Today’s media will become rapturous over pretty much any line of bullshit that is fed to it by the power structure these days. A two-year budget that reduces the deficit by $2.3 billion in ten years, we are told by pundits and the media, is a “triumph of bipartisanship.”
Really? For one thing, a two-year budget can’t do anything in ten years; it’s a two-year budget, not a ten-year budget. At best, it reduces the deficit by $460 million in two years, and $460 million is pocket change. I’m not all that concerned about that; we need to balance the budget eventually, but I’m not one who thinks that there is critical urgency about when we do that.
Politicians are, of course, trying to have their cake and eat it too. Reducing the deficit becomes a priority when the economy improves. Politicians cannot admit that it is not improving, which would allow them to continue the deficit spending, so they crow about how much the economy is improving and give us a lot of bullshit about how they are reducing the deficit by billions (well, two billion), hoping we won’t notice the fiction of the reduction being over ten years while the budget is only two years, and that we will fall for the big number (semi-big number) and not notice that the reduction is less than one percent.
And the only thing bipartisan about this steaming pile of dog crap is that both parties looked at the calendar and realized that it is time to go home for Christmas. They bipartisanly agreed that they did not want to spend Christmas in Washington engaging in another futile exercise of shutting down the government, so they bipartisanly agreed to put a bunch of bogus numbers on paper, bipartisanly label it a “budget,” and bipartisanly ram it through both houses of Congress.
A successful compromise is when neither side likes the result. Right.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Monday, December 9, 2013
Football Musings
How about Auburn? Unranked at the beginning of the season, and then knocking off Alabama and winning the SEC championship with a first-year head coach. Grit. One has to think they can run the ball on FSU and win the national title.
The Chargers won, and it was Eli Manning they beat. Should have been exciting, but since there was never any actual competition I kept falling asleep. The Giants won five of their last six games playing like that? Then I looked up to see who they beat. Oh, yes, that explains it. No wonder the Chargers won.
Head coach Mike McCoy, whose name I keep forgetting and having to look up, says we are going to beat Denver on Thursday. With Payton Manning against the league’s 28th passing defense, I don’t think so.
Philip Rivers is not a fan of the “time of possession” thing; he just wants to get the ball down the field and score. The game between the New Orleans Criminals and the Carolina Panthers was a case in point. The Panthers controlled the first quarter; had the ball for 13.5 minutes, ran 20 plays to just 3 for the Criminals, and kicked two field goals. Then the Criminals went on a two-minute touchdown drive and were trailing 13.5 to 3.25 in the time of possession battle but leading 7-6 on the scoreboard.
Carolina then folded like a cheap suit. Newton kept throwing deep passes that landed in a different zip code than the open receivers, and the short receivers kept dropping the ball. They scored a “garbage time” touchdown late, but never again looked like a real football team and lost 31-13. Cam Newton, by the way, looks like an idiot on the sideline with a towel over his head.
The Chargers won, and it was Eli Manning they beat. Should have been exciting, but since there was never any actual competition I kept falling asleep. The Giants won five of their last six games playing like that? Then I looked up to see who they beat. Oh, yes, that explains it. No wonder the Chargers won.
Head coach Mike McCoy, whose name I keep forgetting and having to look up, says we are going to beat Denver on Thursday. With Payton Manning against the league’s 28th passing defense, I don’t think so.
Philip Rivers is not a fan of the “time of possession” thing; he just wants to get the ball down the field and score. The game between the New Orleans Criminals and the Carolina Panthers was a case in point. The Panthers controlled the first quarter; had the ball for 13.5 minutes, ran 20 plays to just 3 for the Criminals, and kicked two field goals. Then the Criminals went on a two-minute touchdown drive and were trailing 13.5 to 3.25 in the time of possession battle but leading 7-6 on the scoreboard.
Carolina then folded like a cheap suit. Newton kept throwing deep passes that landed in a different zip code than the open receivers, and the short receivers kept dropping the ball. They scored a “garbage time” touchdown late, but never again looked like a real football team and lost 31-13. Cam Newton, by the way, looks like an idiot on the sideline with a towel over his head.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Redefining Nothing
Piers Morgan had Rick Warren on last night and I watched for a few minutes, which is all I could take. Warren is an arrogant and insufferable jackass, and I cannot see him without thinking of the humiliating and unconstitutional religious interrogation to which he subjected the presidential candidates in 2008.
Anyway, Piers asked Warren why he opposed the right of gays to marry and Warren responded that he opposed the redefinition of the word “marriage,” with the same old bullshit about it having been defined for centuries as being between one man and one woman. He did not, of course, say where it has been so defined, which is the point and is why this is the silliest and most inane political argument in the history of governance.
I was married twice, both times on one day and to the same person. Most married people have had the same experience. We were married in a church by a priest, and at the end of that ceremony we were man and wife under the laws of the church but not under the laws of the state of California. We did not have common property at that point, we could not sign documents for each other, we could not file a joint tax return, I could not be on her health insurance…
Then the priest said we needed to go into an office and sign some papers, after which we were married under the laws of the state of California. After that second ceremony we had common property; everything that had been mine was ours and everything that had been hers was ours. We could sign documents for each other, we could file a joint tax return, and I could now be on her health insurance. None of these things were so after the first marriage, they became so after the second marriage.
The English language is full of words which are spelled the same, pronounced the same, and which mean different things. A “ball” can be a round thing which you throw, or it can be a type of dance party. A “bore” can be an uninteresting person, or it can be the part of a rifle through which the bullet travels. Marriage is such a word; it refers to a spiritual union performed in a religious setting, and to a social contract which conveys legal rights and obligations.
When we talk about changing the law to permit gay marriage, we are talking about the second marriage, and not the first one. If legal marriage is changed Rick Warren will still be free to define marriage in his church any way his tiny, bigoted little heart wants to do so. Under the law, however, people of the same sex will be able to enter into a social contract which gives them the same rights of partnership as anyone else.
What part of this is so hard to understand? Right now the Catholic church will not marry anyone who has been divorced, so no on can have the illusion that any law compels any church to recognize any specific person as valid candidates for marriage. The law does not compel the Catholic church to marry divorced people, and it would not compel any church to marry same sex couples. That has been made crystal clear, so what is with all of this “redefining marriage” crap?
Why are not divorced people marching in the streets for the right to marry? Because they can marry. They just can’t do so in a Catholic church. So divorced people leave the Catholic church in order to get married, but that’s a problem for the Catholic church, not for us.
It isn’t about redefining anything. It’s a question about whether or not gay people should have access to the same social contract as straight people. That’s an easy question, with a simple answer.
Anyway, Piers asked Warren why he opposed the right of gays to marry and Warren responded that he opposed the redefinition of the word “marriage,” with the same old bullshit about it having been defined for centuries as being between one man and one woman. He did not, of course, say where it has been so defined, which is the point and is why this is the silliest and most inane political argument in the history of governance.
I was married twice, both times on one day and to the same person. Most married people have had the same experience. We were married in a church by a priest, and at the end of that ceremony we were man and wife under the laws of the church but not under the laws of the state of California. We did not have common property at that point, we could not sign documents for each other, we could not file a joint tax return, I could not be on her health insurance…
Then the priest said we needed to go into an office and sign some papers, after which we were married under the laws of the state of California. After that second ceremony we had common property; everything that had been mine was ours and everything that had been hers was ours. We could sign documents for each other, we could file a joint tax return, and I could now be on her health insurance. None of these things were so after the first marriage, they became so after the second marriage.
The English language is full of words which are spelled the same, pronounced the same, and which mean different things. A “ball” can be a round thing which you throw, or it can be a type of dance party. A “bore” can be an uninteresting person, or it can be the part of a rifle through which the bullet travels. Marriage is such a word; it refers to a spiritual union performed in a religious setting, and to a social contract which conveys legal rights and obligations.
When we talk about changing the law to permit gay marriage, we are talking about the second marriage, and not the first one. If legal marriage is changed Rick Warren will still be free to define marriage in his church any way his tiny, bigoted little heart wants to do so. Under the law, however, people of the same sex will be able to enter into a social contract which gives them the same rights of partnership as anyone else.
What part of this is so hard to understand? Right now the Catholic church will not marry anyone who has been divorced, so no on can have the illusion that any law compels any church to recognize any specific person as valid candidates for marriage. The law does not compel the Catholic church to marry divorced people, and it would not compel any church to marry same sex couples. That has been made crystal clear, so what is with all of this “redefining marriage” crap?
Why are not divorced people marching in the streets for the right to marry? Because they can marry. They just can’t do so in a Catholic church. So divorced people leave the Catholic church in order to get married, but that’s a problem for the Catholic church, not for us.
It isn’t about redefining anything. It’s a question about whether or not gay people should have access to the same social contract as straight people. That’s an easy question, with a simple answer.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Tiny Budgets
Dean Baker, in discussing the cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security today, points out that the measure he favors would only cost “$60 billion, a bit less than 0.4 percent of GDP.”
Not that I oppose the adjustment that he is advocating, but why does that calculation have any meaning whatever? Other, that is, that an economist is using it because it creates the impression that $60 billion is an infinitesimally small amount of money? Why is the amount of money being spent by the Social Security Administration being compared to the Gross Domestic Product of the entire nation?
Is $60 billion per year actually a small amount of money? It’s less than one percent of the amount of money moved by the entire economy of the United States in a year, but what does that have to do with anything? What portion of the Social Security Administration’s budget is it? That's what actually matters. The SSA will take in $959 billion this fiscal year, and will pay out $871 billion in benefits, so that $60 billion is roughly 6% of revenue, and it would raise benefits by almost 7%, which may be perfectly acceptable but is by no means trivial.
When I decide whether or not I can afford to buy a car I do not calculate what portion of the nation’s economy would be eaten up by that car payment; such a calculation would be utter stupidity. I calculate what portion of my own personal budget would be eaten up by that car payment.
Calculating the cost of government programs against the economy, rather than against federal revenue, certainly makes them look less expensive and makes it easier to justify excessive government spending, but it is idiotic and utterly dishonest.
Not that I oppose the adjustment that he is advocating, but why does that calculation have any meaning whatever? Other, that is, that an economist is using it because it creates the impression that $60 billion is an infinitesimally small amount of money? Why is the amount of money being spent by the Social Security Administration being compared to the Gross Domestic Product of the entire nation?
Is $60 billion per year actually a small amount of money? It’s less than one percent of the amount of money moved by the entire economy of the United States in a year, but what does that have to do with anything? What portion of the Social Security Administration’s budget is it? That's what actually matters. The SSA will take in $959 billion this fiscal year, and will pay out $871 billion in benefits, so that $60 billion is roughly 6% of revenue, and it would raise benefits by almost 7%, which may be perfectly acceptable but is by no means trivial.
When I decide whether or not I can afford to buy a car I do not calculate what portion of the nation’s economy would be eaten up by that car payment; such a calculation would be utter stupidity. I calculate what portion of my own personal budget would be eaten up by that car payment.
Calculating the cost of government programs against the economy, rather than against federal revenue, certainly makes them look less expensive and makes it easier to justify excessive government spending, but it is idiotic and utterly dishonest.
Politics of Inclusion
I was absorbed yesterday by the rememberances of Nelson Mandela. A few mean souls chose to speak of his time in the ANC, a time of violence, forgetting that he was meeting violence with violence and fighting for the freedom of his people. Most remembered his later years as one of the most peaceful men the world has ever known; a man of inclusion and reconciliation unlike any other statesman in our lifetime. Savior of a nation.
I was struck by a memory that Bill Clinton told. Pointing out that Mandela had included in his inauguration those who had imprisoned him and made them members of his cabinet, he had asked Mandela if he hated those men. Mandela had replied that he did, briefly, and had added that he realized that, “If I continued to hate them then they still had me. In order to be free I had to let it go.”
And out of that grew a healed nation.
When we hate those who disagree with us, when we hate what they believe, we do not damage them, we damage ourselves and we damage the society which it was our original goal to protect. “They still have us,” because we are not free. We are no longer working for our own good purpose because we are too busy wrapping ourselves in the cloak of opposition and hatred to hold fast to our own true cause.
Political discussion today is no longer about the nobility of one’s own cause, it is about the evil of the opposition. The paralysis of governance is not a conflict of two forces trying to do good, it is two sides fighting to stop each other; fighting out of mutual hatred.
We are rapidly becoming a nation enslaved by our hatred of each other, by our intolerance of ideas which do not agree with our own, by our own policies of exclusion. Nobody wins.
I was struck by a memory that Bill Clinton told. Pointing out that Mandela had included in his inauguration those who had imprisoned him and made them members of his cabinet, he had asked Mandela if he hated those men. Mandela had replied that he did, briefly, and had added that he realized that, “If I continued to hate them then they still had me. In order to be free I had to let it go.”
And out of that grew a healed nation.
When we hate those who disagree with us, when we hate what they believe, we do not damage them, we damage ourselves and we damage the society which it was our original goal to protect. “They still have us,” because we are not free. We are no longer working for our own good purpose because we are too busy wrapping ourselves in the cloak of opposition and hatred to hold fast to our own true cause.
Political discussion today is no longer about the nobility of one’s own cause, it is about the evil of the opposition. The paralysis of governance is not a conflict of two forces trying to do good, it is two sides fighting to stop each other; fighting out of mutual hatred.
We are rapidly becoming a nation enslaved by our hatred of each other, by our intolerance of ideas which do not agree with our own, by our own policies of exclusion. Nobody wins.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Football Musings
Took me this long to recover from the Auburn game. They should be ranked number two, not Ohio State. Their loss was to a #6 team and they won against four other ranked teams, two of those in the top ten, and including the top-ranked team. OSU beat the #16 and #23; big deal. Perhaps this week’s champonship games will sort that out.
The New Orleans Criminals not only went down last night, they went down 34-7, with crime boss Drew Brees having a quarterback rating of 77.4. Way to go Seahawks. Still feel that your players should not be punished for taking bounty money, Drew?
The Chargers’ loss to the Benglas should, as U-T writer Nick Canepa puts it, “put a stop to nonsense about the playoffs.” Even at 5-6, as writers were bleating about the Chargers being in a position to make the playoffs, I was wondering what they would do if they got there other than lose in the first round. At 5-7 a few writers are yammering about how they are “not mathmatically eliminated.” Sheesh.
Manti Te’o continues to unimpress, especially so when he could not look at the interviewer or camera after the game, but was able only to hang his head, fixate on the floor and moan pathetically about how much he hates to lose for the entire interview. As linebacker, he was no small part of the reason the Bengals ran for 164 yards. That little boy needs to grow up.
The New Orleans Criminals not only went down last night, they went down 34-7, with crime boss Drew Brees having a quarterback rating of 77.4. Way to go Seahawks. Still feel that your players should not be punished for taking bounty money, Drew?
The Chargers’ loss to the Benglas should, as U-T writer Nick Canepa puts it, “put a stop to nonsense about the playoffs.” Even at 5-6, as writers were bleating about the Chargers being in a position to make the playoffs, I was wondering what they would do if they got there other than lose in the first round. At 5-7 a few writers are yammering about how they are “not mathmatically eliminated.” Sheesh.
Manti Te’o continues to unimpress, especially so when he could not look at the interviewer or camera after the game, but was able only to hang his head, fixate on the floor and moan pathetically about how much he hates to lose for the entire interview. As linebacker, he was no small part of the reason the Bengals ran for 164 yards. That little boy needs to grow up.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Blackout
The Chatgers game is blacked out Sunday, giving San Diego the distinction of being the first team in the NFL to have a blackout of its game this season. The loyal fans, who are not buying tickets to the game, are blaming Dean Spanos, the team owner, for the blackout, notwithstanding that Charger ticket prices are among the lowest in the league and that the blackout is a league policy, not a Charger team policy.
It's worth noting that Tampa Bay, with only three wins so far, and Minnesota, Atlanta, Jacksonville and Houston, each with only 2 wins, have not experienced a home game blackout this year. San Diego, with 5 wins...
The blackout rules are a bit bizarre. The game cannot be shown for a 75 mile radius but is blacked out in Los Angeles, which is a good bit further than 75 miles from Qualcomm Stadium. The CBS network, which carries Chargers games, cannot show any NFL game at 10AM, at which time the Chargers are not playing, but it can show the Chiefs-Broncos game at 1PM, which is the same time as the Chargers game. Meanwhile, Fox Network can show a game at 10AM but cannot show a game at 1PM because it would compete with the Chargers game.
My wife says the policy is not supposed to make sense; it's just supposed topiss people off make people buy tickets. She does not explain how it's supposed to do that.
It's worth noting that Tampa Bay, with only three wins so far, and Minnesota, Atlanta, Jacksonville and Houston, each with only 2 wins, have not experienced a home game blackout this year. San Diego, with 5 wins...
The blackout rules are a bit bizarre. The game cannot be shown for a 75 mile radius but is blacked out in Los Angeles, which is a good bit further than 75 miles from Qualcomm Stadium. The CBS network, which carries Chargers games, cannot show any NFL game at 10AM, at which time the Chargers are not playing, but it can show the Chiefs-Broncos game at 1PM, which is the same time as the Chargers game. Meanwhile, Fox Network can show a game at 10AM but cannot show a game at 1PM because it would compete with the Chargers game.
My wife says the policy is not supposed to make sense; it's just supposed to
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)