We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I have been returning to the theme of government as enterprise over the past couple of years, but the Knish Man put more effort than I ever did in fleshing out the concept: The Business of Government.
Government is indeed a bubble, as much in the US as in Greece. Just two of many possible good quotes:
Like most non-profits the real business of government was creating profits for its board, employees and their friends. This core business was funneled through constant busywork and massive projects and programs that existed to conceal the real business of government. Layered around it was chaos and incompetence that prevented even those on the inside from being able to fully evaluate the real cost of its operations.
and
The monopolistic nature of the business of government had created a company immune to outside concerns. But that bubble was being challenged by the consequences of its mismanagement and the growing public dissatisfaction at the value of its services and their cost. The collision was as inevitable as its timing was unclear and it would change how the business of government was to be conducted.
We may now have scores of sophisticated books written by highly esteemed PhDs and a well-tread, lollipops over Castor oil, time-outs over spankings parenting path, but our progressive march through human history has ultimately produced adults that are… well, still childish.
Worse, we’ve managed to add an extra decade to adolescence.
Consider romantic Lord Byron, who had spent the previous Summer in a villa in Switzerland ruminating with other literaries about the issues of advancing science (which led to cohabiter Shelley’s Frankenstein), writing this drivel poetry the following December, Christmas eve 1816, in support of the Luddites:
As the Liberty lads o'er the sea
Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood,
So we, boys, we
Will die fighting, or live free,
And down with all kings but King Ludd!
When the web that we weave is complete,
And the shuttle exchanged for the sword,
We will fling the winding-sheet
O'er the despot at our feet,
And dye it deep in the gore he has pour'd.
Though black as his heart its hue,
Since his veins are corrupted to mud,
Yet this is the dew
Which the tree shall renew
Of Liberty, planted by Ludd!
Today’s self-declared intellectuals and media wannabes, similarly, extol the stand-against-the-machine OWSers in the parks. An essay from novelist Thomas Pynchon, maybe appropriately written in 1984, expresses the hope, “Is it OK to be a Luddite?” Pynchon traces Ludditism to belief in miracles against the “machine,” of modern life, then steps forward to today.
Machines have already become so user-friendly that even the most unreconstructed of Luddites can be charmed into laying down the old sledgehammer and stroking a few keys instead. Beyond this seems to be a growing consensus that knowledge really is power, that there is a pretty straightforward conversion between money and information, and that somehow, if the logistics can be worked out, miracles may yet be possible.
But, garbage in, garbage out. Now as then, retreat to fantasies misstate and contradict realities of how machines free labor to be more productive and remunerative, not only to investors but to the daily lives and liberties of workers. Now as then, it takes capitalists to exert practical imagination, risk capital, and bring to fruition and everyone’s table the produce. Not fairies.
See Polling the OWSers: "...the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people." And with reality. They are miracle fairies for President Obama who will make disappear from consciousness all his abject failures and misdirections. Dream on as you drive into the wall of reality, President Obama. But, please spare the rest of us being further injured by your reckless driving.
Replacing the YUPPIES, AOL hits the irony jackpot today, naming the 2010s young generation the DUMPIES, downward mobile, unemployed, poor.
Of course, relatively few of last decade's young were Yuppies, and relatively few of today's are Dumpies. But the Dumpies appelation does seem to fit well the Occupy Wall Streeters. Besides the most common fecal meanings of "dump" as displayed by the photo of a protester defecating on a police car, there's more definitions found at the Urban Dictionary that fit their OWS scene:
*To refer to a place or setting that is in poor condition or standards.
*One who wallows in their own laziness.
*A very lazy, trashy person, often smelling of foul body odor and looking like an all-around ragamuffin.
*A word used to describe a person/object/situation that is definitely not even good. Often used in a situation where a boring person makes a boring statement or is just generally being a fail.
*To whine about one's problems and let out many emotions to any unfortunate person who has to listen.
*Noun; to be someone who's annoying or stupid and annoying.
Please shave your beaver, or have the Korean ladies give you a Brazilian.
Why?
Why must men shave their faces in Western civilization? It is just one more annoying chore in getting ready to face the day, and it is surely "unnatural," and doubtless a contributor to global warmingcoolingclimate change whatever.
When I take a pass on this annoyance on the occasional weekend, She Who Must Be Obeyed tells me that I look like a bum. Well, I find taking showers a time-wasting burden too. I think I have an inner hippie, an inner Cave Man, or an inner Occupy Wall Street. Probably an inner Yankee Farmer.
If you shave your pet beaver, I will shave my face.
I don't really care if I look like a bum on weekends. Sue me. Good grooming is a hassle. When you reach maturity, hair grows revoltingly out of your damn ears and nostrils and everywhere else.
She is probably right that I need to conform to fit into modern society. I find it all tedious and tiring sometimes, but I have what it takes to keep on keepin' on. Happy wife, happy life, as they say.
If you haven't shopped for a replacement car lately, it has become -- pricewise -- crazier than ever. That's not because of the usual dealer tactics. In fact, with the Internet, the consumer has acquired added info with which to avoid being hornswaggled. It is because due to Cash-4-Clunkers removing so many used cars from the market and the recession reducing new car sales the past few years the price of used cars has increased by 25-50%, so a one or two year old used car -- even high mileage -- costs near as much as a new one. This has increased current new car sales, as why not?
That's what I found when searching over the past month for a replacement for my 2000 trusty Taurus, now having imminent engine and suspension problems that would cost me more than the car's value to repair. My wife's criteria was only that it be reasonably reliable and fit my 6-year old Gavin's bike or hold three or four large suitcases. After trying every old trick I knew, I was getting frustrated and furious. Then I found Truecar.com. It tells you the true dealer cost for a new car, thousands below MSRP and well below dealer invoice. It also tells you which dealer in your area is selling for close to dealer cost. So armed, I made my offer to several dealers, being rejected. Then, yesterday afternoon, a dealer agreed. I am now the owner of a new 2012 car.
I took 11-year old Jason with me as my tech advisor. Although I chose a bottom of the model, middle-class car, the new car has so many fancy, cool electronics for auto-diagnoses and warnings, communications, music, navigating, etc. (none of which I care about) that my eyes glazed over and my ears heard the seashore. But Jason took it all in immediately and promises to educate me. Almost as techy as Micky's new car.
Anyone who is familiar with the Occupy Wall Street movement knows that it has more or less 'settled' Zucotti Park. This is a very small area (roughly 33,300 square feet) down by the World Trade Center. It's a private park owned by Brookfield Partners. It has no habitable area, but the squatters are creating their own living conditions. They claim they will stay for as long as they have to.
Most of us doubt this is true. I'm willing to bet the minute the TV cameras leave, or the first large snowstorm blows through, most of them will leave. What if they don't, though? Could they stay forever?
It's possible. The potential is there. In fact, there is history supporting this kind of thing. So let's take a look at what might happen if these people never leave.
If you've ever been to Denmark, or Copenhagen specifically, you might be familiar with Freetown Christiana. Christiana is an old military barracks/base which was abandoned by 1970. In 1971, local residents broke down the fence to create a playground, and eventually many people began living in the facilities because housing in Copenhagen was hard to come by. It became a relatively autonomous commune. I found out about it as a teen, when I visited Copenhagen in 1976. At the time, I was deemed "too young" to see it. Seven years later, as a college student living abroad, I visited Copenhagen and this time I made three trips to Christiana. I will admit, it was a great party. But even then I realized it was no place to live. I was alternately impressed and repulsed. With each visit, I was less and less impressed.
Of course, people still commit innumerable bad actions, but the idea that people make conscious decisions to hurt or harm is no longer sustainable, say the new brain scientists. For one thing, there is no such thing as "free will" with which to decide to commit evil. (Like evil, free will is an antiquated concept for most.) Autonomous, conscious decision-making itself may well be an illusion. And thus intentional evil is impossible.
Many people do make conscious decisions to be hurtful or destructive. What could be more obvious? These neuroscientist folks can't see the mind for the neurons, it seems to me. As always in such cases, however, a conversation with the scientists would reveal that they do, themselves, lead lives in which good, evil, and choice are operative. Otherwise, they would deserve no recognition for their research because it was just their neurons making them do it.
Yesterday, Buffett declined the request of a Republican congressman to swap tax returns and reiterated his pledge to publish the form if other billionaires would do the same.
The Congressional Research Service report found that, on average, millionaires paid federal tax at a 30 percent rate, while moderate-income taxpayers, defined as those earning less than $100,000, were taxed at 19 percent.
The overall average, though, “obscures a great deal of variation,” including the finding that 25 percent of millionaires pay lower rates than 10 percent of moderate earners, the report found.
The findings “would be considered a violation of the Buffett Rule, but not to the extent alluded to by Mr. Buffett,”the report says.
The numbers are, of course, the effective rates (ie after deductions), not the marginal rates.
Here is the story. In 1929, we had a top marginal tax rate of 24% on all income over $100,000. And, according to Historical Statistics of the United States, the federal government took in almost $1.1 billion that year from income taxes. In 1935, after FDR successfully enacted a 79% tax on multimillionaires, the federal revenue from income taxes had been more than cut in half, down to $527 million. Granted, we were in a Great Depression in 1935, but that is in part because we were steadily adding new taxes and raising taxes on income from 1929 to 1935, and those rate hikes helped cause and perpetuate the Great Depression. Why should entrepreneurs invest and take risks when they have to turn more than half of what they might make over to the government?
During World War II, FDR further expanded the federal government. He did not let that crisis go to waste. On taxes, he eventually raised marginal tax rates on the rich to 94% on all income over $200,000. In making the case for huge tax hikes on the rich, Roosevelt’s supporters argued in Congress that government had the first claim on the wealth people earned. On March 30, 1943, Rep. Emanuel Celler (D.-N.Y.) argued, “The government can at any time make income taxes as thumping big as the necessities of war require. Thus, if any plan does not raise enough money, taxes can at any time be increased. The government always has a moral if not actual lien on all our income.”
Real news report:In Florida, an 81-year oldshuttle driver went door-to-door in an apartment complex posing as a doctor offering free breast exams. Women who have come forth so far, 32 and 36, agreed to the exam. --- Maybe they were confused, waiting for the brain transplant surgeon to arrive.
So, here's some other elder vignettes close to reality:
COUPLE in their nineties are both having problems remembering things. During a checkup, the doctor tells them that they're physically okay, but they might want to start writing things down to help them remember ..
Later that night, while watching TV, the old man gets up from his chair. 'Want anything while I'm in the kitchen?' he asks.
'Will you get me a bowl of ice cream?'
'Sure..'
'Don't you think you should write it down so you can remember it?' she asks.
'No, I can remember it..'
'Well, I'd like some strawberries on top, too. Maybe you should write it down, soas not to forget it?'
He says, 'I can remember that. You want a bowl of ice cream with strawberries.'
'I'd also like whipped cream. I'm certain you'll forget that, write it down?' she asks.
Irritated, he says, 'I don't need to write it down, I can remember it! Ice cream with strawberries and whipped cream - I got it, for goodness sake!'
Then he toddles into the kitchen. After about 20 minutes, The old man returns from the kitchen and hands his wife a plate of bacon and eggs.. She stares at the plate for a moment.
I’ve been a big shot in several giant corporations, several smaller ones, and a consultant on finance, business operations, HR and employee benefits to many more, aside from running my own business.
I’ve never seen a situation where excessive labor demands or behavior was not the fault of poor management. Once launched on grievance and then power seeking by labor, a downward spiral ensues. Sometimes management reforms, often not. Eventually, the business fails and all suffer.
When there are more effective competitors, that process is speeded.
Surviving US companies have met that competition by becoming more efficient in their processes or by sending manufacturing abroad for cheaper labor, or both devising better processes and sending it abroad to foreign factories or outsourcers.
US labor unions used to be very effective in developing free unions in poorer countries, as a bulwark against exploitive communist unions and to defend our prosperity in a freer world. Today, they are adamant against foreign outsourcing while refusing to become partners in US efficiencies, but have lost their position in all but government unions and similar where they can exert a monopoly granted by paid-off politicians. They do fight for fairer labor standards in free trade agreements, but mostly to impede outsourcing rather than to encourage free trade.
Free trade should not be an issue, as all benefit, us from cheaper products and focusing investments where we have a comparative advantage, foreign workers from getting a leg on the ladder to better living conditions than in rural drudgery and exploitation by local thugocrats.
We are not in the early 1900s, and shouldn’t blithely feel that eventually foreign workers will be in a better position. And we are Americans and do not believe in undue exploitation of others. We are in a faster, communicative world which does not wait decades and, further, the image of the US is more important when native populations and not just their elites are our audience and affect our own economic and national security interests.
Sheesh. Ask your parents before asking me to pay it. I have my own to pay for, shmuck. Next, they will want us to buy their cars and to pay for their car insurance.
Amusingly, such people are blind to their own greed which they project onto others. Gimme, gimme. If you gave him a free tuition, he'd want something free after that. An entitlement/freebie mindset never stops, and creates permanent infants instead of self-reliant adults. Or sociopaths, which this guy sounds like with his lack of shame and humility for asking for charity.
During last night’s Republican debate, all agreed on repealing ObamaCare. But only Romney mentioned that we need something to replace it and mentioned he has that plan.
To be quick out of the blocks, Romney promises to exempt all states from ObamaCare on his first day in the Oval Office, then ask Congress to repeal it.
To control federal costs, he would provide block grants to states to devise their own, closer to their publics, programs. Individuals would be able to deduct premiums from taxes, as businesses can. Preexisting conditions would not affect insurability if the individual had prior continuous coverage, a spur to taking more self-responsibility. HRAs, pretax savings accounts for healthcare, would be expanded to pay for premiums, making the cost of premiums less for taxpaying consumers, and cross-state purchases would be allowed to avoid costly state mandates. Non-medical malpractice tort awards would be capped.
These are all well and good………if one just wants band aids for a hemorrhage.
It is probably politic to avoid rousing the ire of independents via Democrat MediScare charges. But as I argued yesterday the core problem is not addressed: extensive government direction of medical care driving up costs to today’s unaffordable levels for the budget and for consumers, distorting markets, reducing individual choice and overriding individual circumstances. Thus far, only the Ryan plan addresses it.
Regardless of whom is elected president in 2012, it will be up to Congress to choose whether we continue on a government-lighter or ObamaCare model, or face up to the real drivers of healthcare costs in excessive government direction of healthcare.
Even if one forgives Romney for RomneyCare being a mistake of the past, he does not adequately learn from nor atone for it. For that matter, the other Republican presidential potentials have not even been as specific as he in what they’d do after being elected. Inadequate from all.
Romney may have strengthened his case for “inevitability”in last night’s debate by his smoothness and command of details. And something is better than nothing. However, that something is still nothing compared to the unresolved challenges we must face to retain healthcare quality and access at affordable costs, enhanced freedoms, and the resources needed to face the US other needs.
"Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers. The protesters have been sold a bill of goods. Reckless government policies, not private greed, brought about the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis." One quote:
Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.
Read the whole thing. The government essentially forced lenders into the subprime markets and to violate their own lending standards. Naturally, they didn't want these crappy loans on their books, so they packaged them as derivatives and sold them to eager buyers worldwide (unaccountably rated triple A when any fool could see that they were below investment-grade). With that, combined with low interest rates and people using their suddenly-valuable homes as ATMs, the housing and construction debt-bubble was created and inevitably burst.
Why the world's financial geniuses didn't see it coming is beyond me. Everybody on the internet saw it coming. All bubbles burst, but this was a biggie-sized one just like the internet bubble. Based on my reading, I had shorted housing-related equities, did not buy my living quarters which I could not have afforded anyway, and made out like a bandit. It was just too easy, even for an amateur. Call me greedy.
Of course, the rest of my quite modest portfolio did horribly. Equity baskets have been a bad bet for many years now. Munis stink too. Sorry I didn't buy gold, but I always thought gold was for end-of-the-world nutjobs.
I am no economist nor do I play one on the internet, but my take on things today is that fear of government is part of what is holding back investment in the US. That, plus people freaking out about their debt - and their lower-to-zero incomes.
It is not particularly mature to blame banks who were willing to lend you money, though, even when they perhaps doubted your ability to repay it. An adult who takes on debt is supposed to be an honorable citizen who will repay that debt, or have their credit and reputation ruined for ten years or more. Employers check your credit rating.
My only debts are my student loans which were such a good deal that I am in no hurry to pay them all off, as long as my career proceeds on course. However, periodically I borrow money from my local bank or my credit cards. Small amounts - $5000-10,000 - then pay it back after a couple of months. I use that trick to keep my credit rating up to date and in good shape (I rent). One of these days, I will really use my credit card to take a good girlfriend or future spouse on a bike tour around Sicily.
There is no perfect solution to what varying interest groups or segments of public opinion desire as reforms to US healthcare. Now that we’ve gone down the path of ObamaCare and RomneyCare, that is more evident. The question, then, is what course is more promising? The answer is less government intervention in healthcare than preceded ObamaCare or RomneyCare.
There are three core problems with either ObamaCare or RomneyCare. Each by itself raise conflicts with facts, law, and public desires. Together, they are a witches brew. Both ObamaCare and RomneyCare are based on wrong premises of government intervention and result in worsening the future of healthcare in the US.
ObamaCare and RomneyCare are premised on extending more medical care to the uninsured even beyond need or personal responsibility or affordability. They are premised on reducing or moderating our national costs of healthcare even though they fail to do so and in many ways increase costs. They are premised on the imposition of added government regulation and intervention into individual choice and circumstances even though neither science, management, competence, politics nor majority public support is up to the task nor expected to be.
But one has to go deeper than that to find the roots of the false premises of ObamaCare and RomneyCare. The roots are in government healthcare programs themselves like Medicare and Medicaid. Regardless of any good intentions or needs, they set the course of government being the solution.
Regardless of promises or embedment they have expanded beyond initial promises or need. Regardless of the good they do they have done more harm to healthcare by distorting its economics and its public perception. Regardless of cost they have increased costs to those outside these programs. Regardless of their public acceptance they have become unaffordable.
It is painful to abandon ObamaCare or RomneyCare. It is less painful to change course entirely.
From decades and certifications in health insurance I am highly critical of health insurers, and moreso as they have become more self-servingly enmeshed in government healthcare programs. That said, private insurers are more responsive to change, improvements, competition, and tailoring coverages to individual needs than any government program is capable. Further, individuals – including the poor or uneducated – are more able to discern their own needs than any government bureaucrat. Further, groups advocating types of health insurance coverage beyond the core would have to compete with more transparent facts and costs instead of canoodling with and paying off politicians.
Congressman Paul Ryan has proposed the reform of Medicare that would reverberate throughout US healthcare. It is estimated by the CBO to “totally reverse the course of recent fiscal history by lowering federal health care spending from 8% of GDP today to just 5% by 2050. If we remain on the current course, the spending would jump to 14% in that time frame.”
In effect, Ryan is asking Americans to make a historic leap of faith…. Ryan's vision of bringing the market to Medicare is the best choice in a world of poor alternatives….
Americans will no longer get more than 70% of their Medicare costs paid by the government. [Instead there would be premium subsidies, declining with means, and co-pay subsidees for the poor. –ed.] Retirees are bound to pay a much bigger share of their own medical costs. More and more seniors will choose high deductible plans, and HMO or PPO-style programs that limit choices of doctors.
Still, the rise in costs for the elderly could prove far less than the giant annual increases we're experiencing today. We've simply never seen a competitive environment like the one in the Ryan blueprint. "The Obama plan is all about price controls," says Joseph Antos, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. "Ryan's is all about unleashing the market."
The Ryan plan has another major strength: It will stop heaping a bigger and bigger Medicare burden onto younger taxpayers. Ryan is making a bold, wrenching choice that wins because it's less painful than all the others.
The Obama re-election administration has lambasted Ryan with Democrat MediScare (even though Ryan's program would reduce government subsidies for the wealthy!) Mitt Romney tries to explain that ObamaCare exceeds RomneyCare’s ailments instead of admitting original sin. The other major Republican candidates, in this as in other areas, have not put forth anything but slogans. Perhaps that’s about all we can expect from an election season.
To avoid facing the battle during the elections, I suppose that Ryan will not be the V-P nominee. (Even though "70% Favor Individual Choice Over Government Standards for Health Insurance," there doesn't appear sufficient courage or faith in the voters for leading candidates to take the risk.) However, after 2012, we must either turn to Paul Ryan or continue our present muddle that resolves little and increases faults. I don’t know whether Ryan would be most effective in Congressional leadership or as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Whichever will depend on the size of the Republican majority and the intelligence and guts of the next president and Congress.
The first political systems, from an institutional standpoint, were monarchies. Monarchs either considered themselves gods, chosen by 'the gods', or "Chosen by God". In almost every sense, the political system was tied somehow to the spiritual beliefs of the nation.
During a college course on Democracy, my professor spent the better part of an hour and a half discussing the implications of this concept. He pointed out that God Himself chose Israel's first king, and approved of their choosing a king. I immediately raised my hand and asked "But God didn't want Israel to have a king, did He? He considered Himself their king and allowed them to have Judges which acted as their spiritual and moral guides on earth."
Baseball? Football? No - they are based on foreign sports. Both are quintessentially American, but neither can actually claim North American roots. Cricket, Rounders and Rugby are all British.
Volleyball? Basketball? No - both were invented here in the United States, but they are basically 20th Century pastimes.
If you look at methods alone, there isn't a huge difference between the Wall Street protests and the Tea Party protests. They have very different values, different demands, and different bases of support. But both utilize the First Amendment as a means of making their point.
The Wall Streeters are more rowdy, and as a result have seen quite a bit of police involvement. There have been far fewer arrests at individual Tea Party events. Some of the Wall Street arrests and the overly physical nature of the police are unnecessary. But there is little doubt the Wall Streeters are far more provocative and looking to antagonize the police, given the nature of the agitators involved. We've seen them before. They know the best way to get on TV is to create a scene, and they are good at doing it. Is it a surprise so much of the 'police violence' is being caught on video? They are planning to get this on video by initiating events which will lead to the use of violence, even at moments when the police probably should show more restraint.
So why does Obama view one set of protestors an "expression of frustration", while the other is "misidentifying sort of who the culprits are"? Both are viable protests, seeking to make points and be heard. From that standpoint, both are worthy of having Obama's full attention. But no, one has been formally rejected by the "vast majority" of Americans.
To be clear, there is no reason to prevent either group from gathering, protesting, or speaking. It's unfair to say one is more legitimate than the other. But for our country's leader to recognize one as more valid than the other is absurd. Particularly when the group which he considers more valid has not made its agenda clear, is only advocating a never ending list of grievances without valid solutions, and is provoking violent activity (some of it, but not all, unwarranted) on the part of the police. Tea Partiers, whether you support or oppose them, have tended to gather peacefully and have made their agenda clear. They support smaller government, lower taxes and they oppose crony capitalism. What's interesting is the two groups share that final point. Where they differ is on solutions.
The Tea Party solves crony capitalism by shrinking government and getting it out of the way. The Wall Street protestors don't have a clear solution, but it's clear increasing the role of government is part of their solution. Increasing that role with politicians 'who care'. In other words, people like them.
The Wall Streeters' world is like Orwell's "Animal Farm", where some people are more equal than others. Their solution, unfortunately, is to keep it that way, but change the people who are more equal.
I think that most sane people have spent the past three years of the Obama administration exerting their tolerance because, after all, he is the President. That tolerance has been extended as it would to a toddler trying to figure out how to use a screwdriver, or a teenager who thinks Liquid Wrench is a joke. But President Obama is an adult. He just can't be such a screw-up as he appears. He just can't be such a leftist extremist. By now, believing their eyes, most (as polls attest) are through with shredded tolerance. He's an ossified 60s radical who never grew up or learned anything.
For a time I thought all such talk was cynical politics, offered up to bond with the “rubes” in America who might be convinced that only the liberal pols have their interests at heart. Now I think that in moments of high stress (imagine how one feels as the presidency and historic legacy melt away), the president’s unvarnished beliefs come through. It’s a crude sort of populism fueled by conspiracy theories, the kind you expect on college campuses — or on the streets of lower Manhattan of late.
This is a pol who tells us we should increase the public sector, dictate to the private sector and then excoriate business for trying to maximize profits. (It’s almost like they think that’s their primary obligation, or something.) At one level it is embarrassing that the president of the United States has economic views that approximate those of a dim college freshman. But actually it’s petrifying. For nearly three years this has been the mentality behind an economic vision that has failed miserably. It’s remarkable the economy isn’t in worse shape.
And he wants four more years. One can hardly imagine what he’d do if he got them.
I commented to Mrs. BD last night that one of the things I hate to hear people talk about is the usefulness of religion to society. I think O'Reilly was saying something like that on the tee vee in an interview with the atheism proselytizer Dawkins.
Apparently, most of the protesters are white, middle class kids who somehow got the idea that the world owes them something because they had the remarkable privilege of attending college.
Quite the opposite: they owe us something in return for all they have been indulged. Surber says Occupy Wall Street? Grow up. He lived in a trailer when a young adult. What's wrong with that? Everybody should have to.
I lived in one room over a grocery shop, on beans, macaroni and cheese, cheap beer, and no-brand cigarettes when I got out of college, and I felt independent and happy despite having a go-fer job at a slowly-dying country newspaper, for minimum wage. Boo hoo. It took me 6 years of farting around while broke to make a good plan for my life.
And here's a good idea, children: Go march on Washington - It’s the real author of our woes. Protest Obama! Oh, almost forgot - MoveOn is providing financial support to these losers so they can't protest the government. So why not Evil Big Corporations instead? Yeah, they're the bad guys this time.
As best I can tell, these kids want fun jobs with no heavy lifting - and they also want money - my money. I guess they didn't get the memo that their Obama's economy is not generating jobs and investment. If they had any sense, they'd be out there trying to figure out how to start a business or to make themselves useful to somebody.
I am half-disgusted with myself for giving these spoiled brats any of our precious bandwidth since it's really a media-ginned-up story, but I had to get it off my chest. As a New Yorker, I can report that these people are having essentially zero impact on our vibrant life in Manhattan except when they walk on a bridge and mess up the traffic from Brooklyn. It might get a little more amusing and colorful when the union thugs join the stoners and losers. Perfect together!
Almost forgot one item: the cops are getting good OT for the babysitting. It's good for their incomes, so there is some benefit for the good guys.
Sow Bugs, Woodlice - they have lots of names, and there are over 3000 species of these little guys. I think I sacrifice a few of them to the gods every time I toss a log on the fire.
They are arthropods, in the subgroup of the usually-aquatic Crustaceans. They look like tiny Trilobites.
I am always happy to see these little bugs under logs and rocks. Arthropods own the world, even though we don't give them a vote.
The Wall Street protesters want to be biggees benefiting from being above the law of the US and the laws of economics.
The Wall Street protesters and the Tea Party protesters have something in common, a revolt against the biggees each see as taking unfair advantages. The primary difference is that the Tea Party is opposed to the extra-constitutionality of liberal politicians in league with crony capitalists profiting each other at the expense of taxpayers, while the Wall Street protesters base is for more extra-constitutionality to expropriate for themselves the advantages garnered by all those profiting from free enterprise.
Tea Partiers want to keep the products of their labor and earnings, while the Wall Street protesters want government to redirect the products of others’ labor and earnings to themselves and causes of their allies.
Demographically, the Tea Partiers come from the middle-class who have more practical experience of the world, while the Wall Street protesters come almost entirely from the privileged white young people with relatively little real world experience.
Musically, the Tea Partiers have popular anthems of patriotism to enliven the reach of their cultural message, while the Wall Street protesters lack popular music with political themes. (This is a distinct and telling difference from the 1960s.)
Politically, the Tea Partiers have protested peacefully and within the law, while the Wall Street protests break laws and inconveniencethe public. This alienates rather than enlists support.
PRwise, the Tea Partiers had to overcome major media’s reluctance to provide them coverage and its trumpeting of false charges from the left, while the mostly liberal major media have almost instantly favorablyor neutrally headlined the Wall Street protesters.
The question is whether the tilt of the major media facing the alternative media will succeed in hiding these differences from most Americans. I doubt it. The liberal-tilting major media is itself seen as an out-of-touch and fading biggee. The support from public-employee unions with privileges above those in private business, the usual few extreme-leftist members of Congress, and from the usual rich far-left Hollywood celebrities just reinforces the perception of the usual leftist biggees wanting to lord it over taxpaying Americans. The Wall Street protesters and their leftist allies in media like to call themselves the 99%, kiddee columnist Ezra Klein sophistically asserting they want to see “the fundamental bargain of our economy – work hard, play by the rules, get ahead -- … restored.” Instead, they are the small minority who are or who want to be the 1%, exhibit little respect for the “rules” or virtues and rewards of free enterprise, demanding to “get ahead” with government-provided privileges.
On the collective scale, choice is nearly irrelevant. Only people with power have choices. The idea that the man waiting in the alley with a knife has a choice is a heresy because he is not a man with a knife, he is a collection of social statistics which assign him an automatic level of responsibility based on his race, gender, socioeconomic status and all the other variables. Whether or not he stabs someone with a knife, is not up to him, it's up to how society treats him.
Similarly financial troubles are not personal, they are social. Whether you can pay your bills has nothing to do with you, but with your race and class. If you succeed when the statistics say that you should fail, then you are an outlier. A rogue exception that only goes to prove the rule. Likewise if you fail when the statistics say that you should succeed. Individual actions can never disprove the collective snapshot of how society is.
If every person is wired into society like a giant bank of servers, then every individual malfunction is actually a social malfunction. If a man kills, then it's because his connection with society was bad. To understand why it was bad, the left examines the nature of the connection. If it was a privileged connection, then he was warped by his excessive access to the innate racism, sexism, classism and all the other bad "isms" of the society. If it was an underprivileged connection, then he was warped by his lack of access to the benefits that society had to offer him and being marginalized, he went off the reservation.
Blame-shifting is always fun, isn't it? Maggie's has been hot on this topic recently. "It's the hippies' fault." It's Bush's fault." It's my genes' fault." "It's my husband's fault." "It's society's fault." "It's my parents' fault." "It's my boss' fault."
But if things go well, it's to my credit, right?
While people make their decisions, plans, and choices for all sorts of reasons, it is a necessary premise in a free society that an individual is responsible for every one of his actions. In some cases, perhaps, a necessary fiction.
The bar mitzvah (a modern innovation, as I just learned) has it: "Today I am a man" and thus responsible for all of my actions.
The delicious pleasures of blame-shifting have never been permitted in the Bliss household.
Four Small Things
Please shave your beaver, or have the Korean ladies give you a Brazilian.
Anyone who is familiar with the Occupy Wall Street movement knows that it has more or less 'settled' Zucotti Park. This is a very small area (
the nature of the agitators involved. We've seen them before. They know the best way to get on TV is to create a scene, and they are good at doing it. Is it a surprise so much of the 'police violence' is being caught on video? They are planning to get this on video by initiating events which will lead to the use of violence, even at moments when the police probably should show more restraint.
I commented to Mrs. BD last night that one of the things I hate to hear people talk about is the usefulness of religion to society. I think O'Reilly was saying something like that on the tee vee in an interview with the atheism proselytizer Dawkins. 
OK, we all agree that Sargent Pepper was a stunning George Martin production but, that aside, what is your favorite? 
Apparently, most of the protesters are white, middle class kids who somehow got the idea that the world owes them something because they had the remarkable privilege of attending college.
Sow Bugs, Woodlice -