I don't know anyone who works at the Fountain Place tower in downtown Dallas. Least I don't think I do. Thankfully, I'm not sitting here today sifting through a long list of names of those killed by a terrorist's bomb this week, looking for ones I know.
But I will be soon. So will you.
The 9/11 Commission came to the correct conclusion years ago that terrorists, namely Al Qaeda, had been at war with us for some time but that we simply had not been at war with them.
They still are. But are we?
Oh, we're aware. To be sure, the FBI and CIA are.
I've lost count of the number of plots uncovered and squelched over the last eight years. But there have been six disrupted very recently. One in Philadelphia. Another in New York. One in Springfield, Ill. One in Denver. One in Quantico, Va.
And one right here in Dallas.
I just don't think we, as in you and me, are all that concerned. Why this doesn't scare the living crap out of everybody is mind-boggling.
This would-be Dallas bomber wasn't just a talker. He wasn't trying to hatch a plan.
He actually parked a truck loaded full of explosives in the Fountain Place building's underground parking garage, then moved to a secure location and attempted to detonate the bomb.
Fortunately, his bomb was a fake, provided to him by undercover FBI agents posing as an Al Qaeda cell.
"Scary" and "unnerving" are terms I've seen and heard used by people today.
Sorry, but I have to imagine that if that had happened several blocks away, in my building, I'd be a bit more than "unnerved."
No, the bomb didn't go off. No, there aren't several hundred funerals in the planning stages this weekend. So why the fuss, right?
How many more Hosam Maher Husein Smadis are there?
This guy was an illegal alien living down in tiny Italy, Texas. He was arrested 13 days before his attempt at "jihad" (aka mass murder) for having no driver's license and no insurance, yet was released the same day.
Did anyone ask if he was here legally? Did anyone check?
Probably not, because we certainly don't want to infringe on anyone's imagined "rights" by enforcing our laws.
Will the question be asked how he arrived in the U.S. two years ago? It wouldn't surprise me if he crossed the Mexican border.
Next to stories Friday about Smadi was one detailing our government's plan to cut border control agents along the Mexican border despite the fact that in the last year, agents have intercepted 530 aliens from "special interest" countries (those identified as countries that pose a terrorist threat), including three persons linked directly to terrorism.
You see, despite what far too many people want to think and say, illegals are not solely a bunch of harmless little fuzzy creatures simply seeking a better life.
And given the percentage of our border that remains unsecured, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, I'd say the probability that many, many more Smadis have snuck through is rather high.
And if that's so?
An IRA terrorist once told a British official, "I only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky every day."
We got lucky here this week, as did folks in five other cities. But what about tomorrow? Next week?
A friend asked me the other day, "What do you suggest we do? Live in paranoid fear? Never leave our houses?"
Not at all.
But a large number of people need to wake up to reality. This world is teeming with fanatics who want nothing more than to kill us. All of us. Conservatives and liberals. Black and white. Rich and poor.
And we seem hell-bent on making the job far easier than it should be, whether by supporting policies that make no sense or simply refusing to give a damn.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Six months of Obama
I stumbled upon this middle of last week and have read it several times. Much of the stuff cited has become fairly common knowledge (at least to those who "listen" outside the mainstream media, which rarely, if ever, talks about any of it); some of the other facts, figures, etc., I've checked.
Like I said, much of this has been said and/or reported over the last six months. Strung all together like this, though, provokes a fair amount of amazement at what's transpired since January.
Bob Oster is on the Board of Overseers at the Hoover Institution and was CFO of Oracle when it went public, then served as CFO of Syntex. He holds a PhD in economics from Berkeley. One of his CEO friends wrote this:
My 6-Month Evaluation of the Obama Presidency
In November 2008, I wrote out my evaluation of the Obama candidacy and what it might mean to America. I filed this away, but sent it to family members and a few close friends and associates just so I’d be accountable for my real time observations. It’s now been 6 months since Obama’s inauguration. (In the business world, this is typically when a first job review would occur; so, I made a note to myself to revisit his performance on the 6-month anniversary.) Thus, I now commit to filing my mid-year evaluation of our new President. As well, I’ve put in the file (but not forwarded to anyone) a separate "background check" — the one the press should’ve done on the Obama candidacy prior to presenting him to the American public — in case this is ever of relevance as things unfold.
As concerned as I was by Obama’s candidacy when I wrote out my November pre-election reservations, truth be known, I didn’t much like McCain/Palin either. At the time, I still had hopes that Obama might “govern from the center.” Six months into it, however, I can say that he’s been considerably worse than my worst fears. Thus, I’m updating my evaluation — this time with the fervent hope that by year-end I can be genuinely more optimistic.
I’ve concluded that not only was Barack Obama too inexperienced to be President, but he also appears to be incompetent as an executive, more-than-just-politician-level-dishonest and a bit of a narcissist (if not a fascist). He seems to have little understanding of American history, her dreams, or her tremendous potential for risk-taking, self-correction and innovation. He and Michelle have turned out to be quintessential Ivy League “Oppression Studies majors” with (carefully concealed) “attitudes.” Obama seems, above all, to be a Community Organizer with shakedown credentials and extraordinary speaking ability. All of this should have been clear, had we simply done serious background checks.
The following 4 items, at least, should have been clear to voters:
1. His surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist.
2. Barack served as a committed trainer for Community Activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky.
3. He sat for nearly two decades at the feet of Jeremiah Wright, an angry, anti-American “Black Liberation Theologist”.
4. His first autobiography, Dreams From My Father, was almost certainly ghost-written by William Ayers, a Vietnam-era domestic terrorist. [This last assertion has now been supported by careful analysis of syntax, spelling and common errors.)
If these unusual threads (standing alone) are discounted to the point of not being disqualifiers, those evaluating Barack Obama might have considered that he’d never A) held a job in the private sector, B) managed a payroll, C) led a turnaround or D) held any sort of executive position. But, none of this mattered in the fall of 2008.
After six months, I’m left wondering if power brokers on the Far Left of American politics aren’t pinching themselves at their success in creating a fictitious character the press ushered to market in a Bush-weary and "politically correct" America. In his second (!) autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, Obama recognizes the advantage of his tabula rasa “creation” when he writes, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
And, project we did! Thus, the former Barry Soetoro of Honolulu, Jakarta, Mombasa, Occidental, Columbia, Harvard and the mean streets of Chicago moved at light speed from being the first-term senator nobody had ever heard of to President of the United States. In the process, despite numerous efforts, no one has yet seen his birth certificate, his college transcripts, his application to Occidental (likely as a “foreign student”?), or the passport he used to travel in 1981 to Pakistan with buddy Wahid Hamid (likely an Indonesian one?). For some reason, the Obama campaign has, so far, has spent $750,000 keeping these records out of public view. So, it’s easy to wonder (if they supported Obama’s putative CV), why not make them available and put to rest all suspicions about provenance, training and politics?
My growing hunch is that there’s virtually no paper trail because the Obama biography has been created largely out of whole cloth. There, I’ve said what increasing numbers of people must be thinking, but are afraid to voice. But, whether or not Obama is more than a cleverly-marketed fiction, and whatever one thinks of his history, one thing is clear. He finally does have a record to evaluate. And, it’s not a confidence-inspiring one from my standpoint.
At best, Obama is an attractive symbol for America and a compelling communicator; but he’s
1. Not an executive. He’s shown an utter inability to focus, to set priorities and to consider second- and third-order or long-term consequences to his actions. Lack of focus on priorities is fatal as a CEO; (but, maybe less so for a political leader?)
2. Not a steward or fiduciary for America. Obama clearly does not see his primary job as one of overseeing the security and well-being of America during his tenure as its chief executive. He’s not only unwilling to stand up for America, but he also regularly seems to go out of his way to apologize for her history. This makes it apparent that he believes his most important job is to change America into what he and Michelle think it should have been had we not suffered the Founders’ flawed vision.
At worst, Obama’s aims seem truly radical (if stealth); his methods pure Alinsky; and his success derivative of obfuscating the truth, creating crises, and rushing changes into law that no one can possibly absorb under artificial deadlines — all aimed at limiting private property rights, changing the Constitution and forever altering our free market system?
For those who consider Obama’s training and background irrelevant, they can now evaluate him as a Commander-in-Chief and CEO from what he’s done over his first six months.
Among many other things, these evidences have come in the form of:
1. A $787 billion “stimulus” package (sold as preventing a “crisis from becoming catastrophe”).
2. The failure to focus on addressing the banking crisis as “Job One”.
3. The migration of TARP funds to non-banking concerns, viz., auto industry.
4. Announcing tax increases in the middle of a recession.
5. Failure to identify projects to fund job creation (Thus, <10% of stimulus yet spent).
6. Announcing that there would be “no pork” or “earmarks” in the “stimulus” package in order to get it passed without review when there were nearly 10,000 buried in the unread bill (including a $9 billion high-speed rail line to Las Vegas for Harry Reid).
7. Bailouts of the banking and auto industries.
8. The appointment of a 31-year-old to manage the recreation of the auto companies.
9. The exalting of union claims above those of bondholders (violating a 200+ year history of contract law/property rights).
10. The appointment of 34 unvetted “czars”, creating more than in the House of Romanov between 1762 and 1917!
11. The failure to appoint a Cabinet of tax-paying, competent Americans (reason for the move to the Czar system of administration?).
12. The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court despite an apparent lack of qualifications and judicial temperament.
13. The dark-of-night passage of “Cap and Trade” legislation (300-page-long addendum inserted at 3 a.m. the morning of the vote in the House).
14. The high-pressure tactics to rush through a budget-busting $1.6 trillion takeover of health care.
15. Phony “townhall” meetings with a fake cross-section of Americans selling Obamacare on ABC.
16. “Lying” about budget deficits — projecting 4% GDP growth by year-end.
17. “Lying” about job losses — projecting that if Congress would just ram through the “stimulus” that job losses could be halted at 8% (currently on their way to 10% and rising).
18. “Lying” about the costs of nationalized health care (just as when politicians projected Medicare’s cost in 1990 to be $3 billion, its actual cost turned out in 1990 to $98 billion — 30 times as much).
19. Pretending that new entitlement programs will provide lower costs, better care, no significant tax increases, more competition (as government joins the fray!?) and keeping current private options. Claiming “free” health care will make America more competitive is baffling. Everyone knows the above are lies; but no one seems ready to call them out.
20. Forcing the “stimulus” package on states to impinge on “States Rights”.
21. Failing to support the freedom-loving citizens in Honduras and Iran (and instead, giving comfort to their dictators) to say nothing of his ineffectiveness with North Korea and anti-Israeli pronouncements.
22. Allocating $4 billion of “stimulus” funds to ACORN, the voter fraud thugs.
23. Seeking to push through Union Card Check, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” and threats to take away Second Amendment rights (see Eric Holder), etc.
24. Moving the heretofore non-partisan census into the White House under the direction of Rahm Emanuel.
Whatever one thinks of the results, the process of getting to them should bother all Americans. In the Obama (Mayor Daley?) style of governing, it’s not clear that Congress — which can’t possibly process thoughtfully the blizzard of legislation — really serves any useful purpose other than to provide Politburo-style cover. Not only does Congress no longer debate legislation, but Obama has effectively circumvented its oversight of the executive branch by his appointment of czars.
In contrast to the direction Obama is taking us all, the Economist recently pointed out that 53% of all of the jobs created in the U.S. were created in one state last year: Texas (the most free market of all State economies and the “last best hope” [ha!] for secession?). Meanwhile, in California, as a perfect preview to “Obama’s America”, job losses are already well into double digits, the state faces a $25 billion budget deficit and is closing down services and considering bankruptcy. I cannot predict what will happen to Obama’s popularity, as people wake up to the size and intractability of the deficits he’s promoting, the unavailability of credit for small businesses, or the increased tax rates on energy and payrolls provoking a continuing loss of jobs as small businesses shed employees due to skyrocketing costs.
But, is bad economic news bad for Obama? Sadly, the answer, if one studies the Alinsky formula for bloodless revolution, is “Heck no!” Indeed, high unemployment is necessary for the Obama Redistribution Plan. According to Alinsky, only with high unemployment will people look to the government for help (and then become dependent), allowing government to gain control over the factors of productions. If one considers that the Alinsky manual might be Obama’s “playbook,” one can’t help but want to evaluate how closely it’s being followed.
Thus, in evaluating Obama’s performance, it’s probably worth noting (for the six-month record) the key elements of the Alinsky formula. Written in 1971 by Chicago Organizer, Saul Alinsky, under the title of Rules for Radicals, this manual for effective change became Young Barack Obama’s “bible.” David Alinsky, son the author, said of our new President: “Barack Obama patterned himself after the Saul Alinsky model in everything he has done since arriving in South Chicago.”
Alinsky clearly stated its purpose: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”
Note how closely Obama is following the rules for internal revolution, based on Alinsky’s specific instructions:
1. Pursue an “Ideology of Change” (Alinsky’s phrase for the most effective way to market revolution).
2. Target the banks that serve the steel, auto, and other industries.
3. Start class warfare. Fuel the anger of what Alinsky calls the “Have-Nots,” and the “Have-some-but-want-mores” against the “Haves.”
4. Use crises to create fear.
5. Use pollution as a foil to grab power.
6. Set up “jobs programs” to make workers dependent on government.
7. Show supreme self-confidence.
8. Make communication skills your key weapon.
9. Use simple catch phrases and vague slogans ("Of the Common Welfare" [Nazi takeover of Germany], "Bread and Peace" [Bolshevik Revolution]). In this context, it’s not hard to imagine that "Change" and "The Audacity of Hope" will one day be seen as the battle cry for the Obama revolution.
10. Use deception. "In war, the end justifies almost any means."
11. Remain calm, appealing, likeable while inciting fear, conflict, defeat.
As these steps are being pursued, the press continues to refer to "the Republican recession," so Obama’s popularity remains high. Any who saw tapes of President Bush warning Congress (on two separate occasions) that the market was headed for disaster unless it instituted the very reforms Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh-poohed, may be surprised to see the level of “cover” the press is providing this revolution.
As bleak as things look for free markets, I have hope. Why? Just as Bernie Madoff learned that ponzi schemes eventually come to light — Barack Obama may soon learn that you “can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” It’s unclear to me how much and how long America will have to pay for its experiment with Obamunism — his fantasy “green jobs,” his new taxes, his junk science, his czars, his meddling in the auto and banking industries, his sure-to-be-disastrous Obamacare and the encouragement he’s giving to union bosses, dictators and tyrants the globe over, to say nothing of his "Peace-through-Weakness” foreign policy. But, at some point, reality will take over, as it always does. I just hope America will have its Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan ready to step into the breach when the time comes.
So far, the nervousness of Blue Dog Democrats and their ability to resist some of the wackier directives has been the only thing that has kept Obama from an outright failing grade, in my view. Perhaps, just as the Gingrich Congress rescued Bill Clinton, it may be these so-called Blue Dogs that rescue Obama. If not, it may be important for the survival of the union for government to be forever split between the parties.
Like I said, much of this has been said and/or reported over the last six months. Strung all together like this, though, provokes a fair amount of amazement at what's transpired since January.
Bob Oster is on the Board of Overseers at the Hoover Institution and was CFO of Oracle when it went public, then served as CFO of Syntex. He holds a PhD in economics from Berkeley. One of his CEO friends wrote this:
My 6-Month Evaluation of the Obama Presidency
In November 2008, I wrote out my evaluation of the Obama candidacy and what it might mean to America. I filed this away, but sent it to family members and a few close friends and associates just so I’d be accountable for my real time observations. It’s now been 6 months since Obama’s inauguration. (In the business world, this is typically when a first job review would occur; so, I made a note to myself to revisit his performance on the 6-month anniversary.) Thus, I now commit to filing my mid-year evaluation of our new President. As well, I’ve put in the file (but not forwarded to anyone) a separate "background check" — the one the press should’ve done on the Obama candidacy prior to presenting him to the American public — in case this is ever of relevance as things unfold.
As concerned as I was by Obama’s candidacy when I wrote out my November pre-election reservations, truth be known, I didn’t much like McCain/Palin either. At the time, I still had hopes that Obama might “govern from the center.” Six months into it, however, I can say that he’s been considerably worse than my worst fears. Thus, I’m updating my evaluation — this time with the fervent hope that by year-end I can be genuinely more optimistic.
I’ve concluded that not only was Barack Obama too inexperienced to be President, but he also appears to be incompetent as an executive, more-than-just-politician-level-dishonest and a bit of a narcissist (if not a fascist). He seems to have little understanding of American history, her dreams, or her tremendous potential for risk-taking, self-correction and innovation. He and Michelle have turned out to be quintessential Ivy League “Oppression Studies majors” with (carefully concealed) “attitudes.” Obama seems, above all, to be a Community Organizer with shakedown credentials and extraordinary speaking ability. All of this should have been clear, had we simply done serious background checks.
The following 4 items, at least, should have been clear to voters:
1. His surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist.
2. Barack served as a committed trainer for Community Activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky.
3. He sat for nearly two decades at the feet of Jeremiah Wright, an angry, anti-American “Black Liberation Theologist”.
4. His first autobiography, Dreams From My Father, was almost certainly ghost-written by William Ayers, a Vietnam-era domestic terrorist. [This last assertion has now been supported by careful analysis of syntax, spelling and common errors.)
If these unusual threads (standing alone) are discounted to the point of not being disqualifiers, those evaluating Barack Obama might have considered that he’d never A) held a job in the private sector, B) managed a payroll, C) led a turnaround or D) held any sort of executive position. But, none of this mattered in the fall of 2008.
After six months, I’m left wondering if power brokers on the Far Left of American politics aren’t pinching themselves at their success in creating a fictitious character the press ushered to market in a Bush-weary and "politically correct" America. In his second (!) autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, Obama recognizes the advantage of his tabula rasa “creation” when he writes, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
And, project we did! Thus, the former Barry Soetoro of Honolulu, Jakarta, Mombasa, Occidental, Columbia, Harvard and the mean streets of Chicago moved at light speed from being the first-term senator nobody had ever heard of to President of the United States. In the process, despite numerous efforts, no one has yet seen his birth certificate, his college transcripts, his application to Occidental (likely as a “foreign student”?), or the passport he used to travel in 1981 to Pakistan with buddy Wahid Hamid (likely an Indonesian one?). For some reason, the Obama campaign has, so far, has spent $750,000 keeping these records out of public view. So, it’s easy to wonder (if they supported Obama’s putative CV), why not make them available and put to rest all suspicions about provenance, training and politics?
My growing hunch is that there’s virtually no paper trail because the Obama biography has been created largely out of whole cloth. There, I’ve said what increasing numbers of people must be thinking, but are afraid to voice. But, whether or not Obama is more than a cleverly-marketed fiction, and whatever one thinks of his history, one thing is clear. He finally does have a record to evaluate. And, it’s not a confidence-inspiring one from my standpoint.
At best, Obama is an attractive symbol for America and a compelling communicator; but he’s
1. Not an executive. He’s shown an utter inability to focus, to set priorities and to consider second- and third-order or long-term consequences to his actions. Lack of focus on priorities is fatal as a CEO; (but, maybe less so for a political leader?)
2. Not a steward or fiduciary for America. Obama clearly does not see his primary job as one of overseeing the security and well-being of America during his tenure as its chief executive. He’s not only unwilling to stand up for America, but he also regularly seems to go out of his way to apologize for her history. This makes it apparent that he believes his most important job is to change America into what he and Michelle think it should have been had we not suffered the Founders’ flawed vision.
At worst, Obama’s aims seem truly radical (if stealth); his methods pure Alinsky; and his success derivative of obfuscating the truth, creating crises, and rushing changes into law that no one can possibly absorb under artificial deadlines — all aimed at limiting private property rights, changing the Constitution and forever altering our free market system?
For those who consider Obama’s training and background irrelevant, they can now evaluate him as a Commander-in-Chief and CEO from what he’s done over his first six months.
Among many other things, these evidences have come in the form of:
1. A $787 billion “stimulus” package (sold as preventing a “crisis from becoming catastrophe”).
2. The failure to focus on addressing the banking crisis as “Job One”.
3. The migration of TARP funds to non-banking concerns, viz., auto industry.
4. Announcing tax increases in the middle of a recession.
5. Failure to identify projects to fund job creation (Thus, <10% of stimulus yet spent).
6. Announcing that there would be “no pork” or “earmarks” in the “stimulus” package in order to get it passed without review when there were nearly 10,000 buried in the unread bill (including a $9 billion high-speed rail line to Las Vegas for Harry Reid).
7. Bailouts of the banking and auto industries.
8. The appointment of a 31-year-old to manage the recreation of the auto companies.
9. The exalting of union claims above those of bondholders (violating a 200+ year history of contract law/property rights).
10. The appointment of 34 unvetted “czars”, creating more than in the House of Romanov between 1762 and 1917!
11. The failure to appoint a Cabinet of tax-paying, competent Americans (reason for the move to the Czar system of administration?).
12. The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court despite an apparent lack of qualifications and judicial temperament.
13. The dark-of-night passage of “Cap and Trade” legislation (300-page-long addendum inserted at 3 a.m. the morning of the vote in the House).
14. The high-pressure tactics to rush through a budget-busting $1.6 trillion takeover of health care.
15. Phony “townhall” meetings with a fake cross-section of Americans selling Obamacare on ABC.
16. “Lying” about budget deficits — projecting 4% GDP growth by year-end.
17. “Lying” about job losses — projecting that if Congress would just ram through the “stimulus” that job losses could be halted at 8% (currently on their way to 10% and rising).
18. “Lying” about the costs of nationalized health care (just as when politicians projected Medicare’s cost in 1990 to be $3 billion, its actual cost turned out in 1990 to $98 billion — 30 times as much).
19. Pretending that new entitlement programs will provide lower costs, better care, no significant tax increases, more competition (as government joins the fray!?) and keeping current private options. Claiming “free” health care will make America more competitive is baffling. Everyone knows the above are lies; but no one seems ready to call them out.
20. Forcing the “stimulus” package on states to impinge on “States Rights”.
21. Failing to support the freedom-loving citizens in Honduras and Iran (and instead, giving comfort to their dictators) to say nothing of his ineffectiveness with North Korea and anti-Israeli pronouncements.
22. Allocating $4 billion of “stimulus” funds to ACORN, the voter fraud thugs.
23. Seeking to push through Union Card Check, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” and threats to take away Second Amendment rights (see Eric Holder), etc.
24. Moving the heretofore non-partisan census into the White House under the direction of Rahm Emanuel.
Whatever one thinks of the results, the process of getting to them should bother all Americans. In the Obama (Mayor Daley?) style of governing, it’s not clear that Congress — which can’t possibly process thoughtfully the blizzard of legislation — really serves any useful purpose other than to provide Politburo-style cover. Not only does Congress no longer debate legislation, but Obama has effectively circumvented its oversight of the executive branch by his appointment of czars.
In contrast to the direction Obama is taking us all, the Economist recently pointed out that 53% of all of the jobs created in the U.S. were created in one state last year: Texas (the most free market of all State economies and the “last best hope” [ha!] for secession?). Meanwhile, in California, as a perfect preview to “Obama’s America”, job losses are already well into double digits, the state faces a $25 billion budget deficit and is closing down services and considering bankruptcy. I cannot predict what will happen to Obama’s popularity, as people wake up to the size and intractability of the deficits he’s promoting, the unavailability of credit for small businesses, or the increased tax rates on energy and payrolls provoking a continuing loss of jobs as small businesses shed employees due to skyrocketing costs.
But, is bad economic news bad for Obama? Sadly, the answer, if one studies the Alinsky formula for bloodless revolution, is “Heck no!” Indeed, high unemployment is necessary for the Obama Redistribution Plan. According to Alinsky, only with high unemployment will people look to the government for help (and then become dependent), allowing government to gain control over the factors of productions. If one considers that the Alinsky manual might be Obama’s “playbook,” one can’t help but want to evaluate how closely it’s being followed.
Thus, in evaluating Obama’s performance, it’s probably worth noting (for the six-month record) the key elements of the Alinsky formula. Written in 1971 by Chicago Organizer, Saul Alinsky, under the title of Rules for Radicals, this manual for effective change became Young Barack Obama’s “bible.” David Alinsky, son the author, said of our new President: “Barack Obama patterned himself after the Saul Alinsky model in everything he has done since arriving in South Chicago.”
Alinsky clearly stated its purpose: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”
Note how closely Obama is following the rules for internal revolution, based on Alinsky’s specific instructions:
1. Pursue an “Ideology of Change” (Alinsky’s phrase for the most effective way to market revolution).
2. Target the banks that serve the steel, auto, and other industries.
3. Start class warfare. Fuel the anger of what Alinsky calls the “Have-Nots,” and the “Have-some-but-want-mores” against the “Haves.”
4. Use crises to create fear.
5. Use pollution as a foil to grab power.
6. Set up “jobs programs” to make workers dependent on government.
7. Show supreme self-confidence.
8. Make communication skills your key weapon.
9. Use simple catch phrases and vague slogans ("Of the Common Welfare" [Nazi takeover of Germany], "Bread and Peace" [Bolshevik Revolution]). In this context, it’s not hard to imagine that "Change" and "The Audacity of Hope" will one day be seen as the battle cry for the Obama revolution.
10. Use deception. "In war, the end justifies almost any means."
11. Remain calm, appealing, likeable while inciting fear, conflict, defeat.
As these steps are being pursued, the press continues to refer to "the Republican recession," so Obama’s popularity remains high. Any who saw tapes of President Bush warning Congress (on two separate occasions) that the market was headed for disaster unless it instituted the very reforms Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh-poohed, may be surprised to see the level of “cover” the press is providing this revolution.
As bleak as things look for free markets, I have hope. Why? Just as Bernie Madoff learned that ponzi schemes eventually come to light — Barack Obama may soon learn that you “can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” It’s unclear to me how much and how long America will have to pay for its experiment with Obamunism — his fantasy “green jobs,” his new taxes, his junk science, his czars, his meddling in the auto and banking industries, his sure-to-be-disastrous Obamacare and the encouragement he’s giving to union bosses, dictators and tyrants the globe over, to say nothing of his "Peace-through-Weakness” foreign policy. But, at some point, reality will take over, as it always does. I just hope America will have its Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan ready to step into the breach when the time comes.
So far, the nervousness of Blue Dog Democrats and their ability to resist some of the wackier directives has been the only thing that has kept Obama from an outright failing grade, in my view. Perhaps, just as the Gingrich Congress rescued Bill Clinton, it may be these so-called Blue Dogs that rescue Obama. If not, it may be important for the survival of the union for government to be forever split between the parties.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
A goodbye
"Don't assume."
Isn't that what we were always told, be it by teachers, parents, bosses ... even friends? I know I heard it a bajillion times. Even on a number of occasions from a science teacher in high school, who spelled out the "ASS-U-ME" reasoning on the blackboard, which was cutting-edge, grab-their-attention stuff back then.
Well, I assumed. Quite a few in my group of friends did. No one was technically made an ass of in this case. No, this time, our assumptions ... MY assumption, anyway ... simply left a hole that will never be filled.
I'm not sure of our numbers. I've described our group over the years from a half-dozen to 20 or so. For me, it started with a couple of the guys I met back in the early 1990s, then grew to encompass several people they were close to and so on. A number of others joined over the years, although that's hardly a good description. I guess we "absorbed" them more than anything. Friendship came as natural as breathing to this bunch.
There was an inner circle of sorts, a number who had known one another since childhood, who shared a closeness on a little bit higher level. But make no mistake, we were all close. Several of us shared a roof at one time or another. We went on vacations together. We celebrated (boy, did we) birthdays, holidays, triumphs and even a falling or two.
More than anything, we celebrated friendship on a level I've known no other time in life.
There were fairly frequent parties when just about all of us were present. There were events, such as the Margarita Ball. And in between, we always knew that on just about any given night, we could walk into our little neighborhood bar and find one, two or 10 of the others.
I guess that made it easy to assume.
As time is wont to do, our gatherings slowly decreased in frequency. There was marriage or serious relationships, kids even. Some moved to the other side of town, one out of the country. Some just got busy with life, you could say.
We'd still see each other, bump into one or two at our bar or talk once in a while. There were a handful of get-togethers, when our hair again came down, we laughed tears at the memories, then shook hands or embraced, bidding farewell til the next time.
And we went on assuming there'd always be a next time.
Of course, there was. For all but one of us.
Most of the group just spent the better part of a week together. But this gathering culminated yesterday in our saying a final goodbye to one of the group, one of the inner-circle.
One of us.
A few had seen her the week before. For some, it had been much longer, and I know in my case, that made everything seem a little more difficult.
We laughed a lot in those seven days. Cried a lot, too. Kicked ourselves a little or a lot for our assumption that there'd always be a next time.
Some of us made a pact. Our next time needs to be sooner than later. The next time we all see each other again, we said a number of times in a number of different ways, can't again be for this reason.
I want to believe that's going to be the case, that we'll follow through and make the relatively little time and effort it will take.
Cause I assumed the last time we all gathered, several months ago, that when I said goodbye to Dina early that evening (and gave her grief for cutting out early), it wouldn't be the last time. I assumed I wouldn't find myself questioning why, in an entire summer, I hadn't taken the time or we hadn't taken the time ... or something.
I don't want to make that mistake again. I don't want any of us to.
Isn't that what we were always told, be it by teachers, parents, bosses ... even friends? I know I heard it a bajillion times. Even on a number of occasions from a science teacher in high school, who spelled out the "ASS-U-ME" reasoning on the blackboard, which was cutting-edge, grab-their-attention stuff back then.
Well, I assumed. Quite a few in my group of friends did. No one was technically made an ass of in this case. No, this time, our assumptions ... MY assumption, anyway ... simply left a hole that will never be filled.
I'm not sure of our numbers. I've described our group over the years from a half-dozen to 20 or so. For me, it started with a couple of the guys I met back in the early 1990s, then grew to encompass several people they were close to and so on. A number of others joined over the years, although that's hardly a good description. I guess we "absorbed" them more than anything. Friendship came as natural as breathing to this bunch.
There was an inner circle of sorts, a number who had known one another since childhood, who shared a closeness on a little bit higher level. But make no mistake, we were all close. Several of us shared a roof at one time or another. We went on vacations together. We celebrated (boy, did we) birthdays, holidays, triumphs and even a falling or two.
More than anything, we celebrated friendship on a level I've known no other time in life.
There were fairly frequent parties when just about all of us were present. There were events, such as the Margarita Ball. And in between, we always knew that on just about any given night, we could walk into our little neighborhood bar and find one, two or 10 of the others.
I guess that made it easy to assume.
As time is wont to do, our gatherings slowly decreased in frequency. There was marriage or serious relationships, kids even. Some moved to the other side of town, one out of the country. Some just got busy with life, you could say.
We'd still see each other, bump into one or two at our bar or talk once in a while. There were a handful of get-togethers, when our hair again came down, we laughed tears at the memories, then shook hands or embraced, bidding farewell til the next time.
And we went on assuming there'd always be a next time.
Of course, there was. For all but one of us.
Most of the group just spent the better part of a week together. But this gathering culminated yesterday in our saying a final goodbye to one of the group, one of the inner-circle.
One of us.
A few had seen her the week before. For some, it had been much longer, and I know in my case, that made everything seem a little more difficult.
We laughed a lot in those seven days. Cried a lot, too. Kicked ourselves a little or a lot for our assumption that there'd always be a next time.
Some of us made a pact. Our next time needs to be sooner than later. The next time we all see each other again, we said a number of times in a number of different ways, can't again be for this reason.
I want to believe that's going to be the case, that we'll follow through and make the relatively little time and effort it will take.
Cause I assumed the last time we all gathered, several months ago, that when I said goodbye to Dina early that evening (and gave her grief for cutting out early), it wouldn't be the last time. I assumed I wouldn't find myself questioning why, in an entire summer, I hadn't taken the time or we hadn't taken the time ... or something.
I don't want to make that mistake again. I don't want any of us to.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Auto vs. health insurance
One of the many problems conservatives have with the health care bill being debated is the government mandate that everyone have insurance.
Conservatives argue, rightly so, that is beyond government's intended reach.
So liberals came up with a "gotcha" question on this point. I've heard it a number of times, including last night at Joe Barton's town hall meeting.
I'm frankly surprised the answer apparently hasn't occurred to anyone who I've heard argue the point.
The question: "Since conservatives are so in favor of government-mandates for auto insurance, why do they have a problem with mandated health coverage?"
It's apples and oranges, people.
I understand 48 states have mandated auto insurance of some type. I'm not sure who requires what. But here in Texas, you must carry liability insurance, which covers damage to other people's property if you're at fault in an accident.
And no, I don't have a problem with that. You drive your car into the back of mine, you better have a way to pay for the damage.
Insuring your own personal health is a different matter entirely.
Conservatives argue, rightly so, that is beyond government's intended reach.
So liberals came up with a "gotcha" question on this point. I've heard it a number of times, including last night at Joe Barton's town hall meeting.
I'm frankly surprised the answer apparently hasn't occurred to anyone who I've heard argue the point.
The question: "Since conservatives are so in favor of government-mandates for auto insurance, why do they have a problem with mandated health coverage?"
It's apples and oranges, people.
I understand 48 states have mandated auto insurance of some type. I'm not sure who requires what. But here in Texas, you must carry liability insurance, which covers damage to other people's property if you're at fault in an accident.
And no, I don't have a problem with that. You drive your car into the back of mine, you better have a way to pay for the damage.
Insuring your own personal health is a different matter entirely.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Yes to Michael Vick
Let's get this right up front. I'm no fan of Michael Vick. Never was, in fact.
While I don't know the man personally, an awful lot I've seen and read about him and his brother over the years places the two fairly high on my Shitty Human Being Scale.
His involvement with a dog-fighting ring and what he did to those animals is nothing short of despicable and certainly only solidified my opinion of him.
But should he be allowed to play in the NFL again?
Yes he should.
I understand the level of disgust and disdain expressed by dog-lovers and, more specifically, lovers of Pit Bulls. I just think their venom should not be directed at the NFL as much as it should be at those responsible for the length of Vick's prison sentence.
Point is, he served the time prescribed by the justice system. He wasn't merely suspended from football for two years. He was suspended from life as an incarcerated prisoner.
He also lost a contract worth more than $100 million. His endorsements, worth tens of millions more, vanished ... more than likely for good. His earning power will never be the same.
He also faces extremely restrictive terms in his reinstatement to the NFL. He will be, for as long as he's remotely associated with the league, under its microscope, and he will face immediate and painful repercussions for sidesteps at which the league would barely scoff if it were most any other player.
I have not heard, for example, of any other player in any other league whose personal finances are an open book to league officials. But the NFL is going to know when Vick buys much more than a pack of gum.
To those who still say that's not enough, that he should never be allowed to play football again, I ask this: Should all people who are found guilty of a crime and pay their "debt to society" by serving a prison sentence also be told they can no longer work in their chosen field?
In very extreme cases, such as convicted pedophiles working as camp counselors for 6-year-olds, yeah, I'll go with you there.
But the most common argument I hear in Vick's case is that he shouldn't be allowed to play football because he's so prominently in the public eye as a role model for kids.
I say bullcrap. For one thing, society needs to get its act together on this subject and stop putting athletes on such a pedestal.
Yes, there are some very good role models in the NFL, in the NBA, in major league baseball. There also is a number equal to that, if not more, of some very bad actors. Trust me on that. I've worked with and among them for much of my adult life.
So at what point on the Shitty Human Being Scale do we say, "you can't be part of this league, because kids watch you"?
Society will cheer on Sundays this fall for guys who have been "punished" for their involvement with drugs. Should our kids be watching them? Others seem to be prone to beating up their wives or girlfriends. How about them? We spend an awful lot of time now demonizing drinking and driving. Any idea how many pro athletes have gotten popped for doing that? Certainly, we should kick them out, too.
And don't even get me started on the bad characters a lot of these players surround themselves with.
My bottom line? You get rid of the bad role models in most any sports league, you're going to wind up with an awfully small league, if one at all.
Is what Vick did detestable? Sure. Should he have been punished more severely? I won't argue that point.
But he paid his debt as ruled in a court of law. And he'll continue to pay.
But now he'll also again play. Rightfully so.
While I don't know the man personally, an awful lot I've seen and read about him and his brother over the years places the two fairly high on my Shitty Human Being Scale.
His involvement with a dog-fighting ring and what he did to those animals is nothing short of despicable and certainly only solidified my opinion of him.
But should he be allowed to play in the NFL again?
Yes he should.
I understand the level of disgust and disdain expressed by dog-lovers and, more specifically, lovers of Pit Bulls. I just think their venom should not be directed at the NFL as much as it should be at those responsible for the length of Vick's prison sentence.
Point is, he served the time prescribed by the justice system. He wasn't merely suspended from football for two years. He was suspended from life as an incarcerated prisoner.
He also lost a contract worth more than $100 million. His endorsements, worth tens of millions more, vanished ... more than likely for good. His earning power will never be the same.
He also faces extremely restrictive terms in his reinstatement to the NFL. He will be, for as long as he's remotely associated with the league, under its microscope, and he will face immediate and painful repercussions for sidesteps at which the league would barely scoff if it were most any other player.
I have not heard, for example, of any other player in any other league whose personal finances are an open book to league officials. But the NFL is going to know when Vick buys much more than a pack of gum.
To those who still say that's not enough, that he should never be allowed to play football again, I ask this: Should all people who are found guilty of a crime and pay their "debt to society" by serving a prison sentence also be told they can no longer work in their chosen field?
In very extreme cases, such as convicted pedophiles working as camp counselors for 6-year-olds, yeah, I'll go with you there.
But the most common argument I hear in Vick's case is that he shouldn't be allowed to play football because he's so prominently in the public eye as a role model for kids.
I say bullcrap. For one thing, society needs to get its act together on this subject and stop putting athletes on such a pedestal.
Yes, there are some very good role models in the NFL, in the NBA, in major league baseball. There also is a number equal to that, if not more, of some very bad actors. Trust me on that. I've worked with and among them for much of my adult life.
So at what point on the Shitty Human Being Scale do we say, "you can't be part of this league, because kids watch you"?
Society will cheer on Sundays this fall for guys who have been "punished" for their involvement with drugs. Should our kids be watching them? Others seem to be prone to beating up their wives or girlfriends. How about them? We spend an awful lot of time now demonizing drinking and driving. Any idea how many pro athletes have gotten popped for doing that? Certainly, we should kick them out, too.
And don't even get me started on the bad characters a lot of these players surround themselves with.
My bottom line? You get rid of the bad role models in most any sports league, you're going to wind up with an awfully small league, if one at all.
Is what Vick did detestable? Sure. Should he have been punished more severely? I won't argue that point.
But he paid his debt as ruled in a court of law. And he'll continue to pay.
But now he'll also again play. Rightfully so.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
They "get it" up north
Very telling commentary from the Canadian Free Press:
Obama’s White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, June 11, 2009
In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.
Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.
While the press is still chewing over Obama’s Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama’s endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America’s traditional allies. Those who aren’t being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.
While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, “Let’s put on a show.” Thus far Obama has put on “shows” across America, Europe and the Middle East. And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama’s shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment.
Neither alienating America’s traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America’s enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats fromNorth Korea and Iran. While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.
At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak -- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.
The European Union Parliament’s swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world’s richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama’s entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state’s rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.
That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.
Obama’s tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.
His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn’t just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama’s White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who’s too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.
Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor, trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American’s diplomatic reconstruction with Russia, or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.
Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public’s patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn’t play too well outside Detroit. And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.
With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren’t there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.
In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.
Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR -- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama’s White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.
Obama’s White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, June 11, 2009
In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.
Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.
While the press is still chewing over Obama’s Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama’s endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America’s traditional allies. Those who aren’t being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.
While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, “Let’s put on a show.” Thus far Obama has put on “shows” across America, Europe and the Middle East. And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama’s shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment.
Neither alienating America’s traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America’s enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats fromNorth Korea and Iran. While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.
At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak -- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.
The European Union Parliament’s swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world’s richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama’s entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state’s rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.
That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.
Obama’s tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.
His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn’t just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama’s White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who’s too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.
Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor, trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American’s diplomatic reconstruction with Russia, or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.
Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public’s patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn’t play too well outside Detroit. And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.
With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren’t there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.
In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.
Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR -- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama’s White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
More bad news on the job front
Of course, this is nothing new. It's been long reported (although not by the state-run media, of course) that all these "stimulus" jobs not only weren't going to be permanent, but that the many "green" jobs among them were going to come at a higher cost in terms of job losses.
So let's see ... Cap & Trade policies = higher energy costs for EVERYONE and fewer jobs for ANYONE. Oh yeah, and let's hurry and open those borders while we're at it, shall we? Maybe we can break The Great Depression's unemployment record in Obama's first term!
Now, that's change you can believe in.
From CNSNews.com:
Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.
President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package, which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.
But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:
"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.
“Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” said Obama while lobbying Congress, in January to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.”
“Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries,” said Obama. “There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America. … In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”
Included in the stimulus package, for example, was $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings.
According to the Calzada’s study, Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.
“No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources,” says the report. “The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”
But in the study’s introduction Calzada argues that the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.
“The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” says Calzada. “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made."
Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a free market group, told CNSNews.com that the study’s conclusions do not surprise him. He added that the United States should expect similar results with the stimulus money it spends on green initiatives.
“There is no reason to think things will be any different here,” Michaels said. “In the short run you have to ask who is doing the hiring, and in the long run how efficient is it to have people serving technology such as windmills. We are creating inefficiencies.”
Michaels also said he was not surprised by the study’s finding that only one out of 10 jobs were permanent.
“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Michaels. “When we see how imperfect wind energy is and how expensive it is to maintain -- I think many of those jobs will become impermanent here in the U.S. as well.”
Inquiries for comment to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for American Progress were not answered before this story went to press.
(Imported from April 14, 2009)
So let's see ... Cap & Trade policies = higher energy costs for EVERYONE and fewer jobs for ANYONE. Oh yeah, and let's hurry and open those borders while we're at it, shall we? Maybe we can break The Great Depression's unemployment record in Obama's first term!
Now, that's change you can believe in.
From CNSNews.com:
Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.
President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package, which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.
But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:
"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.
“Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” said Obama while lobbying Congress, in January to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.”
“Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries,” said Obama. “There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America. … In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”
Included in the stimulus package, for example, was $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings.
According to the Calzada’s study, Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.
“No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources,” says the report. “The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”
But in the study’s introduction Calzada argues that the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.
“The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” says Calzada. “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made."
Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a free market group, told CNSNews.com that the study’s conclusions do not surprise him. He added that the United States should expect similar results with the stimulus money it spends on green initiatives.
“There is no reason to think things will be any different here,” Michaels said. “In the short run you have to ask who is doing the hiring, and in the long run how efficient is it to have people serving technology such as windmills. We are creating inefficiencies.”
Michaels also said he was not surprised by the study’s finding that only one out of 10 jobs were permanent.
“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Michaels. “When we see how imperfect wind energy is and how expensive it is to maintain -- I think many of those jobs will become impermanent here in the U.S. as well.”
Inquiries for comment to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for American Progress were not answered before this story went to press.
(Imported from April 14, 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)