Age Of Pericles

Hiatus

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:35:00 +0000

The Age of Pericles blog is currently on hiatus. It will return with new features in late August.

The Gray Lady's Tortured Logic

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:32:00 +0000

Not A Man Of Principle

The Gray Lady tortured (waterboarded?) common sense in its May 24th editorial entitled "The Test Ban Treaty". The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty itself is a misbegotten endeavor born of exuberant good will following the end of the Cold War. As do most products of derelict international institutions, the Test Ban Treaty is attracting the adulation of self-styled bon vivants in print media. Only the Times, however, could advance an argument so riddled with platitudes and self-contradictions with a straight face.

"A formal ban on testing would make it harder for nuclear-armed states to build new weapons, and place another hurdle in the way of any country -- Iran comes immediately to mind -- thinking of starting an arsenal. North Korea's announcement on Monday that it had tested a nuclear device is a stark reminder of the many dangers out there."

The first howler encapsulates the main talking point of many in the laevosphere. The fact of the matter is that a formal ban on testing means nothing to Kim-Jong Il. North Korea was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; when it became inconvenient, they withdrew. Therein lies the issue of using international institutions to coopt suspect regimes. The regimes bound by whatever measures have been enacted often have less to lose by non-cooperation than by compliance. Furthermore, the patients can take over the asylum, viz. Iran and Durban II. Put simply, uncivilized parties are unshackled by the artificial institutions of civilized nations. North Korea is already sanctioned and severely censured.....

The editors are right in saying that North Korea's nuclear tests are a stark reminder of global dangers. It's all downhill from there. After the mandated amount of Bush-bashing and expert shopping, the editorial concludes:

"A test ban will make it technologically much harder for other countries to press ahead with weapons development. And if Washington has any hope of rallying diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions for constraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions or North Korea’s program, it has to show that it, too, is willing to play by the international rules. For both of those reasons, the Senate needs to ratify the test ban treaty.

Their first point is demonstrably false. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty certainly didn't stop North Korea, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that the nuclear issue is "closed" and is continuing nuclear processing. In this case, their actions and words are perfectly aligned- neither will budge on the issue despite heavy censure by the international community. Their second point is a total non sequitur- Quod erat demonstrandum, American ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty only serves to hamstring American weapons development because the states that the treaty is intended to constraint simply don't care about international norms. Furthermore, the treaty requires the ratification of Iran and North Korea before it comes into effect, and the likelihood of their accession is minimal. Of course, they could pull a Saddam

by agreeing but yanking a cloth over the eyes of the UN's toothless watchdog. In North Korea's case, it wouldn't be the first time. Thankfully, the President "has asked Vice President Joseph Biden to shepherd the treaty in the Senate." The wolf anticipates a meal.

Another Way To Look At Healthcare Spending

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Wed, 13 May 2009 02:02:00 +0000

Liberals Use Improper Metrics To Color Healthcare Debate
The United States spends more per capita on health insurance than any other developed nation. Health spending is expected to rise to 20% of GDP by 2017. Medicare and Medicaid will consume 9% of the federal budget by 2035. The grim statistics march across the pages of the President's budget, fly forth from Nancy Pelosi's unctuous lips, and swim through the ocean of red ink that is the Obama deficit. No sane politician would extol the virtues of skyrocketing health costs, but research indicates that this cloud has a silver lining.

The two largest pharmaceutical companies, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, have research budgets of 11% and 15% of their total revenues. Both are based in the United States. The third largest pharmaceutical company, Bayer, is based in Germany where socialized medicine reigns. It budgets only 4% of its outlays for research. This gulf is not limited to private industry; the European Union governments spent $3.7 billion on health research. The National Institute of Health's budget is allotted at almost eight times that, and results show. The United States birthed or heavily affected the development of five of six of the most major medical advances in the last quarter century of the second millenium. Scientists working in America won more than twice as many Nobel Prizes in the field of medicine than those working elsewhere between 1996 and 2006.

Proponents of universal health care may point to the fact that life expectancy in the United States is no higher than it is in Europe or Japan; however, the benefits of medical advances are not confined to the country in which they were birthed. For instance, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology now enjoys worldwide prominence though it was first developed in the USA. Furthermore, not all aspects of health relate to quality of health care. In the words of Mike Huckabee, we have a health crisis brought on by unhealthy habits. A study completed in 1993 demonstrated that factors like obesity and prevalence of smoking have a large impact on personal health spending. Were levels of tobacco use and obesity to be brought in line with those of Europe, the United States could only gain in terms of increased productivity and reduced spending. Contrary to liberal belief, there are places for improvement in the United States healthcare system that don't require a monolithic government program, known colloquially as a deficit machine.

Your Cash For Washington's Clunkers

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:20:00 +0000

A Potential But Unlikely Victim

Lovers of aged steel nationwide are up in arms about a new measure championed by the UAW and the ever congruent President. The bills, known officially as H.R. 520 and S. 247 but colloquially as "Cash for Clunkers", both propose issuing a voucher to consumers in exchange for the destruction of their old (yes, both bills capitalize the term) High Fuel Consumption Vehicle. Overall, the bills are just another species of how myopic government reaction can have far-reaching negative consequences in unexpected areas.

H.R. 520, the House bill proposed by Steve Israel (D-NY) with 9 additional sponsors, offers a $4,500 voucher towards the purpose of replacing a High Fuel Consumption Vehicle (a vehicle that gets less than 18 MPG) with a new model year Fuel Efficient Vehicle (intricately defined here). Were the bill to be passed and signed today, the $4,500 voucher would be applicable only to cars manufactured 7 years or fewer before the date of voucher issuance. The value of the voucher is inversely proportional to the temporal distance between issuance of voucher and date of vehicle manufacture, which is to say that owners of most cars of interest to classic car aficionados (vehicles manufactured before 1998) would receive a voucher worth only $2,500 towards the purchase of a new Fuel-Efficient Vehicle. Of course, the bill is terrifyingly complex, with exemptions and caveats left and right. What's important is the definition of a vehicle eligible for a voucher:

(6) ELIGIBLE HIGH FUEL CONSUMPTION AUTOMOBILE- The term ‘eligible high fuel consumption automobile’ means a high fuel consumption automobile that, at the time it is presented for participation in the program established under section 3--

(A) is in drivable condition; and

(B) has been continuously registered and licensed to operate in any State for a period of not fewer than 120 consecutive days for operation on public roads.

Thankfully, the eligibility requirements disqualify most classic project cars. Few vehicles manufactured prior to 1984 (upon which official antique status is conferred) are both A. driving and registered and B. worth less than the $2,500 prescribed for a vehicle of such age. By definition, parts cars do not meet that standard. As such, it is unlikely that H.R. 520 would make a significant impact on the availability of project vehicles or parts. S. 247 is effectively the same bill

Regardless of the potential impact H.R. 520 may or may not have on the automotive restoration industry, it's a bad idea because of its sure impact on low-income families. Many High Fuel Consumption Vehicles manufactured after 2002 (7 years between issuance of voucher and manufacture of vehicles translated to $4,500 voucher) still run reliably, but are worth less than the $4,500 offered via voucher. As such, no High Fuel Consumption Vehicles (read: SUVs and minivans which are great for carrying families) will be available for cash-strapped families already reeling from the recession for less than $4,500. Preliminary estimates place the cost of the bill at between 1 and 2 billion dollars per year. Essentially, taxpayer cash is going to pay for Washington's darling clunkers, notably the UAW, soon-to-be owners of 55% of Chrysler. So goes the law of unintended consequences, and so too does Congress' chronic myopia strike blow after blow at the prosperity of American families. Furthermore, fuel savings created by the program are projected to be between 40,000 barrels and 80,000 barrels of motor fuel per day, a scarce 0.3% of current (and ever-increasing) daily petroleum consumption. The Cash for Clunkers bill, like much market-tweaking legislation that comes out of the Capitol, doesn't measure up.

Holocaust Remembrance Day

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:52:00 +0000

Can You Tell?

Holocaust Remembrance Day was signed into law as a holiday in Israel in 1951 when the grimmest of horrors of the Holocaust were recent memories. Temporal distance has created emotional and intellectual insulation from the Holocaust's events, and so today it is especially important to fight ascendant forces of hatred from all sides of the political spectrum. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Noam Chomsky, are two separate heads of the same seven-headed dragon that breathes fiery ignorance worldwide. The former is an entrenched and virulent Iranian holocaust denier who was given a podium at the UN Durban II ~~Anti-Racism~~ Racism Conference, and the latter is "merely" a Holocaust prevaricator. But which is more dangerous? Even the untrained eye can see the patently ridiculous nature of Ahmadinejad's ramblings, but Chomsky is far more subtle. Society's greatest enemies, those who would sweep history under the rug in pursuit of a political objective, are burrowed deep within and are often indistinguishable from the Joe Six-Pack's of America. In closing, I leave you with two images, one above and one below- which pictures the soon-to-be-exterminated Jewish family, and which pictures Joseph Goebbel's (Nazi Minister of Propaganda) family? The fact that each could be the other illustrates that both victims and perpetrators of the Holocaust were entirely human. Biologically, homo sapiens has evolved little since the middle of the 20th century. The only barriers between the comparative enlightenment of the 21st century and the darker days of the 20th is experience and knowledge. To deny what we know to have happened is to knock down the only barrier to such events happening again.

Obama, Closet Epicurian

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:08:00 +0000

Epicurian Disciple Eats Government Coffers

The philosophy of Epicurus is commonly summed up in the phrase "Eat, drink, and be happy, for tomorrow we die." Though that passage is actually an amalgamation from Ecclesiastes (8:15) and Isaiah (22:13), it's one way of interpreting Epicurian teachings. The Obama administration superficially clings to pretensions of fiscal responsibility, but in reality, pecuniary hedonists run amok in the halls of the White House. Freehandedness in the "New Age of Responsibility" is prevaricated away by fingerpointing- "...we're inheriting very knotty problems...", for example. All budgetary ills are tossed at the feet of the Bush administration. That excuse is quickly losing its bite, as evidenced by his latest economic speech, entitled "A New Foundation", at Georgetown University.

The speech itself was fairly standard campaign fare, replete with logically fallacious appeals to unnamed economic authorities and one-sided assignation of responsibility. Particularly troubling was his riff on the Hippocratic Oath in reference to preemptive nationalization:

“Rather, it is because we believe that preemptive government takeovers are likely to end up costing taxpayers even more in the end, and because it is more likely to undermine than to create confidence. Governments should practice the same principle as doctors: first do no harm.”

His opposition to preemptive takeovers and nationalizations is admirable. His analogy is less so. It reflects a common misconception is leftist circles that the government is the economy's doctor, while that's only true in the most Mengeleian sense of the word. The government cannot "operate" on the economy and create wealth by subsidizing demand for unprofitable energy, nor does it have any special affinity for management (c.f. AMTRAK, FNMA, public education, and anything else run/subsidized by the federal government). The fact that the President uses the Hippocratic Oath to justify his actions (or lack thereof) reveals a congruence of opinion with the lunatics of the left, notably those of Arianna Huffington's ilk. That's not change I can believe in.

A Nuclear American In Prague

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 03:54:00 +0000

Adrift In A Sea Of Nuclear Nuance

Late on Saturday night, President Obama's so-called "smart power" doctrine augured into the Pacific Ocean 1,300 miles off the coast of Japan with North Korea's three-stage Taepodong-2 missile. One would think that he'd abandon the foolish pretense that genuflection is the most expedient way to getting America's enemies' acquiescence, but apparently not. In fact, the President's speech in Prague on Sunday echoed previous policy dictations with perhaps a nod to the leftist faction in his party. The excerpts I quote discuss nuclear nonproliferation and, more importantly, include a fawning paean to total nuclear disarmament. Important points are boldfaced and numbered for easy demolition.

...Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. <1> Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold.

...

Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked -– that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.

Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power –- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it. <2>

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly –- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. <3> But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." (Applause.)

Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies –- including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal. <4>

...

To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. <5> (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.

And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. <6> If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step.

Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.

The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. <7> We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.

And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation. That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it's based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance peace opportunity for all people. <8>

But we go forward with no illusions. Some countries will break the rules. That's why we need a structure in place that ensures when any nation does, they will face consequences... <9>

1. President Obama is only half-right on this count. He underestimate the degree to which nuclear technology is available- Google "how to build a nuclear bomb", and you will come up with pages and pages of instructions on how to build a gun-type nuclear device similar in construction to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Simply put, the developed world cannot multilaterally (let alone the US unilaterally) roll back the clock on nuclear technology any more than it can repress the invention of the lightbulb. The scientific know-how is out there waiting to be tapped by hostile regimes, and the United States would be best served with an effective nuclear deterrent.

2. The President's conclusion (that the US has a moral responsibility to act) is essentially a 'non sequitur' in relation to his premise (that the US is the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon). However, it nicely fits the narrative of the Grand Apology Tour, namely that the United States was in the words of Michelle Obama "just downright mean", not to mention morally irresponsible, before Obama came along.

3. That brings to mind to Obama's trademark "philosophy of persistence" which hasn't got a snowball's chance in Helen Thomas' steely gaze of working in the Middle East. It's absence of policy masquerading as policy- calling a meeting of the UN Security Council hardly counts as decisive action, and as the folks at Power Line note, it fits well with the convictions of miniature Mussolinis the world over. They'll persist in pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and the nebbishy Obama administration will persist in doing, well, nothing. Unless you think that strongly-worded letters constitute meaningful action.

4. Finally, the President presents a substantive policy statement. However, it's deeply flawed because reducing the size of the US nuclear arsenal is likely to spark a corresponding increase in the stockpiles of countries under the US nuclear umbrella. A larger nuclear force is a force against proliferation because allied countries have no need to develop their own deterrence force. Even worse, it could prompt non-nuclear countries to pursue armaments contrary to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Strategic deterrence is still an effective defense, because even unstable despots aren't invincible to radiation poisoning.

5. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is another one of those ideas that would work if only the regimes it meant to constrain cared what international institutions say about their behavior. The people of North Korea are forced to forage for seaweed and acorns to stave off starvation, and dissidents are locked up in concentration camps. The Iranian regime sentences teenaged girls to hanging for "adultery" if they are unfortunate enough to get raped. Events like that don't happen in countries whose leaders give a hoot about international perception. The Test Ban Treaty serves only to hobble the Western world in its quest to create an ever more powerful deterrent while it has no effect on repressive regimes.

6. Another new treaty? Megalomaniacs worldwide salivate at the thought. The endless array of agreements and official understandings between nations are great at creating the illusion of progress, when in reality they do little to muzzle those who would do harm to civilians in their quest for more power. Simply put, any leader determined enough to continue pursuing weapons of mass destruction in the specter of crippling economic sanctions isn't likely to be dissuaded by another photo-op handshake and meaningless signature. Besides, neighboring countries are likely to circumvent sanctions to continue imports for economic benefit.

7. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and so to is the road to nuclear roguishness. Oppressive pols like Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have no qualms about lying, and it only takes one delivery of fuel intended for peaceful use to create a device capable of leveling New York. The geopolitical implications of fuel routed for employment in nuclear power plants getting hijacked for destructive purposes are enormous. Were either of the aforementioned leaders to acquire a nuclear weapon of any sort, it would irreversibly change the world's balance of power. It's therefore best to keep fissile material out of their hands, no matter how much they lay claim to benign intentions.

"I wouldn't lie to you..."

8. The President falls into the same category as Ted Kennedy in that Mr. Kennedy is entirely supportive of green energy initiatives as long as it doesn't affect his yachting course. I'm referring to Cape Wind, the offshore renewable energy project that is splitting the Massachusetts legislature. Mr. Obama is entirely supportive of nuclear power as long as it's not produced in the United States. He said as much on December 30, 2007:

"...Until we can make certain that nuclear power plants are safe ,that they have solved the storage problem, because I am opposed to Yucca Mountain and just dumping storage in one state in Nevada, particularly because there's a, potentially a, uh, earthquake fault line there, until we solve those problems and the whole nuclear industry can show that they can produce clean safe energy without enormous subsidies from the United States government, I don't think that's the best option. I am much more interested in solar, wind, biodiesel..."

France, that bastion of continental sophistication, powers 87.5% of the country with nuclear technology. Why can we not do the same here in the United States? Various lobbies have erected artificial obstacles to retard the progress of nuclear energy in the name of public safety. One issue is waste disposal, an issue that would be all but solved were the government to lift restrictions of nuclear reprocessing.

9. International legal frameworks are notoriously sieve-like. More importantly, of what consequences does Obama speak? Hopefully he's learned a lesson from the Oil-For-Food program, which Saddam Hussein circumvented entirely in order to procure military items. Sanctions are similarly avoidable, as Hussein proved by dodging economic sanctions, ducking military limits, and simply ignored humanitarian requirements. Such elusion was facilitated by collusive neighbors whose largely regionalized economies suffered under exportation restrictions.

The President's speech in Prague was standard campaign fare, jam-packed with hyperbole and highfalutin rhetoric. Most of his speeches lack in substance, but this example had plenty of concrete proposals. It's just too bad that the grand majority of them showed questionable judgement and a flawed worldview. A better alternative to the policy set proposed by the Obama administration would be a zero-tolerance arrangement in which suspected nuclear sites are prioritized as legitimate targets for a United Nations asset reacquisition.if the host country refuses to admit international inspectors. Otherwise, the UN watchdog will remain blind and toothless. We can hardly expect better results from the same supine international regime, but Europe seems determined to accede more and more ground. At least one nation must offer principled resistance. To paraphrase Obama's inauguration speech, America is ready to lead the world once again.

So let's get to it.

Why General Motors Can't Compete (Bankruptcy Edition)

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:52:00 +0000

Which one slashed his own salary?

In his inauguration speech, President Barack Obama waxed poetic about topics like sacrifice. While he clearly understands such a concept as an abstract, real-world follow-through has been limited to the upper quintile of American economic society; both Edward Liddy (AIG CEO) and Rick Wagoner (GM CEO) cut their own salaries to $1, yet both were harangued as convenient targets of populist anger. In GM's case, it's time for another party to make a sacrifice- big labor. The fact of the matter is that deposed CEO Wagoner's salary had little impact on GM's economic viability, while tremendous labor costs are drowning the company in red ink.

Let's look at the numbers. The Harbour Report, a document published annually by the Oliver Wyman Group, uses various metrics to gauge automotive plant efficiency. It costs a pretty penny at $595.00 for the 2008 edition, but various statistics from the 2005 release are available online. Toyota compensates the average non-skilled assembly line worker at $27 per hour including end of year bonus, while GM pays out $4.35 more per hour at $31.35 including idled workers. GM spends 34.3 man-hours on building a typical car, while Toyota spends only 27.9 man-hours. The difference between Toyota's wage expenditures ($755.30) and GM's wage expenditures ($1075.31) is a whopping $322.05 difference per vehicle. Not factored into this set of calculations is the fact that GM actually pays more than $70 per hour in labor costs due to legacy costs from pensioners.

That, however, is only the tip of the iceberg. General Motors' employee healthcare cost per vehicle ($1525.00) outpaces Toyota's ($201.00) by $1324.00. On wage and healthcare costs per vehicle alone, GM is at a $1645.05 disadvantage right off the bat. Once again, that figure doesn't include non-healthcare retiree pensions. $1645.05 is almost 6% of the average cost of a new car (app. $27,800), but more importantly, it's the difference between making and losing money on each car sold. In 2005, GM lost $1,271 on average per vehicle sold. If Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings can help bring GM's labor costs in line with Toyota's, then the American automotive giant stands to begin turning a $375.05 profit per car. After suffering an operating loss every year beginning in 2005, wouldn't that be refreshing? The US economy will certainly benefit from a profitable manufacturing giant pumping in investment capital and job opportunities on its own soil. The staff at the Age of Pericles only hopes that rescue efforts don't require more taxpayer dollars than they have already.

Political Right Should Channel Jane Fonda

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:34:00 +0000

What Passes For Insight
Jane Fonda is emblematic of the roots of "sophisticated" liberal antipathy to all things red, white, and blue. While she may be notable mostly for her famous photo pose at a Vietcong gun and workout videos, her generation had a few pithy anti-war insights. The most memorable is doubtless the logically questionable simile: "Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity." The Tea Party protest movement could take an environmentally friendly leaf from the birkenstock and patchouli crowd and commandeer the aforementioned truism to adapt for the cause I suggest "Bigger Spending for Smaller Deficits is like copulating for wholesome purity"- after all, the GOP is the party of family values.

In all seriousness, however, the President's budget plan is a fiscal trainwreck. Despite repeated assertions of the party line ("inherited crisis... inherited disaster... inherited deficit..."), the fact of the matter is that FY 2009 did not end when Obama was inaugurated. Much of the stimulus money will be spent in FY '09, thus adding to the deficit, which is the difference between expenditures and inflows. The staff at the Age of Pericles agree that the President inherited a bad economy, but he can't possibly blame the debacle that is the stimulus package on Mr. Bush, nor may he shift the responsibility for the bloated and wasteful '09 omnibus spending bill. The days where Bush Derangement Syndrome could pass for legitimate intellectual engagement are fast coming to a close.

He claims that he'll reduce his "inherited" deficit, which is only partially inherited, by half- sed cui bono? The fact of the matter is that each and every one of his deficits will be a greater percent of the GDP than were Mr. Bush's in 2001-2008. Simply put, the President is slamming through the grandest act of government distension since, well, ever. As for the difference between the Office of Management and Budget's estimates versus that of the Congressional Budget Office, consider that the former is part of a Democratic administration run by Democratic officials attempting to push a Democratic agenda and that the latter is officially nonpartisan. Considering the funny money and flat-out Orwellian dishonesty conjured up by the OMB in this past month, I'll take the CBO at its word any day. While some ascribe to a "pendulum" view of government bulk, history tells us that when the government expands, it tends to stay large. Take a look at the portion of the budget that is required just to sustain spending on entitlement programs like Social Security. The political right must fight hard with every tool in its arsenal to prevent expansions of government jurisdiction and obligation characterized by the Obama administration's power grab in the domestic automotive industry, recycling the slogans of Vietnam-era hippies if necessary.

An Obama Allegory

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:09:00 +0000

Chris Dodd Explains Away Bonuses For Political Allies

The Obama administration's recent misadventures can be encapsulated in allegory. Imagine a car in the snow. The President is slamming the pedal to the metal with a budget proposal, plans for health care reform, measures to prevent climate change, and the euphemistically named Employee Free Choice Act, but he's spinning his wheels. At the same time, he's wasting gas at approximately the same rate at which Congress wastes taxpayer money. That's fast. The next gas station is at least a year away.

To complete the allegory, attach administration figures and political objectives to their representations. President Obama is the car and driver, the snow is his political opposition, gas is his political capital, and the gas station is the next point where the President might fill up on political capital. The American economy is a good horse to bet on, so chances are that when it recovers the Democratic Party will get a good deal of credit no matter what they do to saddle it with bad fiscal policy. Depending on your political persuasion, the President's difficulties are either cause for celebration or desolation. The fact of the matter, though, is that if the President gets traction, he will run down the American economy on the road paved with his good intentions. All the highfalutin campaign rhetoric about the urgency of cap and trade may have real consequences in the political arena. Deficits will skyrocket to levels unheard-of since the end of the Second World War. The Employee Free Choice Act, which American workers don't actually want, could deliver another blow to labor markets. American voters bought the Obama-Mobile, but can they stomach the maintenance costs? The President insists that his agenda is on track despite growing opposition, but so too Saddam's information minister deny that there were Americans in Baghdad.

The staff at the Age of Pericles don't intend to emulate Ebenezer Limbaugh. We wish President Obama the very best of luck, but for the sake of the American people, we hope that he runs out of gas before slamming through any legislation that would cause the aforementioned consequences. After all, we all know what happens when bills get run through Congress and signed before they're read; ask all the taxpayers whose hard-earned dollars were funneled to AIG executives through a special clause in the stimulus package. Could that possibly have anything to do with AIG's largesse during election years? Add that to the questionable constitutionality of selective 90% tax rates for AIG bonuses, and you have a roller-coaster of government expansionism. Next stop- a banana republic!

Ruler Reprehensibly Running From Red-Ink Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:29:00 +0000

The Obama Administration: Running From Reality

President Obama proudly trumpeted the $2 trillion in savings that his budget created upon its unveiling in late February. The reality is that none of that $2 trillion is actually savings. The best place to start parsing the artificial "savings" is with a definition of the word itself:

"Savings (n.)- a reduction or lessening of expenditure or outlay"

If the Obama administration was seriously interested in finding savings, they'd re-prioritize the enormous outlays for a failing education system (especially after dumping 80 billion into the educational leaky sieve via the Recovery Act) or maybe even continue the work of their predecessors on welfare reform rather than effectively demolishing it. Doing so would, by definition, constitute savings because it cuts expenditures. Instead, the Office of Management and Budget found "savings" (note quote marks) elsewhere, notably in the realm of the imaginary.

The President's staff yanked "savings" out of the world's rear end (commonly known as Iraq) through funny-money budget fixing. Somehow, they've managed to conjure up the illusion that were it not for Mr. Obama's timely intervention, the United States would've stayed in Iraq until 2019. That's patently false, because even the alleged war criminal/whipping boy of the left George W. Bush pledged to have us out by 2012. President Obama proposes a withdrawal by 2011, but obviously failed to inform his budget team of that fact. Their outlay predictions assumed that the US would continue the same amount that it spent on Iraq in 2008 all the way until 2019, when in reality sectarian violence has plummeted and public opinion polling of Iraqis indicates soaring optimism. That's the only pessimistic projection in the budget, as deficit predictions are based on an overly optimistic future GDP assumptions. It's just too bad that these imaginary savings can't go to caring for the veterans whose hard work has remade Iraq, and whose health benefits the President is about to destroy.

The rest of the "savings" are actually revenue increases from allowing President Bush's tax cuts to lapse. Peter Orszag, from this point on to be known as Peter Orwell for his incredible ability to speak euphemistically, puts it best:

"...Let’s focus specifically on the revenue increases for high-income taxpayers. The Budget proposes that the tax cuts currently enjoyed by those with incomes above $250,000 be allowed to expire..."

We'll leave the sheer audacity of the "revenue increases for high-income taxpayers" circumlocution for another day. Allowing tax cuts to expire fails the "savings" test because it doesn't reduce expenditures or outlays. That is, it fails the savings test unless you believe that the government ought to grant people redistributed money rather than allowing them to earn it and thus, technically, allowing a tax cut to lapse reduces outlays, in which case you're probably a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Perhaps classifying lapsing tax cuts as "savings" was a Freudian slip for the Obama administration. The standard leftist budget talking point is that the President's budget creates $2 trillion in savings, but that's just plain wrong because none of the "savings" are actually savings. The Office of Management and Budget's deficit predictions should be dismissed as politicized fabrications. But thanks, Mr. President- even though you're dumping an enormous deficit and resulting enormous national debt on my generation, I feel secure knowing that your staff has found a way to cover it up for the sake of your electoral futures.

Abstruse Accounting Aberrations Abase Administration's Achievements

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:51:00 +0000

"The debt? Uhh, we used TurboTax... Sorry."

The Obama administration recently finished crafting a national budget. That's a monumental task for which they deserve at least some credit. The bad part is that it's a monument to funny money and questionable accounting practices. The president unveiled this budget to the American people, trumpeting the 3.5 trillion dollars worth of "hard choices" (cum grano salis!) that the "new era of responsibility" would require. It adds a $12,000 deficit load to every American taxpayer and creates the largest shortfall ever. Think that's bad enough? Well, it gets worse; Starting on page 5 there's 11 pages of blaming Bush. The worst part, however, is that the entire document is based on aberrant number-crunching. Simply put, proposed "savings" from the Iraq War, which will supposedly fund healthcare reform, are a complete boondoggle because they assume that without Barack's intervention, the US Government would continue spending in Iraq at 2008 levels all the way through 2019. That's absolutely false, and critics called the administration on it. Peter Orszag, the budget director, posted a pitiful non-defense at the Office of Management and Budget blog:

The President is committed to responsibly winding the war down. I don’t do foreign policy, but I can tell you this: ending wars saves money – and so the Administration’s budget includes savings from ramping down overseas military operations over time.

Yet critics are claiming that, in calculating the amount saved by ramping down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Administration is wrong to compare its proposed funding levels to the level in 2008—the last year in which overseas operations were fully funded. Such criticisms are inconsistent not only with common sense but also established practices of budget accounting (and even what the critics themselves have said in the past).

The last time the United States began to ramp down from a prolonged, expensive military engagement, President George H.W. Bush was in office. With the Cold War having just been won, President Bush, for the 1991 budget, proposed a deficit reduction package that included substantial reductions in defense funding.

President Bush’s budget at the time reflected exactly the same budgetary treatment from ending the war that ours does. The baseline (that is, the deficit path before the President’s policies) reflected the high levels of defense spending precipitated by the Cold War, which had just ended at that point. Since President Bush proposed constraining defense spending over time to reflect the end of the Cold War, budgeteers credited the Administration with savings – just as the savings from winding down the war are credited under our budget. ...

...More importantly, what happened? The savings projected in President Bush’s 1991 Budget were achieved—and more. By 1995, the defense ramp-down started by President Bush and continued by President Clinton had achieved more than double the savings assumed by President Bush’s 1991 budget.

The bottom line: A ramp down in military operations produced savings then, and can produce real savings now.

The bottom line: Congratulations, Captain Obvious! At least he's figured out that reducing spending reduces deficits, but cui bono? That's not exactly a major revelation. The fact of the matter is that Obama's Iraq plan isn't all that far removed from Bush's Iraq plan, so it's a bit sanctimonious to label barely-early withdrawal cost prevention as "savings". The other "savings" that his budget creates are about as Orwellian as it gets. They're actually tax hikes on top earners. How that gets categorized as savings is beyond me, as the methods of the Obama administration are opaque indeed. Maybe they're just patently dishonest; it wouldn't be the first time. The real question is if the so-called savings aren't actually coming from the drawdown of the War in Iraq, from where is the President drawing them? How does he intend to pay off communist China?

The Fallacious Flimflam of the Fairness Doctrine

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:32:00 +0000

The Most Precious Commodity
The Fairness Doctrine, enacted in the 1940s and officially discarded in 1987, is rearing its unsightly head again. Despite the fact that it was proven to be ineffectual at improving the variety of opinions in public discourse and, in fact, had quite the opposite effect, political figures ranging from Dick Durbin (D-IL) to Bill Clinton are on the record supporting the return of some form of the Doctrine. it's a bad idea regardless of the star power behind its reinstatement.

The reasons for which the Fairness Doctrine was enacted are no longer relevant because of the abundance of non-radio media resources. Representative Luther Johnson (D-TX) expressed the reasons for the naissance of the Fairness Doctrine in a 1927 debate about the predecessor to the Doctrine known as the Radio Act:

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.

There were 837 television stations and 6565 radio stations on air in 1969, the same year that the Supreme Court still held up the constitutionality of the Doctrine. Proponents of the Fairness Doctrine way back when believed that there weren't enough mediums through which balanced public debate might be heard. While in 1927, or even 1949, the "scarcity" rationale may have been legitimate, it is certainly not true today. The theory that each and every station must hold controversial discussions during which opposing viewpoints can be heard is rooted in a time when there were only three major TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), all of which tried to reach broad audiences. A similar situation existed in radio. At the time, these networks were the only way to reach listeners. With the advent of cable television and other viewing mediums, "narrowcasting" began to take hold. With the advent of more viewing mediums came the advent of greater diversity of opinion. If a viewer didn't feel that a certain viewing medium was presenting a balanced angle on the issue at hand, he could simply switch to a different channel. Nowadays, the available number of viewing and listening mediums is massive; there are approximately 14,000 radio stations, over 1400 daily newspapers, 15.5 million active blogs, and over 30 million weekly listeners as of 2006 for internet radio. The average American household now gets 104.2 television channels. Those statistics don't even include non-blog political websites, online TV, and other up and coming news sources. It is high time that we discard the "scarcity" rationale as an argument for the Fairness Doctrine, because the fact of the matter is that new media sources have enormously expanded the information market.

Furthermore, the Fairness Doctrine damages radio stations' bottom line and serves to push political discourse off the radio. In short, the number of people who are willing to listen to Rachel Maddow is lesser than the number of people who are willing to listen to Rush Limbaugh. This much is evident from the number of stations that carry liberal hosts in comparison to those that carry conservatives. Limbaugh alone is carried on 600 stations nationwide, while the entirety of the "liberal radio" genre is carried by only 100 stations in the States. Fewer listeners means lower ratings means less advertising revenue. By forcing radio stations to carry unprofitable political programs if they wish to carry profitable political programs, the logical outcome is stations dropping all political programs to avoid the regulatory enforcement nightmare that the Doctrine is destined to become. In fact, the FCC stated in 1985 upon releasing the "Fairness Report" that the Doctrine had a "chilling effect" on political talk. There is also, of course, the obvious double standard inherent in the Doctrine; why should radio stations be forbidden from editorializing while print media is given free license to do as they please? A The only parties that might benefit from the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine are those that would like to force political discourse from the airwaves.

The free market can create appropriate diversity of opinion on the radio better than any state-based solution. Radio stations air programs that garner the most listeners. If there is a demand for liberal radio, programs like those offered by Air America will create supply. The Fairness Doctrine endeavors to create supply where there is no demand; if nobody wants to listen to liberal radio programs, they won't, and the efforts of regulators to ensure subjective "balance" will be for naught. Besides, radio is no longer the only way to reach the ears of the voting populace. A common complaint heard from the the left side of the political spectrum is that even if there was demand for liberal radio programs, the "money-greedy corporations" would prevent the creation of supply. The facts don't bear out that argument. Case in point: in 2004, the Sinclair Broadcast Group announced that it intended to run an short anti-Kerry film in place of primetime programming. The market responded by violently dumping Sinclair's stock. Look at the chart starting in October 2004, when it was announced that Sinclair intended to air the documentary; Wall Street saw a broadcast company putting politics over profit and reacted accordingly.

The Fairness Doctrine may or may not have been a viable proposition when it was first instated. What is inarguable is that it is inviable, unfeasible, and a generally bad idea today. Americans of all political persuasions cannot in good conscience allow faceless Washington regulators to censor the airwaves. Freedom of the press is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment and, furthermore, it is an indispensable necessity of self-determination. The voting populace (as well as the market) is smart enough to know when a radio figure is editorializing, and how to turn the dial when they feel that figure has gone too far. To claim otherwise insults the individualism and independence of the American populace. The Fairness Doctrine is six feet under, and the newly minted Democratic Congress oughtn't dig it up. To be fair, President Obama has stated that he doesn't support the doctrine; the real question is whether or not he's willing to spend political capital vetoing it.

Ed. note: This essay has been republished with minor edits because of its current relevance. It was originally published in January.

Boys Found Lacking at Mens' Job

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 03:17:00 +0000

"Hello? I'd like to get a copy of the Rosetta Stone Russian edition..."
Candidate Obama stressed that judgement mattered over experience, so he, the most judgmental (ctrl-F: strong opinions) and least experienced candidate, was naturally the best fit. After all, he had the "judgment and courage" to come out against the Iraq War. Never mind the fact that he was arguably wrong about that, and that he was demonstrably wrong in standing against the surge on the grounds that it'd increase violence:

He now claims (correctly) that the surge succeeded "beyond our wildest dreams". The staff at Age of Pericles would like to say the same in 2010 about Barack's plan to jolt the economy, but we'll put our money on the evolution of flying pigs. Needless to say, President Obama can make "hard choices"- the problem lies in the fact that he rarely gets them right.

The sheer volume and ridiculous nature of the mistakes he's made thus far is mindblowing. Thus far, Barack Obama's transition team and administration symbolically shoveled India under the bus, flubbed multiple Cabinet and sub-Cabinet appointments, and slighted Britain's prime minister. Lowest of lows, however, is Hillary Clinton's juvenile Russian language blunder in which she confused the Russian translations of "reset" and "overcharge". Perhaps there's some Freudian symbolism in that. In any case, it's especially ironic considering that Candidate Obama stressed the importance of multilingualism during the campaign. That goes under the same category as failing to pay your own taxes while hiking everyone else's. Democrats may lead the nation neophytically, but they're certainly well versed in the practice of hypocrisy. Hope!

The next question is whether (in the words of Reagan) he just knows so much that isn't so, or whether he's doing so badly because (in the words of Omri Ceren) it's "amateur hour". It's hard to believe that he's managed to evict Bush's seasoned diplomatic team and appointed this gaggle of chuckleheads in just a month and a half, many of whom have already proven their rank incompetence. Oh, and did I mention their reluctance to pay taxes? So much for David Brooks' valedictocracy- at this point, we'd better settle for the upper quintile of the class.

Obama's Enemies List

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:54:00 +0000

"You just can't listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
Character assassination is a favorite Democratic political tactic. Obama has quite an affinity for it, as was demonstrated early in the campaign. In an attempt to discredit proles who objected to his anxiety-inducing policy proposals, he impugned their motives; how can folks who "cling to guns or religion" take an objective look at the oh-so-nuanced policy proposals of a man of Barack Obama's intellectual acuity?! After all, he's read Reinhold Niebuhr! So says the punditocracy with legs all-a-tingle. Whether he's read Niebuhr isn't up for debate; does he believe it, though? The staff at the Age of Pericles hardly thinks that a disciple of Niebuhr would allow the appointment of Chas Freeman, an anti-Israel partisan with a history of insane conspiracy theorizing in defense of regimes and terrorist groups that entirely contravene Niebuhr's "Just War" theory. Nor would Niebuhr approve of the Obama administration's verbal attacks on private citizens- viz. noncombatant status. In any case, Barack's wrath hasn't been limited to generally bitter clingers- three in particular have had their reputations and motives savaged, namely Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli, and Jim Cramer in a manner that Nixon himself would've been proud of.

First and foremost in the procession of the damned is undoubtedly Rush Limbaugh, the talk radio hellraiser famous for his rotund figure and pointy rhetoric. Though he may be inflammatory, the President was out of line in publicly calling him out. Supposedly, this is a new Democratic strategy. So much for "change"- it's just politics as usual. The Democrats have found an unpopular figure, and now they want to tar the Republican Party with him. The law of unintended consequences is still, however, in full effect- all that Barack has managed to do is drag himself into a petty dispute and diminish the office of the presidency. In fact, he's effectively opened a dialogue with Limbaugh, who took good advantage of his opportunity and asked for a debate. Besides, who knows? Perhaps after four years of ~~stagflation~~ "bottom-up" economic policies Rush's popularity will have quadrupled. This attack is particularly reminiscent of George Orwell's "Two Minutes Hate" in 1984, as explained by Tom Veal at the Stromata blog.

A couple of other subjects of Messianic ire include Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer, the both of whom are CNBC analysts. The former's now-famous rant inspired "Tea Party" protests across the nation, and the latter had the gall to criticize the administration's economic policies. Robert Gibbs, Obama's smart-alecky press secretary, rebuked the two on seperate occasions, implying that Cramer didn't understand the president's obligation to look out for the broader economy and claiming that Santelli just didn't grasp the emotional (i.e., the liberal side) aspects of Obama's actions; of course, he snuck in a jab about Santelli's experience as an on-floor trader. Supposedly, that invalidates his opinion- those rich capitalists are just working off the breaking backs of the Main Street families like that of Joe the Plumber, or at least that's how the narrative goes. Jeez, that couldn't be another character assassination, could it? Never mind the fact that the only consolation Obama has for those same families is a $13 tax break. George Orwell could well say that he told us so, and Nixon is grinning down at us on account of the revival of abuse of executive power to attack private individuals. Change!

Caustic Causata of "Smart Power"

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:46:00 +0000

Middle Eastern Despots Remain Unimpressed By "Smart Power"
When Inauguration Day is the best day of a presidency, the country is in serious trouble. Indeed, President Obama's actions on Inauguration Day (notably establishing a "National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation") followed the internationally recognized medical doctrine of "First, do no harm." Since then, he's practiced considerably less
forethought. During the campaign and transition, we heard odes to "smart power" and "tough but direct diplomacy". Now the Obama administration has dropped the "tough" bit and opted for plain old "direct diplomacy" with predictable results. For example, Iran will pre-commission its first nuclear plant on Wednesday.

Stemming the tide of nuclear development in the Middle East isn't the only place where the Obama administration has surrendered ground. Under pressure from the increasingly Soviet Russian Federation, Kyrgyzstan has ordered the US to vacate an important airbase in the Afghan supply line. NATO has simply refused to commit more troops to "the good war" in Afghanistan. The President has sent wonderfully nuanced (read: confusing) messages to both our allies and our enemies, going so far as trying to befriend Syria at the same time as it cuts off weapon shipments. Nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan is free, and Pakistan has adopted a very "tolerant" and "unclenched" stance by imposing Shari'a law on the Swat Valley to mollify the Taliban.

Theoretically, "smart power" is supposed to encourage other nations to aid the United States in international conflicts and create brotherhood. As Suzanne Nossel so naively pontificated in a 2004 Foreign Affairs:

Smart power means knowing that the United States' own hand is not always its best tool: U.S. interests are furthered by enlisting others on behalf of U.S. goals, through alliances, international institutions, careful diplomacy, and the power of ideals.

In an obnoxiously smug ivory tower kind of way, it's true; however, recent experience proves that smart power must be exercised upon a reasonable constituency. That is to say, begging a regime so blatantly disrespectful of international institutions to supplicate to more of the same strongly-worded UN letters isn't smart. In fact, it's just plain dumb. Furthermore, the "power of ideals" might work well in a culturally-barren society begging for an identity. Unfortunately, religious leaders in the Middle East have already found a common cause, and it's pretty much at loggerheads with everything the West has done, ever. Furthermore, Barack's new enlightened method of doing business has failed to convince NATO allies to come to our aid in Afghanistan. You can argue over the intentions of the Obama "smart power" plan; however, the results have been less than spectacular. Joe Biden's "we're going to have an international crisis" prediction was wrong. We've had many international crises. In the words of our President, we just can't afford more of the same. So please, say "No!" to bad foreign policy-making.

Fraudulent Fiddling with Fiscal Flop

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:11:00 +0000

Democratic House Leaders Laugh Off Stimulus Critiques
President Obama has hailed his administration's "Recovery.gov" website as the online wing of an effort aimed towards appropriating ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funds in a "timely, targeted, and transparent" manner. From its inception, however, the site has typified the failures of federal bureaucracy and provided textbook examples patent dishonesty. At first, it disallowed Google indexing and caching robots. This has since changed possibly due to public outcry; nonetheless, the implications are numerous. Is the Obama administration concerned about easy to prove flip-flops? Perhaps they learned their lesson from the community service draft debacle.

In any case, the "Recovery.gov" website is anything but transparent. Particularly notable for its opacity and clear parallel unreality is the "Where is Your Money Going?" (ironically shortened to "Where is your Money..." in Safari Tabs) page that details to where, generally, the $789 billion wad of taxpayer cash is disappearing. At first, the breakdown looks innocuous and appropriate; the largest portion of the stimulus package goes to tax relief. However, there's a big fat asterisk next to the "Tax Relief" bubble. The fine print:

* Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy, so total funds are $126 B for Infrastructure and Science, $142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $78 B for Education and Training, and $65 B for Energy.

Only 57% of porkulus "Tax Relief" is primarily tax relief. The other 43% is a product of Orwellian manipulation of unknown methodology. Given the President's high approval ratings, such shadiness is inexplicable. He hardly needs more good will. It's an adroit maneuver given public opinion, but unacceptable nonetheless. This, combined with the broken promise of lucidity, flunks the common sense test. The stimulus package fails on the transparency front.

Nancy Pelosi shrieked that 500 million American jobs would be lost for every month that the stimulus legislation did not pass. As such, Congress rushed the bill through, hand-written notes included, on February 13th just in time for Nancy Pelosi's trip to Europe. The President was less harried and thus waited until February 17th to sign the legislation. For all the bluster and panic, maybe the only reason Speaker Pelosi was so determined to jam the bill through Congress was because nobody liked it. On this level, the stimulus package fails the timeliness test.

The stimulus bill isn't as well-targeted as it might be. That much is inarguable. What is up for debate is just how badly the funds have been appropriated. The CATO Institute effectively argues that investing in the public education bureaucracy is throwing good money after bad. The folks at Power Line effectively argue that throwing money at the NIH is a bad idea. Tom Veal at the Stromata Blog effectively connects "cause and effect" and concludes that the President's mortgage restructuring plan isn't what's needed at this point in time. The staff at the Age of Pericles concurs. The stimulus package fails the "targeted" test. It would seem that all three of Barack's priorities ("timely, targeted, and transparent") have fallen by the wayside. But hey; he can always rob Peter to pay Paul for some cheap populist points.

Sharpton's Pseudo-Controversy Silliness

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:20:00 +0000

Alfred Sharpton Rants (And Raves)

Pseudo-controversy is a great friend of unpopular figures; it serves to draw attention away from important subjects to trifling semantic disputes. In light of plummeting approval ratings for the stimulus package, the Democratic Party can only benefit from changing the topic. The latest distraction is sadly predictable. Questionable race relations have once again reared their ugly head. Candidates on all sides of the political spectrum always endeavor to be slow to give offense and quick to take it. In this case, however, the alleged racist is Sean Delonas, a cartoonist at the New York Post. I haven't heard of him either. The object of sophisticated liberal ire:

The recently-breaking tale of an aggressive chimp mauling a woman and consequently taking a bullet from law enforcement was certain to become political fodder. After all, George Bush was characterized as a chimpanzee on the famous "George W. Bush or Chimpanzee?" website. Leftists on forums like Democratic Underground gleefully parroted such mockery. One might assume that a cartoon like the one above would be taken as benign. Mais non! C'est racisme! Supposedly, the cartoon labels Barack Obama as a chimpanzee, a fairly common racist stereotype.

That's not true, of course. The caption specifically states that someone else would have to write the new stimulus bill. By extension, a few lefties have jumped to the conclusion that the cartoon references Obama, one going so far as suggesting that the illustration advocates regicide. That's demonstrably untrue, because Obama didn't write the bill. Therefore, the caption wouldn't make sense if the chimp depicted President Obama. David R. Obey (D-WI), a white male, wrote the bill. That hasn't stopped offense-mongers nationwide from snatching an opportunity to pigeonhole those dirty fiscal conservatives as racists. Alfred Sharpton and members of the National Action Network intend to picket the New York Post headquarters in protest of the so-called "racially offensive" cartoon.

Attached above is tomorrow's (Thursday's) forecast for New York, NY in which the New York Post keeps its headquarters. The staff here at Age of Pericles are holding out for the 10% chance of precipitation. Perhaps that'll dampen Mr. Sharpton's insatiable appetite for pseudo-controversy.

Porky the Stimulus Package

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 06:02:00 +0000

Porky the Stimulus Package Menaces American Economy
The greatest act of generational theft since the term was coined has passed both houses of Congress and now needs only the Presidential signature to take effect, regardless of the broken promise to post the final bill online for 48 hours before passage. That's probably just because it's an "profound economic emergency". Sound like fear-mongering? if you thought so, you can't be far off the mark, given that during the campaign Obama accused McCain of fear-mongering, fear-mongered about fear-mongering, and more recently engaged in plain-Jane fear-mongering about the economy. Don't get exercised, though, for we've all been subsidized at a rate of $13 per week. All joking aside, the stimulus package is a disaster of monstrous proportion. It promises an enormous deficit, mountains of wasteful spending, and a Keynesian debacle on par with Boston's Big Dig.

Enormous increases in the budget deficit and national debt are self-explanatory. The scale of these increases, however, is astronomical and more difficult to comprehend. This chart provided by Strategas Research Partners effectively provides visual evidence of just how deep the hole we are digging ourself is. The United States government simply cannot continue running up gargantuan debt numbers for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, interest has to be paid on debt outstanding, both to foreign investors and the American public. The debt run up by the government in fiscal year 2009 is $138,450,208,820.69, which accounts for only the public debt. Intergovernmental debt adds another $86,686,226,374.07. Adding interest paid on public debt to interest paid on intergovernmental holdings, we reach a total of $225,136,435,194.76. In case you're curious, that's 1.6% of the US GDP paid out in interest in just 4 months. Think that's not big enough? Don't worry; it doesn't include interest paid on the money to be borrowed for the stimulus package. Therein lies the problem.

The package is rife with pork and careless spending. The kicker, though, is the new ~~pork~~ programs that it authorizes and funds. The list of new bureaucracies and opportunities for corruption is mind-boggling. The issue with which American taxpayers should be most concerned is the 10-year cost of a few ofthese newly-minted projects, estimated at 3.27 trillion by the Congressional Budget Office. Some of these programs are old ideas with new funding, notably "Head Start" which has the potential to become a big-government disaster on the scale of any other misbegotten and badly-managed entitlement. Nancy Pelosi, the Wicked Witch of the West, illustrated the incredible importance of rushing through the half-baked stimulus legislation by noting that 500 million jobs are lost for every month that the bill doesn't pass. Obama, however, has acted far more lethargically. As of yet, the porkulus has not been signed into law almost two full days after its passage, nor has a copy been posted at the administration "Recovery" website. That might have something to do with the fact that nobody has actually read the bill, and if one desires to get a copy of it he'd better be a lobbyist. Why wasn't the bill sent back to the drawing board? God forbid that our Congress might have to work on the weekend.

How To Crush Hamas

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 06:53:00 +0000

Young Terrorists Graduate

Hamas, the democratically elected governing party in the Gaza Strip, has proven to be a very effective concentrator of power. Despite the privations and hardship of life in the Gaza Strip, the group (labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department and the European Union) has flourished in the eyes of public opinion. Also known as the Islamic Resistance group, Hamas has taken living conditions in Gaza from bad to absolutely squalid. The organization gains power in a systematic fashion by which power begets power, and understanding this progression is key to stopping it.

Voting Hamas was a protest vote against Fatah for many in the Gaza Strip. Of course, the wisdom of voting for an anti-Semitic, genocidal, and generally insane organization whose charter explicitly demands the destruction of Israel among other similar gems is questionable at best, but the skill of basic factual analysis sometimes runs out during extended conflicts. In any case, Hamas is currently the majority government and has deigned it proper to use their authority in the most Machiavellian possible manner. The Islamic Resistance Group (Hamas) reigns over a devastated economy and a tired citizenry. Average daily income is pegged at two dollars, unemployment is at 45%, and 99.3% of the population practices Islam. Hamas uses all three of these factors to manufacture future suicide bombers and fighters to continue its endless war of conquest against Israel. But hey, fighting the big bad Zionists and their fictional international banking conglomerate is a global pastime, particularly in Europe where anti-Semitism is on the march. Again.

Hamas has succeeded in creating dependence due to the bargain-basement per capita income in Gaza. Average citizens are forced to depend on the government for daily necessities such as fuel oil, which is affected by the crippling Israeli (ed. note- sarcasm) inhumane blockade. Yeah, that same blockade that doesn't exist. Citizens of Gaza are essentially victims of Stockholm syndrome- despite a plunging economy, terrifying conditions, and a government that cares more about killing Israelis than aiding Gazans, public support for Hamas is doing anything but slipping. That's a bit like the city of Boston waging war against the rest of the US, getting leveled, and then reelecting the mayor; on the other hand, with all the decriminalized marijuana floating around, that's not so farfetched.

The unemployment rate in the States has recently risen to 7.6%. Fortunately, we're not shooting each other yet, though a few sad cases have resorted to shooting themselves. In the Gaza Strip, the situation is even grimmer. Unemployment has risen to a mind-blowing 45%. There's an old English proverb suggesting that an idle mind is the Devil's workshop. One need only examine the situation in Gaza to realize the wisdom of such a statement. Desperate poverty added to restless unemployed youth is a recipe for extremism, even excluding religious influences for the sake of argument.

Religious influences, however, are enormously important to the conflict in the Middle East. The Gaza Strip is 99.3% Islamic, and the Hamas Charter is 100% Islamist. Niceties like the separation of church and state are glossed over in favor of incitement to religious hatred. The words "Jew" and "Israel" are mentioned no less than 12 and 6 times respectively. "Jihad" is mentioned 36 times. Words of seemingly little import, like "economy", are only mentioned once. At this point in time, Gaza is brimming with poverty-stricken, unemployed, and Muslim youth. These youth are naturally desirous of a central organizing body. You guessed it; instead of using their human capital clout to create products and improve living standards in the Strip, Hamas is happy to direct their attentions outward to a common cause- the destruction of Israel and Judaism in general.

Hamas is a dangerous organization hellbent on the destruction of the basic precepts upon which Western civilization rests. However, they are powerless without human and ideological capital. The key to limiting the scope of its actions is not to behead it by killing its leadership- to do so still leaves the teeming masses of poor unemployed Muslim youth looking for a cause. Instead, Israel must work to create economic improvement within the Gaza Strip. This cannot be done without removing Hamas, which has mismanaged the economy into the ground. Decisive action must be taken (and is destined to be taken at some point) to absolutely and completely debase Hamas' power structure. Support for Hamas will remain viable until economic improvements are made, but Hamas is the main impediment to economic improvement. The fact that the group is more interested in killing Israeli citizens than ameliorating the situation in the Strip makes this much clear. Therefore, Israel must decisively crush Hamas and immediately follow up by pumping investment capital into the Gaza Strip lest the group regenerate. To create, Israel must first devastate. The question is whether or not the international community can stomach further military action in Gaza.

Battle of the Bloviators, Round 2

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 03:38:00 +0000

Keith Prepares to Unleash an Incoherent and Partisan Rant

Five FOX News primetime hosts are now outpacing Keith Olbermann in terms of viewer count. The numbers don't lie, and neither should they surprise anybody. After all, Olbermann is the early forerunner in the contest of who can spread the most contagious Bush Derangement Syndrome. In his first 1/29/09 segment, he referred to Republicans as "lying" as well as "simpering and whining", while he referred to President Obama's statement on 2008 Wall Street bonuses as "very deserved, very commendable, and very dramatic". 6 out of 8 of his segments prominently dumped on Republicans while canonizing Democrats, including 3 of 8 segments that directly involved Bush's legacy or his closest allies. The following statistics were sourced from the Drudge Report on the night of January 29th, 2009 and reflected viewer numbers on that same night.

FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,891,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,034,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,306,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,299,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,155,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,581,000
CNN COOPER 1,559,000
CNN KING 1,420,000
CNN BLITZER 1,490,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,435,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,398,000

For purposes of comparison, here is a piece written by yours truly on December 16, 2008 about the Olbermann-O'Reilly rivalry. Needless to say, O'Reilly won that fight and is now dancing in the end zone. The most important piece of information clear from a comparison of yesterday's statistics and those from late 2008 is that Fox News primetime viewership has increased some 9%, and Hardball with Chris Matthews (an MSNBC show) has dropped off the top 11 primetime cable TV shows in terms of viewer numbers. Furthermore, O'Reilly garnered more than double the number of viewers than Olbermann did, and he even pulled off a victory in the vaunted 25-54 age group.

As the nation marches off into a new age of partisanship to the beat of Obama's drum, Keith's angry and sometimes profane outbursts seem like relics of a bitter and clingy past, just like principled policy in regards to Israel and sensible trade policy. But we oughtn't fear- "cleverness" shall now suffice for political, economic, and military clout. Unless, of course, the "new era of responsibility" isn't all that it's cracked up to be or that tidbit about extending a hand to figures with "unclenched fists" only applies to ruthless dictators and not Republican congressmen. But a proper liberal has a bad answer to every good question, as is demonstrated by an exchange I had with a devoted "progressive" Democrat earlier. "Why was the misery rate so high during Carter's administration?" His reply: "Carter had to pay for years of Reaganomics."

A Comedy of Errors

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:37:00 +0000

BIg Brother, or Tattling Little Sister?

The Central Intelligence Agency has failed on multiple levels within the past 8 years. The newest shocking story, exclusively from ABC News, details an alleged multiple rape case in which the CIA Algerian station chief, incidentally a convert to Islam, is accused of drugging and violating two Muslim women. In a further alleged lapse of judgement, he allegedly videotaped the entire episode(s). All of these charges are, of course, unproven and under investigation. However, it seems appropriate to detail a few of the blunders in which the CIA has had an incontrovertible hand, all of which severely damaged American credibility and/or the safety of US nationals.

In perhaps the most blatant political intelligence manipulation scam in recent history, the Agency was a prolific source of spin, third-party-sources fables, and flat-out anti-Bush propaganda. In fact, the CIA is about as good at containing a national security secret as a pasta sieve is at containing water. While an occasional leak isn't necessarily a sign of a serious problem, the volume and political tenor of the abundance of material originating from "anonymous sources" in the Agency is damning. Political spinning of intelligence is both dangerous and childish. It is not, however, unusual.

The CIA did more than just trying to sabotage Bush's reputation; they actively (intentionally?) got just about everything wrong about Iraq. Douglas J. Feith, the former (2001-2005) Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, explained (in his book War and Decision) a few of the intelligence failures created and perpetuated by figures within the Agency.

...What was not anticipated--by any office, as far as I know--was the Iraqi regime's ability to conduct a sustained campaign against coalition forces after it was overthrown. When the CIA, in August 2002, analyzed how Saddam might attack, surprise, or otherwise foil us in a war, its analysis only dealt with actions Saddam might take while still in power. I never saw a CIA assessment that the Baathists, after their ouster, would be able to organize, recruit for, finance, supply, command, and control an insurgency- let alone in alliance with foreign jihadists...

...Rodman was concerned that State and CIA tended to accentuate the negative about Iraqi "externals" (political groups opposed to Saddam's rule -ed.) as a group, even though these were the only partners available for planning to reconstitute the Iraqi government...

...We still weren't aware of how few sources the CIA had on Iraq and how sparse its information was- disabilities that became known to policy officials and the rest of the world only after Saddam's overthrow, when the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Slberman-Robb Commission undertook the their investigation of Iraq-related intelligence mistakes on WMD...

The Algerian station chief's alleged inability to keep Tab A from Slot B may be the next act in a comedy of errors that has caused, and is causing, catastrophic damage to American interests worldwide. The CIA used to be the stuff of legend, characterized by rakishly angled fedoras, Lucky Strike cigarettes, sacred secrecy, and unimpeachable accuracy. Nowadays, one can look to The Onion for more credible information. With the appointment of an office manager to the Directorship of the Agency, can we expect much better?

Hope, Followed by Fumbles

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:28:00 +0000

"Perhaps we can borrow more from China..."

The afterglow from the inauguration is fading, and so too is my reservoir of good will for President Barack Obama. It reached high water level during his inaugural speech, in which he pledged to win victory over the terrorist threat as well as issued a warning to those who would blame the world's ills on the West. Given Obama's record, it was sophistry at best, but it was sophistry reflecting Platonic concepts of justice. In fact, Mr. Obama even indicated that leaders who attempt to silence dissent are on the "wrong" side of history. While not quite as ringing or memorable as George W. Bush's 2004 assertion that oppression is always wrong and freedom is eternally right, le nouveau presidente made it fairly clear that he is not absolutely dedicated to moral relativism.

However, it's been mostly downhill from there. January 20th has been declared a "National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation". In keeping with the spirit of the day, Obama renewed his criticism of the departed Bush Administration and began the process of reconciling his better judgement with the wishes of the international left. Mr. Standard and Mr. Poor opined on President Obama and delivered a negative verdict. In a further indictment of Obama's judgement, he placed his first call from the White House to Mahmoud Abbas, the disputed president of the powerless Palestinian National Authority and candidate of the hardly moderate Fatah party. While he may be the lesser of two evils, it is more appropriate for a President to call allied figures (read: Israel) before he calls helpless semi-deposed leaders of failed corrupt states. But that's not a first as far as offending allies goes. Stay classy, Barack.

America has entered a "new age of responsibility". The nation will mark the occasion by hurling $825 billion towards a gaping pit known colloquially as the national banking system. As we citizens, in Obama's soaring rhetoric, set aside "childish things", the oldest business in the world commences anew with headquarters in Washington, D.C. Running a profitable business is becoming a bad financial decision, as the government "extends a hand" to any corporation with an "unclenched fist" and a bloody balance sheet. Clearly, the only responsibility the Obama administration is interested in is the average American's responsibility to pay the tax bill that we are going to be saddled with shortly as a direct result of government irresponsibility.

The Importance of Asymmetric Aims

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 04:21:00 +0000

Hamas' Modus Operandi

Anybody with a casual interest in the machinations of the liberal mind is already familiar with the standard anti-Israel talking points. Supposedly, Israel is a horribly aggressive power simply because their military is more effective at killing Hamas fighters than Hamas is at killing Israeli civilians. If one were to look at only the coffin count, it would certainly appear that Israel is acting in an unscrupulous manner and ending many more lives than necessary. However, it is important to note that Hamas and Israel and playing by two very different sets of rules. While Israel is bound by a nattering and indecisive UN as well as international law, Hamas is free to rewrite the rulebook as they see fit. Having already been labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department as well as the European Union, they don't have much to lose. As such, Hamas indulges in such atrocities as launching crude but dangerous rockets into civilian population centers in Sderot as well as other areas bordering the Gaza Strip. Israel mostly grins and bears it, but the Jewish state recently began a campaign to end the rocket attacks.

There is a distinction to be made between Israel's mission, for which the main objective is permanent cessation of Hamas' rocket attacks, and retaliation. Israel is not, per se, retaliating against Hamas. If the stated objective of Operation Cast Lead was to retaliate for Hamas' rocket attacks, the proportionality argument might bear some weight. However, Israeli Defense Force has an entirely different set of objectives. Commanders in the field have been targeting Hamas infrastructure rather than civilians. If they desired to play by Hamas' rules and fight "an eye for an eye", they would be bombing targets to maximize civilian casualties. But they don't, so they're not. As a matter of fact, Israel has made every reasonable effort to prevent civilian casualties.

There is an asymmetry of means, as Charles Krauthammer cogently explains, which significantly affects the dynamics of the current conflict in the Middle East. Simply comparing the body count (or the poignant photographs originating in Gaza) on each side doesn't account for what each dead combatant or civilian died for. The purpose of injecting Israeli soldiers into war-torn Gaza is to stop the relentless rocket attacks, while Hamas' purpose in committing its fighters to battle is the destruction of Israel. Liberals often complain that conservative politicians reduce war to nothing more than snapshots and statistics; would they, perhaps, be guilty of the same offense?

Proportional In Every Sense

noreply@blogger.com (Sam Shaw) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:24:00 +0000

Innocent Palestinian Children (Ignore the Hamas Headbands)

The international media engages in delusions about Big Bad Israel on a daily basis. Most of the time, the far left are happy to drink it up and theorize about Israeli plans for domination of the Middle East. However, they never hesitate to jump at an opportunity to level a more serious accusation at the "Zionist criminals"; when Israel decided to stand up for its citizenry this past week, the Daily Kos was terribly excited about how "disproportionate" Israel's attacks upon Gaza were. Supposedly, because the body count on the Palestinian side far exceeds that on the Israeli side, Israel has committed a war crime. By that logic, every successful military leader in history has been a war criminal, but then again, leftist logic isn't really logic at all. While the Geneva Convention clearly states clearly states that the presence of civilians doesn't exclude a military target from lawful attack, the anti-Israel protesters march on hemming and hawing about the destruction of a school that was used by Hamas as a mortar launching area. The "disproportionate" argument is very easy to invalidate with a bit of Google work.

An exchange of firepower is not legally disproportionate if one side has more firepower than the other. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, made it excruciatingly clear in a letter to those alleging war crimes against Iraqi citizens that unintentional civilian deaths caused by military operations in any given theater are not in and of themselves war crimes. For a civilian death to be a war crime, the goal of the mission during which the death of the civilian occurred must have been to kill that civilian. In other words, the general in the field may order an attack on a military facility knowing full well that civilian casualties may result as long as that general believes that the military objective he seeks is proportionate to the death of civilians. For a fun comparison, note that Hamas' objective in launching rockets over the border was to kill civilians, while Israel's objective in invading Gaza is to prevent the death of more Israeli civilians. Furthermore, when a belligerent uses a civilian military installation for military purposes (I'm talking to you, Hamas), that belligerent is responsible for any civilian deaths that result.

In lighter news, EU diplomats continue to prove that Europe is circling the drain intellectually, politically, and militarily. Louis Michel, the EU Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissioners, made a remarkably Chamberlain-esque comment in denouncing George W. Bush "who is doing nothing to create a climate of appeasement propitious to peace." Really, Louis? Appeasement has been tried before; think Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, and just for fun, how about Lebanon?