mudge) and I've become a great fan of ESPN radio. The thing I love about it is that there is the same KIND of conflict found in politics (for instance, whether Kobe Bryant's 30K points makes him one of the top 5 players of all time, or even the best Laker--or whether the Jets should start Sanchez, McElroy or Tebow)--accompanied by analysis of guys who really know their stuff. What is MISSING from this equation is even an ounce of give a damn on my part. I have no dog in these fights, and so I listen to them in bemusement, sometimes take a position based on whatever vestigial knowledge I have, but rarely, if ever, CARE. It is delightful. I am renewed.
I find myself thinking that there must be a great number of Americans who look at politics the same exact way. What lucky people they are.
I am also a defense consultant, with my clients located mostly 75 miles (at least) away. I spend a good deal of time in my car, with the radio or (some of you) on my cell phone as my company. For the vast majority of the past six months, I listened to two radio stations on Satellite Radio--Politics of the US (POTUS) and Patriot (Conservative). I would switch between the two, when POTUS (which tries to go down the middle but often fails) veered too far left, and when the red meat guys on Patriot went over the edge.
This practice left me exhausted. I find it difficult to listen to either now. My sense of dread and fatalism tells me we made our bed, now it is time to lie in it.
So I've changed my listening habits (note to self: buy new Teaching Company Courses, pass old ones to Mudge) and I've become a great fan of ESPN radio. The thing I love about it is that there is the same KIND of conflict found in politics (for instance, whether Kobe Bryant's 30K points makes him one of the top 5 players of all time, or even the best Laker--or whether the Jets should start Sanchez, McElroy or Tebow)--accompanied by analysis of guys who really know their stuff. What is MISSING from this equation is even an ounce of give a damn on my part. I have no dog in these fights, and so I listen to them in bemusement, sometimes take a position based on whatever vestigial knowledge I have, but rarely, if ever, CARE. It is delightful. I am renewed.
I find myself thinking that there must be a great number of Americans who look at politics the same exact way. What lucky people they are.
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Obama's Strategy?
So, after hour of intense thought, pints upon pints of IPA and several major-league, premium stogies, I have concluded the Democrats actually want to "go over the cliff". There's just too much good stuff there in terms of tax hikes etc. to pass up. Now, in the spring, when the economy is in the tank and those who have a job see their paycheck shrink significantly, the Democrats will push "tax relief" for the middle-class (along with massive spending increases for "stimulus") to mitigate the Republican caused, politically motivated recession all designed to "sabotage" Obama's second term. It's a win win for team Obama!!
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Dana Milbank is a Despicable Human Being
From his position as a Washington Post opinion writer, Dana Milbank puts forward a number of reliably lefty opinions. Usually couched in disaffected snark, Milbank is one of the poseurs of our modern media who like to think that they skewer all sides equally. Every now and then, Milbank will criticize a Democrat, but his bile is usually reserved for Republicans. Nowhere has that bile been more on display than in his coverage of Mitt Romney over the past two years. Here's a link to a Google search of two words --"milbank" and "Romney". Scan through the headlines and acquaint yourself with his uniformly negative view of Governor Romney. And then, read this. That's right. After two years of almost consistently negative coverage of Mitt Romney, Presidential Candidate, Dana Milbank decides to take pot-shots at him for having the temerity to return to private life rather than wade into the current fiscal crisis debate. Here's Milbank: " But his failure to engage now, at a time when he could have the most clout, reinforces the impression that his candidacy was less about principle and patriotism than about him." I'm sorry Mr. Milbank, but for two solid years at the highest level possible, Mitt Romney attempted to define a vision in which the fiscal crisis we currently face would be minimized through his policies. HE was the guy in Iowa and New Hampshire in the cold, HE was the guy who got in the ring, HE was the guy who poured his heart and soul into his quest to help solve these problems as President. And you know what? We picked the other guy. Not only did we pick the other guy, but we picked a guy who uniformly criticized virtually every single aspect of Romney's approach to economic stewardship. Put another way, Romney and Obama represented one of the clearest choices offered American voters in since Reagan/Carter, and we chose Obama. And all along the way, you aided and abetted that choice.
Now all of a sudden, Milbank would have Romney's service? All of a sudden, Milbank has respect for Romney's capability and ideas? All of a sudden, Milbank believes that a Democratic Party that savaged Romney's candidacy and ideology is going to embrace him as a visionary?
This is an execrable hit-piece. And it is logically stupid.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Robert Samuelson the Bad Faith of Democrats
The always readable Robert Samuelson had a column in the WaPost yesterday on something I've been talking about quite a bit around here. To the extent that there is "income inequality" in this country, a good deal of it can be directly laid at the feet of redistributionist policies that take money from the young and productive and provide it to the old and sick. Obviously, some of this is good and required...but it is out of kilter and contributing to the economic mess we move steadily toward.
Samuelson nails it here. If Republicans are being asked to compromise on taxes and tax rates, Democrats will have to compromise on entitlements, including Social Security. We can no longer afford as a nation to indulge ourselves in the fantasy that Social Security is not an entitlement.
Samuelson nails it here. If Republicans are being asked to compromise on taxes and tax rates, Democrats will have to compromise on entitlements, including Social Security. We can no longer afford as a nation to indulge ourselves in the fantasy that Social Security is not an entitlement.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Republicans Should Embrace Simpson Bowles
I've seen some sharp Republican thinkers raise this as an option in the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, and I'm inclined to think it might be a smart idea. It is smart for a couple of reasons, most of which are covered in this passage from the link:
"Simpson-Bowles, for all its faults, was conducted in an open and transparent manner and brought disparate political players into a room to forge a serious compromise. It overhauls and streamlines our byzantine tax code, takes some important first steps on entitlements, and reduces and caps federal spending. On substance, I’d wager that it would be considerably better than anything Obama and Boehner might produce after weeks of behind-closed-doors acrimony with the proverbial gun to their heads. Politically, it paints Democrats into a tough corner. Republicans could make a grand show of reluctantly supporting Simpson-Bowles for the betterment of the country. Ideally, the press conference would be led by Paul Ryan, who might explain why he voted against the plan as a commissioner, but is now willing to set aside some of his strong ideological preferences to move the nation forward. They would remind viewers that the proposal they’re now backing only exists because President Obama specifically and publicly asked for it. Plus, more Democrats than Republicans voted for it, including Harry Reid’s top lieutenant in the Senate. Put simply, Simpson-Bowles represents the very embodiment of bipartisan collaboration and problem solving — precisely the sort of thing “moderates,” the media, and the public are always demanding. It would be exceedingly difficult for Democrats to paint the plan as radical or draconian in light of the commission’s origins and participants. The GOP’s “party of no” problem would also be hugely diminished; after all, they would have just signed on to the president’s commission, with the previously recalcitrant Paul Ryan magnanimously leading the way. It would be fascinating to watch the president and his allies try to denounce and reject the very proposal he called for."
Best of all though, it would definitively reveal the tendentiousness of the President and his negotiating team, by forcing the Press to cover the clear difference between the "balance" of Simpson Bowles and the ridiculosity of the President's latest, unserious proposal ($900B in immediate tax increases, $600B in deferred tax increases, $400B in spending cuts sometime in the future....).
Paul Ryan voted against Simpson Bowles because it left healthcare/Obamacare off the table-something with which I have no problem. That said, swallowing hard and voting for it now makes much more sense, now that the voting public declined its opportunity to rehash Obamacare by re-electing its architect. Time to move on--for now--to fix the larger issues. Come back to Obamacare when you have the votes to do so.
"Simpson-Bowles, for all its faults, was conducted in an open and transparent manner and brought disparate political players into a room to forge a serious compromise. It overhauls and streamlines our byzantine tax code, takes some important first steps on entitlements, and reduces and caps federal spending. On substance, I’d wager that it would be considerably better than anything Obama and Boehner might produce after weeks of behind-closed-doors acrimony with the proverbial gun to their heads. Politically, it paints Democrats into a tough corner. Republicans could make a grand show of reluctantly supporting Simpson-Bowles for the betterment of the country. Ideally, the press conference would be led by Paul Ryan, who might explain why he voted against the plan as a commissioner, but is now willing to set aside some of his strong ideological preferences to move the nation forward. They would remind viewers that the proposal they’re now backing only exists because President Obama specifically and publicly asked for it. Plus, more Democrats than Republicans voted for it, including Harry Reid’s top lieutenant in the Senate. Put simply, Simpson-Bowles represents the very embodiment of bipartisan collaboration and problem solving — precisely the sort of thing “moderates,” the media, and the public are always demanding. It would be exceedingly difficult for Democrats to paint the plan as radical or draconian in light of the commission’s origins and participants. The GOP’s “party of no” problem would also be hugely diminished; after all, they would have just signed on to the president’s commission, with the previously recalcitrant Paul Ryan magnanimously leading the way. It would be fascinating to watch the president and his allies try to denounce and reject the very proposal he called for."
Best of all though, it would definitively reveal the tendentiousness of the President and his negotiating team, by forcing the Press to cover the clear difference between the "balance" of Simpson Bowles and the ridiculosity of the President's latest, unserious proposal ($900B in immediate tax increases, $600B in deferred tax increases, $400B in spending cuts sometime in the future....).
Paul Ryan voted against Simpson Bowles because it left healthcare/Obamacare off the table-something with which I have no problem. That said, swallowing hard and voting for it now makes much more sense, now that the voting public declined its opportunity to rehash Obamacare by re-electing its architect. Time to move on--for now--to fix the larger issues. Come back to Obamacare when you have the votes to do so.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Big Fat Friday Free For All
What's on your mind, Bub? Wishing you were getting that 10 dollars in spending for every 1 dollar in tax hikes deal they teased you with? Wishing you could wring little Timmy Geithner's neck across the negotiating table? Pissed you didn't pick up $500M in Powerball? Well then, share with your friends!Let it out, don't keep it in.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
A Leopard Can't Change His Stripes
The Dems sent their economic point man out today to present their "balanced approach". Let's see, $1.6 tril in new taxes, a $50 billion new stimulus (just this year) to be replicated over the next several years and a promise to cut spending later. Yeah right, and I promise to quit drinking and to lay off the stogies.
Even the venerable Washington Post was appalled. By golly they supported Obama's re-election precisely because of his "balanced approach" to the "fiscal cliff". Yeah right, and I promise to quit my Girls Gone Wild Emperor's Club membership and cancel my Russian credit card.
Let's get real and come to terms with the fact that the Republicans will get blamed regardless, but only in the short term. Another recession is inevitable regardless what they monkey together two days before everybody sings winter solstice songs around the Holiday Tree. But long term, and I'm talking a year, maybe two, the folks are going to turn on the Democrats. They screamed another term, we can do it, we just need more time. They pulled a Harry Reid and made Romney unacceptable to enough of the ideocracy to get another go. But there'll be hell to pay if they don't come through, and the hell of it is, that dog won't hunt. They may not know it now, they're not smart enough to be scared, but the Democrats are in deep do do. And our job is to just get out of the way.
A Shame That I Did Not Win Powerball
For those concerned, I wanted to let you know that I was not a holder of one of the two winning tickets for last night's Powerball drawing.
I think this is unfortunate, for many reasons.
The first is that all things considered, I'd be a pretty darn good rich guy. I like cigars. I like nice cars. I like nice meals. I wear classic, well-made (but not flashy or expensive) suits. I am not a profligate spender, and since I turned 35, I've done a pretty good job saving money. Before that, I lived by the English soccer star George Best's motto "I spent half my money on women and alcohol, and the rest I wasted." I'm also not an idiot when it comes to investing, so the money would probably be pretty well stewarded.
Next, my family is all in pretty decent shape. Therefore, you wouldn't have to be treated to those ridiculous, syrupy stories of me putting all my nieces and nephews through college, or paying off their parents' mortgages. Nothing like that. Not that I wouldn't be generous, mind you. No sir...those nieces and nephews would see their annual Christmas gift card go from $50 to $75 in a New York minute! Next time, maybe.
Mom and Dad are in good shape too, so no reason to siphon off any of the money for their well-being. Though, Dad needs to cut back on the yard work....maybe I'll buy him a leaf blower.
Some of you might think, "hey CW, you live on the water--bet you'd waste a bunch of that cash on a nice new boat." Not so fast. Truth is, I'm a pretty bad boat handler. In fact, the Kitten does all the pier-work in our Whaler, and she does most of the inner-tube pulling, and she does most of the transits to St. Michaels for meals.....she pretty much does all the driving. I bet she'd buy a new boat if she won the lottery. Not this guy.
Speaking of the Kitten, one of the wonderful things about her is she's not a jewelery or clothes-horse. So I wouldn't waste any of the loot there.
As for travel, I'd do it right. You'd be proud of me. I would pay someone to travel with the Kitten and the Kittens to meet me wherever we were going. This person would schlep bags, wait at security, look at shiny things in stores, and help them stow the bags they should have checked in the overhead compartment. After take-off, I'd go back to coach every now and then to say hello to them, and then I'd have the hotel room all ready for them once they collected all their stuff.
Where I might get a little crazy is in buying a second house. Probably be in Charlottesville; my "September-March" house. I'd watch football and basketball games. Buy myself a spot on the Board of Visitors at UVA and cause a ruckus now and then.
But alas, none of this is going to happen. Instead, some retiree from Missoula will win $500M and buy a Winnebago to drive their grandchildren around in.
Fiddlesticks.
I think this is unfortunate, for many reasons.
The first is that all things considered, I'd be a pretty darn good rich guy. I like cigars. I like nice cars. I like nice meals. I wear classic, well-made (but not flashy or expensive) suits. I am not a profligate spender, and since I turned 35, I've done a pretty good job saving money. Before that, I lived by the English soccer star George Best's motto "I spent half my money on women and alcohol, and the rest I wasted." I'm also not an idiot when it comes to investing, so the money would probably be pretty well stewarded.
Next, my family is all in pretty decent shape. Therefore, you wouldn't have to be treated to those ridiculous, syrupy stories of me putting all my nieces and nephews through college, or paying off their parents' mortgages. Nothing like that. Not that I wouldn't be generous, mind you. No sir...those nieces and nephews would see their annual Christmas gift card go from $50 to $75 in a New York minute! Next time, maybe.
Mom and Dad are in good shape too, so no reason to siphon off any of the money for their well-being. Though, Dad needs to cut back on the yard work....maybe I'll buy him a leaf blower.
Some of you might think, "hey CW, you live on the water--bet you'd waste a bunch of that cash on a nice new boat." Not so fast. Truth is, I'm a pretty bad boat handler. In fact, the Kitten does all the pier-work in our Whaler, and she does most of the inner-tube pulling, and she does most of the transits to St. Michaels for meals.....she pretty much does all the driving. I bet she'd buy a new boat if she won the lottery. Not this guy.
Speaking of the Kitten, one of the wonderful things about her is she's not a jewelery or clothes-horse. So I wouldn't waste any of the loot there.
As for travel, I'd do it right. You'd be proud of me. I would pay someone to travel with the Kitten and the Kittens to meet me wherever we were going. This person would schlep bags, wait at security, look at shiny things in stores, and help them stow the bags they should have checked in the overhead compartment. After take-off, I'd go back to coach every now and then to say hello to them, and then I'd have the hotel room all ready for them once they collected all their stuff.
Where I might get a little crazy is in buying a second house. Probably be in Charlottesville; my "September-March" house. I'd watch football and basketball games. Buy myself a spot on the Board of Visitors at UVA and cause a ruckus now and then.
But alas, none of this is going to happen. Instead, some retiree from Missoula will win $500M and buy a Winnebago to drive their grandchildren around in.
Fiddlesticks.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Where $200,000 = $1,000,000
 |
| Math-challenged Press Secretary |
The talking points we've heard for years now from the Obama Administration is how their plan to raise taxes on the "top 2%" is a tax on "millionaires and billionaires", in order for them to pay their "fair share". I must have heard Carney use the phrase "millionaires and billionaires" three times yesterday.
Yet not once did even one member of the press corps remind Mr. Carney that the President's proposal does NOT raise taxes beginning with "millionaires and billionaires". It begins at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families. While these are both comfortable figures, and to some, may constitute being "rich"--there is no world in which $200K equals $1M. Period. End of story. Yet day in and day out, the President and his henchmen are allowed to get away with this incredible fudging.
I am prepared to be termed a "millionaire" if Mr. Obama is prepared to multiply my tax refund by a factor of 5. Seems fair, no?
I realize it is too much to hope for that the press would hold these people responsible for what they say.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
The Problem is the Rednecks
As you may know, by virtue of the fact that I am a Southern white male, I'm a bigoted, racist, cracker redneck. I will never get with the program because I am too stupid, too set in my ways and too resistant to education (indoctrination). What I have achieved in life has not been through my own efforts and hard work, but through the exploitation of a permanent minority underclass created by me and my kind for this very purpose. From this country's inception I have been practicing class warfare against minorities, women, homosexuals and anyone who dared challenge my privileged status. Therefore it is only just that I be ridiculed, taxed, vilified and continually slandered, with impunity, until I either die or succumb to the new political realities and accept the progressive agenda. I will made an example of so as to deter any independent thoughts of so-called liberty and freedom by others who may still cling to the antiquated idea of Constitutional government. I and my culture will be relentlessly mocked, laughed at and libeled in every media outlet be it news, entertainment or sports. I will be destroyed, so that others may be free.
Now before you go off on me about how this is just a paranoid, self-pitying diatribe with no basis in reality, I beg you to look at the evidence. White males in general and Southern white males specifically are under attack. We are the new underclass. But there's a more subtle and insidious purpose here. Let me explain so bear with me.
Let's head North, and I mean really North, to Canada. In the seventies a guy named Rene Levesque started getting a lot of attention calling for Quebec, through a referendum, to leave Canada and form its own country. Quebec is about 80-90% French speaking with their own unique culture as opposed to the rest of Canada which is about 90% English speaking (some provinces more some less). As you might imagine this was a source of lots of consternation but many felt that the French-Canadians (or is it Canadiens?) had a point so what the heck, let them go. Now something like this can take decades to run it's course with fits and starts but in 1990 something happened, there was a Time Magazine cover:
Now before you go off on me about how this is just a paranoid, self-pitying diatribe with no basis in reality, I beg you to look at the evidence. White males in general and Southern white males specifically are under attack. We are the new underclass. But there's a more subtle and insidious purpose here. Let me explain so bear with me.
Let's head North, and I mean really North, to Canada. In the seventies a guy named Rene Levesque started getting a lot of attention calling for Quebec, through a referendum, to leave Canada and form its own country. Quebec is about 80-90% French speaking with their own unique culture as opposed to the rest of Canada which is about 90% English speaking (some provinces more some less). As you might imagine this was a source of lots of consternation but many felt that the French-Canadians (or is it Canadiens?) had a point so what the heck, let them go. Now something like this can take decades to run it's course with fits and starts but in 1990 something happened, there was a Time Magazine cover:
Separatism, Is Canada Coming Apart?
The gist of the article was yes indeed, Quebec could go its on way but what then happens to Canada? Time's answer was they would eventually be absorbed by the United States of course. WELL! That didn't go over too good in Canuckland. The issue was no longer independence for a culturally different and frankly pain-in-the-ass provence but the very survival of Canada. And one thing every Canadian can agree on is they want no part of the U.S. So, that was the end of that and the separatist movement in Quebec is now a back-burner issue. nevermind that the whole Time story was completely fabricated BS planted by the English speaking Canadian establishment. It served it's purpose and if you want to get something passed in Canada to this very day all you need do is position the issue as Canadian vs. American and shazam, you got yourself a winner.
And so it goes with American politics. Sometimes we are defined by what we are not rather than what we are. In America today there's a lot to be gained by associating conservatism to (supposed) Southern intolerance and backwardness. The South has always been America's whipping boy. Some of the most outrageously ignorant bullshit is spouted from the mouths of people who have never been anywhere close to the South. I myself, as obviously sophisticated and erudite as I may be, have often times been dismissed as a loutish, redneck hick by Northerners only marginally as well educated and worldly as yours truly. But there's a movement afoot to instigate an us against them mentality that transcends issues and is more tribalism than politics. If progressives are successful and can equate conservatism to a Southern racist ideology rooted in bigotry and backwardness long since dead, then it's over. Nobody wants to be called a redneck, unless you already are a redneck.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Thanks for Your Interest, Now Please Go Away
Rick Santorum is open to a 2016 run. Great! Because what the Republican Party needs right now as it bleeds support from women is an intolerant scold on social issues
Sunday, November 25, 2012
WaPost Shills for Obama on Income Inequality
This is a remarkable article, written by the Washington Post "White House economics reporter." It could not have been more favorably written by Mr. Obama's own team. In it, the "reporter" (and yes, I use those quotes to separate him in this instance from those who at least feign reporting vice advocacy) takes us on Barack Obama's political journey with respect to that demon "income inequality". You remember, Barack Obama, right? The man less concerned with the debt and deficit than in chasing his elusive vision of "fairness"? The man who won't work with Republicans on revenue positive closures of loopholes and credits that would assuredly bring in more revenue (though revenue is earned, taxes are confiscated), focusing instead on making the world's most progressive tax system even more progressive, so that "the rich" pay more of their "fair share"? The man who told a debate moderator during the 2008 race that even though two successive Presidents had lowered the capital gains rate AND RAISED MORE REVENUE from it, he would consider raising it as an issue of "fairness"? Yes. That Barack Obama.
In this article, the reporter does what most mainstream media reporters does. He simply states that income inequality is a bad thing, without spending even a single sentence in explanation for WHY it is a bad thing. There are a few lame attempts. Here's one: "As Obama did in legislative fights during his first term, he also will be striving to reduce a three-decades-long wave of rising income inequality that has meant that fewer Americans have prospered while more struggle to get by." Clearly, by reading this, one would surmise that there was a cause and effect relationship between income inequality and "fewer" Americans prospering. Well--I'm waiting....what is it. Worse yet, his statement is seriously open to interpretation. If by prospering and struggling to get by, we consider the lot of the bottom of the economic scale, the statement is simply incorrect as this Heritage paper does a good job of describing.
Here's another example of the laziness--or perhaps the downright bias--of the reporter. "Among 35 of the world’s most developed countries, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only a handful of national tax systems do less than the U.S. code to reduce income inequality." While this may be true (again though, I have no opinion on whether we should focus on income inequality until I can be convinced that there is something wrong with it, or at least that we can identify WHY and HOW it is wrong, and why something that has ALWAYS existed to some degree is suddenly so determinative), the same report tells us that the US tax code is THE MOST PROGRESSIVE code among the same countries. Read this unusually well written column from The Atlantic that gives convincing evidence of this. Here's a wonderful line from the piece, one by which I imagine many Americans (and most Democrats) would be surprised: "Why, according to the OECD, is the US system so progressive? Not because the rich face unusually high average tax rates, but because middle-income US households face unusually low tax rates--an important point which de Rugy mentions and Chait ignores."
So what we have in this piece is a "reporter" who obviously believes income inequality to be the primary bugaboo in our system, identifying the President's acceptance of the reporter's primary bugaboo as a positive development within a hagiography of the President. Nowhere does the reporter attempt to investigate the studies that either 1) challenge the degree of "income inequality" others cite 2) challenge the notion of inequality as relevant measure or 3) assign policy blame to the level of inequality that does in fact, exist--specifically, the transfer of wealth from young to old. None of this is covered.
We will hear about this non-stop for the next four years. Mr. Obama and his friends in Congress are not interested in righting our economic ship; they are interested in a vision of "fairness" in which yes--the rich get poorer....but then so do the poor. Income inequality is a measure of envy, not of fairness.
In this article, the reporter does what most mainstream media reporters does. He simply states that income inequality is a bad thing, without spending even a single sentence in explanation for WHY it is a bad thing. There are a few lame attempts. Here's one: "As Obama did in legislative fights during his first term, he also will be striving to reduce a three-decades-long wave of rising income inequality that has meant that fewer Americans have prospered while more struggle to get by." Clearly, by reading this, one would surmise that there was a cause and effect relationship between income inequality and "fewer" Americans prospering. Well--I'm waiting....what is it. Worse yet, his statement is seriously open to interpretation. If by prospering and struggling to get by, we consider the lot of the bottom of the economic scale, the statement is simply incorrect as this Heritage paper does a good job of describing.
Here's another example of the laziness--or perhaps the downright bias--of the reporter. "Among 35 of the world’s most developed countries, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only a handful of national tax systems do less than the U.S. code to reduce income inequality." While this may be true (again though, I have no opinion on whether we should focus on income inequality until I can be convinced that there is something wrong with it, or at least that we can identify WHY and HOW it is wrong, and why something that has ALWAYS existed to some degree is suddenly so determinative), the same report tells us that the US tax code is THE MOST PROGRESSIVE code among the same countries. Read this unusually well written column from The Atlantic that gives convincing evidence of this. Here's a wonderful line from the piece, one by which I imagine many Americans (and most Democrats) would be surprised: "Why, according to the OECD, is the US system so progressive? Not because the rich face unusually high average tax rates, but because middle-income US households face unusually low tax rates--an important point which de Rugy mentions and Chait ignores."
So what we have in this piece is a "reporter" who obviously believes income inequality to be the primary bugaboo in our system, identifying the President's acceptance of the reporter's primary bugaboo as a positive development within a hagiography of the President. Nowhere does the reporter attempt to investigate the studies that either 1) challenge the degree of "income inequality" others cite 2) challenge the notion of inequality as relevant measure or 3) assign policy blame to the level of inequality that does in fact, exist--specifically, the transfer of wealth from young to old. None of this is covered.
We will hear about this non-stop for the next four years. Mr. Obama and his friends in Congress are not interested in righting our economic ship; they are interested in a vision of "fairness" in which yes--the rich get poorer....but then so do the poor. Income inequality is a measure of envy, not of fairness.
The Hammer's College Football Review: Week 13
10-1 Flawda State took on instate rival Florida at home, on Bobby Bowden Field in Doak Campbell Stadium before a sellout crowd of 85,000 screaming rednecks, and gave up 24 points in the 4th. quarter. How does a quality team just fold up like that? At home? In front of all that hot, ditzy, Seminole coed pu...eh nevermind (lost my train of thought). Now admittedly the Gators are a damn fine football team, and two years from now they'd be in the playoff for the big prize, but still FSU was embarrassing in the fourth quarter.
Then we had Clemson at home against their hated foe the South Carolina Gamecocks coached by Mr. Personality himself, Steve Spurrier. Clemson led 14-10 at halftime but decided to sit out the second half scoring only three points to S.C.'s 17. And that's with the Cocks starting a second string quarterback and their hoss in the backfield Marcus Lattimore out with injury. Clemson just couldn't stop them on third down and Carolina played brilliant ball control offense getting 50+ snaps in the second half compared to Clemson's 19. It's hard to score if you ain't got the ball.
In other ACC action Georgia owned Georgia Tech, no big surprise there. UVA played Va. Tech tough but couldn't get it done. And just to illustrate how Commissioner Swofford has screwed this league up, this was rivalry week right? Well not so much in the rest of the ACC. NCSU played Boston College. UNC played Maryland. Wake Forest played Vanderbilt and Duke played Miami. Yeah buddy, when I think NC State and our biggest rival I always think Boston College. I'm sure Carolina, Duke and Wake are thinking the same thing. Jaysus, if somebody has to have a heart attack this week let it be somebody like Swofford!
So, now that I've bitched about the ACC let's move on to the national picture. Alabama mopped the floor with Auburn, scoring on their first seven possessions. Two years ago Auburn was top of the heap, now they couldn't play dead in a cowboy movie. They might would even suck in our league...eh, maybe. Oregon which was riding high before losing to Stanford last week took it to in-state rival Oregon State all day long; they licked that Beaver cross-eyed. But guess who's playing in the PAC 12 championship game? Stanford and UCLA. And yes they just played yesterday with the Bruins losing 35-17 in Pasadena. Ohio State beat a good Michigan squad in the shoe finishing 12-0. Now they can sit back, pop open a sudweiser and watch Alabama/ Notre Dame for the big enchilada.
The Hammer's Heisman watch has the Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel as the strong favorite. He's a redshirt freshman and no freshman has ever won but his closest competition is Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o. To begin with a defensive player has only ever won one Heisman in the history of the award, and furthermore nobody can pronounce Mr. Te'o name properly. The K-State QB is great but they lost and Ohio State's QB is excellent but he's damaged goods. There are some good players out there but nobody sticks out like Manziel, and the media loves this guy. I suppose beating 'Bama does have its rewards.
So, there you go. Not much shaking the next few weeks. Ah we have the odd game (Army/Navy...yawn) but not much so I may not crank it up again until the bowls. I'm sure you're heartbroken. So, I won't let the door hit me where the good Lord split me. C-ya, wouldn't want to be ya.
Friday, November 23, 2012
The Day After
The Kitten will likely not read this post, as she is uninterested in my scribblings here unless they reveal dark family secrets or unauthorized photos of The Kittens. So she will not get to read the high praise I bestow upon her here for a truly magnificent Thanksgiving, having instead to content herself with my tryptophan-laced mutterings from the kitchen couch last night before slouching off to bed at 9PM. The house was beautiful, the food was tasty, and the sanctity of the holiday was well-maintained. We made a deal that she would wash the delicate stuff (china, stemware, etc) and I would do the more hearty stuff--but I insisted that I would not undertake my responsibilities until this morning. For any of you who know me well, you know the words "The meal's not over 'til the dishes are done" escape my mouth only about three hundred days a year....so you know I was laid low by yesterday's bounty. She put a movie in the DVD player and washed dishes, while I was snuggled in bed.
We had--like many of you I am sure--a ridiculous bounty. I was given the task of preparing the turkey, and the reviews indicated that I got it right. In addition, we had The Kitten's famous mashed potatoes (really--the best MP I've ever eaten--perhaps made so by the work I put in to wash, peel and mash), two kinds of stuffing, an amazing oyster casserole, a sweet potato dish (which I avoid--don't like sweet potatoes), a stuffing like creation of chestnuts, mushrooms and celery, a wonderful salad, pumpkin bread, dinner rolls--topped off with a very tasty gravy. Afterward there were four different pies offered (a lemon meringue, a traditional pumpkin, and two pimped-out pumpkin pies), and I stayed with the traditional (natch).
We were a group of eleven; we four, the Kitten's aunt and uncle, their daughter and husband plus two kids, and the Kitten's mother. It was a jolly occasion, save for the morose discussion among the older folks (plus me) of the future of the country in the age of Obama. We were however, charitable in the spirit of the day.
I offered the following pre-meal blessing, which I think is verbatim. "Lord, we thank you for this day... this feast... this family... and this Earth. We are grateful for the blessings you provide and we enjoy. We are mindful that there are those tonight who are lonely....sick....cold....hungry. We ask that you be with them, as you are with us. Amen." Short and sweet, the way I like 'em.
I am particularly glad that today is the day after Thanksgiving. Again--some of you know that I am particularly enthusiastic about the Christmas season. In college, Christmas music began on the day after Halloween for me. Well, the commissars here at Ferry Bridge Farm do not allow Christmas music until Thanksgiving is in the can, and they react with some alacrity when I violate this prohibition. I've been listening to Christmas music in the car, as a solitary act of resistance. Yesterday, during one of my trips to the store to buy stuff we should have bought the day before, I did buy a Christmas Wreath to hang on the door to the ManCave. I hung it proudly and defied the Screws to take it down. They demurred.
My trumpet sits in its case beside me in the Cave, badly in need of a little holiday maintenance before I begin my annual Christmas Carol jamboree. By the Big Day, I'll actually be a passable bugler again. In the meantime, it is well that my rehearsals are here in the hermetically sealed ManCave.
There will be no shopping today for me, nor was there any last night. To do so is the height of ridiculosity. I know that I have family members who indulge in this execrable practice, and though I love them dearly, I fear for their stability. God (and Al Gore) invented the internet to make Christmas shopping efficient and cheap.
I am all liquored up to go and buy (tomorrow, that is) some of those battery-operated window candles that work on a timer. If any of you have experience with them, please let me know. I think they'll look good as one turns the corner and approaches our house, what with all the windows we have now, post-renovation.
I thought yesterday of the Thanksgivings spent at sea or on duty while I was in the Navy. I thought of those who stand that watch now. It is never as good as it is when one is surrounded by loved ones--but here's a little secret....it isn't too bad to be surrounded by shipmates. You make do, you tell stories about the funny stuff that happens around your family table, and the cooks go out of their way to make sure you get a great turkey dinner.
I hear a number of thunderous reports from the fields around me; I don't rightly know what season it is here in Maryland, but I suppose I ought to get my act together and figure it out. The Kitten's brother is coming to visit next week for some deer hunting, so I may tag along with him at least one day. I still hope to receive a much coveted invitation to join Mudge on one of his Eastern Shore properties (the man really is a rural slum lord) in the weeks to come. Mudge has lots of pictures of deer on his properties, but after three trips to "my stand", I have yet to see one. I have this vision of Mudge sitting around the barrel with his Eastern Shore of Virginia buddies cracking wise about the "slicker" they put up in the "deer don't go there" stand. Be aware friends, it is within him to do so.
Enough of this. I must to the house for another cup of coffee. I wish all of you a great Friday and start of the Christmas Carol Season.
We had--like many of you I am sure--a ridiculous bounty. I was given the task of preparing the turkey, and the reviews indicated that I got it right. In addition, we had The Kitten's famous mashed potatoes (really--the best MP I've ever eaten--perhaps made so by the work I put in to wash, peel and mash), two kinds of stuffing, an amazing oyster casserole, a sweet potato dish (which I avoid--don't like sweet potatoes), a stuffing like creation of chestnuts, mushrooms and celery, a wonderful salad, pumpkin bread, dinner rolls--topped off with a very tasty gravy. Afterward there were four different pies offered (a lemon meringue, a traditional pumpkin, and two pimped-out pumpkin pies), and I stayed with the traditional (natch).
We were a group of eleven; we four, the Kitten's aunt and uncle, their daughter and husband plus two kids, and the Kitten's mother. It was a jolly occasion, save for the morose discussion among the older folks (plus me) of the future of the country in the age of Obama. We were however, charitable in the spirit of the day.
I offered the following pre-meal blessing, which I think is verbatim. "Lord, we thank you for this day... this feast... this family... and this Earth. We are grateful for the blessings you provide and we enjoy. We are mindful that there are those tonight who are lonely....sick....cold....hungry. We ask that you be with them, as you are with us. Amen." Short and sweet, the way I like 'em.
I am particularly glad that today is the day after Thanksgiving. Again--some of you know that I am particularly enthusiastic about the Christmas season. In college, Christmas music began on the day after Halloween for me. Well, the commissars here at Ferry Bridge Farm do not allow Christmas music until Thanksgiving is in the can, and they react with some alacrity when I violate this prohibition. I've been listening to Christmas music in the car, as a solitary act of resistance. Yesterday, during one of my trips to the store to buy stuff we should have bought the day before, I did buy a Christmas Wreath to hang on the door to the ManCave. I hung it proudly and defied the Screws to take it down. They demurred.
My trumpet sits in its case beside me in the Cave, badly in need of a little holiday maintenance before I begin my annual Christmas Carol jamboree. By the Big Day, I'll actually be a passable bugler again. In the meantime, it is well that my rehearsals are here in the hermetically sealed ManCave.
There will be no shopping today for me, nor was there any last night. To do so is the height of ridiculosity. I know that I have family members who indulge in this execrable practice, and though I love them dearly, I fear for their stability. God (and Al Gore) invented the internet to make Christmas shopping efficient and cheap.
I am all liquored up to go and buy (tomorrow, that is) some of those battery-operated window candles that work on a timer. If any of you have experience with them, please let me know. I think they'll look good as one turns the corner and approaches our house, what with all the windows we have now, post-renovation.
I thought yesterday of the Thanksgivings spent at sea or on duty while I was in the Navy. I thought of those who stand that watch now. It is never as good as it is when one is surrounded by loved ones--but here's a little secret....it isn't too bad to be surrounded by shipmates. You make do, you tell stories about the funny stuff that happens around your family table, and the cooks go out of their way to make sure you get a great turkey dinner.
I hear a number of thunderous reports from the fields around me; I don't rightly know what season it is here in Maryland, but I suppose I ought to get my act together and figure it out. The Kitten's brother is coming to visit next week for some deer hunting, so I may tag along with him at least one day. I still hope to receive a much coveted invitation to join Mudge on one of his Eastern Shore properties (the man really is a rural slum lord) in the weeks to come. Mudge has lots of pictures of deer on his properties, but after three trips to "my stand", I have yet to see one. I have this vision of Mudge sitting around the barrel with his Eastern Shore of Virginia buddies cracking wise about the "slicker" they put up in the "deer don't go there" stand. Be aware friends, it is within him to do so.
Enough of this. I must to the house for another cup of coffee. I wish all of you a great Friday and start of the Christmas Carol Season.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
CW on Bloggingheads!
For those with an hour to kill, here's my recent installment of Bloggingheads TV in which I speak with Dr. Robert Farley of the University of Kentucky about the election and things naval.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Looking For A Jerk of the Week? Found One!
What was basically a Southern basketball league has turned into the Big East with the addition of Boston College, Pitt and probably UConn real soon. And what the hell is up with Notre Dame? I have nothing against expansion, but the character of the league must be maintained. I fail to see what bringing in a bunch of New England teams will accomplish. BC brings nothing to the table and neither will Pitt. And besides, I don't want to be sitting beside a bunch of Yankee bastards when I'm trying to enjoy a sporting event. They're losers and they'll eventually want everybody to get a trophy.
Now we've lost one of the original members, Maryland. I don't know what to say, this is nuts. This great league is being diminished and diluted by this ass-clown (and the bankers). Here's what the old left-handed one had to say... ”I think it’s a sad day. You know, I played in the first ACC tournament when I was playing at Duke and I’ve always loved the ACC. I coached in it for 17 years, did announcing in it for two years. It’s a great league. … I think it’s a terrible decision [to move]. You tell me one thing that’s good about it. Besides money, what’s one thing? … I’m an old timer. I’m 80 years old. College athletics used to be for the students, not for the business people.” Lefty Driesell:
My thoughts exactly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
