Saturday, November 27, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Christie Could Be Like Reagan
Christie Could Be Like Reagan
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What Do You Do When Profits Go Down?
If you're a socialist like Marx, you call it excess production capacity when profits decline. Power to the working class!
If you're a more traditional Keynesian, you say we have a problem with demand, nothing that a little stimulus won't cure.
If you're a libertarian like Friedman, you say get the hell out of the economy and let the business fail if it's producing things people don't want!
If you're a more traditional Keynesian, you say we have a problem with demand, nothing that a little stimulus won't cure.
If you're a libertarian like Friedman, you say get the hell out of the economy and let the business fail if it's producing things people don't want!
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Sarah Palin: American Law Should Be 'Based On The God Of The Bible And The Ten Commandments'
Hi Leslie and Rob,
Here’s support for your argument that Palin doesn’t know what she needs to know. In this instance, she doesn’t know enough about our constitutional roots:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/sarah-palin-american-law_n_569922.html
The founders differed a great deal among themselves, but they reached broad agreement about matters of church and state. First, discussing God in the public square was just fine. They invoked God and his blessings on the new nation all the time. Lincoln in the nineteenth century and Wilson in the twentieth were two presidents who extended this tradition.
Second, a government that favors a particular church, sect, tradition or faith was not fine. The inter-faith wars in Europe were a recent memory for the founders. They wanted no part of those conflicts in America. Thus the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution. I should know where that phrase appears, but I don’t remember.
So in this country we have two extremes. One group wants to exclude all discussion of God from public discourse, no matter where it comes from. Most recently we saw opposition to a national day of prayer. Another group – led by Palin – wants not only God, but a Christian God central to our public discourse. We had a vision from the founders of a civil society that welcomes publicly expressed religious beliefs, but doesn’t favor a particular church. Current arguments about God’s place in the public square no longer point toward that vision.
Love,
Steve
P. S. In the last campaign, reporters asked Obama why he didn’t wear a flag pin in his lapel. He started wearing one. What would happen if a candidate wore a cross or a star of David in the same location? How about a cross next to the flag? In a healthier political environment, a candidate could wear anything and no one would remark about it. At least, no one would say anything directly to the candidate about the symbol.
It’d be great if a candidate wore a different symbol every day! One problem: Muslims eschew symbols like that, so they’d be left out of the rotation. Plus a male candidate wouldn’t want to wear a head scarf.
/sfg
Here’s support for your argument that Palin doesn’t know what she needs to know. In this instance, she doesn’t know enough about our constitutional roots:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/sarah-palin-american-law_n_569922.html
The founders differed a great deal among themselves, but they reached broad agreement about matters of church and state. First, discussing God in the public square was just fine. They invoked God and his blessings on the new nation all the time. Lincoln in the nineteenth century and Wilson in the twentieth were two presidents who extended this tradition.
Second, a government that favors a particular church, sect, tradition or faith was not fine. The inter-faith wars in Europe were a recent memory for the founders. They wanted no part of those conflicts in America. Thus the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution. I should know where that phrase appears, but I don’t remember.
So in this country we have two extremes. One group wants to exclude all discussion of God from public discourse, no matter where it comes from. Most recently we saw opposition to a national day of prayer. Another group – led by Palin – wants not only God, but a Christian God central to our public discourse. We had a vision from the founders of a civil society that welcomes publicly expressed religious beliefs, but doesn’t favor a particular church. Current arguments about God’s place in the public square no longer point toward that vision.
Love,
Steve
P. S. In the last campaign, reporters asked Obama why he didn’t wear a flag pin in his lapel. He started wearing one. What would happen if a candidate wore a cross or a star of David in the same location? How about a cross next to the flag? In a healthier political environment, a candidate could wear anything and no one would remark about it. At least, no one would say anything directly to the candidate about the symbol.
It’d be great if a candidate wore a different symbol every day! One problem: Muslims eschew symbols like that, so they’d be left out of the rotation. Plus a male candidate wouldn’t want to wear a head scarf.
/sfg
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Political Leaders and Intelligence
Hi Leslie and Rob,
I just saw in Huffington Post that Bill Maher’s nickname for Sarah Palin is Mrs. Moron. That made me smile.
It’s a reminder though of something that Garry Wills wrote a long time ago. He observed that political leaders do much better when they are of middling intelligence – mediocre is the word he used. So why do we want our leaders to be so smart? We don’t want them to be too wealthy, too randy, too pushy, too fussy, or too anything, really. Why do we want them to be so brainy?
Anyway, no one would mistake Palin for a brainiac.
Love,
Steve
P. S. You could say that leaders with extra brains are better problem solvers, or that they’re more entertaining, or that we trust them more, but each one of those reasons sounds pretty doubtful to me.
Nixon was smart, but no one would call him entertaining or trustworthy.
Here’s an interesting case: Kennedy was blessed with high intelligence, and many voters loved him for his leadership qualities. But many individuals, including people in his government who were quite powerful, thought he was not a good leader. As with Julius Caesar, they did not trust him, and his extraordinary intelligence may have been a factor in that.
/S. G.
I just saw in Huffington Post that Bill Maher’s nickname for Sarah Palin is Mrs. Moron. That made me smile.
It’s a reminder though of something that Garry Wills wrote a long time ago. He observed that political leaders do much better when they are of middling intelligence – mediocre is the word he used. So why do we want our leaders to be so smart? We don’t want them to be too wealthy, too randy, too pushy, too fussy, or too anything, really. Why do we want them to be so brainy?
Anyway, no one would mistake Palin for a brainiac.
Love,
Steve
P. S. You could say that leaders with extra brains are better problem solvers, or that they’re more entertaining, or that we trust them more, but each one of those reasons sounds pretty doubtful to me.
Nixon was smart, but no one would call him entertaining or trustworthy.
Here’s an interesting case: Kennedy was blessed with high intelligence, and many voters loved him for his leadership qualities. But many individuals, including people in his government who were quite powerful, thought he was not a good leader. As with Julius Caesar, they did not trust him, and his extraordinary intelligence may have been a factor in that.
/S. G.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Opposition to value-added tax crosses the political spectrum
Opposition to value-added tax crosses the political spectrum
Can you believe what you're reading here?
Can you believe what you're reading here?
'I think we have to remember that low taxes or tax rates are not an end in themselves; they are the means to an end, which is higher growth and greater prosperity,' Bartlett wrote on the blog Capital Gains and Games. 'In this sense, I think right wingers pay far too much attention to the negative economic consequences of taxation while essentially ignoring the negative economic consequences of extremely large deficits.'
Friday, April 09, 2010
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Fein: Beck, Paul could be future for Republicans
Here’s a kernel for you: Time for a Divorce? This could be an interesting one to write!
Here’s something from the Daily Northwestern:
http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/fein-beck-paul-could-be-future-for-republicans-1.2166606
Here’s something from the Daily Northwestern:
http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/fein-beck-paul-could-be-future-for-republicans-1.2166606
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Shaw and Churchill
"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend... if you have one."
- George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill
"Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one."
- Winston Churchill, in response.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Dancing in the Street - Scott Brown
Here’s an article from a British website:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6995921.ece
A quotation from the article:
Mr. Brown said voters were fed up. “The main thing they want is good government back and to be part of the process,” he said. “I think they sent a very, very powerful message that business as usual is not going to be the way we do it.”
We’ve all heard a lot of analysis, with much emphasis on left vs. right and Republican vs. Democrat. Scott has been out talking with people, and the message he brings back carries a lot of credibility. Obama promised no more business as usual, and the perception, despite all his initiatives, is that the way we do business didn’t change at all.
Obama can’t change things by himself, but he and the people around him have clearly underestimated the anger and anxiety voters feel.
What counts as good government?
· Honest
· Open
· Responsive to citizens’ needs
· Effective leadership
· Competent
One looks at the process of health care reform, and the government does not meet one of these standards. The same goes for financial reform and stewardship of the economy.
It started when the Democrats arrogantly told the Republicans in Congress last spring, “You don’t want to play ball with us? Good. Then fuck off.” Republicans bear some of the blame for that, but with a little more patience the Democrats could have found some Republican legislators who were willing to talk.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6995921.ece
A quotation from the article:
Mr. Brown said voters were fed up. “The main thing they want is good government back and to be part of the process,” he said. “I think they sent a very, very powerful message that business as usual is not going to be the way we do it.”
We’ve all heard a lot of analysis, with much emphasis on left vs. right and Republican vs. Democrat. Scott has been out talking with people, and the message he brings back carries a lot of credibility. Obama promised no more business as usual, and the perception, despite all his initiatives, is that the way we do business didn’t change at all.
Obama can’t change things by himself, but he and the people around him have clearly underestimated the anger and anxiety voters feel.
What counts as good government?
· Honest
· Open
· Responsive to citizens’ needs
· Effective leadership
· Competent
One looks at the process of health care reform, and the government does not meet one of these standards. The same goes for financial reform and stewardship of the economy.
It started when the Democrats arrogantly told the Republicans in Congress last spring, “You don’t want to play ball with us? Good. Then fuck off.” Republicans bear some of the blame for that, but with a little more patience the Democrats could have found some Republican legislators who were willing to talk.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Foxy | The New Republic
I wasn’t going to send this one, as I know the topic can be upsetting! Michelle Cottle addresses the burning question in our family: Is Sarah Palin as dumb as she sounds? I think Cottle’s on to something.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Friday, January 01, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
They were wrong about Medicare, too | Cynthia Tucker
They were wrong about Medicare, too | Cynthia Tucker: "They were wrong about Medicare, too
12:15 pm November 19, 2009, by ctucker
Nicholas Kristof has a great column today on the critics of health care reform and how their criticisms about the dire consequences — socialism! government takeover! — are wrong. How does he know? It’s all been said before. Read his column or just go straight to an audio tape of Ronald Reagan blasting the proposed Medicare plan in 1961.
Reagan was wrong, too.
If you don’t (oppose it), this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Medicare is now so popular that no politician dares talk about trying to change it. That included Reagan, who, when he ran for president, wanted voters to forget his earlier opposition to Medicare."
12:15 pm November 19, 2009, by ctucker
Nicholas Kristof has a great column today on the critics of health care reform and how their criticisms about the dire consequences — socialism! government takeover! — are wrong. How does he know? It’s all been said before. Read his column or just go straight to an audio tape of Ronald Reagan blasting the proposed Medicare plan in 1961.
Reagan was wrong, too.
If you don’t (oppose it), this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Medicare is now so popular that no politician dares talk about trying to change it. That included Reagan, who, when he ran for president, wanted voters to forget his earlier opposition to Medicare."
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Upcoming Senate Vote on Climate Change
Dear Senator Kerry,
I just read the article in today's Washington Post about the upcoming Senate vote on the climate change bill. Please, please, please vote no on this bill. Do not approve a cap and trade system. It is a bad idea, and bad for your constituents.
I admire the stand you took against the Vietnam war when it was not such a popular stand to take. I hope you'll show similar courage in the debate about the climate change bill.
Clean energy, such as wind power generated off the Cape, is a good idea. A cap and trade system is poor public policy from beginning to end. Please do whatever you can to prevent it.
Thank you,
Steven Greffenius
I just read the article in today's Washington Post about the upcoming Senate vote on the climate change bill. Please, please, please vote no on this bill. Do not approve a cap and trade system. It is a bad idea, and bad for your constituents.
I admire the stand you took against the Vietnam war when it was not such a popular stand to take. I hope you'll show similar courage in the debate about the climate change bill.
Clean energy, such as wind power generated off the Cape, is a good idea. A cap and trade system is poor public policy from beginning to end. Please do whatever you can to prevent it.
Thank you,
Steven Greffenius
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Some Thoughts on Your Next Book
The working title for your next essay is:
Why Global Warming is a Hoax
You want to do one book a year, so you have to work steadily!
John Rich Lyrics - Shuttin' Detroit Down
“I see all these big shots whining on my evening news,
About how they’re losing billions and it’s up to me and you
To come running to the rescue.”
Yes, but let’s not forget, the taxpayers offered big bailouts before any big shots requested them.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Limited Vision
That's enough for now, then,
Stop pushing your perennial pen.
Climb those blasted stairs, my friend,
Sleep’s the eternal cure for men.
Before you close your eyes for everlasting rest,
Ask your master for peace and freedom, lest
When he comes to take you home,
He finds you guilt-ridden, lying prone.
But what, I ask, what if I don’t finish
The work you want me to accomplish?
What’s the joy in that, to go up there
With so little to show, portfolio bare?
“Who are you to say, you haven’t done what I asked?
How can you know the full compass of your life’s meaning?
Do you insist that every accomplishment draw its own picture
In your mind? Do you discredit all the invisible deeds
That don’t feed your ego and lift your self-esteem?”
I won’t try to answer you, Mr. G.
Except to say that I agree.
Take me home, early or late.
By your grace, I’ll watch and wait.
Let me pray, though, one brief hope,
That you reveal, when you’re with me,
What my life meant, beyond its scope.
What did I accomplish, when I couldn’t see?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Why Rush is Wrong | David Frum
Why Rush is Wrong | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com:
"In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don't care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult."
"In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don't care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult."
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Treasury's Efforts to Deal with the Financial Crisis
Treasury Begins to Release Details of Loan Plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/business/economy/05loan.html
Note the second word of the headline, begins.
Here’s the difficulty. For months, Treasury has made plans secretly, without public debate. The reason: if we let details out in advance, it could roil the panicked markets even more than they already are. How do the markets, as they’re called, react? They say, we don’t trust what you’re doing back there, because you did it in secret. Moreover, we’re skeptical about supporting it, because we had no input.
If you don’t trust your would be rescuer, you’re not going to have much cooperation between the government and the banking system. What is the result? Treasury pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into the banking system to get loans flowing again, but the financial system remains shut down. Trust has disappeared, and Treasury is not setting a good example by making plans in secret. If the main problem in the financial system is lack of confidence or trust among its parts, you need an open rescue process to make it work again.
No one makes a loan without knowing the net worth of the borrower. Banks won’t lend each other money because they don’t know the value of each other’s assets. They do not trust that borrowers can pay back loans. That’s why the financial system shut down. Forcing banks to accept bailout money doesn’t solve the problem of valuing assets. Banks won’t loan money again until doubts about solvency are resolved. No one has yet figured out a way to value banks’ assets accurately, fairly, and in a way that won’t cause political trouble in the short term.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/business/economy/05loan.html
Note the second word of the headline, begins.
Here’s the difficulty. For months, Treasury has made plans secretly, without public debate. The reason: if we let details out in advance, it could roil the panicked markets even more than they already are. How do the markets, as they’re called, react? They say, we don’t trust what you’re doing back there, because you did it in secret. Moreover, we’re skeptical about supporting it, because we had no input.
If you don’t trust your would be rescuer, you’re not going to have much cooperation between the government and the banking system. What is the result? Treasury pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into the banking system to get loans flowing again, but the financial system remains shut down. Trust has disappeared, and Treasury is not setting a good example by making plans in secret. If the main problem in the financial system is lack of confidence or trust among its parts, you need an open rescue process to make it work again.
No one makes a loan without knowing the net worth of the borrower. Banks won’t lend each other money because they don’t know the value of each other’s assets. They do not trust that borrowers can pay back loans. That’s why the financial system shut down. Forcing banks to accept bailout money doesn’t solve the problem of valuing assets. Banks won’t loan money again until doubts about solvency are resolved. No one has yet figured out a way to value banks’ assets accurately, fairly, and in a way that won’t cause political trouble in the short term.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Monday, March 02, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Bumper Sticker on the New Administration
I'll keep my guns, freedom and money... You can keep the 'change.'
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Massachusetts Liberty - January 2009
Click Massachusetts Liberty to open the January issue of LPMA's January newsletter.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Post-Election Humor
We have to count our blessings...
One sunny day in February, 2009. an old man approached the White House from Across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer President, and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer President, and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine yet again, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably curious at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand just fine. I just love hearing it!"
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir."
One sunny day in February, 2009. an old man approached the White House from Across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer President, and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer President, and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine yet again, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably curious at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand just fine. I just love hearing it!"
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir."
