News item: Ames, Ia. - Presidential candidate John McCain told biofuel proponents here Monday night that he opposes government subsidies on ethanol the same way he opposes subsidies on other products, including oil. --The Des Moines Register
What's remarkable about John McCain's statement is that he went into Ames Iowa to say it. Getting it right in the middle of people praying to hear the other answer takes a lot of guts. John McCain gets a point for being right. Meanwhile, Chris Dodd at the same confab couldn't resist mentioning global warming and talking up a carbon tax. I was tempted to deduct a point for that, but it's not exceptionally bright or stupid to talk about such things if you are a democrat.
Tally: (Dodd 1, McCain 1)
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
Dodd Draws First Blood
I'm as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here. But we're dealing with a serious problem here ... The idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license I think is troublesome, and I think the American people are reacting to it."
"We need to deal with security on our borders. We need to deal with the attraction that draws people here. We need to deal fairly with those who are here. But this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us. But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view." -- Christopher Dodd, Oct 31, 2007.
Christopher Dodd wasn't even on my radar; and here he is scoring the first points in the debate. I gave it to him as the only Democrat to get it right. The republicans may also get it right, but they don't get the score. They're supposed to get this one right. (Score: Dodd, 1, everyone else, 0).
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Election Season Begins
A democracy is a place where numerous elections are held, at great cost, without issues, and with interchangeable candidates. – Gore Vidal
Popular suffrage is in itself no guarantee of freedom. People can vote themselves into slavery. – Frank Chodorov
An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose Bierce
I thought I would take more interest in the election by this time, it being now one year from the 2008 presidential election. Generating enthusiasm is difficult when all the leading candidates have voiced their continuing support for "the error of big government". At this point, the choice now has to be made among those who have already declared to run. So let's see where we are with that:
On the Republican side, the two most presidential candidates (Huckabee and Hunter) act like they are running for vice-president, which leaves the field of true aspirants to Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Paul, and McCain. Of them, only Paul supports the constitution, but in such a way to make people tired of hearing about it. McCain waffles on the most important issues, and takes strong stands on the least of them. Thompson took extra time to plan his entry, and then tired of the race almost immediately. Who does that leave? Rudy and Mitt. Mitt probably is more qualified, but could easily disappear in his own photo op. This leaves Rudy, who has quite a few eliminating attributes himself.
Fortunately, they only have to beat the Democrats. We have Barack Obama whose best hope is to become the next Dan Quayle. We have John Edwards who comes across as the ambulance chasing con-artist he is. Finally, there's Hillary. A recent poll showed that there were 56% of likely votors who would never vote for her. I'll leave the math to you, but in a two party election, that would have to be a concern.
With this field of candidates, I would suppose that a large number of likely voters would start to become less likely to vote as November approaches. I think at this point we have to give everybody a do-over. I'll resolve to do my part. I intend to watch and listen carefully to the candidates, and if they say something that fits in the top 10% of profundity or in the bottom 10%. We can keep a running score on who would be the best candidates.
If there are few postings here, that would signal that nobody has earned your vote, and neither has anybody disearned it. The fun starts tomorrow, so be sure and check with us often.
Popular suffrage is in itself no guarantee of freedom. People can vote themselves into slavery. – Frank Chodorov
An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose Bierce
I thought I would take more interest in the election by this time, it being now one year from the 2008 presidential election. Generating enthusiasm is difficult when all the leading candidates have voiced their continuing support for "the error of big government". At this point, the choice now has to be made among those who have already declared to run. So let's see where we are with that:
On the Republican side, the two most presidential candidates (Huckabee and Hunter) act like they are running for vice-president, which leaves the field of true aspirants to Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Paul, and McCain. Of them, only Paul supports the constitution, but in such a way to make people tired of hearing about it. McCain waffles on the most important issues, and takes strong stands on the least of them. Thompson took extra time to plan his entry, and then tired of the race almost immediately. Who does that leave? Rudy and Mitt. Mitt probably is more qualified, but could easily disappear in his own photo op. This leaves Rudy, who has quite a few eliminating attributes himself.
Fortunately, they only have to beat the Democrats. We have Barack Obama whose best hope is to become the next Dan Quayle. We have John Edwards who comes across as the ambulance chasing con-artist he is. Finally, there's Hillary. A recent poll showed that there were 56% of likely votors who would never vote for her. I'll leave the math to you, but in a two party election, that would have to be a concern.
With this field of candidates, I would suppose that a large number of likely voters would start to become less likely to vote as November approaches. I think at this point we have to give everybody a do-over. I'll resolve to do my part. I intend to watch and listen carefully to the candidates, and if they say something that fits in the top 10% of profundity or in the bottom 10%. We can keep a running score on who would be the best candidates.
If there are few postings here, that would signal that nobody has earned your vote, and neither has anybody disearned it. The fun starts tomorrow, so be sure and check with us often.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wizer One-Liner #13
Sitting through a John Kerry meeting isn't painful enough, you have to be tased, too.
Friday, August 31, 2007
We need better scandals
News item: Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez resigns on August 27, 2007
In the article Connecting the Dots, we pointed out why only a grossly distorted view of facts and history could discern the trees of scandal within this political forest. Yet it was enough to stop the wheels of progress and derail a much needed makeover for the Justice Department. And you thought Bush was too stubborn to surrender.
Public service has taken its toll on a remarkably high number of executives in this administration. Every time I see a John Ashcroft or a Karl Rove bail out, it's evident that at least in part, it's because they don't need the kind of aggravation that comes with trying to do the right thing--or in many cases, undo the wrong thing. The staff at the Justice department as well as those at the UN and the State department had come to enjoy their positions with no regard for accountability. The one attribute that characterizes most leaders as they charge up a hill, is the fact that they have as many arrows in their backs as in their fronts. That comes with the territory. Yes, the arrows come from the sides, too when you are a republican. The press will seldom stay out of an otherwise fair fight, when it involves a republican leader.
Take a look at this list of scandal-tainted victims: Tom DeLay, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Harriet Miers, Donald Rumsfeld. All of these individuals fought their respective systems, and have only dissilusionment to show for their troubles. Some who fought the good fight continue that fight, and I give them credit for that (Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, John Roberts, and many more). All of these individuals are just that, individuals, standing up for what they believe is right.
Contrast that with the conspiracy-centric nature of scandals from the previous administration:
Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, The Vince Foster Murder, the Paula Jones affair, Cattlegate, Nannygate; we could go on. These are surely far better scandals than any we are getting today. And note few of these have a primary "conspirator" -- Thos Clintons sure knew how to put a team together. Along with the more recent Sandy Berger and William Jefferson indiscretions; they all make much better crises of leadership stories than any that can be ascribed to the current administration.
It was still bloody unnecessary for the president's lieutenants to take all the heat, but that's what happens when you leave staff in important places that can become problems later, as Bush did by not firing all 93 of the US attorneys. But also, it should be clear by now that in the preparation for future leaders, all candidates should be issued iron underwear prior to being allowed to take the job.
In the article Connecting the Dots, we pointed out why only a grossly distorted view of facts and history could discern the trees of scandal within this political forest. Yet it was enough to stop the wheels of progress and derail a much needed makeover for the Justice Department. And you thought Bush was too stubborn to surrender.
Public service has taken its toll on a remarkably high number of executives in this administration. Every time I see a John Ashcroft or a Karl Rove bail out, it's evident that at least in part, it's because they don't need the kind of aggravation that comes with trying to do the right thing--or in many cases, undo the wrong thing. The staff at the Justice department as well as those at the UN and the State department had come to enjoy their positions with no regard for accountability. The one attribute that characterizes most leaders as they charge up a hill, is the fact that they have as many arrows in their backs as in their fronts. That comes with the territory. Yes, the arrows come from the sides, too when you are a republican. The press will seldom stay out of an otherwise fair fight, when it involves a republican leader.
Take a look at this list of scandal-tainted victims: Tom DeLay, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Harriet Miers, Donald Rumsfeld. All of these individuals fought their respective systems, and have only dissilusionment to show for their troubles. Some who fought the good fight continue that fight, and I give them credit for that (Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, John Roberts, and many more). All of these individuals are just that, individuals, standing up for what they believe is right.
Contrast that with the conspiracy-centric nature of scandals from the previous administration:
Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, The Vince Foster Murder, the Paula Jones affair, Cattlegate, Nannygate; we could go on. These are surely far better scandals than any we are getting today. And note few of these have a primary "conspirator" -- Thos Clintons sure knew how to put a team together. Along with the more recent Sandy Berger and William Jefferson indiscretions; they all make much better crises of leadership stories than any that can be ascribed to the current administration.
It was still bloody unnecessary for the president's lieutenants to take all the heat, but that's what happens when you leave staff in important places that can become problems later, as Bush did by not firing all 93 of the US attorneys. But also, it should be clear by now that in the preparation for future leaders, all candidates should be issued iron underwear prior to being allowed to take the job.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The 2020 Vision
..it is not just that there will be additional forces in Baghdad; it is what they will do and how they will do it that is important. -- General David Petraeus, 12/2006
..In fact, typically, I think, historically, counter insurgency operations have gone at least 9 or 10 years -- General David Petraeus, 6/2007
I suppose I should acknowledge that the troop surge is working. I did after all predict that it would not. It seems to have had the intended effect, and is about as positive an outcome as any of us could have wanted. The question that does keep popping into my mind though, is what are the 120,000 non-surge troops doing there, and why did we need another 30 k to quell Al Qaeda? I don't pretend to know how to run a war, but I do know that this army, the world's best fighting force could go into any country in the world a week after Easter, accomplish every meaningful military objective, and be home for the World Series. Here we are 4-1/2 years later; dealing with what must be "security" plus a myriad of non-military objectives.
The non-military ones are always better left to the people themselves. So, the only reasonable goals are enhancement of security. Well, what does that mean? Does it mean restricting the rights of law abiding citizens like we do at home? I'm sure that's making a lot of friends. ...but I digress.
Historically, we have World War II, Korea, and Vietnam to compare to. Well, WWII left us with troops located to this very day in Germany and scattered in a multitude of islands across the Pacific. We are still in nearly all these spaces. Doing what? I dunno. Nation building, I guess. Security doesn't seem to be at play.
We are only now talking about leaving Korea. Why did it take 50 years to close that book? Security might seem a little shakier there now with a madman across the border. So, what has improved here, that allows us to go home..has Kim Jong Il opened up his first McDonald's?
In Vietnam, we skedaddled pretty quickly and the people lost millions of lives in the subsequant Pol Pot invasion. In view of that fiasco, we certainly can't get away immediately in the sense that the nitwits in Congress suggest we can. That means the optimum time frame is somewhere between 0 and 50 years. Let's say 10 years to make sure things go smoothly. As I've said before, we are not good at ending these relationships. So, Petraeus may be right with his estimate of 9-10. Add a few more years for gross inefficiency by the occasionally and accidentally elected Democrats, and we're looking at 2020.
Might as well settle in. Maybe sometime between now and then, we'll stop referring to it as a war, and with any luck we'll probably see a petition for statehood from the Iraqis.
..In fact, typically, I think, historically, counter insurgency operations have gone at least 9 or 10 years -- General David Petraeus, 6/2007
I suppose I should acknowledge that the troop surge is working. I did after all predict that it would not. It seems to have had the intended effect, and is about as positive an outcome as any of us could have wanted. The question that does keep popping into my mind though, is what are the 120,000 non-surge troops doing there, and why did we need another 30 k to quell Al Qaeda? I don't pretend to know how to run a war, but I do know that this army, the world's best fighting force could go into any country in the world a week after Easter, accomplish every meaningful military objective, and be home for the World Series. Here we are 4-1/2 years later; dealing with what must be "security" plus a myriad of non-military objectives.
The non-military ones are always better left to the people themselves. So, the only reasonable goals are enhancement of security. Well, what does that mean? Does it mean restricting the rights of law abiding citizens like we do at home? I'm sure that's making a lot of friends. ...but I digress.
Historically, we have World War II, Korea, and Vietnam to compare to. Well, WWII left us with troops located to this very day in Germany and scattered in a multitude of islands across the Pacific. We are still in nearly all these spaces. Doing what? I dunno. Nation building, I guess. Security doesn't seem to be at play.
We are only now talking about leaving Korea. Why did it take 50 years to close that book? Security might seem a little shakier there now with a madman across the border. So, what has improved here, that allows us to go home..has Kim Jong Il opened up his first McDonald's?
In Vietnam, we skedaddled pretty quickly and the people lost millions of lives in the subsequant Pol Pot invasion. In view of that fiasco, we certainly can't get away immediately in the sense that the nitwits in Congress suggest we can. That means the optimum time frame is somewhere between 0 and 50 years. Let's say 10 years to make sure things go smoothly. As I've said before, we are not good at ending these relationships. So, Petraeus may be right with his estimate of 9-10. Add a few more years for gross inefficiency by the occasionally and accidentally elected Democrats, and we're looking at 2020.
Might as well settle in. Maybe sometime between now and then, we'll stop referring to it as a war, and with any luck we'll probably see a petition for statehood from the Iraqis.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Home Run Records
Can I smoke now without someone taking my picture? --Hank Aaron
It's been about the homers for as long as I can remember. Since I was a boy, it was obvious that the best home run hitters got their pictures in the papers. Hammerin' Hank (who the Milwaukee natives called "Snowshoes" because of the way he ran as a rookie), Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, all of them. If they could get the longball launched by 9:15 they'd be on the evening sportscast.
It was fun to watch them compete against each other, swinging large for the fences. It was abundantly clear that homers were the currency of the day. We should not be at all surprised that players would take every measure to maximize their proficiency at home runs. So, some players used seven herbs and spices, some used extra strength Tinactin, what's the difference? Babe Ruth did worse things to his body than 95% of today's ballplayers, and we don't judge him harshly for it.
When we begin to catalog the various drugs and salves that a player puts on, in, or around his body, we have certainly lost track of the sport. The sportsters are spending way too much time having the players pee into a cup, and not enough time figuring out how to keep the game interesting and relevant.
Look, the guy is going to hit the home runs, and that's what we wanted him to do. He cannot un-hit them, so it will be a record sure as we're sitting here. If we love the game, we should celebrate this achievement, and stop worrying if we have created a monster. Barry Bonds will be the all-time home run king.
It's been about the homers for as long as I can remember. Since I was a boy, it was obvious that the best home run hitters got their pictures in the papers. Hammerin' Hank (who the Milwaukee natives called "Snowshoes" because of the way he ran as a rookie), Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, all of them. If they could get the longball launched by 9:15 they'd be on the evening sportscast.
It was fun to watch them compete against each other, swinging large for the fences. It was abundantly clear that homers were the currency of the day. We should not be at all surprised that players would take every measure to maximize their proficiency at home runs. So, some players used seven herbs and spices, some used extra strength Tinactin, what's the difference? Babe Ruth did worse things to his body than 95% of today's ballplayers, and we don't judge him harshly for it.
When we begin to catalog the various drugs and salves that a player puts on, in, or around his body, we have certainly lost track of the sport. The sportsters are spending way too much time having the players pee into a cup, and not enough time figuring out how to keep the game interesting and relevant.
Look, the guy is going to hit the home runs, and that's what we wanted him to do. He cannot un-hit them, so it will be a record sure as we're sitting here. If we love the game, we should celebrate this achievement, and stop worrying if we have created a monster. Barry Bonds will be the all-time home run king.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Wizer One-Liner #11
Like him or not, Ward Churchill should probably not have referred to them as "nappy headed ho's"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)