The Chargers beat the Raiders yesterday, 24-21, but the most exciting thing that happened yesterday afternoon at Qualcomm Stadium was a hailstorm which, happily, didn't last long.
The defense gave up two touchdowns in the fourth quarter; nothing new there. The offense scored a whopping 17 points and did not score at all in the fourth quarter. Philip Rivers threw for a sizzling 140 net yards and the team rushing total was 70 yards, which would be mediocre for a single running back and is utterly pathetic for an entire team.
Lordy, lordy. Thank heavens this season (7-9) is over.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Obama Speaks
President Obama was interviewed by David Gregory yesterday, an event I had serious difficulty watching because I loathe David Gregory even more than I do Barack Obama when he’s being political. For the most part I found myself being okay with Obama, though, while wanting to smack Gregory in the face, neither of which feelings is particularly unusual, given that Obama was being less political than usual. He has the upper hand at the moment, so he doesn’t need to resort to sleaze as often as he did in his first term.
That didn’t keep him from doing it, of course, and doing so to a minor degree in response to the first question which was, “Are we going off the cliff?” A proper response would have been to say that we probably are but that the cliff is the wrong term and that it is only a gradual slope, so that there is still time to avert most of the damage and even to repair what damage does occur. What he did do is describe a financial cascade which starts with consumers not having enough to spend on new televisions.
Our economy depends, you know, on consumption; on people having enough money to sustain the “consumer spending” that is the backbone of our financial house of cards. Our whole GDP is a measure of how much we are spending at any given moment, and pays no attention to what we are doing with it. As it happens, we are wasting it on crap and are building nothing that will last beyond the current fiscal accounting period.
He then implies that we can avoid the cliff “if we have raised some revenue by the wealthy paying a little bit more,” which is a masterpiece of trivialization upon which I will not bother to elaborate.
When Gregory asks him what responsibility he bears for the cliff we are facing, given that he signed the legislation creating it into law, he does a Pontius Pilate act and washes his hands, claiming to be as pure as the driven snow. “If you look at my track record over the last two years,” he says, “I cut spending by over a trillion dollars in 2011.”
It’s hard to imagine what the hell he’s talking about there, since federal spending in fiscal year 2010 was $3.59 trillion, in 2011 it was $3.67 trillion and in 2012 it was $3.56 trillion. He just pulled that one of somewhere that sunshine is completely absent. A $1 trillion spending cut would be well over a 25% reduction in any one of those years, which would be one hell of an executive order.
He may be talking about the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2011, which calls for a $917 billion reduction spending cut over the next ten years, but that was passed by Congress over his objection in return for an increase in the debt ceiling, and it’s what caused the fiscal cliff in the first place. It’s kind of weird to be bragging about having caused the fiscal cliff while blaming the failure to resolve it on the Republicans. Not to mention that it isn’t “over a trillion dollars,” it’s a bit under a trillion.
His most duplicitous moment came when the subject turned to the inflation adjustment for Social Security and the “Chained CPI,” something which Obama admitted is “Highly unpopular among Democrats” and “Not something supported by AARP.” He described it as something that, “sounds real technical but basically makes an adjustment in terms of how inflation is calculated,” which is another masterpiece of trivialization upon which I am going to elaborate.
Full disclosure; yes, I am on Social Security, but this is not about me. I can live in a damned tent if I have to. It’s not even about the inflation adjustment for Social Security. It’s about the casual manner with which Obama dismisses it as a “technical adjustment” and advocates it with some glib commentary about “strengthening the program,” without admitting that it reduces the benefits for senior citizens.
This is Obama at his worst. It may be necessary to do this. I don’t think so, but assuming that it is, admit what you are doing, explain the effects that it will have, and justify it. This penchant for tossing it off with a glib non-explanation is dishonest.
That didn’t keep him from doing it, of course, and doing so to a minor degree in response to the first question which was, “Are we going off the cliff?” A proper response would have been to say that we probably are but that the cliff is the wrong term and that it is only a gradual slope, so that there is still time to avert most of the damage and even to repair what damage does occur. What he did do is describe a financial cascade which starts with consumers not having enough to spend on new televisions.
Our economy depends, you know, on consumption; on people having enough money to sustain the “consumer spending” that is the backbone of our financial house of cards. Our whole GDP is a measure of how much we are spending at any given moment, and pays no attention to what we are doing with it. As it happens, we are wasting it on crap and are building nothing that will last beyond the current fiscal accounting period.
He then implies that we can avoid the cliff “if we have raised some revenue by the wealthy paying a little bit more,” which is a masterpiece of trivialization upon which I will not bother to elaborate.
When Gregory asks him what responsibility he bears for the cliff we are facing, given that he signed the legislation creating it into law, he does a Pontius Pilate act and washes his hands, claiming to be as pure as the driven snow. “If you look at my track record over the last two years,” he says, “I cut spending by over a trillion dollars in 2011.”
It’s hard to imagine what the hell he’s talking about there, since federal spending in fiscal year 2010 was $3.59 trillion, in 2011 it was $3.67 trillion and in 2012 it was $3.56 trillion. He just pulled that one of somewhere that sunshine is completely absent. A $1 trillion spending cut would be well over a 25% reduction in any one of those years, which would be one hell of an executive order.
He may be talking about the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2011, which calls for a $917 billion reduction spending cut over the next ten years, but that was passed by Congress over his objection in return for an increase in the debt ceiling, and it’s what caused the fiscal cliff in the first place. It’s kind of weird to be bragging about having caused the fiscal cliff while blaming the failure to resolve it on the Republicans. Not to mention that it isn’t “over a trillion dollars,” it’s a bit under a trillion.
His most duplicitous moment came when the subject turned to the inflation adjustment for Social Security and the “Chained CPI,” something which Obama admitted is “Highly unpopular among Democrats” and “Not something supported by AARP.” He described it as something that, “sounds real technical but basically makes an adjustment in terms of how inflation is calculated,” which is another masterpiece of trivialization upon which I am going to elaborate.
Full disclosure; yes, I am on Social Security, but this is not about me. I can live in a damned tent if I have to. It’s not even about the inflation adjustment for Social Security. It’s about the casual manner with which Obama dismisses it as a “technical adjustment” and advocates it with some glib commentary about “strengthening the program,” without admitting that it reduces the benefits for senior citizens.
This is Obama at his worst. It may be necessary to do this. I don’t think so, but assuming that it is, admit what you are doing, explain the effects that it will have, and justify it. This penchant for tossing it off with a glib non-explanation is dishonest.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Taking Responsibility
Whenever I hear someone say to a uniformed serviceman, “Thank you for your service,” I want to walk up to that person, punch him in the chest and say to him, “You acknowledge that service to your nation is valuable, so don’t think him for doing it, go sign up at the recruiting office yourself.”
When we went into the service we did not think that we were doing anything noble, or anything for which we should be covered with glory and given thanks. We were doing what was expected of us. That expectation was embodied in the “Selective Service Act,” the draft. Everyone made himself available for military service and the military “selected” as many as it needed at any given time. If you were able to do so you served. If you did not serve you had to provide a reason. Some of those reasons were thin, but at least the expectation was that service to your nation was required.
This nation provides a great many rights and privileges. Do you really think those are free? We did not. Our parents, not 1% of our families and not some remote ancestors, our parents died in great numbers on the fields in Europe and in the Pacific to preserve them for us. We knew that someone had to work and pay for those things and we accepted that it was our turn.
Increasingly, the American citizen of today does not feel any sense of responsibility for the preservation of these rights and privileges; not in military service or even to the extent of paying taxes. Conservatives think
no one should pay taxes and liberals think that taxes should be paid by “others,” the rich and corporations, but not by “us.”
It’s not ideology, it’s the times. Republican George H. W. Bush, despite his “read my lips” pledge, recognized that the nation needed more money and so he raised taxes. Democrat Bill Clinton recognized that the nation needed more money and so he raised taxes. Barack Obama recognizes that the nation needs more money and so he makes speeches about how we must protect the American people from the horror of having their taxes raised.
If the people of this nation, not government, the people do not stand up to their responsibility we will lose what we have. We are not paying for it, neither in cash or in sweat equity, and there is no free lunch.
When we went into the service we did not think that we were doing anything noble, or anything for which we should be covered with glory and given thanks. We were doing what was expected of us. That expectation was embodied in the “Selective Service Act,” the draft. Everyone made himself available for military service and the military “selected” as many as it needed at any given time. If you were able to do so you served. If you did not serve you had to provide a reason. Some of those reasons were thin, but at least the expectation was that service to your nation was required.
This nation provides a great many rights and privileges. Do you really think those are free? We did not. Our parents, not 1% of our families and not some remote ancestors, our parents died in great numbers on the fields in Europe and in the Pacific to preserve them for us. We knew that someone had to work and pay for those things and we accepted that it was our turn.
Increasingly, the American citizen of today does not feel any sense of responsibility for the preservation of these rights and privileges; not in military service or even to the extent of paying taxes. Conservatives think
no one should pay taxes and liberals think that taxes should be paid by “others,” the rich and corporations, but not by “us.”
It’s not ideology, it’s the times. Republican George H. W. Bush, despite his “read my lips” pledge, recognized that the nation needed more money and so he raised taxes. Democrat Bill Clinton recognized that the nation needed more money and so he raised taxes. Barack Obama recognizes that the nation needs more money and so he makes speeches about how we must protect the American people from the horror of having their taxes raised.
If the people of this nation, not government, the people do not stand up to their responsibility we will lose what we have. We are not paying for it, neither in cash or in sweat equity, and there is no free lunch.
Friday, December 28, 2012
On Being Banned
When I corrected the commenter who claimed that the elder Mr. Bush abandonded his crew and pointed out that he in fact behaved honorably in his World War Two piloting in the Pacific I was banned from the discussion. Defending Republicans in any degree is not tolerated in some "liberal" circles, and truth is not the goal of discussions.
Everything But...
CBS Evening News did an interesting follow-up piece on a victim of Hurricane Sandy the other night. The original clip showed an elderly woman searching through the ashes of her burned home and finding the shard of a plate, all that she was able to recover, and taking it home as a treasured memory of her former comfort. What once was a home filled with treasures and memories was reduced not only to a plate, but merely to a piece of a plate. I’m paraphrasing, but it was a real tearjerker.
The follow-up was an interview to see how she was doing now. People had “been very kind,” she said, and had been sending contributions and giving her things. One woman from another state had even found a plate identical to the one that had been shown in part on the original news item and had sent it to her, so now she had the entire plate. How touching is that? More tears all around, only of joy this time; she has gifts, contributions and an intact plate identical to the one she lost.
Am I being cruel with my sarcasm here? Well, they started the piece by saying that she was a “woman who had lost almost everything.” Please notice the “almost” in that, because it turns out they were not referring to a broken piece of one plate. They began the interview by saying that, “We met her at a family home that she owns and had been renting out.”
How many people lost everything and wound up homeless after Sandy? And they choose to do an interview and a follow-up with a woman who is living in a second home that she owns in addition to the one that was destroyed. Seriously? She’s living in her own second home, and they are interviewing her instead of some family who is in a shelter or living on the street? You have to be kidding me.
The follow-up was an interview to see how she was doing now. People had “been very kind,” she said, and had been sending contributions and giving her things. One woman from another state had even found a plate identical to the one that had been shown in part on the original news item and had sent it to her, so now she had the entire plate. How touching is that? More tears all around, only of joy this time; she has gifts, contributions and an intact plate identical to the one she lost.
Am I being cruel with my sarcasm here? Well, they started the piece by saying that she was a “woman who had lost almost everything.” Please notice the “almost” in that, because it turns out they were not referring to a broken piece of one plate. They began the interview by saying that, “We met her at a family home that she owns and had been renting out.”
How many people lost everything and wound up homeless after Sandy? And they choose to do an interview and a follow-up with a woman who is living in a second home that she owns in addition to the one that was destroyed. Seriously? She’s living in her own second home, and they are interviewing her instead of some family who is in a shelter or living on the street? You have to be kidding me.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Tribal Hatred
In a different bastion of liberal thought than the one I referred to yesterday I found a post titled “Dancing on Their Graves,” which was in reference to former president George H. W. Bush being hospitalized in intensive care, and looking forward to being able to perform the action specified in the title. There was a long parade of commentary to the effect that he was scum and a man who should not be accorded honor in death because he had earned none in his lifetime.
Liberal expression of this sort is becoming entirely too common and is entirely repugnant to me. George H. W. Bush was a Navy pilot in World War Two and flew 58 combat missions. When I mentioned that in the comment thread the response was entirely negative, and one commenter claimed that he had “bailed out of the plane he was piloting before his crew, leaving his crew to die,” adding that there was “VERY little honor in the Bush family, going back many generations.”
The true story of his bailout was that while attacking a Japanese island “his aircraft was hit by flak and his engine caught on fire. Despite his plane being on fire, Bush completed his attack and released bombs over his target, scoring several damaging hits. With his engine afire, Bush flew several miles from the island, where he and one other crew member on the TBM Avenger bailed out of the aircraft.”
Does that sound like a man who “without honor, bailed out of the plane before his crew” to you? I think not. To be so poisoned by tribal hatred as to speak of a man in such vile terms as these people do is a symptom of a nation descending into a political system that is no more reasoned or logical than the Hatfields and McCoys.
I wish the elder Mr. Bush peace, comfort and a speedy recovery.
Liberal expression of this sort is becoming entirely too common and is entirely repugnant to me. George H. W. Bush was a Navy pilot in World War Two and flew 58 combat missions. When I mentioned that in the comment thread the response was entirely negative, and one commenter claimed that he had “bailed out of the plane he was piloting before his crew, leaving his crew to die,” adding that there was “VERY little honor in the Bush family, going back many generations.”
The true story of his bailout was that while attacking a Japanese island “his aircraft was hit by flak and his engine caught on fire. Despite his plane being on fire, Bush completed his attack and released bombs over his target, scoring several damaging hits. With his engine afire, Bush flew several miles from the island, where he and one other crew member on the TBM Avenger bailed out of the aircraft.”
Does that sound like a man who “without honor, bailed out of the plane before his crew” to you? I think not. To be so poisoned by tribal hatred as to speak of a man in such vile terms as these people do is a symptom of a nation descending into a political system that is no more reasoned or logical than the Hatfields and McCoys.
I wish the elder Mr. Bush peace, comfort and a speedy recovery.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Left Wing Holiday Greeting
This is how an extreme left winger delivers a Christmas message. First, almost two months after the fact, he spends a paragraph on the “delicious schadenfreude” of the past election, “a dish that hot or cold just never gets old.” He goes on at some length about that, apparently not having noticed that the Republicans held control of the House.
Then he has an even longer paragraph about an article he read regarding the “Romney camp's delusions regarding its electoral prospects,” which he thought was “particularly delicious.” He drones at some length in his Christmas message about the mental deficiencies of Mitt Romney and his attempt to use the presidency to “fill the hole in his soul.”
He then cites an article he enjoyed about the National Review, a group which he describes as a collection of “the old, white, privileged, racist, patronizing, and delusional,” followed by another article which is a “month by month cavalcade of right wing nuttiness” which he describes as “a treat.”
Then he says Merry Christmas & all that because he’s off to “the tropics.”
Then he has an even longer paragraph about an article he read regarding the “Romney camp's delusions regarding its electoral prospects,” which he thought was “particularly delicious.” He drones at some length in his Christmas message about the mental deficiencies of Mitt Romney and his attempt to use the presidency to “fill the hole in his soul.”
He then cites an article he enjoyed about the National Review, a group which he describes as a collection of “the old, white, privileged, racist, patronizing, and delusional,” followed by another article which is a “month by month cavalcade of right wing nuttiness” which he describes as “a treat.”
Then he says Merry Christmas & all that because he’s off to “the tropics.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)