Maggie's Farm

Last week, I agreed to do some volunteer work at a local grade school.  We cleaned up and re-painted 2 basketball courts in Harlem.  The work was managed by a public/private partnership of the NYC Parks Department.  I was able to get some first hand knowledge on why we need volunteers so much.

The most interesting thing I noticed was how ill-prepared our Parks Department representative was.  Leaves were all over the courts and needed to be removed.  There were 3 men with small bags doing this work.  Slowly.  Clearly union work.  I offered to grab some bags and start getting the leaves off, but was told no, these men would do it.  After removing about one-eighth of all the leaves, they left.  Gone, finished.  Nothing left behind to finish the job of removing leaves.  Our representative had all the tools we needed to paint - but we were going to have to paint with leaves in the way and blowing all over the courts.  I saw, at the start, this was a clinic in how the government manages things.

I read this today.  Krugman is the king of fallacies and member of the royal family when it comes to revisionism.  I'm not sure what world exists in which unproductive spending is better than nothing.  If all I did was spend money buying sand to make an ever larger sand pile, soon I will be bankrupt.  Multiply this many times over a population, and soon society is starving and bankrupt.

“This is the kind of environment in which Keynes’s hypothetical policy of burying currency in coalmines and letting the private sector dig it up – or my version, which involves faking a threat from nonexistent space aliens – becomes a good thing; spending is good, and while productive spending is best, unproductive spending is still better than nothing.”

(cough, cough.  bullsh-t)

Tesla electric cars look pretty cool.  The owners of a Tesla (assuming it's an owner whose car didn't catch fire) love their cars and evangelize them.

I'm not sure I'm a Tesla guy.  Nothing against the technology, but they are expensive to buy and maintain.  They take too long to 'refuel'.

Regardless, these are cars that more or less sell themselves.  So why in the world do they need to engage in false advertising and hyperbole?  My father, a surgeon, never advertised even after the law was changed and he was allowed to.  Why, I asked?  His response was that good product and good service sells itself.  His business was always strong.  Sometimes, however, it pays to advertise if your product is very good.  But it doesn't pay to create your own standards when you do it.

I recently had a discussion with one of the hiring managers at my office, discussing an informational interview she'd had with a young fellow graduating from college.  Good experience was all over his resume, plenty of jobs, references and the candidate played on a Div. 1 football squad.  He was second team on defense, but he had an agent encouraging him to go pro.  He had a good shot at making the NFL, either on a practice squad somewhere or possibly special teams, both offering the chance of better things.

He was a good student, too.  As a result, he opted out of the NFL, and decided the working life was a better career choice.  He was a bit tired of the culture of football.  He loved it, but it's grinding work.  He wanted to use other skills he'd developed.  I don't blame him.

As the hiring manager and I spoke, she commented "Well, he has the added benefit of being diverse."

I looked at her and said, "What do you mean, exactly?"

"I think you know what I mean, he's ethnic."

"So he's black.  You're telling me this makes him more qualified?"

"No, not more qualified, but you know how things are today.  We have to remain conscious of this fact, diversity is so important in the workplace."

"Yes, I agree, it is important.  But having me as part of the team doesn't make us more diverse?  I'm curious if I'm diverse?"

"Well, you're diverse in terms of thought.  You think in ways nobody else here does, but that's not what we focus on in diversity."

"So I'm not diverse?"

A recent look back at his tenure as president of Miami University (OH), the school my son happens to attend, did not provide any new insights.  However, it does support my view of what is wrong with the education process.  After many visits to Miami and other universities, it's clear there is too much emphasis on coddling the students.  There is a war going on to provide the best dorms, the best cafe-style foods, the best recreation center, the best student union.  Building on the Miami campus, which really does resemble a private school in look and feel, is rampant.  You can't turn a corner without seeing construction.

I have complained that the cost of my son's education is primarily to support spending on new 'stuff' rather than better education.  I'm glad to see the former president more or less agrees.  It is a problem which is not isolated to Miami, I've seen similar activity taking place on every campus I visited.

It doesn't help that Federal loans and grants are helping to fuel this work, either.  Ultimately, whether you have a child at university or not, this is costing you money. 

It may seem odd to take advice from a cartoonist, but "Dilbert" is usually spot-on with its portrayal of the absurdities we run into here in the office ranks.

Scott Adams has a unique understanding of human nature.  He also understands management reality, which he juxtaposes with the goal-based thoughts of standard office denizens.  The result is a very humorous and informative strip.

His advice on how to manage your career is equally useful.  Most of us are so far along, it may not benefit us at this stage of our careers.  You're never too old to learn, though.  My career improved after I made some alterations in office demeanor in my late 40's, and I continue to evolve.  

I shared the linked article with my staff and my sons.  It makes several points which I truly believe.

I can't think of a better day than today to have a Biblical post about government.  Zerohedge, of course, does the legwork.

No, it's not a post with Biblical quotes are references.  In some ways, it's just another listicle, but more informative and thoughtful than your standard "10 reasons why...".

On a recent trip West to visit our elder scholar, now spending his time in Oxford, Ohio, we decided to break up the 10 hour drive with a stop at Fallingwater, Frank Lloyd Wright's signature work.  It is no surprise Smithsonian Magazine listed it as one of the 28 places to see before you die (I'm surprised there are only 28, but glad I checked this off).

I've always felt it was a place I needed to see.  I was correct.  It lived up to every expectation.  Pictures don't do it justice(but I'll share some anyway).  The story enhances the visuals to a degree I had not prepared myself.  You could visit this several times a year and get a substantially different feel each time.  

Wright had something very particular in mind when he built this, and he clearly achieved what he set out to accomplish.  It wasn't easy.  He exceeded budget, there were disputes, and Wright was not easy to work with all the time.  But the owners of the home, the Kaufmans, had bought into his vision, and the results are spectacular.

While their original budget was only $35,000, total costs eventually topped $155,000 (roughly $3mm today).  While it would be nearly impossible to build this structure today due to environmental impact issues (this structure has been assessed regularly has having a negligible impact on the environment, which says something about environmental regulations, as well as Wright's ability to deliver on a vision), the costs would clearly be far higher than the inflation-adjusted figure of $3mm.  In addition, you'd have to account for the costs of ego, which were significant in this project.

I don't want to spend time criticizing doctors.  My father is one, after all.  I also don't want to criticize the VA.  I'm sure many of our readers utilize the VA services and may be happy with the care they receive.  Or perhaps they aren't, I'm not sure.  I don't use the VA and don't have personal experience, but my father did some work there while he was in the Navy years ago, and remains very critical of its administration to this day.

He always told me if I'd like a glimpse at what a government run program for health provision would resemble, take a look at the VA.  My extended family members who have utilized the VA did so mainly because they could, and they lacked any other access to health services.  None were particularly happy with it, except to say it didn't cost them much when they needed it.

I don't want to imply this kind of abuse can't happen in private practice.  Certainly Hollywood stars have managed to find their fair share of enablers.  But when it is the government running things, we're supposed to expect better, and when it's a single payer system, we won't have the range of choice to avoid charlatans.

I received, from the president's emailing spambot, this unsolicited email which explains why the government is shut down.  A quick read tells me exactly how poorly informed this man is.

He uses the purchase of a house as the basis of negotiation, and compares the current shutdown to a potential buyer threatening to burn down the house being negotiated.  This is not only extreme, but wrong.  Clearly, he's never negotiated the purchase of a home.

A better comparison is to picture the potential buyer saying "I don't like the price you're asking, because there is an oil tank buried in the back and it may start seeping and destroying the ground soon.  I would prefer that you have that tank removed.  In the meantime, I'm willing to buy the house at this significantly reduced price."  At that point, Harry Reid (the seller) replies, "No you don't have the right to ask to remove that tank and the alternative offer you've made is not under consideration.  I choose to no longer speak with you.  Come back when you're realistic with a 'clean offer' on the house and just forget about getting rid of that tank.  I've grown to love that tank, and you should too.  I'd rather see the whole thing fall apart than speak with you."

And then he blames the potential buyer for the end of negotiations, when clearly he is the person at fault. 

President Obama Explains the Shutdown

Yesterday, eight days into the Republican government shutdown, President Obama spoke from the White House about the need for Republicans in Congress to stop threatening another recession just to sabotage Obamacare, stop demanding ransom just for doing their jobs, and just vote to reopen the government. He talked about the toll this shutdown is already taking on our country and the economy, and warned against the dire consequences of a default if Congress doesn’t act to prevent an economic shutdown.

Keeping the government running and paying the nation’s bills aren’t bargaining chips or a matter of negotiation – they’re a fundamental part of Congress’s job. Here’s how the President put it yesterday:

"If you're in negotiations around buying somebody's house, you don't get to say, 'Well, let's talk about the price I'm going to pay, and if you don't give the price then I'm going to burn down your house.' That's not how negotiations work.... In the same way, members of Congress -- and the House Republicans in particular -- don't get to demand ransom in exchange for doing their jobs. And two of their very basic jobs are passing a budget and making sure that America is paying its bills."

Watch the President’s statement here, and then pass it on to your friends:

As the President has made clear -- and the press has reported -- the government could be reopened, today, with the votes of reasonable Republicans and Democrats if Tea Party Republicans would allow a simple yes-or-no vote on a Senate-passed compromise bill to fund the United States government. It’s time for Congress to just vote and end this government shutdown now.

Recently, I was invited to join a company seminar on "Reinvigorating the Workday."  You spend a few hours at a desk, and reinvigorating yourself seems like a great idea.  The seminar was very helpful, providing good information, some stretching exercises and mental games to 'loosen up' a bit when things start to get repetitive.

Toward the end, the instructor decided to discuss healthy foods.  She correctly pointed out what you eat can impact how you feel throughout the day.  While I believe this, what I got was a lecture on food 'toxins'.  The minute I hear someone talking about toxins in food, my eyes glaze over.  Another nut talking about their perfect diet.  Which is exactly what we got.  I decided to play along, because being snarky can be fun.

The instructor admitted alcohol is a toxin, but we all need to unwind, so you should be careful about what kinds of wine or beer you choose.  Obviously, fewer preservatives is 'better'.  I told her I brew my own beer, and I prefer craft brews to standard national brands.  I was lauded for being so careful about my food choices.

However, when she moved into chocolate, caffeine, and other standard fare, the word 'toxins' became more common.  I asked her if she ate almonds.  She replied almonds are very good for you, very natural.  I then pointed out wild almonds (and to a significantly lower degree domesticated almonds) contain cyanic acid which can be toxic, since it is the basis of cyanide.  So my question was, how much of my natural diet could be too much?  Unaware of this fact, she stumbled a bit, and mentioned moderation. 

I'm an extremist when it comes to supporting moderation.  It's what I used to lose 30 pounds over the course of the year.  Moderate amounts of the same food I always eat.  I didn't change my diet at all.  Since the instructor had met me before, she asked about my weight loss and what foods I was eating.  I proudly told her I have no problem with genetically modified foods, diet sodas, and a host of other items.  She looked at me in horror.  I told her, as she pointed out, moderation is important.  I'm not opposed to healthy eating and if all-natural is your bag, go for it.  But please don't treat me as if I'm a simpleton because I enjoy what I enjoy.  I'm not killing myself every time I have a Diet Coke or a Big Mac, though to hear her speak I am making a conscious choice to poison myself.

So I did a bit of research, and sent her a list of natural foods which contain toxins (I particularly like this link - the politics of healthy eating - as if politicizing food choices can save us all from ourselves!).  Some I was aware of, others not so much.  I pointed out what she considers 'toxins' (usually preservatives) enable a much larger percentage of the world to eat.  In fact, it allows them to eat good foods and healthy foods, and is part of the reason why the world is a better, healthier place in general.  If we were to move to an all-natural farming structure, eating only natural foods, not only would we likely starve half the world, but we'd be spending far too much time farming.

Toxins are everywhere.  Even water is toxic, in sufficient quantities.  So enjoy the toxins in your foods, whether they are natural or processed.

Great trick played on coffee shop patrons in the Village, which I saw on the news this morning.  Sure, it's a viral ad (funny that an ad is preceded by advertising...such is the way of media today), but it's incredibly well set up, well designed.  I doubt I'll see the movie they're promoting (the original was a classic in the genre), but credit to the marketing guys who did this.

Three years ago, I was playing tennis during the final weekend of summer.  The previous two weeks, I'd had some calf pain, nothing significant, I just kept stretching to keep it loose.  Suddenly, while chasing a shot down the line, I collapsed with a sharp pain in my calf.  At first, it felt like a hot stone had hit my calf.  This feeling matched the description my brother had given me of tearing his Achilles, so naturally I was concerned.  However, I was able to stand and walk, although stiff and in pain.

This past Friday, while on a golf outing with a client, I was walking down from the first tee when I was hit by the same 'stone' in my other leg.  Luckily, this time I knew what the issue was and completed the round, though I used my clubs for support at times.

I suffered, both times, from a tear or strain of the Plantaris tendon.  The Plantaris is a vestigial muscle in the calf, often harvested for repair work because it has a tendon which runs from the heel almost up to the knee, attaching a very small muscle.  It's length and relatively low capacity makes it attractive for harvest when the need arises.  The tricky part is that about 7-10% of all people don't even have this tendon. 

 Even though the injury is the result of an indirect mechanism, subjectively the patient may describe direct trauma to the calf region – often the athlete feels as though they were struck on the calf by an object such as a ball or piece of equipment.

Tennis players often suffer strains and tears of the Plantaris.  My guess is this is due to less attention being paid to the calves by most workouts.  At the gym I rarely see people stretching or even working out their calves.  But the calves require more attention than they typically get.  I'm resting it now and avoiding my usual leg workout at the gym.

There are some things in life which are observable, and conform to rules which we may be capable of determining.  There are other things which are observable, don't necessarily conform to rules, but often are postulated to be rules.

Empirical evidence often suggests certain actions may yield desired results, because a rule exists supporting this action.  We were told the stimulus would yield, at a minimum, $1.25 for every dollar spent.  This multiplier has been seen before, is measurable (to a degree) and conforms to Keynes' prediction of a multiplier.  Many people claimed the return on stimulus would be much higher - upwards of $1.75!  But Keynes' 'rule' of a multiplier, just because it was observed, isn't necessarily a rule.

The truth is, we spent far more than we gained in GDP over the last 5 years.  There is a reason for this.  While a multiplier may exist, and probably does, the factor may vary.  More importantly, it is likely to take place if stimulus is focused on productive activity, not consumption.  We have spent the last 4 years pushing consumption, telling people to buy homes, cars, food or anything at all.  Keep the access to money cheap and available, provide support ot everyone.  But here are the results.  It's true this data is for the G-7, but a quick review of data in the US shows just as bad a return on dollars spent.

In the 20 years prior to Bush's final year and Obama, the average deficit was roughly $253 billion.  In the last 5 years it was $1,215 billion.  Over 5 years, we spent $6 trillion more than we collected in taxes to generate....$800 billion in GDP growth.  That's a return of 13 cents on every dollar of deficit.  In the previous 20 years, GDP grew by $5.57 trillion compared to $5.069 trillion in deficit for a return of $1.10 on each dollar of deficit.  At some point, the Keynesians have to admit defeat.

Some economists predicted a slow economic recovery.  Even Krugman did.  But sometimes you can be wrong, even when you are absolutely right.  It's all in the context.  Krugman is great at twisting context to suit his needs.

(It's worth noting the link to the Money article may go some way toward explaining why it's so easy to get food stamps these days.  But then again, there are many different ways to look at poverty, which means how we address it needs to improve.)

For months, I was trying to explain to my wife a vocal affectation younger members of the office staff employ.  I've noticed it for about 2 or 3 years, and its use is growing, not diminishing.  I can't mimic it myself, and trying to explain it to her only left her more confused than before.  I asked my boys if they were aware of it, but since I couldn't explain it well, they just shook their heads.

Then, on CBS' Sunday Morning program, a short piece was delivered on "Vocal Fry".  That's it, I pointed out to my wife.  I don't have the CBS piece, but here is a very clear example of the speech pattern.

When I first heard it, I thought "that's someone trying to be a Valley Girl," but the tone is lower rather than higher, as it is in Valleyspeak.  I assumed, like Valleyspeak, it would be a fad and go away.  Its use has grown substantially, however.  Today, apparently, it is used as a means of sounding either authoritative or sexy.  I think it sounds lazy.  I don't think I'm judging harshly, oftentimes when this voice is used, the person provides a blank stare along with it.  Clearly it began as a derisive or insulting voice, though now it's just commonplace.

Once, an anxious parent wrote into Liberman’s blog to complain that a Ph.D. daughter populates her speech with uptalks, as do her doctor/lawyer peers. Could Liberman point to any research proving the “negative effects” of this feminine affectation? “You're certainly entitled to your crotchets and irks, just as your adult daughter is entitled to her prosodic preferences,” Liberman responded. “But in order for the two of you to get along, something's going to have to give. And realistically, it's you.”

It's not just women doing it, either.  Many of the young men in my office are beginning to use it, one young fellow outside my office speaks exclusively in vocal fry.  Is it an affectation?  Perhaps it started out that way, but it's becoming a standard.

I don't agree with Liberman's response.  Sure, I'm getting old and young people are doing things I don't like or agree with.  Most of it I can live with.  But as a parent, I don't have to accept anything, even from an adult son/daughter.  My father will still comment on behaviors of mine he dislikes, and I accept his point of view, even if I don't always agree with it.  More often than not, though, I realize he's got a point.  Even as adults, we can still learn, and we should learn, from our parents.

Have you heard it, and if so, what was your point of view?

My attention was drawn to this article recently, though it is several years old.  An intriguing method of balancing desires and scarce resources.  I am reminded of my youth and music, playing a record I enjoyed over and over again until, at some point, I just didn't want to listen to that great song or album anymore.

I doubt I would have employed Ayn Rand's rationale if asked to choose my toys when I was young.  Delayed gratification isn't something most of us understand until later in life.  Today, however, I take a very different view about how I employ things I enjoy.  I realize my enjoyment can wear thin quickly, so I tend to not 'overplay the record'.

Fifty years ago, psychologists played a cunning trick on a bunch of American four-year-olds. They were given a marshmallow and told that if they waited for 20 minutes before eating it, they could have another one. Most cracked within seconds, but about one in three held out and – with suitably smug expressions, no doubt – got two sickly confections when the experimenter came back into the room. Their careers have been tracked to the present day, and the goody two-shoes among them (I am sure I would have scoffed the sweet at once) seemed to be healthier, to do better at school, and to have more controlled and perhaps happier lives than those who gave in.

Austrian Economics is deeply concerned with 'time-preference' and its impact on the market, because choosing between immediate and delayed pleasures are part of what drive the market.  This explains, to some degree, the general opposition to Keynesian stimuli.

A friend of mine sent me this link with the comment "This is the best song of the summer."  I opened it, expecting to be blown away.  I was, though I have to admit not in the sense I expected.  It definitely got some sideways glances from the rest of my family while I listened.

Meanwhile, my friend was kind enough to pass this along to me, as well.  A sorbet for the ears, I suppose.  Math makes good music.  Fibonacci numbers are a sequence beginning with 0 and 1, then each following number is comprised of the previous two added together.  Thus the sequence is 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13....and so on.  Fibonacci numbers are closely related to Phi, or the golden ratio, which nature follows very closely.  Items which utilize the golden ratio are aesthetically pleasing.

I don't play an instrument, and I suffer from tinnitus, but I know when I hear something I enjoy.

OK, this may be one post that goes over some people's heads, but I'm having a chuckle over it.  For context, if you're unaware, the Austrian School of Economics is not about Austria, but about a group of economists who were primarily Austrian (von Mises, Hayek, Schumpeter), and support free market economics.  The Chicago School was comprised of economists from the University of Chicago, of whom the most notable was Milton Friedman.

Apparently, it doesn't take much schooling to become a CEO, just the ability to shake hands, tell anecdotes, and generally be personable.

Hope you all had a great week and are looking forward to a relaxing Saturday.  Bulldog back again, providing morning links because Doc Mercury was busy howling at the moon late into the night.  Something about that salt air...

Philo T. Farnsworth developed a vast wasteland on this day in 1927.  

Leftist media hates censorship, unless it's their censorship.  Media Matters seeks to quiet Joe Kernan and have CNBC spend more time discussing the perils of AGW.  If CNBC could just get some viewers, what they say might be worth censoring.  42,000 signatures is important, because, you know, it's a consensus.

I do loves me a Big Mac every once in a while, but how will raising the minimum wage affect Mickey D's?  I will not pay $17 for a Big Mac (I paid only $5.50 a week ago).  A $15.00 minimum wage will only make it more difficult for the poor to feed themselves.

The problem with anyone feeding themselves is that everything they eat will kill them.  When I read articles claiming "Collard Greens May Cause 85% of all Colds!", or articles about things that cause cancer (or almost any disease) my inner skeptic is aroused.  For example, recent studies linking meat to Alzheimer's.  Note the key word in this, and virtually every other title of this nature.  Could.  One of my favorite sites utilizes an acronym, MMC, for these articles.  May, Might, Could.  In fact, the article on red meat even points out:

Dr Marie Janson, of Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: “This study suggests that during Alzheimer’s, iron could accumulate in an area of the brain that is critical to memory, but it is not clear whether this build-up might be a cause or consequence of the disease."

Correlation does not imply causation.  If we study football statistics, we can see that teams which take a knee win an overwhelming amount of the games.  A new headline: "Studies Show Quarterbacks That Genuflect Win 90% of Games".  A new strategy I hope the New York Giants adopt because, after all, science proves it works.

In this case, however, the word "May" carries an entirely different meaning.  You take your Molly, or any hard drug, you take your chances.

Apparently, the bar scene isn't even all that safe these days.  Guess you take your chances anywhere.

Even the dead don't get much peace.  I grew up near Jim Thorpe, this is about the most excitement they've had, well, ever.

Moving a body is contentious, and so is patent and copyright law lately.  I'm not sure where I stand on the issue.  Jeffrey Tucker's view is a Libertarian stance, which someone once explained to me this way:  "If I light a match, then someone else lights another match from mine, and this fire is passed from person to person, who owns the fire and why should we limit ownership rights?"  Too simplistic for my taste and there is a role for patents and copyrights, but perhaps in the modern media economy the length or application of them should be reconsidered.  After all, can we honestly say the one-click shopping Jeff Bezos patented is deserving of one?

Tucker made the following comment, which is informative:

How important are playbooks in sports? They are gold. And yet they are not covered by "intellectual property" law. You can't copyright, patent, or trademark them. Every team is free to steal what they see every other team doing. Mass thievery? Nope. It's called information anarchism and its makes for a vibrant and dynamic game that is ever evolving and changing. It just works.

Speaking of mass thievery, or at least some form of it, several people asked about Bitcoin the other day.  Here's a primer, and another.  I'm no expert on the concept of crypto-currency, but I know a good idea when I see one, and this is one which has got the digerati very excited.  Bitcoin, oddly enough, could serve as a new reserve currency, which is one reason why the US government is concerned by its growth and use.  The US has benefited from being a reserve currency for years, and it's one reason the growth of our money supply has not yet led to rampant inflation.

One place where there has been rampant inflation is in Peyton Manning's performance on the football field.  Against a defense that was supposed to be very good, Peyton threw 7 TDs, a feat performed by only 5 people before, and not since 1969.  It's one game, but what a game it was.  Sadly, it was a precursor to this heart-rending annual event.

Speaking of aerial attacks, it's interesting that Obama won election in 2008 on an anti-war platform.  But it's 'just politics' that part of his platform in 2012 was anti-war-with-Syria.

He also won with a jobs-creation platform.  Sure, jobs have been created.  But not as many as are actually being originally reported due to downward revisions and people dropping out of the workforce.  Or maybe that's not the real cause of our unemployment woes.  Perhaps the decline of working actors could have been limited with these.

To make matters worse, Obamacare is causing jobs to be reduced to less than 29 hours per week, and his administration is lying about the impact.

Few of the unemployed and part-time worksers are likely to buy this.  Too expensive.  It's odd, too, as far as I'm concerned.  Tablets and smartphones?  Yeah, sure.  Glasses and watches?  I guess there's a niche for this stuff.  The people I see wearing Google Glasses just look like they're trying to be digital hipsters.

Finally, because I promised Doc lots of pictures of fluffy puppies...have a great weekend!

Apparently, Anthony Weiner doesn't realize this.  What's he eating, anyway?

I'm adding this after the fact, since Dr. Mercury made a comment which is germaine, but not wholly correct and I feel the need to address.  While the commentator mentions a "racial epithet", the entire video, if you have the chance to view it, begins with the antagonist saying " married to an Arab."  He then calls Weiner disgusting and a scumbag, which are epithets, but not racial.  The first comment is not an epithet, even if it was used in a derogatory fashion, but sensibilities on issues like this vary.  For the record, when I saw this on TV in the morning, I was laughing at the whole thing, as was Charlie Rose.  Weiner is a public figure, and his wife is too, and they are open to any criticism which comes their way and have to accept that as part of their choice of profession.  Sometimes it's ugly and uncomfortable, but even when it is, Weiner's reaction was over the top and damages an already heavily damaged public persona.  As a public figure, voters do get to judge him in whatever way they choose.

Really?  The best he can?  Does he need to try harder?  Maybe that will make it all right.  I thought he was a pro, so trying wasn't going to be the issue.  That was why he was elected, because all the reasons given here were not acceptable for his predecessor.  Regardless of what you thought of Bush, it's fair to say he was also doing everything De Niro says Obama is doing, but I doubt De Niro would have provided Bush a similar benefit of the doubt.

“He’s trying his best. He’s going to do things that people feel are not right or violating one right or another. But at the end of the day, he represents, I think, the best of the type of people that I would like to see running the government,” De Niro told DuJour.  ”He has to play that game, the political game. They all do. They make statements they can’t honor because they’re impossible to honor. Once you get into that Washington machinery, you’ve just got to figure it out and swim against the current and grab onto this rock and that, and just try to maintain your course.”

De Niro is a great actor, but when he and his Hollywood cohorts involve themselves in politics, they really make a hash of it.  They reason they can do this?  Apathy.