My dear readers*,
After a fantastic vacation taking me across Northern New England, I return to slaving in the cube. This, however, does not mean I was absent minded. No, my friends, my mind was as active and as sharp as ever. Unfortunately, I spent my time relaxing instead of putting my thoughts to paper. A true shame, as this was the time I could have devoted to solidfying this passion and these ideas bouncing to and fro among my grey matter. Forgive me, but recharging the very drained batteries was extremely necesary.
So here I am, refreshed (although in all honesty, I could have used another week) and ready to go. What a two weeks it has been - we had BHO, pretending to be President (again) and offering more of the same carefully disguised in lofty rhetoric, buzz words, and pandering to moderates and conservatives. Eh, not buying it folks. Not buying it. What else? Oh yes, the "surprise" pick of Palin. I was (and still am) jacked up on this pick, and was awake in the early hours of the morning to follow the email traffic of my insider connections and watching the news. Truthfully, I have been psyched about this woman for many months now. I knew the name and vaguely knew of the record of her last two years in office. However, I was officially turned on to her when one of my insider connections (and good friends) started sending me more and more information on her, policies, record, etc. I have been sweet on her and hoping she would be considered for the VP for at least a good three months or more. I know, doesn't seem like that much time, but it is still more time than most people have given in though to BHO over the last year and a half.
So where am I going with this? Right. To those good 'ol talking points of BHO fans, particularly used by the young adult vote on the left. Here are two interesting (shall we say) ones I overheard. (Paraphrasing, as I can't remember the exact wording.)
1) "He gets it"
2) "He will surround himself with experts [to understand the situation(s)]"
Wow.. I was simply stunned to hear these as key points / reasons / rationale to vote for BHO. I mean floored. I expect better rationale from people than these. I won't devote the time to "he gets it" right now. However, it is time to disect point #2.
"He will surround himself with experts [to understand the situations(s)]"
No way? Really? Are you kidding me here? That is what a responsible politician / leader of any party should do. That is exactly what a damn cabinet is, what advisers are for. This is not a novel concept. How on earth can any person with any political savvy and/or understanding really think this is a novel concept. Picking (so-called) "experts" to be in your "brain-trust" or inner-circle is part of the everyday process of American politics. It is part of the responsibility of assuming such a role. This is to be expected, not applauded. Many Presidents and politicians in positions of influence and power have had fantastic, award-winning, intelligent cabinets / advisers. Some have been filled with those pushing singular ideas. Some have been empty and lacking any wisdom whatsoever. Furthermore, while experts are good and their opinions are always a must to have, (potentially) detached personalities should not be the only thing on which one bases their policies decisions. Last, and certainly not least - what happens when groups of "experts" get together? Not always good things. Long Term Capital Management.... ring any bells? A group of Nobel Prize-winning economists get together to form a hedge fund. What happens? Oopsies. It blows up. At the end of the day, experts and expert opinions are just one slice of a large pie. Black Swans are what make history (good book, and another post for another day). Experts cannot, and will not ever be able to predict these events. As I was saying, expert opinions are just one slice of a large pie of information. And, at the end of the day, it is not the information, but what one does with the information. History judges the politician / decision-maker / executor of policy much, much more harshly than it does the advice giver(s)....... remember that.
I will work on how to even approach "he gets it" over the next couple of days.
In the meantime, back to the cube and back to figuring out a few of my own dilemmas.
Enjoy my friends.
* Readers is a stretch, as I have what, 2 confirmed / loyal readers?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
The Russian Bear is Stirring Again
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/14/beck.georgia/index.html
Author: Glenn Beck, CNN.com
Intellectual IP belonging to Glenn Beck. For actual article, please see link above.
The author of Stag's Leap makes no claim to the Intellectual IP contained in this post that is outside of his own, separate commentary.
This article is posted here on Stag's Leap strictly for discussion and education purposes
"This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush."
These were the phrases that the president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvilli, told me were on Russian bombs falling before, during and after the numerous cease-fires that have come and gone since the Georgian-Russian conflict began.
He went on to say that he believed the Russians were not fighting a war with Georgia; in reality, they were fighting a war against the idea of Georgia, the governing principles behind it.
To have a flourishing democracy in a neighboring country is seen as a threat. It is a stark contrast from Russia's brand of state-controlled pseudo-capitalism. The Russians, he said, "want to kill the idea of freedom, and by proxy they imagine they fight a war with the United States."
Although the name Georgia is familiar to the United States, the country isn't. Most Americans don't know its remarkable story. The first time I spoke to Saakashvilli a few months earlier, it was under much more pleasant circumstances. I found him to be a young, energetic and well-spoken reformer who in many ways understands our founding fathers better than most Americans.
He spoke to me about his vision for Georgia, the vision that transformed it from a failed state to a burgeoning democracy with a quickly growing economy.
He said, "the government is going to help you in the best way possible, by doing nothing for you, by getting out of your way. Well, I exaggerate, but you understand. Of course we will provide you with infrastructure and help by getting rid of corruption, but you have all succeeded by your own initiative and enterprise, so you should congratulate yourselves."
Saakashvilli turned one of the most crooked nations on the planet into a place where people want to do business. His way of dealing with Georgia's incredibly corrupt police was amazing. No talk, just action.
"The first thing we did a few years ago when I became president: We fired the entire police force of the country." That's right, about 40,000 officers were fired, by his count. New recruits were brought in, and he told me that the public confidence in the police skyrocketed from 5 percent to 70 percent.
The notion that Saakashvilli believes in the ideas that formed our country isn't a surprise. He attended Columbia University Law School and studied our founding fathers, becoming determined to give the people of Georgia the same opportunities and freedoms that we take for granted here.
Imagine a nation with ideals forged in the traditions of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Monroe, sitting in what once was the Soviet Union. Now imagine how much that might be appreciated by ex-KGB agents like Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister.
When I spent a half an hour with Saakashvilli on my show this week, his mood was much different than in our earlier conversation. I told him that if Americans knew the story of Georgia, they would realize how important it was. I asked him to speak directly to America, tell us what is really happening and why we should care.
He said, "when the Soviet Union collapsed, when the Cold War was over, when I went to study in the U.S. and finally I realized my dream, I never thought that this evil would come back again. I never thought the KGB people would again try to run the world. And that's exactly what's happening now. What`s at stake here is America's -- America's ideals. If it will collapse in Georgia, it will collapse in other countries and in other places as well."
Luckily for Georgia, the world has generally aligned against Russia's aggression. Whether there are any teeth behind the talk is still unknown. Saakashvilli expressed gratitude for the supportive comments made by President Bush and both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.
Even the United Nations issued a statement to express "serious concerns at the escalation of violence." Incredibly, that didn't seem to stop Russia. Who would have thought? If things get worse, I'll expect the U.N. to issue a harshly worded letter, a disapproving glare and maybe even a mildly annoyed "tsk tsk."
It's hard to know for sure what is really behind this conflict. Analysts have theories; citizens have sides. But even if you look past the 'he said, she said," in the end, it still goes back to a war being fought over ideals.
Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan led the effort to bring down the Soviet Union, partly by spending them into oblivion. We had the resources, we unleashed our economy, and we won (at least temporarily). We won by using the same principles that Saakashvilli talked to me about.
But he wasn't the only one watching and learning. Russia learned as well, and they now appear to be doing the same things that we did to them back in the '80's. Unless we wise up, we risk seeing the same result. We taught them this game. We can't allow it to be used against us.
The long-term solution is to make ourselves stronger and more self-sufficient so that when these problems arise, we
can't be held hostage. We need to become energy independent and financially solvent. But in the short term? I'm just glad I'm not president so I don't have to make these decisions. (Yes, I know you are, too.)
For now, we have to do what we can to strongly support Georgia, start to get our own ship in order, and take seriously the messages sent by the bombings.
"This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush."
Author: Glenn Beck, CNN.com
Intellectual IP belonging to Glenn Beck. For actual article, please see link above.
The author of Stag's Leap makes no claim to the Intellectual IP contained in this post that is outside of his own, separate commentary.
This article is posted here on Stag's Leap strictly for discussion and education purposes
"This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush."
These were the phrases that the president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvilli, told me were on Russian bombs falling before, during and after the numerous cease-fires that have come and gone since the Georgian-Russian conflict began.
He went on to say that he believed the Russians were not fighting a war with Georgia; in reality, they were fighting a war against the idea of Georgia, the governing principles behind it.
To have a flourishing democracy in a neighboring country is seen as a threat. It is a stark contrast from Russia's brand of state-controlled pseudo-capitalism. The Russians, he said, "want to kill the idea of freedom, and by proxy they imagine they fight a war with the United States."
Although the name Georgia is familiar to the United States, the country isn't. Most Americans don't know its remarkable story. The first time I spoke to Saakashvilli a few months earlier, it was under much more pleasant circumstances. I found him to be a young, energetic and well-spoken reformer who in many ways understands our founding fathers better than most Americans.
He spoke to me about his vision for Georgia, the vision that transformed it from a failed state to a burgeoning democracy with a quickly growing economy.
He said, "the government is going to help you in the best way possible, by doing nothing for you, by getting out of your way. Well, I exaggerate, but you understand. Of course we will provide you with infrastructure and help by getting rid of corruption, but you have all succeeded by your own initiative and enterprise, so you should congratulate yourselves."
Saakashvilli turned one of the most crooked nations on the planet into a place where people want to do business. His way of dealing with Georgia's incredibly corrupt police was amazing. No talk, just action.
"The first thing we did a few years ago when I became president: We fired the entire police force of the country." That's right, about 40,000 officers were fired, by his count. New recruits were brought in, and he told me that the public confidence in the police skyrocketed from 5 percent to 70 percent.
The notion that Saakashvilli believes in the ideas that formed our country isn't a surprise. He attended Columbia University Law School and studied our founding fathers, becoming determined to give the people of Georgia the same opportunities and freedoms that we take for granted here.
Imagine a nation with ideals forged in the traditions of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Monroe, sitting in what once was the Soviet Union. Now imagine how much that might be appreciated by ex-KGB agents like Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister.
When I spent a half an hour with Saakashvilli on my show this week, his mood was much different than in our earlier conversation. I told him that if Americans knew the story of Georgia, they would realize how important it was. I asked him to speak directly to America, tell us what is really happening and why we should care.
He said, "when the Soviet Union collapsed, when the Cold War was over, when I went to study in the U.S. and finally I realized my dream, I never thought that this evil would come back again. I never thought the KGB people would again try to run the world. And that's exactly what's happening now. What`s at stake here is America's -- America's ideals. If it will collapse in Georgia, it will collapse in other countries and in other places as well."
Luckily for Georgia, the world has generally aligned against Russia's aggression. Whether there are any teeth behind the talk is still unknown. Saakashvilli expressed gratitude for the supportive comments made by President Bush and both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.
Even the United Nations issued a statement to express "serious concerns at the escalation of violence." Incredibly, that didn't seem to stop Russia. Who would have thought? If things get worse, I'll expect the U.N. to issue a harshly worded letter, a disapproving glare and maybe even a mildly annoyed "tsk tsk."
It's hard to know for sure what is really behind this conflict. Analysts have theories; citizens have sides. But even if you look past the 'he said, she said," in the end, it still goes back to a war being fought over ideals.
Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan led the effort to bring down the Soviet Union, partly by spending them into oblivion. We had the resources, we unleashed our economy, and we won (at least temporarily). We won by using the same principles that Saakashvilli talked to me about.
But he wasn't the only one watching and learning. Russia learned as well, and they now appear to be doing the same things that we did to them back in the '80's. Unless we wise up, we risk seeing the same result. We taught them this game. We can't allow it to be used against us.
The long-term solution is to make ourselves stronger and more self-sufficient so that when these problems arise, we
can't be held hostage. We need to become energy independent and financially solvent. But in the short term? I'm just glad I'm not president so I don't have to make these decisions. (Yes, I know you are, too.)
For now, we have to do what we can to strongly support Georgia, start to get our own ship in order, and take seriously the messages sent by the bombings.
"This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush."
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Rose-Coloured Olympic Glasses
Russia's Natalia Paderina and Georgia's Nino Salukvadze hugged after winning Olympic silver and bronze medals, respectively, in the women's 10-meter air pistol competition.
The rivals kissed each other on the cheek after standing on the medal podium with China's Guo Wenjun, who won the gold medal in the event.
Waving flower bouquets high, the women smiled broadly at the audience.
"If the world were to draw any lessons from what I did, there would never be any wars," Salukvadze, 39, said afterward, according to media reports. The reports described the two as friends.
Are you serious here folks? Look - I love the Olympic spirit (or what it used to be). I believe peace is an admirable goal and all. But let's stop smoking the pro-China and other Olympic ganja being passed around here. I won't go off on all the pro-China crap. But rather stick to this silly and childish quote. These two are friends. These two respect and appreciate each other. But come on, one hug bringing about peace? You have got to be kidding me. This is a fight over territory, land, resources and respect. I am sure that people in Georgia and Russia, especially those in the region do not want the conflict as it hurts them severely. But, even if every single civilian in the region did not want conflict, one cannot say this would not happen and there would be no wars. In this case, there is the Russian government under Putin, driven to achieve past "glory". This government takes a hard stance on matters of territory and perceived threats by internal terrorists or past breakaway "republics" (let us use this in quotes here because they are really republics in name only). Moreover, this is just as much a conflict about resources as it is territory. I take both sides with a grain of salt as to the reasons. But, the bottom line is there is oil in the region, and if nothing else access to resources and securing a pipeline at the very least. Even if every Georgian and Russian in the region hugged, held hands, made daisy chains, smoked some herb, and did all that other hippy bullshit; this conflict would still be going on. Why? Putin and an aggressive Russia and long-standing ethnic issues.
Moreover, conflict will always exist. It frustrates me how people think conflict can be eliminated and just disappear. Do the vast majority of people want conflict, violence and war. No. Does the elimination of religion eliminate the cause for war? No... no it does not anti religious liberals. Religion, like anything else is a cog in the wheel for defining all causes of war. Does adhering to the new religion of strict environmentalism eliminate most resource-based causes for war? No... no it does not Earth-worshiping environmental liberals. The quest for resources will always exist and in many regions resources will always be in demand. War and violence will always exist be it about beliefs, ancestry or resources. And furthermore, war and violence will always exists because of jealousy and hatred. Those two emotions cannot be eliminated. Can the threat and the existence of violence and conflict be mitigated? Yes, yes it can. This can be done through teaching responsibility, respect, conservation, morality (yes left-wing liberals, basic morality is a necessary part of a peaceful life, teaching that everything is relative... except for the worship of the environment... doesn't bring peace), etc. will bring a more stable and peaceful world. But, without bringing in pop culture to the equation - as Alfred says to Bruce in The Dark Knight "Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
Folks - there will always be evil in the world. There will always be those who do, just want to watch the world burn and inflict pain on innocent people. We can mitigate this... but all the free health care, money to the third world, free education, etc... that will not eliminate this. Why? Just as good is inherent in the world, so is evil. Evil will always exist. And we must, therefore, always be vigilant of this and be prepared to do what is necessary to ensure that the good in the world endures.
So, will a bunch of worldwide hugs save humanity? No.
The rivals kissed each other on the cheek after standing on the medal podium with China's Guo Wenjun, who won the gold medal in the event.
Waving flower bouquets high, the women smiled broadly at the audience.
"If the world were to draw any lessons from what I did, there would never be any wars," Salukvadze, 39, said afterward, according to media reports. The reports described the two as friends.
Are you serious here folks? Look - I love the Olympic spirit (or what it used to be). I believe peace is an admirable goal and all. But let's stop smoking the pro-China and other Olympic ganja being passed around here. I won't go off on all the pro-China crap. But rather stick to this silly and childish quote. These two are friends. These two respect and appreciate each other. But come on, one hug bringing about peace? You have got to be kidding me. This is a fight over territory, land, resources and respect. I am sure that people in Georgia and Russia, especially those in the region do not want the conflict as it hurts them severely. But, even if every single civilian in the region did not want conflict, one cannot say this would not happen and there would be no wars. In this case, there is the Russian government under Putin, driven to achieve past "glory". This government takes a hard stance on matters of territory and perceived threats by internal terrorists or past breakaway "republics" (let us use this in quotes here because they are really republics in name only). Moreover, this is just as much a conflict about resources as it is territory. I take both sides with a grain of salt as to the reasons. But, the bottom line is there is oil in the region, and if nothing else access to resources and securing a pipeline at the very least. Even if every Georgian and Russian in the region hugged, held hands, made daisy chains, smoked some herb, and did all that other hippy bullshit; this conflict would still be going on. Why? Putin and an aggressive Russia and long-standing ethnic issues.
Moreover, conflict will always exist. It frustrates me how people think conflict can be eliminated and just disappear. Do the vast majority of people want conflict, violence and war. No. Does the elimination of religion eliminate the cause for war? No... no it does not anti religious liberals. Religion, like anything else is a cog in the wheel for defining all causes of war. Does adhering to the new religion of strict environmentalism eliminate most resource-based causes for war? No... no it does not Earth-worshiping environmental liberals. The quest for resources will always exist and in many regions resources will always be in demand. War and violence will always exist be it about beliefs, ancestry or resources. And furthermore, war and violence will always exists because of jealousy and hatred. Those two emotions cannot be eliminated. Can the threat and the existence of violence and conflict be mitigated? Yes, yes it can. This can be done through teaching responsibility, respect, conservation, morality (yes left-wing liberals, basic morality is a necessary part of a peaceful life, teaching that everything is relative... except for the worship of the environment... doesn't bring peace), etc. will bring a more stable and peaceful world. But, without bringing in pop culture to the equation - as Alfred says to Bruce in The Dark Knight "Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
Folks - there will always be evil in the world. There will always be those who do, just want to watch the world burn and inflict pain on innocent people. We can mitigate this... but all the free health care, money to the third world, free education, etc... that will not eliminate this. Why? Just as good is inherent in the world, so is evil. Evil will always exist. And we must, therefore, always be vigilant of this and be prepared to do what is necessary to ensure that the good in the world endures.
So, will a bunch of worldwide hugs save humanity? No.
Addition: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121824156547126077.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
See for additional input from a source far wiser than myself.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Faith In Humanity Slipping Away... Quickly
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,393141,00.html
LifeStyles Condoms wants Miley Cyrus to be its spokesgirl.
The company says it has offered the 15-year-old Disney star — who has said she won't have sex until she's married — $1 million to represent the brand.
"Pop culture proves that teens are more ready than ever to discuss the subject of sex," says the company's VP of marketing, Carol Carrozza. "We believe that Miley is both influential and relatable to this afflicted set — and is the obvious choice to get the message of safe sex out to teens across America."
But Cyrus' rep says they never got an offer.
"We never received an offer, nor would she consider the offer," her rep tells E! News.
Look... somehow I doubt that she never received an offer. Granted, $1mm is nothing to her. However as rumors fly she is pushing for "edgier" rolls and contemplating full nudity in one possible roll. I really think something like this is up her alley (no pun intended). Additionally, by the time this girl is 18, I would be surprised if she remained "pure". To avoid the fast-paced life of sex and drugs in entertainment is almost impossible.
The best thing for this poor child starlet would be to fall off of the face of the earth for a few years and come back at 19 or so. Otherwise, I fear her becoming the "perfect storm" of Britney, Paris and the rest combined.
LifeStyles should have offered this contract to Jamie Lynn Spears. Perhaps it could have prevented her "oops". Although, as rumors have it, neither she nor the "father" ever really were sure who the baby belongs to and apparently Miss J.L.S. had a VERY hard time keeping her legs closed and enjoyed the company of Lil' Romeo's "crew".
Poor Miley Cyrus... in a few short years (or less) we will be seeing your unmentionables on tabloids and your sex tapes on the Web and hearing rumors of YouTube videos of you, boys, and piles of blow on tables.
GET OUT BEFORE THE BUSINESS RUINS YOU!
LifeStyles Condoms wants Miley Cyrus to be its spokesgirl.
The company says it has offered the 15-year-old Disney star — who has said she won't have sex until she's married — $1 million to represent the brand.
"Pop culture proves that teens are more ready than ever to discuss the subject of sex," says the company's VP of marketing, Carol Carrozza. "We believe that Miley is both influential and relatable to this afflicted set — and is the obvious choice to get the message of safe sex out to teens across America."
But Cyrus' rep says they never got an offer.
"We never received an offer, nor would she consider the offer," her rep tells E! News.
Look... somehow I doubt that she never received an offer. Granted, $1mm is nothing to her. However as rumors fly she is pushing for "edgier" rolls and contemplating full nudity in one possible roll. I really think something like this is up her alley (no pun intended). Additionally, by the time this girl is 18, I would be surprised if she remained "pure". To avoid the fast-paced life of sex and drugs in entertainment is almost impossible.
The best thing for this poor child starlet would be to fall off of the face of the earth for a few years and come back at 19 or so. Otherwise, I fear her becoming the "perfect storm" of Britney, Paris and the rest combined.
LifeStyles should have offered this contract to Jamie Lynn Spears. Perhaps it could have prevented her "oops". Although, as rumors have it, neither she nor the "father" ever really were sure who the baby belongs to and apparently Miss J.L.S. had a VERY hard time keeping her legs closed and enjoyed the company of Lil' Romeo's "crew".
Poor Miley Cyrus... in a few short years (or less) we will be seeing your unmentionables on tabloids and your sex tapes on the Web and hearing rumors of YouTube videos of you, boys, and piles of blow on tables.
GET OUT BEFORE THE BUSINESS RUINS YOU!
The Next Erin?
I hate to say this... as much as I love you Erin Andrews, 
but you have a competitor up at NESN.
but you have a competitor up at NESN.As per the NESN website:
Heidi Watney is NESN’s Boston Red Sox Reporter. She joins Don Orsillo and Jerry Remy on the network’s baseball coverage providing live in-game updates. Heidi also serves as the reporter for NESN pre-game and post-game show. Joining host Tom Caron and NESN’s rotating cast of studio analysts, Heidi reports on key news and stories from the ballpark and conducts interviews with players, coaches and management.
Watney comes to NESN from Fresno, California where she has served as a weekend sports anchor and reporter for KMPH Fox-26 News and a sports talk radio show host for 1430 ESPN Radio KFIG. The University of San Diego graduate began her career as a sports reporter/assistant producer for KUSI News in San Diego, California.
USD girls are gorgeous..... ahhh good for you NESN. Manny might be Manny. But Heidi is GORGEOUS.
What Bush and Batman Have In Common
A RePost of a WSJ Article from July 25, 2008
The original article can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121694247343482821.html
There, that should cover all that legal BS-y junk. Now, enjoy a good article.
Original Article:
A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .
Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."
There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.
"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.
Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror -- films like "In The Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted" -- which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.
Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like "300," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia," "Spiderman 3" and now "The Dark Knight"?
The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.
Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms.
Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.
The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.
When heroes arise who take on those difficult duties themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, "He has to run away -- because we have to chase him."
That's real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.
Perhaps that's when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.
Mr. Klavan has won two Edgar Awards from the Mystery Writers of America. His new novel, "Empire of Lies" (An Otto Penzler Book, Harcourt), is about an ordinary man confronting the war on terror.
The original article can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121694247343482821.html
There, that should cover all that legal BS-y junk. Now, enjoy a good article.
Original Article:
A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .
Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."
There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.
"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.
Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror -- films like "In The Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted" -- which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.
Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like "300," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia," "Spiderman 3" and now "The Dark Knight"?
The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.
Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms.
Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.
The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.
When heroes arise who take on those difficult duties themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, "He has to run away -- because we have to chase him."
That's real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.
Perhaps that's when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.
Mr. Klavan has won two Edgar Awards from the Mystery Writers of America. His new novel, "Empire of Lies" (An Otto Penzler Book, Harcourt), is about an ordinary man confronting the war on terror.
Blackwater: About Damn Time
RePost of a WSJ Article from July 29, 2008
To cover all that legal BS and such, the original article can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728728103991373.html?mod=todays_columnists
There, that should make everyone happy.
When Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg announced a new antismoking campaign the other day, they put their money in line with their mouths. The former Microsoft chairman and the mayor of New York together pledged $500 million to target what Mr. Gates called "one of the greatest health challenges facing developing countries."
The same day they were announcing their campaign, the president of Sudan was on a visit to Darfur. Presumably it was his way of responding to news that the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court is seeking an arrest warrant against him on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet Omar al-Bashir did not appear to be a troubled man.
At one rally, the AP reports, he broke into a little dance -- and state television ran footage of supporters "waving banners reading 'No! No! to the prosecutor!' and 'We are with you, al-Bashir!'"
Mr. Bashir's visit to Darfur is a good reminder that for much of the developing world, and especially for the people of Africa, the gravest health threat does not come from Philip Morris. As the headlines from the Sudan and Zimbabwe illustrate, the gravest health threat typically comes from a combination of murderous government and Western powers unwilling to use their force to stop them.
Oh, Darfur gets plenty of news coverage from sympathetic reporters sickened by the carnage and devastation they have seen. What the people of Darfur do not get is an armed force capable of taking on the Janjaweed -- a horse-mounted militia. The Janjaweed has murdered men, gang-raped women, beaten children to death, and left poisoned wells and burnt-down villages in its wake. All this Mr. Bashir encourages and supports to help maintain his grip over Darfur.
Enter Erik Prince, the chairman and CEO of Blackwater Worldwide. Yes, that Blackwater. Most of the attention the company has attracted has been for its security work in protecting U.S. diplomats in Iraq. But much more of their work is training: from border and narcotics police in Afghanistan to police and maritime forces in countries ranging from the United States and Japan, to nations in Africa and South America.
Mr. Prince says that the 9,000 or so African Union soldiers in Darfur, as part of the United Nations peacekeeping force, are a good start. But he says that to be effective they need better training, communications and equipment. That is more or less the same message from a report released yesterday by the Darfur Consortium, a coalition of 50 African-based and Africa-focused NGOs. "One year ago the U.N. Security Council stood unanimous and promised Darfurians the strongest and largest protection force ever," says a coalition spokesman. "Today that force is just over a third deployed, lacks even the most basic equipment and is unable to protect itself let alone civilians."
Mr. Prince has a remedy. He believes that with 250 or so professionals, Blackwater can transform about a thousand of the African Union soldiers into an elite and highly mobile force. This force would also be equipped with helicopters and the kind of small planes that missionaries use in this part of the world. It would be cheaper than the hundreds of millions we are spending to set up a larger AU/U.N. force. And he says he'd do it at cost.
Blackwater would not do the fighting. Its people would serve as advisers, mechanics and pilots. Aid workers and villagers would be equipped with satellite telephones that include Global Positioning Systems. When they call in, the troops would respond.
"I'm so sick of hearing that nothing can be done," he says. "The Janjaweed is a truly unfettered bully. No one has stood up to them. If they were met by a mobile quick reaction force of African Union soldiers, the Janjaweed would quickly learn their habits were not sustainable." And to ensure accountability, he says, the U.S. could send 25 military officers to observe how Blackwater is doing and serve as liaisons.
At this moment, the U.N. is again debating a resolution on Darfur. Others are still hoping for a boycott of next month's Summer Olympics, hoping to pressure Beijing to pressure Mr. Bashir, who supplies the Chinese with a healthy percentage of their oil. Still others are working to tighten sanctions.
But nothing appears to have had much of an effect on Mr. Bashir's behavior. And if we are honest with ourselves, nobody really expects any of this activity ever will.
Then again, that's the point: Strongly worded resolutions, sanctions and boycotts are generally what you do in place of decisive action. I understand that the whole idea of Blackwater helicopters flying over Darfur probably horrifies many of the same people frustrated by Mr. Bashir's ability to game the system. But it's at least worth wondering what that same Blackwater helo might look like to a defenseless Darfur mother and her daughters lying in fear of a Janjaweed attack.
To cover all that legal BS and such, the original article can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728728103991373.html?mod=todays_columnists
There, that should make everyone happy.
When Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg announced a new antismoking campaign the other day, they put their money in line with their mouths. The former Microsoft chairman and the mayor of New York together pledged $500 million to target what Mr. Gates called "one of the greatest health challenges facing developing countries."
The same day they were announcing their campaign, the president of Sudan was on a visit to Darfur. Presumably it was his way of responding to news that the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court is seeking an arrest warrant against him on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet Omar al-Bashir did not appear to be a troubled man.
At one rally, the AP reports, he broke into a little dance -- and state television ran footage of supporters "waving banners reading 'No! No! to the prosecutor!' and 'We are with you, al-Bashir!'"
Mr. Bashir's visit to Darfur is a good reminder that for much of the developing world, and especially for the people of Africa, the gravest health threat does not come from Philip Morris. As the headlines from the Sudan and Zimbabwe illustrate, the gravest health threat typically comes from a combination of murderous government and Western powers unwilling to use their force to stop them.
Oh, Darfur gets plenty of news coverage from sympathetic reporters sickened by the carnage and devastation they have seen. What the people of Darfur do not get is an armed force capable of taking on the Janjaweed -- a horse-mounted militia. The Janjaweed has murdered men, gang-raped women, beaten children to death, and left poisoned wells and burnt-down villages in its wake. All this Mr. Bashir encourages and supports to help maintain his grip over Darfur.
Enter Erik Prince, the chairman and CEO of Blackwater Worldwide. Yes, that Blackwater. Most of the attention the company has attracted has been for its security work in protecting U.S. diplomats in Iraq. But much more of their work is training: from border and narcotics police in Afghanistan to police and maritime forces in countries ranging from the United States and Japan, to nations in Africa and South America.
Mr. Prince says that the 9,000 or so African Union soldiers in Darfur, as part of the United Nations peacekeeping force, are a good start. But he says that to be effective they need better training, communications and equipment. That is more or less the same message from a report released yesterday by the Darfur Consortium, a coalition of 50 African-based and Africa-focused NGOs. "One year ago the U.N. Security Council stood unanimous and promised Darfurians the strongest and largest protection force ever," says a coalition spokesman. "Today that force is just over a third deployed, lacks even the most basic equipment and is unable to protect itself let alone civilians."
Mr. Prince has a remedy. He believes that with 250 or so professionals, Blackwater can transform about a thousand of the African Union soldiers into an elite and highly mobile force. This force would also be equipped with helicopters and the kind of small planes that missionaries use in this part of the world. It would be cheaper than the hundreds of millions we are spending to set up a larger AU/U.N. force. And he says he'd do it at cost.
Blackwater would not do the fighting. Its people would serve as advisers, mechanics and pilots. Aid workers and villagers would be equipped with satellite telephones that include Global Positioning Systems. When they call in, the troops would respond.
"I'm so sick of hearing that nothing can be done," he says. "The Janjaweed is a truly unfettered bully. No one has stood up to them. If they were met by a mobile quick reaction force of African Union soldiers, the Janjaweed would quickly learn their habits were not sustainable." And to ensure accountability, he says, the U.S. could send 25 military officers to observe how Blackwater is doing and serve as liaisons.
At this moment, the U.N. is again debating a resolution on Darfur. Others are still hoping for a boycott of next month's Summer Olympics, hoping to pressure Beijing to pressure Mr. Bashir, who supplies the Chinese with a healthy percentage of their oil. Still others are working to tighten sanctions.
But nothing appears to have had much of an effect on Mr. Bashir's behavior. And if we are honest with ourselves, nobody really expects any of this activity ever will.
Then again, that's the point: Strongly worded resolutions, sanctions and boycotts are generally what you do in place of decisive action. I understand that the whole idea of Blackwater helicopters flying over Darfur probably horrifies many of the same people frustrated by Mr. Bashir's ability to game the system. But it's at least worth wondering what that same Blackwater helo might look like to a defenseless Darfur mother and her daughters lying in fear of a Janjaweed attack.
Let's Have a Real Recession and a Depression While We Are At It!
RePost of a WSJ Article from July 29, 2008
To cover all that legal BS and such, the original article can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
There, that should make everyone happy.
Article:
What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?
The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.
To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left.
Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is similar.
First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.
The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!
Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)
On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner or later, would seriously damage the economy.
On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.
Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace of technological change.
Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas.
Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means creeping protectionism.
History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.
Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession
By: Michael J. Boskin
July 29, 2008
Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
To cover all that legal BS and such, the original article can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
There, that should make everyone happy.
Article:
What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?
The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.
To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left.
Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is similar.
First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.
The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!
Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)
On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner or later, would seriously damage the economy.
On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.
Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace of technological change.
Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas.
Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means creeping protectionism.
History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.
Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession
By: Michael J. Boskin
July 29, 2008
Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
Monday, March 24, 2008
7 Diamonds
You guys certainly put out.
- potential client
Are you kidding me? This is supposed to be the motivation which keeps me working hard? I am not too terribly motivated via the carrot and stick method. Yes, bonus is a tremendous motivation. But, at the same time, it still is not a majority of my motivation. But when it comes to being jerked around and being thanked in such a manner as that which opens this entry, it does become hard to maintain motivation. Alas, I return to work for the very same potential client who jerks us around and makes me feel as worthy as "Kristen" aka A.A. Dupree.
Your fearless Analyst friend.......
- potential client
Are you kidding me? This is supposed to be the motivation which keeps me working hard? I am not too terribly motivated via the carrot and stick method. Yes, bonus is a tremendous motivation. But, at the same time, it still is not a majority of my motivation. But when it comes to being jerked around and being thanked in such a manner as that which opens this entry, it does become hard to maintain motivation. Alas, I return to work for the very same potential client who jerks us around and makes me feel as worthy as "Kristen" aka A.A. Dupree.
Your fearless Analyst friend.......
Saturday, January 26, 2008
What? A Day Without Work?
Seriously here folks... what is this? A Saturday without work? That cannot be true.
Well what did I do with myself? Easy question.
Sleep. Sleep. Woke up with Rachel Ray... I mean isn't that any foodie's dream? To wake up to a cute woman cooking in the kitchen? (I kidd folks) So after sleeping and watching some Food Network, I decided that I must cook for the Super Bowl next weekend.
So for tomorrow, there is an orange tequila chicken in the refridgerator. It should be tasty.
Tonight, I made a chili from scratch. It isn't bad. A little on the sweet side, but the kick hits you at the end...
Not the world's most exciting post. But, perhaps I will have something interesting to write a little later on.
Well what did I do with myself? Easy question.
Sleep. Sleep. Woke up with Rachel Ray... I mean isn't that any foodie's dream? To wake up to a cute woman cooking in the kitchen? (I kidd folks) So after sleeping and watching some Food Network, I decided that I must cook for the Super Bowl next weekend.
So for tomorrow, there is an orange tequila chicken in the refridgerator. It should be tasty.
Tonight, I made a chili from scratch. It isn't bad. A little on the sweet side, but the kick hits you at the end...
Not the world's most exciting post. But, perhaps I will have something interesting to write a little later on.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
This Falls Under The "NO $HIT" Category
From Reuters:
LONDON - Work really can kill you, according to a study on Wednesday providing the strongest evidence yet of how on-the-job stress raises the risk of heart disease by disrupting the body's internal systems.
The findings from a long-running study involving more than 10,000 British civil servants also suggest stress-induced biological changes may play a more direct role than previously thought, said Tarani Chandola, an epidemiologist at University College London.
"This is the first large-scale population study looking at the effects of stress measured from everyday working life on heart disease," said Chandola, who led the study. "One of the problems is people have been skeptical whether work stress really affects a person biologically."
Heart disease is the world's leading cause of death. It is caused by fatty deposits that harden and block arteries, high blood pressure which damages blood vessels, and other factors.
The researchers measured stress among the civil servants by asking questions about their job demands such as how much control they had at work, how often they took breaks, and how pressed for time they were during the day.
The team conducted seven surveys over a 12-year period and found chronically stressed workers — people determined to be under severe pressure in the first two of the surveys — had a 68 percent higher risk of developing heart disease.
The link was strongest among people under 50, Chandola said.
"This study adds to the evidence that the work stress-coronary heart disease association is causal in nature," the researchers wrote in the European Heart Journal.
Behavior and biological changes likely explain why stress at work causes heart disease, Chandola said. For one, stressed workers eat unhealthy food, smoke, drink and skip exercise — all behaviors linked to heart disease.
In the study, stressed workers also had lowered heart rate variability — a sign of a poorly-functioning weak heart — and higher-than-normal levels of cortisol, a "stress" hormone that provides a burst of energy for a fight-or-flight response.
Too much cortisol circulating in the blood stream can damage blood vessels and the heart, Chandola said.
"If you are constantly stressed out these biological stress systems become abnormal," Chandola said.
No Kidding... Ok, truth be told I didn't do more than briefly scan this and post. However.. any analyst should know that "work can kill you." First off, there are rumors of analysts dying, or passing out in client meetings and being taken away to the hospital. Por ejemplo (you like that use of Spanglish there dontcha), the rumor of the Lazard analyst who died. Well, while these rumors all float about, I did live with a Lazard analyst who would spend weeks away from the apartment, coming home but for a shower and clean clothes. I know a former BoA Securities analyst who had to take two months off for ulcers. And, I have met a plethora of other analysts who are physically impacted by their tenure in the cube. As for myself, while I do not work 100 hour weeks (70-80) or suffer the general insane stress of The Street, I still do find myself in contempt of my current state of athletic being. Bottom line - high finance is not good for the body unless you have the body of superman or you are rocking out at the top of the game where you are a BSD and have all the time in the world to exercise and be healthy and fit. This game is not for the weak of heart or those lacking fortitude and grace under pressure.
Now, you all may be wondering why I am posting at this hour:
1) I'm an analyst.. this is not even close to bed time
2) This damn pitch is making me sick... I just cannot believe how I have had to rewrite the entire damn thing. (gag motion)
To bed in an hour? Yes? Maybe?
LONDON - Work really can kill you, according to a study on Wednesday providing the strongest evidence yet of how on-the-job stress raises the risk of heart disease by disrupting the body's internal systems.
The findings from a long-running study involving more than 10,000 British civil servants also suggest stress-induced biological changes may play a more direct role than previously thought, said Tarani Chandola, an epidemiologist at University College London.
"This is the first large-scale population study looking at the effects of stress measured from everyday working life on heart disease," said Chandola, who led the study. "One of the problems is people have been skeptical whether work stress really affects a person biologically."
Heart disease is the world's leading cause of death. It is caused by fatty deposits that harden and block arteries, high blood pressure which damages blood vessels, and other factors.
The researchers measured stress among the civil servants by asking questions about their job demands such as how much control they had at work, how often they took breaks, and how pressed for time they were during the day.
The team conducted seven surveys over a 12-year period and found chronically stressed workers — people determined to be under severe pressure in the first two of the surveys — had a 68 percent higher risk of developing heart disease.
The link was strongest among people under 50, Chandola said.
"This study adds to the evidence that the work stress-coronary heart disease association is causal in nature," the researchers wrote in the European Heart Journal.
Behavior and biological changes likely explain why stress at work causes heart disease, Chandola said. For one, stressed workers eat unhealthy food, smoke, drink and skip exercise — all behaviors linked to heart disease.
In the study, stressed workers also had lowered heart rate variability — a sign of a poorly-functioning weak heart — and higher-than-normal levels of cortisol, a "stress" hormone that provides a burst of energy for a fight-or-flight response.
Too much cortisol circulating in the blood stream can damage blood vessels and the heart, Chandola said.
"If you are constantly stressed out these biological stress systems become abnormal," Chandola said.
No Kidding... Ok, truth be told I didn't do more than briefly scan this and post. However.. any analyst should know that "work can kill you." First off, there are rumors of analysts dying, or passing out in client meetings and being taken away to the hospital. Por ejemplo (you like that use of Spanglish there dontcha), the rumor of the Lazard analyst who died. Well, while these rumors all float about, I did live with a Lazard analyst who would spend weeks away from the apartment, coming home but for a shower and clean clothes. I know a former BoA Securities analyst who had to take two months off for ulcers. And, I have met a plethora of other analysts who are physically impacted by their tenure in the cube. As for myself, while I do not work 100 hour weeks (70-80) or suffer the general insane stress of The Street, I still do find myself in contempt of my current state of athletic being. Bottom line - high finance is not good for the body unless you have the body of superman or you are rocking out at the top of the game where you are a BSD and have all the time in the world to exercise and be healthy and fit. This game is not for the weak of heart or those lacking fortitude and grace under pressure.
Now, you all may be wondering why I am posting at this hour:
1) I'm an analyst.. this is not even close to bed time
2) This damn pitch is making me sick... I just cannot believe how I have had to rewrite the entire damn thing. (gag motion)
To bed in an hour? Yes? Maybe?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Congratulations
I must offer a sincere and most heart-felt congratuations to my dear friend on his engagement. Yes, I knew this was coming all along, but it is indeed a most joyous occasion. While I am sad he will be moving out in a matter of months to settle down with his (soon-to-be) wonderful bride, I could not be happier. I shall miss the deep and intellectual conversation, along with the drinking and joking moments. I will be making many a trip to the 'burbs once this happens to spend quality time with him and the wife.
But this isn't about my "loss", no, this is about his gain. He has a wonderful woman. She is radient, loving, sweet, and hard-nosed when she has to be. Fantastic qualities and I truly believe this is a great match. I am proud to have them both as friends and look forward to the wedding.
Congratulations my Intellectual Arbitrageur. You deserve it.
But this isn't about my "loss", no, this is about his gain. He has a wonderful woman. She is radient, loving, sweet, and hard-nosed when she has to be. Fantastic qualities and I truly believe this is a great match. I am proud to have them both as friends and look forward to the wedding.
Congratulations my Intellectual Arbitrageur. You deserve it.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
A New Year
I cannot believe that a new year is already under way.
New year, new goals, new dreams, new aspirations.
I am not usually one for all of that junk, however this year will be most certainly new.
Now, onwards to more important things.
There is much to write and much has happened since my last post. However, I will stick with a recent insight. I just wish I knew how to share it. I can't think of the right words.
(I'll get back to this in a bit)
Another subject.
I am definitely not one who has much if any tolerance for the populists and the populist movement. As far as I am concerned, these people have little insight, little logic and little foresight for future events and consequences. Populism is merely a tool which capitalizes on people's fears and on current, inflamed passions. Arguments made by populists often lack substance, rather using these inflamed passions to fuel their arguments. For example - Lou Dobbs. All he does is ride the wave of public opinion about economics, Wall Street, immigration, etc. He adds nothing to the argument. He merely repeats what people what to hear in a slightly more verbose and arrogant manner. Sad, but true. The same can be said for almost all of the CNN.com commentators. Navarrette, etc. They all, for the most part, waffle, refuse to take solid stands and play to popular opinion (and race bait / play the race card). Look, I believe in the value of the opinion of the common man. I am not an elitist. However, with many issues such as immigration, finances, personal finances, mortgage crisis, etc., your Joe Schmo opinions lack reason, tact, and fact-based, rational analysis. j
However, for a brief moment, no matter how much I dislike these individuals playing to public opinion (although, who are we kidding, all they are doing is what politicians do) and refuse to call what they write "journalism", Mr. Navarrette made an excellent point today -
For the record, I'm glad that Arizona is bearing down on employers. It's nice to see government pick on someone its own size for a change. Besides, I can't wait to see what happens when Arizonans realize that the same folks who built all those resorts, restaurants, and houses are no longer around to maintain them.
Of course, there is always the chance that Americans -- especially those in their teens and 20s -- will step in and fill the void by leaving their air-conditioned homes, video games, and $3 coffees and going to work in 110-degree weather.
But whom are we kidding? That's just more wishful thinking.
Sad to say it, but he is right. As much as the majority of people want to crack down on illegal immigration, these same people lack the courage to tell their lazy ass kids to get out of the damn house. The current 16-30 age demographic is, for the most part, lazy as all f*cking hell. They spend at least 2x what they earn, demand outrageous benefits compared to what they add in value, have no stomach for actual work and sacrifice, and have mooching tendencies off of parents / relatives. Here is what I think - your degree from a state school (or even worse off - from an expensive Ivy League or Liberal Arts school) in anthropology, sociology, women's studies, etc. entitles you to NOTHING. Sorry folks... an easy degree in a subject where the only real path is academia... your fault for picking it. Heaven forbid if you were some lame basket weaving major. My specialized degree entitled me to nothing. However, it served a purpose to position me for a career. I then went out and earned every single thing I have, own, etc. I believe in education, in learning, but I also believe that if you are going to pursue subject matter that does not have immediate payoff potential, you sure as hell better back it up with something that will secure your future. A degree entitles you to NOTHING; AT ALL; WHATSOEVER. You need to EARN it for yourself through hard hard work and sacrifice.
Even more importantly, parents (for the most part) need to shove these slackers out the door. I understand if you are under 25, living at home and saving and planning for the future. But, if the kid is 25+, no ambition, no aspiration, no goals and no foresight - cut his lazy ass off; throw him out the door; and make his sorry ass work. Why? Because at that point, as much as he looks down his nose at hard labor, at minimum wage work, etc. he is less deserving of those jobs than potential illegals holding them. So, if we are really serious about enforcing our immigration laws and booting the current ones out - PUT THE LAZY, SLACKING 16-30 DEMOGRAPHIC TO WORK NOW. Make them build houses, cut lawns and flip burgers. A dose of reality will do them and this country far better than the coddling they receive. And if they fall on their faces and have ridiculous amounts of debt? So be it. Let them suffer and fail... then they can become adults. Because, after being in the world for 2 years now... I worry about the maturity of many adults 28+ who are having families and still have no grasp on reality or maturity. As for failure. If you are flipping burgers and think you can have a nice apartment, used BMW and dress in Juicy and have Coach bags... you deserve to crash and burn. Tough love folks.. tough love.
And the bottom line, when you go to work in the professional world - that company owes you jack$hit. You work for them. Your job is to make them money and add to their bottom line. Just because you waltz in the door means nothing. They owe you nothing until you have worked your ass off and produced for them. Stop worrying about your bennies package and start worrying about to make the company better so that many down the road, something nice comes your way. You work for them, not the other way around.
I would start to launch about how lazy HS kids have become, but will save for another time.
New year, new goals, new dreams, new aspirations.
I am not usually one for all of that junk, however this year will be most certainly new.
Now, onwards to more important things.
There is much to write and much has happened since my last post. However, I will stick with a recent insight. I just wish I knew how to share it. I can't think of the right words.
(I'll get back to this in a bit)
Another subject.
I am definitely not one who has much if any tolerance for the populists and the populist movement. As far as I am concerned, these people have little insight, little logic and little foresight for future events and consequences. Populism is merely a tool which capitalizes on people's fears and on current, inflamed passions. Arguments made by populists often lack substance, rather using these inflamed passions to fuel their arguments. For example - Lou Dobbs. All he does is ride the wave of public opinion about economics, Wall Street, immigration, etc. He adds nothing to the argument. He merely repeats what people what to hear in a slightly more verbose and arrogant manner. Sad, but true. The same can be said for almost all of the CNN.com commentators. Navarrette, etc. They all, for the most part, waffle, refuse to take solid stands and play to popular opinion (and race bait / play the race card). Look, I believe in the value of the opinion of the common man. I am not an elitist. However, with many issues such as immigration, finances, personal finances, mortgage crisis, etc., your Joe Schmo opinions lack reason, tact, and fact-based, rational analysis. j
However, for a brief moment, no matter how much I dislike these individuals playing to public opinion (although, who are we kidding, all they are doing is what politicians do) and refuse to call what they write "journalism", Mr. Navarrette made an excellent point today -
For the record, I'm glad that Arizona is bearing down on employers. It's nice to see government pick on someone its own size for a change. Besides, I can't wait to see what happens when Arizonans realize that the same folks who built all those resorts, restaurants, and houses are no longer around to maintain them.
Of course, there is always the chance that Americans -- especially those in their teens and 20s -- will step in and fill the void by leaving their air-conditioned homes, video games, and $3 coffees and going to work in 110-degree weather.
But whom are we kidding? That's just more wishful thinking.
Sad to say it, but he is right. As much as the majority of people want to crack down on illegal immigration, these same people lack the courage to tell their lazy ass kids to get out of the damn house. The current 16-30 age demographic is, for the most part, lazy as all f*cking hell. They spend at least 2x what they earn, demand outrageous benefits compared to what they add in value, have no stomach for actual work and sacrifice, and have mooching tendencies off of parents / relatives. Here is what I think - your degree from a state school (or even worse off - from an expensive Ivy League or Liberal Arts school) in anthropology, sociology, women's studies, etc. entitles you to NOTHING. Sorry folks... an easy degree in a subject where the only real path is academia... your fault for picking it. Heaven forbid if you were some lame basket weaving major. My specialized degree entitled me to nothing. However, it served a purpose to position me for a career. I then went out and earned every single thing I have, own, etc. I believe in education, in learning, but I also believe that if you are going to pursue subject matter that does not have immediate payoff potential, you sure as hell better back it up with something that will secure your future. A degree entitles you to NOTHING; AT ALL; WHATSOEVER. You need to EARN it for yourself through hard hard work and sacrifice.
Even more importantly, parents (for the most part) need to shove these slackers out the door. I understand if you are under 25, living at home and saving and planning for the future. But, if the kid is 25+, no ambition, no aspiration, no goals and no foresight - cut his lazy ass off; throw him out the door; and make his sorry ass work. Why? Because at that point, as much as he looks down his nose at hard labor, at minimum wage work, etc. he is less deserving of those jobs than potential illegals holding them. So, if we are really serious about enforcing our immigration laws and booting the current ones out - PUT THE LAZY, SLACKING 16-30 DEMOGRAPHIC TO WORK NOW. Make them build houses, cut lawns and flip burgers. A dose of reality will do them and this country far better than the coddling they receive. And if they fall on their faces and have ridiculous amounts of debt? So be it. Let them suffer and fail... then they can become adults. Because, after being in the world for 2 years now... I worry about the maturity of many adults 28+ who are having families and still have no grasp on reality or maturity. As for failure. If you are flipping burgers and think you can have a nice apartment, used BMW and dress in Juicy and have Coach bags... you deserve to crash and burn. Tough love folks.. tough love.
And the bottom line, when you go to work in the professional world - that company owes you jack$hit. You work for them. Your job is to make them money and add to their bottom line. Just because you waltz in the door means nothing. They owe you nothing until you have worked your ass off and produced for them. Stop worrying about your bennies package and start worrying about to make the company better so that many down the road, something nice comes your way. You work for them, not the other way around.
I would start to launch about how lazy HS kids have become, but will save for another time.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
In Defense of Bankers
I'll be writing this when I have the time... ie sometime between the hours of 2am and 5am one day this week........
However, after a conversation with a friend last night, I find myself with no other choice than to defend the profession known as Investment Banking. Why? I know, we are loathsome creatures. But academics (from the social science spectrum) with no business (especially with no finance) experience have no business making blanket statements concerning the profession. Why? Well, it shows their blatant ignorance and lack of understanding; their inability to remove personal bias and politics from their academics; and their true biases and bigotry. Rather sad since they spend a vast majority of their time accusing others of the exact same thing........
So, eventually I will get around to this defense.
For the time being - isn't it slightly funny how once the Wall fell and Communism was no longer the dominant threat to the world, the villains in movies became businessmen, capitalists, and Western white males? (This did exist before the Wall - example Gordon Gecko as the bad guy, but it has become oh so prominent in the last 20 years.... rather disturbing)
Side note for the night: Lifetime might be the worst channel ever created. I ask you, have they ever showed a single movie where, out of two characters - a man and a woman, the woman is the evil, horrible, disgusting and murderous one? Can we say discrimination, bias and stereotyping????
However, after a conversation with a friend last night, I find myself with no other choice than to defend the profession known as Investment Banking. Why? I know, we are loathsome creatures. But academics (from the social science spectrum) with no business (especially with no finance) experience have no business making blanket statements concerning the profession. Why? Well, it shows their blatant ignorance and lack of understanding; their inability to remove personal bias and politics from their academics; and their true biases and bigotry. Rather sad since they spend a vast majority of their time accusing others of the exact same thing........
So, eventually I will get around to this defense.
For the time being - isn't it slightly funny how once the Wall fell and Communism was no longer the dominant threat to the world, the villains in movies became businessmen, capitalists, and Western white males? (This did exist before the Wall - example Gordon Gecko as the bad guy, but it has become oh so prominent in the last 20 years.... rather disturbing)
Side note for the night: Lifetime might be the worst channel ever created. I ask you, have they ever showed a single movie where, out of two characters - a man and a woman, the woman is the evil, horrible, disgusting and murderous one? Can we say discrimination, bias and stereotyping????
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)