The question is simple:
How does a political system which all but eliminates anyone with even a slight hint of corruption from attaining political office - create office holders that apparently are corrupt to the core?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Whiplash
If you were expecting a post about the stock market...sorry. I got on an elevator today but it was going up, I wanted to go down. The nice lady that pushed the button said that I would have to go up with them before being able to go down. I told her I was in the stock market and I was getting used to the up and down. We all laughed.
Fortunately I am NOT in the stock market otherwise it would have been the laugh of a desperate woman.
No, I am talking about the election. The previous post noted that the Obama supporters were no longer (if they ever were) interested in logic, reason, or even reality.
But, here is a prediction: John McCain by 51.6%
Why am I picking that number? It just came to me - but the reason for the prediction is less arbitary. A couple I have known for decades, who have never voted for anything BUT a democrat, told me they couldn't do it. They couldn't vote for Obama and their list of reasons is almost a rehash of the post below.
I think the pro-historical vote is going to get hammered by the 'you got to be kidding' group. I have argued on this blog for years that the average American - the Moderate Mainstream - is more conservative that anyone gives it credit for - but more than that, the mainstream of America is much smarter than most give them credit for.
I believe that McCain, a weak candidate, has more substance in his shadow than Obama does in his suit. 8 years ago the left was talking about gravitas. Notice they are not now? Not only does Obama lack gravitas, I am not sure he even has ....well, have you noticed a lack of jokes about his 'manliness'?
And the slams against Sarah Palin are backfiring on two fronts: conservatives are getting pissed that 'conservative = moron'. We knew were were being mocked and demeaned, but calling Sarah a moron is like saying Brett Favre was never more than a third string quarterback. On it's face, the comment is stupid. Second, honest women are getting their 'feminism' handed to them with a kick in the ass out the door. It is quite clear that 'woman' is not nearly as important as 'liberal'. Honorable democratic women that believed the Democrats really were more concerned with their issues are finding themselves not only on the outs, but dismissed as little airheads. They are not liking what they are seeing.
I have been told that McCain chose Palin to 'pander' to women. I disagree, but even if he did, it wouldn't have worked if Hillary had been treated with respect. Dem women compromised themselves for Bill Clinton and expected Hillary to be the price paid to give them back some of their dignity. They were thrown under the bus as fast as Obama could do so.
The democrats have pissed of 52% of the electorate to pander to 12%. And on November 4th, I think it will pay off....for McCain.
Fortunately I am NOT in the stock market otherwise it would have been the laugh of a desperate woman.
No, I am talking about the election. The previous post noted that the Obama supporters were no longer (if they ever were) interested in logic, reason, or even reality.
But, here is a prediction: John McCain by 51.6%
Why am I picking that number? It just came to me - but the reason for the prediction is less arbitary. A couple I have known for decades, who have never voted for anything BUT a democrat, told me they couldn't do it. They couldn't vote for Obama and their list of reasons is almost a rehash of the post below.
I think the pro-historical vote is going to get hammered by the 'you got to be kidding' group. I have argued on this blog for years that the average American - the Moderate Mainstream - is more conservative that anyone gives it credit for - but more than that, the mainstream of America is much smarter than most give them credit for.
I believe that McCain, a weak candidate, has more substance in his shadow than Obama does in his suit. 8 years ago the left was talking about gravitas. Notice they are not now? Not only does Obama lack gravitas, I am not sure he even has ....well, have you noticed a lack of jokes about his 'manliness'?
And the slams against Sarah Palin are backfiring on two fronts: conservatives are getting pissed that 'conservative = moron'. We knew were were being mocked and demeaned, but calling Sarah a moron is like saying Brett Favre was never more than a third string quarterback. On it's face, the comment is stupid. Second, honest women are getting their 'feminism' handed to them with a kick in the ass out the door. It is quite clear that 'woman' is not nearly as important as 'liberal'. Honorable democratic women that believed the Democrats really were more concerned with their issues are finding themselves not only on the outs, but dismissed as little airheads. They are not liking what they are seeing.
I have been told that McCain chose Palin to 'pander' to women. I disagree, but even if he did, it wouldn't have worked if Hillary had been treated with respect. Dem women compromised themselves for Bill Clinton and expected Hillary to be the price paid to give them back some of their dignity. They were thrown under the bus as fast as Obama could do so.
The democrats have pissed of 52% of the electorate to pander to 12%. And on November 4th, I think it will pay off....for McCain.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
No more of "21 reasons not to vote for Obama"
First, my intention to fulfill this plan is a waste of time, others are doing it better than I can, or have time to try to.
Second, it doesn't make any difference to the people that support Obama.
1. Ayers - many Democrats AGREE with William Ayers! He opposed the United States in Vietnam and he feels he didn't do enough to try and stop it. Most Democrats opposed Vietnam and feel they didn't do enough. I heard someone on the radio say that if Ayers was so bad, why wasn't he in jail? Such blindness is endemic. Further, Ayers is 'respectful' in that he holds a good job and people like him.
2. Rev. Wright - I don't know if you paid attention to all those videos of Wright ranting but the people he was speaking to were CHEERING! His rants against the United States resonates with the left and in many ways, the democrats as a whole. Consider the accusations of imperialism and then put them in the context of Wright's rant and they fade into the background noise of the anti-US left.
3. Guilt by association becomes credibility by association - precisely what Obama wanted as a budding politician. Ayers and Wright gives Obama credibility with the left even when he denounces their actions. He can denounce them..wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
4. Lack of experience is a useless argument: first, we all know that the Presidency is purely on the job training. What we want is some evidence of the candidates ability to deal with unrelenting pressure and good judgment. Obama has been running for 2 years and with the exception of lying through his teeth, he has not buckled. Further, being against Iraq, and his associations ARE signs of good judgment to those that support him.
5. Finally, charges of socialism ring hollow given the GOP's bailing out of corporations (wall street and bankruptcy 'reform' to name two), but more importantly, people WANT socialism! We have been lamenting the policies in schools of eliminating grading and the 'special' status of all students. Losing is bad and 'we' can't make Johnny and Sally feel stupid by showing them how stupid they are. Well, that has moved up the economic ladder and people don't like capitalism's winners and losers. Socialism promises the winners will be dragged back to the average and the losers will benefit. Ignore the stupidity of that promise and the complete inability of socialism to deliver what it promises because the left and the losers don't care. Smart people can make it work and it is a 'provable fact' that Obama is smart...he went to Harvard! Sarah Palin by contrast only went to some stupid college...in Idaho!?
Obama is the left's wet dream candidate. Every good reason we have to oppose him is precisely the reason the left likes him. We can't change that, reason can't change that, appeals to our founding principles will not change that. Too many people don't understand the concept of principles, OR just simply don't agree with them.
John McCain's only hope was to show he was everything Obama is not. Unfortunately, he is a 'maverick', he regularly goes to dinner on the left side of the aisle and if in the end, he is left-lite, why bother? If you can't have a solid conservative, don't want a solid conservative, why bother with a half-asses liberal, just go whole hog and get the real thing.
Obama wins by default. We lose by definition.
How nuanced can the left be? Not very. Watch and weep at the state of the election. Each day til the election I will post 1 reason not to vote for Barack Obama.
21. He is black
The elephant in the room. Race. McCain can't touch it, but Obama embraces it.
Obama's race should have nothing to do with whether he is qualified or not to be President, but too many people are voting FOR him because he is black. Such a position is demeaning to blacks but apparently they are ok with that. There have been reports of blacks being harassed and assaulted because they oppose Obama on policy or experience grounds.
I will not vote for Obama because he is black, and neither should anyone else. Consider his positions, his judgment and his promises, but his race should not be an issue. The fact that it is - from his SUPPORTERS - is depressing. Martin Luther King would be disappointed:
Today, on the cusp of electing a black man to the Presidency, we have not fulfilled the dream.
Second, it doesn't make any difference to the people that support Obama.
1. Ayers - many Democrats AGREE with William Ayers! He opposed the United States in Vietnam and he feels he didn't do enough to try and stop it. Most Democrats opposed Vietnam and feel they didn't do enough. I heard someone on the radio say that if Ayers was so bad, why wasn't he in jail? Such blindness is endemic. Further, Ayers is 'respectful' in that he holds a good job and people like him.
2. Rev. Wright - I don't know if you paid attention to all those videos of Wright ranting but the people he was speaking to were CHEERING! His rants against the United States resonates with the left and in many ways, the democrats as a whole. Consider the accusations of imperialism and then put them in the context of Wright's rant and they fade into the background noise of the anti-US left.
3. Guilt by association becomes credibility by association - precisely what Obama wanted as a budding politician. Ayers and Wright gives Obama credibility with the left even when he denounces their actions. He can denounce them..wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
4. Lack of experience is a useless argument: first, we all know that the Presidency is purely on the job training. What we want is some evidence of the candidates ability to deal with unrelenting pressure and good judgment. Obama has been running for 2 years and with the exception of lying through his teeth, he has not buckled. Further, being against Iraq, and his associations ARE signs of good judgment to those that support him.
5. Finally, charges of socialism ring hollow given the GOP's bailing out of corporations (wall street and bankruptcy 'reform' to name two), but more importantly, people WANT socialism! We have been lamenting the policies in schools of eliminating grading and the 'special' status of all students. Losing is bad and 'we' can't make Johnny and Sally feel stupid by showing them how stupid they are. Well, that has moved up the economic ladder and people don't like capitalism's winners and losers. Socialism promises the winners will be dragged back to the average and the losers will benefit. Ignore the stupidity of that promise and the complete inability of socialism to deliver what it promises because the left and the losers don't care. Smart people can make it work and it is a 'provable fact' that Obama is smart...he went to Harvard! Sarah Palin by contrast only went to some stupid college...in Idaho!?
Obama is the left's wet dream candidate. Every good reason we have to oppose him is precisely the reason the left likes him. We can't change that, reason can't change that, appeals to our founding principles will not change that. Too many people don't understand the concept of principles, OR just simply don't agree with them.
John McCain's only hope was to show he was everything Obama is not. Unfortunately, he is a 'maverick', he regularly goes to dinner on the left side of the aisle and if in the end, he is left-lite, why bother? If you can't have a solid conservative, don't want a solid conservative, why bother with a half-asses liberal, just go whole hog and get the real thing.
Obama wins by default. We lose by definition.
21. He is black
The elephant in the room. Race. McCain can't touch it, but Obama embraces it.
Much of Obama's overall appeal stems from his image as practically a post-racial politician. Not only does he have a mixed-race background, with a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, but his rhetoric, most notably his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, emphasizes the importance of Americans moving beyond political, religious and racial differences. He rarely makes explicit appeals based on his race the way Jackson did. " A lot of black people aren't ready to get beyond race, because race puts them in the situation they're in," said Ron Walters, a professor at the University of Maryland who worked on Jesse Jackson's Presidential runs. "But many whites want to get beyond the past, they want to support a black person who doesn't raise the past and in fact gives them absolution from the past."
From Time, Jan 23, 2007
In 2004, George W. Bush attracted 11 percent of the black vote, up from the 9 percent he garnered in 2000. In 1996, Bob Dole, running against the nation's so-called "first black president," Bill Clinton, received 12 percent. And now with Obama in the picture, more conservative blacks may feel compelled to join the heftier group of black voters who support the Democrat.
"They're practical if nothing else, and they want to see a black president," Ronald Walters, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, says of black Republican voters. "The historical factor is going to overrun some of the other considerations." In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 7 percent of the surveyed African-American adults supported McCain, while 90 percent supported Obama.
From US News, Jun 27, 2008
I will not vote for Obama because he is black, and neither should anyone else. Consider his positions, his judgment and his promises, but his race should not be an issue. The fact that it is - from his SUPPORTERS - is depressing. Martin Luther King would be disappointed:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Markets
Last night at 11:30pm, I went to the bank ATM and took out $200. It will cover food and gas for the next 3-4 days. Here is why:
CJ last night was doing her math homework. She asked for and received my help. The series of problems dealt with the breakeven point for a business, a bakery.
E = 824+3.25n
I = 8.20n
Find the break even point. I did in short order, first graphing the general idea of a solution, then the calculations. It took CJ about an hour to get all the points.
Let's take something a little more relevant, but no less appropriate: What is the GM break point, and what happens til then?
E = 1 trillion + 15,000n
I = 15,000n
First, you will notice in this fiction, there is no breakeven point. Worse, for any n, the result is a cash flow problem. GM gets around this issue by borrowing, a lot. If you were a bank, or any lender, how much would you lend such a business as this? If you were responsible, not a penny. Now, imagine owning GM stock. What would you think GM stock were worth.
If you are a little smart and thought about book value, you need to understand that you can only GET book value when things are sold...when the 5,000 biggest companies are in the same boat as GM...who can buy?
For the last year no one was sure how much mortgage backed securities were worth and that has lead to a credit crunch. Over the last month, more and more people are concerned there will be a recession (too late, already here), and therefore, they are wondering how much stocks are worth. GM has fallen below $5 a share. Sales are off 16% (trucks worse). Next year (probably already), GM will not have a breakeven point and their ability to borrow or sell stock has evaporated. I am not picking on GM, large chunks of the industrialized nations are in similar situations.
People have begun to wonder what companies are worth in the same way markets have wondered what MBS' were worth. The answer has been, "a lot less than they think".
Until people have an idea, there is no bottom.
CJ last night was doing her math homework. She asked for and received my help. The series of problems dealt with the breakeven point for a business, a bakery.
E = 824+3.25n
I = 8.20n
Find the break even point. I did in short order, first graphing the general idea of a solution, then the calculations. It took CJ about an hour to get all the points.
Let's take something a little more relevant, but no less appropriate: What is the GM break point, and what happens til then?
E = 1 trillion + 15,000n
I = 15,000n
First, you will notice in this fiction, there is no breakeven point. Worse, for any n, the result is a cash flow problem. GM gets around this issue by borrowing, a lot. If you were a bank, or any lender, how much would you lend such a business as this? If you were responsible, not a penny. Now, imagine owning GM stock. What would you think GM stock were worth.
If you are a little smart and thought about book value, you need to understand that you can only GET book value when things are sold...when the 5,000 biggest companies are in the same boat as GM...who can buy?
For the last year no one was sure how much mortgage backed securities were worth and that has lead to a credit crunch. Over the last month, more and more people are concerned there will be a recession (too late, already here), and therefore, they are wondering how much stocks are worth. GM has fallen below $5 a share. Sales are off 16% (trucks worse). Next year (probably already), GM will not have a breakeven point and their ability to borrow or sell stock has evaporated. I am not picking on GM, large chunks of the industrialized nations are in similar situations.
People have begun to wonder what companies are worth in the same way markets have wondered what MBS' were worth. The answer has been, "a lot less than they think".
Until people have an idea, there is no bottom.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
A right to prosperity
Come on people. O'Reilly thinks the market is rigged because he made money in the stock market over the last 5 years and all that gain was wiped out in two weeks. Why does O'Reilly think that prosperity and an ever increasing stock market is a right?
As one of his quests suggested, 30% of the top stocks in the 80s no longer exist. Further, this is a bear market. That is what happens when stock prices begin to reflect the future that is more bleak than today. Why shouldn't auto maker stocks go down when sales fall through the floor.
I am a big fan of the infinite universe of rights, but getting richer is not one of them. There is no right to prosperity. And the sooner people like Bill O'Reilly and the American consumer realize that ever rising asset prices is not the inherent future the sooner some kind of recovery can be contemplated.
I am getting tired of people demanding markets and economies act according to their wants and desires. Like the 3 year old demanding their afternoon fix of candy and holding their breath when it is not forthcoming, Americans (and most of the rest of the planet) need to grow up.
As one of his quests suggested, 30% of the top stocks in the 80s no longer exist. Further, this is a bear market. That is what happens when stock prices begin to reflect the future that is more bleak than today. Why shouldn't auto maker stocks go down when sales fall through the floor.
I am a big fan of the infinite universe of rights, but getting richer is not one of them. There is no right to prosperity. And the sooner people like Bill O'Reilly and the American consumer realize that ever rising asset prices is not the inherent future the sooner some kind of recovery can be contemplated.
I am getting tired of people demanding markets and economies act according to their wants and desires. Like the 3 year old demanding their afternoon fix of candy and holding their breath when it is not forthcoming, Americans (and most of the rest of the planet) need to grow up.
Action over substance
To Obama supporters: Do you believe President Obama can fix the current financial crisis?
Potential answers:
1. Yes. If so, how? If he has a plan, why is not putting it forward now? If he doesn't have a plan then how can he fix the problem? Also, if he COULD fix the problem, then you must think Bush could if he wanted to and therefore he wants Americans to suffer.
Is he not putting a plan forward so that the Republicans can't take credit or so that the problem persists long enough for him to win? Are either of those reasons good for Americans?
2. No. They why would you think he is better qualified to be President?
Potential answers:
1. Yes. If so, how? If he has a plan, why is not putting it forward now? If he doesn't have a plan then how can he fix the problem? Also, if he COULD fix the problem, then you must think Bush could if he wanted to and therefore he wants Americans to suffer.
Is he not putting a plan forward so that the Republicans can't take credit or so that the problem persists long enough for him to win? Are either of those reasons good for Americans?
2. No. They why would you think he is better qualified to be President?
Sunday, October 05, 2008
How low can it go...
Frankly, if Obama were a Republican, he wouldn't even be a Senator. His relationship with a racist(Wright) would be MORE than enough to preclude his political career.
That said, his relationship with Ayers - even if it were as peripheral as the MSM and Obama were to have us believe, would be enough to generate an investigation into Obama's background and finances. His contacts would be enough to generate suggestions that a security clearance should be withheld.
The left doesn't care about Obama's lack of experience. Sarah Palin, in comparison is a seasoned professional. I want to be clear - there is NO candidate currently in the Presidential or Vice-Presidential slot with national and/or international experience. Biden's foreign policy experience would be pathetic if it were compared to Condi Rice. Biden's responses during the VP Debate show that lack clearly.
Being a Senator does not give you national experience even if it does give you national exposure. Being a Senator gives you committee experience - not leadership experience.
Being in a committee teaches you to pander to the constituency with the most influence and Senators are expert panderers. What they can not do is say no; be the adult.
If anything, Sarah Palin represents the adults in this country. Those of us with obligations and responsibilities recognize in her the experience that marks her as a leader. Sarah Palin's response to the 'fix me, heal me, help me, give me' crowd is 'GROW UP'. Enough of the left understands the comparison Palin makes just be being in her position and they are whining at being on the short side.
Losers hate being shown up. Winners like to see a champion perform even if it is at their expense. Losers will do anything to denigrate a winner, or their win. Anything is fair game to them. ANYTHING.
That said, his relationship with Ayers - even if it were as peripheral as the MSM and Obama were to have us believe, would be enough to generate an investigation into Obama's background and finances. His contacts would be enough to generate suggestions that a security clearance should be withheld.
The left doesn't care about Obama's lack of experience. Sarah Palin, in comparison is a seasoned professional. I want to be clear - there is NO candidate currently in the Presidential or Vice-Presidential slot with national and/or international experience. Biden's foreign policy experience would be pathetic if it were compared to Condi Rice. Biden's responses during the VP Debate show that lack clearly.
Being a Senator does not give you national experience even if it does give you national exposure. Being a Senator gives you committee experience - not leadership experience.
Being in a committee teaches you to pander to the constituency with the most influence and Senators are expert panderers. What they can not do is say no; be the adult.
If anything, Sarah Palin represents the adults in this country. Those of us with obligations and responsibilities recognize in her the experience that marks her as a leader. Sarah Palin's response to the 'fix me, heal me, help me, give me' crowd is 'GROW UP'. Enough of the left understands the comparison Palin makes just be being in her position and they are whining at being on the short side.
Losers hate being shown up. Winners like to see a champion perform even if it is at their expense. Losers will do anything to denigrate a winner, or their win. Anything is fair game to them. ANYTHING.
Friday, October 03, 2008
1/2 a chance
McCain, less than 18 hours after Sarah Palin gave his campaign a shot of adrenalin, attempted political suicide, again. McCain suggested he would consider calling upon Al Gore to help him deal with global warming issues.
If Sarah Palin had remained in relative obscurity in Alaska and McCain had chosen Lieberman or ...virtually any Washington name...McCain would be sitting at 20-25% in polls, running out of money and considered all but a lame duck candidate.
So the question is, why are people supporting McCain? Sarah Palin is going to be a Vice President, someone with less influence than Hillary had in Clinton White House. I really like Sarah Palin. I am really a big fan of McCain making the choice he did, but he continues to prove to me and other Conservatives that no matter what he SAYS, his actions still piss us off.
Sarah Palin gave McCain half a chance of becoming President, unfortunately she needs a running mate that brings the other half, and McCain seems disinterested.
(HT American Princess)
If Sarah Palin had remained in relative obscurity in Alaska and McCain had chosen Lieberman or ...virtually any Washington name...McCain would be sitting at 20-25% in polls, running out of money and considered all but a lame duck candidate.
So the question is, why are people supporting McCain? Sarah Palin is going to be a Vice President, someone with less influence than Hillary had in Clinton White House. I really like Sarah Palin. I am really a big fan of McCain making the choice he did, but he continues to prove to me and other Conservatives that no matter what he SAYS, his actions still piss us off.
Sarah Palin gave McCain half a chance of becoming President, unfortunately she needs a running mate that brings the other half, and McCain seems disinterested.
(HT American Princess)
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Just a thought
I couldn't believe he said, but he did THREE times.
"We have spent more in 3 weeks in Iraq than we did in the last 6 years in Afghanistan"
I knew it was wrong, we have spent more than 200 Billion in Afghanistan....and Obama/Biden complains about spending $10 billion ayear month...[update per commenter]
Is Joe really saying that we have only spent 7.5 billion in Afghanistan over the last 6 years?
Come on Joe, say it ain't so.
"We have spent more in 3 weeks in Iraq than we did in the last 6 years in Afghanistan"
I knew it was wrong, we have spent more than 200 Billion in Afghanistan....and Obama/Biden complains about spending $10 billion a
Is Joe really saying that we have only spent 7.5 billion in Afghanistan over the last 6 years?
Come on Joe, say it ain't so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)