Saturday, March 12, 2011
Well, yes, it seems we can
We seem to have brought the AK-47s and hand grenades. Plus a couple of howitzers and perhaps an FA-18 or two. My, my, my. Fredette scored 52 points last night and the entire team scored 54 tonight. If this does not get SDSU at least a #2 seed in a western venue, I will be righteously pissed off.
Title Game Tonite
SDSU did their thing last night in Las Vegas; "their thing" being trying to give me a damned heart attack. Final was 74-72 over UNLV to advance to the MWC title game against, uhoh, BYU.
BYU was playing TCU when I was getting a haircut Thursday. TCU was leading, and I observed to the barber that it would be nice if somebody knocked BYU out of the tournament so that we didn't have to play them again. He said no, that we wanted to have "another crack at them to prove that we can beat them."
"Only problem with that," I told him, "is that we can't."
They're talking about Fredette and how they are going to contain him. Right. Maybe with an AK-47 or a hand grenade. Maybe his 52 points against New Mexico last night will have tired him out. And maybe pigs will fly. Maybe the aliens will win in Battle: Los Angeles, which I haven't seen yet.
To plaigerize Anna Russell, I believe that SDSU will beat BYU this evening. That's because I have faith. That's because I am loyal. That's becaise I believe. That's because I'm stupid.
Oh well, we have in invitation to the dance regardless.
BYU was playing TCU when I was getting a haircut Thursday. TCU was leading, and I observed to the barber that it would be nice if somebody knocked BYU out of the tournament so that we didn't have to play them again. He said no, that we wanted to have "another crack at them to prove that we can beat them."
"Only problem with that," I told him, "is that we can't."
They're talking about Fredette and how they are going to contain him. Right. Maybe with an AK-47 or a hand grenade. Maybe his 52 points against New Mexico last night will have tired him out. And maybe pigs will fly. Maybe the aliens will win in Battle: Los Angeles, which I haven't seen yet.
To plaigerize Anna Russell, I believe that SDSU will beat BYU this evening. That's because I have faith. That's because I am loyal. That's becaise I believe. That's because I'm stupid.
Oh well, we have in invitation to the dance regardless.
Reshaping the Earth
Japan and the United States are closer together now than they were last week because the earthquake that struck Friday moved the island of Honshu eight feet to the East. A whole effing island, with tens of millions of people living on it, eight effing feet. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.
When I was a kid we used to camp at Grand Teton National Park, and the ranger would give a talk about how the land to the West had raised up and that we were standing on had dropped down, and where the land broke was the East face of the Grand Tetons. For years the process was described as occurring over many millions of years, but recently geologists have been seeing evidence that those 7000' mountains may have been created in as little as a few months. The jury is still out of the strength of that evidence, but... Imagine mountains rising 7000' in mere months.
Now that would produce some big honking earthquakes.
When I was a kid we used to camp at Grand Teton National Park, and the ranger would give a talk about how the land to the West had raised up and that we were standing on had dropped down, and where the land broke was the East face of the Grand Tetons. For years the process was described as occurring over many millions of years, but recently geologists have been seeing evidence that those 7000' mountains may have been created in as little as a few months. The jury is still out of the strength of that evidence, but... Imagine mountains rising 7000' in mere months.
Now that would produce some big honking earthquakes.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Gas Prices and Politics
As a presidential candidate, with gasoline prices above $4.10 per gallon, Obama opposed the "gas tax holiday" proposed by both Hillary Clinton and John McCain, saying that, it was a "short-term, quick-fix that would not solve the nation's current and long term problems of high oil prices and foreign oil dependency."
As president, with gasoline at around $3.60 per gallon, President Obama is saying today that he is prepared to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to keep gas prices under control. The last release of oil from the reserve was in 2005, when Katrina essentially shut down oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, which is the purpose the reserve was designed to serve.
What happened to the man that I voted for?
Update, Saturday am: there seems to be confusion about what he said.
The CNN quote yesterday under the headline "Obama prepared to tap oil reserves," was, "President Obama said Friday that he is prepared to tap the nation's strategic oil reserves to deal with any supply disruptions as part of his effort to keep gas prices under control." (emphasis mine)
The New York Times, in an editorial today, says, "He resisted calls to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying he would do so only when oil supplies were genuinely threatened."
But in "The Caucas" today they quote from the same speech, “If we see significant disruptions or shifts in the market that are so disconcerting to people that we think a strategic petroleum release would be appropriate, then we will take that step.” (emphasis mine)
So one reporter concludes he will tap the reserve only to protect the supply, while another concludes he will do so to control prices. I conclude that he worded it deliberately to permit both conclusions.
As president, with gasoline at around $3.60 per gallon, President Obama is saying today that he is prepared to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to keep gas prices under control. The last release of oil from the reserve was in 2005, when Katrina essentially shut down oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, which is the purpose the reserve was designed to serve.
What happened to the man that I voted for?
Update, Saturday am: there seems to be confusion about what he said.
The CNN quote yesterday under the headline "Obama prepared to tap oil reserves," was, "President Obama said Friday that he is prepared to tap the nation's strategic oil reserves to deal with any supply disruptions as part of his effort to keep gas prices under control." (emphasis mine)
The New York Times, in an editorial today, says, "He resisted calls to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying he would do so only when oil supplies were genuinely threatened."
But in "The Caucas" today they quote from the same speech, “If we see significant disruptions or shifts in the market that are so disconcerting to people that we think a strategic petroleum release would be appropriate, then we will take that step.” (emphasis mine)
So one reporter concludes he will tap the reserve only to protect the supply, while another concludes he will do so to control prices. I conclude that he worded it deliberately to permit both conclusions.
Reducing Health Care Cost
Paul Krugman certainly has a point in his column today with regard to the manner in which deficits matter, but in his typical fashion he chooses to cite the points which reinforce his argument, and simply ignores those which tend to weaken it.
For instance he says that because the interest rate “is very low by historical standards” there is no rush to quit borrowing. I am forever amazed by the concept that something being “a good deal” is justification, in and of itself, to do it. Let’s buy a house; the house is overpriced, it’s in bad repair, the housing market is falling, and we can’t afford it, but the interest rate is low so let’s buy a house.
But his main point is government spending as it relates to health care costs and that we should spend money on programs that study how to reduce health care cost. An example is “effectiveness study” programs that examine how well various treatments work. We should, he says, not eliminate these programs, because we need to reduce the cost of health care and you can’t do that by deciding to “replace half a kidney” or such.
I have no argument about reducing health care costs, but I’m not sure that we need to spend a bunch of money reinventing the damned wheel.
We could, perhaps, ask France how they do it.
Every developed country in the world has a health care system that works at least as well as ours does, most of them work better, and some of them work quite a lot better. The most expensive of them spends less than half what ours does. We never, ever, look at them and say “How do they do it?”
Are they replacing half a kidney? Do they have death panels? I have no idea. What I do know, if statistics are to be believed, is that the people being treated by those health care systems live longer and have lower incidences of chronic malfunction than do the people in this country. We just look at those statistics and say that we don’t want to know how they do it because “We’re not like Europe.” Well, maybe we should be.
What Paul Krugman actually wants us to study is how to reduce our health care cost while still generating the $billions of profit which are generated by the various levels of industry within that system. That’s going to require one hell of a lot of study.
For instance he says that because the interest rate “is very low by historical standards” there is no rush to quit borrowing. I am forever amazed by the concept that something being “a good deal” is justification, in and of itself, to do it. Let’s buy a house; the house is overpriced, it’s in bad repair, the housing market is falling, and we can’t afford it, but the interest rate is low so let’s buy a house.
But his main point is government spending as it relates to health care costs and that we should spend money on programs that study how to reduce health care cost. An example is “effectiveness study” programs that examine how well various treatments work. We should, he says, not eliminate these programs, because we need to reduce the cost of health care and you can’t do that by deciding to “replace half a kidney” or such.
I have no argument about reducing health care costs, but I’m not sure that we need to spend a bunch of money reinventing the damned wheel.
We could, perhaps, ask France how they do it.
Every developed country in the world has a health care system that works at least as well as ours does, most of them work better, and some of them work quite a lot better. The most expensive of them spends less than half what ours does. We never, ever, look at them and say “How do they do it?”
Are they replacing half a kidney? Do they have death panels? I have no idea. What I do know, if statistics are to be believed, is that the people being treated by those health care systems live longer and have lower incidences of chronic malfunction than do the people in this country. We just look at those statistics and say that we don’t want to know how they do it because “We’re not like Europe.” Well, maybe we should be.
What Paul Krugman actually wants us to study is how to reduce our health care cost while still generating the $billions of profit which are generated by the various levels of industry within that system. That’s going to require one hell of a lot of study.
Do We Listen To Ourselves?
The American people are tiring of the war in Afghanistan, a war that is increasingly being seen as purposeless and not winnable in the classic sense. When President Obama decided to make that war larger, rather than smaller, he knew he was flying against the wind of popular opinion so he made assurance that we would begin our exit in July of 2011. That was not a passing remark, it was a condition upon which the escalation was based.
It seems quite logical that our allies would use that statement as a basis for their own planning, but perhaps that is not quite what our government had in mind. Listen to our Secretary of Defense today, in what the New York Times describes as a “deliberately undiplomatic speech” at NATO.
“Frankly, there is too much talk about leaving and not enough talk about getting the job done right,” Mr. Gates said. “Too much discussion of exit and not enough discussion about continuing the fight.” Notwithstanding the promise that we, ourselves, are leaving in July.
And is it just me, or is he starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld?
When Obama made the escalation, with its promise of withdrawal beginning in July of 2011, suspicious people like me commented that said withdrawal might consist of a handful of troops, leaving the war to drag on longer and creating the infamous “quagmire.” No, no, we were assured, the drawdown would be for real. Now, in the same conference in which he is severely and “deliberately undiplomatically” castigating our allies for leaving, Mr. Gates is assuring that the July drawdown will be “limited, perhaps to no more than several thousand troops.”
Get out your coloring book, turn to whatever page my picture is on and color me unsurprised.
It seems quite logical that our allies would use that statement as a basis for their own planning, but perhaps that is not quite what our government had in mind. Listen to our Secretary of Defense today, in what the New York Times describes as a “deliberately undiplomatic speech” at NATO.
“Frankly, there is too much talk about leaving and not enough talk about getting the job done right,” Mr. Gates said. “Too much discussion of exit and not enough discussion about continuing the fight.” Notwithstanding the promise that we, ourselves, are leaving in July.
And is it just me, or is he starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld?
When Obama made the escalation, with its promise of withdrawal beginning in July of 2011, suspicious people like me commented that said withdrawal might consist of a handful of troops, leaving the war to drag on longer and creating the infamous “quagmire.” No, no, we were assured, the drawdown would be for real. Now, in the same conference in which he is severely and “deliberately undiplomatically” castigating our allies for leaving, Mr. Gates is assuring that the July drawdown will be “limited, perhaps to no more than several thousand troops.”
Get out your coloring book, turn to whatever page my picture is on and color me unsurprised.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
This is Why I Watch Chris Matthews
If you thought Chris Matthews disliked Mike Huckabee... He positively adores him in comparison to his opinion of Newt Gingrich. In his second segment on Hardball last night he unloaded on Newt, first playing a clip in which Newt made the following rather insane comment regarding his numerous marital infidelities.
Chris retorts that his response is “loony talk” and says that, “Now we’re hearing that he fell into the sack because he was so patriotic in his passion.” He goes on, “Just don’t talk about your private life if you don’t want to, just don’t use the flag.” He continues at length, with Walsh and Heilemann sort of playing straight man from time to time, and just when you think he’s winding down he plays another clip and cranks back up again.
“It has something to do with that flag that’s behind him,” Chris says at one point, “He thinks he’s Patton.” I laughed, but had to admit that was a bit of a cheap shot. That flag was backdrop at some Republican gathering this past weekend, and quite a few Republicans spoke while standing in front of it in addition to Newt.
Following yet another clip we get from Chris that “...when he’s not accusing Obama of being an Mau-Mauist, someone over in Africa killing Brits, he’s accusing him of being a secular atheist elitist.” By this time he appears to be in danger of rupturing a blood vessel, while Walsh and Heilemann appear to be in some danger of disappearing from the little windows that MSNBC has them in. You really should watch the segment; it isn’t particularly intelligent, but it is funny as hell.
For my part, the present president claims that he has proven that names don’t matter, but if this nation elects as president a man whose first name is “Newt” I fear for our durability. It was bad enough that we elected one who had a brother named “Bubba.” And to elect a man who uses patriotism as justification for marital infidelity…
As to the infidelity itself, I don’t see what the big deal is here. Politically speaking that is, in case my wife reads this. Joan Walsh points out that the present Mrs. Gingrich began that relationship as an extra-marital affair while Newt was still married to another woman. She fails to note that the present Mrs. John McCain began her relationship with him as an extra-marital affair while she was a rodeo queen and he was still married to the first Mrs. John McCain. Republicans don’t care; only Democrats are intolerant of married man shacking up with women who aren’t their wives.
Especially if they get them pregnant, but that's another story.
"There’s no question that at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I feel about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate."
Chris retorts that his response is “loony talk” and says that, “Now we’re hearing that he fell into the sack because he was so patriotic in his passion.” He goes on, “Just don’t talk about your private life if you don’t want to, just don’t use the flag.” He continues at length, with Walsh and Heilemann sort of playing straight man from time to time, and just when you think he’s winding down he plays another clip and cranks back up again.
“It has something to do with that flag that’s behind him,” Chris says at one point, “He thinks he’s Patton.” I laughed, but had to admit that was a bit of a cheap shot. That flag was backdrop at some Republican gathering this past weekend, and quite a few Republicans spoke while standing in front of it in addition to Newt.
Following yet another clip we get from Chris that “...when he’s not accusing Obama of being an Mau-Mauist, someone over in Africa killing Brits, he’s accusing him of being a secular atheist elitist.” By this time he appears to be in danger of rupturing a blood vessel, while Walsh and Heilemann appear to be in some danger of disappearing from the little windows that MSNBC has them in. You really should watch the segment; it isn’t particularly intelligent, but it is funny as hell.
For my part, the present president claims that he has proven that names don’t matter, but if this nation elects as president a man whose first name is “Newt” I fear for our durability. It was bad enough that we elected one who had a brother named “Bubba.” And to elect a man who uses patriotism as justification for marital infidelity…
As to the infidelity itself, I don’t see what the big deal is here. Politically speaking that is, in case my wife reads this. Joan Walsh points out that the present Mrs. Gingrich began that relationship as an extra-marital affair while Newt was still married to another woman. She fails to note that the present Mrs. John McCain began her relationship with him as an extra-marital affair while she was a rodeo queen and he was still married to the first Mrs. John McCain. Republicans don’t care; only Democrats are intolerant of married man shacking up with women who aren’t their wives.
Especially if they get them pregnant, but that's another story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)