Date-Based Archives
<<February 2008>>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728291
2345678
Main Page
 
Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis

BLOGROLL QandO

 
Recent Posts
Superbowl inspiration
Follow the Money - part XVII
McCain: For those of you with short memories
Another Political Toy
The Sharon Statement
Progress through regression
Where’s the beef?
The "fiscal stimulus" arguments
For once I don’t think it would matter much
The Hatred of Idiots
 
Resources
Blogometer
Bureau of Labor Statistics
CentCom
CIA Factbook
Daou Report
Economic Freedom Index
Electoral Vote Counter
Finance News
GeographyIQ
Google News
Health Questions and Answers
Legislative Seat Counter
MEMRI
NationMaster
New York Times
Polling Report
Real Clear Politics
Reason Magazine
Swiss Confederation Inst.
Tax Facts
TCS Daily
US Military Ribbons
US Military Insignia
US Statistical Abstract
USA Today
Washington Post
Washington Times
Web Hosting
White House
 
The Neolibertarian Network

To subscribe to The New Libertarian, click here.

The Neolibertarian Network

If you'd like to submit your blog for membership in the Neolibertarian Network, click here for the submission guidelines. If you would like to submit an article or essay for consideration in The New Libertarian, click here for article submission guidelines.

1492
2 Valuable
Ace of Trump
An American Front Porch
Antivenom
The Art of The Blog
Aggressive-Voice Daily
AlphaPatriot
Area 417
Arktinen Jenkki
American Conservative Daily
The Anti-Jihad Pundit
A Second Hand Conjecture
Atlas Blogged
Atlas Shrugs
autoDogmatic
Baby Troll Blog
Below the Beltway
BitsBlog
Backlog Bob
Dave Budge
Capitalism and Freedom
Christian Libertarian
Church of the Painful Truth
Claudio Tellez
Classical Values
Clowning Glory
Code Blue Blog
Combs Spouts Off
Confederate Yankee
Cold Fury
The Conjecturer
The Cranky Insomniac
Daily Pundit
David M
Damnum Absque Injuria
Dave's Not Here
The Dead hand
Democratic Peace
Dean Esmay
Diminishing Returns
Divided we Stand...
Dodgeblogium
Dog Pundit
Don't Let Me Stop You
The Dumb Ox
Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave
Ethermind
The Everlasting Phelps
Federal Republic
Freedom's Gate
Freedom Watch
Freedom Works
The Freeman's Burden
Free State Blogs
Fresh Politics
From Right 2 Left
Galen's Log
GavPolitics
Gay Orbit
GOP3: The Triumvirate
Hamster Motor
Hydrablog
Impudent Domain
INCITE
Independent Sources
The International Libertarian
The Interocitor
IO Error
Jeff Doolittle
Joe Libertarian
Josh's Weblog
Kapitalismo
Kerfuffles
The Key Monk
Late at Night
Legal Redux
Liberal Cpaitalist
Libertarian Leanings
Liberty 1st
Liberty and Culture
Liberty Cadre
The Liberty Lamp
Liberty Corner
Louisiana Libertarian
Liberty 1st
Medary
Minor Thoughts
The Modern American
MuD and PHuD
Musings, Rants, and Monologues
The Neo-Communist
Neo Warmonger
The New American Revolutionist
Never Yet Melted
New World Man
No Government Cheese
N.O. Pundit
No Speed Bumps
Nothing Could Be Finer
Occam's Carbuncle
Cody O'Connor
Of Punk Rock and Politics
Ogre's Politics and Views
Oil Guru
OK, So I'm Not Really a Cowboy
One Man Bandwidth
The Outside Story
The Owner's Manual
Peace For Our Time
Politicalities
Politics and Pigskins
PolySciFi
Propaganda Machine
Pull Out the Pin
Protein Wisdom
The Quietist
Quotulatiousness
The Q Speaks
The Ranting Kraut
Rife's Torch
The Right Nation
Right On
Right Side of the Rainbow
Right Wing of the Gods
Robinik
Jim Rose
Rossputin
Samson Blinded
Saving Liberty
Seitelplasm
Shaking Spears
Spherical Tones
Rusty Sheridan
The Skeptical Optimist
The Smallest Minority
Squawkbox Noise
Strange Fictions
Stranger in a Strange Land
D.C. Thornton
Tipperography
The Thomas Institute
Unalienable Rights
The Unrepentant Individual
Vox Baby
Wade's World
What Can Brown Do For You?
What's That Smell
White Peril
The Will to Exist
The Wrightwing
The Young Conservatives

 
Blogroll

Categories
Blogging
Congress
Culture
Economics
Education
Elections
Energy
Environment
Foreign Affairs
Freedom and Liberty
Government
Guns and Gun Rights
Health Care
Humor
Immigration
Iraq
iTunes
Legal Affairs
Media
Military Affairs
Miscellaneous
Neolibertarianism
New Media
News
None
Personal
Philosophy
Photoblogging
Podcasting
Politics
Professional Blogging
Project Hero
Religion
Scandals
Science
Security
Taxation
Technology
Terrorism
The New Libertarian
The War
Web Development
 
Movable Type Archives
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
 
QandO RSS Feed
Podcast
 
Credits

Powered By

Other Credits:
Blogstreet Blog profile

The TruthLaidBear Blog  Ecosystem

Listed on BlogShares

Idiotvox Podcasting

Technorati Profile

BlogTalkRadio.com
Check out our live, call-in show Sundays at 5pm Pacific (8pm Eastern)!

 
Friday, February 01, 2008

Superbowl inspiration
Posted by: McQ
 
A great human interest story concerning a military vet and double amputee, the NY Giants and friendship over the years.

Do yourself a favor and read it. It helps put what is going to happen this weekend in AZ in perspective.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 0 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Miscellaneous

 
QandO
 
Follow the Money - part XVII
Posted by: McQ
 
A whole different sort of voting going on out there:
Sens. Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois continued their fundraising dominance in the fourth quarter of last year. Clinton brought in $26.8 million, while Obama raised $22.8 million.

Compare that to the GOP candidates, none of whom came close to matching either Democrat.

McCain, the Arizona senator who has emerged as the front-runner, raised $6.8 million, but had to take out a loan to keep his campaign afloat. Romney, the wealthy former Massachusetts governor, brought in $9 million in contributions, but loaned his campaign twice that amount. Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, raised $6.6 million. And topping the field with an impressive $19.7 million raised in the fourth quarter was Paul, the libertarian-leaning Texas congressman, though he barely registers in polls.
Check out the Paul numbers vs. the Republican "front runner". Has to give you a chuckle. And, of course each of the Dems have raised 4 to 5 times the money raised than McCain. The only Rep close is Paul, who manages much more money than percentage of primary votes.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 3 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
McCain: For those of you with short memories
Posted by: McQ
 
A reminder of he who would characterize others as having newfound "conservatism":
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain's chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain's case, they said, it was McCain's top strategist who came to them.

[...]

Daschle said that throughout April and May of 2001, he and McCain "had meetings and conversations on the floor and in his office, I think in mine as well, about how we would do it, what the conditions would be. We talked about committees and his seniority . [A lot of issues] were on the table."
Of course, Mr. "Straight Talk" denies it completely:
Absolutely not so, according to McCain. In a statement released by his campaign, McCain said, "As I said in 2001, I never considered leaving the Republican Party, period."
Uh, huh, and Mitt Romney wants timetables and withdrawal from Iraq.

Hardly the story of a staunch conservative and man of ideological principles is it? Instead its the story of someone who hasn't flirted with going over to the other side because he lost an election. And now he denies everything in the face of the remembrances of many others. Funny what politicians try to get away with, isn't it?

(HT: Joel C.)
 

Permalink | Comments ( 8 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
Thursday, January 31, 2008

Another Political Toy
Posted by: Dale Franks
 
The coming general election consists of more than a presidential election. Naturally all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate are up for grabs, as well. So, for the real political junkies, I have also built a Legislative Seat Counter.

Now the serious political geeks among you can pour over state polls in order to game the results of the legislative elections as well.

And, again, there's a link to this tool over on the "Resources" section of the left sidebar.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 1 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
The Sharon Statement
Posted by: Jon Henke
 
Via Sean Hackbarth, here's an interesting statement of principles (Young Americans for Freedom, 1960) that should be broadly acceptable to the Right/Fusionist coalition. I'll excerpt the relevant portions...
THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

THAT the genius of the Constitution - the division of powers - is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies.
[...]
THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?
With the current Republican coalition balkanizing between the Goldwater (Limited Government Republicans), Teddy Roosevelt (Progressive Republicans) and Santorum/Huckabee (Social Conservative/Christian Liberals) factions, it's hard to see how the Right can maintain a cohesive coalition without regenerating its movement based on the above principles.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 7 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Philosophy

 
QandO
 
Progress through regression
Posted by: Jon Henke
 
Perfect...
Former President Bill Clinton ... characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?
Progressives Against Progress!
 

Permalink | Comments ( 30 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Environment

 
QandO
 
Where’s the beef?
Posted by: McQ
 
ABC's Jake Tapper, after claiming his bit of incriminating evidence didn't come from the Clinton campaign, trots this out January, 2001 interview Obama did:

Discussing his opposition to Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, Obama praised newly-elected President Bush's new nominee for Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
"The proof in the pudding is looking at the treatment of the other Bush nominees," Obama said. "I mean for the most part, I for example do not agree with a missile defense system, but I don't think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that.

"So I don't want to be pegged as being far left simply because I find certain aspects in John Ashcroft's record to be divisive or offensive," Obama continued. "I think it's legitimate for me to raise that. As I said before, if he brought before us a nominee who didn't agree with me on affirmative action and yet said that, you know, I do think that and showed a history for showing regard and concern for racial justice, if he came before us and said I oppose a woman's right to choose, or I oppose abortion, I find it religiously offensive, and yet I do respect, for example, the notion that we shouldn't be solving these things with violence, historically, if that had been what was said, then I don't think I would object. And I think that's a fair position to take."
Tapper points out that Rumsfeld was confirmed quickly by the Senate (including Hillary Clinton) without objection. He then concludes:
Obama is on the cusp of doing well on Super Duper Tuesday and has still never had a negative TV ad run against him, and it seems clear that Hillary Clinton is correct in her implication — he has not been fully "vetted."

There's a lot voters — and the media — do not know about him.
This makes no sense to me. What is Tapper talking about? How is thinking Rumsfeld, whose previous stint as SecDef couldn't be considered anything but "mainstream" suddenly, without proof (except that offered by 20/20 hindsight) be considered anything else at the time.

The interview is in January of 2001 - pre 9/11, pre-Afghanistan and pre-Iraq - in fact, 2 days "pre-Bush". And his remarks about his position on Ashcroft and in general, do seem to be reasonable about an administration which had yet to take office.

So what is Tapper trying to make out of this?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Obama supporter in any way shape or form, but I am a student of politics, the media and their interaction. Without making any suggestions as to intent, this article, at a minimum, seems to point out that "context" may be a word that is foreign to Jake Tapper.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 58 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
The "fiscal stimulus" arguments
Posted by: McQ
 
The irony, of course, is both sides of the political spectrum agree that the way to stimulate the economy is to0 do what one side has been pushing for ages - put more money in the hands of the citizens. Both sides agree that this "stimulus" is going to be short term because it is a one time payment which will be quickly spent.

So if the argument is we can stimulate the economy by putting more money in the hands of citizens (and consumers) and that is the best way to boost the economy, even short term, what does that say about a long term plan?

Uh, yeah - cut taxes (to include corporate taxes) and cut commensurate government spending and suddenly you have a long-term economic stimulus package.

But printing money to hand out?

Not such a hot idea.

Somehow, however, I have a feeling the long term lesson is lost in the smoke and mirrors of the belief that government is "fixing" a problem.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 1 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Taxation

 
QandO
 
For once I don’t think it would matter much
Posted by: McQ
 
Just a feeling, but a fairly strong one:
Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 and 2004, said he is considering another bid for the White House because he believes the current contenders aren't standing up enough to corporate interests.

``Look at the major areas of injustice, deprivation and solutions that are not being addressed by the major candidates,'' Nader, 73, said in a telephone interview today. Among other issues, he cited the need for a ``practical timed withdrawal'' from Iraq, programs to crack down on corporate fraud and a rearrangement of the U.S. tax system.

Some Democrats blame Nader for spoiling former Vice President Al Gore's bid for the presidency in 2000 by taking support away from him in Florida, the state that decided the election.
Big mo is on the side of the Dems right now (record Dem turnout if FL which didn't even count?) and the Reps seem bound and determined to simply rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. No matter what Nader might draw, it won't matter (and besides, his entrance would make McCain the younger candidate).
 

Permalink | Comments ( 1 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
Wednesday, January 30, 2008

The Hatred of Idiots
Posted by: Dale Franks
 
The city council of Berkeley, California, hateful, spiteful, small-minded little idiots that they are, have giving notice to the Marines to get out of town:
[T]he Berkeley City Council...voted 8-1 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.
OK. Then how about we cut off every penny of Federal funds that go into Berkeley? Including the University.

The level of moral vanity and sickening vindictiveness this demonstrates really sends me into a towering rage.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 14 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Military Affairs

 
QandO
 
Romney Cuts Ads? Obama Gets a Boost?
Posted by: Dale Franks
 
I don't know that a win for McCain in Florida necessarily delivers the Republican nomination to him. Lots of states to go, lots of delegates up for grabs. If this is true, however, Mitt Romney seems to be losing confidence.
In a major boost for McCain, Romney signaled earlier Wednesday that he's not ready to commit to a costly campaign in the states holding primaries and caucuses next week.

Several officials said that on the heels of a defeat in Tuesday's Florida primary, Romney's campaign was not attempting to purchase television advertising time in any of the states on the Super Tuesday calendar.

Instead, the former Massachusetts governor's current plans call for campaigning in California and other primary states, said the officials, who had knowledge of the internal discussions. There would be organizational efforts primarily for caucus states.
If Mitt Romney is cutting his ad buys in the Super Tuesday states, he's either supremely confident, or he doesn't want to throw away good money after bad in a losing effort.

I doubt it's the former.

McCain continues to pick up endorsements, with the newest scheduled to come in from Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, John Edwards' withdrawal,puts a lot of voters up for grabs. We'll soon find out whether they were more pro-Edwards, or anti-Clinton. If the latter, then Obama can expect a 10-point bump in his percentage totals. If it's more or less an even split, Obama probably loses the nomination.

Looking at the Demos of Edwards' voters, they tend to be rural, and they tend to be lower income. That's a closer match with Hillary Clinton's demo than Barack Obama's. That makes the Edwards drop-out interesting.

So, will Edwards make an endorsement of Obama, instead of Clinton? If so, will that endorsement make an impression on his constituency? We may soon know.
Barack Obama has now cut the gap with Hillary Clinton to 6 percentage points among Democrats nationally in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking three-day average, and interviewing conducted Tuesday night shows the gap between the two candidates is within a few points. Obama's position has been strengthening on a day-by-day basis. As recently as Jan. 18-20, Clinton led Obama by 20 points. Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking is based on interviews conducted Jan. 27-29, all after Obama's overwhelming victory in South Carolina on Saturday. Two out of the three nights interviewing were conducted after the high-visibility endorsement of Obama by Sen. Edward Kennedy and his niece Caroline Kennedy.

Clinton's lead in the three-day average is now 42% to Obama's 36%. John Edwards, who dropped out of the race Wednesday after Gallup conducted these interviews, ended his quest for the presidency with 12% support. Wednesday night's interviewing will reflect the distribution of the vote choice of former Edwards' supporters as well as the impact, if any, of Hillary Clinton's popular vote win in Florida on Tuesday.
Obama had momentum going into Florida, but now there are opposing tensions in that momentum. A Clinton win in Florida is a psychological boost for her campaign. An Edwards drop-out changes the fundamental dynamic of the race.

So the tracking polls will probably need a day or two to settle down before the shakeout becomes clear.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 3 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
The AFP Summit - Some thoughts
Posted by: Bryan Pick
 
Just got back from the Americans for Prosperity summit. My immediate reaction is that there ought to be more to it than enter-listen-leave. You have a room full of hundreds of like-minded individuals who all paid to be there on a Wednesday afternoon; don't just march them in, seat ten at a table, and speechify at them until it's time to march them all back out. Provide for some mingling. As AFP is just getting started in this state, it's important that their gatherings become places where people can form bonds and become a network for future activism. If you can't connect people when they're all in the same place at the same time, that's a missed opportunity for building exactly what the organization is supposed to be: grass-roots political activism. As it was, I had some contact with the people at my table directly before and after the event, and not much else.

I was also disappointed by the content, although some of that isn't their fault. They put this event together in ten days, after all, and the AFP chapter in California is brand new. But when they originally sold me on the event, they had a list of "Invited & Confirmed" speakers who, it turns out, were mostly invited and not confirmed. Of the presidential candidates still in the race, only Huckabee showed up; the others apparently didn't feel like reaching out to the small-government, anti-tax crowd. Perhaps the biggest disappointment, based on crowd reaction, was that California Republicans' favorite son, Tom McClintock, was called up to Sacramento on state business (unusual for a Wednesday); the same went for Jeff Denham. Also absent was Dennis Miller, to the disappointment of the people at my table. I had been looking forward to hearing from all three of them in particular.

As for the speeches, two stood out as the clearest, one of which was Mike Huckabee. Mike, of course, has been practicing this speech; the organizers of the event played a video including several GOP candidates as we waited for Huckabee to arrive, and one of his quips in the video made it untouched into the speech he gave five minutes later. I suppose that's to be expected, and it's a good line anyway: how Americans fear an IRS audit more than a mugging, because at least a mugger is done quickly and can only take what you have on your person. Mike talked up his plan to end the IRS and move to the FAIR Tax, and surrounded that with some general talk about how taxes stifle small business and how IRS audits are such a harrowing, nasty thing. Almost all present stood to applaud him on entrance and exit; somehow, the people at my table gathered that I wasn't the biggest Huckabee fan. It might have helped that we all expressed sadness that Fred Thompson had dropped out.

The other clear (and more compelling, IMO) speaker was Hugh Hewitt, who was about as cogent and crisp as could be, and talked about climate change, the upcoming changes in the Supreme Court, and the threat of radical Islam. For three topics as different as those, he managed to hold it together rather well, and didn't lose focus. Not bad. To finish he plugged Townhall, including the new Townhall Magazine (which, ironically, doesn't have its own website).

The other speakers all stressed the general anti-tax message, but there weren't any fireworks, just boilerplate stuff: third-party spending (i.e., someone else spending your money on someone else) is wasteful spending, more taxes is less freedom, taxes are bad for growth, and that at some not-very-high point, taxation becomes theft. Oh, and an overt hostility to our Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Which is all fine and good; at a basic level, that's what AFP is about. But that's that; on to the debate, I guess.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 0 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Personal

 
QandO
 
Biofuels, food cost, and affluence
Posted by: mcq
 
A very interesting article by Mark Clayton of the Christian Science Monitor outlining the complexity of discussing the impact of biofuels on food markets. There are, as expected, arguments on both sides, but as you'll see, regardless of the amount of impact you believe biofuels are having on food prices, it is clear the price of food is rising and will probably continue to rise. RTWT.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 9 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Energy

 
QandO
 
CNN reporting John Edwards is dropping out of the race
Posted by: mcq
 
Mr. "15%" has apparently seen the light and has given up his "king/queen maker" quest. Knowing him, I can only guess that means he's reached an accommodation with both rival campaigns which give him a role in either administration should they win. He will, of course, still gather delegates on Super Tuesday, even if he does drop out which will still give him some sort of a position during the Democratic convention. Whether or not it will be meaningful or decisive for one of the other candidates remains to be seen.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 11 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
Oil production directly tied to Chavez’s longevity
Posted by: mcq
 
Or so you would think, given it is the oil money that is financing his ability to hold power by subsidizing all his socialist schemes. The question is, even in this era of high oil pricing, can he continue to finance his hold on power in the future? PowerLine has an interesting article about PDVSA, the state oil company and what has happened since it was taken over by Chavez:
Since Chavez took office in 1999 Venezuela's oil production has dropped by 28 percent and PDVSA's debt has risen significantly. Meanwhile, some major foreign oil producers have left the country and taken their cutting edge technology with them.

The Venezuelan government claims that between 2006 and 2012 it will reinvest $76 billion of its earnings to increase production, but analysts canvassed by the three reporters who wrote the story think that the figure comes closer to between $2 and $5 billion a year—a drastic short-fall. Moreover, many of PDVSA's activities are now unrelated to oil—it has hatched subsidiaries to distribute powdered milk, or to mill corn, or even to build boats. (Anyone who knows Venezuela can imagine the lush opportunities this offers for illicit enrichment by the agency officials or the military who work with them.) Meanwhile, as oil production falters, the state company has decided to take on more employees. When Chavez took office PDVSA had 48,000 workers. It now has nearly 75,000, and the president-dictator has announced plans to hire an additional 30,000 by the end of next year. (One cannot help recalling the case of the Argentine YPF, which was the only oil company in the world that lost money in the go-go 1970s!)
Of course, since Chavez has nationalized many industries, foreign investment has dried up. And the foreign expertise, once available there, is gone. He's left with what he has, and, as the numbers show, that's not doing well. Is PDVSA headed for the same fate as YPF? And, can Chavez survive if it does?
 

Permalink | Comments ( 4 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Foreign Affairs

 
QandO
 
See the new Russia? Same as the old Russia.
Posted by: mcq
 
Gorby is not impressed with Putin or his election process in Russia - not that anyone is listening:
Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, has criticised Russia's electoral process and called for extensive reforms to a system that has secured power for the President, Vladimir Putin, and the Kremlin's inner circle.

"Something is wrong with our elections, and our electoral system needs a major adjustment," Mr Gorbachev said in remarks published by the Interfax news agency on Monday.

His comments were made after the Russian Government rejected the only serious opposition candidate in the March 2 presidential election.

The timing was pointed, and the remarks - ignored by Russian television news broadcasts that are controlled by the Kremlin - were the most vocal criticism by a prominent political figure of the state of the country's politics as Mr Putin prepares to pass power to a chosen successor.
If anyone would understand how the "new look" Russia was amazingly similar to the old USSR it would be Gorby.

The Kremlin has set up another rubbber stamp vote for Putin's candidate:
The opposition candidate, the former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov, was denied a place on the ballot on Sunday by the Central Election Commission, which said 13 per cent of the more than 2 million signatures submitted with his registration documents were invalid.

Mr Kasyanov has said that the signatures are valid and that the Kremlin ordered the commission to block his candidacy as a means of ensuring the election of Dmitri Medvedev, a first deputy prime minister and the candidate selected by Mr Putin.
And, to insure they don't take international grief about their process, they've even winnowed the list of "international observers" invited to the event to insure a friendly audience (I bet Jimmy Carter's still on the list):
A spokesman said on Monday the Government had halved the number of foreign observers invited to the elections and suggested some monitors in the past had been hostile to Moscow.
Said Gorby about all of this:
Mr Gorbachev, in the published statements, said the election's result was "predictable from the outset" and "predetermined by the enormous role that Vladimir Putin played".
It may not be the USSR, but it certainly seems to be a cheap imitation of the old regime, and Gorbachev should know.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 14 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Foreign Affairs

 
QandO
 
Get used to it
Posted by: mcq
 
For all you Republicans:
Assuming there is no shocking revelation or health issue, the GOP nomination is over. Conservatives need to start practicing the phrase "Nominee presumptive John McCa....."

Sorry, I can't say it. Not yet.
Once again, the Reps choose the "Bob Dole" candidate. And Graham is pretty much right. Barring unforseen health issues or McCain caught with a dead girl or live boy, the GOP nomination is pretty much over and you're going to be looking at a McCain/Huckabee ticket come convention time.

Giuliani's Florida strategy blew up in the face of the Crist and Martinez endorsements just prior to the primary (and now he's going to do the same for McCain just before Super Tuesday), and Romney was sunk by 17% independents voting in a supposedly closed Republian primary (those are self-identified "independents").

Not that Romney was the best catch for Republicans, but he is far and away better than McCain. So get used to it. It's going to be McCain as the nominee against either Obama or Clinton. None of the three is going to be a boon for anyone interested in smaller government and fiscal responsiblity, regardless of their claims, and especially those of the man who is now trying to claim he is "Mr. Conservative" - John McCain.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 34 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Electoral Vote Counter Update
Posted by: Dale Franks
 
As an extra added service, I've revised the Electoral Vote Counter to show results from the 1992-2004 presidential elections. That should allow you to fool around with various scenarios from an easier starting point, and cut down on some inconvenient clicking.

I've also added a "Reset" button to help you start from scratch.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 2 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Politics

 
QandO
 
Florida’s Turn
Posted by: Dale Franks
 
With 24% of the vote counted as of 1708 PST, it looks like a reversal of South Carolina on the Democratic side in today's Florida primary. Hillary Clinton has already been called as the winner, with 48% of the vote currently, followed by Barack Obama with 29%. John Edwards is trailing with his usual 14%.

Not that it matters. Since Florida's delegates are persona non grata at the DNC this year, the race is effectively a tie, with both Clinton and Obama grabbing 0 delegates apiece.

On the Republican side, it's too close to call the leader. Romney and McCain are battling for the lead, each of them with about 1/3 of the vote. Guiliani is in a distant third with 15%. His rope-a-dope strategy, waiting for a late strike in Florida to leap into the front-runner position is obviously a bust.

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton won by 20% among voters who voted early, or who made up their mind more than two weeks ago. Among voters who decided within the last two weeks, Obama polled a slight majority. That seems to indicate that in the last two weeks, Obama has gained momentum.

It'll be fascinating to see if he can carry it through to next Tuesday. If the defections from the Clinton camp of establishment democrats like Ted Kennedy continues, he just might.

1748: Hillary Clinton, just this moment in Florida, pledged to do everything she can to seat the Florida delegates at the Democratic Convention.

This despite her signed pledge five months ago that she would do no such thing. I concur with the judgment of the editors of the Manchester Union-Leader:
COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot when others removed theirs, she campaigned this past weekend in Florida, and she is pushing to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The party stripped those states of delegates as punishment for moving up their primary dates.

"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," Clinton said last week, after the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses were safely over.

Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa.
Of course, why this should come as a surprise to anyone is beyond me. The Clintons have long been a couple for whom the truth is...malleable.

1754: The GOP race is still too close to call, but it seems to be becoming less so. McCain leads Romney 35% to 32% with 46% of precincts counted.

1757: It's fitting to see that Hillary Clinton is now picking up the endorsement of Congressman Alcee Hastings. That should lock up the key "former Federal judges who were impeached and removed from office for corruption" demographic.

1813: It's McCain, with 35% of the vote. He's followed by Romney with 31%, then Giuliani with 15%.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 26 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
Sweden’s health care system - people opting for private care
Posted by: McQ
 
One of the primary reasons isn't the level of care, but access to that care. And the problem being identified is lack of incentive to increase efficiency.
Waiting times for medical care in Sweden are the longest in Europe, according to the Health Consumer Powerhouse, which analyzes health-care systems in the region. About 33,000 people had been waiting more than three months for surgery or other major treatments at the end of August, an increase of 43 percent from May, a report by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions showed.

Critics of Sweden's welfare model say there are no incentives for hospitals to improve efficiency. Oscar Hjertqvist, director of the Health Consumer Powerhouse, likens the current system to a bad restaurant getting government funding.

``In Sweden, you would get paid just to have a restaurant, but there would be no requirements that people should get any food,'' said Hjertqvist, whose group has offices in Brussels and Stockholm.
Consequently people in Sweden, espeically the wealthy, are opting for private care:
Jorun Lindell got fed up with Swedish health care the day her son Harald waited four hours to be treated at a Stockholm emergency ward. His knees and ankles were swollen ``like soccer balls.''

``We were hysterical because we didn't know what was wrong and no one would help us,'' says Lindell, 39, whose 4-year-old whimpered with pain in a waiting room at the Astrid Lindgren Children's Hospital, named after the author of the Pippi Longstocking children's books.

Lindell is among the parents backing Sweden's first private hospital for children. Opening in the second half of 2008 in Stockholm's affluent Oestermalm district, Martina Children's Hospital will handle about 20,000 emergency cases a year, a third of Astrid Lindgren's case load.
Say the critics of such a move:
``The new hospital for the children of the upper classes is a mockery of the most fundamental values of the Swedish system,'' said Lars Ohly, leader of the Swedish Left Party. ``Care should be given based on needs, not wallets.''
Really? Well care based on need is no care at all if you don't have access. And where that is the case (and it appears to be the case in most government run programs) people vote with their wallets. As you might imagine, Ohly would be happy to deny them that right.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 14 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Health Care

 
QandO
 
Pot and Lung Cancer
Posted by: McQ
 
A group of New Zealand scientists think there is a definite link:
In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the scientists said cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.

The method of smoking also increases the risk, since joints are typically smoked without a proper filter and almost to the very tip, which increases the amount of smoke inhaled. The cannabis smoker inhales more deeply and for longer, facilitating the deposition of carcinogens in the airways.

"Cannabis smokers end up with five times more carbon monoxide in their bloodstream (than tobacco smokers)," team leader Richard Beasley, at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, said in a telephone interview.

"There are higher concentrations of carcinogens in cannabis smoke ... what is intriguing to us is there is so little work done on cannabis when there is so much done on tobacco."
You know, when I smoked, way back in the late '60s and early '70s, I knew, before all the studies came out, that I was harming myself and my lungs with smoking. Think about it, you're sucking on a lighted tube of vegetable matter and inhaling the smoke from that deep into your lungs. How's that a good thing? And, of course it isn't. But I always wondered why nothing was ever said about pot smoking in that regards. So it has intrigued me as well.
The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption.

In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.

"While our study covers a relatively small group, it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk," wrote Beaseley.
I'm not a non-smoking fanatic (I just don't care for it nor do I care to be around it) as we're all big boys and girls and are free to make choices concerning what we ingest. I just found this to be interesting and offer it for information only.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 18 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Health Care

 
QandO
 
People are a Problem
Posted by: Jon Henke
 
Eric Scheie at Classical Values...
Those who most want to be president are those who least deserve to be elected. The best presidents are those who are forced or persuaded by others into accepting the job.
...reminds me of this great Douglas Adams quotes...
One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.

To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
Tyler Cowen, during an interesting exchange with Ezra Klein about the assumptions of human behavior that explain their political philosophies, made a similar point...
[R]elative to most libertarian economists, I am more likely to think — or should I say admit — that human beings are irrational, even when the stakes are high [...]

But, relative to social democrats, I tend to think that politicians are irrational actors trying to pander to irrational voters and that it can't be any other way.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 13 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Philosophy

 
QandO
 
Business as usual at the UN
Posted by: McQ
 
Speaking of marginal organizations, the UN again demonstrates that it cannot be taken seriously.

You remember the replacement of the "Commission on Human Rights" By the "Human Rights Council" in the UN?
The council replaced what was widely viewed as a cancer on the United Nations — an ineffectual "Commission on Human Rights" that also had a single-minded focus on Israel. According to former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, "the selectivity and politicizing of its activities [were] in danger of bringing the entire U.N. system into disrepute."

The removal of the diseased commission two years ago was heralded by U.N. officials as "the dawn of a new era." Its replacement was designed to have stricter standards for membership, and rules to prevent politicized voting. But such safeguards were neutered by the time the new Human Rights Council was approved, and the results are that the council is no better than its predecessor.
Why is it no better than its predecessor? Two countries demonstrate it better than any others: Darfur and Israel.
As fresh waves of violence convulsed Darfur in December, the council responded by dismissing the team of experts tasked with monitoring atrocities in that region. Sudan's closest allies, Egypt and China, have led the council in shielding the Sudanese regime.

Even mild resolutions, like a Canadian proposal requesting the prosecution of those responsible for abuses in Darfur, have been rejected. Reports from U.N. fact-finding missions implicating Sudan's government in torture, rape and mass murder — including one led by Nobel Peace laureate Jody Williams earlier this year — have been discarded. And while world leaders labeled the Sudanese regime's actions as genocide, the council continued to commend Sudan's conduct and assign blame to "all parties" involved. In the face of the world's worst human-rights crisis, it has refused to issue a single condemnation.
But Israel? No problem issuing condemnations against that country:
Last week the U.N. Human Rights Council held an emergency session, organized by Arab and Muslim nations, to condemn Israel for its military actions in the Gaza strip. That the council is capable of swift and decisive action is a welcome surprise; that Israel remains the only nation to provoke such action is not. In the 17 months since its inception, the body has passed 13 condemnations, 12 of them against Israel.
I'm sure you're surprised, right? So why has this new version become like the old version of the UN body on "human rights"? Because bureaucrats and functionaries caved in on the purpose of the new commission - to monitor human rights around the world and to use free countries to do so while removing politics from the mix - and have built a council which is the antithesis of that purpose:
The problems begin with the council's composition. Only 25 of its 47 members are classified as "free democracies," according to Freedom House's ranking of civil liberties. Nine are classified as "not free." Four — China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia — are ranked as the "worst of the worst." These nations are responsible for repeated violations of the U.N.'s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it is they who dominate the council, leading a powerful bloc of predominantly Arab and African nations that consistently vote as a unit.

These regimes have repeatedly used the council as a powerful tool for shielding themselves from scrutiny and meting out criticism along stark political lines. According to Human Rights Watch, the council has turned a blind eye to at least 26 countries — the sites of some of the world's worst human-rights crises.
And many of those are shielding their own countries from scrutiny and criticism. I mean, Cuba on a "Human Rights Council?" Cuba, of course, has taken full advantage of the cover it's given them:
In some cases, the council has actively eroded the level of monitoring. Last year, when Cuba drew fire for persecuting journalists, and Belarus for political imprisonments and rigged elections, the council responded by removing monitors from both countries.
What we're left with is business as usual at the UN. As long as its Human Rights Council is composed of countries such as Cuba and China, the UN is an organization which can't be taken seriously. The organization formed with such high ideals last century has devolved into a toothless, spineless third world debating club which gives cover to the worst human rights offenders. It is way past time we left this dysfunctional organization - it has proven time and time again it is beyond repair.

(HT: CQ)
 

Permalink | Comments ( 2 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Foreign Affairs

 
QandO
 
Style of the Union
Posted by: Jon Henke
 
[Via Bill Beutler] Tom Shales, Washington Post Style Columnist, should probably explain the opening sentence of his column today in a bit more detail...
George W. Bush finished his seventh and possibly final State of the Union speech at 10:02 p.m. last night...

That's not the sort of thing you just float out there without some explanation. Shales should explain - something like, "Congress enjoyed the State of the Union speech so much that they're asking for an encore performance in June", or "I have reason to believe that Bush will declare himself President-for-Life!". Or, more likely, "I lost my medication!"
 

Permalink | Comments ( 22 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Media

 
QandO
 
NY NOW and identity politics - the perfect example of the marginal organization
Posted by: McQ
 
Another example of how the radical feminist movement further marginalizes itself can be found in the statement from the NY chapter of the National Organization of Women (NY NOW) in which it protests the temerity of Sen. Edward Kennedy's decision to endorse Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency:
"Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not "this" one). 'They' are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That's Howard's brother) who run DFA (that's the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they'll do feminist and women's rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America's future or whatever.

"This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women's rights, women's voices, women's equality, women's authority and our ability - indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who 'know what's best for us.'"
Yeah, it couldn't at be about a simple political preference could it? Of course, none of this sort of outrage was heard when the serial sexual abuser was working his way through women other than his wife, was there?

Presently NOW is only discussed when it does silly things such as issue statements like that above. Most thinking people have already dismissed the organization as a part of the hypocritical fringe whose only useful remaining function is to remind us why it lives there. And it did that in spades yesterday.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 7 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Politics

 
QandO
 
Coulter on John McCain
Posted by: McQ
 
I'm not a huge Ann Coulter fan (well I do enjoy her snark, but feel she goes overboard at times), but this quote had me cleaning my monitor:
John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth.
Heh ... uh, yeah.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 5 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
"Rejiggered", three little pigs and "suicide by tolerance"
Posted by: McQ
 
We saw a little of it in this debate over the word "rejiggered" which was wrongly singled out as a word with racist connotations when nothing could be further from the truth. And I further touched on it here.

"Suicide by tolerance" is what Lorne Gunter call it in Canada's National Post and provides a follow-up on the "three little pigs" story:
Shoo Fly publishers of Newcastle has produced a very innovative, interactive software version of the Three Little Pigs — a 3D book designed to encourage young children to develop critical thinking abilities. It has won several awards, but was not approved by BECTA because "the use of pigs raises cultural issues." In particular, the company was told, "Judges would not recommend this product to the Muslim community," out of concern the pig images would be upsetting.

British papers were instantly filled with headlines such as "PC gone mad! Muslims devour Little Red Riding Hood."

But, of course, Muslims had done no such thing. Indeed, the Muslim Council of Britain told the Daily Telegraph, "We are not offended by that at all," and called on British schools to welcome the books.
Much of this is self-censorship based on the possibility (without actually knowing) of someone, almost anyone, being offended. It is an example of the tyranny of the minority without the minority actually being involved. Those who self-censure seem to be more afraid of giving offense than giving up their right of free speech. How upside-down is that?
Call it suicide by tolerance. The Western world with its institutions of democracy and the rule of law, with its advances in science and medicine, its progress in individual liberty, its historic devotion to reason and its developments in culture and the arts will disappear because its own elites could not be proud enough of its achievements to defend it from within.
The last line describes the situation to a tee and history is rife with civilizations which collapsed from within when they refused to defend their own political freedoms. But usually that collapse was characterized by assault from outside the culture. In this case we're seeing it eaten away from within.

The three little pigs and the small "rejiggered" flap are just the latest examples in a long line of manufactured outrages and self-censorship based in ignorance and false assumptions. It's a trend that needs to be reversed. Freedom of speech's real power comes in a different sort of toleration - toleration of speech we don't like or agree with. And our civilization seems to be moving away, not toward, such speech.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 7 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Freedom and Liberty

 
QandO
 
Monday, January 28, 2008

SOTU and Dems - whatta gas
Posted by: McQ
 
My opinion of the SOTU address and Democratic response as demonstrated by this little guy:


http://view.break.com/439638 - Watch more free videos
 

Permalink | Comments ( 4 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Humor

 
QandO
 
2008 SOTU Liveblog
Posted by: Dale Franks
 
It's hard to believe that this is the last time we'll see George W. Bush give his annual SOTU. The last time we'll see The Big Dick sitting in the big padded chair on the apex of the podium. And, it's hard to believe that we've watched this seven times before.

But, GWB is now that lamest of ducks, a president with less than 12 months left to go in his tenure, facing a Congress held by the opposing party. Since this is so, tonight is a grand exercise in "make believe". The president will make believe that Congress will pass his suggestions into law, and the Congress will make believe that they are interested in hearing the president's suggested program.

Next year, a different person will be doing this. If it's a Democrat, I hope it's Barack Obama, instead of Hillary Clinton. Sure, Obama will spout the same socialist claptrap, but at least I won't have to Listen to Ms. Clinton's Mars Attacks, "ack-ack-ack!" speech delivery, while she hounds me like the relentless harridan I suspect she is.

With Mr. Obama, the rhetorical standards will at least be high—indeed, Kennedy-esque. And, hopefully, like JFK, Mr. Obama will be similarly politically impotent during his tenure.

We can only hope.

Anyway, in what follows, direct quotes will be block quoted. My paraphrasing will be italicized, and my commentary will be in plain text. The post will be in chronological order, with bold-face time stamps, given in Pacific time.

With that said, it's time to get this party started.

Divider

1755: The Justices are entering. Pretty much everybody else is already there. This is not a president who delays things much. Awfully picky about time, is Our George.

1758: The First Lady is in a very nice dress, even if it is bright hooker red.

1801: Apparently, there'll be some talk about the state of the economy. Key phrase to listen for: "Sinking like the Andrea Doria." No doubt we'll hear about the fabulous fiscal stimulus plan, as well. Naturally, they'll all pretend that a one-time tax rebate from the government will work as well as a structural change in tax rates. I told you there'd be plenty of make believe tonight.

1805: The Great Man himself enters. Wearing that wussy baby-blue tie, again. And, once again, Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) is there to greet the president, as always. If my ears don't deceive me, she just said, "How are you doing, my brother!" I don't think she refers to him as "my brother" when she's campaigning back home.

1805: Nancy Pelosi with the boilerplate "privilege and honor" lie again.

1810: The speech starts off with a retrospective. Wow! What a long strange trip it's been, huh? Anyway, let's all pull together now, and win one for the Gipper.

1812: The economy is slowing. We need a stimulus package, but you folks can't go batsh*t with the earmarks. Obviously, he wants the stimulus package that he negotiated with Pelosi to be passed by the Senate as is.

If you think your taxes should be higher, the IRS accepts checks and money orders, you socialist bastards.
If any bill raising taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it.
Huh. Too bad he didn't have that idea about spending over the last seven years. He's talking about eliminating some programs, but...we'll see.

1817:
If you send me a bill that doesn't cut the number of earmarks in half, I'll send it back to you with my veto.
I'll also issue an impoundment order on earmarks, too. Ah, look, the Congress appears to approve. Sure they do.

We're gonna have a budget surplus by 2012. Not if the economy is tanking, we won't. This is what we call an "optimistic projection."

1819: Well, he's a got a whole laundry list to throw down, now. Government help for home refinancing, allowing self-employed people a tax brak on health insurance, Medical savings accounts and tort reform. Then, on to education. More money for education, less Federal oversight for it. More money for Pell Grants.

Well. So much for that cutting the Federal Budget stuff.

1824: Now, it's on to the importance of free trade. This, from a president who slapped tariffs on steel, Canadian softwoods, asian shrimp, etc., etc. Physician, heal thyself.

1826: Energy, now. Clean Coal! Nukes! Amazing new technologies! And let's spend more money on an international clean energy fund! Yeah, I'm not seeing that 2012 budget surplus in any of this.

A brief nod to fighting global warming by doing...something or other that has nothing to do with conserving energy right now. Invest in the future! In technology!

1829: Now, we're hearing about adult stem cells. Adult stem cells good. Killing the little babies, bad. Oh, and no paying for organs or cloning.

Jeez, I'm getting whiplash from the subject changes this guy's rolling out.

1830: Confirm my judges! No fair holding off until Obama can make new appointments.

1831: And we move on to charity, now. Apparently, religious charity is good, New orleans is being rebuilt, and there'll be a big summit in The Big Easy later this year. I'm sure the Secret Service is thrilled about that.

1833: Cut entitlement spending, now. No applause from the Democratic side. How terribly odd.

1834:
Illegal immigration...must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.
So, essentially, we need an amnesty program. We just won't call it that.

1835: The domestic laundry list is over, and we now move to foreign policy. We've seen some progress over the last several years, but don't forget the terrorists. 9/11! Danger! Danger! But we're gonna kill those guys. The president's solution, again, is to spread the hope of freedom. Well, we'll see.

1839: More marines to Afghanistan, because, essentially, the wheels are coming off the wagon there, and our NATO allies are, for the most part, useless at stopping it.

1840: Hey, how about that Surge, huh? It's really doing wonders in Iraq. Now, stand up and clap for our boys in uniform! Both grassroots and government efforts are helping the surge out on the Iraqi side. Combined with the US effort, things are much better.

You guys on the Dem side said it was impossible. Don't you look stupid now? Admittedly, things in Iraq do look better, and there are a lot of signs of grass-roots improvements. Too bad the Iraqi government doesn't seem to be as quick on the ball about political reconciliation.

1845: Now he asks for full funding for our troops. Even the Democrats give a standing O at that. Whether they agree or not. Political expediency, don't you know.

1847: And so it begins:
20,000 of our troops are coming home.
Further draw downs will be based on events, the President tells us. I'm wondering what percentage of "events" are derived from the US political calendar, and which derive from conditions in Iraq.
Reconciliation is taking place, and the people of Iraq are taking control of their future.
Al Qaeda is still out there...waiting. But we'll get 'em. Rise to the challenge and whatnot.

1851: The Palestinians are getting on board with the anti-terror thing, too. Why, we'll see a peaceful Palestine and Israel living side by side very soon! Talk about the triumph of hope over experience.

1853: To the Iranian people, the president says we have no beef. The Mullahs, on the other hand...

1855: I need my warrantless wiretaps by Friday. If you in Congress don't give it to me, you might as well just kill a few Americans yourselves, and cut out the middleman. Yeah, well, just be sure we get some judicial oversight in that surveillance power, shall we?

1857: Now he says we need more money for global anti-poverty programs. Oh, and we need to break the cycle of famine. Of course, a brief survey of economic history shows that political and economic freedom are sufficient to end famine, without any Federal funds at all.

1859: More money for veterans, including the Dole-Shalala reform deal. Hard to argue against that. When you're sending boys off to be blown up or shot, you do have a moral duty to them.

1902: Do everything I ask, and the State of the Union will remain strong! That implies that it currently is strong, though he never states that. He buried the lede even worse than he did last year.

Divider

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius will deliver the Democratic response. Let's hope she has more on the ball than forgettable Virginia Governor Tim Kaine did last year, when he kept telling us...I forget.

Bloody awful, whatever it was. I remember that.

1916: Americans aren't nearly as divided as those weasel politicians, or those media hacks would have you believe. But it's so much better TV to paint it that way, of course.

Sebelius is presenting herself as just an average American gal, not one of those icky politicians.

1919: Is she on Ambien? Is she a Vulcan? Or is she simply incapable of expressing human emotion? Mr. President, it is not logical to oppose our positions.

1921: We need to work together to find American solutions. "American" in this case, appears to mean, "spending money on what democrats want to spend money on."

1923: The war has cost too much, and too many people have been hurt. We've lost respect abroad. Join us in finding solutions? Join us. Join us. Join us.

"Join us" in what? What are the solutions she's advocating? "Join us in making the right decision." "Join us in moving ahead." OK. What are the right decisions? What do we do to move ahead?

1926: Join us. Let's get to work. WTF? I mean, what the WT F'ing F? What does any of this mean? This response was practically contentless.

1928: Thankfully, she's now done with her cryptic address. Who made the choice to let her make the response? They should've had Tim Kaine give the Democratic response again. He was electrifying!

Divider

Well, our annual ritual is over. We can now go back to reality, which is that practically none of the president's domestic agenda will ever see the light of day, nor will the vast majority of Congress' foreign policy wishes.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 6 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Politics

 
QandO
 
Subprime bailout and moral hazards
Posted by: Jon Henke
 
Inevitably, when Bad Things happen to a lot of people at once, politicians show up to rescue everybody involved from the consequences of risk or bad choices. But while mercy is a virtue in an individual, a government policy of mercy for bad choices creates moral hazards that can create both immediate (to other taxpayers) and long-term (to future lenders and borrowers) negative consequences.

In the event that politicians propose a subprime bailout of lenders or of homeowners, what steps will the politician take to ensure that these people are not rewarded for their fraud.
Most fraud in subprime lending appears to have been so-called "fraud for purchase" - lying about income so as to win a mortgage approval. In reviewing a sample of "no doc" loans that relied on borrowers' statements, the Mortgage Asset Research Institute recently found that almost all would-be home owners had exaggerated their income, with almost 60 per cent inflating it by more than 50 per cent.
To be clear: neither fraudulent borrowers nor lenders who enabled or turned a blind eye to fraud, should be compensated or rescued for the consequence of their fraud. If a subprime bailout rewards those who committed fraud, it will be an explicit legislative invitation to continue the fraud. How you avoid rewarding that fraud, though, seems like quite a difficult problem.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 5 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Politics

 
QandO
 

 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider

 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Quick Links

If you like the way this blog looks and works, then try out the software that runs it: .Blog

.Blog requires a web site with the .Net Framework and access to Microsoft SQL Server. In the future, when MySQL v5.0 comes out, a version of .Blog will be made available for MySQL, which will make .Blog a pretty much universal blogging platform. Keep watching for it!

 
The Bear Flag League

The Bear Flag League

 
The Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

 
Spambot Killing
Spambot Killer 1
Spambot Killer 2
Spambot Killer 3
Spambot Killer 4