Mort Zuckerman, writing for the U.S. News has this to say about the huge financial problem of unfunded debt facing America. Zuckerman says that this problem dwarfs the fiscal cliff as an economic disaster.
A key quote from the piece:
"The greatest fiscal challenge to the U.S. government is not just its annual deficit but its total liabilities. Our federal balance sheet does not include the unfunded social insurance obligations of Medicare, Social Security, and the future retirement benefits of federal employees. Only in the small print of the financial statements do you get some idea of the enormous size of the unfunded commitments. Today the estimated unfunded total is more than $87 trillion, or 550 percent of our GDP. And the debt per household is more than 10 times the median family income."
As Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit) likes to say:
"Something that can’t go on forever, won’t. Debts that can’t be repaid, won’t be. Promises that can’t be kept, won’t be. Make your plans accordingly."
I am.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Staring At The Cliff
The deadline looms. The President has a news conference. Senators confer.
We are close to a deal, says Politico. There is a framework in place, says Fox News. I hear the plan calls for raising $800 billion in new revenues by ending the Bush tax cuts on those making over $450,000/yr and by terminating the payroll tax holiday. "Shockingly", there are no spending cuts.
As I noted a couple of weeks ago, we've seen this movie before. It wasn't that good the first time.
We are close to a deal, says Politico. There is a framework in place, says Fox News. I hear the plan calls for raising $800 billion in new revenues by ending the Bush tax cuts on those making over $450,000/yr and by terminating the payroll tax holiday. "Shockingly", there are no spending cuts.
As I noted a couple of weeks ago, we've seen this movie before. It wasn't that good the first time.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Under Barack's Bus
President Obama announced that he accepted the decision by UN Ambassador Susan Rice to withdraw her name from consideration for appointment to be Secretary of State.
As noted in Weekly Standard blog post, the President also criticised the unfounded attacks on her character of recent weeks. Of course, those "attacks" resulted from Obama having sent her out to mislead the public on his behalf.
So now Susan Rice joins the four dead embassy officials as victims of the Benghazi scandal. At least she didn't have to take a real bullet.
As noted in Weekly Standard blog post, the President also criticised the unfounded attacks on her character of recent weeks. Of course, those "attacks" resulted from Obama having sent her out to mislead the public on his behalf.
So now Susan Rice joins the four dead embassy officials as victims of the Benghazi scandal. At least she didn't have to take a real bullet.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
We've Seen This Movie Before
And we know how it ends.
I'm talking about the little dance routine going on between GOP and Democratic leaders over the "fiscal cliff" negotiations. As I listen to Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell go through their usual rhetorical machinations, I ask myself how guys so easy to roll got to be in top leadership spots. I feel like it is inevitable that the GOP will cave on "revenues" in exchange for some vague and distant spending cuts. And, they'll still get the blame for whatever fiscal tragedy occurs.
It particularly bothers me since the answer is simple. The President's campaign had only one consistent, specific theme. He asked that those making over $250,000/yr. pay "a little bit more" as part of "a balanced approach" to reducing the deficit. The election results came in and it would seem that the people agreed with the President.
As such, the Speaker should announce that "the people have spoken" and the House should immediately pass a bill extending the Bush tax cuts to all taxpayers except those making over $250,000. He should then ask the President to outline the spending cuts which were to be his part of the "balanced" deficit reduction. This would compel the President to put something on the table or be exposed as (to use his term) a "bulls.....r".
The Republicans could stay faithful to their "no tax increase" pledge. Their vote, after all, would be to extend most of a tax cut, not to raise any tax. The President would be left to explain how his campaign rhetoric regarding taxing the rich brings in only $80 or $90 billion and leaves us over $1 trillion short of balancing the budget. That should be interesting.
Unfortunately, I don't think our GOP "leaders" have a clue. If, instead of winning, they cave again, the GOP may be finished, because the Tea Party members and other fiscally conservative Republicans are almost certain to say good-bye.
UPDATE: Here's an interesting article proposing that the GOP adopt the Simpson-Bowles deficit plan as an alternative to the almost certain disaster awiting them as a result of the current "negotiations".
I'm talking about the little dance routine going on between GOP and Democratic leaders over the "fiscal cliff" negotiations. As I listen to Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell go through their usual rhetorical machinations, I ask myself how guys so easy to roll got to be in top leadership spots. I feel like it is inevitable that the GOP will cave on "revenues" in exchange for some vague and distant spending cuts. And, they'll still get the blame for whatever fiscal tragedy occurs.
It particularly bothers me since the answer is simple. The President's campaign had only one consistent, specific theme. He asked that those making over $250,000/yr. pay "a little bit more" as part of "a balanced approach" to reducing the deficit. The election results came in and it would seem that the people agreed with the President.
As such, the Speaker should announce that "the people have spoken" and the House should immediately pass a bill extending the Bush tax cuts to all taxpayers except those making over $250,000. He should then ask the President to outline the spending cuts which were to be his part of the "balanced" deficit reduction. This would compel the President to put something on the table or be exposed as (to use his term) a "bulls.....r".
The Republicans could stay faithful to their "no tax increase" pledge. Their vote, after all, would be to extend most of a tax cut, not to raise any tax. The President would be left to explain how his campaign rhetoric regarding taxing the rich brings in only $80 or $90 billion and leaves us over $1 trillion short of balancing the budget. That should be interesting.
Unfortunately, I don't think our GOP "leaders" have a clue. If, instead of winning, they cave again, the GOP may be finished, because the Tea Party members and other fiscally conservative Republicans are almost certain to say good-bye.
UPDATE: Here's an interesting article proposing that the GOP adopt the Simpson-Bowles deficit plan as an alternative to the almost certain disaster awiting them as a result of the current "negotiations".
Friday, November 9, 2012
Where The Economy Goes From Here
As a conservative, I have grave concerns about President Obama's re-election and its likely effects on the US economy. I have been quite afraid that we are likely to head further down the road towards a state-directed economy, much like European social democracies.
In this blog, University of Chicago economist, John Cochrane, makes a few predictions. They really aren't pretty. The most obvious; that four more years of Obama means four trillion more dollars added to our national debt.
The part of his post that troubles me the most, however, is his description of the incredible breadth of regulations which are already on tap and slated to be implemented as a result of current legislation and executive fiat. Here are his examples just dealing with the EPA:
In this blog, University of Chicago economist, John Cochrane, makes a few predictions. They really aren't pretty. The most obvious; that four more years of Obama means four trillion more dollars added to our national debt.
The part of his post that troubles me the most, however, is his description of the incredible breadth of regulations which are already on tap and slated to be implemented as a result of current legislation and executive fiat. Here are his examples just dealing with the EPA:
- Greenhouse gases. Detailed industry controls focusing on greenhouse gas emissions. They're even going to regulate cow farts. Sorry, Farm Methane Emissions. It's funny unless you're a dairy farmer. Hundreds of billions
- Between greenhouse gases, much tighter mercury limits, and designating coal ash a "hazardous substance" like nuclear waste (I'm exaggerating, but that's the idea), the end of coal.
- Tight fracking regulations.
- Much tigher ozone standards. Many cities are now way over the limit.
- Cut sulfur in gas from 30 ppm to 10 ppm. EPA: $90 billion a year
- Temperature standards to protect fish in power plant cooling ponds
- Tighter standards for farm dust. Farms have to submit mediation plans.
- Water quality control for every body of water in the country.
- Strict regulation of industrial boilers ($10-20 billion)
- Formaldehyde emissions from plywood. I didn't know Home Depot was a dangerous place to hang out.
There are a lot more examples, coming as a result of the ACA (Obamacare), the Dodd-Frank law, and other Federal laws and executive orders.
Read the whole post, but make sure you have the stomach for it. If this guy is half right, our economic future is not a happy one.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Where Conservatives Go From Here
I spent my day yesterday feeling down because I didn't get the "presents" I wanted for "Electionmas" (as Ann Althouse put it). I'm done feeling gloomy, though and now its time to move on, disappointed but glad I live in a Democracy. As Mo Udall once said after losing an election, "The people have spoken.....the bastards".
The "soul searching" is now beginning for Conservatives and Republicans. There will be many calls for being more inclusive or for finding candidates who will argue conservative principles more forcefully. There have already been call for purging the GOP of Tea Party members or apostates like Chris Christie.
The GOP must take this look, but as it does, it must reflect on the fact that Obama's election and re-election tells us that the United States is not the same country it was 20-30 years ago. It is not simply politics, however. The culture has changed and unless conservatives find a way to get their ideas into the current cultural mainstream, they are doomed to political failure.
This piece by Andrew Klaven outlines the problem and offers a few suggestions for a plan of attack. He suggests that political success can only be built upon a foundation of ideas which must be spread through the culture. Here are a couple of excepts from his article:
"The smartest political writers in the country, all of whom are conservative, will now be addressing those questions. I’m an artist; I play the long game.
To win that game, to create an electorate more deeply committed to true liberty and resistant to the sort of cultural scare tactics the president’s campaign team used so effectively, there are three areas to which conservatives need to commit intellectual and financial resources—three areas that our intelligentsia and funders, in their impractical practicality, too often ignore."
Klavan goes on to outline those three areas, the mainstream news media, the entertainment industry and religion among intellectuals (particularly in academia). His conclusion:
"In the aftermath of a crushing electoral defeat, all this [Klavan's discussion of ways to change the current culture] may seem a distant business, an airy conversation for another day. It isn’t. The demography of the country is changing, but demography is not destiny. Ideas are. We must retake the culture and begin speaking truth to a new America."
I think Klavan is really on the right track. I encourage you to read it. I hope that conservatives and GOP leaders realize that the path to political victory lies, in part, outside of electoral politics.
The "soul searching" is now beginning for Conservatives and Republicans. There will be many calls for being more inclusive or for finding candidates who will argue conservative principles more forcefully. There have already been call for purging the GOP of Tea Party members or apostates like Chris Christie.
The GOP must take this look, but as it does, it must reflect on the fact that Obama's election and re-election tells us that the United States is not the same country it was 20-30 years ago. It is not simply politics, however. The culture has changed and unless conservatives find a way to get their ideas into the current cultural mainstream, they are doomed to political failure.
This piece by Andrew Klaven outlines the problem and offers a few suggestions for a plan of attack. He suggests that political success can only be built upon a foundation of ideas which must be spread through the culture. Here are a couple of excepts from his article:
"The smartest political writers in the country, all of whom are conservative, will now be addressing those questions. I’m an artist; I play the long game.
To win that game, to create an electorate more deeply committed to true liberty and resistant to the sort of cultural scare tactics the president’s campaign team used so effectively, there are three areas to which conservatives need to commit intellectual and financial resources—three areas that our intelligentsia and funders, in their impractical practicality, too often ignore."
Klavan goes on to outline those three areas, the mainstream news media, the entertainment industry and religion among intellectuals (particularly in academia). His conclusion:
"In the aftermath of a crushing electoral defeat, all this [Klavan's discussion of ways to change the current culture] may seem a distant business, an airy conversation for another day. It isn’t. The demography of the country is changing, but demography is not destiny. Ideas are. We must retake the culture and begin speaking truth to a new America."
I think Klavan is really on the right track. I encourage you to read it. I hope that conservatives and GOP leaders realize that the path to political victory lies, in part, outside of electoral politics.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Obama Re-Elected
Barak Obama has been re-elected President.
I admit to my great surprise and some sadness. I fear that the great country I grew up in, is irrevocably changed. It appears that the country of the rugged individualist, has given way to a nation where JFK's famous adage "Ask not..." has been stood on its head.
Moreover, the President ran a divisive campaign, which may take some time to heal.
Perhaps the President will take his close shave and try to be the agent of hope and change that he claimed he was four years ago. We'll see. I do not think the country can take four more years of the same Obama we had over the last four.
I admit to my great surprise and some sadness. I fear that the great country I grew up in, is irrevocably changed. It appears that the country of the rugged individualist, has given way to a nation where JFK's famous adage "Ask not..." has been stood on its head.
Moreover, the President ran a divisive campaign, which may take some time to heal.
Perhaps the President will take his close shave and try to be the agent of hope and change that he claimed he was four years ago. We'll see. I do not think the country can take four more years of the same Obama we had over the last four.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Finally!
Election Day is here.
The voting has begun. The early returns show a 5-5 tie out of Dixville Notch.
Romney is out-performing McCain already. Obama beat McCain by more than 2-1 in the Notch in 2008. The start of a trend.....?
The voting has begun. The early returns show a 5-5 tie out of Dixville Notch.
Romney is out-performing McCain already. Obama beat McCain by more than 2-1 in the Notch in 2008. The start of a trend.....?
Saturday, November 3, 2012
What's A Government To Do?
That is the question Mark Steyn asks in this NRO post. He points out that President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg have talked a good game on global warming issues and frequently warned about the effects of "rising oceans". But, despite the talk (and trillions in spending) there is precious little to show for it.
Steyn points out that a sea wall that would have protected NY harbor would have cost $10 billion, far less than the cost of the damage done by Sandy. Its also less than 2% of the famed Obama stimulus which neither stimulated the economy nor left behind any material physical manifestation of its expenditure.
Steyn notes that our political "leaders" no longer even attempt, let alone complete, produce serious, major accomplishments. After discussing building the protective seawall that could have been with only a fraction of the stimulus money, Steyn sums up our current situation:
Steyn points out that a sea wall that would have protected NY harbor would have cost $10 billion, far less than the cost of the damage done by Sandy. Its also less than 2% of the famed Obama stimulus which neither stimulated the economy nor left behind any material physical manifestation of its expenditure.
Steyn notes that our political "leaders" no longer even attempt, let alone complete, produce serious, major accomplishments. After discussing building the protective seawall that could have been with only a fraction of the stimulus money, Steyn sums up our current situation:
"And yet it never happened – and, if we’re honest with ourselves, in today’s sclerotic America, you can’t even imagine it happening, can you? Let us go to Nanny Bloomberg himself:
But with so many prescient warnings, city authorities are struggling to explain why so little was done. Mayor Bloomberg has said it was difficult to translate such warnings into concrete action.
They can chisel that on the epitaph of the republic."
Yet, as Steyn notes, he protected New Yorkers from too much soda:
"What does Nanny B ever translate into “concrete action”? Why, here he is posing with a desktop of carbonated beverages. This is what passes for political leadership in America. Can you imagine this ridiculous man or the spendaholic president he’s endorsed ever actually building a flood barrier?"
Read the whole post. It includes a link to a longer Steyn article about Big Government failures in big crises.
Random Thoughts
I'm in the office taking a break from getting some work done. It's amazing how much more productive I can be when no one is around and the phone is not ringing. I think I accomplished more in 3-4 hours working late or on the week-end than I do working 8 hours during a regular day.
The election is now only three days away. I'm ready for the decisions to be made. Obviously, I am a strong supporter of Mitt Romney for President and Maggie Brooks for Congress. The polls show close races, but I think Mitt has the upper hand. Maggie's situation is not as clear; the latest poll showed an increase in the lead for Louise Slaughter. Frankly, I felt that the Brooks campaign did not generate the level of enthusiasm that I expected. I am certainly no political pro, but I wish there had been a few more rallies and maybe a few less commercials. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for both of them.
The internals from the poll I mentioned confirmed something else that I have long believed. Namely, that eastside Republicans are wishy-washy members of the party. The poll shows that westside Republicans strongly support Maggie, while the party (un)faithful in Pittsford, Perinton and Penfield are far more tentative. It doesn't surprise me. Eastsiders are superior, you know. They play squash; westsiders grow it. They like to show that they aren't robotic partisans, but that they are sophisticated and capable of nuance. Well, their nuanced voting preferences may well keep Louise in Washington for two more years.
Is it possible for the media to be more in the tank than they are right now? The complete failure to cover the Benghazi story is a disgrace; their pro-Obama take on his hurricane Sandy efforts is laughable. I watched Bob Woodward, he of Watergate fame, try to explain the failure of the media to press Mr. Obama on the multi-faceted Benghazi scandal. At least he was a little embarrassed. Meanwhile, the president drops into New Jersey for a one hour photo-op with Chris Christie and then jets off to another Vegas fundraiser (hmm....hasn't he done that before. And back in NY and NJ, 8 hour gas lines, no power or water, FEMA befuddled, Staten Islanders dumpster-diving for food. The media crucified GW Bush for just "flying over" New Orleans during Katrina. But Obama, nah, he's their guy.
Finally, I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to call the election for Mitt Romney. My brother was in Vegas last week (he just missed the President...darn!). I told him to look for a book that was taking bets on the election. I wanted to put money on Romney/Ryan over 300 electoral votes. We'll see Tuesday night/Wednesday morning if I am Nostradamus or if I'm tearing up my tickets to the inaugural ball.
The election is now only three days away. I'm ready for the decisions to be made. Obviously, I am a strong supporter of Mitt Romney for President and Maggie Brooks for Congress. The polls show close races, but I think Mitt has the upper hand. Maggie's situation is not as clear; the latest poll showed an increase in the lead for Louise Slaughter. Frankly, I felt that the Brooks campaign did not generate the level of enthusiasm that I expected. I am certainly no political pro, but I wish there had been a few more rallies and maybe a few less commercials. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for both of them.
The internals from the poll I mentioned confirmed something else that I have long believed. Namely, that eastside Republicans are wishy-washy members of the party. The poll shows that westside Republicans strongly support Maggie, while the party (un)faithful in Pittsford, Perinton and Penfield are far more tentative. It doesn't surprise me. Eastsiders are superior, you know. They play squash; westsiders grow it. They like to show that they aren't robotic partisans, but that they are sophisticated and capable of nuance. Well, their nuanced voting preferences may well keep Louise in Washington for two more years.
Is it possible for the media to be more in the tank than they are right now? The complete failure to cover the Benghazi story is a disgrace; their pro-Obama take on his hurricane Sandy efforts is laughable. I watched Bob Woodward, he of Watergate fame, try to explain the failure of the media to press Mr. Obama on the multi-faceted Benghazi scandal. At least he was a little embarrassed. Meanwhile, the president drops into New Jersey for a one hour photo-op with Chris Christie and then jets off to another Vegas fundraiser (hmm....hasn't he done that before. And back in NY and NJ, 8 hour gas lines, no power or water, FEMA befuddled, Staten Islanders dumpster-diving for food. The media crucified GW Bush for just "flying over" New Orleans during Katrina. But Obama, nah, he's their guy.
Finally, I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to call the election for Mitt Romney. My brother was in Vegas last week (he just missed the President...darn!). I told him to look for a book that was taking bets on the election. I wanted to put money on Romney/Ryan over 300 electoral votes. We'll see Tuesday night/Wednesday morning if I am Nostradamus or if I'm tearing up my tickets to the inaugural ball.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Like I Said...Don't Mess With Texas
The State of Texas has made this abundantly clear to the United Nations, which has decided to send monitors to observe the US Presidential election to help insure "fairness".
As noted in this article, the Texas Attorney General wrote to the UN and warned that anyone who interferes with voting in Texas will be prosecuted.
The UN representatives from North Korea and Zimbabwe stated that they would not interfere, they just wanted to observe the process to insure fairness. Perhaps they want to see what methodologies and processes they will need to suppress so that their country's dictators can continue to get 98.7% of the vote in their elections.
As noted in this article, the Texas Attorney General wrote to the UN and warned that anyone who interferes with voting in Texas will be prosecuted.
The UN representatives from North Korea and Zimbabwe stated that they would not interfere, they just wanted to observe the process to insure fairness. Perhaps they want to see what methodologies and processes they will need to suppress so that their country's dictators can continue to get 98.7% of the vote in their elections.
Assume The Position
This cartoon says it all about where we are going if the GOP cannot repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Stretch Run
The final debate is in the books. Who was the winner?
There are a number of views about who won, but it appears that the most widely held view is that Gov. Romney passed the "Commander-In-Chief" test. That is, he looked like a guy who was qualified to handle the foreign policy and military apparatus of the world's greatest power.
Many rabid partisans (including, to an extent, yours truly) wanted Romney to go after the President, particularly regarding the Benghazi consulate attack. Romney apparently decided to be "Presidential" and avoid the confrontation. The plan was that he should not give anyone the idea that he was a scary war-monger. Romney also tried to connect foreign policy to the economy. Many pundits seem to suggest that this was a winning strategy.
Some post debate polls seem to bear this out. While Obama was seen to have "won" the debate, those same polls showed that strong majorities saw him as being qualified to be the Commander-In-Chief. Also, big majorities said that the economy is the number one issue and they were clearly convinced that Romney has the edge in that realm.
Finally, Obama took some rather petty cheap shots at Romney. He was trying to get Romney's goat. Romney did not take the bait and the President looked small in comparison.
Based on the change in the race for the White House since debate number one, it seems pretty clear that the Romney campaign came out on top after the debate season.
There are a number of views about who won, but it appears that the most widely held view is that Gov. Romney passed the "Commander-In-Chief" test. That is, he looked like a guy who was qualified to handle the foreign policy and military apparatus of the world's greatest power.
Many rabid partisans (including, to an extent, yours truly) wanted Romney to go after the President, particularly regarding the Benghazi consulate attack. Romney apparently decided to be "Presidential" and avoid the confrontation. The plan was that he should not give anyone the idea that he was a scary war-monger. Romney also tried to connect foreign policy to the economy. Many pundits seem to suggest that this was a winning strategy.
Some post debate polls seem to bear this out. While Obama was seen to have "won" the debate, those same polls showed that strong majorities saw him as being qualified to be the Commander-In-Chief. Also, big majorities said that the economy is the number one issue and they were clearly convinced that Romney has the edge in that realm.
Finally, Obama took some rather petty cheap shots at Romney. He was trying to get Romney's goat. Romney did not take the bait and the President looked small in comparison.
Based on the change in the race for the White House since debate number one, it seems pretty clear that the Romney campaign came out on top after the debate season.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
In The Eye Of The Beholder
Last night's debate was pretty much a draw. Instant polls gave a small advantage to the President, but the focus groups on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News all had small majorities of undecideds coming out for Romney.
The President's performance was much better than it was in the Denver debate. (It could hardly have been worse.) Romney was steady but unspectacular and he failed to hit Obama hard on a questionable statement about the Benghazi Consulate attack. The President stated that he had called the attack a terror attack the morning after the news came out. This is certainly at odds with the statement made days later by UN Ambassador Rice on several Sunday news shows and the President himself, two weeks later at the UN, where the "spontaneous demonstration" caused by an "offensive video" claims were repeated.
In fairness to Romney, he seemed poised to ask a follow up when moderator Candy Crowley jumped in and cut him off. It was a fairly blatant intervention. After she spoke up, Romney seemed flustered and did not deliver the knock-out blow. I'd say Candy pleased her fellow liberal MSM colleagues with her shielding of their man.
Frankly, I doubt that this debate changed many minds. Democrats were happy that Obama woke up and argued his points forcefully. Republican were a bit disappointed that Mitt didn't bash Obama again, but given what a big win he had the first time, a repeat was unlikely.
I still think Romney was the winner because he again showed himself to be clearly capable of taking on the job of President. I remain convinced that the polls have been close, despite Obama's dismal record, because most Americans were not sure that Romney was OK. They have seen him twice now and he doesn't have two heads or appear to eat babies. Moreover, many previously undecided voters realize that as a successful businessman, Romney has what it takes to create jobs. That's why I believe Romney will win the election.
The President's performance was much better than it was in the Denver debate. (It could hardly have been worse.) Romney was steady but unspectacular and he failed to hit Obama hard on a questionable statement about the Benghazi Consulate attack. The President stated that he had called the attack a terror attack the morning after the news came out. This is certainly at odds with the statement made days later by UN Ambassador Rice on several Sunday news shows and the President himself, two weeks later at the UN, where the "spontaneous demonstration" caused by an "offensive video" claims were repeated.
In fairness to Romney, he seemed poised to ask a follow up when moderator Candy Crowley jumped in and cut him off. It was a fairly blatant intervention. After she spoke up, Romney seemed flustered and did not deliver the knock-out blow. I'd say Candy pleased her fellow liberal MSM colleagues with her shielding of their man.
Frankly, I doubt that this debate changed many minds. Democrats were happy that Obama woke up and argued his points forcefully. Republican were a bit disappointed that Mitt didn't bash Obama again, but given what a big win he had the first time, a repeat was unlikely.
I still think Romney was the winner because he again showed himself to be clearly capable of taking on the job of President. I remain convinced that the polls have been close, despite Obama's dismal record, because most Americans were not sure that Romney was OK. They have seen him twice now and he doesn't have two heads or appear to eat babies. Moreover, many previously undecided voters realize that as a successful businessman, Romney has what it takes to create jobs. That's why I believe Romney will win the election.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Be Careful What You Wish For
President Obama regularly claims that the American people should give him more time to fix our economy because he was handed such a gigantic economic mess. He likes to claim that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Well, in addition to his claims making him sound like a whiner, they may be demonstrably wrong, as well.
This blog post offers an opposing view.
Moreover as Lloyd Tackitt (via Instapundit) notes, Obama asked for the job: “Obama didn’t inherit a bad economy, he applied for the job of fixing it. He literally begged to get his hands on it so he could fix it. He ran a competitive campaign to get the job of fixing it and shouted about how bad of a condition it was in. Now he twists it so that it sounds like it was something dumped on him he didn’t really want. He has gone from bragging that only he could fix it, to whining that it was worse than he expected. Why is it that no one calls him out on this? I haven’t heard even the most conservative of pundits call him on this.”
I agree. Obama asked for the chance. We gave it to him. He failed.
Next contestant!
Well, in addition to his claims making him sound like a whiner, they may be demonstrably wrong, as well.
This blog post offers an opposing view.
Moreover as Lloyd Tackitt (via Instapundit) notes, Obama asked for the job: “Obama didn’t inherit a bad economy, he applied for the job of fixing it. He literally begged to get his hands on it so he could fix it. He ran a competitive campaign to get the job of fixing it and shouted about how bad of a condition it was in. Now he twists it so that it sounds like it was something dumped on him he didn’t really want. He has gone from bragging that only he could fix it, to whining that it was worse than he expected. Why is it that no one calls him out on this? I haven’t heard even the most conservative of pundits call him on this.”
I agree. Obama asked for the chance. We gave it to him. He failed.
Next contestant!
Steyn on Benghazi and Big Bird
Mark Steyn penned this hard-hitting analysis of the Obama administration's double talk on the terror attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others at our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Steyn usually laces his commentary with biting humor. You will note, however, that this piece doesn't include so much of that style. Instead, you'll find that Steyn is rather disgusted with the President and his minions, who really seem to elevate Obama's re-election above all other considerations. Steyn's closing lines say it all. "'Greater love hath no man than this,' quoth the President at Chris Stevens' coffin, 'that a man lay down his life for his friends.' Smaller love hath no man than Obama's, than to lay down his 'friend' for a couple of points in Ohio."
Steyn usually laces his commentary with biting humor. You will note, however, that this piece doesn't include so much of that style. Instead, you'll find that Steyn is rather disgusted with the President and his minions, who really seem to elevate Obama's re-election above all other considerations. Steyn's closing lines say it all. "'Greater love hath no man than this,' quoth the President at Chris Stevens' coffin, 'that a man lay down his life for his friends.' Smaller love hath no man than Obama's, than to lay down his 'friend' for a couple of points in Ohio."
Friday, October 12, 2012
I Love Roast Beef
That's the answer to the question "What Is Your Dog Thinking" posed in this article by Anne Murphy Paul. At least, that's the answer in the case of my Pomeranian, Cloe.
The article is interesting and I was surprised to learn that dogs actually understand a lot more than I ever realized. Until I read this piece, I was a subscriber to the Fr. Guido Sarducci school of dog behavior. He famously said, "when a dog licca you hand, you think he like you. Actually, he just wanna the salt".
The article is interesting and I was surprised to learn that dogs actually understand a lot more than I ever realized. Until I read this piece, I was a subscriber to the Fr. Guido Sarducci school of dog behavior. He famously said, "when a dog licca you hand, you think he like you. Actually, he just wanna the salt".
Don't Mess With Texas
As many people know, Texas is one of a handful of states where the economy is booming, while California is one of too many which seem to be limping towards bankruptcy. Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher explains the difference with this story:
"The governor of California is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks the governor's dog, then bites the governor. The governor starts to intervene, but reflects upon the movie Bambi and then realizes he should stop because the coyote is only doing what is natural.
He calls animal control. Animal control captures the coyote and bills the state $200 for testing it for diseases and $500 for relocating it. He calls a veterinarian. The vet collects the dead dog and bills the state $200 for testing it for diseases. The governor goes to the hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and getting his bite wound bandaged.
The running trail gets shut down for six months while the California Fish and Game Department conducts a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is now free of dangerous animals. The governor spends $50,000 in state funds implementing a 'coyote awareness program' for residents of the area. The Legislature spends $2 million to study how to better treat rabies and how to permanently eradicate the disease throughout the world.
The governor's security agent is fired for not stopping the attack. The state spends $150,000 to hire and train a new agent with additional special training, re: the nature of coyotes. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) protests the coyote's relocation and files a $5 million suit against the state.
The governor of Texas is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and tries to attack him and his dog. The governor shoots the coyote with his state-issued pistol and keeps jogging.
The governor spent 50 cents on a .380-caliber, hollow-point cartridge. Buzzards ate the dead coyote.
And that, my friends, is why California is broke and Texas is not."
In fact, this story pretty much encapsulates the choice facing Americans on Election Day. We must choose between the Statists who believe in Government solutions to all problems or Free Market advocates who believe individual and market choices should guide us.
I'm going for Texas.
I'm going for Texas.
Second Thoughts
In the previous post, I indicated my belief that Biden won the debate last night. As noted by the post-debate polling, however, it appears that a lot of people actually thought Ryan won. I initially thought that was surprising, but upon further consideration, this may bode well for the Romney-Ryan ticket.
In past years, after watching debates I often found that polling results often differed from my view of the debater's performances. At this point, I have to assume that the victor is in the eye of the beholder. That is to say, we tend to think our guy won whenever its a close call. If so, these early polls could indicate a small but clear majority of the American electorate favors Romney-Ryan.
Moreover, if this idea is correct, it really underscores how well Romney did versus Obama in the first debate. In that one, it was an almost universal verdict for Romney; only the hardest of partisans saw it differently. Also, this means that Romney has a real chance to take a choke hold on the election with a fair to good performance next week. He won't have to do as much as last time, whereas, for Obama, it may be do or die.
In past years, after watching debates I often found that polling results often differed from my view of the debater's performances. At this point, I have to assume that the victor is in the eye of the beholder. That is to say, we tend to think our guy won whenever its a close call. If so, these early polls could indicate a small but clear majority of the American electorate favors Romney-Ryan.
Moreover, if this idea is correct, it really underscores how well Romney did versus Obama in the first debate. In that one, it was an almost universal verdict for Romney; only the hardest of partisans saw it differently. Also, this means that Romney has a real chance to take a choke hold on the election with a fair to good performance next week. He won't have to do as much as last time, whereas, for Obama, it may be do or die.
Turnabout Is Fair Play
Round two goes to the Democrats.
Joe Biden was energetic, rude, forceful and condescending. Paul Ryan was polite and wonkish...some might say wimpish. Both men made policy points, but Biden dominated the debate. He had help from the moderator, who, at times, also seemed to be debating Ryan.
But Ryan can't blame anyone but himself. He let Biden walk all over him. He was too deferential in my mind and seemed fixed on making pre-planned points.
Some comment on the debate said that Biden's smirking and condescension might have played badly at home. Maybe, but for my money, Biden got the nod. It may not make too much difference, since many may have been watching baseball or football tonight. The GOP should probably hope sports won out.
UPDATE: Interesting insta-poll results. Maybe cool, calm, collected was better than I gave credit for.
CNN/ORC--Registered voters: Won debate, Ryan 48%-Biden 44% (+/-5%)....More likeable, Ryan 53%-Biden 43%
AP POLL: Won debate, Ryan 51%-Biden 43%
CNBC POLL: Won debate, Ryan 56%-Biden 36%
CBS POLL: Won debate, Biden 50%-Ryan 31%
Joe Biden was energetic, rude, forceful and condescending. Paul Ryan was polite and wonkish...some might say wimpish. Both men made policy points, but Biden dominated the debate. He had help from the moderator, who, at times, also seemed to be debating Ryan.
But Ryan can't blame anyone but himself. He let Biden walk all over him. He was too deferential in my mind and seemed fixed on making pre-planned points.
Some comment on the debate said that Biden's smirking and condescension might have played badly at home. Maybe, but for my money, Biden got the nod. It may not make too much difference, since many may have been watching baseball or football tonight. The GOP should probably hope sports won out.
UPDATE: Interesting insta-poll results. Maybe cool, calm, collected was better than I gave credit for.
CNN/ORC--Registered voters: Won debate, Ryan 48%-Biden 44% (+/-5%)....More likeable, Ryan 53%-Biden 43%
AP POLL: Won debate, Ryan 51%-Biden 43%
CNBC POLL: Won debate, Ryan 56%-Biden 36%
CBS POLL: Won debate, Biden 50%-Ryan 31%
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Note To Romney, GOP...Don't Get Cocky
While its just about unanimous across the political spectrum that Romney cleaned the President's clock in tonight's debate, I sure hope that nobody in Romney's camp thinks the election was won tonight.
It was a great start. I'm sure that this was the first time many millions of Americans got an unfiltered look at Romney. They had to be impressed with his knowledge and demeanor. Moreover, if all they ever knew about Romney had come from the MSM or the Obama campaign, they must be perplexed that he is nothing like the heartless aristocrat they had heard about.
Still, Obama's palace guard in the media will start spinning the story in some way. Also, you may recall that in 2004, Kerry beat up George W. Bush pretty badly in their first debate. Bush did much better later. Of course, he was helped by the whipping Dick Cheney gave to John Edwards in the VP debate. Obama probably should not count on Joe Biden taking out Paul Ryan.
Romney needs to know that Obama will be out for blood next time. Surely, Obama will be far better prepared. He will challenge Romney on a number of points and Romney should expect to take shots about his "inappropriate" criticism of the embassy attacks and his 47% comments. Romney needs to repeat this steady, assertive performance a couple more times. If he can, he may well become President. If he tries to coast, he'll be an also ran.
It was a great start. I'm sure that this was the first time many millions of Americans got an unfiltered look at Romney. They had to be impressed with his knowledge and demeanor. Moreover, if all they ever knew about Romney had come from the MSM or the Obama campaign, they must be perplexed that he is nothing like the heartless aristocrat they had heard about.
Still, Obama's palace guard in the media will start spinning the story in some way. Also, you may recall that in 2004, Kerry beat up George W. Bush pretty badly in their first debate. Bush did much better later. Of course, he was helped by the whipping Dick Cheney gave to John Edwards in the VP debate. Obama probably should not count on Joe Biden taking out Paul Ryan.
Romney needs to know that Obama will be out for blood next time. Surely, Obama will be far better prepared. He will challenge Romney on a number of points and Romney should expect to take shots about his "inappropriate" criticism of the embassy attacks and his 47% comments. Romney needs to repeat this steady, assertive performance a couple more times. If he can, he may well become President. If he tries to coast, he'll be an also ran.
Romney 1---Obama 0
Debate number one went to Mitt Romney by a knockout.
I'm a partisan, but anyone who watched this had to have the same opinion. In fact, a number of liberal commentators were stunned by the President's poor showing. Chris Matthews was almost apoplectic in his view that Obama was weak tonight.
For me, the thing I noted was the vast difference in knowledge about economic matters. Romney was in command of facts and economic principles. The President had only his talking points. He clearly does not have a real grasp on economics. If the average guy watched this, there was a clear contrast in competence.
I'm a partisan, but anyone who watched this had to have the same opinion. In fact, a number of liberal commentators were stunned by the President's poor showing. Chris Matthews was almost apoplectic in his view that Obama was weak tonight.
For me, the thing I noted was the vast difference in knowledge about economic matters. Romney was in command of facts and economic principles. The President had only his talking points. He clearly does not have a real grasp on economics. If the average guy watched this, there was a clear contrast in competence.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Boehner's Visit
Speaker of the House John Boehner visited Rochester for some brief remarks at a Maggie Brooks fundraiser on Saturday.
Boehner indicated that Saturday was the second day of a 45 day cross-country trip where he would be speaking in support of GOP candidates for Congress. Boehner's visit makes it clear that the GOP leadership believe that the race for NY-25 could be a GOP pick-up. It is also clear that Boehner would love to knock out a long-time liberal stalwart like Louise Slaughter.
Still, it's a good sign for Maggie because it sends the message that she is on the GOP leadership's radar. They know she has done a great job of fundraising so far in this campaign. They also know she is a popular local politician with a winning record. If they have confidence in her they are far more likely to help her with dollars and other campaign support when the race comes down to the wire.
Boehner indicated that Saturday was the second day of a 45 day cross-country trip where he would be speaking in support of GOP candidates for Congress. Boehner's visit makes it clear that the GOP leadership believe that the race for NY-25 could be a GOP pick-up. It is also clear that Boehner would love to knock out a long-time liberal stalwart like Louise Slaughter.
Still, it's a good sign for Maggie because it sends the message that she is on the GOP leadership's radar. They know she has done a great job of fundraising so far in this campaign. They also know she is a popular local politician with a winning record. If they have confidence in her they are far more likely to help her with dollars and other campaign support when the race comes down to the wire.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
It Worked?
The President seems unable to get out of his own way when it comes to his campaign speeches. First he made his now famous "you didn't build that" comment denigrating American entrepreneurs. The latest is his claim that his economic plan "worked". Really? What exactly is Mr. Obama's definition of success?
Take a look at this Powerline post and video from John Hinderaker featuring a new Romney ad questioning the President's conclusion.
If this is where we are because Obama's plan worked, where would we be if it had failed?
Take a look at this Powerline post and video from John Hinderaker featuring a new Romney ad questioning the President's conclusion.
If this is where we are because Obama's plan worked, where would we be if it had failed?
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Obama's Big Blunder
The chorus of criticism which is being heaped on the President for his "you didn't build that" remarks continues to grow. Democrats are now trying to argue that the President's remarks were taken out of context. I don't agree.
I think that the President let slip his inner feelings. He simply doesn't believe that anything good happens without the government being involved. He doesn't accept or understand the basic American principles of hard work and individual initiative.
The most interesting effect of this has been Mitt Romney seeming to "find his voice" in response to Obama's gaffe. Look at this campaign ad related to the issue.
I think that Obama has given Romney a hammer to beat him with and Romney appears ready and willing to use it.
I think that the President let slip his inner feelings. He simply doesn't believe that anything good happens without the government being involved. He doesn't accept or understand the basic American principles of hard work and individual initiative.
The most interesting effect of this has been Mitt Romney seeming to "find his voice" in response to Obama's gaffe. Look at this campaign ad related to the issue.
I think that Obama has given Romney a hammer to beat him with and Romney appears ready and willing to use it.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Link of the Week
This week's link is from James Pethokoukis writing for the American Enterprise Institute.
The facts and charts contained in his post constitute a scary warning to all Americans who still believe in personal responsibility. His conclusion: "These charts show an out-of-control welfare state that is about to get even bigger, increasing both budget costs and dependency".
Take a look, they're a real eye-opener!
The facts and charts contained in his post constitute a scary warning to all Americans who still believe in personal responsibility. His conclusion: "These charts show an out-of-control welfare state that is about to get even bigger, increasing both budget costs and dependency".
Take a look, they're a real eye-opener!
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Sonny Chung, R.I.P.
Former Gates Police Officer, Sonny Chung, was killed on Saturday (6/2) when he was struck by an out of control SUV while he was walking along Ridge Road in Greece.
The irony of Sonny's death was quite bizarre considering that he narrowly escaped being killed in an on-duty crash of his Police cruiser ten years ago. That accident left Sonny with a serious brain injury and kept him from returning to active duty. Still, Sonny came around often and remained a pleasant and valued member of the Gates Official Family.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to Sonny and his family as they deal with their loss. Everyone who worked for the Town of Gates will always have a warm spot in their hearts for Sonny.
Rest In Peace.
The irony of Sonny's death was quite bizarre considering that he narrowly escaped being killed in an on-duty crash of his Police cruiser ten years ago. That accident left Sonny with a serious brain injury and kept him from returning to active duty. Still, Sonny came around often and remained a pleasant and valued member of the Gates Official Family.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to Sonny and his family as they deal with their loss. Everyone who worked for the Town of Gates will always have a warm spot in their hearts for Sonny.
Rest In Peace.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Its Not That Hard To Understand.
Sandra Parker expressed her belief that Albany overlooks the Rochester region, in a Democrat and Chronicle guest essay this morning. While I agree with her premise, I am surprised at her claim not to understand why.
It is quite simple. Our region has a dysfunctional and ineffective legislative delegation. The "dean" of the delegation is David Gantt. Unfortunately for us, Gantt's main "accomplishment" is trying to stop things from happening. The Senate Republicans and Assembly Democrats never work together on big local projects, preferring to try to score political points. As a result, we generally are left largely with member items.
Finally, it is hardly lost on Sheldon Silver and the rest of NY's liberal Democrat legislators that the Rochester region is the one urban hold-out for GOP control. We aren't likely to get extra dollars from Albany that will help GOP stand-outs like Maggie Brooks.
Come on, Sandy. Don't tell us that this is news to you.
It is quite simple. Our region has a dysfunctional and ineffective legislative delegation. The "dean" of the delegation is David Gantt. Unfortunately for us, Gantt's main "accomplishment" is trying to stop things from happening. The Senate Republicans and Assembly Democrats never work together on big local projects, preferring to try to score political points. As a result, we generally are left largely with member items.
Finally, it is hardly lost on Sheldon Silver and the rest of NY's liberal Democrat legislators that the Rochester region is the one urban hold-out for GOP control. We aren't likely to get extra dollars from Albany that will help GOP stand-outs like Maggie Brooks.
Come on, Sandy. Don't tell us that this is news to you.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Bobby The American
I was in Dallas on business for a few days and I got in late. I noticed the newspaper and I thought I might unwind before turning in. Then I opened the Sports Section to some of the most disappointing news I've ever read: Bob Matthews is retiring.
Frankly, I don't think much of our local paper. When I go to other cities, I almost always find the newspapers there to have superior quality and content. But I can honestly say that I have never read a sports columnist whose work I believed to be better than Bob Matthews.
Bob has been a fixture at the D&C and on WHAM for decades. I've been reading his column for my entire adult life. Bob's style and sports knowledge draws you in and captures you. Plus, Bob has been a real leader in the Rochester community. Everyone knows that Frontier Field would not exist if Bob had not fostered that dream.
I have many times said (only half-jokingly) that the only reason to read the D&C was for the obituaries and Bob Matthews. The D&C may soon find out how many people share that sentiment. They probably don't realize what they are losing.
Good luck Bob. You will be missed!
Frankly, I don't think much of our local paper. When I go to other cities, I almost always find the newspapers there to have superior quality and content. But I can honestly say that I have never read a sports columnist whose work I believed to be better than Bob Matthews.
Bob has been a fixture at the D&C and on WHAM for decades. I've been reading his column for my entire adult life. Bob's style and sports knowledge draws you in and captures you. Plus, Bob has been a real leader in the Rochester community. Everyone knows that Frontier Field would not exist if Bob had not fostered that dream.
I have many times said (only half-jokingly) that the only reason to read the D&C was for the obituaries and Bob Matthews. The D&C may soon find out how many people share that sentiment. They probably don't realize what they are losing.
Good luck Bob. You will be missed!
Sunday, March 11, 2012
But He's Trying!
The Saturday edition of the Democrat and Chronicle included a guest essay from RIT Professor Ronald Amberger. The essay was titled Obama doesn't set oil prices and tried to "explain the real reasons that oil prices are rising ("speculators, people who refuse to conserve oil and the refusal to look to alternative energy sources").
The essay is brief, but Professor Amberger's agenda comes through quite clearly. He is clearly in the Obama/Chu camp of persons who think that Americans need to get used to higher prices for fuel so that "good" (read: green) alternative energy sources are economical (he underscores the fact that natural gas or nuclear energy need not apply).
He makes an incredible argument that if we produced more oil in the US it would only mean "that less oil is produced elsewhere and the price is unaffected". Really? I would love to challenge the economic theory behind that statement, but suffice it to say, if we produced more oil in the US, we would, at least not be lining the pockets of our enemies by purchasing foreign oil. Amberger, like Obama and Chu, wants us to fall for green energy even though the cost is 4 to 5 times the cost of carbon fuels and despite the fact that no green energy source has proved feasible on any significant scale.
The thing that really bugs me about the essay is the hypocrisy. The President, the Energy Secretary and Professor Amberger all actually believe that rising prices for gasoline are a good thing. They just don't want to be blamed by the" unreasonable" and "ignorant" public who don't want or like the high prices. If they are all so damn sure they are right, they should make the case for alternative energy without resort to smoke and mirrors.
The problem is that they can't.
The essay is brief, but Professor Amberger's agenda comes through quite clearly. He is clearly in the Obama/Chu camp of persons who think that Americans need to get used to higher prices for fuel so that "good" (read: green) alternative energy sources are economical (he underscores the fact that natural gas or nuclear energy need not apply).
He makes an incredible argument that if we produced more oil in the US it would only mean "that less oil is produced elsewhere and the price is unaffected". Really? I would love to challenge the economic theory behind that statement, but suffice it to say, if we produced more oil in the US, we would, at least not be lining the pockets of our enemies by purchasing foreign oil. Amberger, like Obama and Chu, wants us to fall for green energy even though the cost is 4 to 5 times the cost of carbon fuels and despite the fact that no green energy source has proved feasible on any significant scale.
The thing that really bugs me about the essay is the hypocrisy. The President, the Energy Secretary and Professor Amberger all actually believe that rising prices for gasoline are a good thing. They just don't want to be blamed by the" unreasonable" and "ignorant" public who don't want or like the high prices. If they are all so damn sure they are right, they should make the case for alternative energy without resort to smoke and mirrors.
The problem is that they can't.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
UR Free Speech Update
My latest Update on this issue was so far down the page I decided to paste it up here, as well. The links are live in UPDATE II at the bottom of the original post.
There is quite a storm in academic and political circles over Seligman's remarks (much of it available thanks to Instapundit). Check out posts here, here, and, here. The last link includes this quote:
“Most worrisome, however, is the fact that UR allowed its students to disrupt Landsburg’s class without any consequences, despite the fact that campus security was on the scene. What happened in Landsburg’s class is a textbook example of ‘mob censorship,’ where a group of people silence or drown out a speaker with whose views they disagree. A classroom is perhaps the least appropriate place for something like this to happen, and the fact that UR did not see fit to clear the heckling students out of the class is disturbing.”
There is quite a storm in academic and political circles over Seligman's remarks (much of it available thanks to Instapundit). Check out posts here, here, and, here. The last link includes this quote:
“Most worrisome, however, is the fact that UR allowed its students to disrupt Landsburg’s class without any consequences, despite the fact that campus security was on the scene. What happened in Landsburg’s class is a textbook example of ‘mob censorship,’ where a group of people silence or drown out a speaker with whose views they disagree. A classroom is perhaps the least appropriate place for something like this to happen, and the fact that UR did not see fit to clear the heckling students out of the class is disturbing.”
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Free Speech Out at U of R
U of R President Joel Seligman criticized economics professor Steven Landsburgh for agreeing with the underlying premise of Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke. Landsburgh disagreed with Limbaugh's use of pejoratives describing Fluke, but he concurred with Rush on the issue of obtaining free contraception. This was Landsburgh's blog post on the topic.
Seligman was not amused. He criticised Landsburgh for defending Rush. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit cited the flap. His post contains remarks by several professors indicating their concerns that Seligman's attack would appear to be contrary to a reasoned view of Free Speech.
Ann Althouse quoted Seligman and commented on his criticism:
(Seligman) "I was deeply disappointed to read UR Professor Steve Landsburg’s recent blogs praising Rush Limbaugh for a “spot-on analogy” with respect to his offensive remarks about Georgetown student Sandra Fluke (although Landsburg parted company with Limbaugh for calling Fluke a “slut”). Landsburg went further. He stated that Ms. Fluke’s position deserved “only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered.” He further stated that the right word for her position was “extortionist,” characterized those who disagreed with his view as “contraceptive sponges,” and added that there is nothing wrong with being paid for sex... I am outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion. To openly ridicule, mock, or jeer a student in this way is about the most offensive thing a professor can do. We are here to educate, to nurture, to inspire, not to engage in character assassination."
(Althouse) "To openly ridicule, mock, or jeer a student in your classroom may be one of the most offensive things a professor can do, but when a student is a political activist who testifies before a congressional subcommittee on a specific policy question that you disagree with, it's not that horrible to blog about that. Of course, Seligman is a political actor. He's got to deal with his intra-university constituencies. I'd like to know who's been pressuring him to push back Landsburg."
(Seligman) "Landsburg now has made himself newsworthy as one of Limbaugh’s few defenders. I wish he had focused instead on the ideal of a university as an institution that promotes the free exchange of ideas and lively debate at its best in an atmosphere of civil discourse in which the dignity of every individual is respected."
(Althouse) "Lively, but not too lively, apparently. And please don't stick out "as one of Limbaugh’s few defenders." The more people are all on one side of an issue, in Seligman's view, the more important it is for everybody to get over on that side. And Landsburg ought to focus on... what? Some abstract ideal that Seligman seems to be violating in the process of mushily stating?"
The Instapundit link takes you to Althouse's whole post and includes other views on the point.
Interesting that I didn't see any of this in the local paper. Not surprising, however, as Seligman is one of the D&C's local favorites. And we sure know how they feel about Rush. I'd love their take on the Free Speech question, though.
UPDATE: Oops, see what happens when I go out of town and don't read the newspaper? The D&C did, in fact, report on the Seligman and student protests of Landsburg. I stand corrected.
UPDATE II: There is quite a storm in academic and political circles over Seligman's remarks (much of it thanks to Instapundit). Check out posts here, here, and, here. The last link includes this quote:
“Most worrisome, however, is the fact that UR allowed its students to disrupt Landsburg’s class without any consequences, despite the fact that campus security was on the scene. What happened in Landsburg’s class is a textbook example of ‘mob censorship,’ where a group of people silence or drown out a speaker with whose views they disagree. A classroom is perhaps the least appropriate place for something like this to happen, and the fact that UR did not see fit to clear the heckling students out of the class is disturbing.”
Has there been any follow-up in the Democrat and Chronicle?
Seligman was not amused. He criticised Landsburgh for defending Rush. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit cited the flap. His post contains remarks by several professors indicating their concerns that Seligman's attack would appear to be contrary to a reasoned view of Free Speech.
Ann Althouse quoted Seligman and commented on his criticism:
(Seligman) "I was deeply disappointed to read UR Professor Steve Landsburg’s recent blogs praising Rush Limbaugh for a “spot-on analogy” with respect to his offensive remarks about Georgetown student Sandra Fluke (although Landsburg parted company with Limbaugh for calling Fluke a “slut”). Landsburg went further. He stated that Ms. Fluke’s position deserved “only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered.” He further stated that the right word for her position was “extortionist,” characterized those who disagreed with his view as “contraceptive sponges,” and added that there is nothing wrong with being paid for sex... I am outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion. To openly ridicule, mock, or jeer a student in this way is about the most offensive thing a professor can do. We are here to educate, to nurture, to inspire, not to engage in character assassination."
(Althouse) "To openly ridicule, mock, or jeer a student in your classroom may be one of the most offensive things a professor can do, but when a student is a political activist who testifies before a congressional subcommittee on a specific policy question that you disagree with, it's not that horrible to blog about that. Of course, Seligman is a political actor. He's got to deal with his intra-university constituencies. I'd like to know who's been pressuring him to push back Landsburg."
(Seligman) "Landsburg now has made himself newsworthy as one of Limbaugh’s few defenders. I wish he had focused instead on the ideal of a university as an institution that promotes the free exchange of ideas and lively debate at its best in an atmosphere of civil discourse in which the dignity of every individual is respected."
(Althouse) "Lively, but not too lively, apparently. And please don't stick out "as one of Limbaugh’s few defenders." The more people are all on one side of an issue, in Seligman's view, the more important it is for everybody to get over on that side. And Landsburg ought to focus on... what? Some abstract ideal that Seligman seems to be violating in the process of mushily stating?"
The Instapundit link takes you to Althouse's whole post and includes other views on the point.
Interesting that I didn't see any of this in the local paper. Not surprising, however, as Seligman is one of the D&C's local favorites. And we sure know how they feel about Rush. I'd love their take on the Free Speech question, though.
UPDATE: Oops, see what happens when I go out of town and don't read the newspaper? The D&C did, in fact, report on the Seligman and student protests of Landsburg. I stand corrected.
UPDATE II: There is quite a storm in academic and political circles over Seligman's remarks (much of it thanks to Instapundit). Check out posts here, here, and, here. The last link includes this quote:
“Most worrisome, however, is the fact that UR allowed its students to disrupt Landsburg’s class without any consequences, despite the fact that campus security was on the scene. What happened in Landsburg’s class is a textbook example of ‘mob censorship,’ where a group of people silence or drown out a speaker with whose views they disagree. A classroom is perhaps the least appropriate place for something like this to happen, and the fact that UR did not see fit to clear the heckling students out of the class is disturbing.”
Has there been any follow-up in the Democrat and Chronicle?
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Cold Temps, High Spirits
The annual "Polar Plunge" fundraiser for the Special Olympics took place today at Charlotte Beach. There were over 1500 plungers including an 83 year old former Rochester City Police Officer, and an equal number of spectators and volunteers.
The event raised around $250,000 for the Special Olympics. The event is the brainchild of Sal Gerbino, a former Gates Police Sergent and long time supporter of the Special Olympics. Sal started 12 years ago with 48 plungers raising about $1,000. Today the event has grown to enormous proportions and the participants came from all across the area and from all walks of life.
One thing was true this year, the "polar" was really evident. The wind was whipping, snow falling and lake Ontario had whitecaps and breakers. The cold temperatures did not dampen the enthusiasm. The participants had fun and did a good deed for a great cause.
The event raised around $250,000 for the Special Olympics. The event is the brainchild of Sal Gerbino, a former Gates Police Sergent and long time supporter of the Special Olympics. Sal started 12 years ago with 48 plungers raising about $1,000. Today the event has grown to enormous proportions and the participants came from all across the area and from all walks of life.
One thing was true this year, the "polar" was really evident. The wind was whipping, snow falling and lake Ontario had whitecaps and breakers. The cold temperatures did not dampen the enthusiasm. The participants had fun and did a good deed for a great cause.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Gates' Boom Continues
Despite the economic doldrums across the State and the region, the Town of Gates continues to be a hub of economic development.
Today's Democrat and Chronicle reported on the expansion of Closing, USA, a real estate and title company which is moving into the Rochester Tech Park and adding about 100 new jobs. This comes on the heels of expansion of the Sutherland Group (400 jobs), the Quaker Steak opening (100 jobs) and the expansion of Precise Tool on Cherry Road.
The Tech Park is now over half full (and remember, we are talking about a huge facility; it was built to hold 26,000 employees). There have also been a number of upgrades of many properties in the town, such as the Wegman's office building on Chili Avenue and storefronts in the Gates Plaza and Tops Plaza.
Future developments include the opening of Jeremiah's restaurant and the possible construction of a Fast Track gas station/convenience store. There have been preliminary discussions regarding hotels and residential developments, too. Finally, an unconfirmed rumor has it that the Seneca Nation has the Tech Park on its short list for possible casino sites.
Gates has always been the geographic center of Monroe County. Now it is becoming the economic center, as well.
UPDATE 2/10/12:
I spoke with Supervisor Assini this morning and he informed me that Gates' businesses have added a net of 1600 jobs in the past 14 months. And unlike the jobs allegedly created by the Obama Administration, you can actually find these 1600 workers in the Town of Gates.
Today's Democrat and Chronicle reported on the expansion of Closing, USA, a real estate and title company which is moving into the Rochester Tech Park and adding about 100 new jobs. This comes on the heels of expansion of the Sutherland Group (400 jobs), the Quaker Steak opening (100 jobs) and the expansion of Precise Tool on Cherry Road.
The Tech Park is now over half full (and remember, we are talking about a huge facility; it was built to hold 26,000 employees). There have also been a number of upgrades of many properties in the town, such as the Wegman's office building on Chili Avenue and storefronts in the Gates Plaza and Tops Plaza.
Future developments include the opening of Jeremiah's restaurant and the possible construction of a Fast Track gas station/convenience store. There have been preliminary discussions regarding hotels and residential developments, too. Finally, an unconfirmed rumor has it that the Seneca Nation has the Tech Park on its short list for possible casino sites.
Gates has always been the geographic center of Monroe County. Now it is becoming the economic center, as well.
UPDATE 2/10/12:
I spoke with Supervisor Assini this morning and he informed me that Gates' businesses have added a net of 1600 jobs in the past 14 months. And unlike the jobs allegedly created by the Obama Administration, you can actually find these 1600 workers in the Town of Gates.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
No "Obama Moment" For Kodak
The Kodak bankruptcy has understandably been big news in Rochester, but given Kodak's iconic status, it has also made news across the country.
This is a sardonic take by Henry Payne in the National Review Online about the way the Obama administration operates, using the Kodak B/K as its basis. To be fair, Kodak would not have been a business which really justified a bail-out, but Payne is correct on the point that since Kodak is a non-union shop, the idea would never have come up in the current administration.
This is a sardonic take by Henry Payne in the National Review Online about the way the Obama administration operates, using the Kodak B/K as its basis. To be fair, Kodak would not have been a business which really justified a bail-out, but Payne is correct on the point that since Kodak is a non-union shop, the idea would never have come up in the current administration.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Pressure By Any Other Name
Today's Democrat & Chronicle indicated that "pressure" was being applied on the MCC Board of Trustee's to decide on a location for their downtown campus.
I thought they already decided.
The "pressure" the D&C was describing was the building owner's threat that if a new lease isn't signed at the Sibley Building, MCC may be out. Obviously, MCC needs a location until the Kodak site is ready (which would not be for 2 years).
Pressure? Sounds like extortion.
I thought they already decided.
The "pressure" the D&C was describing was the building owner's threat that if a new lease isn't signed at the Sibley Building, MCC may be out. Obviously, MCC needs a location until the Kodak site is ready (which would not be for 2 years).
Pressure? Sounds like extortion.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Is Santorum For Real?
After scoring a dead heat with Mitt Romney in Iowa, Rick Santorum is the latest "non-Mitt" candidate to catch fire. Will he last? Charles Krauthammer seems to think so.
Krauthammer, writing in the National Review Online, called Santorum "an admirably worthy conservative alternative" to Mitt Romney. Many have derided Santorum because of his very sharp social conservative views. But I wonder if Krauthammer is on to something with his view that conservative "Reagan Democrats" may be looking for someone who does hold to some old-fashioned bedrock social viewpoints. Those voters have seen "Occupy Wall Street" and they are not impressed.
Several years ago, I sent Santorum a few bucks as he tried unsuccessfully to hold his PA Senate seat. I hadn't thought much about his chances as a GOP Presidential nominee. A few weeks ago, a friend gave me a link to a website where you answer questions and it tells you which candidate you most agree with. I expected it to say Newt Gingrich, but I was surprised to learn it was Santorum. I would not have thought so, because I don't consider myself a strident social conservative. But after looking at some of his other views, I realized that I did support quite a bit of his "platform"
It remains to be seen if Santorum is a contender or a pretender. But I think Krauthammer may be correct in his assessment that Santorum is "the first challenger {to Romney} to be plausibly presidential: knowledgeable, articulate, experienced, of stable character and authentic ideology". Time will tell.
Krauthammer, writing in the National Review Online, called Santorum "an admirably worthy conservative alternative" to Mitt Romney. Many have derided Santorum because of his very sharp social conservative views. But I wonder if Krauthammer is on to something with his view that conservative "Reagan Democrats" may be looking for someone who does hold to some old-fashioned bedrock social viewpoints. Those voters have seen "Occupy Wall Street" and they are not impressed.
Several years ago, I sent Santorum a few bucks as he tried unsuccessfully to hold his PA Senate seat. I hadn't thought much about his chances as a GOP Presidential nominee. A few weeks ago, a friend gave me a link to a website where you answer questions and it tells you which candidate you most agree with. I expected it to say Newt Gingrich, but I was surprised to learn it was Santorum. I would not have thought so, because I don't consider myself a strident social conservative. But after looking at some of his other views, I realized that I did support quite a bit of his "platform"
It remains to be seen if Santorum is a contender or a pretender. But I think Krauthammer may be correct in his assessment that Santorum is "the first challenger {to Romney} to be plausibly presidential: knowledgeable, articulate, experienced, of stable character and authentic ideology". Time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
