Erica Jong was on Hardball the other day to explain why men keep engaging in sex scandals and women do not. She babbled something about being in a position of power, which didn’t make much sense, and I must confess that my attempts to figure it out have not made much sense either.
Then I was reading an item in Democratic Underground and a commenter said that, “In order for a woman to get into a powerful position they have to be very smart. If they are smart and savvy enough to get into a powerful position, they are probably smart enough to either avoid these kinds of scandals or hide them better.”
I think that person hit it on the head. Our system is still pretty much male dominated and allows a lot of pretty mediocre men to reach positions of power. So when you take a guy who is really not terribly smart, who does not have much self discipline, and you give him a great deal of power, he is very likely to misuse that power. He won’t do it because he is evil or corrupt, he will do it because he is simply not capable of managing the power which has been given to him.
Women, however, are not going to reach powerful positions unless they are very smart and very disciplined in their thinking and personal habits. Those who are predatory in their personal habits are going to prey on weak men, but we are damn sure never going to know about it.
Update, 9:40am: Of course, Michele Bachmann comes to mind. Hmmm.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
This is just ugly
I've never been a particularly big fan of Robert Gates, mostly regarding him merely as being an improvement on the jackass who preceeded him. When he stands on the international stage and makes arrogant, ugly statements about what other nations should be doing I just think he cannot disappear into the woodwork soon enough.
I don't think Panetta is going to be a big improvement, frankly, but it would be hard for him to be much worse. I have no idea where he thinks we are "expending resources" in defense of European nations.
Update: Norway responded by announcing this afternoon that it would reduce its participation in the Libyan effort immediately and withdraw completely by August 1st. Good for Norway.
Highlighting the U.S.' frustration with prolonged military engagements where it had to take the lead, Mr. Gates also said the “blunt reality” was there would be “dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress and in the American body politic writ large to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence.”
I don't think Panetta is going to be a big improvement, frankly, but it would be hard for him to be much worse. I have no idea where he thinks we are "expending resources" in defense of European nations.
Update: Norway responded by announcing this afternoon that it would reduce its participation in the Libyan effort immediately and withdraw completely by August 1st. Good for Norway.
Tax Cut Election Dilemma
We are being warned by Democrats and the liberal media that we must not, under any circumstances, elect Republicans because they will cut taxes. Republicans are the party of tax cuts and that is what got us into this economic mess to begin with. Tax cuts are disastrous and if we elect Republicans they will perpetuate the policy of cutting taxes and the nation will go down the drain. We hear you.
This excerpt, from Obama’s “State of the Union” speech in January 2010, after barely one year in office, might seem to strike a little bit of dissonance with that message,
Six times in a matter of a few seconds Obama patted his administration on the back for cutting taxes. But he did not stop there.
For two full years the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, and they knew that the Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010. They did not come up with any tax plan of their own to replace the Republican tax schedules, and did not even begin discussing it for the first eighteen months of their control of Congress. Then, for six months all we heard was discussion of in what form the Bush tax cuts should or should not be renewed.
Finally, Obama agreed to a full renewal of them, not for a mere one year, but for two full years. Despite his imprimatur on them, they are still referred to as “the Bush tax cuts.” But he did not stop there, he also imposed a “tax holiday” on the payroll tax for Social Security, money that will have to be replaced from federal revenue.
The Republicans, say Democrats, want to cut taxes for the rich and for businesses, while Democrats cut taxes for middle class working people. Read Obama’s State of the Union again, and consider the plan that his administration is rolling out now; a payroll tax cut on the employer side, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate, accompanied with the closure of unspecified “tax loopholes.”
We are supposed to believe that the elimination of deductions and loopholes will offset the reduction in the tax rate, and that corporations will wind up paying as much or more in taxes, but since the plan is being proposed in order to “make business more competitive” it’s hard to imagine how that can be the case.
So we mustn’t elect Republicans because they will cut taxes, but it would appear that we mustn’t elect Democrats for precisely the same reason.
This excerpt, from Obama’s “State of the Union” speech in January 2010, after barely one year in office, might seem to strike a little bit of dissonance with that message,
"We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses," Obama said. "We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college."
Six times in a matter of a few seconds Obama patted his administration on the back for cutting taxes. But he did not stop there.
For two full years the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, and they knew that the Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010. They did not come up with any tax plan of their own to replace the Republican tax schedules, and did not even begin discussing it for the first eighteen months of their control of Congress. Then, for six months all we heard was discussion of in what form the Bush tax cuts should or should not be renewed.
Finally, Obama agreed to a full renewal of them, not for a mere one year, but for two full years. Despite his imprimatur on them, they are still referred to as “the Bush tax cuts.” But he did not stop there, he also imposed a “tax holiday” on the payroll tax for Social Security, money that will have to be replaced from federal revenue.
The Republicans, say Democrats, want to cut taxes for the rich and for businesses, while Democrats cut taxes for middle class working people. Read Obama’s State of the Union again, and consider the plan that his administration is rolling out now; a payroll tax cut on the employer side, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate, accompanied with the closure of unspecified “tax loopholes.”
We are supposed to believe that the elimination of deductions and loopholes will offset the reduction in the tax rate, and that corporations will wind up paying as much or more in taxes, but since the plan is being proposed in order to “make business more competitive” it’s hard to imagine how that can be the case.
So we mustn’t elect Republicans because they will cut taxes, but it would appear that we mustn’t elect Democrats for precisely the same reason.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Bombs Away
When Obama took office we had troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and drone strikes in Pakistan were not unheard of but were rare and very discreet. Today we still have troops in Iraq, we have a bigger war in Afghanistan, drone strikes in Pakistan are almost daily occurrences, we have a significant air war in Yemen and we have a full scale and intense air war in Libya. The latter three offensives have not been sanctioned by Congress.
And the president ordering all of this has a Nobel Peace Prize. Awesome.
And the president ordering all of this has a Nobel Peace Prize. Awesome.
Still Too Big To Fail
I was reading a speech given last Monday by Richard W. Fisher, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and while some of it was a bit over my head a few things popped out at me. One was his concern that the new financial regulation in Dodd-Frank does not separate the risk-taking of financial investment from deposit banking institutions, another was his concern that it does not eliminate “too big to fail,” and the third was his concern for its impact on smaller financial institutions,
So not only has “too big to fail” not been eliminated, it has actually gotten bigger. The reason for that is that the FDIC has taken control of failed smaller banks and sold them to the (also failed) larger banks, making the big banks bigger and the market share of small banks smaller. Not only is this contrary to the principle of “free enterprise” that we are supposed to embrace, but it is entirely contrary to good sense.
The only disagreement I would have with Fisher is his implication that the failure of the “too big to fail” institutions was caused by error and/or stupidity. I believe the management of these institutions knew exactly what they were doing and knew exactly what the outcome would be. That the nation and investors would be impoverished was known to them in advance and was of absolutely no concern. They knew that they, personally, would be enriched and that was their motive.
Post-crisis, the large institutions are even larger: The top 10 now account for 64 percent of assets, up from 58 percent before the crisis and substantially higher than the 25 percent they accounted for in 1990. In effect, more prudent and better-managed banks have been denied the market share that would have been theirs if mismanaged big banks had been allowed to go out of business. This strikes me as counter to the very essence of competition that is the hallmark of American capitalism: Prudently managed banks are being victimized by publicly subsidized competition from less-prudent institutions.
So not only has “too big to fail” not been eliminated, it has actually gotten bigger. The reason for that is that the FDIC has taken control of failed smaller banks and sold them to the (also failed) larger banks, making the big banks bigger and the market share of small banks smaller. Not only is this contrary to the principle of “free enterprise” that we are supposed to embrace, but it is entirely contrary to good sense.
The only disagreement I would have with Fisher is his implication that the failure of the “too big to fail” institutions was caused by error and/or stupidity. I believe the management of these institutions knew exactly what they were doing and knew exactly what the outcome would be. That the nation and investors would be impoverished was known to them in advance and was of absolutely no concern. They knew that they, personally, would be enriched and that was their motive.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Summer Scrapbook Page
This is the page that my friend and I whipped up. We used the Sizzix to cut out flowers from paper and fabric. Some pop up dots for dimension and stamps.
Linked to:
California Dimwittism
This shouldn’t be news, but California has broken out in another rash of stupid. There must be something in the water, or the air. Maybe all of the medical Marijuana has getting to us with the “second hand smoke” effect.
Anyway, the DMV is no longer issuing auto license renewals, and if you go into the office to renew your car license they will not accept your money or issue your renewal. The reason is that, bless their addled little brains, they don’t know how much to charge because there is a bill pending in the legislature that may change the auto tax rate, and it isn't approved yet.
Now some state offices would say, “Well, we will just follow the existing law until we are notified to change it,” but not California. This is a very forward thinking state. If there is a chance that the law might change we want to enforce the new law, not the old one, and so we will go into a status of suspended animation until…
Meanwhile, people who want to drive out of state are fearful of doing so due to the risk of being arrested for driving with an expired license. My tag isn’t expired, but even if it was I would not hesitate to drive to Arizona. They know about California in that state, they know all about California. Half of them spend their summers here.
Anyway, the DMV is no longer issuing auto license renewals, and if you go into the office to renew your car license they will not accept your money or issue your renewal. The reason is that, bless their addled little brains, they don’t know how much to charge because there is a bill pending in the legislature that may change the auto tax rate, and it isn't approved yet.
Now some state offices would say, “Well, we will just follow the existing law until we are notified to change it,” but not California. This is a very forward thinking state. If there is a chance that the law might change we want to enforce the new law, not the old one, and so we will go into a status of suspended animation until…
Meanwhile, people who want to drive out of state are fearful of doing so due to the risk of being arrested for driving with an expired license. My tag isn’t expired, but even if it was I would not hesitate to drive to Arizona. They know about California in that state, they know all about California. Half of them spend their summers here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)