I simply cannot speak highly enough of the analysis and thought offered by William Lind in regard to not only his discussion of 4G warfare, but his predictive abilities as well. It's actually a repeat of one he's made before, here, but it sure seems to me to be correct. Of course, he neglects any discussion of a possible
nuclear option by the Americans, who would be loathe to see an entire army of 130,000 troopies go
into POW camps in Iran, but that's a different story.
3/31/08
Coming Soon To A Middle East Near You
Frederick Douglass--liberal, conservative, libertarian, other?
Booker Rising links to a new online magazine that focuses on issues from a black conservative perspective.
Booker Rising comments: "I don't know about the late Frederick Douglass being put on that cover as a conservative. I'd call him a liberal, and even moderate would be a stretch for his time period."
The thing I've noticed about Douglass is that just about every ideology claims him to be one of their own.
You can see in the quotes that people choose to focus on:
Liberals, socialists and activists: "Without struggle, there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will."
Libertarians and conservatives: "'What shall we do with the Negro?' I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!"
In a recent book on black conservatives, Saviors or Sellouts, author Christopher Alan Bracey included Booker T. Washington, but left out Douglass. When I asked Bracey about this at an event, he said that Douglass had both a liberal and conservative side, and that it would have "confused" readers if he had included Douglass. As I also noted: Booker T. Washington's Tuskegee Machine was very similar to what Douglass proposed to Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1853. (see pages 353-59)
I don't know of a quote from Frederick Douglass identifying himself with a particular political ideology, but he was associated with the Republican party for more than four decades.
He did say things such as:
"I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress."
"The Republican Party is the ship and all else is the sea."
I do believe that, in his later years, that his devotion to the Republican Party caused him to ignore that Republicans began to waver on civil rights. The generation of "Radical Republicans" had died off, replaced mainly with politicians more concerned with counting votes than on justice for blacks.
That Douglass usually spoke about eternal truths may be the reason that liberals, conservatives, libertarians and even socialists can see themselves in what he said. Plus, it helps that he has been dead for 113 years.
CJL
3/28/08
So Much For Majority Rules
The only math class I ever received an A in was college statistics. Having demonstrated a grasp of the concept, I'm always a bit leery of statistics and polling, even when they're in my favor.
Nevertheless, this recent bit certainly brought some cheer my way and, if so, definitely gives the lie to all of the
assertions by the plethora of Victim Disarmament groups out there.
This Will End Well
One of Casey's hallmarks in Korea was spotting and reporting on "crackdowns." He was quite the expert, and could slap up commentary on a crackdown before the government even got it off the ground.
So it is with no end of glee that I found this before he did.
What the helicopters and commentary mean, though, is that once again the US is taking an active hand in playing Whack-A-Mahdi, and that did not play out so well last time. It's only been the Mahdi Army's willingness to maintain a truce that has allowed the US to pretend that The Surge™ was working. If the Mahdi Army decides that the gloves are back off again, well, the US occupation sits at the end of a very long and vulnerable logistics line, and trucks driving through the Shi'ite portion of the country will find it more than a little bit harder to deliver the supplies needed to keep the occupation going.
Here's How You Know They're Serious
Here's a prime example of how you can tell that your opponents in combat are getting serious. This photo, from The Independent's website, is described as a Mahdi Army fighter in Basra. Now the usual picture you see involves a guy waving an AK variant and occasionally some sort of face mask, but otherwise looking like a civilian. Even the "police" there frequently have only a uniform and an AK.
But note that this fellow not only has at least one spare magazine of ammunition for his rifle, but he's also wearing body armor and carrying (poorly, but still carrying) ammunition for a crew-served machinegun. I am not a professional intel analyst, nor do I play one on TV, but I do have a lot of practical experience in both toting that sort of stuff and in being educated about it. He may not be the best that the other side has, but the fact that the other side is now fielding someone like him - and presumably others - should be of considerable concern for anyone in opposition.
Not that it will be, of course.
After all, we are repeatedly assured, sometims in politer terms, that these are only "hajjis," hardly a challenge for the Mightiest Army On Earth™.
After all, what could people like that do to Mighty Armies? Surely not this.
3/26/08
Bush Just Like Ford?
"Courageous" would not have been my choice of adjectives for describing this situation, but I'm just a country lawyer and not a Big Name Politician.
King Kong, Le Bron
Le Bron James is the first black man to appear on the cover of Vogue Magazine.
A black talk show host was complaining about the cover, saying that Vogue was making him look like "King Kong." I saw the cover last week, it didn't even occur to me that Le Bron was being pictured as a monkey or sexual demon.
I will just point out that Gisele Bundchen looks rather happy to be in Mandingo's arms.
Clinton: Rev. Wright ‘Would Not Have Been My Pastor’
I'm sure she would have left the church in a hail of gunfire...
3/25/08
Our Father, Who Art In Battledress
Could someone explain to me the worship of all things wearing uniforms these days? Is it just the fact that I did wear a uniform for some time that makes me such an agnostic on these things, or is it my basic antisocial personality that refuses to join the mindless parade heading to the Church of Matching Clothes?
I’m back on break from one forum I sometimes posted in because of the ever increasing “police can do no wrong” attitude there. The frequent fliers there (and many other places) claim to be pro-gun, and whine like crazy when anyone seems to infringe on their Second Amendment rights, but have no problem at all with regular violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments, by agents of the State. A lot of them are pretty down on the First Amendment, too.
Maybe it’s that tribal nature of humanity – the vicarious pleasure of winning, but without actual risk to yourself. I’ve met no end of people who’ve never worn a uniform but who talk about “perps”and “thugs” and “the Big Catbox/Sandbox” and “hajjis” and “wogs” and saving the world from terriers or something like that. My word, they get so excited, I can picture them in a huge auditorium jumping up and down like they were auditioning for a Planet Of The Apes* sequel. But put their own tender skins on the line? Not a chance. They want their danger and presumed glory second hand.
Could be I’m just old and cranky, but while I’m comfortable referring to “The Z,” or “Graf,” because I was there (fortunately didn’t have to “do that”) I am most patently not in Iraq or Afghanistan and while I would have no embarrassment talking to current vets, neither am I “one of them” and would not believe it right to speak their language to pretend I was.
I’m not a Wannabe, I’m an I Was. America, though, might be a much better place if the majority of folks would stop being the first and become more of the second. Maybe Heinlein was right in Starship Troopers and only veterans should be allowed to vote. McCain is the exception proving that rule, though, but that’s a post for a different day.
*That would be the Wahlberg remake, not the Heston version. And when will these guys ever get a clue that something is up when they hear the apes speaking ENGLISH?
Question For The Gunnies
And some of you not-so-gunnie-readers. I posed this to a number of gun-owners in an email, but maybe I can generate some response here as well:
During the course of the Heller arguments last week, it seemed to me that the Supreme Court was pretty dismissive of the Miller case, our only "serious" Second Amendment case up to now.
Now Miller actually deals with the "arms" portion of the Second Amendment, going into some length discussing what "arms" would be suitable for militia purposes and, after stating that they had no judicial notice (meaning no one officially told them and they were not going to be activist judges) they did not find that a short-barrelled shotgun met the criteria of arms that a militiaman would carry.
So my question, which I will pose on a sliding scale, for you kind readers is this: Is Miller a reasonable statement of the "arms" portion of the Second Amendment? The scale looks like this:
1. No, it's unreasonable. If the militia - i.e. individuals - want to purchase anything up to and including planet busters, solar imploders, plague bunny kits, and DIY sarin manufactuaries, that's within the meaning of "arms" of the Second Amendment and thus protected.
2. The court was almost correct. The "arms" of a militia are those traditionally associated with light infantry and, except for suggesting that sawed off shotguns were not protected, the rest of the ruling - which would arguably include pretty much everything man-portable up to about General Purpose Machine Gun level - is correct. Crew-served weapons (mortars, tanks, artillery, bombers, missiles, submarines, battleships, solar imploders, etc.) would need to be owned collectively - still by a militia, but by a number of individuals rather than a single individual.
3. The court did not go quite far enough. There are a number of "arms" that simply have no redeeming militia value. Concealed guns (both CCW and "disguised" firearms), knuckle dusters, poison gas, and nuclear weapons come to mind as examples here.
4. The court went too far in even suggesting that militia arms have anything to do with military-grade weaponry. As a subset of this question, you can opt for "the Second Amendment only protects sporting guns" or the more restrictive "The Second Amendment is a collective right endowed upon a nonexistent entity - the state militias."
Feel free to use my scale, adjust it, or comment at will on same. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and responses.
3/24/08
Four Thousand Dead
Not counting wounded, contractors, "allies," or suicides in the States, of course.
For what?
Anybody?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Kwame charged with perjury
Kwame Kilpatrick, during happier times. He was charged with perjury earlier today. I'd love to hear a sermon by Rev. Wright about the case.
Rush Limbaugh gets the "Wilder Effect" wrong
Rush Limbaugh:
That's known as the Bradley Effect or the Wilder Effect. In the case of Doug Wilder running for the governorship in Virginia, Tom Bradley running for governor of California, in pre-election polls they had huge leads, and going into Election Day it was assumed (both candidates were black) both were going to win. They both lost by sizable percentages. The pollsters decided, "We've been lied to here. People didn't want us to think that they were racist so they told us they were going to vote for Bradley or Wilder when they really had no intention of it." So it's interesting how many people are actually answering questions about Obama that way.
* The reality is that Bradley barely lost while Wilder barely won.
The Pound Cake Law
"People with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack. Isn’t that a sign of something or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up? Isn’t it a sign of something when she’s got her dress all the way up to the crack -- and got all kinds of needles and things going through her body. What part of Africa did this come from?" The first offense carries a $150 fine or community service. A second infraction carries a $300 fine or more community service. * Question: Is this only a problem in public schools? This sounds like another argument for school uniforms.
--Bill Cosby, May 17, 2004 "Pound Cake" speech
* * *
According to the March 14 edition of the Palm Beach Post: On Tuesday, voters in Riviera Beach overwhelmingly approved a new law that would make it a crime to wear pants that show skin or underwear.
* * *
* Will the next crackdown be on girls with their thongs sticking out of their clothing?
3/23/08
Excellent Video Bits On The Dollar
A very short Dutch documentary on the dollar's woes. The dismissive attitude of the traders toward any possible dollar collapse is quite chilling. Peter Schiff's Island Metaphor is, on the other hand, fascinating.
A huge hat tip to my favorite CPA, Karen de Coster, for finding this and posting it on her blog. She also discovered this longer and more scholarly one in regard to just what money is, along with its history in America. Should be required viewing for everybody, especially dissmissive Wall Street Traders:
3/22/08
Top 10 Economic Reasons Not Vote For Obama
My socialoid cousin sends me email links to various articles of interest, discussing various things political, social, scientific, and suchlike. One particular winner came over the transom today and I just thought I'd share my interlineated replies on the views espoused by Sparky, the Wonder Analyst.
The original article is at http://tinyurl.com/39zj8m
I will have to apologize for not being able to get it set up as a link.
Adam's "analysis," and I use the term loosely, is marked by an arrow, like so:
> I am an unthinking shill for the Democratic Party.
With my responses and addenda afterwards.
10 Surprising Economic Implications of a Barack Obama Presidency
March 20th, 2008
By Adam Kritzer> 10 Surprising Economic Implications of a Barack Obama Presidency
I am breathless with anticipation. Let's have a look, shall we?
> The American presidential election is rapidly drawing near.
Captain Obvious has taught him well.
>The
> race is becoming more intense and the field of candidates has
> narrowed to such that a detailed look at each of their platforms
> makes sense.
D'ya think? But what does their "platform" have to do with what they actually can/will do? Oh well, onward into the fog:
> The focus of this article is on Barack Obama,
I would never have guessed that from the title, thanks for the point-out!
> one of
> the leading contenders for the Democratic Party’s nomination.
No kidding?!?!?! Really?!?!?!
Busted for impersonating a lawyer - he's obviously being paid by the word.
> Of
> primary interest for traders in the forex markets is his economic
> policy,
Because nobody ELSE cares.
> though there is significant overlap between his positions
> on taxes, trade, and the economy. In addition, his proposed health
> plan and energy plan, for example, both carry important economic
> implications,
Poverty for all and a faster road to total national bankruptcy, for instance.
> and hence should be considered within the context of
> how his presidency would bear on the US economy.
"Otherwise I won't make my magic 10 count."
> Since his platform is broad, complex, and often nuanced,
IOW, anybody can read anything he wants in it, so as to see Obama as "him" and therefore activate the sympathetic parts of the brain.
> we have
> distilled it into ten more manageable subdivisions, which are laid
> out below.
Good thing he told me, otherwise I would have stopped reading right here and wondered where the heck the "list" was. Gotta be a Liberal - he thinks I need to be led by the hand to the obvious.
> 1. Increased Tax Equity:
Flat tax? Seventeen percent for everybody across the board? That's equitable.
> Mr. Obama’s tax policy typifies the
> liberal stance of his party, favoring a system that is equitable
> and progressive, above all else.
Can you say "contradiction in terms?" It's either "equitable" or it's "progressive." You can't have both. And since the word "liberal" was used, I can bet which of the two it's gonna be.
> The core component of is tax policy would bring tax relief to the middle-class.
How about tax relief to EVERYBODY? Wouldn't that be more "equitable?"
>Whether he would pay for this “relief” through a tax increase on the upper class or
Oh yeah, increasing taxes on others, that's "equitable." Not to mention the socialoid code word of "paying" for tax relief, as though the money was ALL Obama's and he simply got to decide how much of it to return to us.
> through budget cuts is uncertain. It will not be financed through a
> bond issue (increase in government debt), as he has pledged to
> balance the budget.
And if he breaks that pledge, and is thereby forsworn, can we have him branded as an oathbreaker and removed from polite society into the wilderness?
Better still, would he have the honor to do it himself?
Yah, I didn't think so either.
> [More on this below]. In addition, Mr. Obama
> has pledged to eliminate so-called “tax havens” for the wealthy and
> loopholes in the tax code exploited by special interest groups. It
> is expected that this increase in tax revenues will partially
> offset the middle class tax cut.
A flat 17 percent tax would do that nicely. And equitably. But somehow I suspect that the tax code will nevertheless continue to grow under an Obama regime.
> How Mr. Obama’s tax policy would impact economic growth defies
> prediction.
ORLY? Let me take a swing at it....I predict that we'd be royally screwed.
There. That wasn't so hard at all. Smart people can predict most anything, and I'll bet that my prediction is far more accurate than whatever this sycophant might think.
> Subscribers to the infamous “Laffer Curve” would argue
> that a fall in middle-class tax rates would theoretically increase
> unemployment and hence, increase government tax revenues.
That makes no sense whatsoever, as the Laffer Curve (note the lack of quotes and need for any snarky adjectives when discussing a normal economic concept) deals with optimizing government revenues and has nothing to do with unemployment. But a good Liberal has to work "increase unemployment" into any scare piece he happens to be writing, I believe it's a contractual obligation.
Maybe he meant to say "according to the theory behind the Laffer Curve, a decrease in middle class tax rates would increase government revenue." Which, if he actually understood the concept, may or may not be the case, as we could well be at the optimum point on the Laffer Curve now.
> However,
> since America’s wealthy contribute a disproportionately large share
> to the coffers of the Federal government, a tax increase on the
> rich could theoretically lead to a decline in government tax
> receipts.
D'ya really think so, Sparky? How truly spiteful and uncharitable of them, to want to keep more of their own wealth and property.
> This idea remains controversial, and most politicians
> conveniently err on the side of the argument that is consistent
> with their politics. This lack of clarity means it’s inappropriate
> to comment definitively in this article.
Let me translate that for you, since as an attorney I am fluent in Obfuscatese. "I haven't a freakin' clue what I'm talking about here, I'm only rambling, I've spit out the code words as required by my Liberal Contract, and I'd like to move on before I sound even stupider than I do already."
> 2. Fair Trade: Barack Obama’s trade policy eschews both
> protectionism and unbridled globalization in favor of the more
> fashionable “fair trade.”
Yes, that's what I want in MY elected leadership. "Fashionable." Not "thoughtful." Not "experienced." I want "fashionable."
But this chucklehead has not disqualified himself on this point yet, so let's read further:
> Insofar as trade is conducted fairly, he is an advocate.
Ya know, I used to write crap like this in fifth grade, when they'd give you those five hundred word essays and you had to puff it up to make word count.
Me, personally, I'm an advocate of unfair trade. I want to give the least amount of my own stuff to get the most I can of the other guy's stuff. That's called "shopping at sales" and "buying at discount" out here in the "unfashionable" Real World.
> On the other hand, when governments are belived to
Spell check. Get it. Use it. If you can't do it yourself, at least try and have the computer do it for you.
> use unfair tactics, such as subsidies, dumping, and exchange rate
> manipulation, he favors countervailing efforts to block such trade.
> For example
American dairy, wheat, sugar and peanut subsidies, tariffs on imported steel, and pressuring other countries to mess up their own currency just because ours is in the toilet.
I'm sorry, I just made that part up. We know Obama won't be ending any of those unfair tactics, it's only OTHER countries' unfair tactics that he opposes, I'm sure. Let us return to the actual drivel in progress:
> he has vocally argued that the perceived
Sparky, "undervaluation" (whatever the heck that null term is) either is, or it isn't. There's no such thing as "perceived undervaluation" except in the "mind" of someone who really doesn't understand, but wants to pretend he's smarter than he is.
> undervaluation of the Chinese Yuan
Saw that coming. Note to reader - I am editorializing on the fly here, I had not read down to this part of the article before making the comments above about "pressuring other countries."
> represents an indirect subsidy
Darned conniving scheming Orientals. They should pay DIRECT subsidies, like good AMERICANS do, right into the pockets of Archer Daniels Midland. Those indirect subsidies are probably smaller and more transistorized than Good American Subsidies, too.
Swine.
> for Chinese exporters, and he favors legislation that would “equalize” the playing field.
So....he's offering to write Chinese legislation now? I do appreciate that "equalize" is in quotes, because anyone with half a brain would realize that it's nothing at all like equal.
> In addition, Mr. Obama supports an increase in America’s domestic
> manufacturing sector and a consequent increase in employment.
The first thing we will do is reopen the platitude factories, because America needs more platitudes. The old ones, like this, are just wearing out and we really should be building our own!
> As
> with some of his other policies, he has been vague on how this
> would be achieved, whether through subsidies or tariffs, or a less
Equitable.
> conventional method.
Oh. My bad. I forgot that the word for "unequal trade in favor of America" was "fashionable." Or, in this case, "conventional."
> Finally, Mr. Obama supports energy
> independence, which basically translates into less reliance on
> foreign oil and gas producers.
Erm...."independence" means "reliance on nothing else," not "less reliance." If you mean "lowered reliance" then SAY it. Or qualify "independence" with an adjective like "greater" or "increased."
I'll wager he's not going to push to open ANWR to drilling, or the Florida Coast, or argue for more wind turbines off of the Kennedy compound. That's just a guess, though.
> In its entirety, this loosely sketched trade policy represents a
> significant break with the unapologetic free-trade stance of the
> current Bush administration.
Does this cretin even know what free trade is?
> While it is doubtful that many of
> these measures could be implemented, the trade imbalance could be
> singlehandedly reversed by a decrease in energy imports, which
> represents an estimated 35% of the total deficit.
Oh yes, the deficit is not created by mandated entitlement payments, subsidies for corporate welfare, or payments to the military-industrial-congressional-complex. It's created by me driving a Toyota.
> Classical
> economic theory dictates that in order to correct a trade
> imbalance, a nation’s currency must depreciate proportionately.
Classical economic theory says that Sparky here has a trade imbalance with his grocer. What's he doing to "correct" it?
> If
> this theory is applied to the US, a shrunken trade deficit achieved
> by an Obama presidency should stem the multi-year decline in the
> Dollar.
Ooookaaaay.....so we depreciate the dollar to stem a decline in the dollar. Got it.
Am I the only one who senses a flaw in the "logic" here?
> 3. Employment Versus Growth:
At the half, it's Employment 14, Growth 3.
> Mr. Obama’s criticisms of the Bush
> Administration’s economic policy have centered around the “jobless
> recovery,” whereby America’s economy enjoyed strong growth while
> the unemployment rate hardly budged.
I'm sure that his criticisms have centered around that, and many other things. Does either Sparky or Obama have a serious functional data set so as to make a statistically meaningful evaluation of the situation? Unemployment, for instance, should be figured as a ratio of Employed People to Total Population. The fact that newborn infants and dotards in nursing homes and Sparky here are not actually employed is irrelevant to figuring out Real Statistics. Unemployment may well be 20-30 percent...or more. So what? THAT kind of honesty would be far more useful and refreshing than massaging data by, for instance, not counting people who "have ceased looking for work."
>Accordingly, Mr Obama would
> prioritize employment over economic growth. Since free-trade is
> theorized to maximize growth, Mr. Obama’s “fair trade” policies
> could come at the expense of efficiency, and hence GDP growth.
In other words, again translating from the Obfuscatese, Mr. Obama would boink the nation over. Just where the heck does Sparky here think employment comes from, if not from economic growth?
Oh. That's right. He's a Liberal. Employment is, like money, mystically created by State fiat.
> On the other hand, he supports rural investment, increased access
> to capital among minorities and the poor, and improvements in the
> nation’s transportation infrastructure. All of these measures are
> consistent with both employment and growth.
ORLY? And just where will he get the money to do it, particularly if the economy isn't growing while the population is? Just to ask the first and most obvious question.
> In addition, his
> support for renewable energy, innovation (via an R&D tax credit),
That would be a "subsidy."
> and a greater emphasis on math and science education, aim to cement
> America’s status as the world’s leader in technology and
> innovation.
Yep, there are no schools here now teaching math and science. And there are no swarms of Asian students learning there...and then going home to innovate and technologate there, rather than here.
> The current flow of capital and labor (albeit not
> always ideas) favors developing countries, so Mr. Obama’s proposals
> are somewhat against the grain.
No, no, no. He's spot on. His policies will turn America into a Third World developing country, thus we can expect to see a flow of capital and labor coming in! The man is cunning, I tell ya!
> The payout for the US economy could
> be large but it could also be costly.
Huh?
> 4. Support for the environment: One of the recurring themes of Mr.
> Obama’s campaign is support for the environment.
I agree. We should have an environment. Not having an environment would be...well, that would be a vacuum, and we would both be abhorred by nature AND dead. Instead of just abhorred by nature, as Liberals believe.
>While
> environmentalists have delighted in promises of marine and forestry
> preservation, the direct economic implications are less cut-and-
> dried.
No, they're simple. If you preserve marine and forest environments, then there will be fewer or no jobs in those sectors, other than perhaps some modest growth in the "Preservation Industry" sector. Which tends to be government sponsored and tax-dollar paid, I would note in passing.
> It has long been argued that economic growth and concern for
Passive construction. Sign of a weak or losing argument.
> the environment are diametrically opposed. This notion is certainly
> belied by the boom in alternative energy, which is supported by
> Obama.
He supports the boom? The alternative energy? The notion?
Oh, and this "boom," Sparky...how much does it actually add to real energy, not just to feelgoodness?
> In addition, Obama’s proposed cap on carbon emissions could
> force businesses to become more efficient.
Or go out of business. Or go overseas. Either of which would seem to be "diametrically opposed" to the concept of growing the economy or increasing jobs.
> However, it could also
> come at the expense of output, as corporations curtail production
> to be meet more stringent environmental standards.
Yep, when you shut down and move to Shanghai, it certainly curtails production here.
> Finally, Mr. Obama is a staunch proponent of ethanol,
Another area we can finally agree on! Good wines, mostly, though an occasional beer is not out of the question and I've been known on rare occasions to go ten rounds with Jose Cuervo.
> part and parcel to his
> pursuit of energy independence. While this directly benefits the US
> economy,
Oh my yes, subsidies to ADM are most excellent for the US economy.
I'll bet sarcasm is wasted on Sparky, though.
> it has also been shown to increase food prices as land is
> diverted from food production to energy production.
So not only will there be food riots, but the rioters will have the gasohol to drive their cars to GET to the riots. That's government planning for you.
> Thus, while GDP
> would increase and the US would likely receive more foreign
> capital,
Wait, wait, wait...So Sparky here is admitting - and apparently in favor of? - more Chinese investment in the US?
> the purchasing power of US consumers as well as the value
> of the Dollar would be eroded.
Unless those consumers are ADM shareholders and executives, of course.
> 5. Expansion of Home Ownership:
We tried that. Can you say "subprime mortgage crisis?"
Unless, of course, Obama is simply promising everyone, courtesy of the State, "a house on every driveway."
> Barack Obama has promised to make home
> ownership both easier and more affordable, especially for poor
> families. Unfortunately, one of the byproducts of the current
> expansion of such housing has been the subprime lending crisis, one
> of the primary causes of the economic downturn. Of course, Mr.
> Obama has also pledged to crack down on so-called “predatory
> lending,” in which complex mortgage products with artificially low
> interest rates are used to lure unsuspecting borrowers.
So...the lenders should charge regular higher interest rates? No, then Sparky here would be whining about usury. Okay, all low rates, all the time? Great - until the banks have to pay more for energy, food, and taxes on the wealthy and then go out of business and can't afford to make any loans at all.
> 6. Skepticism of Business Establishment:
My, isn't that a bit of null wording. Sparky is definitely in trouble, regarding word count. Maybe he should have opted for a "Top Five" list.
> While not stated explicitly
> in his platform, Mr. Obama is generally opposed to “big business.”
Having owned and operated them himself and thus being personally acquainted.
I'm sorry, did I step on your strawman, Sparky?
> He has pledged to rein in predatory lending through increased
> regulation of mortgage companies. He uses hostile language to
> describe healthcare insurance companies and managed care
> organizations, which he views as part and parcel of the never-
> ending rise in healthcare costs. In addition, he will fight special
> interest lobbies generally, and the mortgage lobby specifically by
> making it easier for individuals to declare bankruptcy. Currently,
> there is a loophole which exempts certain obligations (namely
> mortgage payments) from re-negotiation during bankruptcy, and
> presumably this would be modified. Then there is his concern about
> M&A between large companies, which he perceives as anti-competitive
> and limiting of consumer choice. The icing on the cake will take
> the form of an investigation of conflicts of interest on Wall
> Street, where consolidation has created situations where pre-
> existing client relationships can compromise objectivity.
Blah blah blah. You could have said "Obama is a typical socialist who hates individual liberty and the free market, favoring State control of everything" and saved yourself a lot of typing there.
> In short, the the business establishment is dreading an Obama
> presidency,
So am I, for that matter.
> with its strict regulatory climate and consumer
> protections. Some analysts believe that the stock market performs
> better under Republican presidents because of the perceived
> friendliness with Wall Street, but ultimately economic factors will
> predominate, and good investors don’t put too much stock in the
> President’s ability to sway the markets.
That's why the Carter and Roosevelt years were such tearing economic successes.
> 7. Support for small businesses: It may come as a shock to those who
> have grown accustomed to the handful of large corporations
> dominating the business landscape that the brunt of the US economy
> is powered by small businesses.
Only if they're as ignorant as you, Sparkamundo.
>In fact, one of the few positions
> Mr. Obama shares with President Bush is his support for small
> businesses. Accordingly, he will use a combination of tax relief
"Subsidies and inequity." There, fixed that for ya.
> and healthcare subsidies
"Money taken from some to pay for what others want." There. More repairs.
No, Sparky, don't thank me. Keeping you honest is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.
> to facilitate growth in this vital sector of the economy.
Let me scroll back here.....okay, yep. Just what I thought. Up there in Section 3, we were told that Obama was going to prioritize employment over growth. Now he's back to "facilitating" growth. It would be nice if he'd make up his mind and decide just who the heck he wants to pander to - I'm getting positional whiplash watching the promises go back and forth.
> The healthcare subsidies will take the form of
> direct reimbursement for healthcare benefits paid by small
> businesses, many of whom are struggling to provide health insurance
> for their employees. This could prove difficult to implement
> because of the tremendous costs involved, and would need to be
> offset by cuts in other areas of the budget.
Like....Social Security? I ask innocently, of course.
> 8. Labor Equity: Unions remain a bastion of the Democratic Party,
Ain't that the truth. One of the nation's few real monopolies, a thing that socialists allegedly despise, and yet they revel in the support.
> and
> a large source of conflict with the Republican Party. To his
> credit, Mr. Obama’s position is somewhat more nuanced
"Waffling, so as to not honk off supporters." This language repair performed courtesy of "Honesty In Speech, Inc."
> than that of
> his Party. He supports a broad spectrum of labor rights, including
> enhanced protections for the right to unionize and promoting a work-
> life balance, perhaps by expanding the Family & Medical Leave Act
> which was signed into law during the Clinton administration. His
> final goal of a higher Federal minimum wage has been largely
> preempted by individual states, which have taken much initiative in
> this regard.
How about a hundred bucks an hour. That should be enough wage for anybody, right? If minimum wages are a good idea, for anybody but unions, that is, then let's not be pikers here.
> Labor rights are similar to environmental protections in that both
> are seen as antithetical to economic growth. Free-market economists
> are typically opposed to unions and wage floors because they
> necessitate wages higher than what the market would otherwise pay.
I am stunned, floored, flabbergasted and astounded. But I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
> Accordingly, Mr. Obama’s position represents a sop to the fear of
> cheap foreign labor (whether immigrants or workers abroad)
> percolating in the working class.
Percolating. Now there's a word you don't see every day. Let's see...in addition to the nicely nativist and fearmongering "cheap foreign labor," as I understand Obama's position he's going to force people to pay money that they otherwise wouldn't to people that he prefers. In other words, one of those "subsides" that he is supposedly not keen on - unless, of course, it's American. Then it's okay, because our subsidies are domestically constructed and thus superior to those cheap foreign imported subsidies.
> This jives with his fair-trade
> policy, which would prioritize domestic employment over efficiency.
Sort of the union logo in a nutshell.
> 9. Foreign Policy: Mr. Obama’s foreign policy would be decidedly
> less aggressive than that of the Bush administration. He favors
Bombing targets in Pakistan or somesuch, wasn't it? Let's Snopes that one....
> soft power, in the form of diplomacy and foreign aid, over the hard
> power of a strong military.
So the bombs would be delivered by embassy workers?
> Controversially, he has volunteered to
> meet with all foreign heads of state without any prerequisites. At
> the same time, he has also pledged to continue expanding the
> military, both in terms of manpower and technology.
Gotta suck up to those MICC contributions and voters, after all.
> The economic implications of foreign policy cannot be overstated.
NO! Say it's not so!!! Please don't tell me that spending billions or even trillions of dollars on military adventures Over There is going to make a difference Over Here! That would be as bad as the terrorists following us home, like little forlorn bomb-toting puppies!
> Due in part to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it now
> costs the US government an estimated $1 Trillion per year to
> conduct its foreign policy.
I guess that technically you could describe aggressive wars of empire as "foreign policy."
> In addition, it has been estimated that
> the total costs of the war in Iraq could exceed $3 Trillion by the
> time the US has successfully extricated itself. The majority of
> this outlay will be financed by debt. Thus, a Barack Obama
> presidency can be expected to increase the budget of the defense
> department but decrease discretionary military spending.
So Obama will BE the Defense Department? Notice the more traditional capitalization of the proper noun.
> In
> addition, the US maintains embargoes and/or limits trade with
> certain nations for political reasons, which could also change if
> Mr. Obama was elected.
We'd maintain the embargoes and limit trade for economic reasons, instead!
> Finally, the price of oil is connected with geopolitical events.
I'm wearing out my ORLY keys here.
> This is exacerbated by the fact that a
> significant portion of the world’s oil is controlled by regimes
> that are viewed as hostile by the US.
The American government and its EPA?
> This is reflected in the
> significant risk premium (estimated by some analysts at $20 per
> barrel) currently built into the price of oil. Improved relations
> with these governments (Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria) could lead to a
> reduction in the price of oil.
Weren't we discussing "energy independence" some time ago? Like, a hundred lines upthread here?
> 10. Fiscal Discipline: From an economic standpoint, fiscal policy
> represents a natural segue way from foreign policy, because it is
> among the largest components of the Federal budget.
Fiscal policy is among the largest components of the federal budget. Oooookaaaaay.....
> Mr. Obama has
> pledged to restore fiscal discipline by curtailing earmarks
Obama is not a legislator and cannot "curtail earmarks." Will he just agree to veto any budget that has earmarks in it? Didn't think so.
> and re-
> introducing a system of PAYGO into the budgeting process, whereby
> spending increases must be simultaneously offset before they can be
> approved.
How about "no more debt." Wouldn't that be better? And simpler?
> Social security will be shored-up, and further reinforced
> through incentives to save for retirement.
Oh, so Obama is for directed retirement savings?
Didn't think so. That Ponzi Scheme is untouchable. The only shoring up that is going to happen is an increase in tax burdens on the few remaining people working in the Forest Preservation Industry, since the rest of us will be unemployed as a result of everything moving overseas to escape the regulatory nightmare that an Obama regime would represent.
> Lower medicare costs
> will be obtained through negotiations with healthcare insurance and
> pharmaceutical companies.
"Nice little company you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it."
> Overall, the goal is a modest
Impossible, given the pandering nature of the State.
> one: a balanced budget.
I'll leave off his closing remarks.
Quite frankly, I didn't see any "surprising" economic implications. He is predicting that Obama will be a typical Liberal Democrat, averse to the free market, hating individual liberty, wanting to regulate everything that he can and make the State the supreme arbiter of all things human related. No surprise here, just a boatload of "meh, Liberal politics as usual."
Oh, and really, really crappy writing and "thought" in the original article.
3/21/08
Some of Rev. Wright's supporters
From the March 19 demonstration against the Iraq War at San Francisco’s Civic Center Park [posted by Green Little Footballs]
Gawd, Lawyers Suck
Part of my day job (pestering Casey is only a hobby) includes acting as city attorney for a number of cities here in Oregon. That includes participating in a list serve for Oregon City Attorneys. Recently a question was posed to the list (names are removed to protect the guilty) regarding gun bans, looking like this:
Has anyone passed an ordinance relating to banning firearms in public buildings. Apparently 166.370 prohibits firearms in public buildings, but exempts those that carry firearms with concealed permits.
We want to ban everyone except police officers from having weapons in our municipal buildings.
Thoughts?
Okay, that was immediately answered, correctly, by this:
State law generally preempts cities from applying ordinances banning guns in public buildings to persons with concealed handgun licenses. ORS 161.173(2)(c). See Starrett v. City of Portland, 196 Or App 534, 102 P3d 728 (2004).
But then the fun begins, with a variety of other attorneys chiming in, beginning with the original poster:
Thank you for the response. Is it just me . . . shouldn't cities have the right to outright ban fire arms at least at public meetings in light of the recent issue in Missouri? Courts do not have the same exceptions under 166.370 for those with carrying concealed permits and yet, City Council occasionally provide very similar "quasi-judicial" proceedings (with all of the emotionally charged fall-out that comes with these types of proceedings).
Again, Thank you for the help.
*and*
Maybe we should ask LOC* to ask the legislature to amend ORS 166.370 at the next session.
*League Of Oregon Cities
*and*
You may want to see if the League will support an amending bill and if there is a legislator that will submit it.
*and*
I agree with the comments about the law and possible remedies. You should know that I refuse to tell the [client] that they can't stop somebody who shows up at the gate with [a gun] asking for directions to [site]. We will let a judge tell us we have no authority to enforce our ordinance .
The problem is this. As I seem to recall, attorneys took an oath along the lines of protect, defend, uphold, hug and cuddle the Constitution(s). I recall no verb whatsoever involving "legislatively subvert."
Now, the Oregon Constitution, in pertinent part-that would be the infamous Section 27, reads:
Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]
I looked. I looked again. I looked hard. I put on my reading glasses and looked yet again. And I cannot, for the life of me, find the words "except in places or times where the State would legislate otherwise."
And yet all those attorneys up there see no problem whatsoever with asking the State to legislate part of that section away, because of their fear that their clients - cities, counties, metro areas- may do something evil enough to upset a constituent and cause the constituent to open fire on the client. Rather than simply have their clients rethink their abusive policies, they would rather restrict personal liberties and rights and wipe out portions of the Constitution by legislative fiat. I particularly liked the attorney who instructed his client to violate the Constitution because he was going to "wait for a judge" to tell them they were doing so.
This is protecting and upholding?
As Brian Wilson says..."We're Doomed."
"Hillary's NAFTA Lie"
From Nation magazine: As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
Obama's passport file
Keith Olberman seems to be the first to report on Maura Hardy's connection to someone in the state department looking at Obama's passport file. Long-term state department official first appointed by Reagan, Clinton ambassador, etc.
Unrelated Blast from the Past file: Feds Investigate Dems' Obtaining Steele's Credit Report
3/20/08
Bob Barr--Libertarian candidate?
Bob Barr may run for president, as a Libertarian. I wasn't even aware that Libertarians were going to run someone in 2008. And it won't take long to forget that Barr did run as a Libertarian...
By the way, it was great to see the photo of Bob Barr doing something I have rarely seen him do in public--smile.
CJL
Jeremiah Wright was Clinton White House guest
The Barack Obama campaign has clearly been damaged by his long-term relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has been remarkably quiet about Barack Obama's troubles.
As the old political strategy goes: remain quiet while your enemy is committing suicide.
Here's a photo of Rev. Wright at a Clinton White House function, posted by The Politico. A photo may say 1000 words--and that's even more words than the Clinton campaign apparently has uttered about Obama and Wright.
CJL
Linked by African American Political Pundit,
3/19/08
Quote of the Day, 1883
"I cannot see how any honest colored man, who has brains enough to put two ideas together, can allow himself, under the notion of independence, to give aid and comfort to the Democratic Party in Ohio or elsewhere."
--Frederick Douglass, quoted in McFeeley's Frederick Douglass, p. 316.
This Is The Candidate??
John McCain has admitted he doesn't know much about economics.
Now it appears that he's not really too up on essential foreign affairs, either.
Would somebody please remind me why this man is a Senator, let alone a candidate for President?
Double Dog Daring Dellinger
Heller has been heard by the Supreme Court, now the justices will read and re-read briefs, and conference, and supposedly give us some kind of decision in June. To reiterate my prediction: Ban overturned, reasonable restrictions allowed, probably "rational" scrutiny of any laws, and no major effect nationally.
That said, and setting aside my concerns about the court's treatment of Miller, as something for another day, I was interested in this bit:
In addition to the handgun ban, Washington also has a trigger lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday.
"When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Justice Antonin Scalia said.
Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable.
"There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said.
On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses," Roberts said to laughter.
Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight.
Three whole seconds. Interesting.
So - here's my double dog dare for Walter The Gunslinger:
He gets a revolver loaded with Simunitions , equipped with a standard trigger lock. I get to have a foam
bat covered with chalk. I will toss, say, a thousand dollars into a pot. I will start the scenario, as Justice Scalia stated, a decent distance away from Walter The Gunslinger, in a darkened room, with him lying down as though in bed. My mission will be to strike him with the chalk-covered club, and we will deduct 100 dollars from the pot for each hit I make on him. The scenario ends when he gets the trigger lock unlocked and shoots me with the paintball, and he gets the
remainder of the pot.
The catch is this - for every strike past 10, Walter The Gunslinger needs to pay me a hundred dollars, just to be fair, up to the time he unlocks the gun and shoots me.
I figure I'll pay off my student loans, my house, my car, and have enough left over to start a decent business before I run out of chalk on the foam.
C'mon, Walter, put your money where your mouth is. I triple dog dare ya! After all, it's just money for you - for some poor gunowner, three seconds might well be his life.
J. Underhill
3/18/08
Glad I'm Not A Democrat
The reason I'm glad I'm not a Democrat is simple - by the rules of the game established by their very own Liberal selves, if I don't vote for Obama, I'm a racist. If I don't vote for Clinton, I'm a sexist. Given that large numbers of Democrats have voted for one or the other, that can only mean that the Ds are either racist or sexist or both.
I would say that the only solution that the Ds have to this conundrum is to find and run people like Shirley
Looking over this morning's posts, I would also note in passing that I'm envious of Casey's ability to use the word "Negro" without flinching. I'm a product of my times, I guess, and even have difficulty suggesting people get ahold of one of the more interesting social studies out there, this book.
J. Underhill
From Magic Negro to Malcolm X
Not to say this is worth celebrating, but tomorrow will be the one year anniversary of David Ehrenstein writing a piece in the Los Angeles Times calling Barack Obama a "Magic Negro." That is, a black person who makes white people feel good.
Rush Limbaugh thought it was ridiculous. His team quickly came up with a hilarious parody, which you can download here for free (scroll to the bottom, hit "free," on the second page, "scroll down to the password, wait for the timer to expire, type in the password, then download).
Fast forward to a year later--Barack Obama is now Barack X. Is anyone questioning if he is black? Now the concern is that he will wear a Dashiki and give the Black Power salute at his inauguration. With his approval ratings in freefall because of the controversy over pastor Wright, Obama will give a major address on race. Perhaps he should try to convince folks that he really is a Magic Negro.
CJL
3/17/08
DC v Heller
Just to roll the dice for all the marbles (a fine mixed metaphor), let me post here what I've said in a number of other fora in regard to District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Robes will draft a very narrow decision striking down the District's blanket handgun ban, but rule that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions will be allowed. I don't think the court will go for strict or even heightened scrutiny as a standard of review of statutes, but merely "rational" scrutiny.
In other words, DC residents might be able to keep handguns and long arms in their homes or
apartments, but other than that there will be no measurable change to the American legal world - vis a vis firearms - after the ruling comes down.
To quote Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, "The suspense is terrible! I hope it will last."