Friday, July 13, 2012
CONDOLEEZZA RICE AS POSSIBLE VICE PRESIDENT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LINKS
Frequent Commenters Here
Blogs I Visit Every Day or Two
My novel, Temping.
"...like tincting with absinthe..."
LUTHERAN SURREALISM
Photo of Blogger
Blog Archive
- June (4)
- May (7)
- April (6)
- March (7)
- February (9)
- January (8)
- December (7)
- November (6)
- October (9)
- September (7)
- August (8)
- July (7)
- June (14)
- May (6)
- April (12)
- March (16)
- February (8)
- January (11)
- December (9)
- November (11)
- October (9)
- September (12)
- August (11)
- July (9)
- June (14)
- May (9)
- April (8)
- March (12)
- February (9)
- January (13)
- December (14)
- November (16)
- October (20)
- September (15)
- August (15)
- July (14)
- June (19)
- May (20)
- April (17)
- March (19)
- February (14)
- January (15)
- December (14)
- November (23)
- October (26)
- September (16)
- August (18)
- July (21)
- June (18)
- May (18)
- April (16)
- March (16)
- February (14)
- January (21)
- December (11)
- November (20)
- October (16)
- September (15)
- August (13)
- July (18)
- June (19)
- May (16)
- April (14)
- March (15)
- February (15)
- January (19)
- December (13)
- November (11)
- October (11)
- September (9)
- August (10)
- July (12)
- June (12)
- May (15)
- April (17)
- March (14)
- February (14)
- January (21)
- December (15)
- November (8)
- October (13)
- September (11)
- August (10)
- July (13)
- June (13)
- May (11)
- April (16)
- March (17)
- February (16)
- January (21)
- December (18)
- November (25)
- October (25)
- September (19)
- August (24)
- July (23)
- June (11)
- May (15)
- April (12)
- March (12)
- February (15)
- January (17)
- December (15)
- November (14)
- October (11)
- September (10)
- August (13)
- July (23)
- June (19)
- May (13)
- April (20)
About Me
- Kirby Olson
- Upstate, NY
- PLEASE READ THE INTRO AND ANNE WALDMAN'S EXAMPLE BEFORE CONTRIBUTING! Send to Kirbyolson2@gmail.com.
96 comments:
Kirby,
Let me register a strong objection to your characterization of Sarah Palin's experience of the Republican Vice-Presidential candidacy as "rape." Coming from someone who argues that words should have meaning, there is no excuse for such an egregiously diluting metaphoric use of the word.
I knew that that would be the response. Or at least part of the response. It felt to me as if it was a gang rape. I can only identify with that per reflection, not from personal experience, but I feel the Democrats should be ashamed of what they did, and because Democrats are so proud of themselves as parasites on the polity, it takes a LOT to get them to reflect on their lousy behavior in the political realm.
I do think there is a part of the Republican party that could also be accused of raping the poor. Taking their money and throwing them into the streets. This is also lousy behavior.
Perhaps it would be better to talk of two different kinds of parasites who attempt to live off the middle and upper classes.
But we need a strong metaphor for the Democrats. They are not easily ashamed. They are monstrous assholes, in most cases, but to shame them is almost impossible. They are shameless and convinced of their moral rectitude simultaneously. It's a horrifying combination.
KIRBY IS FREE TO EXCERCISE HYPERBOLE
i thought too your words were well kirberator what should i say provocative at the very least if not downright incendiary which gets us back to the old days when throwing flaming frisbees into the fray over on silliman street was all the rage
i think kirbyeez excuse for using rape is really his effort to come to grips with the feminist platform
and i think every feminist i've ever met always interprets history through the shattered lense of rape language it's somehow basic to girrarrddiann dialectic
i suppose using the same metaphorical license kirby uses and i guess by virtue of him being a published poet he does have poetic license does he not but i guess then you could say the republicans "buggered" clinton it amounted to political sodomy
in fact as a culture i think we enjoy both the building up of individual social images and the tearing them down down down
once the madding crowd takes hold
it's a riot
the flesh and reason can't seem to come to adequate terms
sarah palin is holding her own in the political ditz dept. she's at least memorized her lines
when they first heard of condoleezza rice in minnesota they thought it was a hot dish
i swear she looks arabic
jh
Kirby,
I believe that the argumentative "technique" of choosing emotionally laden words and throwing them willy-nilly at one's opponent is unlikely to move the debate in a productive direction.
Regarding Sarah Palin, I think she was chosen in part for her gender, in hopes of attracting Hillary Clinton supporters who were disaffected by the 2008 Democratic Primary, and in part for her combativeness, which the McCain campaign had lost by that point. McCain needed to shake up the race, and he did, but he came to this conclusion with too little time to properly vet Palin before selecting her as VP candidate.
Certainly, I think you misrepresent the media trajectory regarding Ms. Palin, which at least initially was infatuation. She did the full rock-star, and got rock-star treatment. Unfortunately, she had skeletons in her closet, and a gift for foot-in-mouth disease that makes both Biden and Murtha look like amateurs. Her treatment wasn't so much a feminist backlash, as it was, "if it bleeds, it leads." And Palin was bleeding, almost exclusively of self-inflicted wounds.
In this, Rice is just a heck of a lot smarter and more experienced. She thinks before she talks, and she thinks while she talks. She's not going to give away avenues for attack the way Palin did. At worst, she'll need to have a good story on why certainly things in the Bush administration went down the way they did, but she's had enough time to think about this, and probably has good answers to most questions.
I do think that Rice is much more credible as a potential President than the typical Vice-President picks of either party. The problem is that this is not the qualification that matters most to Presidential candidates. As some wag once noticed, the President has less stake than anyone else in a Vice President's performance as President. The question is really whether or not the VP choice will help the Presidential candidate become President. Adding Rice to the ticket isn't going to help Romney win.
Interestingly enough, Nate Silver of 538 just addressed the more general question: In Search for Female Running Mate, a Short List for Romney.
He writes off Condi Rice early based on her mildly pro-choice stance. I think that's probably right, even though I think she'd be the strongest choice.
Looking at his list, I think the interesting choice is Kelly Ayotte (Sen R-NH). Twelve of the other thirteen are from states that are not even remotely competitive, and if he can't take North Carolina without help, he's dead anyway, so I don't see him choosing Elizabeth Dole. I don't know much about Ayotte, and New Hampshire is only 4EV, but if she's popular, she'd certainly put it in play.
Given that Romney's from Massachusetts, he might view 4 New England EVs as being heavier than they are, and otherwise he's risking a real shut out in his home region.
Picking ur-neocon Condi Rice is a surefire way to get all the libertarians to vote for Gary Johnson.
GM,
Picking ur-neocon Condi Rice is a surefire way to get all the libertarians to vote for Gary Johnson.
Are there enough of them to matter? I know the Cato institute estimate of 14%, but that seems crazy high to me in terms of the fraction of likely voters whose libertarian affiliations are so strong that they'd knowingly throw their vote away in an election where there's such an (evident?/apparent?) difference between the two competitive candidates.
Don't get me wrong—if you guys want to vote for Gary Johnson, knock yourselves out. I just don't see this as a common case.
Stu,
you wrote:
"I believe that the argumentative "technique" of choosing emotionally laden words and throwing them willy-nilly at one's opponent is unlikely to move the debate in a productive direction."
I do hope you feel the same about Obama's camp accusing Romney of a felony.
It works both ways.
What the Dems did to Sarah Palin was pretty bad. I wasn't her biggest fan, but I admired her tenacity in the face of such outrageous assaults.
And how quickly Fast & Furious, unemployment, deficit spending, et al, have been forgotten by the MSM this week.
Kirby's right about the truly vicious Democrat-major media trashing of Sarah Palin and her whole family. It was sickening. And sorry, jh, Bill Clinton, the draft-dodging hick hippie and serial liar, buggered his-say-yulf by perjuring his-say-yulf and, luckily for him, got away with it as his corrupt party and the major media decided to go after Speaker Gingrich instead. In his confirmation hearings, Justice Thomas suffered what he called a "high-tech lynching," and especially at the hands of a vicious alcoholic woman-abuser like Sen Kennedy, just as Kennedy promoted the relentless politicisation of SCOTUS choices, for Judge Bork was one of the best qualified SCOTUS candidates ever to come before the US Senate. So far as Palin is concerned, I think "rape" is an appropriate metaphor, for the lib-left rabble had circulated innumerable rape jokes with regard to Palin. . . .
Trouble for Demos with Condi Rice as VP candidate is a matter of character, which is I think what many independent-minded voters are looking for these days, rather than a candidate who just represents some voting bloc or some swing state advantage.
She simply makes on one hand the President look like a spoiled unaccomplished bum--which he is--and on the other hand makes Vice-President Biden look like the slack-mouthed lyin' ignoramus and pathetic back-slappin' buffoon that HE is.
Don't know what trash the Democrat-major media axis would dump on Rice--I'm sure they'll find something, probably manufactured (stole a library book when she was eleven or something) to try to shoehorn their worthless empty suit back into the White House for another disastrous four years. . . .
"empty shoes" is what I meant.
Kirby's right about the truly vicious Democrat-major media trashing of Sarah Palin and her whole family. It was sickening. And sorry, jh, Bill Clinton, the draft-dodging hick hippie and serial liar, buggered his-say-yulf by perjuring his-say-yulf and, luckily for him, got away with it as his corrupt party and the major media decided to go after Speaker Gingrich instead. In his confirmation hearings, Justice Thomas suffered what he called a "high-tech lynching," and especially at the hands of a vicious alcoholic woman-abuser like Sen Kennedy, just as Kennedy promoted the relentless politicisation of SCOTUS choices, for Judge Bork was one of the best qualified SCOTUS candidates ever to come before the US Senate. So far as Palin is concerned, I think "rape" is an appropriate metaphor, for the lib-left rabble had circulated innumerable rape jokes with regard to Palin. . . .
Trouble for Demos with Condi Rice as VP candidate is a matter of character, which is I think what many independent-minded voters are looking for these days, rather than a candidate who just represents some voting bloc or some swing state advantage.
She simply makes on one hand the President look like a spoiled unaccomplished bum--which he is--and on the other hand makes Vice-President Biden look like the slack-mouthed lyin' ignoramus and pathetic back-slappin' buffoon that HE is.
Don't know what trash the Democrat-major media axis would dump on Rice--I'm sure they'll find something, probably manufactured (stole a library book when she was eleven or something) to try to shoehorn their worthless empty suit back into the White House for another disastrous four years. . . .
Sir stu, I did like your phrase "egregiously diluting metaphoric use of the word," whose mixed metaphor I imagine hearing pronounced with an impeccably British-Stephen Fry-Jeeves-style diction.
Sorry, meant to keep my own metaphor with "empty shoes" rather than "empty suit."
Stu,
I wouldn't doubt 14% is an accurate number, but even 4% would be enough to matter in this election. Most libertarians and libertarian-leaning republicans don't view Romney as "their" candidate. That was Paul. Romney was wise to court Rand Paul and his nomination as Veep would secure those votes without losing any.
Rice makes sense from a certain perspective (i.e. black woman) and from a brain trust one (no one can deny she is sharp) but from an inner-working politics one, it's just silly.
I say they nominate Rice if they know they can't win and nominate Rand Paul (or maybe Marco Rubio--though that's a long shot) if they think they can.
Wendy,
"I believe that the argumentative "technique" of choosing emotionally laden words and throwing them willy-nilly at one's opponent is unlikely to move the debate in a productive direction."
I do hope you feel the same about Obama's camp accusing Romney of a felony.
It was one person, and I'd have argued for more cautious language. Still, it's clear that Romney is (and has) tried to have it both ways w.r.t. Bain. He's told multiple inconsistent stories over the years, honed to the need of the moment. The "felony" charge assumes that he's telling the truth now, but that seems like the least likely possibility.
And how quickly Fast & Furious, unemployment, deficit spending, et al, have been forgotten by the MSM this week.
You're just noticing the short attention span of the media? I suspect that we're about done with the Fast & Furious, except in the right-wing echo chamber. There's a pretty general sense that the Republicans overplayed their hand in the Holder contempt citation, and moreover the FBI has named suspects in the murder of Brian Terry.
Unemployment will come back into the news with next weeks jobless numbers. And I don't really know what you're complaining about, anyway. This weeks unemployment insurance filings were way down, and so in this regard it was a very good week for the President, but the Bain story overshadowed this.
Deficit spending remains something that, outside of Republican circles, is still widely understood as a legacy of the Bush tax cuts. You can bet they'll be back in the news, as Obama is pushing for recinding the tax cuts above the $250K married cutoff, and the R's seem willing to fight again. Just to be clear, the Republican fixation on the deficit is 100% hypocracy -- it's a blunt tool they use during expenditure debates during Democratic administrations, and which they ignore entirely during Republican administrations, and all tax discussions. Cf., Dick Cheney, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."
Palin's funny little tweets have become major memes. Death panels was brilliant.
She fires off little gems that do a lot of damage to the attempt to bureaucratize the healthcare economy, in particular.
I like GM's assertion for Rand Paul. It might pull four percent. But we WOULD have the heartbeat problem.
Dems love to scream the heartbeat problem.
The Pauls, God love them, are a little nutty at times.
"Get rid of it!" Ron Paul screams about just about any department, including the Fed.
Are all these organs unnecessary?
Is this surgery really the best thing for the nation?
GM,
I wouldn't doubt 14% is an accurate number, but even 4% would be enough to matter in this election. Most libertarians and libertarian-leaning republicans don't view Romney as "their" candidate.
Let's take this semi-seriously, then. During the Republican primary, Paul received 10.9% of the vote, and Santorum 21.7%. I suspect that a number of liberatians voted for Santorum, as he was the more viable "stop Romney" candidate. So let's say that half of Santorum's votes were Libertarian, which I think is generous. So 20% of the Republicans are Liberatian, and Republican Party identification has run below 30% since 2008. So this suggest that the "true" Libertarian proportion is somewhere between 3% and 6%.
That would be a big number for Romney to lose, but I'm doubtful he would, assuming for the sake of argument that he doesn't nominate Hillary Clinton as VP. I mean, seriously -- are you guys going to vote for Obama? No. Are you going to stay home? I wish. Are you going to pull the lever for Gary Johnson? A few will, but most won't. That leaves the rest of you with Romney, as the least bad choice.
Romney's free to court Paul, of course and so give apparent obeisance to the conservative/liberatian/tea party wing of the Republican party, but actually nominating him as VP candidate would be foolish. Romney might be able to win a low-turnout election by playing to the base, but this is not going to be a low-turnout election. So Romney has to either "pivot towards the center" or he loses. Of course, there's no guarantee that he'll win if he does, but it's hopeless otherwise.
finally kirby approaches the final synthesis of ppppppppolitical- sorry developed a stutter -thought and its apparent practicality why of course yes let's do health care on the govt. this is why we should elect dr paul because he's a medical doctor and he could address the healthcare difficulties and then use those skills to treat big govt. and reduce the police observations around the world lessen the police state in town here take care of the infrastructure decriminalize weed let bygones be bygones que sera sera and then get the economy going again with injections of pillaged wealth into the coffers of the poor actually go into the banks and steal from the rich and give it to the poor now that doesn't sound too radical does it i mean why not nobody "owns" money they just borrow it for a while so it should be OK to steal it if necessary either that or get the very rich to recognize it is in their best benefit to care for the downtrodden 99%
am i staying on topic
now how to stage an LS campaign that might defeat ron paul that's what we should be doing
we should acknowledge as a group that ron paul is going to be the next president and if LS doesnt' do something to contend we will have a new dictatorship based on the principles of ron and rand paul and only LS is here to save precious o so precious america from that
in order to do this we will offer a social program that offers generous libertarianism with severe lutheran morals in place liek the ten commandments must be placed in every rest room that sort of thing
better than condom machines!!!
with that in place
there will be plenty of time for leisure
and my office will get some
subsidies
it's time for everyone to be having backyard parades with kazoos and sparklers and barbecues
and bright colors yard games
neruda has alluded to
'la organizacion de las miseria'
picklesworth is likely to be very very busy
jh
Problem with Condi, to me, would be that her strength: "genius wrt foreign policy" gets obliterated by the fact that she was heavily involved with the most unpopular (at least now) foreign policy decisions of the past decade.
That "expertise" led to the Iraq War, and the fact that it lasted for well-nigh a decade longer than advertised.
"KIRBY IS FREE TO EXCERCISE HYPERBOLE"
Are the rest of us? I still remember an old conversation where Stu quasi-innocently used uber-alles (I think it was) in reference to Kirby, and Kirby got alllll sadfaced and almost shutdown the blog or something.
Palin got Quayled...Not Palin'd.
Just like Obama's getting Cartered.
And Kerry got Nixon'd.
And Gingrich got Clinton'd (or did Clinton get Gingrich'd?)
And Fred got a stair.
i may be mistaken about this as i've been about many many things but i think kirby sets the tone so if he hyperbolates then i guess everyone can
it seems to me once you posit surrealism you open the door to surrealism which is distortion and exagerration and incongruity and cognitive guerrilla warfare and dreamlike rhetoricscapes of cerebral deliberate dementia
ludicrosity in most respects must prevail
or do i overstate my case
gin and tonics!!! with plastic frog stirrers
jh
Thankfully, as the VP candidate for the LS Party, I have yet to experience being Quayle'd, Palin'd, Bork'd, Carter'd, or any other nastiness.
Must be my unassailable character and nice photo.
WW
ww
watch out for ron pauls' running mate
no telling how he/she might respond to an all out LS assault
are there any libertarian feminists
lord what a thought
jh
Well, JH,
I'm a feminist in that I believe in suffrage, property rights, and equal pay for equal work.
And I tend towards libertarian politics....not the nutty kind, which encourages people to hoard guns and not pay taxes....the classical liberalism kind.
So yeah, libertarian feminists exist.
WW
p.s. I admire Ron Paul's tenacity. He doesn't care what everyone thinks about him and speaks his mind regardless. Gotta luv that in this campaign.
Stu,
This is what John King of CNN says about Obama's accusations of felony:
"But first, is there anything other than the SEC filings to suggest a hands-on Romney role at Bain post-February 1999?
No is the word from four sources who communicated with CNN on Thursday -- all of whom have firsthand knowledge of Bain's operations at the time in question. Three of the four are Democrats, and two of the four are active Obama supporters in Campaign 2012.
All four told me Romney is telling the truth.
Only one, Bain Managing Director Steve Pagliuca, would talk on the record. The others spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing either Bain's low-key culture or the desire not to anger friends in the Obama campaign.
Pagliuca, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for Senate in 2010, told CNN: "Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure."
In explaining the SEC documents filed in 2000 and 2001, Pagliuca said, "Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney's departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period."
King is hardly conservative, and 3 of 4 of his sources are Democrat.
Obama is out of line on this one. But I'm sure you will pick out one of my lines, recopy it into your next comment and then distort it.
WW
WW
Wendy,
But first, is there anything other than the SEC filings to suggest a hands-on Romney role at Bain post-February 1999?
Actually, yes. But before I get to that, why do you think his signatures on SEC filings doesn't matter? Regarding the yes: Romney testified in 2002 (in order to meet the residency requirements to run as governor of Massachusetts) that he attended Board of Directors meetings for Staples and for LifeLike, positions he held by dint of Bain's holdings.
It seems to me, as I've said before, that Romney intended to return to Bain when he left to run the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. The practical reality is that a boss who's on leave of absence is still boss, especially if the boss is also the owner, and Romney was both. That doesn't mean he was necessarily involved in day-to-day operations, but it's naïve to believe he wasn't consulted regularly, and especially on policy matters. He was, after all, not just the CEO and President (in absentia), but also the sole shareholder. There's also the matter of the Bain press release (after Romney's departure) that describes his status as "part-time leave of absence." I'll let you ponder the various plausible semantics of that.
Obama is out of line on this one. But I'm sure you will pick out one of my lines, recopy it into your next comment and then distort it.
I hope not. You tell me.
jh,
It's hard enough to find female, let alone feminist libertarians, at least if the later is understood in a reasonably strict sense.
I'll note in passing a couple links.
Reason TV: Where Are the Female Libertarians? Allison Gibbs on the Ladies of Liberty Alliance. The money quote, "Gibbs says that, ... the pretentious and argumentative nature of the libertarian movement has been a turn off to women." Gibbs, I'll note, is " founder and executive director of the the Ladies of Liberty Alliance," an organization for female libertarians. It's not as if the notion that libertarianism is "pretentious and argumentative," is coming from a hostile source. Anyway, I'd ask you to test this candid (internal) evaluation in light of the most visible libertarian commentator on this blog, and I don't mean GM.
The second is Talking Points Memo: Iowa GOP State Senate Candidate Joins ‘Alternative’ U.S. Government. I suggest you read Ms. Shannon's letter to her supporters in its entirety, for its entertainment value if nothing else. It seems to me that if this is where libertarianism is going to take you, most women (obviously, excluding Ms. Shannon) are too sensible to go there.
Wendy,
Oh, regarding evidence of hands-on role... Romney was paid a salary by Bain Capital at least through 2002. It was not unusual in that era to receive "side money," cf., David Brook's "Bobos in Paradise." But this invariably (so far as Brooks or I know) involved periodic consultations, often via the traditional "business lunch." And these lunches were real -- good food was eaten, good wine was drunk, and it was all billed to the company. But business was discussed, and the discussions influenced the way the business was run.
Been there, done that.
Brooks may have written about it, but I can speak from personal experience. If you're good enough at Google, you can even find the residual evidence. It was certainly the position of the company that paid me that they got fair value, and I certainly tried to provide it. I still do the lunches, although much less frequently, and without the benefit of "side money." I really doubt it was different with Romney and Bain Capital.
I think you also have to consider that the business climate changed a little between 1999 and 2002. The high tech bubble, for instance, had collapsed, along with Enron and the World Trade Center.
Money has to be the main concern.
Craig,
Good point. The M&A boom had gone bust, and that's Bain Capital's bread and butter. Just out of curiosity, I did a little investor due diligence on Bain yesterday. I couldn't find a minimum investment, but the average was $20M, so it's probably $5 or $10M. But the thing that struck me is that their current ROI kind of sucks -- it's 1.9% overall, 2.9% in their best fund, and this on $15+B.
i think if they keep the money talk in the billions and trillions it will be important for only then do we have some sort of tangible cognitive grasp of how important money is...if you can't deal with that kind of money i think you should bow out of the american project and just be guided along by the wisdom that does deal with those all important numbers
has anyone ever actually seen a billion dollars i mean one billion dollars of dollar bills stacked up and ready for distribution
this could be the year of the return of
ROBIN HOOD
personally i don't think it's possible to argue with obama's successes
ron paul seems to be the only reasonable contender
we should focus kirbyeez LS assault on the issues of ron paul
then it's almost certain he will win win win
hey who is doing campaign finance for this dilapidated pilgrimage
do we have any credit
let alone credibility
onward to the off-white house
jh
I've got money in more than twenty different funds. Only one of them requires more than 1k for an initial investment and only half of them are taxable. All of them are in the plus column this year. The only funds returning less than 3% through June are invested in European equities. The rest are all returning between 4% and 7%, though more than half of those had double digit returns through March. If the last two quarters are as good as the first two, I expect double digit returns on average for the year and that includes nearly a third of the portfolio in bond funds rather than stocks. A 12% return for the year would mean a six figure gain in value. I'm counting on these funds for generating mortgage payments on our real estate investments. I'm pleased with the way Obama has managed the economy. Sign me up for four more years.
The stock market's performed extremely well under Obama's policies - Unemployment rate has dropped, but not by as much as one would hope... And that's mostly due to the loss of public sector jobs, as the private sector's been adding jobs at a much higher clip.
Tax rates are historically very low, the investor class is doing extremely well, the private sector is far outpacing the public sector in terms of job growth...
And yet Obama's still a socialist... I guess for instituting the healthcare program created by the Heritage foundation?
Conservatives are oft so far from reality that y'all just bring about lots of lulz these days...
"There is an implicit contract between households in society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and does not have the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. Healthcare is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services – even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab … A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract.”
Brett,
What's the source of the quote? Nevermind... Google's faster... Hmm... Really? Excellent...
Hollywood and UC agree.
So are you Demos really going to credit a conservative group as having invented Obamacare? Thanks!
It still leaves us with the problem of defining health care....Scalia's broccoli argument...what are the limits of health care???
Why should I pay into a system that treats the lung cancer of a long term smoker? Why?
Why should I pay into a system that treats AIDS for someone who practiced unsafe sex?
Why???
Let's start there, then I'll move on to things such as how much treatment is too much treatment...ala the Scott Crawford case from 2009. And who get's to decide these things.
WW
Attended the Washtenaw County MI Republican victory meeting this evening and volunteered, with Emmy, for working the Repub info booths at the Ann Arbor Art Fair (with our friend Dr Laurel Federbush--PhD in Music from the U of Michigan--and Willis Seelig, MS in Mechanichal Engineering from MIT, et al)--and various fairs in adjoining towns--slipped our customary hundred-dollar donation into the party coffers during an election year and mixed with the, um, other "rednecks" there--including a former orphan Filipino street urchin who sold junk in the streets of Manila to feed himself, and who, after being taken in by a US foster family, became Owen Diaz MD, Mayor of the town of Milan, MI, Republican candidate for state representative (and married to another MD whose son is also an MD and Lt Colonel in the US Army-- with three tours of Iraq and Afghanistan to his credit).
(I just today signed on to edit his autobiography for his publisher--deadline in three days!)
And then there was the young girl selling Romney buttons at the fete who looked as if she was just out of high school, but who, after a bit of tete-a-tete with her and her father, found out she's in two months (at 25 yrs) defending her doctoral dissertation in cell biology (her specialty: cell autophagy) at the U of Michigan and has already secured a post-doc research position at the U of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign (and whose Republican father is Professor of Engineering at the U of Arizona and who has developed and patented a process for reducing the cost of the high-grade silicon used in solar panels by one-half, thus allowing the US to compete with the now-cheaper Chinese panels). And another attendee who was an ER nurse and whose husband died of brain damage from a brain tumour and the associated 105-degree temps--the very temps I had for three days at the VA Hospital in Ann Arbor as a stubborn refuse-to-be-admitted out-patient a week-and-a-half ago--with a week's worth of coughing of blood from the lungs--gratias Deo!--for my recovery from Legionnaire's Disease--credit the kick-butt anti-bios--Moxifloxacin, Emmy's constant loving care and attention during my illness, copious drafts of "Fireball" cinnamon-whiskey (y'know, the one with the red devil breathin' fire and the faux-singed label--"tastes like heaven--stings like hell!", and some Handel and Verdi operas. . . .
All "rednecks" indeed!
Yesterday attended the wedding of Emmy's cousin--a gala affair that gave me an opportunity to notch some additional gallant, hand-holding eye-gazing Abbe de Mugnier stories--including a, well, rather tall-for-her-age girl, when asked her age after the the story, replied, "um . . . fifteen" (now, wait--her father was sitting just across from us at table and liked the story, as did she--that makes the age range of the hundreds of women who've heard the story now 15 to 91).
On to Canada tomorrow to meet Em's bro--on leave from the Air Force till later tomorrow--and to tkae Mum to the casino, and then some all-night-heavy editing work on Dr Diaz's MS. Cheers,
Wendy,
So are you Demos really going to credit a conservative group as having invented Obamacare?
We have been all along, because it is. The idea was to build a national health care system based on Republican ideas so as to achieve a Democratic policy aim through means that deserved Republican support. All that talk about bipartisanship by the Obama administration was honest, and there was a lot of effort expended in "reaching out across the aisle." But your side decided that defeating Obama in 2012 was job #1, and so it decided not to participate, and to claim that your refusal was somehow indicative of bad faith on our side. This is news?
It still leaves us with the problem of defining health care....Scalia's broccoli argument...what are the limits of health care
This is not a new problem. Insurance companies today have to deal with it. And the answer varies with time, as medical knowledge improves, and as the costs associated with various procedures decrease (or increase). As a matter of law, the limits are decided by the Secretary of HHS, who presumably will be informed by committees in which doctors, insurers, and health-care administrators hash out the hard but inevitable questions regarding limits.
Why should I pay into a system that treats the lung cancer of a long term smoker? Why?
You already do, although your rates are probably lower than theirs, because they (collectively) bear the incremental costs of the behaviorally associated risks of smoking they incur. This will be true in the future, as well. Insurers are allowed to vary premia based on considerations like age and smoking status.
Why should I pay into a system that treats AIDS for someone who practiced unsafe sex
Well, again, if you have insurance, you already do. As far as I know, AIDS is not "ratable" under the PPACA. Why should I have to pay maternity expenses for all those Catholic couples who have ten kids because they refuse to practice birth control?
No matter how you slice it, health and behavior are linked. You might as well cite lack of exercise and proper nutrition. But these are risks that the present system deals with, either by rating, as in the case of smoking, or ignoring, either because the behavior is too societally ingrained to root out effectively at this time (care for a glass of Merlot?) or the overall cost increment is comparatively small. Let's do some arithmetic... The diagnosed HIV positive rate in this country is very close to 2/1000. The cost of treatment is a bit under $20K/year. So the cost to you associated with their disease (some of which is a direct consequence of high risk behavior, some not) is $40/year.
But again, this is not new. You already have health insurance, right? So you already pay into such a system. So this is not an objection to the PPACA, as it is to health insurance generally, and you've already evaluated this argument for yourself, and decided that it is better to underwrite a bit of AIDS treatment than to go uninsured.
I just posted on a friend of mine's wall telling him that he didn't build his successful business--someone else did. I mean, that's pretty smart right there.
Stu,
You wrote:
"But again, this is not new. You already have health insurance, right? So you already pay into such a system."
Actually, yes and no. I have Kaiser Permanente, which is an HMO.
Prior to ObamaCare, they offered a plan that had an extremely low monthly premium, with a slightly higher co-pay, and some higher out of pocket expenses, with a cap.
But the plan wasn't offered to just everyone. The battery of health assessments I had to complete was lengthy. I had to be healthy and with stats that predicted continued good health, such as blood pressure, weight, non-smoking, etc.
I chose to purchase that plan. Choice is a great word.
I consume very little health care. And my risks are low. Thus I shouldn't be paying hundreds of dollars every month as a premium. (I pay $160/month)
Someone who smokes, eats too much, etc. should pay higher premiums because the risk is higher.
Under Obamacare, all that will cease. No choice. No penalty for bad behaviour. No reward for good behaviour.
Since Obamacare passed, Kaiser no longer offers such a plan. But now I have received notice that maternity care and women's preventative health must be offered free to all. Kaiser cannot raise my rates to cover this. Now I have a fab plan for a ridiculously low price.
That's a boon to me!!
But, yeah....why should you have to pay for my maternity care?
You really think that's gonna stay that way? Not! Eventually my rates will rise to pay for the diabetes II treatments for all the obese people eating McDonalds.
WW
Oh, and btw: I do not want Katherine Sebilius deciding for me what constitutes health care. No government should have that power.
Stu,
About Palin, you wrote:
"Her treatment wasn't so much a feminist backlash, as it was, "if it bleeds, it leads." And Palin was bleeding, almost exclusively of self-inflicted wounds."
I'm not saying this to start an argument with you. However I do think it was feminist backlash. I was with a group of friends in a condo in Mammoth when McCain announced Palin as running mate.
The women pounced on her with such a ferocity, I was stunned. All those friends are/were liberal. They knew nothing about her, but she was a women who was conservative. That deserved to be punished. We were watching CNN, and if you look back at the footage, Campbell Brown was determined to find someone to bash Palin. Her hatred was quite palpable.
It was like being in the girls bathroom in jr. high. Guys just don't get it, and never will.
Minor correction:
"She" deserved to be punished.
"So are you Demos really going to credit a conservative group as having invented Obamacare? Thanks!"
We're not doing it.
It's just reality.
Obama's HCR is the conservative approach to healthcare.
Calling it 'socialist' just goes to show how insane the rightwing is these days...
I just want to know why I should pay into a system that forces me to pay for the allergies, asthma, obesity, and depression that come because parents don't make certain their kids play in the woods.
And anyway - you are already funding those who make poor decisions, since emergency rooms can't turn away patients.
If you want to run on repealing that, go ahead.
Otherwise, your argument is inconsistent and nonsensical.
Wendy,
In re Palin. I certainly remember the reaction that you're talking about. I can try to parse it out a bit, but I don't know if it will help.
Hillary Clinton is a feminist, and so feminist support for her resinated primarily over her politics and secondarily over gender. This isn't to say that the latter wasn't a powerful consideration, cf. just how closely and passionately the Democratic Party was divided over the Clinton/Obama choice in February through May of 2008.
When Clinton lost, there was a period when it appeared that a sizeable portion of Clinton's supporters were so disaffected with the outcome of the primary that they'd sit out the general election, or even support McCain (remember the PUMAs?).
From the feminist (or even PUMA) perspective, McCain's nomination of Palin was seen as deeply cynical, something that pandered (and that's the word that they would have used) to their preference for a female candidate, but thorugh a candidate who emphatically rejected every other part of their political agenda.
There's a well-known phenomenon from robots called the "uncanny valley," in which robots who are too close, but not quite close enough, to humans engender revulsion, i.e., a better mimic, or a worse, would be much better received. I don't mean to imply that Palin was a robot, but I do think that some of the same underlying psychological triggers may have been at work.
In any event, McCain's attempt to make himself more acceptable to the PUMAs backfired horribly, and his nomination of Palin had the effect of not only energizing the Republican base, but also of healing the divisions in the Democratic Party coming out of a very contentious primary.
Wendy, Brett,
I don't have time this morning for a long response on the health care debate, but I do want to make a couple quick remarks.
Wendy's moral hazard argument is valid, although it is one that applies (in varying degrees) to all kinds of insurance. But so to is the argument that Brett is making that Wendy is making substantial additional premiums through her income tax to support the medical care of indigents, as the federal government is the de facto insurer of last resort.
I suppose my take on this is that while the moral hazard argument is valid, it needs to be evaluated against other arguments (in particular, the moral hazards of the status quo, which are real).
I think there's also a political aspect. The current law is intended to preserve much of the role of private enterprise and choice, but it does not preserve as much choice as Wendy would prefer. Fair enough, I don't think anyone would argue that the PPACA can't be improved. But the practical reality is that it can't be improved without Republican votes and this was true from the beginning. [Those with good memories will recall that the D's needed Olympia Snowe's vote to break the filibuster. An interesting question is "why?" The answer: the Democrats were never had a viable filibuster proof majority -- by the time Franken/Coleman was settled, Ted Kennedy was on his death bed.]
Brett,
I've never called Obamacare "Socialist." I think that was Kirby who did.
You wrote:
"I just want to know why I should pay into a system that forces me to pay for the allergies, asthma, obesity, and depression that come because parents don't make certain their kids play in the woods."
That's the point I made to Stu.
WW
I'm technically "uninsured" meaning I'm covered by my wife's employer. A set amount is deducted from her salary each month by her employer which is banked for our health care needs and that amount is matched by her employer. We submit our bills and are reimbursed 80% of our health care expenses from that banked fund. So unless we have huge medical expenses, all of our medical costs are paid out of her salary and taxed accordingly whether or not we use the amount withheld. We get most of our health care overseas where we live and work.
When we do get health care in the U.S. it's problematic because providers in the U.S. bill "uninsured" patients 50% more than they would charge an insured patient. If we pay up front we often have difficulty obtaining the paperwork needed to secure reimbursement. If we withhold payment and allow my wife's employer to settle the account and withhold the 20% we owe out of pocket, the employer negotiates to pay the preferred rates accorded to insurance companies. This works fine as long as the provider agrees to settle rather than sell the debt to a collection agency. Once a collection agency latches onto the debt it's no longer a medical bill.
The point is that the insurance companies in the U.S. operate like a cartel. You play by their rules and pay their rates or you get gouged. A visit to the doctor's office in the Philippines usually runs ten bucks or less. Things like CT scans and lab costs for blood work or urinalysis run about 10% of what they would cost in the U.S. and most of the time the work is fairly reliable. People with health insurance in the Philippines are the rare exception, not the rule.
The penalty or "tax" Obamacare plans to assess for being "uninsured" is negligible compared to the surcharge providers impose on the uninsured. The higher price charged to the "uninsured" is designed to recover the cost for the substantial percentage of "uninsured" bills that will be written off as bad debts.
Fixing minor problems so they don't become major problems is far more cost effective than denying health care to those who can't afford to see a doctor because they can't afford or don't qualify for insurance. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
My dad is eighty-five and has smoked a pack a day or more for sixty-five years. He drinks his martini at six o'clock every evening, though his cocktail hour now usually lasts until nine or ten instead of seven. He had a cataract removed two years ago and was put on blood pressure meds three or four years ago that he's since discontinued because his chief medical complaint has been their side-effects. He does have a wretched sounding emphysema cough that tends to limit his physical activity, but he did play golf on foot more than once a week until he was eighty when he started complaining of bursitis and tendonitis. His biggest ongoing expenses to Medicaid have been prescribed massages and occasional pedicures.
My mother never smoked a pack of cigarettes in her entire life, but she had cancer at forty-three, entailing major abdominal surgery, radiation treatments and two years of chemotherapy. Her remission lasted nearly thirty years. She died of a stroke at age seventy-three. Both of her hips were replaced twice due to calcium depletion caused by the chemotherapy. Her strokes were most likely secondary to the radiation treatments for brain tumors. I have no idea how much her medical bills cost as they were covered by insurance, but I'm sure that without insurance my parents would have been financially ruined. Her oncologist later treated the Shah of Iran which suggests he was probably the best in the business.
Sicking doctors on smokers who risk lung damage, drinkers who risk liver damage and those whose sexual habits risk AIDS is a phenomena I consider the medicalization of sin. It's fine to acquaint the sinners with actuarial vagaries, but I don't think it's really fair to those who follow all the rules and still get cancer, cirrhosis or HIV.
Wendy, Brett,
At the risk of coming off as the mathematician in the crowd, I'd like to step back a bit and make a higher order point.
We can think of health insurance as a multi-party game, in which there are two individual strategies: co-operate (i.e., purchase insurance), or defect (i.e., be a "free-rider," per the language of the Heritage Foundation report that Brett pointed us to, and not collect insurance).
Our arguments so far have largely centered on the idea that the other side is mis-pricing the game, i.e., Brett and I are arguing that the co-operate strategy has a better payoff than Wendy allows, while Wendy is arguing that the defect strategy has a better payoff than we allow. This kind of arguing is useful, but maybe it misses the larger point. What kind of game is this?
You can probably anticipate my answer, given the language I've been using. I'd argue that the game is essentially prisoner's dilemma, in which the best strategy globally is for everyone to co-operate, but the optimal strategy for each individual (assuming everything else is fixed) is to defect. The problem, of course, is that if everyone follows their individually optimal strategy, then everyone ends up worse off than they would have otherwise.
And this is why economists study game theory -- because games like prisoners dilemma are counter-examples to "Adam Smith" theory that our economy acheives a global optimum through the actions of individuals, each of who pursue their individual local optimums. Some games are structured this way, and some games aren't. I'd argue that health care/insurance isn't.
Maybe the optimum for Wendy is that everyone else has to buy (at least) a standard package that includes no life-time limits, and coverage STDs and what not that her life choices have rendered extraordinarily improbable, while she gets to defect. That doesn't mean that it's sound policy to let her do so.
I suppose my counter argument to Wendy would be that while health insurance reduces the costs associated with certain types of behavior (e.g., sexually transmitted diseases and sexual promiscuity), it does not eliminate them. It still, even with recent medical advances, having HIV trims 15 to 20 years off your life expectancy. And the years that are lost are years that Social Security doesn't have to pay for. In effect, your Social Security Retirement benefits are subsidized by people who make life-expectancy compromising decisions. We expect smokers to pay more for health insurance, but no one gives them a break when it comes to FICA. The overall game is still rigged in your favor, and you'll still have a better overall outcome by making the healthy choices your are.
GM,
You're relying on misquotes of Obama's remarks and his intent. Here is a more complete context:
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”
Is there something in this that you care to argue about?
Now it's maybe Pawlenty who will be Romney's vice. That was fresh news. I am sorry I haven't been very involved lately. I will try to catch up a bit in about a month. I have a situation that needs all my attention.
Pawlenty's come up before, and he's plausible. He was in the Presidential race, but was basically competing in the same slot as Romney (sane establishment white guy), but without the money or ambition, and so he dropped out early. Once he dropped out, he became a Romney supporter/surrogate. Like Romney, he's been the Republican governor of a state that is usually thought of as being in the Democratic column. In my book, he's be an above-average Republican VP choice -- easily the best since GHWB, possibly the best since Calvin Coolidge.
But... I don't think Pawlenty helps with the base, and I don't think he can swing Minnesota. Portman's a bit more controversial (because of his participation in the budget process), and will draw a bit more flack from the left. But the right will be happier, and I think adding Portman will net Romney some votes in Ohio, which could matter a lot.
BTW, are you aware of the Thad Cotter flame-out?
i would think someone lke chris christie would be a shoe-in for president or even vice president loudmouthed streetfighter
if the republicans can't be lutheran at least they could be surreal
would we want WW to go up against chris chistie in a debate
anyway if romney knows what he's doing which i gather he does not he's like baffled even to be in the race and so deeply honored to be given this chance to stand up and fight for american values like screwing people right and left in a purely figurative sense that is and not even allowing us to know who in fact will be the runningmate
is that anything like coffeemate
or roommate
anyhoo
if we don't put some energy into this race i think kirbyezz chances will be waning
for my part i'm confused between exploring new patterns of leisure dancing with american health care and trying to really really really believe that this hairbrained loco carnival of a party known the worldwide as LS (as long as we don't go ALS) which would make things even shakier as political proposal ///...,,,>>> ahem (sorry- couldn't hold back)
joking only joking of course
well
as of today i am proposing that we just cruise through summer and when school starts take the opportunity to brainwash millions of kids on college campuses to vote for kirby
lemonade frisbee lawn darts slow canoes cloud pondering a cigarette perhaps poems that take all day to write
that sort of thing
i think kirbyeez platform should be
well in fact folks there are no important issues everything is being taken care of by somebody sit back and relax the govt. has never been better and your best interests are being attended whether you like it or not
by robots
sheesh
jh
Stu's comments presume that insurance is the only way to pay for health care. And you presume that I agree with that assertion. I do not.
And I think I would do great against Chris Christie in a debate. I certainly weigh a lot less, and I look better in a suit than he does.
WW
Wendy,
I assume that insurance is the only realistic means for people of ordinary means to pay for catastrophic care. As Craig points out, it is possible to design a health-care system in which routine care is cheap enough to be an out-of-pocket expense for any but the poorest. But such systems don't pay general practitioners a median salary of $168K/year, i.e., 4x median family income. And such systems run into trouble when the care requirements are no longer routine. Do we want that kind of system? I'm not so sure we do.
As for you vs. Chris Christie, I agree. He'd be dead meat. One of the notable features of the US political environment is that our politicians tend to be fit, tall, and handsome or beautiful as our societal gender conventions require. I can't judge your height from your pictures or self-revelations, but the fit and beautiful part you have pretty well nailed down. Christie looks like someone who, in another life, is either a butcher or an old-school umpire. As much as we like to think of a healthy physical appearance as superficial in this context, it is highly predictive of electoral outcomes at the national level. We don't want a fearless leader who's going to check out with health issues when stress is high. Not to be too cruel, but look how far good looks got Rick Perry, who otherwise seems to have the IQ of a houseplant. But you're also articulate and generally sensible—given your political commitments ;-)—so I doubt you'd be giving up much there, if anything.
I think this argues against Christie as a VP candidate, too. Yes—he shares the Romney/Pawlenty attribute of being a Republican governor of what is de facto a Democratic state—but he looks like he's a cheeseburger and an order of onion rings away from a coronary event. That doesn't play at this level.
re: Obama as a socialist "I think that was Kirby who did."
And it's the go-to attack line on Obama from the right.
(I do listen to talk radio and read yahoo news comments a lot these days. I am well aware of the conservative zeitgeist. YOW-ZA!!)
re: Obama as a socialist "I think that was Kirby who did."
And it's the go-to attack line on Obama from the right.
(I do listen to talk radio and read yahoo news comments a lot these days. I am well aware of the conservative zeitgeist. YOW-ZA!!)
I still don't think WW has answered my point wrt emergency rooms.
What say you, WW? What's your stance on the law that hospitals can't turn folks away?
Do you believe that law needs to be changed?
If so, then aren't you rather cruel and heartless and anti-life?
If not, then explain how your argument still stands up to reason...
Brett said:
"I still don't think WW has answered my point wrt emergency rooms."
I confess to skimming comments because I have a 2 year old, who is fascinated by keyboards and computer screens. I missed that question from you. My apologies.
If you can give me 48 hours, I will answer the question.
WW
OK, Obama is "pro-socialist" then--and at least a walking disaster as a "Big Gum'mint Lib" who just trashed and insulted small business people, to his shame and electoral detriment.
I think this empty suit, this spoiled unaccomplished bum is through, in spite of his knee-jerk voting bloc mascot groups. . . .
Worked the Republican info booth at the Ann Arbor Art Fair today after Em and I finished editing Owen Diaz's (Republican candidate for state rep district #55 here and a truly amazing entrepreneur--one can read his story soon--Owen also worked the booth today) autobiography that will be sent to his publisher tomorrow. I hope we applied "la derniere main" or "der letzten Schliff" to his MS. Em and I haved been invited to lunch by Owen and his wife (both MDs) near their clinic tomorrow--after my last appointment over my equally amazing recovery from Legionnaire's Disease--gratias Deo!) tomorrow morning.
So many friendly folks stopped today to cheer us on--only a few hecklers I took pleasure in shouting down today--ironic that some dopey white guy was shouting about the supposed racism of the Repubs all the while in our tent the three Black grandchildren of a fellow (a fellow Vietnam vet) working our booth looked on in amazement. . . . and so did Owen Diaz, our Filipino candidate for state rep--still, as I said an overwhelmingly positive crowd at our booth today. . . .
The pro-life tent is next to ours and I think Em's going to work that tomorrow and then join our Republican booth afterwards. Proud to bring a little "smug control" to the very heart of this libbo-PC town!
Right - the Big Gumt' Lib who lowered taxes and reduced spending?
With the private sector gaining jobs and the public sector losing jobs?
The government gets smaller - you call him a big gvmt pro-socialist (mmmmkay).
Hah!
Brett please, there are children around who might see the obscene lies about Obama you told.
And I see you're beginning to ape the practices of the ad industry--"more than . . ." or "less than . . ." but only one given element in the comparison, in this case, "smaller."
And we know well what Obama thinks of business (except his crooked crony capitalist donors), especially small business. . . . This pathetic, spoiled under-achiever's days in office are numbered and even his side knows it. . . .
Sir James,
Nice to see you back carrying lies and misinformation for the Republican standaard bearer du jour. Cf., your first sentence,
Obama is "pro-socialist" then--and at least a walking disaster as a "Big Gum'mint Lib" who just trashed and insulted small business people, to his shame and electoral detriment.
Obama's full quote is contained in context above in a reply to GM. When Obama said, "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that," the reference to "that" is clearly "your education, the American system, roads, bridges, the Internet, etc.," i.e., the economic context of infrastructure in which their business was build, the infrastructure that they didn't need to build. He went on to say, as if clarification was needed, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
I think is shows the desperation of your candidate, that he's reduced to this kind of lingusitic lie in order to try to gains some leverage in this election.
And we know well what Obama thinks of business (except his crooked crony capitalist donors), especially small business.
Yes. The man who saved GM and Chrysler thinks well of business, and has worked hard to create an environment in which business can thrive. With nothing by obstruction from your side.
This pathetic, spoiled under-achiever's days in office are numbered and even his side knows it.
I'd disagree with your characterization, of course, but it's perfectly clear than Obama's days in the Presidency are numbered. And that number is currently 1277 -- the number of days from July 19, 2012, to January 18, 2016.
Sir James,
My apologies. I did the right calculation, but put in the wrong date for the inaugural. The number of days remaining in Obama's Presidency is 1647, as the inauguration day is in 2017, not 2016, and always falls on the 21st.
Sir James,
I can spare you a day! Inaugurations are on the 20th, so it's really only 1646. I hope you'll enjoy every one of them!
Sir stu, I fancy we'll be jousting back and forth over whether Barack Obama is or isn't the worst president in modern American history, but there's an encouraging article by Stuart Rothenberg for our side's pretty sure bet to re-secure the House of Reps:
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_8/In-Fight-for-House-Trajectory-Is-Clear-216255-1.html
"Saved GM and Chrysler"--saved the big union perks, rather--what a joke!
Sir James,
"Saved GM and Chrysler"--saved the big union perks, rather--what a joke!
You're uncharacteristically out of step with Republican messaging on this question, which is no longer that Obama's strategy of taking GM and Chrysler through an expedited bankruptcy and using recovered TARP funds represented an unprecedented intrusion into private affairs by a President hell-bent on nationalizing private enterprise, but instead, is that a managed bankruptcy was your idea in the first place.
It's a given that "success has many fathers," but the point here is that mainstream Republican thinking has made an uneasy peace with the idea that the country as a whole thinks that it's a good thing that there are still three major domestic auto makers, and that running against that is a stupid thing to do.
Regarding the house, I do think it is more likely that than not that the Republicans will maintain control. Rothenberg overstates the Republican advantage (making a standard, but mistaken assumption that outcomes are approximately uncorrelated), but he's right that there is one.
As far as I'm concerned, Romney is a pirate.
The Somali Coast pirates board freighters and tankers, hold up the small crews and transmit ransom demands to the corporate owners. Once they get their pay-off, they row ashore and count their booty.
This is pretty much what corporate raiders like Bain do. Then they offshore the cash, in about the same way they "offshore" the jobs. Offshoring is also about theft. Avoiding taxes, and American "regulations" governing direct cash investment. Romney's withholding his tax returns because what they show will be politically embarrassing. It takes a lot of gall to upbraid Americans with disabilities when you're worth something north of 125 million dollars, and still resent paying your taxes. The guy has no shame--in the 17th Century, people would have put him in stocks and thrown tomatoes and cabbages at his miserable mug.
Mormons have no problem with secular success, or secular sin. You can be devout and corrupt at the same time--no contradiction. You don't even have to confess to a priest--you make your separate peace sitting on the stool.
Regarding hyperbole: When I dissed the boring religious arguments on Lutheran Surrealism, Kirby threw a hissy-fit and threatened to ban me, so I left (more or less for good). So much for freedom of speech.
Kirby has become a little baptist preacher mouthing Republican homilies. Tasteless.
Republicans said it was better to let the big three automobile corporations declare bankruptcy, than to bail them out. That would be the "clean" and "efficient" expression of market forces.
Whereas the military industrial complex, which is the biggest "client" of our government, cannot be allowed to "compete" in the real world. Cries of "sequestration" from the Pentagon cronies!
So bring it on, guys! Wanna klll jobs? Hire Romney. He'll outsource our government, and lower the taxes of all the companies and their shareholders who do that in the private sector. Make the rich richer, and if unemployment rises?--well, then, fuck you! Ask not what your country can do for you, asshole, pick up a shovel and stand your post! Let freedom ring!
Curtis,
I have a couple of reactions.
First, I think you libel pirates by including Romney among their number. After all, pirates risk their lives for the big score, Romney never risked more than other people's money and well-being.
Second, I think you're mistaken to throw out religious arguments. This is, after all, a venue that self-identifies a concern for religion, and the great majority of commenters have deep religious commitments. This may not be who you are, but it is who we are, and given who we are, I think you'll have more success arguing that their religous commitmemt aligns with your politics (which it usually does), than in arguing that your opponent's politics and religion ought to be thrown out the window together.
Craig,
Here's a little calculation for you. Suppose you invest $6K/year in an IRA for 37 years (which is how long IRAs have existed). What's the annual ROI necessary to have an IRA worth $100M?
The answer turns out to be 24.45%. That's pretty remarkable, isn't it?
I worked for Eddie Bauer "part-time" for the five years after I got my M.A. while trying to score "volunteer" work at the community colleges. Bauer had just been bought up by General Mills, who expanded the catalog direct sales department and used the income to open sixty or seventy new retail stores at suburban malls nationwide. Once they got the phone room up and running the company was sold to Spiegel, which actually knew something about running a catalog company.
I had actually worked for a summer ten years earlier at a condo community on an island that the Bauer clan used as a summer home. I more or less banned Bauer's grandkids from the pool and my younger brother ran them off the island.
When GM sold the company to Spiegel I actually got a few benefits as part of the deal when I left, including $1,200 that had accrued toward retirement. I opened an IRA in WaMu's NW Fifty and the value of that fund doubled three times in the next ten years. WaMu got swallowed up by JPM so it probably won't do much more doubling as JPM completely overhauled the fund and it no longer has any NW holdings.
If the investments I made in 1999 and 2005, and supplemented steadily by dollar cost averaging, had doubled even once during the Bush era, I'd be a multimillionaire by now. Both of those investments suffered dire crashes that required three years simply to recover their initial value. Nice work, Brownie.
Thanks to Faville for reminding us of the precious mirth he used to spread throughout the quiverin' threads of LS with his routine pull-the-string less-than-focused ol'-boy rage-dude anti-military ranting in the now venerable Berkeley-San Francisco style. . . . tho' Faville seems to represent an equally venerable bohemian tradition (well-washed, sometimes charmingly eccentric, and decently-read) as opposed to the emergence of the post-Ginsberg hippies (unwashed, self-indulgent--on principle, mind--and virtually unread--to the point of still moving their lips when they do try to read).
an' also
wit' uh "On the Waterfront" tug-uh-duh-cloth-cap "what's good for us'n youn'yun tugs is better be damn gud fer America--or else, we wan' y'shud no'. . . ."
Then there's Faville's equally precious Chicken-Little Ehrlichian rants 'bout the masses of unwashed and (quelle horreur!) un-unionised rabbles breedin' the world's population to extinction--guess we, th' blinkered optimists, somehow missed the total depletion of natural resources an' mass starvation that took place in America some decades ago now, according to experts like Ehrlich et al. . . . But how 'bout regalin' us with a new set of--but wait!--that's what low comedians like Al Gore 'r' for, right?
An' some more o' Faville's gud ol'-time village-atheist belief-in-disbelief--oh, yes, please!
En verite, on peut se demander:
Ou est la gaiete Favillienne d'antan?
Craig,
I opened an IRA in WaMu's NW Fifty and the value of that fund doubled three times in the next ten years.
I've had some runs like that too. By the rule of 72, Romney's done a bit better still, and he's done it for the better part of four consecutive decades, including the "lost years" of the Bush administration. Sound's pretty dubious to me.
I think the most likely scenario is that he undervalued assets that he put into the IRA. Knowing Romney, he probably took a capital gains loss when he did it, in effect moving past, taxable capital gains into future gains, and maybe realizing an instantaneous tax benefit too. The undervaluing part would be fraud, and if not criminal, could result in having to forfeit the excess contributions, so there are likely tens of millions of dollars at stake. In any event, we're free to speculate, because Romney's already said that releasing the returns would be more damaging than not releasing them. So I'm thinking it's worse that we can imagine, e.g., maybe he took advantage of the 2009 IRS amnesty on undisclosed foreign earnings.
Emmy:
You've learned your rhetoric from JDL, a poor example by my estimation.
You've used the word "bloviating" on several occasions to describe the verbiage of liberals. "Empty, pompous, political speech" would certainly serve as a description of your language.
Try a bit of directness, simplicity and clarity. Going naked in the marketplace of ideas is frightening, but usually best. Unless, of course, you're already disrobed, and, like the king whose subjects dared not remark the obvious, haven't been reminded how embarrassing you've become!
Curtis,
James is posting under Emmy's account. Emmy herself has not been heard from at this venue for quite some time.
RETURN TO THE GAME
minor league is were it's at
those guys don't give a damn
they just want to hear that ball smack the wood
of course the advantage to sitting
right above the umpire
is you see the strike zone
all night long this umps' zone seemed a foot wide for righties
amaZing
the thing we want is to actually hear the ball zing and burn into the catcher's mitt
and be assured
your mind's call is as just
as the one the ump blurts out
who is the zanny guy
with broken glasses
acting like a dork
all for the love
of the game
the guy who wanders around
looking people in the eye
acting stupid as can be
dumb look on his face
he's
the guy
from fbi
he's checkin the place out
we sat in the smoking section
mostly good tobacco wafting sweet
across the hot summer air
like a flurry of youthful air exchange
this game keeps you young
this game surprises
this game attracts because of form i am rivetted to the form
i stayed focussed on the game
from first pitch till last
i resisted my friend who wanted to leave in the eighth
i say one half inning let's finish this so we did and
i was glad
the saints won
they lined up off
the pitchers' mound
and high fived and hip bumped and wild handshaked and
smiled for one another
a tough win over
the grand prairie airhogs
whatever claim to sanctity i achieved watching this ritual
it was dashed to the flames of hell with the penultimate announcement reporting
ATHEISTS NIGHT and the saints will change their name
for one night to
MR PAUL AINTS
trains pulled and groaned and squeeked all night long clanking away beyond the outfield fence where the homeruns go
for a few hours there
nobody was taking anything very seriously
jh
Wiki says the evil genius villain in Dark Knight Rises isn't the Joker, it's a body-builder/martial artist named Bane who designed and is addicted to a synthetic neurotransmitter called Venom.
http://www.eonline.com/photos/3659/flick-pics-the-dark-knight-rises/203344#203343
Sir stu, if Faville had awakened enough to bother to read the rest of this thread (including your responses to me) it'd be obvious I was posting under Em's name. But his faux-avuncular advice about rhetoric to Em are a real barnyard owl's hoot! And, but again, he might just begin by schooling himself a bit first in conning bits of Greek and Latin enough to stumble through a few classics of ancient rhetoric in the original, e.g., those of Demosthenes, Lucian, Cicero, the Ad Herennium writer, Quintilian, etc. before offering his throwaway "technologico-Benthamite" remarks on rhetoric in general, or, failing that, perhaps just by turning to D L Clark's "Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education" for an overview of those early rhetoricians who invented the discipline.
CF, some months ago, my name here was flagged as "suspicious" by google, so I've been using Em's account to post, and as Sir stu says, it's been a couple of weeks since Em posted here--she's been posting more on other sites--especially on a strong pro-life and (naturally) an anti-HHS mandate one. She's also recently been banned from commenting with me on the CHE Brainstorm site, as have other conservatives (e.g., a conservative lead writer on the site, Naomi Schaefer Riley, was fired a few months ago by the CHE editor, some worthless left-wing PC baggage named Liz McMillen, for bad-mouthing Black Studies), for tho' I was the top secondary blogger on this site (and recently outed the identity of the lying fraudster of a lib-left blogger who was CHE Brainstorm's most prolific contributor), lib-lefties controlling the heavily-biased site--one single conservative academic versus eleven lib-left ones--can't stand opposing voices for very long (tho' again, I'd been posting there for years). In addition to the site's conservative secondary bloggers, many of my lib-left adversaries protested the banning as well. Perhaps the eds used the pretext of my pursuit of a libel action against a former Northwestern U media and film studies drone (and a comm-prof at NU for 23 yrs, mind) who can't research a simple topic properly nor even write effectively) to effect the ban, but that's speculation since the PC idiots didn't even offer any explanation.
Kirby, our Republican booth at the Ann Arbor Art Fair has been quite a success--an almost astonishing amount of friendly traffic and support for a latte-sipping lib college town in desperate need of some "smug control", as for the pro-life booth next to us where the consensus is "NOBAMA!" this November and time to throw out this spoiled unaccomplished bum emanating from the country's filthiest political sewer for good and all.
And after attending our county Republican meetings prior to taking up our annual fair duties, Em and I've been very much impressed with the intellectual and experiential quality of our people, young and old (the booth duty also enabled me to meet not a few fellow war vets as well). We're manning the booths again at noon today, and will follow with booth duty at a number of fairs in the area--Dexter, Saline, Chelsea, Ypsilanti, etc. Always have a good audience there, pace Signor Faville--per cortesia--for my anecdotes and stories. . . .
To continue:
Kirby, whatever the links the Aurora shooter had to political groups (like "Occupy San Diego"), the early lib-left-MSM axis media speculation about this deranged miscreant somehow being connected to the political right shows their vicious itch for exploitation of an almost unspeakable act of terror and violence for crass political advantage. I think the perps of such horrendous atrocities (like the Breivik monster) have no real links to any legitimate political movement, right or left, and perhaps this latest incident will offer a resounding STFU! to those who've tried to pin-'n'-spin gun violence on the right and on its talk radio commentators. . . . Hard habit for the left to break, tho'--it's been going on steadily since the assassination of Pres Kennedy in spite of the terrorism and violence of the Weathermen, Black Panthers, and now of the Islamist savages, etc.
Noted also that, turning to Faville country, the PC jellyfish of the San Francisco city council are considering banning smoking in public in the city--well, 'cept dope, of course. But then SF has become the country's most conspicuous utterly degenerate "sanctuary-city"-PC-left-wing pest-hole that can't even keep its welcome hobos and "act-up-now" riff-raff from crapping on the sidewalks and dancing naked in front of mums pushing prams. . . . Even heard some SF city council shit-for-brains member even propose dissolving our military altogether--an' he's supposed to be the sensible one--sheesh!
Kirby, clean bill of health from Legionnaire's Disease at the VA yesterday (just two weeks ago I had 105 degree temps and was coughin' blood from the lungs, and of hospital patients who acquire the disease, the mortality rate is 50%) and general staff amazement at how fast I kicked--thanks to my family's healin' genes (gratias Deo!), and as I said, I beat polio as a kid, malaria and staph in the army, and as a grad student yrs ago, mono in a mere week. Got to credit the kick-butt antibios administered by IVs for a couple of hours before a prescription for take-home orals was issued (moxifloxacin), tho' I refused in-patient admission, for I've an 88-yr-old mum who depends on me 'n' Em to get her to her appointments, do her shopping, etc. an' Em's only got a learner's permit at present. Nevertheless, I also had to testify at the VA to the healin' powers of "Fireball" cinnamon whiskey (the one with th' image of the red devil on th' bottle breathin' fire and on the back a faux-singed label--"tastes like heaven, stings like hell" the label says) as well as the restorative powers of Handel, Mozart, and Verdi operas. . . .
Sir James,
I'm glad to hear that your health has been restored. I'd like to be a picture on the wall, though, at the NIH review panel considering a proposal to study the curative powers of cinnamon whiskey, although it is very close in spirit to my thesis advisor's old Texas cold cure, which I've occasionally relied on: mix equal parts whiskey, honey, and lemon juice, and drink them until two bedposts become four bedposts.
As far as political associations with the Aurora cinema murders, I haven't heard or read any directly (left or right), just a few allusions (like yours). This was something very different from the Brevik murders, which were specifically targeted to eliminate a rising generation associated with a particular political party. Brevik's murders were political, although not supported by any political party, and it's asinine to argue otherwise. The Aurora cinema murders, however, were clearly random: the target was selected, not for any single unifying characteristic of the people at that venue, but for their number, and the particular circumstances of access and volume that would inhibit a response.
Where I think there is a valid political reaction, it is again to the question of what are proper restrictions on gun ownership, in particular, whether or not there ought to be limitations on rate-of-fire and magazine size. I'd expect the National (Assault) Rifle Association to object to such notions, and sadly, I don't think that the body count this time will be sufficient to move the political consensus.
Sir stu, I like the way you put that pitch for the Texas recipe, and thanks for your well-wishes on my recovery.
On speculations about the circumstances of the Aurora catastrophe, see my comments on a more recent thread.
On the effectiveness of gun laws, etc. on preventing such catastrophes are you aware of the numerous works of a specialist (an academic economist and statistician), John R Lott Jr ("More Guns, Less Crime," or "The Bias against Guns") who challenges most of the liberal-left shibboleths on gun laws in general?
Sir James,
I don't know Lott's work, but I see no reason not to dismiss it out of hand, especially in this context.
We can compare the murder rate of our society to the murder rate of other modern democracies. E.g., Greece, which has far greater economic stress than the US, and which has a comparable rate of immigrants, has 1/3rd the murder rate.
Moreover, the issue I addressed w.r.t. to gun control was in restricting weapons of mass murder, i.e., assault rifles and their ilk, which have no legitimate civilian use beyond "I wants it."
i can't see why anyone is surprised or horrified by this recent spectacle it seems if we want these guns in our society then we accept the dangers
it's like a game
everyone asks after each round
what is next?
it a clear expression of the real lived stupidity in our culture
i want nothing to do with it
i reject it
i reject those who hold to it
i denounce it
i am not an american
i am the resident alien
a voice crying in the mayhem
seems like some form of reconciliation is in order
so much for the humanist spirit
jh
Is the wilderness chaotic, oh ye of the crying voice?
JDL and/or Emmy, as the case may be:
Are you and Emmy intimate, or just chortling companions in conspiracy?
I don't suppose it matters. What substantiality do you have outside the phantom-world of the comment box?
Oh, my, we're back again to referencing the ancient rhetoricians. As if that lent any authority to your contemporary exertions.
For me, rhetoric isn't limited to the debating platform, so I put less investment in arguing for the sake of arguing.
My models would include Donne (of the sermons), Jonathan Swift, and of more recent times, Mencken and Dwight MacDonald.
Is it possible to separate the style and technique of great expository prose from its putative subject? Maybe not. The value and purpose of debating tricks is usually limited; winning and losing contests rarely improves our knowledge or understanding.
JDL's usual approach is to lard his sentences and paragraphs with condescension and poison-tipped wise-cracks, the better to divert discussion away from the matter at hand, and inspire indignation, or outright hatred.
The thing about William F. Buckley was that you could enjoy what he was telling you even when you disagreed completely. His charm and daring were sometimes breathtaking, his analyses often brilliantly original. Now that he's gone, I miss him.
But people like JDL mistake mischief for meaningful engagement, and arrogance for authority. I always feel debased after addressing him. The more I do it, the less respect I have for the man, and ultimately, myself.
Like Ian Scholes with a perspective, I gotta go.
i thought one of the unspoken requirements for staying around this blog was a willingness to be absolutely ludicrous...i guess this has to be taken into account...i mean kirby isn't serious is he???
Have to admit to not takin' seriously Faville's occasional snipin' at conservatives here on LS, for 'tis no surprise, well, given the . . . ahem . . . difference in education and social class. . . . For now how to parse the roarin' hoary plain-speakin' rhetorical punch of the followin' scintillatin' coruscatin' 'n' characteristically Favillean apercu?
"Make the rich richer, and if unemployment rises?--well, then, fuck you! Ask not what your country can do for you, asshole, pick up a shovel and stand your post! Let freedom ring!"
Not sure what to make of Faville's choice and placement of expletives here 'cept to mark that they may not quite match the probable elegance of the faux Gold Rush ballad's "Roaring Bill from Buffalo" (who fell into the hole) sung by that Zimmerman chap.
As far as extra-literary "substantiality," I should think LS readers have their just measure of personal anecdotes from me, as, come to think of it, they have from the other regulars here, and Sir Curtis might mark that more closely, had he not the apparent tendency to ignore most of a long LS thread, as if sleeping with his eyes open, um, kinda like a fish, only occasionally to awaken from 'is cups with a roar, and after slammin' a fist on the LS roundtable, an' with his mouth full of peasant "fair-trade" bread and cheese, shoutin' that he'll take no more of this damned nonsense!
As for Faville's arrant suggestion that ancient rhetoricians limited the scope of their rhetoric to formal quibbles, perhaps the deficiencies of Faville's non-classical schooling did not permit him to recall that both Demosthenes and Cicero were major players in political arenas of their day and indeed lost their lives for their eloquence. . . .
Now aside from prizing examples of his evident poetical prowess, I'd pick Donne's satires over his sermons, and as for Swift, I should think one a bit adrift in his satires such as "A Tale of a Tub" (and within, his exquisitely-arranged self-evisceration of his naive narrator in his "A Digression concerning Criticks" without at least gentleman's smattering of the classics, unless heavily glossed. . . . But perhaps Faville fancies, as the Americans often do, that such learning may come effortlessly--sans supposedly needless lucubration over one's Latin passive paraphrastic constructions-- or, more or less "naturally," tho' with reservations, as might some Iroquois virtuoso affect the White Man's dress while yet still casting a dubious eye on trading his accustomed moccasin for the buckled shoe of his European brethren. . . .
I often hear laments from those on the left of the passing of Bill Buckley, whom I too admired greatly (tho' not at first hand, my personal knowledge of him limited as it is to having a friend and colleague who was a sailing buddy of his--classically-trained, of course).
(part one)
But I can't help but think this post-mortem affection just a little tinged with satisfaction that he can no longer torment them, perhaps not unlike the crocodile tears shed by leftists for the dead Jews of the Holocaust, even while vociferating against the live ones for their supposedly implacable "Zionism."
So while Faville may score my ignoring the tedious and repetitive qualities of his "substance," as he is pleased to call it, my preference is, while retreating from its deadness, to aim a few Parthian arrows at its rhetorical pretensions and thereby acknowledge its rich comic potential, for, in keeping with LS's puckish bent, humour, must have its day, and with Swift's friend John Gay, in his epitaph say,
"Life's a jest, and all things show it,
I once thought so, and now I know it."
(part two)
"Kirby, clean bill of health from Legionnaire's Disease at the VA yesterday (just two weeks ago I had 105 degree temps and was coughin' blood from the lungs, and of hospital patients who acquire the disease, the mortality rate is 50%) and general staff amazement at how fast I kicked--thanks to my family's healin' genes (gratias Deo!), and as I said, I beat polio as a kid, malaria and staph in the army, and as a grad student yrs ago, mono in a mere week. Got to credit the kick-butt antibios administered by IVs for a couple of hours before a prescription for take-home orals was issued (moxifloxacin), tho' I refused in-patient admission, for I've an 88-yr-old mum who depends on me 'n' Em to get her to her appointments, do her shopping, etc. an' Em's only got a learner's permit at present. Nevertheless, I also had to testify at the VA to the healin' powers of "Fireball" cinnamon whiskey (the one with th' image of the red devil on th' bottle breathin' fire and on the back a faux-singed label--"tastes like heaven, stings like hell" the label says) as well as the restorative powers of Handel, Mozart, and Verdi operas"
Inshaallah you will also kick the Munchausen's syndrome soon as well.
Post a Comment