Joust The Facts

The Joust The Facts "Quote Of The Day"

From Robert Samuelson, at Real Clear Politics about yet another insidious design flaw in the unpopular health care reform known in Orwellian fashion as the  "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," or more colloquially as ObamaCare.  Mr. Samuelson's article addresses the definitions of full-time and part-time workers.  For the latter under ObamaCare the employer does not have to provide health insurance; once you reach 50 of the former, however, you do.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines part time as less than 35 hours, while the PPACA defines part-time as less than 30 hours.  Problem?  Yes.

The argument about Obamacare is often framed as a moral issue. It's the caring and compassionate against the cruel and heartless. That's the rhetoric; the reality is different. Many of us who oppose Obamacare don't do so because we enjoy seeing people suffer. We believe that, in an ideal world, everyone would have insurance. But we also think that Obamacare has huge drawbacks that outweigh its plausible benefits.

It creates powerful pressures against companies hiring full-time workers -- precisely the wrong approach after the worst economic slump since the Depression. There will be more bewildering regulations, more regulatory uncertainties, more unintended side effects and more disappointments. A costly and opaque system will become more so.

Amen to that.

They Push-Polled The Wrong Voter

A rough transcript of a poll call - from an actual human this time! - that I answered tonight.  I fielded the call, and rather than hanging up (I really didn't have much else to do at the time) I decided to answer and see where this was heading.  And so it began benignly with the first two questions:

PP: Using strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, and strongly unfavorable, what is your opinion of [candidate for president]?  And using the same grading, how about [candidate for president]?

and then

PP: If the election were held today, would you be voting for [candidate for president] or [candidate for president]

I answered these - they actually presented the choices evenly, and without bias in the presentation.  But then it started

PP: I'd like to ask your opinion of several public policy issues.  Are you in favor of or against privatizing Medicare.

Me: You're asking the wrong guy.  I'm a doctor, and I'm well informed about the issues of Medicare.  Neither side is proposing privatizing Medicare.  Rather the ...

And then she cut me off and moved on to question two.

PP: Are your in favor of or against cuts to social security and Medicare?

Me: Again, that's a rather broad brush you're using.  Are you referring to the money that was transferred from Medicare to Obamacare to try to make that solvent?  Or is there another specific policy proposal that your referring to?

And so we moved on to question three, still with no answers for the first two policy questions.  Funny, they seemed to want a dull "yes" or "no", and I wanted a policy discussion.  And so we moved on.

PP: Are you in favor of or against tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?

Me: You seem to be referring to the so-called "expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts."  You should know, however, that the current rates have been in place for 9 years and "extending the tax cuts" is really preventing a tax rate increase ...

PP: Thank you very much. {click}

I knew with patience that I could get them to hang up on me. Unfortunately I didn't make note of the organization making the call.  I wonder how they'll record my answers?  This might dovetail nicely with this story, about the current affairs knowledge of Republicans vs. Democrats according to a Pew study.

Did The Sox Just Blunder Again?

Unfortunately we'll know the answer to that question only after one year, or two, as we see how the managerial tenure of John Farrell turns out.  It seems the Sox came to an agreement with the Toronto Blue Jays to procure the services of the Jays' manager, former Red Sox pitching coach John Farrell.

Farrell, who received a three-year contract, will be introduced at Fenway Park on Monday or Tuesday.

The 50-year-old Farrell was the Red Sox pitching coach from 2007-10 before becoming the manager of the Blue Jays. Farrell was a modest 154-170 in two seasons, but the Red Sox believe he has the skills to lead the team back from its worst season in decades.

The Red Sox were 69-93 under Bobby Valentine, a season marked by underperformance, injuries, and controversy. Valentine’s style did not mesh well with general manager Ben Cherington, his coaching staff or with veteran players grown accustomed to the protective ways of former manager Terry Francona....

The Red Sox formally interviewed Padres special assistant Brad Ausmus, Orioles third base coach DeMarlo Hale, Yankees bench coach Tony Pena, and Dodgers third base coach Tim Wallach, and were impressed with all four. But their focus was on Farrell from the beginning of the process.

Hiring Farrell from the Blue Jays is acceptable from the compensation standpoint, as the Sox won't be giving up too much.  Mike Aviles is a terrific team player, who plays hard all the time and produces in the clutch at times, but his stats don't jolt you off the page.  So there's that.

And I don't have the sense of dread I did when they hired Valentine.  As I described him just before the hiring, in what was now a prescient post,

Just what the team needs, a self-promoting gadfly manager who has failed everywhere else.

Valentine's failures were legion.  He lost the team early, lost more of them as time went on, opened his mouth in frequent and unfortunate ways, and proved not to be the "smartest man in baseball" when making moves on the diamond.  His managing moves were often inexplicable.  Pinch hitting for Iglesias with two strikes already on him?  Seriously?

Looking at the list of the interviewees, I think I might have leaned toward three of the other four ahead of Farrell.  Bringing back Tony Pena, a former Manager Of The Year in Kansas City, and after a brief tenure in New York, would have made sense.  Brad Ausmus is widely regarded as sharp, and with a bright future in managing.  Both are former catchers who understand pitchers, pitching, and calling a game, all vital to a winning team.  DeMarlo Hale was with the Sox as a coach in various positions in the minors for about 9 years, then came back as a third base coach and bench coach for 5 more.  As a result, he was with the team during Terry Francona's successes and also with the Orioles last year during their own resurrection.

Farrell's record in Toronto has not impressed.  Toronto was 73-89 this year, four games better than the woeful Bostonians.  The prior year his team was an even .500, 81-81.  The pitching in Boston, after they finished first in pitching in 2007 winning the Series, steadily deteriorated under his watch.  (On the other hand, it deteriorated even further without him, so there's that.)

I hope I'm wrong.  I don't have the feeling of dread and catastrophic error that I did when Valentine was hired, but I would have rather seen a new face like an Ausmus, or a Ryne Sandberg or Sandy Alomar Jr. come in to settle the turmoil.  When you're starting from an epic failure of a year, at 69-93, you can take a chance on a bright light in the distance, hoping that as it comes into focus it turns out to be a star.

On Libya, And Lying, And Lameness

So I watched last night's debate with Gwendolyn by my side, and she questioned why I felt it necessary to watch a debate between the two men running for president when both of us know already who we're voting for.  And I had to admit, it would be really easy to switch the channel and watch My Cousin Vinny for the 32nd time, or catch Justin Verlander dispatching the Evil Empire in game three of the ALCS.  But then up popped a question on Libya.  And no, I'm not even going to get into the whole "Candy Crowley jumped in on Obama's side, was wrong to do so, and was wrong about what the President said in the Rose Garden" thing.

As I watched, I tweeted.  Here's a sample of my tweets (and a few re-tweets) from that segment.** (read from the bottom up)

Well, maybe I - and a number of others - were wrong.  We must have simply missed the answer, but it was there.  Just slipped past us.   Errr, no.

Right.  I didn't think he answered the question.  Now, onto the lameness.  I swung by Real Clear Politics to see what the topics of conversation might be, and was surprised ... shocked really ... to see this.

Oh, he did?  Really?  Here's the link to Mr. Drum's piece, and the actual title: "It's time for Romney to give Benghazi a rest."  The central point Mr. Drum makes is this:

But what I really wonder is: how has this become a serious question anyway? Why does anyone care if it took two weeks to decide that Benghazi was an act of terror? Two weeks! That's not exactly an eternity. Even if it were true that Obama spent a few days waiting for firm intelligence reports before making firm statements, is there anything wrong with that? Isn't that what a president should do?

It's a serious question because four people, including an ambassador, died.  It's a serious question because it highlights the truthfulness, or lack thereof, of the administration in dealing with this tragedy.  It's a serious question because Mr. Obama didn't treat those deaths as serious, choosing to go to fundraisers in Las Vegas when an ambassador had died. Here are a few inconvenient ones for those cheering Mr. Obama's answer (and Ms Crowley's partisan efforts) last night.

• The slain ambassador wrote in his journal about his own security concerns and his desire and need to improve security.
• Testimony in Congress by Eric Nordstrom indicates he was rebuffed for months in attempts to improve security.  And a Lt. Colonel who was the leader of a security team that was called home knew right away that it was a terrorist attack.
• The Libyans knew within less than 24 hours that a) no protest took place that day in Benghazi about any video, and b) the attackers were well-organized and associated with Al Qaeda.
• Despite that, administration officials spent almost two weeks repeatedly blaming the attack on an anti-Islam video trailer, including arresting the video's producer.  If they weren't sure it was terrorism initially, how were they so sure it was the video?  Are some out-on-a-limb accusations acceptable, but not others?

So no, this doesn't put the Benghazi story to rest.  Not at all.  And the fact that the President failed to answer Mr. Ladka's question of who declined the extra security, and misled viewers about his own statements on the day after the attack doesn't help him one iota.

*Let's just say that Mr. Obama didn't explicitly call it terrorism, and didn't specifically condemn that particular attack as a coordinated act of terror.  He did call it an "attack," and later in the speech condemned "acts of terror" generically.  But he also linked the attack to the video, as later that week so did Susan Rice on five separate Sunday morning shows.

**If anyone can inform me how to post the entire timeline of my tweets, or a section of them, I'd be most appreciative.  These are screenshots - best I could do.

Romney Responds

It used to be that "talking points" were the cherry-picked facts that you wanted to get out, to paint your side, your point of view, your plans in the most favorable light possible.  The Democrats changed that at some point - I think it was during the Bush-Gore election squabble in Florida, but it could have been earlier - to mean something completely different.  The word "fact" has a definition.  A fact is a known truth, something in reality and completely truthful, something that either exists or has existed and is known.  Sure the talking points were cherry-picked, but at least they were based in reality.

Now, however, what the Democrats' talking points represent is spin.  These are imaginary facts, impressions, and unfavorable interpretations of the other side that you want reported.  If a fact no longer has to be based in reality it can then can simply be invented.  Don't talk about Romney's actual tax plan, talk about the tax plan as you want people to believe it exists.  It is even more acceptable, encouraged actually, when the entity generally responsible for holding you accountable for your statements, journalists, are so in the tank that they never challenge your assertions.  Last night Mr. Obama finally got challenged on his 'facts,' and it wasn't pretty.

Here's a dramatization of Mitt Romney's response to many of Mr. Obama's talking points.  (mild language warning)

Of course, Mr. Romney would never use such language, and he did go on to eviscerate the talking points with cold, hard, real, truthful facts.  Winner by knockout, I'd say.  A compassionate referee would have stopped the fight in the third round.  That's a fact, but don't just take my word for it.

The Joust The Facts "Quote Of The Day" - Pilfering A Pertinent Comment Edition

Read this comment to a James Pethoukoukis post at AEI about Howard Dean stating that the Democrats "don't begrudge Mitt Romney his money."  I'll have a comment myself about that to follow.  But this one?  Nail, struck on the head, etc.

Anyone with eyes can see where the Left is trying to push American society, which is to a place where the “1%” are the politically-connected people who support the Democratic party and everyone else is left with the crumbs of whatever a top-down command economy can produce.

So, I sort of give Dean the benefit of the doubt that the Left doesn’t begrudge people wealth per se, but the “right people” have to have that wealth and Mitt Romney (or any member of the GOP or anyone who generally opposes the Left’s political agenda) isn’t part of that “right people”.

We already saw this movie. It ran from 1917 to 1991 and was called “The Soviet Union."

Priceless.  And while the Left does seem to begrudge Mitt Romney his money, at least partly, it may be more that they begrudge him the presidency because of his money.  What, are wildly successful businessmen somehow ineligible for the presidency?  Do you have to inherit the money (the Kennedys), marry it (John Kerry) or steal it from hard working doctors in court (John Edwards) to be eligible to run?

9/22/12 2010: Here's the whole clip from CNBC.  Note that a) Harry Reid has been lying through his teeth about Romney and taxes and b) the "look, a squirrel!!" strategy pointed out, that these questions about Romney's wealth and Romney's taxes only bubble to the surface when the Obama campaign needs a distraction from some bad news...which the loyal press then provides.

At The WTC Site, Still Under Construction

My family and I recently visited NYC, around the end of August, and ventured to the lower end of Manhattan to have a look at the progression of the re-building of the financial district buildings after the attacks of 9-11. The thing I like about it best is the open park with the two square fountains, surrounded by the names of the 9-11 victims.  The park contains this - the only tree left standing at the site in the aftermath of the attack.  It was removed and nursed back to health and, according to this story, now stands at over 30 feet tall. 

Here's a look at the fountains

Here's a look at how construction stands now.

The twin fountains, with square layout representing the twin towers, are just at the lower left corner of the photo above and just beyond the foreground building.

*I have my own photos at home from our visit, and plan to substitute for these later.

The Jeopardy Answer Is: "Things Republicans Aren't Allowed To Speak About Or Else They Are Racists"

What are, "crime, welfare, the President's economic an governing philosophy, birth certificates (even when joking)?"  Among many, many others, I'm sure.  MSNBC's Toure helpfully informs us that a) only Republicans can be accused of racism dog whistles, and b) pretty much anything members of the GOP say that can be even remotely construed as putting a minority member of society in a less than glorious light is de-facto racism.

So if you're a Democrat, like Sen. Harry Reid, you can describe Obama complimentarily as "light-skinned" with "no Negro dialect" and you're safe.  If you're a Republican, like Mitt Romney, and you express concern that work requirements put in place during Clinton-era welfare reform are being softened, you're the equivalent of Bull Connor aiming firehoses.  And the final judge on this is a far-left progressive on MSNBC

Thanks.  I'll remember that.

"Shut up," he explained.

(And, by the way, I get to decide who's a partisan hack that should be ignored)

Paging Tom Friedman: Beijing Needs Some PR

NY Times columnist Tom Friedman, dubbed by the Wall Street Journal's clever James Taranto as "the worst writer in the English language" (a good example found here), is a China-phile of some repute.  He stated at one point that China is better governed than America primarily because he saw the Democrats' statist approaches to problems as the only solutions, not realizing that Republicans wouldn't engage in negotiations that would merely dilute the badness, and famously wished before qualifying caveats that we could be "China for a day" so that all-powerful, all-knowing leaders could just choose and implement the right solutions and make all our troubles disappear.

Well, with the Olympics upon us, Yahoo! has a slideshow of what's happened to all of those spectacular Beijing Olympic venues in just four short years.  Go ahead and see what infrastructure spending for propaganda purposes looks like.  It's perhaps that a baseball venue in China would simply disappear, but rowing, kayaking, cycling, and volleyball are still Olympic sports.

This is, perhaps, what happens when You Didn't Build That, but They Did.

 

 

Happy Independence Day

For those of you in need of a refresher course, here's a link to a nice summary of the evolution of the American Flag.  Learned a few things myself, actually.  For instance,

36-Star American Flag - 1865 to 1867

• One star was added to the flag for the admission of Nevada
• 3 months before the flag became official, a 36-star flag was used to cushion President Lincoln's head the evening of his assassination at Ford's Theatre
• "The Lincoln Flag" is currently on display at the Columns Museum of the Pike County Historical Society in Milford, PA
• Andrew Johnson was the only president to serve under this flag

Fascinating stuff.  Enjoy your hotdogs, burgers and beer, and wear some red-white-and-blue today.

 

Reviewing The Draft - Bleed Green Edition

Among the players available when the Boston Celtics picked at #21/#22 in the first round were a great shooter in 2 guard John Jenkins, an hyperathletic 6'6" point guard Tony Wroten Jr., an offensively talented quick big man in Arnett Moultrie, a mobile and athletic big in Perry Jones III, a 6'10" small (!) forward in Quincy Miller, a very athletic small forward in Quincy Acy, and a sharp and hard working seven-footer in Festus Ezeli.  The Celts brain trust read the press clippings of Ohio State's ground-based big man Jared Sullinger and selected "the guy with the bad back at #21.  Then at #22 They selected one of the more puzzling and enigmatic bigs in Syracuse seven-footer Fab Melo.  Sigh.

I was listening to Celtics draft coverage on their home cable sports network, Comcast SportsNet, and none of the individuals providing commentary liked the idea of selecting Sullinger when first queried.  As the night wore on and Sullinger dropped in the draft, some changed their tune.  I didn't.  He was a very good college player precisely because his size and strength overwhelmed most opponents.  That doesn't happen in the NBA.  I hope he proves me wrong, gets up and down the court quickly enough to run with Rajon Rondo and Avery Bradley, is able to post up down low in the pros like he did in college, and is able to play at least a little above the rim.  But I would rather have seen the team add athletic bodies rather than just a big one.

Melo is another story.  The kid has potential, but came into his freshman season at Syracuse woefully unprepared and inadequately able to push himself.  To his credit he improved dramatically between year one and year two in his fitness, ability to run, and understanding of the game.  Unfortunately that simply moved him from Complete Bust to Serviceable Big Man on a team that played zone and had so many wing scorers that the middle was vacant for him.  He had academic issues, along with some others - ahem - and it's doubtful that a few million dollars in his bank account will improve his motivation and character.  I hope he proves me wrong, too.  He has bigger upside than Sullinger, but is also a riskier pick because you don't know where his head is.

In the second round you simply hope you strike gold, and the Celtics may have.  Kris Joseph is a talented small forward, though his shooting is erratic, and his handle could use some work.  Both are things he can improve, and it won't hurt him a bit to understudy Paul Pierce.

I think I might have preferred Moultrie and Perry if you wanted two bigs with those two picks.  I didn't think, from my reading, that either of those would be still on the board at that point.  Neither of the first round picks makes the C's more athletic, and quickness in the NBA is a lethal weapon.  While I hope I'm wrong, I have the sinking feeling that with these two picks the Celtics have rolled the dice, and may have crapped out. 

One aside/possible ray of sunshine:  I notice that West Virginia forward Kevin Jones went undrafted.  If I were Danny Ainge I'd be bringing him in for a free-agent tryout ASAP!

7/1/12 0800: Bummer.  Kevin Jones signed by Cleveland.  The Celtics better hope that they can sign both Jeff Green and Brandon Bass now. Scott Machado, perhaps, as a Rondo understudy?  On the other hand, the Celts may be fine if last years second rounder, E'twaun Moore, can step up his game. He's a good shooter, and just needs to get a bit more creative with the ball.

The Joust The Facts "Quote Of The Day"

J. E. Dyer at Hot Air, writing lucidly on the (mistaken) belief in the infallibility of government by many with an almost religious fervor.  He dubs this Govfall, the religion of government infallibility.  The proximate cause, the appeals court ruling on the EPA's right to regulate your every breath.

The ruling describes the EPA’s opinion on global warming and greenhouse gases as “unambiguously correct” – which is a deeply silly formulation for characterizing any scientific theory, but would also have been considered, by our Founders and virtually all federal jurists up until the last 20-30 years, as comprehensively invalid language for any kind of judicial ruling.  Judges aren’t competent to make decisions for the public on this matter.  Their competence is in interpreting the law, not certifying scientific conclusions...

If we cannot behave, in our economic lives, as if we think catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a much-falsified theory waiting for some solid proof, then we are not effectively free to think it.  We are constrained to behave as if we don’t.  That situation differs only by the jackbooted thugs at the door from the lifestyle of people under communist rule, in which you’re free to “think” whatever you want, as long as you say and do only government-approved things, and never speak about or live by your own beliefs.

Sometime in the last century, the weight of sentiment among those who aspire to government jobs, in any role in any of the branches, tilted toward the religion of Govfall.  It has become unendurable to them to think of the people out here doing things they disapprove of, and they have diligently enlarged the purview of government to encompass ruling on ideas and theories – always invoking the supposed disasters and wrongs that government power is either averting or redressing...

Just so.  The passage of the ACA was just another example of this, and unfortunately for the liberty of 320 million Americans it was upheld (largely) by the Supreme Court today.  I'll have more about that later.

A Health Care Decision Reminder

Over the last week or so we've been deluged with stories attempting to pre-emptively delegitimize the Supreme Court's decision on the ObamaCare health care law, the inappropriately named Affordable Care Act.  The latest was from Roger Simon, writing at the ostensibly non-partisan Politico yesterday.  He does so by quoting extensively from Jeffrey Toobin, whose viewpoints are wholly partisan.  And from former Justice John Paul Stevens, who was on the losing side of the Bush-Gore election dustup in 2000.

At this writing, I do not know how a majority of the justices will rule on Obama’s health care plan, which was passed into law by Congress. Two branches of government have spoken, but their speech is but a whisper compared with the shout of our high court.

The die was cast in 2000. And it would take the most dewy-eyed of optimists to expect the court’s decision to be anything other than political.

Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired, wrote in his dissent in Bush v. Gore in 2000: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

That is a lot to lose. But we have lost it. And getting it back may be a long time in coming.

You see, if the court rules the individual mandate constitutional and allows the law to stand, then it's the correct decision and the members of the court were able to overcome their political slant.  If they determine the mandate unconstitutional, then it's purely politics.  It must be easy to be on the left.  You're always correct, and any disagreement can only be because of political bias.

Recall, however, just how weak the arguments in favor of the individual mandate were in court.  The same Jeffrey Toobin called them a "train wreck."

Today’s arguments focused around the central constitutional question of whether Congress has the power to force Americans to either pay for health insurance or pay a penalty.

According to CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were “a train wreck for the Obama administration.”

“This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong,” Toobin just said on CNN.

And on the question of a limiting principle, Justice Steven Breyer got silence from Donald Verrilli.  Remember also that there's no severability clause in the law, meaning that if any part is struck down the whole law should be by right.  It's not the SCOTUS that wrote the law that way.  Justice Antonin Scalia remarked that on the issue of severability it would be "cruel and unusual punishment" to require them to read the whole law and pick and choose how it should have been written.  Recall also that the government did a poor job as well in arguing for the Medicaid payment extortion written into the law, whereby states would lose federal dollars entirely if they didn't expand their state program in a way acceptable to the feds.

The court’s divisions were on vivid display Wednesday during a discussion of the law’s Medicaid expansion, which gives states more federal money if they agree to enroll more of the poor. States can refuse, but only if they pull out of the program altogether.

The states challenging the legislation say that is not an option. The Medicaid program has grown so large that it is impossible to forgo federal funding and still provide medical care to the poor, they say.

"Nice state you got there.  It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."  Of course, that's the Obama administration modus operandi, demonstrated this week against Arizona who had the temerity to try to control the flow of illegals across their southern border by applying federal laws.

So, as you read all the articles today screaming about the health care law being overturned (my prediction), remember just how weak the arguments were in its favor just three short months ago.

6/28/12 0935: More:

• Ace has a nice roundup, including  a link to a Reason compendium of pre-emptive strikes.
• I agree with The Blogfather, and he with me.
• Gabe Malor at Ace of Spades addresses Mr. Toobin's nonsense in Roger Simon's Politico piece about the Roberts court overturning more legislation.  Unfortunately for Mr. Toobin, he doesn't read the NY Times.  From Mr. Malor:

Just three laws per term! Far, far from being "eager" to overturn legislatures, as hack Toobin dribbled, and obviously, indisputably playing no unusual role in "second-guessing laws," as Fallows alarmingly squeaked, the Roberts Court has been a model of restraint. Restraint is, naturally, one of Chief Justice Roberts' well-known characteristics and it was remarked upon during his confirmation hearings. One could even creditably call the Roberts Court the most restrained, incrementalist Court of the modern era. (I assure you, these numbers have not changed appreciably in the past two years.)

Should the mandate be overturned today, liberals will repeat their lie endlessly in order to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and to tarnish the Chief Justice's good name. You know better. Do not believe this sad, angry lie. And do not let some foolish lemming repeat it in your presence. The truth is that the Roberts Court has been unusually restrained in overturning laws when compared to its predecessors.

A Big Day Today

I know there are a few other minor news stories coming today, with, for example, the upcoming contempt of Congress vote on Attorney General Eric Holder, and another story of narrow interest.  Something having to do with health care, I think. But the big news is really in the world of sports.  It's NBA draft time!  (/sarc)

The Boston Celtics, who with a depleted roster put up a substantial challenge against the Miami Heat, have the 21st and 22nd picks in this years first round (and #51 in the second).  I'm pretty sure Danny Ainge isn't looking for my advice, but he's going to get it.  Barring a trade he's not going to come up with one of the consensus top 15 players, and of those 15 there are really only a few that would provide an instant boost.  So I'd stick with the two picks he has and try to come up with guys that can a) step into a playing role immediately off the bench, and 2) have the potential to develop into something more special.  I was never very good at indexing.  Of course, someone may fall down the board, and if that someone is Perry Jones III you grab him.  I don't think he'll fall to #21, but you never know.

Here are five players that I think meet both of those judgements. 

1. The St. Bonaventure forward Andrew Nicholson is a big guy with both a post game and a shooters touch from outside.  I'd like him to be a bit more of an athlete, but he can score inside and out and will give them instant help.  An NBA fitness program will help his explosiveness.  He may not be a star, but he can in the future be a starter.

2. One problem for the Celtics this year was that of their primary players only Rajon Rondo and Avery Bradley were sufficiently explosive off the dribble to get to the basket.  Paul Pierce does it more with footwork and guile than quickness at this point in his career.  Washington's Tony Wroten can give them that.  He's a very good ball handler, has quickness to spare, finds the open man, and can get to the basket with length.  At 6 foot 6 he's a ball handling guard that be an immediate piece of the team and can potentially be a star if he can nail down a jump shot.

3. The same goes for Moe Harkless of St. Johns.  An explosive athlete with length, he's only 19 years old and can be a star in the future.  Right now most draft boards have him going in the high teens, but if he falls just a couple of slots to 21 you've got to grab him.

4. The best shooter in the draft is John Jenkins of Vanderbilt.  It's nice to have Ray Allen draining threes when Rondo, Paul Pierce or Kevin Garnett kick the ball back out.  It's nice to have a shooter whom the defense can't leave for a second, because that's all the opening he needs.  It opens the floor for everyone else.  If you're not going to re-sign Ray Allen, then you need a John Jenkins.

5. Kevin Jones of West Virginia is simply a player.  He is a small power forward who can hit threes, can post up bigger players inside, can rebound over players with more length, is fearless, and plays hard all the time.  He's built like Dwight Howard, three inches shorter but a better shooter.  Look at the success of Kenneth Faried in Denver, and you've got Kevin Jones.

I like a few other players at #21/#22 a lot, and wouldn't be terribly disappointed if those are selected.  Quincy Miller of Baylor is a solid scorer inside and out and handles the ball like a guard at 6'9".  Festus Ezeli of Vanderbilt has good size inside, can rebound and block shots and would be a good finisher for Rondo's dishes.  Doron Lamb of Kentucky can shoot, but I worry about his ability off the dribble.

I'm not big on Royce White of Iowa State.  He's very good, but the fear of flying (NBA teams fly a lot!) and other issues worry me.  And I'm definitely not big on Fab Melo of Syracuse.  I don't think he's a good fit on a Celtics team that relies on smart basketball with quick decision making.  He doesn't have great hands, and he doesn't run the court that well.

With that #51 pick I think there should be a few available that could help.  Tennessee Tech's Kevin Murphy is a very good shooting guard.  Marquette's Darius Johnson-Odom can get to the basket with the best of them and handle the rock.  And for a sleeper how about Rakim Sanders of Fairfield, and athletic shooting guard at 6'5"?

I'll be watching tonight.

Embarassing The Media Cocoon

Here's Brian Williams informing you about the gunwalking program Fast & Furious, about which, if you had previously been relying on Mr. Williams to inform you, you might not have been aware it existed.

 

So that's it.  A little political dustup in Washington between those evil racist partisan Republicans and the noble African American Attorney General Eric Holder.  Just another example of our "broken politics.

Not exactly.  Here's Bill Whittle, in 7 pithy minutes, giving you the full story.  "A few processes under the radar" indeed.

And Jimmie at The Sundries Shack outlines it in a slightly less pithy but quite coherent version, replete with links galore.

John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog documents three instances in which Mr. Holder's testimony to Rep. Issa's committee has been, ahem, less than truthful.  Two of the items were so obviously false retractions were required.

But heck, we don't even have to go to a full-throated evil racist conservative to get the information out.  America's news source The Daily Show and Jon Stewart can do the job.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

That was a year ago.  Updating anything, Mr. Stewart?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Are you embarrassed yet, Mr. Williams?  You should by now realize that cocoons are terribly fragile.

All He Wanted Was The Headline

On the Yahoo! home page I found this headline.

U.S. debt load falling at fastest pace since 1950s

Curious, I thought.  Puzzling even.  How could that be, when every day we're hearing about the steadily rising national debt?  So I had a look at the U.S. National Debt Clock.  Sure enough, click on it every two seconds and America's debt notches upward about $100,000.  It's now less than 300 billion short of $16 trillion.  Recall that just about a year ago there was a showdown over raising the debt ceiling above the statutory limit (at the time) of $14.294 trillion.  Last time I checked, $16 trillion was nearly $2 trillion more than $14.294 trillion.  So I needed more information.  And there, in the story itself, I found the answer.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Everyone knows America has too much debt. What they don’t know is that things are getting better, not worse.

Little by little, our economy is reducing its debt burden, slowly repairing the damage caused by 10, 20 or 30 years of excess.

If you want to know why economic growth has been so tepid, here’s your answer. Four years after the storm hit, the economy is still deleveraging. And it’s very hard for any economy to grow when everyone is focused on increasing their savings.

Total domestic — public and private — debt as a share of the economy has declined for 12 quarters in a row after surging over the previous decade.

The rapid rise in federal debt over the past four years has distracted us from the big picture. The level of public debt is indeed worrisome, but it’s not as big a worry as the economy’s total level of debt — public and private...

As much as we hear politicians, pundits, tea-party patriots and the Congressional Budget Office obsessing about government debt, it was excessive private debt — not public debt — that caused the 2008 financial meltdown. And it was private debt — some of it since transferred to the public — that lies behind the current European debt crisis. (Greece is unique in having a public sector that ran up spending while its private sector is rather conservative.)

And then I took a look at the author of this MarketWatch story, and suddenly it all made sense.  It's Rex Nutting, the journalist who fed the Obama campaign the punch line that Mr. Obama has really been the stingiest of presidents in terms of growth of government spending.  He conveniently ignored the fact that the 2009 budget was held for Mr. Obama to sign by the Democrat-controlled congress, ignored that the non-stimulating 'stimulus' was wholly his and his alone, and ignoring the fact that the burst in spending was to be temporary with TARP and the 'stimulus' and should have returned to lower levels in 2010 and 2011 but didn't.  Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute took apart Mr. Nutting's central thesis without even digging in to the politics of the budgets, and there were a host of other valid critiques.

So Mr. Nutting is at it again.  It was all about the headline.  "U.S. DEBT LOWER!!!"  Huzzah!  Huzzah! Presto!  The Obama campaign, almost miraculously, has a new talking point to throw at the less-informed.  But it's private debt - the debt held by private individuals in the private economy - that's dropping.  Mr. Nutting buries the data 16 paragraphs into the story.

In the U.S., household debt has now fallen to 84% of GDP from a peak of 98%. Nonfinancial corporate debt has fallen to 77% from a peak of 83%. Financial sector debt has plunged from 123% of GDP to 89%. Public debt has risen to 89% from 56% [of GDP].

The U.S. government debt keeps climbing rapidly, and will soon approach once again a statutory debt ceiling.  Private debt, not so much.  Well, when people feel economically threatened they retrench - pay down debt, save, spend less.  Why would they be economically threatened.  Stagnant jobs, falling home equity, falling median income, soaring government debt, future entitlement debt bombs, threats of higher taxes, and continued drunken-sailor spending by our elected officials in Washington.  Not to mention soaring energy costs, an anti-business NLRB, and a regulatory regime intent on stepping on the neck of business growth.

So no, although I'm certain that Mr. Nutting's latest venture will be quoted by administration flacks as evidence of the boss's frugality, Mr. Obama doesn't get credit for falling "total" U.S. debt, except to the extent that the stagnant, low growth economy he has engineered is making people worried enough to reign in their personal debt. 

For that I'll give credit.  You betcha.

Truth In Parody

Remember this?  You may have seen it in an email previously.

Now have a look at this:

Ugh.  Where to start?

"Democracy died tonight...the end of the USA as we know it."  No, actually.  Democracy died when leftists/progressives threw a temper tantrum and fled Wisconsin rather than allow Governor Walker's reforms to be passed by the democratically elected legislature and signed into law by the democratically elected governor.  And then, having lost that irrational, tantrum-fueled battle, they decided to try to undo the legal actions of duly-elected representatives by packing the court with a sympathetic jurist ... and failed.  Then having lost the chance to have a court overturn the laws, they decided to continue the tantrum and stage recall elections, basically over a policy disagreement ... and failed.  This is not the end of the USA.  We would have been much closer to "the end of the USA as we know it" had they been successful with any of these irrational tantrums.  The way to settle policy differences is by winning a regularly scheduled election.  The problem with that approach is apparent, what with the overwhelming win by the governor due to the success of his reforms, turning a $3.6 billion deficit into a surplus without a tax increases or service cuts.

"We just got outspent $34 million to $4 million dollars."  What, we're not counting outside expenditures from, say, the unions, who poured as much as $30 million into the effort?  I'm sure this guy was disappointed in Mr. Obama outspending John McCain in 2008 too.

"If the people you see here behind me can't get it done, it's done."

Buddy, it's done.  Trust me, or just read the returns yourself.  And stop wallowing in self-pity and despair.  The "end of the USA as we know it" won't come from democratically-run elections going against you.  Instead, it'll come when the losers of such elections take to the streets to overturn them.

6/6/12 1300:  Just curious.  Does democracy look like death wishes and threats for the political foe who defeats you?  And if so, what differentiates said democracy from third world banana republic dictatorships?

The Joust The Facts "Quote Of The Day"

Comes from the Heritage Foundation discussion of tonight's State of the Union speech by President Obama.  Early on in the speech Mr. Obama proposed (yet another) jobs program.  They address this idea here.

More Job Training Programs on Top of All the Other Redundant and Ineffective Programs – David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.

Tonight, President Obama called for the federal government to engage in new job training and employment initiatives, especially for the hard to employ.

Before Congress signs off on any new initiatives, we must recognize that President Obama wants to add several new programs on top of the 47 job-training programs already operated by the federal government. Further complicating the matter, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has concluded that there is little evidence that these programs are effective.

When federal job training programs have been evaluated using random assignment to job training and control groups, these scientifically rigorous evaluations overwhelmingly find that these programs are ineffective. For example, Job Corps, the federal government’s flagship program for hard-to-employ youth, has been found to be ineffective on several measures:

• Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were less likely to earn a high school diploma (7.5 percent versus 5.3 percent);
• Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were no more likely to attend or complete college;
• Four years after participating in the evaluation, the average weekly earnings of Job Corps participants was only $22 more than the average weekly earnings of the control group; and
• Employed Job Corps participants earned $0.22 more in hourly wages compared to employed control group members.

Instead of adding new programs to an already bloated job training system, the President and Congress should stop wasting taxpayer dollars by terminating these programs.

So the President proposed a jobs program, on top of the 47 that already exist, of a type and structure that hasn't been demonstrated effective.  It sounds like a good idea superficially, if you're not paying attention, but he knows the data and proposed it anyway.  Your tax dollars at work.  Well, at least it'll create more government jobs running the program, so it's got that going for it.

The Joust The Facts "Quote Of The Day"

From Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, on this snowy New England Saturday, comes a pithy summary of the mindless ideology that pervades Obama decision-making.

His final point highlights the amazing reverse logic which seems to be in play here, once again comparing the Keystone XL project to California’s high speed rail line. In the latter, the White House is continuing to push a project which virtually nobody seemed to have wanted by tossing vast amounts of taxpayer money into a plan which seems almost predestined to fail. In the former, they are fighting tooth and nail to stop a project which would have been paid for by private investment and created jobs in states which desperately need them, costing the taxpayer nothing and resulting in a downstream flow of cash back into government coffers through increased commercial activity and employment.

What is to be gained from this general approach unless you’re actively looking to turn out the lights?

You can cue up Dandy Don Meredith from the early days of Monday Night Football at this point.

 

Win, Place, Show in NH - A Joust The Facts Endorsement

By the time this post is published the results in New Hampshire will be all but complete.  Mitt Romney wins (38% currently), followed by Ron Paul (23%), Jon Huntsman (17%), Rick Santorum/Newt Gingrich (or perhaps Newt Gingrich/Rick Santorum) (10% each).  Rick Perry seems to have fully imploded, with only 1% in the Granite State primary, though his focus has been on South Carolina.  Still, I would like to review some of the pros and cons for each of the candidates, and issue a true horserace endorsement.

Let me first stipulate that each of the remaining Republican candidates would be preferable to another four years of the stumbling imperial presidency.  From anti-constitutional recess appointments to profligate spending and ever-enlarging seas of red ink, from turning federal agencies like the EPA and IRS into the imperial storm troopers of liberal ends to agenda-driven perversions of justice, through vote-buying with taxpayer funded giveaways, the U.S. really can't afford another four years of Mr. Obama's ideological vision of America.  The candidate that is eventually chosen to face Mr. Obama simply must beat Mr. Obama.

Second, I think it is incumbent upon Republicans to come up with a candidate who articulates an inclusive and welcoming vision, but notably without embracing the divisions - race, class, gender, etc. - into which the left wishes to divide America.  The left wants social justice, and apparently that is different from rule-of-law justice.  The left wants to divide into groups then pander to each group.  The candidate needs to expand on an America that gives opportunity to all, fully, but most importantly equally as individuals.

Third, I've been awfully disappointed in the nature of the attacks on Mitt Romney lately.  Ronald Reagan and his 11th commandment are rolling over in their graves.  For a long time I was quite proud of Newt Gingrich for refusing to attack any other Republican, always focusing his attacks on the President.  If you're going to try to elevate your primary support, the argument against Mr. Romney ought to be over the Massachusetts healthcare reform as governor, and not over his work in the private sector.  Tonight Rick Perry called it "vulture capitalism."  Shameful.

I'd like to say that there is one candidate who embodies everything I'm looking for as November 2012 looms in the not terribly distant future.  There isn't.  Mr. Perry hasn't shown himself to be solid enough as a speaker, and solid enough as a debater that I would feel confident that he can compete in that biggest contest.  I think he entered the race for the wrong reasons - primarily because others thought he should.  He needed to do a lot more homework, a lot more preparation before taking this leap.

Mr. Romney's flaw is primarily that Massachusetts healthcare reform.  Recall, I'm a doctor whose office used to be in Massachusetts and is now in New Hampshire.  But I still operate in Massachusetts, and I see the problems with this law.  It is - marginally - better than ObamaCare, but the architect of Romney's is the same left-wing MIT economist that consulted with the administration and pushed ObamaCare regularly in the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine.  Mitt Romney needed to come up with a better solution to that problem than he has; he is not, as a result, the best spokesman against Mr. Obama's signature legislation.

Mr. Huntsman infuriated me by doing something I listed above as a no-no, parroting the liberal line on global warming/climate change.  "Listen to the scientists?"  Does he mean the ones shown to be committing academic malpractice in the climategate emails?  Does this mean the EPA can kill the capitalist golden goose unilaterally?  He's also a little too isolationist internationally.  Pulling all the troops home is desireable, but not at the cost of American security.  Still, he has a reasonable economic policy outline, perhaps the best one.

That said, his foreign policy views are far more conservative than Mr. Paul's.  Ron Paul may be very conservative with domestic fiscal policy, but the pure libertarianism of the rest of his package is a non-starter.  And he definitely needs a better explanation of his newsletters.  I don't think he's electable in a general election, and I'm not alone in that assessment.

Mr. Gingrich has a number of problems, not least of which is that he was effectively Palin-ized during the 1990's by the liberal media and Democrats (BIRM).  He was the "Gin-grinch" that stole Christmas, remember?    There are a lot of people that won't vote for him because they remember that false caricature.  And that loveseat shot with Nancy Pelosi discussing global warming/climate change?  Ugh.  To his credit he has renounced that previous stand.

Mr. Santorum is against big government, except when he's for it.  And unfortunately he seems to be for it mostly for social causes, which are down the list of my priorities for the next four years.  I don't like his debating style, as he begins every answer with a recitation of his credentials.  And he has been less good at attacking Mr. Obama than at attacking his Republican friends.

But you've got to go somewhere.  To win, I'll take Newt Gingrich, and hope that he's able to overcome the various albatrosses hung around his neck.  He's the sharpest debater, and with his time as speaker is very good at making the media uncomfortable when they would rather make him uncomfortable.  He'll make Mr. Obama very uncomfortable too.  To place, I'll take Mitt Romney.  ObamaCare notwithstanding, Mr. Romney is more conservative than you have been led to believe; it's reasonable to argue that much of Mr. Romney's supposedly liberal stances in the past were the actual political posturing, running as he was in Massachusetts and against Ted Kennedy.  For show, it's Jon Huntsman.  Hey, he played keyboards in a rock band growing up, you gotta like that.  But please, modify that stance on climate change to at least recognize that the Climate-gate scandals may be problematic.

You may have heard that the Union-Leader endorsed Mr. Gingrich.  Here's a snippet.

We sympathize with the many people we have heard from, both here and across the country, who remain unsure of their choice this close to the primary. It is understandable. Our nation is in peril, yet much of the attention has been focused on fluff, silliness and each candidate's minor miscues...

Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don't back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers. We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job.

Happy 2012! ... Oh, And Merry Christmas

And 'cause I missed doing my Christmas post ...

The 23rd Anniversary of Pan Am 103

December 21^st has acquired an increasing aura of ominous significance for my family and me.  In 1988 Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies by now-convicted Libyan terrorists, falling to earth in Lockerbie, Scotland and taking with it the lives of 259 people on board the plane and 11 on the ground.  One of those lives on the plane was my brother, returning from a semester overseas in London during his time at Syracuse University.

Annually on this date I have been reprinting my first post from the start of this blog, which I dedicated to my brother.  The plane disappeared from the radar screen at 7:03 PM GMT, the moment when all those lives, my brother's included, were tragically ended.  The post is timed here at 7:03 PM EST, the time when I arrived home from my residency training to discover the awful truth.  In 2005 the pain of this shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere became that much greater, when my father was taken from our family suddenly.  The irony - or possibly the design - of the two dying on the same date has not escaped our notice.  This post now contains the original first post, from September 2004 and the material I wrote about my father when, after his death, I returned to this blog.

The original first post:

My Reason for Being

There are a lot of ways this weblog could begin. I think the best is with a brief history and explanation. You see, I lost a wonderful younger brother in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I miss him every day; he would be 38 now. I recall thinking back then that the attack constituted an act of war. I couldn't believe that there wasn't the moral clarity and certitude of purpose on the part of our government to prosecute a war against those who had attacked us. That lack of moral clarity persisted through the Desert Storm war, leaving Saddam in power, through the first bombing on the World Trade Center, through the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc., etc., etc. With the devastation of the attack on 9-11 finally, at long last, all Americans would see that we may not have thought ourselves at war, but an enemy was at war with us. The same America that fought World Wars I & II would surely unite to fight against an enemy that attacked us on our home soil - but I was wrong.

Even before the first strikes in Afghanistan many, particularly in the media, were questioning the action, opining that we would find ourselves in a quagmire. With the attacks in Iraq the same voices were heard. Now, as Iraq struggles to find a footing for democracy many who in the 1990's thought Saddam needed to be ousted and, if necessary, preemptive action taken have changed their mind, simply because it's not their guy doing the ousting.

President Bush is doing exactly what needs to be done - aggressively prosecuting the GWOT. The critics note that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight against Iraqi and US soldiers - to which I answer "Good. Get more of them together, rather than chasing them to the ends of the earth." To those who think Iraq is not part of the GWOT and that we should have left Saddam in power I ask, do you really think the world would be a better place with Saddam still in power?

This is the history that has influenced me. As Senator Zell Miller said at the beginning of his speech at the Republican National Convention [link]:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

My family, and in fact all Americans, are too important to me. This blog will stray onto lesser topics regularly, my passions and interests. But it will likely always return to this vital effort.

Posted by Giacomo on 28 September 2004

Here are the Wikipedia entry on Pan Am 103 and the website for the Syracuse students.  The latter is very well done.

From my return post of December 29, 2005:

Lastly, I'd like to write briefly about my dad, who passed away eight days ago, on a professional level.  He was a remarkable physician, a cancer specialist in a way that really no cancer specialists are anymore.  He performed all manner of cancer surgery, soup to nuts, including the plastic reconstruction of any deformity created.  He guided the radiation therapy and chemotherapy for his patients.  He read their MRIs and CTs himself.  He looked at their pathology slides.  This was one-stop shopping cancer care, something that you need six or seven different doctors to provide now.  You might think that each of those six or seven physicians would be more highly informed in their particular area to optimize their portion of the care.  You would be wrong.  And you'd have to coordinate six or seven different physician offices to get anything done.

He retired four years ago, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming from his practice.  When he left, he spent the next two years staying in contact with his patients, and working with each of them to be sure they had the best follow-up care he could arrange.  That's something you don't see either.

I won't be writing here on a personal level.  That's something I did for his burial two days ago.  We miss you, Dad.  We all miss you very much.

If anyone is interested, here is the link to his obituary.

As Good An Indictment Of ObamaCare As You'll See

From The Cato Institute's Michael Tanner, in the pages of the NY Post.  He writes it from a "why should anyone trust the government" angle, but if you just focus on Obama's government healthcare takeover and want to convince yourself that that was a colossal and expensive mistake, well, read on.

For example, a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows family premiums increasing by a whopping 9% this year, three times more than the previous year’s increase. The average family policy now costs more than $15,000 per year. Not only has ObamaCare failed to slow premium growth, but at least 2 percentage points of that increase is directly attributable to the health-care law’s provisions.

ObamaCare is also already reducing our health-insurance choices. The new law has already driven a number of insurance companies out of the market, meaning there will be less competition and fewer choices. Moreover, the new law has already cut back on flexible-spending accounts used by some 30 million workers, slashing permissible contributions in half and limiting what account funds can be used to pay for. And just released regulations from HHS may well eliminate most health savings accounts, effecting another 10 million workers and their families. And, of course, once the individual mandate kicks in, in 2014, assuming its not struck down by the Supreme Court, all of us will have to purchase a government-designed insurance plan, even if it is more expensive or contains benefits that we don’t want.

We also know that ObamaCare is going to cost us more in debt and taxes. A new study from the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the subsidies in the bill will add $1.36 trillion to the national debt over the first seven years after the bill is fully implemented. And at a time when 47% of Americans already pay no income tax, the bill’s tax credits will remove as many as 8.1 million more Americans from the tax rolls.

And we know that the health-care law will slash payments to physicians and hospitals, meaning it will be more difficult for us to find and see a physician. The government’s own actuaries estimate that these payment cuts could force as many as 15% of hospitals to close.

Let's see.  Fewer doctors and hospitals (reduced access) - check.  A huge increase in the national debt - check.  Reduced freedom of choice in health care insurance options - check.  Increasing levels of income redistribution - check.  Increased costs, more even than the previous rate of increase, for those reduced options and access - check.

It's no wonder the bill is steadily more unpopular.

[T]he Kaiser Family Foundation released its October tracking poll and found that only 34% of respondents have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act, down from 41% in September. Notably, the decline was due to losing Democratic supporters, who dropped to 52% support from 65% month to month. Meanwhile, 51% of the public is opposed to the vast new government health-care entitlement, up from a prior 2011 average of 45%.

Shorter Andy Stern; Even Shorter F. A. Hayek

Mr. Stern, former head of SEIU: Central planning is good.

Mr. Hayek, economist: No, it's not.

I might remind Mr. Stern that China's 5 year plan is just that, a "plan."  Remember that Mr. Obama also had a "plan" for a boatload of "green jobs."  How's that workin' out for you?

Because They're Better Human Beings, That's Why

Seen on the wall of a Boston parking garage.

I feel, somehow, inferior.

Please, Not Valentine

The Red Sox, having stayed in house with Ben Cherington as GM, are now apparently on the verge of signing Bobby Valentine to manage the team in 2012.

That would make management 0 for 2 on the big decisions so far this offseason. Just what the team needs, a self-promoting gadfly manager who has failed everywhere else.  Yeah, know his Mets won a pennant in 2000 - and then promptly lost the Series to the Yankees.  Just what the Sox need.

11/30/11 1715: Here's MLB.com's Hot Stove gang talking about Valentine.  They seem more impressed with his accomplishments than I am, but also note that as manager "he is the show."  Self-promoting gadfly seems an apt descriptor.

The Joust The Facts "Quote Of The Day"

Coming today from the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens, on the subject of global warming climate change.

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

Deceit?  How about How about the climategate emails, versions 1.0 and 2.0?   Arrogance?  How about Phil Jones of East Anglia University and Michael Mann of Penn State?  Money?  How about James Hansen of NASA?  Power, politics?  How about the oracle himself, Al Gore?

Speaking of Mr. Gore, there is a legal aphorism that at least this site attributes to him:

When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law or the facts are on your side, hollar.

Given that Al Gore has been doing a lot more "hollaring" than arguing, perhaps the laws (of science) and the facts are not really on his side.

Exit Question:  Will Jon Huntsman need to "revise and extend" his own remarks on the topic?

HUNTSMAN: Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science.

Politicians govern by concensus.  Scientists don't.

Don't Know Much Geography ... Or College Sports, Either

At Yahoo! Sports, in a feature blog called "The Post Game," writer Max Thompson smugly makes fun of ESPN for putting up an image of Minnesota during a story on Wisconson athletes Ryan Braun of the Milwaukee Brewers and the Green Bay Packers stellar quarterback Aaron Rodgers.  I borrowed the picture and show it below.

Okay, so a geography-challenged intern in the ESPN graphics department put up the wrong state image.  That's bad.  You know what's also bad?  When the smug writer who makes fun of it goofs up in the same post. 

"Wisconsin hockey is ranked #1 in the nation."  Err, no.   Teams that are currently 5-8-1 overall do not get ranked #1.  In fact, in the most recent USCHO poll not only are the Badgers not in the top 20, they're not even listed as "also receiving votes."  The honor, #1 in the nation, goes to Coach Mark Dennehy's mighty Merrimack College Warriors, of North Andover, Massachusetts.

If you're going to poke fun at ESPN, you'd better make sure you don't have any glaring, easily refudiatable* errors of your own.

*refudiatable -- I did that intentionally.

11/25/11 1305: You know, I knew I should have grabbed a screen-cap.  Check out the story now and the reference to the Badgers as #1 in hockey is gone.  Vanished into the internet memory hole, with no inkling of the prior error.  Here it is below as it now stands.  The reference to Badger hockey used to reside in the first paragraph.

Fisking Frum: A Multitude Of Non Sequiturs

David Frum, ostensibly a Republican, asks in New York Magazine "When did the GOP lose touch with reality?"  Judging by his composition it's a fair question to turn back on the inquisitor.

He starts out by trying to emphasize his Republican street cred.

I’ve been a Republican all my adult life. I have worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, at Forbes magazine, at the Manhattan and American Enterprise Institutes, as a speechwriter in the George W. Bush administration. I believe in free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation, and limited government. I voted for John ­McCain in 2008, and I have strongly criticized the major policy decisions of the Obama administration.

Believes in free markets?  Check.  Low Taxes?  Check.  "Reasonable" regulation.  Well, one man's reasonble is another man's unreasonable.  Let's just file this one under "less regulation than Mr. Obama wants" and move on.  Limited government?  Check.  Voted for McCain in '08?  Given the other choice you'd kind of have to, so check.  Criticized the major policy decisions of the Obama administration?  Haven't we all, Mr. Frum.

So it's all good.  Until we hit the next paragraph.

America desperately needs a responsible and compassionate alternative to the Obama administration’s path of bigger government at higher cost. And yet: This past summer, the GOP nearly forced America to the verge of default just to score a point in a budget debate. In the throes of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, Republican politicians demand massive budget cuts and shrug off the concerns of the unemployed. In the face of evidence of dwindling upward mobility and long-stagnating middle-class wages, my party’s economic ideas sometimes seem to have shrunk to just one: more tax cuts for the very highest earners.

Let's take these one at a time, and see how the square with his assertions of his limited government/low tax/free market declarations.  First up: "the GOP nearly forced America to the verge of default just to score a point in a budget debate."  The GOP did nothing of the kind.  What the GOP did do was to insist on substantial budget cuts (limited government) and no tax increases (low tax) in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling.  Mr. Obama, on the other hand, wanted a blank check.  He was looking for a way to avoid any spending cuts while raising taxes on the upper earners - which analyses have shown is not enough to pay for such spending anyway, and which Mr. Obama himself admitted is the wrong medicine in a sluggish economy.

Next we have this: "In the throes of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, Republican politicians demand massive budget cuts and shrug off the concerns of the unemployed."  Okay, I think we're in agreement about the economy.  Where your reality testing is suspect, Mr. Frum, is in what follows that generally supportable statement.  Republican politicians have never demanded "massive budget cuts," only a reduction in the growth of future spending.  You've fallen into the baseline budgeting trap.  "Massive cuts" to beltway insiders and liberal journalists means decreasing the rate of growth of government spending from 10% to 4%.  To those of us in the real world that's a 4% increase in spending that would be a lot more affordable and reasonable than 10%.

I'm also concerned that you think Republicans "shrug off concerns of the unemployed".  I suspect you are referring to those politicians resisting the call to provide endlessly flowing unemployment benefits.  Already they've been extended to nearly 2 years, and Republicans are cruel to want to stop them there?  Studies show that extending unemployment benefits extends unemployment.  Or perhaps you're referring to the Republicans' insistance that Democrats who want this live by their "pay-go" standard and cut spending elsewhere to fund it.  Or maybe you're living in pure fantasy land, and you believe, as apparently the president does, that extending unemployment benefits "creates jobs."  Regardless, this is not "shrugging off concerns of the unemployed," and putting it that way is pure demagoguery of the sort I'd expect from Sen. Harry Reid, among others.

Let's move to your final preposterous assertion in that section, that Republicans simply want "more tax cuts for the very highest earners."  Aside from presidential candidates and their proposals for various flat, flatter, and flattest tax reforms (which would help the struggling private economy, many believe), is there anyone in Congress who has proposed cutting only the top marginal rate?  By the way, if you're going to suggest that preventing the rates from rising with expiration of the Bush cuts is a cut in marginal rates then you misunderstand the concept.  That is preventing an increase, not pushing for a cut.  Let's assume you really are for "low taxes," as you state.  Then wouldn't blocking a tax increase be desireable?

But there are more puzzling assertions in this essay.

It was not so long ago that Texas governor Bush denounced attempts to cut the earned-income tax credit as “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.” By 2011, Republican commentators were noisily complaining that the poorer half of society are “lucky duckies” because the EITC offsets their federal tax obligations—or because the recession had left them with such meager incomes that they had no tax to pay in the first place. In 2000, candidate Bush routinely invoked “churches, synagogues, and mosques.” By 2010, prominent Republicans were denouncing the construction of a mosque in lower Manhattan as an outrageous insult. In 2003, President Bush and a Republican majority in Congress enacted a new ­prescription-drug program in Medicare. By 2011, all but four Republicans in the House and five in the Senate were voting to withdraw the Medicare guarantee from everybody under age 55.

I'll have to move swiftly though this miasma, in order not to bore the readers, but this is nonsense.

• The push to reform Medicare (by making it a grant program to buy insurance rather than a government provided insurance benefit) shows allegiance to private enterprise, to individual freedom of choice, but mostly to the principle of fixing future problems before they are unfixable.  Medicare's future unfunded liability is nearly $100 Trillion.  That's Trillion, with a T.  Those under 55 are ten years away from qualifying for Medicare.  Ten years. 
• The mosque in "lower Manhattan" was to be 2 blocks from Ground Zero of the 9-11 attacks, an understandably sensitive location.  Rather than an example of Americans being insensitive to Muslim sensibilities, it is instead an example of Muslims being insensitive to non-Muslim sensibilities.
• And Democrats (among others) have now so bastardized and warped the tax code that half of Americans pay no federal income tax.  That's not good for America, and in particular it's not good, for those who want a growing and vibrant economy, to stifle those who would provide jobs and economic growth with a steadily heavier burden of taxation.  You know what's at the end of the road of steadily more progressive taxation, don't you?

So Mr. Frum, what we have here is a non sequitur.  You assert that you want limited governnment, less regulation, low taxes and that you oppose Mr. Obama's policies.  Your objections show us, however, that you don't really want those things.  You ask in this article whether you're crazy.  You're not.  You are, however, deluding yourself if you think that Republicans should and will support Democrat, or even Democrat-lite policies of centralized control, bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation and balkanization, all of which stifle economic growth and freedom.

The question isn't "when did the GOP lose touch with reality?"  The question, Mr. Frum, is when did you become a Democrat?

*no time now, I hope to be adding some links later for reference.

11/21/11 2020: A ha!  I got the links added - and a few grammatical corrections as well.

One Reason Why Your Health Insurance Costs So Much

A little anecdote that may help explain some of the escalation in insurance premiums that people are about to find as year end approaches  - for reasons other than the colossally intrusive and costly ObamaCare.

I saw a patient in the office a couple of weeks ago.  A gentleman in his 40's, he had twisted his knee two months earlier and since had been bothered by knee swelling, pain along the joint line medially (the inside part of the knee), and a catching sensation which cause his knee to buckle when it occurred.  He was unable to squat or kneel.  I examined him after taking the history, finding an effusion in the knee (the swelling), sharply positive provocative testing for a meniscus tear (the McMurray and snap tests), and prominent joint line tenderness directly over the meniscus.  Plain x-rays showed no degenerative changes.  And there's one other thing.  This patient had a very similar problem with the other knee four years ago, and I had arthroscoped that knee removing a torn medial meniscus with an excellent outcome.

So, clearly, this man had a symptomatic torn meniscus, with most probably an unstable flap tear (producing that catching/buckling sensation).  This is about the most clearcut, obvious presentation you could have.  He had had symptoms for two months, and anti-inflammatories had not helped.  I, quite appropriately, suggested arthroscopic surgery to resect the torn meniscus.  I've examined thousands of knees, and I had seen this many times before.  Based on the plethora of findings given above I didn't need an MRI of this knee to confirm the diagnosis.  I thought that was what the insurance company wanted, to save money by eliminating unnecessary testing.  I was wrong.

The insurance company, a large HMO, refused to approve the surgery until the patient had an MRI to verify what I knew to be true.  I didn't need one, I told them, but they insisted. The patient had the MRI, and of course it demonstrated the torn meniscus.  We'll be going ahead with the surgery soon.

Trust the doctor?  Not on your life.  No, instead we need an expensive diagnostic study read by a radiologist who hasn't examined the patient, increasing the cost of care on this one patient.  Now picture thousands of orthopaedic surgeons and hundreds of thousands of patients annually having the insurance company second-guessing the experienced surgeon.  By the way, my practice has our own MRI, and I still tried not to use it.

I tried to save some health care dollars.  I really tried.  But the insurance company wouldn't let me.

You think this is bad?  Wait until I tell you about PT for rotator cuff tears.

Is Congress Is Authorized To Do This?

Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard notices MSNBC's Martin Bashir calling on Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to either raise taxes on the "wealthiest" Americans or resign.  That's ridiculous enough, but I noticed another problem or two.  Martin Bashir is, as he proves in the transcript, both economically and politically ignorant.  First economics:

So here’s a message to the House leadership, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Mr. Cantor. 68 percent of Americans and 68 percent of all millionaires believe that it’s time to raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals so that this nation’s economy can start moving again.

"Raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals so that this nation's economy can start moving again?"  And that's going to jump start the economy and spur hiring how?  Do I need to cite the long list of economists, Republicans, and yes, Democrats who have chimed in that it's not a good idea to raise taxes in a down economy?  I could start with the President himself.

But that's only the warm-up act.  Referring to Congress, Mr. Bashir asks:

But honestly, what have they done? What have they done to address the persistently high level of unemployment? What have they done to reduce the vast gulf between the haves and the have-nots in America.

Is that the job of Congress?  To "reduce the vast gulf between the haves and the have-nots in America?"  Can anyone tell me where the Constitution authorizes the Legislative branch to intervene in that way?  Heck, does the Constitution authorize any branch of government to equalize economic results among the people?

I'm not going to belabor the point.  It's simply a shame that he's in a position to influence the debate on TV.

Oh, wait, sorry, he really isn't.  He's on MSNBC.

These OWS Jokes Practically Write Themselves

I've been watching with amusement the preposterous, unhelpful and ill-informed protests known as OWS, "Occupy Wall Street" as it were.  There are "Occupy" protests in other cities, including our own Boston locally, as well as Toronto, Oakland, Sydney, LA and a host of others.  Most are comprised of a relative few individuals, who claim, without justification, to represent the "99%", as in the 99% who aren't among the top 1% of annual income in the nation.

Every day there's another howler coming out of the movement.  We'll go randomly through a few of the amusing and occasionally disturbing vignettes.

Both Ace of Spades and James Taranto today wrote about the discovery that if you appear to be giving out free food (or anything else, really, for free), freeloaders will want to partake.  Imagine that.  OWS is slapped with the realization that resentment and a feeling of being abused can result from someone usurping your property rights and taking your stuff.  From Taranto a serious take:

In truth, the Obamavillians are learning why Obama is wrong--why socialism doesn't work. A society that makes a virtue of dependency ultimately encourages freeloading and grifting. The instinct to prevent it is a healthy one. A lot has been written about the similarities and differences between Obamaville and the Tea Party, and here is one: Whereas the latter arose out of the instinct to reward self-reliance and discourage dependency, the former is having it awakened by an encounter with the real world.

Ace's more humorous look at the dustup:

Yeah,what right do the homeless and prisoners have to represent themselves as society's downtrodden. Impostors! They're not oppressed like the college graduates with too much debt from pricey private colleges!...

Amazing... they don't want to share their own stuff with people they don't have any particular common bonds with. And they're resentful of Other people coming in and acting like they have the right to take their stuff...

But note within their little society, they themselves set up a hierarchy "those who belong" and "losers and derelicts we wish to exclude."

Do they not get that that's what they are to us?

Here Ace explains why money exists, a concept seemingly foreign to the occupiers.  Short answer: it's a medium of exchange for items of value.

I think you guys (again, the guys in this video) are working for the same reason as Peter Schiff: Money. Which is, in turn, simply a convenient unit of exchange for the most precious commodity in the world: Time.

When you buy a loaf of bread, you are giving up some of your time, in the convenient unit of exchange called money, by which you were paid for your time, for someone else's time.

This is why virtually everybody works.

And have you heard about the drummers?  The percussionists threatened to disrupt the occupation, as if identifying disruption were possible in such a ragtag organization.

The drummers’ refusal to be silenced has opened cracks in the leaderless movement. The general assembly that has formed to oversee the protests proposed to limit the drumming to two hours per day, but the drummers fought back.

Ah, but those cracks were healed when an historic accord was reached.

The Heritage Foundation took a conservative's look at what are, as best as anyone can tell, the demands of the occupiers.  Hijinks ensue.  Here's a snippet, with Demand #9 and parts of its response, but the whole piece is worth a read.

9: Passage of a comprehensive job and job-training act like the American Jobs Act to employ our citizens in jobs that are available with specialized training and by putting People to work now by repairing America’s crumbling infrastructure. We also recommend the establishment of an online international job exchange to match employers with skilled workers or employers willing to train workers in 21st century skills.

James Sherk, Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics at the Center for Data Analysis:

Public works projects will not reduce unemployment. Government spending does not create new wealth in the economy, it reallocates existing spending. Some workers get jobs on the public works project, at the expense of jobs that do not get created elsewhere in the economy...

Sadly, government job training programs also do not live up to their hype...  The government has not learned how to do effective job training. Fortunately, OWS do not have to wait for the government to act. Private sector online job exchanges like Monster.com already match millions of employers with workers every year.

Read the whole list of demands.  It's a giant Marxist wish-list.  I particularly like the demand for student loan relief.  Hey, no one held a gun to your head forcing you to go $150k in debt for your degree in primitive cultures, why should others be forced to pay it off for you?  I paid off my student loans, you pay off yours.  You know what else?  My wealthiest friend started out owning a gas station and working construction jobs.  Figure it out.

Finally, perhaps the most unintentinally amusing comment on the OWS protests comes from Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, who claims, with curious pride, that

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,”

"Intellectual foundation."  You keep using those words.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

On The Death Of A Dictator: "It Couldn't Happen To A More Deserving Guy"

The rebel/revolutionary forces in Libya and the NATO forces still fighting there have gotten their man.  Ghadafi is - finally and thankfully - dead.  As long-time readers of this blog no doubt know, my brother was one of the 270 who lost their lives when Pan Am 103 was blown from the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb that originated with Libyan terrorists.  Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was the Libyan agent convicted in the bombing, and unfortunately, at more than two years after he was given "three months to live" with prostate cancer and given "compassionate release" he remains alive in Libya.  But the man who gave the order, the long-time dictator in Libya, is dead.

Thousands of Libyans poured on to the streets of the capital on Thursday, ecstatic at the news that Muammar Gaddafi had been killed in his birthplace of Sirt. As depicted in several cellphone video images, it was a violent and gruesome death for a man who had ruled this country with an iron fist for 42 years.

Like I wrote, it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

After an hour and a half of unconfirmed reports, the news came on at about 3.30 p.m. that Gaddafi was indeed dead. Footage on Al Jazeera Television, showed a bloodied Gaddafi being dragged by his arms on the street toward a vehicle. Images also showed Gaddafi's body, apparently killed in gunfire, his eyes rolled back lifeless. In the lobby of the Radisson Blu Hotel, where many rebel officials, as well as foreign journalists, have been based for weeks, many Libyans doubled over, weeping, overcome with emotion.

Many of the family members of the victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing are emotional as well.

Hussein.  Ghadafi.  Castro.  Chavez.  Jong-Il.  Dictators, particularly the murderous ones, can survive a long time.  When they are gone they are not mourned by their people (unless, as in North Korea after the death of Kim Il-Sung they are forced to by the next dictator).  Rather, their deaths are celebrated.  They are only mourned by those who romanticize the ideals of their supposedly idyllic society while refusing to see the terror, fear, oppression, want and hatred that lies just beneath a false veneer of majesty.

Here's my first December 21st post, from back in 2004, on the occasion of the 16th anniversary of Pan Am 103.   An excerpt:

Sixteen years ago today Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies over Lockerbie Scotland, taking with it as it fell the lives of 259 passengers and 11 Scots on the ground.  One of the passengers was my brother.  I will be annually reposting my first post on this date, in memory of my brother.  He was 22.  I can think of nothing more vital in this world than defeating the terrorists so that other families will not have to go through what my family, and the other families of the Pan AM 103 victims, have gone through.

As Fenway Turns ...

By now everyone knows about the fried chicken and beer allegations, among other clubhouse issues.  In fact, the Boston Globe published "before and after" pictures asking readers their opinion of which players weren't exactly taking their committment to game-readiness seriously enough.  Now Manager Tito Francona is gone, followed by several kick-him-on-the-way-out the door leaks and comments, and GM Theo Epstein likely isn't far behind.  Epstein, in particular, has been lousy at putting the pieces in place recently, as the acquisitions - for really big money - of John Lackey, Carl Crawford and Bobby Jenks have demonstrated.  So the Cubs want Theo?  Great.  Grab a couple of good prospects and send him on his way.

The Red Sox seem to want Assistant GM Ben Cherington to take over for Epstein.  The only way that works for me is if there is a "director of baseball operations" installed above him.  Cherington has been with the team since 1999, and the minor league system is virtually barren of high-level talent.  How'd it get that way, Ben?  The players that come up from the minors don't seem to be "big league ready" when they arrive, often making several trips between Pawtucket and Boston before sticking.  Why is that, Ben?  If he can answer those questions, and then answer how he plans to turn those problems around, then maybe you promote him.  But I'd rather tap into an organization who successfully comes up with big league levels of talent who arrive ready to contribute.  Like Tampa, St. Louis, Minnesota for example.  You cannot simply follow a "plug in high-priced free agent A" mentality unless you want your disappointments to also bankrupt you.

As for player movement, I stand by most of my assessments, but I think there will be value in breaking up the Lackey-Beckett influence in the clubhouse.  Beckett will be the easiest to trade; Lackey will make you eat millions if you want to move him.  But one of them has to go, and you'll want at least two, preferably three, good young arms in return for a Beckett if that happens.  I'd like to move Kevin Youkilis, who likely could bring more good young talent.  I would bring back Ortiz - YMMV.  The core - Pedroia, Ellsbury, Gonzalez, Crawford, Ortiz, Lester, Bucholz  - are keepers (in Crawford's case you're forced to make it work).  You'll need Bard and Papelbon, and you need a manager who can use them right.  Give Reddick or Kalish a shot in right field; fill the hole at third if Youkilis is traded, and at catcher if you don't think Saltalamacchia and Lavarnway are enough, and rework the bench with solid pros with character.  If you can't find those guys then your major league scouting isn't doing its job either.

I would be surprised if next year's team threatens championship.   They'll be above .500, and that won't be great, but erasing and building will not be simple.  The sensible time frame should be 2013 and 2014 - the core players will still be young and productive, and the bad taste from this years calamity will have been diluted by time.

Not The 99%

Without further comment, a photo I got in an email today.  If anyone knows the source, let me know.

Democratic Activist Hijinks And Bank Of America

I caught a bit of this in the OR lounge on Friday morning.

Wow.  150,000 people signed the petition?  Wow.  And this 22 year-old woman with two part-time jobs started the ball rolling.  Unbelievable.  Wow.  Bank of America must be shaking in their boots at this huge grassroots movement.  Wow.

ABC News ran with it:

Molly Katchpole launched a petition against Bank of America, which was signed by more than 131,000 customers and counting, saying she would take her business elsewhere unless the company drops its plan to charge $5 for debit card purchases.

Yahoo:

Katchpole closed her accounts, cut up her debit and credit card on the sidewalk, and left with $400 cash she says she intends to deposit in a credit union.

And MSNBC was, of course, all over it:

WASHINGTON -- Molly Katchpole has had it with Bank of America.

The 22-year-old cleared out her account, and cut up her debit card after the bank decided to charge customers five dollars a month just to use their debit card.

She's so mad that she started a petition to let the bank know the charge goes too far. In just one week, she's collected 150,000 signatures.

The President has gone after the bank, apparently of the opinion that he should be able to determine their business viability:

For his part, President Barack Obama said consumers were being "mistreated" by the bank.

"You can stop it because if you say to the banks, 'You don't have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of profit, if your customers are being mistreated, that you have to treat them fairly and transparently,'" he told ABC News.

Sen. Dick Durbin, whose amendment to Dodd-Frank caused Bank of America, among others, to consider this fee, also had his say:

"Bank of America customers, vote with your feet," Durbin urged in outraged reaction to the new "service charge."

"Get the heck out of that bank," Durbin exhorted. "They are overcharging their customers even for this new debit card reform. It is hard to believe that a bank would impose [such a fee] on customers who simply are trying to access their own money on deposit at the Bank of America."

Mr. Durbin mentions that Bank of America received bailout funds (conveniently omitting the forced assumption of the debt of the failing Countrywide Mortgage, Senator Dodd's lender of choice, and Merrill Lynch, preventing Merrrill from Lehman's fate).  And Molly Katchpole, she's just an innocent 22 year old trying to earn a living at two part-time jobs.  As sympathetic figure as you'll find.  Just a young kid struggling to make ends meet.  Well, maybe not.

Here's her LinkedIn profile. 

Molly Katchpole's Summary

Newly graduated gal looking to ruffle some feathers, change minds, and have great conversations with fellow professionals in labor and progressive politics advocacy. [emphasis mine]

Specialties

Persuasive writing and speaking, social media, leadership, research - labor and progressive politics, art and architectural history.

"Labor and progressive politics advocacy?"  Whoa.  She lists her employment as "Account Manager at Winning Over Washington".  So I went and had a look at Winning Over Washington (WOW) to see just what they're up to.  Turns out WOW is a communications and public relations firm.  The list of clients?  SEIU, NEA, AFL-CIO, Democratic National Committee, Democratic Governors Association, EMILY's List.  You know, the usual broad spectrum of interests, from far left to farther left.  Wow, indeed.

So Ms. Katchpole is an account manager at a far-left PR firm.  A firm which might well be interested in demonizing banks in order to deflect blame from the failed policies of a Democratic administration, perhaps?  Here's another website where she lists her job as: online organizing for progressive politics.

Now that took me almost no time at all.  Wouldn't it seem that CNN, MSNBC, and the others that ran with this story could take a second to find out that this grassroots movement is the finest quality astroturf that money can buy rather than presenting it absent that important context?

Bank of America employs thousands and thousands of people.  The cash they earn is how they pay those individuals.  Or are we not all about jobs anymore?  Oh, and about that $5 monthly fee.  If you find that charge outrageous, then individually close your account and move it to a community bank or credit union.  But remember, it's the equivalent of a monthly grande skinny vanilla latte with an extra shot.  I'm fairly certain Ms. Katchpole knows that as well.

You Mean Like ObamaCare And Higher Government Debt?

From the Obama re-election campaign's new attack on the Republican frontrunners:

President Obama’s re-election campaign argues in a memo set to be released this morning that Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney — the two frontrunners for the Republican nomination — have “embraced policies that the American people oppose” on Social Security and immigration.

For example, most Americans, by 63-27, opposed raising the debt ceiling this summer.  Yet not only did Mr. Obama want it raised, he wanted it raised enough that it wouldn't need to be re-visited before the November 2012 elections.

And in the case of health care reform, the polls were roughly 55-35 against just at the time it was passed and signed - "against the will of the American people," as it were.  And it continues to be unpopular.

There are, of course, other examples.  But logical consistency has never been Mr. Obama's strong suit.

Ed Morrissey shows that even on Social Security and Immigration Mr. Obama is out of the mainstream himself.

Francona's Gone, Now What?

I liked Tito Francona as a person, and I think he did a fairly good job during his eight seasons of presiding over a happy clubhouse.  He made only a few questionable decisions in terms of offensive game strategy.  But, as I stated in my earlier post, I repeatedly had to scratch my head over his management of pitchers.  His best he overworked, and his lesser pitchers he too often gave up on.  And, from what I'm hearing, the team had conditioning issues.  Hey, you're a professional athlete, this shouldn't happen.  But, as it turns out, if it does it's something that Francona has to correct.  And he didn't.

Ah, water under the bridge.  He's out, so now the team is shopping for a manager.  And they've got a boatload of decisions to make in player personnel  Hopefully the problems don't stem from some of the high priced talent to whom they have committed millions.

Here's one man's take on what the Sox need to do in the off-season, and what they need to do going forward.

Manager:  Ryne Sandberg, a Hall of Famer, managed the Phillies AAA team this past season.  He'd walk into the clubhouse with the immediate respect of the players, and the ability to look them in the eye and get them to listen.  He'd likely be able to handle the Boston Fishbowl as well as Francona did.  Is he the best guy for the job?  I think a bench coach or pitching coach from a team with strong pitching and fundamentals could be a very good choice, possibly Dave Martinez from Tampa, and there are others.  But Sandberg's resume might just get to some of the individuals that Francona couldn't reach.  I don't see DeMarlo Hale being the guy as he was in the management this year.

Outfield:  You won't have JD Drew to kick around anymore - his $14M contract expires this year.  He's 35, and no one in their right mind will offer him another big deal.  Jacoby Ellsbury is in his arbitration years, and obviously you keep him.  And you are stuck with Carl Crawford, who you can only hope will be much more comfortable, and much better, next year.  There's no downside to giving Josh Reddick first shot at right field.  He's a good fielder who had stretches where he was very dangerous at the plate.  Like a lot of young players he was inconsistent, but experience often fixes that problem.  Another young guy, Ryan Kalish, showed a lot in 2010 then spent the year disabled after injuring a shoulder.  He might be a contributor, but you can't count on him as a pencil-him-in starter.  You need one or two more solid outfielders.

Infield:  With Dustin Pedroia and Adrian Gonzalez the right side is set.  Kevin Youkilis was supposed to be your third baseman, but played injured much of the year before he couldn't even play injured anymore.  He should be back healthy, but he's 32 and does have an injury tendency, particularly since he gets hit by so many pitches.  Marco Scutaro played very well the last 2 months, one of the few who did, but is 35.  Jose Iglesias in the minors might make the jump up.  But if you're going to make something big happen, third and short are the probable locations.  Youkilis in particular might bring you some frontline pitching.

DH:  Re-sign David Ortiz, two or three years.  Yes, he's 35 and fell off in September.  So did a lot of Sox.

Catcher:  Not sure what to make of Ryan Lavarnway and Jarrod Saltalamacchia.  On the one hand, both have pop, and seemed to be able to handle pitching fairly well.  On the other hand, this staff struggled, and some of the guys who struggled this year didn't when Jason Varitek was the everyday catcher.  And neither hits consistently, particularly Saltalamacchia, who was awful at the plate in the last month.  Of the two I like Lavarnway just a hair better.  This is another place to look for help, like the Yankees did last year with Russell Martin.

Starting Pitching:  You've got Josh Beckett signed at $17M per through 2014.  You've got Jon Lester signed for two more years at $7.6M/$11.6M.  Clay Bucholz should be very healthy next year and is signed through 2015 fairly cheap.  You've got John Lackey, unfortunately, signed through 2014 at just under $16M per.  You have the option on Andrew Miller - pick it up.  Tim Wakefield will be 46 next year, but he's Phil Niekro and comes cheap.  Go ahead and keep him, he's a character guy in the clubhouse.  Daisuke Matsuzaka is coming off elbow reconstruction, and was struggling even before getting hurt.  Doubtful he can help.  If you can get another starter who can help you for reasonable money, pick one up.  If you're looking to trade other clubs will start by asking for Bucholz and Lester.  Don't do it.  Exit question: do you try to re-sign Erik Bedard?  He's been pretty good in the past, hasn't he?  Not recently, though.

Bullpen:  This one is tough.  Given how solid Jonathan Papelbon was this year you really have to try to re-sign him.  Daniel Bard ranged from shaky to horrid the last month, but I blame that on overuse.  However, both of these gentlemen need to learn how to get opposing players out with another pitch in addition to their fastball.  They both throw relatively flat fastballs at 96 (JP) and 98(DB).  One of the reasons Mariano Rivera, like Bruce Sutter before him, is so successful is because his primary pitch, the cutter, moves and is often not in the strike zone by the time the batter swings.  If these two fireballers are going to go with the heat they'd better get command of it.  Alfredo Aceves proved he belongs and his enormous flexibility makes the entire bullpen better.  He's in arbitration.   Franklin Morales has got a pretty good arm, and showed flashes.  Felix Doubront could be another lefty starter, but he's also shown he can help in the pen.  Scott Atchison is useful and cheap.  He takes the ball when you give it to him.  And you'll need to make decisions on Dan Wheeler and Matt Albers.  Albers is five years younger.  I think both were hurt by Francona's use, and might be better with more direction and purpose.  On the other hand, maybe not.  The whole group, however, could benefit from Ray Miller's advice: Work Fast, Change Speeds, Throw Strikes.

Bench:  I liked what I saw from Mike Aviles, who plays with attitude and intensity.  Jed Lowrie is a switch hitter who can play third, short and second.  That helps, but stop flirting with him as a starter.  Conor Jackson can play first or the outfield and is a right handed bat.  But you might be able to upgrade on several fronts here.  This group could use some veteran help.

Trade Bait:  Gosh I wish Lars Anderson had just torn it up at every level - you could have saved the money on Adrian Gonzalez.  But he didn't, and there's no room for him at the inn.  Michael Bowden hasn't shown much more than a good arm.  Too many of his pitches are in the middle of the plate.  He needs to learn command of the strike zone.  Perhaps somewhere else.  And there isn't much else at the major league level.

Drafting & Minors:  There's something rotten in Denmark, or rather in Pawtucket, Portland, Salem, Greenville and Lowell.  For all of the "great" drafts that Peter Gammons think the Red Sox have, they have managed to come up nearly empty with what's left of them in the minors.  Jose Iglesias, with his three tools.  Possibly Will Middlebrooks, a third baseman in AA Portland last year (.302, 18 HR).  Bryce Brentz is probably a little further away.  The first pick this year was a very good college pitcher, Matt Barnes.  And why do the pitchers seem to come up unprepared for the majors, and repeatedly have to be sent back down?  Tampa keeps running out pitchers they developed, and they show up ready to throw aspirin tablets and "ungodly breaking stuff."  Does the pitcher development need an overhaul?  How about scouting?

Well, that's about it.  Hope I haven't forgotten anyone.  I might have one more of these posts looking at the free-agent pool when it's a bit more certain.  There's plenty above to like, if you're the incoming manager.  Fitness and attitude need some work, and the pitching deck needs to be re-ordered.

Sources: Salaries Roster

Someone Else Notices Mr. Obama And The Flat Tax

Stephen Moore in the Wall Street Journal, today, echoing my post from September 23: "Flat Is The New Fair"

'Suddenly, liberal Democrats are making the same argument about the tax code that I've been making for 20 years," laughs former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey. "Welcome to the party." Mr. Armey, who along with Steve Forbes has been the torch bearer for the flat tax since the early 1990s, believes that the latest applause line from President Obama that "billionaires should pay the same tax rate as janitors" may be the political gateway to sweeping tax reform.

Mr. Forbes sees an opening here too and says: "The flat tax is the perfect issue for these times. It fixes the economy and doesn't cost a dime."

Mr. Moore outlines the essentials of a flat tax.  A single rate.  A carve out for the first $30,000-$40,000 of family income.  And few if any deductions, limiting how low you can go on what you owe.

That's why the flat tax is the fairest tax of all. The combination of a single tax rate with a family-size allowance—shielding, say, the first $35,000 of income for a family of four—ensures that everyone would pay the same marginal tax rate above that level. A family of four with an income of $70,000 would pay an average tax rate of about 8.5%, whereas the members of the Buffett billionaire club would pay 17%...

"I keep waiting for a Republican candidate to take the plunge," says a half-frustrated Steve Forbes. Then he adds one more flat tax selling point: "You know it ends all this crony capitalism in Washington. From now on, if Obama invites you to the White House, you'd know it's because he really loves you."

Republican candidates are shy to "take the plunge" because they can see the false demagoguery of "tax cuts for the rich" a mile away, and they don't want to walk down that road.  But at least if one does they can use Mr. Obama's own words to sell the idea, on the principle that "billionaires should pay the same tax rate as janitors."

There's Plenty Of Blame To Go Around, Red Sox

But I'm going to start with the one guy who hasn't gotten as much of it as he should, at least not for what I blame him.

I blame Terry Francona.  No, not exclusively.  There are others who will need to look in the mirror.

You definitely have to give GM Theo Epstein a healthy portion, particularly for the woefully inexplicable signing for way-too-much-money of John Lackey.  You could add Carl Crawford to that, but in looking at his detailed stats, there is reason to believe he'll be better in at least a few of his years to come.  Not $20 million worth better, but better.

And Theo Epstein gets the blame for a minor league system which, right now, has one and only one player who may make an impact at the major league level next year, shortstop Jose Iglesias.  He's not much of a hitter, but has speed and great defensive skills. Three out of five tools.  Lefty hurler Felix Doubront will likely be a contributor, but he's spent as much time at the major league level in the last two years as he has in the minors so I'm not counting him.  Other than that, the cupboard is full of Single A potential and AA and AAA struggles.

The players didn't perform, so the easy thing to do is to speculate on the mental makeup of the individuals who failed.  Was the tailoff in Adrian Gonzalez production due to fatigue, stress of the race or injury?  Was Jarrod Saltalamacchia, he of the lengthy last name, a fair hitting catcher with occasional power, or did pressure and focused pitching turn him into a non-hitting catcher?  Sure they lost Kevin Youkilis to injury, and that sucked a 5 hole hitter from the lineup, one who could protect David Ortiz, but Youkilis wasn't tearing it up even before his season ended.  Neither Josh Beckett nor Jon Lester, purported to be TweedleDum and TweedleDee as staff aces, performed like aces in the last month of the season.  The Sox needed those aces to be solid every start.  They weren't.

But I blame Francona.  I watched him mismanage his pitching staff all year, and I grumbled about it repeatedly to those willing to listen.  Remember, he managed a team with a relatively set lineup and an everyday DH.  There were very few interleague games requiring double switches and hitting for the pitcher.  No, his job was to manage the pitching staff.  And he did a lousy job.

He pulled pitchers who were pitching well too early; he allowed others to struggle when they weren't.  He had no faith in anyone in the bullpen not named Aceves, Bard or Papelbon, largely because he didn't allow anyone else to build confidence during the successful summer months so they'd be ready when the September crunch came.  The two or three members of the bullpen who had been reasonably successful elsewhere weren't allowed to be successful here.

Dan Wheeler.  He spent the previous three years in Tampa succeeding in the bullpen.  About 67 appearances each year, ERA around 3.20, and far fewer hits than innings pitched.  Not great, but solid, dependable.  This year he was used only when the Sox were either far ahead or far behind, and only 47 times overall.  And he wasn't reliable when Francona needed him to be reliable.

Matt Albers.  He actually did pitch pretty darn well most of the year.  But Francona didn't use him in a way that could make him most successful, and most helpful to the team.  Francona wanted a formula - "Bard in the 8th, Papelbon in the 9th".  But he didn't set up anyone else to be Bard and Papelbon when Bard and Papelbon couldn't be Bard and Papelbon.  You have to have an alternate plan when either of those two is too tired to go, or is on one or another rare occasion, struggling.  He didn't.  Matt Albers could have been an alternate.

And let's not talk about Kyle Weiland and Andrew Miller.  For some reason other teams seem to bring up during the season relatively successful AAA pitchers who are then relatively successful in the bigs.  Boston doesn't.  Both of these pitchers have good stuff, and fairly good command.  Clay Bucholz and Daisuke Matsuzaka go down, and you need one of these guys - just one - to get you five or six innings relatively regularly.  You have to wonder how well the manager helped them prepare for their outings.

Miller had two reasonably good starts - wins - near the end of August, then one terrible start and one meh start at the beginning of September.  He never got the ball again as a starter, or even as a reliever in a close game.  Given how the rest of the Sox starters performed in September, particularly the aforementioned Lackey, he should have gotten the ball again.

Successful managers may start with pitchers who are less than dominating, but if the team is going to succeed then the manager has to take those pitchers and mold them into a staff.  Each pitcher may have a role, but each needs to be helped to be successful, and they each also have to at times step in and do the job if another falters.  Francona didn't get the most out of this staff, he got the least.

They could have used more hitting in September; they could have used more pitching; they could have used a better rested Bard and Papelbon; they could have used a couple of more reliable relievers; they could have hoped for better from their "aces".  They could have used a manager who developed pitching rather than burning it out.  They got none of the above.  Congratulations, Sox, and good luck with the rebuilding.

9/29/11 2024: Here's a painful assessment from the Boston Globe's Chad Finn.  "Coco Crisp with a lousy glove" indeed.  And this, on Lackey: "Not only is he coming off the worst season a Red Sox starting pitcher has ever submitted, but he's a miserable, dim, finger-pointing, unaccountable wretch of a teammate, and those may be his good qualities."  Finn defends Francona, but I wish he'd have a look at how Francona manages pitching.  He might change his mind.

The Herald's John Tomase points out that the 69-93 Baltimore Orioles, one of the worst teams in baseball, beat Boston in five of seven games at the end of the season.  Ugh.

9/29/11 2040: Video of the demise at HotAir from Allahpundit.  Double ugh.

Move Over Steve Forbes: Obama Endorses Flat Tax?

Quoted in James Taranto's indispensible "Best Of The Web" today, Barack Obama does seem to be strongly endorsing a flat tax.*

"Yeah, right," I hear you say.  "Don't mess with us, Giacomo.  This guy's all about class warfare and redistribution and you expect us to believe he really wants a flat tax?"

Absolutely.  From the speech he gave at yesterday's bit of demagoguery** in Cincinnati:

"Now, the Republicans, when I talked about this earlier in the week, they said, well, this is class warfare. You know what, if asking a billionaire to pay their fair share of taxes, to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what, I'm a warrior for the middle class."

You see?  He wants billionaires to pay the "same tax rate" as a plumber or teacher.  The very same rate! Not only that, but he defines paying the same rate as a "fair share" of taxes. Look I think this is something we can all get behind.  Let me hear you out there!  O-ba-ma!  O-ba-ma!  O-ba-ma!

*A flat tax, in case you have forgotten, is an income tax system where all taxpayers at all income levels pay the same percentage of their income in taxes.  For example, if the rate is 15% and you make $50,000 annually you would pay $7500 to the IRS.  If you made $5 million annually you would pay $750,000.

**If you want to see graphically just how classless and undignified is the Obama White House, check out the transcript of those remarks in Cincinnati a little more completely.  Here are two excerpts.

THE PRESIDENT:  We've got some folks I just want to make sure are acknowledged here today.  First of all, the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, is in the house.  Give him a round of applause.  (Applause.)  We've got the mayor of the great city of Cincinnati -- Mark Mallory is here.  (Applause.)  We've got the mayor of Covington, Mayor Denny Bowman.  (Applause.)  Senator Rand Paul is here.  

AUDIENCE:  Booo --

And this one:

Behind us stands the Brent Spence Bridge.  It’s located on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America.  It sees about 150,000 vehicles every single day.  And it’s in such poor condition that it's been labeled "functionally obsolete."  Think about that -- functionally obsolete.  That doesn’t sound good, does it?  

AUDIENCE:  Nooo!

THE PRESIDENT:  It’s safe to --

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Kind of like John Boehner.  (Laughter.)

Now this, mind you, is the official White House transcript of the remarks, and they think it's appropriate to document that the audience of Obama sycophants and union goons booed Senator Rand Paul, and that an audience member, not an official speaker at the event, made a joke about Speaker John Boehner being "functionally obsolete."  As Russell used to say in Bill Cosby's "Fat Albert" cartoon, "You're from the NCAA.  No Class At All."

The Joust The Facts "Quote Of The Day"

From, of all places, an Associated Press Fact Check by Stephen Ohlemacher, discussing whether "millionaires and billionaires" really do pay less in taxes than secretaries.  They start by quoting Mr. Obama who, to be fair, is only parroting the class warfare nonsense that Democratic politicians have been spouting since the advent of the late Ted Kennedy.  (His older brother Jack didn't lead him down this particular path.)

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

Now from the AP:

The data tells a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

The two questions that remain?  One, someone explain to me again what "paying your fair share" really means, in dollars and cents.  Two, how can Democratic politicians continually spout nonsense like this?

Mr. Obama says "It's hard to argue against that."  Well, it would be hard to argue against if it were true.

9/20/11 1610: Oops...link to AP fact check added.  My bad.

It's The Redistribution, Stupid - Part IIIb

Right on cue, the Wall Street Journal editorial page features a summary of Mr. Obama's tax-raising plans I referred to in the last post.  It's not pretty, and no matter what's in the American Jobs Act this collection of economic anchors isn't likely to let the American economic ship cruise freely.

Mr. Obama said last week that he wants $240 billion in new tax incentives for workers and small business, but the catch is that all of these tax breaks would expire at the end of next year. To pay for all this, White House budget director Jack Lew also proposed $467 billion in new taxes that would begin a mere 16 months from now. The tax list includes limiting deductions for those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples), limiting tax breaks for oil and gas companies, and a tax increase on carried interest earned by private equity firms. These tax increases would not be temporary.

What this means is that millions of small-business owners had better enjoy the next 16 months, because come January 2013 they are going to get hit with a giant tax bill...

The article itemizes the taxes

• allowing Bush rates to expire, 2013, a programmed tax increase that includes an increase in the capital gains rates
• elimination of itemization from "the wealthy," 2013
• expiration of the proposed temporary tax credits for 2012, no longer available 2013
• two new taxes hidden in ObamaCare, including a 2.9% surcharge on investment income

Yeah, small business owners will be crawling over each other to be first in line to increase their company expenses in personnel costs and health care costs by adding jobs with all that in their future.

All of this assumes that American business owners aren't smart enough to look beyond the next few months. They can surely see the new burdens they'll face in 2013, and they aren't about to load up on new employees or take new large risks if they aren't sure what their costs will be in 16 months. They can also reasonably wonder whether Mr. Obama's tax hike will hurt the overall economy in 2013—another reason to be cautious now.

It's painfully obvious at this point that for the President it's not about the economy.  It's not about jobs.  And it's not about unleashing the American entrepreneurial spirit.  The president doesn't care a whit about the private economy, I'm sad to say.  It's about the redistribution, stupid.  And America, composed as it is of Americans, should just say no.

It's The Redistribution, Stupid - Part III

You can subtitle this one, "I'll get my tax increase yet, you wascawy Wepubwicans!"

Over at Powerline John Hinderaker publishes the text of a letter from Senator Jeff Sessions to Mr. Obama's Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Jacob Lew.  If you thought that when President Obama took to the airwaves last Thursday in front of a joint session of Congress to introduce and sell his American Jobs Act that there a) actually was an American Jobs Act and b) that bill was ready for Congress to evaluate it's economic impact, well, think again.  The letter reads in part:

When we received a copy of the legislation yesterday, we were expecting the Office of Management and Budget–which enjoys a five hundred person staff–to provide a precise and detailed estimate of the fiscal impact of the president’s proposal. But no such information was provided.

This is not satisfactory.

Perhaps even more troubling, however, is that despite the emphatic promise that we would learn yesterday how the bill would be offset, this information is missing too.

Given the depth of the economic crisis we now face–slow growth, high debt, and chronic unemployment–the lack of fiscal detail that has been provided to Congress is both disappointing and irresponsible...

When the president submitted his budget in February you declared: “our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we’re not adding to the debt anymore.” In reality, the budget would have increased our debt by $13 trillion.

Read that last paragraph again.  The budget submitted would increase over 10 years the cumulative national debt by $13 trillion.  Recall that we just raised the debt ceiling due to passing $14.5 trillion cumulative debt - that amount accumulated over the course of 235 years.  So when the OMB director states that their budget "will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we’re not adding to the debt anymore," it's not because of spending restraint.  It's because of plans for much, much, much higher levels of taxation.

Mr. Hinderaker helpfully includes an excerpt from a Washington Examiner editorial making the ploy evident.  The Examiner notes that Director Lew outlined some of the increased revenues the President is seeking in this bill - and they're the same ones he wanted as part of deficit reduction earlier in the summer.  Wanted, but didn't get.  The Examiner editorial asks a very pertinent question.

Pressed to explain how Obama could use the same tax hikes to both meet the debt deal’s deficit reduction targets and pay for his new stimulus plan, Lew admitted that even Obama can’t count the same tax increases for two separate purposes. Instead, Lew said that Obama would be introducing a whole new slate of tax hikes next week, when he plans to give yet another deficit reduction speech.

Obama again insisted Monday that his second stimulus will be “fully paid for.” This is problematic on several levels. If Stimulus II is fully paid for with immediate tax hikes, then it isn’t the kind of deficit spending that Obama’s Keynesian logic demands. If it is only paid for later, at the end of the 10-year horizon, then this amounts to a budget gimmick, because Obama will be long gone from office by then.

That is, if the tax hikes go into effect now for the jobs bill, then the bill is "paid for" with tax increases - tax increases on job producers in the middle of a stagnant economy with no job growth.  If the tax increase are delayed, and Keynesian "spend now, settle up later" is the plan, then it amounts to kicking the can down the road, burdening future congresses, future presidents, and future taxpayers with irrationally exhuberant debt.  $13 trillion in 10 years indeed.

But look again at the statements of Mr. Lew.  "Instead, Lew said that Obama would be introducing a whole new slate of tax hikes next week."  I assume these would be in addition to those listed already.  Ugh.  These will be once again proposed with a prominent class warfare backdrop, and the word "fairness" will figure prominently, I'll bet.  There won't, of course, be any definition of "fairness," and there won't be any mention of the fact that such tax increases burden businesses, investors, and job producers at the very point in time that they're needed most.

And if the "wascawy Wepubwicans" fail to raise the taxes that Mr. Obama's filibuster-proof Democratic congress previously refused to raise during a time of economic uncertainty?  I can see the demagoguery coming, it's coming 'round the bend.  And we won't see the sunshine since I don't know when.

9-11 Turns 10 - A Remembrance

It has been 10 years since the 2001 attack on America, but the memories of that day will stick with all Americans, particularly those of us whose lives have been scarred by terrorism, for the rest of our days.  The day haunts me at times unexpectedly.  A couple of days ago while watching the 1997 film Men In Black with my kids I noticed the scene where Will Smith delivers an alien child in the backseat of a car in New Jersey.  Prominently in the background stood the two majestic towers on another bright, sunny day, the image now a stark reminder of their absence.  The image below was captured from the movie trailer.

Yahoo currently has a 9-11 10 year anniversary image site running, and in that is a collection of the 25 most stark images from the day, some of which I hadn't seen before.  The Falling Man photo is in there, as is an image of the North Tower on fire from the first impact, with Flight 175 in the background approaching its impact with the South Tower.  There's also an image of White House Chief of Staff whispering the news of the attack to President George W. Bush.  Yahoo includes the following in the caption:

Ten years later, one of the kids who was there in that class, Chantal Guerrero, told Time magazine that to this day she's grateful that Bush -- obviously profoundly upset about something that Card had told him -- maintained his composure and stayed with the students until the book they were reading, The Pet Goat, was finished. "I think the President was trying to keep us from finding out," Guerrero said, "so we all wouldn't freak out."

I recently discussed this topic with my older daughters, who had seen a news report following up with the children in that class.  My daughters agreed that it was probably best for the class that Mr. Bush had kept his calm in that moment, just as those children now think.  Michael Moore et. al. may want to rethink the "My Pet Goat" line of attack.  Go through the photos slowly and absorb them all.

Speaking of Mr. Bush, here's a brief documentary video of his pitch at Yankee Stadium, including Derek Jeter adding to the already enormous pressure.  The President threw a strike.

Here are a few additional links. 

• National Geographic's "Inside 9/11" documentary series.  Click on the "videos" tab.
• Lots of audio, video and still images, as well as remembrances and links at this September 11 Memorial website.  Plan to spend some time there.
• A&E is showing Flight 93 now, and after that showing the History Channel's "102 Minutes That Changed America."  Linked here.

And finally, the History Channel's documentary on the World Trade Center itself, in "Modern Marvels"

 Previous JTF September 11 posts:

• 2005: Remembrances Real And Imagined
• 2006: A Transforming Dawn
• 2007: We Remember
• 2008: There Are Some Things We Probably Shouldn't Forget and Yahoo! Forgets
• 2009: September 11: Eight Years On
• 2010: Nine Years From Darkness

 9/11/2011: A couple of additional links.  Hot Air's Ed Morrissey hosts his local 9-11 remembrance, and gives us his stirring open comment.  And Professor Jacobson at LegalInsurrection remembers well, quite well.

What Obama Forgot To Say

"Pass this bill, and this is 'the moment when we [begin] to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this [is] the moment when the rise of the oceans [begins] to slow and our planet [begins] to heal.'"

I only have two questions.  First, if this proposed bill is all that, why wasn't it proposed a long, long time ago?  Second, what makes this bill so much different from the utterly failed 'Stimulus' I?

As an aside, did you catch the snickers and murmurs when he said that this isn't political grandstanding or class warfare - immediately after accusing Republicans of protecting "the most affluent citizens and corporations."  Pfffft.  Here's a link to CNN's "Live Blog," which has a transcript, more or less.

By the way, I think he's becoming Don Quixote, tilting at windmills that aren't there.  For example:

I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy.

Nobody has ever asked people to choose between jobs and safety.  Nobody has proposed that credit card companies can hide their fees (hint: even before reforms were instituted they informed you, in the junk mail you usually threw away unopened.)  Nobody wants kids gulping down mercury.  And the last two are simply his defenses for ObamaCare and unions, both of which are stifling job growth and harming economic competitiveness.

There are no new ideas in this speech.  The game is up.  This president is all about redistribution, government control, union power, and environmental shackles on the productive sectors of America.  He's not about economic growth, global competitiveness, energy security, individual rights and individual freedoms.  I have yet to hear anything that would change that.

It's Too Bad Warren Buffet's Dad Isn't Around To Teach Him A Thing Or Two

From today's Wall Street Journal's 'Notable & Quotable' feature, a snippet from a 1956 speech by Congressman Howard Buffet of Nebraska.

The last 40 years have seen a gigantic expansion of political power over economic affairs by the federal government. This change is linked by many scholars to the passage of the income tax law in 1913. This law revolutionized the taxing system in two ways:

1. It gave the government new powers over the economic status of the individual. This change has curtailed the ability of the individual to achieve economic independence.

2. The part of his production taken from the producer cumulatively increases the power of the federal government proportionately with the increase in its income. This power is not created; it is simply taken away from the people. . . .

George Sokolsky, noted columnist, says it this way: "When human beings become dependent upon the political power of the state for their livelihood, the independence of person must disappear. It is the identification of economic power with police power that destroys the right of the individual to liberty."

Or, to quote another American, our third president, in a much earlier time, “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.”  Thomas Jefferson also said this: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

Anyway, there's more at the link, including a quote that could be applied directly to the government health care grab in ObamaCare:

If the government is to guarantee you what the consequences of your actions will be in this case, security, then the government must take control of your activities. For with responsibility—even self-arrogated responsibility—must go authority

This means that if politicians are to supply your security, they must control your work, your spending, and your saving...

How To Fix The USPS

The US Postal Service (USPS) lost $3.1 billion dollars.  That's in one quarter, the last one.  Ugh.

The U.S. Postal Service posted a net loss of $3.1 billion in its third quarter and warned again it would default on payments to the federal government if Congress did not step in.

Total mail volume for the quarter that ended June 30 fell to 39.8 billion pieces, a 2.6 percent drop from the same period a year earlier, as consumers turn to email and pay bills online.

The mail carrier, which does not get taxpayer funds, has struggled to overhaul its business as mail volumes fall. It has said personnel costs weigh heavily and is facing a massive retiree health benefit prepayment next month.

"We are experiencing a severe cash crisis and are unable to continue to maintain the aggressive prepayment schedule," Joseph Corbett, the agency's chief financial officer, said in a statement.

"Without changes in the law, the Postal Service will be unable to make the $5.5 billion mandated prepayment due in September."

Does the USPS want to survive?  Well, then drop your personnel costs dramatically.  Deliver mail only twice or thrice weekly, and cut your bloated carrier staff.  And reform your pensions.  Act like a private company - you know, one that doesn't get taxpayer funds - by going to defined contribution pensions and reforming the retiree health plan.

 Technology changes everything.  The Pony Express isn't still in business.

And This Is From An Obama Supporter!

There was today an essay in the NY Times Sunday Review by Emory psychologist Drew Westen entitled "What happened to Obama," containing a remarkable few sentences.  (HT: John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog.)  Dr. Westen is a supporter, having traveled to Washington for the Inauguration, a story he relates at the start of the essay.  In musing the possible underpinnings of Barack Obama's failings as President, he wrote:

A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted “present” (instead of “yea” or “nay”) 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

I read that and, as did Charlie Brown when Lucy Van Pelt explored the psychological reasons for his malaise in "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and asked him if he had pantophobia - fear of everything - I wanted to jump to my feet and scream "THAT'S IT!!!"  Serves you right, Dr. Westen, for being "bewitched by his eloquence."

And, I might add, those of us who were not "bewitched by his eloquence," or trying to feel better about America and ourselves by voting for a black man for president, but were instead simply trying to find the best available candidate for the job recognized and acknowledged all of these items ahead of the election.  A curriculum vitae this thin would in political circles disqualify a Republican candidate from consideration, so why not Mr. Obama?

8/8/11 1750: Wherein the splendid James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal's great "Best of the Web" daily column writes in a similar (identical?) vein.  Perhaps more eloquently, but still ...

He also sizes up the additional maneuvering in Dr. Westen's essay, and it's well worth your time to have a look.

Westen and Klein, and other like-minded progressives, have revealed that they dream of a strongman uniting the "masses." If that requires vilifying selected groups of Americans, they don't mind and may even view it as a plus.

Even if he wanted to, Barack Obama could not be a strongman, in part because he is a weak man and in part because America's constitution is a strong charter of liberty. But if Obama had the means and inclination to impose a dictatorship, is there any doubt that Drew Westen and Joe Klein, at least at the outset, would goose-step with gusto?

A "strongman uniting the masses."  That thought does bring forth some thoroughly undesireable images.

The White House Amateur Hour

He didn't just say that, did he?  The President doesn't like the choices the voters made emphatically in 2010? Maybe if he rounded up and imprisoned the dissidents.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air runs the "Obamateurism of the Day" feature (here's a link to a list of them), wherein our president's least presidential moves are chronicled.  It's definitely worth a look each day.  I have a feeling this one will actually make it as tomorrow's "OOTD".