Tuesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Waiting for God’s justice.
  2. What the Left won’t admit, “It is becoming increasingly clear that Obama’s proposed policies go well beyond what we might need just to respond to the economic crisis; he’s making a bid for great changes in national policy.”
  3. On the “hoping he’ll fail” meme
  4. For those who claim the Pope is “out of touch” … a comparison
  5. As one who thinks that there should be a Constitutional barrier preventing the government to provide insurance (because politicians ignore actuarial data to get votes) … perhaps they should get out of the loan business too for much the same reason.
  6. Housing bubble.
  7. Payroll spending.
  8. Boing.
  9. Wall street, global warming science, likely just a few of many casualties of “over-reliance” on computer modeling.
  10. A question.
  11. Reading in Job for Lent.
  12. A problem with captalism, the productive and competent people are all busy doing things leaving government to the ninnyhammers.
  13. Global warming taking a nap?
  14. Theodicy.
  15. Fasting from idle talk and a few other things.
  16. Sudan.
  17. Markets and the Ukraine.
  18. Coffee and the endurance athlete.
  19. Math links.
  20. Now and then, a quote.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

12 comments

  1. “It is becoming increasingly clear that Obama’s proposed policies go well beyond what we might need just to respond to the economic crisis; he’s making a bid for great changes in national policy.”

    Which policies? My big concern is that the stimulus is too small. It’s certainly not “increasingly clear” to me that his policies go well BEYOND what we might need.

    On the “hoping he’ll fail” meme.

    You have such a double standard. You argued on this blog that Obama and the Democrats hoped we fail in Iraq simply on the basis that it would be good for them politically. Now you don’t like when the left argues the right wants us to fail economically because it would benefit them? (Oh, and because Limbaugh actually said that?)

    For those who claim the Pope is “out of touch” … a comparison.

    That’s the dumbest comparison I’ve ever seen. Obama is “out of touch” because some of his nominees have tax issues? Who does that make him “out of touch” with? The IRS?

    A problem with captalism, the productive and competent people are all busy doing things leaving government to the ninnyhammers.

    That’s only true of Republicans, who believe that government is useless and counterproductive. Lots of Democrats go into government “despite” being quite productive and competent because they genuinely believe in service.

    Do you really think Obama couldn’t have been a self-made multimillionaire if that were his ambition? Did Bill Clinton have to choose between living on welfare and going into politics? Come on. (In contrast, what would Dubya’s other options have been if he had not been born into wealth and power? I suspect he would have been a moderately successful salesman or middle manager.)

  2. Mark says:

    JA,
    On “hoping he’ll fail”, uhm, the essay linked was against the notion that we (on the right) should and do hope he will fail. Did you read it?

    On Benedict/Obama … uhm, again … you miss the point. That is,

    “Tax “mistakes” such as these, ordinary Americans know, are not simply about money, but are often about integrity, accountability, arrogance, and power (or misuse of said power).”

    That’s the “out of touch part”, the limousine liberal disconnect.

    I can’t speak to whether Obama couldn’t be a self-made millionaire if “that were his ambition”, he was apparently something of a failure at his one non-legislative endeavor of community organizer … and hasn’t enough history at anything else to tell. As for Mr Clinton, of course he didn’t have to choose between welfare and going into politics. But I do in fact doubt he’d be making an impact on society outside of politics.

  3. Mark,

    On “hoping he’ll fail”, uhm, the essay linked was against the notion that we (on the right) should and do hope he will fail. Did you read it?

    Of course. I don’t think you want it to fail. I’m just making fun of the way you insisted the left wanted us to fail in Iraq.

    On Benedict/Obama … uhm, again … you miss the point. That is,

    “Tax “mistakes” such as these, ordinary Americans know, are not simply about money, but are often about integrity, accountability, arrogance, and power (or misuse of said power).”

    That’s the “out of touch part”, the limousine liberal disconnect.

    If he chose those people knowing they had made those “mistakes” AND thought they made those “mistakes” on purpose, I’d agree with you.

    Re: Clinton and Obama, even you’d have to admit that they could have been both competent and productive in the private sector.

  4. Mark says:

    JA,
    He chose these people knowing they made these mistakes. Heck, if you haven’t noticed many were still confirmed with full knowledge of those problems.

  5. Mark says:

    JA,
    On the “wanting failure”, there is, alas, an essential difference. The economy is not an entity to be encouraged by dissenting voices or is fighting half the battle in the opinions of the West … the Iraqi Islamic extremists were.

  6. On the “wanting failure”, there is, alas, an essential difference. The economy is not an entity to be encouraged by dissenting voices or is fighting half the battle in the opinions of the West … the Iraqi Islamic extremists were.

    Even if that were true, which it isn’t, how is that an “essential” difference? Just because you can find a difference between two things (they started under different signs of the Zodiac!) doesn’t mean it’s relevant to the discussion.

    Besides, consumer confidence (and therefore the economy) is probably at least as susceptible to opinions of the West as are the Iraqi extremists.

  7. Mark says:

    JA,
    Consumer confidence? You mean the thing Obama is doing everything in his power to diminish these days? Gotcha.

    Asymmetrical warfare is a lot about propaganda. If you think economics is too, why bother with stimulus. Just spend a billion or so on Madison avenue ad campaigns and the economy will turn right around.

  8. Asymmetrical warfare is a lot about propaganda. If you think economics is too, why bother with stimulus. Just spend a billion or so on Madison avenue ad campaigns and the economy will turn right around.

    That’s like saying why bother with the invasion of Iraq? Just spend a billion or so making ads against Saddam.

  9. Mark says:

    JA,
    The propaganda war is the one the terrorists fight (they are on the weak side). That’s the side the left was enhancing and supporting. The infrastructure/stability side takes a little more doing. Did you see James Taranto’s “Best of the Web” piece.

    Limbaugh’s view of the president’s domestic plan is the equivalent of having hoped, in 2002, that President Bush failed to persuade Congress to authorize the liberation of Iraq. Hoping that your country refrains from going to war is a much more defensible position that hoping your country loses a war.

  10. WE NEVER HOPED TO LOSE THE WAR.

  11. Mark says:

    JA,
    In which “WE NEVER HOPED” means, “I never hoped”, as apparently as linked above your opinion was not uniform.

  12. Please. Save it for Ann Coulter.