Actually, this would be Stimulus #3

How quickly they forget the $168 billion Bush stimulus package, even as they begin work on a new one:

Confronted with big job losses and no sign the U.S. economy is ready to stand on its own, Democrats are working on a growing list of relief efforts, leaving for later how to pay for them, or whether even to bother. Proposals include extending and perhaps expanding a popular tax credit for first-time home buyers, and creating a new credit for companies that add jobs. Taken together, the proposals look a lot like another economic stimulus package, though congressional leaders don’t want to call it that.

Question: if the economy is already in a recovery that began in the summer of 2009, why is a third stimulus package required?

Bulls can fly

This chart is the sort of indicator that inspires me to construct phrases such as “larger in scale and scope”. Notice that the P/E ratios are significantly higher than they were prior to the 2000 crash.

I have two words

That’s all that is needed to conclusively refute the Favre doubters who are casting aspersions on the Viking quarterback’s ability to maintain his level of performance over the course of a 16-game season. Yes, we know he started fast with the Jets last year. Yes, we know he faded in the stretch. Yes, we know the late-season fade cost the Jets a playoff spot. Yes, we know the Vikes haven’t beaten anyone but a banged-up Green Bay team yet and the competition only gets tougher. Yes, we know all the risks. And yet, we’re perfectly willing, we’re cheerfully willing, to gamble on a 40-year old gunslinger’s arm even so.

Tarvaris Jackson. Q.E.D.

Seriously, give it up already

Precisely how is the continued military occupation of either Afghanistan or Iraq of any national interest to Americans?

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.

Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not.

This is insane. It’s been insane for some time now, but the fact that Obama sold out the antiwar movement that got him elected to this extent only goes to show what a sham the American electoral system has become. You can’t count on a Democratic politician to do the right thing even on the very rare occasions that the broken clock of the Democratic base is correct. This isn’t a war that can be won… there isn’t anything to win there in either country. And as a general rule, if you see the need to establish special rules of engagement, you shouldn’t be deploying troops in the first place.

Someone tell the United Negro College Fund

One of the more amusing commenters at Pro Football Talk opposed to the possibility of Rush Limbaugh purchasing a part-interest in the St. Louis Rams:

The word ‘Negro’ is offensive and Rush exploited that to boost ratings.

That was a gem spotted in the comment thread inspired by a ridiculous piece written by a former NFL player in the Washington Post. The reality is that Limbaugh, with his media savvy, would probably be a much better owner than several teams have at present, moreover, there’s no longer any question that the man was correct about Donovan McNabb, he of the 58.9% career completion percentage and 1.052.15 TD/INT ratio, being an overrated quarterback. I just can’t see the NFL being dumb enough to ban an owner out of distaste for politics that are extremely popular with a statistically significant portion of its fan base. That’s the self-destructive sort of thing the mainstream media does, and it has obviously not escaped the NFL’s attention that the mainstream media is in the process of collapsing. After all, the reason it created the NFL Network is to have a vehicle to deliver its product to its customers once the networks can’t afford to pay huge broadcast rights fees anymore.

WND strikes again

Color me very impressed. Last year, Jack Cashill’s textual analysis of Dreams From My Father, Obama’s purported autobiography, led him to conclude it was written by Bill Ayers. Last week, a new Obama biography by Christopher Anderson appeared to support that claim, and now Bill Ayers reportedly confirmed it to Ann Leary of Back Yard Conservative.

“That’s what I do, education,” he said. “You shouldn’t believe everything you hear about me… You know nothing about me.”

To which she responded, “I said, I know plenty–I’m from Chicago, a conservative blogger, and I’ll post this.”

I bet his heart skipped a beat on that one.

But he didn’t scowl, and didn’t run off as he has been known to do. Instead, unprompted, he blurted out: “I wrote ‘Dreams From My Father… Michelle asked me to.” Then he added “And if you can prove it we can split the royalties.”

Anne responded, “Stop pulling my leg!”

But he repeated insistently, “I wrote it, the wording was similar [to Ayers’ other writing.]”

Anne responded, “I believe you probably heavily edited it.”

Ayers stated firmly, “I wrote it.”

Anne ended the conversation by saying “why would I believe you? You’re a liar.”

I don’t know if Ayers wrote it or not, but I’m entirely confident that Obama didn’t. Very few politicians and public figures write their own books, and Obama is far too much of an empty suit to have written the two that have his name on them. The only thing that’s credible about it is the narcissism involved in “writing” two autobiographies when he hadn’t accomplished a damn thing.

Busted!

Paul Krugman has been writing about how he knew the stimulus package would be too small. But what size stimulus package did he actually recommend in November 2008?

I wrote this morning’s column partly because I had a hunch that the Obama people might be thinking too small on stimulus. Now I have more than a hunch – I’ve heard an unreliable rumor! So let’s talk about stimulus math, as I see it…. When I put all this together, I conclude that the stimulus package should be at least 4% of GDP, or $600 billion.

The stimulus package which Krugman is now saying he knew was too small was $787 billion. Needless to say, his response was completely predictable. Note also that he thought GDP was going to be $15 trillion in 2009… it was $14.2 trillion in the second quarter. That must be one hell of a jobless, but V-shaped recovery he’s anticipating, as it would require 11.3 percent economic growth over the third and fourth quarters.

Thanks to MM, who dug this one up from the NYT archives.

Mailvox: the government as economic actor

BT wants to know the difference between government stimulus and private investment:

I know you are vehemently opposed to the government intervention in free market. Now, I understand what can happen if Government dictates the prices and directly regulate demand and supply like the old communist countries. But what is wrong with government playing as yet another individual player in a free market? For example, can we not consider the stimulus package just like an investment from a private party? I believe that if a wealthy individual throws in 700 billion dollars into the market, that can indeed pull up a sinking economy. So, why not the Government act as such an individual? I guess the discussion should be more about the source of the Government funds. If the 700 billion is something that Government “saved” from the tax money, then it is “good money” that cannot devalue the currency and hence the stimulus is good. On the other hand, if Government prints these 700 billion, then currency gets devalued. But again, if this surplus 700 billion can create an economic activity that nullify the price devaluation, then printing money is also worth it, right?

The reason is two-fold. First, government money doesn’t come from nowhere, it is either taken out of the private economy or printed. Printing the money is bad because it directly reduces the value of money through inflation. It would have to generate at least $700 billion in new economic activity just to break even; since the calculated multiple of World War II government spending was 0.8, this means that inflation-based government spending is always a net loser even when it is considered to have been successful.

If the spending is tax-based, then this requires that the $700 billion in government-dictated economic activity be more effective than the $700 billion in private economic activity it replaces. Given that government spending tends to go to places like Goldman Sachs, ACORN, and various government bureaucracies, there can be no doubt that this is very seldom going to be the case. The government is an economic actor, it’s just a crude and extraordinarily inefficient one.

The essential problem is that very few people spend other people’s money with anything close to the same degree of care and efficiency that they spend their own. This is particularly true of the sort of narcissistic, superficial individuals who are drawn to careers in politics. In the immortal words of PJ O’Rourke, giving money and power to politicians is like giving car keys and whiskey to teenage boys.

George Will slaps around the Obamas

And he does so with all the deep contempt of a genuine wordsmith for a cheap charlatan:

In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas’ trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee’s mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds — unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

What is going to do Obama in is not the fact that his political ideology is evil, though it is, or that his economic ideology is hopeless, though it is too. It’s not the disinterest in all things martial. It’s not even the widespread doubts about his legitimacy that most threaten him. The reason that the American people who previously adored him are beginning to turn on him is that the man has repeatedly shown himself to be a very unpresidential pretentious ass.

I always thought the man was a lightweight laughingstock and very much appreciate the way in which his administration is actually managing to outperform its comedic potential. By the end of his first – and likely, only – term, I expect a majority of the American people will agree with me.

Mailvox: God detests you

Whereas I merely hold you in intellectual contempt. If I were a typical atheist whiner, I’d worry a lot more about the former than the latter. Bob writes:

I came here with the genuine wish to learn why people believe what they believe and find myself so terribly disappointed. Here is a blogger that instead of explaining himself prefers to sling insults at others. I do not understand his letters to the comprehensible Luke and so am branded unintelligent. I am not unintelligent. I put it to Mr Vox that an intelligent man would be able to explain himself in words that the average person can understand (and certainly me). I also put it to Mr Vox that it is his responsibility to explain himself in words that the average person can understand as he is a Christian and his words could very well save the idle reader. Alas instead he insults the idle reader who is now adding another name to the list of hateful Christians, increasing the size of the wedge between me and faith.

Bob appears to have missed the point that the unintelligence is relative, not absolute. And actually, Bob is learning quite a bit about the Bible, God’s attitude towards men like him, and the guidance it actually provides to Christians here. I must also point out that Bob is not only a whiner, but a proven liar, as I have explained numerous things in great detail in my two letters to Luke as well as in the associated comments. I deny that I have slung any insults that are not accurate and independently verifiable observations; a commenter may find it insulting when I point out that he has completely failed to understand something that is both logical and supported by the relevant documentation, but that does not change the observable fact that he failed to understand it. Those who don’t like it when I describe them as lacking in relative intelligence would be wiser to demonstrate the superior intelligence they claim to possess rather than its opposite.

In THE RULES OF THE BLOG I make it very clear that I will respond in the manner I am addressed. This includes passive-aggressiveness and snark, which will be treated in the same manner as more direct attacks. If you think any professional writer, let alone a Superintelligence, is incapable of detecting such faux-civility, let me assure you that you are delusional. As I also point out in the rules it is wise to ask if your assumptions are correct before you elect to launch a critical attack based on those assumptions. I have been writing controversial opinion commentary on a very public site for eight years, so the chances are reasonably high that I saw and successfully dealt with your argument long before you first formulated your thoughts on the subject, particularly if they are related to a subject as old as Christianity.

Let me give an example from the comments yesterday. Instead of simply asking the obvious question: “isn’t that a circular argument”, Silver Bullet first incorrectly asserts that my explanation for why I am a Christian involves circular reasoning. Then, after I and others explain that he has improperly summarized my explanation and correctly inform him that there is no circular reasoning involved, he improperly summarizes it again, then assumes a condescending posture, claims that my dissertation is “ridiculous” and that my response to his criticism is “ignorant.” At no time has he ever stopped to simply ask the obvious question: “why do you believe that your argument is not circular?” He’s not the least bit interested in being informed, he’s simply an unintelligent, illogical ankle-biter who merits nothing better than a brutal and contemptuous slapdown. It is very easy to demonstrate how he has been wrong about the logic of the explanation – note that it’s not even an argument – from the start. Also note that he substitutes “Why do you believe in the Christian God” for “Why are you a Christian” throughout his comments, which is incorrect but irrelevant as I can show his illogic even using his own rephrasing.

1) Why do you believe in the Christian God?
Why do you believe in the government.

2) Because I believe in the Christian definition of evil.
Because I believe in the government’s definition of crime.

3) What is the Christian definition of evil?
What is the government’s definition of crime?

4) That which is defined as evil in the Bible.
That which is defined as crime in the statutes.

Now, Silver Bullet’s logic claims that because “violation of the government’s laws” and “that which is defined as crime in the statutes” are interchangeable in meaning, the argument is intrinsically circular. He explains, as to an 8 year old, that a statute can’t confirm government-defined crime since government-defined crime is based on the statutes. Now, this would be true if it weren’t for the obvious fact that the actions which the government defines as crime can be confirmed to exist independently of the statutes.

Returning to the subject, it’s clear that Bob is more familiar with Sunday School theology than with the Bible, let alone any sophisticated Christian analyses. Not only is it not my responsibility to explain anything to anyone who willfully refuses to seriously entertain reasonable answers to questions he has asked, it is actually my duty to help other Christians avoid the dishonest snares that this sort of deceiver often makes a habit of laying. According to the Bible, God considers it righteous to detest the sort of dishonesty we see on a regular basis from a certain type of atheist. He also detests the thoughts of the wicked, His curse is on them, He discards them like dross, and promises to destroy all of them even as He laughs at them. One can even reasonably interpret His detestation of their sacrifices to indicate that He despises their good deeds. This message of Divine detestation for a certain kind of individual is consistent throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

So, who are the wicked? Those who detest the upright. Those who suppress the truth. Those who abuse those who correct them. Those who say: “No one sees me… I am, and there is none besides me.” (Isaiah 47:10)

Now, please note that I am not describing atheists such as Luke here, at least not on the basis of the evidence of his two letters to date. Ignorance and errors of logic are very different from dishonesty; anyone can be wrong but no one has to lie, misrepresent, or otherwise attempt to deceive. There are indisputably a number of atheist regulars here who I have found to be honest, intelligent, and even in some cases genuinely truth-seeking. They simply lack faith for a variety of reasons, some of them very understandable. For example, who can truly blame Charles Darwin for the shattering of his Christian faith after the death of his beloved daughter? After all, few have the fortitude of Job; every Christian should pray that his faith is never put to such a terrible test.

It’s worth noting that even the Bible distinguishes between godlessness and wickedness, although the two often coincide. But isn’t it amazing that a text more than two thousand years old can so perfectly describe the behavior of certain individuals today?

A fool’s lips bring him strife,
and his mouth invites a beating.
– Proverbs 18:6

Finally, brothers, pray for us that the message of the Lord may spread rapidly and be honored, just as it was with you. And pray that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men, for not everyone has faith.
– 2nd Thessalonians 3:1-2

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
– Romans 1:29-30

Fortunately, wickedness is a choice, as is repentance. And every mocker, every fool, every dishonest, godless, would-be critic here knows that they have consciously made that choice, even if they will never admit it to anyone. No doubt it would tear at the heart of a better man than me that some so firmly prefer wickedness to wisdom and deception to truth, but I have to confess that their self-destructive choice does not trouble me in the slightest.