At what point do conservatives get to say “we told you so”?
Just like we told you the porkulus wouldn't work (-and it hasn't), and we told you that the Dodd-Frank bill wouldn't really reform financial oversight (-and it hasn't), etc., etc....
We told you Obamacare would lead to the loss of freedoms, and now it has.
[Edit 2/19/2012 - I told you so very explicitly over two years ago on this very blog.]
I have no sympathy for Senator Casey or any other Catholic and/or “conservative” Democrat legislator who voted for Obamacare and now cries crocodile tears over this contraception diktat. The vote for Obamacare was a vote for a gargantuan piece of legislation that not one soul had read prior to its passage, to regulate and “reform” about a fifth of the US economy. It was a vote to place completely unprecedented discretionary authority in the hands of an unelected official, the Secretary of HHS. Folks, this is not the rule of law.
In what way are we surprised that Kathleen Sebelius gave Catholics the finger?
And this compromise, or accommodation, or whatever they're calling it is anything but. Nothing changes under the compromise plan. If anything, it only emphasizes how absurd Obamacare is that the President could think he could force private insurers to provide something for “free”.
Since we told you so before, let us tell you something else: The administration is equating “access to contraceptives” with “insurance plans that pay for contraceptives”. This is the slipperiest of slopes. This is a deliberate attempt to confuse negative rights with positive rights. A right to seek contraception has magically become the right to have somebody else pay for it. There is no logical termination of this line of argument. It will be used again and again for everything under the sun, bit by bit.
Remember who told you so.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Chill, please.
You're embarrassing yourselves.
The Presidential primary has gotten really mean-spirited in the last few weeks, and I'm not just talking about the campaigns. Political junkies, some inside but many outside the DC beltway, have become exceptionally aggressive in their attacks on non-preferred candidates.
I almost wrote "aggressive in their advocacy", but very little of it can be called that. It's mostly just sniping at the other side.
Mittens is a RINO. Newt is a wildcard. Bain Capital was evil. Newt's dodging the "lobbyist" label for his work for Freddie and Fannie, which, by the way, are the definition of state corporatism.
Not so "inevitable" are we now, eh Willard?!
Mining on the moon, Newt? Really? What a fundamentally and profoundly stupid idea!
Let's face it, all of the Republican candidates for President are pretty seriously flawed. Each one of the big three have done or said things that under normal circumstances I would consider to be a disqualifying action or position. I'm at the point now where as long as it isn't Ron Paul, I really don't care much which one of the remaining candidates is nominated.
So to my fellow political addicts, please chill the heck out about bashing the other side. You look like giant tools trying to slam your opponents when your preferred candidate is sort of lousy himself. And really, isn't that why you're so aggressive, because your guy is weak too?
And don't forget -- one of these turds is going to be our nominee.
Romney:
Just so. Remember that one, Newtonians.
The Presidential primary has gotten really mean-spirited in the last few weeks, and I'm not just talking about the campaigns. Political junkies, some inside but many outside the DC beltway, have become exceptionally aggressive in their attacks on non-preferred candidates.
I almost wrote "aggressive in their advocacy", but very little of it can be called that. It's mostly just sniping at the other side.
Mittens is a RINO. Newt is a wildcard. Bain Capital was evil. Newt's dodging the "lobbyist" label for his work for Freddie and Fannie, which, by the way, are the definition of state corporatism.
Not so "inevitable" are we now, eh Willard?!
Mining on the moon, Newt? Really? What a fundamentally and profoundly stupid idea!
Let's face it, all of the Republican candidates for President are pretty seriously flawed. Each one of the big three have done or said things that under normal circumstances I would consider to be a disqualifying action or position. I'm at the point now where as long as it isn't Ron Paul, I really don't care much which one of the remaining candidates is nominated.
So to my fellow political addicts, please chill the heck out about bashing the other side. You look like giant tools trying to slam your opponents when your preferred candidate is sort of lousy himself. And really, isn't that why you're so aggressive, because your guy is weak too?
And don't forget -- one of these turds is going to be our nominee.
Romney:
"Those who pick up the weapons of the Left today will find them turned against us tomorrow."
Just so. Remember that one, Newtonians.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Shame on the Pro-Life Movement
Saturday night’s Republican debate on ABC revealed a startling deficiency in the Presidential field regarding the understanding of legal underpinnings of the abortion debate.
Yes, George Stephanopolous’ question about outlawing contraception might seem bizarre in a modern context. But the question goes to the heart of the landmark Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision that established the right to privacy that provided the basis for Roe v. Wade.
Romney in particular seemed very ignorant of this intellectual lineage of Roe. This is especially uninspiring in a candidate who has changed his position on the issue.
There’s an argument that a reversal of Roe would necessarily reverse Griswold, and would eliminate a generalized individualized right to privacy. That’s why Democratic Senators always ask prominent judicial nominees if they believe in a right to privacy. (There’s also an incorrect assumption among many that reversing Roe would make abortion illegal at the national level. A simple reversal of Roe would actually return regulation of abortion to the states, where, at the time of the Roe decision, there was an early trend toward liberalization.)
When George Stephanopolous asks whether a state would have the right to ban contraception -- AS CONNECTICUT ACTUALLY DID from 1879 to 1965-- he is asking a legally and philosophically relevant question, if not an electorally pertinent one.
It speaks very poorly of the pro-life movement that the importance of this question was lost on the GOP front-runner and much of the audience.
It really shouldn’t be that hard to distinguish Griswold from Roe. A candidate could simply state that individual privacy exists, but doesn’t extend to the killing of the unborn. Pro-lifers need to give better answers on the privacy question, and it is shameful that they seem unable to do so.
Yes, George Stephanopolous’ question about outlawing contraception might seem bizarre in a modern context. But the question goes to the heart of the landmark Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision that established the right to privacy that provided the basis for Roe v. Wade.
Romney in particular seemed very ignorant of this intellectual lineage of Roe. This is especially uninspiring in a candidate who has changed his position on the issue.
There’s an argument that a reversal of Roe would necessarily reverse Griswold, and would eliminate a generalized individualized right to privacy. That’s why Democratic Senators always ask prominent judicial nominees if they believe in a right to privacy. (There’s also an incorrect assumption among many that reversing Roe would make abortion illegal at the national level. A simple reversal of Roe would actually return regulation of abortion to the states, where, at the time of the Roe decision, there was an early trend toward liberalization.)
When George Stephanopolous asks whether a state would have the right to ban contraception -- AS CONNECTICUT ACTUALLY DID from 1879 to 1965-- he is asking a legally and philosophically relevant question, if not an electorally pertinent one.
It speaks very poorly of the pro-life movement that the importance of this question was lost on the GOP front-runner and much of the audience.
It really shouldn’t be that hard to distinguish Griswold from Roe. A candidate could simply state that individual privacy exists, but doesn’t extend to the killing of the unborn. Pro-lifers need to give better answers on the privacy question, and it is shameful that they seem unable to do so.
Monday, November 28, 2011
All of this has happened before
...and will happen again.
Haven't been blogging much. Made a few posts at some other sites, but I'm frustrated. Once again, political history is rhyming, as Mark Twain might have put it, and not a lot of folks seem to have picked up on it.
Candidates, parties, various “movements”, newspaper editorials, talking heads on Sunday morning shows, political operatives... the public at large... Everybody seems to be acting as though they haven't actually learned anything from recent history.
If you've read much of my writing for the last few years, particularly at PAWaterCooler, you might have noticed that I've tried to put a damper on the over-reliance on the left-right ideological paradigm when plotting political actions and communications. At a certain point, it becomes blindingly obvious that voters don't rely on ideology nearly as much as it is supposed that they do. Once you see it, every abuse of the old conventional wisdom sticks out like a sore thumb.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Why is Cain being taken seriously?
Why is it that the media -including conservative media- are taking Herman Cain so seriously?
Yes, his poll numbers are impressive for a candidate who was written off just weeks ago. But Cain's rise would not have happened had the media been doing their jobs. There are two categorical failures in the media's coverage of Cain, coverage concerning his 9-9-9 plan, and everything else. First, the tax plan:
A lot of conservative wonks are not on board with 9-9-9 for various wonky reasons. Sadly, the media has largely avoided those reasons, and has chosen to focus on made-up bullshit instead. Virtually every media report on Cain's plan portrays a nightmare scenario for middle and lower income households who would suddenly be hit with massive sales tax increases. The media conveniently omits the fact that Federal payroll taxes (-who is this "FICA" person, and why does he get so much of my paycheck?) would be eliminated under Cain's plan.
When critics leave out this crucial detail, they only invite the Cainiacs to (correctly) cry foul. All this spurious criticism then blinds Cain supporters to the legitimate problems with the Cain candidacy.
But with all the fuss about 9-9-9, we've been distracted from the biggest reason Cain shouldn't be President: He doesn't understand the Constitution.
I’m not exactly the biggest fan of the Religion of Peace (tm), but I have enough respect for the First Amendment to know that localities can’t prohibit the construction of mosques based on majority vote. Freedom of religion doesn’t work like that. That sort of fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution is a complete deal-breaker.
And we shouldn’t forget Cain's shaky remarks about the Second Amendent, which, even in the most generous view of Cain’s comments, seems to misunderstand the incorporation doctrine.
So there we have it. A guy who is dead wrong about the First Amendment, possibly the Second, and shows a general misunderstanding of Constitutional principles. Even his 9-9-9 plan shows a wrongness about the ability of Congress to bind future Congresses to a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes. The supermajority requirement itself could be repealed by a simple majority.
How can anybody, particularly pro-Constitution conservatives, possibly be taking Herman Cain seriously?
Yes, his poll numbers are impressive for a candidate who was written off just weeks ago. But Cain's rise would not have happened had the media been doing their jobs. There are two categorical failures in the media's coverage of Cain, coverage concerning his 9-9-9 plan, and everything else. First, the tax plan:
A lot of conservative wonks are not on board with 9-9-9 for various wonky reasons. Sadly, the media has largely avoided those reasons, and has chosen to focus on made-up bullshit instead. Virtually every media report on Cain's plan portrays a nightmare scenario for middle and lower income households who would suddenly be hit with massive sales tax increases. The media conveniently omits the fact that Federal payroll taxes (-who is this "FICA" person, and why does he get so much of my paycheck?) would be eliminated under Cain's plan.
When critics leave out this crucial detail, they only invite the Cainiacs to (correctly) cry foul. All this spurious criticism then blinds Cain supporters to the legitimate problems with the Cain candidacy.
But with all the fuss about 9-9-9, we've been distracted from the biggest reason Cain shouldn't be President: He doesn't understand the Constitution.
I’m not exactly the biggest fan of the Religion of Peace (tm), but I have enough respect for the First Amendment to know that localities can’t prohibit the construction of mosques based on majority vote. Freedom of religion doesn’t work like that. That sort of fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution is a complete deal-breaker.
And we shouldn’t forget Cain's shaky remarks about the Second Amendent, which, even in the most generous view of Cain’s comments, seems to misunderstand the incorporation doctrine.
So there we have it. A guy who is dead wrong about the First Amendment, possibly the Second, and shows a general misunderstanding of Constitutional principles. Even his 9-9-9 plan shows a wrongness about the ability of Congress to bind future Congresses to a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes. The supermajority requirement itself could be repealed by a simple majority.
How can anybody, particularly pro-Constitution conservatives, possibly be taking Herman Cain seriously?
Sunday, September 11, 2011
The details of my 9-11 story are quite inconsequential
I was working at my Dad's business. No television. A small radio. One crappy (even by 2001 standards) computer with dial-up internet access. We had gotten all the delivery drivers out on their routes by the time of the attacks, and Dad and I were the only people left in the warehouse.
My grandmother called about 9am. A plane had hit the World Trade Center, she explained. She said little else, but seemed exasperated. My grandmother had always been an excitable person, and I had just recently learned that years ago a plane had hit the Empire State Building, and the building had withstood it. I didn't quite understand why my grandmother was calling. Such an odd phone call.
Of course, we got a better idea as the day wore on. Without a TV, we were relying on the radio and the dial-up internet connection, the latter of which was of little use. All the news sites were swamped with traffic. Dad eventually had the idea of checking the BBC website, which did eventually load for us. All sorts of crazy reports were coming in over the radio, such as the rumor that the State Department had been car-bombed. I was kind of freaked out at this point. Who knew what else was going to happen?!
Still, we had business to conduct. Shipments to receive, customers to service. We went about our jobs with what in retrospect was stunning normalcy, still monitoring the radio for the latest updates between spurts of work.
I don't recall whether I saw any still photographs of the attack on the Beeb website, but I know I didn't see any video until I got home that day some time after 4pm. Most of the hard facts had been sorted out by then - at least about what had been destroyed and what hadn't. I was still flabbergasted when I eventually saw the video, even knowing what the news of the day had been. Such unbelievable horror, viewed all at once.
My grandmother called about 9am. A plane had hit the World Trade Center, she explained. She said little else, but seemed exasperated. My grandmother had always been an excitable person, and I had just recently learned that years ago a plane had hit the Empire State Building, and the building had withstood it. I didn't quite understand why my grandmother was calling. Such an odd phone call.
Of course, we got a better idea as the day wore on. Without a TV, we were relying on the radio and the dial-up internet connection, the latter of which was of little use. All the news sites were swamped with traffic. Dad eventually had the idea of checking the BBC website, which did eventually load for us. All sorts of crazy reports were coming in over the radio, such as the rumor that the State Department had been car-bombed. I was kind of freaked out at this point. Who knew what else was going to happen?!
Still, we had business to conduct. Shipments to receive, customers to service. We went about our jobs with what in retrospect was stunning normalcy, still monitoring the radio for the latest updates between spurts of work.
I don't recall whether I saw any still photographs of the attack on the Beeb website, but I know I didn't see any video until I got home that day some time after 4pm. Most of the hard facts had been sorted out by then - at least about what had been destroyed and what hadn't. I was still flabbergasted when I eventually saw the video, even knowing what the news of the day had been. Such unbelievable horror, viewed all at once.
Monday, September 05, 2011
What's all this about "vetting" Perry?
Look, I'm not trying to coronate the guy, and I think we've all seen how the whole political messiah thing works out, but I'm pretty much for Rick Perry at this point.
I don't quite get what all this business is about the frantic need to "vet" Perry. Yeah, I'd like to see him perform in some debates, and I'd like to hear his answers to some tough questions. But at this point I'm not sure what the big deal is that certain Republicans are having with him. The guy has been governor for a heckuva long time. It's not like he just rolled out of some Chicagoland Illinois Senate seat with no real record of accomplishments, or anything.
It's like this -- Romneycare is a dealbreaker, at least in the primary. (Are people really surprised that the base finds Romney unacceptable? Really??) And I think Michelle Bachmann has pretty much failed her public "vetting". Pawlenty dropped out, and I'm not drinking the Ron Paul Kool-Aid. By process of elimination, that pretty much leaves Rick Perry unless for some reason Paul Ryan decides to have a change of heart.
Sure, he has some klunkers in his record, notably the Guardasil snafu. And the Time magazine pre-hit piece from late June does reveal certain problems with the Texas Enterprise Fund and Texas Emerging Technology Fund programs. (On the whole, however, Texas' job creation record is nothing short of phenomenal.) But the ironic thing about the Time piece is that it inadvertently reads like a to-do and not-to-do of job creation. DO make your laws business-friendly. DON'T create slush funds to pick winners and losers. Isn't that pretty much exactly the opposite of what Obama and the Democrats did?
(Don't even get me started on that whole Sharia/dhimmi thing with Ace of Spades vs Pam Geller and Robert Spencer. Ace wins that hands-down, and I think Pam needs pharmaceutical help.)
So, yes - I like the idea of Rick Perry more than I like the actual Rick Perry. But I still like the real Rick Perry better than I like anybody else at this point. To answer the haters who think that I'm just jumping on a bandwagon without looking, I'm going into this Perry thing with eyes open. He's just a guy, not a god. I get it. I just happen to like him best right now. Get a grip.
I don't quite get what all this business is about the frantic need to "vet" Perry. Yeah, I'd like to see him perform in some debates, and I'd like to hear his answers to some tough questions. But at this point I'm not sure what the big deal is that certain Republicans are having with him. The guy has been governor for a heckuva long time. It's not like he just rolled out of some Chicagoland Illinois Senate seat with no real record of accomplishments, or anything.
It's like this -- Romneycare is a dealbreaker, at least in the primary. (Are people really surprised that the base finds Romney unacceptable? Really??) And I think Michelle Bachmann has pretty much failed her public "vetting". Pawlenty dropped out, and I'm not drinking the Ron Paul Kool-Aid. By process of elimination, that pretty much leaves Rick Perry unless for some reason Paul Ryan decides to have a change of heart.
Sure, he has some klunkers in his record, notably the Guardasil snafu. And the Time magazine pre-hit piece from late June does reveal certain problems with the Texas Enterprise Fund and Texas Emerging Technology Fund programs. (On the whole, however, Texas' job creation record is nothing short of phenomenal.) But the ironic thing about the Time piece is that it inadvertently reads like a to-do and not-to-do of job creation. DO make your laws business-friendly. DON'T create slush funds to pick winners and losers. Isn't that pretty much exactly the opposite of what Obama and the Democrats did?
(Don't even get me started on that whole Sharia/dhimmi thing with Ace of Spades vs Pam Geller and Robert Spencer. Ace wins that hands-down, and I think Pam needs pharmaceutical help.)
So, yes - I like the idea of Rick Perry more than I like the actual Rick Perry. But I still like the real Rick Perry better than I like anybody else at this point. To answer the haters who think that I'm just jumping on a bandwagon without looking, I'm going into this Perry thing with eyes open. He's just a guy, not a god. I get it. I just happen to like him best right now. Get a grip.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
"Establishment" gets part of the blame for TPaw's exit
Surely it can be said that the Pawlenty team made some strategic errors. Lord knows I've expressed my dissatisfaction with how things were being handled. Philip Klein's analysis isn't far from my own, though I have a hard time seeing Pawlenty in the veep slot. (Not that I don't think he would be good at it.)
But whatever the Pawlenty campaign's faults, I can't let the pro-Romney "Republican establishment" entirely off the hook.
I don't want to hear that there isn't any "establishment". A guy doesn't raise ten million bucks in a day's worth of phone calls without there being an establishment on which to draw.
The Powers-That-Be should understand that a big chunk of the party isn't supportive of Romney, and that this tepid-at-best reaction will create issues in the general election. Had the proverbial old, cigar-smoking, rich, white men understood this, they might have looked for somebody else who fit the general profile of a conservative governor from a blue state who didn't irritate the base so much.
Well, they're a stubborn bunch, and the establishment has stuck with Romney. And instead of shepherding Pawlenty to the nomination with minimal friction, now they're dealing with Bachmann and Perry.
I think they could have handled Bachmann. Perry is going to be a bigger threat.
Personally, I'm leaning towards supporting Perry.
But whatever the Pawlenty campaign's faults, I can't let the pro-Romney "Republican establishment" entirely off the hook.
I don't want to hear that there isn't any "establishment". A guy doesn't raise ten million bucks in a day's worth of phone calls without there being an establishment on which to draw.
The Powers-That-Be should understand that a big chunk of the party isn't supportive of Romney, and that this tepid-at-best reaction will create issues in the general election. Had the proverbial old, cigar-smoking, rich, white men understood this, they might have looked for somebody else who fit the general profile of a conservative governor from a blue state who didn't irritate the base so much.
Well, they're a stubborn bunch, and the establishment has stuck with Romney. And instead of shepherding Pawlenty to the nomination with minimal friction, now they're dealing with Bachmann and Perry.
I think they could have handled Bachmann. Perry is going to be a bigger threat.
Personally, I'm leaning towards supporting Perry.
Saturday, July 09, 2011
The Selfish Y Chromosome: Genetic explanation for child gender preferences?
Gallup recently released a poll confirming a preference for male children. Specifically, men displayed this preference while women responded with near indifference. It would be easy to write this off as a purely cultural phenomenon --machismo, labor demand, etc. --, but I hypothesize a potential genetic explanation unique to the influence of the Y-chromosome.
Gallup makes passing mention of the theory of evolutionary advantage to having male children --presumably that males are capable of being more genetically prolific than females--, but this theory fails to account for the discrepancy between the preferences of men versus the preferences of women. On a whole-genome level, a woman would benefit genetically just as much as a man as the result of a prolific male child.
The Y chromosome is somewhat of a genetic island. 95% of the Y is unable to recombine with the X during meiosis. The Y is thus passed on virtually intact through the generations, and it is immediately apparent in newborn children whether the Y is present or not. A father with all female offspring will see his Y lineage disappear.
The X, on the other hand, is not similarly unique. The mother's two X chromosomes would have recombined during meiosis, and male children will also receive an X chromosome from the mother, avoiding the genetic dead-end of the Y chromosome in female offspring.
This Y chromosome "selfish gene" explanation thus avoids the criticism regarding the "units" of natural selection in that the genotype and the phenotype are essentially synonymous in this unique circumstance.
The "selfish Y" hypothesis is at least as credible as the original theory of evolutionary advantage, and has the added benefit of accounting for the discrepancy of preferences found between men and women.
Gallup makes passing mention of the theory of evolutionary advantage to having male children --presumably that males are capable of being more genetically prolific than females--, but this theory fails to account for the discrepancy between the preferences of men versus the preferences of women. On a whole-genome level, a woman would benefit genetically just as much as a man as the result of a prolific male child.
The Y chromosome is somewhat of a genetic island. 95% of the Y is unable to recombine with the X during meiosis. The Y is thus passed on virtually intact through the generations, and it is immediately apparent in newborn children whether the Y is present or not. A father with all female offspring will see his Y lineage disappear.
The X, on the other hand, is not similarly unique. The mother's two X chromosomes would have recombined during meiosis, and male children will also receive an X chromosome from the mother, avoiding the genetic dead-end of the Y chromosome in female offspring.
This Y chromosome "selfish gene" explanation thus avoids the criticism regarding the "units" of natural selection in that the genotype and the phenotype are essentially synonymous in this unique circumstance.
The "selfish Y" hypothesis is at least as credible as the original theory of evolutionary advantage, and has the added benefit of accounting for the discrepancy of preferences found between men and women.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Six Reasons the SPR Release is Stupid
The globally coordinated release of petroleum reserves is the latest evidence that the Obama administration simply doesn't understand markets.
1 - The justification (or "cover") for the SPR release is the loss of North African (especially Libyan) output. However, the Libyan situation is a disruption of indeterminate length, and the SPR release is scheduled to last 30 days.
2 - The price of oil was already headed down in response to market feedback.
3 - A significant percentage of major stock market indices are populated by energy companies, which are hit especially hard by this action, thus exacerbating the ongoing stock market decline.
4 - A suggested alternate motivation for the SPR release is to shake speculators out of their positions, and introduce an element of uncertainty in order to deter future speculation. To the extent that this is successful, the world oil market will be unable to correctly determine the correct price premium corresponding to supply uncertainty. The global market will be less capable of absorbing future supply disruptions.
4a - To the extent that the expectation of future scarcity is successfully driven from the oil market, oil companies will not be given the correct price signal to drill for more oil, and future oil price shocks will be more severe due to a lack of spare capacity that was never developed.
4b - To the extent that the expectation of future scarcity is successfully driven from the oil market, consumers will not be given the correct price signal to conserve energy and buy more energy efficient vehicles, magnifying the impact of future price shocks on consumers.
5 - Impairment of marginal supply development will hit North American exploration disproportionately, deterring the creation of high-paying energy sector jobs in the US and Canada.
6 - An SPR release diminishes our ability to respond to a legitimate use of the SPR such as a natural disaster or terrorist attack.
1 - The justification (or "cover") for the SPR release is the loss of North African (especially Libyan) output. However, the Libyan situation is a disruption of indeterminate length, and the SPR release is scheduled to last 30 days.
2 - The price of oil was already headed down in response to market feedback.
3 - A significant percentage of major stock market indices are populated by energy companies, which are hit especially hard by this action, thus exacerbating the ongoing stock market decline.
4 - A suggested alternate motivation for the SPR release is to shake speculators out of their positions, and introduce an element of uncertainty in order to deter future speculation. To the extent that this is successful, the world oil market will be unable to correctly determine the correct price premium corresponding to supply uncertainty. The global market will be less capable of absorbing future supply disruptions.
4a - To the extent that the expectation of future scarcity is successfully driven from the oil market, oil companies will not be given the correct price signal to drill for more oil, and future oil price shocks will be more severe due to a lack of spare capacity that was never developed.
4b - To the extent that the expectation of future scarcity is successfully driven from the oil market, consumers will not be given the correct price signal to conserve energy and buy more energy efficient vehicles, magnifying the impact of future price shocks on consumers.
5 - Impairment of marginal supply development will hit North American exploration disproportionately, deterring the creation of high-paying energy sector jobs in the US and Canada.
6 - An SPR release diminishes our ability to respond to a legitimate use of the SPR such as a natural disaster or terrorist attack.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Somebody Should Focus Group This Video
Paul Ryan ably defended his entitlement plan on CNBC's Squawk Box against Jared Bernstein. Folks, this is just about as good as it gets, so if this doesn't work, then we're pretty boned.
Here's a small-ish clip:
The full video (14+ minutes) can be viewed here.
The bottom line on Medicare is that there are going to be cuts. The question is whether voters want to have some input on where those cuts get made, or whether they want the IPAD (Independent Payment Advisory Board) -- the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats Congressman Ryan spoke about -- to make all of those decisions for everybody.
Here's a small-ish clip:
The full video (14+ minutes) can be viewed here.
The bottom line on Medicare is that there are going to be cuts. The question is whether voters want to have some input on where those cuts get made, or whether they want the IPAD (Independent Payment Advisory Board) -- the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats Congressman Ryan spoke about -- to make all of those decisions for everybody.
QOTD: Asterisk
Jack Kelly at RCP quotes Glenn Kessler:
And what Mr. Obama said at the Jeep plant "is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have found in a short presidential speech," wrote The Washington Post's fact checker, Glenn Kessler. "Virtually every claim made by the president concerning the auto industry deserves an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan."
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Quote of the Day: Indefensible
Bill Daley, White House Chief of Staff:
(via Dave at AoSHQ)
More:
“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,”
(via Dave at AoSHQ)
More:
Daley couldn’t answer basic questions and continually faced criticism from the executives in the room. The business leaders even applauded each other’s criticism of the administration. “At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts utility executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government ‘throws sand into the gears of progress,’” wrote Peter Wallsten and Jia Lynn Yang in the Washington Post.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Kathleen Parker Missing The Flipping Forest For The Trees
The former Spitzer co-host* once again woefully laments the perceived ideological rigidity of her conservative would-be-brethren. This time she's defending the “flip-flop”, with particular emphasis on Mitt Romney. Oddly, Romney is most recently in trouble for not flipping on global warming, which makes me wonder whether Kathleen Parker finished her bottle of wine before or after submitting her work this week.
* - (No, we will never let you live that down.)
But the problem is not merely that somebody change his or her mind, as Parker would have us believe. The Republican Party is filled with folks who changed their minds on issues large and small. Reagan made George H.W. Bush change his professed position on abortion in order to join the 1980 ticket. Dubya was against nation building before he tried to nation-build in Iraq. Pawlenty has reneged on his previous support of carbon cap-and-trade. Old-hand Republicans everywhere who once supported an individual health insurance mandate in the early 1990s have largely come to denounce the idea in the present. Rick Perry, who according to many liberal opinion writers seems to be the impossible love child of Barry Goldwater, Hitler, and Yosemite Sam, actually voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and supported Al Gore's presidential ambitions in 1988. If Texas can forgive Perry for these political sins, then so shall I.
Rather, the problems with flip-flopping are those of quantity and convenience. We can tolerate the occasional flip-flop of convenience, so long as it is rare. And we can stomach a large number of changed positions, so long as the changes are credible, as in the case of an ideological conversion or epiphany. But forgive us, oh wise Kathleen, for questioning the intellectual integrity of a politician whose positions change with great frequency and during awfully convenient circumstances.
Parker seems to empathize with John Kerry and his episode of “[voting] for the $87 billion, before [he] voted against it”. She calls these remarks, “unhelpful”. But Kerry's problem was not merely that he didn't explain himself, it was that his remarks betrayed what was at best a wishy-washyness to his support of the war effort, and at worst a cynical calculation to manipulate the domestic tax policy process by withholding critical funding for the war. Kerry's entire 2004 campaign was marked by his inability to convey clear policy messages. Even as he was on the cusp of receiving the Democratic nomination, The Washington Post complained about Kerry's “fuzziness on issues ranging from Iraq to gay marriage”.
The issue about flip-flopping is not that a politician might change his beliefs in light of new facts, but the concern that the politician has no real beliefs to begin with.
Kathleen, ask yourself what you suppose Mitt Romney really thinks about gay marriage. If your answer is anything other than an unhesitating confirmation of his stated position (-opposed), then perhaps you should reflect upon that.
* - (No, we will never let you live that down.)
But the problem is not merely that somebody change his or her mind, as Parker would have us believe. The Republican Party is filled with folks who changed their minds on issues large and small. Reagan made George H.W. Bush change his professed position on abortion in order to join the 1980 ticket. Dubya was against nation building before he tried to nation-build in Iraq. Pawlenty has reneged on his previous support of carbon cap-and-trade. Old-hand Republicans everywhere who once supported an individual health insurance mandate in the early 1990s have largely come to denounce the idea in the present. Rick Perry, who according to many liberal opinion writers seems to be the impossible love child of Barry Goldwater, Hitler, and Yosemite Sam, actually voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and supported Al Gore's presidential ambitions in 1988. If Texas can forgive Perry for these political sins, then so shall I.
Rather, the problems with flip-flopping are those of quantity and convenience. We can tolerate the occasional flip-flop of convenience, so long as it is rare. And we can stomach a large number of changed positions, so long as the changes are credible, as in the case of an ideological conversion or epiphany. But forgive us, oh wise Kathleen, for questioning the intellectual integrity of a politician whose positions change with great frequency and during awfully convenient circumstances.
Parker seems to empathize with John Kerry and his episode of “[voting] for the $87 billion, before [he] voted against it”. She calls these remarks, “unhelpful”. But Kerry's problem was not merely that he didn't explain himself, it was that his remarks betrayed what was at best a wishy-washyness to his support of the war effort, and at worst a cynical calculation to manipulate the domestic tax policy process by withholding critical funding for the war. Kerry's entire 2004 campaign was marked by his inability to convey clear policy messages. Even as he was on the cusp of receiving the Democratic nomination, The Washington Post complained about Kerry's “fuzziness on issues ranging from Iraq to gay marriage”.
The issue about flip-flopping is not that a politician might change his beliefs in light of new facts, but the concern that the politician has no real beliefs to begin with.
Kathleen, ask yourself what you suppose Mitt Romney really thinks about gay marriage. If your answer is anything other than an unhesitating confirmation of his stated position (-opposed), then perhaps you should reflect upon that.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Wreck-overy-dot-gov: Porkulus Still Only 83% Spent
Yeah, that's right. The Obama "stimulus" bill, after over two years since enactment, is only 82.73 % spent.
Screen-cap from Recovery.gov:
259.9 + 207.3 + 183.9 = $651.1 billion
651.1 / 787 = 82.73%
Recall that the entire point of a Keynesian stimulus is to spend it, and to spend it quickly. Obama couldn't even get that much right.
Screen-cap from Recovery.gov:
259.9 + 207.3 + 183.9 = $651.1 billion
651.1 / 787 = 82.73%
Recall that the entire point of a Keynesian stimulus is to spend it, and to spend it quickly. Obama couldn't even get that much right.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Paul Ryan vs Polling - Painting outside the lines
Picking up on Ace's "DOOM!" meme, if we're to believe the polling about Paul Ryan's Medicare plan, the GOP is doomed. And not just the GOP, but the nation as well, because ignoring the issue is going to put us in a Greek-like situation in relatively short order. Problem being that we're not Greece, we're the US of A, and there will be a lot more collateral damage.
But Ryan isn't backing down, ignoring the hand-wringing pollsters.
Republicans need to learn to paint outside the proverbial lines.
Ryan on Meet the Press (emphasis added):
There's a maxim among political consultants -- "If you're explaining, you're losing." And there is some truth to that, like if you're trying to explain why you voted for something before voting against it, you're in trouble. Or if you're trying to explain that, yes, the candidate does read a lot of news sources despite failing to name a single one in an interview, you're losing. If you're explaining that you cheated on your wife because of how much you love your country, you're losing.
But on certain issues, particularly existential issues, you need to do some explaining. You need to lead. You need to call the other side out for lying like Jon Lovitz on his old Saturday Night Live sketches. Paul Ryan has done that, and wins in his not-overly-conservative district because he consistently takes the time to explain his positions and people trust him.
Unlike some "damn the torpedoes" conservatives, I am generally appreciative of the wisdom obtained from good polling. But there are limitations to the utility of polls. Polls are clumsy at detecting social tipping points, and poor at anticipating results involving exogenous circumstance -- exogenous circumstances like an imminent sovereign debt crisis and a politician actually willing to lead on that issue. I have personally witnessed polling in a state-wide race where the politician moved significant numbers based on a screwball issue no pollster or consultant would have ever dreamed of. It can be done. "Leaders change the polls."
But the limitation is not just with polling and pollsters, but with the entire professional partisan political consulting universe. Consultants only know how to paint inside the lines, caring more about the quick 50-percent-plus-one win and caring less about an electoral future two years distant. Draw a quick contrast grid, emphasize your candidate's positives, slam your opponent's negatives, make a bunch of phone calls, and hang on for dear life. It's a process that works enough of the time to be useful, but it isn't a strategy for changing a lot of hearts and minds.
The special election in NY-26 illustrates this ineptitude. Corwin has backed off her support of the Ryan plan, no doubt following the advice of pollsters and other consultants. In doing so, she has forfeited credibility among both conservative Tea Partiers and independent swing voters alike. She is somehow simultaneously an ideological squish and a mean, grandma-killing ghoul. The Republican party apparatus, having lost the last two Congressional special elections in upstate New York, knows nothing other than its previous recipe for failure -- calling in (well-meaning) out-of-state shock troops and barraging the electorate with phone calls and advertisements well past the point of saturation.
I know -- "What about Jack Davis?" First of all, a lot of Davis voters are breaking Democrat. Second, to the extent that Republicans "protest" with a Davis vote, it reflects poorly upon the ability of the NYGOP and the Corwin campaign to hold their own. I despise him as much as the next guy, but don't go blaming all of this mess on Davis.
Imagine if Corwin had explained (gulp!) that the Democratic plan is to either (1) ignore the problem and blow up the system, or (2) force rationing from DC central planners? Given those two choices, isn't it preferable that oldsters have a hand in determining how best to manage their own health care budgets? If society wants to spend less money on health care, who should make those decisions, bureaucrats or individuals with their doctors?
Instead, Corwin painted inside the lines.
But Ryan isn't backing down, ignoring the hand-wringing pollsters.
Republicans need to learn to paint outside the proverbial lines.
Ryan on Meet the Press (emphasis added):
REP. RYAN: First of all, if people are describing this accurately in polls, it's far more popular than the poll you've referenced. Second of all, leaders are elected to lead. I don't consult polls to tell me what my principles are or what our policies should be. Leaders change the polls. And we are leading in the House. We are not seeing this kind of leadership from the president of the United States. The Senate Democrats haven't even proposed or passed a budget for 753 days, and we have a budget crisis. So yes, we are going to lead, and we are going to try to move these polls and change these polls because that's what the country wants.
I, I just did 19 town hall meetings, David, in, in the district that I work for that went for Obama, Dukakis, Clinton and Gore. People are hungry for solutions, and I really fundamentally believe that the people are way ahead of the political class. And I think they're going to reward the leader who steps up to the plate and actually fixes these problems, no matter how much demagoguery, no matter how much distortion, no matter how much political parties try to scare seniors in the next election. I just don't think they're going to buy it this year, and they're hungry for leaders to fix this problem before it gets out of our control.
There's a maxim among political consultants -- "If you're explaining, you're losing." And there is some truth to that, like if you're trying to explain why you voted for something before voting against it, you're in trouble. Or if you're trying to explain that, yes, the candidate does read a lot of news sources despite failing to name a single one in an interview, you're losing. If you're explaining that you cheated on your wife because of how much you love your country, you're losing.
But on certain issues, particularly existential issues, you need to do some explaining. You need to lead. You need to call the other side out for lying like Jon Lovitz on his old Saturday Night Live sketches. Paul Ryan has done that, and wins in his not-overly-conservative district because he consistently takes the time to explain his positions and people trust him.
Unlike some "damn the torpedoes" conservatives, I am generally appreciative of the wisdom obtained from good polling. But there are limitations to the utility of polls. Polls are clumsy at detecting social tipping points, and poor at anticipating results involving exogenous circumstance -- exogenous circumstances like an imminent sovereign debt crisis and a politician actually willing to lead on that issue. I have personally witnessed polling in a state-wide race where the politician moved significant numbers based on a screwball issue no pollster or consultant would have ever dreamed of. It can be done. "Leaders change the polls."
But the limitation is not just with polling and pollsters, but with the entire professional partisan political consulting universe. Consultants only know how to paint inside the lines, caring more about the quick 50-percent-plus-one win and caring less about an electoral future two years distant. Draw a quick contrast grid, emphasize your candidate's positives, slam your opponent's negatives, make a bunch of phone calls, and hang on for dear life. It's a process that works enough of the time to be useful, but it isn't a strategy for changing a lot of hearts and minds.
The special election in NY-26 illustrates this ineptitude. Corwin has backed off her support of the Ryan plan, no doubt following the advice of pollsters and other consultants. In doing so, she has forfeited credibility among both conservative Tea Partiers and independent swing voters alike. She is somehow simultaneously an ideological squish and a mean, grandma-killing ghoul. The Republican party apparatus, having lost the last two Congressional special elections in upstate New York, knows nothing other than its previous recipe for failure -- calling in (well-meaning) out-of-state shock troops and barraging the electorate with phone calls and advertisements well past the point of saturation.
I know -- "What about Jack Davis?" First of all, a lot of Davis voters are breaking Democrat. Second, to the extent that Republicans "protest" with a Davis vote, it reflects poorly upon the ability of the NYGOP and the Corwin campaign to hold their own. I despise him as much as the next guy, but don't go blaming all of this mess on Davis.
Imagine if Corwin had explained (gulp!) that the Democratic plan is to either (1) ignore the problem and blow up the system, or (2) force rationing from DC central planners? Given those two choices, isn't it preferable that oldsters have a hand in determining how best to manage their own health care budgets? If society wants to spend less money on health care, who should make those decisions, bureaucrats or individuals with their doctors?
Instead, Corwin painted inside the lines.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Newt Officially Worse than Romney on Health Care
There are two categorical objections to a federal individual mandate for health insurance. The first is that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to force an individual to purchase a product -- any product. The second is the libertarian objection that it is wrong in any circumstance, whether constitutional or not, to impose such a mandate. Romney is right on the first question, and wrong on the second. Newt seems to be wrong on both.
Romney's position that MassCare was just fine, while Obamacare is unconstitutional is a perfectly coherent view. Just because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do something does not automatically make it unconstitutional for a state government to do the same. While I disagree with Romney's defense of the mandate in MassCare as a matter of policy, it does not automatically follow that his legal reasoning is unsound.
Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, seems to defend some variation on the individual mandate at the federal level.
Newt on Meet the Press today:
While there are certainly ways that a system that included a mandate could be significantly less onerous than Obamacare, there is no way to square the circle on the constitutionality of a mandate. Either a mandate is constitutional, or it is not. Newt claims that Obamacare is unconstitutional, yet still supports a mandate of sorts. He cannot have it both ways.
Romney's position that MassCare was just fine, while Obamacare is unconstitutional is a perfectly coherent view. Just because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do something does not automatically make it unconstitutional for a state government to do the same. While I disagree with Romney's defense of the mandate in MassCare as a matter of policy, it does not automatically follow that his legal reasoning is unsound.
Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, seems to defend some variation on the individual mandate at the federal level.
Newt on Meet the Press today:
(Videotape, October 3, 1993)
REP. GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals--exactly like automobile insurance--individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his healthcare legislation, is it not?
REP. GINGRICH: No, it's not precisely what he did. In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system. I believe all of us--and this is going to be a big debate--I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. I think the idea that...
MR. GREGORY: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point.
REP. GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond...
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
REP. GINGRICH: ...or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.
MR. GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?
REP. GINGRICH: It's a variation on it.
MR. GREGORY: OK.
REP. GINGRICH: But it's a system...
MR. GREGORY: And so you won't use that issue against Mitt Romney.
REP. GINGRICH: No. But it's a system which allows people to have a range of choices which are designed by the economy. But I think setting the precedent--you know, there are an amazing number of people who think that they ought to be given health care. And, and so a large number of the uninsured earn $75,000 or more a year, don't buy any health insurance because they want to buy a second house or a better car or go on vacation. And then you and I and everybody else ends up picking up for them. I don't think having a free rider system in health is any more appropriate than having a free rider system in any other part of our society.
While there are certainly ways that a system that included a mandate could be significantly less onerous than Obamacare, there is no way to square the circle on the constitutionality of a mandate. Either a mandate is constitutional, or it is not. Newt claims that Obamacare is unconstitutional, yet still supports a mandate of sorts. He cannot have it both ways.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Quote of the Day: Contented Cows
A Depression-era anecdote that seems relevant in the current environment...
From Bob Dole's humor compilation book, Great Political Wit:
Of course, to the extent that the Obama administration's policies are just as ineffective and counterproductive as Hoover's, there's little wonder the cows aren't contented.
From Bob Dole's humor compilation book, Great Political Wit:
In the depths of the Great Depression, Hoover and Coolidge found themselves together in Marion, Ohio, dedicating the memorial to Warren G. Harding. Hoover outlined all the steps he was taking to end the nation's economic spiral, making clear his resentment over what he regarded as unfair criticism from the public.
"You can't expect to see calves running in the field the day after you put the bull to the cows," said Coolidge.
"No," replied Hoover, "but I would expect to see contented cows."
Of course, to the extent that the Obama administration's policies are just as ineffective and counterproductive as Hoover's, there's little wonder the cows aren't contented.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
So we're back to dithering now?
I say we should release the bin Laden photo(s), but I understand the argument against it. What's really confusing and irritating is the high level of public anguish displayed by the Obama administration. You might even say Obama is "dithering" about the decision.
All this "will they or won't they release it" stuff is idiotic. I'm not sure if I was hearing the TV correctly, but folks on a certain "forward leaning" channel seemed to suggest that the public anguish over this issue was being done with the explicit purpose of showing how seriously the administration was taking the decision.
But in the grand scheme of things, the photo-release decision is not especially consequential. If they don't release the photo, some whacky folks might not believe OBL is really dead -- but then again those are the mostly same folks who wouldn't believe it even if they did see a photo. On the other hand, some whacky folks might be offended or incited by the photo -- but those people are always finding reasons to be offended or incited regardless of what we do.
I've seen people speculate that the OBL take-down sealed Obama's 2012 re-election victory. I maintained that the OBL success wouldn't really affect Obama's long-term political trajectory. Little did I know that the forward-momentum established by the administration wouldn't survive the actual OBL story.
Stop dithering, Obama.
All this "will they or won't they release it" stuff is idiotic. I'm not sure if I was hearing the TV correctly, but folks on a certain "forward leaning" channel seemed to suggest that the public anguish over this issue was being done with the explicit purpose of showing how seriously the administration was taking the decision.
But in the grand scheme of things, the photo-release decision is not especially consequential. If they don't release the photo, some whacky folks might not believe OBL is really dead -- but then again those are the mostly same folks who wouldn't believe it even if they did see a photo. On the other hand, some whacky folks might be offended or incited by the photo -- but those people are always finding reasons to be offended or incited regardless of what we do.
I've seen people speculate that the OBL take-down sealed Obama's 2012 re-election victory. I maintained that the OBL success wouldn't really affect Obama's long-term political trajectory. Little did I know that the forward-momentum established by the administration wouldn't survive the actual OBL story.
Stop dithering, Obama.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Dr StrangeHair - How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Donald
I was admittedly more than a little annoyed to see how well Trump has been doing in early GOP primary polling. But Trump is pretty much maxed out right now. He's not going to get independent-minded folks, and he's not going to get ideologues like myself. Or anybody with tact, common sense, or an IQ notably over 100. When primary voters learn of his donations to key Democrats (like Ed Rendell and Rahm Emanuel, for starters), his continually shifting party registration, his rather undisciplined insane policy ramblings, and an abortion flip-flop so convenient it would make Mitt Romney blush, support for Trump will wither away.
In short, he's not going to win the Republican nomination. He's not a threat.
And if he's not a threat, perhaps he can do some good -- as an attack dog. A good chunk of the population still clings bitterly to a personal admiration for Obama, even if many have soured on his policies and governance. What Trump brings to the table is a shameless, vulgar willingness and ability to attack Obama personally. What we know from three years of Obama media coverage is that anybody who criticizes Obama on anything other than the narrowest of policy grounds gets denounced as a racist. (Actually, any criticism of Obama is declared racist, but the policy stuff is less so.) Trump has shown an enthusiasm for criticizing Obama without any concern for how it might backfire onto Trump.
Yeah, the birther stuff was idiotic. But it must be noted that the mainstream candidates all distanced themselves from the issue, and thus won't be burned by it.
I'm a little more interested in the academic records. I'd like to know what sort of GPA our sooper-geenyus President was pulling at Oxy and Columbia. (I'm guessing it was pretty good, but short of great. Remember, Dubya the dunce had a slightly higher GPA than Kerry.) I'd love to know what courses Obama took. I'd consider sacrificing a pinkie toe to get a hold of some of his papers. Again, none of the mainstream candidates need bother with this down-in-the mud stuff. Trump can be the honey badger invading the beehive, unfazed by multiple stings from an angry swarm of media-types.
It's not that I oppose Obama because I think he might have had a less than stellar GPA, took a dozen courses on Marxism, or got a C-minus in basic economics. It's that I think finding out such information might start to dispel the rainbow-farting-unicorn aura that surrounds the man. People need to like Obama less on a "personal" level.
So I've made my peace with the Trump quasi-candidacy. Let him stir up the pot of Obama's history, then fade into political (if not media) obscurity after a while. He really can't hurt anything.
In short, he's not going to win the Republican nomination. He's not a threat.
And if he's not a threat, perhaps he can do some good -- as an attack dog. A good chunk of the population still clings bitterly to a personal admiration for Obama, even if many have soured on his policies and governance. What Trump brings to the table is a shameless, vulgar willingness and ability to attack Obama personally. What we know from three years of Obama media coverage is that anybody who criticizes Obama on anything other than the narrowest of policy grounds gets denounced as a racist. (Actually, any criticism of Obama is declared racist, but the policy stuff is less so.) Trump has shown an enthusiasm for criticizing Obama without any concern for how it might backfire onto Trump.
Yeah, the birther stuff was idiotic. But it must be noted that the mainstream candidates all distanced themselves from the issue, and thus won't be burned by it.
I'm a little more interested in the academic records. I'd like to know what sort of GPA our sooper-geenyus President was pulling at Oxy and Columbia. (I'm guessing it was pretty good, but short of great. Remember, Dubya the dunce had a slightly higher GPA than Kerry.) I'd love to know what courses Obama took. I'd consider sacrificing a pinkie toe to get a hold of some of his papers. Again, none of the mainstream candidates need bother with this down-in-the mud stuff. Trump can be the honey badger invading the beehive, unfazed by multiple stings from an angry swarm of media-types.
It's not that I oppose Obama because I think he might have had a less than stellar GPA, took a dozen courses on Marxism, or got a C-minus in basic economics. It's that I think finding out such information might start to dispel the rainbow-farting-unicorn aura that surrounds the man. People need to like Obama less on a "personal" level.
So I've made my peace with the Trump quasi-candidacy. Let him stir up the pot of Obama's history, then fade into political (if not media) obscurity after a while. He really can't hurt anything.
Friday, April 22, 2011
NLRB And The Right To Say “No”
In “The Godfather”, when Don Corleone says he's “gonna make him an offer he can't refuse”, it's generally understood that the Don isn't intending to engage in honest and meaningful negotiations. He's going to make a threat, backed by force.
The recent action by the National Labor Relations Board challenging Boeing's decision to build a new plant in right-to-work South Carolina has a similar bent. This move by Obama's NLRB is part of a continuing attempting to take away management's right to say “no” to unions in any meaningful sense of the word.
In every other facet of civilized society, meaningful consent is defined by the ability of one party to walk away. Why is employment – typically considered to be a “voluntary” arrangement – any different?
It should be noted that the South Carolina plant is a second line, and that no union worker will lose his or her job. Actually, more union jobs are being added in Puget Sound to support the South Carolina facility. All Boeing did was decide to build a plant in a place with favorable labor laws while being honest enough to say why.
This shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody who was paying attention in 2008. A visit to Obama's 2008 campaign website via the WayBack Machine shows that this recent behavior is part of a larger pattern. As far back as January of 2008, BarackObama.com promoted the following policy:
A nearly identical statement incorporating Joe Biden's name persisted on the website through the election.
This statement, buried on the Obama campaign website, told you everything you need to know about Obama's governing philosophy. "He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers..." Knowing that the union could never be broken even under the most dire circumstances, labor “negotiators” would be able to demand anything they wanted – literally making offers that management could not refuse.
But this privileged status only extends to union organizers, not to individual workers. Let's not forget EFCA, the absurdly named “Employee Free Choice Act” – a.k.a. “Card Check”. Though now seemingly on ice, EFCA would have effectively eliminated secret ballot union elections, and with it the meaningful right of refusal to join a union.
If the Obama administration had its way, workers could not refuse to join unions, management could not refuse to acquiesce to union demands, and businesses could not even build new facilities except where union “negotiators” stipulated.
If Big Labor and the administration think they can make people offers that others can't refuse, it's not going too far to suggest they are acting like gangsters.
The recent action by the National Labor Relations Board challenging Boeing's decision to build a new plant in right-to-work South Carolina has a similar bent. This move by Obama's NLRB is part of a continuing attempting to take away management's right to say “no” to unions in any meaningful sense of the word.
In every other facet of civilized society, meaningful consent is defined by the ability of one party to walk away. Why is employment – typically considered to be a “voluntary” arrangement – any different?
It should be noted that the South Carolina plant is a second line, and that no union worker will lose his or her job. Actually, more union jobs are being added in Puget Sound to support the South Carolina facility. All Boeing did was decide to build a plant in a place with favorable labor laws while being honest enough to say why.
This shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody who was paying attention in 2008. A visit to Obama's 2008 campaign website via the WayBack Machine shows that this recent behavior is part of a larger pattern. As far back as January of 2008, BarackObama.com promoted the following policy:
Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.
A nearly identical statement incorporating Joe Biden's name persisted on the website through the election.
This statement, buried on the Obama campaign website, told you everything you need to know about Obama's governing philosophy. "He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers..." Knowing that the union could never be broken even under the most dire circumstances, labor “negotiators” would be able to demand anything they wanted – literally making offers that management could not refuse.
But this privileged status only extends to union organizers, not to individual workers. Let's not forget EFCA, the absurdly named “Employee Free Choice Act” – a.k.a. “Card Check”. Though now seemingly on ice, EFCA would have effectively eliminated secret ballot union elections, and with it the meaningful right of refusal to join a union.
If the Obama administration had its way, workers could not refuse to join unions, management could not refuse to acquiesce to union demands, and businesses could not even build new facilities except where union “negotiators” stipulated.
If Big Labor and the administration think they can make people offers that others can't refuse, it's not going too far to suggest they are acting like gangsters.
