Thursday, August 11, 2011
How smart is Obama?
I can't deny that this article, "How Stupid is Obama," has a disrespectful title (and to an extent, the tone matches), but I also can't find much in it with which to disagree.
It is interesting that Obama's grades and academic history at Columbia and Harvard are nearly a complete mystery. I wonder how Obama would fare if all the products and records of his college days were subjected to the same scrutiny given Sarah Palin's emails. Or, comparing apples to apples, I wonder how Obama's emails as state and U.S. Senator would compare to Palin's emails.
It is very odd that there are no teams of citizens and journalists poring over those.
A lot of the comments on the above article debate whether Obama's actions are due to stupidity or ideology.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. There are many educated, high-IQ people who are proponents of Keynesian economics and socialist, redistributionist leftist policies. However, despite their intelligence, there must necessarily be a strong thread of "stupid" running through the brains of anyone who supports these destructive policies. There's nothing shocking about that -- I work with many Ph.D.'s in my profession. They are clearly highly intelligent people, but they are capable of impressively stupid behavior outside their areas of expertise.
What is really impressive, and sadly common, are intelligent people who are persistently stupid within their supposed areas of expertise. They may have an impression command of individual facts, but they arrange those facts in a wholly fictitious narrative. Being intelligent doesn't prevent you from having enormous blind spots in your world-view that are created by your upbringing and education.
One of the most pernicious and persistent base assumptions of the left is that people are, by default morally neutral, or even good, and that deviations from accepted morality can be corrected by state action. The state can make you eat better, manage your health care better, plan for your retirement better, and direct your charitable contributions better than you can yourself: if you disagree with the state choices, you are mistaken, and if you agree with the state choices, well, then you should be happy they're saving you the trouble of managing it all yourself!
I think the individualist film "Serenity" captures it well in two brief sections of dialog:
River Tam: "People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."
Capt. Malcom Reynolds: "Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave."
It is interesting that Obama's grades and academic history at Columbia and Harvard are nearly a complete mystery. I wonder how Obama would fare if all the products and records of his college days were subjected to the same scrutiny given Sarah Palin's emails. Or, comparing apples to apples, I wonder how Obama's emails as state and U.S. Senator would compare to Palin's emails.
It is very odd that there are no teams of citizens and journalists poring over those.
A lot of the comments on the above article debate whether Obama's actions are due to stupidity or ideology.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. There are many educated, high-IQ people who are proponents of Keynesian economics and socialist, redistributionist leftist policies. However, despite their intelligence, there must necessarily be a strong thread of "stupid" running through the brains of anyone who supports these destructive policies. There's nothing shocking about that -- I work with many Ph.D.'s in my profession. They are clearly highly intelligent people, but they are capable of impressively stupid behavior outside their areas of expertise.
What is really impressive, and sadly common, are intelligent people who are persistently stupid within their supposed areas of expertise. They may have an impression command of individual facts, but they arrange those facts in a wholly fictitious narrative. Being intelligent doesn't prevent you from having enormous blind spots in your world-view that are created by your upbringing and education.
One of the most pernicious and persistent base assumptions of the left is that people are, by default morally neutral, or even good, and that deviations from accepted morality can be corrected by state action. The state can make you eat better, manage your health care better, plan for your retirement better, and direct your charitable contributions better than you can yourself: if you disagree with the state choices, you are mistaken, and if you agree with the state choices, well, then you should be happy they're saving you the trouble of managing it all yourself!
I think the individualist film "Serenity" captures it well in two brief sections of dialog:
River Tam: "People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."
Capt. Malcom Reynolds: "Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave."
Quantitative Easing
I had never heard of the term "quantitative easing" before 2008. Whenever you read a term that is so obviously, egregiously euphemistic, you know you're in trouble. In prison terms -- you better be careful about bending over to pick up the soap, lest you get Quantitatively Eased.
Quantitative Easing (the capital letters seem obligatory) is a euphemism for a very, very simple concept: printing boatloads -- nay, fleetloads -- of worthless paper money.
Imagine if you went to your bank and told your bank representative, "The balance in my account is totally inadequate to support my lifestyle. Could you please add one or two zeroes to my dollar balance?" -- and they did it!!
That's Quantitative Easing.
Actually, the Federal Reserve creates the money out of thin air and loans it to the government, but that's really just the government loaning money to itself. Ever try to loan yourself money?
It represents an enormous threat to the future prosperity and stability of our country. That's why they had to come up with a euphemism, because if Bernanke, Geithner or Obama had a press conference and said "print a huge load of worthless paper money" instead of "Quantitative Easing" normal people would have said "What the fuck? Hell, no!"
There's that soap, right there in the corner of the shower. Go on. Bend over. Pick it up. Do it. They've got your back....
Quantitative Easing (the capital letters seem obligatory) is a euphemism for a very, very simple concept: printing boatloads -- nay, fleetloads -- of worthless paper money.
Imagine if you went to your bank and told your bank representative, "The balance in my account is totally inadequate to support my lifestyle. Could you please add one or two zeroes to my dollar balance?" -- and they did it!!
That's Quantitative Easing.
Actually, the Federal Reserve creates the money out of thin air and loans it to the government, but that's really just the government loaning money to itself. Ever try to loan yourself money?
It represents an enormous threat to the future prosperity and stability of our country. That's why they had to come up with a euphemism, because if Bernanke, Geithner or Obama had a press conference and said "print a huge load of worthless paper money" instead of "Quantitative Easing" normal people would have said "What the fuck? Hell, no!"
There's that soap, right there in the corner of the shower. Go on. Bend over. Pick it up. Do it. They've got your back....
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Nixon's liberal legacy and Obama the conservative
I think it's been common knowledge among conservatives that Nixon was a very liberal President, domestically (just as G.W. Bush was).
But apparently it's something of a shock to the left, who just seem to be coming down from Nixon Derangement Syndrome to finally add Nixon to the long list of "Republicans we really like (now that they're dead and out of power)." Kevin Andersen writes wistfully about Nixon in the New York Times.
The column itself is unremarkable:
But what's really amazing is the comments section. It truly demonstrates that leftists are living on a different planet (emphasis below is mine):
And of course there's the obligatory tea-party and Republican bashing, because, somehow, trying to take a stand against out-of-control spending is just crazy.
But apparently it's something of a shock to the left, who just seem to be coming down from Nixon Derangement Syndrome to finally add Nixon to the long list of "Republicans we really like (now that they're dead and out of power)." Kevin Andersen writes wistfully about Nixon in the New York Times.
The column itself is unremarkable:
- Republican Nixon was really a big ol' liberal (and wasn't it great?)
- Modern conservatives are actually unhinged, reckless fanatics
- Obama, "Mr. Transparent and Reasonable" (said unironically!), is "so prudent, straightforward and even-keeled", so full of "nonconfrontational reasonableness," so full of virtuous traits he sucks as a negotiator against those unhinged, reckless fanatics.
But what's really amazing is the comments section. It truly demonstrates that leftists are living on a different planet (emphasis below is mine):
"The tragedy is that [Obama], a true conservative, has taken the whole Democratic Party with him to the right."
Would that were true.
---
"Obama is a Republican in his behavior. The health care law was a boon for pharma and HMOs. Continued futile wars. Broken Guantanamo promise. No tax increase for multimillionaires and billionaires. Fake Wall Street reform. He doesn't cave. He talks a liberal line and walks a conservative one."
Because Republicans were all in favor of that health care law, right? Oh, wait... As for the wars and Guantanamo, I think we on the right put that down to "facing up to reality," and why has the left not gotten wise to the fact that you could confiscate everything the "multimillionaires and billionaires" own and not fund the country through the end of the year? And why would you expect Wall Street Reform from the candidate most in the pocket of Wall Street? Of course, the biggest problem with Wall Street is that the government keeps messing with it. We're beyond fixing the fixes now, we're fixing the fixes of all the fixes and "reforms" that have gone before.
---
"Nixon's dirty tricks, his bigotry, his military escapades, and his Watergate burglars seem positively quaint when measured against the standard of today's Republican leaders. The shocking things Nixon said that were preserved for posterity on the Oval office tape recorder pale in comparison to comments made publicly against Mr. Obama by the current crop of esteemed conservatives."
Obama is a victim! Evil Republicans actually criticize him!
And of course there's the obligatory tea-party and Republican bashing, because, somehow, trying to take a stand against out-of-control spending is just crazy.
NCAA "Amateur" Status
I'm not even a huge sports fan, but I was a varsity NCAA athlete at a Big Ten school, so I think I am qualified to have an opinion on this.
The NCAA's rules preventing athletes from financially profiting from their participation in collegiate sports are utterly immoral and unfair to athletes -- especially those at the top of their game in sports where they could be expected to earn good money from sponsorships.
I went to OSU. OSU Buckeye football is big business. It probably rivals some professional franchise for the size and strength (and fanaticism) of its fan base.
Everybody associate with Buckeye football -- the school itself, the athletic director, the coaches, the people who are licensed to sell Buckeye branded clothing and paraphernalia -- everybody makes out like a bandit, except the eleven guys working their asses off down there on the field.
They are gambling their bodies and their futures that their performance will attract the attention of an NFL scout. That and a scholarship are about the extent of their official compensation. Now, a full scholarship to OSU is nothing to sneeze at, but it's a far cry from the money being made by everyone else on their behalf.
And, at any time, a college player can be injured, and all that hope they've been banking on goes down the drain, or they can make it to the NFL and get injured early on, or never really make the transition and become a bench warmer, or get traded frequently -- there are a thousand ways things can fail to pan out for a would-be NFL player.
But those three or four years in college, when they were packing the horseshoe every game, when multi-millions were being made on their behalf, they weren't allowed to profit from it.
This doesn't apply to any other activity at school, only sports. If you're an engineering major and you come up with a really hot idea and exploit it, nobody comes and tells you "Oh, you're in college, you're only an amateur engineer, you're not allowed to profit off your engineering skills while you are in college. The guys who invented Yahoo!, one of the first big internet success stories, were students at Stanford and originally ran Yahoo! on Stanford computers -- it was something like http://www.stanford.edu/yahoo or something like that back in its early days. But there were no rules in place to keep them from profiting. Thank goodness, or they probably would have just shut the whole venture down when it got to be a big deal and enormous amounts of innovation in search portal development would have been lost.
The fact that I got paying part-time and then full-time jobs in my field before I even finished my degree didn't mean I was somehow compromising my "amateur" student status.
The idea would be considered ridiculous anywhere outside of sports.
I was on the fencing team at OSU. Fencing's not a huge sport in the U.S. and it's even a fairly eclectic sport in Europe. But, if I had been one of the few fencers good enough to maybe earn some modest sum in equipment sponsorships in the insular world of fencing, what right does the university have to tell me I can't profit from my own hard work and talent? It's ridiculous.
It's exploitative of the student athletes, for colleges and universities to garner so much prestige and money from top athletic performers, but to not allow them to directly profit from their use of their talent, it's criminal and I'd go so far as to say un-American.
The NCAA's rules preventing athletes from financially profiting from their participation in collegiate sports are utterly immoral and unfair to athletes -- especially those at the top of their game in sports where they could be expected to earn good money from sponsorships.
I went to OSU. OSU Buckeye football is big business. It probably rivals some professional franchise for the size and strength (and fanaticism) of its fan base.
Everybody associate with Buckeye football -- the school itself, the athletic director, the coaches, the people who are licensed to sell Buckeye branded clothing and paraphernalia -- everybody makes out like a bandit, except the eleven guys working their asses off down there on the field.
They are gambling their bodies and their futures that their performance will attract the attention of an NFL scout. That and a scholarship are about the extent of their official compensation. Now, a full scholarship to OSU is nothing to sneeze at, but it's a far cry from the money being made by everyone else on their behalf.
And, at any time, a college player can be injured, and all that hope they've been banking on goes down the drain, or they can make it to the NFL and get injured early on, or never really make the transition and become a bench warmer, or get traded frequently -- there are a thousand ways things can fail to pan out for a would-be NFL player.
But those three or four years in college, when they were packing the horseshoe every game, when multi-millions were being made on their behalf, they weren't allowed to profit from it.
This doesn't apply to any other activity at school, only sports. If you're an engineering major and you come up with a really hot idea and exploit it, nobody comes and tells you "Oh, you're in college, you're only an amateur engineer, you're not allowed to profit off your engineering skills while you are in college. The guys who invented Yahoo!, one of the first big internet success stories, were students at Stanford and originally ran Yahoo! on Stanford computers -- it was something like http://www.stanford.edu/yahoo or something like that back in its early days. But there were no rules in place to keep them from profiting. Thank goodness, or they probably would have just shut the whole venture down when it got to be a big deal and enormous amounts of innovation in search portal development would have been lost.
The fact that I got paying part-time and then full-time jobs in my field before I even finished my degree didn't mean I was somehow compromising my "amateur" student status.
The idea would be considered ridiculous anywhere outside of sports.
I was on the fencing team at OSU. Fencing's not a huge sport in the U.S. and it's even a fairly eclectic sport in Europe. But, if I had been one of the few fencers good enough to maybe earn some modest sum in equipment sponsorships in the insular world of fencing, what right does the university have to tell me I can't profit from my own hard work and talent? It's ridiculous.
It's exploitative of the student athletes, for colleges and universities to garner so much prestige and money from top athletic performers, but to not allow them to directly profit from their use of their talent, it's criminal and I'd go so far as to say un-American.
Generic Republicans
In a recent Power Line article, John Hinderaker says:
I respect Mr. Hinderacker's opinions immensely. Power Line is one of my must-read blogs. However, I can't agree with him on this.
No doubt he is correct, a "generic Republican" will be the easiest to get elected.
But I think this is short-sighted thinking. The goal isn't winning the election. The goal is changing the direction of the Federal government.
It's easy to forget, after 8 years of Bush Derangement Syndrome and more than two years of Obama blaming all his failures on the mess Bush left him, that Bush was a generic Republican. That's what "compassionate conservative" was.
And it wasn't just a campaign slogan. That's how Bush governed. No Child Left Behind was a bipartisan effort between him and Ted Kennedy. The Medicare Drug Prescription benefit was the biggest entitlement increase (at the time) since Lyndon Johnson. He signed McCain-Feingold. He championed combatting the spread of AIDS in Africa -- there was a reason why Bono was so friendly to him.
If Bush had just been a Democrat, he would have been hero to them.
As a conservative he was a disappointment, domestically, despite the man's many admirable qualities. (And he has many, many admirable qualities. I believe he is an honest, forthright, caring man who did his very best, in his view, to promote the well-being, not only of Americans, but people around the world -- I just disagree with how he went about it in come cases).
If we put another generic Republican in office, we'll get another four or eight years of frustration, disappointment and half measures. As with Bush, we may be sliding down the path to hell a bit slower than under Obama, but that's just not good enough.
Even if we lose this election. The people have to be able to say "This candidate would have made a real difference." I believe Ron Paul and maybe Sarah Palin have the courage of their convictions to actually chart a course away from economic failure. I'm fairly certain Mitt Romney and Huntsman don't. The rest I reserve judgment on, but I'll be watching.
For some time now, Obama has trailed a generic Republican opponent in likely voter polls. Next year, that is probably what the GOP needs: a generic Republican. The Democrats will try to distract voters’ attention from Obama’s record by making the race about his Republican opponent. As a result, we are in for the dirtiest campaign ever, and the Republicans need a candidate without unnecessary loose ends and eccentricities.
I respect Mr. Hinderacker's opinions immensely. Power Line is one of my must-read blogs. However, I can't agree with him on this.
No doubt he is correct, a "generic Republican" will be the easiest to get elected.
But I think this is short-sighted thinking. The goal isn't winning the election. The goal is changing the direction of the Federal government.
It's easy to forget, after 8 years of Bush Derangement Syndrome and more than two years of Obama blaming all his failures on the mess Bush left him, that Bush was a generic Republican. That's what "compassionate conservative" was.
And it wasn't just a campaign slogan. That's how Bush governed. No Child Left Behind was a bipartisan effort between him and Ted Kennedy. The Medicare Drug Prescription benefit was the biggest entitlement increase (at the time) since Lyndon Johnson. He signed McCain-Feingold. He championed combatting the spread of AIDS in Africa -- there was a reason why Bono was so friendly to him.
If Bush had just been a Democrat, he would have been hero to them.
As a conservative he was a disappointment, domestically, despite the man's many admirable qualities. (And he has many, many admirable qualities. I believe he is an honest, forthright, caring man who did his very best, in his view, to promote the well-being, not only of Americans, but people around the world -- I just disagree with how he went about it in come cases).
If we put another generic Republican in office, we'll get another four or eight years of frustration, disappointment and half measures. As with Bush, we may be sliding down the path to hell a bit slower than under Obama, but that's just not good enough.
Even if we lose this election. The people have to be able to say "This candidate would have made a real difference." I believe Ron Paul and maybe Sarah Palin have the courage of their convictions to actually chart a course away from economic failure. I'm fairly certain Mitt Romney and Huntsman don't. The rest I reserve judgment on, but I'll be watching.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Unlikable protagonists
Sometimes it seems like Hollywood goes out of its way to make its protagonists unlikable right off the bat.
Take "Going the Distance" which I just started watching right now.
Our first encounter with the heroine, played by Drew Barrymore. She's sitting in the editor's office at the newspaper where she's an intern watching the editor drown her story in red magic marker corrections. He tells her "good reporting, it needs to be completely restructured, and running through a spell checker couldn't hurt. 'Munincipal Court? I don't think I know where that is."
OK, set aside the fact that this is what copy editors do all day. It's their job -- a lot of stories filed in a hurry for daily deadlines have spelling errors and perhaps sub-optimal structure. Producing a story for the morning paper is a team effort.
Set all that aside (again, please), she leaves the editor's office and her friend asks "Where are you going?"
"I'm 31. I'm an intern. I'm going to get wasted."
OK, you have now caused me to despise your main character. Thanks. Hmm, just because your boss doesn't shower you with praise, you're going to go get wasted? Don't suppose that could have anything to do with why you're 31 and an intern, could it hon? Nahhh. Wouldn't be any point in sitting down and ... ohhh ... maybe doing that restructuring your boss recommended.
In one vignette, I've learned that the character is an irresponsible loser and I don't care if she gets hit by a truck in the next scene. Doesn't bode well for the rest of the movie.
Our hero's opening scene is similarly uninspiring. He's a kind of a thick doofus who won't commit, but who can blame him because his shrill girlfriend is the type who likes to play the "when I say I don't want you to get me a birthday present, it means I want you to get me a really great birthday present" game. As an older guy, I have to say, the guy is better off without her. Imagine that kind of mind game. The. Rest. Of. Your. Life.
Thanks for hauling me right into the story, Hollywood. Shallow bland, loser main characters. Mmm, way to make me want to keep watching.
Take "Going the Distance" which I just started watching right now.
Our first encounter with the heroine, played by Drew Barrymore. She's sitting in the editor's office at the newspaper where she's an intern watching the editor drown her story in red magic marker corrections. He tells her "good reporting, it needs to be completely restructured, and running through a spell checker couldn't hurt. 'Munincipal Court? I don't think I know where that is."
OK, set aside the fact that this is what copy editors do all day. It's their job -- a lot of stories filed in a hurry for daily deadlines have spelling errors and perhaps sub-optimal structure. Producing a story for the morning paper is a team effort.
Set all that aside (again, please), she leaves the editor's office and her friend asks "Where are you going?"
"I'm 31. I'm an intern. I'm going to get wasted."
OK, you have now caused me to despise your main character. Thanks. Hmm, just because your boss doesn't shower you with praise, you're going to go get wasted? Don't suppose that could have anything to do with why you're 31 and an intern, could it hon? Nahhh. Wouldn't be any point in sitting down and ... ohhh ... maybe doing that restructuring your boss recommended.
In one vignette, I've learned that the character is an irresponsible loser and I don't care if she gets hit by a truck in the next scene. Doesn't bode well for the rest of the movie.
Our hero's opening scene is similarly uninspiring. He's a kind of a thick doofus who won't commit, but who can blame him because his shrill girlfriend is the type who likes to play the "when I say I don't want you to get me a birthday present, it means I want you to get me a really great birthday present" game. As an older guy, I have to say, the guy is better off without her. Imagine that kind of mind game. The. Rest. Of. Your. Life.
Thanks for hauling me right into the story, Hollywood. Shallow bland, loser main characters. Mmm, way to make me want to keep watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)