Category: Stupidity

Insight from an Irrelevant Question

From President Obama’s press conference last night, one reporter asked a pointless question about Alex Rodriguez and steroids. I don’t much care for the story, although if you played a drinking game based on his answers, you got to drink because he broke out the “for the children” defense. (But, remember, he’s not playing political games, unlike the rest of Washington.) Still, there’s something useful in his answer [transcript here]:

Q Yes, thank you, sir. What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez’s admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it’s depressing news on top of what’s been a flurry of depressing items when it comes to Major League Baseball. And if you’re a fan of Major League Baseball, I think it — it tarnishes an entire era to some degree. And it’s unfortunate, because I think there are a lot of ballplayers who played it straight. And the thing I’m probably most concerned about is the message that it sends to our kids.

What I’m pleased about is Major League Baseball seems to finally be taking this seriously, to recognize how big of a problem this is for the sport. And that our kids, hopefully, are watching and saying, you know what, there are no shortcuts; that when you try to take shortcuts, you may end up tarnishing your entire career, and that your integrity is not worth it. That’s the message I hope is communicated. [emphasis added]

The correct lesson is that shortcuts have consequences that each person must weigh for himself. Borrowing and spending $800 billion in an attempt to prop up an economy that has fundamental problems caused by government profligacy is a shortcut. It will have consequences. But with government the lesson is always the same. It’s not okay for an individual to take a shortcut that may have long-term consequences limited to himself because the shortcut offends our morals. But when government forces everyone to take a shortcut, then it’s okay because the shortcut is for the public good. Somehow.

Video here.

President Obama bumped his head. Everyone panic!

“Everyone panic” is my own interpretation of the CNN headline.

We can’t possibly be so obsessed with having a Dear Leader that a photographer filmed Obama walk across a field for 45 seconds. Yet, there’s the video. And when he “bumps” his head, it’s suddenly breaking “news”.

This isn’t the first time a president’s head has collided with Marine One: President George W. Bush hit his head on the side of the helicopter while boarding shortly after taking office — also in full view of a row of cameras.

I assume the editor knows this is not news and is just playing the (pathetically obvious) “see, we mock Democrats, too” angle. I fear what any other interpretation suggests.

Note: I know conservatives will run this on a continuous loop the way liberals ran the Bush clip on a loop. Liberals will undoubtedly be offended. Blah, blah, blah. That’s your Truth in Partisanship PSA for this apparently uneventful Monday.

Only We the People go to jail for unpaid taxes.

I wrote about Tom Daschle not paying his taxes on Twitter this morning, but it warrants another mention, this time with a comment from David Boaz at Cato @ Liberty:

I sympathize with anybody trying to hold down his tax bill. Government is too big and too expensive, few of us feel we get our money’s worth from our taxes, and we all have better uses for our money than bridges to nowhere and free condoms. But honestly, shouldn’t people who want to increase taxes on the rest of us — like Daschle, Geithner, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairman Charles Rangel, Al Franken, Governor David Paterson’s top aide, Democratic National Convention staffers, Al Sharpton, and so on — pay their own taxes? [Links omitted for aesthetics]

Higher taxes are always about forcing the other guy to pay for what you think everyone should have. When it’s not about power, it’s about requiring people to care about the “right” outcomes.

But, never forget that it’s always about power.

Let me root, root, root for the home team, If they don’t win it’s a … Congressional takeover?

You knew that TARP would lead to public shaming and Congressional indifference to contracts, right?

U.S. Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Ted Poe are urging the Obama administration to demand that Citigroup drop its $400 million, 20-year naming rights deal for Citi Field, the New York Mets’ new stadium scheduled to open in April, because of $45 billion the bank received in government aid.

“At Citigroup, 50,000 people will lose their jobs. Yet in the boardroom of Citigroup, spending $400 million to put a name on stadium seems like a good idea,” said Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat.

Citigroup and the New York Mets signed a contract. Now, because it’s not a populist expenditure, it’s invalid and Congress thinks it can tell the two parties that the contract is worthless. Surely demonstrating that contracts can’t be relied upon will strengthen the long-term economy.

However, notice how Rep. Kucinich refers to Citigroup spending $400 million. That is spread across 20 years. Are Reps. Kucinich and Poe suggesting that the economy will be bad for the next 20 years? Are they suggesting that the banks will be under Congressional control for the next 20 years? I know the answer to the latter, but I want to know if they’re invoking the politicians favorite power grab, the permanent crisis. That’s the safe assumption.

I also wonder if Reps. Kucinich and Poe have evidence to support their implicit assumption that naming rights do not work as a marketing tool. Being seen on television at least 81 times per year, as well as every sports highlight show after those 81 home games, are valued at less than $20 million per year? Based on what evidence?

Politicians pledge to distort the economy.

Economically, we’re screwed because President Obama is offering mortgage help. That’s bad, but the Republican response shows that not even the opposition gets it. (I know, surprise.):

Republicans, who opposed the president’s stimulus package of over $800 billion largely because of its spending priorities, suggested mortgage help as well, proposing government-backed 4 percent fixed-rate mortgages for “any credit-worthy borrower,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said.

“The availability of these low-interest loans would increase demand for houses significantly and low-interest mortgages would boost household income,” McConnell said in a separate radio address.

Unless people believe the near-future economy will be better, they’re not going to invest in housing, especially since a decent short-term memory will suggest that housing involves risk. But more importantly, isn’t artificially lowering the cost of an activity unwise?

The key is artificial. Sen. McConnell is offering no explanation for how he arrived at 4%, and I doubt he’s enough of an expert to determine that 4% is appropriate for “any (i.e. every) credit-worthy borrower”.

I don’t grasp how a low-interest mortgage increases household income, either. Does he mean disposable income? If so, does he mean only people with a high(er) interest rate mortgage already? For those who will enter the home buying market, will their mortgage be higher than their rent, even at 4%? This would decrease household disposable income. How will that help the economy?

Every time a politician interferes, that politician forgets that there are people who suffer from the decisions. Groups, as they exist for political posturing, are meaningless.

Nonsense of the Day

Roger Ebert’s best films of 2008 review includes this about Che, the soon-to-be-released biopic of Che Guevara:

The epic journey of a 20th century icon, the Argentinian physician who became a comrade of Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolu- tion and then moved to South America to support revolution there. Benicio del Toro is persuasive as the fiercely ethical firebrand, in a film that includes unusual and unfamiliar chapters in Che’s life. Steven Soderbergh’s film is 257 minutes long, but far from boring.

This generated the same reaction I had this morning when Howard Stern described Guevara as a freedom fighter when he introduced guest Benicio del Toro, who plays Guevara in Che. Ending dissent with murder is fiercely ethical? Agitating for dictatorship – with Che in charge, of course – is fighting for freedom?

I will never understand the bizarre fascination with Guevara as a hero.

Creating a Market in Coupons for Dead Technology

For those who can’t wait to have government take over health care and make it super fantastical and free, maybe another example will demonstrate the fallacy of this idea. The ongoing stupid party surrounding the subsidization of television as a right inherent in Congressional action protecting consumers from the forced national conversion to digital television continues with a new twist: Consumers have already demanded more $40 coupons than Congress authorized.

As of this past Sunday, consumers who request a $40 coupon to help offset the cost of a converter box are being placed on a waiting list. They may not receive the coupons before Feb. 17, when full-power television stations will shut off traditional analog broadcasts and transmit only digital signals.

Members of Congress are now scrambling to find ways to allocate more money to the program.

“We saw a massive spike in coupons in the past six weeks,” said Meredith Atwell Baker, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency within the Commerce Department that runs the coupon program. She said a record 7.2 million coupons were ordered in December, while the agency was expecting roughly 4 million requests. She urged consumers to make sure at least one television set is ready for the transition, with or without a coupon.

The government guessed incorrectly in its attempt to centrally plan the American television viewing method and failed to fund nearly half the unsurprising demand. When something is “free” (i.e. offered below market value), consumers will demand the service or good more than they would at the market price. Who knew? Yet, Congress is competent to predict exactly how many doctors we need? It can accurately predict how many maternity beds we need?

“[NTA has] left us precious little time to respond,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), chairman of the House Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet. “They’ve created a mess by not admitting that there was not sufficient funding until the very last minute. So now we’re looking for creative ways of solving the problem.”

Perhaps if the market could respond to a signal as clear as rising demand, the price could rise to compensate for a finite supply. Nope. Just get in line and pray enough coupons expire. Or find more money for every critical demand, since every demand is critical. Somewhere.

It’s clear that Congress doesn’t understand the inevitable, arbitrary rationing that results when artificial demand intersects with finite supply. But health care will be different. Somehow.

———-

Want to know why I’m not a big fan of consumer advocacy groups?

“NTIA is going to stop processing coupons precisely at the time when people need them the most,” said Joel Kelsey, policy analyst for Consumers Union. “Whatever Congress decides to do, it needs to be done as soon as possible to help people through this complicated transition,” he said.

When people need them most. Congress is throwing money around recklessly, with a potential $1,000,000,000,000 deficit for the fiscal year, and we’re discussing television as a need worthy of public subsidy. There is no way to advocate for that, unless the system is broken.

Netflix $1 Blu-ray Fee Increase Crisis Watch

The Benevolent Giver of Rescue must be very, very busy with all the bailouts. It’s been 47 days since I demanded my fair share of Free Money. Have I received a response from my (outgoing) Congressman? Nope. He must be very, very busy. But I’m sure I’m somewhere in the queue for Free Money.

Remember, it’s not my fault I bought a Blu-ray drive or that I expected more expensive movies to cost the same in the mail-order rental business. With up to $7,000,000,000,000 in Free Money being discussed, I’m sure the government can figure out a way to give me $1 per month so I can continue enjoying Blu-ray rentals from Netflix.

I hope so, because the $1 per month increase kicked in. I’m not sure how much longer I can hold out.

More on Hillary Clinton at State Department

Didn’t Hillary seriously bungle the organization of her campaign, worse than even the shoddy results we saw? Fear, chaos, confusion? Is this the manager we want putting together an organization designed to represent the United States to the world?

Rather than politically stupid, this is starting to strike me as politically smart, if extremely short-sighted. That short-sightedness speaks to an unbelievable indifference to the leadership task at hand. It’s incompetently stupid. At least before, I thought it was motivated by something thought out.

Now I don’t even think that. It helps him protect his flank because Hillary’s political future rests on helping Obama rather than undermining him. But she’s not competent to do the job he’s offering, which is to correct and manage our international reputation and interests. Who thinks she’ll fall on her figurative sword at the first major screw-up?

I think Kip’s theory is likely, that Clinton will be the Democratic VP nominee in 2012. How better to protect himself from her, if necessary, during his potential second term? I also think this confirms my analysis on Obama saving Lieberman for his own political sake, not because he’s a new type of politician.

I’m thrilled that I did not vote for Obama. No buyer’s remorse here.

P.S. I link to Megan McArdle’s blog entry stating buyer’s remorse at Austan Goolsbee apparently being bypassed for chairman of Obama White House Council of Economic Advisers not to gloat that I’m smarter because she voted for Obama and I didn’t. I’m only saying that being skeptical beyond the point of cynicism will successfully predict a politician’s future behavior more often than his considering his campaign behavior. Ohio revealed the real Obama, not the rhetoric he offered before, or “secretly” during.

Judge by actions rather than words.

Compare and contrast two articles (all emphasis added). First, coaches removed Buck Burnette from the University of Texas football team:

Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president Tuesday night, Burnette wrote on his Facebook status: “All the hunters gather up, we have a (racial epithet) in the White House.”

Screen captures showed this apology from Burnette before his Facebook page was taken down: “Clearly, I have made a mistake and apologized for it and will pay for it. I received it as a text message from an acquaintance and immaturely put it up on facebook (sic) in the light of the election. Im (sic) not racist and apologize for offending you. I grew up on a ranch in a small town where that was a real thing and I need to grow up. I sincerely am sorry for being ignorant in thinking that it would be ok (sic) to write that publicly and apologize to you in particular… . I have to be more mature than to put the reputation of my team at stake and to spread that kind of hate which I dont (sic) even believe in. Once again, I sincerely apologize.”

Second, Californians explain why they voted to eliminate rights from others:

“I think it’s mainly because of the way we were brought up in the church; we don’t agree with it,” said Jasmine Jones, 25, who is black. “I’m not really the type that I wanted to stop people’s rights. But I still have my beliefs, and if I can vote my beliefs that’s what I’m going to do.

And:

“I don’t discriminate against people,” [Pablo Correa] said, with a wave at the rows of lipstick and makeup. “I have a lot of customers who are homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals. I’m not against these people.“

He added: “But I’m a traditionalist. I come from a traditional family. People can do whatever they want in their own life, but I have to protect my family.”

Buck Burnette is the least despicable of the three people in these two stories because his bigotry was impotent and harmed only himself. But maybe I’m wrong. Jones and Correa aren’t bigots. They said so.