Sep 16 2008

History hasn’t ended: the next President had better have some idea how to deal with Iran: Bumped

Category: Iran,Islam,Israel,middle east,terrorismharmonicminer @ 11:59 pm

Bumped for Jerusalem Post update, link at bottom of post.

Only military action can stop Iran, experts tell European Jews – Haaretz – Israel News

The Iranian nuclear crisis may have crossed the point of no return while the threat of nuclear terrorism is on the rise, according to a panel of experts on proliferation. These somber assessments where voiced Monday during a seminar on nuclear capabilities hosted by the European Jewish Congress in Brussels.

“Only military action can stop Iran, or else Iran will acquire nuclear weapons to the great detriment of regional and even global stability,” the panel stated.

Continue reading “History hasn’t ended: the next President had better have some idea how to deal with Iran: Bumped”

Tags: , , ,


Sep 16 2008

Maybe I Just Don’t Get It

Category: economy,freedom,housingamuzikman @ 9:48 pm

I have had a home mortgage of some sort since 1980. In the 28 years since my first loan I have sold property and I have bought property. I have refinanced home loans more times than I can remember. I have made money in real estate and I have lost money (a lot of money), in real estate. I have had loans that were labeled as “creative financing”. (This formerly often-used term can be freely interpreted as “You-can’t-really-afford-it-but-we’ll-think-of-something financing”). I have taken risks with loans – betting (and hoping) that real estate values would continue to rise, knowing I would be in serious trouble if they did not. I have faced “balloon payments”. In short I have made decisions both good and bad and lived with the consequences of both. But never even once did I think it was someone else’s job to bail me out if I made what turned out to be a bad decision.

I have been to real estate sales offices, escrow company offices, and bank loan offices. But never even once did I witness a borrower forced at gunpoint to sign loan documents, or tortured until they signed a purchase agreement. In fact I have never seen anyone forced in any way to enter into any kind of financial agreement.

So here is my question: How in the world did we ever get to the point where we expect the government to step in and protect us from the consequences of bad decisions?

I’m sorry some people have lost their homes to foreclosure. I really am. Who knows, maybe it will happen to me. It happens every day in this country and has for many many years. People over-extend themselves, lose jobs, have unforeseen events changes their lives…and some are just deadbeats. Foreclosure is not new. So why does the government suddenly care about this? The answer lies in the unprecedented volume of foreclosures. OK I get that. But what do you say to someone who lost their home to foreclosure, say 10 years ago? “Gee, too bad there weren’t more of you at that time, then maybe we would have bailed you out too.”

Maybe I’m missing something here…

As an adult I understand that every decision I make carries consequences. It is a fact I have tried to instill in my kids as well. Understanding that is a part of growing up. But I make decisions knowing full well I will and should bear the consequences of those decisions – not my neighbor, not my co-workers, not my government – me!

I just don’t get it.

Tags: , ,


Sep 16 2008

Don’t get hot under the collar

Category: environment,global warmingharmonicminer @ 1:47 pm

Take that, eco-panic global warming fear mongers.

And if this isn’t enough for you, start here.

Tags: ,


Sep 16 2008

Defending Sarah Palin

Category: election 2008,McCain,media,Obama,Palin,politicsharmonicminer @ 9:21 am

The Bidinotto Blog has a nice summary of the failure of the mud-slinging by the Left at Sarah Palin.

A sure sign that the pro-Obama camp’s quiver has run out of arrows is that its partisans are desperately stooping to pick up mud.

It’s worth a read, and has links you can follow up, if you doubt the accuracy of his presentation.

Tags: , , ,


Sep 15 2008

The New York Times (Obama surrogates all) interviews 14% of Alaska: bumped for Powerline update below

Category: election 2008,media,Palinharmonicminer @ 4:21 pm

It would seem that the New York Times has discovered Sarah Palin is actually a politician.

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

This was the headline for the NYT article detailing all the investigative reporting done by the Obama campaign….er, I mean, the New York Times staff of professional reporters and researchers.

Since Palin has an 86% approval rating, and since the NYT seems not to have interviewed much of anyone who actually likes Palin, they must have just canvassed the 14%.

Continue reading “The New York Times (Obama surrogates all) interviews 14% of Alaska: bumped for Powerline update below”

Tags: , ,


Sep 15 2008

If only reporters understood economics

Category: economy,election 2008,McCain,media,Obama,Palin,politics,taxesharmonicminer @ 3:57 pm

Sarah Palin criticizes Obama’s tax plans, and the AP seems to think it has corrected her, by stating an irrelevant piece of data. (not to mention a largely wrong one)

Campaigning on her own, the Alaska governor also said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama “wants to raise income taxes and raise payroll taxes and raise investment income taxes and raise business taxes and raise the death tax.

“But John McCain and I know that’s not the way you grow the economy,” she added.

In fact, independent groups such as the Tax Policy Center have concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama’s proposal, which include higher income and payroll taxes only for the wealthiest wage-earners.

Note that Palin did not say that Obama was going to raise everyone‘s taxes.  But the AP responds with a “fact check” from the Tax Policy Center that implies she did.  Surely this is simple failure to understand plain English. 

Speaking of plain English, four out of five U.S. households cannot receive income tax cuts, because two out of five U.S. households pay no income tax at all.  The last time I looked, two plus four does not equal five, a fact that apparently escapes both the AP and the Tax Policy Center.  Giving “tax cuts” in the guise of “refunds” to people who would not pay tax anyway is not a tax cut, it’s welfare, plain and simple.  It’s old fashioned socialistic confiscation/redistribution.

Speaking of the “independent” Tax Policy Center, while it is not directly affiliated with either party, it is most assuredly Left leaning, and usually favors Democratic policies.  They are sometimes subtle about it (although not in this case, calling a give-away a “tax cut”), but they are not possessed of Olympian detachment.

It would be more impressive (as journalism goes) to match the perspective of the Tax Policy Center with one from the Club for Growth, or the CATO Institute.  Both of these are also “independent” and “nonpartisan”, but simply more likely to lean Right. 

You can form your own opinion about why the AP would not seek their input in interpreting Palin’s statements.  I have mine.

In the meantime, what Palin said, quite clearly, is that if all of Obama’s tax plans are carried out, regardless of whether low-tax payers and non-tax payers get a short term “tax cut”, the economy is far less likely to grow vigorously than under McCain’s plan.  That economic growth would provide much more benefit to low- and non-tax payers than a single short term check, whether “tax cut” or “welfare”.

Go back and read her quote.  The APs rejoinder, masked as input from an “independent” think tank, is completely irrelevant to the point.

Embarrassingly, the AP seems not to know that.

Tags: , , , , ,


Sep 15 2008

Why the Left is flummoxed by Sarah Palin

Category: election 2008,McCain,Obama,Palin,politicsharmonicminer @ 9:25 am

Essentially, the Left thought it had a “magic candidate” in Obama.  He would be beyond normal criticism.  He would be both person and symbol.  He would speak with such power and transcendence that normal considerations of logic and rhetorical connection would not apply.  His mystical relationship with the message of the future of mankind would resonate in each person of good will without having to be explained in detail.  We would all just know that he was “the one” to change everything.  Indeed, he seemed untouchable: though there were scandals and questionable relationships in his background, it seemed not to matter to the electorate, surely another sign that he was blessed.  What other presidential candidate could have gotten away with being friends with terrorists and America haters?  Surely it must have been because people could see through these surface things to the soul beyond, and were moved by its purity and grace.  (After all, Jesus associated with publicans and sinners, and elevated them by His presence.)  His meager background was almost a plus, proving his uniquity and special annointing.  He was untouchable.

And then came Sarah.  She was, in most ways, the exact opposite of Obama.  She spoke simply, and clearly.  She seemed to get away with just being herself (unlike Obama, she was the same on home video as on stage before tens of thousands).  She did not appear to self-consciously cultivate an image or presence: she simply was.  She did not seem to need a script.  Shooting from the hip (literally and figuratively) she was on target.  People simply responded to her.  And despite the best the a scandal mongering media could throw at her, she simply sailed above it all, and let her acolytes defend her.  There were pleny of acolytes.

Obama was supposed to be special.  He would not have to make sense according to the normal rules of logic and evidence, because to know him created a faith that transcended the merely rational.

Yet, here was Sarah, actually making sense, very simple, unassailable sense, artlessly appealing to the perceptions of the people as the outsider who was the real agent of change, the unknown, waiting in the wings, whose time had come.  She, too, was the symbol of longings held by many.

Suddenly, Obama was not the only transcendant figure in the race.  He knew how to fight people who merely used logic and facts.  He appealed to the higher sense of personhood in his listeners.  But what could he do against someone who had as much mystical magnetism as he did, and also made simple, logical sense?

It was a pretty problem.  Someone would have to be destroyed for the other to prevail.  And Obama was determined that it would not be him.  His minions would see to that.

There are plenty of minions, in and out of his campaign.

The contest rages, for now, but it is no longer one of rationality against spirituality, because now both can be found on one side.  And the real game changer was not Sarah Palin…  it was John McCain, who selected her as his running mate, proving a defter hand than anyone suspected at crafting his image and staying true to his own often stated values at the same time.  And McCain is showing something else: he doesn’t care that Sarah Palin polls higher than he does, because all that matters is success in the election so he can do the work that needs doing, with her help.

Tags: , ,


Sep 14 2008

How Taxes Work

Category: taxesharmonicminer @ 9:04 am

This is an oldy, one whose authorship is still in doubt, but whose truth is unquestionable.  It’s a classic, and if it doesn’t help you understand the nature of progressive taxation, nothing will.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,it would go something like this The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

Continue reading “How Taxes Work”

Tags:


Sep 13 2008

Foreign travel, foreign policy “experience” and judgment

Category: election 2008,Iraq,McCain,media,middle east,Obama,Palin,politics,White Househarmonicminer @ 11:19 pm

As usual, the Obama campaign is still playing catchup to Sarah Palin. Now the big question is whether she actually crossed the border into Iraq by a half-mile, or stayed at the border.   Obama camp suggests lies over Palin visit to Iraq – Yahoo! News

The question of whether Sarah Palin has ever been to Iraq pushed Obama aides Saturday to accuse the McCain campaign of outright lies, distortions and distractions to the American people.

Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped the Alaska governor to be his running mate on Aug. 29, questions about her experience have been fueled by her relatively brief tenure in office, as well as a dearth of foreign travel.

What matters isn’t how many countries she’s visited, or even how many heads of state she knows on a first name basis.  What matters is the judgment and values of the candidate.

When Russia invaded Georgia, Obama’s first response was to hope that both sides would exercise restraint, in a perfect-pitch-for-the-left rendition of moral equivalence, the natural born instinct of leftists everywhere.  That tells us what we need to know about Obama’s judgment and values.  Obama’s warm reception during his grand international P.R. tour doesn’t change who he is, a person who can’t quite define evil, and isn’t quite sure what we should do about it….  in his own nuanced way, of course.

I doubt an academic study can be found to demonstrate that shaking hands and chatting about inconsequentials with foreign leaders (the usual meaning of “getting to know them”) has produced better decisions than are reached by simply considering the facts at hand.  Roosevelt “met” with Stalin, and still gave away half of Europe.  Bush met with Putin and “saw into his soul”, and still didn’t understand, it would seem, what a fascist Putin would turn out to be.  Kennedy “met” with Kruschiev, and that resulted in the Cuban missile crisis when the Communist dictator decided that Kennedy could be rolled.

It’s decisions based on evidence that matter, not face time.  And tourism is not a pre-requisite for the Presidency or vice-Presidency, much as the Left might wish it was.

In the meantime, whether Palin made it 2500 feet into Iraq, or stayed at the border, matters not a whit.  The Obama campaign must really be spooked by this lady.  They should be…  she is something beyond their experience, a genuine person who simply says what she means.

OH, and the lead sentence to the quoted article is truly hilarious:  Imagine, the Obama campaign was “pushed” into calling the McCain campaign liars.  Gee…  you mean they just couldn’t help themselves?

Tags: , ,


Sep 13 2008

First, Do No Harm

Category: election 2008,Obama,politicsharmonicminer @ 8:54 am

Being a politician, and especially being President, has aspects in common with being a parent, and with being a physician.

Good parents, first and foremost, need to avoid damaging their children.  Maybe I have low standards for parenting.  But if you can raise a child to the age of 18 or so, and have helped them avoid doing damage to themselves (they aren’t substance abusers, high school dropouts, criminals, etc.), and if they know you love them, and they love you, you’ve probably won.  Sure, there are tons of nice things to try to do, but they depend at least as much on the nature of the child as on parenting magic.  The point: you are to raise the child, help where you can, not go against the fundamental nature of the child by trying to get things from them they can never do or simply hate (and you’ll have to be somewhat sensitive while discovering the child’s nature), and avoid messing the child up.  Everything else is gravy, and we all know how bad that is for your health, in excess.

There is a similar principle in medicine, sometimes attributed to Hippocrates, “First, do no harm.”  It means, generally, that if you can’t fix it, at least don’t make it worse, or create a new problem.  Medical doctors used to attach leeches to “bleed” patients to remove “ill humors” that were making them ill.  Of course, they were simply weakening their patients, in most cases.  Thalidomide babies of 1950s helped lead to the creation of the modern FDA drug approval process (which has created its own problems), another example of doctors causing harm while trying to do good.

What has this to do with politics?  It’s pretty simple: some problems are very complex, and are rooted in human nature and individual choice.  The attempt to use governmental power to “fix” them is likely to create new problems, frequently without making a serious dent in the old ones, and sometimes making the old ones worse.

So: beware of the politician who promises things that have never been, that sound too good to be true, that depend on very complex systems managed by governmental power and oversight, and that create incentives for individuals and organizations to behave in ways counter to the intent of the new program or policy.  Raise taxes on the rich, and they’ll change their behavior in ways that don’t lead to economic growth, and you’ll actually reduce tax receipts to the government.  Offer benefits to unwed mothers, and you’ll have more unwed mothers.  Fix prices at some “fair” level, and you’ll have shortages.  Provide “free” or “cost controlled” healthcare, and you’ll soon run out of healthcare services….  a special case of price fixing, in essence.  And so it goes.

I think it’s very likely that Obama plans huge, radical changes which will have unpredictable effects, not solve the problems he claims the changes are aimed at (or make them worse), and create new ones.  The article at the previous link makes it clear that the danger of Obama’s election is not that he won’t keep his promises; it’s that he will.  What else can you expect from someone whose ideological hero’s manifesto is titled Rules for Radicals?  And he is likely to appoint judges who have similar intentions, to make sure his radical changes are declared to be “constitutional”.

Tags: , ,


« Previous PageNext Page »