I didn’t post yesterday, because nothing was happening other than the entire media fulminating about a Congressman from New York. Frankly,
I found him shallow and boring when he was being “good” and I find the subject of him even more shallow and boring now.
I did notice that, all but lost in that clamor, President Obama spoke yesterday on the unemployment numbers, and after hearing clips of it,
I wished I’d missed it. He said that the “uptick in unemployment” was a “bump in the road” caused as “employers look back on conditions that existed two and a half years ago.”
For an intelligent person, that man can be remarkably tone deaf. After ignoring unemployment for months, coming back to it only to downplay the problem is not going to endear him to the people who are suffering the effects of that “bump in the road,” and if he expects us to believe that employers are basing hiring decisions on events thirty months in the past he is delusional. Those of us who have an IQ higher than room temperature roll our eyes as we recognize that he is still trying to kick the can backward to George Bush. Employers are not looking at the Bush Administration as they make today’s hiring decisions.
He needs to quit trying to pretend that unemployment isn’t a big deal, and start talking like he takes it seriously. Continuing to say that the economy is improving and that we just can’t see it yet, like he and his advisors can, is not going to fly.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
D Day, Never Forget
My father, a career Air Force officer, was not terribly upset when I joined the Navy, although the fact that I enlisted rather than becoming an officer caused a little friction. He told me that at least I would eat well.
Turns out that in 1944, serving as a medical officer in England, he was getting really fed up with bad food and wet, cold weather, and so volunteered for some “unknown, interesting and possibly hazardous duty.” That turned out to be on a Navy LST hitting Omaha Beach, where his function was to tend wounded on the return trip.
The food, he said, was awesome, but they kept calling him “Major” despite the clear insignia on his uniform which showed that he was a Captain. They finally informed him that only the commanding officer of the ship, who was a Chief Petty Officer, could be addressed as “Captain,” so they solved the problem by verbally promoting him.
He made several crossings, but like most people who served in World War Two, he had very little to say about anything that happened after he joined that ship. I daresay it was interesting. It got more interesting when one trip turned out to be one-way and he got assigned to Patton's group.
Turns out that in 1944, serving as a medical officer in England, he was getting really fed up with bad food and wet, cold weather, and so volunteered for some “unknown, interesting and possibly hazardous duty.” That turned out to be on a Navy LST hitting Omaha Beach, where his function was to tend wounded on the return trip.
The food, he said, was awesome, but they kept calling him “Major” despite the clear insignia on his uniform which showed that he was a Captain. They finally informed him that only the commanding officer of the ship, who was a Chief Petty Officer, could be addressed as “Captain,” so they solved the problem by verbally promoting him.
He made several crossings, but like most people who served in World War Two, he had very little to say about anything that happened after he joined that ship. I daresay it was interesting. It got more interesting when one trip turned out to be one-way and he got assigned to Patton's group.
Speed Has Become Irrelevant
The Indianapolis 500 was won when the leading driver crashed, but the issue for the last 20 laps was whether or not any of the leading three drivers was going to run out of gas. The Coca Cola 600 at Charlotte later the same day was decided when not only the leader, but the second-place car as well, ran out of gas. The Nationwide race at Chicago this past Saturday was won when the first two cars ran out of gas. The Sprint Cup race in Kansas City yesterday was won by the driver who saved the most fuel.
I would love to return to the days when a reporter asked Dale Earnhardt how he planned to win a race and, with a supremely disgusted look at the young reporter, Earnhardt replied, “I plan to drive real fast.”
I would love to return to the days when a reporter asked Dale Earnhardt how he planned to win a race and, with a supremely disgusted look at the young reporter, Earnhardt replied, “I plan to drive real fast.”
Ideaology Defined
I was in an online conversation elsewhere regarding the difference between a “liberal” and a “progressive.” I maintained that there is none, that it is two different labels for the same person. The reason is that conservatives turned “liberal” into a pejorative and, as is typical of the genre, liberals freaked out and began calling themselves “progressives” instead. Liberals pretty much always run from a fight, either changing the subject, or just surrendering to the opponent and calling it a “good compromise.”
Conservatives, on the other hand, love a good fight. Liberals tried to turn the label “conservative” into a pejorative and it didn’t work. Conservatives reacted with a sort of collective, “Hell yes I’m one of those. Suck on it.”
Full disclosure, here. I took a test one time; answer a whole bunch of questions to determine if you are a liberal or a conservative. Not only did I score as a liberal, I would up grading to the left of Desmond Tutu. That doesn't mean that I cannot recognize that liberals are really bad at politics.
The two movements approach policy in a similar manner. Conservatives have strong principles and will adhere to them at all costs, even losing elections if needed to stand up for their principles. If they elect a Republican, for instance, and he raises taxes, they will throw his ass out of office to prove their point, even if it means electing a Democrat to do so. Witness George the Elder.
That’s part of the current “disarray” that the Republican Party finds itself in today. None of the current candidates is sufficiently adherent to the principles that are the backbone of the party, and so party loyalists are thrashing around a bit looking for someone who meets their criteria. Pundits decry the wingnut candidates as being unable to win in a general election, but that doesn’t matter to conservatives. Adhering to their principles is more important than winning.
Liberals, not so much. They have some ideas, but not much in the way of actual principles. They aren't all that coherent on what those ideas are, really, and they don't require adherence to them in any case. They elect a guy to restore civil liberties and constitutionality and if he doesn't do it, well, they weren't all that certain about the civil liberties and constitutionality thing anyway. Maybe things were only bad because it was a Republican doing it, so they'll reelect this guy regardless, because he's a Democrat whatever he does.
Witness Barack Obama, who has done almost nothing which liberals hold dear, but who is utterly unchallenged for the Democratic spot in 2012 and, in fact, who no elected Democrat even dares criticize to even the slightest degree.
Conservatives, on the other hand, love a good fight. Liberals tried to turn the label “conservative” into a pejorative and it didn’t work. Conservatives reacted with a sort of collective, “Hell yes I’m one of those. Suck on it.”
Full disclosure, here. I took a test one time; answer a whole bunch of questions to determine if you are a liberal or a conservative. Not only did I score as a liberal, I would up grading to the left of Desmond Tutu. That doesn't mean that I cannot recognize that liberals are really bad at politics.
The two movements approach policy in a similar manner. Conservatives have strong principles and will adhere to them at all costs, even losing elections if needed to stand up for their principles. If they elect a Republican, for instance, and he raises taxes, they will throw his ass out of office to prove their point, even if it means electing a Democrat to do so. Witness George the Elder.
That’s part of the current “disarray” that the Republican Party finds itself in today. None of the current candidates is sufficiently adherent to the principles that are the backbone of the party, and so party loyalists are thrashing around a bit looking for someone who meets their criteria. Pundits decry the wingnut candidates as being unable to win in a general election, but that doesn’t matter to conservatives. Adhering to their principles is more important than winning.
Liberals, not so much. They have some ideas, but not much in the way of actual principles. They aren't all that coherent on what those ideas are, really, and they don't require adherence to them in any case. They elect a guy to restore civil liberties and constitutionality and if he doesn't do it, well, they weren't all that certain about the civil liberties and constitutionality thing anyway. Maybe things were only bad because it was a Republican doing it, so they'll reelect this guy regardless, because he's a Democrat whatever he does.
Witness Barack Obama, who has done almost nothing which liberals hold dear, but who is utterly unchallenged for the Democratic spot in 2012 and, in fact, who no elected Democrat even dares criticize to even the slightest degree.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
The Consumer Economy
How long can a family continue spending 20% more than it earns in income before that policy comes crashing down on its head? A while, certainly, depending on its credit rating, but nowhere near indefinitely. A government can do it forever, theoretically, because it has the power to print money.
But how long can a nation’s economy do it? For decades, economists have said with complete calmness that 70% of this nation’s economy is “consumer spending” and have never batted an eyelash over the obvious corollary to that, which is that such an economy is one which piles up ever increasing debt. How long can that continue?
Well, we found out in 2008. The problem was not the “housing bubble” and the overvaluation of housing, the problem was the inability of homeowners to pay the mortgages on those homes. That bubble kept inflating as long as those mortgage payments were being made, it was only when the mortgages started defaulting that the grits hit the fan.
And yet even now, how is Paul Krugman saying that we can get things going? “We are not, after all, suffering from supply-side problems,” he says, “This is a demand-side slump; all we need to do is create more demand.” Right, he wants to recreate the “consumer economy,” the same one that crashed just three years ago.
Obama is describing this month’s increase in unemployment as “a bump in the road” and, two full years into his administration, is still blaming current conditions on his predecessors and offering no real solutions other than the same tax cuts and spending increases that he says were the causes of the recession to begin with. He calls them “investments” rather than spending, but how they translate into long term productive private sector jobs requires the services of a magician to explain.
Talking at an auto plant, he says that one automotive job supports many other jobs in the city and region and proves his contention by rattling off a list of fast food hamburger stands. He brings to mind my father’s opinion of the so-called “service economy” of days past. “Hell,” he would say, “we can’t all make a living selling each other hamburgers.” Apparently Obama thinks we can. Um, “Yes we can?”
We need to return this nation to being one which makes things, instead of a nation of laggards which merely consumes and produces only debt.
We could start by telling China and its friends that their products will not enter our country until their workers are paid on an equal footing with ours, and until their markets are as open to us as our market is to them.
We are the world’s biggest military, but when it comes to economic policy we allow other nations to ship their cheap shit into our market while they keep their markets closed to our products and commodities. Sure, we need them to buy our debt, but they need us to buy their products, too. If we aren’t buying their products their economy crashes, and it’s about time we started using our economic power as willingly as we do our military force.
But how long can a nation’s economy do it? For decades, economists have said with complete calmness that 70% of this nation’s economy is “consumer spending” and have never batted an eyelash over the obvious corollary to that, which is that such an economy is one which piles up ever increasing debt. How long can that continue?
Well, we found out in 2008. The problem was not the “housing bubble” and the overvaluation of housing, the problem was the inability of homeowners to pay the mortgages on those homes. That bubble kept inflating as long as those mortgage payments were being made, it was only when the mortgages started defaulting that the grits hit the fan.
And yet even now, how is Paul Krugman saying that we can get things going? “We are not, after all, suffering from supply-side problems,” he says, “This is a demand-side slump; all we need to do is create more demand.” Right, he wants to recreate the “consumer economy,” the same one that crashed just three years ago.
Obama is describing this month’s increase in unemployment as “a bump in the road” and, two full years into his administration, is still blaming current conditions on his predecessors and offering no real solutions other than the same tax cuts and spending increases that he says were the causes of the recession to begin with. He calls them “investments” rather than spending, but how they translate into long term productive private sector jobs requires the services of a magician to explain.
Talking at an auto plant, he says that one automotive job supports many other jobs in the city and region and proves his contention by rattling off a list of fast food hamburger stands. He brings to mind my father’s opinion of the so-called “service economy” of days past. “Hell,” he would say, “we can’t all make a living selling each other hamburgers.” Apparently Obama thinks we can. Um, “Yes we can?”
We need to return this nation to being one which makes things, instead of a nation of laggards which merely consumes and produces only debt.
We could start by telling China and its friends that their products will not enter our country until their workers are paid on an equal footing with ours, and until their markets are as open to us as our market is to them.
We are the world’s biggest military, but when it comes to economic policy we allow other nations to ship their cheap shit into our market while they keep their markets closed to our products and commodities. Sure, we need them to buy our debt, but they need us to buy their products, too. If we aren’t buying their products their economy crashes, and it’s about time we started using our economic power as willingly as we do our military force.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
One If By Land...
Chris Matthews ripped into Sarah Palin over the nonsense which she babbled regarding Paul Revere's "midnight ride" on his show last night and her lack of knowledge of American history. He finished off by saying that,
"It was one if by land, two if by sea. That's the signal that he was giving that night to warn that the British were coming."
Sorry, Chris, that's the signal that he received before he began his ride.
"It was one if by land, two if by sea. That's the signal that he was giving that night to warn that the British were coming."
Sorry, Chris, that's the signal that he received before he began his ride.
The Bad Old Days
Sleeping in the dark is quite lovely, but I can assure you that doing pretty much anything else in the dark truly sucks. Computers don't work in the dark, and there is no Internet, and making coffee is somewhat less than satisfactory. Our power went out at about 6:00 last night and did not come back on until almost 7:00 this morning. We have yet to ascertain the cause. It certainly was not weather, and the power company recording merely says that "a combination of causes caused problems with overhead lines," which is both grammatically and informationally unsatisfying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)