Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Pentagon Report on Don't Ask Don't Tell

I support repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, if it doesn't cause significant loss of combat effectiveness.  The New York Times tells us that the recent Pentagon report proves just that, stating that "Only 30 percent of the serving military believes that open service would be harmful".

While that number may be true overall, what concerns me are the opinions of combat troops.  The troops who are facing the most danger, and must live in close quarters in rugged conditions with their fellows.  Here the results are much more negative.  For example, on page 81, Table 17, Question 68c, 48.9% of Army Combat Arms and 59.7% of Marine Combat Arms respond negatively.

I have never served in the military.  Here I'd defer to the troops.  Much as I regret saying it, our serving combat troops are not ready for a repeal of DADT, especially in the middle of two wars.  I hope that ten years from now the results will be more favorable and the military will be ready.

Alternatively, it seems like the Air Force is the most ready to accept homosexuals.  Let it repeal DADT, and let's see the results in a few years.  If things go well, the other services will follow.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Most of us have to pay for our own lawyers

Charlie Rangel, (D, N.Y.) walked out of his House Ethics Panel trial today, making the serious claim that he was being denied his Constitutional right to have a lawyer.

Well, actually, just because he hasn't had time to let others pay for his lawyer.
"I am being denied the right to have a lawyer right now because I don't have the opportunity to have a legal-defense fund set up,'' the New York Democrat said. "I truly believe I am not being treated fairly.''
In his defense, Rep. Rangel has already paid 2 million dollars to lawyers, out of his campaign funds.  When those ran out, the lawyers abruptly, and unprofessionally, left the case, leaving him in the lurch.  But he could choose to pay them out of his own personal money, which is what most of us normal schmucks have to do.  Maybe it is unfair for finances to play such a role in a trial, but welcome to the real world Rep. Rangel.  Besides, I don't think this is a partisan "witch-hunt" without any foundation, it is his own party still in charge of the House.

This sense of entitlement by our representatives is appalling.  Somehow they don't feel like they should pay for anything, it should all be provided as a government benefit and expense account, or by generous donors.  Of course, all those donors are altruistic and would never expect any corrupt favors or benefits in return.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Sad State of Journalism

Today, one day before the election, the San Jose Mercury News has a front-page news article about Carly Fiorina.  Apparently, in person at least, she's not "a heartless corporate bigwig who blithely fired her workers and sent their jobs overseas".  The article, somewhat correctly, criticizes Fiorina's campaign strategy.
But in a state as vast as California, only a sliver of voters actually see candidates in person; their main exposure is in TV ads. Fiorina never aired a biographical ad about herself. She did appear in several spots but never gave voters a real sense of herself,
 But, but, but...  isn't the media supposed to do some of this work for us?  Don't they spend time with the candidates?  Why the heck didn't they report this?  Well, the Merc did provide information on their fact check page.  
Boxer also neglects to note that Fiorina's turnaround strategy at HP -- huge acquisitions and relentless cost-cutting -- eventually succeeded in making it the largest technology company in the world. ... her (Fiorina's) broader vision has been largely vindicated by time.
However, they cannot bring themselves to actually endorse her.  Citing, amongst other things, that "Fiorina was fired from HP after a tempestuous tenure" and her support of Prop 23, which is a state issue, not a national one.  They praise Boxer for pushing cap and trade, then admit that "she was ineffective at pushing through her legislation".

O.K., so Fiorina's turnaround strategy at HP "succeeded", her vision was "vindicated", and Boxer was "ineffective".  Why can't they listen to their own facts and recommend Fiorina?  Because she's a Republican.  The Merc endorsed seven democrats and only two republicans, and the republicans for less powerful positions.

Monday, October 11, 2010

California High Speed Rail - A Far Too Reasonable Proposal

The California High Speed Rail Project (official site, wikipedia) proposes to link San Francisco and Sacramento, via the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego.  But they are getting a lot of grief from cities along the San Francisco Peninsula, who don't want ugly, noisy, perhaps elevated tracks through their downtowns .  Tunnels are not currently on the proposals, due to cost.  You'll find lots of link with a Google search, here's one (see pages 20-29).  The cities dislike the proposal so much that they are suing.  Menlo Park is suing for the second time!

In an ideal, well-planned world, carrying the line the whole way to SF would be good.  But, in the real, poorly-planned world, does it really makes sense to waste years on lawsuits, impact statements and permits, then spend billions of dollars on construction through some of the priciest land in the country?  No.  Terminate the high-speed line in San Jose, not San Francisco.  That will easily save several billion, probably tens of billions.

Use some of that saved money to "spruce up" and electrify Caltrain, which is desperately needed for its survival, and estimated at less than a billion.  Use some of the saved money to accelerate the BART extension from Fremont to San Jose.

How much will this impact San Franciscans who want to take the train to L.A?  They will need an extra transfer, which is annoying and wastes some time - say 10 or 15 minutes with good scheduling.  The train ride will be slower.  Caltrain "baby bullet" trains take an hour to run from SF to SJ.  But electrification is thought to save 10 minutes or so from that.  BART takes 50 minute to run from downtown SF to Fremont. So getting to San Jose is probably a bit over an hour.  However, there are many BART stations in San Francisco, so for most people, they are much more convenient than getting to the train station which is at 4th and King on the far east side of town.  Bottom Line: Caltrain, with a transfer, is slightly over an hour, BART is more convenient for most but would take more like an hour and a half.

How long would a "High Speed" rail trip take?  Though the trains may be capable of a couple of hundred miles and hour, the actual speed along the Peninsula would be limited to around 90 MPH.  The distance as the crow flies is 42 miles,  Let's say half an hour.  But there are possible stops planned for SFO, Redwood City and/or Palo Alto.  With those, we're talking more like 40 minutes.

The net benefit of high speed rail along the Peninsula is small.  For San Franciscans using the downtown train station, they'd save about 20 minutes.  San Franciscans who live near BART and far from 4th and King could well save time by taking BART.

My proposal saves California taxpayers billions of dollars in money, and years in costly construction delays.  Plus, we get BART to San Jose, truly circling the Bay, and save and enhance Caltrain.

To the politicians and special interests in California - can you put reason and logic first?

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Paul Krugman Deliberately Misleads, Again

In today's editorial, Paul Krugman lashes out at NJ Governor Chris Christie for cancelling a 8.7 billion dollar tunnel project.  The project sounds like a good idea, and much of the money is coming from the Feds, (only three billion from NJ) so, if you just read his editorial, the project does sound completely rational.  What is this irrational, "destructive", and "incredibly foolish" Christie up to anyway?


A trivial Google search (I typed in "christie tunnel hudson river") reveals something that Krugman somehow fails to mention: The project is facing potential cost overruns of up to 5 Billion Dollars, all of which would be paid by the State of NJ.  The very first hit is entitled "NJ governor kills Hudson River tunnel due to costs".  Am I to believe that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman didn't know that?  Or is it more likely that he deliberately intended to mislead his readers?


Another article states that the project may still move forward.
Christie and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will meet today “to discuss a path forward on the ARC tunnel project"
Presumably, Christie will seek a deal where the Feds will help pay for some of the overruns.  Suddenly, Christie is the one who seems eminently rational, not the misleading Krugman.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

I'm not getting excited about the Giants this year

Even though they are a good team making a great playoff run, I'm finding it difficult to get too enthused.  Why?  Most of their hitters aren't "real" Giants, who have come up from the minors and you've been able to follow as they develop.  Few of them have played even a year for the team.  I'm not feeling a "connection".

Check out their roster.  Or, even better, the box score from tonight's game.

Cody Ross joined the Giants August 22nd.  One month ago.
Freddy Sanchez joined them late 2009.  So he's been here roughly a year.
Aubrey Huff joined the beginning of 2010
Buster Posey is a real Giant.  Hooray!
Pat Burrell joined the middle of 2010
Jose Guillen joined the Giants the middle of August of this year.
Pablo Sandoval is a real Giant.  (Except he's awful right now)
Juan Uribe is an "old-timer", he's been with the Giants now for two years, even if he didn't come up through their minor-league system.

So, of their eight starting fielders, only two came up through the Giant's minor-league.  Of the others, only one has been for the team much longer than a year.


Now, I enjoy following the Giant's pitchers, cause, for the most part, I've been able to follow their development, their struggles and their successes.  For example, I feel some pride and joy seeing Jonathan Sanchez harness his talent to achieve well-deserved success, since I've also seen him struggle.  There's a connection there.  But I could care less how Jose Guillen or Mike Fontenot does.

I'd like to see them make the playoffs, but I won't be rooting as hard as usual.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

The Strange World of Chess Politics steps into the Ground-Zero Mosque Quagmire

The World Chess Federation (FIDE) has offered to buy the site.

It's almost certainly a publicity stunt for the incumbent president, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, who was once abducted by aliens and is currently in a tight election contest with former world champion Anatoly Karpov.

Organized chess is really strange.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Is Jerry Brown a Tea Partier?

California Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown (democrat)  has his first radio ad.




At the end, he says

"We have to start living within our means,
We need to return power and decision making to the local level, closer to the people,
and no new taxes without voter approval."

Hmm, Sarah Palin and Brown in 2012?

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Phil Cuzzi is an awful umpire

At least today.  I'm a SF Giants fan watching the Giants/Padres game today, and Cuzzi, the home plate umpire has made repeated bad ball and strike calls, all favoring the Giants.  A clear strike on Huff was called a ball (the catcher did catch it funny), Huff ended up on base instead of the 3rd out, and Posey hit a dinger.  Two runs for SF.   The same pitch, or worse, was repeatedly called a strike when a Padre was batting.

When Chase Headley was batting, he raised his arms as if to call time-out, then let the pitch happen and called Headly out on strikes.

Here's predicting some Padres get ejected by the end of the game.

Just think, if I were a Padres fan, I'd notice even more.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Two recent NY Times Editorials of interest

David Brooks writes about one possible cause of the American decline
"the U.S. has drifted away from the hardheaded practical mentality that built the nation’s wealth in the first place.
The shift is evident at all levels of society. First, the elites. America’s brightest minds have been abandoning industry and technical enterprise in favor of more prestigious but less productive fields like law, finance, consulting and nonprofit activism."
He's at least partially correct.  Since we are unlikely to stop buying foreign oil and cheap Chinese manufactures, we need to export something back.  If it's natural resources, we act like a colony, and our current strategy of producing and exporting treasury bonds is unsustainable.  We must continue to have sharp minds producing valuable technical manufactures for export to remain a strong and prosperous society.

Thomas Friedman writes a column with similar thoughts.  He largely cites a column by Robert Samuelson, which bemoans that students aren't motivated to do the hard work.
"Motivation comes from many sources: curiosity and ambition; parental expectations; the desire to get into a "good" college; inspiring or intimidating teachers; peer pressure."
to which Friedman adds
"We had a values breakdown — a national epidemic of get-rich-quickism and something-for-nothingism."
A good friend who teaches high-school says the same thing - the bailouts have been bad for student motivation.


I remember a recent TV ad for an on-line high school.  Some of the supposed benefits were that you got to take courses at your own pace and take tests at your own time.  For some students, this is a benefit.  But, the real lessons of high school are not that the square of the hypotenuse is the sum of the squares of the other two sides, nor that Jane Austen wrote a bunch of good books.  The real lessons are the world does not exist for the benefit of the students, and sometimes you have to take tests on somebody else's schedule.


Thursday, September 9, 2010

Thoughts on Koran Burning

As most people know, some obscure publicity seeking pastor is planning to burn Korans on 9/11.  I won't even dignify him with a link.  The act is clearly legal and protected First Amendment Speech.  It's also stupid.

In an ideal world, he'd get a little publicity, and some Muslims (and others) would protest and perhaps organize a non-violent response, such as burning bibles or declaring "National put a crucifix in a jar of urine day".  But they would realize that this is an isolated act by a small group.  And life would go on.

However, we live in a far from ideal world.  Radical Muslims will gain a propaganda boost, endangering our troops and out efforts in the Middle East.  The pastor should stop his plan.

I'm pleased that many prominent Americans have denounced the stunt.  But how about the most prominent American, President Obama?  Why hasn't he given a speech saying that he, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, disapproves of the stunt?  Actually, I just noticed, looks like he has started.  Good. He should also explain to foreigners that American is a free society where such stunts are Constitutionally protected.  I would like to see Bush joining in too.

My friend Ray has some different thoughts.  I really have to say that I disagree with his post on many points.

India is NOT Hindustan.  Maybe Pakistanis perceive it that way, but they are wrong.

If the natural assumption of those overseas is that the government should stop the stunt, that's exactly why Obama should explain that America is different, and the stunt is protected free speech.
"The local cops should arrest this guy, if he burns a Koran, and he should be prosecuted.  The reasons for doing this is that it is the only way for the US government to distance itself from Koran burning in the eyes of leaders of other states."
No.  Unless the pastor shouts fire in a crowded theatre or calls for the violent overthrow of the US government, what he's doing is clearly free speech.  Stupid free speech, but free speech.  People overseas should get used to it, and again, Obama should explain that. If Ray doesn't want to defend the free speech right of stupid idiots that he opposes, his concept of free speech is meaningless.

As for Bush declaring a "Crusade", yes, he used that word once and meant it in the meaning "this is a good thing, like Ike's Crusade in Europe".  It was a stupid mistake, historically tone-deaf.  Ray claims we acted remarkably like a Crusade - just how?  Very few Americans think we are on some Crusade to retake Jerusalem or protect pilgrim's rights in the Holy Land.

Frankly, for Ray to harp on the Crusade term incites angst amongst Muslims and offers recruiting benefits to our enemies.  Just like the stupid Koran burning.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

My bad, Rob Neyer is O.K.

Seems like he agrees with me on the great year Felix Hernandez is having.  He just fears that the Cy Young voters will overvalue wins and choose CC instead.  I wish he'd do a little educating or cheerleading.

Here's the article Neyer refers to.  Jason Rosenberg makes this point:  "King Felix will be the AL’s best pitcher in 2010 but will not win the Cy Young."


I hope he's wrong on the second part, but we will see.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

I hope Rob Neyer doesn't get a vote for the Cy Young Award

In a recent post (mainly about Trevor Cahill) ESPN's Rob Neyer says "With an 18-5 record, CC Sabathia's obviously the No. 1 candidate" (for the Cy Young Award).

BS.  CC is a good pitcher, but his stats for 2010 pale in comparison to King Felix Hernandez.

Innings Pitched: 194 vs. 211
HR Allowed: 17 vs. 14
Opponents Batting Average: .245 vs. .222
WHIP: 1.23 vs. 1.10
ERA: 3.14 vs. 2.38
Complete Games: 2 vs. 5

By every objective measure, Felix has pitched significantly better than CC in 2010.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Escape from White Rock BC

I just spent a couple of weeks on a road trip vacation, including a wonderful time in British Columbia.  Returning from Vancouver on 99 south, I still had a chunk of Canadian change (and nice job Canada having real $1 and $2 coins that work and save the government money instead of stupid paper bills) and wanted to make one last visit to a Tim Hortons.  For those unfamiliar with it, Tim Hortons is much like a Dunkin Donuts, starting with donuts and coffee, but has since added healthier fare like sandwiches and soups.  They are renowned for their Timbit donut holes.

"The biggest change in the chain's product focus took place in 1976 with the introduction of the phenomenally successful Timbit (bite-sized donut hole), today available in over 35 different varieties."

 IMO, they rank up there with Ice Hockey and Neil Young as one of Canada's great contributions to civilization.  If you eat in, real people serve you on real plates - no piles of paper waste either!  And frankly, I had a hankering for a donut.  So I turned off at on the King George Highway into White Rock, the last Canadian city before the US border.  Signs boasted "White Rock, next 4 exits".  Little did I know that this "short sidetrip"would turn into a small adventure.

I quickly found a sign saying "Tim Hortons", but it was just a gas station that just had a few of their sandwiches available.  No good.  The girl pointed me downtown for a "real" one.  I headed that way, and saw no Tim Hortons between there and the Strait of Georgia.  And there was some heavy traffic.  Crap.  Come on Tim Hortons, a little marketing advice, I can't be the first Yank wanting to spend their change before returning home, how about a big sign "Last Tim Hortons for 25000 miles"?  Actually, since Canada has joined the 19th century and is metric, that would be "Last Tim Hortons for 40000 km".

So, the primary mission, eating some fried dough, was a failure.  I ate at a Quiznos.  I then headed east, hoping to hook backup with 99 south.  Several roads crossed 99, but none had ramps leading south.  Only north.  Flustered, I backtracked north along King George Highway.  Again, there is no ramp leading south, only north!  By now loudly cursing stupid Canuck incompetence, I headed north, the wrong way.  And north.  And north.  Would I end up trapped in Canada?  Hotel California ("you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.") played through  my mind.  Along with thoughts of "54 40 or fight".  After several miles, and several more minutes of cursing, there was a turnaround, and I managed to get turned around in the right direction.

It turns out that 3 of those 4 exits to White Rock are exits only.  No return to 99 south.  I can't be the only Yank who will ever face this problem, so here's the trick: to escape White Rock, do not attempt to retrace your steps.  Instead, take the King George Highway south.  It hooks up with 99 south near the border.

Monday, August 9, 2010

An appeal for religious toleration

As most of you know, Cordoba House, which seems to be a moderate Muslim group, seeks to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City.  This has raised some outcry, either those who want to stop it, or, more reasonably, those who ask that Cordoba House reconsider and build somewhere else.

I think it would great for them to build there to prove America's religious toleration.

But, I have one request.  The mosque should have some space dedicated to the memories of the ten doctors from the International Assistance Mission who were recently murdered in cold blood by the Taliban for the crime of carrying bibles and "preaching Christianity".  To prove their religious toleration.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Krugman doubles down

On July 25th, Paul Krugman wrote a NY Times op-ed column in which he said that "Climategate" is "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media."  James Taranto correctly rebutted this.
Now, it would be one thing for Krugman to argue--wrongly, in our opinion--that the "supposedly damning e-mail messages of 'Climategate' " were not actually damning. But no one has denied that they are genuine. Krugman's description of them--and every other accusation "leveled against climate researchers"--as "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action" is flatly false.
This week, Paul Krugman doubles down with more accusations of "fraud", bashing the proposals of Representative Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin), and the media for following them.
One depressing aspect of American politics is the susceptibility of the political and media establishment to charlatans. You might have thought, given past experience, that D.C. insiders would be on their guard against conservatives with grandiose plans. But no: as long as someone on the right claims to have bold new proposals, he’s hailed as an innovative thinker. And nobody checks his arithmetic.  ...
But it’s the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce. ...
But they don’t. The Ryan plan is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future.
Hey, the "audacity of dopes" line is pretty good.  In a later blog, I may look in more detail at the numbers behind Ryan's plans.  It seems true that a Tax Policy Center analysis of his initial plan shows a shortfall.  So, technically, Krugman presented a true fact.  Part of the "shortfall" is because, under Ryan's plan, government revenues remain steady at around 16 - 17%, while, under the CBO baseline, they rise up to more like 18 to 20%.  However, a quick followup search shows that Ryan is willing to work on the numbers.
Ryan has explicitly stated that he is willing to work with the Treasury department to adjust the rates on his tax reform plan to “maintain approximately our historic levels of revenue as a share of GDP.” (which is ~18%)
Looks like Krugman's "fact", though technically true, is intended to deceive.  Since Krugman falsely cried "fraud" just last week, why should we believe him this week?  Maybe it is Krugman who "makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future"?

Monday, July 26, 2010

Is Buster Posey for Real?

A baseball post.  As fans know, Buster Posey has been on a tear for the San Francisco Giants, with an 18 game hitting streak.  Is he really that good?

Checking his stats for the last ten days, you get the following:  (your stats may differ if you check a different day than today)

41 at bats, 18 hits, 1 HR, 3 walks and 6 Ks.  Walks don't count as "at bats".  In 41 at-bats, he struck out 6 times, and hit 1 home-run.  Which means that he put the ball "in play" 34 times.

Of his 18 hits, 1 was a home run, so that means that, on his "in play" balls, he got 17 hits.

  There's a stat for that of course, BABIP.  (note - the stat also involves sac flies, of which I don't have the numbers)  Posey's BABIP is a cool .500.  A typical BABIP is .300.

Some BABIP can be attributed to great speed on ground balls, which doesn't apply to Posey, or to a greater ability to hit line-drives.  He showed a bit of the later in the minors.  However, seems like he's also been very lucky to have a BABIP 66% higher than league average.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Why International Law is silly

The World Court recently ruled that Kossovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law.  Well, sort of.
Legal experts said that while the International Court of Justice  had ruled that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was legal, it had avoided saying that the state of Kosovo was legal under international law, a narrow and carefully calibrated compromise that they said could allow both sides to declare victory in a dispute that remains raw even 11 years after the war there.
After 11 years, they decide nothing.  A major "purpose" of International Law is to resolve disputes short of war, and here they failed.

And the whole this is just absurd.  If only the World Court had been a bit quicker with their decision, and released it on July 4th.  Or maybe delayed more until September 28th. Or April 19th.  You get the idea.  Independence is settled between peoples and nations, not in court rooms.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Paul Krugman Fails to prove his point

In a recent editorial, Paul Krugman writes about Voodoo Economics.  He states categorically that cutting taxes does not raise revenues.
But the real news here is the confirmation that Republicans remain committed to deep voodoo, the claim that cutting taxes actually increases revenues. It’s not true, of course.
One would think that a Nobel Prize winner would follow this claim up with some facts, comparing revenues, adjusted for inflation and population increases and whatever, before and after the Reagan tax cuts.  Should be simple to do.

But he doesn't.
Ronald Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits, then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on top incomes, conservatives predicted economic disaster; what actually followed was an economic boom and a remarkable swing from budget deficit to surplus. Then the Bush tax cuts came along, helping turn that surplus into a persistent deficit, even before the crash.
While all three of these sentences are true (at least, arguably true), not a single one talks about revenues. The first two correlations are strongly confounded by the spending policies of the era.   In any case, they do nothing to support his claim that lower taxes means lower revenues.  I can spend 10 minutes on Google and find numerous web sites supporting Krugman (and many that don't).  What intelligent Americans really need from our Nobel Prize winning columnists is adult facts and teaching how things work.  Instead, we get political claims that deliberately skirt the hard choices and hinder an informed public.

Monday, May 24, 2010

A truly despicable NYT Editorial about Rand Paul

The Sunday New York Times has a truly despicable editorial by Ross Douthat about Rand Paul.

First, let's talk about some of the meat.  Rand Paul has expressed reservations about the government's statutory power to intervene in the private sector.  And it's clear that some such interventions would be an overreach, "wrong" on balance of power/privacy/"what is "right", issues, and probably unconstitutional.  For example, if spoiled rock-stars petitioned congress to pass a law forbidding red M&Ms, we could all disagree with that.  If congress forbids racial discrimination, I would support that, but Rand Paul thinks that falls into a grey area.

How about congress (I'm using lowercase to be non-specific) forbidding home schooling, gay sex, cigarette smoking, or smoking pot?  Is that o.k.?  I think many would argue that this is in a grey area and it may be best for them to refrain from such a law.

How about congress forbidding abortion?  Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is an overreach, an abuse of privacy. 

How about Congress passing a statute forbidding alcohol?  By precedent, we know that that would be an unconstitutional overreach, since it required a constiitutional amendment.

So, there clearly are limits to what congress can do regarding the private sector.   While I believe that Rand Paul draws the line in the wrong place, his basic intellectual argument is sound.  Those criticising him have not (to my reading) adressed the issue intellectually, just emotionally.  Yes, racism is bad, but not everything done to prevent racism is right.

Now, what's really despicable about the editorial?  Guilt by association.

It isn’t surprising that two of the most interesting “paleo” writers of the last few decades, Francis and Joseph Sobran, ended their careers way out on the racist or anti-Semitic fringe.
What?  Just because a few writers with similar opinions were wackos has no relevance to Rand Paul.  This is a truly sleazy line of attack and unworthy of some two-bit blogger like myself, let alone an editorial in a major national newspaper.

Douthat refuses to argue with the merits and demerits of Paul's opinion, and reverts to craven guilt by association.  It's a lame editorial.  BTW, Douthat is conservative, not a "typical" NYT liberal.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Frank Rich Editorial about Rand Paul

The Sunday New York Times features an editorial by Frank Rick about Rand Paul, entitled "The Randslide and Its Discontents".  As one one expect from a liberal NYT columnist, it isn't favorable.  But one section about Paul's views is interesting, because his views seem reasonable, and would appeal to progressives.
Paul is articulate and hard-line. When he says he is antigovernment, he means it. Unlike McConnell, he wants to end all earmarks, including agricultural subsidies for a state that thrives on them. (He does vow to preserve Medicare payments, however; they contribute to his income as an ophthalmologist.) He wants to shut down the Department of Educationand the Federal Reserve. Though a social conservative who would outlaw all abortions, he believes the federal government should leave drug enforcement to the states.
It’s also in keeping with this ideology that Paul wants the federal government to stop shoveling taxpayers’ money into wars. He was against the war in Iraq and finds the justification for our commitment in Afghanistan “murky.” He believes that America’s national security is “not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon.”

Many progressives should agree with a lot of this.  Earmarks are bad, agricultural subsidies are (generally) bad.  Those who wish to pass local laws to legalize marijuana or assisted suicide might support Paul's views on drug enforcement.  And of course they'd support his views on the wars.

So I'm really not sure what Frank Rich is doing in his editorial.  Naturally, he goes on to call Paul a racist - it's pretty much a requirement nowadays.  But, ultimately, either Rich didn't think things out at all, or he's up to something really devious.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Poor Political Advertising

Yes, I know there's a lot of deliberately bad, or just plain bad political ads out there.  The "YES" ads for California Prop 16 reach especially high levels of deceit.  I'm both impressed and dismayed. 

Here I single out one local group's campaign literature in particular, even though it's a cause I support!  San Mateo County will offer up Proposition E.  In a nutshell, it is a $150/year parcel tax on residents of the Cabrillo Unified School District to support local schools.  I'm not big on taxes, but a small parcel tax to support local schools seems well worth it.

One major support group for E is Friends of Cabrillo Unified Schools. (FOCUS)  My complaint is, if you look through that web site, it barely mentions the $150 parcel tax!  Well, if you search on "tax", you do pick up one page, "Resources", which does have the word tax, which links to the fact sheet, which details the $150 tax.  So, technically you can find the info, they just make it really hard.

I just received a nice printed flyer in the mail from FOCUS, and nowhere does it mention the word tax!  It does say that "An exemption is available for senior citizen homeowners", which implies to careful readers that this involves a parcel tax.  But no direct reference.  I'm really sad to see this borderline deception - it may tilt me to vote against this measure that normally I'd support..

Why can't we have an honest and forthright discussion that treats voters as adults?  Say that this is a parcel tax, it is small, it all goes to support local schools, there are fiscal protections, and ask people to support it.

Here's a discussion forum in the local paper about the measure.

Friday, May 7, 2010

I disagree with McCain and Lieberman

I often agree with Senators McCain and Lieberman, who are more-or-less centrists (by US standards) and are more willing to cross party lines and compromise than many.  And, I'm not against trying non-citizen terrorists as enemy-combatants with less rights than US citizens.  However, I disagree with their recent proposal to try US citizens, such as Faisal Shahzad as enemy combatants.

For better or worse, Faisal Shahzad is a US citizen, entitled to all the rights in the US Constitution and relevant state laws.

But, I'd like to point out the following:  Shahzad, as a US citizen, allegedly "levied War against the United States" and "adhering to their Enemies", and, if true, is guilty of treason.  If the facts support it, he should be changed as a traitor.

"The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason" and it's a capital offense

Friday, April 23, 2010

A twist on Freedom of Association

In recent years, many "conservative" groups have been sued for discrimination, and defended themselves with claims to their right of Freedom of Association.  The Boy Scouts being a prime example.  In general, the left has sided with those claiming discrimination, the right with the group.

Now here's a case that turns the traditional story on it's head.  The North American Gay Amateur Athletic Association (NAGAAA)  has deprived a largely gay softball team of it's glory for "not being gay enough".  Links (in no particular order) here, here, here, a link with some commentary here.

It will be interesting to see if conservatives rise in support of the NAGAAA, and if liberals support the team.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Fantasy Baseball Update

I won the first week, despite my opponent having the red hot Vernon Wells.  There have been several roster changes for my team.

With Cliff Lee on the DL, there was a free spot, and, in an attempt to beef up the outfield, I tried to get Nick Swisher, but lost out on him to another team with higher waiver priority.  So I picked up Milton Bradley, a high-risk, high-reward player.  Right now he's looking just high-risk.

Another team then dropped Carlos Gonzales, and I snapped him up, dropping Matt Diaz who hasn't played much this year, and likely won't with Heyward in the Atlanta outfield.  So now my outfield is Holiday, Manny, Juan Rivera, Heyward and CarGon, with Bradley in reserve.  That seems like a good mix of two excellent veterans, a solid performer, two exciting young talents, and a complete wildcard.  I also dropped Kevin Gregg, the non-closer in Toronto, to pick up Franklin Morales, the interim Colorado closer, pending the return of Street.

And I had one fairly big trade.  Another team needed infield help, and Scutaro was largely sitting on my bench.  So I traded Scut and Roy Oswalt for Brett Anderson.  I'm hoping that this is a pitching upgrade for me, and Oswalt is bit of an injury risk playing for a bad team.  But Oswalt has looked pretty good so far this year.  I think it's a fair trade that should help both teams, but time will tell.  Last year this league had very few trades, it will be interesting to see if the two additional teams change that.

My "problem" of having two good catchers was quickly solved when Miguel Montero, my round 12 draft pick, went down for at least six weeks, probably longer.  The bad news is he's no longer worth anything in a trade.  The good news is that I had one spot open on the DL, and this opened up a spot to take a gamble on Justin Duchscherer, a two start pitcher for this week.

The other "interesting" news is that Neftali Feliz will, for the time being, close for Texas.  The rate closers have been blowing saves and losing games this year, that may not be a huge benefit.  But I now have three closers: Qualls, Morales and Feliz.  One of them (Qualls) is pretty solid.  This is still an area of concern but hopefully one of the others will pan out.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Baseball (and Fantasy Baseball) Returns

It has stopped raining here in California, it's getting warmer, and baseball has started, meaning that, for a short while, all will be well in the world.  Right now the Giants are in first place and the A's only a half game out.  :-)

Last year I played in my first fantasy baseball league and had a great time.  I joined the league in the third week, so last year I wasn't involved in the draft.  This year I was.  It was an automated "make your list" draft, so the results were, let us say "interesting".  Overall, I'm very happy with how it turned out, but the ESPN computer made a few choices differently than I would have made in person.

Last year pitching was very important in this league, with fairly standard head-to-head (not 5x5) scoring rules.  We tweaked the rules (e.g., dropping a win from +10 to +5 points) in an attempt to make pitching less important, but it looks like it was still highly valued by the participants.  Originally, I had bumped starting pitchers up the list, but then dropped many back to end up slightly above their normal slots.  I also downgraded any first-baseman not named Albert, figuring that if I didn't get him there were plenty of good 1B options available, mentally targeting Kendry Morales.  I downgraded most catchers not named Joe - figured if I didn't get him I'd target Montero or Suzuki.  I bumped up Pablo Sandoval, Ben Sheets, Ben Zobrist, Jason Hayward, Cliff Lee and Tommy Hanson.  For each round I said "pick best available" instead of targeting any special position.

Here's a link to the results.  I'm "Boomers Wallbangers" picking 6th. 

Round 1: Lincecum going #1 was a surprise.  Fred Lynns picking King Felix is a minor surprise, but she won last year with pitching, so I bet she ranked him and Timmy in the top three.  I know I had ranked A-Rod, Halladay, Braun and Mauer in the top-10, and A-Rod fell to me.

Round 2:  Verlander and Votto seem a bit of a stretch here.  My computer somewhat strangely picked yet another third basemen, Evan Longoria.  Hey, I grew up loving Brooks Robinson and Mike Schmidt, so having the two best third-basemen in the game is cool, if a bit redundant.  If I were picking, I'd probably go with Teixeira or Upton here for better balance.

Round 3:  I'm a bit surprised that Wainwright went here, before some other pitchers like CC and Greinke.  And, IMO, drafting K-Rod here is too early.  I'm very happy with Matt Holliday.

Round 4:  Three elite pitchers this late are good bargains.  Glad I got one.

Round 5:  I'm happy with Cliff Lee here, and Chris Carpenter and Victor Martinez also look like a good picks.  The Detroit Comets are clearly going for relievers early, which might be interesting in a year when Nathan, Lidge and and Street are hurt, but why aren't they picking Riviera or Papelbon?

Round 6: I'm happy with Zobrist.  A good hitter and love his positional flexibility.  McCann and Ethier also seem like good picks.  Mariano Rivera might be a bit early, but at least he's an elite closer.

Round 7: I get Kendry Morales, somewhat as planned.  Lets hope he lives up to his "undervalued" rep.  If I had been picking in person I'd be pissed that Matt Cain went two slots before.  Broxton goes before Papelbon.  Peraps reasonable, but a surprise cause many in the league are from Boston.  Or maybe they are sick of Papelbon?

Round 8: Apparently I rated Tommy Hanson above Ubaldo Jimenez.  I like both and am glad I got one.

Round 9:  Derrek Lee is o.k., one of the last "good, reliable" 1B.  In person, I might have gone for Soria instead, and would be upset that Torii Hunter went just before.

Round 10: Feels about right for Manny.  In person I might have tried Bailey, but the outfield needs bodies.

Round 11: We will see if Wieters or Suzuki plays better this year.  As an As fan, I probably rate Kurt too highly, but last year I pointed another team towards him (I had Victor Martinez) and he killed me in the playoffs.  In person, with relievers going early in this league, I would have been tempted by Heath Bell.

Round 12:  O.K., this is a computer mistake.  Miguel Montero is a fine catcher, perhaps even better than Suzuki, but I don't need two "top-seven" catchers, only one.  Peavy and Lackey, who go just before me,  look like good picks.

Round 13:  I like Asdrubal Cabrera here.  In person, with relievers going early, I'd probably have picked Brian Wilson instead, or maybe Carlos Gonzales for the outfield.

Round 14:  Yunel Escobar is good.  My infield is looking solid.  Sorry I missed Brett Anderson.  IMO, the last two Detroit Comets picks are excellent.

Round 15:  I like a lot of the picks this round.  In person, I'd be pissed that yet another reliever went one pick before, but Shields is a good pick this late.  Be interesting to compare him, Garza and Jair Jurgens at the end of the year.

Round 16:  Several good pitchers go here.  Again, be interesting to compare how Jered Weaver, Burnett, Hudson, Oswalt and Harden end up.  (I predict Huddy)

Round 17:  Relief!  I finally get Qualls, a decent quality closer.  Nice to have at least one.

Round 18:  I'm very happy to get an exciting Jason Heyward here.  If he flops, who cares, I got to follow him anyway.  I don't win any money in Fastasy Baseball, may as well get some players you love.  In person, I would have considered Francisco, but my outfield is still thin, so Heyward is, hopefully, a good pick.  I can understand Fuentes falling so low with Rodney in the wings, (I think he's a good pick this late) but its interesting that Ryan Franklin has also fallen so far

Round 19:  Hard to argue with Porcello as another good young pitcher with upside.

Round 20:  Several more decent pitchers.  As an As fan, I rated Sheets higher, but, objectively, De La Rosa, Lilly and Jackson may turn out better.  Again, wait till the end of the year!  Cody Ross seems a good pick here.

From here on out, it's mainly the computer rankings in action, as I didn't tweak the bottom of the draft list very much.

Round 21:  In person I would have considered Martin Prado, but the computer probably felt the infield was full and I do need bodies in the outfield.  (but see round 23)  Rivera is o.k. for an Angel.  :-)

Round 22:  In person I probably gamble on Matusz.  Apparently Kuroda is rated higher on the standard points.

Round 23: Scutaro?  Well, I like him, but not like I need a spare middle infilder.  I hope!  Maybe somebody else will.

Round 24:  In person, at this point I like my starters, so I would take a "high-upside" gamble on Liriano or Chapman.  But Niemann seems a solid, "o.k." pick this late.

Round 25:  Here random relievers go and you may not know who has won the closer role.  Neftali Feliz is one of the few non-closers who are worth having, so I'm vaguely o.k. with the pick  Joel Pinero looks to be a good pick.  Darned Fred Lynns, despite their name, have an eye for good pitching.  But, it's interesting that Chapman is still available till next round.

Round 26:  Kevin Gregg will probably be a complete waste unless he wins the closer job at Toronto.  In person, I either pick Franklin Morales as a temporary closer, else I gamble on Bedard.  Aroldis Chapman is a great "high gain, little to lose" pick.

Round 27:  Apparently, Matt Diaz is the highest rated outfielder remaining, and I need one.  Doesn't look like I missed out on anybody else.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Catholic Church Hierarchy turns Easter into "All About the Pope"

Easter, to believers, should be a profoundly sacred day celebrating the miracle of Christ's Resurrection and His gift of Grace.  Instead, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church turned it into a celebration of the infallibility of the Pope, "the unfailing rock of the Holy Church of Christ".


Whatever the facts of the case, they have failed their religion.  Their self-centered focus on maintaining power and hierarchy disgusts me.  It's not a surprise to any who study their history.


O.K., hopefully no more religious posts for a while...



Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Brief Commentary on The Church Scandal

Just remember that Thomas Becket was sainted largely for his insistence that priestly offenders be tried in ecclesiastical courts, not civil courts.  (see also here)
In late 1163 Henry decided to abolish certain privileges enjoyed by the clergy, which exempted them, when they were accused of crimes, from the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Criminous clerks, as they were known, were instead allowed to stand trial before a bishop in the ecclesiastical (church) courts, which usually resulted in much milder punishments.
So the Catholic Church has been defending it's criminals for thousands of years, while granting its highest honor to those who protect them.

Monday, March 22, 2010

We Have Eaten the Low-Hanging Fruit. What Next?

The Health Bill is now Law.  I'm not sure how it will work out.  I think it will benefit me personally.  The rest of us may have to wait to find out.

One thought that I haven't seen anywhere else.  Let's be generous and assume that the deficit reduction mechanisms actually work, and this bill is deficit neutral (or even slightly beneficial as the CBO claims).  Now, I don't really believe it will work that way, but let's say they do work.

The mechanisms involve roughly one trillion dollars in higher taxes on the rich, and savings in Medicare.  No skin off my back (for now).  These are, to some extent, the easy fixes, the most politically palatable, the "low hanging fruit" in the battle to decrease our deficits.

One trillion dollars is a lot of low-hanging fruit.  Instead of using them to pay down the deficit, we have eaten them.  Eaten them for a reasonable cause, but eaten them.  They are gone.  When the time comes to really tackle the deficit, we will have to reach higher.  One trillion is "easy" deficit reduction is gone.  Get ready for higher taxes that impact the middle class, and large cuts in other government programs.


Upon further searching, I noticed that Greg Mankiw makes a similar point here.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Clever media reporting on the CBO numbers

Most of the news articles say something like:
"cut federal deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. 

Congressional analysts estimate the cost of the two bills combined would be $940 billion over a decade."
Now, maybe I'm missing something, but the only way this math works is if the bill involves a tax increase of 940+138 billion.  Which is 1.078 trillion. According to the WSJ,

        "The answer lies mainly in new taxes and curbs on Medicare spending."

Duh, so I was half right.  Wish the rest of the media would be more honest.  The New York Times does mention, in passing
"it would reduce projected federal budget deficits by $138 billion over the next decade, with additional tax revenue and Medicare savings."
I like their use of "revenue" and "savings".  Next time Republicans want to cut a government program, I assume the Times will call that "savings", not a "cut".  Sure they will.  Buried near the bottom are the hard figures of $438 billion in new taxes.   (Same for the Yahoo article)  The L.A. Times, somewhat more honestly, calls them "cuts in federal Medicare expenses", which, of course, are certainly not cuts in your Medicare benefits.  No sirree Bob.  Nice spin by the mainstream media.

Anyway, hope that clarifies things for anybody else who was confused.  Now, the benefits of the bill and greatly increased coverage will, all in all, likely be worth the extra taxes and Medicare cuts.  Especially for those of us who aren't rich and aren't on Medicare.  :-)  I just wish both sides could have a serious discussion of these vital issues and act like grownups.

Friday, March 5, 2010

re: Jim Bunning. Paul Krugman, like many is wrong

Paul Krugman writes an editorial that can't get two sentences without being wrong.

"For days, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky exploited Senate rules to block a one-month extension of unemployment benefits"

Jim Bunning did not exploit some obscure Senate rule.  The Senate asked for unanimous consent on a bill and he said no.  Surely well within his rights - if all Senators are required to unanimously support all bills, there's no point in having them.  Apparently, Krugman is unaware of the whole purpose of the Senate, to vote yes or no on things, and thinks that voting no in itself is an evil, exploiting a Senate rule.

Actually, Bunning wanted the Senate to follow it's own rules, "PayGo", and pay for the$10 billion expense.  Note that one of those links leads to the Democratic Senate Budget Committee website, which says:
However, this point of order is not self-enforcing like the sequestration process; a Senator must raise the point of order against any violating legislation.
In other words, Bunning followed precisely the rules, as created by the Democrats, to raise the point of order about Paygo.  To balance the cost, he proposed, quite reasonably, using some TARP funds.  He also proposed removing the "black-liquor" tax-credit.  But this was nixed on a procedural issue by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif).   Nobody is writing how she exploited Senate rules to block his bill.

Some of the angst was that the benefits were about to expire in days.  True - real people would be affected, and that would be painful.  Harry Reid decared it an "emergency", as one of his aides wrote:
“The short term extension of expiring provisions is designated emergency spending because in economic downturns of this magnitude the Senate has traditionally treated extraordinary assistance to the unemployed as an emergency,”
Now, the Senate knew a long time ago that unemployment was running out for some recipients.  Was the Senate suddenly surprised that the economy is in bad shape?  Did they have a mass fantasy that millions of new jobs would be created in February?  No, they are too lazy to plan ahead, and rushed through some last minute bill.  Hmm, that does sound "traditional" for our representatives, so I agree with that part of the statement.

All Harry Reid had to do was
  1. agree quickly to spend TARP funds
  2. agree quickly to allow Bunning's black-liquor amendment to proceed
  3. Call for a cloture vote.  Presumably, it would pass about 98-2, and the Bill would then get passed.

But the Senate leader chose to try to make a political point, trusting the press to misreport the facts.  As Paul Krugman, unsurprisingly, did. See here for a blog about more misreporting of Bunning's actions as a "filibuster".  But it may have backfired - enough people are getting the truth to realize that Bunning may have picked the wrong time and place for his solitary stand, but he definitely had some right on his side.

One later addition.  As part of his column, Krugman writes that Republicans are in a weird moral universe, and that extending unemployment is "textbook economics".  However, as James Taranto points out, in Krugman's own textbook, Krugman wrote:
"Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect"
 Now, these are unusually tough times, I don't think that this one instance of extending unemployment insurance will cause structural unemployment, but a good find by Taranto.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

A Proposal for a New Source of Tax Revenue

Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission opens the door for a lot more political advertisements in upcoming elections.  And there's already a lot.  In 2008, the total cost for US Federal government campaigns was 5.3 Billion dollars.  (roughly half was the Presidential campaign, half for others)  A decent chunk of this is advertising.  For example. President Obama and Senator McCain spent about 20% of their funds, 500 Million, on advertisements.  State contests cost money too.  Here in California, Meg Whitman will spend millions of her own money, and Democrats are responding.

In my opinion, this massive spending, and the fund-raising required to compete in a race, is a corrupting influence.  However, as a vaguely Libertarian, and a firm believer in the Bill of Rights, a lot of this involves Speech, and especially political speech, which should have the highest protection.  So, I'm torn.  (I'd support a reasonable Amendment that corporations are not persons).  But, frankly, my opinion doesn't matter.  Attempts to control this spending have all failed miserably.  If you will, government imposed "price controls" and "regulations" have failed, as they often do.  Let's apply a more traditional government approach, especially in this time of fiscal problems.

Let's tax the heck out of political advertisements.

I'd set a low floor, under which there is no taxation.  Say, $25,000.  So those running for School Board, small town sheriffs, etc. aren't affected.  (I hope, not sure what gets spent on those campaigns!)  Above that, a steeply progressive scale, topping out at 50%.  So, for the big races, for each dollar spent on a political ad, the people get a dollar.  Ads for federal offices would pay taxes to the feds, ads for state office pay the states.

Now, part of me was worried that this just makes the glad-handing and lobbyists more powerful, cause politicians will have to raise twice as much money.  I am no longer concerned.  We already know what the politicians are.  We are just haggling over price.  Let's get a cut of the action.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Why Canada is better than the USA

In Canada, they don't have the USA-Canada hockey game on a cable channel in low def!  Pestering us between periods with ads for their political talk shows.

Come on NBC/MSNBC, this is a big game, why isn't it in hi-def on a real channel?  What kind of weak crap is that?

As for why the USA is better than Canada, we don't have that cheap-shot punk Scott Niedermeyer throwing opposition players into the boards way after the period is over.  And right now we are leading 3-2, but there's still a period to go.

Here's wishing a cold Molson for all the Canadian fans anxiously watching.  Good luck, and congratulations on a well-run Olympics in a fabulously supernaturally beautiful area of the world.  BTW, the Czech-USSR game was great.

Friday, February 19, 2010

More Depressing Goldman Sachs News

  One could have an entire blog devoted to depressing Goldman Sachs news, but here's a recent snippet.  According to a New York Times article, "Wall Street" (mainly represented by Goldman Sachs) helped mask or obscure the true extent of Greece's debt problem.
 "...financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere.   ...
Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country’s liabilities."

  Now, these deals were apparently perfectly legal, and most of the blame, IMO, rests with the overspending politicians and those who elected them.  And the accounting rules that don't count these future liabilities as "debts" are silly too.  But still, the banks profited from the addictions of countries like Greece and Italy.


  In related news, Mark Pittman, an investigative reporter, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in September 2008 with the Fed for details of the bank bailout.  He was rebuffed - the Fed didn't even bother to answer.  Mark Pittman died in November 2009.  Unfortunately for would be conspiracy fans, there seems to be no conspiracy, which probably convinces them that there is one.  :-)

  Fortunately for the rest of us, Bloomberg News has taken up the mantle with a lawsuit, Bloomberg L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.  Last summer, District Judge Loretta A. Preska ruled in favor of Bloomberg, but the ruling was appealed by a consortium of banks to protect “the substantial interests of its members in confidential information that they provided to the Federal Reserve.”   They argue that if people knew which banks were taking loans from the Fed, there could be a run on the bank, or that it's reputation would be damaged.  Yeah, sure, banks are held in such high regard, it would be terrible if they were stigmatized.  The Fed did bring up one interesting argument:
"The Fed, meanwhile, has worried that if the appeals court rules for Bloomberg, then savvy traders could quickly get their hands on such data in the future and use it to their advantage even as the government was trying to stabilize the markets."
 People everywhere are very skeptical of the bank bailout.  No need for me to cite any links even for that one.  It seems to have saved greedy institutions who took huge risks in order to make huge bonus payouts.  I'm no wild-eyed socialist or populist, and I believe that those who truly create something useful for society deserve ample compensation, but I find it hard to believe that bankers truly create all that much.  I usually disagree with Paul Krugman, but I completely agree with him that banking should be boring.

  If the bailout were truly needed, and did save banks and the American (and world) economy from a disastrous collapse,  one would think that The Fed would want us to know the facts.  Ex-President Bush, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and President Obama et. al. would want us to know.  Because it would make them look good, proving that they were rapid responders who risked public disapproval to save the economy, and they are not dupes nor tools of Wall Street.  Since they haven't provided these facts, I conclude that the bailout was a scam or a panic.

  Perhaps there will soon be a book with hard facts about the bailout.  Anybody know of one?  From what most can see, it rewarded bad behavior, and the banks are going back to the same bad habits, with no shame or remorse.  Not sure what anybody can really do about it.  For my extremely small part, Tim Geithner went to my Alma mater, Dartmouth College.  This year they will get no alumni donation from me.  Take that!

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

A Followup on the Rachel Maddow Post

Today's (Feb 10th) San Francisco Chronicle has a front page article about the upcoming Heath Care Summit.  The second paragraph is
Obama made a surprise appearance in the White House pressroom and compared his hopes for the summit with the give-and-take of marriage. He said he is willing to consider medical malpractice reform, a key GOP demand, but said bipartisanship doesn't mean Democrats abandon everything they believe in.
More proof that Rachel Maddow was wrong stating that tort reform was "in the bill".  If it were already "in the bill", President Obama wouldn't be making a key and important point that he is willing to consider tort reform as part of a bipartisan compromise.

Sorry for harping on Rachel Maddow.  She's one of the liberal commentators (along with Alan Colmes and Thom Hartmann) that I generally respect and enjoy.  There's a lot of raving nuts on the left and the right, so I enjoy finding commentators that are logical and reasonable and willing to have intelligent debates and discussions.

Here is the transcript from the Maddow show.

BTW, she also claimed that it's "in the bill" to accept the republican idea of allowing insurance to be bought across state lines.  She stretches the truth here too.  Here's an MSNBC (hardly a right-wing group) analysis of the complexities.  In any case, the bill does not mandate allowing sales across state lines, it just allows states to consider it.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Rachel Maddow lies straight to your face

I caught glimpses of tonight's (Feb 9 2010) Rachel Maddow Show.  One part was her interviewing Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), about health care reform.  While he continually tried to extend an olive branch to Republicans, repeatedly saying that they had some good ideas and quoting some specifically (his bill, is bipartisan, co-sponsored by a republican) , her response was to repeatedly ignore his comments and bash Republicans for obstructionism.  It was comical and Wyden looked flustered, though he gamely smiled through it all.  Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the video.  Anyway, we aren't going to reach any compromise / bi-partisanship by watching MSNBC (and maybe not by Fox either).

In a followup segment, Maddow blasted Republicans for complaining about wanting things in the health care reform bill that were already "in the bill".  Implying that they were hypocritical obstructionists.  She said "in the bill" slowly and loudly, so it must be true.

But, in the one example I saw, (there were a few I missed) she lied straight to your face.  Republicans are well known for wanting medical malpractice reform, i.e. tort reform.  This may bring down the cost of doing medicine and lower fees.  She said it was "in the bill".  She then paraphrased the bill.  You could see on screen that the actual text was different, but her paraphrase was essentially correct.
It was the "Sense of the Senate" that it "calls upon individual states to develop new ways to deal with malpractice lawsuits"
There is absolutely no way that this represents tort reform.  First of all, the "Sense of the Senate" is meaningless.  It takes 10 seconds of Googling to learn that this is not a statute or regulation.  It is an opinion, it is "we would like this to happen please".  Actually, it's probably more like "we are claiming that we would like this to happen because it sounds good, but we really don't because then the Trial Lawyers will stop giving us money".  It's probably also the "Sense of the Senate" that the deficit should go down, the Dow should hit 20,000 by the end of this year, and there should be a chicken in every pot.  Doesn't mean doodly.

Even if the "Sense of the Senate" were a legally binding statute, what does it call for?  The "world's greatest deliberative body" passes the buck.  It calls for states to develop the actual plans.  With, from what I saw, no time-line, no definitions, no nothing.  A burger flipper has more structure and guidance than that.  If this is all it takes to accomplish tort reform , health care reform would be easy.  Pass a bill saying that the "Sense of the Senate" is that "states should develop new ways to deal with health care reform."  Declare victory and withdraw.

By any possible analysis this bill does not include tort reform and Rachel Maddow knows it.  But she'd prefer to lie straight to your face, not even bothering to present any facts that support her case.  In fact, she presents facts that directly contradict her claim.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Support Google, Freedom and stimulate the economy too!

Here's some delicious irony.

Anyway, if Google holds firm with their plan to un-censor searches in China. everybody, please go do some Google searches, click on an ad, and buy something made in the USA that you need.  It will support Google, support freedom by keeping pressure on the totalitarian Chinese government, and maybe help stimulate the U.S. economy.

Friday, January 8, 2010

There's a Joke in here somewhere...

The Jan 2010 Irish Herald's lead article is titled "Harshest Budget in Living Memory", and describes the difficult budget decisions that must be made to more or less balance the Irish budget for 2010.  There are budget cuts totaling $6 billion, which is still less than 20% of the estimated budget deficit of $32 billion.  These cuts affect salaries and welfare.  There are increased taxes.  It sounds reminiscent of the California budget mess.  But, every cloud has a silver lining.
"(Finance minister) Lenihan sounght to offer one boost to public morale by cutting taxes on beer, wine, and liquor."
Apparently, there is a bit of supply-side economics here too to boost the economy:
"...sales in pubs and liquor stores represent an exceptionally high percentage of its (Ireland's) economic activity"

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Worst Letter of the Year

The year is still young, but a letter to the editor in the Jan 5th San Jose Mercury News sets a high standard for historical ignorance.  Scroll down to read:
"Peace is possible only with justice
In Mercury News letters to the editor, the Israeli blitzkrieg against the Palestinians continues...
You can safely ignore the rest of his letter; it's just self-praise followed by nine rhetorical questions, devoid of facts or cogent arguments.  But that looks good compared to the flaws in the tiny fragment presented.


   "Peace is possible only with justice"


This sounds nice, but it historically false.  There was a long period of peace during the time of the Roman Empire.  There was a hundred year period of European peace starting 1814 after the Congress of Vienna.  Neither period is especially known for "justice".  Strike one.


   "In Mercury News letters to the editor, the Israeli blitzkrieg...


The letter writer is criticizing previous letters.  As noted before, he never addresses any specific points.


Instead, he attempts an impossibly long leap of logic and metaphor to link a letter to the editor, part of our freedom of expression enshrined in the Bill of Rights, to blitzkrieg, an act of war which features concentrated armored spearheads, including "terror elements", and infamous bombings of civilian cities.   Strike two.


   "...continues..."


Blitzkrieg means lightning-war.  By definition it is short and swift.  It does not "continue".  Strike three.  


Three major flaws in less than two sentences.  That's why it's my early nominee for Worst Letter of the Year.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Left Wing Firebrand has Feet of Clay

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, Democrat from Florida, received recent fame thanks to his stinging (and some would say crude) criticisms of RepublicansProgressives like his "guts".

While Grayson can dish it out, telling former V.P. Dick Cheney to"STFU", he can't take it.  As one might expect, his opponents have opened their own camel-cased web site, MyCongressmanIsNuts.  In a move out of the Chinese Communist playbook, Grayson has asked Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute and imprison the critic, based on the technicality that the owner of the website isn't one of his constituents, therefore she can't claim him as "my" congressman.  Even though, in their "About Us" page, they say only that they are from Central Florida.

Similarly, Al Franken isn't "my" Senator.  But when he runs roughshod over Senate tradition and ends up casting the critical 60th vote for Health Care Reform, he is my Senator.  (for the record, I'm not sure what I think of the health care bill, and who knows how it will end up after the House and Senate get together anyhow.)

In any case, if some dubious technicality is the basis for five years in jail, better read that Cap and Trade bill and the Health Care Bill very carefully.  Though 5 years is only half what you'd get in China for "subversion".