Personally, I am sick of debates.
Debates mean nothing. They are highly artificial and stylized dog and pony shows that pass for real and reasoned argument. They pander to our love of competition and the media's desire for a quick, witty, or dumb sound bite.
Debates emphasize shallowness over substance. How does a person quickly and smartly answer a question? Does this really have anything to do with a man or woman's capacity for leadership? Does it tell us anything about whether or not these people can make sound decisions at crucial times? No. So why even watch them? Why even hold them?
A better format would be to put the candidates into enclosed rooms and hand them questions. By themselves, with no assistance from staff, they should formulate their answers. Then the debate should be their defense of, and questions about, the answers from the other candidates. This encourages judgment and reason over glibness and might even give us some real insight into their principles and ideas.
Of course there will be fewer gaffes, fewer mistakes, and less overall silliness. Or maybe more, actually, because the candidates have to answer on their own without help. In any event, they would be a vast improvement over what we do now.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
"I Have Serious Concerns About the Level of Spending"
This was not John Boehner, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter. This was freshman West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin's take on the proposed $450 billion in new stimulus spending. It is also bad news, because Manchin has become a bell cow for the moderate Democrats in terms of Obama proposals.
Obama proposed vast sums for infrastructure improvement, payroll tax cuts, and other measures designed to prime the economic pump. But most remain wary because he promised this before. To be honest, had he actually spent the last stimulus on the "shovel ready" jobs that he claimed it was for, that might have actually worked and benefited communities at the same time. Instead, it went to groups that supported Obama and bureaucrats.
Obama's proposals were promised serious merit by Speaker Boehner, and Obama must be prepared to see House Republicans and Senate Democrats tinker and hash over his ideas. Republicans will likely push to divert money from other areas to cover the bill as much as possible. I would not be surprised to see Postal Service relief become part of this measure at the end of the day, although that needs to come with serious changes, if not complete privatization.
Of course, Obama would not be Obama without moments of condescension, as when he lectured everyone that they had to "step their game up," whatever that means. It is not the private sector that he needs to lecture. If government would remove the weights and shackles from our private sector, particularly energy production, we could compete much more effectively in the game of commerce and manufacturing. We still wait to hear him propose total relief from the regulations that his administration is using to strangle our economy.
Obama proposed vast sums for infrastructure improvement, payroll tax cuts, and other measures designed to prime the economic pump. But most remain wary because he promised this before. To be honest, had he actually spent the last stimulus on the "shovel ready" jobs that he claimed it was for, that might have actually worked and benefited communities at the same time. Instead, it went to groups that supported Obama and bureaucrats.
Obama's proposals were promised serious merit by Speaker Boehner, and Obama must be prepared to see House Republicans and Senate Democrats tinker and hash over his ideas. Republicans will likely push to divert money from other areas to cover the bill as much as possible. I would not be surprised to see Postal Service relief become part of this measure at the end of the day, although that needs to come with serious changes, if not complete privatization.
Of course, Obama would not be Obama without moments of condescension, as when he lectured everyone that they had to "step their game up," whatever that means. It is not the private sector that he needs to lecture. If government would remove the weights and shackles from our private sector, particularly energy production, we could compete much more effectively in the game of commerce and manufacturing. We still wait to hear him propose total relief from the regulations that his administration is using to strangle our economy.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
What Have We Lost?
Adam Smith describes the capital of a country in terms of its labor, land, structures, and productive capacity. Countries that can enhance production by necessity enhance their capital.
In the 1930s and thereafter, the federal government introduced programs to keep food prices at a certain level. Milk, orange juice, and a wide variety of other products are priced higher than they should be. One of the programs that keeps prices for the American consumer high is that which pays farmers to not produce.
The Conservation Reserve Program pays farmers rent to do nothing with their land. It costs $2 billion, at least as of 2005, and accounts for 8% of all farm subsidies. The program started as erosion control and ended up as price support.
Here is the question. How negative of an impact does this program produce? By paying farmers to not farm, we place a triple burden on the private sector. First, we use taxpayer money to prevent production and keep prices high. Second, where land is not productive, farmers do not purchase tools, fertilizer, or other agricultural necessities. They also do not employ labor. So the private sector is triply impacted by this program that harms everyone except farmers that want to live off of rent and not their own sweat. To be fair, commercial farmers face more obstacles now than ever before, including a proposed EPA regulation against dust that could wipe many out.
However, we should not be paying anyone to not work. We would be better off buying the produce and throwing it into the ocean than paying people to not work.
In the 1930s and thereafter, the federal government introduced programs to keep food prices at a certain level. Milk, orange juice, and a wide variety of other products are priced higher than they should be. One of the programs that keeps prices for the American consumer high is that which pays farmers to not produce.
The Conservation Reserve Program pays farmers rent to do nothing with their land. It costs $2 billion, at least as of 2005, and accounts for 8% of all farm subsidies. The program started as erosion control and ended up as price support.
Here is the question. How negative of an impact does this program produce? By paying farmers to not farm, we place a triple burden on the private sector. First, we use taxpayer money to prevent production and keep prices high. Second, where land is not productive, farmers do not purchase tools, fertilizer, or other agricultural necessities. They also do not employ labor. So the private sector is triply impacted by this program that harms everyone except farmers that want to live off of rent and not their own sweat. To be fair, commercial farmers face more obstacles now than ever before, including a proposed EPA regulation against dust that could wipe many out.
However, we should not be paying anyone to not work. We would be better off buying the produce and throwing it into the ocean than paying people to not work.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Could the Next Chief Executive to Take on Public Service Unions Be Obama?
Democrats gave the Wisconsin governor all the trouble he wanted last winter when he took on public sector unions. While service has remained the same, savings are up, and jobs were even preserved, unions still grumble about their reduced power. Now, the question will soon come up at the federal level.
The United States Postal Service is in crisis. Its debt soars while it faces obstacles to its desire to reduce costs. Politicians oppose cuts in service while unions have vowed to fight cuts in workforce tooth and nail. As a government business, it cannot expand into other fields. What is it to do?
Layoffs will happen. The Postal Service has substantially higher labor costs than FedEx and UPS, its main competitors and operations could completely cease in December unless something dramatic happens.
The long term answer lies in privatization. Free the postal service from its government shackles and allow competition in mail delivery. When entirely in the private sector, the Postal Service can explore other avenues of profitability that can support its task of mail delivery. It needs to find a digital enterprise to complement mail delivery and enhance customer service.
In the short term, a battle looms between the executive branch and postal worker unions. Obama has no choice but to go after the unions and reduce their power. This will end the Left's love affair with him, but would likely increase his popularity overall.
The United States Postal Service is in crisis. Its debt soars while it faces obstacles to its desire to reduce costs. Politicians oppose cuts in service while unions have vowed to fight cuts in workforce tooth and nail. As a government business, it cannot expand into other fields. What is it to do?
Layoffs will happen. The Postal Service has substantially higher labor costs than FedEx and UPS, its main competitors and operations could completely cease in December unless something dramatic happens.
The long term answer lies in privatization. Free the postal service from its government shackles and allow competition in mail delivery. When entirely in the private sector, the Postal Service can explore other avenues of profitability that can support its task of mail delivery. It needs to find a digital enterprise to complement mail delivery and enhance customer service.
In the short term, a battle looms between the executive branch and postal worker unions. Obama has no choice but to go after the unions and reduce their power. This will end the Left's love affair with him, but would likely increase his popularity overall.
Friday, September 2, 2011
McKinley Fights EPA Coal Ash Rule
Cheap energy, at one time, was part of our competitive advantage in manufacturing. Obama promised to make energy prices go up. He definitely kept that promise.
President Obama Admits: EPA Coal Ash Rule Among Costliest Regulations
08/31/11 President Obama Admits: EPA Coal Ash Rule Among Costliest Regulations
McKinley bill will save economy billions, protect jobs
Washington, D.C. – In a response letter from President Obama to Speaker of the House John Boehner, the president acknowledged that his EPA’s proposal to regulate coal ash as a hazardous material is one of the seven most costly regulations his entire administration has proposed. According to a June 2011 Veritas economic report the president’s estimate that the coal ash rule would cost the economy up to $1.5 billion annually is grossly underestimated. The report stated that the EPA’s hazardous designation would cost up to $110 billion over 20 years with estimated job losses ranging from 184,000 to 316,000.
“President Obama admits there is a great cost to Americans because of the EPA’s proposed regulation on coal ash,” McKinley said. “While his estimates are dramatically low, he agrees with those of us who has said this is one of the costliest proposed regulations by the EPA. The question comes down to this: will the president finally make the economy a priority by supporting this jobs bill, or will he forge ahead down a path that even he now acknowledges will cost the economy dearly?”
Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) introduced legislation that would prevent hundreds of dollars in increased electricity costs, stop hundreds of thousands of job losses, and strengthen and protect public health by blocking the EPA’s proposal and instead establish a state-based regulatory framework for coal ash. The bill would tighten the disposal and the management of coal ash and give states the control of the program as well as the ability to work with the EPA to ensure it is handled, stored and monitored properly. This legislation was passed through the full Energy and Commerce committee 35-12, with one-third of the committee’s Democrats crossing over to support it.
Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced Monday that McKinley’s legislation will receive a vote in the full House of Representatives this fall.
###
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The Tenth Anniversary of a Heinous Attack. What's Missing?
9/11 is fast approaching. It's hard to believe that ten years have passed since some unidentified group of people did something pretty bad. But we should forget the bad stuff and trade in our SUVs for a hybrid the size of a toaster oven.
Ludicrous? Yup. But that is the gist of the Obama Administration's plans for commemorating the tenth anniversary of the attacks on our nation. The word is out. Don't mention Al Quaeda. Focus on moving forward with the left wing agenda and emphasize the unity felt on the days after the attacks.
Not only is this ludicrous, but highly disrespectful. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt commemorating Pearl Harbor Day 1944 and leaving out the Japanese. Obama may have forgotten that America is still fighting. The enemy still wants to kills our soldiers and attack our cities if he can. How do you avoid mentioning the enemy on the day that he started the war? Where does this leave our soldiers in the national consciousness?
Obama wants to emphasize and bring back an unnatural unity. Unity such as in the days after 9/11 only happens after events of great trauma. None of our national wars received unconditional and unified support. Peaceful division is a symptom of a healthy society, not a sick one. Obama wants us all to unify behind his agenda. We need to stand up and remember 9/11 for what it was, a heinous and cowardly attack because of our liberty, not a "national day of service" as Obama prefers. Remember and cherish our freedoms. Remember those who sacrificed, both on that day and since. Some chose to fight for their country, others just went to work. This is why we remember 9/11.
Ludicrous? Yup. But that is the gist of the Obama Administration's plans for commemorating the tenth anniversary of the attacks on our nation. The word is out. Don't mention Al Quaeda. Focus on moving forward with the left wing agenda and emphasize the unity felt on the days after the attacks.
Not only is this ludicrous, but highly disrespectful. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt commemorating Pearl Harbor Day 1944 and leaving out the Japanese. Obama may have forgotten that America is still fighting. The enemy still wants to kills our soldiers and attack our cities if he can. How do you avoid mentioning the enemy on the day that he started the war? Where does this leave our soldiers in the national consciousness?
Obama wants to emphasize and bring back an unnatural unity. Unity such as in the days after 9/11 only happens after events of great trauma. None of our national wars received unconditional and unified support. Peaceful division is a symptom of a healthy society, not a sick one. Obama wants us all to unify behind his agenda. We need to stand up and remember 9/11 for what it was, a heinous and cowardly attack because of our liberty, not a "national day of service" as Obama prefers. Remember and cherish our freedoms. Remember those who sacrificed, both on that day and since. Some chose to fight for their country, others just went to work. This is why we remember 9/11.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
All Too Often, Education Stops At the Schoolhouse Doors
Education often finds itself barred from the schoolhouse. Certainly schools have books, computers, teachers, and other modes of transmitting information, but a complete education does not come from these alone. Education comes from discussion and debate of issues, ideas, and values. Schools are certainly okay with expressions of certain kinds of values and love to toss about the word "tolerance." However, tolerance, and education itself, end when the school slams the doors shut on ideas that it will not tolerate.
La Reina High School of Thousand Oaks, California joins the list of schools that have shut their eyes, ears, and minds to the concepts of natural rights, free markets, and other values held dear by Americans for centuries. One of the students at this religious school for girls wanted to open a Young Americans for Freedom club. She met all of the required criteria, but was told that her club was politically biased in nature. YAF clubs are not connected to any political party and only represent ideas long established in American tradition. How shocking that a school would reject a club that would enhance discussions of politics, economics, and society!
Their position on this matter is untenable because of the nature of one of the other clubs on campus. "The Green Team" is a club that promotes "eco-friendly" behavior and raising student awareness of environmental issues. If students want a green club, that should be fine. But let's not pretend that environmentalism is completely non partisan, but discussions of free markets and natural rights are too political.
La Reina High School plays the same old tune. Liberal causes get the welcome mat while those deemed conservative get shut out. It's not that anyone should force this private school to open this or that club. They should feel that it is part of their educational mission to permit these activities.
La Reina High School of Thousand Oaks, California joins the list of schools that have shut their eyes, ears, and minds to the concepts of natural rights, free markets, and other values held dear by Americans for centuries. One of the students at this religious school for girls wanted to open a Young Americans for Freedom club. She met all of the required criteria, but was told that her club was politically biased in nature. YAF clubs are not connected to any political party and only represent ideas long established in American tradition. How shocking that a school would reject a club that would enhance discussions of politics, economics, and society!
Their position on this matter is untenable because of the nature of one of the other clubs on campus. "The Green Team" is a club that promotes "eco-friendly" behavior and raising student awareness of environmental issues. If students want a green club, that should be fine. But let's not pretend that environmentalism is completely non partisan, but discussions of free markets and natural rights are too political.
La Reina High School plays the same old tune. Liberal causes get the welcome mat while those deemed conservative get shut out. It's not that anyone should force this private school to open this or that club. They should feel that it is part of their educational mission to permit these activities.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Michelle Obama or Marie Antoinette? Who Was More Out of Touch?
The American media for the most part has been hammering the president on his lack of, well, almost anything presidential. Comments from former supporters parallel the complaints of Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives in 2008. The president looks overwhelmed, incapable, and out of touch. But his worse public relations problem may be his wife.
First Ladies don't normally attract bipartisan scorn. Few complaints were aimed at Laura or Barbara Bush, who were models of grace and dignity. Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton attracted criticism because opponents saw them as too involved in their husbands' presidency.
Michelle Obama has not involved herself much in policy, but has not escaped controversy. Last week, Maureen Dowd wrote in her New York Times column that Obama dared not cut short his vacation at swanky Martha's Vineyard because it might anger Michelle. British newspapers have joined American conservatives in blasting her incessant and expensive vacations that drained the federal government of at least $10 million in the past year. Neither Obama seems to understand that vacationing and playing round after round of golf whole lecturing the country on sacrifice might lower their credibility a bit. George W. Bush got attacked for travel too, but mostly went to his own home in Texas to work.
The name that often pops up in relation to Michelle Obama has been Queen Marie Antoinette of France. As the popular story goes, a concerned citizen approached her at a party and asked her if she knew that the people had no bread. Her response of "let them eat cake" drew derision for years as a typical example of ignorant wealth. In reality, Marie Antoinette sympathized with the poor and constantly tried to learn more about their plight. When she said "let the eat cake," her hand gestured towards tens of pounds of uneaten cake that would go to waste otherwise.
Marie Antoinette had little knowledge, but overwhelming sympathy. Michelle Obama has mainly gone on vacation and condemned poor parents who feed their children cheap and fattening food over expensive, price supported, fresh fruits and vegetables. She will probably go down as one of the least liked First Ladies in history, a difficult feat indeed.
First Ladies don't normally attract bipartisan scorn. Few complaints were aimed at Laura or Barbara Bush, who were models of grace and dignity. Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton attracted criticism because opponents saw them as too involved in their husbands' presidency.
Michelle Obama has not involved herself much in policy, but has not escaped controversy. Last week, Maureen Dowd wrote in her New York Times column that Obama dared not cut short his vacation at swanky Martha's Vineyard because it might anger Michelle. British newspapers have joined American conservatives in blasting her incessant and expensive vacations that drained the federal government of at least $10 million in the past year. Neither Obama seems to understand that vacationing and playing round after round of golf whole lecturing the country on sacrifice might lower their credibility a bit. George W. Bush got attacked for travel too, but mostly went to his own home in Texas to work.
The name that often pops up in relation to Michelle Obama has been Queen Marie Antoinette of France. As the popular story goes, a concerned citizen approached her at a party and asked her if she knew that the people had no bread. Her response of "let them eat cake" drew derision for years as a typical example of ignorant wealth. In reality, Marie Antoinette sympathized with the poor and constantly tried to learn more about their plight. When she said "let the eat cake," her hand gestured towards tens of pounds of uneaten cake that would go to waste otherwise.
Marie Antoinette had little knowledge, but overwhelming sympathy. Michelle Obama has mainly gone on vacation and condemned poor parents who feed their children cheap and fattening food over expensive, price supported, fresh fruits and vegetables. She will probably go down as one of the least liked First Ladies in history, a difficult feat indeed.
Friday, August 26, 2011
David McKinley Fires Back At Michigan Congressman Who Seeks to Shut Down Coal
Rep. McKinley’s Statement on Rep. Conyers’ Out of Touch Claims on West Virginia’s Coal Industry
Washington, D.C. –Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) issued the following statement after Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) claimed from his limited understanding that “there is no such thing as clean coal,” during an Environmental Protection Agency conference. Conyers went a step further to disgrace West Virginians by calling for a shutdown of the coal industry.
"The comments made by Rep. Conyers are very disappointing,” said McKinley. “As lawmakers we should be encouraging job creation and expansion, not fighting to end American industries. West Virginia's lifeblood is coal, which means jobs for many hard working people throughout our state. As Americans are struggling to make ends meet and our nation is facing record high unemployment, I would encourage Rep. Conyers to focus his efforts on job creation and less on tearing down our industries in West Virginia."
Rep. McKinley is on the Energy and Commerce Committee as well as a member of the Congressional Coal Caucus. McKinley has also introduced and championed many pieces of pro-coal legislation in his short time in Congress.
Kudos also to Senator Joe Manchin for firing back int he strongest possible terms.
Washington, D.C. –Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) issued the following statement after Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) claimed from his limited understanding that “there is no such thing as clean coal,” during an Environmental Protection Agency conference. Conyers went a step further to disgrace West Virginians by calling for a shutdown of the coal industry.
"The comments made by Rep. Conyers are very disappointing,” said McKinley. “As lawmakers we should be encouraging job creation and expansion, not fighting to end American industries. West Virginia's lifeblood is coal, which means jobs for many hard working people throughout our state. As Americans are struggling to make ends meet and our nation is facing record high unemployment, I would encourage Rep. Conyers to focus his efforts on job creation and less on tearing down our industries in West Virginia."
Rep. McKinley is on the Energy and Commerce Committee as well as a member of the Congressional Coal Caucus. McKinley has also introduced and championed many pieces of pro-coal legislation in his short time in Congress.
Kudos also to Senator Joe Manchin for firing back int he strongest possible terms.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
"In Case of An Actual Emergency..."
These words form part of every announced test of the Emergency Broadcast System. The phrase concludes with a reminder that the tone will be followed by actual information.
Monday, Earth gave us its version of the Emergency Broadcast System test. Washington D. C. failed. Trains ran at a snail's pace, commuters waited for hours on subway platforms and in traffic jams. The city's transport system groaned under the weight of hundreds of thousands of folks trying to exit at the same time.
Watching the jam packed expressways and train stations worries me. Do we have a better evacuation plan for the nation's capital in case of something like a dirty bomb, chemical, or biological weapon? It seems that terrorists could orchestrate a multi-part plan that causes the panicked evacuation, then preys upon people waiting helplessly to leave. I am sure that something does exist that they would not haul out for a moderate earthquake. Then again, New Orleans had nothing in place to adequately prepare for a disaster that would inevitably occur and the heavy loss of life after Katrina was the result.
I don't need to know every detail of the plan. But I hope there is one.
Monday, Earth gave us its version of the Emergency Broadcast System test. Washington D. C. failed. Trains ran at a snail's pace, commuters waited for hours on subway platforms and in traffic jams. The city's transport system groaned under the weight of hundreds of thousands of folks trying to exit at the same time.
Watching the jam packed expressways and train stations worries me. Do we have a better evacuation plan for the nation's capital in case of something like a dirty bomb, chemical, or biological weapon? It seems that terrorists could orchestrate a multi-part plan that causes the panicked evacuation, then preys upon people waiting helplessly to leave. I am sure that something does exist that they would not haul out for a moderate earthquake. Then again, New Orleans had nothing in place to adequately prepare for a disaster that would inevitably occur and the heavy loss of life after Katrina was the result.
I don't need to know every detail of the plan. But I hope there is one.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
The F 35 Must Remain a Priority In An Uncertain World
A strong defense essential for America
Cutting defense spending is a bad idea. Period.
As Congress looks for ways to trim the federal budget and get the deficit under control, everything seems to be on the table. However, one area where America cannot afford to make sweeping cuts is defense and national security.
Legislators, political columnists and regular citizens have debated what programs need trimmed and even eliminated.
A recent opinion piece by Robert Samuelson in The Washington Post entitled “10 Ways to Fix The Budget” addressed the issue. Here is an excerpt:
“Evaluate defense needs independently — and pay for them. National security is the government’s first job. When America’s military is put in harm’s way, it should not become a victim of a rich nation’s cheapness.”
That quote says it all. Defending our nation is our government’s first job. Congress should not be swayed by political pressures to do something that would endanger our nation or reduce our military superiority. It is what separates us from so many other nations.
One military project that has been scrutinized inside and out is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, currently being developed for our military. This aircraft is undergoing testing, and once operational it will save our nation money in the long run by allowing us to retire aging aircraft. This stealth fighter is exactly what we must retain to keep America’s military superiority intact at a time when the world poses so many grave threats.
(Here is the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/10-ways-to-fix-the-budget/2011/08/14/gIQA5xriFJ_story.html?hpid=z3)
Monday, August 22, 2011
Question: Is Obama Sabotaging His Own Re-election?
While reading from a Maureen Dowd column on Obama this morning, I came to an epiphany. It may not necessarily be true, but it is food for thought for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Dowd in the New York Times explained that the president did not call lawmakers back into session this month during alarming economic news, in part, because it would ruin his vacation and anger his wife.
Can you imagine the response to this little tidbit from Harry Truman? I bet he would love nothing more than to come out of his grave and throttle this guy. Would Franklin Roosevelt put off addressing great national issues so he could spend more time on vacation? Only a few presidents would have acted in such a way as to create this perception, none since World War II. But Obama's chronic vacationing has created the impression that he regards this gig as part time.
On a personal note, my new job requested my presence in the middle of my vacation. While I was disappointed, I rushed to work and my family completely understood. Any reasonable spouse understands that when their loved one has an important job that it sometimes comes first.
Which brings me back to my original point. I don't think that he is all that fired up to keep his job. Being ex-president is prestigious and fun, even for Jimmy Carter. Being president is work. In my opinion, Obama wanted to enjoy the celebrity and prestige of the presidency, but underestimated his capacity to actually do the job. He could resign, but Obama picked an even worse guy for the job as his running mate. If any other legitimate Democratic possibilities pop up in the next few months, I could see Obama "Lyndon Johnsoning" himself and declining to run for re-election. Declining to run again is a dignified way out, if he can muster the courage to make the decision. As far as being president is concerned, Obama does not seem to like the job, or be very good at it.
And he and the Democratic Party are well aware of that problem. The Republicans' worst nightmare is a conservative to moderate nominee from the opposing party for the presidency in 2012. I am sure that Democrats realize that, as well.
Dowd in the New York Times explained that the president did not call lawmakers back into session this month during alarming economic news, in part, because it would ruin his vacation and anger his wife.
Can you imagine the response to this little tidbit from Harry Truman? I bet he would love nothing more than to come out of his grave and throttle this guy. Would Franklin Roosevelt put off addressing great national issues so he could spend more time on vacation? Only a few presidents would have acted in such a way as to create this perception, none since World War II. But Obama's chronic vacationing has created the impression that he regards this gig as part time.
On a personal note, my new job requested my presence in the middle of my vacation. While I was disappointed, I rushed to work and my family completely understood. Any reasonable spouse understands that when their loved one has an important job that it sometimes comes first.
Which brings me back to my original point. I don't think that he is all that fired up to keep his job. Being ex-president is prestigious and fun, even for Jimmy Carter. Being president is work. In my opinion, Obama wanted to enjoy the celebrity and prestige of the presidency, but underestimated his capacity to actually do the job. He could resign, but Obama picked an even worse guy for the job as his running mate. If any other legitimate Democratic possibilities pop up in the next few months, I could see Obama "Lyndon Johnsoning" himself and declining to run for re-election. Declining to run again is a dignified way out, if he can muster the courage to make the decision. As far as being president is concerned, Obama does not seem to like the job, or be very good at it.
And he and the Democratic Party are well aware of that problem. The Republicans' worst nightmare is a conservative to moderate nominee from the opposing party for the presidency in 2012. I am sure that Democrats realize that, as well.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Obama's "Swing 'Round the Circle"
On the Magical Misery Tour, the debt man walking continued his Andrew Johnson impersonation, traveling around the Midwest, giving speeches that even further bury his presidency. (In 1866, Johnson conducted his "Swing 'Round the Circle" tour where he took on Congress in a series of speeches. By the end of the tour, train officials routinely feared for the life of the president because the crowds grew so violent.) In his most recent speech, Obama compared criticism of himself to that of Lincoln. This implied that opposition to Obama is quasi-treasonous, a note he has sounded in the past. None other than Eric Foner, quasi left wing historian of the Civil War and Reconstruction era, slammed Obama's recent self-comparison to the 16th president.
Obama's series of speeches, like Johnson's, have laid bare the nature of the president. He is self-absorbed without enduring self-reflection. His speeches emphasize his trials, his suffering, his political enemies' machinations. Audiences in 1866 found these themes unnerving in their chief executive. In 2011, the president is trying to toss everyone under his bus, but so far has only thrown his own reputation beneath the wheels.
Obama criticism has not even reached the depths of the fecal matter slung at his predecessor, much less the unfortunate Lincoln, who endured commentary on every aspect of his presidency and life. Few people, really outside of me, have questioned Obama's intelligence and all will admit that he can read a teleprompter with style. People have issues with how the president has performed so far. He has made glaring errors on every level and has no shortage of other people to blame. Most recently, he blamed politics itself as the main obstacle to his leading us to a glorious promised land.
People are fed up. Even his own supporters, such as those in the Congressional Black Caucus, imply that he has been less of a savior and more of a carnival barker. Obama is reminiscent of Harry Truman's description of another failed president, James Buchanan in that he spent a long period of time trying to become president, then once he got there, he had no sense of how to do the job.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The Unraveling of the Atlantic Coast Conference
Once upon a time, there was a small, but exclusive gated community of college programs that extended from suburban Washington down to Atlanta. It prided itself on superior basketball, competent football, and a sense of superiority that comes from allegedly higher educational standards than others (i.e. no 2.0 students need apply.) The community issued an invitation to Florida State many years ago, causing consternation among traditionalists. FSU is too pedestrian, too common, too football oriented, some said. But Florida State came in anyway, bringing football power and its "free shoes university" scandal with it.
Then came the superconference. With wild visions in their heads of competing with the Southeastern Conference, they pillaged and plundered the Big East. Again, traditionalists groaned as Virginia Tech, Boston College, and Miami entered their club. Here came Rodney Dangerfield to mix with the elite. Miami was still tagged as a "bad boy" school. Boston College had the pedigree and the snobbery, but was too far away. And Virginia Tech, well, these were the University of Virginia's country cousins. What good could come of this?
Almost a decade later, the dream that was ACC football dominance has devolved into a state of ludicrousness. They have won way fewer BCS bowl games than the conference that they supposedly had killed, our Big East. The conference flagship, FSU, hit the reef because its captain remained at the helm a little too long. Georgia Tech, who won a national title in the 1990s (seriously, they did. I'm not joking) has become one of the most consistent teams in the conference. They win eight games a year using an offense that is closer to Knute Rockne than the spread. Virginia Tech regularly dominates and wins the conference, but has a history of losing to teams such as Temple and James Madison in such seasons. And the vaunted conference title game has produced dismal attendance numbers for most of its existence. Meanwhile the Big East continues to gradually strengthen its brand and the SEC sets the standard for football excellence. When pundits actively discuss the possibility that Big Ten reject Rich Rodriguez could help the conference by joining Clemson's staff, one sees how bad the situation has gotten. The ACC has even declined in basketball prowess.
Even worse have been the scandals. North Carolina last year had to get rid of a large number of players to satisfy the NCAA. Most recently has emerged the possibility that the "U" is through. The University of Miami was plagued for a decade by a rogue criminal booster who violated many of the most profoundly important NCAA rules, possibly with the knowledge of coaches. Players, allegedly, were paid in money, food, parties, prostitutes, and other favors. This happened in an era when Miami slipped into absolute mediocrity. Southern Methodist University in the 1980s only exceeded these allegations by continuing to make payoffs after being on probation. They lost their program for three years and never recovered. Almost certainly this weakened the old Southwestern Conference and helped to perpetuate its downfall.
Expansion rumors have swirled around the ACC, but this time they are the prey, not the predator. The Big East has cozied up to Maryland while the SEC initially began to look for expansion possibilities there as well. Maybe it is reflective of the weakness of the ACC that West Virginia University is seen as an increasingly strong prospect for SEC admission relative to any ACC programs.
The Atlantic Coast Conference has experienced, perhaps, one of the worst ten year disasters of any major college sports conference in recent memory. It does not look to improve for them any time soon.
Then came the superconference. With wild visions in their heads of competing with the Southeastern Conference, they pillaged and plundered the Big East. Again, traditionalists groaned as Virginia Tech, Boston College, and Miami entered their club. Here came Rodney Dangerfield to mix with the elite. Miami was still tagged as a "bad boy" school. Boston College had the pedigree and the snobbery, but was too far away. And Virginia Tech, well, these were the University of Virginia's country cousins. What good could come of this?
Almost a decade later, the dream that was ACC football dominance has devolved into a state of ludicrousness. They have won way fewer BCS bowl games than the conference that they supposedly had killed, our Big East. The conference flagship, FSU, hit the reef because its captain remained at the helm a little too long. Georgia Tech, who won a national title in the 1990s (seriously, they did. I'm not joking) has become one of the most consistent teams in the conference. They win eight games a year using an offense that is closer to Knute Rockne than the spread. Virginia Tech regularly dominates and wins the conference, but has a history of losing to teams such as Temple and James Madison in such seasons. And the vaunted conference title game has produced dismal attendance numbers for most of its existence. Meanwhile the Big East continues to gradually strengthen its brand and the SEC sets the standard for football excellence. When pundits actively discuss the possibility that Big Ten reject Rich Rodriguez could help the conference by joining Clemson's staff, one sees how bad the situation has gotten. The ACC has even declined in basketball prowess.
Even worse have been the scandals. North Carolina last year had to get rid of a large number of players to satisfy the NCAA. Most recently has emerged the possibility that the "U" is through. The University of Miami was plagued for a decade by a rogue criminal booster who violated many of the most profoundly important NCAA rules, possibly with the knowledge of coaches. Players, allegedly, were paid in money, food, parties, prostitutes, and other favors. This happened in an era when Miami slipped into absolute mediocrity. Southern Methodist University in the 1980s only exceeded these allegations by continuing to make payoffs after being on probation. They lost their program for three years and never recovered. Almost certainly this weakened the old Southwestern Conference and helped to perpetuate its downfall.
Expansion rumors have swirled around the ACC, but this time they are the prey, not the predator. The Big East has cozied up to Maryland while the SEC initially began to look for expansion possibilities there as well. Maybe it is reflective of the weakness of the ACC that West Virginia University is seen as an increasingly strong prospect for SEC admission relative to any ACC programs.
The Atlantic Coast Conference has experienced, perhaps, one of the worst ten year disasters of any major college sports conference in recent memory. It does not look to improve for them any time soon.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Progress On a Ridgetop
Most people in Keyser should by now be aware of a major construction project taking place right over their heads. After several years of wrangling, construction has started and proceeded very quickly on the Green Mountain windmill project. As of today, four are completely assembled and many more are partially built.
This is one of the few major private sector initiatives I have seen in Mineral County since I moved here six years ago. Most of the people I have spoken to are amazed at the speed of construction and are interested in their progress. Not many have expressed dismay at seeing windmills on a ridgetop that overlooks McDonald's and Denny's.
Even though the school board at one time voted to discourage their construction, the tax money from the project will be a huge help to improving our schools. They also create a sense that the town and county are moving forward. Today, Mineral County is becoming a part of our nation's domestic energy production solution. Tomorrow, who knows what further steps we can take? If we keep our mind open to the possibilities and embrace the need for development and jobs, Mineral County can be a more attractive destination for investment and we can provide opportunities for more of our children.
This is one of the few major private sector initiatives I have seen in Mineral County since I moved here six years ago. Most of the people I have spoken to are amazed at the speed of construction and are interested in their progress. Not many have expressed dismay at seeing windmills on a ridgetop that overlooks McDonald's and Denny's.
Even though the school board at one time voted to discourage their construction, the tax money from the project will be a huge help to improving our schools. They also create a sense that the town and county are moving forward. Today, Mineral County is becoming a part of our nation's domestic energy production solution. Tomorrow, who knows what further steps we can take? If we keep our mind open to the possibilities and embrace the need for development and jobs, Mineral County can be a more attractive destination for investment and we can provide opportunities for more of our children.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Blocking Communications In a Riot
A few days ago we saw the city of San Francisco take a decisively controversial action in response to a planned demonstration over a police shooting. It was not exactly on the level of a "Dirty Harry" Callaghan move, but it had a powerful effect. Demonstrators and others found that Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) officials had shut off power to cell phone towers that serviced the metropolitan area trains. Some of the demonstrations planned to disrupt public transit service.
San Francisco, predictably, took a lot of criticism over the move. Even some BART board members found the action too draconian, as you can see in this Huffington Post article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/13/san-francisco-transit-cellphone-protest_n_926135.html
Officials, however, denied that this was a First Amendment issue and were confident that courts would back their action.
I am not sure how I feel about this. Predictably, the liberal Huffington Post discusses this event as if it took place in a vacuum, unconnected to global events. San Francisco officials most certainly had the recent riots in London and other English cities in mind when they pulled the plug on cell phone towers. Those were sparked by police shootings of gangsters. We know that rioters used cell phones and other forms of technology to disseminate intelligence on police movements to maximize the mayhem. The British response to the destruction of life and property was criticized as lackluster at best. London's calamity was certainly on the minds of those men and women who made this decision.
On the other hand, if the worst did happen in San Francisco, law abiding citizens would be unable to warn their friends and loved ones about potential dangers. Is there a right to communicate tied to the right of freedom of speech? San Francisco's action was one of prior restraint, which is normally considered out of bounds by courts. However, if it is laid down as a policy to be used in narrowly defined situations, cities may be able to use this as a tactic to curb thuggish rioters.
Many cities will be watching as the courts examine San Francisco's response to determine if this represents a valid police maneuver to protect life and property, or if it is too restrictive of citizen rights.
San Francisco, predictably, took a lot of criticism over the move. Even some BART board members found the action too draconian, as you can see in this Huffington Post article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/13/san-francisco-transit-cellphone-protest_n_926135.html
Officials, however, denied that this was a First Amendment issue and were confident that courts would back their action.
I am not sure how I feel about this. Predictably, the liberal Huffington Post discusses this event as if it took place in a vacuum, unconnected to global events. San Francisco officials most certainly had the recent riots in London and other English cities in mind when they pulled the plug on cell phone towers. Those were sparked by police shootings of gangsters. We know that rioters used cell phones and other forms of technology to disseminate intelligence on police movements to maximize the mayhem. The British response to the destruction of life and property was criticized as lackluster at best. London's calamity was certainly on the minds of those men and women who made this decision.
On the other hand, if the worst did happen in San Francisco, law abiding citizens would be unable to warn their friends and loved ones about potential dangers. Is there a right to communicate tied to the right of freedom of speech? San Francisco's action was one of prior restraint, which is normally considered out of bounds by courts. However, if it is laid down as a policy to be used in narrowly defined situations, cities may be able to use this as a tactic to curb thuggish rioters.
Many cities will be watching as the courts examine San Francisco's response to determine if this represents a valid police maneuver to protect life and property, or if it is too restrictive of citizen rights.
Friday, August 12, 2011
The Failure of Great Britain's Liberal State
After World War II, Britons envisioned a new kind of state built on social welfare and the gradual grinding away of their country's traditions of self-reliance and responsibility. The first action of this faction lay in the dumping of Prime Minister Winston Churchill before the war even ended. Britain then nationalized many industries, empowered trade unions, passed strict gun control measures, and watched their preeminence in many fields, especially manufacturing, completely slip away. They also stopped going to church and watched marriage rates fall to the point that such relationships now represent a minority. Britain is a nation that, in many ways, has become rudderless. Its national mission and traditions are gone. And now we see the mindless greed of riots based on the purpose of spreading chaos and stealing as much as possible.
The British state had no idea how to stop the riots. The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, must be a faded memory. She knew how to stop the Argentines from practicing international thuggery. Her descendents in office dithered over the use of even non lethal weapons, such as water cannons, to stop the loss of life and property.
It is from British tradition that we learn that the government's two main roles are protection of innocent life and property. It was not until the people threatened to form Freecorps style militias that the police began to act with aggression, or maybe it was the heavy rains. Either way, the state was impotent to help. I made the point a few times that these riots simply don't happen in certain American cities with aggressive anti-riot strategies, or simply tough reputations. Britain's police had neither.
And what of the people? Chicago's city government has taken the lead in trying to undermine the Second Amendment, but this is what happens when the people are not armed. American businesses are oftentimes protected by their owners who have, and should have, no qualms about blowing away thugs who seek to loot and destroy. The people have the right and the responsibility to defend themselves because the state cannot always be there.
Is there a social aspect to this? Well, Britain's government actively destroyed heavy manufacturing and mining after World War II, just as we are doing now. They put other priorities above an economy that produces real goods and employs people, just as we are doing now. Britain is showing us where we are headed if we accept the Obama left wing path.
The British state had no idea how to stop the riots. The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, must be a faded memory. She knew how to stop the Argentines from practicing international thuggery. Her descendents in office dithered over the use of even non lethal weapons, such as water cannons, to stop the loss of life and property.
It is from British tradition that we learn that the government's two main roles are protection of innocent life and property. It was not until the people threatened to form Freecorps style militias that the police began to act with aggression, or maybe it was the heavy rains. Either way, the state was impotent to help. I made the point a few times that these riots simply don't happen in certain American cities with aggressive anti-riot strategies, or simply tough reputations. Britain's police had neither.
And what of the people? Chicago's city government has taken the lead in trying to undermine the Second Amendment, but this is what happens when the people are not armed. American businesses are oftentimes protected by their owners who have, and should have, no qualms about blowing away thugs who seek to loot and destroy. The people have the right and the responsibility to defend themselves because the state cannot always be there.
Is there a social aspect to this? Well, Britain's government actively destroyed heavy manufacturing and mining after World War II, just as we are doing now. They put other priorities above an economy that produces real goods and employs people, just as we are doing now. Britain is showing us where we are headed if we accept the Obama left wing path.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Letting States Out of Jail So They Can Go to Prison
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/9/states-rush-to-leave-no-child-law-behind/
The above story describes a new federal initiative to release states from the burdens of No Child Left Behind regulations, which in itself is a good thing. However, states must abide by even more Department of Education strictures to obtain the waivers.
What good does it do to release schools and teachers from onerous requirements if the Education Department simply makes up more?
It is time that school systems opt out of all Department of Education "help." It's existence has correlated with plunging test scores and student aptitude. Colleges now teach basic skills of reading and writing to millions of eighteen and nineteen year olds every year. There really seems to be no point for federal involvement in public education except to make it more difficult and less effective.
Here are two common sense proposals. Kill No Child Left Behind, the worst legislation of the Bush era. Abolish the Department of Education. That will save money and reform the system in a positive fashion.
The above story describes a new federal initiative to release states from the burdens of No Child Left Behind regulations, which in itself is a good thing. However, states must abide by even more Department of Education strictures to obtain the waivers.
What good does it do to release schools and teachers from onerous requirements if the Education Department simply makes up more?
It is time that school systems opt out of all Department of Education "help." It's existence has correlated with plunging test scores and student aptitude. Colleges now teach basic skills of reading and writing to millions of eighteen and nineteen year olds every year. There really seems to be no point for federal involvement in public education except to make it more difficult and less effective.
Here are two common sense proposals. Kill No Child Left Behind, the worst legislation of the Bush era. Abolish the Department of Education. That will save money and reform the system in a positive fashion.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Ron Paul As Winston Churchill
As most of you know, I am leaning towards Sarah Palin or Rick Perry at this point. I think that they combine visibility, conservative ideals, and electability.
That all being said, Ron Paul's campaign is going to make things very interesting. He has certainly moved from fringe candidate of 2008 to economic prophet of 2011. Last week's debt debacle really moved him to the forefront of the discussion because events are playing out as he has predicted for years.
In the 1920s and early 30s, British politicos laughed at Winston Churchill. His warnings about Hitler and prophecies of war fell on deaf ears. As Hitler began to bare his teeth, Churchill garnered more respect. Finally, when all seemed lost with the 1940 fall of France, Britain turned to him to lead.
Make no mistake. Our policies for decades have led us to the precipice. We expected our productive sectors to pay for too much government even as we taxed and regulated them out of existence. It was a situation that could not continue. We now see disaster staring us in the face. Obama and the Democrats have their heads in the sand. They would tax the private sector to balance a budget, but that would tank the economy even more. We must radically cut spending to solve the debt crisis and get our finances back on track, but Obama would rather spend more, not less. This week the markets dropped rapidly, losing two hundred points during Obama's speech on the subject. If conditions continue to worsen, Paul will gain more and more credibility and become a major factor next year.
This is not a negative. We need elected officials who take these issues seriously. Paul may not win nomination, but he will help to keep debt, the economy, and spending at the forefront of public debate. That in itself should help the right people win election next year.
That all being said, Ron Paul's campaign is going to make things very interesting. He has certainly moved from fringe candidate of 2008 to economic prophet of 2011. Last week's debt debacle really moved him to the forefront of the discussion because events are playing out as he has predicted for years.
In the 1920s and early 30s, British politicos laughed at Winston Churchill. His warnings about Hitler and prophecies of war fell on deaf ears. As Hitler began to bare his teeth, Churchill garnered more respect. Finally, when all seemed lost with the 1940 fall of France, Britain turned to him to lead.
Make no mistake. Our policies for decades have led us to the precipice. We expected our productive sectors to pay for too much government even as we taxed and regulated them out of existence. It was a situation that could not continue. We now see disaster staring us in the face. Obama and the Democrats have their heads in the sand. They would tax the private sector to balance a budget, but that would tank the economy even more. We must radically cut spending to solve the debt crisis and get our finances back on track, but Obama would rather spend more, not less. This week the markets dropped rapidly, losing two hundred points during Obama's speech on the subject. If conditions continue to worsen, Paul will gain more and more credibility and become a major factor next year.
This is not a negative. We need elected officials who take these issues seriously. Paul may not win nomination, but he will help to keep debt, the economy, and spending at the forefront of public debate. That in itself should help the right people win election next year.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
How Do We Pay Off the Debt?
Simplicity itself.
Fix the tax code. No person or entity pays more than 25% of their income in taxes. This actually should be in the Constitution, only able to be raised during declared war or a national emergency declared by 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures. Even then, it cannot last longer than three years. However, all deductions and breaks end outside of E. I. C.
Keep expenditures 5% below revenues and use the excess to pay down the debt. This goes above and beyond the balanced budget amendment that needs to be passed.
Tear away the regulations that hobble our economy. If a salamander is inconvenienced by Texas oil wells, so be it. If polar bears and reindeer have to move five hundred yards to avoid a well, who cares. America requires cheap energy to produce things and to employ people. We need to streamline the process of building anything in America and enact tort reform. This will restore a lot of our competitive advantage in actually building stuff. The economy grows, revenues rise, the government can afford to do more when the debt is paid off.
We expected too much of our economy, burdening it with too many taxes to pay for too many things while overregulating it. You cannot tax your way to prosperity, so we need to cut our spending drastically. If this means retrenching in world affairs, so be it. We are in a crisis situation here.
Fix the tax code. No person or entity pays more than 25% of their income in taxes. This actually should be in the Constitution, only able to be raised during declared war or a national emergency declared by 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures. Even then, it cannot last longer than three years. However, all deductions and breaks end outside of E. I. C.
Keep expenditures 5% below revenues and use the excess to pay down the debt. This goes above and beyond the balanced budget amendment that needs to be passed.
Tear away the regulations that hobble our economy. If a salamander is inconvenienced by Texas oil wells, so be it. If polar bears and reindeer have to move five hundred yards to avoid a well, who cares. America requires cheap energy to produce things and to employ people. We need to streamline the process of building anything in America and enact tort reform. This will restore a lot of our competitive advantage in actually building stuff. The economy grows, revenues rise, the government can afford to do more when the debt is paid off.
We expected too much of our economy, burdening it with too many taxes to pay for too many things while overregulating it. You cannot tax your way to prosperity, so we need to cut our spending drastically. If this means retrenching in world affairs, so be it. We are in a crisis situation here.
Monday, August 8, 2011
From "The Buck Stops Here" to "Being Presidemt Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry."
The statement that we will never see from Barack Hussein Obama:
"I'm sorry. I was wrong. My policies have spiked inflation and tripled the debt while producing economic losses. My administration retooled how inflation is officially calculated, leaving out food and fuel. But you know that the price of these all important commodities is too high for a nation with energy resources and the most fertile soil on earth. We put the environment first, closing down coal mines and oil wells, transforming productive California farmland back into desert. This was not because there is a clear and present environmental crisis, outside of maybe some salamander somewhere being inconvenienced. We rely more than ever on foreign sources for food and energy. That's my bad, as the kids say these days.
And I have to admit, as much as I'd like to pin this credit rating thing on the Tea Party, and Lord knows ole Axelrod is trying, bless his heart, we all know this is my fault. LBJ tried to force the economy to win a war while providing huge expansions in social programs that don't work. He created fifteen years of stagflation. I have probably landed us in an even deeper hole. Hopefully a new Ronnie will help dig us out in a couple of years just like the original did in 1982.
This entire job has been overwhelming. Harry Truman once said of James Buchanan that he was the kind of man who spent twenty years trying to be president, but never figured out once he got there how to be a good one. I figure that he'd say the same of me. Like Buchanan, Harding, and a few others, I enjoy the perquisites of being president, but wish someone else had the responsibility.
So, once again, I'm sorry. I screwed up this country something awful. It wasn't in good shape before, but very few of you, outside of General Electric executives, are better off than you were four years ago. At the end of the day, I could blame George W. Bush, the Tea Party, rich people, or whomever. But the fact remains that the buck stops here. As my predecessor once said, I have been the decider. So the full responsibility for this crap is in my lap.
I would resign, but for the fact of, well, you understand how that presidential succession deal works. All of us know that there are a few folks who would be worse than me at this. Unfortunately, I decided one of them should be my running mate in 08. So I will stay in office, but work on nothing but my golf handicap until January 2013. at that point, I hope President Palin, Perry, or whomever can perform a Reaganlike U turn and correct all the problems I created.
God bless the United States of America. Thank you."
"I'm sorry. I was wrong. My policies have spiked inflation and tripled the debt while producing economic losses. My administration retooled how inflation is officially calculated, leaving out food and fuel. But you know that the price of these all important commodities is too high for a nation with energy resources and the most fertile soil on earth. We put the environment first, closing down coal mines and oil wells, transforming productive California farmland back into desert. This was not because there is a clear and present environmental crisis, outside of maybe some salamander somewhere being inconvenienced. We rely more than ever on foreign sources for food and energy. That's my bad, as the kids say these days.
And I have to admit, as much as I'd like to pin this credit rating thing on the Tea Party, and Lord knows ole Axelrod is trying, bless his heart, we all know this is my fault. LBJ tried to force the economy to win a war while providing huge expansions in social programs that don't work. He created fifteen years of stagflation. I have probably landed us in an even deeper hole. Hopefully a new Ronnie will help dig us out in a couple of years just like the original did in 1982.
This entire job has been overwhelming. Harry Truman once said of James Buchanan that he was the kind of man who spent twenty years trying to be president, but never figured out once he got there how to be a good one. I figure that he'd say the same of me. Like Buchanan, Harding, and a few others, I enjoy the perquisites of being president, but wish someone else had the responsibility.
So, once again, I'm sorry. I screwed up this country something awful. It wasn't in good shape before, but very few of you, outside of General Electric executives, are better off than you were four years ago. At the end of the day, I could blame George W. Bush, the Tea Party, rich people, or whomever. But the fact remains that the buck stops here. As my predecessor once said, I have been the decider. So the full responsibility for this crap is in my lap.
I would resign, but for the fact of, well, you understand how that presidential succession deal works. All of us know that there are a few folks who would be worse than me at this. Unfortunately, I decided one of them should be my running mate in 08. So I will stay in office, but work on nothing but my golf handicap until January 2013. at that point, I hope President Palin, Perry, or whomever can perform a Reaganlike U turn and correct all the problems I created.
God bless the United States of America. Thank you."
Thursday, August 4, 2011
A Baldly Political Farce
The redistricting process was expected to be political. We all knew that. But we didn't expect it to be this arrogantly dismissive of the concerns and actions of the voters.
First, the congressional districts seem to have been redrawn with the idea of pitting the two Republicans against each other, leaving Rahall safe, and opening up a third. This was too disingenuous because first, the law does not actually require residence in the district. Even if it does produce the desired result, one of the political figures with the most name recognition and popularity in the proposed second district is Republican Clark Barnes. If passed, the second district is not much larger than his currently expansive 15th. It is still an arrogant move for the Legislature to try and nullify the verdict of the election of 2010 on its own.
The House patted itself on the back for breaking up the three member 32nd, but left in place the notorious seven member 30th. Yes, South Hills, your 7% of the House of Delegates is still safe. Sorry southern Kanawha, you are still not truly represented in the House.
House Republicans have fought hard for our rights. Delegate Gary Howell plead on the House floor for the opportunity to have time for public comment before final passage of redistricting. Will we get a chance to voice our concerns? Let us hope so.
First, the congressional districts seem to have been redrawn with the idea of pitting the two Republicans against each other, leaving Rahall safe, and opening up a third. This was too disingenuous because first, the law does not actually require residence in the district. Even if it does produce the desired result, one of the political figures with the most name recognition and popularity in the proposed second district is Republican Clark Barnes. If passed, the second district is not much larger than his currently expansive 15th. It is still an arrogant move for the Legislature to try and nullify the verdict of the election of 2010 on its own.
The House patted itself on the back for breaking up the three member 32nd, but left in place the notorious seven member 30th. Yes, South Hills, your 7% of the House of Delegates is still safe. Sorry southern Kanawha, you are still not truly represented in the House.
House Republicans have fought hard for our rights. Delegate Gary Howell plead on the House floor for the opportunity to have time for public comment before final passage of redistricting. Will we get a chance to voice our concerns? Let us hope so.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The Travels of Tomblin and Redistricting Follies
This week is crucial and important for the executive and legislative branches of government. In these weeks, we will see the redrawing of our delegate, state senate, and congressional districts. So far, the proposed maps are alarming.
First, though, we have to wonder at the travels of Acting Governor Earl Ray Tomblin. He called this session and, presumably, would want to be in Charleston as much as possible to observe the proceedings. However, he has fundraisers scheduled in Morgantown, Glenville, and Elkins this Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. While a candidate has to campaign, we are wondering if he is using the state helicopter to expedite his travels. Will the Charleston Gazette be probing this matter to ensure that public funds are not misspent?
Next comes the actual proposed maps. Democrats in the Legislature are proposing to void the voters' choices for Congress last year. They wish to combine the first and second districts, which are represented by David McKinley and Shelley Moore Capito, respectively. This would require a run off between the two Republicans, which, given the fact that we are keeping three districts, is a baldly arrogant political move that is sure to bring national embarassment if it passes. They must know that they cannot beat either of them at the ballot box, so they are trying to create for themselves an open seat in a gerrymandered district.
It does not look like the Legislature will create single member districts this time, either. The wealthy South Hills' neighborhood of Charleston will get to keep its several delegates and the rest of southern Kanawha County will go without representation.
Mineral County may be split between the 14th and 15th senatorial districts, as of right now. Senator Dave Sypolt will continue to represent western Mineral County to a point just east of Keyser. The rest of the county will join Hardy in the 15th. As unusual as it is to divide a county between two senatorial districts, the 49th district, represented by Gary Howell, could straddle the two senatorial districts. The new district lines could also split the town of Piedmont between the 48th and 49th delegate districts, which could cause unnecessary confusion in that area.
Let your legislators know how you feel. As long as they are debating, you can still make your wishes and opinions known.
First, though, we have to wonder at the travels of Acting Governor Earl Ray Tomblin. He called this session and, presumably, would want to be in Charleston as much as possible to observe the proceedings. However, he has fundraisers scheduled in Morgantown, Glenville, and Elkins this Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. While a candidate has to campaign, we are wondering if he is using the state helicopter to expedite his travels. Will the Charleston Gazette be probing this matter to ensure that public funds are not misspent?
Next comes the actual proposed maps. Democrats in the Legislature are proposing to void the voters' choices for Congress last year. They wish to combine the first and second districts, which are represented by David McKinley and Shelley Moore Capito, respectively. This would require a run off between the two Republicans, which, given the fact that we are keeping three districts, is a baldly arrogant political move that is sure to bring national embarassment if it passes. They must know that they cannot beat either of them at the ballot box, so they are trying to create for themselves an open seat in a gerrymandered district.
It does not look like the Legislature will create single member districts this time, either. The wealthy South Hills' neighborhood of Charleston will get to keep its several delegates and the rest of southern Kanawha County will go without representation.
Mineral County may be split between the 14th and 15th senatorial districts, as of right now. Senator Dave Sypolt will continue to represent western Mineral County to a point just east of Keyser. The rest of the county will join Hardy in the 15th. As unusual as it is to divide a county between two senatorial districts, the 49th district, represented by Gary Howell, could straddle the two senatorial districts. The new district lines could also split the town of Piedmont between the 48th and 49th delegate districts, which could cause unnecessary confusion in that area.
Let your legislators know how you feel. As long as they are debating, you can still make your wishes and opinions known.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Battles and Debt Ceilings
While hearing of the final plan passed by the House of Representatives and the uproar from all sides, I was reminded of the Battle of the Wilderness in 1864.
Grant moved south towards Richmond and engaged General Lee for the first time. Lee fought Grant in a place where the Confederates had advantages. Grant handled himself well, but could not be called the winner. His troops, accustomed to defeat, started packing their bags to retreat north. Then came their orders. Despite the setback, Grant was ordering them to forge ahead and move south. Campaigns against formidable enemies do not come with perfect victories in individual battles. Only perseverance and trust in the cause will win the war.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
The Boehner Plan passed by the House today is not what we want and far from perfect. However, it is a plan that offers the other side a compromise. They get to spend a little more in the short term, but can't raise taxes, and we all make serious steps towards a balanced budget amendment. It is a reasonable offer, but Reid and the Democrats will reject it anyway next week because it is not what Obama and the radicals want. Republicans took a serious risk in voting for this plan, but if the Democrats respond predictably, they will be the story next week.
Politics is the art of the possible. The voters did not give Republicans much of a power base from which to work in 2010. The House still faces the power of the Senate and the presidency. These are strong obstacles, but they are concerned about the most important base of power. The American people are opposed to more debt. House Republicans worked skillfully in a political sense to obtain the best position possible, putting the Democrats into a corner. Some don't like the political game, but this is how it has worked for centuries.
How do we change things more quickly and get this debt whittled down? Get Obama and the Democrats out of power. Then make Republicans act lie Republicans when they are in control. We are in a state of crisis in this country economically and financially and I think Republicans finally get that. However, they have to work within the system that we have. That means inching forward, never giving up, and taking whatever victories you can get without sending your cart over the cliff with all banners flying.
Grant moved south towards Richmond and engaged General Lee for the first time. Lee fought Grant in a place where the Confederates had advantages. Grant handled himself well, but could not be called the winner. His troops, accustomed to defeat, started packing their bags to retreat north. Then came their orders. Despite the setback, Grant was ordering them to forge ahead and move south. Campaigns against formidable enemies do not come with perfect victories in individual battles. Only perseverance and trust in the cause will win the war.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
The Boehner Plan passed by the House today is not what we want and far from perfect. However, it is a plan that offers the other side a compromise. They get to spend a little more in the short term, but can't raise taxes, and we all make serious steps towards a balanced budget amendment. It is a reasonable offer, but Reid and the Democrats will reject it anyway next week because it is not what Obama and the radicals want. Republicans took a serious risk in voting for this plan, but if the Democrats respond predictably, they will be the story next week.
Politics is the art of the possible. The voters did not give Republicans much of a power base from which to work in 2010. The House still faces the power of the Senate and the presidency. These are strong obstacles, but they are concerned about the most important base of power. The American people are opposed to more debt. House Republicans worked skillfully in a political sense to obtain the best position possible, putting the Democrats into a corner. Some don't like the political game, but this is how it has worked for centuries.
How do we change things more quickly and get this debt whittled down? Get Obama and the Democrats out of power. Then make Republicans act lie Republicans when they are in control. We are in a state of crisis in this country economically and financially and I think Republicans finally get that. However, they have to work within the system that we have. That means inching forward, never giving up, and taking whatever victories you can get without sending your cart over the cliff with all banners flying.
Rally For Single Member Districts At Noon on Monday At State Capitol
Even though some GOP incumbents benefit from multi-delegate districts, all Republican legislators support the creation of single member districts. Multi-delegate districts give more advantage to incumbents and should be eliminated.
Most of southern Kanawha County is represented by seven delegates who live practically in the same Charleston neighborhood.
Most of southern Kanawha County is represented by seven delegates who live practically in the same Charleston neighborhood.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wonder What the Purpose of This Is
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 25, 2011
Executive Order--Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations
EXECUTIVE ORDER
BLOCKING PROPERTY OF TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the activities of significant transnational criminal organizations, such as those listed in the Annex to this order, have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems. Such organizations are becoming increasingly sophisticated and dangerous to the United States; they are increasingly entrenched in the operations of foreign governments and the international financial system, thereby weakening democratic institutions, degrading the rule of law, and undermining economic markets. These organizations facilitate and aggravate violent civil conflicts and increasingly facilitate the activities of other dangerous persons. I therefore determine that significant transnational criminal organizations constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
Accordingly, I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any overseas branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order and
(ii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State:
(A) to be a foreign person that constitutes a significant transnational criminal organization;
(B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(C) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (a) of this section.
(c) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to:
(i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
(d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.
Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term "foreign person" means any citizen or national of a foreign state, or any entity organized under the laws of a foreign state or existing in a foreign state, including any such individual or entity who is also a United States person; and
(e) the term "significant transnational criminal organization" means a group of persons, such as those listed in the Annex to this order, that includes one or more foreign persons; that engages in an ongoing pattern of serious criminal activity involving the jurisdictions of at least two foreign states; and that threatens the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Sec. 4. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
Sec. 5. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 7. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to determine that circumstances no longer warrant the blocking of the property and interests in property of a person listed in the Annex to this order, and to take necessary action to give effect to that determination.
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 9. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on July 25, 2011.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 24, 2011.
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 25, 2011
Executive Order--Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations
EXECUTIVE ORDER
BLOCKING PROPERTY OF TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the activities of significant transnational criminal organizations, such as those listed in the Annex to this order, have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems. Such organizations are becoming increasingly sophisticated and dangerous to the United States; they are increasingly entrenched in the operations of foreign governments and the international financial system, thereby weakening democratic institutions, degrading the rule of law, and undermining economic markets. These organizations facilitate and aggravate violent civil conflicts and increasingly facilitate the activities of other dangerous persons. I therefore determine that significant transnational criminal organizations constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
Accordingly, I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any overseas branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order and
(ii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State:
(A) to be a foreign person that constitutes a significant transnational criminal organization;
(B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(C) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (a) of this section.
(c) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to:
(i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
(d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.
Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term "foreign person" means any citizen or national of a foreign state, or any entity organized under the laws of a foreign state or existing in a foreign state, including any such individual or entity who is also a United States person; and
(e) the term "significant transnational criminal organization" means a group of persons, such as those listed in the Annex to this order, that includes one or more foreign persons; that engages in an ongoing pattern of serious criminal activity involving the jurisdictions of at least two foreign states; and that threatens the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Sec. 4. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
Sec. 5. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 7. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to determine that circumstances no longer warrant the blocking of the property and interests in property of a person listed in the Annex to this order, and to take necessary action to give effect to that determination.
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 9. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on July 25, 2011.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 24, 2011.
Game Plan For 2012
In the interests of transparency, I am just saying now that I am leaning towards Sarah Palin for the Republican nomination. I am fine with almost every other candidate, values wise, except Romney. That being said, there are more and less electable individuals.
The best way for Republicans to engage the people in 2012 lies in following part of the 1980 game plan. All out optimism. Reagan understood that after four years of malaise and crisis of confidence that Americans wanted to hear about greatness again. Obama's approach has not been hand wringing, but downright anger directed at his predecessor, Republicans, and even Democrats who are not on the same page as The Won.
We cannot have any thoughts that our current problems are a reality that Americans just have to expect. Americans are losing faith that they can work towards their dreams and the blame for that lies in overregulation and overtaxation. We still have resources and an educated, hard working population. The potential is always there for our best days to lie ahead, but we have to vote for real change for positive results.
Personally, I think that this strategy will work very well for Sarah Palin and a few of the other candidates. Not everyone can pull off the full court press on optimism. However, Palin can. Her personality and image would help to make strong expressions of optimism genuine and not simply talk. Like I said, a few others can also pull this off effectively, not just Palin.
This approach was called naive in 1980 by jaded Washington types, but it was what Americans needed to hear. Not only did it elect a president, but it laid the groundwork for the striking and stunning turnaround of the early 1980s. Optimism must be the theme for the next eighteen months to bring about a landslide victory.
The best way for Republicans to engage the people in 2012 lies in following part of the 1980 game plan. All out optimism. Reagan understood that after four years of malaise and crisis of confidence that Americans wanted to hear about greatness again. Obama's approach has not been hand wringing, but downright anger directed at his predecessor, Republicans, and even Democrats who are not on the same page as The Won.
We cannot have any thoughts that our current problems are a reality that Americans just have to expect. Americans are losing faith that they can work towards their dreams and the blame for that lies in overregulation and overtaxation. We still have resources and an educated, hard working population. The potential is always there for our best days to lie ahead, but we have to vote for real change for positive results.
Personally, I think that this strategy will work very well for Sarah Palin and a few of the other candidates. Not everyone can pull off the full court press on optimism. However, Palin can. Her personality and image would help to make strong expressions of optimism genuine and not simply talk. Like I said, a few others can also pull this off effectively, not just Palin.
This approach was called naive in 1980 by jaded Washington types, but it was what Americans needed to hear. Not only did it elect a president, but it laid the groundwork for the striking and stunning turnaround of the early 1980s. Optimism must be the theme for the next eighteen months to bring about a landslide victory.
A List of Federal Programs. Surely We Can Do Some Cutting From This
http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/
The above is a list of federally funded programs, including $17.5 million for boating safety. If we try, we could probably find a hundred million to cut in ten minutes or less.
The above is a list of federally funded programs, including $17.5 million for boating safety. If we try, we could probably find a hundred million to cut in ten minutes or less.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
An Idea That Is Beyond Bad: Federal Government Renting Out Foreclosed Homes
The Wall Street Journal last week reported that the Obama Administration is looking at taking over foreclosed homes and renting them out to try and stabilize the housing market. I suppose that they have not yet learned from government interference in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that this just does not work.
What is wrong with a natural market correction? Right now you have homes and other property in some parts of the country available at dirt cheap prices. This is the right time for individuals and businesses to acquire property and refurbish a new home or start a business. Tales of ten dollar houses have created economic activity in Detroit, a city left for dead five years ago. Big bankers' bad decisions are potentially a big deal for individuals and entrepreneurs. Why continue to reward the people who created this problem? Why not let the little guys use the free market to establish themselves in whichever way they see fit?
Obama, get out of the free market. Cut spending. Cut taxes. Stop helping your supporters and stomping on the little guy. And watch how fast this economy takes off. Our biggest economic problem is Obama himself.
What is wrong with a natural market correction? Right now you have homes and other property in some parts of the country available at dirt cheap prices. This is the right time for individuals and businesses to acquire property and refurbish a new home or start a business. Tales of ten dollar houses have created economic activity in Detroit, a city left for dead five years ago. Big bankers' bad decisions are potentially a big deal for individuals and entrepreneurs. Why continue to reward the people who created this problem? Why not let the little guys use the free market to establish themselves in whichever way they see fit?
Obama, get out of the free market. Cut spending. Cut taxes. Stop helping your supporters and stomping on the little guy. And watch how fast this economy takes off. Our biggest economic problem is Obama himself.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Jail Overcrowding A Major Issue
It's time to confront the problem because it is not getting any better. West Virginia has a problem with overcrowded jails.
Many years ago, West Virginia went from a county jail system to one of regional jails. Antiquated county lockups were supposed to be replaced with modern new facilities which would reduce costs. That did not happen. Costs, especially for counties, have risen considerably.
These jails were suppsed to be safer. That did not happen. Jails are seen as more dangerous than the state penetentiary due to the fact that staffing problems plague the regional jails. You also have a bad mixture of violent felons and non violent criminals in the new system. Does it really make sense to house a small time pot dealer from a rural area with hardened criminals from Charleston or Huntington, who are sometimes actually from the mean streets of Detroit or Atlanta? This creates very unsafe conditions for inmates whose offenses and demeanor are not violent.
What is the solution? There is no solution that does not require the spending of money that we do not have, outside of decriminalization. We don't need to decriminalize, but we can change how we approach some crimes to alleviate some of the problems.
In 2007, 87% of around 2,300 marijuana arrests in West Virginia were for simple possession, according to drugscience.org. That means that a fairly large number of people were processed through the criminal justice system for this offense. While many offenders escaped jail time, the strain and cost of processing are significant. Why not, instead of arresting people for possession, simply issue a ticket if there is no other crime taking place? This is much more cost-effective than arrest and possible incarceration and it still enforces the law. This is one way that we can start changing our system to address the strains of overcrowded jails and overburdened courts.
Many years ago, West Virginia went from a county jail system to one of regional jails. Antiquated county lockups were supposed to be replaced with modern new facilities which would reduce costs. That did not happen. Costs, especially for counties, have risen considerably.
These jails were suppsed to be safer. That did not happen. Jails are seen as more dangerous than the state penetentiary due to the fact that staffing problems plague the regional jails. You also have a bad mixture of violent felons and non violent criminals in the new system. Does it really make sense to house a small time pot dealer from a rural area with hardened criminals from Charleston or Huntington, who are sometimes actually from the mean streets of Detroit or Atlanta? This creates very unsafe conditions for inmates whose offenses and demeanor are not violent.
What is the solution? There is no solution that does not require the spending of money that we do not have, outside of decriminalization. We don't need to decriminalize, but we can change how we approach some crimes to alleviate some of the problems.
In 2007, 87% of around 2,300 marijuana arrests in West Virginia were for simple possession, according to drugscience.org. That means that a fairly large number of people were processed through the criminal justice system for this offense. While many offenders escaped jail time, the strain and cost of processing are significant. Why not, instead of arresting people for possession, simply issue a ticket if there is no other crime taking place? This is much more cost-effective than arrest and possible incarceration and it still enforces the law. This is one way that we can start changing our system to address the strains of overcrowded jails and overburdened courts.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Yes, Obama Did Actually Say This
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/22/obama_would_be_easier_if_i_could_do_this_entirely_on_my_own.html
Obama last week actually said that it would be easier if he could do up the debt all on his own so he could have more time to talk to his kids.
Don't let that job or concept of a balanced republic get in the way of what you want there, big guy.
Who ever really thought that this man would be an effective or even competent president? No one now.
Just go play golf and let the big kids handle the important stuff.
Obama last week actually said that it would be easier if he could do up the debt all on his own so he could have more time to talk to his kids.
Don't let that job or concept of a balanced republic get in the way of what you want there, big guy.
Who ever really thought that this man would be an effective or even competent president? No one now.
Just go play golf and let the big kids handle the important stuff.
Why the F 35?
The next generation F-35 fighter jet's path to production continues along its winding path.
Not only will American pilots be able to utilize next generation technology, but this plane will be available for export to allied countries as well, helping the program to pay for itself.
Now matter how finely constructed our current fleet of planes is, they still experience wear and tear. Like your car, each machine has a lifespan, regardless of how well maintained it is. As the Chinese upgrade their air force, we need to consider that, unlikely as it may seem now, they could be a future opponent in war. We must remain prepared.
Even Thomas Buffenbarger, a contributor to the liberal Huffington Post urges that production no longer be put off. In a recent article, he maintained that this new advance will keep our pilots safer, maintain U. S. predominance in weaponry, and sustain commitments to our most vital allies.
The United States will have to, inevitably, place more defense and war responsibilities into the hands of Europe and other reliable friends. They will have to shoulder their own burden. As we make this transition, we should continue to be the provider of the best weaponry in the world.
Not only will American pilots be able to utilize next generation technology, but this plane will be available for export to allied countries as well, helping the program to pay for itself.
Now matter how finely constructed our current fleet of planes is, they still experience wear and tear. Like your car, each machine has a lifespan, regardless of how well maintained it is. As the Chinese upgrade their air force, we need to consider that, unlikely as it may seem now, they could be a future opponent in war. We must remain prepared.
Even Thomas Buffenbarger, a contributor to the liberal Huffington Post urges that production no longer be put off. In a recent article, he maintained that this new advance will keep our pilots safer, maintain U. S. predominance in weaponry, and sustain commitments to our most vital allies.
The United States will have to, inevitably, place more defense and war responsibilities into the hands of Europe and other reliable friends. They will have to shoulder their own burden. As we make this transition, we should continue to be the provider of the best weaponry in the world.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Yes, Obama Did Actually Say This
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/22/obama_would_be_easier_if_i_could_do_this_entirely_on_my_own.html
Friday, July 22, 2011
Sarah Palin Speaks Out On Irresponsible Obama
This was from her Facebook page. Yes, I would be happy if she were the GOP nominee, but I think she speaks for all of us right now. This frustration with Obama comes from all of our hearts and gets to the core of his failed presidency.
Lame Duck President
.by Sarah Palin on Friday, July 22, 2011 at 10:11pm.After listening to the President’s press conference today, let’s keep in mind the following:
This is the same president who proposed an absurdly irresponsible budget that would increase our debt by trillions of dollars, and whose party failed to even put forward a budget in over 800 days! This is the same president who is pushing our country to the brink because of his reckless spending on things like the nearly trillion dollar “stimulus” boondoggle. This is the same president who ignored his own debt commission’s recommendations and demonized the voices of fiscal sanity who proposed responsible plans to reform our entitlement programs and rein in our dangerous debt trajectory. This is the same president who wanted to push through an increase in the debt ceiling that didn’t include any cuts in government spending! This is the same president who wants to slam Americans with tax hikes to cover his reckless spending, but has threatened to veto a bill proposing a balanced budget amendment. This is the same president who hasn’t put forward a responsible plan himself, but has rejected reasonable proposals that would tackle our debt. This is the same president who still refuses to understand that the American electorate rejected his big government agenda last November. As I said in Madison, Wisconsin, at the Tax Day Tea Party rally, “We don’t want it. We can’t afford it. And we are unwilling to pay for it.”
Now the President is outraged because the GOP House leadership called his bluff and ended discussions with him because they deemed him an obstruction to any real solution to the debt crisis.
He has been deemed a lame duck president. And he is angry now because he is being treated as such.
His foreign policy strategy has been described as “leading from behind.” Well, that’s his domestic policy strategy as well. Why should he be surprised that he’s been left behind in the negotiations when he’s been leading from behind on this debt crisis?
Thank you, GOP House leaders. Please don’t get wobbly on us now.
2012 can’t come soon enough
Lame Duck President
.by Sarah Palin on Friday, July 22, 2011 at 10:11pm.After listening to the President’s press conference today, let’s keep in mind the following:
This is the same president who proposed an absurdly irresponsible budget that would increase our debt by trillions of dollars, and whose party failed to even put forward a budget in over 800 days! This is the same president who is pushing our country to the brink because of his reckless spending on things like the nearly trillion dollar “stimulus” boondoggle. This is the same president who ignored his own debt commission’s recommendations and demonized the voices of fiscal sanity who proposed responsible plans to reform our entitlement programs and rein in our dangerous debt trajectory. This is the same president who wanted to push through an increase in the debt ceiling that didn’t include any cuts in government spending! This is the same president who wants to slam Americans with tax hikes to cover his reckless spending, but has threatened to veto a bill proposing a balanced budget amendment. This is the same president who hasn’t put forward a responsible plan himself, but has rejected reasonable proposals that would tackle our debt. This is the same president who still refuses to understand that the American electorate rejected his big government agenda last November. As I said in Madison, Wisconsin, at the Tax Day Tea Party rally, “We don’t want it. We can’t afford it. And we are unwilling to pay for it.”
Now the President is outraged because the GOP House leadership called his bluff and ended discussions with him because they deemed him an obstruction to any real solution to the debt crisis.
He has been deemed a lame duck president. And he is angry now because he is being treated as such.
His foreign policy strategy has been described as “leading from behind.” Well, that’s his domestic policy strategy as well. Why should he be surprised that he’s been left behind in the negotiations when he’s been leading from behind on this debt crisis?
Thank you, GOP House leaders. Please don’t get wobbly on us now.
2012 can’t come soon enough
The Two Biggest Contenders Are Not Yet In
The Republican polls mean nothing today. Romney, Cain, Bachman, these names all bounce around different polls like ping pong balls in a lotto machine. But until we know for sure about two individuals, the polls mean nothing.
Rick Perry. Sarah Palin.
These are your heavyweight contenders, even though Palin's name often gets tossed into the polls now despite not having announced.
Simply being governor of Texas makes Perry a factor. His state is prospering relative to the rest of the nation. Texas has to deal with border issues, the EPA's maniacal war on nartural resources, and has taken on the Department of Education's incompetence. He has been an effective anti-Obama.
Sarah Palin has tremendous weight and resources that have not been fully applied as of yet. No one has the name recognition of Palin, for better or worse. It is not even a question now of whether or not she will run, considering her blitz on television and motion pictures. She and Perry both have placed themselves on the moderate edge of the Tea Party/libertarian movements in that their candidacies will be palatable to traditional Republicans and the newer movements.
Palin's advantage in a general election is that she will attract "history" voters in the way Obama did in 2008. A lot of folks have no problem with a woman in the White House and will support one to be a part of history.
Once these two heavyweights jump into the fray, I predict that they will dominate the show. Both have experience and enough media savvy to hold off on their official announcements. I would say that at the end of the day, we will see Palin as nominee and Perry as the running mate.
Rick Perry. Sarah Palin.
These are your heavyweight contenders, even though Palin's name often gets tossed into the polls now despite not having announced.
Simply being governor of Texas makes Perry a factor. His state is prospering relative to the rest of the nation. Texas has to deal with border issues, the EPA's maniacal war on nartural resources, and has taken on the Department of Education's incompetence. He has been an effective anti-Obama.
Sarah Palin has tremendous weight and resources that have not been fully applied as of yet. No one has the name recognition of Palin, for better or worse. It is not even a question now of whether or not she will run, considering her blitz on television and motion pictures. She and Perry both have placed themselves on the moderate edge of the Tea Party/libertarian movements in that their candidacies will be palatable to traditional Republicans and the newer movements.
Palin's advantage in a general election is that she will attract "history" voters in the way Obama did in 2008. A lot of folks have no problem with a woman in the White House and will support one to be a part of history.
Once these two heavyweights jump into the fray, I predict that they will dominate the show. Both have experience and enough media savvy to hold off on their official announcements. I would say that at the end of the day, we will see Palin as nominee and Perry as the running mate.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Romney's "Ism" Problem Has Nothing to do With His Religion
Herman Cain this week told the Washington Times that Mitt Romney's main obstacle to the Republican nomination is his Mormon faith. Cain reasoned that southern evangelicals would hold his religion against him, even though he is a good candidate.
Cain is a good man and would make a good nominee himself. However, he is dead wrong on both Romney and southerners.
Romney's main problem is his faith in state based solutions. His signature program as governor od Massachusetts was a government health care system. In today's environment where Republicans hate big government more than they have in years, Romney really has a shaky resume. He has to emphasize free market economic solutions and play down his problematic health care past.
This is the core of my issue with Romney, as well as many Tea Partiers. It is also why the mainstream media seems to love this guy. Conservativism is different from place to place. Romney may be conservative for New England, but the South and Midwest, economically and otherwise, see him as moderate or even liberal. This is why he will not be nominated, not his religious faith.
Republicans are more focused on economic and domestic policies than in any time that I can remember. Additionally, Mormonism faces less prejudice than at any time in that faith's history, except among Christian hating liberal and leftists. They benefit from the success of the HBO show Big Love (even though that show's emphasis on polygamy does not reflect current official Mormon practice) as well as the increased prominence of Brigham Young University in collegiate athletics.
It hurts the Republican Party to continue making Mormonism an issue. They are a different brand of Christianity, but they are strong backers of the kinds of values Republicans believe in. Most Republicans would have no problem with a Mormon nominee, provided that he or she was dedicated and devoted to free markets and smaller government.
Cain is a good man and would make a good nominee himself. However, he is dead wrong on both Romney and southerners.
Romney's main problem is his faith in state based solutions. His signature program as governor od Massachusetts was a government health care system. In today's environment where Republicans hate big government more than they have in years, Romney really has a shaky resume. He has to emphasize free market economic solutions and play down his problematic health care past.
This is the core of my issue with Romney, as well as many Tea Partiers. It is also why the mainstream media seems to love this guy. Conservativism is different from place to place. Romney may be conservative for New England, but the South and Midwest, economically and otherwise, see him as moderate or even liberal. This is why he will not be nominated, not his religious faith.
Republicans are more focused on economic and domestic policies than in any time that I can remember. Additionally, Mormonism faces less prejudice than at any time in that faith's history, except among Christian hating liberal and leftists. They benefit from the success of the HBO show Big Love (even though that show's emphasis on polygamy does not reflect current official Mormon practice) as well as the increased prominence of Brigham Young University in collegiate athletics.
It hurts the Republican Party to continue making Mormonism an issue. They are a different brand of Christianity, but they are strong backers of the kinds of values Republicans believe in. Most Republicans would have no problem with a Mormon nominee, provided that he or she was dedicated and devoted to free markets and smaller government.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
U. S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez Threatened
Mexican drug cartels have threatened the United States consulate in Ciudad Juarez after the seizure of drug suspects last week. American officials are watching entry points and other facilities in Juarez, which is across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas.
This comes on the heels of claims by Democrats that the threat of overflow violence from Mexico into the United States is overblown.
The threat from Mexican instability is real. Drug cartels, now armed by our own federal government in a failed operation, are a threat to Americans in Mexico and on our side of the border. Instability and violence will not respect borders that are not watched and defended vigorously.
We must focus our national security apparatus on eliminating the threats to our country and the legitimate Mexican government. We must also shut down our borders until the Mexican crisis subsides.
This comes on the heels of claims by Democrats that the threat of overflow violence from Mexico into the United States is overblown.
The threat from Mexican instability is real. Drug cartels, now armed by our own federal government in a failed operation, are a threat to Americans in Mexico and on our side of the border. Instability and violence will not respect borders that are not watched and defended vigorously.
We must focus our national security apparatus on eliminating the threats to our country and the legitimate Mexican government. We must also shut down our borders until the Mexican crisis subsides.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
180 Is a Magic Number
Legislators and others have for years now made it a paramount objective to keep children in school some how, some way, for 180 days. Few school systems actually accomplish that goal, but many people are very much focused on that number.
In West Virginia, that may be unattainable. School staff often supplement their meager incomes by taking summer jobs, so starting and ending dates are not extraordinarily flexible. Holiday vacations are pretty much set by parental requirements. People go out of town over Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving regardless of whether or not school is in session. There is also the fact that, even if you did mandate school during Thanksgiving week for example, few would show up. Often, the teachers plan little for those times anyway. Finally, the period after the mandated state testing has become an academic dead zone.
Most teachers agree that it is the quality of instruction, not the number of days in school, that matter. College students and home schooled children spend much less time in "school" such as it is, yet often seem to get more done in less time. A home schooled child can get accomplished in a few hours what public school cannot finish in a day. But then again, public school as it exists now may be an increasingly anitquated concept.
Our students do not get the bang for the bucks spent. So long as we focus on a number of days, and not what happens in those days, our education system will continue to fail.
In West Virginia, that may be unattainable. School staff often supplement their meager incomes by taking summer jobs, so starting and ending dates are not extraordinarily flexible. Holiday vacations are pretty much set by parental requirements. People go out of town over Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving regardless of whether or not school is in session. There is also the fact that, even if you did mandate school during Thanksgiving week for example, few would show up. Often, the teachers plan little for those times anyway. Finally, the period after the mandated state testing has become an academic dead zone.
Most teachers agree that it is the quality of instruction, not the number of days in school, that matter. College students and home schooled children spend much less time in "school" such as it is, yet often seem to get more done in less time. A home schooled child can get accomplished in a few hours what public school cannot finish in a day. But then again, public school as it exists now may be an increasingly anitquated concept.
Our students do not get the bang for the bucks spent. So long as we focus on a number of days, and not what happens in those days, our education system will continue to fail.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Evolution or Revolution in China Is Inevitable
Last week, Obama hosted the Dalai Llama. Once again, China huffed and puffed, saying it could harm relations between the two countries. They have more and more leverage over time, due to the fact that Obama has to periodically beg them to fund more of our debt. However, our leverage is that they cannot fully break with us without crippling their own economy.
The Dalai Llama's home region of Tibet still desires to exercise autonomy, if not break away entirely, from Chinese control. A few other areas share those goals, thus putting pressure on Beijing.
Pressure will only grow over time. China's system is nowhere near as stable as it appears. Corruption is rampant and the governemnt insists on maintaining its anachronistic dictatorship despite advances in education and individual material wealth. Almost a quarter of a century ago, we saw the yearning of their people for freedom crushed by tanks. It remains within their hearts, growing, not shrinking.
The time is ripe now for China to do as Poland did, simply hold elections and watch their Communist system fade into oblivion. Then they can truly join the free world. If they do not, then the nationalist ambitions of Tibetans and others will merge with the democratic yearnings of the middle class. They will take the freedom that the government refuses to allow.
Let us not forget that an alternative Chinese government on Taiwan exists. It is a democratic republic. The Communists have not forgotten. Its example of freedom and prosperity is yet another pressure point on that morally bankrupt regime.
China will eventually change of its own accord, or see revolution. Once violent revolution starts, it could lead towards a stable and prosperous republic, a violent fascism, or something else. In the worst case scenario, an expansionist and nationalist faction will take over and menace peaceful neighbors such as Vietnam and Japan. This would, of course, start World War III.
The Dalai Llama's home region of Tibet still desires to exercise autonomy, if not break away entirely, from Chinese control. A few other areas share those goals, thus putting pressure on Beijing.
Pressure will only grow over time. China's system is nowhere near as stable as it appears. Corruption is rampant and the governemnt insists on maintaining its anachronistic dictatorship despite advances in education and individual material wealth. Almost a quarter of a century ago, we saw the yearning of their people for freedom crushed by tanks. It remains within their hearts, growing, not shrinking.
The time is ripe now for China to do as Poland did, simply hold elections and watch their Communist system fade into oblivion. Then they can truly join the free world. If they do not, then the nationalist ambitions of Tibetans and others will merge with the democratic yearnings of the middle class. They will take the freedom that the government refuses to allow.
Let us not forget that an alternative Chinese government on Taiwan exists. It is a democratic republic. The Communists have not forgotten. Its example of freedom and prosperity is yet another pressure point on that morally bankrupt regime.
China will eventually change of its own accord, or see revolution. Once violent revolution starts, it could lead towards a stable and prosperous republic, a violent fascism, or something else. In the worst case scenario, an expansionist and nationalist faction will take over and menace peaceful neighbors such as Vietnam and Japan. This would, of course, start World War III.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Obama As King Ahab
Obama seems bound and determined to take something from the American people to pay for his programs. He will either tax it out of us now or later. Sure he says that the Republicans must "eat our peas," whatever that means. And he blames Eric Cantor in his hissy fits. But he has his costly Obamacare program that is sucking up money like a vacuum and now he needs more, more, more!
How do we like it? Not much, even though he claims that the people love his idea to tax small businesses to death. He and the Democrats also want to seize inheritances through taxation. Again, this will affect small businesses.
Obama's behavior is reminiscent of an old Bible story. Sunday is a fitting time to tell it, so here goes.
Ahab was king of Israel during the two kingdom period. This was the time for a few centuries after the death of Solomon when there was a kingdom of Israel and a kingdom of Judah. According to the Bible, this period was a particularly unholy time when oftentimes people only did what was right in their own eyes and even kings strayed from God. One such king was Ahab.
Ahab had tremendous power and wealth, but being an evil king, he always wanted more. In his kingdom, as told in I Kings 21, there lived a godly man named Naboth. Naboth owned a very productive vineyard that Ahab coveted. Ahab requested the vineyard of Naboth, offering a variety of other things in its place. This is much like Obama offering us his socialist policies if we agree to turn over our wealth.
Naboth refused, saying that the LORD forbade him to relinquish his inheritance to anyone. Ahab, like Obama, threw a hissy fit and went to bed. He refused to eat his dinner or speak to his wife, Jezebel. Jezebel scolded him, telling him that he was the king and that he would have his vineyard.
Jezebel riled up people against Naboth, saying that it was he who was ungodly. A faction of angry people found Naboth and killed him, allowing Ahab to finally get his vineyard. Needless to say, this incurred God's wrath.
In this story, we see the arrogaance of the leader who thinks he is entitled. He is willing to set part of the people against thhe other to get what he wants. The Bible tells us that Ahab is wicked and evil in his coveting of this property. Obama should consider this story.
How do we like it? Not much, even though he claims that the people love his idea to tax small businesses to death. He and the Democrats also want to seize inheritances through taxation. Again, this will affect small businesses.
Obama's behavior is reminiscent of an old Bible story. Sunday is a fitting time to tell it, so here goes.
Ahab was king of Israel during the two kingdom period. This was the time for a few centuries after the death of Solomon when there was a kingdom of Israel and a kingdom of Judah. According to the Bible, this period was a particularly unholy time when oftentimes people only did what was right in their own eyes and even kings strayed from God. One such king was Ahab.
Ahab had tremendous power and wealth, but being an evil king, he always wanted more. In his kingdom, as told in I Kings 21, there lived a godly man named Naboth. Naboth owned a very productive vineyard that Ahab coveted. Ahab requested the vineyard of Naboth, offering a variety of other things in its place. This is much like Obama offering us his socialist policies if we agree to turn over our wealth.
Naboth refused, saying that the LORD forbade him to relinquish his inheritance to anyone. Ahab, like Obama, threw a hissy fit and went to bed. He refused to eat his dinner or speak to his wife, Jezebel. Jezebel scolded him, telling him that he was the king and that he would have his vineyard.
Jezebel riled up people against Naboth, saying that it was he who was ungodly. A faction of angry people found Naboth and killed him, allowing Ahab to finally get his vineyard. Needless to say, this incurred God's wrath.
In this story, we see the arrogaance of the leader who thinks he is entitled. He is willing to set part of the people against thhe other to get what he wants. The Bible tells us that Ahab is wicked and evil in his coveting of this property. Obama should consider this story.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The American Spirit
In the midst of lockouts, lawsuits, and endless debate and recriminations in the American sports world, a group of Americans achieved what probably should have been impossible.
The U. S. women's soccer team is usually one of the best in the world. As a matter of fact, they are currently ranked number one. But on Sunday, the breaks were beating the girls, so they had to go out there and win just one for them, and for us.
The breaks included typically anti-American officiating and the ejection of an American player. At one point, Brazil led 2-1 with time running out and the U. S. playing a man down. They were playing against Brazil, who traditionally is the New York Yankees/Notre Dame of the soccer world. The U. S. scored an impossible goal, and then won the game on penalty kicks.
Their post game words were lessons for all of us. The coach, from Sweden, plus the players, credited the American way. Americans don't quit, Americans fight to the bitter end, Americans remain confident, proud, and optimistic. They had a rendezvous with destiny, just as a great man over fifty years ago proclaimed to this country. And they won.
Their victory reminds us that in America, for Americans, anything is possible. It is always morning in America so long as people keep working, keep pushing, and retain their resilience. We are right and we are free, but we will accomplish nothing without belief.
These women understood instinctively that there is an American spirit at work. Do you?
The U. S. women's soccer team is usually one of the best in the world. As a matter of fact, they are currently ranked number one. But on Sunday, the breaks were beating the girls, so they had to go out there and win just one for them, and for us.
The breaks included typically anti-American officiating and the ejection of an American player. At one point, Brazil led 2-1 with time running out and the U. S. playing a man down. They were playing against Brazil, who traditionally is the New York Yankees/Notre Dame of the soccer world. The U. S. scored an impossible goal, and then won the game on penalty kicks.
Their post game words were lessons for all of us. The coach, from Sweden, plus the players, credited the American way. Americans don't quit, Americans fight to the bitter end, Americans remain confident, proud, and optimistic. They had a rendezvous with destiny, just as a great man over fifty years ago proclaimed to this country. And they won.
Their victory reminds us that in America, for Americans, anything is possible. It is always morning in America so long as people keep working, keep pushing, and retain their resilience. We are right and we are free, but we will accomplish nothing without belief.
These women understood instinctively that there is an American spirit at work. Do you?
Monday, July 11, 2011
Nice Work If You Can Get It
The White House employs a man named Jesse Lee at a salary of over $72,000 per year to exchange Twitter messages with a man named Kevin Eder. Well, he does have other duties, such as focusing on the Communi..I mean, er Stalini...I mean er "progressive" responses to online criticism. That includes arguing with people on Facebook, Twitter, or anywhere else. Eder, who is neither a journalist, nor a commentator in any form except Twitter, has been honored with 15% of Lee's twitter output. This shocks Eder, who shows more political savvy than the White House official. Eder states that all these responses do is to raise the profile of the person getting the response. After all, none of us knew who Eder was before. Now we wonder why the White House is so worried about this guy.
Lee is part of an aggressive response team whose strategy, according to the Daily Caller (story here) http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/06/white-house-uses-twitter-to-bully-critics/ has been to bully traditional and non traditional media sources alike. No way would Bush have gotten away with what Obama's people did to the Boston Herald, as described in the Daily Caller story. What they have not figured out is that their hardball tactics become the story and increase the disenchantment felt towards the Obama White House.
What I wonder is this. Are we paying this guy $72,000 per year to sit around on social media?
Lee is part of an aggressive response team whose strategy, according to the Daily Caller (story here) http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/06/white-house-uses-twitter-to-bully-critics/ has been to bully traditional and non traditional media sources alike. No way would Bush have gotten away with what Obama's people did to the Boston Herald, as described in the Daily Caller story. What they have not figured out is that their hardball tactics become the story and increase the disenchantment felt towards the Obama White House.
What I wonder is this. Are we paying this guy $72,000 per year to sit around on social media?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)