Fun With Analogies

When Clinton was Captain of the Ship of State, it was smooth sailing. Even though, near the end of his stewardship, he pointed that sucker right at an iceberg. However, in an act of foresight if not courage, he left detailed instructions on how to avoid said iceberg.

Captain Bush burned those instructions, called for "full speed ahead," and hit the iceberg squarely, resulting in a giant gash in the ship. Rather than repair the damage, Bush then led his friends to the stateroom and began stealing the silverware.

Obama became captain on a platform of repairing the damage and getting the thieves out of the stateroom, but so far all he's managed to do is get about half the people on board to start bailing - using teacups. While the other half tell them they're doing it wrong.

Obama's second concern is more frustrating and far less likely to melt away: the impression that his Administration—and he personally—is anti-business.

At least on this day, business and the economy topped Obama's agenda. Twenty steps from the Oval Office, GE's (GE) Jeff Immelt, Honeywell's (HON) David Cote, and several other CEOs huddled with White House officials to provide industry input on climate change.

All things being equal, I'm more concerned with the gash in the ship than "industry input on climate change." Hey, Captain Barry... fix the damn gash in the damn ship.

Fun party... who's the host?

Sarah Palin was the guest of honor at a Tea Party convention in Nashville this weekend. Six hundred people showed up, paying $500 a head to listen to Sarah America call for a new revolution here in the States.

Totally ignoring the legality or her call to arms, I think it's important to first address just what the Tea Party is, who's running it, and who it's aiming to help. According to the head of the Staten Island Tea Party, Lorraine Scanni, this rant from Rick Santelli on CNBC was the Party's genesis:



So nominally the Tea Party is for "smaller government" and eliminating "interference" in the lives of Joe six-pack.

But thus far, at least, people like Scanni are unable to elucidate the "how" of that. When asked by the always excellent Brian Lehrer why Santelli's rant was so inspiring, she wasn't able to give a coherent answer. When asked what role the government would play were the Tea Party to come to power - the caller who posed the question mentioned things like negotiation of overseas trading rights, interstate commerce, regulations on things like food and drugs - Scanni replied only "elimination of taxes and an increase national defense."

Those two things don't go together, for what it's worth. If you want a fleet of billion dollar, state of the art fighter jets, you have to pay for it somehow.

Asked about where the Tea Party stands on the health care debate, Scanni's response was "we want Tort Reform." Which is fine, since a lot of folks like the idea of Tort Reform... except that Tort Reform is just another kind of "big government" interference.

When asked about the bank bailout, which is the Tea Party's least favorite thing ever, both Scanni and fellow guest Glenn Reynolds said "too big to fail is too big to exist! The trusts need to be broken up." A sentiment I'm right on board with.

But... and this is the "but" I just can't wrap my head around... BUT strong governmental anti-trust legislation means bigger government. Means interference with the natural cycles of economics and commerce. Means everything the Tea Party is nominally against in their mission statement. They were against it before they were for it.

So, for the time being, it's hard to take the Tea Party at all seriously from an ideological standpoint. They just seem like a bunch of angry folks whose only shared value is that anger. Certainly, the fact that Palin's claim to fame is running the biggest welfare state in US history didn't bother them much, but the idea of trusts really gets them going. As does the idea of a government enacting regulations to break the trusts.

Ideologically they're pretty much play-dough, and in the next six months, people like Scanni and Reynolds will become marginalized and we'll start seeing new, polished leaders who come from the Karl Rove mold. The Tea Party's not a particularly big movement yet, but they have traction and generate headlines. Any half decent politician's eyes should light up at the reality of that, and any half decent politician will be able to shape the Tea Party's anger and focus it.

Against what, I don't know. Funny part is, neither are they.

Some Weird-ass Cognitive Dissonance from Sarah Palin

From the never ending goldmine that is Sarah Palin's Twitter feed:

SarahPalinUSA: What's N.O.W. thinking? Censoring a pro-women/pro-child Super Bowl ad? Unbelievable. Pls see my FB post on this: http://tinyurl.com/y9oho5h

Oh, you bet I will.

"The ad will feature Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom, and they’ll speak to the sanctity of life and the beautiful potential within every innocent child as Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her choice to give Tim life, despite less than ideal circumstances...

NOW is looking at the pro-life issue backwards. Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life. In my own home, my daughter Bristol has also been challenged by pro-abortion “women’s rights” groups who don’t agree with her decision to have her baby, nor do they like the abstinence message which she articulated as her personal commitment. NOW could gain ground and credibility with everyday Americans, thus allowing their pro-women message to be heard by more than just their ardent supporters, if they made wiser decisions regarding which battles to pick. They should call attention to and embrace the Tebows’ message, instead of covertly and overtly disrespecting what Mrs. Tebow, Bristol, and millions of other women have chosen to do (in less than ideal circumstances)...." [emphasis mine]

Does anything more need to be said?

I know, it's giving her too much credit to call this cognitive dissonance. It's just a really tortured attempt to hijack feminism for her own self-promotion. I get it.

At the same time, I have to admit... seeing how the pro-choice movement has successfully established the terms of this debate in their own favor gives me warm fuzzies inside. Once you start using your opponents' vocabulary, you basically concede defeat.

Congratulations on your choice, Mrs. Tebow. Because that is, indeed what it's all about: choice.

She Was Against Climate Change Before She Was For It

"Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature's ways.MUST b good stewards of God's earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature"

"Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng"

--Sarah Palin, via Twitter

Okay, I know these gems from our favorite twit were tweeted over a month ago. This is old, old news. But I've been thinking about this issue and puzzling over dear Sarah's strange change in attitude when it comes to the reality of global warming. (For what it's worth, about 12% of my brain is purely devoted to contemplating Sarah Palin, why she exists and what she means for the future of human existence. So don't ever be surprised to hear that she's been on my mind.)

As Governor of Alaska, Palin wasn't quite so skeptical about anthropogenic global warming as she seems to be today. Out of political necessity, she had to acknowledge the dire danger Alaska faces as glaciers melt and ocean levels rise. The evidence was too present and too immediate to ignore.

Nowadays (a whole 18 months later), she tweets a different tune.

I feel that this reversal on Palin's part truly exemplifies how, when it comes to Sarah's positions and ideologies, there really is no there there. Does she actually have a personal view on climate change? Would it matter if she did?

A lot of people I know powerfully dislike Sarah Palin or find her downright frightening, because to them she is an extreme right-wing ideologue, with all the corresponding ignorance and prejudices. I never really saw that in her, though. To me, she is just a very ambitious and self-entitled person, and ideology will always come second to political expediency for her.

At the same time, her mixed-up positions on climate change do reveal something quite interesting about Sarah.

You see, she has to be against the Copenhagen summit. She has to claim not to accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Because her base, the tea-bagger types, reject the science. So she must also reject it in order to pander to them, her potentially most loyal supporters.

So that prompts me to ask: why would regular, middle- or working-class, conservative Americans care one way or the other about climate change? The answer, I think, is that they've been trained to do so by the powers that be in the Republican establishment, who are in thrall to big oil and other corporate interests. Those corporate interests stand to lose if man-made climate change is recognized as real and governments take steps to curb carbon emissions. So the Republican establishment has an interest in convincing its base that global warming is all a bunch of baloney.

The Republican party has been pandering to a certain demographic -- or collection of linked demographics -- for a few decades now (since Nixon's Southern strategy capitalized on Dixiecrat fear and racism; although it was Reagan who pioneered the more contemporary moral majority idea which persists today). That is, they rely upon the electoral loyalty of middle- and working-class, white, Christian, socially conservative Americans -- the "Joe Sixpacks." The Republicans have very successfully played on this group's prejudices, fears, and religious fervor. For decades. But the GOP has never been controlled by this voting base.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is not a GOP insider. She actually is one of those "regular Americans" who make up the party's base. She is, in a way, the fruit borne of thirty years of Republican and neocon political strategy. And now she's come back to bite them in the ass.

That's why you see this strange dynamic, wherein a woman who in all likelihood believes that global warming is an unstoppable sign of the end times (or else thinks nothing about it at all), is forced to take a position on it which makes no sense for her, in order to appeal to a voting base whose position makes no sense for them either. The GOP gives the people their talking points, then Sarah parrots them back to the people, and the GOP establishment looks at her and thinks, "Who the hell is this woman??"

She is what they have wrought. And she will be their downfall.

It's really quite amusing to watch

Education and Free-Market

*Edit: Links didn't carry over.*

A friend of mine sent along this article and asked for thoughts I figured why not just post it?

Article:


Education, Entrepreneurship, And The President



Today, President Barack Obama addressed school children across America. Political emotions are running hot, the Drudge Report has highlighted the speech for days and it has been daily fodder for blogs, radio and television. Personally, we believe that our children should learn to respect and honor the Office of The President of the United States of America – no matter who sits in that office or what their politics are.



Typically, students are exposed to politics and government indirectly through their parents, teachers, or the media, and more directly on their eighth-grade trip to the state capitol or to Washington, DC. Reversing this process, by bringing the politician into the classroom, is what bothers people.



So, why are we writing about this? Because the speech is about economics, that’s why. The President told the kids, “Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.”



He adds, “Maybe you could be a good writer…maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor…maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice…You can’t just drop out of school and drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.”

Good stuff.



“Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.”

Great stuff.



These are the things many of us tell our kids every day. The American system of free market capitalism and democracy has provided an amazing array of opportunities for those willing to work hard. In America, unlike under communism or feudalism, freedom not only allows choices, but provides them. In the Soviet Union, at the height of communism, the government planned just about everything.

It decided on individual careers (who would be a doctor or bus driver). It divvied up the pie. In a free market, the forces of supply and demand do this. They push and pull people to sectors and jobs that best utilize individual talents – where people are the most gifted.



As a result, resources (labor and capital) are shifted to where they are best used and most profitable. Entrepreneurs who treat capital well are rewarded with more of it, while those that treat capital poorly face the loss of it. Education is an important step in this environment, and increases the odds of success, but it does not provide a guarantee of success.



In fact, public education (especially in the inner-city) is failing many children as the President speaks. And it’s not all the kids’ fault. The schools are publicly run and face little to no competition. Vouchers, which would provide that competition, are universally condemned by teachers’ unions

because they don’t like competition. In a competitive environment, voucher money would leave public schools and so would students to go to schools that worked.



Nonetheless, the President finished his speech by saying, “Your families, your teachers, and I are doing

everything we can to make sure you have the education you need….I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too.”



This is the one part of the speech we completely disagree with. While we certainly understand the President’s desire to be the bearer of all gifts to all people, it is not his money or time that is supporting the school system. Hardworking American taxpayers are the ones supporting the school system with their tax dollars. And it’s their children attending the schools. In a truly free market system, they would be the ones that directed the resources. But the public school system is not a free market. As a result, the government directs the resources and the system remains inefficient and less effective than it could be.


B rian S . Wesbury - Chief Economist

Robert Stein, CFA - Senior Economist

Thoughts:

If I were Emperor the first thing I would do is eliminate any system of education that did not explicitly train people to work in my regime, or that taught critical thinking in the form of the Scientific Method or otherwise.

Anywho:

I'm always suspicious of 'free market' arguments where 'free market' is not clearly defined. I know that as Good, Patriotic (same thing), Freedom-Loving Americans we're not supposed to question the motivations or wisdom of the masters of our markets. Our markets are good because they're 'free'. No, they're not free as in they don't cost money they're free in the sense that...

You know what? How about a nice creamy McCafe? You'd like that wouldn't you? What's wrong? You don't feel like a refreshing McCafe? Is it the corn syrup? Why don't you want corn syrup? Is it because you hate corn? You know the American-Indians gave the Pilgrims corn and then they founded America. You don't hate America do you? No, I didn't think so. Have a McCafe, you may be an instant winner. Drink it!

As for these guys I'd take a look at their backgrounds as far as a few minutes of internet research allows:

If it's this Robert Stein and this Brian Wesbury or (I have a hard time reconciling the pictures bad with faces, no excuse I know) these guys:

They and / or their mentors are all products of the US public school system. One might say that they can see as far as they do because they stand on the shoulders of those who came before them. I'm not saying that there aren't problems with the system as it is, but to eliminate public education in the name of the 'free-market' as these gentlemen do not explicitly state but strongly imply is absurd.

As they state in the last paragraph it's the 'hardworking American taxpayers' that are supporting the pubic school system and that 'they would be the ones that directed the resources'. In a Representative Democracy (which I'd say we strive to be, if not then some form of Republic) the public directs its resources through its representatives in its elected government.

Now, are there 'inefficiencies'? Yes. But through government we at least make an effort to represent the interests of a broad section of the population and make an attempt to move forward by examining potential courses of action from as many points of view as possible, hopefully finding the steadiest course.

Situations where individuals can take action based solely on their own interests, without temperance (regulation via some third party, in our case an elected government, hopefully) lead to the formation of oligopolies and cartels and monopolies among other things. Don't get me wrong, these systems are great if you control them (or have controlling shares or whatever you want to call it) but they're not so pretty if you don't.

(Hint: We Don't)

And by the way, when the hell did people start taking all of their advice from bankers? What the hell does anyone think a banker is going to advise them to do but to give them all of their money. It's what they do.

My friend takes a look at public education here and can speak more comprehensibly about the issue(s) than I ever could.

tl;dr;

These guys and / or their mentors owe their station in life to the US public education system. They make their living by convincing people to give them money with the promise that they will create more money with it. While I might take seriously what they have to say about a prospectus describing the distribution of assets for a pension fund, I'm highly suspect of their advice for just about anything else.

Of course, these guys are Economists and I'm just Some Guy.

(Incidentally I had never heard of them, we all live in our little bubble, nice to get out of it sometimes.)

Horrifying

Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

PHOENIX – About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

I've got no words.

Technology Fail

Attacks on lone blogger reverberate across Web

That's the AP headline, and my reaction is threefold:

First, why is "Web" capitalized? Is it the proper name of a specific place, like Des Moines or Middle Earth?

Second... technology fail:

On Friday, the surge of traffic to Twitter was about as it was Thursday — as much as 20 percent above normal traffic levels. But Gomi said NTT was better able to filter out the fake traffic, which is why Twitter stayed online.

20%? Seriously?

Third... Shirtless Putin says "Down with Georgian bloggers!"