- Zbigniew Brzezinski
That was Zbigniew’s response to a statement by Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe. It was in reply to a statement by Joe regarding Yassir Arafat and the 2000 Camp David Summit. The facts surrounding the quote are debatable, the reply by Zbig priceless.
30
Dec
Nancy Pelosi never ceases to amaze me with her ability to say something obviously stupid. We got another great one today. A little background first:
Nancy’s logic supporting this concept is very simple, of course:
OK, let’s do some simple math here. Let’s assume it takes three months to get your full rebate. That would be $10x4x3. That would be $120 with her math. The previously tried option would be $500. The impact of spending $500 is always greater than spending $120. So, no, it would not create a faster impact of any significant proportion. Sure, you can argue that someone spending $10 now is greater than not spending $10 now. But, I’m here to tell ya, $10 won’t do squat for the economy. Economic indicators and the like do not measure the sale of lottery tickets or cigarettes. They look at major expenditures like housing, car sales, etc.. $40 a month ain’t going to do anything for any of those. The reason the last stimulus didn’t work because it didn’t affect housing or give people enough relief from their debt load. And, that’s the reason this one won’t work either.
It also amazes me that Nancy Pelosi will resort to using the exact same “failed policies of the Bush Administration”, re-package them as her own, and sell them to the public with not one single person outing her for what she is. And, if this is the tax relief for the working class Obama promised, we’re screwed. And quite frankly, he probably is too.
Bottom line, we don’t need handouts, we need jobs and a vision to create those jobs.
Even bottomer line, this ain’t an experiment in the first place, it’s a watered down version of trickle down economics. But, since that was coined by a Republican, Nancy will have to call it something else.
22
Dec
During the recent debate over whether or not to give US automakers a loan, bailout, or any help at all, the Big Three were constantly trashed for poor management. Our entire system of making cars was put under scrutiny, with the unions taking a huge brunt of the assault. A lot of people argued for simply letting them go belly up and take the economy with them. The counter argument became that those who thought the Big Three were a corrupt, bloated, and obsolete management style were only Republicans in the South who relied on foreign automakers ( read non-union ).
Well, as of today, that worm has turned.
The icon of how to do it right isn’t so right at this time either. This raises all kinds of issues:
- Since Toyota is a major manufacturer in the US, how will their situation affect the manufacturing chain Ford says depends so heavily on all participants being healthy?
- Who will bail out Toyota if they get in deeper trouble financially? Us or the Japanese?
- There are several joint ventures between Toyota and US automakers, do we just let those die? ( read lost jobs )
- Who’s going to deal with the laid off Toyota employees?
- Will the unions go to bat for Toyota as they did GM and Chrysler? I mean, it’s the economy stupid, a job is a job.
- Will Marie Cocco and others rejoice in the demise of Toyota? I mean, since Toyota is non-union, they must not have been promoting the middle class in the first place.
- Since Toyota is the only company to successfully market an electric car, will this be the nail in the green car movement?
The list goes on and on. The debate over bailing out the automakers has been about as stupid as any debate I’ve ever witnessed barring Iraq. What the problem with Toyota illustrates is there is a indsutry wide situation occurring not specific to US automakers. In my opinion, it changes the whole bailout ballgame and makes Bush’s actions appear more close to right than the opponents ( of which was, may still be ). Toyota is not subject to union expenses. They are not subject to a massive retirement fund. They are not subject to any of the obvious ailments the US automakers are. Therefore, their example can no longer be the holy grail that people like me have fallen back on. We’re going to have to look a little deeper at what the problems are, and therefore what the solutions would be. Sure, it’s obvious that ditching the unions will make cars cheaper. But, since Toyotas already are cheaper, that’s obviously not the only answer. I don’t what it is right now. I guess I’d be rich if I did. But, I had two arguments in this debate that I pretty much held onto:
- The primary ill for domestic makers was the unions.
- The second problem was not looking to the future with their products. We should all be driving electric cars by now.
I’ll stick with #1 with the caveat that #1 wouldn’t matter so much if they had done #2 a long time ago. With the drop in gas prices, I’m afraid #2 will be put on the backburner even farther that it already has been. That being the case, #1 will continue to be the primary problem.
The election of 2008 was running pretty good for John McCain for a while. He had chipped away at Obama’s lead for a while and gotten a good boost from the publicity of the national convention and his choice for vice president. Then, a couple of things seemed to totally derail his entire campaign. I think when pundits look back, they’ll say this one was all about the economy. One of the keys of the economic downturn was the gas crisis. During the spring and summer the price of gas climbed steadily, then in the fall, it shot up like a rocket with seemingly no end in sight. Come the first Tuesday in November, McCain was toast as he seemingly had no response at all to the gas crisis as well as the other economic issues that seemed to cascade with the gas crisis.
Then, immediately after the election, a funny thing happened to the price of gas with no real concrete explanation given:
Price of crude for 20 years
The price of crude lost 75% of its value. Some have pinned the drop on the world economic crisis that seemed to be predicated by the gas crisis caused by, well, the people who have now decided crude wasn’t so expensive after all.
I don’t really believe in conspiracy theories. However, the timing of this seems rather curious. The economic downturn was in full bloom by September, but the price kept climbing. So, to argue the forces that drove the price down now didn’t apply then doesn’t really jive with me. Sure, there’s always a lag, but futures investing involves hedging on what a person perceives ahead of time, not behind. So, to assume all the futures investors didnt’ think the economic downturn that started this summer with the gas crisis and finance crisis would affect the future price of oil is completely disingenuous ( a big word for bogus ). The conspiracy theory that very easily flows from this is OPEC decided who they wanted and got’r done.
The more logical approach is that it seems kind of odd that OPEC would want Obama since Obama took a very aggressive attitude against OPEC during the elections. McCain wasn’t any easier on them though. However, in June 2008, the house of Saud “endorsed” Obama. They felt “change” was good. Apparently they got’r done.
22
Dec
A lot has been made of Barack Obama inviting Rick Warren to give an invocation at his inauguration. A lot of people are upset. I’m not. This really isn’t much of an issue that affects my day to day life. What I have enjoyed is watching people who advocate various political policies squirm. The left is pissy about it. The right, for the most part, seems to be chuckling. Then I stumbled upon the oddest defense of Barack yet:
That was written by B. Daniel Blatt, a gay REPUBLICAN. He doesn’t think Warren’s anti-gay rants and opposing Prop 8 in California is something people should be concerned with. After all, Warren says he has a hundred gay friends. ( I sorta doubt that. )
On the Democrat side, I guess my favorite gay Democrat would have to be Barney Frank. He gives me all kinds of stuff to write about. Here’s his opinion:
That is coming from a gay DEMOCRAT.
So, we got Republicans endorsing Obama and Democrats openly opposing Obama. Granted, it can be argued Frank is a little more of a spokesperson for the Democrats than Blatt is for the Republicans. However, the problem I have with making this any more equitable is any time a Republican is associated with being gay, the media treats it as a scandal and they either resign, retire, or get voted out. If not, they are just “disgraced” forever. If a Democrat does it, no one cares and they are treated as an icon on the issue.
So, the “scandal” to me is not so much that Obama picked Rick Warren, it’s how the media is dealing with the entire issue.
But if you want my own opinion, I think Rick Warren was a bad choice simply because he’s been divisive in his ministry and we just don’t any more polarization. I would have picked someone who displays unrelenting humbleness, which is what I look for in my preachers.
Well, in all fairness, they want to tax pretty much everything. However, I’m gonna pick on this one issue right now. To be able to increase the state budget, Gov. Paterson ( he’s a Democrat ), wants to increase taxes on a lot of things that have gone pretty much untaxed in the past. However, he’s wanting to add taxes to some specific items. Oen of those is high energy drinks. The state’s claim is that “People don’t really realize the amount of calories they’re ingesting through liquids,” said Joe Baker acting deputy secretary for Health and Human Services to the governor. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s just a drink.”‘ The American Beverage Association is opposing this tax, of course. Their claim is:
They also toss in the fact that the economy is bad and people need jobs.
Now, I don’t like higher taxes on anything. However, I like to look at any debate from the merits of the debate itself. On this one, the ABA is making a horrible argument for their cause. Several things make me feel this way:
- There are tons of studies and research that directly link excessive calorie intake with obesity. Find me a diet plan that does not control calorie intake.
- There are direct correlations between the advent of high energy drinks circa 1985 and the increase in Attention Deficit Disorders. It has been proven that some, if not most, ADD sufferers have problems with blood sugar control. Wanna fubar your blood sugar real quick, drink a high energy drink.
- ABA is arguing that there is no science or logic to justify targeting one individual product. People will counter that this one individual product is designed for stimulation only and has no health benefits whatsoever. That’s been the argument for taxing the hell out of cigarettes for the last twenty years. It’s been the argument for taxing alcohol since prohibition. Sure, you’re not going to find “science” supporting the argument that only high energy drinks cause obesity. But, that’s not addressing the issue. The issue is that things that are there for stimulation only, and one could argue designed for addiction only, are considered “sin” items. “Sin” items have been taxed forever. The argument is whether this is a “sin” item or not. I don’t see how ABA can make the argument it’s not.
- As far as the economic argument goes, I don’t see how expecting people to pay an additional surcharge on one product will affect 160,000 jobs. Now, if it were up to me, those drinks would be banned entirely. That would affect some jobs. But, since most of those 160,000 jobs produce a lot more products than just the high energy drinks, I doubt it would cost anyone a single job.
Bottom line, the “jolt” in caffeine in these drinks is caused by a drug. The “jolt” from crack is caused by a drug. One is legal right now, one is not. I think we should do a lot better job protecting our kids from intentionally addictive stuff. There is no argument for allowing kids access to a drug that intentionally cranks them up. Now, I don’t know if studies have been made to see if kids who like to get cranked up on Jolt Cola push that button further with stuff that cranks them up even more. If kids today are anything like the kids I grew up with, the answer would be “definitely”. I don’t know if there has been studies on people getting addicted to caffeine, if there is anyone else in the world as addicted to coffee as I am, then the answer is “definitely”. So, for the American Beverage Association to summarily dismiss “logic” that their product causes problems is offesnive to me.
Snide summary: Maybe if they stayed away from the product they endorse, they wouldn’t have felt so rushed and could have come up with a better response.
Snide summary #2: Kentucky is once again looking at increasing taxes on the only sin they can think of, tobacco. Maybe if that tax was distributed to other “sins” such as these high energy drinks, more money would be raised for the state to waste since from a lot of studies, it’s easier to quit smoking than to quit sugar.
That’s the argument being made today after the collapse of the Big Three bailout. For the record, it came because UAW refused to bargain.
Now, this argument is so bogus it’s amazing. People are actually debating this issue as if it’s fact. One of the states being singled out is Kentucky because of Mitch McConnell. Now, I know Kentucky kinda well. What people are not wanting everyone to know is Toyota isn’t the only car manufacturer here.
Ever seen one of these?
That folks, is a Kentucky car. GM only makes Corvettes in Kentucky.
Ever seen one of these?
![2007-ford-explorer-front-view[1]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/3102743672_8eeac54fe8.jpg)
That folks, is another Kentucky only car.
So, don’t feed me the bull that Kentucky Republicans don’t have to worry about GM or Ford because we have one Toyota plant. The facts are totally against that and the media’s not too concerned about making sure people making that argument are corrected.
The real reason GM is in the shape it’s in is not because Kentucky Republican Senators are against making sure union dues are made by people making on average triple what I do to put a nut on a screw, it’s because people in California will not buy American made cars. Mitch McConnell writing the UAW a check for $15 billion will not fix that.
Earleir this year, Ford announced the KENTUCKY plant that makes the massive Explorer SUV’s will be re-tooled to manufacture alternative fuel cars. GM has already done that to some degree at the KENTUCKY plant that manufacters the $80,000, 8 mpg sportscar. A big part of the domestic auto manufacturing future is in Kentucky. So, the argument that Kentucky Republicans have nothing to lose by opposing this bill is completely bogus. We have a lot of jobs invested here. Some people, me included, know that for those jobs to be there in the future, “Detroit” is going to have to adjust their business model to be more competitve, and people in California will have to adjust their attitude that anything made in the US sucks.
When that happens, then I expect my Republican Senators will have a much different outlook. And, when that happens, the Big Three won’t be begging for handouts.
This is just precious:
You just have to read it all to get just how fubar this Democrat has been. Basically, the charge that prompted this was Blagovich was selling Obama’s seat to the highest bidder. The payoff apparently was, get this, he wanted a position associated with, drum roll please, labor unions. You know, the people like SIEU who donate heavily to any Democrat while their employers are going bankrupt and their members lose their jobs. If the labor union route didn’t work, Blagovich would have settled for $250,000 a year running a non-profit. Oddly enough, an apparent central figure in the whole thing is Tony Rezko. You know, the disgraced businessman, influence peddler, and Obama supporter. Given all the charges, the Illinois governor who replaced the previous governor who wound up serving time, faces a decade or two of prison time for, roll the drum please, doing exactly what the previous governor before him did. Now, Ryan’s kinda in the news now, as Dick Durbin of all people, requested a pardon for Ryan. Blagojevich, probably sensing things to come, supported the pardon request.
What’s just as precious to me, the article I cited went 667 words without ever mentioning that Blagojevich is a Democrat. What’s kind of shocking to me is that it’s Foxnews. I guess they’re in the tank as well these days ( just kiddin! ).
Anyways, things are probably going to be fun to watch in Illinois for a while I imagine. I hear Nancy Pelosi’s flying to Springfield this afternoon to condemn Blagovich as yet another example of the Republican Culture of Corruption and deny the fact that any Democrat had anything to do with Blagovich’s scandals. Also, Keith Olbermann will be doing a piece decrying Blagovish as the worst, governor, ever.
Serious question tho, with the governor under felony indictiments regarding the appointment of a US Senator, how does that affect the process? I will assume Pat Quinn, the Lt. Governor, would assume day to day responsibilities of the governor, if he doesn’t resign ( I don’t see Blagovich’s ego allowing for that ). However, I’m not sure the law would allow for a Lt Governor to appoint a Senator. And, given the situation, I can’t really see any judge allowing the appointment to continue through the Governor’s office. This will be fun to watch.
I read an article by Marie Cocco of the Washington Post in RealClearPolitics. it just confounds me. Per Marie:
She goes on and on about how important the middle class is.
This is the sort of socialist stuff I just flat out don’t see how people can truly believe makes a society function.
I’ll start from the bottom line and work up just a little. Fact is, no business has ever been created to assure there is a middle class. Never. Never will be either. A business is created so that a person can acheive one or two objectives, sometimes both:
- Freedom to operate their business in the manner they see fit.
- Economic initiative. They want to make more money.
That’s it. Name one company in the history of the United States that was created with the intent of creating a middle class.
Working up from the bottom line, the problems with GM is not that they have successfully created a middle class the last fifty years, contrary to what Marie Cocco thinks, it’s that they allowed the focus on non-business issues to overwhelm the ability of the business itself to remain viable. It’s fine and dandy to create a middle class, and some upper class, when business is good. However, when times go bad for a company, that middle class is expected to suffer as well. What Marie Cocco is expecting is for GM to go bankrupt and STILL support the middle class? That folks is beyond clueless, it’s asinine. Whether she wants to believe it or not, GM is in the shape it’s in because it’s paying it’s people too much. Maybe not in cash, but between these golden retirement plans, health insurance the average people don’t get, and getting paid many times what the average worker makes, GM is just spending too much. Toss in some lousy management at the top, and GM is doomed.
Now, once GM does go completely bankrupt, how will that contribute to the middle class, Marie?
It amazes me how stupid and unconcerned people who write for national media can be. Marie is just typical of how left and unconcerned with reality print media has become. Which I’m sure is major contributing factor in another of today’s headlines:
The death of the Republican Party might be a little premature. Anh “Joseph” Cao defeated William Jefferson in New Orleans. This particular district has an 11% Republican registration. If Obama was a factor at all in the general, it was his lack of an endorsement that killed any enthusiasm Jefferson might have been able to muster. As it was, due to the delay in voting due to Gustav, lack of support from the top, and of course, Jefferson’s image, he went down. The party of “change” lost to the “culture of corruption”, represented by a Vietnamese refugee from the fall of Saigon.
Additionally, in western Louisiana, Republican John Fleming defeated Democrat Paul Carmouche. Obama did endorse Carmouche. That apparently didn’t help enough.
So much for rhetoric.
