Tippecanoe, and Tyler -- but not as much

Every time I hear someone in the media comment on "great presidents", I have to wonder what criteria they could possibly use to make the claim. How could FDR be considered great by some historians, and among the worst by others.

It's clear that there would be differences of opinion sometimes big, and sometimes small, and most of those split along ideological lines. So, no list is going to be correct. That said, I did find one (from  this posting by Justin Buell ) that has a lot of potential; mostly because it is derived from entirely objective measures.

A couple of observations: I had been going along with the notion that Ronald Reagan was easily in the top 5; only to see him in this list as #17 overall. Was he merely the best in our lifetime? That gives me pause. If in the future we could count on the statistical likelihood of having more presidents better than Reagan, there would indeed be hope for the shining city on the hill.

William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe) is the best ever. He was in office one month, and thus did not do enough damage to fall down the list. All present and future presidents should learn from this.

I have to agree, possibly even endorse this list, but would add the 44th one somewhere in the bottom 5. It certainly didn't take him long to find his place.

Here is the complete list.
1. William Henry Harrison
2. Grover Cleveland
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. John Tyler
5. Franklin Pierce
6. James Buchanan
7. Warren G. Harding
8. Zachary Taylor
9. James Monroe
10. William Howard Taft
11. Thomas Jefferson
12. Martin Van Buren
13. Benjamin Harrison
14. John Quincy Adams
15. George Washington
16. Rutherford B. Hayes
17. Ronald Reagan
18. Gerald Ford
19. Chester A. Arthur
20. James Garfield
21. Dwight D. Eisenhower
22. John Adams
23. James K. Polk
24. James Madison
25. Andrew Jackson
26. William McKinley
27. Jimmy Carter
28. Herbert Hoover
29. Millard Fillmore
30. John F. Kennedy
31. Andrew Johnson
32. U.S. Grant
33. Bill Clinton
34. George H.W. Bush
35. Richard Nixon
36. Theodore Roosevelt
37. Harry Truman
38. George W. Bush
39. Woodrow Wilson
40. Lyndon Johnson
41. Abraham Lincoln
42. Franklin D. Roosevelt

Steven's Dilemma

We’re pretty happy with the antenna design … we’re not feeling right now that we have a giant problem that we need to fix. -- Steve Jobs


A lot of people saw Jobs' tone at the press conference on the iPhone 4G's "AntennaGate" flap as contempt for his customers. His attitude seemed to be: look at all that I’ve done for you people — and now you quibble over some trifle?  -- Michael Malone

I really thought lightning had struck with the original iPod, and that (mostly) it was because Apple made it accessible to the masses, not because there was much that I thought was special about it. I had MP3 players that worked as well and were less expensive. But Apple always had the inherent promise that they would make it as painless for the masses as possible, including making the necessary arrangements to make the music accessible for a reasonable price.
Although I figured they would hold the market for a good long time, I thought that their niche was already cast, and they'd be in maintenance mode.

The iPhone surprised me, as did the iPod touch. I'm still figuring out all the things my touch can do. I've had it for a year or so, and  until recently, I was only vaguely aware that I could surf the web on it.

Remarkable stuff...and clearly another stroke of lightning in the same spot.  So, now the world expects to be delighted and thrilled with Apple.
I have now seen the iPad, which as near as I can tell is iPod for the eyesight impaired. The numbers of units sold simply floors me. It's probably a better form factor for what a lot of people were doing with the iPod (i.e., sitting at their breakfast table or in front of TV scanning email and facebook), but it can't be considered a breakthrough product. Some people were conditioned to buy it. Others saw it as a solution to their needs. Clearly a home run for a product engine like Apple. But the buzz has died down quickly on that product. An iPod on steroids, and that's it. Yes, yes, very nice. So, Steve, what's the earth-shaking followup?

Maybe that's where the iPhone 4 comes in. Mostly mature technology, diffferent package. Some nice enhancements. What all is there to talk about? Gizmodo (1) and Antennas (2). Both of those focused more on the company and it's processes than the product itself. If they really want the next lightning bolt, it's going to have to come from somewhere else. People are bored with their smart phones.

Why the republicans need to embrace (and fear) the tea parties.

---
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.  -- Thomas Jefferson

If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.-- Samuel Adams

We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them. -- Fmr Sen Trent Lott

The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out -- Sen Lindsey Graham

I'm not sure I should be participating in this story. -- Sen Bob Corker


From this vantage point, it does appear that the country's "regular people" identify with the tea parties. The tea party-goers invariably ask for less government (which is exactly the same as asking for more freedom). If the republicans are not "on" with that, the tea partiers will find someone who is. It may be a brave new world out there. I think people are genuinely tired of the left progressive party and the moderate progressive party being the only two choices. Experienced political observers are becoming the vocal majority. Unless something changes in the republican party, this powerful train leaves without them.

Tea party attendees are asking for a halt to unsustainable economic policies. Democrat and quasi-democrat parties don't want to sign on to that. Tea party types want government transparency and accountability. No more bailouts, and are without a doubt very tired of compassionate progressivism. Yet these two parties continue to glide that path together.

In the product development business, we have an axiom that says: If we follow the ideas of brand X, the brand X customer will always choose brand X over our version of brand X. They will pick Nike vs any other swoosh. If we instead make a superior product that is unabashedly Brand Y we have a chance to cut our own path. If we want big government, the way to get that is to vote democrat. No question.

There is nothing more useless than a big government republican (Wizer One-Liner #16 for those of you keeping score), yet it is the only kind younger voters (all those under 30) have ever seen. They likely wouldn't recognize the tea partiers as republican anyway. So, the risk is great that the republican party will "miss" this train.

Senator Graham doesn't see the coherent vision, yet it's as plain as every tea party sign in the rally: The "new" coherent vision for running the government is less government, Senator Graham, and if you don't see that, it might just result in your untimely retirement.

Wizer Oneliner #24

No, Not "angry voters": angry citizens...and determined voters.

These Boots are Made for Stepping In It.

And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy. -- Barry H. Obama

So, information is distracting? I do imagine that it distracts people from disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, breads and circuses.

Reason.com's blog, Hit and Run has it well scoped:

• Taken together, the message here is clear, clever, and wrong. The boom in opinionated, interconnected media is a challenge to our very democracy (it isn't). News needs to be hermetically sealed from opinion (it doesn't). The primary purpose of media consumption should be empowerment (if there was a primary purpose for media consumption, I sure as hell wouldn't trust a president to identify it). And the most dangerous purveyor of untruths is the 24/7 echo chamber (I for one am much more exercised about taxpayer-financed lies backed by lethal government force).

It seems like there are only two places we find this administrations boots: Either on our necks or in Barry's mouth.

Happy Trails Helen Thomas

We won't really know what will happen until it happens. Helen Thomas

When you're in the news business, you always expect the unexpected.-- Helen Thomas

Even Napoleon had his Watergate. Yogi Berra

I don't suppose Helen thought it would end this way. After all, she said a lot more hateful things than this to and about countries, presidents, and citizens over the years. Maybe because she delivered her latest hateful comment with a laugh. Her arrogance was more subtle when she delivered it deadpan. It's pretty appropriate for her to go out that way: every press secretary since Pierre Salinger had their laugh at her silly questions. Here's one from the late Tony Snow.

Sometimes stoneage reporters are kept around way too long. They eventually make a fool of themselves. Daniel Schorr, Dan Rather, Helen Thomas. She wasn't particularly original, intelligent, or fair with her questions, and the world was tired of her act many years ago. Sometimes we just have to dismiss our icons in an unflattering way. This one's for you, Helen.

Let Nanny get that

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Aaron Everitt posted this article on Mises.org, outlining the false sense of security we get because the government pretends to be an overarching protector of our safety.

• Coal miners go to work with an artificially bolstered confidence simply because there is a Mine Safety Administration monitoring their situation. Deep-sea oil workers have misguided confidence in their equipment because the derrick they are on recently won an award for safety from the federal government.

and

• Instead of spending time on adapting their product to the desires of consumers, homebuilders are busy adapting their homes to the code. Innovation is the victim. Most homebuilders don't have the staff to introduce innovative plans while also ensuring that they keep up with code.

I certainly agree with this. We now simply buy baby cribs with confidence because the government is "on the job" making sure they are safe. Well, meeting government standards and building safe products are two different things, and we should never confuse them.

I've read where air bags and seat belts an baby seats and anti-shatter glass, and a number of other things that came ostensibly out of government mandates have increased the likelihood of risky driving. Why not? The message is the government is keeping us safe. We no longer have to do it for ourselves.

Tune in next year when people stop worrying about their health because Harry Reid is going to give them a free kidney anyway Or buy all the sub-prime debt you want because government is here to bail you out.

I don't know what ever happened to personal responsibility, but it no longer seems to be the least bit necessary in order to function in this society. All we have to do is vote for a president who will fill our drug coverage donut holes, not leave a child behind, heal our planet, and spread the wealth.

If you ask me, it's far more risky to farm out any of your personal safety choices to government, than to watch for yourself, because at the end of the day, there's very little difference between Nanny and Big Brother.

Political and Correct

"Tea Party Pick Causes Uproar on Civil Rights" -NYTimes headline

Rand Paul should stick to the winning campaign strategy of Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, and Scott Brown: keep the attention on fiscal restraint, and stay away from hot-button social issues. Bush 41 speechwriter Mary Kate Cary, USN&WR

These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign. -Rand Paul

It is the scourge of "small l" libertarians running for office that there will be detractors from from both the left and right. Sooner or later, one side or the other finds something to demonize and distort.

I do enjoy politicians who reach into history and point out where we went wrong. Many honest politicians do this. The dishonest ones are all served by the status quo, so there won't be many history lessons from their corner. Which is to say that there won't be a lot of senators defending Rand Paul. It's all right. These senators are an endangered species themselves.

The statement Rand Paul made was boilerplate libertarian thinking that the government has no right to put their boots on the throats of private businesses . Whether it's a drug store diner or British British Petroleum, the idea is 100% correct.

When a democrat says something like this, he is allowed to pass over the "Bridge of Death". A republican is cast into the gorge. But a libertarian is besieged from both sides, and the true kernel of the idea is buried in the false outrage.

Rand Paul's candidacy is different. It may be the change everybody voted for in 2008 (and is still waiting for). I'm not sure; but so far I agree with everything Rand Paul is charged with saying. Most voters don't understand nuanced policy, but this is evidence that Rand Paul does, and that's exactly the type of politician we need in the US Senate now.

Paul's observations were consistent with the idea that government intervention is limited by the constitution, as it should be. It makes him different from almost all the other Senators, and it's a difference we could certainly benefit from.

I am reasonably sure the voters of Kentucky are smart enough to understand that. As for the media, The New York Times, and US News and World Report should not try to cover nuanced politics. They wind up looking as shallow and biased as they want people to think of Dr. Paul.

School's Out

Barry Obama has been doing the college circuit lately. I've been to one of his commencement addresses. Most recently, he shows up at Hampton University. There, he espoused the notion that all people should be given (or words to that effect) a college education. This sounds like a sweet sentiment until you realize that if everybody has a degree, a degree will be nothing special. This outcome is very consistent with the other tenets of socialism, forced "equal outcome", the punishment of real success, etc.. The bonus for Barry is that if this happens, the costs of education will go up, as the demand rises. His teacher's union constituency will get larger and happier.

Meanwhile, there's no proof that college educations are all that helpful in finding one's productive way through life. Some college educations are a complete waste of time. It would be prudent to take a closer look at the value of a college education before conscripting a large number of kids to the paper chase. The US actually needs high productivity, and that may be better achieved by putting people to work as soon as possible.

Putting people to work as soon as possible is hard to do when they must make $7.50/ hour. Most kids aren't worth $7.50/hour. Four years worth of college may not even help. Lower the minimum wage to $4.00 for high school students, so they'll have a chance to learn how to be productive. By the time they are 21, they will have several marketable skills, and can actually deliver $15 worth of work every hour, raising their standard of living, and able to start a family.

Schools should be preserved for those who wish to learn. Why should everyone be forced or even encouraged to go to school indefinitely? It makes professional students out of average people, postponing their entry into the real world, and taking up valuable instructor time.

Whether We Like it or Not

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them" -- Barry H. Obama

Dear Barry,

You said a mouthful. I realize there isn't much you like about America; but there's a lot of things we Americans do like, and one of them is the fact that we are a dominant military superpower. A lot of your friends don't particularly like the fact that we are the greatest civilization this world has seen. It's true. But we've learned that the people you hang around with are friends of our enemies. Whether YOU like it or not, there are some things about this country that are worth saving.

Like it or not, We have a Constitution.
Like it or not, it contains ONLY negative liberties.
Like it or not, it requires of the government very few services (one of which is a capable military)

Like it or not, this IS America, the country you happen to be president of, and it would help if you'd show us that you like it just a little bit.

Now, as to the bulk of your remarks, the United States of America does not "get pulled in to" these conflicts. Either there is a national interest requiring our participation, or there is not. And at the moment, I'm very nervous that you and your team of socio-meddlers don't know the difference.