"My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day's work for an honest day's pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police."Anybody really believe that American wouldn't be a better place if we all thought like this? Instead we have a nation of disability scammers and assorted layabouts; a nation of borrowers, buying ephemeral pleasures today while impoverishing our children and our children's children; a nation of defaulters; a nation of scofflaws.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Thatcher on the Good Life and How to Live It
What Thatcher knew, what Reagan knew,what the Regular Guy's dad knew, and what all common-sensical regular guys through time immemorial have known, is that living a good life isn't rocket science. Here's how Margaret Thatcher described it:
Girl of the Day - Rose Leslie
After a small role in Downton Abbey, Rose Leslie is about to play a much bigger role as Jon Snow's love interest, Ygritte, in the third season of Game of Thrones. A welcome addition. Here she is in her costume (north of the Wall, where apparently winter is coming).
And here she is in civvies.
And here she is in civvies.
Newspapers = Buggy Whips
This graph tells you about all you need to know about the collapse of the newspaper industry. A promise (not a prediction)... in ten years you'll have to explain to children what a newspaper was, just as now you have to explain what a "typewriter" was, or a "record." God forbid if you have to explain what a "book" was.
The Virtual President
My dad used to say, in response to foreign policy issues, that the appropriate American position was to announce very clearly that if X happened, Y (fill in the blank of the capital city of the country who does X) would "be no more." Not as a threat, just a statement of fact.
Grandpa Dick would love Bill Whittle here, talking about what he would do as the "Virtual President" about North Korea's threats:
Grandpa Dick would love Bill Whittle here, talking about what he would do as the "Virtual President" about North Korea's threats:
The Insanity of North Korea and the Genius of Reagan
North Korea is utterly impoverished in the way only a hard-line Stalinist communist country can be impoverished. They can't feed their own people, but they can develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. There is a certain bias, I fear, in our estimations of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un. We see him as comic, as a buffoon, laughably threatening to launch nuclear weapons.
Well, maybe. But people with nothing lose and leaders with death wishes scare the crap out of me. Is this headline real?
North Korea to 'launch missile TOMORROW' after warning foreigners to evacuate South
We can't afford to pretend that it isn't.
And that's why these paragraphs are both reassuring and instructive:
Good thing he didn't listen to them, isn't it? Insane leaders in rogue nations with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles is exactly the scenario the missile shield envisioned by Reagan was designed to defend against. We take it for granted now.
Just one more item on the long list of things liberals were wrong about. Are they ever right?
Well, maybe. But people with nothing lose and leaders with death wishes scare the crap out of me. Is this headline real?
North Korea to 'launch missile TOMORROW' after warning foreigners to evacuate South
We can't afford to pretend that it isn't.
And that's why these paragraphs are both reassuring and instructive:
Japan today deployed missile-defense systems at three sites around Tokyo ahead of the possible missile launch, officials confirmed.
The country's defense minister has also reportedly put destroyers with missile interception systems on alert in the Sea of Japan.
"As North Korea keeps making provocative comments, Japan, co-operating with relevant countries, will do what we have to do," Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said today.
"The government is making utmost efforts to protect our people’s lives and ensure their safety," he added.
Japan’s armed forces are authorised to shoot down any North Korean missile headed towards its territory, a defence ministry spokesman said.Remember when liberals ridiculed President Reagan thirty years ago for putting in motion the program to develop anti-ballistic missile systems? They called it "Star Wars," and pushed the story that Reagan was an idiot to believe that we could ever be in a position to shoot missiles out of the sky.
Good thing he didn't listen to them, isn't it? Insane leaders in rogue nations with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles is exactly the scenario the missile shield envisioned by Reagan was designed to defend against. We take it for granted now.
Just one more item on the long list of things liberals were wrong about. Are they ever right?
Monday, April 8, 2013
Bonus Girl of the Day - Linda Cardellini (Mad Men)
She joined the cast of Mad Men last night as Don Draper's mysterious new lover, Sylvia Rosen, the wife of Don's new friend, Dr. Rosen, a heart surgeon who lives in Don's building. Her character, though only onscreen for a little while, looks very interesting, which is more than I can say about the rest of last night's season premiere. Frankly, the show is getting a little bit boring... successful grown men don't really agonize this much about their identities or mortality. I can't help thinking that Don Draper is a bit of a ninny that way.
Anyway, welcome to Linda Cardellini:
By the way, you know how I know Don Draper's a pussy? He spends almost no time with his son. Now, I'm willing to grant that the creator of the series, Matthew Weiner, probably figured out early on that the actor they hired to play the boy wasn't any good, so they didn't focus on him, and instead focused on the Drapers' daughter, who is a really interesting (and increasingly nasty) teenager. That being said, anyone who is a real father of a real son will tell you that real men don't just bail on their sons. For real men, your son is unbelievably important to your sense of your self. The fact that Don almost never mentions him... although the kid would be in prime Little League years by now... just shows what a wuss he is.
Anyway, welcome to Linda Cardellini:
By the way, you know how I know Don Draper's a pussy? He spends almost no time with his son. Now, I'm willing to grant that the creator of the series, Matthew Weiner, probably figured out early on that the actor they hired to play the boy wasn't any good, so they didn't focus on him, and instead focused on the Drapers' daughter, who is a really interesting (and increasingly nasty) teenager. That being said, anyone who is a real father of a real son will tell you that real men don't just bail on their sons. For real men, your son is unbelievably important to your sense of your self. The fact that Don almost never mentions him... although the kid would be in prime Little League years by now... just shows what a wuss he is.
More on Thatcher
Good piece in the WSJ:
Thatcher came to power when Britain and the West were in every kind of crisis: social, economic, moral and strategic. Along with Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, she showed the world the way out. She believed in the inherent right of free men to craft their own destinies, and in the capacity of free nations to resist and overcome every kind of tyranny and injustice.
These were the right beliefs then as now. She was the right woman at the right time.
It's the Stupidity, Stupid!
This slide from an Army Reserve training seminar on dangerous extremist groups has been getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere.
It would be easy to lambaste the political correct liberal mindset that could put evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Mormons in the same chart with Al Qaeda, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. But what strikes me here is the simply stupidity of whomever put this slide together. First, there are the misspellings -- Morman, not Mormon, and al Quaeda, not al Qaeda. But beyond that is the sheer lack of connection to the real world and how descriptive words are supposed to reflect things that exist in the real world. The entire chart is supposedly describing examples of religious "extremism," but if you add up the various religions -- Catholicism, evangelical Christianity, Islam (noting that Sunnis represent 80-90% of Muslims worldwide) -- you have this moron labelling as "extremist" more than half of the people in the world!
Not very useful, to say the least.
What really worries me is this is the kind of thinking that passes for insight among the supposed "elites" who do things like "consulting" on "diversity" with bureaucracies like the Army.
It would be easy to lambaste the political correct liberal mindset that could put evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Mormons in the same chart with Al Qaeda, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. But what strikes me here is the simply stupidity of whomever put this slide together. First, there are the misspellings -- Morman, not Mormon, and al Quaeda, not al Qaeda. But beyond that is the sheer lack of connection to the real world and how descriptive words are supposed to reflect things that exist in the real world. The entire chart is supposedly describing examples of religious "extremism," but if you add up the various religions -- Catholicism, evangelical Christianity, Islam (noting that Sunnis represent 80-90% of Muslims worldwide) -- you have this moron labelling as "extremist" more than half of the people in the world!
Not very useful, to say the least.
What really worries me is this is the kind of thinking that passes for insight among the supposed "elites" who do things like "consulting" on "diversity" with bureaucracies like the Army.
Lady of the Day - Iron Variety
Taking a day off from the cheesecake to focus on a woman who, along with Ronald Reagan, changed the world in the 1980s, Lady Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, who died yesterday. Here she is, speaking on socialism:
Sadly, the lessons of peace through strength and prosperity through freedom taught by Thatcher and Reagan have been lost, only a generation later. They must be re-learned, and soon.
Friday, April 5, 2013
They Call it the Newman Center for a Reason
John Henry Cardinal Newman -- emphasis on the Cardinal -- was a Catholic leader of the 19th century who authored, among other works, The Idea of the University. He was the inspiration for the creation of hundreds of Newman Centers around the world, which provide Catholic campus ministries for Catholic students at secular universities.
Well, one of those universities is George Washington University in Washington, DC, and its Catholic priest is under fire from one of his ex-alter servers for having the audacity to have offered the student guidance about his homosexuality derived from standard Catholic doctrine as defined by the catechism, namely, that he should remain celibate rather than succumb to temptations. The student essentially objects to a Catholic priest being Catholic and preaching Catholicism, as Paul Rahe reports:
Hopefully the university authorities will understand it as such and tell the young men in no uncertain terms (a) they call if the Newman Center for a reason, because it's Catholic; (b) you knew or should have known that a Catholic center would support Catholic doctrine; (c) if you don't like it, don't go; and (d) grow up.
Well, one of those universities is George Washington University in Washington, DC, and its Catholic priest is under fire from one of his ex-alter servers for having the audacity to have offered the student guidance about his homosexuality derived from standard Catholic doctrine as defined by the catechism, namely, that he should remain celibate rather than succumb to temptations. The student essentially objects to a Catholic priest being Catholic and preaching Catholicism, as Paul Rahe reports:
The priest in question, who has served as the GW Catholic chaplain for the last five years, is purportedly guilty of the unforgivable crime of upholding the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. That, at least, is the charge being lodged by Damian Legacy and Blake Bergen. They "say they have left the Newman Center in the last several years because Father Greg Shaffer’s strong anti-gay and anti-abortion views are too polarizing," and they "plan to file a formal complaint with the University and hold prayer vigils outside the Newman Center until Shaffer is removed."...
According to Legacy, who was apparently at one time a regular mass-goer at the chaplaincy, what Father Shaffer does, in fact, is to advise "students who are attracted to members of the same sex to remain celibate for the rest of their lives." Shaffer also reportedly counsels students against abortion, and I would be willing to bet that he advises those who are heterosexually inclined to refrain from sex until they are married.
It will be exceedingly interesting to see what happens at GW.... If things keep drifting in the direction in which they are rapidly drifting now, Catholics and other Christians and Jews who adhere to the traditional Judeo-Christian moral teaching are going to be marginalized, then persecuted. I foresee a day when the tax-exempt status of the Roman Catholic Church will be yanked because it resolutely refuses to ordain women, because it condemns abortion as murder, and because it refuses to condone sex outside a marriage open to procreation. I foresee a day when priests will be fined or imprisoned for articulating in sermons and counseling sessions the teaching of the Church. I foresee a day when similar punishment will be visited on Protestants and Jews who assert the traditional teaching of their faiths.The "idea" of a university today is much different than it was in Newman's time. Today, too often, the purpose of a university is to indoctrinate young people in the liberal creed, and to "deprogram" them from their traditional beliefs. But I hope Rahe is wrong, and I believe in any event is overstating the danger, at least for now. Common sense suggests that these are relatively silly young persons, not for being gay, but just silly in the way young people often are, imagining in their youthful narcissism that any impediment to their self-approbation is wrong and must be silenced.
Hopefully the university authorities will understand it as such and tell the young men in no uncertain terms (a) they call if the Newman Center for a reason, because it's Catholic; (b) you knew or should have known that a Catholic center would support Catholic doctrine; (c) if you don't like it, don't go; and (d) grow up.
It's Come to This
A federal judge has lifted the FDA's requirement that girls under 17 have a prescription and parental consent to receive the "morning after" birth control pill.
Really? I won't be the first to note this, I'm sure, but girls who are 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 can't do a lot of things without parental permission. In many schools, for instance, the school nurse won't give a middle-school girl a Tylenol without calling the parent first. Girls need permission slips to go on field trips, or to play sports, or to go on overnight retreats. (Boys do too, of course.) But this federal judge thinks it's OK to have no restrictions on girls obtaining strong medicine (whether you consider it an abortifacient or not), over the counter, without the input of their parents or the direction of a physician.
Sheesh! Is the "right" to kill your baby really so sacred that we have to ignore all normal common sense?
Really? I won't be the first to note this, I'm sure, but girls who are 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 can't do a lot of things without parental permission. In many schools, for instance, the school nurse won't give a middle-school girl a Tylenol without calling the parent first. Girls need permission slips to go on field trips, or to play sports, or to go on overnight retreats. (Boys do too, of course.) But this federal judge thinks it's OK to have no restrictions on girls obtaining strong medicine (whether you consider it an abortifacient or not), over the counter, without the input of their parents or the direction of a physician.
Sheesh! Is the "right" to kill your baby really so sacred that we have to ignore all normal common sense?
It's Almost Recovery Summer Time.... Not!
Today's jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is dismal:
We are stagnating after four years of massive Keynesian stimulus. Time to try something new.
- Nonfarm payroll employment edged up in March (+88,000)
- Unemployment rate was little changed at 7.6 percent
- The civilian labor force declined by 496,000 over the month
- The labor force participation rate decreased by 0.2 percentage point to 63.3 percent.
We are stagnating after four years of massive Keynesian stimulus. Time to try something new.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Global Warming Falls Apart
The Economist has an article up that all but acknowledges that global warming has been a delusion, if not a hoax, although the writer tries mightily not to admit it. Here's the lede paragraphs:
Wait a minute... isn't the point of science to propose theories that predict phenomena? If actual data seems to be contradicting the model you've proposed -- and doing so almost immediately after the models were created (remember, climate science is relatively recent) -- shouldn't the model be questioned?
Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”OK. Stop there. Let's remember that the key cause-effect equation of the entire global warming theory is that increased carbon in the atmosphere causes warming in a linear relationship. More carbon equals more warming. That's why they've told us we have to engage in economic hari kiri to reduce carbon emissions. But if the equation isn't holding, isn't the correct response of a scientist to rethink the theory itself? But I digress. The article continues:
Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise.Exactly so. But the question is... what counts as a short period when you are talking about an earth and a sun that are billions of years old? Certainly fifteen years counts as a short period, but then doesn't a century or even a millenium count as a short period too in the grand scheme of things? It should, if scientists were being honest. Meanwhile:
Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.
Wait a minute... isn't the point of science to propose theories that predict phenomena? If actual data seems to be contradicting the model you've proposed -- and doing so almost immediately after the models were created (remember, climate science is relatively recent) -- shouldn't the model be questioned?
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.Wait another minute.... didn't you just tell me that temperatures fluctuate over short periods? But now you're asking me to believe that, despite the fact that the theory of global warming's predictions haven't been accurate over the past fifteen years, the fact that over a century the globe's temperature has allegedly risen by one whole degree means that the theory is not a delusion? OK, forget about the term "delusion." How about just "unproven hypothesis"?
The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.Or it might be, or it might be, or it might be... it might be that we simply don't understand the complex interactions with nearly infinite variables that make up the world's environment? So why do we act as though we do, with hysterical public policy demands?
Girl of the Day - Joy Williams
Joy Williams is the female half of the folk duo The Civil Wars. I had never heard of them before flipping by last Friday night to Austin City Limits, and seeing them. Fantastic!
I read that they have since broken up the act for "artistic differences." WTF? Is there some scenario where they can make better "art" apart than they can together? I don't see it. Once you grab lightning in a bottle, you shouldn't just willy-nilly let it out again.
I read that they have since broken up the act for "artistic differences." WTF? Is there some scenario where they can make better "art" apart than they can together? I don't see it. Once you grab lightning in a bottle, you shouldn't just willy-nilly let it out again.
Two Stories Where Reality Trumps Political Correctness
The brilliant college basketball player, Brittany Griner, played her last collegiate game over last weekend. She is a 6'8" center, and arguably the most dominant girls basketball player ever. Her dunks have been highlighted on Sports Center routinely.
Yesterday, Mark Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks (and a brilliant guy), suggested that his team might draft her in the second round to give her a chance to make the NBA. Today, Gino Auriemma, the coach of Connecticut's perenially-great women's basketball team, had this to say:
In a related story from the Marine Corps Times, here's a report from the front lines of the military's transition to women in combat roles. It's not hopeful:
Pretending that women are physically capable of playing in the NBA doesn't hurt anyone, and maybe it's good publicity for Cuban's Mavericks. But pretending that women are physically capable, except in extraordinary circumstances, of qualifying for infantry combat leadership positions might just hurt people.
Yesterday, Mark Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks (and a brilliant guy), suggested that his team might draft her in the second round to give her a chance to make the NBA. Today, Gino Auriemma, the coach of Connecticut's perenially-great women's basketball team, had this to say:
Auriemma said Wednesday that Cuban is a financial genius, but "his genius would take a huge hit if he drafted Brittney Griner.
"I think it would be a sham," he said. "The fact that a woman could actually play right now in the NBA and compete successfully against the level of play that they have is absolutely ludicrous."I like Cuban, but Auriemma is obviously right. Griner is a great player, maybe the greatest woman player ever when all is said and done, but she not only could not make an NBA team, she wouldn't be recruited to be the 12th player on the bench of any of the 200+ Division 1 NCAA men's programs. She's big enough, but she can't jump with NCAA men's players, can't run with them, can't out-muscle them, isn't as quick or (sorry to have to say) as skilled.
In a related story from the Marine Corps Times, here's a report from the front lines of the military's transition to women in combat roles. It's not hopeful:
The women failed the introductory Combat Endurance Test, a punishing test of physical strength and endurance, officials at Marine Corps headquarters said Tuesday. The latest class began March 28 at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., with 110 lieutenants participating. Ninety-six men passed the initial endurance test. Twelve men and two women — the only female Marines taking part — failed.Again, these may be tremendous female Marines who may also be tremendously fit... for women. But they lack the endurance and strength to pass the introductory fitness test for combat training. And, remember, these are officers, lieutenants, who would be platoon leaders in combat. They would be expected to be leaders of the men in their platoons. How could they do that if all of the men are stronger than they are, as they would be?
Pretending that women are physically capable of playing in the NBA doesn't hurt anyone, and maybe it's good publicity for Cuban's Mavericks. But pretending that women are physically capable, except in extraordinary circumstances, of qualifying for infantry combat leadership positions might just hurt people.
The Freudian Slip Presidency
There are many examples of President Obama's tendency to let his mask slip so that we can see the totalitarian mind underneath his democratic veneer. Here's another from yesterday:
Oh, and by the way:
I, I, I, I, me, me, me, me.
L'etat, c'est moi!
The president dismissed gun owners’ concerns that gun control legislation could be a stepping stone to gun confiscation in the U.S., saying “I am constrained by a system our founders put in place.”That's not how a President should talk about Constitutional guarantees of individual liberties in the Bill of Rights. What he ought to have said is, "Your rights to bear arms are protected by the Constitution, and I have sworn an oath to protect them." The rhetoric of "constraint" is negative, as if he is saying, "it would be great if I didn't have these pesky Constitutional constraints, but I do, so I can't do what I would like to do... confiscate your guns."
Oh, and by the way:
I, I, I, I, me, me, me, me.
L'etat, c'est moi!
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Obamacare Incompetence
Joe Klein, an old school liberal Democratic columnist for the nearly defunct Time magazine, today has penned an article which may be the beginning of the long walk-back of the Democratic Party from the looming disaster that is Obamacare. It's called "Obamacare Incompetence."
Here's the predicate. Recently the Obama Administration announced that it would not meet the law's deadline -- a key point here: the deadline is written into the actual law, and missing it is therefore, by definition, illegal -- for creating the insurance exchanges that are the centerpiece of the entire Rube Goldbert contraption! Here's what Klein has to say about this failure:
I would put it much differently, because I come at this from a different (and truer) perspective on the world. In my view, Obamacare will fail inevitably because it must fail, because attempts to organize economic activity as large as the one-sixth of the American economy represented by the American health care sector -- in other words, to create a socialist centrally-planned health care state economy that is bigger than the Soviet Union's or Communist China's entire economies when they tried to implement similar central planning -- are impossible. It's not just the incompetence of this particular administration; it's that the problems of administration posed by Obamacare are fundamentally not solvable.
But if liberals are starting to notice the incompetence of the Obama Administration, good. On our part, conservatives can say "I told you so," but not without some sadness, since what is happening is the decline and fall of the American civilization.
***
By the way, it's not just incompetence. It's also cynicism. The reason why the implementation of the exchanges must be postponed to 2015 is because there are elections in November 2014 that Obama wants to win. He's afraid that if the debacle is implemented in January 2014, the American people will rise up and give Republicans a huge victory in the midterms. If he can hide the ball from them until 2015, he hopes, he can then use a Democratic House and Senate to really turn America into his socialist dystopia.
Here's the predicate. Recently the Obama Administration announced that it would not meet the law's deadline -- a key point here: the deadline is written into the actual law, and missing it is therefore, by definition, illegal -- for creating the insurance exchanges that are the centerpiece of the entire Rube Goldbert contraption! Here's what Klein has to say about this failure:
Let me try to understand this: The key incentive for small businesses to support Obamacare was that they would be able to shop for the best deals in health care super-stores—called exchanges. The Administration has had 3 years to set up these exchanges. It has failed to do so.
This is a really bad sign. There will be those who argue that it’s not the Administration’s fault. It’s the fault of the 33 states that have refused to set up their own exchanges. Nonsense. Where was the contingency planning? There certainly are models, after all—the federal government’s own health benefits plan (FEHBP) operates markets that exist in all 50 states. So does Medicare Advantage. But now, the Obama Administration has announced that it won’t have the exchanges ready in time, that small businesses will be offered one choice for the time being—for a year, at least. No doubt, small business owners will be skeptical of the Obama Administration’s belief in the efficacy of the market system to produce lower prices through competition. That was supposed to be the point of this plan....
...we are now seeing weekly examples of this Administration’s inability to govern. Just a few weeks ago, I reported on the failure of the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration to come up with a unified electronic health care records system. There has also been the studied inattention to the myriad of ineffective job training programs scattered through the bureaucracy. There have been the oblique and belated efforts to reform Head Start, a $7 billion program that a study conducted by its own bureaucracy—the Department of Health and Human Services—has found nearly worthless. The list is endless.
...as a Democrat—as someone who believes in activist government—he has a vested interest in seeing that federal programs actually work efficiently. I don’t see much evidence that this is anywhere near the top of his priorities.
One thing is clear: Obamacare will fail if he doesn’t start paying more attention to the details of implementation, if he doesn’t start demanding action. And, in a larger sense, the notion of activist government will be in peril—despite the demographics flowing the Democrats’ way—if institutions like the VA and Obamacare don’t deliver the goods.
I would put it much differently, because I come at this from a different (and truer) perspective on the world. In my view, Obamacare will fail inevitably because it must fail, because attempts to organize economic activity as large as the one-sixth of the American economy represented by the American health care sector -- in other words, to create a socialist centrally-planned health care state economy that is bigger than the Soviet Union's or Communist China's entire economies when they tried to implement similar central planning -- are impossible. It's not just the incompetence of this particular administration; it's that the problems of administration posed by Obamacare are fundamentally not solvable.
But if liberals are starting to notice the incompetence of the Obama Administration, good. On our part, conservatives can say "I told you so," but not without some sadness, since what is happening is the decline and fall of the American civilization.
***
By the way, it's not just incompetence. It's also cynicism. The reason why the implementation of the exchanges must be postponed to 2015 is because there are elections in November 2014 that Obama wants to win. He's afraid that if the debacle is implemented in January 2014, the American people will rise up and give Republicans a huge victory in the midterms. If he can hide the ball from them until 2015, he hopes, he can then use a Democratic House and Senate to really turn America into his socialist dystopia.
Girl of the Day - Natalie Zea
The Justified season finale was last night, which ends one of the RG's favorite shows just in time to start two more this week (Game of Thrones and Mad Men). It looks like Raylan Givens will be getting back with his wife next season, played by Natalie Zea, who was great in the finale, showing that Raylan isn't the only one in the family who can shoot first and ask questions later:
Coach Yells at Players, Alert the Media
The basketball coach at Rutgers has been fired today because he had the bad luck to have been caught on camera yelling at his players, pushing them, throwing basketballs at them, and, probably the worse offense, calling them politically-incorrect names that implied that they were gay (you know what I'm talking about). Here's the ESPN video:
Well. That certainly isn't ideal. But I also don't think it's the most horrible thing ever. People act like what this guy is doing is akin to Gerry Sandusky or some other child molester. It isn't. It probably is far out on the left side of the bell curve of coaching behavior, but it differs in degree, not in kind, from the kind of verbal and physical abuse/motivation that coaches routinely use with players. Remember: these are not little boys, they are men, who could just as easily be in boot camp at their age. They are on scholarship at Rutgers. It's a voluntary activity. So a coach speaking roughly to them or challenging their manhood isn't really that far out of the ordinary. Did he go too far? Probably. But I also guarantee you that if he had a good record over the past three years (they were just under .500 all three years), and if he had won the Big East or made the NCAA tournament, they would have found a way to defend his conduct as tough love that motivated his team to achieve.
Oh, and by the way... an enterprising reporter would ask if Rutgers had a buyout clause in the coach's contract where they had to pay him millions if he were fired for poor performance, but didn't have to pay if he were fired for personal conduct.
Well. That certainly isn't ideal. But I also don't think it's the most horrible thing ever. People act like what this guy is doing is akin to Gerry Sandusky or some other child molester. It isn't. It probably is far out on the left side of the bell curve of coaching behavior, but it differs in degree, not in kind, from the kind of verbal and physical abuse/motivation that coaches routinely use with players. Remember: these are not little boys, they are men, who could just as easily be in boot camp at their age. They are on scholarship at Rutgers. It's a voluntary activity. So a coach speaking roughly to them or challenging their manhood isn't really that far out of the ordinary. Did he go too far? Probably. But I also guarantee you that if he had a good record over the past three years (they were just under .500 all three years), and if he had won the Big East or made the NCAA tournament, they would have found a way to defend his conduct as tough love that motivated his team to achieve.
Oh, and by the way... an enterprising reporter would ask if Rutgers had a buyout clause in the coach's contract where they had to pay him millions if he were fired for poor performance, but didn't have to pay if he were fired for personal conduct.
Confused Answers to Easy Questions
Here is a video of a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman being unable to answer the question of what should happen if a baby is born alive in an abortion clinic:
Look, I'm pro-Life. I don't think what happens in the usual circumstances in abortion clinics is moral to begin with. But it seems to me that, if we can't agree that a LIVE HUMAN BABY should not be killed, but that "medical professionals" should, consistent with their Hippocratic oaths, be required to try to save the child, then we're lost. I guarantee you that this woman would look with horror if a new mother took her baby home from a hospital in a car without benefit of a child car seat; or if a neighbor allowed her small children to ride their tiny bicycles without state-approved helmets; or if a pregnant woman at the table next to her at a restaurant were drinking or (God forbid) smoking. But apparently killing the baby is OK, so long as it happens within the Temple of Human Sacrifice that is the modern Planned Parenthood.
Moreover, if Planned Parenthood doesn't acknowledge that there's a difference between a live baby outside the womb and, say, a third-trimester baby inside the womb, why exactly should we treat aborting a third-trimester baby any differently than we treat murdering a baby? Yet one is essentially applauded in "polite" liberal society as a sacrament of the religion of feminism, while the other is a prosecutable offense (see Gosnell, Kermit).
Look, I'm pro-Life. I don't think what happens in the usual circumstances in abortion clinics is moral to begin with. But it seems to me that, if we can't agree that a LIVE HUMAN BABY should not be killed, but that "medical professionals" should, consistent with their Hippocratic oaths, be required to try to save the child, then we're lost. I guarantee you that this woman would look with horror if a new mother took her baby home from a hospital in a car without benefit of a child car seat; or if a neighbor allowed her small children to ride their tiny bicycles without state-approved helmets; or if a pregnant woman at the table next to her at a restaurant were drinking or (God forbid) smoking. But apparently killing the baby is OK, so long as it happens within the Temple of Human Sacrifice that is the modern Planned Parenthood.
Moreover, if Planned Parenthood doesn't acknowledge that there's a difference between a live baby outside the womb and, say, a third-trimester baby inside the womb, why exactly should we treat aborting a third-trimester baby any differently than we treat murdering a baby? Yet one is essentially applauded in "polite" liberal society as a sacrament of the religion of feminism, while the other is a prosecutable offense (see Gosnell, Kermit).
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Pope Francis' Easter Message
A message of joy:
What a joy it is for me to announce this message: Christ is risen! I would like it to go out to every house and every family, especially where the suffering is greatest, in hospitals, in prisons.
Most of all, I would like it to enter every heart, for it is there that God wants to sow this Good News: Jesus is risen, there is hope for you, you are no longer in the power of sin, of evil! Love has triumphed, mercy has been victorious! The mercy of God always triumphs!
We too, like the women who were Jesus' disciples, who went to the tomb and found it empty, may wonder what this event means. What does it mean that Jesus is risen? It means that the love of God is stronger than evil and death itself; it means that the love of God can transform our lives and let those desert places in our hearts bloom. The love of God can do this!Happy Easter!
Girl of the Day - Shirley Jones
In her early 20s, Shirley Jones starred back to back in two of the greatest movie musicals, Rodgers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma (1955) and Carousel (1956), both with Gordon MacRae. Here is their great duet from Carousel, "If I Love You":
She turns 79 today. Tempus fugit, as ever.
She turns 79 today. Tempus fugit, as ever.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
But Catholics Are Anti-Gay
Here's a headline you don't see every day in America:
New York Muslim Calls For Sharia Law In America, Beheading Gays
But Catholics are routinely chastised for being anti-gay.
Oh, by the way, here is the portion of the Catholic Catechism that discusses how the Church responds to homosexuals:
Not exactly equivalent to urging that gays be beheaded. But don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to call out Muslims for their virulent homophobia, while Catholics, whose religion preaches "respect, compassion and sensitivity" toward gays, are routinely subjected to criticism.
New York Muslim Calls For Sharia Law In America, Beheading Gays
But Catholics are routinely chastised for being anti-gay.
Oh, by the way, here is the portion of the Catholic Catechism that discusses how the Church responds to homosexuals:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Not exactly equivalent to urging that gays be beheaded. But don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to call out Muslims for their virulent homophobia, while Catholics, whose religion preaches "respect, compassion and sensitivity" toward gays, are routinely subjected to criticism.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Pope Francis on the Washing of Feet
Pope Francis went to a juvenile detention facility on Holy Thursday. Tradition was that the Pope washed the feet of 12 priests in St. Peter's Basilica. Not this Pope. He washed the feet of 12 incarcerated children, boys and girls. Here's what he had to say. It's not dissimilar to what thousands of parish priests were doing and saying all over the world, but the Pope obviously lends the message gravitas, and a twist -- all of the church, he is saying, even the Pope, is at the service of the lowliest, just as Christ was at the service of the lowliest, the poor, the weak:
“This is moving, Jesus washes the feet of his disciples. Peter understands nothing. He refuses but Jesus explains to him. Jesus, God did this, and He Himself explains it to the disciples.. ‘Do you realize what I have done for you? You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do’.
It is the example set by Our Lord, it’s important for Him to wash their feet, because among us the one who is highest up must be at the service of others. This is a symbol, it is a sign – washing your feet means I am at your service. And we are too, among each other, but we don’t have to wash each other’s feet each day. So what does this mean? That we have to help each other…sometimes I would get angry with one someone, but we must let it go and if they ask a favor of do it!
Help one another. This is what Jesus teaches us. This is what I do. And I do it with my heart. I do this with my heart because it is my duty, as a priest and bishop I must be at your service. But it is a duty that comes from my heart and a duty I love. I love doing it because this is what the Lord has taught me. But you too must help us and help each other, always. And thus in helping each other we will do good for each other.
Now we will perform the ceremony of the Washing of the Feet and we must each one of us think, Am I really willing to help others? Just think of that. Think that this sign is Christ’s caress, because Jesus came just for this, to serve us, to help us”.
By the way, it is not that big a deal, although the MSM appear to think it is, that Pope Francis washed the feet of two women. Yes, the Pope has traditionally washed the feet of 12 men (priests) on Holy Thursday, because the rite is repeating the act of Christ at the Last Supper in washing the feet of his 12 disciples, all of whom were men. But parish priests all around the world wash the feet of women on Holy Thursday, and have done so for a long time. Last night at our parish our priest very lovingly knelt and washed the feet of 12 parishioners, men, women, boys, girls. It's a lovely and moving ritual that permits us to experience Christ's love as we begin the great Triduum.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Polls and Public Policy
We are asked to join in the acclamation for approving gay marriage because, we are told, recent polls show the country swinging toward a small majority in support of the proposition:
Meanwhile, here's a recent poll that shows that 85% of Americans think the federal government should balance its budget.
Since we apparently agree that whatever the most recent polls of a fickle population say at any given moment should drive our public policy, can we get started on that balanced budget now?
Supporters of gay marriage again and again cite the shifting polls, as if they are relevant to a deliberation over whether gay marriage is mandated by the Constitution. On “Morning Joe,” former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt, a signatory on a Republican pro-gay marriage brief, said he thought the Court would recognize the “importance of this moment.” He confidently predicted that gay marriage would pass in an initiative held in California in a presidential election year. Can’t we wait to have the court impose gay marriage until we’re certain an initiative would pass in an off-year election, too?
His former McCain campaign colleague and fellow signatory Nicolle Wallace appeared on “Fox News Sunday” and made the same case. “More than 60 percent of all Americans, everyone, supports marriage equality,” she said. Wallace was apparently referring to a ABC News/Washington Post poll that showed 58 percent support for gay marriage, which technically is not more, but less than 60 percent. (At least I think that’s what Nate Silver would say.)
This happens to be the best result in any of the recent polls for gay marriage. So Nicole Wallace evidently believes the court should be swayed not just by opinion polls, but by outlier opinion polls. Her point would have been considerably attenuated if she had said, “The most recent Pew poll has 49-44 percent favor gay marriage and the Fox poll 49-46 percent support, slim pluralities that mean … the court … must… act… now.”
Meanwhile, here's a recent poll that shows that 85% of Americans think the federal government should balance its budget.
Since we apparently agree that whatever the most recent polls of a fickle population say at any given moment should drive our public policy, can we get started on that balanced budget now?
Girl of the Day - Julia Stiles
After making a nice transition from playing high school girls to adult roles, Julia Stiles was great in Dexter two seasons ago. I hope she comes back in the series final year, next year.
She turns 32 today.
She turns 32 today.
Cyprus - a mini-update
This jumped out at me from a story on the Cyprus banking crisis:
And what that tells me is that the banks in Cyprus are likely involved in massive money-laundering for nefarious interests in the Middle East and Russia.
I'm just sayin'. This could get ugly and strange (but mostly ugly).
With just 860,000 people, Cyprus has around 68bn euros (£57bn) in its banks.
This outsized financial system attracted deposits from foreigners but has struggled since investments in neighbouring Greece went sour.A little quick math and conversion from pounds to dollars tells me that the banks in Cyprus have deposits equal to $100,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. That's far more than the actual economic activity in Cyprus would suggest.
And what that tells me is that the banks in Cyprus are likely involved in massive money-laundering for nefarious interests in the Middle East and Russia.
I'm just sayin'. This could get ugly and strange (but mostly ugly).
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
One More Thing Re SSM
Same sex marriage isn't something that I care that much about. I tend to think that America is decadent in so many ways that one more thing isn't that big a deal to me. I also tend to be pretty libertarian and generally don't much care what people do in their personal lives, although I also don't like to be called a bigot if I have the opinion that what you do is gross or morally wrong. I don't want to make it illegal and I don't want to discriminate against you because of it, I just don't want to be called names if I don't applaud you for doing it. That goes whether your gay or straight. For instance, I suspect that I would have a significantly greater moral disapproval toward either (a) a man who impregnates a woman and then abandons her to raise their child as a single parent; or (b) a man who cheats on his wife and divorces her to marry another woman; than I would (c) two gay men living together in a committed relationship they choose to call "marriage."
That being said,one aspect of the whole argument over SSM that irks me is the way our culture tends to be swayed by the fact that young Americans seem to be in favor of gay marriage. We've seen poll after poll showing that young Americans think gay marriage is A-OK.
Well, frankly, who gives a crap what the least responsible segment of the population thinks? Does anyone really want college-age kids and twenty-somethings giving you advice about fundamental questions of organizing a civilization?
Beyond that, it's been my experience personally and in my observations of others that people tend to grow more conservative on social and economic issues as they get older and, dare I say it, wiser.
Young people who are radical today will feel differently in a decade when they have a job, a paycheck, a tax accountant, a 401k, a mortgage, a home equity line, a car loan, a wife, kids, a dog, a neighborhood school, etc. So why act like what they think now when they are at their most conformist moment in their lives, where they really really really care what their peer groups on Facebook think of them, matters so much?
That being said,one aspect of the whole argument over SSM that irks me is the way our culture tends to be swayed by the fact that young Americans seem to be in favor of gay marriage. We've seen poll after poll showing that young Americans think gay marriage is A-OK.
Well, frankly, who gives a crap what the least responsible segment of the population thinks? Does anyone really want college-age kids and twenty-somethings giving you advice about fundamental questions of organizing a civilization?
Beyond that, it's been my experience personally and in my observations of others that people tend to grow more conservative on social and economic issues as they get older and, dare I say it, wiser.
Young people who are radical today will feel differently in a decade when they have a job, a paycheck, a tax accountant, a 401k, a mortgage, a home equity line, a car loan, a wife, kids, a dog, a neighborhood school, etc. So why act like what they think now when they are at their most conformist moment in their lives, where they really really really care what their peer groups on Facebook think of them, matters so much?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)