Alright, dammit. I'm going to get on Facebook. But I don't have to be happy about it, do I? No, I'm going to be my typically curmudgeonly self about this. And I'll be damned if I'll Twitter.
It's been some time since I've posted on here, by the way - very busy times, with a daughter graduating from high school and a host of other trials and tribulations in my life these past few weeks. My posts may be few and far between for a while as well, because I plan to undertake writing not one, but two books. So forgive me if my economic and political rants are sparse for a while. On the economic side, you'll get plenty of reading out of one of the books, and on the political side ... well, I'll have to save that one for awhile. The second book will be built on the "All Good" post.
Speaking of "all good," there's another "all good" member of my family - my daughter Sydney, who just graduated from high school, and will attend my alma mater, Pittsburg State University, in the fall - on academic and music schollies, no less. She's bright, beautiful, very well-grounded, talented in art (her major) and music (her minor), and has been accepted into the Honors College at Pitt. We'll be empty-nesters (as much as one can be so with three dogs, including a diabetic), but we'll see her often, as we still have our season football tix, and she'll be at all the games. It will be a new chapter for us, and I'm looking forward to lots of "us-time" with the most wonderful woman in the world, and the best Mom ever.
Watch for the books - I'll post updates on the progress - and in the meantime, I hope to occasionally throw out at least a brief rant.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
A Brief One
Most of my posts are nigh unbearably long-winded, so enjoy this brief one. It's actually a cut-and-paste from the D2 football message board I frequent, in response to someone asking if now was the best time for a viable third party.
My short reply was that now would be an excellent time for a viable first or second party.
The thread went on with the token liberals saying the GOP has become irrelevant, and will stay irrelevant forever.
So they hope.
I responded with this summary of the political picture, which I think is pretty accurate:
With all this talk about the demise of the GOP, we've heard this before. We heard it when Nixon made a shambles of his presidency (after LBJ squandered the Dems' political capital, opening the door for the Republicans to get Nixon the W). That paved the way for Carter's win. And when he turned out to be a Frenchman with a Georgia accent, Reagan got elected. Bush I capitalizes on Reagan's political capital, then squanders that with the one-two punch of the infamous "read my lips" flip-flop and a too-slow jobs recovery after a recession (more Greenspan's fault than his, but still a catalyst for Clinton's copying the Reaganism, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"). And again we heard of the death of the GOP. After Clinton made the White House a National Enquirer cover story, that opened the door for W, and a succession of totally lame candidates to run against him both times got him in, until the country reached the point of "let's elect anybody, so long as it's not a Republican." So in waltzes Obama, and all we hear about is that the GOP has become irrelevant. Well, it's happened before, and it'll cycle back. In four, eight, twelve years the country will be sick of what the Dems have done, and it'll open the door for a Republican candidate.
In saying this I'm not defending the Republican party. I'm simply recounting the irrefutable pattern of American party politics over the past several decades. The fact of the matter is that both parties suck, and both parties generally succeed in mucking things up until we're ready for something different. So we vote for the other party, and find that there is no change we can believe in from the current system. There are just different letters after the schmucks' names.
My short reply was that now would be an excellent time for a viable first or second party.
The thread went on with the token liberals saying the GOP has become irrelevant, and will stay irrelevant forever.
So they hope.
I responded with this summary of the political picture, which I think is pretty accurate:
With all this talk about the demise of the GOP, we've heard this before. We heard it when Nixon made a shambles of his presidency (after LBJ squandered the Dems' political capital, opening the door for the Republicans to get Nixon the W). That paved the way for Carter's win. And when he turned out to be a Frenchman with a Georgia accent, Reagan got elected. Bush I capitalizes on Reagan's political capital, then squanders that with the one-two punch of the infamous "read my lips" flip-flop and a too-slow jobs recovery after a recession (more Greenspan's fault than his, but still a catalyst for Clinton's copying the Reaganism, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"). And again we heard of the death of the GOP. After Clinton made the White House a National Enquirer cover story, that opened the door for W, and a succession of totally lame candidates to run against him both times got him in, until the country reached the point of "let's elect anybody, so long as it's not a Republican." So in waltzes Obama, and all we hear about is that the GOP has become irrelevant. Well, it's happened before, and it'll cycle back. In four, eight, twelve years the country will be sick of what the Dems have done, and it'll open the door for a Republican candidate.
In saying this I'm not defending the Republican party. I'm simply recounting the irrefutable pattern of American party politics over the past several decades. The fact of the matter is that both parties suck, and both parties generally succeed in mucking things up until we're ready for something different. So we vote for the other party, and find that there is no change we can believe in from the current system. There are just different letters after the schmucks' names.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Must've Been A Typo
First, let me apologize for the long hiatus. It's not that there's been a lack of economic and political goings-on to ponder, it's just that I've been busy. My praise band recently played a concert at the state prison in Lansing, and before that we played for a men's retreat at a church near Baldwin City, Kansas. I played lead guitar for the prison concert, so between rehearsals and the performances themselves, I was kept hopping, and when it was all done, as John Lennon famously shouted at the end of Helter Skelter on The White Album, "I've got blisters on my fingers!" So anyway, now I'm back at it. I'll eventually do a post on the concert experience, and also on my daughter's upcoming high school graduation, which will keep me pretty busy for the next couple of weeks. But first, I want to dissect President Obama's 100th day "press conference."
Before I begin, though, let me explain the post title. Remember his campaign slogan, "Change you can believe in?" I'm beginning to suspect it was a typo, and what he really meant was "Change what you believe in."
Now the President is very articulate - a fine speaker, with or without his teleprompter, though he does much better with. I chalk that up to inexperience. Once his on-the-job training is completed, as his now-Secretary of State once warned he'd need, I imagine he'll be a fine extemporaneous speaker. He's also affable, and can be funny - all in all, very engaging.
But every time he talks, I'm reminded of what Hamish said to William Wallace in Braveheart, just before the battle at Stirling: "Fine speech. Now what?"
See, President Obama talks a good game. But his actions run counter to his words, and there were a number of examples of that in the "press conference." One more aside before I tuck into that, though. The reason I put "press conference" in quotes is that it isn't really a press conference, it's an orchestrated speech. He takes the podium with a pre-set list of which reporters he's going to call on and in what order. And when they ask their questions, he blathers for too long in response to each, so that the number of questions is very limited. And in so blathering, he basically talks about whatever he wants. Sort of reminds me of the "debates."
But on to the Q&A.
He began by talking about the swine flu (I could digress and pick on Joe "Stand up, Chuck!" Biden here, but I won't), then segued into the budget:
"The second thing I'd like to mention is how gratified I am that the House and the Senate passed a budget resolution today that will serve as an economic blueprint for this nation's future." Mr. President, if that's the blueprint, I'm not so sure I want to live in the house, at least not without a hard hat.
"We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs ..." Whoa, gotta call BS here. The US has lost 1.2 million jobs since he took office - likely to grow to about 1.9 million by next week's jobs report. And his economic team has thus far refused to release how it counts said jobs "saved or created" - and that terminology makes the numbers murky at best, as estimating "jobs saved" is pure speculation.
"And we launched a housing plan that has already contributed to a spike in the number of homeowners who are refinancing their mortgages, which is the equivalent of another tax cut." Again, bovine poo. A tax cut is a tax cut. And the only people who've refinanced their mortgages are people who already could qualify for a conforming loan, who probably didn't need the added cash. Now, his point was that the freed-up cash from refinancing, in addition to the extra 12 bucks a month most of us are getting in our paychecks, will stimulate the economy. There are a couple of problems with this.
First, some of the refi candidates were folks who qualified for a conforming refi but did need to pare down some other debt. They'll use the extra cash to do that. The rest were financially astute enough to not be in debt trouble, but weren't going to look a gift horse in the mouth when mortgage rates fell to record lows. They're smart enough to save the extra dough.
The other problem stems from juxtaposing that assertion with his next statement: "We can't go back to an economy that's built on a pile of sand: on inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards; on over-leveraged banks and outdated regulations that allow recklessness of a few to threaten the prosperity of all."
Well, hear, hear! I wholeheartedly and curmudgeonly agree! But if that's the case, why is he still clinging to the notion that the way out of the economic morass is to help free up cash in people's pockets so they'll spend it? If he wants us to get away from over-leveraging ourselves, where are the incentives to save? The disincentives to borrow? Why are we bailing out only the "reckless few," both the homeowners and the banks? Why the pressure on the banks to lend more? And, most importantly, where's the fiscal restraint at the federal level?
Okay, the first question was about the swine flu, then one on Chrysler. Then he got a couple from reporters trying to get him to say that the Bush administration sanctioned torture, which he side-stepped. Then came a gem from Chuck Todd of MSNBC - a guy I can't stand from a network I can't stand - that illustrated why I'm too much of a smart-ass to ever be president.
Chuck Todd: "Thank you, Mr. President. I want to move to Pakistan."
I'd have immediately replied, "I'd be all for that, Chuck - I'll even loan you Air Force One to get you there. I'm sure we could get a photo op out of it even."
The rest of my comments are largely fluff. In response to a question on abortion and the freedom of choice act, he said, "The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that position casually." Au contraire, Mr. President. I think too many women who are pro-choice take too many positions too casually (rimshot).
Then he got Jeff Zany - er, Zeleny's - odd question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?"
Seriously? "Enchanted" you the most? The President made light of the question, stopping Zeleny to repeat the four-part question so he could write each part down. But the "enchanted" piece shows just how the mainstream media fawns over this president, failing to call him to task for things like the massive deficits we're creating, or the bungled bank bail-out efforts that leave taxpayers on the hook while providing windfalls to Tim Geithner's cronies, and on scaring the devil out of lower Manhattan for a photo op that could have been taken care of with Photoshop (he didn't get a single question about that, by the way).
He also addressed his bipartisan efforts, which brought to mind the infamous "I won" comment. And he said something about the fine team he'd assembled, which made me wish once again that I hadn't filed my taxes. And he said that the sooner the government gets out of the business of running banks and auto companies, the better off we'll be, to which I also say, hear, hear.
The bottom line is this: the ideology and the actions don't match the words. And that troubles me. The strategy seems to be "tell 'em what they want to hear, and do whatever you want." And that tells me that what he really wants too many Americans to do is change what they believe in.
Before I begin, though, let me explain the post title. Remember his campaign slogan, "Change you can believe in?" I'm beginning to suspect it was a typo, and what he really meant was "Change what you believe in."
Now the President is very articulate - a fine speaker, with or without his teleprompter, though he does much better with. I chalk that up to inexperience. Once his on-the-job training is completed, as his now-Secretary of State once warned he'd need, I imagine he'll be a fine extemporaneous speaker. He's also affable, and can be funny - all in all, very engaging.
But every time he talks, I'm reminded of what Hamish said to William Wallace in Braveheart, just before the battle at Stirling: "Fine speech. Now what?"
See, President Obama talks a good game. But his actions run counter to his words, and there were a number of examples of that in the "press conference." One more aside before I tuck into that, though. The reason I put "press conference" in quotes is that it isn't really a press conference, it's an orchestrated speech. He takes the podium with a pre-set list of which reporters he's going to call on and in what order. And when they ask their questions, he blathers for too long in response to each, so that the number of questions is very limited. And in so blathering, he basically talks about whatever he wants. Sort of reminds me of the "debates."
But on to the Q&A.
He began by talking about the swine flu (I could digress and pick on Joe "Stand up, Chuck!" Biden here, but I won't), then segued into the budget:
"The second thing I'd like to mention is how gratified I am that the House and the Senate passed a budget resolution today that will serve as an economic blueprint for this nation's future." Mr. President, if that's the blueprint, I'm not so sure I want to live in the house, at least not without a hard hat.
"We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs ..." Whoa, gotta call BS here. The US has lost 1.2 million jobs since he took office - likely to grow to about 1.9 million by next week's jobs report. And his economic team has thus far refused to release how it counts said jobs "saved or created" - and that terminology makes the numbers murky at best, as estimating "jobs saved" is pure speculation.
"And we launched a housing plan that has already contributed to a spike in the number of homeowners who are refinancing their mortgages, which is the equivalent of another tax cut." Again, bovine poo. A tax cut is a tax cut. And the only people who've refinanced their mortgages are people who already could qualify for a conforming loan, who probably didn't need the added cash. Now, his point was that the freed-up cash from refinancing, in addition to the extra 12 bucks a month most of us are getting in our paychecks, will stimulate the economy. There are a couple of problems with this.
First, some of the refi candidates were folks who qualified for a conforming refi but did need to pare down some other debt. They'll use the extra cash to do that. The rest were financially astute enough to not be in debt trouble, but weren't going to look a gift horse in the mouth when mortgage rates fell to record lows. They're smart enough to save the extra dough.
The other problem stems from juxtaposing that assertion with his next statement: "We can't go back to an economy that's built on a pile of sand: on inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards; on over-leveraged banks and outdated regulations that allow recklessness of a few to threaten the prosperity of all."
Well, hear, hear! I wholeheartedly and curmudgeonly agree! But if that's the case, why is he still clinging to the notion that the way out of the economic morass is to help free up cash in people's pockets so they'll spend it? If he wants us to get away from over-leveraging ourselves, where are the incentives to save? The disincentives to borrow? Why are we bailing out only the "reckless few," both the homeowners and the banks? Why the pressure on the banks to lend more? And, most importantly, where's the fiscal restraint at the federal level?
Okay, the first question was about the swine flu, then one on Chrysler. Then he got a couple from reporters trying to get him to say that the Bush administration sanctioned torture, which he side-stepped. Then came a gem from Chuck Todd of MSNBC - a guy I can't stand from a network I can't stand - that illustrated why I'm too much of a smart-ass to ever be president.
Chuck Todd: "Thank you, Mr. President. I want to move to Pakistan."
I'd have immediately replied, "I'd be all for that, Chuck - I'll even loan you Air Force One to get you there. I'm sure we could get a photo op out of it even."
The rest of my comments are largely fluff. In response to a question on abortion and the freedom of choice act, he said, "The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that position casually." Au contraire, Mr. President. I think too many women who are pro-choice take too many positions too casually (rimshot).
Then he got Jeff Zany - er, Zeleny's - odd question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?"
Seriously? "Enchanted" you the most? The President made light of the question, stopping Zeleny to repeat the four-part question so he could write each part down. But the "enchanted" piece shows just how the mainstream media fawns over this president, failing to call him to task for things like the massive deficits we're creating, or the bungled bank bail-out efforts that leave taxpayers on the hook while providing windfalls to Tim Geithner's cronies, and on scaring the devil out of lower Manhattan for a photo op that could have been taken care of with Photoshop (he didn't get a single question about that, by the way).
He also addressed his bipartisan efforts, which brought to mind the infamous "I won" comment. And he said something about the fine team he'd assembled, which made me wish once again that I hadn't filed my taxes. And he said that the sooner the government gets out of the business of running banks and auto companies, the better off we'll be, to which I also say, hear, hear.
The bottom line is this: the ideology and the actions don't match the words. And that troubles me. The strategy seems to be "tell 'em what they want to hear, and do whatever you want." And that tells me that what he really wants too many Americans to do is change what they believe in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)