Andrew,
As a follow up to your post on Car Culture, it is probably worth noting (from http://www.eia.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html):
"Liquid fuel net imports (including both crude oil and refined products) fell from 57 percent of total U.S. consumption in 2008 to 49 percent in 2010 because of rising domestic production and the decline in consumption during the economic downturn. EIA forecasts that liquid fuel net imports' share of total consumption will decline further to 47 percent in 2011 before rising slightly to 48 percent in 2012."
In other words, our share of imported oil is going down as a result of less consumption (driving) as well as a slight increase in domestic production.
[I don't suppose you'll hear any Republicans mentioning that the share of liquid fuels made up of imports has dropped below 50% under Obama's watch? Didn't think so. :) ]
If there is one thing this recession is good for, it is wiping away, then keeping us from re-acquiring, our over-consumption in many areas.
Your pal,
Fred
Friday, August 19, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Social Security as Ponzi scheme
Andrew,
I agree with virtually all your readers in the batch of letters you published as pushback against the idea of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme (in fact, I made a similar point as the first writer in a comment on the Indiviglio site).
But your last reader, who tried to make the point about the safety of T-bills as investment vehicles, probably would not have tried to make that point if he (or she) had realized that the Trust Fund is *required* to be invested in T-bills. Yeah, it is safe, but there was no casting about for safe places to stash the cash and then deciding upon Treasuries.
The reader should instead have made the point that the reason the law says to invest the surplus in T-bills is that they are, indeed, safe there.
Your pal,
Fred
I agree with virtually all your readers in the batch of letters you published as pushback against the idea of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme (in fact, I made a similar point as the first writer in a comment on the Indiviglio site).
But your last reader, who tried to make the point about the safety of T-bills as investment vehicles, probably would not have tried to make that point if he (or she) had realized that the Trust Fund is *required* to be invested in T-bills. Yeah, it is safe, but there was no casting about for safe places to stash the cash and then deciding upon Treasuries.
The reader should instead have made the point that the reason the law says to invest the surplus in T-bills is that they are, indeed, safe there.
Your pal,
Fred
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Palin 2012
I complete agree with Larison on the question of Palin for 2012. But really, what is the GOP goal here? As much as there is some kind of overall goal they are shooting for, the presidency is *not* it. They know they have no chance to upset Obama in 2012 when he is in full campaign mode.
So their overall goal remains consistent: To soil the water of politics in order to present themselves as the only real alternative to those currently in power, starting with Congress. And toward that, Palin is a logical choice. If you have no chance of actually winning, why not run Palin up there to "speak truth to power" and tell America that "real Americans" are unhappy with the way things are being done? It is a win-win for the GOP--the media will happily (and freely) report everything Palin says and does with high definition coverage of "real Americans" trying to "take back" their country.
The GOP isn't about policy, governance, or leadership. It is about publicity.
Your pal,
Fred
So their overall goal remains consistent: To soil the water of politics in order to present themselves as the only real alternative to those currently in power, starting with Congress. And toward that, Palin is a logical choice. If you have no chance of actually winning, why not run Palin up there to "speak truth to power" and tell America that "real Americans" are unhappy with the way things are being done? It is a win-win for the GOP--the media will happily (and freely) report everything Palin says and does with high definition coverage of "real Americans" trying to "take back" their country.
The GOP isn't about policy, governance, or leadership. It is about publicity.
Your pal,
Fred
Thursday, May 27, 2010
DADT vote
Andrew:
I just wanted to point out one sentence from that NYT article on the committee vote for DADT:
"[Republicans] also questioned if the military leaders who would have to make the final decision would be able to resist pressure from the White House to lift the repeal. "
Sounds like someone keeps forgetting that Obama is the Commander in Chief.
Your pal,
Fred
I just wanted to point out one sentence from that NYT article on the committee vote for DADT:
"[Republicans] also questioned if the military leaders who would have to make the final decision would be able to resist pressure from the White House to lift the repeal. "
Sounds like someone keeps forgetting that Obama is the Commander in Chief.
Your pal,
Fred
Monday, March 15, 2010
On Glenn Beck
Andrew,
While I understand the point you are trying to make with regard to Beck (essentially, making a distinction between religious mandates and a welfare state), you are making a distinction Beck himself is not making.
One can argue whether a "socialist state" is the best way to deliver on the promise and mandate of social justice for the religious (of whatever persuasion). But one cannot argue that such a mandate is just cause for leaving a particular church.
Beck's ham-fistedness wasn't that he was talking about politics and wanted to ensure the religious were a part of his Rand-like vision. It was that he tried to separate the religious from their own beliefs.
Your pal,
Fred
While I understand the point you are trying to make with regard to Beck (essentially, making a distinction between religious mandates and a welfare state), you are making a distinction Beck himself is not making.
One can argue whether a "socialist state" is the best way to deliver on the promise and mandate of social justice for the religious (of whatever persuasion). But one cannot argue that such a mandate is just cause for leaving a particular church.
Beck's ham-fistedness wasn't that he was talking about politics and wanted to ensure the religious were a part of his Rand-like vision. It was that he tried to separate the religious from their own beliefs.
Your pal,
Fred
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
On leaving the GOP to fix it
Andrew,
Your eloquence about staying out of the GOP (most recently, in your reaction to Frum) is solid stuff. I only wish you would apply the same reasoning to your membership in the Catholic Church. The Church commits the same sins as the GOP but yet adds to it an ethical and moral authority just as damning to you.
Frum merely applies your "stay in the Church" reasoning to the GOP.
BTW, I'm a hetero white male, a moderate liberal, and a Catholic churchgoer as well. And I pray for you, Andrew, for all the misplaced hell you have to go through as you seek to follow your faith. And I pray that the Church will, within our lifetimes, live up to the faith you place in it.
Your pal,
Fred
Your eloquence about staying out of the GOP (most recently, in your reaction to Frum) is solid stuff. I only wish you would apply the same reasoning to your membership in the Catholic Church. The Church commits the same sins as the GOP but yet adds to it an ethical and moral authority just as damning to you.
Frum merely applies your "stay in the Church" reasoning to the GOP.
BTW, I'm a hetero white male, a moderate liberal, and a Catholic churchgoer as well. And I pray for you, Andrew, for all the misplaced hell you have to go through as you seek to follow your faith. And I pray that the Church will, within our lifetimes, live up to the faith you place in it.
Your pal,
Fred
Friday, November 20, 2009
Sarah Palin's book sales
Andrew,
As a published (and HarperCollins) author yourself, I'm surprised you would think that anyone has a clue right now about whether Palin's book will earn out her advance. Of course Harper is touting the sales and printing figures right now, but nearly all those books are going to bookstores. Are they being purchased by people--you bet. But *none* of those numbers include returns, which is why political books normally have sales drop offs like a rock off a cliff.
Whether the advance earns out of not (i.e., whether Harper turns a profit) depends upon whether sales continue to be positive before the end of the next royalty accounting period. In six months, in other words, will Harper be ordering more books from the printer, or will they be telling Borders to remainder those books in-place and offer credits of $20/book so they don't have to take back thousands of unsold copies of the book back in their Scranton warehouse? If Coulter and other recent political books are any indication, you betcha it'll be the latter.
The only two things we can be certain of at this point, is that Palin has made a boatload of money (she keeps that advance even if the book doesn't earn it out) and that Harper will be able to leverage the frontloaded sales of this book to roll the dice on future politi-celebrity books because their efforts make Harper more attractive to those authors.
Your pal,
Fred
As a published (and HarperCollins) author yourself, I'm surprised you would think that anyone has a clue right now about whether Palin's book will earn out her advance. Of course Harper is touting the sales and printing figures right now, but nearly all those books are going to bookstores. Are they being purchased by people--you bet. But *none* of those numbers include returns, which is why political books normally have sales drop offs like a rock off a cliff.
Whether the advance earns out of not (i.e., whether Harper turns a profit) depends upon whether sales continue to be positive before the end of the next royalty accounting period. In six months, in other words, will Harper be ordering more books from the printer, or will they be telling Borders to remainder those books in-place and offer credits of $20/book so they don't have to take back thousands of unsold copies of the book back in their Scranton warehouse? If Coulter and other recent political books are any indication, you betcha it'll be the latter.
The only two things we can be certain of at this point, is that Palin has made a boatload of money (she keeps that advance even if the book doesn't earn it out) and that Harper will be able to leverage the frontloaded sales of this book to roll the dice on future politi-celebrity books because their efforts make Harper more attractive to those authors.
Your pal,
Fred
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Diocese of Scranton, Ctd.
Andrew,
As a follow-up to your note about Rev. Edward Lyman from the Diocese of Scranton, I note that the Rev. Robert Timchak was in court today regarding charges he accessed child pornography, after the Diocese was tipped off about it through an anonymous letter:
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091104/NEWS/911049983
This is the same Diocese in which the former Bishop (Joseph Martino) resigned due to stress--probably due to his unceasing efforts against gay marriage (including telling a Catholic university it was failing in its Catholic identity by having a gay rights speaker on campus) as well as against Barack Obama's election:
http://www.wnep.com/wnep-speech-goes-on-dispite-bishops-disapproval,0,2547224.story
and
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14123
But hey--Joe Biden is from here!
Fred
As a follow-up to your note about Rev. Edward Lyman from the Diocese of Scranton, I note that the Rev. Robert Timchak was in court today regarding charges he accessed child pornography, after the Diocese was tipped off about it through an anonymous letter:
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091104/NEWS/911049983
This is the same Diocese in which the former Bishop (Joseph Martino) resigned due to stress--probably due to his unceasing efforts against gay marriage (including telling a Catholic university it was failing in its Catholic identity by having a gay rights speaker on campus) as well as against Barack Obama's election:
http://www.wnep.com/wnep-speech-goes-on-dispite-bishops-disapproval,0,2547224.story
and
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14123
But hey--Joe Biden is from here!
Fred
Saturday, October 24, 2009
For some nativists, America really was pretty much all white
Andrew,
Nice posting on the Pat Buchanan essay on race in America. One aspect of the "real" America push that I haven't seen discussed is that for many of these Buchananites their "real America" revolves around a heavier religious component than is currently the case. In fact, for a wide swath of those people, their religious activity *is* their reality.
But we can't talk about religion on America without at least discussing the fact, as Obama pointed out, that "Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America." If their future reality is, in fact, a wistful look back at past churchgoing, it should be no wonder that their memories are filled with almost all white people.
The fact that secular America is and always has been suffused with multiculturalism doesn't touch that reality.
Your pal,
Fred
Nice posting on the Pat Buchanan essay on race in America. One aspect of the "real" America push that I haven't seen discussed is that for many of these Buchananites their "real America" revolves around a heavier religious component than is currently the case. In fact, for a wide swath of those people, their religious activity *is* their reality.
But we can't talk about religion on America without at least discussing the fact, as Obama pointed out, that "Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America." If their future reality is, in fact, a wistful look back at past churchgoing, it should be no wonder that their memories are filled with almost all white people.
The fact that secular America is and always has been suffused with multiculturalism doesn't touch that reality.
Your pal,
Fred
Friday, April 17, 2009
Tea Party Apologist
Andrew,
You're probably getting a lot of email in response to the letter you reprinted from the tea party apologist, but here's my take on it, from a fiscal conservative.
Your letter your reader sent you is most notable for what it doesn't say. The reason that the tea partiers aren't taken very seriously is not that they aren't looking "backwards" but because they haven't even attempted to explain why they made no objection to the debt piled up during the Bush Administration and what has changed for them since the election on this issue.
I keep looking for a "we thought the debt was less important than the War on Terror but now we see we lost our focus" or "we believed Bush that the increased debt was managable over time but the economic downturn makes us more scared than ever" but there is nothing even close to that. They are cynical budget deficit flip-floppers, whose refusal to come to grips with good vs bad debt makes it appear that they believe all our economic problems should be laid at the feet of Obama.
Your letter writer is, indeed, looking forward. But while another 3 1/2 years of blaming Obama for every problem, real or imagined might be forward thinking in the temporal sense, it isn't in the connstructive sense.
Your pal,
Fred
You're probably getting a lot of email in response to the letter you reprinted from the tea party apologist, but here's my take on it, from a fiscal conservative.
Your letter your reader sent you is most notable for what it doesn't say. The reason that the tea partiers aren't taken very seriously is not that they aren't looking "backwards" but because they haven't even attempted to explain why they made no objection to the debt piled up during the Bush Administration and what has changed for them since the election on this issue.
I keep looking for a "we thought the debt was less important than the War on Terror but now we see we lost our focus" or "we believed Bush that the increased debt was managable over time but the economic downturn makes us more scared than ever" but there is nothing even close to that. They are cynical budget deficit flip-floppers, whose refusal to come to grips with good vs bad debt makes it appear that they believe all our economic problems should be laid at the feet of Obama.
Your letter writer is, indeed, looking forward. But while another 3 1/2 years of blaming Obama for every problem, real or imagined might be forward thinking in the temporal sense, it isn't in the connstructive sense.
Your pal,
Fred
Friday, March 20, 2009
blog purging, and AIG
Andrew,
Your recent purging of names from your blog roll brought to my mind a snarky response at first: "If those were AIG blogs, they'd be getting paid to stay in the Blog Love box."
But on second thought your action made me think that there is a better conservative response to the AIG bonuses: Why would any conservative want companies and employees to be locked into jobs that those employees aren't very good at? Isn't a conservative response to encourage job movement, so as to get people into jobs that they are good at? Like paying farmers not to grow food, saying that taxpayers need to pay to keep bad employees at AIG turns the free market on its head.
AIG (and their apologists) seem to be saying that the worst thing would be for those employees getting the bonuses to leave (presumably to competitors, though that's probably not true in the short term because of non-compete contracts and the crappy market for financial services workers anyway). I think giving financial services workers the opportunity to find work in other industries is probably the best thing, for them and us.
Fred
Your recent purging of names from your blog roll brought to my mind a snarky response at first: "If those were AIG blogs, they'd be getting paid to stay in the Blog Love box."
But on second thought your action made me think that there is a better conservative response to the AIG bonuses: Why would any conservative want companies and employees to be locked into jobs that those employees aren't very good at? Isn't a conservative response to encourage job movement, so as to get people into jobs that they are good at? Like paying farmers not to grow food, saying that taxpayers need to pay to keep bad employees at AIG turns the free market on its head.
AIG (and their apologists) seem to be saying that the worst thing would be for those employees getting the bonuses to leave (presumably to competitors, though that's probably not true in the short term because of non-compete contracts and the crappy market for financial services workers anyway). I think giving financial services workers the opportunity to find work in other industries is probably the best thing, for them and us.
Fred
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
View from Your Church
Andrew,
Your letter writer is dead on when asking "where is the grace?" when it comes to the Catholic Church.
But grace comes from the Holy Spirit. And a Church which is infallible in "core" areas doesn't need the Holy Spirit anymore, do they?
Grace doesn't come from obedience. But power does. I suspect Pope Benedict understands the latter quite well, and has a well crafted agreement about the former.
Fred
Your letter writer is dead on when asking "where is the grace?" when it comes to the Catholic Church.
But grace comes from the Holy Spirit. And a Church which is infallible in "core" areas doesn't need the Holy Spirit anymore, do they?
Grace doesn't come from obedience. But power does. I suspect Pope Benedict understands the latter quite well, and has a well crafted agreement about the former.
Fred
Friday, February 27, 2009
McCain's Inherent Ill-Temper
Andrew
Linking a transcript provided by The Plank of an exchenge between President Obama and Senator McCain, you referred to "McCain's inherent ill-temper". I don't believe this characterization was fair - and I don't believe it's one you would have made if you'd seen the video of McCain making his comment. Here it is, at HuffPo.
I agree that a read of the transcript leaves McCain sounding combative. But when you watch the video it's apparent his tone is far more agreeable than one gathers from simply reading his words.
Joe Kinlan
Linking a transcript provided by The Plank of an exchenge between President Obama and Senator McCain, you referred to "McCain's inherent ill-temper". I don't believe this characterization was fair - and I don't believe it's one you would have made if you'd seen the video of McCain making his comment. Here it is, at HuffPo.
I agree that a read of the transcript leaves McCain sounding combative. But when you watch the video it's apparent his tone is far more agreeable than one gathers from simply reading his words.
Joe Kinlan
Jindal & Kenneth the Page, GOP reactions
Andrew,
Regarding Althouse, et al, we have to keep in mind that one of the main reasons that Jindal was chosen to give the GOP response to the speech is precisely because of his skin color. Therefore, any negativity he faces from critics must, by definition, be because of his color.
The GOP is being too cute, by half, here. And like a lot of their recent political decisions, the American people are by and large beyond them.
Fred
Regarding Althouse, et al, we have to keep in mind that one of the main reasons that Jindal was chosen to give the GOP response to the speech is precisely because of his skin color. Therefore, any negativity he faces from critics must, by definition, be because of his color.
The GOP is being too cute, by half, here. And like a lot of their recent political decisions, the American people are by and large beyond them.
Fred
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Gregg to run Commerce
Obama picks Judd Gregg (R-NH) for Commerce Sect.
The NH governor agreed to select a Republican to replace him in the Senate, which cleared the way for him to go to Commerce.
A win-win, I think.
The NH governor agreed to select a Republican to replace him in the Senate, which cleared the way for him to go to Commerce.
A win-win, I think.
On Daschle's tax problems
Andrew,
You're right that Daschle's tax problems should be less of a problem than Geithner's problems, but that isn't why Daschle should be dropped. He should be dropped because he knew of the problem and tried to hide it from the Obama team.
In other words, Daschle should be dropped because he fails the transparancy test, a test failure neither Packer not the NY Times even mention.
Your pal,
Fred
You're right that Daschle's tax problems should be less of a problem than Geithner's problems, but that isn't why Daschle should be dropped. He should be dropped because he knew of the problem and tried to hide it from the Obama team.
In other words, Daschle should be dropped because he fails the transparancy test, a test failure neither Packer not the NY Times even mention.
Your pal,
Fred
Thursday, January 22, 2009
David Horowitz on the inauguration
Andrew,
I don't think I've ever agreed with David Horowitz on anything, and I went into his column on the inauguration expecting the same "we hope America suffers" crap that we hear from Rush and the Patriot Room nowadays.
But this is actually a good column. Take a read:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=168D778B-BB43-4090-BBD1-515F0B003F7B
Your pal,
Fred
I don't think I've ever agreed with David Horowitz on anything, and I went into his column on the inauguration expecting the same "we hope America suffers" crap that we hear from Rush and the Patriot Room nowadays.
But this is actually a good column. Take a read:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=168D778B-BB43-4090-BBD1-515F0B003F7B
Your pal,
Fred
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
That Panetta pick
Andrew,
I agree with you on the Panetta pick, and simply don't see Josh Marshall's point that the pick is "the first story of 2009 that's a real story rather than mere theater or ephemeral drama."
It simply isn't true that this issue has any meat at all. We're seeing the pique of DiFi who wasn't consulted over the selection and no more. But isn't this the same person who rolled over, along with the rest of her party, on the many questions of torture, expansion of power, Gitmo's closure, and so on? Sure, she wanted the Army Field Manual to be used as the basis for conducting interviews, but (as usual), the Dems folded on nearly every question of any significance on the point over years.
And the problems with the CIA aren't mechanical ones, they are political ones. Just as we probably don't want to have a line assembly worker running General Electric, we don't need to have a spook running the CIA, when the problem isn't that the Executive Branch doesn't know enough about the CIA but that there isn't enough distance between them.
Your pal,
Fred
I agree with you on the Panetta pick, and simply don't see Josh Marshall's point that the pick is "the first story of 2009 that's a real story rather than mere theater or ephemeral drama."
It simply isn't true that this issue has any meat at all. We're seeing the pique of DiFi who wasn't consulted over the selection and no more. But isn't this the same person who rolled over, along with the rest of her party, on the many questions of torture, expansion of power, Gitmo's closure, and so on? Sure, she wanted the Army Field Manual to be used as the basis for conducting interviews, but (as usual), the Dems folded on nearly every question of any significance on the point over years.
And the problems with the CIA aren't mechanical ones, they are political ones. Just as we probably don't want to have a line assembly worker running General Electric, we don't need to have a spook running the CIA, when the problem isn't that the Executive Branch doesn't know enough about the CIA but that there isn't enough distance between them.
Your pal,
Fred
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Benedict and Warren
Andrew,
Great post on Benedict and gays. I've long been disturbed by this man's pathological drive against gays. And while the Church has placed itself as heavenly-grounded, the history of the church is an attempt to institutionize God's love through the lens of then-current social bias.
We're in a bit of a double bind with this pope, who has no trouble using the hammer of his membership in our implied ethical betters with the anvil of infallibility to make social bias unassailable Church doctrine. Putting aside the question of whether the Pope can, in fact, make infallible statements (that is, statements that we need not reflect upon with the Holy Spirit), there seems no doubt that Benedict is the George Bush of the Catholic Church. Entirely certain of himself, answerable to no one, and dead wrong in some very key areas.
A better dresser, however...
Fred
Great post on Benedict and gays. I've long been disturbed by this man's pathological drive against gays. And while the Church has placed itself as heavenly-grounded, the history of the church is an attempt to institutionize God's love through the lens of then-current social bias.
We're in a bit of a double bind with this pope, who has no trouble using the hammer of his membership in our implied ethical betters with the anvil of infallibility to make social bias unassailable Church doctrine. Putting aside the question of whether the Pope can, in fact, make infallible statements (that is, statements that we need not reflect upon with the Holy Spirit), there seems no doubt that Benedict is the George Bush of the Catholic Church. Entirely certain of himself, answerable to no one, and dead wrong in some very key areas.
A better dresser, however...
Fred
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)