Tag: politics

The affirmative-action president

Jennifer Rubin is among those who have finally figured out that Soebarkah is nowhere near as intelligent as advertised:

To be blunt, Obama suffers from a lifetime of others excessively praising his intellect. It insulates him from ideas and facts that conflict with his pre-existing liberal rubric (so “every economist” believed his stimulus would work). It leaves him unprepared to engage in real debate with informed opponents (e.g. the health-care summit). It skews his understanding of how geopolitics works, as he imagines that his own wonderfulness can sway adversaries and override nations’ fundamental interests (the Middle East)…. The image of himself clashes with the results he achieves and the reaction he inspires. No wonder he’s so prickly. You’d be, too, if everyone your entire life had told you that you were swell but now, when the chips are down and the spotlight is on, you are failing so badly in your job.

I figured out during the campaign that while Soebarkah is more intelligent than the average, he is far less intelligent than his academic background would normally lead one to believe. He’s simply not as smart as his underlings or most of his peers in the political elite and he knows it, which is why he accepts the de facto leadership of Reid and Pelosi. This doesn’t make him uniquely cretinous among the Washington set; John Kerry has a similar IQ in the 115 to 120 range. But because people expect more from a president, I have little doubt that by the time Soebarkah’s political career is done, most likely after his first term, the national consensus will be that he was one of the dumbest presidents with whom the electorate has ever inflicted itself.

Illustrating MPAI

China Mieville kindly demonstrates that intelligent, educated, and talented writers can most definitely be idiots:

To designers across the world: there’s a hot need for someone(s) to design & disseminate a symbol & slogan to unify & express, on t-shirts, websites, blogs, badges & buttons, support for the right of Muslims to gather in lower Manhattan, & indeed anythefuckwhere else. & with it to proclaim disgust at & condemnation of this scary hatemongering horseshit.

Racism out of Manhattan.

Tell you what, you silly English twit. Limit your historically ignorant, politically correct, socialist sensitivity concerns to Londonistan and the rest of your island. I was under the impression that the English already have all the mosques in their backyard that they want, but if you, China Mieville, happen to desire a congregations of Muslims at the University of Warwick, then by all means feel free to build them a mosque there. You see, it’s not my business what you want in your backyard.

Of course, what sort of buildings and what sort of people Americans happen to want in their backyards IS NOT YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS AND IT HASN’T BEEN SINCE 1776!

Although it pains me to have to point this out, I will restate the obvious for the benefit of clueless science fiction writers and anyone else whose ignorance of religion is near complete. A religion is not a race and opposition to the symbolism of the 9/11 Mosque has nothing to do with racism. For crying out loud, even the name of the group that wants to build it is a provocation that refers to the Muslim conquest of Spain! This is a not a freedom-of-religion test, but rather a semiotic test and Mieville has failed it badly.

Unsurprisingly, the irritating nature of Mieville’s foreign nannynagging somehow managed to escape one of John Scalzi’s subs. This is a fine example of why guest bloggers are usually a bad idea.

They’ll get what they deserve

Connecticut Republicans reject Peter Schiff in favor of Vince McMahon’s daughterwife.

In the Nutmeg State Linda McMahon (48%) handily beat former Congressman Rob Simmons (29%) and financier Peter Schiff (22%). In November she’ll face non-Vietnam Vet and AG Dick Blumenthal in a poltical steel cage match.

Most republican voters have clearly learned nothing, those commentators waxing enthusiastic about the tea party notwithstanding. This is much like choosing John McCain over Ron Paul, only we are now two years into the Great Depression 2.0. I am skeptical that a spendthrift entertainment mogul is going to do anything if she gets to Washington but borrow and spend.

WND column

Social Conservatives on Steroids

It is a basic principle of socionomics that economic boom times are strongly correlated with social liberalism, while economic contractions tend to be accompanied by social conservatism. This has been observed over thousands of years; the Lex Oppia of 215 B.C. was the most famous of the sumptuary laws that were passed by the Roman republic in response to the recession that took place during the second Punic war. Twenty years later, with Carthage defeated and the launch of a huge investment boom based on conquest and colonization, the Lex Oppia was repealed after the women of Rome rioted for days over the right to display their wealth in the same manner as non-Roman women.

On conservative bikini “scandals”

The Other McCain points and laughs at liberals attempting to create scandals out of very little fabric:

Conservatives are not only smarter and more patriotic than liberals, we’re also better-looking. It’s high time we stopped letting liberals get inside our heads and tell us that it’s some kind of “hypocrisy” for conservatives even to acknowledge the existence of sex.

It is true. Even when liberal girls start out pretty, they rapidly end up making hags of themselves. There’s something about being angry and self-righteous all the time that seems to warp a woman’s face as well as her soul. Meanwhile, Cassy Fiano explains the liberal thinking, such as it is, behind these “scandals”.

They like to paint conservatives as frigid, dried up, ugly old prudes, and of course, that couldn’t be further from the truth. And they hope that showing pictures of a conservative — or their family members — in bikinis will mean that other conservatives will be outrageously outraged. They’re always shocked when bikini photos do not, in fact, derail conservative candidates’ campaigns.

It seems that more than a few left-liberals have failed to understand that the American Taliban metaphor was, in fact, a metaphor. So, chalk me up a supporter of pretty conservative women in bikinis. However, I find libertarian women to be the most attractive. They’re smarter, more interesting, and much more fun than their pretty conservative counterparts.

Blowing more futility

For once, I agree with Megan McArdle:

If you want to know why us libertarian types are skeptical of the government’s ability to prevent housing market bubbles, well, I give you Exhibit 9,824: the government’s new $1000 down housing program. No, really. The government has apparently decided, in its infinite wisdom, that what the American economy really needs is more homebuyers with no equity.

While McArdle wouldn’t know what a real libertarian was if Murray Rothbard’s zombie bit her on her bony ass – she actually voted for Soebarkah – she is correct to point out the madness of this homebuying incentive program. It does not help the economy to encourage more poor people to buy homes they cannot afford to buy and take out mortgages on which they will almost surely default.

Glenn Reynold’s succinct summary is more astute: “These people are idiots. Idiots who’ve been entrusted with nuclear weapons, and their economic equivalents.” Of course, this insane program might not exist if “libertarians” like Megan McArdle hadn’t voted the people who created it into office.

Corrupt like a senator

Washington beats the market:

A 2004 study of the results of stock trading by United States Senators during the 1990s found that that Senators on average beat the market by 12% a year. In sharp contrast, U.S. households on average underperformed the market by 1.4% a year and even corporate insiders on average beat the market by only about 6% a year during that period. A reasonable inference is that some Senators had access to – and were using – material nonpublic information about the companies in whose stock they trade.

I suppose they’re just all super-skilled econ-savvy investors, but their performance during the ongoing financial crisis argues convincingly against that.

A sign of an indication?

In which we are informed that the Lizard Queen is now making noises about resigning from Obama’s Cabinet:

Hillary Clinton raises prospect of resignation. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has complained of the tiring natue of her job and said she will step back from the role before the end of Barack Obama’s presidency.

R writes: “I admit it doesn’t actually surprise me that it is so far playing out as you predicted.”* So far, so good, anyhow. I have no doubt that Hillary will resign, most likely before the end of the first term. Of course, the much more interesting question is if she intends to step back from the role in order to bring about that end to Mr. Soebarkah’s presidency.

*“it is clear that he [President Soebarkah] is likely to be extraordinarily vulnerable if the Lizard Queen elects to strike against her current boss. The first indication that she intends to do so will be a growing chorus of elite Democratic opinion against Obama’s conduct of the war… the more significant indicator would be her resignation from the Cabinet next year.”

Marriage flames out

What a surprise that an orientationally-challenged judge should just happen to come down on the orientationally-challenged side:

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Yes, it’s just TREMENDOUSLY astonishing that he decided the Founding Fathers seriously intended to enshrine homogamy and polygamy as Constitutional rights. It’s pure fiction. But on the plus side, the coming battle between gays and feminists is shaping up to be the most amusing battle between two left-wing constituencies since scientists thought there might be a gay gene. Given the certainty of this decision going to the Supreme Court, it’s no wonder Obama is trying to pack it with lesbians.

I’m just wondering who’s got next, the bigamists, the polygamists, or the animal lovers. But at the end of the day, it’s little more than one more check in the societal collapse column. This should, however, have serious implications in November as the Republican grass roots begin the push for a Constitutional Amendment in defense of marriage.

Mailvox: responding to a liberal

CG asks for help in responding to this, but I think he is probably looking in the wrong place by coming here:

Conservatives have no clue about business. They think that business can sell MORE AND MORE to people who have jobs paying less money, with a collapsing middle class. Who is going to buy stuff after we get through gutting the system and eliminating the buying power of workers in this country? What fuels consumption now that the borrowing binge we’ve been on for thirty years is over. Can consumers borrow their way to prosperity, along with our economy. How do you pay for the $10s of trillions in private debt that has masked a collapsing real economy which used to be fueled by savings and investment?

40 years ago we had a third of the private work force unionized, tariffs to protect domestic industry, 70% marginal rates on income over about 3 million, and were the most prosperous country on earth, the exporter and lender to the world. Now that Reaganomics has worked it’s magic for 30 years, China owns us.

Not sure how you think us running 30-40 billion per month trade and current account deficits will work out long term. Love to hear the theory of how we import our way to prosperity, trading jobs that produce wealth, transform raw materials into valuable to valuable goods, for “service” jobs that add no wealth and don’t sustain any economy that I’ve known of in all of recorded history. How long can we keep sending the rest of the world paper, and they send us oil and TVs and cars, and clothes and electronics, etc. Seem unsustainable to me, but I don’t understand how business works.

This demonstrates why the Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative poles simply don’t apply to the present economic situation very well. CG’s liberal interlocutor is correct in diagnosing the problem as debt and “free trade”, but he is incorrect in thinking that Reaganomics is to blame for either of them and he is deeply mistaken to think that high marginal tax rates helped produce societal wealth. One doesn’t increase savings and investment through taxation, after all, and while it is absolutely true that consumers can’t borrow their way to prosperity, governments can’t tax-and-spend their way there either, Keynesian arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.

The reason we were the most prosperous country on Earth 40 years ago was very simple and easily proved. The USA was about the only major economy on Earth that had not had its industrial infrastructure completely destroyed by World War II and American industry made an absurd amount of money selling both consumer and capital goods into European and Asian markets that had to rebuild their industrial base. This was the source of our post-1940s economic growth and concomitant wealth. Now that all of our former competitors have rebuilt their economies and numerous other countries have succeeded in developing theirs, it has naturally become much more difficult to maintain our economic primacy vis-a-vis the rest of the world. As I have previously stated, but have yet to conclusively prove, the Ricardian concept of comparative advantage has turned out to be incorrect and therefore American wealth should be expected to decline in both a relative and absolute sense as other countries grow at the expense of American industry and workers in a free trade environment.

It’s not that conservatives have no clue about business, they have no clue about economics. But neither do liberals; the fact that one party is incorrect does not automatically make the other right. The fact that conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike supported TARP, the banking bailouts, and the automotive bailouts demonstrates that the intrinsic problem is superpolitical and therefore will not be solved regardless of which political faction ends up temporarily on top.